SOCIAL INDICATORS AND OUTCOMES MANAGEMENT IN … · 2018. 12. 19. · Institute of Geo-Ecology, RIAH, Center for Ecosystem Studies, Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment,

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.

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


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


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


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?

SOCIAL INDICATORS AND OUTCOMES MANAGEMENT IN … · 2018. 12. 19. · Institute of Geo-Ecology, RIAH, Center for Ecosystem Studies, Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment,

Documents