Adaptive Management (AM) is a stakeholder-driven process. However, a blind spot exists in operations and in measuring the progress of AM programs. No explicitly agreed upon definition of progress exists. Stakeholders have very different definitions of and perceptions of what progress means. Yet, these differences are not part of progress evaluation in AM programs.

This study examines four distinct aspects of AM stakeholder behavior in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) stakeholder group—the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). In this dissertation, I examine these behavioral aspects through an evaluation of four propositions: (1) Stakeholder behavior is an important aspect of AM complexity. Explicit evaluations of this behavior are rarely conducted but are integral to perceived progress of AM. (2) A definition that integrates AMWG stakeholder evaluations can be used to identify Adaptive Management Program (AMP) barriers-to-progress. (3) AMWG stakeholders are the most important source of information for the definition of AM problems. Individual stakeholders often define AM problems and progress differently. Research on critical coalitions suggests that formal evaluation of stakeholder behavior can help AM progress. (4) AMWG member evaluations are integral to producing a greater degree of stakeholder-relevant evaluations of progress.

In my research, I found that behavior does contribute to AM complexity and should be integrated into the definition of AM progress. AMWG stakeholder evaluations can be used to identify AMP barriers-to-progress. The critical coalitions concept can be used to aid in AM problem definition, solution formulation, and identification of stakeholder coalitions for problem solving. Integration of individual stakeholder evaluations into the definition of progress yields results that provide a greater degree of stakeholder relevance.

It is important to integrate aspects of stakeholder behavior into AM. Without their inclusion, problems may be misidentified and incorrectly addressed or go unrecognized and unaddressed. Because of differences among stakeholders in perceptions and definitions of progress, it is critical to make these differences explicit and include these perceptions and definitions in evaluations of AM progress. Integration of these aspects makes for a more stakeholder-relevant evaluation of progress.