Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management

Abstract

Summary. Ð While community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) now attracts widespread international attention, its practical implementation frequently falls short of expectations. This paper contributes to emerging critiques by focusing on the implications of intracommunity dynamics and ecological heterogeneity. It builds a conceptual framework highlighting the central role of institutions Ð regularized patterns of behavior between individuals and groups in society Ð in mediating environment-society relationships. Grounded in an extended form of entitlements analysis, the framework explores how di erently positioned social actors command environmental goods and services that are instrumental to their well-being. Further insights are drawn from analyses of social di erence;``new'', dynamic ecology; new institutional economics; structuration theory, and landscape history. The theoretical argument is illustrated with case material from India, South Africa and Ghana. Ó

Coupling Community Heterogeneity and Perceptions of Conservation in Rural South Africa

“…A consistent finding from these studies is that communities are often presented in homogenous terms, which obscures the multiple impacts of conservation planning upon local populations (Brosius et al 1998;Agrawal and Gibson 1999;Leach et al 1999;King 2007a;Klein et al 2007;Flint et al 2008). This has generated interest in documenting the specific variables that shape the impacts and perceptions of conservation within partnering communities (Holmes 2003;Adhikari and Lovett 2006;Méndez-Contreras et al 2008;Durand and Lazos 2008).…”

“…The impacts of community conservation projects upon local communities have been of interest in the conservation literature with recent assessments arguing that there are varied effects linked to socio-economic patterns, institutions, and power dynamics (Brosius et al 1998;Agrawal and Gibson 1999;Leach et al 1999;Songorwa 1999;Li 2001;Belsky 2003;Magome and Murombedzi 2003;Blaikie 2006;King 2007a). These studies have also worked to demonstrate how simplistic representations of community guide many programs and restrict attention to the diverse factors shaping the effectiveness of community conservation.…”

“…First, it has become axiomatic within the conservation literature to assert that community conservation often operates with a limited understanding of community, which numerous scholars suggest is presented as generic or homogenous (Brosius et al 1998;Agrawal and Gibson 1999;Leach et al 1999;Brown 2002;Campbell and VainioMattila 2003;McShane and Newby 2004;Tsing et al 2005;King 2007a). In a much cited example, Agrawal and Gibson (1999) argue that understandings of community in conservation planning depend upon three elements: the community as a spatial unit, as a distinct social structure, and as a set of shared norms.…”

Endogenous Berber Forest Management and the Functional Shaping of Rural Forests in Southern Morocco: Implications for Shared Forest Management Options

“…Human activities are usually viewed as a source of degradation, and forestry policies are first aimed at controlling forestland tenure and minimizing pressure on resources. Local knowledge is not formulated verbally to the same extent, but various authors have insisted that in a broad sense there is evidence for subtle and flexible social and technical systems deployed to accommodate livelihood strategies and long-term perpetuation of resources (Leach et al 1999;Parlee et al 2006;Michon et al 2007). In this sense, and without idealizing traditional practices, we may consider their approach closer to the new theories of opportunistic management at disequilibrium states (Behnke et al 1993) and to the framework of "social-ecological systems" associated with "adaptive management" and resilience (Berkes et al 2003;Dietz et al 2003).…”

A Reflective Lens: Applying Critical Systems Thinking and Visual Methods to Ecohealth Research

“…Centered in an ethic of place, community-based conservation follows the supposition that local populations, with greater interest in, and knowledge of, the local context, can effectively manage resources through local institutions (Brosius et al, 1998), which learn and respond faster than centralized agencies (Folke et al, 1998). However, some commentators have identified core weaknesses with the approach, citing unequal power relationships, inter-and intra-community conflict, and privileging social objectives over ecological ones (see, for example, Leach et al, 1999;Kellert et al, 2000;Camargo et al, 2009). Our focus is not the extensive debate concerning the pros and cons of community-based conservation.…”