Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: Experiences in community engagement from southern Africa

Dyer, Jen; Stringer, Lindsay C.; Dougill, Andrew J.; Leventon, Julia; Nshimbi, Muleba; Chama, Francis; Kafwifwi, A.; Muledi, Jonathan Ilunga; Kaumbu, J.-M.K.; Falcão, Mário Paulo; Muhorro, S.; Munyemba, François; Kalaba, Gabriel Mutabusha; Syampungani, Stephen

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.057

Cited by 114 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, at the collective level, reciprocal intra-group relationships seem to be a prerequisite for the widespread adoption of recommended practices. Natural resource management with the involvement of local user communities has become increasingly popular (Kapoor 2001, Pretty 2003, Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2004, Pretty and Smith 2004, Carlsson and Berkes 2005, Fraser et al 2006, Plummer and Fennell 2007, Berkes 2009, Dyer et al 2014, and community-based development has become a requirement by international development agencies in many low-income countries (Cooke and Kothari 2001, Hickey and Mohan 2004, Matous 2013. However, policy makers should not offload all their responsibilities for environmental protection to communities that are, in fact, simply groups of unrelated people living in the same place, formally bound together by a request from external governmental agents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cooperation between the groups of local resource users and higher level institutions has come to the forefront in the literature and practice of environmental management, and the role of local communities in reflective knowledge generation within learning networks has been particularly emphasized (Kapoor 2001, Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2004, Carlsson and Berkes 2005, Fraser et al 2006, Berkes 2009, Pahl-Wostl 2009, Dyer et al 2014). The environmental co-management literature often stresses the importance of bringing together different actors as well as the importance of networks that span multiple levels of social organization for accessing diverse information, learning, and engagement with the external world (Berkes 2009).…”

Section: Co-management and Social Learning Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social networks and environmental management at multiple levels: soil conservation in Sumatra

Matouš¹

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Many agrarian communities in developing countries suffer from insufficient productivity and use farming practices that deteriorate the environment both locally and globally. Research suggests that social networks play a role in environmental management, different studies emphasize different aspects of network structures, and the implications of the scales at which networks operate are not explicitly discussed. Here, I ask what types of social structures in farmer networks are conducive to environmental protection and agricultural productivity enhancement, and I show that the answer depends on the scale of the investigation. Using original data representing 16 farmer groups comprising 315 households and 1575 information-sharing links, I analyzed the structure of farmers' social connections in relation to their soil conservation and productivity-enhancing practices, assessed through their usage of organic and chemical fertilizers. Furthermore, I conducted qualitative interviews with 25 stakeholders from different levels of the agricultural system to gain additional insights into the drivers of farmers' behaviors. The quantitative analysis distinguishes the effects of intraand extra-group links and reciprocity at the household and group levels. Fixed-effects logistic regression was applied at the household level to examine farmers' soil management practices. At the collective level, I used linear regression to estimate the proportion of adopters for each soil management practice. A lack of education and a lack of extra-group links are associated with unproductive practices, and a lack of reciprocity is associated with a lack of conservation efforts at both the household and collective levels. Dense intra-group links have opposite effects at the two levels. Whereas links within the farmer groups are associated with unproductive soil management by households, these links are associated with productivity maximization at the collective level. Qualitative interviews showed that farmers who opt for organic fertilizers do so partially because of pressure from global traders, mediated through external links and amplified by dense and reciprocal relations within their groups. The results highlight the need for environmental management policies to be based on research at multiple scales and demonstrate that, counter-intuitively, increasing global economic interconnectivity may, in some cases, stimulate the adoption of conservation practices via local social networks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Co-management and Social Learning Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social networks and environmental management at multiple levels: soil conservation in Sumatra

Matouš¹

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, rigid farming regimes are unable to effectively cope with current and future stresses therefore limit their adaptive capacity and growth (Dixon & Stringer, 2015). Similarly, Dyer et al (2014) emphasise flexibility and two-way communication as essential in CA project design. As "one size does not fit all" in project or programme design (Young, 2003 p390), Giller et al (2015); Twomlow and Delve (2016) recommend a flexible CA package and a non-purist approach, to fit CA with farmers" unique situations and motivations for sustained adoption to occur.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy Integration and Coherence for Conservation Agriculture Initiatives in Malawi

Chinseu¹,

Stringer²,

Dougill³

2018

SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In sub-Saharan Africa, development and dissemination of perceived new agricultural innovations dominate the development agenda yet hunger and poverty remain widespread. A conducive policy environment is essential to support these efforts. Despite that national policies are a critical component in the functioning of an agricultural innovation system, studies have often overlooked their relevance in farmers" adoption of agricultural innovations. There is an urgent need to enhance understanding of how policies affect long-term adoption of agricultural innovations aimed at increasing productivity and incomes of smallholder farmers. This study utilises thematic content analysis to examine the extent of integration of Conservation Agriculture (CA) and coherence in Malawi"s national agricultural policies, and their implication for CA adoption among smallholder farmers.Results indicate that inadequate integration of CA in the National Agricultural Policy (NAP), coupled with a lack of coherence of agricultural department policies, undermines farmers" CA adoption. While inadequate integration constrains resource allocation for supporting CA activities, lack of coherence of agricultural policies radiates conflicting and confusing agricultural extension messages to smallholder farmers. We argue that inadequate CA integration and incoherence of policies are institutional constraints which prevent farmers" sustained adoption. To facilitate long-term adoption of CA among smallholders, there is need to: (1) strengthen CA integration in agricultural policies; (2) improve departmental coordination to enhance coherence of agricultural strategies and extension messages disseminated to farmers; and (3) strengthen government"s role in supporting multi-disciplinary research to generate and disseminate best practices capable of sustaining CA adoption.

show abstract

“…The outcomes of participatory processes, that is, the decisions themselves, may be improved in terms of quality, perceived legitimacy (Cogan and Sharpe, 1986;Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000), stakeholder buy-in (Chess and Purcell, 1999), transparency (Reed, 2008;Dyer et al, 2014), timeliness (Cogan and Sharpe, 1986), and equity (Simonsen and Robbins, 2000), particularly when stakeholders are involved early on in decision-making and when processes are intensive and deliberative (Beierle, 2002;Blackstock et al, 2007;Teitelbaum, 2014). Stakeholders can provide local knowledge, information, ideas, and opinions that can inform project design and allow interventions and technologies to be better adapted to local conditions (Cogan and Sharpe, 1986;Renn et al, 1993), which may lead to decisions that are more durable because they are based on more complete information (Beierle, 2002;Koontz and Thomas, 2006).…”

Section: Potential Benefits Of Stakeholders' Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fair, transparent, and equitable participatory processes have the potential to produce long-lasting benefits (Nabatchi, 2010;Boyte, 2011), which may carry over into future planning efforts (Cogan and Sharpe, 1986;Reed, 2008). In particular, such processes may allow participants to generate and share knowledge about the issue (Burroughs, 1999;Feldman and Quick, 2009), which may empower stakeholders to participate in future activities (Macnaghten and Jacobs, 1997) and increase public awareness of the issue (Bryson et al, 2013); build social capital, develop trust, and resolve conflict (Blackstock et al, 2007;Dyer et al, 2014;Teitelbaum, 2014); and develop mutual understanding (Renn et al, 1993;Fung, 2007).…”

Section: Potential Benefits Of Stakeholders' Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-Level Renewable Energy Policy Implementation: How and Why Do Stakeholders Participate?

Rountree

Baldwin

2018

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For most of the twentieth century, large-scale, utility-owned power plants dominated electricity generation in the United States. Today, however, a growing share of electricity comes from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy, which are often small-scale and distributed. In the absence of significant national policies, the Renewable Portfolio Standard has emerged as the key state-level policy governing the deployment and use of renewable energy sources. While renewable energy offers new possibilities for clean energy generation, it also poses new regulatory and governance challenges as a wide range of stakeholders, such as the utilities, regulatory agencies, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, electricity generators, and private citizens, increasingly seek to influence how Renewable Portfolio Standards are implemented. In this study, we ask how and why do stakeholders participate in decision-making about how these policies are implemented? Given the unique context of renewable energy policy, the longterm and iterative nature of renewable energy policy implementation, and the wide range of actors involved, we look at the suite of participatory opportunities available to stakeholders. We interview stakeholders in two states-Colorado and Nevada-to identify the mechanisms through which stakeholders participate and the incentives (or disincentives) that influence their willingness to do so. We find that while decision makers in both the states use a variety of mechanisms to engage stakeholders in decision-making, meaningful participation may be limited to stakeholder groups that are knowledgeable about the issues, have the resources to engage in long-term and sustained participation, and have long-standing relationships with decision makers and other stakeholders. Although many stakeholders participate in multiple types of processes to achieve a broader range of benefits, they often perceive their participation as superficial; and yet, their continued participation suggests that they may play a long game, building coalitions, relationships, and knowledge to position themselves to influence decisions later on. Finally, we find that the regulatory environment influences which participatory processes are available, the incentives for participation, and ultimately the outcomes of stakeholder participation.

show abstract

Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: Experiences in community engagement from southern Africa

Cited by 114 publications

References 39 publications

Social networks and environmental management at multiple levels: soil conservation in Sumatra

Social networks and environmental management at multiple levels: soil conservation in Sumatra

Policy Integration and Coherence for Conservation Agriculture Initiatives in Malawi

State-Level Renewable Energy Policy Implementation: How and Why Do Stakeholders Participate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About