References
- 1Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Durham and London: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv11sn32g
- 2Alexander, E. R. (2005). Institutional Transformation and Planning: From Institutionalization Theory to Institutional Design. Planning Theory, 4(3), 209–223. DOI: 10.1177/1473095205058494
- 3Amblard, L. (2019). Collective action for water quality management in agriculture: The case of drinking water source protection in France. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101970. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101970
- 4Billgren, C., & Holmén, H. (2008). Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 25(4), 550–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.004
- 5Biological Heritage, N. S. C. (2019). Restoring nature together/Te mahi ngātahi ki te whakaora ake i te ao tūroa: Successes, challenges and finding better ways.
https://bioheritage.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Ecosystem-Regeneration-Brochure-A4-Landscape-Screen.pdf - 6Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (2015). Patterns of commoning. Commons Strategy Group and Off the Common Press.
- 7Boone, S., & Fragaszy, S. (2018). Emerging scarcity and emerging commons: Water management groups and groundwater governance in Aotearoa New Zealand. Water Alternatives, 11(3), 795.
- 8Bouleau, G., Barbier, R., Halm-Lemeille, M.-P., et al. (2020). Despite great expectations in the Seine River Basin, the WFD did not reduce diffuse pollution. Water Alternatives, 13(3), 534–555.
- 9Brydon-Miller, M. (2008). Ethics and action research: Deepening our commitment to principles of social justice and redefining systems of democratic practice. The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice, 199–210. DOI: 10.4135/9781848607934.n19
- 10Cleaver, F. (2017). Development through bricolage: rethinking institutions for natural resource management. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315094915
- 11Cleaver, F., & De Koning, J. (2015). Furthering critical institutionalism. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1). DOI: 10.18352/ijc.605
- 12Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. V. (2010). A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 15(4). DOI: 10.5751/ES-03704-150438
- 13Cox, M., Gurney, G., Anderies, J., et al. (2021). Lessons learned from synthetic research projects based on the Ostrom Workshop frameworks. Ecology and Society, 26(1). DOI: 10.5751/ES-12092-260117
- 14Cumming, G., Epstein, G., Anderies, J., et al. (2020). Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 26–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.02.005
- 15Cunningham, J. B. (1993). Action research and organizational development. Praeger Pub Text.
- 16Del Corso, J.-P., Nguyen, T. D. P. G., & Kephaliacos, C. (2017). Acceptance of a payment for ecosystem services scheme: the decisive influence of collective action. Environmental Values, 26(2), 177–202. DOI: 10.3197/096327117X14847335385517
- 17Epstein, G., Morrison, T. H., Lien., A., et al. (2020). Advances in understanding the evolution of institutions in complex social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 58–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.06.002
- 18Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., et al. (2008). Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. British journal of social psychology, 47(1), 23–48. DOI: 10.1348/014466607X206792
- 19Fletcher, R. (2017). Environmentality unbound: Multiple governmentalities in environmental politics. Geoforum, 85, 311–315. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.06.009
- 20Hernandez, B., Martin, A. M., Ruiz, C., et al. (2010). The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 281–288. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.009
- 21Hogg, M. A. (2020). Social identity theory. Stanford University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781503605626-007
- 22Hughey, K. F. D., Kerr, G., & Cullen, R. (2010). Public perceptions of New Zealand’s environment: 2010. Christchurch: EOS Ecology.
- 23Hughey, K. F. D., Kerr, G., & Cullen, R. (2019). Public perceptions of New Zealand’s environment: 2019. Christchurch: EOS Ecology.
- 24Ingram, H. (2011). 12 Beyond universal remedies for good water governance. Water for food in a changing world, 241.
- 25King, M. (2003). Penguin history of New Zealand. Auckland: Penguin Group.
- 26Klain, S. C., Beveridge, R., & Bennett, N. J. (2014). Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management. Ecology and Society, 19(4). DOI: 10.5751/ES-07123-190452
- 27Leitheiser, S., Trell, E.-M., Horlings, I., et al. (2021). Toward the commoning of governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. DOI: 10.1177/23996544211033992
- 28Li, T. M. (2007). The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- 29Linton, J., & Krueger, T. (2020). The ontological fallacy of the Water Framework Directive: Implications and alternatives. Water Alternatives, 13(3), 513.
- 30Lundqvist, L. J. (2001). Games real farmers play: knowledge, memory and the fate of collective action to prevent eutrophication of water catchments. Local Environment, 6(4), 407–419. DOI: 10.1080/13549830120091707
- 31Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15200–15205. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0702296104
- 32Meinzen-Dick, R., DiGregorio, M., & McCarthy, N. (2004). Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural Systems, 82, 197–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.006
- 33MfE and MPI. (2021).
Freshwater farm plan regulations: Discussion document . Wellington: Ministry for the Environment and Ministry for Primary Industries. - 34Ministry for Primary Industries. (2021). Jobs for Nature. Available at:
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-rural-support/jobs-for-nature/ - 35Ministry for the Environment. (2021). National policy statement for freshwater management. Available at:
https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/national-policy-statements/national-policy-statement-freshwater-management/ - 36Ministry for the Environment and Ministry for Primary Industries. (2020).
Te Mana o te Wai Factsheet . INFO 968. Wellington. - 37Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ. (2020). Our Freshwater 2020: Summary. In: Environment Mft (ed).
https://environment.govt.nz/publications/our-freshwater-2020/ - 38Morrison, T. H. (2017). Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(15), E3013–E3021. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1620830114
- 39Mosse, D. (1997). The symbolic making of a common property resource: history, ecology and locality in a tank-irrigated landscape in south India. Development and change, 28(3), 467–504. DOI: 10.1111/1467-7660.00051
- 40NZ Landcare Trust. (2019).
Community Conservation Groups Survey Report – Nelson/Tasman 2017 and 2018 . NZ Landcare Trust. - 41OECD. (2017). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: New Zealand 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- 42Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511807763
- 43Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104
- 44Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. DOI: 10.1126/science.1172133
- 45Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental conservation, 451–463. DOI: 10.1017/S0376892910000834
- 46Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2004).
Growing for good: Intensive farming, sustainability and New Zealand’s environment . Wellington. - 47Peters, M. A. (2019).
Understanding the context of community conservation hubs . Prepared for the Department of Conservation. - 48Poteete, A. R, Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400835157
- 49Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research. Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781848607934
- 50Sinner, J., Tadaki, M., Kilvington, M., et al. (2020). Catchment groups key to healthy waterways. Stuff, 11 August.
- 51Stringer, E. (2008). ‘This is so democratic!’Action research and policy development in East Timor. The SAGE Handbook of, 550. DOI: 10.4135/9781848607934.n48
- 52Sullivan, A. (2016). The politics of reconciliation in New Zealand. Political Science, 68(2), 124–142. DOI: 10.1177/0032318716676290
- 53Sultana, P., & Thompson, P. (2004). Methods of consensus building for community-based fisheries management in Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta. Agricultural Systems, 82(3), 327–353. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.007
- 54Tadaki, M., Challies, E., & Kilvington, M. (2021). Road-Testing Academic Theory with New Zealand Catchment Groups.
https://ourlandandwater.nz/news/road-testing-academic-theory-with-new-zealand-catchment-groups/ - 55Terwan, P., Deelen, J. G., Mulders, A., et al. (2016).
The cooperative approach under the new Dutch agrienvironment-climate scheme . Background, procedures and legal and institutional implications. The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. - 56Thiel, A., Adamseged, M. E., & Baake, C. (2015a). Evaluating an instrument for institutional crafting: How Ostrom’s social–ecological systems framework is applied. Environmental Science & Policy, 53, 152–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.020
- 57Thiel, A., Mukhtarov, F., & Zikos, D. (2015b). Crafting or designing? Science and politics for purposeful institutional change in Social–Ecological Systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 53, 81–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.018
- 58Thomas, E., Riley, M., & Spees, J. (2020). Knowledge flows: Farmers’ social relations and knowledge sharing practices in ‘Catchment Sensitive Farming’. Land Use Policy, 90, 104254. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104254
- 59Turner, M. D. (2017). Political ecology III: The commons and commoning. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), 795–802. DOI: 10.1177/0309132516664433
- 60Valizadeh, N., Bijani, M., Karimi, H., et al. (2020). The effects of farmers’ place attachment and identity on water conservation moral norms and intention. Water Research, 185, 116131. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116131
- 61Villamayor-Tomas, S., Thiel, A., Amblard, L., et al. (2019). Diagnosing the role of the state for local collective action: Types of action situations and policy instruments. Environmental Science & Policy, 97, 44–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.03.009
- 62Wall, D. (2017). Elinor Ostrom’s Rules for Radicals: Cooperative Alternatives Beyond Markets and States. London: Pluto Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt1vz4931
- 63Whaley, L. (2018). The critical institutional analysis and development (CIAD) framework. International Journal of the Commons, 12(2). DOI: 10.18352/ijc.848
- 64Yoder, L. (2019). Compelling collective action: Does a shared pollution cap incentivize farmer cooperation to restore water quality? International Journal of the Commons, 13(1). DOI: 10.18352/ijc.879