The governance of sustainable territorial development increasingly requires analytical frameworks that capture the complexity of actors, institutions and decision-making processes; single indicators or sectoral snapshots are insufficient for diagnosing systemic governance challenges. A diagnostic analytic framework grounded in Social Network Analysis (SNA) is particularly useful because it (1) maps interdependencies and structural positions (who is central, peripheral or broker), (2) interrogates patterns of collaboration and coordination across organizations, and (3) highlights structural gaps that constrain collective action (Bodin et al., 2006; Prell, 2011). SNA combines visual tools and quantitative metrics (e.g., degree, betweenness, density) that link network structure to governance functions such as knowledge diffusion, resource mobilization and legitimacy-building (Ramos, 2016).

Participatory SNA tools notably Net-Map are also valuable for combining stakeholders perspectives with network diagnostics, facilitating reflexive learning and co-design of interventions in governance processes (Schröter et al., 2018). Likewise, applications of SNA to domain-specific problems (for example, transitions to circular economy practices) illustrate how network diagnostics can surface barriers to collaboration and information diffusion that are directly relevant for policy design (Liao et al., 2023).

A practical network diagnostic therefore serves three main purposes: (a) to reveal where governance capacity is concentrated or missing, (b) to identify leverage points for targeted interventions (capacity-building for under connected actors, activation of brokers, or creation of bridging ties), and (c) to provide a baseline for monitoring structural change over time. Empirical and practitioner-oriented studies show that network maps and associated measures can inform concrete interventions such as reconfiguring coordination platforms, designing participatory engagement strategies, or prioritizing resources for weakly connected communities and can be embedded into adaptive governance cycles (Lieberman, 2005).

Embedding the diagnostic within a complexity-aware framework helps connect SNA findings to policy priorities, including Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By explicitly mapping how network positions and ties relate to outcomes of interest, practitioners can prioritize interventions that promote inclusiveness (reducing marginalization), partnership-building (SDG 17), and adaptive capacity for climate action (SDG 13; Nilsson et al., 2016). In short, an SNA-based diagnostic moves beyond descriptive mapping to become a practical decision-support tool that identifies where, how and with whom to intervene to strengthen territorial governance for sustainability.

While SNA’s technical utility is well recognized in environmental and public administration literature, its conceptual and normative implications remain under examined. Most applications emphasize efficiency in coordination, centrality of influential nodes, and overall network cohesion (Przesdzink et al., 2024). However, these approaches often overlook how power asymmetries, marginalization, and limited stakeholder voice may be embedded within governance networks (Tleuken et al., 2025).

The integration of Social Network Analysis into governance and sustainability research is grounded in the recognition that complex policy challenges — such as those related to territorial sustainability — require coordinated action among interdependent actors. Governance network, defined as structures of inter organizational collaboration, are essential in enabling policy innovation, information exchange, and joint problem solving (Provan and Kenis, 2008). Theories of collaborative governance further argue that institutional arrangements fostering trust, shared motivation, and joint capacity are critical for effective sustainability transitions (Emerson et al., 2012). In this context, SNA serves as a valuable tool for diagnosing the structure, centrality, and inclusivity of governance arrangements (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2015), offering insight into power asymmetries, coordination performance, and legitimacy issues that sustainability-oriented governance research is not only methodologically relevant, but also theoretically consistent with networked and adaptative models of public management.

This article interrogates the application of SNA in the context of stakeholder mapping for sustainable territorial development, not merely as a technical practice but as a reflection of deeper assumptions about participation, legitimacy, and inclusion. It explores to what extent SNA enables or obscures critical dimensions of administrative practice, and how its interpretative flexibility may either support or hinder justice-oriented governance frameworks.

To address these concerns, the study undertakes a systematic literature review (SLR) of peer-reviewed publications from 2018 to 2025, employing established methodological guidelines (Petersen et al., 2015; Mengist et al., 2020; Petticrew and Roberts, 2008). The goal is twofold: first to synthesize thematic trends in the use of SNA in stakeholder mapping; and second to critically reflect on the conceptual and normative orientations embedded in these applications. By doing so, the article contributes to theoretical debates in public administration and governance studies, advocating for a more reflexive and ethically grounded use of network analysis in complex territorial contexts.

This study is grounded in a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology, designed to provide a structured and replicable synthesis of scholarly knowledge on the applications of SNA in stakeholder mapping for sustainable territorial development. The process follows the guidelines established by Petticrew and Roberts and Petticrew (2008) and Petersen et al. (2015), and Mengist et al. (2020), which are widely recognized in social science and environmental governance research.

We used three databases widely recognized in the field – Web of Science, Scopus, and Scielo — which share similar characteristics for applying the same search string. The initial search yielded 20 records in WOS, 21 in Scopus and 2 in Scielo. This distribution reflects the high concentration of relevant publications in high impact international databases, reinforcing the relevance of using platforms as primary sources for this review.

In order to meet the research objective, we opted for the exclusive selection of research articles and linked to systematic literature reviews in the field of Social Networks Analysis in stakeholder studies. For this purpose, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established and are presented in Table 1.

To ensure the transparency and traceability of the methodological process, a protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform, publicly accessible with the corresponding DOI identifier.¹ However, the guidelines of the Prisma 2021 protocol were rigorously followed, generating a Flow chart M. J. Page et al. (2021). This diagram summarizes the stages of identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion, see Figure 1 with their respective numerical values.

The identification phase revealed that, of the 43 systematic literature review articles obtained, 21 were registered in the WOS, 20 in Scopus and 2 in Scielo. All the records obtained were exported to Excel for analysis, 9 duplicate articles were eliminated, leaving 36 articles for the screening phase, in this phase, the titles, abstracts and keywords of each record were analysed, 20 records that did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in Table 2 were eliminated.

Inter-reviewer reliability for study selection was excellent. For the title/abstract/full-text inclusion decisions (N = 36), the contingency table was a = 16 (both include), b = 0, c = 0, d = 20 (both exclude), yielding P o = 1.00 , P e ≈ 0.506 , and Cohen’s kappa κ = 1.00 , indicating perfect agreement between coders. The contingency table is reported in the Supplementary Materials.

The 16 remaining articles were evaluated using a 10-item checklist adapted from Kitchenham et al. (2009), Petticrew and Roberts (2008) and Riaz et al. (2009). Table 3 details the questions and the corresponding assessment criteria. Each item was rated on a three-point scale — Yes (1.0 point), Partial (0.5 points), or No (0.0 points) — and the item scores were summed additively to produce a simple total quality score per article (range 0–10).

Studies that met the inclusion threshold (final quality score ≥ 7 on our 10-point rubric) proceeded to full-text review. We selected 14 articles for full reading and in-depth analysis (Table 4). The ≥7 cutoff was chosen to ensure that retained studies displayed at least moderate methodological rigor across key domains (study design, transparency of SNA procedures, reporting of metrics, and reproducibility), thereby reducing the risk that low-quality reports would bias synthesis and interpretation. For transparency, the full evaluation rubric and the item-level and total scores for each study are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Data extraction from the primary studies was organized in two parts: the first considered general data, categorized by author (s), article title, abstract, keywords, digital object identifies (DOI), year of publication, database, type of document and language, ad in the second the categories of analysis were defined to classify the selected primary studies; these included: the purpose of the study, the geographical context and territorial scale, the types of actors involved, the roles played in territorial networks, the methodologies and metrics employed in social network analysis, as well as the main applications, reported limitations and opportunities for future research in relation to sustainable territorial development.

While this review employed a rigorous methodological protocol, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the review only included articles published in English and Spanish, potentially excluding relevant research in the other languages. Second, the analysis was limited to academic journals indexed in major databases, which may have excluded grey literature and practitioner-oriented publications. Third, although thematic analysis enabled nuanced synthesis, some degree of subjectivity is inherent in qualitative coding procedures.

The studies published before 2018 were excluded to ensure methodological comparability and policy relevance within the analytical corpus. Since 2018 there has been a marked uptake of more advanced SNA practices (e.g., multilayer/multiplex representations, wider use of contemporary software and weighted/temporal analyses) and improved reporting standards that make recent studies more directly comparable and more amenable to reliable extraction. Moreover, focusing on post-2018 work aligns the review more closely with current policy contexts and priorities associated with the implementation phase of the 2030 Agenda, increasing the practical relevance of the synthesis.

This systematic review is guided by six research questions (see Table 5) that together form a comprehensive and operational framework for evaluating the use of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in stakeholder mapping for territorial sustainability. RQ1 and RQ4 map the dominant methodologies and the spatial, sectoral and scalar contexts in which SNA-stakeholder approaches are applied; RQ2 and RQ3 focus on the practical benefits of mapping (identification of brokers, information diffusion) and the types and roles of actors occupying central network positions; RQ5 documents recurring conceptual and methodological limitations and highlights avenues for future research; and RQ6 links empirical practices to theoretical lenses and to the SDGs, enabling the translation of network metrics into policy-relevant indicators. Together, these questions ensure the synthesis is both descriptive summarizing current practice and context, and prescriptive identifying evidence-based interventions and research priorities for policymakers, practitioners and scholars.

The full-text reading of the 14 selected articles allowed for a thematic synthesis organized into six analytical axes that emerged from the six research questions (RQ1-RQ6).

Fourteen peer-reviewed articles, published between 2018 and 2025, met the inclusion criteria and constitute the analytical corpus of this systematic literature review. Figure 2 shows the annual distribution of publications, with a peak in 2025 followed by notable counts in 2019 and 2022.

China has the highest concentration of RSL on stakeholders mapping and SNA (5), followed by Italy (2), while Germany, Finland, Great Britain, Mexico, Norway, Slovenia and Belgium each contributed one SLR study.

What are the most used approaches to integrate SNA with stakeholder analysis in sustainable territorial development contexts? All the studies (14) have in common the objective of using SNA to map, assess and understand the interactions, collaboration and roles of the different stakeholders involved in these issues. Six have a focus on assessment, eight on understanding interactions (see Table 6), while two studies also describe the role of stakeholders.

Table 7 reveals that SNA has proven to be a valuable tool in diverse contexts of territorial governance and sustainability. One of the most frequently reported benefits is improved collaboration, influence and power in informed decision making among stakeholders, cited in six studies (Tleuken et al., 2025; Przesdzink et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2022; Barraclough et al., 2022; Vargas et al., 2019; Rivera-Rojo et al., 2023). These works show that identifying critical nodes and bottlenecks facilities policy implementation, information flow and mutual trust, generating more effective collaborative structures. For example, Yang et al. (2022). show how in the Chinese construction industry labour safety practices were strengthened thanks to a well-articulated network between workers, companies and authorities. Studies such as that of Barraclough et al. (2022) focused on the management of ecosystem services, highlight how the SNA helped to detect nodes of influence that were outside formal governance, but were fundamental in the implementation of sustainable actions.

Likewise, four studies Liao et al. (2023), Ghinoi et al. (2024), Zhou et al. (2019), and Vargas et al. (2019) highlight that SNA reveals complex relational structures that are not easily visible through other methods. This finding is particularly relevant in contexts of circular economy and rural communities, where social rather than hierarchical ties determine the effectiveness of initiatives, as demonstrated by (Liao et al., 2023) in their review on circular economy.

An additional benefit, reported in studies such as those of Laktic et al. (2020) and Wang and Aenis (2019), is the facilitation of inclusive governance and participation processes. These authors underline how SNA can improve the balance of power by making visible actors traditionally excluded from the decision-making process, such as local communities or small producers.

Finally, three studies Mafaziya Nijamdeen et al. (2022), Zhou et al. (2019), and Vargas et al. (2019) identify as a benefit the evaluation of the impact of social interactions on sustainability, which allows adjusting strategies in real time and with empirical evidence. For example, the study by Mafaziya Nijamdeen et al. (2022) on mangrove management in Sri Lanka showed how the collaborative network between government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) influenced the socio-environmental resilience of territory.

The analysis identified a diversity of actor involved in the different studies; however, it can group them into categories that include governments and authorities (5), companies and industrial sectors (2), universities and research centers (1), non-governmental organizations and civil society (1), farmers and producers (1), communities and families (4). The 12 articles reviewed used degree centrality as the primary metric to identify key actors within governance networks, often complemented by betweenness and closeness centrality. These metrics were typically used to quantify influence or strategic positioning within the network. For example, Tleuken et al. (2025) and Huang and Li (2024) emphasized how central stakeholder can steer processes related to circular economy or infrastructure development. This focus on centrality indicators tends to reproduce a hierarchical understanding of power, rarely interrogating its normative implications.

The studies reviewed agree that government actors, universities, community organizations and private sector occupy highly central positions in territorial governance networks, both because of their capacity to connect (centrality and degree) and because of their role as key intermediaries (intermediary centrality). This centrality translates into greater influence over strategic decisions, resource allocation and inter-institutional coordination (Tleuken et al., 2025; Ghinoi et al., 2024. Moreover, the distribution of power within these networks is not homogeneous: studies such as that by Laktic et al. (2020) show power asymmetries where local actors have limited participation, while state entities concentrate more weight in territorial decisions. This diversity reflects the multi-actor nature of territorial development and the need for integrative approaches that capture intersectoral dynamics.

Regarding the roles played within the networks analysed, those relate to the implementations of circular economy practices, the promotion of sustainable projects and local innovations, and the environmental management and conservation of ecosystems identified in six studies reviewed stand out (Table 8). In addition, in four studies, the actors occupied central positions in processes of ecosystem services management, improvement of working conditions (such as in construction), decision-making on land use, or formulation of public policies. Roles associated with organizational change in educational institutions and the design of inclusive solutions for social welfare and population aging also emerged. The variety of roles shows that the actors are not only present in the networks but also assume strategic functions with potential for transformation in their respective territories.

Recurrent patterns were identified in the application of SNA for stakeholder analysis in territorial development. Regarding the territorial scale, studies applied at the regional level predominate (4), followed by the local level (3) and national and inter-institutional levels (3). In particular, local and regional contexts favour the emergence of dense and cohesive networks, where cooperative relationships between actors are strengthened (Morea et al., 2024; Barraclough et al., 2022). These spaces make it possible to identify dynamics of effective collaboration but also make visible the gaps in articulation between levels of government and community organizations.

The most frequent thematic sectors were circular economy, ecosystem services, environmental management and agriculture. In terms of geographic distribution, China concentrates the largest number of studies (3), followed by Sri Lanka, Slovenia, Italy, United Kingdom and Mexico. Results show that a concentration in Asian and regional contexts with a predominant focus on environmental and industrial sectors, which suggests the need to expand research towards Latin American contexts and social or urban sectors.

On the other hand, we also investigated the conceptual and methodological limitations of the studies. Notably, six studies showed limited generalizability, indicating a lack of replicability across different territorial and sectoral contexts. This limitation is particularly visible in studies by Huang and Li (2024), focused on the Belt and Road initiative in China and that of Morea et al. (2024) on local action groups in Italy, where it is recognized that the governance frameworks analysed may not be exportable to regions with different socio-political dynamics.

The studies explored the institutional dynamics that underpin stakeholder networks. These included analyses of formal rules, inter-organizational routines, and collaborative arrangements, as found in the work of Laktic et al. (2020), Tleuken et al. (2025), and Morea et al. (2024). However, other studies remain limited to descriptive network maps and centrality statistics, stopping short of examining institutional inertia or conflicts.

Another common limitation was the incomplete or insufficient identification of relevant actors Przesdzink et al. (2024), Laktic et al. (2020), Wang and Aenis (2019) and Rivera-Rojo et al. (2023) which may bias the understanding of relational dynamics in territorial systems. This limitation reflects the difficulty of capturing even informal power or influence relationships that are not explicitly represented in network data (Laktic et al., 2020; Rivera-Rojo et al., 2023). This implies that certain relevant actors may be rendered invisible or underrepresented, affecting the quality of the territorial diagnosis. For example, Laktic et al. (2020) note that their study on the formulation of the Natura 200 program in Slovenia failed to fully capture the participation of local stakeholders, limiting the representativeness of the results. Likewise, Wang and Aenis (2019) highlight the need to include traditionally marginalized voices in rural land management in southwest China.

As for future research opportunities, the most notable was the need to include actors or voices in the analysis (7), which is directly related to the previous limitation. This recommendation appears explicitly in studies such as that of (Mafaziya Nijamdeen et al., 2022) where it is proposed to incorporate more complex interactions between communities and government agencies to improve environmental policy design. Another recurrent opportunity was to explore in greater depth the power dynamics between actors (4), as evidenced by Barraclough et al. (2022) and Zhou et al. (2019), who highlight how the use of intermediation and centrality metrics is still incipient to reveal asymmetric relationships in decision-making processes. There is also little attention to the influence of social networks on institutional decision making, noted as a gap in Rivera-Rojo et al. (2023) and Liao et al. (2023), which reinforces the need for studies that combine quantitative approaches (centrality measurement) with qualitative analyses on legitimacy and perception.

These findings allow establishing clear lines for future research to strengthen the theoretical and empirical robustness of social network analysis in stakeholder mapping for sustainable development. This represents a missed opportunity to leverage SNA for assessing governance performance, especially regarding redundancy, trust, and resilience.

Only five articles examined SNA beyond its descriptive or instrumental use. These contributions-such as those by Vargas et al. (2019), Tleuken et al. (2025), and Przesdzink et al. (2022) critically assessed the epistemological implications of actor mapping, incorporating a reflexive lens on knowledge co-production, power, and sustainability transitions.

Table 9 provides an overview of the thematic emphases per article. Notably, reflexive or transformative uses of SNA remain rare, suggesting the need for more critical scholarship that challenges the technocratic assumptions of mainstream network analysis.

The theoretical frameworks identify in the reviewed studies reveal a predominance of approaches grounded in social network theory, particularly in relation to sustainability. Four out of 14 studies Liao et al. (2023), Przesdzink et al. (2024), and Ghinoi et al. (2024) apply social network analysis to explore sustainability dynamics, directly linked to SDGs 11 and 12. This underscores a growing trend in the use of SNA within territorial governance contexts aiming to optimize inclusive and circular processes, as demonstrated by Liao et al. (2023) and Huang and Li (2024).

In same vein, three studies Tleuken et al. (2025), Huang and Li (2024), and Przesdzink et al. (2024) integrate stakeholder theory alongside organizational sustainability models, aligning with SDGs 4, 11 and 12. These approaches emphasize the inclusion of institutional and community actors in territorial transformation processes. Tleuken et al. (2025) for example, show how business community articulation strengthens circular ecosystems.

Collaborative governance is addressed in two studies Yang et al., 2022), Rivera-Rojo et al. (2023), associated with SDGs 8 and 17. These studies highlight the importance of multilevel and participatory governance frameworks for enhancing the effectiveness of public action. A notable example is Yang et al. (2022), which analyses collaborative networks within the construction industry to promote decent work.

Additionally, studies by Mafaziya Nijamdeen et al. (2022) and Barraclough et al. (2022) focus on environmental and ecosystem service management, with clear ties to SDGs 14 and 15. In this context, SNA enables the identification of key governance nodes involving local communities, NGOs, and government agencies.

Emerging themes such as aging Zhou et al. (2019), territorial proximity Ghinoi et al. (2024), and environmental behaviour Przesdzink et al. (2024) further expand the applicability of SNA, linking these frameworks to SDGs 9, 11, and 12.

As part of the thematic analysis on the application of SNA metrics in territorial governance studies, an alignment table was structured linking these metrics to specific targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This systematization is based on recurring patterns detected in the studies reviewed, where centrality, cohesion, and intermediation metrics reveal critical dynamics of participation, collaboration, and influence.

Taken together, these findings confirm that the SNA has not only served as a methodological toll, but also as a theoretical bridge between sustainability and governance. Future opportunities lie in articulating these approaches more systematically and expanding their application to less explored sectors.

The findings of this review confirm the relevance of SNA for mapping stakeholders’ interactions in sustainability governance. Beyond this, the review offers novel contributions: it critically assesses the transformative potential of SNA beyond descriptive mapping, exposes regional and theoretical blind spots, and proposes a research agenda that links SNA mor explicitly with inclusive and adaptive governance models. These contributions enrich the theoretical dialogue on how network structures enable or constrain sustainable development strategies.

The reviewed studies reveal a clear trend towards the use of mixed methodologies, combining SNA with participatory qualitative approaches such as semi-structured interviews, collaborative workshops and documentary analysis (Mafaziya Nijamdeen et al., 2022; Barraclough et al., 2022). This integration enables researchers not only to map relationships between actors but also to understand the meanings and intentions underlying these interactions. The integration of SNA with collaborative governance theories and sustainability models has proven useful for understanding complex territorial dynamics (Yang et al., 2022). However, some studies lack systematic rigor in network construction. This gap limits replicability and comparability Raman et al. (2023), representing an area for methodological improvement.

The most salient benefits include the identification of key actors and their linkages, improved informed decision making, strengthened intersectoral collaboration, and the design of more effective interventions (Ghinoi et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2019). Likewise, the SNA contributes to making marginalized actors visible and reducing information asymmetries that affect territorial governance (Mafaziya Nijamdeen et al., 2022). These advantages are consistent with the findings of previous studies such as those of Prell (2011) and Fernandez-Izquierdo et al. (2022), although a more inclusive approach is needed to ensure long-term sustainable processes.

The review identified a wide range of actors involved in sustainable territorial processes: governments, communities, businesses, NGOs, universities and research groups (Tleuken et al., 2025; Vargas et al., 2019). Governments tend to occupy central positions because of their normative and intersectoral articulation capacity Ghinoi et al. (2024), while local communities and NGOs emerge as key actors in the practical implementation and legitimization of projects. The most common roles include facilitation of collaborative processes, provision of strategic information and execution of interventions. The diversity and complementarity of roles reinforce the need for well-structured cross-sectoral networks to advance territorial sustainability.

Despite methodological advances, important theoretical gaps persist. Only three explicitly address how network structures affect the legitimacy of governance processes or equity in the distribution of power. For example, Laktic et al. (2020) and Wang and Aenis (2019) recognize the underrepresentation of local actors in environmental governance networks, which limits their capacity to influence decision-making. Likewise, Rivera-Rojo et al. (2023) warn that informal power dynamics are not always captured by the structural metrics of SNA. This omission limits the approach’s capacity to address key normative dimensions of sustainable development, such as procedural justice and effective inclusion. In addition, there is latent controversy over whether centrality metrics such as the degree of intermediation reflects real influence or simply structural visibility. Studies such as Debono and Santos (2023) show that recommendation algorithms can artificially amplify the centrality of certain nodes without implying greater agency or effective leadership. This methodological tension reinforces the need to triangulate quantitative metrics with qualitative methods such as interviews to properly interpret the relational and political meaning of network positions.

Studies show a high concentration in Asia (especially China), and Europe, addressing mainly local and regional scales (Przesdzink et al., 2024; Rivera-Rojo et al., 2023). At the thematic level, the application of SNA predominates in sectors such as circular economy, environmental management, occupational safety and natural resource management. The case of the Belt and Road initiative in China stands out, where SNA was applied in regional infrastructure projects Huang and Li (2024), and the study in Mexico on coffee production networks, in national and local contexts (Rivera-Rojo et al., 2023). This contextual diversity demonstrates the versatility of the approach, although there is little application in African and Middle Eastern regions, which poses a geographical gap to be addressed.

Social Network Analyses has been commonly integrated with frameworks such as stakeholder theory, collaborative governance and sustainability models (Tleuken et al., 2025; Vargas et al., 2019). This theoretical convergence has enabled explicit alignment with several SDGs, particularly SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption) and SDG 17 (partnerships to achieve the goals). This relationship demonstrates the usefulness of SNA as a tool for monitoring progress in sustainability, although there is still a need to better operationalize these linkages through concrete indicators. Likewise, recent studies have shown that SNA can be used to evaluate the impact of public policies aligned with the SDGs. Aras et al. (2024) developed, and SDG impact index based on dual materiality, where financial actor networks were analysed to identify their contribution to territorial diagnostics and multi sectorial planning.

The alignment of SNA metrics with specific SDG targets, as synthesized in Table 10, reveals not only the diagnostic potential of network indicators but also their emerging role as evaluative instruments in territorial governance. Rather than serving merely descriptive functions, metrics such as centrality, brokerage, and modularity reflect patterns of decision-making influence, institutional articulation, and power asymmetries across diverse governance configurations. Derived from empirical patterns identified in the reviewed studies, this framework affirms that SNA can act as strategic tool for tracking governance performance, especially in relation to inclusion, resilience, and policy coherence. Future research and practice should therefore operationalize these metrics as proxies for sustainability evaluation, bridging the gap between relational analysis and a normative accountability in SDG implementation.

While the review highlights important contributions of SNA to territorial governance, we now turn to a candid appraisal of the limitations that qualify our conclusions and to reflexive considerations that should guide interpretation and application.

Among the most frequent limitations are the low representation of all relevant actors, the low replicability of the studies, and the difficulty in capturing power dynamics within the networks (Przesdzink et al., 2024; Wang and Aenis, 2019). These constraints may compromise the validity of conclusions on territorial governance. However, key opportunities to strengthen this line of research stand out: (i) improve methodological designs through data triangulation, (ii) apply SNA in unexplored sectors such as transportation or food security, and (iii) study longitudinally the evolution of networks and their impact on public policies (Ghinoi et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2019).

First, methodological limitations in the reference literature directly reduce the robustness of inferences. Many of the studies reviewed were based on static, cross-sectional snapshots of networks with unclear boundary definitions, ad hoc selection of respondents, and insufficient information on data collection protocols; these characteristics hinder replicability and call into question causal interpretations of influence or change (Prell, 2011; Borgatti et al., 2018). Second, the small and uneven corpus (N = 14) and the geographical concentration of studies (particularly in Asia and Europe) limit external validity: recommendations derived from these cases may not be transferable to underrepresented contexts, such as many African or Middle Eastern settings, where forms of governance, data availability, and informal institutions differ markedly (Przesdzink et al., 2024). Third, conceptual and measurement ambiguities remain unresolved: centrality and intermediation are often treated as direct indicators of power or leadership, despite evidence that structural visibility does not always equate to effective agency (Debono and Santos, 2023; Rivera-Rojo et al., 2023). Fourth, the exclusion of grey literature, practitioner reports and non-English and the temporal cutoff ate 2028 likely omitted relevant practice-oriented knowledge and longer-term methodological developments, constraining the comprehensiveness of the synthesis.

These limitations have concrete implications for both interpretation and application. Users of SNA diagnostics should avoid simple transpositions of network metrics into policy prescriptions without triangulation: for example, identifying a high-degree node should trigger qualitative investigation of that actor’s mandate, legitimacy and resource control before allocating coordination responsibilities. Where studies reported poorly specified boundaries or sampling procedures, network-derived recommendations (e.g., targeting “brokers” for capacity-building) may overlook hidden actors or informal channels that actually structure decision processes. Moreover, the predominance of cross-sectional designs constrains the ability to discuss about change processes, resilience or the effects of interventions over time; policy experiments based on static maps therefore require accompanying monitoring plans and adaptive learning loops.

Finally, we acknowledge ethical and operational constraints that require explicit handling: data privacy, power asymmetries in who participates in mapping exercises, and the risk that publicizing network positions could harm vulnerable actors. Addressing these concerns requires clear protocols for informed consent, data anonymization, and stakeholder feedback loops before dissemination. In short, SNA offers powerful diagnostic capacities for territorial governance, but its translational value depends on improved methodological rigor, participatory co-design, longitudinal evaluation and ethical safeguards—steps that will make network-informed interventions more reliable, equitable and policy-relevant.

To strengthen future research and enhance applicability we recommend three interlocking actions. Methodologically, scholars should adopt mixed and longitudinal designs: multilayer/multiplex network models, weighted and temporal SNA, and pre-registered codebooks improve comparability and allow explicit modelling of SDG interdependencies (Kivelä et al., 2014; Weitz et al., 2018). Practically, network diagnostics must be co-produced with stakeholders (e.g., Net-Map workshops, participatory mapping) and linked to iterative evaluation so that maps become instruments of reflexive governance rather than external audits (Schröter et al., 2018; Prell, 2011). Analytically, triangulation with qualitative interview data, document analysis and cross-impact scoring will reduce misinterpretation of structural metrics and surface the ideational coalitions and material enablers that SNA alone may miss (Roberts et al., 1994; Nogueira, 2017).

This Systematic Literature Review provides a critical synthesis of how SNA functions as both a descriptive and strategic tool for mapping stakeholder interactions in sustainable territorial governance. Evidence across case studies confirms its methodological robustness for examining patterns of collaboration, influence, and structural centrality, particularly in domains such as circular economy, natural resource management, and environmental planning.

By integrating SNA with participatory and qualitative approaches, several studies operationalize inclusive and context sensitive models of decision making. The geographical and thematic diversity encountered reflects the techniques’ flexibility. However, methodological gaps persist notably, the underrepresentation of peripherical actors, limited transferability across contexts, and the absence of longitudinal designs warranting further reflexive inquiry into the political dimensions of invisibility and network evolution.

Importantly, this review advances the field by proposing a framework that explicitly aligns SNA metrics with specific SDG targets. This normative reorientation elevates SNA beyond its diagnostic functions, situating it within a performance-based governance paradigm responsive to sustainability mandates and justice-oriented evaluation. It addresses the epistemic disconnect identifies by Mahfouz et al. (2024), bridging the gap between bibliometric indicators and institutional impact.

In sum, this review not only systematizes the current state of scholarship but contributes a conceptual and operational roadmap for enhancing the evaluative capacity of SNA in public administration. It offers both scholars and practitioners an empirically grounded and ethically engaged foundation for designing governance models that are inclusive, resilient, and normatively sound.