Social learning in collaborative watershed planning

This article was downloaded by: [Tomas M. Koontz] On: 18 August 2013, At: 17:48 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy Tomas M. Koontz

a

a

The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources , 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd, Columbus , 43210 , USA Published online: 15 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (2013): Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2013.820658 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.820658

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.820658

Social learning in collaborative watershed planning: the importance of process control and efficacy Tomas M. Koontz* The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd, Columbus, 43210 USA

Downloaded by [Tomas M. Koontz] at 17:48 18 August 2013

(Received 21 January 2013; final version received 24 June 2013) Collaborative environmental management with stakeholder engagement is increasingly employed around the world. A key component of collaboration is social learning; through deliberation, stakeholders with different perspectives and information can learn from each other and develop a shared vision and plan for moving forward. This study compares social learning in collaborative watershed partnerships across two states within federal systems: Ohio (USA) and Niedersachsen (Germany). Analysis indicates that, although processes in both contexts generated social learning, Ohio partnerships exhibited significantly higher levels. A key difference linked to these results is the higher levels of local process control and individual efficacy in Ohio. Keywords: EU Water Framework Directive; stakeholders; social learning; comparative case study

1. Introduction Environmental policy and management increasingly draw on collaborative, participatory processes to engage diverse stakeholders. Collaborative organisations involve multiple stakeholders who come together to identify common issues, share information and perspectives, generate or analyse information for decision making, develop plans and implement projects (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Margerum 2011). It is argued that drawing on multiple sources of knowledge helps managers to adjust and adapt to changes inherent in complex, interactive systems. The evolution of management towards collaboration has emerged from several factors. The rise of non-point source pollution (e.g. agricultural runoff and other diffuse pollutants) as a major contributor to environmental degradation has led many to conclude that hierarchical, centralised efforts are insufficient to solve problems (John 1994; Durant et al. 2004; Sabatier et al. 2005). Scientific ideas from ecosystem management have similarly suggested that collaborative organisations are more appropriate for managing natural resources (Yaffee et al. 1996; Thomas 2003). Social factors have also played a role, including changing expectations about citizen roles in policy-making processes (Sabatier et al. 2005). Trust in government agency experts to take action insulated from citizen demands has been replaced by significant distrust and efforts to increase stakeholder involvement in policy making (Cortner and Moote 1999; Thomas 1999). One manifestation of this trend has been the emergence of locally-focused, watershed partnerships. A watershed partnership is a set of public, private and non-profit *Email: [email protected] Ó 2013 University of Newcastle upon Tyne


2

T.M. Koontz

stakeholders, formally organised on a watershed scale, working together to achieve ecosystem-oriented goals, such as restoration and water quality improvement. Government participants may include agency personnel and elected officials at the federal, state or local levels, while non-governmental participants may represent organisations such as private firms or non-profit advocacy organisations (Leach, Pelkey, and Sabatier 2002; Fleishman 2004). Collaborative partnerships vary in the level of participation by governmental and non-governmental actors (Moore and Koontz 2003). Partnerships typically lack regulatory authority to command compliance, although some are closely connected with government agencies such as soil and water conservation districts or environmental regulators (Bidwell and Ryan 2006; Kampa, Kranz, and Hansen 2003). Evidence suggests that collaborative efforts may promote social learning. Through deliberation, stakeholders with different perspectives and information can learn from each other as they develop a shared vision and plan for moving forward. Scholars of environmental and natural resource management have highlighted the importance of social learning for co-management success (Pinkerton 1994; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). More broadly, it has been argued that since most modern problems are too complex to be solved with a single optimal solution; addressing them requires continual learning in order to adapt and adjust (Lee 1993; Innes and Booher 2010). However, others have identified potential pitfalls of social learning, such as participants learning incorrect information, consensus leading to lowest-common-denominator solutions, and deliberation exacerbating rather than alleviating existing power differentials (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; van de Hove 2006). Critiques of social learning have not always been clear about whether problems arise with theory or practice, or both (Ison, Blackmore, and Iaquinto 2013). Thus there is a need to clearly articulate the theoretical components of social learning, as well as to seek evidence of how these play out in practice. While there is some agreement that social learning can be important for successful environmental management, there is less agreement about what factors promote it. Muro and Jeffrey (2012) have argued that more research and theoretical development are needed to identify factors that affect social learning, and they called for systematic investigation of social learning in different types of participatory processes. Similarly, Reed et al. (2010) found that social learning as a concept is often conflated with factors thought to promote it, and research is needed to clarify these concepts and examine how participatory processes can be designed to promote social learning. As described below, this study undertakes such an effort by comparing two different collaborative planning processes in the contexts of Ohio, USA and Niedersachsen, Germany. The research questions motivating this study are as follows: (1) Do individual and group components of social learning occur in the two collaborative planning initiatives? (2) Are there any differences in the degree to which social learning occurs across the two initiatives? (3) Which factors have promoted or inhibited social learning in these collaborative efforts? 2. Learning in collaboratives There is no universally agreed-upon definition of social learning. As recent scholarship has argued, social learning can be conceived broadly as either deliberation that leads to transfer of existing knowledge among individuals, or as an emergent property


Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

3

encompassing the creation of agreement, trust and commitment to a group vision (Reed et al. 2010; Ison, Blackmore, and Iaquinto 2013). The first perspective emphasises individual knowledge gain, while the second highlights properties of a group (Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn 1995; Mostert et al. 2007; Rist et al. 2007; Muro and Jeffrey 2012). This study takes an inclusive approach; rather than choosing one perspective, it includes data collection and analysis to seek evidence about both perspectives of social learning. As such, the study examines individual-level cognitive gain as well as grouplevel emergent processes. Early descriptions of the individual component of social learning can be traced to social cognitive theory, which posits that an important source of individual learning is interactions with other people (Blackmore 2007). Several types of such knowledge are relevant for collaborative environmental planning, including information about (1) the resource; (2) what other stakeholders want; (3) what solutions are politically feasible; and (4) the process of multi-scale planning (Korfmacher and Koontz 2003; Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; Muro and Jeffrey 2012). These types have sometimes been identified as ‘instrumental’ knowledge (item a above) and ‘communicative’ knowledge (items 2, 3, and 4 above) (Bull, Petts, and Evans 2008; Brummel et al. 2010). Each type is an individual-level phenomenon that arises from a social process. The group component of social learning encompasses relational elements of interacting with others, including trust-building among participants, network connections, and the development of group agreement about the issues at hand (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; Rist et al. 2007; Muro and Jeffrey 2012). Building trust involves a belief that others will follow through with their commitments, and a willingness to take risks by lowering one’s defences in front of others (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Vangen and Huxham 2003; Muro and Jeffrey 2012). Network connections are the links that are newly established or strengthened as a result of group interactions. Stakeholders reach out to others to gain resources, insights or co-operation on tasks, and such networks can be a key asset for group formation and planning activities (Aldrech and Whetten 1981; Lowndes and Skelcher 1998). Finally, group agreement entails a shift from multiple to collective cognitions, where participants shift their views and eventually merge into shared understandings (R€ oling 2002; Muro and Jeffrey 2012). Taken together, these studies suggest the definition of social learning used in this paper: individual cognitive gain related to the resource, what other stakeholders want, what solutions are politically feasible, and the process of multi-scale planning; plus relational elements of trust-building, network connections and development of group agreement. Given the generally positive role ascribed to social learning, scholars have sought to understand what factors might foster it. Collaborative processes and the deliberation that they entail have been argued to enhance social learning (Muro and Jeffrey 2008; Innes and Booher 2010). However, not all collaborative processes are equally conducive to do so. Empirical studies have identified a variety of factors thought to enhance opportunities for social learning to occur in collaborative efforts. These can be summarised into six key factors within a collaborative process: inclusiveness (variety of participants with diverse viewpoints); extended engagement (multiple opportunities to engage over time); information exchange (opportunities to exchange information); opportunities for interaction (dialogue among participants); process control (participants’ ability to set the agenda and procedures); and process equity (individual efficacy and being taken seriously by others) (Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn 1995; Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; Tippett et al. 2005; Rist et al. 2006; Muro 2008).


