Modeling Alternative Collaborative Governance Network Designs: An Agent-Based Model of Water Governance in the Lake Champlain Basin, Vermont

Abstract

With the widespread use of collaborative governance mechanisms for mitigating water pollution, an opportunity exists to test alternative institutional designs based on collaborative governance theory using computer simulation models, particularly when there is a clear relationship between governance networks, observable resource allocation decisions, and measurable outcomes. This is especially the case for wicked problems like nonpoint source water pollution where there are compelling questions regarding how best to design policies, allocate funds, and build administrative capacity to meet water quality standards. We present an agent-based model (ABM) of water governance for the Lake Champlain Basin to simulate the impacts of alternative collaborative governance arrangements on the development of suites of water quality projects. The ABM is connected or coupled with land use and phosphorus load accumulation models that are informed by existing hydrologic models, project datasets, and state-set load reduction targets. We find that regionally arranged collaborative governance in water quality project planning and implementation can lead to better water quality outcomes, thereby affirming one of the central premises of collaborative governance regime theory. We also find that externally mandated collaboration, as opposed to voluntary, self-initiated collaboration, can lead to better water quality outcomes, adding to our understanding of which type of collaborative governance arrangement is best suited to the specific contexts of this case. Further, without adequate administrative capacity in the form of human resources located in central network actors to manage project funds, “administrative bottlenecks” may form and money can go unspent. This research demonstrates the efficacy of using simulations of alternative institutional design for theory testing and tuning, and policy prototyping.

Evaluation of the FLake Model in ERA5 for Lake Champlain

“…Already toxic blooms of blue-green algae in summer contaminate the shallow lake waters near the urban area of Burlington Vermont, impacting local health and tourism (Isles et al, 2015). In the broad context, the BREE project is developing an integrated assessment model for the Lake Champlain region (Zia et al, 2016) with an atmospheric model (Huang et al, 2019) driving a lake circulation model, coupled to a biogeochemistry model (e.g., Isles et al, 2017), and to land-use and governance issues (Bitterman and Koliba, 2020;Doran et al, 2020).…”

Boundaries of collaboration – the case of a temporary housing complex for refugees in Sweden

“…Huxham and Vangen 2010) and thereby facilitate learning across boundaries (Lindqvist 2019). Bringing together different organizations is thus often described in terms of designing collaborations effectively (Bitteman and Koliba 2020). Yet the practices of collaborative work, and how to manage the challenges arising as a consequence of the collaborating partners' differences, have previously received little attention (Glimmerveen, Ybema and Nies 2020).…”

“…Instead, collaboration in the public sector has been studied extensively with a focus on the goals and outcomes of collaboration (Thomson, Perry, and Miller 2008) and how to design an effective collaborative setup (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006;Ulibarri et al 2020;Ansell et al 2020;Bitteman and Koliba 2020) as well as on the barriers to accomplishing the intended results (Rigg and O'Mahony 2013;Rodríguez et al 2007;Huxham et al 2000;Vangen 2017aVangen , 2017bStrindlund, Dahlgren, and Ståhl 2020). Barriers such as lack of trust (Willem and Lucidarme 2014;Doberstein 2016), issues of communication and information sharing (Vangen 2017a;Cuganesan, Hart, and Steele 2017), unbalanced power relations between the involved partners (Purdy 2012;Ran and Qi 2018), lack of leadership (Sullivan, Williams, and Jeffares 2012) and transparency and accountability issues (Ryan and Walsh 2004;Waardenburg et al 2019) have been seen as evoking challenges that must be managed as part of the collaborative work (Mandell and Keast 2007;Van Oortmerssen et al 2014).…”

Collaborative Governance at Scale: Examining the Regimes, Platforms, and System in the State of Oregon

“…Over the last several decades, collaborative governance has surged in both practice and research. Today, collaborative governance and other types of collaborative public management approaches (such as partnerships and networks) 1 are used at all levels of government and in numerous policy areas such as environmental conflict resolution (Emerson et al, 2009; Manring, 1998), management (Bitterman & Koliba, 2020; Brody, 2003; Fisher et al, 2020; Hardy & Koontz, 2008; Hui et al, 2020; Leach, 2006; Koontz & Thomas, 2006; Ulibarri, 2015a), planning (Scott & Carter, 2019; Singleton, 2002), health and welfare (Doberstein, 2016; Johnston et al, 2011; Hafer, 2018; Mosley, 2012; Scott, 2011), and emergency and disaster management (Brink & Wamsler, 2018; Edelenbos et al, 2017; Kapucu, 2014; Kapucu, Arslan, and Demiroz, 2010; Kapucu, Arslan, and Collins, 2010), among others.…”