Environmental Management

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 487–500 | Cite as

A Typology of Collaboration Efforts in Environmental Management

Article

Abstract

Collaboration involves stakeholders and the public in a process of consensus building to address some of the most difficult environmental management problems facing society today. Collaborative groups vary widely, ranging from small watershed councils to regional ecosystem collaboratives to groups addressing large-scale policy issues. While these collaboratives all match the common principles of collaboration, a closer examination reveals many differences. Using institutional theories about levels of decision making provides a way of classifying collaboratives along a spectrum from action level to organizational level to policy level. This typology is applied to thirty-six collaboration case studies in Australia and the United States that were investigated over a series of years through interviews, observation, document analysis, and surveys. The application reveals different tendencies among the case types in terms of population, size, problem significance, institutional setting, and focus of activities. The typology also reveals functional differences in the types of stakeholders involved, the management arrangements for implementation, and the approaches to implementing change. This typology can help practitioners better understand the challenges and appropriate types of collaborations for different settings. It helps highlight differences in the role of government and decentralization of power. It distinguishes the different theoretical foundations for different types of collaboratives. Finally, it elucidates the different evaluation approaches for different types of collaboratives.

Keywords

Collaboration Ecosystem management Community based natural resources management Grass roots environmental management 

References

  1. Agranoff R, McGuire M (2003) Collaborative public management. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, p 219Google Scholar
  2. Alexander ER (1995) How organizations act together: interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Gordon and Breach Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Altman JA, Petkus E Jr. (1994) Toward a stakeholder-based policy process: An application of the social marketing perspective to environmental policy development. Policy Sciences 27(1):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnstein SR (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216–224Google Scholar
  5. Bardach E (1998) Getting Agencies to Work Together. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellamy J, Ross H, Ewing S, Meppem T (2002) Integrated catchment management: learning from the Australian experience for the Murray-Darling Basin. Sustainable Ecosystems, CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientifica and Industrial Research Organization), Canberra, Australia, p 227Google Scholar
  7. Bemelmans-Videc M-L, Rist RC, Vedung E (1998) Carrots, sticks & sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, USA p 280Google Scholar
  8. Bender T (1978) Community and social change in America. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, xiii, p 159Google Scholar
  9. Bidwell RD, Ryan CM (2006) Collaborative Partnership Design: The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships. Society & Natural Resources 19(9):827–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bingham G (1986) Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. Conservation Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryson J (1988) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell A (1994) Landcare: communities shaping the land and the future. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, New South Wales, p 344Google Scholar
  13. Center for Watershed Protection (1998) Rapid watershed planning handbook: a comprehensive guide for managing urbanizing watersheds. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, NDGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng AS, Daniels SE (2005) Getting to the “we”: Examining the relationship between geographic scale and ingroup emergence in collaborative watershed planning. Human Ecology Review 12(1):30–43Google Scholar
  15. Clark BT, Burkardt N, King MD (2005) Watershed management and organizational dynamics: Nationwide findings and regional variation. Environmental Management 36(2):297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colby SM, Murrell W (1998) Child welfare and substance abuse services: from barriers to collaboration. In: Hampton RL, Senatore V, Gullotta TP (eds) Substance abuse, family violence and child welfare. Bridging perspectives. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 188–219Google Scholar
  17. Colosi T (1983) Negotiation in the public and private sectors: a core model. American Behavioral Scientist 27(2):229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cortner HJ, Moote MA (1999) The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Curtis A, Shindler B, Wright A (2002) Sustaining local watershed initiatives: Lessons from Landcare and Watershed Councils. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(5):1207–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elmore RF (1982) Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. In: Williams W (ed) Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues. Chatham House Publishers, Inc., Chatham, NJ, pp 18–35Google Scholar
  21. Gericke KL, Sullivan J (1994) Public participation and appeals of forest service plans-an empirical examination. Society and Natural Resources 7(2):125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gray B (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregg F, Born SM, Lord WB, Waterstone M (1991) Institutional Response to a Changing Water Policy Environment. Tempe, Arizona: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. Report nr U.S.G.S. Grant #14-08-0001-G1639Google Scholar
  24. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  25. Hutchinson J, Vidal AC, Putnam R, Light I, Souza Briggs Xd, Rohe WM, Gress J, Woolcock M (2004) Symposium: Using Social Capital to Help Integrate Planning Theory, Research, and Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2):50Google Scholar
