Planning in Watershed Governance Networks: The Structure of Adap=ve Capacity Wendy A . Kellogg Aritree Samanta Levin College of Urban Affairs Cleveland State University ACSP Annual Conference Philadelphia, PA October, 2014 Presenta=on Outline •
•
•
•
•
Research Ques=ons Conceptual Framework Case Study Watershed Data Collec=on and Analysis Results –  Structural network quali=es –  Planning performance –  Knowledge and adap=ve capacity •  Next Steps for Research Research Ques=ons •  What is the structure of networked governance in the Chagrin River watershed? –  Why and how was the structure of governance created out of organiza=onal interac=ons? For what purpose and goal? •  How have the structural a9ributes and func;on of the governance network co-­‐evolved over ;me? –  How effec=ve have these been in terms of planning outcomes? •  How is knowledge for planning generated and transferred in this network? –  Does shared knowledge support the long-­‐term adap=ve capacity for governance and resilience of the watershed? Conceptual Framework Ecological, Economic and Social Disrup=ons and Opportuni=es Watershed as Social-­‐Ecological System (SES) Governance Structure and Func=on Network Type and Organiza=onal Posi=on and Role Planning Performance Funding, Plans & Projects Adap=ve Capacity: Networked Social Learning Adap=ve Co-­‐
Management Policy Outcomes: Ecological Resilience and Status of Ecosystem Three Types of Networks Source: Baran, P. 1964; presented by Dodge,
2007
Conceptual Framework Ecological, Economic and Social Disrup=ons and Opportuni=es Watershed as Social-­‐Ecological System (SES) Governance Structure and Func=on Network Type and Organiza=onal Posi=on and Role Planning Performance Funding, Plans & Projects Adap=ve Capacity: Networked Social Learning Adap=ve Co-­‐
Management Policy Outcomes: Ecological Resilience and Status of Ecosystem Knowledge For Adap=ve Capacity: Networked Social Learning •  Adap=ve capacity rests on development of instrumental and rela=onal exper=se to support –  Problem solving and decision making –  Adjustment of rules and norms for interac=on as resource changes demand –  Accumula=on and sharing knowledge set to form a learning network •  Distributed cogni=on (Argyris and Schon 1996) and collabora;ve memory •  How? •  social learning, defined as “a change in understanding that goes beyond the individuals to become situated within wider social units or communi=es of prac=ce through social interac=ons •  Reed 2010 Research Design •  Characterize SES & exis=ng governance network • Interviews of 20 stakeholders – Transcribed and coded for themes • Documents and organiza=onal web pages • Linked-­‐in follow up on these people – 100+organiza=ons, 300+ people • Network analysis using UCINET sodware Lake Erie Chagrin River
Painesville Township
Lake Erie
Leroy Township
Town of Willoughby-Chagrin River
Mentor
Timberlake
Concord Township
Eastlake
Lakeline
Lake
Willoughby
Kirtland Hills
Willowick
East Branch Chagrin River
Chardon Township
Waite Hill
Wickliffe
Hambden Township
Euclid
Kirtland
Willoughby Hills
Chardon
Highland Heights
Mayfield
Gates Mills
Munson Township
Chester Township
Claridon Township
South Euclid
Lyndhurst
Mayfield Heights
Beaver Creek-Chagrin River
Beachwood
Hunting Valley
Pepper Pike
Hunting Valley
Griswold Creek-Chagrin River
Newbury Township
Russell Township
Burton Township
Woodmere
Highland Hills
Silver Creek
Moreland Hills
Chagrin Falls Township
Orange
Cuyahoga
South Russell
Geauga
Bentleyville
Bedford Heights
McFarland Creek-Aurora Branch
Auburn Township
Bainbridge Township
Solon
Troy Township
Bedford
Oakwood
Headwaters Aurora Branch
Glenwillow
Reminderville
Portage
Twinsburg
Macedonia
Mantua Township
Aurora
Hiram Township
Northfield Center Township
Mantua
Twinsburg Township
Boston Heights
Hudson
Streetsboro
Chagrin River Watershed
Shalersville Township Freedom Township
1:200,000
0
0.5
1
2
3
Miles
4
Source: USGS NHD, US Census Bureau
E
Results: Network Emergence and Structure •  Founding of CRWP –  Land owners and land trusts preserve rural aesthe=c and land value –  Early local govt. members: mo=vated by Phase 2 •  Legal structure of CRWP –  Member organiza=on of local governments (villages and townships); pay dues –  Incorporated as a nonprofit organiza=on –  Staff and board Network Structure in the Chagrin •  Network structure in the Chagrin River watershed (Provan and Kenis 2008) –  NAO (Network Administra=ve Organiza=on) •  separate en=ty is set up to govern a network and its ac=vi=es; centralized , legally cons=tuted –  Network lead organiza=on (NLO) •  One member assumes leadership role based on resources and legi=macy; coordinates network decisions; centralized role; informally maintained CRWP as NAO CRWP as LON CRWP as LON A Hybrid Network: NAO + NLO •  How has this improved performance? –  Inherent legi=macy of CRWP as NAO •  Vests interest by state and federal agents •  Leverages CRWP role in building secondary, broader network that mobilizes resources and exper=se in service to local governments and also benefits en=re network of organiza=ons •  Shids network type form “A” to “B” but CRWP remains in key central role controlling flow of knowledge and resources (with support of the network because of their capacity) Results: A Hybrid Network: NAO + NLO and Planning Performance •  Tangible Outcomes: –  Mobiliza=on of $ and exper=se –  Plan making •  Two major efforts: watershed ac=on plan & balanced growth plan •  Extensive inventory and analysis of watershed condi=ons CRWP received funding from federal and state agencies –  Implementa=on •  Local policies re: watershed; riparian setbacks •  Stream restora=on projects Two Plans for the Chagrin River Watershed Watershed Ac,on Plan Balanced Growth Plan Authorizing agency Chagrin River Watershed Board of Trustees Chagrin River Watershed Board of Trustees & Ohio Lake Erie Commission Purpose Mi=gate water quality Land use for water quality viola=ons, focused on discharge protec=on and nonpoint sources Primary implementa=on strategy Phase II SW management, Designa=on of primary model codes, sewer discharges, development and conserva=on stream restora=on, dam areas at local level removal, Funding Sec=on 319 program, CWA Ohio Water Resources Council Target stakeholders Local government members, county health depts. Local government members Year completed 1999, updated 2003, 2010 2009 Lead CRWP staff CRWP staff Plan Implementa=on •  Local government policies: –  Riparian “setbacks” through out watershed –  More than 30 governments in home rule context •  Stream and storm water projects –  All brokered somehow by CRWP staff as lead organiza=on in broader collabora=on network –  Bridging role brings innova=on: design/build on stream projects Network Analysis of Five Projects Results: Networked Knowledge for Adap=ve Capacity •  Adaptability/transformability: Social learning and a learning network? •  NAO: yes!! •  role of CRWP staff with local governments: clear change in perspec=ve among local govts. •  Unique role of CWRP as membership organiza=on of local governments places land use authority at core of collabora=on and coordina=on in watershed; this is GOOD! –  NLO in part •  Learning by doing, BUT knowledge fragmented by geography and communi=es of prac=ce (sub-­‐networks) •  Trust in exper=se and shared interests Challenges To A Learning Network •  Knowledge is situa=on in sub-­‐networks: –  Strengthen sharing of instrumental and tacit rela=onal knowledge over a wider geography –  Debrief project successes and failures to professionals and local decision makers: share what has been learned Challenges to A Learning Network •  No clear vision of how to incorporate uncertainty into shared planning and decision making –  But all respondents expected they could adapt to changing condi=ons based on their trust of exper=se and good working rela=onships •  S=ll no overall shared understanding of ecological risks or watershed-­‐level perspec=ve among local governments or ci=zens –  “only CRWP has a watershed perspec=ve” Challenges to A Learning Network •  Over-­‐reliance on a few key organiza=ons or key people can reduce flexibility of governance structure and func=on Next Steps •  Examine in more detail the role of land conservancies in water resource governance and land connec=on •  Compara=ve analysis of other watershed-­‐
based governance networks in Ohio and/or GL states Thank You •  Various directors and former directors of CRWP •  Other stakeholders •  Cleveland State University Research Office for Faculty Ini=a=ve grant to support 2 graduate students to assist on the project