Developing reliable and valid measures for evaluating collaborative governance and adaptability: An example from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.

In recent decades, there has been an increased emphasis on, and application of, collaborative and adaptive forms of environmental governance as a means to address complex social-ecological problems that cannot be achieved alone and support sustainable resource management. However, the majority of research in the collaborative governance and adaptability arena has relied on individual or small-n case studies. This has led to a multitude of definitions, indicators, and indices, which limits our ability to make inferences across cases and contexts. Relatedly, most research lacks formal tests of assumptions related to the dimensional structure and validity of constructs thought to represent collaborative dynamics and adaptability. There is a need for systematic and cross-case assessments situated within robust statistical frameworks to further our understanding of the forces and factors that cultivate collaborative governance and adaptability. We developed and administered a standardized survey assessment, grounded in the theory and practice of collaborative governance and adaptability, to fifteen collaborative projects funded under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) in the United States. We then used confirmatory factor analysis to test the dimensional structure, reliability, and validity of our theoretically and empirically grounded measures. Results indicate the components of collaborative governance and adaptability comprise six dimensions - principled engagement, shared motivation, leadership, resources, knowledge and learning, and institutional arrangements. As expected, several dimensions were significantly related, and the pattern of inter-factor relationships aligned with theoretical and empirical assumptions. We also found that the six dimensions represent statistically reliable, valid, and distinct measures that may be used to evaluate collaborative governance and adaptability. While our focus was on the CFLRP, the assessment can be adapted in other collaborative environmental governance contexts and used as a foundation for addressing key research gaps, including relating collaborative environmental governance processes to social-ecological outcomes and collaborative adaptation and resilience through time. This is a critical line of work given the increased emphasis and reliance on long-term collaborative arrangements to achieve sustainability goals.

A question of fit: reflections on boundaries, organizations and social-ecological systems.

Although there is acknowledgment that the complexity of social-ecological systems governance demands representation from diverse perspectives, there is little agreement in the literature on how to cross both fiat (human-demarcated) and bona fide (physical) boundaries to address such complexities. As a cohort of interdisciplinary scholars, we navigate the boundary between science and practice to address the question of fit regarding the role of organizations in transcending boundaries. We found there is a need to rectify discrepancies between theories about boundaries and theories about organizations. To this end, we propose a conceptual framework to analyze transboundary organizations, an umbrella term to group the literature on boundary organizations, intermediaries and bridging organizations; we introduce this term to illustrate they are not mutually exclusive and to facilitate interdisciplinary research. We first examine social-ecological systems (SES), a framework intended to improve understandings of boundaries and governance. We then continue to unpack the complexity of boundaries and organizations, specifically through important transboundary concepts such as scale and organizational learning. This helps frame our examination of the literature on: 1) boundary organizations; 2) bridging organizations (third-party entities); and 3) intermediaries (distinguished by their position between other actors). Our review identifies a number of discrepancies that pertain to the types of boundaries discussed and the roles assigned to organizations governing SES. Important characteristics have emerged from our review of transboundary organizations including legitimacy, saliency, urgency, and credibility. In developing a conceptual framework, we argue that transboundary organizations: 1) expand upon the boundary spectrum, 2) incorporate transboundary concepts, and 3) hybridize characteristics of boundary, bridging, and intermediary organizations. We conclude with a number of considerations for transboundary organizations and recommendations for further research.