Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., 2005. Response neighborhoods in online learning networks: A quantitative analysis. Educational Technology & Society 8, 90–99. Belaire, J.A., Dribin, A.K., Johnston, D.P., Lynch, D.J., Minor, E.S., 2011. Mapping
stewardship networks in urban ecosystems. Conservation Letters 4, 464–473. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00200.x
Belso-Martinez, J.A., Exposito-Langa, M., Mas-Verdu, F., Xavier Molina-Morales, F., 2017. Dynamics of Brokerage Positions in Clusters: Evidence from the Spanish Foodstuffs Industry. Sustainability 9, 290. doi:10.3390/su9020290
Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), 1998. Linking sociological and ecological systems:
management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York City.
Boari, C., Riboldazzi, F., 2014. How knowledge brokers emerge and evolve: The role of actors’ behaviour. Research Policy 43, 683–695. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.007 Bodin, O., Crona, B., Ernstson, H., 2006. Social networks in natural resource
management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society 11, r2.
Bodin, O., Prell, C. (Eds.), 2011. Social networks and natural resource management: Uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Boin, A., van Eeten, M.J.G., 2013. The Resilient Organization A critical appraisal. Public Management Review 15, 429–445. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.769856
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C., 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA.
Borras, S., 2007. The European commission as network broker. European Integration Online Papers-Eiop 11.
Boyd, E., Cornforth, R.J., Lamb, P.J., Tarhule, A., Lele, M.I., Brouder, A., 2013.
Building resilience to face recurring environmental crisis in African Sahel. Nature Climate Change 3, 631–637. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1856
Burt, R., 1997. The Contingent Value of Social Capital. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 339–365. doi:10.2307/2393923
Butts, C.T., 2008. Social network analysis: A methodological introduction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 11, 13–41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00241.x
83
Calvet-Mir, L., Maestre-Andres, S., Luis Molina, J., van den Bergh, J., 2015.
Participation in protected areas: a social network case study in Catalonia, Spain. Ecology and Society 20, 45. doi:10.5751/ES-07989-200445
Chindime, S., Kibwika, P., Chagunda, M., 2016. Positioning smallholder farmers in the dairy innovation system in Malawi: A perspective of actors and their roles. Outlook on Agriculture 45, 143–150. doi:10.1177/0030727016663532 Comfort, L.K., Sungu, Y., Johnson, D., Dunn, M., 2001. Complex systems in crisis:
Anticipation and resilience in dynamic environments. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 9, 144–158.
Crona, B., Bodin, O., 2006. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society 11, 7.
Crona, B., Hubacek, K., 2010. The Right Connections: How do Social Networks
Lubricate the Machinery of Natural Resource Governance? Ecology and Society 15, 18.
Diamant, R., 2000. From management to stewardship: The making and remaking of the U.S. National Park System. The George Wright Forum 17, 31–45.
Eglene, O., Dawes, S.S., Schneider, C.A., 2007. Authority and leadership patterns in public sector knowledge networks. American Review of Public Administration 37, 91–113. doi:10.1177/0275074006290799
Enqvist, J., Tengo, M., Bodin, O., 2014. Citizen networks in the Garden City: Protecting urban ecosystems in rapid urbanization. Landscape and Urban Planning 130, 24– 35. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.007
Ernstson, H., Barthel, S., Andersson, E., Borgstrom, S.T., 2010. Scale-Crossing Brokers and Network Governance of Urban Ecosystem Services: The Case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society 15, 28.
Everett, M.G., Valente, T.W., 2016. Bridging, brokerage and betweenness. Social Networks 44, 202–208. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2015.09.001
Faust, K., 2010. A puzzle concerning triads in social networks: Graph constraints and the triad census. Social Networks 32, 221–233. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.004 Ferreira, S., 2012. Moulding urban children towards environmental stewardship: the
Table Mountain National Park experience. Environmental Education Research 18, 251–270. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.622838
84
Foster, H.D., 1993. Resilience Theory and System Evaluation, in: Wise, J.A., Hopkin, V.D., Stager, P. (Eds.), Verification and Validation of Complex Systems: Human Factors Issues, NATO ASI Series. Springer, Berlin, pp. 35–60.
Francisco Carcamo, P., Garay-Fluehmann, R., Gaymer, C.F., 2014. Collaboration and knowledge networks in coastal resources management: How critical stakeholders interact for multiple-use marine protected area implementation. Ocean & Coastal Management 91, 5–16. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.01.007
Gallopin, G.C., 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 16, 293–303. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004
Giuffre, K., 2013. Communities and networks: Using social network analysis to rethink urban and community studies. Polity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Gould, R., Fernandez, R., 1989. Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to
Brokerage in Transaction Networks. Sociological Methodology 19, 89–126. Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78,
1360–1380.
Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Hamin, E.M., 2001. The US National Park Service’s partnership parks: collaborative responses to middle landscapes. Land Use Policy 18, 123–135.
doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00006-0
Harris, J.K., 2014. An introduction to exponential random graph modeling, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. SAGE Publications, Inc., Los Angeles. Harrison, J.L., Montgomery, C.A., Bliss, J.C., 2016. Beyond the Monolith: The Role of
Bonding, Bridging, and Linking Social Capital in the Cycle of Adaptive Capacity. Society & Natural Resources 29, 525–539. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1103389 Hirschi, C., 2010. Strengthening Regional Cohesion: Collaborative Networks and
Sustainable Development in Swiss Rural Areas. Ecology and Society 15, 16. Holman, N., 2008. Community participation: using social network analysis to improve
developmental benefits. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy 26, 525–543. doi:10.1068/C0719p
Jarvis, J., 2012. The relevance of national parks, in: Rethinking Protected Areas in a Changing World. Presented at the 2011 George Wright Society Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites, George Wright Society, New Orleans, LA, pp. 155–159.
85
Kalish, Y., 2008. Bridging in social networks: Who are the people in structural holes and why are they there? Asian Journal of Social Psychology 11, 53–66.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00243.x
Kazmierczak, A., 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning 109, 31–44.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007
Keiter, R.B., 2010. The National Park System: Visions for Tomorrow. Natural Resources Journal 50, 71–110.
Knoke, D., Yang, S., 2008. Social network analysis, Second. ed. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Laven, D.N., Krymkowski, D.H., Ventriss, C.L., Manning, R.E., Mitchell, N.J., 2010. From partnerships to networks: New approaches for measuring US National Heritage Area effectiveness. Evaluation Review 34, 271–298.
doi:10.1177/0193841X10370668
Long, J.C., Cunningham, F.C., Braithwaite, J., 2013. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. Bmc Health Services Research 13, 158. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-158
Manring, S.L., 2007. Creating and managing interorganizational learning networks to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Organization & Environment 20, 325–346. doi:10.1177/1086026607305738
McCown, R., Tuxill, J., Laven, D., Mitchell, N., Manning, R., Jewiss, J., 2011. Beyond Outreach Handbook A Guide to Designing Effective Programs to Engage Diverse Communities.
McCown, R.S., Laven, D., Manning, R., Mitchell, N., 2012. Engaging new and diverse audiences in the National Parks: An exploratory study of current knowledge and learning needs, in: George Wright Forum. pp. 272–284.
Mitchell, N., Morrison, T., Farley, V., Walter, C., 2006. Keeping national parks relevant for the 21st century. National Park Service Conservation Study Institute,
Woodstock, VT.
Moeliono, M., Gallemore, C., Santoso, L., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., 2014. Information networks and power: confronting the “wicked problem” of REDD plus in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 19, 9. doi:10.5751/ES-06300-190209 Newig, J., Guenther, D., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2010. Synapses in the Network: Learning in
Governance Networks in the Context of Environmental Management. Ecology and Society 15, 24.
86
NPS Stewardship Institute, 2015. Urban Agenda: Call to action initiative.
Page, S.B., Stone, M.M., Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., 2015. Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration 93, 715–732. doi:10.1111/padm.12161
Ponomarov, S.Y., Holcomb, M.C., 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Logistics Management 20, 124–143. Prell, C., Reed, M., Racin, L., Hubacek, K., 2010. Competing Structure, Competing
Views: The Role of Formal and Informal Social Structures in Shaping Stakeholder Perceptions. Ecology and Society 15, 34.
Romolini, M., Grove, J.M., Locke, D.H., 2013. Assessing and comparing relationships between urban environmental stewardship networks and land cover in Baltimore and Seattle. Landscape and Urban Planning 120, 190–207.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.008
Sandstrom, A., Rova, C., 2010. Adaptive Co-management Networks: a Comparative Analysis of Two Fishery Conservation Areas in Sweden. Ecology and Society 15, ZZ.
Scott, J., 2013. Social Network Analysis, Third Edition. ed. Sage.
Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 16, 282–292. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
Spiro, E.S., Acton, R.M., Butts, C.T., 2013. Extended structures of mediation: Re- examining brokerage in dynamic networks. Social Networks 35, 130–143. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.02.001
Stovel, K., Golub, B., Milgrom, E.M.M., 2011. Stabilizing brokerage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 21326– 21332. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100920108
Stovel, K., Shaw, L., 2012. Brokerage, in: Cook, K.S., Massey, D.S. (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology, Vol 38. pp. 139–158.
Thornton, T., Leahy, J., 2012. Changes in Social Capital and Networks: A Study of Community-Based Environmental Management Through a School-Centered Research Program. Journal of Science Education and Technology 21, 167–182. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9296-1
Tortoriello, M., 2015. The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects. Strategic Management Journal 36, 586–597. doi:10.1002/smj.2228
87
Totterdell, P., Holman, D., Hukin, A., 2008. Social networkers: Measuring and examining individual differences in propensity to connect with others. Social Networks 30, 283–296. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2008.04.003
Vangen, S., Huxham, C., 2012. The Tangled Web: Unraveling the Principle of Common Goals in Collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22, 731–760. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur065
Walker, B., Salt, D., 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, 1st ed, Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
88
Table 4. Gould and Fernandez (G&F) brokerage role descriptions.
G&F brokerage role Role description Triad composition
Source Broker Recipient
Coordinator All actors belong to the same group A A A
Gatekeeper Source belongs to a different group B A A
Representative Recipient belongs to a different group A A B Consultant/Itinerant Broker belongs to a different group B A B
Liaison All actors belong to different groups B A C
Table 5. NPS Urban Agenda organizational categories by percent of roster list for each site. Detroit (N=79) Tucson (N=80) Boston (N=39)
Economic vitality 17.7 22.5 † Education 7.6 11.3 5.3 Health † 5.0 2.6 Cultural resources 16.5 18.8 44.7 Outdoor recreation 17.7 7.5 13.2 Sustainability 20.3 12.5 18.4 Urban design 7.6 7.5 5.3 Youth 8.9 5.0 5.3 Diversity inclusion 3.8 10.0 5.3
†No group members
Table 6. Descriptive statistics for present and potential NPS urban collaborative networks in each site.
Measure Detroit Tucson Boston
Present Potential Present Potential Present Potential
Density 0.329 0.555 0.381 0.661 0.378 0.654 Average degree 25.696 43.266 30.087 52.213 13.974 24.211 Degree centralization 0.517 0.457 0.505 0.348 0.486 0.365 Out-centralization 0.510 0.451 0.499 0.343 0.473 0.355 In-centralization 0.368 0.282 0.358 0.266 0.362 0.272 Connectedness 0.886 0.886 0.926 0.938 0.947 0.974 Fragmentation 0.114 0.114 0.074 0.063 0.053 0.026 Closure 0.570 0.743 0.584 0.791 0.566 0.756 Average distance 1.671 1.375 1.605 1.295 1.634 1.328
Cliques (≥3 members, weak ties) 3,545 10,809 5,401 69,851 172 872
Transitivity 0.378 0.441 0.306 0.445 0.276 0.410 T riad p ro p o rtio n s Empty subgraph 0.103 0.012 0.100 0.006 0.097 0.002
Single directed edge 0.141 0.039 0.145 0.024 0.183 0.022
Single mutual tie 0.097 0.036 0.129 0.030 0.156 0.040
Out two-star 0.105 0.042 0.063 0.020 0.040 0.024
In two-star 0.027 0.017 0.024 0.014 0.035 0.017
All intransitive triplets 0.329 0.477 0.374 0.503 0.354 0.527
-- Intransitive two path 0.029 0.019 0.029 0.012 0.047 0.020
All transitive triplets 0.200 0.376 0.165 0.403 0.135 0.366
Table 7. Average number of triads for each G&F brokerage role by organizational category in present and potential NPS urban collaborative networks in each site. City and network G&F brokerage role Organizational category Economic
vitality Education Health
Cultural resources
Outdoor
recreation Sustainability Urban design Youth
Diversity inclusion De tro it P re se n t Coordinator Gatekeeper 114.0 22.8 80.7 5.2 † † 110.6 54.7 172.1 46.4 118.2 35.8 90.3 4.5 65.3 11.0 20.3 0.3 Representative 65.9 52.3 † 213.0 161.5 136.1 54.5 75.1 14.7 Consultant 52.3 90.8 † 84.2 107.7 76.6 156.3 59.1 65.0 Liaison 259.9 526.2 † 373.0 472.5 338.6 717.8 295.3 411.3 P o ten ti al Coordinator 50.8 7.8 † 98.7 90.0 59.7 8.8 17.7 2.0 Gatekeeper 275.7 139.7 † 304.1 380.6 282.5 161.2 164.7 80.0 Representative 228.0 96.7 † 456.2 416.3 241.6 124.3 166.3 90.7 Consultant 177.4 215.8 † 217.2 273.1 176.3 312.7 209.7 275.3 Liaison 945.5 1174.7 † 1082.5 1332.0 853.1 1487.0 1053.7 1535.7 Tu cso n P re se n t Coordinator Gatekeeper 133.3 280.7 10.2 80.3 60.8 6.0 163.5 45.5 108.5 7.0 172.3 30.9 26.5 0.7 68.5 4.3 44.4 5.0 Representative 293.7 111.1 69.8 140.1 92.7 167.1 24.2 70.0 40.3 Consultant 89.5 114.8 68.5 94.3 170.3 129.1 117.0 119.5 53.8 Liaison 531.7 657.9 459.0 417.3 896.7 710.8 482.7 639.0 267.6 P o ten ti al Coordinator 179.0 27.6 6.0 99.3 11.3 52.5 5.2 5.0 22.6 Gatekeeper 575.2 240.4 114.0 483.3 230.8 400.2 110.2 125.0 169.8 Representative 563.2 292.4 131.3 389.7 188.7 338.5 129.2 146.0 247.8 Consultant 236.9 323.4 248.5 276.1 435.8 359.0 311.2 341.0 246.1 Liaison 1463.8 1874.3 1500.5 1475.7 2476.0 1919.6 1617.7 2062.3 1372.6 Bo sto n P re se n t Coordinator Gatekeeper † † 2.5 ‡ ‡ § 44.7 56.1 42.4 5.6 26.1 5.0 7.5 ‡ 15.5 ‡ 10.5 ‡ Representative † 7.0 § 59.8 42.8 25.1 2.5 12.5 10.5 Consultant † 50.5 9.0 7.1 68.4 26.6 33.5 45.5 18.0 Liaison † 77.0 29.0 34.6 167.4 69.4 90.5 142.5 87.5 P o ten ti al Coordinator † ‡ ‡ 135.8 5.6 17.0 ‡ ‡ ‡ Gatekeeper † 22.0 § 142.4 64.8 85.6 12.0 28.0 17.5 Representative † 20.0 § 159.9 52.6 98.0 5.5 24.0 22.0 Consultant † 146.0 58.0 27.4 132.6 122.7 127.5 160.5 76.0 Liaison † 312.0 192.0 122.5 314.4 281.3 303.0 492.0 292.0
†No group members; ‡Group of ≤2 members cannot be Coordinators; §Group of 1 member cannot be Gatekeepers or Representatives
Table 8. Percent capacity (%) in G&F brokerage roles for each organizational category in NPS urban collaborative networks in each site.
City G&F brokerage role
Organizational category Economic
vitality Education Health
Cultural resources Outdoor recreation Sustainability Urban design Youth Diversity inclusion Detr o it Coordinator 44.9 66.0 † 55.4 51.6 60.0 50.9 62.1 16.7 Gatekeeper 41.3 57.8 † 36.4 45.2 41.8 56.0 39.6 25.4 Representative 28.9 54.1 † 46.7 38.8 56.3 43.8 45.2 16.2 Consultant 29.5 42.1 † 38.8 39.4 43.4 50.0 28.2 23.6 Liaison 27.5 44.8 † 34.5 35.5 39.7 48.3 28.0 26.8 T u cso n Coordinator 74.5 37.1 100.0 45.9 61.8 58.9 12.9 85.0 22.1 Gatekeeper 78.8 33.4 53.3 33.8 47.0 43.1 24.1 54.8 26.1 Representative 52.1 38.0 53.1 36.0 49.1 49.4 18.7 47.9 16.2 Consultant 37.8 35.5 27.6 34.1 39.1 36.0 37.6 35.0 21.8 Liaison 36.3 35.1 30.6 28.3 36.2 37.0 29.8 31.0 19.5 B o sto n Coordinator † ‡ ‡ 41.3 100.0 29.4 ‡ ‡ ‡ Gatekeeper † 11.4 § 31.4 65.4 30.6 62.5 55.4 60.0 Representative † 35.0 § 37.4 81.4 25.7 45.5 52.1 47.7 Consultant † 34.6 15.5 25.8 51.6 21.7 26.3 28.3 23.7 Liaison † 24.7 15.1 28.2 53.2 24.7 29.9 29.0 30.0
†No group members; ‡Group of ≤2 members cannot be Coordinators; §Group of 1 member cannot be Gatekeepers or Representatives
Figure 5. NPS present urban collaborative network in Detroit. Actors colored by organizational category and sized by quartiles of percent capacity of all G&F brokerage roles, with larger actors representing lower percent capacity and more potential for brokerage.
Figure 6. NPS present urban collaborative network in Tucson. Actors colored by organizational category and sized by quartiles of percent capacity of all G&F brokerage roles, with larger actors representing lower percent capacity and more potential for brokerage.
Figure 7. NPS present urban collaborative network in Boston. Actors colored by organizational category and sized by quartiles of percent capacity of all G&F brokerage roles, with larger actors representing lower percent capacity and more potential for brokerage.
94
CHAPTER 5: INTERNAL COLLABORATIONS FOR EXTERNAL