Leach, William D. and Pelkey, Neil W. Making Watershed Partnerships Work: A Review Of The Empirical Literature. Journal Of Water Resources Planning And Management / November/December 2001 378-385
This article reviewed 37 empirical literature studies on watershed partnerships between 1990-1999 within the developed English-speaking Nations of Australia, US and Canada. These studies identified 210 "lessons learned" which were grouped for review into 28 thematic categories that were then divided in 4 main factors for analysis which included: 1—resources and scope (eigenvalue 3.5; 24%) 2—Flexibility and Informality (eigenvalue 3.1; 21%) 3—ADR theory variables (eigenvalue 4.9; 33%) 4—IAD theory variables (eigenvalue 2.5; 17%).
The two main goals were first to assess the partnership policies used and second to make recommendation for new partnerships. As many know in this field, the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA: 42 USC §4321 et. seq 1969) initiated the requirement for Environmental Impact Assessments for all major federal actions. This included a minimal level of public input. As other research has shown the engaged citizens improve the community support of major water works projects (Borton, Warner, Wenrich, Havlick, & Frost 1970). In this case the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) first sponsored a “groundbreaking” study to explore public involvement in New York’s Susquehanna River watershed in 1969. Similarly, this current article pointed out that watershed partnerships have been more and more common in the last decade.
28 thematic categories
The article defined Watershed Partnerships as "assemblies of stakeholders who periodically convene to discuss or negotiate the management of streams, rivers, or watersheds (Sommarstrom in Born and Genskow 1999)" (Leach and Pelkey 2001). Such meetings can be highly formal or informal providing only general guidance and direction to the more formal legislative bodies. Partnerships have been shown to engage stakeholders in active communication and build consensus to avoid costly delays and litigation (Manring 1998).
The article continues with listing several other major studies which determined other key facts regarding partnerships. Leach and Pelkey (2001) references included:
- watershed partnerships distribution and function (University of Colorado 1996; Kenney 1999)
- social and environmental factors that promote new partnership formation (Leach and Pelkey 2001a)
- threats and opportunities that partnerships create for representative democracy (Kenney 2000)
- watershed groups involving a shared common vision from the start (Cook 2000)
- partnerships as an egalitarian alternative to agency-dominated management (Griffin 1999; Kenney 1999).
- watershed partnerships as combinations of theory and evidence (Born and Sonzogni 1995; Margerum and Born 1995; Toupal and Johnson 1998; Bellamy et al. 1999; and Griffin 1999)
For Leach and Pelkey current analysis the criteria for selection of studies to review included:
- Empirical studies
- Analytical studies with factors for success, including data.
- Only in Australia, Canada, or the United States.
- only long-term "Partnerships" with the planning and/or implementation of projects.
- ‘‘Watershed’’ is defined liberally to include natural issues at the scale of watersheds or ecosystems.
Another, key element discussed in the article was that all the selected studies included measures of the partnership success based on written stakeholder perceptions, surveys or other actual partnership activity documentation. However, none of the studies included an analysis of any possible socioeconomic or ecological watershed impacts.
However, Leach and Pelkey analysis of the existing research was substantial. I have summaries the top ten identified "lessons learned" for
"watershed partnership success" include:
| 1 | Adequate funding | 62.2% |
| 2 | Effective leadership | 59.5% |
| 3 | Limited scope | 43.2% |
| 4 | Inclusive diverse participation | 43.2% |
| 5 | Creative, cooperative & committed participants | 43.2% |
| 6 | Good interpersonal skills & mutual trust | 43.2% |
| 7 | Begin with completing low conflict tasks | 37.8% |
| 8 | Active professional staff participation | 35.1% |
| 9 | Well-defined decision rules or process rules | 32.4% |
| 10 | Emphasized scientific information or understanding importance | 29.7% |
These lessons learned provide one dimension of how to create watershed partnership successes (see 10-20 below). However, to get a better understanding of how these different issues affect each other, and how certain factors compliment each other, the authors completed a factor analysis.
4 main factors for analysis
To begin this review the "factor analysis" procedures used include:
Factor analysis is a commonly used "exploratory technique" (Harman 1976). The analysis was carried out using "Sorensen’s similarity index" (Greig-Smith 1983). "MVSP software" calculated Sorensen’s index. "NCSS software" performed the factor analysis with principal axis extraction and varimax rotation. [[[direct quotes to look up and link]]]
The factors are defined:
Factor 1 - Resources and Scope - This first factor accounted for 24% of the variance. This included resources such as time, legislative support, agency support, funding and complimentary other resources. Gordon and Jones (1998); Born and Genskow (1999) claim hydrologic watersheds are best because corresponding to the "problem shed" which is contrary to Thomas (1999) who claimed large watershed resulted in too many issues and distance barriers to stakeholders.
Factor 2 - Flexibility and Informality - This factor accounted for 21% of the variance, including issues of operation rules, authority, federal, state and local balancing as well as other governance and decision making processes. Studies indicated that strength lies in the partnerships ability to provide a "flexible, informal, and relatively egalitarian alternative to traditional forms of resource management"
Factor 3 - Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - This factor resulted in 33% variance, which included the levels of effective communication, well-defined rules, consensus building, open membership with clear membership rules, high levels of trust, manageable goals and effective leadership.
Factor 4 - This factor had a 17% variance using the IAD framework of a "rational factor model" with well-defined rules and transparent stakeholder rights and responsibilities.
These factors do represent how some studies specifically used the ADR and IAD methods, but over all the final conclusions for successful partnerships seemed a bit elementary. First they determined that funding and management were critical to success. This included that a skilled facilitator was a first step for successful partnerships, and this improved with a facilitator who was neutral to the process, followed clearly defined rules with free sharing of information. Next in importance was the creative adn cooperative stakeholders ready to compromise and find consensus instead of simply fight for the party-line. This lead to a recommendation that future research explore removing "intransigent members without creating new problems."
Reerences
Born, S. M., and Genskow, K. D. (1999). ‘‘Exploring the watershed approach: Critical dimensions of state-local partnerships.’’ The Four Corners Watershed Innovators Initiative Final Rep., River Network, Portland, OR
Borton, T. E., Warner, K. P., Wenrich, J. W., Havlick, S. W., & Frost, J. (1970). The Susquehanna Communication-Participation Study: Selected Approaches to Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning. Alexandria, Virginia: U. S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources.
Manring, N. (1998). ‘‘Collaborative resource management: Organizational benefits and individual costs.’’ Admin. & Soc., 30(3), 274–290.