4

T.M. Koontz

Of particular importance for this study are process control and process equity. Process control refers to the participants’ ability to set the deliberative agenda and procedures. Sometimes called ‘democratic structure’ (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003), this refers to structuring a process that allows for participants to discover unplanned opportunities to work together, rather than only pre-determined items decided by government authority (Forester 1999). Prior research suggests greater process control may be associated with higher levels of the group components of social learning, although these findings did not separate process equity from other factors thought to promote social learning (Schulser, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; Muro and Jeffrey 2012). Process equity refers to equal participation and interaction among all deliberative participants. Process equity comprises two related concepts – individual efficacy and being taken seriously by others (Muro and Jeffrey 2012). When all participants have an equal chance to participate and be heard in a discourse, and when they are treated fairly, this paves the way for social learning to occur (Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn 1995). Such equity is a key component of Habermas’ (1979) ‘ideal speech situation’ governing communication to avoid oppression. In one study of community-based planning in Switzerland, the authors found that lack of perceived individual efficacy was a significant obstacle to social learning (Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn 1995). While several empirical case studies have used interviews to elicit levels of process control and process equity (e.g. Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn 1995; Mostert et al. 2007), an empirical analysis measuring process control with a survey questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their agreement with two statements: ‘I have influence on the selection of agenda items’ and ‘I have influence on the way meetings are run and on the communication and interaction methods that are employed’ (Muro and Jeffrey 2012). This same study measured process equity by asking respondents to indicate their agreement with two statements: ‘I am satisfied with the amount of influence I have in the group meetings’ and ‘My views and concerns are treated seriously by other participants’. These questions informed the survey questions in the study at hand, as described below. An empirical study comparing watershed planning groups in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein with those in Ireland revealed significant differences in all six of these factors, with the German groups exhibiting higher levels (Muro and Jeffrey 2012). The German groups also exhibited higher levels of the relational dimensions of social learning (but, interestingly, not the cognitive dimensions). Thus we see evidence supporting the importance of these factors for some social learning components. A US study of a mandated collaborative community wildfire management planning process examined three cases where several of the six factors were at levels theorised to promote social learning (Brummel et al. 2010). Across the three cases, inclusiveness was achieved, along with extended engagement (to varying degrees), information exchange and opportunities for interaction. It is unclear to what degree the cases exhibited process control or process equity. The study found that the relational component of social learning occurred in two of the three cases, attributable in part to the open communication that promoted information exchange. The lack of social learning in the third case was not explained. Another US study, of a collaborative wildlife management planning process in New York, examined a short, intensive deliberative workshop designed to generate social learning (Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003). They found that learning was enabled through inclusiveness, extended engagement, information exchange, opportunities for interaction and process control. Process equity was not measured. Social learning was hindered in places by the sharing of incorrect technical information.



5

Finally, in a study of a collaborative planning process for restoration in the Everglades ecosystem (Florida, USA), Gerlak and Heikkila (2011) found that learning outcomes resulted from several factors including inclusiveness, information exchange and opportunities for interaction. They concluded that decentralised structures promoting open dialogue from diverse stakeholders exchanging information can facilitate social learning. While the empirical studies described above generally support the role of the six factors in fostering social learning, conclusions about process control and process equity are less certain. The cases in Brumell et al. (2010) were top-down policy directives, suggesting that perhaps local process control was low, but the authors did not measure this variable. A study of a Canadian social learning effort for forest planning concluded that a top-down policy directive with limited process equity nevertheless led to communicative knowledge and instrumental knowledge (McGurk et al. 2006). The other studies did not measure process equity. To tease out the role of process control and process equity in fostering social learning, this study examines a multiple-case, quasi-experiment, ‘controlling for’ the first four factors, which are similar across cases. As described in our analysis, process control and process equity differ. This allows better understanding of their contributions to social learning. This study adds to theory building by identifying factors affecting social learning using similar variables in different contexts. Much of social science involves not inventing wholly new theories, but rather developing ‘middle-range theories’ that seek to identify the bounds of relationships among variables in their applicability in different contexts (George and Bennett 2005). Such approaches recognise the context-dependent nature of processes such as social learning while aspiring to yield insights that may be applicable beyond the bounds of a particular study. The study described below is such an effort, examining the interplay of several variables across different contexts. In particular, the study compares collaborative watershed planning in the state of Ohio, USA, to the state of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), Germany. Although the locations are different, important similarities exist in several physical, economic and political dimensions.

3. Case contexts The physical nature of water problems and solutions is remarkably similar in Ohio and Niedersachsen. The hydrological regime in both states is marked by plentiful rain, so surface water quantity is not a critical problem. Rather, water quality is the issue that has spurred collaborative watershed management efforts. Agriculture is a dominant land use in both states, with Ohio’s top agricultural products being soybeans, corn, dairy, greenhouse/nursery products and hogs. Niedersachsen’s land is dominated by agricultural production, growing mainly corn, sugar beets, potatoes and wheat. Agricultural runoff is a key source of water pollution in each state. Dairy production is a growing land use in Ohio, while swine production is a growing land use in Niedersachsen, both of which generate additional concentrated pollution. Economically, both Niedersachsen and Ohio are in developed countries that are major economic engines. The US currently has the world’s largest GDP, with Germany placing fourth (Washington Post 2012). Agriculture and related food products is an important industry in both Ohio and Niedersachsen.


6

T.M. Koontz

Politically, both of these Western democracies are federal systems. Although scholars traditionally have argued that the German form of federalism tilts heavily in favour of authority and power at the national level, or ‘co-operative federalism’, more recent scholarship has identified policy areas in which the state level yields considerable influence and autonomy (Jeffery 1999; Von Blumenthal 2011). (An additional layer of federalism exists in Germany’s position as a member of the European Union, which has legislated directives that member nations are obliged to follow.) The relatively higher degree of power sharing and authority devolved to states in the US has been described as ‘dual federalism’. Both Germany and the US have water quality statutes that share power between levels in the federal system. In the US, the Clean Water Act set a national-level requirement for states to ensure clean water, but let states decide which standards to set for which water bodies. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides federal funding for states to spend on water quality, much of which goes to support collaborative watershed efforts that bring in multiple stakeholders (Hardy and Koontz 2008). In Germany, water quality requirements were set by the European Union Water Framework Directive in 2000, mandating each member nation to devise plans to attain ‘good’ status of its waterways by 2015 (Kastens and Newig 2008). The German government has devolved primary authority for developing the plans to the state (L€ander) governments, including developing methods to incorporate stakeholder participation. Two important differences in the US and German political systems may have implications for collaborative watershed management. First, the US is a winner-take-all electoral system while Germany has proportional representation. This gives rise to two major parties in the US political system and multiple major parties in Germany. The multiple German parties form coalitions to wield political power, whereas in the US the two political parties are increasingly polarised (Abramowitz and Saunders 2008). Second, the representation of interests in Germany involves a tradition of corporatism, whereby different groups in society (e.g. farmers, environmentalists, particular industries) have a seat at the policy table through designated representatives who work largely behind closed doors. In contrast, the US system of interest group pluralism features greater direct citizen involvement in policy making, including the use of the judicial branch to uphold citizen rights to be involved in agency policy making and to monitor government adherence to legal requirements (Hoberg 2001). Even so, collaborative efforts in the US often involve organisational representatives in addition to, or instead of, direct citizen deliberation (Moseley and KenCairn 2000; Moore and Koontz 2003; Parker, Moore, and Weaver 2009). Related to watershed planning, a key difference lies in the nature of land use planning in these two countries. In Germany, such planning is mediated through a vertically integrated, consensus-oriented institutional structure, with a recent trend towards new regional-level efforts (Schmidt and Buehler 2007). In contrast, the US has traditionally been less vertically integrated, and there has been a trend towards higher-level (state) institutional structures (Schmidt and Buehler 2007). In addition, watershed planning in Ohio is typically bottom-up, with leadership coming from local organisations. In contrast, watershed planning in Niedersachsen has been top-down, driven by the state environmental agency, which leads the local partnership planning efforts. Overall, with regard to watershed planning, the two federal systems share similar landscapes, issues and economies, and both have seen efforts to incorporate stakeholder collaboration into planning processes. These collaborations occur in political systems with different traditions of coalitions, representation and vertical integration.


7


3.1. Niedersachsen watershed partnerships The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive of 2000 requires all member nations to achieve by 2015 ‘good status’ of water quality, which means meeting targets for ecological conditions by each member nation, and targets for chemical pollutant levels set by the EU. Member nations must develop River Basin Management Plans that assess current water conditions and describe actions to be taken to achieve those targets. The plans were required to be submitted to the European Commission in Brussels by 2009 (European Parliament 2000). The directive requires member nations to consult with stakeholders and encourages them to promote active engagement in planning processes. In the federal system of Germany, decisions about how to include stakeholders are made at the state level. Across Germany, different states have employed different strategies and processes to do so (Kampa, Kranz, and Hansen 2003; Ernst 2009; Jager 2011). This research study focuses on one state, Niedersachsen, which has developed innovative processes to include stakeholders via repeated interactions over time. In 2005 the Niedersachsen Ministry of Environment established watershed-based Gebietskooperationen (area co-operations) to create dialogue between administrators, water management stakeholders and the public in developing plans to achieve water quality standards. The Ministry of Environment indicated the hope that these deliberative bodies would develop innovative proposals and bring new perspectives into planning (MU Niedersachsen 2005). In a letter providing guidance to area co-operation leaders, the Minister of Environment said the bodies should generate lists of measures that are innovative, creative and feasible, with specific reference to those that are not unduly expensive (Sander 2005). He also urged the leaders to generate a common understanding of goals and measures, drawing on scientific knowledge as well as local experiences from those living in the area. The bodies were given a timeline to develop monitoring programmes by 2006, create management objectives and recommend water bodies to be classified as ‘heavily modified’ (and therefore subject to less stringent regulations) by 2007, and develop a programme of measures (actions to take) by 2008. Although 34 watersheds were identified across Niedersachsen, planning for several small watersheds was consolidated, for a total of 28 area co-operation groups. The Ministry of Environment established that group membership should be limited to no more than 10 permanent members representing the most important water stakeholders in the watershed, such as counties (1), communities (1), consumer associations (1), agriculture/farming and forestry (2), water suppliers (1), industry (1), environmental organisations (1), and NLWKN (Niedersachsen Land, Water, Coast, and Nature Protection agency, a state government agency) (2). Additional stakeholders could be added if necessary, and in fact this was common practice in some of the groups, because watersheds typically cross jurisdictional boundaries. For example, in several of the groups, more than one county participated. In 2005, the NLWKN facilitated area co-operation group establishment. They coordinated the selection of permanent members and a leadership team of two people, leader (Leitung) and manager (Gesch€ aftsf€ uhrer). The NLWKN agency first asked if any members wanted to serve in the leadership positions, and if not then NLWKN personnel fulfilled these roles. Across Niedersachsen, NLWKN personnel served as leaders in over half of the groups and as the manager in over 80% of the groups. The Niedersachsen Minister of Environment provided €15,000 per year to each group, starting in 2006, to support their work.

8

T.M. Koontz


The area co-operation groups met approximately two to three times per year, starting in 2005. The leaders, working closely with NLWKN, developed meeting agendas and facilitated the meetings. Over several years, the groups focused on water quality assessment, identifying heavily modified water bodies, and developing and prioritising suggested measures to improve water quality.

3.2. Ohio Watershed Partnerships The US Clean Water Act of 1972 required all waters in the US to attain fishable and swimmable status by 1983. It left it to states to interpret these standards for different waterways. As the deadline came and passed, it was apparent that many waterways across the US were not meeting these standards, and that this failure was largely attributable to non-point source pollution. In 1987, the federal statute was amended to promote community-based efforts to reduce non-point source pollution, often by developing and implementing watershed-based management plans (USEPA 1996, 2002). States play an important role in these efforts, providing funding, co-ordination, and technical assistance (Hardy and Koontz 2008). In Ohio, the Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Soil and Water Resources and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) encourage watershed partnerships to develop watershed action plans. While state officials are available for consultation, they do not direct the process. They provide guidance for how to create a plan and whom to include in its development, recommending the inclusion of stakeholders such as watershed residents, land owners, businesses, community organisations, educational institutions and state and local governments. State programme officers have contact with partnerships throughout the process, often suggesting specific stakeholders to engage based on the availability of resources or being community leaders. As one state programme officer explained: We don’t specifically define who should be represented locally, but we use our grant selection process, guidance, training, and technical support functions to encourage broad participation. Knowing that each watershed effort is unique, we believe that a strict top-down approach would be too inflexible. (Interview – OH 21)

Like Niedersachsen, Ohio has a mechanism to fund local watershed partnerships in their planning efforts. The Ohio Watershed Coordinator Grant Program grants selected partnerships $35,000 per year to hire a co-ordinator to develop an action plan. Grant recipients receive funding, training and guidance, but they are not led by state government officials. Rather, they are led by soil and water conservation districts, nonprofit organisations, local governments or regional planning agencies (ODNR Division of Soil and Water Resources 2010). Not all watershed partnerships in Ohio receive funding from the Ohio Watershed Coordinator Grant Program. Nevertheless, the state provides an important incentive to complete an acceptable watershed action plan through the availability of Clean Water Act Section 319 funds. Only partnerships with action plans endorsed by the state are eligible to receive these funds. In evaluating plans for endorsement, state officials consider the degree to which a plan meets content guidelines that address watershed boundaries, stakeholders, biophysical characteristics, land use, impairments, restoration goals, implementation and evaluation (Ohio DNR 2003). Between 2004 and 2011, 44 plans had received full endorsement, while six had received conditional endorsement, pending revisions.


