What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management

Many tout the benefits of collaborative environmental management as an alternative to centralized planning and command and control regulation, but the excitement over collaborative processes has not been matched by evidence that these processes actually improve the environment. The most crucial question in collaborative environmental management remains unanswered and often unasked: To what extent does collaboration lead to improved environmental outcomes? We know much about why collaboration is occurring and how collaborative processes and outputs vary. The primary goal of future research on collaborative environmental management should be to demonstrate whether collaboration improves environmental conditions more than traditional processes and newer market-based processes. Collaboration is not a panacea; it is a choice that policy makers and public managers should make based on evidence about expected outcomes.

[1]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The Limits of Consensus , 2007, Science.

[2]  C. Ryan,et al.  Collaborative Partnership Design: The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships , 2006 .

[3]  Tanya Heikkila,et al.  The Formation of Large‐scale Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and Institutions , 2005 .

[4]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking , 2005, American Political Science Review.

[5]  J. Walls,et al.  Seeking Citizens' Views on GM Crops: Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand , 2005 .

[6]  C. S. Holling.  Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management , 2005 .

[7]  T. Koontz,et al.  We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy , 2005 .

[8]  Nina Burkardt,et al.  Watershed Management and Organizational Dynamics: Nationwide Findings and Regional Variation , 2005, Environmental management.

[9]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California , 2005 .

[10]  Cary Coglianese,et al.  Measuring Progress: Program Evaluation of Environmental Policies , 2005 .

[11]  A. George,et al.  Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences , 2005 .

[12]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Are trust and social capital the keys to success? Watershed partnerships in California and Washington , 2005 .

[13]  P. Sabatier.  Swimming upstream : collaborative approaches to watershed management , 2005 .

[14]  Sara Nikolic.  Impacts of state involvement on community-based collaborative watershed management , 2005 .

[15]  T. Lawrence.  Devolution and collaboration in the development of environmental regulations , 2005 .

[16]  Stephen B Page.  Measuring Accountability for Results in Interagency Collaboratives , 2004 .

[17]  Philip Berke,et al.  What Makes a Good Sustainable Development Plan? An Analysis of Factors That Influence Principles of Sustainable Development , 2004 .

[18]  T. Koontz,et al.  One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments , 2004 .

[19]  M. Lubell.  Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action? , 2004 .

[20]  Environmental governance reconsidered : challenges, choices, and opportunities , 2004 .

[21]  R. Fleishman.  Watershed groups in Ohio: the effects of organizational characteristics on political behavior, accomplishments, and perceived effectiveness , 2004 .

[22]  T. Koontz.  The farmer, the planner, and the local citizen in the dell: how collaborative groups plan for farmland preservation , 2003 .

[23]  L. Bingham,et al.  The Assessment of Environmental Outcomes , 2003 .

[24]  P. Ingraham,et al.  Government Performance: Why Management Matters , 2003 .

[25]  Alexander Conley,et al.  Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement , 2003 .

[26]  E. Weber.  Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities , 2003 .

[27]  Craig W. Thomas.  Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity , 2003 .

[28]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington , 2002 .

[29]  C. Coglianese.  Is Satisfaction Success? Evaluating Public Participation in Regulatory Policymaking , 2002 .

[30]  Gregory D. Squires,et al.  Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, & Policy Responses , 2002 .

[31]  D. Roush.  Making collaboration work : lessons from innovation in natural resource management , 2002 .

[32]  Charles M. Schweik,et al.  Using Remote Sensing to Evaluate Environmental Institutional Designs: A Habitat Conservation Planning Example , 2002 .

[33]  N. Rabalais,et al.  Beyond Science into Policy: Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia and the Mississippi River , 2002 .

[34]  Archon Fung,et al.  Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance , 2001 .

[35]  R. Colvile,et al.  The transport sector as a source of air pollution , 2001 .

[36]  Daniel Kemmis,et al.  Across the Great Divide : explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West , 2001 .

[37]  K. Korfmacher.  What's the Point of Partnering? , 2000 .

[38]  Troy D. Abel,et al.  The Limits of Civic Environmentalism , 2000 .

[39]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  People and forests : communities, institutions, and governance , 2000 .

[40]  Mark T. Imperial.  Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework , 1999, Environmental management.

[41]  Cary Coglianese,et al.  The Limits of Consensus: The Environmental Protection System in Transition: Toward a More Desirable Future , 1999 .

[42]  H. Cortner,et al.  The Politics of Ecosystem Management , 1998 .

[43]  M. Schuett,et al.  Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative Planning , 1998, Environmental management.

[44]  C. McCulloch,et al.  Using Science in Habitat Conservation Plans , 1998 .

[45]  K. Korfmacher.  Invisible successes, visible failures: Paradoxes of ecosystem management in the Albemarle‐Pamlico estuarine study , 1998 .

[46]  E. Weber.  Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation , 1998 .

[47]  David Marsh,et al.  Comparing policy networks , 1998 .

[48]  C. Walters.  Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems , 1997 .

[49]  Douglas S. Kenney,et al.  Resource Management at the Watershed Level: An Assessment of the Changing Federal Role in the Emerging Era of Community-Based Watershed Management , 1997 .

[50]  Steven L. Yaffee,et al.  Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment Of Current Experience , 1996 .

[51]  Bruce A. Kirschner,et al.  The watershed protection approach: A framework for ecosystem protection , 1996 .

[52]  Timothy Beatley,et al.  HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING , 1994 .

[53]  R. Putnam,et al.  Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. , 1994 .

[54]  D. John.  Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulation in States and Communities , 1993 .

[55]  Kai N. Lee.  Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment, Kai N. Lee. 1993. Island Press, Washington, DC. 290 pages. ISBN: 1-59963-197-X. $25.00 , 1993 .

[56]  Daniel Kemmis,et al.  Community and Politics of Place , 1990 .

[57]  H. P. White,et al.  The Transport Sector , 1982 .

[58]  H L Ross,et al.  THE CONNECTICUT CRACKDOWN ON SPEEDING: TIME-SERIES DATA IN QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS , 1968 .