Volume 17, Issue 4 (2-2024)
مرتع 2024, 17(4): 665-683 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghanbari F, Islami I, Azadi H. The collaborative governance system of rangelands and social networks analysis: Explaining the challenges of multi-level communication of organizational stakeholders in Semnan Province. مرتع 2024; 17 (4) :665-683
URL: http://rangelandsrm.ir/article-1-1169-en.html
URL: http://rangelandsrm.ir/article-1-1169-en.html
Tarbiat Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources and Marine Sciences, Tarbiyat Modarres University, NourUniversity
Abstract: (281 Views)
Background and objectives: The collaborative governance approach involves a cooperation network among various actors, crucial for stable relationships in rangeland management. Understanding the multi-level model of organizational stakeholder relations and the stability of this structure is essential for effective rangeland management, especially after significant projects such as the Hable Rood project. This study aims to analyze diverse government actors' multi-level interactions in Semnan Province's rangeland ecosystems and enhance their structural stability in responding to sectoral needs.
Methodology: Central and peripheral actors involved in the Hable Rood project in Semnan Province were identified through field surveys across Semnan, Sorkheh, Aradan, and Garmsar counties. Data collection utilized a researcher-made questionnaire and interviews with 27 organizational workers, categorized into protection, development, and intermediary areas. Social network analysis was conducted using macro, middle, and micro-level indicators, and communication data were processed using Gephi 0.9.2 and Ucinet 6.528 software.
Results: The evaluations showed that the governance structure is based on the formation of institutional multi-level relations with protection, development and mediation duties. Here, the stability and low social cohesion of the structure (with alarming indices of density 0.1, centralization 0.4 and reciprocity 0.25) becomes an obstacle to the resilience of rangeland governance in the face of climate crises and proper social performance on eangeland fields. Among the various actors, protection institutions were the most active and intermediary institutions were the most effective. The results warned that the situation with low transitivity (0.25), the low speed of information circulation between stakeholders and the dominance of the out-group approach with low support and the weak cohesion of the in-group are among the most important issues facing participatory governance in rangelands. The activists of the Department of Natural Resources and Watershed Management in the centers of the cities (such as the Department of Natural Resources and Watershed Management of Aradan with an betweenness centrality of 180.45) and the central office of the Sustainable Management of Water and Soil Resources of Hable Rood in the center of the province with a centrality of 133.02 and institutions such as the governorate, with the highest centrality (141.55) were recognized as the most active and key actors compared to other actors, who were responsible for most of the collaborative activities and the transfer of network information in the project and with the people. Here, there is a need for greater mobility of organizational mediators (such as Aradan Nomadic Affairs Department (with a centrality of 3.54), Semnan Rural Cooperative Management (with a centrality of 3.2) and Garmsar Water Resources Management with a centrality of 5.24) with tasks outside the scope of activities. The fields of natural resources management and especially the need to accompany them more in the executive and support duties of prangelands and its users, especially when they are away from the centers of local projects, were taken into consideration. This study made it clear that the centrality of influential institutions is completely dependent on the centrality of various peripheral institutions related to them. Therefore, the integrated and active communication of peripheral and central organizations of the network mutually has a deep impact on the coherence and output of cooperative relations in the rangeland.
Conclusion: Collaborative governance necessitates multi-level, diverse communication among natural resource management actors. Polycentric governance requires cooperation among protection, intermediary, and development organizations at various levels. Achieving decentralization and continuous interactions between decision-making institutions is vital, emphasizing the need for expanded network cooperation at local levels.
Methodology: Central and peripheral actors involved in the Hable Rood project in Semnan Province were identified through field surveys across Semnan, Sorkheh, Aradan, and Garmsar counties. Data collection utilized a researcher-made questionnaire and interviews with 27 organizational workers, categorized into protection, development, and intermediary areas. Social network analysis was conducted using macro, middle, and micro-level indicators, and communication data were processed using Gephi 0.9.2 and Ucinet 6.528 software.
Results: The evaluations showed that the governance structure is based on the formation of institutional multi-level relations with protection, development and mediation duties. Here, the stability and low social cohesion of the structure (with alarming indices of density 0.1, centralization 0.4 and reciprocity 0.25) becomes an obstacle to the resilience of rangeland governance in the face of climate crises and proper social performance on eangeland fields. Among the various actors, protection institutions were the most active and intermediary institutions were the most effective. The results warned that the situation with low transitivity (0.25), the low speed of information circulation between stakeholders and the dominance of the out-group approach with low support and the weak cohesion of the in-group are among the most important issues facing participatory governance in rangelands. The activists of the Department of Natural Resources and Watershed Management in the centers of the cities (such as the Department of Natural Resources and Watershed Management of Aradan with an betweenness centrality of 180.45) and the central office of the Sustainable Management of Water and Soil Resources of Hable Rood in the center of the province with a centrality of 133.02 and institutions such as the governorate, with the highest centrality (141.55) were recognized as the most active and key actors compared to other actors, who were responsible for most of the collaborative activities and the transfer of network information in the project and with the people. Here, there is a need for greater mobility of organizational mediators (such as Aradan Nomadic Affairs Department (with a centrality of 3.54), Semnan Rural Cooperative Management (with a centrality of 3.2) and Garmsar Water Resources Management with a centrality of 5.24) with tasks outside the scope of activities. The fields of natural resources management and especially the need to accompany them more in the executive and support duties of prangelands and its users, especially when they are away from the centers of local projects, were taken into consideration. This study made it clear that the centrality of influential institutions is completely dependent on the centrality of various peripheral institutions related to them. Therefore, the integrated and active communication of peripheral and central organizations of the network mutually has a deep impact on the coherence and output of cooperative relations in the rangeland.
Conclusion: Collaborative governance necessitates multi-level, diverse communication among natural resource management actors. Polycentric governance requires cooperation among protection, intermediary, and development organizations at various levels. Achieving decentralization and continuous interactions between decision-making institutions is vital, emphasizing the need for expanded network cooperation at local levels.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2022/10/15 | Accepted: 2023/11/11 | Published: 2024/02/29
Received: 2022/10/15 | Accepted: 2023/11/11 | Published: 2024/02/29
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
