Collaborative Environmental Management Research Articles

Evaluating Collaborative Environmental Planning Outputs and Outcomes

Research documenting the social and organizational benefits of collaborative planning has afforded collaborative planning an increasingly broader role in environmental policy and management. However, the bias toward evaluating the process and its social outcomes has resulted in a gap in knowledge of the impact collaborative environmental planning and management has on changing environmental conditions. This article attempts to reduce this gap by presenting a new performance evaluation framework that assesses collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes: both social and environmental. The case study of the Habitat Workgroup of the New York—New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program highlights the utility of this evaluation framework in assessing the quality of key outputs; the presence of outcomes (i.e., changes in social and environmental conditions); and observed relationships between process, outputs, and outcomes.

Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning

Much emphasis has been placed on the importance of learning to support collaborative environmental management and achieve sustainability under conditions of social–ecological change. Yet, on-going struggles to learn from experience and respond to complex social–ecological conditions reflect an emerging paradox. Despite widespread support of learning as a normative goal and process, core concepts, assumptions and approaches to learning have been applied in vague and sometimes uncritical ways. Greater specificity with respect to learning goals, approaches and outcomes is required. In response to this gap, we examine five dimensions of the learning paradox in the context of adaptive co-management, where the learning and linking functions of governance are stressed: (i) definitions of learning; (ii) learning goals and expectations; (iii) mechanisms by which learning takes place; (iv) questions regarding who is involved in the process of learning; and (v) the risks and ethical ambiguities faced by different actors expected to willingly participate in a learning process, whether formal or informal. Lessons from experience with a series of cases from the global North and South illustrate the implications of these dimensions. Resolving the dimensions of this learning paradox will require greater attention to capacity-building, recognition of the role of risk, and consideration of how incentives could be used to encourage learning. Further consideration of the role of power and marginality among groups participating in the learning process is also needed, as is more systematic evaluation to monitor and measure learning outcomes.

G. Marshall,: Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management: Renegotiating the Commons

Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 58, Issue 2 p. 379-380 G. Marshall,: Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management: Renegotiating the Commons Alan Renwick, Alan Renwick SAC, Edinburghalan.renwick@sac.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author Alan Renwick, Alan Renwick SAC, Edinburghalan.renwick@sac.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author First published: 21 May 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00112.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume58, Issue2June 2007Pages 379-380 RelatedInformation

Citizen Participation and Collaborative Environmental Management in the Marine Oil Trade of Coastal Alaska

This study compares the contributions to policy change made by two Regional Citizens’ Advisory Councils that participate in the environmental management of the marine oil trade in coastal regions of Alaska. Both councils are remarkably well-funded and long-enduring examples of citizen participation in environmental policy. This study finds that both councils have applied their substantial funding resources to make significant contributions to policy change (policy contributions) in the marine oil trade of coastal Alaska. This study also finds that both councils have greatly magnified their policy contributions through collaborative efforts with many other organizations active in the marine oil trade of Alaska. Therefore, the overall policy contributions of the councils result from the joint application of council resources and collaborative efforts.

Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management: Renegotiating the Commons ‐ by Graham R. Marshall

Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management: Renegotiating the Commons ‐ by Graham R. Marshall

What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?

Many tout the benefits of collaborative environmental management as an alternative to centralized planning and command and control regulation, but the excitement over collaborative processes has not been matched by evidence that these processes actually improve the environment. The most crucial question in collaborative environmental management remains unanswered and often unasked: To what extent does collaboration lead to improved environmental outcomes? We know much about why collaboration is occurring and how collaborative processes and outputs vary. The primary goal of future research on collaborative environmental management should be to demonstrate whether collaboration improves environmental conditions more than traditional processes and newer market‐based processes. Collaboration is not a panacea; it is a choice that policy makers and public managers should make based on evidence about expected outcomes.

Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? T. M. Koontz, T. A. Steelman, J. Carmin, K. S. Korfmacher, C. Moseley, and C. W. Thomas. 2004. RFF Press, Washington, DC. 200 pp. $50 cloth, $23.95 paperback.

Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? T. M. Koontz, T. A. Steelman, J. Carmin, K. S. Korfmacher, C. Moseley, and C. W. Thomas. 2004. RFF Press, Washington, DC. 200 pp. $50 cloth, $23.95 paperback. The concepts and practices surrounding institutionalized public participation in the United States have evolved over the past six decades, resulting in increased attention toward collaboration. Koontz et al. open their book with a thorough, but succinct, review of this evolution, providing excellent context for this book's focus on the role that government plays in collaborative natural resource management. Following the introductory chapter, the authors document six case studies organized around government roles as follower, encourager, and leader in collaborative activities. This is an effective organizing principle that provides the reader with valuable insight into the direct and indirect roles that government plays in any environmental management effort. The case studies are geographically diverse and cover both land and water management projects. The cases highlighting government as follower and as leader document details of specific collaborative processes, while the two cases featuring government as an encourager place more emphasis on how to establish a collaborative process. The case studies include efforts that were largely successful, as well as those that did not achieve their goals. A summary chapter provides a solid overview, with helpful tables documenting the governmental roles of actor and institution in the case studies. The final chapter offers a thoughtful discussion about what role government might play in collaborative efforts in light of the findings from the research presented. The authors describe the limitations of the present work and provide ample ideas for future research to better understand the dynamics inherent in collaboration. They also provide citations to allow the reader to review research that is critical of the collaborative approach.

