|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 EXPLORING SOCIAL LEARNING IN CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN PANDO, BOLIVIA By KELLY A. BIEDENWEG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFI LLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010
2 2010 Kelly A. Biedenweg
3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor, Martha Monroe for her tireless enthusiasm, endless support, and gr acious provision of learning opportunities. I would also like to thank my committee members: Bob Buschbacher for believing in me early on and providing incredible logistical and moral support through the Working Forest in the Tropics IGERT, Stephen Perz f or allowing me to disturb his weekend by the pool to discuss research design concerns, Christie Staudhammer for responding to statistics questions on a Sunday, and Marianne Schmink for reminding me the importance of humility I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to the researchers and extension agents in Pando. The hospitality and collaboration of Julio Rojas and the researchers at PROMAB in Cobija ( Jackeline Agreda, Marcelo Guerrero, Gonzalo Calder n, Sandra Cabrera and Severo Meo ) were an ess ential component to my experience in Bolivia. CIFOR researchers Peter Cronkleton and Marco Antonio Albornoz were critical mentors during my introduction to Pando. E xtension agents at Herencia (Sissy, Edgar, Oscar, Rolman and Ramiro ) OCMA (Herlan), Funda ci n Jos Manuel Pando ( Maria E lena, Sarah, Fabian, Hugo and Micaela ) and IPHAE (Ana and Kemel) were courteous informative hosts as I joined them in the field and sought contextual information about the region. And Roxana Cuevas was always available for discussions about the political and historical context of community forest management in Pando. Of all my Bolivian friends, I am most indebted to my field assistants Micaela Peralta and Nelson Gordillo I greatly appreciated your help and your company. Don Miguel, Do a Chica Do a Petrona Eliseo and Didiana opened their homes to me as I visited their communities. I will always cherish the memories. Most
4 importantly, I thank all the residents of Rio and Villa who agreed to host this research in their communities, and to those who dedicated their time to research project. Without the support of my peers, the adventure would have been much more difficult to complete, and much less fun. E arly inspiration came from Lin Cassidy, Fr anklin Paniagua, Gaby Stocks, and Jeremy Radachowsky I am thankful to Jon Dain, Jeremy, Franklin, Wendy Lin Bartels, Dina Liebowitz, Maria Digiano, Georgina Cullman, Becky Blanchard, and Deb Wojcik for helping think through this social learning thing M Charlotte Benneker, Amy Duchelle, Allie Shenkin, Ari Martinez, Dave Elliott Matt Marsik and Mario Zenteno supplied consistent entertainment in the field and intellectual analysis of the Pando context. Matt offered his technical suppo rt in GIS and statistics and his moral support throughout the process And, more recently, I am grateful to graduate students for providing thoughtful suggestions I thank Lara Colley and Lindsey McConnell for their crucial support in getting di ssertation drafts to the right hands at the right times M y family has been a pillar to my success. I thank my Mom, Dad, and Shannon for the ir moral support and patience with my never ending travels. Lastly, I thank Matt for not being afraid to make big decisions in the midst of dissertation chaos. Your unconditional love is the most significant result of my graduate experience. *community names changed to maintain anonymity
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Interdisciplinary Approache s to Conservation and Development ............................ 15 Community Forestry ................................ ................................ ................................ 17 Trends in Extension ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 A Brief History of Forest Management in Pando ................................ ..................... 21 Bolivia in the 2000s ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 Fitting the Pieces Together ................................ ................................ ..................... 26 2 CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE BOLIVIAN AMAZON: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS ................................ .................... 29 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 29 Capacity Building for CFM ................................ ................................ ...................... 29 The Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Thematic Content ................................ ................................ ............................. 31 Geographic Distribution ................................ ................................ .................... 32 Capacity Building Strategies ................................ ................................ ............. 33 Broader Context ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 The Bolivian Amazon in a Pivotal Moment ................................ .............................. 36 Applying the Framework in Pando ................................ ................................ .......... 39 Findings and Discussion ................................ ................................ ......................... 42 Number and Types of Organizations ................................ ................................ 42 Thematic Foc us ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Geographic Distribution ................................ ................................ .................... 45 Capacity Building Strategies ................................ ................................ ............. 48 Implications for Pando Forest Conservation ................................ ..................... 52 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 54 3 TEASING APART THE DETAILS: HOW SOCIAL LEARNING CAN AFFECT COLLEC TIVE ACTION ................................ ................................ ........................... 62
6 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 62 Regional Context ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 65 Research Meth ods ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 67 Site description ................................ ................................ ................................ 67 Social learning context ................................ ................................ ..................... 70 Data Colle ction ................................ ................................ ................................ 72 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 75 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 77 Perspectives of Process ................................ ................................ ................... 78 Perception of Overall Outcomes of Project ................................ ....................... 78 Knowledge, self efficacy and behavior outcomes ................................ ............. 79 Knowledge and Learning ................................ ................................ ........... 79 Risks and Benefits ................................ ................................ ..................... 80 Self Efficacy ................................ ................................ ............................... 82 Land Use Behaviors ................................ ................................ ................... 83 Procedural Satisfaction ................................ ................................ .................... 86 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 86 Satisfaction with the project and the decisions made ................................ 87 The Importance of Process ................................ ................................ .............. 88 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 89 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 93 4 USING THE CONCEPTUAL CONTENT COGNITIVE MAP (3CM) TO TEST SHARED PERSPECTIVES AS A RESULT OF SOCIAL LEARNING ................... 105 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 105 Research Context ................................ ................................ ................................ 112 Research Question and Field Methods ................................ ................................ 114 Limits of 3CM ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 117 Analysis and Discussion of Modified Methods ................................ ...................... 119 Item Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ 120 Consensus Analysis ................................ ................................ ....................... 120 Relative Importance ................................ ................................ ....................... 122 Cluster Analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 124 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 126 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 133 Synthesis of Results ................................ ................................ ............................. 134 Broader Significance of Findings ................................ ................................ .......... 136 Notes on Validity, Reliability, and Objectivity ................................ ........................ 138 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 140 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 141 APPENDIX A HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ................................ ...... 143
7 B EXTENSION AGENT INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ........................... 151 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 154 B IOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 164
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Forest related conservation and development projects in campesino communities in Pando, Bolivia between 2006 and 2008. ................................ ... 56 3 1 Socioeconomic and land use characteristics of Rio and Villa. ............................ 95 3 2 Social learning context fo r Rio and Villa ................................ ............................. 96 3 3 Means, standard deviations, and statistics for differences in outcomes between committee members and non committee members in Rio and Villa .... 97 3 4 Differences in outcome variables between Rio and Villa by participation and non participation in the forestry committee. ................................ ........................ 98 3 5 Cumulative logit regression models for predicting social learning outcomes from process characteristics ................................ ................................ ............... 99
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Framework for analyzing the forest conservation impacts of capacity building projects. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 57 2 2 Location of communal landholdings, timber concessions and protected areas in Pando, Bolivia ................................ ................................ ................................ 58 2 3 Number of communities receiving support by theme. ................................ ......... 59 2 4 Distribution of capacity building projects by theme in the department of Pando, Bolivia ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 60 2 5 Author based classification of capacity building for land management in Pando along a spectrum of participation ................................ ............................ 61 3 1 A social learning framework ................................ ................................ .............. 1 00 3 2 Project characteristics and outcomes of social learning measured in this study. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 101 3 3 Mean scores and standard error of perceived characteristics in each social learning project. ................................ ................................ ................................ 102 3 4 Most important outcome of the CFM projects by community according to members and non mem bers of the forestry committees. ................................ 103 3 5 Expressed learning by topic in Rio and Villa by membership in the forestry committee as a result of the CFM extension project ................................ ......... 104 4 1 Images of cognitive maps from this study ................................ ......................... 130 4 2 the two social learning groups, non participating extension agents, and members from each community. ................................ ................................ ...... 131 4 3 Hierarchical cluster analysis of extension agent card sorts .............................. 132
10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S 3CM Conceptual Content Cognitive Map ACERM Asociaci n Comunitaria Extractivista de la Reserva Manuripi ( Communal Extractivist Association from the Manuripi Reserve) AMAPAN Amazonas Pando CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Man agement CFM Community Forest Management CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CIPA Centro de Investigacin para la Preservacin de la Amazona (Research C enter for the Preservation of the Amazon) CIPCA Centro de Investigacin y Promocin del Ca mpesinado (Center for Campesino Research and Promotion) CAIC Cooperativa Agr cola Integral Campesino (Integrated Agricultural Campesino Cooperative) COINACAPA (Integrated Agroextractive Coopera tive for Pando Campesinos) FJMP Fundacin Jos Manu e l Pando (Jos Manu el Pando Foundation ) GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Program INRA Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria ( Bol ivian National Agrarian Reform Institute ) IPHAE Instituto para el Hombre, Agricultura y Ecolog a ( Institute for Man, Agriculture and Ecology ) NGO Non government organization
11 OCMA Organizacin Comercial para la Mujer de la Amazona (Commercial Organizati on for Amazonian Women) PROMAB Programa Manejo de Bosques en la Amazona Boliviana ( Forest Management Program in the Bolivian Amazon ) SFM Sustainable Forest Management WWF World Wildlife Fund
12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EXPLORING SOCIAL LEARNING IN CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN PANDO, BOLIVIA By Kelly A. Biedenweg Au gust 2010 Chair: Martha Monroe Major: Forest Resources and Conservation The role of capacity building is a generally unexplored and potentially important factor in the success of community forest management (CFM). The facilitation of social learning in particular has been hypothesized to result in greater trust among participants, more holistic understanding of important concepts, more satisfaction with the decisions made, and greater likelihood of engaging in collective action. This study explored the existence of social learning strategies and these hypothesized outcomes in capacity building projects for CFM in the Bolivian Amazon. The second chapter presents and applies a framework to explain how capacity building projects may affect forest conservat ion, describing the types of projects for CFM in the department of Pando, Bolivia, their geographic distribution, and their pedagogical methods. Nineteen capacity building projects were found between 2006 and 2008, imp lemented primarily by NGOs and sup ra communal cooperatives that were located in communities residing along roads and navigable rivers. Project methods ranged from traditional extension techniques of transferring technical knowledge to social learning techniques to encourage communal manageme nt of resources.
13 In the third and fourth chapters, s tatistical analyses were applied to test hypotheses about outcomes from social learning and the specific mechanisms that contributed to those outcomes. Based on data from two communities working with tw o CFM projects, social learning participants had greater knowledge of core concepts, better skills for CFM, and were more likely to engage in communal management activities than non participants. They also had perceptions about forest use that were more s imilar to their social learning group than to other community members. In one community where there was elite capture and historic mistrust between elite and lower classes, the outcomes of social learning did not extend beyond the participating elite. In the other community, where initial trust was less an issue and decision making opportunities were equally distributed, the outcomes extended beyond the immediate social learning group. According to community participants, t he characteristics of the learn ing process that most predicted social learning outcomes were consideration of in crease trust. This statistically confirms hypotheses proposed by social learning frameworks and demonstrates that social learning may be an essential component to understanding communal resource management. Finally, the study tested the validity of 3CM, a cognitive mapping method used primarily in developed countries, for measuring perceptions about conceptual topics among campesinos. The method relies of research participants selecting cards representing ideas that form part of their mental models, and g rouping them into more
14 conceptual categories. The results demonstrate that the abstraction of concrete concepts into higher order categories may have limited validity in this context.
15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Community forest management (CFM), the formal management of forest resources by rural communities, is increasingly used as a grassroots development and conservation strategy in Latin Americ a (Agrawal 1999; Andersson et al. 2006; FAO 1997, 2003; Kainer et al. 200 3; Klooster & Ambinakudige 2005; Nygren 2004; Pacheco & Cronkleton 2005) Communities do not always have the technical skills, legal knowledge, institutional structures, or financial resources to implement CFM, however. To fortify these capacities, mult iple government and non government organizations engage in support strategies to enable communities to manage their forests more sustainably. Though research about CFM success has documented the effect of external drivers, such as policies, and social str ucture, such as community size and interpersonal relations, little research has described how purposeful capacity building processes can influence individual perspectives about, engagement in, and commitment to collective action in community forests. This study initiates filling these gaps in the CFM literature by exploring how social learning, as a part of capacity building projects, can affec t CFM in the Bolivian Amazon. Based in the department of Pando, the study describes the distribution of capacity building projects for CFM, the extent to which social learning was incorporated in the projects, and whether social learning was an effective mechanism for enhancing factors essential for CFM: trust, knowledge, satisfaction with the process, and a commitme nt to collective action. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Conservation and Development Over the past few decades, tropical conservation has shifted between a predominantly protectionist based discourse that relied on theoretically impervious park
16 boundarie s to initiatives that integrated the humans residing within or dependent upon the natural resources of interest (Agrawal 1999; Brechin et al. 2002; Cernea 1985; Chambers 1986; Hira & Parfitt 2004; McShane & Wells 200 4) These alternatives have included integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs) that attempt to being, sometimes through the use of park resources; payments for environmental services to promote no use or mor n atural resources; and community based natural resource management (CBNRM) which encourages the management of natural resources by local communities in the hopes that these communities have better institutions and more commitment to monitor sustainable use than governments. Largely influenced by worldwide attention to sustainable development, gender equality, and social justice, these more human centered conservation and development programs are often designed with the goal of promot ing environmental conservation and social and economic balance Due to the co dominance of multiple goals, success in conservation and development initiatives can take many forms. For a conservation psychologist, it can mean a change in attitudes and va lues that lead to environmentally responsible behaviors. For a sociologist, it can mean increased social capital, networks, and livelihood strategies. For a political scientist it can take the form of more stable institutions. For a conservation biologi st, it can mean maintaining or enhancing biodiversity and land cover. This complexity of conservation and development requires interdisciplinary approaches in practice and research to address core barriers and to elucidate important variables for its succ ess.
17 Community Forestry One specific example of a human centered conservation and development initiative is community forest management. To address forest degradation and inequitable distribution of forest benefits CFM initiatives throughout the world encourage rural communities to collectively manage forest resources for long term benefits (Donoghue & Sturtevant 2008; Menzies 2007; Molnar et al. 2007; Pagdee et al. 2006; White & Martin 2002) It has been promot ed where communities own their land (e.g., Mexico and Bolivia), where communities have use rights to federal land (e.g., the Guatemalan Petn and the Indian Himalayas), and where community residents work for large concessions extracting from state forests (e.g., the U.S. Pacific Northwest). CFM has two essential components: 1) collective action for the management of forest resources and 2) sustainable management of natural resources (i.e., for long term economic, social and ecological benefits). Activiti es that represent CFM include mushroom harvesting on state land in China; ecotourism on communal land in Zanzibar and Ecuador; timber or non timber extraction on communal lands in Mexico, Guatemala and Bolivia; and communities employed by timber concession s working on state lands in the U.S. (Colfer 2005; Donoghue & Sturtevant 2008; Menzies 2007) Research on this subject has primarily been driven by theories from common pool resources, decentralization, modernizatio n, and macroeconomics, enhancing our knowledge about the role of infrastructure and social structure in CFM effectivenes s (Andersson & van Laerhoven 2007; Bray 2005; de Jong et al. 2006; Gerez Fernandez & Alatoree Gu zman 2005; Ostrom 1999; Richards 1997; Schmink 2004; Sikor 2006) Scientists suggest that the maintenance of forest cover could depend on community ethnicity (Rudel et al. 2002) decentralized control of forest resources (Andersson et al.
18 2006) and market integration (Antinori 2005) They also report that communities have successfully managed common pool resources when they have a relatively small population, clearly defined t enure, appropriate and enforced local rules, high levels of trust, low transaction costs, and when supported by government and non governmental actors (Bray 2005; Godoy & Kirby 2001; Ostrom 1990, 1999) Pagdee et nine CFM case studies from throughout the world found that researchers have been using three overarching indicators of success: efficiency, equity, and ecological sustainability (2006) Ten variables were found to be particularly important in determining these successes: tenure security, clear ownership, congruence between biophysical and socioeconomic boundaries of resources, effective e nforcement of rules and regulations, monitoring, sanctioning, strong leadership with capable local organization, expectation of benefits, common interests among community members, and local authority. Findings in Pagdee et al. triggered a short discussion about the role of participation in CFM success (Bradshaw 2007; Pagdee et al. 2007; Reed & McIlveen 2007) where it was essentially determined that not enough research exists to claim whether increased participation of community members improves CFM success under any indicator. Additionally, other t han a few studies (i.e., Ben neker 2008) little research has explored the role of external support in affecting these success outcomes. Most formally recognized CFM is either established or supported through extension projects hosted by NGOs and government agencies. To approach the ultimate goals of conservation and development, the projects aim to increase participation while improving technical, administrative, and organizational skills within
19 communities that will manage their forest resources. The methods used by these exte nsion programs have been the subject of significant debate in terms of their appropriateness for achieving desired results. Trends in Extension Trends in international extension have evolved from a focus on efficiency and rationality to d emocracy and hu man development. Efficiency and rationality models relied on transferring technology and skills (Leonard 1977; Rogers 1995) while more recent models work within a framework of capacity building (Eade 1997; Melkote 2006; Melkote & Steeves 2001) Incorporating popular themes such as participation, transparency, and good governance, extension that enhances human development through capacity building has been claimed to result in more sustainable change as recipients are hypothesized to learn how to organize themselves, seek information, and make better decisions. The trend toward human development includes the transfer of technical knowledge found in traditional ext ension models, but, according to authors of development theory, this transfer should occur through a learning process of joint knowledge generation between extension agents and recipients. Extension agents may not always desire or recognize the benefit of such mutual learning, however. Traditional views of extension duties and rigid project cycles have been the primary limiting factors in implementing the capacity building trend (Brechin 1997; Chambers 1986; Korten 1980) As early as the 1980s, calls for new professionalism urged extension professionals to take on the role of learners and facilitators, transfer power to poorer people, and address the complexity of the context rather than reduce the problem to inde pendent manageable pieces (Chambers 1986; Pretty 1995) Similarly, development researchers were calling for programmatic funding rather than
20 project cycles to secure a learning process approach to community organization and rural development (e.g., Korten 1980) A current trend in capacity building for natural resource management is social learning, which has theoretical roots in psychology and sociology (Keen et al. 2005; Muro & Jeffrey 2008) ion theology and the participatory rural extension described by Robert Chambers, Jules Pretty, and David (Mel kote & Steeves 2001) Social learning prescribes that extension agents and other conservation and development agents facilitate a joint learning process between all stakeholders who will benefit from improved management of the natural resources at stake. This process should incorporate diverse stakeholders, facilitate open dialogue, and carefully manage conflicts. The effects of social learning can be affective, cognitive, and behavioral. Participants may feel better about the decision making process a nd the resource management norms; they may have a better understanding of the complex context and diverse perspectives of others; they may generate a shared vision for how things are and how they should be; and they may be more inclined to engage in behavi ors that are decided upon during the process. In CFM, extension support has ranged from helping communities write management plans and negotiate contracts with timber companies (e.g., Bolivia) to helping communities gain and retain certification of their t imber extraction by following the entire timber management process from plan development to processed wood (e.g., Guatemala and Mexico) or working with communities as part of resource management committees to collaboratively manage government owned lands ( e.g., India). On few occasions extension has been able to foster the entire range of social learning
21 characteristics to enable sustainable collective action. Short project funding cycles and differing ideologies between extension organizations continue t o be a barrier in this context, as are difficulties accessing markets, conflict and power structures within communities, and the insecurity of land tenure and boundary areas (Belsky 2008; Brechin 1997; Menzies 2007) There are, however, many examples of approaches toward a social learning meth odology. Some incorporate diverse stakeholders, but are less successful at managing conflict. Others manage conflict well but with a limited number of participants. Exploring how these experiences have influenced the results of CFM will benefit two fie lds of research, that of collective action for resource management and that of social learning as a tool for affective, cognitive and behavioral changes. It is within this context that the following study resides. A Brief History of Forest Management in P ando Pando is the northernmost department of Bolivia, bordering the Brazilian states of Acre and Rondonia and the Peruvian state of Madre de Dios (Figure 2 2) To arrive in Cobija, the capital of Pando, one must either take a flight of over an hour from La Paz or drive two days along a circuitous route of unpaved roads. The limited access has left Pando largely detached from the primary activities of central and southern Bolivia. In fact, a 2003 history of Bolivia does not include Pando in the index (Klein 2003) and a 2007 Bolivian magazine for economy and finance listed economic activities for every department except Pando. Yet, Pando has been an epicenter for forest based economies for centuries. In the mid 1800s, the extraction of quinine bark from the forests of Pando prompted migration of Bolivians primarily from Santa Cruz (Fifer 1970) As the market
22 for quini ne bark crashed in the 1850s, largely due to plantations in Asia, many bark workers turned more attention to collecting wild rubber, an activity that had been practiced along with quinine extraction. Large rubber barons evolved from this transition by the 1880s and the economic activity of the region for the next five decades was based on a system of tapping rubber trees and refining the latex into blocks of rubber that were transported via rivers, through Brazil, to Atlantic ports. Barracas were the term for Bolivian rubber estates where a rubber baron would employ, in a feudalist relationship, workers who resided on his property. This dependency between land owners and land workers continues to have a significant impact on forest management in Pando tod ay (Beekma et al. 1996; de Jong et al. 2006; Stoian 2000) Rubber production was highly compatible with the extraction of another non timber forest product, the Brazil nut. Together, the two resources provided year round income in barracas (Sto ian 2000 ) As the rubber market experienced a series of crashes between the early 1900s and the late 1980s, and Brazilian subsidies for rub ber declined, Brazil nut extraction became economically more important. Barraca owners, however, could not fulfill their payments to laborers and purchasers with a single seasonal activity. Workers began emigrating to urban centers (i.e., Cobija and Ribe ralta) and independent communities, while many barraca owners abandoned their estates ( Stoian & Henkemans 2000) Timber extraction did not become an important economic focus in Pando until the 1990s. By 1992, large tracts of forest in Northern Pando had been leased to timber concessions that extracted mahogany ( Swietenia macrophylla ), Spanish cedar ( Cedrela odo rata ), and other high value tropical timber species (Beekma et al. 1996) Timber
23 was milled at private mills throughout Pando, and shipped to external buyers on the two day road to La Paz. Meanwhile, laborers continued to extract Brazi l nut and rubber as temporary forest residents from the city, residents of independent rural communities, or laborers for the barracas that still functioned. Agrarian reform in the mid 1990s shifted land ownership and the rules by which forests could be managed. The agrarian reform law of 1996 distinguished between independent communities, barracas independent land owners, and government land (INRA 1996) A subsequent decree specific to the northern Amazon declared that independent communities would receive 500 ha per family which were to be managed communally, and required no property taxes (de Jong et al. 2006) The 1996 forestry law defined how the forests could be managed (BOLFOR 1996) Independent land owners could receive 50 ha each for small properties, 50 to 500 ha for medium properties, or 500 to 2500 ha for industries. B arraca owners selected under which category to reside, an d their taxes would reflect that decision. To reach the 500 ha per family required for communities, timber concessions lost rights to certain forests, with the promise that they would be largely compensated with forests in non communal areas. The agraria n reform law was put into practice in Pando in 2001 and resulted in Pando being the first department claimed fully titled in 2008 (INRA 2008) As can be imagined, the promise of agrarian reform resulted in population shifts during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Immigrants from throughout Bolivia, primarily Beni and lowland La Paz, began to establish indepe ndent communities within the forest or join existing conglomerations of households (Rojas et al. 2005) In at least one instance, urban residents organized and built houses along stret ches of rural roads
24 exactly 1km apart so that their 500 ha per family could easily be delineat ed from the road into the forest (Biedenweg 2008, field notes). And many historical barracas that had become independent communities or independent landowners decided to re organize so as to gain 500 ha per family, rather than the 50 ha they would receive as independent small property landowners. The result was over 250 titled communities with residents largely from the Amazonian lowlands, but with hugely diverse land use histories and interests. Brazil nut was still the primary income for most forest re sidents and small scale agriculture was an essential component of each household, but cattle ranching, large scale agriculture, and timber extraction were growing activities, particularly along the Brazilian and Peruvian borders and along roads near Cobija and Riberalta. Bolivia in the 2000 s tical context in the early 2000 s is critical for understanding the potential role of extension sponsored social learning in the Amazonian communities of Pando during the peri od of this research. Bolivia is an ethnically diverse country, with over 55% of its population belonging to a variety of Amerindian indigenous groups. It is also geographically varied, with Andean highlands supporting agriculture, metal mining, and comme rcial activities, and Amazonian lowlands with rich oil deposits, vast stretches of land for commercial agriculture, and tropical forests for timber and non timber resource extraction. The majority of the lowland population (or cambas) are descendents of S panish conquerors, while the highlands are dominated by indigenous groups (or kollas). Kollas are increasingly migrating to lowland areas to capitalize on their commercial skills particularly to Pando which borders Brazil and is rapid ly improving its inf rastructure.
25 Bolivia has a long history of rapid shifts in presidency, sometimes due to forceful removals from office and others due to paralyzing protests (Klein 2003) Between 1987 and 2005, for example, Bo livia had five different presidents. In 2005, Evo Morales was the first indigenous president elected since the Spanish conquest, representing the majority population, and was the first president to fulfill his term in a decade. His presidency promised to be divisive, however, as he initiated a restructuring of the national constitution in order to improve indigenous rights and access to resources and re of Bolivia (includi ng Pando, Beni, Tarija and Santa Cruz) formed what was called the the country in half. The Media Luna departments were tired of distributing the wealth from their prol ific natural resources (i.e., hydrocarbons, agriculture, and some timber) to the highland states and initiated an autonomy movement to allow departments autonomous control of their revenue and expenditures. Various versions of the proposed constitutional changes circulated, as did diverse proposals for autonomy. Strain increased between the highlands and lowlands, as well as among indigenous and commercial interests within primarily lowland departments. In Pando, the governor of the department was pro au tonomy (anti Evo, pro Media Luna) and clashed severely with at least two municipal mayors who sided with the national government. These tensions were also clear within rural campesino communities. Many elite members of communities did not necessarily sup port Evo, while many other members were sta un ch activists and feared they may lose newly acquired titles to their forested lands if their governor were to gain governing autonomy.
26 Tensions prevailed throughout the duration of this research, and came to a head toward the end of data collection when rural campesinos marched toward the capital of Pando in an attempt to recapture federal offices (specifically the agrarian reform office) that had been taken over by autonomy supporters. The march ended on Septe mber 11, campesinos. The governor of Pando was arrested for his involvement in the massacre and remains in La Paz without conviction. political context is essential to understand how extension programs may enable social learning for communal forest management. To start, campesinos must feel confident that they will retain their land rights if they are to agree to highly bureaucratic re gulations for timber management. Additionally, they must be able to trust the extension agents as well as their fellow participants in the social learning process if it is to result in shared perspectives and collective action. Such trust may be tainted by ideological differences, particularly in a divisive era. Moreover, the stability of national and local contexts is a critical component in the decision to fund or extend funding for these projects. In the end these factors did not seem to play decisiv e roles in the social learning process or the decisions of campesinos to engage in communal resource management, yet they were clearly in however, did cause the majority of extension projects (which were funded by multi and bi lateral aid) to conclude without extensions by 2008. Fitting the Pieces Together The following chapters respond to the question: How have capacity building interventions influenced social lear ning for cognitive development and collective action
27 in community forest management? The question was broken into four parts that form the basis of this dissertation: 1) What types of capacity building projects for CFM exist in Pando, Bolivia? Where are the y located? To what extent do they incorporate participatory practices and social learning ? 2) How does engaging in social learning influence affect and collective action in CFM contexts? 3) What specific characteristics of social learning processes are import ant for attaining the hypothesized outcomes of satisfaction with the process, learning, and collective action? 4) How does engaging in social learning influence cognition in CFM contexts? The second chapter answers the first question by providing a framework for considering how the thematic content, geographic location, and interaction strategy may result in landscape changes that are important proxies for conservation. It then applies this framework to Pando, providing a description of all extension projects for resource management in campesino communities. The third chapter delves into social learning and its role in promoting collective action to respond to the third and fourth questions. The chapter describes social learning as having a variety of potent ial characteristics and provides the argument that we should conduct research in diverse social learning contexts to gain a better understanding of how to affect capacity building for communal resource management. It then explores how participation in soc ial learning projects for community forest management in two communities is related to cognitive, affective, and behavioral
28 outcomes and which specific characteristics of social learning were important predictors of these outcomes. The application of corr elations and regressions to test social learning hypotheses in this chapter is new in the natural resource management literature. The fourth chapter focuses on the cognitive component of social learning: the gen eration of shared perspectives While testi ng the appropriateness of a cognitive mapping method that has rarely been used in developing countries, the cognitive maps of community members and extension agents who participated in social learning were explored to measure the similarity in their perspe compared to community members who had not participated. Finally, the concluding chapter provides an explanation of how the research results fit into the larger realm of CFM and social learning research. Issues of int ernal reliability and external validity are discussed and the dissertation concludes with suggestions for future research in this field.
29 CHAPTER 2 C APACITY BUILDING PRO JECTS FOR COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE BOLIVIAN AMAZON: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANAL YZI NG CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS Introduction Capacity building for community forest management (CFM) has the joint goals of improving living standards in poor communities and promoting forest conservation. In Latin America, structural readjustment polic ies and funding trends since the 1980s have shifted the majority of responsibility for capacity building projects to international and local non government organizations (NGOs). Recently, funders have demanded greater accountability for NGO performance, i mplying a need for criteria establishing the effective distribution of resources. An analysis of geographical locations and methodological aspects of projects allows insights into who is actually receiving support and whether important conservation areas and topics are being addressed. This chapter responds to calls for project accountability by presenting a framework for analyzing potential forest cover changes based on the thematic content, distribution, and capacity building strategies for natural reso urce management. It then applies the framework to a region of the Bolivian Amazon to hypothesize potential land cover changes due to community based forest management projects. Capacity Building for CFM Increasing the capacity of communities to sustaina bly manage their forests is one of the most important development activities to ensure sustainable natural resource use in populated forests (Bray 2005; Cronkleton et al. 2006; Eade 1997; Menzies 2007) While capac ity building sometimes refers to any external intervention that assists communal resource management, this chapter uses the term to refer to direct
30 interactions with communities, usually extension projects, to increase knowledge about and access to sustain able management of natural resources. Such interventions may aim to improve relevant community level institutions, technical skills to manage the resource, access to and participation in markets, and economic administration to ensure retention of benefits from resource management (Eade 2007; Menzies 2007) Methods for developing these capacities are diverse and range from didactic information presentatio ns to collaborative planning. D ue to national governments diminishing their role in development and resource management and international funds increasing for these purposes, many capacity building activities for conservation and development are spearhea ded by local and international NGOs (Arellano Lopez & Petras 1994; Bebbington 2004; Edwards et al. 1999; Gordon 2006; Levine 2002; Sundberg 1998; Yadama 1997) Faith in NGOs stems from the belief that they are priv ate, efficient, and able to connect to local communities unlike cumbersome governments housed hundreds of kilometers away (Keese 1998; Tendler 1997) This hypothesized benefit of NGOs is increasingly questioned, however, and mistrust between donors and NGOs has resulted in donors to five year funding cycle in order to obtain future funding (Bebb ington 2005) Regional governments and local cooperatives often play the same role and rely on the same international funding as NGOs. As providers of capacity building initiatives, each type of natural resource based education project must be analyzed so as to monitor and improve their potential for conservation. While the relationship between efforts to develop capacities and improved conservation is difficult to isolate, the practical implications warrant its
31 exploration as the results would be an e ssential addition to research on community based natural resource management. The Framework This chapter builds a framework to respond to the question: Does understanding the thematic content, geographic distribution, and capacity building strategies of natural resource management projects provide important information about the predictors of land cover change? W e suggest that u nderstanding extension strategies and geographic distribution of thematic focus is an essential step to predicting the likelihoo d of adopti ng forest management behaviors and can lead to forest cover changes a common proxy for conservation (Figure 2 1) To make sense of the d a ta, we also prescribe that these factors must be oriented within the greater political and demographic con text of the study area. Upda ted over time, this framework c ould provide a solid foundation for understanding to what extent capacity building projects can a ffect conservation goals Thematic Content The thematic focus of capacity building projects is an important criterion for differentiating the impacts of NGOs on a landscape (Vakil 1997) The focus of a communal forestry project can include the commoditization of a non timber resource, the implementation of silvicultural techniques (e.g., Walters et al. 2005) or integrated management schemes that combine agroforestry, timber or non timber forest products (e.g., Assies 1997) Each focus could result in a distinct use of natural resources which can be observed through land cover analyses. Agr oforestry projects in Guatemala, for example, resulted in an increase of land dedi cated to agroforestry practices (Sundberg
32 1998) The effect was c all sponsored agroforestry projects had in determining land cover at a regional scale. Widespread dependence on international funding that has standard areas of interest often results in replicated projects, and can result in a region covered with one or two types of extension pro jects during a specific period in time (Brechin 1997; Yadama 1997) Around Corcovado National Park in Costa Rica, for example, the foci of over a dozen projects between the 1970s and late 1980s ranged from strict protection, to integrated conservation and development projects, to projects based on regional perspectives (Cuello et al. 1998) Though project focus ranged during the decade, at any one year the majority of projects employed a single conservation focus based on the current interests of funders and project managers The present day patchiness of land uses around Corcovado may be a relic of these temporary homogenous efforts and their intermittent adoption based on their appropriateness in specific local contexts. Geographic Distribution Research on the distribution of development assistance has revealed some important trends. The first stage to understanding distribution is clarifying the criteria used for selecting participating communities, and these criteria are generally predictable. Short project timelines induce a selection process that favors recipient communities and individuals that have the basic skills, education, and capital to allow them to adopt new practices quickly, rather than those that most need the support (Bebbington 2004, 2005) Infrastructural barriers are obvious determinants of capacity building distribution, with project sites tending to be on roads or navigable rivers and near urban areas (Bebbington 2004) The selection of communities within these confines is also based on social factors such as political implications, the geographies
33 of other soci al institutions, and social networks and life histories of extension professionals and allies (Bebbington 2004; Raberg & Rudel 2007; Sundberg 1998) The accountability structure of the implementing organization al so effects who receives support (Eade 2007) Governments and cooperatives, for example, are responsible for their constituents whereas NGOs are more responsible to external funders. The level of accountability plays out in their project distribution. Rab urg and Rudel (2007) and Yadama (1997) compared the distrib ution of NGO projects to government facilitated projects for community forestry. NGOs in Ecuador more closely followed the Central Place Theory, clustering near cities and important conservation areas, whereas government projects were more widely disperse d among Ecuadorian communities (Raberg & Rudel 2007) In Asia, competition among NGOs made for patchy distribution of projects that essentially replicated existing government projects (Yadama 1997) Preference has also been given to certain individuals within communities (Bebbington 2004; Yadama 1997) In one Asian case, for example, i ndividuals of lower economic status benefited more from government projects than those with higher economic status who benefitted most from NGO projects (Yadama 1997) Capacity Building Strate gies The adoption of specific management activities depends on a variety of factors, but those that are most related to capacity building projects are the techniques used to promote knowledge, skill development, and governance structures. Two forms of cap acity building are particularly effective for promoting sustainable behaviors in natural resource management (Monroe et al. 2007; Wals et al. 2008) Wals et al. (2008) call them instrumental and emancipatory learning, while Monroe et al. (2007) name the
34 goals of the same techniques as skill application and sustainable a ctions, respectively. When applied to community forest management, instrumental learning results in the activity can be practiced at an individual or household level, when the beneficiaries and extension agents agree on the activity they want to implement, and when the extension agent knows more about the activity than the beneficiary, it is best to use skill building techniques. These techniques include modeling the activ ity, allowing the beneficiary to practice the activity and receive feedback, requiring a commitment from the beneficiary to practice the activity, and providing incentives and reminders to encourage individuals to practice the behavior (McKenzie Mohr 2000; Monroe et al. 2007) Skill building can also be seen as well executed technical training. When land use activities take place at the communal level, when there is debate about the appropriate activities for that property, and if no one has more valid experience or knowledge than another, communal management techniques are more appropriate. Like skill application, these approaches place high value on experiential learning. Unlike skill applica tion, the communal management methods do not assume a specific activity. Rather, they focus on encouraging dialog among diverse community members who jointly participate in the capacity building, share their perspectives, negotiate meanings, define altern atives most appropriate to their context, and practice the use of new ideas and techniques (Freire 1970; Keen et al. 2005; Melkote & Steeves 2001) Communal management methods aim to develop organizational and administrative capacity, marketing skil ls, or conflict management as appropriate to the needs of the community. With this intent, the focus extends beyond building technical
35 knowledge and facilitates the establishment of governance structures essential for continuing resource management into t he future (Cronkleton et al. 2006; Eade 2007) Communal management methods are those that incorporate social learning techniques (Keen et al. 2005; Muro & Jeffrey 2008; Schusler et al. 2003) In both skill building an d communal management, effective extension demands a high level of contact and trust between the agent and the community members. This means that organizations and individuals who have worked with a specific community over time and who have frequent inter actions are more likely to be successful at their cause. Additionally, development literature since the 1970s has called for greater participation across gender, education, and class to ensure that projects benefit a greater portion of society rather than contributing only to the existing elite (e.g., Chambers 1986; Korten 1980; Leonard 1977) Men and women, elite and non elite, and multiple generations should engage in the process to ensure greater benefit and sust ainability. Broader Context As previously alluded to, whether community members adopt forest management behaviors that are promoted by extension agents is dependent on how the extension strategy interacts with the unique attributes of each community and how strong external barriers are at negating these attempts. Internal community characteristics such as the opinions of powerful members; existing social, human and natural capital; historical uses of land; and prior experience with external institutions are some common barriers (Chambers 1986; Korten 1980; Leonard 1977) External barriers such as excessive corruption, continual change s in regulations, and market fluctuations are common foes
36 of capacity building projects (Bebbington 2004; Eade 2007) Each community and region is unique in its combination of these factors and would result in vari ed implementation of land use practices demonstrated by a diverse land cover map. Thus, it is important to understand the characteristics of the context within which one applies the framework to effectively interpret the data obtained. Considering the n umber of determinants and barriers to defining project theme, determining distribution, and ensuring that implementation strategies are effective, it is clearly challenging to apply capacity building projects that fulfill the conservation and development g oals of addressing the neediest human and natural populations. As substantial research in development has found, patchy distribution of development support does little to alleviate poverty in a larger context (Bebbington 2004) This observation begs similar questions about the distribution of capacity building for forest management and the resulting extent of forest conservat ion. The above framework was developed and applied in Bolivia to begin understanding this relationship. The factors included in the framework are those that have demonstrated significant impacts on how extension projects influence land use behaviors. T he Bolivian Amazon in a Pivotal Moment Bolivian forest policy had supported community forestry since the 1990s, when indigenous communities were allotted special forest use rights in Community of Origin Territories (Stearman 2006) The push for community forestry did not fully develop, however, until the late 1990s when three laws converged to set the stage for communal rticipation Law of 1994 decentralized forest management decisions and funds to municipalities; the Agrarian Reform Law of 1996 redistributed land tenure to favor indigenous and forest dwelling
37 communities and a subsequent decree allotted each community in the northern Amazon 500 ha per family; and the Forestry Law of 1996 allowed communities to commercially extract their forest products under federally approved forest management plans (Benneker 2008; Pacheco 1998; Pac heco 2003; Pacheco 2006) In formalizing community forest management, these laws prompted immigration to forested regions and changed the rules by which commu nities could ut ilize their natural resources. New and old colonizers alike had to learn forest management skills that align ed with the requirements of the federal government. The framework presented in this chapter was applied in Pando, Bolivia, ten years following these critical land reform and forest policies. Pando, the northernmost Bolivian dep artment, spans 63,000 km 2 is 95% forested, and is inhabited by roughly 250 formally recognized indigenous and colonist communities (INRA 2008; Marsik et al. in revisi on) As the first Bolivian department to finish its land titling process in 2008, Pando had distributed over 50% of forest use rights to rural and indigenous communities (de Jong et al. 2006; INRA 2008) The other 40%+ was distributed among another four user group s: private landholders timber concessions, protected areas, and other government land. Figure 2 2 presents the location of communal properties, protected areas and timber concessions as of 2008. The allocation of private land had been minimal, and as suc h the majority of remaining These new land owners were expected to follow established departmental land use plans that divided the region into five categories of resource management: protected are as, e xtensive agriculture, forestry, agrosilvopasture, and restricted use
38 (i.e., river valleys) (Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente 1997) The majority of Pando was designated for forestry, in which primarily non timber forest pro ducts such as Brazil nut ( Bertholletia excelsa ) and natural rubber ( Hevea brasiliensis ) were to be extracted. With the development of the forestry law, agrarian reform, and a global interest in community forest management, timber gained in economic import ance for Pando communities (Benneker et al. 2005) In reality, communities also practiced small scale agriculture, agroforestry, and cattl e ranching. In Bolivia, as in many community forestry contexts, some activities were not necessarily communal, even though land was legally communal. Brazil nut collection and agroforestry, for example, continued to be household level activities conduct ed on communally recognized individual trails and parcels. Timber management, however, required the collective action of community members as the process was complex, the law differences in activity characteristics necessitated different capacity building styles. External support for timber, non timber, and integrated management practices in com munal forests of the Bolivian Amazon was provided by departmental government and non governmental institutions as well as local cooperatives. In 1996, twenty eight organizations worked with natural resource management in Pando in the capacities of field a nd media extension, research, project execution and policy development (Beekma et al. 1996; Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente 1997) Only a few worked directly with communities, and they focused on agriculture and land titling. In the late 1 990s and early 2000 s, b ecause of the new Bolivian laws supporting CFM and
39 the completion of the land titling process, institutions began expanding their thematic and geographic reach in Pando communities. The majority now worked specifically with timber m anagement and, though they had increased the time and energy required of communities to manage resources, they had helped communities sell more timber, log continuously, and feel more successful than communities who did not receive support (Benneker 2008) The incipient implementation of CFM projects in Pando provided a unique opportunity to describe how support institutions distributed themselves thematically, spatially, and methodologically in a region whose government was committed to fulfilling an overarching goal of community based natural resource m anagement. The framework for analyzing the influence of capacity building projects on forest conservation was applied during three seasons of fieldwork from 2006 to 2008. FM is an important contribution to future analyses of land cover changes. Applying the Framework in Pando Implementing the framework in Pando required several stages. The first was to select organizations for interviews based on a literature review and snowball sampling of all organizations implementing community based capacity building between the years 2006 2008. Twelve organization directors and ten project coordinators were interviewed on at least one occasion. In addition, nineteen extension agent s were formally interviewed. For two projects, data were obtained from presentations given by organization directors at professional meetings. Project locations, the process and criteria for selecting participating communities, and project focus and stra tegy were gathered during these semi structured interviews. Projects that prioritized lan d tenure
40 security, general institutional strengthening, or political movements rather than natural resource management were not included in the final analysis. The d ata thus comprise an essentially complete description of all community based natural resource projects in the department between 2006 2008. I nterviews with the director of the organization and project directors elucidated the hematic focus, in which communities the organization plans to (or is) working on the project, and the strategies they employed (or intended to) when working in the communities. Key thematic questions included: What is the project about? What are the crit eria for project success? What do you hope to see as a result of the project? What is the funding source for the project? How did the idea for the project come about? Important geographic distribution questions included: In how many communities does th e project work or intend to work? What are the names of these communities? In which municipality (or other relevant political boundary within your defined region) are they located? How were these communities selected to be part of the project? What are the historical relationships between your organization and these communities, and between the funder and these communities? Key capacity building questions included: How do you intend to reach your goals for this project? How do you interact with commu nity members? With whom do you work in the community? How often do you visit the community and for how long? How else do you interact with the community other than site visits? What educational methods do you use to share information and build skills? What methods do you use to promote dialogue? Information provided during these interviews w as confirmed or modified based on seven field visits with extension agents from four active projects, interviews with ten
41 community leaders and thirty four random ly selected community members in field visits without extension agent accompaniment, and reviews of project funding proposals and mid term evaluations. The selection of visits with extension agents and interviews with communit y leaders w as based on conven ience sampling due to timing and location of the author and the extension agents and leaders. The randomly selected 34 community members were interviewed during in depth visits to two communities most active in timber and Brazil nut management. Key quest ions at this stage include d : What is the the project? Who has participated in the project? What types of activities do they engage in as part of the project? How of ten do project representatives visit the community? What do they do when they are here? Have you been invited/allowed to participate in the project? GIS maps were created to represent project distribution by thematic content. The names and municipal ities of participating communities were used to generate a spatial analysis of project distribution by thematic content within ArcGIS. Georeferenced polygons for communities were obtained from the National Agrarian Reform Institute re database, and representational points were placed on the roadside or riverside section of the tenure polygon. For communities not in the INRA database, GPS coordinates were collected on site visits. In a few instances, communities were omitted from th e geographical analysis because of missing georeferenced data. Collated results of geographic distribution, community selection criteria, and strategies used to engage communities were confirmed with project directors and community leaders. This geograph ical representation of thematic
42 distribution provides a visualization for what may happen to the forest if projects are successful. Qualitative data on project focus, community selection process, and strategies were then transcribed and coded within NViv o qualitative data analysis software Projects were classified along a spectrum of participation within skill building and communal mana gement categories based on whether the organization encouraged dialog and action among a diverse portion of the communi ty using techniques of instrumental and emancipatory learning vs. whether the organization work ed with specific, often elite, individuals within a community using primarily didactic presentations of information. The remaining sections of this chapter desc ribe the results of applying this framework in Pando, Bolivia Findings and Discussion Number and Types of Organizations N ineteen capacity building projects for community based forest management in campesino (non indigenous) communities were found in the department of Pando. A few projects were execut ed by the same organization, but had different funding sources and objectives, and are thus presented as separate units of analysis. All projects were distributed within Pando, though their implementing org anizations were based in the towns of Guayamerin, Riberalta, Porvenir, and Cobija. The nineteen projects were implemented by seventeen different organizations (Table 2 1). One project was a joint venture between two organizations and three organizations i mplemented multiple projects. Many communities worked with more than one project, resulting in 244 project community relationships for natural resource management in Pando. Forty seven percent of these relationships were conducted by NGOs, 35% by coopera tives,
43 loss of funding and were never executed. All but t wo extension NGOs were Bolivian; of those all but t wo were regionally based. Project funding, however, was obtained from various bilateral and multi lateral agencies as well as international NGOs. P rivate timber enterprises also worked directly with dozens of communities to fund their annual and long term logging plans. In fact, 85% of communities who legally extracted timber had plans written by private industries that were interested in purchasing the timber (Benneker 2008; Superintendencia Forestal 2007) This relationship was based more on clientelism than capacity building and as such is only an aside to this analysis. Si nce the implementation of agrarian reform policies, external support for community forest management had increased substantially. Of the seventeen organizations, only three existed prior to the reforms of 1996 and none maintained the same projects. New o rganizations and their projects, largely based in Cobija, initiated as the land titling process officially came underway in 2001 and international interest was focused on developing the local governance of natural resource conservation in the trinational r egion MAP (Madre de Dios, Peru; Acre, Brazil; Pando, Bolivia) (Chavez et al. 2005) As a result, a di sproportionate amount of funding was allocated to organizations in Cobija, the largest, nearest, and most accessible Bolivian town in MAP (Zonta 2008, per. comm.) Thematic Focus Capacity building for forest management in Pando had three general foci: tim ber management, Brazil nut management, and agroforestry (Figure 2 3). Residents from roughly 100 communities worked with CAIC, ACERM, COINACAPA, CIFOR, WWF, and
44 Herencia to map their Brazil nut stands, organize sales with other Brazil nut extractors, and/ or extract Brazil nuts based on fair trade standards. Sixty three communities received agroforestry support from OCMA, CIPCA, and CIPA that focused on providing the raw materials and knowledge to maintain agroforestry plots on fallow parcels. Twenty six communities received timber support from IPHAE, FJMP, and AMAPAN that resulted in the development of technical skills to create and implement annual (100%) and sometimes long term (15%) timber management plans based on a low volume extraction of a few high value species. Most timber projects also included the development of a Brazil nut management plan as it was a relatively easy task. Only eight communities received integrated support from IPHAE incorporating all three activities. Finally, project fundi ng was provided for Brazil nut storage facilities and timber management plans by the Prefect and by Puma for the design and implementation of community based natural resource management plans ranging from timber to turtle management. The thematic foci on timber, Brazil nuts, and agroforestry for capacity building in Pando were not surprising and were largely determined by the interests of funders. With the increased global attention on timber and non timber forest product management as core components of CFM came a push for projects to fulfill this goal. The CFM known by the funders of (Cuevas 2008, pers. comm.) The large number of Brazil nut interventions was also not surprising. The rural economy was already based on Brazil nut extraction and the non invasive methods used to collect Brazil nuts
45 were highly valued by conservationists. Final ly, agroforestry had long been considered an option for reviving fallow lands to increase productivity, improve soil structure, and enhance biodiversity. It was an ideal complement to the timber, non timber, and small scale agricultural practices prevalen t in Pando. Geographic Distribution Of the 252 communities with legal title since 2008, over 150 received natural resource management support from at least one organization. The spatial distribution of these projects followed some consistent patterns. All were distributed along a road or river and specific organizations appeared to be territorial. One Brazil nut cooperative had a strict focus on communities within the largest protected area, another worked in communities that were relatively spread t hroughout the western half of Pando, and the last worked mostly in communities near its base town of Riberalta. Agroforestry projects spread themselves widely but, like the cooperatives, occupied certain regions of the department. One project focused on the northern region, another central, and a third the southern and eastern regions. These regional foci were usually, but not projects did not result in a patchy distribu tion of thematic types, however (Figure 2 4). Essentially the entire department of Pando was covered with projects in agroforestry and Brazil nut management. The effort required to train communities in timber management, however, resulted in fewer commun ities receiving this support and thus patchiness of timber projects near the princip al towns of Cobija and Riberalta. The locations of symbols in Figure 2 4 represent communities with 10,000 to 100,000 ha of land. The amount of land within that property dedicated to the thematic focus of the project depended on land characteristics and decisions made by individual
46 community members. Thus, this thematic map is a visualization of the distribution of attempts to promote specific forest management activitie s rather than a confirmation of activities that are actually occurring throughout Pando. Understanding the distribution of projects requires understanding the community selection process. In Pando, the primary agent in determining the geographical distrib ution of projects depended on the type of organization. Unlike situations found in other countries (e.g. Raberg & Rudel 2007) communities in Pando did not commonl y seek NGO support for timber and agroforestry projects. Rather, NGOs actively pursued communities that were willing to participate in their funded projects. This was less true pport for writing a forest management plan, or to join a Brazil nut cooperative, campesinos frequently traveled to town to make the request. The decision to grant the request, however, was at the discretion of the government or cooperative. Selection of b eneficiary communities usually started with communities that had been participants in prior projects. As funding opportunities increased, organizations were forced to look for new communities to fill new project requirements Several key criteria were co nsciously used to maximize their effectiveness : travel costs, land tenure security resolution of internal community co nflicts, and the distribution of other projects focused on the same theme. The first made it feasible to visit communities frequently and efficiently without requiring that extension agents spend multiple days away from home The latter t hree contributed to success. Without these, time spent with the community could potentially be wasted as no management plan can be approved without legal land titles (and assisting the titling process could easily occupy the
47 4 year cycle), existing conflicts could result in difficulty making communal resource management decisions during the relatively short project cycle, and the presence of an other project would needlessly d uplicate efforts (discussed further across multiple municipalities. As Pando is relatively homogenous in its physical characteristics, o rganizations never mentioned landscape quality as a criterion for selecting communities. The criteri on of not working where other projects of the same thematic category worked is worthy of further discussion. Though many communities received support from more than one institution, seldom were those institutions focused on the same theme. For example, communities often worked with a Brazil nut cooperative and a timber management project. They rarely, however, worked with two Brazil nut cooperatives and nev er with two timber management projects. This division of labor among thematic organizations should not be interpreted as the result of a competitive atmosphere or lack of intra organization communication. Though competition did exist among some projects with the same thematic focus, there we re also significant collaborations among these organizations. One NGO focused on Brazil nut management plans, Herencia, supported the founding of a Brazil nut cooperative ACERM, and held a workshop to determi ne how t he cooperative and NGO could collaborate with another Brazil nut cooperative COINACAPA Two NGOs focused on timber and Brazil nut management plans, Herencia and IPHAE, joined a consortium to work on a single project, PROMAB, from 2005 2009. Puma, a fede ral project to provide funding for sustainable development, agreed to give priority to communities who
48 received management plan support from the Prefect. And another timber oriented NGO FJMP, had arrangements with the Prefect to partially fund the creati on of timber management plans while they provided longer term organizational and technical training. Many of these collaborations were essential for ensuring that communities received the appropriate level of support to succeed in the desired forest manag ement strategy. Thus, the distribution of projects by thematic content among different communities was more likely related to efficiency. Capacity Building Strategies While the geographic distribution of projects can indicate potential land cover implicat ions, the strategies used to work with communities can establish cognitive and social development that enhance the likelihood of adoption and retention of specific management activities. Strategie s for working with beneficiary communities varied among the types of organizations (Figure 2 5). Some strategies focused on building specific resource management skills (technical training) whereas others incorporated organizational training and facilitated group decision making to improve communal resource manag ement (social learning) As suggested in the literature, projects that incorporated a greater diversity of community membe rs in the learning and decision making processes and provided hands on experiences for participants to practice skills over a longer period of time were considered more participatory than projects that worked with a select group of individuals, used didactic presentations to provide information, and engaged with communities in short meetings The implementation of participatory methods happened in both skill building and communal management strategies, and the lack of participatory methods implies a lower likelihood of adopting and retaining the activities promoted by the project.
49 Capacity building strategies va ried little among specif ic thematic content Instead, variation in strategies was more visible between the different types of thematic content. Within skill building strategies, for example, both Brazil nut and agroforestry projects tended to focus on specific skill building wi th individual households. Brazil nut cooperatives worked with households to teach the skills necessary for collectively selling a certified fair trade product. An emphasis on the individual was logical because Brazil nut collection occurred along trails allocated to individual households. The strategies of cooperatives were considered relatively participatory, however, because they worked democratically with all interested households from multiple communities. These supra communal institutions made deci sions that balanced the needs of diverse individuals and provided a network of support when cooperative members encountered difficulties. Additionally, members were provided regular hands on training and multiple opportunities to participate in regional a nd international field exchanges over the course of their membership. Agroforestry projects were slightly less participatory because they worked entirely individually with households that wanted to learn and practice managing an agroforestry system on the ir fallow agricultural plot. While the strategy incorporated hands on training over multiple short term visits, as well as farmer to farmer regional exchanges, interactions were primarily one on one between the farmer and extension agent and decisions wer e made at an individual household level. The least participatory strategy within skill building was the funding provided by the Prefect to build Brazil nut storage structures. This project incorporated almost no training, required few interactions betwee n extension agents and community members, and had no emphasis
50 on communal decision making. It was considered skill building, however, because it had a set technical goal of building storage facilities near individual Brazil nut trails. The frequent visi ts of cooperative and agroforestry extension agents, combined with the donated seedlings from agroforestry projects, the clear and immediate economic benefits from both activities, and the simple technical knowledge the projects imparted were quite effecti ve at building trust between community recipients and extension agents. This generally succeeded at training and motivating community members to maintain agroforestry and fair trade Brazil nut prac tices. Such attention to skill building techniques implie s a high likelihood of success for these projects. In fact, an initial observation of the long term presence of Brazil nut cooperatives demonstrated growth and adoption of Brazil nut cooperative activities since the 1990s, suggesting that their methods we re effective at promoting skill building and maintenance. Variations in cooperative membership were primarily due to the fluctuation of international markets for Brazil nuts. Agroforestry projects had similar longevity in the southern region of Pando. H owever, w hile important successes among agroforestry projects were seen in new markets for cacao, aai and c u poau, it was also observed that without continual interaction with extension agents, less active community members more often relinquished their p lots to other activities. Communal management strategies were primarily implemented by projects attempting to develop communal resource management plans. Projects that focused on timber and Brazil nut plans concentrated efforts on the entire community bec ause these plans, by law, had to be signed by every community member before obtaining federal approval. The management plans did not require that everyone in the community
51 plan. techniques that included cartography, the use of GPS and GIS, and tree cens us techniques. Over the course of many months, community members identified and georeferenced all Brazil nut trees within the communal landholdings and indicated user rights over each tree with a unique colored dot per family. CIFOR extension agents live d and worked with community members to assist with technical details and address affected tree distribution between neighboring communities. Timber and Brazil nut pro jects with NGOs other than CIFOR were slightly less intensive in the amount of time they engaged with communities and the amount of effort they placed in communal training, decision making, and conflict resolution. They did, however, work intensively with groups from each community to build technical, organizational, and administrative skills, and facilitate decision making that would reflect the interests of the entire community. The majority of timber and Brazil nut management projects initiated their r elationships with communities through a participatory intake session in which community members shared their current situation and future needs. They moved into prioritizing those needs and setting a timeline with methods for meeting the goals. Finally, the sessions intended to meet those goals were conducted in such a way that community members could determine their own course of action or practice skills acquired from the extension agent, depending on the topic.
52 Each community working on timber manage ment selected a committee of community members to be in charge of the management process and communicate directly with the NGO. While these committees were in concept open to everyone, participating households were often the local elite and historical lea ders. Projects working with Brazil nut management also formed in community work groups. The interactions between NGOs and the work groups were often extensive, requiring days to weeks of interaction at a time, and committee members were openly accepted a nd information. While methods within these projects varied slightly, their general participatory approaches to developing communal management imply effectiveness at pr omoting long term forest management practices. As with the skill management plans included very little involvement of community members. Rather, it provided funding and technical support for extern al technicians to develop management plans that would then be signed by all community members. This lack of attention to behavior change strategies, in addition to the obvious obstacle of running out of funding ts unlikely to lead to any long term behaviors. Implications for Pando Forest Conservation The framework as applied to Pando shows that both technical training and communal management strategies were prevalent for promoting agroforestry Brazil nut and t imber management. Most projects used techniques that were beneficial to the objective, and if effective both types of strategies could lead to land cover change. If we assume that projects with more participatory strategies are more likely to be successf ul
53 at influencing the attitudes and land use behaviors of community members, then we can explore the consequences of this success on the landscape. Agroforestry projects that maintain continual contact and regularly provide seeds, for example, could impro ve the technical knowledge of community members about the usefulness of fallow plots for growing an array of beneficial plant products. This may result in the adoption and maintenance of agroforestry activities, increasing the amount of secondary forest a nd biodiversity in these fallow fields. The consequences of training Brazil nut collectors to map and monitor their resource, join an association of collectors, and extract nuts based on fair trade standards could lead to the maintenance of a primarily no n destructive livelihood and thus a forest much like we see today. The adoption of timber management, though it is still limited to a few high value timber species, is likely to have the greatest landcover impact of the three options. Construction of roa ds, clearings for staging felled timber, and pathways to each individual tree result in immediate forest clearings and potentially long term expansion of deforestation by opening new forest areas to future colonization. These predictions must be considered context, however. Pando is extremely dynamic and rapid changes in the forestry sector, integration into international markets, and the roles and approaches of outside organizations in supporting communal resource management are likely to be important factors in the ability of this framework to accurately predict the role of capacity building projects in future forest cover. Brazil nut extraction, agroforestry and communal timber management have become the focus o f community based capacity building projects i n Pando largely because funders, agencies, and NGOs consider them the best
54 alternatives to other activities of the region: large scale agriculture and cattle ranching. While capacity building is likely a cruci al step to promoting these preferred alternative practices, their adoption will also depend on their ability to economically, socially, and cognitively surpass the regional tendency toward cattle and agriculture. Conclusions Internal community character istics; market forces; and regional, national and international policies influence communal management of natural resources (Ostrom 200 9) The role of capacity building initiatives to support this effort, however, is still minimally understood. This chapter argues that capacity building for natural resource management can have impacts at various scales, from improved knowledge and skil ls to new resource management behaviors that manifest in physical changes of the landscape. Understanding the relationship between capacity building and landscape change requires establishing baseli nes and acquiring long term measurements of land cover wh ile maintaining a pulse on other regional factors that could account for detected changes. The framework presented in this chapter is an important tool for developing a baseline of project geography and their capacity building strategies While applying the framework to Pando offers hypotheses about future results, testing the hypotheses is beyond the scope of this study. Future empirical studies should test if and under what conditions capacity building for natural resource management in communal proper ties influences cognitive development, technical and organizational skills, forest management behaviors, and land cover change over time. In addition to the theoretical implications of the framework, an analysis of the thematic content, spatial distributio n, and actual strategies employed by capacity building initiatives is crucial for project accountability. The framework produces a broad
55 contextual description of capacity building projects and, when tested over time, may elucidate the role of capacity bu ilding in achieving conservation and development objectives. Such information is essential for improving existing projects, justifying future initiatives, and informing future policies so as to better achieve conservation and development goals.
56 Table 2 1. Forest related conservation and development projects in c ampesino communities in Pando, Bolivia between 2006 and 2008. Manuripi Reserve, Yangareko and Mancomunidad Bolpebra were not included due to incomplete information Project ex e cuter (# Pro ject s) Year started Thematic focus Organization type # colonist communities # municipalities Office location IPHAE 2005 Timber and Brazil nut NGO 15 6 Riberalta FJMP ( x 3) 2005 Timber and Brazil nut NGO 4 2 Cobija AMAPAN 2007 Timber and Brazil nut NGO 1 1 Cobija Prefect 2005 Timber Government 8 3 Cobija OCMA 2007 Agroforestry NGO 22 3 Guayamerin CIPCA Norte 1998 Agroforestry NGO 29 6 Riberalta CIPCA Pando 2007 Agroforestry NGO 19 4 Cobija CIPA 2007 Agroforestry NGO 6 2 Cobija Prefec t 2005 Brazil nut Government 26 3 Cobija Herencia 2005 Brazil nut NGO 20 6 Cobija WWF 2004 Brazil nut NGO 9 1 Cobija CIFOR 2005 Brazil nut NGO 3 1 Cobija COINACAPA 1994, 2001 Brazil nut Cooperative 41 9 Porvenir CAIC 1980 Brazil nut Cooperative 20 9 R iberalta ACERM 2007 Brazil nut Cooperative 6 1 Cobija IPHAE 1996 Integrated Management NGO 8 2 Riberalta Puma 2006 Sustainable Development NGO 7 3 Cobija
57 Figure 2 1. Framework for analyzing the forest conservation impacts of capacity building projects Forest Management Decisions Land Cover Changes = Proxy for forest conservation Capacity Building Strategies Geographic Dist ribution of Thematic Focus Broader Context Factors (i.e., policies, markets internal characteristics )
58 Figure 2 2. Location of communal landholdings, timber concessions and protected areas in Pando, Bolivia
59 Figure 2 3. Numbe r of communities receiving support by theme.
60 Figure 2 4 Distribution of capacity building projects by theme in the department of Pando, Bolivia
61 Figure 2 5 Author based classification of capacity building for land management in Pando along a spect rum of participation
62 CHAPTER 3 TEASING APART THE DE TAILS: HOW SOCIAL LE ARNING CAN AFFECT COLLECTIVE ACTION Introduction Our understanding of collective action in communal forests has benefitted from decades of research on common pool resources. Collec tive action can be influenced by macrosituational factors, such as policies and tenure rights, as well as microsituational factors, such as clear boundar ies of land area and land users (Moran 2006; Poteete et al. 2010) Other microsituational variables include, but are not limited to, resource users having opportunities for open communication, procedures for making their own rules, regular monitoring of the resource and the users, graduated sanctions, conflict resolution mechanisms, and a balance between benefits and costs (Ostrom 1990; Ostrom 2009) In fact, most m icrosituational factors have the potential of enhancing or decreasing trust, which appears to be the greatest predictor of cooperation (Khody akov 2007; Poteete et al. 2010) Though much has been learned about the microsituational factors that enable collective action in communal forests, little has been defined about the ability of extension projects to enhance these factors. The field of ext ension was initiated to disseminate technical knowledge about agricultural practices and develop skills among individual farmers (Be rg 1993) More recently, extension projects have focused on improving the capacity of communities and individuals to engage in a variety of communal and individual land uses such as agriculture, agroforestry, and communal timber management. Though gover nment agencies were initially the primary providers of extension services, NGOs have also become important actors in this field. Theories that inform extension have evolved from prescribing an emphasis on technical skills to
63 incorporating diverse local pa rticipation, conflict management, and collaborative decision making (Berg 1993; Chambers 1986) The former methods were more appropriate when desired activities were entirely individual. The latter methods focus on a trust building process as well as skills that are essential for promo ting collective action in community based natural resource management (Monroe et al. 2007) One common recommendation for increasing the effectiveness of communal forest management is the facilitation of social learn ing (Leewis & Pyburn 2002; Mostert et al. 2007; Pahl Wostl & Hare 2004; Rist et al. 2003; Schusler et al. 2003; Webler et al. 1995; Wollenberg et al. 2001) Social learning frameworks incorporate learning theories from psychology, collaborative action theories from sociology and political science, and management principles from systems analysis to consider how group learning can result in knowledge generation, trust, and collective action (Schusler et al. 2003) F rom psychology, for example, Social Learning Theory explains that people learn new behaviors and their consequences from observing others and prescribes that learners should thus be exposed to a variety of people in order to break down stereotypes, develop realistic expectations, and increase alternative behavior options (Bandura 1977; Ormrod 2003) Whether learners choose to engage in these new behaviors is partly dependent on their self efficacy (their belief in their ab ility to successfully complete the action) in addition to the perceived risks and benefits of the behavior. A social constructivist perspective adds that when diverse peers work together to construct meaning, they spread the learning task across multiple minds and draw upon their collective knowledge bases (Ormrod 2003) The resulting knowledge of the issue should thus be more complete. This theory is the foundation
64 communities of practice (Wenger 1998) and differs from traditional technical training in its focus on working with a group of stakeholders over time to develop a management strategy that best fits their unique interests. Attent ion to the process of social learning is at the core of several recommendations for extension methodologie s. One social learning framework describes that the social learning process should incorporate participation, reflection, integration, negotiation, a nd a systems orientation (Keen et al. 2005) Other frameworks add that facilitation is n eeded over an extended period of time to ensure the above factors in addition to a democratic structure to decision making, open communication, an egalitarian atmosphere, unrestrained thinking, and constructive conflict (Muro & Jeffrey 2008; Schusler et al. 2003) (e.g., Figure 3 1). In essence, as long as diverse participants are involved; ideas are shared openly, reflected upon, and integrated into new knowledge; conflicts are managed through negotiation; and there is a demo cratic structure that allows participants to influence the learning process, then social learning should result in measurable outcomes such as technical knowledge and skills, understanding of risks and benefits, self efficacy, trust among participants, and engagement in collective action. The presence of these characteristics is also hypothesized to result in greater procedural satisfaction that could increase the sustainability of collective action. Of these trust is a crucial, yet complicated variable. It is hypothesized to be both an outcome of social learning processes as well as a predictor of collective action and social learning. The list of procedural requirements for social learning is long, and relative benefit of each is still unclear.
65 Syner gies between hypothesized social learning outcomes and the proven characteristics essential for collective action suggest it would be important to test whether the incorporation of social learning into extension projects can influence collective action, an d which of the hypothesized procedural characteristics are most important for determining social learning outcomes. This chapter begins such an exploration by responding to two research questions: 1) Does participation in a social learning process correla te to the predicted outcomes that are important for collective action? and 2) What characteristics of social learning are most important in determining these outcomes? Social learning outcomes and perspectives of the social learning project were measured among participants and non participants in two communities with different socioeconomic structures where social learning projects for community forest management (CFM) were implemented. Regional Context The department of Pando, Bolivia maintains 95% fore st cover and a population density of less than nine individuals per hectare organized in approximately 250 formally recognized communities (Beekma et al. 1996; INRA 2008; Marsik et al. in revision) Residents engag e in a variety of profitable forest uses, such as Brazil nut ( Bertholletia excelsa ) extraction, forestry, and small scale agriculture and cattle ranching. The most ubiquitous and economically important activity for communities is Brazil nut extraction, th ough communal timber management is the primary focus of much policy and external support. Until recently, all activities within autonomous communities had been largely practiced by individual households rather than communal ly Due to the 1996 agrarian r eform law and a subsequent decree, communities in Pando received land titles equivalent to 500ha per family which had to be managed in
66 accordance with the forestry law and national agrarian policies (Biedenweg in pre p; Pacheco 1998, 2006) Of the more important aspects of these policies was the requirement for state approved management plans signed by all community members in order to extract timber and Brazil nuts from communal forests. These policies prompted imm igration to forested regions and changed the rules by which communities could utilize their natural resources. By formalizing CFM, colonizers had to learn forest management skills that aligned with the requirements of the federal government. At the same t ime, private timber corporations that had lost much of their concession land to communities were eager to gain access to communal timber. Such drivers prompted an external interest in organizing communities to collectively manage their timber and Brazil n ut resources (de Jong et al. 2006) Most communities with a timber management plan did little management on their own. Without extension support, community presidents often sold the communal timber to a company t hat completed all paperwork and extractive activities. In the case of Brazil nut management, no communities had approved management plans as of 2008, and individuals collected the nuts along trails that were historically claimed by specific families withi n the communities. When a community worked with an extension NGO, they were provided at least one year of support to learn the bureaucratic process of filing resource management plans as well as technical skills such as developing a forest census, develo ping a contract with a timber buyer, and monitoring the timber extraction process. The general model for community forest management in Pando was to establish a forestry committee within the community that engaged directly with the NGO to fulfill these
67 ac tivities. Of the thirty nine communities with approved annual management plans in 2006 and 2007, fourteen received resource management support from an NGO, though only seven of these relationships were active in 2008. The majority of projects w as focused on timber management because the new Brazil nut laws effectively matched the established history for Brazil nut management. Of the projects that did focus on Brazil nut management, the primary intention was to establish a communal cooperative to obtain a better price. Research Methods Site description To test if and how social learning can influence collective action for resource management, two communities that had approved timber management plans and were working with different CFM projects were sel ected for this study. This site description considers their socioeconomic and social learning contexts and is derived from months of working alongside extension agents and weeks of living within the communities. Located in the department of Pando, the tw o communities, hereafter known as Villa and Rio faced the same macrosituational factors of tenure arrangements, policies and forest structure. They also had many of the characteristics found to be essential for communal resource management: a defined use r base, a defined territory, approved communal statutes for resource use and conflict management, and long histories as communal groups. They differed, however, in some important socio political characteristics (Table 3 1) as well as specific interactions with the extension NGOs (Table 3 2). First, the population in Rio was almost five times that of Villa though the communities were similar in years of existence (Table 3 1). In 2008, Rio was a younger
68 community in terms of the average age of residents an d the average number of years current residents had lived in the community, demonstrating that the population was still growing while Villa under timber management was also almost twice as much in Rio and had slightly larger quantity of high value timber species, partly because of the greater land area, but also due to a timber concession whose land rights had superimposed the area belonging to Villa until 2005. This difference in fores t value disappears when considered per capita, however, and at most was predicted by foresters to result in one or two years less of forest management in Villa Of the land under title, more was dedicated to agriculture in Villa than Rio This was partia lly due to more men in Rio relying on salaried work within the community and thus having little time to tend to fields. In Villa the primary land uses were divided between working in agriculture and Brazil nut extraction for the lower classes and cattle ranching for the elite. In both communities, agriculture was described as the most important land use, followed by Brazil nut harvesting and either timber ( Rio ) or cattle ( Villa ) (Table 3 1). Rio and Villa were both Brazil nut estates that evolved into communities (Table 3 1). In Rio the owner of the estate was no longer alive nor did the vestiges of the estate social structure dominate. In Villa the sons of the estate owner were still the communal elite, held all leadership roles, and maintained th e paternalistic social structures developed decades before. This difference plays out in many aspects of the Rio was a more homogenous community economically and educationally, Villa was bimodal, with 50% of the community h worth of savings and the other 50% arriving to the community with nothing. This
69 homogenous vs. bimodal trend was also true for the number of years community members had attended school. In Rio most people had attended school for eight or nine years, whereas in Villa the poorest group studied between five and seven years while the wealthiest group studied between ten and thirteen years. Finally, while Rio had many external contacts, they were more within civil society such as local NGOs and social movements Villa contacts included corporate business and large scale financing organizations. Formally, t he organizational structure of both communities was similar due to the standardized procedures for establishing communal governments in P ando (Table 3 1). Both made decisions about resource access and addressed conflicts in monthly communal meetings that required the participation of every household. The leadership in each community, however, was clearly different. The leaders of Rio we re grassroots activists who had been engaged in campesino causes for years and upheld the democratic ideal. In Villa the leaders were the elite descendants of the estate owner and generally made decisions in a more autocratic manner, holding community me etings to inform rather than discuss. As a result, Rio residents expressed more trust among community members and in their leaders. In Villa members of both classes expressed a lack of trust in each other. Rio had attempted to manage their own timber sin ce 2001, though they had successfully obtained contracts for only two annual plans. Villa began their timber management process in 2006, had successfully signed contracts for two annual plans, and was working on the third as of 2009. Both communities man aged their timber similarly. The forestry committees (described in detail below) completed a timber
70 census, prepared and negotiated timber contracts, and monitored extraction practices with the help of their extension agents. Both sold standing trees, th ough both had trained sawyers who planned to add timber felling to the list of communal management activities, and both distributed $214 to $285 per year to all legal households as their allotted income from timber sales (Table 3 1). Though the timber ma nagement processes were similar, the collection and sale of Brazil nut differed between the communities (Table 3 1). In both, households either hired workers or independently collected Brazil nuts along paths historically allotted to them. The sale of th ese nuts was entirely individual through external intermediaries in Rio In Villa the elite purchased nuts from other community members, though some in the lower class preferred to sell directly to external intermediaries. In 2008, the elite of Villa at tempted to pool their products to sell a larger quantity directly to the factory. Due to a drastic drop in market prices and the inability of the factory to purchase such a quantity at the specified time, this deal was left incomplete and is still remembe red as a failed attempt by those who witnessed t he collective action. Social learning context Extension projects for community forest management throughout Pando varied little in their social learning components and methods. In all cases, a social learni ng group (the forestry committee and their respective extension agents) engaged over a period of time to practice, reflect, and negotiate the methods for timber and Brazil nut management within the confines of the law. The effectiveness of extension agent s to act as providers of technical information and to act as facilitators for open dialogue varied based on the experience of each individual agent. Most were foresters or economists by training and were better at technical training than facilitation. Ev en so,
71 they facilitated social learning environments that encouraged sharing diverse perspectives, practicing new skills, open communication, and relatively unrestrained thinking about resource management. In Rio and Villa these processes differed prim arily in the length of time the community had worked with the extension NGO, the social status of the forestry committee members, other participants in CFM activities, and the location of the social learning activities (Table 3 2). The extension NGO that worked with Rio had been in the community since the late 1990s working on agroforestry projects. The extension NGO working with Villa had a recently developed relationship based only on the community forestry project. In Rio ten people were part of fore stry committee. In Villa there were four. Members of both committees were selected either by vote or volunteer. In Rio this resulted in a core group of young activists who had a reputation for getting things accomplished for the community. In Villa this resulted in a status quo of the elite maintaining leadership roles that were little appreciated by the rest of the community. The forestry committees were given an open invitation to the extension offices. For Villa this was where all non field ba sed activities took place (Table 3 2). The committee prepared documents, learned database management, negotiated with timber companies, and made major decisions while in the city with the extension agents. Their trips to the field, accompanied by extensi on agents, were only to complete the timber census and monitor the felling by timber companies. For Rio most activities took place request. This made the process more tran sparent and enabled participation by non committee members. As a result, many members outside the forestry committee
72 participated in CFM activities, particularly preparing the tree census for the management plan. In Villa only the committee completed al l activities. Though both communities held monthly communal meetings in which the progress of the social learning group was shared, knowledge and decision making about CFM extended beyond the core forestry committee only in Rio In Villa decisions were presented to the community by the forestry committee with little opportunity for or consideration of feedback. One non elite community member from Villa explained, There is a lack of participation when decisions are made. Rio however, important deci sions were usually made democratically during the day long communal meetings that required the presence of a representative from every household. Understanding the social learning context also requires knowing the intentions of the social learning facilita tors. Both extension NGOs anticipated co generating knowledge, with the understanding, however, that extension agents had the technical expertise required to fulfill federal regulations. They also intended to employ methods for gaining trust with the com decision making and assist ed in conflict management only when the conflict was between the community and an external actor. They thus had no intention to enhance trust among community members, one of the prescribed components of social learning for natural resource management. Dat a Collection Data collection methods for understanding if and how participation in social learning could influence outcomes necessary for collective action were designed based
73 on the above information about Rio Villa their respective social learning envi ronments, and our understanding of the literature about social learning (e.g., Muro & Jeffrey 2008; Schusler et al. 2003) We evaluated the perceived presence of ten project characteristics hypothesiz ed to influence social learning for collective action and eight outcomes considered important for collective action (Figure 3 2). Outcome variables were separated into two types, those resulting in knowledge, self efficacy, and behavioral impacts and thos e resulting in procedural satisfaction. Project characteristics included: representation of interests of all community members, openness to participation by all who desired, actual equal parti cipation when working in the project, respect of all concerns, facilitators demonstrating interest in individual participation, participants taking individual opinions into account, conflict management, good information, and a process that improved trust. Knowledge, self efficacy, and behavior outcomes included knowledge of CFM and sustainable forest management (SFM) concepts; the perception of risks and benefits of collectively managing timber and Brazil nut extraction; self efficacy in collective timber and Brazil nut extraction; and participation in collective activities (creating a timber management plan, negotiating a timber contract, monitoring timber extraction, and organizing to sell Brazil nut) and non collective activities (agriculture and cattle ranching). Procedural satisfaction variables included trust in the facilitators and their information, satisfaction with the decisions made during the project, and satisfaction with the decision making process. Rio and Villa were two of seven communitie s receiving support for timber and Brazil nut management in Pando and were selected for this research based on
74 interviews with project directors, extension agents, and community leaders who described these two social learning environments as being the most active and successful attempts at fostering collective action for timber management in Pando. Due to this biased sampling criteria, results may not be extrapolated to the other five communities or future community extension project partnerships, but may provide insight into best practices for measuring and implementing social learning in the future. Data were collected through semi structured interviews and observations over two week visits in each community, pre and post interview interactions within t he communities, and discussions with community members at the extension offices. Interviews were conducted with an interview guide incorporating 40 open ended questions, a cognitive mapping exercise, and 40 Likert style responses to measure knowledge abou t CFM principles; trust in community and the extension agents; descriptors of the process and the extension agents; opinion of the project; perception of the risks, benefits, and self efficacy to engage in communal management activities; participation in c ommunal timber and Brazil nut management; commitment to the activities in the future; and existing and desired alternate land uses within the communal lands. The Likert style questions for self efficacy, risks, and benefits of communal timber were not par t of the original interview protocol first implemented in Villa Based on qualitative discussions with Villa residents, however, we recognized the benefit of quantifying these variables and thus implemented them in Rio As a result, the presentation of q uantitative results for communal timber risks, benefits, and self efficacy will only be for Rio Interviews averaged an hour and a half and were led by the lead researcher with detailed responses noted by a Bolivian assistant.
75 Because of the low populat ion in Villa all household heads present during a two week visit were interviewed (n=12). In Rio households were randomly selected until roughly 30% of the community was interviewed, resulting in 22 interviews. The number of responses used for hypothes is testing about the social learning process characteristics varied due to missing data for some of the characteristics. Interview participants represented those who had participated in the social learning project as members of the forestry committee and those who had not. Data Analysis Responses to open ended questions were transcribed and coded in NVivo based on pre defined categories including communal history, land management practices, trust, knowledge, and opinion of the social learning project. N o other important themes provide depth to the structured interview responses. Knowledge of CFM and SFM were each coded on a scale of one to three based on the complexity of th e description. Whether they expressed having learned anything was coded into a binomial yes/no response as were desires to own more cattle or expand the amount of land dedicated to agriculture. Data for all other variables are presented based on the orig inal three to four level Likert style categories elicited during interviews. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for all outcome variables and social learning characteristics. Nonparametric tests of significance were used as they are more a ppropriate with small sample sizes and when the assumptions of normality do not hold, as was the case with Rio and Villa data. Significant differences in outcomes were first tested between members and non members of the forestry committees, the primary soc ial l earning venue, for each community using Pearson Chi square.
76 Differences in outcomes were then tested between communities with the same statistic, controlling for membership in the forestry committees. Significance was determined at a probability of significance was determined at the same level. Significant differences between communities were measured, con trolling for membership in the communal forestry committees, so as to better understand how characteristics particular to each community and each social learning project may influence the outcomes differently. Finally, a series of cumulative logit models were generated in SPSS 18 to determine which of the project characteristics could be significant predictors for each outcome variable. Cumulative logit was used because it retains information in the ordinal responses. The small N, however, resulted in h igh numbers of empty cells. To minimize empty cells, predictor variables were recoded from three to two categories, the majority of responses were in higher categories for each variable. The complementary Log log link was selected as the most appropriate for working with responses more frequently in higher categories (SPSS 2008) Since SPSS does not provide a stepwise option for generating cumulative logit regressions, we followed established criteria for selecting the best model based on finding the most parsimonious model with significant model fit, that satisfied the assumptions of parallel lines, and with relatively high Pearson Chi square and Pseudo R 2 values (Agresti 1996; Chen & Hughes 2004) As a pre processing step, we first correlated each outcome variable to each project characteristic with Spearman Rank
77 corr elation coefficient T he first models for each variable incorporated all nine project characteristics as predictor variables, elim inating the management of conflicts because the majority of respondents said it was irrelevant, and reduced models were created for comparison by selecting project characteristics that significantly correlated to the outcome variable. After three or four comparison models were created for each variable, inputting only those predictors found significant in a previous iteration, we selected one model for each outcome based on the above criteria (Table 3 5). Not every outcome was significantly predicted by t he prese nce of project characteristics. Results Results are presented in a stepwise fashion to begin responding to our research questions. First, we present the findings about the presence of each social learning characteristic in each community. Next, w e present the perceived overall outcomes of the social learning projects in each community for each level of participation. These project correlate to hypothesized o utcome variables that are important for collective outcomes; outcomes related to knowledge, self efficacy and behaviors; and outcomes related to procedural satisfactio n. All means and differences between forestry committee members and non forestry committee members are presented for each community in Table 3 3. Table 3 4 presents significant differences in those numbers between communities. Statistics will only be di scussed in the text for significant differences, whereas non significant differences will be referenced without statistics. more important for predicting social learni
78 correlations and cumulative logit models predicting outcome variables from characteristics of the project (Table 3 5). Perspectives of Process Figure 3 3 presents the means for specific characteristics of the social lear ning projects as perceived by residents of Rio and Villa Respondents were asked to evaluate their opinion of the presence of each characteristic on a Likert scale with three response options. Most characteristics were rated highly and there were no sign ificant differences in the ranking between communities. The rank order of characteristics was also mostly similar in each community. In Rio interests were taken into consideration more often than other characteristics, w hereas in Villa the most common perception was that good information was provided. Conflict management scored low because most community members claimed there were no conflicts to manage. The intercorrelation of these characteristics was calculated with principal components analysis. The top seven characteristics formed a single factor good information was provided various ideas were considered, open to everyone who wanted t o participate, process facilitated trust, all concerns were respected and everyone participated equally Perception of Overall Outcomes of Project When asked for the most important outcome of the CFM projects, respondents provided twenty one different outcomes that we coded into five categories (Figure 3 4). There were significant differences in the most important outc omes of the project 2 =11.76, p=0.02), and between members and non members of 2 = 12.4, p=0.01). In Rio those forming part of the forestry
79 committee explained that the most important outcomes were the ability to manage their own land with their new knowledge, skills, and management plan. In Villa all committee members agreed that the knowledge and skills they gained were the most important immediate outcomes. Most non committee members in Villa however, recog nized no important outcomes or claimed that those who benefitted were only the elites. In Rio more non committee members found benefits to the project, specifically the resulting management plan and the ability to manage what was legally theirs. Results landing in forest, and receiving saplings. Knowledge, self efficacy and behavior outcomes Knowledge and Learning All committee members felt they had learned something from the social learning project, as did one half and one third of the non committee members in Rio and Villa respectively (Table 3 3). Responses to this variable were identical for committee members in both communities, and not significantly different f or non committee members (Table 3 4). Knowledge about the concepts CFM and SFM, however, were significantly higher for committee members in both communities (in Rio 2 = 4.96, p=0.08 for CFM and 2 = 13.12, p=0.00 for SFM; in Villa 2 = .5.78, p=0.06 for CFM and 2 = 5.12, p=0.08 for SFM) (Table 3 3). Knowledge about C FM was also significantly higher for Rio non committee members ( 2 =10.83, p=0.004) and knowledge of SFM was significantly higher in Rio committee members 2 =4.44, p=0.035) (Table 3 4). Knowledge of the term community forest management is a first step to engaging in CFM. Understanding that CFM is a form of SFM and how the two are related is something that comes with more experience. In both communities, the committee
80 members knew CFM well, yet th e committee members in Rio had a better grasp of the more advanced term SFM. Non committee members in Villa did not understand either concept, whereas non committee members in Rio generally had a better grasp of CFM. This implies that a basic level of k nowledge is transmitted to most people in Rio independent of being formally a part of the committee, though there is still a difference in more advanced knowledge among committee and non committee members. Aside from learning technical terms, some commu nity members learned skills essential for communal forest management (Figure 3 5). While almost half the respondents from each community described having learned nothing, those responses were limited to people who had not been part of the forestry committ ee. Of those who acknowledged learning, they primarily described the technical skills necessary to complete a forest census and monitor extraction. At lower response rates came management skills ( Rio and Villa ) and learning to express one self and demand rights ( Villa ). These outcomes were not significantly different between communities, but they were significantly different among members and non members of the forestry committees ( 2 = 8.46, p=0.07) Risks and Benefits and is hypothesized to be modifiable through social learning environments. If individuals perceive more benefits than risks, they have a higher incentive to act collectively. If they obtain these perceptions through social learning, they will have different perceptions than those who do not participate. Though quantitative results about timber management were only valid for Rio q ualitative responses from Villa were sufficient for comparison and descriptions. Quantitative results were available for both
81 communities about communal Brazil nut management, however. There were no significant differences between members and non members of the forestry committees for either community about perceived risks or benefits of timber or Brazil nut management (Table 3 3). In their qualitative responses, however, members of both communities expressed that collective Brazil nut management was risk ier than timber management. Based on coding of qualitative responses, the primary risks to collective Brazil nut management were the lack of trust among community members and lack of agreement on how to go about it. For timber management, on the other ha nd, the risks were largely explained as the damage that can be caused to Brazil nut trees and forest health, having scarce volume of high value species, not being able to sell all species, having rules imposed that they did not like, corruption, not knowin g the laws, and not having enough training. In other words, the risks for timber had less to do with interpersonal relationships and more with technical aspects that were easier to overcome. Even considering its risks, collective Brazil nut management w as seen as more beneficial than timber management because people had repeatedly witnessed the increased income cooperative members had received from bulk sales. In contrast, though timber was a financial benefit to all, actual income was not considered ve ry high. Contracts with timber companies usually incorporated additional benefits to make up for this, however. Companies provided employment new roads, and often built storage facilities for Brazil nuts. Still, non members of the forestry committee in Villa saw little benefit to timber management, as expressed in the following quote: Only the rich benefit because they receive gifts and because the [timber management] rules imply that the poor lose right s to their agricultural fields. Villa
82 non elite Self Efficacy An increase in self efficacy was the next hypothesized outcome of social learning, and an essential predictor of behavioral change within psychology. Self efficacy was measured by asking people how capable they felt at engaging in communal timber and communal Brazil nut management. There were no significant differences between committee and non committee members for self efficacy of communal timber management in Rio (Table 3 3). Though quantitative data for timber management in Villa were not available, the majority of non committee members qualitatively described their inability to engage in timber management due to those activities only being Similarly, self efficacy for communal Brazil nut was significantly higher among committee members than non members in Villa ( 2 =5.00, p=0.08) (Table 3 3), and non committee members in Rio had significantly higher self efficacy for communal Brazil nut than non committee members in Villa ( 2 =8.84, p=0.01) (Ta ble 3 4) This was due to the overwhelming sense that the elite controlled the Brazil nut market in Villa and the elite were the forestry committee. The elite of Villa were the primary Brazil nut buyers from the rest of the community. When the elite had chosen to organize to sell their respective purchases collectively in 2007, non elite were not invited, and the limited success of the endeavor made the activity seem even less likely for those with weaker connections to external buyers. Residents of Rio had no similar experience upon which to base their judgments, and thus had a higher self efficacy for collective Brazil nut management than timber.
83 In both communities, there were perceived differences in self efficacy for communal timber vs. Brazil nut. Based on qualitative responses in both communities, capacity for communal timber was lower than the perceived capacity to engage in communal Brazil nut management because communal timber manage ment was subject to a highly bureau cratic process and required skills most community members did not already have. Collective Brazil nut management, on the other hand, retained the same management behaviors residents had traditionally employed. Land Use Behaviors Next on the list of potential social learning outcome s is actual engagement in communal resource management activities. Three themes from the interviews were used to explore this collective action component: How often individuals engaged in timber and Brazil nut activities, the probability of continuing or initiating that activity, and actual other land uses and future desires. This last theme focuses specifically on agriculture and cattle as they were the two individual land uses that could threaten communal forests through deforestation and their expanse was spreading rapidly in Pando. Timber In both communities, only the committee members monitored timber extraction ( 2 = 15.81, p=0.00 in Rio ; 2 = 6.52, p=0.01 in Villa ) and in Villa only specific committee members negotiated forest management plans ( 2 = 7.26, p=0.06) (Table 3 3). The fact that there were no significant differences in Rio for participation in negotiation is due to the small percentage of committee members (one or two) who actually participate in the negotiation, and the fact that there were no significant differences for participation in creating the timber census is due to the inclusion of non committee m embers in this
84 activity. There were no significant differences in participating in these activities between communities (Table 3 4). Non members of Villa not only did not participate, but expressed no interest in participating in the future. While the a verage probability of continuing to participate in collective timber management was high in Rio (Table 3 3), respondents in both communities expressed that this decision was not entirely up to them. For non committee members, it was often something that h ad been done for them. Because federal regulations required that everyone in the community sign annual and general management plans, and there was expressed pressure to sign the plan, simply being a legal member of the community meant that one was part of the communal timber process as long as a project was in place. For committee members, whether they would continue the project depended on maintaining the quality and quantity of valuable timber species, the willingness of buyers, and the continually shif ting rules imposed upon them by federal laws. Brazil nut Only one resident in Rio participated in collective sales of Brazil nuts at the time of interviews, thus resulting in no significant differences between committee and non committee members (Table 3 3 ). In Villa significantly more committee members than non committee members collectively sold Brazil nut ( 2 = 5.60, p=0.02) (Table 3 3) as did more committee members in Villa than in Rio ( 2 = 8.00, p=0.01) (Table 3 4). This was due to the personal relati onship one of the elite members of Villa had with the largest Brazil nut factory. Thus, the collective action was not a result of participating in the social learning project; rather it was the result of existing relationships among the elite members of t he forestry committee. Those who were on the forestry committee in
85 both communities, however, were more likely to talk about collectively selling Brazil nut than those who were not ( 2 = 6.99, p=0.07 in Rio ; 2 = 5.92, p=0.05 in Villa ) (Table 3 3) While most residents of both communities considered the future collective management of Brazil nut to be only slightly likely, the committee members of Villa found it a more likely option than the non committee members of Villa ( 2 = 6.97, p=0.03) (Table 3 3). Agriculture The average amount of land dedicated to agriculture per household was significantly higher among non committee members in Villa than Rio (Mann Whitney U=39.5, p=0.06) (Table3 4 ), though there were no significant differences based on membership in the forestry committee within communities (Table 3 3). Having approximately 2.5ha of land per year dedicated to agriculture was a norm within Villa bylaws and was not something affec ted by elitism or participation in the forestry project. In Rio the high standard deviation among committee participants reflects the large number of families who did not maintain agricultural plots. The desire to increase the amount of land in agricult ure was significantly higher for non committee members in Villa than in Rio ( 2 = 5.00, p=0.03) (Table 3 4). Residents regularly expressed their dream to purchase a tractor and truck to more efficiently prepare land, increase yields, and sell products in to wn. This desire was likely higher in Villa due to its proximity to a norm of working the land. Cattle Since no respondents in Rio had cattle, there was a significant ove rall difference in the average number of cattle between communities, both for committee members
86 ( Mann Whitney U =0.00, p=0.01) and non committee members ( Mann Whitney U =40.0, p<0.01) (Table 3 4). In addition the committee members in Villa owned significant ly more cattle than non committee members (Mann Whitney U=2.00, p=0.03) (Table 3 3). Committee members in Villa also desired to own more cattle than committee members in Rio ( 2 =4.44, p=0.04) (Table 3 4). Non committee members in Rio however, desired mo re cattle than committee members ( 2 =3.28, p=0.07) (Table 3 3). The fact that committee members in Rio desired fewer cattle may be a reflection of their higher commitment to communal resource management, but this is still unclear. Other than the latter o utcome, the trends in desire for more agriculture and cattle did not diverge from the existing community practices, and demonstrate that engagement in independent la intention to collectively manage Brazil nut sales, as the committee members in Villa were already organized for that activity. The project did, however, engage community members in discussions about communal Brazil nut sales and communal timber management that may continue if the external conditi ons continue to be beneficial. Procedural Satisfaction Trust Trust is one of the hypothesized procedural satisfaction outcomes of a social learning project that can be essential for collective action. Two questions measured this There were no significant differences in trust between committee members and non members in either community, or between committee members in both communities (Table 3 3). Trust in the extension information, however, was significantly higher
87 among non committee members in Rio than non committee members in Villa ( 2 =8.91, p=0.01) (Table 3 4). Th is difference was likely due to the extended presence of the extension NGO in Rio and their demonstrated competence over time to the entire community. The first extension agents to present the CFM project to the entire community of Villa in contrast, wer e considered dishonest and clouded the overall trust in subsequent information provided as a part of the project among non committee members. Contrastingly, members of the committee in Villa engaged more deeply with subsequent extension agents and slowly built up trust in their information. Satisfaction with the project and the decisions made Satisfaction with the project was measured by asking whether respondents felt the time and money spent on the project was a worthy investment. Responses to this ques tion were highly correlated with responses about satisfaction with the decisions made; as such they are presented jointly. The only variable that significantly differed between committee and non committee members was the project being a good investment, f or which satisfaction was significantly higher among committee members in Villa 2 =6.43, p=0.04) (Table 3 3). Both variables were significantly higher among non committee members in Rio than non committee members in Villa ( 2 =8.20, p=0.02 for satisfactio n with decisions and 2 =6.41, p=0.04 for satisfaction with the project). One non committee member in Villa Nobody on this side [of the community] agrees [with the project] referencing the f act that the elite, and thus the members of the forestry committee, were also physically separated from the lower classes by living at the entrance of the community. In contrast, a non committee member in Rio Everyone is in agreement and there is no dictatorship
88 however, were highly satisfied with the project (Table 3 3). It can thus be interpreted that overall satisfaction with the project extended beyond the core social learning group only in Rio where participants were openly invited to partake in timber management activities and important decisions were made democratically among representatives of the entire community. The Importance of Process In this final section of the results, we present t he relationships between specific social learning characteristics and the outcome variables. Cumulative logit models responded to the research question: How can outcome variables be predicted by specific characteristics of the project? Table 3 5 presents the best fitting models for each outcome variable that had a significant model fit. Five characteristics were significant predictors of seven social learning outcomes. Only three of the knowledge, efficacy, and behavior outcomes could be predicted based on specific characteristics of the project, whereas all procedural satisfaction variables could be significantly predicted. The perception that the project considered various ideas significantly predicted self ef ficacy to engage in communal timber management (p=0.01). In other words, those who perceived that the project incorporated various ideas were more likely to have better knowledge of CFM principles and higher perceived capacity to engage in collective timb er management. Whether the nut risks (p<0.01). The models demonstrating the highest effect, however, are found within the procedural satisfaction variables, specifi cally trust in the extension agent and satisfaction with the decisions made. Trust in the extension agent was significantly
89 predicted by the perceptions of people participating equally (p=0.01) and that the project improved trust among participants (p=0.0 6). The project improving trust (p=0.03) and providing good information (p=0.03) were both significant predictors for satisfaction with the decisions made in the project. In other words, those who perceived the project as not having improved trust and no t providing good information were less likely to be predicted by the perception that people participated equally (p=0.01). Finally, the perception that the project was a good investment was predicted by the project improving trust ( p=0.08) The inclusion of community as a covariate was insignificant and decreased the fit of the models. It can thus be determined that these models are relevant for predicting outcomes in both communities. Discussion Based on the results presented, we can suggest that social learning occurred to an extent in both Rio and Villa Members of the core social learning groups had better knowledge of CFM principles, learned more essential CFM s kills, were more involved in the collective actions of timber monitoring and contract negotiations, and were more likely to discuss communal management of Brazil nuts than non committee members. In Villa committee members were also more involved in creat ing the tree census, perceived more benefits from timber management, and expressed greater procedural satisfaction than non members. The fact that committee members in Villa also expressed greater self efficacy in collective Brazil nut management and a hi gher probability for engaging in it w as more a result of prior relationships among Villa elite than the social learning project.
90 Membership in the core social learning group did not correlate to different perceptions of risks and benefits in either commu nity, or increased self efficacy or greater procedural satisfaction in Rio The first is a testament to the limitations of these particular social learning projects in addressing debilitating internal and external barriers to collective action. The latte r two can be explained by remembering that self efficacy and procedural satisfaction were highly rated by all respondents from Rio which may reflect the fact that learning extended beyond the core group and into the broader community due to greater opport unities for participation. Considering that participation in timber management activities and decision making were extended beyond the core social learning group in Rio it is easy to understand why more people in Rio would have learned more and been m ore satisfied with the communal forestry project than in Villa The primary factor that prevented more extensive collective action and learning in Villa was elite capture of the social learning project and lack of trust between the elite and lower classes This lack of trust is historical, yet the presence of an extension project that worked only with the elites and conducted most work outside the community only exacerbated the pattern. The only interpersonal trust described in Villa was among the four m embers of the committee. The majority of the rest of the community expressed mistrust i n everyone, including their own family members. Rio had greater amounts of overall participation in decision making and trust outside the core social learning group ba sed on historical transparent actions of the communal leaders. These trends of trust confirm the results of decades of common pool resource research (Ostrom 2009; Poteete et al. 2010) Trust is an essential component to being
91 invited and willing to particip ate in communal activities, learning from each other, perceiving the benefits of communal management, and being satisfied with the entire project. In Rio and Villa even the equitably distributed financial return from timber management was not significant enough to mediate the role of trust. In Villa where trust did not initially exist outside the social learning group and was not enhanced by the social learning project, most people were unsatisfied with the timber management activities even though it pr ovided income. In situations such as these with powerful elite and lack of trust, extension organizations may need to dedicate extensive time and energy to build trust in their organization and within the community if their efforts to promote collective a ction are to succeed. While it may be beyond the interests of many extension agents to address inter communal trust, this example shows that not doing so may only divide the community deeper. When there was a foundation for trust, as in Rio the particu lar style of social learning employed by these extension groups seemed to be effective. The similar results among committee members in both communities are evidence that this type of social learning project was at least partially successful in its intent to foster a trusting work environment, joint learning, agreement on collective action decisions, engagement in collective action for timber management, and interest in pursuing collective Brazil nut sales. And, according to the multinomial logit models, s atisfaction of social learning participants and trust in their extension agents can primarily be attributed to the creation of trust within the group in addition to the provision of good information and the equitable participation of all. These lessons ar e immediately useful for both practitioners and researchers of social learning.
92 There are still critical limitations to a social learning style that includes only a core group of resource users. Even the extension NGO affiliated with Rio was disappointe d in the division that working primarily with leaders can create within the community. They subsequently began discussing different methods for interaction. This same NGO was also concerned, however, that macroinstitutional factors were still not favorab le for communal forest management. The director of the NGO believed community forestry extension projects had largely contributed to empowering the timber mills that purchase, cut, and remove timber from communal property. Private timber companies were g aining too much from the contracts and were left unchecked by federal regulations. In the perspective of this director, communities were yet to be empowered, not entirely because of capacity building defects, but because of characteristics of an entrenche d external system. Macrosituational factors are also likely incentives for maintaining and increasing cattle ranching and agriculture as simultaneous land uses to timber and Brazil nut extraction. Participating in the social learning project had little effect on existing and desired future land uses in either community, including those that implied deforestation. These activities were practiced independently, were considered more reliable, had the potential to bring in significantly more money than com munal timber and Brazil nut, were rarely regulated by federal laws, and were less dependent on the will of other community members and timber companies. Unless the social learning groups are able to address the macrosituational forces that affect individu al land use decisions, the collective action resulting from the projects may be unsustainable.
93 Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate that extension projects for communal resource management can incorporate aspects of social learning and that t he results of social learning can include knowledge acquisition and generation, self efficacy in communal actions, participation in communal activities, and satisfaction with the entire project. Moreover, specific characteristics of the social learning pr oject may predict procedural satisfaction. These social learning outcomes are particularly beneficial in the context of CFM because they have been proven to enhance or create factors important for collective action. Social learning does not occur in a v acuum, however. As Poteete et al (2010) describe, external factors and h istorical internal factors play a large role in the effectiveness of social learning and the resulting collective action. These data demonstrate that historical mistrust and external policies and pressures for cattle and large scale agriculture are exampl es of such factors. The results also demonstrate that extension projects do not always incorporate every characteristic hypothesized to be beneficial for social learning. Many claims of using participative and integrative methods, for example, still func tion within maladapted institutions and social arrangements that are constrained by habitual practices and historical events that have affected trust (Berg 1993; Keen et al. 2005) Nonetheless, applying at least some of the proposed characteristics appears to positively influence learning, action, and satisfaction. This suggests that there is benefit to considering a variety of project types as examples of social learning, even if they do not incorporate all prescribed characteristics. Extension agents can select from hypothesized methods to develop a
94 learning context most appropriate for addressing the particular micro and macrosituational barriers to collective action in their context. This elasticity in the definition of social learning may make the possibility of facilitating social learning more tangible for extension agents. Many extension projects, for example, are limited by the political environment, deeply engrained professional habits, and partici pant capacities. In a two to five year project cycle where the extension agents must work with a variety of communities, it is particularly difficult to foster every characteristic hypothesized to stimulate social learning, especially in developing countr ies still trying to stabilize new political structures. In this study, a significant initial emphasis had to be placed on building inter communal trust and developing technical skills because of the lack of each in Rio and Villa Yet the priority factors for stimulating social learning for natural resource management in other communities will depend on their own set of contextual factors. Finally, while the results of this chapter are useful for practitioners, they should not be interpreted as typical of communities throughout Pando. This study was an initial attempt to determine if it was possible to produce quantitative results to test social learning hypotheses. The results corroborate many hypotheses about social learning and collective action, and t he triangulated methods of qualitative and quantitative analysis seem adequate to the task. Future research will need to explore a greater diversity of social learning projects across more contexts before these results can be extrapolated outside Rio and Villa
95 Table 3 1. Socioeconomic and l and u se c haracteristics of Rio and Villa Rio Villa Population (#HH) 76 16 Origin of population Pando and Beni Pando and Brazil Age of community 54 yrs (7 officially titled) 38 yrs (8 officially titled) Land ar ea (Ha) 25,000 12,765 Land area for timber (Ha) 16,300 9,538 High value species left Average Low Primary economic activities Brazil nut, salaried labor and timber Ag, Brazil nut and cattle Land use history Brazil nut estate Brazil nut estate Current social structure Relatively egalitarian Bimodal Communal decision making Monthly required meetings Monthly required meetings Norms for access and use Within statutes Within statutes Leadership Young community activists Older elite Current timber mgm t Standing logs sold Standing logs sold Financial benefit from timber (per HH per year) 1500B = 214USD 2000B = 285USD Current Brazil nut management Individuals sell to intermediaries Elite associated to sell directly to factory, lower class sells to int ermediary or elite
96 Table 3 2. Social learning context for Rio and Villa Rio Villa Length of interaction 8 years, 4 specific to forestry 2 years External organization Sustainable land use NGO Forestry NGO Extension agent strengths Forestry, law For estry, administration Location of NGO offices 1 hour by motorcycle 45 minutes by bus or car Committee composition 10 activists 4 elite Where learning took place Primarily within community Primarily in nearby city Social learning content Creating manag ement plan, negotiating with timber company, monitoring extraction process, training in directional felling Creating management plan, negotiating with timber company, monitoring extraction process, training in directional felling; Administrati on capacity ( bookkeeping) Learning methods Experiential practice of skills with small group discussions Experiential practice of skills with small group discussions Participation by other community members Regular participation in census activities None Sharing of i nformation to larger community Monthly meetings Monthly meetings
97 Table 3 3. Means, standard deviations, and statistics for differences in outcomes between committee members and non commi ttee members in Rio and Villa p < 0.05 *p<0.10 ND=not enough data, NA = not applicable due to ND Outcome Variable Rio committee (N=5) Rio non committee (N=16) Villa committee (N=3) Villa non committee (N=9) Learning, Self efficacy and Behavior Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Pearso 2 p Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 2 p Whether learned or not (0,1) 1.00 (0.00) 0.50 (0.50) 4.04, p=0.04 1.00 (0.00) 0.33 (0.71) 3.44, p=0.06 Knowledge CFM (0 2) 1.80 (0.45) 1.13 (0.62) 4.96, p=0.08 1.67 (0.58) 0.33 (0.71) 5.78 p=0.06 Knowledge of SFM (0 2) 2.00 (0.00) 0.63 (0.72) 13.12, p=0.00 1.33 (0.58) 0.38 (0.74) 5.12, p=0.08 Perception of Timber risks (1 3) 1.60 (0.89) 1.36 (0.74) 0.83, p=0.66 ND ND NA Perception of B nut risks (1 3) 2.00 (0.70) 1.81 (0.91) 3.24, p=0.20 2.33 (0.58) 1.88 (0.64) 1.28, p=0.53 Perception timber benefits (1 3) 1.80 (0.84) 2.47 (0.92) 2.22, p=0.53 ND ND NA Perception B nut benefits (1 3) 2.80 (0.45) 2.31 (0.95) 2.56, p=0.46 3.00 (0.00) 2.75 (0.46) 0.92, p=0.34 Self effi cacy timber (1 3) 2.20 (0.84) 2.17 (1.03) 0.94, p=0.82 ND ND NA Self efficacy Brazil nut (1 3) 2.20 (0.84) 2.50 (0.65) 0.80, p=0.67 2.50 (0.71) 1.25 (0.50) 5.00, p=0.08 Participation timber census (0 3) 1.40 (0.89) 0.88 (1.15) 4.10, p=0.25 2.33 (0.58) 0.00 (0.00) 12.00, p=0.00 Participation in negotiation (0 3) 1.00 (1.41) 0.20 (0.50) 4.81, p=0.19 1.67 (1.53) 0.11 (0.33) 7.26, p=0.06 Participation in monitoring (0 3) 1.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.00) 15.81, p=0.00 2.00 (0.00) 0.22 (0.67) 6.52, p=0.01 Probability continue timber (1 3) 2.40 (0.89) 2.42 (0.67) 0.94, p=0.62 ND ND NA C ommunal B nut participat. (0,1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (0.40) 1.09, p=0.30 1.00 (0.00) 0.22 (0.44) 5.60, p=0.02 Talk with others about B nut (1 4) 2.40 (0.55) 2 .00 (1.16) 6.99, p=0.07 2.33 (1.16) 1.14 (0.38) 5.92, p=0.05 Probability collective B nut (1 3) 2.40 (0.89) 1.75 (0.86) 2.24, p=0.33 2.67 (0.58) 1.50 (0.54) 6.97, p=0.03 Whether want more ag (0,1) 0.60 (0.55) 0.31 (0.48) 1.34, p=0.25 0.67 (0.58) 0.78 (0.44) 0.15, p=0.70 Whether want cattle (0,1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.44 (0.51) 3.28, p=0.07 0.67 (0.58) 0.67 (0.50) 0.00, p=1.00 Mann Whitney U and p value Mann Whitney U and p value Amount of land in ag (interval) 0.90 (0.89) 1.69 (2.39) 33.0, p=0.60 2.67 (1.53) 2.50 (1.52) 12.0, p=0.78 Number of cattle (interval) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 40.0, p=1.00 122.67 (94.03) 14.22 (26.56) 2.00, p=0.03* Procedural Satisfaction Trust extension agent (1 3) 2.80 (0.45) 2.3 6 (0.74) 1.58, p=0.46 2.67 (0.58) 2.43 (0.79) 0.48, p=0.79 Trust extension information (1 3) 2.60 (0.55) 2.64 (0.50) 0.03, p=0.86 2.67 (0.58) 1.67 (0.82) 2.00, p=0.22 Decisions satisfy me (1 3) 2.40 (0.89) 2.64 (0.74) 0.83, p=0.66 2.67 (0.5 8) 1.43 (0.79) 4.44, p=0.11 Good investment (1 3) 2.60 (0.89) 2.57 (0.76) 0.83, p=0.66 3.00 (0.00) 1.57 (0.79) 6.43, p=0.04
98 Table 3 4 Differences in outcome variables between Rio and Villa by participation and non participation in the forestry committee. Outcome Variable Between committee members Between non committee members Learning, Self efficacy and Behavior 2 p (community with higher values) 2 p (community with higher values) Whether learned or not NA 0.34, p=0.56 Knowledge CFM 0.18, p=0.67 10.83, p=0.00* ( Rio ) Knowledge of SFM 4.44, p=0.04* ( Rio ) 1.71, p=0.42 Perception of timber ris ks NA NA Perception of B nut risks 0.75, p=0.69 4.61, p=0.10 Perception of timber benefits NA NA Perception B nut benefits 0.69, p=0.41 3.46, p=0.33 Self efficacy timber NA NA Self efficacy Brazil nut 1.20, p=0.55 8.84, p=0.01* ( Rio ) Parti cipation timber census 2.89, p=0.41 5.47, p=0.14 Participation in negotiation 0.53, p=0.77 0.61, p=0.74 Participation in monitoring 3.73, p=0.16 1.85, p=0.17 Participation in communal B nut 8.00, p=0.01* ( Villa ) 0.04, p=0.84 Talk with othe rs about B nut 3.73, p=0.16 3.84, p=0.28 Probability collective B nut 0.75, p=0.69 3.00, p=0.22 Whether want more ag 0.04, p=0.85 5.00, p=0.03* ( Villa ) Whether want cattle 4.44, p=0.04* ( Villa ) 1.21, p=0.27 Mann Whitney U and p values M ann Whitney U and p values Amount of land in ag 2.50, p=0.13 39.5, p=0.06 *( Villa ) Number of cattle 0.00, p=0.01 ( Villa ) 40.0, p=0.00 ( Villa ) Procedural Satisfaction Trust extension agent 0.18, p=0.67 0.12, p=0.94 Trust extension information 0.04, p=0.85 8.91, p=0.01 ( Rio ) Decisions satisfy me 0.75, p=0.69 8.20, p=0.02* ( Rio ) Good investment 0.69, p=0.41 6.41, p=0.04* ( Rio ) p<0.05, *p<0.10 NA = not applicable due to no variation in response rates for between communi ty members for whether they learned or not, and no data for Villa about timber.
99 Table 3 5. Cumulative logit regression models for predicting social learning outcomes from process characteristics Rows present a single model per outcome variable, columns present statistics for model fit, threshold, and predictor variables. Outcome Variable N Pseudo R 2 Overall Fit 2 df, P Pearson Goodness of fit 2 df P Threshold 1 Coefficient (SE) Threshold 2 Coefficient (SE) Threshold 3 Coefficient (SE) Predict or 1 Coefficient (SE) Predictor 2 Coefficient (SE) Learning, Self efficacy and Behavior Outcomes Knowledge of CFM 23 0.341 8.01, df=1 0.00* 0.02, df=1, 0.877 CFM=0 2.94 (0.90) CFM=1 0.53 (0.36) NA Various Ideas 2.30 (1.00)* NA Per ception of Brazil nut risks 29 0.379 11.89, df=1 0.00* 0.00, df=1, 0.984 Risk=1 1.61 (0.50) Risk=2 0.01 (0.28) NA Your Opinion 2.27 (10.94) NA Self efficacy of timber 18 0.348 6.92, df=1 0.01* 0.01, df=2, 0.996 Capacity=1 1.89 (0.69) Capacity=2 0.36 (0.38) Capacity=3 0 .97 (0.36) Various Ideas 2.23 (0.89)* NA Procedural Satisfaction Trust extension agent 21 0.675 8.54, df=2 0.00* 0.95, df=4 0.918 Trust=1 5.49 (2.01) Trust=2 2.78 (1.07) NA Equal Part. 3.03 (1. 19) Trust 2.22 (1.17) Trust extension information 21 0.394 7.98, df=1 0.00* 0.23, df=1 0.634 TrustInfo=1 4.34 (1.22) TrustInfo=2 1.80 (0.71) NA Equal Part. 2.14 (0.83)* NA Decisions satisfy me 23 0.644 16.85, df=2 0.00* 2.12, df=4 0.713 Sa tisfaction= 1 5.35 (1.92) Satisfaction= 2 3.28 (1.20) NA Trust 2.81 (1.28)* Good Info 2.64 (1.25)* Good investment 25 0.426 10.29, df=2 0.01* 1.62, df=4 0.806 GoodInv=1 3.61 (1.12) GoodInv=2 2.80 (1.03) NA Trust 2.00 (1.15)* Reflected all Inter ests 1.31 (0.81) ** p<0.05, *p<0.10 N=number of valid cases submitted to model Nagelkerke Pseudo R 2 Likelihood Ratio 2 for overall model fit, df=Degrees of Freedom, SE=standard error of the coefficient, complementary log log link
100 Figure 3 1. A social learning framework demonstrating the process factors essential for social learning, the knowledge that can be im proved from social learning, and the collective action requirements that can be met from social learning. Adapted from Schusler et al. 2003.
101 Figure 3 2 Project characteristics and outcomes of social learning measured in this study.
102 Figure 3 3. M ean scores and standard error of perceived characteristics in each social learning project Scale: 1 = do not agree, 2 =more or less agree, 3 =completely agree. N=19 for Rio ; N ranges from 2 to 11 for Villa
103 Figure 3 4. Most important outcome of the CFM projects by community according to members and non members of the forestry committees. N=21 for Rio N=12 for Villa
104 Figure 3 5. Expressed lear ning by topic in Rio and Villa by membership in the forestry committee as a result of the CFM extension project N=21 for Rio N=12 for Villa
105 CHAPTER 4 USING THE CONCEPTUAL CONTENT COGNITIVE MA P (3CM) TO TEST SHAR ED PERSPECTIVES AS A RE SULT OF SOCIAL LE ARNING Introduction A hypothesized result of social learning in natural resource management is the development of shared perspectives around the issue (Buck et al. 2001; Keen et al. 2005; Muro & Jeffrey 2008) When individuals engage over time in a trusting and open learning atmosphere, where diverse ideas are shared, considered, tested and modified, it is theorized that participating individuals will become more knowledgeable and their perspectives on the topics wi ll converge. In the case of communal resource management, these modified perspectives should contain technical as well as interpersonal knowledge about values and management preferences (Muro & Jeffrey 2008; Schusler et al. 2 003) Empirical tests of this hypothesis have generally been limited to the methods of participant observation, semi structured interviews, and surveys (e.g., Mostert et al. 2007; Pahl Wostl 2006; Rist et al. 2006; Schusler et al. 2003; Steyaert & Jiggins 2007; Tippet et al. 2005; Webler et al. 1995) This chapter explores the method of cognitive mapping to test for shared perspectives in communal forest management. Outside of social learning literature, methods for gathering perspectives have most often relied on structured surveys for systematic analyses and interviews for more in depth explorations, though focus groups, photo journals, participatory activities, and ethnography have also been used. We know, how ever, that surveys may have problems with response rate, literacy, and response validity and standard interviewing is subject to various response effects such as acquiescence, third party present, expectancy, and the use of threatening questions (Bernard 2006) Recently, cognitive
106 mapping has been explored as a mechanism for gathering subjective perspectives in an informal systematic format easily analyzed using common statistical packages (Kearney & Kaplan 1997; Kumar & Kant 2007) Cognitive mapping can avoid some of the response effects of other methods since i t is more difficult for participants to discern the presence and the perception of questions as threatening. Cognitive mapping was introduced by Tolman in 1964 when h is research on rats led to the theory that animals generate and update mental maps (or models) that facilitate future decision making More recent cognitive map theory explains that people also have mental models that are built and modified through experi ence, and that these can be represented through cognitive mapping exercises (Kaplan & Kaplan 1982; Kearney & Kaplan 1997; Ozdogru 2002) perspective, knowledge and opinion about a topic through their spatial organization of words and/or images that represent that topic The first step to forming a cognitive map is the recognition of important items. It then requires physically organizing those items in a way that demonstrates th eir relationship to each other. Cognitive maps can be analyzed for complexity to differentiate individuals more knowledgeable ( i.e., familiar) in the topic than others A first level of knowledge measurement includes the number of items represented in th e cognitive map (Kearney & Kaplan 1997) A second level of knowledge is the ability to recognize relationships between the items. Experts tend to select more items to represent their perspective and are able to categori ze those items into more distinct piles or describe more complex relationships because their mental models are richer, deeper and more extensive (Kaplan & Kaplan 1982) Novices on the
107 other hand, may recognize fewer items and have simple linkages or create two types of ideas based on a basic differentiating factor, such as good and ba d (Kearney & Kaplan 1997) In the field of geography, cognit ive mapping was originally used to explore spatial representations, such as the layout of a university or town (Soini 2001) Psychologists assert, however, that cognitive mapping can be employed to understand subjective i deas in fields such as education, nursing, administration, planning and psychology. Non spatial cognitive maps focus on domains of ideas and can take several forms. One subset, concept maps, described by the mathematician and educator Novak in 1972, asks respondents to organize items related to a central question such that each has its own space (often in a box or circle) and is organized in a hierarchy of thinking from more general (above) to more specific ideas (below) (Novak & Canas 2006) Relationships between concepts are represented by lines, arrows and descriptive phrases that signify positive and negativ e interactions. This method is widely used as a teaching and evaluating tool by educators. It has some limitations for research, however, as it requires learning how to develop a concept map; identifying and representing relationships between concepts is not an intuitive process. Additionally, the open ended nature of concept mapping requires qualitative analysis which may be undesirable in large studies. Another way to measure domains is found in cognitive anthropology, where cultural consensus metho ds explore the cultural definition of the domain (Bernard 2006; D' Andrade 1995) In freelisting, respondents are aske d to list everything that comes to mind about the domain (e.g., edible plants). The most frequently mentioned items are
108 written, or represented with an image, on separate cards for the pile sort task (e.g., Wilson 2003) In this, respondents are asked to sort all cards in separate piles according to similarity, the criteria to be determined and explained by the respondents. Often a final stage involves asking respondents to rank order the piles, and sometimes the items within piles, based on a specific characteristic (e.g., most important, most complex, etc.) Though the research domain in cognitive anthropology can be subjective, pile sorting techniques have mostly focused on discovering culturally sanctioned taxonomies for the relationships between re sources such as medicinal plant usages and the form and function of fish (e.g., Boster & Johnson 1989; Siar 2003) One benefit to the systematic methods of cultural consensus is the ease of providing descriptive analyses and qualitative and quantitative comparisons among groups (Borgatti 1996). Typical an alyses of free list, rank and pile sorting tasks include descriptive statistics such as salience, multi dimensional scaling, and hierarchical cluster analysis as well as confirmatory analyses such as cultural consensus analysis. Saliency averages the rank of an item across multiple respondents, providing a measure of item importance (Borgatti 1996) Consensus analysis determines if there is general consensus about how items were selected and/or ranked and al lows the researcher to determine which individuals least correlate to the consensus (Weller 2007) Multi dimensional scaling and cluster analysis are only used for pile sorting and provide graphical representations of how often items are categorized together to get a better idea of the structure of the domain. The result of these analyses is an understanding of the content and structure of aggregate knowledge, rather than causal relationships defined by individuals as with causal maps. One problem with most
109 cultural consensus methods is that they require respondents to include all items, an a spect that has some cognitive researchers concerned that individuals are not allowed to express whether each concept actually forms part of their perception of the domain (e.g., Kearney & Kaplan 199 7) The Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM) was designed by psychologists Kearney and Kaplan (1997) to improve upon methods from anthropology, education and psychology. Similar to cognitive anthropology methods, 3CM looks for content and structure o f knowledge rather than causal relationships and can be analyzed using standard methods in most statistical packages. Unlike the anthropological methods, 3CM is used to compare mental models among individuals, rather than discern an aggregate model. Addi tionally, it allows respondents to select and add meaningful items at any time to the previously freelisted ideas. Thus, respondents do not have to include all concepts into their map, giving them more freedom in demonstrating their knowledge and preferenc es (Kearney & Kaplan 1997) 3CM has both open and structured formats. The open version begins each interview with a freelist asking the respondent to name everything belonging to a domain. The structured version provid es each respondent with a set of previously elicited concepts that were developed from prior freelists and literature review. The ensuing steps of both formats are similar to the ranking and pile sorting tasks of cultural consensus analysis. 3CM has b een applied in a variety of contexts since the method was published in 1997. An in depth literature review found thirty papers that have self identified using the method or a modified version, including eleven graduate theses and dissertations, fifteen pe er reviewed articles and a few professional reports. All published research
110 was conducted in North America (specifically the Great Lakes region of the U.S., the Pacific Northwest, and Ontario, Canada), Australia, New Zealand, and Finland, and research que stions ranged from forest and natural resource management (e.g., (Booth et al. 2001; Fischer & Bliss 2006; Kant & Brubacher 2008; Tikkanen et al. 2006) to nursing and medicine (Vincent 2007) military leadership (Stevenson 2003) education evaluation (Kearney 2009; Plate 2006; Rottle & Johnson 2007) and planning (Tilt et al. 2007; Wells 2005) The majority of researchers used the open format, or a similar modified version, with sample sizes averaging about 40 participants (range 9 120). As such, the most prominent methods for data analysis have been q ualitative content analysis, descriptive stats about the number of items selected and number of piles generated, t tests and non parametric tests to compare these variables across two or more populations, and hierarchical clustering to qualitatively repres ent the structure of the domain. Analysis options of structured 3CM are limited because, unlike cultural consensus, the ability to exclude a concept from the card selection process means that the resulting data matrix will show missing items. Kant and c olleagues have developed procedures to work with this challenge by reducing data through tiered coding and filling missing values with average group score or the lowest rank possible (e.g., Kant & Brubacher 2008; Kan t & Lee 2004; Swaak 2008) In this way, they are able to use standard nonparametric tests to test if concepts are ranked differently, to explore the predominant aggregate ranking scheme, and to test for differences in ranking among different groups. Thi s same group of researchers has also pioneered the multivariate analysis of
111 3CM data with logit models, predicting the odds of ranking specific themes (Kumar & Kant 2007) Some tools from cultural domain analysis are effective when there are missing data. Consensus analysis and salience, for example, can analyze the item selection and ranking stages of 3CM data. Ranking is often employed in 3CM activities, y et only the frequency of item selection is generally mentioned as a measure of item importance. Calculating the salience of each item, based on an average of ranks, would be a better method for determining the relative importance of items because it incor porates the emic ranking of items rather than simply calculating importance due to frequency of selection. Consensus analysis confirms group consensus among the items selected to be part of the mental models and can correlate individuals to the group to d etermine who is least like the aggregate in their selection of items. Edwin Hutchins, a cognitive anthropologist, found that influential communication among decision makers made it more likely that they would reach consensus (though not necessarily result ing in better decisions) (D' Andrade 1995) This would make testing for consensus an interesting proxy for influential communication, and thus respond to the research objective of th e effectiveness of social learning. While 3CM is growing in popularity as a valid measure to test subjective perspectives in industrialized countries, its applicability in the developing world is unclear It has been assumed that the ability to sort card s into more abstract concepts is possible in any population as long as respondents are familiar with the domain (Ember 1977) Though anthropologists have prolifically used pile sorts throughout the world, their research domains have largely focused on cultural taxonomies with a
112 culturally produced structure to them, like fish morphology or edible plants. Abstract concepts from human organization to technical aspects of management, and thus may be less easy to categorize or structure. We know, for example, that the ability to create causal maps (i.e., draw and describe relationships) is not inherent and must be taught (Novak & Canas 20 06) Forming categories of ideas may be a similarly unfamiliar way to represent mental models in certain cultures. This chapter initiates a discussion on this concern while simultaneously presenting the results of a social learning process in the Boliv ian Amazon. Our integrated discussion has three purposes: 1) to discuss the usefulness of 3CM as a method for measuring mental models with diverse populations from a developing country, 2) to describe alternative methods for analyzing the initial 3CM task s of selection and ranking and 3) to test whether social learning has resulted in shared perspectives in the Bolivian Amazon. Research Context The following study was conducted in the Bolivian Amazon, where recent policies have devolved land ownership to r ural communities and allowed them to develop management plans to extract timber and non timber resources. Since most communities had never formally managed their timber, various extension projects provided support through three to five year projects focus ed on technical and administrative training through experiential, multi way interactions. Sixteen extension agents from five existing projects for community forest management (CFM) were selected for interviews. In three projects, this included all extens ion agents. For the other two projects, participants were selected based on their participation in the social
113 learning process in one case, and on convenience in another case where the project was large and the agents were not working with the two communi ties involved in this research. Tw o communities that worked with two of the five projects were selected for household interviews. One community, Rio worked with organization A, while the other community, Villa worked with organization B. Rio had approx imately seventy six households and ten people who actively participated in the social learning process. It was located along a river, about an hour by motorcycle from a large town, and was surrounded entirely by forest for thousands of hectares. The popu lation of Rio dedicated itself to various wage paying jobs, some agriculture, and extraction of Brazil nuts. About twenty percent of the households had a family member who worked at the nearby sawmill, though none of them had experience in timber manageme nt. Villa was much smaller than Rio With sixteen households, only four people participated in the social learning projects. Villa was located about an hour from a city close to the Brazil border and was surrounded by large tracts of pasture for cattle, with forested areas further away from roads. The population of Villa was deeply segregated into two classes; the lower class survived entirely from Brazil nut extraction and agriculture while the higher class managed cattle farms and purchased Brazil nut s from extractivists. Because of the small size of Villa all household heads present during a two week visit (12) were interviewed, including the four participants in the social learning project. In Rio 22 household heads were randomly selected for int erviews, five of which had participated in social learning.
114 Research Question and Field Methods 3CM was used to test theories of social learning in community forest management projects in the Bolivian Amazon We hypothesized that people who participated in open, active and supportive knowledge sharing activities were likely to develop similar perspectives about the issue. 3CM was used specifically to gather data about community member and extension agent perspectives about ideal use of communal forests after a subset of the respondents had interacted over two years in the design and implementation of timber management activities on communal lands. To test the hypothesis that those who participated in the process should have more similar perspectives, we asked the16 extension agents to complete cognitive maps about their four community members from two communities that worked with two of these projects were also randomly selected to complete the same task, and a follow up interview determined their level of participation in the social learning process. Key to the analysis was that some community respondents had interacted much more often with the extension agents than others, and some extension a gents had never interacted with the community members. Thus, testing the social learning theory was a matter of comparing cognitive maps of other variables are equal (e.g ., gender, education level, previous knowledge, experience and overall activism), community members who participated should have cognitive maps about ideal use of community forests more similar to their extension agents than to their non participating comm unity members. The first step to implementing 3CM was to find the domain and appropriate vocabulary. This research project did not originally intend to focus use of
115 vely representative sample of community members and extension agents made it quickly obvious that the domain Community Forest Management was only existent in the minds of extension agents. Most community members did not recognize the term and thus proved to be a conceptual domain that everyone understood and expressed opinions. St ructured 3CM was used to facilitate quantitative data analysis. Having pre selected items also made the task less onerous and thus gained the quick trust of the respondents. Developing the items for the domain required soliciting freelists from approxima tely twelve community members, researchers, and extension agents. The freelists were composed of words and concepts that came to mind when they thought of ideal forest use and community forest management. After twelve respondents, few new concepts emerge d. Key ideas were then added from the literature about community forest management and Amazon forest management, rounding the number of items to 29. Items were diverse and included resource use options (i.e., timber extraction and Brazil nut collection), management concerns (i.e., timber management plan), tenure concerns (i.e., individual vs. collective property), social organization (i.e., participation and organization), and environmental conservation and livelihood concerns. The 3CM exercise comprised 15 to 30 minutes of a 45 minute interview with extension agents. It was also the first activity of a 1.5 to 2 hour interview with community members. Participants were asked to visualize what ideal forest use in a Bolivian Amazon community would look like and how they would describe it to a friend
116 who was not familiar with the region. They were then handed a stack of 29 shuffled cards, each with a unique number on the back and a word and a representational image on the front. The images were selected fro m a database of images used by NGOs and government extension agents in their pamphlets about natural resource management. The first task was for respondents to select from the pile of 29 all the cards that were necessary to describe their vision of ideal f orest use. Once they selected the representative cards, they were asked if there were any concepts they would like to add to fully describe their idea. Next, respondents were asked to take the selected cards and sort them into similar concepts and then p rovide a description for each category. While this task was easy for extension agents, the first six community members resisted this step and preferred to lay the cards in a linear or cyclical sequence to tell a story (e.g., Figure 4 1). When further pro bed to create piles from the cards, they were either confused or uninterested. We remove d this task from the activity for community members to avoid discomfort. For both extension agents and community members, detailed notes were taken as they discussed what each card represented to them and the relationships between cards. Finally, all respondents were requested to rank their selected cards from most to least important for their ideal vision. Weller and Romney believe that rank data provides the most a mount of information for the time spent with respondents (Weller & Romney 1988) At the same time, however, they sug gest that asking illiterate people to rank abstract concepts using cards is inappropriate. In this case, the number of concepts selected by the respondents was small enough that they seemed to have no problem rank ordering.
117 Limits of 3CM The community m embers who were reticent to categorize cards were not unique in any important way. They represented both men and women with diverse exposure to formal schooling. Subsequent probing interviews revealed that community members were usually able to select an d rank items, but were not always clear about how items might be similar to some over others. Rather, the items stood alone in importance or had a linear or cyclical sequence of causal explanations. For example, one woman selected 22 items and arranged t hem in an arc, explaining how each item lead to the next. It started with organization, which made working communally important and led to participation within communal lands which needed to be censused to create a management plan, and so on. One respond ent was reticent to select cards, preferring to pick up each card one by one and explain his perception of the idea. When asked to sort cards into categories based on their perceived similarity, each expressed a version of discomfort. Some discomforts we re based in lack of self confidence to perform the task (as demonstrated by saying, ; others were based on not wanting to be forced into a method for representing their ideas (as demonstrated through annoyanc e at being asked to transfer their cyc lical story into a set of piles ) This discomfort with card sorting a conceptual domain could be due to a variety of factors. Swaak (2008) had a similar experience working with aboriginal people in Canada. She hypoth esized that the difficulty of sorting concepts was due to age, literacy, and discomfort with the researcher. Our experience, though limited, did not corroborate these hypotheses in our small population since community members between twenty and sixty, who had attended school anywhere from zero to ten years,
118 were reluctant to complete the task. In fact, illiterate respondents expressed that using cards with images was a valuable way to engage them in selecting and ranking items. Discomfort with the resear cher could have been part of their reluctance to categorize abstract concepts. Though a native Bolivian was part of the research team, the 3CM activity was our first interview task and community members certainly might not have held full trust in us after such a short visit. Cognitive map theory might explain that reticence to hierarchical categorization was due to the presence of experts and novices about the domain. Experts have a clearer mental model of how the concepts relate to each other, and are able to complete higher order cognitive tasks to demonstrate these relationships. Novices, however, have less experience in the domain and thus may have a more simplistic mental model. They may only be able to select items and label them good or bad. Ba sed on this theory, we would say that forest dwelling community members, educated or not, are depth discussion with these community members, however, disproved this. As residents and users of t he forest, they have quite in depth knowledge about their ideal use. Most likely, a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon lies in the inability of the method to enable effective performance due to either cultural or educational practices. Cross cultu ral psychologists have found that classificatory ability in non Western cultures becomes more diverse and abstract with more familiarity with classification tools, high European contact, and higher education (Ember 1977) Other researchers in Bolivia and the Brazilian Amazon have described analogous problems with asking rural populations to categorize co nceptual ideas (Llanque 2009, pers.
119 comm.; Pokorny et al. 2007; Santos et al. 2007) Llanque believed this was due to the public educational system, which until college (the level of education received only by extension agents in this study) focuses on rote memorization. For that reason, she limited her use of concept cards t o selection and relative importance (e.g., Llanque 2008) The Center for International Forestry (CIFOR) researchers in nearby Brazil, after multiple attempt s to aggregate indicators into criteria and split criteria into indicators, also found that community members were quite comfortable explaining the practical importance of an indicator card based on personal experience, but were not comfortable abstracting a larger idea from several cards (Pokorny et al. 2007; Santos et al. 2007) Only after months of workshops and traini ng on how to aggregate ideas were they able designed to be a relatively rapid, systematic method for measuring mental models, we suggest from these experiences that the sortin g stage is inappropriate for achieving these goals in this context. Analysis and Discussion of Modified Methods Because a cognitive map is incomplete without some description of the relationship between items, the lack of card sorting by community members means that this study was unable to analyze the structure of mental models. It did, however, compare individual knowledge and perspectives about ideal use of communal forests based on the selection and ranking of items belonging to the domain. This secti on describes methods for doing so and discusses the implications of the results for social learning hypotheses. The analyses in this paper use tools available in Anthropac (Borgatti 1996) which was developed for cognitive anthropology data, including freelists, pile sorts, rankings, and ratings.
120 Item Selection Overall, thirty three concepts were selected or added and the average number of maximum of 23. Extension agents averaged larger lists (14.4 concepts) than community members (9.2 concepts). There was not a significant difference, however, between community members who participated in the social learning (9.9, std=5.3) and non partic ipating community members (9.0, std=4.18). Since the number of items selected to represent a difference among community members suggests that community participants were not more knowledgeable than non extension agents were more knowledgeable (or at least more comfortable with diverse terminology) than all community members. Consensus Analysis Consensus theory is a mathemat ical formula and method designed to explore the (Romney et al. 1987; Romney et al. 1986; Weller 2007) Consensus analysis allo ws individuals in their knowledge of this culturally correct domain by comparing their answers to the consensus, and to determine what subgroups of a culture agree about the domain. The formal model, found in Anthropac, works with dichotomous (i.e., yes/no) data whereas the informal model, in most statistical packages such as SPSS, can work with fully ranked, interval or ratio scaled data (Weller 2007) Data preparation for con sensus analysis in Anthropac requires converting the response to each item for
121 each respondent to a yes or no response. The model then measures agreement about the items that belong in the domain. As the model is essentially a factor analysis, the output presents eigenvalues for the multiple factors. It is generally agreed that consensus is likely if the ratio of the eigenvalue for the first factor is at least three times the eigenvalue of the last factor (Borgatti 1996; Romn ey et al. 1987) To test the hypothesis of shared perspectives from social learning, consensus analysis was conducted on item selection for different groups: all extension agents (N=16), all community members (N=34), all members of Villa (N=12), all me mbers of Rio (N=22), non participating members of Rio (N=17) and Villa (N=8), non participating extension agents (N=11), and, finally, the two social learning groups of extension agents and participating community members (N=7 for each). No consensus was found in extension agents as a group, community members as a group, all members of either communities, or non participating members of either community or extension agents. There were, however, single factor loadings demonstrating cultural consensus about the items belonging to ideal forest management for both social learning groups. In other words, a single axis incorporating the responses of members in this group explained the variance of their responses. Since it was only among these groups that the it ems suggested that information was being mutually shared and adopted between extension agents and their participating community members. Thus, even though the extent of the maps did not significantly differ among participating and non participating community members (as discussed above), participating community members were more similar to
122 extension agents than to their fellow community members in the conceptual content of th eir mental model. The presence of shared mental model content suggests that social learning had occurred among extension agents and participating community members. Since the 3CM method was only employed after engagement, it was impossible to measure th e unlikely that all participants arrived with similar perspectives. Participating extension agents were not different from other extension agents in training or cha racteristics, yet their item selection was more similar to participating community members than to their colleagues. Relative Importance Since cultural consensus demonstrated that the two social learning groups agreed on the items to be included in the importance was compared among those two groups and among the non participating extension agents and community members. Relative importance of selected items was lation in Anthropac. Unlike average was used as it does not allow high prioritizat ion of an item infrequently selected, and to Anthropac as freelists with concepts listed in order of i mportance declared by each respondent. Five items mentioned by less than three people were omitted from the analysis.
123 The most important concept for non participants of both communities was Rio and 0.97 in Villa ) (Figure 4 2). Brazil nuts were second for non participants in Rio (0.53) and third for non participants in Villa (0.54). Second most important for non participating members of Villa w as cattle (0.59). Improved Livelihood (0.41) was fourth for Villa and third among Rio non participants (0.52). Fourth for non participants in Rio was Institutional Support (0.37). Both social learning groups, on the other hand, ranked organizational aspects of communal forest use higher than these individual livelihood str ategies. The Rio social learning group placed Institutional Support first (0.69), followed by Participation (0.64), Organized (0.53) and the Forestry Committee (0.49). After noting the importance of Brazil nut (0.52), the Villa social learning group rank ed Norms (0.46), Economic (0.38), and Association (0.30) among the most important items. These were more similar, though still different, to the preferences of extension agents who did not work with Rio or Villa The other extension agents prioritized Su stainable (0.59), Organized (0.47), Communal (0.44), Communal land (0.44), Timber (0.43) and Economic (0.43). As can be seen, non participating community members prioritized foundational individual activities, other extension agents generally prioritized the communal sustainability of timber activities, and the social learning groups showed preference for the organizational and Interestingly, a couple items that ranked highly on community member l ists were not selected by extension agents, indicating a significant difference in perception. C attle was selected by 35% of all community members and ranked second by non participants in Villa No extension agents, however, selected this item. Similarl y, 24%
124 of all community members selected individual land parcels, non participants in Villa ranking it seventh and in Rio fifth in importance, while no extension agent selected this item. Hunting was also selected by 27% of all community members and ranke d twelfth in Villa and ninth in Rio but no participants of the social learning groups even selected the item. The only items not selected by any community member were those added by four extension agents to the original cards: global ecological problems, the State, and transversal intercommunication. These results demonstrate that the social learning groups had adopted current discourse in development, prioritizing organizational and participating commun ity members focused on the individual livelihood activities and benefits. Cluster Analysis Once items have been selected in 3CM, they are generally sorted into similarity piles to demonstrate mental model structure. As mentioned in the field methods sec tion, this step was not possible to complete with our community members in Bolivia. However, it was an easy task for the extension agents. We thus performed hierarchical cluster analysis to see how extension agents structured their mental models on ideal use of communal forests and explore if any of these conceptual categories were more important for community members based on their ranking of items within the categories. Hierarchical cluster analysis is the most common analysis for 3CM card sorts. It is a qualitative data reduction technique that categorizes items based on their similarity to each other (Manly 2004) Clustering considers how often two items were mentione d in the same pile and categorizes items most often mentioned together. Ideally, the final categories will be less than the original number of items and should have some explanatory power for their sorting. When conducting the card sort in 3CM we asked
125 e xtension agents to name and describe the piles they created. This information was piles. Using average link in a hierarchical cluster, we identified five categories of i deas about ideal forest management (Figure 4 3). Categories were determined by comparing the output dendrogram with a multidimensional scaling (MDS) model and the individual piles created by respondents using the same data. The quintenary level of branch ing on the hierarchical cluster resulted in three categories that generally represented results from the MDS and respondent categories (categories 1, 2 and 5). The seventh level of branching resulted in two more categories (3 and 4) that completed the pic ture provided from these additional sources. First, t he basic activities category, which includes forest in general, other resources, Brazil nut, agricultural plots, and hunting, also refers to the predominant, and prioritized, livelihood activities of co mmunity members in the Bolivian Amazon. (Note the absence of cattle, a predominant activity but not considered ideal by any extension ightly related category, includes concepts pertaining to communal organization. Fourth came items representing land use planning and, along with the third category, is related to institutional s upport. Finally, the fifth category contains items relevant t o the technical management of timber. The enumeration of categories does not represent their order of importance for extension agents. To explore the relative importance of each of these conceptual categories to community participants and non participants we recoded each item for the relevant conceptual category and calculated how often items from each category were selected
126 and highly ranked. Items from category five (Timber Extraction) were least selected by all community members and extension agents. Items from category one (Basic Activities) were dominant for all residents of Villa and for the non participants of Rio (incorporating 30% of the top five items ranked for Villa non participants, 20% for participants, and 40% for Rio non participants.) I tems from category three ( Communal Organization ) dominated the top five items ranked for participating community members of Rio (20%) and extension agents (60%). These results suggest that the technical knowledge of timber extraction provided through the extension practices was considered the least important aspect of these development projects by all actors. The communal organization aspects were most important among extension agents and those having participated most in the social learning process ( Rio ), while basic livelihood strategies that were essentially individual remained the most important for all members of Villa and non participants in Rio Conclusions 3CM is becoming an accepted tool for measuring cognition about abstract concepts. Though it has been used in a number or studies, its use outside of developed nations has yet to be published. This paper expands the discussion on 3CM by exploring its appropriateness in developing countries and by describing alternative analyses for modified 3CM tasks. Although this research did not systematically test the 3CM method for this context, it serves as a point of departure for discussing whether 3CM based on conceptual content is appropriate with populations from developing countries. 3CM is quite s imilar to cultural domain analysis that has been conducted by anthropologists for decades. In 3CM, however, the knowledge domains are often
127 makes testing the validity in different cultural and education contexts essential, whereas the second trait may make it a ubiquitously effective method for representing individual perspectives. As a tool to explore mental maps in rural areas of developing countries, however, we found 3CM to be ineffective. This should not be interpreted as community members being less knowledgeable about ideal forest management, however. The issues we encountered should rather be seen as problems with performance, not competence (Berry et al. 1997) Without teaching the respondents how to use the method and organize ideas into conceptual themes, participants were uncom fortable and some found the activity impossible to complete. Concept maps that allow respondents to draw simple relationships between ideas (rather than forced categorizing), methods that incorporate sufficient training for how to complete the task, or pr e structured card sorting activities may be more effective at measuring mental models with these audiences. Biggs et al. (2008) for example, found that providing African respondents with pre determined categories and asking w hether each item fit into the category was a relatively simple task for determining consensus. The modifications we employed, though not sufficient for measuring the structure of mental models, were effective for exploring the content of these models in ad dition to being rewarding for both the participants and researchers. The card selection and item ranking tasks gave respondents an opportunity to reflect and organize ideas in ways they selected and organized cards provided rich insight into their reasons for performing the tasks the way they did. Additionally, it can add a sense of power and openness to the
128 interview process. We noticed participants seemed more at ease and honest through this process than semi structured interviews. Thus, 3CM is a good option for responding to international calls for participatory research (e.g., Arnold & Fernandez Gimenez 2008; Chambers 1996; Freire 1970; G uijit 2007) Care should be taken when interpreting that social learning has resulted based on the evidence of shared cognition, however. A convergence into similar thinking does dered and integrated. In many cases it is likely that more powerful participants of the social learning process can (often subconsciously) co opt the learning and result in a convergence toward their ideas. In both Rio and Villa individuals who had part icipated in social learning activities were more likely to recognize the same items as pertaining to community members or extension agents in particular arrived with these exact perspectives, considering that their selections did not match their otherwise similar 3CM is not only a research tool. It may also be a particularly effective mechanism for initiating communication p rior to the onset of an extension project. Stakeholders and managers often speak about forest resources differently (Morford et al. 2003) Gathering perspectives with an active method that allows participants to handle and describe items has the practical benefit of improving communication and, correspondingly, the success of development projects. Prior to presenting the results from this paper to ext ension agents in Bolivia, some had believed community members would select basic needs such as Brazil nuts, timber, and access to resources while
129 extension agents working with Rio believed they would say economics, markets, organizational strength, externa l support, and added value to products. After being presented results that sometimes contrasted with their expectations, extension agents had mixed reactions. Some took it as a message to work on understanding their audience more, while others questioned meaning and thinking. All, however, felt the activity was useful for gathering information about how existing and future beneficiaries think about internal norms and access to resources, as well as to facilitate u nderstanding of how community members perceive the geographical distribution of useful resources. In the end, using 3CM to test for social learning, while not the only measure that should be employed, proved informative. This research did not show that participating community members selected more cards, and thus recognized more items important to the domain (as is hypothesized in the social learning framework), nor were we able to test the structure of mental models by comparing card sorting tasks. We could, however, explore the content and importance of items belonging to mental models. Further tests for the results of social learning should extend beyond the cognitive and measure the implementation of decisions made within the social learning atmosph ere, while continuing to elucidate the procedural components that enable or mute social learning.
130 a. b. Figure 4 1. Images of cognitive maps from this study a) an example of a cognitive map that describes relationships between items in a linear fa shion (one card leads to the next in logic). b) an example of a cognitive map that describes relationships between items with groups of perceived similarities
131 Fig ure 4 2 the two social learning groups non participa ting extension agents and members from each community
132 Fig ure 4 3 Hierarchical cluster analysis of extension agent card sorts
133 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Helping communities create their General Forest Managemen t Plan was more like responsibility. A. Zonta, 2009 The above statement was made by the director of one extension organization as its CFM project was coming to a close. Although soc ial learning did exist to an extent in CFM projects in Pando, and it seemed to result in affective, cognitive, and behavioral support for CFM among participants, there was an overriding sense that the external climate dominated by timber companies, the con flictive political situation between federal and departmental governments, and the unattainable capital necessary for communities to be fully independent timber producers was limiting the overall impact of the effort. As the director stated, the national government decided to get involved in 2009 by generating plans for three regional federal sawmills where communities could pool their resources and prepare their lumber with the support of federal extension agents. Meanwhile, as of 2008, NGO and departme ntal extension projects were terminating for a variety of reasons, including the loss of international funding sources due to inter governmental conflicts, shifts in allocation of departmental funding from the federal level, the inability to find new commu nities interested in formally managing their timber, and extension and funder fears of initiating or extending projects due to instability and the minimal potential perceived from existing projects. The respondent quoted above did not plan to stop working
134 communities altogether, but the project specific to CFM was terminated as their four year funding cycle ended and an extension was not pursued. The director also explained that for their remaining and future projects, the method of working with a group of community leaders, while it was much cheaper than working with the entire community, would be reconsidered. Though the social learning activities were successful at influencing forestry committee members, the fact th at these participants differed from their fellow community members in the amount of trust, knowledge, and participation in collective action w as a detriment to the ideal of CFM. She explained that convincing the entire community to participate, however, w ould require changing perspectives to consider communal activities as potential alternatives to cattle ranching, agricultural production, and independent Brazil nut harvesting. Amidst these cultural and macroinstitutional challenges to externally facilita ted social learning for CFM, however, the present study produced some important reflections on the role social learning has played for CFM in Pando. Synthesis of Results The second chapter presented a framework for analyzing how capacity building projects principal goals. It was hypothesized that based on the thematic focus, geographical distribution, and methodological strategies of capacity building projects, one can determine the pote ntial role these projects play in communal land use behaviors and land cover changes According to this framework, projects could influence the thematic focus of land use in the community where they work. Additionally, projects that incorporate greater p articipation, a critical component of social learning, to either enhance individual technical skills or communal management practices, are more likely
135 to succeed in these intended outcomes. Applying the framework during three years in which projects diver sified and amplified their thematic and distributional extent in Pando provided a baseline from which data was abstracted to analyze potential predictors of land use behaviors in the third chapter. In the future, th ese same data can be used as a component of land cover change models to determine whether and under what conditions extension projects significantly influenced forest cover in Pando. The third chapter investigated the capacity building component of the framework by specifically testing whether s ocial learning strategies that were incorporated into capacity building projects managed by extension NGOs resulted in greater knowledge, trust, collective action for Brazil nut and timber management, and procedural satisfaction among participants in two c ommunities. The social learning strategies in these contexts resulted in greater knowledge, skills, and collective action among social learning participants, but did not necessarily influence existing levels of trust within the community or intentions to engage in land use activities that resulted in deforestation. during the social learning process, a hypothesized predictor for continuing to comply with the decision ma de, were the presence of good information and whether the social learning project built trust. This implies that social learning as implemented in the two research communities played an important role in affecting collective action for CFM. Finally, t he fourth chapter continued the inquiry into the influences of social learning by testing whether participation in an extension project that incorporated aspects of social learning correlated to perspective taking based on a modified cognitive mapping meth od. C ommunity members and extension agents who worked together in
136 knowledge was shared and i At the same time, however, applying the 3CM tool exactly as designed was not an effective mechanism for eliciting mental models about this conceptual topic among Pando campesinos. While future research i s necessary to specifically test this method in Pando and other contexts, it was initially found that many campesino respondents were uncomfortable sorting concept cards into broader categories representing more abstract ideas. This does not confirm that respondents are not capable of abstraction, however. It simply suggest s that 3CM may not be the best mechanism for enabling them to do so. Broader Significance of Findings In addition to evaluating whether social learning strategies that were incorporat ed into NGO projects influenced shared perspectives, knowledge, and collective action in two Pando communities, the results of this study contribute to our broader understanding of the fields of social learning and CFM. While inferences cannot be made fro m the results presented in chapters three and four to other social learning projects in Pando, Bolivia, or another community, the lessons learned can be applied to improve the fields of social learning and CFM. In regards to social learning, the methods fo r measuring and analyzing hypothesized outcomes of social learning (affect, cognition, and collective action) are a new addition to the field, as are the statistical predictions of the mechanism resulting in these outcomes. The intentional hypothesis test ing between participation in a social learning project and affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes add an important
137 component to the largely qualitative inductive analyses for social learning in natural resource management. The use of cognitive mapp ing to test social learning outcomes is also new, particularly with the use of consensus analysis to demonstrate in group agreement, and is an exciting tool to add to our social learning research methods. The specific type of cognitive mapping, however, m ust be appropriate to the audience. Finally, this study shows that it is possible to generate a multivariate model to explain the factors most able to predict social learning outcomes. Such findings can be used by facilitators and project managers lookin g to implement social learning and improve its outcomes. Social learning characteristics that are predictors of desired outcomes in a specific context could become the focus of extension project design, potentially reducing the amount of time, effort, fru stration, and money that can come with facilitating social learning through trial and error or through attempting to implement all the universally prescribed social learning characteristics. An additional benefit to the field of social learning for natu ral resource management is the recognition that effective social learning does not necessarily incorporate all features prescribed in the literature. This study elucidates that extension activities fulfilling the entire prescription of social learning cha racteristics were nonexistent in Pando. At the same time, implementing even a few best practices such as long term engagement, experiential training, and openness to sharing diverse perspectives resulted in many desired outcomes, while several factors suc h as historic lack of trust among community members, unequal power distribution between communities and timber companies, and external regulations that limited the expanse to which new management ideas could form hindered the potential social learning
138 outc omes. Some of these findings are likely true in other contexts and begs the exploration of how feasible it is to incorporate all prescribed social learning characteristics, whether it is possible to standardize the required components of social learning, and what characteristics of social learning are essential to overcome specific external barriers to the desired collective action. To the CFM literature, this study contributes a framework for evaluating how capacity building projects may influence colle ctive action and forest conservation. It also provides a description of CFM capacity building projects and the characteristics of CFM in a region that was recently beginning this strategy for conservation and development, and where little research had bee n conducted in this topic. It initiates an exploration into the role extension projects can have on the outcomes considered essential for collective action, including, particularly, trust and an open sharing environment. Menzies (2007) Pagdee et. al (2006) and Benneker (2008) briefly mention the presence of external support as a factor contributing to CFM success in the few cases in which it was studied This study deepens the discussion about the characteristics of support that may be most important for generating fa vorable opinions, knowledge, and collective action in CFM. Note s on Validity, Reliability, and Objectivity While the internal validity of data was strong due to the triangulation of data sources including semi structured interviews with extension agents and randomly selected community members, participant observation, and feedback received upon the return of analyzed data, the communities within which the data were collected were not randomly selected and did not represent the gamut of CFM experiences in Pando. As such, the statistical results relating characteristics to outcomes in these two
139 communities do not have external validity and should not be considered representative of experiences in any other Pando community, or any community outside Pando. A t least five other communities were receiving similar support while a couple of others were working relatively harmoniously with timber companies without support. Our ability to infer about the role of extension programs in CFM in all of Pando would requi re looking into these experiences to determine departmental wide lessons. The reliability of the data was demonstrated by the consistency of responses in both communities among similar types of people, though the responses would not likely be identical a t another point in time due to the influence of external political contexts, shifts in Brazil nut and timber markets, and changing relationships within communities. CFM is a process with characteristics and perceptions that shift over time. This study is only a snapshot of that process in two communities as they initiate their formal timber management plans with the help of two extension organizations. The objectivity of data recording was improved by communication between me and my Bolivian field assis tant as we reviewed data sheets and the objectivity of data interpretation was confirmed when results were returned and opinions solicited from participating extension agents and residents of both communities. Extension agents from the organizations worki ng with Rio and Villa reflected that the 3CM methods of using cards to explore and rank important ideas was a particularly effective tool and found that the results generally corresponded to their experience. One researcher at an extension organization fe lt that campesinos likely valued the social components of ideal forest management, but the concept cards may not have been appropriate for them to select those items. Many extension agents, however, agreed that the perspectives
140 elicited were largely repre sentative of them and what they knew of communities. They also conferred the importance of a framework for understanding how the distribution of extension projects could influence CFM success. Community members from both communities similarly validated t he results in communal meetings by reiterating their future land use intentions, restating their opinions of the extension project and its limitations, and describing their perceived barriers to long term timber management. Future Research This study sets the stage for ample future research. It would be fascinating to develop a Pando land cover change model ten, fifteen, and twenty years down the road with participation in a technology transfer, social learning, or no capacity building process as one of the predictor variables to explore whether this external intervention has a long term role in forest cover. On a more immediate timeline, future research could explore why social learning methodologies are so difficult to implement. How much is attri buted to the professional development of extension agents and how much depends on project timelines and restrictions? Further research should also attempt to improve the external validity of the initial findings in this study. To continue a deeper explo ration of the specific characteristics of social learning, more statistical analyses incorporating a larger sample of diverse experiences throughout the globe could explore whether specific characteristics of social learning are universal predict ors of sat isfaction in the learning process and commitment to future collective action. Testing causality between the social learning process and the outcomes, by conducting these analyses before and after extension interventions, would also be an invaluable compon ent to this research.
141 Finally, future research in cognitive mapping should continu e testing methods most appropriate for eliciting perspectives about multi faceted concepts from rural community residents. Ventures into cross cultural psychology and cul tural dimensions may provide interesting insight into why certain methods are inappropriate for eliciting mental models. Empirical research would be necessary to corroborate these hypotheses. Summary As we continue to learn how CFM can contribute to con servation and development goals, it is important to recognize the role of learning and psychology. We know that communal histories and internal relationships are critical for collective action, and that government policy and relationships with external ma rkets are the context within which CFM must function. Relying on policy, community characteristics, and power structures within forestry markets to define the potential for CFM success will leave us at the will of these institutions, however. Social lear ning has the potential to influence some of these variables, and may be applied through well designed extension projects. This study has focused on a critical analysis of social learning in extension projects for CFM in Pando, Bolivia, where communities have ownership of their land, clear boundaries of their resource and community membership, and clear laws for forest management. The facilitation of a type of social learning that focused on experiential learning and joint decision making among representa tives of communities, but did not place emphasis on modifying internal community relationships, was able to influence collective action among those representatives yet not beyond those representatives when the community was heterogeneous in wealth, educati on, and external connections. Future research will corroborate and modify these findings to better
142 understand if and how social learning as part of extension projects can improve the ability of CFM to meet conservation and development goals.
Guia de Entrevistas en casa 143 APPENDIX A HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW GUIDE INFORMACION BASICA de la Persona: Comunidad__________________ # de Casa (o nomb re) ___________ # de visita _________ Nombre del entrevistador_________________ Fecha __________ Hora ________________ Edad del Entrevistado __ _____ Genero (H/M) _______ Nivel educativo (grado llegado) ________ # de a os de estudio_________ Lugar de origen (pueblo, municipalidad y departamento)______________________________ Procedencia _______________________ Aos en la comunidad ____ ________________ Est en carpeta como miembro de la comunidad? S ___ No____ Cundo llego a la comunidad, lleg con bienes y ahorros o con paisajes no ms? sin capital ( ) un poco de capital (suficiente por uno o dos meses) ( ) mucho capit al (suficiente por un ao) ( ) Cmo es su capital ahora (los bienes y ahorros)? Peor que antes ( ) igual que antes ( ) mejor que antes ( ) INFORMAC I ON BASICA de su familia (casa): Vive con otra familia? S ( ) No ( ) # de personas en la casa ______ _________ Cuantas ______________ ___________________ ____________________ Edades ____________________ _____________________ ______________________ *frente los jefes Niveles educativos ____________ __________________ ______________ ________ A que se dedican?___________________ _____________________ ________________
Guia de Entrevistas en casa 144 Alguien de la casa est empleado con la empresa o con la institucin que les facilit el plan de manejo? Cargo? Otras experiencias profesionales que ha te nido al guien de la casa? (ej. Curso, taller capacitaciones, etc.) 1. El Mapa Cognitivo Sobre el Manejo Forestal Ideal Algn tarjeta agregada? (s /no)_____________ (cuales) ____________________________ F OTO del Mapa Orden de importancia __________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ _______________ ___________ __________________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Conocimiento sobre el Uso Ideal del Territorio Forestal 2. Cules son los usos de tierra en esta comunidad ? (bosque para castaa, madera; pasto para ganado; chaco; ?) 3. Qu conoces de los que se hacen otras comunidades ? Se compara con lo que hacen ustedes?
Guia de Entrevistas en casa 145 4. Cules son las leyes relacionadas al manejo de sus recursos forestales maderables y no maderables ? Qu dicen estas? 5. Qu es el manejo forestal comunal? Qu actividades incluye? 6. Qu es el manejo forestal sostenible? Qu actividades incluye? Opiniones sobre la Comunidad 7. Me puede describir com o es que la gente de la comunidad se relaciona en las reuniones y otros eventos ? 8. Si tuviera un problema comunal (como del agua o luz), que hara la comunidad para resolverlo? Buscar apoyo de afuera ( ) escuchar a 1 o 2 lderes ( ) trabaja r juntos ( ) OTRO: 9. Si una persona tuviera un problema de salud, que hara la comunidad para resolverlo? Busc ar apoyo de afuera ( ) escuchar a 1 o 2 lderes ( ) trabajar juntos ( ) OTRO: 10. Que tal la confianza entr e la gente en la comun idad? No hay ( ) un poco ( ) completamente ( ) 11. Quines son los lderes de la comunidad? Cuales son sus intereses principales en el manejo de la tierra forestal? 12. Cuales son los intereses de los dems de la comunidad en cuanto al mane jo de la tierra forestal ?
Guia de Entrevistas en casa 146 13. Hasta que punto varan las opiniones entre los comunarios de la comunidad? No varan ( ) un poco ( ) mucho ( ) 14. Hasta que punto valora la comunidad tus ideas sobre el manejo de recursos forestales ? nadie ( ) un poco ( ) completamente ( ) 15. Hasta que punto crees que la comunidad entiende tus ideas sobre el manejo de los recursos forestales ? nadie ( ) un poco ( ) completamente ( ) 16. Hasta que punto crees que entiendes las opiniones de otros mi embros de la comunidad sobre el manejo forestal ? nadie ( ) un poco ( ) completamente ( ) 17. Cual es tu opinin sobre la forma comunal de manejar el bosque actualmente? no estoy de acuerdo ( ) tiene algunos problemas no mas ( ) estoy satisfecha ( ) Caractersticas de la Intervencin 18. Has participado en eventos/talleres/charlas con las siguientes organizaciones que promueven los usos de la tierra comunal? Cuantas veces y cuando? OCMA_____________________________________________________ __________________ Herencia_____________________________________________________________________ PROMAB____________________________________________________________________ FJMP_______________________________________________________________________ IPHAE __ _____________________________________________________________________ Prefecto_____________________________________________________________________ Municipalidad_________________________________________________________________ Empresa_______________________ ______________________________________________ COINACAPA/CAIC_____________________________________________________________ CIPCA_______________________________________________________________________ CIPA____________________________________________________ ____________________ Otros ________________________________________________________________________ 19. Cul de todas mas ha influido su uso actual de la tierra? 20. Qu es objetivo principal de esta organizacin en cuanto al uso de la tierra? 21 Con quienes de esta organizacin ha trabajado? 22. Como ha sido el proceso de trabajar con ellos?
Guia de Entrevistas en casa 147 23. Qu esperabas de la actividad/el proceso? Del facilitador/extensionista/ tcnico ? 24 Qu aprendiste por haber participado con el proyecto/proceso? 25. Cul ha sido el resultado mas importante del proyecto/proceso/actividad hasta la fecha? Cmo son? 27. Qu grado de c onfianza ten as/tiene en el(los) facilitadores/tcnicos? ningn ( ) un poco ( ) muy confiable ( ) 28. Qu grado de confianza ten as/tiene en la informacin que los facilitadores/tcnicos compartan? ningn ( ) un p oco ( ) muy confiable ( ) 29. Que hicieron para que pudieras confiar en ellos y su informacin? _________________________________________________ 30. Cmo participaste en las actividades de la organizacin? Fui a las reuniones no mas ( ) C ompart mis ideas un poco ( ) Compart mis ideas mucho ( ) No particip ( ) 31. Cuanto has participado comparado a los dems de la comunidad? menos ( ) igual ( ) ms ( ) 32. Qu tan interesados estaban los f acilitadores a tu participacin en el proceso? No estaban ( ) un poco ( ) muy interesados ( ) 33. Hasta que punto crees que la gente en las reuniones realmente tom en cuenta tu opinin? nunca ( ) algunas veces ( ) casi si empre ( )
Guia de Entrevistas en casa 148 34. Qu tal la comunicacin entre los facilitadotes/tcnicos y la gente en la comunidad? nada ( ) poca ( ) comunicacin muy continua ( ) 35. Hasta que punto compartieron los objetivos de todas las reuniones? nunca ( ) alguna s veces ( ) casi siempre ( ) 36. Hasta que punto estaban todos de la comunidad de acuerdo con los objetivos de las capacitaciones/las actividades? nunca ( ) algunas veces ( ) casi siempre ( ) 37. Cuando vienen los de la institucin (o em presa), prefieres que venga: Porque: Una persona ( ) Un par ( ) Un equipo de personas ( ) 38 Preguntas espec ficas sobre el proceso : 1=No estoy de acuerdo, 2=m s o menos de acuerdo, 3=estoy muy de acuerdo Todos los que queran particip ar tenan la oportunidad de ha cerlo 1 2 3 Hubo un manejo de conflictos 1 2 3 El proceso mejor la confianza entre los comunarios 1 2 3 Las preocupaciones de todos fueron respectadas 1 2 3 Hubo buena informacin para que tomen bue nas decisiones 1 2 3 El grupo que particip en las actividades consider varias ideas antes de tomar una decisin 1 2 3 Los participantes reflejaron los intereses de todos de la comunidad 1 2 3 Hubo participacin equitativa en el proces o 1 2 3 El tiempo y el dinero que se gast para realizar el proceso fue una buena inversin. 1 2 3 Las decisiones que tomaron en el proceso satisfacen mis intereses 1 2 3 Actividades de uso del suelo y el bosque 39. Qu actividades haces ahora en cuanto al uso de la tierra y del bosque? Cuntos hectreas, metros cbicos, o cabezas ? Cul de todos es el ms importante para su manejo forestal ? Por qu? (econmico, ecolgico, social, etc. ) (Importancia: enumerar ACTIVIDAD CUANTO (Ha) el ms importante Por qu? hasta el menos) Agricultura/Chaco ________________ __________ _______ __________ Castaa ________________ _______ ____ _____________ ____ Cuartoneo ________________ ___________ ____ _______ __ ____ Madera con plan (POA o PGM) ________________ ___________ _________________ Ganadera ________________ ___ ________ _________________
Guia de Entrevistas en casa 149 40. Qu actividades esperas hacer en el futuro? Qu grado de compromiso se siente a hacerlas? 1. Ninguno ( ) un poco( ) completamente ( ) 2. Ninguno ( ) un poco( ) completamente ( ) 3. Ninguno ( ) un poco( ) completamente ( ) 41 Qu barreras existen para que no se puede realizar estas actividades? Actividad Barreras 1. 2. 3. 42 Que tanto te integras a los siguientes aspectos del manejo forestal comunal? Proceso de Negociaci n nunca ( ) 1 vez ( ) 2 3 veces ( ) siempre ( ) Monitoreo nunca ( ) 1 vez ( ) 2 3 veces ( ) siempre ( ) Planes de Manejo (censo) nunca ( ) 1 vez ( ) 2 3 veces ( ) siempre ( ) 43. Cual es tu grado de inters al integrarse a estas actividades? Proceso de Negociacin no tengo ( ) un poco ( ) mucho ( ) Monitoreo no ten go ( ) un poco ( ) mucho ( ) Planes de Manejo (censo) no tengo ( ) un poco ( ) mucho ( ) 44. Si es que no lo haces y lo quiere hacer, que necesitas para poder integrarse? Proceso de Negociacin ________________________________ __________________ Monitoreo __________________________________________________ Planes de Manejo (censo) ________________________________________________ Opiniones sobre el manejo /la venta de recursos forestales en grupo o asociacin 45 Colabor s c on otros para el manejo o venta de recursos forestales? Si ( ) No ( ) 46 Con quien? (adentro o fuera de la comunidad?)__ _______________________________ 47. Cmo lo hacen?
150 48 Qu opinas de tu capacidad personal actual de realiza r e l manejo y comercializacin colectiva ? bsico ( ) intermedio ( ) experto ( ) 49 Qu tan riesgoso es e l manejo y comercializacin colectiva para ti ? Porque? No es ( ) un poco ( ) mucho ( ) 50 Qu tan beneficio so es para ti ? Porque? No es ( ) un poco ( ) mucho ( ) 51 Quien, al final, controla de que el manejo y comercializacin colectiva t enga xito o no? _____________________________________ ______________ 52 Qu tan probable es qu e realizars el manejo y comercializacin colectiva ? No es ( ) un poco ( ) mu cho ( ) 53. Qu tanto comentas con otras personas (dentro de la comunidad o fuera) sobre e l manejo y comercializacin colectiva? Nunca ( ) una vez al mes ( ) cada se mana ( ) cada da ( ) 54. Coordenadas de las Actividades que resultan en no bosque [NOTA: 1. Use el centro del lugar 2. Use proyeccin UTM, datum WGS84] Casa: Precisin Zona UTM numero: Este (X) Norte (Y) ______ Chaco: Precisin Zona UTM numero: Este (X) Norte (Y) _____
151 APPENDIX B EXTENSION AGENT INTE RVIEW GUIDE INFORMAC I ON BASICA de la Persona: Institucin__________________________ Posicin en la institucin ___________________ #del grupo de tra bajo ___________________ Numero del entrevistado _________________ Nombre del entrevistador________________ Fecha ________________ Hora ____________ Edad del Entrevistado _______ Genero (H/M)_______ Grado Escolar (t tulo y especializacin) ______ ________________________________ Aos con la organizacin ________________ Aos en este campo de trabajo ____________ Lugar de origen (pueblo, municipalidad y departamento)______________ ________________ Procedencia_______________________________ E n cuales comunidades ha trabajado _____________________________________ El Mapa Cognitivo Sobre el Manejo Forestal Algn tarjeta agregada? (si/no)_____________ (cuales) __________________________ Numero de grupos _______________________________ F OTO del Mapa Explicacin y enumeracin de los grupos: 1) ______________________________________________________________________ 2)______________________________________________________________________ 3) _________________________________________ _____________________________ 4)_________________________________________________________________________ 5) ________________________________________________________________________ 6) _________________________________________________________________ _______ 7) ________________________________________________________________________
152 INFORMAC I ON BASICA 1. Me puedes describir tu trabajo? 2. Por cunto tiempo lo has hecho? 3. Cmo te sientes sobre tu trabajo? 4. Por qu lo ha ces? Qu te motiva? 5. Cul es el objetivo de tu trabajo? 6. Cul es tu forma de trabajar con la gente? Qu haces para que se sienten bien con tu participacin? 7. Cmo crees que facilit a s el aprendizaje y el uso sostenible d e la informacin aprendida como parte de tus actividades?
153 8. Qu tipo de entrenamiento/experiencia te ha preparado para este trabajo? 9. Cmo te influye tu jefe a tu forma de trabajar? ( Ej. Los objetivos del jefe, la forma de fiscalizar su trabajo) 10. Cmo te influye el proyecto? 11. Que tipo de resultados te gustara ver al final de tu trabajo? 12. Qu factores de la comunidad facilitan el trabajo con ello? Qu factores te complica el trabajo?
154 LIST OF REFERENCE S Agrawal, A. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27 :629 649. Agresti, A. 1996. An introduction to categorical data an alysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Andersson, K., and F. van Laerhoven. 2007. From local strongman to facilitator: Institutional incentives for participatory municipal governance in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 40 :1085 1111. Anderss on, K. P., C. C. Gibson, and F. Lehoucq. 2006. Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Development 34 :576 595. Antinori, C. 2005. Vertical integration in the community forestry ente rprises of Oaxaca. Pages 241 272 in D. Bray, L. Merino Perez, and D. Barry, editors. The community forests of Mexico: Managing for sustainable landscapes. University of Texas Press, Austin. Arellano Lopez, S., and J. F. Petras. 1994. Nongovernmental Organi zations and Poverty Alleviation in Bolivia. Development and Change 25 :555 568. Arnold, J. S., and E. Fernandez Gimenez. 2008. Engaging communities through participatory research. Pages 66 87 in E. Donoghue, and V. Sturtevant, editors. Forest community conn ections: Implications for research, management and governance. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Assies, W. 1997. The extraction of non timber forest products as a conservation strategy in Amazonia. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 62 :33 53. Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. General Learning Press, New York. Bebbington, A. 2004. NGOs and uneven development: Geographies of development intervention. Progress in Human Geography 28 :725 745. Bebbington, A. 2005. Donor NGO relations and representations of livelihood in nongovernmental aid chains. World Development 33 :937 950. Beekma, J., A. Zonta, and B. Keijzer 1996. Base ambiental para el desarrollo: Departamento de Pando y la Provincia Vaca Diez, Riberalta, Bolivia. Belsk y, J. 2008. Creating community forests. Pages 219 242 in E. Donoghue, and V. Sturtevant, editors. Forest community connections: Implications for research, management and governance. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
155 Benneker, C. 2008. Dealing with the state, the market and NGOs: The impact of institutions on the constitution and performance of community forest enterprises in the lowlands of Bolivia. Ponson and Looijen b.v., Wageningen, The Netherlands. Benneker, C., J. Bejarano, and M. A. Coca Villa rroel 2005. Experiencias de manejo forestal comunitario en Bolivia, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Berg, E. 1993. Rethinking technical cooperation: Reforms for capacity building in Africa. UNDP, New York. Bernard, H. R. 2006. Research methods in anthropology: Qualit ative and quantitative approaches. Altamira, Lanham, MD. Berry, J. W., Y. H. Poortinga, and J. Pandey 1997. Handbook of cross cultural psychology: Theory and method. Allyn and Bacon, Neeham Heights, MA. Biedenweg, K. in prep. Capacity building projects for community forestry in the Bolivian Amazon: A framework for analyzing their conservation implications. for Conservation and Society. Biggs, H., D. du Toit, M. Etienne, N. Jones, A. Leitch, T. Lynam, S. Pollard, and S. Stone Jovicich. 2008. A preliminary ex ploration of two approaches for documenting 'mental models' held by stakeholders in the Crocodile Catchment, South Africa. Water Research Commission, South Africa. BOLFOR. 1996. Ley 1700, La Paz, Bolivia. Booth, D. B., J. R. Karr, S. Schuauman, C. P. Konra d, S. A. Morley, M. G. Larson, P. C. Henshaw, E. J. Nelson, and S. J. Burges. 2001. Urban stream rehabilitation in the Pacific Northwest in U. EPA, editor. Final report of EPA Grant Number R82 5284 010. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Borgatti, S. 1 996. Anthropac 4.0. Methods Guide. Analytic Technologies, Natick, MA. Boster, J., and J. Johnson. 1989. Form or function: A comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologist 91 :866 889. Bray, D. 2005. Community fo restry in Mexico: Twenty lessons learned and four future pathways. Pages 335 349 in D. Bray, L. Merino Perez, and D. Barry, editors. The community forests of Mexico: Managing for sustainable landscapes. University of Texas Press, Austin. Brechin, S. R. 199 7. Planting trees in the developing world: A sociology of international organizations. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Buck, L. E., E. Wollenberg, and D. Edmunds. 2001. Social learning in the collaborative management of community forests : Lessons from the field. Pages 1 20 in E.
156 Wollenberg, D. Edmunds, L. Buck, and S. Brodt, editors. Social learning in community forests. CIFOR, Bogor Barat, Indonesia. Chambers, R. 1986. Agriculture and rural problems: Normal professionalism, new paradigms and development. IDS Discussion Paper No. 227. Chambers, R. 1996. The primacy of the personal. Pages 241 253 in M. Edwards, and D. Hulme, editors. Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post Cold War world. Kumarian, Hartford, CT. Chavez, A. R., C. J. Aguilar, and P. Trina 2005. Pensando en la Amazonia desde Pando: El MAP, una iniciativa trinacional de desarrollo. Fundacin PIEB, La Paz. Chen, C. K., and J. J. Hughes. 2004. Using ordinal regression model to analyze student satis faction questionnaires. IR Applications 1 :1 13. Colfer, C. J. P. 2005. The complex forest: Communities, uncertainty and adaptive collaborative management. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Cronkleton, P., P. L. Taylor, M. Schmink, S. Stone Jovicic h, and D. Barry. 2006. Rural social movements and forest governments: Assistance to grassroots organizations to promote conservation and development in Latin America. 11th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Propert y, Bali, Indonesia. Cuello, C., K. Brandon, and R. Margoluis. 1998. Costa Rica: Corcovado National Park. Pages 143 191 in K. Brandon, K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sanderson, editors. Parks in peril: People, politics and protected areas. Island Press, Washingto n, D.C. D' Andrade, R. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. de Jong, W., S. Ruiz, and M. Becker. 2006. Conflicts and communal forest management in Northern Bolivia. Forest Policy and Economics 8 :447 457. D onoghue, E., and V. Sturtevant, editors. 2008. Forest community connections: Implications for research, management and governance. RFF, Washington, DC. Eade, D. 1997. Capacity building: An approach to people centred development. Oxfam, Oxford. Eade, D. 200 7. Capacity building: Who builds whose capacity? Development in Practice 17 :630 639. Edwards, M., D. Hulme, and T. Wallace. 1999. NGOs in a global future: Marrying local delivery to worldwide leverage. Public Administration and Development 19 :117 136.
157 Embe r, C. R. 1977. Cross Cultural cognitive studies. Annual Review of Anthropology 6 :33 56. FAO. 1997. Pluralism and sustainable forestry and rural development. International working group on pluralism and sustainable forestry and rural development, Rome, Ital y. FAO. 2003. State of the world's forests. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy. Fifer, J. V. 1970. The empire builders: A history of the Bolivian rubber boom and the rise of the house of Suarez. Journal of Latin American Studies 2 :113 146. Fisc her, A. P., and J. C. Bliss. 2006. Mental and biophysical terrains of biodiversity: conserving oak on family forests. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 19 :625 643. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Continuum Internationa l Publishing, London. Gerez Fernandez, P., and E. Alatoree Guzman. 2005. Challenges for forest certification and community forestry in Mexico. Pages 72 87 in D. Bray, L. Merino Perez, and D. Barry, editors. The community forests of Mexico: Managing for sus tainable landscapes. University of Texas Press, Austin. Godoy, R. A., and K. Kirby. 2001. Tenure security, private time preference, and use of natural resources among lowland Bolivian Amerindians. Ecological Economics 38 :105 118. Gordon, J. E. 2006. The ro le of science in NGO mediated conservation: Insights from a biodiversity hotspot in Mexico. Environmental Science and Policy 9 :547 554. Guijit, I., editor. 2007. Negotiated learning: Collaborative monitoring in forest resource management. RFF Press, Washin gton, D.C. INRA. 1996. Ley 1715, La Paz, Bolivia. INRA. 2008. Pando, primer departamento declarado tierra saneado Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria, Cobija, Bolivia. Kainer, K. A., M. Schmink, A. C. P. Leite, and M. J. D. Fadell. 2003. Experiments in f orest based development in Western Amazonia. Society & Natural Resources 16 :869 886. Kant, S., and D. Brubacher. 2008. Aboriginal expectations and perceived effectiveness of forest management practices and forest certification in Ontario. Forestry Chronicl e 84 :378 391.
158 Kant, S., and S. Lee. 2004. A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: An analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy and Economics 6 :215 227. Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan 1982. Cognition and environ ment: Functioning in an uncertain world. Praeger, New York. Kearney, A. R., and S. Kaplan. 1997. Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: The conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environment and Behavior 29 :57 9 671. Keen, M., V. A. Brown, and R. Dyball. 2005. Social learning: A new approach to environmental management. Pages 3 21 in M. Keene, V. Brown, and R. Dyball, editors. Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future. Earthscan, London. Keese, J. R. 1998. International NGOs and land use change in a southern highland region of Ecuador. Human Ecology 26 :451 468. Khodyakov, D. 2007. Trust as a process: A three dimensional approach. Sociology 41 :115 132. Klein, H. S. 2003. A concise h istory of Bolivia. Cambridge University Press, New York. Klooster, D. J., and S. Ambinakudige. 2005. The global significance of Mexican Community forestry. Pages 305 334 in D. Bray, L. Merino Perez, and D. Barry, editors. The community forests of Mexico: M anaging for sustainable landscapes. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Korten, D. C. 1980. Community organization and rural development: A learning process approach. Public Administration Review 40 :480 511. Kumar, S., and S. Kant. 2007. Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values. Forest Policy and Economics 9 :516 526. Leewis, C., and R. Pyburn, editors. 2002. Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management. Royal Van Gorcum, Assen, The Nether lands. Leonard, D. K. 1977. Reaching the peasant farmer. University of Chicago Press, London. Levine, A. 2002. Convergence or convenience? International conservation NGOs and development assistance in Tanzania. World Development 30 :1043 1055. Llanque, A. 2008. Disposicin a cambiar y conflictos sociales. Universidad Catlica Boliviana, La Paz, Bolivia.
159 Manly, B. F. J. 2004. Multivariate statistical methods: A primer. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fl. Marsik, M., F. Stevens, and J. Southworth. in revisi on. Patterns and rates of deforestation in Pando, Bolivia from 1986 2005. Progress in Physical Geography. McKenzie Mohr, D. 2000. Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues 56 :543 554. Melk ote, S. 2006. Communication and social change in developing countries. Pages 145 171 in A. Singhal, and J. W. Dearing, editors. Communication of innovations: A journey with Ev Rogers. Sage, New Delhi. Melkote, S., and H. L. Steeves 2001. Communication for development in the third world: Theory and practice for empowerment. Sage, New Delhi. Menzies, N. K. 2007. Our forest, your ecosystem, their timber: Communities, conservation, and the state in community based forest management. Columbia University Press, N ew York. Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente, R. d. B. 1997. Zonificacin agroecolgica y socioeconmica y perfl ambiental del departamento de Pando. Sierpe Publicaciones, La Paz. Molnar, A., M. Liddle, C. Bracer, A. Khare, A. White, and J. Bull. 2007. Community based forest enterprises in tropical forest countries: status and potential. ITTO, RRI, and Forest Trends, Washington, D.C. Monroe, M. C., E. Andrews, and K. Biedenweg. 2007. A framework for environmental education strategies. Appl ied Environmental Education and Communication 6 :205 216. Moran, E. 2006. People and nature: An introduction to human ecological relations. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. Morford, S., D. Parker, H. Rogers, C. Salituro, and T. Waldichuk. 2003. Culture, wo rldviews, communication styles, and conflict in forest management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 3 :1 7. Mostert, E., C. Pahl Wostl, Y. Rees, B. Searle, D. Tabara, and J. Tippet. 2007. Social learning in European river basin management: Barriers a nd fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society 12 :19. Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Pla nning and Management 51 :325 344.
160 Novak, J., and A. J. Canas. 2006. The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC), Pensacola, Fl. Nygren, A. 2004. Community based forest management wit hin the context of institutional decentralization in Honduras. World Development 33 :639 655. Ormrod, J. E. 2003. Human learning. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Pages 2 9 57. Cambridge. Ostrom, E. 1999. Self governance and forest resources. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Ostrom, E. 2009. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Nobel Prize Lecture, Stockholm, Sweden. Ozdogru, A. 2002. Analy sis of the concept of cognitive mapping from a historical perspective. Pacheco, P. 1998. Estilos de desarrollo, deforestacin y degradacin de los bosques en las tierras bajas de Bolivia. CIFOR, CEDLA, TIERRA, La Paz, Bolivia. Pacheco, P. 2003. Municipalidades y participacin local en la gestin forestal en Bolivia in L. Ferroukhi, editor. La gestin forestal municipal en Amrica Latina. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Pacheco, P. 2006. Descentralizacin forestal en Bolivia: Implicaciones en el gobierno de los recursos forestales y el bienestar de los grupos marginados. CIFOR, La Paz, Bolivia. Pacheco, P., and P. Cronkleton 2005. El futuro del manejo forestal comunitario en el norte amazonico Boliviano. CIFOR and SNV, Santa Cr uz de la Sierra. Pagdee, A., Y. S. Kim, and P. J. Daugherty. 2006. What makes community forest management successful: A meta study from community forests throughout the world. Society & Natural Resources 19 :33 52. Pahl Wostl. 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11 :10. Pahl Wostl, C., and M. Hare. 2004. Processes of social learning in integrated resource management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14 :193 2006. Pokorny, B., G. Cayres, and W. Nunes. 2007. Testing the limits of criteria and indicators in the Brazilian Amazon. Pages 25 34 in I. Guijit, editor. Negotiated learning: Collaborative monitoring in forest resource management. RFF, Washington, D.C.
161 P oteete, A. R., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom 2010. Working together: Collective action, the commons and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Pretty, J. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. Wor ld Development 23 :1247 1263. Raberg, L. M., and T. K. Rudel. 2007. Where are the sustainable forestry projects?: A geography of NGO interventions in Ecuador. Applied Geography 27 :131 149. Richards, M. 1997. Common property resource institutions and forest management in Latin America. Development and Change 28 :95 117. Rist, S., F. D. Burgoa, and U. Wiesmann. 2003. The role of social learning processes in the emergence and development of Aymara land use systems. Mountain Research and Development 23 :263 270. R ist, S., M. Chiddambaranathan, C. Escobar, and U. Wiesmann. 2006. "It was hard to come to mutual understanding ..." The multidimensionality of social learning processes concerned with sustainable natural resource use in India, Africa and Latin America. S ystemic Practice and Action Research 19 :219 237. Rogers, E. 1995. The diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York. Rojas, J. C., H. Zampieri, and G. J. Aguilar 2005. Migraciones a Pando y su contribucin al desarrollo regional. PIEB, La Paz, Bolivia. Ro mney, K. A., W. H. Batchelder, and S. C. Weller. 1987. Recent applications of cultural consensus theory. The American Behavioral Scientist 31 :163 177. Romney, K. A., S. C. Weller, and W. H. Batchelder. 1986. Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and in formant accuracy. American Anthropologist 88 :313 338. Rudel, T. K., D. Bates, and R. Machinguiashi. 2002. A tropical forest transition? Agricultural change, out migration, and secondary forests in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Annals of the Association of Americ an Geographers 92 :87 102. Santos, M. C. D., S. Stone, and M. Schmink. 2007. Creating monitoring with rubber tappers in Acre, Brazil. Pages 35 46 in I. Guijit, editor. Negotiated learning: Collaborative monitoring in forest resource management. RFF, Washing ton, D.C. Schmink, M. 2004. Communities, forests, markets, and conservation. Pages 119 129 in D. Zarin, F. E. Putz, M. Schmink, and J. Alavalapati, editors. Working forests in the tropics: Conservation through sustainable management? Columbia University Pr ess, NY. Schusler, T., D. Decker, and M. J. Pfeffer. 2003. Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 15 :309 326.
162 Siar, S. 2003. Knowledge, gender, and resources in small scale fishing: The case of Honda Bay, Palawan, Philippines. Environmental Management 31 :569 580. Sikor, T. 2006. Analyzing community based forestry: Local, political and agrarian perspectives. Forest Policy and Economics 8 :339 349. Soini, K. 2001. Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map making. Landscape and Urban Planning 57 :225 239. SPSS. 2008. SPSS Statistics 17.0 help modules, Chicago, Illinois. Stearman, A. M. 2006. One step forward, two steps back: The Siriono and Yuqui community forestry programs Human Organization 65 :156 166. Stevenson, E. 2003. Command presence: Australian military officers' mental model of effective leaders. Page 32. School of Business, University College. Australian Defense Force Academy. Steyaert, P., and J. Jiggins. 2007. G overnance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM's lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 10 :575 586. Stoian, D. 2000. Shifts in forest production extraction: The post rubber era in the Bolivian Amazon. International Tree Crops Journal 10 :227 297. Stoian, D., and A. B. Henkemans. 2000. Between extractivism and peasant agriculture: Differentiation of rural settlements in the Bolivian Amazon. International Tree Crops Journal 10 :299 3 19. Sundberg, J. R. 1998. NGO landscapes in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Geographical Review 88 :388 412. Superintendencia Forestal, C. 2007. POAF de comunidades, gestion 2006 y 2007, Cobija, Bolivia. Swaak, N. D. 2008. Forest tenures and their im plications for exercising aboriginal and treaty rights on the Kaska Traditional Territory. Page 158. Forestry. University of Toronto. Tendler, J. 1997. Good government in the tropics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Tikkanen, J., T. Isokaant a, J. Pykalainen, and P. Leskinen. 2006. Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective structure of forest owners in a Northern Finnish case area. Forest Policy and Economics 9 :139 152. Tilt, J. H., A. R. Kearney, and G. Bradley. 2007. Under standing rural character: Cognitive and visual perceptions. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 :14 26.
163 Tippet, J., B. Searle, C. Paul Wostl, and Y. Rees. 2005. Social learning in public participation in river basin management early findings from HarmoniCOP E uropean case studies. Environmental Science & Policy 8 :287 299. Vakil, A. C. 1997. Confronting the classification problem: Toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Development 25 :2057 2070. Vincent, C. V. H. 2007. Nurses' perceptions of children's pain: A pilot st udy of cognitive representations. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 33 :290 301. Wals, A. E. J., F. Geerling Eijff, F. Hubeek, S. van der Kroon, and J. Vader. 2008. All mixed up? Instrumental and emancipatory learning toward a more sustainable world: Considerations for EE policymakers. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 7 :55 65. Walters, B. B., C. Sabogal, L. Snook, and E. Almeida. 2005. Constraints and opportunities for better silvicultural practice in tropical forestry: An interdiscipl inary approach. Forest Ecology and Management 209 :3 18. Webler, T., H. Kastenholz, and O. Renn. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15 :443 463. Weller, S. C. 2007. Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods 19 :339 370. Weller, S. C., and K. A. Romney 1988. Systematic data collection. Sage Newberry Park, CA. Wells, N. M. 2005. Our housing, our selves: A longitudinal investigation of l ow income women's participatory housing experiences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 :189 206. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. University Press, Cambridge. White, A., and A. Martin. 2002. Who owns the world's forests?: Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Forest Trends, Washington, D.C. Wilson, W. M. 2003. Cassava ( Manihot exculenta Crantz), cyanogenic potential, and predation in Northwestern Amazonia: The Tukanoan perspective. Human Ecology 31 :403 416. Wollenberg, E., D. Edmunds, L. Buck, J. Fox, and S. Brodt 2001. Social learning in community forests. CIFOR and the East West Center, Bogor, Indonesia. Yadama, G. N. 1997. Tales from the field: Observations on the impact of nongovernmental organizati ons. International Social Work 40 :145 162.
164 B IOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kelly A. Biedenweg was born in California with a passion for environmental conservation and education. She focused her work in Latin America after a life altering year in a Brazilian high sc hool Kelly received her B.S. in marine ecology from Western Washington University, her M.S. in conservation biology from Antioch University New England and is thrilled to close off the four corners with her PhD in forest resources and conservation from t management is applied and largely inspired by her academic and professional experiences in Honduras and Central America, Thailand, Nepal, Brazil and the U.S. Recently relocated to the Pacifi c Northwest, Kelly plans to continue her work as an educator and researcher in natural resource management within academic, government and non profit sectors.