Environmental Management

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 254–267 | Cite as

Toward an Understanding of Citywide Urban Environmental Governance: An Examination of Stewardship Networks in Baltimore and Seattle

  • Michele Romolini
  • J. Morgan Grove
  • Curtis L. Ventriss
  • Christopher J. Koliba
  • Daniel H. Krymkowski


Efforts to create more sustainable cities are evident in the proliferation of sustainability policies in cities worldwide. It has become widely proposed that the success of these urban sustainability initiatives will require city agencies to partner with, and even cede authority to, organizations from other sectors and levels of government. Yet the resulting collaborative networks are often poorly understood, and the study of large whole networks has been a challenge for researchers. We believe that a better understanding of citywide environmental governance networks can inform evaluations of their effectiveness, thus contributing to improved environmental management. Through two citywide surveys in Baltimore and Seattle, we collected data on the attributes of environmental stewardship organizations and their network relationships. We applied missing data treatment approaches and conducted social network and comparative analyses to examine (a) the organizational composition of the network, and (b) how information and knowledge are shared throughout the network. Findings revealed similarities in the number of actors and their distribution across sectors, but considerable variation in the types and locations of environmental stewardship activities, and in the number and distribution of network ties in the networks of each city. We discuss the results and potential implications of network research for urban sustainability governance.


Urban sustainability Governance networks Social network analysis Urban natural resources management 



This study was part of Dr. Romolini’s unpublished doctoral dissertation from the University of Vermont. We are grateful to all of the organizations in Baltimore and Seattle who participated in the survey, and particularly to those who offered valuable input along the way. We acknowledge that this research would not have been possible without material and intellectual support from the USDA Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest and Northern Research stations—particularly Dale Blahna and Kathy Wolf for their mentorship and guidance during field seasons in Seattle, and Lindsay Campbell, Dana Fisher, and Erika Svendsen for developing the foundational STEW-MAP research design in New York City and collaborating to refine the survey instrument along with Lynne Westphal and Cherie Fisher in Chicago. Financial support was provided by ARRA Project 10-CA-11260489-090, NSF-DEB-0423476, and DC-BC ULTRA-Ex NSF-DEB-0948947. We also thank Naim Kapucu for a thoughtful review of an earlier version of the paper. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the contributors.


  1. Andridge RR, Little RJA (2010) A review of hot deck imputation for survey nonresponse. Int Stat Rev 78:40–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltimore Commission on Sustainability (2009) The Baltimore sustainability plan. Baltimore City Office of Sustainability, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  3. Belaire JA, Drilbin AK, Johnston DP, Lynch DJ, Minor ES (2011) Mapping stewardship networks in urban ecosystems. Conserv Lett 4:464–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergenholtz C, Waldstrom C (2011) Inter-organizational network studies—a literature review. Ind Innov 18:539–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ Change 19:366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bodin Ö, Norberg J (2005) Information network topologies for enhanced local adaptive management. Environ Manag 35:175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodin Ö, Prell C (2011) Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogdanor V (1987) The Blackwell encyclopaedia of political institutions. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. J Manag 29:991–1013Google Scholar
  10. Borgatti SP, Molina JL (2003) Ethical and strategic issues in organizational social network analysis. J Appl Behav Sci 39:337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Burt RS (1987) A note on missing network data in the general social survey. Soc Netw 9:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Am J Sociol 110:349–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conley T, Udry C (2001) Social learning through networks: the adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. Am J Agric Econ 83:668–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connolly JJ, Svendsen ES, Fisher DR, Campbell LK (2013) Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landsc Urban Plan 109:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crona BI, Bodin Ö (2006) What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecol Soc 11(2):7Google Scholar
  18. Degenne A, Forsé M (1999) Introducing social networks. Sage Publications, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diani M (2003) “Leaders” or brokers? Positions and influence in social movement networks. In: Diani M, McAdam D (eds) Social movements and networks. Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durant RF, Fiorino DJ, O’Leary R (eds) (2004) Environmental governance reconsidered: challenges, choices, and opportunities. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Ernstson H, Sorlin S, Elmqvist T (2008) Social movements and ecosystem services—the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecol Soc 13(2):39Google Scholar
  22. Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E, Borgström ST (2010) Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm, Sweden. Ecol Soc 15(4):28Google Scholar
  23. Fisher DR, Connolly JJ, Svendsen ES, Campbell LK (2010) Who volunteers to steward the urban forest in New York City? An analysis of participants in MillionTreesNYC planting events (White paper). Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher DR, Campbell LK, Svendsen ES (2012) The organisational structure of urban environmental stewardship. Environ Polit 21:26–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman L (1979) Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarifications. Soc Netw 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Friedkin NE (1981) The development of structure in random networks: an analysis of the effects of increasing network density on five measures of structure. Soc Netw 3:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedkin NE (1991) Theoretical foundation for centrality measures. Am Sociol 96:1478–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghani AC, Donnelly CA, Garnett GP (1998) Sampling biases and missing data in explorations of sexual partner networks for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Stat Med 17:2079–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldstein JR (1999) Kinship networks that cross racial lines: the expectation or the rule? Demography 36:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am Sociol 76:1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grove JM (2009) Cities: Managing densely settled social-ecological systems. In: Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Huisman M (2009) Imputation of missing network data: some simple procedures. J Soc Struct 10:1–29Google Scholar
  33. Isaac ME, Erickson BH, Quashie-Sam SJ, Timmer VR (2007) Transfer of knowledge on agroforestry management practices: the structure of farmer advice networks. Ecol Soc 12(2):32Google Scholar
  34. John D (1994) Civic environmentalism: Alternatives to regulation in states and communities. Congressional Quarterly Inc, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson S (2006) The ghost map: the story of London’s most terrifying epidemic—and how it changed science, cities, and the modern world. Riverhead Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Kapucu N (2012) Disaster and emergency management systems in urban areas. Cities 29:S41–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kofinas GP (2009) Adaptive co-management in social-ecological governance. In: Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York, pp 77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koliba C (2006) Serving the public interest across sectors: assessing the implications of network governance. Adm Theory Prax 28:593–601Google Scholar
  39. Koliba C, Meek J, Zia A (2010) Governance networks in public administration and public policy. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  40. Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government?. Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Kossinetts G (2006) Effects of missing data in social networks. Soc Netw 28:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Knuth BA (2008) Social networks and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manag 42:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laven DN, Krymkowski DH, Ventriss CL, Manning RE, Mitchell NJ (2010) From partnerships to networks: new approaches for measuring US National Heritage Area effectiveness. Eval Rev 34:271–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Little LR, McDonald AD (2007) Simulations of agents in social networks harvesting a resource. Ecol Model 204:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Locke DH, King KL, Svendsen ES, Campbell LK, Small C, Sonti NF, Fisher DR, Lu JWT (2014) Urban environmental stewardship and changes in vegetative cover and building footprint in New York City neighborhoods (2000–2010). J Environ Stud Sci 4:250–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mandarano LA (2009) Social network analysis of social capital in collaborative planning. Soc Nat Resour 22:245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McGinnis MD (1999) Polycentric governance and development: readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  48. Melosi MV (2000) The sanitary city: Urban infrastructure in America from Colonial times to the present. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  49. Moody J, White DR (2003) Social cohesion and embeddedness: a hierarchical concept of social groups. Am Sociol Rev 68:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Muñoz-Erickson TA, Cutts BB, Larson EK, Darby KJ, Neff M, Bolin B, Wutich A (2010) Spanning boundaries in an Arizona watershed partnership: information networks as tools for entrenchment or ties for collaboration? Ecol Soc 15(3):22Google Scholar
  51. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Toole LJ (1997) Treating networks seriously: practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Adm Rev 57:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pickett ST, Buckley GL, Kaushal SS, Williams Y (2011) Social-ecological science in the humane metropolis. Urban Ecosyst 14:319–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prell C (2012) Social networks: history, theory and methodology. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 22:501–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Provan KG, Kenis P (2008) Modes of network governance: structure, management and effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theory 18:229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Provan KG, Milward HB (2001) Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Adm Rev 61:414–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Provan KG, Fish A, Sydow J (2007) Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. J Manag 33:479–516Google Scholar
  60. Romolini M (2013) Governance of 21st century sustainable cities: Examining stewardship networks in Baltimore and Seattle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vermont, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  61. Romolini M, Brinkley WR, Wolf KL (2012) What is urban environmental stewardship? Constructing a practitioner-derived framework. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Seattle, Research note PNW-RN-566Google Scholar
  62. Romolini M, Grove JM, Locke DH (2013a) Assessing and comparing relationships between urban environmental stewardship networks and land cover in Baltimore and Seattle. Landsc Urban Plan 120:190–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Romolini M, Dalton SE, Grove JM (2013b) Environmental governance of the sustainable city: examining changes in stewardship networks in the Gwynns Falls Watershed, 1996–2011. Poster presented at The 15th Annual Meeting of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) Long-Term Ecological Research Program, 22–23 October 2013, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruef M (2002) Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Ind Corp Change 11:427–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sandström A (2008) Policy networks: The relation between structure and performance. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider M, Scholz J, Lubell M, Mindruta D, Edwardsen M (2003) Building consensual institutions: networks and the National Estuary Program. Am J Polit Sci 47:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seattle Department of Planning and Development (2005) Seattle comprehensive plan|Toward a sustainable Seattle: 2005 Amendments. City of Seattle, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  68. Stork D, Richards WD (1992) Nonrespondents in communication network studies. Group Org Manage 17:193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Svendsen E (2010) Civic environmental stewardship as a form of governance in New York City. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Svendsen ES, Campbell LK (2008) Urban ecological stewardship: understanding the structure, function and network of community-based land management. Cities Environ 1:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trust for Public Land (2011) 2011 City park facts. Trust for Public Land, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  72. Urban Waters Federal Partnership (2013) Partnership in action report. Urban Waters Federal Partnership, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  73. US Green Building Council (2012) Top ten LEED certified 2012. US Green Building Council, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  74. Weber EP (2000) A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots ecosystem management as a new environmental movement. Soc Nat Resour 13:237–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Whittaker M, Segura GM, Bowler S (2005) Racial/ethnic group attitudes toward environmental protection in California: is “environmentalism” still a white phenomenon? Polit Res Q 58:435–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wolf KL, Blahna DJ, Brinkley W, Romolini M (2013) Environmental stewardship footprint research: linking human agency and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosyst 16:13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Romolini
    • 1
  • J. Morgan Grove
    • 2
  • Curtis L. Ventriss
    • 3
  • Christopher J. Koliba
    • 4
  • Daniel H. Krymkowski
    • 5
  1. 1.Center for Urban ResilienceLoyola Marymount UniversityLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Northern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Community Development and Applied EconomicsUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  5. 5.Department of SociologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations