Collaborative decision making and management frequently encompass a diverse range of scenarios. The author explores a specific mechanism of collaboration: the inclusion of competing sectional interests in an ad hoc organization with consensus governance rules to influence an ongoing planning process. Drawing from an empirical study of the Everglades Restudy process (1992–2000), the author analyzes how and why the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida offered planners and US Congress the sociopolitically acceptable conceptual framing for a multipurpose water management plan. Inclusion of legitimate representatives from powerful sectional interests, consensus governance rules, and time for building social capital were qualities that positioned the organization to assume an influential role in the governance regime of the planning process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmourA, 1995, “The citizens' jury model of public participation: a critical evaluation”, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation Eds RennOWeblerTWiedemannP (Kluwer, Boston, MA) pp 175–188
2.
BakkerK, 2002, “From state to market?: water mercantilización in Spain”Environment and Planning A34767–790
3.
BirnerRWittmerH, 2003, “Using social capital to create political capital: how do local communities gain political influence? A theoretical approach and empirical evidence from Thailand”, in The Commons in the New Millennium: Challenges and Adaptions Eds DolsakNOstromE (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 291–334
4.
BloomfieldDCollinsKFryCMuntonR, 2001, “Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19501–513
5.
BulkeleyH, 2005, “Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks”Political Geography24875–902
6.
Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, 1948, PL.80-858
7.
ChilesL, 1994Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida Executive Order 94–54, 3 March, 1–8
8.
ClarkeADalrympleG, 2003, “$7.8 billion for Everglades restoration: why do environmentalists look so worried?”Population and Environment24541–569
9.
COE, 1999Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review StudyJacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL
10.
ConleyAMooteM A, 2003, “Evaluating collaborative natural resource management”Society and Natural Resources16371–386
11.
CoxK, 1998, “Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics”Political Geography171–23
12.
DavisSOgdenJ, 1994, “Toward ecosystem restoration”, in Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration Eds DavisSOgdenJ (St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL) pp 769–796
13.
DenglerM, 2007, “Spaces of power for action: actors and institutions in the Everglades Restudy (1992–2000)”Political Geography26423–454
14.
De VillersM, 2000Water: The Fate of Our Most Precious Resource (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA)
15.
DolsakNOstromE, 2003The Commons in the New Millennium: Challenges and Adaptation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
16.
Federal Departments, 1993Interagency Agreement on South Florida Ecosystem Restoration 23 September
17.
GCSSF, Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, Coral Gables, FL
18.
GCSSF, Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, 1995Initial Report 1 October
19.
GCSSF, Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, 1996A Conceptual Plan for the C&SF Project Restudy 28 August
20.
GCSSF, Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, 1998An Interim Report on the C&SF Project Restudy 11 August
21.
GCSSF, Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, 1999Restudy Plan Report 20 January
22.
GrunwaldM, 2002, “A rescue plan, bold and uncertain: scientists, federal officials question project's benefits for ailing ecosystem”The Washington Post 23 June, page A1
23.
HabermasJ, 1984The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society (Polity Press, Cambridge)
HollanderG, 2005, “The material and symbolic role of the Everglades in US national politics”Political Geography24449–475
26.
LeachW DPelkeyN WSabatierP A, 2002, “Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management21(4) 645–670
27.
LightSDineenJ W, 1994, “Water control in the Everglades: a historical perspective”, in Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration Eds DavisSOgdenJ (St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL) pp 47–84
28.
LitfinK T, 1994Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation (Columbia University Press, New York)
29.
LynnF MBusenbergG J, 1995, “Citizen Advisory Committees and environmental policy: what we know, what's left to discover”Risk Analysis15(2) 147–162
30.
McCallyD, 1999The Everglades: An Environmental History (University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL)
31.
McGinnisM VWoolleyJGammanJ, 1999, “Bioregional conflict resolution: rebuilding community in watershed planning and organization”Environmental Management24(1) 1–12
32.
MichaelsS, 2001, “Making collaborative watershed management work: the confluence of state and regional initiatives”Environmental Management27(1) 27–35
33.
National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, PL.91–190
34.
OstromE, 1990Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
35.
OstromE, 1999, “Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework”, in Theories of the Policy Process Ed. SabatierP (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 35–72
36.
PettigrewR, 1995, cover letter, GCSSF Initial Report, 1 October, Governor's Commission for a Sustainable Florida, Coral Gables, FL
37.
PonceletE C, 2001, “A kiss here and a kiss there': conflict and collaboration in environmental partnerships”Environmental Management27(1) 13–25
38.
RennOWeblerTRakelHDienelPJohnsonB, 1993, “Public participation in decision making: a three-step procedure”Policy Sciences26189–214
39.
StokerG, 1998, “Governance as theory: five propositions”International Social Science Journal50(1) 17–28
40.
SwyngedouwE, 1997, “Power, nature and the city. The conquest of water and the political ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador: 1880–990”Environment and Planning A29311–322
41.
The Economist2005, “The Everglades: water, bird and man”, 8 October, pages 29–33
42.
ToddK, 2003, “Who gets the water?”Sierra January/February, pages 10–11
43.
VileisisA, 1997Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of America's Wetlands (Island Press, Washington, DC)
44.
Water Resources Development Act of 1992, PL. 102–580, Sections 101(8), 309(1)
45.
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, PL. 104–303, Section 528
46.
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, PL. 106–541, Section 601
