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.
The illusions of control area is reviewed, and 5 conditions that influence control judgments are identified: skill-related factors, success or failure emphasis, need for the outcome, mood, and the intrusion of reality. It is proposed that individuals use a control heuristic that includes perceptions of intentionality and connection. Judgments of intentionality are based on foreseeability, ability to produce the effect, and valence of the outcome. Judgments of connection are based on the perceived association between the action and the outcome, which includes temporal, shared meaning, and predictive association. Effects of motives to overestimate, underestimate, and have accurate assessments of control are explained, using the concepts of hindsight bias, connection, and counterfactuals. In addition, the relation between the control heuristic and illusory correlation research and applications of the control heuristic to coping with chronic illness are explored.
The decline of public trust in government in the United States is well documented. We know comparatively little, however, about how to maintain or restore the public’s trust. This article attempts to advance our understanding of trust in government by addressing a relatively narrow question: How can we create, maintain, or restore public trust in government agencies and their employees? The article reviews several conceptions of trust and lays out a series of hypotheses regarding means for building and maintaining public trust. Although the hypotheses have not been empirically tested, they are grounded in well-established social science theories and suggest several avenues for future research.
The public policy and public management literatures together support a vibrant discussion of collaborative governance. Much of this scholarship takes a broad perspective focusing on questions such as what collaborative governance is; why collaborative governance emerges; or why individuals and organizations choose to participate in voluntary, nonbinding collaborative efforts. This paper focuses specifically on the role of public managers as leaders, encouragers, and followers of collaborative governance. We examine the decision calculus factoring into the choice of collaborative governance as a toolbox for achieving desired policy goals. That is, we ask why public managers choose to devote public resources to collaborative governance. What motivates public managers to pick up the phone, write a check, or otherwise change their current behavior? We develop 20 propositions that contextualize this choice in terms of two overarching questions: (i) How do institutional structure and organizational strategy intersect to influence the ways in which public managers design and implement collaborative governance?; and (ii) Why do public managers choose particular roles within collaborative institutions? In doing so, we demonstrate how the public policy and public management literatures can be coupled to better understand a theoretical issue that each research body struggles to encapsulate in isolation.KEY WORDS: collaborative governance, policy tools, public management 191 0190-292X V C 2016 Policy Studies Organization
ABSTRACT. Climate change will increasingly challenge ecosystem managers' ability to protect species diversity and maintain ecosystem function. In response, the National Park Service and the United States Forest Service have promoted climate change adaptation as a management strategy to increase ecosystem resilience to changing climatic conditions. However, very few examples of completed adaptation plans or projects exist. Here, we examine managers' perceptions of internal and external institutional barriers to implementing adaptation strategies. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n=32) with regional managers and agency staff in six park and forest units in Washington State. We found that internal barriers, including unclear mandates from superiors and bureaucratic rules and procedures, are perceived as greater constraints than external barriers related to existing federal environmental laws. Respondents perceived process-oriented environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, as enablers of adaptation strategies, and prescriptive laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, as barriers. Our results suggest that climate change adaptation is more often discussed than pursued, and that institutional barriers within agencies limit what can be accomplished.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.