Characterizing Collaboration in the Klamath Basin, USA An Exercise in Institutional Mapping

Characterizing Collaboration in the
Klamath Basin, USA
An Exercise in Institutional Mapping
*Image of Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge by ex_magician under creative commons license
Brian C Chaffin
Department of Geosciences
Oregon State University
Presentation Outline
• Identification of a Problem: Complexity
• Case Study: The Klamath Basin
• Investigation Technique: Institutional Mapping
• Next Steps: Defining Space for Coordinated Restoration
• Expected Research Outcomes: Restoration Planning
• Broader Impacts: Effective Basin-Scale Restoration
Across the Pacific Northwest, restoring rivers to
some form of historical function is becoming
increasingly important to a wide audience of
human actors and institutions.
The concept of river restoration takes on very
different meanings for different groups:
The return of anadromous fish
Historical flows
Dam removal
Spiritual renewal
Elwha River: Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries Service
Klickitat River, Yakima Native Fishermen: Rob Finch/The Oregonian
Marmot Dam Removal: American Rivers
San Juan River
In Oregon, River restoration is important to...
Public land management agencies
Environmental groups
Commercial fishing industry
Problem Statement
• The function of a large river ecosystem is a product of
complex interactions between social and ecological
processes throughout the watershed
• Current governance institutions such as the Clean Water
Act (CWA) fail to provide a unified governance approach
to regulate and coordinate restoration efforts across a
large river basin
• Local approaches to river restoration governance exist but
are not well coordinated across large river basins
Can multiple, locally based institutions or
stakeholder groups collaborate across both
space and time to manage a large-scale river
basin restoration program?
“...the traditional, segmented approach [to large
natural systems restoration] was largely ineffective.
The only way to proceed is to use the best available
science to comprehend the interconnected problems
and to work on all aspects of restoration
simultaneously and comprehensively.”
-Mary Doyle from Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration (2008)
The Klamath Basin: A Case Study
Outbreaks of Blue-Green Algae
Runoff (NPS)
Large Dams
Endangered Species
Graphic created for a three part series on the “issues surrounding the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement” Channel 12 KDRV, Medford, OR – April 2009
The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
• 2010 – The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
(KBRA) & Klamath Basin Hydroelectric Settlement
Agreement (KHSA)
• Taken together, these agreements comprise one of
the most comprehensive restoration projects and
water management agreements ever envisioned
(Gosnell & Kelly 2010)
• Reflects need to address social, economic, and
ecological stressors in an integrated manner
Initial Research Goal
Review the KBRA & KHSA
Explain the institutional structure of the
Determine if the provisions within the KBRA &
KHSA create sufficient legal & jurisdictional space
to allow locally-based institutions the ability to
collaborate and focus efforts toward holistic
basin-scale restoration
Simple, right?
Operational structure of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
Institutional Mapping: What is it?
• Institutional Mapping is a process
• A method employed to create a model of a real
world operational environment
• Involves research and presentation about what
actually happens among resource users
• No single preferred method to map institutions
• Multiple ‘maps’ can be equally accurate
• Common forms include flow charts, tables, Venn
diagrams, and cartographic maps
Institutional Mapping: History
Stems from long history of ‘mapping social space’ in
Geography (Claval 1984)
“Charting the diverse forms of accountability,
representation and participation” (Wilks-Heeg 2005)
Informed by underlying meta-theory (Aligica 2006)
Compared with similar techniques such as social
network, mobility, and cognitive mapping (The World
Bank 2011)
Institutional Mapping: Components
Organizations: groups of people organized to
achieve a common goal (governments agencies,
communities of practice, NGOs, Tribes, firms, etc.)
Sets of rules: institutions that govern ownership
and use of resources, production, exchange, and
consumption under which economies work
(statutes, common and administrative law, social
ethics, values, norms, etc)
Institutional Mapping: Process
1. An inventory of institutions
2. An analysis of institutional roles and linkages
including power, influence, and position in space
(physical or perceived)
3. A textual or visual depiction of the institutional
environment—a map (Aligica 2006)
C.L. Smith 2002
Argued that institutional mapping is a process that builds on
the logic of GIS though not distinctly cartographic
He layered three “coverages”– qualitatively derived
measures of scale, power, and capital– over four institutions
involved in watershed management
Analysis yielded a ranking of institutional influence on
watershed management
Stimie et al. 2001
Study of water users in the Olifants and Steelport River
Basins in Africa
Coined the term “hydro-institutional mapping”
Conducted qualitative research (interviews, surveys,
document review) to determine an actual, quantified
relationship between institutions and water use
In the process, defined previously unknown blockages to
collective management of water resources
Operational structure of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
Operational structure of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
Next Steps
1. Through qualitative field work and extensive document
review, further catalog and define institutions involved in
the KBRA & KHSA including a characterization of
relationships between institutions
2. Create a similar ‘map’ based solely on stakeholder
perceptions of how the KBRA & KHSA will function if
implemented (use cognitive mapping techniques)
3. Combine the informed KBRA & KHSA ‘map’ with the
perception map to define the space within which Klamath
stakeholders will operate under the agreements
Expected Outcomes
Apply the ‘mapped’ dimensions of the institutional
environment to an on the ground issue of basin-scale
restoration such as improvements in water quality
Based on the results of the institutional mapping exercise,
propose a scenario that allows for:
The coordination of existing collaborative institutions
Basin-scale management of collaborative restoration activities
A plan to monitor the aggregate effects of coordinating
collaboration for restoration, both ecologically and institutionally
Broader Impacts
Why does this matter:
 Define the people, processes, level of influence, and any
institutional relation to the resource that led the Klamath
Basin stakeholders to take on Basin scale restoration
 Provide the academic community and resource
stakeholders with a practical model for defining and
mapping the pattern of governing collaboration across a
varied yet connected ecological space
 To replicate this process for coordinating collaborative
restoration in other geographic contexts
Aligica, Paul Dragos, 2006. Institutional and Stakeholder Mapping: Frameworks for
Policy Analysis and Institutional Change. Public Organization Review 6:79-90.
Claval, Paul, 1984. The Concept of Social Space and the Nature of Social Geography.
New Zealand Geographer 40(2):105-109.
Gosnell, H., and E. C. Kelly, 2010. Peace on the River? Social-Ecological Restoration
and Large Dam Removal in the Klamath Basin, USA. Water Alternatives 3(2):
Smith, C. L., 2002. Institutional Mapping of Oregon Coastal Watershed Management
Options. Ocean & Coastal Management 45(6-7):357-375.
Stimie, C., E. Richters, H. Thompson, S. Perret, M. Matete, K. Abdallah, J. Kau, and E.
Mulibana. 2001. Hydro-Institutional Mapping in the Steelport River Basin,
South Africa. In Working Paper 17 (South Africa Working Paper No. 6).
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
The World Bank. 2011. Tool Name: Institutional Perception Mapping. In Poverty &
Social Impact Analysis Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.