Tatsuro Sakano & Farhan HelmyTatsuro Sakano & Farhan HelmyDepartment of Social EngineeringDepartment of Social Engineering

Tokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyo Institute of Technology

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Forest Governance in Banyumas:Forest Governance in Banyumas:

Preliminary Report of Social Capital AnalysisPreliminary Report of Social Capital Analysis

December 4, 2006December 4, 2006

Positive Effects of Social CapitalPositive Effects of Social Capital: : Some Evidences(1)Some Evidences(1)

Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)

Positive Effects of Social CapitalPositive Effects of Social Capital: : Some Evidences(2)Some Evidences(2)

Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)

Three generations of developmental strategyThree generations of developmental strategy

►► 11stst 50s50s--60s Material Base60s Material Base (Physical Capital)(Physical Capital)modernization by external infusion of sufficient capitals and modernization by external infusion of sufficient capitals and technology under the guidance of western experts.technology under the guidance of western experts.

→→does not create next cycle of productiondoes not create next cycle of production

►► 22ndnd 70s70s--90s People Centered90s People Centered (Human Capital)(Human Capital)SelfSelf--reliant, human development, empowerment reliant, human development, empowerment ““build peoplebuild people’’s capacity to solve their problemss capacity to solve their problems””→→created created foreign educated, PhD holders, but poverty foreign educated, PhD holders, but poverty

remainedremained

►► 33rdrd 2000s2000s-- Trust Base Trust Base (Social Capital)(Social Capital)

Definition of CPSETsDefinition of CPSETs

　　““Common Property Socio Eco Tech systemCommon Property Socio Eco Tech system”” is a system which has is a system which has the following propertiesthe 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.

commonsbehaviors benefitinput output

　　rational individual choice rational individual choice →　→　socially irrational outcome socially irrational outcome

•CPR Problem by G.Hardin (negtive externality) •Public goods problem by M.Olsen (positive externality)

Public Goods Problem & Local GovernancePublic Goods Problem & Local Governance

►► Market Market 　　　　　　indivisibleindivisible、、free ride(social dilemmafree ride(social dilemma））

　　　　　⇒　　　　　⇒necessity of collective actionnecessity of collective action►► State State 　　　　　　high monitoring cost, exploitation,renthigh monitoring cost, exploitation,rent--seekingseeking　　　　　　inflexibility to local commonsinflexibility to local commons　　　　　⇒　　　　　⇒necessity of the third approachnecessity of the third approach►► Local governance (Local Property Regime)Local governance (Local Property Regime)　　 selfself--enforced collective choice mechanismenforced collective choice mechanism　　　　　⇒　　　　　⇒transaction coast <CCtransaction coast <CC--DD DD 　　　　　⇒　　　　　⇒matter of social invention, diversitymatter of social invention, diversity　　　　　⇒　　　　　⇒social capital (trust & network of civic engagement)social capital (trust & network of civic engagement) 6

Definition of Social CapitalDefinition of Social Capital

►► Alexis De TocquevilleAlexis De Tocqueville““Propensity for individuals to join together to address Propensity for individuals to join together to address mutual needs and pursue common interests.mutual needs and pursue common interests.””

community spirit, civic engagement, community spirit, civic engagement, a sense of belongingnessa sense of belongingnessa sense of individual stewardship for common gooda sense of individual stewardship for common good

►► Coleman(1988)Coleman(1988) Putman(1993) : A Functional ViewPutman(1993) : A Functional View““relationship, which facilitates solving collective action relationship, which facilitates solving collective action dilemmas by lowering transfer cost of right to control onedilemmas by lowering transfer cost of right to control one’’s s actionaction””

norms of reciprocitynorms of reciprocitycivic engagementcivic engagement

generalizedtrust

collective action

Banyumas Survey: sampled villagesBanyumas Survey: sampled villages

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

upstream(20)

middle(9)

downstream(5)

Total Sample Size : 1005 households

Occupation by areaOccupation 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

Preliminary Findings: Focused QuestionsPreliminary Findings: Focused Questions

►► Perception about deforestationPerception about deforestationForest preservationForest preservationLevel of DeforestationLevel of DeforestationOverexploitation in Upstream AreasOverexploitation in Upstream AreasForest Management ResponsibilityForest Management Responsibility

►► Social Structure for collective actionSocial Structure for collective actionMutual Aid within communityMutual Aid within communityCooperation inside/outside villageCooperation inside/outside villageResponse to logging activityResponse to logging activity

►► Social Structure of TrustSocial Structure of Trust

forest preservation is important for your area?forest preservation is important for your area?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

disagree(4.7) nutral(1.5) agreesome(50.5)

agreestrong(44.0)

Mostly (94.5%) agrees

Level of deforestationLevel of deforestation

05

10152025303540

othe

r(33.

6)no

pro

blem

(9.7

)no

t so

serio

us(1

9.4)

sligh

tly(1

8.9)

serio

us(1

6.5)

No consensus on the seriousness of deforestation

Only 16% perceives deforestation is serious

over exploitation in upstream affect on downstream over exploitation in upstream affect on downstream region?region?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

disa

gree

(21.5

)

nutr

al(5.

2)ag

ree

som

e(48

.1)

agre

e st

rong

(26.

