Jill M. Belsky

Private Property Rights and Community Goods: Negotiating Landowner Cooperation Amid Changing Ownership on the Rocky Mountain Front

The cooperative practices of private landowners, while critical to cross-boundary conservation, are not well understood. Based on research along the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana, we document the ways that established customs governing cooperation between ranchers meet both individual and community needs. While ranchers argued for landowner control of private property, in practice, rancher property boundaries were permeable and contingent with regard to livelihood needs and certain community goods, such as hunting access to private lands. But changing landownership was causing conflict between neighbors and tension in local communities, because new landowners either inadvertently or intentionally challenged established boundary practices. Efforts at cross-boundary conservation need to recognize the challenges of changing landownership and the ways that existing customs might provide important foundations for cooperation. At the same time, an increasingly diverse set of private landowners must negotiate mutually beneficial boundary practices that meet both existing and emerging community and conservation needs.

Cultivating cacao Implications of sun-grown cacao on local food security and environmental sustainability

The reasons why upland farmerson the Indonesian island of Sulawesi areengaged in a cacao boom and its long termimplications are addressed in the context ofprotected area management regulations, andpolitical and economic conditions inPost-Suharto, Indonesia. In the remote casestudy village of Moa in Central Sulawesi, wefound that while few households cultivatedcacao in the early 1990s, all had planted cacaoby 2000. Furthermore, the vast majoritycultivate cacao in former food-crop focusedswidden fields under full-sun conditions.Farmers cultivate cacao to establish propertyrights in light of a land shortage driven inpart by the prohibition of farming and forestproduct collecting in a nearby national park,and to secure a future source of income, aconcern that has been exacerbated byIndonesias economic crisis. However,conversion of swidden fields to sun-grown cacaoconstrains future food productionopportunities, increases susceptibility todrought stress and potential soil nutrient andorganic matter losses, and increases householddependence on a commodity that is subject toextreme price volatility. These factors raisesignificant concerns for local food securityand agricultural sustainability.

Participatory action research and environmental learning: implications for resilient forests and communities

How can a participatory approach to research promote environmental learning and enhance social–ecological systems resilience? Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach to research that its’ supporters claim can foster new knowledge, learning, and action to support positive social and environmental change through reorienting the standard process of knowledge production. PAR is posited as being particularly suitable for use with historically disadvantaged groups. As such it may be a useful tool for environmental learning which would enable a social–ecological system to better respond to change as theorized by resilience thinkers. In this paper, we examine a PAR project to determine how PAR fostered environmental learning and, in turn, how the learning influenced resilience. The project partnered an ecologist, federal and state forest managers, and harvesters of salal (Gaultheria shallon), a non‐timber forest product gathered and sold for use in the floral industry in the forests of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, USA. Based on interviews with each group of partners during and after the PAR project, we found that the PAR approach did indeed generate environmental learning, defined here as ecological literacy, civic literacy, values awareness, and self‐efficacy, and contributed to resiliency through promoting greater diversity, memory, redundancy, and adaptive capacity. However, the political vulnerability of the salal harvesters, who were largely undocumented Latino workers, inhibited the extent to which adaptive measures could be taken to revise permitting procedures and additional collaborative research. We conclude that the PAR approach is a valuable tool for environmental learning but the extent to which learning can actually promote system change and greater resilience must also be understood within the underlying context, especially political realities.

Forest-product trade in a lowland Filipino village

Forest-product use among nonforest dwelling cultural groups in Southeast Asia is not well known, particularly in contrast to what is known about indigenous forest-product collectors. A case study in one lowland Filipino village in Leyte, Philippines, revealed that over half of village households depend upon 8 species of commercially valuable rattan and 8 species of timber as a primary source of livelihood, and that all village households collected forest-products for supplementary and emergency income. The future of the rattan and timber trade on Leyte is seriously threatened by agricultural encroachment and intensive collecting pressures in the absence of forest management.

Natural landscape features, human-related attractants, and conflict hotspots: a spatial analysis of human–grizzly bear conflicts

Abstract There is a long history of conflict in the western United States between humans and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) involving agricultural attractants. However, little is known about the spatial dimensions of this conflict and the relative importance of different attractants. This study was undertaken to better understand the spatial and functional components of conflict between humans and grizzly bears on privately owned agricultural lands in Montana. Our investigations focused on spatial associations of rivers and creeks, livestock pastures, boneyards (livestock carcass dump sites), beehives, and grizzly bear habitat with reported human–grizzly bear conflicts during 1986–2001. We based our analysis on a survey of 61 of 64 livestock producers in our study in the Rocky Mountain East Front, Montana. With the assistance of livestock and honey producers, we mapped the locations of cattle and sheep pastures, boneyards, and beehives. We used density surface mapping to identify seasonal clusters of conflicts that we term conflict hotspots. Hotspots accounted for 75% of all conflicts and encompassed approximately 8% of the study area. We also differentiated chronic (4 or more years of conflicts) from non-chronic hotspots (fewer than 4 years of conflict). The 10 chronic hotpots accounted for 58% of all conflicts. Based on Monte Carlo simulations, we found that conflict locations were most strongly associated with rivers and creeks followed by sheep lambing areas and fall sheep pastures. Conflicts also were associated with cattle calving areas, spring cow–calf pastures, summer and fall cattle pastures, and boneyards. The Monte Carlo simulations indicated associations between conflict locations and unprotected beehives at specific analysis scales. Protected (fenced) beehives were less likely to experience conflicts than unprotected beehives. Conflicts occurred at a greater rate in riparian and wetland vegetation than would be expected. The majority of conflicts occurred in a small portion of the study area, where concentrations of attractants existed that overlapped with bear habitat. These hotspots should be the target of management and conservation efforts that focus on removing or protecting attractants using non-lethal techniques.

Soil conservation and poverty: Lessons from upland Indonesia

Soil conservation efforts in Indonesia since the Dutch colonial era have focused on introducing bench terraces—a costly soil conservation method for poor, upland farmers. Data from two villages in the Kerinci uplands of Sumatra illustrate that even with state underwriting of bench terrace construction, farmers across all economic strata still resist using this method. Why the state has not pursued alternative soil conservation approaches—especially ones that entail the “conservation farming “ approach and that can better build upon the diversity of upland farming systems—is discussed in the context of the states emphasis on productivist and commodity‐led agricultural development and on broader geopolitical institutions and forces that perpetuate this approach. Given these constraints, state underwriting of soil conservation for poor farmers (i.e., providing “landesque capital”; in Blaikie and Brookfields 1987 terminology) suggests undue hope through economic remedies and the ability of the state to impl...

The Value of Practice-Based Knowledge

Increasing recognition of the value of practice-based or experiential knowledge in natural resource management justifies the creation of a new category of articles in Society & Natural Resources that we are calling Practice-Based Knowledge (PBK). The rationale for focusing on PBK is due to its key role in the emergence of hybrid governance institutions across state, market, and civil society, understanding the complexity of dynamic socioecological systems, recognizing the challenges of multiple knowledge systems and context-specific practices, embracing the power of informal institutions and civic science, and engaging debates on the growing prevalence of market-oriented conservation. The goal is to provide a dedicated space within the published, peer-reviewed literature for scholars, government officials, nonprofit managers, and engaged citizens to share experiences informed by practical action. Relevant and timely practice-based insights may improve understanding and management of social and ecological processes and systems, while also offering the potential to contribute to theory.

Introduction from the New Editors-in-Chief (2012–2015)

Beginning with this issue, Society and Natural Resources has been turned over to a new editorial team: Jill M. Belsky and Daniel R. Williams as Editors-in-Chief and Maureen Bookwalter as Assistant Editor. We want to thank the outgoing team—Troy Hall, Tom Beckley, and Patricia Cohn—for so ably shepherding the journal through major changes, including the expansion to twelve issues per year and online manuscript management via ScholarOne. We greatly appreciate the assistance they have offered during our transition period and want to especially thank Patricia Cohn, outgoing Assistant Editor, for helping us learn the ins and outs of managing the journal. As described on the International Association for Society and Natural Resources’ Web site, Society and Natural Resources publishes ‘‘cutting edge research, wild card ideas, and intellectually stimulating and sound scholarship . . . pertaining to a broad range of topics addressing the relationships between social and biophysical systems.’’ Operationally the journal meets these goals by providing a variety of article types. The Web page self-frames the journal as ‘‘eclectic’’ and asserts a desire to keep it that way. But what does it mean to call something ‘‘cutting edge’’ in social-biophysical system research, especially in 2012 when there are many quality journals addressing similar topics? What does it mean to say we include a ‘‘broad range of topics’’ but also indicate we have our own niche, albeit an eclectic one, germane to SNR readers? What can and should a new editorial team do to meet these objectives as well as to improve the journal? Our vision for SNR builds on the organization’s core foundational philosophy of embracing topics pertaining to timely and important challenges for the analysis of society, environment, and natural resource interactions, and their management. We hope to publish articles that speak to critical challenges in the theoretical as well as applied dimensions of these issues, while offering both scholarly depth and broad appeal to the diverse SNR readership. By ‘‘eclectic’’ we reiterate an important openness to publishing work that deals with any of the key social forces shaping natural resources such as values and culture, class and economics, and power and politics. We encourage scales of analysis from the smallest micro-level of individuals involving psychological dimensions, up through middle range theories and units of analyses such as community, towns, regions, nations, to the most macro-scales of global dynamics. Our own personal research backgrounds and institutional affiliations reflect such diversity. We are particularly interested in studies that inform interactions across these social forces and scales. If we have learned anything over recent decades, it is that the social and human dimensions of natural resources are multifaceted and complex. Another aspect of that complexity involves biological and ecological processes, perspectives we hope to encourage during our tenure. While the journal does not privilege a particular social or ecological theory, Society and Natural Resources, 25:1–2 Copyright # 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.644219

Global Linkages to Community-Based Ecosystem Management in the United States

Abstract Community-based ecosystem management (CBEM) in the United States is closely tied to global processes. Increasing and shifting international market demands for ecosystem products and services together with global trends in climate change and biodiversity loss have tangible impacts in communities in every region of the country. Meanwhile, community-based natural resource management efforts in other parts of the world, particularly in developing countries, have a longer history than in the United States. This history, and the tools and techniques developed elsewhere for community-based resource management, can help to inform North American advocates and practitioners of CBEM. This paper has four objectives. The first is to identify key global trends that affect communities in the United States. These trends include demand and supply relationships (especially of forest resources) and environmental changes that will shape economic and policy choices in coming decades. Second, the paper examines countervailing forces of globalization and decentralization. How are shifting patterns of governance and control around the world affecting the prospects for sustainable community-based resource management? Third, the paper seeks to understand migration as a growing feature of many communities. What challenges and opportunities does migration pose for sustainable resource management? Finally, the paper summarizes a few of the tools and techniques used internationally that might have relevance in the United States.

Keeping ecological disturbance on the land: recreating swidden effects in Bhutan.

Introduction For many centuries, swidden agriculture was the basis of complex, linked socio-ecological systems throughout much of the world (Cairns, 2007; Xu et al., 2009; Padoch and PinedoVasquez, 2010). In South and Southeast Asia, hundreds of ethno-linguistically and culturally unique societies developed and managed treeor shrub-fallow farming systems that reflected context-specific environmental (e.g. climate, soils, slope and vegetation) and social conditions (e.g. cultural beliefs, governance institutions and socio-economic resources). For centuries these practices provided communities and households with food, fibre, building materials, medicines and other valuable products and, in the process, created and maintained floristically diverse and structurally complex vegetation mosaics across landscapes (Fox et al., 2009; Mertz et al., 2009a; Xu et al., 2009; Siebert and Belsky, 2014). However, in recent decades, swidden systems and the diverse societies that created and maintained them have disappeared or been radically transformed (Kerkhoff and Sharma, 2006; Fox et al., 2009; Mertz et al., 2009a; Xu et al., 2009). The bio-cultural losses associated with modernization and the integration of formerly isolated peoples into nation-states and a globalized economy are well documented, as are changes in traditional agricultural knowledge and practices (e.g. replacement of diverse, nutritionally rich subsistence food systems with more risky cash crops and monocultures that are dependent