Research Note A Typology of Collaborative Watershed Groups: Citizen-Based, Agency-Based, and Mixed Partnerships

Moore, Elizabeth A.; Koontz, Tomas M.

doi:10.1080/08941920309182

Cited by 185 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although typologies have some weaknesses, they are still regarded as providing "a sound foundation for both theorizing and empirical research" (Bailey 1994:33, see also Doty and Glick 1994, Lagendijk 2003, Moore and Koontz 2003, Fiss 2011. These features confirmed the appropriateness of our choice of methodology.…”

Section: Formentioning

confidence: 63%

Interrogating resilience: toward a typology to improve its operationalization

Davidson¹,

Jacobson²,

Lyth³

et al. 2016

E&S

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In the context of accelerated global change, the concept of resilience, with its roots in ecological theory and complex adaptive systems, has emerged as the favored framework for understanding and responding to the dynamics of change. Its transfer from ecological to social contexts, however, has led to the concept being interpreted in multiple ways across numerous disciplines causing significant challenges for its practical application. The aim of this paper is to improve conceptual clarity within resilience thinking so that resilience can be interpreted and articulated in ways that enhance its utility and explanatory power, not only theoretically but also operationally. We argue that the current confusion and ambiguity within resilience thinking is problematic for operationalizing the concept within policy making. To achieve our aim, we interrogate resilience interpretations used within a number of academic and practice domains in the forefront of contending with the disruptive and sometimes catastrophic effects of global change (primarily due to climate change) on ecological and human-nature systems. We demonstrate evolution and convergence among disciplines in the interpretations and theoretical underpinnings of resilience and in engagement with cross-scale considerations. From our analysis, we identify core conceptual elements to be considered in policy responses if resilience is to fulfill its potential in improving decision making for change. We offer an original classification of resilience definitions in current use and a typology of resilience interpretations. We conclude that resilience thinking must be open to alternative traditions and interpretations if it is to become a theoretically and operationally powerful paradigm.

show abstract

Section: Formentioning

confidence: 63%

Interrogating resilience: toward a typology to improve its operationalization

Davidson¹,

Jacobson²,

Lyth³

et al. 2016

E&S

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collaboration and co-ordinated action is best achieved by actively managing communication and feedback processes and generating commitment from stakeholders at various levels, allowing for joint monitoring, learning, and scheme adjustments. Insights on how to structure and organise such processes can be gained from, for example, Landcare groups in Germany (Prager and Vanclay, 2010), Landcare in Australia (Cary andWebb, 2001,Prager 2010), environmental cooperatives in the Netherlands (Franks and Mc Gloin, 2007;Slangen and Polman, 2002), or watershed collaboratives in the US (Moore and Koontz, 2003). Most of these models involve facilitators co-ordinating groups of land managers and facilitating dialogue with other stakeholders, authorities and networks (Lane et al, 2009).…”

Section: Overcoming Challenges To Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes

Moxey²,

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2014. Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes.Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes in UK peatlands AbstractThis paper considers how agri-environment schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy could be adapted to derive a higher return of ecosystem services from agricultural land, through deliberation with members of the public, land owners, managers and other stakeholders: i) paying for the ecosystem services that are valued most by society; ii) spatially targeting payments to locations where ecosystem services can most efficiently be provided; and iii) providing incentives for cross-boundary collaboration over the provision of ecosystem services that need to be managed at catchment or wider spatial scales. Using UK upland peatlands as a case study, and drawing on experience tackling these issues in the new Glastir agri-environment scheme in Wales, the paper attempts to find a balance between current input-based schemes that pay for land management activities on the basis of income foregone and output-based schemes that pay by results. The paper reviews evidence that spatially targeted, output-based payments may be more economically efficient than current approaches, but identifies a number of challenges, including: scientific uncertainty; pricing of ecosystem services; timing of payments; increased risk to land managers; compliance with World Trade Organisation regulations; and barriers to cross-boundary collaboration in the management of ecosystem services at habitat, catchment or landscape scales. A number of options are reviewed to overcome these challenges, including: the use of process-based models, pressureresponse functions and expert knowledge to establish causal links between management and ecosystem service delivery and reduce the costs of monitoring; the use of competitive bidding or non-market valuation techniques to set prices for ecosystem service delivery; insurance schemes; combining agri-environment schemes with funding from private Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes; and independent facilitation of groups of potential applicants across property boundaries in scheme options that are co-designed with the land management community. Drawing on examples from UK peatlands and experience designing the Glastir scheme, the paper 2 proposes a number of ways in which agri-environment schemes around the world that make payments on the basis of management inputs can better link payments to the provision of ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…Watershed projects have begun to attract stakeholders from the business, nonprofit, and public sectors and to gain success through collaborative management (Moore and Koontz 2003;Bidwell and Ryan 2006). Public-private partnerships create more opportunity for watershed managers to target vital parts of the landscape, avoid sive tile drainage networks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%