The Formation of Large‐scale Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and Institutions

This article explores the emergence of collaborative institutional arrangements for managing natural resources in large-scale and complex resource settings, among numerous political jurisdictions and stakeholders. It examines four regional institutions in the United States: the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the CALFED BayDelta Program, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. While a wealth of literature has looked at the emergence of smaller-scale resource management institutions, and some literature has begun to look at the characteristics and successes of these regional institutions, theory is lacking to explain the formation of these regional institutions. We first introduce three relevant streams of literature—on common pool resources management, on policy entrepreneurs and social capital, and on science and information in policy change—to frame our analysis. The comparisons of the cases point to the importance of integrating key insights from the literature for understanding the formation of collaborative resource governance. We emphasize how science, leadership, and prior organizational experience interact in facilitating institutional change, particularly in the process of raising awareness about resource management problems. In tracing the formation of these institutions, we also identify how external institutional triggers can help spur collaborative governance.

[1]  Kai N. Lee Unconventional Power: Energy Efficiency and Environmental Rehabilitation Under the Northwest Power Act , 1991 .

[2]  Book Review: Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management , 1988 .

[3]  G. Brady Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[4]  E. Ostrom A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997 , 1998, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Mark Lubell,et al.  Collaborative Watershed Management: A View from the Grassroots , 2004 .

[6]  W. Blomquist,et al.  Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwater in Southern California , 1992 .

[7]  Jack L. Walker Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection , 1977, British Journal of Political Science.

[8]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  San Francisco Estuary Project , 1999 .

[9]  C. Holden Chesapeake bay. , 1971, Science.

[10]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  REFORMULATING THE COMMONS , 2000 .

[11]  Eua. Leyes,et al.  Federal water pollution control act (Clean Water Act) , 1995 .

[12]  Howard R. Ernst Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay , 2003 .

[13]  Charles D. Elder,et al.  Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building , 1975 .

[14]  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 .

[15]  Jean-Philippe Platteau,et al.  Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities? , 2000 .

[16]  Oran R. Young,et al.  Global governance : drawing insights from the environmental experience , 1997 .

[17]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions , 1997 .

[18]  G. Dalrymple,et al.  $7.8 Billion for Everglades Restoration: Why Do Environmentalists Look So Worried? , 2003 .

[19]  Bradley C. Karkkainen,et al.  Collaborative Ecosystem Governance: Scale, Complexity, and Dynamism , 2002 .

[20]  Ion Bogdan Vasi,et al.  The Mobilizer's Dilemma: Crisis, Empowerment, and Collective Action , 2003 .

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

[22]  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 .

[23]  J. Fazio,et al.  Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Strategy for Salmon , 1993 .

[24]  W. Stevenson Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity , 2004 .

[25]  Michaell Taylor,et al.  The Communal Resource: Transaction Costs and the Solution of Collective Action Problems , 1993 .

[26]  W. Eichbaum,et al.  Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay , 1991 .

[27]  Melvin J. Dubnick Army Corps of Engineers , 1998 .

[28]  T. Steelman,et al.  Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government-1 , 2004 .

[29]  P. Wright Fixing the Delta: The CALFED Bay-Delta Program and Water Policy Under the Davis Administration , 2001 .

[30]  Carl Hosticka,et al.  Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment , 1995 .

[31]  Institutional Design for the Management of Estuarine Ecosystems: The Chesapeake Bay , 1997 .

[32]  Joseph Cone A Common Fate: Endangered Salmon and the People of the Pacific Northwest , 1994 .

[33]  T. Birkland Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting , 1998, Journal of Public Policy.

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

[35]  J. Cloern,et al.  The Modification of an Estuary , 1986, Science.

[36]  S. Welch Policy Studies Journal , 1981 .

[37]  Gary D. Libecap,et al.  7. The Conditions for Successful Collective Action , 1994 .

[38]  Jack Benjamin CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED). 2000a. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report. Sacramento, California. CALFED. 2000b. Final Programmatic Record of Decision. Sacramento, California. August. , 2006 .

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

[40]  Pm Haas EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES AND INTERNATIONAL-POLICY COORDINATION - INTRODUCTION , 1992 .

[41]  Michael Voss,et al.  The Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: Restoring the Everglades , 2000 .

[42]  John T. Scholz,et al.  Cooperation, Reciprocity, and the Collective-Action Heuristic , 2001 .

[43]  P. Sabin,et al.  The Northwest Salmon Crisis: A Documentary History , 2000 .

[44]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[45]  P. GeevanC National Environment Policy , 2004 .

[46]  Mark Schrope Save our Swamp , 2001, Nature.

[47]  K. Jacobs,et al.  Calfed: An Experiment in Science and Decisionmaking , 2003 .

[48]  John Hines,et al.  Northwest Power Planning Council , 2002 .

[49]  Daniel J. Sherman Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? , 2005 .

[50]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation , 2001 .

[51]  P. Haas Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[52]  Emery Roe,et al.  Reconciling Ecosystem Rehabilitation and Service Reliability Mandates in Large Technical Systems: Findings and Implications of Three Major US Ecosystem Management Initiatives for Managing Human-Dominated Aquatic-Terrestrial Ecosystems , 2002, Ecosystems.

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