| This study examines the structural and functional differences among collaborative watershed partnerships located in urban and rural areas. The study also investigates the roles government, nongovernmental organizations, and local culture play in determining partnership goals, strategies, and outcomes. The six collaborative partnerships included in the study are all located in northeast Ohio's Lake Erie basin and include: (1) West Creek Preservation Committee; (2) Euclid Creek Partners; (3) Chagrin River Watershed Partners; (4) Grand River Partnership; (5) Friends of Arcola Creek; and (6) Ashtabula River Partnership. The six cases were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative techniques to inform a comparative case study research design. The study is guided by the following four research questions: (1) How do membership profile and land use affect the goals, strategies, and outputs of collaborative watershed partnerships? (2) What role does government play in collaborative watershed management? (3) How do biophysical, cultural, and institutional factors affect the benefits and transaction costs of collaborative watershed partnerships? (4) How do institutional rules impact partnership decision-making?; The project draws on research on collaborative environmental management, common-pool resources, and institutional analysis. Two theoretical frameworks for institutional analysis were used to inform the project and draw comparisons across cases and with prior studies. The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework developed by Elinor Ostrom and others (1999, 1994, 1990, 1982) and the governmental impacts framework (GIF) developed by Tomas Koontz and his colleagues (2004) provide insights into the role biophysical factors, institutional rules, community attributes, and governmental actors and institutions play in collaborative watershed management. The frameworks also help to understand how complex collaborative environmental management arrangements are impacted by external organizations, and in turn, how external organizations are impacted by collaborative environmental management.; Results suggest government impacts on partnership issue definition, resources for collaboration, and structure and decision processes are affected by differences in membership profile (government-centered, citizen-centered, or mixed-membership) and land use (urban or rural). Results further suggest that the nature of environmental problems in urban and rural watersheds, combined with unique cultural attributes, and varying institutional frameworks, lead to different sets of goals, strategies, and outputs in urban and rural watershed partnerships. Institutional resources and social capital are thus found to have varying levels of importance to partnerships located in areas dominated by different land uses. Finally, the results from this study suggest that partnerships with different membership profiles show different patterns of rules-based interactions among actors. These relationships can lead to variations in the information available to partnership decision-makers, the strategies and activities they undertake, and ultimately, the partnerships' environmental, social, and policy outcomes. |
