Setting an agenda to catalyze research in the social and organizational dimensions of Great Lakes remediation, restoration, and revitalization

Abstract

The Great Lakes region was once a hub of industry and innovation that provided wealth and identity to the region. Economic upheavals have left the region trying to recreate economies and cleanup degraded environments. There have been multiple, overlapping efforts to change these conditions and create a new narrative for the region through environmental remediation, habitat restoration, and community revitalization on the path towards resilience. The elements that contribute to success are organized differently in different places, and are not always identified or characterized in the environmental literature. Trying to fill this conceptual gap is critical because landscape-scale environmental cleanup has been delivered at the local scale through various partnerships and arrangements. Thus, this special collection of articles in the Journal of Great Lakes Research explores how individuals, organizations, and communities are engaging in the complex process of environmental cleanup and revitalization throughout the region. This collection of articles represents a range of approaches to unpack how people are navigating and contributing to this regenerative process from quantitative studies at the regional scale that characterize global patterns to in-depth qualitative studies that identify and characterize the processes that unfold in specific places to change our environments both ecologically and socially. These articles represent the broad experience unfolding in the region to understand these activities through research and navigate them through practice. This collection will add new dimensions to Great Lakes research by including the individuals, organizations, and agencies as components of the ecosystem.

This special section of the Journal of Great Lakes Research expands our current understanding of the environmental and social reclamation of once productive and industrialized waterfronts. For too long these degraded waterfronts have buried the latent potential of communities and economies across the Great Lakes region. We look to understand how the restoration of communities and waterfronts throughout Canada and the United States occurs, and how this can help inform, explain, and characterize why progress varies significantly from place to place. To understand these dynamics, this collection of articles explores how individuals, organizations, and communities are engaging in the complex process of environmental cleanup and revitalization throughout the Great Lakes region. These questions are socio-ecological systems questions; thus, we used a transdisciplinary approach to editing this collection. Specifically, we paired social scientists with biophysical scientists to edit manuscripts and make decisions to ensure that we were building capacity for the interdisciplinary collaborations needed to broaden the scope of this research.

This collection of articles consolidates our current understanding of the close connections between the revival of communities throughout the Great Lakes region and ecological restoration and waterfront revitalization, and also builds on the principles of the Great Lakes Futures Project (GLFP; Friedman et al., 2015; Hartig et al., 2019; Hartig et al., 2020; Williams and Hoffman, 2021). The GLFP, a multi-sector basin-wide visioning effort, recommended leveraging place-based policies and holistic approaches that recognize that a restored environment is vital to produce a prosperous economy and society (Friedman et al., 2015). Progress that reflects the spirit of the GLFP recommendations has been presented by Hartig and others and demonstrates that the restoration of habitats or the removal of contamination from sediment is not only an act of ecological and biological restoration, but also a critical element in the restoration of communities (Hartig et al., 2019; Hartig et al., 2020; Williams and Hoffman, 2021). Research demonstrates that some places have reclaimed and restored waterfronts that now host a variety of vibrant and productive entities and activities, such as active and passive recreation, inspirational and sacred practices, tourist facilities, small businesses, boating and marinas, and new housing (Hartig et al., 2020; Williams and Hoffman, 2021). However, other places struggle to realize environmental investment or experience the transformative value of such a revitalization process and feel left behind as they focus on addressing more basic human needs (Williams and Hoffman, 2021). To better support communities at these various stages in the revitalization process, we need to better understand both their successes and struggles in achieving research and remediation-restoration projects.

Great Lakes cleanup has largely been framed as “ecosystem-based management” or “integrated water resources management” (Hartig et al. 2020; Williams and Hoffman 2020; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2017). To achieve integrated solutions, Krantzberg (2018) argued that “true engagement of stakeholders in decision making leads to greater likelihood of active interventions to secure positive environmental, social, and economic outcomes (p.474).” These stakeholder-inclusive collaborative frameworks are characterized as holistic, multidisciplinary, and multi-level; theorize that effective local groups and governments are necessary for the successful delivery of ecosystem-scale (regional/basin-scale) management programs; and assume beneficial social outcomes (Friedman et al., 2015; Hartig et al., 1995). Yet, as Slocombe (1993) argued, discussions of process or methodology for implementing ecosystem approaches have been overlooked. Only recently have scholars begun to address question of process or methodology. For example, Williams (2015) demonstrated the importance of attention to process and determined that social dimensions may not be represented adequately in ecosystem planning recommendations if stakeholders or communities are not included early in the process. Other studies have examined the roles for Public Advisory Councils (PACs) in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process and how spatial extent was determined (Holifield and Williams, 2019; Holifield and Williams, 2021).These studies begin to answer process and methodology questions, but we need more transdisciplinary research to understand the larger social, environmental, and ecological values and benefits of projects or programs when working with stakeholders and communities.

Williams and Hoffman (2020) demonstrated that there are specific decision points when developing and implementing restoration projects where scientists and practitioners interact with each other, as well as with the community. Iterative communication around project details and the health and well-being impacts of a project on the community provide opportunities for two-way conversations that can directly impact decisions. This means that engaging in collaborative decision making about specific acts of remediation, restoration, and revitalization can narrow the perceived distance between researchers, practitioners, and civil society (e.g., nonprofit organizations, community groups, individuals) because of their roles, perspectives, and experiences. Furthermore, collaborative decision making helps to forge or reinforce networks, generate trust and empowerment among stakeholders and government, and create respect and support for programs (Krantzberg, 2018). The results are decisions that better reflect public values and knowledge and thereby build capacity to understand and address environmental problems (Krantzberg, 2018). At the same time, by focusing on opportunities to close the distance between academics and practitioners, and between practitioners and community members, we shift the conversation away from policy prescriptions towards developing the relational models that demonstrate how to implement the policies.

We argue that little attention has been paid, in both scholarship and practice, to the local-scale social and organizational dimensions of effective implementation and sustenance of these investments towards achieving the desired endpoints or outcomes (McLaughlin and Krantzberg, 2006). We contend that the structures that facilitate collaboration between state agencies, local governments, and non-profits in Great Lakes cleanup programs are models already in use (Hartig et al. 2020, Williams and Hoffman, 2020, Williams and Hoffman, 2021). For example, Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R) is a complex process that started with the activities conducted through the Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC) program. Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) are the blueprints containing problem definitions for each AOC, the management actions to remediate the problems, and the monitoring plans necessary to measure the effectiveness of those actions. RAPs were developed collaboratively by agencies and PACs local to each AOC. We need to better understand these collaborative governance dynamics because the large-scale investments in AOC and environmental restoration, both through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in the U.S. and the Great Lakes Protection Initiative in Canada, are changing both the ecological and social landscapes. Thus, the result of environmental restoration and outcomes is ultimately social and cultural well-being, identity, and quality of life. Therefore, we wish to better understand how environmental restoration can serve to both improve ecological health and more broadly restore a community in spirit, in vibrance, and in its underlying soulfulness.

We have organized this special collection to highlight research within the Great Lakes region that examines: 1) how to bridge the gaps between the knowledge and practice of local-scale delivery of ecosystem restoration; 2) how local entities organize and engage with others to achieve their objectives; and 3) how local entities’ work supports broader ecosystem-scale programs and goals. The contributions in this special collection: 1) provide theoretical foundations for the relationship between coastal restoration and community well-being; 2) demonstrate how the social sciences strengthen environmental research; 3) broaden the essential role of agencies to facilitate local involvement; 4) understand and expand community capacity to participate in and sustain environmental restoration; and 5) expand the three Rs of environmental cleanup (remediation, restoration, revitalization) to include a fourth R – resilience. We further expect the special collection to catalyze additional research at the community-ecosystem interface. Below we define some of the foundational concepts (e.g., Great Lakes context, revitalization and community well-being, and translational ecology and community capacity) engaged by contributing authors and provide an overview of the submissions to the collection.

Great Lakes history and progress on remediation and restoration

The Great Lakes region has a rich ecological, industrial, and social heritage. Nearly a century of growth and industrial progress in the 19th and 20th centuries made the cities of the Great Lakes region some of the wealthiest and most profitable on the planet. Agricultural and industrial giants (e.g., Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, International Harvester) were dominant in their markets, changing the Great Lakes into a global manufacturing center (Campbell et al., 2015). However, the identity and landscape of the region changed again following World War II when industry abandoned the region and left behind the “rust belt” moniker (Hartig et al., 2020). In the 21st Century, the region lies at a critical juncture, where interest in creating new narratives for the region based on the principles of sustainable and just economies, and transitions is growing (Great Lakes Commission, 2019; University of New Mexico School of Architecture and Planning, 2012). As a result, scientists, practitioners, and communities now have the opportunity to take the lessons learned from over 100 years of collective management of Great Lakes that started with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, then progressed through the successive Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements (GLWQA) and amendments, and apply them to the creation of a remediated, restored, and revitalized future (Jetoo et al., 2015; Linton and Hall, 2013; Muldoon, 2012).

The Great Lakes region has been a laboratory for flipping the management model from a command-and-control approach to one that embraces more holistic approaches and local involvement. The GLWQA was innovative in adopting an “ecosystem approach” to remove impairments from “beneficial uses” of the system – another of describing positive actions, such as restoring healthy fish populations. Each RAP listed all locally relevant beneficial use impairments, or BUIs, creating a standard checklist of degraded conditions to fix in each AOC. That process centered public and local government participation as key elements of restoration planning in the Great Lakes. For example, Botts and Muldoon (2005) described the additions of the provisions of an ecosystem approach and public consultation as hard-fought victories for advocates and scientists in the Great Lakes Community. Scientific advisory committees and PACs have kept citizens and scientists close to the process and provided meaningful opportunity to contribute to Great Lakes cleanup. Beierle and Konisky (2001) concluded that such participation in RAPs resulted in documents that reflected public values, reduced tensions between stakeholders (including local governments and communities), and increased capacity in agencies and stakeholders to implement the resulting plans. This participation has waxed and waned over time but has created a condition where citizens and local governments are involved in decisions and participation is expected (Botts and Muldoon, 2005). For example, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC), a coalition in the United States of more than 1,500 governmental (federal, state, local and tribal) agencies, nonprofit organizations, and individuals concerned about the health and future of the lakes and its communities lobbied President Bush for recognition as a Regional Collaboration of Significance (Friedman et al., 2015; Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, 2017). The U.S. Great Lakes Legacy Act manifests one of the victories of the GLRC resulting in dedicated funding source for remediating contaminated sediments in U.S. AOCs. Furthermore, the GLRC prepared the ground for the largest investment in Great Lakes restoration in the U.S., the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Decades of advocacy are yielding cleaner lakes that are showing signs of both improved water quality and community revitalization (Williams and Hoffman, 2021).

The GLRI has been a stimulus for the community-centric revitalization that can follow ecological restoration. It is a U.S. Great Lakes coast-centric, region-wide undertaking where agencies, communities, organizations, and individuals are together engaged in local or community scale program delivery of site remediation, system restoration, and subsequently, community revitalization. Both the array of partners engaged in projects as well as the implementation of projects at the local level reflects this engagement (Hartig et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2018). While we can measure certain elements of this work (e.g., housing starts and taxes, economic activity, and visitor numbers), we also need to discern the interrelationships of environmental remediation, ecological restoration, and social revitalization; institutional and organizational structures; and community capacity to better enable all coastal communities in the Canadian and U.S. Great Lakes region to deliver social well-being, cultural value, and ultimately an improved quality of life (Williams et al., 2018; Hartig et al. 2020; Williams and Hoffman 2020). Moreover, to maximize well-being it is necessary to explain how, and to what extent, restoration and revitalization actions not only serve ecological and economic value creation, but also social, cultural, and community-centric value that contribute to community well-being.

Relationship between coastal restoration and community well-being

Originally, advocates argued strongly for the GLRI based on economic return. For example, in 2007, the Brookings Institution produced a study and summary report for the GLRC (Austin et al. (2007a), Austin et al. (2007b)). The documents outlined a plan for restoring the Great Lakes for both preservation and as an investment. The report also estimated the cost of the proposed “Great Lakes Restoration Strategy” at $26 billion (Austin et al., 2008). In addition to economic return, the report described the numerous benefits to society resulting from ecological restoration activities. Possible enhancements to the region include healthier fisheries, cleaner waters for recreational boating and swimming, improved property values, and reduced costs for water treatment for municipalities. The report stated, “By restoring the Great Lakes ecosystems and the many environmental and aesthetic benefits that these ecosystems provide, the GLRC Strategy clearly will improve the overall quality of life in the Great Lakes basin (Austin et al. (2007b)).” More than ten years into the implementation of the GLRI, researchers illustrate the close connections between improved water quality and the health and well-being of the adjacent AOC and other communities (Hartig et al., 2019; Williams and Hoffman, 2020; Williams and Hoffman, 2021, Williams et al., 2018). At the same time, we are starting to see revitalization, or community-appropriate land repurposing, throughout the region (Williams and Hoffman, 2021).

There are several different approaches to understanding the relationship between improved water quality and community revitalization. One approach is to demonstrate and describe that communities are revitalizing as a result of improved water quality (Hartig, 2002). A more mechanistic approach is to quantify the ecological and social indicators of community revitalization (Angradi et al., 2016; Angradi et al. 2019; Williams and Hoffman, 2021). A third approach is to assess how the restored resources and ecosystems contribute to a renewed sense of place, identity, and vitality provided by connections to ecosystems (Goralnik et al., n.d.; Williams et al., 2018). Beneficial uses represent the ecosystem services that clean water and sediment provide (Rentschler and Williams, n.d.). Ecosystem services are reflected in how agencies, communities, and individuals make varying decisions about the environment, including resource management, amenity development, or recreational use (Williams and Hoffman, 2020). Social and organizational sciences are helping to identify those desired uses of restored environments and how those uses differ across populations, roles, and communities (Williams et al., 2018). Moreover, social and organizational sciences research often serves as processes to improve communication and translation of meaning across different perspectives. Scientists and practitioners need to identify and respond to varying perspectives as improved environmental quality and ecological integrity provide an increased flow of ecosystem services but do not alone improve community well-being. In other words, ecosystem services are not a product of ecological restoration alone, but also their social or community value.

How we get there: Translational ecology and community capacity

Social and organizational sciences provide knowledge of the social systems, including decision-making, community values, and other social processes, but are underdeveloped in environmental and ecological research (Bennett et al., 2017). Most effort to date has been directed towards engineering and biophysical science research, whereas much less effort has been directed towards studying the local governments, communities, or organizations that will experience or participate in the remediation and restoration. Attention to these organizations is critical as it is their contributions that ensure local-scale efforts to deliver and maintain effective restoration. Attention to local-scale organizations and dynamics direct restoration investments towards long-term community revitalization, sustainability, and resilience (Williams and Hoffman, 2020). These community organizations are also agents to contribute to long-term ecological and community revitalization (McGuire and Ehlinger, n.d.; Nixon, et al., n.d.; Williams et al., 2018).

Two concepts are necessary to better consider both the environmental and social dimensions of remediation and restoration to improve both ecological and social well-being. The first concept is translational ecology, “an intentional approach in which ecologists, stakeholders, and decision makers work collaboratively to develop and deliver ecological research that, ideally, results in improved environment-related decision making” (Enquist et. al, 2017, p.541–2). Enquist et al. (2017) defined some of the necessary steps and requirements to achieve translational ecology including actionable science, adaptive management, knowledge coproduction, and boundary-spanning organizations. Williams and Hoffman (2020) applied these ideas in Great Lakes AOC project development to demonstrate the process of translational ecology using biological and social sciences through an R2R2R framework. For example, when ecologists are part of a translational ecology process, they learn the information needs of both the stakeholders and resource managers (which often differ) and identify the specific points in the decision process where ecological information can be used by stakeholders or resource managers, or both. This information can then be used to adapt decisions to achieve desired social or ecological goals. Williams and Hoffman (2020) illustrated this iterative, looped process of knowledge co-production among stakeholders, resource managers or policy makers, and community members, and demonstrated how those loops map onto the ecosystem-based management process. Translational ecology empowers researchers to recognize different perspectives so they can respond to stakeholder and community needs to create ecological research that can be applied to maximize social and environmental benefits.

The R2R2R framework is valuable because its organizing principle, that there is no ecological versus social dichotomy in ecosystem-based management, is the foundation of the AOC program. The framework centers the intertwined ecological and social aspects of cleanups and illustrates the necessary components for ecosystem-based management. Some components will be familiar to ecologists and resource managers, such as ecological integrity, sustainability, spatial planning, and effective metrics. But some will be new and challenging, such as the agency of people through conscious action, the application of local and traditional knowledge, and the integration of ecological and social systems. Integrating these new and challenging ideas is critical to strengthening the relationship between science, agencies, and communities. A stronger relationship to improve the application of ecology and to make ecology more applicable to the needs of agencies and communities.

The second concept is community capacity, or “the interaction of human, organizational, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community (Chaskin, 2001, p.4).” Community capacity theory explains that there are human and social resources communities can direct to better their well-being, including social and organizational networks, participation, history, sense of community, values, power of reflection, sense of responsibility, power, and organizational capacity (Chaskin, 2001). Berkes and Ross (2013) argued that communities are self-organizing, have agency, and are more resilient when their resources (e.g., knowledge, skills, and learning; relationships with place; engaged governance) are directed to meet community goals. In other words, communities understand their own needs and endeavor to improve their well-being. Researchers and agencies would benefit from recognizing how community resources are being directed towards ecosystem restoration or stewardship, community revitalization, and improving community well-being in the Great Lakes region. Social and organizational sciences can answer such questions.

How themes are represented in the special collection and its significance

The articles in this special collection bridge the social and biophysical sciences to identify and describe significant community and organizational characteristics and to introduce translational approaches to close the gaps between science, community and practice. In many ways, these articles provide the theories, methods, and tools needed to implement the vision of the GLFP.

Specifically, the articles provide a broad overview of ecosystem-based management, regional demographics, and basin-wide research networks in the Great Lakes region (Bergstrom et al., n. d.; Fergen et al., n.d.; Wondolleck and Yaffee, n.d.), provide a framework for scientists to engage with coastal decision makers (Norton, n.d.), and characterize how resilience is applied as a concept throughout the region (Dobie et al., n.d.). Three papers make use of tools or methods to help communities understand how their history, identity, and sense of place contribute to their well-being and decisions (Goralnik et al., n.d.; Nixon et al., n.d.; Thomas et al., n.d.). There are studies to help us better bridge the conceptual gaps between project implementation and beneficial use impairments and ways to connect to communities around projects (Jurjonas et al., n.d.; Norris et al., n.d.; Tyner and Graham, n.d.). Three studies detail the organizational structure and role of PACs in AOCs (Knauss and Lisuk, n.d.; Polidori and Schurr, n.d.; Renschler and Williams, n.d).

Two of the contributions illustrate how important historical memory is to understanding identity and planning for diverse community benefits (Porter, n.d.; Webb, n.d.), while McGaughey et al. (n. d.) emphasized the importance of local connections to community stewardship, and McGuire and Ehlinger (n.d.) demonstrated how social actors can organize to improve their watershed. Finally, Hartig and Krantzberg (n.d.) provided their reflections on the relationship between people, place, and ecosystem-based management.

This collection of articles sets the stage for new research in the Great Lakes region: research to identify and understand present and future changes in coupled ecological and social systems on a stage that expands the interdisciplinary capacity of social and organizational potential of communities and economies across the Great Lakes region.