School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Kirk Hall, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5C8, Canada.
Environ Manage. 2021 Feb;67(2):228-241. doi: 10.1007/s00267-020-01402-5. Epub 2021 Jan 4.
In evaluating effectiveness for collaborative environmental governance arrangements, a key concern is describing not just the processes and actors that are a part of these systems, but also the impacts that these processes have on ecological and social conditions. Existing research delineates an emphasis on process variables over outcome variables, as well as the difficulties of demonstrating causal relationships between collaborative governance processes and ecological outcomes. In this paper, we examined how process and outcome criteria are used by sponsors, industry practitioners, and participants of collaborative environmental governance (CEG) arrangements in Canada's forest sector to ascertain effectiveness. We explicitly sought evidence from sponsors and industry practitioners of self-described effective forest advisory committees, anticipating that sponsors or practitioners might place greater emphasis than participants on outcome criteria over process criteria. We analyzed data from a nation-wide survey of forest advisory committee participants, conducted interviews with sponsoring agencies, and completed two in-depth case studies. We found that sponsors and industry practitioners, like participants, perceived a strong relationship between process and effectiveness. The perspectives of all participants helped us articulate ten key process criteria that they determined as essential for CEG. By including the insights of sponsoring agencies, our study provides both on-the-ground and management interpretations of process and outcomes as well as a nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between the two. However, we conclude that systematic evaluation approaches involving outcome-based criteria are still necessary and would provide a clear step towards encouraging accountability in CEG decision-making, both for sponsors and members.
在评估合作环境治理安排的有效性时，一个关键问题是不仅要描述这些系统中所涉及的过程和参与者，还要描述这些过程对生态和社会条件的影响。现有研究强调了过程变量而不是结果变量，以及难以证明合作治理过程与生态结果之间存在因果关系。在本文中，我们研究了加拿大森林部门合作环境治理（CEG）安排的赞助商、行业从业者和参与者如何使用过程和结果标准来确定有效性。我们明确寻求了赞助商和行业从业者对自我描述的有效森林咨询委员会的证据，预计赞助商或从业者可能比参与者更强调结果标准而不是过程标准。我们分析了全国范围内森林咨询委员会参与者的调查数据，对赞助机构进行了访谈，并完成了两个深入的案例研究。我们发现，赞助商和行业从业者与参与者一样，认为过程和有效性之间存在很强的关系。所有参与者的观点都帮助我们阐述了他们认为对 CEG 至关重要的十个关键过程标准。通过包括赞助机构的见解，我们的研究提供了对过程和结果的实地和管理解释，以及一种细致入微的方法来理解两者之间的关系。然而，我们得出的结论是，涉及基于结果的标准的系统评估方法仍然是必要的，并且将为鼓励 CEG 决策中的问责制提供明确的步骤，无论是对赞助商还是成员。
