IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v20y2012icp99-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The value of cultural theory for participatory processes in natural resource management

Author

Listed:
  • Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A.
  • Permadi, Dwiko B.
  • Yasmi, Yurdi

Abstract

Participation is viewed as an important means for promoting the sustainable management of natural resources. However, participation is not always successful. Conflicting values and power inequalities are all factors that can severely undermine participatory processes. Where so far the main focus of research has been on power imbalances and conflicting interests, this article focuses on another source of conflict, i.e. differing views of reality and underlying cultural biases. Research states that cultural theory (CT), which subdivides the divergent notions of reality into four worldviews (hierarchism, individualism, egalitarianism, fatalism), could be a useful tool to gain insight in conflicting views of reality and the consequences of these conflicting views for participatory processes. To investigate the value of CT for participation, a study in Java (Indonesia) was carried out to determine to what extent worldviews can be used to predict preferred strategies in forestry problems. The results show that an empirical identification of worldviews was possible. These worldviews however do not automatically explain how individuals address forestry problems. This might be because of the difficulty of measuring worldviews in relation to individuals' strategies. It might also be that CT's explanatory capacity is overestimated. In either case, we can conclude that CT the way it is used now is not the instrument that will help us solving the problems in participatory processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Permadi, Dwiko B. & Yasmi, Yurdi, 2012. "The value of cultural theory for participatory processes in natural resource management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 99-106.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:20:y:2012:i:c:p:99-106
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934111001924
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.12.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoogstra, Marjanke A. & Schanz, Heiner, 2008. "The future orientation of foresters: An exploratory research among Dutch foresters into the prerequisite for strategic planning in forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 220-229, February.
    2. Jean Brenot & Sylviane Bonnefous & Claire Marris, 1998. "Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 729-739, December.
    3. James Tansey, 2004. "Risk as politics, culture as power," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 17-32, January.
    4. Hjortso, Carsten Nico, 2004. "Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR--an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 667-683, February.
    5. Beckley, Thomas M. & Korber, Dianne, 1995. "Sociology's Potential to Improve Forest Management and Inform Forest Policy," Staff Paper Series 24082, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    6. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    7. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    8. Susanne Rippl, 2002. "Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 147-165, April.
    9. Ellis, Richard J. & Thompson, Fred, 1997. "Culture and the Environment in the Pacific Northwest," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 885-897, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dijana Djuric, 2023. "The impact of upbringing and the local community on the development of environmental awareness among college educated people in Bosnia and Herzegovina," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 5393-5410, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2024. "Scale reliability of alternative cultural theory survey measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 527-557, February.
    3. Rachel A. Hirsch & Jamie Baxter, 2011. "Context, Cultural Bias, and Health Risk Perception: The “Everyday” Nature of Pesticide Policy Preferences in London, Calgary, and Halifax," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 847-865, May.
    4. Brendon Swedlow & Joseph T. Ripberger & Li‐Yin Liu & Carol L. Silva & Hank Jenkins‐Smith & Branden B. Johnson, 2020. "Construct Validity of Cultural Theory Survey Measures," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2332-2383, October.
    5. Jingjing Zeng & Meiquan Jiang & Meng Yuan, 2020. "Environmental Risk Perception, Risk Culture, and Pro-Environmental Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Boschetti, Fabio & Richert, Claire & Walker, Iain & Price, Jennifer & Dutra, Leo, 2012. "Assessing attitudes and cognitive styles of stakeholders in environmental projects involving computer modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 247(C), pages 98-111.
    7. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    8. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    9. Maarten Wolsink, 2004. "Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2669-2690, December.
    10. van de Graaff, Shashi, 2016. "Understanding the nuclear controversy: An application of cultural theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 50-59.
    11. M. Aenne Schoop & Marco Verweij & Ulrich Kühnen & Shenghua Luan, 2020. "Political disagreement in the classroom: testing cultural theory through structured observation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 623-643, April.
    12. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    13. Dowty, Rachel A. & Wallace, William A., 2010. "Implications of organizational culture for supply chain disruption and restoration," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 57-65, July.
    14. Anna Olofsson & Saman Rashid, 2011. "The White (Male) Effect and Risk Perception: Can Equality Make a Difference?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 1016-1032, June.
    15. Colin E. Beech & Rachel A. Dowty & William A. Wallace, 2012. "The dynamics of organisational response: simulating cultural change," International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 74-103.
    16. Montefrio, Marvin Joseph F. & Sonnenfeld, David A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2015. "Social construction of the environment and smallholder farmers' participation in ‘low-carbon’, agro-industrial crop production contracts in the Philippines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 70-77.
    17. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    19. Gail Markle, 2019. "Understanding Pro-Environmental Behavior in the US: Insights from Grid-Group Cultural Theory and Cognitive Sociology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, January.
    20. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:20:y:2012:i:c:p:99-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.