Animesh Kumar Kumar Gain

Water diplomacy has emerged as a critical approach for promoting cooperation, preventing conflict, and ensuring equitable and sustainable water management across various scales, including community, subnational, and transboundary levels. However, the presence of uncertainty poses significant challenges to the effectiveness of water diplomacy efforts. This chapter investigates the scientific uncertainties in water diplomacy that pervade transboundary water management and negotiations. While the water diplomacy framework is applicable across multiple scales, the specific focus of this chapter is on the transboundary level. A comprehensive review is conducted to assess the extent to which existing global transboundary cooperation treaties account for uncertainty. Subsequently, various sources of uncertainty, including both variability (aleatory) and epistemic uncertainties in transboundary water resource assessment and management, are investigated. To illustrate the impact of uncertainties on diplomatic endeavors and decision-making processes, a case study of the Ganges River Basin is presented. The findings highlight the intricate relationship between scientific uncertainties and water diplomacy, emphasizing the need for robust approaches to address and navigate uncertainties in transboundary water negotiations.

To assess how scientific contributions reflect trends in environmental management in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand and meet the needs of the environmental profession, we reviewed peer-reviewed articles published in the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management from 2004 to 2024. The 449 publications demonstrate a strong interdisciplinary focus on governance, policy and social dimensions as well as balanced attention to land and water issues across a wide set of contemporary and continuing environmental concerns, including climate change and conservation. We found the journal makes a sound contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. Much of the research by the 1,044 authors is multi-sectoral, with growing collaboration among government, industry and not-for-profit organisations. The journal’s knowledge base aligns well with the needs of the environmental profession as identified in a recent report. Topics warranting greater representation in future publications include climate change, disaster and resilience, political influence on policy, environmental education as well as Indigenous resource use. Although performing well on equity criteria, the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management encourages more contribution from Indigenous and female authors from both New Zealand and Australia.

Rising seas, scorching heatwaves and intensifying storms are no longer distant threats; they are reshaping where and how people live. Faced with these pressures, individuals and communities must navigate a fundamental question: should they move, or should they stay and adapt? To what extent do they have a choice? Much of the climate change–mobility literature frames this as a simple dichotomy: migration versus non-migration1, voluntary versus involuntary2. These distinctions emphasize the external drivers of mobility, often neglecting that the decision to migrate or stay is not merely a reactive response to external pressures, but is often a proactive, context-specific negotiation of opportunities, aspirations and identities in which people negotiate their futures (Box 1). Thus, migration and staying are not opposites; they can coexist as complementary strategies within broader ‘future-making’3. Future-making encompasses the choices and practices through which people pursue life aspirations shaped by cultural and personal imaginaries of success, security and a fulfilling life3. Recent research has begun to move beyond rigid binaries, exploring translocal livelihoods4, the thresholds of habitability5 and the importance of supporting stayers6. But it seldom investigates how these mobility decisions are inextricable from broader future-making aspirations and strategies and how migration and staying can be complementary practices embedded therein (Box 1). To address this gap, we propose a new concept of ‘tethered resilience’ that captures the simultaneous rootedness and mobility through which people negotiate risk and shape their futures.

This study compares two community-based forest management approaches in Bangladesh using Elinor Ostrom’s Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework and design principles. It evaluates the co-management system in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (CWS), which is led by government and donor agencies, and the community-led model in Komolchori Village Common Forest (VCF), which is based on Indigenous knowledge and local rules. The study employs a comparative case study methodology, integrating document analysis, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions to evaluate governance effectiveness across different periods. Using a mixed-method approach by reviewing qualitative and quantitative data, the study examines how these two models affect forest health and the lives of people who depend on the forest. The SES framework, along with Ostrom’s eight design principles, is used to critically assess the effectiveness of both CWS and VCF over three periods: before 1990, 1990–2010, and 2010– present. The findings show that the top-down management in CWS limits community involvement, weakens key principles like clear boundaries and local decision-making, and ignores local rights. In contrast, the Komolchori VCF supports stronger community participation, fair benefit-sharing, and effective monitoring, despite lacking formal legal recognition. The comparative analysis highlights that governance outcomes depend not on the type of model used, but on the extent to which institutional arrangements align with local socio-ecological contexts. The study concludes that the effectiveness of community-based forest management is mainly shaped by local context. To improve forest management, it recommends empowering communities, recognising Indigenous knowledge, resolving land issues, and designing policies that fit local needs, with particular attention to institutional legitimacy, adaptive governance, and multi-level coordination.

