Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management

Notes

Notes Chapter 1 1. Based on Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources recreation surveys, noted in an unpublished document: Summary: Lower Wisconsin Riverway: The Proposed Plan and Its Impacts (Madison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1998). 2. Wisconsin DNR staff person, interview with author, recorded and transcribed, November 11, 1992. Chapter 2 1. Between 2004 and 2007, I was a member of the Long Tom Steering Committee, including as vice chair and chair. 2. This account is reconstructed from participant interviews as well as a case study description by Judith Innes and her colleagues (1994). 3. Imperial’s framework was published in 2005, while I first published my framework in 2007. I was not aware of his 2005 publication until we met at a conference in 2009. His application of the levels concept follows the institutional analysis and design framework more closely, but both of our work recognizes that collaboration is occurring at different levels, and the difference between levels is important for understanding collaborative practice. 4. Imperial (2005) refers to this in terms of institutional-level action and collaborative organizations , but I found that collaboratives at this level operate in several different ways, which are outlined throughout this book. 5. Based on an interview and conversations with the Lower Rogue Watershed Council coordinator in September 2001, and Lower Rogue WSC 2007–2009, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) council-support grant application #210–014. 6. These committees were changed significantly in 2000, and many of the catchment groups were amalgamated into larger natural resources management regions with more substantial funding and responsibilities. 7. The management’s role and structure in the Murray Darling Basin was changed substantially in 2008. This description is based on my research on management efforts in the 1990s 324 Notes through 2008. Catchment committees have been substantially restructured throughout Australia, but many Landcare groups continue to operate. 8. The one potentially significant issue that I have not analyzed is resources, because I have been unable to gather consistent data across the cases I examined. The inconsistencies are due to the lack of data about operating budgets, the complexity of measuring resources like in-kind support, and the difficulty of separating out the project-based work of collaboratives from administrative work. 9. Master Gardeners is a program offered by the University of Oregon’s Extension service. People who achieve this designation must go through sixty to seventy hours of training with Extension staff. 10. Even in a state like Oregon, which has committed ongoing resources for these efforts, the 2009–2011 funding for its watershed council program is only 0.16 percent of the state budget. 11. Executive committee members, Lockyer Catchment Management Committee, confidential interview with author, recorded in notebook, May 15–16, 1995. 12. For a more detailed discussion of this case study, see Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000. Chapter 3 1. Information from McKenzie Watershed Council Web site, available at http://www.mckenziewc .org (accessed October 20, 2009), and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board support grant application for 2009–2011 biennium. 2. Unpublished research conducted with Ipswich Shire Council with help from students in my landscape planning class. The study included a survey of landowners in which they were sent photos of different riparian landscapes, and asked to evaluate their condition along with their own interest in undertaking conservation efforts. 3. Bruce Babbitt, remarks at the Community-Based Collaboratives Research Consortium meeting, Sedona, AZ, November 19, 2005. 4. Queensland state agencies were involved directly and indirectly on committees, subcommittees , and ad hoc groups, making it hard to establish a firm number. According to the regional framework for growth management produced by this process in 1994, 22 different state government representatives served on committees and working groups. There were a total of 150 participants on the steering committee and 5 working groups. Other categories included local government (31 representatives), the professional sector (14 representatives), business and industry (11 representatives), and community members (10 representatives). The other major category of participants was “official observers,” which mostly consisted of representatives from local government or regional organizations of councils. 5. Agency staff person, interview with author, tape-recorded and transcribed, October 15, 1992. 6. Catchment committee member, phone interview with author, recorded in notebook, August 14, 1997. 7. Written comment on survey from citizen member of a New South Wales committee. Question asked: “Our committee has been inhibited by. . . .” Collected and transcribed into database, October–November 1995. [3.142.12.240] Project MUSE (2024-04...