Tomas M. Koontz

With the growth of collaborative governance and multistakeholder forums, tensions arise between expert‐driven decision making and inclusivity of decision processes. Scientific experts can bring vital information to inform decisions, but scientific jargon, assumptions, methodologies, and underlying concepts may disempower participation from stakeholders who bring different knowledge, such as expertise in Indigenous (including traditional ecological) knowledge and experiential knowledge. Participants in collaborative organizations thus navigate and use diverse kinds of knowledge. Unfortunately, little is known about how collaborative partnership participants value and integrate science in relation to other knowledge sources. This study examines collaborative ecosystem restoration in the Puget Sound basin, USA. Our analysis compares the use of scientific knowledge to other forms of knowledge by actors across different collaborative organizations. Survey results indicate natural science is seen by participants in collaborative partnerships as the most important type of information, followed by Indigenous (including traditional ecological) knowledge, and then several kinds of experiential knowledge. Ranking lower are two kinds of science, social‐ecological systems science and social science. While these multiple ways of knowing are all seen as important, respondents overwhelmingly expressed the view that science should be privileged over other kinds of knowledge. Respondents reported low frequency of barriers to accessing scientific and other information, which center mainly on lack of time to find it. Respondents perceive factors that promote knowledge integration through deliberation are largely present. Overall, this study highlights the challenges of integrating scientific with other kinds of knowledge in collaborative processes for ecosystem restoration.

Collaborative partnerships around the world address environmental challenges from a local perspective. At the same time, many of these efforts are based on scientific information. Local and scientific information are not always compatible, and numerous challenges arise at the science-policy interface in collaboration. This study identifies key factors affecting the science-policy interface, including credibility, salience, legitimacy, and communication, as well as two-way interactions and compatibility with local knowledge that are important in collaborative governance. The importance of these factors is illustrated in a case of collaborative watershed management in the Canterbury Region of Aotearoa New Zealand. The case tells the story of local community members’ contestation of science used by the government to determine the health risks of recreational swimming and the role of collaboration in bridging experiential and scientific knowledge. Evidence from meeting observations, documents, and interviews indicates points of contention and how the collaborative forum successfully served as a boundary spanner to navigate the science-policy interface.

Collaborative environmental management draws on a wide range of information, from a variety of stakeholders, to inform policy. Scientific information is particularly relevant for ecosystem restoration plans, such as those created for recovering species on the brink of extinction. This study examines use of evidence in salmon recovery plans in Puget Sound, USA. Across 12 plans, coders characterized 1104 references to identify their source, recency, domain, and context. Subsequently, 11 plans were analyzed in-depth to identify how each reference was used to support particular kinds of claims. Results indicate the most frequent source of information cited in salmon recovery plans is government agencies, especially from national and state governments, followed by peer reviewed journal articles and scientific books. Journal articles come predominantly from high impact (top quartile) journals, although these articles are on average 15 years old. Sources are almost exclusively from the domain of natural sciences (97%), with just 1% social sciences and 2% non-scientific. More references come from beyond than within the local watershed. Different reference sources are used to support different kinds of claims, with government agency sources positively associated with claims about species status/trends, and peer reviewed journal articles positively associated with claims about causes of species decline. Overall, the lack of social science references, and lack of references to support claims about levels of community support, reduce managers’ abilities to incorporate features of social systems into species recovery planning.

Institutions are critical for collective action around several environmental policy issues. A seldom-studied issue, agricultural drainage, provides a rich setting to examine how institutional mechanisms interact with two variables linked to collective action: group size and heterogeneity. In this study, we examine institutions for establishing and maintaining agricultural drainage systems in the Western Lake Erie Basin region of Ohio. Specifically, we examine whether and how drainage management institutions interact with two variables, group size and heterogeneity in benefits and costs, for solving the public-good dilemmas of agricultural drainage. Data for this study come from a comparative case study design, using semi-structured in-depth interviews, and a landowner survey. Results suggest that the Olson effect for group size is mediated by institution type, and heterogeneity in benefits and costs is mediated by fairness perceptions, in affecting incentives for collective action. We discuss our findings in light of theories of collective action.

Ostrom’s design principles are considered to characterize robust institutions for managing common-pool resources. However, the design principles can conceal and perpetuate power asymmetries to limit socially just outcomes, even while improving environmental outcomes. This study integrates theories on power with Ostrom’s design principles to examine power dynamics in watershed management groups in India and the United States through case study methods. Results reveal that power does not always manifest itself in an environment of injustice, but processes of domination and empowerment occur concurrently. Negative aspects of power are not manifested through overt conflict, but through non-participation, inaction, and silence of non-dominant actors. This is not to say that non-dominant actors are devoid of agency, as they may respond to domination through solidarities and building capabilities. Paying attention to these interdependencies can shed light on the potential for collective action for achieving not only environmentally sustainable but also socially just outcomes.

Kochskämper, E., T. M. Koontz, and J. Newig. 2021. Systematic learning in water governance: insights from five local adaptive management projects for water quality innovation. Ecology and Society 26(1):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12080-260122