We are pleased to report that the recently released 2024 journal metrics highlight a positive trajectory with regards to the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management (AJEM)’s visibility and scholarly impact. AJEM’s Impact Factor has increased to 1.5, up from 1.1 in 2023. The Journal Citation Indicator has also improved from 0.25 to 0.33, reflecting growing recognition of the journal’s influence in environmental research. Meanwhile, AJEM’s CiteScore has risen to 2.9 (from 2.6 in 2023), placing the journal in the Q2 quartile for Geography, Planning and Development. In percentile terms, AJEM now ranks 60th among 841 journals in Geography, Planning and Development and 46th among 406 journals in Management-related categories. These advancements reflect the high-quality contributions from our authors, the rigour of our reviewers and the ongoing support from our editorial board and readership. We thank you all for your continued commitment to strengthening the Journal’s standing and relevance.

In this editorial, we take the opportunity to bring together a group of interdisciplinary contributors to reflect on one of the most complex issues in environmental management in Australia and New Zealand, prescribed burning. This special focus features insights from fire ecologists, forestry and biodiversity specialists as well as and experts in environmental policy and governance. By engaging with these varied perspectives, we aim to deepen the conversation around the ecological, social and governance dimensions of prescribed burning and to move beyond disciplinary silos towards more integrated, informed and context-sensitive approaches to fire management. We invite you to explore the perspectives presented in this issue and to join us in advancing thoughtful, evidence-based and collaborative environmental management across Australasia and beyond.

Mangrove social-ecological systems (SES) involve the dynamic relationships between mangrove ecosystems and human communities that depend on and influence these environments. This article explores progress in biophysical and socio-economic modelling approaches by selecting 74 peer-reviewed studies published up to April 2024. Selected documents show that 32% of studies adopt integrated modelling, 26% use empirical methods, 23% employ GIS-based techniques and 19% use a mixed approach. Data sources include remote sensing (46%), primary and secondary databases (26%), survey data (21%), and various models (7%). Key tools for mangrove SES modelling include mental or conceptual models like DPSIR, integrated assessment models, Actor-Network models, Motivation and Ability and Sustainable Livelihood frameworks, and ecosystem management models. Progress in understanding human-nature interactions within mangrove ecosystems comes from integrated approaches combining ecological and socio-economic factors in the analysis. Challenges, however, remain, including the need for high-resolution spatial and temporal data, improved modelling of complex feedback mechanisms between ecological and social components, and more effective integration of local stakeholder knowledge and perspectives into model design and decision-making processes. This review emphasises the critical role played by collaboration among scientists, policymakers, and local communities to enhance mangrove ecosystem resilience and sustainability. To address the challenges, we propose a generalised conceptual model developed upon the studied literature, with a specification for Bangladesh, to facilitate exchanges, synergies and integration in future research and applications to preserve mangrove ecosystem services amid growing environmental and socio-economic pressures.

To better understand the increasing human impact on the water cycle and the feedbacks between hydrology and society, the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) organized the scientific decade “Panta Rhei – Everything Flows: Change in hydrology and society” (2013–2022). A key finding is the need to use integrated approaches to assess the co-evolution of human–water systems in order to avoid unintended consequences of human interventions over long periods of time. Additionally, substantial progress has been made in leveraging new data sources on human behaviour, e.g. through text mining of social media posts. Much has been learned about detecting hydrological changes and attributing them to their drivers, e.g. quantifying climate effects on floods. To achieve further progress, we recommend broadening the understanding, the discipline and training activities, while at the same time pursuing synthesis by focusing on key themes, developing innovative approaches and finding sustainable solutions to the world’s water problems.