![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
Two community-based conservation processes in the United States provide comparative case studies to examine how social capital relates to democracy. Following a summary of social capital research, we describe the cases: one designed to preserve an endangered species and the other to restore water quality. We discuss how social capital dampened democratic practice in one case, while invigorating it in the other. We conclude that, by relying indiscriminately on social capital in the absence of complementary state structures, conservationists risk losing the very nature they seek to defend, and all citizens risk losing the energy and space essential to democracy.
Funding for this research was provided by Texas Cooperative Extension, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Funding for this research was provided by Texas Cooperative Extension, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Notes
Funding for this research was provided by Texas Cooperative Extension, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1. William Shakespeare, “As you Like It” 3-1, The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin), 424.
2. Frank N. Laird, “Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision making,” Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (1993), 341–61; Albert C. Lin, “Participants’ Experiences with Habitat Conservation Plans and Suggestions for Streamlining the Process,” Ecology Law Quarterly 23 (1996), 369–446; John F. Turner and Jason C. Rylander, “The Private Lands Challenge: Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Private Property,” Private Property and the Endangered Species Act, ed. Jason F. Shogren (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1998), 92–137
3. M. Nils Peterson, Markus J. Peterson, and Tarla Rai Peterson, “Conservation and the Myth of Consensus,” Conservation Biology 19 (2005), 262–67.
4. Murray Print and David Coleman, “Towards Understanding of Social Capital and Citizenship Education,” Cambridge Journal of Education 33 (2003), 123.
5. Pierre Bourdieu, “Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. John G. Richardson (New York: Greenwood, 1983), 248.
6. Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 167.
7. Pamela Paxton, “Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship,” American Sociological Review 67 (2002), 256.
8. Francis Fukyama, “Social Capital and the Global Economy,” Foreign Affairs 74 (1995), 89–103.
9. Nan Lin, “Building a Network Theory of Social Capital,” Social Capital Theory and Research, ed. Nan Lin, Karen S. Cook, and Ronald S. Burt (New York: Aldine De Bruter, 2001), 12.
10. Frans J. Schuurman, “Social Capital: The Politico-emancipatory Potential of a Disputed Concept,” Third World Quarterly 24 (2003), 991–92.
11. Schuurman, 996.
12. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, “Social Capital and Community Governance,” The Economic Journal 112 (2002), F419.
13. Bowles and Gintis, F420.
14. Robert L. Ivie, “Prologue to Democratic Dissent in America,” Javnost—The Public 11, no. 2 (2004), 19–35; Robert L. Ivie, “Rhetorical Deliberation and Democratic Politics in the Here and Now,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (2002), 277–85; Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political (London: Verso, 1993); Chantal Mouffe, “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?” Social Research 66 (1999), 745–58; Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso, 2000).
15. M. Nils Peterson, Stacey A. Allison, Markus J. Peterson, Tarla Rai Peterson, Roel R. Lopez, “A Tale of Two Species: Habitat Conservation Plans as Bounded Conflict,” Journal of Wildlife Management 68 (2004), 743–61; M. Nils Peterson, Markus J. Peterson, and Tarla Rai Peterson, “Conservation and Myth.”
16. Joshua Farley and Robert Costanza, “Envisioning Shared Goals for Humanity: A Detailed, Shared Vision of a Sustainable and Desirable USA in 2100,” Ecological Economics 43 (2002), 245–259.
17. Peter Kollok, “Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation,” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998), 183–214; Eleanor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
18. Sonya Salamon, Richard L. Farnsworth, and Jody A. Rendziak, “Is Locally Led Conservation Planning Working? A Farm Town Case Study,” Rural Sociology 63 (1998), 214–34; Farley and Costanza, “Envisioning Shared Goals.”
19. Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy 6 (1995), 65–78; Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000); Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina (eds), Civic Engagement in American Democracy, (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999).
20. Alejandro Portes, “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology,” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998), 1–24.
21. Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1974); Moncur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969); Roger Waldinger, “The Other Side of Embeddedness: A Case-Study of the Interplay of Economy and Ethnicity,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 18/3 (1995), 555–80.
22. M. Nils Peterson, Tarla Rai Peterson, Markus J. Peterson, Roel R. Lopez, and Nova J. Silvy. “Cultural Conflict and the Endangered Florida Key Deer,” Journal of Wildlife Management 66 (2002), 947–68.
23. Regarding dangers, see Portes; regarding decline, see Putnam, “Bowling Alone,” 1995; Putnam, Bowling Alone, 2000.
24. Peterson et al., “Tale of Two Species.”
25. Daniel Decker and Lisa Chase, “Human Dimensions of Living with Wildlife—A Management Challenge for the 21st Century,” The Wildlife Society Bulletin 25 (1997), 788–95; Albert C. Lin, “Participants’ Experiences with Habitat Conservation Plans and Suggestions for Streamlining the Process,” Ecology Law Quarterly 2 (1996), 369–446; Seth Tuler and Thomas Webler, “Voices from the Forest: What Participants Expect of a Public Participation Process,” Society & Natural Resources 12 (1997), 437–53.
26. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Rendall (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); John Lange, “Refusal to Compromise: the Case of Earth First!” Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990), 473–94; Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985); Thomas R. Lindlof, Qualitative Communication Research Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).
27. Peterson et al., “Cultural Conflict.”
28. James A. Anderson, Communication Research: Issues and Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987); David Silverman, Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1993).
29. The basic interview guide for both cases included the following questions:
-
What led you to participate in the process?
-
What participants have interests similar to yours?
-
What are the similarities?
-
Are there participants who have interests different from yours?
-
What are the differences?
-
What has been good or bad about this process? Most useful?
-
Do you have any suggestions for improving the process?
-
Did your relationships with other participants change during the process?
-
Whose interests did the process serve?
-
How did it do that?
30. Tarla Rai Peterson, Kim Witte, Ernesto Enkerlin-Hoeflich, Lorina Espericueta, Nancy Flora, Jason Florey, Tammie Loughran, and Rebecca Stuart, “Using Informant Directed Interviews to Discover Risk Orientation: How Formative Evaluations Based in Interpretive Analysis can Improve Persuasive Safety Campaigns,” Journal of Applied Communication Research 22 (1994), 199–215.
31. Lincoln and Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry; Tarla Rai Peterson, Sharing the Earth: The Rhetoric of Sustainable Development (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 34–53.
32. Endangered Species Act § 3(18).
33. 50 CFR § 17.3.
34. 50 CFR § 17.3.
35. Endangered Species Act § 10(a).
36. Thomas J. Shoenbaum and Ronald H. Rosenburg, Environmental Policy Law: Problems, Cases, and Readings (Westbury, NY: Foundation Press, 1996), 564; US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2005). Conservation plans and agreements database, http://ecos.USFWS.gov/conserv_plans/public.jsp (accessed 18 January 2005).
37. Brian Loew, “Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Planning: Goals and Strategies of Local Governments,” Environmental Management 26 (2000), S15–S21.
38. Texas Senate Bill 1272. Regular Session of the 76th Legislature, [1 September 1999], Codified at Texas Parks and Wildlife [TPW] Code §§ 83.011–83.020 (1999).
39. TPW Code § 83.016(a–c).
40. TPW Code § 83.015(c).
41. Stacey A. Allison, “Community-Based Conservation Planning: The Case of the Endangered Houston Toad in Bastrop County, Texas” (Masters thesis, Texas A&M University, 2002).
42. US Fish and Wildlife Service. “Critical Habitat for the Houston Toad Determined,” News Release, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM (1978).
43. Linda Campbell, Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life History and Management (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1996).
44. Allison.
45. Peterson et al., “Tale of Two Species.”
46. Peterson et al., “Tale of Two Species.”
47. Peterson et al., “Tale of Two Species.”
48. US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Safe Harbor Agreements for Private Property Owners: Questions and Answers. US Fish and Wildlife Service Publication 703/358–2105, 2001.
49. Peterson et al., “Tale of Two Species.”
50. Peterson et al., “Cultural Conflict.”
51. Clean Water Act US Congress 33.
52. James Salzman and Barton H. Thompson, Jr., “Water Pollution,” Environmental Law (New York: Foundation Press, 2003), 123–147.
53. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, The State of Texas Water Quality Inventory, 13th ed. (Austin, TX: TNRCC, 1996), SFR-50,12/96; Clean Water Act § 303(d) List and Schedule for Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (Austin, TX: TNRCC, 1999), SFR-58/99.
54. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Statewide Basin Management Schedule (Austin, TX: TNRCC, 1997).
55. Chuck McCollough, “Flood Damages Being Tallied,” San Antonio Express-News (4 November 1998), METRO 1H.
56. David Charles Gore, “Adam Smith's Rhetorical Sympathy: A Return of Moral Sentiments to Public Policy” (Masters thesis, Texas A&M University, 2001).
57. Steven E. Daniels and Gregg B. Walker, Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001).
58. Francisco Herreros, The Problem of Forming Social Capital: Why Trust? (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 2.
59. Paxton, “Social Capital and Democracy,” 257.
60. Eric T. Freyfogle and Dale D. Goble, Wildlife Law: Cases and Materials (New York: Foundation Press, 2002).
61. Terry Tempest Williams, “Ground Truthing,” Orion 23/3 (May/June 2004), 47.
62. Williams, 47.
63. George C. Coggins, “Regulating Federal Natural Resources: A Summary Case Against Devolved Collaboration,” Ecology Law Quarterly 25 (1999), 602–10.
64. Stephen Knack, “Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence from the States,” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2002), 772–85; 773.
65. Peterson et al., “Moral Culture.”
66. Ivie, “Prologue to Dissent”; Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox; Peterson et al., “Conservation and the Myth.”
67. Paxton, “Social Capital and Democracy.”
68. Ivie, “Prologue to Dissent”; Peterson et al., “Moral Culture.”
69. John D. Peters, Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 257.
70. Peters, Speaking into Air, 230.