Like many urban and industrial regions in the United States, the Calumet region of northeast Illinois and northwest Indiana is a place where heavy industry and areas of significant ecological importance co-exist. In recent years, many organizations, including federal, state, and local government agencies, non-profit organizations, research universities, public school systems, and industry land owners, have become actively involved with conservation, remediation and restoration work.. In April 2010, a summit was held for the region’s diverse group of stakeholders to encourage bi-state collaboration and to improve comprehensive, cross-jurisdictional planning processes on multiple levels.
We conducted an on-line survey to gather data about interactions between the groups attending the summit. Participants were asked to identify all organizations they interacted with in their work, and more detailed questions were asked about the five organizations they work with most closely. The data were then used as input for a social network analysis. The objectives of this analysis were to understand the social network structure of conservation groups in the Calumet region, to seek patterns in the flow of information and ideas, and to identify communication gaps that could be strengthened to promote conservation/restoration goals in Calumet.
Results/Conclusions
Results of our analysis reveal a core-periphery structure for the conservation network in the Calumet region, in which a few key central organizations serve to connect a large amount of periphery groups. The network contains over 150 organizations that each interact with an average of 20 other organizations. The majority of groups have multiple connections, which indicates strong communication and potential for collaboration amongst active groups in Calumet. However, our results also show that connections between certain types of groups, such as industry and public schools, could be significantly improved. This social network analysis provides insights into how organizations within the regional conservation network exchange information, funding, and expertise to maximize success in restoration and conservation work. Further, it identifies weaknesses in the network and areas with room for improvement on large-scale collaborative efforts. Analyses such as these will be useful to any metropolitan area where many stakeholders are involved in conservation activities. This type of analysis could easily be extended to other conservation networks, to help identify patterns in communication and opportunities for potential collaboration among stakeholders in ecologically important areas.
