Explaining Institutional Change in Tough Cases of Collaboration: “Ideas” in the Blackfoot Watershed

Abstract

Current theories of community‐based collaborative governance arrangements rely on the presence (or absence) of certain antecedent community conditions as well as incentives for institutional change deriving from the sociopolitical and economic environment. The combination of antecedent conditions and incentives is helpful in understanding why collaboratives emerge and succeed in “easy” cases (strong incentives, conducive antecedent conditions). Yet the combination is of little help in understanding the institutional change puzzle for collaboratives in “tough” cases (strong incentives, poor antecedent conditions). Examination of a “tough” case in the Blackfoot watershed (Montana), which eventually blossomed into a successful collaborative, shows the importance of a particular set of new ideas, or shared norms, around which participants coalesced. These new ideas for understanding public problems, the community itself, and the relationships among stakeholders, became a broad conceptual framework for guiding stakeholder interaction as they attempted to manage the many public problems facing the watershed.

Beer, beef, and boards: the role of intermediaries in payment for ecosystem services arrangements in northwestern Montana

“…The Blackfoot watershed faces significant ecological challenges, including conservation of threatened and endangered species, dewatered streams, and invasive weeds (Weber 2009). It has also long been home to a robust rangeland culture with numerous family farms and ranches.…”

Unleashing the Potential of Collaborative Governance Arrangements: Getting to Robust Durability in the Blackfoot Valley

“…In short, in 1990 Stone and Neudecker faced a scenario in which the sheer complexity of trying to manage across the entire 1.5 million acre landscape was daunting, the condition of natural resource problems was poor and getting worse, the scientific information needed to move forward effectively was lacking, the community fabric was in tatters, with distrust and vindictiveness replacing productive discussion and collective problem solving, and development pressures were relentless and likely to grow (Ash Institute, 2006;Backus, 2006;Weber, 2009). …”

“…Early on the BC purposively sought to "go slow and be pragmatic" as a way to build a foundation grounded in restored trust and an integrative culture capable of fomenting the kind of change in existing social structures that, in this particular case, accepts and focuses on a cooperative, holistic, interconnected, watershed-wide approach to management. Building this foundation of trust and a common mission in the Blackfoot watershed necessitated the adoption of new ideas crucial to changing the social structure, and a strategic, common sense approach to problem solving challenges in the first few years of the collaborative (Weber, 2009;2011). Yet, once the foundation for collaboration was built, getting to robust durability relied on a series of other key variables--the character of the organization, continuity of leadership, a multi-faceted managerial strategy, and the application of a systematic fiscal strategy.…”

Science, Society, and Water Resources in New Zealand: Recognizing and Overcoming a Societal Impasse

“…This is because, as the recent scholarly literature makes clear, a collaborative, deliberative engagement with stakeholders of place facilitates the discovery of common ground, creates ownership in joint decisions, and increases trust, with resulting benefits in the sustainable use and management of natural resources (e.g., Dietz and Stern 2009;GAO 2008;Kates et al 2001;Ostrom 1990;Warner 2007;. The key challenge thus becomes facilitating a transition from the adversarial subsystem dynamics to a collaborative one capable of effective, long-term conflict resolution (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999, 150;Mitchell 2007;Tattersall 2010;Weber 1998Weber , 2009. Once the plan has been formulated and agreed to on a consensus basis, then ECan, which will have been involved along each step of the collaborative process, can implement it via their RMA and Local Government Act (LGA) mandates.…”