Making It Work: Keys to Successful Collaboration in Natural Resource Management

Schuett, Michael A.; Selin, Steve; Carr, Deborah

doi:10.1007/s002670010172

Cited by 69 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barriers to collaboration include power differentials among stakeholders (Selin and Chavez 1995;Williams and Ellefson 1997), unclear or inflexible legal authorities and administrative policies; organizational cultures unaccustomed to collaborative processes (Cortner et al 1996;Pinchot Institute 2001), agency fears of losing control (Schuett et al 2001), and funding availability (Pinchot Institute 2001). Factors which promote collaboration include shared and open decision-making processes, goal-setting early on in the process, and continual information sharing (Gray 1985;Schuett et al 2001;Williams and Ellefson 1997). In addition, stakeholders' willingness to share authority and benefits (Persoon et al 2003), provide resources, acknowledge the legitimacy of other stakeholders, be flexible, and trust other stakeholders increases the likelihood of successful collaborative arrangements (Gray 1985;Schuett et al 2001;Williams and Ellefson 1997).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Factors which promote collaboration include shared and open decision-making processes, goal-setting early on in the process, and continual information sharing (Gray 1985;Schuett et al 2001;Williams and Ellefson 1997). In addition, stakeholders' willingness to share authority and benefits (Persoon et al 2003), provide resources, acknowledge the legitimacy of other stakeholders, be flexible, and trust other stakeholders increases the likelihood of successful collaborative arrangements (Gray 1985;Schuett et al 2001;Williams and Ellefson 1997). The emphasis on empowerment of local residents and communities by treating them as equal participants in resource management decision making has its roots in many developing countries where participatory development has been attempted and espoused for several decades (BorriniFeyerabend et al 2004;Ingles et al 1999).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Donoghue¹,

Thompson²,

Bliss³

2010

JEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Collaborative Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Donoghue¹,

Thompson²,

Bliss³

2010

JEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, sets of criteria have been developed to analyze the influence of the political, economic, and social context of participation (e.g., Beierle and Konisky 2000). Other frameworks have been developed to evaluate the quality of the participation process (e.g., Webler 1995, Rowe and Frewer 2000, Schuett et al 2001. Result evaluations of individual cases (e.g., ) but also of long-term and large-scale participation approaches have also been carried out (e.g., for an evaluation of the international governance approach in the North American Great Lakes region, see Klinke 2009), as well as meta evaluations based on multiple case studies (e.g., Beierle and Cayford 2002, Jones et al 2009, Newig and Fritsch 2009, Etienne 2010.…”

Section: Trend: Evaluation Of Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Participatory Water Management: Recent Advances in Theory, Practice, and Evaluation

Korff¹,

Daniell²,

Moellenkamp³

et al. 2012

E&S

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Many current water planning and management problems are riddled with high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict, so-called "messes" or "wicked problems." The realization that there is a need to consider a wide variety of values, knowledge, and perspectives in a collaborative decision making process has led to a multitude of new methods and processes being proposed to aid water planning and management, which include participatory forms of modeling, planning, and decision aiding processes. However, despite extensive scientific discussions, scholars have largely been unable to provide satisfactory responses to two pivotal questions: (1) What are the benefits of using participatory approaches?; (2) How exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex social-ecological settings to realize these potential benefits? In the study of developing social-ecological system sustainability, the first two questions lead to a third one that extends beyond the one-time application of participatory approaches for water management: (3) How can participatory approaches be most appropriately used to encourage transition to more sustainable ecological, social, and political regimes in different cultural and spatial contexts? The answer to this question is equally open. This special feature on participatory water management attempts to propose responses to these three questions by outlining recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation related to the implementation of participatory water management. The feature is largely based on an extensive range of case studies that have been implemented and analyzed by cross-disciplinary research teams in collaboration with practitioners, and in a number of cases in close cooperation with policy makers and other interested parties such as farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, and the wider public. Key Words: adaptive management, collaborative decision making, evaluation, interactive planning, participatory modeling, participatory research, process design, public participation, social learning, stakeholder participation, water resources management FOCUS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SPECIAL FEATUREMany current water planning and management problems are riddled with high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict, so-called "messes" (Ackoff 1979) or "wicked problems" (Rittel and Webber 1973). These problems are increasingly encountered in the public policy sphere as resources become scarce, conflicts between water users and interest groups proliferate, and the ecological and social aspects of water planning become more prominent. As a result, it is increasingly rare that technical water managers have sufficient decision making authority and capacity to implement plans and water management actions by themselves. Furthermore, the realization that there is a need to consider a wide variety of values, knowledge, and perspectives in a collaborative decision making process has led to a multitude of new methods and processes being proposed to aid water planning and managem...

show abstract

“…Past research has shown that collaboration also has limitations, however, with many collaborative groups dissolving before accomplishing all of their goals. This can occur for a number of reasons, including time or budgetary limitations, a lack of perceived progress, or a lack of sufficient trust between participants, among others (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Schuett et al 2001, Moote and Becker 2003, Margerum 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared visions, future challenges: a case study of three Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program locations

Walpole¹,

Toman²,

Wilson³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The USDA Forest Service is encouraging the restoration of select forest ecosystems through its Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). Collaboration is often necessary to implement landscape-scale management projects such as these, and a substantial body of research has examined the benefits and limitations of using collaboration as a tool for improving relationships, trust, and other outcomes among stakeholder groups. However, limited research has investigated the use of collaboration to achieve large-scale ecological restoration goals. Restoration poses some unique conditions for a collaborative approach, including reaching agreement on which historic conditions to use as a reference point, the degree of departure from these reference conditions that warrants management intervention, and how to balance historic conditions with expected future conditions and current human uses of the landscape. Using a mental-models approach, semistructured interviews were conducted with a total of 25 participants at three CFLRP sites. Results indicate that collaboration contributed to improved relationships and trust among participants, even among stakeholder groups with a history of disagreement over management goals. In addition, a shared focus on improving ecosystem resilience helped groups to address controversial management topics such as forest thinning in some areas. However, there was also evidence that CFLRP partnerships in our study locations have primarily focused on areas of high agreement among their stakeholders to date, and have not yet addressed other contentious topics. Previous studies suggest that first conducting management in areas with high consensus among participating stakeholders can build relationships and advance long-term goals. Nonetheless, our results indicate that achieving compromise in less obviously departed systems will require more explicit value-based discussions among stakeholders.

show abstract

Making It Work: Keys to Successful Collaboration in Natural Resource Management

Cited by 69 publications

References 8 publications

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Tribal-Federal Collaboration in Resource Management

Implementing Participatory Water Management: Recent Advances in Theory, Practice, and Evaluation

Shared visions, future challenges: a case study of three Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program locations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About