PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

A

71"] 3 09

1

D C152008

 

“1:“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:lC|RC/DateDue.indd-p.1

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A
COSTA RICAN WATERSHED

VOLUME 1
By

Delanie Kellon

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Resource Development

2006

c -.
"’ °.,.K {'Hfi '-

u... . .u.

 

§ .
‘i"'A I2. . !'
w§§ ;,-‘“~J \.
._ W
.5. ‘
v p.
\ .
“*~\1.:L \L
’3- I:
. c
‘P53 ;- K'f‘. .0
"kml~

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A
COSTA RICAN WATERSHED

By
Delanie Kellon

This study explores human dimensions of watershed management in a small watershed
on the Caribbean side of Costa Rica. Using a multiple method, qualitative approach, the
researcher tried to develop an understanding of local residents’ perspectives regarding
their natural resource management, concerns, problems, and potential solutions, and
hoped to identify support among the watershed communities for implementing alternative
natural resource management and sustainable deveIOpment initiatives. The reported
results reveal a high degree of stakeholder knowledge and understanding about their
shared natural resources, the identification of important resource management and use
conflicts, and suggestions about how to improve these situations. The research also

revealed benefits of using multiple methods for understanding and measuring human

dimensions of watershed management.

J”; ..ut§ b ‘ ‘

‘ilr‘svv-r-w‘

‘1’, . - . o-
r. o."- ,\1\ "‘
WU mun. “"U

.e-L I; ’.
K l51\ H

.l -u u: ““

ply-«‘19‘ " 9h . Y‘

“A...” ~., \i nl\ l‘

L. '- ‘
I.“ \ «9- N" \
DDK\“.\IJ 5.15.. \

m “‘ 5 -
“ \\.'u_.".
l". «Ln -
. ‘ V.
-. t. z, w»
. \.
'fi
l';.- L
itgvhl‘lfil
‘ “
\‘i‘v.,
\1‘ 4
"~u‘ 2"!

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

While more people than I could ever list here have helped me over the course of research,
data analysis and interpretation, reporting findings, and writing and rewriting the chapters
of this thesis, the support offered by the following people has been absolutely critical to
the completion of this project. First and foremost, I would like to thank the community
members of the Dos Novillos Watershed for taking the time to share their thoughts and
ideas with me. Without their willingness to let me into their communities, meeting halls
and homes, and spend their precious time with me, this research project would not have
advanced at all. lnteractin g with the people of these communities made the challenging
task of conducting focus groups and in-depth interviews in the field an absolute pleasure

in addition to being an incredibly rich learning experience.

The collaboration and support of EARTH University’s administrators, professors, and
staff was critical to this research. Dr. Carlos Hernandez asked my advisor, Dr. Michael
Kaplowitz, to apply for NCAA funding, and it was this grant that ultimately helped to
fund the research project. EARTH’s president, Dr. Jose Zaglul, was completely
supportive of my efforts. Dr. Carlos Hernandez, Dr. Pedro Bidegaray, Dr. Jane Yoemans,
and Dr. Julio Tejada, among others, provided valuable information and input. Dr. Daniel
Sherrard and his family gave me a place to call home and Dr. Jim French lent me is
office. Eduardo Ruiz, Luis Diego Chacon and Arnoldo Quiros provided me with
transportation and logistical support at all hours. Special thanks to my good fi‘iends and

former co-workers, Marta Escoto and Larissa Blanco for making my time spent at the

iii

L
L.

eaioA‘v-i ' "
“a. h s i ~ -.
-

. .

.»'_g.m‘ Ir‘ ‘

J; c..‘..l_ a b .. ~u
.

~ ~.— 0 o

L“ ”I", 1" ..

I54\uili-\l. 5" I“-

\n- a .5 v ,
r l u
l... .‘.‘......(1.;
r . ,
.""' " ‘ , o,
‘L . hul‘d‘.‘ ‘1\Ha

--.
mu... I

; ‘ 4 if 5‘
«~- u .1. ..

. |
fl

\" )I‘".

 

 

 

office a pleasure and for always lending a helping hand. Gina Reyes and Larissa worked
incredibly hard to transcribe all of the focus group sessions and individual interviews.
Their excruciating attention to detail and personalized notes to be about the meaning of
acronyms and local slang made my analysis that much richer. Thanks also to Georgina
and Helen for taking the time to do anything you could to help me out, and to Katia

Yoemans and Gary Cooke for helping with the focus group sessions.

Edmundo Castro, the director of the Research Center for the Study of Ecological
Economics (CRESEE) generously provided input on this research, as well as a wealth of

information about natural resource and agricultural issues and previous research in the

study area.

In addition to applying for and receiving the funding used to carry out this project, my
advisor, Dr. Michael Kaplowitz, also provided around the clock guidance and insight into
the entire research process. His uncompromisingly high standards were always a goal and
an incentive for me to do the highest quality research possible. My committee members,
Dr. Jeff Riedinger and Dr. Scott Whiteford, were always willing to meet with me to talk

about the project and to share their invaluable experience, perspectives and insights.

Professors and colleagues with the Department of Resource DeveIOpment (RD) provided
an exceptionally supportive and positive atmosphere for learning and developing critical
thinking skills. While all of my classes in RD exposed me to new ideas and new ways of

thinking about natural resource and community development issues, Dr. Kim Chung’s

iv

‘I
C . x in 01.
Lil“ \‘K dinL-u‘i. ‘ s

V ‘ ‘
,1 .._,. .. .
&1L\i.>l'ud\- ‘uu-

fi‘“"‘“fl‘ qua. a.“
I
‘i-Umuul. 4;“, n“

E“.‘\? '0‘ n'p‘
i'k“"" iM hi‘
' \

 

' v

0‘)” QM", ‘ ‘. '

E .1" “3...... 5‘15
5

‘9'!

F . ‘ . .
..~ Cxa'th ‘.\

 

h»!
l 0"
"._l"p
"s {air-
53‘».
. v,
(F
we» _.
\\'
net l'
in?!»

 

class on qualitative research methods was invaluable to me as it prepared me to deveIOp

and conduct qualitative research, and to analyze qualitative data.

I have been fortunate to work for EARTH University Foundation throughout my master’s
program, and the support and understanding of the Foundation’s president, Gian Rossi-
Espagnet, and the entire EUF team has made it possible for me to continue my work for

them during each stage of my program.

This research would not have been possible without the financial support of: a National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ‘White Water to Blue Water’
Special Project Grant; a Water Security Grant from The William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation; and a Research Fellowship from Michigan State University’s Center for

Latin American and Caribbean Studies (CLACS).

My family and friends have been steadfastly supportive of me during my entire master’s
program, and especially during the thesis writing process, despite the fact that they were
not entirely sure what my research project was all about. My husband, best friend, and
fellow master’s student, Oscar Arreola, suffered the most during my master’s program,
but he remained an unwavering supporter of my efforts and my abilities, in addition to
being an excellent sounding board for ideas, and provider of comments and critiques
about my work and this research. He also kept me fed and reminded me to have fun and
enjoy life. For everything he has done and for all he continues to do, I am extraordinarily

thankful that we are in this together.

Lhiflil

CHlPTF
l\TR(Hl

PT It)!
A 4 1
'\ . _
i \f“ ’21:
‘3? - '
n - “LL—l

P,

S...‘Q
e‘l

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TAB LES ............................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
STUDY OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... l
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 3
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN COSTA RICA ........................................ 3
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT APPROACH ............................................................... 8
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ........................ 9
Lessons Learned - Common Problems with the Approach .............................................. 10
PREVIOUS WORK IN THE STUDY AREA ................................................................. 1]
RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................................. 11
METHODS AND PROCEEDURES ............................................................................... 13
RESEARCH SITE ........................................................................................................... l4
Reventazon-Parismina Watershed ............................................................................ 14
Dos Novillos Sub-Watershed ................................................................................... 14
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 15
Qualitative Research ................................................................................................ 16
Multiple Methods ..................................................................................................... 17
Focus Groups ........................................................................................................... 18
Individual Interviews ............................................................................................... 18
POPULATION AND STUDY PARTICIPANTS ............................................................ 18
INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................................................. l9
QUALITATIVE DATA - ANALYTICAL APPROACH ................................................ 19
Content Analysis ........................................................... . .......................................... 2O
SAMPLE SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................. 22
IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS .......................................................................... 23
FOCUS GROUPS ............................................................................................................ 24
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................ 25
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 25
PHASE I AND PHASE II ................................................................................................ 26
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF APPROACH .................................................. 27
STRENGTHS .................................................................................................................. 27
WEAKNESSES ............................................................................................................... 28
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ........................................................................ 29
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 3 1
CHAPTER 2

vi

lHEORIIIClI
mot. tn
v.71 iii REV
015nm ,i.\ l
v.11 in RI w
W. in Rl s:
IlliERSElED ‘.f

intents: \i.
naiixzfxin r

DM.,-.,;

15..~“'_;...

.- o.. I.’ F .
L‘ a
‘ “an“ H“
I I ‘a
L\\_\\ “\ [\- I
\1,‘ ‘ \ .n. .
'LI'Ҥ|..\

PEEK IUL S “I. .

(“\[LI8hi\

C H.\P1‘lLR 3
\IEIHUDS ‘\\
“315111 11. .
PE" E\Ixi/l 1‘...
37" M iii. .
DIES \U“ H I l -
)fi \l)‘, ”II
\EiHruy,lik
'31 11mm 5

(ffiunjjj .

nu.“ .

T“‘ul

E:
I\

I‘A
p

[18(le II
\ti‘RI-H [)'

WP!

. ,9 .L LAT“ )\\ I

 

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 34
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN COSTA RICA ...................................... 34
COSTA RICAN CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 37
NATURAL RESOURCES AND SOCIETY ................................................................... 46
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES .............................. 46
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT APPROACH ............................................................. 53
Integrated Watershed Management Approach ......................................................... 54
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ...................... 56
Perception-Based Research ...................................................................................... 58
Institutional Arrangements ....................................................................................... 60
Lessons Learned — Common Problems with the Participatory Watershed
Management Approach ............................................................................................ 63
PREVIOUS WORK IN THE STUDY AREA ................................................................. 66
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 66
CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEEDURES
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 68
REVENTAZON-PARISMIN A WATERSHED .............................................................. 69
DOS NOVILLOS SUB-WATERSHED .......................................................................... 69
DOS NOVILLOS WATERSHED — GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES ................................. 71
DOS NOVILLOS WATERSHED — NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................... 74
DOS NOVILLOS WATERSHED — COMMUNITIES ................................................... 76
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 78
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 80
Grounded Theory ..................................................................................................... 82
MULTIPLE METHODS ................................................................................................. 83
Triangulation ............................................................................................................ 84
FOCUS GROUPS ............................................................................................................ 84
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................ 86
RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 87
POPULATION AND STUDY PARTICIPANTS ............................................................ 88
INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................................................. 89
PHASE I — FOCUS GROUPS ......................................................................................... 89
Discussion Guide Design ......................................................................................... 91
Sample Selection Process ......................................................................................... 92
Focus Group Sessions .............................................................................................. 94
PHASE II - INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS .................................................................... 95
Interview Guide Design ........................................................................................... 96
Sample Section Process ........................................................................................... 96
Individual Interviews ............................................................................................... 97
RESEARCH CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................ 99
QUALITATIVE DATA - ANALYTICAL APPROACH .............................................. 100
CONTENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 101
Open Coding .......................................................................................................... 102
vii

 

.4qu (5i:
Intuit. t
I‘ll ileililH
FREE I i" K
(Jeri; I 7.
PHQSE ll - l‘xl‘
(7.1.1:; Pr.
$111515. L <3

(‘H \PILR 4
[\IPLE\II:\I
§\TR13')1_L‘I'.
P fill 'i-‘- ‘ \ *
F'thtiRl ill
01":
RJCSL'IZ;
(3:73:

Refit;

 

Axial Coding .......................................................................................................... 102

Thematic Coding .................................................................................................... 103
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 106
PHASE I - FOCUS GROUPS ........................................................................................ 107

Coding Procedure ................................................................................................... 108
PHASE II - INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ................................................................... 111

Coding Procedure ................................................................................................... 113
ANALYSIS CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................... 115
CHAPTER 4
IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 19
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................. 120
FOCUS GROUPS .......................................................................................................... 120

Origin ..................................................................................................................... 120

Residential Zone .................................................................................................... 12 1

Gender .................................................................................................................... 121

Respondents’ Years of Residency .......................................................................... 122

Respondents’ Employment Type ........................................................................... 123

Types of Agricultural Production ........................................................................... 125
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................... 126

Origin ..................................................................................................................... 126

Residential Zone .................................................................................................... 127

Gender .................................................................................................................... 128

Respondents’ Years of Residency .......................................................................... 129

Respondents’ Employment Type ........................................................................... 131

Types of Agricultural Production ........................................................................... 132
FOCUS GROUPS .......................................................................................................... 135
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 135
FOCUS GROUP ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 140

Open and Axial Codes ........................................................................................... 140

Thematic Codes ..................................................................................................... 141
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................... 173
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... I73
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS .................................................................... 175

Open and Axial Codes ........................................................................................... 175

Thematic Codes ..................................................................................................... 176
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 272
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................ 272
PHASE I (FOCUS GROUP) FINDINGS ...................................................................... 287
PHASE II (INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW) FINDINGS .................................................. 289
COMPARISON FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 291
FOCUS GROUPS (PHASE I) AND INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS (PHASE II) ......... 291

viii

 

 

RLRII DD I
“(lb “7.1.:

I - i'
“u: ‘ -\IM-b- .

513% AD RI P
OTHERil\iM‘\
DPIAIRRPH:
Di\ILkinifii:
ifflSliRi ll 3.‘
DDHiDIXI i
iii-ER \l‘lli ‘-.'
STREViIiIS .‘a
HRE\UIH5
“Eik\f§\}\

itkifilhi\\'

CU\CLLSIIH‘\

.5J‘?E\D](L\’

g .
a?\?‘

l ~-

A
.14 n)p ;. '
I‘ !~"L‘r\l
I .
‘ ,u- 4.
.1 p»..u,\ I
I
'u

'1‘ p3,!

‘
.
I
a
t .
n ‘r
f 1‘;

‘l'ilRfciii-f

 

 

RURAL AND URBAN AREAS ................................................................................... 293

Focus Groups ......................................................................................................... 293

Individual Interviews ............................................................................................. 296
AyA AND RURAL AQUEDUCT SERVICES ............................................................. 299
OTHER FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 302
DEMOGRAPHICS - GEOGRAPHICAL ZONE .......................................................... 302
DEMOGRAPHICS — GENDER .................................................................................... 302
FOCUS GROUP DYNAMIC ........................................................................................ 303
INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT BEHAVIOR ................................................................ 304
RIVER VOLUME ......................................................................................................... 305
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF APPROACH ................................................ 305
STRENGTHS ................................................................................................................ 306
WEAKNESSES ............................................................................................................. 309
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ...................................................................... 31]
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 3 1 5
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 3 18

Appendix A. Verbal Informed Consent Script ....................................................... 318

Appendix B. Focus Group Discussion Guide ......................................................... 320

Appendix C. Focus Group Invitation ..................................................................... 323

Appendix D. Individual Interview Discussion Guide ............................................. 324
WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................ 329

ix

Iii.’ i FA‘LI‘i

13:72: Fit.» 1

H ‘
i132: .1 th‘b I

 

~41
i)
I k.
“:T‘
T
A4

0-.
l'[¥

 

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

LIST OF TABLES

Focus Group Respondents’ Origin, Residential Zone and Gender ............ 122
Focus Group Respondents’ Years of Residency ................................. 123
Focus Group Respondents’ Employment Type ................................... 125
Individual Respondents’ Origin, Residential Zone and Gender ............... 128
Individual Respondents’ Years of Residency .................................... 130
Individual Respondents’ Employment Type ....................................... 132
Individual Respondents’ Types of Agricultural Production .................... 134
Individual Respondents’ Perceived Threats to Well-being ..................... 180

 

 

v'n

,—

7-" v.»

‘ ~a.5

b h.‘

I“.\
§

' ".1

Ԥh-5
§

‘—TW
1

’I

Fx-MH‘I

(..

9..

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Costa Rica and Study Area ............................................................ 2
Figure 2. Focus Group Coding Example ....................................................... 260
Figure 3. Focus Group Open/Axial Codes ..................................................... 261
Figure 4. Focus Group Thematic Codes ........................................................ 263
Figure 5. Individual Interview Open/Axial Codes ............................................. 264
Figure 6. Individual Interview Subcategory Thematic Codes ............................... 265
Figure 7. Individual Interview Overarching Thematic Codes ............................... 266
Figure 8. Individual Interview Coding Example .............................................. 267
Figure 9. Focus Group Sessions and Locations ................................................ 268
Figure 10. Individual Interview Locations ..................................................... 268
Figure 11. Dos Novillos Watershed Communities ............................................ 269
Figure 12. Upper Dos Novillos Watershed Community — Sampling Guide ............... 270
Figure 13. Lower Dos Novillos Watershed Communities — Sampling Guide ............. 271

xi

 

 

AyA

CBNRM
CDP

CRESEE

EARTH

ICAA

IDA

JAPDEVA

MAG

MINAE

MIRENEM

RA
RAC

SINAC

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados [Costa
Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Drains]

Community-Based Natural Resource Management
Community Development Program

Centro Regional de Estudios en Economia Ecologica [Research
Center for the Study of Ecological Economics]

Escuela de Agricultura de la Region Tr0pical Humeda
[Agricultural University of the Humid Tropical Region]

Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados [Costa
Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Drains]

Instituto de Desarrollo Agraria [Institute for Agrarian
Development]

Junta de Administracion Portuaria y de Desarrollo de la Vertiente
Atlantica [Port Administration and DeveIOpment Board of the
Atlantic Region]

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia [Ministry of Agriculture and
Cattle]

Ministerio de Ambiente y Energia [Ministry of Environment and
Energy]

Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energia y Minas [Ministry of
Natural Resources, Energy and Mines]

Rural Aqueduct
Rural Aqueduct Committee

Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservacion [National System of
Conservation Areas]

xii

’".' .‘.‘N“ ofi' 1r- '

....—'.—~'\.. ~... .
w

[‘3' “"5 g P1

5’ 1,.s0 "’V‘. ‘i .
"‘ *\‘u4...‘\. .I

“.3- '1.
e 5 g

4".-3 v.

"‘ 4133C flat-

12:." ‘
i‘~.i\11\ k

 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to explore the human dimensions of watershed
management in the Dos Novillos Watershed, a sub-watershed of the Reventazon-
Parismina, which is located on the Caribbean side of Costa Rica (see Figure 1). This
project aimed to utilize a multiple methods approach in order to understand local citizens’
perspectives with respect to natural resource management problems and potential

solutions, and to identify support among the watershed communities for implementing

alternative natural resource management and sustainable development initiativesl.

STUDY OBJECTIVES
The project’s objectives were to: assess stakeholder knowledge, perceptions and
understanding about natural resource management in a watershed context; provide
watershed communities and EARTH University with information about natural resource
management problems, contributing factors, potential solutions, and statements regarding
community members’ willingness to collaborate to help improve various aspects of
natural resource management; and evaluate the effectiveness of a multiple methods
approach for understanding and measuring human dimensions of watershed management

in Costa Rica.

 

1There were no specific initiatives proposed to research participants during the phases of the study reported
here. Rather, questions about community members’ willingness to participate in efforts to improve natural
resource management referred to potential solutions that the community member(s) had suggested or
referred to generalized efforts to improve the resource problems he/she (they) cited during focus group
discussions and individual interviews.

r, VF“ ‘ ,c
In? I (CPU R‘SI

     

”fl"

Costa Ri

:minuri

‘ mud, “\ri’cd .
.J‘. ‘
hm Cl‘
.1 .
II snur‘m ,T \

 

 

Figure 1: Costa Rica and Study Area

 

Sources: Arreaga and Bracamontes (2001)
htlp://go.hrw.com/atlas/span_hm'i/cstarica.htm

A]: L

http://encaflamsn.““ 2..-“- w, ‘ ’...a,,.aspx

,, Id.

I1. y . ~ .

lul.‘ \LIICII I is i I V

p- v ‘3 " Q ‘ (‘ . ,

31.5msni nI-n \“
.

l

!--t‘.r L33 \ 0- VI:-
‘Jls.§lL»u niJ.-J-\

VIII R.\L Rl’..\(l
I. ’3...

1-1;.33‘; Article;
Rita‘s 3mm?"
ital: .md ugh-.6
I." IF‘ 1 i ‘
.. .11. 2’. 1'3? II} dCC.
33:4331\Ilil‘lcrii of n
iT7-' r

‘24‘14 and (Mr.

.5 “.9
1,. .

'-' ”1 (Nil Rica

y‘n, ..
\ i"

, .mmcm. the c
mnhm ambi
firigcmcnl l Exp
12.2fm cl al. In

13:54..
“IQ—320R.”

Pry...
'"-""I"U 301 ll 1

r: an
I“ 10 ,

b a re"Ull. ha. u

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section briefly reviews previous scholarly work touching on natural resource
management in Costa Rica from global, national, and local perspectives, including

watershed management approaches.

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN COSTA RICA

In Central America, a region known for governmental instability and corruption, Costa
Rica’s government is notably stable and democratic, and its civil society is impressively
literate and active in the political process (Skidmore and Smith 2005). Costa Rica is also
notable for its dedication to natural resource conservation, which has resulted in the
establishment of numerous environmental laws and 121 continental protected areas
(Tejada and Castro 2000, DeShazo and Monestel 1997 in DeShazo 2001). However,
despite Costa Rica’s environmentally aware citizenry2 (INCRE 2004) and proactive
government, the country still faces a potentially severe environmental crisis. Some
researchers attribute current natural resource management problems to poor water
management (Espeleta 2001 , Sherr et al. 1997 in Tejada and Castro 2000, Sanchez-
Azofeifa et al. 2002, Pareja and Sosa 2001, Calvo 1990) and poor land use planning
(Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Carpenter el al. 2001, Pagiola 2002, Kaimowitz 2001,

Panayotou 2001).

With respect to water, Costa Rica receives an average of 3,272mm of rainfall a year and,
as a result, has one of the largest supplies of fresh water in the world (Espeleta 2001).
Espeleta (2001) believes that the country’s abundant rainfall has led many Costa Ricans

g

2 Environmental education is included in the country’s national curriculum for grades 1-6 (INCRE 2004).

...l»iil.1:v~é3'~'7
L\ “""

I 0‘ 9
l - 1 v
arm“ .n- ‘m? . ‘
5J|I1‘_‘;IirI\lllJn db »

r. 123 In FY" '37}-

: lead: .md UV

43,, iax ‘ -""
“ans \llxdk‘ ‘kh"\ .

H
L"

«.‘- ~~ ' ‘
um. \‘dl \‘19‘1\ ‘1 ‘

..
gin-ALI]. A} -
.i.. :“A‘ I-“iL\~

grandma ix 4?:

Rear

:3 from .1:

H ‘
., .. 5, 5th ‘
5.1. [l I

I
I with list.-
13. .3
“his

arkpmcnt. M-

l 9-,; - .
infill-gill

 

CG LEI I'hi

F“vn'
«mg. llx “413i

([95.
“It .Jllllt" 111ml \

i
J;3h1» .
r"~n.hliltin I)
t::\‘a.‘
‘ “””nihalh
I'jf'jt -

mu. h.

Ufii‘flu“
Ill P4

to think that water is an infinite, free resource that can be extracted at will. Furthermore,
it has been suggested that poor water management has caused socioeconomic and
environmental deterioration to take place in Costa Rica’s watersheds, and that this has
resulted in poverty, malnutrition, low family income, loss of water quality, prolonged
droughts, natural disasters, erosion and changes in the local water cycle (Sherr et al. 1997
in Tejada and Castro 2000). In apparent recognition of the problems that are thought to be
caused by poor water management, there have been calls for preventative action in
watersheds where carrying out remedial activities and capitalizing on available resources

and local capacity appear possible (Sherr et al. 1997 in Tejada and Castro 2000).

Along these lines, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. (2002) discuss the current conflicts
surrounding water resource management in Costa Rica. They describe how competing
pressures from agriculture, industry, hydropower generation and the demand for clean
and plentiful drinking water is taking place in a context of unsustainable urban
development, population growth and an expanding tourism industry. They conclude that
uncontrolled land use and cover change is a very real threat to Costa Rica’s ability to

manage its water resources.

One of the most critical land use and cover change problems is deforestation and forest
fragmentation. Despite the country’s impressive protected areas system and conservation
legislation that is intended to protect its forest resources, Costa Rica has experienced one
of the world’s highest rates of deforestation (Peuker 1992, FONAFIFO 2000, World

Bank 2000 in Pagiola 2002). In the 19805, Costa Rica actually had the highest

“1 "h \ y"
Lf'fiddt‘l‘. my ;.

v
‘7‘," ‘fl‘\ k\ ‘ w" ..
blurs-u“. LK".‘
. . .

ixg‘v' "f
i

,. x '3' ‘
J\.\ls M]\n ”555‘
‘

‘ ll 1L .. ,
Jll‘ i .Aullxtuu‘h‘

I
\n‘w

“r’ "' ‘ “| '
\AT-l\1hl;\ -. 1U;
‘

0- x‘. 0‘
V .3 . ,
M‘.‘ ‘3‘ 38‘ d‘tdl.

\l

:3; _ .
uni-Tammy J”

i“) 4!“,1‘ m i
‘L"‘~ t'mLJI “CH

I, u .
Ll analtlt‘tn If C"
1] ‘

"‘7
V

Riff]? ..
{9&2 n h 1‘ .
Alla} {v

Jaw-w- V
antralfln Old "
\?

3,"\ ..
\,‘- ‘51
Mg \01l

' crl‘\:

1v ‘
“‘10 3”.
~ ~‘l‘~ ctr ~ .
t i I'..' 9
. . .\

trl'ikQ] _
’ “ “tum:

“(UT

fikzth mil,

 

01-.
“‘Hiiikfif‘” d w

0
i: IP21
’\ .
-d\ 5Ci‘n‘ .'VV\]
. H; \
dfl- I
\|‘;:|lir .
”km 5
‘ Ll
i“! 9

deforestation rate in the world (Panayotou 2001). Between the late 1970s and the early
19903, the country is estimated to have lost about 35—40 percent of its forest cover, driven
primarily by conversion to agriculture and pasture. It is commonly believed that this
deforestation negatively impacted water services in Costa Rica (Pagiola 2002, Kaimowitz
2001). Although Costa Rica’s apparent lack of attention to deforestation may seem
surprising considering its pro-conservation reputation, Panayotou (2001) reports that it
took the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998 for
deforestation and land use policy to become the focus of the environment and

development debate in Central America.

In addition to environmental consequences, there are also socio-economic impacts related
to poor natural resource management. Carpenter el al. (2001) highlight the human
dimension of deforestation’s impact on soils. They state that deforestation and the
ensuing soil erosion is especially detrimental in the humid tropics where rainfall is heavy
and crops are often planted on steep slopes. They assert that the loss of productivity in
tropical areas of the world, such as Costa Rica’s Atlantic Region, is on a, “collision

course with increasing human population density and the demand for food.”

Calvo (1990) adds that the environmental, agricultural and socioeconomic implications of
erosion due to deforestation and poor agricultural management practices could “sacrifice
future economic opportunities and may threaten not only the water resources

development but also the national [Costa Rican] political and social stability.” He

contends that the viability of existing and potential hydropower plants (which Costa Rica

it‘s-sits on to ms:

.. 2:4 .
i. maul“: {O ltkfl
r " .. N I
{>I‘;;Ci.t'-“'; ' .t'
1,. !‘_. ‘ .
C 8.4 Rzkd i.‘ 53.11..
.t..(‘ ,
m. on: Rh}! It
‘v 9.0;. 4.. . i
4‘: ikm iaJL I'Jr ‘
a» .
in» :fii‘ln: ”it-hp :‘
‘ r ' ‘ \At(

(“‘61 R1

1 " '

\~ “- .\J mthi ..
Q;

I... . ‘
.‘ ‘ . .. r ‘
..d.t:.\.‘ndli\ . ( d

a”,
\n}

cc m order r

l"

 

 

depends on to meet increasing electricity demands) are seriously threatened by

deforestation and incompatible land uses in the uplands.

In addition to threats to adequate food production and hydro-electric power generation,
Espeleta (2001) argues that under the current natural resource management situation,
Costa Rica is headed for a water quality crisis. Eleven years after Calvo (1990) concluded
that Costa Rica, a small country with obvious natural resources limits, must develop
long-term natural resource and environmental management plans in order to cope with its
increasing p0pulation growth, Espeleta (2001) reiterated Calvo’s warning by stating that
Costa Rica must act quickly to address its water quality problem at the highest levels.
Additionally, Calvo emphasized the urgent need to apply appropriate pricing to the water
service in order to control consumption and avoid a crisis. More than 10 years later,
Sanchez-Azofeifa (2002), Pareja and Sosa (2001), and Pagiola (2002) all echo Calvo’s
call to control water consumption by discussing the numerous competing users of
watershed services: hydroelectricity generators; industry; small to large-scale agriculture
(including banana, and ornamental plant plantations); municipal water supply systems;

and populations in flood-prone areas.

While Costa Rica’s past failure to adequately protect its forest and water resources raises
concern about the country’s ability to enforce seemingly sound natural resource
management legislation, there does appear to be optimism about the future of natural
resource management due to some researchers’ view that throughout the 19905, SINAC

had a significantly positive impact on society’s perception of biodiversity conservation.

@3311er in l.-
4'4‘

..;.;5-:d to m; it .

lib {733360 J Can \I

 

+1." .3 — x '
h~-_ \\p‘ln~d K|r k.-

;\~t- _ .
~~‘~--‘u1”..~n. 1‘ '1"

I
I

{ii-3.138510 m .1; ..

31:1:er bf Mr,
. i u.'. \

.t » ~r
Immunity] .b F

-..
h!

Tigi I.

 

Castro (1993) in Tejada and Castro (2000) states that since the 19905, SINAC has
managed to more efficiently administer the country’s biodiversity and that the institution
has created a good environment for advancing natural resource management research and

projects.

Additionally, researchers claim that due to tourism revenues, Costa Rican policy makers
have come to see their country’s natural resources as more valuable intact and protected,
than exported or depleted (DeShazo 2001). Costa Rica, like many countries, uses
ecotourism as a means to earn income needed to maintain conservation areas and protect
biodiversity in addition to contributing to the overall economy (Panayotou 2001). Costa
Rica may be particularly successful at this due to its stable and democratic government,
its reputation as being “eco-friendly”, and the wide variety of environments and activities

available to tourists (Skidmore and Smith 2005, Panayotou 2001).

In addition to considerations about the Costa Rican government’s capacity to manage
natural resources, and the potential for cooperation with the tourism sector, other
researchers have focused on the role that they feel citizens can and should play in the
process. These researchers advocate for participatory natural resource management based
on their experiences and an international literature that discusses the strengths and
weaknesses of different kinds of community-based arrangements carried out in a wide
variety of contexts. Indeed, it should be noted that scholar-practitioners that have
contributed to the literature and practice of community-based natural resource

management (CBNRM) make it clear that natural resources all around the world have

t .

"- mAn V,\ ' h“
LYRI- r.in:.|AJ-.\U r ‘
. .

t; ‘ r. ‘, 0'
111?; lotmnlcizrt‘

In“! I m ,1 [m uh
rid-L u“\.r \Ai uIIL.
b

_'r u
as. 1nd ltwr»

lightm lWl‘. l.

 

MlERSllFD )
‘iizi-c there are 7‘.
M‘m'

. ’V ' ‘
unsrf 5‘4:th 1‘ .-

1?;

. up}
“kc?“ , I.) v ' \
‘kltL\n-\ ‘5‘.

a 3‘
5h“!

......

 

 

been managed by diverse representations of communities both alone or in partnership
with governments and/or private entities. This literature also shows that, as with any
management method, there will always be context specific challenges to face, pitfalls to
avoid, and lessons to learn (Ostrom 1990, Ostrom and Schlager 1996, Ostrom et al. 1994,

McKean 1996, Jodha 1996, Baland and Platteau 1996).

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT APPROACH

While there are multiple definitions for the term, ‘watershed’, one straightforward
interpretation is that a watershed delimits “the boundaries of a hydrologically
independent area” (Sen et al. 1997). Knox and Gupta (2000) offer a more all-
encompassing definition: “Watersheds connect land units through lateral flows of water,
nutrients and sediment, linking farmers, fishers and urban dwellers in intricate cause and

effect relationships.”

Regardless of the exact definition of ‘watershed’, it appears that watershed-based
approaches have been suggested as appropriate methods for natural resource management
planning for both hydrological and biological reasons. Kaimowitz (2001) states that the
term ‘watershed management’ “implies that someone manages land use at a scale larger
than a farm to achieve collective benefits.” Depending on the local situation, the
collective benefits that can typically be the focus of watershed management projects are:
flood control; greater dry season flow; landslide prevention; improved water quality;
forest protection; and reduced sedimentation of reservoirs, waterways, and coastal zones.

Rhoades (1998) points out that when a development or management goal is to “balance

.4 ._i .1
D..t.Jt..-.‘Il Lit. v. .
hr 7‘9- kn ,-
1..."....r§...l l. “H

v v 1
JG xklr. MGM?

C0\l\ll V“ l
in ital ‘cn ms.
in: if: using .1
:trxrtnztj. ms?"
pifggiptz.'sr). 1r).
1 :npmxmg li'. .
Stiltlptlt‘lr} u .:'
i335 C'l‘l'lalula

i‘l‘ 3., H |

..1.1 numtn -‘

L.
at?!) done tudi:

.
193‘,

 

inertia: to H

\
'u\\f\\

l'dl and .

M.»
‘m- and ..

IR: l
”“IIDV'

‘ dlrntgxl

 

production and conservation at many scales over both short and long—term planning
horizons. . .the watershed unit is ideal for these ends since it designates a layered natural
and social phenomenon (multi-scale, diverse user, complex resource) which is also

readily appreciated by lay persons, policy makers, and fiJnders.” .

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

As has been made apparent in the previous sections, it is not uncommon for researchers
that are using a watershed management approach to stress the importance of the role of
community members and other stakeholders. According to Sen et al. (1997),
participatory, integrated watershed management is “a continuous and participatory effort
at improving livelihoods and overall human development.” In this way, the intention of
participatory watershed management is to help farmers and community members take
charge of natural resource management in an effort to advance poverty alleviation and
overall human development. The literature indicates that true participation requires
project coordinators to partner with local community members in a way that has not often
been done traditionally (Sen et al. 1997, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995, Fam'ngton and Lobo

1997).

According to Hinchcliffe et al. (1995), in order for watershed management to be
successfirl and sustained, a project must “see farmers as the solution rather than the
problem, and so put local knowledge and skills at the core of programmes.” They explain
that for almost a century, rural development policy and practice assumed that farmers

could not or did not properly manage the soil and water. As a result of this belief, farmers

. u

‘ " q. . .
. ‘1 X

:‘i‘; )31“ .l\.||\\\

4:3".v1,“ \xn.fi.l '
J» ho.;.$r \\ .11: .....
.

. ..
:1‘ '2 gun}. \ o
...11.1:lu;lt.u\t
I

rm .«ro ~,

‘1
3‘ 51",. ‘l
s‘ul~u\1.l\.\‘slrsx

.!
1116

lessons learnt-d
mm to th.
is: 13.»?- nv Rd ‘.
Liz-sac. Farrah : '

'A ’1’)»

.....\h:tlm.'::.1.

ii‘i‘nlnd KIWI“ -

{in -, .
5:10th 1\ r.

 

57
5‘
—

 

have been “advised, lectured at, paid and forced” to adOpt new techniques. In some cases,
the target communities benefited for a time, but it has been observed that financial and
legal incentives often bring about short-term conservation improvements because farmers
eventually reverted back to their original practices after incentives ended or lost their

value.

Lessons Learned - Common Problems with the Approach

In addition to the cautionary advice given by Hinchcliffe et a1. ( 1995), other researchers
have also noted the approach’s shortcomings in an effort to improve both practice and
outcome. Farrington and Lobo (1997) state that small, participatory, NGO sponsored
watershed management projects are abundant, but typically must repeat the same time-
consuming, expensive, in-depth techniques in each successive village, therefore, they
expand very slowly. On the other hand, government-sponsored projects are known to
expand rapidly, but they often do not count on the local ownership and stakeholder
support that is needed to ensure sustainability. They explain that “approaches to
watershed planning and implementation which are both participatory and easily
replicable have remained elusive: most exhibit one or other of these characteristics, but
not both.” They suggest that the experiences of existing, successful projects need to be
analyzed by adapting variations for different conditions (increase or decrease in livestock
numbers, crop diversification, different formal and informal institutional arrangements)
in order to better prepare for proposed future projects. They contend that, unfortunately,

the preconditions for scaling-up are often not identified and incorporated into the new

l0

PREVIOL S “
Prc‘. :o-Us nature

. .
' ‘ ‘ .1. ‘ h‘ .
33;..‘31‘d .‘l :4“

rd Raw- l‘W
ilk-377370 luv:
DZ’.‘ VS“ Iii . '\ \\
54‘ 568?. Jr. a: r
Tahiti ream“
Castro 21“.. 1.

\

~ .
.11; 1

Z'T‘hfir ’
" \\r\ perk.‘

.r: , _

{‘H 1%.
w» mgr-3 Dru \

“1:1“: I (Y?)

“‘rmcnr ‘1

project’s design, thus decreasing the chances of implementing an efficient and sustainable

project.

PREVIOUS WORK IN THE STUDY AREA

Previous natural resource management work in the D05 Novillos Watershed has
evaluated some of the socio-economic and biophysical aspects of the Watershed (Navarro
and Reyes 1999, Cuesta 1999), as well as the sustainability of the productive systems
(Guerrero 1996). However, these studies focused primarily on the middle section of the
Dos Novillos Watershed and the community of La Argentina. Other preliminary work
has been done to identify and prioritize, through a somewhat participatory method,
natural resource management objectives and action areas for the Watershed (Tejada and
Castro 2000, Tejada et al. 2000, Navarro and Reyesl999). While some community
members’ perceptions seem to have been taken into account in these previous studies,
there has not been a research effort targeting all of the communities located throughout
the entire Dos Novillos Watershed concerning their perceptions about natural resource

management. This research project addresses this lack of information and understanding.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This thesis addresses the need for perception-based research of community members with
respect to natural resource management (Sen et al. 1997, James et al. 2002, Adegbidi et
al. 1999). The need for this kind of research is particularly urgent in the study area
(discussed in Chapter 3) due to the socio-economic and environmental vulnerability that

exists in the Watershed (Cuesta 1999, Guerrero I996, Navarro and Reyes 1999, Pareja

ll

1130522011. 1.
tamer rtquzr-b .
217:3! resource 7
c.2- cc-n-ccrm g '
1?» research .p

ll ho“ rm.

\) .ilcrtfm

DJ
3"
r.
fi
r
C
V

L‘COl‘lUn‘;
211111. ('_
ell] 21..
Pay-.13 Q
3’ [he dllcrr
”annuity.
:lil]. K
P4113}. ..
41

lhc ‘Ll’

natural r

199‘. ljl

 

and Sosa 2001, Tejada and Castro 2000). Addressing these vulnerabilities in a viable

manner requires collaborating with local communities, one aspect of which includes

gaining a thorough understanding of the community members’ perceptions regarding

natural resource management issues and opportunities in their watershed. By collecting

data concerning the perceptions of community members in the Dos Novillos Watershed

this research specifically explores stakeholders’ perceptions of:

1)

2)

3)

4)

how natural resources are currently being managed in the D05 Novillos
Watershed (Espeleta 2001, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Calvo 1990, Tejada and
Castro 2000, Guerrero 1998, Cuesta I999, Navarro and Reyes 1999, Pareja and
Sosa 2001);

how current resource management affects, and is impacted by, the socio-
economic activities of the local communities (Calvo 1990, Chaves and Lobo
2000, Costanza 1998, Espeleta 2001, Tejada and Castro 2000, Sanchez-Azofeifa
et al. 2002, Kaimowitz 2001, Carpenter et al. 2001, Farrington and Lobo 1997,
Pagiola 2002, Rhoades 1998);

the alternatives that exist for possibly achieving more sustainable natural resource
management and improved quality of life in the Watershed (Calvo 1990, Espeleta
2001, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Pagiola 2002, Tejada and Castro 2000,
Panayotou 2001, Deshazo 2001, Girot et al. 1998);

the stated willingness of community members to participate in efforts to improve
natural resource management using methods that they deem viable (Sen et al.

1997, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995, Rhoades 1998, Farrington and Lobo 1997, Swallow

12

ctal 3"“.
and

5) will? It“?

155115 lI‘r .-

\“'r,v 4'1

‘nll
y

‘17. r ‘H ‘
T p. at \k 4\

research qucxzr. ‘

.m..=urtc mans '

 

et al. 2001, White and Runge 1995, Blackburn and Holland 1998, Pagiola 2002);
and

5) with respect to research methods, this project evaluates whether or not a
qualitative, multiple method approach yields in-depth, salient and accurate
information regarding community members’ perceptions about natural resource
issues in their watershed (Patton 2002, Kaplowitz 2000, Knodel et al. 1990,

Morgan 1998, Strauss and Corbin 1998).

The project was designed to collect data that would allow the researcher to address these
research questions, which are grounded in and linked to previous literature on: A) natural
resource management in Costa Rica in global, regional, and national contexts; B) natural
resources and environmental services; C) the watershed management approach; and D)
the role of community participation in watershed management, the consideration of
institutional arrangements, and common problems with the participatory watershed
management approach. Additionally, the usefirlness of the study’s multiple methods
approach was evaluated with respect to literature on E) qualitative multiple method

research approaches.

METHODS AND PROCEEDURES
To accomplish the research goals and objectives, the project employed a multiple method
approach designed to use successive phases of data collection to learn about topics of

particular relevance to community members while being grounded in previous research

13

' ‘ 'I‘r ‘7‘
T r T .u
on 3' likT‘hsu r

;. bag]: on f“ 0 T‘

RESEARCH SI
Th: rmmd res;
Micah-ed of it: '

ll}: crrcro lw a: r

R‘rwntamn-Par

GU3TCTt‘ l l‘Nh r

was»
at

.1 .4111 \\ dig-r,

e“~1’FE‘ICITrs. an:

in.

gift] 5 [,0ch.

HM"
Y's -
Ii‘rv ,
l j .\ , \
Wt].
\Y'h.)
”w

 

 

on watershed management (Patton 2002; Strauss and Corbin 1998). The reported research

is based on two phases of qualitative research (focus groups and individual interviews).

RESEARCH SITE
The reported research took place in the D05 Novillos Watershed, which is a sub-
watershed of the Reventazon-Parismina — the major watershed in this part of the country

(Guerrero 1996).

Reventazén—Parismina Watershed

Guerrero (1996) states that the Reventazon-Parismina is one of Costa Rica’s most
important watersheds. It is located on the eastern side of the country and drains into the
Caribbean Sea, thus it is essential to the well being of communities, farmers, fragile
ecosystems, and biodiversity of the northern Caribbean lowlands and Tortuguero
National Park, as-well as other wetland and marine environments that are critical to the

region’s tropical ecology and the health of the Caribbean Basin.

Dos Novillos Sub-Watershed

The Dos Novillos, a sub-watershed within the Reventazon-Parismina, is home to
approximately 7,000 people that live in a mix of rural communities and more populated
small towns or settlements, which are referred to as the ‘urban area’ in this document (see

Figure 11).

I4

' . V‘
“« ’."‘g r
‘ .kL2rUli‘- uK

-
firsts an .16}
frakedzcr:
an-

xoa.hcxscxc

...,‘ a.» ..
3w». ‘ .' l \

I ‘
r 1
MI». 5“-

n

15.x er 53:12. -

.
cuff), \e1~._‘r
“hi-5h £Lar:

o
5.1.

h t

1')- ~ a“
uk\i>ll~‘u )

'I W, :9 -
in»2\~11\lt§ \LC

CJFTTO :i I hi i,

According to Tejada and Castro (2000), the D05 Novillos Watershed is unique in that,
from an ecosystem perspective, it is still intact enough to warrant preventative action as
opposed to restoration. It is important that the prevention of further deterioration begins
soon, however, because the Watershed is under pressure from extensive productive
activities (cattle farming and banana, pineapple, and ornamental plant plantations) in the
lower section, and deforestation in the middle and upper sections. “If allowed to continue
under current management practices, these activities could seriously deteriorate the
Watershed’s natural capital and thus, its ability to carry out important socio-ecological
functions such as water capture, scenic beauty and biodiversity protection” (Tejada and
Castro 2000). As Pareja and Sosa (2001) point out, the D05 Novillos River is also
extremely important to the Watershed communities because it is their primary water

source for agricultural and industrial activities.

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Data collection for this project was carried out using a multiple methods approach with
the goal of understanding local citizens’ perspectives regarding natural resource
management (including impacts, problems, and potential solutions) as thoroughly as
possible, and identifying their willingness to support and participate in natural resource
management initiatives. The project’s approach builds on literature that suggests the use
of qualitative methods when in-depth data is sought (Patton 2002), and the use of more
than one qualitative method to help investigators answer their research questions in a
more thorough and accurate manner (Patton 2002, Strauss and Corbin 1998) and to

compensate for possible bias caused by the unwillingness of some participants to disclose

l5

sensitive information during focus group sessions (Kaplowitz 2000, Knodel et al. 1990).
To accomplish this, the research project was specifically deSigned to allow for
preliminary, generalized issue sc0ping using multiple small-group discussions, followed
by in-depth, private, individual discussions about key issues (Patton 2002, Strauss and
Corbin 1998). By using this multiple methods approach, researchers hoped to gain a
greater understanding of local community perceptions (than would be possible if using a
survey questionnaire or just one qualitative method) regarding natural resource
management issues directly influencing future sustainable development in the Watershed
(Sen et al. 1997, James et al. 2000, Adegbidi et al. 1999, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995, Rhoades
1998). Toward these ends, Phase I (focus groups) was undertaken in June and July 2004

and Phase II (individual interviews) took place in July and August 2004.

