Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The emergence of an environmental governance network: the case of the Arizona borderlands

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Regional Environmental Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Across the country, government agencies increasingly collaborate with non-governmental actors on environmental dilemmas to gain access to resources, expertise, and local knowledge; to mitigate conflict; and to share risks in a changing environmental context. Collectively, these often overlapping collaborations form a complex and dynamic governance network (GNet). This paper examines the establishment and growth of an environmental GNet over a period of 15 years in conflict-ridden southeastern Arizona, USA. Using social network analysis, we detect the emergence of several influential organizations acting as political entrepreneurs and observe an overall change in network composition. We describe three phases: (1) a newly emerged network, (2) a network dominated by national non-governmental organizations, and finally (3) a shift toward local non-governmental organization involvement. Using institutional analysis, we explore how conflict over natural resource use, decreasing public and private monies for management, and increasing tensions over border security, leads to the establishment of new collaborations and new network participants. While this research focuses on environmental governance in southeastern Arizona, this methodological approach—and insights into the key role of organizations acting as political entrepreneurs—provides a useful starting place for analyzing networks of collaborative governance in other geographic and political contexts. Organizations’ perceptions of risk and trust are keys to understanding the dynamics of collaboration within a GNet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baggio J, Salau K, Janssen M, Schoon M, Bodin Ö (2011) Landscape connectivity and predator–prey population dynamics. Landsc Ecol 26(1):33–45. doi:10.1007/s10980-010-9493-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baggio J, Brown K, Hellebrandt D (2015) Boundary object or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of resilience. Ecol Soc 20(2):2. doi:10.5751/ES-07484-200202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahre C, Shelton M (1996) Rangeland destruction: cattle and drought in southeastern Arizona at the turn of the century. J Southwest 38(1):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird J, Plummer R, Bodin Ö (2016) Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in Canada: experimenting with adaptive co-management. Reg Environ Change 16(3):747–758. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0790-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berardo R, Scholz J (2010) Self-organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection and cooperation in estuaries. Am J Polit Sci 54(3):632–649. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90(5):1692–1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Crona B (2008) Management of natural resources at the community level: exploring the role of social capital and leadership in a rural fishing community. World Dev 36(12):2763–2779. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Crona B (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Change 19(3):366–374. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti S, Everett M (1997) Network analysis of 2–mode data. Soc Netw 19(3):243–269. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti S, Halgin D (2011) Analyzing affiliation networks. In: Carrington P, Scott J (eds) The Sage handbook of social network analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 417–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt R (2001) Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin N, Cook K, Burt R (eds) Social capital: theory and research. Aldine de Gruyter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs C, York A, White D, Schoon M, Bodner G (2013) The emergence of adaptive co-management in the Agua Fria watershed, Arizona, USA. Ecol Soc 18(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-05636-180411

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark B, Burkardt N, King M (2005) Watershed management and organizational dynamics: nationwide findings and regional variation. Environ Manag 36(2):297–310. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-1039-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke A, Fuller M (2010) Collaborative strategic management: strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. J Bus Ethics 94(1):85–101. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0781-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen P, Evans L, Mills M (2012) Social networks supporting governance of coastal ecosystems in Solomon Islands. Conserv Lett 5(5):376–386. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00255.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakos V, Quinlan A, Baggio J, Bennett E, Bodin Ö, BurnSilver S (2015) Chapter 4 principle 2–manage connectivity. In: Biggs R, Schuelter M, Schoon M (eds) Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 80–97

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio P (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker L (ed) Institutional patterns and organizations: culture and environment. Ballinger, Cambridge, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Faust K (1997) Centrality in affiliation networks. Soc Netw 19(2):157–191. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00300-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feiock R, Lee W, Park H, Lee K (2010) Collaboration networks among local elected officials: information, commitment, and risk aversion. Urban Aff Rev 46(2):241–262. doi:10.1177/1078087409360509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman L (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1(3):215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing V, Nooteboom B, Vanhaverbeke W, Duysters G, van den Oord A (2008) Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Res Policy 37(10):1717–1731. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero A, McAllister R, Wilson K (2015) Achieving cross-scale collaboration for large-scale conservation initiatives. Conserv Lett 8(2):107–117. doi:10.1111/conl.12112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Meth 18(1):59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanger S, Pfenninger S, Dreyfus M, Patt A (2013) Knowledge and information needs of adaptation policy-makers: a European study. Reg Environ Change 13(1):91–101. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0317-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry A, Lubell M, McCoy M (2012) Survey-based measurement of public management and policy networks. J Policy Anal Manag 31(2):432–452. doi:10.1002/pam.21623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe R (2002) Political entrepreneurship and the democratic allocation of economic resources. Rev Austrian Econ 15(2–3):143–159. doi:10.1023/A:1015758419984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson C, Unruh J, Bahre C (2000) Land use vs. climate as causes of vegetation change: a study in SE Arizona. Glob Environ Change 10(1):47–55. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00009-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Ostrom E (2006) Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecol Soc 11(2):37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latapy M, Magnien C, Del Vecchio N (2008) Basic notions for the analysis of large two-mode networks. Soc Netw 30(1):31–48. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauber T, Stedman R, Decker D, Knuth B, Simon C (2011) Social network dynamics in collaborative conservation. Hum Dimens Wildl 16(4):259–272. doi:10.1080/10871209.2011.542556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lienert J, Schnetzer F, Ingold K (2013) Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. J Environ Manag 125:134–148. doi:10.1080/10871209.2011.542556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M, Scholz J, Robins G, Berardo R (2012) Testing policy theory with statistical models of networks. Policy Stud J 40(3):351–374. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00457.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthe T, Wyss R, Schuckert M (2012) Network governance and regional resilience to climate change: empirical evidence from mountain tourism communities in the Swiss Gotthard region. Reg Environ Change 12(4):839–854. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0294-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire S, Hardy C, Lawrence T (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Acad Manag J 47(5):657–679. doi:10.2307/20159610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ménard C, Shirley M (2008) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oh H, Chung M, Labianca G (2004) Group social capital and group effectiveness: the role of informal socializing ties. Acad Manag J 47(6):860–875. doi:10.2307/20159627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasquero J (1991) Supraorganizational collaboration: the Canadian environmental experiment. J Appl Behav Sci 27(1):38–64. doi:10.1177/0021886391271003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith H (1988) Symposium editors’ introduction. Policy Sci 21(2–3):123–127. doi:10.1007/BF00136405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salau K, Schoon M, Baggio J, Janssen M (2012) Varying effects of connectivity and dispersal on interacting species dynamics. Ecol Model 242:81–91. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.04.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandström A, Carlsson L (2008) The performance of policy networks: the relation between network structure and network performance. Policy Stud J 36(4):497–524. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00281.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayre N (2005) Working wilderness: the Malpai Borderlands Group and the future of the western range. Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider M, Teske P (1992) Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur: evidence from local government. Am Polit Sci Rev 86(3):737–747. doi:10.2307/1964135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz J, Wang C (2006) Cooptation or transformation? Local policy networks and federal regulatory enforcement. Am J Polit Sci 50(1):81–97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00171.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoon M (2008) Building robustness to disturbance: Governance in southern African peace parks. Dissertation, Indiana University-Bloomington

  • Schoon M (2012) Governance in southern african transboundary protected areas. In: Quinn M, Broberg L, Freimund W (eds) Parks, peace, and partnerships. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, pp 205–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoon ML, York AM (2011) Cooperation across boundaries: the role of political entrepreneurs in environmental collaboration. J Nat Resour Policy Res 3(2):113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoon M, Baggio J, Salau K, Janssen M (2014) Insights for managers from modeling species interactions across multiple scales in an idealized landscape. Environ Model Softw 54:53–59. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz L (2009) Nurturing resilience in social-ecological systems: Lessons learned from bridging organizations. Dissertation, Stockholm University

  • Sheridan T (2007) Embattled ranchers, endangered species, and urban sprawl: the political ecology of the new American west. Annu Rev Anthropol 36(2007):121–138. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha M, Feiock R (2009) Governing U.S. metropolitan areas: self-organizing and multiplex service networks. Am Polit Res 37(5):801–823. doi:10.1177/1532673X09337466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiller S, Meijerink S (2016) Leadership within regional climate change adaptation networks: the case of climate adaptation officers in Northern Hesse, Germany. Reg Environ Change 16(6):1543–1555. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0886-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurner P, Binder M (2009) The comparative value of transgovernmental administrative networking (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1450397). Social Science Research Network, Rochester. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1450397

  • Westley F, Miller P (2003) Experiments in consilience integrating social and scientific responses to save endangered species. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Westley F, Vredenburg H (1997) Interorganizational collaboration and the preservation of global biodiversity. Organ Sci 8(4):381–403. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.4.381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White C (2008) Revolution on the range: the rise of a new ranch in the American west. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck J, Yaffee S (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • York A, Schoon M (2011a) Collective action on the western range: coping with external and internal threats. Int J Commons 5(2):388–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York A, Schoon M (2011b) Collaboration in the shadow of the wall: shifting power in the borderlands. Policy Sci 44(4):345–365. doi:10.1007/s11077-011-9138-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Michael Schoon

  2. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Abigail York & Abigail Sullivan

  3. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Jacopo Baggio

Authors
  1. Michael Schoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abigail York
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abigail Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacopo Baggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Schoon.

Additional information

Editor: Helmut Haberl.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schoon, M., York, A., Sullivan, A. et al. The emergence of an environmental governance network: the case of the Arizona borderlands. Reg Environ Change 17, 677–689 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1060-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1060-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation