The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources
Elinor Ostrom, B., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.9739 · Cited by 3,869
Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems
Kramer, R., & Gray, B. (1990) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258026 · Cited by 2,683
Whose Reality Counts?: Putting the First Last
Chambers, R. (1997) · Cited by 2,379
Utilization-Focused Evaluation
(2018) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781506326139.n729 · Cited by 2,315
Making collaboration work : lessons from innovation in natural resource management
Roush, D. (2002) · Electronic Green Journal · doi:10.5070/g311610473 · Cited by 1,438
Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999) · Journal of the American Planning Association · doi:10.1080/01944369908976071 · Cited by 1,306
Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality
Kellert, J. N. M. S. R. (2000) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/089419200750035575 · Cited by 758
The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement
Susskind, L. E., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781452231389 · Cited by 730
Representing communities: Histories and politics of community‐based natural resource management
Brosius, J. P., Tsing, A., & Zerner, C. (1998) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941929809381069 · Cited by 578
Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal
Innes, J. E. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781351179522-13 · Cited by 571
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 · Cited by 8,256
An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011 · Cited by 3,637
Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning
Armitage, D. R., Marschke, M. J., & Plummer, R. (2007) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002 · Cited by 1,071
Elinor Ostrom, B., Janssen, M. A., & Anderies, J. M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0701886104 · Cited by 918
What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?
Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x · Cited by 696
Metadata
- Authors
- CONLEY, A., & MOOTE, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Northern Arizona University (US)
- Venue
- Society & Natural Resources
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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 › Public Administration › 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
