Beyond Belief: Using Cognitive Frameworks to Evaluate Efficiency Within Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Beyond Belief: Using CognitiveFrameworks to Evaluate Efficiency WithinSection 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Jolvan T. Morris and Marcia Allen Owens

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Schoolof the Environment, Tallahassee, Florida.

AbstractPeriodic evaluation is critical to improved program performance.

Equally important to program success are its participants. This

study examines the perceptions and values of staff at the National

Marine Fisheries Service that work closely with Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act with regard to how they ‘‘define’’ an effi-

cient Section 7 consultation, as well as their expectations for the

outputs and outcomes of the consultation process. A better under-

standing of consultants’ insights regarding their work and the Sec-

tion 7 process can facilitate better communication and cooperation

between agencies by bringing the dynamics between trust and control

to the forefront of collaborative environmental management. We

investigated components of the Section 7 process according to

guidelines stated in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook.

The consensus among consultation managers who participated in

our study resulted in a multifaceted definition of an efficient con-

sultation which accommodates project and conservation/recovery

goals.

Introduction

In 1978, consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act (ESA) resulted in the termination of the construction of a

$100 million dam in order to preserve a 3-inch fish called the

snail darter (Baker, 1999; Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill,

1978). Actions such as this have led Section 7 to be dubbed the

‘‘workhorse’’ of the ESA. In order to avoid or minimize the take of the

listed species, Section 7 of the ESA requires that federal agencies

proposing an action that may potentially affect threatened or en-

dangered species consult with either the National Oceanic and At-

mospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Since its in-

ception, the ESA has been faced with challenges such as insufficient

funding for implementation and incomplete or inefficient im-

plementation because of lacking political support (Schwartz, 2008;

Simmons, 1999). Past evaluations of the ESA’s efficacy have led some

researchers to conclude that this piece of biodiversity legislation is

widely debated because it was never designed to be evaluated (e.g.,

Ferraro et al., 2007). This assertion is based on the complex set of

political and biological factors that affect implementation of the ESA.

Broad evaluations of conservation programs such as the ESA

typically consider conservation science, conflict management, or-

ganizational issues, professional behavior, sociological issues, and

policy science (Clark et al., 1994). Over 60 years ago, Professor Aldo

Leopold recognized a need to develop public wildlife management

that integrates social and biological (ecological) consideration (Riley

et al., 2002). Yet there is still relatively little documentary evidence

on the dynamics of ecosystem management regarding the way

management outcomes (species response) are affected over the long

term by political, social, and economic changes and by changes in the

decision-making behaviors of management agencies (Bissix and

Rees, 2001). This study addresses institutional and social analysis

through meeting observations, informal interviews with NOAA

staff, case study research, and through use of the standard issued

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook as a guide to develop a

survey instrument. As part of a larger case study which sought to

evaluate the impacts of Section 7 consultations on species managed

as conservation units, this paper focuses on the social capital com-

ponent of the study and is a novel evaluation of Section 7 from the

44 ECOPSYCHOLOGY MARCH 2013 DOI: 10.1089/eco.2012.0069

vantage point that the consultation process is considered collabo-

rative environmental management.

In recent decades, efforts have intensified to the point that col-

laborative environmental management (or cooperative management,

as some resources call it) has become the norm (Nadasdy, 2003). The

proliferation of collaborative management policies and initiatives

has been accompanied by a burgeoning literature, some of which

examines the phenomenon of collaborative approaches to environ-

mental management in both general and theoretical terms. Much of

this literature consists of case studies that assess particular instances

of collaborative management and the social capacity to enhance

ecosystem resilience, organizational flexibility, participatory ap-

proaches to learning, and knowledge generation for responding ad-

equately to environmental change (e.g., Bissix & Rees, 2001; Ewel,

2001; Gibson & Koontz, 1998; Hahn et al., 2006; Nadasdy, 2003;

Spaeder, 2005; Wagner et al., 2007; many more examples can be

found in the ‘‘gray literature’’ of government reports). On the premise

that science progresses best by integrating the explanatory power of

multiple theories (Allison, 1969; Leach & Sabatier, 2005; Platt, 1964;

Stinchcombe, 1968), this paper considers insights from social psy-

chology, specifically the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), as

well as a performance evaluation framework that assesses collabo-

rative environmental program outputs and outcomes. It is important

to note the distinction between outputs and outcomes: (1) outputs are

the plans, projects, and other tangible items produced directly by the

collaborative process; (2) outcomes are the effects of the collabora-

tive process and its outputs on changing social and environmental

conditions (Koontz & Thomas, 2006; Mandarano, 2008).

The ACF (Fig. 1) is widely regarded as an approach that promotes

the importance of cognitive factors in policy making (Fenger & Klok,

2001). Basic premises of the ACF suggest that the most useful way to

think about policy change over time is through a focus on ‘‘policy

subsystems,’’ that is, the interaction of actors from different institu-

tions who follow and seek to influence governmental decisions in a

policy area; that those subsystems must include an intergovern-

mental dimension; and that policies (or programs) can be concep-

tualized in the same manner as belief systems, that is, as sets of value

priorities and causal assumptions about how to realize them (Sa-

batier, 1993). The framework employs the belief hierarchy to help

explain how individuals assess the ‘‘trustworthiness’’ of other parties

by comparing their own core beliefs to those of other parties. Ac-

cording to Sabatier, individuals who differ on core beliefs see the

world through different lenses and often interpret a given piece of

evidence in different ways. This can produce distrust because people

who reach opposite conclusions on factual issues tend to question

each other’s motives or reasonableness, even on policy topics where

the scientific evidence is relatively clear (Leach & Sabatier, 2005). The

concept of trust is significant when studying collaborative inter-

agency processes, because agencies themselves are not capable of

trust; however, individuals can both trust an agency (as an institu-

tion) and the individual managers and staff representing it ( Janowicz

& Noorderhaven, 2006; Laan et al., 2010). Such frameworks may be

essential in assessing the quality of collaborative environmental

management processes such as Section 7 consultations.

In order to arrive at a richer perspective of consultation quality

expectations from those that work closely with Section 7 of the ESA,

the portion of the larger study that this paper focuses on examines the

perceptions and values of staff at the NMFS with regard to how they

‘‘define’’ an efficient Section 7 consultation. Such findings can be of

value to both service agencies like the NMFS and FWS, which seek to

implement and enforce the ESA, and to action agencies like the Army

Fig. 1. The advocacy coalition framework.

EFFICIENCY WITHIN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

ª MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. � VOL. 5 NO. 1 � MARCH 2013 ECOPSYCHOLOGY 45

Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, or the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation that seek to carry out federally funded pro-

jects. In particular, members of consultation teams at service agen-

cies and project stakeholders at action agencies can gain a better

understanding of the insights of consultants regarding some of the

aspects of their work and Section 7 projects as a whole. Such un-

derstanding can facilitate better communication and cooperation

among the groups involved in the consultation process by identifying

the deep core and policy core beliefs of the individuals that act on

behalf of the institutions involved.

The hypothesis is that the quality of Section 7 consultations is

strongly linked to the perceptions of those who implement

this portion of the ESA. If trusting relationships develop between

service and action agencies, communication about risks and possible

remedies will be more transparent, management of these risks

more effective, and project outcomes more favorable. Conversely, if

trust between service and action agencies remains weak, it will be

hard to realize the positive effects of collaborative environmental

management.

MethodologyDuring the spring of 2011, a senior-level manager in the Northeast

Regional Office of the NOAA forwarded a pre-notification e-mail

with a cover letter and our survey instrument attached to the man-

ager’s equivalents at the other five regional offices. To identify the

most credible and knowledgeable persons for survey questioning, the

pass-along effect was used (Dillman, 2007; Dillman & Bowker, 2001;

Norman & Russell, 2006). Employees at the six regional offices of the

NOAA’s NMFS (Southeast Regional Office, Northeast Regional Office,

Northwest Regional Office, Southwest Regional Office, Alaska Re-

gional Office, Pacific Islands Regional Office) were surveyed. Only

employees in the Protected Resources Divisions that worked closely

with Section 7 of the ESA were considered for solicitation. Our survey

followed protocols outlined in Dillman (2007). The survey was de-

signed with the intention of collecting data to answer the following

research questions: How does managing a species as a conservation

unit affect the Section 7 consultations? How does the use of Section 7

as a conservation tool impact species managed as conservation units?

What constitutes an efficient Section 7 consultation?

