Upload
cheryl-l-wagner
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RESEARCH
Effects of Community-Based Collaborative Group Characteristicson Social Capital
Cheryl L. Wagner Æ Maria E. Fernandez-Gimenez
Received: 23 May 2007 / Accepted: 2 July 2009 / Published online: 18 August 2009
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Recent research suggests that community-
based collaboration may build social capital—defined as
trust, norms of reciprocity, and networks. Social capital
may improve a group’s ability to collaborate, manage risk,
innovate, and adapt to change. We used mail surveys of
group participants and key informant interviews to assess
whether the following collaborative group characteristics
affected social capital built within 10 collaborative groups
in northwest Colorado: perceived success, conflict,
activeness, stakeholder diversity, previous collaboration
experience, similar values and beliefs, group size, group
age, and initial social capital. Perceived success and initial
levels of social capital were the strongest predictors of
current levels of and changes in social capital over time.
Collaboration experience negatively influenced current
levels of trust. Our results suggest that collaborative groups
may need to consider the outcomes of collaborative inter-
actions in order to build social capital.
Keywords Collective action � Trust � Values �Norms of reciprocity � Natural resource agencies �Success � Conflict
Introduction
Social capital has been defined as trust, norms of reci-
procity, and networks among individuals that can be drawn
upon for individual or collective benefit (Coleman 1988;
Putnam 1993). Recent research has established that social
capital may be an outcome of collaborative processes, in
addition to being an important initial input (Carr and others
1998; Leach and Sabatier 2003; Pretty and Ward 2001;
Selin and others 2000; Sturtevant and Horton 2000;
Wagner and Fernandez-Gimenez 2008). This research has
also shown that collaborative groups vary in the degree to
which social capital increases or decreases over time. To
date, there has been little research to explain these differ-
ences and explore how collaborative group characteristics
affect social capital development. More specifically, group
characteristics, such as the perceived level of conflict and
success, group size, the amount of time participants spend
working together, stakeholder diversity, and initial social
capital, have yet to be investigated in light of their effect on
groups’ ability to build social capital. In this article, we
begin to address these questions by examining which
characteristics of community-based collaborative groups
are associated with high levels of social capital and
increases in social capital over time.
Social Capital in Community-Based Collaboration
We define community-based collaborative natural resource
management (CBCRM) as groups of diverse stakeholders
who convene voluntarily to work on natural resource pol-
icy, planning or management issues specific to a particular
location. In the context of CBCRM, social capital is an
asset that a group or stakeholder can use to obtain results
that they seek and accomplish goals that may otherwise be
unattainable (Putnam 1993). Social capital is important
because it can provide access to other forms of capital such
as financial capital (e.g. grants, funding) or human capital
(e.g. information, skills, scientific expertise), can facilitate
collaboration and therefore increase a group’s likelihood of
C. L. Wagner � M. E. Fernandez-Gimenez (&)
Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed Stewardship,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1472, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645
DOI 10.1007/s00267-009-9347-z
success (Leach and Sabatier 2003, 2005; Schuett and Selin
2002; Sobels and others 2001), and can increase a group’s
and community’s ability to innovate and adapt to change
(Adger 2003; Olsson and others 2004).
Based on social capital theory, group characteristics
likely affect whether and to what extent social capital is
developed (Putnam 1993). This is because group charac-
teristics influence the nature and quality of social interac-
tions within the group, which in turn affect the production
of major dimensions of social capital such as networks and
norms (Eastis 1998). For example, Burt (2001) notes, dif-
ferent types of interactions, such as between strongly
interconnected individuals or between disconnected indi-
viduals, may have disparate effects on social capital.
Similarly, Scholz and others (2008) and Berardo (2009)
found that networks in which participants interacted indi-
rectly with each other through key, centrally-positioned
individuals or organizations developed more trust and were
more effective at collaborating than smaller, denser net-
works in which participants interacted directly with each
other. Collaborative group characteristics that potentially
could affect social capital development include group
structure (e.g. the number and diversity of stakeholders or
participants; the balance of power or proportional repre-
sentation from different stakeholder groups; and the bal-
ance of participation of local, regional, and national
interests), whether the group is citizen- or agency-driven,
group process and developmental stage (e.g. facilitation,
group age, activeness of participants, previous experience
of participants, and the degree of conflict or controversy
within and around the group), group outcomes (e.g. per-
ceived success), the similarity of participant values and
beliefs, and the scope and scale of the group’s goals and
objectives.
Research Objective and Hypotheses
To address how group characteristics affect social capital,
our study examined the social capital of CBCRM organi-
zations at the group level. By group-level or organizational
social capital we mean the aggregate perceptions of indi-
vidual participants in each group, of relationships among
members of the group (Leana and van Buren 1999). We
refer to groups rather than organizations, because many of
the CBCRM groups we studied did not have formal orga-
nizational status.
The objective of this study was to examine whether
participant perceptions of group success, conflict, and
similar values and beliefs, activeness of participants,
stakeholder diversity, group size, group age, previous
collaboration experience, and initial social capital
affected the level and development of social capital in
community-based collaborative groups. Although this is
not an exhaustive list of potentially important variables,
existing research suggests that these characteristics are
likely some of the most important factors affecting social
capital development in community-based collaborative
groups (Agrawal 2002, Daniels and Walker 2001, Leach
and Pelkey 2001, Libecap 1995, O’Leary and Bingham
2003, Olson 1965). Below we briefly explain how we
expected each of these factors to influence social capital
development.
We hypothesized that participant perception of group
success would positively affect social capital development.
In order to reach and implement agreements, one dimen-
sion of success, group members must be committed to the
process and communicate openly (Leach and Pelkey 2001).
This commitment and open and clear communication leads
to repeated interactions over time and helps participants
find common ground—recognized prerequisites to building
social capital (Ostrom 1998). Past research has shown that
even small successes help keep participants engaged in the
collaborative process (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).
Further, success may promote social capital development
because it encourages new stakeholders to participate and
demonstrates that ‘‘stakeholders honor their commitments
and work competently’’ and they ‘‘negotiate in good faith
and are willing to compromise’’ (Leach and Sabatier 2005
p. 234). Because the definition of success in collaboration
is subject to debate (Conley and Moote 2003), we
emphasize that our focus is on participants’ perceptions of
success relative to their group’s purpose, its ability to find
common solutions to its problems, and the actions it has
taken to implement agreements or plans.
We expected participant perception of group conflict to
be negatively associated with high social capital and social
capital development because conflict, characterized by
distrust and fundamental behavior and value differences
among participants (O’Leary and Bingham 2003), is a
major barrier to working together, which is necessary for
social capital development (Ostrom 1997). Based on
O’Leary and Bingham (2003) and Daniels and Walker
(2001), we defined conflict as a situation in which collab-
orative group participants perceived incompatability of the
actions acceptable to different individuals or stakeholder
groups in their collaborative process, or where disputes
among participants (i.e. participant behavior) disrupted the
collaborative process.
We expected stakeholder diversity to be negatively
associated with high levels of social capital because it is
related to conflict. The more stakeholders are involved in a
process, the more viewpoints and values will be repre-
sented, leading to greater potential for value differences,
disagreement and conflict. If open communication, agree-
ment, and common viewpoints (or at least respect for
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645 633
123
others’ viewpoints) positively contribute to building social
capital among participants, then not communicating, dis-
agreeing over acceptable actions, and holding fundamen-
tally differing viewpoints and values will negatively affect
its development. In addition, much of the literature on
collective action emphasizes that groups whose members
have heterogeneous interests are less likely to successfully
solve collective action problems (Libecap 1995, Agrawal
2002). Conversely, common values and shared interests are
expected to reduce transaction costs in seeking solutions to
collective action problems (Agrawal 2002, Taylor and
Singleton 1993). For this reason we hypothesized that
similar values and beliefs would be positively associated
with social capital.
We also expected group size to be negatively associated
with social capital because increasing the number of par-
ticipants typically increases stakeholder diversity and
opportunities for conflict. Theories of collective action
have long suggested that larger groups face greater chal-
lenges in organizing and acting for collective benefits
(Olson 1965). However, it is important to note that in
theory, group size and stakeholder diversity may be posi-
tively associated with social capital. The larger a group and
the more diverse the stakeholders involved, the more
opportunity participants have to make connections, par-
ticularly with individuals that may have resources dissim-
ilar to their own. In a synthesis of literature on management
of common pool resources, Agrawal (2002) notes that
heterogeneous endowments may be a predictor of suc-
cessful collective action, though homogeneous identities
and interests are also important.
We hypothesized that participant activeness, in terms of
number of meetings and activities attended and length of
time involved in the group, would be positively associated
with social capital development, since social capital theory
suggests repeated interactions over time are necessary for
individuals to build trust and norms of reciprocity (Putnam
1993). We anticipated that group age would be positively
associated with social capital for the same reasons. The
more time the group has been active, the more opportunity
the group will have to develop strong norms and build
relationships with participants and partners such as agen-
cies. We hypothesized that previous collaboration experi-
ence would be positively associated with social capital for
similar reasons. Participants involved in other collabora-
tions might have existing relationships with the same
individuals or with other individuals that hold diverse
viewpoints, and would thus come to the table with a better
understanding of other stakeholders’ interests and con-
cerns. In addition, participants who have taken part in other
collaborative efforts may have learned how to collaborate
effectively (Daniels and Walker 2001) by listening to
other’s viewpoints and being honest, open, and forthright.
These collaboration skills presumably would help to build
trust and strengthen relationships in subsequent cooperative
efforts.
Site Description and Study Groups
This research focused on Moffat, Routt, and Jackson
counties in northwest Colorado. Historically, livestock
grazing was one of the dominant uses of public and private
lands in this area and ranchers were among the primary and
most influential public land users. Recently, however,
partially as result of rapid growth and development in this
region, conflict over access, use, and management of the
area’s resources is increasing. In particular, other users of
public lands, such as recreationists and oil and gas com-
panies, have increasingly demanded access to public lands
and expressed interest in their management. Consequently,
public land managers and communities are seeking ways to
resolve the conflict over access and management of these
public lands. The numerous community-based collabora-
tive groups in this area are largely a response to the
increased diversity of interests and conflict among resource
users.
In this study, we included 10 community-based collab-
orative groups based in northwest Colorado. These groups
range in size, mission, duration and frequency of interac-
tion and are described in Table 1. Our sample encompassed
a diversity of groups, some of which are typical of many
similar groups across the West, such as coordinated
resource management groups, other multistakeholder col-
laborations focusing on public lands, and wildlife working
groups focused on sensitive species. Several others were
focused on land conservation and agricultural preservation
on primarily private lands. Overall, our sample reflected
the diversity of collaborative groups in the region, and
mirrored the similar diversity found in many locations
across much of the USA.
Methods
Sampling Frame
This study employed a mixed-methods approach to gather
data about the level and change of social capital in
CBCRM groups in northwest Colorado. We compiled a list
of all active, idle, and disbanded collaborative groups
consisting of a diverse group of stakeholders focused on
natural resource management in Moffat, Routt, and Jack-
son Counties by contacting government agencies, cooper-
ative extension offices, and community organizations.
From the sampling frame of 24 collaborative groups 7
634 Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645
123
groups were excluded due to lack of information. From the
remaining 17 groups we purposively chose groups that
were sufficiently large to compare (4 groups were
excluded because they had fewer than 10 participants),
were representative of collaborative groups in the study
area (2 groups excluded), and wanted to participate (1
group excluded). The remaining 10 groups were included
in the initial study and survey.
Table 1 Summary of characteristics of the 10 community-based collaborative groups included in the study
Group name Group mission/focus Years
active
Number & type of
participants
Meeting
frequency
Counties
involved
Northwest Colorado
Stewardship (NWCOS)
Improve public lands decision making by
promoting cooperation among diverse interests.
A primary focus is to contribute to the
development of the BLM Resource Management
Plan (RMP) for the Little Snake Resource Area in
NW Colorado
2003–
Present
112 (local residents,
agency staff,
statewide
organizations)
At least once a
month, often
more
Primarily
Moffat
Owl Mountain
Partnership (OMP)
Bring together agencies and private landowners to
address resource conflicts on public and private
lands. Issues the group has worked to address
include livestock grazing on public lands,
noxious weeds, and livestock/wildlife
interactions
1993–
Present
17 (local residents &
agency staff)
About once a
month
Jackson
Community Agriculture
Alliance (CAA)
Promote preservation of agricultural lands and
increase awareness of the Yampa Valley’s
agricultural heritage. The group has worked to
achieve this by bridging diverse sectors of the
community through various programs, events,
and courses
2000–
Present
26 (local residents,
organizations &
agencies)
Between once a
month and
quarterly
Routt
Emerald Mountain
Partnership (EMP)
Work toward preserving Emerald Mountain for
recreation, wildlife, and grazing. The group has
been working with the BLM to orchestrate a land
exchange in order to protect the mountain from
future development
1995–
Present
27 (local residents &
agency staff)
About once a
month
Routt
Columbian Sharp Tail
Grouse Working Group
(CSTG)
Developed a management plan for protecting Sharp
Tail Grouse in NW Colorado. The group
developed specific conservation actions that
incorporated the needs, values, and interests of
diverse stakeholders
2000–
2001
60 (local residents,
agencies and
NGOs)
Met at least once
a month
Moffat &
Routt
Axial Basin Coordinated
Resource Management
(AB-CRM)
Work to resolve resource use conflict between
agencies and landowners. The group developed a
management plan to resolve conflict regarding
availability of forage resources for wildlife and
livestock
1992–
Present
14 (local residents &
agencies)
Initially met once
a month, now
meet twice a
year
Moffat
Northwest Colorado Sage
Grouse Working Group
(SGWG)
Developed a management plan for protecting sage-
grouse in NW Colorado while meeting the needs
of the community and diverse stakeholders. The
group developed conservation actions that could
be taken to meet their goals
1996–
Present
47 (local residents,
agencies & NGOs)
About once a
month
Moffat &
Routt
Yampa River System
Legacy Project (YRLP)
Work to protect ecological health of the Yampa
River and adjacent agricultural lands, while
providing opportunities for recreation. The group
worked to purchase conservation easements and
to negotiate cooperative management agreements
1996–
Present
12 (local residents,
agencies & NGOs)
About once a
month
Moffat &
Routt
Sand Wash Coordinated
Resource Management
(SW-CRM)
Worked to manage natural resource and wildlife
conflicts between landowners, concerned
citizens, and local government agencies in the
Sand Wash Basin
1995–
2000
18 (local residents &
agencies)
About once a
month
Moffat
Bald Mountain Basin
Coordinated Resource
Management (BMB-
CRM)
Worked to find common ground and solutions to
resource conflicts among landowners, concerned
citizens, and resource agencies in the Bald
Mountain Basin
1993–
1998
14 (local residents &
agencies)
About once a
month
Moffat
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645 635
123
Survey Design and Implementation
In order to assess change in social capital over time the
survey was designed with 2 sets of identical questions. The
first section asked the respondent to answer the questions
thinking about the group as it was when he/she first joined
it. The second section asked the respondent to answer the
same set of questions, thinking about the group as it is
today, or when he/she last participated. With this design,
we were able to mimic a pre- and post-test design in cir-
cumstances in which a pre-test would otherwise be
impossible.
As with many surveys, recall bias may be a source of
error. In order to check the data for accuracy and consis-
tency, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 12
key informants based on their knowledge of or involve-
ment in one or more of the surveyed groups. In these
interviews we asked several open ended questions to elicit
respondents’ perceptions of changes in relationships among
group participants over time. In addition, in our survey we
asked respondents about 2 points in time, the beginning and
the end of their participation, which were likely the most
salient and therefore which respondents are most likely
able to recall (Eisenhower and others 2004). Survey
respondents included participants who joined late or left
early, and as well as those who joined early and were still
involved at the time of the survey.
We incorporated elements into the survey design in
order to ensure content validity of social capital as it is
conceptualized and operationalized in this study. We
thoroughly reviewed the existing literature on social capital
measures, concentrating on measures that have been eval-
uated for reliability and validity (Krishna and Shrader
1999; O’Brien and others 2004; Onyx and Bullen 2001;
Stone and Hughes 2002). Based on this literature review
we included three dimensions of social capital: trust, rules
and reciprocity, and communication quality and quantity.
As previously indicated, an important aspect of social
capital is social networks, but time and resource constraints
prevented a comprehensive network analysis. Instead we
used communication quality as a proxy for network quality
because social networks are ‘‘produced through commu-
nication’’ and in turn, ‘‘determine the communication of its
members’’ (Pace and Faules 1994).
For each of the three social capital dimensions we
selected and developed measures that were relevant to a
group-level measure of social capital. The majority of
items were based on a 7-point Likert-like scale in which
response values were: 1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat,
7 = to a great extent. This allowed us to determine the
extent to which respondents felt each statement described
the participants of the group. (For the specific items used
for each dimension, refer to the tables in the results
section). For each dimension of social capital, we created
an index, calculated as the mean score of the component
items for each social capital dimension. For total social
capital, the index was the mean of all social capital metrics.
We submitted the survey instrument for review by
scholars of social capital and community-based collabora-
tion. We also pilot tested the survey on 2 collaborative
groups outside of the study area (52 respondents), after
which we made revisions to improve the survey’s appli-
cability and clarity.
Additional survey sections asked respondents about their
perceptions of group success (3-item mean composite
index; 7-point Likert like scale: 1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree) (Table 2), conflict [3-item mean com-
posite index; 7-point Likert like scale: 1 = not at all (i.e. no
conflict), 7 = to a great extent (i.e. high conflict)]
(Table 2), participant activeness [3 items: number of years
an individual has participated with the group (fill in the
blank), number of meetings attended per year, number of
group activities (e.g. field trips) attended per year (6-point
Likert like scale; 1 = 0 times, 6 = more than once a
week)], similar values and beliefs (3-item mean composite
index; 7-point Likert like scale: 1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree) (Table 2), previous collaboration
experience [2 part question: (a) have you participated with
any other collaborative group before you began participat-
ing with the group? (yes/no), (b) if yes, how many?], and
stakeholder diversity (respondent checked the stakeholder
group they represented). Group stakeholder diversity was
measured by calculating a Brillouin’s diversity index for
each group, which considers both richness (i.e., the number
of different stakeholder groups involved) and evenness (i.e.,
the distribution of participants among the stakeholder cat-
egories). The formula for Brillouin’s Index is:
H ¼ ln N!�X
ln ni!ð Þ
N where, N is the total number of observations, and ni is
the number of observations in category i (Brillouin 1956).
We determined group age (length of years group has
been active) from group informants and records, and group
size (number of participants involved) by identifying par-
ticipants from the group mailing list, checking the accuracy
of the mailing list with group informants, and excluding
individuals that did not attend at least one group meeting.
Using Dillman’s tailored design method (Dillman 2000),
we sent questionnaires to all participants of the 10 study
groups, as identified from group mailing lists. Participants
involved with more than 1 group in our sample received
multiple surveys, 1 for each group in which they partici-
pated. In all we sent out a total of 422 surveys to 339
people. We revised the participant lists to exclude indi-
viduals who never attended a group meeting based on
636 Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645
123
respondents’ answers to the question of how many meet-
ings were attended. From the 10 groups included in the
analysis, we received 181 completed surveys for an overall
response rate of 53%. Individual group samples sizes for
the 10 groups ranged from 3–56 respondents and response
rates ranged from 27–77%.
We conducted a non-response bias analysis to deter-
mine whether non-respondents differed from respondents.
We used a stratified random sampling procedure to select
10% of the non-respondents from the 8 groups that had
response rates below 65%. We phone surveyed the non-
respondents and compared their responses to respondents
for 4 items. Differences between respondents and non-
respondents for all items were not statistically significant
(P [ 0.05) and had small to medium Cohen’s D effect
sizes (0.06 to 0.67). Thus we concluded our sample was
representative and we could generalize to the group
(Cohen 1988).
Interviews
In order to validate and enrich the survey data, we inter-
viewed 12 participants selected from the groups in our
study. We selected group participants who had compre-
hensive knowledge of a particular group or who were
actively involved in numerous groups. Interviews were
semi-structured and focused on the change in group par-
ticipants’ relationships over time. Interviews included 6
broad questions with several optional probing questions
and covered how and why the respondent became involved
in the group, the respondent’s perceptions of changes in
relationships among group participants over time, their
perceptions of changes in relationships between the group
and other community groups or agencies over time, their
views on what they had personally gained by participating,
and what kind of impact, if any, they perceived the group
had on the larger community.
Table 2 Scale assessment for initial and current ‘‘trust,’’ ‘‘rules and reciprocity,’’ ‘‘communication quality,’’ ‘‘values and beliefs,’’ ‘‘conflict,’’
and ‘‘success’’ items
Index Item Cronbach’s Alpha
Initial Current
Trust Were honest .94 .97
Could be trusted
Were true to their word
Rules and reciprocity Worked according to common ground rules .95 .95
Returned acts of good will
Were helpful
Were committed
Recognized group value
Showed concern for group welfare
Were willing to compromise
Shared resources
Shared information
Communication quality Were willing to listen .93 .94
Respected others’ viewpoints
Considered all input equally
Communicated openly
Total social capital All items included in Trust, Rules and Reciprocity and Communication Quality .98 .98
Values and beliefs Shared similar values .94 .96
Shared similar opinions
Shared similar goals
Conflict Stakeholder groups differ dramatically in what they think are acceptable actions .81
Individual stakeholders differ dramatically in what they think are acceptable actions
Disputes among stakeholders have disrupted the collaborative process
Success Group was successful in fulfilling its purpose .86
Group found common solutions to its problems
Group has taken actions to implement key agreements
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645 637
123
Data Analysis
Statistical Analysis
We examined the relationship between current levels and
change over time of group social capital dimensions and
the following group characteristics: success, conflict,
activeness, previous collaborative group experience,
stakeholder diversity, group size, group age, similar values
and beliefs, and initial levels of social capital. Due to the
small number of groups in our sample and the small
number of individuals and respondents in some groups, we
pooled all participants from all groups and analyzed them
together. To examine group characteristic variables that are
based on the perceptions or behaviors of individual
respondents within each group (success, conflict, collabo-
ration experience, similar values and beliefs, and measures
of activeness), we used the participants’ survey responses.
To evaluate the effects of group-level characteristics such
as diversity, group age and group size on individual-level
social capital, we calculated a single value for each group.
Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 17.0. For
all analyses, relationships were deemed statistically sig-
nificant at P \ .05.
Predicting Current Levels of Social Capital
Because some independent variables were measured or
calculated at the group level, with no within-group varia-
tion (diversity, group age, and group size), while others
were based on the perceptions or behaviors of individual
respondents (success, conflict, collaboration experience,
similar values and beliefs, and measures of activeness), we
conducted our analysis in two stages. First, we conducted a
multiple regression to examine the relationship between
group characteristics measured at the group level and
current social capital (n = 10 groups). We examined 4
models, 1 for each of the 3 dimensions of social capital,
and a fourth model in which a total social capital index (the
combined total of the 3 social capital dimensions) was the
dependent variable.
Second, we used the general linear model (GLM) pro-
cedure in SPSS to assess the relationship between the
remaining independent variables, measured at the individ-
ual level, and current social capital. In order to account for
potential correlations among responses from participants
within the same group, we treated group as a random
factor, and the remaining independent variables as covar-
iates. In these analyses, current social capital was the
dependent variable, and the independent variables were the
group participant’s perceptions of group success and con-
flict, his/her activeness in the group, previous experience
with collaborative groups, similar values and beliefs, and
initial social capital. Using this approach, we examined the
same 4 models described for stage one.
We also conducted a simple mediation analysis using a
macro written for SPSS (Preacher and Hays 2004) to
determine the degree to which the relationship between our
predictor (initial social capital) and criterion (current total
social capital index) was mediated by success. The macro
conducts a series of regression analyses and estimates the
total, direct, and indirect effects of the predictor variable on
the outcome variable through the proposed mediator vari-
able. It also calculates the Sobel test for significance of the
indirect effect, as well as an effect size measure (Fairchild
and others 2009). This analysis was conducted after our
initial results revealed that both success and initial social
capital were significantly related to all social capital
measures.
Predicting Change in Social Capital Over Time
We examined the relationship between the change in social
capital over time and the group characteristics using the
same two-stage approach described above. The difference
between initial and current levels of social capital was
calculated as the current social capital score minus the
initial social capital score, creating a variable that varied
from -7 to ?7, with ?7 representing the maximum
potential increase in social capital and -7 representing the
maximum potential decrease in social capital over time. As
with our analysis of current levels of social capital, we
conducted a mediation analysis to determine whether suc-
cess mediated the relationship between initial social capital
and change in social capital over time.
Interview Analysis
Following transcription of all recorded interviews, we
deductively coded (Coffey and Atkinson 1996) all inter-
views using NVivo, a qualitative software package
(NVIVO QSR revision 1.2, QSR International Pty, Vic-
toria Australia, 1999–2000). Deductive codes were based
on survey items and included group characteristics such
as success, conflict, activeness, and diversity, and
dimensions of social capital such as trust, reciprocity, and
networks. The coded data were analyzed by reading
through the codes looking for emergent sub-themes.
Specifically, we searched for sub-themes that would
provide explanation for our survey results, and further,
that would provide insight into why group characteristics
were associated with the development, or lack of devel-
opment, of social capital.
638 Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645
123
Results
Predicting Current Levels of Social Capital
Success, initial social capital, and collaboration experience
significantly predicted current levels of social capital
(P \ .05) (Table 3). Success and initial social capital pre-
dicted all 3 dimensions of social capital. When we con-
ducted a mediation analysis, we found that the relationship
between initial social capital and current social capital was
partially mediated by success (Table 4), and this indirect
effect was significant. Using Fairchild and others’s effect
size measure, 45% of the variation in total current social
capital was accounted for by success. Success had a posi-
tive relationship with all social capital measures, which
suggests that as the participants’ perceptions of group
success increased, their level of social capital also
increased. Collaboration experience was negatively asso-
ciated with trust, indicating that participants with past
experience in many collaborative groups were less trusting
of other participants than participants with little previous
collaborative experience. None of the group characteristics
(diversity, age or size) was significantly associated with
any social capital measure (Table 5). Overall, initial levels
of social capital and perceived success were the variables
most significantly correlated with current levels of social
capital.
Predicting Change in Social Capital Over Time
Success and initial social capital were significant predictors
of an increase in social capital over time (p \ .05)
(Table 6). Our mediation analysis showed that the rela-
tionship between initial social capital and change in social
capital over time was weakly but significantly mediated by
success (Table 7). Fairchild’s approach indicated that 20%
of the variation in the change in social capital over time
was accounted for by success. As with current levels of
social capital, group diversity, age and size were not sig-
nificantly related to change over time in any social capital
measure (Table 8).
Discussion
This study explored the effect of community-based col-
laborative group characteristics on the current level, and
changes over time, in group social capital. We predicted
Table 3 Predicting the influence of success, conflict, activeness (mean number of years in the group, mean number of meetings attended, mean
number of activities attended), previous collaboration experience, similar values and beliefs, and initial social capital on current levels of social
capital using four models
Current level of social capital
Trust Rules and reciprocity Communication quality Total social capital
b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
Success .464 .072 6.461a .430 .068 6.307a .562 .072 7.810a .465 .063 7.341a
Conflict .038 .063 .596 -.046 .064 -.714 .049 .064 .762 .002 .058 .039
# of Years in group -.033 .029 -1.174 .004 .027 .138 -.017 .028 -.602 -.007 .025 -.265
# of Meetings attended .086 .088 .981 .011 .083 .136 .038 .086 .446 .030 .077 .398
# of Activities attended -.013 .088 -.152 .021 .082 .256 .077 .086 .900 .030 .076 .395
Collaboration experience -.067 .027 -2.465a -.026 .026 -.982 -.001 .027 -.039 -.025 .024 -1.027
Similar values and beliefs -.090 .071 -1.254 -.112 .073 -1.533 -.056 .077 -.728 -.106 .069 -1.538
Initial social capital .531 .074 7.160a .416 .099 4.216a .378 .085 4.450a .453 .091 4.992a
In all models, group is treated as a random factor and the remaining independent variables as covariates. N = 136 participants in 10 community-
based collaborative resource management groupsa Significant at P \ .05
Table 4 Mediation analysis to assess the role of perceived success as a potential mediator in the relationship between initial social capital and
current social capital
Coefficient SE t P-value
Effect of initial SC on current SC .7254 .0475 15.2651 .000
Effect of success on current SC .6756 .0696 9.7080 .000
Effect of success on current SC, controlling for initial SC .3452 .0494 6.9820 .000
Effect of initial SC on current SC, controlling for success .4922 .0530 9.2872 .000
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645 639
123
that groups’ perceived success, conflict, activeness, stake-
holder diversity, previous collaboration experience, simi-
larity of values and beliefs, size, age, and initial social
capital would be associated with the level and development
of social capital within the study groups. We found that
perceived success and initial levels of social capital were
most strongly associated with the level and change over
time of group social capital. In addition, initial levels of
social capital partially explained perceptions of group
success. Collaboration experience was negatively associ-
ated with current levels of trust.
Generalizations from these findings to other collabora-
tive groups should be made cautiously. We included only
10 groups in our analysis, and these groups do not represent
a random sample of community-based collaborative
groups. Further, we surveyed only group participants, and
Table 5 Predicting the influence of stakeholder diversity, group size and group age on current levels of social capital using four multiple
regression models
Current level of social capital
Trust Rules and reciprocity Communication quality Total social capital
.22a .09 .15 .13
b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
Stakeholder diversity .295 .901 .625 .434 .987 .850 .381 1.005 .772 .398 .971 .795
Group size -1.092 .013 -1.880 -1.041 .014 -1.655 -.976 .015 -1.605 -1.041 .014 -1.691
Group age -.394 .082 -.976 -.259 .090 -.592 -.127 .092 -.300 -.251 .089 -.586
N = 10 community-based collaborative resource management groupsa Adjusted R2
Table 6 Predicting the influence of success, conflict, activeness (mean number of years in the group, mean number of meetings attended, mean
number of activities attended), previous collaboration experience, similar values and beliefs, and initial social capital on change in social capital
over time using four models
Change in social capital over time
Trust Rules and reciprocity Communication quality Total social capital
b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
Success .464 .072 6.461a .430 .068 6.307a .044 .648 .069a .465 .063 7.341a
Conflict .038 .063 .596 -.046 .064 -.714 .562 .072 7.810 .002 .058 .039
# of Years in group -.033 .029 -1.174 .004 .027 .138 .049 .064 .762 -.007 .025 -.265
# of Meetings attended .086 .088 .981 .011 .083 .136 -.017 .028 -.602 .030 .077 .398
# of Activities attended -.013 .088 -.152 .021 .082 .256 .038 .086 .446 .030 .076 .395
Collaboration experience -.067 .027 -2.465 -.026 .026 -.982 .077 .086 .900 -.025 .024 -1.027
Similar values and beliefs -.090 .071 -1.254 -.112 .073 -1.533 -.001 .027 -.039 -.106 .069 -1.538
Initial social capital -.469 .074 -6.332a -.584 .099 -5.918a -.056 .077 -.728a -.547 .091 -6.019a
In all models, group is treated as a random factor and the remaining independent variables as covariates. N = 136 participants in 10 community-
based collaborative resource management groupsa Significant at P \ .05
Table 7 Mediation analysis to assess role of perceived success as a potential mediator in the relationship between initial social capital and the
change in social capital over time
Coefficient SE t P-value
Effect of initial SC on change in SC -.2776 .0470 -5.9075 .0000
Effect of success on change in SC .6910 .0699 9.8849 .0000
Effect of success on change in SC, controlling for initial SC .3360 .0477 7.0457 .0000
Effect of initial SC on change in SC, controlling for success -.5097 .0525 -9.7152 .0000
640 Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645
123
did not include non-participants, which could lead to more
extreme views of group success and interpersonal trust
(Leach 2002). Nevertheless, these findings help refine
social capital theory as it relates to CBCRM specifically,
and offer practical implications for community-based col-
laborations. Specifically, our research suggests that the
outcomes of social interactions in CBCRM settings sig-
nificantly affect the extent to which social capital develops.
Success
This study shows that participants’ perceptions of group
success are significantly correlated with their perceptions
of group social capital. These findings are consistent with
the literature that suggests that small but consistent suc-
cesses keep people at the collaborative table (Wondolleck
and Yaffee 2000). Our findings indicate that collaborative
groups may develop different levels of social capital
depending on their perceived level of success. This is not to
say that unsuccessful groups do not build any social capital,
but rather that groups build the most social capital when
they are perceived as successful by participants. If a given
group does not make tangible progress towards goals, then
listening, communicating, and understanding other’s
viewpoints do not seem to be sufficient to build significant
social capital. Though theory suggests success will
encourage social capital development, results from at least
one recent study do not support this relationship. Leach and
Sabatier (2005) concluded that success (measured as
agreements reached and restoration projects implemented)
did not have a significant feedback effect on trust and
social capital. Our results generally contradict this finding,
and support the theory that success, as perceived by par-
ticipants, helps build social capital.
Interviews also supported the finding that perceived
success helps develop social capital. Interviewees com-
monly voiced the opinion that success is important for
building social capital. For example, past experiences of
finding common solutions or making agreements, can help
to build trust and expectations of reciprocity. As one par-
ticipant commented, ‘‘It is kind of having it in the back of
your mind, oh we have done this before and we will work it
out again.’’ Success in implementing an agreement may
also help to build trust. For example, one group coopera-
tively designed a research program to answer questions that
stemmed from two conflicting viewpoints on a contentious
wildlife and grazing issue. One participant commented, the
success of designing and implementing the research pro-
gram, ‘‘helped the trust immeasurably, to get past posi-
tioning to real data.’’ These examples confirm prior
research and experience. For instance, in the case studies
reviewed by Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000), successful
collaborations were ‘‘structured to provide participants
with an early tangible success: They started small, pro-
duced results, and went on to bigger issues and efforts. By
taking small steps, success was more likely’’ (p.187).
In turn, being unsuccessful may negatively affect social
capital. For example, a participant of a group commented,
‘‘I think that because the [group] has realized that
they have kind of come to the end of the rope and not
accomplished what they were thinking they were
going to accomplish, I think that has led to a little loss
of respect for the [agency].’’
Initial Social Capital and Previous Collaboration
Experience
Initial levels of social capital were associated with the
current level of social capital and with changes in social
capital over time. Initial social capital was positively
associated with current social capital and negatively asso-
ciated with changes in social capital over time. Initial
social capital may be beyond the immediate control of the
Table 8 Predicting the influence of stakeholder diversity, group size and group age on change in social capital over time using four multiple
regression models
Change in of social capital over time
Trust Rules and reciprocity Communication quality Total social capital
-.42a -.13 .27 -.09
b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
Stakeholder diversity .291 .603 .456 .572 .395 1.007 .789 .459 1.721 .613 .433 1.095
Group size -.326 .009 -.414 -.188 .006 -.269 -.203 .007 -.360 -.238 .006 -.345
Group age .001 .055 .002 .261 .036 .537 .397 .042 1.011 .259 .040 .542
N = 10 community-based collaborative resource management groupsa Adjusted R2
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645 641
123
group. Beginning levels of social capital are difficult to
change because they are the initial conditions that the
group has to deal with from the start of the collaborative
process. Perhaps the only way to change the level of social
capital at the inception of a collaborative group would be to
take steps to develop social capital before the group’s work
actually begins.
If collaboration builds social capital, we would expect
individuals with more collaborative experience to express
higher levels of trust in other participants and other social
capital dimensions, than participants without previous
collaboration experience. We found that previous collab-
oration experience was an important predictor of current
levels of trust, though not in the direction we hypothesized.
In this study, previous collaboration experience was neg-
atively associated with trust, which suggests that individ-
uals with previous collaboration experience were less
trusting of other participants than those with little or no
previous collaboration experience. Theory suggests it takes
time to develop trust, and if the previous collaboration
experience was with the same participants (as was often the
case in our study groups), this experience may represent
additional opportunities for interaction, through which trust
could be built. Data from our interviews support this view,
and are at odds with our survey results. For example, one
participant who has worked with the same agency in two
consecutive groups commented,
‘‘I think that [the previous group] has helped because
now [in the current group] I have more appreciation
for what the agency has to try and do, and I have a
new respect for what they have to deal with.’’
Another participant commented,
‘‘I think without the training that occurred in those
[previous groups], this [group] would have not been
possible. Without a lot of the work that went into the
early years of the [previous groups], the hard work of
banging heads and trying to come up with some
agreements, I’m not sure this [group] would have
been possible or lasted as long as it has, if it wasn’t
for the history of those [previous groups].’’
Interviews also suggested that previous collaboration
experience with different participants could also affect
trust. When asked if their previous collaboration experi-
ence influenced their ability to work together in a current
group, one participant commented,
‘‘I think it helped because it is a learning process. I
think that the more you work at this, the better you
get at it, at trying to look at different points of view,
and trying to help come up with a solution….I think
over time, you get into groups and you can take ideas
that you’ve learned in other groups and apply it. You
become better at trying to come up with solutions.’’
Further research is needed to understand our findings
that show a negative relationship between previous col-
laboration experience and development of trust. Perhaps
individuals involved with numerous collaborative groups
become less trusting over time. Alternatively, these indi-
viduals may be less trusting to begin with, and choose to be
involved in numerous groups for fear of decisions being
made without their input. Our results somewhat support the
findings of Berardo (2009), who found that network density
was not necessarily the best predictor of trust, leading him
to question whether trust is an essential ingredient in
collaboration.
Stakeholder Diversity, Similarity of Values and Beliefs,
Number of Years in a Group, Group Size, Age, and
Activeness
Stakeholder diversity, similarity of values and beliefs,
years in the group, group size, age and activeness did not
predict current social capital or changes in social capital
over time in this study. One interview respondent explained
why stakeholder diversity may not matter:
‘‘I don’t think the diversity [of the stakeholders] has
much to do with it. Because as long as you have
[stakeholder group A] and [stakeholder group B] at
the table, that is where the conflict is coming from. I
don’t care if the [stakeholder group C] folks are there,
I don’t care if the [stakeholder group D] folks are
there, it doesn’t change the conflict dynamic between
[stakeholder group A and B] at all.’’
In this case, the level of social capital within the
group was clearly restricted by the presence of two
particular stakeholder groups, regardless of the total
number of stakeholder groups involved. Further research
is needed to examine the tradeoffs between group size,
stakeholder diversity, and the level and development of
social capital.
In our survey, participant activeness in terms of the
frequency, duration, and type of interaction among partic-
ipants was not significantly associated with the level of
social capital. However, some interview responses sug-
gested that frequency and duration of interaction can affect
social capital passively. For example, one participant
commented,
‘‘I think you develop a relationship whether you like
it or not. You start to understand how they think and
where they are coming from if you spend very much
time with them.’’
642 Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645
123
Is frequency or duration of participant interaction more
important for social capital development? One participant
seemed to think they were fairly equal and commented,
‘‘I’ve known [participant A] for a long time, but we
haven’t spent a lot of time together in meetings. And
then [participant B], I haven’t known for very long,
but we have spent a lot of time together in meet-
ings…I would put them actually pretty similar in
terms of my relationship with them. We have famil-
iarity, there is a certain level of trust, maybe not a
very high level of trust, but we can definitely con-
verse easily without too much tension…That’s
interesting, I don’t see a big difference between those
two relationships.’’
Further research could explore whether frequency of
interactions or duration of relationships provides greater or
more quality opportunities for social capital development.
Interviews also suggested that the type of interaction
may affect social capital development. Some participants
felt that activities such as field trips were beneficial for
social capital development. Field trips provided opportu-
nities for socialization outside of group meetings that
allowed participants to exchange information and explain
where they are coming from, and as one participant noted,
‘‘actually tie it to the ground.’’ Another participant
commented,
‘‘The [group] did go out on field trips together. I think
that was a tremendous help, to go out and look at sites
and look at the habitat. We actually went out on
several tours and actually looked at different areas
and I think that helped a lot.’’
However, other participants felt such activities did not
make a significant difference. One participant commented,
‘‘I think this group could meet outside for a year and
not get anywhere. I think it helps, but it is certainly
not the silver bullet, get outside and everything is
going to be better.’’
Conclusion
Research has suggested that social capital may facilitate
collaboration and in turn, collaboration may build social
capital. However, little research has sought to address the
question of why some CBCRM groups build constructive
and valuable connections while others are unable to build
trust and form new relationships. By examining group
characteristics, this study sought to uncover potential cat-
alysts and barriers to the development of productive and
meaningful connections among participants in CBCRM
groups.
This research suggests that the level and development of
social capital in a CBCRM group is associated with certain
group characteristics. We found that groups that are per-
ceived as successful, start off with social capital, and lack
previous collaboration experience are most likely to have
and develop high levels of trust, strong norms of reci-
procity, and quality network connections. Group size, age,
activeness, conflict, and similarity of values and beliefs
were not associated with social capital in our study. These
results suggest that the outcomes of interactions within
collaborative groups may be more important for develop-
ing social capital than the duration or frequency of inter-
actions, the diversity of participants, their associated values
and beliefs, group conflict, or the size of the group.
For CBCRM practitioners, our most important finding
may be the association between perceived success and
social capital. Is collaboration a worthwhile investment
because of the social relationships it may build, even when
agreements are not reached or are not implemented? Our
research suggests that it may not be. In this study, social
capital development depended largely on the perceived
success of the group. Groups that feel they are making
progress towards or attaining their goals develop more
social capital than groups that perceive themselves as
unsuccessful in achieving their objectives. These findings
imply that if collaborative groups want to build social
capital, they must achieve tangible outcomes, such as
reaching agreements and implementing actions on the
ground.
The relationship between collaboration and social cap-
ital is complex. While group characteristics such as par-
ticipants’ collaboration experience may contribute to low
levels of or declines in social capital, high levels of social
capital seem to require progress towards group goals. It is
generally accepted that social capital facilitates collabora-
tion, innovation, and adaptation. The question remains,
how much social capital is needed to achieve these
benefits?
Collaborative processes continue to be important for
managing natural resource conflicts. Building social capital
to facilitate these processes is crucial to their effectiveness,
and CBCRM practitioners need effective tools to develop
trust and norms of reciprocity and forge strong relation-
ships among group members. This study has provided
insight into some of the group characteristics associated
with social capital development. Continued research into
the complex relationship between collaboration and social
capital will help increase the efficacy of collaborative
processes as well as our understanding of their broader
benefits to society.
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645 643
123
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Colorado
Agricultural Experiment Station. We thank the collaborative group
members who responded to our survey and participated in interviews
as well as the two anonymous reviewers who provided extensive
comments on our initial manuscript. We also thank Drs.Tara Teel,
Jerry Vaske, and Jim Zumbrennen for their consultations on our
statistical analysis.
References
Adger W (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to
climate change. Economic Geography 79:387–404
Agrawal A (2002) Common resources and institutional sustainability.
In: Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern PC, Stonich S, Weber EU
(eds) The drama of the commons. National Academy Press,
Washington DC, pp 41–85
Berardo R (2009) Generalized trust in multi-organizational policy
arenas: studying its emergence from a network perspective.
Policy Research Quarterly 62(1):178–189
Brillouin L (1956) Science and information theory. Academic Press,
New York, pp 31–56, 333 pp
Burt RS (2001) Structural holes versus network closure as social
capital. In: Lin N, Cook K, Burt R (eds) Social capital: theory
and research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 31–56, 333 pp
Carr DS, Selin S, Schuett MA (1998) Managing public forests:
understanding the role of collaborative planning. Environmental
Management 22:767–776
Coffey A, Atkinson P (1996) Making sense of qualitative data:
complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, 206 pp
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 567 pp
Coleman J (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital.
Journal of Sociology 94(Supplement):S95–S120
Conley A, Moote MA (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural
resource management. Society and Natural Resources 16:
371–386
Daniels S, Walker G (2001) Working through environmental conflict:
the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport, 299 pp
Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design
method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, 464 pp
Eastis C (1998) Organizational diversity and the production of social
capital. American Behavioral Scientist 42:66–77
Eisenhower D, Mathiowetz N, Morganstein D (2004) Recall error:
sources and bias reduction techniques. In: Biemer P, Groves R,
Lyberg L, Mathiowetz N, Sudman S (eds) Measurement errors in
surveys. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Hoboken, pp 127–144
Fairchild AJ, MacKinnon DP, Torbaga MP, Taylor AB (2009) R2
effect-size measures for mediation analysis. Behavior Research
Methods 41:486–498
Krishna A, Shrader E (1999) Social capital assessment tool. In: Paper
read at conference on social capital and poverty reduction, at
Washington DC
Leach WD (2002) Surveying diverse stakeholder groups. Society and
Natural Resources 15:641–649
Leach WD, Pelkey N (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a
review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management 127:378–385
Leach W, Sabatier PA (2003) Building trust within community-based
collaboratives: watershed partnerships in California and Wash-
ington. In: Paper read at evaluating methods and environmental
outcomes of community-based collaborative process, at Snow-
bird, UT
Leach W, Sabatier PA (2005) Are trust and social capital the keys to
success? Watershed partnerships in California and Washington.
In: Sabatier P, Focht W, Lubell W, Trachtenberg Z, Matlock A
(eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to
watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–260
Leana CR, Van Buren HJ III (1999) Organizational social capital and
employment practices. Academy of Management Review
24:538–555
Libecap GD (1995) The conditions for successful collective action.
In: Keohane RO, Ostrom E (eds) Local commons and global
interdependence; heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 161–190
NVIVO. QSR revision 1.2, QSU International Pty, Victoria Australia,
1999–2000
O’Brien M, Burdsal C, Molgaard C (2004) Further development of an
Australian-based measure of social capital in a US sample.
Social Science and Medicine 59:1207–1217
O’Leary R, Bingham L (eds) (2003) The promise and performance of
environmental conflict resolution. Resources for the Future,
Washington DC, 368 pp
Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action; public goods and the
theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA,
186 pp
Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social-ecological transformation
for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-
management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden.
Ecology and Society 9(4):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol9/iss4/art2
Onyx J, Bullen P (2001) The different faces of social capital in NSW
Australia. In: Dekker P, Uslaner E (eds) Social capital and
participation in everyday life. Routledge, London, pp 45–58,
224 pp
Ostrom E (1997) Investing in capital, institutions, and incentives. In:
Clague C (ed) Institutions and economic development: growth
and governance in less-developed and post-Socialist countries.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 153–181, 390 pp
Ostrom E (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory
of collective action. The American Political Science Review
92:1–22
Pace R, Faules D (1994) Organizational communication, 3rd edn.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 386 pp
Preacher KJ, Hays AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 36(4):717–731
Pretty J, Ward H (2001) Social capital and the environment. World
Development 29:209–227
Putnam RD (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in
modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 258 pp
Scholz J, Berardo R, Kile B (2008) Do networks solve collective
action problems? Credibility, search and collaboration. The
Journal of Politics 70(2):393–406
Schuett MA, Selin S (2002) Profiling collaborative natural resource
initiatives and active participants. Northern Journal of Applied
Forestry 19:155–160
Selin S, Schuett MA, Carr DS (2000) Modeling stakeholder
perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Society
and Natural Resources 13:735–745
Sobels J, Curtis A, Lockie S (2001) The role of Landcare group
networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social
capital. Journal of Rural Studies 17:265–276
Stone W, Hughes J (2002) Social capital: empirical meaning and
measurement validity. Research Paper No. 27. Melbourne:
Australian Institute of Family Studies, 64 pp
Sturtevant V, Horton R (2000) Revisiting community capacity: five
years after FEMAT: insights from case studies of Rogue River
644 Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645
123
National Forest communities. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station
Taylor M, Singleton S (1993) The communal resource: transaction
costs and solution of collective action problems. Politics &
Society 21:195–214
Wagner CL, Fernandez-Gimenez ME (2008) Does collaboration build
social capital? Society and Natural Resources 21:324–344
Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work:
lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island
Press, Washington DC, 277 pp
Environmental Management (2009) 44:632–645 645
123