Exploring the Functions of Different Forms of Trust in Collaborative Natural Resource Management

Coleman, Kimberly; Stern, Marc J.

doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1364452

Cited by 66 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The action requiring the report on IRC construction compromises the "shared motivation" dynamic that Emerson et al ( 2012 ) describe as essential to a collaborative governance framework, where shared motivation consists of trust, mutual understanding, internal legitimacy, and shared commitment. Coleman and Stern ( 2018 ) suggest that the absence of procedural trust can also lead to diffi culties in collaborative groups recruiting and retaining members. As the committee, the USACE, and FWS implement the adaptive management framework it will be essential for committee leadership and the convening agencies to foster discussions among members exploring how constituent interests can be met within the collaborative framework of the committeewithout resorting to other strategies.…”

Section: Finalizing the Management Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fisheries Volume 45 Number 2 February 2020

2020

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Finalizing the Management Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fisheries Volume 45 Number 2 February 2020

2020

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Trust has been studied in a wide spectrum of disciplines ranging from fields such as sociology and organisational studies to environmental governance and natural resource management [24,25]. Consequently, many conceptualisations of trust and perspectives on the study of trust have emerged that contribute to the understanding of different aspects of trust.…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trust in institutions, also referred to as systems trust or confidence, is often defined as the unconscious expectation that institutions will work as they always did, and is based on long-standing experiences of the functioning of these institutions [47,48]. Such trust is partly based on their procedural capacity, i.e., on procedural trust, as well as more generalised or dispositional forms of trust [24,27]. Well-designed institutional arrangements enhance the stability of institutions, giving scope for further variations or specifications that fit specific contexts or cooperation contexts [49].…”

Section: Institutional Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such shared norms may evolve into informal and formal rules, supporting social exchange, and promoting institutional trust [54]. However, in other contexts, a mismatch can occur as institutional trust may prevail, but trust in a person representing the institution (e.g., government and government official) may be absent (or the other way around) [24,28]. Coleman and Stern (2018) state that the possible configurations between the two are nearly endless, especially as such relations refer to specific trust on different levels and in specific trust contexts.…”

Section: The Interrelation Between Institutional Trust and Interpersomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trusting the People and the System. The Interrelation Between Interpersonal and Institutional Trust in Collective Action for Agri-Environmental Management

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agri-environmental schemes have been introduced in numerous countries to combat biodiversity loss in agrarian landscapes that are important for both food production and biodiversity. The successful operation of such schemes depends strongly upon trust between actors involved, as well as trust in institutions that govern these schemes. However, the interplay between interpersonal and institutional trust in the context of collective action for agri-environmental management is not well understood. To address this question, we explore the case of agri-environmental management in the province of Drenthe (in The Netherlands), where a new policy model was implemented. This case shows how both institutional design and institutional performance critically influence trust dynamics. Under the old policy model, farmers struggled with auditing and control, which fostered mistrust and hampered collective action. Under the new model, a landscape approach, more responsibilities were delegated to farmers, and more room was created for interaction, which fostered trust both between actors and in institutions. Based on our findings, we conclude that institutional designs that reflect trust in the actors can foster interpersonal and institutional trust that, in turn, facilitates collective action. However, old arrangements can also create path dependencies that limit trust development and impede collective action for agri-environmental management.Sustainability 2019, 11, 7022 2 of 18 agri-environmental policies are generally considered to be ineffective [2]. One of the main objections is that agri-environmental schemes are often too heavily based on management by individual farmers, while a collective landscape approach to conserve biodiversity that is carefully designed and targeted is required [1,2].The lack of effectiveness and the need for collective action at landscape-level were some of the most important reasons behind the reform of the Netherlands' agri-environmental policy in 2016. Under the subsequent new policy model, agri-environmental schemes can only be implemented via regional farmers' collectives. Through these collectives, farmers cooperate to achieve agri-environmental objectives at landscape-level. In the new model, the collectives incorporate agreements, to clarify which measures are adopted on which parcels of land to achieve the collective objectives. The Netherlands was not the only EU country that adopted agri-environmental schemes in which farmers' groups played a role, as such an approach became possible under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (2014-2020) as groups of farmers became eligible for CAP payments (EU regulation 1305/2013, article 35) [5].The new model, thus, aims to organise collective action in a particular area, rather than to pay individual farmers for adopting voluntary measures, each on their own land. The long-term performance of this new policy model depends, inter alia, upon the participation of a group of farmers. Studies have shown that the willingness to parti...

show abstract

“…Coleman and Stern () describe four forms of trust that contribute to successful collaborations in multi‐stakeholder groups: dispositional, affinitive, rational, and procedural . All four of these developed in the first decade of MRRIC and remain critical to its sustainability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Involvement in Natural Resource Decisions: The Missouri River

Mac¹,

Palmer

2020

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 authorized creation of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC) to provide recommendations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on a recovery and mitigation plan to avoid jeopardy of three endangered species (Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus, interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos, and piping plover Charadrius melodus). Formation of the MRRIC in 2007 ushered in a new era of federal, state, tribal, and nongovernmental stakeholder collaboration in the river basin following nearly 20 years of litigation and legislative actions in Congress related to management of and operations on the river. Over a decade, through its deliberations, MRRIC has been instrumental in influencing the USACE endangered species recovery and mitigation efforts. The diversity of MRRIC membership proved beneficial when examining the socioeconomic impacts of river operations. However, this diversity also presented challenges to the communication of technical issues facing recovery of imperiled species, especially the Pallid Sturgeon. By instituting an independent science panel trusted by MRRIC members, the committee advanced key recommendations to the USACE in the development of an adaptive management plan. Unfortunately, at two key points in the past decade, members of MRRIC opted to work outside of the committee construct, engaging in legislative strategies to limit potential recovery actions. This paper describes actions by MRRIC that have benefited the USACE recovery effort and limitations within the committee that in turn have constrained the recovery effort.

show abstract

Exploring the Functions of Different Forms of Trust in Collaborative Natural Resource Management

Cited by 66 publications

References 19 publications

Fisheries Volume 45 Number 2 February 2020

Fisheries Volume 45 Number 2 February 2020

Trusting the People and the System. The Interrelation Between Interpersonal and Institutional Trust in Collective Action for Agri-Environmental Management

Stakeholder Involvement in Natural Resource Decisions: The Missouri River

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About