  26. Imperial MT (1999) Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management 24(4):449–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Innes JE, Booher DE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4):412–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Innes JE, Gruber J, Neuman M, Thompson R (1994) Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building. California Policy Seminar, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenney DS (2000) Arguing about consensus: examining the case against Western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, p 72Google Scholar
  30. Lane MB (2003) Participation, decentralization, and civil society: Indigenous rights and democracy in environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(4):360–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lang R (1986) Achieving Integration in Resource Planning. In: Lang R (ed) Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management. The Banff Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp 27–50Google Scholar
  32. Mackenzie SH (1996) Integrated resource planning and management: The ecosystem approach in the Great Lakes basin. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 235Google Scholar
  33. Mandell M (1999) The impact of collaboratives: Changing the face of public policy through networks and network structures. Policy studies review 16(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Margerum RD (1999) Implementing integrated planning and management: A typology of approaches. Australian Planner 36(3):155–161Google Scholar
  35. Margerum RD, Born SM (2000) Co-ordination for environmental management: a framework for analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1):5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazmanian DA, Sabatier PA (1983) Implementation and public policy. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL, pp 18–48Google Scholar
  37. McCloskey M (2001) Is this the course you want to be on? Society and Natural Resources 14(4):627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyers E, Fischman R, Marsh A (1995) Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program: Wetlands protectin and future growth. In: Porter DR, Salvesen DA (eds) Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife: Issues and examples. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 181–202Google Scholar
  39. Molnar JJ, Rogers DL (1982) Interorganizational Coordination in Environmental Management: Process, Strategy, and Objective. In: Mann DE (ed) Environmental Policy Implementation. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp 95–108Google Scholar
  40. Moore EA, Koontz TM (2003) A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources 16(5):451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moseley C (1999) New Ideas, Old Institutions: Environment, Community, and State in the Pacific Northwest [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Yale University, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Toole LJ, Montjoy JRS (1984) Interorganizational Policy Implementation: A Theoretical Perspective. Public Administration Review 44(6):491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ostrom E (1986) A Method of Institutional Analysis. In: Kaufmann FX, Majone G, Ostrom V (eds) Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector. Walter de Gruyter, New York, NY, pp 501–523Google Scholar
  44. Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New York, p 541Google Scholar
  45. Roberts NC, Bradley RT (1991) Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: a study of public policy initiation at the state level. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2):209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenbaum WA (1998) Environmental politics and policy. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington, DC, p 384Google Scholar
  47. Rosenberg S, Margerum RD in press. Landowner motivations for watershed restoration: lessons from five watersheds. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (accepted 11/2007)Google Scholar
  48. Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith HC, Lawlor EF (1996) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Journal of policy analysis and management: [the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management] 15(1):11Google Scholar
  49. Sabatier P, Leach WD, Lubell M, Pelkey NW (2005) Theoretical frameworks explaining partnership success. In: Sabatier P, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT, Cambridge, Mass, pp 173–199Google Scholar
  50. Sabatier PA (2005) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT, Cambridge, Mass xvi, p 327Google Scholar
  51. San Francisco Estuary Project (1993) San Francisco Estuary Project Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. San Francisco Estuary Project, Oakland, CA, p 236Google Scholar
  52. Schlager E (1995) Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences 28(3):243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Selin S, Chavez D (1995) Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management 19(2):189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith LG, Nell CY, Prystupa MV (1997) The Converging Dynamics of Interest Representation in Resources Management. Environmental Management 21(2):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sommarstrom S (1999) An evaluation of selected watershed councils in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Sari Sommarstrom & Associates; Prepared for Trout Unlimited and Pacific Rivers Council, Etna, CAGoogle Scholar
  56. Susskind L, Cruikshank J (1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  57. Weber EP (2003) Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 317Google Scholar
  58. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  59. Zafonte M, Sabatier P (2004) Short-term versus long-term coalitions in the policy process: automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. The Policy Studies Journal 32(1):75–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management1209 University of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations