1932

Abstract

Most if not all environmental problems entail conflicts of interest. Yet, different actors and opposing coalitions often but certainly not always cooperate in solving these problems. Hence, processes of conflict and cooperation often work in tandem, albeit much of the scholarly literature tends to focus on either of these phenomena in isolation. Social network analysis (SNA) provides opportunities to study cooperation and conflict together. In this review, we demonstrate how SNA has increased our understanding of the promises and pitfalls of collaborative approaches in addressing environmental problems. The potential of SNA to investigate conflicts in environmental governance, however, remains largely underutilized. Furthermore, a network perspective is not restricted to the social domain. A multilevel social-ecological network perspective facilitates integration of social and environmental sciences in understanding how different patterns of resource access can trigger both cooperation and conflict.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352
2020-10-17
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/45/1/annurev-environ-011020-064352.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    DeFries R, Nagendra H. 2017. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356:6335265–70
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Agrawal A, Chhatre A. 2011. Against mono-consequentialism: multiple outcomes and their drivers in social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 21:11–3
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT et al. 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6:295–102
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:441–73
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA 2014. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol. Soc. 19:356
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Young OR. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  7. 7. 
    Epstein G, Pittman J, Alexander SM, Berdej S, Dyck T et al. 2015. Institutional fit and the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14:34–40
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Folke C, Pritchard L, Berkes F, Colding J, Svedin U 2007. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 12:130
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Scarlett L, McKinney M. 2016. Connecting people and places: the emerging role of network governance in large landscape conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14:3116–25
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Bodin Ö 2017. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357:6352eaan1114
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Newig J, Challies E, Jager NW, Kochskaemper E, Adzersen A 2018. The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: a framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Stud. J. 46:269–97
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Margerum RD, Robinson CJ. 2015. Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12:53–58
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Mancilla García M, Hileman J, Bodin Ö 2019. Collaboration and conflict in complex water governance systems across a development gradient: addressing common challenges and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 24:328
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Ansell C, Gash A. 2007. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18:4543–71
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22:11–29
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Plummer R, Baird J, Dzyundzyak A, Armitage D, Bodin Ö, Schultz L 2017. Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in UNESCO biosphere reserves. Ecol. Econ. 140:79–88
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Karpouzoglou T, Dewulf A, Clark J 2016. Advancing adaptive governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity. Environ. Sci. Policy 57:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Hillis V, Lubell M, Hoffman M 2018. Sustainability partnership and viticulture management in California. J. Environ. Manag. 217:214–25
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Scott TA. 2016. Is collaboration a good investment? Modeling the link between funds given to collaborative watershed councils and water quality. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 26:4769–86
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Ulibarri N. 2015. Tracing process to performance of collaborative governance: a comparative case study of federal hydropower licensing. Policy Stud. J. 43:2283–308
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM 2015. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Adm. Rev. 75:5647–63
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Koontz TM, Newig J. 2014. From planning to implementation: top-down and bottom-up approaches for collaborative watershed management. Policy Stud. J. 42:3416–42
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Lewicki RJ, Gray B, Elliott Meds 2003. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases Washington, DC: Island Press
  24. 24. 
    Margerum RD. 2011. Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  25. 25. 
    Saha TK, Pal S. 2019. Emerging conflict between agriculture extension and physical existence of wetland in post-dam period in Atreyee River basin of Indo-Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 21:31485–505
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Bonsu NO, Dhubháin ÁN, O'Connor D 2019. Understanding forest resource conflicts in Ireland: a case study approach. Land Use Policy 80:287–97
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Bebbington A, Humphreys Bebbington D, Bury J, Lingan J, Muñoz JP, Scurrah M 2008. Mining and social movements: struggles over livelihood and rural territorial development in the Andes. World Dev 36:122888–905
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Arellano-Yanguas J. 2011. Aggravating the resource curse: decentralisation, mining and conflict in Peru. J. Dev. Stud. 47:4617–38
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Schulz C, Martin-Ortega J, Ioris AAR, Glenk K 2017. Applying a ‘value landscapes approach’ to conflicts in water governance: the case of the Paraguay-Paraná Waterway. Ecol. Econ. 138:47–55
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Perreault T. 2006. From the Guerra del Agua to the Guerra del Gas: resource governance, neoliberalism and popular protest in Bolivia. Antipode 38:1150–72
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Lynch BD. 2012. Vulnerabilities, competition and rights in a context of climate change toward equitable water governance in Peru's Rio Santa Valley. Glob. Environ. Change 22:2364–73
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Mancilla García M. 2017. Negotiating in the absence of trust: exploring the interactions between officials and residents in a waste management project in Copacabana, Bolivia. Local Environ 22:6667–81
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Rivera Cusicanqui S. 1987. “Oppressed but Not Defeated”: Peasant Struggles Among the Aymaras and Qhechwa in Bolivia, 19001980 Paris: UNRISD
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Coombes B, Johnson JT, Howitt R 2012. Indigenous geographies I: Mere resource conflicts? The complexities in Indigenous land and environmental claims. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36:6810–21
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Mancilla García M, Bodin Ö 2019. Participatory Water Basin Councils in Peru and Brazil: expert discourses as means and barriers to inclusion. Glob. Environ. Change 55:139–48
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D et al. 2019. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57:101934
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Zeitoun M. 2009. The conflict vs. cooperation paradox: fighting over or sharing of Palestinian-Israeli groundwater. Water Int 32:1105–20
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Agrawal A. 2012. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  39. 39. 
    Bryant RL. 1992. Political ecology: an emerging research agenda in Third-World studies. Polit. Geogr. 11:112–36
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Forsyth T. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science London: Routledge
  41. 41. 
    Cherlet J. 2010. STS and political ecology in dialogue: future directions for a social study of environmental controversies. Impure Cultures: Interfacing Science, Technology, and Humanities M Mazzotti, G Pancaldi 19–57 Bologna, Italy: Univ. Bologna, Dep. Philosophy, Int. Cent. History Univ. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Rudberg PM, Smits M. 2018. Learning-based intervention for river restoration: analyzing the lack of outcomes in the Ljusnan River basin, Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 23:413
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Nykvist B. 2014. Does social learning lead to better natural resource management? A case study of the modern farming community of practice in Sweden. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27:436–50
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Koontz TM, Thomas CW. 2006. What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management. Public Adm. Rev. 66:1111–21
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Lubell M, Henry AD, McCoy M 2010. Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 54:2287–300
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Koebele EA. 2019. Integrating collaborative governance theory with the Advocacy Coalition Framework. J. Public Policy 39:135–64
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Sandström A, Crona B, Bodin Ö 2014. Legitimacy in co-management: the impact of preexisting structures, social networks and governance strategies. Environ. Policy Gov. 24:160–76
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Henry AD, Lubell M, McCoy M 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]
  49. 49. 
    Kim J, Jang YE, Kim S 2018. Promoting constructive conflict from a conflict transformation perspective: the case of community-based collaboration in Korea. J. Community Pract. 26:4412–28
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Hardy C, Phillips N. 1998. Strategies of engagement: lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organ. Sci. 9:2217–30
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Fearon JD, Laitin DD. 1996. Explaining interethnic cooperation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 90:4715–35
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Chavis DM. 2001. The paradoxes and promise of community coalitions. Am. J. Community Psychol. 29:2309–20
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Miller RL, Reed SJ, Francisco VT, Ellen JM 2012. Conflict transformation, stigma, and HIV-preventive structural change. Am. J. Community Psychol. 49:3–4378–92
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    O'Brien C. 2007. Integrated community development/conflict resolution strategies as “peace building potential” in South Africa and Northern Ireland. Community Dev. J. 42:1114–30
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Deutsch M. 1969. Conflicts: productive and destructive. J. Soc. Issues 25:17–42
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Andersen GR. 2006. Conflicts during organizational change. Nord. Psychol. 58:3215–31
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Lubell M, Robins G, Wang P 2014. Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol. Soc. 19:423
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Barnes ML, Lynham J, Kalberg K, Leung P 2016. Social networks and environmental outcomes. PNAS 113:236466–71
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Fidelman P, Ekstrom JA. 2012. Mapping seascapes of international environmental arrangements in the Coral Triangle. Mar. Policy 36:5993–1004
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    González-Mon B, Bodin Ö, Crona B, Nenadovic M, Basurto X 2019. Small-scale fish buyers’ trade networks reveal diverse actor types and differential adaptive capacities. Ecol. Econ. 164:106338
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Kriesi H, Adam S, Jochum M 2006. Comparative analysis of policy networks in Western Europe. J. Eur. Public Policy 13:3341–61
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Berardo R, Lubell M. 2016. Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Adm. Rev. 76:738–51
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Baggio JA, BurnSilver SB, Arenas A, Magdanz JS, Kofinas GP, De Domenico M 2016. Multiplex social ecological network analysis reveals how social changes affect community robustness more than resource depletion. PNAS 113:4813708–13
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Robins G. 2015. Doing Social Network Research: Network-Based Research Design for Social Scientists London: SAGE
  65. 65. 
    Scott TA, Ulibarri N. 2019. Taking network analysis seriously: methodological improvements for governance network scholarship. Perspect. Public Manag. Gov. 2:289–101
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Bodin Ö, Crona BI. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference. Glob. Environ. Change 19:366–74
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Henry AD, Vollan B. 2014. Networks and the challenge of sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39:1583–610
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Lusher D, Koskinen JH, Robins G 2013. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  69. 69. 
    Snijders TAB. 2005. Models for longitudinal network data. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis PJ Carrington, J Scott, S Wasserman 215–47 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Prell C. 2012. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology London: SAGE
  71. 71. 
    Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
  72. 72. 
    Leydesdorff L. 1991. The static and dynamic analysis of network data using information theory. Soc. Netw. 13:301–45
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Bodin Ö, Robins G, McAllister RRJ, Guerrero AM, Crona B et al. 2016. Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol. Soc. 21:140
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Groce JE, Farrelly MA, Jorgensen BS, Cook CN 2019. Using social‐network research to improve outcomes in natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 33:153–65
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Sayles J, Mancilla Garcia M, Hamilton M, Alexander S, Baggio J et al. 2019. Social-ecological network analysis for sustainability sciences: a systematic review and innovative research agenda for the future. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:093003
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    de Lange E, Milner-Gulland EJ, Keane A 2019. Improving environmental interventions by understanding information flows. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34:P1034–47
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum. Ecol. 34:4573–92
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Bodin Ö, Sandström A, Crona B 2017. Collaborative networks for effective ecosystem-based management: a set of working hypotheses. Policy Stud. J. 45:2289–314
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Lubell M, Jasny L, Hastings A 2017. Network governance for invasive species management. Conserv. Lett. 10:699–707
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Crona BI, Bodin Ö 2006. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource extractors as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecol. Soc. 11:27
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Burt RS. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110:2349–99
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Gould RV, Fernandez RM 1989. Structure of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol. Methodol. 19:89–126
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Hamilton M, Hileman J, Bodin Ö 2020. Evaluating heterogeneous brokerage: new conceptual and methodological approaches and their application to multi-level environmental governance networks. Soc. Netw. 61:110
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Barnes M, Kalberg K, Pan M, Leung P 2016. When is brokerage negatively associated with economic benefits? Ethnic diversity, competition, and common-pool resources. Soc. Netw. 45:55–65
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    de Vaan M, Vedres B, Stark D 2016. Game changer: the topology of creativity. J. Econ. Sociol. 17:453–99
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Berardo R, Scholz JT. 2010. Self-organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 54:3632–49
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    McAllister RRJ, Taylor BM, Harman BP 2015. Partnership networks for urban development: how structure is shaped by risk. Policy Stud. J. 43:3379–98
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Bodin Ö, Nohrstedt D, Baird J, Summers R, Plummer R 2019. Working at the “speed of trust”: pre-existing and emerging social ties in wildfire responder networks in Sweden and Canada. Reg. Environ. Change 19:2353–64
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Herzog LM, Ingold K. 2019. Threats to common-pool resources and the importance of forums: on the emergence of cooperation in CPR problem settings. Policy Stud. J. 47:77–113
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Alexander SM, Bodin Ö, Barnes ML 2018. Untangling the drivers of community cohesion in small-scale fisheries. Int. J. Commons 12:1519–47
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Ingold K. 2011. Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Stud. J. 39:3435–59
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Henry AD. 2011. Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Stud. J. 39:361–83
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Sabatier PA. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21:2–3129–68
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Calanni JC, Siddiki SN, Weible CM, Leach WD 2015. Explaining coordination in collaborative partnerships and clarifying the scope of the belief homophily hypothesis. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 25:3901–27
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Fischer M, Ingold K, Ivanova S 2017. Information exchange under uncertainty: the case of unconventional gas development in the United Kingdom. Land Use Policy 67:200–11
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Fischer M. 2015. Collaboration patterns, external shocks and uncertainty: Swiss nuclear energy politics before and after Fukushima. Energy Policy 86:520–28
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Jasny L, Johnson M, Campbell LK, Svendsen E, Redmond J 2019. Working together: the roles of geographic proximity, homophilic organizational characteristics, and neighborhood context in civic stewardship collaboration networks in Philadelphia and New York City. Ecol. Soc. 24:48
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Belaire JA, Dribin AK, Johnston DP, Lynch DJ, Minor ES 2011. Mapping stewardship networks in urban ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 4:464–73
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Snijders TAB, van de Bunt GG, Steglich CEG 2010. Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc. Netw. 32:144–60
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Ingold K. 2017. How to create and preserve social capital in climate adaptation policies: a network approach. Ecol. Econ. 131:414–24
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Koebele EA. 2020. Cross-coalition coordination in collaborative environmental governance processes. Policy Stud. J. 48:72753
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Nohrstedt D. 2018. Networking and crisis management capacity: a nested analysis of local-level collaboration in Sweden. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 48:232–44
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Uzzi B, Spiro J. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 111:2447–504
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Oh H, Chung M-H, Labianca G 2004. Group social capital and group effectiveness: the role of informal socializing ties. Acad. Manag. J. 47:860–75
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Hileman J, Bodin Ö 2019. Balancing costs and benefits of collaboration in an ecology of games. Policy Stud. J. 47:1138–58
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Nohrstedt D, Bodin Ö 2020. Collective action problem characteristics and partner uncertainty as drivers of social tie formation in collaborative networks. Policy Stud. J. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12309
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Angst M, Hirschi C. 2017. Network dynamics in natural resource governance: a case study of Swiss landscape management. Policy Stud. J. 45:2315–36
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Castro AP, Nielsen E. 2001. Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environ. Sci. Policy 4:229–39
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Vance-Borland K, Holley J. 2011. Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving. Conserv. Lett. 4:4278–88
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Matous P, Wang P. 2019. External exposure, boundary-spanning, and opinion leadership in remote communities: a network experiment. Soc. Netw. 56:10–22
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    van Meerkerk I, Edelenbos J 2014. The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: findings from survey research on urban development projects in the Netherlands. Policy Sci 47:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Klijn E-H, Steijn B, Edelenbos J 2010. The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Adm 88:41063–82
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Sorensen E, Torfing J. 2009. Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Adm 87:2234–58
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Provan KG, Kenis P. 2007. Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18:2229–52
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Harrigan NM, Labianca G, Agneessens F 2020. Negative ties and signed graphs research: stimulating research on dissociative forces in social networks. Soc. Netw. 60:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Labianca G, Brass DJ. 2006. Exploring the social ledger: negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:3596–614
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Yang SW, Trincado F, Labianca G, Agneessens F 2019. Negative ties in intra-organizational network research: a review and synthesis of the past 25 years. Social Networks at Work DJ Brass, SP Borgatti pp. 4778 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    White H. 1961. Management conflict and sociometric structure. Am. J. Sociol. 67:2185–99
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Harrigan N, Yap J. 2017. Avoidance in negative ties: inhibiting closure, reciprocity, and homophily. Soc. Netw. 48:126–41
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Huitsing G, van Duijn MAJ, Snijders TAB, Wang P, Sainio M et al. 2012. Univariate and multivariate models of positive and negative networks: liking, disliking, and bully–victim relationships. Soc. Netw. 34:4645–57
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Sparrowe RT, Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML 2001. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Acad. Manag. J. 44:2316–25
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Ren H, Gray B, Harrison DA 2015. Triggering faultline effects in teams: the importance of bridging friendship ties and breaching animosity ties. Organ. Sci. 26:2390–404
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Neal ZP. 2020. A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the U.S. Congress, 1973–2016. Soc. Netw. 60:103–212
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Heider F. 1946. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J. Psychol. 21:107–12
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Cartwright D, Harary F. 1956. Structural balance: a generalization of Heider's theory. Psychol. Rev. 63:277–93
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Yap J, Harrigan N. 2015. Why does everybody hate me? Balance, status, and homophily: the triumvirate of signed tie formation. Soc. Netw. 40:103–22
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Marineau JE, Hood AC, Labianca GJ 2018. Multiplex conflict: examining the effects of overlapping task and relationship conflict on advice seeking in organizations. J. Bus. Psychol. 33:5595–610
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M 2014. National REDD+ policy networks: from cooperation to conflict. Ecol. Soc. 19:414
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    Boucquey NC. 2016. Actors and audiences: negotiating fisheries management. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18:4426–46
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    Basurto X, Blanco E, Nenadovic M, Vollan B 2016. Integrating simultaneous prosocial and antisocial behavior into theories of collective action. Sci. Adv. 2:3e1501220
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 132. 
    Hood AC, Cruz KS, Bachrach DG 2017. Conflicts with friends: a multiplex view of friendship and conflict and its association with performance in teams. J. Bus. Psychol. 32:173–86
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Robins G, Bates L, Pattison P 2011. Network governance and environmental management: conflict and cooperation. Public Adm 89:41293–313
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Smith JM, Halgin DS, Kidwell-Lopez V, Labianca G, Brass DJ, Borgatti SP 2014. Power in politically charged networks. Soc. Netw. 36:1162–75
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 135. 
    Cook KS, Emerson RM, Gillmore MR 1983. The distribution of power in exchange networks: theory and experimental results. Am. J. Sociol. 89:2275–305
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136. 
    Campbell B, Cranmer S, Desmarais B 2018. Triangulating war: network structure and the democratic peace. arXiv:1809.04141 [stat.AP]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04141
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    Buhaug H. 2015. Climate-conflict research: some reflections on the way forward. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 6:3269–75
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 138. 
    Bodin Ö, Alexander SM, Baggio J, Barnes ML, Berardo R et al. 2019. Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies. Nat. Sustain. 2:551–59
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    Barnes ML, Bodin Ö, Guerrero A, McAllister R, Alexander SM, Robins G 2017. The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 22:416
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140. 
    Schlüter M, Orach K, Lindkvist E, Martin R, Wijermans N et al. 2019. Toward a methodology for explaining and theorizing about social-ecological phenomena. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39:44–53
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Clark WC, Dickson NM. 2003. Sustainability science: the emerging research program. PNAS 100:148059–61
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  143. 143. 
    Bodin Ö, Tengö M. 2012. Disentangling intangible social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 22:430–39
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Moreno JL, Jennings HH. 1938. Statistics of social configurations. Sociometry 1:342–74
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    May RM. 1972. Will a large complex system be stable. Nature 238:413–14
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Dee LE, Allesina S, Bonn A, Eklöf A, Gaines SD et al. 2017. Operationalizing network theory for ecosystem service assessments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32:2118–30
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147. 
    Lubell M. 2013. Governing institutional complexity: the ecology of games framework. Policy Stud. J. 41:3537–59
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Leventon J, Schaal T, Velten S, Dänhardt J, Fischer J et al. 2017. Collaboration or fragmentation? Biodiversity management through the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy 64:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 149. 
    Riek BM, Mania EW, Gaertner SL 2006. Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: a meta-analytic review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10:4336–53
    [Google Scholar]
  150. 150. 
    Gray B. 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Hum. Relat. 38:10911–36
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352
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