Integrating Social Science in Puget Sound Restoration

References

1. ↵
   1. Ansell, C. and
   2. A. Gash

   . 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:543-57.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. ↵
   1. Ansell, C. and
   2. A. Gash

   . 2017. Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28:16-32.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bennett, N.J.,
   2. R. Roth,
   3. S.C. Klain,
   4. K. Chan,
   5. P. Christie,
   6. D.A. Clark, et al.

   2017. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205:93-108.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Bernard, H.R.,
   2. A. Wutich and
   3. G. Ryan

   . 2017. Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5. ↵
   1. Breslow, S., et al.

   2020. Social Science for the Salish Sea: An action-oriented research agenda to inform ecosystem recovery. Report to Puget Sound Partnership.
6. ↵
   1. Brunner, R.D.,
   2. T.A. Steelman,
   3. L. Coe-Juell,
   4. C.M. Cromley,
   5. C.M. Edwards and
   6. D.W. Tucker

   . 2005. Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
7. ↵
   1. Buizer, M.,
   2. B. Arts and
   3. K. Kok

   . 2011. Governance, scale and the environment: The importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas. Ecology and Society 16(1):21.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Cash, D.,
   2. W. Clark,
   3. F. Alcock,
   4. N. Dickson,
   5. N. Eckley and
   6. J. Jäger

   . 2003. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making: John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
9. ↵
   1. Chilvers, J. and
   2. J. Evans

   2009. Understanding networks at the science-policy interface. GeoForum 40:355-362.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Cloke, P.,
    2. I. Cook,
    3. P. Crang,
    4. M. Goodwin,
    5. J. Painter and
    6. C. Philo

    . 2004. Practicing Human Geography. London, UK: Sage.
11. ↵
    1. Conservation Measures Partnership

    . 2016. Incorporating social aspects and human wellbeing in biodiversity conservation projects. Version 2.0. Foundations of Success. cmp-openstandards.org/guidance/addressing-human-wellbeing.
12. ↵
    1. Dittmer, J.

    2010. Popular Culture, Geopolitics, and Identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
13. ↵
    1. Diver, S.

    2017. Negotiating Indigenous knowledge at the science-policy interface: Insights from the Xáxli’p Community Forest. Environmental Science and Policy 73:1-11

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Emerson, K. and
    2. T. Nabatchi

    . 2015. Collaborative Governance Regimes. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
15. ↵
    1. Fleming, W. and
    2. K. Biedenweg

    . 2019. Visualizing Human Wellbeing in the Puget Sound. Tacoma, WA: Puget Sound Partnership.
16. ↵
    1. Görg, C.,
    2. H. Wittmer,
    3. C. Carter,
    4. E. Turnhout,
    5. M. Vandewalle,
    6. S. Schindler, et al.

    2016. Governance options for science-policy interfaces on biodiversity and ecosystem services: comparing a network versus a platform approach. Biodiversity and Conservation 25:1235-1252.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Guerrero, A.M.,
    2. N.J. Bennett,
    3. K.A. Wilson,
    4. N. Carter,
    5. D. Gill,
    6. M. Mills, et al.

    2018. Achieving the promise of integration in social-ecological research: a review and prospectus. Ecology and Society 23:38

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Halimi, S. and
    2. C.W. Shinn

    . 2014. Multilevel environmental governance of conservation programs. Pages 180-110 in D.F. Morgan and B.J. Cook (eds), New Public Governance: A Regime-Centered Perspective. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
19. ↵
    1. Harguth, H.,
    2. K. Stiles,
    3. K. Biedenweg,
    4. S. Redman,
    5. S. O’Neill

    . 2015. Integrated Conceptual Model for Ecosystem Recovery: Tacoma, WA: Puget Sound Partnership.
20. ↵
    1. Irwin, A.

    2008. STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance. Pages 583-607 in E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman. (eds), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
21. ↵
    1. Koontz, T.M.

    2017. How Science is Used in Puget Sound Ecosystem Recovery Planning: An Exploratory Survey of Members of Local Integrating Organizations. Tacoma, WA: University of Washington Tacoma.
22. ↵
    1. Koontz, T.M. and
    2. C.W. Thomas

    . 2018. Use of science in collaborative environmental management: Evidence from local watershed partnerships in the Puget Sound. Environmental Science and Policy 88:17-23.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Koontz, T.M. and
    2. C.W. Thomas

    . 2006. What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review 66:111-121.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. ↵
    1. Lave, R.

    2012. Fields and Streams: Stream Restoration, Neoliberalism, and the Future of Environmental Science. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
25. ↵
    1. Leavy, P.

    2017. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and Community-Based Participatory Research Approaches. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
26. ↵
    1. Marshall, N.,
    2. N. Adger,
    3. S. Attwood,
    4. K. Brown,
    5. C. Crissman,
    6. C. Cvitanovic, et al.

    2017. Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy. PLoS ONE 12:e0171950.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Massaua, M.J.,
    2. C.W. Thomas and
    3. T. Klinger

    . 2016. The use of science in collaborative management of marine environments. Coastal Management 44:606-627.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. McNie, E.C.

    2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10:17-38.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
29. 1. Morgan, D.F. and
    2. C.W. Shinn

    . 2014. The foundations of new public governance. Pages 3-12 in D.F. Morgan and B.J. Cook (eds), New Public Governance. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
30. ↵
    1. Newig. J. and
    2. T. Moss

    . 2017. Scale in environmental governance: moving from concepts and cases to consolidation. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 19:473-479.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Office of Financial Management

    . 2017. County and City Data. Olympia: State of Washington. www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/county-and-city-data.
32. ↵
    1. Pickett, N.R.,
    2. S. Henkin and
    3. S. O’Lear

    . 2020. Science, technology, and society approaches to fieldwork in Geography. The Professional Geographer 72:253-263.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Poe, M.,
    2. J. Donatuto and
    3. T. Satterfield

    . 2016. “Sense of place:” Human well-being considerations for ecological restoration in Puget Sound. Coastal Management 44:1-18.

    OpenUrl
34. 1. Puget Sound Partnership

    . 2014. The 2014-2015 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. Tacoma, WA: Puget Sound Partnership.
35. ↵
    1. Puget Sound Partnership

    . 2018. The 2018-2022 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. Tacoma, WA: Puget Sound Partnership.
36. ↵
    1. Robinson, P.,
    2. K. Genskow,
    3. B. Shaw and
    4. R. Shepard

    . 2012. Barriers and opportunities for integrating social science into natural resource management: Lessons from National Estuarine Research Reserves. Environmental Management 50:998-1011.

    OpenUrlPubMed
37. ↵
    1. Robinson, K.F.,
    2. A.K. Fuller,
    3. R.C. Stedman,
    4. W.F. Simer and
    5. D.J. Decker

    . 2019. Integration of social and ecological sciences for natural resource decision making: challenges and opportunities. Environmental Management 63:565-573.

    OpenUrl
38. 1. Saunders, F.P.,
    2. M. Gilek and
    3. S. Linke

    . 2017. Knowledge for environmental governance: probing science-policy theory in the cases of eutrophication and fisheries in the Baltic Sea. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 19:769-782.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Sarkki, S.,
    2. E. Balian,
    3. U. Heink,
    4. H. Keune,
    5. C. Nesshöver,
    6. J. Niemelä, et al.

    2019. Managing science-policy interfaces for impact: Interactions within the environmental governance meshwork. Environmental Science and Policy 113:21-30.

    OpenUrl
40. ↵
    1. Schiller, A.,
    2. C.T. Hunsaker,
    3. M.A. Kane,
    4. A.K. Wolfe,
    5. V.H. Dale,
    6. G.W. Suter, et al.

    2001. Communicating ecological indicators to decision makers and the public. Conservation Ecology 5:19.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Scott, T. and
    2. C.W. Thomas

    . 2017. Winners and losers in the ecology of games: Network position, connectivity, and the benefits of collaborative governance regimes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27:647-660.

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Wellman, K.F.,
    2. K. Biedenweg and
    3. K. Wolf

    . 2014. Social sciences in Puget Sound recovery. Coastal Management 42:298-307.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Williams, D.R.

    2013. Science, Practice, and Place. Pages 21-34 in Stewart, W.P., D.R. Williams, and L.E Kruger. (eds), Place-Based Conservation: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. London, UK: Springer.