How Collaborative Governance Practitioners Can Assess the Effectiveness of Collaborative Environmental Governance, While Also Evaluating Their Own Services

Robinson, Trevor; Kern, Michael; Sero, Rebecca; Thomas, Craig W.

doi:10.1080/08941920.2019.1668990

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several theoretical frameworks are available for evaluating the process and outcomes of collaborative environmental governance (e.g., Leach and Pelkey 2002; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015; Robinson et al. 2020). Considering that SGMA is still in its planning phase, and environmental outcomes cannot be assessed until the mandated GSPs have been written and implemented, our current focus is evaluating SGMA on procedural grounds.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: The First Five Years of Governance and Planning

Leach

Tang

2021

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

California’s landmark 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local officials to form new Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and to write new groundwater sustainability plans capable of eliminating overdraft within 20 years. To assess progress achieved during SGMA’s first five years of implementation, we surveyed officials who manage or participate in GSA governance. The most common obstacles to GSA formation have involved horizontal and network governance issues such as too many diverse interests or lack of trust among stakeholders. The most common obstacles to groundwater planning include a lack of financial resources and the requirement to coordinate plans among GSAs in the same basin. Respondents usually report that their own GSA performs well on seven measures of good governance, such as representing all major stakeholders, granting members sufficient power, and generating trusted data for decision making. On the other hand, many GSA managers acknowledge that some types of stakeholders remain underrepresented in the governing structure despite SGMA’s mandate to “consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater.” Overall, most respondents are optimistic that SGMA will enhance groundwater sustainability locally and statewide. If successfully implemented and fully funded, SGMA could become a model worldwide for sustainable resource governance that combines top‐down mandates and local incentives.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: The First Five Years of Governance and Planning

Leach

Tang

2021

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lastly, we conducted a summative evaluation of our collaborative governance arrangement to determine the efficacy of this approach and provide recommendations for future efforts (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015;Robinson et al, 2020). We used a qualitative semi-structured questionnaire asking the NGBT to reflect on and explain their motivations for joining the NGBT, benefits, challenges, outcomes, and future recommendations (Supplementary Material A).…”

Section: Total 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

Working Together for Grizzly Bears: A Collaborative Approach to Estimate Population Abundance in Northwest Alberta, Canada

Hughes

Steenweg

Vennen

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grizzly bears are a threatened species in Alberta, Canada, and their conservation and management is guided by a provincial recovery plan. While empirical abundance and densities estimates have been completed for much of the province, empirical data are lacking for the northwest region of Alberta, a 2.8 million hectare area called Bear Management Area 1 (BMA 1). In part, this is due to limited staff capacity and funding to cover a vast geographic area, and a boreal landscape that is difficult to navigate. Using a collaborative approach, a multi-stakeholder working group called the Northwest Grizzly Bear Team (NGBT) was established to represent land use and grizzly bear interests across BMA 1. Collectively, we identified our project objectives using a Theory of Change approach, to articulate our interests and needs, and develop common ground to ultimately leverage human, social, financial and policy resources to implement the project. This included establishing 254 non-invasive genetic hair corral sampling sites across BMA 1, and using spatially explicit capture-recapture models to estimate grizzly bear density. Our results are two-fold: first we describe the process of developing and then operating within a collaborative, multi-stakeholder governance arrangement, and demonstrate how our approach was key to both improving relationships across stakeholders but also delivering on our grizzly bear project objectives; and, secondly we present the first-ever grizzly bear population estimate for BMA 1, including identifying 16 individual bears and estimating density at 0.70 grizzly bears/1,000 km2-the lowest recorded density of an established grizzly bear population in Alberta. Our results are not only necessary for taking action on one of Alberta's iconic species at risk, but also demonstrate the value and power of collaboration to achieve a conservation goal.

show abstract

“…Resource (Basco-carrera et al, 2017), (Comte et al, 2016), (Henders et al, 2018), (Lamb et al, 2017), (Morrison, 2018), (Salmoral et al, 2019), (Ju et al, 2020), (Williams & Tai, 2016), (Robinson et al, 2019), (Dias et al, 2019), (Dunlop et al, 2019) 13 (Felt et al, 2018), (Muriithi et al, 2016) National Parks (Ehrhart & Schraml, 2018) 1…”

Section: Finding Articels For Research Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adaptive management (Haller, 2016), (Salmoral, Schaap, Walschebauer, & Alhajaj, 2019), (Robinson, Kern, Sero, & Thomas, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict Resolution in the Performance of Collaborative Governance: A Systematic Literature Review

Tando

Sudarmo

Haryanti

2021

jip

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict is one of the problems that occurs when every human, organization, and the social life of the organization. Conflict can be reviewed through the root of existing problems that can be internal or can be external. The science of public administration has the right resolution in dealing with the mechanism of collaborative governance. The literature review approach applied was based on scientific journals published in the database. The database that the authors used were Scopus, Science Direct, and Taylor and Francis Group. The result of this research showed that the implementation of the proposed collaborative governance form of cooperation structure and the policy then is the creation of the community plan making. Furthermore, the types of conflicts resolved by collaborative governance in the 2015-2019 period were the source of conflicts that often occur in that period. Researchers suggested that researching collaborative governance can be developed in government so that it can be implemented in overcoming various public problems.

show abstract

How Collaborative Governance Practitioners Can Assess the Effectiveness of Collaborative Environmental Governance, While Also Evaluating Their Own Services

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Evaluating California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: The First Five Years of Governance and Planning

Evaluating California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: The First Five Years of Governance and Planning

Working Together for Grizzly Bears: A Collaborative Approach to Estimate Population Abundance in Northwest Alberta, Canada

Conflict Resolution in the Performance of Collaborative Governance: A Systematic Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About