![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081107123159im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
1999 Progress Report: When Do Stakeholder Negotiations Work? A Multiple Lens Analysis of Watershed Restorations in California and Washington
EPA Grant Number: R827145Title: When Do Stakeholder Negotiations Work? A Multiple Lens Analysis of Watershed Restorations in California and Washington
Investigators: Sabatier, Paul A. , Bolton, Susan , Leach, William , Pelkey, Neil , Quinn, James
Current Investigators: Sabatier, Paul A. , Leach, William , Pelkey, Neil , Quinn, James
Institution: University of California - Davis , University of Washington - Seattle
Current Institution: University of California - Davis
EPA Project Officer: Stelz, Bill
Project Period: January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000
Project Period Covered by this Report: January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000
Project Amount: $149,935
RFA: Water and Watersheds (1998)
Research Category: Water and Watersheds
Description:
Objective:The objectives of this research project are to:
1. Analyze quantitatively the factors affecting the ability of stakeholder negotiation processes to reach formal agreements on restoration goals/strategies, and to implement those agreements.
2. Compare the ability of three theoretical frameworks to explain this variation in success among stakeholder partnerships. The frameworks are: (a) Elinor Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework for the management of common property resources, (b) Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith's Advocacy Coalition Framework of policy change, and (c) Robert Putnam's framework for understanding the role that social capital plays in solving collective action problems.
3. Provide concrete guidance to agency managers about how they might assist local partnerships, and to help them identify which partnerships represent the best "investments."
4. Ascertain whether consensus-based negotiation processes have been more successful than other approaches in developing and implementing restoration projects.
Progress Summary:This grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been merged with a very similar one funded by the National Science Foundation's Program in Decision, Risk, and Management Science. This report is written for the composite project (the University of California?Davis Watershed Partnerships Project, or WPP).
The original grants envisaged conducting a random sample of 100 partnerships (70 in California, 30 in Washington), each involving a diverse array of stakeholders (federal/state agencies, local agencies, and at least two competing private interests) interested in watershed restoration. Thus far, everything is going fine except that, with current levels of funding, we will wind up with about 60 partnerships (45 in California, 15 in Washington). There are two major reasons for the shortfall: (1) everything involving the interviews has taken longer than expected, (2) the project was expanded to include all California hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). We have spent much more time than originally envisaged in gathering ecological, demographic, and institutional data on the entire population of 180 partnerships in 129 HUCs (U.S. Geological Survey watershed units) in California that meet our criteria for a multi-stakeholder watershed partnership.
In each of the 60 partnerships selected for detailed study, we are in the process of:
1. Gathering data on the ecological, demographic, and institutional background for each partnership. This is completed prior to the interviews, so that interviewers will be knowledgeable about the partnership.
2. Conducting in-person interviews with three to five of the critical participants, selected to represent a diversity of perspectives. Interviews generally last about 90 minutes. They deal with the history and activities of the partnership, its procedures, its participants, and respondents' perceptions of the reasons for its degree of success. Interviews are transcribed and then sent back to respondents for comments.
3. Creating a coded "profile" of the partnership from the interviews, background documents, and partnership documents. This profile includes over 160 variables.
4. Administering a mail survey to 20-40 people knowledgeable about each partnership. Thus far, we have surveyed participants in about 40 partnerships, with an overall response rate of 66 percent.
To date, we have interview data, ecological data, and survey responses for about 40 partnerships, but much of the interview data still remains to be coded.
Future Activities:First, we must systematically code the data for our present set of 40-45 partnerships, and gather data this summer on the remaining set of 15 partnerships. We then must analyze: (1) various measures of success, and (2) the full range of factors contributing to each major indicator of success.
Journal Articles on this Report: 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 7 publications | 2 publications in selected types | All 2 journal articles |
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Leach WD, Pelkey NW, Sabatier P. Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 2001;127(6):378-385. |
R827145 (1999) R827145 (Final) |
not available |
watershed, restoration, aquatic, habitat, community-based, survey, preferences, socioeconomic, environmental assets, sociological, hydrology, social science, remote sensing, California, CA, Washington, WA, EPA Region 9, agriculture, forestry. , Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Water, Geographic Area, Scientific Discipline, RFA, Water & Watershed, Restoration, Social Science, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, EPA Region, Watersheds, Ecology and Ecosystems, State, water quality, California (CA), environmental rehabilitation, public policy, watershed restoration, sociological, Washington (WA), community-based research, ecological research, decision making, aquatic habitat protection , ecological recovery, stakeholder groups, common property resources, citizen perceptions, community values, aquatic ecosystems, community involvement, Region 10, collective action problems, restoration strategies, restoration planning, valuation of watersheds, cost benefit
Relevant Websites:
http://wpp.ucdavis.edu
Progress and Final Reports:
Original Abstract
Final Report