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 Resource s 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 I ntegrative 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 p rogram 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 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 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 m uch 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 nd 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 resea rch 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. rned 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 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 Cultura l 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 ................................ ................ 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 Mana gement ................................ ................ 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 ................................ ............. 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 Limitation s ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 124 Directions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ............. 124 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 130 BIOGRA PHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 145
10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Sample Description. ................................ ................................ ........................... 28 2 2 Statistics R egarding 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 Frequenc y 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 ................................ ... 74
11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 .. 45 2 2 mple. ................................ ...................... 46 2 3 .......................... 47 2 4 n. ................................ ........ 48 2 5 ................................ ........ 49 2 6 ................................ ............. 50 2 7 ................................ ............... 51 3 1 ................................ ................................ ..... 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 ................................ ................................ ... 110 4 2 Nested Collaborative Governance Structure in Oregon. ................................ ... 111 4 3 Map of Oregon De monstrating 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 A daptive Co Management BEF Bonne ville 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 Th e Deschutes River Conservancy EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary significant units GWEB HB House Bill IGERT Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship I MST 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 Scien ce 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 Wate rshed 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 i dentification 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 ap proaches, 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 p artnerships 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 p olicies. 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 institutions surrounding collaborative water management demonstrates that through policy changes and the adaptation of existing institutions, along with the cr eation 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 col laborate more effectively.
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER Recent water, climate, and general environmental news are cause for concern, and even fear. Critical issues include d roughts, floods, warming temperatures, rising sea levels, extreme weather even ts, natural disasters, food insecurity, and species extinction among others Meanwhile, the human population continue s to grow, a s 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 & Ar mitage 2007b; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000 ). 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 problem s solved p.160). Furthermore any attempt to solve or resolve wicked problems is likely to cause a cascade of unintended consequences for an extended per iod of time (Rittel & Webber 1973). Natural resource management decision making must acknowledge the complexity of these "wicked" problems and f ind a way to move forward regardless. There is widespread acknowledgement that command and control resource man agement 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 F or decades, there ha s been an increasing demand for more participatory, collaborative, adaptive approaches, aimed at learning. In an attempt to respond to this call, t h e 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 mov to changing the way resource management is conceptualized and carried out Specifically, this research has three main objectives, each addressed separately in the followi ng 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 m anagement 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 analy sis 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 th e 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, an d 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 manag ement 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 he r, 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 whe n 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. Es sentially, 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 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 sett ing 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). Further more, 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 usefu l 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 2 009). 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 r esearch 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 comp osed 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 Theoretic al 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 ind ividual 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 th at explores the way people make sense of or kaleidoscope, and no two views are exactly the 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 dif ferent 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 trad ition. communication, in which framing is thought to be the understanding of interaction through the on. He meaningful and guide action (1974, p. 21). Basically, frames present a way t o understand the social construction of knowledge about an issue (Jameson 1976). Framing on the cognitive level is an individual process (Weick 1979). The cognitive fur ther 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 ref er to a single conceptual sphere" (Weller & Romney the world around them into co gnitive domains, and the way they do this affects the way
23 the same domains, the contents within those domains may differ (Borgatti 1999). Cultural domain analysis, in Theoretical Contribution of this Research The present research aims to make contributions to both the in teractional 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 becaus if all stakeholders hold the same frames about environmental issues, rather than 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 h as 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 co nvened by a county governing body to address the goal of sustaining natural resource and watershed protection and enhancement within a watershed" [1999 c.1026 Â§2 (enacted in lieu of 541.350)]. These councils are multi stakeholder groups, typically with re presentatives 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 agencie s. 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 rest oration 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 stakeho lder 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 t o 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 wa tershed 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 approximatel y 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 inter view 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 c ase, 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 cou ncil 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 t he 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. A fter completing their i nterviews, 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 se lected 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 tha t 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 r eached 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.
27 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). 301). The interview technique involves asking informants to make a list of items tap 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 red undant 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 s pecifically 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 ecologica l, 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 atershed any additional items, the researcher thanked the participants for their time and concluded the interviews. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbati m.
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, w ho 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. Twelv e 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. Thi rteen 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 Numbe r 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 c leaning was to reduce full sentence responses to individual terms. residents, 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 During this process, an Excel spreadsheet was crea ted 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
30 Finally, aft er 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 d 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 consensus, within the culture. And the differences in list length and content are 226). Finally, since people takes into account the rank of the items mentioned (Quinlan rse rank across all lists. As such, the statistic does not allow high prioritization of an item infrequently selected, and thus better represents the 2013, p. 933 934; Borgatt denoting higher average importance. Results Research Question 1 How do individual stakeholders, participating in collaborative water management groups, frame the watershed system, differently from, o r 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 (Borg atti 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 th is 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 note d 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 li sted by the total sample was 64.8 and the 69 items were listed by males compared to 59 by females. Watershed council employees in the Southwest Region listed more items o n 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.
3 2 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 6 9 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 hel ps 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. Looking at the top 20 most frequently mentioned terms (Tab le 2 3), 64% of (45% of the sample), being noted by even fewer respondents. The frequ ency watershed is comprised of. Table 2 3. Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Total Sample, n=33. Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency Peop le 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 Ge ology 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 partic the items were mentioned in the lists, but also the average rank of the terms. However, ca lculates a weighted average of the inverse rank across all the individual lists. term listed by the research participants. le agreement among the participants 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 order as the top most salient terms by the total sample. Figure 2 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 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 agr eed upon the terms that Table 2 4. Frequency Distribution and Percent Frequency for Wat ershed 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 group t the the state of Oregon frame the cultural domain of a watershed. Figure 2 3 lists the top 20
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? Examini ng 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. Eight y three percent of participants in the Southeast Region agreed that both seven percent of the components of a w atershed. Fifty percent of respondents also agreed upon another 5 for a complete list of frequency distribut ions 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 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 Distribu tion and Percent Frequency for Southwest R egion, 2 n=13. Term Frequency of Participants Percent Frequency Fish 7 54 Water quality 6 46 Community 6 46 Watershed counc ils 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 Region definitely had more agreement with regard to the cultural domain of a watershed. As shown in Figure 2 In fact, among this subgr oup, 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. ere 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 greater than 0.3, compared to only one term listed among watershed council employees However, when examining both the frequency distribu for this subgroup, generally speaking there was little agreement regarding the framing of a watershed. Figure 2 Research Question 2c Is there a shared understandi ng 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,
39 important (Table 2 7) Eight y lso listed by 50% of stakeholders in the Umpqua Basin, demonstrating some agreement in framing among this group. Table 2 7 Frequency Distribu tion and Percent Frequency for Umpqua B asin, 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 great er of the respondents.
40 Table 2 8 Frequency distribu tion and percent frequency for Powder B asin, 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 Reserv oirs 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 s S statistics provide further support, confirming that there is a shared understanding among members of these basin subgroups. Similar to the Southeast listed by the Umpqu were again among the most salient terms listed by this group with some of the highest 6 for a complete list. Nine terms liste Figure 2 7.
41 Discussion Watershed Framing: This research investigates both cognitive and interactional a long 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 agre ement. 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; Gate wood 1983, 1984; Quinlan, 2005), the vast discrepancy in the list lengths indicates 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 waters hed. 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 s, along with being some of the most salient terms, among almost all of the subgroups that were
42 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, and 38% 20 most frequently mentioned terms in every single subgroup sampled, as well as the mentioned terms in all the different subgroups; it was mentioned by roughly 50% of all respondents in all the different subgroups. his study were on the second highest (0.508 in the Umpqua Basin). These three terms also had the most salient. A lthough 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
43 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 poi nt 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 A lthough wa ter management efforts in the past have focused on controlling water levels to ameliorate flooding and droughts, and providing water for economic activities, t he role of people in this process has been somewhat limited. Increasingly though, people are play ing 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 facilita tion 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, a s 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 effor t 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 lis t 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 shortcoming s 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 t he cognitive and interactional framing of individuals working in water management groups.
45 Figure 2 2013).
46 Figure 2
47 Figure 2 3
48 Figure 2 4
49 Figure 2 5
50 F igure 2 6
51 Figure 2 7
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 lion 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 En dangered 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, decision s 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; P ahl
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 chan ge, 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 m ore 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 k nown 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 managemen t (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 et al. 2009; Cun dill & 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, ad aptive 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 la rge 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 def term management structure that permits stakeholders to share management responsibility exible community based systems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations and supported by, and working et al. process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self organized process of learning by et al. 2007, p. 328). Regardless of the definition that you ascribe to, adaptive co management stands in sharp contrast to the b usiness 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 & 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). Additi onally, 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 & Cur tis 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 re sult 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 b egins 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 highl ights 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 pr ovide 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 t he 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 in the last two centuries since Europe an 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 the ir 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 coa stal Coho were threatened with extinction and their ESA listing seemed imminent. 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 flexibl e 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 int erviews 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 institut ions. 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 Enhance ment 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 out reach. 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 wi th 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 i nterviews, 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 reco 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, legi slative 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 Analy sis and Interpretation Data analysis involved a qualitative, iterative process of reviewing primary data to the challenges, and promote the use of ACM. After a compl institutions and policies was created through the analysis of primary data, secondary data analysis included reviewing and analyzing all the documents that were collected erent 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 in stitutions 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 ob servation and informant interviews revealed that seven different policies and institutions are fundamentally related to adaptive collaborative governance: 1) amendments to Oregon water law, 2) the creation 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 meetin gs 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 poli cies 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, wa ter 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 t he 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 beneficial use, 2) priority, 3) appurtenancy, and 4) continued use (OWRD [Oregon Water Resources Department 2011 establis h and maintain a water right, water must be put to beneficial use without waste. and industrial application, stock watering, domestic and municipal use, and other ec onomic activities. Keeping water instream for ecological purposes was not originally 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 ied to a piece of land, and 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 Ore order to maintain a water right, which is a valuable commodity in the arid west. Prior appropriation has been law in Oregon s ince 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 s tate legislature amended Oregon water law when it passed a beneficial use, and allowing water rights to be issued to support public uses like navigation, recreation, p ollution 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 a uthorized 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 surf ace 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 almo st always junior users. However, the Instream Water Right Act also amended water law, allowing for s are assigned for a 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 ar More than 70 percent of water put instream on a permanent basis is "senior" water, with certificates pre Flow Restoration in Oregon). Instream leases not only benefit fish and wildlife, but a holders who are not using their allotted water rights, and therefore might otherwise risk forfeiture or cancellation of that right for non use. Oregon is known as a national and int ernational leader in streamflow restoration and protection p. Oregon's Flow Restoration Toolbox ). Over 1,000 instream leases were flied in the instream flow of W ashington, Idaho, and Montana combined. Oregon has placed about 900 cfs instream, compared to Washington (400 cfs), Idaho (100 cfs), and Montana (14 Flow Restoration in Oregon). nt Board at collaborative water management first stem from Senate Bill (SB) 23, which directed 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 improv ements 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 assistance an d outreach to landowners, which, at that time, occurred mainly through
64 local soil and water conservation districts ( Arha et al. 2003) GWEB also promoted management (OAC D 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 Agricultur e, 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. es 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 management policies and institutions was the formation of watershe d 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 t he 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 20 13 ); 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 withou t 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 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 workin g toward a common goal of restoring watershed health and the species dependent on 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.
66 for profit organizations, while others are associated with local soil and water conservation districts, 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 counc ils 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 land owners 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 ai med 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 Watershed s institutions was the creation of The Oregon Plan. The mission of The Oregon Plan for populations a nd 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 trategy 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 Water sheds 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 co astal Coho Salmon were proposed for listing proposed listing, aimed at avoiding a reoccurrence of the devastating effects that the listing of the northern spotted owl had on the st 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 Enhance ment 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 t 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 commit ment 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 eco nomic 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 refe 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 Co board meets four times a year, in various locations across the state, to take action on future fu nding 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 educati on are all things funded by OWEB. 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 (F igure 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 technicall y 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 polici es, 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 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 restorati on 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 ts 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 t hese expenditures did not yield beneficial results, it became increasingly apparent that this piecemeal approach to watershed management was unlikely to deliver the desired tems that support them to productive and sustainable levels that will provide substantial 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 fu rther 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 he 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 The SIPs were designed to b e used when a project, or suite of projects, required reports dating back to discussions surrounding the formation of the SIPs demonstrate that partnerships under the SIPs were defined to have various important characteristics: 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 attention, and the partnership was ready to be formed. In the second half of 2007 OWEB identified six potential partnerships that could most
72 the stand out among the six is the Willamette (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 bienni um, $6 million specifically reserved for the Willamette Partnership (Wood 2007b). Then at the January 2008 board meeting, $4 million was allocated to the Deschutes Partici pant 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 part nership, 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 wit h 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 contribut ing 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, evoluti on, 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 furt her its mission of adaptive, collaborative water management. Although public/private partnerships are not particularly new or innovative in resource
73 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); 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 P 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 orga nization, 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 profit organization on a mission to fundamentally 1999, BEF has also been in the business of community bas ed water management (BEF trajectory, after several years of providing small grants to fund individual site specific projects, also taking a piecemeal approach to restoration, B EF 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 cycl e, 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, us ing 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 hat critical restoration needs are identified and addressed at the scales necessary to achieve substantial and lasting 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 Table 3 1. Date Bill Action 1987 SB 140 1987 SB 23 Gov 1993 HB 2215 SB 81 Program are created 1995 HB 3441 Legislature formally recognized watershed councils and makes GWEB responsible for provid ing 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 re storation of native salmon, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and state parks 1999 HB 3225 Approves modifications to Oregon Plan; disburses lottery funds Enhancement Board (GWEB) to Oregon Watershed Enhanc ement 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 e ffectiveness 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 r esource 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 lotte ry funds, making funding permanent (Adapted from Arha et al. 2003; OACD 2013; Oregon Plan 2007) Discussion 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 200 5; Allan et al. 2008; Jacobson et al. 2006; McLain & Lee 1996; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000) tackling these barriers.
76 Management at the Watershed Scale Ecosystems, particul arly 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 b oarders). 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 a nd jurisdictions that are inherently part of nearly all watersheds, this proves to be much easier said than done. Special Investment Partnerships, including the Willamette F unding 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 pl atform 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 s cale 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 conse rvancy, 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 fun ding 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 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, an d 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 gra nting agency. Past experience demonstrates that this is unrealistic ( Wiley et al. 2013). The 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 loc al 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 20 10 that funding mechanism was made 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 commit future funds beyond the biennium. However, reco gnizing 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 e 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, inflexi ble 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 o r quantitatively assess institutional flexibility, it is important to flexible, namely Oregon water law, OWEB, and the Willamette Funding Partnership. Resource managers ar ound 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 water rights to the be used instream, while still maintaining the priority date of the original water rig ht. These amendments to water policy allow for flexibility within the degraded habitat. OWEB and the Willamette Funding Partnership have also recognized the importance of fle xibility, 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. Th is 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. Seco nd, 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, kn owing 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 recogni ze 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 monit oring 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 succ essfully achieving ACM (Moir & Block 2001; Wilhere 2002; Williams 2003; Yaffee 1996). Yet, 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 i n 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 t he 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 bas ed on federal and lottery funds. Regardless, statew ide 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 Critic s 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 resulte d 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 deci sion 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. The refore, 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 representa tives 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 t he 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, conse rvation, 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 term management structure that permits stakeholders to share management responsibility within a specific system r 2001, p. 8), based systems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations and supported by, and working with, various organizations at et al. utional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self organized process of learning by 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 th e 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 adap t. 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. k.
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 Introdu ction 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 fron tier 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 own ership 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, a nd 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). rt has underpinned all 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. 20 04; Wilson et al. 2009). Today, many natural resources 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. way forward when no clear solution exists and no single entity can cl aim the necessary Collaboration can help organizations or entities enlarge their resource base and decrease uncertainty in situations marked by constant change (Taber 1995). Ther efore, 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 field of resource management, is widespread. Although, there is also a significant amount of research attesting to the fact that collaboration and partnerships ar e 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 work ing 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 knowle dge, 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; Dew ulf et al. 2007; Pahl Wostl et al. Huxham 2001, p. 373). Indeed, although many agree tha t 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 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 p aucity 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 singl e 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 c ontribution 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 1 997). 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 Cente all sectors public, private, non profit, citizens, and others to develop effective, lasting
91 (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 m anagement 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 & FitzGibbon 2004, p. 63). Although the idea of co management is not a new one community) to share management power the concept is spreading and being used increasingly around the globe to address the between the government and local resource user et al. 1991, p. 12) or sharing in the exercise of resource management between a government agency theory. But how is this accomplished? Successful partne agencies, local communities and resource users, NGOs and other stakeholders 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 organizationa l 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 q uestions, Oregon was selected as the study site for this 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 a gencies, 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 Bil l 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 al so 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 fun ds 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 t his program, millions of dollars were spent on watershed restoration and a lot of good work was accomplished around the state. W hile it would be difficult to argue that these expenditures have not yielded beneficial results, it has become increasingly appa rent that this piecemeal approach to watershed management is unlikely to deliver the desired ecological benefits such as restoring sustainable levels that will provide sub stantial environmental, cultural, and economic there was growing motivation to target larger scale, longer term restoration. Hence, in 2008, the Special Investment Partnership (SIP) wa s 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 aim to promote partnerships between watershed councils and other organizations to achieve restoration at a larger scale. Simultaneo usly, 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 differe nt. 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 Des chutes 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 El ectric and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs) and OWEB. The main objective establish anadromous fish runs and enhance resident fish populations in the main stem and in tributary streams on both the eastside and the west (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 Desc hutes 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), 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 T rust (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 20 09) 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 f irst 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 difference s 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 b ecause 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, & Weis s 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 pr eserves the holistic and significant characteristics of real life processes (Corbin et al. research can aid in the understanding of the nuances of partnership functioning that quantitative research has 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 f Oregon Conferences which focused exclusively on the Willamette SIP. The researcher conducted unstructured interviews with key informants in both the Deschutes and the Willamett e 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 Inves tment 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 evol ution. 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 tha t 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 char acteristics 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 sessi on 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 qualita tive 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 partnershi p, 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 t he collaborative actually stem back to the Federal Emergency Regulatory 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 itse lf 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 identifie d, 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 a llocated 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, identifie d 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. Lo cally 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 bas in, 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 gra nts 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 sup port 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 mor e 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. 200 2). 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 organi zations, 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 wat ershed 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 N etwork of Oregon Watershed Councils as a textbook example of a council doing great things ham & 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 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 encompass es nearly 11,500 square miles, as opposed the 10,000 square miles than encompasses the Deschutes Basin (Figures 4 4 and 4
103 resides within the Willamette Basin. Among other thin gs, this means that the river itself is used for many purposes and faces a different set of challenges than those of the 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 competin g 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 land owners, 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 Collaborat ive 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, Instead, the Willamette Partnership fo rmed 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 s uccess 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 Willam ette 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 Creati on 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 fo r 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 partnersh ip. 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 organ izations 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 da bbled 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 Upp er 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 streamfl ow 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. Alt hough, 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 compl ete 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 o n 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 restoratio n 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. Bot h 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 f or 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 (B eal 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 p resent 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, r 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 i nsufficient 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 res earch, 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 mu tualistic. 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 comple ments, 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 di spersal 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 independentl y. 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 proper ty 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 s ignificant 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
111 Figure 4 2. Nested Collaborative Governance Struc ture in Oregon.
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 Bas in Project Area.
115 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUDING CHAPTER History has demonstrated that the ways we have managed natural resources in the past have wre a ked havoc on the natural systems on which we depend for survival; we need new approaches to move forwar d 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. Th e research presented in this dissertation pr ovides 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 beg an 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 framin g 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 a re 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 soc ial issues ( Allan et al. 2008; Brown & Farrelly 2009).
