Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accountable Environmental Outcomes: Bridging Disciplinary Traditions on Collaborative Governance, Coproduction, and Comanagement for Organising Just and Effective Sustainability Transformations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainability Transformations, Social Transitions and Environmental Accountabilities

Abstract

This chapter examines collaborative approaches to the production of knowledge, policy, and public management as means for creating more accountable environmental governance. Exploring and comparing the rich and salient concepts of coproduction and comanagement allows linkage across these conversations in different bodies of literature to elucidate important ingredients of successful collaborative environmental governance. Collaborative approaches to both science and policymaking contribute the most public value. Collaboration makes accountable to the public what used to be left to “expert” managers and improves outcomes, providing greater accountability to both policy and science. Different disciplinary understandings of coproduction and comanagement are compared, and the idea is proposed that coproduction and comanagement can be brought together in a holistic approach to collaborative governance, joining science with social justice. Examples of collaborative governance approaches to forest management on public lands in the USA and Indonesia are examined using a comparative small-N case study approach, with particular attention to public accountability and sustainability transformations, to explore the most important elements of collaborative approaches to environmental governance. The case studies show that more inclusive and effective management is possible with comanagement, and more actionable science is possible through knowledge coproduction. The most effective forms of collaborative governance should actively include both coproduction of knowledge and comanagement over the longer term.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets” (Ansell & Gash 2008, p. 544).

References

  • Goodrich, K. A., Sjostrom, K. D., Vaughan, C., Nichols, L., Bednarek, A., & Lemos, M. C. (2020). Who are boundary spanners and how can we support them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 45–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlin, B., Carr Kelman, C., Goodrich, K. A., & Lowerson Bredow, V. (2016). The role of the university: Engaged scholarship in the anthropocene. In R. A. Mathew (Ed.), The WSPC reference on natural resources and environmental policy in the era of global change (pp. 143–172). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813208162_0007

  • Lubchenco, J., Barner, A. K., Cerny-Chipman, E. B., & Reimer, J. N. (2015). Sustainability rooted in science. Nature Geoscience, 8, 741–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, A. (2004). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C. (2019). Collaboration: Key concepts. In A. Kekez, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Collaboration in public service delivery: Promise and pitfalls (pp. 2–19) Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788978583.00009

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2022). Handbook on theories of governance. Elgar Online. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371972

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D. R., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21, 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Diduck, A. P., Doubleday, N. C., Johnson, D. S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E. W., & Wollenberg, E. K. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnott, J. C., Kirchhoff, C. J., Meyer, R. M., Meadow, A. M., & Bednarek, A. T. (2020). Sponsoring actionable science: What public science funders can do to advance sustainability and the social contract for science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, C. J., Arízaga, M., Anderson, D. M., Carr Kelman, C., & Gerber, L. R. (2022). A scorecard for designing and evaluating university partnerships (Under review).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier, P., Hansen, L. J., Helbrecht, L., & Behar, D. (2017). A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conservation Letters, 10(3), 288–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 621–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F., Armitage, D., & Doubleday, N. (2007). Synthesis: Adapting, innovating, evolving. In F. Berkes, D. Armitage, & N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance (pp. 308–327). UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bex, U. (2021). 4FRI revived: Wildfire-prevention program back on track after months of delay. Cronkite News: Arizona PBS. https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2021/12/13/4fri-revived-wildfire-prevention-program-back-on-track-after-months-of-delay/

  • Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, S., & Meisch, S. (2017). Co-production in climate change research: Reviewing different perspectives. Wires Climate Change, 8(6), e482. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugger, J., Meadow, A., & Horangic, A. (2016). Lessons from first-generation climate science integrators. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 97(3), 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr Kelman, C. (2010). Assessing integrated conservation and development in Indonesia (Doctoral Dissertation). Department of Planning, Policy and Design, University of California, Irvine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr Kelman, C., Barton, C. J., Whitman, K., Lhoest, S. P., Anderson, D. M., & Gerber, L. R. (2022a). Five approaches to producing actionable science in conservation (Under review).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr Kelman, C., Brady, U., Raschke, B. A., & Schoon, M. (2022b). A systematic review of core components of effective collaborative governance of social-ecological systems: 22 key criteria building upon Ostrom’s institutional design principles (Under review).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N. J., Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Galvin, K. A., Goldstein, B. E., Haller, T., Hill, R., Munera, C., Nel, J. L., Österblom, H., Reid, R. S., Riechers, M., Spierenburg, M., … Rondeau, R. (2022). Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Global Environmental Change, 72, 102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

  • Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Ryan, M. E., Reid, R. S., Riechers, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N. J., Cvitanovic, C., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Galvin, K. A., Goldstein, B. E., Klenk, N. L., Tengö, M., Brennan, R., Cockburn, J. J., Hill, R., Munera, C., Nel, J. L., Österblom, H., … Pickering, T. (2021). Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(11), 983–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

  • Cook, C. N., Beever, E. A., Thurman, L. L., Thompson, L. M., Gross, J. E., Whiteley, A. R., Nicotra, A. B., Szymanski, J. A., Botero, C. A., Hall, K. R., Hoffmann, A. A., Schuurman, G. W., & Sgrò, C. M. (2021). Supporting the adaptive capacity of species through more effective knowledge exchange with conservation practitioners. Evolutionary Applications, 14, 1969–1979. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13266

  • Cook, C. N., Mascia, M. B., Schwartz, M. W., Possingham, H. P., & Fuller, R. A. (2013). Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge–action boundary. Conservation Biology, 27(4), 669–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2018). Designing the new American university. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFries, R. S., Ellis, E. C., Chapin, F. S., Matson, P. A., Turner, B. L., Agrawal, A., Crutzen, P. J., Field, C., Gleick, P., Kareiva, P. M., Lambin, E., Liverman, D., Ostrom, E., Sanchez, P. A., & Syvitski, J. (2012). Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience, 62(6), 603–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 680–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djenontin, I. N. S., & Meadow, A. M. (2018). The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: Lessons from international practice. Environmental Management, 61, 885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eghenter, C. (2013). Making a difference: Research as an advocacy tool in the Kayan Mentarang conservation area. World Wildlife Fund. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?208461/Making-a-difference-Research-as-an-advocacy-tool-in-the-Kayan-Mentarang-conservation-area

  • 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

  • Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A performance matrix. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(4), 717–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Four Forest Restoration Initiative. (2017). Strategic plan. https://4fri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/4FRI-Strategic-Plan_11-15-2017_Approved_FullDoc_HiQual-copy.pdf

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, H., Nowotny, S., Swartzman, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26(2), 393–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell, R., Hall, J., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J., Schellnhuber, H., Bolin, B., Dickson, N., & Faucheux, S. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kekez, A., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2019). Collaboration in public service delivery: What, when and how. In A. Kekez, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Collaboration in public service delivery: Promise and pitfalls (pp. 2–19) Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788978583.00009

  • Khine, P. K., Mi, J., & Shahid, R. (2021). A comparative analysis of co-production in public services. Sustainability, 13, 6730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126730

  • Kirchhoff, C. J., Lemos, M., & Dessai, S. (2013). Actionable knowledge for environmental decision-making: Broadening the usability of climate science. Annual Review Environmental Resources, 38, 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofinas, G. (2002). Community contributions to ecological monitoring: Knowledge coproduction in the US-Canada Arctic borderlands. In The earth is faster now: Indigenous observations of Arctic environmental change (pp. 54–91). Arctic Research Consortium of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1990). Postmodern? No, simply amodern! Steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 21(1), 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. C., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., Baja, K., Bednarek, A. T., Dewulf, A., Fieseler, C., Goodrich, K. A., Jagannathan, K., & Klenk, N. (2018). To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nature Sustainability, 1, 722–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. C., & Morehouse, B. J. (2005). The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change, 15, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco, J. (2017). Delivering on science’s social contract. Michigan Journal of Sustainability, 5, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279(5350), 491–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, K. J., Lemos, M. C., Meadow, A. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., Fieseler, C., Moss, R. H., Nichols, L., Stults, M., Vaughan, C., & Wong-Parodi, G. (2020). Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum, R. D. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management, 41, 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9067-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattor, K. M., & Cheng, A. S. (2015). Contextual factors influencing collaboration levels and outcomes in national forest stewardship contracting: Contextual factors influencing collaboration. The Review of Policy Research, 32(6), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNie, E. C., Parris, A., & Sarewitz, D. (2016). Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research. Research Policy, 45, 884–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G., & Wall, T. (2015). Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(2), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. A., & Wyborn, C. (2020). Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy, 113, 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, S. C. (2016). Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20, 106–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mottek Lucas, A., Kim, Y., Greco, B., Becker, D. R., Hjerpe, E. E., & Abrams, J. (2017). Social and economic contributions of the White Mountain Stewardship Project: Final 10-year assessment—Lessons learned and implications for future forest management initiatives. Journal of Forestry, 115(6), 548–558. https://doi.org/10.5849/JOF-2016-008R3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., & Ostrom, V. (1977). Public economy organization and service delivery. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 53 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S., Vandivort, M., Whitaker, G., & Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. R. (2007). Charting the new territory of adaptive co-management: A Delphi study. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02091-120210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, S. M., & Cvitanovic, C. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of boundary-spanning activities at the interface of environmental science and policy: A review of progress and future research needs. Environmental Science and Policy, 92, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, R., Crona, B., Armitage, D. R., Olsson, P., Tengö, M., & Yudina, O. (2012). Adaptive comanagement: A systematic review and analysis. Ecology and Society, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952-170311

  • Raschke, A. B., Brown, M. I., & Cheng, S. H. (2019). Evidence on biodiversity conservation impacts: Assessing theories, approaches, and outcomes from community engagement. Conservation Solutions Lab, Arizona State University & Chemonics, Inc. https://sustainability-innovation.asu.edu/biodiversityoutcomes/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/05/Evidence-on-Biodiversity-Conservation-Impacts-2019-Candice-Carr-Kelman.pdf

  • Roux, D. J., Nel, J. L., Freitag, S., Novellie, P., & Rosenberg, E. (2021). Evaluating and reflecting on coproduction of protected area management plans. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(11), e542. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (1996). Frontiers of illusion: Science, technology and the politics of progress. Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoon, M. L., Chapman, M., Loos, J., Ifejika Speranza, C., Carr Kelman, C., Aburto, J., & Alexander, S. (2021). On the frontiers of collaboration and conflict: How context influences the success of collaboration. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1946593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institutions Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulibarri, N. (2015). Tracing process to performance of collaborative governance: A comparative case study of federal hydropower licensing. Policy Studies Journal, 43(2), 283–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Forest Service. (2021). 4FRI Restoration Strategy. USDA Forest Service. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd969259.pdf

  • U.S. Forest Service. (2022). 4FRI Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program Annual Reports. USDA. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/4fri/home/?cid=stelprd3834701

  • Voorberg, W., & van Meerkerk, I. (2019). Co-production with citizens: Demarcating the mode of collaboration by looking ‘from outside in’. In A. Kekez, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Collaboration in public service delivery: Promise and pitfalls (pp. 2–19) Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788978583.00009

  • Wall, T. U., Meadow, A. M., & Horganic, A. (2017). Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(1), 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyborn, C. A. (2015). Connecting knowledge with action through coproductive capacities: Adaptive governance and connectivity conservation. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sustainability and Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Candice Carr Kelman

Authors
  1. Candice Carr Kelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Candice Carr Kelman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Trafalgar, VIC, Australia

    Beth Edmondson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Carr Kelman, C. (2023). Accountable Environmental Outcomes: Bridging Disciplinary Traditions on Collaborative Governance, Coproduction, and Comanagement for Organising Just and Effective Sustainability Transformations. In: Edmondson, B. (eds) Sustainability Transformations, Social Transitions and Environmental Accountabilities. Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18268-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18268-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18267-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18268-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation