Abstract
Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) involves a system of local practices designed to regulate access to, and use of, natural resources through rules and norms shared by a set of users. These institutions are usually defined through rational motivations that drive collective action and well-delimited social and spatial boundaries. We discuss the shortcomings of these premises in dynamic ecological systems where the location of resource concentrations is ephemeral. We explore four cases of community-based management of river turtle nesting sites on the lower Amazon floodplain. Despite the high ecological risks, monitoring costs, and limited material benefits, community residents remain motivated to engage in this collective activity. Based on information from numerous studies carried out over a period of two decades, we discuss how motivation to develop CBNRMs has changed over time and space and how intercommunity linkages have contributed to the endurance of this local institution.
Highlights
Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) involves a system of local practices designed to regulate access to, and use of, natural resources through rules and norms shared by a set of users
Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) consists of local practices that regulate access to, and use of, natural resources through rules and norms that are shared by a set of users (Berkes and Folke 1998, Berkes 2004, Child and Barnes 2010)
We argue that cross-community connections and intangible values are relevant in CBNRMs that are facing rapid social-ecological changes
Summary
Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) consists of local practices that regulate access to, and use of, natural resources through rules and norms that are shared by a set of users (Berkes and Folke 1998, Berkes 2004, Child and Barnes 2010). Cultural norms and social organization can facilitate local users’ willingness, commitment, and skill in collaboration (Ruiz-Mallen et al 2015), while broader contextual factors, such as policies, financial support, and conflicts with external actors, can trigger interest in engaging in collective efforts to manage local resources (Seixas and Davy 2008). The latter includes biological and physical processes that influence the managed system, ranging from attributes of the resource such as mobility (Schlager and Ostrom 1992) to predictability and ecosystem vulnerability. The degree of fit between regulated practices and ecological context is a key factor influencing the performance of these institutions (Ostrom et al 1999, Berkes et al 2000)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
