Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:20:19.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing success among collaborative sage-grouse management groups in the western United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2010

LORIEN R. BELTON  and
DOUGLAS JACKSON-SMITH
LORIEN R. BELTON*
Affiliation:
Community-Based Conservation Program, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, 5230 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
DOUGLAS JACKSON-SMITH
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources, Department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology, Utah State University, 0730 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-0730, USA
*
*Correspondence: Lorien R. Belton. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Considerable efforts have been put into collaborative conservation efforts across the globe. In the western USA, concern about declines of two sage-grouse species (Centrocercus urophasianus and C. minimus) has led to the creation of over 60 collaborative wildlife management partnership groups to develop and implement local sage-grouse management plans. These sage-grouse local working groups (LWGs) share a common goal, information, and policy environment, but were implemented in diverse ways. As a result, they provide a rare opportunity to study systematically the impact of contextual, organizational, institutional and process factors on local collaborative group success. Data from document reviews and an extensive survey of over 700 group participants from 53 sage-grouse LWGs were used to assess the success of this collaborative conservation effort and identify those group attributes that were related to successful implementation and funding of projects. Specifically, external, internal and emergent group characteristics were considered as likely predictors of LWG implementation success. The LWGs varied broadly in their achievements. The presence of a neutral facilitator, participants' feelings of ownership, groups whose local plans had more authority and early-stage group successes were significantly related to implementation success at the group level.

Keywords

collaborative conservationcollaborative natural resource managementfacilitationimplementation successlocal working grouppsychological ownershipsage-grousewildlife management
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 2)
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 3: Thematic section. Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): Designing the next generation (Part 2) , September 2010 , pp. 250 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belton, L.R., Jackson-Smith, D. & Messmer, T.A. (2009) Assessing the needs of sage-grouse local working groups: final technical report. Report. Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources, Utah State University. Logan, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
Bentrup, G. (2001) Evaluation of a collaborative model: a case study analysis of watershed planning in the Intermountain West. Environmental Management 27: 739–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidwell, R.D. & Ryan, C.M. (2006) Collaborative partnership design: the implications of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships. Society and Natural Resources 19: 827–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, T.A. (2004) Tragedy averted: the promise of collaboration. Society and Natural Resources 17: 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B.T., Burkardt, N. & King, M.D. (2005) Watershed management and organizational dynamics: nationwide findings and regional variation. Environmental Management 36: 297–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conley, A. & Moote, M.A. (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 16: 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dakins, M.E., Long, J.D. & Hart, M. (2005) Collaborative environmental decision making in Oregon watershed groups: perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, S.E. & Cheng, A.S. (2004) Collaborative resource management: discourse-based approaches and the evolution of technoreg. In: Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge, ed. Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., Bruyere, B.L., Field, D.R. & Brown, P.J., pp. 125–136. Jefferson, MO, USA: Modern Litho.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Second edition. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Genskow, K.D. (2001) Critical factors for watershed partnerships: an analysis of actions and accomplishments. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA: 301 pp.Google Scholar
Hershdorfer, M.E., Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. & Howery, L.D. (2007) Key attributes influence the performance of local weed management programs in the southwest United States. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60: 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imperial, M.T. (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management 24: 449–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E. (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65: 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, D.S. (2000) Arguing About Consensus. Boulder, Colorado, USA: Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado Law School.Google Scholar
Koontz, T.M. (2005) We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Studies Journal 33: 459–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koontz, T.M. & Thomas, C.W. (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review 66: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachapelle, P.R. & McCool, S.F. (2005) Exploring the concept of ‘ownership’ in natural resource planning. Society and Natural Resources 18: 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachapelle, P.R., McCool, S.F. & Patterson, M.E. (2003) barriers to effective natural resource planning in a ‘messy’ world. Society and Natural Resources 16: 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, W.D. (2006) Collaborative public management and democracy: evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review 66: 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, W.D. & Pelkey, N.W. (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127: 378–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W. & Sabatier, P.A. (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21: 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margerum, R.D. (1999) Getting past yes: from capital creation to action. Journal of the American Planning Association 65: 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margerum, R.D. (2007) Overcoming locally based collaboration constraints. Society and Natural Resources 20: 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, M.G., Ashkanasy, N.M., Bramble, T. & Gardner, J. (2007) A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. Journal of Social Psychology 147: 477–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norusis, M.J. (1990) SPSS Advanced Statistics Student Guide. Chicago, IL, USA: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y-S. & Daugherty, P.F. (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources 19: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, R.I. & Ommer, R.E. (2003) Scale issues in marine ecosystems and human interactions. Fisheries Oceanography 12: 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. & Dirks, K.T. (2003) The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology 7: 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M.A., Aldridge, C.L., Apa, A.D., Bohne, J.R., Braun, C.E., Bunnell, S.D., Connelly, J.W., Deibert, P.A, Gardner, S.C., Hilliard, M.A., Kobriger, G.D., McAdam, S.M, McCarthy, C.W., McCarthy, J.J., Mitchell, D.L., Rickerson, E.V. & Stiver, S.J. (2004) Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106: 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selin, S.W. & Chavez, D. (1995) Developing a collaborative model for environmental-planning and management. Environmental Management 19: 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selin, S.W., Schuett, M.A. & Carr, D. (2000) Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Society and Natural Resources 13: 735–745.Google Scholar
Stiver, S.J., Apa, A.D., Bohne, J.R., Bunnell, S.D., Deibert, P.A., Gardner, S.C., M.A. Hilliard, M.A., McCarthy, C.W. & Schroeder, M.A. (2006) Greater sage-grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. Report, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY, USA.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA, USA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
USGS (2008) Sage Grouse Local Working Group Locator, United States Geological Service [www document]. URL http://greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/LWG/Google Scholar
United States Federal Register (2004) 90-day finding for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered. United States Federal Register 69: 21484–21494 (21 April 2004).Google Scholar
United States Federal Register (2010) 12-month findings for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered: notice of 12-month petition findings. United States Federal Register 75: 13909–14014 (23 March 2010).Google Scholar
Waage, S. (2003) Collaborative salmon recovery planning: examining decision making and implementation in northeastern Oregon. Society and Natural Resources 16: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E.P. (2000) A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots ecosystem management as a new environmental movement. Society and Natural Resources 13: 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E.P. (2008) Reality and better mousetraps: a research agenda for new environmental governance institutions. Society and Natural Resources 21: 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WGA & NRCS (2004) Conserving the greater sage grouse: a compilation of efforts underway on state, tribal, provincial, and private lands. Report, Western Governors' Association and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Denver, CO, USA.Google Scholar
Williams, E.M. & Ellefson, P.V. (1997) Going into partnership to manage a landscape. Journal of Forestry 95: 29–33.Google Scholar