Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 195–212 | Cite as

Evaluating U.S. National Heritage Areas: Theory, Methods, and Application

  • Daniel LavenEmail author
  • Curtis Ventriss
  • Robert Manning
  • Nora Mitchell
Article

Abstract

Like many governmental actors in recent decades, the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has operated increasingly through partnerships with other state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, and private sector corporations. Perhaps the most salient example of this trend toward partnerships is the rapid growth and development of national heritage areas (NHAs). Since the first NHA received congressional designation in 1984, NHAs have become an increasingly popular strategy for protecting and managing landscapes. To date, congressional designation has been granted to 49 NHAs, making them one of the fastest growing initiatives involving the NPS. Despite this growth, no prior research has examined the efficacy or effectiveness of the NHA model. This article introduces the NHA concept, while reviewing the literature on evaluation research and its application to protected area management. We then offer an NHA program theory model for evaluating NHAs. The model was developed using a theory-based, process evaluation approach, along with 90 qualitative interviews conducted at three study sites: Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, MA-RI (BLAC); Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, PA (DELE); and Cane River National Heritage Area, LA (CANE). We conclude by discussing the key challenges and implications associated with developing a long-term research agenda for evaluating NHAs.

Keywords

National heritage areas Evaluation research Program theory model Networks 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Brenda Barrett, Michael Creasey, Allen Saches, and Nancy Morgan for their commitment to applying evaluation to advance our understanding of NHAs and their thoughtful contributions to the work presented here. Financial support for this research was provided by the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Cane River National Heritage Area, National Park Service Conservation Study Institute, and the University of Vermont.

References

  1. Allen PM (2001) A complex systems approach to learning in adaptive networks. International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2):149–180Google Scholar
  2. Allison G (1969) Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crises. American Political Science Review 63:689–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New York, NY, p 223Google Scholar
  4. Barrett B, Mitchell N (Eds) (2003) Stewardship of heritage areas. The George Wright Forum 20:2, 88 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickman L (2000) Summing up program theory. New Directions for Evaluation 87:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogason P, Musso JA (2006) The democratic prospects of network governance. American Review of Public Administration 36:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booher DE (2008) Civic engagement as collaborative complex adaptive networks. In: Yang K, Bergrud E (eds) Civic engagement in a network society. IAP, Charlotte, pp 111–148Google Scholar
  8. Brechin SR, Wilshusen PB, Fortwangler CL, West PC (2002) Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 15:41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brick P, Snow D, Van de Wetering S (eds) (2001) Across the great divide: explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Washington, DC, Island Press, p 286Google Scholar
  10. Brown J, Kothari A, Menon M (eds) (2002) Local communities and protected areas [Special issue]. Parks 12:2, 104 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M (eds) (2005) The protected landscape approach: linking nature, culture and community. IUCN, Cambridge, p 268Google Scholar
  12. Coffey A, Atkinson P (1996) Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research designs. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, p 206Google Scholar
  13. Crew RE, Anderson MR (2003) Accountability and performance in charter schools in Florida: a theory-based evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 24:189–213Google Scholar
  14. Cronon W (ed) (1995) Uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature. Norton, New York, p 561Google Scholar
  15. De Rynck F, Voets J (2006) Democracy in area-based policy networks: the case of Ghent. American Review of Public Administration 36:58–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dearden P, Bennett M, Johnston J (2005) Trends in global protected area governance, 1992–2002. Environmental Management 36:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Derney CP, Eugster JG, Wilson JW (2005) Social system complexity. In: Starik M, Sanjay S, Egri C, Bunch R (eds) New horizons in research on sustainable organizations. Greenleaf, Sheffield, pp 99–124Google Scholar
  18. Donaldson SI, Gooler LE (2002) Theory-driven evaluation of the work and health initiative: a focus on winning new jobs. American Journal of Evaluation 23:341–347Google Scholar
  19. Dudley N, Hockings M, Stolton S (1999) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area management. In: Stolton S, Dudley N (eds) Partnerships for protection. Earthscan, London, pp 249–257Google Scholar
  20. Ervin J (2003a) Rapid assessment of protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience 53:833–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ervin J (2003b) Protected area assessments in perspective. BioScience 53:819–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ervin J (2004) The worldwide fund for nature’s rapid Assessment and prioritization of protected area management (RAPPAM) methodology. In: Camarda I, Manfredo M, Mulas F, Teel T (eds) Global challenges of parks and protected area management. Delfino, Sassari, pp 193–199Google Scholar
  23. Eugster J (2003) Evolution of the heritage areas movement. The George Wright Forum 20:41–49Google Scholar
  24. Fischer F (2006) Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: the cultural politics of discursive space. American Review of Public Administration 36:19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fu B, Wang K, Lu Y, Liu S, Ma K, Chen L (2004) Entangling the complexity of protected area management: the case of the Wolong Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern China. Environmental Management 33:788–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goggin M (1986) The too few cases too many variables problem in implementational research. Western Political Quarterly 38:328–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldsmith S, Eggers WD (2004) Governing by network: the new shape of the public sector. Brookings, Washington, DC, p 224Google Scholar
  28. Goodman P (2003) Assessing management effectiveness and setting priorities in protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal. BioScience 53:843–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) (2003) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 307Google Scholar
  30. Hamin EM (2001) The US National Park Service’s partnership parks: collaborative responses to middle landscapes. Land Use Policy 18:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harmon D (ed) (2001) Crossing boundaries in park management. Proceedings of the 11th George wright society conference on research and resource management in parks and on public lands, George Wright Society, Hancock, MI, 427 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Healey P, de Magalhaes C, Madanipour A, Pendlebury J (2003) Place, identity, and local politics: analysing initiatives in deliberative governance. In: Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 60–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hockings M (2003) Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. BioScience 53:823–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N (2000) Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of protected areas (world commission on protected areas best practice protected area guidelines series no. 6). IUCN, Gland, p 119Google Scholar
  35. Hudson B (2004) Analysing network partnerships: Benson revisited. Public Management Review 6:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Innes JE, Booher DE (2003) Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. In: Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. IUCN (1993) Parks for life: report of the IVth world congress on national parks and protected areas. IUCN, Gland, p 260Google Scholar
  38. Jones C, Hesterley WS, Borgatti SP (1997) A general theory of network governance exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review 22:911–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karr JR (2000) Health, integrity, and biological assessment: the importance of measuring whole things. In: Pimentel D, Westra W, Noss R (eds) Ecological integrity: integrating environment, conservation, and health. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 209–226Google Scholar
  40. Knight RL, Landres PB (eds) (1998) Stewardship across boundaries. Island Press, Washington DC, p 371Google Scholar
  41. 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, DC, p 210Google Scholar
  42. Krebs V, Holley J (2004) Building sustainable communities through social network development. The Nonprofit Quarterly 11:46–53Google Scholar
  43. Kumer N, Stern LW, Anderson JC (1993) Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal 36(6):1633–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lane MB (2001) Affirming new directions in planning theory: comanagement of protected areas. Society and Natural Resources 14:657–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawless MW, Moore RA (1989) Interorganizational systems in public service delivery: a new application of the dynamic network framework. Human Relations 42:1167–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leeuw FL (2003) Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation 24:16–21Google Scholar
  47. Mandell MP (1984) Application of social network analysis to the implementation of a complex project. Human Relations 37:659–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manning R (2007) Carrying capacity of parks and protected areas: commons without tragedy. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 311Google Scholar
  49. Mathison S (ed) (2005) Encyclopedia of evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, p 481Google Scholar
  50. McCool D (ed) (1995) Public policy theories, models, and concepts: an anthology. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, p 412Google Scholar
  51. McKinney M, Johnson S (2009) Working across boundaries: people, nature, and regions. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, p 162Google Scholar
  52. Miles M, Huberman A (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book. Sage, Thousand Oaks, p 338Google Scholar
  53. Milward H, Wamsley GL (1985) Policy subsystems, networks and the tools of public management. In: Hanf K, Toonen T (eds) Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 105–130Google Scholar
  54. Minteer B, Manning R (eds) (2003) Reconstructing conservation: finding common ground. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 417Google Scholar
  55. Mitchell N, Brown J, Beresford M (2005) Conclusions–the protected landscape approach: conservation for a sustainable future. In: Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M (eds) The protected landscape approach: linking nature, culture and community. IUCN, Gland, pp 231–244Google Scholar
  56. Murray GD (2005) Multifaceted measures of success in two Mexican marine protected areas. Society and Natural Resources 18:889–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Musso JA, Weare C, Oxtas N, Loges WE (2006) Neighborhood governance reform and networks of community power in Los Angeles. American Review of Public Administration 36:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. National Park Service (2003) Branching out. Eastern National, Fort Washington, p 33Google Scholar
  59. National Park Service (2004) http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/FAQ/INDEX.HTM. Accessed 15 Feb 2004
  60. National Park System Advisory Board (2006) Charting a future for national heritage areas. National Park System Advisory Board, Indiana, p 32Google Scholar
  61. Nohria N, Eccles RG (eds) (1992) Networks and organizations: structure, form, & action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, p 544Google Scholar
  62. Noss R (1991) Wilderness recovery: thinking big in restoration ecology. In: Callicott JB, Nelson MP (eds) The great new wilderness debate. University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp 521–539Google Scholar
  63. Parrish JD, Braun DP, Unnasch RS (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience 53:851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Patton M (2002) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, p 598Google Scholar
  65. Phillips A (2002) Management guidelines for IUCN Category V protected areas protected landscapes/seascapes (world commission on protected areas best practice protected area guidelines series no. 9). IUCN, Gland, p 121Google Scholar
  66. Phillips A (2003) Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for protected areas. The George Wright Forum 20:8–32Google Scholar
  67. Provan KG, Milward HB (1995) A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Provan KG, Milward HB (2001) Do networks really work: a framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review 61:414–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rabinowitz A (1999) Nature’s last bastions: sustainable use of our tropical forests may be little more than wishful thinking. Natural History 108:70–72Google Scholar
  70. Richardson J (2000) Partnerships in communities: reweaving the fabric of rural america. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 344Google Scholar
  71. Ruddin PR (2006) You can generalize stupid! Social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry 12:797–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Russ-Eft D, Preskill H (2001) Evaluation in organizations: a systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, p 474Google Scholar
  73. Selin S (2004) Natural resource partnerships. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Bruyere BL, Field DR, Brown PJ (eds) Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge: prepared for the 10th international symposium on society and resource management. Modern Litho, Jefferson, pp 137–157Google Scholar
  74. Shadie P, Sheppard D (2004) Towards a new paradigm of protected areas in the 21st century. In: Camarda I, Manfredo M, Mulas F, Teel T (eds) Global challenges of parks and protected area management. Delfino, Sassari, pp 439–462Google Scholar
  75. Sørensen E (2006) Metagovernance: the changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. American Review of Public Administration 36:98–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stenseke M (In Press) Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use PolicyGoogle Scholar
  77. Stoker G (2006) Public value management: a new narrative for networked governance? American Review of Public Administration 36:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stone D (2002) Policy paradox: the art of political decision making. Norton and Company, New York, p 428Google Scholar
  79. Turnbull B (2002) Program theory building: a strategy for deriving cumulative evaluation knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation 23:16–20Google Scholar
  80. US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2003) Oversight on National heritage areas, national parks hearing. http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1128. Accessed 6 Nov 2008
  81. Ventriss C (1987) Two critical views of public affairs. Administration and Society 19:25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ventriss C (2002) A democratic public and administrative thought: a public perspective. In: Jong SJ (ed) Rethinking administrative thought: the challenge of the new century. Praeger, Westport, pp 93–104Google Scholar
  83. Ventriss C, Luke J (1988) Organizational learning and public policy: towards a substantive perspective. The American Review of Public Administration 18:337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wang GA, Anderson DH, Jakes PI (2002) Heritage management in the U. S. Forest Service: a Mount Hood national forest case study society and natural resources, vol. 15. pp 359–369Google Scholar
  85. Weiss C (1998) Evaluation, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 372Google Scholar
  86. Weitzman BC, Silver D, Dillman K (2002) Integrating a comparison group design into a theory of change evaluation: the case of the urban health initiative. American Journal of Evaluation 23:371–386Google Scholar
  87. Wilshusen PB, Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, West PC (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wondolleck J, Yaffee S (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons learned from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DC, p 277Google Scholar
  89. Yampolskaya S, Nesman TM, Hernandez M, Koch D (2004) Using concept mapping to develop a logic model and articulate a program theory: a case example. American Journal of Evaluation 25:191–207Google Scholar
  90. Yanow D (2003) Accessing local knowledge. In: Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 228–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yin R (2003) Case study research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, p 179Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Laven
    • 1
    Email author
  • Curtis Ventriss
    • 2
  • Robert Manning
    • 2
  • Nora Mitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.National Park ServiceConservation Study InstituteWoodstockUSA
  2. 2.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations