Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Forestry Governance in Banyumas: Preliminary Result off Social Capital
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Forestry Governance in Banyumas: Preliminary Result off Social Capital

322
views

Published on

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance

1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Good definitions
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
322
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Tatsuro Sakano & Farhan Helmy Department of Social Engineering Tokyo Institute of Technology Forest Governance in Banyumas: Preliminary Report of Social Capital Analysis 集団分極化現象と米国市民による政策投票の実験から学ぶリスクコミュニケーションの方法 December 4, 2006
  • 2. Positive Effects of Social Capital : Some Evidences(1) Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)
  • 3. Positive Effects of Social Capital : Some Evidences(2) Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)
  • 4. Three generations of developmental strategy
    • 1 st 50s-60s Material Base (Physical Capital)
    • modernization by external infusion of sufficient capitals and technology under the guidance of western experts.
    • -> does not create next cycle of production
    • 2 nd 70s-90s People Centered (Human Capital)
    • Self-reliant, human development, empowerment
    • “ build people’s capacity to solve their problems”
    • -> created foreign educated, PhD holders, but poverty remained
    • 3 rd 2000s- Trust Base (Social Capital)
  • 5. Definition of CPSETs
    •   “ Common Property Socio Eco Tech system ” is a system which has the following properties
    • Indivisibility, mutual dependence of one’s benefits on others
    • Free ride-ability (defection is dominant strategy)
    • System collapsibility (if all take D then outcome is Parete ineff.
    commons behaviors benefit input output   rational individual choice ->   socially irrational outcome
    • CPR Problem by G.Hardin (negtive externality)
    • Public goods problem by M.Olsen (positive externality)
  • 6. Public Goods Problem & Local Governance
    • Market
    •     indivisible 、 free ride(social dilemma )
    •      ⇒ necessity of collective action
    • State
    •     high monitoring cost, exploitation,rent-seeking
    •     inflexibility to local commons
    •      ⇒ necessity of the third approach
    • Local governance (Local Property Regime)
    •   self-enforced collective choice mechanism
    •      ⇒ transaction coast <CC-DD
    •      ⇒ matter of social invention, diversity
    •      ⇒ social capital (trust & network of civic engagement)
  • 7. Definition of Social Capital
    • Alexis De Tocqueville
    • “ Propensity for individuals to join together to address mutual needs and pursue common interests.”
    • community spirit, civic engagement,
    • a sense of belongingness
    • a sense of individual stewardship for common good
    • Coleman(1988) Putman(1993) : A Functional View
    • “ relationship, which facilitates solving collective action dilemmas by lowering transfer cost of right to control one’s action”
    • norms of reciprocity
    • civic engagement
    generalized trust collective action
  • 8. Banyumas Survey: sampled villages Total Sample Size : 1005 households
  • 9.  
  • 10. Occupation by area   upstream middle downstream total farmers 72.5 54.5 55.7 65.6 employed 12.8 24.8 29.5 18.2 others 14.8 20.7 14.8 16.2
  • 11. Preliminary Findings: Focused Questions
    • Perception about deforestation
    • Forest preservation
    • Level of Deforestation
    • Overexploitation in Upstream Areas
    • Forest Management Responsibility
    • Social Structure for collective action
    • Mutual Aid within community
    • Cooperation inside/outside village
    • Response to logging activity
    • Social Structure of Trust
  • 12. forest preservation is important for your area? Mostly (94.5%) agrees
  • 13. Level of deforestation No consensus on the seriousness of deforestation Only 16% perceives deforestation is serious
  • 14. over exploitation in upstream affect on downstream region? Considerable portion disagrees
  • 15. Problem of deforestation Water shortage is the most common problem water shortage 55.9 land slide 0.7 erosion 0.7 flodding 0 wikd pigs 9.2 lainnya 4.6
  • 16. responsibility to manage forest Community is expected to take responsibility gov (national/district) 15.7 gnv (village) 2.3 local coommunity 18.3 gvn & LC 37.9 mandor 17 KPH 0.4 SFC & LC 0.6
  • 17. Summary of Perception about Forest Preservation
    • Almost all agrees on the importance of forest to their area
    • However, awareness of deforestation is not high
    • There are some perception gaps on
    • (1) seriousness of deforestation
    • (2) the interdependency of up & down stream area
    • Water shortage is most distinctive damage
    • Community is expected to play primary role in responding to deforestation
  • 18. most people in this village/neighborhood will help you if you need Mostly expect mutual help disagree 9.5 nutral 11.5 agree some 62.3 agree strong 15.2
  • 19. community help (when unfortunate happen such as land slide/flood, the community get together to help? Mostly expect mutual help in emergency very unlikely 0.4 somewhat unlikely 0.9 somewhat likely 13.1 very likely 71.2
  • 20. how likely will be criticized or sanctioned when not participate in community activity? Monitoring & control is effective in community very unlikely 2.1 somewhat unlikely 11 somewhat likely 22.5 very likely 50.3
  • 21. Work/interact with other groups with similar group in In the village & neighborhood Outside the village & neighborhood Contact with outside the neighbor hood is less no 18.5 occasionally 26.6 frequently 13.4 no 27.5 occasionally 22.2 frequently 8.6
  • 22. if you find logging activity what do you do ? Ask/inform to what community will do if they find logging? neighbourhood 25.1 community leader 12.1 village gvt 18.2 SFC 21.7 police 4.2 others 6.1 check to the location 16.8 no action 42.5 get organized to meet community leader 19.5 inform to the police 13.4
  • 23. Summary of Potentiality of Collective Action
    • Mutual aid within communities are perceived high for both of daily life necessity and in case of emergency
    • There are effective control and monitoring mechanism to
    • suppress free riding (keep members contribution to community activities)
    • However, overall expectation to community to monitor illegal logging is not high (about 40%)
    • Among several actors, community/neighborhood is the highest to be reported about illegal logging
  • 24.   smaller extent small extent great extent greater extent own ethnic/tribe 1.7 5.6 10.8 82 other ethnic/tribe 6 27.5 24.4 42 religious leader 0.5 2.1 7 90.3 shopkeeper 1.1 7.7 12.8 75.7 local gvt 2 8.4 14.8 74.5 police 4.6 17.7 17 58.5 international NGO 5.2 15.3 29.9 30.7 national NGO 3.4 13.8 27.6 37.8 RPH 4.4 14.6 20.7 58.5 KPH 3.8 14.2 23.2 56.8 community leader 0.7 2.5 7 89.5 researcher 1.3 5.7 11.8 80.7 stranger 13.1 31 26.7 23 military 3.1 7.5 13.6 69.3
  • 25. advice & expertise from whithin the members 32.3 other sources in the community 11.1 sources outside the community 10.6
  • 26. Summary of Social Structure of Trust
    • There are three groups according to the level of trust
    • (1)high trust group
    • own ethnic/tribe, community leader
    • religious leader
    • researcher
    • (2)low trust group
    • stranger, NGO, other ethnic group
    • (3)middle trust group
    • local government, military
    • police, RPH, KPH
    • The basis of social trust resides in community
    • The further from the community, the less trust
    • The government agency lie in the middle
  • 27. Tentative conclusion and further analysis
    • The nature of CPSETs defines collective action problem: size/spatial, stakeholders, difficulty of collective action
    • Sharing perception about interdependency is the necessary condition for collective action
    • There are goods points and bad points
    • (1) perception gap about inter dependency and seriousness
    • (2) variation is high among community by community
    • (3) necessity to explain this variation
    • dependency on forest  ->  awareness
    • where they live, occupation difference
  • 28. Tentative conclusion and further analysis
    • The structure of social trust shows:
    • (1) The basis of social trust resides in community
    • (2) The further from the community, the less trust
    • ->   difficulty for inter community level cooperation
    • ->   necessity of third trustful party
    • (3) The government agency lie in the middle
    • NGO s trust is low
    • ->   local researcher/institution might be the key?
    • (4) Good governance at community level is the basis for
    • inter-community level cooperation not a barrier.
    • Participatory mapping is considered to be good start