Environmental Management

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 677–691 | Cite as

Resolving Conflict and Building Cooperation in the National Estuary Program

Article

Abstract

Since its beginning in 1987, researchers and policymakers have touted the US Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary program (NEP) as one of the leading examples of collaborative institutions designed to resolve conflict and build cooperation at the watershed level. Using the NEP as an example, I summarize the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative institutions. Using data gathered from focused surveys of policy elites in 22 estuaries, I estimate statistical models that show the NEP does a better job of resolving conflict and building project-level cooperation than similar estuaries without the NEP. I also describe the activities of the NEP mentioned by respondents as contributing to this outcome.

Keywords

Cooperation Conflict Watershed management Estuary Environmental policy 

References

  1. 1.
    Baumgartner, F. R, Jones, B. D. 1993Agendas and instability in american politicsUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Born, S. M., and K. D. Genskow. 2000. Toward understanding new watershed initiatives: A report from the Madison watershed workshop. University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coggins, G. C. 1999Regulating federal natural resources: A summary case against devolved collaboration.Ecology Law Quarterly25602610Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coglianese, C. 1997Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking.Duke Law Journal46(3)12551349Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coleman, J. 1990Foundations of social theoryHarvard University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Costanza, R, d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. 1997The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature387253260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies, J. C., Mazurek, J. 1998Pollution control in the United States: Evaluating the systemResources for the FutureWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edelman, M. 1971Politics as symbolic action: Mass arousal and quiescenceAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eggertsson, T. 1990Economic behavior and institutionsCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardin, G. 1968The tragedy of the commons.Science16212431248Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heckathorn, D. D, Maser, S. M. 1987Bargaining and the sources of transaction costs: The case of government regulation.Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization36998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John, D. 1994Civic environmentalismCongressional Quarterly PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenney, D. S, McAllister, S. T., Caile, W. H., Peckham, J. S. 2000The new watershed source book: a directory and review of watershed initiatives in the western United StatesNatural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of LawBoulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leach, W. D. 2002Surveying diverse stakeholder groups.Society and Natural Resources15(7)641649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leach, W. D, Pelkey, N. W., Sabatier, P. A. 2002Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management21(4)645670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Libecap, G. 1989Contracting for property rights.Cambridge University PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lubell, M. 2000Cognitive conflict and consensus building in the national estuary program.American Behavioral Scientist44629648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lubell, M. 2002. Consensual environmental institutions: All talk and no action? Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lubell, M. 2003. Perceived policy effectiveness and environmental governance: Do institutions matter? Political Research Quarterly (in press)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lubell, M, Schneider, M., Scholz, J. T., Mete, M. 2002Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions.American Journal of Political Science4648163Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Margerum, R. D, Born, S. M. 2000A co-ordination diagnostic for improving intergrated environmental management.Journal of Environmental Management and Planning43(1)521Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marsh, L. L, Lallas, P. L. 1995

    Focused, special-area conservation planning: An approach to reconciling development and environmental protection.

    Porter, D.R.Salvesen, D.A. eds. Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife: Issues and examplesIsland PressWashington, DC
    Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McClosky, M. 1996. The skeptic: Collaboration has its limits. High Country News 28 (May 13)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGinnis, M. V, Woolley, J., Gamman, J. 1999Bioregional conflict resolution: Rebuilding community in watershed planning and organizing.Environmental Management24(1)112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    North, D. C. 1990Institutions, institutional change, and economic performanceCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ostrom, E. 1990Governing the commonsCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ostrom, E. 1999

    Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework.

    Sabatier, P.A. eds. Theories of the policy processWestview PressBoulder, Colorado
    Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Putnam, R. 1993Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern ItalyPrinceton University PressNew JerseyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sabatier, P. A, Jenkins-Smith, H. 1993Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approachWestview PressBoulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sabel, C, Fung, A., Karrkkainen, B. 2000Beyond backyard environmentalism.Beacon PressBostonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Savitz, J. 2000

    Compensating citizens.

    Sabel, C.Fung, A.Karrkkainen, B. eds. Beyond backyard environmentalism.Beacon PressBoston
    Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schattschneider, E. E. 1960The semi-sovereign peopleHolt, Rinehart, and WinstonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scheberle, D. 1997Federalism and environmental policy: Trust and the politics of implementation.Georgetown University PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schneider, M, Scholz, J. T., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., Edwardsen, M. 2003Building consensual institutions: Networks and the national estuary program.American Journal of Political Science47(1)143158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 1999. Testimony of J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator of US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Habitat Conservation and Coastal Protection: Hearing before the Committee on Environmental and Public Works. 22 JulyGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weber, E. P. 1998Pluralism by the rules: Conflict and cooperation in environmental management.Georgetown University PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Woolley, J. T, McGinnis, M. V., Kellner, J. 2002The California watershed movement: science and the politics of place.Natural Resources Journal42(1)133183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yaffee, S.L., Phillips, A.F., Frentz, I.C., Hardy, P.W., Maleki, S.M., and Thorpe, B.E, (1996) Ecosystem management in the United States: An assessment of current experience, Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616USA

Personalised recommendations