What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?
Abstract
Many tout the benefits of collaborative environmental management as an alternative to centralized planning and command and control regulation, but the excitement over collaborative processes has not been matched by evidence that these processes actually improve the environment. The most crucial question in collaborative environmental management remains unanswered and often unasked: To what extent does collaboration lead to improved environmental outcomes? We know much about why collaboration is occurring and how collaborative processes and outputs vary. The primary goal of future research on collaborative environmental management should be to demonstrate whether collaboration improves environmental conditions more than traditional processes and newer market‐based processes. Collaboration is not a panacea; it is a choice that policy makers and public managers should make based on evidence about expected outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
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 Koontz and Thomas 2006
Cites
Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement
CONLEY, A., & MOOTE, M. A. (2003) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920309181 · Cited by 505 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Narain, V. (2014) · Mountain Research and Development · doi:10.1659/mrd-journal-d-13-00104.1 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Wright, N. S., & Reames, T. G. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12124986 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Koontz, Tomas M.
- Thomas, Craig W.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-11-09
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- 111-121
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2035807135
- Cited by
- 696
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 43.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Commerce
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Management
- Keywords
- collaborative environmental management, environmental outcomes, environmental policy, command-and-control regulation, central planning, market-based environmental policy, environmental governance, evidence-based policy
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
