Philanthropic Support of National Parks

Yandle, Tracy; Noonan, Douglas S.; Gazley, Beth

doi:10.1177/0899764016643612

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Partelow 2015, Partelow and Boda 2015, Guevara et al 2016, Oviedo and Bursztyn 2016, Blythe et al 2017, London et al 2017, Nakandakari et al 2017, Partelow et al 2018a) and forestry (Fleischman et al 2010, Oberlack et al 2015, Davenport et al 2016. However, use of the framework has expanded beyond those resource-use sectors to general food production systems (Marshall 2015), aquaculture systems (Partelow et al 2018b), terrestrial conservation and rangeland management (Falk et al 2012, Risvoll et al 2014, Baur and Binder 2015, Addison and Greiner 2016, Taggart-Hodge and Schoon 2016, Yandle et al 2016, Guariguata et al 2017, watershed management (Madrigal et al 2011, Bal et al 2011, Nagendra and Ostrom 2014, Villamayor-Tomas et al 2014, Bennett and Gosnell 2015, Naiga et al 2015, Silva et al 2015, Falk et al 2016, Hileman et al 2016, marine conservation and marine ecosystem management (Cinner et al 2012, Schlüter et al 2013, Stevenson and Tissot 2014, Ban et al 2015, 2017, Williams and Tai 2016, coastal development (Kanwar et al 2016, Schlüter et al 2019, energy systems …”

Section: Trends and Gaps In The Social-ecological Systems Framework Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges

Partelow¹

2018

E&S

256

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social-ecological systems framework (SESF) is arguably the most comprehensive conceptual framework for diagnosing interactions and outcomes in social-ecological systems (SES). This article systematically reviews the literature applying and developing the SESF and discusses methodological challenges for its continued use and development. Six types of research approaches using the SESF are identified, as well as the context of application, types of data used, and commonly associated concepts. The frequency of how each second-tier variable is used across articles is analyzed. A summary list of indicators used to measure each second-tier variable is provided. Articles suggesting modifications to the framework are summarized and linked to the specific variables. The discussion reflects on the results and focuses on methodological challenges for applying the framework. First, how the SESF is historically related to commons and collective action research. This affects its continued development in relation to inclusion criteria for variable modification and discourse in the literature. The framework may evolve into separate modified versions for specific resource use sectors (e.g., forestry, fisheries, food production, etc.), and a general framework would aggregate the generalizable commonalities between them. Methodological challenges for applying the SESF are discussed related to research design, transparency, and cross-case comparison. These are referred to as "methodological gaps" that allow the framework to be malleable to context but create transparency, comparability, and data abstraction issues. These include the variable-definition gap, variable-indicator gap, the indicator-measurement gap, and the data transformation gap. A benefit of the framework has been its ability to be malleable and multipurpose, bringing a welcomed pluralism of methods, data, and associated concepts. However, pluralism creates challenges for synthesis, data comparison, and mutually agreed-upon methods for modifications. Databases are a promising direction forward to help solve this problem. In conclusion, future research is discussed by reflecting on the different ways the SESF may continue to be a useful tool through (1) being a general but adaptable framework, (2) enabling comparison, and (3) as a diagnostic tool for theory building.

show abstract

Section: Trends and Gaps In The Social-ecological Systems Framework Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges

Partelow¹

2018

E&S

256

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This perspective suggests that, as government initiatives increase, NGOs may experience decreased funding or reduced opportunities for independent action. Previous studies have identified this interaction (Yandle et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…As highlighted by the interviews, formal agreements offer a clear framework for cooperation, setting out terms, conditions, and expected outcomes. This clarity is especially crucial when dealing with complex societal challenges that require structured interventions (Yandle et al., 2016). Formal agreements ensure accountability, transparency, and mutual understanding, thereby reducing potential disputes over resource allocation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power dynamics and resource dependence: NGO‐government collaboration in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Hummel,

Kusumasari

2023

Public Admin & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the collaboration between non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) and the government in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, to shed light on their dynamics and fill the existing gaps in the literature. Focusing on financial dependence, legitimization, and other motivating factors, this study explores the motivations behind NGO–government collaboration and their practical implications. The utilization of a two‐stage purposive sampling method and conducting interviews with executive directors allowed for a rich and nuanced understanding of the motivations, challenges, and dynamics of NGO‐government collaboration in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. It also uncovers factors such as access to resources, networks, advocacy efforts, and grants and supports that shape collaborative relationships. These findings contribute to the understanding of the relationship between NGOs and the government and provide insights for policymakers and practitioners to foster effective and sustainable partnerships. This study contributes to the existing literature on NGO‐government collaboration and offers valuable implications for future research and policy considerations.

show abstract

“…During the Great Recession, state and local governments faced revenue shortfalls, and public spending for parks and land conservation has yet to rebound to pre‐Recession levels (Barrett, Pitas, and Mowen 2017). Nonprofit organizations emerge to supplement government funding when politicians ignore, or fail to fund, environmental issues (Delfin Jr and Tang 2006; Yandle, Noonan, and Gazley 2016).…”

Section: Overview Of the Literature On Support Nonprofit Philanthropy...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The geography of giving: Nonprofit philanthropy, public parks and land conservation in the United States

Willse

2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faced with budget cutbacks, state and local governments struggle to adequately fund public parks and support land conservation. "Support nonprofits" are charitable organizations soliciting voluntary contributions of money, property, and service to protect parks and natural systems (Gazley, 2015). From 2000 to 2015, the number of support nonprofits increased by 188% and total nonprofit revenue increased by 263%, outpacing growth in public charities nationwide (NCCS). The rapid growth in support nonprofits prompts key questions about access and equity: Which communities benefit from support nonprofits? Do support nonprofits advocate for public land conservation? Using a novel national dataset pairing large nonprofits with the counties they serve, the article has three key findings: (1) counties in metropolitan areas with welleducated, liberal residents are more likely to have a support nonprofit fundraising for public land, and (2) there is no correlation between public funding for parks and support nonprofit presence. In addition to philanthropy,(3) counties with support nonprofits are more likely to pass ballot initiatives funding public land conservation. It is imperative that policy-makers and conservation advocates consider how nonprofit philanthropy maps on to-and augments-existing inequality in access to parks and natural resource conservation.

show abstract

Philanthropic Support of National Parks

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges

A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges

Power dynamics and resource dependence: NGO‐government collaboration in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

The geography of giving: Nonprofit philanthropy, public parks and land conservation in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About