Communication in natural resource management: Agreement between and disagreement within stakeholder groups

Ecology and Society

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  de Nooy, Wouter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Communication networks; Interpersonal communication; Natural resource management; Network autocorrelation; Stakeholder groups

Indexed keywords

AUTOCORRELATION; COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; NATURAL RESOURCE; PLANNING THEORY; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; STAKEHOLDER; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 84881131119     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-05648-180244     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allport G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
2. Andersson K. 2006. Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2(2):25-35.
3. Axelrod R. A. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi. org/10.1126/science.7466396
4. Blumenthal, D. and J. L. Jannink. 2000. A classification of collaborative management methods. Conservation Ecology 4 (2): 13. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/ art13/target=new.
5. Bodin Ö., B. Crona, and H. Ernstson. 2006. Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society 11(2): r2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/ resp2/.
6. Bodin Ö., and C. Prell. 2011. Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894985
7. Borgatti S. P., and P. C. Foster. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management 29(6):991-1013.
8. Brandes, U., J. Lerner, and T. A. B. Snijders. 2009. Networks evolving step by step: statistical analysis of dyadic event data. Pages 200-205 in N. Memon, and R. Alhajj, editors. ASONAM 2009, 2009 International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining. IEEE Computer Society, Washington D.C., USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2009.28
9. Brown S. R. 1986. Q technique and method: principles and procedures. Pages 57-76 in W. D. Berry and M. S. Lewis-Beck, editors. New tools for social scientists, Sage, Beverly Hills, California, USA.
10. Brown S. R. 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4):91-138.
11. Butts C. T. 2006. The sna package: tools for social network analysis, V2.2. Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
12. Butts C. T. 2008. A relational event framework for social action. Sociological Methodology 38(1):155-200. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2008.00203.x
13. Chang C., J. C. Allen, S. E. Dawson, and G. E. Madsen. 2012. Network analysis as a method for understanding the dynamics of natural resource management in rural communities. Society & Natural Resources 25(2):203-208. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/08941920.2011.571753
14. 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/.
15. Crona, B., and Ö. Bodin. 2010. Power asymmetries in smallscale fisheries: a barrier to governance transformability? Ecology and Society 15(4): 32. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art32/.
16. Crona, B., and K. Hubacek. 2010. The right connections: how do social networks lubricate the machinery of natural resource governance? Ecology and Society 15(4): 18 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art18/
17. Dane E. 2010. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: a cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review 35(4):579-603. http://dx. doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53502832
18. Degnbol P., H. Gislason, S. Hanna, S. Jentoft, J. Raakjær Nielsen, S. Sverdrup-Jensen, and D. Clyde Wilson. 2006. Painting the floor with a hammer: technical fixes in fisheries management. Marine Policy 30(5):534-543. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.07.002
19. de Nooy W. 2011. Networks of action and events over time: a multilevel discrete-time event history model for longitudinal network data. Social Networks 33(1):31-40. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.09.003
20. de Nooy W., A. Mrvar, and V. Batagelj. 2011. Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
21. Doreian P. 1980. Linear models with spatially distributed data: spatial disturbances or spatial effects? Sociological Methods and Research 9(1):29-60.
22. Dreyer M., and O. Renn. 2011. Participatory approaches to modelling for improved learning and decision-making in natural resource governance: an editorial. Environmental Policy and Governance 21(6):379-385. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/eet.584
23. Festinger L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2):117-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0-01872675400700202
24. Festinger L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Tavistock, London, UK.
25. Friedkin N. E. 1998. A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511527524
26. Friedkin N. E., and E. C. Johnsen. 1990. Social influence and opinions. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 15 (3-4):193-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1990.9990069
27. Goldsborough, D., L. Berner, P. Haapasaari, T. Johnson, D. C. Wilson, and M. A. Pastoors. 2011. A social network analysis of a marine management science-policy community for six case studies. JAKFISH Deliverable 5.1, 144 p. Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH), Seventh Framework Programme, Theme 2: Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology, European Union.
28. Jentoft S., B. J. McCay, and D. C. Wilson. 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 22(4-5):423-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00040-7
29. Leenders R. T. A. J. 2002. Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix. Social Networks 24(1):21-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0378-8733(01)00049-1
30. Mackinson S., D. C. Wilson, P. Galiay, and B. Deas. 2011. Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research. Marine Policy 35(1):18-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2010.07.003
31. McPherson M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1):415-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev. soc.27.1.415
32. Mizruchi M. S., and E. J. Neuman. 2008. The effect of density on the level of bias in the network autocorrelation model. Social Networks 30(3):190-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. socnet.2008.02.002
33. Monge P. R., and N. S. Contractor. 2003. Theories of communication networks. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
34. Mushove P., and C. Vogel. 2005. Heads or tails? Stakeholder analysis as a tool for conservation area management. Global Environmental Change 15(3):184-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2004.12.008
35. 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/
36. 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/.
37. Newman L., and A. Dale. 2007. Homophily and agency: creating effective sustainable development networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability 9(1):79-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-9004-5
38. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
39. Pastoors, M. A., C. M. Ulrich, D. C. Wilson, C. Röckmann, D. Goldsborough, D. Degnbol, L. Berner, T. Johnson, P. Haapasaari, M. Dreyer, E. Bell, E. Borodzicz, K. Hiis Hauge, D. Howell, S. Mäntyniemi, D. Miller, R. Aps, G. Tserpes, S. Kuikka, and J. Casey. 2012. Policy brief: institutions, practices and tools to address complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in participatory fisheries management. An attempt to redefine the institutional role of science in EU fisheries policies. JAKFISH Deliverable 6.2, 18 p. Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH), Seventh Framework Programme, Theme 2: Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology, European Union.
40. Prell C., K. Hubacek, and M. Reed. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 22(6):501-518. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/08941920802199202
41. Prell, C., M. Reed, L. Racin, and K. Hubacek. 2010. Competing structure, competing views: the role of formal and informal social structures in shaping stakeholder perceptions. Ecology and Society 15(4): 34. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art34/.
42. Rasbash J., F. Steele, W. Browne, and B. Prosser. 2004. A user's guide to MLwiN, Version 2.0. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, London, UK.
43. Robins G. L., P. Elliott, and P. Pattison. 2001. Network models for social selection processes. Social Networks 23(1):1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(01)00029-6
44. Röckmann C., C. Ulrich, M. Dreyer, E. Bell, E. Borodzicz, P. Haapasaari, K. H. Hauge, D. Howell, S. Mäntyniemi, D. Miller, G. Tserpes, and M. Pastoors. 2012. The added value of participatory modelling in fisheries management-what has been learnt? Marine Policy 36(5):1072-1085.
45. Sandström, A., and C. Rova. 2010. Adaptive co-management networks: a comparative analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden. Ecology and Society 15(3): 14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art14/.
46. 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(1):143-158. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/1540-5907.00010
47. Shalizi C. R., and A. C. Thomas. 2011. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods & Research 40 (2):211-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124111404820
48. Snijders T. A. B., G. G. van de Bunt, and C. E. G. Steglich. 2010. Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks 32(1):44-60. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004
49. Suls J., R. Martin, and L. Wheeler. 2002. Social comparison: why, with whom and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(5):159-163.
50. Tompkins, E. L. and W. N. Adger. 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society 9(2): 10. [online] URL: http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/.
51. Wasserman S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478