The Inner-Workings of Collaboration in Environmental Management and Governance: A Systematic Mapping Review

A Conceptual Framework for Social, Behavioral, and Environmental Change through Stakeholder Engagement in Water Resource Management

“…Group-level behavioral change is evident with a stakeholder group's tangible products or environmental outputs (Koontz and Thomas 2006). These include developing and acting on plans (e.g., for addressing a problem, improved coordination, raising funds, monitoring implementation, enforcing compliance), reports, local policy or programmatic changes, or environmental protection projects that, in time, may contribute to environmental outcomes (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012;Feist, Plummer, and Baird 2020). Collaboratively produced recommendations that justify why action is needed and identify a clear approach for implementation bear potential to convince other audiences to act, including officials (Mandarano 2008), funders, or private industries that control resources needed especially for large-scale projects (e.g., dam removal, infrastructure or technology development).…”

“…However, linkages across these and related components remain underdeveloped (Plummer et al 2017;Gerlak et al 2018;. Researchers have made strides here, for example, with systematic reviews (e.g., Newig et al 2018;Feist, Plummer, and Baird 2020) and empirical studies (Plummer et al 2017) that conceptualize connections across engagement processes and engagement driven outcomes. Yet a coherent framework that recognizes the contingency of contexts, processes, scales of social change, human behavior, and ultimately change in environmental conditions, remains to be seen.…”

Methodological Challenges in Studying Trust in Natural Resources Management

“…Due to the multidimensionality of trust, and it being a complex concept, it is hard to define it and use its dimensions in a mutually exclusive way. Feist et al [9] describe the importance of trust building, relationship building, and building respect to collaboration, and note that at times those qualities were also described as a part of social capital. In their paper, social capital is defined as both an outcome and as a quality, as "relationships of trust, norms of reciprocity, and networks among individuals that can be drawn upon for an individual or a collective benefit" [9].…”

“…Feist et al [9] describe the importance of trust building, relationship building, and building respect to collaboration, and note that at times those qualities were also described as a part of social capital. In their paper, social capital is defined as both an outcome and as a quality, as "relationships of trust, norms of reciprocity, and networks among individuals that can be drawn upon for an individual or a collective benefit" [9]. Past assessments of trust measures have found 129 different measures of trust, and 38 conceptual constructs within those measures, across 171 papers [39].…”

“…Land 2021, 10, 1303 2 of 13 The results of modeling often identify social variables as central to whether a management approach leads to conflict or cooperation [5]. More specifically, many scholars indicate the importance of fostering the development of trust for long-term collaboration [6][7][8][9]. As such, trust has been identified as a central characteristic of successful natural resource management [10].…”