“How Could I Live Here and Not Be a Member?”: Economic Versus Social Drivers of Participation in Namibian Conservation Programs

Silva, Julie A.; Mosimane, Alfons W.

doi:10.1007/s10745-014-9645-9

Cited by 66 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The norms and culture facilitates social cohesion amongst community members and is reinforced by established traditional authority structures (Julie A Silva & Mosimane, 2014). We find that shared norms and culture give community members a common interest in terms of livelihood and shared use of natural resources.…”

Section: Do Common Interests and Shared Norms Within A Community Facimentioning

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local Governance Institutions, CBNRM, and Benefit-sharing Systems in Namibian Conservancies

Mosimane¹,

Silva²

2015

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The provision of socio-economic benefits to community members is a key component in the design and implementation of community based natural resources management (CBNRM) initiatives in rural areas. Namibian CBNRM legislation requires that the local governance systems develop a benefit sharing plan (MET, 1995). Local governance systems that are developed within CBNRM programs determine the types and amounts of benefits that community members receive. This paper investigates the role of local governance in establishing benefit-sharing mechanisms and whether local governance facilitates or impedes the equitable distribution of benefits. We also examine whether community characteristics often highlighted in community based conservation literature as facilitating decision making in CBNRM (i.e., size of community, level of community homogeneity, and existence of shared norms) contribute to better local governance for benefit sharing. We use two case studies in Namibia to examine local governance and benefit sharing (Uibasen conservancy in Kunene region and Mayuni conservancy in Caprivi region). We draw on qualitative data from in-depth interviews with conservancy residents conducted in 2011. The findings of the study suggest local governance institutions in conservancies have not developed adequate benefit-sharing systems, and the expectations of conservancy members are largely based on speculation about what they should receive stemming from unclear guidelines regarding realistically deliverable benefits. We find that community characteristics have little impact on local governance outcomes with regards to benefit-sharing systems. This suggests that local governance structures need more external support and oversight in designing and implementing methods for distributing benefits to community members. We argue that fairness and equitable sharing of benefits can only be achieved when it is an explicit objective of the benefit-sharing systems used by local governance structures and involves transparency.

show abstract

Section: Do Common Interests and Shared Norms Within A Community Facimentioning

confidence: 70%

“…8, No. 2; authorities (Julie A Silva & Mosimane, 2014). As a result, there has been less social conflict regarding benefits, despite the fact that respondents described both economic and non-monetary benefits as insignificant for the majority of community members.…”

Section: Does Community As a Homogenous Social Structure Facilitate Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Governance Institutions, CBNRM, and Benefit-sharing Systems in Namibian Conservancies

Mosimane¹,

Silva²

2015

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although researchers have examined ecological and economic outcomes (Peng et al 2006;Bryce et al 2011) of conservation projects, psychological research (Schwartz 2006) indicates that people are much more complex and motivated by far more than just financial or ecological gain (Langholz et al 2000;Blackmore & Doole 2013). Hope, pride, competition, and a sense of community ownership or solidarity may all help inspire conservation action (Murphee 2009;Hazzah et al 2014;Silva & Mosimane 2014). More research aimed at uncovering the costs and benefits of conservation in very specific cultural contexts may improve the understanding of why people engage in conservation projects and answer some of the questions that we could not give in this study.…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of motivational values and conservation success in and around protected areas

Cetas

Yasué

2016

Conservation Biology

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In conservation projects in and around protected areas (PAs), a suite of policy instruments are used to promote conservation behavior in local people. Few studies have related psychological research on motivational values to conservation in PAs. We conducted a systematic review of 120 peer-reviewed articles to assess the relative frequencies of policy instruments that aimed to foster intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations to conserve. We examined how the type of motivation engendered by the instrument (i.e., intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and based on the description of how the project was designed and implemented) influenced the ecological, economic, and social success of the project. We assessed the success of the project in only the case studies that included a quantitative or qualitative analysis of success. Projects designed to foster at least one intrinsically motivating instrument were 3 times more likely to meet socioeconomic or ecological goals. Although certain types of instruments such as payments or fines tended to be based on extrinsic motivators more often than education or monitoring programs, several successful projects involving payments or fines were linked to intrinsic motivation in the local community. Thus, our results suggest that rather than debating the relative merits of specific types of policy instruments, conservationists may have more success by focusing on how different motivators, suited to specific contexts, can better empower local communities to conserve. Broadly, our results suggest the current emphasis on social justice and well-being of local communities is a positive step toward protecting the world's remaining biodiversity.

show abstract

“…For example, autonomy comes up in two ways: (1) Stewards can often be motivated to ensure the sustainability of resources so to maintain cultural or livelihood autonomy ) and (2) Stewardship programs that undermine the autonomy of resource users or land-owners may be opposed (Sorice et al 2013). Other research has shown that environmental volunteers are often motivated by wanting to belong to a social group (Measham and Barnett 2008;Asah and Blahna 2012) and local stewards can be motivated by their affiliation with a community or group, such as farmers, fishers, hunters, or Indigenous groups (Silva and Mosimane 2014). A study by Ryan et al (2003) shows that farmer's are motivated to demonstrate a level of competence in caring for a resource and Bramston et al (2011) show that participation in environmental stewardship networks in rural Australia is motivated by a sense of belonging, care for the environment, and personal learning.…”

Section: Motivations: the Rationale And Will For Stewardshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Stewardship: A Conceptual Review and Analytical Framework

Bennett¹,

Whitty²,

Finkbeiner³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been increasing attention to and investment in local environmental stewardship in conservation and environmental management policies and programs globally. Yet environmental stewardship has not received adequate conceptual attention. Establishing a clear definition and comprehensive analytical framework could strengthen our ability to understand the factors that lead to the success or failure of environmental stewardship in different contexts and how to most effectively support and enable local efforts. Here we propose such a definition and framework. First, we define local environmental stewardship as the actions taken by individuals, groups or networks of actors, with various motivations and levels of capacity, to protect, care for or responsibly use the environment in pursuit of environmental and/or social outcomes in diverse social–ecological contexts. Next, drawing from a review of the environmental stewardship, management and governance literatures, we unpack the elements of this definition to develop an analytical framework that can facilitate research on local environmental stewardship. Finally, we discuss potential interventions and leverage points for promoting or supporting local stewardship and future applications of the framework to guide descriptive, evaluative, prescriptive or systematic analysis of environmental stewardship. Further application of this framework in diverse environmental and social contexts is recommended to refine the elements and develop insights that will guide and improve the outcomes of environmental stewardship initiatives and investments. Ultimately, our aim is to raise the profile of environmental stewardship as a valuable and holistic concept for guiding productive and sustained relationships with the environment.

show abstract

“How Could I Live Here and Not Be a Member?”: Economic Versus Social Drivers of Participation in Namibian Conservation Programs

Cited by 66 publications

References 31 publications

Local Governance Institutions, CBNRM, and Benefit-sharing Systems in Namibian Conservancies

Local Governance Institutions, CBNRM, and Benefit-sharing Systems in Namibian Conservancies

A systematic review of motivational values and conservation success in and around protected areas

Environmental Stewardship: A Conceptual Review and Analytical Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About