The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From Planning to Implementation: Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Approaches for Collaborative Watershed Management
Abstract
Collaborative approaches are increasingly used to address challenging environmental problems in the U nited S tates and around the world. The inclusion of multiple stakeholders and sources of information is expected to solve such problems. Prior research has highlighted the importance of collaborative process characteristics in reaching agreements and building social capital, but less is known about what factors affect the implementation of such agreements. A parallel stream of research in policy implementation theory has developed variables and frameworks to explain the implementation of authoritative policy prescriptions. Drawing on the top‐down/bottom‐up perspectives on implementation, this study examines implementation of collaborative recommendations along a continuum of top‐down/bottom‐up approaches. A comparison of six cases in two states (L ower S axony,G ermany and O hio,U nited S tates) indicates important differences in perceptions of implementation and environmental improvements, although whether an effort was more top down or more bottom up was not a key determinant of results. In both states, stakeholder collaborative planning efforts included substantial involvement from stakeholders and multiple government agencies and levels. Participants in the O hio cases perceived higher levels of implementation and environmental improvements. Key factors promoting implementation of plan recommendations were resources (funding and a full‐time coordinator), willing land owners, and networks. In the L ower S axony cases, collaborative plans were seen as less impactful, but nevertheless the process of plan development did foster networks for implementing some actions to improve water quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1984) · Cited by 81,983
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,535
(2005) · Cited by 9,479
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 · cited 6×
“Emerson et al. (2012) hypothesize that implementation is more likely if “a shared theory of action is identified explicitly among the collaboration partners” (p. 18), which reflects a key variable in top-down policy implementation literature (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980). They also list as possible factors leadership,…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas
Ostrom, E. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0702288104 · Cited by 2,728
Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems
Kramer, R., & Gray, B. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258026 · Cited by 2,683
Sabatier, P. A. (1986) · Journal of Public Policy · doi:10.1017/s0143814x00003846 · Cited by 1,863
Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00663.x · Cited by 1,386
Cited by
An Introduction to Polycentricity and Governance
Stephan, M., Marshall, G., & McGinnis, M. (2019) · Governing Complexity · doi:10.1017/9781108325721.002 · Cited by 112
Thiel, A., & Moser, C. (2019) · Governing Complexity · doi:10.1017/9781108325721.004 · Cited by 58
Potential of 3D Visualization for Collaborative Rural Landscape Planning with Remote Participants
Onitsuka, K., Ninomiya, K., & Hoshino, S. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10093059 · Cited by 28
Dynamics of evidence-informed health policy making in Pakistan
Haq, Z., Hafeez, A., Zafar, S., & Ghaffar, A. (2017) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czx128 · Cited by 19
The Faustian Bargain: Power-Sharing, Constitutions, and the Practice of Polycentricity in Governance
Tarko, V., Schlager, E., & Lutter, M. (2019) · Governing Complexity · doi:10.1017/9781108325721.011 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Koontz, T. M., & Newig, J.
- Venue
- Policy Studies Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-08
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 416-442
- ISSN
- 0190-292X (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0072
- OpenAlex
- W1654855394
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 49.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From Planning to Implementation: Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Approaches for Collaborative Watershed Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/psj.12067
- The paper
- Koontz, T. M., & Newig, J. (2014). From Planning to Implementation: Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Approaches for Collaborative Watershed Management. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12067
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.