Social Network Analysis of Social Capital in Collaborative Planning

  • Published on
    27-Mar-2017

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 24 November 2014, At: 23:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Society &amp; Natural Resources: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20</p><p>Social Network Analysis of Social Capitalin Collaborative PlanningLynn A. Mandarano aa Department of Community and Regional Planning , TempleUniversity , Ambler, Pennsylvania, USAPublished online: 06 Feb 2009.</p><p>To cite this article: Lynn A. Mandarano (2009) Social Network Analysis of Social Capital inCollaborative Planning, Society &amp; Natural Resources: An International Journal, 22:3, 245-260, DOI:10.1080/08941920801922182</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920801922182</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp;Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08941920801922182http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920801922182http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>Social Network Analysis of Social Capitalin Collaborative Planning</p><p>LYNN A. MANDARANO</p><p>Department of Community and Regional Planning, Temple University,Ambler, Pennsylvania, USA</p><p>Social capital is an important primary outcome of collaborative planning and isdeemed a precursor to arriving at successful collaborative planning outcomes suchas more effective collective action and both individual and social benefits. Althoughcommonly used definitions of social capital stress the importance of social networks,recent scholarly research tends to overlook the importance of understanding howcollaborative efforts influence the formation of new relationships and the structuresof these relations (social networks) and in turn how these influence success. Thisarticle documents the application of social network analysis methods in the evalua-tion of a collaborations effectiveness at building social capital, the structures ofthese relations, the factors that influenced positively and negatively their formation,and finally, the influence of the social networks on realizing successful outcomes.</p><p>Keywords collaborative planning, environmental planning, national estuaryprogram, social capital, social network analysis</p><p>Social capital is an important outcome of collaborative planning and isdeemed a precursor to collaborative planning success. Social capital is viewed bysome researchers as an early outcome of successful consensus building and anenabler of such mid- and long-term outcomes as shared information, reducedconflict, and new collaborative efforts (Innes et al. 1994; Innes and Booher 1999).Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) claim that social capital in the form of new relation-ships can facilitate information sharing to arrive at mutual understanding leading tomore effective decision making, more efficient coordination, and increased capacityto respond to future challenges. Finally, Rohe (2004) envisions social capital as amodel: Civic engagement begets new relationships, new relationships lead to greatertrust, and trust leads to more effective collective action as well as individual andsocial benefits.</p><p>Since the terms rise to contemporary usage, social capital has been the subject ofrediscovery and redefinition by economists, sociologists, and others (Putnam 2000).Before we can claim to account for the benefits of social capital, we must agree on</p><p>Received 28 March 2007; accepted 6 September 2007.Address correspondence to Lynn A. Mandarano, PE, PhD, Department of Community</p><p>and Regional Planning, Temple University, 580 Meetinghouse Road, Ambler PA 19002,USA. E-mail: lynn.mandarano@temple.edu</p><p>Society and Natural Resources, 22:245260Copyright # 2009 Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920801922182</p><p>245</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f N</p><p>orth</p><p> Tex</p><p>as] </p><p>at 2</p><p>3:28</p><p> 24 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>how we define it and measure it. Coleman defines social capital as a variety ofentities with two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of asocial structure and they facilitate certain action of individuals who are within thestructure (Coleman 1988, S98). Putnam defines social capital as the connectionsamong individualssocial networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthi-ness that arise from them (Putnam 2000, 19) and that enable participants to actmore effectively to pursue shared objectives (Putnam 1995, 664665). Both Cole-man and Putnam agree that social networks are the infrastructure of social capital.</p><p>Although Coleman and Putnam stress the importance of social networks intheir definitions of social capital, research on the relationship between collaborativeplanning and social capital has overlooked the importance of understanding thestructure of new relationships formed. For example, researchers have documentedthe effectiveness of using social capital as a criterion to evaluate the success of col-laborative environmental planning (Connick and Innes 2003; Innes and Connick1999; Margerum 2002). And others have evaluated the influence of collaborativeplanning on establishing such specific aspects of social capital as trust (Lubell2007), norms of reciprocity (Lubell 2004), or trust and norms (Weber, Lovrich,and Gaffney 2005). Leach and Sabatier (2005) in a meta-analysis of watershed part-nerships evaluated the correlation between interpersonal trust, and new relationshipsand improved understanding. And only one study evaluated the social structure ofcollaborative partnerships: Schneider et al. (2003) compared management structuresof 12 National Estuary Program (NEP) partnerships and 10 non-NEP estuary part-nerships. While these studies make important contributions to knowledge of therelationship between social capital and successful collaborative planning, they shedlittle insight on the structures of such social capital and how the structure of socialnetworks facilitate or constrain collective action.</p><p>This article documents a novel application of social network analysis methods inthe evaluation of the relationships between participants in a collaborative planningprocess. Social capital is assessed in terms of new relationships formed, networkstructures, factors that influenced the formation of new social ties, and influenceof the structure of the social networks on realizing successful outcomes. The casestudy evaluates a regional collaborative environmental partnership formed throughthe National Estuary Program and focuses on the Habitat Workgroupone ofseveral working groups of the New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary Program(NYNJ HEP). The findings demonstrate that social network analysis provides usefultools for evaluating the effectiveness of collaborative planning at building socialcapital in the form of new relationships and the structures of these relationships.Furthermore, the study reveals how internal and external factors influenced theparticipants capacity to build dense social networks.</p><p>Research FrameworkSocial Network Analysis</p><p>Social network analysis was initially developed in the 1930s by anthropologists seek-ing to understand social life within communities. By the 1970s, political analystsstarted to use and improve upon these methods to understand the social dynamicsof actors engaged in shaping national public policy (Laumann and Knoke 1987;Marin and Mayntz 1991; Knoke et al. 1996; Marsh 1998) and more recently regionalenvironmental policy (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Schneider et al. 2003;Laumann and Pappi 1976; Scott 1991; Heinz et al. 1993). Such social network</p><p>246 L. A. Mandarano</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f N</p><p>orth</p><p> Tex</p><p>as] </p><p>at 2</p><p>3:28</p><p> 24 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>analyses included assessments of indirect relationships and direct relationshipslinking individuals to one another.</p><p>To develop a picture of the general social structure of a community of actors,network analysts study the attributes of individuals to uncover indirect relationships.Indirect relationships may include common attributes such as occupation, religion,education, memberships, friendship ties, interests, and attendance at events(Laumann and Pappi 1976; Heinz et al. 1993) This research has shown how similaror dissimilar attributes such as status (Knoke et al. 1996), interests (Sabatier andJenkins-Smith 1993), beliefs (Laumann and Pappi 1976; Heinz et al. 1993), andbehaviors (Laumann and Pappi 1976) influence the formation of consensual rela-tionships and serve as general indicators of the strength of repellant or attractantrelationships between the two individuals or organizations. Moreover, Laumannand Pappi (1976) have demonstrated that one can distinguish the social structureof a population by estimating and mapping the relative proximity of actors usingsimilarities or dissimilarities of a populations attributes.</p><p>Over the last two decades researchers have developed a framework to evaluatethe networks of direct relationships among organizations. The organizational stateperspective seeks to understand how participants use direct relationships (i.e., thetransfer of information, aid, power, money, and other resources between organiza-tions) to influence the decision-making process (Knoke et al. 1996). In The Organiza-tional State (Laumann and Knoke 1987) the authors identify three types of socialnetworks significant in interorganizational relations. These include informationexchanges; resource transactions such as the exchange of information money andauthority; and boundary penetration, which they characterized as the shared useof personnel. They also developed methods to assess these interorganizational rela-tionships in order to reveal the social network structure, which can be used to betterunderstand how the overall configuration facilitates or constrains the actions oforganizational participants (Laumann and Knoke 1987, 226). It is important tonote that many collaborative planning processes share the same characteristics ofdecision-making processes evaluated using the organizational state framework. Suchcharacteristics include effectively lacking the full support of legal regulations, adiversity of organizations from government and society, blurred lines of authority,and interorganizational influences and power relations (Laumann and Knoke 1987).</p><p>Study Context</p><p>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) National Estuary Program(NEP), authorized by Congress in 1987, is an ecosystem-based collaborative plan-ning program. NEP legislation encourages the landscape of federal, state, and localagencies and regional stakeholders to form collaborative partnerships and to assumelocal responsibility for the planning and management of an estuarys ecologicalintegrity. While the NEP is a voluntary policy, upon acceptance into the NEP, eachpartnership is required to establish a Management Conference consisting of a PolicyCommittee, a Management Committee, a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), anda Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). The Management Conferenceis responsible for managing the activities that led up to the publication of each pro-grams Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) and the implemen-tation of CCMP recommendations. In 1988, the U.S. EPA approved the nominationof the NYNJ HEP and approved NYNJ HEPs CCMP in 1996.</p><p>Social Network Analysis of Social Capital 247</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f N</p><p>orth</p><p> Tex</p><p>as] </p><p>at 2</p><p>3:28</p><p> 24 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>The collaborative partnership formed by the NYNJ HEP spanned the multipletiers of government, policy arenas, and jurisdictions and engaged regional stake-holders within the Management Conference and workgroups. Within the NYNJHEP, the organizations represented in the policy and management committees werethe regions most prominent environmental agencies and stakeholder organizations.1</p><p>A former Management Conference representative noted that the composition of thePolicy Committee was unique to the National Estuary Program: At the time it wasformed, it was an exception to have CAC and STAC representation on the PolicyCommittee. Each of the committees that comprised the Management Conferencehad established structures; for example, the Management Committee had 19 desig-nated positionsfixed organizational representation, which allowed for fluctuationof individual participation due to for example retirement.</p><p>By comparison, participation in the Habitat Workgroup was more robust: Meet-ings engaged more participants and a more diverse participation. Unlike the fixedorganizational representation found in the Management Conference, participationin the Habitat Workgroup was open and nonstructured except for the position ofChair. According to the workgroups meeting minutes, 262 individuals participatedin the Habitat Workgroup between the years 1998 to 2002. While governmentalagencies were the majority at 54%, there was notable participation from nongovern-mental organizations at 24% and unaffiliated (including citizens) at 11%. The distri-bution of stakeholders in the Habitat Workgroup mirrors Lubells (2005) assessmentof stakeholders in 20 NEP estuaries.</p><p>The Habitat Workgroup also differed from the other workgroups active at thetime of this research in that it was not guided by regulations but by the outcomesof collaboration. The pathogens, nutrients, and toxics workgroups activities weredirected by such national and state regulations such as Clean Water Act require-ments for each state to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for pathogens,nutrients, and toxic chemicals. Finally, the Dredged Material Management Work-group...</p></li></ul>