Social Network Research in Bua

I am currently involved in a social network research project, partnering with Wildlife Conservation Society, to complete my Master's program. This research is being conducted to gain information about how people in Bua Province communicate and work together on natural resource management. Effective resource management requires a range of people and organizations to plan and take action together. They way these stakeholders communicate and work together can be referred to as a “network.”  We will be administering questionnaires in each village in Bua beginning this month, with hopes of finishing by February this coming year. Read on if you'd be interesting in learning more about the research...

Recently, social network theory as it applies to natural resource management has emerged as a way to enhance our understanding of collaborative and adaptive resource governance (Bodin and Prell 2011, Vance-Borland and Holley 2011). While By applying a network approach to the Itegrated Coastal Management (ICM) process in Bua, we recognize that stakeholders interact with each other through networks and that various network characteristics affect the way in which the network functions. Social network theory explores how connections and characteristics of networks can affect intended outcomes (Bodin and Prell 2011). Understanding relational patterns amongst stakeholders in Bua will be important for effective ICM planning and continual development of the Bua Yaubula Management and Support Team (BYMST) as a governance body. 

Theoretically, applied network analysis can help both practitioners and network members not only better understand the way their network functions, but to “engineer” network structure to better optimize conservation success (Bodin and Prell 2011, Vance-Borland and Holley 2011, Bodin et al 2006).  This can be referred to as network “weaving” or network intervention (Holley 2012, Valente 2012, Vance-Borland and Holley 2011).  

Studies in other fields suggest that merely presenting network maps to network members can trigger changes in a network (Valente 2012), however, it has not yet been determined if network interventions are indeed a tool that can be used to improve natural resource management outcomes (Vance-Borland and Holley 2011). Previous works do show SNA to be useful in stakeholder identification and engagement, understanding resource and knowledge flow, and understanding power relations (Bodin and Prell 2011). 

This particular study proposes to investigate whether applied SNA can be a useful in the ICM process in Bua. It is part of longer term research seeking to compare various ICM strategies and evaluate both their ecological and socio-economic outcomes in a continued attempt to develop best practices for ICM in Fiji. This study will help create baseline data for testing the hypothesis that using SNA as a tool in ICM can increase understanding of ICM stakeholder networks and, when paired with network weaving activities, can hence improve desired management outcomes. This is shown conceptually in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Conceptual model showing SNA’s relationship to improved desired ICM outcomes

Particular questions SNA will help us investigate in this study are:

·         What are some of the network characteristics of communities/districts who are actively implementing NRM activities?

·         Why are certain people/villages working better together and on certain issues than others?

·         Are key decision makers receiving information and communicating about NRM issues and practices?

·         Who works or wants to work together, and on what kind of NRM issues specifically?

·         How integrated are ICM stakeholders across sectors and scales? How do communities currently receive and relay information on NRM?

·         How can communities, government, and NGOs improve collaboration and communication regarding ICM?

·         Are working relationships stronger between communities with traditional ties?

·         How do stakeholders communicate about NRM and what barriers exist to communicating about best practices?

  

The information gathered in the questionnaire will be used to create a network map like the one shown in Figure 2 below. A social network map can be useful in many ways. It visually shows how different groups of people communicate or work together. IT is one tool we hope stakeholders, and specifically the newly formed can find useful. 

Figure 2. Example Social Network Map

(Vance-Borland and Holley, 2011)

References

Bodin, Ö., B. Crona, and H. Ernstson (2006). Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society 11(2): r2

Bodin, Ö. and C. Prell (2011). Social Networks and Natural Resource Management : Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions, Science, 337: 49-53.

Vance-Borland, K. and J. Holley (2011). Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving, Conservation Letters, 4: 278-288.