Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 677–689 | Cite as

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

  • Michael SchoonEmail author
  • Abigail York
  • Abigail Sullivan
  • Jacopo Baggio
Original Article


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.


Collaboration Institutional analysis Political entrepreneur Network analysis Collaborative governance Network governance 

Supplementary material

10113_2016_1060_MOESM1_ESM.docx (165 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 164 kb)
10113_2016_1060_MOESM2_ESM.docx (88 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 87 kb)
10113_2016_1060_MOESM3_ESM.docx (70 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 69 kb)
10113_2016_1060_MOESM4_ESM.docx (74 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 74 kb)


  1. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahre C, Shelton M (1996) Rangeland destruction: cattle and drought in southeastern Arizona at the turn of the century. J Southwest 38(1):1–22Google Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 417–433Google Scholar
  11. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 80–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiMaggio P (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker L (ed) Institutional patterns and organizations: culture and environment. Ballinger, Cambridge, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  18. Faust K (1997) Centrality in affiliation networks. Soc Netw 19(2):157–191. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00300-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman L (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1(3):215–239. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janssen M, Ostrom E (2006) Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecol Soc 11(2):37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ménard C, Shirley M (2008) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  39. Pasquero J (1991) Supraorganizational collaboration: the Canadian environmental experiment. J Appl Behav Sci 27(1):38–64. doi: 10.1177/0021886391271003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith H (1988) Symposium editors’ introduction. Policy Sci 21(2–3):123–127. doi: 10.1007/BF00136405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sayre N (2005) Working wilderness: the Malpai Borderlands Group and the future of the western range. Rio Nuevo Publishers, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoon M (2008) Building robustness to disturbance: Governance in southern African peace parks. Dissertation, Indiana University-BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 205–236Google Scholar
  48. Schoon ML, York AM (2011) Cooperation across boundaries: the role of political entrepreneurs in environmental collaboration. J Nat Resour Policy Res 3(2):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schultz L (2009) Nurturing resilience in social-ecological systems: Lessons learned from bridging organizations. Dissertation, Stockholm UniversityGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thurner P, Binder M (2009) The comparative value of transgovernmental administrative networking (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1450397). Social Science Research Network, Rochester.
  55. Westley F, Miller P (2003) Experiments in consilience integrating social and scientific responses to save endangered species. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White C (2008) Revolution on the range: the rise of a new ranch in the American west. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Wondolleck J, Yaffee S (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  59. York A, Schoon M (2011a) Collective action on the western range: coping with external and internal threats. Int J Commons 5(2):388–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Sustainability, Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations