Connecting social networks with ecosystem services for watershed governance: A social-ecological network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging organizations

Ecology and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2012, Pages

  Rathwell, Kaitlyn J ^a,b   Peterson, Garry D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Agricultural watershed; Agriculture; Bridging organization; Ecosystem services; Mont r gie; Richelieu River Qu bec; Social network analysis; Social networks; Social ecological feedback; Social ecological system; Tourism; Two mode network; Water quality; Watershed; Watershed management; Yamaska River Qu bec

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; SOCIAL NETWORK; WATER QUALITY; WATER RESOURCE; WATERSHED;

CANADA; MONTEREGIE; QUEBEC [CANADA]; RICHELIEU RIVER;

EID: 84864458720     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-04810-170224     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:15188-15193.
2. Bodin, Ö., and B. I. Crona 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19:366-374. htt p://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002
3. Borgatti, S. P., A. Mehra, D. J. Brass, and G. Labianca. 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323:892-895. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821
4. Butts, C. T. 2005. Tools for social network analysis. Version 1.5. University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. [online] URL: http://erzuli.ss.uci.edu/R.stuff/
5. Carpenter, S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley, and V. H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorous and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8:559-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761 (1998)008[0559:NPOSWW]2.0.CO;2
6. Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and crossscale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2): 8. [online] URL: http://ww w.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/
7. Chevan, A., and M. Sutherland. 1991. Hierarchical partitioning. American Statistician 45:90-96.
8. Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
9. Crona, B., and Ö. Bodin. 2006. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society 11(2): 7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/ art7/
10. Delisle, F., S. Gariépy, and Y. Bédard. 1998. Bassin versant de la rivière Yamaska: l'activité agricole et ses effets sur la qualité de l'eau. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune et Saint-Laurent Vision 2000, Québec, Québec, Canada.
11. Gangbazo, G., and F. Babin. 2000. Pollution de l'eau des rivières dans les bassins versants agricoles. Vecteur Environnement 33:47-57.
12. Government of Québec. 2002. Politique National de L'eau. L'eau. La Vie. L'avenir. Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs, Québec, Québec, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/politique/
13. Head, B. W. 2008. Assessing network-based collaborations. Public Management Review 10:733-749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423087
14. Imperial, M. T. 2005. Using collaboration as a governance strategy: lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society 37:281-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.11 77/0095399705276111
15. Ison, R., N. Röling, and D. Watson. 2007. Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science & Policy 10:499-511 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envs ci.2007.02.008
16. Leggett, C., and N. Bockstael. 2000. Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39:121-144. htt p://dx. doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1999.1096
17. Lin, N. 2001. Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
18. Lubell, M., and A. Fulton. 2008. Local policy networks and agricultural watershed management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:673-696. http://dx.do i.org/10.1093/jopart/mum031
19. Lubell, M., M. Schneider, J. T. Scholz, and M. Mete. 2002. Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science 46:148-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088419
20. MacNally, R. 2002. Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1397-1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:101 6250716679
21. MacNally, R., and C. J. Walsh. 2004. Hierarchical partitioning public-domain software. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:659-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000009515.1 1717.0b
22. Marín, A. and F. Berkes. 2010. Network approach for understanding small-scale fisheries governance. The case of the Chilean coastal co-management system. Marine Policy 34:851-858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.01.007
23. Mimeault, M. 2002. Mise en valeur de la Baie Missisquoi et du Lac Champlain. Agrosol 13:92-96.
24. Newig, J., D. Günther, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2010. Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society 15(4): 24. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/ art24/
25. Newman, L. L., and A. Dale. 2005. Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: a response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and Society 10(1): r2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/resp2/
26. Olsson, P., C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, and L. Schultz. 2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society 12(1): 28. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyand society.org/vol12/iss1/art28/
27. Ostrom, E. 1991. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
28. Ostrom, E., J. Burger, C. B. Field, R. B. Norgaard, and D. Policansky. 1999. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284:278-282. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1126/science.284.5412.278
29. Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19:354-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
30. Pahl-Wostl, C., and N. Kranz. 2010. Water governance in times of change. Environmental Science & Policy 13:567-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.004
31. Peterson, G. D., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100219900002
32. Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302:1912-1914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1090847
33. Pretty, J., and H. Ward. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29:209-227. http://dx.doi.o rg/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X
34. Provan, K. G., and P. Kenis. 2008. Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:229-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
35. Provan, K. G., and H. B. Milward. 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review 61 (4):414-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00045
36. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
37. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., G. D. Peterson, and E. M. Bennett. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:5242-5247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907 284107
38. Ripl, W. 2003. Water: the bloodstream of the biosphere. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B 358:1921-1934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1378
39. Sandström, A., and L. Carlsson. 2008. The performance of policy networks: the relation between network structure and network performance. Policy Studies Journal 36:497-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00281.x
40. Schneider, M., J. Scholz, M. Lubell, D. Mindruta, and M. Edwardsen. 2003. Building consensual institutions: networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science 47:143-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00010
41. Scholz, J. T., R. Berardo, and B. Kile. 2008. Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. Journal of Politics 70:393-406. http://dx.doi.or g/10.1017/S0022381608080389
42. Scott, J. 2000. Social network analysis: a handbook. Second Edition. Sage, London, UK.
43. van Bueren, E. M., E.-H. Klijn, and J. F. M. Koppenjan. 2003. Dealing with wicked problems in networks: analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13:193-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug017
44. Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.