PPOL 544: Collaborative Governance
4 lecture credits; to be taught in two 2-hour class blocks each week
Offered every other Spring--beginning in Spring of 2015
Professor Edward P. Weber
Dept. of Political Science, School of Public Policy
306 Gilkey Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97330-6206
(541) 737-6727
[email protected]
Course Description:
The use of collaborative governance has been around for a long time. Despite the fact that the
basic form and dynamic of this governance structure runs contrary to how the U.S., and many
other countries, have organized and controlled their government bureaucracies for most of the
past 125 years, in recent years it has become a hot topic in academia and practical application.
With its long history and recent popularity this course provides graduate students a perspective
on the conditions that form institutional arrangements and the resulting outcomes. The aim of
this course is to provide you with a grounding in collaborative governance: the underlying
theories that support it; what we know from research about how it works; the methods used to
evaluate it and what we can learn from practice to inform your own research. You will be asked
to evaluate the conditions necessary for collaborative governance arrangements and outcomes
from different case studies, apply theory to understand motivations for collaboration, and
develop an understanding of the strengths and limitations of collaborative governance in a real
world setting. This course combines approximately 100 hours of instruction, in class activities,
and assignments for 4 credits. The course will be taught in 2-hour time blocks twice each week
during the term, on either a T-TH or M-W schedule.
Prerequisites, Co-requisites and Enforced Prerequisites: none
Learning Outcomes:
Students successfully completing this class will know how to:
a) Read and synthesize multiple sources of literature on collaborative governance in
natural resource management and other applied settings. This will be assessed
through participation in weekly seminars, completion of written essays on selected
topics, and application of theory to your ongoing research.
b) Critically analyze, assess, and apply social science theory to collaborative governance
arrangements and practice of collaborative governance arrangements. This will be
assessed through weekly seminar participation and writings and completion of
written essays on selected topics.
c) Evaluate and apply qualitative and quantitative research methods to collaborative
governance arrangements. This will be assessed through participation in weekly
seminars, completion of written essays on selected topics, and application of
research methods to your ongoing research as appropriate.
5/15/14
1
d) Produce professional quality social science writing and evaluate the writing strengths
and weaknesses of other social science analyses. This will be assessed through
biweekly writing assignments.
Course Requirements and Grade Weighting:
 20% Active participation in class discussions. All assigned readings must be
completed prior to class and students are expected to engage in all class discussions.
 40% Completion of four written essays (6-10 pages each) discussing and evaluating
the weekly readings. Your essays should not merely summarize the readings; they should
offer a critical assessment of and engagement with ideas or issues in the readings. Essays
should be typed, double-spaced, and must conform to acceptable standards of grammar,
punctuation, and citation format. All essays to be submitted to the online course space.
 20% Final, written case study paper on collaborative governance concepts and
application to real world examples. This paper to be submitted to the online course
space.
 20% Leadership. Each participant will introduce and lead at least one discussion in
an assigned class section. You will be responsible for introducing a reading and leading a
discussion on one or more of the questions/issues brought by others in the class. You
might also want to consider looking at some of the additional readings so you can bring
different insights to the conversation.
Evaluation of Student Performance:
 In general late assignments will be penalized 25% of the total score for each day they are
late. This policy will be strictly enforced. By definition, "late" means any assignment
submitted after the scheduled class period or assignment date. Remember that
professionals are not late.
 Students not submitting assignments and not participating in the course will receive a
failing grade.
 Extra credit will not be allowed in this course.
 All OSU academic regulations will be followed in the course. Academic regulations are
available at: http://catalog.oregonstate.edu/ChapterDetail.aspx?Key=75
 You are expected to do all required reading and participate in all course requirements.
 Proper spelling, grammar, and citation should be used in all assignments. I prefer APA
citation format: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
Learning Resources: there are no required textbooks in this class, all required reading will be
provided to you on blackboard
Students with Disabilities:
Oregon State University is committed to student success; however, we do not require
students to use accommodations nor will we provide them unless they are requested by the
student. The student, as a legal adult, is responsible to request appropriate accommodations.
The student must take the lead in applying to Disability Access Services (DAS) and submit
requests for accommodations each term through DAS Online. OSU students apply to DAS
and request accommodations at our Getting Started with DAS page.
Student conduct
5/15/14
2
Students are expected to comply with all regulations pertaining to academic honesty. For
further information, visit Avoiding Academic Dishonesty:
http://oregonstate.edu/studentconduct/offenses#acdis, or contact the office of Student
Conduct and Mediation at 541-737-3656. Plagiarism and cheating will not be tolerated in this
course. Engaging in such behaviors will result in a failing course grade and a formal
Academic Dishonesty Report. Plagiarism is defined as representing (and using) another
person's ideas, writings, and work as one's own. I use plagiarism detection software.
OSU Student Evaluation of Teaching
Course evaluation results are extremely important and are used to help me improve this
course and the learning experience of future students. Results from the 19 multiple choice
questions are tabulated anonymously and go directly to instructors and department heads.
Student comments on the open-ended questions are compiled and confidentially forwarded
to each instructor, per OSU procedures. The online Student Evaluation of Teaching form
will be available toward the end of each term, and you will be sent instructions via ONID by
the Office of Academic Programs, Assessment, and Accreditation. You will log in to
“Student Online Services” to respond to the online questionnaire. The results on the form
are anonymous and are not tabulated until after grades are posted.
5/15/14
3
Course Content & Assigned Readings
Week 1: Background, Wicked Problems and Collaborative Governance
This week gets us started on our voyage of discovery. We will define terms, discuss how
collaborative governance has gained popularity (expected benefits go here), and discuss the range
of options.
Session 1: Class introductions, definitions, history, range of options

Kettl, Donald F., Society, A., & Society, A. 2006. “Managing Boundaries in American
Administration: The Collaboration Imperative.” Public Administration Review, 66(s1): 10–
191

Weber. 2013. [Excerpt] from Auckland Report on CG. This covers some of the benefits
and compares CG to traditional top-down, experts-in-charge administration (aka
“consultation” in Commonwealth countries.) See attached.

O’Brien, Marg. 2010. [excerpt from her NZ Ministry of Env report]. This doc covers
different definitions of CG.
Session 2: Wicked Problems & CG
 Rittel and Webber (1973) coined the term wicked problems as an arena in which a purely
scientific-rational approach cannot be applied because of the lack of a clear problem
definition and differing perspectives of stakeholders. Examples of wicked problems
include global climate change, natural hazards, healthcare, the AIDS epidemic, and
pandemic influenza. Benefits of collaborative management include ability to adapt to
physically changing environments, promote public participation and policy dialogue, and
to enhance social capital.



Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4(2), 155–1692
Roberts, Nancy C. 2000. “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution.”
International Public Management Review 1 (1)3
Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges,
and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Administration Review,
68(2), 334–3494 Read only the parts about wicked problems and knowledge
challenges.
CG in response to wicked problems

Ludwig, D. (2001). The era of management is over. Ecosystems, 4(8), 758–7645

Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M., & Norgaard, R. (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive
management: Lessons from California’s CALFED Water Program. Environmental Science
& Policy, 12(6), 631–6436
Week 2: Additional Motivations for Choosing Collaboration (in varying forms)
This week we will focus on motivations for choosing collaboration. Readings cover both
Sessions 1 & 2.

Gazley, Beth (2008). “Intersectoral Collaboration and the Motivation to Collaborate,” in
Bingham and O’Leary (2008) (pg 256)

Government as enabler? Sirianni, Carmen. 2010. Investing in Democracy. Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institutions. Pp. 1 – 65. (see attached file).
5/15/14
4




Halverson, P. K., Mays, G. P., & Kaluzny, A. D. (2000). “Working together?
Organizational and market determinants of collaboration between public health and
medical care providers,” American Journal of Public Health, 90(12), 1913–6.11
Pisano, G., & Verganti, R. (2008). “Which kind of collaboration is right for you,”
Harvard Business Review, (December 2008), 78–8712
The transaction cost savings argument. Chapter 3 only of … Weber, E. P. (1998).
Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Georgetown
University Press.10
Individualized, market-based collaboration, or “free market environmentalism (i.e.,
voluntary exchanges designed to address public problems)

(grazing)http://perc.org/articles/peaceable-solution-range-war-over-grazing-rights

(water) http://perc.org/articles/scott-river-water-trust-improving-stream-flowseasy-way

(fishing)http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/gulfofm
aine/explore/can-we-save-maines-fisheries.xml
Week 3: The Importance of Antecedent Conditions
Much has been written about antecedent, or existing, conditions associated with the successful
adoption and operation of community-based collaborative governance arrangements.




Daniels, Steven, and Gregg Walker. 2001. Working through Environmental Conflict: The
Collaborative Learning Approach. Chapters to be Assigned.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge University Press. Chapters to be Assigned.
Pretty, Jules, et al. 2003. “Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources,”
Science 302: 1912 – 1915. http://www.julespretty.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/3.-Science-302-1912-1915-Pretty.pdf
Thomson, A., & Perry, J. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public
Administration Review (December)7
Week 4: Even with Motivation & Antecedent Conditions, How Do We Get over the
Collective Action Hump & Keep Things Going? Institutional Design and Principles for
Success
Team Exercise for this week: Take all the design principles from these readings and
develop/synthesize them into your own “dressed for success” CG arrangement. Your goal is to
develop an integrated, coherent institutional design and explain why yours is better and more
likely to succeed than those on offer here. This will require good, solid critiques of the
weaknesses of the models on offer in the readings, including my own.



Daniels, Steven, & Walker, Gregg. 2001. Working through Environmental Conflict: The
Collaborative Learning Approach.9 Chapters to be Assigned.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An Integrative Framework for
Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–2915
O’Brien, Marg. 2010. “Review of Collaborative Governance: Factors crucial to the
internal workings of the collaborative process,” Report for the Ministry of Environment
(New Zealand) (April).
5/15/14
5





Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press.38 Chapters to be assigned.
Sabatier, P. A., Leach, W. D., Lubell, M., & Pelkey, N. W. (2005). Theoretical
frameworks explaining partnership success. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Swimming Upstream:
Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Read only
pp. 173–200. 14
Weber, Edward P. 2013. “Building Capacity for Collaborative Water Governance in
Auckland,” Report for the Water Management Strategy and Policy Team, Auckland
Council, a Regional Government in New Zealand (June). Read only pp. 9 – 19.
Stoker, G. (2004). Designing institutions for governance in complex environments:
Normative rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted.
Economic and Social Research Council Fellowship (June), 1–5237
A piece specific to importance of particular kind of leadership/soft skills/philosophy of
governance. Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked Problems, Knowledge
Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Administration
Review, 68(2), 334–3494 Read only the parts about CCBs (collaborative capacity
builders) (link to attachment is back in Week 1)
Here is one of the best “big picture” attempts using meta-analysis of 137 studies to
design a framework incorporating antecedent conditions, institutional design, etc.

Ansell, Chris, & Gash, Alison. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–57113
Week 5: Collaborative Futuring and Planning with Knowledge-to-Action Networks &
Decision Support Tools
This week we look at some ways that technology has been integrated into collaborative decisionmaking processes with particular focus on knowledge generation and techno tools.
We will discuss the multiple stages of decision-making: futuring, planning and implementation,
and the role of these technotools of connecting information and collaborative processes.
Session 1:

Van Paason, A., van den Berg, J., Steingröver, E., Werkman, R., & Pedroli, B. (2011).
Knowledge in action: the search for collaborative research for sustainable landscape
development. Mansholt Publication Series, 11 (this is really long, but could take an
excerpt from here)

Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110
Suppl 3, 14081–717

The contrarian piece—do we always need techno-tools? Weber, E. P. (2009).
Explaining Institutional Change in Tough Cases of Collaboration: “Ideas” in the
Blackfoot Watershed. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 314–32718
Session 2:

Nyerges, T., Jankowski, P., Tuthill, D., & Ramsey, K. (2006). Collaborative Water
Resource Decision Support: Results of a Field Experiment. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 96(4), 699–72519

Burch, S., Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., & Flanders, D. (2010). Planning for climate
change in a flood-prone community: municipal barriers to policy action and the use of
5/15/14
6

visualizations as decision-support tools. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3(2), 126–
13920
Goldstein, B. E., & Butler, W. H. (2010). Expanding the Scope and Impact of
Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 238–24921
Week 6: Collaborative Outcomes
Last week we looked at different models of necessary conditions for successful collaborative
governance; this week we look at outcomes. One thing to note is that the research on outcomes
has been fairly limited to date.
Session 1:

Conley, A., & Moote, M. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resource management.
Society & Natural Resources, 371–38622

Thomson, Perry and Miller (2008). “Linking Collaboration Processes and Outcomes,” in
Bingham and O’Leary, Ed. (2008)23

Process Outcome Measures. O’Brien, Marg. 2010. Last part of her CG review for the
New Zealand Ministry of Environment (full cite is included under the Institutional
Design week of this course).

Koontz, Thomas M., & Thomas, Craig W. 2006. “What do we know and need to know
about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management?” Public Administration
Review 66: 111-121.

Session 2:

Rogers and Weber (2010). “Thinking Harder about Outcomes for Collaborative
Governance Arrangements,” American Review of Public Administration, 40 (5) (September):
546 -56724

Weber, Lovrich and Gaffney. 2007. The Problem Solving Capacity article from A & S
(or is the SNR version better?) that explores how to measures and why we should care
about an “expanded” view of outcomes, especially given the need for long-term problem
solving capacity (vs. only legal compliance).

Weber (2003). “Operationalizing Accountability in a Decentralized, Collaborative,
Shared-Power World,” in Bringing Society Back In. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 6910625
Week 7: Week of Application/Field Visit
Session 1 & 2:

Field trip to explore collaborative governance. This may include: a visit to the Deschutes
River Conservancy, a Watershed council meeting, Marine Reserves Community team
meeting. The class will be more than 2 hours so there will not be a second class this
week.

Week 7 assignment: Apply the principles of CG theory to the Field trip “case study” in a
two-page brief.
Week 8: Methods
This week will focus on the methods used in the field to examine collaborative governance
structures, both quantitative and qualitative. Network analysis can be applied to frameworks and
theories of the policy process to test hypotheses, understand the dynamics of each component
5/15/14
7
of the policy system, and understand the effect of networks on policy outcomes. Network
analysis has been used to further understanding the dynamics of collaboratives.
Session 1: Quantitative Analyses

Lubell, M., Scholz, J., Berardo, R., & Robins, G. (2012). Testing Policy Theory with
Statistical Models. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 351–37526

Lubell, M., Henry, A., & McCoy, M. (2010). Collaborative institutions in an ecology of
games. American Journal of Political …, 54(2), 287–30027

Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2007). A comprehensive modeling
framework for collaborative networked organizations. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 18(5), 529–54228

Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing Policy Networks : Marine Protected
Areas in California, 33(2), 181–20229
Session 2: Qualitative Analyses



Amirkhanyan, A. A. (2008). Collaborative Performance Measurement: Examining and Explaining the
Prevalence of Collaboration in State and Local Government Contracts. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 19(3), 523–55430
Bryer, T. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role
perceptions. Public Administration Review, 271–284.31
Weber, Edward P. 2014. Whychus Creek case (Deschutes River. Oregon): Shows how application of
collaborative “principles” creates success. Shows how network analysis/surveys, along with other
principles, are used to measure and report key markers of collaborative problem solving capacity.
Week 9: Real World Limitations
This week we look at some of the limitations of collaborative governance structures, evaluate the
ideal versus the real, and how to apply theory to reality.
Session 1:

Connelly, David R., Jing Zhang, and Sue Faerman. 2008. “The Paradoxical Nature of
Collaboration.” In Bingham and O'Leary. Ch. 2. pp. 17-35

Huxham, C., S. Vangen, C.Huxham, and C. Eden. 2000. The Challenge of Collaborative
Governance. Public Management Review 2(2) pp. 337 – 35834

Group exercise: what are the top 10 criticisms or limitations of collaborative
governance.
Session 2:

Karkkainen, B. (2002). Collaborative ecosystem governance: Scale, complexity, and
dynamism. Va. Envtl. LJ35

Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2005). The Formation of Large-scale Collaborative
Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and
Institutions. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 583–61236

Group discussion: Can the issues of scale for collaborative governance be overcome?
If not, why not? If so, why? Thinking back on other course readings, are these
challenges any different for CG than other forms of governance? And if “large scale”
doesn't work with collaborative governance, then what else would work better and
why/how?
Week 10: Long-term Implications of Collaborative Governance
5/15/14
8
Session 1: Role of the government in collaborative governance

Weber (forthcoming). “The Third Wave: Government Lead Techno-Democratic
Collaboration in New Zealand.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning.

Koontz, T. M., Steelman, T. A., Carmin, J., Korfmacher, K. S., Moseley, C., & Thomas,
C. W. (2004). Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government
(p. 224). Routledge40 Chapters to be Assigned.

Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and
Decision Making (Vol. 2008, p. 244). National Academies Press41 Chapters to be
Assigned.
Session 2: Sustainability and Durability of CG

Group 1 - assign readings and lead discussion on government mandates, public
participation

Group 2 - assign readings and lead discussion on sustainability and durability of CG

