Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management

1. Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management Human ecology Important areas of research Community-based natural resource Management An international perspective management in Illinois Issues in the cache

2. Human Ecology • Subdiscipline of ecology • Interdisciplinary • Relationship between humans and their environments • Natural • Social • Built • Philosophical Roots • Geography • Sociology • Psychology • Anthropology • Zoology • Ecology

3. Major Research Trends Understanding Individual Behavior Integrating & Understanding Stakeholders Transboundary Resources Human-Ecological Systems Adaptive & Resilient Communities Environmental Justice Risk Society Co-management & Partnerships (CBNRM)

4. Good References Hrubes, Ajzen, & Daigle (2001) Bamberg & Möser (2007) Vaske & Kobrin (2001) Stern (2000) Pelletier & Sharp (2008) Understanding Individual Behavior

5. Good References Mikalsen & Jentoft (2001) Reed, et al. (2009) Cheng, Krueger, & Daniels (2003) Integrating Stakeholders

6. Measure of the thresholds within which systems are able to deal with change • Systems with high adaptive capacities retain their integrity under a broader range of conditions • Learn from mistakes and to generate experience of dealing with change Good Referneces Adaptive capacity (Frabricius et al 2007) Community types- Powerless Spectators-Coping Actors- Adaptive managers (Frabricius et al 2007) Vulnerable & resilient systems (Eakin & Webe 2009) Adaptive & Resilient Communities

7. Good References Failures of top-down management (Wilcove et al. 1996) Definitional Framework (Armitage 2005) Key principles (Gray et al. 2001) Popularity (Craig 2007) Improvements from top-down management (Habron 2003, Foster-Fishman 2007, Bradshaw 2003, Mendis-Millard and Reed 2007) Include community perspectives (Folke et al. 2005) Limitations (Bradshaw 2003, Fleeger & Becker 2006) Keys to Success (Gruber 2010) Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) • Participation from (Armitage 2005) • Community members • Resource users • Local institutions • Improve decision making • Customary practices • Knowledge systems • Enforcement and regulation • Resource management outcomes • Four key principles (Gray et al. 2001) • Stakeholders acknowledge the health of the ecosystem and land is viewed as a critical part of the community • Resource decisions are made collaborative processes • Equity is sought in the distribution of ecosystem benefits to sustain local capacity • Citizens and their communities are acknowledged as fundamental components of ecosystems Co-management & Partnerships

8. Why CBNRM? Failures of top-down management • NEPA of 1969 • Distrust and tension that exist between government regulation and private rights (Polasky & Doremus 1995) • Promoting an adversarial context (resulting) in increased alienation (Fleeger & Becker 2006) • ESA of 1973 • Insufficient for total biodiversity protection (Rohlf, 1991) • 75% listed on nonfederal lands • 37% completely dependent on private lands • Cooperation is required from private landowners • Fearful of the possible restrictions • Destroy acceptable habitat • Directly harm listed species • Deny researchers • The limitations of top-down conservation policy have made community-based efforts the only logical choice (Wells and Brandon 1992) • Movement away from top-down management towards community-based natural resource management (Argawal & Gibson 1999 and Armitage 2005)

9. CBNRM International Approach Local Approach Issues in the cache

10. CBNRM in Kenya: Community-based Ecotourism

11. CBNRM in Kenya: Community-based Ecotourism Mountjoy et al. 2007 If rural communities gain resources from CBE they are more likely to protect their environment (Ngece 2002) CBE allows local people to have more control and receive most not all of the benefits (Ngece 2002). New forms of wildlife management, like CBE have begun to lead a recovery in wildlife populations (Emerton 1998) • CBE in the Kasigau region on a community-owned ranch • Bushmeat • Human Dimensions • Wildlife Abundance

12. BushmeatNot Commercial in Kasigau < 1% Mountjoy et al. 2007

13. Human DimensionsWildlife Conflict & Tourism are Inversely Related Mountjoy et al. 2007

14. Wildlife AbundanceRecommend Tourism focus in NW Quad Mountjoy et al. 2007

15. CBNRM in Kenya: Community-based Ecotourism Bushmeat Utilization Community Surveys Wildlife Abundance Mountjoy et al. 2007 Low bushmeat utilization Community favors tourism, conflict must be addressed Abundant wildlife but could decline due to human activities on the ranch

16. CBNRM in Illinois: Capacity for Success Which components (or indicators) of capacity are the most important? Mountjoy et al. 2010 • Capacity- the collective ability of a group to combine various forms of capital • To produce desired results or outcomes. • CBNRM has become increasingly popular in the U.S. (Craig 2007) • The question of the capacity of CBNRM groups to meet conservation challenges has become increasingly important • CBNRM groups can increase their ability to meet their goals by understanding the core components of capacity. • human capital • social capital (bonding and bridging), • organizational capital, • economic capital • Tangible assets= indicators.

17. Focus Groups Twenty-seven individuals participated in our focus groups (Figure 1). Our focus group size (2-7 participants per session; μ=5) Mountjoy et al. 2010

18. Which components (or indicators) of capacity are the most important? • Focus Group Results • Top 10: • Motivation • Leadership • Respect/ trust • Common Values • Outreach • Marketing • Planning • Communication • Funding • Equipment Mountjoy et al. 2010

19. How Much Capacity do CBNRM Groups Have? • Online Survey • Survey Monkey • Participants in CBNRM planning across Illinois • Response Rate • Invited 540 • From 29 groups • 190 took survey • Response rate =35.2%

20. What do CBNRM Groups Have & Need Which Indicators do CBNRM Groups Possess? Which Indicators are the Most Important?

21. Capacity Survey Capacity (1-7) Planning Success All group means significantly different (F= 33.169, p<0.001)

22. Eventual Model for CBNRM Success

23. Planning Success Across the State Mountjoy et al. 2009.

24. Important Events to Planning in the CRW Adams et al. 2005

25. Context of Conflict Adams et al. 2005 • The planning process occurred after more than a 10-year history of deep local conflicts in the lower reaches of the Cache • Large-scale commercial farmers • Big Creek Drainage District No. • Strongly represented in other local governing bodies • Vs. small landowners, hunters, and environmentalists • Organized through local and national NGOs • The Nature Conservancy (TNC) • 1,200 ha in the watershed • Worked closely with • Local citizens • Agencies at the state, national, and international levels • It helped bring in the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), • Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge • Local commercial farmers • Had been active in the drainage district • Strenuously opposed • The formation of the Refuge • And other potential restrictions on the use of their farmlands.

26. Impetus for the CRW Plan (1995) • In this fraught context • TNCstaff and the local USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) • with financial support from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), • Initiated a planning process in 1993 to • establish a plan for resource management in the watershed (RPC, 1995). This project was undertaken • Explicit intent of creating better mutual understanding and better lines of communication between • ‘‘Farmers’’ and ‘‘environmentalists,’’ especially local agency people • Farmers in different parts of the watershed Adams et al. 2005

27. Evaluation of the Planning Process Adams et al. 2005 • Process was viewed as legitimate & effective by agency personnel • Pointing to its creation by a ‘‘grassroots’’ committee • They used it to leverage resources from their agencies • To extend their conservation mandates • It did not achieve widespread local legitimacy as a tool for resource management • Approval of the process • Capacity to implement outcomes • Acceptance by the larger polity • Technical Committee • made up of technical experts • explicitly forbidden from participating in the Planning Committee’s deliberations • Planning Committee • Rooted in the SWCD, virtually all of whom were commercial farmers • In order to enhance the diversity of opinions on the planning committee, • TNCworked with NRCS to identify and recruit participants with an environmental perspective

28. Issues with Legitimate Planning Approval of the Process Capacity to Implement Outcomes Adams et al. 2005 • Viewed approvingly by members of the Technical Committee • Criticized by members of the Planning Committee • Commercial farmers • Smallholder environmentalists • Viewed resource issues as necessarily linked to equally pressing • Economic issued • Social issues • Inability to incorporate concerns that were not defined as ‘‘resource issues’’ • No institution to implement the Plan • Friends of the Cache-acted to facilitate work by the agencies • Outcomes were implemented by pre-existing government agencies • No formal accountability to local residents • Viewed antagonistically by many local residents • Failed to guide to behavior • It did not attempt to regulate land use • Or specify ideal uses of land

29. Acceptance by the Larger Polity Adams et al. 2005 • Who participated • Technical committee as the planning committee • ‘Narrow “stakeholders’’ • Property-holders • Farmers who participated in the SWCDs • How participants were selected • Hand selected • Vs. elected • Who defined the problem • Tech. Com. viewed • watershed management • biological and hydrological • wetland restoration • Plan. Com. concerns • Larger social issues • poverty, depopulation, drugs, education, etc. • Who implemented outcomes • Agencies & TNC • OK…if agency and local perspectives been similar

30. Issues with Planning Ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein 1969) Who should deliberate when? (Chess et al. 1998) Also- Values & behavior Identifying stakeholders

31. Human Dimensions in the Cache • 2002- Cache River Macrosite Plan • NO public involvement • Since then • Great difficulty in maintaining long-term support for ecosystem restoration throughout the CRW (Adams and others 2005) • Reconnection • Proven to be highly controversial within the local communities • Primarily because of concerns about flooding • Lack of awareness • Controversy over project goals • Bad local economy • Limited participation to date in watershed wide restoration efforts • Building Local Community Commitment to Wetlands Restoration: A Case Study of the Cache River Wetlands in Southern Illinois, USA • Davenport et al. 2010 • Research Questions: • What meanings do the Cache River wetlands hold for community members? • What area community members’ perceptions of the wetlands restoration project?

32. Human Dimensions in the Cache • Gathered qualitative data • In-depth interviews • Key informant interviews with 25 community gatekeepers— • Residents actively representing diverse interest groups within the community • WC, EN, LG, TO, EC, ED, AG

33. What meanings do the Cache River wetlands hold for community members? When I think of the Cache River in Illinois, I think of, for Illinois, a unique habitat. I look at it as an endangered habitat. I look at it as a jewel for all of Illinois and the Midwest…(EN) My great uncle had a cabin down there just after WWII. So we have got fishers in our family when they were able to set nets and stuff like that. The Cache River in my family goes back a long way. We have all had a part in something with it. (TO) I think tourism is an area where the agriculture community and what might be termed as the conservation or environmentally-minded community can pull together for economic development in this area. We have rich natural resources and rich heritage in agriculture, so agritourism and ecotourism can come together. (ED) • Wetlands as a rare and treasured ecosystem • (Biocentric) • Wetlands as a revered historic and contemporary cultural landscape • (Sense of Place) • Wetlands as a resource for local economic revitalization • (Egoistic) • Foundational Beliefs by Schwartz (1994), Place attachment (Vaske & Kobrin 2001)

34. What area community members’ perceptions of the wetlands restoration project The people in the Lower Cache Valley was not notified of the symposium. Now when you look at people who did get notices all over this state, nobody was originally from the Cache. Now I am going to have to look at that as an attempt to get the public involved. But what public? (WC) [The natural resource management agencies] went in and did a lot of removal of homes and grain bins and the tax base went down’’ (AG). I would really like to know, has the Cache really brought in the tourists? I mean they can’t even keep a restaurant open at the Spur [gas station]. The numbers they have promised are not here. Sure, numbers are great, but if they are not staying within the area and they are not eating within the area…it’s not helping us here. (ED) ‘Those poor farmers over in there. If it wasn’t for [the Post Creek cutoff] then they couldn’t farm at all. [Farming] is their life and they have worked all of their life to do it’’ (AG). Community participation in project planning Community burdens of the restoration project Community benefits of the restoration project Fear and uncertainty around restoration outcomes

35. Fear & Uncertainty: Restoration Outcomes Fear Uncertainty Go down to the end of my road…you will see a sign that says ‘‘reforested in 1997 with native hardwoods.’’ Look and see what the majority of the trees are behind that sign. It’s baldcypress trees. Why would they put cypress trees there? …Does that look like maybe in the future… they expect this is going to be the swamp?…I really believe they have already planned that and are not telling the public. (WC) I just don’t know the ramifications of that on private lands. …Sometimes I listen to these people who know what they are talking about, and I try to understand, but I still don’t know what they are talking about. I have never seen a map that says if we raise the Post Creek cutoff, if we raise it up so much, this is what will end up flooding when the water gets up to this level. (WC)

36. Conclusions on the Cache • Local Participation in Project Planning is Vital to Building Commitment • Local people ‘‘expect to be consulted’’ in restoration planning (Tunstall et al. 2000) • Project Burdens Should be Identified and Mitigated • Attention must be given to the potential burdens of all aspects of the project, including planning, implementation, and outcomes • Local Cultural Benefits Should be Emphasized and Communicated • Local people ‘‘judge the success of restoration on their own terms.’ • Uncertainty in Restoration Outcomes Needs to be Acknowledged and Reduced Where Possible • The potential outcomes of restoration projects on both the ecosystem and the community should be clearly articulated and community impact mitigation efforts should be negotiated in an open, deliberative process.

37. Have These Lessons Been Learned in the CRW? Stakeholders identified in the 2002 plan

38. Good Reads If You’re Interested • Adams J., Kraft S., Ruhl, J.B., Lant,C., Loftus, T. and Duram L. (2005). Watershed planning: Pseudo-democracy and its alternatives – the case of the Cache River Watershed, Illinois. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 327–338. • Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25. • Davenport, M., Bridges, C., Mangun, J., Carver, A., Williard, K., & Jones, E. (2010). Building local community commitment to wetlands restoration: A case study of the Cache River Wetlands in southern Illinois, USA. Environmental Management, 45(4), 711-722. • Fabricius, C., Folke, C., Cundill, G., & Schultz, L. (2007). Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive comanagers: A synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 29. • Gruber, J. S. (2010). Key principles of community-based natural resource management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environmental Management, 45(1), 52-66. • Mackelworth, P., & Carić, H. (2009). Gatekeepers of island communities: Exploring the pillars of sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(4), 463-480. • Mikalsen, K. H., & Jentoft, S. (2001). From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 25(4), 281-292. • Mountjoy, N. J., M. A. Davenport, D. J. Myers, and M. R. Whiles. 2009. An assessment of Illinois Conservation Opportunity Areas: stakeholders’ perspectives on conservation planning, implementation, and threats. Springfield: Department of Natural Resources. • Mountjoy, N. J., E.Seekamp, M. A. Davenport, and M. R. Whiles. 2010. Making conservation work: Focus group results on the core components of successful, locally-based natural resource management. Springfield: Department of Natural Resources. • Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933-1949. • Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. • Sunderland, T. C. H., Ehringhaus, C., & Campbell, B. M. (2007). Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation, 34(04), 276-279.