Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
This article examines the roles of government, academia, and business in responses to limited access to clean water in Bontoa District, Maros Regency, using the Triple Helix as an analytical lens. The study uses a descriptive qualitative approach drawing on interviews, observation, and documents reported in the study. The available account identifies government agencies and the regional water utility as the principal actors in planning and service delivery. It also refers to academic input in technical planning and emergency water distribution by humanitarian organizations. The latter are distinguished from the business sector, for which the manuscript offers little evidence of sustained participation. These observations suggest an uneven pattern of interaction rather than an established three-sector partnership. The absence of reported service indicators, documented joint decisions, and detailed sampling procedures limits any assessment of effects on household water access. The article recommends documenting actor roles and decisions alongside service coverage, continuity, and water-quality indicators before assessing whether a durable partnership improves supply.
References
Putirama, K. D. (2021). Interregional disparity and spatial autocorrelation of access to water and sanitation in Indonesia. Jurnal Perencanaan Pembangunan: The Indonesian Journal of Development Planning, 5(3), 372–395. https://doi.org/10.36574/jpp.v5i3.233
Murni, M., Ibrahim, I., Romlah, R., & Hidayah, N. (2023). Akses ketersedian air bersih bagi masyarakat di Desa Turikamaseang Kecamatan Bontoa Kabupaten Maros. Social Landscape Journal, 4(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.56680/slj.v4i1.41342
Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114
Berardo, R., Fischer, M., & Hamilton, M. (2020). Collaborative governance and the challenges of network-based research. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(8), 898–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020927792
Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2018). Fostering cross-sector collaboration to promote innovation in the water sector. Sustainability, 10(11), 4154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114154
Koebele, E. A. (2015). Assessing outputs, outcomes, and barriers in collaborative water governance: A case study. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 155(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2015.03196.x
Douglas, S., Ansell, C., Parker, C. F., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., & Wihlborg, E. (2020). Understanding collaboration: Introducing the collaborative governance case databank. Policy and Society, 39(4), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1794425
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(4), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
Baird, J., Schultz, L., Plummer, R., Armitage, D., & Bodin, Ö. (2019). Emergence of collaborative environmental governance: What are the causal mechanisms? Environmental Management, 63(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1105-7
van den Oord, S., Kenis, P., Raab, J., & Cambré, B. (2023). Modes of network governance revisited: Assessing their prevalence, promises, and limitations in the literature. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1564–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13736
Fadli, M. R. (2021). Memahami desain metode penelitian kualitatif. Humanika, 21(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.21831/hum.v21i1.38075
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076
Brisbois, M. C., Morris, M., & de Loë, R. C. (2019). Augmenting the IAD framework to reveal power in collaborative governance: An illustrative application to resource industry dominated processes. World Development, 120, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.017
Siciliano, M. D., Carr, J. B., & Hugg, V. G. (2021). Analyzing the effectiveness of networks for addressing public problems: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 895–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13336
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 GOVERNMENT : Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan