Less attention has been paid to the expectation of the broader communities with respect to individual cooperative behavioural choices, with the exceptions of studies such as Waring ( 2011), Aswani et al. Both approaches have tended to focus on the externalised behaviour itself. Previous works have examined cooperative behaviour through either laboratory experiments or field studies (e.g. Some others have argued that there is not enough evidence to show that migrants contribute to either negative or positive outcomes (Sierra 1999 Begossi 1998 Cassels et al. Trust and social cohesion between locals and migrants is key for the integration of the two groups with consequent beneficial environmental outcomes (Portes 1998 Curran 2002 WIOMSA 2011). Some studies indicate that there is a positive relationship between migrants’ integration and their cooperative behaviour (Ostrom et al. However, it has been said that the exact effect of migration varies from place to place (Baker 1998 Molinas 1998 Vedeld 2000 Varughese and Ostrom 2001).
Also, in coastal communities, migration has been one of the major causes of cooperation failure in natural resource governance (Dietz et al.
Migration can make it more difficult to build a consensus due to differences in social and economic values, cultural norms and individual status (Cernea 1989 Blair 1996). Migration can hamper cooperation due to unfamiliarity and a potential lack of mutual trust between locals and migrants (Palsson 1998 Ostrom et al. However, there are also several factors that can lead to cooperation failure: migration is recognized as a factor that can make cooperation in natural resource management more complex (Ostrom 1990 Bandiera et al. There is a broad consensus regarding the conditions that underpin cooperation in relation to natural resource governance, such as well-defined rules, monitoring ability, graduated sanctions and conflict resolution mechanisms (Baland and Platteau 19 Ostrom 1990 Agrawal 2002 Dietz et al. Cooperation can help prevent social dilemmas such as the overexploitation of natural resources. 2013 Braaten 2014 Villasante and Österblom 2015). 1999 Jentoft 2000 Pretty and Ward 2001 Pretty 2003 Agrawal 2002 Carlsson and Berkes 2005 Acheson and Gardner 2011 Cinner et al. Understanding the social context that guides individual behaviour for natural resource governance in a time when residential fluidity may keep increasing has relevance to other communities.Īn extensive body of literature has shown the importance of cooperation among local resource users to sustainably manage common-pool resources (Pinkerton 1989 Ostrom 1990 Ostrom et al. We find that people with dense social ties participate in community cooperation more than others, and that residents practise their cooperative behaviour in a way that fits community expectations: which was influenced by age and birth origin. Externalised cooperative behaviour was significantly different between locals and migrants, and the residents’ location in the social network was related to the level of cooperation, even though they had similar individual cooperative preferences. The present study demonstrates this influence through quantitative and qualitative data obtained in Shiraho village, Okinawa, Japan.
Despite the increasing need for local and migrant populations to cooperate in natural resource governance, little attention has been paid to community contexts that influence individual cooperative behavioural choices among them.
0 kommentar(er)