Qualitative Research

’ While there are many different ways to undertake qualitative research, the term can be
defined simply as “. . .any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by
statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 10-1 1).
Some researchers would modify this strict definition, however, by pointing out that
quantitative analysis is often carried out on qualitative data as a supplement to the
qualitative analysis (Patton 2002). In the social sciences, it is generally understood that
qualitative research allows for an in-depth and detailed study of individuals’ thoughts,
feelings, perceptions and ideas (Patton 2002, Rubin and Rubin 1995, Strauss and Corbin
1998). This tradition, which accepts that different people and groups have diverse

perceptions, views, value systems, and constructions of reality, and aims to collect data in

16

-. ‘ .L.
the firm at r1...
~ tr 1 ‘ 1‘”
[Chin it‘ ...t P

1: ricc rain 1'r..

Rim and R55:

Grounded Thp

~\
E.
‘\\.-i~‘;c
TNT‘T'IT'T
I“:
\
1 A
j ‘11"

the form of rich descriptions told in research participants’ own words, is often set in
contrast to the positivist tradition of carrying out research under the assumption that there
is one reality that exists regardless of people’s different perceptions (Holliday 2002,

Rubin and Rubin 1995).

Grounded Theory

Qualitative researchers such as Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Patton (2002) discuss the
typical problem in which researchers begin their study with such strong preconceptions
and theories based on what they have read and heard, as well as their own experiences,
that they are not able to truly hear or understand the people they are interviewing. Strauss
and Corbin (1998, 12) contend that the researcher should instead “. ..allow the theory to
emerge from the data”. This ‘grounded theory’ approach is used to inductively generate
theory that “. . .emerges from the researcher’s observations and interviews out in the real

world rather than in the laboratory or the academy” (Patton 2002, 11).

Multiple Methods

Research literature suggests that the use of more than one method can help investigators
answer their research questions in a more thorough and accurate manner (Patton 2002,
Strauss and Corbin 1998). This research uses two complementary qualitative methods to
learn about people’s perceptions regarding natural resource management in their
communities. This multiple methods approach involves first carrying out generalized
issue scoping (focus groups) and then conducting in-depth, individual discussions

(individual interviews) about key issues that were highlighted during the focus groups.

17

T. ‘1 'T'V‘I'H
A ;\\LL‘ 9“ “i
§
TC
3"”)! vP‘, “I
.u‘ucl §:t‘ H}
R «if-I.” '
>‘lt.;\u14r15‘“‘
- l 7 '7; I
Kx~..‘!‘.> in “\-

)9 _L-"-
TT~A\:\\\\I‘C‘ \

.
C."""*1"r ‘7" l
.21....s‘i- “

lndhiduallnl

.31.. , ’
Annr.rquaxt

.nicr‘I 1.5 ‘

 

 

Focus Groups

A focus group is a qualitative data collection method used to generate a discussion among
a small group of people (usually 6—10 participants and a trained moderator) about a
particular issue, event or subject. Patton (2002) specifies that a series of focus group
sessions are often held in order for a researcher to hear a number of different

perspectives. Morgan (1998) points out that focus groups can be used alone or as a

compliment to other qualitative and quantitative methods.

Individual Interviews

Another qualitative data collection method is the in-depth, open-ended individual
interview. According to Schensul et al. (1999), open-ended interviewing is the most
technically difficult, yet rewarding and exciting interview method. Patton (2002, 341)
states that the purpose of interviewing individuals is to “. . .allow us to enter into the other
person’s perspective. Qualitative interviewing begins with the assumption that the
perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit. We

interview to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind, to gather their stories.”

POPULATION AND STUDY PARTICIPANTS

The Dos Novillos Watershed is about 5,100 hectares in size. Although a government
census has not been completed in Guacimo County since 1995, EARTH University
estimates that the Watershed has a total population of about 7,000, and there are
approximately 1,750 households in the research area (Navarro and Reyes 1999 in Tejada

and Castro 2000). The target population for phases 1 and II was adult residents from the

18

V' 1
1 “"." .T' .‘ 'u
115.140 :~~ :

[\FORHIID'

5

Tc: resereher
Commie: .111

.'::'.ers1t‘_. T1‘t
a rixca'cl. p.-.r
frcn the Stud}

Lt: later. zen \.
Stained Truth ;

Mariam u .1.

Qt 111nm

A) silSCUMQd

V‘
l

:EQJTCh 217‘1d1\ |

Hi'ch'l
"~an W.

'11

4' x ,3

 

 

drillmi-nr TC] ‘

 

'I

h"

"411' ."r . ’
‘hsrc 1‘ n

11». .‘ I
"1". re»... _
' \di T1 [f

distinct geographic areas (e. g. pre-mountain and lowland) and residential densities (e. g.

rural village, large town (urban area), small to medium sized farm) in the Watershed.

INFORMED CONSENT

The researcher used an informed consent procedure approved by the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) of Michigan State
University. Focus group and interview participants were advised verbally of their rights
as research participants, including their right to confidentiality and their right to withdraw
from the study at any time without prejudice (see Appendix 1). The researcher conducted
the interviews, took written notes and also tape-recorded the sessions when consent was
obtained from participants. All research participants’ identities are confidential and each

participant was given a code number for transcription and reporting purposes.

QUALITATIVE DATA - ANALYTICAL APPROACH

As discussed previously, the purpose of conducting qualitative, social science research is
to achieve an in-depth, holistic understanding of certain aspects (depending on the
research goals) of individuals, groups, organizations, communities or societies (Miles and
Huberrnan 1994). The analysis of this kind of data requires the researcher to be able to
make sense of large amounts of information gathered from interviews, observations, and
document review (Patton 2002). Contributing to the daunting nature of the task is the fact
that there is no standardized formula for carrying out qualitative analysis, leaving it up to
the researcher to draw from the many qualitative research traditions and find the

analytical approach that is most suitable to the study’s purpose.

l9

Content in:

ii Pa“... _”.

'i.1n~_5 no.

.‘-IUA.1L \’ \;\‘
"I...

l .

if; Lln .1“.

Che merit-.0. 1‘1

C:‘mjn(1\)t4:\’

GUI“ .-
‘““‘*i"‘€ arw
'u

gilt. .

' i. .
m“ then mic"
Ithlitd line--11

altar: ‘
:1. ”C5 1.“.

 

 

Content Analysis

While Patton (2002) points out that there is no exact, agreed-upon way to describe how to
carry-out qualitative analysis, he suggests that the term ‘content analysis’ can be used to
generally describe “. . .any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort that takes a
volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings”
(Patton 2002, 453). He goes on to state that the content of interviews and observations is
analyzed in order to find out what is significant given the research goals. Specifically, it
“. . .involves identifying, coding, categorizing, classifying, and labeling the primary

patterns in the data” (Patton 2002, 463).

One methodology for carrying out content analysis is ‘grounded theory”. Strauss and
Corbin (1998) describe the process of using this methodology, which is based on iterative
qualitative analysis using three coding techniques: Open coding; axial coding; and
selective (thematic) coding, in order to create and compare categories and subcategories,
and then integrate them to form theories. The process begins with “Microanalysis: the
detailed line-by-line analysis necessary at the beginning of a study to generate initial
categories (with their prOperties and dimensions) and to suggest relationships among

categories...” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 57).

20

0pm (Ming

3 I
,o p, n
tfir.1h.h‘»\...e..

‘1 x J ‘ 4
3.301873; .I‘. s.

3 r
€\?.¢l.":lfli 1’11.- .\

C1353??? Ol’ CM"

Jana" - 31". '
L...‘ ud‘iL’K their

 

 

 

Open Coding

Strauss and Corbin (1998, 101) define open coding as: “The analytic process
through which concepts are identified and their prOperties and dimensions are
discovered in data”. Rubin and Rubin (1995) describe the same process by
explaining how Herbert Rubin reads through the transcriptions marking each
concept or explanation of a concept with a code. Strauss and Corbin (1998)
emphasize that open coding is used to deveIOp categories and understand their
properties. As the researcher is carrying out open coding, she should also be
making axial coding notes that will be revisited in an ongoing and repeated

process.

Axial Coding

“The process of relating categories to their subcategories, termed ‘axial’ because
coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of
properties and dimensions” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 123). The term,
‘properties’ refers to the characteristics of a category (e.g. themes related to waste
management problems) and ‘dimensions’ refers to the range of properties in a
given category (e. g. wastewater, household waste, dead farm animals, recyclable
materials, and the range of problems related to each one of these themes). Rubin
and Rubin (1995) describe this process by explaining how Herbert Rubin
examines the concepts he previously established (using open coding) by analyzing
the themes and concepts within each category as well as among the different

categories. After all of the categories have been analyzed and compared, the

21

mean r. er s

(1
1",
(a.

'1‘;

Thematic C

‘m' . . .
5-51.» 8.7.1.1 '

4.
‘0
'6. :T'T" " ""'
" ‘~t 5.41...
~

0,- ‘
.,.. v
.1 ‘
'7 .1 \ t
I: \un
’hxn‘ ‘
m" "1
~ IIIIJE \ c

 

researcher selects a final set of overall themes through selective (thematic)

coding.

Thematic Coding

Strauss and Corbin (1998, 143) describe this coding procedure as “. . .the process
of integrating and refining theory”. Once the themes and concepts (based on open
and axial coding) have been placed into a smaller number of overarching thematic
categories (selective codes), Strauss and Corbin (1998) say that the emerging
findings can become theory. Rubin and Rubin (1995, 251) describe this process as
the “final stage of analysis” and explain how after going through the first two
stages (described above under open and axial coding), they aim to “build toward
overarching themes” (1995, 251) that “tie the individual pieces together” (1995,

255) and allow the researchers to report their results.

SAMPLE SELECTION PROCESS
Focus group participants were invited to participate in the focus group sessions by
community leaders. While this sample selection procedure was efiicient in terms of the
amount of time the researcher invested in inviting community members to participate in
the focus groups, it was not ideal due to the invitation bias of the community leaders, and

the self-selection bias inherent in the focus groups’ membership.

The researcher used a purposeful sampling technique to recruit individual interview

participants. Specifically, the researcher purposefully sought to interview male and

22

,‘ .-I\ ‘ '
\~ " .
similar-13A ‘\

:2er and 1‘73
comm?» W

9". MIT _ .
31.3.11 lt‘ mdifi

19;) .X' \'
runner 5111‘.

”1.1.
.Y
.11 .do 1 g

\

.1'. v 1
Ugh?“
s l

161an in

PF. ,3 "
\Ikniidi lei-cm

Halli and [hdl :

llfilcipantt V,

 

I ,‘n '1
:Ti 1 3
~IT‘ixn‘tdlli1r

11....
\u\ ‘tUd'y ar,r
. \tI

 

female adult residents living in the north, south, east, west and center of each urban
community (see Figure 13). An attempt was made to interview adults working in the
public and private sectors, as well as peOple who identify themselves as homemakers,
unemployed, or retired. Throughout the upper, middle and lower section of the rural
community (which is situated on the slope of a mountain), the researcher sought out
small to medium-scale producers of a variety of agricultural products, as well as
landowners offering agro-ecotourism activities, and landowners who are employed off-
farrn (see Figure 12). This sampling procedure was not intended to provide a sample
representative of the population distribution in the D05 Novillos Watershed, rather, the
researcher aimed to obtain a sample representative of the heterogeneity of residential
areas (geographical), land uses, and socio-economic classes represented by Watershed

residents.

IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
Potential focus group participants were told that the discussion would take about one
hour and that there would be light refreshments. Potential individual interview
participants were told that the interview would take about 30 minutes. While participants
were respectfully thanked for their time and collaboration, they were not given any
compensation for participating in the research project, as it is not customary to do so in

the study area.

23

FOCI 5 GF
.il:.‘g::l".:r. '
area weer.
5:1. L15 \ls'
21 men 1:13
cared cut a
{redacted 1
WE". Cd .15 111

are: Ira: \crfi

Y-nl \
1". I f. -
‘f I“ .n gsTlCl

:3 "‘

Cl:d:\ Ihdi ,1".

\111

 

 

 

 

FOCUS GROUPS

Altogether, six focus group sessions were conducted (see Figure 9), with three in the rural
area (upper, middle and lower La Argentina) and three in the urban area (Pocora, Pocora
Sur, Las Mercedes). Each group was made up of six or seven participants with a total of
21 men and 18 women participating in the discussions. Each focus group session was
carried out using the same discussion guide. Informed consent procedures were
conducted without any objections, and some participants volunteered that they were not
worried about others finding out what they thought. The sessions were audio taped and
later transcribed. The focus group participants appeared to be interested in the research

t0pic in general, as well as in the specific issues that were discussed.

The researcher’s findings are organized and presented around the selective (thematic)
codes that emerged from the iterative coding process. In the discussion of thematic areas,
care is taken to distinguish between findings based on data collected in the rural and

urban areas.

Figure 3 presents the Open codes established during the first step of analyzing the focus
group transcriptions and Figure 4 presents the thematic codes used to further analyze the
data. The analysis includes representative quotes from the interviews as well as some

basic quantitative analysis carried out using SPSS.

24

[\‘DIVIDl Al.
Altogether. I“
write} out wt.”
man 1‘“ 11"?~'~‘
113:"..qu .m} 11'?
hr. inc} Mt: '
'11 3:: audio L1; .
and .0th nw .
prix‘ess. Allin”.
21.11.11 1b the a
\L‘t'd} 11*“ ii'

i” _
,‘\'\.m '.
~1~a.uCni\ \q

 

Th

3 WWdrgh ..

(r ‘11
Ms that cm

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

Altogether, 27 individual interviews (see Figure 10) were conducted and each one was
carried out using the same discussion guide. Everybody the researcher approached to
interview appeared happy to collaborate. Informed consent procedures were conducted
without any objections, and as in the focus groups, a number of respondents volunteered
that they were not worried about people finding out what they thought. The interviews
were audio taped and later transcribed. Respondents typically expressed an interest in,
and asked more about, the purpose of the research project during the informed consent
process. Although some respondents initially appeared shy or reserved, these people
relaxed as the interview got underway and they answered the first couple of questions.
Nobody told the researcher that they did not want to be interviewed, however, two

respondents said that they did not want to be tape-recorded.

The researcher’s findings are organized and presented around the selective (thematic)
codes that emerged from the iterative coding process. Figures 5, 6, and 7 present the
codes used to analyze the interview transcriptions. The analysis includes representative
quotes from the interviews as well as some basic quantitative analysis carried out using

SPSS.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The data collected from the focus groups and individual interviews show that there is
greatest concern about:

0 the watershed’s forests and deforestation;

25

‘23 h I
\mcreux 1 ..
”'t-‘Y’fili F51" ‘1.
j-"-."vY‘-‘ ' H

5.

“ohm.“
a;3—ch:n‘:z..
PHASE I .-\
As shied ab
li~il‘»;d‘ddi 1r
thcmC‘ Ella!

 

o threats to tap water supply and quality;
0 waste management problems; and

0 Dos Novillos River contamination.

Numerous participants expressed their perception of the interconnected nature of the
natural resource problems they cited. For example, some participants talked about
deforestation with respect to decreasing river levels or flooding, river contamination from

agro-chemical runoff, decreasing aquifer levels, and/or loss of wildlife habitat.

PHASE I AND PHASE II

As stated above, the two data sets yielded the same general findings, although the
individual interviews revealed greater depth with respect to most of the concepts and
themes that were discussed in both sessions, as well as more specific information about

perceived problems with wastewater management and tap water provision.

The one area where data analysis of the two phases yielded slightly different findings was
with respect to ‘Threats to Well-being’. Comparative analysis of this data from Phase I
and Phase II reveals that natural resource-based threats to well-being were more often
reported by respondents during the focus group sessions than during the individual
interviews. Specifically, while four out of the six focus groups reported natural resource
problems as the greatest threats to their well-being, the majority of both urban and rural
individual interview respondents (65% and 70% respectively) cited socio-economic

problems as representing the greatest threat to their well-being. This difference could be

26

stamens; pr;
gm fifth g
psnlCi‘I‘dTiK \
natural {b111,
$C‘x‘14'1 pr.,;1'{~',\-
Ifsém'Ci’l. the
V at

mm! 9.1.3

57mdil.‘1n ‘ H.

due to the fact that people felt more comfortable discussing possibly sensitive socio-
economic problems in one-on-one interviews than in the group setting, and/or because
some focus group participants did not feel comfortable disagreeing with other
participants who they perceived as being more aware of, or more passionate about,
natural resource problems (Kaplowitz 2000, Knodel et al. 1990). Additionally, although
social problems (crime, drug addiction, unemployment) were not the focus of this
research, the data make it clear that it is impossible to understand a community’s reality
without considering the natural resource issues together with the socio-economic

situation (Hinchcliffe et al. 1995, Sen et al. 1997).

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF APPROACH

STRENGTHS

The researcher found the project’s inductive approach usefiil for understanding
community members’ perceptions about natural resource management in their watershed.
Based on her experience, the researcher believes that carrying out consecutive data
collections and using the analysis of data collected in a previous scoping phase to develop
the instrument for the next issue clarification phase to be critical to gaining a better
understanding of the community members’ perceptions regarding a variety of natural

resource issues.

27

“EAK\Ef

fiSC‘tiICHCT .1
THC-IZ'JIS II} II"

_ ‘ - ‘ .‘
“LXCG IL: nu};

‘l'l . _
i] \ In; ‘5“ k..$r.’\ 2‘

‘ 7.1».
£1“ ‘Lirc.

 

 

WEAKNESSES

Although the researcher found great value in using the qualitative, multiple method
approach to carry out phases I and ll of this project, it should be noted that the approach
does have weaknesses if the project is to be conducted in a country foreign to the field
researcher and if the PI is financially or logistically restricted to spending less than two
months in the field carrying out research. Specifically, the researcher feels that due to the
need to meticulously analyze one or more sets of data in the field before being able to
develop a discussion guide and carry-out the in—depth, individual interviews, it would be
extremely difficult for a researcher to use this approach successfully in this time period
without being fluent in the local language and without having some experience
living/working in the community, or at least, elsewhere in the region or in a similar

culture.

Based on her experience, the researcher believes that using focus groups for scoping is
ideal. However, being aware of the challenges of doing so, she contends that if a project
is lacking sufficient time and/or resources to properly conduct focus groups in addition to
one or two subsequent phases of research, informal sc0ping should be carried out instead,
possibly by interviewing a cross-section of stakeholders. She asserts, however, that this
would be a viable alternative as long as the qualitative or quantitative instrument that
results from this scoping phase is pre-tested to ensure relevance, utility and
understandability. Alternatively, a resource constrained researcher might choose to have a

smaller overall sample and still use both methods.

28

‘ «x ‘ .
.‘ngc.\‘iu;l\

Immtzx Cs \1 j

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

The researcher suggests the completion of a survey questionnaire in order to take fiill
advantage of the new knowledge about local perceptions regarding natural resource
management gained through this project. Additional work to expand the scope of the
research to include complementary areas of inquiry is also recommended. Doing so
successfully would allow for the development and eventual implementation of viable
initiatives with the goal of improving natural resource management in the Watershed,
while simultaneously contributing to the long-term process of improving the quality of

life of the Watershed’s residents.

Next steps include working with project partners to draft manuscripts for publication in
peer-reviewed journals. As part of this process, the researcher will take into consideration
the history of the study area (resource management; land tenure; water rights and use;
community conflicts and cooperation) and also compare the findings of this study with
the results of other related research projects. This information will allow the researcher to
develop more conceptual conclusions about the findings presented in this chapter, as well
as their implications for future work in the study area. The results of this process will

allow the researcher to develop realistic follow-up questions for future research.

Similarly, the project’s findings will be made available to the residents of the Dos

Novillos Watershed communities. This will be coordinated though EARTH University’s

Community Development Program (CDP). The CDP and the researcher should present

29

a l' ‘ ‘
tundra-2 .114; 11*
3.1m me an;

rtmmun :t\ m

After temple:
EARTH Um:

a ‘AOrk>ll.."l‘ c1.

 

he mcctm :11 .1
\\ atcrxhc.
‘ comr‘.‘
Climf‘.‘
' SSKCT
\lini .
‘ agro-|
o

Um‘x ‘

' \(‘.<

 

{9‘
2“?
I;
- v
—

the findings to community members and request their feedback. Since there is no project
fimding available for this, the CDP and the researcher will do this on their own. The CDP
and/or the researcher should then follow-up on any comments and feedback made by

community members and other stakeholders, and report on any additional findings.

After complementary socio-economic and bio-physical research (work in progress by
EARTH University) has been completed and the findings of all three reports synthesized,
a workshop could be held in which certain stakeholders (depending on the objective of
the meeting) are invited to openly discuss the findings and their impact for the future of
the Watershed. Among the stakeholders that could be invited to participate are:
0 community members (recognizing existing community organizations and
committees);
0 government representatives: local and municipal officials, MINAE, AyA,
Ministry of Health, and the congressional representative;
0 agro-industry representatives with current and planned projects in the area;
0 universities working in the area; and

0 NGOs working in the area.

The initial workshop could be conducted with the goal of discussing the findings and
asking community members and other stakeholders what they would like to do with this
information. If stakeholders express an interest in collaborating to try to improve
any/various aspects of the natural resource management situation, fiiture workshOps

could be organized to discuss fiirther action. Additionally, afier receiving and responding

3O

IL“ C om Ill L7.

to can 01.:

f. 3 ._ .
The 1.9.1-;
sesame-1

“\ JICTSL‘ "

3.
.igg.

y. ,3

.‘s

b‘b‘cqusm

tindlnl\ 41f;

EARTH L,
mush-sited ‘

tindlng‘ CU

dk‘s elfp \\ k"

a- 4 I
«are

I
‘\\ l\\

l .
11. h“l‘ed
De -

‘
'L‘lsnipn‘.
. . 1‘

““5““? ll. 1.

LI“.

to community, stakeholder and scholar-practitioner feedback on the findings, a proposal

to carry out a scaled-up study in the Reventazon-Parismina Watershed should be drafted.

CONCLUSIONS
The findings derived from phases I and II of this pilot project have revealed a number of
apparently serious natural resource management problems in the Dos Novillos
Watershed, as well as contributing factors, potential solutions, and statements regarding
community members’ willingness to collaborate to help improve various aspects of

natural resource management.

Subsequent research will help to determine how widespread and salient the phase I and II
findings are among the Watershed population. The final, synthesized findings should give
EARTH University useful input for its Research Program, which is oriented toward
integrated watershed management of the Reventazo’n-Parismina Watershed. These
findings could also help EARTH University’s Community Development Program
develop work plans and priority areas, and also seek finding and collaboration in order to

address issues reported in the findings.

It is hoped that the findings could be used by the Watershed residents’ Community
Development Associations and other local groups to engage more residents in a dialogue
about the natural resource problems that they say negatively affect their well-being and
the natural environment. The findings could also help community groups develop work

plans and designate priority issues. Other stakeholders could also benefit from the report.

3]

being done I
AtA. \lm:~
twine ofx :1

in rm 1:: r.

I - 9‘
term-ems“

m: COIT'. ll". 1..

In additim

'\ _‘\; ~. ‘
r-rk 57111715 A

‘k‘l _
. 5. l.) ,‘_
\‘ 'n: \111'1

"“l‘fmng a I;

1‘1
n i'Y‘,- . ~‘
K :\ d] Kit I

 

 

The wealth of information disclosed about community members’ perceptions of the work
being done by governmental representatives (local and municipal officials, MINAE,
AyA, Ministry of Health) could help these representatives understand the residents’
points of view. While residents and officials are bound to disagree on many issues, if this
information is used in the spirit of finding viable solutions to problems, governmental
representatives and other stakeholders (agro-industry representatives) could use the
findings as a starting point to begin a process of communication and collaboration with

the communities.

In addition to supporting EARTH University’s Community Development and Research
programs and serving as a case study for scholar-practitioners working on similar issues,
other universities and NGOs working in the area could also benefit from the project’s
findings by eliminating the need for duplicative studies in the same sub-watershed (thus
saving scarce resources), serving as an input for future, complimentary studies, and
opening a forum to discuss the project’s methodology, implementation, and results, with
the goal of improving future work. While it is intended that various aspects of this
research project be published in peer-reviewed journals, it is important to ensure that the
findings are also distributed through other means in order to reach stakeholders and

practitioners that may not have access to these publications.
In conclusion, this research appears to demonstrate that potential exists within the Dos

Novillos Watershed communities for addressing a variety of the natural resource

management concerns cited by community members due to: the existence of a relatively

32

T‘i

~L.
‘SI
\

q '
,5
A
v
v‘~

well informed citizenry that is concerned about a wide variety of natural resource
management issues; community members’ stated willingness to help address the natural
resource management problems they cited; and a history of collaborative community
development work with EARTH University’s Community Development Program.
However, it also appears that community members and service providers would benefit
from a continuing dialogue about the cited natural resource management concerns in an
effort to develop collaborative ways to address problems. Such a process might also
motivate more people to be willing to collaborate individually and as communities. With
respect to the research methods, this pilot project demonstrates the strengths of utilizing a
multiple method qualitative approach to address natural resource management issues, and
also highlights some weaknesses and possible alternatives. This said, the researcher
acknowledges that input from stakeholders and fill’thCI‘ data analysis is needed in order to

validate the researcher’s perceptions, as well as fiJture lines of research.

33

n - \L. .‘
*lec-lxlx \‘s.

.h- -. .I _ 1
nuu“.n\11. did

i,
‘AM, u .‘
“annuafl l

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the theoretical foundations for the thesis. A review of previous
scholarly work that examines natural resource management in Costa Rica from global,
national, and local perspectives, as well as watershed management approaches, provides a

framework for the research questions addressed in this thesis.

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN COSTA RICA

In Central America, a region known for governmental instability and corruption, Costa
Rica’s government is notably stable and democratic, and its civil society is impressively
literate and active in the political process (Skidmore and Smith 2005). Costa Rica is also
notable for its dedication to natural resource conservation, which has resulted in the
establishment of numerous environmental laws and 121 continental protected areas
(Tejada and Castro 2000, DeShazo and Monestel 1997 in DeShazo 2001). However,
despite Costa Rica’s environmentally aware citizenry3 (INCRE 2004) and proactive
government, the country still faces a potentially severe environmental crises. Some
researchers attribute current natural resource management problems to poor water

management (Espeleta 2001, Sherr et al. 1997 in Tejada and Castro 2000, Sanchez-

3 Environmental education is included in the country’s national curriculum for grades l-6 (INCRE 2004).

34

Azafcifa ct .1.
1mghcz-Azo

‘.‘
P1123“ L‘I'C‘U —"

\\ :th respect
as a remit. h.‘
Espeleta 1:1 "
to think that '
it has been 11
smironmcm

ifx'dilCd m p

Azofeifa et al. 2002, Pareja and Sosa 2001, Calvo 1990) and poor land use planning
(Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Carpenter el al. 2001, Pagiola 2002, Kaimowitz 2001,

Panayotou 2001).

With respect to water, Costa Rica receives an average of 3,272mm of rainfall a year and,
as a result, has one of the largest supplies of fresh water in the world (Espeleta 2001).
Espeleta (2001) believes that the country’s abundant rainfall has led many Costa Ricans
to think that water is an infinite, free resource that can be extracted at will. Furthermore,
it has been suggested that poor water management has caused socioeconomic and
environmental deterioration to take place in Costa Rica’s watersheds, and that this has
resulted in poverty, malnutrition, low family income, loss of water quality, prolonged
droughts, natural disasters, erosion and changes in the local water cycle (Sherr et al. 1997
in Tejada and Castro 2000). In apparent recognition of the problems that are thought to be
caused by poor water management, there have been calls for preventative action in
watersheds where carrying out remedial activities and capitalizing on available resources

and local capacity appear possible (Sherr et al. 1997 in Tejada and Castro 2000).

Along these lines, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. (2002) discuss the current conflicts
surrounding water resource management in Costa Rica. They describe how competing
pressures from agriculture, industry, hydropower generation and the demand for clean
and plentiful drinking water is taking place in a context of unsustainable urban

development, population growth and an expanding tourism industry. They conclude that

35

uncontroiicd l.

m xiii lb “31

0n: ot‘thc .. .1

chLTTlCl‘ritzll- r.
1.1. 5'. '
.tgtsuticn Ilia

31? the \\ orld' _\

843k 21"!) m

1'33, .
“L ‘lirL‘5LjIl. in

W11. Arno,

Com, RlCJI‘sl

d3. {ix‘mtnt’n C'

' \

Central A mm

F

 

 

ll'lTl a TQM

hit-3.1] I

 

I" ~,

"Wile if) :h. '

ml“
"'1 mi}
“”llq'

 

uncontrolled land use and cover change is a very real threat to Costa Rica’s ability to

manage its water resources.

One of the most critical land use and cover change problems is deforestation and forest
fragmentation. Despite the country’s impressive protected areas system and conservation
legislation that is intended to protect its forest resources, Costa Rica has experienced one
of the world’s highest rates of deforestation (Peuker 1992, FONAFIFO 2000, World
Bank 2000 in Pagiola 2002). In the 19805, Costa Rica actually had the highest
deforestation rate in the world (Panayotou 2001). Between the late 19705 and the early
19905, the country is estimated to have lost about 35-40 percent of its forest cover, driven
primarily by conversion to agriculture and pasture. lt is commonly believed that this
deforestation negatively impacted water services in Costa Rica (Pagiola 2002, Kaimowitz
2001). Although this apparent lack of attention to deforestation seems surprising given
Costa Rica’s pro-conservation reputation, Panayotou (2001) reports that it took the
devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998 for deforestation and
land use policy to become the focus of the environment and development debate in

Central America.

From a regional perspective, Costa Rica (as well as the Central American region as a
whole) is recognized as being both biologically rich, and environmentally degraded.
While DeShazo (2001) states that Central America is known for its biodiversity and is
home to 20,000 of the world’s 250,000 species of flora, as well as 1,306 known species

of mammals and 4,835 bird species, Sherr et al. (1997) and Garrett (1997) as cited in

36

Tejada and (11>?
1C CIlil‘Jl Amen.
>Cli CIDHOH. “1 J

.r; .., ,
LllmdtL alteratrt

\\ :zh rexpeet to
among the Lit:
ctnsumpnon. I
link percent 0'.
receu ed \1 at."

P3166111 \\ d3 I,

It is importarfi
percent of th.
21:11.11), Expel.
commonl) r. I
moxtl} sprin.
been decent.
that ”MRI 0 I

1

COSTA Rl‘

Tl“ MI (W i

1.1::
r sl .
\p-cctl .‘ C

 

Tejada and Castro (2000) point out that environmental degradation in Mesoamerica
(Central America and southern Mexico) throughout the last decades has caused serious
soil erosion, water contamination, biodiversity 1055, changes in annual precipitation, and

climate alterations.

With respect to the availability of potable water, in 1995, Costa Rica ranked fourth
among the Latin American and Caribbean countries for the provision of water for human
consumption. By 1997, Costa Rica claimed to have supplied in-home access to water to
100 percent of the p0pulation. In the same year, 85 percent of Costa Ricans reportedly
received water that was supervised and subject to quality control. Of this number, 68

percent was reported to be receiving potable water (Espeleta 2001).

It is important to point out, however, that in Costa Rica, underground sources provide 63
percent of the potable water for human consumption. At the time of writing (prior to
2001), Espeleta (2001) reported lCAA’s (Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Drains,
commonly referred to as ‘AyA’) results showing that 52 percent of the country’s 1,660
mostly spring fed rural aqueducts had fecal contamination problems (256 of these had
been decontaminated by 2001). This degree of fecal contamination is not surprising given

that most of Costa Rica’s sewage goes untreated (Espeleta 2001).
COSTA RICAN CONTEXT

To put Costa Rica’s global and regional natural resource management situation into

perspective, one must consider the country’s historical context. From the arrival of the

37

Sprnrsh throug'
dct‘erexmtron 1“
As internatror...
the countr} '5 n
a sugar cane "
rat-{ted m .13..
stat-:11 prex 1111,.
3;?‘iwltum‘; c1~
started [0 [ck-k.
INK; the er.
Pligmm in 1...

Such ‘1‘ ‘hdd 'e

ln rexponxe !
expanqnn. (‘
19‘s. the pr
figure Ila)“ 1'
P‘ili‘)‘. Therl
I33211 definit

“WM\ I
.\ 7.

'1‘ ' rt '
’3
dtknCr‘ \r

 

P111? . .
‘L" mitt

I ‘i‘.’\

 

Spanish through the early 19605, government policy in Costa Rica promoted the
deforestation of thousands of acres in order to clear land for cr0p and cattle production.
As international trade increased, deforestation was dictated by foreign prices of cattle in
the country’s northern region, coffee in the central area, and bananas in the east, as well
as sugar cane in various parts of the country. Falling output prices for these products
resulted in a decrease in the pace of deforestation during the 19805 and 19905 (which, as
stated previously, still represented a high rate in the global context). This decrease in
agricultural expansion overlapped with an increase in economic benefits that landowners
started to receive from forested land due to: the expansion of ecotourism since the early
19905; the creation of a government sponsored payment for environmental services
program in 1997; and the pOpularity of value added and eco-friendly certified products

such as shade grown coffee (Pfaff and Sanchez-Azofeifa, 2004).

In response to the visible loss of forest area as a result of decades of agricultural
expansion, Costa Rica created a significant protected areas system. Between 1974 and
1978, the protected areas grew from 3 to 12 percent of the country’s total area, and the
figure now stands at 25 percent. The country has also developed substantial forestry
policy. There are currently three forestry laws (enacted in 1979, 1986, and 1996), and a
legal definition of conservation that was included in the country’s Biodiversity Law
(1998). As the need for more efficient administration and enforcement became apparent,
its agency structure evolved from a three-agency system (Forestry, Wildlife, and National
Parks) into a consolidated National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) created in

1995.

38

Yet as HICIlIl1"
CORK)“ 11110“ 3.7

nmhlems i1,“ e
t“

Sanchez-A201.

1W: “Lb 314

xerelt tragf‘.

despite the the

9113mm].

In addition to

natural rexour

his’il‘ight the

“he“ Painful

iCKS

Of I‘mdtt

15 on a “C‘Jl! :

l

 

Yet, as mentioned previously, despite the country’s dedication to environmental
conservation and natural resource management, its critical land use and cover change
problems have continued to fuel deforestation and forest fragmentation. According to
Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. (2002), the deforestation rate in Costa Rica between 1986 and
1992 was at 4 percent per year, and by the end of 1992, Costa Rica’s forests were
severely fragmented. By 1997, only 44 percent of the country was covered by forest
despite the fact that 64 percent is considered to have forestry and forest conservation

potential.

In addition to environmental consequences, socio-economic impacts related to poor
natural resource management have also been documented. Carpenter el al. (2001)
highlight the human dimension of deforestation’s impact on soils. They state that
deforestation and the ensuing soil erosion is especially detrimental in the humid tropics
where rainfall is heavy and cr0ps are often planted on steep slopes. They assert that the
loss of productivity in tr0pical areas of the world, such as Costa Rica’s Atlantic Region,
is on a “collision course with increasing human population density and the demand for

food.”

Calvo (1990) adds that the environmental, agricultural and socioeconomic implications of
erosion due to deforestation and poor agricultural management practices could “sacrifice
future economic opportunities and may threaten not only the water resources

development but also the national [Costa Rican] political and social stability.” He

39

vl-
centends that ..

   
 
   
  
  
  
  
 
  
  

del‘s’nds on to '.‘

det’tresmtron ‘4'

ln addition 10’.
Espeleta O W '.
Cover Rica is '1'
eti~tenee of a.
seeunt}. 111m
deterioration 1
tr. fact been i
I1P"i‘r1]"‘~l,\t"ert'
catchments a
“fliers and \\
Comm]: the \
h

r'.,
MII§ rcsk‘UrCQ

must obtain

contends that the viability of existing and potential hydropower plants (which Costa Rica
depends on to meet increasing electricity demands) are seriously threatened by

deforestation and incompatible land uses in the uplands.

In addition to threats to adequate food production and hydro-electric power generation,
Espeleta (2001) argues that under the current natural resource management situation,
Costa Rica is headed for a water quality crisis. Espeleta (2001) contends that the
existence of abundant rainfall in Costa Rica has contributed to a false sense of water
security, which has resulted in a lack of attention to the fact that water quality
deterioration is a serious problem. She goes on to explain that, ironically, Costa Rica has
in fact been including the protection and management of water in its policies for more
than 100 years. The principles that govern the country’s water policies are: all waters and
catchments are public goods; water rights are granted temporarily through concessions;
waters and waterways are inalienable prOperties over which the State may not lose
control; the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) is the entity that administers
this resource and has the authority to govern its management; all public and private users
must obtain a concession to utilize water; conservation and usage are of public interest;
and utilization for human consumption has priority over any other use and must take

precedence in the event of any conflict about water usage.
Despite the creation of sound policy based on these principles, Espeleta (2001) argues

that the country’s basins are being contaminated rapidly (mostly from urban sources) for

the following reasons: untreated domestic effluents; solid waste and degraded organic

40

 

matter; um“ r
Coni'm‘diletll 1‘“ ‘
wt: lCalllC. l‘ ‘

fertilizer ex cn'

Cdlmli‘i‘ml ~

31.50 impacts t:

 

batches and er!
countr} .> n41;
\‘siiil aqurt‘er 1‘
treatmenL at;
ccensumptz. ~n
lo“ {0.51 \OL
UTh-an de‘x e1

.41.
uJ'C IO \un

rates; and t

«’1’ g

matter; urban run-off; and coffee and other food processing waste. Among agricultural
contamination sources, the three major problems are: erosion; agrochemicals; and animal
waste (cattle, pigs, chickens). She notes that half of the total amount of animal waste and

fertilizer eventually ends up in the country’s waterways.

Calvo (1990) adds to this concern by stating that this uncontrolled surface water pollution
also impacts the ecology of the coastal ecosystems, including mangroves, coral reefs,
beaches and commercial fishing areas, thus multiplying the negative effect on the
country’s natural resources. He also points out that because of the low costs associated
with aquifer development, and the fact that this water generally does not require much
treatment, aquifers represent Costa Rica’s most significant water source for both human
consumption and industrial use. He explains that, despite the existence of this relatively
low-cost source, the water supply sector faces critical problems, including: uncontrolled
urban development; inadequate water supply system maintenance; high treatment costs
due to surface water pollution; lack of rural water quality monitoring; low water usage

rates; and the absence of watershed and aquifer protection.

Eleven years after Calvo (1990) concluded that Costa Rica, 3 small country with obvious
natural resources limits, must deveIOp long-term natural resource and environmental
management plans in order to c0pe with its increasing pOpulation growth, Espeleta
(2001) reiterated Calvo’s warning by stating that Costa Rica must act quickly to address
its water quality problem at the highest levels. Additionally, Calvo emphasized the urgent

need to apply appropriate pricing to the water service in order to control consumption and

41

31.11113 £11518. ‘

01111.:th P5

 

discusing the .
eneratorx; in.:

1“

plmt plantattt

\\ hll'e‘ Illcxc 1’.

d5“ Cit‘p i011 1:-

 

ent if3nWlCR1¢
right directior
"ent rronmen
€0st of mad
eon serx 11111711

Ir. -.
“ iwx) a." K".

avoid a crisis. More than 10 years later, Sanchez-Azofeifa (2002), Pareja and Sosa
(2001), and Pagiola (2002) all echo Calvo’s call to control water consumption by
discussing the numerous competing users of watershed services: hydroelectricity
generators; industry; small to large-scale agriculture (including banana, and ornamental

plant plantations); municipal water supply systems; and populations in flood-prone areas.

While these researchers argue that the Costa Rican government urgently needs to both
develop long-range natural resource management plans, and enforce current
environmental policy, others point out that there appears to be some movement in the
right direction. According to Ballestero (1998) as cited in Tejada and Castro (2000),
“environmental policy in Costa Rica and the recognition of the social and environmental
costs of inadequate natural resource management in watersheds has motivated
conservation and sustainable use of natural capital.” Tejada and Castro (2000) cite INBio
(1998) as claiming that natural resource conservation improved during the 19905 thanks
to the creation of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (M INAE) and the National
System of Conservation Areas (SINAC). Tejada and Castro (2000) go on to state that
MINAE is supported in its efforts by six Costa Rican laws (Environmental Law; Forestry
Law; Water Law; Biodiversity Law; Wildlife Conservation Law; and Soil Use and
Conservation Law). With this legislation, they contend that the country has a solid legal
framework, as well as the support of SINAC’s work to promote environmental protection

and sustainable natural resource use.

42

In tcm‘r‘ ‘
out Lrgii I:

:rCL’l‘m'"

Tejada an;
music-1pm.
and identxt‘
The) cont-e
carried out

and the} eit
semeex ot‘l
ntint out. ht
One of the 8
lb “ Grit hdx
Fairlie and p

P’f’tteetinn

NNACtuQ;

 

 

In terms of policy enforcement, Castro (1993) as cited in Tejada and Castro (2000) points
out that throughout the 19905, SIN AC had a significantly positive impact on society’s
perception of biodiversity conservation. He goes on to say that SINAC has managed to
more efficiently administer the country’s biodiversity and that the institution has created
a good environment for advancing natural resource management research and projects.
Tejada and Castro (2000) cite information from a 1998 Ecological Economic Services for
Development report which states that this process has brought about better recognition
and identification of the environmental services that biodiversity conservation produces.
They contend that this has allowed valuable water resource protection efforts to be
carried out through the participation of producers and consumers in a watershed context,
and they cite the Govemment’s program to provide payment for the environmental
services of forests as an example of these protection efforts. Tejada and Castro (2000)
point out, however, that SINAC could be more effective in the long-term. They state that
one of the System’s challenges is to become self-financing since international firnding for
its work has been reduced. They suggest that for SINAC to function effectively, the
public and private sectors need to become more involved in funding environmental
protection. Alternatively, while Espeleta (2001) does not comment specifically on
SINAC itself, it appears that she holds a different perception of governmental policy
enforcement with respect to water resources. She contends that enforcement is lacking
due to what she describes as the “disjointed, conflicting and sometimes obsolete nature of
the legislation”, as well as the fact that many public entities are responsible for water
resources in some way, and all of these entities view management sectorally rather then

integrally.

43

\\ hrlc C 0.51.: 1
concern aheu
manage. ent
Costa Rem r
xalua’t‘le trite.
Commereral t
1‘ 3 mCttllx It,
in 311111111111 11.
funicularh 1

Lb being .‘C \

While Costa Rica’s past failure to adequately protect its forest and water resources raises
concern about the country’s ability to enforce seemingly sound natural resource
management legislation, there does appears to be optimism that due to tourism revenues,
Costa Rican policy makers have come to see their country’s natural resources as more
valuable intact and protected than exported or depleted as a consequence of other
commercial ventures (DeShazo 2001). Costa Rica, like many countries, uses ecotourism
as a means to earn income needed to maintain conservation areas and protect biodiversity
in addition to contributing to the overall economy (Panayotou 2001). Costa Rica may be
particularly successful at this due to its stable and democratic government, its reputation
as being “eco-friendly”, and the wide variety of environments and activities available to
tourists (Skidmore and Smith 2005, Panayotou 2001). In citing a 2000 article in Costa
Rica’s newspaper, La Nacio’n, Heame and Salinas (2002) point out that Costa Rica has
successfully promoted its ecotourism industry by offering both natural beauty and
environmental sustainability, and that Costa Rica has become one of the most visited
ecotourism destinations in the world. Tourism currently represents Costa Rica’s most
important source of foreign exchange, followed by t0p earning exports; coffee and
bananas (Heame and Salinas 2002, US. Department of State 2004, CIA 2005). Heame
and Salinas (2002) attribute Costa Rica’s successful tourism industry, in large part, to a
mutually beneficial relationship with the country’s regional conservation areas and
National Park System, and it is this kind of relationship that some conservationists think

might be the country’s best avenue for protecting its natural resources over the long-term.

44

mJEJJ
\‘s ‘v § 1.1

'9
r; ‘,.b

.v
“(151 id‘

in addttrt
rim-uni re
r3.‘(‘11fCi1e‘l
Piél‘cxs F.
mdndsmg t

[hc(10\0m1

t’ .1 ..
Jig LUUnrr“ u

 

Others, however, are more conservative in their optimism that ecotourism represents the
country’s best option for long-term natural resource management. Conservationists and
even ecotourism advocates worry about the negative environmental impacts of poorly
managed ecotourism on the country’s fragile natural areas, and they are working to find
ways to make nature and cultural tourism a more ecologically sustainable development
alternative (Panayotou 2001, DeShazo 2001). “Our overarching strategy is to integrate
the tourism economy into the system of protected areas in a way that strengthens the
fiscal and institutional capacity of natural and cultural resource managers” (DeShazo

2001,2331

In addition to considerations about the Costa Rican govemment’s capacity to manage
natural resources, and the potential for cooperation with the tourism sector, other
researchers have focused on the role that they feel citizens can and should play in the
process. For example, Girot et al. (1998) discuss the collaborative arrangement for
managing Cahuita National Park that has evolved between the Costa Rican Government
and local community members. Solorzano (1997) as cited in Girot et al. (1998) states that
the Government has been considering alternative, participatory approaches for managing
the country’s protected areas due both to its inability to effectively manage the country’s
extensive protected areas, and SINAC’s view that local communities should benefit

economically from the parks.

