Evolving Institutional Arrangements for Use of an Ecosystem Approach in Restoring Great Lakes Areas of Concern

Abstract

The 1987 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement required Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) be collaboratively generated between local stakeholders and government agencies to implement an ecosystem approach in cleaning up 43 historically polluted Areas of Concern (AOCs) throughout the Laurentian Great Lakes. The institutional arrangements that have emerged over the past 35 years to foster an ecosystem approach in RAPs are expected to have changed over time and be varied in some aspects—reflecting unique socio-ecological contexts of each AOC—while also sharing some characteristics that were either derived from the minimally prescribed framework or developed convergently. Here we surveyed institutional arrangements to describe changes over time relevant to advancing an ecosystem approach in restoring beneficial uses in the 43 AOCs. While eight AOCs evidenced little institutional change, the remaining 35 AOCs demonstrated a growing involvement of local organizations in RAPs, which has enhanced local capacity and ownership and helped strengthen connections to broader watershed initiatives. We also noted an expansion of strategic partnerships that has strengthened science-policy-management linkages and an increasing emphasis on sustainability among RAP institutions. Our study details how institutional arrangements in a decentralized restoration program have evolved to implement an ecosystem approach and address new challenges.

Coupling ecosystem-centered governance modes with environmental justice

“…To more fully understand ecosystem-centric and EJ governance, we selected an environmental clean-up initiative conceived of as an ecosystem-centered approach (Angradi et al, 2019;Alsip et al, 2021). Northwest Indiana (USA) is the site of the Grand Calumet AOC.…”

“…As part of the AOC work, they are required to convene stakeholders. AOCs have fulfilled that requirement to various depths and levels of achievement (Muldoon, 2012;Hornik et al, 2016;Cutts et al, 2018b;Zeemering, 2018;Angradi et al, 2019;Holifield andWilliams, 2019, 2021;Hartig et al, 2020;Alsip et al, 2021;Hardy, 2022).…”

“…That is: effective ecosystem governance outcomes are not synonymous with improvements in environmental justice (i.e., Holifield, 2004;Shilling et al, 2009;Harrison, 2019). Ecosystem governance has the potential to derail environmental justice altogether (Newig and Fritsch, 2009;Schweitzer and Kim, 2009;Shilling et al, 2009;Lange et al, 2013;Latulippe and Klenk, 2020;Alsip et al, 2021).…”

Community engagement and the importance of partnerships within the Great Lakes Areas of Concern program: A mixed-methods case study

“…The AOC program has been designed to incorporate humans as part of the ecosystem, which has led to the creation of Public Advisory Councils (PACs) for each AOC ( Hartig, 1997 ). Throughout the Great Lakes, these groups assume various names (e.g., Citizen Advisory Group, Public Action Committee) but each provides a similar role within their AOC ( Alsip et al, 2021 ). PACs are composed of experts and professionals from a wide variety of fields, representing a diversity of voices from the communities they serve as they work to restore local waterways.…”

“…While the creation of the AOC program represented an opportunity to apply EBM practices throughout the Great Lakes region, implementation of these bottom-up approaches has not been consistent across AOCs ( Alsip et al, 2021 ; Beierle and Konisky, 2000 ; Hartig, 1997 ; Hartig et al, 1998 ; MacKenzie, 1993 ). Differences in management priorities across local, state, and national jurisdictions may result in complex environmental management scenarios ( Brody, 2003 ).…”