Periodic evaluation is critical to improved program performance. Equally important to program success are its participants. This study examines the perceptions and values of staff at the National Marine Fisheries Service that work closely with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with regard to how they “define” an efficient Section 7 consultation, as well as their expectations for the outputs and outcomes of the consultation process. A better understanding of consultants' insights regarding their work and the Section 7 process can facilitate better communication and cooperation between agencies by bringing the dynamics between trust and control to the forefront of collaborative environmental management. We investigated components of the Section 7 process according to guidelines stated in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. The consensus among consultation managers who participated in our study resulted in a multifaceted definition of an efficient consultation which accommodates project and conservation/recovery goals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllisonG. T.1969. Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review, 63:689–718.
2.
BakerN.1999. Water, water, everywhere, and at last a drop for salmon? NRDC v. Houston heralds new prospects under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Environmental Law, 29:607–638.
3.
BissixG., ReesJ.2001. Can strategic ecosystem management succeed in multiagency environments?Ecological Applications, 11:570–583.
4.
ClarkT.W., ReadingR. P., ClarkeA. L.1994. Endangered species recovery: Finding the lessons, improving the process. Washington, DC: Island Press.
5.
DillmanD. A.2007. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design methods, 2nd. New York: Wiley.
EpsteinW. M.2006. Response bias in opinion polls and American social welfare. The Social Science Journal, 43:99–110.
8.
EwelK. C.2001. Natural resource management: The need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Ecosystems, 4:716–722.
9.
FengerM., KlokP. J.2001. Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34:157–170.
10.
FerraroP., McIntoshC., OspinaM.2007. The effectiveness of the US Endangered Species Act: An econometric analysis using matching methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54:245–261.
11.
GibsonC. C., KoontzT.1998. When “community” is not enough: Institutions and values in community-based forest management in southern Indiana. Human Ecology, 26:621–647.
12.
GulatiR.1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 30:85–112.
13.
HahnT., OlssonP., FolkeC., JohanssonK.2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology, 34:573–592.
14.
InkpenA. C., CurrallS. C.2004. The co-evolution of trust, control and learning in joint ventures. Organization Science, 15:586–599.
15.
InnesJ. E., BooherD. E.1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65:412–423.
16.
InnesJ. E., GruberJ., NeumanM., ThompsonR.1994. Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building. California Policy Seminar.
17.
JanowiczM., NoorderhavenN. G.2006. Levels of inter-organizational trust: Conceptualization and measurement. BachmannR., ZaheerA.Handbook of trust research, 264–280. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
18.
KoontzT. M., ThomasC. W.2006. What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management?Public Administration Review, 66:111–121.
19.
LaanA., NoorderhavenN., VoordijkH., DewulfG.2010. Building trust in construction partnering projects: An exploratory case study. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17:98–108.
20.
LeachW. D., SabatierP. A.2005. To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. American Political Science Review, 99:491–503.
21.
MandaranoL. A.2008. Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes: Restoring and protecting habitat and the New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27:456–468.
22.
NadasdyP.2003. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic, 58:367–380.
23.
NormanA. T., RussellC. A.2006. The pass-along effect: Investigating word-of-mouth effects on online survey procedures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11; 1085–1103.
24.
Office of the Federal Register & U.S.Government Printing Office. 1999. Federal Register. June10, 1999; 64No. 11131285. Pittsburgh, PA: Superintendent of Documents.
PowellJ.1998Sept.–Oct.Section 7 consultations save critters. Speech presented at Environmental Forum.
27.
RileyS., DeckerD., CarpenterL. H., OrganJ. F., SiemerW. F., MattfeldG. F., ParsonsG.2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30:585–593.
28.
SabatierP. A.1993. Policy change over a decade or more. SabatierP. A., Jenkins-SmithH. C.Policy change and learning, an advocacy coalition approach, 13–39. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
29.
SchwartzM. W.2008. The performance of the Endangered Species Act. The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39:279–299.
30.
SimmonsR. T.1999. Fixing the Endangered Species Act. The Independent Review, 3:511–536.
31.
SpaederJ. J.2005. Co-management in a landscape of resistance: The political ecology of wildlife management in western Alaska. Anthropologica, 47:165–178.
32.
StinchcombeA. L.1968. Constructing social theories. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Tennessee Valley Authority vHill, 437 U.S. 153, 1978.
34.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. National Marine Fisheries Service. Endangered species consultation handbook: Procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Washington, DC, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service.
35.
VaughanR.1994. Endangered Species Act handbook. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes.
36.
WagnerM. W., KreuterU. P, KaiserR. A., WilkinsR. N.2007. Collective action and social capital of wildlife management associations. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71:1729–1738.
