|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 FACTORS AFFECTING LOCAL CAPACITY FOR CONSERVATION COMMUNITY ACTION IN MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE, GUATEMALA By NIKOLAY KAZAKOV A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Nikolay Kazakov
3 To my family
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Study for a PhD degree is like a great journey full of hard work, discoveries, frustrations and bliss. I am very thankful to many people who helped me in this difficult, yet victorious journey. First, I would like to thank my supervisory committee. I am grateful to Dr. Mark Brennan for his unshaken belief in me when he stepped in to be at my side at a difficult time. I thank Dr. Glenn Israel for being such a model in seeking the truth. I thank Dr. Brian Child for his inspiring practical approaches to conservation. I thank Dr. Martin Main for brining in his aspiration for and knowledge of wildlife. I thank Dr. Linda Young and James Colee for important insights into the statistical analysis of the data. My research would not be possible without help and support from many people in different countries. I thank Dr. Dale Miquelle who was at the very beginning of the journey long before I set my foot on the ship. I thank Dr. Kent Redford who challenged me with dilemmas of community conservation. Dr. Will Banham helped me with securing the funds and supported throughout the journey. Thank you! Special thanks go to Guatemala people in conservation field Roan McNab was open enough to offer the field work opportunity and supporting me throughout the field part of the journey. America Rodriguez was instrumental during the data collection process. Victor Hugo provided information support for the study commu nities. I would also like to express my appreciation to Rigoberto Guerra, everyone in WCS Guatemala office, people in CONAP, ACOFOP, ProPeten, Uaxactun, Carmelita, Cruce a la Colorada and la Pasadita who helped me to conduct this study
5 I am very grateful to my family who supported and helped me throughout the whole process. You are the ones who suffered most from my physical absence and insufficient attention even when I was close by. Thank you all very much!
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 ABSTRA CT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 Background and Significance of the Problem ................................ ......................... 19 Historic Overview ................................ ................................ ............................. 19 Limitations of Protected Areas Conservation ................................ .................... 19 Conservation Paradigm Shift ................................ ................................ ............ 22 Study Site ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 24 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 26 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 31 Study Ob jectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 32 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ................................ .............................. 34 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 35 2 CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ................................ .......... 37 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 Rural Community ................................ ................................ .............................. 38 Community Rights over Natural Resources ................................ ...................... 39 Conservation Community Action ................................ ................................ ...... 41 Community Capacity to Conserve ................................ ................................ .... 43 Human capital ................................ ................................ ............................ 45 Physical capital ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 Financial capital ................................ ................................ ......................... 46 Natural capital ................................ ................................ ............................ 46 Community rights over natural resources ................................ ................... 46 Community leadership ................................ ................................ ............... 46 Cultural capital ................................ ................................ ........................... 46 Outside support for community action ................................ ........................ 47 Local beliefs about and attitudes towards conservation ............................. 47 Levels of trust ................................ ................................ ............................. 47 Activating resources ................................ ................................ ................... 48
7 Community based Conservation ................................ ................................ ...... 48 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 49 Rational Choice Theory ................................ ................................ .................... 49 Rationality ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 50 Maximization of expected utility ................................ ................................ 51 Conservation assumption ................................ ................................ ........... 52 Capacity for expected utility maximization ................................ ................. 53 Interactional Theory of Community ................................ ................................ ... 55 Theory of Planned Behavior ................................ ................................ ............. 60 Su mmary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 62 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 66 Unit of Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 68 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 69 Case Study S ite Selection and Sampling ................................ ................................ 73 General Description of the Concessions ................................ .......................... 75 General information ................................ ................................ ................... 76 Historic and cultural backgrounds ................................ .............................. 76 Ethnic composition ................................ ................................ ..................... 77 Way of life and current occupations ................................ ........................... 77 Research Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ 78 Community Rights over the Forest Resources ................................ ................. 79 Human Capital ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 80 Effectiveness of Democracy Mechanisms ................................ ........................ 82 Interactional Community Networks ................................ ................................ ... 83 Communal Forest Concession Infrastruct ure ................................ ................... 85 Outside Support ................................ ................................ ............................... 86 Attitudes towards Forest Resources ................................ ................................ 87 Data Collection Methods and Instruments ................................ .............................. 88 Archival Sources Analysis ................................ ................................ ................ 88 Delphi Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 89 In depth Interviews of Community Key Informants ................................ ........... 90 Semi structured Key Informant Interviews ................................ ........................ 91 Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 91 Structured Interview ................................ ................................ ......................... 93 Indices ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 95 Credibility of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................ 97 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 99 Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 99 Common factor analysis ................................ ................................ .......... 100 Factor extraction criteria ................................ ................................ .......... 100 Factor rotation ................................ ................................ .......................... 101 Variable ret ention ................................ ................................ ..................... 102 Principle component analysis ................................ ................................ ... 102 Factor extraction ................................ ................................ ...................... 103 Analysis of Variance ................................ ................................ ....................... 104
8 Case Ordered Meta matrix ................................ ................................ ............. 104 Tr iangulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1 05 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 106 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 111 ................................ .......................... 111 Qualitative Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 112 Re view of Archival Documents ................................ ................................ ....... 112 Types of Communal Rights over Forest Resources ................................ ....... 112 Formal Democracy Mechanisms ................................ ................................ .... 113 Factor Identification ................................ ................................ ........................ 113 Length of residency in the area ................................ ................................ 114 Non members living in the concessions ................................ ................... 115 Outside pressure on the concessions ................................ ...................... 115 Ease of access to the concessions ................................ .......................... 116 Community Key Informant Interviews ................................ ............................. 116 Quantitative Data Analysis ................................ ................................ .................... 118 Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................... 118 Attitudes index ................................ ................................ ......................... 118 Trust index ................................ ................................ ............................... 119 Management ........ 120 Local perception of democracy mechanisms effectiveness index ............ 120 Principle Component Analysis Res ults ................................ ........................... 121 Structure of interactions in the communities ................................ ............ 121 Local knowledge of forest management information ................................ 122 Forest culture capital ................................ ................................ ................ 122 Huma n capital ................................ ................................ .......................... 123 Deforestation Rate ................................ ................................ ......................... 123 Bivariate Correlation Analysis ................................ ................................ ......... 124 Comparing Independent Variables between the Concessions ....................... 124 Significance Priority of the Factors ................................ ................................ 132 Triangulation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 133 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 134 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............ 168 Review of Problem Statement ................................ ................................ .............. 169 Review of Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................ 171 Review of the Methodology ................................ ................................ ................... 171 Discussion of Results ................................ ................................ ............................ 171 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 178 Implications of the Study and Recommendations ................................ ................. 179 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 190
9 B INDEX TO MEASURE ATTITUDES TOWARDS FOREST RESOURCES ........... 191 C INDEX TO MEASURE TRUST ................................ ................................ ............. 192 D INDEX TO MEASURE QUALITY OF MEMBERS MANAGEMENT INTERACTIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 193 E INDEX TO MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS OF DEMOCRACY MECHANISMS .... 194 F INTERACTIONAL STRUCTURE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ........... 195 G OUTSIDE KEY INFORMANT INTERV IEW GUIDE ................................ .............. 196 H ........................ 198 I FIRST ROUND DELPHI INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ...................... 200 J COMMUNITY LEADER INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ....................... 202 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 206 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 224
10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 List of independent variables to measure factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action. ................................ ................................ ....... 108 4 1 Demographic profile of the study respondents. ................................ ................ 136 4 2 List of factors affecting local capacity gleaned from literature. ......................... 136 4 3 List of factors affecting local capacity in a priority order suggested and prioritized by key informants. ................................ ................................ ............ 136 4 4 Community key informant interview analysis results. ................................ ....... 137 4 5 Variable loadings on the extracted attitude towards forest factors after varimax rotation. ................................ ................................ ............................... 138 4 6 rotation. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 139 4 7 community ................................ ................................ ............................. 139 4 8 after varimax rotation. ................................ ................................ ....................... 140 4 9 ........................ 141 4 10 List of topic discussed in interactions between actors of forest concession management field. ................................ ................................ ............................ 142 4 11 ................................ ....... 143 4 12 Principle components extracted from forest resource management social field variables analysis. ................................ ................................ ..................... 144 4 13 ................................ ................................ ........... 145 4 14 ................................ .. 145 4 15 Retained variable loadings o varimax rotation. ................................ ................................ ............................... 146 4 16 variables. ................................ ...... 146 4 17 .................. 147
11 4 18 after varimax rotation. ................................ ................................ ....................... 147 4 19 Results of paired t tests for deforestation rates in the study community concessions in 1997 2009. ................................ ................................ ............... 148 4 20 Results of bivariate regression of independent variables against the dependent variable. ................................ ................................ .......................... 149 4 21 Means and standard deviations of ANOVA tested variables. ........................... 150 4 22 List of factors in significance priority order. ................................ ....................... 167 5 1 Description of significant factors for each concession. ................................ ..... 184
12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Conceptual model of local capacity for conservation community action. ............ 64 2 2 alternatives. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 65 3 1 Map of Maya Biosphere Reserve. ................................ ................................ .... 107 4 1 Deforestation rates in the study communities for the 1997 2009 time period. .. 148 4 2 Distribution of averages of the attitude sub indices response scores for the four study concessions. ................................ ................................ .................... 151 4 3 A cattle ranch on the cleared forest land outside of la Pasadita community. .... 152 4 4 Distribution of averages of the trust sub indices response scores for the four study concessions. ................................ ................................ ........................... 153 4 5 Distribution of mean total number of interactions within forest management social field. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 154 4 6 Distribution of quality of interactions within community forest management social field. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 155 4 7 General meeting in Uaxactun community discusses concession issues. ......... 156 4 8 Distribution of the sums of mean quality scores for all types of interactions in the study concessions. ................................ ................................ ..................... 157 4 9 Mean number of advanced topics discussed by respondents with each group of actors. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 158 4 10 Mean total number of topics of more advanced group discussed by respondents with all of the actors. ................................ ................................ .... 1 59 4 11 Management concessions. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 160 4 12 concessions. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 161 4 13 Children sorting through harvested xate fronds. ................................ ............... 162 4 14 concessions. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 163
13 4 15 concessions. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 164 4 16 concessions. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 165 4 17 forest concessions. ................................ ................................ ........................... 166
14 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ACOFOP Association of Community Forest Concessions of Petn AOP Annual Operational Plan CBC C ommunity based conservation CCA C onservation community action CI Conservation International CONAP The National Council of Protected Areas of Guatemala EIA Environmental impact assessment FSC Forest Stewardship Council ITC The Interactional Theory of Community LCCCA L ocal capacity for conservation community action MBR Maya Biosphere Reserve MUZ Multiple use zone RA Rainforest Alliance RCFC R esident community forest concessions RCT Rational Choice Theory PW Parks Watch TPB Theory of Planned Behavior WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature
15 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 FACTORS AFFECTING LOCAL CAPACITY FOR CONSERVATION COMMUNITY ACTION IN MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE, GUATEMALA By Nikolay Kazakov May 2011 Chair: Glenn D. Israel Cochair: Mark Brennan Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology Though local capacity building became an integral part of worldwide practiced community based approach to conservation, its conceptual framework is still poorly developed. This hampers the effectiveness of local capacity building interventions and community based conservation. The research identi fies factors influencing local capacity for community conservation action (LCCCA), their importance, and interactions allowing for developing a definition, conceptual model, and measurable indicators for LCCCA. To identify and measure factors affecting lo cal capacity for conservation community action four community concessions were studied within Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. The research used a comparative case study design, grounded theory methodology, survey method, and index, anchored vignette and structured and semi structured interview instruments to collect data from 214 local community members, and 26 outside key informants. Sustainable community based conservation requires adequate levels of local capacity to successfully participate in the process. Effective local capacity building
16 interventions necessitate an understanding of this social complex phenomenon influenced by a n umber of different factors. A better understanding of local community capacity will allow conducting quality needs assessments, better focus intervention planning, and results measurements, thus improving effectiveness of community based conservation.
17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In approximately two last decades a paradigm shift from mainly establishing protected areas (PA) toward ecosystem management approach happened in biodiversity conservation (Western & Wright, 1994 ; UNEP, 2008 ). The ecosystem management paradigm considers local people to be to be important actors within ecosystems who often provide negative impacts on these systems ( Western & Wright, 1994 ). Those impacts can severely stress biodiversity in their localities (Berkes et al., 2003; Carpenter et al., 2001). C ommunity based approach to conservation (CBC) was introduced to deal with the problem through involvi ng rural communities in to the conservation process on the local level The CBC model is based on devolving rights over natural resources to local level and development and promotion of market driven incentives for local communities to sustainably use natu ral resources in their area. The general assumption is that once these incentives are established, local communities get economically interested in and start managing their natural resources on a sustainable basis, thus becoming the grass root level conser vation agents. There are other several important conditions that need to be met for this model to function effectively including, but not limited to: devolution of long term rights over these resources to the community level, stable political situation, va luable and abundant natural capital, beneficial economic environment, sufficient human capital, etc. (Child, 2009). Though seemingly correct and logical, the shift to this new conservation paradigm proved not to be easy or unproblematic to implement. On t he contrary, most of the initial CBC projects ended up in various degrees of failure (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Barret et
18 al., 2001; Newmark & Hough, 2000). One of the main reasons for those failures is the lack of local capacity to successfully participate in the conservation process (Well & Brandon, 1992; Brown, 2003; Kellert et al., 2000; Newmark & Hough, 2000). To improve the situation conservation organizations ha ve become actively involved in local community capacity building efforts all over the world. In spite of significant amount of resources directed at local capacity building, these efforts have not been able to significantly change the situation for the better (Berkes, 2004). One of the main reasons for that failure is the lack of understanding of what is building programs are being implemented by large and small conservation organizations, the conceptual and practical aspects of local capacity are not suffici ently developed within the conservation framework. This precludes comprehensive planning, needs assessment, evaluating project progress and measuring outcomes as well as the overall success of capacity building interventions. This research is designed to s tart filling in this lacuna on a practical level. It aims to gain a better understanding of local capacity for conservation community action (LCCCA) in resident community forest concessions (RCFC) within the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) in Guatemala and fa ctors affecting it. Therefore, the central question is: answer this question, potential factors significantly affecting LCCCA were identified and measured in four RCFCs with in MBR. The data were analyzed utilizing factor and principal component analysis, analysis of variance, and bivariate and multiple linear regressions
19 Background and Significance of the Problem Historic O verview The roots of natural resource conservation go back to prehistoric times when humans performed it not for any intrinsic concerns about wildlife or plants but as necessary practices to ensure sustainable supply of food mainly performed in a way of migrating to new areas once resources were dwindling (Western & Wright, 1994). At those early times this basically was an evolutionary mechanism providing for the survival of the human species. Many thousands of years later, in the middle ages conservation took a mo re familiar form of protected areas (PAs) exercised in a top down use resources in short supply (e.g. 17 18th century forest refuges in Japan, or deer in English royal fo rests) (Diamond, 2005; Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005). In a similar pattern conservation was introduced throughout the world as a part of European colonial politics in an attempt to restrict/exclude local people from the use of natural resources valued by colo nizing countries. This approach should be labeled as conservation with caution though. More often than not, the goal was to ensure that the coveted resources would natural resources without much concern for sustainability (Ward & Ward, 2002). Limitations of P rotected A reas C onservation This exclusion/restriction paradigm with variations was the dominant approach to conservation practically till the system of modern nationa l parks and other PAs was established throughout the world. This system has several principal differences from earlier protected areas (Mulder & Coppolillo, 2005). These are: the change of targeted use from extraction to non extractive, mainly eco tourism and education; provision of
20 restricted access to the PAs; and the goals shifting towards conserving biodiversity for biodiversity sake, though some of the PAs ended up conserving resources for a later extraction of protected resources (WWF, 2003). Despite demonstrating positive conservation results this approach has several significant setbacks. In most cases establishment of new PAs is manifested by driving local people off the lands designated for protection and/or restricting/excluding them from the use of natural resources. Due to those characteristics this approach was Brockington, 2002). It creates conflict situations between conservationists and local communities that usua lly are dependent on the protected natural resources and/or the larger ecosystem (Western, 1984). Another conflict area identified by this approach is the difference in perceptions of target wildlife species by conservation organizations and local communit ies who can be threatened by the protected species for their property, or even their lives (Quammen, 2003). Both of these conflict situations create disincentives for local communities to participate in the conservation process. Successful conservation is further complicated by the fact that many local communities in and around PAs are very poor and depend on the local natural resources for their livelihoods, which forces them to poach if no alternative sources of food/income are provided (Agrawal & Redford 2006; Brockington, 2004). That makes protection of many parks less effective and more costly requiring more trained staff and gear which a lot of PAs cannot afford (WWF, 2003). Besides, more police measures exacerbate PAs conflict with local communities that might also be negatively reflected upon the biodiversity (Metcalfe, 2003). In addition, it is quite obvious that under current
21 economic situation in general (Oxfam, 2008), it is improbable to expect any significant territorial growth and/or overall conservation performance improvements of the PA system in many parts of the world. S pecial attention should also be paid to the current and future wildlife and plant species migra tions outside of PAs caused by rapid global climate changes. That process may leave PAs without conservation t arget species because these migrate following the climate and habitat changes to the areas currently used by local communities (Hannah, et al. 200 5). In addition, by 1980s it became obvious that fortress conservation approach was not working effectively enough to protect biodiversity (Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997; Berkes, 2004; Brockington, 2002). In spite of the fact that there are about 115 thousand P As in million km 2 on all continents including the Antarctica biodiversity. There are many reasons for that: the small size of individual PAs to pro vide protection to most species; lack of interconnectedness between PAs to provide for wildlife and plant migrations; lack of resources to enforce adequate protection; and disappearing habitat outside their boundaries (Bennett, 2003; Brandon et al., 1998; Shafer, 1990). Under current conditions, the significant contributors to the PAs inability to reach their goal of providing protection to biodiversity are local communities living within and at the border of protected areas. Very often they are involved in poaching of wildlife and plant species inside PAs, hunting/poaching outside of PAs, starting forest fires, grazing cattle inside PAs, managing land in ways not compatible with conservation (e.g. clear cut logging operations, extensive agriculture, overgra zing, etc.) (Lewis et al.,
22 1990; Kiss, 1990). All these processes make biodiversity conservation on the global scale impossible without successful integration of local communities into the conservation process. Conservation P aradigm S hift New knowledge ab out biodiversity and anthropogenic impacts that affect it (Wilson, 1992) resulted in a conservation paradigm shift towards adaptive ecosystem management (UNEP, 2008; Western & Wright, 1994). Among other important changes the new conservation paradigm views human rural communities as an important, if not 1992; FEMAT, 1993; Endter Wada et al., 1998; Mangel et al., 1996). One of the most significant changes though, was no t increasing the police measures, but rather creating incentives for the communities to conserve. Therefore, the new approach fosters the participation of local communities in the conservation process as primary grass root agents, and attempts to link sust ainable use of natural resources on the local level with the development of these communities (Brundtland, 1987; Western & Wright, 1994; Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997). Though implemented in a variety of types of projects this new approach is generally labeled a s community based conservation (CBC) (Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Western & Wright, 1994; Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997). The CBC model is based on devolution of long term rights over resources to local level, and development and promotion of market based incentiv es for local communities to use natural resources in their area. The main idea is to link conservation and development in an attempt to achieve both (Berkes, 2007). In practice it means valorization of local natural resources and marketing of their product s, while fairly distributing the economic profits among community m embers (Ghimire & Pimbert,
23 1997 ). There are several other important conditions that also need to be met for this model to function effectively including, but not limited to: stable politica l situation, valuable and sufficiently abundant natural capital, beneficial economic environment, sufficient local capacities, etc. (Child, 2009). The assumption of the CBC approach is that when local communities are devolved long term rights over valuable natural resources, and have enough capacities to extract/process and market them, they would manage those resources in a manner conducive with conservation goals. In some cases an environmental certification is also used to add value to the natural resour ce products on the one hand, and to more directly and tightly link natural resource management with conservation objectives on the other hand (Klooster, 2006). In the last several years the conservation paradigm shift towards local communities precipitated a large number of CBC projects all over the world (Berkes, 2004). They are being implemented using a variety of different approaches: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, Poverty Alleviation and Conservation projects, Community Forest Concess ions, Conservation linked Livelihoods, Integrated Rural Development Program, Eco labeling, and many others (Adams & Hulme, 2001). There are no distinct differences between these types of projects and in many cases the names just show affiliation with diffe rent international programs currently implemented in many areas of the world (Agrawal & Redford, 2006). Practically all large conservation organizations adopted the general CBC approach and implement these types of projects in spite of the fact that in gen eral they demonstrate very mixed results (Berkes, 2007).
24 Study S ite Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) was established in 1990 to protect 2.1 million hectares of lowland tropical forests in the northern part of Guatemala (Gretzinger, 1998). This area provides critical habitats to more than 95 species of mammals and 400 species of birds, many of which are endangered like jaguars, Howler monkeys, tapirs, Scarlet macaw, and fresh water turtles (Parks Watch, 2005). The major threats include forest fires, unsustain able agricultural expansion, wildlife poaching, and poorly planned large scale development projects. Combined, these processes result in rapid deforestation ch and unique biodiversity, as well as economic well being of local c ommunities (WCS, 2010). It is obvious that the main sources of threats are anthropogenic and most are borne in local communities. After the establishment of the MBR several rural communities turned out to be within the multiple use zone (MUZ) of the reser ve. For a variety of reasons the decision was made not to move these communities outside of the reserve, but rather to involve them in the conservation process through an establishment of communally managed forest concessions (Nittler & Tschinkel, 2005). S ix communities located within the MUZ of MBR were able to obtain forest resource extraction and management rights for specified forest tracts for 25 years (Gretzinger, 1998). This brought in potentials to alleviating a number of environmental and socioecon omic issues in the area. To obtain the rights a community needed to conduct a forest resource inventory, write a management plan, and develop an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the proposed area. All three are key for effective forest resource ma nagement (Hunter, 1990). The goal was to have the communities start getting more economic and social gains from managing forest resources (Nittler & Tschincler, 2005). The expectation was
25 that these gains would precipitate incentives and provide means for the communities to protect their resources against poaching, forest fires, invasions, as well as themselves use the resources on a more sustainable basis (ACOFOP, 2005). The first fifteen years of the project demonstrated good potentials as well as identif ied specific problems of CBC approach in MBR. The main achievement of the project is the lower number of forest fires and significantly lowered deforestation rates compared to other parts of the MBR, including the core zone (Bray et al., 2008; CONAP, 2009) In addition, communities made a huge leap from haphazard use of natural resources by individual families, to planned management based on collective and democratic decision making process (ACOFOP, 2005). What is also of great importance, the project gener ates economic returns for the communities to fund the forest management process, some social projects, and provide economic gains for families (Nittler & Tschinkel, 2005). From this point of view, the project is a great success and should be replicated all over the world. On the other hand, under the seemingly similar conditions the RCFC demonstrate very different conservation outcomes. Two of the RCFCs (La Colorada and San Miguel) were cancelled in 2009 due to increasingly high deforestation rates resulti ng in breaching of the concession contracts. Another two (La Pasadita and Cruce a la Colorada) are candidates for cancellation for the same reasons sometime in the near future if local land use practices that demonstrate the best results (Uaxactun and Carmelita) are also experiencing some serious problems that require significant outside support (Byron, pers. comm.). Nevertheless, the last two concessions are able to successfully compete on
26 international markets of forest products while maintaining low deforestation rates (Bray et al., 2008). Obviously, there are some differences in endogenous factors affecting LCCCA between these communities, and possibly of some exogenous factors that are responsible for such disparities in local capacities to conserve. One of such exogenous factors could be the pressure of cattle farmers to turn the forest areas into grazing lands. This is one of the main sources of deforestation in the Maya Biosphere Reserve (Bray et a l., 2008). Although deforestation for these purposes is illegal within MBR, such cases have precedence on the territory of several community concessions (CONAP, 2007). Usually, it is powerful drug traffickers who exert this pressure as cattle ranching is a common way for laundering money in the area (Monterroso & Barry, 2007). Due to the illegal nature of this pressure, the extent of the problem has not been adequately documented For the purposes of this study an assumption is made that the studied RCFCs r eceived a non significantly different amount of pressure from ranchers. Therefore, the difference in the conversion of forests into pasture land could be attributed to community capacity to resist that pressure. Problem S tatement At the implementation stag e the conservation paradigm shift proved to be rather difficult and identified a number of problems leading many of the CBC projects to failure while neither meeting conservation, nor development goals (Newmark & Hough, 2000; Wells & Brandon, 1992; Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Brown, 2003; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Barret et al., 2001; Bradshaw, 2003; Berkes, 2007; Fabricius & Collins, 2007). The world conservation community developed two main positions why the results produced by CBC approach projects are signif icantly below the expectations. One of
27 implementation (Kellert et al., 2000; Songorwa, 1999; Murphree, 2002), adherents of the other position insist that CBC concept is impractical b ecause conservation and development do not fit together and therefore should be achieved separately (Redford & conservation through establishment of new protected area s (PA s), and better management of existing ones. As mentioned above, pure conservation has significant limitations nowadays for many different reasons. The existing protected areas do not provide adequate biodiversity protection due to small sizes, lack of connectivity, high mobility of certain species, lack of funds and human capital, etc. (Valenzuela Galvan, et al., 2008). Establishment of new PAs also has serious challenges because of human population growth, increased demand for natural resources, land desertification, global climate change to economic variables in a way of distracting resources, unused economic opportunities, direct and indirect job provision, etc. At the sam e time, any economic development has a direct connection to conservation be that positive or negative, thus, is impossible and impractical to be delinked from it. That makes CBC approach extremely important as local communities continue their development w hile using natural resources, and the way they do it is critical for conservation purposes. reconcile conservation and development objectives. The literature mentions several of such reasons: failures to devolve rights over resources to the community level (Songorwa, 1999; Murphree, 2002), deficiencies in supporting the new institutional development (Kellert et al., 2000), and lack of robust social science (Brown, 2003;
28 Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Endter Wada et al., 1998; Murphree, 1997a) These happen ed because the shift towards CBC caught conservation organizations unprepared for it. In spite of the widely announced attempts to include local communities into the conservation proc ess, these organizations still remain mainly focused with the biodiversity part of it (Brockington, 2004). The social aspects of conservation are treated only in general terms without any practical details and specifics (Murphree, 1997a). The main reasons for these are the lack of basic understanding of community caused by lack of social science knowledge (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Barret et al., 2001) and special skills of community research and practical intervention implementation with these organization s. As a result, most of social aspects of CBC are not sufficiently developed and the research literature remains scant (Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Murphree, 1997a; Belsky, 1999). Many of the analyses mention one of such problem aspects within CBC that keeps resurfacing in the literature under different names: lack of local participation; local community empowerment; local involvement; etc. (Well & Brandon, 1992; Brown, 2003; Kellert et al., 2000; Newmark & Hough, 2000). This actually is the lack of local capa city to effectively participate in the conservation process (Bradshaw, 2003). On the general level the issue is widely recognized, and conservation organizations have become actively involved into local community capacity building efforts all over the worl d. Nevertheless, in spite of substantial resources directed at building local capacity for conservation purposes, these efforts were not able to significantly change the situation for the better (Kellert et al., 2000; Newmark & Hough, 2000). Moreover, loca l capacity is still a very poorly developed concept within conservation movement (Doak & Kusel,
29 1996; Nadeau, 2002; Beckley et al., 2004; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007). There have been only several disconnected attempts to put together conceptual models of community capacity for biodiversity conservation (Moore et al., 2006 ; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007), and community resilience (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007). These models affecting them. In addition they are not based on existing relevant community theories. While these conditions are acknowledged as being essential to effective community based responses (Child & Murphree, unpublished; Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007), they cu rrently lack a unifying theoretical and conceptual frameworks on which to build programming and policy (Agrawal & Redford, 2006). Therefore, these models cannot be practically used by CBC practitioners for planning and implementing projects. At the same ti me, a literature and web research conducted by the author showed that the majority of larger conservation organizations invest significant resources into local community conservation capacity building interventions (e.g. WCS, 2008; FFI, 2008; Earthwatch, 2 005; UNDP, 2005). A lack of a conceptual model of capacity, a definition, a comprehensive list of factors affecting local capacity, or a working model of capacity result in planning and implementing CBC projects on the intuitive level of building local hum an and physical capitals mainly through providing information, training, and supporting local groups and organizations (Mendoza et al., 2007; Xiongzhi defined in the co nservation movement. Usually, organizations arbitrarily select some capacity they think is most important for improving conservation in a specific community, or a group of communities. Almost always those are human capital and
30 physical capital building int erventions in a way of trainings and infrastructure development (Mendoza et al., 2007; McDuff, 2001). Effectiveness and efficiency of such an approach to building local capacity for conservation community action is dubious at best From the practical poin t of view, the absence of a definition, or a working model of local capacity for conservation precludes identifying the most important capacity factors requiring building in each specific community to effectively initiate and develop conservation community action. Moreover, it precludes comprehensive planning, assessing needs, evaluating project progress, and measuring overall success of interventions. In such a situation reporting capacity building interventions usually resorts to outputs not necessarily directly linked to local capacity, and to anecdotal evidence which might be a very coarse proxy of community capacity for conservation. produce certain effects without mu ch understanding of how it might actually work (Mowbray et al. 2003; Patton, 2008). In spite of the fact that sometimes such approach does work, it is next to impossible to find out if this is the most effective and efficient approach. In addition, when re plicated under different conditions, the same treatments tend not to produce the same good results (Patton, 2008). Without thorough understanding of the process it is impossible to make changes to improve it. Another deficiency of current conservation capacity building treatments and interventi ons, is the lack of linkage to actual conservation. Without capacity indicators, the establi shed goals are being reached. Thus, the scant resources designated for
31 conservation efforts in the world (Brooks et al., 2006) may be not very effectively used (Newmark & Hough, 2000). What is worse, they can even be misused to work counterproductive for c onservation purposes when local conservation capacity building intervention planners and implementers do not have a comprehensive understanding of what and how they are trying to build (Iversen et al., 2006; Tai, 2007). Agrawal & Redford (2006) very rightl wasted, and can even work counterproductive to either or both of development and conservation. Purpose of the St udy The idea to do the research was first seeded while managing an intervention to build local capacity for a conservation community action An i nability to report any outcomes or directly link outputs to the expected results instigated a literature search on the topic only to reveal the same shortcomings worldwide: out puts are assumed to result in unmeasured outcomes (Mendoza et al., 2007; Xiongzh i et al., 2006). Such a lacuna in the knowledge of a phenomenon critical for success of conservation prompted the initiation and shaped the purposes of the study. The overall purpose of the research has two levels. The first is the level of the resident c ommunity forest concessions in MBR. The purpose is to identify and measure factors influencing capacity of those concessions to participate in the conservation knowledge a nd gain a better understanding of the complex phenomenon of local community capacity in MBR to initiate and participate in a conservation community action.
32 The second level purpose of the research is to raise the issue of the abovementioned lacuna in know ledge and conservation practices among the community based conservation practitioner community. There is a need for it to science stage of ignoring the problem and facts and move 1996). At that stage rigorous science aspects of this level is starting the process of developing procedures, methods, instruments, etc. for identifying and measuring a variety of capacity factors to serve as examples and/or methodological tools for conservation practitioners. Though not explicitly stated here as the research purposes, it is also expected that publications might attract attention of and educate conserva tion and donor organizations about the community capacity to conserve phenomenon. This is needed to potentially change their practices and policies. Conservation organizations might start to pay more attention to evidence based and outcome oriented local c apacity building their intervention results and establishing a direct link between those and conservation outcomes. Getting foundations interested in the issue is als o very important as it is their role to develop and maintain requirements for using the best available science and practical evidence. Study Objectives Based on the identified deficiencies of conceptual development of local capacity for conservation comm unity action (LCCCA), and practical outcomes of local capacity building interventions, three main objectives are addressed within this research:
33 1. Identify factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action in resident community forest conces sions within Maya Biosphere Reserve. 2. Develop and measure variables describing the identified factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action. 3. Prioritize the identified factors based on their level of significance to affect local capacit y for conservation community action in Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Significance of the S tudy There are two levels of significance of the study. First is the local level of MBR. The Community Forest Concession project in the MBR was started in 1994 (ACOFOP, 2005). Since then a number of community capacity interventions and treatments took place in all community concessions. The research conducted at the site did not yield any traces of measurements of the outcomes of these treatments, neither short n or long term. Still, there are a number of different types of organizations that continue provision of support to the communities (Pinelo, pers. comm.) The results of the study can provide to them important insights on the capacity factors of most importan ce to primarily focus upon for better outcomes. The other level of significance is the level of the world conservation community. n, 1996). It means conducting rigorous studies of the phenomenon in different geographical locations of the world under a variety of local, regional, and national conditions. The new knowledge will precipitate more effective and efficient local capacity bu ilding practice in many places of the world, thus improving conservation outcomes of CBC projects.
34 Delimitations and Limitations of the S tudy The purpose of the study is to identify and measure factors influencing local capacity to effectively participate in a conservation community action The study population includes all of the resident community forest concessions (RCFC) within MBR. Therefore, the study results can be generalized to that population only. There are several factors potentially affecting LCCCA that were not measured for a variety of reasons. Due to the lack of transparent bookkeeping and certain cultural peculiarities it was impossible to measure the economic revenues at a concession, family, or individual level. The difference in ease of access to their forests by outsiders was identified by experts as an important factor, but proved to be difficult to quantify. The level of pressure by drug traffickers to sell the forest land for pasture turned out to be impossible to measure due to pote ntial exposure of respondents to risk of vengeance and overall criminality of the issue, and had to be left out. A serious limitation is the absence of historical data for several factors, especially measured at the level of community concession members. That leaves the study without historical reference points for these factors to compare the changes in difference between the RCFCs. Therefore, the study period is limited by the last 5 years: 2004 2009. That time period is of most interest because the majo r funding sources and many other types of support to the RCFCs were withdrawn during that period of tim e (Gomez & Mendez, 2007). To fil l the data void, the interviewees were asked to remember if any significant changes in measured variables happened in the last 5 years. That data was used as a proxy for changes in the last 5 years.
35 Summary In the last several years the world conservation organizations have made an important shift towards community based conservation (CBC). S eeking a balance between conserv ation and development, and linking the two for the benefit of both the communities and the larger world, several years of CBC practice did not demonstrate much success (Berkes, 2007). Analysis of the situation demonstrates that for the most part these effo rts lack understanding or rigorous scientific research of rural communities (Kellert et al., 2000; Berkes, 2004; Newmark & Hough, 2000; Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Murphree, 1997a; Belsky, 1999; Barret et al., 2001). Such a deficiency triggers the approach when interventions are conducted without a good understanding of mechanisms and expected results (Mowbray et al. 2003; Patton, 2008). That type of an approach leads to inefficiency, ineffectiveness, or even counter productivity, which should not be tolerated in the face of very limited and shrinking resources for nature conservation projects (Brooks et al., 2006). One of the most important deficiencies is the lack of understanding of local capacity for conservation community action (LCCCA). LCCCA is absolutely critical because the CBC approach is built around effective participation of local people in community conservation action. Obviously, these people need to have a sufficient capacity to be able t o do that. In spite of the fact that this is w idely accepted and has resulted in a large number of community capacity building projects (e.g. (Mendoza et al., 2007; Xiongzhi et al., 2006), the community capacity for conservation conceptual framework is very poorly developed. There is no precise defini tion of LCCCA, nor a well developed description and measures of factors influencing LCCCA, leave alone a working model.
36 Theoretical and conceptual deficiencies trigger many problems on the practical implementation level as well. A lack of conceptual frame work and practical models prevents comprehensive needs assessment, outcome focused planning, or measurements of success (Patton, 2008). As a result, CBC practitioners report only output and anecdotal evidence (Mendoza et al., 2007; Xiongzhi et al., 2006), unable to approach (Agrawal & Redford, 2006) when we not only fail to see the targets, but even The purpose of this study is to shed some light on th e issue to improve effectiveness of capacity building interventions to increase the overall success of CBC approach to conservation both on the level of Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR), Guatemala and larger CBC community. Therefore, the objectives of the stud y are to identify and measure factors influencing LCCCA, and use them in modeling local capacity for conservation. In spite of several limitations this study has a potential to improve community capacity building efforts within MBR, as well as generate som e discussion among larger CBC practitioner community.
37 CHAPTER 2 CONCEPTUAL AND THEOR ETICAL FRAMEWORKS Capacity of local communities to successfully initiate and participate in a conservation community action is at the heart of any community based conservation programming and implementation. Only efforts specifically focused on that capacity can reach the g oals of involving local communities into the conservation process as primary agents, and establishing functional regimes of sustainable management of natural resources at the local level. Therefore, it is no surprise that most of community based conservati on projects are involved into local capacity for conservation community action building on the local level (UNEP, 2010; FFI, 2010; Salafsky et al., 2002). For the local capacity building process to be effective and efficient it is important to have a good understanding of this phenomenon. It is necessary to conduct inclusive develop outcome based indicators of success. Complexity of local capacity for conservation community ac tion requires a conceptual model to understand and effectively introduce any desired changes to this system (Salafsky et al., 2002). More specifically, a conceptual model is needed to indentify and understand all of the significant factors and comprising p arts of local capacity for conservation community action, as well as the overall structure of its environment. Together with a theoretical foundation a well developed conceptual framework is an important step in explaining the mechanics of this capacity to make the capacity building a comprehensive and measurable process. The theoretical framework is a foundation to establishing the ontological and epistemological positions of the local capacity for conservation community action
38 researchers and practitioner s. Those positions fundamentally define a selection of research methods and of practical interventions in the process of capacity building. Therefore, the study pays significant attention to the development of the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of l ocal capacity for conservation community action. The research utilizes several theories to propose factors affecting local addition, these theories are used to underst and and explain several phenomena that pertain to local capacity for conservation community action. Rational Choice Theory is used as a foundational ontological position to explain the structure of community behavior on a general level. Interactional Theor y of Community is used to define and describe local capacity for conservation community action as well as factors comprising and influencing it. Theory of Planned Behavior is used to explain specific trends in human behavior, both on individual and communi ty levels. The two latter theories define the epistemological position of the research as critical realism allowing for both objective reality as we see it as well as a certain level of human interpretation of it (Grix, 2004). Conceptual Framework Rural C o mmunity The new conservation paradigm recognizes the fact that rural communities comprise an important part of ecosystems, and their behavior significantly influences the overall condition of those ecosystems (Western & Wright, 1994). Therefore, rural comm unities and their collective behavior have become the main targets of community based conservation projects to make it more conducive with conservation goals. At the same time, communities and their behavior proved to be a very elusive phenomenon to compre hend, describe and define (Wilkinson, 1991). All attempts to even develop one
39 encompassing definition have failed leaving us with dozens of different definitions each one of which grasps only one or several aspects of community (Hillery, 1955). Ken Wilkin approach by providing 3 core characteristics of a community: Locality as a geographic area where people live and meet their daily needs; Local society as a comprehensive network of associations and for meeting common needs and expressing common interests; and Shared collective actions as a process of interrelated local actions through which the community members express their common interests in the local community. These charact eristics fit the community based conservation framework, though one more is necessary to be added to the list for the purposes of community based conservation : community rights over natural resources in their geographical locality. Community Rights over Natural R esources The types of rights a priori define relations between rural communities and natural resources in their area (Murphree, 1997b; Child & Lyman, 2005; Schlager and Ostrom, 1992; Flint et al., 2008). According to Hanna et al. (1996) the way ow nership institutions are designed influences the interaction between people and their natural environment. It could be official rights bound by contracts with governmental agencies, or any other type of rights (historical, cultural, etc.) that a community enjoys over the natural resources. Community based conservation approach is based on principles of devolution of official rights over natural resources to the level of users and managers of the resources local communities (Child & Lyman 2005; Flint et al ., 2008). Without devolution of rights to the level of local communities a sustainable use of natural resources by these communities, and therefore conservation cannot be reached, and
40 consequently neither can sustainable socio economic development of the se communities (Murphree, 1997b). There are several types of rights over natural resources characterizing the relation of communities to the natural resources surrounding them. To use the resources on a sustainable level a community needs to enjoy at a mi nimum: access, withdrawal, management, and exclusion rights for these resources (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). An effective community based conservation intervention also necessitates proprietary rights to local communities over extracted resources, and produc ts made of them to market them at local and international markets, thus creating economic incentives and financial capital for better management of these natural resources. Depending on the types of rights that communities enjoy over natural resources the y can be attributed to one of property right holder classes: owner, proprietor, claimant, authorized user, or illegal user. It is expected that an owner holder class community would be interested in extracting natural resources on the highest possible sus tainable basis, which usually is the least environmentally detrimental way. With each next rights holder class, the interest of communities in conservation of these resources diminishes (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). Illegal users rarely care about sustainabil ity of natural resources, but rather in most efficient extraction of them. legal use period could actually work counterproductive for conservation and sustainability goals, e specially if renewing an agreement is questionable. Such a situation stimulates the fastest extraction utilizing the cheapest extraction methods, which practically always are detrimental to natural ecosystems (Goudie, 2006).
41 Potentially, legal users with s hort agreements can provide more damage to natural ecosystems than even illegal users, as they can utilize wide scale extraction operations that might be difficult to control because they have rights and means for those extractions. Conservation Community A ction Each rural community has a variety of problems and issues, some specific for the community, but most of them quite generic: shortage of jobs, low quality education for children, bad roads, etc. There are communities that are able to resolve or allev iate specific problems through mobilization of all resources necessary for that: time, labor, social capital, materials, finances, etc. The process of community members coming together to mobilize all of these resources to resolve their local problems/issu es is a community action (Wilkinson, 1991; Luloff & Swanson, 1995; Luloff & Bridger, 2003). Community action is well described within the interactional theory of community as the the associations that comprise the local society; it gives structure and direction to processes All of these characteristics are important to understanding, planning an initiation, and development of a community action. A community action initiation and development process goes through a series of stages. Wilkinson (1970) identifi ed 5 phases of community action. Awareness This phase is characterized mainly by cogniti ve and communicative activities. The problem/issue needs to be identified and defined. The community members need to be informed about the problem/issue to bring them onboard of the
42 community action. Environmental NGOs are quite skillful in using this sta ge to educate local communities about real threats to the environment and their resources. Organization This is developing sponsorship for the action within the community. It could be an existing NGO, one specifically created for this purpose, just a grou p of local community members, or some other combination of community actors. This phase defines the leadership and practically the direction of the community action. Decision This is a planning and decision making stage of specifying goals, collecting necessary information, developing strategies, inventorying resources and setting up time frames. This stage basically defines the scope and shape of a community project. Resourc e m obilization This phase is defined as recruiting and securing all of the necessary resources for the project implementation including, but not limited to human, financial, legal, and material resources This is one of the most important phases from the community capacity for conservation community action point of view. For rural communities it can be quite difficult to mobilize necessary resources if they are available only outside of community. Resource a pplication This is the project implementation ph ase when community uses the resources for the accomplishment of the identified goals. At this phase the tasks are being carried out and monitored by local community members and/or hired experts. Each phase is of unique importance and cannot be skipped tho ugh they can and usually do overlap. It is necessary to work specifically with every phase to initiate and develop an effective conservation community action.
43 Initiation and development of a successful conservation community action to resolve targeted pr oblems is aimed at by community development programs and interventions as it signifies a basis for intended changes on a sustainable level (Reeb, 2006). Similarly, community based conservation interventions also target initiation and development of communi ty actions directed at increasing conservation, though not explicitly discussing it in the literature (Mansuri & Rao, 2004). For the purposes of this study a community action specifically directed at community use and management of natural resources that a re conducive with conservation goals is defined here as a conservation community action Community Capacity to C onserve Whether a community initiates and actively participates in a conservation from the Interactional Community theory (Wilkinson, 1991; Luloff and Bridger, 2003) local capacity for conservation community action is defined here as an ability of local c ommunity members to mobilize, manage, utilize, and enhance the resources available to them to address local issues and problems connected with natural resource management in a manner conducive with conservation goals. Successful conservation community acti on requires both resources that are general for any community action (e.g., human capital, trust in other community members, finances, etc.) as well as resources specific for conservation community action (e.g., rights over natural resources, knowledge and skills to manage natural resources, positive attitudes towards natural resources, access to markets of natural resource products, etc.). These resources or factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action could be attributed to be either exogenous or endogenous as related to a community (Donoghue
44 & Sturtevant, 2007; Child and Murphee, unpublished). Though influencing a rural community capacity for conservation, exogenous factors have locus of control outside of communities, and therefore are out of their control (e.g., national policies, international economic situation; global climate change, etc.) and should be dealt with on a scale different than community. For these reasons, these factors are beyond the scope of this study. Endogenous factors affecting conservation community action are those resources that communities can mobilize, utilize and enhance to reach established conservation goals. There are several approaches to identifying and describing those resources (Mendis Millard & Ree d, 2007; Laverack 2001; Laverack, 2006; Moore et al., 2006; Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007; Child & Murphree, unpublished; Emery & Flora, 2006; Flora & Flora, 2003). This study utilizes both a generalized and locale specific approaches in an attempt to identi fy and measure all of the most important factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action of resident community forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve. To achieve this objective the factors were gleaned from the abovementioned a nd other literature sources as well as hypothesized by the researcher, and suggested by local and international experts in the course of key informant interviews. All of the factors hypothetically affecting local capacity for conservation community action are used here to build a conceptual model of local capacity for conservation community action for resident community forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve (Figure 2 1). The conceptual model distinguishes between two types of resources: foundati onal and activating. Foundational resources are community assets both tangible and
45 intangible necessary for a resident community forest concession to mobilize for initiating a successful community action (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007). Activating resources represent social processes which activate the mobilized foundational resources into a conservation community action. For example, a community might have a right to exclude others from using forest resources on a specified territory which is a foundational resource, but unless this right is actively utilized for community purposes through interactions and participation in a collective decision making as well as actual implementation processes (activating resources), it probably would not bring any natural r esource management nor conservation dividends. This is true for any other foundational resources. Human c apital These are skills and knowledge of local community members that are related to forest management (Pretty & Smith, 2004). People with higher skil ls and better knowledge can do their jobs more effectively and efficiently such as writing plans, controlling forest fires, or marketing timber products. In addition, there should be a sufficient number of people to carry out the necessary tasks in a commu nity. Physical c apital Physical capital is represented by infrastructure necessary for effective forest re source management by community concessions It includes, but is not limited to logging and forest fire fighting gear, trucks, roads, timber processin g facilities, storages, offices, non timber forest product processing facilities, etc. It is very closely linked with financial capital which usually restricts physical capital.
46 Financial c apital It is represented by financial resources necessary to suppor t community projects (Emery & Flora, 2006). Community forest management requires sufficient financial capital for a number of projects from planning, to resource monitoring, to fire fighting, to final product marketing. There could be several sources of fi nancial capital available to a community: business revenues from product marketing, grants from international funds, bank loans, government programs, etc. Natural c apital Natural capital is represented by natural resources that have a value for people (Cos tanza et al., 1997). In the case of a community forest concessions the natural capital is very specifically represented by marketable tree species and non timber forest products. For a concession to effectively function, they need to successfully market th ose resources on local and international markets. Communit y rights over natural r esources This is one of the key conditions for a successful community forest concession management (Hanna et al., 1996) (for more details on the rights over natural resources please see above). C ommunity l eadership This is actions by community field actors directed at distinctly and significantly contributing to a community action (Wilkinson 1986). Effective community forest management as any community action requires high qu ality leadership. Cultur al c apital It is a set of local traditions, habits and ways that defines their relation with the surrounding world ( Bourdieu, 1986; Flora et al., 2004). For community based forest
47 resource management of most importance is the tradi tional institutional structure of extraction culture they usually develop forest resource protection institutions (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). These institutions though infor mal, can be very powerful in forming a Outsid e support for community a ction In practically all of the cases of community based conservation an outside impact is necessary as an initial stimulus for the process, and an ongoing support needs to be provided before reaching sustainability (Western & Wright, 1994). The support should be directed at building local capacities for conservation community action. Of importance are both the quantity and the quality of provided support. Local b eliefs about and attitudes towards c onservation Attitudes and beliefs about a conservational behavior are foundational components in forming this behavior (Ajzen, 2005). Therefore, they are key for fostering target changes in behavior a goal of community based conservation projects (for more detailed role of beliefs and attitudes please see below). Levels of t rust Trust is one of foundational elements for a successful community action (Falk & Kirkpatrick, 2000). One of the functions of trust is its ability to control effectiveness of any collective action (Coleman 1990). Therefore, high levels of trust are especially important for community forest concessions because it is a business, and as s uch it has to be effective to stay competitive.
48 Activating resources The activating resources are represented by 3 processes: interactional activity within a community as related to their forest resource management, the levels of community participation in the decision making process, and networking with outside sources of assets. These are the processes through which a community engages foundational resources into the process of community action (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007). All of these resources can be present in various communities at different levels, thus increasing or decreasing local capacity for initiation and development of an efficient conservation community action. I hypothesize that increased levels of all of these resources or any combination of them result in a more successful conservation community action. Successful conservation community action in its turn feeds back to improve both foundatio nal and activating resources to provide for a better conservation community action (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007). The system is also constantly affected by a number of exogenous factors (markets, economic situation, political stability, changing climate, e tc.) that are not included into the conceptual model. The model assumes that those exogenous factors are not preventing a possibility of a successful conservation community action (e.g., policies preventing the minimum set of rights necessary for a communi ty to initiate a conservation community action). Community based C onservation Due to the fact that ecosystem management is a comparatively new conservation paradigm, the conceptual framework of conservation efforts involving rural communities in this proc ess is still in the state of formation (Berkes et al., 2003). Among other things, that is manifested in the proliferation of designs and names for the practical
49 implementations, many of which overlap partially or quite significantly (Child, 2009; Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Barrow & Murphree, 2001). Usually, different names reflect different approaches, different schools of thoughts, and even political considerations (Barrow & Murphree, 2001). For the purposes of this study the term community based conservatio n ( CBC ) was selected for several reasons: a) it is quite widely accepted as a term defining efforts to conserve biodiversity using rural communities as primary agents while fostering their development on a sustainable basis (Berkes, 2004; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999); b) it quite accurately denotes the actual situation when practically always conservation efforts are being initiated by outside organizations, but are anchored in the communities; c) it unequivocally places conservation among the primary goals of t he efforts. Theoretical Framework The the oretical framework of the study is based on three main theories: Rational Choice Theory, Interactional Theory of Community, and Theory of Planned Behavior. Rational Choice Theory is used as a grand theory to explain the foundational part of the community based approach to conservation. Interactional Theory of Community was used to measure, describe and explain most important processes in the study community concessions as related to the management of their forest res ources. Theory of Planned Behavior was used for measuring, describing and explaining target community behavior shaping components. Rational Choice Theory The research uses the Rational Choice Theory is used as the ontological foundation for understanding reasons for changes in behavior of specific groups of humans under certain conditions. This theory is utilized in this research to explain and
50 predict general behavioral trends of rural communities in relation to forest resources that these communities us e and manage. When planning and implementing community based conservation interventions, conservation practitioners implicitly assume that target communities would behave in certain ways in a response to specific conditions created by community based conse rvation interventions. This theory explains why communities would be interested in changing their behavior to become more conducive with conservation objectives. The main thesis of the theory is that normal humans (i.e. not affected by a mental disease or under chemical influence, etc.) use rationality in planning and executing their behavior, both on individual and group levels (Blossfeld, 1996; Green, 2002; Lovett, 2006), even though choices made by groups are not necessarily viewed by all or even majori ty of group members as rational for the groups. This means that human actors are capable of evaluating, comparing and actually making choices among alternatives available to them (Scott, 2000). Rationality There are many approaches to rationality within t he RCT. For the purposes of the research two definitions proposed by Frank (1997) are united: considering costs and benefits as related to actors within a time frame. It means that before making a choice people consider all the costs and expected utility t o be paid/received at the time of the action or within some foreseeable to the actor future, or both. Expected utility means a benefit available to the actor at either the time of the action or some period of time after it. Those benefits have a much wider meaning than purely economic gains in the way of money or goods/services. Rather they are benefits as perceived by an actor in the broadest way including, but not limited to: economic gains, health improvements, moral
51 gratification, social obligations, ae sthetical satisfaction, conforming to parental duties, religious and/or cultural values, and on intrinsic feeling of good about something This is the core assumption of community based conservation. In the face of economic market failures and weak conserv ation policies and/or their enforcement, local communities are viewed as hypothetically the best stewards of the natural resources in their areas. This resources are much more diverse and profound than just economic benefits. Consequently, their rationality coordinate system goes wider and beyond pure monetary rationality. By balancing all of their rational choices it is expected that local communities would use the natural resources on a more sustainable basis which is congruent with conservation objectives. In the case of this study, resident community members represent actors, forest resources on the territory of their concession is their utility, while money from marketi ng forest products and other services (fire logs, construction materials, food products, aesthetic satisfaction, etc.) is their expected utility. Maximization of e xpected u tility In their behavior, rational actors attempt to maximize their utility (Lovett 2006). Utility maximization is an assumption that actors have two beliefs: a) they know a better condition of a utility for their purposes called expected utility (extracting money, services, health benefits, aesthetic satisfaction, etc.); and b) actors think they know how to purposively reach a better condition of their utility with the least possible cost to them (Green, 2002). So, if a community enjoys certain rights over a natural resource they would execute actions to maximize their expected utility of this resource. With forest resources this means managing the forest in such a manner as to be able to extract maximum
52 gains from it now and for some expected period of time in the future. For the cases selected for this study, expected utility maximizat ion can be translated as planning, implementation and balancing of forest management practices and governance of the resource so as to gain the maximum sustainable monetary yield (sale of forest resources), and services (food, materials, fire logs, etc.) f or the period of their concession contract and possibly beyond. Conservation a ssumption More advanced level s of forest resource management practices means higher levels of their utility maximization. That can be development of higher quality and therefore more revenue yielding products, more sustainabl e use of resources, less damage from forest fires, or any combination of these and other practices. Therefore, when rural communities receive rights over forest resources, they start making choices about thei r use and management practices. Their expected utility maximization can be planned in many different ways depending on their knowledge, history, ava ilable resources, social capital, market prices etc Many community based conservation approaches make an im plicit assumption that better management of natural resources directed at utility maximization necessarily means better conservation. This is based on the expectation that communities would strive to use their resource in a more sustainable manner based on the economic point of view. That is, producing stable revenues over a long period of time. The assumption is that this would be congruent with conservation sustainability. In reality, a community is responding to market signals which might not necessarily point in the direction of the best conservation practices (Arntzen et al., 2003; Blaikie, 2006; Ferraro, 2001; Mansuri & Rao, 2004).
53 The issue of potential divergence of economic sustainability and conservation sustainability is resolved for resident com munity forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve with the help of several specifically designed mechanisms. Each community to be granted a right for a forest concession needs to write a forest management plan, and conduct an environmental impact ass essment (Gretzinger, 1998). These documents are reviewed and endorsed by the National Council of Protected Areas of Guatemala (CONAP) to comply with the Maya Biosphere Reserve Conservation Plan prior to granting a concession. One more necessary condition i s obtaining Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification (RA, 2008) which among other criteria requires planning for sustainable use of forest resources. Every year each community forest concession writes Annual Operational Plan (AOP) also endorsed by CO times a year for compliance with the AOP. Depending on an inspection results CONAP can help a community to better manage resources, require improvements and/or change of practices, or revoke the contract altogether (Manuel Navarrete et al., 2006). Capacity for e xpected u tility m aximization According to Rational Choice Theory, each community that has long term rights over forest resources would target the best management practices t hat are expected to bring most returns for the longest period of time (Scott, 2000). For example, community 1 in Figure 2 2 has an ability to log, process and sell FCS certified products of each mahogany tree for approximately $500 (arbitrarily chosen amou nt). Such management practices are represented by Alternative 1. As mentioned above, this also is assumed to be the best conservation alternative as the community has higher economic stakes in sustainable use of mahogany trees. Other communities though try ing to get the same
54 amount of revenue for their trees (yellow dotted arrows) might lack the ability to certify, process, or even protect their trees from fires and poachers. Such communities have to resort to the highest alternative available to them (soli d black arrows). In Figure 2 2 these are Alternative 2, and Alternative 3, that are significantly below the maximum of expected utility, and in most cases would be more detrimental to the environment than Alternative 1 (Goudie, 2006). This mainly happens d ue to a number of limiting factors that do not allow many communities to reach excellent forest management outcomes. therefore their level of local capacity for conservation community action. Only the community with high Capacity Level of 1 (Figure 2 2) are able to choose and reach the best results of Alternative 1 in their outcomes. Those communities that have the lowest capacity to manage their resources of Level 3 have to resort to the revenue return of Alternatives 2 and 3 which usually tend to produce worse conservation outcomes. By assuming that people behave in a rational way, and that under the same exogenous conditions their potential benefits are similar it is possib le to identify the reasons allowing some communities to benefit more from managing their forest resources and prevent other communities from gaining similar or better benefits. For a community to effectively and sustainably manage their forest resources a set of conditions need to be met both on the local community level as well as outside of it. A community needs to have enough people with knowledge and skills to manage the fore st resources, a good management plan for the resources, money to purchase the necessary machinery, equipment, and supplies, knowledge about and access to markets that provide incentives for higher quality products, etc., and absence of
55 constraints both end ogenous (local elite capture, internal conflicts, tree parasites, extremely dry weather, etc.) and exogenous (unfavorable taxation policies, political situation in the nation, trade regulations, etc.). All of these conditions are factors affecting local co mmunity capacity to effectively manage forest resources, and thus, reach Alternative 1 (Figure 2 2). Interactional Theory of Community Initiating and supporting effective collective action of local communities for conservation purposes is the overall goal of community based conservation projects. Community action is well described within the interactional theory of community associations that comprise the local society; it give s structure and direction to processes This is completely compatible with objectives of this study and provides direction in developing the characteristics of the sele cted local communities. The Interactional Theory of Community describes community as a social unit in a geographical location where people interact with each other and act together to pursue their collective interests (Kaufman, 1959). Communities consist of a number of loose groups of people united by some common interests that are called social fields. Each of these social fields is filled with local community members, groups and organizations as actors and a plethora of interactions between them (Wilkins on, 1991). These actors have a variety of their interests, and interactions with each other to pursue their interests as well as community interests as understood by them, and actions for community purposes carried out by them (Kaufman, 1959). Different co mmunity social fields do not necessarily have specific boundaries or actors strictly belonging to them.
56 The same actors can be parts of several fields bringing in different interests and participating in a variety of interactions within each field. When th ese intermingling social actors get together to also pursue the larger community interests the community action within a community is reflected in a plethora of interactions between community members. Therefore, community field defines the community as per its actors, their interactions and actions, and as such can characterize community capacity to act in g eneral and for conservation purposes in particular. This study focuses on communities which manage communal forest resources and are dependent on these resources for their livelihoods. Therefore, management of these resources is of utmost importance for t hese communities. This makes different qualities and characteristics of the forest resource management interactional social fi eld of key significance for these type s of communities. This field describes a variety of local actors that are related to the iss ues of forest resource management and interactions between these actors. An important indicator of this social field is characteristics of local actors: their numbers, type of individuals, non official groups, businesses and organizations that participate in the interactions concerning the forest resources. All of the interrelations and interactions among the actors regarding management of their forest resources are an important part of this field. These interactions can be characterized by their intensity (how often they happen), quality (type of interactions), and structure. Granovetter (1973) distinguishes two levels of interactions in a social system: 1) among close relatives and friends which he calls strong ties; and 2) interactions with
57 people outsid e of the group of close friends and relatives weak ties. He argues that though strong ties are important, the weak ties are those that make information exchange through the system possible, thus making them vital for networking (Granovetter, 1973). The w eak ties serve as an interactional glue making a social system better organized through overcoming societal fragmentation, and enriching information with different per spective s In other words, better developed weak ties make the social system stronger thr ough a more effective use of available human capital, as well as bringing in additional human capital from outside of the system. In a community the weak and strong ties work in the same manner. Strong ties allow for expressing and sitions and opinions within the tight groups of friends and families. The weak ties provide opportunities for exchange of those positions and opinions, and developing a larger group opinion, thus gluing together the smaller groups in the social and communi ty fields. Natural resource management social field has several characteristics that are important for initiation and development of conservation community actions. Interactions are the vehicles for exchange of information and ideas, as well as they parti cipate in addition, they are vehicles for practical actions conducted in the community. In the resident community forest concessions in Maya Biosphere Reserve those action s could include extraction of forest resources using both legal and illegal means (logging and poaching), developing plans, electing management, replenishing or improving the resources (planting out seedlings, making anti fire breaks, etc.), and protecting the resource (fighting a forest fire, stopping p oachers, excluding other users)
58 All of the abovementioned actions are part of a set of community actions. To distinguish community action within the community field from other types of actions Kaufman (195 9) developed six types of characteristics as necessary elements of community action: (1) the degree of comprehensiveness of interests pursued and needs met, (2) the degree to which the action is identified with the locality, (3)relative number, status, an d degree of involvement of local residents, (4) relative number of significance of local associations involved, (5) degree to which the action maintains or changes the local society, and (6) extent of organization of the action. Being a specific type of a community action, conservation community action also requires these elements to be successful. Therefore, all of these characteristics are also true and important to defining conservation local community action for resident community forest concessions wit hin Maya Biosphere Reserve. For a community action to happen there needs to be a developed part of a community field. Each community has a variety of problems and issues, but not every community is capable of and actually performs a community action to re solve those problems/issues. In large, it depends on the strength of relationships and interactions among actors and actions across different social fields in a community (Wilkinson, 1991). The Interactional Community Theory describes this capacity of loc al community to participate in all of the phases of community action as community agency. Luloff and ability of people to manage, utilize, and enhance the resources av ailable to them to
59 connected with management of natural resources, this is the abovementioned local capacity for conservation community action. Within the Interacti onal Theory of Community local social fields provide a mechanism for uniting different actors to facilitate the expression of common interests and needs through interactions in addressing the common local issues which define local community agency (Brenna n & Luloff, 2007). More and higher quality interactions within community field help to identify the common problems and ways to address them. It means more inclusive links among community members and focusing on a wider range of community issues (Brennan & Luloff, 2007). More active social fields help to bring more community members together in all of the phases of a community action, and thus mobilize more resources for a community action. This means that such a community has more community agency as a cap acity to act in addressing local issues. What is also important here is the fact that this is a collective capacity because communities are much more than just a simple sum of the individuals within the community (Luloff & Swanson, 1995). Again, this also is very true to the local capacity for conservation community action, as a type of a community capacity to act. This study focuses on local community ability to effectively manage forest resources. For this reason, the forest resource management field defi nes a community capacity to successfully initiate and participate in a community action as related to forest resource management. Of much importance here is the quantity of interactions (if people discuss those issues and how often), the quality of interac tions (if people discuss issues in constructive ways in an attempt to identify and describe problems as well as potential ways to solve them), the field actors (which individuals and community groups
60 are involved in those discussions), and the field struct ure (if all groups are participating in certain interactions, or if some of them exist in a way of not connected small pockets thus fragmenting and weakening the capacity). High quality, frequent and open interactions within and across the community groups including the resident community forest concession management are a manifestation of high capacity level of such a community to manage their forest resources. Conversely, no interactions or limi ted interactions within secluded groups only (families, friends), and low quality interactions discussing only trivial topics mean low local capacity to manage these resources. Theory of Planned Behavior All of the community based conservation projects ar e concerned with changes in community behavior to make it more compatible with conservation of natural resources. Theory of Planned Behavior views a behavior forming process as chains of influence effects from forming of beliefs to actual execution of a sp ecific behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to the Theory of Planned Behavior the initial changes happen in beliefs precipitating changes in attitudes which in their turn result in changes of behavioral intention (Ajzen, 2005). Therefore, all conse rvation interventions should mainly be directed at changing behavioral, control and normative beliefs, which are key changed, as well as the subjective norms and per ceived behavioral controls, in aggregate they would result in forming of behavioral intentions. With a formed intention humans would execute the targeted behavior unless some exogenous factors would prevent it (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Theory of Planned Behavior describes the process of forming behavior on an individual level (Ajzen, 2005). For community forest concessions this theory can be
61 applied only in case when individual community members have a chance to participate in the process of forming a col lective behavior of the community. From this point of view, all of the studied communities completely satisfy this condition. Each of the resident community forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve has the General Meeting of all members as the high est formal power body in the community. It elects the concession m anagement as well as makes all of the important management decisions. Each resident community forest concession member has one vote to express his or her decision on the discussed issues. T hus, the beliefs and attitudes of individual effectiveness of democracy mechanisms can influence the decision making process skewing it in directions different from the su a case of one of the endogenous factors potentially restricting local capacity for conservation community action which is discussed below. The study measures community behavior by using forest management pr actices and their effectiveness as a proxy for that. The Theory of Planned Behavior states that for a behavior to be executed, positive attitudes toward this behavior should be in place (Ajzen, 2005). This means that attitudes towards conservation are impo rtant precursors of targeted changes in behavior, even though these changes do not take place. In this respect, attitudes have an important locus of control for understanding where a problem might possibly be in case a community does not execute a targeted behavior. If the attitudes towards the importance of natural resources and their conservation are negative, then the local capacity for conservation community action is low because the uccessful and
62 effective management of these resources by the community. Thus, capacity building interventions should focus on those. In case when a community does demonstrate positive attitudes but not the behavior, then it could mean that the community me mbers have a potential for changing their behavior but there are factors preventing such a behavior. It could be perceived behavioral controls requiring building self efficacy capacities, or actual behavioral controls (poaching by outsiders, local elite ca pture, inability of the government to control lucrative illegal markets, etc.). In the latter case, completely different interventions are needed most probably outside of community. Once all of these factors are taken care of, the community behavior should change towards better management of their forest resources. Therefore, attitudes towards the importance of natural resources and conservation behavior are an important factor defining local capacity for conservation community action. Summary To implement conservation capacity building programs at local communities in an effective and efficient manner, it is necessary to have a developed conceptual model (Salafsky et al., 2002). So far local capacity for conservation community action lacks such a model and its overall conceptual framework is still poorly developed (Kellert et al., 2000; Doak & Kusel, 1996; Frank & Smith, 1999; Beckley et al. 2004; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007). Therefore, this study utilizes conceptual models developed for similar community processes within mainstream rural community s ociology: community development, community action, community agency, community resilience, etc. These models (Luloff & Bridger, 2003; Laverack, 2001; Moore et. al, 2006; Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007) were changed and upgraded to meet the community based
63 capacity for conservation community action. Three main theories comprise the ontological foundations of this study. Rational Choice Th eory is used to understand, explain, and predict general trends of communal behavior towards natural resources in response to changes in endogenous and exogenous factors. At the heart of this study is the Interactional Theory that views a community as a se t of social fields comprising a community field, and community actions to resolve local problems. According to this theory the actors and their interactions within the community field are the essence of a community. The Theory of Planned Behavior explains the process of forming of a targeted behavior of individuals. The theory is used to identify factors affecting individual community member intentions which shape the whole community behavior through collective decision making processes.
64 Figure 2 1. Con ceptual model of local capacity for conservation community action.
65 Figure 2 natural resource management alternatives.
66 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida on June 11, 2009 (See Appendix A). In the last several years the natural scientist community generally recognized the fact that natural systems are highly complex and rarely respond in a linear manner to anthropogenic intervent ions. A response is rather a multi tier, multi dimension set of changes that is incredibly difficult to predict (Hunter & Gibbs, 2007). A human society is also a very complex system. Actually, it is a part of the natural system, so, modern conservation tho ught rightly views the two systems not separately, but rather as a combined social ecological system (Berkes et al., 2008).The community based conservation approach is designed to work at the interface of these two systems to simultaneously reach targeted conservation and community development outcomes. It is difficult to capture such a complex system in any linear prospective, therefore studying and predicting responses to interventions requires application of complex research methods. As a part of the so cial ecological system, community capacity for conservation is also a very complex phenomenon affected by multiple factors (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007; Moore et al., 2006; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007; Laverack, 2001; Laverack, 2006). It makes identifying those factors and measuring community capacity a complicated process requiring a multi method approach. Due to the fact that only very limited study involving measurement and analysis of local capacity for conservation community action factors has been con ducted up to date (Kellert et al., 2000; Doak & Kusel, 1996; Frank & Smith, 1999; Beckley et al. 2004; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007),
67 this study takes the exploratory path. The initial set of factors comprising local capacity for conservation community acti on is suggested based on the general theories of community capacity (Wilkinson, 1991; Luloff & Swanson, 1995; Luloff & Bridger, 2003; Emery & Flora, 2006; Moore, et al., 2006), and some practical research (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007; Child & Murphree, unp ublished; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007), and personal experience. Additional factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action were elicited in the course of the research from key informants and community members who have a local knowledge of the issues and factors increasing, or decreasing local capacity in Maya Biosphere Reserve. The exploratory approach requires identification of the factors that potentially affect local capacity for conservation community action positively or negativel y, and measurements of those factors in the selected study communities. In an attempt to test if hypothesized factors actually affect local capacity for conservation, a large number of independent variables were initially suggested. Therefore, the methods suggested here are directed at identifying and analyzing factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action in resident local communal forest leases within Maya Biosphere Reserve on the territory of Petn Department of Guatemala. Such an ex ploratory and preparatory approach is one of the strongest epistemological features of case study research design (Yin, 2003; Stake 2003; de Vaus, 2002). The design of the study allows for generalization of the results only for the resident community fore st leases in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Therefore, the factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action identified in the course of the study require a more in depth and larger scale research, possibly under a set of
68 different conditions to allow for a wider generalization. At the same time, the study results are expected to attract more attention to the issues of local capacity for conservation community action and possibly trigger similar studies using these and other approaches to bett er develop its conceptual framework, and improve the quality of local capacity building interventions of community based conservation projects. Unit of Analysis The primary unit of analysis for this research is a community. A community is the most importa nt level of understanding and measuring local capacity because it is a collective capacity to manage resources that does not necessarily directly correspond to the sum of individual capacities (Luloff & Swanson, 1995). More importantly, it is the formal le vel of decision making that ultimately defines the interrelations of social and ecological systems at the local level. In spite of the fact that measurements were conducted on several levels from individual community members to the supra community, all the measured data were calculated for each community separately. This is logical because the focus of the research is the local capacity to manage community pooled natural resources and community is the level of shaping the condition of those resources. This level is also important from the practical conservation point of view as conservation organizations treat communities as a community based conservation intervention unit (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Berkes, 2004; Wells & Brandon, 1992; Agrawal & Redford, 200 6). Therefore, studying local capacity for conservation community action at the level of community would provide guidance to community based conservation practitioners for project planning and implementation.
69 Research Design For this study an exploratory multiple case comparative embedded case study research design was selected. Each studied community forest concession represents a separate case. There are several reasons why this particular design is appropriate to answer the research questions. First of all, because case studies are a preferred contemporary phenomenon in a real life context to retain its holistic and meaningful characteristics (Yin, 2003). The case study researc h design is also quite a common approach for an exploratory social study (Yin, 2003; Yin, 2004; Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Stake, 2003; de Vaus, 2002). In addition, local capacity for conservation community action is a complex phenomenon with multiple dimensio ns and a variety of different actors that cannot be studied out of the natural setting context. In this situation a case study design is also the most appropriate approach in an attempt to identify factors affecting local capacity for conservation communit y action as well as measure the level of their influence on local capacity for conservation community action and interrelations among them within the local context (Yin, 2003; Yin, 2004; de Vaus, 2002; Stake, 2000; VanWynsberghe & Khan, 2007 ). As mentione d above, local capacity for conservation community action is a complex phenomenon, and therefore cannot be described/explained by a single variable, and therefore requires a multivariate analysis of several variables. Several of these variables potentially influence each other in a number of ways that affect the outcome variable of local capacity for conservation community action. Finally, those variables were measured using both quantitative and qualitative data collection and
70 analysis methods. In a situat ion with multiple variables both qualitative and quantitative a case study design is also the most appropriate approach (Yin, 2003; Yin, 2004). To measure all of the proposed variables the research utilizes multiple sources of data and multiple methods, i nstruments and tools for acquiring it. In addition, these data were obtained at different levels: individual, community, supra community (for groups of communities together), regional and national. Case study approach provides enough flexibility to accommo date this variety of sources and levels of data collection (Yin, 2004; Stake, 2000; Scholz & Tietje, 2002 Hancock & Algozzine, 2006; Gillham, 2000; Stake, 2003). The research uses analytical induction logic for identifying common patterns in independent v ariables among the cases with the similar outcome variable values on the one hand, and different independent variable values patterns among the cases with different outcome variable values (de Vaus, 2001; Hancock & Algozzine, 2006; Gillham, 2000). All such elements as measured for each group of cases allow identifying factors of local capacity for conservation community action. Obviously, one study is not enough to completely answer all of the questions. The explorator y nature of the research allows gleaning of the initial information on the subject to be used as guidance for the future potential research (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). Therefore, one expected outcome of this research is to stimulate development of new hypotheses a nd more focused research based on the findings of this study. Communities do not conserve or destruct the nature around them as a specific act conducted by an independent agent. They are imbedded within larger social systems and for the main part respond t o a variety of their signals in a way of policies,
71 enforcement, market prices, and other incentives and disincentives produced by these systems (Berkes, 2004). Therefore, it is improper to study a community phenomenon like local capacity for conservation c ommunity action without this larger context. Case study approach allows for factoring in that larger context into which communities are nested to provide a better explanation of the phenomenon (Yin, 2003; Scholz & Tietje, 2002). Multiple case study appro ach for the study was selected to make the research more robust as well as increase the inferential power to go beyond just one community (Yin, 2003; Scholz & Tietje, 2002; de Vaus, 2001). By conducting a single case study or two case comparative study the re is always a chance of selecting a community with very unique features that cannot be easily replicated or impossible at all in other similar communities. Though some important information can be gleaned from such a unique case (Yin, 2003; Scholz & Tietj e, 2002) it would not necessarily serve the objectives of the study. The study aims at identifying the most important factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action, measurement techniques and indicators that could be used for practical purposes of building local capacity for conservation community action in other natural resource dependent communities. A multiple case research design allows for more rigorous practical use of the study results when planning and implementing community bas ed conservation interventions in Maya Biosphere Reserve and elsewhere. An embedded case study approach to the research was dictated by the research objectives and the nature of community as the unit of analysis for this study. Community is a complex multi facet, multi level entity with multiple fields and multiple actors with
72 their interests and institutions (Wilkinson, 1991; Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Lyon, 1989; Granovetter, 1973). This complexity is reflected in local approaches to use and manage natural res ources in its full entirety (Theodori, 2005; Bridger & Luloff, 1999; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Luloff & Swanson, 1995). Different stake holder groups and individuals, a variety of interests and institutions affect community capacity in different ways (Luloff & Swanson, 1995; Luloff & Bridger, 2003). Therefore, measuring local capacity for conservation community action requires embedded case study approach to factor in all those fields, institutions and interests within a community (Yin, 2003; Scholz & Tietje, 2002; de Vaus 2001). Another important characteristic of embedded cases is that it allows for both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and analysis approaches (Scholz &Tietje, 2002). This study is a grounded theory exercise in an attempt to defining local capacity for conservation community action, building its model, and developing indicators to measuring this capacity. As described by de Vaus (2001) this could also be defined as a clinical approach as it is centered not as much on theory but rather on developing an understanding of what factors local capacity for conservation community action is influenced by as well as identifying potential ways to increase the capacity for desired conservation and developmental outcomes. From the motiv ational point of view, this is an instrumental research as it seeks to understand and theoretically generalize a phenomena of local capacity for conservation community action (Scholz &Tietje, 2002). instrumental case study approach extended to several cases. It moves the research
73 even further away from just intrinsic motivation towards concrete practical objectives of building local capacities for conservation. Case S tudy S ite Selection and S ampling Purposeful maximum variation sampling method was used for selecting community forest concessions to meet the objectives of the study and as driven by the research design (Patton, 2002). The main goal of the study is to identify the most important factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action of community forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve, and based on that information describe the phenomenon of it. That does not necessarily require statistical generalizations, but rather theoretical generalizations (Yin, 2004; Gillham, 2000). Therefore, the sampling was done on the basis of selection and screening processes. The selection and screening processes were necessary to ensure that the cases under stud y meet the criteria necessary to answer the research question. These criteria were as following: c ommunities residing in the natural environment and depending on the natural r esources for their livelihoods a minimum sufficient set of legal rights over the natural resources: access, extraction, management and exc lusion of others e xogenous factors influencing local capacity for conservation community action are controlled g roups with significant difference in c onservation outcomes All of the study communities are located in the Petn Department of Guatemala on the territory of Maya Biosphere Reserve. This site was selected based on criteria important for the goals of the research. First of all, Maya Biosphere Re serve is a biologically diverse site of special importance for biodiversity conservation purposes
74 (Parks Watch, 2004) It was established in 1990 for the three main purposes: a) to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecological equilibrium of Maya Forest; b ) conserve and appropriately utilize the cultural heritage resources; and c) manage and sustainably utilize the natural and cultural resources with public participation and public suppor t (UNESCO, 2009) To reach t he third objective the multiple use zone of the reserve was granted to local communities to manage both natural and cultural resources on their territories in a sustainable manner. T he availability of local communities located within the reserve that use natural resources in the area and depend o n them for their livelihoods was the other criteria for selecting the site This group of communities was selected for the following reasons: c ommunities resided in the n atural environment and depended on the natural resources for their livelihoods t hey e njoyed a minimum sufficient set of legal rights over the natural resources: access, extraction, man agement and exclusion of others t he communities demonstrated significant diffe rence in conservation outcomes t here were environmental data available that allowed measuring the efficiency of proxy for local capacity for conservation community action The fact that the communities were located within t he same country, department, and protected area allowed controlling for most of the exogenous variables, representing national and department level factors: state and national policies, enforcement efficiency, economic development rate, physical access to markets, etc. The same geographic area allowed assuming the similarity of and therefore controlling for environmental features and conditions that could affect local capacity for conservation community action: types of forest, terrain, climate, etc. So, by controlling most of the exogenous factors any differences in the dependent variable could be
75 explained by the community endogenous factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action. At the planning and initial data collection stages of t he study altogether there were 12 forest community concessions within multiple use zone of Maya Biodiversity Reserve. Six of these concessions were not residing inside their concession forests, therefore only 6 community forest concessions met the abovemen tioned selection criteria, and were all selected as subjects for the study. During the course of field data collection two of the selected concessions were cancelled by the Guatemalan Federal Government. One of the communities was completely evicted right after the cancellation. The other was dropped from the study because the concession cancellation caused a lot of hurt feelings in the community, thus biasing potential responses. This decreased the accessible population by 33%. The decision was made to stu dy the four resident community forest concessions that were left in Maya Biosphere Reserve at that time: Uaxactun, Cruce, Carmelita and Pasadita. A larger number of cases would make the research results stronger allowing for more robust statistical genera lization, and therefore, increasing the inferential power of the study (Yin, 2003; Yin, 2004; de Vaus, 2001). However, having only four cases allowed for triangulation when research results of one or a group of communities significantly differed from the o thers. This decreased the likelihood of misinterpretation of collected data (Stake, 2000; Yin, 2003). General Description of the Concessions The four selected community concessions are similar in certain aspects and are different in others. Following is a general comparative description of these concessions
76 organized by the following aspects: general information historic and cultural backgrounds, ethnic composition, way of life, and current occupations. General information All of the concessions are locat ed within the multiple use zone of Maya Biosphere Reserve. It means that the roads leading to those concessions are guarded by National Park Service (CONAP) and military. Three of the concessions are located along one road next to each other: Pasadita, Cru ce and Carmelita. Uaxactun is located in the end of another road (Figure 3 1). T he concession areas are: Uaxactun 83,558 ha, Carmelita 53,797 ha, Pasadita 18,817 ha, and Cruce 20,469 ha (ACOFOP, 2005). Historic and cultural backgrounds In 19 th cen tury Petn department became a place for extracting chicle tree latex used as a base for producing chewing gum (Schwartz, 1990). At that time several chicle tapper settlements were established in the area as centers for collecting and transporting chicle. Three out of four study communities were established as such centers at those times: Uaxactun, Carmelita and Pasadita. Participation in chicle extraction required spending most of the time in the forest. As a result of this, peopl e in such communities developed a culture of living in the forest and extracting a variety of resources (Schwartz, 1990). They practiced agriculture for subsistence purposes, but did not tend to grow cash crops extra cting forest resources instead In the s econd half of the 20 th century the Guatemalan government started new policies of colonization of Petn by homesteaders from other parts of Guatemala (Schwartz, 1990). The population grew manifold very fast. The arriving people primarily were arriving to fi nd new land for agriculture. Therefore, they had an agricultural mindset, which in swidden agriculture means clearing out and burning a new plot every
77 several years ( Brady, 1996). Cruce community was established at those times, therefore, its first inhabit ants were primarily preoccupied with practicing agriculture. In spite of that, the community made a decision for establishing a community forest concession, and was granted a permit to do so ( CONAP, 2001). Ethnic composition The populations of all of the study communities are predominantly ladinos. These are descendents of Spaniards who mixed over the centuries following the conquest with (Schwartz, 1990). These people speak t he same language, and share the same ways and traditions. Way of life and current occupations People in all of the study communities lead very similar ways of life. They are predominantly very poor by western standards. People live in simple houses built of materials found nearby: sticks, clay, palm leaves and twigs, etc. More wealthy families use wooden boards for walls and have concrete floors. Having a dirt floor is still quite common (Schwartz, 1990). There is no electricity grid nor telephone lines in any of the communities. Some families use gas generators and cell phones, but the signal is very weak in some communities, and never reaches other Very few families have cars or trucks, motorbikes are more common. Education level in all of the communitie s is low, many people are illiterate. Medical service is very limited in some communities and practically non existent in others. Families are mainly involved in agriculture both for subsistence and earning some money Men take forest jobs extracting both timber and non timber forest resources like allspice, xate, chicle, etc. Xate sorting and packing creates several jobs for women and
78 children in the communities. Uaxactun and Carmelita concessions have purchased saw mills which create several jobs for the communities, as well as provide opportunities for those community members who want to do carpentry. In the several last years some jobs are also created through tourism development. Research V ariables The study uses one dependent and a set of independent variables. The dependent variable reflects the quality level of forest management practices by a community. This is the area annually deforested in each of the concessions. It is derived with the help o f GIS database analysis of time series of satellite images of the area. Based on the Rational Choice theory it is rational for communities to maximize their expected utility (Green, 2002, Lovett, 2006; Blossfeld, 1996; Scott, 2000). The expected utility in this case are the marketable resources that can be extracted from the communally managed forest. M aximizing expected utility means management of forest resources in such a way as to reap the highest economic, intrinsic, sustenance, cultural and other valu es from them for the longest possible time. This could be accomplished by implementation of quality management practices on a sustainable basis. In practice this means exclusion of poachers and land grabbers, fire prevention and control, management plannin g, product development and marketing, complex use of resources, etc. ( Guariguata et al., 2008). It is assumed that a ll of the community forest concessions are st riving to manage their resources well to maximize their expected utilities, and to keep their land (in cases of sustainable use non compliance a concession can be cancelled and the whole community evicted from the land). Therefore, t he rate of deforestation is a valid or lack
79 thereof, be that due to low funds, inadequate skills, elite capture of the decision making process, lack of information, negative attitudes towards forest, or a combination of all, or some of these and other factors. As long as most of the exogenou s factors were controlled, the differences in management levels and conservation results were caused by the differences in local capacity for conservation community action of each community. This allows using deforestation rate variable as a valid proxy fo r local capacity for conservation community action. There were 79 independent variables used in the study (Table 3 1). Each one of them was developed to measure a facet of a factor hypothetically affecting local capacity for conservation community action as suggested by literature (Wilkinson, 1991; Luloff & Swanson, 1995; Luloff & Bridger, 2003; Emery & Flora, 2006; Moore, et al., 2006; Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007; Child & Murphree, unpublished; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007), and by local and international experts. Some factors were measured with the help of more than one variable. Each of the independent variables was measured using specific methods and tools that best suit each variable (Bryman, 2004; de Vaus, 2001; Kumar, 2005). C ommunity R ights over the F orest Resources This is a very important factor that a priori defines relations between communities and natural resources in their area (Murphree, 1997b; Child & Lyman, 2005; Schlager and Ostrom, 1992; Flint et al., 2008). According to Hanna et al. (1996) the way ownership institutions are designed influences the interaction between people and their natural environment. Community based natural resource management approach is based on principles of devolution of rights over the natural resources to the loca l communities, as well as open and participatory decision making, fair distribution of
80 profits, and capacity of local communities to successfully manage their resources (Child & Lyman 2005; Flint et al., 2008). These principles seem to be working quite wel l throughout the world and exhibiting excellent results in both sustainable use of natural resources and socio economic development within local communities (Murphree, 1997b). This factor was measured with the help of two variables: type of ownership, and concession contract period of time. The local communities in the Petn area have different types of property rights over the forest resources from long term forest concessions to completely illegally settled communities who also use those resources (Reini ng et al., 1998). The measurement of a community rights over forest resources was conducted with the help of in depth interviews of community management, outside experts, and document review. Different types of property rights were included into the measur ement, including, but not limited to: access; withdrawal; management; exclusion; and alienation (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). Based on the type of rights each community was assigned to a property rights category. An important additional value to measure was the length of property rights agreement period. Even with stronger property rights, a shorter period could be viewed less preferably, especially if renewing the agreement is questionable. The agreement period variable was measured with the number of years of the formal concession lease. Human C apital This factor was measured with the help of three variables: special forestry vocational education of management members; general educational of community members; and general experience of working in forestry jo bs. These were hypothesized to be important human capital variables (Emery & Flora, 2006; Coleman, 1988;
81 Bourdeiu, 1986) as applied to forest resource management and conservation. This factor is also very important for the study because the current conserv ation movement use s it as a proxy for community capacity in their local community capacity building interventions (WCS, 2005; UNDP 2005). In this respect, by measuring human capital together with other independent variables it was possible to detect the ac tual importance of this factor for local capacity for conservation community action. Special forest management education is very important for more successful forest resource management. This knowledge is critical for a high quality comprehensive planning and the informed decision making process to maintain the communal resources in good shape, and get the higher value for their products. This variable was measured with the help of in depth interviews of community management and outside experts. There are two types of data: quantitative (the number of people with degrees in the management positions), and qualitative (the leadership qualities of concession management). In very much the same way as increasing the knowledge and skills to manage forest resourc es, general education of the community was hypothesized to affect local capacity for conservation community action. Higher levels of education are known to increase leadership and overall activity essential for general community capacity (Aspen Institute, 1996; Goodman, 2008). Therefore, the same should be true for local capacity for conservation community action. General education level should be especially important for communities with effectively established collective decision making mechanisms, when e very community member participates in the process. The general
82 level of education variable was measured in the number of years of formal education attained by individuals in each community. Effecti veness of Democracy M echanisms This factor was used as a p roxy for the power distribution within a community forestry field. Both power structure and decision making structure are important for power distribution within a community (Hyman et al., 2001; Boulding, 1989; Brennan & Israel, 2008; Flint et al., 2008). Power distribution plays one of the most important roles for community capacity and community action. Low levels of democracy cause disaffection and negatively impact local community capacities (Luloff & Swanson, 1995; Brennan & Israel, 2008). Therefore, i t was hypothesized that higher levels of democracy within forestry social field would increase local capacity for conservation community action. This factor was measured with the help of 4 variables comprising the most important features of democracy mecha nisms: established mechanisms for democratic decision making; ability to freely elect the management; management reporting back to the community members; and ability to re elect any management member at any point of time. Each of the variables was measured at 2 levels: formal existence established in documents; and actual effectiveness as believed by community members. Formal existence of democratic decision making mechanisms was measured with the help of document surveys and in depth interviews with commu nity leaders and outside experts. The main documents reviewed were the community agreements and contracts signed with the National Council of Protected Areas, forest resource management plans, and internal community documents describing their decision maki ng mechanisms. In addition, several international organization reports and studies were reviewed.
83 Formal existence of democracy mechanisms does not automatically mean that they work effectively. This was especially questionable in Maya Biosphere Reserve, where communities had to establish these mechanisms as one of the requirements to gaining formal rights over forest resources. The actual effectiveness of democracy decision ma king. Measuring perceptions was important for two main reasons: 1) this provided a test of how well the formal mechanisms work in reality; and 2) it allowed to measure perceived behavioral controllability of community members (Ajzen, 2005). According to th e Theory of Planned Behavior perception of their ability to successfully perform a specific behavior (Ajzen, 2005; of their abi lity to effectively participate in the decision making process, irrespective of perceptions and beliefs were measured with an index ( see Appendix D ). In teractional Communit y Networks Community is a very complex system defying an easy way to define it. That resulted in a large number of community definitions developed from a variety of points of view for many different purposes (Hillery, 1955). Interactional theory views comm unities and processes going on in them as based on the interactions and their structures within a community (Wilkinson, 1991; Flint & Luloff, 2005; Flint et al., 2008). This approach is well grounded in the sense that practically nothing happens in communi ties without interactions and, therefore, interactions define and describe most of community processes (Kaufman, 1959; Wilkinson, 1970; Wilkinson, 1991).
84 When a community is interested in resolving an issue/problem a new locality oriented social field eme rges as a mechanism for community interactions (Luloff & Bridger, 2003; Matarrita Cascante & Luloff, 2008). The interactions within this social field create a base for initiating, continuing and improving a community action to resolve a local problem (Wilk inson, 1991). In addition, these interactions reflect all of the processes going on in community, their depth, intensity, people involved, etc. From this prospective interactions measurements can provide key information on the processes of interest. For th e purposes of the study, it was important to measure the interactions that are related to and directly affect management of common pooled forest resources community forestry social field. Four variables were used to measure this factor: the structure of the social field; the intensity of interactions; the quality of interactions; and the scope of interactions. The structure of communal forestry management social field is an attribute describing the distribution of interactions dedicated to all kinds of fo rest resource management issues/problems within and outside of community. The study specifically paid attention to the distribution of weak and strong ties within the social field because their balance is very important for information exchange efficiency (Granovetter, 1973). therefore, of better ability to initiate and develop a community action. This variable was measured with direct multiple choice question in the survey questionnaire ( see Appendix F ).
85 Intensity and quality of interactions are also important characteristic of the communal forest resource management social field. These variables add to and describe the overall structure of the interactions. The intensity was measured as a number of interactions that respondents had with each of the social field actors during the two weeks prior to the interviews ( see Appendix F ). The quality of interactions was measured with the help of anchored vignette instrument ( see Ap pendix F ). The respondents selected from a scale of four scenarios of interactions for each actor, or offered one of their own. The scope of the interactions is another important characteristic of the social field. It basically describes the topics of act topics they could remember discussing with different actors of the communal forest resource management social field, and outside of the field ( see Appendix F ). The variable measures the variability of the topics, as well as types of the topics. It was hypothesized that topics discussing issues of resource management (planning, equipment, certification, protection, etc.) have higher importance for conservation transportation, potable water provision, etc.). Communal Forest C oncession Infrastructure the community variables both of which are quite e ssential for community capacity to conserve (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007; Emery & Flora, 2006). Though it is debated if more financial and physical capital in communities would actually translate into more conservation (Ferraro & Kramer, 1997; Ferraro, 200 1) they definitely are important resources for a community to mobilize for a successful CBC community action.
86 It turned out to be impossible to measure community financial capital, mainly because in Guatemala there are no easily available mechanisms to fi nd out the financial situation of organizations with any level of consistency and precision. Usually, people are suspicious and prefer not to answer these type s of questions. In such a situation, available infrastructure like machinery, premises, fuel, etc can serve as a proxy for both physical and financial capitals because it is assumed that communities would buy/build the necessary infrastructure items when a need arises if they have available financial capital. Besides, only that part of financial capi tal that is invested into forest resource management and conservation projects is of importance to the purposes of the study. An evaluation scale was used to measure this variable. A group of outside key informants familiar with each studied community grad ed different facets of their infrastructure and explained their decisions ( see Appendix G ). Outside S upport In addition to endogenous factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action there are a number of exogenous factors as well (Donog hue & Sturtevant, 2007; Child & Murphree, unpublished). Although they are partially or completely beyond community control, their influence can be critical, and therefore cannot be neglected. Most exogenous factors were controlled through careful selection of cases (policies, economic situation, climate, markets, etc.). An important exogenous community action in MBR was support provided by outside organizations and individuals. Pr eliminary investigation showed that this outside support was not the same for the study communities, and therefore was not controlled by the selection process.
87 There are several international, national and regional conservation NGOs present in the area (CI, 2008; WCS, 2008; ProPetn, 2008; Stafford, 1994). They were and are involved in a variety of activities on different levels. Some of their projects are at the local community level and specifically directed at local capacity for conservation community action building. There were two sources for measuring outside support for each community: a) key informant interviews; and b) members of community forest concessi ons. Key informants were asked about organizations and types of support for each community provided in approximately last 5 years. The actual effectiveness of the support was tested with 3 survey questions about: a) supporting organizations; b) types of su pport provided by them; and c) community concession benefits as perceived by their members ( see Appendix G ). Atti tudes towards Forest Resources In their community based conservation interventions organizations target changing community behavior to make i t more conservation oriented. There are a number of important factors that play specific roles in shaping their behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) attitudes are a product of three types of beliefs (behavior al, normative, and control) and are instrumental in shaping behavioral intention, which is a precursor of a specific behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). With a fully formed intention humans would execute the targeted behavior unless some exogenous factors w ould prevent it (Ajzen, 2005). So, the attitudes are a viable indicator of potential behavior. If attitudes towards natural resources are negative, then the targeted conservation behavior is unlikely to happen, or sustain after a project is over. In case t hese attitudes are positive, only something is likely to prevent the conservation behavior. That makes
88 attitudes towards conservation of forest resources and other aspects of their use to be important variables of the level of this factor influencing local capacity for conservation community action in the studied communities. In p sychology attitudes are defined as a hypothetical construct representing underlying like or dislike of individual responses (Jung, 1966). In other words, attitudes exist on a supra cognitive level, when people cannot explain their attitudes using words. That means that measuring attitudes should also be administered on a supra cognitive level to ensure validity and reliability of the measurements (Scott, 19 75). The study used a Likert scale as one of the most valid and reliable instruments for measuring attitudes (Bryman, 2004; DeVellis, 2003) ( see Appendix B ). Three different subscales were built in to represent different attitude types: a) attitude towards economic values of forest resources (items: IS2, IS4, IS10, IS11); b) attitude towards responsibility/legacy values (items: IS3, IS5, IS6, IS7, IS9); and attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest (items: IS1, IS8, IS12). Data Collection M ethods and I nstruments To reach the research objectives a multi method approach to data collection of both qualitative and quantitative data was suggested (Gillham, 2000). This included the following data collection methods: archival records study, key informant int erviews, and a survey. Each method was used to collect data in an attempt to produce information leading to achieving the research objectives. For each method applied within the study, appropriate instruments were developed for a robust collection of perti nent data. Archival Sources Analysis The main reasons for applying analysis of archival sources are to study the background of the study area and units of analysis as well as glean the pertinent
89 data/information that could be used for the case selection an d/or data analysis processes (Yin, 2009). The primary sources of archival information used for the research were: official documents, media (mainly newspapers and internet), theses, books and scientific articles. The data and information gleaned from archival sources were used for two main purposes: community selection process, and data analysis interpretation. To increase validity of this source a critical hermeneutic approa ch was used (Bryman, 2004), i.e. the information was interpreted within the social and historic context. Another important approach was to include a variety of archival sources, representing different points of view. Practically all of the archival data i s biased to some extent (Sutton, 1992; Yin, 2009; Bryman, 2004). Analysis of different and sometimes contradictory points of view helped the researcher to develop a more factually balanced and therefore valid picture of the reality (Yin, 2009). Those docum ents that were obviously significantly biased, or provided information not pertinent to the objectives of the study were excluded from the analysis Delphi Method The valid, reliable and precise analysis of local capacity for conservation community action in large relies on identifying, measuring and including into the analysis all of the factors influencing local capacity for conservation community action. Some of the factors were identified (see above) based on literature review of similar research as wel l as theorized by some authors (Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007; Moore et al., 2006; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007; Laverack, 2001; Laverack, 2006). To obtain a potentially more exhaustive set of factors Delphi method of consensus building with a
90 panel of indepe ndent experts was used. This method can be very effective in receiving feedback and reaching consensus from a group of experts because it is based on anonymity, controlled feedback and statistical group response (Fisher, 1978). These features provide for l ess bias, a higher participation rate and higher quality opinion eliciting. In addition, this method is quite inexpensive, fast to perform and can easily be administered using modern means of communication like e mail. Therefore, implementing Delphi method provided for higher levels of objectivity and completeness of the list of factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action of local communally managed forest concessions within multiple use zone of Maya Biosphere reserve. Initially, 16 experts from governmental and non governmental organizations both local and international participated in the first round in a form of semi structured interviews. Two people refused to participate (one from the Guatemala Park Service, and one from an inter national NGO) both due to lack of time at the moment. During these interviews the key informants were asked to identify all of the factors responsible in their opinion for the differences in deforestation rates in the four study community concessions, and explain them in more detail ( see Appendix I ). Those key informants who agreed to participate in the further rounds (9 people) were contacted two more times with the request to select 5 7 most important factors, and prioritize them in the importance order. In depth I nterviews of C ommunity Key I nformants The main objective of this inst rument was to obtain insider per spective on some community processes important for local capacity for conservation community action, both at the time of the interview and in a historical retrospective. This information was
91 processes, and t o triangulate the survey data. An i n depth interview instrument was selected because it unites structured and unstructured approaches (Bryman, 2004). The semi structure d part allowed for asking very specific standardized questions about each speak to topics they thought importan t ( see Appendix J ). The unstructured part allowed the respondent s to express their attitudes, opinions and concerns on a wider range than outlined in the interview guide. This was needed to identify potential issues of importance omitted from the guide. Al together 11 key informants were interviewed in the four study community forest concessions. Semi struc tured Key Informant I nterviews In an attempt to measure two additional variables, one more instrument was developed: semi structured key informant interview guide ( see Appendix G ). The two variables: concession infrastructure and concession leadership required experts similarly knowledgeable about all of the study community concessions. The instrument required rating different features of the two variables for the time of the interview and in retrospective. They were also asked to explain their ratings. Only four experts were identified that had the knowledge of the two varia bles for all four concessions. All four were interviewed. Survey A s urvey of community concession members was developed as the main instrument for obtaining data to answer the research questions. The s urvey was selected because it is a common approach whe n collecting data from a comparatively large group of respondents in a standardized way (Miller & Salkind, 2002; Bryman,
92 2004). It was administered in each of the selected community concessions to solicit and obtain data from concession members. Independen t random sampling of the theoretical population of adults over 18 years old was drawn in the largest community of Uaxactun. The populations of the rest of the community concessions were significantly smaller, therefore censuses of total populations were co nducted. Accessible population practically equals the theoretical population except for the people absent from their communities due to a variety of reasons (e.g. an outside job, serving in the military, traveling during the survey, etc.). The lists of com munity members maintained by concession managers were used as sampling frame. The sample size for Uaxactun resident community forest concession was calculated using the n=z 2 s 2 /d 2 formula where : n= sample size; z= z score for the confidence level; s= variance ; and d= sampling error (Israel, 2003). For the purposes of the research the confidence level was preset at sufficient to detect difference between the groups (Agresti & Fi nlay, 1997). The standard deviation was initially estimated during the instrument pre testing and the most conservative value was used in the formula for calculating the sample size n for Uaxactun community where all of the instrument pre testing took plac e. S imple r andom sampling was conducted only in Uaxactun community concession where the re were a larger number of concession members. The calculated sample size there was 67 concession members. In the rest of the concessions the decision was made to inter view all of the available concession members due to their small sizes. The actual number of interviewed respondents was 214 (Uaxactun = 61; Cruce = 45; Carmelita = 54; Pasadita = 54). The response rate was 88%, thus making the non
93 response not significant. willingness to participate could be explained by tokens given to every respondent after the interview in a way of a these gifts were well received by the concession members (flashlights, tools, soap, water bottles, plastic containers, etc.). The only potential identified for nonresponse bias was the sex of the nonrespondents ( males = 83%). Most of these men were working outside of their communities in the time of the survey. Additional discussions with local experts in each of the communities did not show any nonresponse bias there. For the purposes of the research a survey ins trument was developed using several tools: structured interview, anchoring vignettes, and indices. Structured I nterview There are several reasons for using s tructured interview tool. First of all, structured interview in a way unites approaches of two othe r tools: a self administered questionnaire and an in depth interview (Miller & Salkind, 2002) that are critical for this research. It is more expensive and time consuming than a self administered interview, but allows for very important advantages. They we re more representative by including non literate and poorly literate members of community. According to UNESCO (2006) over 30% of the country population over 15 years old is illiterate, most probably the percent is higher in rural communities. The possibil ity of other person(s) substituting the sampled one, or influencing the responses is eliminated. Interview also decreases non response rate and therefore increases validity of the research (Miller & Salkind, 2002). A chance to do probing and prompting prov ided for better understanding of the questions/items and therefore higher quality answers, as well as less missing data
9 4 which could significantly affect the research results (Hill, 1997; Schafer & Graham, 2002; Madow et al., 1983). The highly standardized approach allowed for easier coding and more robust quantitative analysis (Miller & Salkind, 2002; Bryman, 2004). The use of close ended questions decreased the response variation due to error (interviewer variation) as well as interviewee error (e.g. check ing the wrong box, confusing lines, etc.) (Miller & Salkind, 2002; Bryman, 2004). It also practically eliminated both the inter and intra coder variability as all the codes were assigned by the researcher to all of the responses (Bryman, 2004). There are also several certain disadvantages connected with the structured interviews that were taken into account and were decreased or eliminated altogether with the research design. First and foremost, the issue is the inter and intra interviewer variations in reading/asking questions, developing rapport with interviewee, probing/prompting and writing down/coding the responses that could have add to the error variation (Miller & Salkind, 2002; Bryman, 2004). This particular issue was addressed by decreasing the number of interviewers to only 2 people and by extensive training and constant monitoring of the process by the researcher. To decrease interviewer error variation in responses, and ensure high levels of validity and reliability of the respondents answers an objective approach to constructing the survey questions was utilized (Fowler & Mangione, 1990; Fowler & Cosenza, 2009). For the purposes of this study, each of the questions had an objective to solicit responses providing valid, reliable and precise mea surements of the independent variables. In addition to having an objective, each question also met the standard main characteristics for interview questions: a) consistent understanding by respondents; b)
95 asking for information that respondents potentially have; c) responses could be reported correctly and consistently; and d) respondents were willing to provide the requested information (Fowler & Cosenza, 2009). There also were a number of potential cognitive issues that were connected with the integrity o f these characteristics: question comprehension; retrieval of information; formation of a response; and usability concerns (Fowler & Cosenza, 2009). To analyze these potential issues a cognitive 4 stage pre testing of the questions was implemented For t he questions a pre test task focused classification model was used (Collins, 2003). This model allowed not only to pin point problematic questions, but also identified specific reasons causing those problems. The model uses cognitive aspects of the questio ns approach, looking at comprehension (use of words, sentence complexity, etc.); interpretation (did a respondent interpret the question the same way as the other respondents and as the researcher intended?); information processing (potential problems wit h information retrieval); and communication (problems with putting response information to words, pronunciation, etc.) (Collins, 2003) For pre testing and interview analysis cognitive probing method was used (Collins, 2003; Jobe, 2003). After pre test the interviewers asked specific questions on each cognitive component of the question and the response process. Based on the pre test results all necessary changes/adjustments were made before administering the interview in the selected community forest conce ssions. Indices Four indices were used to measure attitudes towards forest and forest resource conservation, levels of trust, interaction quality between members and management, and beliefs about efficiency of democracy mechanism in the concession ( see App endix
96 B, C, D an d E respectively) as the best tool for this purpose (Mueller, 1986, Ajzen reliability and precision while measuring these constructs. Another important advantage over other tools, they allow researchers to collect data on a supra cognitive level, i.e. elicit more valid and precise data than people would normally put into words during an attempt to describe their attitudes and beliefs (Mueller, 1986). Thi s is especially important when measuring attitudes of rural communities, where people tend to exhibit lower levels of cognitive abilities. Indices especially perform better than other tools when measuring differences in attitudes (between communities and g roups of communities in the case of this research). Important advantages to consider when using these tools is the relative ease in administering an index after it is developed (DeVellis, 2003). Each of the indices went through a three stage instrument pre test procedure. First, all of the items were pre tested using cognitive interviews to make sure that people knew all of the words, and consistently understood the meaning of the items as was intended by the researcher. After changing the wording the it ems were analyzed for item total correlation (Albaum, 1997), and inter item reliability (Dixon, 1984). For the third stage, a test retest procedure was carried out when 27 respondents took the same test with four week interval between them (Brown et al., 2 004). The period of time between the tests was selected to prevent both coefficient inflation due to a short period of time, and respondent maturation due to a very long period of time (McKelvie, 1992). To the best of the knowledge no major events took pla ce between the tests to skew the responses during the retest stage. The resulting test retest reliability coefficients met the pre set level of .70: attitude index = .79; trust index = .86; management and members
97 communication = .76; and democracy mechanis please see Chapter 4). Credibility of the S tudy The credibility of the study is based on its theoretical foundation, use of the previous studies by other researchers, and validity of the components and overall of the study. The overall study validity rests on internal consistency achieved through a logical connection between the purpose of the study, research questions, theoretical foundations, selection of study sites, use of methods, development and administration of research instruments, data analysis, and representation of the results. Increasing validity of different components was a special focus of this research To increase internal validity a two stage approach to the study was implemented. During the first stag e the literature review was conducted to identify potential factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action (local capacity for conservation community action). Then, 16 key informants were interviewed to solicit their opinions on factors affecting capacities for conservation in local community forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve. Semi structured interviews were used with probing and prompting to solicit their opinions on each potential factor of importance for local capacity for conservation community action. Then, two Delphi method rounds were used to narrow down the list of potential factors and their priority order. This increased the internal validity of the study by expanding and refining the list of the factors potential ly affecting local capacity for conservation community action. Selection of the cases for the research was another very important procedure for internal validity of the case study (Yin, 2003). A special attention was paid to selecting communities that wou ld be equal in all respects but the potential factors affecting local
98 capacity for conservation community action. Such a selection process is of primary importance for increasing internal validity of a comparative case study research (Stake, 2000). Out of the 12 community concessions, six communities were selected because they met the selection criteria, and shared most of the characteristics except for the response variable. Unfortunately, two of the concessions were cancelled during the course of the stud y leaving only 4 study cases. External validity has always been an issue for case studies due to small sample sizes. Therefore, case studies in most cases rely not on statistical, but rather theoretical (analytical) generalizations (de Vaus, 2001; Yin, 20 04). Due to the multiple cases to be studied, this research uses the replication logic to build and test theory (Yin, 2003). Definitely, there will need to be many more replications under similar as well as different conditions before the generalization ca n become theoretically significant. Replications can also lead to developing typology of local capacity for conservation community action factors in the future. Statistical generalization is also possible with case studies, though it requires a different logical approach than in other designs (Dion, 1998). As long as the cases for this study are carefully selected based on their characteristics and outcome variable data it is possible to use multiple cases and replications to identify necessary (not suffic ient) dependent variables and their value levels for the outcome variable to reach the selected value level. This is one of the most rigorous generalization methods called e limited statistical generalizations are possible.
99 Data Analysis Analysis of the collected data was shaped in a way as to provide information to address the objectives of the study. Two main approaches were utilized: qualitative and quantitative data an alyses. There were several main procedures used for analyzing the collected quantitative data Initially, a common factor analysis was conducted to optimize the variables measuring the underlying constructs of interest. It was followed by exploratory princ iple component analysis to reduce the number of variables and extract the factors, and create composite variables measuring them. All of the variables created and retained after the factor and principle component analyses were tested for correlation with t he dependent variable in a series of bivariate regressions. Then, analysis of variance and t test procedures were used to identify any significant differences between the studied resident community forest concessions. Multiple regressions were used for eac h combination of pairs of retained variables to prioritize them in an order of significance of explaining the variance of deforestation rate. Qualitative data were analyzed with the help of case ordered meta matrix method ( Miles & Huberman, 1994) Factor Analysis Factor analysis is a general term for a group of approaches aiming at conceptualizing groups of variables to determine the underlying factors measured by these variables (Williams & Monge, 2001). Two different factor analysis procedures were used in the study: common exploratory factor analysis and principle component analysis.
100 Common f actor a nalysis Many of factors hypothesized here to affect the target condition of local capacity for conservation community action represent latent theoretical con structs (e.g. attitudes, beliefs, trust, etc.), and therefore, cannot be observed directly. To measure these factors a set of observable variables was developed for each one of them. Many of these factors (also called common factors) are quite complex phen omena, and required several variables to better describe different facets of the factor (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The variables were hypothesized to be dependent on the factors, therefore, the changes in the common factors are expected to be sources of variations in the observed variables, and correlate with them thus describing the changes in as well as covariance of these factors (Mulaik, 2009). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) procedure was used to validate those expectations. To measure the latent factor variables several indices with sub indices were used as a valid type of instrument for the purpose (DeVellis, 2003). Technically, each item in an index is a variable measuring one facet of a hypothesized latent factor. Common exploratory factor anal ysis was used to: a) extract those latent factors; b) group items measuring those factors; c) determine in which factors changes were actually measured; and d) create variables to be used for the following analyses. Responses to the items represent ordinal of associations was used as the basis for factor extraction (Thompson, 2004). The Factor extraction criteria T he exploratory factor analysis was conducted separately for each of the four indices present on the questionnaire. The main criteria for factor extraction was the
101 eigenvalue. According to Kaiser (1960) only those factors with eigenvalues of 1.00 or greater were retained. That means that the variance of such a factor is significantly contributed to by at least one variable (Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, factors with eigenvalue less than 1.00 account for less variance than was contributed by any one item in an index. Such factors were considered trivial and were dismissed. This method is considered to be quite accurate and objective, especially when analyzing groups of less than 30 variables with communality values higher than 0 .7 (Stevens, 1986). Both of these criteria were satisfied for each index, thus making this method valid. The scree plot was used as another test for valid factors. This is a visual representation of eigenvalues for each extracted factor. Quite often, it is possible to ween different factors with relatively large eigenvalues and factors and those after the break were dismissed. Unfortunately, the scree plot does not always provide a Factor rotation To find a better solution for interpreting retained factors, factor rotation technique was used as a part of the exploratory factor analysis. This procedure was implemented with the goal to provide clearer information about the correlations between the variables and the extracted factors. While the variance explained by rotated ma trix equals that of the unrotated matrix, rotation provides better information of loadings on factor for every variable (Nunnally, 1978). This information about which items load on each factor and how much was critical for better understanding of underlyin g latent constructs measured by the factors.
102 Out of the two options of orthogonal and oblique rotation, the orthogonal rotation was selected through an exploratory process as it provided clearer results for the data. Orthogonal is a rotation of axis in a t hree dimension environment, while the axes do not change the existing angle between them of 90 degrees. This means that the type of orthogonal rotation was selected for the analysis as it maximizes the variance of al., 2005). Variable retention In the process of rotation the preset meaningful loading on a factor was established at 0 .4 whic h is acceptable for social research (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). This means that variables with loadings of less than 0 .4 on any factor were dropped as trivial. Those variables that had the loading >0.4 on more than one factor were dropped from the analys is as well, except for one case of attitudes discussed below. This was therefore cannot provide valid measurements of any one construct (Nunnally, 1978). After each v ariable was dropped, the rotation procedure was repeated. Principle c omponent a nalysis With the help of literature review and key informant interviews 15 factors were hypothesized to affect the target condition of local capacity for conservation community action (Table 4 8). To test if this is true an exploratory approach of a case study research design was utilized. Among other things, this required a large number of variables to be measured during the collection of data period as most of these factors had several facets and, thus were represented by more than one variable. Therefore, a
103 large number of variables were measured in an attempt to explore the underlying factor structures, and identify/compose variables measuring changes in those factors with the acceptable levels of precision and reliability. Principle component analysis procedure was used for these purposes. Principle component analysis was utilized to reach three main objectives: 1) to reduce the overall number of study variables through deleti ng redundant variables, and composing variables (principle components) by joining two or more variables in an artificial variable that measured the targeted construct with significantly higher levels of validity, reliability, and precision than any of the constituent variables separately (Nunnally, 1978); and 3) extract and more precisely define the actually measured factors. For the study purposes the variables were grouped together in several logical procedure. Each of the variable group factor extraction followed the same order and logic of the analysis. Factor extraction The criteria for factor extraction and variable retention were similar to those used earlier for common factor analysis: correlation matrix, eigenvalue; a scree plot, and loading on factors after varimax orthogonal rotation (for a more detailed description of the procedures please see above). Another criterion used for factor extraction in the principal component analysis was based on proporti on of variance that a variable accounted for in the group. There were two approaches used for that. First, only factors accounting for 15% of variance or more were retained. In groups with a larger number of variables each could account for relatively smal
104 about retaining factors. Only those variables were retained, which together accounted for at least 70% of an extracted factor varia nce. Thus, each logical group of variables (usually measured by the same instrument) was analyzed for redundancy, and some variables were dropped in the reduction procedure, while the rest were united in principle components. In the end, only those princi ple components that measured the targeted constructs were retained and used for further analysis. Analysis of Variance To answer the research questions it was imperative to conduct a comparative data analysis between the study cases for the variables of in terest while controlling for other variables. To achieve this, distributions of response data for each study site were analyzed for differences with the help of ANOVA test s In those cases where differences t tests were applied to identify which pairs of data sets were different at 95% confidence level. Case Ordered Meta matrix Qualitative data collected in the course of community leader key informant interviews was needed for two main purposes: gain a bett er understanding of the measured factors in each community; and to triangulate the quantitative data measuring those factors (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). To be able to compare the analyzed information between all of the concessions, a structured observati on data collection method was selected (Bryman 2004). This was realized through semi structured interviews allowing both for ordered data to be collected, as well as a free expression of thoughts and ideas by the informants.
105 The structure of the intervie w was constructed around the factors measured by the survey questionnaire. This was done to make the triangulation of the quantitative data collected in the course of the survey as straightforward as possible. The same is also true for comparing the inform ation between the concessions. To make the triangulation and comparison more effective, all of the data were initially reduced with the help of coding ( Gubrium & Holstein, 1997; Patton, 2002) Then, the coded data was organized into case ordered meta matri x. The analysis of the matrix was made on the basis of ordering cases through summed indices ( Miles & Huberman, 1994). For every measured variable, an index of values was developed based on a logical order of attributes of the variable as expressed by the respondents, and coded by the researcher. Thus, the nominal level measurements were converted into ordinal data allowing for comparing and ordering all of the study forest community concessions Triangulation The study used mixed method using both quantit ative and qualitative data collection and analysis approaches. In the more dominant less dominant model, quantitative data were used to produce the core information (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The qualitative data were used to better understand the resul ts, and triangulate the core information (Patton, 2002). For the purposes of the study the methodological triangulation was selected. This type of triangulation is used when the same variables are being measured using different methods ( Denzin, 1978). First, both quantitative and qualitative data were separately analyzed using the appropriate methods Then, both types of produced information were brought together for every variable measured with two different methods to check for consistency. In
106 additio n, the interview texts were studied to provide a deeper meaning for the core information obtained through analysis of quantitative data Summary Local capacity for conservation community action is a multi facet and highly complex phenomenon making it dif ficult to define, describe, and measure it. Therefore, to answer the research questions a case study research design was selected. That design allowed using multi method approach to data collection including semi structured interviews, Delphi consensus bui lding, a survey, and document analysis. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 214 community members of 4 resident communal forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve multiple use zone, and 26 key informants with the help of sever al instruments developed for these purposes. The quantitative data were analyzed with the help of statistical procedures (factor analysis, ANOVA, and regressions). The qualitative data were analyzed with the help of non statistical methods. Analyses result s are discussed in the following chapters.
107 Figure 3 1. Map of Maya Biosphere Reserve. Source: CONAP
108 Table 3 1. List of independent variables to measure factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action # Variable Source 1 Types of legal rights over the forest and forest resources Document review 2 The length of the rights agreement Document review 3 General attitudes towards the forest Survey 4 Attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest Survey 5 Attitudes towards community responsibility/legacy Survey 6 Attitudes towards economic values of the forest resources Survey 7 Trust in peer community members Survey 8 Trust in Concession management Survey 9 Trust in outside organizations Survey 10 Number of interactions with family and friends Survey 11 Number of interactions with peer members Survey 12 Number of interactions with Concession management Survey 13 Number of interactions outside of the community Survey 14 Type 1 interactions with Family and friends Survey 15 Type 2 interactions with Family and friends Survey 16 Type 3 interactions with Family and friends Survey 17 Type 4 interactions with Family and friends Survey 18 Type 2 family interactions weighted Survey 19 Type 3 family interactions weighted Survey 20 Type 4 family interactions weighted Survey 21 Type 1 interactions with peer members Survey 22 Type 2 interactions with peer members Survey 23 Type 3 interactions with peer members Survey 24 Type 4 interactions with peer members Survey 25 Type 2 peer members interactions weighted Survey 26 Type 3 peer members interactions weighted Survey 27 Type 4 peer members interactions weighted Survey 28 Type 1 interactions with Concession management Survey 29 Type 2 interactions with Concession management Survey 30 Type 3 interactions with Concession management Survey 31 Type 4 interactions with Concession management Survey 32 Type 2 Concession management interactions weighted Survey 33 Type 3 Concession management interactions weighted Survey 34 Type 4 Concession management interactions weighted Survey 35 Type 1 interactions with Outsiders Survey 36 Type 2 interactions with Outsiders Survey 37 Type 3 interactions with Outsiders Survey
109 Table 3 1. Continued. # Variable Source 38 Type 4 interactions with Outsiders Survey 39 Type 2 outsiders interactions weighted Survey 40 Type 3 outsiders interactions weighted Survey 41 Type 4 outsiders interactions weighted Survey 42 Total number of topics with family and friends Survey 43 Advanced number of topics with family and friends Survey 44 Total number of topics with peer community members Survey 45 Advanced number of topics with peer community members Survey 46 Total number of topics with Management Survey 47 Advanced number of topics with Management Survey 48 Total number of topics outside of community Survey 49 Advanced number of topics outside of community Survey 50 Communication quality from Management to Concession Members Survey 51 Feedback quality from Community Members to Management Survey 52 Beliefs in fairness of Management elections Survey 53 Fair distribution of resources in the concession Survey 54 Self efficacy beliefs Survey 55 Beliefs in Management capacity Survey 56 Knowledge of timber resources Survey 57 Knowledge of non timber resources Survey 58 Knowledge of community rights Survey 59 Knowledge of President's name Survey 60 Knowledge of area of the lease Survey 61 Knowledge of payment for lease Survey 62 Knowledge of Annual Operational Plan developers Survey 63 Knowledge of amount of harvested timber Survey 64 Knowledge of the latest price per cubic meter Survey 65 Family economic dependence on the forest resources Survey 66 If the economic situation improved with concession establishment Survey 67 Knowledge of outside organizations active in the concession Survey 68 Knowledge about outside organizations' activities in community Survey 69 Knowl ed ge about benefits to the community Survey 70 Concession physical capital Survey 71 Sex Survey 72 Age Survey 73 Age Group Survey 74 Years lived in the area Survey
110 Table 3 1. Continued. # Variables Source 75 Years of formal school Survey 76 If the respondent works in the concession Survey 77 Total years worked in forest jobs Survey 78 Years worked in agriculture Survey 79 Years worked in other jobs Survey
111 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter is devoted to presenting results of qualitative and statistical analyses, explanations of how these results were obtained, as well as some explanations and interpretations of those results. The results are presented in the order of the logical path of the analysis and the study raphic Profile Altogether 214 community forest concession members were interviewed in the course of the field data collection phase of the study. The demographic data is presented for each concession separately to provide a better idea if their member popu lations are different ( Table 4 1). Men to women ratio of the sample was not different from the actual men to women ratio in all of the concessions. The average age of all of the respondents is not significantly different for all of the concessions, F(3, 21 0) = .78, p = .51, and is about 40 years old. These people had very little formal education in their lives, on average only about 2 years. People in different concessions were involved in different activities in their lives. Uaxactun has been one of the tr ee sap collection centers for over a hundred years (Schwartz, 1990). So, people there in average had over 12 years of working in jobs related to harvesting forest resources which is significantly longer than people in other concessions, F(3,210) = 12.41, p < .01. Concession members in Carmelita had significantly less years spent in agricultural jobs that in other concessions, F(3,210) = 5.16, p = .01. The number of years could be misleading as people can both work in agriculture and have a forest job in the same year. This is especially true for non timber forest resource harve sting, which is highly seasonal as is agriculture. So, some people alternate their activities depending on the
112 seasons, and reported one and the same year for both agriculture, and a f orest related job. Qualitative Data Analysis For the study a mixed dominant less dominant model was used (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). This approach uses qualitative data for the purposes of better understanding, and triangulation of data obtained with the help of quantitative methods. In addition to that, qualitative methods were used in this study to conduct primary measurements for some variables, as well as identify factors potentially affecting local capacity for conservation community action. Two m ain qualitative data collection methods used in this study were a review of archival documents, and semi structured interviews. Review of Archival Documents The documents consisted of but were not limited to journal articles, books, internet sites, prior r esearch reports, and official documents. In addition to better understanding etc., two variables of interest were measured with the help of the document review: a) types of communal rights over forest resources; and b) formal democracy mechanisms in the community forest concessions. Types of Communal Rights over Forest Resources The review identified two important things: a) each community concession enjoyed the min imal set of rights necessary for initiation of an effective conservation community action: acces s, withdrawal, management, and exclusion (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992); and 2 ) they all were granted the concession rights for a period of 25 years with an opportun ity to extend it (CONAP, 1997a; CONAP, 1997b; CONAP, 2000; CONAP,
113 2001) Based on this information, this variable was considered not to be significantly iable was considered to be controlled, and excluded from further analyses. Formal Democracy Mechanisms The l iterature review identified establishment of formal democratic participatory mechanisms as a necessary prerequisite for obtaining community concess ion rights in Maya Biosphere Reserve (ACOFOP, 2005). R eview of concession agreements identified that all of the concessions had very similar formal democratic mechanisms for concession management: a) general concession members meeting as the ultimate decis ion making authority; b) concession management elected by the majority votes of concession members; c) answerability of management, and other concession bodies and members to the general meeting; and d) ability to re elect any concession official at any ti me (CONAP, 1997a; CONAP, 1997b; CONAP, 2000; CONAP, 2001) The review also showed that formally, these mechanisms were very similar for all of the study community concessions, therefore this variable was considered controlled, and dismissed from the furthe r analyses. At the same time, the actual effectiveness of those mechanisms were hypothesized to be an important factor potentially affecting local capacity for conservation community action, and was measured and analyzed in t he course of the study Factor Identification During the literature review a set of 14 factors hypothetically affecting local capacity for conservation community action was identified (Table 4 2).
114 Semi structured interviews produced a list of 117 factor suggestions. With the help of qualitative analysis and Delphi consensus building method the list was decreased to 11 factors and they were prioritized in order of importance for local capacity to effectively manage forest resources as perceived by the key informants (Table 4 3). The c omparative analysis of the two sets of factors identified 4 locally specific factors that were not included into the initial pool of factors to measure: 1) length of residency in the area; 2) not everyone in the communities is a member of the concession; 3 ) outside negative impacts; and 4) ease of access to the concessions. With the help of follow up semi structured interviews of 6 selected key informants more information was collected on these factors to better understand the mechanisms of the factors, the ir importance for local capacity to conserve, and develop variables to measure changes in them. Length of residency in the area For the last several decades, Petn was mainly inhabited by chicle ( Manilkara chicle ) tree gum extractors. Over that period of time they have developed a culture of living in the forest and extracting all kinds of forest resources. In the recent years there were many migrants into the area from agricultural parts of Guatemala seeking land for the Maya Biosphere Reserve area for much longer time. Due to an obvious cultural connection that the key informant s proposed the factor of time lived in the area was turned into a variable to see below).
115 Non members living in the concessions Resident community concessions were e stablished around already existing communities (Schwartz, 2005). Because initially people were offered a freedom to continue living in the community without joining the concession not everyone living in a community became a concession member (CONAP, 1997a ; CONAP, 1997b; CONAP, 2000; CONAP, 2001) Key informant interviews revealed that a fter the initial establishment stage, some community concessions restricted admittance of new members even if they live in the same community. As a result of this, some comm unity members are not interested in the concessions to be successful. There also are those who specifically want concessions in their communities to fail. Mainly, these are people who are self employed extracting forest resources, or inv olved in agricultur e Therefore, it was hypothesized that a percentage of concession members of the total community Outside pressure on the concessions Several key informant interviewees mentioned outside pressure on the community concessions. For the most part, this meant the pressure by wealthy ranchers to sell the communal lands to turn them into cattle grazing lands. According to the key informants, most of the money for the deals was coming from illegal drug trafficking operations, and were directed at money laundering. Though completely illegal, such cases took place in several concessions. As long as these deals were totally criminalized, the decision was made to omit the issue in the measurement instruments not to compromise
116 Ease of access to the concessions An ease of access to community concession lands was mentioned by several key informants as a negative factor. Easier accessible areas are more prone to poaching, land grabbing, and fires (Bray et al., 2008). At the same time, being on the same road three out of four community concessions were in more or less the same condition. Only Uaxactun community concession was obviously in a prefe rable location due to very tight blocking of the main road leading to the community by security of Tikal national park which is right next to the concession land. For these reasons, this factor was dropped from the analysis. Community Key Informant Intervi ews C ase ordered meta matrices developed for every measured f actor (Miles & Huberman, 1994) show two main patterns: 1) community concessions from the low deforestation group are on the more positive side; and 2) all of the concessions are equal (Table 4 4) This is fully reflected in responses to the question about most notable changes since the establishment of the concessions. Significant positive economic changes happened according to the key informants in both of the low deforestation concessions, where as the higher deforestation rate concession key informants reported zero economic improvements. The same is true for the environmental changes over the same period of time: positive changes in community concessions with low deforestation, and negative and no changes in communities with high deforestation. The social changes were evaluated as significantly positive by key informants in all of the concessions. It should be understood here that it does not necessarily translate to the same level. A key informant from Cruce sees it as
117 At the time of the interview the school was still not functional At the same time, a key informant from Uaxactun Concession ment has significantly increased as we are getting more and more teachers, and in addition to an existing mixed school a two story secondary school with a computer class and internet connection is being constructed both concessions are getting an improvement, their levels are still significantly different. Key informants in all of the concessions think that community actions in their concessions are of high levels, and same is true for the forest management practices and the decision making process. importance of their opinions differ for the two groups of the concessions. Of interest is the opinion of the key informants in all of the four concessions that profits are being distributed on fair bases, while people are not necessarily happy with that distribution. This could be explained by the fact, that practically all of the key informants were either current or former representatives of concession management. A k ey informant from Carmelita concession believes S ome people are not happy with the situation, but they have an opportunity to appeal at the Though the key informants significantly differed while evaluating support provided to their concessions by outside organizations, they turned to be unanimous in their opinions about needs for more of such su pport in every concession. The same unanimity the key informants demonstrated when judging the importance of trained staff for more effective forest management. At the same time, they significantly differed when
118 evaluating the current availability of such staff in their concessions. While a key informant from Uaxactun concession boasted trained and experienced staff in the management who can conduct complex tasks on their own a former President of Pasadita concession complained ed to do everything myself The key informants were asked to measure the optimality of their infrastructure to effectively manage forest resources on a 0 (do not have anything) to 9 (have everything) scale. The concessions differed significantly on those m easures, though it is hard to refer this data to the actual situation. First, different key informants might have tend to down grade their infrastructure hoping to increa se their chances of securing some outside support. informants are sign ificantly more positive in the concessions with lower deforestation rate. As a key informant from Carmelita attitudes towards the forest is one of our most important capacities to manage the forest As for levels of trust, according the key informants they are not significantly different between the two groups of community concessions for peer members. Levels of trust are significantly more positive for the lower deforestation group for concession man agement and outside organizations. Quantitative Data Analysis Factor Analysis Attitudes i ndex The factor procedure based on Kaiser principle retained four factors as had been expected. Practically all variables loaded significantly on the first factor. Th at factor was
119 significantly on more than one factor (Table 4 5 ). Analysis of loadings showed that the other three factors corresponded well with the targeted factors of atti tudes towards economic values of the forest and forest resources, intrinsic values, and attitudes towards community responsibility for the forest well being and community legacy. Those variables that loaded significantly on the first factor and some other factor were retained as general attitude includes other attitudes. Only one item did not load as expected and There were no other combinations of double loading, or no significant loading on any factor. T herefore, all of the variables were retained during this analysis. Four composite variables were created based on the towards local community Trust i ndex The factor analysis of the data collected with the help of this index very clearly showed three underlying factors measured by this instrument (Table 4 6 ) Factor loading analysis resulted in dismissing two variables (items) because of significantly loading on two different factors, and one because of not significantly loading on any of the three factors. The rest of the variables successfully passed the test while well fitting in the pre Th e established limit probably due to a small number of retained items. The decision was
120 made to retain both of these factors as important for the objectives of the stu dy. Based on the analysis results three composition variables were developed from the retained variables to be used in the following analyses. Management c ommunity c ommunication q uality i ndex In spite of the fact that the items were developed in a way to measure community management, all items significantly loaded on just one factor (Table 4 7 ). Therefore, community members interact factor in further analyses. Local p erception of d emocracy m echanisms e ffectiveness i ndex The index was developed with 3 sub indices built into it to measure of self efficacy in forest resource management; and 3) belief in fairness of distribution of forest concession management results (money, jobs, etc.) (see Appen dix E). In the process of factor analysis only two factors were extracted (Table 4 8 ). Analysis of ity efficacy in forest resource management. One of the items any of the retained factors, and the other two items liefs in aspects of effective democratic decision making mechanisms. To measure the two retained factors artificial variables were created s
121 efficacy pre established reliability level criteria. This could be explained by a small number of items (3). The decision was made to retain this factor as important for the purposes of the study objectives. The two vari ables were used in the following statistical analyses. Principle Component Analysis Results Structure of i nteractions in the c ommunities With the help of a questionnaire instrument (see Appendix F) several interactional variables of the concession forest management social field were measured: the type of actors of the social field with which concess ion members have interactions; the number of interactions with different actors in the last 2 weeks; quality level of interactions; and major topics discussed with different actors (Table 4 9 ). When asked about topics discussed with each actor within the social field, the respondents came up with 16 different topics (Table 4 10 ). All of the discussion topics were divided into two groups: ds (topics from 1 through 7); and forest concession management issues (topics from 8 through 16). All of the topics in the former group were assigned a weighting score of 1, and the latter group topics were assigned a weighting score of 2 as topics regardi ng directly forest management issues. Candidate variables for reduction were initially identified with the help of the Pearson correlation matrix (Table 4 1 1 ) Principle component analysis of the collected data identified the factors and variables best me asuring them. Three main factors were 1 2 ). To measure the three principle components three variables were c omposed from total quality of interactions
122 total number of advanced total quantity of interactions with all types of interlocutors used in the following analyses to represent the interactional characteristics of the social field. Local k nowledge of f orest m anagement i nformation S everal different variables were measured in the study con cessions (Table 4 1 3 ). Pearson correlation matrix was used to identify strong correlations between the variables (Table 4 1 4 ). Then, three factors were extracted in the course of adings of 8 retained variables on these factors after varimax orthogonal rotation helped to identify of Knowledge n ; and factor 3) of 1 5 ). To measure the factors one composite variable was created for each one of them from variables significantly 1) respectively. The reliability levels did not meet the pre items. Nevertheless, the decision was made not to dro p these va riables as important for the study objectives The three variables were retained to represent each of the extracted factors in the following statistical analyses. Forest c ulture c apital Hypothesized cultural capital factor was focused around the forest resources and their extraction and use. Eight variables were developed to measure the cultural capital factor (Table 4 1 6
123 lated with each other (p < .01) (Table 4 1 7 ). With the help of principle component analysis procedure only two factors were extracted from the survey responses. Only three variables had significant loading on one of the two factors only: years lived in the area (YC) significantly loaded timber 1 8 ). A which united both of the latter statistical analyses. Human c apital To measure human (YFW). It was hypothesized that while working in the forest people gain more knowledge, skills, and experience for fo rest jobs, thus increasing their human capital over time. Principle component analysis procedure allowed to extract only one factor with eigenvalue exceeding 1 .00 with only one YFW variable loading on it. No rotation with one factor only was possible. Ther Deforestation R ate All of the four study community concessions demonstrated in the 12 year period (1997 2009) different deforestation outcomes represented by the dependent variable of annual deforestation area (CONAP, 2009) (Figure 4 1). Comparison of mean
124 distribution for the four concessions demonstrated a significant difference, F(3,48) = 6.47, p < .01. A series of paired t tests identified that: a) Carmelita and Uaxactun community forest concessions did not have significantly different deforestation in that period of time; and b) deforestation in both Carmelita and Uaxactun is significantly smaller than in either Cruce or Pasadita (Table 4 1 9 ). Based on the deforestation rates two groups were identified: 1) of higher deforestation rates (Pasadita and Cruce); and 2) of lower deforestation rates (Carmelita and Uaxactun). All of the comparisons between the concessions were conducted between these two groups of the community forest concessions. Bivar iate Correlation A nalysis Nineteen variables proved to significantly correlate with the dependent variable (Table 4 20 ). For practically all of the signif icant variables, the associations with the deforestation rate were negative which is logical for every one of them. The only This result was not expected as the modern c onservation thinking supports an idea of better conservation with higher levels of trust and reciprocity (E.g. Pretty & Smith, 2004). Possible reasons for this are discussed later in this chapter. Comparing Independent V ariables between the C oncessions Ut ilizing exploratory approach each of the independent variables that significantly correlated with deforestation rate was tested for significantly different outcomes between the community concessions with the help of the two way ANOVA statistical procedure ( Table 4 21 ) All of the attitudinal variable responses follow a clear distributional pattern (Figure 4 2). Each of the variables has higher values for Uaxactun
125 for Cruce highest scores were given to intrinsic values of the forest in all of the concessions. This variable also shows the least differences between the concessions, though still signifi cant between the two groups, F(3, forest concession. Several key informants specifically mentioned this concession as the of cattle grazing on the recently forested land taken on the road between two communities of this concession provides verification of the fact ( Figure 4 3 communities within the high and low deforestation groups and signif icantly different between any communities from different groups, F (3,210) = 187.00, p < .01, and F (3,210) = 111.05, p < .01 respectively. eneral distribution pattern: they have higher levels for the low deforestation group and lower levels for high deforestation group (Figure 4 4 ) there is no significant difference between the groups. Paired t tests showed no significant difference between U axactun and Cruce community concessions for the
126 Concession management congruent with key informant interview reports about the amount of outside organizations support provided to these communities. Most of it goes to Uaxactun and Carmelita. Some organizations refuse to work with C ruce and Pasadita for a variety of It is not significantly different for Uaxactun, Cruce, or Carmelita, but Pasadita has significantly higher levels of peer trust tha n any of the other three concessions, F(3,210) = 16.68, p < .01. A possible explanation could be a higher level of poverty which induces a necessity to share scant resources, thus triggering higher levels of trust. One more explanation could be a wider inv olvement in illegal activities that in a small community requires high levels of trust as everyone knows what everyone else does. criteria all of them were dismissed for fur ther analyses. A special attention was given to the interactional structure of the forest resources management social field. The number of interactions regarding forest resource management issues in the last 2 weeks prior to the interview shows a clear di stribution pattern between high and low deforestation concession groups (Figure 4 5 ). In all of the communities people talk more about those issues with their family members and close friends which represents their strong ties (Granovetter, 1973). At the s ame time, people interact significantly more in the low deforestation communities than in high level deforestation communities, F(3,210) = 44.13, p < .01. Interactions with peer community
127 members represent weak ties in the social field. These ties are of m ore importance as they allow for exchanges of ideas and information between heterogeneous actors, thus enriching the social field (Granovetter, 1973). All of the concessions are significantly different here except for Cruce and Pasadita community concessio ns, F(3,210) = 30.38, p < .01. Interactions between community members and concession management were measured separately as they were hypothesized to be of much importance for community concession effectiveness. Weak ties allow bringing in even more hetero geneous information and ideas when linking concession members with actors outside the community. This facet of weak ties was measured with the help of a separate variable (Figure 4 5 ). It also proved to be significantly different between the groups, F(3,21 0) = 27.58, p < .01, and in Cruce and Pasadita concessions practically equals zero. This is quite interesting because Carmelita community concession is located in a more remote area than either of these concessions. During the principle component analysis, deforestation group, F(3,210) = 49.12, p < .01, and thus retained for further analyses. In addit ion to quantity of the interactions within the forest resources management social field their quality was measured as well. This was done with the help of anchored vignette instrument (see Appendix F) where respondents selected from 4 scenarios those that best fit the type of their interactions with each group of actors within and outside of the field. The distribution of the quality of interactions variables is slightly different from the quantity of interactions (Figure 4 6 ). The quality of interactions w ith friends and family, and quality of interactions with peer community members have a
128 similar distribution: different between Carmelita and all the rest of the concessions, F(3,210) = 15.08, p < .01, and F(3,210) = 13.62, p < .01 correspondingly. The qual ity of interactions with outsiders is low for all of the concessions and significantly is not different in spite of the difference in quantity of these interactions (Figure 4 6 ). Obviously, people from all of the concessions do not go into detailed discuss ions of forest resource management issues with outsiders. Contrary to that, quality of interactions with the concession management has high values and is significantly of higher level for the concessions with low deforestation rate, F(3,210) = 20.27, p < 01. Higher quality of interactions quite possibly allows concession management to better mobilize human capital to resolve concession problems In addition, they are kept more answerable to the concession members through the higher quality dialog. The res earcher attended general concession meetings in two of the concessions. In Uaxactun, the concession with the least deforestation rate of the four study concessions, the meeting went in a manner different from Pasadita, the concession with the highest defor estation rate (Figure 4 7). Though people listened quite attentively in both cases, in Uaxactun there was a lively discussion going. The concession members asked questions, put forward suggestions, and openly discussed the responses. None of these happened in Pasadita. People just listened and kept silent without asking questions or discussing any issues. In the end, Uaxactun concession general meeting requested that a copy of the research results should be provided to the community. Pasadita general meetin g did not express any interest in obtaining the results. In the course of principle component analysis a composite variable summing up the number of all types of interactions and weighting them for quality scores (TAV) was
129 created (for more details please see above). The distribution of this variable follows the general pattern of significant difference between the low and high deforestation rate group concessions, F(3,210) = 30.04, p < .01 (Figure 4 8 ). In addition to numbe r of interactions and their quality it was hypothesized that a number and types of topics discussed during those interactions were important components of local capacity for conservation community action. Altogether, respondents named 16 general topics tha t they discussed with all of the actors of the social field (Table 4 10). Those topics were divided into two groups: less advanced, and more advanced (for more details please see above). Concessions with low deforestation covered significantly more of adva nced topics for all actors, than concessions with high deforestation rate: family and friends, F(3, 210) = 41.08, p < .01; peer community members, F(3, 210) = 44.71, p < .01; forest concession management, F(3, 210) = 55.45, p < .01; and outside of communit y actors, F(3, 210) = 7.18, p < .01 (Figure 4 9 ). A composite variable as a sum of all advanced topics discussed with all actors (tta) created in the course of principle component analysis, was also significantly higher in the concessions from low deforest ation group, F(3,210) = 52.50, p < .01 (Figure 4 10 ). Ability of concession members to freely get their messages across to the management about their concerns, ideas, suggestions, etc., and when these messages are taken into account, and are acted upon wa s hypothesized to be an important factor of local capacity for conservation community action. Same as was truthful and complete information provided by management to concession members, seeking their advice, and participation in the democratic decision mak ing process. These factors were measured
130 with the help of a separate index instrument. With the help of common factor analysis s significantly more positive for the concessions from the low deforestation group F(3,210) = 6.37, p = .02 (Figure 4 11 ). Several variables were developed to measure functionality of democracy mechanisms as they were hypothesized to be pivotal for channe ling all other capacities into more effective conservation community action. All of the study community concessions had established formal mechanisms for democratic decision making process: all levels of concession management were elected by majority of co ncession members; regular general meetings of all concession members to discuss all kinds of issues; general voting on most important decisions; management reporting back to the in effectiveness of these mechanisms that were measured because they serve as an Out of the three variables only two proved to be significantly more positive in the communities with lower levels of deforestation : efficacy to effectively participate in the forestry concession ely (Figure 4 1 2 difference between the concession groups. For Uaxactun community concession it had a low rating when compared with other variables. At the same, this concession rated highest on both self efficacy and effectiveness of democracy mechanisms. This obvious contradiction could be explained with information gleaned from qualitative interviews.
131 Several weeks preceding the data collection phase, a conflict developed in t he concession regarding harvested xate ( Chamaedorea elegans) one of the most important forest resources for the community members ( Figure 4 1 3). The harvesters were forced to sell to specific contractor somehow connected with the concession management, ev en though their prices were not as high as other contractors. Therefore, people were losing money while harvested xate fronds were turning bad in the sheds The freshness of the conflict might have skewed the responses. Nevertheless, due to lack of signifi cant difference between the high and low deforestation concession groups more details please see above). Though following the general distributional pattern (Figure 4 1 4 significantl y different between the groups of low and high deforestation. The other variable was suggested by key informants as a valid one representing forest culture. Its distribution also followed the general distribution pattern (Figure 4 1 5 ), and neither did it prove to be significantly different between the represented were dropped from the further analyses. Factual knowledge of concession matters was h ypothesized to be important for local capacity for conservation community action. In the course of principle component
132 composite variable: CN, FN, and COO respectively (for more details please see above). All three variables follow the general distributional pattern (Fig ure 4 1 6 concession groups. The other two have significantly higher scores for low deforestation group of community concessions: F(3, 210) = 65.29, p < cored significantly lower than the other two variables. less following the general pattern of distribution in the study concessions (Figure 4 1 7 ), neither of these variables is significantly different between low and high deforestation community forest concession groups. Therefore, both of these variables and r were dropped from the further analyses. After the variable comparative analysis only 10 variables representing 10 factors were retained. These variables met both of the two retention criteria: they significantly correlate with the dependent variable of deforestation rate (p < .05), and they are significantly different for the two groups of community forestry concessions with high and low deforestation rates. Significance Priority of the F actors The small sample size of community concessions (n=4) precluded modeling with all of the ten identified significant variables. At the same time, it was possible to run a
133 series of multiple linear regressions for pairs of the 10 retained variables. All of po ssible the deforestation rate as a dependent variable. For a variable in a paired variable model with a higher level of explaining variance of the dependent variable (R 2 ) was assigned a value of one. The lower level of explaining the dependent variable variance got a zero. Therefore, each variable was a part of 9 models paired with each of the rest of the variables. After all the models ran, the values were added up for eac h variable (Table 4 2 2 ). Variables with higher sums of values have higher significance for deforestation. In those cases when two variables ended up with the same sum of values, the one which better explained the deforestation variance in the model with th ese two variables got priority. So, factors represented by these variables are more significant for controlling the deforestation in the 4 study community concessions. Triangulation Comparative analysis of quantitative and qualitative data for the same va riables demonstrated that for the most part words and num bers came together quite well. To p ractically all of the triangulated variables, the data distribution shows the same pattern: it is more positive for the community forest concessions with lower defo restation rates, and less positive, or negative for the concessions with higher deforestation rate. In t his respect, key informants evaluate deforestation in their communities, and negative environmental aspects connected with it very closely to actual def orestation rates. The making process, attitudes toward forest resources, levels of trust, and outside support all follow the general distribution pattern for both qualitative and quantitative data.
134 At the same time, there were several variables that showed some disparity. Those include: ability of concession members to freely communicate with the management, fairness of profit distribution within a concession, and effectiveness of forest management dec ision making process. Key informants tended to evaluate those variables at higher levels than quantitative data collected from the concession members. This could be explained by the deficiencies of purposive snowball sampling. All of the key informants in all of the community concessions turned out to be either current or former representatives of the management. Therefore, they probably tended to overestimate the variables directly linked to their performance. For example all of the key informants believe d that the profit distribution system in each of the community concession was fair. The survey data from concession members do not quite support their statements. At the same time, the key informants recognized the fact that people were not necessarily hap py with the profit distribution in their communities. In spite of these several disparities, it can be concluded that for the most part the quantitative data was consistent with the qualitative data through the triangulation procedure. Summary In this cha pter the statistical results of the study were presented as well as some explanations of these results were offered. With the help of common factor and principle component analyses the initial large number of variables was decreased and significant factors were extracted. With the help of ANOVA procedure only those factors significantly different for community concessions with high and low deforestation rates were retained for further analyses. The next step was identification of variables that significantl y correlate with the dependent variable with the help of a series of bivariate
135 linear regressions further decreasing the number of significant factors. Multiple linear regressions of all possible pair combinations of these factors against deforestation as a dependent variable allowed ranking these factors by their significance for controlling deforestation in the 4 study community concessions. The final result is the list of 10 factors significantly affecting local capacity for conservation community action in the significance priority order.
136 Table 4 1. Demographic profile of the study respondents. Concession Sample size % of men/ women Age (years) Years lived in the area Years of formal school Years of forest work Years of agriculture work Uaxactun 61 64/36 42.38 29.57 2.10 12.03 5.38 Carmelita 54 65/35 39.46 22.89 2.81 7.59 1.67 Cruce 45 58/42 37.96 14.91 1.44 3.29 4.31 Pasadita 54 50/50 40.59 17.33 1.04 6.54 6.39 Table 4 2. List of factors affecting local capacity gleaned from literature. Factor Human capital Physical capital Financial capital Natural capital Community rights over forest resources Leadership Cultural capital Outside support for conservation community action Attitudes towards forest resources Levels of trust Effectiveness of demo cratic decision making mechanisms Interactional activity within the forest resource management social field Fair distribution of profits Local knowledge of forest management issues Table 4 3. List of factors affecting local capacity in a priority order suggested and prioritized by key informants. Factor Human capital Cultural capital Length of residency in the area Outside support for conservation community action Democratic decision making process Levels of trust Natural capital Unfair distribution of profits Not everyone in the community is a member of the concession Outside negative impacts Ease of access to concessions
137 Table 4 4. Community key informant interview analysis results. Fact or Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita The most notable changes in the community since the establishment of the concession Economic .67 1 0 0 Social 1 1 1 1 Environmental 1 1 .5 0 Community actions in the last several years. 1 1 .67 1 Changes of forest management practices since the establishment of the concession. 1 1 1 1 Forest management decision making process 1 1 1 1 involvement into the decision making process. 1 1 .67 .5 participation. .67 .67 .33 .5 Communication with the concession management. 1 1 1 .5 Fairness of profit distribution mechanisms. 1 1 1 1 Are people happy with those? .67 .33 .67 .5 Topics discussed between concession members. 3.2 2.7 1.8 2.6 Topics discussed with the concession management 5.3 4.7 2.2 3.4 Does the outside support benefit the concession? 1 1 .67 .5 Is there a need for more outside support? 1 1 1 1 How important is special education for the concession? 4 4 4 4 Availability of trained staff from 0 (none) to 4 (all). 1.8 2.1 .6 .3 Optimality of the infrastructure from 0 (nothing) to 9 (everything). 5.7 6.3 4.8 3.2 forest. .67 1 .33 0 Trusting peer members. .67 .67 .33 .5 Trusting concession management .67 1 .33 0 Trusting outside organizations 1 .67 .33 0
138 Table 4 5 Variable loadings on the extracted attitude towards forest factors after varimax rotation. attitude towards towards the economic value towards intrinsic values of the towards responsibility for Eigenvalues 5.37 1.18 1.06 1.00 Variance proportion .66 .11 .09 .06 Variables Loadings The forest is an important provider of resources for our family use (fire logs, leaves, etc.). 0.66 0.43 0.33 0.04 It is better to ranch cattle here than harvest forest resources. 0.55 0.55 0.29 0.25 The forest is an important source of money for our family. 0.35 0.76 0.25 0.22 The forest is the main source of income for our community. 0.31 0.75 0.24 0.32 I like staying in the forest. 0.43 0.32 0.67 0.14 The forest is important for the lives of humans, wild animals and plants. 0.21 0.24 0.84 0.24 I am proud of our forest. 0.38 0.22 0.58 0.28 It is important to save the forest for our children. 0.72 0.36 0.17 0.55 The person who starts a forest fire needs to be prosecuted. 0.52 0.24 0.38 0.46 Our community is responsible for maintaining the forest. 0.58 0.18 0.26 0.57 Our forest is valuable for the whole country. 0.19 0.34 0.21 0.83 It is necessary to establish norms and policies to maintain forest resources. 0.7 0* 0.29 0.32 0.27 Note :
139 Table 4 6 Retained varia rotation. outside Concession management peer Eigenvalues 2.64 1.90 1.37 Variance proportion .23 .16 .12 Items Loadings Outside organizations NEVER provide benefits for our community. 0.77 0.13 0.01 Conservation organizations are interested SOLELY in the well being of the forest. 0.76 0.04 0.11 The community should accept and be thankful to any support from the outside organizations. 0.69 0.27 0.09 Concession management tries to benefit all members of the community. 0.28 0.65 0.08 The Concession management is sufficiently qualified for their job. 0.03 0.84 0.03 There is confidence that the Concession management manages the concession money wisely. 0.21 0.72 0.09 People in our community are very pleasant. 0.14 0.2 0 0.53 Those people who have horses always lend them to their neighbors when needed. 0.05 0.09 0.79 People trust the word of other community members. 0.16 0.15 0.77 Note Table 4 7 community interaction members communication Eigenvalue 4.25 Variance proportion .54 Items Loadings The Concession management always informs the members about its decisions. 0.61 When there is a problem with the concession, we discuss it with the Management. 0.76 During the meetings the Concession Members freely express their ideas. 0.78 The Concession Members know what the Management plans to do. 0.74 The Concession Members talk to the Management in the streets. 0.73 The Management always addresses the ideas proposed by the Concession Members. 0.71 The Members understand financial management of the concession. 0.73 The Members speak publicly about issues when they do not agree with the Management. 0.76 Note
140 Table 4 8 after varimax rotation. democracy mechanisms effectiveness self Eigenvalues 5.15 1.27 Variance proportion .47 .12 Items Loadings When there is a need to resolve a serious problem, help. 0.84 0.07 Members call off any member of the Management who is not competent enough for the job without waiting for the re election time. 0.81 0.08 Only most able people are getting elected to serve in the Management. 0.67 0.32 Wh o works more earns more in the c oncession. 0.7 0* 0.22 Elections of the Management are just. 0.61 0.21 It is important for all Concession Members to familiarize with the Annual Operation Plan. 0.3 0 0.76 If there is a serious problem with the Concession, the Members ask the Management to explain their plans to deal with the problem. 0.38 0.51 The Concession management always knows best which decisions to make. 0.24 0.81 Note
141 Table 4 9 List of f Variable Variable description Mean value Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita IF Number of interactions with family and friends 4.52 5.07 2.13 2.52 IN Number of interactions with peer members 3.41 4.17 1.84 2.04 IM Number of interactions with Concession management 2.39 1.83 1.33 0.69 IA Number of interactions outside of the community 0.82 0.37 0.00 0.04 VF1 Type 1 vignette with Family and friends 0.80 0.94 0.71 0.81 VF2a Type 2 family vignette weighted 1.93 1.93 1.51 1.70 VF3a Type 3 family vignette weighted 2.90 2.83 2.20 2.22 VF4a Type 4 family vignette weighted 2.89 2.59 2.04 0.52 VN1 Type 1 vignette with peer members 0.77 0.89 0.64 0.78 Vn3a Type 3 peer members vignette weighted 2.90 2.89 2.13 2.50 Vn4a Type 4 peer members vignette weighted 3.28 2.81 2.04 0.96 VM1 interactions with Concession management type 1 0.48 0.57 0.60 0.22 Vm3a Type 3 Concession management vignette weighted 2.85 2.67 2.13 1.67 Vm4a Type 4 Concession management vignette weighted 3.54 3.26 2.31 1.11 VA1 interactions with Outsiders type 1 0.43 0.28 0.00 0.04 Va3a Type 3 outsiders vignette weighted 1.67 0.83 0.00 0.00 Va4a Type 4 outsiders vignette weighted 0.79 0.52 0.00 0.00 Fta Advanced number of topics with family and friends 2.11 1.46 0.47 0.37 Mta Advanced number of topics with Management 2.52 1.57 0.38 0.28 ata Advanced number of topics outside of community 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.00
142 Table 4 10 List of topic discussed in interactions between actors of forest concession management field # Topic Mean number of topics per respondent discussed with all types of actors Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita 1 Potable water 0.56 1.20 1.53 0.94 2 Health issues 0.75 2.06 0.67 1.31 3 Issues of education 0.84 1.22 0.09 0.52 4 Hunting issues 1.15 0.11 0.00 0.00 5 Jobs 1.46 1.74 0.07 0.22 6 Salaries 2.72 2.85 1.04 1.65 7 Roads and public transportation 2.10 1.59 0.36 1.67 8 Financial management issues 1.87 1.20 0.31 0.30 9 Non timber forest issues 3.07 2.89 0.00 1.37 10 Timber issues 2.21 1.94 0.24 1.19 11 Conservation issues 0.79 0.70 0.07 0.00 12 Management of forest 2.30 1.63 0.69 0.54 13 Economic issues 1.30 0.81 0.07 0.09 14 Saw mill issues 0.43 0.61 0.00 0.00 15 Future of the concession 0.89 0.39 0.18 0.13 16 Internal conflicts and their resolution 1.02 1.20 0.04 0.57
143 Table 4 1 1 s if in im ia vf1 vf2a vf3a vf4a vn1 vn3a vn4a vm1 vm3a vm4a va1 va3a va4a fta mta in .80 im .61 .54 ia .40 .33 .42 vf1 .48 .46 .32 .05 vf2a .61 .56 .46 .18 .75 vf3a .58 .54 .42 .20 .61 .80 vf4a .45 .42 .43 .29 .28 .32 .42 vn1 .46 .44 .29 .06 .84 .61 .61 .39 vn3a .63 .59 .43 .20 .69 .89 .82 .35 .62 vn4a .48 .44 .44 .30 .32 .38 .43 .83 .34 .44 vm1 .24 .20 .32 .10 .38 .29 .33 .39 .45 .26 .34 vm3a .54 .49 .68 .24 .47 .63 .59 .37 .40 .64 .41 .46 vm4a .55 .51 .63 .31 .27 .44 .45 .59 .29 .45 .66 .39 .71 va1 .35 .34 .32 .77 .08 .17 .17 .24 .10 .19 .26 .17 .26 .30 va3a .38 .34 .39 .87 .05 .19 .22 .31 .05 .20 .35 .07 .26 .33 .84 va4a .25 .17 .23 .56 .15 .11 .13 .31 .17 .12 .27 .24 .16 .23 .58 .57 fta .52 .45 .49 .44 .20 .33 .34 .39 .18 .36 .43 .15 .39 .48 .35 .41 .23 mta .53 .41 .59 .50 .13 .31 .32 .42 .13 .33 .45 .16 .47 .54 .39 .48 .25 .56 ata .25 .18 .26 .63 .01 .10 .12 .19 .04 .11 .15 .05 .15 .21 .45 .45 .58 .36 .36
144 Table 4 1 2 Principle components extracted from forest resource management social field variables analysis. Eigenvalues 4.306 2.125 1.734 Variance proportion .44 .27 .15 Variables Loadings Family vignette 1 0.7 0* 0.16 0.17 Family vignette 2 0.59 0.11 0.29 Family vignette 3 0.59 0.28 0.31 Peer members vignette 1 0.65 0.2 0 0.25 Management vignette 3 0.61 0.12 0.27 Management vignette 1 0.71 0.31 0.36 Outsiders vignette 1 0.79 0.25 0.19 Outsiders vignette 3 0.78 0.24 0.18 # of advanced topics with family 0.02 0.73 0.13 # of advanced topics with peers 0.01 0.77 0.12 # of advanced topics with management 0.05 0.76 0.09 # of total topics with outsiders 0.39 0.77 0.08 # of interactions with family 0.17 0.16 0.45 # of interactions with peers 0.23 0.2 0 0.42 # of interactions with management 0.15 0.29 0.87 # of interactions with outsiders 0.25 0.21 0.65 Note
145 Table 4 1 3 Variable Variable description Mean values Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita QR Knowledge of the concessional rights 0.98 0.94 0.78 0.43 QN Knowledge of the Concession President name 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 QA Knowledge of the area of the Concession 0.82 0.59 0.27 0.15 QL Knowledge of payment sum for the lease 0.31 0.17 0.16 0.06 TP Total correct answers for Annual Operational Plan development participants ** 4.13 4.11 3.29 2.76 QV Knowledge about volume of harvested timber 0.11 0.22 0.02 0.06 QP Knowledge about price per cubic meter 0.46 0.35 0.29 0.06 AOK Knowledge of outside organizations active in the Concession 0.58 0.44 0.28 0.21 AOA Knowledge about outside organization activities in community 0.35 0.40 0.11 0.06 AOB Knowledge about specific benefits provided by outside organizations 0.28 0.32 0.10 0.02 AB If community benefits from outside organization activities 0.82 0.75 0.40 0.06 Proportion of correct answers ** This variable is a sum of correct responses to 5 questions Table 4 1 4 QR QN QA QL tp QV QP AOK AOA AOB QN 0.062 QA 0.755 0.114 QL 0.12 0 0.055 0.291 tp 0.163 0.1 00 0.154 0.077 QV 0.805 0.041 0.213 0.273 0.015 QP 0.233 0.077 0.369 0.744 0.039 0.471 AOK 0.279 0.141 0.491 0.319 0.138 0.09 0 0.33 0 AOA 0.307 0.132 0.461 0.278 0.126 0.128 0.401 0.274 AOB 0.31 0 0.115 0.437 0.238 0.181 0.069 0.394 0.711 0.34 0 AB 0.287 0.111 0.365 0.209 0.188 0.068 0.346 0.807 0.498 0.802
146 Table 4 1 5 varimax rotation. factual information about outside organizations activities financial matters of the Eigenvalues 3.94 1.92 1.33 Variance proportion .35 .26 .24 Variables Loadings Harvested volumes 0.8 0* 0.02 0.05 Concessional rights 0.78 0.1 0 0.04 Area of the concession 0.68 0.13 0.29 Outside organizations activities 0.11 0.86 0.25 Benefits aimed by outside organizations 0.1 0 0.91 0.19 Actual benefits 0.01 0.47 0.23 Payment of the concession lease. 0.14 0.13 0.66 Price per cubic meter 0.28 0.07 0.77 Note Table 4 1 6 Variable Variable description Mean values Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita TT Knowledge of timber tree species 5.07 4.98 2.93 3.17 TR Knowledge of non timber forest resources 5.23 5.57 2.27 4.35 QE If most of the family income comes from the forest resources 0.67 0.85 0.69 0.06 YC Years lived in the area 29.57 22.89 14.91 17.33 WC Working in the Concession 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.04 FW Other forest related jobs 0.79 0.69 0.58 0.56 YFW Total years worked in forest related jobs 12.03 7.59 3.29 3.54 YA Years worked in agriculture 5.38 1.67 4.31 6.39
147 Table 4 1 7 tt TR QE YC WC FW YFW TR 792 QE 182 145 YC 313 268 074 WC 137 116 321 042 FW 138 306 224 1 00 423 YFW 286 32 0 248 18 0 292 532 YA 031 086 12 0 097 142 338 255 Table 4 1 8 after varimax rotation. Eigenvalues 3.18 1.21 Variance proportion .43 .23 Variables Loadings Years lived in the area 0.92 0.16 Knowledge of timber resources 0. 27 0. 62 Knowledge of non timber resources 0. 21 0. 75 Note
148 F igure 4 1. Deforestation rates in the study communities for the 1997 2009 time period. Table 4 1 9 Results of paired t tests for deforestation rates in the study community concessions in 1997 2009. Paired t test df t value p value Uaxactun Carmelita 8 0.46 0.66 Uaxactun Pasadita 8 2.68 .03 Uaxactun Cruce 8 2.5 .04 Carmelita Pasadita 8 2.84 .02 Carmelita Cruce 8 2.85 .02 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 86-90 90-93 93-95 95-97 97-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-09 % of total area of concession Year periods Deforestation rates of study resident community concessions Carmelita Cruce a la Colorada La Pasadita Uaxactn
149 Table 4 20 Results of bivariate regression of independent variables against the dependent variable. Factor R 2 Slope estimate F value p value General attitudes towards forest and forest resources 65 1.84 389.56 <.01 Attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest 53 1.68 238.23 <.01 Attitudes towards community responsibility/legacy 56 1.74 267.04 <.01 Attitudes towards economic values of forest resources 76 1.67 666.95 <.01 Trust in peer concession members 11 1.14 27.48 <.01 Trust in the concession management 20 1.36 53.44 <.01 Trust in outside organizations 32 1.33 10 79 <.01 Total quality of interactions with all types of interlocutors 31 22 96.50 <.01 Total number of topics discussed weighted for quality 27 07 79.55 <.01 Total number of interactions in the field 33 19 102.89 <.01 Quality of interactions between concession management and members 58 2.04 289.76 <.01 Self efficacy beliefs 53 1.70 236.32 <.01 Beliefs in effectiveness of democracy mechanisms 49 1.90 206.72 <.01 Factual knowledge of community concession information 46 5.37 184.19 <.01 Factual knowledge of financial matters of the concession 10 1.63 23.05 <.01 Outside organizations support knowledge 48 3.08 194.21 <.01 Years lived in the area 12 40 8.23 <.01 Years of school 07 18 16.19 < .01 Years worked in forest jobs 09 05 21.94 <.01
150 Table 4 2 1 Means and standard deviations of ANOVA tested variables. Factor Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean StD Mean StD Mean StD Mean StD General attitudes towards forest and forest resources 4.57 0.29 4.39 0.32 3.79 0.31 3.23 0.56 Attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest 4.56 0.41 4.37 0.42 3.97 0.27 3.32 0.62 Attitudes towards community responsibility/legacy 4.46 0.32 4.18 0.38 3.76 0.29 3.17 0.62 Attitudes towards forest resources as an economic commodity 4.48 0.27 4.39 0.36 3.68 0.36 2.79 0.53 Trust in peer concession members 3.78 0.59 3.64 0.3 8 3.77 0. 2 8 4.09 0.31 Trust in the concession management 3.83 0.60 3. 92 0. 22 3.47 0. 44 3.35 0.41 Trust in outside organizations 3.93 0.68 3. 85 0.4 5 3. 52 0.4 4 3.01 0.52 Total number of advanced interactions with all actors 7.13 3.83 4.74 3.53 1.31 2.27 1.06 1.47 Total number of advanced interactions regarding forest management issues weighted for quality of interactions 30.21 8.31 27.31 8.83 19.22 11.97 15.46 8.35 Total number of interactions in the social field 11.15 3.50 11.44 4.35 5.31 3.46 5.28 2.96 Quality of interactions between concession management and members 3.84 0.50 3.68 0. 32 2.89 0. 25 2.83 0.37 Self efficacy beliefs 4.31 0.50 4.14 0. 40 3.45 0. 29 3.34 0.52 Beliefs in effectiveness of democracy mechanisms 4.13 0.44 3.87 0.45 3.40 0.29 3.09 0.30 Factual knowledge of community concession information 0.87 0.15 0. 83 0.1 1 0. 66 0.1 4 0.54 0.16 Factual knowledge of financial matters of the concession 0.30 0.32 0. 25 0. 31 0. 16 0. 23 0.06 0.23 Outside organizations support beliefs 0.62 0.25 0.71 0.22 0.28 0.30 0.11 0.18 Years lived in the area 29.57 16.15 22.89 16.26 14.91 5.09 17.33 7.32 Years of school 2.10 2.03 2.82 2. 4 7 1.44 2. 0 7 1.04 2.05 Years worked in forest jobs 12.03 10.92 3.29 11.19 3.29 4.23 3.54 5.13
151 Figure 4 2. Distribution of averages of the attitude sub indices response scores for the four study concessions. 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Uaxactun Carmela Cruce Pasadita Average item scores Study community forest concessions Attitude variables' averages for the study concessions general intrinsic responsibility economic
152 Figure 4 3. A cattle ranch on the cleared forest land outside of la Pasadita community.
153 Figure 4 4 Distribution of averages of the trust sub indices response scores for the four study concessions. 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean item response scores Study community forest concessions 'Trust' variables' averages' distribution peers management outsiders
154 Figure 4 5 Distribution of mean total number of interactions within forest management social field. 4.52 5.07 2.13 2.52 3.41 4.17 1.84 2.04 2.39 1.83 1.33 0.69 0.82 0.37 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean number of interactions Study community concessions Number of interactions within the forest management social field during 2 weeks preceding the interview with family with peers with management with outsiders
155 Figure 4 6 Distribution of quality of interactions within community forest management social field. 5.58 8.30 4.34 5.26 6.18 8.52 5.47 5.94 8.77 8.24 6.47 4.15 2.01 2.26 1.98 1.62 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Reported quality of interactions Study community forest concessions Quality of interactions within forest resource management social field with family with peers with management with outsiders
156 Figure 4 7. General meeting in Uaxactun community discusses concession issues.
157 Figure 4 8 Distribution of the sums of mean quality scores for all types of interactions in the study concessions. 22.54 27.31 18.26 16.97 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Sums of quality scores Study community forest concessions Sum of quality scores for all types of interactions
158 Figure 4 9 Mean number of advanced topics discussed by respondents with each group of actors. 2.11 1.46 0.47 0.37 2.28 1.61 0.47 0.41 2.52 1.57 0.38 0.28 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean number of topics discussed Study community forest concessions Number of advanced topics discussed by respondents with each group of the social field actors with family with peers with management with outsiders
159 Figure 4 10 Mean total number of to pics of more advanced group discussed by respondents with all of the actors. 7.13 4.74 1.31 1.06 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean number of advanced topics Study community forest concessions Total mean number of advanced topics discussed with all concession forest management social field actors
160 Figure 4 11 study concessions. 4.20 3.91 3.47 3.05 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean item responses Study community concessions Quality of interactions between concession members and concession management
161 Figure 4 1 2 in the study community forest concessions. 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 3.50 3.70 3.90 4.10 4.30 4.50 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean item scores Study community forest concessions Distribution of 'Democracy' variable means democracy mechanisms fairness self-efficacy
162 Figure 4 13. Children sorting through harvested xate fronds.
163 Figure 4 1 4 means in the study concessions. 4.78 5.57 3.34 4.35 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean number of known forest resources Study community forest concessions 'Knowledge of forest resources' variable distribution
164 Figure 4 1 5 forest concessions. 29.57 22.89 14.91 17.33 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Years Study community forest concessions 'Years in the area' variable distribution
165 Figure 4 1 6 Distribution of standardiz in the study concessions. 0.87 0.83 0.66 0.54 0.30 0.25 0.16 0.06 0.62 0.71 0.28 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Standardized response scores Study community forest concessions Distribution of 'Knowledge' factors in the study concessions concession matters financial matters outside organizations
166 Figure 4 1 7 Distribution of in the study community forest concessions. 2.10 2.81 1.44 1.04 12.03 7.59 3.29 6.54 -1.90 0.10 2.10 4.10 6.10 8.10 10.10 12.10 Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Mean number of years Study community forest concessions 'Human capital' factor variable distribution in the study community concessions formal school 'forest' jobs
167 Table 4 2 2 List of factors in significance priority order. Paired test values Factors 9 Outside organizations support beliefs 8 Attitudes towards forest and forest resources as an economic commodity 7 Factual knowledge of community concession information 6 General attitudes towards forest and forest resources 5 Beliefs in effectiveness of democracy mechanisms 5 Quality of interactions between concession management and concession members 3 Attitudes towards community responsibility/legacy 2 Total number of advanced interactions with all actors 1 Self efficacy beliefs 1 Attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest
168 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSI ON In the last several years, the ecosystem management approach has become the main paradigm of conservation in the world. Among other things this paradigm recognizes humans as the main source of the environmental problems, and therefore, a potential solution for those. This approach also recognizes local communities as an indispensable part of ecosystems. In reality, humans are not just a part, but usually are the most active part of an ecosystem (Western & Wright, 1994). This means that humans are capable of and very often are the source of impacts inflicted on ecosystems that can precipitate negative changes, sometimes to the point of being irreversible. The acknowledgment of local community role in impacting local ecosystems triggered changes in conservation interventions worldwide. Whi le exclusion of and awareness campaigns for humans had been the main approaches before the paradigm shift, now the focus is on getting communities interested in conservation. This is being implemented through integration of local community development and conservation processes. There are several conditions for this approach to be successful. First of all, there should be available natural resources of marketable value that could be harvested on a sustainable basis. Then, long term rights over these resourc es need to be devolved to the community level. Last but not least, communities should have capacities to effectively participate in the development and conservation processes (Bradshaw, 2003). Conservation and development organizations recognize this need, and participate in planning and implementation of local capacity building interventions.
169 Review of Problem Statement In spite of substantial resources directed at building local capacity for conservation purposes, these efforts were not able to significa ntly change the situation with the local communities for the better (Kellert et al., 2000; Newmark & Hough, 2000). One of the main reasons is the fact that local capacity is still a very poorly developed concept within conservation movement. The conceptual framework is still at the inception stage: there is no generally accepted definition, not all factors are identified that comprise/affect local capacity, no widely accepted methods to measure capacity, and no practical model developed (Doak & Kusel, 1996; Nadeau, 2002; Beckley et al., 2004; Mendis Millard & Reed, 2007). While these conditions are acknowledged as being essential to effective community based responses (Child & Murphree, unpublished; Donoghue & Sturtevant, 2007), they currently lack a unifyin g theoretical and conceptual frameworks on which to build programming and policy (Agrawal & Redford, 2006). defined nor developed in the conservation movement. Therefore, conserva tion practitioners mainly base their programs on common sense when targeting increase in local capacities. Usually, they arbitrarily select some capacity they think is most important for improving conservation in a specific community, or a group of communi ties. Almost always those are human capital and physical capital building interventions in a way of trainings, financial support, and infrastructure development (Mendoza et al., 2007; McDuff, 2001) Though intuitively human and physical capital building se em to be positive approaches, in reality, they can be un productive, or even work counter productive (Iversen et al., 2006; Tai, 2007). On the practical level, the usual current approach to
170 local capacity building is to plan and implement interventions arou nd assumed needed capacities, and use outputs as measures of success for reporting purposes. Such a community interventions when inputs are expected to produce certain effects without much understanding of how it all might actually work (Mowbray et al. 2003; Patton, 2008). In spite of the fact that sometimes such intervention do produce positive results they are not necessarily the most effective and efficient approach. The l ack of a comprehensive conceptual framework of local capacity for conservation community action including, but not limited to a definition, factors and conditions affecting capacity, indicators of success, etc. results in serious deficiencies in capacity building intervention planning and implementation (Mizrahi, 2004). Without them it is difficult to conduct a needs assessment, establish goals, objectives and outcomes, develop indicators of success, and ways to measure them. It also triggers one more serious deficiency of omitting direct ly link ing capacity building interventions to actual conservation outcomes, which is the overall goal of community based conservation interventions. Such an approach rese rightly pointed out by Agrawal and Redford (2006). Quite obviously, such an approach can enjoy only sporadic successes often on a non sustainable basis. R esearch to generate a better understanding of local capacity for conservation community action can improve the quality of community capacity interventions and subsequently the quality of community based conservation.
171 Revie w of O bjectives Based on the identified deficiencies of conceptual development of local capacity fo r conservation community action, and practical outcomes of local capacity building interventions, three main objectives were addressed within this research: 1. Identify factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action in resident community forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve. 2. Develop and measure variables describing the identified factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action. 3. Prioritize the identified factors based on their level of significance to affect local capacity for conservation community action in Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Review of the Methodology For the research of local capacity for conservation community action a comparative case study design was used because this is a complex social phenomenon that cannot be studied outside of the existing context (Stake 2000; Yin, 2004). This design allowed use of a variety of methods and approaches to study the multiple facets of local capacity for conservation phenomenon including archival records study, Delphi method, key informant interviews, and a survey. In a similar manner a variety of instruments were developed and administered during the data collection phase of the study. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed i n the course of the study. To cater for such a variety of methods, instruments and types of data a dominant less dominant mixed method was applied for collecting and analyzing the data (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Discussion of Results The first research objective was accomplished through using two different approaches. First, a literature review was conducted to identify as many factors
172 hypothetically affecting local capacity for conservation community action as possible. Then, key informant experts on c ommunity forest concession management in Maya Biosphere reserve were interviewed to elicit local factors affecting community capacity to conserve. With the help of Delphi method of consensus building these factors were refined and prioritized in an order of importance as perceived by local experts. By joining these two lists a set of factors potentially affecting local capacity for conservation community action in Maya Biosphere Reserve was developed thus meeting the first objective. The list contains 1 5 factors from human capital to rights ove r resources, to levels of trust and the interactional structure of social field. Reaching the second objective required development and testing a large number of variables in an exploratory analysis. Recognizing t he complexity and latent nature of most of the hypothesized factors multiple variables were developed in an attempt to measure different facets of each construct of interest (de Vellis, 2003). This significantly increased the overall number of variables, thus complicating the instrument development and data collection processes. At the same time, it allowed verification and refinement of the hypothesized factors through common factor and principle component analyses. From the initially developed and measur ed large number of variables, 10 constructs were retained, each representing a factor affecting local capacity for conservation community action, and extracted through the analyses. These variables were significantly different for communities with low and high deforestation rate. For a dependent variable annual deforested area for each of the concessions was selected as a proxy for local capacity for conservation community action. A small sample size of community forest concessions (n=4) precluded any vali d comprehensive
173 multivariate modeling. To reach the third objective of the research, a series of multiple linear regressions for each possible combination of the pairs of the retained significant factors against the dependent variable of deforestation rate was conducted. As a result of this procedure, all of the factors were prioritized in an order of significance in explaining the deforestation rate variance in the resident community concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. The final product of the research has several expected results as well as some surprises. The most significant factor identified by the research is the support provided by conservation organizations. It is both well covered in conservation literature (Western & Wright, 19 94; Margoluis & Salafsky, 1998; Mizrahi, 2004), as well as suggested by the key informants. They have mentioned this factor 6 times during the initial interviews and rated it the third most important capacity factor. It is quite obvious that an external im pulse can significantly change things in a community. What the research shows though is that changes on a community level happen quite slowly. It is a complex process of institutional changes that takes significant time to become sustainable. If communitie s are not provided with sufficient support, there is a high chance that the initial changes would not be sustained, let alone improved over time. In recognition of this issue, all of the study community forest concessions were assigned a local or internati onal conservation organization to provide initial help with obtaining the forest concessions, and then accompany them through the process. After several years, both of the study communities with high deforestation rates were dropped by their accompanying o rganizations, and the other two communities are still receiving
174 significant support (Table 5 1) organizations, and their opinions on its effectiveness reflects these facts very well. Another importan t result of the study is the identification of significance of the conservation outcomes. Though the importance of positive attitudes towards wildlife and natural systems f or conservation outcomes is widely recognized and measured (Gadd, 2005; Holmes, 2003) those studies are usually of low quality (Browne Nunez & Jonker, 2008). In addition, in this stu forest and forest forest resources as an economic commodity responsibility/legacy is allowed identifying specific parts comprising general attitudes towards the forest, as well as measuring their comparative significance for conservation outcomes. Interesting ity for conservation community action. Attitudes towards economic values rated the highest, and attitudes towards intrinsic values the lowest among them. This is completely congruent with the community based conservation theoretical framework and practice. The significant difference of each type of attitudes between the concessions with lower (Uaxactun and Carmelita) and higher deforestation rates (Cruce and Pasadita) could be explained by several reasons detailed in Table 5 1. The third most significant f Knowledge of information is obviously very important fo r any decision making process. Logically, m ore knowledgeable people would make better decisions. In
175 addition, information availability precludes/restricts potentials for fraud and usurpation of benefits by a small group of people. It is impossible with the data available in this study to establish causality: a) if the concessions are better managed because people have better knowledge, an d therefore make better decisions; or b) people get more interested in the information because their concessions provide significant incomes to the families. Managements of community concessions with lower deforestation rates established some specific mech anisms for communicating concession information to concession members which are lacking in the concessions from the higher deforestation rate group (Table 5 1). Beliefs in e community based conservation project. If people do not have a chance to actually participate in collective decision making process most of the rest of the factors might not matter. Factually, the formal democracy mechanisms are present in all of the study community fores t concessions (Table 5 1) The effectiveness of these mechanisms was about effectiveness as an indicator. Significantly more positive beliefs in effectiveness of democracy mechanisms were found in the communi ty forest concessions from the group with lower deforestation rates thus, this is an important factor for better conservation outcomes. When a whole community manages natural resources they are the ones who both reap the benefits (incomes, consumed resour ces), and also take the negative impacts (problems with water, wildlife population decrease, etc.). Therefore, they tend to balance all of the uses. So, effective democracy mechanisms are an important condition for controlling elite capture and conserving the natural systems.
176 The research of the concession forest management social field in the study communities revealed several of its aspects that are important for better conservation outcomes. Members of the concessions with lower deforestation rate inter act more often regarding advanced issues of the concession with all of the actors of the social field: family and close friends, other people in the community, c oncession management and people outside of community. There are several possible explanations of that result (Table 5 1). Very naturally, people interact more with their families and friends, and other concession members than with the management members. Interactions outside of concessions are very limited for all concessions and in some concession s are practically non existent. This could be explained by limited capabilities to communicate outside of communities: no telephones, no e mail, bad roads, limited transportation infrastructure, etc. People in the concessions with lower deforestation rate d higher on within the forest management social field A special attention was paid to the factor of uality of interactions between concession management and concession which is one of the key democracy mechanisms The results show that in the concessions with lower deforestation rate people believe that m anagement listens to the c oncession m embers more attentively, In addition, people in these concessions tend to express their ideas more openly. They also are less hesitant to publicly express their disagreements with the m anagement than in the concessions with higher deforestation rates (Table 5 1) The quality of the dialogue between a community c oncession m embers and its m anagement has several important practical implications.
177 First of all, it is a way of better utilization of human capital, thus making a concession more effective (Tai, 2007) are listened to and acted upon, people are stimulated to think about and form those ideas and suggestions to share with each other and with the m anagement. W hen people are provided with quality information about their concession matters that also increases their human capital. A more open and direct dialog also adds to trust levels very important for effectiveness of any enterprise, let alone a community run project (Platteau, 2004) Last but not least, a c oncession management tion with the m embers demonstrates reduced, or absence of elite capture phenomenon (Agrawal & Redford, 2006) elf efficacy proved to also be a significant factor for local capacity for conservation community action. Possible reasons for differen ces in self efficacy beliefs between community concessions with lower and higher deforestation rates are discussed in Table 5 1. Self efficacy is an important factor for any individual or community agency to successfully perform difficult tasks (Bandura, 1 997). Community management of a forest concession is one of these tasks that requires not only knowledge and skills for, but also a belief that they are capable of performing at the high level necessary. Also, people with higher levels of self efficacy vie w a situation at a different angle. They believe that they are more in control of events rather than looking for excuses to explain their failure. They are also more self motivated to work harder and stay on tasks longer which is a very important feature f or a forest management project (Bandura, 1997).
178 Limitations There were several restrictions encountered during the field data collection phase. First, there were a smaller number of community concessions to study. Initially, all of the 6 resident concessio ns within Maya Biosphere Reserve were proposed to be studied. During the course of data collection period two concessions were cancelled by the government due to not complying with the agreements. The decision was made to limit the study to the remaining f our concessions because the atmosphere in the cancelled communities was very charged which would skew the responses. Also, there were three hypothesized factors that were not measured in part or completely due to several reasons. In their interviews four key informants mentioned outside pressure as one of important factors affecting community concessions ability to effectively manage their forest resources. By that it was mainly meant the pressure by ranchers to sell them communal forested lands to clear out the forest and turn them into grazing lands. This was mainly done in an attempt to laundry money earned from trafficking drugs through the area. Though completely illegal, some of these deals happened in several concessions as they were bolstered by mo ney and weapons. In this respect, this factor was excluded from the measurement instruments so as not to A nother factor that wa hypothesized to be an important factor affec ting local capacity for conservation community action it proved to be difficult to validly measure it. As it turned out, only in Carm elita community concession the m anagement was stable for several years with only several members changing. The rest of the concessions had newly elected m anagement also replaced after only short time in the office. During the pre test stage
179 opinions for different leaders. Therefore, the decision wa s made to exclude specific One more factor hypothesized but not measured in the course of the study was Management to share this information. The other reason was the fact that just an amount of physical capital was not necessarily a correct measurement. Uaxactun community concession had two saw mills for processing timber. One of them was broken at the time of the research, b ut they still had to pay interest rates to the bank for it. In that specific case, one was better than two. Though an attempt was made to did not prove to be valid as e ach key informant used their own criteria for optimality. Moreover, key informants tended to decrease optimality for their concessions, hoping for more grant funding. Therefore, this factor was dropped from the data analysis stage. Implications of the Stud y and Recommendations This research is a comparative case study, therefore, it has limited generalizability. Formally speaking, they are limited to the four resident community forest concessions in Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala. There are numerous fa ctors affecting community life every day which dictate a need for a thorough understanding of all major currents and undercurrents within a community field to be able to induce target changes. At the same time, certain things are more or less common for al l communities,
180 to some extent or the other. In this respect, the study results could and should be relevant to other community based conservation projects in Guatemala and elsewhere. The study was incepted in response to certain practical deficiencies in local capacity building of community based conservation projects. Therefore, from its very beginning it was focused on, and guided by potential practical use of the findings. The above mentioned change of conservation paradigm towards ecosystem management approach precipitated a large number of community based conservation projects worldwide. Practically all of them are involved in some kind of local capacity for conservation community action interventions. It is expected that the study results will interest both field practitioners of community based conservation projects, and larger conservation organizations. Identification of factors affecting local capacity for conservation communit y action allows local practitioners to pay more attention to these factors in their project communities. First of all, they can include these factors into needs assessments for better understanding local needs for capacity building. Then, they can specific ally target those capacities that are lacking or insufficient in those communities with the help of interventions. T his approach will also allow community based conservation practitioners to measure their interventions results and link them with conservat ion outcomes. In addition, the study provides practitioners with an idea of measurement instruments that could be used for these purposes. Conservation organizations can develop trainings, manuals, and instrument samples for their practitioners in a more u ser friendly form. Based on the study results it is recommended that community based conservation project managers and especially the sponsoring organization s extend the time of
18 1 providing support to communities by outside organizations. These projects p rimarily target some specific changes in people, and that often takes longer time than a usual life of a project. Leaving a community before the targeted changes take place might mean a complete waste of the investment as it happened in Cruce and Pasadita. Depending on the situation, the phase out stage can take several years. The length of a support should be based on specific indicators of built local capacity rather than on a pre determined timeframe. Any community based conservation project is recommended to specifically focus management process. The study results strongly suggest that formal existence of such mechanisms is not sufficient and can actually be mislea ding. Therefore, it is all important mechanisms including but not limited to: electability, free information exchange, participation, answerability of elected officials, e tc. Such measurements be a good indicator of a project success. Another recommendation is to pay attention to attitudes toward conservation objects and attitude forming beliefs. Each attitude and belief needs to be targeted with the help of specific interventions: usually education/awareness and communication. Attitude toward targeted resource as an economic commodity requires some special focus for better conser vation outcomes Ways need to be found for people to profit economically from conserving this resource, be that through certification, marketing, payments for ecosystem services, or a combination of these. In addition, a
182 very direct link between conservati on of the resource and economic/social gains by the community needs to be established and well communicated to the target groups. According to the study results, interactional structure within a social field of interest is an important factor reflecting conservation community action processes. Therefore, measurements of quantity, quality, interactional topics and structure of interactions within a social field can provide key information about the effectiveness of a community based project interventions a nd treatments. It is recommended to use social field variables as indicators of targeted changes in project communities. The study results support the aphorism stating that knowledge is power. Therefore, it is recommended for community based projects to plan and implement education and communication interventions directed at providing people with current and correct information about the ir community action. It is also recommended to set up mechanisms of information sharing that would continue working afte r the phase out of the project stage. Finally, t his study utilized an exploratory approach to identify factors affecting local capacity for conservation community action in four community forest concessions within Maya Biosphere Reserve. T he study results raise several issues for community capacity to conserve and capacity building interventions. The phenomenon of community capacity for conservation community action is wider and more complex than it is currently practiced. How much wider and more complex? M ore research under a variety of conditions and in a variety of locations is needed to answer these questions. Therefore, one more application of this study is to attract attention to the existing deficiencies of conceptual framework of local capacity for c onservation community
183 action, and consequentially, practice of community capacity building, and induce more research in those areas.
184 Table 5 1. Description of significant factors for each concession. Factor Uaxactun C armelita Cruce Pasadita Outside organizations support beliefs (Mean=.62; StD=.25) Currently there are two NGOs that provide support on a regular basis: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Balam WCS provides support with writing plans, day to day concession management issues, helps with xate operation certification. Balam provides a teacher of English language both for kids and adults. Provides trainings and workshops for concession members. (Me an=.71; StD=.22) Currently there is one NGO that provides support on a regular basis. This is WCS who help with writing plans, xate operation sustainability certification, and a number of smaller things. Sometimes Balam offers trainings for concession man agement and members. (Mean=.28; StD=.30) The accompanying NGO removed itself from the concession several years ago. Higher scores than in Pasadita could be explained by the fact that Centro Maya NGO has constructed quite a large and nice office in the com munity which they used to support the concession as well as for other activities. After the NGO has withdrawn, they donated the office to the concession. (Mean=.11; StD=.18) The accompanying NGO removed itself from providing support to the concession seve ral years ago. Attitudes towards forest resources as an economic commodity (Mean=4.48; StD=.27) The concession established a sustainable extraction of timber and xate. There are several other non timber forest resources being harvested by community memb ers. This possibly shapes higher levels of the attitudes. (Mean=4.39; StD=.36) The concession established a sustainable extraction of timber and xate. There are several other non timber forest resources being harvested by community members. This possibly shapes higher levels of the attitudes. (Mean=3.68; StD=.36) There are many peop le in the community with agricultural background. This is a possible cause for lower attitudes towards forest resources as a valuable economic commodity (Mean=2.79; StD=.53) The concession has problems with extracting sufficient volumes of forest resources This possibly influences lower levels of the attitudes.
185 Table 5 1. Continued. Factor Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Factual knowledge of community concession information (Mean=.87; StD=.15) The management used to issue information about the concession for the community members before the general meetings. People seem to know quite well general facts about the concession and how it functions. Only limited number of concession members have kno wledge about financial matters of the concession. (Mean=.83; StD=.11) The management with the support from WCS and Balam published some information about the concession for the community members. People seem to know quite well general facts about the conce ssion and how it functions. Only limited number of concession members have knowledge about financial matters of the concession. (Mean=.66; StD=.14) specific things like area of the concession, volume of harvested resources, the pric e they were sold at, who is responsible for writing the annual operations plan, etc. There are no additional sources of information for people aside from the concession meetings and informal information exchange. (Mean=.54; StD=.16) specific things like area of the concession, volume of harvested resources, the price they were sold at, who is responsible for writing the annual operations plan, etc. There are no additional sources of information for people aside from the concession mee tings and informal information exchange. General attitudes towards forest and forest resources (Mean=4.57; StD=.29) The long history of living and working in the forest has shaped positive attitudes towards the forest. The fact that forest is a source of income to many community members also results in positive attitudes. (Mean=4.39; StD=.32) The long history of living and working in the forest has shaped positive attitudes towards the forest. The fact that forest is a source of income to many community members also results in positive attitudes. (Mean=3.79; StD=.31) Lack of history of living in the forest and more agricultural historic background results in lower attitudes towards the forest. (Mean=3.23; StD=.56) The image of clearing out forested l and for ranching as a better alternative to extracting forest resources has possibly negatively influenced the attitudes in the concession. Beliefs in effectiveness of democracy mechanisms (Mean=4.13; StD=.44) At general assembly meetings concession members discuss issues important to them. People speak up when they feel a need. The (Mean=3.87; StD=.45) At general assembly meetings concession members discuss issues important to them. People speak up when they f eel a need. They (Mean=3.40; StD=.29) Though formally general concession meetings take place, many people in the community do not believe that they have a voice at them. (Mean=3.09; StD=.30) General assembly meetings are being held at the concession on a more or less regular basis. People are not very active at those.
186 Table 5 1. Continued. Factor Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita concession has a history of remove from the office through recall election and re electing concession Presidents and other management members when people were not happy with their performances. freely elect and re elect any concession management members. Concessio n members do not believe that they can remove a management member through recall elections for his/her poor performance. Quality of interactions between concession management and concession members (Mean=3.84; StD=.50) Concession members believe that management informs them about all happenings important for the concession and people in the community. For several years the concession management practiced issuing an information sheet with all the latest happenings in the concession including financial information. People also believe that their voice is heard and acted upon by the concession management. (Mean=3.68; StD=.32) Concession members believe that management informs them about all things important for the concessi on and people in the community. Concession management have publications about all of the relevant information about the concession. People also believe that their voice is heard and acted upon by the concession management. (Mean=2.89; StD=.25) General ass embly meetings take place in the concession on a regular basis, but concession members do not believe that they receive all of the relevant information from the management about important issues in the concessions. Neither do they believe that the manageme nt hears their ideas and suggestions. People normally abstain from critiquing the management in open. There are no other formal mechanisms for informing community concession members other than the general assembly meetings. (Mean=2.83; StD=.37) General ass embly meetings take place in the concession on a regular basis, but concession members do not believe that they receive all of the relevant information from the management about important issues in the concessions. Neither do they believe that the manageme nt hears their ideas and suggestions. People normally abstain from critiquing the management in open. There are no other formal mechanisms for informing community concession members other than the general assembly meetings.
187 Table 5 1. Continued. Factor Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Attitudes towards community responsibility/legacy (Mean=4.46; StD=.32) The long history of working and living in the forest, as well as dependence on extracting forest resources for both personal/family needs and making money has formed high levels of responsibility for the forest. The community has certified their logging an d xate extracting operations as sustainable. People expect their children to continue using forest resources in the future. (Mean=4.18; StD=.38) The long history of working and living in the forest, as well as dependence on extracting forest resources for both personal/family needs and making money has formed high levels of responsibility for the forest. The community has certified their logging and xate extracting operations as sustainable. People expect their children to continue using forest resources i n the future. (Mean=3.76; StD=.29) People living in the community have comparatively recently moved into the area. established connection with the forest. That results in lower levels of attitudes towards responsibility for the forest, or as a legacy to pass on to their children. The concession was initially certified for sustainability of their logging operations, but has problems validating it through development of annual operational plans. They never certified their xate or any other non timber forest operation for sustainable use. (Mean=3.17; StD=.62) Though living in the area for some time, the community members have significantly lower attitudes towards being responsible for the forest, and for passing it in good shape on to their children. Low economic value of the forest is a possible explanation. The concession was initially certified for sustainability of their logging operations, but has problems validating it through development of annual operational plans. They never certifi ed their xate or any other non timber forest operation for sustainable use. Total number of advanced interactions with all actors (Mean=7.13; StD=3.83) Concession members in their interactions with each other and with the management very often discuss matters important for the concession management processes: (Mean=4.74; StD=3.53) Concession members in their interactions with each other and with the mana gement sometimes discuss matters important for the con cession management processes: (Mean=1.31; StD=2.27) The forest management social field is weaker in this concession because concession members in their interactions with each other, and with the conces sion management generally (Mean=1.06; StD=1.47) The forest management social field is weaker in this concession because concession members in their interactions with each other, and with the concession management generally
188 Table 5 1. Continued. Factor Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita annual operational plans, financial situation, forest conservation issues, etc. This way they share with each other their knowledge and suggestions for resolving issues. Therefore they create a higher quality forest management social field to prepare concession members and management to make better decisions. annual operational plans, financial situation, forest conservation issues, etc. This way they share with each other their knowledge and suggestions for resolving issues. Therefore they create a higher qualit y forest management social field to prepare concession members and management to make better decisions. avoid discussing topics of importance for effective concession management. This makes the collective decision making process less effective. avoid disc ussing topics of importance for effective concession management. This makes the collective decision making process less effective. Self efficacy beliefs (Mean=4.31; StD=.5) From the very beginning of the concessionary process, the accompanying NGO pushed for educating about and involving concession members into the process. As a result, people in the concession are effectively involved into the process of managing their fores t resources. They know what they are doing and they know that their involvement is important. (Mean=4.14; StD=.4) From the very beginning of the concessionary process, the accompanying NGO pushed for educating about and involving concession members into t he process. As a result, people in the concession are effectively involved into the process of managing their forest resources. They know what they are doing and they know that their involvement is important. (Mean=3.45; StD=.29) The accompanying NGO at t he beginning of the concessionary process took a paternalistic approach in supporting the newly established concession. Instead of educating and training people to do the job well, the NGO tended to complete tasks themselves. As a result, after the NGO mov ed out, people have low skill levels and low self efficacy levels. (Mean=3.34; StD=.52) The accompanying NGO left the concessions before the process was completely established. As a result of this, people do not feel prepared for effective management of fo rest resources. Therefore, they have low levels of self efficacy.
189 Table 5 1. Continued. Factor Uaxactun Carmelita Cruce Pasadita Attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest (Mean=4.56; StD=.41) The long history of living and working in the forest has developed strong connectedness of people with the forest. Everyday exposure to the beauty and harmony of forest ecosystems add up to the intrinsic values, thus making the attitude towards them quite high. (Mean=4.37; StD=.42) The long history of living and working in the forest has developed strong connectedness of people with the forest. Everyday exposure to the beauty and harmony of forest ecosystems add up to the intrinsic values, thus making the attitude towards them quite high. (Mean=3.97; StD=.27) The agriculture background of the majority of the people in the community stimulates viewing forest as a place to clear out for new fields. Therefore, in general they have not developed an inner conne ctedness to forest nature. This results in lower attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest. (Mean=3.32; StD=.62) Though having lived in the area and participating in forest resource extraction for some time, people in the concession demonstrated qu ite a low level of attitudes towards intrinsic values of the forest. A possible explanation of this could be the fact that currently the concession does not provide significant income for the people. Therefore, many people view the forest as a worse land u se alternative to get rid of. This affects their attitudes.
190 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL
191 APPENDIX B INDEX TO MEASURE ATT ITUDES TOWARDS FORES T RESOURCES Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree know IS1 I like staying in the forest. IS2 The forest is an important provider of resources for our family use (fire logs, leaves, etc.). IS3 The person who starts a forest fire needs to be prosecuted. IS4 The forest is an important source of money for our family. IS5 Our community is responsable for maintaining the forest. IS6 Our forest is valuable for the whole country. IS7 It is necessary to establish norms and policies to maintain forest resources. IS8 I am proud of our forest. IS9 It is important to save the forest for our children. IS10 The forest is the main source of income for our community. IS11 It is better to ranch cattle here than harvest forest resources. IS12 The forest is important for the lives of humans, wild animals and plants.
192 APPENDIX C INDEX TO MEASURE TRU ST Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree IIS1 Concession management tries to benefit all members of the community. IIS2 Outside organizations NEVER provide benefits for our community. IIS3 The majority of people in the community are trustworthy. IIS4 Conservation organizations are interested SOLELY in the well being of the forest. IIS5 The Concession management is sufficiently qualified for their job. IIS6 When people in our community lend money to peer community members they ALWAYS make receits. IIS7 All people in our community donate money or volunteer labor for community projects. IIS8 People in our community are very pleasant. IIS9 There is confidence that the Concession management manages the concession money in the best way. IIS10 Those people who have horses always lend them to their neighbors when needed. IIS11 People trust the word of other community members. IIS12 The community should accept and be thankful to any support from the outside organizations.
193 APPENDIX D INDEX TO MEASURE QUALITY O F MEMBERS MANAGEMENT INTERACTI ONS Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree IIIS1 The Concession management always informs the members about its decisions. IIIS2 When there is a problem with the concession, we discuss it with the Management. IIIS3 During the meetings the Concession Members freely express their ideas. IIIS4 The Concession Members know what the Management plans to do. IIIS5 The Concession Members talk to the Management in the streets. IIIS6 The Management always addresses the ideas proposed by the Concession Members. IIIS7 The Members understand financial management of the concession. IIIS8 The Members speak publicly about issues when they do not agree with the Management.
194 APPENDIX E INDEX TO MEASURE EFF ECTIVENESS OF DEMOCR ACY MECHANISMS Completely disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Completely agree IVS1 Elections of Concession management are very important. IVS2 The jobs in the Concession are given in a just manner. IVS3 When there is a need to resolve a serious problem, IVS4 It is important for all Concession Members to familiarize with the Annual Operation Plan. IVS5 The Concession management takes good care of the leased land. IVS6 Members call off any member of the Management if they are not competent enough for the job without waiting for the re election time. IVS7 If there is a serious problem with the Concession, the Members ask the Management to explain their plans to deal with the problem. IVS8 Only most able people are getting elected to serve in the Management. IVS9 Who works more earns more in the Concession. IVS10 Elections of the Management are just. IVS11 The Concession management always knows best which decisions to make.
195 APPENDIX F INTERACTIONAL STRUCT URE QUESTIONNAIRE I. Interactional structure of the forest management social field 1. Do you know if people in the community discuss among themselves forest resource management issues like for example volumes of timber, working plans, payments, etc.? 2. (If yes) Do you also talk? 3. In the last 2 weeks more or less, did you talk to your family and friends about those issues? 4. With who? Family and friends Other people in the community Concessio n managem ent People from outside of the communit y Si No Si No Si No Si No 5. How many times? 6. What type of the discussion? a When somebody starts a discussion about the concession issues other people prefer to change the topic due to lack of interest. b When there is an exchange of commentaries, people express their agreement or disagreement. c When we discuss these topics people usually provide suggestions of how thing could be done better. d When there is a discussion of the concession issues people sometimes go to a deeper analysis of things. 7. Which topics of these issues are more often discussed?/ With who? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
196 APPENDIX G OUTSIDE KEY INFORMAN T INTERVIEW GUIDE Intro: El presente cuestionario es para la investigacin de tesis de doctorado del Sr. Nikolay factores que inciden (afectan) la capacidad local comunitaria para el manejo de los recursos concesiones forestales comunitarias de la RBM que viven dentro del bosque. La entrevista tardar 60 m inutos. La informacin recabada se encuentra bajo declaracin de confidencialidad y su respuesta es totalmente voluntaria. As mismo es indica que es una investigacin cientfica sociolgica y no provocar ningn problema al proceso. El criterio de selecci n fue en base al conocimiento y experiencia en el tema. Key informant interview guide Date: Name: Position: I. Leadership Leadership is an important factor affecting community capacity to manage concession. Please rate each of the leadership aspects for each community from 0 (no leadership present) to 10 (perfect leadership, cannot be better) for now and in retrospective. C ommunity Years Aspects 2008 09 2000 07 1. Commercial and negotiation abilities 2. Financial management abilities 3. Abilities for development of plans 4. Abilities to resolve internal and external conflicts 5. Communication abilities 6. Other important aspects of leadership? Leadership in general II. Concession infrastructure For any concession to be successful, they need to have a developed infrastructure. Please rate the level of infrastructure for each of the 4 communities from 0 ( non existent) to 10 (absolutely optimal nothing can be added) for all aspects for now and in retrospective.
197 Community years Aspects 2008 09 2000 07 1. Gear necessary for logging 2. tractors, skidders 3. trucks 4. roads 5. storages 6. saw mills 7. other? General optimality of the infrastructure Thank you very much for your time and participation. Do you have any additional questions re the study? Resume: Interviewee attitude: Sex: Age: Discussed topics: General impressions and observations:
198 APPENDIX H QUESTIONNAIRE SECTIO RIABLES II. Knowledge about the concession 1. Which forest resources are being extracted by the community? Timber Non Timber 2. Who has a right to use those resources?__________________________________________ 3. Who is the President of the Concession ? correcto / incorrecto / 4. What is the area of the concession? ______ 5. How much does the community pay for the concession?________ 6. Which of these organizations participate in the development of the Annual Management Plan ? Concession Administration Si No No se ACOFOP Si No No se Community Forester/ Si No No se COCODE Si No No se Regent of the Forest Si No No se 7. What is the volume of mahogany that the Concession sold this year? _______ No se 8. What was the price for mahogany of the last sale ? ______No se III. Economic value of the Concession 1. Does the larger part of your family economic income come from the Concession? Si No No se 2. Did your economic situation improved with the establishment of the Concession? Si No No se 3. Which of these are the 3 most important forest resources for your family?
199 Xate Pimienta Animales silvestres (caceria) Madera Chicle Turismo Ramn Guano (techos) Bayal (muebles y artesanas) Otro? IV. Outside support 2. Which is the current accompany NGO for your Concession? Organi zation What does it do in the concession? Do people benefit? Why? Si No No se a. 1. Do you know which other organizations provide support to the community? b. c. d.
200 APPENDIX I FIRST ROUND DELPHI I NTERVIEW GUIDE Key Informant Interview Date: ________ Time: _________________________ Place: __________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: ________________________ Length of time held this position/ lived in this community:_______ Do you know well the following community concessions? Uaxactun, Cruce, Carmelita and Pasadita? The GIS data analysis shows that they all have different d eforestation rates. Which factors do you think can explain this difference? Factor 1___________________________________________________________ ___________ Please explain: ____________________________________________________________ ____ Factor 2_________ __________________________________________________ ___________ Please explain: ____________________________________________________________ ____ Factor 3___________________________________________________________ ___________ Please explain: _______________ _____________________________________________ ____
201 Factor 4___________________________________________________________ ___________ Please explain: ____________________________________________________________ ____ Factor 5___________________________________________________________ ___________ Please explain: ____________________________________________________________ ____ Factor 6 Please explain: ____________________________________________________________ ____ THANK Y OU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE. Do you have any questions that you would like to ask me? We will ask a panel of experts to identify the most important of these factors. If you agree, you will be contacted one or two more times with the list of factors from all the participants. You will be asked to identify 5 7 most important in your opinion and prioritize them. Comments: Note any impressions you have or comments about the interview
202 APPENDIX J COMMUNITY LEADER INT ERVIEW GUIDE Community Key Informant Interview Community: Date: Time: Place: Name: Title: Length of time held this position: I. General community action 1. How long have you lived in this community? 2. What were the most notable changes that happened over that time? 3. In the last decade, have there been any important actions in this community by community representatives, local groups or citizens related to the forest resource use/management? Please describe. (Probing: who started the process? Who participat ed? How did it evolve? How much time did it take?) Probe: Did they change since the Concession establishment? (# of people 4. (If not mentioned by the interviewee) Did the community change their management/use of forest resources since the Concession establishment? How? 5. Deforestation rate of your communal forest is ______. In comparison with _________ ____________ it is (much) higher/lower. Can you explain the reasons for this difference? Probing: Are there any specific factors that are different from ___________________ community that can explain this difference? II. Democracy mechanisms 1. How the decisions regarding forest management are made in your community?
203 2. Are community members involved into the process? If yes, in which ways? 3. 4. Why/Why not? 5. How? 6. 7. Do you think it is fair? Please explain. 8. Do you think that people are content with the process? If not, are there ways they can contest their earnings? III. Social field 1. Do people discuss forest management issues? When and with who? Probing: in their families? Friends? Neighbors? In any other non official settings? 2. How often do they do it in your opinion? 3. Which specific topics do you think they mainly dis cuss? Probing: earnings, management decisions, forest fires? 4. Are they critical, supporting, just discussing? 5. If people want to talk to the management, are there ways to do that? Which ones? Probe: official settings, non official settings. 6. When (if) peo ple interact with the management, what kind of topics is mainly discussed? Probe: earnings, decisions, plan, ideas for better management, critique? IV. Outside support 1. Does your community receive any outside support for forest resource management purposes? 2. If yes, from which organizations? 3. What kind of support?
204 4. Do you feel that this support helps community to better manage resources? 5. In which ways? Or why not? 6. Who decides on types of support to be provided? 7. Do you think that there is a need for more support than is being provided? What type? V. Human capital 1. How important in your opinion are special education and experience for effective forest resource management? Critical Very important Important Not very important Not needed 2. Do you think that the community management requires more skills to improve resour ce management? Why (not)? 3. Do you think that forestry skills and experience of community members are important for better resource management? Please explain. VI. Physical capital 1. Do you feel that your community has all the necessary infrastructure (roads, trucks, chaisaws, storages, processing facilities, etc.) to manage the forest resources? If not, what is most urgently needed? Please explain. 2. What else would be needed in your opinion for optimal resource management? 3. Where would you put your community on a scale from 0 (no infrastructure) to 10 (optimal infrastructure nothing can be added)? __ VII. Attitudes towards resources 1. How in your opinion people feel about the forest? Probe: Do they view it only as a source of resources; Do they like their forest? Do they think about saving it for children? 2. Did those attitudes changed since the establishment of the Concession? a. If yes, in which ways? How much? 3. forest
205 management? Please explain Levels of trust 1. Do you think that people in the community trust each other? Please explain. 2. Do community members trust forest resource management to do the job? Please explain. 3. Do community members trust outside organizations? Please explain. 4. Do you think that trust/lack of trust increases/decreases efficiency of forest resource management? Please explain. Unstructured part: Is there anything else you think important and would like to talk about re the concession issues? Can you think of anyone else that you think I should talk to about the community or the issues we have discussed? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE. Do you have any questions that you would like to ask me? Can I contact you again if I have any more questions? Comments: Note any impressions you have or comments about the interview Summary: Person's attitude: Gender: Age: Person's role in the community: Major issues covered: Distinct impressions:
206 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, W., & Hulme, D. (1998). Changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation. In D. Hulme, & Murphree, M. (Eds.) African wildlife & livelihoods: The promise & performance of community conservation (pp. 9 23). Oxford, UK: James Currey Ltd. Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C.C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4), 629 649. Agrawal, A. & Redford, K. (2006 ). Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: S hoo ting in the dark? WCS Working paper No.26. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society. Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for social science Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior Bu ckingham, UK: Open University Press. Ajzen, I. (n.d. ). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf Ajzen, I., & Fi shbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisited: an alternate version. Journal of the market research society 39(2), 331 342. Arntzen, J. W., Molo komme, D. L., Terry, E. M., Moleele, N., Tshosa, O., & Mazambani, D. (2003). Main findings of the review the community based natural resource management projects in Botswana CBNRM Support Programme Paper, IUCN/SNV and CAR: Gland. Asociacin de Comunidades Forestales de Petn, (2005). Manejamos el bosque con justicia social Grupo MultiColor: Guatemala city, Guatemala. The Aspen Institute (1996 ). Measuring Community Capacity Building: A Workbook in Progress for Rural Communities Wa shington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Balland, J. M., & Platteau, J. P. (1999). The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Development 27(4), 773 788. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control W. H. Freeman: New York.
207 Barret, C.B., Brandon, K., Gibson, C., &Gjertsen, H. (2001). Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. BioScience 51 (6), 497 502. Barrow, E., & Murphree, M. (2001). Community conservation: From concept to practice. In D. Hulme, & M. Murphree (Eds.) African wildlife & livelihoods: The promise & performance of community conservation (pp. 24 37). Oxford, UK: James Currey Ltd. Beckley, T., Nadeau, S., Wall, E., Martz, D. and Reimer, W. (2004). Multiple c apacities, m ultiple o utcomes: Delv ing d eeper into the m eaning of c ommunity c apacity NRE Project (New Rural Economy Project Building Rural Capacity in the New Economy), Working Paper. Concordia University: Montreal, Quebec. Belsky, J.M. (1999). Misrepresenting communities: The politics o f community based rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology 64 641 666. Bennett, A.F. (2003). Linkages in the landscape: The role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation Gland: IUCN. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking c ommunity based conservation. Conservation Biology 18 (3), 621 630 Berkes, F. (2007). Community based conservation in a globalized world Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (39), 15188 15193. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., (2008). Navigating social ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Blaikie, P. (2006). Is small really beautiful? Community based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11), 1942 1957. Blossfeld, H. P. (1996). Macro sociology, Rational Choice Theory, and time: A theoretical perspective on the empirical analysis of social processes. European Sociological Review 12, 181 206. Boulding, K.E. (1989). Three faces of power Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bourdeiu, P. (1986). The forms of capitals. In J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bradshaw, B. (2003). Questioning the cr edibility and capacity of community based resource management. The Canadian Geographer 47 (2), 137 150.
208 Brady, N.C. (1996). Alternatives to slash and burn: A global imperative. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 58, pp. 3 11. Brandon, K., Redford, K., & Sanderson, S. (Eds.) (1998). Parks in peril : P eople, politics, and protected areas Washington, DC : Island Press. Bray, D.B., Duran, E., Ramos, V.H., Mas, J., Velazquez, A., McNab, R.B., Barry, D., & Radachowsky, J. (2008). Tropical deforestation, co mmunity forests, and protected areas in the Maya Forest. Ecology and Society 13(2) online URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art56/ Brennan, M.A. & Luloff, A.E. (2007). Exploring rural community agency differences in Ireland and Pennsylvania Journal of Rural Studies 23, 52 61. Brennan, M. & Israel, G. ( 2008). The power of community. Community Development : Journal of the Community Development Society 39 (1), 82 98. Bridger, J., and Luloff, A.E. (1999). Toward an interactional approach to sustainable community development. Journal of Rural Studies 15, 377 387. Brockington, D. (2004). Community conservation, inequality and injustice: Myths of power in protected area management. Conservation and Society 2 (2), 411 432. Brockington, D. (200 2). Fortress conservation: The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve,Tanzania Bloomington, IN: International African Institute in association with Indiana University Press. Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann M., Lamoreux, J. F., Mittermeier, C. G., Pilgrim, J. D., Rodrigues A. S. L., (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58 61. Brosius, J.P., & Russell, D. (2003). Conservation from above: an anthropological perspective on transbo undary protected areas and ecoregional planning. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17 (1/2), 39 65. Brown, K. (2003). Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1(9): 479 487. Brown, W.J. Trost, S.G., Bauman, A., Mummery, K, & Owen, N. (2004). Test retest reliability of four physical activity measures used in population surveys. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports 7 (2), pp. 205 215. Browne Nunez, C., & Jonker, S.A. (2008). Attitu des toward wildlife and conservation across Africa: a review of survey research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13 (1 ), pp. 47 70.
209 Bruntland, G. (ed). (1987). Our c ommon f uture: The W orld Commission on Environment and Development Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 (8),765 81. Castillo, O., Clark, C., Coppolillo, P., Kretser, H., McNab, R., Noss, A., Quieroz, H., Tessema, Y., Vedder, A., Wallace, R., Walston, J., Wilkie, D. (2006). Casting for c onservation a ctors: People, p artnerships and w ildlife WCS Working Paper No. 28. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society. Child, B. (2009). Community conservation in Southern Africa: Rights based natural resource management. In H. Suich, B. Child, & A. Spenceley, (Eds.), Evolution and innova tion in wildlife conservation: P arks and game ran ches to transfrontier conservation areas (pp. 187 200). Earthscan: London, UK. Child, B. & Lyman, M.W. (2005). Natural resources as community assets: Lessons from two continents Sand County Foundation and the Aspen Institute. Child, B. & Murphree, M. (un published). Principles and Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community Institutions and Capacity for Managing Natural Resources at an Ecosystem Level Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Soc iology 94(supplement), 95 120. Coleman, J.S. ( 1990 ) Foundations of social theory Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research 12, 229 238. Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (1997a). Contrato de concession forestal con cooperativa Carmelita San Benito, Guatemala: CONAP. Consejo N acional de Areas Protegidas (199 7 b ) Contrato de concession forestal con La Pasadita Aprolapa San Benito, Guatemala: CONAP. Consejo N acional de Areas Protegidas (2000 ) Contrato de concession forestal con Uaxactun Sociedad Civil OMYC San Benito, Guatemala: CONAP.
210 Consejo N acional de Areas Protegidas (2001 ) Contrato de concession forestal con Cruce a la Colorada AFICC San Benito, Guatemala: CONAP. Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (2007). Problemtica del Avance de la Frontera Agrcola en la RBM, Principalmenteen la ZUM Guatemala, CONAP. Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (2009). Monitoreo de l a integridad ecolgica de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya, Peten, Guatemala Final Report. Conservation International ( n.d. ). The Maya Biosphere Reserve carbon conservation initiative, Guatemala Retrieved October 12, 2008 from http://www.conservation.org/learn/forests/Pages/projects.aspx utton, P., & van den Belt, Nature 387, 253 260. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W., & Maietta, R.C. (2002). Qualitative research. In DC Miller & N.J. Salkind (Eds.), Handbook of research design and social measuremen t (pp.143 200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2 nd ed.). NY: McGraw Hill. de Vaus, D. (2001) Research Design in Social Research London: Sage Publications. DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed London: Penguin Books. Dion, D. (1998). Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study. Comparative Politics 30(2), 127 145. Dixon, P. (1984). Response differences and prefere nces for all category defined and end defined Likert formats. Educational and Psychological Measurement 44, 61 66.
211 Doak, S. & Kusel J. ( 1996 ) Well being in forest dependent communities, Part II: A social assessment focus In Sierra Nevada ecosystem pro ject: Final report to congress: Vol. II, assessments and scientific basis for management options, 375 402. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Donoghue, E.M. & Sturtevant, V.E. (2007). Social science constructs in eco system assessments: Revisiting community capacity and community resiliency. Society and Natural Resources 20, 899 912 Earthwatch Institute, ( 2004 ). Annual Report Retrieved January 17, 2010 from http://www.earthwatch.org/australia/downloads/PDF_files/About_Us/Publications/ Earthwatch_2004_Annual_Report.pdf Earthwatch Institute (2005). Supporting capacity building for biodiversity conservation through DEFRA funding Retrieved October 24, 2008 from http://www.earthwatch.org/europe/newsroom/education/news 2 supportingcapacity.html Endte r Wada, J., Blanha, D., Krannich, R., and Brunson, M. (1998). A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 8(3), 891 904. Emery, M. & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling up: Mapping community transfor mation with community capitals framework. Journal of Community Development Society 37(1), 5 19. Fabricius, C., & Collins, S. (2007). Community base d natural resource management: G overning the commons. Water Policy 9 supplement 2, 83 97. Falk, I. & Kilpat rick, S. (2000) What is social capital? A study of i nteraction in a rural community. Sociologia Ruralis 40(1), pp. 87 110. Fauna and Flora International (2008). Building capacity, building the future. Retrieved October 24, 2010 from http://www.fauna flora.org/buildcapacity.php Fauna and Florla International, ( n.d. ). Building local capacity Retrieved January 17, 2010 from http://www.fauna flora.org/buildcapacity.php Ferraro, P. J. 2001. Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation Biology 15(4): 990 1000. Ferraro, P.J., & Kramer, R.A. (1997). Compensation and Economic Incentives: Red ucing pressures on protected areas. In R. Kramer, C. van Schaik, & J.
212 Johnson (Eds.), Last Stand: P rotected areas and the defense of tropical biodiversity (pp. 187 211) Ne w York: Oxford University Press Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention an d behavior: An introduction to theory and r esearc h. Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Fisher, R. G. (1978). The Delphi method: A description, review and criticism. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 4(2), 64 70. Flint, C.G., Luloff, A.E. based forestry? Society and Natural Resources 21(6), 526 537. Flora, C. & Flora, J. (2003). Social capital. In Brown & Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty first century (pp. 214 227). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Flora, C., Flora, J., & Fey, S. (2004). R ural Communities: Legacy and c hange (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qua litative Inquiry 12(2), 219 245. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (1993 ). Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment Washington, DC : U.S. Governmetn Printing Office. Fowler, F.J., Jr., & Mangione, T.W. (1990) Standardized survey interviewing: Minimizing interviewer related error Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Fowler, F.J., Jr., & Cosenza, C. (2009). Design and evaluation of survey questions. In L. Bickman, & D.J. Rog (Eds.) Applied social researc h methods (pp. 375 412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Frank, F., & Smith, A. (1999). The community development handbook: A tool to build community capacity Quebec, Canada: Labor Market Learning and Development. Frank, R. H. (1997) Microeconomics and behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Gadd, M. E. (2005). Conservation outside of parks: Attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32(1), 50 63. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review 98(2), 341 354
213 Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods London: MPG Books Ltd Ghimire, K.B., & Pimbert, M.P. (E ds.) (1997). Social change and conservation London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd. G omez, I., & Mendez, V.E. (2007). Association of forest communities of Petn, Guatemala: Context, accomplishments and challenges CIFOR and PRISMA: Bagor Barat, Indonesia. Goodman, R. (2008). A Construct for b uilding the c apacity of c ommunity b ased i nitiat ives in r acial and e thnic c ommunities: A q ualitative c ross c ase a nalysis. Journal of Public Health Management Practice November(Suppl ), 18 25. Goudie, M. (2006). The human impact on the natural environment: The past, present, and the future (6th ed. ). Ma lden, MA: The Blackwell Publishing. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6), 1360 1380. Green, S. (2002) Rational Choice Theory: An overview. In Baylor University Faculty Development Seminar. Retrieved Sept ember 19, 2008 from business.baylor.edu/steve_green/green1.doc Gretzinger, S.P. (1998). Community forest concessions: An economic alternative for the M aya Biosphere Resesrve in the P etn, Guatemala. In R.B.Primack D. Bray, H.A.Galletti, & I. Ponciano (Ed s.) Timber, tourists, and temples (pp. 111 124). Washington, DC : Island Press. Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Guariguata, M.R., Cronkleton, P., Shanley, P., & Taylor, P.L. (2008). The compatibility of timber and non timber forest product extraction and management. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 1477 81. Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (1997). The new language of qualitative method NY: Oxford University Press. Hancock, D.R. & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case stu dy research NY: Teachers College Press Hanna, S. Folke, C. & Maler, K. (1996) Rights to n ature: Ecological, e conomic, c ultural, and p olitical p rinciples of i nstitutions for the e nvironment Washington D.C: Island Press.
214 Hannah, L., Lovejoy, T.E., and Schneider, S.H. (2005). Biodiversity and c limate c hange in context. I n T.E. Lovejoy & L. Hannah, (Eds.) Climate Change and Biodiversity (pp.3 14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hill, M. (1997). SPSS Missing Value A nalysis Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Hillery, G.A. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociology 20, 111 123 Hindess, B. (1988). Choice, rationality and social theory London: Unwin Hyman Ltd. Holmes, C. M. (2003). The influence of pr otected area outreach on conservation attitudes and resource use patterns: A case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37(3), 305 315. Hughes, J., & Sharrock, W. (1997). The philosophy of social research (3rd ed.). London: Longman. Hunter, M.L., Jr. (1990). Wildlife, forests, and forestry: Principles of managing forests for biological diversity Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Hunter, M.L.Jr., & Gibbs, J. (2007). Fundamentals of conservation biology (3rd e d.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hyman, D., Higdon, F., & Martin, K. (2001). Reevaluating community power str uctures in modern communities. Journal of the Community Development Society 32(2): 199 223. Israel, G. (2003) Determining sample size IFAS University of Florida. R etrieved on Ap ril 26, 2008 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PD006 Iversen, V., Chhetry, B., Francis, P., Gurung, M., Kafle, G., Pain, A., & Seeley, S. (2006). High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from Ecological Economics 58, 93 107. Jobe, J.B. (2003). Cognitive psychology and self reports: models and methods. Quality of Life Research 12, 219 227. Jung, C.G. (1966). Two Essays on a nalytical p sychology Collect ed Works, Volume 7, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 141 151.
215 Kaufman, H. (1959). Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces 38(1), 8 17. Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A., Lichtenfeld, L.L. (2000). Community n atural r esource m anagement: Promise, r hetoric, and r eality. Society and Natural Resources, 13 705 715. Kiss, A. (Ed.) (1990). Living w ith wildlife: Wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa Washington, DC : World Bank. Klooster, D. (2006). Environmental certification of forests in Mexico: The political ecology of a nongovernmental market intervention. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(3), 541 565 Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners Sage Publications: London, UK. Kvale, S. (1996). An introduction to qualitative research interviewing Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Laverack, G. (2001). An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of community empowerment. Community Development Journal 36(2), 134 145. Laverack, G. (2006). Evaluating community capacity: Visual representation and interpretation. Community Development Journal 41(3), 266 276. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lovett, F. (2006). Rational choice theory and explanation. Rationality and Society 18(2), 237 172. Lubke, G., & Muthen, B. (2004). Factor analyzing Likert scale data under the assumption of multivariate normality complicates a meaningful comparison of ob served groups or latent classes. Structural Equation Modeling 11, 514 534. Luloff, A.E. & Bridger, J. (2003). Community a gency and l ocal d evelopment. In D. Brown, & L.E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty first century University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
216 Luloff, A.E. & Swanson, L.E. (1995). Community agency and disaffection: Enhancing collective resources. In L. J. Beaulieu & W.D. Mulke y (Eds.), Investing in people: T he human capital needs of rural A merica (pp. 351 372). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lyon, L. (1989). The community in urban society Long Grove, Il: Waveland Press, Inc. Madow, W. G., Nisselson, H., Olkin, I., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). Incomplete d ata in s ample s urveys New York: Academic Pr ess. Mangel, M. et al. (1996). Principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Ecological Applications 6, 338 362. Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004) Community based and driven development: A critical review. World Bank Research Observer 19 (1):1 3 9. Manuel Navarrete, D., Slocombe, S., and Mitchell, B. (2006). Science for place based socioecological management: Lessons from the Maya Forest (Chiapas and Petn) Ecology and Society 11 (1), 8. Retrieved April 11, 2008 from http://www.ecologyandsociet y.org/vol11/iss1/art8/ Margoluis, R., & Salafsky, N. (1998). Measures of success Washington, DC: Island Press. Marx, K. (1867). The Capital Retrieved April 26, 2008 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867 c1/ch01.htm#S1 Matarrita Cascante, D, Luloff, A.E., Field, D.R., and Krannich, R. (2006). Community participation in rapidly growing communities. The Journal of the Community Development Society 37, 71 87. McDuff, M.D. (2001). Building the capacity of grassroots conservation organizations to conduct participatory evaluation. Environmental Management 27 (5), 715 727. McKelvie, S.J. (1992). Does memory contaminate test retest reliability? The Journal of Gene ral Psychology 119(1), pp. 59 73. Mendis Millard, S. & Reed M.G. (2007). Understanding community capacity using adaptive and reflexive research practices: Lessons from two Canadian biosphere reserves. Society and Natural Resources 20, 543 59. Mendoza, E .; Perz, S.; Aguilar, C.; Chvez, A.; Cullman, G.; Duchelle, A.; Luzar, J.; capacity building for participatory governance in the south western Amazon. Development in Practice 17 ( 6), 791 799.
217 Metcalfe, S. (2003). Impacts of transboundary protected areas on local communities in three South African Initiatives Durban, RSA: World Parks Congress. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Miller, DC & Salkind, N.J. (2002). Handbook of research design and social measurement (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks CA : Sage Publications, Inc. Mizrahi, Y. 2004. Capacity enhancement indicators: Review of the literature World Bank In stitute Working Paper 37232. Washington, DC: World Bank Monterroso, I., & Barry, D. (2007). Community based forestry and the changes in tenure and access rights in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala Proceedings: International Conference on Poverty Re duction and Forests, Bangkok. Moore S.A., Severn R.C. & Millar R., (2006). A Conceptual Model of Community Capacity for Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes. Geographical Research 44(4), 361 371. Mowbray, C.T., Holter, M.C., Teague, G.B. & Bybee, D. (20 03). Fidelity c riteria: Development, measurement, and v alidation. American Journal of Evaluation 24 (3), 315 340. Mueller, D.J. (1986). Measuring social attitudes: A handbook for researches and practitioners NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Mu laik, S.A. (2009). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd ed.). NY: CRC Press. Mulder, M.B., & Coppolillo, P. (2005). Conservation: linking ecology, economics, and culture Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J. Murphree, M. (1997a). Articulating voices from the commons, interpretation, translation, and facilitation: Roles and modes for common property scholarship. Society and Natural Resources 10 (4), 415 22. Murphree, M. (1997b). Congruent objectives, competing interests and strategic compromise: Conc Programme Manchester, UK: Institute for Development Policy and Management University of Manchester Murphree, M. (2002). Protected areas and the commons. The Common Property Resource Digest 60, 1 3.
218 Nadeau, S. 2002. Characterization of community capacity in a forest dependent community: The case of the Haut St. Maurice PhD dissertation, Ore gon State University, Corvallis. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/12747/NadeauSolan ge2002.pdf?sequence=1 Nardi, P. (2006). Interpreting data: A guide to understanding research Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Newman, I., Ridenour, C.S., Newman Carole, & DeMarco, G.M.P., Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A.Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.) Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag e Publications, Inc. Newmark, W.D. & Hough, J.L. (2000). Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects a nd Beyond. BioScience 50(7), 585 592. Nittler, J., & Tschinkel, H. (2005). Community forest management in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala: Protectio n through profits Report to USAID. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Company. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Company. Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E.J. (2005 ). A Step by Step Approach to Using SAS for Univariate & Multivariate Statistics (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Oxfam International (2008). Climate Wrongs and Human Rights Briefin g Paper #117. Retrieved Octob er 19, 2008, from http://www.oxfam.org/files/bp117 climate wrongs and human rights 0809.pdf Parks Watch (2004). Maya Biosphere Reserve. Retrieved on April 9, 2011 fro m: http://www.parkswatch.org/ Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization focused evaluation Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
219 Platteau, J. (2004) Monitoring elite capture in community driven development. Development and Change 35(2), 223 246. Pretty, J., & Smith, D. (2004). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation Biology 18 (3), 631 638. ProPetn (2008). List of supporting organizations. Retrieved November 3, 2008 from http://www.propeten.org/about.htm Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community NY: Simon and Schuster. Quammen D. (2003). Monster of God New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc. Rainforest Alliance (2008). Ornamental greens from the Maya Biosphere Reserve Retrieved February 03, 2009 from www.rainforest alliance. org Redford, K.H., & Sanderson, S.E. (2000). Extracting humans from nature. Conservation Biology 14 (5) 248 55. Reeb, R.N., (2006). Community action research: Benefits to community members and service providers NY: The Haworth Press, Inc. Reining, C., Soza, C., Flynn, S., Contreras, J., Corzo, A., & Mancilla, M. (1998). Community Forest Concessions, Institutional Reform, and Access to Traditional Resource Rights: The Case of Carmelita and the Maya Biosphere Reserve Petn, Guatemala CBNRM Initiative report. Sahakian, C.E. (1997). The Delphi method Skokie, IL: The Corporate Partnering Institute. Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K.H., & Robinson, J.G. (2002). Improving the practing of conservation: A conceptual framework and rese arch agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16 (6), 1469 1479. Schafer, J.L., & Graham, J.W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods 7 (2), 147 177. Schwartz, N.B. (1990). Forest society: A social hist ory of Petn, Guatemala University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Schwartz, N.B. (1995). Colonization, Development, and Deforestation of Petn. In M. Painter, & W.H. Durham (Eds.) The social causes of environmental destruction in Latin America (pp. 101 132) Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
220 Scott, J. (2000). Rational Choice Theory. In G. Browning, A. Halcli, & F. Webster (Eds.), Understanding contemporary society: Theo ries of the present (pp. 126 138). London: Sage Publications Scott, W.A. (1975). Attitude Measurement. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology ( pp.221 248). New Delhi: Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Sen, A. (1977). Rational fo ols: a critique of the behavioral foundations of economic Philosophy and public affairs 6, 317 344. Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68(3), 249 262 Scholz, R & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods : integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge Thousand Oaks CA : Sage Publications. Shafe r, C.L. (1990). Nature reserves : Island theory and conservation practice Washington, DC : Smithsonian Press Shoemaker, P., Tankard, J.W., & Lasorsa, D. (2004). How to build social science theories Thousand Oaks CA : Sage Publications. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Songorwa A.N. (1999). Community based wildlife management in Tanzania: are the communities interested? World Development 27, 2061 79. Stafford, K. (1994). Petn crafts a future Retrieved November 3, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2043/is_n5_v46/ai_n28646169/pg_1?tag=a rtBody;col1 Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In K. Denzin &Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) ( p p. 435 454) London: Sage Publications. Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. (1974). Response effects in surveys Chicago, IL: Aldine. Suhr, D.D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? Proceedings of the Thirty first Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
221 Sutton, R.I. (1992). Feelings about a Disneyland visit: Photography and the reconstruction of bygone emotions. Journal of Management Inquiry 1, 278 2 87. Tai, H. S. (2007). Development through conservation: An institutional analysis of indigenous community based conservation in Taiwan. World Development 35 (7), 1186 1203. Tashakkori, A. & Tedd lie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publication s. Theodori, G. (2005). Community and community development in resource based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Society and Natural Resources 18(7), 661 669. Thompson, B., (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor an alysis: Understanding concepts and applications Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2006). Literacy rates data base Retrieved November 6, 2008 from http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?URL_ID=6401&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_S ECTION=201 United Nations Development Program (2005). Capacity building for environmental planning and biodiversity conservation in Angola Evaluation report. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from http://mirror.undp.org/angola/LinkRtf/ang02_005.pdf United Nations Environmental Program (2006). World database on protected areas report Retrieved December 12, 2 010, from http://www.wdpa.org/AnnualRelDataStruc.aspx United Nations Environmental Program (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Retrieved April 26, 2008, from http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&Articl eID=1163 United Nations Environmental Program (2010). Capacity Building Program Retrieved January 27, 2010 from http://www.u nep wcmc.org/capacity_building/ U nited Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Maya Biosphere Reserve Retrieved November 12, 2009, from
222 http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?code=GUA+01&mod e=all Valenzuela Galvan, D., Arita, H.T., Macdonald D.W. (2008). Conservation priorities for carnivores considering protected natural areas and human population density. Biodiversity Conservation 17 (3) 539 558. VanWynsberghe, R. & Khan, S. (2007). Redefining case study. International Journal of Qualita tive Methods 6(2), 1 10. Ward G.C., & Ward D.R. (Eds.) (2002). Tigers and tigerwallahs New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Wells, M. & Brandon, K. (1992). People and parks: Linking protected area management with local communities Washington, DC: The Wor ld Bank, WWF, and USAID.. based rural development. I n F.R. Thibodeau & H.H. Field (E ds.), Sustaining tomorrow: A strategy for world conservation and development (pp.94 110). University Press of New England: Hanover. Weste rn, D., & Wright, M. (1994). Natural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation Washington, DC: Isl and Press. Westley, F. (2002). The devil in the dynamics: Adaptive management at the frontlines. In L. Gunderson & C. Holling (Eds.), Panarch y: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp.333 360). Wash ington, D C: Island Press. Wildlife Conservation Society (2005). Training and capacity building program Retrieved October 25, 2008 from http://www.wcs.org/media/file/Factsheet_TCBPGeneral_051207.pdf Wildlife Conservation Society (2008). Saving wildlife: Training and capacity building program. Retrieved October 24, 2008 from http://www.wcs.org/tcbp Wilkinson, K. P. (1986). In search of the community in the changing countryside. Rural Sociology 51(1), 1 17. Wilkinson, K.P. (1991). The community in rural America Middleton, W I: Social Ecology Press. Williams, F., & Monge, P. (2001). Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative research (5th ed.). New York: Harcourt College Publishers.
223 World Wide Fund for Nature International (2003). Protected areas position paper Retri eved October 12, 2008, from http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm wwf/pdf alt/waelder/WWF Position_Protected_Areas_03.pdf Yin, R. (2003). Applications of case study research London: Sage Publications. Yin, R. (2004). Case study research: Design and methods Lond on: Sage Publications. Yin, R. (2009). How to do better case studies. In L. Bickman, & D.J. Rog (Eds.) Applied social research methods (pp. 254 282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Xiongzhi X., Huasheng H., Luoping Zh., Xiaochun X., & Shawn Sh ., (2006). Developing public environmental education: Improving community based environmental management. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 9 (1), 105 110.
224 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nikolay Kazakov received his undergraduate degree from Irkutsk Sta te Foreign Language University to work as a teacher of foreign languages in rural Russian schools. Exposure to the problems of wild nature and people who know it from a practical yet intrinsic side pushed him to a career change. After obtaining a Masters i n Environmental Studies degree from the Evergreen State College, Olympia Nikolay got involved into community based conservation of Amur tigers and Far Eastern leopards, highly endangered felids in the world. Realization of the key role of local communitie s in conservation of biodiversity on the one hand, and of lack of understanding of how to incentivize these local communities to positively play that role on the other resulted for Nikolay in going back to school. This time it was School of Natural Resourc es and Environment at University of Florida with foci on Rural Community Science, Sociology, and Research Methods. Knowledge and skills acquired during the time studied at UF help Nikolay to better terrelations with both ecological and social systems, and prepared him for practical work.