Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Natural capital (e.g., forest resources, soil resources, esthetics, mineral resources, wildlife resources, water quality, and air quality; Beckley et al. 2008), is often referenced as sixth capital type. However, we view it as distinct from the other capital types directly influencing CBNRM; improving natural capital is the outcome sought by such initiatives, though it’s current state likely plays a role in mobilizing CBNRM groups.

  2. Bridging organizations are vital to stakeholder collaboratives, like CBNRM groups, to increase connectedness (e.g., from local users to municipalities, and from regional to national organizations), trust, conflict resolution, and vertical and horizontal cooperation (Olsson et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2005; Berkes 2009).

  3. Many individuals (92) were involved in multiple planning initiatives (2–5) and were sent unique emails for each plan with which they were associated.

  4. The study design and data collection protocol were reviewed and approved by the lead author’s institutional review board.

  5. Separate-groups covariance matrices were used because our data were of non-equal variance (i.e., heteroscadastic) as recommended by Marks and Dunn (1974).

  6. Correlations of each variable with each discriminate function, similar to loadings in factor analysis, are considered to be more accurate than the standardized canonical discriminate coefficients (Burns and Burns 2009).

  7. Determined via comparative analysis of more than 1,000 companies over 5 years (Collins 2005).

References

  • Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manage 35(6):703–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aslin HJ, Collier N, Garnett ST (2009) Community-based natural resource management and environmental impact assessment. Report to the Environmental Protection Authority, Northern Territory Government. Available at http://www.epa.nt.gov.au/sites/default/files/our%20work/environemental%20assessment%20review/related/07%20--%20epa_cbnrm_report.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2012

  • Beckley TM, Martz D, Nadeau S, Wall B, Reimer E (2008) Multiple capacities multiple outcomes: delving deeper into the meaning of community capacity. JRCD 3:56–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton LR, Jackson-Smith D (2010) Factors influencing success among collaborative sage grouse management groups in the western United States. Environ Conserv 37:250–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg N (2002) Non-response bias. University of Texas at Dallas. Available at http://www.utdallas.edu/~nberg/Berg_ARTICLES/BergNon-ResponseBiasMay2002.pdf. Accessed 27 November 2013

  • Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90:1692–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnell JE, Koontz TM (2007) Stumbling forward: the organizational challenges of building and sustaining collaborative watershed management. Soc Nat Resour 20:153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns RP, Burns R (2009) Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. Discriminant analysis, chap 25. Sage, Thousand Oaks

  • Chambliss DF, Schutt RK (2010) Making sense of the social world: methods of investigation, 3rd edn. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin RJ, Brown P, Venkatesh S, Vidal A (2001) Building community capacity. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins J (2005) Good to great and the social sectors: a monograph to accompany good to great. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley A, Moote MA (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 16:371–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 60:821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Côté S (2001) The contribution of human and social capital. ISUMA. Spring 29–35

  • Craig G (2007) Community capacity-building: something old something new. Crit Soc Policy Ltd 27:335–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq AL, VandeVen AH (1971) A group process model for problem identification and program planning. JAB 7:466–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz JM et al (2004) Defining leadership in conservation: a view from the top. Conserv Biol 18:274–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail & Internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue EM, Sturtevant VE (2007) Social science constructs in ecosystem assessments: revisiting community capacity and community resiliency. Soc Nat Resour 20:899–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius C, Folke C, Cundill G, Schultz L (2007) Powerless spectators coping actors and adaptive co-managers: a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management. Ecol Soc 12. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art29. Accessed 11 March 2011

  • Fiszbien A (1997) The emergence of local capacity: lessons from Colombia. World Dev 25:1029–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flora CB, Flora JL (2007) Rural communities: legacy and change, 3rd edn. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. Annu Rev Energ Environ 30:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Fishman PG, Berkowitz SL, Lounsbury SJ, Allen NA (2001) Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: a review and integrative framework. Am J Community Psychol 29:241–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gittell R, Vidal A (1998) Community organizing: building social capital as a development strategy. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman RM, Speers MA, McElroy K, Fawecett M, Parker E, Smith SR, Sterling TD, Wallerstein N (1998) Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Educ Behav 25:258–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber JS (2010) Key principles of community-based natural resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environ Manage 45:52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery B, Maye D (2006) Marketing sustainable food production in Europe: case study evidence from two Dutch labeling schemes. Royal Dutch Geogr Soc 98:507–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois Department of Natural Resources [IDNR] (2005) The Illinois comprehensive wildlife conservation plan and strategy. Available at  http://dnr.state.il.us/orc/wildliferesources/theplan/final/Illinois_final_report.pdf. Accessed 7 November 2010

  • Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R (2010) A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Quart 68:94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney D (2000) Are community watershed groups effective? Confronting the thorny issue of measuring success. In: Brick P, Snow D, Van de Wetering S (eds) Across the great divide: explorations in conservation & the American West. Island Press, Washignton DC, pp 188–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM, Thomas CW (2006) What do we know & need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Admin Rev 66:111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Sabatier PA (2005) Are trust and social capital the keys to success? In: Sabatier PA (ed) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Pelkey NW, Sabatier PA (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California & Washington. J Pol Anal Manage 21:645–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M, Richard F, Edgar R (2005) Political institutions and conservation by local governments. Urban Aff Rev 40:706–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch WD, Gardner HH, Melkonian A, Kleinman N (2007) Human capital, motivation and productivity. Report from the Health as Human Capital Foundation. Available at http://www.hhefoundation.org/hhef/pdfBrief1.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2010

  • Manolis JC, Chan K, Finkelstein ME, Stephens S, Nelson CR, Grant JB, Dombeck MP (2009) Leadership: a new frontier in conservation science. Conserv Biol 23:879–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RD (2007) Overcoming locally based collaboration constraints. Soc Nat Resour 20:135–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks S, Dunn OJ (1974) Discriminant functions when covariance matrices are unequal. J Am Stat Assoc 69:555–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martilla JA, James JC (1977) Importance-performance analysis. J Marketing 41:77–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis MV, Woolley J, Gamman J (1999) Bioregional conflict resolution: rebuilding community in watershed planning and organizing. Environ Manage 24:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey and Company (2001) Effective capacity building in nonprofit organizations. Washington DC Venture Philanthropy Partners. Available at http://www.vppartners.org/sites/default/files/reports/full_rpt.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2011

  • Mendis-Millard S, Reed MG (2007) Understanding community capacity using adaptive and reflexive research practices: lessons from two Canadian biosphere reserves. Soc Nat Resour 20:543–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore EA, Koontz TM (2003) Research note a typology of collaborative watershed groups: citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 16:451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore SA, Severn RC, Millar R (2006) A conceptual model of community capacity for biodiversity conservation outcomes. Geogr Res 44:361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mountjoy NJ, Davenport MA, Meyers DJ, Whiles MR (2010) An assessment of Illinois Conservation Opportunity Areas: stakeholders’ perspectives on conservation planning, implementation, and threats. Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Available at http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/conservation/IWAP/Documents/T-55%20SWG%20project/1-%20Original%20COA%20Survey.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2012

  • Mountjoy NJ, Seekamp E, Davenport MA, Whiles MR (2013) Identifying capacity indicators for community-based natural resource management. J Environ Plann Manag. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.743880. Accessed 27 November 2013

  • Newton K (2001) Trust social capital civil society and democracy. Int Polit Sci Rev 22:201–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Socio-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol Soc 9(4). Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2. Accessed 11 March 2011

  • Pavey JL, Muth AB, Ostermeier D, Steiner DM (2007) Building capacity for local governance: an application of interactional theory to developing a community of interest. Rural Sociol 72(1):90–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam RD (1993) The prosperous community: social capital and public life. Am Prospect 4(13):65–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond C, Cleary J, Cosgrove K (2006) A community capacity assessment tool and process for natural resource management DWLBC Report No 2006/35 Adelaide: Government of South Australia Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation

  • Saegert S, Thompson P, Warren MR (eds) (2001) Social capital and poor communities. Russel Sage Foundation, New York

  • Schutt RK (2012) Investigating the social world: the practice and process of research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan-Holt JK (1998) MANOVA simultaneous test procedures: the power and robustness of restricted multivariate contrasts. Educ Psychol Meas 58:861–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock M, Narayan D (2000) Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res Obser 15(2):225–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded through a US Fish and Wildlife Service and Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant and The Nature Conservancy in Illinois. We thank the Whiles Lab “bug-pickers,” Allison Kennington, Jackie Adams, Melissa Ruether, Kelley Waldschmidt, and Rebecca Lira for their assistance gathering email contacts and Dave Myers for assistance gathering resource management plans. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology and Center for Ecology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Mail Code 6501, Carbondale, IL, 62901, USA

    Natalie J. Mountjoy & Matt R. Whiles

  2. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, 3028C Biltmore Hall, Box 8004, Raleigh, NC, 27695-8004, USA

    Erin Seekamp

  3. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, 1530, Cleveland Avenue North, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Mae A. Davenport

Authors
  1. Natalie J. Mountjoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin Seekamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mae A. Davenport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matt R. Whiles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie J. Mountjoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mountjoy, N.J., Seekamp, E., Davenport, M.A. et al. The Best Laid Plans: Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Group Capacity and Planning Success. Environmental Management 52, 1547–1561 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0169-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0169-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation