Collective Action and Conservation Behavior

Material Information

Collective Action and Conservation Behavior a Comparison of Two Coffee Organizations in the Peruvian Amazon Basin
Kowler, Laura
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (88 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Interdisciplinary Ecology
Committee Chair:
Swisher, Marilyn E.
Committee Members:
Stein, Taylor V.
Buschbacher, Robert E.
Graduation Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Coffee industry ( jstor )
Collective action ( jstor )
Community associations ( jstor )
Environmental conservation ( jstor )
Forests ( jstor )
Group identity ( jstor )
Natural resource management ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Social movements ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
action, amazon, behavior, coffee, collective, community, conservation, governance, group, information, leadership, movements, organizations, peru, resources, social, sustainability
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.


A poor understanding of the dynamic institutional arrangements of local forest user groups has impeded practical community-based conservation efforts in the tropics. Although there are challenges and opportunities presented by community-based initiatives, an emphasis is placed on the importance of empowering local people to manage specific natural resources through legitimate and accountable institutions. The notion that the devolution of rights to local levels enables equitable, efficient, and institutionally sustainable management of natural resources is often promoted in such programs. Conservation institutions in the Amazon region focus increasingly on the urgency of changing present land use patterns and rates of primary forest deforestation through the creation and involvement of producer groups in sustainable forest management. I developed a model for collective action to explore the relationships among group cohesion, collective identity, governance, and conservation behavior. I compare these relationships in two large coffee-producer organizations in the San Martin Region of the Peruvian Amazon Basin. These organizations are differentiated by their organizational orientation, focusing on social development and environmental marketing. The study population of 102 coffee farmers participated in questionnaires, 35 of which were selected to participate in a semi-structured interview and a farm visit over the course of a three month period. Correlation analysis presents a discrepancy in the correlations among variables between the comparison groups, whereas the themes from interview responses support these correlations. Findings demonstrate that strong organizations require strong leadership that promotes group members? engagement in decision-making and information sharing that may foster group commitment to the organization and particular behaviors and actions, such as conservation behavior. The exploration of organizations with different organizational orientations offers important findings for the creation or maintenance of a group members? sense of belonging and long-term commitment to the organization. The difference in orientation between comparison groups may relate to the difference in their collective efforts for conservation as well as the reasons for conservation. Community-based conservation efforts must consider the diverse internal social institutions characterizing forest user groups in order to understand the factors influencing collective action for sustainable forest management. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Adviser: Swisher, Marilyn E.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Laura Kowler.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Kowler, Laura. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
489090688 ( OCLC )
LD1780 2009 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2009 Laura F. Kowler 2


To the students in the School of Natural Resources and Environm ent and the Tropical Conservation and Development Program, as well as farmers across the world 3


ACKNOWL EDGMENTS I would like to thank my mother and fath er for their unconditi onal love and support throughout my educational career. I give special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Mickie Swisher, who encouraged my understanding and proper application of theory, research design and methods, as well as the development of my research instru ments. I also would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Taylor Stein and Dr. Robert Busc hbacher, for their contributions and insights. Most importantly, I would like to thank the ma ny families in San Martin who participated in this research and shared their time and enthus iasm with me. I especial ly would like to thank Gerardo Medina (Rainforest Alliance) for introducing me to the many coffee-producer organizations in Peru as well as my field assist ant, Heidi Zamudio. I especially give thanks to Juan Carlos Davila Casique (EcoCafe) for facili tating my research in the San Martin Region. I also give thanks to Sr. Hidrico Bocngel, Miker Cuesta and the many individuals from the Green Gold Cooperative who supported me in my research. This research was made possible by partial funding from the University of Floridas Tropical Conservation and Development Program. 4


TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11Background.............................................................................................................................11Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....132 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................16Social Movements and Collective Action..............................................................................16Collective Identity...........................................................................................................1 9Group Cohesion...............................................................................................................22Governance......................................................................................................................25Objectives...............................................................................................................................29Hypotheses..............................................................................................................................293 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................31Site Selection..........................................................................................................................31Research Design.....................................................................................................................31Sample Selection....................................................................................................................33Addressing Validity and Reliability.......................................................................................35Group Cohesion Index.....................................................................................................36Questionnaire...................................................................................................................36Collective identity....................................................................................................36Governance...............................................................................................................37Interview..........................................................................................................................37Group Cohesion Index.....................................................................................................38Questionnaire...................................................................................................................39Interview..........................................................................................................................404 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........42Test of Normality.............................................................................................................. ......42Hypothesis 1................................................................................................................... ........42Comparison of Two Independent Samples.............................................................................42 5


Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................................................... ........43Correlations among Study Variables......................................................................................43Regression Model............................................................................................................... ....44Qualitative Analysis........................................................................................................... .....445 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......48Role and Evaluation of Leaders..............................................................................................48Information-Sharing and Member Engagement in Decision-Making....................................50Understanding of Rights.........................................................................................................54Sense of Belonging.................................................................................................................56Group Goals for Conservation................................................................................................59Reasons for Conservation.......................................................................................................61Commitment and Future Visi on: State of Solidarity..............................................................62Contextual Information......................................................................................................... ..65 6 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. ..66 APPENDIX A IRB NOTICES.................................................................................................................. ......72B INSTRUMENTATION..........................................................................................................74LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................80BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................88 6


LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Dimensions of collective identity and applied measurements...........................................40 3-2 Dimensions of governance and applied measurements.....................................................41 3-3 Dimensions of group cohesion and applied measurements...............................................41 4-1 Shapiro-Wilks test of normal distributi on for all variables, San Martin, Peru, 2008........46 4-2 Mann-Whitney U test for all variables and all groups, San Martin, Peru, 2008................46 4-3 Spearman rank order correlations for all groups, San Martin, Peru, 2008........................46 4-4 Logistic regression for all variable s and all groups, San Martin, Peru, 2008....................46 7


LIST OF FI GURES Figure page 2-1 Conceptual model of collective action...............................................................................30 8


Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science COLLECTIVE ACTION AND CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR: A COMPARISON OF TWO COFFEE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PERUVIAN AMAZON BASIN By Laura F. Kowler August 2009 Chair: Marilyn E. Swisher Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology A poor understanding of the dynamic institutional arrangements of local forest user groups has impeded practical community-based conservation efforts in the tropics. Although there are challenges and opportunities presented by community -based initiatives, an emphasis is placed on the importance of empowering local people to manage specific natu ral resources through legitimate and accountable institutions. The notion that the devolution of rights to local levels enables equitable, efficient, and institutionally sustainable management of natural resources is often promoted in such programs. Conservation institutions in the Amazon region focus increasingly on the urgency of changing present land use patterns and rates of primary forest deforestation through the creation and involvement of producer groups in sustainable forest management. I developed a model for colle ctive action to explore th e relationships among group cohesion, collective identity, governance, a nd conservation behavior. I compare these relationships in two large coffee-producer orga nizations in the San Martin Region of the Peruvian Amazon Basin. These organizations are differentiated by their organizational orientation, focusing on social developm ent and environmental marketing. 9


10 The study population of 102 coffee farmers part icipated in questionnaires, 35 of which were selected to participate in a semi-structured interview and a farm visit over the course of a three month period. Correlation analysis presen ts a discrepancy in the correlations among variables between the comparison groups, whereas the themes from interview responses support these correlations. Fi ndings demonstrate that strong organizations require strong leadership that promotes group members engagement in decisi on-making and information sharing that may foster group commitment to the organization a nd particular behaviors and actions, such as conservation behavior. The exploration of organizations with different organizational orientations offers important findings for the creation or maintenance of a gr oup members sense of belonging and long-term commitment to the organization. The difference in orientation betwee n comparison groups may relate to the difference in their collective effo rts for conservation as well as the reasons for conservation. Community-based conservation efforts must consider the diverse internal social institutions characterizing forest user groups in order to und erstand the factors influencing collective action for sustai nable forest management.


CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION Background There is a growing internati onal focus on the link between environmental degradation and social inequity, which frame both goals and strategies of commun ity-based conservation programs. Governments, donors, and internati onal NGOs have experimented widely with participatory strategies in na tural resource management since the 1992 Rio Declaration. Several programs considered experiments in natural resource management, such as CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, joint forest management in India, a nd Gestion des Terrior in Mali, have encouraged participatory processes in local management and local decision-making (Agrawal 2002). These programs may provide positive examples of local, democratic institutions that may have positive ecological and social effects. Conservation programs that promote local co llective resource management often assume that the local community has superior knowledge about their resources an d is more capable of managing them than exogenous organizations (B rosius et al. 1998; Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Some scholars argue that local users themselves canand haveconstructed institutions to use their natural resources sustaina bly (Gibson et al. 2005, 274). Thes e conservation programs also assume that communities are small, homogeneous en tities with shared values and interests that assist collective decision-mak ing. Agrawal (2002) maintains that these assumptions are flawed, suggesting that communities are mo st likely heterogeneous in ways that may hinder their ability to conserve. Even among local communities which outwardly seem homogenous, communities may display large variations in wealth, interests, and patterns of resour ce use, to name a few. These differences have important impacts on la nd use behavior and thus the politics of community-based conservation programs. 11


Sim ilarly, other scholars place an emphasis on the dynamic and diverse makeup of social institutions that mediate the relationships be tween social actors (Leach et al. 1999). Recent research focuses on the conditions that affect successful management under different institutional structures (Musht aq et al. 2007). Local communities are involve d now in making decisions a bout local resource use, contrary to their roles under ex clusionary policies of the past. Some scholars perceive todays approaches to forest governance as a positive mo ve away from the centrally administered, topdown regulatory policies of the 19th and 20th centuri es (Ribot et al. 2006). Sixty countries are decentralizing some aspects of natural resour ce management to date. Local communities and organizations in the worlds developing nations have assumed responsibility for governing 200 million hectares of forests si nce the 1980s (Agrawal 2002). Chapter 28 of the 1992 Rio declaration placed the initial internat ional emphasis on the process of good governance as a precondition for achieving local environm ental sustainability. This approach rests on two major ideas. First, it is necessary to mobilize the energies and initiative of citizens in local communities to ch ange attitudes, values, and behaviors (Evans et al. 2006, 854). Second, the governance process is a key mechanism to involve citizens and local organizations into the decision-m aking process to increase politic al engagement (Evans et al. 2006) Some scholars think governance is central to both the collec tive action and sustainability discourse, where the fundamental driver of su stainable development must be a democratic debatedecisions reached through open discussion, consensus based on shared goals and trust (Christine and Warburton 2001, 21). Some scholars emphasize the importance of contemporary experiments with governance arrangements on all le velslocal to internationalas resources become scarcer (Ribot et al. 2006). However, the relationship between governance and 12


sustainability has not been tested (E vans et al. 2006) and a review of th e literature shows major gaps in our knowledge about how different aspects of governance affect forest conservation outcomes. Purpose of the Study Early efforts to eradicate coca in the 1990s through the promotion of coffee production and the formation of coffee organizations led to new territories for coffee farmers in the San Martin Region of the Peruvian Amazon Basin. Today, th e region is a major coffee-producing region in Peru and one of the most deforested regions in the country. The greatest net declines in forests have occurred in tropical countries at the regional level (Ribot et al. 2006). The Amazon region faces the direct threat of deforestation and degradation, which is strongly intertwined with the po ssibility of substantial regional drought driven by global climate change (Betts et al. 2008). Conservation institu tions in the Amazon region focus on the urgency of changing present land use patter ns and rates of primary forest deforestation. Betts et al. (2008) suggest that addressing de forestation and the recuperation of forests in the Amazon region raises challenges in policy, governance, sustainabilit y, and economic science. Further research is needed to better understand the in terplay between drivers of defo restation and local institutions for forest management (Hayes 2006). Some scholars who study collective action suggest that effective efforts for local resource management depend on local organizations ability to act collectively. Many natural resource systems, such as forests, are subject to colle ctive management or use by multiple individuals, often for a variety of purposes (Edwards and Steins, 1998). Sustaining these resources depends upon successful coordination and coope ration (Poteete and Ostrom 2004). Meinzen-Dick and others (2004) claim that local organizations should develop robust governance mechanisms based on strong leadership and engaging members in decision-making. 13


Turner (1999) argues for em phasizing the critical social relations and ins titutions that require support and strengthening in th e context of conservation programs. Agrawal and Gibson (1999) contend that research should focus on a commun itys internal attributes and decision-making processes to understand its propens ity to conserve resources. Social movement theory provides useful insight s for organizational research (Morrill et al. 2003; Rao et al. 2000). Shiferaw et al. (2008) contend that collective action through organizations, such as farmers associations or broad-based social movements, can provide a stronger voice in negotiations w ith government officials, NGOs, and others. However, a poor understanding of the dynamic institutional arrangements of local user groups has impeded practical community-based c onservation in the tropics. Literature about community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programs addresses strengthening governance mechanisms and local institutions. Although there are challenges and opportunities presented by community -based initiatives, an emphasis is placed on the importance of empowering local people to manage specific natu ral resources through legitimate and accountable institutions (Kull 2002). The notion that the devolution of rights to local levels enables more equitable, efficient and institutionally sust ainable management of renewable natural resources is often pr omoted in such programs (Kull 2002). I developed a model for colle ctive action to explore th e relationships among group cohesion, collective identity, governance, and conservation behavior. There is an absence of research considering these three variables in literature pertaining to social movements or collective action. Similarly, there is little empirical research that exists for governance. The exploration of this proposed mode l in the context of two large coffee producer organizations in the San Martin Region may benefit conservation in itiatives that promote sustainable forest use 14


through local user groups. Ther e are currently 20 large coffeeproducer organizations in the region, m any of which promote sustainable agricultura l practices in response to the current state of deforestation and its potentiall y severe impact on the ecosystem. In addition, an understanding of the factors influencing collective action for sustainable management among resource-dependent populations may also have important policy implications (Poteete and Ostrom 2004). Barrett et al. ( 2001) affirm that there is a pressing need for theoretical and empirical scholarship to identi fy robust predictors of institutional strength in performing conservation tasks and to determin e the implications for conservation program design. 15


CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter first examines the evolving st udy of collective action. I review and discuss two key constructs, group cohesi on and collective identity, both of which are central to my research. The discussion then moves to governance as a construct rarely empirically studied. Governance is central to understanding the de gree to which collective identity and group cohesion can lead to su stained collective action. Social Movements and Collective Action Social movements became a topic of scholarship in the mid-19th century with the rise of mass action in industrialized nations like Engla nd and Germany. Marxist scholars, in particular, devoted attention to these mass actions involving radicalizat ion and expansion of voice (Snow et al., 2006, 20).). Scholarly interest in social movements declin ed greatly in the postWWII period in Europe and the United States, due, in part, to the Cold War decline of Marxist scholars in the western world. Inte rest grew enormously, however, as social movements grew in the 1960s, starting with the civ il rights movement. The term n ew social movement came into use as scholars realized that collective action extends well be yond the class-based behavior posited by Marxist scholars. The term new social movements is much broader in conception than simply mass action. Contemporary scholars extend our understanding of social movements to incorporate many forms of collective action. Snow and colleagues (2006), for example, view social movements as concerned with mass action to address broad social justice issues. The te rm new distinguishes scholars who study the broader forms of collective action and refers to both the actions themselves and the body of theory used to ex plain this behavior. New social movements now 16


extend far beyond the original Marxist thinking. For exam ple, contemporary scholars address such diverse forms of collective action as cu ltural, emotional and identity movements. According to Snow et al. (2006, 6), social m ovements are one of the principal social forms through which collectivities give voice to th eir grievances and conc erns about the rights, welfare, and well-being of themselves and othe rs by engaging in various types of collective action. Albert Melucci sees so cial movements as one of many different kinds of collective action. Others scholars emphasize the role of collective action and social movements in the creation of new organizational fo rms and fields of practice (Rao et al. 2000, 243). Perspectives on social movements grew from the notion that they represent a method of resolving social conflict and are the driv ing force behind protest and collec tive action (Touraine 1985; Simsek 2004). However, the new social movement perspec tive marks a departure from the understanding of social movements as collective action in the form of protest from the 1980s. Collective action theory seeks to explain c onditions of mobiliza tion and understand why and how rational individuals construct common goa ls and interests, and how they usher them through the complexities of the political arena and public space (Dubet and Thaler 2004). Most definitions of collective action includethe invol vement of a group of people, a shared interest within the group, and some kind of common ac tion which works in pursuit of members perceived shared interests (Marshall 1998). Collective action usually includes rules and decision-making structures (Meizen-Dick and Knox 2001). Rules applied to natural resource management may include the restriction of use, as well as processes for monitoring, sanctioning, and dispute resolution (Ostrom 1992). Collective action does not necessarily require an organization, although organizations may make collective action more effective or efficient for some tasks (Meinzen-Dick et al. 1999).Examp les of collective action include collective 17


decision-m aking, setting group conduct rules, im plementing decisions, and monitoring adherence to rules (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2004). Furthermore, concepts of collective action vary and include an event, an institution or a process. Where the perspectives on social conflict a ttempted to explain mobilization, new social movement theory emphasizes cultural and mo ral perspectives and group identity (Williams 2006). Similar to Torraine, Melucci views new soci al movements as forces of democratization in which identitystands as the emblem of th e contemporary forms of collective action (1989, 218). Melucci makes a distinction between society and politics by ma king identity central to new social movements (Vahabzadeh 2001). Melucci (1989) does not consider the dimensions of social phenomena as political and argues that they function according to a different logic. Melucci places society as the principal domain of action and the ultim ate source of meaning that stands prior in relation to politics (1989). Vahabzadeh (2001) argues against Meluccis perspective and proposes that sociologists should identify contexts that make demands possibl e without seeing these contexts as referential, rational foundations. He advocates a non-referentia l approach to movements that understands the global character of new social movements, not as a normative categorization and universal grounding but as the translation of experiences from one local context and language into those of another (Vahabzadeh 2001). Vahabzadehs persp ective does not exclude, for example, Third World ecological movements from the general ca tegory of new social movements. Unlike their Western counterparts, these movements are enta ngled with issues of poverty and labor in nonWestern societies (Vahabzadeh 2001). Consider ing both the social-psychological and sociopolitical understandings of social movement scholars, this study considers both social interaction and political factors as influen ces on social actors decisions a nd actions in a global context. 18


Collective I dentity The theoretical notions of co llective action rest on the id ea that a group cannot exert collective control over res ources without both social re lations and some form of collective identity (Polletta and Jasper 2001). Colle ctive identity is a widely us ed concept involved in the social sciences and most extensively in social science literature about social movements. Researchers use collective identity to unders tand and identify why people participate in movements and to assess movements impacts (P olletta and Jasper 2001). Collective identity plays a critical role in mobilizing and sustaining participation. Wallis (2004) proposes that individuals choose actions th at create identity and that people define who they are in terms of the people with whom they intera ct and how they interact. Various disciplines define collective identity differently, but most share the understanding of a personal cognitive connecti on between the individual and the work group (Riordan and Weatherly 1999, 316). Recent definitions also consid er the value and emoti onal significance of group membership, first proposed by Tajfel (1978) in the social identity theory. Collective identity represents an individuals cognitive, moral, and emotional c onnection with a broader community, category, practice, or institution, whic h represents a shared sense of we-ness (Poletta and Jasper 2001, 284). Deaux (1996) asse rts that outsiders may construct and enforce collective identity, but it depends on the groups acceptance of individuals. Many scholars of social movements are interest ed in collective identity because dominant resource mobilization and political process theories are not fully adequate (Poletta & Jasper 2001). Collective identity frequently refers to some sense of political consciousness and collective action in the social movement litera ture (Ashmore et al. 2004). Gamson (1991, 29) argues, Any movement seeking to sustain co mmitment over a period of time must make the construction of collective identity one of its mo st central tasks. Power relationships within a 19


particular social arena m ay in fluence identity formation, as suggested by Byrne and Mosse (1995). The centrality of identity in the new social movement framework distinguishes it from older social movement perspectives. Melucci defines collective id entity as an interactive and shared definition produced by several interac ting individuals who are concerned with the orientations of their action as well as the field of opportunities and constraints in which their action takes place (1989). Melucci argues that ones identity signifies the actors response to personal needs through participation in collectiv e action (1989). Melucci also recognizes that identity formation is part of a process because it develops in the life-c ourse of individuals and groups (1996). The conception of collective identity as multidimensional is relatively new and few measures of the suggested dimensions exist (Ashmo re et al. 2004). The lite rature generated over the past 15 years points to the conceptual rath er than the empirical development of identity. Ashmore et al. (2004) developed a set of dimens ions through a review of the major theories involving collective identity developed over the last 20 years. These authors also examined and included elements suggested or implicitly rooted in a theory, but never empirically tested or conceptually developed. Ashmore et al. (2004) propose a set of dimensi ons for exploring coll ective identity that include list all. This study specifically considers the following dimensions: (1) affective commitment (also referred to as sense of belonging), (2) behavioral involvement (often referred to as participation), and (3) content and meaning Affective commitment assesses the emotional attach ment people feel toward group members (Deaux and Reid 2000; Doosje et al. 1999) It also assesses their sense of belonging or 20


attachm ent to the group (e.g. Phinney 1992).This di mension has come to the forefront of much recent theorizing about colle ctive identity, in part because it is the most well-established dimension empirically (e.g., Gautam et al. 2004; Mael and Te trick 1992; Riketta 2005 ). Individuals may establish, maintain, reproduc e and transform their self-identity through interactions with tangible posse ssions (Dittmar 1992) and intangibles such as an organization, mission or purpose (Rousseau 1998). Albert et al. (2000, 14) suggest that by internalizing the organizational identity as a defi nition of the self, the individual gains a sense of meaningfulness and connectedness. Research suggests that the emotional-affectiv e aspect of belonging to the group may be a strong predictor of important group outcomes (Hinkle et al. 1989; J ackson 2002; Karasawa 1991). Affective commitment is often operationa lized by the use of language, such as the differences implied by the use of I, we and t hey. Ashmore et al. (2 004) and others term collective identity as the degr ee to which people cognitively merg e their sense of self and the group (Tyler and Blader 2001), s uggesting affective commitment is the most central component of collective identity. Some organizational behavior literature explores the relationships between psychological ownership and desired outcomes such as organiza tional citizenship behavi ors (Pierce et al. 2003; Avey et al. 2009), commitment, and satisfaction (Van Dyne and Pierce 2004). Avey et al. (2009) present belongingness in terms of ones psychological ownership in an organization that may best be understood as a feeling th at one belongs in the organization. Avey et al. (2009) define two forms of psychological ownershi p related to a more a more c onstructive, promotion-oriented ownership and a more defensive, preventionbased ownership. These scholars approach psychological ownership as a emotional-affective construct. 21


Behavioral Involvement or Engagement, of ten referred to as participation, is the degree to which someone engages in action that directly implies the collective identity in question. This dimension represents an individu als physical involvement in ac tivities or displays of such involvement. One measure of be havioral involvement is the Ethnic Behaviors subscale of Phinneys (1992) MEIM, which includes items such as I participate in cu ltural practices of my own group, while some include displaying ones group membership by wearing certain apparel or donating time and resources to organi zations that promote the collective identity. The social psychological processes that determine group members motivation to participate in social movement activities are explored in social movement research as well. Simon and Sturmer (2007) found that individuals are more ready to pa rticipate when they id entify with the group in question in their research about gay mens motivation to part icipate in social movement activities. Some scholars suggest further questions that require attention in future work (Ashmore et al. 2004). The dimension of content and meaning represents the extent to which group norms are acknowledged or endorsed as self-descriptive by a member of that group. This dimension of collective identity lacks consistent measures and may enhance the exploration of collective identity. This study associates content and mean ing with group members identification with their member responsibilities and rights. Group Cohesion Work group cohesion stems from collective identity dynamics and processes. Some scholars propose that cohesion plays an important role in determining the capacity of a group to work together and avoid free-ri der behavior (Shiferaw et al. 2008). Cohesiveness refers to the degree to which group members are attracted to a nd motivated to stay w ith a group (Zaccaro et al. 1995). Wech et al. (1998) suggest that although definitions of cohesion vary, the notion of 22


comm itment of group members to each other and to group work is essential to most definitions. Buton et al. (2007) note that cohesion is not a constant stat e, rather, it changes over time through the processes of group formation, group development, group maintenance, and group dissolution. There is a newfound recognition that cohesion is not only a precursor of group development; rather, it is also a consequence th at binds members of a group together (Dion 2000). Some scholars use the term perceived cohesion, which reflects the degree to which individual members of a group feel a part of, or stuck to thei r social group. Similar to the dimension of affective commitment or sense of belonging as part of co llective identity, Bollen and Hoyle (1990) defined percei ved cohesion as an individual s sense of belonging to a particular group and his or her f eelings of morale associated with membership in the group. These scholars defined the appraisal of ones belongingness as taking place both cognitively and affectively. At the individual level, perceived co hesion reflects the groups role in its members lives. Combining group members perceptions provides a group-level perspective on cohesion and a bottom-up viewpoint on individuals roles in the group (Dion 2000). The concept of group cohesion has been developed, measured and well-explored by sociologists and social psyc hologists as well as other soci al scientists (Dyaram and Kamalanabhan 2005; Friedkin 2004). Given the impor tance of cohesion in the study of groups, numerous social scientists have made efforts to define and opera tionalize this construct (Buton et al. 2007; see Carron et al. 1998; Co ta et al. 1995; Dion 2000). Group cohesion often represents an individual-le vel variable despite its major implications for group-level theory (Gully et al. 1995). Severa l scholars draw atten tion to the lack of conceptual clarity in the meaning of this dime nsion in individual and group-level theories. 23


Conceptualization of gro up cohesion emerged as a multidimensional construct in the 1940s after many years of inquiry and analysis. It was appl ied later to the field of sports psychology, beginning in the 1980s. Sports psychologist Albert Carron and colleagues defined group cohesion as a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of goals and obj ectives and/or for the sa tisfaction of members affective needs (Carron et al 1998). They encourage situati ng cohesion within the social context of a group. Carron and his collaborators de veloped a hierarchical model presented in (Figure 2-1). Carron et al. (1985) originated th e concept of group cohesion that includes the two dimensions of group integration and individual attracti ons to the group Enoch and McLemore (1967) further elaborate the two dimensions of cohe sion. They are related to the groups task (i.e. group goal, objectives, and collective performance) and the social aspects of the group (i.e. relationships within the group) (Buton et al. 2007). Carron (1982) and Carron et al. (2004) suggest that group cohesion involves both social re lationships and the achievement of group objectives. Wech et al. (1998) suggest that cohesivene ss entails some degree of commitment to tasks individuals perform as group members (Goodman et al. 198 7; Hackman 1992). A meta-analysis performed by Mullen and Copper (1994) support the notion that the task co mmitment sub-dimension of cohesiveness likely influences performance. A meta-analysis conducted by Dion (2000) confir med that these dimensions exist in the research literature. The distinction between task and social cohesion is an important milestone in cohesion research (Dion and Evans 1992). The gr oup-individual and task-social distinctions represent the four sub-dimensions of group cohesion as presented in Carrons hierarchical model. 24


Carron and colleagues developed an 18-item Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) that assesses perceived group cohesion by individual group members. Governance Governance is central to understanding the de gree to which collective identity and group cohesion potentially lead to su stained collective action. Governance joins strong leadership and organization as integral components of the collective action process. Governance generally refers to questions about forms of power, authorit y, and patterns of rela tionships, rights, and obligations among people facing common problems (Newman 2001). The conceptual development of governance has gained increasing attention in the so cial sciences, especially in the field of public administration. Rosenau (2000) defines governance as a system of rules in which activities stem from shared goals that may or may not derive from legal and formally prescribed responsibilities. Other scholars identify governance as an in stitution and/or process that determines the exercise of power, choices available to citizens, and d ecision-making on issues of public concern (Pierre 2000; Newman 2000; Stoker 2000). Governance is mo re a process than an outcome, and more a vehicle than a destination (Mchanon 1992). Proponents of collective action cont end that leaders are critical to social movements: they inspire commitment, mobilize re sources, create and recognize opportunities, devise strategies, frame demands, and influence outcomes (Sme lser 1962; Snow et al. 2006:171). However, leadership in social movements is empiri cally underexplored (S now 1981; Melucci 1996). Political process theorists often analyze the impacts of the structure of po litical opportunity, yet bypass the importance of leadership. Recent discussi ons of the role of leaders in recognizing and acting on opportunities acknowledge this problem (Goldstone 2001; Aminzade et al. 2001). Snow and colleagues (2006, 178) propose that we n eed to examine the inte ractive relationships 25


am ong various types of leaders and movement part icipants to understand how leadership affects mobilization. These scholars maintain that leaders offer frames, tactics, and organizational vehicles that allow participants to construct a collective identity and participate in collective action at various levels to mob ilize groups (Snow et al. 2006, 167). Some literature distinguishes between different leadership styles and associated types of movement organization. Leadersh ip style affects decision-maki ng, division of labor, and the extent to which the organizati on is subject to schism (Snow et al. 2006). Several scholars propose that transformational leaders encour age human development and interaction and promote collective motivation and outcom es (Avolio 1999; Bas 1998; Yukl 2002). Another term used in litera ture in the field of nursing is shared governance. Shared governance is a decentralized a pproach which gives nurses great er authority and control over their practice and work environment, creates a sense of responsibility and accountability, and allows active participation in a decision-making process (M ay and Buchan 1999). PorterOGrady (1994) contends that shared governan ce empowers people and involves them in relationship building and decisi on-making. Shared governance is a solution to the perceived problem of bureaucracy because it enables people to assume responsibility for and authority over their practice (Porty -OGrady 1994). Those who study shared governance emphasize shared leadership, which requires that all players understand the principles, processes, and group behaviors (Wilson 1996; Wittenbaum et al. 2004). Similarly, literature about community-bas ed natural resource management programs addresses governance mechanisms a nd local institutions. For example, Kull (2002) states that the success of CBNRM depends on whether local actors see these institutions as legitimate. Kull (2002) recognizes that institutional formation, empowerment, and legitimacy occur within the 26


com plex arenas of social relations, culture a nd regional contexts. Kull (2002) considers the problems of achieving legitimacy in both rules and institutions, giving special attention to the problems of community institutions. Legitimacy not only applies to institutions and leaders, but also to rules. All l ong-enduring political philosophies re cognize human nature as complex mixtures of the pursuit of self-interest combined with the capability of acquiring internal norms of behavior and following enforced rules wh en understood and perceived to be legitimate (Ostrom 1998). The notion of a communicative democracy is also gaining increasing attention within both academia and in practice to increase citizen par ticipation in public decision-making (Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Phillips 1995; Barnes1999). W ittenbaum (1998) has contributed to a pool of literature about collective information shar ing as a major component of decision-making. Many scholars contend that intern al collective-action problems associated with asymmetries of power and information are inherent in hierarchical organizations (e.g., Holmstrom 1982; Moe 1984; Ostrom et al. 2002). Furthermore, Hackman and Morris (1975) suggest that group performance processes refer to the task-related interactions of group members when performing group activities, including planning, coor dination and information exchange. Wittenbaum and colleagues (2004, 19) acknowledge that groups make decisions that potentially exceed the quality of decisions ma de by individuals provided that the group members effectively share their di verse sets of knowledge. Their research explores how groups discuss collective information (shared informati on) at the expense of exchanging information held by a single member (unshared information) (Strasser and Titus 1985). Some research shows that groups do not pay sufficient attention to the unshared inform ation and consequently make inadequate decisions (Va ughan and Stewart 2000). 27


Stott and W alker (1995) argue that self-man aged work teams are an emerging trend in many organizations and are often associated w ith empowerment. These scholars propose that cooperative and democratic teamwork offers one way of reducing costs and increasing cohesiveness and autonomy. Evaluation of shared governance is difficult in practice because of the complexity of the concept, the variety of definitions, and its simultaneous implementation with other management and practice innovations (McCloskey et al. 1994). Therefore, studies yield mixed results and often provide little opport unity for the cross-comparison of results (May and Buchan 1999). The literature about collectiv e action includes a number of factors influencing the effectiveness and outcomes of fo rest governance (Agrawal 2002). So me of these factors include forest user rights and responsibilities; participation by users; accountability of decision makers; monitoring of forest outcomes; and institutional cap acity building at local, regional, and national levels. Some of these factors are critically impor tant for more effective forest governance in the tropics (Agrawal et al. 2006). Other scholars provide evidence that effective monitoring and enforcement, leadership (Wade 1988; Meinzen-Dic k et al. 2002; Baland and Platteau 1996), and the members shared goals significantly contribu te to successful management (De Janvry et al. 1989). The application of social move ment theory to organizationa l research provides useful insights for organizations (Morri ll et al. 2008). Meadowcraft ( 2004) suggests that successful decentralized management requires enfranchisin g local populations by devolving rights to local communities and strengthening the institutional capaci ty of local organizations to manage their natural resources sustainably. However, a poor understanding of the dynamic institutional arrangements of local user groups has impeded practic al community-based conservation in the 28


tropics. I use literature f ocusi ng on collective action research to explore the relationships among group cohesion, collective identity, governance, and conservation behavior represented in Figure 2-1. Objectives To compare group cohesion, collective ident ity, governance, and conservation behavior between the Green Gold Cooperative and ProEnvi ronment, two organizations that differ in organizational orientation, the former with a focus on social development and the latter with a focus on the environment. To explore the relationship between group c ohesion, collective identity, governance, and conservation behavior Hypotheses Based on my conceptual model, The Green Gold Cooperative will present greater group cohesion, collective identity, governance, and co nservation behavior than ProEnvironment. A positive relationship exists between group co hesion, collective identity, governance, and conservation behavior. 29


Figure 2-1. Conceptual m odel of collective action 30


CHAP TER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Site Selection I conducted my research in the San Martin region in the northern Peruvian Amazon Basin. There are several reasons this region was an appr opriate research site. I chose this site because many coffee producer organizations in San Martin are incorporati ng sustainable forest practices to combat the extensive deforestation resulting from immigration to the region in the last 25 years. Early efforts to replace coca production with coffee production in the 1980s created new spaces in the San Martin Region for coffee farmer s from other regions of Peru. Coffee farmers Today, the region is a major coffee-producing re gion in Peru, but poor agricultural production practices have resulted in serious land degradation. This region is now one of the most deforested regions in Peru. The importance of coffee cultivation to the national economy and the more recent recognition of the need to protect natural ar eas encourage both governmental and private organizations to develop sustainable forest ma nagement programs. The growth of rural coffee producer organizations continue s in San Martin, and various agencies support sustainable agriculture through several mark et-oriented certification pr ograms (ie. USDA Organic, Rainforest Alliance, Starbucks Caf Practices). The regional government of San Martin also focuses on forest management plans and commun ity-based reforestation projects, as well as influencing national forest policies. Research Design I used a cross-sectional comparative design in this study. The cro ss-sectional design is sometimes called the causal comparative design b ecause it explores the relationships between 31


independent and dependent variables in one or m ore comparison groups (Ary et al. 2002, Rubin and Babbie 1997). This design permits data collection at a single point in time, as I did in this study (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh 2002). I explor ed the interrelationships among group cohesion, collective identity, governance, and conservation behavior in two comparison groups. The theoretical population is small-s cale farmers who are members of producer organizations that require member s to follow the rules and regulati ons of one or more of several certification agencies. The accessi ble population consisted of ei ght local coffee groups that belong to one of the two large organizations, th e Green Gold Cooperative and ProEnvironment. I assigned an English name to these orga nizations to protec t their identity. The Green Gold Cooperative and ProEnvironmen t are both eight years old, are similar in size (1,000 members), and share the same geogra phic location, San Martin, Peru. They both are composed of 33 local producer groups disp ersed throughout San Mart in. In addition, the accessible population is composed of farmers who migr ated in the last 25 year s due to the lack of cultivatable land in their re gion. The available forestland, pr omotion of coffee production, and attractive market opportunities led to the migration of coff ee farmers to San Martin. I chose to compare these two organizations because they differ in their organizational orientation or focus. The Green Gold Cooperative prioritizes social development and emphasizes the accountability of lo cal group representatives to their constituents. ProEnvironment is characterized by its strong environmental marketing focus and reliance on ecological certification for market development. The Green Gold Cooperative was created in 1999 and established by community members interested in forming local groups and the market opportunities promoted by an individual seeking interested coffee farmers. A total of 56 coffee farmers orig inally founded the cooperative 32


that now consists of 1,000 m e mbers and 33 local producer groups. The members of the Green Gold Cooperative control the c ooperative through repr esentatives elected by their local groups. A board of leadership holds meetings with these local leaders bi-annually, both before and after the harvest season. The manager of the coope rative coordinates and oversees market arrangements for the cooperatives coffee. D ecisions as to particular changes in these arrangements are discussed with all local group representatives in the bi-annual meetings. The cooperative currently has eight individual buyers who purchase the cooperatives coffee. EcoCafe is a local commercial enterprise in the Moyobamba area of San Martin. EcoCafe formed ProEnvironment in 1999 to promote ecologica lly sustainable agricultu ral practices to the large immigrant coffee farmers w ho were cultivating natural coff ee yet were not organized into producer groups. EcoCafe assured the economic viab ility for these local groups and over time, adopted approximately 10 certification labels, such as Biolatina (organ ic certification) and Rainforest Alliance (RA). EcoCafe and ProEnvironm ent agreed to join both enterprises in an alliance and promote the norms and principles of the various certification agencies. EcoCafe finances and owns the various cert ification labels that are incor porated in its regulatory scheme. EcoCafe provides technical assi stants that educate ProEnviro nments 33 local producer groups on sustainable agricultural practices as well as monitor and enforce the compliance of norms required by the various ce rtification agencies. Sample Selection The cross-sectional design relies heavily on a statistically representative sample to generalize the results beyond the sa mple. I obtained a list of 30 local groups for each comparison group upon arrival, which constituted my sampling frame. I used a clustered random sample and selected four local groups to represent each comparison group. I selected four local groups that met the following requirements: (1) age-one of th e oldest groups; (2) si ze-at least 15 members; 33


(3) location-within three hour radi us of the determ ined central point; and (4) elevation-between 850 meters-1,100 meters above sea level. These se lection criteria attempted to eliminate nonexperimental variables in the study. I took a random sample of these clusters by randomly selecting names of local groups. Once selected, both organizations provided a list of group members names for each of the local groups selected. I made arrangements with presidents of the local groups to visit a preestablished group meeting. I attended these meetings to explain my research objectives and to see who would be willing to pa rticipate in my research. Almost all (95%) of the members were willi ng to participate in my study. About 95% of the group members were present at these meetings. I made consistent efforts to contact and meet those participants not in attend ance. I made appointments to conduc t the questionnaire with those willing and there was about a 95% response rate. Non-respondents consisted of individuals who left their homes unexpectedly to work on their farms. I used a confidence interval of 95% and to lerable error of .05. The pre-test provided the estimation of variance needed to determine sample size. I took a sample of 60 members for each of the two comparison groups, 120 in total. The data were aggregated for each comparison group for analysis. I completed data collection for the questionnaire in three to four weeks prior to a second visit dedicated to the interview. I trained two other individuals, apar t from my field assistant, to assist in conducting questionnaires. These indivi duals were ecology undergra duate students from the University of Ecology in Moyobamba with s ubstantial experience in fieldwork and data collection. 34


Addressing Validity an d Reliability Zeller and Carmines (1980) propose that th e process of identifying theoretically meaningful relationships bridge s the gap between theoretically deduced measures and empirical evidence. From the beginning, I used the published resear ch literature to iden tify the constructs, variables and indicators for my research. I incorp orated both previously validated variables and some variables not used previously to create a theoretical model a priori. Developing a model rooted in my theoretical perspe ctive guided my decisions about wh at data to collect and what techniques of data collection to use (Marsh 1982). Validity is the most important considerat ion in developing, evaluating and measuring instruments (Ary et al. 2002). Gene rally, validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it intends to measure (Ary et al. 2002). The traditional psycho-social definition of validity includes content, face, construct, and criterion validity (Rubin and Babbie 1997, 178). A more contemporary perspective (Adcock and Colli er 2001) views validity (or lack thereof) as the result of a process of validation. In this view, the validation process begins with a thorough exploration of the research litera ture to develop a clear, theory-b ased definition of constructs and to explore the variables and indica tors that other researchers have used. Reliability is determined by how consistently the instrument measures the phenomenon under study, and validity is determined by the extent to which an instrume nt measures what it intends to measure. Instrumentation I collected data at the individual leve l for both comparison groups (Green Gold Cooperative: n=53; ProEnvironment: n= 49). Al though I started with 60 respondents for each comparison group, I eliminated cases with missing data post hoc for a total of 102 cases. I developed an index to measure group cohesion, a questionnaire to measur e collective identity and governance, and a follow-up semi-structure d interview to explore all variables. 35


My sam ple was composed of 102 respondents for the questionnaire, 35 of which were selected for the interview base d on the quality of information provided by respondents in the questionnaire. Measurement of the dimensions of each variable produced data with different levels of measurement (ie. inte rval, ordinal, and nominal). Group Cohesion Index The index used to measure group cohesion was adapted from the Group Environmental Questionnaire (GEQ) developed by Carron et al. (1985) (see Appendi x III). The group-individual and task-social distinctions re present the four dimensions of group cohesion as presented in Carrons hierarchical model (Fig ure 2-3). The individual items in the index are statements, originally rated on a scal e from strongly disagree to agree (fro m one to five). The group cohesion score consists of the respondents mean scor e on all four component s in the group cohesion index, each of which included multiple items to increase the reliability of the scale (Sommer and Sommer 2002; DeVellis 2003). Questionnaire Collective identity Collective identity has a variety of definitio ns, which creates confusion about its meaning and dimensions. I chose to focus on three dimensi ons of collective identity derived from Tajfels social identity theory of group (Brown et al. 1986; Hinkle et al. 1989), further refined and conceptualized by Ashmore et al. (2004) and Melucci (1989). They are: (1) affective commitment, a sense of emotional involvement w ith or orientation toward the group; (2) behavioral involvement the degree to which the person e ngages or participates in group activities; and (3) context and meaning the identification with group leaders, member rights and responsibilities in this study. Desp ite extensive research on identity from a new social movement perspective, few tested quantitative instruments are available. 36


I developed a questionnaire and sem i-structure d interview to measure these dimensions, all of which are presented in Table 3-1. The collec tive identity score consis ts of the respondents median score on all collective iden tity items on the questionnaire. Governance Evaluation of shared governance is difficult becau se of the complexity of the concept and the variety of definitions. I chose to focus on measuring leadership, informationsharing and decision-making as indicated in Table 3-2. Governance joins strong leadership and a communicative democracy with information shar ing and decision-making as integral factors affecting the collective action process. Govern ance addresses how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, and how decisions are made on issues of collective concern. The complexity of the concept and the little empirical measurements of governance tend to yield mixed results and leave questions as to wh at has been evaluated and often produce little opportunity for cross-comparison of results (M ay and Buchan 1999). I developed items to measure governance in both the questionnaire and semi-structured interview, which are presented in Table 3-2. The governance score consists of th e respondents median score on all governance items on the questionnaire. In addition to items for collective identity and governance, several interview questions pertained to group cohesion. These items allowed further exploration of the four dimensions of group cohesion measured in the index (Table 3-3). Interview I completed thirty-six one-hour interviews. I contacted sel ected participants for the interview three weeks after they completed the qu estionnaire. I asked all participants if they would be willing to participate in an interview after completing the questionnaire. All were willing. I selected individuals base d on the quality of information provided by participants in the 37


questionn aire. I based my evaluation of quality information on participants attentiveness and ability to provide meaningful answers during the questionnaire. This careful selection of respondents for the follow-up interview allowed for the cross check of information provided in the questionnaire and the explor ation of key topics in greate r depth. I interviewed an equal number of individuals for each of the two compar ison groups. My field assistant and I were the only individuals present, as interviewers, in each interview in addition to the participant. One individual asked questions while the other recorded the responses. Pre-Testing Instruments The validation process continues through the da ta collection and anal ysis phases of the research. Pre-testing addresses aspects of both reliability and validity and ensures that the indicators and items in an instrume nt are contextually meaningful. Group Cohesion Index I pre-tested the group cohesion index to ensure the validity, re liability, and precision of the index. I first tested the index for clarity and simplicity with local university students who are familiar with the local farmer population. These students suggested changes as to improve the relevance of the statements or to reflect regiona l language. I used the pre-test results to alter language and eliminate unclear statements. I performed a reliability test on the index ba sed on the responses of 48 respondents at the local university. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.93 and average correlation of 0.48. I removed 10 of the 30 items with an item-total cutoff at 0.45. Then, I performed a second reliability test with 15 respondents similar to the sample populati on. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.94 and average correlation of 0.62. I did not remove more items a nd kept a total of 20 items on the index. I was able to detect unclear statements and alte r the language to make the questions most understandable to the sample population. In particul ar, I learned that the scale from one to five 38


confused respondents. T herefore, percentages were used (0-100 %) since these individuals are familiar with percentages in the cultivation and production of coffee. Finally, I conducted a re liability test on the index once th e data collection was completed with 102 respondents. The Cronbachs alpha was 0.83 and item-total correlation of 0.52. I removed 2 of the 20 items with an item-total cutoff at .60. The final 18 items have a Cronbachs alpha of .87 and an item-total correlation of 0.60. I assessed both the Cronbachs alpha and itemtotal correlation in the reliabi lity tests. While the Cronbachs al pha measures how well a set of variables or items measure a sing le construct, the item-total correlation measures the degree to which the items are consistent with each other. These are both important in considering the internal consistency of the items. Questionnaire I conducted a reliability test for items of co llective identity once th e data collection was completed with 102 respondents. The first had a Cronbachs alpha of 0.65 and average item-total correlation of 0.36. I then used confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the reliability of the items used to measure collective identity. One of the eight items for collective identity was eliminated. The final six items produced a Cr onbachs alpha score of 0.68 with average itemtotal correlation of 0.45. I conducted a reliability test for items of governance once the data collection was completed with 102 respondents. The first had a Cronbachs alpha of 0.53 and average item-total correlation of 0.26. I also used confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the reliability of the items used to measure governance. Two of eight items for governance were eliminated. However, the scores did not change significan tly. The final six items produced a Cronbachs alpha score of .56. Items below the item-total cu toff of .30 were eliminated to explore the possibility of a higher Cronbachs alpha score. 39


Interview The first step in pre-testing the intervie w guide was cognitive testing with friends, colleagues, and my field assistant. I followed this with a pre-test with two individuals who were not in the sample population. Each step resulted in the eliminating and/or altering interview questions, based on both the feedback provided by the test subjects and direct observation. I used the information gained to detect unclear stat ements and to alter the language to make the questions clearly understandable. I also used th e information gained from the questionnaires to identify relevant questions and topics to explore in the interviews, and to delete some interview items. In addition, my pre-tests with local groups ensured appropriate use of language for all instruments. In addition, I revi ewed questionnaire responses with participants during the interview. This allowed for the confirmation and clarificat ion of responses. Table 3-1. Dimensions of collective id entity and applied measurements Dimensions of Collective Identity Definition Measure in Questionnaire (Quantitative) Level of Measurement Measure in Interview (Qualitative) Affective Commitment A sense of emotional involvement with or orientation toward the group Not applied -How close member feels to group -Describe relationship with larger organization Behavioral Involvement The degree to which the person engages in action implicating the collective identity in question -Level of participation in group activities -If served as group leader Scale 1-5: Not at all Active to Very Active Yes/No -Members contribution to the group -Members intent to remain involved in future Price affecting members participation when discontent with price -History of leaving group Content and meaning The extent to which dispositions endorsed as self-descriptive by a member of category -Identification of member rights Responses categorized into response sets -Explain rights as a group member Satisfaction/dissatisfaction with rights -Explain member responsibilities -Explain member rules 40


Table 3-2. D imensions of governance and applied measurements Dimension Definition Measure in Questionnaire (Quantitative) Level of Measurement Measure in Interview (Qualitative) Leadership InformationSharing DecisionMaking Identified leaders and roles pursued in group setting Manner in which information is shared with group members The ability of individuals to make choices and determine or control decisions and actions -# of identified group leaders -Do leaders share information with members? (Y/N) -Extent to which leaders encourage suggestions from members during meetings -Frequency of group meetings/year -Frequency of group member suggestions in group meetings -Identification of individuals who form group rules and responsibilities (list) -Who monitors compliance with rules (list) 0-3 according to names listed of each leader Yes/No Scale 1-5: Not at all-A lot Scale 1-4: Less than 2 x/yearMore than 6 x/year Scale 1-5: Not at all to Very Frequent Scale 0-2: (0)Doesnt know; (1)Leader(s); (2)Members --------Explanation of changes in leaders over time -Explanation of consequent impacts of leadership changes on organization -How leader(s) represent group -Leaders effort to involve members in group discussions -Themes most discussed in meetings with larger organization -Involvement of members in decisions made by the assembly of group representatives -Who decides on group activities and how -Who decides how shared money is spent and how Table 3-3. Dimensions of group cohesion and applied measurements Dimensions of Group Cohesion Definition Measure in Interview (Qualitative) Task asp ects of group: goal, objectives, collective performance -Identification of group goals for conservation -Desires for future of group Group Integration-Task Individual Attraction-Task -Satisfaction with how group functions Social aspects of the group: relationships within the group Not applied Individual Attraction-Social Group-Integration-Social -S tate of Unity of Group since beginning 41


CHAP TER 4 RESULTS First, I will examine the differences between the two comparison groups with regard to median scores on both the dependent and independent variables. Then I will examine the correlations among the variables. Finally, I w ill examine the significance of the proposed relationships among collective id entity, group cohesion, governance, and conservation behavior. Test of Normality I ran the Shapiro-Wilks test of normal distri bution for the outcome variable and predictor variables (Table 4-1). The outcome variable of conservation behavior was not normally distributed (p<0.05). The predictor variables of identity and governance were not normally distributed for at least one of the two comp arison groups (p<0.05). I performed both log and square root transformations on all predictor variables, but normality was not achieved. Therefore, I ran non-parametric tests fo r the statistical analysis. Hypothesis 1 The two comparison groups will differ as to their levels of group cohesion, collective identity, governance, an d conservation behavior. Comparison of Two Independent Samples I used the Mann-Whitney U test to determine if the comparison groups differ based on the outcome and predictor variables. The Green Gold Cooperative has a higher median score for conservation behavior, the outcome variab le, than ProEnvironment (Table 4-2). The Green Gold Cooperative also displays a higher median score for the predictor variab les collective identity, group cohesion, and governance than doe s ProEnvironment (Table 4-2). I expected to see a difference between compar ison groups with regard to both the outcome variable and predictor variab les based on my theoretical m odel. I anticipated that the 42


organization with an organiza tional orientation around social developm ent, the Green Gold Cooperative, would display a high er median score on both the pr edictor and outcome variables than ProEnvironment. The measurement for conservation behavior used in this study only includes the number of hectares of primary forest maintained and may not be adequate. This measure does not capture the construct of conservation behavior based on the theoretical model, and the findings for conservation behavior may not be valid. Hypothesis 2 There is a positive relationship between the independent variables of group cohesion, collective identity, governance, and outc ome variable, conservation behavior. Correlations among Study Variables I used the Spearman Rank Correlation test to explore the strength of the relationships among the predictor variables (T able 4-3). The findings sugges t several differences between comparison groups in the patterns of relationshi ps among the study variables. Collective identity and group cohesion are correlated a nd statistically significant (p<0.05) only for ProEnvironment. Similarly, collective identity and governance, as well as governance and cohesion, are correlated in both groups, but are statistic ally significant (p<0.05) only for ProEnvironment (Table 4-3). These findings indicate that the relationship between pred ictor variables and outcome variable across comparison groups are not consiste nt. The inconsistency of the findings between comparison groups challenges the fu rther statistically e xplored relationship be tween the predictor variables and outcome variable. 43


44 Regression Model I ran logistic regression to determine the most significant predictors of membership in the comparison groups. This analysis provides se veral findings (Table 4-4). First, the two comparison groups are confirmed as two independen t groups and the model is significant at p<0 .05. Second, the two predictor variables of co llective identity (p<0.01) and group cohesion (p<0.01) are the only significant predictors of membership in the comparison groups. The predictor variable governance (p =0.24) and the outcome variab le, conservation behavior (p= 0.96), are not significant predic tors of membership in the comparison groups. These findings do not corroborate my predictions based on the theoretical model. Rather, logistic regression shows that collective identity and group cohesion are the only significant predictors of membership in the comparison groups. Qualitative Analysis I took several steps to analy ze the interview data The two individuals present in all interviews, my field assistant and I, revised the information collected after every four interviews. We then used the final interview summary sheet s to archive data. Foll owing data archival, I reviewed responses to develop primarily theoretically based themes. The following themes are related to the four variables of group cohesion, collective identity, governance, and conservation behavior: Group Cohesion Commitment Future Vision: State of Solidarity Group Goals for Conservation Collective Identity Sense of Belonging Understanding of Rights


Governance Role and Evaluation of Leaders Member Engagement in Inform ation Sharing & Decision-Making Conservation Behavior Reasons for Conservation I then developed categories of responses by grouping words, phras es, and expressions related to the identified themes. These themes ar e consistent with my theoretical foundation and the only emerging theme is future vision: state of solidarity This theme is classified here as an emerging theme because it was not included in the theoretical model a priori These categories represent similar and contras ting responses between comparison groups group to the specific topics addressed. Although there is a discrepancy presented in the quantitative results as to the correlations among variables, th e qualitative findings support thes e correlations. Th e themes and categories in Table 4-5 serve to illustrate these correlations. The major themes related to the study va riables explain the relationship between leadership, information sharing between members a nd leaders, and members feelings about their engagement in group decision-making, understanding of rights, sense of belonging, and longterm commitment to the organization. Themes related to goals for conservation and reasons for conservation provide insight into the groups potential for collective action for conservation. These themes offer an explanation for these previously unexplored relationships in the conceptual framework of collective action. Th e differences in responses between groups provides insight into the contra sting ways in which respective group members feel represented, involved, and connected to their lo cal group and larger organization. 45


Table 4-1. S hapiro-Wilks test of normal distri bution for all variables, San Martin, Peru, 2008 Green Gold Cooperative ProEnvironment W p W p Group Cohesion 0.97 0.30 0.96 0.11 Collective Identity 0.81 0.00 0.96 0.06 Governance 0.94 0.01 0.95 0.04 Conservation Behavior 0.97 .25 0.84 .001 Table 4-2. Mann-Whitney U test for all vari ables and all groups, San Martin, Peru, 2008 Variable GGC Rank Sum ProE Rank Sum U Z p-level GGC N ProE N Group Cohesion 3017.50 2235.50 1010.50 1.93 0.05 53 49 Collective Identity 3270.50 1982.50 757.50 3.62 <0.001 53 49 Governance 3480.50 1772.50 547.50 5.03 0.00 53 49 Conservation Behavior 3822.50 1430.50 205.50 7.32 0.00 53 49 GGC=Green Gold Cooperative ProE=ProEnvironment Table 4-3. Spearman rank order correlations for all groups, San Martin, Peru, 2008 Green-Gold Cooperative ProEnvironment Group Cohesion Collective Identity Governance Group Cohesion Collective Identity Governance 1.00 0.22 0.01 1.00 0. 46* 0.44* Group Cohesion Collective Identity 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.42* Governance *p<0.05 Table 4-4. Logistic regression for all vari ables and all groups, San Martin, Peru, 2008 Variable Wald Stat p value 16.25019 <0.001 Group Cohesion Collective Identity 12.96413 <0.001 Governance 1.39974 0.24 Conservation Behavior 0.00199 0.96 *p<0.05 46


Table 4-5. T heoretically based themes and categories Variable Themes Green Gold Cooperative Categories ProEnvironment Categories Commitment Future Vision: State of Solidarity Group Goals for Conservation *Resolute Commitment Based on member commitment to responsibilities and desire to improve organization *Independent as One Entity Focus on improving the cooperative as one entity 1) desire to reforest and construct a greenhouse, (2) waiting for materials, (3) collecting seeds, (4) sharing seeds w ith group, (5) constructing a nursery *Uncertain Union Looking for changes in organization and unsure of its future state of union *Market-Dependent Depends upon member satisfaction with price of coffee controlled by EcoCafe 1) desire to reforest and construct a greenhouse, (2) waiting for materials, (3) collecting seeds, (4) sharing seeds with group, (5) constructing a nursery Group Cohesion Collective Identity Sense of Belonging Understanding of Rights *Sense of Ownership Members started the organization; have the same possessions; feel integrated in organization *Voices as Rights -Members feel represented *Sense of Detachment Members dont clearly understand the structure of or ganization nor feel integrated in organization *Material Benefits as Rights Governance Role of Leaders Evaluation of Leaders Member Engagement in Information Sharing & Decision-Making *Maximum Authority as Representatives Representatives hold maximum authority in org; satisfied with number of representatives *Satisfied Republic Leaders facilitate information sharing *Open Exchange Members have easy access to information *Democratic Voice Members have the right to an opinion and expression *Rule by One Only president has a vote; Need more representatives *Dissatisfied Onlookers Leaders do not call meetings often to share information *Limited Exchange Members are not well informed Voiceless Constituency Members desire a voice Conservation Behavior Reasons for Conservation (1)Resource Scarcity (ie.water), (2) Spreading the Consciousness, (3) Future Generations Part of the requirements of external certification agencies *=indicate categories of responses 47


CHAP TER 5 DISCUSSION The results of my study show that the Green Gold Cooperati ve has a greater collective identity, group cohesion, governance, and cons ervation behavior than ProEnvironment. The Mann-Whitney U Test shows that the Green Gold Cooperative has a higher median score for all study variables than ProEnvironment (Table 4-2) The differences in the groups responses to certain interview topics support th ese findings. These differences in responses are represented in the following themes: role and members evaluati on of leaders, members sense of engagement in information-sharing and decision-making, understanding of rights, sense of belonging, commitment, group goals and reasons for conservation. These themes illustrate the explored relationships among the study variables (Table 4-5). Role and Evaluation of Leaders Respondents in both groups evaluated their leaders based on their efforts to engage members with group information-sharing. In the case of Green Gold Cooperative, respondents offered a more positive evaluation of their lead ers than those of ProEnvironment. Members of the Green Gold Cooperative feel more integrat ed in the organizations progress and more familiar with current organizational a ffairs than those of ProEnvironment. The results of my analysis suggest that memb ers sense of involvement in the organization reflects their leaders integrat ion of members in current orga nizational affairs. Group leaders facilitate information sharing during group meeti ngs held both before and after leaders attend local group meetings and meetings with the la rger organization. Res pondents in both groups evaluated their leaders based on their efforts to engage members with group information sharing. Participants in the two comparis on groups provided contrasting eval uations of thei r leaders. 48


Respondents from the Green Gold Cooperative offered a more positive evaluation of their leaders than those of ProEnvironment. Thes e respondents indicated that their leaders communicate with and engage the group memb ers in the progress of the organization. Respondents emphasized the importance of a positive relationship between members and leaders, and they noted that the leaders motivate us to put better work into the organization. Most respondents communicated a high leve l of respect and confidence in their leaders because they invite us to share information in monthly meetin gs to inform us of current affairs. Members expressed their recogniti on of and respect for their leaders who have the maximum voice and vote in the larger organizati on. These findings suggest that leaders of the Green Gold Cooperative may be considered transformational leaders as characteri zed by literature about leadership styles. On the contrary, respondents from ProEnvironment expressed general discontent with their group leaders and attributed their dissatisfaction to their leaders inconsistent efforts to call informational meetings. Some respondents reported that their president does not call meetings to inform the group when necessary, and doe s not even gather group suggestions by calling group meetings before attending meetings [with the larger organization]. The leaders failure to involve members in the organiza tion may explain why members f eel uninformed and unable to have a say in the organizations progress. I asked participants about th e characteristics that they find important for a good leader. Respondents from both groups said that they pr efer someone who is a good role model, respectful of all members, and carries out their responsibilitie s well. Respondents from the Green Gold Cooperative conveyed a sense of satisfaction with their leaders efforts and confirmed the members role in decision-making. They concurred that le aders should set a good 49


exam ple for the rest of the group members, while they consider the opinion of all members. Respondents also mentioned that that they fe lt comfortable speaking up during group meetings about their opinions, even if they are different from those of other members. The role of group leaders in engaging members in information-sh aring and group decision-making draws attention to the different styles of lead ership, which may promote or i nhibit a communicative democracy. The leadership ideals expressed by the responde nts encompass what some scholars refer to as a transformational leader (House & Shamir, 1993; Howell and Avolio 1993; Jung and Avolio 1999). Previous studies (Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail 1994) support my findings and also suggest that strong orga nizational identification enables memb ers to contribute more frequently and more freely to the organization. Other authors (Jung and Sosik 2002) also find that transformational leadership relates positively to empowerment and group cohesiveness. The differences between these two groups also demonstrate a positive association between transformational leadership and group members colle ctive identity and group cohesion. These findings may support the results from logistic regr ession which establish th at collective identity and group cohesion are the two predictive variables in this studys conceptual model or those variables that determine membership in the comparison groups (Table 4-4). The contrasting evaluations of leaders as well as the role of leaders between comparison groups may contribute to the difference in the significance of the model determined in Spearmans Rank Correlation (Table 4-3). Furthermore, the role of leaders w ithin both groups seems to indicate the direction of members collective identity and group cohesion discussed in the themes discussed below. Information-Sharing and Member Engagement in Decision-Making Members of the Green Gold Cooperative feel more integr ated in the organizations progress and more familiar with current organizational affairs than those of ProEnvironment. My findings also indicate that the in tegration of members in the organization is positively associated 50


with both the num ber of representatives and the frequency of group meetings for each local group. The differences in the number of represen tatives and frequency of group meetings may explain the difference in members sense of e ngagement in the organization between comparison groups. Seventy-five percent of the Green Gold Cooperative respondents id entify with both the groups representatives and president as their de legates to the larger group. The Green Gold Cooperative has an established number of group lead ers whom they call representatives. These individuals represent the local gr oup in the larger organization, in addition to the president. Respondents often referred to the one to ten (representative to memb er) ratio in each local group and expressed satisfaction with this level of representation, which has increased in the last two years. They frequently emphasized that th ese individuals hold maximum authority in the larger organization. In contrast, 89.8% of the respondents in ProEnvironment identify the president as the only representative of the group in the larger organization. ProEnvironment does not have group representatives other than the local group pres ident. Many respondents expressed a need and desire to have group representativ es in addition to the president. They often remarked: If the president cant go to a meeting, no one ends up going, and Others should go in the presidents place when he cant make it. Similarly, the frequency of meeting times seem s to affect the information sharing between leaders and members and the extent to which group members feel engaged in organizational affairs. Both groups hold preand postinfo rmational meetings, but ProEnvironment does not hold them as consistently and frequently as the Green Gold Cooperative. Ninety-eight percent of the respondents from the Green Gold Cooperativ e reported that they have group meetings once 51


per m onth. In contrast, 26.5% of the respondents from ProEnvironment said that group meetings are once a month and 45% reported that they have meetings less than six times per year. These findings show that local group meetings in the Green Gold Cooperative provide more frequent and more consistent opportunities to share and receive information than in ProEnvironment. Members of ProEnvironments expressed dissatis faction with their leaders efforts seems to generate members perceive d lack of voice and sense of engagement in their organization. These respondents view their stake in the orga nization as not within our control. Some respondents stated, The coordina tor is the only one who can attend organizational meetings so only this person has a voice. Othe rs said, I want to be more involved, and I think the president should request that the organization informs us as to the progress of the organization. The responses from those respondents who indicated that they were uninformed support the characterization of ProEnvironm ents members as detached. Many respondents from the Green Gold Coopera tive expressed that the information shared during group meetings keeps us informed of th e progress of the cooperati ve. They also said, We can tell our representatives to mention certain points and We make decisions together in meetings. Their positive perceptio n of the flow of information se ems to affect their outlook on their ability to contribute towards the developm ent of the larger organization. These findings support the theoretically based positive relations hip between cohesivene ss and group members perceived involvement in the organization (W elsch and LaVan 1981). Scholars of collective action often view information as a resource and so me believe the control of information appear as resources capable of creating a collective fo rm of mobilization (Dube t and Thaler 2004). The key to legitimacy is locally accountable represen tation, in which leaders, rules and institutions must be accountable to the people (Ribot 1999). 52


These findin gs also corroborate previous studi es that have found that the flow of information within a group either contributes to or inhibits group decision-making (Wittenbaum et al. 2004). The decision-making process in the Green Gold Cooperative is probably timeconsuming and requires the participation of ma ny group members. Collective participation and open communication play a role in encouragin g a groups confidence in the decision-making process and provides a focus for building coope ration and interactions Improved decisionmaking is also associated with strong group cohesion (Dion 2000). An important relationship seems to exist between leader ship and members role in the organization, based on group members ability to participate freely and ga in access to information easily. These findings support the notion that a communicative demo cracy involves both st rong leadership and information sharing in which information flows fr eely in all directions (A llen et al. 1988). My expectation that governance would repres ent a predictive variable in the model is based on my proposed model and founding theoretical principles. The emph asis on the role of governance in the conceptual model and the two organizations representations of governance is represented most in the various qualitative themes Consistent with previous findings on organizational involvement and collective identity, qualitative findings indicate that leadership is central to a communicative democracy or shared governance, involving both improved communication (Motz and Lewis 1994) and a strong sense of cohesiveness (Ireson and McGillis 1998). The results from Spearmans Rank Correlation (Table 4-3) that significance of the model differs between comparison groups do not support the qualitative findings. The two groups display distinct leadership arrangements, in which the information-sharing and decision-making within the groups as well as th e role of group leaders may explai n this difference in the models 53


significance between groups. The Green Gold C ooperatives stable l eadership arrangem ents seem to contrast ProEnvironments weak a nd inconsistent leadership arrangements. There were a few outliers identified in the responses relating to information-sharing and member engagement in decision-making that are important to consider. One respondent from the Green Gold Cooperative mentioned that their loca l groups leaders did not meet their leadership responsibilities, and said, Not all delegate s are committed and thus, not all members are informed. Likewise, a respondent from ProEnvironm ents said, For our le vel of education (or knowledge) we have, we [the leaders] do all that is possible, therefore, it [the level of representation by leaders] is suffi cient because we cannot demand more than we have to provide. The respondent was a notable and committed indi vidual who served for several consecutive years as a local group president. His responses were characterized as consistently positive despite other members discontent. Many respondents were keen to express gratitude towards his great leadership, and noted thing s just arent the same without his leadership contributions. These outliers may represent a segment of the population with similar sentiments. Understanding of Rights I first asked respondents to id entify their member rights in the questionnaire. Respondents from both the Green Gold Cooperative and ProEnvironment initially expressed confusion about the meaning of a right, often asking for clarific ation or responding in a perplexed manner. I discovered that the respondents fr om ProEnvironment interpreted their rights as material benefits and responsibilities as members ra ther than entitlements afford ed by their membership. MeizenDick et al. (2006) note the difference between these two understandings of rights. Confusion with the many different interpretations of right s may explain why difficu lt theoretical questions are often obscured by using language th at stresses rights (Nussbaum 2003). 54


I reiterated the question a bout rights in the interview. Interview responses from ProEnvironment and Green Gold Cooperative as to their member rights provide a contrast in members sense of a voice in organizational affa irs. The extent to whic h respondents expressed a connection with their group emerged as the most significant dimension of collective identity. Respondents emphasized that their relationship w ith the organization depends on the quality of their leaders work and their sense of feeli ng informed about both organizational affairs and member rights. Respondents of ProEnvironment expressed a desi re to have a voice in the organization. These respondents said: We dont have rights as members. We dont have a voice or a vote in the organization as we did when it first started. The groups president is the only person with a voice and a vote. Several asserted that having informational m eetings should be our right. These responses suggest that members feel power less. Their understanding of rights as benefits rather than entitlements implies a reduced sense of engagement in the organization. Additionally, respondents initial interpretation of their rights as their responsibi lities points to their experience with the technical assistants of EcoCafe whom they report shape their responsibilities. Conversely, respondents of the Gr een Gold Cooperative expresse d pride in their right to a voice. They seem to have a clear understanding of their organizational righ ts, stating, It is our right to stay informed of th e proceedings in the organizati on and We have a voice in the organization and say in its future These re spondents feel entitled to the open access to information and having an opinion in the groups a ffairs. They also expect their leaders to provide information in the monthly meetings as their right to information. Respondents also equated their ability to contribu te via voice as a right. This supports Pierce et al. (2003) definition of rights and responsibilities which in cludes the expectation of information sharing 55


and holding others accountable, su ch as their lead ers, for repres enting the organization. Rights, or powers, may include decision-making, access to resources, and control over finances (Ribot 1999), to name a few. Participant responses bring to light a c onnection between leadership and members understanding of rights. The findi ngs suggest that leadership is an important component in acknowledging members rights (Krisha 2002). The relationship between leadership and members sense of engagement may explain why many respondents referred to their involvement in information sharing and their ability to voice their opinions as a right. The responses from ProEnvironment and Green Gold Cooperative rega rding member rights elucidate the contrast between a hazy understanding of rights and a lack of voice and a more informed and clear understanding of rights. I believe that identifying members perception and understanding of their rights may explain the degree to which they feel a sense of belonging to their organization at large. Sense of Belonging Members of both groups identify with their grou ps, but the extent to which they express a connection with their group emerged as the most significant dimension of collective identity. Responses indicate that members relationship w ith the organization depends on the quality of their leaders work and their sense of feeling in formed about both organiza tional affairs as well as their understanding of their me mber rights. These findings suppor t those of Avey et al. (2009) that transformational leadership is positively related to psychological ownership and that affective commitment toward the organization was also positively related to psychological ownership. The difference in group members sense of belonging captu res the concept of psychological ownership offered by Avey et al. (2009). The Green Gold Cooperative may 56


represent the prom otion-oriented ownershi p, while ProEnvironment may represent the prevention-oriented ownership. The Green Gold Cooperatives sense of owne rship as the owners and founders differs from the disconnected ProEnvironment. Many respondents from the Green Gold Cooperative referred to their connection with the larger organization: Were the owners and founders, We own the same possessions; Were kept inform ed of whats going on in the cooperative; and We know who buys our coffee. Many of those w ho identified themselves as the owners and founders represented one of the 56 founding member s of the organization. They explained that individuals in several communities formed the Gr een Gold Cooperative in collaboration with an individual who offered a potential market conn ection. When people feel like owners in an organization, their need for belongingness is me t by having a place in terms of their social and socio-emotional needs being met (Avey et al. 2009). On the other hand, the respondents from ProEnvir onment expressed their desire to have a closer relationship with the actu al organization at large because I dont know about the actual progress of the organization of which we are a part. Some respondents said, I dont know about the relationship between ProEnvironment and EcoCafe, and I know the technicians from EcoCafe, but ProEnvironment doesnt come here to check up on us. Members of ProEnvironment conveyed a sense of confusion a bout the relationship between ProEnvironment, their organization made up of local producer gro ups, and EcoCafe, the business that both sells their coffee and provides technical support. Some respondents evidently feel a stronger connection to EcoCafe because they view the comp anys employees as more available than those of ProEnvironment, and because they feel that EcoCafe offers them services that their own 57


organization does not. Other respondents said, I dont even know how our coffee is sold, suggesting that m embers do not participate in the decisions about se lling their coffee. I identified two primary grounds for this c onfusion. First, the current managers of EcoCafe initiated the formati on of the local coffee groups, an d they continue to run the organizational meetings and provi de technical services and mark et connections. EcoCafe also decided to add market certification labels (e g.UTZ certified, Rainforest Alliance, Starbucks Caf Practices) distinguish members coffee. These labels added special requirements for producing coffee that necessitate EcoCafes technical support and their enforcement of certification rules and regulations in all local groups. This ma y explain why members view the staff of EcoCafe as authority figures, those w ho ultimately control their success in the market. Responses suggest that the differences in the two comparison groups sense of belonging also relates to the origin a nd creation of the two groups. ProEnvironment feels dependent on its original founders, associates of EcoCafe, who continue to prov ide support to their local groups. Respondents confusion about the relationship between ProEvnir onment and EcoCafe reflects their history of dependence on the benefits accrued from their asso ciation with this company, and its role in controlling organi zational processes and access to th e market. However, members of Green Gold Cooperative feel a sense of ownership and possession most likely tied to their involvement from the cooperative since its crea tion. They impart a sense of independence and unity, as one entity run by an effective admini stration. Both organizati ons have technicians. However, members of the Green Gold Cooperati ve employ the technicians and consider them part of the cooperative. The difference between the owners and founders of the Green Gold Cooperative and the distanced members of ProEnvironment also provides s upport for the results from the logistic 58


regression indicating the predic tive nature of both collective identity and group cohesion in determ ining membership to the comparison group s. This difference also uncovers the two organizations existing norms of information sh aring between leaders and members as well as the organizations degree of dependency on exte rnal entities. My findings suggest that an individuals appraisa l of his/her group be longingness is both cognitive (based on information gained through experien ce within the group and w ith group members) and affective (based on their feelings about these experiences) (Bollen and Hoyle 1990). These findings seem to corroborate previous research fi ndings and indicate that the emotional-affective aspect of belonging to the group may be a strong pr edictor of important group outcomes (Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone and Crook 1989; Jackson 2002; Karasawa 1991). My findings also corroborat e previous research that su ggest that transformational leadership may contribute to gr oup members sense of belonging and long-term commitment to the organization, both of which are important for the effectiv eness and sustainability of organizations (Avey et al. 2009). Group Goals for Conservation Participants from both groups responded similarly to topics regarding goals and somewhat similar actions for conservation. They also mentione d a variety of activities that they want to do rather than those actual goals determined by their groups. The Green Gold Cooperative expressed the desire to spread their awarene ss of conserving the forest to other community members to a greater extent than ProEnvir onment. Respondents between comparison groups expressed different reasons for s upporting conservation that may relate to the origination of their awareness of conservation issues. Objectives and working together to achiev e them are often cent ral to a work group. Similarly, work groups may adopt a process that involves the engagement or cooperation of 59


group m embers in the performance of tasks. Rese arch findings do not suggest that stronger group cohesiveness and social dynamics necessarily ma ke it more likely that members will cooperate with one another and direct additional effort towa rd group tasks (Dutton et al. (1994) in Wech et al, 1998). The Green Gold Cooperatives sense of bel onging and their possible classification as a promotion-oriented organization, may explai n its group goals. Those who use a promotionfocused approach pursue goals that reflect their hopes and as pirations. On the other hand, ProEnvironment as prevention-oriented seems to form its goals for the purposes of reducing punishment, sticking with rules a nd obligations (Avey et al. 2009) Liberman et al. (1999) have also shown that regulatory foci are connected to values of conservation (prevention) and openness to change (promotion). This may pr ovide an explanation for the different organizational approaches of the two comparison groups in this study. I asked participants to identify their group goals for conservation and group plans and efforts to achieve these goals. Established a nd agreed-upon group goals for conservation were often unidentified. However, I iden tified several factors that cont ribute to a range of responses related to the groups initiative in pursuing conservation activities. These conservation efforts fall along a continuum, beginning at awarene ss and ending with action. The most common interview responses range from (1) the desire to reforest and construct a greenhouse and (2) waiting for materials. Nonetheless, several respo ndents reported (3) collecting seeds, (4) sharing seeds with group, and (5) constructing a nursery Several respondents in both groups mentioned their groups initial efforts to construct a gree nhouse and say that they are waiting around for additional funds and/or mate rials to move forward. 60


Respondents expressed greater consciousness of caring for their natural resources after joining the organization. Responde nts from both groups seemed interested in sharing this awareness of the need to protect the forest, especially around waterways. The findings suggest that collective action for conservation may also include disseminating a particular conservation message to the community at large. Respondent s mentioned that community members who are not part of the group are generally unaware of their impact on forest resources. Some respondents mentioned that they wo uld like to collaborate with th e local environmental board to promote protecting their forests. Reasons for Conservation Respondents between comparison groups expr essed different reasons for supporting conservation. These reasons for the origin of thei r awareness of conservation issues may relate to the groups different organizationa l orientations. The respondents of the Green Gold Cooperative most commonly reported water scarcity as the prin ciple reason for protecti ng the forests. I found that an increased awareness and even the pace at which local groups wa nt to take action for conservation reflect the water shortage. These respondents were especially interested in recruiting more members to make the group st ronger and involve the entire community in protecting the forest. They believed that Then more people would be aw are and change their practices and that having more members would make our message louder. Respondents from ProEnvironment were very awar e that they should reforest rather than cut down trees. I found that their responses were very positive and almost monotonous, as if they were answering the question by rote. A reason fo r this may be respondents familiarity with questions about conservation, whic h are routinely asked in inspec tions by certification agencies and technicians of EcoCafe. Th e interface between local s and external agencies that make and enforce the rules regarding sustainable agricult ural practices is considered by Kull (2002). 61


Agreeing with visitors views can be a polite way of coping with repres sive encounters or to m aintain good relations with authoritative outsiders who may bring unknown benefits. The most commonly reported reason for not expanding the area under cultivation for both groups was There are no remaining forested ar eas in the zone. This response suggests that respondents are not expanding their farms because th ere is simply nowhere to cultivate. This may indicate that they would cons ider expanding the area under cul tivation if forest lands were available. These findings may provide insight into se veral social dynamics of groups and their potential for collective action for conserva tion. Findings suggest th at the Green Gold Cooperative is especially aware of the present-day scarcity of resources, especially water, which substantiate their action for forest conservati on. Findings also suggest a range of desires for collective action for conservation behavior that differ between comparison groups. The differences in the groups action for conservation and their awareness of resource scarcity or reasons for conservation may relate to their organizational orientat ion. Respondents from the Green Gold Cooperative most often expressed an aw areness of the consequences of deforestation and desire to share this awareness with their community members (those unaffiliated with their organizations) who are unaware of their effect on the environment. Commitment and Future Vision: State of Solidarity Many of the themes discussed seem to explain group members long-term commitment and future vision for the organization. The theme of state of solidarity emerged in the interview responses relating to members fu ture vision for their organization. Identifying with an organization may enhance commitment to it because of feelings of belongingness and an emotional bond (Ashforth and Mael 1989). My findings corroborate thos e of Avey et al. (2009) that intentions to stay with the organization are positively related to psychological ownership. 62


The relationship between sense of belonging and comm itment supports the relationship between group cohesion and collective identity. In addition, the differences between comparison groups also support the findings fr om logistic regression. These findings both confirm that the two comparison groups are independent and that the two predictor variables of collective identity and group cohesion are the only significant predic tors of membership in the comparison groups (Table 4-4). The emerging theme of state of solidarity may also explain the respondents long-term commitment and future vision. Differences betw een groups with respect to their state of solidarity, as either a self-sufficient organi zation or an organizati on dependent on outside entities, present several reasons for the diffe rence in the models significance between comparison groups. The correlation between the inde pendent variables in this studys conceptual model is significantly stronger for ProEnvironmen t than for the Green Gold Cooperative (Table 4-3). The only statistically significant correlatio ns (p<0.05) are those for ProEnvironment. Respondents from both groups were generally committed to their membership in the shortterm, but differed with regard to their desire for long-term commitment to the organization. Respondents from ProEnvironment seemed unsur e about their long-term commitment as opposed to those from the Green Gold Coope rative. Some of the respondents from ProEnvironment said that their long-term commitm ent depends on the price of coffee and if those who make decisions actually listen to us. In referen ce to the latter response, one respondent said, Its like asking for milk when there are no cows. This respondent used this expression to indicate his frus tration and disappointment in those who manage EcoCafe who seem to neglect members of ProEnvironments ac tual right to an opini on or voice. However, these members also continue depending on EcoC afe with hopes that the situation will improve. 63


Several respondents from ProEnvironm ent who did express their desire for long-term commitment to ProEnvironment also perceived their leaders as effective, their group as motivated, and their participati on as worthwhile. However, many respondents were not in favor of the way in which EcoCafe manages their market or ProEnvironment. Some respondents indicated that if the price of coffee did not improve, they would have to find another buyer, and said that the price of coffee did in fact affect their participation in the organization. However, these respondents did not mention that they ha d access or connections with alternative buyers. Many respondents were unsure of the future solidarit y of ProEnvironment as well as its ability to improve in its partnership with EcoCafe. Avey et al. (2009) suggest that organizational change may be difficult to implement for a preventativ e-based ownership, such as ProEnvironment. The Green Gold Cooperatives sense of ow nership highlights members dedication and long-term commitment to the organization. I found th at their desire to co mmit themselves to the organization is connected to their confidence in the organization as a whole and its administration. They mentioned that their work and participation bring Not only monetary benefits, but also social benef its. I also found that their desi re to remain committed to their organization is related to their future vision of the organization as an independent and selfsufficient entity. Contrary to ProEnvironment, respondents fr om Green Gold Coopera tive indicated that their commitment did not depend on the price of coffee and they plan to stick with the group through the good times and the bad times. This is probably because the price for their coffee, as they said, doesnt go down. The Green Gold Cooperative may challenge the perspective that a sense of ownership or feeling of possessiveness is different fr om feeling the desire, need, or obligation to remain in an orga nization (Meyer and Allen 1997). 64


65 Contextual Information During the time of the interview in July 2008, I learned that a mee ting had been called by the new manager of ProEnvironment to discuss or ganizational issues. This meeting seemed to have surfaced their expressed discontent regard ing ProEnvironments rela tionship with EcoCafe. Since this meeting had taken place about a week pr ior, several respondents were informed of the most recent discussions in ProEnvironment. The respondents were aware of the possibility of a change in the relationship between ProEnvironm ent and EcoCafe in the near future. Most respondents expressed reluctance in continuing their partnershi p with Ecocafe due to their dissatisfaction with the price of co ffee and little control over their market in their alliance with EcoCafe. However, these respondents also seemed to identify with and depe nd on EcoCafe, since it originally had created the local groups and contro lled their access to the specialty coffee market since the beginning. In addition, th e role of the technical assi stances training, monitoring, and enforcing the certifications requirements, may explain members dependence on EcoCafe. In March 2009, eight months after my last inte raction with both groups, I returned to Peru and visited EcoCafe where I learned about the more recent changes in the relationship between ProEnvironment and EcoCafe. ProEnvironment co mpletely split from its partnership with EcoCafe, and a total of 180 members decided to stay with ProEnvironment. The rest of the members remained in the partnership with EcoCaf e. These changes provide some insight into the members prior angst with the cooperatives re lationship with EcoCafe. The changes seem concurrent with the members high level of de pendency and identification with EcoCafe as well as the sentiment of confusion as to the rela tionship between ProEnvironment and EcoCafe. However, the changes do not seem to represent th e feelings of dissatisfact ion with the price of coffee offered by EcoCafe.


CHAP TER 6 CONCLUSIONS This study provides insight into the internal dynamics of groups that are important to consider when developing programs founded on th e notions of collective action. These programs often aim to empower groups to establish commun ity building so that the members of a given community can feel a sense of freedom, belonging a nd power that can lead to constructive social change (Hur 2006, 156) Despite the incorporation of capacity-buildi ng, skills training, and other empowerment initiatives into these programs, positive outcomes often depend on local politics and internal community dynamics and structures (Lyon et al. 2001). My findings and previous findings (Kooima n 1993) suggest that governance mechanisms, in particular leadership arrangements, may cultiv ate members collective identity and create a communicative and democratic environment th at encourages group cohesion. Leadership arrangements play an important role in the relationship between co llective identity and governance. The governance mechanisms revolving ar ound the role of leader s and the quality of leadership seem to have a potentially significant effect on group members sense of engagement in information-sharing and decision-maki ng, understanding of rights, belonging, and commitment to their organization. My extensive lite rature review suggests th at the latter themes are associated most with collec tive identity and group cohesion. Members sense of engagement in the orga nization is a reflection of their leaders integration of members through sharing informa tion and decision-making. In turn, cohesiveness may promote more in-group communication, which also facilitates indi vidual group members task accomplishments (Lott and Lott 2000; W ech et al. 1998; Keller 1986; Hackman 1976). The transformational leader seems to encourage cooperation among group members and may also further empower group members work process. 66


The exploration of organizations with different organizational orientations offers im portant findings for the creation or maintenance of a groups sense of belonging and long-term commitment to the organization. The difference in orientation betwee n comparison groups may relate to the difference in thei r collective efforts for conserva tion and reasons for conservation. Strong organizations require strong leadership that promotes group members engagement in decision-making and information sharing that may foster group commitment to the organization and particular behaviors and actions, such as co nservation behavior in th is study. The principles of cooperative and democratic teamwork, which often characterize shared governance, may also offer one way to reduce costs a nd increase cohesiveness and aut onomy of work groups. Research on leadership development seems to have significant practical implications for psychological ownership management and development and perf ormance impact on organizations (Avey et al. 2009). Participatory and community-based natural resource management programs often incorporate goals for increased environmental management, efficiency, and improved social equity and justice for local pe ople. However, it has been suggested that such programs may evolve or change from their originally stated intentions (Fer guson 1994; Scott 1998). They often enter directly into the complex socio-politic al arenas of exercising power and shaping institutions. Devolving rights and responsibilit ies to local communities may not guarantee legitimate institutions considering influences from local politics, for example. The introduction of these programs may also have the potential to transform local social relations. This may lead to outcomes characterized by great variati ons of failure and successdepending on how questions of empowerment and legitimacy are addr essed in widely varyin g regional historical and environmental contexts (Kull 2002). 67


Developm ent interventions and community-based conservation programs must consider the diverse power structures and the degree to whic h local political structur es are transparent and accountable. I believe that there is a need to base the development of these programs on sound theoretical foundations in order to avoid the failures of the earlier community-based development programs. Practitioners should focus on leadersh ip development and group decision-making in local natural resource management efforts i nvolving local user groups. Successful devolution involves both effective institutions at the local level and a policy environment supportive of local management. The improvement of empirical resear ch methods will also help to successfully inform both policy makers on shaping effectiv e policy measures for local natural resource management and practitioners developing and implementing these programs. In the last two decades, policy reforms have sh ifted the institutional conditions for natural resource governance in many developing count ries. These developments place a greater emphasis on the role of local actors and co mmunities in decentralized management. The emerging and complex governance arrangement s demand new methods and verification to determine the way in which policy has influenced and perhaps changed the way different actors relate to each other and the environment. Pr oper inclusion of the social sciences into multidisciplinary studies is crucial if the results ar e to be relevant to policy. Barrett et al. (2001, 236) assert that the conservation community not onl y needs to invest in scholarship to sort out design questions methodically, it also needs to invest in buildi ng and linking effective conservation institutions and or ganizations embodying the behavi oral rules that constitute institutions. The relationships explored in my study warra nt further explorations to understand how particular factors influence collective action. My findings suggest that group cohesion is related 68


to the presence of group identity and therefore should be included in the study of social move ments. Similarly, my findings indicate that governance plays a role in the relationship among all study variables. I believe that there is a need to go beyond the established role of collective identity in social movements and organizations by including group cohesion and governance in future studies. The conceptual model that I developed was us ed to explore the inte rconnected nature of relationships among variables rather than a causa l relationship. The repeated exploration of any of the explored variables consider ed part of these feedback loop s is important to build a model for collective action. However, researchers shoul d consider the cause-effect relationships among variables to develop a viable model with respec t to collective action fo r conservation behavior, as in this case. Issues arise from the various methodological ap proaches used by different social science disciplines and the various definitions of the conc epts explored. I used a socio-political approach to collective action to best expl ore the behavior of groups as un its of analysis and how factors contributing to action develop at the group level through organi zations (Meizen-Dick et al. 2004). Researchers should consider the explored concepts within a variety of contexts involving contrasting organizational or ientations and extreme group identities to heighten our understanding of social movements and the co llective action process. I recommend looking at different units of analysis as not all movements and organizations are identifiable within fixed boundaries. Information gathered from examining multiple sites with less fixed boundaries may capture the constant organizing and reorganizi ng of information and people across time and space that characterize social movements. 69


The various definition s and operationaliza tions of study variables complicated the development of my instrumentation and subsequent evaluation. It is import ant for researchers to develop operational definitions a nd standardized quantitative and qualitative measures of these variables. Although I used the relevant literature that I could find to de velop items to measure both collective identity and governance, I acknowledge that there may be better ways to measure these concepts to more accurately to best captu re their role in groups. Developing and testing valid and reliable instruments could facilitate the validity of findings and expand theoretical implications of the factors considered components of social movements. One must consider the effectiv eness of the instrumentation m easuring the variables in this study. The response scales and response format us ed for items pertaining to collective identity and governance may need adjusting to best obtain a full range of responses. Researchers may consider the use of an index to measure collec tive identity and governance respectively. Future studies should incorporate additi onal measures of leadership to improve our understanding of the role of leaders and particular leadership styles in the organization. The scale used to measure group cohesion was adapted from well-tested group cohesion indices. However, this index, and all indices sh ould include both positive and negative attitudes. After following the necessary steps to develop the index, I decided to solely use positive statements since the negative statements caused c onfusion and were mostly eliminated during the pre-tests. I recommend creating the index in the la nguage in which it will be used. If translating, it is best to be cautious with the use of language to ensure that items do not lose their original meaning. As indicated in the methods section, all instruments were pre-tested and appeared to perform well with the study sample. 70


71 In addition, the measurement for conservation behavior used in this study may not be adequate because it only includes the number of hectares of primary forest maintained. This measure does not capture the cons truct of conservation behavior based on the theoretical model, and the findings for conservation behavior may not be valid. I recommend that future studies involving conservation behavior incorporate the per centage of change in forest cover to more accurately measure conservation behavior. I also recommend that future studies consider additional dimensions of conserva tion behavior, such as the practices and activities dedicated to conservation. I conducted direct observations on visits to the members farm s following the interview. I visited a total of 30 farms to gather informati on about the agricultural pr actices farmers use for sustainable forest management during the months of the coffee harvest. My objective was to collect information about farmers agricultural practices for sustainable forest management. These practices include, but are not limited to, the water sanitation system, shade cover over coffee plantation, and species of trees planted fo r reforestation. However, due to missing data, this information was difficult to analyze. Inclus ion of this information would have allowed for a cross-check of information regard ing conservation practices and effo rts to reforest addressed in both the questionnaire and interview. Future studies should include similar measures through direct observation.






APPENDIX II INSTRUME NTATION QUESTIONNAIRE Date:_________ Participant:___________________ Group Name: _________________ 1. How many members belong to th e group? _________ Doesnt know ____ 2. How active are you as a member of the group? ___Not at all active ___ Hardly Active ___ Ne utral ___ Somewhat active ___Very Active 3. How often are group meetings held? 1. Doesnt know 2. Theres no schedule 3. Less than 6 times per year 4. Monthly 5. Weekly 4. How important is your role as a member in this group? ___Not at all ___Hardly ___Neutral ___Somewhat ___Very Important Important 5. What are your responsibilities as a member of the group? 6. Who formed these responsibilities? 7. Who monitors member compliance with group rules? 8. Please name the names of the individuals who correspond to the following leadership positions: President ____________________________ Secretary ____________________________ Treasurer ____________________________ 9. Who represents your group in th e larger cooperative/association? Doesnt know ___ ____________________________________________________ 10. Have you ever served as a group leader? ____Yes ____ No 11. Who decides the group goals for the year?_____________________________________ 12. Do the members participate in the deci sion making of both goals? Yes ____ No ____ 13. How often do members suggest their ideas in group meetings? ___Never ___Almost never ___ Neutral ____Somew hat ____Frequently ____Very Frequently 74


GROUP COHESION INDEX 1 5 2 3 4 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree GROUP INTEGRATION-TASK The members work for the betterment of the group. The members feel committed to participating in group activities. The members know their responsibilities. The members put effort into achieving group goals together. If something goes wrong, all members take the responsibility to correct it. The members decide what goals they want to achieve. The members have goals that coincide with those of the group. INDIVIDUAL ATTRACTION-TASK I like making the effort to abide by the group rules. I like the responsibil ities that I have with the group. I like how the group functions. The group helps me improve how I work. My work with the group helps me in my personal development. INDIVIDUAL ATTRACTION-SOCIAL I like to participate in group activities. I have good friends in the group. I am content participa ting in group activities. I prefer participating in activities with this group than with other groups. GROUP INTEGRATION-SOCIAL The members prefer working with the group rather than independently. The members like to spend time together socially. The members like to take part in group activities apart from group responsibilities. The group is united. 75


INTERVIEW Responsibilities *Remind the participant of those mentioned in the questionnaire. 1. What responsibilities in th e group changed over the years? Probes: How have these changed? and why? Rule Enforcement *Remind participant of those mentioned in questionnaire. 2. Do you think that the enforcement of the me mbership rules in the group are effective? And Why? Probes: How strict is this enforcements? What happens if a member doesnt fulfill responsibilities (ex. Participation in group activity, meeting,) Leadership 3. Do you think that the leaders work has improve d or worsened during the last few years? 4. How does your leader represent you (a ll the members of your group)? Probes: How has the directors board changed during the years? Do you think that the leaders do everythi ng possible to involve the members in the group? How? Local Group/Larger Organization 5. As a group member, how do you see the larger organization ( SAY the Green Gold Cooperative/ProEnvironment )? Why? Probes: How involved are the members of the local group in decisions made by representatives or leaders in the Green Gold Cooperative/ProEnvironment? Which themes are discussed most in the organizational meetings (the assemblies)? Would you all like to be le ss/more involved or have less/more of a say in decisions made in organization? Rights 6. What are your rights as a member of the local group ( say name ) and larger organization ( Green Gold Cooperative/ProEnvironment) ? 76


Probes: Are you all satisfied with these? Why/why not? Local Group 7. Are you content with the way your local group (say name) is organized? Probes Do you hope for changes in the future or do you hope that things st ay the same? Why? How do you think the group (say name) will be in 5 years? Why? How so? Do you think the group has gotten more un ited or disunited in its development? Why is this? Involvement and Contribution 8. Do you think you have contributed to the progress of the local group ( say name) as a member? How so? Probes: Do you want to be more involve d or less involved in the future? Why? Do you think you will still be a member in 5 years? Why? Until when do you think you w ill live here in the community ( say name )? Goals 9. What do you all want for the future of the local group? (In terms of commercialization, conservation, participation of the members) Probes: What do you all have to do to achieve this? How so? Market 10. If you are not content with the price of coffee, does this aff ect your participation in the local group ( say name)? How so? Probes: Have you ever dropped out of the local group ( say name) or think of dropping out? Why? Group Activities 11. Does the local group have work or projects for its own benefit? Explain. Probes: What kinds of activities has the group coordinated? Whose idea was it to do these activities? Have you thought of and expressed any ideas to the rest of the group? How so? What percentage of memb ers participates in these activities? 77


12. What did you do as a group with la st years Fair Trade prem ium? Probes: Why and how did you all decide to use this money? What is the distribution of the prem ium in the larger orga nization and local group? How is this money distributed? Goals for Conservation 13. Do you have plans to protect the forest? Explain. Probes: What are your plans for the agro-forestry system? Why do you want to/not want protect the forest? Who motivated you to take care of the environment (institutions, individuals)? 14. Does your group ( say name) have plans to protect the forest? Explain. Probes: Why do you want to/ not want protect the forest? 78


INTERVIE W PROCESSING FORM Date:_________ Participant: ___________________ Group Name: _________________ 1. Main points to note 2. Information received on principle questions Topics Details Belonging Rights Leadership Satisfaction with Group Conservation Goals Reasons for Conservation 3. Use of language (ie. phrases, expressions, pronouns, etc.) 79


LIST OF REFERE NCES Adcock, R. & Collier, D. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95(3): 529-546. Agrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson. 1999. Enchancement and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4):629. Agrawal, A., and E. Ostrom. 2001. Collective act ion, property rights, an d decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society 29(4):485. Agrawal, A. 2002. Common resources a nd institutional sustainability. In National research council (U.S.) committee on the human dimensions of global change E. Ostrom, 41-76. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Armitage, D. R. 2005. Community-based narwhal management in Nunavut, Canada: Change, uncertainty, and adaptation. Society & Natural Resources 18(8):715-731. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. and Razavieh, A. 1990. Introduction to research in education. Fort Worth, IN: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. and Razavieh, A. 2002. Introduction to research in education, 6th ed. CA: Wadsworth Group, Thompson Learning, Inc. Ashforth, B. E., and F. Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review 14(1):20-39. Ashmore, R. D., K. Deaux, and T. McLaugh lin-Volpe. 2004. An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological bulletin 130(1):80-114. Avey, J.B., B.J. Avolio, C.D. Crossley, and F. Luthans. 2009. Psychological ownership: theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30:173. Baland, J.-M., and J.-P. Platteau. 1999. The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Development 27(5):773. Barnes, M. 1999. Users as citizens: collective action and the lo cal governance of welfare. Social Policy & Administration 33(1):73-90. Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based c onservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39):15188-15193. Boehm, A., and L. H. Staples. 2004. Empower ment: The Point of Vi ew of Consumers. Families in Society 85(2):270-280. 80


Bollen, K. A., and R. H. Hoyle. 1990. Percei ved Cohesion: A Conceptual and Em pirical Examination. Social Forces 69(2):479-504. Brawley, L. R., and A. V. Carron. 1993. The in fluence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group goa l-related variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 15(3):245-260. Brockington, D. 2007. Forests, community cons ervation, and local government performance: The village forest reserves of Tanzania. Society & Natural Resources 20(9):835-848. Brosius, J. P., A. L. Tsing, and C. Zerner 1998. Representing communities: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 11(2):157. Buechler, S. M. 1995. New social movement theories. Sociological Quarterly 36(3):441-464. Carron, A. V. 1982. Cohesiveness in sport grou ps Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology 4(2):123-138. Carron, A. V., S. R. Bray, and M. A. Eys. 2002. Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences 20(2):119-126. Carron, A. V., L. R. Brawley, S. R. Bray, M. A. Ey s, K. D. Dorsch, P. A. Estabrooks, C. R. Hall, J. Hardy, H. Hausenblas, and R. Madison. 2004. Using consensus as a criterion for groupness implications for the cohesion-group success relationship. Small Group Research 35(4):466-491. Cassidy, C., and K. Trew. 2001. Assessing identity change: A longitudinal study of the transition from school to college. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(1):49. Cota, A. A., C. R. Evans, R. S. Longman, K. L. Dion, and L. Kilik. 1995. Using and misusing factor analysis to explore group cohesion. Journal of Clinical Psychology 51(2):308-316. Davis, G. F., C. Morrill, H. Rao, and S. A. Soule. 2008. Introduction: Social movements in organizations and markets. Administrative Science Quarterly 53(3):389-394. Dejanvry, A., M. Fafchamps, M. Raki, and E. Sadoulet. 1992. A computable household model approach to policy analysis structural adjustment and the peasantry in morocco. Issues in Agricultural Development 6:298-306. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Ster n. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):1907-1912. Dion, K. L. 2001. Group cohesion: From 'field of forces' to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice 5(1):2-2. Dion, K. L., and C. R. Evans. 1992. On cohesiveness. Small Group Research 23(2):242. 81


Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich, and C. V. Ha rquail. 1994. Organizational im ages and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2):239-263. Ellemers, N., R. Spears, and B. Doosje. 2002. Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology 53(1):161. Enoch, J. R., and S. D. McLemore. 1967. Meaning of group cohesion. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 48(2):174-182. Evans, B., M. Joas, S. Sundback, and K. Theobald. 2006. Governing local sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 49(6):849-867. Evans, C. R., and K. L. Dion. 1991. Group cohe sion and performance A meta-analysis. Small Group Research 22(2):175-186. Fiol, C. M., D. Harris, and R. House. 1999. Char ismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. Leadership Quarterly 10(3):449-482. Friedkin, N. E. 2004. Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology 30(1):409-425. Gamson, W. A. 1991. Commitment and agency in social movements. Sociological Forum 6(1):27. Gautam, A. P., and G. P. Shivakoti. 2005. Cond itions for successful lo cal collectiv e action in forestry: Some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Society & Natural Resources 18(2):153171. Gibson, C. C., J. T. Williams, and E. Ostrom 2005. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33(2):273-284. Goodman, P. S., E. Ravlin, and M. Schminke 1987. Understanding groups in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 9:121-173. Gray, T. W. 2007. Co-ops focus collective action. Rural Cooperatives 74(3):33-35. Gully, S. M., and D. J. Devine. 1995. A me ta-analysis of cohesion and performance. Small Group Research 26(4):497. Hackman, J. R., K. R. Brousseau, and J. A. Weiss. 1976. The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance 16(2):350-365. Hayes, T. M. 2006. Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34(12):2064-2075. 82


Hinkle, S., L. A. Taylor, D. L. Foxc ardamone, and K. F. Crook. 1989. Intragroup identification and intergroup differentiation a multi-component approach. British Journal of Social Psychology 28:305-317. Ireson, C. L., and G. McGillis. 1998. A multidisciplinary shared governance model. Nursing Management 29(2):37-39. Jung, D. I. 2000. Transformational and transactional leader ship and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal 13(2):185-195. Jung, D. I., and J. J. Sosik. 2002. Transformationa l leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collectiveefficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research 33(3):313. Kark, R., and D. Van Dijk. 2007. Motivation to lea d, motivation to follow: The role of the selfregulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review 32(2):500528. Klandermans, B. 1984. Mobilization and particip ation: social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review 49(5):583-600. 1990. Nomads of the present: social move ments and individual needs in contemporary society. American Journal of Sociology 96(1):221. Koenig, T. 2006. Compounding mixed-methods probl ems in frame analysis through comparative research. Qualitative Research 6(1):61-76. Krishna, A. 2003. Partnerships between local gov ernments and community-based organizations: Exploring the scope for synergy. Public Administration and Development 23(4):361-371. Kull, C. A. 2002. Empowering pyromaniacs in Madagascar: Ideology and legitimacy in community-based natural resource management. Development & Change 33(1):57. Leach, M., and R. Mearns. 1999. Environmental en titlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resources. World Development 27(2):225. Lus Mosse, E., and E. Byrne. 2005. The role of identity in health information systems development: A case analysis from Mozambique. Information Technology for Development 11(3):227-243. Lyons, M., C. Smuts, and A. Stephens. 2001. Pa rticipation, empowerment and sustainability: (How) do the links work? Urban Studies 38(8):1233-1251. Mael, F. A., and L. E. Tetrick. 1992. Id entifying organizational identification. Educational & Psychological Measurement 52(4):813. Malhi, Y., J. T. Roberts, R. A. Betts, T. J. Killeen, W. Li, and C. A. Nobre. 2008. Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science 319(5860):169-172. 83


McCarthy, N., C. Dutilly-Dian, an d B. Dra bo. 2004. Cooperation, collective action and natural resources management in Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems 82(3):233-255. Meinzen-Dick, R., M. DiGregorio, and N. McCarthy. 2004. Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural Systems 82(3):197-214. Meinzen-Dick, R., K. V. Raju, and A. Gulati. 2002. What affects orga nization and collective action for managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems in India. World Development 30(4):649-666. Meinzen-Dick, R. S., and M. di Gregorio. 2004. Collective action and property rights for sustainable development. Focus Briefs International Food Policy Research Institute(11):32 pp. Ministers' Conference on Challenges Facing Local Government in Africa in the 21st, C., A. African Union of Local, D. Conyers, C. International Development Research, G. Matovu, A. Municipal Development Programme for Ea stern and Southern, Netherlands, I. World Bank, and Zimbabwe. 2002. The challenge of developing a shared vision on democratic decentralisation and local governance in Africa for the 21st century : the perspectives of African ministers of local governm ent : proceedings of a conference ed. Anonymous. Harare: Municipal Development Partne rship, Eastern and Southern Africa. Morrill, C., M. N. Zald, and H. Rao. 2003. Covert political conflict in or ganizations: Challenges from below. Annual Review of Sociology 29(1):391-415. Morrison, R. 2004. Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 33(3):114-128. Morrison, T. L. 1984. Member reactions to a gr oup leader in varying leadership roles. Journal of Social Psychology 122(1):49. Mullen, B., and C. Copper. 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin 115(2):210. Mushtaq, S., D. Dawe, and M. Hafeez. 2007. Economic evaluation of small multi-purpose ponds in the Zhanghe irrigation system, China. Agricultural Water Management 91(1-3):61-70. Neuman, G. A., and J. R. Kickul. 1998. Organi zational citizenship be haviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Business & Psychology 13(2):263-280. O'May, F., and J. Buchan. 1999. Shared governance: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 36(4):281-300. O'Riordan, T. 2004. Environmental scienc e, sustainability and politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29(2):234-247. 84


Orbell, J. M., A. J. C. Va ndekragt, and R. M. Dawes. 1988. Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(5):811-819. Peterson, N. A., J. B. Lowe, M. L. Aquilino, and J. E. Schneider. 2005. Linking social cohesion and gender to intrapersonal and inte ractional empowerment: Support and new implications for theory. Journal of Community Psychology 33(2):233-244. Polletta, F. and Jasper, J.M. 2001. Collective iden tity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283-305. Poteete, A. R., and E. Ostrom 2004. Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: The role of institutions in forest management. Development & Change 35(3):435-461. Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and th e collective management of resources. Science 302(5652):1912-1914. Pritchard, R. D., and B. W. Karasick. 1973. The e ffects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance 9(1):126-146. Pruitt, R. H., and A. B. Privette. 2001. Planning strategies for the avoidance of pitfalls in intervention research. Journal of advanced nursing 35(4):514-520. Rao, H., C. Morrill, and M. N. Zald. 2000. Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior 22:237281. Rao, V., and A. M. Ibez. 2005. The social impact of social funds in Jamaica: A participatory econometric analysis of targeting, collec tive action, and particip ation in communitydriven development. Journal of Development Studies 41(5):788-838. Ribot, J. C. 1999. Decentralization, participati on and accountability in Sahelian forestry. Africa 69(1):23. Ribot, J. C., A. Agrawal, and A. M. Larson. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments reappr opriate forest resources. World Development 34(11):18641886. Riordan, C. M., and E. W. Weatherly. 1999. Defi ning and measuring employees' identification with their work groups. Educational & Psychological Measurement 59(2):310. Rousseau, D. M. 1998. Why workers st ill identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19(3):217-233. Rubin, A. and E. Babbie. 1997. Research methods for social work 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 85


Selfa, T., and J. Endter-Wada. 2008. The politic s of comm unity-based co nservation in natural resource management: A focus for international comparative analysis. Environment & Planning 40(4):948-965. Sell, J., M. J. Lovaglia, E. A. Mannix, C. D. Samuelson, and R. K. Wilson. 2004. Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research 35(1):44-72. Sheskin, and D.J. 2007. Handbook of parametric and nonparamet ric statistical procedures Biometrics Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press. Simon, B., S. Strmer, M. Loewy, U. Weber, P. Freytag, C. Habig, C. Kampmeier, and P. Spahlinger. 1998. Collective identification and social moveme nt participation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 74(3):646-658. Singh, R., K. A. Bohra, and A. K. Dalal. 1979. Favorableness of leadership situations studied with information integration theory. European Journal of Social Psychology 9(3):253264. Sommer, R. and Sommer, B.B. 1986. A Practical Guide to Behavior Research: Tools and Techniques New York: Oxford University Press. Sosik, J. J., S. S. Kahai, and B. J. Avolio. 1998. Transformational leadersh ip and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea genera tion in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal 11(2):111. Stasser, G., and D. Stewart. 1992. Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 63(3):426-434. Steins, N. A., and W. M. Edwards. 1998. Harbor re source management in Cowes, Isle of Wight: An analytical framework for multi-use. Journal of environmental management 54(1):67. Strmer, S., B. Simon, and M. I. Loewy. 2008. Intra-organizational resp ect and organizational participation: The mediating role of collective identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(1):5-20. Swanson, L. E. 2001. Rural policy and direct local participation: Democracy, inclusiveness, collective agency, and locality-based policy. Rural Sociology 66(1):1-21. Tilly, C. 1983. Speaking your mind without el ections, surveys or social movements. Public Opinion Quarterly 47(4):461-478. 2003. Political identities in changing polities. Social Research 70(2):605-620. Torres-Antonini, M. 2001. Our common house Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida. 86


87 Turner, M. D. 1999. Conflict, environmental change and social institutions in dryland Africa: Limitations of the community resource management approach. Society & Natural Resources 12(7):643-657. Vahabzadeh, P. 2001. A critique of ultimate referen tiality in the new social movement theory of Alberto Melucci. Canadian Journal of Sociology 26(4):611. Van Dyne, L., and J. L. Pierce. 2004. Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting empl oyee attitudes and organizati onal citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(4):439-459. Wann, D. L., and S. Pierce. 2003. Measuring spor t team identification and commitment: An empirical comparison of the sport spectato r identification scale and the psychological commitment to team scale. North American Journal of Psychology 5(3):365-372. Wech, B. A., K. W. Mossholder, R. P. Steel, and N. Bennett. 1998. Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals? Small Group Research 29(4):472. Williams, G., R. Vron, S. Corbridge, and M. Sr ivastava. 2003. Participation and power: Poor peoples engagement with Indias employment assurance scheme. Development & Change 34(1):163-192. Wittenbaum, G. M., and E. S. Park. 2001. The collective preference for shared information. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10(2):70-73. Wittenbaum, G. M., A. B. Hollingshead, P. B. Pa ulus, R. Y. Hirokawa, D. G. Ancona, R. S. Peterson, K. A. Jehn, and K. Yoon. 2004. The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research 35(1):17-43. Zaccaro, S. J. 1991. Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and grouprelated outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology 131(3):387-399. im ek, S. 2004. New social movements in Turkey since 1980. Turkish Studies 5(2):111-139.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Laura F. Kowler was born and raised in Virginia. She graduated with an A.B.J. in public relations from the University of Georgia s Grady College of Journalism in 2004. Her undergraduate studies also included several memorable anthropology courses and a summer semester in Tanzania through the African Studies Department at th e University of Georgia. After graduation, Laura taught conversa tional English to college students at the University of Agriculture in Prague, Czech Republic for a year She then spent a few months learning about organic farming practices in both Spain and Port ugal before moving to San Francisco to work with several environmental organizations. Laur as interest in the design of international conservation and development initiatives grew fr om her work involving small-scale farmers and local institutions in Ecuador from 2006-2007. This experience inspir ed the questions she explored in her masters research. She received her Master of Science degree from the University of Florida in the summer 2009. 88