Advertisement

Empirical Analysis I: On Cooperation

Chapter
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

The chapter analyzes the constituting elements of cooperation in each case study and relates them to each other to understand their interplay and the cooperation’s complexity. The chapter further assesses the case studies’ collaboration networks more thoroughly, analyzing their cohesion, their degree of fragmentation, their components and factions, and their core and peripheral actors. This descriptive SNA of specific features of the actor collaboration networks in the context of water quality management shows how collaboration—as a proxy for cooperation—can be conceptualized and understood in network terms. I complete the analysis of cooperation by focusing on the case study actors’ viewpoints of cooperation in the three case study regions in the Rhine catchment area.

The chapter closes with a case comparison: I compare the insights of the analyses—that is, the constituting elements of cooperation and the collaboration networks’ specific features—across the case studies to draw conclusions about the nature of cooperation in each case study.

Keywords

Cooperation Descriptive Social Network Analysis (SNA) Reciprocity Cohesion Fragmentation Components Factions 

References

Sources

  1. e-mail N° 1. Department Raum- und Umweltwissenschaften, field of Analytische und Ökologische Chemie, University of Trier, 10 November 2016Google Scholar
  2. Telephone call N° 2. Department “instrumental analytical chemistry”, Faculty of Chemistry, University Duisburg-Essen, 2 December 2016Google Scholar
  3. Telephone call N° 3. Division “Innovation, Umwelt & Energie”, Industrie- und Handelskammer Rheinland-Pfalz, 12 December 2016Google Scholar

Primary Literature

  1. ARW (2018) Über ARW. ARW - Teil eines Netzwerks [online]. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Rhein-Wasserwerke e.V. (ARW). Available from: http://www.arww.org/ARW4/. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  2. AWWR, Ruhrverband (2015) Ruhrgütebericht 2015. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwerke an der Ruhr (AWWR); Ruhrverband, EssenGoogle Scholar
  3. AWWR, Ruhrverband (2016) Ruhrgütebericht 2016. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwerke an der Ruhr (AWWR); Ruhrverband, EssenGoogle Scholar
  4. BAFU (2016) Strategie des BAFU 2030. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern. 1 JuneGoogle Scholar
  5. BMBF (2016) Risikomanagement von neuen Schadstoffen und Krankheitserregern im Wasserkreislauf (RiSKWa) [online]. Available from: http://www.bmbf.riskwa.de/_media/RISKWA_Praxishandbuch.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  6. BMBF, RiSKWa, FONA (n.d.) Sichere Ruhr. Das Projekt Sichere Ruhr – Was machen wir? [online]. Available from: https://sichere-ruhr.de/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  7. Der Schweizerische Bundesrat (1998) Gewässerschutzverordnung. GSchVGoogle Scholar
  8. DLR RLP (2016) Tätigkeitsbericht 2014–2016. Wasserschutzberatung der Dienstleistungszentren Ländlicher Raum in Rheinland-Pfalz. Dienstleistungszentren Ländlicher Raum (DLR) Rheinland-PfalzGoogle Scholar
  9. interreg ABH (2018) interreg Alpenrhein, Bodensee, Hochrhein. Wir fördern Europa [online]. Available from: http://www.interreg.org/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  10. interreg Oberrhein (2018a) ERMES-Rhein: Monitoring des Eintrags von Spurenstoffen in das Grundwasser. Programm INTERREG V Oberrhein (2014–2020) [online]. interreg Oberrhein. Available from: http://www.interreg-oberrhein.eu/projet/ermes-rhein-entwicklung-der-ressource-monitoring-des-eintrags-von-spurenstoffen-in-das-grundwasser/?cat=288-279. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  11. interreg Oberrhein (2018b) interreg Oberrhein/Rhin Supérieur [online]. interreg Oberrhein. Available from: http://www.interreg-oberrhein.eu/page-daccueil. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  12. L’essentiel (2017) 1,6 million d’euros pour la recherche à l’Uni. L’essentiel, March 9, 2017. Accessed 26 Jan 2020. http://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/luxembourg/story/12911860
  13. Lippeverband (n.d.) Den Spurenstoffen auf der Spur (DSADS). Ein Projekt des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, der Stadt Dülmen und des LIPPEVERBANDS [online]. Available from: http://www.dsads.de/worum-geht-es/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  14. MUEEF Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Ernährung und Forsten, Rheinland-Pfalz, Gewässerschutz/Wasserwirtschaft (2017) Start für grenzüberschreitendes Kooperationsprojekt EmiSûre: Gemeinsam Mikroschadstoffe in Gewässern reduzieren. News release. January 30, 2017. Accessed 26 Jan 2020. https://mueef.rlp.de/de/pressemeldungen/detail/news/News/detail/start-fuer-grenzueberschreitendes-kooperationsprojekt-emisure-gemeinsam-mikroschadstoffe-in-gewaessern/?no_cache=1
  15. UBA (2014) Forschungsprogramm des Umweltbundesamtes 2015–2017. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roβlau, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  16. UBA (2014, 2015) The UBA. About us [online]. Umweltbundesamt. Available from: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/the-uba/about-us. Accessed 23 Sept 2019
  17. University of Luxembourg. (2017) Projekte mit externer Förderung. Urban Water Management [online]. University of Luxembourg. Available from: https://wwwfr.uni.lu/content/download/105284/1252825/file/Aktuelle%20Projekte.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  18. Secondary Literature

    1. Analytictech (n.d.) UCINET 6 for windows help contents. Network Centrality Fragmentation [online] Available from: http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet/help/hs4209.htm. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
    2. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MAGoogle Scholar
    3. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC (2013) Analyzing social networks. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
    4. Braun C, Gälli R, Leu C, Munz N, Schindler Wildhaber Y, Strahm I, Wittmer I (2015) Mikroverunreinigungen in Fliessgewässern aus diffusen Einträgen. Situationsanalyse. Bundesamt für Umwelt, BernGoogle Scholar
    5. Fischer M, Leifeld P (2015) Policy forums: why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sci 48(3):363–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    6. Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. University of California, Riverside, RiversideGoogle Scholar
    7. Knoke D (1998) Who steals my purse steals trash. The structure of organizational influence reputation. J Theor Polit 10(4):507–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    8. Laumann EO, Pappi FU (1976) Networks of collective action. A perspective on community influence systems. Academic Press, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
    9. Plackett RL (1983) Karl Pearson and the chi-squared test. Int Stat Rev 51(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    10. Ruxton GD (2006) The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Behav Ecol 17(4):688–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    11. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Systems ResearchOsnabrück UniversityOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations