Conditions for Success in a Community Based Conservation Initiative: An Analysis of Triggering Moments and Catalytic Elements in Nuha
Versions
- 2020-04-26 (2)
- 2020-04-26 (1)
Additional Files
Deprecated: json_decode(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($json) of type string is deprecated in /home/journal33/public_html/plugins/generic/citations/CitationsPlugin.inc.php on line 49
What accounts for a successful community-based conservation (CBC) initiative? A bulk of studies has answered the question by identifying the principles as well as underlying relations that make up successful cases. However, rarely do they extend to examine the basic elements (or ingredients) that contribute to a successful case. Using the analytic framing of triggering moments and catalytic elements, this study describes the key factors that contributed to ongoing successes in achieving the outputs and goals of CBC. A recent CBC project in the Lake Malili Complex of South Sulawesi is examined as a case study to test the framework. The CBC initiative was carried out by a local NGO and university. The case village (Nuha) is chosen for its ability to continue implementing programmatic objectives according to project reports. In-depth interviews, a close review of grey literature about the project, as well as field observations in Nuha and surrounding villages provide the data that forms the basis of the analysis about the factors contributing to Nuha success. Findings show that the framework of triggering moments and catalytic elements can help to show the key factors of crises and windows of opportunity that contribute strongly to stimulating community responses to a CBC initiative. Furthermore, although not all catalytic elements were present, certain identified factors – participation, commitment of key actors, funding, capacity building, partnership with supportive organizations and governments, and leadership – were strong enough to stimulate effective implementation of the CBC initiative. Nevertheless, the analytic framework of triggering moments and catalytic elements is less capable of provide the context for why the catalytic elements were present prior to the introduction of the CBC initiative.
Adams, W.A. (2003) ‘Nature and the colonial mind’,In Adams W.A & Mulligan Martin (eds) Decolonizing nature: Strategies for conservation in postcolonial era, p. 16-50
Baggio, J. A., Barnett, A. J., Perez-Ibarra, I., Brady, U., Ratajczyk, E., Rollins, N., … Janssen, M. A. (2016). Explaining success and failure in the commons: the configural nature of Ostrom's institutional design principles. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 417–439. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.634
Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation biology, 18(3), 621-630. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x
Blaikie, P. (1999). A review of political ecology. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 43(1), 131-147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw.1999.0009
Cleaver, F. D., & de Koning, J. (2015). Furthering critical institutionalism. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1), 1–18. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.605
Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4). Retrieved April 22, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/26268233
Dove, M. (2012). The Banana Tree at The Gate: A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo. Singapore: NUS Press.
Hall, D., Hirsch, P., & Li, T. M. (2011). Introduction to powers of exclusion: land dilemmas in Southeast Asia.
Horwich, R. H., & Lyon, J. (2007). Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx, 41(3), 376-385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605307001010
Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 31, 297-325. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621
Li, T. M. (2014). Land's end: capitalist relations on an indigenous frontier. Duke University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Pearson, R. G. (2016). Reasons to conserve nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), 366-371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.005
Rahayu, S., Laraswati, D., Pratama, A. A., Permadi, D. B., Sahide, M. A., & Maryudi, A. (2019). Research trend: Hidden diamonds–The values and risks of online repository documents for forest policy and governance analysis. Forest policy and economics, 100, 254-257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.009
Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural sociology, 68(2), 153-181. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x
Riggs, R. A., Langston, J. D., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A. K., Lim, H. S., Sari, D. A., ... & Sayer, J. (2018). Governance challenges in an Eastern Indonesian forest landscape. Sustainability, 10(1), 169. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010169
Sandbrook, C. (2015). What is conservation?. Oryx 49(9), 565-566. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000952
Sarmiento Barletti, J.P., and Larson A.M. (2019). The role of multi-stakeholder forums in subnational jurisdiction. Occasional Paper 194. CIFOR
Saunders, F. P. (2014). The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of commons projects. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 636–656. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.477
Seixas, C. S., & Davy, B. (2007). Self-Organization in Integrated Conservation and Development Initiatives. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 99–125. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.24
Sirimorok, N., & Rusdianto, E. (2020). The Importance of Being Political: Emergence of a Multi-stakeholder Forum at the Lake Malili Complex, South Sulawesi. Forest and Society, 4(1), 98-114. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v4i1.7442
Copyright (c) 2020 Forest and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice