Advertisement

Social Networks: Uncovering Social–Ecological (Mis)matches in Heterogeneous Marine Landscapes

  • Örjan BodinEmail author
  • Beatrice I. Crona
Chapter

Abstract

Ecological and socioeconomic processes often operate over different spatial and temporal scales. This can lead to increased risks of resource misuse and overexploitation if management is not well aligned with ecological processes operating in the landscape. One important way to ensure better alignment of social and ecological processes is through improved communication among relevant stakeholders operating at different scales and/or localities. Thus, understanding the structure and function of social networks is an important aspect of disentangling outcomes where different stakeholders come together to deal with natural resource dilemmas (Hum Ecol 34:573–592, 2006; Ecol Soc 11:18, 2006; Glob Environ Chang 19:366–374, 2009; Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance, Cambridge, 2011). For example, active successful networking of a few key actors at the onset of a resource management initiative was important for building trust and buy-in from local farmers (Hum Ecol 34:573–592, 2006; Ecol Soc 11:18, 2006). Elsewhere, external connections were key to why some rural communities were more successful in initiating economic development; a few key individuals with enough education and skills had contacts with donors and agencies outside the village. These ties to external actors with resources were crucial in differentiating successful outcomes in otherwise very similar-seeming rural Indian communities (Active social capital. Tracing the roots of development and democracy, New York, 2002). In resource-dependent communities, particularly in the developing world, a lack of formal institutions or enforcement of regulations often means that resource users resort to informal social networks for coordinating resource use. To understand if and how social networks influence resource management, it is important to analyze both the patterns of communication but also how these patterns relate to key ecological processes in the landscape.

Keywords

Social Network Ecological Process Resource User Natural Resource Management Fish Stock 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References and Recommended Readings1

  1. Barrett CB, Travis AJ, Dasgupta P (2011) On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(34):13907–13912CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. *Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Chang 19:366–374. A review paper that gives an overview of how and why social network analysis might be useful in studying natural resource management. Google Scholar
  3. Bodin Ö, Crona B, Thyresson M, Golz A-L, Tengö M (2014) Conservation Success as a Function of Good Alignment of Social and Ecological Structures and Processes. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1371–1379. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12306. A comparative case study, where one of the two cases is the Kenyan fishery in this lab, using the social-ecological network approach presented in Bodin & Tengö 2012.
  4. *Bodin Ö, Tengö M (2012) Disentangling intangible social-ecological systems. Glob Environ Chang 22:430–439. Presents a theoretical and methodological framework for analyzing coupled social- and ecological networks. An analytical approach on how social-ecological systems can be described and analyzed as social-ecological networks. Google Scholar
  5. Bodin Ö, Prell C (eds) (2011) Social networks and natural resource management: uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  7. *Crona BI, Bodin Ö (2006) WHAT you know is WHO you know?—communication patterns among resource extractors as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecol Soc 11:7. In this study the basic context and some findings relating to the ecological knowledge of the studied fishermen community are presented. Google Scholar
  8. Cumming GS, Bodin Ö, Ernstson H et al (2010) Network analysis in conservation biogeography: challenges and opportunities. Divers Distrib 16:414–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7821–7826CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Guerrero AM, Bodin Ö, McAllister RRJ, Wilson KA (2015) Achieving social-ecological fit through bottom-up collaborative governance: an empirical investigation. Ecol. Soc. 20, 41. doi: 10.5751/ES-08035-200441. Investigates if a bottom-up collaborative conservation initiative has led to adequate social-ecological alignment (“fit”).
  11. *Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C et al (2006) Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum Ecol 34:573–592. Includes a variety of compelling arguments on why social networks are important in natural resource governance. Google Scholar
  12. Hardin G (1968) The tradgedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Janssen MA, Bodin Ö, Anderies JM et al (2006) A network perspective on the resilience of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johannes RE (2002) The renaissance of community-based marine resource management in Oceania. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:317–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson JC, Griffith DC (2010) Linking human and natural systems: social networks, environment, and ecology. In: Vaccaro I, Smith EA, Aswani S (eds) Environmental social sciences: methods and research design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 212–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krishna A (2002) Active social capital. Tracing the roots of development and democracy. Columbia University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR et al (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Treml EA, Fidelman PIJ, Kininmonth S, Ekstrom JA, Bodin Ö (2015) Analyzing the (mis)fit between the institutional and ecological networks of the Indo-West Pacific. Glob. Environ. Chang. 31, 263–271. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.012
  21. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis—methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations