What factors explain stakeholder benefit–cost expectations for participating in a collaborative institution? This article examines this question by applying a version of the collective interest model. The case study includes original data from a mail-in questionnaire and in-person interviews of stakeholders' expectations before the start of a collaborative process to establish marine-protected areas in California. The results provide little support for the traditional variables in the collective interest model with null results for group and personal efficacy. Selective incentives, especially putting in your own time versus company time, are important in explaining stakeholders' benefit–cost expectations. The results show that ally efficacy is an important factor, suggesting that perceptions of allies compared to opponents shape initial expectations for a collaborative process. This article adds to the research on political participation in environmental management by presenting a rare exploration of ex ante beliefs before the start of a collaborative planning institution.
Beierle, T.C. , & Crawford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future .
2.
Bingham, G. (1986). Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation .
3.
Byron, I. , & Curtis, A. (2002). Maintaining volunteer commitment to local watershed initiatives. EnvironmentalManagement, 30(1), 59-67 .
4.
Coglianese, C. (2003). Is satisfaction success? Evaluating public participation in regulatory policy making. In R. O'Leary & L. Bingham (Eds.), Evaluating environmental and public policy conflict resolution programs and policies (pp. 69-86). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future .
5.
Cohen, J. , & Cohen, C. (1983). Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
6.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row .
7.
Finkel, S.E. , & Muller, E.N. (1998). Rational choice and the dynamics of collective political action: Evaluating alternative models with panel data . American Political Science Review, 92(1), 37-49 .
8.
Finkel, S.E. , Muller, E.N. , & Opp, K.D. (1989). Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action . American Political Science Review, 83(3), 885-903 .
9.
Focht, W. , & Trachtenberg, Z. (2005). A trust-based guide to stakeholder participation. In P. Sabatier , W. Focht , M. Lubell , Z. Trachtenberg , A. Vedlitz , & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 53-82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
10.
Harmon-Jones, E. , & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
11.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment . In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC : American Enterprise Institute .
12.
Howlett, M. (2002). Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: Evidence from four Canadian policy Sectors 1990-2000 . Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 235-267 .
13.
Knoke, D. , Pappi, F.U. , Broadbent, J. , & Tsujinaka, Y. (1996). Comparing policy networks: Labor politics in the US, Germany, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press .
14.
Koontz, T. (2005, September 1-4). Why participate? The collective interest model and citizen participation in watershed groups . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
15.
Koontz, T. , Steelman, T.A. , Carmin, J. , Smith Korfmacher, K. , Moseley, C. , & Thomas, C.W. (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future .
16.
Langbein, L. (2002). Responsive bureaus, equity, and regulatory negotiation: An empirical view . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 21(3), 449-465 .
17.
Leach, W.D. , & Pelkey, N.W. (2001). Making watershed partnerships work: A review of the empirical literature . Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(6), 378-385 .
18.
Leach, W.D. , Pelkey, N.W. , & Sabatier, P.A. (2002). Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 645-670 .
19.
Leach, W.D. , & Sabatier, P.A. (2005). To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking . American Political Science Review, 99(4), 491-503 .
20.
Leet, W. S. , Dewees, C. M. , Klingeil, R. , & Larson, E. J. (Eds.). (2001). California's living marine resources: A status report. Davis: University of California, California Sea Grant Program .
21.
Long, J.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
22.
Lubell, M. (2002). Environmental activism as collective action . Environment and Behavior, 34, 431-454 .
23.
Lubell, M. , Schneider, M. , Scholz, J.T. , & Mete, M. (2002). Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions . American Journal of Political Science , 46(1), 148-163 .
24.
National Research Council. (2000). Marine protected areas: Tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press .
25.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. New York: Schocken Books .
26.
Pfeffer, J. , & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row .
27.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster .
28.
Sabatier, P. A. , Focht, W. , Lubell, M. , Trachtenberg, Z. , Vedlitz, A. , & Matlock, M. (Eds.). (2005). Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
29.
Sabatier, P.A. , & Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-168). Boulder, CO: Westview .
30.
Samuelson, C.D. , Vedlitz, A. , Whitten, G. , Matlock, M. , Alston, L. , Peterson, T.R. , et al. (2005). Citizen participation and representation in collaborative engagement processes. In P. Sabatier , W. Focht , M. Lubell , Z. Trachtenberg , A. Vedlitz , & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 137-170). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
31.
Stephan, M. (2005). Democracy in our backyards: A study of community involvement in administrative decision making . Environment and Behavior, 37, 662-682 .
32.
Thatcher, M. (1998). The development of policy network analyses: From modest origins to overarching frameworks . Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 389-416 .
33.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. (2004). An ocean blueprint for the 21st century (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .
34.
Weible, C.M. , Sabatier, P.A. , & Lubell, M. (2004). A comparison of a collaborative and top-down approach to the use of science in policy: Establishing marine protected areas in California . Policy Studies Journal, 32(2), 187-208 .
35.
Woolley, J.T. , & McGinnis, M.V. (1999). The politics of watershed policymaking . Policy Studies Journal, 27(3), 578-594 .
36.
Yaffee, S.L. , Philips, A.F. , Frentz, I.C. , Hardy, P.W. , Maleki, S.M. , & Thorpe, B.E. (1996). Ecosystem management in the United States: An assessment of current experience. Washington, DC: Island Press .
37.
Zafonte, M. , & Sabatier, P.A. (1998). Shared beliefs and imposed interdependencies as determinants of ally networks in overlapping subsystems . Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 473-505 .