116 The second part of this study explore d 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, collaborati ve 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, prog ressive, flexible governance is a critical prerequisite. The third component of this research explore d partnership building at a new and larger scale, the basin scale, which effectively calls for smaller collaborative groups to become stakeholders in a lar ger collaborative process. This study follows the development and evolution of two such partnerships, and uncovers some of the secrets to successful partnership building, and identifi es 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. Additional ly, 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 so cial 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 mana gement. 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 ther eafter, 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 understanding the limitations of existing institutions and mechanisms of governance and experimenting with multi layered, learning oriented and 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 diff erent individuals and groups as they work to improve the management of (2005, p. 4). Woodhill states social to cope with social and ecological change in ways that will optimize the collective
118 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 ; s ingle loop, double loop, and more recently triple loop learning have been put forth as an important part of social learni ng 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 learnin g ( 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 alte ring 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 manag ement, single loop learning involves identifying and modifying management practices and strategies to change outcomes such as m odifying 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 prot ocols 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 e t al. 2007a) The three levels are interdependent, and multilevel change is assumed to proceed in an iterative and not necessarily sequential fashion via second ( Pahl Wostl et al. 2007a, p.5). The research presented here examines the exten t 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 stakeholde r processes aimed at watershed management regularly tak e 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. tings over a period of more than two years and analyses of meeting agendas and minutes demonstrate that single and double loop learning occurs at al most all meetings. Meetings typically consist of conversations surrounding management projects and plans. Di scussions 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 tru st 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 learni ng. 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 Ore gon 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. Collabo rative 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 re ceive funding for at least a biennium but more often for much longer, such as a decade under the Bonneville 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. Add itionally, 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 ma cro 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 am ong 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 importa nt 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 st r uck this important balance. Another balance important to both social le arning and adaptive collaborative governance level governance arrangements that link social actors (vertically and horizontally) et al. 2009, p.9 6; 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. 200 3) 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 means panaceas, and will not be appropriate in all cases (Armitage et al. 2009). Ultimately, managers need to have many of dif ferent 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 ec osystem
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 th ere 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, collaborativ e 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 cu ltural 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 mutu alism 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 an d 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 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)
128 Figure 5 2. Social Learning in Oregon (Adapted from Bouwen & Taillieu 2004; Craps 20 03; Pahl Wostl 2007a; Pahl Wostl 2007b)
129 Figure 5 3. Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Social Learning Processes in Oregon (Adapted from Pahl Wostl et al. 2007a).
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 perspect ive. 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 Readi ng, 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 Cha nge Human and Policy Dimensions 18 (1): 86 98. Armitage, D. R., Plum mer, 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 mana gement 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 Ore gon 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 nursi ng: an integrative review. Nursing Research and P ractic e 2012: 501564. BEF (2009) Bonneville E nvironmental Foundation About Us [www document]. URL http://www.b e f.org/ Retrieved October 25, 2009. BEF (2009) B onneville Environmental Foundation: Model Wa tersheds [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 Managemen t 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 ov erview 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. Journa l of Environmental Management 90( 5): 1692 1702. Berkes, F., Fo lke, 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 pract ice 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 Resource s 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: T he 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. & Ta illieu, 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 ind icators of knowledge in semantic domains. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology 5: 1047 1128. Brod erick, K. (2008) Adaptive management for water quality improvement in the Great Barrier Reef catchments: Learning on the edge. Geographical Research 46 (3): 30 3 313. 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 t heory. An nual Review of Political Science 1 0 (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 Ecologic al 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., Mittelmar k, M.B. & Lie, G.T. (2012) Scalin g 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 Car e 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 n ature. 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. Jour nal of Environmental Management 90 (11): 3205 3211. The Development of Cognitive A nthropology Cambr idge, 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. D iduck, 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 arrang ements 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. & H uxham, C. (2001) The negotiation of purpose in multi organizational collaborative g roups. Journal of Management Studies 38(3): 373 391. El Ansari, W., Phillips, C. J. & Hammick, M. (2001) Collaboration and partnerships: developing the evidence base. Healt h & 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 ine qualities 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. Ecol ogical Economics 45(1): 11 18. Fennell, D., Plummer, R. & Marschke, M. (2008) Is adaptive co management ethical? Jour nal 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 a ction. 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. Soc iety & Natural Resources 21 (6): 538 545. Gillies, P. (1998) Effectiveness of alliances and partnerships for health p romotion. 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 s uccessfu l 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 Uni versity Press, Amsterdam: The Netherlands. Gray, B. (2003) Framing of environmental d isputes. 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 educatio n: 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 p artnerships 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. & Meff e, G.K. (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource m anagement. 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 region al academic/service partnership that works. Nursing Outlook 55(2): 74 78. Hud son, B., Hardy, B., Henwood, M. & Wistow, G. (1999) In pursuit of inter agency c ol laboration in the public s ector: What is the contribution of theory and research? Public Managem ent 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 m Mnagement 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 i nertia? 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 implementat ion 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) Citi zen participation in collaborative watershed p artnerships. 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 Rev iew 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 l earned from Indonesia and Madagascar. Ecology and Society 13(1): 15. Lawson, S.R. & Manning, R.E. (2003) Integrating multiple wilderness values into a decision ma king 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) En vironmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community based natural resource m anagement. World Development 27 (2): 225 247. Leach, W.D. & Pelkey, N.W. (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical lite rature. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management 127(6): 378 385. Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W. & Sabatier, P.A. (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative p olicymaking: Evaluatio n criteria applied to watershed m anagement in California and Washi ngton. 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. Lewi cki, B. Gray & M. Elliot, pp. 1 11 Washington DC: Islan d 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 e mploya bility. 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 i nstitutions. American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 148 163.
138 Lundquist, C.J. & Granek, E. F. (20 05) 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: Uni versity 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: Promis es 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 k nowledge. In : The Psychology of Computer V ision 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. & B lock, 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, c ontraception and emergency contraception: The language of urban adolescent young w omen. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 25(4): 238 240. Mulligan, M. (2001) Re enchanting conservation work: Reflections on the Australian experience. Environmental Values 1 0(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. & Baz e rman, M.H. (1985) The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and o utcomes. Th e Academy of Management Journal 28 (1): 34 49. Norton, B. G. (2012). The ways of wickedness: Analyzing messiness with messy tools. Journal of Ag ricultural & 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 Counci ls. [www document]. URL http://oregonwatersheds.org/councils Retrieved March 17, 2013. OACD (2013) Oregon Association of Conservation Districts: Partners Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. [www docume nt]. 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 s yst ems. 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 B iosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society 12 (1): 17. O'Neill Hewlett, P. & Bleich, M.R. (2009) The policy and politics of nursing e ducation. Journal of Professional Nursing 25(6): 315 316. Oregon Plan (2007) Oregon Plan for Salmon and Wa tersheds: 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 Diver sity 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.
1 40 OWEB (2008 a) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board: About Us. [www document]. URL http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/about_us.shtml Retrieved October 25, 2009. OWEB (2008 b ) Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board : Specia l 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 Toolb ox [www document]. URL. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/mgmt_instream_tools.aspx Retrieved November 17, 2013. Pahl Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewu lf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D. & Tailli eu, 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 s cience. Ecology and So ciety 13(1): 4. Pahl Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeff rey, 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 col laboration and l earning. 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. (1 994) Conflict frames of reference i mplication s for dispute processes and o utcomes. Academy of Management Journal 37 (1): 193 205. Plummer R. & Armitage, D. (2007a). A resilience based framework for evaluating adaptive co management: Linking ecology, eco nomics 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 4 11. Quinlan, M. (2005). Considerations for collecting freelists in the field: Examples from e thobotany. 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 spo tted owl controversy. Environmental Management 20(5): 667 674. 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 Rui tenbeek, 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): 98 9 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 p articipation. American Sociological Review 51 (4): 464 481. Taber, L.S. (1995) ERIC review: Collaboration as a vehicle for community college facilities development. Comm unity 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. Tv ersky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981 ) The framing of decisions and the psychology of c hoice. 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 sca le management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71(6): 2060 2068. Warner, J.F. (2006) More sustainable participation? Multi stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment m anagement. 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 functio ning. 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., Chil ds, S., Cawthra, L. & Madge, B. (2004) How to create successful partnerships a review of the literature. Health Information and Librari es J ournal 21( Suppl 1 ): 3 19. A strategic funding partnership to restore a large river system. The Foundation Review 5(1): 89 104. Wilhere, G.F. (2002) Adaptive Mana gement 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., Dutto n, I., Foreman, P., Kearney, F. & Watson, I. (2009) Partner or Perish or Perish Through Partnering? A workshop r eport (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 Pres s. 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 R etrieved 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, e ds. 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. E cological Applications 6(3): 724 727. Yin R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and M ethods Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. Young, J.A. & Newton, J.M. (1981) Capitalism and Human O bso lescence: Corporate Control Versus Indivi dual Survival in R ural 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 Inter national 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 she did an internship in Ecuador and traveled extensively throughout the U.S., Europe, Latin America, a nd 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 Direc tor 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 Mas ter 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 edu cator and researcher, helping to identify and teach others ways to reconcile conservation and development goals in search of a more sustainable future.
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E4KTFIMDD_G2TRRV INGEST_TIME 2014-10-03T22:03:22Z PACKAGE UFE0046281_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC