1932

Abstract

Network concepts are central to at least three challenges of interest in the sustainability science literature: how to link knowledge with action, how to enhance collective action, and how to promote social learning. Although each challenge has developed into a coherent literature, social network concepts—which examine the particular ways in which social agents relate to one another—emerge as a common theme across all three challenges. To build a synthetic understanding of networks and sustainability, we must consider how structural properties of networks relate to sustainability outcomes, how networks evolve over time, and how institutional context influences this evolutionary process. A better understanding of these questions can inform strategies to promote patterns of social interaction that support sustainability.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013246
2014-10-17
2024-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/39/1/annurev-environ-101813-013246.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013246&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Clark WC, Dickson NM. 1.  2003. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:148059–61 [Google Scholar]
  2. Kates RW. 2.  2011. What kind of a science is sustainability science?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:4919449–50 [Google Scholar]
  3. Robinson J. 3.  2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 48:4369–84 [Google Scholar]
  4. Janssen MA, Bodin Ö, Anderies JM, Elmqvist T, Ernstson H. 4.  et al. 2006. Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11:115 [Google Scholar]
  5. Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M, DeFries R, Dietz T. 5.  et al. 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18:226 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dietz T, Rycroft RW. 6.  1987. The Risk Professionals New York: Russell Sage Found.
  7. Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S. 7.  2005. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  8. Jackson MO. 8.  2008. Social and Economic Networks Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  9. Scott J. 9.  2000. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  10. Wasserman S, Faust K. 10.  1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  11. McNie EC. 11.  2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 10:17–38 [Google Scholar]
  12. Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L. 12.  2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:445–77 [Google Scholar]
  13. Jacobs K, Lebel L, Buizer J, Addams L, Matson P. 13.  et al. 2010. Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA doi:10.1073/pnas.0813125107
  14. Gui B. 14.  2000. Beyond transactions: on the interpersonal dimension of economic reality. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 71:2139–69 [Google Scholar]
  15. Feldman DL, Ingram HM. 15.  2009. Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge networks. Weather Climate Soc. 1:19–21 [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. Ingram HM, Stern PC 2008. Research and Networks for Decision Support in the NOAA Sectoral Applications Research Program Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  17. Laird-Benner W, Ingram H. 17.  2010. Sonoran Desert network weavers: surprising environmental successes on the U. S./Mexico border. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 53:16–17 [Google Scholar]
  18. Phelps C, Heidl R, Wadhwa A. 18.  2012. Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: a review and research agenda. J. Manag. 38:41115–66 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bidwell D, Dietz T, Scavia D. 19.  2013. Fostering knowledge networks for climate adaptation. Nat. Climate Change 3:610–11 [Google Scholar]
  20. Henry AD, Dietz T. 20.  2011. Information, networks, and the complexity of trust in commons governance. Int. J. Commons 5:2188–212 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N. 21.  et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:148086–91 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM. 22.  2006. Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  23. Ungar P, Strand R. 23.  2012. Inclusive protected area management in the Amazon: the importance of social networks over ecological knowledge. Sustainability 4:123260–78 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hardin G. 24.  1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:38591243–48 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ostrom E. 25.  1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  26. Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolšak N, Stern PC, Stonich S, Weber EU. 26.  2002. The Drama of the Commons Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  27. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J. 27.  1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press
  28. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. 28.  2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:56521907–12 [Google Scholar]
  29. Vollan B, Ostrom E. 29.  2010. Cooperation and the commons. Science 330:6006923–24 [Google Scholar]
  30. Bodin Ö, Crona BI. 30.  2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?. Glob. Environ. Change 19:3366–74 [Google Scholar]
  31. Coleman JS. 31.  1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94:S95–120 [Google Scholar]
  32. Putnam RD. 32.  2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon & Schuster
  33. Bardhan PK. 33.  1993. Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development. World Dev. 21:4633–39 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ostrom E. 34.  2003. Altruistically inclined? The behavioral sciences, evolutionary theory, and the origins of reciprocity (review). J. Interdiscip. Hist. 34:163–64 [Google Scholar]
  35. Andersson KP. 35.  2004. Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World Dev. 32:2233–49 [Google Scholar]
  36. Andersson K, Gibson CC. 36.  2007. Decentralized governance and environmental change: local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 26:199–123 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M. 37.  2005. Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  38. Pretty J. 38.  2003. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302:56521912–14 [Google Scholar]
  39. Krishna A, Uphoff N. 39.  1999. Mapping and measuring social capital: a conceptual and empirical study of collective action for conserving and developing watersheds in Rajasthan, India Work. Pap. 13, World Bank, Social Capital Initiat.
  40. Uphoff N, Wijayaratna CM. 40.  2000. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Dev. 28:111875–90 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jones N, Clark JRA, Panteli M, Proikaki M, Dimitrakopoulos PG. 41.  2012. Local social capital and the acceptance of Protected Area policies: an empirical study of two Ramsar River delta ecosystems in northern Greece. J. Environ. Manag. 96:155–63 [Google Scholar]
  42. Vollan B. 42.  2008. Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in southern Africa. Ecol. Econ. 67:4560–73 [Google Scholar]
  43. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. 43.  2005. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:335–72 [Google Scholar]
  44. Henry AD, Dietz T. 44.  2012. Understanding environmental cognition. Organ. Environ. 25:3238–58 [Google Scholar]
  45. Henry AD. 45.  2009. The challenge of learning for sustainability: a prolegomenon to theory. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16:2131–40 [Google Scholar]
  46. Cooter R, Feldman M, Feldman Y. 46.  2008. The misperception of norms: the psychology of bias and the economics of equilibrium. Rev. Law Econ. 4:3889–911 [Google Scholar]
  47. Berry FS, Berry WD. 47.  2007. Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. Theories of the Policy Process PA Sabatier 223–60 Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
  48. Breiger RL. 48.  1974. The duality of persons and groups. Soc. Forces 53:2181–90 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lubell M, Henry AD, McCoy M. 49.  2010. Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 54:2287–300 [Google Scholar]
  50. Bitzer V, Glasbergen P, Leroy P. 50.  2012. Partnerships of a feather flock together? An analysis of the emergence of networks of partnerships in the global cocoa sector. Glob. Netw. 12:3355–74 [Google Scholar]
  51. Marín A, Berkes F. 51.  2010. Network approach for understanding small-scale fisheries governance: the case of the Chilean coastal co-management system. Mar. Policy 34:5851–58 [Google Scholar]
  52. Scholz JT, Berardo R, Kile B. 52.  2008. Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. J. Polit. 70:2393–406 [Google Scholar]
  53. Bitzer V, Francken M, Glasbergen P. 53.  2008. Intersectoral partnerships for a sustainable coffee chain: really addressing sustainability or just picking (coffee) cherries?. Glob. Environ. Change 18:2271–84 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ingold K. 54.  2011. Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Stud. J. 39:3435–59 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lahsen M, Bustamante MMC, Swap R, McNie E, Ometto JPHB. 55.  et al. 2013. The contributions of regional knowledge networks researching environmental changes in Latin America and Africa: a synthesis of what they can do and why they can be policy relevant. Ecol. Soc. 18:314 [Google Scholar]
  56. Jackson MO, Rodríguez-Barraquer T, Tan X. 56.  2012. Social capital and social quilts: network patterns of favor exchange. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:51857–97 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lubell M. 57.  2013. Governing institutional complexity: the ecology of games framework. Policy Stud. J. 41:3537–59 [Google Scholar]
  58. Weible CM, Sabatier PA. 58.  2005. Comparing policy networks: marine protected areas in California. Policy Stud. J. 33:2181–201 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ostrom E. 59.  1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92:11–22 [Google Scholar]
  60. Eagle N, Pentland A, Lazer D. 60.  2009. Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:3615274–78 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kajikawa Y, Ohno J, Takeda Y, Matsushima K, Komiyama H. 61.  2007. Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network. Sustain. Sci. 2:2221–31 [Google Scholar]
  62. Frank KA. 62.  2011. Social network models for natural resource use and extraction. Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance Ö Bodin, C Prell 180–205 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  63. Videras J. 63.  2013. Social networks and the environment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 5:211–26 [Google Scholar]
  64. Carlsson L. 64.  2000. Policy networks as collective action. Policy Stud. J. 28:3502–20 [Google Scholar]
  65. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 65.  2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44 [Google Scholar]
  66. Burt RS. 66.  2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110:2349–99 [Google Scholar]
  67. Henry AD, Vollan B. 67.  2012. Risk, networks, and ecological explanations for the emergence of cooperation in commons governance. Ration. Markets Morals 3:130–47 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ramirez-Sanchez S, Pinkerton E. 68.  2009. The impact of resource scarcity on bonding and bridging social capital: the case of fishers' information-sharing networks in Loreto, BCS, Mexico. Ecol. Soc. 14:122 [Google Scholar]
  69. Erdős P, Rényi A. 69.  1960. On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. 5:17–61 [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. R Development Core Team 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria: R Found. Stat. Comput http://www.r-project.org/
  71. Csardi G, Nepusz T. 71.  2006. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems 1695 http://igraph.org/
  72. Henry AD, Lubell M, McCoy M. 72.  2012. Survey-based measurement of public management and policy networks: survey-based network measurement. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 31:2432–52 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lienert J, Schnetzer F, Ingold K. 73.  2013. Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. J. Environ. Manag. 125:134–48 [Google Scholar]
  74. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M. 74.  2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22:6501–18 [Google Scholar]
  75. Weible CM. 75.  2006. An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 17:195–117 [Google Scholar]
  76. Henry AD, Lubell M, McCoy M. 76.  2011. Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: the case of California regional planning. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 21:3419–44 [Google Scholar]
  77. Sandström A, Rova C. 77.  2010. The network structure of adaptive governance: a single case study of a fish management area. Int. J. Commons 4:1528–51 [Google Scholar]
  78. Bodin Ö, Norberg J. 78.  2005. Information network topologies for enhanced local adaptive management. Environ. Manag. 35:2175–93 [Google Scholar]
  79. Nowak MA. 79.  2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314:58051560–63 [Google Scholar]
  80. Ohtsuki H, Hauert C, Lieberman E, Nowak MA. 80.  2006. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature 441:7092502–5 [Google Scholar]
  81. Barabási A-L, Albert R. 81.  1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:5439509–12 [Google Scholar]
  82. D'Souza RM, Borgs C, Chayes JT, Berger N, Kleinberg RD. 82.  2007. Emergence of tempered preferential attachment from optimization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:156112–17 [Google Scholar]
  83. Aiello W, Bonato A, Cooper C, Janssen J, Prałat P. 83.  2008. A spatial web graph model with local influence regions. Internet Math. 5:1175–93 [Google Scholar]
  84. Crona B, Bodin Ö. 84.  2010. Power asymmetries in small-scale fisheries: a barrier to governance transformability?. Ecol. Soc. 15:432 [Google Scholar]
  85. Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, Jackson MO. 85.  2013. The diffusion of microfinance. Science 341:61441236498 [Google Scholar]
  86. Burt RS. 86.  2000. The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22:345–423 [Google Scholar]
  87. Lin N. 87.  1999. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22:128–51 [Google Scholar]
  88. Lin N. 88.  2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  89. Portes A. 89.  2000. The two meanings of social capital. Sociol. Forum 15:11–12 [Google Scholar]
  90. Adger WN. 90.  1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Dev. 27:2249–69 [Google Scholar]
  91. Adger WN. 91.  2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79:4387–404 [Google Scholar]
  92. Ambrus A, Mobius M, Szeidl A. 92.  2014. Consumption risk-sharing in social networks. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:1149–82 [Google Scholar]
  93. Simmel G. 93.  1950. Quantitative aspects of the group. The Sociology of Georg Simmel KH Wolff 85–177 New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  94. Krackhardt D. 94.  1998. Simmelian ties: super strong and sticky. Power and Influence in Organizations R Kramer, M Neale 21–38 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  95. Krackhardt D. 95.  1999. The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Res. Sociol. Organ. 16:183–210 [Google Scholar]
  96. Berardo R, Scholz JT. 96.  2010. Self-organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 54:3632–49 [Google Scholar]
  97. Esser JK. 97.  1998. Alive and well after 25 years: a review of groupthink research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 73:2–3116–41 [Google Scholar]
  98. Hong L, Page SE. 98.  2004. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101:4616385–89 [Google Scholar]
  99. Granovetter MS. 99.  1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:61360–80 [Google Scholar]
  100. Chen X, Frank KA, Dietz T, Liu J. 100.  2012. Weak ties, labor migration, and environmental impacts: toward a sociology of sustainability. Organ. Environ. 25:13–24 [Google Scholar]
  101. Freeman LC. 101.  1978. Segregation in social networks. Sociol. Methods Res. 6:4411–29 [Google Scholar]
  102. Lebel L, Garden P, Luers A, Manuel-Navarrete D, Giap DH. 102.  2009. Knowledge and innovation relationships in the shrimp industry in Thailand and Mexico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900555106
  103. Crona B, Bodin Ö. 103.  2006. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecol. Soc. 11:27 [Google Scholar]
  104. Feiock RC, Scholz JT. 104.  2010. Self-Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  105. Schneider M, Scholz J, Lubell M, Mindruta D, Edwardsen M. 105.  2003. Building consensual institutions: networks and the national estuary program. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 47:1143–58 [Google Scholar]
  106. Feiock RC. 106.  2008. Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Aff. Rev. 44:3356–77 [Google Scholar]
  107. Feiock RC. 107.  2013. The institutional collective action framework. Policy Stud. J. 41:3397–425 [Google Scholar]
  108. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC. 108.  1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach Boulder, CO: Westview
  109. Sabatier PA, Weible CM. 109.  2007. The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. Theories of the Policy Process PA Sabatier 1189–220 Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
  110. Kingdon JW. 110.  1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies New York: Longman
  111. Ingold K, Varone F. 111.  2011. Treating policy brokers seriously: evidence from the climate policy. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22:2319–46 [Google Scholar]
  112. Frank K, Chen I-C, Lee Y, Kalafatis S, Chen T. 112.  et al. 2012. Network location and policy-oriented behavior: an analysis of two-mode networks of coauthored documents concerning climate change in the Great Lakes region. Policy Stud. J. 40:3492–515 [Google Scholar]
  113. Sherif M. 113.  1966. In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation Boston: Houghton Mifflin
  114. Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C. 114.  1971. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1:2149–78 [Google Scholar]
  115. Chen Y, Li SX. 115.  2009. Group identity and social preferences. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:431–57 [Google Scholar]
  116. Hamilton WD. 116.  1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J. Theor. Biol. 7:11–16 [Google Scholar]
  117. Vollan B. 117.  2011. The difference between kinship and friendship: (field-) experimental evidence on trust and punishment. J. Socio-Econ. 40:114–25 [Google Scholar]
  118. Alesina A, Baqir R, Easterly W. 118.  1999. Public goods and ethnic divisions. Q. J. Econ. 114:41243–84 [Google Scholar]
  119. Miguel E. 119.  2004. Tribe or nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania. World Polit. 56:3328–62 [Google Scholar]
  120. La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny R. 120.  1999. The quality of government. J. Law Econ. Organ. 15:222–79 [Google Scholar]
  121. Fershtman C, Gneezy U. 121.  2001. Discrimination in a segmented society: an experimental approach. Q. J. Econ. 116:1351–77 [Google Scholar]
  122. Barabási A-L. 122.  2005. Network theory—the emergence of the creative enterprise. Science 308:5722639–41 [Google Scholar]
  123. Weible CM. 123.  2005. Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: an advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Polit. Res. Q. 58:3461–75 [Google Scholar]
  124. Henry AD. 124.  2011. Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Stud. J. 39:3361–83 [Google Scholar]
  125. Ingold K, Fischer M. 125.  2014. Drivers of collaboration to mitigate climate change: an illustration of Swiss climate policy over 15 years. Glob. Environ. Change 24:88–98 [Google Scholar]
  126. Henry AD, Prałat P, Zhang C-Q. 126.  2011. Emergence of segregation in evolving social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:218605–10 [Google Scholar]
  127. Lazer D. 127.  2001. The co-evolution of individual and network. J. Math. Sociol. 25:169–108 [Google Scholar]
  128. Snijders TAB, van de Bunt GG, Steglich CEG. 128.  2010. Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc. Netw. 32:144–60 [Google Scholar]
  129. Manski CF. 129.  1993. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60:3531–42 [Google Scholar]
