Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement

“…Andrew 2001; Bourdeaux et al. 2001; O’Leary and Raines 2001; Beierle and Cayford 2002; Kloppenberg 2002; Leach, et al. 2003; O’Leary and Bingham 2003; Conley and Moote 2003; Coglianese 2003; Hibbard and Madsen 2003; Welsh 2004; Sturtevant and Bryan, 2004; Walker and Hurley 2004; Bryan 2004; Leach…”

“Keywords: traditional ecological knowledge, western scientific ecological knowledge, forest management, comanagement, adaptation I nterest in the comanagement of natu-ral resources has increased dramati-cally in recent decades (Conley and Moote 2003, Borrini-Feyerbend et al. 2013).”

“All rights reserved. collaboration (e.g., Conley and Moote, 2003; Daniels and Walker, 1996; Margerum, 2011; Wondolleck, 2000; Yaffee, 1994), processes of network governance in rural places also include the development of a substantial community-based NGO sector that is worthy of closer analysis.”

“Process outcomes do not relate to a direct change in mitigation of DWPA at the point of time at which they are evaluated but can be essential to attain the expected outcome achievements [36].”

“However, trust is not the only factor that research has identified as important for successful collaboration (Cheng et al. 2015; Conley and Moote 2003), and it was not the primary motivator of non-agency participants in our study.”

“Further work could explore the environmental impacts of collaboration (Conley & Moote 2003; Koontz & Thomas 2006) and focus on untangling the links between social and ecological aspects of urban systems (Alberti 2008).”

“Past weaknesses in the analysis of community-based natural resource management institutions include overreliance on single or small-number case studies, and lack of comparison with status quo management institutions (Agrawal 2000; Conley and Moote 2003).”

“The funders of this Integrated Assessment have published a standalone evaluation guideline [37] within which they cite the work of Conley and Moote [38] that state that evaluations “can help: (1) determine when the idealized narrative used to justify collaborative [efforts] holds true; (2) address criticism of these e…”

“…identified a variety of factors considered critical to success, such as organizational and planning processes, participation, operational and decision rules, goal setting, and communication (Conley and Moote 2003; Imperial 1999; Margerum 2002; Sabatier and others 2005; Schuett and others 2001).”

“It can also be difficult to assess the environmental outcomes of collaborative processes, particularly when participants can only agree to “least-common-denominator” solutions with incremental effects (Conley & Moote, 2003; Kenney, 2000; Koontz & Thomas, 2006).”

“issues that impact specific efforts (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“As collaborative approaches to natural resource management become more widespread, it is necessary to be able to differentiate between the distinct features of each, to help evaluate what works best in the transition towards sustainability (Conley and Moote, 2003).”

“These results can be used to adjust future restoration project planning (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“For any given intervention, there will be many parties and actors with their own goals and perceptions of the initiative, its purpose, and success (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“…stakeholders to play a purposeful role in framing the planning problem, in discussing what sort of process is practicable and implementable, and in formulating the ground rules, objectives, and tasks for the process (Conley & Moote, 2003; Innes & Booher, 1999; National Research Council, 2009).”

“That is why the greatest number of good practices in the application of the participatory approach have been developed in the United States, whereas in Europe there are still few such procedures (Conley and Moote 2003, Daniels and Walker 1996, Marquart-Pyatt 2007).”

“2006; Voinov and Gaddis 2008) and participant evaluation (Chess and Purcell 1999; Conley and Moote 2003; McGurk et al. 2006).”

“How success is defined within the context of institutions for collective action has been subjected to considerable discussion and it is not our intention to directly engage in this debate here (Conley and Moote 2003; Agrawal and Chhatre 2006; Pagdee et al. 2006; Hajjar et al. 2016).”

“…interests), traditional top-down policy-making approaches often fail to resolve conflicts among watershed stakeholders, and result in litigation and delays in implementing policy decisions (Griffin, 1999; Kenney, 1999; Conley and Moote, 2003; Lubell et al., 2005; Sabatier et al., 2005a).”

“Collaborative approaches seek to improve outcomes by inclusion of multiple governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders in decision processes (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“Conley & Moote (2003) discuss the special difficulty of assessing the outcomes of CBNRM, both biophysical and socioeconomic.”

“…collaborative efforts, and the long time horizon necessary to gauge economic or ecological change, it is difficult for these studies, which often rely on a single comprehensive ‘‘snapshot’’ in time, to meaningfully address future outcomes and prescriptive measures (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“Public–private partnerships, decentralisation of management authority, and network-based management have received considerable attention in the natural resource literature as new strategies in the management of protected areas (Hamin 2001, Lane 2001, Conley and Moote 2003, Laven et al. 2010).”

“Mapping and comparing stakeholder perceptions have been regular features in diverse resource management scholarship (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“…signifying a reliance on multi-stakeholder forums (including both public and non-state entities) for deliberative processes (Ansell and Gash 2008; Conley and Moote 2003), and community-based, meaning that stakeholders at the local scale are vested with some degree of decision-making authority…”

“Principled negotiation and respect The process operates according to the conditions of principled negotiation, including mutual respect, trust and understanding Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000), Cormick et al. (1996) Accountability The process and its participants are accountable to the broader public, to their constituen…”

“This extended contact of evaluators with participants, in which the former are immersed in the situation, is particularly suitable for evaluations of process or human behavioral changes (Conley and Moote 2003), and also helps ensure the research validity.”

“…and manage Greenbelt landscapes in language that reflects collaborative environmental management values and processes—particularly the idea that collaboration amongst diverse stakeholders in decision making is desirable (Conley and Moote, 2003; Opdam, Steingröver, and van Rooij, 2006; Section 5.9).”

“…of collaboration is complex because traditional mechanisms, such as hierarchy, are less feasible in collaborative arrangements, and communication and information sharing among partners is based more on interdependent relationships than on contractual agreements (Conley & Moote, 2003).”

“making, such as whether a process is viewed as accessible, transparent, fair, and consistent with existing laws, regulations, or policies [8, 44].”

“compare desired versus actual outcomes, attributing effects to specific causes in the real world may not be possible (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“This methodology is less complex and prescriptive than some other methods for evaluating collaborative environmental governance (Beierle and Konisky 2001; Leach, Pelkey, and Sabatier 2002; Conley and Moote 2003; Thomas and Koontz 2011).”

“Inter alia, the dynamics of concrete situations of collaborative governance where processes, actions, output and outcomes are dealt with must be explored and compared [12,37].”

“In addition, there has been a call to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative processes as a means to understand what can and cannot be expected of them (Conley and Moote 2003).”

“In addition, data needs to be collected consistently, and it is difficult to untangle the multiple factors that impact environmental conditions because so much of what impacts water quality occurs outside of actors’ control (Kenney 2000, Conley and Moote 2003, Koontz and Thomas 2006).”

“Accordingly, the evaluative criteria should be carefully adjusted to the collaborative arrangement being studied (Conley & Moote, 2003).”

“Autonomous parties that were part of the Miitigoog board were at the table because their community or company decided to join and work towards mutually favourable outcomes, suggesting the board qualifies as being collaborative (Conley and Moote, 2003; Peters and Pierre, 2004; Ross et al., 2002).”

“…used as normative foundations of major collaborative efforts in the water sector, like the broad array of multi-stakeholder platforms for water management, which increasingly adopt ‘collaborative governance’ frameworks (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Conley & Moote, 2003; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011).”

“For example, a shared decision-making platform increases the sense of responsibility and mitigates resource conflicts, thereby contributing to social capital (Conley & Moote, 2003).”

“To achieve sustainable development, the active engagement and participation of communities and sectors are needed inside the geoscience community [16] and ecosystem management [17].”

“” Further, CONNICK and INNES (2003) emphasize the process of learning and developing the shared understanding of a problem among participants.”

“By coordinating state and non-state partners, it is possible to make more informed decisions that are more likely to be implemented and result in more effective management of resources (Conley and Moote, 2003).”

“…Blomquist 1992; Ostrom 1990!. Understanding what factors affect the performance of collaborative institutions has also become an emerging theme in this scholarship ~Sabatier, Leach, Lubell, and Pelkey 2005; Leach, Pelkey, and Sabatier 2002; Conley and Moote 2003; Innes and Booher 1999!.…”

“Based on public participation literature (e.g. Gundry & Heberlein, 1984; McComas, 2001; Conley & Moote, 2003; Beckley et al., 2005; Joint FAO/ ECE/ILO Committee on Forestry Technology, Management and Training, 2000), the survey questions focused on values of participants, representation, fairness,…”

“The project did not address outcomes in terms of effects on environmental or socioeconomic factors, as some have suggested is needed (Conley and Moote 2003; Koontz and Thomas 2006; Mandarano 2008; Rogers andWeber 2010).”

“…of the governance system, such as the efficacy of an individual programs, rather than the cumulative affect of institutional relationships, interactions and frameworks in a region influencing the success of NRM activities at the regional scale (Conley & Moote, 2003; McDavid & Hawthorn, 2006).”

“Evaluation studies of participation in natural resource management and water planning offer different approaches to evaluating participation (e.g. process, intermediary, output and outcome evaluations) (Carr et al., 2012; Conley and Moote, 2003) and governance networks.”

“Accordingly, the evaluative criteria should be cautiously matched to the collaborative arrangement being studied (Conley & Moote, 2003).”

“…area currently underresearched (Chess and Purcell 1999), and while various approaches to evaluation exist, there are no consistent methods available for measuring the success of participatory approaches (Beierle 1998) and discussion of issues raised by evaluations is rare (Conley and Moote 2003).”