Connolly, J., E. Svendsen, D. Fisher & L. Campbell (2013). Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 76-84.
Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project.
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
The aim of this study was to better understand how and why certain civic stewardship groups serve as bridge organizations between public agencies and other civic groups by working across scales and sectors. With recent research focused on detailing the function of urban environmental stewardship, this paper explores how specific UES groups serve as “bridge organizations” in urban ecosystem management by working across sectors and geographic scales. This focus on “bridge organizations” points to Bodin et. al’s 2006 call to better understand the role of “the broker” in social ecological systems, the broker described as an organization that “gains access to many pieces of group specific information captured inside the different groups, which allows the broker to synthesize a large knowledge pool…[and know] which groups or individuals to connect, how to connect them, and when” (77), while also pulling from the social capital literature on “bridging” and “bonding” ties.
The authors point to the growth of UES movements as contradictory to recent conclusions that civic participation is declining and that urban environmental movements are fragmented in that they are largely place-based.
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
The study argues that New York City is an interesting case for looking at environmental governance structures in that it has “strong development pressures and a dense civil society” and was already highly developed by the mid-1800s, with a strong network of advocacy organizations fighting for tenant’s rights, labor rights, and community development in place. Recent efforts to promote environmental stewardship include Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030. While the authors note that New York City’s governance structure is likely different from that of other cities in the sheer number and density of actors involved, they see New York as being a good model for determining whether a dense network of organizations is effective in this type of work.
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
Using semi-structured interviews with well-connected organizations in order to understand why they adopt the role of bridge organizations. The authors chose to include both nonprofits and informal community groups, all of which work at a borough or city-wide scale, committed to a wide array of environmental issues from several sources. All groups were based in New York, all private businesses were excluded, as were all “quasi-governmental groups,” resulting in a sampling size of 2767 groups. A twenty question survey was administered to all groups with questions surrounding the nature of the group’s activities, Mixed-methods
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
This study takes as its backdrop, New York City, an urban setting fraught with environmental health disparities.
Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.)
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
Connolly, J., E. Svendsen, D. Fisher & L. Campbell (2013). Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 76-84.
The aim of this study was to better understand how and why certain civic stewardship groups serve as bridge organizations between public agencies and other civic groups by working across scales and sectors. With recent research focused on detailing the function of urban environmental stewardship, this paper explores how specific UES groups serve as “bridge organizations” in urban ecosystem management by working across sectors and geographic scales. This focus on “bridge organizations” points to Bodin et. al’s 2006 call to better understand the role of “the broker” in social ecological systems, the broker described as an organization that “gains access to many pieces of group specific information captured inside the different groups, which allows the broker to synthesize a large knowledge pool…[and know] which groups or individuals to connect, how to connect them, and when” (77), while also pulling from the social capital literature on “bridging” and “bonding” ties.
The authors point to the growth of UES movements as contradictory to recent conclusions that civic participation is declining and that urban environmental movements are fragmented in that they are largely place-based.
The study argues that New York City is an interesting case for looking at environmental governance structures in that it has “strong development pressures and a dense civil society” and was already highly developed by the mid-1800s, with a strong network of advocacy organizations fighting for tenant’s rights, labor rights, and community development in place. Recent efforts to promote environmental stewardship include Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030. While the authors note that New York City’s governance structure is likely different from that of other cities in the sheer number and density of actors involved, they see New York as being a good model for determining whether a dense network of organizations is effective in this type of work.
Using semi-structured interviews with well-connected organizations in order to understand why they adopt the role of bridge organizations. The authors chose to include both nonprofits and informal community groups, all of which work at a borough or city-wide scale, committed to a wide array of environmental issues from several sources. All groups were based in New York, all private businesses were excluded, as were all “quasi-governmental groups,” resulting in a sampling size of 2767 groups. A twenty question survey was administered to all groups with questions surrounding the nature of the group’s activities, Mixed-methods
- How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
This study takes as its backdrop, New York City, an urban setting fraught with environmental health disparities.