9


The three partnerships examined in this study include two that received Ohio Watershed Coordinator Grant Program funding and one that did not during the study period. All three developed watershed action plans and submitted them for endorsement. One of these partnerships developed its plan between 2007 and 2008, one between 2008 and 2009, and one between 2010 and 2011. Each partnership met between four and nine times during its planning period.

4. Methods Comparative case studies are particularly useful in studying questions relating to interactions and complex social processes that unfold over time (Gerring 2004; George and Bennett 2005; Yin 2009). Identifying key variables of interest allows the researcher to select cases to control for some factors while allowing others to vary (Yin 2009). The study at hand follows a comparative case study design, with interviews and document analysis to gain qualitative data and a telephone survey to gain quantitative data. Like other studies of social learning, this study relies largely (but not exclusively) on perceptual data from participants. Where perceptions do not match an objective reality, the former may be more important in determining social learning. For example, Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn (1995) found participant perceptions that their input would not be efficacious was a significant barrier to social learning at first, even though the perceptions did not match reality. Thus this study uses perceptual survey questions asking for levels of agreement with statements about social learning and the factors expected to affect it. In addition, this study uses data from interview questions asking participants to describe how processes unfolded, and corroboration of descriptions from multiple stakeholders provided a more objective view of social learning. Interviews are a key component of case study research, as they allow the collection of data from those knowledgeable about particular processes such as collaborative planning. Interviews can provide in-depth understanding from participants’ perspective of a rich array of details and explanations of complex processes in human affairs, providing insights that complement survey data (Marshall and Rossman 1999; Yin 2009). Following standard social science practices, we selected interviewees based on a snowball sampling technique of starting with group leaders and subsequently asking interviewees to suggest additional interviewees knowledgeable about the collaborative planning processes. Interviews were semi-structured using an interview guide, which guided discussion yet allowed respondents to recall events and speak in a more conversational manner (Rubin and Rubin 1995; Kvale 1996). Notes were carefully written and follow-up phone calls or emails used when needed to ensure that accurate and complete information was obtained. Interviewees were given an assurance of confidentiality in order to encourage honest discussions. Interviews in Niedersachsen took place between March and August 2011. Most interviews (11 of 19) were conducted in person, with the remainder via telephone. The majority of interviews (14 of 19) were conducted in German with a native German speaker on the research team who translated into English, with the remainder conducted in English. Syntax and vocabulary in the responses indicated that all interviewees who chose to converse in English had a sophisticated command of English and the ability to communicate clearly on the topics of conversation. Given the high level of fluency in English demonstrated by the native German research team members, and the interviewees’ level of at least basic English comprehension – especially with technical


10

T.M. Koontz

and scientific terms – the quality of interview responses was high. A benefit of interviews is the ability to follow-up and check understanding, which was done as needed. Interviews in Ohio took place between October and December 2011, all 21 by telephone, and all in English with native English speakers. Interviews typically lasted one to two hours each, following a semi-structured question list. In addition to the interviews, document analysis was performed to provide insights about watershed planning and implementation. Documents examined included meeting minutes and attendance lists, government decrees and guidance documents, and watershed partnership reports and recommendations. Qualitative analysis of information obtained from the interviews and documents was performed following standard techniques of summarising, coding and pattern searching, with a focus on data about social learning (Miles and Huberman 1994). Following interviews and documents, telephone surveys were conducted in each context. In Niedersachsen, the research team surveyed (in summer 2011) members of three area co-operation groups that had been actively engaged between 2007 and 2008 in developing lists of prioritised actions to achieve clean standards. Here ‘active participants’ were those who had attended at least three of the semi-annual meetings over a five-year period. From an initial list of 55 who met this criterion, we were able to reach 39, 31 of whom agreed to participate. This provided a response rate of 79% of those we contacted (56% of those in our initial sample pool) and a sample size of 31. Six of these 31 respondents had participated in an interview for the study, while 25 had not. For the survey data in Ohio, the research team surveyed (in fall 2011) members of three collaborative watershed partnerships that had engaged in developing lists of prioritised actions to achieve goals of their comprehensive watershed action plans between fall 2007 and 2011. To qualify for inclusion in the analysis, the respondents must have been identified by the group leader as ‘active participants’ or attended at least three watershed planning meetings. From an initial list of 37 who met this criterion, we were able to reach 30, all of whom agreed to participate. This provided a response rate of 100% of those we contacted (81% of those in our initial sample pool) and a sample size of 30. Ten of these 30 respondents had participated in an interview for the study, while 20 had not. On the survey, variables of interest were measured on five-point Likert-type scales, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. These questions came from prior studies of social learning in organisations and participation in collaborative efforts (Halvorsen 2001; Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer 2003; Frame, Gunton, and Day 2004; Muro 2008). For each question except defensiveness (an indicator of trust), we coded ‘strongly disagree’ as 1 and ‘strongly agree’ as 5, so that higher values indicated higher levels of the social learning variables. The defensiveness question was reverse coded, so that higher values indicated higher levels of this dimension of trust. The Niedersachsen surveys were conducted in German, but they are translated into English below. The questions were as follows (see Table 1). Cognitive knowledge gain: Four survey questions were used to ask about four different types of knowledge: “Through my participation, I have learned new information about watershed processes and ecology”; “Through my participation, I have learned new information about basin scale planning and the Water Framework Directive [Niedersachsen] / watershed planning [Ohio]”; “Through my participation, I have learned new information about what is politically feasible”; “Through my participation, I have learned new information about what other stakeholders want”.


11

Table 1. Variables and survey questions about social learning components and factors. Variable Cognitive gain: watershed process/ecology Cognitive gain: watershed planning


Cognitive gain: political feasibility Cognitive gain: other stakeholders Trust: defensiveness Agreement: common view among members Networks: new Networks: strengthened Process equity: individual efficacy Process equity: taken seriously

Survey question: level of agreement with this statement Through my participation, I have learned new information about watershed processes and ecology Through my participation, I have learned new information about basin scale planning and the Water Framework Directive / watershed planning [Ohio] Through my participation, I have learned new information about what is politically feasible Through my participation, I have learned new information about what other stakeholders want An important reason for me to participate is to defend the interests of myself or my organisation (Reversed) The Gebietskooperation / planning effort [Ohio] has generated a common view among the participants of the current status of the watershed as well as immediate problems and their solutions Through my participation I have developed new contacts with people Through my participation I have strengthened existing ties with people My participation has had a big impact on the group achieving its goals During my participation, I have had my concerns and values taken seriously by others

Trust: This was measured as lack of defensiveness on the part of participants. The survey question was: “An important reason for me to participate is to defend the interests of myself or my organization”. (‘Strongly disagree’ is coded as 5 and ‘strongly agree’ as 1 for this variable, so that a higher score indicates more trust.) Group agreement: The survey question was: “The Gebietskooperation [Niedersachsen] / planning effort [Ohio] has generated a common view among the participants of the current status of the watershed as well as immediate problems and their solutions”. Networks: The two survey questions were: “Through my participation I have developed new contacts with people”; and “Through my participation I have strengthened existing ties with people”. 5. Results Interview and document analysis indicates the first four factors (inclusiveness, extended engagement, information exchange and opportunities for interaction) were similar in the two contexts (see Table 2). The fifth factor (process control) differed in the two contexts; in Ohio, the bottom-up processes allowed participants to set the agenda and procedures, whereas in Niedersachsen the top-down process meant that government officials set the agenda and led the meetings in a highly uniform manner (e.g. meeting minutes from different area co-operation groups indicate the same topics were discussed across different groups, and interviews indicated agenda setting was in close alignment with government decisions about the selection and timing of topics for discussion). The sixth

12

T.M. Koontz

Table 2. Social learning factors. Factor


Inclusiveness Extended engagement Information exchange Opportunities for interaction Process control Process equity: being taken seriously Process equity: individual efficacy

Evidence Documents, interviews Documents, interviews Documents, interviews Documents, interviews Documents, interviews Survey Survey

Results of comparing NS and OH Similar levels Similar levels Similar levels Similar levels Higher in OH Similar levels Higher in OH

factor (process equity) was mixed; survey data described below indicate that one component, individual efficacy, was perceived to be significantly higher in Ohio than in Niederscahsen, while the other component, being taken seriously, was not significantly different. Analysis of social learning indicates results above the midpoint of the scale for most components. The four types of cognitive gain had the highest mean scores across both contexts, followed by networks and then group agreement (see Table 3 and Figure 1). In Niedersachsen, respondents indicated, on average, the most knowledge gain about basin scale planning and the Water Framework Directive (3.94), followed by what other stakeholders want (3.71), watershed processes and ecology (3.48), and finally what is politically feasible (3.23). In Ohio, respondents indicated, on average, the most knowledge gain about what other stakeholder want (4.31), followed by watershed Table 3. Comparing Niedersachsen and Ohio respondent Survey Results. Variable

Mean values

Cognitive gain: watershed process/ecology

NS: 3.48 OH: 4.10 NS: 3.94 OH: 4.10 NS: 3.23 OH: 4.00 NS:3.71 OH: 4.31 NS: 1.58 OH: 1.97 NS: 3.10 OH: 3.86 NS:3.90 OH: 4.24 NS: 4.00 OH: 4.20 NS: 3.26 OH: 3.97 NS: 3.77 OH: 4.07

Cognitive gain: watershed planning Cognitive gain: political feasibility Cognitive gain: other stakeholders Trust: defensiveness Agreement: common view among members Networks: new Networks: strengthened Process equity: individual efficacy Process equity: taken seriously

Notes: aIndependent sample t-test, equal variances not assumed, 2-tailed test. b At the 0.05 level of significance, 2-tailed test. Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Significant difference (p-value)a and direction OH (0.032) Not significant b OH (0.004) OH (0.001) OH (0.041) OH (0.005) Not significant b Not significant b OH (0.001) Not significant b



13

Figure 1. Comparing Niedersachsen and Ohio respondent survey results.

planning (4.10) and watershed processes and ecology (4.10), and finally what is politically feasible (4.00). These are all above the midpoint of the scale (3). Note that learning what other stakeholders want was the highest scoring item in Ohio and the second-highest in Niedersachsen. Learning about watershed planning was the highest scoring item in Niedersachsen and tied for second in Ohio. Interviewees in both contexts described how the collaborative partnership fostered cognitive gain regarding diverse types of information. When asked to define success, one member in Niedersachsen said, “I would measure success, in part, as giving information to the people” (Interview NS-9), and another said it includes “Helping people to talk and understand more” (Interview NS-2). One member said, “The area co-operation provided a venue for contacting other stakeholders and it provided important information, especially environmental NGOs. We didn’t get this information before, so this was a central function of the partnership” (Interview NS-17). In Ohio, gathering scientific information was a key function of one of the partnerships. One member of this group noted, “Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency undertook chemical and biological sampling, and they would also rely on volunteers to carry out water sampling. There was a lot of information exchange” (Interview OH-12). In another Ohio partnership, a member noted that much information was shared because “The planning has brought some different groups to the table . . . Everyone has come in with their own knowledge” (Interview OH-1). One partnership member cited his group’s success in gathering scientific evidence through biological surveys and chemical analyses (Interview OH-9).


14

T.M. Koontz

For network building, respondents indicated similar levels of creating new contacts (3.90 in Niedersachsen and 4.24 in Ohio) as strengthening existing contacts (4.00 in Niedersachsen and 4.20 in Ohio). These values are near the ‘agree’ point on the scale. Many interviewees in Niedersachsen mentioned the addition of agricultural stakeholders to their network. One member said, “The biggest impact of the area co-operation on my organisation is that I know the important people now, and if there is a problem I know who to call. I work with more organisations now” (Interview NS-19). At a larger scale, the collaborative planning effort encouraged environmental organisations to develop a state-wide network of environmental representatives in an attempt to ensure representation in all of the partnerships (Interview NS-3). In Ohio, members said the partnership experience helped stakeholders develop informal networks through friendships, post-meeting dinners and canoe floats (Interview OH-9; Interview OH-5). Interviewees identified network building between partnership members and the broader community, as well as among different watershed partnerships (Interview OH-12; Interview OH-2; Interview OH-3). Members listed new contacts with several organisations, including industry, agencies, universities and counties (Interview OH-2; Interview OH-14). Group agreement scored above the midpoint of the scale in both contexts: 3.10 in Niedersachsen and 3.86 in Ohio. In Niedersachsen, most area co-operation group members described consensus decision processes with little conflict. As one member said, “We discussed each suggested project, had a time for questions, then voted. No votes were close; we agreed most of the time” (Interview NS-4). One partnership leader noted that because many members had worked together in other contexts in the past, “everybody had more or less the same knowledge and consensus was easy to achieve” (Interview NS-2). Other interviewees described the creation of lists of measures as largely driven by technical criteria from the NLWKN (state environmental protection agency), which made decisions contingent more on compliance with the criteria than on member preferences. In Ohio, members of all three partnerships described consensus decision making with widespread agreement. “I don’t recall any real disagreements – we typically used the data to decide which projects were necessary. I’m sure there was discussion but no real disagreements” (Interview OH-7). “Decisions were by consensus and there was rarely disagreement; I can recall only one instance where a Farm Bureau representative objected to a priority item” (Interview OH-2). In one of the Ohio partnerships, lists of actions to remediate acid mine drainage were seen largely as technical matter, with little room for stakeholder preferences. In another, interviewees said that everybody who brought an idea to the discussion had their idea included in the list of actions. The component of trust, as measured by defensiveness, averaged just 1.58 in Niedersachsen and 1.97 in Ohio. These means fall between ‘strongly agree’ (1) and ‘agree’ (2) to the statement, “An important reason for me to participate is to defend the interests of myself or my organisation”. Thus participants in both contexts indicated a moderate level of defensiveness. In Niedersachsen, many members mentioned agricultural interests as seeking to protect their own interests. For example, one member said, “The farmers refuse to yield their privileges” (Interview NS-18). An agriculture representative said, “Sometimes the discussion is about ‘farmers are bad’ – they have straightened rivers, their nitrates pollute and they don’t agree to measures. I think it is important to present farmer perspectives” (Interview NS-9). In Ohio, one partnership member mentioned citizens’ “strong distrust” in the effort because there was heavy government involvement, but the face to face meetings helped to alleviate this distrust


15

(Interview OH-11). A member of another partnership noted that progress on water quality improvement was hampered by a desire not to harm agricultural interests:


Secondary options (other than grants and voluntary programs) were considered to address riparian buffers and excess nutrient application, but agricultural interests took such suggestions very personally. Attacking what a farmer is doing on his own land is still very taboo in the community” (Interview OH-16).

T-tests1 were used to compare mean scores of survey items measuring the components of social learning (cognitive knowledge gain, trust building, group agreement and network building) as well as the process equity components thought to foster social learning (individual efficacy and being taken seriously). Results indicated significant differences in most variables, with Ohio respondents exhibiting higher levels (see Table 3 and Figure 1). For the cognitive gain variable, Ohio respondents exhibited higher levels in three of the four types of knowledge: watershed processes and ecology, what is politically feasible, and what other stakeholders want. Similarly, two of the three relational variables – trust and agreement – were higher among Ohio respondents. Network building was not significantly different in the two states. Finally, one of the process equity components (individual efficacy) was perceived to be significantly higher in Ohio than Niedersachsen, while the other (being taken seriously) was not significantly different.

6. Discussion The results suggest that the Ohio process is more conducive to three components of social learning: knowledge gain, trust building and group agreement. Factors thought to affect social learning included one process equity item that did not differ between the two contexts (being taken seriously), and one with a higher score in Ohio (individual efficacy). Other factors (inclusiveness, extended engagement, information exchange and opportunities for interaction) were found via interviews and document analysis to be similar across contexts. A key difference that emerges from this analysis is the level of local process control. The ability for participants to control the process, such as agenda setting and procedures, has been argued to be an important facilitator of deliberative work and social learning. In a study of collaborative watershed planning in a different German state, SchleswigHolstein, Muro (2008) found that stringent procedures from the Ministry constrained deliberation in local collaborative groups, reducing opportunities for participants to engage fully in discussions that might have allowed a richer understanding of others’ perspectives, and hence learning. That study also examined collaborative watershed planning groups in Ireland, which exhibited even higher levels of top-down process control and, subsequently, lower levels of the relational components of social learning. In the study at hand, the restricted process control in Niedersachsen may have had a similar effect on the area co-operations, thus limiting the achievement of social learning. To the extent that policy makers wish to promote social learning of complex problems such as watershed management, it appears that providing opportunities for stakeholders to develop and change their own processes, as opposed to them being determined by prior institutions, is helpful. Of course, greater stakeholder process control is not a panacea. Studies from watershed partnerships in the US suggest that some groups may spend the lion’s share of their work time in developing processes, which delays the achievement of


16

T.M. Koontz

on-the-ground activities to directly improve water quality (Bonnell and Koontz 2007). In a study of watershed collaboratives in the western US, Sabatier et al. (2005) found that most such groups do not generate many concrete outputs until they are at least four years old. Interviews in Niedersachsen suggested that the government officials were interested in generating action recommendations according to a uniform timetable across the state so they could submit them on time to the higher level planning process. At the same time, state-issued guidelines indicated that the Ministry of Environment wanted the area cooperation groups to generate creative and innovative solutions. Adhering to uniform timelines and top-down process control may not be conducive to the social learning that can generate creative and innovative solutions. It is interesting to note the one social learning variable that did not differ between the two states: networks. A key benefit of collaboration, often cited in the literature, is the generation of new relationships among diverse stakeholders who might not otherwise interact. Partnership members did not indicate significantly different response distributions across the two states for the network building questions. This similarity suggests that whether or not a partnership process is determined in a top-down fashion (as in Niedersachsen), the inclusion of a diversity of stakeholders in discussions and collaborative planning can foster the creation of new networks and the strengthening of existing ties. Most of the social learning variables exhibited responses above the midpoint of the scale, suggesting the presence of social learning. However, one relational component, trust, did not. Respondents indicated agreement with the statement that an important reason for them to participate was to defend their interests. However, the survey question used to measure trust is limited in its ability to measure the multiple dimensions of the concept. Other scholars have differentiated between generalised trust and interpersonal trust in terms of keeping promises and treating others fairly (Sabatier et al. 2005), and the term ‘defend my interests’ may be measuring a different dimension of the broad concept of trust. Thus this result should be interpreted cautiously. Importantly, defensiveness has not precluded the partnerships from agreeing upon actions and priorities. Survey responses yield mean scores above the midpoint of the group agreement scale, and many interviewees described consensus decision making with little disagreement. What can we make of such agreement in the face of defensiveness? Perhaps decision criteria based on technical requirements from the government agency (NLWKN in Niedersachsen), or based on scientific data (at least one of the partnerships in Ohio), or based on including everybody’s ideas rather than filtering some out (another Ohio partnership), can generate group agreement even while stakeholders work to defend their interests. This result matches that of Raymond (2006), who argued that trust is overrated and co-operative agreements for environmental planning might rely more on institutional incentives mechanisms and leadership. Finally, it is worth noting that one type of knowledge gain, learning what other stakeholders want, was indicated prominently in both settings (highest mean score in Ohio, second highest in Niedersachsen). This result occurred even though most participants viewed the collaborative process as largely a scientific information gathering process (especially in Ohio). It is consistent with study by Schusler, Decker, and Pfeffer (2003) of a collaborative forum for a New York wildlife management area, where 100% of participants reported “learn[ing] about the concerns of other participants” (315). Thus, even when collaborative processes are viewed primarily as a venue for sharing scientific information about the resource, participants probably learn social information as well.


17


7. Conclusion Collaborative environmental management with stakeholder engagement is increasingly employed around the world, in a variety of policy arenas. A prominent arena is watershed planning (Koontz et al. 2004; Sabatier et al. 2005; Margerum 2008). While an important rationale for this approach is the promise of improved water quality, numerous proponents have advocated the importance of social learning. Watershed partnerships are not all created equal. Each exists in unique circumstances, with particular individuals, in specific contexts. Nevertheless, empirical theory building and testing can be accomplished with careful attention to the interplay of variables across contexts. This study draws on variables identifying the dimensions of social learning as well as the factors thought to foster it. While this comparative case study examines members of six collaborative partnerships across two states in different countries, the contexts share many similarities. In particular, Niedersachsen (Germany) and Ohio (USA) share similar landscapes, water issues and land use patterns, and both have state-funded processes for including stakeholders in addressing water quality problems. Interviews, documents and a survey instrument were used to generate data about both cognitive knowledge gain (watershed processes/ecology, watershed planning, political feasibility and what other stakeholders want) and relational dimensions (trust, group agreement and networks) of social learning across the two contexts. Overall, members in both contexts indicated high levels of social learning across all dimensions except trust. Furthermore, partnership members in Ohio exhibited significantly higher social learning in three of the four cognitive learning dimensions and two of the three relational dimensions. To explain which factors account for these differences, this study analysed six variables theorised to affect social learning. Four factors were similar across the contexts: inclusiveness, extended engagement, information exchange and opportunities for interaction. One factor, process control, was clearly higher for participants in Ohio. The sixth factor, process equity, exhibited mixed results; individual efficacy was significantly higher in Ohio, but being taken seriously was similar across the two contexts. Taken together, these results support the importance of process control and individual efficacy in affecting social learning. Theoretically, these findings extend the conclusions from Muro and Jeffrey (2012), who compared social learning in collaborative efforts across two European countries. In that study, all of the factors expected to foster social learning were higher in the German than the Irish cases, and the German cases exhibited higher levels of the relational dimensions of social learning. In the study at hand, local process control and individual efficacy are positively associated with greater social learning in the US. context as well. For practical purposes, these results suggests that policy makers who aim to promote social learning should consider strategies for giving stakeholder participants greater process control and individual efficacy. At the same time, however, they should recognise that this may lengthen the time required to reach agreements. In other words, there is likely to be a trade-off between social learning and efficiency in decision making. Of course, comparative case studies cannot hold all variables constant. Although Niedersachsen and Ohio share many common features, they differ in some important structural ways that may have affected social learning. For example, the German tradition of coalitions may have left less room for increases in social learning as a result of the partnerships, to the extent that coalitions had already fostered such learning. In addition, an identified difference across the two contexts is the level of vertical integration of land


18

T.M. Koontz

use planning. Since the more top-down land use planning in Niedersachsen aligns with the top-down process control in those watershed partnerships, this difference is not so much a competing explanation as a complementary one. Social learning, like most social processes, is a complex phenomenon. Advancing the understanding of which factors most affect social learning will allow policy makers to make more informed choices about how to structure collaborative processes. In some cases, social learning will probably be a key goal for long-term success, while in others it may be less important than the speed of immediate actions. Structural features that promote social learning, namely the power of local stakeholders to design collaborative processes and make impactful contributions, may lengthen planning times. In addition, such a bottom-up approach probably leads to different planning recommendations for different locations. Policy makers seeking greater uniformity and shorter planning periods may prefer a top-down approach, as in Niedersachsen, whereas those seeking more localised planning and social learning may prefer a bottom-up approach, as in Ohio. At the same time, it is possible that such goals are not mutually exclusive. Are there strategies that might promote social learning without lengthening planning periods? Does giving more localised process control necessarily lead to divergent local plans? Such questions point to future research not only about how to promote social learning, but how social learning links to other environmental planning and management aims.

Acknowledgements The author acknowledges and wishes to thank the members and leaders of area co-operations and watershed partnerships who participated in this survey, as well as the members and leaders who provided their time for in-depth discussions. This study was made possible with the assistance of Prof Jens Newig, Wiebke Grund, Sabrina Schmidt, Chris Luderitz, Tillman Kiehn, Lena Knoop, Katharina Kapitza, Giulia Cutoloni, Laura Meinecke, Joachim Maack, Franziska Marten, Mascha Kurenbach, Florian Reinert, Anna Ernst, Cris Priessner, Wendy Ake, Jessica Dicerbo, Beau Ingle, Justin Loesch, David Poole and Phil DeSenze.

Note 1.

T-tests assume parametric data with continuous data. Although Likert-type scales ask respondents to mark a discrete number, they are appropriately analysed using t-tests if the underlying constructs are assumed to be continuous data, which is common for latent perceptual constructs such as these (see Gardner 1975; Borgatta and Bohrnstedt 1980; Crocker and Algina 1986). Analysis of skewness and kurtosis values for the dataset indicate sufficiently parametric data for t-tests.

References Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–555. Aldrich, Howard, and David A. Whetten. 1981. “Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: making the most of simplicity.” Handbook of organizational design 1: 385–408. Bidwell, Ryan. D., and Clare M. Ryan. 2006. “Collaborative Partnership Design: The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships.” Society and Natural Resources 19 (9): 827–842. Blackmore, C., 2007. “What Kinds of Knowledge, Knowing and Learning are Required for Addressing Resource Dilemmas? A Theoretical Overview.” Environmental Science and Policy 10 (6): 512–525.



19

Bonnell, Joseph E., and Tomas M. Koontz. 2007. “Stumbling Forward: The Organizational Challenges of Building and Sustaining Collaborative Watershed Management.” Society and Natural Resources 20 (2): 153–167. Borgatta, E. F., and G. W. Bohrnstedt. 1980. “Level of Measurement.” Sociological Methods & Research 9: 147–160. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. T. Farvar, J. C. Nguinguiri, and V. A. Ndangang. 2000. Comanagement of natural resources: Organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Heidelberg, Germany: GTZ and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag. Brummel, Rachel F., Kristen C. Nelson, Stephanie Grayzeck Stouter, Pamela J. Jakes, and Daniel R. Williams. 2010. “Social Learning in a Policy-mandated Collaboration; Community Wildfire Protection Planning in the Eastern United States.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (6): 681–699. Bull, R., J. Petts, and J. Evans. 2008. “Social Learning from Public Engagement: Dreaming the Impossible?” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (5): 701–716. Cortner, Hanna J., and Margaret A. Moote. 1999. The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Washington DC: Island Press. Crocker, L. M., and J. Algina. 1986. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Durant, Robert F., Daniel J. Fiorino, and Rosemary O’Leary, eds. 2004. Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. € Ernst, Anna. 2009. “Empirische Untersuchung der Offentlichkeitsbeteiligung an den Bewirtschaftungspl€anen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie.” [Empirical Investigation of Public Participation in Management Planning to Implement the E.U. Water Framework Directive]. Universit€at Osnabr€uck, Germany (unpublished thesis). European Parliament. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 22 December, L327: 1–72. Fleishman, Rachel. 2004. “Watershed Groups in Ohio: The Effects of Organizational Characteristics on Political Behavior, Accomplishments, and Perceived Effectiveness.” Unpublished masters thesis. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frame, T. M., T. Gunton, and J. C. Day. 2004. “The Role of Collaboration in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of Land and Water Resource Planning in British Columbia.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47 (1): 59–82. Gardner, P. L. 1975. “Scales and Statistics.” Review of Educational Research 45: 43–58. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Gerlak, Andrea K., and Tanya Heikkila. 2011. “Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (4): 619–644. Gerring, John. 2004. “What is a Case Study and What is it Good For? American Political Science Review 98 (2): 341–354. Habermas, J€urgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Halvorsen, K. E. 2001. “Assessing Public Participation Techniques for Comfort, Convenience, Satisfaction, and Deliberation.” Environmental Management 28 (2): 179–186. Hardy, Scott D., and Tomas M. Koontz. 2008. “Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution through Collaboration: Policies and Programs across the U.S. States.” Environmental Management 41 (3):301–310. Hoberg, George. 2001. “The Emerging Triumph of Ecosystem Management: The Transformation of Federal Forest Policy.” Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics, edited by Charles Davis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge Ison, R., C. Blackmore, and B. L. Iaquinto. 2013. “Towards Systemic and Adaptive Governance: Exploring the Revealing and Concealing Aspects of Contemporary Social-learning Metaphors.” Ecological Economics 87: 34–42. Jager, N. 2011. Schleswig-Holstein: Synthesis Report. Leuphana University, L€ uneburg, Germany (unpublished).


20

T.M. Koontz

Jeffery, Charlie, ed. 1999. Recasting German Federalism: The Legacies of Unification. London: Cassell. John, Dewitt. 1994. Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulation in States and Communities. Washington DC: CQ Press. Kampa, E., N. Kranz, and W. Hansen. 2003. Public Participation in River Basin Management in Germany. Work Package 4 HarmoniCOP project. Kastens, B., and J. Newig. 2008. “Will Participation Foster the Successful Implementation of WFD? The Case of Agricultural Groundwater Protection in North-West Germany.” Local Environment 13 (1): 27–41. Koontz, Tomas M., Toddi A. Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig W. Thomas. 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press. Korfmacher, Katrina Smith, and Tomas M. Koontz. 2003. “Collaboration, Information, and Preservation: The role of expertise in farmland preservation task forces.” Policy Sciences 36: 213–236. Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leach, William D., Neil W. Pelkey, and Paul A. Sabatier. 2002. “Stakeholder Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied to Watershed Management in California and Washington.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 (4): 645–670. Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. Lowndes, Vivien, and Chris Skelcher. 1998. “The Dynamics of Multi-organizational Partnerships: an Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance.” Public Administration 76 (2): 313–333. Margerum, Richard D. 2008. “A Typology of Collaboration Efforts in Environmental Management.” Environmental Management 41: 487–500. Margerum, Richard D. 2011. Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen Rossman. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McGurk, Brett, A. John Sinclair, and Alan Diduck. 2006. “An assessment of stakeholder advisory committees in forest management: Case studies from Manitoba, Canada.” Society and natural resources 19 (9): 809–826. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moore, Elizabeth A., and Tomas M. Koontz. 2003. “A Typology of Collaborative Watershed Groups: Citizen-based, Agency-based, and Mixed Partnerships.” Society and Natural Resources 16 (5): 451–460. Moseley, Cassandra, and Brett KenCairn. 2000. “Institutional Problem Solving or Social Change: The Applegate and Grand Canyon Forest Partnerships.” Paper presented at the Steps Toward Stewardship: Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Conference, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ, April 24–26. Mostert, Erik, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Yvonne Rees, Brad Searle, David Tabara, and Joanne Tippett. 2007. “Social Learning in European River-Basin Management: Barriers and Fostering Mechanisms from 10 River Basins.” Ecology and Society 12 (1). [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art19/ MU Niedersachsen. 2005. Erlass des Umweltministeriums vom 15.03.2005. Konzept f€ ur die Umsetzung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie im Gesch€aftsbereich des Nieders€achsischen Umweltministeriums – Bildung von Gebietskooperationen. Hannover. Muro, Melanie. 2008. “The Role of Social Learning in Participatory Planning and Management of Water Resources” PhD thesis, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK. Muro, Melanie, and P. Jeffrey. 2008. “A Critical Review of the Theory and Application of Social Learning in Participatory Natural Resource Management Processes.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (3): 325–344. Muro, Melanie, and P. Jeffrey. 2012. “Time to Talk? How the Structure of Dialog Processes Shape Stakeholder Learning in Participatory Water Resources Management.” Ecology and Society 17 (1): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04476-170103



21

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Soil and Water Resources. 2003. “Appendix 8 Watershed Action Plan Review Checklist.” June. Columbus, Ohio. http://web.epa. ohio.gov/dsw/nps/NPSMP/docs/WatershedPlanReviewChecklist2.pdf Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Soil and Water Resources. 2010. Ohio Watershed Grand Coordinator Annual Report 2009–2010. Columbus, OH. Parker, J. S., R. Moore, and M. Weaver. 2009. “Developing Participatory Models of Watershed Management in the Sugar Creek Watershed (Ohio, USA).” Water Alternatives 2 (1): 82–100. Pinkerton, E. W. 1994. “Local fisheries co-management: A review of international experiences and their implications for salmon management in British Columbia.” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 2363–2378. Raymond, Leigh. 2006. “Cooperation Without Trust: Overcoming Collective Action Barriers to Endangered Species Protection.” Policy Studies Journal 34 (1): 37–57. Reed, Mark S., Anna C. Evely, Georgina Cundill, Ioan Fazey, Jayne Glass, Adele Laing, Jens Newig et al. 2010. “What is Social Learning?” Ecology and Society 15 (4): 1–10. Rist, S., M. Chiddambaranathan, C. Escobar, and U. Wiesemann. 2006. “ ‘It Was Hard to Come to Mutual Understanding . . .’ The Multidimensionality of Social Learning Processes Concerned with Natural Resource Use in India, Africa and Latin America.” System Practice Action Research 19 (3): 219–237. Rist, Stephan, Mani Chidambaranathan, Cesar Escobar, Urs Wiesmann, and Anne Zimmermann. 2007. “Moving from Sustainable Management to Sustainable Governance of Natural Resources: The Role of Social Learning Processes in Rural India, Bolivia and Mali.” Journal of Rural Studies 23 (1): 219–237. R€oling, N. 2002. “Beyond the Aggregation of Individual Preferences.” In Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social Learning in Rural Resource Management, edited by C. Leeuwis and R. Pyburn, 25–48. Aasen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. Rubin, H., and I. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sabatier, Paul A., Will Focht, Mark Lubell, Zev Trachtenberg, Arnold Vedlitz, and Marty Matlock, eds. 2005. Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sander, H., Environment Minister of Lower Saxony. 2005. “Einrichtung der Gebietskooperationen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie.” [Establishment of the Area Cooperations Regarding the Implementation of the WFD]. Hannover, 20 December. Schmidt, Stephan, and Ralph Buehler. 2007. “The Planning Process in the U.S. and Germany: A Comparative Analysis.” International Planning Studies 12 (1): 55–75. Schusler, T. M., D. J. Decker, and M. J. Pfeffer. 2003. “Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management.” Society and Natural Resources 15: 309–326. Thomas, Craig W. 1999. “Linking Public Agencies with Community-Based Watershed Organizations: Lessons from California.” Policy Studies Journal 27: 544–564. Thomas, Craig W. 2003. Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tippett, J., B. Searle, C. Pahl-Wostl, and Y. Rees. 2005. “Social Learning and Public Participation in River Basin Management – Early Findings from HarmoniCOP Case Studies.” Environmental Science and Policy 8 (3): 287–299. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Why Watersheds? EPA 800-F-96001. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Section 319 Success Stories Volume III: The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act’s 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. EPA 841-S-01-0001. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Water Van den Hove, S. 2006. “Between Consensus and Compromise: Acknowledging the Negotiation Dimension in Participatory Approaches.” Land Use Policy 23 (1): 10–17. Vangen, Siv, and Chris Huxham. 2003. “Nurturing Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in Interorganizational Collaboration.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39 (1): 5–31. Von Blumenthal, Julia. 2011. “Handling Diversity – The Politics of Migration in German Federalism.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, September 1–4, Seattle.

22

T.M. Koontz


Washington Post. 2012. “The Top 10 Countries with the Highest GDP.” October 26. http://www. washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-top-10-countries-with-the-highest-gdp/2012/10/26/ 240e284a-1d0f-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_gallery.html Webler, Thomas, Hans Kastenholz, and Ortwin Renn. 1995. “Public Participation in Impact Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15 (5): 443–463. Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington DC: Island Press. Yaffee, Steven. L., A. F. Phillips, I. C. Frentz, P. W. Hardy, S. M. Maleki, and B. E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. Washington DC: Island Press. Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.