3)

Considerable portion disagrees

Problem of deforestationProblem of deforestation

water shortage 55.9

land slide 0.7

erosion 0.7

flodding 0

wikd pigs 9.2

lainnya 4.6

Water shortage is the most common problem

responsibility to manage forestresponsibility to manage forest

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

Community is expected to take responsibility

Summary of Perception about Forest PreservationSummary of Perception about Forest Preservation

►► Almost all agrees on the importance of forest to their areaAlmost all agrees on the importance of forest to their area►► However, awareness of deforestation is not highHowever, awareness of deforestation is not high►► There are some perception gaps onThere are some perception gaps on

(1) seriousness of deforestation(1) seriousness of deforestation(2) the interdependency of up & down stream area(2) the interdependency of up & down stream area

►► Water shortage is most distinctive damageWater shortage is most distinctive damage►► Community is expected to play primary role in responding Community is expected to play primary role in responding

to deforestationto deforestation

most people in this village/neighborhood will help most people in this village/neighborhood will help you if you needyou if you need

disagree 9.5

nutral 11.5

agree some 62.3

agree strong 15.2

Mostly expect mutual help

community help (when unfortunate happen such as community help (when unfortunate happen such as land slide/flood, the community get together to help?land slide/flood, the community get together to help?

very unlikely 0.4

somewhat unlikely 0.9

somewhat likely 13.1

very likely 71.2

Mostly expect mutual help in emergency

how likely will be criticized or sanctioned when not how likely will be criticized or sanctioned when not participate in community activity?participate in community activity?

very unlikely 2.1

somewhat unlikely 11

somewhat likely 22.5

very likely 50.3

Monitoring & control is effective in community

Work/interact with other groups with similar group inWork/interact with other groups with similar group in

no 18.5

occasionally 26.6

frequently 13.4

no 27.5

occasionally 22.2

frequently 8.6

In the village & neighborhood Outside the village & neighborhood

Contact with outside the neighbor hood is less

if you find logging activity if you find logging activity what do you do ? Ask/inform towhat do you do ? Ask/inform to

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

what community will do if theyfind logging?

Summary of Potentiality of Collective ActionSummary of Potentiality of Collective Action

►► Mutual aid within communities are perceived high for both Mutual aid within communities are perceived high for both of daily life necessity and in case of emergencyof daily life necessity and in case of emergency

►► There are effective control and monitoring mechanism toThere are effective control and monitoring mechanism tosuppress free riding (keep members contribution to suppress free riding (keep members contribution to community activities)community activities)

►► However, overall expectation to community to monitor However, overall expectation to community to monitor illegal logging is not high (about 40%)illegal logging is not high (about 40%)

►► Among several actors, community/neighborhood is the Among several actors, community/neighborhood is the highest to be reported about illegal logginghighest to be reported about illegal logging

　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

advice & expertiseadvice & expertise

from whithin the members 32.3

other sources in the community 11.1

sources outside the community 10.6

Summary of Social Structure of TrustSummary of Social Structure of Trust

►► There are three groups according to the level of trustThere are three groups according to the level of trust(1)high trust group(1)high trust group

own ethnic/tribe, community leaderown ethnic/tribe, community leaderreligious leader religious leader researcherresearcher

(2)low trust group(2)low trust groupstranger, NGO, other ethnic groupstranger, NGO, other ethnic group

(3)middle trust group(3)middle trust grouplocal government, militarylocal government, militarypolice, RPH, KPHpolice, RPH, KPH

►► The basis of social trust resides in communityThe basis of social trust resides in community►► The further from the community, the less trustThe further from the community, the less trust►► The government agency lie in the middleThe government agency lie in the middle

Tentative conclusion and further analysis Tentative conclusion and further analysis

►► The nature of CPSETs defines collective action problem: The nature of CPSETs defines collective action problem: size/spatial, stakeholders, difficulty of collective actionsize/spatial, stakeholders, difficulty of collective action

►► Sharing perception about interdependency is the necessary Sharing perception about interdependency is the necessary condition for collective actioncondition for collective action

►► There are goods points and bad pointsThere are goods points and bad points(1) perception gap about inter dependency and (1) perception gap about inter dependency and seriousnessseriousness(2) variation is high among community by community(2) variation is high among community by community(3) necessity to explain this variation(3) necessity to explain this variation

dependency on forestdependency on forest　→　　→　awarenessawarenesswhere they live, occupation differencewhere they live, occupation difference

Tentative conclusion and further analysisTentative conclusion and further analysis

►► The structure of social trust shows:The structure of social trust shows:(1) The basis of social trust resides in community(1) The basis of social trust resides in community(2) The further from the community, the less trust(2) The further from the community, the less trust

→　→　difficulty for inter community level cooperationdifficulty for inter community level cooperation→　→　necessity of third trustful party necessity of third trustful party

(3) The government agency lie in the middle(3) The government agency lie in the middleNGO s trust is lowNGO s trust is low

→　→　local researcher/institution might be the key?local researcher/institution might be the key?(4) Good governance at community level is the basis for(4) Good governance at community level is the basis for

interinter--community level cooperation not a barrier.community level cooperation not a barrier.►► Participatory mapping is considered to be good startParticipatory mapping is considered to be good start