Group 3 - assign readings and lead discussion on size limits to collaborative governance
arrangements
5/15/14
9
References:
1.
Kettl, D. F. & Society, A. Managing Boundaries in American Administration: The
Collaboration Imperative. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 10–19 (2006).
2.
Rittel, H. & Webber, M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4, 155–
169 (1973).
3.
Roberts, N. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. Int. public Manag.
Rev. 1, 1–19 (2000).
4.
Weber, E. P. & Khademian, A. M. Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and
Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Adm. Rev. 68, 334–349
(2008).
5.
Ludwig, D. The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4, 758–764 (2001).
6.
Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M. & Norgaard, R. Collaborative governance and adaptive
management: Lessons from California’s CALFED Water Program. Environ. Sci. Policy
12, 631–643 (2009).
7.
Thomson, A. & Perry, J. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Adm.
Rev. (2006).
8.
Campbell, J. M. in Creat. a Cult. Collab. Int. Assoc. Facil. handbook. 41–52 (2006).
9.
Daniels, S. & Walker, G. Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative
Learning Approach. Work. Through Environ. Confl. 1 – 299 (2001).
10.
Weber, E. P. Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation.
328 (Georgetown University Press, 1998).
11.
Halverson, P. K., Mays, G. P. & Kaluzny, A. D. Working together? Organizational
and market determinants of collaboration between public health and medical care
providers. Am. J. Public Health 90, 1913–6 (2000).
12.
Pisano, G. & Verganti, R. Which kind of collaboration is right for you. Harv. Bus. Rev.
78–87 (2008).
13.
Ansell, C. & Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm.
Res. Theory 18, 543–571 (2008).
5/15/14
10
14.
Sabatier, P. A., Leach, W. D., Lubell, M. & Pelkey, N. W. in Swim. Upstream Collab.
Approaches to Watershed Manag. (Sabatier, P. A.) 173–200 (MIT Press, 2005).
15.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. & Balogh, S. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative
Governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22, 1–29 (2011).
16.
Bryson, J. M. J., Crosby, B. C. & Stone, M. M. The design and implementation of
Cross‐ Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Adm. … 66, 44–
55 (2006).
17.
Dietz, T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A. 110 Suppl , 14081–7 (2013).
18.
Weber, E. P. Explaining Institutional Change in Tough CWeber, E. P. (2009).
Explaining Institutional Change in Tough Cases of Collaboration: “Ideas” in the
Blackfoot Watershed. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 314–327.ases of
Collaboration: “Ideas” in the Blackfoo. Public Adm. Rev. 69, 314–327 (2009).
19.
Nyerges, T., Jankowski, P., Tuthill, D. & Ramsey, K. Collaborative Water Resource
Decision Support: Results of a Field Experiment. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96, 699–725
(2006).
20.
Burch, S., Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A. & Flanders, D. Planning for climate change in a
flood-prone community: municipal barriers to policy action and the use of
visualizations as decision-support tools. J. Flood Risk Manag. 3, 126–139 (2010).
21.
Goldstein, B. E. & Butler, W. H. Expanding the Scope and Impact of Collaborative
Planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76, 238–249 (2010).
22.
Conley, A. & Moote, M. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Soc.
&Natural Resour. 371–386 (2003). doi:10.1080/08941920390190032
23.
Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L. & Miller, T. K. in Big Ideas Collab. Public Manag. 97–120
(2008).
24.
Rogers, E. & Weber, E. P. Thinking Harder About Outcomes for Collaborative
Governance Arrangements. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 40, 546–567 (2010).
25.
Weber, E. P. Bringing Society Back in: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and
Sustainable Communities. 317 (MIT Press, 2003).
26.
Lubell, M., Scholz, J., Berardo, R. & Robins, G. Testing Policy Theory with Statistical
Models. Policy Stud. J. 40, 351–375 (2012).
27.
Lubell, M., Henry, A. & McCoy, M. Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games.
Am. J. Polit. … 54, 287–300 (2010).
5/15/14
11
28.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M. & Afsarmanesh, H. A comprehensive modeling framework
for collaborative networked organizations. J. Intell. Manuf. 18, 529–542 (2007).
29.
Weible, C. M. & Sabatier, P. A. Comparing Policy Networks : Marine Protected Areas
in California. 33, 181–202 (2005).
30.
Amirkhanyan, A. A. Collaborative Performance Measurement: Examining and
Explaining the Prevalence of Collaboration in State and Local Government
Contracts. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 19, 523–554 (2008).
31.
Bryer, T. Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role
perceptions. Public Adm. Rev. 271–284 (2009).
32.
Mandarano, L. a. Social Network Analysis of Social Capital in Collaborative Planning.
Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 245–260 (2009).
33.
Sandström, A. & Rova, C. The network structure of adaptive governance : a single
case study of a fish management area. 4, 528–551 (2010).
34.
Huxham, C., Vangen, S., Huxham, C. & Eden, C. The Challenge of Collaborative
Governance. Public Manag. Rev. 2, 337–358 (2000).
35.
Karkkainen, B. Collaborative ecosystem governance: Scale, complexity, and
dynamism. Va. Envtl. LJ (2002).
36.
Heikkila, T. & Gerlak, A. K. The Formation of Large-scale Collaborative Resource
Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and
Institutions. Policy Stud. J. 33, 583–612 (2005).
37.
Stoker, G. Designing institutions for governance in complex environments:
Normative rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted.
Econ. Soc. Res. Counc. Fellowsh. 1–52 (2004).
38.
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1990,
280 (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
39.
Ostrom, E. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective
Action.”. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92, (1998).
40.
Koontz, T. M. et al. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government.
224 (Routledge, 2004).
41.
Dietz, T. & Stern, P. C. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision
Making. 2008, 244 (National Academies Press, 2008).
5/15/14
12