Transaction costs for collaboration in the watershed management of the Cuyahoga River Area of Concern
Received date: 2021-09-22
Revised date: 2022-03-31
Accepted date: 2022-07-10
Online published: 2022-09-19
This study examines the transaction costs of collaborative watershed management in the Cuyahoga River Area of Concern (AOC)—one of the 43 geographic areas designated by the U.S. and Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), where significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities. The Cuyahoga River is located in Northeast Ohio, the U. S. and flows through the City of Cleveland before draining into Lake Erie—one of the five Great Lakes of North America. The watershed is degraded due to municipal and agricultural discharges, streambank erosion, and contamination from urban and industrial sources. This research explores how a diverse group of stakeholders convened under the Cuyahoga River AOC Advisory Committee to share information, coordinate activities, agree on activities that restore beneficial uses, and support strategic management actions. In this study, 23 semi-structured interviews with members of the advisory committee were conducted between January 28, 2020 and April 20, 2020, with follow-up emails and phone calls as needed to corroborate information. A review of research articles and government documents supported the interviews, including United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Ohio Environment Production Agency (OEPA) reports on the GLWQA and Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plans. A third source of data is from direct participant observation at quarterly meetings of the advisory committee during 2017-2020, binational AOC conferences in 2017 and 2019, and other professional events geared towards restoring the Cuyahoga River AOC in 2016-2020. Results help to explain the collaborative process within the advisory committee and measure the institutional performance of the advisory committee in terms of efficiency, equitability, accountability, and adaptability. Results of this study include a set of recommendations to help guide group structure and decision-making processes, including (1) employing best available technology to organize AOC events and disseminate information; (2) supporting new members with an orientation and/or mentor to clearly define formal and informal committee rules; (3) assuring equal access to detailed information on management action plans with a real time dashboard; (4) updating voting procedures and the prioritization of management actions; and (5) better incorporating underrepresented local communities and high-level decision makers from municipalities, government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations located within the Cuyahoga River AOC.
Scott Daniel HARDY . Transaction costs for collaboration in the watershed management of the Cuyahoga River Area of Concern[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2022 , 3(2) : 146 -156 . DOI: 10.1016/j.regsus.2022.07.005
| [1] | Ananda, J., Proctor, W., 2013. Collaborative approaches to water management and planning: An institutional perspective. Ecol. Econ. 86, 97-106. |
| [2] | Bellanger, M., Speir, C., Blanchard, F., et al., 2020. Addressing marine and coastal governance conflicts at the interface of multiple sectors and jurisdictions. Front. Mar. Sci. 7(544440), doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.544440. |
| [3] | Blomquist, W., Schlager, E., 2005. Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18(2), 101-117. |
| [4] | Borisova, T., Racevskis, L., Kipp, J., 2012. Stakeholder analysis of a collaborative watershed management process: a Florida case study. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 48(2), 277-296. |
| [5] | Coggan, A., Whitten, S.M., Bennett, J., 2010. Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 69(9), 1777-1784. |
| [6] | Cordella, A., 2001. Does information technology always lead to lower transaction costs? In:Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Systems. Bled: European Conference on Information Systems, 854-864. |
| [7] | Crawford, S.E.S., Ostrom, E., 1995. A grammar of institutions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89(3), 582-600. |
| [8] | da Costa Silva, G., 2011. Assessing environmental justice of community-based watershed management: A tool to build adaptive capacity in Latin America. Local Environ. 16(5), 445-460. |
| [9] | Fox, S., Qillaq, E., Angutikjuak, I., et al., 2020. Connecting understandings of weather and climate: steps towards co-production of knowledge and collaborative environmental management in Inuit Nunangat. Arct. Sci. 6, 267-278. |
| [10] | Goodman, J., Gigante, M., 2018. Cleveland flats’ revitalization linked to recovery of the Cuyahoga River. In: Cuyahoga River Case Study. International Association of Great Lakes Research. Ohio, the USA. |
| [11] | Hardy, S.D., Koontz, T.M., 2009. Rules for collaboration: institutional analysis of group membership and levels of action in watershed partnerships. Policy Stud. J. 37(3), 393-414. |
| [12] | Hardy, S.D., 2010. Governments, group membership, and watershed partnerships. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 587-603. |
| [13] | Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environ. Manage. 24, 449-465. |
| [14] | Imperial, M.T., 2005. Using collaboration as a governance strategy: lessons from six watershed management programs. Adm. Soc. 37(3), 281-320. |
| [15] | Imperial, M.T., Yandle, T., 2005. Taking institutions seriously: using the IAD framework to analyze fisheries policy. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18, 493-509. |
| [16] | Kauneckis, D., Imperial, M.T., 2007. Collaborative watershed governance in Lake Tahoe: an institutional analysis. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior. 10(4), 503-546. |
| [17] | Kerr, J., 2007. Watershed management: lessons from common property theory. Int. J. Commons. 1(1), 89-109. |
| [18] | Kiser, L.L., Ostrom, E., 1982. The three worlds of action:A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom, E., (ed.). Strategies of Political Inquiry. Los Angeles: Sage Publishing, 179-222. |
| [19] | Koontz, T.M., Steelman, T.A., Carmin, J., et al., 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington D.C.: Rff Press, 1-35, 147-174. |
| [20] | Leach, W.D., Pelky, N.W., 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage.-ASCE. 127(6), 378, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2001)127:6(378. |
| [21] | Levi, M., 2008. 12 a logic of institutional change. In: Cook, K.S., Levi, M., (eds.). The Limits of Rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 402-418. |
| [22] | Lubell, M., Mewhirter, J.M., Berardo, R., et al., 2017. Transaction costs and the perceived effectiveness of complex institutional systems. Public Adm. Rev. 77(5), 668-680. |
| [23] | McCann, L., 2013. Transaction costs and environmental policy design. Ecol. Econ. 88, 253-262. |
| [24] | Narendra, B.H., Siregar, C.A., Dharmawan, I.W.S., et al., 2021. A review on sustainability of watershed management in Indonesia. Sustainability. 13(19), 11125, doi: 10.3390/su131911125. |
| [25] | O’Neill, K., 2005. Can watershed management unite town and country? Soc. Nat. Resour. 18(3), 241-253. |
| [26] | Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons:The Evolution for Institutions of Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-55. |
| [27] | Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., Wynne, S., 1993. Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development:Infrastructure Policies in Perspective. Boulder: Westview Press, 43-124. |
| [28] | Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 3-50. |
| [29] | Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems. Science. 325, 419-422. |
| [30] | Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud. J. 39(1), 7-27. |
| [31] | Pannell, D.J., Roberts, A.M., Park, G., et al., 2013. Improving environmental decisions: A transaction-costs story. Ecol. Econ. 88, 244-252. |
| [32] | Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141(10), 2417-2431. |
| [33] | Sabatier, P., Focht, W., Lubell, M., et al., (eds.). 2005 Swimming Upstream:Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1-23, 173-233. |
| [34] | Scott, T.A., 2016. Is collaboration a good investment? Modeling the link between funds given to collaborative watershed councils and water quality. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theory. 26(4), 769-786. |
| [35] | The Government of Canada and the Federal Government of the United States, 2013. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement—Protocol Amending the Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America on Great Lakes Water Quality, 1978, As Amended on October 16, 1983, and on November 18, 1987, Signed September 7, 2012, Entered into force February 12, 2013. [2021-7-18]. https://www.ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/GLWQA_2012.pdf. |
| [36] | U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2019. What is the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)? [2021-3-23]. https://www.epa.gov/glwqa/what-glwqa. |
| [37] | Wang, Y., Zhao, Y.H., 2021. Is collaborative governance effective for air pollution prevention? A case study on the Yangtze River delta region of China. J. Environ. Manage. 292, 112709, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112709. |
| [38] | Wondolleck, J.M., Yaffee, S.L., 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1-66. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |