Ambio

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Identifying women’s attitudes and barriers to participating in a proposed community-based conservation group in western Belize

Research Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

With mounting research showing the many benefits of having women involved in community-based conservation (CBC) efforts, we wanted to identify and measure the attitudes and barriers to women participating in a CBC program in western Belize. We surveyed 500 women in communities surrounding the Vaca Forest Reserve to measure their interest in, attitudes toward, and possible barriers to participating in a CBC program. We assessed women’s intent to participate in CBC activities using the Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the attitudinal, normative, and behavioral control constructs that best predict their intentions to participate. Women indicated positive attitudes toward participating in a CBC program, while perceived behavioral controls had the largest influence on their intent to participate. Understanding the importance of and influence of these constructs on women’s participation will help us and other conservation scientists work with women to collaboratively design effective conservation programs.

Keywords

Belize Community-based conservation Structural equation model Theory of planned behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the WK McClure Scholarship for the Study of World Affairs and the Rainforest Alliance for financial support. Rafael Manzanero and other staff of Friends for Conservation and Development are thanked for their continued support along with Cayo Women for Conservation and the Program for Tropical Ecology and Conservation Science. We would like to acknowledge Arnoldo Melendez, Nasly Escobar, Nidia Panti, Hicela Panti, and the rest of the Panti family for research assistance.

Supplementary material

13280_2017_986_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (135 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 136 kb)

References

  1. Adhikari, B., F. Williams, and J. Lovett. 2007. Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 464–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, B. 2009. Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics 68: 2785–2799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. 1988. Attitudes, behavior and personality. Chicago: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arevalo, B. and D. Chan. 2012. Mitigating and controling illegal logging in the Chiquibul forest. Report to the Forest Department of Belize.Google Scholar
  7. Baral, N., and M. Stern. 2011. A comparative study of two community-based conservation models in Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 2407–2426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Board, M. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: New Island.Google Scholar
  10. Brain, R., M. Hostetler, and T. Irani. 2014. Why do cattle ranchers participate in conservation easement agreements? Key motivators in decision making. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38: 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bridgewater, S., D. Harris, C. Whitefoord, A. Monro, M. Penn, D. Sutton, B. Sayer, B. Adams, et al. 2006. A preliminary checklist of the vascular plants of the Chiquibul Forest, Belize. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 63: 269–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, K. 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal 168: 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, L., and A. Vainio-Mattila. 2003. Participatory development and community-based conservation: Opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology 31: 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ChartsBin 2011. Proportion of land area covered by forest. Retrieved from http://chartsbin.com/view/2673.
  15. Cho, P. 2011. The Chiquicul forest: A carbon conservation area. Proposal to The Forest Department of Belize.Google Scholar
  16. Corbeels, M., J. de Graaff, T. Ndah, E. Penot, F. Baudron, K. Naudin, N. Andrieu, G. Chirat, et al. 2014. Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: A multi-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187: 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO. 2011. FAOSTAT database. Website UN FAO.Google Scholar
  18. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2011. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Garson, D. 2015. Structural equation modeling (statistical associates blue book series). Asheboro NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Hooper, D., J. Coughlan, and M. Mullen. 2008. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Dublin Institute of Technology: Articles: 2.Google Scholar
  22. Hrubes, D., I. Ajzen, and J. Daigle. 2001. Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences 23: 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaeser, A., A. Willcox, and N. Panti. 2016. Attitudes and perceived barriers to women participating in a proposed community-based conservation programme in Belize. Oryx.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316000715.
  24. Kaiser, F., G. Hübner, and F. Bogner. 2005. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35: 2150–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keeley, P. 2015. Science Formative Assessment, Volume 1: 75 Practical Strategies for Linking Assessment, Instruction, and Learning. Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kline, R. 2011. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Kurland, N. 1995. Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manzanero, R. and A. Melendez. 2013. Evolution of a new management alternative in the Vaca Forest Reserve. Report for Friends for Conservation and Development, BelizeGoogle Scholar
  29. Nachtigall, C., U. Kroehne, F. Funke, and R. Steyer. 2003. Pros and cons of structural equation modeling. Methods of Psychological Research Online 8: 1–22.Google Scholar
  30. Oreg, S., and T. Katz-Gerro. 2006. Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior 38: 462–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pagdee, A., Y. Kim, and P. Daugherty. 2006. What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources 19: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pannell, D., G. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay, and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Animal Production Science 46: 1407–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter-Bolland, L., E. Ellis, M. Guariguata, I. Ruiz-Mallén, S. Negrete-Yankelevich, and V. Reyes-García. 2012. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 268: 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prasad Timsina, N. 2003. Promoting social justice and conserving montane forest environments: A case study of Nepal’s community forestry programme. The Geographical Journal 169: 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rossi, A., and J. Armstrong. 1999. Theory of reasoned action vs. theory of planned behavior: Testing the suitability and sufficiency of a popular behavior model using hunting intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4: 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmink, M. 1999. Conceptual framework for gender and community-based conservation, MERGE, Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis, Tropical Conservation and Development Program, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  37. SIB. 2014. Annual Report, 2014. Statistical Institute of Belize. http://www.sib.org.bz/publications/annual-reports.
  38. Soe, A., and N. Sato. 2012. Local people’s attitudes towards the Community Forestry: The case studies in the Central Dry Zone of Myanmar. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University 57: 273–280.Google Scholar
  39. Songorwa, A. 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the communities interested? World Development 27: 2061–2079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson, P. 2013. Sustainability of community-based organizations in Bangladesh. Society & Natural Resources 26: 778–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNFCCC. 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement (FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris.Google Scholar
  42. Wells, M. 1992. Biodiversity conservation, affluence and poverty: mismatched costs and benefits and efforts to remedy them. Ambio 21: 237–243.Google Scholar
  43. Westermann, O., J. Ashby, and J. Pretty. 2005. Gender and social capital: the importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World Development 33: 1783–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Willcox, A., W. Giuliano, and M. Monroe. 2012. Predicting cattle rancher wildlife management activities: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of International ProgramsUniversity of Tennessee Institute of AgricultureKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.The University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations