Protecting ecosystems: network structure and social capital mobilization

Protecting ecosystems: networkstructure and social capitalmobilization

Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes

Abstract The research reported here explores a community that amassed

social capital in effective and diverse ways, enabling it to fight a

corporate giant and protect critical, large watersheds. We explore

how the dynamic interaction between network formation and

network structure augmented community social capital, particularly

bridging, for increased access to human and economic capital.

Network structure(s) can create enabling conditions for the

mobilization of social capital within communities and for people to

feel empowered to act. The research suggests that there is an

opportunity for policy-makers to learn what kinds of policies can

enhance or destroy existing social capital in a community.

Introduction

This community is one of Canada’s most geographically unique places,

with pristine landscapes, a diversity of academics, artists, and musicians,

with high levels of social and human capital. It also has, however, atypical

access to financial resources, which cannot be discounted as a major factor

in an ultimately successful campaign and maintaining critical momentum

in a long, conflict-ridden campaign in which it engaged.

This community rallied together to combat a seemingly ‘evil corporate

developer’ who wanted to capitalize on some of the last remaining pristine

watersheds associated with their community. Like many other small com-

munities near large urban centres, it was facing a decline in its surrounding

ecological capital for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was conti-

nuing in-migration because of its natural setting and beauty. However, these

same attributes paradoxically put increasing pressure on the very qualities

Community Development Journal Vol 43 No 2 April 2008 pp. 143–156 143

& Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2007

All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/cdj/bsm007

Advance Access publication 26 April 2007

at Universidade de B

rasÃlia on A

pril 29, 2014http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/

that attracted people to the area, thus making what remained of the water-

sheds even more precious.

The anonymity of the people interviewed and the location of the commu-

nity was the pre-condition of the interviewees’ agreement to participate in

this research. For this reason, the case study is written to share the research

and learning, yet preserve the details and identity of the community and

people involved in this particular campaign. The two parties are referred

to throughout the text as ‘the community’ and ‘the Corporation’. The cam-

paign centred on the community’s interest to protect two major watersheds

from development. The goal was to curtail the activities of the Corporation,

which had lawfully purchased the watershed lands, by first clear-cutting

and selling the timber from these lands, and second, by building a

housing development in the clear-cut area.

Methodology

Interview methodology

Semi-structured interviews were conducted over three years, using snow-

ball sampling to identify key stakeholders. A workshop was organized in

February 2002 with some of the key activists involved in this campaign.

Next, key community network organizers were identified and contacted

to examine the network formation behind the campaign. Although the sub-

sequent sample size for the case study was small, data triangulation with a

graduate student’s research, our interviewing, and network mapping from

these three data sources augmented research confidence levels that decisive

network formations were correctly identified.

A first round of semi-structured interviews was conducted in September

2002 with ten key community members. Interview information was docu-

mented and the network and organizational relationships of each inter-

viewee mapped. The organizational maps from the first two sets of

interviews were merged to create a holistic picture of the community’s

network formation, which subsequently identified the key strategic

fronts of the campaign. This socio-organizational mapping allowed

the research team to determine overlapping network memberships and

intra-organizational relationships and, most critically, to identify key

nodes and connectors working across the different networks. From this,

it was possible to develop a snapshot of the general campaign leaders

and linkages, and subsequent interviewing validated researcher obser-

vations about what worked and what did not work. Specifically, the

mapping illuminated critical node/connectors, key contributors to the

campaign’s success, and subsequently, how social capital was mobilized

both within and between networks.

144 Ann Dale and Jennie Sparkes


rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


A second round of interviews was conducted in May 2003 with the

triangulated data to identify six critical nodes and connectors identified

through the previous work, and a final network mapping completed, given

as Appendix A. In total, sixteen community members were interviewed

from a diverse cross-section of the campaign stakeholders. Interviewees

included artists, government officials, and community members ranging

from front-line activists, farmers, scientists, fundraisers, former communi-

cations experts, financial analysts, and entertainers. Because of the rich intel-

lectual capital and diversity of expertises, this campaign, unlike others,

involved very sophisticated, multi-faceted plans, including a sustained

public relations and communications component. Three main network for-

mations were involved.

Social capital

Social capital occurs at multiple levels and implies that there are aspects of

social structure and organization that act as resources for individuals, allowing

them to realize their personal aims and interests (Portes, 2000; Pretty and

Smith, 2004, p. 633). For this research, social capital is defined as the trust-based

relationships that draw people together to pursue shared beliefs, values, and

norms, potentially resulting in collective action towards specific outcomes,

in this case study – conservation objectives. Schwartz (2006, p. 1550) argues

that a focus on developing conservation social capital – rallying the public

around the need to take conservation of biodiversity seriously – may

suggest a shift in conservation emphasis not entirely based on ecosystem

targets and wildland objectives. This conservation emphasis takes form,

instead, as social targets and community objectives. The strength, or

wealth, within conservation-focused social capital becomes the formation

of networks that enable citizens to embrace personal responsibility for the

protection of natural places.

Looking at social capital more broadly, it is important to distinguish

between the different kinds of social capital that are at play within any

social context, such as bonding, bridging, and linking social capital.

Bonding, bridging, and linking social capital are each characterized by

differing types of ties within their networks. Generally, bonding social

capital is viewed as having ‘strong’ or ‘thick’ ties, while bridging and

linking social capital are characterized by ‘weak’ or ‘thin’ ties (Narayan,

1999; Onyx and Bullen, 2000; Putnam, 2001; Woolcock, 2001). Bonding

social capital refers to the close relations usually experienced among

family members, physically proximate friends, and neighbours (Woolcock,

2001). The networks that are highly personal thus tend to be closed to those

people with interests and affiliations in common. These networks are often

Protecting ecosystems 145


rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


less diverse and not open to the views of ‘others’ outside the network.

The adhesive within these networks is a sense of deep trust held among

the network’s members, a trust that is often highly relational, personalized,

and thus, has a potential for conflict when either trust or commonalities

break down. Once trust is built between individuals, it is possible to

engage in less personal exchanges based on reciprocity. This reciprocity

creates social obligations (Gambetta, 1988) between individuals and

between networks. Trust operates the same way as the concept of strong

and weak ties, in that trust can also be either thick or thin.

Bridging social capital can be characterized by horizontally linked

relationships between networks held together by bonding social capital,

and the relationships tend to be more impersonal as the linkages are estab-

lished for strategic reasons. Bridging social capital is often characterized by

weak and opportunistic ties that facilitate access to resources and opportu-

nities that exist in other networks. Here, trust is often more thinly held.

Bridging occurs when one member of one network connects with a

member of another network (Granovetter, 1973). Often, these bridges link

networks within one community to more diverse resources normally una-

vailable in their community (Woolcock, 2001, p. 13).

Linking social capital connects community to the political and financial

decision-makers. Linking social capital is also characterized by weak and

opportunistic ties and is viewed as ‘the capacity [for a community] to

lever resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond

the community’ (Woolcock, 2001, p. 13).

Two additional concepts associated with social capital are as follows:

1. social capital does not always encourage positive adaptation in

communities or in their networks; for example, a group that has

strong levels of bonded social capital may have very few bridges

or links to other networks; and

2. social capital does not necessarily contribute to the density of over-

lapping relationships; for example, high levels of social capital can

exist within groups of gangsters, but few people would consider

these groups to be a positive contributor to the larger community.

An important point that relates to network diversity and structure is the

concept of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ networks. In Figure 1, each letter represents

an individual or node of individuals, while the lines represent communication

channels (networks). The closed circuit of network links enables flow, and

feedback of information shared among members of the network. This is not

the case in open structures in which direction is provided to a series of individ-

uals, however, these individuals do not know who the others are or what infor-

mation they may know (Coleman, 2000). While closed networks appear to be



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


more efficient in establishing new norms, they also restrict entry of new ideas

or members with different values or beliefs. In closed networks, all members

of the group talk among themselves and are not open to dialoguing outside

their network, thus reinforcing the beliefs, values, and social norms of the

group. This is sometimes referred to as homophily (Newman and Dale,

2006), which is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with

similar others. Open networks facilitate the assimilation of new thinking,

people, and a diversity of values resulting in a more resilient network of

ideas and capacities and the ability to better influence the broader community.

Open networks may take longer to establish norms, as they tend to be more

flexible in adapting normative thoughts and behaviours. Group norms

based on the exclusion of others, as opposed to the inclusive structure of

open networks, may work to the detriment of innovation and adaptation of

the network as pointed out by Adger (2003).

In this case study, numerous closed networks existed prior to the cam-

paign, such as separate networks of artists, actors and theatre workers, acti-

vists, environmentalists, and organic farmers. As awareness of the

Corporation’s intent began to circulate throughout the community, these

existing community networks began opening up by talking to one

another and drawing upon the energy and resources of one another to

work collectively against the Corporation. While working collectively,

they chose not to work in a coordinated manner, thus enabling each

network to optimize their own strengths in this one campaign.

A final point for discussion is the relationship of social capital with power.

In our case study, there was a definite conflict between the majority of the

community and the Corporation. The two entities envisioned opposing out-

comes for the watershed The search for an amenable outcome became a

dance with power. In addition, there was a conflict between the means and

the ends between networks and power and conflict issues within networks.

Power in itself is a highly contested concept, similar to critiques about

cause and effect relationships of social capital. Lukes (1974) makes a

distinction between one-, two-, and three-dimensional views of power.

One-dimensional power refers to the pluralist view in which A has power

Figure 1 Networks with (a) open and (b) closed structures. Source: Coleman, 2000, p. 27.



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not

otherwise do, however, tied to decision-making over issues involving

conflict. A more nuanced definition is a two-dimensional view that brings

in the differences between potential and actual power, between its posses-

sion and its exercise (Lukes, 1974). For the purposes of this paper, since

we are concerned with social capital, and in particular, network formation,

we use Bachrach and Baratz’s (1962) definition of power as:

. . . a set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals, and institutional

procedures (‘rules of the game’) that operate systematically and

consistently to the benefit of certain persons and groups at the expense of

others. Those who benefit are placed in a preferred position to defend and

promote their vested interests. More often than not, the ‘status quo

defenders’ are a minority or elite group within the population in question.

Elitism, however, is neither foreordained nor omnipresent: as opponents

of the war in Viet Nam can readily attest, the mobilisation of bias can and

frequently does benefit a clear majority (43–44).

Ury (1999) adds another dimension to power in which he argues that the

evolution of humans from beings who sought power over the environment,

to beings who sought power over each other, to beings who now more and

more desire to share power and work collaboratively towards solutions to

conflicts is emerging.

In our case study, we observed power being exercised in different ways

and in diverse forms. The Corporation had legal and financial power in

that they were the legal owners of the property and they had the financial

capital (economic power) to pursue their outcomes. Members of the com-

munity, however, recognized they too had power by mobilizing different

forms of capital through network formation to counter the vested interests

of the corporation. They had knowledge power, creative power, economic

power, status power to name a few. They expressed their power through col-

lective network formation that took both confrontational and collaborative

forms. Both means were employed to draw attention to their conviction

to protecting critical watersheds.

Observations

This research reveals several observations about the dynamics between

network formation, structure, and social capital. Since the overall network

structure in this campaign was local, independent, and self-organizing

linked by key nodes and connectors, these groups varied tremendously in

their values, attitudes and beliefs towards the Corporation, and the best

means to achieve their ends. The success of this campaign was rooted in the



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


diversity of network formations and the opportunities and synergy these mul-

tiple pathways created to accomplish the community’s common goal.

Network Formation

Community members rallied together to confront a perceived common

threat from the outside. As one interviewee remarked, ‘maybe we would

not have been so cohesive if the greed of the Corporation had not been so

excessive’. In response to this threat, new networks formed in the commu-

nity that built upon existing networks but as well new networks self-

organized around individual interests, skills values, and norms. The three

new networks formed were around direct community action, fundraising,

and communication strategies.

Critical to the campaign was the ongoing creation of linkages between these

new networks with existing, established networks, in particular, the older

established conservation groups. The result was a highly connected web of

networks and relationships that benefited from each network’s diverse

skills and we would argue diverse values. In addition, these networks were

not static, but rather had dynamically changing characteristics. At times,

and sometimes simultaneously, they were open, at other times closed,

depending on the values and tactics held within the network towards the Cor-

poration. Some approaches were confrontational and some collaborative. At

varying points, there were different combinations of bonding, bridging, and

linking ties. At no point, however, was there a hierarchical structure. Each

network was self-organizing and, thus, flexible and concerned with direct

campaign action rather than intra group dynamics. In some ways, by organi-

zing at a smaller, interest scale, inter-group conflict may have been avoided.

This strategy successfully protected the nodes and connectors against

coercive legal action by the Corporation aimed at stopping the campaign

by targeting key individuals. The anonymity of the leaders and the diversity

of the networks, as well as the self-organizing structure capable of flexibly

responding to the changing context of this campaign emerged as key

characteristics for the successful ecosystem preservation.

Open and closed networks

Both open and closed networks existed within this campaign. The commu-

nity was successful in forming open networks when it came to discussing

the common interest (the ends) of protecting the community lands from

development. However, many networks were less open when it came to

developing strategies for responding to the Corporation. Another interest-

ing observation was how the networks were open in discussing what

needed to be done, ‘their ends’, but became divided and closed when it

came to discussing and implementing ‘the means’ to achieve ‘the ends’.



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


Unfortunately, the inability to achieve community-wide consensus on ‘the

means’ for approaching the Corporation and fundraising created some

interpersonal conflict that continues in the community today.

It became evident that the vast majority of networks formed within the com-

munity were open networks, thus enabling a semi-structured coordination of

campaign efforts, never requiring one overall coordinator, or traditional

hierarchical decision-making structures, or accountabilities. This became a

clear strength of this campaign for several reasons. First, it allowed strong

communication links between networks. Second, it enabled innovative

ideas and strategies to be freely shared between networks. Third, creative

approaches were initiated on many fronts simultaneously, giving the Corpora-

tion no one front to divide and conquer. Fourth, it minimized inaction

because of conflict between the means to the ends, as groups worked indepen-

dently, except the nodes and connectors that spanned the networks. Fifth,

there were multiple fronts at multiple scales, normally not evident in local

community campaigns, and the Corporation never knew who was ‘in

charge’ of the campaign, nor where to focus legal actions to halt this campaign.

The Internet capacity of, and connectivity within, the community was key.

Bonding, bridging, and linking social capital

All three types of social capital were evident in this case study. Bonding

social capital was very high in the direct action networks. Throughout the

campaign, critical node individuals continued to bridge the diverse net-

works, ensuring that communication channels remained open and infor-

mation flowed between networks. We maintain that the bridging social

capital between the campaign’s diverse networks, and eventually with

the Corporation’s executive, was critical to the campaign’s successful nego-

tiations. Linking social capital occurred as the community tied into strategic

partnerships with government officials to access federal and provincial

government monies as another source of revenue to buy back the property

under dispute. Linking social capital was also evident, as the fundraising

network directed efforts towards the shareholders and Board of Directors

at their corporate headquarters to raise awareness of the impacts of their

decisions locally in their community.

Critical nodes

There were six key people within the community who acted as connectors

between groups of citizens, the corporation, and governments. These six

people are referred to as ‘nodes’, ‘nodes’ being a person within a

network. They are referred to as ‘critical nodes’ for their leadership in resol-

ving this dispute. All six of these leaders shared a similar philosophy: there

was no enemy, that all avenues of communication must be pursued



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


simultaneously, and on multiple levels. Our research illuminated the imp-

ortance of the leadership of these six nodes within the community; their

ability to sustain continuous dialogue with the Corporation and com-

munity; and their ability to build trust and respect between individuals.

These attributes coupled with the open network structure maintained by

the community contributed to the campaign’s success. The nodes acted as

‘messengers’ that bridged bonded social capital groups in the community.

They also acted as ‘negotiators and dialoguers’ that linked the community’s

bridged social capital to the Corporation and governments. This resulted in

a non-hierarchical structure of diverse network formations that resulted in

the final compromises between the Corporation and the community.

Information flows and trust

Access to and sharing of information equally within and between networks

were basic principles to the successful building of social capital within and

between the campaign’s networks. On the basis of our research, the quality,

quantity, and diversity of information that flows within and between net-

works must flow openly and be available to other networks for bridging

social capital to be initiated. Critical nodes were important for keeping

the same accurate information flowing between all networks. Because the

critical nodes were trusted members of the community, they were able to

be ‘bridged’ or ‘linked’ between networks. The critical nodes also trusted

the network members to conduct themselves with integrity and draw

upon their individual strengths to contribute to the campaign. While

trust reduced formalities, it did not necessarily speed up this campaign’s

progress, as it took time for the critical nodes to emerge within the commu-

nity. Yet, once trust was established the networks acted as continuous stocks

of capital upon which to draw, and the speed of communications between

individuals and networks accelerated.

Communications

Open and transparent communications becomes more vital as the number

of networks increase, while at the same time becoming increasingly more

complex as the number of people and distance involved increases. In this

campaign, conflicts between the new and the more established networks

were mitigated by the six critical nodes, who actively leveraged both

bonding and bridging social capital to maintain relationships with indivi-

dual network members and between networks. External communication

with media was well orchestrated, with retired professional media people

leading this dimension of this campaign. Despite this skill set, communi-

cations between the community and the Corporation remained difficult,

and the animosity towards the Corporation increased as network cohesion



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


evolved. With little-to-no trust between the community and the Corpora-

tion, two-way communications were replaced with spokespeople and

lawyers. Pointras and Renaud (1997) emphasize that ‘[Without] two-way

communication it is impossible to develop a cooperative relationship,

which, in turn, could foster mutual understanding of interests and

enables common goals to be identified’. The importance and success of

face-to-face dialogue were demonstrated by the continuing efforts by the

older established groups to negotiate with the Corporation, ultimately

resulting in the protection of one of the major intact watersheds.

One of the critical factors for the success of this campaign was, however,

the community’s ability to gain support both nationally and internationally

through their communications strategies. Another key success factor was

their access to artists and musicians, and several artistic tools were used

to bring the campaign into the open, and one such tool became internation-

ally known. As well, the Corporation’s mortgage holder was targeted with a

very visually graphic depiction of what the impacts of the development

plans would have on the community.

Social capital mobilization

In many environmental campaigns, values are deeply held and conflict

between stakeholders is inevitable. Often, conflict can paralyse a network

into inaction, and ultimately lead to its dissolution over time. In this cam-

paign, we conjecture the open network structure and the lateral organization

of independent networks linked by critical nodes, and connectors contribu-

ted directly to the community’s success. The Corporation had no clearly

identified command and control structure to target and was forced to

counter campaign actions on multiple fronts on multiple scales. This

lateral network organization served to allow citizens with competing

visions of how the campaign should be conducted to move to action

without becoming mired in protracted and paralysing disputes. Often, if

one group dominates at the expense of others, then the group fizzles into a

slow death, as creative energy is diverted by inter- and intra-group conflicts.

