Collaborative environmental governance: Are watershed partnerships swimming or are they sinking?
Collaborative environmental governance: Are watershed partnerships swimming or are they sinking?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.016
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
D. Benson;A. Jordan;H. Cook;Laurence Smith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Benson;A. Jordan;H. Cook;Laurence Smith
几次尝试已经解释了流域合作伙伴关系的形成，即多行为者群体共同努力，以解决流域规模的环境问题。但是，这些解释在多大程度上从它们的发源地--即美国--“传播”到了其他司法管辖区，在那里，类似的关于协作环境治理兴起的主张正在被提出？为此，本文批判性地评估如何以及一个领先的理论，即政治契约框架（PCF），解释他们的出现，而不同的制度背景下，英国。借鉴合作流域做法的调查，它认为，它们在功能上相当于伙伴关系。此外，经过适当修改，PCF解释了它们出现的许多重要方面。同样的关键因素也与伙伴关系的发展有关，但现在应在伙伴关系的整个“生命周期”中对这些因素进行评估。这些研究结果的影响进行了确定和探讨，其根本目的是通知一个更比较的理论方法来理解什么似乎是重要的变化，在合作环境治理的做法。
Several attempts have been made to explain the formation of collaborative watershed partnerships—that is, multi-actor groups which work together to resolve environmental problems at a watershed scale. But to what extent do these explanations ‘travel’ from their original home – namely the USA – to other jurisdictions, where similar claims are being made about the rise of collaborative environmental governance? To that end, this article critically evaluates how well one leading theory, namely the political contracting framework (PCF), explains their emergence in the rather different institutional context of the United Kingdom. Drawing on a survey of collaborative watershed practices, it argues that they are functionally equivalent to partnerships. Furthermore, when suitably amended, the PCF explains many important aspects of their emergence. The same critical factors are associated with their development, but these should now be assessed across the entire ‘life-cycle’ of partnerships. The implications of these findings are identified and explored, the underlying aim being to inform a much more comparative theoretical approach to understanding what appear to be important changes in collaborative environmental governance practices.