The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Agricultural Sciences ...

112 Pages·2016·0.6 MB·English

by  Colleen Unroe

The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Agricultural Sciences

CONDITIONS AND CONSTRAINTS RELATED TO COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES IN PENNSYLVANIA

A Thesis in
Rural Sociology
by
Colleen Unroe

© 2016 Colleen Unroe

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Master of Science

December 2016
The thesis of Colleen Unroe was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Kathryn Brasier
Associate Professor of Rural Sociology
Thesis Adviser

Ted Alter
Professor of Agricultural, Environmental, and Regional Economics

Leland Glenna
Associate Professor of Rural Sociology

C. Clare Hinrich
Professor of Rural Sociology

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

ii
ABSTRACT
Previous research demonstrates that the traditional, managerial approach to natural
resource management has been ineffective in many cases. There is an increasing shift
towards more collaborative approaches to natural resource management that is referred to
as collaborative governance. The conceptual framework used in this study was the model
of collaborative governance developed by Ansell and Gash (2007). The research explores
the current conditions and constraints of collaborative natural resource management in
Pennsylvania. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers from
different sectors, including the nonprofit, government, and private sectors. The data was
analyzed by manual coding of the transcripts. This study builds upon the conceptual model
by acknowledging that power is embedded in collaboration, local context matters, and the
definition of facilitative leadership is broader. The findings also indicate that structures
can be designed to bring different sectors together to facilitate collaborative governance as
well as the importance of developing relationships, communication, and facilitative
leadership to address issues of trust.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................. vii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
Research Question ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Thesis Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL .............................................................................. 5
Traditional Approaches to Natural Resource Management .............................................................. 5
Evolving Approaches to Environmental Governance .......................................................................... 8
Collaborative Governance Conceptual Model ...................................................................................... 11
Starting Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Institutional Design ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Facilitative/Shared Leadership ............................................................................................................. 18
Collaborative Process ................................................................................................................................. 20
Face-to-face Dialogue ................................................................................................................................. 22
Commitment to the Process .................................................................................................................... 22
Shared Understanding ............................................................................................................................... 23
Intermediate Outcomes ............................................................................................................................. 24
Challenges to Collaborative Governance in Natural Resource Management ..................... 24
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 3: DATA AND METHODS ................................................................................................................... 32
Research Design ................................................................................................................................................ 33
Question and Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 34
Sample Selection ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Data Collection ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Limitations ........................................................................................................................................................... 38
Ethical Considerations and Research Reflexivity ............................................................................... 39
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 40

Chapter 4: RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Current situation ............................................................................................................................................... 41
Meaning of Collaboration .............................................................................................................................. 42
Need for Collaboration ................................................................................................................................... 44
Pennsylvania’s Environmental History Impact on Collaboration ............................................... 48
Past Experiences with Collaboration Influencing Collaborative Management ...................... 56
Ways Leaders Facilitate Or Impede Collaboration ............................................................................. 59
Institutional Impacts on Collaboration ................................................................................................... 69

Chapter 5: DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 85
iv
Future Areas of Research .............................................................................................................................. 93
Key Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 94

Appendix A: Survey Instrument ...................................................................................................................... 96

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ........................................................................................................... 99

Appendix C: Interviewee Codes ..................................................................................................................... 101

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................... 102

v
List of Figures

Figure 1: Ansell and Gash’s (2007) Model of Collaborative Governance (Ansell and Gash
2007)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14

vi
Acknowledgements

The research in this study was a part of project in support of the development of a
Natural Resources Leadership Institute that was initiated by the Department of
Agricultural Economics Sociology and Education at The Pennsylvania State University. I am
grateful for the participants who have dedicated their lives to protecting natural resources
and took the time to speak with me. I want to thank Kathryn Brasier, my advisor, as well as
Leland Glenna and Ted Alter for their advice and support throughout this study. I also
appreciate the resources provided by the department to complete the study. I am so very
thankful for the support of my fellow graduate students and to all those who provided
feedback, including Dainelle Ely and Ramo Lord. I am indebted to my family for their
continual support, particularly my dad, Aunt Mary Beth, brother Joel, and cousin Bart.
vii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Environmental conflicts are complex, involving multiple parties, multiple issues,
cultural differences, deeply-held values, scientific and traditional knowledge, legal
requirements, and conflict (Daniels and Walker 2001). Historically, public administration
of environmental conflicts in the United States was driven by the “managerial” model that
included a top-down approach where administrators decided and pursued goals (Beierle
and Cayford 2002). Moreover, during the 1960s, environmental history factors contributed
to the advent of the modern movement to address environmental issues, including the
activist culture, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, scientific knowledge about smog, the
Cuyahoga River catching on fire in Cleveland among other factors; concerned citizens
organized collectively and spurred the establishment of environmental policies during the
1970s (Dunlap and Mertig 1991). This consisted of the establishment of national standards
and regulations around air, water, and land, including the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act (Sharp and Parisi 2003).
Regulations have been most effective at addressing point-source pollution but have
had very little success on issues like the protection of endangered species and sustainable
timber management (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Budget cuts in the 1980s and 1990s
and fewer resources and people in public management agencies also made top-down
approaches more challenging (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Over time, there was
increasing awareness by public agencies and communities that one-size-fits-all policies
were not universally effective.
1
The problems faced in communities are often more complicated than ones that can
be resolved by a regulatory solution. Rittel and Weber (1973) refer to this as a "wicked
problem," meaning that there is no immediate fix to a problem or clear solution (161).
Often there are many stakeholders who have different interests and define the problems
differently. In order to address these "wicked problems," multi-sector solutions are
typically needed (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). During the last decades of the twentieth
century, devolution occurred with shifts among responsibilities at different levels of
government, which included a transfer of some control, development, and support of
policies to states and local governments (Sharp and Parisi 2003). This shift occurred
within natural resource management issues.
Such a shift occurred in part because historically, there has been much conflict and
lack of effectiveness in addressing many environmental problems with a top-down
approach. Collaborative governance has emerged in response to the failures of and the
high costs and politicization of regulations (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). It is an
alternative to adversarial interest groups pushing positions and failures of top-down
governance (Ansell and Gash 2007). The emergence of collaborative governance is
occurring across various sectors, including natural resource management. The goal of
collaborative governance is to transform adversarial relationships into more cooperative
ones and to engage different stakeholders directly in the decision-making process (Ansell
and Gash 2007). Furthermore, public participation can help identify competing interests,
find unity of interests where they exist, and prevent undesirable, expensive, and potentially
irreversible outcomes through shared data and information (Radow 2011). Therefore,
2
when different sectors are open to collaborative governance, alternative approaches to
management (which may have more productive outcomes) may be explored.

Research Question
In an attempt to understand collaborative governance in a particular context, this
research seeks to explore the current conditions and constraints associated with
collaborative natural resource management within Pennsylvania. Documentation of the
environmental history in the state is limited (Tarr 1999). A scan of literature databases
yields few, if any, studies that explore perceptions of natural resources managers of
collaborative governance in the state. Pennsylvania has historically dealt with a range of
different natural resources issues, ranging from natural resource extraction to issues of
agricultural production. By looking at one state, we can learn more about the barriers and
opportunities that can be applied to the overall theory itself. To explore the current
situation, these research objectives are explored:
● How do natural resource leaders define and describe collaborative governance?
o Do they think it needs to exist?
o What does collaboration mean to different stakeholders?
● What are the ways that Pennsylvania environmental history and past experiences
influence collaborative management?
● What are actions that leaders take that facilitate or impede collaboration?
● What are the institutional constraints on collaboration?
The results of this study will shed light on the current practice of collaborative governance
in Pennsylvania highlighting both successes and opportunities for improvement. This
3