Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SOCIAL INDICATORS AND OUTCOMES
OF COMMUNITY-BASED RANGELAND
MANAGEMENT IN MONGOLIA
Preliminary Results, June 18, 2013
CONTRIBUTING TEAM MEMBERS
MOR2 Social Team and others
Maria E. Fernandez-Gimenez, Batkhishig B., Batbuyan B., Tungalag U.,
Khishigbayar J., Chantsalkham J., Robin Reid, Arren Allegretti, Sophia Linn, Melinda
Laituri, Erdenchimeg, Tamir L., Solongo Ts., Azjargal J., Enkhmunkh B., Unurzul A.,
Gantsogt L., Amanguli Sh., Uuganbayar B., Khishigdorj D., Narantuya N., Pagmajav
D., Vandandorj S., Odgarav J., Battuul T., Nomin-Erdene B., Gantsetseg A.
And
Herders and local officials of the 36 study soum
Research Questions
1. How resilient or vulnerable are
Mongolian pastoral social-ecological
systems (SES) to climate change?
2. Does community-based rangeland
management (CBRM) increase coupled
systems’ resilience to climate change?
Hypotheses
2A. CBRM Resilience Hypothesis:
CBRM increases the adaptive capacity of coupled systems by strengthening self-regulating feedbacks between social and ecological systems.
2B. CBRM Performance Hypothesis:
Performance and outcomes of CBRM will vary with key institutional design elements, including territory & group size, monitoring & enforcement mechanisms, and others.
Hypotheses
2A. CBRM Resilience Hypothesis:
CBRM increases the adaptive capacity of coupled systems by strengthening self-regulating feedbacks between social and ecological systems.
2B. CBRM Performance Hypothesis:
Performance and outcomes of CBRM will vary with key institutional design elements, including territory & group size, monitoring & enforcement mechanisms, and others.
Conceptual Model
Adaptive
Capacity
Winter
Preparedness
Mgt. Innovation
Collective
Action
CBRM
CBRM
Organizations
(vs
Traditional
Neighborhoods)
Mediating Factors
Information Diversity
Knowledge Exchange
Social Capital
Leadership
Pro-Activeness
+ +
Step 1: Assess differences in CBRM and non-CBRM households in levels of all variables
(both AC indicators and hypothesized mediating variables).
Step 2: Mediation analysis to assess which factors best explain why CBRM households
have greater adaptive capacity.
Key Concepts
Adaptive Capacity = Ability to adapt in response to change or disturbance, including the ability to think ahead, learn, innovate, and experiment.
Collective Action = Individuals working together for a shared goal—putting the interests of the group ahead of individual gain.
Social Capital (SC) = Social networks and relationships of trust and reciprocity
Structural SC = number and type of ties between individuals and organizations (social networks)
Bonding SC = ties with people similar to you—family, neighbors
Bridging SC = ties with more distant people and organizations
Cognitive SC = feelings of trust and mutual support (reciprocity) between people in a network
Sub-Hypotheses—Management
Practices & Information Access CBRM households will show higher levels of the following
indicators than non-CBRM households:
Winter preparedness index Sum of 12 yes/no variables: reserve winter pasture, reserve dzud pasture, cut &
store hay, prepare hand fodder, vaccinate, deworm, etc.
Innovation index Sum of 21 yes/no variables: buy breeding stock, reduce herd size, restore
damaged land, repair well, fertilize, irrigate, plant garden, monitor pasture etc.
Information diversity index Sum of 16 yes/no variables: radio, television, newspaper, expert, soum meeting,
bag meeting, other herders, formal training, etc.
Knowledge exchange index Sum of 4 items on 3 point scale—maximum score = 8
Sub-Hypotheses—Social Capital
CBRM households will show higher levels of the following indicators than non-CBRM households:
“Bonding” structural social capital index Sum of types of close people--neighbors, family, friends--that helped in
time of need. Max score = 5
“Bridging” structural social capital index Sum of types of organizations—government, NGOs, donor orgs, etc.—that
helped in time of need. Max score = 8
Trust index Mean of 3 items on a 3 point scale. Max score = 2
Reciprocity index Mean of 4 items on a 3 point scale. Max score = 2
Sub-Hypotheses—Leadership,
Pro-activeness, Collective Action
CBRM households will show higher levels of the
following indicators than non-CBRM households:
Leadership
Mean of 4 items on a 3 point scale. Max score = 2
Pro-activeness
Sum of 3 yes/no items: talked to local gov’t. about problems, talked to
experts about problems, member of national organization. Max score = 3
Collective Action
Sum of 3 yes/no items: joined in collective range management activity,
joined with community to address any other issue, active member of any
community organization. Max score = 3
Analyses
Analysis of Variance
Ecological Zone (Semidesert, Steppe, Eastern Steppe,
Forest & Mountain Steppe)
CBRM vs. no CBRM
Ecozone and CBRM status are fixed effects
Type III Model, full factorial
Differences significant at α = 0.05
Winter Preparedness
CBRM households
better prepared for
winter in all zones
except Eastern Steppe
Management Innovation
CBRM households use
more innovations than
other households in all
regions
Information Diversity
CBRM households
have access to more
information sources
in all regions except
Eastern Steppe
Knowledge Exchange
CBRM households know
more people with whom to
discuss pasture, livestock
and disaster management.
Ecozone * CBRM
interaction
Structural Social Capital
Bonding SC Bridging SC
• No differences between CBRM and
non-CBRM households
• No regional differences
• Overall, CBRM households have higher
bridging SC
• Semidesert households have more
bridging SC than any other region
Cognitive Social Capital
Trust Reciprocity
CBRM greater than non-CBRM
Steppe greater than Mt-Forest Steppe
CBRM greater than non-CBRM
Semi-desert and Steppe greater than
Mt-Forest Steppe
Leadership and Pro-activeness
Leadership Pro-activeness
• CBRM communities have stronger
leadership
• Steppe > Semidesert > Mt-Forest >
Eastern Steppe
• CBRM households more proactive
• No regional differences
Collective Action
CBRM households
involved in >3x more
collective action than
non-CBRM households
Discussion
Adaptive
Capacity
Winter
Preparedness
Mgt. Innovation
Collective
Action
CBRM
CBRM
Organizations
(vs
Traditional
Neighborhoods)
Mediating Factors
Information Diversity
Knowledge Exchange
Social Capital
Leadership
Pro-Activeness
Discussion
Adaptive
Capacity
Winter
Preparedness
Mgt. Innovation
Collective
Action
CBRM
CBRM
Organizations
(vs
Traditional
Neighborhoods)
Mediating Factors
Information Diversity
Knowledge Exchange
Social Capital
Leadership
Pro-Activeness
Caveats
Our results show significantly greater values of
social indicators for CBRM households across most
ecological zones
Because our data are from one point in time, we
cannot be sure that the formation of CBRM
organizations caused this difference
Next Steps
Adaptive
Capacity
Winter
Preparedness
Mgt. Innovation
Collective
Action
CBRM
CBRM
Organizations
(vs
Traditional
Neighborhoods)
Mediating Factors
Information Diversity
Knowledge Exchange
Social Capital
Leadership
Pro-Activeness
1. Mediation analysis and structural equation modeling to assess which mediating
factors best explain why CBRM member households have greater adaptive capacity.
Next Steps
1. Assess livelihood outcomes for CBRM and non-
CBRM households
2. Test CBRM Performance Hypothesis:
Compare outcomes between different types of CBRM
organizations (PUGs, herder groups, nokhurlel)
Investigate factors that explain differences among CBRM
group performance (e.g. governance, leadership, etc.)
3. Use soum-level data as covariates to control for
differences in soum-level economic, social and
leadership variation.
Conclusions & Implications
Formal CBRM organizations are strongly associated with positive social indicators and greater adaptive capacity
Policies and programs to support formal CBRM organizations appear to be a good investment
However, it is too early to say definitively whether the formation of CBRM organizations increases adaptive capacity and improves livelihoods
Further analysis will help us learn what specific organizational characteristics and activities are associated with the most desired outcomes.
Thanks to
US National Science Foundation
Nutag Partners, Batkhishig Baival, Tamiraa and team
Center for Nomadic Pastoralism Studies, Batbuyan, Enkhmunkh, Erdenechimeg and team
Institute of Geo-Ecology, RIAH, Center for Ecosystem Studies, Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment, Mongolian Society for Range Management
Tungalag Ulambayar, Khishigbayar Jamyansharav, Sophia Linn, Chantsalkham Jamsranjav, Robin Reid, Arren Allegretti
And everyone else….
Questions?