Collaboration for sustainability? A framework for analyzing government impacts in collaborative-environmental management

Citizen participation and empowerment are critical sustainability elements. One increasingly popular form of citizen participation is collaborative-environmental management (CEM). This approach has been described as a new way of governing for environmental issues, an alternative to government-centered processes, that empowers stakeholders and citizens to play a dominant role in planning and decision making. This paper describes a new analytical framework, called the Governmental Impact Framework, for understanding how government affects CEM and the sustainability of outcomes. This framework incorporates institutional analysis to illuminate government-stakeholder relationships and the interplay of biophysical and social factors. Applying the framework to a collaborative land-use planning case in the American state of Ohio indicates that governments are more dominant in collaborative processes than previously thought, and that the channels of influence vary along several dimensions.

Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management

Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management

Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management

Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management

Book Review: Collaborative Environmental Management: What Role for Government?

Book Review: Collaborative Environmental Management: What Role for Government?

Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government?

Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government?

Is Devolution Democratic? Assessing Collaborative Environmental Management

This paper proposes a normative framework for evaluating the democratic merits of collaborative policymaking processes in which authority is ostensibly devolved from higher levels of government to lower levels or from the public sector to the private sector. The framework casts the democracy of devolution in terms of six criteria: inclusiveness, representativeness, procedural fairness, lawfulness, deliberativeness, and empowerment. The framework is then applied to a random sample of 76 watershed-based stakeholder partnerships in California and Washington State. Although the study reveals potential problems related to the exclusionary nature of some partnerships and the nearly complete absence of national environmental groups, the overall picture is relatively positive. Representation was generally balanced, with environmental and economic stakeholders comparable in terms of number, costs of participation, and level of formal education. Stakeholders typically gave partnerships high marks for procedural fairness, and reported improvements in human and social capital, suggesting quality deliberation. Half of the sampled partnerships had implemented new policies or projects, indicating empowerment. Finally, the study detected no evidence of a diminished role for government in watershed management; federal and state agencies are among the most prevalent and influential participants in stakeholder partnerships.

One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments

The role of the public in US policy making has shifted substantially during the past several decades. This shift is particularly evident in environmental policy, where collaboration among multiple stakeholders is on the rise. Much of the literature on collaborative environmental management emphasizes the need for widespread community involvement, especially from private citizens. Many proponents of collaboration have argued that broad inclusion can lead to better environmental solutions while also establishing legitimacy, building social capital, and overcoming conflicts. Yet such broad inclusion may be costly in terms of time, energy, and resources, and it may not yield the desired results. Thus, a key question is how the breadth of public involvement is linked to collaborative group accomplishments. This study, using watershed groups in Ohio, demonstrates several links between group membership and results. Groups with a broader array of participants tend to excel in watershed plan creation, identifying/prioritizing issues, and group development and maintenance. In addition, groups comprised of a relatively balanced mix of governmental and non-governmental participants are more likely to list planning/research and group development and maintenance results than are groups comprised primarily of non-governmental participants. In contrast, groups with a narrower membership and groups that are composed primarily of non-governmental participants may focus more on pressuring government for policy change.

The Practices of Adaptive and Collaborative Environmental Management: A Critique

The Practices of Adaptive and Collaborative Environmental Management: A Critique

Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision

AbstractThe objective of this study was to explore the ideas and reasoning students use to make a collaborative environmental management decision. Eight groups of 8th‐grade students (n = 24) considered ecological and economic information about an invasive aquatic species to make a management recommendation. In addition to discussing the exact information they were given, the groups made a variety of interpretations, elaborations, and inferences concerning ecological structure and dynamics and practical aspects of the management scenario. Value judgments and concerns with uncertainty also appeared in students' discussions, to differing degrees. The students' discussions were compared with scientists' guidelines for making environmental management decisions, and with one expert's analysis of the particular management scenario the students considered. A major finding was that whereas across groups students touched on all of the themes that scientists consider to be important for making environmental management decisions, within most groups students focused more narrowly on particular themes, giving cursory treatment to other dimensions of the problem. The results point to a need to foster students' ecological background knowledge and integrative, systems thinking skills for making principled decisions about complex environmental issues. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 341–368, 2002

Participatory Research on Collaborative Environmental Management: Results From the Adirondack Park

In seeking to trace linkages among groups involved with environmental management in New York State's Adirondack Park, we developed a participatory exercise and employed it at a recent Adirondack research conference. Fourteen organizations took part, collectively representing 72 linkages associated with policies and programs, expertise, information dissemination, and physical facilities. The exercise revealed a dense "hub-and-spoke" pattern of interactions, with state agencies acting as the hubs. The exercise is easy to administer and can be used to provide a one-time snapshot of organizational interactions as well as serving as a basis for longitudinal research.

Participatory Research on Collaborative Environmental Management: Results From the Adirondack Park

In seeking to trace linkages among groups involved with environmental management in New York State's Adirondack Park, we developed a participatory exercise and employed it at a recent Adirondack research conference. Fourteen organizations took part, collectively representing 72 linkages associated with policies and programs, expertise, information dissemination, and physical facilities. The exercise revealed a dense hub-and-spoke pattern of interactions, with state agencies acting as the hubs. The exercise is easy to administer and can be used to provide a one-time snapshot of organizational interactions as well as serving as a basis for longitudinal research.