This paper sought to determine the importance of institutional arrangements with regard to WCEAM (watershed cumulative effects assessment and management), because it plays a vital role in the field of CEA (cumulative effects assessment). The authors identifie that there is a gap in cumulative effects assessment procedure and development activity in watersheds and should be addressed what Schindler & Donahue (2006) refer to as ‘holistically’ and place emphasis on integrating and improving the concept and practice on WCEAM. The methods applied in the paper (i.e. document review, observational studies-interview, qualitative analysis) intent to answer the questions asked about the relevance of institutional authorities with WCEAM in the largest
…show more content…
On the other hand, internal and regional acts (such as, Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan, Canadian federal and Ontario provincial acts and regulations) are critically analysed to identify the Ontario’s institutional arrangements connection to support CEAM of GRW. Consequently, group feedback comes through a focus group (i.e. academic water experts) to point out different variables of ‘good’ WCEAM and find answers to questions about additional requirements of water resources management in institutional context. For example, whether the core requisites reccognised by Sheelanere et al. (2013) are comparable and representative of ‘good’ WCEAM in the context of water resource management? The interviews allow involved and affected stakeholders (i.e. university faculty, project proponents, Grand River conservation authority, First Nations, etc) to fully explore their personal experience and perspectives of WCEAM in the GRW. An attempt is made to code the data thematically collected from qualitative interview sessions using NVivo 9.0q. According to Johnston (2006) and Bazeley (2010), NVivo 9.0q is useful software for social scientists to analyse a large set of data. Attention is given to the ethical consideration of the research while interviewing by obtaining informed …show more content…
2013), it does not construe what explicit role institutional arrangements play for CEAM in a particular watershed. This text provides sufficient novelty, giving the research rationality considering their findings on the primary roles of institutional authority that can contribute to the regional and international practice of WCEAM. According to Chilima et al. (2013), ‘goodwill’ (i.e. good relationships among authorities), ‘political will’ (i.e. funding authority, decision makers on financial issues) and ‘institutional innovation capacity’ (aptitude for creativity) are prerequisites for the development of institutional practice. This paper demonstrates a sound justification for the application of managerial ethos first for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management, and later scientific ethos to facilitate WCEAM in by providing real life example (i.e. Lake Erie Region Source Water Protection initiative, etc.). Moreover, a vast array of constrains (i.e. lack of collaborations among various stakeholders in the water recourse management, confusing leadership roles, scarcity of clarity in decision making) and facilitators (i.e. dedicated plans, a mature conservation management, strategies that incorporate ecological and regional aspects in
On the other hand, internal and regional acts (such as, Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan, Canadian federal and Ontario provincial acts and regulations) are critically analysed to identify the Ontario’s institutional arrangements connection to support CEAM of GRW. Consequently, group feedback comes through a focus group (i.e. academic water experts) to point out different variables of ‘good’ WCEAM and find answers to questions about additional requirements of water resources management in institutional context. For example, whether the core requisites reccognised by Sheelanere et al. (2013) are comparable and representative of ‘good’ WCEAM in the context of water resource management? The interviews allow involved and affected stakeholders (i.e. university faculty, project proponents, Grand River conservation authority, First Nations, etc) to fully explore their personal experience and perspectives of WCEAM in the GRW. An attempt is made to code the data thematically collected from qualitative interview sessions using NVivo 9.0q. According to Johnston (2006) and Bazeley (2010), NVivo 9.0q is useful software for social scientists to analyse a large set of data. Attention is given to the ethical consideration of the research while interviewing by obtaining informed …show more content…
2013), it does not construe what explicit role institutional arrangements play for CEAM in a particular watershed. This text provides sufficient novelty, giving the research rationality considering their findings on the primary roles of institutional authority that can contribute to the regional and international practice of WCEAM. According to Chilima et al. (2013), ‘goodwill’ (i.e. good relationships among authorities), ‘political will’ (i.e. funding authority, decision makers on financial issues) and ‘institutional innovation capacity’ (aptitude for creativity) are prerequisites for the development of institutional practice. This paper demonstrates a sound justification for the application of managerial ethos first for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management, and later scientific ethos to facilitate WCEAM in by providing real life example (i.e. Lake Erie Region Source Water Protection initiative, etc.). Moreover, a vast array of constrains (i.e. lack of collaborations among various stakeholders in the water recourse management, confusing leadership roles, scarcity of clarity in decision making) and facilitators (i.e. dedicated plans, a mature conservation management, strategies that incorporate ecological and regional aspects in