Evaluating conflict in collaborative environmental governance: A study of environmental justice councils

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Review of Policy Research Pub Date : 2024-04-30 DOI:10.1111/ropr.12614
Graham Ambrose, Jangmin Kim, Saba Siddiki
{"title":"Evaluating conflict in collaborative environmental governance: A study of environmental justice councils","authors":"Graham Ambrose, Jangmin Kim, Saba Siddiki","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The formal engagement of diverse stakeholder groups in environmental policy design and implementation is increasingly common. While engaging diverse stakeholders in common fora can help address complex environmental dilemmas, insofar as different stakeholders have varying perspectives and resources to contribute, this same variance can lead to intractable conflicts. While policy scholars have developed various conceptual approaches to understanding conflict in the policy process, few scholars have applied conceptual approaches to understand how policy conflicts are reflected in interpersonal communications among diverse stakeholders. In this article, we draw on environmental justice council meeting minutes and use qualitative, computational, and statistical methods to analyze, over time: (i) the extent and severity of policy conflict observed among council actors; (ii) the association between actor‐level attributes and conflict, as conveyed in two‐way communication between actors; (iii) the association between actor's sector and change in conflict; and (iv) variation in conflict across council activities. By exploring the overtime association between policy conflict and attributes of policy actors (e.g., sectoral affiliation and interpersonal attributes), our analysis addresses not only the influence of the number of interactions for an actor at the meeting but also how they are interacting at the meeting by leveraging their position in the meeting communication network. Our article contributes to the study of the public policy process and collaborative governance, drawing attention to how conflict materializes in a collaborative forum engaged in policy making.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12614","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The formal engagement of diverse stakeholder groups in environmental policy design and implementation is increasingly common. While engaging diverse stakeholders in common fora can help address complex environmental dilemmas, insofar as different stakeholders have varying perspectives and resources to contribute, this same variance can lead to intractable conflicts. While policy scholars have developed various conceptual approaches to understanding conflict in the policy process, few scholars have applied conceptual approaches to understand how policy conflicts are reflected in interpersonal communications among diverse stakeholders. In this article, we draw on environmental justice council meeting minutes and use qualitative, computational, and statistical methods to analyze, over time: (i) the extent and severity of policy conflict observed among council actors; (ii) the association between actor‐level attributes and conflict, as conveyed in two‐way communication between actors; (iii) the association between actor's sector and change in conflict; and (iv) variation in conflict across council activities. By exploring the overtime association between policy conflict and attributes of policy actors (e.g., sectoral affiliation and interpersonal attributes), our analysis addresses not only the influence of the number of interactions for an actor at the meeting but also how they are interacting at the meeting by leveraging their position in the meeting communication network. Our article contributes to the study of the public policy process and collaborative governance, drawing attention to how conflict materializes in a collaborative forum engaged in policy making.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估合作性环境治理中的冲突:环境正义委员会研究
不同利益相关者群体正式参与环境政策的设计和实施越来越普遍。虽然让不同的利益相关者参与共同的论坛有助于解决复杂的环境困境,但由于不同的利益相关者拥有不同的观点和资源,这种差异也可能导致棘手的冲突。虽然政策学者已经提出了各种概念方法来理解政策过程中的冲突,但很少有学者运用概念方法来理解政策冲突如何反映在不同利益相关者之间的人际沟通中。在本文中,我们借鉴了环境正义委员会的会议记录,并使用定性、计算和统计方法分析了随着时间推移:(i) 在委员会参与者之间观察到的政策冲突的范围和严重程度;(ii) 在参与者之间的双向交流中传达的参与者层面属性与冲突之间的关联;(iii) 参与者部门与冲突变化之间的关联;以及 (iv) 不同委员会活动中冲突的变化。通过探索政策冲突与政策参与者属性(如部门隶属关系和人际属性)之间的超时关联,我们的分析不仅解决了参与者在会议上互动次数的影响问题,还解决了他们如何利用其在会议沟通网络中的地位在会议上进行互动的问题。我们的文章有助于对公共政策过程和合作治理的研究,提请人们注意冲突是如何在参与政策制定的合作论坛中具体化的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
23.80%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Review of Policy Research (RPR) is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the publication of research and analysis examining the politics and policy of science and technology. These may include issues of science policy, environment, resource management, information networks, cultural industries, biotechnology, security and surveillance, privacy, globalization, education, research and innovation, development, intellectual property, health and demographics. The journal encompasses research and analysis on politics and the outcomes and consequences of policy change in domestic and comparative contexts.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships Information and expertise in public policy Embracing the politics of transformation: Policy action as “battle‐settlement events” Reputation management in turmoil—An analysis of the clashing narratives in the introduction of a “salmon tax” in Norway The narrative policy framework and institutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1