Cited by 506Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementPublic Policy and Administration ResearchEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement

CONLEY, ALEXANDER, MOOTE, MARGARET A.·2003·Society & Natural Resources

Abstract

In this article, we look at the evolving collaborative natural resource management movement in the United States and discuss current calls to evaluate it. We then explore approaches researchers have used to evaluate both specific efforts and the broader movement. Evaluative criteria developed thus far by several researchers show commonalities as well as differences. We argue that evaluation approaches will necessarily vary with the evaluation's intent, the type of collaborative effort being evaluated, and the values of the evaluator. Evaluators need to consider and make explicit their standards for comparison, criteria, and methods in order to clarify the nature of an evaluation and facilitate the synthesis of findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08941920309181

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because collaborative actions often unfold over long periods and are carried out by individual partners or external agents subject to forces outside the regime, tracing and attributing influence or causation to the collaborative governance regime is difficult.

    “Because such actions often take place over a long period of time and often by individual partners or external agents subject to other forces outside the CGR, it can be difficult to trace and attribute influence or causation to the CGR (Conley and Moote 2003;Emerson et al. 2003;Koontz and Thomas 2006).”

    From An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance (2012) · cites this paper as Conley and Moote 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CONLEY, A., & MOOTE, M. A.
Affiliations
Northern Arizona University (US)
Venue
Society & Natural Resources
Published
2003-05
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
371-386
ISSN
  • 0894-1920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0723
OpenAlex
W2157693829
Cited by
505
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 23
FWCI
13.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Society & Natural Resources (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
collaborative natural resource management, evaluation approaches, evaluation criteria, evaluation standards, collaborative governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review