Collaborative Watershed Management: A View from the Grassroots

To date, research on collaborative watershed management has paid scant attention to the role of grassroots stakeholders, who are the people that actually use natural resources. This article argues cooperation from grassroots stakeholders is necessary for the success of collaborative management, and outlines three theoretical perspectives to explain cooperation. The validity of these theoretical perspectives is tested using a survey of farmer participation in the Suwannee River Partnership in Florida. The findings suggest farmers’ perceptions of policy effectiveness are largely driven by economic considerations, whereas participation in collaborative management is linked to social capital.

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

[2]  M. Lubell.  Collaborative Institutions, Belief-Systems, and Perceived Policy Effectiveness , 2003 .

[3]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[4]  Mark Schneider,et al.  Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program , 2003 .

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

[6]  John T. Scholz,et al.  Watershed Partnerships and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions , 2002 .

[7]  T. L. Napier,et al.  Use of Soil and Water Protection Practices Among Farmers in Three Midwest Watersheds , 2001, Environmental management.

[8]  Douglas S. Kenney,et al.  The New Watershed Source Book: A Directory and Review of Watershed Initiatives in the Western United States , 2000 .

[9]  John T. Woolley,et al.  The Politics of Watershed Policymaking , 1999 .

[10]  S. Finkel,et al.  Rational Choice and the Dynamics of Collective Political Action: Evaluating Alternative Models with Panel Data , 1998, American Political Science Review.

[11]  Denise Scheberle,et al.  Federalism and Environmental Policy: Trust and the Politics of Implementation , 1997 .

[12]  Joseph L Schafer,et al.  Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data , 1997 .

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

[14]  P. Furlong.  Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy , 1994 .

[15]  D. Rucinski.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[16]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Policy Change And Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach , 1993 .

[17]  J. Coleman.  Foundations of Social Theory , 1990 .

[18]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Governing the commons , 1990 .

[19]  Steven E. Finkel,et al.  Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[20]  T. L. Napier,et al.  Attitudes toward a proposed soil conservation program , 1988 .

[21]  C. Thraen,et al.  Willingness of land operators to participate in government-sponsored soil erosion control programs , 1988 .

[22]  C. Thraen,et al.  Adoption of soil conservation practices by farmers in erosion‐prone areas of Ohio: The application of logit modeling , 1988 .

[23]  M. Peffley,et al.  How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[24]  C. Thraen,et al.  Environmental concern and the adoption of farm technologies , 1986 .

[25]  T. L. Schwartz.  The Logic of Collective Action , 1986 .

[26]  C. Thraen,et al.  Factors affecting adoption of conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio , 1984 .

[27]  C. Runge,et al.  Institutions and the Free Rider: The Assurance Problem in Collective Action , 1984, The Journal of Politics.

[28]  M. Olson,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action , 1965 .

[29]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .