Ambio

pp 1–15 | Cite as

Factors driving collaboration in natural resource conflict management: Evidence from Romania

  • Constantina Alina Hossu
  • Ioan Cristian Ioja
  • Lawrence E. Susskind
  • Denisa L. Badiu
  • Anna M. Hersperger
Research Article

Abstract

A critical challenge in natural resource management is to bring all stakeholders together to negotiate solutions to critical problems. However, various collaborative approaches to heading off conflicts and resolving natural resource management disputes have been used. What drives these efforts, however, still needs further research. Our study provides a systematic look at the drivers likely to initiate collaborative problem-solving efforts in four cases in Romania. We use Emerson’s et al. (2012) framework for collaborative governance and multi-value qualitative comparative analysis (mvQCA) to analyze cases involving endangered species, restrictions on forest harvest, conflicts associated with infrastructure development projects, and disputes over the management of environmentally sensitive areas. Our findings contribute to the already existing collaborative governance literature indicating which of the four factors: uncertainty, interdependence, consequential incentives, and leadership, in which combination, are necessary and sufficient to spur collaborative resource management efforts. Our results showed that in Romania the initiation of collaboration is best explained by positive consequential incentives (i.e., financial opportunities) which has determined leaders to take initiative. This study provides additional information for the complicated process of natural resource management which is often overriding collaboration by investigating what enables and constrains collaborative efforts in a country where natural resources were managed and used according to the principles of central planning.

Keywords

Collaboration Consequential incentives Interdependence Leadership mvQCA Uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are given to Silviu Chiriac who helped gather information about the Romanian case studies and to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. Funding was provided by Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research (Grant No. PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-0673) and Romania-U.S. Fulbright Commission (Grant No. 584).

Supplementary material

13280_2018_1016_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (181 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 182 kb)

References

  1. Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2007. Collaborative Governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 543–571.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batusaru, C., A. Otetea, and M.A. Ungureanu. 2015. 7 years of European funding in Romania—Between success and failure. EURINT Proceedings.Google Scholar
  3. Baynes, J., J. Herbohn, C. Smith, R. Fisher, and S. Bray. 2015. Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change 35: 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes, F. 2010. Devolution of environment and resources governance: Trends and future. Environmental Conservation 37: 489–500.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s037689291000072x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, R.R., A. Deletic, and T.H.F. Wong. 2015. How to catalyse collaboration. Nature 525: 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan, T.A., and J.M. Wondolleck. 2002. When irresolvable becomes resolvable: The Quincy library group conflict. In Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: concepts and cases, ed. R.J. Lewicki, B. Gray, and M. Elliott. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, D.S., S.W. Selin, and M.A. Schuett. 1998. Managing public forests: Understanding the role of collaborative planning. Environmental Management 22: 767–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CBEP. 1996. Casco Bay Plan.Google Scholar
  9. Cinque, S. 2015. Collaborative management in wolf licensed hunting: The dilemmas of public managers in moving collaboration forward. Wildlife Biology 21: 157–164.  https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colvin, R.M., G.B. Witt, and J. Lacey. 2015. The social identity approach to understanding socio-political conflict in environmental and natural resources management. Global Environmental Change 34: 237–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conley, A., and M.A. Moore. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 16: 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davenport, M.A., J.E. Leahy, D.H. Anderson, and P.J. Jakes. 2007. Building trust in natural resource management within local communities: A case study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. Environmental Management 39: 353–368.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0016-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, A.L., and R.M. White. 2012. Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management 112: 160–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Meur, G., B. Rihoux, and S. Yamasaki. 2009. Addressing the critiques of QCA. In Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, ed. B. Rihoux, and C. Ragin. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Ebbinghaus, B. 2006. When less is more: selection problems in large-N and small-N cross-national comparisons. In Soziale ungleichheit, kulturelle unterschiede: Verhandlungen des 32. Kongresses der deutschen gesellschaft für soziologie in München. Teilbd. 1 und 2, ed. K.-S. Rehberg, 4013–4021. Verl: Campus-Verl.Google Scholar
  16. Eckerberg, K., T. Bjärstig, and A. Zachrisson. 2015. Incentives for collaborative governance: Top-down and bottom-up initiatives in the Swedish mountain region. Mountain Research and Development 35: 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emerson, K., and T. Nabatchi. 2015. Collaborative governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22: 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EPA. 2007. Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Ilfov.Google Scholar
  20. Floca, I. 2011. Practical aspects of mediation. In Challenges of the knowledge society.Google Scholar
  21. Forest Service. 1993. Sharing ideas of the path taken. Accomplishments of the 1990 RPA program.Google Scholar
  22. Gerber, J.F. 2011. Conflicts over industrial tree plantations in the South: Who, how and why? Global Environmental Change 21: 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, D.G. 2006. Complexity in landscape ecology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grijze, J. 2010. Outsourcing planning. What do consultants do in regional spatial planning in the Netherland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haesebrouck, T. 2016. The added value of multi-value qualitative comparative analysis. Forum 17: 12.Google Scholar
  26. Heikkila, T., and A.K. Gerl. 2005. The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. The Policy Studies Journal 33: 583–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hersperger, A.M., I.C. Ioja, F. Steiner, and C.A. Tudor. 2015. Comprehensive consideration of conflicts in the land-use planning process: A conceptual contribution. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences 10: 5–13.Google Scholar
  28. Hill, R., J. Davies, I.C. Bohnet, C.J. Robinson, K. Maclean, and P.L. Pert. 2015. Collaboration mobilises institutions with scale-dependent comparative advantage in landscape-scale biodiversity conservation. Environmental Science & Policy 51: 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4: 390–405.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hossu, C.A., I.C. Ioja, M.R. Nita, T. Hartel, D.L. Badiu, and A.M. Hersperger. 2017. Need for a cross-sector approach in protected area management. Land Use Policy 69: 586–597.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ide, T. 2015. Why do conflicts over scarce renewable resources turn violent? A qualitative comparative analysis. Global Environmental Change 33: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Imperial, M.T. 2005. Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society 37: 281–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65: 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice 5: 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher. 2010. Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Johnston, E.W., D. Hicks, N. Nan, and J.C. Auer. 2011. Managing the inclusion process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21: 699–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kemmis, D. 2001. This sovereign land. A new vision for governing the west. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  38. Koontz, T.M., and J. Newig. 2014. From planning to implementation: Top-down and bottom-up approaches for collaborative watershed management. Policy Studies Journal 42: 416–442.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Life Ursus Project. 2010. Project reports.Google Scholar
  40. Life Ursus Project. 2011. Strategy for organizing the meetings.Google Scholar
  41. LSM Administration. 2015. The Management plan of Lower Siret Floodplain and the overlapping natural protected areas.Google Scholar
  42. Messier, C., K. Puettmann, E. Filotas, and D. Coates. 2016. Dealing with non-linearity and uncertainty in forest management. Current Forestry Reports 2: 150–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0036-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mikulcak, F., J. Newig, A.I. Milcu, T. Hartel, and J. Fischer. 2013. Integrating rural development and biodiversity conservation in Central Romania. Environmental Conservation 40: 129–137.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892912000392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mostert, E., M. Craps, and C. Pahl-Wost. 2008. Social learning: The key to integrated water resources management? Water International 33: 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nita, A., L. Rozylowicz, S. Manolache, C.M. Ciocănea, I.V. Miu, and V.D. Popescu. 2016. Collaboration networks in applied conservation projects across Europe. PLoS ONE 11: e0164503.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Puscasu, V. 2009. The house of many different ages. In Planning cultures in Europe. Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning, ed. J. Knieling, and F. Othengrafen. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  48. Putna Vrancea Natural Park. 2010. Meeting notes.Google Scholar
  49. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  50. Ragin, C.C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ragin, C.C. 2009. Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, ed. B. Rihoux, and C.C. Ragin, 87–122. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ragin, C.C., and J. Sonnett. 2005. Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and comparative analysis. In Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft, pp. 180–197. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80441-9_9.
  53. Rihoux, B., and C.C. Ragin. 2009. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rozylowicz, L., A. Nita, S. Manolache, C.M. Ciocanea, and V.D. Popescu. 2017. Recipe for success: A network perspective of partnership in nature conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation 38: 21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ryan, M., and G. Smith. 2011. Towards a Comparative analysis of democratic innovations: Lessons from a pilot fs-QCA of participatory budgeting. ECPR General Conference.Google Scholar
  56. Sabatier, P., A. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock. 2005. Swimming upstream. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Schneider, C., and C. Wagemann. 2010. Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology 9: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scott, T. 2015. Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34: 537–566.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stringer, L., and J. Paavola. 2013. Participation in environmental conservation and protected area management in Romania: A review of three case studies. Environmental Conservation 40: 138–146.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stringer, L.C., S.S. Scrieciu, and M.S. Reed. 2009. Biodiversity, land degradation, and climate change: Participatory planning in Romania. Applied Geography 29: 77–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEOG.2008.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Susskind, L. 1981. Citizen participation and consensus building in land use planning. A case study. In The land use policy debate in the United States, ed. J.I. de Neufville. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  62. Susskind, L., and J.L. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  63. Susskind, L., D. Rumore, C. Hulet, and P. Field. 2015. Managing climate risks in coastal communities: Strategies for engagement, readiness and adaptation. New York: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  64. Szabo, E.A., A. Lawrence, C. Iusan, and S. Canney. 2008. Participatory protected area management—A case study from Rodna Mountains National Park, Romania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services & Management 4: 187–199.  https://doi.org/10.3843/Biodiv.4.4:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Terhune, P., and G. Terhune. 1998. Quincy Library Group Case Study.Google Scholar
  66. Thiem, A., and A. Dusa. 2013a. QCA: A package for qualitative comparative analysis. The R Journal 5: 1–11.Google Scholar
  67. Thiem, A., and A. Dusa. 2013b. Qualitative comparative analysis with R: A user’s guide. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tudor, C.A., I.C. Iojă, I. Pǎtru-Stupariu, M.R. Nită, and A.M. Hersperger. 2014. How successful is the resolution of land-use conflicts? A comparison of cases from Switzerland and Romania. Applied Geography 47: 125–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tudor, C.A., I.C. Iojă, L. Rozylowicz, I. Pǎtru-Stupariu, and A.M. Hersperger. 2015. Similarities and differences in the assessment of land-use associations by local people and experts. Land Use Policy 49: 341–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ulibarri, N. 2015. Tracing process to performance of collaborative governance: A comparative case study of federal hydropower licensing. Policy Studies Journal 43: 283–308.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 2003. Collaborative ecosystem planning processes in the United States: Evolution and challenges. Environments 31: 59–72.Google Scholar
  73. Yin, R.K. 2003. Applications of case study research. Second, vol. 34. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  74. Zachrisson, A., and K.B. Lindahl. 2013. Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. Forest Policy and Economics 33: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zurba, M., and M. Trimble. 2014. Youth as the inheritors of collaboration: Crises and factors that influence participation of the next generation in natural resource management. Environmental Science & Policy 42: 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environmental Research and Impact StudiesUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of Urban Studies and PlanningMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Swiss Federal Research Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape, Landscape DynamicsBirmensdorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations