The Use of Science in Collaborative Management of Marine Environments

References

• Amy, D. J. 1987. The politics of environmental mediation. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, S. 1982. The struggle for Georges Bank. In Georges Bank: Past, present, and future of a marine environment, ed. G. C. McLeod and J. H. Prescott, 163–177. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beem, B. 2006. Planning to learn: Blue crab policymaking in the Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management 34:167–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beierle, T. C., and J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, T., and J. Young. 1997. Fishing, farming and ecotourism: The eastern shore of Virginia. In The ecology of hope: Communities collaborate for sustainability, 72–91. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, B., S. Iudicello, and C. Stringer. 2004. Lessons learned from recent marine protected area designations in the United States. Ojai, CA: The National Fisheries Conservation Center.
   Google Scholar
• Bierbaum, R. 2002. The role of science in federal policy development on a regional to global scale: Personal commentary. Estuaries 2:878–885.
   Google Scholar
• Brody, S. D. 1998. An evaluation of the establishment processes for marine protected areas in the gulf of Maine: Understanding the role of community involvement and public participation. Gulf of Maine Marine Protected Areas Project. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Buckles, D. 1999. Cultivating peace: Conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. Washington, DC: International Development Research Center, World Bank Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Burroughs, R. 1999. When stakeholders choose: Process, knowledge, and motivation in water quality decisions. Society and Natural Resources 12:797–809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busenberg, G. J. 2007. Citizen participation and collaborative environmental management in the marine oil trade of coastal Alaska. Coastal Management 35:239–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahoon, L., and C. Dumas 2011. Preface to “Making the connection: Translating science into effective coastal policy.” Coastal Management 39:223–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capitini, C. A., B. N. Tissot, M. S. Carroll, M. J. Walsh, and S. Peck. 2004. Competing perspectives in resource protection: The case of marine protected areas in west Hawai‘i. Society and Natural Resources 17:763–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, C. 1999. Convening. In The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, ed. L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer, 169–197. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, W. C., and G. Majone. 1985. The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications. Science, Technology and Human Values 10:6–19.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, W., R. Mitchell, D. Cash, and F. Alcock. 2002. Information as influence: How institutions mediate the impact of scientific assessments on global environmental affairs. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Faculty Research Working Papers. http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=357521.
   Google Scholar
• Coughlin, C., M. Hoben, D. Manskopf, S. Quesada, and J. Wondolleck. 1999. A systematic assessment of collaborative resource management partnerships. Master's thesis. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt//pubs/crmp.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, S. E., and G. B. Walker 2001. Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz, T., and P. C. Stern. 2008. Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• ECOPAG. 2010. Environmental consequences of participatory governance: A comparative meta-analysis of case studies in environmental decision making. http://www.edge-project.eu/ecopag/home/.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration and Theory 22:1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, K. E., and Klinger, T. K. 2008. Obstacles to bottom-up implementation of marine ecosystem based management. Conservation Biology 22:1135–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finder, E. W. 1995. Special-area management planning in New Jersey's Hackensack Meadowlands: An emerging model for cooperative state-federal planning. In Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife: Issues and examples, D. R. Porter and D. A. Salvesen, 139–156. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Finney, C., and R. E. Polk. 1995. Developing stakeholder understanding, technical capacity and responsibility: The New Bedford Harbor superfund forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15:517–541.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, B. 2005. Trading zones: Cooperating for water resource and ecosystem management when stakeholders have apparently irreconcilable differences. Dissertation. Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason, M., S. McCreary, M. Miller-Henson, J. Ugoretz, E. Fox, M Merrifield, W. McClintock, P. Serpa, and K. Hoffman. 2010. Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from North Central California. Ocean and Coastal Management 53:52–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gusman, S., and V. Huser 1984. Mediation in the estuary. Coastal Zone Management Journal 11:273–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall-Arber, M. 2005. Co-management at the eleventh hour? Participation in the governance of the New England groundfish fishery. In Participation in fisheries governance, ed. T. S. Gray, 141–162. The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, S. S. 1995. User participation and fishery management performance within the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Ocean and Coastal Management 28:23–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, J. F. 1993. Statistics: A tool for social research. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Heikkila, T., and A. K. Gerlak 2005. The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. Policy Studies Journal 33:583–612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessy, T., and M. T. Imperial. 2000. Rhode Island's salt ponds: Using a special area management plan to improve watershed governance. In Environmental governance in watersheds: The importance of collaboration to institutional performance, 1–50. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Hollander, M., and D. A. Wolfe. 1999. Nonparametric statistical methods. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Imperial, M. T. 2000. The Delaware Inland Bays Estuary Program: Using a nonprofit organization to implement a CCMP. In Environmental governance in watersheds: The importance of collaboration to institutional performance, 1–87. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Imperial, M. T. 2001. Collaboration as an implementation strategy: An assessment of six watershed management programs. Dissertation. School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Indiana University. Bloomington, IN.
   Google Scholar
• Imperial, M. T, S. McGee, and T. Hennessey. 2000. The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program: Using a state water quality agency to implement a CCMP. In Environmental governance in watersheds: The importance of collaboration to institutional performance, 1–89. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Imperial, M. T., and K. Summers. 2000. The Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program: Using a performance partnership to implement a CCMP. In Environmental governance in watersheds: The importance of collaboration to institutional performance, 1–70. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., and S. Connick. 1999. San Francisco Estuary Project. In The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, ed. L. Susskind, S. McKearnan and J. Thomas-Larmer, 801–827. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 1996. The dilemma of environmental democracy. Issues in Science and Technology 13(1):63–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, S. A., B. Fischoff, and D. Lach. 1999. Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research. Climatic Change 43:581–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, A. 2009. Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22:610–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koontz, T., T. A. Steelmang, J.Carmin, K. S. Korfmacher, C. Moseley and C. Thomas. 2004. Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koontz, T., and C. Thomas. 2011. Research designs for evaluating the impact of community-based management on natural resource conservation. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 3:97–111.
   Google Scholar
• Landry, R. N., Amara, and M. Lamari. 2001. Climbing the ladder of research utilization: Evidence from social science research. Science Communication 22:396–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauber, T. B., R. C. Stedman, D. J. Decker, and B. A. Knuth. 2011. Linking knowledge to action in collaborative conservation. Conservation Biology 25:1186–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leschine, T. M. 1990. Setting the agenda for estuarine water quality management Lessons from Puget Sound. Ocean and Shoreline Management 13:295–313.
   Google Scholar
• Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the new environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279:491–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margerum, R. D. 2008. A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management 41:487–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: Analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10:17–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, E., R. Fischman, and A. Marsh. 1995. Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program: Wetlands protection and future growth. In Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife: Issues and examples, ed. D. R. Porter and D. A. Salvesen, 181–201. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Ocean Council. 2013a. National ocean policy implementation plan. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Ocean Council. 2013b. Marine planning handbook. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/final_marine_planning_handbook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand. 2003. Illuminated or blinded by science? A discussion paper on the role of science in environmental policy and decision-making. Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Newig, J., and O. Fritsch. 2009a. The case survey method and applications in political science. Proceedings of ASPA 2009 Meeting, 3–6 September, Toronto, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Newig, J., and O. Fritsch. 2009b. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance 19:197–214.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ray, G. C., and J. McCormick-Ray. 2004. Coastal-marine conservation: Science and policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, C. J., R. Eberhard, T. Wallington, and M. B. Lane. 2010. Using knowledge to make collaborative policy-level decisions in Australia's Great Barrier Reef. CSIRO Technical Report, Brisbane, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 30:251–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea Abrams, K., H. Gladwin, M. J. Matthews, and B. C. McCabe. 1995. The East Everglades Planning Study. In Collaborative planning for wetlands and wildlife: Issues and examples, ed. D. R. Porter and D. A. Salvesen, 225–256. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M. 2007. Stakeholder perceptions of scientists: Lake Tahoe environmental policy from 1984 to 2001. Environmental Management 40:853–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M. 2008. Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal 36:615–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar