Natural Resource Management at Four Social Scales: Psychological Type Matters

Abstract

Understanding organisation at different social scales is crucial to learning how social processes play a role in sustainable natural resource management. Research has neglected the potential role that individual personality plays in decision making in natural resource management. In the past two decades natural resource management across rural Australia has increasingly come under the direct influence of voluntary participatory groups, such as Catchment Management Authorities. The greater complexity of relationships amongst all stakeholders is a serious management challenge when attempting to align their differing aspirations and values at four social institutional scales, local, regional, state and national. This is an exploratory study on the psychological composition of groups of stakeholders at the four social scales in natural resource management in Australia. This paper uses the theory of temperaments and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) to investigate the distribution of personality types. The distribution of personality types in decision-making roles in natural resource management was markedly different from the Australian Archive sample. Trends in personality were found across social scales with Stabilizer temperament more common at the local scale and Theorist temperament more common at the national scale. Greater similarity was found at the state and national scales. Two temperaments comprised between 76% and 90% of participants at the local and regional scales, the common temperament type was Stabilizer. The dissimilarity was Improviser (40%) at the local scale and Theorist (29%) at the regional scale. Implications for increasing participation in regional sustainable management practices and bridging the gap between community and government are discussed. Theorist temperament more common at the national scale. Greater similarity was found at the state and national scales. Two temperaments comprised between 76% and 90% of participants at the local and regional scales, the common temperament type was Stabilizer. The dissimilarity was Improviser (40%) at the local scale and Theorist (29%) at the regional scale.

MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey

“…Several studies discuss the general personality‐type distribution in the population (e.g., Ball, 2001; Wideman, 2002) and others explore the personality‐type distribution of special populations (e.g., Allison & Hobbs, 2010, for natural resource managers. )…”

Risk Governance

“…For males the 'Introverting, Sensing, Thinking, Judging' type (ISTJ) (21.3 %) is the most frequently occurring type, with a 15 times higher frequency than the lowest frequency type Extroverting, Sensing, Feeling Perceiving (ESFP). Group differences were also found across organizational scales in decision makers in natural resource management in Australia (Allison and Hobbs 2010 ). The distribution of types in males and females show a different pattern, there is an indication that Australian males are predisposed toward preferences for Sensing, Thinking, and Judging with the two highest frequencies ISTJ and ESTJ making up 37.1 % of the male population, whereas the female population shows a more even distribution than the male population.…”

“…There is interest in better understanding differences between groups and even different national psyche (van Rooyen 2007 ;Ball 2009 ;Allison and Hobbs 2010 ). Data archives of psychological type using the reported results on the well-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) show the distribution of the 16 type profi les for adult populations.…”

Building partnerships to address conservation and management of western Michigan’s natural resources

“…Multiple stakeholders provide diverse talents and experiences, but they also come with diverse values, beliefs, and cultures that can make coordination of collaborative processes challenging (Ewel 2001, Allison andHobbs 2010). Greater stakeholder participation can lead to additional expenses in resources and time to establish a foundational understanding of the benefits that natural systems can provide (Ewel 2001, Newham et al 2007, Walz et al 2007.…”