Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
COLLABORATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT IN OREGON: PERCEPTIONS, POLICIES, AND PARTNERSHIPS
By
LISA SEALES
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2014
2
© 2014 Lisa Seales
3
To my mother, may she rest in peace.
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to start by thanking the School of Natural Resources and
Environment and Dr. Stephen Humphrey at the University of Florida, for the Graduate
Alumni Award that funded my PhD work. Additionally, I sincerely appreciate the
resources and opportunities provided to me by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF)
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) in the Adaptive
Management of Water, Wetlands, and Watersheds. Dr. Mark Brown and Carol Binello
were especially helpful in providing me guidance and support as an NSF IGERT
Associate. In this program I learned the true nature of interdisciplinary collaborative
research, which provides a foundation for my career. I would also like to thank the
Association of American University Women (AAUW) for the American Dissertation
Fellowship, along with the University of Florida’s Office of Graduate Minority Programs
for the Delores Auzenne Dissertation Award that supported me in the completion of my
dissertation.
I am also indebted to the many people and organizations in the state of Oregon
who provided me the opportunity to investigate their truly innovative way of managing
resources. In particular, the boards and staff of both the Upper Deschutes Watershed
Council and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board were extremely helpful in
providing me information, knowledge, and resources to pursue my research.
I could not have done this without the guidance and support of my committee
members. I am particularly appreciative of my committee chair, Dr. Taylor Stein, who
supported me through both my master’s and my doctoral research, both academically
and personally. He is skilled in knowing the art of when to push me, and when to be
patient and supportive. Without his patience and support I would certainly have given up
5
long before reaching the finish line. Jonathan Dain, a master facilitator, taught me the
value of collaboration and acknowledging different perspectives. Not only was he an
integral part of helping me complete my graduate work, but also in many ways, he and
his teachings provided the inspiration for much of my doctoral research and my future
career. Dr. Katrina Schwartz is responsible for shaping much of my dissertation.
Through her teachings and example, I learned the value of qualitative research. I
sincerely appreciate her support and encouragement in helping me see the validity of
my labor. This dissertation would be a much different product without her contribution.
Dr. Matthew Cohen, a brilliant individual and original thinker, never failed to challenge
me and my thinking. I’m a better scientist and philosopher because of my exposure to
Dr. Cohen. Finally, Dr. Christopher McCarty, a master of methodology, not only helped
guide me to the tools for carrying out my research, but also always continues to
encourage and help me write and rewrite my research proposals in search of funding.
Finally, I owe everything to my mother. She was always my biggest cheerleader.
She taught me to believe that I could do anything, and literally that anything is possible.
“The sky’s the limit”. Through her example, I learned the art of tenacity. Without her
teachings, I most certainly would not have endeavored to even begin a PhD, much less
complete one. She was the strongest woman I have ever known, and simply put, the
world’s best mother. Though I lost her in the middle of this PhD process, I would never
have gotten here without her. Her unending love and support follow me wherever I go. I
am truly blessed to have had such a mother, and eternally grateful for all she gave me,
and all she taught me.
6
In conclusion, I also owe much to my friends, my chosen family, those that stood
by me through some very dark days on the road to completing this dissertation. I could
not be more appreciative of all the love, support, assistance, and encouragement from
so many wonderful people in my life, but in particular I want to thank, Georgina Cullman,
Gaby Stocks, Jaime Kennedy, and Amy Gray. I owe much to these incredible women.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 10
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 12
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER ................................................................................. 16
2 WATERSHED FRAMING: PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT COMPRISES A WATERSHED ......................................................................................................... 19
Introduction and Study Objectives .......................................................................... 19 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 21
Framing Theory ................................................................................................ 21 Cultural Domain Analysis ................................................................................. 22
Theoretical Contribution of this Research......................................................... 23 Methods .................................................................................................................. 23
Study Site ......................................................................................................... 23 Research Design and Sample Selection .......................................................... 25 Survey Methodology ......................................................................................... 25
Interview Design: Free Listing .......................................................................... 26 Sample Description .......................................................................................... 28
Data Cleaning and Analysis ............................................................................. 29 Results .................................................................................................................... 30
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................ 30
Basic list statistics ...................................................................................... 31 Frequencies and Smith’s salience statistic ................................................ 33
Research Question 2a ...................................................................................... 34 Research Question 2b ...................................................................................... 36
Research Question 2c ...................................................................................... 38 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 41 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 43
3 A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF OREGON WATER POLICY: THE BIRTH AND EVOLUTION OF A NEW ERA OF ADAPTIVE COLLABORATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... 52
Theoretical Framework: Adaptive Co-Management ................................................ 53
8
Objectives ............................................................................................................... 56 Location .................................................................................................................. 57 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 58
Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................. 58 Data Analysis and Interpretation ...................................................................... 59
Policy Review ......................................................................................................... 60 Amendments to Oregon Water Law ................................................................. 60
Primer on Oregon water law: overview of the doctrine of prior appropriation ........................................................................................... 60
Instream water rights ................................................................................. 62 The Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board ............................................. 63 Watershed Councils ......................................................................................... 64 The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds ................................................. 66
The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board .................................................. 68 The Special Investment Partnerships ............................................................... 70
Public/Private Partnerships .............................................................................. 72
Discussion .............................................................................................................. 75 Management at the Watershed Scale .............................................................. 76 Funding and Funding Cycles ............................................................................ 77
Institutional Flexibility ....................................................................................... 78 Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 80
Critiques ........................................................................................................... 81 Concluding Remarks............................................................................................... 82
4 COLLABORATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT: UNCOVERING THE SECRETS TO SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS ..................................................................... 87
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 87
Literature Review .................................................................................................... 88 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 92
The Cases .............................................................................................................. 94 Methods Section ..................................................................................................... 96
Data Collection ................................................................................................. 96
Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 98 Results .................................................................................................................... 98
Partnership Timelines ....................................................................................... 99 Locally-Driven Versus Funder-Driven Processes ........................................... 100 Leadership ...................................................................................................... 101
Basin Characteristics ...................................................................................... 102
Catalyst for Partnership Formation ................................................................. 103 Niche Creation ................................................................................................ 104
Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................. 106
5 CONCLUDING CHAPTER .................................................................................... 115
Social Learning: A Literature Review .................................................................... 117
Social Learning in Oregon .................................................................................... 120
9
Single, Double, and Triple-Loop Learning ...................................................... 120 Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Social Learning .............................................. 121
Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 122
Study Limitations .................................................................................................. 124 Directions for Future Research ............................................................................. 124
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 130
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 145
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 2-1 Sample Description. ........................................................................................... 28
2-2 Statistics Regarding List Length. ........................................................................ 32
2-3 Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Total Sample ...................... 33
2-4 Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Watershed Council Employees .......................................................................................................... 35
2-5 Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Southeast Region, .............. 36
2-6 Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Southwest Region, 2 .......... 37
2-7 Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Umpqua Basin .................... 39
2-8 Frequency distribution and percent frequency for Powder Basin........................ 40
3-1 Timeline of Oregon’s Collaborative Water Management. ................................... 74
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2-1 Network of Oregon Watershed Councils’ Regions of the State (NOWC 2013). .. 45
2-2 Smith’s Salience Statistics for Total Sample....................................................... 46
2-3 Smith’s Salience Statistics for Watershed Council Employees. .......................... 47
2-4 Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Southeast Region. ........................................ 48
2-5 Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Southwest Region. ........................................ 49
2-6 Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Umpqua Basin. ............................................. 50
2-7 Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Powder Basin. ............................................... 51
3-1 Oregon’s Governance Framework. ..................................................................... 84
3-2 Restoration Funding from 1997-2009 (OWEB 2011, p.1). .................................. 85
3-3 Summary of Restoration Outcomes 1997-2009 (OWEB 2011, p.2) ................... 86
4-1 Oregon’s Governance Framework. ................................................................... 110
4-2 Nested Collaborative Governance Structure in Oregon. ................................... 111
4-3 Map of Oregon Demonstrating the Size and Location of the Deschutes and the Willamette Basins. ...................................................................................... 112
4-4 Deschutes Basin Project Area (OWEB 2009). .................................................. 113
4-5 Willamette Basin Project Area. ......................................................................... 114
5-1 Multiple-Loop Learning ..................................................................................... 127
5-2 Social Learning in Oregon ................................................................................ 128
5-3 Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Social Learning Processes in Oregon .............. 129
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAUW Association of American University Women
ACM Adaptive Collaborative Management or Adaptive Co-Management
BEF Bonneville Environmental Foundation
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BM Ballot measure
Cfs Cubic feet per second
CRWC Crooked River Watershed Council
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DLT The Deschutes Land Trust
DRC The Deschutes River Conservancy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary significant units
GWEB Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board
HB House Bill
IGERT Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
IMST Independent, multidisciplinary science team
MMT Meyers Memorial Trust
NGO Non-governmental organization
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOWC Network of Oregon Watershed Councils
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NSF National Science Foundation
OCSRI Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative
13
ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department
OWRI
Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory
PGE Portland General Electric
SB Senate Bill
SIP Special Investment Partnership
SNRE School of Natural Resources and Environment
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UDWC Upper Deschutes Watershed Council
USFS United States Forest Service
14
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
COLLABORATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT IN OREGON:
PERCEPTIONS, POLICIES, AND PARTNERSHIPS
By
Lisa Seales
May 2014
Chair: Taylor Stein Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology
Multiple stakeholders, competing interests, incomplete information, complexity,
and uncertainty plague water management; a major challenge is the identification of
methods appropriate for navigating the management process. New approaches, such
as adaptive collaborative management, are being used increasingly around the globe.
Oregon provides a natural laboratory for investigating some of these new approaches,
due to its well-established history of institutionalizing the use of collaboration to manage
resources.
This research utilizes both quantitative and qualitative research methods to
examine stakeholder perspectives, state policies, and regional partnerships in water
management in Oregon. Three separate yet related research designs were used to
address these topics. A structured, quantitative, free listing interview technique was
used to examine perceptions of individual stakeholders participating in water
management groups, and their framing of watershed systems. A qualitative,
ethnographic case study approach, using secondary data analysis, participant
observation, and unstructured interviews with key informants, was applied to investigate
state policies. Lastly, a comparative case study sought to uncover the secrets to the
15
success of public-private partnerships built around collaborative management efforts at
the basin scale. Theoretical perspectives from framing theory, cultural domain analysis,
adaptive co-management, collaborative governance, and social learning guided and
informed this research.
Results demonstrate that individuals working in water management have very
unique perspectives with regard to what constitutes a watershed, though they do agree
that people are a critical component. An analysis of Oregon’s progressive policies and
institutions surrounding collaborative water management demonstrates that through
policy changes and the adaptation of existing institutions, along with the creation of new
ones, challenges can be overcome. Finally, the success of basin-wide partnerships
appears to be related to employing techniques like niche creation and mutualism, to
establish diverse yet complementary, as opposed to competitive roles, to collaborate
more effectively.
16
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER
Recent water, climate, and general environmental news are cause for concern,
and even fear. Critical issues include droughts, floods, warming temperatures, rising
sea levels, extreme weather events, natural disasters, food insecurity, and species
extinction, among others. Meanwhile, the human population continues to grow, as do
our levels of resource consumption and resource scarcity. To complicate matters, many
of the most pressing issues facing society today are extremely complex and riddled with
uncertainty and there are no easy answers regarding how to best move forward (Allan &
Curtis 2005; Armitage et al. 2007; Hughes et al. 2007; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a; Pahl-
Wostl et al. 2007b; Plummer & Armitage 2007b; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000).
These types of problems can be described as “wicked” problems (Rittel &
Webber 1973). Part of what makes a problem “wicked” is the difficulty involved in
diagnosing and defining the problem (Rittel & Webber 1973). Wicked problems are
characterized by conflicting values and interests, which lead to different ways of framing
the problems, and hence different perspectives with regard to their solutions (Norton
2012). Wicked problems have no definitive solutions; Rittel and Webber state that these
problems “are never solved. At best they are re-solved—over and over again” (1973,
p.160). Furthermore, any attempt to solve or resolve wicked problems is likely to cause
a cascade of unintended consequences for an extended period of time (Rittel & Webber
1973). Natural resource management decision-making must acknowledge the
complexity of these "wicked" problems and find a way to move forward regardless.
There is widespread acknowledgement that command and control resource
management has not resulted in positive outcomes for human populations, other
17
species, or the planet and its resources upon which we depend for survival (Armitage et
al. 2007; Holling & Meffe 1996; Meadows 2008). New approaches are needed. For
decades, there has been an increasing demand for more participatory, collaborative,
adaptive approaches, aimed at learning. In an attempt to respond to this call, the
research presented in this dissertation explores some of these newer ways of doing
things in an applied context; it is about water management in the real world, and the
application of theory to the real world.
This research stems from an interest in learning, specifically learning through
collaboration and adaptive management. Both are approaches put forth to improve
upon the way that institutions learn. And while there has been much support and
encouragement for utilizing these approaches, there is also an equal amount of
skepticism and criticism regarding how we can do this given the constraints, barriers,
and challenges that have become apparent over the last several decades since these
concepts were first introduced (Allan et al. 2008; Armitage et al. 2009; Jacobson et al.
2006). However, in a developed world context, the State of Oregon appears to be
moving in a positive direction. This dissertation explores Oregon’s journey on the path
to changing the way resource management is conceptualized and carried out.
Specifically, this research has three main objectives, each addressed separately
in the following three chapters:
The first objective is to investigate individual perceptions of what comprises a
watershed, in an effort to determine how the concept of a watershed is framed, and
whether shared framing exists among stakeholder groups working in water
management around the state. Framing theory and cultural domain analysis inform this
18
part of the research, which employs a cross-sectional research design, a purposive,
cluster sampling approach, and a structured free listing interview technique.
The second objective of this research is to identify and analyze state, regional,
and local institutions and policies aimed at overcoming some of the frequently cited
barriers to utilizing adaptive collaborative management (ACM). This portion of the study
employs a qualitative, ethnographic, case study approach. Primary data, in the form of
participant observation and unstructured interviews with key informants, illuminate
which policies and intuitions were created or adapted to help promote ACM. Secondary
data analysis is used to further contextualize and analyze the different policies and
institutions in more depth.
The third objective of this dissertation is to uncover some of the secrets to the
success of basin-wide, inter-organizational partnerships. This portion of the research
takes a qualitative, ethnographic, comparative case study approach to provide an
idiographic explanation for the differences in the development and progression of two
basin-wide partnerships. Specifically, this research seeks to explore the factors that
contribute to the success and/or challenges faced by the two partnerships.
Additionally, a fourth objective is explored in the conclusion. The fourth objective
investigates learning, specifically social learning; what is social learning, and to what
extent is social learning occurring in the management of water resources in Oregon? It
is the goal of this research that answering these research questions will provide more
knowledge and information about how we can change the way resource management is
done, in search of more sustainable ways to interact with the planet.
19
CHAPTER 2 WATERSHED FRAMING: PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT COMPRISES A WATERSHED
Introduction and Study Objectives
Each person has a unique understanding of the world around him or her, which
in turn shapes individually held values and beliefs, and determines how people make
choices and respond to issues and problems (Cronon 1996). In essence our past life
experience shapes our present understanding. In fact, it is likely that even when two
individuals share experience, they may not necessarily share the same categorizing and
labeling of that experience, and hence they may not share the same meaning (Weick
1979). Nowhere is this truer than in the field of natural resource management.
Essentially, nature is a human construction (Cronon 1996). Diverse types of knowledge,
values, beliefs, norms, interests, perspectives, priorities, goals, and agendas are
intrinsic to resource management issues (Broderick 2008; Leach et al. 1999; Warner
2006). “Because people differ in their beliefs….they inevitably differ as well in their
understanding of what nature means and how it should be used” (Cronon 1996, p. 50-
51).
However, every day we rely upon shared understanding in order to navigate the
world around us. Shared understanding is the basis for social interaction. We often rely
upon the assumption that those around us share our same understanding of particular
concepts and ideas; we depend upon this shared understanding in order to facilitate
setting and accomplishing goals. Goal setting is particularly challenging in natural
resource management, where diverse interests often wrestle over what the goals of
management even should be (Dewulf et al. 2007; Gerlak 2008; Pahl-Wostl et al.
2007b). Furthermore, the complexity and uncertainty inherent in all socio-ecological
20
systems means that there are no straightforward solutions to solve environmental
problems (Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000). Scientists, land managers, government
agencies, environmental groups, and communities are now recognizing that when
working with socio-ecological systems, complexity and uncertainty are inherent,
adapting to change is essential, and there are no easy answers regarding how to best
move forward and achieve management goals (Armitage et al. 2008; Hughes et al.
2007; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007b; Plummer & Armitage 2007b).
Resource management inherently means tradeoffs must be made and competing
interests must be balanced (Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000).
A useful starting point is to examine individually held beliefs regarding the
management system in question. Since individuals each bring a distinct understanding
of ecosystems, it is important to acknowledge these individually held beliefs (Cundill &
Fabricius 2009). This is the objective of the present research, which examines individual
framing of the concept of a watershed among stakeholders working in watershed
management groups around the state of Oregon. Specifically, this research addresses
the following research questions:
1. How do individual stakeholders, participating in collaborative water management groups, frame the watershed system, differently from, or similarly to one another?
2. Is there a shared understanding of what a watershed is and what it is composed of among:
a. individuals employed in watershed management?
b. individuals employed in watershed management who work in the same region of the state?
c. individual stakeholders who are working collaboratively in water management in the same watershed?
21
Theoretical Framework
In order to examine framing of what comprises a watershed and how that may
differ between individual stakeholders, as well investigate shared framing among
subgroups of stakeholders working in water management groups, theoretical
perspectives from framing theory and cultural domain analysis inform and guide this
research. Framing theory provides a basis for examining individual perspectives,
because it acknowledges that each person has a unique understanding of issues and
concepts, and that individual frames are likely to differ substantially, even among people
who share similar experiences. Cultural Domain Analysis is a useful framework for
examining shared framing among groups; a cultural domain is a set of words or phrases
that group together to describe a specific sphere, in this case, a watershed. Both
theories provide a useful point of departure for studying how perceptions of what
constitutes a watershed differ among both individuals and groups.
Framing Theory
Framing is a social theory that explores the way people make sense of or
interpret issues. An individual’s frame acts like the lens through which they see and
understand the world. “Each individual’s perspective is like one view through a
kaleidoscope, and no two views are exactly the same” (Lewicki & Gray 2003, p. 5).
Framing is a process that describes how people orient their thinking about an issue or
develop a specific conceptualization of an issue (Chong & Druckman 2007).
The concept of framing has been used in a wide array of different fields, such as
cognitive psychology and decision-making, communication, negotiation and conflict
resolution, sociology and social movements, and business management (Benford &
Snow 2000; Dewulf et al. 2009; Gamson 1992; Goffman 1974; Lewicki et al. 2003;
22
Neale & Bazerman 1985; Pinkley & Northcraft 1994; Snow et al. 1986; Taylor 2000;
Tversky & Kahneman 1981). Regardless of its application, framing originated from two
main traditions, an interactional (or communicative) tradition and a cognitive tradition.
The early interactional tradition stems from Bateson’s research on meta-communication,
in which framing is thought to be the understanding of interaction through the
exchanging of cues (1954). Goffman’s work on framing also falls within this tradition. He
proposed that frames were “schemata of interpretation” that enable individuals or
groups “to locate, perceive, identify and label” occurrences in their world to render them
meaningful and guide action (1974, p. 21). Basically, frames present a way to
understand the social construction of knowledge about an issue (Jameson 1976).
Framing on the cognitive level is an individual process (Weick 1979). The cognitive
tradition of framing originated from Bartlett’s (1932) schema theory of memory, and was
further elaborated on by Minsky (1975). It focuses on frames as mental structures that
facilitate the interpretation and organization of information by placing it within already
established schemas or frames.
Cultural Domain Analysis
The concept of cultural domain analysis hails from the fields of cognitive
anthropology-ethnoscience and marketing research (Borgatti 1994). A cultural domain
can be defined as "an organized set of words, concepts, or sentences, all on the same
level of contrast, that jointly refer to a single conceptual sphere" (Weller & Romney
1988, p. 9). Or, alternatively, a cultural domain is “an area of conceptualization like
space, color, the human body” (D’Andrade 1995, p. 34). “Humans in all cultures classify
the world around them into cognitive domains, and the way they do this affects the way
they interact with the world” (Borgatti 1999, p. 115). However, even when cultures share
23
the same domains, the contents within those domains may differ (Borgatti 1999).
Cultural domain analysis, in the field of cognitive anthropology, investigates “how people
in a group think about lists of things that somehow go together” (Bernard 2006, p. 299).
Theoretical Contribution of this Research
The present research aims to make contributions to both the interactional and the
cognitive framing traditions, by investigating both the cognitive framing of individuals, as
well as the extent to which individuals within water management groups co-construct
the watershed system. This is of particular interest because “most researchers write as
if all stakeholders hold the same frames about environmental issues, rather than
acknowledging that framing is a complex process” which likely results in the existence
of multiple or even contradictory frames (Gray 2003, p. 21). Additionally, this research
investigates the cultural domain of a watershed among subgroups working in watershed
management in an effort to determine if there is a shared cultural domain of a
watershed, or if indeed these domains differ, even among those who share the same
culture of water management.
Methods
Study Site
Oregon was selected as the study site to carry out this research because it
provides a natural laboratory for investigating framing among stakeholders working in
water management. Oregon has a well-established history of supporting watershed
groups and restoration throughout the state, and a plethora of watershed groups from
which to sample.
Dating back to 1995 the Oregon State Legislature unanimously approved House
Bill 3441, guiding the formation of local, voluntary, non-regulatory watershed councils
24
around the state (NOWC [Network of Oregon Watershed Councils] 2009). The state
statute defines a watershed council as "a voluntary local organization designated by a
local government group convened by a county governing body to address the goal of
sustaining natural resource and watershed protection and enhancement within a
watershed" [1999 c.1026 §2 (enacted in lieu of 541.350)]. These councils are multi-
stakeholder groups, typically with representatives from local and regional boards,
commissions and agencies, Indian tribes, public interest groups, private landowners,
industry representatives, academic, scientific and professional communities, and
representatives of state and federal agencies.
Furthermore, with the passage of Ballot Measure 66 in 1998 and Ballot Measure
76 in 2010 the state constitution was amended (permanently with the passage of
Measure 76) and 15% of state lottery funds were directed to be used for the protection
and restoration of native salmon, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and state parks (OWEB
[Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board] 2008a). The passage of House Bill 3225 then
created the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), a state agency directed
by a multi-stakeholder policy oversight board containing 17 members, to administer the
funds made available from Measure 66 and now Measure 76 for watershed protection
and restoration (Oregon Plan 2007; OWEB 2008a). For the past 15 years OWEB has
provided grants primarily to watershed councils to assist with restoration projects,
watershed assessment and monitoring, education and outreach, watershed council
support, and technical assistance for restoration planning. The Network of Oregon
Watershed Councils (NOWC) lists 74 watershed councils operating around the state.
25
Therefore, Oregon represents an ideal location from which to sample stakeholders
working in water management groups.
Research Design and Sample Selection
In order to identify watershed councils to participate in this research, this study
employed a cross-sectional research design and a purposive, cluster sampling
approach. Additional participants were recruited utilizing a snowball sampling approach.
The Network of Oregon Watershed Councils divides the state into six regions: Central,
Northeast, North Coast, Southeast, Southwest, and the Willamette (Figure 2-1). The
researcher purposefully selected the sample clusters from two of those six regions, the
Southeast and the Southwest regions, representing approximately half the geographical
area of the state. Specific regions were purposefully omitted for sampling because of
their inclusion in a different phase of a larger research project. The researcher then
attempted to contact a representative from every watershed council in those
purposefully selected regions of the state. Quantitative data for this research was
collected through interviews conducted from April 2010 through January 2011.
Survey Methodology
The researcher contacted watershed council representatives via telephone. Upon
reaching a potential research participant, the researcher identified herself, explained the
purpose of the research, and obtained consent for participation. In most cases, if
participants agreed to participate in the research, the interview took place on the spot.
Interviews ranged in duration from ten minutes to over an hour long. On occasion, a
representative from the watershed council was either unreachable or unavailable to
participate at the time of the phone call. If this was the case, the researcher left a
message, called back at a different time, or, if instructed, sent an email describing the
26
research and requesting participation. In a few cases, a second, third, or fourth phone
call was made to attempt to contact a watershed council representative, but if a
potential participant remained unreachable after several attempts, they were counted as
a non-participant. In addition, two watershed representatives working at the state level
were also contacted and chose to participate in the research. A total of 24 watershed
council representatives were contacted, and 21 were reached and elected to participate
in the research, representing a response rate of 87.5% for the watershed council
representatives surveyed.
After completing their interviews, participants were asked to supply the names
and contact information of additional stakeholders (i.e., snowball sampling) who might
be willing to participate in the research. After the snowball sample was collected, the
researcher purposefully selected two basins, the Powder and the Umpqua Basin, which
had the largest number of additional stakeholders provided from the snowball sample;
the researcher then attempted to contact all the stakeholders in these basins, utilizing
the same methodology that was used to contact the watershed council representatives.
Nine stakeholders in addition to the watershed council representative were supplied for
the Power Basin, and six were supplied for the Umpqua Basin. Seven of the nine from
the Powder Basin were reached and elected to participate, and five of the six
participated from the Umpqua Basin. In total 33 interviews were conducted, after
attempting to contact 39 total participants, representing a total response rate of 84.6%.
Interview Design: Free Listing
This research used a structured free listing interview technique. Free listing is an
interview methodology often used to understand how individuals and groups define a
cultural or cognitive domain (Borgatti 1996b; Romney et al. 1986). It “is particularly
27
useful for identifying shared notions about a construct” (Mollen et al. 2012, p. 239).
Additionally, free listing gives insight into the relative salience of words defining the
domain (Bernard et al. 1986; Handwerker & Borgatti 1998; Mollen et al. 2012).
“Free listing is a deceptively simple, but powerful technique” (Bernard 2006, p.
301). The interview technique involves asking informants to make a list of items
matching a certain description, in whatever order they come to mind; “the resulting lists
tap into local knowledge and its variation in a study community” (Quinlan 2005, p. 219).
The object of the exercise is to get respondents to list as many items as they can, which
requires probing. Several different probing techniques can be used, including redundant
questioning and nonspecific prompting, which were used in this research (Bernard
2006).
Upon reaching a potential research participant, and after explaining the purpose
of the research and obtaining consent for participation, the researcher then specifically
told interviewees that she was
assembling a comprehensive list of all the different parts, pieces, components, or elements that comprise or make up a watershed (a free list). These can be either social, such as watershed councils, or ecological, such as the river itself or fish. There are no right or wrong answers. This is a brainstorming activity and the objective is to end up with an exhaustive list of all the important parts of a watershed. Can you please list for me all the components of a watershed?
A redundant questioning probe was used, as the researcher stated the same question
multiple times using different words. Nonspecific prompting was also used to probe
respondents after they finished their lists by asking, “what other parts of a watershed
can you think of? Can you think of any others?” After participants could no longer list
any additional items, the researcher thanked the participants for their time and
concluded the interviews. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.
28
Interview transcriptions were then used to formulate free lists, making certain to list all
terms in the order the informants mentioned them.
Sample Description
Twenty participants, or 60.6% of the 33 interviews, were watershed council staff
members, who represented 19 different watershed councils. According to the Network
of Oregon Watershed Councils, a total of 74 councils are operating in the state.
Therefore, the sample represents 25.7% of the total population of watershed councils in
Oregon.
Twelve participants, or 36.6% of the sample, resulted from snowball sampling.
Eight stakeholders from the Powder Basin participated in the research, which
represented 24.2% of the sample; the Umpqua Basin had six stakeholders participate,
or 18.2% of the sample. Additional stakeholders included watershed council board
members, irrigation district employees, federal and state agency employees (BLM,
USFS, ODFW), biologists, hydrologists, hydropower representatives, local landowners,
and recreational interests. Thirteen of the thirty-three research participants were female,
and twenty were male; therefore, 39.4% of the sample was female and 60.6% was
male. See Table 2-1 for a description of the sample statistics.
Table 2-1. Sample Description.
Groups Sampled Number of Participants Percentage of Sample
Total Sample Size 33 100% Watershed Council Staff 20 60.6% Snowball Sample 12 36.6% Powder Basin 8 24.2% Umpqua Basin 6 18.2% Females 13 39.4%
Males 20 60.6%
29
Data Cleaning and Analysis
In preparation for data analyses, the data required extensive cleaning. Although
some respondents gave actual lists in response to the structured interview question and
the corresponding prompts, other participants responded in full sentences. Therefore,
the first step in data cleaning was to reduce full sentence responses to individual terms.
For example, the statement “people who live on the river or visit it for aesthetics reasons
rather than just for recreation” became a list that included the terms “people, river
residents, visitors, aesthetics, recreation”.
Once all sentences had been reduced to lists of terms, as second, third, fourth,
fifth, and sixth data cleaning took place, which involved alphabetizing the total list of all
terms given by all research participants, in an effort to modify all similar terms so they
were all the same term for consistency in analyses. For instance, “economics”,
“economically”, and “economy” all were modified so they all became “economics”.
During this process, an Excel spreadsheet was created to track all changes from
the original text, through each step of data cleaning, to the final list of terms that was
used for analyses. One researcher completed all data cleaning, the same one who had
conducted the interviews, in an effort to maintain consistency, and the researcher
frequently referred back to the original text in an effort to maintain the original meaning
of the words spoken by the informants. Finally, a seventh, eighth, and ninth data
cleaning took place to eliminate synonyms that did not present themselves during the
first six data cleanings when the list was alphabetized. For example, the list still
contained terms such as “people”, “humans”, and “homo-sapiens”, which all became
“people” during the data cleaning process.
30
Finally, after all data cleaning was complete, Anthropac 4.0 Software was utilized
to complete the analyses (Borgatti 1996a). Anthropac was specifically designed to
analyze free listing data (Smith & Borgatti 1998). Anthropac analyzes several aspects of
free listing data. First, it determines the number of terms in individuals’ lists, which is
considered to be representative of individuals’ depth of knowledge or familiarity
regarding the cultural domain; people who know more about a subject list more terms
than people who know less (Borgatti 1990b; Brewer 1995; Furlow 2003; Gatewood
1983, 1984; Quinlan, 2005). Second, Anthropac analyzes the frequency of mentioned
items. The more frequently mentioned terms “indicate common knowledge, or
consensus, within the culture. And the differences in list length and content are
measures of intracultural variation” (Quinlan 2005, p. 225-226). Finally, since people
tend to list things in order of familiarity, Anthropac also calculates the Smith’s Salience
statistic (Smith’s S), which takes into account the rank of the items mentioned (Quinlan
2005; Romney & D’Andrade 1964). However, rather than simply calculating the average
rank, which is the average position in the list for each informant, Smith’s S is a
“weighted average of the inverse rank across all lists. As such, the statistic does not
allow high prioritization of an item infrequently selected, and thus better represents the
entire group of respondents’ perspective of item importance” (Biedenweg & Monroe
2013, p. 933-934; Borgatti 1996b). Smith’s S ranges from 0 to 1, with high values
denoting higher average importance.
Results
Research Question 1
How do individual stakeholders, participating in collaborative water management groups, frame the watershed system, differently from, or similarly to one another?
31
Basic list statistics
List length is an indicator of depth of knowledge or familiarity regarding a cultural
domain, with people who have more knowledge or familiarity having longer lists than
those who have less knowledge (Borgatti 1990; Brewer 1995; Furlow 2003; Gatewood
1983, 1984; Quinlan, 2005). Therefore, in part, basic list statistics were utilized to
answer research question number one. Based on list length, there was a vast difference
in how individual stakeholders in this study viewed watersheds, with 9 items being the
minimum number of items listed by one respondent, while the maximum number was
232. Obviously, this represents a large discrepancy in depth of knowledge between the
research participants. It should be noted that these numbers have taken into account
the fact that items were often listed more than once by the same respondent, and thus
duplicates were removed before the total sum of items and the list statistics were
calculated. The average number of items listed by the total sample was 64.8 and the
median was 47. Males in the study’s sample listed more items than females; on average
69 items were listed by males compared to 59 by females. Watershed council
employees in the Southwest Region listed more items on average (55.5) compared with
those in the Southeast Region (48.2), and stakeholders in the Power Basin listed on
average the most items of any subgroup (90.9), which was more than those listed by
the stakeholders in Umpqua Basin (62.3). Please see Table 2-2 for a complete list of
the basic list statistics for the various subgroups.
32
Table 2-2. Statistics Regarding List Length.
Total Sample
Watershed Council Employees
SE Region
SW Region
Umpqua Basin
Powder Basin
Males Females
Sample Size
33 20 6 13 6 8 20 13
Mean 64.8 52.6 48.2 55.5 62.3 90.9 69 59 Median 47 41.5 43.5 41 44 74 58 40 Mode 41 41 NA 41 NA NA NA NA Minimum 9 9 19 9 16 19 9 19 Maximum 232 168 75 168 171 232 171 232 Standard Deviation
50.6 36.7
22.4 43.5
56.1
70.2
45.9
58.5
33
In addition to using list length to understand how individual stakeholders,
participating in collaborative water management groups, frame the watershed system,
looking at the number of different terms provided by all the stakeholders in the sample
also helps to answer this question. A total of 1005 terms were mentioned by the 33
research participants, over half of which (592 terms) were only mentioned once.
Frequencies and Smith’s salience statistic
Looking at the top 20 most frequently mentioned terms (Table 2-3), 64% of
participants, or 21 respondents, agreed that “people” were a component in watersheds,
with other terms, such as “watershed councils” (55% of the sample) and “agriculture”
(45% of the sample), being noted by even fewer respondents. The frequency
distributions demonstrate little agreement among the study’s participants as to what a
watershed is comprised of.
Table 2-3. Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Total Sample, n=33.
Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency People 21 64 Watershed councils 18 55 Watershed 16 48 Agriculture 15 45 Water 14 42 Water quality 13 39 Uplands 13 39 Community 12 36 Changes 12 36 Fish 11 33 Riparian areas 11 33 Management 11 33 Land use 11 33 Streams 10 30 Vegetation 10 30 Geology 10 30 Forest service 10 30 Education 10 30 Partnerships 10 30 Land 9 27
34
Further evidence for answering research question number one is provided by the
frequency distribution and Smith’s S statistic for the terms listed by all the research
participants. Once again, Smith’s S takes into account not only the frequency with which
the items were mentioned in the lists, but also the average rank of the terms. However,
rather than just calculating the average rank, Smith’s S goes one step further and
calculates a weighted average of the inverse rank across all the individual lists.
Therefore, Smith’s S is a good metric for determining the salience of each individual
term listed by the research participants.
The Smith’s S statistics also demonstrate little agreement among the participants
regarding the cultural domain of a watershed. All of the Smith’s S statistics for the total
sample fall below 0.3, based on a scale of 0 to 1. Therefore, generally speaking
stakeholders working in watershed management in the state of Oregon frame the
watershed system differently from one another. “Watershed councils”, “people”, “water”,
“water quality”, “agriculture”, “streams”, “vegetation”, and “fish” were listed in decreasing
order as the top most salient terms by the total sample. Figure 2-2 shows the Smith’s S
statistics for the top 20 most salient terms listed by the research participants.
Research Question 2a
Is there a shared understanding of what a watershed is and what it is composed of among individuals employed in watershed management?
Similar to research question one, in order to answer research question 2a the
frequency distributions and the Smith’s S statistics were examined for all of the research
participants around the state who are employed by watershed councils. Table 2-4
reports the top 20 most frequently mentioned terms and the corresponding frequency
distribution among the sample. Based on the frequency distributions, even fewer
35
research participants in this group, as compared to the total sample, agreed upon the
terms that constitute a watershed. In fact, in all but the case of two terms, “people” and
“watershed councils”, less than half of this sample agreed on what is in a watershed.
Table 2-4. Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Watershed Council Employees, n=20.
Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency People 11 55 Watershed councils 10 50 Water 9 45 Education 9 45 Fish 8 40 Uplands 8 40 Land 7 35 Water quality 7 35 Agriculture 7 35 Bureau of Land Management 7 35 Watershed 7 35 Community 7 35 Changes 7 35 Riparian area 6 30 Resources 6 30 Forest Service 6 30 Agencies 6 30 Partnerships 6 30 Collaboration 6 30 Wildlife 5 25
However, looking at Smith’s S, there is slightly more agreement among this
group than there was among the total sample, at least with regard to “water” being the
most salient term mentioned with a Smith’s S of 0.329. “Fish” and “people” were the
second and third most salient terms (Smith’s S of 0.273 and 0.266 respectively). All of
the top 20 most salient terms, once again, had a Smith’s S of less than 0.3 (except
“water”), demonstrating little agreement regarding how watershed council employees in
the state of Oregon frame the cultural domain of a watershed. Figure 2-3 lists the top 20
terms and their corresponding Smith’s S statistics.
36
Research Question 2b
Is there a shared understanding of what a watershed is and what it is composed of among individuals employed in watershed management who work in the same region of the state?
Examining the frequency distribution between these two subgroups, working in
two different regions of the state, there was some agreement as to how they framed the
concept of a watershed, at least with regard to those people working in the Southeast
Region. Eighty-three percent of participants in the Southeast Region agreed that both
“water” and “people” were important parts of a watershed. Sixty-seven percent of the
sample in the Southeast Region then agreed that “education” and “land” were also
components of a watershed. Fifty-percent of respondents also agreed upon another
nine terms: “resources”, “vegetation”, “connectivity”, “agencies”, “changes”, “watershed
councils”, “uplands”, “wildlife”, and “birds”. See Table 2-5 for a complete list of frequency
distributions for the top 20 words listed by respondents in the Southeast Region.
Table 2-5. Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Southeast Region, n=6.
Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency Water 5 83 People 5 83 Education 4 67 Land 4 67 Resources 3 50 Vegetation 3 50 Connectivity 3 50 Agencies 3 50 Changes 3 50 Watershed councils 3 50 Uplands 3 50 Wildlife 3 50 Birds 3 50 Mining 2 33 Funding 2 33 Animals 2 33
37
Table 2-5. Continued
Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency Riparian areas 2 33 Agriculture 2 33 Issues 2 33 Timber 2 33
For those individuals working in the Southwest Region of the state, there was
once again little agreement, with regard to the frequently mentioned terms, as to what
constitutes a watershed. In this case “fish” was the most frequently mentioned item, with
54% of the group mentioning it. However, the remaining terms mentioned by the
sample, were once again mentioned by less than half of the participants. See Table 2-6
for a complete listing of the terms and their frequency distributions.
Table 2-6. Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Southwest Region, 2 n=13.
Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency Fish 7 54 Water quality 6 46 Community 6 46 Watershed councils 6 46 Bureau of Land Management 6 46 Forest Service 5 38 People 5 38 Agriculture 5 38 Uplands 5 38 Collaboration 5 38 Rivers 5 38 Education 5 38 Management 4 31 Improvement 4 31 Watershed 4 31 Streams 4 31 Partnerships 4 31 Government 4 31 Riparian areas 4 31 Soil and Water Conservation Districts 3 23
38
Smith’s S statistics demonstrate similar findings. Those working in the Southeast
Region definitely had more agreement with regard to the cultural domain of a
watershed. As shown in Figure 2-4, “water” had a Smith’s S of 0.653, while “land”
(0.47), “vegetation” (0.415), “wildlife” (0.408), “watershed councils” (0.382), “riparian
areas” (0.31), and “people” (0.305) were also considered very salient among this group.
In fact, among this subgroup, these terms were some of the most salient of all those
mentioned in the study. This reveals that those working in the Southeast Region had the
most similar framing of a watershed among all the subgroups sampled.
According to Smith’s S statistics, there was slightly more agreement among the
Southwest Region regarding the framing of a watershed, than there was for either the
total sample or those employed by watershed councils around that state, but less so
than the Southeast Region. Two terms, “fish” and “water quality” had a Smith’s S of
greater than 0.3, compared to only one term listed among watershed council employees
and no terms listed among the total sample with a Smith’s S of greater than 0.3.
However, when examining both the frequency distributions and the Smith’s S statistics
for this subgroup, generally speaking there was little agreement regarding the framing of
a watershed. Figure 2-5 lists the Smith’s S statistics for the Southwest Region.
Research Question 2c
Is there a shared understanding of what a watershed is and what it is composed of among individual stakeholders who are working collaboratively in water management in the same watershed?
By examining the frequency distributions for stakeholders involved in water
management in the two basin subgroups, there appears to be more shared framing of
the cultural domain of a watershed. Although not surprising and somewhat redundant,
100% of those respondents surveyed in the Umpqua Basin said that a “watershed” was
39
important (Table 2-7). Eighty-three percent said that “people” were important, while 67%
said that “water” and “watershed councils” were components of a watershed. Eight other
terms, “flow”, “changes”, “differences”, “community”, “vegetation”, “cultures”, “rivers”,
and “basin” were also listed by 50% of stakeholders in the Umpqua Basin,
demonstrating some agreement in framing among this group.
Table 2-7. Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Umpqua Basin, n=6.
Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency Watershed 6 100 People 5 83 Water 4 67 Watershed councils 4 67 Flow 3 50 Changes 3 50 Differences 3 50 Community 3 50 Vegetation 3 50 Cultures 3 50 Rivers 3 50 Basin 3 50 Tribes 2 33 Lakes 2 33 Sources 2 33 Work 2 33 Activities 2 33 Restoration 2 33 History 2 33 Water quality 2 33
The frequency distributions also show similar framing among stakeholders in the
Powder Basin. As shown in Table 2-8, nearly all of the top 20 words (18 of the words)
mentioned by this subgroup were listed by 50% or greater of the respondents.
40
Table 2-8. Frequency distribution and percent frequency for Powder Basin, n=8.
Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency Soils 6 75 People 6 75 Agriculture 5 63 Water use 5 63 Watershed 5 63 Geology 5 63 Reservoirs 4 50 Watershed councils 4 50 Groundwater 4 50 Water quality 4 50 Elevation 4 50 Forest Service 4 50 Vegetation 4 50 Land ownership 4 50 Land use 4 50 Private land 4 50 Management 4 50 Landscape 3 38 Improvement 3 38 Land 3 38
The Smith’s S statistics provide further support, confirming that there is a shared
understanding among members of these basin subgroups. Similar to the Southeast
Region subgroup where seven terms had a Smith’s S score greater than 0.3, six terms
listed by the Umpqua Basin subgroup had a score of 0.3 or above. “People” and “water”
were again among the most salient terms listed by this group with some of the highest
Smith’s S reported in this study (0.508 an 0.457). See Figure 2-6 for a complete list.
Nine terms listed by stakeholders in the Powder Basin had a Smith’s S score of
greater than 0.3, though “people” was not among these nine terms; its Smith’s S was
slightly below 0.3 (0.281). Instead, “soils” was the most salient term among this group
with a Smith’s S of 0.479, followed by “geology” (0.429) and “water use” (0.412). See
Figure 2-7.
41
Discussion
Watershed Framing: This research investigates both cognitive and interactional
framing, in an effort to understand how individuals’ frame the concept of a watershed,
along with understanding whether there is shared framing among individuals working in
water management groups around the state of Oregon. The results indicate distinct
cognitive frames exist, but when evaluating shared frames, the results point to some
agreement.
When evaluating cognitive framing among this sample, one can surmise that
there are very diverse cognitive frames. Since list length is an indicator of the depth of
knowledge about a particular domain (Borgatti 1990b; Brewer 1995; Furlow 2003;
Gatewood 1983, 1984; Quinlan, 2005), the vast discrepancy in the list lengths indicates
major differences in the participants’ understanding of what comprises a watershed.
Lists varied in length from 9 to 232 terms. Even more telling, of the 1002 terms listed by
all 33 participants, over half (592) were only listed once. Additionally, when evaluating
the frequency of the terms listed that comprise a watershed, with the exception of two
terms, less than half the sample agreed on any of the components of a watershed.
Therefore, results show there are diverse cognitive frames regarding the domain of a
watershed.
Regardless of these significant differences, upon closer examination of the data,
there is also evidence of some agreement, which leads to the concept of interactional
framing. When focusing on the terms that were frequently mentioned, as well as those
that were most salient, certain patterns arise. “Water”, “people”, and “watershed
councils” were repeatedly among some of the most frequently mentioned terms, along
with being some of the most salient terms, among almost all of the subgroups that were
42
sampled. In fact, “people” and “water” were the most frequently mentioned terms of any
terms in the study (outside of “watershed” which is somewhat redundant), with
frequency distributions of 83% in the Southeast Region, 83% and 67% in the Umpqua
Basin, and 55% and 50% in the watershed council employee group. Additionally,
“people” were mentioned by 64% of the total sample, 75% of the Powder Basin sample,
and 38% of the Southwest Region sample, meaning that “people” was among the top
20 most frequently mentioned terms in every single subgroup sampled, as well as the
total sample. “Watershed councils” also made the top 20 list of most frequently
mentioned terms in all the different subgroups; it was mentioned by roughly 50% of all
respondents in all the different subgroups.
When evaluating Smith’s S, the salience of the listed terms, a similar pattern
emerges. Although, the Smith’s S reported for all the terms in this study were on
average low (most were near 0.3 on a scale of 0 to 1), “people”, “water”, and “watershed
councils” were among the terms with the highest Smith’s S. “Water” had the highest
Smith’s S of any term in the study (0.653 in the Southeast Region), and “people” had
the second highest (0.508 in the Umpqua Basin). These three terms also had the
highest Smith’s S of any terms mentioned by the total sample, and therefore were the
most salient. Although there appears to be a variety of cognitive frames of what
comprises a watershed among this sample, there also appears to be some shared
framing, at least with regard to the importance of water, people, and watershed
councils.
One of the goals of this research was to determine if there is a shared cultural
domain of a watershed. However “it is important to realize that not every list of items is a
43
cultural domain” (Borgatti 1994, p.265). Examining the data, beyond a few select terms
(“people”, “water”, and “watersheds”), there is little agreement as to what the important
components of a watershed are. Therefore, among this sample there does not appear
to be a shared cultural domain of a watershed.
Conclusion
Although no clear distinct list of what comprises a watershed emerges from this
study, the data point to the importance of people in watersheds. Along with water and
watershed councils, according to this research, people are the most agreed upon and
the most important components in a watershed. This has important implications for
management. Although water management efforts in the past have focused on
controlling water levels to ameliorate flooding and droughts, and providing water for
economic activities, the role of people in this process has been somewhat limited.
Increasingly though, people are playing a larger and larger role in management efforts,
which is supported by the findings of this research.
Collaborative approaches are being used increasingly around the globe, as they
are considered to be more equitable, as well as a means to avoid, or at the very least
resolve conflict. As human populations grow and resources become scarcer,
negotiations and conflict surrounding the use of those scare resources are inevitable.
Today, managers need to be equipped with communication skills, such as facilitation
and mediation, to manage people, in order to do their jobs effectively. A new era of
resource management has commenced that requires new skills, techniques, and
approaches. Therefore, it behooves managers and policy makers to be trained
accordingly, as well as to design processes and forums for increased communication
and collaboration across stakeholder groups. The watershed council model is an
44
example of one way to go about doing this. Other methods for promoting collaborative
management, in an effort to better incorporate people in the process, will be explored in
the next two chapters.
As a caveat to this research, though free listing is a significant step in assessing
the components of a cultural domain, future research should further address this issue
by completing a cultural consensus analysis. To complete a cultural consensus
analysis, it is necessary to return to the research participants with the core set of items
that was generated through the analyses of the free listing data. This core list
represents the items that were listed by the majority of informants. The next step in
cultural consensus analysis is to ask respondents to determine if the items in that list
are, or are not part of the cultural domain. One of the significant shortcomings of this
research is that this process was not completed. That being said, the data generated by
this study will be used in future phases of the research (see Chapter 5 for a more
thorough description of directions for future research) to further assess the cognitive
and interactional framing of individuals working in water management groups.
45
Figure 2-1. Network of Oregon Watershed Councils’ Regions of the State (NOWC
2013).
46
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
WATERSHED COUNCILS
PEOPLE
WATER
WATER QUALITY
AGRICULTURE
STREAMS
VEGETATION
FISH
RIPARIAN AREAS
UPLANDS
GEOLOGY
WATERSHED
LAND
MANAGEMENT
LAND USE
FOREST SERVICE
DIFFERENCES
WILDLIFE
RIVERS
COUNTIES
Term
sSmith's Salience Statistic
Figure 2-2. Smith’s Salience Statistics for Total Sample.
47
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
WATER
FISH
PEOPLE
WATERSHED COUNCILS
LAND
WATER QUALITY
EDUCATION
RIPARIAN AREAS
UPLANDS
WILDLIFE
FISH PASSAGE
AGRICULTURE
DIFFERENCES
COUNTIES
RECREATION
MANAGEMENT
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WATERSHED
COMMUNITY
VEGETATION
Term
sSmith's Salience Statistic
Figure 2-3. Smith’s Salience Statistics for Watershed Council Employees.
48
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
WATER
LAND
VEGETATION
WILDLIFE
WATERSHED COUNCILS
RIPARIAN AREAS
PEOPLE
UPLANDS
STATE
COUNTIES
BIRDS
WATERSHED HEALTH
CONNECTIVITY
GROUNDWATER
MAMMALS
RESOURCES
AGENCIES
JUNIPERS
LOCAL RESIDENTS
RECREATION
Term
sSmith's Salience Statistic
Figure 2-4. Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Southeast Region.
49
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
FISH
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
EDUCATION
WATERSHED COUNCILS
RIVERS
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
COMMUNITY
FISH PASSAGE
IMPROVEMENT
PEOPLE
FOREST SERVICE
AGRICULTURE
LAND MANAGEMENT
STREAMS
UPLANDS
ROADS
COAST
VALUES
SALMON HABITAT
Term
sSmith's S Statistic
Figure 2-5. Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Southwest Region.
50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
PEOPLE
WATER
BASIN
COMMUNITY
WATERSHED
VEGETATION
DIFFERENCES
FLOW
RIVERS
WORK
CHARACTERISTICS
LAND
WATER QUALITY
GEOLOGY
STREAMS
FLY FISHING
INFLUENCES
CHANGES
ECONOMICS
WATERSHED COUNCILS
Term
sSmith's S Statistic
Figure 2-6. Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Umpqua Basin.
51
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
SOILS
GEOLOGY
WATER USE
AGRICULTURE
VEGETATION
WATER QUALITY
STREAMS
WATERSHED COUNCILS
PLANT COMMUNITIES
LAND USE
FLOW
FOREST SERVICE
UPLANDS
PEOPLE
RIPARIAN AREAS
BARRIERS
LAND OWNERSHIP
DRAINAGE
LAND
LONG TERM
Term
sSmith's S Statistic
Figure 2-7. Smith’s Salience Statistics for the Powder Basin.
52
CHAPTER 3 A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF OREGON WATER POLICY: THE BIRTH AND
EVOLUTION OF A NEW ERA OF ADAPTIVE COLLABORATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT
Every living thing depends upon water for survival; although 70 percent of the
globe is covered by water, only about 2.5 percent of that water is freshwater, and still
another two-thirds of that is stored in ice caps and otherwise unusable for human
beings. However, we rely upon that small, finite amount of freshwater to meet a great
many needs. In addition to meeting our basic needs for drinking water and sanitation for
the earth’s burgeoning population of over 7 billion and growing, we also rely upon
freshwater for agriculture, industry, hydropower, transportation, and recreation, among
other things. Additionally, that freshwater also supports many of the species with which
we share this planet. Furthermore, we have begun to realize that if we expect our
natural systems to continue to provide the wide range of goods and services that
humans rely upon in order to survive, we need to take their needs into consideration as
well. Policies have been enacted, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean
Water Act, in order to curtail environmental degradation, and preserve species and
ecosystem functions. Yet, today we live in a world of unprecedented global
environmental change. Not only are ecosystems changing rapidly due to the stresses
that are placed on natural systems by increasing human populations, but also as a
result of forces such as climate change. Complexity and uncertainty are now recognized
as inherent components of resource management; regardless, decisions must be made
and policies must be enacted or adapted to address current management challenges.
Presently, this new era of unprecedented, globally interdependent, environmental
change has given rise to new management paradigms (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a; Pahl-
53
Wostl et al. 2007b). The limitations and inadequacies of top-down, single-handedly
implemented, command and control approaches are now well documented and widely
accepted (Armitage et al. 2009; Berkes 2009; Hardy 2010; Holling & Meffe 1996; Lubell,
et al. 2002). Increasingly there is a shift toward more integrated, adaptive, collaborative,
ecosystem-based management.
Although the general trend is moving towards these new management
approaches, government institutions and policies are often slow to change, and
operationalizing these approaches is proving to be a challenge (Armitage et al. 2009;
Bellamy et al. 1999). The overall objective of this paper is to review and analyze newer
state institutions and policies that were created to support the use of more collaborative
and adaptive management, in an effort to demonstrate how policy makers can more
effectively facilitate the use of these new approaches.
Theoretical Framework: Adaptive Co-Management
Adaptive management and collaborative management (also known as co-
management) have been put forth as new approaches that have the potential to
revolutionize the way we deal with resource management in the 21st century; and what
has now emerged is a blend of the two (Armitage et al. 2009). Adaptive co-management
(ACM) combines concepts and ideas from adaptive management and collaborative
management, taking elements from both approaches, and providing a framework for
handling the complexity and uncertainty that prevails in today’s world (Armitage et al.
2009; Cundill & Fabricius 2009; Olsson et al. 2004; Plummer & Armitage 2007a). It
merges the dynamic learning elements of adaptive management with the linkage and
cooperative characteristics of collaborative management (Berkes 2009; Olsson et al.
2004; Olsson et al. 2007; Ruitenbeek & Cartier 2001). As opposed to more traditional
54
management paradigms, ACM often takes a more bottom-up approach to management,
calling for local stakeholders to play an active role, participating in management through
a collaborative, adaptive learning process (Gerlak 2008; Olsson et al. 2004; Plummer &
Armitage 2007b). Instead of being paralyzed by complexity, risk, and uncertainty
inherent in many resource management issues, ACM offers a framework for designing
management projects as large scale experiments with broad stakeholder input and
shared authority, implementing plans, monitoring and evaluating outcomes, learning
from experience, and modifying and adapting the course of management if it is deemed
necessary to help achieve desired management objectives (Plummer & Armitage
2007b). ACM is now being heralded as the future of resource management (Gerlak
2008; Warner 2006).
Adaptive co-management does not have one set, agreed upon definition in the
literature; rather, it has been defined in several different ways, such as “a long-term
management structure that permits stakeholders to share management responsibility
within a specific system of natural resources, and to learn from their actions”
(Ruitenbeek & Cartier 2001, p. 8), or “flexible community-based systems of resource
management tailored to specific places and situations and supported by, and working
with, various organizations at different levels” (Olsson et al. 2004, p. 75), and ‘‘a
process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and
revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of learning-by-doing’’ (Armitage
et al. 2007, p. 328). Regardless of the definition that you ascribe to, adaptive co-
management stands in sharp contrast to the business as usual management paradigms
55
of the past and present, and represents a true innovation in natural resource
governance (Fennell et al. 2008).
Theoretically, ACM holds much promise for changing the way we manage
resources, facilitating the creation of solutions to many resource management
conundrums, helping groups work together effectively, and move forward regardless of
unavoidable risk and uncertainty (Armitage et al. 2009; Fennell et al. 2008; McLain &
Lee 1996). However, shifting the way we “do” resource management is no easy task.
The formerly top-down, command and control, piecemeal approach to management is
deeply entrenched and few examples of successful adaptive collaborative management
exist (Allan & Curtis 2005; McLain & Lee 1996). Additionally, the majority of research
that does exist on the topic has uncovered significant obstacles to implementing a
systematic, adaptive collaborative approach, but past research has yet to answer the
question of how to implement an ACM approach. Inability to address management at an
ecosystem or watershed scale, short funding cycles, institutional inflexibility, and
inadequate monitoring have been identified as significant challenges to utilizing ACM
(Allan & Curtis 2005; Allan et al. 2008; Jacobson et al. 2006; McLain & Lee 1996;
Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000); and while past research yields valuable information
regarding some of the necessary prerequisites for successful ACM, the key to
successfully implementing ACM has yet to be uncovered. Many agree on what needs to
be done, but few examples or recommendations exist to illuminate exactly how groups
should go about doing this.
Additionally, although it is widely accepted that new approaches, like ACM, are
the future of resource management, such approaches are not without their critiques
56
(Koontz & Thomas 2006; Layzer 2008; Schwartz 2013). Critics point out that local
interests, in some cases, particularly in the developed world context, can be powerful
pro development advocates, and collaboration can in fact result in the watering down of
environmental regulations and protection (Layzer 2008; Schwartz 2013). Others
demonstrate that there is a paucity of research linking collaborative processes with
environmental outcomes and genuine environmental improvements, and that more
emphasis should be placed on these objectives to really evaluate the efficacy of these
new approaches to resource management (Koontz & Thomas 2006; Layzer 2008).
Objectives
This research aims to contribute to a better understanding of how to implement
an ACM approach. Specifically, this study investigates what types of institutions and
policies at the state, regional, and local levels can help to overcome the barriers to
promoting the establishment and utilization an ACM approach? The paper begins with a
historical description of various policies and institutions that were recently created or
amended to encourage the use of more collaborative or adaptive approaches to
resource management. Following the policy descriptions, the discussion highlights
some of the major barriers to using, and critiques of ACM, as identified by past
research, and discusses how the various policies and institutions have or are attempting
to overcome these challenges. The objective of this review and analysis is to provide
some insights into how policy makers, through the creation of new governance
institutions and policies, and amendments to existing policies, can in fact support the
use of these new approaches to resource management.
57
Location
Oregon was selected as the study site for this research due to its history and the
unique existence of policies and institutions that support and encourage utilizing
adaptive, collaborative approaches to manage water resources. The waterways in the
state of Oregon are not unlike many other places around the globe that have been
heavily impacted by human settlement and development. Much like other locations in
the Western United States, the state’s watersheds have undergone significant changes
in the last two centuries since European settlers made their way west. Fur trading,
which essentially all but eliminated beaver populations, mining, logging, ranching and
grazing, irrigation and agriculture, dams, fish harvesting, pollution from industry, and fish
hatcheries have all taken their toll on native fish populations around the state and the
habitats they depend upon for survival. Although billions of dollars were spent in the
Columbia River system alone to try and restore populations there was little success,
and by the mid-1990s coastal Coho were threatened with extinction and their ESA
listing seemed imminent.
This is the history that spurred the formation of many of the state’s unique
policies and institutions that evolved to address the degradation of native fish
populations and the watersheds that sustain them. Though ACM represents a relatively
new approach to resource management, the state of Oregon has been increasingly
employing an ACM approach for managing water resources over the last few decades.
Oregon has created flexible institutions and policies that enable, even encourage,
utilizing adaptive, collaborative approaches. Therefore the Oregon example offers
valuable lessons and experience for the rest of the world regarding how to tackle the
58
challenges of, and succeed at, employing ACM. For these reasons, Oregon was
selected as the study sites for this research.
Methodology
Data Collection Procedures
To investigate the institutions and policies that promote adaptive, collaborative
management paradigms in Oregon, this study employed a qualitative, ethnographic,
case study approach, using secondary data analysis, in conjunction with participant
observation and unstructured interviews with key informants. Primary data, in the form
of participant observation and unstructured interviews with key informants, were used to
determine which policies and institutions were created to support ACM, and hence
should be further analyzed. Primary data also provided information regarding the
formation and evolution of the policies and institutions. Secondary data analysis was
then used to further contextualize and analyze the different policies and institutions in
more depth.
Participant observation and unstructured interviews with key informants were
used to assemble a comprehensive list of policies and institutions that support or
encourage ACM. Participant observation took place over a period of more than three
years from summer 2010 to fall of 2013, and involved attending 12 two-day, quarterly
board meetings of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). As described
in detail below in the policy review section, OWEB is the state agency responsible for
promoting collaborative, community-based conservation and watershed health through
the provision of grants, technical assistance, and outreach. Attending OWEB meetings
not only illuminated important policies and institutions that were formulated in the past,
but also allowed for observation of current discussions that were directly impacting
59
future policy changes. Unstructured interviews with key informants working in water
management around the state further illuminated important policies and institutions, as
well as helped to fill in any gaps in the research. During and after periods of participant
observation and conducting unstructured interviews, the researcher took extensive field
notes, making certain to record all data related to the specific policies and institutions
geared towards promoting ACM.
During this same three-year time period, the researcher also collected all written
records and accounts relevant to Oregon’s history of collaborative governance.
Secondary data include, but are not limited to, OWEB meeting minutes, agendas, and
staff reports describing the formation and evolution of policies geared toward promoting
ACM, legislative summaries and updates describing new legislation as well as
amendments to existing policies, draft and final management plans for specific
watersheds, government documents, and organizational and institutional websites and
web documents.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data analysis involved a qualitative, iterative process of reviewing primary data to
compile a complete list of all of the state’s intuitions and policies designed to overcome
the challenges, and promote the use of ACM. After a complete list of the state’s
institutions and policies was created through the analysis of primary data, secondary
data analysis included reviewing and analyzing all the documents that were collected
regarding the creation and implementation of the state’s different policies and
institutions; this resulted in a policy review of each policy and institution established
during the participant observation phase of the research. The policy review is described
below, followed by a discussion of how the policies and institutions helped overcome
60
some of the frequently cited barriers to implementing ACM. Finally, after completing the
qualitative analysis, the results of this research were shared with key informants, who
validated the findings.
Policy Review
Participant observation and informant interviews revealed that seven different
policies and institutions are fundamentally related to Oregon’s history and evolution of
adaptive collaborative governance: 1) amendments to Oregon water law, 2) the creation
of the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board, 3) the watershed council model, 4)
the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 5) the Oregon Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds, 6) the Special Investment Partnerships, and 7) public/private partnerships.
Field notes from OWEB meetings and informant interviews, along with secondary data
were analyzed to describe the formation and evolution of the seven different policies
and institutions, along with their contributions to revolutionizing water management in
the state. Each of the policies and institutions are described in chronological order
below to demonstrate the history and evolution of ACM approaches in Oregon.
Amendments to Oregon Water Law
Primer on Oregon water law: overview of the doctrine of prior appropriation
In Oregon, water is publicly owned. In order to use water, private or public
interests must apply for a water right through the Oregon Water Resources Department
(OWRD). Much like the rest of the Western United States, the doctrine of prior
appropriation governs Oregon water law. Unlike the Eastern United States or other
humid areas of the globe, landowners with water flowing on or by their properties do not
necessarily have access to that water. Instead, prior appropriation is a rule of capture,
so that those who use the water are awarded rights to it. It allows for, and actually
61
encourages, diverting water from its natural course to be used on lands sometimes far
away from the water source.
Under prior appropriation, water rights are based on actual use and maintained
by continued use and need. Oregon’s water code is based on four principles: 1)
beneficial use, 2) priority, 3) appurtenancy, and 4) continued use (OWRD [Oregon
Water Resources Department 2011). ‘Beneficial use’ refers to the fact that in order to
establish and maintain a water right, water must be put to beneficial use without waste.
Until recently ‘beneficial use’ was commonly defined as irrigation for agriculture, mining
and industrial application, stock watering, domestic and municipal use, and other
economic activities. Keeping water instream for ecological purposes was not originally
considered beneficial under the doctrine of prior appropriation. ‘Priority’ relates to the
date in time that the right was awarded, and dictates that “first in time, first in right”.
Therefore, those who first use the water, secure a right, and continue to use the water,
have priority in times of shortage over other users who applied for water rights at a later
date. ‘Appurtenancy’ dictates that typically a water right is tied to a piece of land, and
when the land is sold, the water right goes along with that land. Finally, continued ‘use’
demands that a water right be utilized at least once every five years, or that water right
can be forfeit for non-use. This aspect of Oregon’s water code established a “use it or
lose it” mentality among water rights’ holders that can encourage wasteful water use in
order to maintain a water right, which is a valuable commodity in the arid west. Prior
appropriation has been law in Oregon since February 24, 1909 (Bastasch 2006; OWRD
2011). It is commonly agreed upon that all surface water in the state is over
62
appropriated, meaning that more rights have been awarded than there is water to meet
those needs.
Instream water rights
In 1987, the state legislature amended Oregon water law when it passed
Oregon’s Instream Water Right Act, legally allowing water left instream to be considered
a beneficial use, and allowing water rights to be issued to support public uses like
navigation, recreation, pollution abatement, and the enhancement of fish and wildlife
populations and habitats. Under the new amendment, the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW), the Department Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Parks and
Recreation Department are now authorized to apply for instream water rights, which are
then held by OWRD. Although, this was a major step forward, adapting an exiting policy
for the protection of fish and wildlife populations and their aquatic and riparian habitats,
with almost all surface water already over appropriated around the state, issuing new
instream water rights with a priority date later than 1987 did little to protect these
resources in times of water shortage; new instream rights with a priority date later than
1987 are almost always junior users.
However, the Instream Water Right Act also amended water law, allowing for
already existing water rights’ holders to sell, lease, or donate their water rights to be
used instream. Historically, under Oregon’s water law, water rights are assigned for a
specific place of use, point of diversion, and type of use. If a water rights’ holder wants
to change any aspect of their water right, they must apply for a transfer. The Instream
Water Right Act amended the law now allowing temporary transfers, or leases, as well
as a permanent transfers of water rights for instream purposes. The transferred or
leased instream water right then holds the priority date of the original water right,
63
meaning that instream rights can be, and in some cases are, senior users. “More than
70 percent of water put instream on a permanent basis is "senior" water, with
certificates pre-dating Oregon's 1909 water law” (OWRD 2013, p. Flow Restoration in
Oregon). Instream leases not only benefit fish and wildlife, but also benefit water rights’
holders who are not using their allotted water rights, and therefore might otherwise risk
forfeiture or cancellation of that right for non use.
Thanks to the amendments to Oregon’s water law “Oregon is known as a
national and international leader in streamflow restoration and protection” (OWRD 2013,
p. Oregon's Flow Restoration Toolbox). Over 1,000 instream leases were flied in the
first five years of the program. “Oregon has restored nearly double the amount of
instream flow of Washington, Idaho, and Montana combined. Oregon has placed about
900 cfs instream, compared to Washington (400 cfs), Idaho (100 cfs), and Montana (14
cfs based on a 2006 survey)” (OWRD 2013, p. Flow Restoration in Oregon).
The Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board
In a lot of ways, the evolution of many of Oregon’s policies and institutions aimed
at collaborative water management first stem from Senate Bill (SB) 23, which directed
the formation of the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) in 1987 (Arha
et al. 2003; OACD [Oregon Association of Conservation Districts] 2013). This board was
created by the legislature, and each biennium half a million dollars or more was
budgeted to GWEB with the mission of coordinating water quantity and quality
improvements around the state, including the management of riparian and upland areas
(Arha et al. 2003; OACD 2013). The emphasis of GWEB was to promote local efforts
aimed at achieving the board’s mission, through the provision of grants, technical
assistance and outreach to landowners, which, at that time, occurred mainly through
64
local soil and water conservation districts (Arha et al. 2003). GWEB also promoted
collaboration among the state’s natural resource agencies for better overall watershed
management (OACD 2013). Hence, GWEB was created to encourage bottom-up, local
stakeholder participation and involvement in water management around the state, along
with supporting more coordination, cooperation, and linking of state water management
agencies.
The board consisted of ten members from natural resource agencies around the
state: Environmental Quality Commission, Fish and Wildlife Commission, Board of
Forestry, Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Water Resources Commission,
Oregon Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Extension Service at Oregon State
University, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Soil Conservation
Service (now the Natural Resource Conservation Service) (Arha et al. 2003). GWEB’s
role expanded as Oregon’s watershed policies and institutions continued to evolve and
grow. GWEB provided funding, technical support, field services, and educational
opportunities to those working in watershed management (OCSRI [Oregon Coastal
Salmon Restoration Initiative] 1997). The organization had two advisory committees, a
technical advisory committee and an educational advisory committee.
Watershed Councils
Another pivotal step in the evolution of Oregon’s collaborative water
management policies and institutions was the formation of watershed councils around
the state. In 1993, under House Bill (HB) 2215 and Senate Bill (SB) 81, the legislature
directed the creation and funding of the Watershed Health Program (OACD 2013;
OCSRI 1997). The legislature allocated $10 million to fund these efforts and directed
The Oregon Water Resources Department to administer the program (OACD 2013).
65
This program promoted the establishment of local watershed councils, and funded pilot
watershed council projects in the Grande Ronde and Rogue River Basins, and on the
South Coast (OACD 2013; OCSRI 1997). Then in 1995, another piece of legislation, HB
3441, unanimously passed by the Oregon Legislature guided the formation of these
local, voluntary, non-regulatory watershed councils around the state (NOWC 2009;
OACD 2013); HB 3441 also made GWEB responsible for providing both technical
support and a stable funding source to local watershed councils, as well as clarifying the
fact that watershed council formation is a local government decision, that can take place
without state approval. Additionally, the legislation dictated that councils must be
balanced in their makeup, and represent the interests of affected parties within the
watershed.
Therefore, watershed councils in Oregon are multi-stakeholder groups, typically
with representatives from local and regional boards, commissions and agencies, Indian
tribes, public interest groups, private landowners, industry representatives, academic,
scientific and professional communities, and representatives of state and federal
agencies. “These councils have brought together diverse interests within a watershed,
including timber, agriculture, mining, conservation, recreation and business interests
with representatives from all levels of government, in partnerships that are working
toward a common goal of restoring watershed health and the species dependent on
healthy watersheds” (OCSRI 1997, p.17A-3). Between 1993 and the publishing of the
Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI) in 1997 over 60 watershed
councils were formed across the state. Today that number has swelled to over 90.
Councils are very diverse in their makeup. “Some watershed councils are 501(c)3, not-
66
for-profit organizations, while others are associated with local soil and water
conservation districts, and some are voluntary associations” (Smith & Gilden 2002, p.
655).
Watershed councils were designed with a number of objectives in mind. First,
watershed councils promote communication among the various interests working in the
watershed. Watershed councils also provide a forum for decision-making and conflict
resolution. They are responsible for completing an assessment/analysis of the
watershed, as well as putting together an action plan that details goals, objectives, and
priorities for protecting and enhancing the watershed. Additionally, part of their role is
implementing the plan and undertaking basin-wide monitoring to determine if the action
plan is successful. They are also responsible for education and outreach in the
watershed, not only for landowners and affected parties, but also for local citizens and
the community. Lastly, they must acquire the funding to complete their work, typically
through grants from a combination of government and private sources. Consequently,
watershed councils are aimed at bottom-up management, encouraging stakeholder
participation and sharing of authority, along with promoting monitoring and evaluation of
watershed conditions, and learning among managers and the public alike.
The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds
Another key component in the evolution of Oregon’s collaborative policies and
institutions was the creation of The Oregon Plan. The mission of The Oregon Plan for
Salmon and Watersheds (a.k.a. The Oregon Plan) is to restore “our native fish
populations and the aquatic systems that support them to productive and sustainable
levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits"
(Oregon Plan, 2013, p. About The Oregon Plan). In a nutshell, The Oregon Plan lays
67
out the state’s strategy for dealing with federal regulations under both the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act. It sets out to restore watershed health,
achieve water quality standards, and recover native fish populations. Four key elements
comprise The Oregon Plan: 1) coordinated action among state, federal, and tribal
agencies, 2) voluntary community-based action, 3) monitoring, and 4) scientific
oversight and adaptive management (Arha et al. 2003; Oregon Plan 2013).
The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds evolved out of the Oregon Coastal
Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI), which was initiated in 1995, and focused on the
recovery of coastal Coho salmon, as well as statewide water quality. At that time, two
evolutionary significant units (ESU) of coastal Coho Salmon were proposed for listing
under the Endangered Species Act. The OCSRI was the state’s response to the
proposed listing, aimed at avoiding a reoccurrence of the devastating effects that the
listing of the northern spotted owl had on the state’s economy. Then, in 1997 the
legislature funded the plan, with HB 5042, which appropriated $15 million for The
Oregon Plan, and HB 3700, which levied a one-time tax on harvested timber (Arha et al.
2003; OACD 2013). SB 372 provided further revenue for the Oregon Plan by directing
the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to design and sell a salmon license
plate for an additional surcharge. In that same year the Governor renamed the OCSRI
as The Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement and SB 924
created an independent, multidisciplinary science team (IMST) to act as a peer review
panel for the agencies that were implementing the Oregon Plan. Although the OCSRI
first targeted coastal Coho salmon, the plan has since grown to address native fish in all
watersheds in the state, and has evolved from a preventative strategy to a
68
comprehensive plan for watershed restoration and species recovery. Therefore, The
Oregon Plan can be viewed as significant planning document, which put a process in
motion aimed at addressing the complexity and uncertainty inherent in restoring native
species and the habitats they depend upon for survival.
The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
In 1998 voters in the state of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 66 with a two-thirds
majority. This ballot measure amended the state constitution, directing 15% of state
lottery funds to be used for 15 years for the protection and restoration of native salmon,
wildlife habitat, watersheds, and state parks (OWEB [Oregon Watershed Enhancement
Board] 2008a). Half of these funds, 7.5%, were directed to state parks, and the other
7.5% were directed towards watershed restoration. Then, following the passage of
Measure 66, HB 3225 expanded the role of the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement
Board (GWEB), thus creating the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), to
administer the lottery funds made available for watershed protection and restoration
(Oregon Plan 2007). For more than 15 years now, OWEB has been in the business of
utilizing these funds from the Oregon lottery, along with federal funds, and funds made
available from the sale of salmon license plates, to provide grants to Oregonians
working to improve and care for their local watersheds. In 2010, voters reconfirmed their
commitment to the protection and restoration of native salmon, wildlife habitat,
watersheds, and state parks, by passing Ballot Measure 76, which permanently
dedicated 15% of state lottery funds to be used for these purposes. Even in the midst of
a statewide economic recession, Measure 76 passed with a two-thirds majority in every
single county in the state; Democrats, Republicans, urban, and rural residents alike all
69
supported local, bottom-up responses to watershed protection and restoration. This is
often referred to as “the Oregon way”.
Much like the local, voluntary watershed councils that OWEB supports, OWEB is
led by a multi-stakeholder, policy oversight board, designed to represent a variety of
interest groups. The board has 17 members, 11 who are voting members, and 6 who
are non-voting members. The voting members include 5 citizen members, a tribal
representative, and a representative from The Oregon Board of Forestry, Board of
Agriculture, Environmental Quality Commission, Fish and Wildlife Commission, and
Water Resource Commission. The remaining non-voting members hail from five of the
federal natural resource agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and National
Resource Conservation Service), and Oregon State University’s Extension Service. The
board meets four times a year, in various locations across the state, to take action on
applications for funding, as well as discuss and plan the organization’s current and
future funding strategy.
OWEB funds a variety of activities through its grant programs. Local capacity,
often in the form of watershed council support grants, technical assistance, restoration,
land acquisition, water acquisition, monitoring, outreach, and education are all things
funded by OWEB. “The agency has a biennial grants budget of $50 million to $70
million” (Wiley et al. 2013, p. 95). Since 1997, funding for restoration has almost tripled
from $48 million in 1997-1998, to over $130 million in 2008-2009 (Figure 3-2) (OWEB
2011). During that same period OWEB and their partners improved fish access on over
4,000 miles of streams and rivers (Figure 3-3) (OWEB 2011).
70
Thus, OWEB is a significant institution promoting ACM in Oregon; it financially
and technically supports bottom-up, local stakeholder management around the state,
links state and federal programs and funds to local on the ground efforts, coordinates
state-wide monitoring and evaluation of watershed conditions, and drives the formation
of new policies, or the adaptation of existing policies, to better employ ACM
approaches. The descriptions below of the Special Investment Partnerships, along with
public/private partnership (both further elaborated on in Chapter 4) provide evidence of
OWEB’s continued contribution to shaping policy and adapting management efforts
around the state.
The Special Investment Partnerships
As a result of the passage of Measure 66 and the creation of OWEB, hundreds of
millions of dollars have been spent on watershed restoration around the state. However,
interviews with key informants revealed that much of the early work that was
accomplished by watershed councils, with help of GWEB/OWEB funding, could be
described as “picking the low-hanging fruit.” Many of the earlier projects were
restoration and education projects, spread around the state, which largely were not
controversial, but instead easily garnered wide-ranging support both from local
communities and government agencies. And while it would be difficult to argue that
these expenditures did not yield beneficial results, it became increasingly apparent that
this piecemeal approach to watershed management was unlikely to deliver the desired
ecological benefits, such as restoring “native fish populations and the aquatic systems
that support them to productive and sustainable levels that will provide substantial
environmental, cultural, and economic benefits” as outlined by the Oregon Plan (Oregon
Plan 2013, p. About the Oregon Plan).
71
In 2007, with a growing recognition that previous efforts were not delivering the
desired results, OWEB expanded their program to include a new funding strategy. The
Special Investment Partnerships (SIPs) were created, aimed at scaling up management
efforts to a basin-wide level, and requiring further collaboration and partnership building
among an even larger group of stakeholders. With the initiation of the SIPs, OWEB
targeted long-term, large-scale restoration, with the goal of achieving clear ecological
outcomes. OWEB staff reports revealed “the goal of the Special Investment
Partnerships is the same as that of OWEB overall – to help create and maintain healthy
watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving communities and strong
economies” (Wood 2007a, p. 1).
The SIPs were designed to be used when a project, or suite of projects, required
a funding strategy that was outside the scope of OWEB’s normal grant programs. Staff
reports dating back to discussions surrounding the formation of the SIPs demonstrate
that partnerships under the SIPs were defined to have various important characteristics:
1) ecological significance, 2) importance of OWEB’s contribution, 3) robust partnership,
4) triple bottom line, 5) capture the imagination/high visibility, and 6) ripeness (Wood
2007b). Essentially, OWEB aimed to designate a SIP when it seemed likely that
measurable ecological outcomes could be achieved, OWEB funds would catalyze
action, additional funding partners would come on board, ecological, social, and
community benefits would be achieved, the partnership would attract the public’s
attention, and the partnership was ready to be formed.
In the second half of 2007 OWEB identified six potential partnerships that could
qualify for the SIP program. Of the six, three were described as having “ripened most
72
quickly over the past half year” and “the stand-out among the six is the Willamette
Partnership” (Wood 2007b, p.7). At the September 2007 board meeting, OWEB staff
recommended that $12 million dollars be earmarked for the SIPs in the 2007-2009
biennium, $6 million specifically reserved for the Willamette Partnership (Wood 2007b).
Then at the January 2008 board meeting, $4 million was allocated to the Deschutes
Partnership. Thus, the Willamette and the Deschutes became the first of OWEB’s SIPs.
Participant observation and informant interviews revealed the overarching goals
of the two SIPs were significantly different, as was the way in which the partnerships
developed and evolved. For the Willamette SIP, OWEB helped to create new objectives
for the partnership, to target specific recovery needs not being addressed in the regular
grant programs. The two objectives were aimed at both the mainstem as well as the
tributaries: 1) to reestablish channel complexity and length, and 2) to reconnect
floodplain with adjacent active channels wherever feasible (Wood 2008). The
Deschutes SIP on the other hand, already had preexisting objectives established by the
partners, which OWEB chose to adopt and support. The Deschutes SIP focused on
habitat restoration contributing to the reintroduction of anadromous fish populations on
the mainstem and tributaries on both the east and westside of the Deschutes, including
the Crooked River subbasin (Wood 2007a). See Chapter 4 for a complete description of
the development, evolution, and outcomes of these two partnerships.
Public/Private Partnerships
In addition to the suite of intuitions and policies described above, the state of
Oregon has also been in the business of procuring partnerships with private
organizations to help further its mission of adaptive, collaborative water management.
Although public/private partnerships are not particularly new or innovative in resource
73
management, one particular partnership, which has been described as a “formal
strategic partnership”, bears mentioning, specifically because it adheres to many of the
tenets of ACM. The Willamette Funding Partnership is a unique strategic, funder-driven
partnership between OWEB, the Meyer Memorial Trust (MMT), and the Bonneville
Environmental Foundation (BEF); it is also one of OWEB’s Special Investment
Partnerships (described above and in greater detail in Chapter 4).
Participant observation and informant interviews established that simultaneously,
with the creation of the SIP program at OWEB, MMT, one of the Pacific Northwest’s
largest private foundations in operation since 1982, was also looking to invest in large-
scale restoration in the Willamette Basin. Therefore, the two organizations teamed up;
after doing some research they learned that a non-profit organization, BEF, was already
actively practicing many of the principles geared toward promoting ACM through its
existing Model Watershed Program, that the two partners aimed to achieve with their
Willamette Initiative.
BEF is “an entrepreneurial, non-profit organization on a mission to fundamentally
transform the relationship between humans and the earth’s energy and water
resources,” (BEF [Bonneville Environmental Foundation] 2009, p. About Us). Since
1999, BEF has also been in the business of community-based water management (BEF
2009). However, an interview with a key informant showed that similar to OWEB’s
trajectory, after several years of providing small grants to fund individual site-specific
projects, also taking a piecemeal approach to restoration, BEF decided to drastically
alter the way it does business. In 2003, in an effort to encourage a more holistic,
systematic, adaptive approach to restoration, BEF changed their grant program and no
74
longer funds grants on the typical one to two year grant cycle, but instead adopted the
use of the Model Watershed Program. The Model Watershed Program guarantees both
financial and scientific support for watershed restoration for ten-year cycles; it requires
grant recipients plan for whole watershed restoration, using an ACM approach, rather
than requesting funding for small, site-specific, short-term projects. This new long-term
funding mechanism is a sharp contrast to the traditional funding approach, but BEF
strongly believes that this new approach will ensure “that critical restoration needs are
identified and addressed at the scales necessary to achieve substantial and lasting
ecological improvements” (BEF 2009, p. Model Watersheds).
Basically, BEF’s Model Watershed Program embodied many of the same notions
and objectives that OWEB and MMT had in mind in launching the Willamette SIP.
Therefore, all three organizations formally launched the Willamette River Initiative in
2008 dedicated to changing the way that both watershed restoration and the funding
mechanisms that support it are accomplished. The Willamette River Initiative is also an
SIP under OWEB’s program.
Table 3-1. Timeline of Oregon’s Collaborative Water Management.
Date Bill Action
1987 SB 140 Oregon’s Instream Water Right Act passed 1987 SB 23 Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) is created 1993 HB 2215
SB 81 The Watershed Health Program and Oregon’s Watershed Council Program are created
1995 HB 3441 Legislature formally recognized watershed councils and makes GWEB responsible for providing technical and financial support
1995 Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI) is initiated 1997 Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI) is
published 1997 SB 924 Established Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST),
Healthy Stream Partnership (HSP), Coastal Salmon Restoration and Production Task Force (CRPTF), and Joint Legislative Committee on Salmon and Stream Recovery (JLCSSR)
1997 HB 5042 Legislature appropriated $15 million to implement Oregon Plan
75
Table 3-1. Continued
Date Bill Action
1997 HB 3700 Legislature approves timber tax to help fund The Oregon Plan
1997 SB 372 ODOT creates Salmon License Plate program
1998 BM 66 Directs 15% of state lottery funds to be used for 15 years for the protection and restoration of native salmon, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and state parks
1999 HB 3225 Approves modifications to Oregon Plan; disburses lottery funds according to Measure 66; changes Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) to Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB)
2001 HB 3002 Creates Salmon Recovery Task Force and provides guidelines for fish passage
2001 SB 945 Incorporates all key statutes into the Oregon Plan. Assigns responsibility to OWEB to prepare a biennial report on the execution and effectiveness of the Oregon Plan and to coordinate the monitoring and education and outreach components of the Oregon Plan
2001 SB 946 Assigns responsibility to OWEB for coordinating collection, storage, and dissemination of information for state natural resource agencies with State Service Center
2001 Legislature authorizes Split-Season Instream Use Leasing
2007 OWEB creates SIP program
2008 OWEB dedicates funding to Willamette and Deschutes SIP
2010 BM 76 Voters reconfirm commitment of 15% of lottery funds, making funding permanent
(Adapted from Arha et al. 2003; OACD 2013; Oregon Plan 2007)
Discussion
Many of Oregon’s policies and institutions are making significant progress
towards addressing some of the barriers to effectively employing an ACM approach.
Past research has enumerated numerous challenges to implementing ACM, such as an
inability to address management at an ecosystem or watershed scale, short funding
cycles, institutional inflexibility, and inadequate monitoring, (Allan & Curtis 2005; Allan et
al. 2008; Jacobson et al. 2006; McLain & Lee 1996; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000).
However, Oregon’s progressive institutions and policies described above are currently
tackling these barriers.
76
Management at the Watershed Scale
Ecosystems, particularly watersheds, cross both political and jurisdictional
boundaries. However, management efforts are often based on boundaries dictated by
land ownership (i.e., federal, state, private, or tribal) or political boundaries (city, county,
state, or national boarders). Yet, past research has pointed out the merits of focusing
management at the ecosystem scale (Christensen et al. 1996; Cortner et al. 1998;
Dombeck 1996; McLain & Lee 1996; Roe 1996; Yaffee 1996). Though given the
multiple overlapping boundaries and jurisdictions that are inherently part of nearly all
watersheds, this proves to be much easier said than done.
Several of Oregon’s institutions and policies, namely watershed councils and the
Special Investment Partnerships, including the Willamette Funding Partnership, were
designed to address management by bringing together an array of political and
jurisdictional stakeholders to collaborate on issues and management in specific
watersheds at the basin scale. Watershed councils provide a forum or a platform for
cooperation, communication, and joint management, which is directed at the watershed
itself. The Special Investment Partnerships (SIPs) take this concept one step further, by
tackling watershed management at even larger geographic scales. SIPs scale up
management to the basin-level, effectively making watershed councils work together as
stakeholders in an even bigger management process. The Deschutes SIP is a
partnership that includes two watershed councils, along with a land trust, a river
conservancy, and several funding partners. The Willamette SIP (a.k.a. the Willamette
Funding Partnership or the Willamette Initiative) involves seven watershed councils
working at the tributary level, along with the funding partners. OWEB, MMT, and BEF,
the funding partners in the Willamette Partnership, specifically directed funding to be
77
used for, and contingent upon management at the basin level. Therefore, although the
inability to work across boundaries, at the ecosystem or watershed scale, continues to
be cited as a significant barrier to accomplishing ACM, Oregon’s policies and institutions
are addressing this challenge by encouraging management at that scale.
Funding and Funding Cycles
Time and money are almost always barriers for management; there never
appears to be enough of either to go around (Allan et al. 2008; Bellamy & Johnson
2000; Moir & Block 2001; Walters 1997). This is further exacerbated by the fact that the
vast majority of grants or funding sources are typically tied to the fiscal year, and
therefore funding cycles are usually one to two years at most (Christensen et al. 1996;
Wiley et al. 2013). During that time, grantees are often expected to plan the project,
carry out the work, and monitor the results, so they can report back to the granting
agency. Past experience demonstrates that this is unrealistic (Wiley et al. 2013). The
Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB), and later the Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board (OWEB), along with the Special Investment Partnerships (SIPs),
and the Willamette public/private partnership are addressing this challenge, in a effort to
revolutionize the way watershed management is done.
When GWEB was created in the late 80s, it was done so with the intent of
encouraging and financially supporting local efforts aimed at protecting and enhancing
water quality and quantity around the state. The subsequent creation of OWEB and the
passage of Ballot Measure 66 in 1998 put a funding mechanism in place to help make
this possible; when Measure 76 passed in 2010 that funding mechanism was made
permanent. However, OWEB’s grantees were still subjected to the typical one to two
year funding cycles, which have been noted to limit the success of ACM efforts. This
78
began to change with the creation of the SIP program, which targeted larger-scale,
longer-term projects. Though, due to the nature of government funding, OWEB’s
funding necessitates legislative approval, and therefore the organization still isn’t able to
commit future funds beyond the biennium. However, recognizing the importance of
making a long-term funding commitment in order to affect the kind of ecosystem-level
change they are promoting as outlined in The Oregon Plan, OWEB teamed up with
MMT and BEF to form the Willamette SIP, creating the type of public/private partnership
that can make long-term funding a reality. Along with the Willamette Funding
Partnership, BEF’s Model Watershed Program was also designed with these same
goals in mind. Therefore, Oregon’s institutions are making headway in tackling the
challenge of overcoming short-term funding cycles and providing reliable, longer-term
financial support for watershed management.
Institutional Flexibility
Much like inadequate funding, and a failure to manage at the ecosystem or
watershed scale, inflexible institutions have also been implicated as an obstacle to
managing watersheds utilizing an ACM approach (Allan et al. 2008; Armitage et al.
2009; Brown & Farrelly 2009; Williams 2003; Yaffee 1996). While it is beyond the scope
of this paper to analyze or quantitatively assess institutional flexibility, it is important to
note that several of Oregon’s policies and institutions have adapted to become more
flexible, namely Oregon water law, OWEB, and the Willamette Funding Partnership.
Resource managers around the globe are frustrated by inflexible institutions and
outdated policies that create roadblocks as they attempt to incorporate ACM principles
into practice. Unfortunately, almost universally, it seems as though the wheels of
bureaucracy turn slowly (Brown & Farrelly 2009; Dovers 2001). However, Oregon offers
79
a few glimmers of hope that flexibility is possible. Amendments made to Oregon Water
Law in the late 1980s now allow water to be left instream (for ecological purposes) and
still be considered “beneficial use.” Additionally, further amendments allow existing
water rights’ holders to temporarily or permanently lease, transfer, or even sell their
water rights to the be used instream, while still maintaining the priority date of the
original water right. These amendments to water policy allow for flexibility within the
system of water allocation, and have revolutionized managers’ ability to restore
degraded habitat.
OWEB and the Willamette Funding Partnership have also recognized the
importance of flexibility, and therefore these institutions have incorporated several
changes into the way they do business. First, these institutions are moving from
responsive to proactive grantmaking (Wiley et al. 2013). This means that rather than
simply putting out a request for proposals (RFP) and awarding grants to those who
apply and are eligible, these institutions are modifying there grantmaking to target
organizations and partnerships that are prepared to carry out larger-scale, longer-term
management efforts. This institutional change allows them to be flexible and address
projects at a wide range of scales, while also encouraging collaboration among
grantees, as opposed to the competitive environment that is typically the result of a
responsive grantmaking. Second, they provide flexible funding, that is not only longer-
term, but also can also be used for planning and technical support, rather than simply
the execution of dirt moving projects, which has primarily been the focus of past
watershed funding. Third, knowing full well that large-scale watershed restoration and
the science behind it is still somewhat in its infancy, these institutions are embracing an
80
experimental mindset (Wiley et al. 2013). In general, OWEB and the Willamette Funding
Partnership recognize and acknowledge the importance of institutional flexibility in
managing and restoring watersheds.
Monitoring
Monitoring is one of the hallmarks of ACM (Armitage et al. 2009; Cundill &
Fabricius 2009; Holling 1978; Walters & Holling 1990). Adequate monitoring and
evaluation are necessary for tracking progress and learning, as well as being critical for
providing feedback for management (Olsson et al. 2004). However, inadequate
monitoring, or lack of funding for monitoring are significant obstacles to successfully
achieving ACM (Moir & Block 2001; Wilhere 2002; Williams 2003; Yaffee 1996). Yet,
Oregon’s institutions and policies, namely OWEB, guided by The Oregon Plan, strongly
support extensive monitoring, both financially and technically.
Under SB 945 in 2001, as part of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds,
OWEB was directed to create and carry out a statewide monitoring program. Therefore,
in 2003, OWEB established the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring
Strategy, which is a framework aimed at achieving three main objectives: 1) assessing
current watershed conditions and salmon populations, 2) evaluating Oregon Plan
conservation, restoration, and management actions, and 3) applying monitoring results
for use by agencies, policy makers, and the public (OWEB 2003). Under its legislative
mandate, OWEB is required to provide guidance and support for collaborative
monitoring activities, account for all restoration investments, and report on the progress
achieved as a result of The Oregon Plan. In accomplishing these tasks OWEB created
and manages the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI), a database which
tracks all voluntary efforts around the state aimed at watershed restoration. OWRI is the
81
largest restoration information database in the Western United States; it contains
records of over 14,000 projects completed since 1995 (OWEB 2014). Additionally,
OWEB publishes biennial reports to document the progress of The Oregon Plan. To
date, OWEB is compiling its ninth biennial report for the 2011-2013 biennium. Although,
under the Oregon Plan, OWEB and statewide voluntary monitoring efforts are
extensive, the state still wrestles with budgetary constraints, which fluctuate each
biennium based on federal and lottery funds. Regardless, statewide monitoring in
Oregon remains a top priority for assessing watershed conditions, tracking change,
evaluating the outcomes of management actions, and reevaluating management
objectives and strategies, as is outlined by the ACM framework.
Critiques
Critics of ACM and co-management demonstrate that in some cases, particularly
in the developed world, local interests are not necessarily champions of the
environment, but rather powerful groups that can and have taken over collaborative
processes, which resulted in the loosening of environmental protection (Layzer 2008;
Schwartz 2013). The watershed council model has addressed this concern by
institutionalizing the makeup of local councils. Although the formation of a watershed
council is a local government decision that can happen without state approval, in order
to avoid one particular stakeholder group taking over the collaborative process,
legislation dictates that councils must be balanced in their makeup, and represent the
interests of affected parties. Therefore, councils typically have representatives from
local and regional boards, commissions and agencies, Indian tribes, public interest
groups, private landowners, industry representatives, academic, scientific and
professional communities, and representatives of state and federal agencies. If a
82
council member steps down or reaches their term limit, per the bylaws of the council, a
member who will represent that same interest group must be their replacement. This
institutional arrangement, established at the state level, ensures that the collaborative
process at the local level remains balanced and is not usurped by one stakeholder
group.
Another criticism of ACM is that there is a dearth of research linking collaborative
processes with actual environmental outcomes and improvements (Layzer 2008;
Koontz & Thomas 2006). Oregon is addressing this critique as well, through its
extensive monitoring program (described above), which meticulously evaluates and
tracks watershed conditions and fish populations, conservation, restoration, and
management actions, and investments, and reevaluates management objectives and
strategies based on outcomes. Therefore, Oregon is actively and consciously
investigating the environmental outcomes of its policies and institutions.
Concluding Remarks
Whatever definition of ACM you ascribe to—“a long-term management structure
that permits stakeholders to share management responsibility within a specific system
of natural resources, and to learn from their actions” (Ruitenbeek & Cartier 2001, p. 8),
or “flexible community-based systems of resource management tailored to specific
places and situations and supported by, and working with, various organizations at
different levels” (Olsson et al. 2004, p. 75), or ‘‘a process by which institutional
arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing,
self-organized process of learning-by-doing’’ (Armitage et al. 2007 p. 328)—the
institutions and policies described and analyzed above demonstrate that the state of
Oregon is making great strides toward employing these approaches.
83
The vast majority of barriers involved in utilizing an ACM approach are social and
institutional, rather than ecological or technical (Allan et al. 2008; Brown & Farrelly
2009). Although the Oregon example does not offer an exact prescription for how to
specifically employ ACM, it does demonstrate that it is possible to overcome some of
the frequently mentioned barriers and challenges at the state, regional, and local levels.
The creation of new institutions, policies, and practices does however require the
support of governments and politicians (Allan et al. 2008; Armitage et al. 2009).
Institutions and policies can either hinder or advance the use of ACM. In fact, it could
even be said that to a certain degree the political and institutional framework of a given
location will determine the success of ACM. Without a favorable institutional landscape
in which to work, ACM is all but doomed to failure. Therefore, governance approaches
must adapt. Fortunately, the Oregon example demonstrates that it is possible to adapt
institutions and policies to become more conducive for employing ACM, and bring about
change in the way water resources are managed.
84
Figure 3-1. Oregon’s Governance Framework.
Landowners, Agency Personnel, Local Citizens
Watershed
CouncilsWatershed
Councils
Watershed
Councils
Watershed
Councils
NR
Organizations
NR
Organizations
NR
Organizations
Watershed
Councils
Partnerships ( SIPs)
OWEB
The Oregon PlanOWRD
Water Rights
State Institutions
& Policies
FunderFunder
85
Figure 3-2. Restoration Funding from 1997-2009 (OWEB 2011, p.1).
86
Figure 3-3. Summary of Restoration Outcomes 1997-2009 (OWEB 2011, p.2)
87
CHAPTER 4 COLLABORATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT: UNCOVERING THE SECRETS TO
SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS
Introduction
Currently, natural resource management is undergoing a major paradigm shift
(Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007b). Gone are the days of seemingly
limitless forests, fields, and rivers; and increasingly there is a shift away from the frontier
mentality of the past (Farina et al. 2003; Hughes et al. 2007; Mulligan 2001; Young &
Newton 1981). There is a growing recognition of the need to conserve resources and
balance tradeoffs, which are now an inherent part of resource management (Lawson &
Manning 2003; McClellan 2005; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000). The limitations and
inadequacies of top-down, single-handedly implemented, command and control
approaches are now well documented and widely accepted (Armitage et al. 2009;
Berkes 2009; Hardy 2010; Holling & Meffe 1996; Lubell et al. 2002). A growing
consensus has emerged: successful natural resource management requires
collaborative and participatory approaches that acknowledge the value of local as well
as scientific knowledge, and foster local ownership of management projects (Broderick
2008; Dewulf et al. 2007; Lundquist & Granek 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a; Pahl-Wostl
et al. 2007b; Warner 2006). In general, the benefits of collaboration and participation
are well documented in the literature, and there is now a widely held belief that
increasing participation improves the possibility that a given project will be successful
(Broderick 2008; Laumonier et al. 2008; Lundquist & Granek 2005).
“The idea that working together is better than working apart has underpinned all
the great social movements of our time.” (Popay & Williams 1998, p. 410). There is a
long held belief that more can be accomplished when working in tandem, than when
88
working alone (Hallam 2011; Hudson et al. 1999; Wildridge et al. 2004; Wilson et al.
2009). Today, many natural resources issues can be described as ‘wicked problems’,
which have no obvious solution and involve a diversity of stakeholders (Rittle & Webber
1973). Additionally, fewer resources are available to address these issues, and no one
organization or individual has the knowledge, expertise, or resources to solve them
independently (Goldman & Schmalz 2008; Wilson et al. 2009). “Partnerships create a
way forward when no clear solution exists and no single entity can claim the necessary
expertise, authority, or resources to bring about change” (Bailey 2010, p.1).
Collaboration can help organizations or entities enlarge their resource base and
decrease uncertainty in situations marked by constant change (Taber 1995). Therefore,
it could be argued that addressing these complex issues necessitates collaboration and
partnership building. However, it is much easier to say organizations should partner
without a clear idea on what makes partnerships successful. This paper takes a
comparative case study approach to examine two large-scale watershed partnerships in
Oregon, to determine the partnership characteristics that contribute to success.
Literature Review
The idea that collaborative partnerships are a panacea for addressing the
‘wicked problems’ that are pervasive in our society today, particularly in the burgeoning
field of resource management, is widespread. Although, there is also a significant
amount of research attesting to the fact that collaboration and partnerships are not
without their costs; they require a significant investment in terms of both time and
energy, and are not appropriate for use in every situation (Beal 2012; Gaskill et al.
2003; Huxham & Vangen 2004). Regardless, collaboration is now widely encouraged
89
and supported in both the public and private realms (Genskow & Born 2006; Koehler &
Koontz 2008; Leach et al. 2002; Lubell et al. 2002; Wildridge et al. 2004).
Partnerships offer a wide array of benefits, many of which are unattainable for
entities working independently. Partnerships can potentially maximize resource use,
improve organizational efficiencies, build capacity, facilitate innovations, increase
visibility and support, build on the strengths of the various partners, allow the sharing of
knowledge, information, and expertise, and enable the partners to wield greater
influence (Beal 2012; Clark 2008; Lindsay et al. 2008; O'Neill Hewlett & Bleich 2009).
Hence, there is a plethora of reasons why organizations or entities might promote and
engage in partnership building.
However, regardless of the growing recognition of the need for collaboration,
participation, and partnership building in resource management, there is little consensus
regarding how to best accomplish this task (Broderick 2008; Dewulf et al. 2007; Pahl-
Wostl et al. 2007b). “Despite the pressures in favour of collaboration, there is a great
deal of evidence that collaborative ventures often fail to live up to expectations” (Eden &
Huxham 2001, p. 373). Indeed, although many agree that participation is a necessary
step toward successful resource management, many challenges and difficulties arise
when implementing a collaborative approach (Armitage et al. 2008; Dewulf et al. 2007;
Warner 2006; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000). As Cronon states “because people differ in
their beliefs….they inevitably differ as well in their understanding of what nature means
and how it should be used” (1996, p. 50-51). Diverse types of knowledge, values,
beliefs, norms, interests, perspectives, priorities, goals, and agendas are intrinsic to
resource management issues, and often lead to conflicts (Broderick 2008; Huxham &
90
Vangen 2004; Leach et al. 1999; Warner 2006). In addition to the difficulties associated
with reconciling diverse interests and priorities, a paucity of bureaucratic and
institutional support, limited funding, burdensome donor requirements, and inadequate
monitoring and evaluation are often stated as barriers that limit the potential of
partnerships (Aikins et al. 2012; Asthana et al. 2002). The question then becomes how
to reconcile these issues, promote collaboration and participation, encourage
partnership building, and help to set and achieve desired management objectives
(Broderick 2008; Pennington 2008; Plummer & Armitage 2007a; Warner 2006).
Collaborative governance or co-management provides a framework to help realize
these aims.
Collaborative governance and co-management are touted as the way forward in
resource management. As opposed to the days of the past, when government was the
single decision-making authority exerting sovereign control over its citizens without
consulting other affected stakeholders or the public, collaborative governance
encourages multi-scale, polycentric, non-hierarchical modes of governance, which
recognize the contribution of a variety of stakeholders, including government bodies,
non-state, companies, interest groups, private actors, and individuals, in the formulation
and implementation of public policy (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008;
Rhodes 1997). Therefore, collaborative governance is considered more appropriate,
more efficient, and more equitable governance, as it democratizes decision-making.
Collaborative governance can be defined several different ways. The National
Policy Consensus Center defines collaborative governance as “leaders engaging with
all sectors—public, private, non-profit, citizens, and others—to develop effective, lasting
91
solutions to public problems that go beyond what any sector could achieve on its own”
(National Policy Consensus Center 2013, p. What is Collaborative Governance?). The
basic premise behind collaborative governance is multiple stakeholders, in both the
public and private sectors, work together to manage resources and implement public
policy.
Collaborative management or co-management is another concept, similar to
collaborative governance that stresses the importance of multiple stakeholders sharing
responsibility for management. Collaborative, cooperative, or co-management conveys
“the sharing of rights and responsibilities by the government and civil society” (Plummer
& FitzGibbon 2004, p. 63). Although the idea of co-management is not a new one—
McCay and Acheson defined it back in 1987 as “a political claim (by users or
community) to share management power and responsibility with the state” (p. 32)—the
concept is spreading and being used increasingly around the globe to address the
challenges of managing finite resources. “The sharing of power and responsibility
between the government and local resource users” (Berkes et al. 1991, p. 12) or
“power-sharing in the exercise of resource management between a government agency
and community organization of stakeholders” (Pinkerton 1992, p. 331) sounds great in
theory. But how is this accomplished? Successful partnerships “in which government
agencies, local communities and resource users, NGOs and other stakeholders
share….the authority and responsibility for the management of a specific territory or set
of resources” (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996, p.11) are difficult to achieve in the real world.
This research took a comparative case study approach to examine partnership
success and challenges in an effort to answer the following research questions:
92
1. What characteristics contribute to the success of inter-organizational partnerships?
2. How did a new scale of watershed partnerships develop and progress in achieving their goals and objectives?
3. What successes and/or challenges did these partnerships face in their development and evolution?
Study Area
To investigate these questions, Oregon was selected as the study site for this
research, due to the state’s progressive institutions and policies that support
collaborative management and partnership building. Oregon has a history of using
collaborative management, which stems back to the 1980s and 90s when watershed
councils first began to form around the state. Watershed councils in Oregon are local,
voluntary, non-regulatory, multi-stakeholder groups that often contain members from
local and regional boards, commissions and agencies, Indian tribes, public interest
groups, private landowners, industry representatives, academic, scientific, and
professional communities, and representatives of state and federal agencies. In 1995
the Oregon Legislature unanimously passed House Bill 3441, formally recognizing
watershed councils as representatives of the interests of their communities (NOWC,
2009). And thus began the formal institutional process of encouraging collaborative
governance in Oregon. This process received further support in 1998, when voters
passed Ballot Measure 66 amending the state constitution and dedicating 15% of state
lottery funds to be used for the protection and restoration of native salmon, wildlife
habitat, watersheds, and state parks (in 2010, Oregon voters also approved Ballot
Measure 76 permanently allocating lottery funds for these uses) (OWEB 2008a). With
the passage of this ballot measure and the subsequent passage of HB 3225, the
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) was created, to administer the funds
from Measure 66 and now Measure 76 (Oregon Plan 2007).
93
OWEB is an integral part of collaborative governance in the state, as it both
promotes and funds voluntary efforts aimed at creating and maintaining healthy
watersheds around Oregon. For more than a decade now, OWEB has provided funds to
watershed councils around the state for restoration, education and outreach, technical
assistance, watershed assessments, monitoring, council support, and land and water
acquisition. As a result of this agency and this program, millions of dollars were spent
on watershed restoration and a lot of good work was accomplished around the state.
While it would be difficult to argue that these expenditures have not yielded beneficial
results, it has become increasingly apparent that this piecemeal approach to watershed
management is unlikely to deliver the desired ecological benefits such as restoring
“native fish populations and the aquatic systems that support them to productive and
sustainable levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic
benefits” as outlined by the Oregon Plan (Oregon Plan 2007). Therefore, there was
growing motivation to target larger scale, longer-term restoration. Hence, in 2008, the
Special Investment Partnership (SIP) was born, which represents a new scale of
partnership in the history of collaborative governance in Oregon. The Special
Investment Partnerships are a new funding mechanism that effectively calls for scaling
up restoration to the basin level (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). As opposed to funding individual
projects and watershed councils typically working at the tributary level, OWEB’s SIPs
aim to promote partnerships between watershed councils and other organizations to
achieve restoration at a larger scale. Simultaneously, other funding agencies operating
in Oregon, such as the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, also began targeting
whole watershed restoration, at the basin scale.
94
Early in 2008 two SIPs were allocated OWEB funding, $4 million was allocated to
an SIP in the Deschutes Basin, and $6 million to another SIP in the Willamette Basin
(Figure 4-3). Additionally, private donors, such as the Meyers Memorial Trust and the
Bonneville Environmental Foundation, also committed to changing the way water
management is approached, leveraged even more funds for these partnerships as well.
Although both SIPs were allocated funding nearly simultaneously, the development,
processes, and outcomes resulting from the formation of these partnerships has been
drastically different. Therefore, the Deschutes and Willamette SIPs are ideal case
studies to undertake this research in an effort to help parse out what characteristics
make partnerships successful, how the partnerships developed and progressed towards
achieving their goals and objectives, and what successes and/or challenges they faced
in their development and evolution.
The Cases
The Deschutes Special Investment Partnership, otherwise known as the
Deschutes Collaborative, primarily includes four key organizations: the Deschutes River
Conservancy, The Deschutes Land Trust, and two watershed councils, the Upper
Deschutes Watershed Council and the Crooked River Watershed Council. Additionally,
the funding partners include the Pelton Fund (which consists of Portland General
Electric and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs) and OWEB. The main objective
of the Deschutes SIP is “to re-establish anadromous fish runs and enhance resident fish
populations in the main stem and in tributary streams on both the eastside and the
westside of the Deschutes basin, including the Crooked River subbasin” (OWEB 2008b)
(Figure 4-4). To help accomplish this goal, the Deschutes SIP was first allocated $4
million from OWEB in January of 2008, for the 2007 to 2009 biennium. Subsequently,
95
the Deschutes SIP received an additional $4 million in both the 2009-2011, and 2011-
2013 biennia to help build upon the success of this partnership.
The Willamette Special Investment Partnership involves the Nature
Conservancy, two different land trusts (the Green Belt and the McKenzie Land Trust),
and seven different watershed councils: Calapooia, Mary’s River, North Santiam, South
Santiam, Long Tom, Middle Fork Willamette, and Luckiamute Watershed Councils, all
working on the tributaries of the Willamette River (Figure 4-5). The funding partners
include OWEB, The Meyer Memorial Trust, and the Bonneville Environmental
Foundation. OWEB first allocated $6 million for the Willamette SIP in March of 2008,
followed by an additional $1.8 million from the Meyer Memorial Trust (MMT [Meyer
Memorial Trust] 2009). Due to the challenges facing this partnership, they were not
allocated any additional funding from OWEB in the 2009 to 2011 biennium, but they did
receive another $3 million allotment for the 2011 to 2013 biennium.
The Deschutes SIP hit the ground running. The Deschutes partnership was
already established prior to the first allotment of OWEB SIP funds. The partnership had
a multitude of projects in the works prior to receiving funding; in the first biennium
(2007-2009) they initiated or implemented 16 different restoration projects. They
accomplished a lot of on the ground dirt moving and restoration, and therefore were
ready and able to put more OWEB SIP funding to work in the subsequent biennia. The
Willamette SIP had a different experience altogether. Their partnership was not
established prior to the first allotment of OWEB funds. Therefore, the first biennium was
spent largely strategizing, planning, developing projects, and building capacity. At the
end of the first biennium, the Willamette SIP had not spent their allotment of SIP funds,
96
and therefore, they did not receive additional funding in the subsequent biennium. This
research investigates these two partnerships to determine what accounts for the
differences in the development, progression, and outcomes.
Methods Section
This research took a qualitative, ethnographic, comparative case study approach
to provide an idiographic explanation for the different outcomes of the two SIPs. This
approach was selected because past research indicates that when investigating
collaboration and partnerships, this approach offers many benefits beyond that of a
quantitative, positivist approach (Corbin et al. 2012; Dixon & Sindall 1994; El Ansari et
al. 2001; El Ansari, & Weiss 2006; Gillies 1998; Popay & Williams 1998; Yin 2009). A
case study design enables the examination of complex social phenomena, such as
collaborative governance, in its natural context, and allows for in-depth analysis and
contextual understanding that preserves the holistic and significant characteristics of
real-life processes (Corbin et al. 2012; El Ansari & Weiss 2006; Yin 2009). “Qualitative
research can aid in the understanding of the nuances of partnership functioning that
quantitative research has no way to measure” (Corbin et al. 2012, p. 5; El Ansari &
Weiss 2006). El Ansari, Phillips & Hammick note that qualitative methods are necessary
to determine how and why collaboration works in certain circumstances (2001). They
also note that quantitative methods are not sufficient for assessing collaborative
initiatives (El Ansari et al. 2001).
Data Collection
The qualitative approach utilized for this study included extensive participant
observation for a period of more than three years from June 2010 to fall of 2013,
secondary data analysis of all written records and accounts related to the creation and
97
ongoing activities of the Special Investment Partnerships, as well as unstructured
interviews with a purposeful sample of key informants related to both the SIPs. The
researcher was a participant observer at nearly all quarterly, two-day OWEB board
meetings from June 2010 to the end of 2013, as well as special closed-door meetings of
subcommittees related to the SIPs. Additionally, the researcher attended nearly all
monthly or bi-monthly meetings of several local watershed councils for the same time
period. While undertaking field research there were also several opportunities to attend
statewide water management conferences such as OWEB’s and the Network of Oregon
Watershed Council’s biennium conferences, and the biennium “Within Our Reach”
Conferences which focused exclusively on the Willamette SIP. The researcher
conducted unstructured interviews with key informants in both the Deschutes and the
Willamette SIP, as well as with OWEB board members and staff. During her time as a
participant observer and while conducting interviews, the researcher focused
exclusively on all matters related to the development, progression, and outcomes of the
two Special Investment Partnerships in the Deschutes and the Willamette Basins. The
researcher concentrated on characteristics that contributed to the level of success of the
SIPs, as well as specific challenges that the partnerships faced during their
development and evolution.
Secondary data included all OWEB staff reports related to the SIPs, watershed
council annual reports and documents related to SIP projects, reports by funding
agencies, as well as any other documents available either in print or on the internet that
relate to the Deschutes and Willamette SIPs.
98
Data Analysis
Primary data analysis involved a qualitative, iterative process of reviewing field
notes taken during and after participant observation and unstructured interviews, in
search of partnership characteristics that accounted for the differences between the
development, evolution, and outcomes of the two cases. Along with reviewing primary
data, secondary data were analyzed to provide contextual information about the cases.
During and after each session of data collection, the researcher examined the data for
themes that explained the differences between the development, evolution, and
outcomes of the two cases. Over the course of several years of data collection, the
researcher kept an ongoing list of themes identified, and, as the data collection process
continued, the researcher reviewed the list of themes to determine if the new data
supported or refuted the already identified themes and preliminary conclusions. Finally,
after completing the qualitative analysis, the results of this research were shared with
key informants, who validated the findings.
Results
The researcher observed and identified six major themes that account for the
different development, evolution, and outcomes of the two cases. The six themes
observed are: 1) partnership timelines, 2) locally-driven versus funder-driven processes,
3) leadership, 4) basin characteristics, 5) catalysts for partnership formation, and 6)
niche creation. These six themes help to explain the different characteristics that
contribute to the success and the challenges related to the new watershed partnerships
in Oregon. The themes will be described below, as they relate to the development,
progression, and outcomes of the two SIPs.
99
Partnership Timelines
One significant characteristic contributing to the success of the Deschutes SIP,
and a key finding related to the development of this partnership, is that the partners in
the Deschutes Basin had a head start working together and establishing the
partnership, compared to the Willamette SIP. Interview data revealed that the partners
had significant time working together and built trust before the creation of the SIP
program and the initial allotment of OWEB funds in 2008. Data demonstrated that the
roots of the collaborative actually stem back to the Federal Emergency Regulatory
Commission’s relicensing of the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project, which began
in 2004, four years prior to the establishment of the SIP at the state level.
In the more than 50 years since the construction of the Pelton Hydroelectric
Facility, habitat in the upper basin was severely degraded, due to many of the same
factors in play around the country, such as over appropriation of water rights, and
ditching and diking of streams to prevent flooding. The impacts included streams and
tributaries, such as Whychus Creek, that ran completely dry in the summer months, and
a nearly complete elimination of wetlands and prime spawning habitat for anadromous
fish. Therefore, beginning back in 2004, prior to the establishment of the SIP in 2008,
several organizations working in the basin realized the need for habitat restoration, if
fish were ever to successfully be reintroduced to the upper basin following the
construction of the new Pelton Hydroelectric Facility, which was a requirement of the
relicensing process. Consequently, results demonstrate that the beginning of the
partnership dates back to the dam relicensing process in 2004, rather than to the
establishment of the SIP program itself in 2008, which gave the Deschutes partnership
several years head start over the Willamette SIP.
100
Comparatively, observational data demonstrate that the Willamette Partnership
did not exist prior to the establishment of the SIP program at OWEB in 2008. There was
no established partnership or any history of collaboration among the specific
organizations prior to the implementation of the SIP. In fact, when the Willamette was
designated a SIP in early 2008 the partners themselves had not yet been identified,
much less built trust or rapport to help move the process along. There was no history of
organizations working together in the basin. Basically, this partnership started at square
one when the SIP was designated in 2008, and the first OWEB funding was allocated
for this purpose. The partnership actually came into existence as a result of the
designation of OWEB funds, and was built around the research done for the Willamette
River Basin Atlas, which served to provide baseline data on the basin, identified the
issues facing the basin, and the changes necessary to achieve a healthier ecosystem.
In essence, the data strongly suggest that partnership timelines played a significant role
in the development, evolution, and outcomes of the two different SIPs.
Locally-Driven Versus Funder-Driven Processes
Interview and observational data demonstrate that the Deschutes Partnership
began working together prior to the establishment of the SIP, as a result of the
impending reintroduction of anadromous fish in the basin, and the identified need to
restore large parts of the upper basin to support the reintroduced fish. Therefore, the
process can be described as a grassroots, bottom-up, or a locally-driven process. In
fact, interviews revealed that in 2007 the Deschutes partners actually approached
OWEB with a suite of restoration projects they identified that needed funding to support
the reintroduction effort. The partners posited that rather than applying for each project
individually through the regular and small grants programs, which was the typical
101
OWEB funding process at that point in time, they inquired as to whether OWEB might
consider funding the lot of them, all aimed at whole watershed restoration on the
Deschutes. OWEB, intrigued by this idea, decided to support basin wide restoration on
the Deschutes, and created a new funding mechanism to enable this; thus the Special
Investment Partnerships were born.
However, in establishing the SIP in the Deschutes, interview data revealed that
the OWEB board and staff decided that if they were going to support whole watershed
restoration in one part of the state that they ought to support this type of restoration in
the iconic watershed in the state as well—the Willamette Basin. Hence, the SIP
program and the first two SIPs in the state were created. OWEB allotted funding to a
partnership in the Willamette, regardless of the fact that no established partnership
existed in the basin at that point in time. Therefore, this process could be considered a
funder-driven, or more of a top-down process, as opposed to the Deschutes SIP, which
was locally-driven, or bottom-up.
Leadership
Though not a new finding among research investigating partnership success, and
a difficult result to replicate, the importance of leadership when forming a partnership
cannot be overlooked (Asthana et al. 2002; Cramm et al. 2012; Dowling et al. 2004;
Evans & Killoran 2000; Hallam 2011; Jones & Barry 2011; Lasker et al. 2001; Leach &
Pelkey 2001; Roussos & Fawcett 2000; Seifer 2006; Weiss et al. 2002). The Deschutes
SIP had evidence of strong leadership, even before the collaboration even began. All of
the major partner organizations in the Collaborative built strong boards and sustaining
organizations. In the case of several of the individual organizations, the executive
directors are long standing staff members, who worked with the organizations long
102
enough to build a rapport with their boards and communities, not to mention the other
partner organizations. Time and again, among the more than 90 watershed councils
operating statewide, the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, one of the main partners
in the Collaborative, was described as one of the councils with the highest
organizational capacity in the state. They are often featured by OWEB and the Network
of Oregon Watershed Councils as a textbook example of a council doing great things
and accomplishing a lot of work on the ground. “The relationships between individual
participants in collaborations are often fundamental to getting things done” (Huxham &
Vangen, 2004, p. 197). The Deschutes Collaborative put in the time and energy and
built good relationships, which helped move the process forward.
The Willamette SIP on the other hand, began the process of identifying possible
partners in 2008, when the SIP was designated. Two years later, at the biennial “Within
Our Reach” Conference, one of the major topics of discussion among many of the
stakeholders involved in the restoration of the Willamette was the best way create a
successful partnership, and whether that involved creating a new organization
altogether, or designating one organization to take the lead.
Basin Characteristics
Another characteristic that cannot go without mentioning, when comparing the
development, evolution, and outcomes of the two SIPs thus far, is the physical
characteristics of the basins themselves that have, at least in the case of the Willamette
Basin, proven to be challenging for the SIP. The Willamette is a slightly larger basin
than the Deschutes; its land area encompasses nearly 11,500 square miles, as
opposed the 10,000 square miles than encompasses the Deschutes Basin (Figures 4-4
and 4-5). Of primary significance though, is that 70 percent of the state’s population
103
resides within the Willamette Basin. Among other things, this means that the river itself
is used for many purposes and faces a different set of challenges than those of the
Deschutes Basin. The Willamette Basin is also home to nearly 75 percent of the state’s
economic activity (Willamette Partnership 2013). In addition to agriculture, fishing, and
recreation, which are the primary uses of the Deschutes River, the Willamette River
flows through large urban areas, including the City of Portland, and has many industrial
uses as well. In addition to the competing uses within the basin, and the sheer number
of people living in the basin, the Willamette River and its floodplain is comprised of a
patchwork of many individual private landowners. The Deschutes Basin on the other
hand, is largely composed of large landowners, and a tremendous amount of public
land lies within the basin. The variety of land uses and land ownership makes
restoration in the Willamette a more complex process than it is in the Deschutes Basin.
Finally, due to the sheer size and scope of the Willamette Basin there are many more
stakeholders, both private and public, involved in the restoration process.
Catalyst for Partnership Formation
Another critical characteristic contributing to the success of the Deschutes SIP is
that the partnership had a clear catalyst to facilitate its formation. The relicensing of the
Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Facility, and the subsequent reintroduction of fish, led
to the need for restoration in the upper basin. Therefore, all of the partners in the
Collaborative were able to galvanize around similar goals and had common objectives,
which led to them to work together to accomplish these goals. Observational and
interview data confirm that the partnership was formed as a result of the catalyst of
relicensing the Pelton Facility, rather than the designation of the SIP.
104
The Willamette SIP on the other hand, did not have a catalyst for its formation,
and did not share common goals at the advent of the partnership’s development.
Instead, the Willamette Partnership formed as a result of the designation of the SIP, and
the funding from OWEB, and subsequently, MMT and BEF. Therefore results
demonstrate that funding is a necessary, but insufficient catalyst for successful
partnership building. Alternatively, partnership success appears to be linked to common
goals and objectives. In the case of the Willamette, it actually took quite a while for the
SIP to even solidify the goals of the partnership. While the Willamette SIP was formed
around the research done for the Willamette River Basin Atlas, the partners themselves
were not established at the start of the SIP in early 2008; they had no history of working
together, and they did not share a common goals or objectives until well after the
formation of the SIP.
Niche Creation
The final characteristic that greatly contributed to the success of the Deschutes
SIP, and perhaps one of the most significant findings of this research, is that the
Deschutes partners created a strategic partnership; this involved identifying niches for
the various organizations, that produced a collaborative, rather than a competitive
environment, in which all organizations thrived and worked together successfully. This is
a unique characteristic that contributed greatly to the success of the partnership. Similar
to what happens in natural ecosystems, where each species carves out a niche for
itself, and in some cases creates a mutualistic relationship with other species which
contributes to its survival, the Deschutes Collaborative spent a good deal of time
identifying and capitalizing on the strengths of the various partnership organizations, so
that they could best support one another, rather than compete for the same limited
105
resources and funding. After much debate and deliberation, the various organizations
decided that the strength of the Deschutes Land Trust (DLT) was land acquisition and
land management. The DLT had much experience acquiring land, establishing
conservation easements, and holding property in perpetuity for nature. Though the DLT
dabbled in restoration and wanted to do so on their own property as well, they decided
that the restoration work itself was best left to the experts at the watershed councils.
Therefore, restoration, fish passage, and monitoring became the niches for the Upper
Deschutes and the Crooked River Watershed Councils. The Deschutes River
Conservancy (DRC) also was able to carve out an individualized niche in the
partnership, and rather than stepping on the toes of the other organizations, the DRC
focused on streamflow restoration and water banking, which was a unique skill set that
this organization had. In this way the various partner organizations wrestled over and
eventually partitioned out roles for themselves and each other, which allowed them to
specialize and clearly identify how they would interact and support one another in the
basin wide restoration process.
Currently the Willamette SIP includes seven watershed councils that are partner
organizations, along with the other partner organizations as well. Although, these
councils each cover a unique geographic scope, they have not carved out strategic
niches, like the organizations in the Deschutes SIP. In essence, although they are
working together, they are also competing for the same pot of funding to complete their
individual projects that comprise a portion of the restoration of the basin. In fact, the
Willamette SIP process as a whole is now composed of two distinct strategies for
restoration, one that focuses on the main stem, and a second that focuses on the
106
tributaries. While this is a reasonable strategy to accomplish work on a large geographic
scale, it could be argued that this type of partnership creates more of a competitive
environment, as individual councils doing similar work in different areas compete for the
same funding, as opposed to the strategic, cooperative partnership created by the
Deschutes SIP.
The strategic Deschutes partnership enabled each organization to create niches,
have clear roles, and complement one another in the restoration process. No one
organization could accomplish their goals without the help and support of the other
organizations. Niche creation, similar to that which occurs in ecological systems,
appears to be an incredibly helpful strategy to facilitate the success of partnership
development.
Discussion and Conclusions
Although both SIPs were initiated nearly simultaneously, and received the same
type of funding and institutional support from OWEB, that is where the similarities
between the two partnerships ends. Both SIPs went through entirely different processes
in their development, evolution, and outcomes thus far, and the lessons learned provide
valuable insights for partnership building in general, particularly at larger geographic
scales.
First, the timelines for the development of both SIPs demonstrate that
collaboration and partnership building takes time. Although this is not a new finding in
partnership research, time is often cited as one of the significant drawbacks of
employing a collaborative approach (Beal 2012; Gaskill et al. 2003; Hallam 2011; Seifer
2006), the investment of significant time in developing partnerships can provide benefits
that outweigh the costs. Longer time frames often mean that more trust is built among
107
the partners (Gaskill et al. 2003). According to past research, trust is also a critical
component of successful partnerships (Aikins et al. 2012; Beal 2012; Dowling et al.
2004; Goldman & Schmalz 2008; Hallam 2011; Horns et al. 2007; Leach & Pelkey
2001; Popay & Williams 1998; Seifer 2006). Additionally, more time and more trust
effectively equate to better relationships, which previous research also found to be a
critical component of partnership success (Hallam 2011; Huxham & Vangen 2004;
Seifer 2006). Not unlike others studies, the timelines for the development and evolution
of the SIPs demonstrate that time, trust, and relationship building were all essential
components of successful partnership building in the case of the SIPs too. It is
important to note that there are no silver bullets, or fast tracks that can be used to
eliminate the need for partners to take the time and put in the effort working together to
build a successful partnership. Unfortunately there appears to be no substitute for taking
the time. In the case of the present research, the Deschutes Collaborative had a head
start in working together, and this accounted for much of their success thus far, in
comparison to the Willamette. However, in the case of the Willamette, though the
partnership was slower to start, regardless, the partners’ commitment to working
together will likely contribute to future success, since the partnerships is still alive and
putting in the time to make the partnership successful.
Second, in the case of the SIPs, partnership success can, in part, be attributed to
locally-driven processes and having a catalyst for partnership formation. This research
demonstrates that although funding is a necessary component of a successful
partnership (Aikins et al. 2012; Leach & Pelkey 2001), it alone is insufficient to achieve
success (Asthana et al. 2002). Instead, the present research illustrates that partners
108
must have a catalyst of some sort, to motivate them to work together; often this catalyst
is shared goals. Much like the findings of past research, this study confirms that
partners must have shared goals and objectives to motivate their participation in a
collaborative process (Aikins et al. 2012; Bailey 2010; Beal 2012; Hallam 2011; Popay &
Williams 1998). Common goals and objectives, which in the case of the Deschutes SIP
catalyzed the locally-driven process to restore the upper river for the reintroduction of
anadromous fish, appear to be a prerequisite for a successful partnership.
Finally, and notably the most significant finding of this research, which also
contributes to the literature on partnerships, is that niche creation and mutualism can
play a critical role in successful partnerships. Much like symbiotic relationships in
ecological systems, partnerships can be either competitive or mutualistic. In the case of
the Willamette Basin, many different watershed councils, all working in different
geographic areas, all share similar niches; many of the partners are responsible for on
the ground restoration, and therefore, at some level, are in competition with one another
for the same funding to complete their individual projects. However, in the case of the
Deschutes Collaborative, each of the individual partners identified and carved out
niches for themselves, so that each organization complements, and even requires the
help of the other organizations to successfully achieve their shared goals. As an
example, much like the process of pollination, where pollinating insects, like a bees,
receive food resources from flowers in exchange for the dispersal of that pollen, which
then aids in the reproductive capability of the flowers, the Deschutes Collaborative
identified ways in which each partner could complement one another and help achieve
something than none of the partners could do independently. The watershed councils
109
needed the help of the DRC to acquire the water rights to put the water back instream,
so the fish would have water once the restoration process was complete; and both
organizations needed the help of the DLT to acquire the property or the easements to
make the work possible. None of these organizations would have been as successful
without the assistance of their partners and these mutualistic relationships. Therefore,
this type of niche creation, or mutualism, appears to play a significant role in the
success of partnerships. In essence, perhaps partners need to act more like species in
ecosystems, carving out niches for one another that are mutually beneficial, rather than
competitive and overlapping. The individual roles of the partners, whether they are
competitive or complementary, definitely bears identification and consideration during
the partnership building process, as it appears to have significant bearing on whether or
not a partnership has what it takes to be successful. Perhaps partnerships need to
strategically behave more like institutional ecosystems in order to maximize the success
for all those involved.
110
Figure 4-1. Oregon’s Governance Framework.
Landowners, Agency Personnel, Local Citizens
Watershed
CouncilsWatershed
Councils
Watershed
Councils
Watershed
Councils
NR
Organizations
NR
Organizations
NR
Organizations
Watershed
Councils
Partnerships ( SIPs)
OWEB
The Oregon PlanOWRD
Water Rights
State Institutions
& Policies
FunderFunder
111
Figure 4-2. Nested Collaborative Governance Structure in Oregon.
OWEB
State Governance Institutions
SIP
Watershed
Councils
112
Figure 4-3. Map of Oregon Demonstrating the Size and Location of the Deschutes and
the Willamette Basins.
113
Figure 4-4. Deschutes Basin Project Area (OWEB 2009).
114
Figure 4-5. Willamette Basin Project Area.
115
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUDING CHAPTER
History has demonstrated that the ways we have managed natural
resources in the past have wreaked havoc on the natural systems on which we
depend for survival; we need new approaches to move forward and create a
more sustainable future. The literature is replete with calls for more collaborative
and adaptive approaches, yet examples of how to successfully employ these
approaches are few and far between. The research presented in this dissertation
provides insights into how new approaches to resource management play out in
the real world, how some of the barriers to adoption can be overcome, and what
some of the secrets to success are for promoting adaptive, collaborative
governance.
The study began with an exploration of perceptions regarding the resource
that is being managed: watersheds. Stakeholders who work in water
management groups were interviewed to determine how they frame the concept
of a watershed, and whether or not there is shared framing among stakeholders.
Results demonstrate that, in general, frames differ substantially, even among
those working in close-knit groups in specific geographic areas or even in the
same basin. However, there was agreement on one important component;
people are a central part of watersheds. Therefore, it stands to reason that
watershed management needs to focus on people. This substantiates the
findings of prior research that contends that the significant obstacles to be
overcome in resource management are social issues (Allan et al. 2008; Brown &
Farrelly 2009).
116
The second part of this study explored the governance and policy context
in the State of Oregon, in an effort to understand how some of the frequently
cited challenges to adopting adaptive, collaborative management approaches
can be overcome. An analysis of Oregon water policies and institutions shows us
that through policy changes and the adaptation of existing institutions, along with
the creation of new ones, barriers can be surmounted. However, progressive,
flexible governance is a critical prerequisite.
The third component of this research explored partnership building at a
new and larger scale, the basin scale, which effectively calls for smaller
collaborative groups to become stakeholders in a larger collaborative process.
This study follows the development and evolution of two such partnerships, and
uncovers some of the secrets to successful partnership building, and identifies
some of the challenges as well. An important conclusion from this part of the
study is that social systems could benefit from behaving more like ecological
systems, utilizing diversity to their benefit, and employing techniques like niche
creation and mutualism to establish diverse yet complementary, rather than
competitive roles, in order to collaborate more effectively. This appears to be
even more important as the scale of partnerships grows.
All three of these components of the research are aimed at providing
insight into better ways to manage water resources. Additionally, a fourth
objective is explored here, in an effort to tie all these pieces together and provide
further guidance regarding how to utilize adaptive collaborative approaches. The
fourth objective investigates social learning, and asks to what extent is social
learning occurring in the management of water resources in Oregon?
117
Social Learning: A Literature Review
Social learning, also referred to as co-learning or organizational learning,
is a critical part of both collaborative governance and adaptive management.
Psychologist Albert Bandura first coined the term social learning in 1963; his
definition described the learning of individuals in social contexts, based on
observation, imitation, and modeling of behavior (Bandura 1963; Bandura 1977).
Shortly thereafter, this definition was expanded upon, and social learning was
used to describe learning that takes place at the group or organizational level
(Argyris & Schon 1978; Argyris 1996; Senge 1990; Wenger 1998; Wenger 2000).
Later, others took the concept of social learning even further, describing it as
“more than just ‘community participation’ or learning in a group setting. It involves
understanding the limitations of existing institutions and mechanisms of
governance and experimenting with multi-layered, learning oriented and
participatory forms of governance” (Woodhill 2003, p. 48; Bouwen & Taillieu
2004, p.143-144).
Essentially, there is no one agreed upon definition of social learning.
Instead, the literature is replete with many, sometimes conflicting, definitions.
Keen, Brown, and Dyball define social learning as—“a process of iterative
reflection that occurs when we share our experiences, ideas and environments
with others’’ (2005, p.9), or “the collective action and reflection that occurs among
different individuals and groups as they work to improve the management of
human and environmental interrelations”—(2005, p. 4). Woodhill states social
learning is a ‘‘process by which society democratically adapts its core institutions
to cope with social and ecological change in ways that will optimize the collective
118
wellbeing of current and future generations’’ (2002, p. 319). Whichever definition
you ascribe to, the focus of social learning, as discussed here, will be on
reflection and adaptation to improve the management of socio-ecological
systems.
According to social learning theory, there are different types or levels of
learning; single-loop, double-loop, and, more recently, triple-loop learning have
been put forth as an important part of social learning theory (Argyris 1992;
Armitage et al. 2008; Diduck et al. 2005; Groot & Maarleveld 2000; Keen et al.
2005; King & Jiggins 2002) (Figure 5-1). According to this theory, the type or
level of learning refers to the degree of change initiated by the learning (Groot &
Maarleveld 2000). Essentially, learning occurs when errors are detected and
corrected. Single-loop learning relates to the connection between actions and
outcomes; if actions or behaviors are modified to produce the desired outcome,
without altering underlying values, this is single-loop learning (Argyris 1992;
Diduck et al. 2005). Double-loop learning happens when values and norms are
altered, thus changing behaviors and actions to achieve the desired outcome
(Argyris 1992; Diduck et al. 2005). Argyris and Schon introduced the idea of
single and double-loop learning in 1978, with reference to organizational
learning. Since that time, others have built upon their ideas by adding an
additional, third loop (Flood & Romm 1996; Groot & Maarleveld 2000; Keen et al.
2005; King & Jiggins 2002). Triple-loop learning entails the redesign of
governance structures, institutions, and policies that govern single and double-
loop learning (Armitage et al. 2008; Groot & Maarleveld 2000).
119
In natural resource management, single-loop learning involves identifying
and modifying management practices and strategies to change outcomes, such
as modifying releases from a dam in order to impact stream flow. Double-loop
learning goes one step further and requires challenging underlying values and
assumptions. An example of double-loop learning is the act of creating forums for
communication and trust building to encourage participation aimed at challenging
existing values and norms, and perhaps reevaluating management goals
(Armitage et al. 2008); discussions surrounding alternative practices to improve
water quantity, such as implementing drip irrigation, in place of flood irrigation,
exemplifies double-loop learning. Finally, triple-loop learning involves revisiting
the protocols and institutions, which shape the governance system. Modifying
policies and adapting or creating new institutions that challenge existing
protocols is an example of triple-loop learning (Armitage et al. 2008); adapting
water law to allow for instream water rights to have priority over other uses would
be triple-loop learning. Figure 5-2 is another depiction of triple-loop learning, or
learning that transpires from multi-stakeholder collaborative processes and
results in changes in context (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a).
Additionally, social learning has been described as a multi-scale process,
occurring at short to medium, medium to long, and long term time scales, which
correspond to different levels of interaction: the micro, meso, and macro (Pahl-
Wostl et al. 2007a). “The three levels are interdependent, and multilevel change
is assumed to proceed in an iterative and not necessarily sequential fashion via
second-order feedback” (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a, p.5). The research presented
here examines the extent to which single, double, and triple-loop learning, linking
120
context, process, and outcomes at the micro, meso, and macro scales are taking
place within the Oregon context.
Social Learning in Oregon
Single, Double, and Triple-Loop Learning
Multi-stakeholder processes aimed at watershed management regularly
take place around the State of Oregon in the form of watershed council meetings.
Depending on the council, meetings take place either monthly or bi-monthly.
Observations of several different councils’ meetings over a period of more than
two years and analyses of meeting agendas and minutes demonstrate that single
and double-loop learning occurs at almost all meetings. Meetings typically
consist of conversations surrounding management projects and plans.
Discussions regarding dam removal, fish screening, and planting of riparian
vegetation are examples of single-loop learning aimed at improving water quality
and quantity, as well as habitat for native fish and other aquatic species. During
these meetings trust building also occurs, as diverse interests, such as farmers,
ranchers, fish biologists, industry professionals, environmentalists, and tribal
members, wrestle over what the goals and priorities of management should be;
this represents double-loop learning. Figure 5-2 depicts the process that occurs
at these types of multi-stakeholder meetings.
Triple-loop learning has also occurred in Oregon, in a variety of ways.
First, the institutionalization of the watershed council model and the creation of
the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) as described in Chapter 3,
are examples of triple-loop learning. Also, the creation of the Special Investment
Partnerships in response to efforts and suggestions made by one of the local
121
watershed councils is another example of triple-loop learning (elaborated on in
Chapter 4). Amendments to Oregon water law, allowing for the leasing and
selling of water rights for instream purposes is yet another example. All of these
examples illustrate that the governance structure and context in which these
multi-stakeholder processes occur is indeed being modified as a result of
feedback.
Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Social Learning
These learning processes are also taking place at different levels and
different scales (Figure 5-3). Watershed councils are operating at the micro
scale, in short to medium time frames. Councils meet regularly, monthly or
bimonthly, and there are relatively short feedback loops, mostly operating at the
level of single and double-loop learning. Collaborative processes occur, aimed at
designing plans and strategies for improving watershed health. Projects are
completed, typically within a fiscal year time frame. Actions and behaviors are
adapted to improve future outcomes, communication continues, trust is built, and
hence single and double-loop learning take place.
The Special Investment Partnerships (SIPs) operate at the meso scales,
in medium to long-term time frames. Partners work together on a suite of
interrelated projects at the basin scale, and receive funding for at least a
biennium but more often for much longer, such as a decade under the Bonneville
Environmental Foundation’s (BEF) Model Watershed Program. Projects, which
represent actions, and hence single-loop learning (Figure 5-1), are still largely
carried out at the micro scale by the individual partners, but regular meetings and
communication between the partners to establish trust and adapt the overall
122
strategies and goals of management represent double-loop learning at the meso
scale. Additionally, regular feedback, in the form of reporting to OWEB,
represents triple-loop learning, as OWEB adapts and modifies its own funding
strategies as a result of that feedback (Figure 5-2).
OWEB, The Oregon Plan, and Oregon Water Law function at the macro
scale, in longer-term time frames. These statewide governance institutions and
policies provide the context for the meso and micro scale processes, such as the
SIPs and the watershed councils (Figure 5-2). They are, however, flexible and
responsive to feedback from the meso and micro scales, and therefore represent
triple-loop learning (Figure 5-3).
Another important fact that bears mentioning with regard to the
governance framework of Oregon, is that along with vertical linkages, linking the
state to regional and local institutions, horizontal linkages are also present and
critical to the success of social learning. The Network of Oregon Watershed
Councils (NOWC) was formed in 2004, to promote communication, improve
relationships, and build capacity among watershed councils throughout the state.
Along with the SIPs, this organization is working at the meso level, promoting
both double and triple-loop learning.
Lessons Learned
Social learning, in the form of single, double, and triple-loop learning, is
indeed taking place in Oregon, at the micro, meso, and macro levels. This is
facilitated by the institutionalization and support of collaborative processes at the
state level. However, along with institutionalization, flexibility remains critically
important as well. Watershed councils, which form on their own, without needing
123
the approval of the state, are free to determine their own agendas, priorities, and
goals for management. This balance between institutionalization and autonomy
has been identified as an important component in the promotion of social
learning and adaptive collaborative management (ACM) (Gray 1999; Pahl-Wostl
et al. 2007a). It appears as though Oregon might have struck this important
balance.
Another balance important to both social learning and adaptive
collaborative governance appears to have been struck in Oregon as well; “multi-
level governance arrangements that link social actors (vertically and horizontally)
in the pursuit of shared learning” are crucial (Armitage et al. 2009, p.96; Young
2002; Ostrom 2005). Vertical linkages, linking the state to the regional and the
local, need to go hand in hand with horizontal linkages, linking local stakeholders,
groups, and organizations to one another (Armitage et al. 2008; Berkes et al.
2003). This is happening in Oregon, and appears to indeed help facilitate social
learning and ACM. Neither top-down nor bottom-up approaches alone seem to
be sufficient. Instead, what are needed are flexible approaches that promote and
enable both.
Although ACM and social learning are promising approaches for
enhancing management efforts and resolving “wicked problems,” they are by no
means panaceas, and will not be appropriate in all cases (Armitage et al. 2009).
Ultimately, managers need to have many of different tools in their toolboxes.
However, ACM and social learning do provide a framework for how to move
forward, in spite of the complexity and uncertainty, coupled with the difficulties of
navigating multi-stakeholder processes inherent in large-scale ecosystem
124
management. The Oregon example described in this research helps demonstrate
how these approaches can be employed, in an effort to create a more
sustainable future for the planet and all the species that depend upon it.
Study Limitations
Perhaps the greatest limitation of this study is that it is subject to the
biases of the researcher. Although every attempt was made to recognize and
acknowledge biases, due to the social construction of knowledge, it is impossible
to completely avoid them. However, the researcher was trained in qualitative and
quantitative methods, recorded all observations and interviews carefully,
analyzed the data according to proper procedures, took great care to be as
objective as possible, and verified the research results with key informants.
Another limitation of this study is that ideally further research would have been
conducted, particularly with regard to the free listing data. As discussed in
Chapter 2, a cultural consensus analysis should be completed to determine if
there is a shared cultural domain surrounding the concept of a watershed. This is
one possible direction for future research. Last but not least, in order to verify the
finding of this research, it would have been helpful to triangulate the results
utilizing additional data collection techniques, such as survey data.
Directions for Future Research
In many ways this study is just the tip of the iceberg. It only begins to
delve into the many topics of interest with regard to adaptive co-management,
collaborative governance, partnership building, framing, social learning, and the
management of large-scale socio-ecological systems. Much work remains to be
125
done to unravel and discover better ways to manage resources, aimed at
creating a more sustainable future.
Specifically, this study illuminated several important areas for future
research. First, as previously mentioned, undertaking a cultural consensus
analysis on the free listing data would be very beneficial, to help better
understand if there is a shared cultural domain regarding watersheds. Second,
as originally proposed as a portion of the current research, the free listing and
cultural consensus data could be used to design a cognitive mapping exercise to
further illuminate stakeholder frames with regard to the important components of
watersheds, as well as the management issues and problems that are most
important for stakeholders working in specific watersheds. Additionally, once
developed and tested as a tool for illuminating perspectives and interests,
cognitive mapping could be evaluated as a tool to promote collaboration in multi-
stakeholder processes. This is the next phase of this research, which the
researcher is planning to carry out part of a post-doc.
Third, the role of niche creation and mutualism in successful partnerships
also necessitates further research. A cross-sectional research design, aimed at a
random sample of partnerships, with a survey designed to assess both the
success of the partnerships as well as the role of niche creation and mutualism
within the partnership is a worthwhile endeavor. The current research points to
the importance of these attributes, but further research is necessary to evaluate
the extent to which they are important.
Finally, the State of Oregon continues to adapt its institutions and policies,
aimed at promoting adaptive co-management. Currently, the state is in the
126
process of developing and implementing its first statewide integrated water
management strategy. Additionally, based on its experience with the SIPs,
OWEB is in the process of reevaluating its current funding strategies, and further
adapting them to adopt its first “Long-Term Investment Strategy.” The impacts of
these policy changes are worthy of future research.
127
Figure 5-1. Multiple-Loop Learning (Adapted from Argyris 1992; Armitage et al. 2008;
Diduck et al. 2005; Groot & Maarleveld 2000; Keen et al. 2005; King & Jiggins 2002)
Multiple-Loop Learning
OutcomesActionsValues &
AssumptionsGovernance
& Policies
Single-Loop Learning
Double-Loop Learning
Triple-Loop Learning
128
Figure 5-2. Social Learning in Oregon (Adapted from Bouwen & Taillieu 2004; Craps
2003; Pahl-Wostl 2007a; Pahl-Wostl 2007b)
Outcome
Process
OWEB Oregon PlanOWRDWater Rights
ContextState Institutions & Policies
Collaboration MonitoringRestoration
Partnerships
Environmental
Conditions Social
Learning
Feedback
129
Figure 5-3. Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Social Learning Processes in Oregon
(Adapted from Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a).
Macro Level:Governance and Societal StructureOregon State Institutions and Policies
Meso Level:Special Investment
Partnerships
(SIPs)
Micro Level:Watershed Councils
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see t his picture.
130
LIST OF REFERENCES
Aikins, A.D.G., Arhinful, D.K., Pitchforth, E., Ogedegbe, G., Allotey, P. & Agyemang, C. (2012) Establishing and sustaining research partnerships in Africa: a case study of the UK-Africa Academic Partnership on Chronic Disease. Globalization and Health 8(29): 16 August 2012.
Allan, C. & Curtis, A. (2005) Nipped in the bud: Why regional scale adaptive
management is not blooming. Environmental Management 36(3): 414-425. Allan, C., Curtis, A., Stankey, G. & Shindler, B. (2008) Adaptive management and
watersheds: A social science perspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44(1): 166-174.
Argyris, C. (1992). On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell
Business. Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective.
Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley. Arha, K., Salwasser, H. & Achterman, G. (2003) The Oregon Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds: A Perspective. Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F. & Doubleday, N. (2007) Adaptive Co-Management:
Collaboration, Learning and Multi-Level Governance. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Armitage, D., Marschke, M. & Plummer, R. (2008) Adaptive co-management and the
paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 18(1): 86-98.
Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J.,
Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E.W. & Wollenberg, E.K. (2009) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2): 95-102.
Asthana, S., Richardson, S. & Halliday, J. (2002) Partnership working in public policy
provision: A framework for evaluation. Social Policy & Administration 36(7): 780-795.
Bailey, S.B.C. (2010) Focusing on solid partnerships across multiple sectors for
population health improvement. Preventing Chronic Disease 7(6): 3. Bandura, A. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt, NY, USA:
Reinhart and Winston.
131
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall. Bartlett, F.C. (1932) Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.
Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press. Bastasch, R. (2006) The Oregon Water Handbook: A Guide to Water and Water
Management. Corvallis, OR, USA: Oregon State University Press. Bateson, G. (1954) A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports 2:39-51. Beal, J.A. (2012) Academic-service partnerships in nursing: an integrative review.
Nursing Research and Practice 2012: 501564. BEF (2009) Bonneville Environmental Foundation About Us [www document]. URL
http://www.b-e-f.org/ Retrieved October 25, 2009. BEF (2009) Bonneville Environmental Foundation: Model Watersheds [www document].
URL http://www.b-e-f.org/watersheds/model.shtm Retrieved October 25, 2009. Bellamy, J.A. & Johnson, A.K.L. (2000) Integrated resource management: Moving from
rhetoric to practice in Australian agriculture. Environmental Management 25(3): 265-280.
Bellamy, J.A., McDonald, G.T., Syme, G.J. & Butterworth, J.E. (1999). Evaluating integrated resource management. Society & Natural Resources 12(4): 337-353.
Benford, R.D. & Snow, D.A. (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26(1): 611-639. Berkes, F. (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): 1692-1702.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Colding, J. (2003) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:
Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Berkes, F., George, P. & Preston, R.J. (1991) Comanagement: The evolution in theory
and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives 18(2): 12-18.
Bernard, R.H. (2006) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Bernard H.R, Perteti J.P. & Werner, O. (1986) The construction of primary data in
cultural anthropology. Current Anthropology 27(4): 382-396.
132
Biedenweg, K.A. & Monroe, M. (2013) Cognitive methods and a case study for
assessing shared perspectives as a result of social learning. Society & Natural Resources 26(8): 931-944.
Borgatti, S.P. (1990) Using Anthropac to investigate a cultural domain. Cultural
Anthropology Methods Newsletter 2(1): 8. Borgatti, S.P. (1994) Cultural domain analysis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology 4:
261-278. Borgatti, S.P. (1996a) ANTHROPAC 4.0. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S.P. (1996b) ANTHROPAC 4.0 Methods Guide. Natick, MA: Analytic
Technologies. Borgatti, S.P. (1999) Elicitation techniques for cultural domain analysis. In Enhanced
Ethnographic Methods: The Ethnographer's Toolkit, eds J. Schensul & M. LeCompte, pp. 115-151. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring
the Approach to the Context. Gland, Switzerland: IUNC. Bouwen, B. & Taillieu, T. (2004) Multi-party collaboration as social learning for
interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14(3): 137-153.
Brewer, D. (1995) Cognitive indicators of knowledge in semantic domains. Journal of
Quantitative Anthropology 5: 1047-1128. Broderick, K. (2008) Adaptive management for water quality improvement in the Great
Barrier Reef catchments: Learning on the edge. Geographical Research 46(3): 303-313.
Brown, R.R. & Farrelly, M.A. (2009) Delivering sustainable urban water management: A
review of the hurdles we face. Water Science and Technology 59(5): 839-846. Chong, D. & Druckman, J.N. (2007) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science
10(1): 103-126. Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., D'Antonio, C., Francis,
R., Francis, Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M.G. & Woodmansee, R.G. (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6(3): 665-691.
133
Clark, L. (2008) Partners in practice. Nursing Management - UK 15(3): 12-13. Corbin, J.H., Mittelmark, M.B. & Lie, G.T. (2012) Scaling-up and rooting-down: A case
study of North-South partnerships for health from Tanzania. Global Health Action 5: 18369.
Cortner, H.J., Wallace, M.G., Burke, S. & Moote, M.A. (1998). Institutions matter: The
need to address the institutional challenges of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40(1-3): 159-166.
Cramm, J.M., Phaff, S. & Nieboer, A.P. (2012) The role of partnership functioning and
synergy in achieving sustainability of innovative programmes in community care. Health & Social Care in the Community 21(2): 209-215.
Craps, M. (2003) Social Learning in River Basin Management. Report of Work Package
2 of the HarmoniCOP Project [www document] URL http://www.harmonicop.uniosnabrueck.de/_files/_down/SocialLearning.pdf Retrieved February 15, 2014.
Cronon, W. (1996) Introduction: In search of nature. In: Uncommon Ground: Rethinking
the Human Place in Nature, ed. W. Cronon, pp. 23-56. New York, NY, USA: W.W. Norton & Company.
Cundill, G. & Fabricius, C. (2009) Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a
learning based approach. Journal of Environmental Management 90(11): 3205-3211.
D’Andrade, R. (1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. Dewulf, A., Francois, G., Pahl-Wostl, C. & Taillieu, T. (2007) A framing approach to
cross-disciplinary research collaboration: Experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 14.
Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R. & van Woerkum, C.
(2009) Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations 62(2): 155-193.
Diduck, A., Bankes, N., Clark, D., & Armitage, D. (2005) Unpacking social learning in
social-ecological systems: Case studies of polar bear and Narwhal management in Northern Canada. In: Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North, eds. F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Mansean & A. Diduck, pp. 269-290. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary Press.
134
Dixon, J. & Sindall, C. (1994) Applying logics of change to the evaluation of community development in health promotion. Health Promotion International 9(4): 297-309.
Dombeck, M.P. (1996) Thinking like a mountain: BLM's approach to ecosystem
management. Ecological Applications 6(3): 699-702. Dovers, S. (2001) Institutional barriers and opportunities: processes and arrangements
for natural resource management in Australia. Water Science and Technology 43(9): 215-226.
Dowling, B., Powell, M. & Glendinning, C. (2004) Conceptualising successful
partnerships. Health & Social Care in the Community 12(4): 309-317. Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (2001) The negotiation of purpose in multi-organizational
collaborative groups. Journal of Management Studies 38(3): 373-391. El Ansari, W., Phillips, C. J. & Hammick, M. (2001) Collaboration and partnerships:
developing the evidence base. Health & Social Care in the Community 9(4): 215-227.
El Ansari, W. & Weiss, E. S. (2006) Quality of research on community partnerships:
developing the evidence base. Health Education Research 21(2): 175-180. Evans, D. & Killoran, A. (2000) Tackling health inequalities through partnership working:
learning from a realistic evaluation. Critical Public Health 10(2): 125-140. Farina, A., Johnson, A.R., Turner, S.J. & Belgrano, A. (2003) 'Full' world versus 'empty'
world paradigm at the time of globalisation. Ecological Economics 45(1): 11-18. Fennell, D., Plummer, R. & Marschke, M. (2008) Is adaptive co-management ethical?
Journal of Environmental Management 88(1): 62-75. Flood, R.L. & Romm, N.R.A. (1996) Contours of diversity management and triple loop
learning. Kybernetes 25(7/8): 154-163. Furlow, C.A. (2003) Comparing indicators of knowledge within and between cultural
domains. Field Methods 15(1): 51–62. Gamson, W.A. (1992) The social psychology of collective action. In: Frontiers in Social
Movement Theory, eds. A.D. Morris & C.M. Mueller, pp. 53-77. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gaskill, D., Morrison, P., Sanders, F., Forster, E., Edwards, H., Fleming, R. & McClure,
S. (2003) University and industry partnerships: Lessons from collaborative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice 9(6): 347.
135
Gatewood, J.B. (1983) Loose talk: Linguistic competence and recognition ability. American Anthropologist 85(2): 378–87.
Gatewood, J.B. (1984) Familiarity, vocabulary size, and recognition ability in four
semantic domains. American Ethnologist 11:507. Genskow, K.D. & Born, S.M. (2006) Organizational dynamics of watershed
partnerships: A key to integrated water resources management. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 135(December): 56–64.
Gerlak, A.K. (2008) Today's pragmatic water policy: Restoration, collaboration, and
adaptive management along US Rivers. Society & Natural Resources 21(6): 538-545.
Gillies, P. (1998) Effectiveness of alliances and partnerships for health promotion.
Health Promotion International 13(2): 99-120. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New
York, NY, USA: Harper and Row. Goldman, K.D. & Schmalz, K.J. (2008) Being well-connected: starting and maintaining
successful partnerships. Health Promotion Practice 9(1): 5-8. Gray, B. (1999) The evaluation of collaborative research in the last decade: towards a
dynamic theory. In: Multiorganizational Partnership and Cooperative Strategy, ed. S. Schruijer, pp. 9-16. Dutch University Press, Amsterdam: The Netherlands.
Gray, B. (2003) Framing of environmental disputes. In: Making Sense of Intractable
Environmental Conflicts: Frames and Cases, eds. R.J. Lewicki, B. Gray & M. Elliot, pp. 11-35. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
Groot, A. & Maarleveld, M. (2000) Demystifying facilitation in participatory development.
Gate Keepers Series, 89: 1-25, London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Hallam, R. (2011) Effective partnership working in music education: Principles and
practice. International Journal of Music Education 29(2): 155-171. Handwerker W.P. & Borgatti S.P. (1998) Reasoning with numbers. In: Handbook of
Methods in Cultural Anthropology ed. H.R. Bernard, pp. 337-345. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Hardy, S.D. (2010) Governments, group membership, and watershed partnerships.
Society & Natural Resources 23(7): 587-603.
136
Holling, C.S. (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. London, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Holling, C.S. & Meffe, G.K. (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural
resource management. Conservation Biology 10(2): 328-337. Horns, P.N., Czaplijski, T.J., Engelke, M.K., Marshburn, D., McAuliffe, M. & Baker, S.
(2007) Leading through collaboration: A regional academic/service partnership that works. Nursing Outlook 55(2): 74-78.
Hudson, B., Hardy, B., Henwood, M. & Wistow, G. (1999) In pursuit of inter-agency
collaboration in the public sector: What is the contribution of theory and research? Public Management 1(2): 235-260.
Hughes, T.P., Gunderson, L.H., Folke, C., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D., Berkes, F., Crona,
B., Helfgott, A., Leslie, H., Norberg, J., Nystrom, M., Olsson, P., Osterblom, H., Scheffer, M., Schuttenberg, H., Steneck, R.S., Tengo M., Troell, M., Walker, B., Wilson, J. & Worm, B. (2007) Adaptive mMnagement of the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon World Heritage Areas. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(7): 586:592.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S.I.V. (2004) Doing things collaboratively: Realizing the
advantage or succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics 33(2): 190-201. Jacobson, S.K., Morris, J.K., Sanders, J.S., Wiley, E.N., Brooks, M., Bennetts, R.E.,
Percival, H. F. & Marynowski, S. (2006) Understanding barriers to implementation of an adaptive land management program. Conservation Biology 20(5): 1516-1527.
Jameson, F. (1976) On Goffman's frame analysis. Theory and Society 3(1): 119-133. Jones, J. & Barry, M.M. (2011) Exploring the relationship between synergy and
partnership functioning factors in health promotion partnerships. Health Promotion International 26(4): 408-420.
Keen, M., Brown, V.A. & Dyball, R. (2005) Social Learning in Environmental
Management. London, UK: Earthscan. King, C. & Jiggins, J. (2002) A systematic model and theory for facilitating social
learning. In: Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs: Social Learning in Rural Resource Management, eds. C. Leeuwis & R. Pyburn, pp. 85–105. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Koehler, B. & Koontz, T. (2008) Citizen participation in collaborative watershed
partnerships. Environmental Management 41(2): 143-154.
137
Koontz, T.M. & Thomas, C.W. (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review 66: 111-121.
Lasker, R.D., Weiss, E.S. & Miller, R. (2001) Partnership synergy: A practical framework
for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. The Milbank Quarterly 79(2): 179-205.
Laumonier, Y., Bourgeois, R. & Pfund, J. L. (2008) Accounting for the ecological
dimension in participatory research and development: Lessons learned from Indonesia and Madagascar. Ecology and Society 13(1): 15.
Lawson, S.R. & Manning, R.E. (2003) Integrating multiple wilderness values into a
decision-making model for Denali National Park and Preserve. Journal for Nature Conservation (Jena) 11(4): 355-362.
Layzer, J.A. (2008) Natural Experiments: Ecosystem-Based Management and the
Environment. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press. Leach, M., Mearns, R. & Scoones, I. (1999) Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and
institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27(2): 225-247.
Leach, W.D. & Pelkey, N.W. (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: A review of
the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management 127(6): 378-385.
Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W. & Sabatier, P.A. (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.
Lewicki, R.J. & Gray, B. (2003) Introduction. In: Making Sense of Intractable
Environmental Conflicts: Frames and Cases eds. R.J. Lewicki, B. Gray & M. Elliot, pp. 1-11. Washington DC: Island Press.
Lewicki, R.J., Gray, B. & Elliot, M. (2003) Making Sense of Intractable Environmental
Conflicts: Frames and Cases. Washington DC: Island Press. Lindsay, C., McQuaid, R.W. & Dutton, M. (2008) Inter-agency cooperation and new
approaches to employability. Social Policy & Administration 42(7): 715-732. Lubell, M., Schneider, M., Scholz, J.T. & Mete, M. (2002) Watershed partnerships and
the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 148-163.
138
Lundquist, C.J. & Granek, E.F. (2005) Strategies for successful marine conservation: Integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1771-1778.
McCay, B. & Acheson, J. (1987) The Question of the Commons. Tucson, AZ, USA:
University of Arizona Press. McClellan, M.H. (2005) Recent research on the management of hemlock-spruce forests
in southeast Alaska for multiple values. Landscape and Urban Planning 72(1-3): 65-78.
McLain, R.J. & Lee, R.G. (1996) Adaptive management: Promises and pitfalls.
Environmental Management 20(4): 437-448. Meadows, D. (2008) Thinking in Systems—A Primer. White River Junction, VT, USA:
Chelsea Green Publishing. Minsky, M. (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In: The Psychology of
Computer Vision, ed. P.H. Winston, pp. 211-277. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. MMT (2009) Meyer Memorial Trust: About the Willamette River Basin Restoration
Initiative [www document]. URL http://www.mmt.org/initiatives/river/ Retrieved October 25, 2009.
Moir, W.H. & Block, W.M. (2001) Adaptive management on public lands in the United
States: Commitment or rhetoric? Environmental Management 28(2): 141-148. Mollen, C.J., Fernando, M., Hayes, K.L. & Barg, F.K. (2012) Pregnancy, contraception
and emergency contraception: The language of urban adolescent young women. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 25(4): 238-240.
Mulligan, M. (2001) Re-enchanting conservation work: Reflections on the Australian
experience. Environmental Values 10(1): 19-33. National Policy Consensus Center. (2013) What is Collaborative Governance? [www
document]. URL http://www.policyconsensus.org/publicsolutions/ps_2.html Retrieved January 16, 2013.
Neale, M.A. & Bazerman, M.H. (1985) The effects of framing and negotiator
overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal 28(1): 34-49.
Norton, B. G. (2012). The ways of wickedness: Analyzing messiness with messy tools.
Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 25(4): 447-465.
139
NOWC (2009) Network of Oregon Watershed Councils. [www document]. URL http://www.oregonwatersheds.org/ Retrieved October 25, 2009.
NOWC (2013) Network of Oregon Watershed Councils: Oregon Watershed Councils.
[www document]. URL http://oregonwatersheds.org/councils Retrieved March 17, 2013.
OACD (2013) Oregon Association of Conservation Districts: Partners - Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board. [www document]. URL http://www.oacd.org/partnersoweb.shtml Retrieved October 13, 2013.
OCSRI (1997) Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative: Watershed Councils [www
document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OPSW/pages/archives/reports-subpage.aspx Retrieved November 2, 2013.
Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Berkes, F. (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building
resilience in social–ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1): 75-90.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T. & Schultz, L. (2007) Enhancing the fit through
adaptive co-management: Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society 12(1): 17.
O'Neill Hewlett, P. & Bleich, M.R. (2009) The policy and politics of nursing education.
Journal of Professional Nursing 25(6): 315-316. Oregon Plan (2007) Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Key Documents [www
document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OPSW/archives/keydocs.shtml Retrieved October 25, 2009.
Oregon Plan (2013) Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: About the Oregon Plan
[www document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OPSW/Pages/about_us.aspx Retrieved October 17, 2013.
Oregon State Statute: 541.351 Definitions for ORS 541.351 to 541.415. As used in ORS
541.351 to 541.415: (15) Ostrom E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton
University Press. OWEB (2003) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board: A Monitoring Strategy for the
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watershed. [www document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/monitoringstrategy.pdf Retrieved January 30, 2013.
140
OWEB (2008a) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board: About Us. [www document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/about_us.shtml Retrieved October 25, 2009.
OWEB (2008b) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board: Special Investment
Partnerships (SIP). [www document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/SIP.shtml Retrieved October 25, 2009.
OWEB (2009) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board: Deschutes SIP. [www
document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/sip_deschutes.aspx Retrieved October 25, 2009.
OWEB (2011) The 2009-2011 Biennial Report Executive Summary of the Oregon Plan
for Salmon and Watersheds. [www document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/biennialreport_0911/opbiennial_2009_2011.pdf Retrieved February 12, 2014.
OWEB (2014) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory. [www document]. URL
http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/MONITOR/pages/owri.aspx Retrieved January 30, 2014.
OWRD (2011) Oregon Water Resources Department: Water Rights in Oregon: An
Introduction to Oregon Water Laws . [www document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/pubs/aquabook.aspx Retrieved November 17, 2013.
OWRD (2013) Oregon Water Resources Department: Flow Restoration in Oregon [www
document]. URL. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/mgmt_instream.aspx Retrieved November 17, 2013.
OWRD (2013) Oregon Water Resources Department: Oregon's Flow Restoration
Toolbox [www document]. URL. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/mgmt_instream_tools.aspx Retrieved November 17, 2013.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D. & Taillieu, T. (2007a)
Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 5. Pahl-Wostl, C., Mostert, E. & Tabara, D. (2008) The growing importance of social
learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecology and Society 13(1): 4.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeffrey, P., Aerts, J., Berkamp, G. & Cross, K. (2007b)
Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecology and Society 12(2): 30.
141
Pennington, D.D. (2008) Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecology and Society 13(2): 13.
Pinkerton, E.W. (1992) Translating legal rights into management practice: overcoming
barriers to the exercise of co-management. Human Organization 51(4): 330-341. Pinkley, R.L. & Northcraft, G.B. (1994) Conflict frames of reference - implications for
dispute processes and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 37(1): 193-205.
Plummer, R. & Armitage, D. (2007a). A resilience-based framework for evaluating
adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecological Economics 61(1): 62-74.
Plummer, R. & Armitage, D.R. (2007b) Charting the new territory of adaptive co-
management: A Delphi study. Ecology and Society 12(2): 10. Plummer, R. & FitzGibbon, J.E. (2004) Some observations on the terminology in co-
operative environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 70:63–72.
Popay, J. & Williams, G. (1998) Partnerships in health: beyond the rhetoric. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health 52(7): 410-411. Quinlan, M. (2005). Considerations for collecting freelists in the field: Examples from
ethobotany. Field Methods 17(3): 219-234. Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability. Philadephia, PA, USA: Open University Press. Rittel, H.J. & Webber, M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences 4(2): 155-169. Roe, E. (1996) Why ecosystem management can't work without social science: An
example from the California northern spotted owl controversy. Environmental Management 20(5): 667-674.
Romney, A. & D’Andrade, R. (1964) Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. American
Anthropologist 66 (3): 146–70. Romney, A.K., Weller, S.C. & Batchelder, W.H. (1986) Culture as consensus: A theory
of cultural and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist 88(2): 313-338. Roussos, S.T. & Fawcett, S.B. (2000) A review of collaborative partnerships as a
strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health 21(1): 369-402.
142
Ruitenbeek, J. & Cartier, C. (2001) The Invisible Wand: Adaptive Co-Management as an Emergent Strategy in Complex Bio-Economic System. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Schwartz, K.Z.S. (2013) Panther politics: neoliberalizing nature in Southwest Florida.
Environment and Planning 45: 2323-2343. Seifer, S.D. (2006) Building and sustaining community-institutional partnerships for
prevention research: Findings from a national collaborative. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 83(6): 989-1003.
Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday. Smith J.J. & Borgatti, S.P. (1998) Salience counts and so does accuracy: correcting and
updating a measure for freelist item salience. Journal Linguistic Anthropology 7:208-209.
Smith, C.L. & Gilden, J. (2002) Assets to move watershed councils from assesment to
action. Journal of the American Water Resource Association 38(3): 653-662. Snow, D.A., Rochford, E.B. Jr., Worden, S.K. & Benford, R.D. (1986) Frame alignment
processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51(4): 464-481.
Taber, L.S. (1995) ERIC review: Collaboration as a vehicle for community college
facilities development. Community College Review 23(3): 73. Taylor, D.E. (2000) The rise of the environmental justice paradigm - Injustice framing
and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist 43(4): 508-580.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of
choice. Science 211(4481): 453-458. Walters, C. (1997) Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal
ecosystems. Ecology and Society 1(2): C7 - 1. Walters, C.J. & Holling, C.S. (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning
by doing. Ecology 71(6): 2060-2068. Warner, J.F. (2006) More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for
integrated catchment management. International Journal of Water Resources Development 22(1): 15-35.
143
Weick, K.E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Weiss, E.S., Anderson, R.M. & Lasker, R.D. (2002) Making the most of collaboration:
Exploring the relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning. Health Education & Behavior 29(6): 683-698.
Weller, S.C.& Romney, A.K. (1988) Systematic Data Collection. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization
7(2): 225-246. Wildridge, V., Childs, S., Cawthra, L. & Madge, B. (2004) How to create successful
partnerships-a review of the literature. Health Information and Libraries Journal 21(Suppl 1): 3-19.
Wiley, P., Bierly, K., Reeve, T., & Smith, K. (2013) When local solutions aren’t enough:
A strategic funding partnership to restore a large river system. The Foundation Review 5(1): 89-104.
Wilhere, G.F. (2002) Adaptive Management in Habitat Conservation Plans.
Conservation Biology, 16(1): 20-29. Willamette Partnership. (2013) About the Willamette Basin. [www document]. URL
http://willamettepartnership.org/about-the-willamette-basin Retrieved March 13, 2013.
Williams, B.K. (2003) Policy, research, and adaptive management in avian
conservation. The Auk 120(1): 212-217. Wilson, K.A., Dutton, I., Foreman, P., Kearney, F. & Watson, I. (2009) Partner or Perish
or Perish Through Partnering? A workshop report (No. 10): Wiley-Blackwell. Document Number.
Wondolleck, J.M. & Yaffee, S.L. (2000) Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from
Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press.
Wood, R. (2007a) Agenda Item J: Special Investment Partnerships. January 16-17,
2008 OWEB Board Meeting [www document] URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/board/2008-01/itemj.pdf Retrieved November 15, 1013.
144
Wood, R. (2007b) Agenda Item J: Special Investment Partnerships: September 18-19,
2007 OWEB Board Meeting [www document] URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/board/2007-09/itemj.pdf Retrieved May 29, 2010.
Wood, R. (2008) Agenda Item D: Special Investment Partnerships March 19-20, 2008
OWEB Board Meeting [www document] URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/board/2008-03/itemd.pdf Retrieved November 15, 2013
Woodhill, J. (2002) Sustainability, social learning and the democratic imperative:
lessons from the Australian landcare movement. In: Wheel-barrows full of frogs: Social Learning in Rural Resource Management, eds. C. Leeuwis & R. Pyburn, pp. 317–332. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Woodhill, A.J. (2003) Dialogue and transboundary water resources management:
towards a framework for facilitating social learning. In: The Role and Use of Environmental Information in European Transboundary River Basin Management, eds. S. Langaas & J.G. Timmerman, pp. 44–59. London, UK: IWA Publishing.
Yaffee, S.L. (1996) Ecosystem management in practice: The importance of human
institutions. Ecological Applications 6(3): 724-727. Yin R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Third Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. Young, J.A. & Newton, J.M. (1981) Capitalism and Human Obsolescence: Corporate
Control Versus Individual Survival in Rural America. Montclair, N.J., USA: LandMark Studies.
Young O. (2002) Institutional interplay: the environmental consequences of cross-scale
interactions. In: The Drama of the Commons, eds. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsvak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich & E.U. Weber, pp. 263-292. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.
145
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Lisa Seales was born in 1976, in Miami, Florida. Her family moved to Eugene,
Oregon, when she was very young. There, she attended a Henry D. Sheldon
International High School and participated in a Spanish immersion program. Half of her
primary and secondary education was in Spanish, which introduced her to Latin
American cultures and perspectives. She graduated from high school in 1994 and went
to both the University of Arizona and the University of Oregon where she earned a
bachelor’s degree in geography and environmental studies in 1998. Upon graduation,
she did an internship in Ecuador and traveled extensively throughout the U.S., Europe,
Latin America, and the Caribbean. During this time, she also worked for the Bureau of
Land Management as an Interpretive Specialist creating, implementing, and publicizing
natural resource education programs. After years in that position, she took a job as a
Program Director for Nearby Nature, a nonprofit organization, where she continued to
develop and teach natural resource education programming. Her career as an
environmental educator and her travel experiences led her to the University of Florida,
first to pursue a Master of Science in interdisciplinary ecology with a focus in tropical
conservation and development and then to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy in
interdisciplinary ecology with a focus in forest resources and conservation. She will
continue her work as an educator and researcher, helping to identify and teach others
ways to reconcile conservation and development goals in search of a more sustainable
future.
![Apuntes Analisis de Sistemas y Seales[1]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5571fc9149795991699781aa/apuntes-analisis-de-sistemas-y-seales1.jpg)