Table 1. Primary Output and Outcome Components of Efficient Section 7 Consulting

EFFICIENCYEVALUATION CRITERIA DEFINITIONS

Outputs High-quality documents Documents produced through a collaborative process that justify action or identify a clear approach for implementation and

are approved by a consensus-based process (i.e., Biological Opinions and Recovery Plans)

Collaborative science Agencies being fully involved in providing information and discussing project options

Outcomes Social

Social capital New and improved working relationships, formation of trust, norms of reciprocity (Innes & Booher, 1999; Mandarano, 2008)

Political capital Accommodating project goals; Keeping to time schedules; Ability to work together for agreed ends, end to a stalemate

(Innes & Booher, 1999; Innes et al., 1994; Mandarano, 2008)

Innovation Informal consultations; Involving action agencies and applicants in the development of Reasonable and Prudent

Alternatives and Reasonable and Prudent Measures

Institutional change Changes in or new attitudes, behaviors, actions, and decision-making processes that incorporate learning from experience in

the collaborative process (i.e., managing species as distinct population segments/conservation units/evolutionary significant

units) (Innes & Booher, 1999)

Environmental

Minimization of impacts Minimizing the impacts of incidental take

Perceptions of improved

environmental quality

Participants perceptions of a collaboration’s success in improving environmental parameters (i.e., conserving listed species,

status of entire species, species recovery, preservation of listed species, status of individual populations of listed species.)

MORRIS AND OWENS

46 ECOPSYCHOLOGY MARCH 2013

We based the survey instrument on the primary output and outcome

components of an efficient Section 7 consultation as they are described

in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (Table 1). We di-

vided 19 questions into the following sections: Defining Efficient, the

Handbook as a Consultation Tool, Flexibility and Innovation, Per-

ceptions About the Effects and Usage of Conservation Units, Section 7

Efficacy, and Consultation Experience Information. Pilot testing was

conducted to address the potential for bias of misunderstood questions.

A test of the survey was conducted on a pilot group of upper managers

and staff members within the Northeast Regional Office Protected

Resources Division, as well as academicians. Pilot testing results re-

vealed that in the original survey some of the questions needed to be

reworded for clarity.

The Endangered Species Consultation Handbook states that the

purpose of the field book is to promote efficiency and nationwide

consistency within and between services (Vaughan, 1994); however,

neither the handbook nor the ESA defines what an ‘‘efficient’’ Section

7 consultation is. The first section of the survey addresses this by

asking participants to select a definition that best fits how they would

describe what ‘‘efficient’’ means in the context of conducting a

Section 7 consultation. Based on their selected definition, partici-

pants were then asked to identify the desired effect/result of an ef-

ficient Section 7 consultation or to identify what resources they try to

use ‘‘careful[ly]’’ or ‘‘minimal[ly].’’

The second section focused on the Endangered Species Consulta-

tion Handbook. The objective of the handbook was identified, and

participants were asked if the handbook accomplishes its stated ob-

jective. If participants agreed that the objective is accomplished, they

were asked to indicate the handbook’s degree of helpfulness on a 5-

point Likert-type scale (5 = very helpful, 1 = minimally helpful).

To identify the levels of flexibility and innovation among partici-

pants, we asked whether or not informal consultations equate to effi-

cient consultations in their opinions. Based on the stated requirements

included in the handbook, we considered these items to be integral to

efficient consulting. Participants were asked to rank their perceived

level of importance for 10 requirements on a 5-point Likert-type scale

(5 = very important, 1 = not important). The fourth section of the survey

consisted of two questions which sought to identify perceptions of

conservation units and the effect they have on the consultation pro-

cess. Participants were provided with additional space at the end of the

survey to elaborate on their answer to this question if they chose.

In order to assess perceptions of the efficacy of Section 7 itself,

participants were asked if they believed that this portion of the ESA

increased the level of protection for listed species. Participants were

then asked if they agreed with the following statement:

Jimmie Powell, former Staff Director of the Senate Committee

of Environmental and Public Works said, ‘‘[w]hen compared to all

other activities under [the ESA], it is clear that Section 7 con-

sultations have to date been the major factor in modifying human

actions for the benefit of threatened and endangered species.’’

(Baker, 1999; Powell, 1998)

Consultation experience questions recorded the following infor-

mation: the species that participants have considered in conducting

Section 7–related activities, how much time relative to workload

participants spent working on Section 7–related activities, and the

participant’s regional office affiliation.

ResultsA total of 22 NMFS employees provided full responses to the

survey. Sample size for this research was directed by the research

questions as well as the organizational makeup of Protected Re-

sources Divisions at the different regional offices. There are only a

few staffers that work directly with Section 7 consulting (average

seven per regional office); thus in our investigation of the social

capital component of the larger study, a sample size of 22 was

deemed appropriate. As previously stated in the Methodology, the

pass-along effect was used (Dillman, 2007; Dillman & Bowker, 2001;

Norman & Russell, 2006), as we submitted the cover letter and survey

instrument to senior-level managers at all six regional offices for

distribution to employees that represented the most credible and

knowledgeable persons for survey questioning.

Defining Efficient

A majority of respondents (41%) indicated that ‘‘Acting directly to

produce an effect’’ best fit how they would define ‘‘efficient’’ in the

context of Section 7 consultations. On average, they felt that the

desired effect/result of an efficient consultation was synonymous

with the stated purpose of Section 7 of the ESA, in that federal

agencies consult with service agencies to ‘‘insure that any proposed

action ‘is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any

endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction

or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species’ (16 U.S.C.

xx1536(a)(2)).’’ Respondents commented that the Biological Opinion

issued when the consultation process is concluded should be ‘‘thor-

ough,’’ ‘‘well written,’’ ‘‘well reasoned,’’ and ‘‘an accurate assessment

of potential issues including take, assumptions, and uncertainties.’’

One respondent indicated that this type of accurate assessment

should ‘‘take place prior to Action Agencies drafting a Biological

Assessment or the NMFS drafting a Biological Opinion.’’



Open-ended questioning also revealed that respondents consider

positive working relationships between stakeholders a desired effect

of efficient consulting. Respondents indicated that collaboration and

coordination between service and action agencies was important and

that there ‘‘should be agreement and understanding between the two

agencies that impacts to listed resources/species are to be avoided

and/or minimized.’’ In addition, respondents indicated that meeting

regulatory time frames for consultations was a desired result of an

efficient consultation. In responses regarding the resources that are to

be used carefully or minimally, time reemerged in the context of

seeking informal consultation to minimize the time and cost required

for formal consulting. Money was also identified as a resource to be

used carefully or minimally. Respondents stated that ‘‘travel costs and

applicants’ money should be considered in efficient Section 7 con-

sulting.’’ One respondent specified that ‘‘fuel for site visits and paper

for print copies of inevitable revisions contribute to costs accrued

during the consultation process.’’

The Handbook as a Consultation Tool

In 1999, the NMFS and FWS announced the availability of their

final joint Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (Office of the

Federal Register & U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999). The En-

dangered Species Consultation Handbook was ‘‘developed to aid FWS

and NMFS biologists implementing the Section 7 consultation pro-

cess’’ (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries

Service, 1998). When respondents were asked if the handbook ac-

complished this objective, 77% answered yes. Fourteen percent of

respondents indicated that they had either not received a copy of the

handbook or had not used the handbook as a reference, while only

9% of respondents did not think the handbook accomplished its

stated objectives. Respondents that selected ‘‘Yes’’ were asked to rate

the handbook’s helpfulness using a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 5

was very helpful and 1 was minimally helpful. Forty-one percent of

respondents answered 2, while 47% responded either 3 or 4.

Flexibility and Innovation

A series of sequential analyses is used in formal consultations to

assess the effects of federal actions on endangered and threatened

species and designated critical habitat. The Endangered Species

Consultation Handbook suggests that often proposed actions can be

amended, so there is no need for formal consultation (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). When

asked for their opinion on whether or not informal consultations

equate to efficient consultations, 77% of respondents answered yes.

Respondents who answered yes were given three possible reasons for

their response. When asked to select all that apply, more than two

thirds of yes respondents (12 of 17, 71%) selected create a better inter-

agency working relationship. Approximately the same amount (11 of

17, 65%) selected involve less paperwork/decrease workload, and the

least favored reason (7 of 17, 41%) for informal consultations

equating to efficient consultations was take less time/no prescribed

deadlines.

We investigated 10 items identified as consultation requirements

in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. Respondents were

asked to rate their perceived level of importance for these items (see

Table 2). Highest ranked was the item requirement ‘‘conserving listed

species’’ (82% of respondents gave a rating of 5), followed by ‘‘species

recovery’’ and ‘‘minimizing the impacts of incidental takes’’ (both

given a rating of 5 by 73% of respondents). Based on the percentages

shown in Table 2, most respondents perceived items unrelated to

species as less important.

Perceptions About the Effects and Usage of Conservation Units

The NMFS is challenged with deciding how much separation or

how little exchange among individuals in different groups is nec-

essary to result in recognizing these groups as separate conservation

units. Respondents were asked to identify whether or not they believe

that species receive better protection when they are managed using

distinct population segments (DPSs), conservation units, or evolu-

tionary significant units (ESUs). A majority (77%) of respondents

believed that species are better protected when they are managed

using the aforementioned groupings below species level. The re-

maining 23% were undecided on the matter. When respondents were

asked their opinions on the effects of this particular management

strategy on the consultation process, most (90%) respondents per-

ceived benefits or no changes to the Section 7 process as a result of

using DPSs, conservation units, or ESUs. Through open-ended ques-

tioning, respondents revealed the perceived benefits by stating that

‘‘using taxa below the species level allows for a finer resolution of the

effects analysis in ways that are likely to result in greater conservation’’

and that having multiple ‘‘DPSs allows for leeway in addressing actions

for the species differently as deemed appropriate.’’ Respondents also

explained that since DPSs and ESUs are treated as ‘‘real species,’’ the

consultation process is not changed and that because

the vast majority of [their] consultation workload breaks at the

local action level of geographic consideration, project effects are

not important beyond the site scale, [and] such effects have no

influence on the viability of the populations to which affected

individual animals belong.

MORRIS AND OWENS


One respondent considered this management strategy a hindrance

because it ‘‘requires more time to conduct consultations [when]

considering DPSs.’’ As a digression to this explanation, this respon-

dent added that ‘‘this delay is an overall benefit to the species, be-

cause the impacts must be considered on a finer geographic scale.’’

Section 7 efficacy

In this section of the survey we investigated the respondents’

perceptions regarding the efficacy of Section 7 of the ESA in the

broad context of protection for listed species. The majority (91%)

believe Section 7 increases the level of protection for species listed

under the ESA. A majority (86%) also agreed with former Staff Di-

rector Jimmie Powell’s pro-Section 7 sentiment.

Revealed structural and cultural influences

Content analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions re-

vealed that some respondents chose to provide caveats for the re-

sponses they provided on their surveys. These asides demonstrated that

structural and departmental differences may influence how the Section

7 consultation process is perceived by various NMFS staff. Members of

other divisions, that is, the Habitat Conservation Division or at the

various NMFS field offices, may also be responsible for Section 7

consultation duties. One survey participant indicated that the back-

ground of the participant’s position at the NMFS was different from the

typical PRD staff member, in that the participant belongs to a different

division within the NMFS and works with another federal agency

through a cooperative agreement. This participant continued by stat-

ing that the participant’s Section 7 consulting duties are concentrated

on one specific project type, which only requires that the participant

conduct two or three consultations per year. Another survey partici-

pant revealed the role that cultural differences have in the consultation

process. This participant noted that

[their] perspective is likely very different from that of many of

[their] desk-bound colleagues, both because [they] work in the field

and have a very well established relationship with most applicants

and agencies and visit all sites for which [they] provide comments

and because the culture at [their location] is very different.

Consistency was mentioned as an important component for effi-

ciency during the Section 7 process. One participant stated that

‘‘having a consistent review process will help to provide the greatest

protections to the species because each consultation would be

identifying similar Reasonable and Prudent measures with sufficient

geographic coverage to address the most critical threats.’’

Table 2. Consultation Requirement Rankings

)VERY IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT/

ITEMS N MEDIAN 5 4 3 2 1

Involving action agencies and applicants in the development of

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives and Reasonable and

Prudent Measures

21 5 50% 32% 14% 0% 0%

Minimizing the Impacts of Incidental Takes 22 5 73% 27% 0% 0% 0%

Conserving Listed Species 22 5 82% 14% 5% 0% 0%

Time Schedules 22 3 0% 45% 50% 0% 5%

Accommodating Project Goals 22 4 0% 55% 32% 14% 0%

Action agencies being fully involved in providing information and

discussing project options

22 4 45% 45% 9% 0% 0%

Status of Entire Species 21 5 59% 23% 9% 5% 0%

Species Recovery 22 5 73% 18% 9% 0% 0%

Preservation of Listed Species 22 4 27% 36% 23% 14% 0%

Status of individual populations of listed species 22 5 59% 41% 0% 0% 0%



ConclusionsNot only was the objective of this study to gain insight into the

perceived impacts of this policy on the species it is intended to protect

but also to surmount past speculations that the ESA does not lend

itself to comprehensive evaluation by approaching analysis from a

new angle. By delving further into the collaborative environmental

management components of Section 7, our approach to identifying

the cognitive elements of the efficient and effective implementation of

this part of the ESA solves half the management puzzle. We concluded

from survey responses in our case study that an efficient Section 7

consultation may be defined as a cooperative and collaborative effort

between service and action agencies that makes careful use of the tools

and resources available in order to produce a thorough, well reasoned,

well written, and accurate Biological Opinion which seeks to accom-

modate project goals without compromising the conservation and re-

covery goals outline in the Endangered Species Act. Our study also

largely affirms the perceived beneficial values of management tools

(i.e., the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook) and management

strategies (i.e., DPSs, conservation units, and ESUs).

Our data reflect the output and outcome expectations of NMFS

staff, which brings us to our second conclusion. Based on case study

findings, we confirmed that NMFS staff perceive inter-agency rela-

tionships and items related to project goals and schedules as sec-

ondary to provisions directed toward species conservation,

preservation, recovery, status, and so on. These findings lead us to

theorize that distrust toward action agencies on the part of the NMFS

is the result of the NMFS being cognizant of the opposing beliefs and/

or agendas that some action agencies may possess. Literature on the

dynamics of trust and control suggests that under the substitution

perspective of these concepts, trust and control are inversely related,

implying that the less trust there is between institutions, the more

control will be exercised, and vice versa (Gulati, 1995; Inkpen &

Currall, 2004). Consequently, this leads us to conclude that the dis-

trust created by this knowledge results in NMFS consultants exer-

cising judicious practices in order to insure that Section 7 of the ESA

is upheld. As a result, this leads to Section 7 being an inherently

effective regulatory mechanism due to the perceived necessity for

control that manifests as a result of the core beliefs and policy beliefs

of the staff working to implement this portion of the ESA.

Limitations

It is impossible to determine if survey participants responded

based upon personal experience or for political correctness. Epstein

(2006) suggests that the reliability of survey data is decreased with

sensitive topics. The topic of Section 7 consultations is not sensitive,

nor could the wording of any of the questions incriminate the par-

ticipants. Because of people’s tendency to falsify or misreport in-

formation, Epstein recommends institutional and social analysis as a

better indicator of truthful perceptions than self-reporting.

Management implications and future directions in research

Identifying the gaps in our knowledge and the barriers to progress

in inter-agency collaborative management can point to the areas

where research investment would be most fruitful. Further work is

needed to complete the Section 7 collaborative management picture,

as this is a preliminary hypothesis based on the presented research.

These additional inquiries should try to obtain a sample that repre-

sents the cognitive makeup of different action agencies. A compar-

ative analysis of the NMFS and action agency’s belief hierarchies will

provide further insights toward understanding trust, control, and the

dynamics of inter-agency collaborative efforts. In the future, this

body of work would also benefit from asking about trust directly and

using that data to derive inductive conclusions about the dynamics of

social capital involved in Section 7 consulting.

The research presented in this paper applies to Section 7 consul-

tations, but the basic properties of such protocols raise fundamental

questions about collaborative approaches to environmental man-

agement. For example, what disadvantages exist in mutual working

relationships when control is exercised? Should agencies be aware of

them? In situations of distrust, is control the best approach? If so, how

much does distrust matter? To that end, we offer our assessment for

consideration by other researchers in the area of inter-agency envi-

ronmental management in hopes that future assessments of particular

instances of collaborative approaches will utilize social psychological

insights as part of program evaluation and modification.

REFERENCES

Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. AmericanPolitical Science Review, 63, 689–718.

Baker, N. (1999). Water, water, everywhere, and at last a drop for salmon? NRDC v.

Houston heralds new prospects under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Environmental Law, 29, 607–638.

