The Multidimensionality of Trust: Applications in Collaborative Natural Resource Management

Stern, Marc J.; Coleman, Kimberly

doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.945062

Cited by 285 publications

(272 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

262

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, distrust may lead to the formation and reification of risk averse cultures within and across organizations, further curtailing opportunies for innovation and experimentation necessary for effective adaptive ecosystem management (Stern and Mortimer 2009, Schein 2010. Alternatively, higher degrees of trust and greater trust diversity within NRM institutions may allow the parties involved to share and examine their assumptions with one another and work together more effectively (Stern and Coleman 2015). Here, we examine how this might happen.…”

Section: Institutional Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trust is typically based on some form of positive expectation about the potential trustee. In this section, we draw on the framework developed by Stern and Coleman (2015) to describe four distinct types of trust relevant to NRM: dispositional, rational, affinitive, and systems based. Each of these types of trust is distinguishable by the the ways in which positive expectations are developed (Table 1).…”

Section: Trust Within Natural Resource Management Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trust serves as a key enabler of adaptive governance, which describes collaborative decision-making systems in which effective adaptive ecosystem management can take place (Chaffin et al 2014). Recently, Stern and Coleman (2015) presented a framework that distinguishes between different types of trust and describes how types of trust may interact to affect NRM outcomes. We posit that these outcomes are, in part, functions of the types and degrees of trust that connect the many actors, groups, and stakeholders within NRM institutions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, we: (1) define institutional resilience in the context of NRM, (2) review the key components of Stern and Coleman's (2015) trust framework, (3) present NRM institutions as "trust ecosystems" and describe how trust diversity supports institutional resilience, (4) provide examples from empirical research and management literature to illustrate the applicability of our proposed framework, and (5) identify the practical and theoretical implications of trust ecology as we have conceived it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We posit that these outcomes are, in part, functions of the types and degrees of trust that connect the many actors, groups, and stakeholders within NRM institutions. Here, we build on Stern and Coleman's (2015) framework to explore how "trust diversity" influences the resilience of NRM institutions. To do so, we present and describe a broadly conceived "trust ecology," which focuses on the interactions between trust types and functions within institutional settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions

Stern¹,

Baird²

2015

E&S

Self Cite

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The resilience of natural resource management (NRM) institutions are largely contingent on the capacities of the people and organizations within those institutions to learn, innovate, and adapt, both individually and collectively. These capacities may be powerfully constrained or catalyzed by the nature of the relationships between the various entities involved. Trust, in particular, has been identified repeatedly as a key component of institutional relationships that supports adaptive governance and successful NRM outcomes. We apply an ecological lens to a pre-existing framework to examine how different types of trust may interact to drive institutional resilience in NRM contexts. We present the broad contours of what we term "trust ecology," describing a conceptual framework in which higher degrees of diversity of trust, as conceptualized through richness and evenness of four types of trust (dispositional, rational, affinitive, and systems based), enhance both the efficacy and resilience of NRM institutions. We describe the usefulness and some limitations of this framework based on several case studies from our own research and discuss the framework's implications for both future research and designing more resilient governance arrangements.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trust Within Natural Resource Management Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions

Stern¹,

Baird²

2015

E&S

Self Cite

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Better together: Building an engaged conservation paleobiology science for the future

Dietl

Durham

Clark

et al. 2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making decisions about natural resource conservation is often difficult because of a lack of longer‐term data, which are needed to provide a frame of reference for identifying and choosing appropriate responses to threats impacting species, ecosystems, and the benefits they provide to people. Despite the promise the field of conservation paleobiology holds for using geohistorical data and insights to provide this longer‐term perspective, examples of successful implementation are uncommon. Over the past decade, many conservation biology researchers and practitioners have turned to knowledge co‐production to overcome this same challenge. Co‐production prioritizes collaboration between academic and non‐academic partners to produce actionable knowledge that better aligns with conservation practitioners' needs and concerns. We argue that the conservation paleobiology community must similarly build collective competence to engage more effectively in shared “learning spaces” where actionable knowledge is co‐produced. We draw from our experiences with the Historical Oyster Body Size project and lessons learned from other fields to identify key attributes of actionable geohistorical knowledge and the meaningful co‐production processes that produced it. Familiarity with these concepts will benefit conservation paleobiologists and all researchers who aspire to help develop longer‐lasting, defensible and more equitable solutions to complex conservation problems presented by a changing world.

show abstract

The Essential Need for Trust When Transmission Risk Cannot Be Eliminated in HIV‐Remission Trials

Rennie

Henderson

Phanuphak

et al. 2023

Ethics & Human Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analytic treatment interruption (ATI) is scientifically necessary in HIV‐remission (“cure”) studies to test the effects of new interventions. However, stopping antiretroviral treatment poses risks to research participants and their sexual partners. Ethical debate about whether and how to conduct such studies has largely centered on designing risk‐mitigation strategies and identifying the responsibilities of research stakeholders. In this paper, we argue that because the possibility of HIV transmission from research participants to partners during ATI cannot practicably be eliminated—that is, it is ineliminable—the successful conduct of such trials ultimately depends on relationships of trust and trustworthiness. We describe our experiences with conducting and studying HIV‐remission trials with ATI in Thailand to examine the strengths, complexities, and limitations of the risk‐mitigation and responsibility approaches and to explore ways in which the building of trust—and trustworthiness—may help enhance the scientific, practical, and ethical dimensions of these trials.

show abstract

The Multidimensionality of Trust: Applications in Collaborative Natural Resource Management

Cited by 285 publications

References 61 publications

Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions

Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions

Better together: Building an engaged conservation paleobiology science for the future

The Essential Need for Trust When Transmission Risk Cannot Be Eliminated in HIV‐Remission Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About