Close this search box.


4 Responses

  1. This is very fascinating.

    Could you kindly explain more on your findings on bridging and bonding social capital – and possibly their interactions and implications for collective action?

    Was this a one-off study or were you building upon a previous baseline?

  2. Tied to the question by Mapedza, i would really love to read more on your findings about bridging and bonding capital.In my PhD study (writing thesis) i found linking and bridging capital to have a strong influence on social learning about SLM but bonding capital not so much.

  3. Dear Everisto and Karaya,

    Many thanks for your nice feedback and thoughtful questions. Your questions seem to focus on the results at the household level. The quantitative household level data were collected using a new resilience assessment instrument. In the final version of the instrument that was used in the analysis, social capital items included trust, reciprocity, cooperation and leadership. We conceptualized bonding social capital as the quality of relationship among members of a household, while bridging social capital was conceptualized as relationships among households within a given community. We did not explicitly measure linking social capital. However, we had a construct on household connectedness to forest organizations/institutions and those institutions included external organizations, so conceptually, that construct captures linking social capital as well.

    To respond to Everisto’s question, results from our regression models showed that bonding social capital and connectedness to forest organizations had a significant positive effect on household participation in the collaborative forest management program, but bridging social capital did not have a statistically significant effect on participation. We interpreted the strength of bonding social capital to imply that family ties with leaders of the collaborative forest management program may be an important factor in creating opportunities for participation. The results on bridging social capital, however, came as a surprise. With regard to the interactions, to the best of my knowledge, the interactions among the various types of capital assets have not received enough research attention. Although we did not look at this in detail, we did analyze the effect of past capitals on current capitals and the results showed that each type of past household capital asset had a statistically significant positive effect on current levels of those assets. Past household bonding social capital had a significant positive effect on current bonding social capital, but a negative effect on current household bridging social capital. Again, we did not dig too much into the interactions, but the negative effect of bonding social capital on bridging social capital is not surprising, as high levels of in-group solidarity may constrain opportunities for trust and cooperation with outsiders (Francis Fukuyama 2001). The study was designed to test a new conceptual model on community resilience as well as new indicators for assessing community resilience, so no previous baseline studies existed. The framework and instruments are currently being applied to Nepal’s community forestry program by a Ph.D. student under my supervision, but I’m yet to revisit the Ghana case study. It will be a pleasure to discuss further potential applications in Ghana.

    To Karaya: I think your findings are very interesting and consistent with the social capital literature. Linking and bridging social capital both capture social ties outside a given group and those ties provide new opportunities for learning, resource mobilization, creation of new opportunities etc. To read more about my results, please see the following:
    Akamani, K. & Hall, T. E. (2015). Determinants of the process and outcomes of household participation in collaborative forest management in Ghana: A quantitative test of a community resilience model. Journal of Environmental Management, 147, 1-11.

    Other results from the same study can be found in:
    Akamani, K. & Hall, T. E. (2019). Scale and co-management outcomes: Assessing the impact of collaborative forest management on community and household resilience in Ghana. Heliyon, 5(1), e01125.

    Akamani, K., Wilson, I. P., & Hall, T. E. (2015) Barriers to collaborative forest management and implications for building the resilience of forest-dependent communities in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 11-21.

    Akamani, K. (2012). A community resilience framework for understanding and assessing the sustainability of forest-dependent communities. Human Ecology Review, 19(2), 99-109.

Leave a Reply

Event Sponsor / Commanditaire de l'événement