Bissix, G., & Rees, J. (2001). Can strategic ecosystem management succeed in

multiagency environments? Ecological Applications, 11, 570–583.

Clark, T. W., Reading, R. P., & Clarke, A. L. (Eds.) (1994). Endangered species recovery:Finding the lessons, improving the process. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design methods (2nd

ed.). New York: Wiley.

Dillman, D. A., and Bowker, D. K. (2001). The Web questionnaire challenge to survey

methodologists. Retrieved February 16, 2011, from http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/

dillman/zuma_paper_dillman_bowker.pdf

MORRIS AND OWENS


Epstein, W. M. (2006). Response bias in opinion polls and American social welfare.

The Social Science Journal, 43, 99–110.

Ewel, K. C. (2001). Natural resource management: The need for interdisciplinary

collaboration. Ecosystems, 4, 716–722.

Fenger, M., & Klok, P. J. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A

contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34, 157–170.

Ferraro, P., McIntosh, C., & Ospina, M. (2007). The effectiveness of the US

Endangered Species Act: An econometric analysis using matching methods.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54, 245–261.

Gibson, C. C. and Koontz, T. (1998). When ‘‘community’’ is not enough: Institutions

and values in community-based forest management in southern Indiana.

Human Ecology, 26, 621–647.

Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties

for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 85–

112.

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. Human Ecology, 34, 573–592.

Inkpen, A. C., & Currall, S. C. (2004). The co-evolution of trust, control and learning

in joint ventures. Organization Science, 15, 586–599.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive

systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 412–423.

Innes, J. E., Gruber, J., Neuman, M., & Thompson, R. (1994). Coordinating growth and

environmental management through consensus building. California Policy

Seminar.

Janowicz, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2006). Levels of inter-organizational trust:

Conceptualization and measurement. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.),

Handbook of trust research (pp. 264–280). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What do we know and need to know about

the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? PublicAdministration Review, 66, 111–121.

Laan, A., Noorderhaven, N., Voordijk, H., & Dewulf, G. (2010). Building trust in

construction partnering projects: An exploratory case study. Journal ofPurchasing and Supply Management, 17, 98–108.

Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and

psychological models of collaborative policymaking. American Political ScienceReview, 99, 491–503.

Mandarano, L. A. (2008). Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs

and outcomes: Restoring and protecting habitat and the New York–New Jersey

Harbor Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 456–

468.

Nadasdy, P. (2003). Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic, 58,367–380.

Norman, A. T., & Russell, C. A. (2006). The pass-along effect: Investigating word-of-

mouth effects on online survey procedures. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 11, 1085–1103.

Office of the Federal Register & U.S. Government Printing Office. (1999). FederalRegister. June 10, 1999, Vol. 64, No. 111, p. 31285. Pittsburgh, PA:

Superintendent of Documents.

Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353.

Powell, J. (1998, Sept.–Oct.) Section 7 consultations save critters. Speech presented

at Environmental Forum.

Riley, S., Decker, D., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F., Siemer, W. F., Mattfeld, G. F., &

Parsons, G. (2002). The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife SocietyBulletin, 30, 585–593.

Sabatier, P. A. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In P. A. Sabatier & H. C.

Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning, an advocacy coalitionapproach (pp. 13–39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schwartz, M. W. (2008). The performance of the Endangered Species Act. TheAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 279–299.

Simmons, R. T. (1999). Fixing the Endangered Species Act. The Independent Review,3, 511–536.

Spaeder, J. J. (2005). Co-management in a landscape of resistance: The political

ecology of wildlife management in western Alaska. Anthropologica, 47, 165–178.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 1978.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries Service. (1998).

Endangered species consultation handbook: Procedures for conductingconsultation and conference activities under Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Silver Spring, MD:

National Marine Fisheries Service.

Vaughan, R. (1994). Endangered Species Act handbook. Rockville, MD: Government

Institutes.

Wagner, M. W., Kreuter U. P., Kaiser, R. A., & Wilkins, R. N. (2007). Collective action

and social capital of wildlife management associations. The Journal of WildlifeManagement, 71, 1729–1738.

Address correspondence to:

Dr. Marcia Allen Owens

School of the Environment

Florida A&M University

1515 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

Suite 306-B Humphries Science Research Center

Tallahassee, FL 32307

E-mail: [email protected]

Received: July 16, 2012

Accepted: November 13, 2012

