The Best Laid Plans: Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Group Capacity and Planning Success

Abstract

As community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) increases in popularity, the question of the capacity of such groups to successfully manage natural resources becomes increasingly relevant. However, few studies have quantifiably analyzed how the amount or type of capacity in a CBNRM organization directly affects the outputs or the environmental outcomes produced. This paucity of research exists in part due to the diversity of indicators for CBNRM group capacity, as well as the ensuing debate over how to best define and measure success in CBNRM initiatives. Although concrete outputs vary widely, many efforts center on creating natural resource management plans (RMPs). The primary objective of our research was to explore the link between capacity and RMP implementation success, as perceived by practitioners among CBNRM groups across Illinois. A short online survey was constructed, utilizing findings from focus groups in combination with an extensive literature review, to measure CBNRM participants' (n = 190) perceptions of 10 key capacity indicators and RMP implementation success. Results show that capacity perceptions varied significantly among respondents in low, moderate, and high RMP implementation success groups, and that group capacity was predictive of the degree of perceived RMP implementation success. Further, our findings suggest that bonding social capital and outreach are crucial in predicting low versus moderate RMP success, while leadership, motivation, and vision best distinguish the moderately successful and highly successful groups.

The role of social capital in endangered species management: A valuable resource

“…The percentage of bonding ties in this study is comparable to other natural resource studies where >50% bonding ties within community groups was associated with successful coordinated action (Bodin and Crona ). Through bonding ties, this community has contributed to the creation of common knowledge that facilitates trust, reciprocity, and shared values and attitudes (Woolcock , Ishihara and Pascual , Doerfel et al , Ostrom , Mountjoy et al ). This may explain the past successes this community has had in working together to protect iconic trees by developing a tree ordinance, establishing birding trails, changing local wastewater management regulations, and successfully launching a lawsuit against the state to sue for greater freshwater inflows.…”

“…These past successes have established local institutions and groups that represent acknowledged resources in the community. As important as bonding ties are for successful collective action, bridging ties that comprise relations of respect and mutuality link the community to valuable external resources and enable a larger knowledge pool beneficial for natural resource management (Bodin et al , Ishihara and Pascual , Mountjoy et al ). We found that connections between community members and NGOs, and state and federal management personnel and groups provide a mechanism to share knowledge and the potential for these external levels of authority to play a role in legitimizing community involvement in management (Ishihara and Pascual , Lopez‐Gunn ).…”

“…As an example, the formal and informal fishing institutions off the coast of Maine, USA have influenced state‐level rules that restrict fishing and lead to credible rules with high compliance (Dietz et al ). Across Illinois, USA, successful community‐based natural resource management is attributed to motivation and leadership as well as shared vision and common values among participants (Mountjoy et al ). We found that this community has established groups that address ongoing natural resource needs, including wastewater management, intracoastal shipping traffic, and freshwater inflows.…”

“…Cognitive social‐capital dimensions (Table ) provide the context within which participatory natural resource processes operate and become a positive resource for change (Ballet et al ). Cognitive social capital manifests through shared values and attitudes and norms of behavior, and through the dynamic factors of reciprocity and trust (Uphoff , Pretty and Ward , Grootaert and van Bastelaer , Lopez‐Gunn , Mountjoy et al ). Reciprocity and trust are essential elements of successful natural resource management that, if not present, must be developed over time through information exchange and learning opportunities (Ostrom , Senecah , Hamilton and Wills‐Toker , Peterson et al , Norton , Wagner et al ).…”

Working together: the roles of geographic proximity, homophilic organizational characteristics, and neighborhood context in civic stewardship collaboration networks in Philadelphia and New York City

“…Organizational networks are important mechanisms for groups to share information and resources that can strengthen capacity and outcomes and address environmental problems frequently too complex or at too large a scale for any one organization to tackle alone (Lubell et al 2010, Ingold andFischer 2014). These collaborative networks often lead to new and innovative forms of governance over shared environmental resources and ecosystem services (Connolly et al 2013, Mountjoy et al 2013, Campbell 2017. At the same time, not all environmental groups engage equally in collaborative networks and, as a result, some groups may have less access to ideas, materials, and resources over time Hyde 2004, Berardo 2014).…”