Evaluation of a Collaborative Model: A Case Study Analysis of Watershed Planning in theIntermountain West

Abstract

Collaborative planning processes have become increasingly popular for addressing environmental planning issues, resulting in a number of conceptual models for collaboration. A model proposed by Selin and Chavez suggests that collaboration emerges from a series of antecedents and then proceeds sequentially through problem-setting, direction-setting, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation phases. This paper summarizes an empirical study to evaluate if the Selin and Chavez model encompasses the range of factors important for the establishment and operation of collaboration in watershed planning from the perspective of the planning coordinator. Analysis of three case studies of watershed based planning efforts in the Intermountain West suggests the model realistically describes some of the fundamental collaborative elements in watershed planning. Particularly important factors include the involvement of stakeholders in data collection and analysis and the establishment of measurable objectives. Informal face-to-face dialog and watershed field tours were considered critical for identifying issues and establishing trust among stakeholders. Group organizational structure also seems to play a key role in facilitating collaboration. From this analysis, suggestions for refining the model are proposed.

Cultivating Communication: Participatory Approaches in Land Restoration in Iceland

“…Warburton 1997, Bentrup 2001, Rowe and Frewer 2005. In FHL, an annual visit seemed sufficient as long as it was consistent, and in Hekluskógar, the intensive contact during the collaboration phase contributed to the collaboration partners' strong "ownership" of the project (cf.…”

Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice

“…Shared understanding is variously described in the literature as ''common mission'' Roussos and Fawcett 2000), ''common ground'' (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), ''common purpose'' (Tett, Crowther, and . Shared understanding can also imply agreement on a definition of the problem (Bentrup 2001;North 2000;Pahl-Wostl and Hare 2004). Or, it might mean agreement on the relevant knowledge necessary for addressing a problem.…”

“…Perceptions of interdependence, of course, often depend upon political context. Thus, incentives to participate are often shaped by the ''shadow of the state,'' such as threats of regulation or court (Bentrup 2001;Brown 2002;Short and Winter 1999). In the area of endangered species protection, for example, it is common for collaboration to be seen by all stakeholders as preferable to lengthy and costly court battles.…”

“…However, face-to-face dialogue is more than merely the medium of negotiation. It is at the core of the process of breaking down stereotypes and other barriers to communication that prevent exploration of mutual gains in the first place (Bentrup 2001). It is at the heart of a process of building trust, mutual respect, shared understanding, and commitment to the process Lasker and Weiss 2003;Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2004;Schneider et al 2003;Tompkins and Adger 2004;Warner 2006).…”

The Qualities Needed for a Successful Collaboration: A Contribution to the Conceptual Understanding of Collaboration for Efficient Public Transport

“…Joint understanding [26] can be referred to in different terms, such as "common ground" [30], "common purpose" [31], "common aims" [32], or "clear goals and strategic direction" [33,34]. A shared understanding can also involve reaching an agreed definition of a problem [35,36] or consensus on the type of knowledge needed to handle a certain problem. Shared understanding can also be viewed as part of the basic learning process in a collaboration, which involves developing an understanding of the other organizations' motivations, objectives, and visions [37,38].…”