Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T16:44:35.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Watershed Management Councils and Scientific Models: Using Diffusion Literature to Explain Adoption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2006

M. Dawn King
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
Nina Burkardt
Affiliation:
United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado
Brad T. Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
Get access

Abstract

Recent literature on the diffusion of innovations concentrates either specifically on public adoption of policy, where social or environmental conditions are the dependent variables for adoption, or on private adoption of an innovation, where emphasis is placed on the characteristics of the innovation itself. This article uses both the policy diffusion literature and the diffusion of innovation literature to assess watershed management councils' decisions to adopt, or not adopt, scientific models. Watershed management councils are a relevant case study because they possess both public and private attributes. We report on a survey of councils in the United States that was conducted to determine the criteria used when selecting scientific models for studying watershed conditions. We found that specific variables from each body of literature play a role in explaining the choice to adopt scientific models by these quasi-public organizations. The diffusion of innovation literature contributes to an understanding of how organizations select models by confirming the importance of a model's ability to provide better data. Variables from the policy diffusion literature showed that watershed management councils that employ consultants are more likely to use scientific models. We found a gap between those who create scientific models and those who use these models. We recommend shrinking this gap through more communication between these actors and advancing the need for developers to provide more technical assistance.

Type
FEATURES & REVIEWS
Copyright
© 2006 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Berry, F. S., and W. D. Berry. 1990. State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84(2):395413.Google Scholar
Born, S. M., and K. D. Genskow. 2000. The Watershed Approach: An Empirical Assessment of Innovation in Environmental Management. In Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century, volume II. National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC, 7a.97a.106.
Carlson, R. O. 1965. Adoption of Educational Innovations. University of Oregon Press, Eugene.
Clark, B. T., N. Burkardt, and M. D. King. 2005. Watershed Management and Organizational Dynamics: Nationwide Findings and Regional Variations. Environmental Management 36(2):297310.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Ellis, R. J. 2002. Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Hays, S. P. 1996. Influences of Reinvention during the Diffusion of Innovations. Political Research Quarterly 29(3):631650.Google Scholar
Imperial, M. T. 1999. Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management 24(4):449465.Google Scholar
Kenney, D., S. T. McAllister, W. H. Caile, and J. S. Peckman. 2000. The New Watershed Source Book: A Directory and Review of Watershed Initiatives in the Western United States. Natural Resource Law Center, Boulder, CO.
Lippman, M., H. Inyang, and R. Kasperson. 2000. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Commentary Resulting from a Workshop on the Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection. EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-001, November 12, Washington, DC.
Loch, C. H., and B. Huberman. 1999. A Punctuated-Equilibrium Model of Technology Diffusion. Management Science 2:16077.Google Scholar
Lubell, M., M. S. Schneider, J. T. Scholz, and M. Mete. 2002. Watershed Partnerships and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 46(1):148163.Google Scholar
Rieke, E. A., and D. S. Kenney. 1997. Resource Management at the Watershed Level. Colorado University Natural Resource Law Center, Boulder.
Rogers, E. M. 1993. The Diffusion of Innovations Model. In Use and Diffusion of Geographic Information Technologies, I. Masser and H. J. Onsrud, eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 924.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition. The Free Press, Columbus, OH.
Ryan, B., and N. Gross. 1943. The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities. Rural Sociology 8(1):1524.Google Scholar
Tornatzky, L. G., and L. Klein. 1982. Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Implementation: A Meta Analysis of Findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 29(1):2845.Google Scholar
Walker, D. B. 2001. The Rebirth of Federalism: Slouching toward Washington, 2nd Edition. Seven Bridges Press, New York.
Walker, J. L. 1969. The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States. American Political Science Review 63:880899.Google Scholar