{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02016285381930981, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007754943776657619, 'mean_word_length': 5.916890080428955, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Examining changes in public resource governance in the United States through three analytical lenses

Analyses of public natural resource governance in the United States have traditionally been viewed as a principal-agent problem: the behavior of administrative bureaucracies to secure power and resources, and the structures, processes, and strategies to control and limit discretion of the administrative state by civil society. Over the past 20 years, the roles of non-governmental actors in US public resource governance, especially at the subnational level, have increased and evolved to the point where many lines that historically separated public, private, and civic sectors have blurred. The purpose of this paper is to examine this governance change through three analytical lenses: Collaborative Public Management, Adaptive Governance, and New Institutionalism. Each lens offers a framework of understanding and explaining certain aspects of public resource governance; collectively, the lenses provide analytical power beyond what any single lens could provide. The Collaborative Public Management (CPM) draws on a family of inquiry encompassing network governance, collaborative management, hybrid arrangements, and strands of New Public Management to address public goods management and delivery problems that cannot easily be solved by any single entity. CPM focuses attention on: structures of interdependence; strategies for pooling resources, monitoring, and accountability; and capacity to attain desired outcomes. Adaptive Governance draws attention to the integration of science, policy and decision making at a constitutive level to facilitate adaptive management at the operational level. Structures that facilitate social learning, successive modifications and continued improvement across different scales are of particular interest. New institutionalism suggests that the intuitions of governance resist change, so that even new ideas—such as adaptive governance and collaborative public management—may fail to become institutionalized, even when widely supported. If they do beceome institutionalized, it may be in a context in which older institutions continue to co-exist, creating a complex and sometimes contradictory management context. We apply these lenses on the problem of wildfire risk mitigation and prevention as an emblematic public resource governance issue. Historically, wildfire mitigation was the sole province of federal land management agencies, especially the U.S. Forest Service, in cooperation with state authorities. In the past