In our case study, the mobilization of social capital did not become stuck in

any one network. Instead, it gained critical momentum as the diverse net-

works achieved small successes at multiple levels that contributed to the

momentum and synergy that sustained the long-term campaign. Perhaps,

the scale of the Corporation’s proposed development, its offshore owner-

ship, and its greed further contributed to greater social capital mobilization.

Power

A Chinese proverb states that ‘everyone has his/her own powers’. The citi-

zens of this community certainly believed this, and the Corporation



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


certainly underestimated this. Through educating people about the

Corporations’ threat to their watersheds and their unique lifestyle, and by

increasing public participation in this conservation issue, the citizen’s

power grew in strength and numbers. This phenomenon is in keeping

with Schwartz (2006), who argues that social capital plays an important

role in marketing biodiversity, adjusting the public’s perception of biodiver-

sity and increasing public participation in biodiversity conservation should

be used to engage society in conservation efforts. In this case study, social

capital empowered people in meaningful ways to pursue a conservation

objective that was highly relevant to them, and in turn resulted in a very

powerful campaign against the Corporation.

Conclusions

We began this inquiry by examining how a small community was able to

slay a corporate Goliath. Of particular interest was determining whether

the structured network formation for their campaign could be replicated

in other communities proactively for sustainable community development.

Although their access to intellectual and financial capital was atypical, we

believe there are five key findings that could benefit other communities.

First, the Corporation may not have been so ‘evil’ after all. We have evi-

dence that on several occasions, its chief executive officer (CEO) delayed

logging decisions in order to allow one of the older established conservation

groups to secure additional monies to purchase one of the key watersheds.

On another occasion, he brought in his own negotiator to work with one of

the groups. The identification of strategic alliances and collaborative dialo-

gue were keys to concluding the campaign. But, equally vital were the non-

collaborative tactics used to affect the Corporation’s national reputation and

bring international attention to the issue to build access to larger financial

resources necessary to implement the negotiated outcomes.

Second, the leadership of the six critical nodes and their ability to

mobilize bridging and linking social capital were fundamental to the cam-

paign’s outcomes. Their continuous attempts to build bridges, strategic alli-

ances, and partnerships between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ and between

government officials and the community, and to continue to communicate

with the CEO of the Corporation in spite of the majority of their community

believing the CEO was evil played a key role. Indeed, successful campaigns

may perhaps rely on continuing to build relationships at multiple levels,

with the risk that an enemy may well lie within any of these networks or

levels. For these six critical nodes, their communicative rationality

(Dryzek, 1992), their depersonalization of the problem and their ability to

continuously strive for solutions, was a major contribution of these



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


networks to the building of social capital between normally diverse groups

of people, with deeply held values and beliefs.

Third, this community was already diverse in the people attracted to it,

and hence, there was a pre-existing openness to diverse ideas and opinions.

Openness to others and diversity of ideas are critical to community

responses to external, global forces often beyond the capacity of any one

community to address. This very diversity can have both positive and nega-

tive outcomes, thus necessitating high levels of bridging social capital, par-

ticularly crucial in coordinating between the diverse networks, and

ensuring open and consistent communications. This suggests that smaller

and more rural communities could benefit greatly by drawing upon critical

node individuals or community leaders to bridge across tightly bonded net-

works to increase access to more diverse human and financial capital

especially external to their community.

Fourth, network structure affected key aspects of the success of this cam-

paign, namely, diversity and inclusivity, and the building of more imperso-

nal trust essential for developing critical bridging and linking social capital.

The self-organizing, loosely structured non-hierarchical relationships

between the networks meant that everyone could see some role for them-

selves in one or more of the networks, thus contributing to greater inclusivity

of community members. As well, although the overall focus of this campaign

was broad, the networks formed around specific functions, or specializ-

ations, thus allowing people to self-identify where their skills could make

the greatest contribution. This was most effective at sustaining long-term

commitment and allowing for the expression of a diversity of voice and

actions. A traditional hierarchical decision-making approach to this cam-

paign would have faced major challenges and possibly divided the commu-

nity, given its already diverse nature. The ad hoc, and yet, simultaneously,

strongly connected network structure through key leaders allowed for the

full expression of the community diversity and diverse connections, even

between some of the networks and the Corporation in the long term. This

ability to mobilize diverse types of social capital appears to be a particular

advantage in environmental campaigns that involve highly interconnected

and tightly linked networks to a financial and global market place.

Fifth, the research suggests that there is an opportunity for policy-makers

to learn from this case study. Communities can address land use conflicts by

developing the enabling conditions for diverse social capital. The strength or

wealth of this capital is increased through network formation that allows

space for community members to come together. It is important to dis-

tinguish, however, between the types of social capital that are at play in

any social situation. A greater understanding of the dynamics of this diver-

sity is critical to the development of effective government policies focusing



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


on what scale they can best contribute through policy incentives for sustain-

able community development. Because of this research, it appears that aug-

menting access to bridging and linking social capital may greatly enhance

the efforts of any community in moving from getting by to getting ahead.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our appreciation to our interviewees for their trust

and for the time they so generously gave to this case study.

Ann Dale is Trudeau Fellow, Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Community Development

and a Professor at the School of Environment and Sustainability, Royal Roads University,

British Columbia, Canada.

Jennie Sparkes is a social science researcher (Human Dimension of Ecosytem-based

management), Western and Northern Service Centre, Parks Canada, Canada.

Address for Correspondence: Faculty of Social and Applied Sciences, Royal Roads University,

2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC, V9B 5Y2. Tel: 250391-2600, x4117; Fax: 250 391-2587; Email:

[email protected]

References

Adger, W. (2003) Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change,

Economic Geography, 79 (4), 387–404.

Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1962) The two faces of power, American Political Science

Review, 56, 947–942.

Coleman, J. (2000) Social capital in the creation of human capital, Knowledge and Social

Capital: Foundations and Applications, in E. Lesser, ed, Butterworth Heinemann,

Wpburn, MA, pp. 17–41.

Dryzek, J. (1992) Ecology and discursive democracy: beyond capitalism and the

administrative state, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 3 (2), 18–42.

Gambetta, D. (1988) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell,

Oxford.

Granovetter, M. (1973) The strength of weak ties, The American Journal of Sociology, 78

(6), 1360–1380.

Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, MacMillan Education Ltd, London.

Narayan, D. (1999) Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty, World Bank,

Washington, DC.

Newman, L. and A. Dale (1996) Homophily and Agency: Creating Effective Sustainable

Development Networks, In Environment, Development and Sustainability, DOI

10.1007/s106668-005-9004-5.

Onyx, J. and Bullen, P. (2000) Measuring social capital in five communities, The Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science, 36 (1), 23–42.

Pointras, J. and Renaud, P. (1997) Mediation and Reconciliation of Interests in Public

Disputes Carswell, Scarborough, Ontario.



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


Portes, A. (2000) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology, in

Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications E. Lesser, ed, Butterworth

Heinemann, Woburn, MA, pp. 56–57.

Pretty, J. and Smith, D. (2004) Social capital in biodiversity conservation and

management, Conservation Biology, 18 (3), 631–638.

Putnam, R. (2001) Social Capital Measurement and Consequences, ISUMA, 2 (1),

41–52.

Schwartz, M. (2006) How conservation scientists can help develop social capital for

biodiversity, Conservation Biology, 20 (5), 1550–1552.

Ury, W. (1999) Getting to Peace, Viking Press, New York, NY.

Woolcock, M. (2001) The place of social capital in understanding social and economic

outcomes, ISUMA, 2 (1), 11–17.

Appendix A

Amalgamated network mapping



rasÃlia on A


Dow

nloaded from


Documents

Protecting ecosystems: network structure and social capital mobilization