  130. Kahn ME, Vaughn RK. 130.  2009. Green market geography: the spatial clustering of hybrid vehicles and LEED registered buildings. B. E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 9:21–24 [Google Scholar]
  131. Durlauf SN. 131.  2002. On the empirics of social capital. Econ. J. 112:483F459–79 [Google Scholar]
  132. Frank KA, Maroulis SJ, Duong MQ, Kelcey BM. 132.  2013. What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin's causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 35:4437–60 [Google Scholar]
  133. Gerber ER, Henry AD, Lubell M. 133.  2013. Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57:3598–610 [Google Scholar]
  134. Barnes-Mauthe M, Arita S, Allen SD, Gray SA, Leung P. 134.  2013. The influence of ethnic diversity on social network structure in a common-pool resource system: implications for collaborative management. Ecol. Soc. 18:123 [Google Scholar]
  135. Innes JM. 135.  1978. Selective exposure as a function of dogmatism and incentive. J. Soc. Psychol. 106:2261–65 [Google Scholar]
  136. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. 136.  1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37:112098–109 [Google Scholar]
  137. Munro GD, Ditto PH. 137.  1997. Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23:6636–53 [Google Scholar]
  138. Munro GD, Ditto PH, Lockhart LK, Fagerlin A, Gready M, Peterson E. 138.  2002. Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:115–26 [Google Scholar]
  139. Leach WD, Sabatier PA. 139.  2005. To trust an adversary: integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99:04491–503 [Google Scholar]
  140. Schlager E. 140.  1995. Policy making and collective action: defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sci. 28:3243–70 [Google Scholar]
  141. Matti S, Sandström A. 141.  2011. The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. Policy Stud. J. 39:3385–410 [Google Scholar]
  142. Prell C, Reed M, Racin L, Hubacek K. 142.  2010. Competing structure, competing views: the role of formal and informal social structures in shaping stakeholder perceptions. Ecol. Soc. 15:434 [Google Scholar]
  143. Fowler JH, Christakis NA. 143.  2010. Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107:125334–38 [Google Scholar]
  144. Sacerdote B. 144.  2001. Peer effects with random assignment: results for Dartmouth roommates. Q. J. Econ. 116:2681–704 [Google Scholar]
  145. Fiorillo D. 145.  2013. Household waste recycling: national survey evidence from Italy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 56:81125–51 [Google Scholar]
  146. Bandiera O, Rasul I. 146.  2006. Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. Econ. J. 116:514869–902 [Google Scholar]
  147. Conley TG, Udry CR. 147.  2010. Learning about a new technology: pineapple in Ghana. Am. Econ. Rev. 100:135–69 [Google Scholar]
  148. Foster AD, Rosenzweig MR. 148.  1995. Learning by doing and learning from others: human capital and technical change in agriculture. J. Polit. Econ. 103:61176–209 [Google Scholar]
  149. Munshi K. 149.  2004. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian green revolution. J. Dev. Econ. 73:1185–213 [Google Scholar]
  150. Axsen J, Mountain DC, Jaccard M. 150.  2009. Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles. Resour. Energy Econ. 31:3221–38 [Google Scholar]
  151. Newell R, Kerr S. 151.  2003. Policy-induced technology adoption: evidence from the U.S. lead phase-down. J. Ind. Econ. 51:3317–43 [Google Scholar]
  152. Bollinger B, Gillingham K. 152.  2012. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31:6900–12 [Google Scholar]
  153. Frank RH. 153.  1986. Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  154. Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V. 154.  2008. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35:3472–82 [Google Scholar]
  155. Ayres I, Raseman S, Shih A. 155.  2012. Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. J. Law Econ. Organ. 29:5992–1022 [Google Scholar]
  156. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O. 156.  2008. Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J. Public Econ. 92:5–61047–60 [Google Scholar]
  157. Stone J, Fernandez NC. 157.  2008. To practice what we preach: the use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behavior change. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2:21024–51 [Google Scholar]
  158. Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E, Borgström ST. 158.  2010. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 15:428 [Google Scholar]
  159. Meek CL. 159.  2013. Forms of collaboration and social fit in wildlife management: a comparison of policy networks in Alaska. Glob. Environ. Change 23:1217–28 [Google Scholar]
  160. Bowles S. 160.  2008. Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine “the moral sentiments”: evidence from economic experiments. Science 320:58831605–9 [Google Scholar]
  161. Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F, Eichenberger R. 161.  1996. The old lady visits your backyard: a tale of morals and markets. J. Polit. Econ. 104:1297–313 [Google Scholar]
  162. Attanasio O, Pellerano L, Polanía-Reyes S. 162.  2009. Building trust? Conditional cash transfer programmes and social capital. Fiscal Stud. 30:2139–77 [Google Scholar]
  163. Feigenberg B, Field E, Pande R. 163.  2013. The economic returns to social interaction: experimental evidence from microfinance. Rev. Econ. Stud. 80:41459–83 [Google Scholar]
  164. Stein C, Ernstson H, Barron J. 164.  2011. A social network approach to analyzing water governance: the case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth 36:14–151085–92 [Google Scholar]
  165. Ostrom E. 165.  2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 14:3137–58 [Google Scholar]
  166. Downs A. 166.  1994. Inside Bureaucracy Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
  167. Gugerty MK, Kremer M. 167.  2002. The impact of development assistance on social capital: evidence from Kenya. The Role of Social Capital in Development: An Empirical Assessment C Grootaert, T van Bastelaer 213–33 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  168. Manor J. 168.  2004. User committees: a potentially damaging second wave of decentralisation?. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 16:1192–213 [Google Scholar]
  169. Vollan B. 169.  2012. Pitfalls of externally initiated collective action: a case study from South Africa. World Dev. 40:4758–70 [Google Scholar]
  170. Ansell C, Gash A. 170.  2007. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18:4543–71 [Google Scholar]
  171. Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. 171.  2011. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22:11–29 [Google Scholar]
  172. Sharma A, Kearins K. 172.  2011. Interorganizational collaboration for regional sustainability: What happens when organizational representatives come together?. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 47:2168–203 [Google Scholar]
  173. Gerlak AK, Heikkila T. 173.  2011. Building a theory of learning in collaborative institutions: evidence from the Everglades restoration program. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 21:4619–44 [Google Scholar]
  174. Booher DE, Innes JE. 174.  2010. Governance for resilience: CALFED as a complex adaptive network for resource management. Ecol. Soc. 15:335 [Google Scholar]
  175. Vasconcelos L, Ramos Pereira MJ, Caser U, Gonçalves G, Silva F, R. 175.  2013. MARGov—setting the ground for the governance of marine protected areas. Ocean Coastal Manag. 72:46–53 [Google Scholar]
  176. Lubell M. 176.  2004. Collaborative environmental institutions: all talk and no action?. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 23:3549–73 [Google Scholar]
  177. Newman L, Dale A. 177.  2007. Homophily and agency: creating effective sustainable development networks. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 9:79–90 [Google Scholar]
  178. Holt AR, Moug P, Lerner DN. 178.  2012. The network governance of urban river corridors. Ecol. Soc. 17:425 [Google Scholar]
  179. Hahn T. 179.  2011. Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management: Who is accountable?. Ecol. Soc. 16:218 [Google Scholar]
  180. Hirschi C. 180.  2010. Strengthening regional cohesion: collaborative networks and sustainable development in Swiss rural areas. Ecol. Soc. 15:416 [Google Scholar]
  181. Marín A, Gelcich S, Castilla J, Berkes F. 181.  2012. Exploring social capital in Chile's coastal benthic comanagement system using a network approach. Ecol. Soc. 17:113 [Google Scholar]
  182. Weiss K, Hamann M, Kinney M, Marsh H. 182.  2012. Knowledge exchange and policy influence in a marine resource governance network. Glob. Environ. Change 22:1178–88 [Google Scholar]
  183. Marshall GR. 183.  2008. Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level. Int. J. Commons 2:175–97 [Google Scholar]
  184. Vignola R, McDaniels TL, Scholz RW. 184.  2013. Governance structures for ecosystem-based adaptation: using policy-network analysis to identify key organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 31:71–84 [Google Scholar]
  185. Granovetter M. 185.  1990. The myth of social network analysis as a special method in the social sciences. Connections 13:213–16 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013246
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013246
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error