The Social Fabric of Watershed Management: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Sung-woo Cho
,
Shorna B. Allred
,
Richard Stedman

Watershed management, a critical component in preserving and enhancing our natural environments, necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the social networks that underpin the organizations dedicated to this cause. The intricate web of relationships and interactions within and between such organizations can influence their operational efficacy and impact on watershed conservation and management. A social network analysis (SNA) encompasses theoretically grounded methods designed to analyze various types and attributes of relations among individuals and groups. 

  • watershed management
  • social network analysis

1. Introduction

Watershed management, a critical component in preserving and enhancing our natural environments, necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the social networks that underpin the organizations dedicated to this cause. The intricate web of relationships and interactions within and between such organizations can influence their operational efficacy and impact on watershed conservation and management. 
A citizen-based watershed group is a grassroots organization that is primarily driven by community members, distinct from formal non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It operates independently of government agencies, with its activities—including its establishment, management, and evaluation—carried out by the citizens themselves [1]. Characterized by voluntary participation, community-driven initiatives, and a focus on local environmental issues, these groups often embody a more localized approach to environmental stewardship than larger, more structured NGOs. An agency-based watershed group, in contrast, is typically facilitated, managed, and evaluated by government entities such as municipalities or other public administration bodies [1]. These groups are structured around governmental mandates and policies, focusing on broader, regionally relevant environmental concerns and compliance with regulatory frameworks. Mixed groups often arise in situations where there is a convergence of community interests and governmental objectives [1]. These hybrid organizations blend the community-driven focus of citizen groups with the structured approach of agency-based groups, facilitating collaboration and resource sharing between citizens and governmental entities. Understanding the fundamental differences and potential synergies between these types of groups helps in assessing the dynamics, roles, and impact of these groups in watershed management, particularly in terms of their social networks.

2. Social Network Analysis for Natural Resource Management

A social network analysis (SNA) encompasses theoretically grounded methods designed to analyze various types and attributes of relations among individuals and groups. The networks formed by individuals and organizations consist of webs of relationships and interactions [2]. SNA applies the structure of these relationships to systematically represent networks, using nodes and ties as foundational elements. This model underpins a suite of mathematical tools that analyze the causes and consequences of diverse types of relations.
In recent decades, there has been a surge in interest in employing SNA for natural resource management [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Social networks among individuals or subgroups can positively influence outcomes [9] but can also obstruct collaboration, productivity, and innovative capacity [6][10]. For instance, excessively tight social networks may resist evolution or the acceptance of new ideas and technologies from outside the network. Therefore, comprehending the dynamics of social networks is pivotal for planning, management, and innovation.
SNA emphasizes evaluating core types of ties within and between groups, including ties of common goals [11], information or knowledge sharing [7][12][13], learning [14][15], trust [11][16][17][18], funding support [13], idea sharing [13], and more. SNA seeks to interpret the hidden structural properties underlying visible ties by identifying the structural properties of support networks, examining relationships between individuals and stakeholders, determining the positioning of different individuals or stakeholders within the network, and revealing how relationships are structured within the entire network [19].
Ultimately, SNA is instrumental in understanding the functionalities of social networks, such as the roles and positions of key actors and the flows of knowledge and information, which can potentially influence elements like resilience and adaptive capacity for environmental change [20]. SNA can also identify, select, and engage core individuals or stakeholders in participatory processes related to natural resource management [7][10].
Numerous studies have demonstrated that SNA can be utilized to comprehend various resource management issues or to provide supplementary information. Researchers have employed social networks to enhance aspects of social capital in natural resource management, such as governance processes [6][12][21][22][23], local leadership [24], adoption of new skills or knowledge [7][14][15][24][25], productivity and innovation of capacity [6], involvement of new stakeholders [12][26], recruitment and self-development [27], conflict resolution [3][28], trust between stakeholders [17], and collaborative decision making [7][29][30]. In the analysis of networks, researchers have sought to unveil the structure of social networks suitable for given environments [16][27][29][31][32][33] or to discern the roles or positions of actors and ties in the network [12][28][34][35][36]. Among them, a few studies have concentrated on the social networks of watershed groups as “organizations” [3][24][37].
Ptak [38] offers valuable insights into the role of intermediaries. Their study explores the pivotal role of intermediaries in fostering policy integration and system transformation. This reinforces the importance of such roles in facilitating effective communication and collaboration in complex environmental management scenarios. 
Analyzing social networks unveils the relationship between network relations and the underlying structural patterns that emerge among actors. Therefore, SNA examines the attributes of individuals, relations among actors, how actors are positioned within a network, and how relations are structured into overall network patterns [39][40][41]. Consequently, SNA can be categorized into three levels: individual, subgroup, and overall network level [2][42]. Although analyses for all three levels are equally vital, most SNA studies for natural resource management have focused on stakeholder analysis [12][16][30][31], which necessitates network- and subgroup-level analyses. Nonetheless, individual-level analysis is also paramount in determining the relationship between the outcomes and roles of individuals and in determining if a subset of individuals can be represented as one node for a subgroup [8][25][34][43].

3. Watershed Management Groups

Some researchers [44] address watershed management from a global perspective, while others [24] approach it from national or regional viewpoints. This research specifically focuses on the watershed management of the Hudson River area in New York State, adopting a regional lens. Particularly, it examines how the formation of social networks among individual members of organizations managing watersheds can facilitate the flow of information and resources, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of these networks. Lastly, while some research [45][46][47] has been conducted on agency-based watershed management groups, others [24] have focused on citizen-based groups, and yet others [1] have examined mixed-type watershed management groups. 
Building relationships through partnerships is a crucial aspect of watershed organizations, and numerous assertions relate to their effectiveness [24]. The concept of “conservation through cooperation” (Local Champions Speak Out: Pennsylvania’s Community) is pivotal. Different groups exert their influences in varied ways. While citizen-based groups often rely on traditional, adversarial means, such as lobbying and petitioning [48], the impact of mixed and agency-based groups tends to be more subtle and less visible, often through technical advice and changes in individual decision-making [1].
Researchers have found that agency-based groups adopt the strategies of the parent organization, as opposed to other types of groups, which may develop more internally based strategies [49]. The research by Graversgaard et al. [50] on agency-based watershed management in Denmark demonstrates that the integration of regional water councils as participatory groups significantly improved the effectiveness of river basin management plans, resulting in more efficient and ecologically favorable outcomes in watershed management. Thus, the type of watershed group can shape both processes and outcomes. However, there is a noticeable gap in the literature concerning comparative analyses of how different watershed groups utilize their social networks. Most studies have focused on the network and subgroup levels, often overlooking the individual level, which is crucial for understanding the roles and outcomes of specific actors within a network [8][25][34][42][51][52].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/w16010111

References

  1. Moore, E.; Koontz, T. Research Note A Typology of Collaborative Watershed Groups: Citizen-Based, Agency-Based, and Mixed Partnerships. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 451–460.
  2. Borgatti, S.P.; Mehra, A.; Brass, D.J.; Labianca, G. Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science 2009, 323, 892–895.
  3. McGinnis, M.V.; Woolley, J.; Gamman, J. FORUM: Bioregional Conflict Resolution: Rebuilding Community in Watershed Planning and Organizing. Environ. Manag. 1999, 24, 1–12.
  4. Schneider, M.; Scholz, J.; Lubell, M.; Mindruta, D.; Edwardsen, M. Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2003, 47, 143–158.
  5. Anderies, J.M.; Janssen, M.A.; Ostrom, E. A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social–ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 18.
  6. Bodin, Ö.; Crona, B.I. The Role of Social Networks in Natural Resource Governance: What Relational Patterns Make a Difference? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 366–374.
  7. Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2009, 22, 501–518.
  8. Keskitalo, E.C.H.; Baird, J.; Laszlo Ambjörnsson, E.; Plummer, R. Social Network Analysis of Multi-level Linkages: A Swedish Case Study on Northern Forest-Based Sectors. Ambio 2014, 43, 745–758.
  9. Nabiafjadi, S.; Sharifzadeh, M.; Ahmadvand, M. Social Network Analysis for Identifying Actors Engaged in Water Governance: An Endorheic Basin Case in the Middle East. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112376.
  10. Bodin, O.; Prell, C. Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
  11. Borg, R.; Toikka, A.; Primmer, E. Social Capital and Governance: A Social Network Analysis of Forest Biodiversity Collaboration in Central Finland. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 90–97.
  12. Cárcamo, P.F.; Garay-Flühmann, R.; Gaymer, C.F. Collaboration and Knowledge Networks in Coastal Resources Management: How Critical Stakeholders Interact for Multiple-use Marine Protected Area Implementation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 91, 5–16.
  13. Lauber, T.B.; Decker, D.J.; Knuth, B.A. Social Networks and Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 677–687.
  14. Wossen, T.; Berger, T.; Mequaninte, T.; Alamirew, B. Social Network Effects on the Adoption of Sustainable Natural Resource Management Practices in Ethiopia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2013, 20, 477–483.
  15. Crona, B.I.; Parker, J.N. Learning in Support of Governance: Theories, Methods, and a Framework to Assess How Bridging Organizations Contribute to Adaptive Resource Governance. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 32.
  16. Prell, C.; Reed, M.; Racin, L.; Hubacek, K. Competing Structure, Competing Views: The Role of Formal and Informal Social Structures in Shaping Stakeholder Perceptions. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 34.
  17. Smith, C.L.; Gilden, J. Assets to Move Watershed Councils from Assessment to Action. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2002, 38, 653–662.
  18. Wagner, C.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. Effects of Community-Based Collaborative Group Characteristics on Social Capital. Environ. Manag. 2009, 44, 632–645.
  19. Salajegheh, S.; Jafari, H.R.; Pourebrahim, S. Modeling the Impact of Social Network Measures on Institutional Adaptive Capacity needed for Sustainable Governance of Water Resources. Nat. Resour. Model. 2020, 33, e12277.
  20. Bodin, Ö.; Crona, B.; Ernstson, H. Social Networks in Natural Resource Management: What Is There to Learn from a Structural Perspective? Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, r2.
  21. Alexander, S.M.; Armitage, D. A Social Relational Network Perspective for MPA Science. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 8, 1–13.
  22. Crona, B.; Hubacek, K. The Right Connections: How do Social Networks Lubricate the Machinery of Natural Re-source Governance? Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 18.
  23. Ernstson, H.; Sörlin, S.; Elmqvist, T. Social Movements and Ecosystem Services–the Role of Social Network Structure in Protecting and Managing Urban Green Areas in Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 39.
  24. Stedman, R.; Lee, B.; Brasier, K.; Weigle, J.; Higdom, F. Cleaning up Water? Or Building Rural Community? Community Watershed Organizations in Pennsylvania. Rural Sociol. 2009, 74, 178–200.
  25. De Nooy, W. Communication in Natural Resource Management: Agreement between and Disagreement within Stakeholder Groups. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 44.
  26. Curtis, A.; Byron, I.; MacKay, J. Integrating Socio-economic and Biophysical Data to Underpin Collaborative Watershed Management. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2005, 41, 549–563.
  27. Crowe, J.A. In Search of a Happy Medium: How the Structure of Interorganizational Networks Influence Community Economic Development Strategies. Soc. Netw. 2007, 29, 469–488.
  28. García-Amado, L.R.; Pérez, M.R.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; Dahringer, G.; Reyes, F.; Barrasa, S. Building Ties: Social Capital Network Analysis of a Forest Community in a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 3.
  29. Manring, S.L. Creating and Managing Interorganizational Learning Networks to Achieve Sustainable Ecosystem Management. Organ. Environ. 2007, 20, 325.
  30. Paletto, A.; Ferretti, F.; De Meo, I. The Role of Social Networks in Forest Landscape Planning. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 15, 132–139.
  31. Lienert, J.; Schnetzer, F.; Ingold, K. Stakeholder Analysis Combined with Social Network Analysis Provides Fine-grained Insights into Water Infrastructure Planning Processes. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 125, 134–148.
  32. McCarty, C.; Killworth, P.D.; Rennell, J. Impact of Methods for Reducing Respondent Burden on Personal Network Structural Measures. Soc. Netw. 2007, 29, 300–315.
  33. Nardone, G.; Sisto, R.; Lopolito, A. Social Capital in the LEADER Initiative: A Methodological Approach. J. Rural Stud. 2010, 26, 63–72.
  34. Marín, A.; Gelcich, S.; Castilla, J.C.; Berkes, F. Exploring Social Capital in Chile’s Coastal Benthic Comanagement System Using a Network Approach. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 13.
  35. Gonzalès, R.; Parrott, L. Network Theory in the Assessment of the Sustainability of Social-ecological Systems. Geogr. Compass 2012, 6, 76–88.
  36. Vance-Borland, K.; Holley, J. Conservation Stakeholder Network Mapping, Analysis, and Weaving. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 278–288.
  37. Rezaei-Moghaddam, K.; Fatemi, M. The Network Analysis of Organizations in Watershed Management toward Sustainability in Northern Iran. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1078007.
  38. Ptak, E.N.; Graversgaard, M.; Dalgaard, T. Navigating the nexus: The role of Intermediaries in Charting a New Frontier of Policy Integration for Agrifood and Energy Systems Transformation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 139, 92–103.
  39. Scott, J. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Newberry Park, CA, USA, 2000.
  40. Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. Social Network Analysis—Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994.
  41. Wellman, B.; Gulia, M. Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone. In Communities in Cyberspace; Smith, M.A., Kollock, P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 167–194.
  42. Prell, C. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology; Sage: London, UK, 2012.
  43. Chang, C.; Allen, J.C.; Dawson, S.E.; Madsen, G.E. Network Analysis as a Method for Understanding the Dynamics of Natural Resource Management in Rural Communities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 203–208.
  44. Wagner, W.; Gawel, J.; Furumai, H.; De Souza, M.P.; Teixeira, D.; Rios, L.; Ohgaki, S.; Zehnder, A.J.B.; Hemond, H.F. Sustainable Watershed Management: An International Multi-Watershed Case Study. Ambio 2002, 31, 2–13.
  45. Hatamkhani, A.; Moridi, A. Optimal Development of Agricultural Sectors in the Basin Based on Economic Efficiency and Social Equality. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 35, 917–932.
  46. Hashemi, M.; Zare, F.; Moridi, A.; Bagheri, A. Flood Assessment in the Context of Sustainable Development using the DPSIR Framework. Int. J. Environ. Prot. Policy 2014, 2, 41–49.
  47. Moridi, A.; Tabatabaie, M.; Esmaeelzade, S. Holistic Approach to Sustainable Groundwater Management in Semi-arid Regions. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2018, 12, 347–355.
  48. Bonney, P.R.; Hansen, B.D.; Baldwin, C. Citizen Science and Natural Resource Management: A Social Network Analysis of Two Community-Based Water Monitoring Programs. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2023, 36, 600–621.
  49. Bidwell, R.D.; Ryan, C.M. Collaborative Partnership Design: The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19, 827–843.
  50. Graversgaard, M.; Jacobsen, B.; Kjeldsen, C.; Dalgaard, T. Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge Co-Creation in Water Planning: Can Public Participation Increase Cost-Effectiveness? Water 2017, 9, 191.
  51. Abbasi Rostami, A.A.; Yazdanpanah, M.; Abdashahi, A.; Khalkheili, T.A.; Savari, M. Analysis of the Social Network of the Governance of the Integrated Management of Agricultural Water Resources in Mazandaran Province. J. Watershed Manag. Res. 2022, 13, 197–209.
  52. Es’haghi, S.R.; Hejazi, Y.; Hosseini, S.M.; Rezaie, A. Social Network Analysis of Active Organizations in the Lake Urmia Restoration. Environ. Sci. 2021, 18, 239–258. (In Persian)
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback