Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Networks and Community-Based Natural Resource Management

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conducted case studies of three successful examples of collaborative, community-based natural resource conservation and development. Our purpose was to: (1) identify the functions served by interactions within the social networks of involved stakeholders; (2) describe key structural properties of these social networks; and (3) determine how these structural properties varied when the networks were serving different functions. The case studies relied on semi-structured, in-depth interviews of 8 to 11 key stakeholders at each site who had played a significant role in the collaborative projects. Interview questions focused on the roles played by key stakeholders and the functions of interactions between them. Interactions allowed the exchange of ideas, provided access to funding, and enabled some stakeholders to influence others. The exchange of ideas involved the largest number of stakeholders, the highest percentage of local stakeholders, and the highest density of interactions. Our findings demonstrated the value of tailoring strategies for involving stakeholders to meet different needs during a collaborative, community-based natural resource management project. Widespread involvement of local stakeholders may be most appropriate when ideas for a project are being developed. During efforts to exert influence to secure project approvals or funding, however, involving specific individuals with political connections or influence on possible sources of funds may be critical. Our findings are consistent with past work that has postulated that social networks may require specific characteristics to meet different needs in community-based environmental management.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja G (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45:425–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin O, Crona B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society 11:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management 29:991–1013

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenberg GJ (2000) Resources, political support, and citizen participation in environmental policy: a reexamination of conventional wisdom. Society and Natural Resources 13:579–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross R, Parker A, Prusak L, Borgatti SP (2001) Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics 30:100–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A (1998) Agency-community partnership in landcare: lessons for state-sponsored citizen resource management. Environmental Management 22:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A, De Lacy T (1996) Landcare in Australia: does it make a difference? Journal of Environmental Management 46:119–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A, Lockwood M (2000) Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Society and Natural Resources 13:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A, Shindler B, Wright A (2002) Sustaining local watershed initiatives: lessons from Landcare and watershed councils. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:1207–1216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A, Van Nouhuys M, Robinson W, Mackay J (2000) Exploring landcare effectiveness using organisational theory. Australian Geographer 31:349–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray B (1985) Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations 38:911–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray B (1989) Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology 104:1439–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. University of California, Riverside, Riverside

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44:82–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT (2002) Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science 13:232–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katon BM, Pomeroy RS, Garces LR, Salamanca AM (1999) Fisheries management of San Salvador Island, Philippines: a shared responsibility. Society and Natural Resources 12:777–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klyza CM, Trombulak SC (eds) (1994) The future of the Northern forest. University Press of New England, Hanover

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauber TB, Brown TL (2006) Learning by doing: policy learning in community-based deer management. Society and Natural Resources 19:411–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Pelkey NW (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 27:378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Pelkey NW, Sabatier PA (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21:645–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong KM, Decker DJ, Lauber TB, Raik DB, Siemer WF. Overcoming jurisdictional boundaries through stakeholder engagement and collaborative governance: lessons learned from white-tailed deer management inthe U.S. In: Andersson K, Eklund E, Lehtola M, Salmi P (eds) Beyond the rural-urban divide: comparative perspectives on the differentiated countryside and its regulation. Elsevier Press (in press)

  • Lin N (1999) Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22:28–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorange P, Roos J (1991) Why some strategic alliances succeed and other fail. The Journal of Business Strategy 12:25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels S, Mason RJ, Solecki WD (2001) Participatory research on collaborative environmental management: results from the Adirondack Park. Society and Natural Resources 14:251–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder and salience: defining the prinicple of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22:853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman L, Dale A (2005) Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: a response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and Society 10:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy C, Beck J (1999) An experiment in fishery co-management: evidence from Big Creek. Society and Natural Resources 12:719–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41:116–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raik DB, Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Brown TL (2005) Managing community controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopting practices that address value differences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin SW, Chavez D (1995) Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 19:189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobels J, Curtis A, Lockie S (2001) The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies 17:265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker CM (2004) Community institutions and forest management in Mexico’s Monarch Butterfly Reserve. Society and Natural Resources 17:569–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MD (1999) Conflict, environmental change, and social institutions in dryland Africa: limitations of the community resource management approach. Society and Natural Resources 12:643–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Soical network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanetell BA, Knuth BA (2002) Knowledge partnerships: rapid rural appraisal’s role in catalyzing community-based management in Venezuela. Society and Natural Resources 15:805–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work described in this manuscript was funded by the Northeastern States Research Cooperative and by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch funds) received from Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    T. Bruce Lauber

  2. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 251 Roberts Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Daniel J. Decker

  3. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 266 Roberts Hall, Ithaca, New York, 14853, USA

    Barbara A. Knuth

Authors
  1. T. Bruce Lauber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel J. Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara A. Knuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Bruce Lauber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lauber, T.B., Decker, D.J. & Knuth, B.A. Social Networks and Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Environmental Management 42, 677–687 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9181-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9181-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation