Collaborative partnership design: The implications of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 19, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 827-843

  Bidwell, Ryan D ^a   Ryan, Clare M ^b  

^a Colorado Wild ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaboration; Ecosystem management; Institutional design; Organizational norms; Participation; Policy; Watershed planning

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; NATURAL RESOURCE; PARTNERSHIP APPROACH; POLICY MAKING; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; OREGON; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33747624161     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920600835585     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Beierle, T. C. and J.Cayford. 2002. Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
2. Bentrup, G. 2001. Evaluation of a collaborative model: A case study analysis of watershed planning in the Intermountain West. Environ. Manage. 27(5):738-748. [CSA]
3. Carpenter, D. 1996. Adaptive signal processing, hierarchy, and budgetary control in federal regulation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 90(2):283-302. [CSA][CROSSREF]
4. Gaus, J. M. and L. O.Wolcott. 1940. Public administration and the United States Department of Agriculture. Chicago: Public Administration of the Social Science Research Council by Public Administration Service.
5. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Huntington, C. and S. Sommarstrom. 2000. An evaluation of selected watershed partnerships in the Pacific Northwest and northern California. A report prepared for Trout Unlimited and Pacific Rivers Partnership. Available from Pacific Rivers Partnership, Eugene, OR, www.pacrivers.org
7. Innes, J., J. Gruber, M. Neuman, and R. Thompson. 1994. Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building. Berkeley: California Policy Seminar.
8. Jones, B. D. 2003. Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 13(4):395-412. [CSA]
9. Kenney, D. 2000. Arguing about consensus: Examining the case against Western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups in natural resource management. Boulder: University of Colorado School of Law.
10. Kenney, D. S., S. T. McAllister, W. H. Caile, and J. S. Peckham. 2000. The new watershed sourcebook: A directory and review of watershed initiatives in the western United States. Boulder: University of Colorado School of Law.
11. Korfmacher, K. S. 2000. What's the point of partnering? A case study of ecosystem management in the Darby Creek Watershed. Am. Behav. Sci. 44(4):548-564. [CSA][CROSSREF]
12. Leach, W. D. and N. W. Pelkey. 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. J. Water Resources Plan. Manage. 127(6):378-385. [CSA][CROSSREF]
13. Leach, W. D., N. W. Pelkey, and P. A. Sabatier. 2002. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 21(4):645-670. [CSA][CROSSREF]
14. Lowry, K., P. Adler, and N. Milner. 1997. Participating the public: Group process, politics, and planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 16(3):177-187. [CSA]
15. Lubell, M. 2004. Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action? J. Policy Anal. Manage. 23(4):549-574. [CSA][CROSSREF]
16. March, J. and H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Free Press.
17. Margerum, R. D. 2001. Organizational commitment to integrated and collaborative management: Matching strategies to constraints. Environ. Manage. 28(4):421-431. [INFOTRIEVE][CSA][CROSSREF]
18. Margerum, R. D. 2002. Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 21(3):237-253. [CSA]
19. McGinnis, M. V., J. Woolley, and J. Gamman. 1999. Bioregional conflict resolution: Rebuilding community in watershed planning and organizing. Environ. Manage. 24(1):1-12. [INFOTRIEVE][CSA][CROSSREF]
20. Moore, E. A. and T. M. Koontz. 2003. A typology of collaborative watershed planning groups: Citizen-based, agency-based and mixed partnerships. Society Nat. Resources 16(5):451-460. [CSA][CROSSREF]
21. Moote, M. A., M. P. McClaran, and D. K. Chickering. 1997. Theory in practice: Applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environ. Manage. 21(6):877-889. [INFOTRIEVE][CSA][CROSSREF]
22. National Research Council. 1999. New strategies for America's watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. O'Leary, R. and L. B. Bingham. 2003. The promise and performance of environmental dispute resolution. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
24. Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2005. SWCD frequently asked questions. At http://egov.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/swcd_faq.shtml, accessed 5/2/05.
25. Oregon Department of Forestry. 2003. Major watershed basins. http://www.odf.state.or.us/atlas/maps/wshed.gif, accessed 5/2/05.
26. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 2001a. Oregon Plan annual implementation report, January 1, 2000-March 31, 2001. Salem: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
27. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 2001b. A strategy for achieving healthy watersheds in Oregon. Salem: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
28. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 2003. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 2001-2003 biennial report. Salem: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
29. Ostrom, E. 1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92(1):1-23. [CSA][CROSSREF]
30. Rickenbach, M. G. 1999. Watershed partnerships and woodland owners: The Oregon experience. PhD dissertation, Oregon State University.
31. Robson, C. 2002. Real world research, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
32. Rubin, H. and I. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Ryan, C. M. 2000. Getting to the table: Incentives for participation in regulatory negotiations. Environ. Pract. 2(2):147-155. [CSA]
34. Salamon, L. M., ed. 2001. The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. London: Oxford University Press.
35. Singleton, S. 2002. Collaborative environmental planning in the American West: The good, the bad and the ugly. Environ. Polit. 11(3):54-75. [CSA]
36. State of Oregon. 1997. The Oregon Plan: Coastal salmon restoration initiative. Salem: State of Oregon. http://www.oregon-plan.org/archives/ocrsir_mar1997
37. Steelman, T. A. and J. Carmin. 2002. Community based watershed remediation: Connecting organizational resources to social and substantive outcomes. In Toxic waste and environmental policy in the 21st century United States, ed. D.Rahm, 145-178. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. A review of statewide watershed management programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
39. Weber, E. P. 1998. Pluralism by the rules: Conflict and cooperation in environmental regulation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
40. Weber, E. P.2003. Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Wolcott, H. F. 1990. Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Woolley, J. T. and M. V. McGinnis. 1999. The politics of watershed policymaking. Policy Stud. J. 27(3):578-594. [CSA][CROSSREF]
43. Wondolleck, J. and S. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Covelo, CA: Island Press.