Does Social Capital Encourage Participatory Watershed Management? An Analysis Using Survey Data From the Yodo River Watershed

Ohno, Tomohiko; Tanaka, Takuya; Sakagami, Masaji

doi:10.1080/08941920802078224

Cited by 31 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This state seemed to be very resilient economically and socially for many actors of the area, though not equally and not for all, but less so environmentally. This finding is supported by the literature because bridging social capital is associated with the enhancement of trust and cooperation among different social groups (e.g., Daud 2006, Karametou and Apostolopoulos 2010, Ohno et al 2010. In Asteroussia, the formation of horizontal networks by local producers today is problematic, and the differences between the states of the SES of Asteroussia are important: Before the 1980s, bridging social capital coshaped relations and practices of farmers, in the form of wider networks between stockbreeders and the farmers of Messara.…”

Section: Discussion: the Influence Of Changes In Social Capital On Thsupporting

confidence: 80%

Social Capital and Social-Ecological Resilience in the Asteroussia Mountains, Southern Crete, Greece

Kizos¹,

Detsis²,

Iosifides³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Social-ecological resilience (SER) expresses the capacity of a social-ecological system to adapt and transform. We investigated the ways in which different types and transformations of social capital influence the SER of a region. The study area, the Asteroussia Mountains in southern Crete, Greece, is a typical semiarid hilly/mountainous area of the eastern Mediterranean in which land degradation is one of the most important issues in land management, mostly related to overgrazing because of the growing size of the flocks of sheep and goats. The approach followed was qualitative, with in-depth interviews with a small number of key stakeholders in the area. The findings indicate many important changes in the area in terms of its production, economy, and society, i.e., from a "semiarid husbandry" period during the 1950s to the early 1980s, through a transition period lasting until the end of 1980s, to a new state, the "subsidized husbandry" period, abruptly terminated in 2008 by the ongoing economic crisis. These changes correspond to important changes in social capital and very low levels of wider social trust among stockbreeders, while trust toward other forms of collective action at the local/regional level is also limited. Agricultural subsidies in the 1980s and onward seemed to be an important "vehicle" for this change. Another important factor is related to external inputs and cash availability. The most serious negative impact of all these changes seems to be the abandonment of long-term care for the land. Primary producers ceased to associate their income with land quality, and this appears to be one important reason, among others, for the intensification of grazing densities and the abandonment of practices that considered vegetation and soil quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: the Influence Of Changes In Social Capital On Thsupporting

confidence: 80%

Social Capital and Social-Ecological Resilience in the Asteroussia Mountains, Southern Crete, Greece

Kizos¹,

Detsis²,

Iosifides³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We refer to this point as the complacency threshold. Near unlimited, or total, trust in other entities or in the overarching institution can demotivate participation because potential participants may assume that their involvement is unnecessary (Nooteboom 2002, Ohno et al 2010, Smith et al 2013. Unlimited trust can also reduce the development and integration of diverse ideas and active debate, which may weaken institutional strategies and adaptability (Manz and Neck 1997).…”

Section: Trust Ecology: Linking Trust Diversity To Institutional Resimentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions

Stern¹,

Baird²

2015

E&S

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The resilience of natural resource management (NRM) institutions are largely contingent on the capacities of the people and organizations within those institutions to learn, innovate, and adapt, both individually and collectively. These capacities may be powerfully constrained or catalyzed by the nature of the relationships between the various entities involved. Trust, in particular, has been identified repeatedly as a key component of institutional relationships that supports adaptive governance and successful NRM outcomes. We apply an ecological lens to a pre-existing framework to examine how different types of trust may interact to drive institutional resilience in NRM contexts. We present the broad contours of what we term "trust ecology," describing a conceptual framework in which higher degrees of diversity of trust, as conceptualized through richness and evenness of four types of trust (dispositional, rational, affinitive, and systems based), enhance both the efficacy and resilience of NRM institutions. We describe the usefulness and some limitations of this framework based on several case studies from our own research and discuss the framework's implications for both future research and designing more resilient governance arrangements.

show abstract

“…Information can be mobilized and integrated through networks which cross scales and levels of organizations [Hahn et al, 2006]. Bonding, whereby the relationships between existing connections are strengthened, and bridging, whereby new connections are created between individuals and networks, are two forms of network development associated with social capital [Connick and Innes, 2003;Jones, 2010;Ohno et al, 2010]. Several authors describe how participation processes in water management programs lead to stronger interactions and networks between participants [Collins et al, 2007;Genskow, 2009;Hoverman et al, 2011;Lejano and Ingram, 2009].…”

Section: Development Of Social Capitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the difficulty in identifying trust, indicators of trust have been used in some studies. These include participant confidence in the abilities of the agency, or perception that the agency would consider the values of the participants [Beierle and Konisky, 2000] (Table 3) and the degree to which participants feel they trust each other [Leach and Sabatier, 2005b;Murdock et al, 2005;Ohno et al, 2010] (Table S2). Sultana and Thompson [2004] surveyed participants in floodplain fishery management workshops in Bangladesh.…”

Section: Development Of Social Capitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review

Carr

Blöschl

Loucks

2012

Water Resources Research

146

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

.[1] Key documents such as the European Water Framework Directive and the U.S. Clean Water Act state that public and stakeholder participation in water resource management is required. Participation aims to enhance resource management and involve individuals and groups in a democratic way. Evaluation of participatory programs and projects is necessary to assess whether these objectives are being achieved and to identify how participatory programs and projects can be improved. The different methods of evaluation can be classified into three groups: (i) process evaluation assesses the quality of participation process, for example, whether it is legitimate and promotes equal power between participants, (ii) intermediary outcome evaluation assesses the achievement of mainly nontangible outcomes, such as trust and communication, as well as short-to medium-term tangible outcomes, such as agreements and institutional change, and (iii) resource management outcome evaluation assesses the achievement of changes in resource management, such as water quality improvements. Process evaluation forms a major component of the literature but can rarely indicate whether a participation program improves water resource management. Resource management outcome evaluation is challenging because resource changes often emerge beyond the typical period covered by the evaluation and because changes cannot always be clearly related to participation activities. Intermediary outcome evaluation has been given less attention than process evaluation but can identify some real achievements and side benefits that emerge through participation. This review suggests that intermediary outcome evaluation should play a more important role in evaluating participation in water resource management.

show abstract

Does Social Capital Encourage Participatory Watershed Management? An Analysis Using Survey Data From the Yodo River Watershed

Cited by 31 publications

References 29 publications

Social Capital and Social-Ecological Resilience in the Asteroussia Mountains, Southern Crete, Greece

Social Capital and Social-Ecological Resilience in the Asteroussia Mountains, Southern Crete, Greece

Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions

Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About