Why Remediation Progress Differs Among Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Factors that Enable and Constrain Michigan Public Advisory Councils

Great Lakes;collaboration;remediation;areas of concern;School for Environment and Sustainability

Voglesong Zejnati, AllisonWondolleck, Julia ;

University of Michigan

关键词: Great Lakes;    collaboration;    remediation;    areas of concern;    School for Environment and Sustainability;   

Others  :  https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/148807/Voglesong_Allison_Thesis.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: The Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship

【 摘 要 】

There are 14 designated ;;toxic hotspots,” or ;;Areas of Concern” (AOCs), aroundMichigan’s coasts where legacy contamination impairs water quality. The State’s Officeof the Great Lakes manages the Remedial Action Planning (RAP) process and engagesstakeholders through local Public Advisory Councils (PACs). Michigan began RemedialAction Planning in 1985, but to date, only two AOCs have completed cleanup. Theoverarching objective of this study is to determine: why does RAP implementationprogress differ among AOCs? This study asks the research question: what factors enableand constrain a PAC’s ability to influence RAP implementation progress? The existingliterature solicits responses from state and federal agency participants, and the dominantexplanatory narrative is that maximum public representation on PACs facilitates RAPimplementation progress. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 past andcurrent PAC participants in a representative set of five Michigan AOCs (KalamazooRiver, Lower Menominee River, Saginaw River and Bay, St. Clair River, and WhiteLake). Among the factors that enable progress, PACs benefit from: motivated, engagedindividuals from the community; consistent and flexible funding; strong leadership; andperceptions of independence and influence. Constraints to a PAC’s influence on RAPimplementation progress include: poorly managed meetings; inconsistent commitmentfrom community members and organizations; and inconsistent state and federalcommitment and engagement. Factors that help explain why AOCs differ in theirprogress include: clearly delineated state agency roles; a balanced membership withnetwork connections to resources and support; state and federal agency commitment andengagement; and effective PAC leadership. Recommendations for agencies to cultivatethe process of community-based collaborative ecosystem management includecollaborating with PACs on agendas, criteria, and roles, and supporting the PAC’smembership transitions and strategic outreach.