nach oben

Erschienen in:

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

20. Stakeholder Attitudes and Conservation of Natural Resources: Exploring Alternative Approaches

verfasst von : Biswajit Ray, Rabindranath Bhattacharya

Erschienen in: Development and Sustainability

Verlag: Springer India

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstarct

Individuals make decisions embedded in a social context and their attitudes affect their decisions. Based on this argument, there is a long history of empirical research in social sciences (beyond economics), that elicits subjective testimony on feelings, beliefs, values, expectations, plans, attitudes, and behavior. This body of empirics was excluded from the neoclassical economic analysis on the assumption that individual preferences remain unchanged, despite the fact that economic theorizing often includes reference to attitudes, beliefs and the like. An important example is the data on stakeholder attitudes toward environment (Infield 1988). Its importance has been documented recently (Agrawal 2006) and pro-environmental attitudes studies have started to catch the attention of economists.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Inequality, Public Service Provision, and Exclusion of the Poor

Nächstes Kapitel Indoor Air Pollution and Incidence of Morbidity: A Study on Urban West Bengal

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Chakravarty et al. (2011) provide an excellent review of experimental economics.

Most of the lab-based experiments are conducted via z-Tree software (Fischbacher 2007), where pay-offs are constructed accordingly.

Croson and Gneezy (2009) provide a systematic review on gender differences in social preferences.

It is not necessary that only these two interaction theories be invoked. Rather, any theory that appears to be relevant should be invoked in order to understand human behaviors. For an example, theory of heterogeneity conveys that similar people are more likely to behave similarly. In other words, all-men and all-women groups, for example, will be more pro-social than the mixed group, because women are homogeneous in their social preferences and so are men, while in the mixed groups, gender effect works.

Although stakeholder refers to government, NGOs and the local people, in this study we consider only the local people as stakeholder. Hence, the term ‘local people’ and ‘stakeholders’ have been used interchangeably in this chapter.

We extend the existing studies (Bratton and Ray 2002; Agarwal 2010) by examining the relationship between women’s proportional strength and social preferences. Although gender does matter in social preferences, we also extend the existing literature by examining the threshold effect of gender on prosocial behaviors.

One interesting aspect of our study is that it tries to capture (but not quantify) free-riding behaviors of resource users in a trust game when free-riding tendency is generally detected in public goods experiments.

Instructions of the experiment are available upon request from the authors.

The objective of ‘playing both roles’ is to double the experimental data within a given time. Many authors have done this before (see Bouma et al. 2008 in the context of watershed management).

There is also a timber benefit. Timbers are auctioned to the local related industries, and a 15 % (in BTR) to 25 % (WMP) share of sale proceeds are given to the concerned JFMC. Since this sum is generally used in local infrastructure development like road construction etc., these timber benefits are community benefits in nature unlike the individual household’s forest benefits like fuelwood, fodder etc. Since timbers are not felled annually, and felling differs across JFMCs depending upon the forest health, it is difficult to add timber benefits to NTFPs to arrive at the aggregate forest benefits for a JFMC. Hence, we consider only the NTFP benefits in this chapter for each respondent and hence each JFMC.

Adhikari B (2005) Property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environ Dev Econ 10(1):7–31CrossRef

Agarwal B (1992) The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. Fem Stud 18:119–158CrossRef

Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry and gender: An analysis and conceptual framework. World Dev 29(10):1623–1648CrossRef

Agarwal B (2009) Rule making in community forestry institutions: the difference women make. Ecol Econ 68:2296–2308CrossRef

Agarwal B (2010) Does women’s proportional strength affect their participation? governing local forests in South Asia. World Dev 38(1):98–112CrossRef

Agrawal A (2006) Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Oxford University Press, New Delhi

Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 8:8–918

Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2000) Economics and identity. Quart J Econ 15(3):715–753

Ashraf N, Bohnet I, Piankov N (2006) Decomposing trust. Experimental Economics 9(3):193–208CrossRef

Basu K (2006) Identity, trust and altruism: sociological clues to economic development. Cornell University Center for Analytic Economics Working Paper 06–05. http://ssrn.com/abstract=956080

Bellemare C, Kröger S (2003) On representative trust. Tilburg University CentER Discussion Paper 2003-47

Berg J, Dickaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games Econ Behav 10(1):122–142CrossRef

Berger J, Fisek MH (1974) A generalization of the theory of status characteristics and expectation states. In: Berger J, Conner TL, Fisek HH (eds) Expectation states theory: a theoretical research program. Winthrop, Cambridge, pp 163–205

Bolton GE, Katok E (1995) An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Econ Lett 48:287–292CrossRef

Bouma J, Bulte E, van Soest D (2008) Trust and cooperation: social capital and community resource management. J Environ Econ Manag 56(2):155–166CrossRef

Bratton KA, Ray LP (2002) Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. Am J Polit Sci 46(2):428–437CrossRef

Brewer M, Kramer RM (1986) Choice behavior in Social dilemmas: effects of social identity, group size and decision framing. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:543–549CrossRef

Buchan NR, Croson R, Solnick SJ (2008) Trust and gender: an examination of behavior and beliefs in the investment game. J Econ Behav Organ 68(3–4):466–476CrossRef

Campbell JP, Dunnette MP, Arvey RP, Hellervik LV (1973) The development and evaluation of behaviorally based rating scales. J Appl Psychol 57:15–22CrossRef

Cardenas JC (2003) Real wealth and experimental cooperation: evidence from field experiments. J Dev Econ 70(2):263–289CrossRef

Cardenas JC, Carpenter J (2008) Behavioural development economics: Lessons from field labs in the developing world. J Dev Stud 44(3):311–338CrossRef

Cardenas JC, Stranlund J, Willis C (2002) Economic inequality and burden-sharing in the provision of local environmental quality. Ecol Econ 40(3):1–17CrossRef

Carpenter J, Daniere A, Takahashi L (2004a) Social capital and trust in Southeast Asian cities. Urban Stud 41(4):853–874CrossRef

Carpenter J, Daniere A, Takahashi L (2004b) Cooperation, trust, and social capital in Southeast Asian urban slums. J Econ Behav Organ 55(4):533–551CrossRef

Carter M, Castillo M (2003) An experimental approach to social capital in South Africa. Working paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin

Castillo M, Carter M (2003) Identifying social effects in economic field experiments. Working paper, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin

Chakrabarti M, Khaling S, Bhattacharya J, Ghosh SR, Sarkar A, (2001) Functioning of joint forest management in the forests of North Bengal: observations from 12 IFRI sites. Paper presented at a dissemination Seminar, December 2001. St.Joseph’s College, Darjeeling, India

Chakravarty S, Friedman D, Gupta G, Hatekar N, Mitra S, Sundar S (2011) Experimental economics: a survey. Econ Polit Wkly 56(35):39–78

Chen Y, Li SX (2009) Group identity and social preferences. Am Econ Rev 99(1):431–457CrossRef

Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL (2003) Expectation states theory. In: Delamater J (ed) Handbook of social psychology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 29–51

Cox JC (2004) How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 46(2):260–281CrossRef

Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit 47(2):448–472CrossRef

Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRef

Danielson A, Holm H (2007) Do you trust your brethren? Eliciting trust attitudes and trust behavior in a Tanzanian congregation. J Econ Behav Organ 62(2):255–271CrossRef

Davis JB (2006) Social identity strategies in recent economics. J Econ Methodol 13(3):371–390CrossRef

Dawis RV (1986) Scale construction. J Couns Psychol 34(4):481–489CrossRef

Dunlap RE, Jones RE (2002) Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In: Dunlap RE, Michelson W (eds) Handbook of environmental sociology. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp 482–524

Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1978) The new environmental paradigm. J Environ Educt 9:10–19

Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig A, Jones RE (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442CrossRef

Durlauf SN (2002) On the empirics of social capital. Econ J 112(483):459–479CrossRef

Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (1998) Are women less selfish than men: evidence from dictator experiments. Econ J 108:726–735CrossRef

Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2001) Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Econ Inq 39(2):171–188

Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2005) Managing diversity by creating team identity. J Econ Behav Organ 58:371–392CrossRef

Eckel CC, Fatas E, Wilson R (2010) Cooperation and status in organizations. J Public Econ Theory 12(4):737–762CrossRef

Fischbacher Urs (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ 10(2):171–178CrossRef

Greig F, Bohnet I (2005) Is there reciprocity in a reciprocal-exchange economy? Evidence from a slum in Nairobi, Kenya. Working paper, Kennedy School of Government

Heffetz O, Frank RH (2011) Preferences for status: evidence and economic implications. In: Benhabib J, Bisin A, Jackson M (eds) Handbook of social economics, vol 1A. North-Holland, The Netherlands, pp 69–91

Henrich J (2000) Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the Machiguenga Indians of the Peruvian Amazon. Am Econ Rev 90:973–979

Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, McElreath R (2001) In search of homo economics: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am Econ Rev 91(2):73–78CrossRef

Henrich J, McElreath R, Barr A, Ensminger J, Barrett C, Bolyanatz A, Cardenas JC, Gurven M, Gwako E, Henrich N, Lesorogol C, Marlowe F, Tracer D, Ziker J (2006) Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312:1767–1770

