Building Resilience Through Collaboration Between Grassroots Citizen Groups and Governments: Two Case Studies

Abstract

As sea level rise grows in importance as a public policy issue, coastal communities must search for alternative strategies to develop resilience to the growing threat. One way to tap into existing resources involves partnerships between local governments and citizen-based environmental organizations to explore strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of sea level rise and recurrent flooding in coastal communities. This article presents two cases of collaboration between governments and existing citizen groups in a region among the most threatened by sea level rise in the continental United States—Hampton Roads, Virginia. We find that these efforts are quite effective in developing and implementing low-cost mitigation strategies that can protect infrastructure while applying social capital to serve as a bridge between citizens and government.

Keywords

sea level rise resilience collaboration

Introduction

In an era of decreasing resources to meet pressing public needs, governments must seek innovative solutions to problems. As the Earth’s climate continues to warm and sea levels around the world continue to rise, coastal communities must consider innovative ideas and processes to develop resilience across infrastructure, resources, governance, and personnel. Innovative ideas are needed to minimize impacts while strengthening resilience. Collaboration between government entities and grassroots citizen environmental organizations should be cultivated to develop further strategies aimed at mitigating environmental problems throughout communities. As the operations and governance of grassroots organizations are typically more flexible than stovepipe specialization within bureaucracy, personnel within grassroots organizations can enhance expertise, knowledge, awareness, and credibility when working within communities. More importantly, grassroots organizations can provide broad-based, low-cost, innovative best management practice (BMP) solutions to the problem through the mobilization of their citizen members (see Morris, Gibson, Leavitt, & Jones, 2013).

This article addresses the specific ways in which grassroots collaborations can enhance a community’s resilience to the effects of climate change and sea level rise. Our purpose is not to provide scientific analysis but to employ case studies as a means to illustrate an alternative way of thinking about infrastructure and sea level rise. If mobilized by government, these citizen groups can be a “force multiplier” that can translate into distributed, low-cost infrastructure solutions, raise awareness of the need for increased community resilience, and provide public support for larger infrastructure projects. We offer exemplar cases of citizen–government collaboration in a region among the most threatened by sea level rise in the continental United States—Hampton Roads, Virginia. We discuss how local governments work collaboratively with citizen collaboration groups, and discuss how these groups become a force multiplier for governments in the effort to address the effects of sea level rise on infrastructure resources in the community.

This work is important for several reasons. First, while grassroots collaborative groups have been in existence for decades, they have largely been ignored in the literature as a means to enhance infrastructure. Public infrastructure projects have primarily been the domain of engineers and other public works professionals, working with elected officials to make choices concerning needs and priorities. Second, the prevailing mind-set in the public works community tends to focus on large, complex, and expensive solutions to infrastructure problems, particularly in the arena of sea level rise. However, citizen collaborative groups offer a path to building resilience that relies on small-scale, simple, and cost-effective solutions that can augment more traditional infrastructure solutions. If developed and employed with care, these small projects can contribute significantly to a community’s level of resilience and can help mitigate the effects of sea level rise. Finally, by focusing on collaborative efforts, this article can offer scholars a different framework to consider when addressing questions related to infrastructure and community resilience.

The article is divided into several sections. First, we offer a brief review of some of the more relevant literature that addresses collaboration. We then offer several exemplar cases of how collaborative groups can play a role in building community resilience. We conclude with some thoughts about both future research and practice.

Overview of Community Engagement and Collaboration

Future protection and management of environmental landscapes may rely on collaborative relationships to strengthen resource protection. These interactions occur when organizations share responsibility for interconnected tasks and work together to achieve complex goals (McNamara, 2012). High levels of commitment are necessary as stakeholders make group decisions, establish collective goals, and develop shared norms and procedures through mutual interests (Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007). Within these relationships, citizen stakeholders can be incorporated to enhance application of simple, cost-effective resolutions to complex environmental issues such as sea level rise.

This section offers themes for scholars and practitioners to consider when developing mitigation strategies incorporating citizen-based organizations to enhance infrastructure and community resilience. These themes focus on a collaborative approach to environmental management and introduce ideas focused on creating manpower and raising awareness by working with others: mobilizing stakeholders to build community involvement and fostering social capital to build political support. In this context, the term social capital is defined as “. . . connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trust that arise from them . . . social capital calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19).

Mobilizing Citizen Stakeholders to Build Community Involvement

It is important for collaborative participants to work inside and outside the arrangement to create an environment for success. Strong internal relationships are needed to diversify resources and expertise, enhance trust, and facilitate deliberative discussions. Personal relationships between individuals enhance collaborative viability and stability as participants feel more connected to the work they are doing and learn about one another to develop trust (McNamara, 2008). In addition, the development of external relationships legitimizes the work of the group while engaging citizens in various ways. These connections are important in creating a sense of community that can further facilitate interactions to propel progress within the group.

Collaborative arrangements often incorporate different sectors to leverage niche resources and expertise within the group to address the problem needing to be resolved (McNamara, Leavitt, & Morris, 2010). Nonprofit and voluntary organizations often partner with organizations in the public or private sectors because they have common interests, face similar obstacles, or want to develop new sources for funding (Takahashi & Smutny, 2002).

Common interests may be based on personal financial interests (Campbell, Koontz, & Bonnell, 2011; Margerum, 2008) and an agreement that there is a problem related to the issue (Carlsson, 2000). Benefits of community involvement through local groups are threefold. First, citizen stakeholders are able to move around bureaucratic mechanisms while acting as a catalyst for change. These individuals can play a critical role in pushing a particular agenda that advocates new ideas without the burden of working through stovepipe specializations (McNamara, 2014). In addition, more creative solutions may be uncovered to address a problem if done through a collective process focusing on inductive, community-based research (Campbell, Koontz, & Bonnell, 2011; Margerum, 2008).

Second, citizen stakeholders may be most familiar with past attempts to resolve the problem and best positioned to offer lessons learned from those attempts. As citizens are well suited to champion local positions based on their geographic knowledge, they may also provide local knowledge that would otherwise go undetected until policy or program failure (Callahan, 2007). These efforts can be combined with longer-term infrastructure projects to develop permanent resolutions.

Third, local groups are likely to be comfortable working with one another based on past experiences and developed trust. Proximity to the affected area may also be beneficial and act as a glue that solidifies the group (Diaz-Kope, Miller-Stevens, & Morris, 2015). These longstanding relationships are often based on common values that can manifest in different ways (Gray, 1985). For example, participants may believe they have a moral responsibility to participate in the policy-making process or that their participation increases the legitimacy of the process (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005). Because collaborative interactions are not developed easily due to the time and resources needed to develop longstanding relationships, tapping into existing relationships could be invaluable. Deep roots within the community can be leveraged into further diversification of collaborative knowledge and resources. Increased mobilization of community members can lead to greater political involvement and support for particular initiatives. Citizen involvement enhances the sense of community among participants (Callahan, 2007). This feeling is caused by the continuous interaction between people with diverse interests who pursue a common goal. A stronger sense of community may help citizen groups gain independence through a pursuit of identifying resolutions that align with a common vision (Bingham et al., 2005).

Fostering Social Capital to Build Political Support

Community-based arrangements rely on connections between individuals who foster trust and reciprocity. In other words, social capital is needed to sustain collaborative efforts. Respect and understanding, empathy, commitment and continuity, predictability and dependability, and transparency are characteristics found to be important in community-based collaboratives (Morris et al., 2013). Morris et al. (2013) suggest that social capital increases through the act of collaboration. For example, open communications within the collaborative arrangement support mechanisms for citizen participation. Active listening and deliberative discussion enhance understanding of citizens’ needs and the availability of community resources. Over time, transparency and a willingness to share information foster community development.

A sense of community is further established through the cultivation of personal relationships. This community plays a vital role in generating public support for a collaborative’s efforts. The information provided to community members and the interactions they experience will affect their level of involvement with the collaborative arrangement. Increased knowledge can help citizens advocate for collaborative goals that align with their own interests. It is through a focus on this intersection of interests that members of the collaborative arrangement can build public support through professional knowledge and perceived legitimacy. For example, educational campaigns are often used to inform the public of a particular initiative and enhance citizen engagement (McNamara et al., 2010). Developing marketing strategies to garner public support and finding ways to educate citizens affect local involvement (McNamara, 2014).

It is important for citizens to believe the goals and actions of the collaborative provide a legitimate path to resolve the problem at hand. As the collaborative is perceived to be a viable source of information and expertise, trust is enhanced between the group and community stakeholders. Trust can also be created by ensuring that citizens feel that they are viewed as legitimate stakeholders within a deliberative, democratic process (Moore & Koontz, 2003; Vigoda, 2002). Connections forged during the process are especially important when long-term resilience solutions are being considered.

Communication is vital throughout the collaborative process. First, open discussion that engages local citizens helps generate buy-in from the people potentially most affected by overall outcomes (Vigoda, 2002). A lack of consultation can create discontent that affects implementation (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Second, citizen groups benefit from open channels of communication with public agencies as knowledge can be distributed throughout a community. In this sense, information systems become a central part in passing accurate information and soliciting feedback (Margerum, 2008). Widespread knowledge can be used to further mobilize community support and strengthen common goals. Through this mobilization, citizen needs may be validated and given precedence (D’Agostino & Kloby, 2011).

There are various formal and informal ways for citizen group to engage and become involved in collaborative efforts. Discussions may occur through workshops, town hall meetings, forums, or special events (Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006; D’Agostino & Kloby, 2011; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). The formation of citizen advisory groups may help ensure representation of interests within the collaborative (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Legitimacy for the collaborative, as a whole, is reinforced as citizens believe there is a direct path for input to the decision-making process. Through these efforts, citizens can influence and be involved directly in decision-making (Callahan, 2007). Individual citizens likely have limited resources to generate change (Diaz-Kope et al., 2015), but power can be generated through the collective group.

Political support increases as community stakeholders communicate approval of the collaborative to elected officials (McNamara, 2014). Participants of the collaborative can help citizens engage in the public policy process through deliberation and consensus building (McNamara, 2014). Opportunities for deliberative discussion facilitate open communication while fostering transparency and a shared vision among constituents to further enhance commitment to the collective arrangement. Building community involvement in collaborative initiatives builds political support by popular demand for the collaborative’s goals within the policy process (McNamara, 2014).

Some Examples of Collaboration and Resilience

Our exemplar cases are drawn from the Hampton Roads, Virginia region. Encompassing seven core cities in southeast Virginia, Hampton Roads is among the regions most threatened by sea level rise in the continental United States (Eggleston & Pope, 2013). Bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Chesapeake Bay to the north, Hampton Roads is found at the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean, the Chesapeake Bay, the James River, the Elizabeth River, and several smaller tributaries (see Figure 1). It is also home to the world’s largest active naval base, and a population of nearly 1.7 million people.

Figure 1.

Map of Hampton roads.

Sea level rise in Hampton Roads is exacerbated by unique geological factors that cause subsidence in the soil. The region was the site of a large meteor strike during the late Eocene epoch (United States Geological Survey [USGS], 2018), which displaced billions of tons of soil and bedrock and created a very large crater. Over the millennia, this crater was filled with sediments flowing down the Chesapeake Bay. However, these sediments are much less dense than the underlying soil; as the sediment settles, it compacts under its own weight, which in turn causes the landmass to sink (USGS, 2018).

As a major East Coast port, there is substantial commercial infrastructure present along many of the rivers and tributaries in the region. In addition, the rivers, creeks, and bays in the region have attracted many to build homes along the waterways, resulting in a growth in the infrastructure threatened by sea level rise. Once a rare event, even routine storms can cause significant flooding in the region, closing streets, overwhelming storm sewers, and flooding structures. A Category I hurricane in 2003 flooded a traffic tunnel under the Elizabeth River connecting the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, causing a major traffic disruption that lasted for weeks. In short, the Hampton Roads region faces significant challenges (and costs) when it comes to building resilience to sea level rise.

Originally formed to restore and protect various waterways in the region, Lynnhaven River NOW (LRN) in Virginia Beach and the Elizabeth River Project (ERP) in Norfolk partner with local and state governments in an effort to address sea level rise and recurrent flooding. The Lynnhaven River is completely contained within the city boundaries of the City of Virginia Beach, and is one of six separate watersheds within the city limits. The watershed, comprising some 64 square miles in area and home to nearly 230,000 residents (half the population of the city), is heavily developed primarily with single-family dwellings. The Elizabeth River is bordered by four cities—Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach. Whereas the Lynnhaven River is surrounded by residential areas, the Elizabeth River is an industrial waterway. Both citizen groups described in this article were the product of small groups of concerned citizens frustrated by a lack of government action to address water quality in the watershed (Morris et al., 2013). While the primary mission of both groups remains restoration and protection of the rivers after which they are named, these groups are instrumental in local efforts to educate citizens, build support for proposals, and encourage their members to adopt and implement low-cost mitigation strategies to build community resilience to sea level rise. We examine each group in turn.

LRN

Formed in 2003 by three prominent citizens of Virginia Beach, the original goal of LRN was to restore the Lynnhaven River in Virginia Beach to the point that the waterway could be opened for fishing, swimming, and oyster harvesting. Once the source of renowned oysters, decades of suburban runoff into the waterway resulted in the closure of the river for oyster harvesting. LRN has experienced remarkable success; by 2007, several areas of the river were declared safe for oyster operations. Today, nearly 50% of the river is clean enough to support oyster operations (Lynnhaven River NOW, 2018).

Much of LRN’s success has been the result of a strategy to encourage citizens to adopt BMPs to reduce the runoff of fertilizers, pet waste, and septic tank overflows into the river. As part of this mission, LRN has partnered with the city of Virginia Beach and the Virginia Beach School District to educate citizens about the effects of pollution on the waterway. The group also sponsors “river cleanup days,” oyster seeding, kayak tours, and public campaigns to reduce the use of lawn fertilizers. One of the most successful efforts was a campaign to “Scoop the Poop” (Morris et al., 2013)—an effort to have citizens clean up pet waste. Over the course of the last 15 years, LRN developed a strong membership to become a respected and influential force in the community.

More recently, LRN added the issue of sea level rise to its portfolio of issues. This issue complements LRNs existing strengths and allows them to act as a bridge between city government and citizens. Perhaps the most visible example of this is the success LRN has had in encouraging homeowners along the river to eschew the use of bulkheads and rip rap in favor of natural wetlands (Lynnhaven River NOW, 2018). LRN staff research and develop low-cost, low “tech” solutions that can be accomplished with minimal cost by homeowners; these are advertised to the group membership on both the LRN website and in regular email messages to the mailing list. LRN staff members are available to consult with homeowners interested in implementation; the consultation is free to the homeowner, but the homeowner pays the costs associated with the project. In a sense, the goal is to replace more expensive (and often less effective) infrastructure with a “soft” form of infrastructure. By building riparian zones between water and land, fewer pollutants are transferred directly to the river. In addition, as wetlands help buffer the effects of high water, this effort has the added benefit of mitigating the effects of sea level rise in some of the most affected properties in the city. For homeowners, these efforts represent a “win-win” solution as natural wetlands are less expensive to install and maintain, and they help protect the homeowner from damage caused by abnormally high water.

Another way LRN addresses sea level rise is through its standing in the community. In addition to its continually growing membership (Lynnhaven River NOW, 2018), LRN has a very positive reputation throughout the community. They approach their work in a nonconfrontational, communal manner to create a reputation as honest brokers with both government and citizens. Thus, when LRN speaks, they garner the attention of everyone. LRN acts as a bridge between citizens and government, and they speak with a quiet, reasoned authority that does not take sides—They serve to reduce conflict and disagreement. When the City of Virginia Beach asked LRN to help address sea level rise in the city, LRN was able to make a case to citizens that carried a great deal of weight because of the high levels of trust and social capital the organization built over the years (see Morris et al., 2013). Likewise, they acted as an intermediary to present citizen concerns to the city government while building support among citizens for additional projects. For example, in spite of a strong antitax group in the city, the city was able to gather citizen support to levy an additional fee on city sewer bills to help offset the costs of more expensive infrastructure to combat sea level rise.

LRN has also been an active participant in a citywide council of environmental organizations, the Green Council. Convened by city government, the Green Council acts as both a panel of experts and as an intermediary between the city and its citizens. This group has been particularly active in providing input to the city about the efficacy of proposed stormwater projects. Recent rain events have resulted in significant flooding in some parts of the city, and the Green Council has worked closely with the Department of Public Works to both propose and support more traditional infrastructure projects to address the recurrent flooding. Although some of this flooding occurred outside of the Lynnhaven watershed, LRN has been an active and supportive partner in the process, and the social capital LRN has built in the community has helped garner widespread public support for these projects. In sum, not only has LRN advocated the use of distributed, low-cost and “low-tech” infrastructure solutions to help build community resilience, but they have also used their considerable social capital to lend support to more traditional approaches to help build resilience.

The ERP

The Elizabeth River runs south to north through Hampton Roads, where it joins the James River at the confluence of the James River and the Chesapeake Bay. The river runs through several cities: Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, and Norfolk. The river has been environmentally impaired for decades; at one point, the Elizabeth River was one of the most impaired rivers in the United States. The riverfront is home to a wide range of maritime businesses, from ship repair to cargo loading and off-loading (including a major coal terminal). In addition, the river supports several large manufacturing companies, oil storage facilities, fertilizer manufacturing and storage, and other toxin-producing industries. The net result of this activity is a highly impaired waterway poisoned by centuries of industrial abuse (Morris et al., 2013).

The other salient issue along the banks of the Elizabeth River is the existence of some very expensive infrastructure. Drydocks, cranes, wharves, and warehouses represent billions of dollars of investment in maritime infrastructure along the river. The U.S. Navy alone accounts for a significant portion of that value as the river is home port to nearly one hundred Navy ships and the site of one of the Navy’s largest repair facilities at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.¹ Located within a few hundred yards of the water’s edge are the downtown areas of the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, two major universities, and thousands of homes and businesses.

The ERP has a mission very similar to that of LRN in restoring and protecting the river after which it is named. In addition, both groups rely on citizen-based collaboration. However, the four citizen founders of ERP (see Morris et al., 2013) realized very quickly that their only hope of accomplishing their goal was to engage the business interests along the river. While the pollution problem in the Lynnhaven River was caused by suburban runoff from homes, the pollution problem in the Elizabeth River was the result of industrial pollution. ERP invited all business stakeholders to the table and established itself as a nonjudgmental, nonconfrontational force for a cleaner river. Over the years, ERP engaged in several large-scale restoration and remediation projects and was recognized nationally for its ability to implement collaborative solutions to restore the river. More remarkably, the group’s success is accomplished by working hand-in-hand with the maritime industries represented along the river—industries not generally known for their environmental awareness.

More recently, ERP has been able to use its social capital among businesses and governments in the watershed to engage with these stakeholders around the issue of sea level rise. In this regard, ERP has acted as a conduit between governments and businesses, and provided a respected voice of reason for both sides. ERP has also approached the issue not as an environmental issue per se but rather as an economic issue: How do we protect the enormous capital infrastructure investment in place along the waterway, and how do we mitigate against the growing threat of flooding? By approaching the problem as a business concern, ERP has been able to frame the problem in a way that resonates with businesses in a very real and immediate manner. The net result has been the development of a regional plan to mitigate the effects of sea level rise in the waterway (United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2017). Due to the ability of ERP to engage with the business community, all of the major stakeholders were brought to the table as equal participants in the process.

It is worth noting that the nature of the businesses along the Elizabeth River do not support the kinds of “soft infrastructure” used throughout the Lynnhaven River watershed. However, several smaller tributaries of the Elizabeth River, including the Lafayette River (a tributary almost entirely encircled by private residences), have benefitted from the ERP employing similar tactics.

Discussion

These exemplar cases describe ways in which citizen-based collaborations can be a “force multiplier” in the effort to address the effects of sea level rise and recurrent flooding in coastal communities. Perhaps the most important resource available to these groups is the social capital they are able to produce and nurture within their communities. In an era in which government is often cast as the enemy of citizens, and in which distrust of government is high, these groups can act as a bridge to help convince citizens that their tax dollars are being used in responsible and efficient ways when used to build community resilience for sea level rise. More importantly, the support of these groups sends a strong signal to the community that fellow citizens find benefit in the actions supported by the group. The groups become facilitators of social capital between citizens, government, and other interested organizations; they are able to serve effectively in that role because of their position in the community and the knowledge base they possess. The knowledge base is particularly important in the relationship with the government, in that it confers additional legitimacy to the group. Last, citizens are more easily motivated to participate when the waterway in question is in their community—what Morris et al. (2013) refer to as the “BIMBY” (Because It’s My Back Yard) effect.

In a similar vein, the underlying environmental purpose of these groups allows for the implementation of relatively low-tech “distributed” infrastructure. Better still, from the standpoint of city government, citizens also are willing to bear personal financial responsibility for the costs associated with these projects. While some cost-sharing is available through small grants from local nonprofits, most of the assistance comes in the form of planning, design, and consulting provided to the individual homeowner. Just as these projects can have a measurable positive effect on water quality in the watershed, they can also help build resilience against the effects of sea level rise. The reader should be cautioned against any notion that these citizen projects are, in and of themselves, capable of building sufficient community resilience—far from it. Indeed, there is very much a need for more traditional infrastructure projects to accompany these smaller efforts; for instance, combining beach replenishment and upgraded storm drains with homeowner-financed riparian zones can reduce the effects of flooding. But even small projects can help build community resilience to help mitigate a growing threat.

Conclusion

Collaborative efforts work because the participants in the process are equal partners. The interconnected nature of the environmental landscape may be particularly well suited to collaborative arrangements and the involvement of local citizen groups. Complex relationships among environmental resources and habitats, constant changes to natural landscapes, and high costs associated with long-term solutions create opportunities for local efforts to mobilize and affect change. This article highlights important themes regarding the involvement of citizen volunteers in collaborative arrangements whose goals are aimed at environmental restoration efforts.

First, the collaboration literature recognizes that different types of organizations come together to address complex issues. Partners with diverse expertise and resources are needed to address the complex problems that spark collaborative work (McNamara, 2008). The inclusion of citizens within these arrangements is critical. Not only can these citizens act in ways that public sector actors cannot (or will not) act, but there are strengths within the voluntary sector that should be harnessed to increase abilities to affect change. For example, concerned citizens are in a special position to advocate for their communities, propose new ideas built from localized knowledge and expertise, and increase responsibility and responsiveness to localized needs within these arrangements. In addition, volunteers may be best situated to build bridges among collaborative participants as they are less driven by hierarchical structures, formalized missions, and the political pressures that constrain others who represent organizations from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. While other participants have to focus on identifying overlapping interests, volunteers may be the participants most able to act in good faith to uphold the goals of the collaborative itself. In this sense, volunteers can play a critical role in pushing forward the collaborative agenda (McNamara, 2014).

Second, the cumulative impact in developing trusting relationships can affect political change. Citizen involvement plays a critical role in these relationships as they contribute social capital within the group’s diversification of resources and expertise. Citizens have deep roots within their communities that place them in a unique position to champion local causes based on expertise in geographic knowledge and relationships with local personnel (McNamara, 2008). For example, relationships help facilitate informally the mobilization of community members. A ground swell of activism can ensure a large community presence at public meetings.

Benefits based on the involvement of citizens is recognized in the literature (see Simo & Bies, 2007), but it is a facet of the collaboration literature needing additional research. Scholars and practitioners of infrastructure and public works may find a rich source of both information and inspiration by focusing on the potential inherent in existing citizen collaborative groups. There is also a need for additional cases to be identified to determine whether the successes noted in Hampton Roads are found in other settings. Likewise, more careful scientific research is needed to quantify the cumulative effects of these small-scale projects in terms of their ability to mitigate the effects of sea level rise. While it remains the task of future research to determine the overall impact of these groups on resilience, our exemplar cases suggest this is a rich topic for further exploration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

John C. Morris is a professor in the School of Public Service at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. His research interests include cross-sector collaboration, public–private partner- ships, and water policy. He has published six books and his previous work appears in Public Administration Review, Journal of Politics, Publius, State and Local Government Review, and Public Works Management & Policy among others.

Madeleine W. McNamara is an adjunct assistant professor in the School of Public Service at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Her research interests include collaboration, public policy, and interorganizational theory. Her work appears in journals such as Public Works Management & Policy, the International Journal of Public Administration, Policy & Politics, and the Journal for Nonprofit Management, among others.

Amy Belcher is a PhD student in the School of Public Service at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Her research interests include collaboration, decision making, and social justice.

References

Bingham

L. B.

Nabatchi

O’Leary

(2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65, 547-558.

Callahan

(2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1179-1196.

Campbell

J. T.

Koontz

T. M.

Bonnell

J. E.

(2011). Does collaboration promote grass-roots behavior change? Farmer adoption of best management practices in two watersheds. Society & Natural Resources, 24, 1127-1141.

Carlsson

(2000). Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies Journal, 28, 502-520.

Cooper

T. L.

Bryer

T. A.

Meek

J. W.

(2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 76-88.

D’Agostino

M. J.

Kloby

(2011). Building community capacity to engage government: Reflections of nonprofit leaders on post-Katrina New Orleans. Administration & Society, 43, 749-769.

Diaz-Kope

Miller-Stevens

Morris

J. C.

(2015). Collaboration processes and institutional structure: Reexamining the black box. International Journal of Public Administration, 38, 607-615.

Eggleston

Pope

(2013). Land subsidence and relative sea-level rise in the southern Chesapeake Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey Circular, 1392. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf

Gray

(1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38, 911-936.

10.

Irvin

R. A.

Stansbury

(2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64, 55-65.

11.

Keast

Brown

Mandell

(2007). Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10, 9-33.

12.

Lynnhaven River NOW. (2018). Annual report 2017-2018. Virginia Beach, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.lynnhavenrivernow.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Lynnhaven-River-NOW-Annual-Report-2017-2018.pdf

13.

Margerum

R. D.

(2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management, 41, 487-500.

14.

McNamara

(2008). Exploring interactions during multiorganizational policy implementation: A case study of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3338107)

15.

McNamara

(2012). Struggling to untangle the web of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration: A framework for public managers. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 389-401.

16.

McNamara

(2014). Collaborative windows, entrepreneurs, and subsystems: Setting the stage for partnership to rebuild Louisiana’s coast. Journal of Nonprofit Management, 17(1), 42-65.

17.

McNamara

Leavitt

Morris

(2010). Multiple-sector partnerships and the engagement of citizens in social marketing campaigns: The case of Lynnhaven River NOW. Virginia Social Science Journal, 45, 1-20.

18.

Moore

E. A.

Koontz

T. M.

(2003). A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 451-460.

19.

Morris

J. C.

Gibson

W. A.

Leavitt

W. M.

Jones

S. C.

(2013). The case for grassroots collaboration: Social capital and ecosystem restoration at the local level. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

20.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.

21.

Simo

Bies

A. L.

(2007). The role of nonprofits in disaster response: An expanded model of cross-sector collaboration. Public Administration Review, 67(S1), 125-142.

22.

Takahashi

Smutny

(2002). Collaborative windows and organizational governance: Exploring the formation and demise of social service partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 165-185.

23.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2017). Draft integrated city of Norfolk coastal storm risk management feasibility study/environmental impact statement. Norfolk, VA: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk Division.

24.

United States Geological Survey. (2018). The Chesapeake Bay bolide impact: A new view of coastal plain evolution (USGS Fact Sheet 049-98). Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs49-98/

25.

Vigoda

(2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62, 527-540.