Johansson-Stenman O, Mahmud M, Martinsson P (2004) Trust, trust games and stated trust: evidence from rural Bangladesh. Working paper, Department of Economics, Goteborg University

Infield M (1988) Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation area in Natal S Africa. Biol Conserv 45:21–46CrossRef

Karlan D (2005) Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Am Econ Rev 95(5):1688–1699CrossRef

Kreps DM (1990) A course in microeconomic theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:5–55

Liu J, Ouyang Z, Miao H (2010) Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: a case study in China. J Environ Manag 91:2254–2262CrossRef

Lorenzi-Cioldi F (1991) Self-stereotyping and self-enhancement in gender groups. Eur J Soc Psychol 21:403–417CrossRef

Maloney MP, Ward MP (1973) Ecology: let’s hear it from the people. an objective scale for measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol 28:583–586CrossRef

Meeker BF, Weitzel-O’Neill PA (1977) Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. Am Sociol Rev 42:91–105CrossRef

Mehta JN, Heinen JT (2001) Does community-based conservation shape favourable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environ Manag 28:165–177CrossRef

Milfont TL, Duckitt J (2010) The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J Environ Psychol 30:80–94CrossRef

Mukherjee P (2011) Attitudes, institutions and cooperation: does gender matter in joint forest management in West Bengal, India? M.Phil Dissertation, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, India

Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S (2003) Scaling procedures: issues and application. Sage Publications, London

Orbell JM, Van de Kragt AJC, Dawes RM (1988) Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:811–819CrossRef

Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Ostrom E (1992) The rudiments of a theory of the origins, survival, and performance of common-property institutions. In: Bromley DW, Feeny D, McKean MA, Peters P, Gilles JL, Oakerson RJ, Runge CF, Thomson JT (eds) Making the commons work: theory, practice, and policy. ICS Press, San Francisco, pp 293–318

Pender JL (1996) Discount rates and credit markets: theory and evidence from rural India. J Dev Econ 50(2):257–296CrossRef

Pichevin M, Hurtic M (1996) Describing men, describing women: sex membership salience and numerical distinctiveness. Eur J Soc Psychol 26:513–522CrossRef

Poteete AR, Ostrom E (2004) Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Change 35(3):168–181CrossRef

Quisumbing AR, Haddad L, Christine P (2001) Are women overrepresented among the poor? An analysis of poverty in 10 developing countries. J Dev Econ 66(1):225–269CrossRef

Ray B, Bhattacharya RN (2011) Transaction costs, collective action and survival of heterogeneous co-management institutions: case study of forest management organizations in West Bengal, India. J Dev Stud 47(2):253–273CrossRef

Robinson JP, Shaver RP, Writesman LS (1991) Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Writesman LS (eds) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–15

Schmitt N (1996) Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol Assess 8(4):350–353CrossRef

Seguino S, Stevens T, Lutz MA (1996) Gender and cooperative behavior: economic man rides alone. Fem Econ 2(1):1–21CrossRef

Sell J, Wilson RK (1991) Levels of information and public goods. Soc F 70:107–124.

Sell J, Griffith WI, Wilson RK (1993) Are women more cooperative than men in social dilemmas? Soc Psychol Q 56:211–222CrossRef

Sell J (1997) Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Soc Psychol Q 60(3):252–265CrossRef

Shanmugaratnam N, Vedeld T, Mossige A, Bovin M (1992) Resource management and pastoral institution building in the West African Sahel. World Bank Discussion Papers, No. 175, The World Bank, Washington DC

Shogren JF, Taylor LO (2008) On behavioral environmental economics. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(1):26–44CrossRef

Sinha H, Suar D (2005) Leadership and people’s participation in community forestry. Int J Rural Manag 1(1):125–143CrossRef

Solnick SJ (2001) Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Econ Inq 39(2):189–200

Tajfel H (1972) Social categorization. In: Moscovici S (ed), Introduction a` la psychologie sociale. 1, Paris, Larousse, pp 272–302

Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Austin W, Worchel S (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations monterey. Brooks, Cole, pp 7–24

Varughese G, Ostrom E (2001) The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Dev 29(5):747–765CrossRef

Vedeld T (2000) Village politics: heterogeneity, leadership and collective action. J Dev Stud 36(5):105–134CrossRef

Weigel R, Weigel J (1978) Environmental concern: the development of a measure. Environ Behav 10:3–15CrossRef

Wood W, Karten SJ (1986) Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:341–347CrossRef

Titel: Stakeholder Attitudes and Conservation of Natural Resources: Exploring Alternative Approaches
verfasst von: Biswajit Ray
Rabindranath Bhattacharya
Verlag: Springer India
Buch: Development and Sustainability
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-1123-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-81-322-1124-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1124-2_20