These researchers advocate for participatory natural resource management based on their

experiences and an international literature that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of

45

practrtzot‘.
natural 1':
{EC “C‘fiei
partnerth-
“it-‘1 an} r
Pitfalls to

ill. 1914.4

I’Ole’ of 5111i

 

different kinds of community-based arrangements carried out in a wide variety of
contexts. Indeed, it should be noted that although the Cahuita case is unique in Costa
Rica because the area being cooperatively managed is a National Park, scholar-
practitioners that have contributed to the literature and practice of community-based
natural resource management (CBNRM) make it clear that natural resources all around
the world have been managed by diverse representations of communities both alone or in
partnership with governments and/or private entities. This literature also shows that, as
with any management method, there will always be context specific challenges to face,
pitfalls to avoid, and lessons to learn (Ostrom 1990, Ostrom and Schlager 1996, Ostrom
et al. 1994, McKean 1996, Jodha 1996, Baland and Platteau 1996). Before reviewing the
role of stakeholder participation in natural resource management, an overview of natural

resources and environmental services is presented in the next section.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND SOCIETY

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

From a natural resource management perspective, the resources that are typically taken
into account when evaluating a study area are: forests; soils; ground and surface water;
flora and fauna (biodiversity); and air. A general review of the environmental services
provided by a tropical watershed environment reveals that: rivers provide habitat for flora
and fauna, food for humans and wildlife, scenic beauty, and recreation; groundwater and
surface water also provide water which is used by industry, agriculture (irrigation,
livestock), urban centers and rural communities (potable water), and hydroelectric power

generation; soils produce crops and fodder for livestock; and forests capture moisture and

46

proud-e \~ .131
this is a deft
recreation. s
mudsfrde yr:
and health 11
Katine“ 112 "
21-1121.
According t.
1011 3CD lecx
gii‘f‘d.‘ 1 xx 0, 1,
dzreetl) b} t
{C‘Ifib (ire ll
‘ RCLi.‘
and
h} d.

1

I: .‘S
\\.'.

‘ I
x

and
Inc;

 

lm;

 

 

 

provide water (although according to Kaimowitz 2001, Pagiola 2002, and Paris 2001),
this is a debated service), timber and other food and fiber resources, habitat for wildlife,
recreation, scenic beauty, carbon sequestration, medicinal extracts, flood control, and
mudslide prevention, among other services; and biodiversity provides ecosystem stability
and health (through genetic diversity) and scenic beauty (Costanza et a1. 1998;
Kaimowitz 2001; Panayotou 2001; Espeleta 2001; Pagiola 2002; and Sanchez-Azofeifa

2002)

According to Chaves and Lobo (2000), Costa Rican forests offer a wide range of goods
and services to the local, national and global community. These many environmental
goods (wood, fruit, meat, medicines, seeds, etc.) are sold on the market or consumed
directly by the harvester. Pagiola (2002) lists the following specific water services that
forests are thought to provide:

- Reducing sediment loads in waterways to prevent the sedimentation of reservoirs
and the associated production and maintenance costs for irrigation systems,
hydroelectric power plants, water supply systems, and fisheries;

- Regulating the timing of water-flows so as to reduce flood risk in the wet season
and the likelihood of water shortages in the dry season;

- Increasing the volume of water, either year-round or specifically in the dry
season; and

- Improving the quality of water for domestic use.

47

‘

According te
the general r;
and lb egg:
attire» this I
llW-‘it rn Per
111.1112 up of:
image); pr.
CONSCFe diluz‘

" \
{J‘I- i. It hd

“ :ii :15 ”111:?

(‘3
H.
o-o
H
’I
'I‘

expend“ ‘
f. 19941 in 1
CM ‘0 th.

C'I a.
k\ tn '
dc

chnnl II a
\\

int... .
erg“ I
- r

{hit mfi t

in p.

dgllfilq

According to Pagiola (2002), due to the high rate of deforestation in Central America and
the general recognition of the many valued services provided by forests, deforestation
and its negative impact on hydrological flows in the region are of serious concern. To
address this problem, there has been an attempt to protect forest resources. Lutz et al.
(1994) in Pagiola (2002) explains that the response to deforestation has traditionally been
made up of a combination of three efforts: remedial measures (e. g. repairing flood
damage); preventative measures (e. g. regulation of land use in fragile areas); and
conservation measures (e. g. reforestation and agroforestry projects). According to Pagiola
(2002), it has unfortunately become clear that none of these approaches have worked as

well as intended.

While it is generally no surprise to find that the remediation projects are typically
expensive, and the regulatory efforts are often difficult to enforce and may impose unfair
costs on poor users, it has been surprising to many policy makers and development
practitioners to find that the conservation measures often offer only temporary success,
especially when subsidies allowed for their implementation in the first place. Lutz et al.
(1994) in Pagiola (2002) found that as soon as the subsidies ended, “land users reverted
back to their previous land uses, neglecting the conservation measures they had adopted
or even actively destroying them.” This kind of experience shows that practitioners
cannot assume that conservation activities are always carried out in the land users’ best
interest. In fact, a review of conservation projects throughout Central America revealed
that most farmers found that conservation measures were not profitable (Lutz et al. 1994

in Pagiola 2002).

48

ln rdiztion It
marrhflca‘
rail} not 3 ~
incl otdm 1
data explrznr
prim 11m 01

strut} at p!

pro". rim; 1.1;

line \Cfl ICC
limiting ther
prot 111mg to.
higher retun
unirtttrrhle
tiller intent

ent ”Chm?

 

“iii! Ihhr

to he \er'. !

an; ”111' lat,

Iiitn hC V.

 

In addition to problems associated with conservation approaches, Pagiola (2002) states
that while a variety of services are commonly thought to be provided by forests, there is
really not a strong body of evidence to support this claim. Kaimowitz (2001) also cites a
lack of data with respect to this perceived connection. Specifically, he points out a lack of
data explaining the degree and kind of interconnections between forested land and the
provision of water services. Pagiola (2002) continues to say that although there is a
scarcity of precise information on the subject, it is clear that forests do have a role in
providing water services and that a key hurdle to overcome with respect to managing the
link between forests and water services is that the people who are receiving the service
are typically located far from the forests that provide the services. Since the provision of
these services represents a cost to the landowners/users in the service production zone by
limiting their land use options, if they are not compensated for the services they are
providing to others, they may well be forced to switch to a land use that generates a
higher return for them — a situation that often leads to socially and environmentally
unfavorable land use decisions. In an attempt to respond directly to this problem, and
offer incentives to protect resources that produce services, the concept of ‘payment for

environmental services’ was developed (Pagiola 2002).

With this potential solution, however, comes yet another problem: how to assign values
to the services that are believed to be provided by natural resources in order to arrive at
appropriate payments. Faris (2001) exemplifies the difficulty of assessing these values

when he states, “The cost of deforestation is the lost services provided by forests. These

49

seniees are n:
type. and per

lack of empzr
production et
|

remains ltmel

"fl‘ .1 \ ,
U» \ sr \hdn l:

Comma er ,2

services are numerous and diverse, and their composition depends on location, forest
type, and perspective.” He, like Pagiola (2002) and Kaimowitz (2001), also points out the
lack of empirical data needed to demonstrate a connection between forests and the
production of water services. He states that, “Unfortunately, documentation of these costs
remains largely at the anecdotal level. Careful studies establishing the links between land

cover changes and the incidence of flooding and landslides are yet to be carried out.”

Costanza et al. (1998) tried to confront the dilemma of assigning values to ecosystem
services by attempting to calculate the total value of the biosphere’s ecosystem services.
They state that, “The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that
produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life-support system. They
contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of
the total economic value of the planet.” The study that Costanza et al. carried out resulted
in an estimation of the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services. They concluded
that the value of the ecosystem services being carried out within the entire biosphere is
between US $16 and $54 trillion per year. They insist, however, that because of lack of
information about certain ecosystems and other research limitations, this calculation
represents the minimum value of ecosystem services and should be used as a starting

point for firrther analysis and policy discussion.
Costanza et al. (1998) contend that this kind of study is critical to the natural resource

management decision-making process because going through the task of valuing the

services provided by natural resources requires an understanding of the effect that natural

50

resources hr
abilit) to fort
not appear 1
dexelopmer
“illlC forexr
mx‘isture; 1:.
from and {.1
semees. (f):
l’i‘SOUrCCS‘ I
£811an m
m‘dcri‘sun;

33]} 1‘01th
CoxlanZa ;
bici‘l‘hcrc‘

‘7 trill“;
[hm C(S‘tvL-d
frjund in t.

C

resources have on people, and of the impact that even small changes in the ecosystem’s
ability to provide these services has on human welfare. Since most of these services do
not appear in the market system, they are ofien not considered when economic
development proposals are being reviewed. For example, Costanza et al. (1998) state that
while forests provide timber (a well established good in the market), forests also capture
moisture; hold soil in place; create microclimates; and provide scenic beauty, habitat for
flora and fauna, and potential for recreation, among other generally non-marketed
services. Often, pe0ple are not even conscious of the services provided by natural
resources, much less of the market value that these services represent. This leads to a
scenario in which development projects are approved based on calculations that ignore or
underestimate the value of ecosystem services, therefore not taking into account the fact
that the proposed project’s negative social and environmental costs vastly overshadow

any potential benefits.

Costanza et al. (1998) calculated that, “About 38 percent of the estimated value [of the
biosphere’s ecosystem services] comes from terrestrial systems, mainly from forests (US
$4.7 trillion per year) and wetlands (US $4.9 trillion per year)” The ecosystem services
that Costanza et al. (1998) studied which are represented by tr0pical forests such as those
found in the D05 Novillos Watershed are: gas regulation (e. g. carbon sequestration),
climate regulation (e. g. Greenhouse Gas regulation, affect on local cloud formation);
disturbance regulation (e. g. flood control); water regulation (e. g. provision of water for
domestic, agricultural and industrial uses); water supply (e. g. provision of water by

watersheds, aquifers); erosion control and sediment retention (e. g. prevention of loss of

SOll b) \\ ll‘t

ot‘muhrie n
pollznatrun
migratur} a
fmiifll 11111

prcduetion

 

soil by wind and runoff); soil formation (e. g. accumulation of organic matter); nutrient
cycling (e. g. nitrogen fixation); waste treatment (e. g. detoxification through the recovery
of mobile nutrients and removal or breakdown of excess xenic nutrients and compounds);
pollination (e. g. provision of pollinators for plant reproduction); refirgia (e. g. habitat for
migratory and native species); food production (e. g. production of fish, game, crops, nuts,
fruits); raw materials (e. g. production of lumber, fuel, fodder); genetic resources (e. g.
production of genes for human medical research, agricultural research to find resistance
to plant pathogens and cr0p pests, and ornamental species); recreation (e. g. eco-tourism,
sport fishing, hiking, birdwatching); and cultural (e.g. aesthetic, artistic, educational, and

spiritual values).

While the attempt by Costanza et al. (1998) to study the entire biosphere’s ecosystem
services represents an enormous and daunting undertaking, their research brings to light
the importance of trying to understand what kinds of ecosystem services exist in different
socio-economic and ecological contexts, and then as a next step, determining what values
pe0ple in these different situations place on the services they perceive (both in anecdotal
and monetary terms). To accomplish this, some researchers prefer to study the complex
interactions between natural resources and the services they provide from a watershed
perspective because, among other reasons, the unit is smaller, has more obvious
boundaries, and is generally more manageable than an entire ecosystem. The following

section addresses the ‘watershed perspective’.

52

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT APPROACH

While there are multiple definitions for the term, ‘watershed’, one straightforward
interpretation is that a watershed delimits “the boundaries of a hydrologically
independent area” (Sen et al. 1997). Knox and Gupta (2000) offer a more all-
encompassing definition: “Watersheds connect land units through lateral flows of water,
nutrients and sediment, linking farmers, fishers and urban dwellers in intricate cause and

effect relationships.”

Regardless of the exact definition of ‘watershed’, it appears that watershed-based
approaches have been suggested as appropriate methods for natural resource management
planning for both hydrological and biological reasons. Simpson and Covel (2000) explain
that watershed management is a land use planning process that “uses a t0pographical,
rather than geo-political, framework for assessing, planning, implementing and
reassessing activities on the landscape which result in a sustainable situation.” Kaimowitz
(2001) states that the term ‘watershed management’ “implies that someone manages land
use at a scale larger than a farm to achieve collective benefits.” Depending on the local
situation, the collective benefits that can typically be the focus of watershed management
projects are: flood control; greater dry season flow; landslide prevention; improved water
quality; forest protection; and reduced sedimentation of reservoirs, waterways, and
coastal zones. Rhoades (1998) points out that when a development or management goal is
to “balance production and conservation at many scales over both short and long-term

planning horizons. . .the watershed unit is ideal for these ends since it designates a layered

natural and social phenomenon (multi-scale, diverse user, complex resource) which is

53

3l>0 rest:
Karma“ 1

defined ‘11

re
br
m.

hi

im
Fina”). R.
SCientittH

811.111in. Lb

Integratec

 

also readily appreciated by lay persons, policy makers, and funders.” He supports
Kaimowitz’s view that from a biophysical perspective, focusing on the hydrologically
defined watershed is a good compromise between working at the scale of a farmer’s
fields (small unit) and an ecoregion (large unit). Rhoades (1998) goes on to explain that,
“By studying interactions in the hydrological system instead of component
research on crops or specific resources, watershed scientists and planners
broaden the analytical framework to encompass cross-ecosystem linkages,
including upstream and downstream dynamics. Since water and land use
have reciprocal effects, they should not be treated as separate development
issues. Land use is water-dependant and water quality and quantity are
impacted by land use.”
Finally, Rhoades (1998) states that working within watershed boundaries allows
scientists to clearly delimit the study area, which makes it easier to carry-out input-output

studies, as well as simulation and decision-making models.

Integrated Watershed Management Approach

While some researchers naturally think of watershed management in holistic terms, it can
not be assumed that any watershed management project will be carried out in an
integrated, manner. For this reason, the term ‘integrated watershed management’ is used
in order to be explicit about taking a holistic approach. According to Sen et al. (1997),
integrated watershed management deals with “the utilization and conservation of land,
water, and forest resources at and within farm, household and community levels.” They

state that in the broadest sense, integrated watershed management could include both

54

 

 

human and non-human elements of a watershed’s make-up. They stress, however, that in
practice, the goal of integrated watershed management is focused on responding to the
problems and needs of local people. The common issues that often motivate integrated
watershed management work are: natural resource management; poverty alleviation
through capital and income generation; and distributional equality with respect to gender,

social groups, and classes.

The term, ‘integrated watershed management’ can be confused with ‘integrated water
resource management’ (IWRM), when in fact, the former is just one kind of the later.
Van Hofwegen and Jaspers (1999) describe IWRM as “decision making about the
development and management of water resources for various uses [which takes] into
account the needs and desires of different users and stakeholders.” They contend that a
consultative and participatory methodology is required to properly implement this

approach.

Dzurik (2003) states that integrated water resource management is multidimensional and
includes the following aspects when applied to watershed management:
0 water resources have various physical aspects (e. g. surface, ground; quantity,
quality);
0 water is a system but it is also a component that interacts with other systems (e.g.
interaction between land and water);
0 interrelationships exist between water and social and economic deveIOpment (e. g.

role of water in hydropower, industry, urban growth);

55

0 TIM
int
0 ring
est
° m,

.t~ i135 bL‘C
mating-ante
ether 1hr e
pr‘lli‘k‘ls, Tl

CO-‘IHU

It is not un
Stress the 1:
According
0“ “a COnt

d

 

 

 

'31 Cltfiprn‘~
help farm-g
511113 {hat 2
manage”).

“1413“th

 

o rivers must be considered in terms of the biological resources that rely upon them
in their natural state (e.g. fish and wildlife) in addition to the water itself;

0 rivers must be considered from headwaters to estuary, and with respect to the
entire range of potential uses over their length; and

o rivers and their uses must be considered from long and short-term perspectives.

As has been made apparent, it is not uncommon for researchers using a watershed
management approach to stress the importance of the role of community members and
other stakeholders in planning, implementing, and evaluating watershed management
projects. The next section addresses stakeholder-researcher collaboration with respect to

watershed management.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

It is not uncommon for researchers that are using a watershed management approach to
stress the importance of the role of community members and other stakeholders.
According to Sen et al. (1997), participatory, integrated watershed management is based
on “a continuous and participatory effort at improving livelihoods and overall human
development.” Specifically, the intention of participatory watershed management is to
help farmers and community members take charge of natural resource management. They
state that it is crucial that farmers become active leaders of the watershed
management/development process because: farmers are the main stakeholders in

watershed management; it empowers farmers and promotes self-reliance; and the

56

participator

facilitators 1'

According t
successful .i
problem. .ir
thrt for .tlm
could not .11
hate been “
lllC target C;
k153i intent

fl entuallt

ltitleh air;

“that...

 

 

M

”0 51¢.
C(‘I'n‘itit I

phi] CCI Cl

 

P

r'. . ,
“inch .

 

 

 

participatory process forces governmental and non-governmental technical agents to be

facilitators of the stakeholder-led process, instead of simply transferring technology.

According to Hinchcliffe et al. (1995), in order for watershed management to be
successful and sustained, projects must “see farmers as the solution rather than the
problem, and so put local knowledge and skills at the core of programmes.” They explain
that for almost a century, rural development policy and practice assumed that farmers
could not or did not properly manage the soil and water. As a result of this belief, farmers
have been “advised, lectured at, paid and forced” to adOpt new techniques. In some cases,
the target communities benefited for a time, but it has been observed that financial and
legal incentives often bring about short-term conservation improvements because farmers
eventually reverted back to their original practices after incentives ended or lost their
value. Other researchers support this assertion by stating that the reason for carrying out
participatory approaches is to ensure that there is “full involvement of local populations
in the identification of priority problems and potential solutions” (Blackburn and Holland
1998) and to “redress the sins of the top-down, heavily subsided approaches of the past
which alienated local populations and often contributed to further land and water

degradation” (Rhoades 1998).

While stakeholder participation in watershed management projects has become a popular
concept, it is not a concept that is universally implemented. Depending on research goals,
project constraints, and researchers’ views on participation, even among participatory

projects, stakeholders are engaged in varying degrees of participation. According to Sen

57

et al. 119“”
a chance t1‘

idea 11 rth

Perceptior

partitipattt
hen the} r
121112111“.
(Eminent
offers a it;
Swish-11d;

issues. Th1

. ti _
dplr‘Jdthct

A” an em;

Dill Cr

DUI.“

 

 

et al. (1997), a watershed management approach is truly participatory when “farmers get
a chance to express their views and Opinions; to identify problems; and to share their

ideas with researchers, extensionists, and [project] managers.”

Perception-Based Research

As Sen et al. (1997) point out, part of the process Of eliciting true community
participation is seeking out the Opinion Of community members in order tO understand
how they perceive the watershed and the issues surrounding its management. James et al.
(2002) promote perception-based research as part Of what they call a participatory rural
assessment (PRA) methodology for watershed projects by saying that “The methodology
Offers a flexible and practical tOOl tO enable projects to undertake regular, multi-
stakeholder PRA-based community assessments Of villager perceptions on a variety of
issues. This can help tO clear misunderstandings, make clarifications, explain project

approaches and give villagers regular Opportunities to air their grievances.”

As an example Of using this approach tO clear-up the misperceptions Of researchers and
other outsiders, Adegbidi et al. (1999) carried out an evaluation Of farmers’ perceptions
with respect to soil fertility decline in Benin. The study yielded important results because
researchers found that farmers were, in fact, very well aware Of the problems, and they
also knew about farming techniques that could help maintain soil fertility. However, as
researchers learned, lack Of time and money, not ignorance or unwillingness, kept many
farmers from applying these practices. This perception-based research was carried out in

order to ensure thatdecisions made about environmental policies would be appropriate

58

and based on the local reality according tO the peOple who live in the study area.
Adegbidi et al. (1999) explain that the research examined “how farmers themselves
perceive their situation and the consequences Of their actions. We therefore focus on
farmers’ own Opinions about soil degradation, its causes and required responses. This
approach will provide a better understanding Of the rationality of farmers’ behavior and,

in turn, the basis for formulating appropriate policies to improve the situation.”

Although this thesis was limited to the collection and analysis Of perception-based
research in the D05 Novillos Watershed, it is not enough to simply elicit Opinions and
perceptions from stakeholders when the aim is tO conduct a truly participatory
watershed/natural resource management project. Fanington and Lobo (1997) stress that
implementing participatory watershed management projects also requires a serious
commitment to collaborative planning in order to incorporate local knowledge and
Opinions into a technically realistic plan. They state that to do this, the planning process
must strive to involve all registered owners Of land in each watershed in order to develop
detailed action plans. Only then can technical teams and participating partners such as
universities and NGOs conduct detailed surveys and carry out land use planning in

collaboration with local community members.

Another valuable aspect Of watershed management that community stakeholders can help
researchers understand is the variety, effectiveness, and impact Of the formal and
informal institutional arrangements that are at play with respect to natural resource

management in the watershed.

59

Institutional Arrangements

Knox and Gupta (2000) make it clear that taking institutions into account helps
researchers and stakeholders better understand a watershed from a holistic point of view
that includes the combination of sociO-economic and bio-physical interactions. They state
that, “Extemalities between people who share a watershed depend upon both the
biophysical attributes of the watershed and the institutions that shape people’s

interactions within the watershed.”

According to Heathcote (1998), an institutional arrangement can be thought Of as “a
system Of written or unwritten rules that state the boundaries Of acceptable behavior
within the society and specify sanctions, the penalties that will be imposed on those who
violate the rules that prevail in their society.” North (1994) as cited in Schmid (2004, 7),
defines institutions simply as the “formal rules (constitutions, statute and common law,
regulations, etc.), the informal constraints (norms of behavior, conventions, and internally
imposed rule Of conduct), and the enforcement characteristics Of each.” Schmid (2004, 6)
adds that institutions are not simply the rules Of the game, but that they also enable
individuals to do as part Of a group what they cannot do alone. He states that,
“Institutions are sets (networks) Of ordered relationships (connections) among people that
define their rights, their exposure to the rights Of others, their privileges and their
responsibilities.” One institutional arrangement that is Often studied with respect to its

role in natural resource management is ‘collective action’.

60

(01/:

113361

€\p:n
5,:1‘: 1
a \i

iuh C

Collective Action

Knox and Gupta (2000) use Marshall’s (1998) definition Of collective action when they
state that it is “action taken by a group, either directly or on its behalf through an
organization, in pursuit of members’ perceived shared interests.” Swallow et al. (2001)
define it simply as “people working together toward some common goal.” Knox and
Gupta (2000) clarify that this kind Of action is voluntary and thus distinctive from group
activities carried out by paid workers. They contend that natural resource management
situations that are spatially complex (forestry, fisheries, watershed management) benefit
from collective action, and that the existence Of a common threat can actually inspire
collective action. In this kind of situation, the solution, which might be prohibitively
expensive for individuals (e. g. building a fence to keep cattle from contaminating a water
source) can be carried out efficiently by the group. The fundamental aspect Of collective
action solutions is that they will only work if there is collective agreement and

subsequent action to support the new rules.

Based on their work in Kenya and the Philippines, Swallow et al. (2001) have determined
that collective action for watershed management is “likely to be successful when it
appeals tO the self-motivation Of farmers to improve their fields and the welfare Of their
families” (Shaxson 2000 in Swallow et al. 2001). These findings focused on the
importance that farmers placed on the individual benefits that they received from greater
investment in their land. In their study, farmers’ motivations for adopting soil and water
conservation techniques were characterized as: reduced risk; increased crop production;

and penalty avoidance (Tiffen and Gichuki 2000 in Swallow et al. 2001).

61

m.r¢
“3H,;

d1dill

Bdscd

Ethflh
iihnt
thC ”Til
m‘kdd
W51.

1&1"... .'

 

White and Runge (1995) examined collective action in small watersheds in the Maissade
region Of Haiti. Like Swallow et al. (2001), their research also focused on learning why
individuals decided to participate or not, and why the cooperative groups formed in only
some Of the watersheds. They found that “the basic rational driving voluntary collective
action is that individuals or groups are interdependent, and that their welfare —- however
defined by the individual actors — can somehow be improved with cooperation.” They
concluded that “individual choice to cooperate in collective actions that yield public
goods is conditional, and best predicted by: prior membership in reciprocating social
organizations; practical knowledge Of potential gains from cooperation; and some
potential tO gain from that action.” They add that on a very basic level, individuals are
more likely to participate in collective action if they think others will also participate as
well, and that contrary to popular assumptions, non-cooperative free—riding or defection

did not occur Often at all.

Based on their findings, White and Runge (1995) make the case that their research
supports the concept Of outside organizations voluntarily providing communities with
technical conservation support, and subsequently encouraging communities to form
voluntary collective action groups in order to manage watersheds. They stress, however,
the importance Of working with local, existing or self-organized voluntary organizations
instead of imposing outside arrangements on the local community. Working with
established organizations, even if they are transformed as is often the case in order to

respond to the new task at hand, helps ensure that the collective action process is in line

62

it ttl‘. '
form.

[3‘85

. l
'.3~ ‘
abdi S

with local norms and logic systems. In addition to the importance Of working with locally
formed organizations, White and Runge (1995) point out that it is necessary for
researchers and consultants tO take into consideration factors that they claim have a very
real effect on individuals’ motivation to participate: “moral claims, cultural ideology,

long-term social interdependence, external relations, and political leadership.”

Lessons Learned — Common Problems with the Participatory Watershed
Management Approach

In addition to the cautionary advice given by Hinchcliffe et al. (1995) regarding the
importance Of valuing local knowledge, other researchers have also noted the approach’s
shortcomings in an effort to improve both practice and outcome. While researchers that
use the participatory watershed management approach attest to numerous reasons why
this approach is valuable to natural resource management efforts, some researchers also
caution that the approach does have its flaws and advise that practitioners take these

problems into consideration when planning and carrying out the approach.

By way Of sharing their experiences, Farrington and Lobo (1997) state that small,
participatory, NGO sponsored watershed management projects are abundant, but
typically must repeat the same slow, expensive, in-depth techniques in each successive
village, therefore, they expand very slowly. On the other hand, govemment—sponsored
projects are known to expand rapidly, but they Often do not count on the local ownership
and stakeholder support that is needed to ensure sustainability. They explain that
“approaches to watershed planning and implementation which are both participatory and

easily replicable have remained elusive: most exhibit one or other Of these characteristics,

63

but not both.” They suggest that the experiences Of existing, successful projects need to
be analyzed by adapting variations for different conditions (increase or decrease in
livestock numbers, crop diversification, different formal and informal institutional
arrangements) in order to better prepare for proposed future projects. They contend that,
unfortunately, the preconditions for scaling-up are Often not identified and incorporated
into the new project’s design, thus decreasing the chance of implementing an efficient

and sustainable project.

Rhoades (1998) points out that while the participatory watershed management approach
is encouraged by funding agencies, actually carrying out such projects in the real world
has proven tO be difficult. He contends that practitioners face a gap between the project
idea and the reality in the field, and some Observers Of this situation have prOposed that
the participatory approach has so far not been successful and should be re-evaluated.
Rhoades (1998) warns that, “A few critics of bottom-up development are starting to argue
wistfully that the participatory rhetoric, like communism, was a noble dream but not very

practical due to a naiveté about human nature.”

He states that Often, participatory projects are not planned realistically, and end up being
carried out as traditional land use or hydrology studies despite the written commitment to
participation. Rhoades (1998) goes on to ask the following question about participatory
watershed development: “But does it work any better than the top-down approach at the
watershed and other multi-scale levels?” Since the implementation Of participatory

watershed projects is still a fairly recent occurrence, there has not been much Opportunity

64

to assess the outcomes of existing projects. This means that any evidence about successes

or failures at this point is mostly anecdotal.

Swallow et al. (2001) add to this view by pointing out that another challenge in watershed
management is working across political boundaries. They suggest that due in part to this
limitation Of the watershed management approach, it is becoming more accepted tO begin
by working within the smallest possible political areas within a watershed and gradually
work up to the watershed-level (Johnson et al. forthcoming in Swallow et al. 2001).
Swallow et al. (2001) cite other authors that support their Opinion and have worked
successfirlly at the sub-village level with groups made up of fewer than 40 people, or in a
single local government area where the group members are neighbors and thus know

each other well (Tiffen and Gichuki 2000 in Swallow et al. 2001).

Due to the apparent difficulty Of carrying out the participatory watershed management
approach well, it appears that instead Of planning a firlly participatory approach based
simply on its ideological value, researchers should strive toward the level of participation
that is both apprOpriate tO, and necessary for, their specific project, as well as one that is
realistically feasible given the project’s constraints. A more realistic implementation Of
the approach should allow for more usefirl analysis of outcomes and the effectiveness Of

the approach itself.

65

'1;

mar

PREVIOUS WORK IN THE STUDY AREA
Previous natural resource management work in the D05 Novillos Watershed has
evaluated some Of the sociO-economic and biophysical aspects of the Watershed (Navarro
and Reyes 1999, Cuesta 1999), as well as the sustainability Of the productive systems
(Guerrero 1996). However, these studies focused primarily on the middle section of the
D05 Novillos Watershed and the community of La Argentina. Other preliminary work
has been done to identify and prioritize, through a somewhat participatory method,
natural resource management Objectives and action areas for the Watershed (Tejada and
Castro 2000, Tej ada et al. 2000, Navarro and Reyes 1999). While some community
members’ perceptions seem to have been taken into account in these previous studies,
there has not been a research effort targeting all Of the communities located throughout
the entire Dos Novillos Watershed concerning their perceptions about natural resource

management. This research project addresses this lack of information and understanding.

CONCLUSION
This project will focus on addressing the need for perception-based research Of
community members with respect tO natural resource management (Sen et al. 1997,
James et a1. 2002, Adegbidi et al. 1999). The need for this kind Of research is particularly
urgent in the study area (discussed in Chapter 3) due to the Watershed’s sociO-economic
and environmental vulnerability (Cuesta 1999, Guerrero 1996, Navarro and Reyes 1999,
Pareja and Sosa 2001, Tejada and Castro 2000). Addressing these vulnerabilities in a

viable manner requires collaborating with local communities, one aspect Of which

‘66

includes gaining a thorough understanding Of the community members’ perceptions

regarding natural resource management issues and Opportunities in their watershed.

Specifically, this project was designed to collect data that would allow the researcher to:
l) assess stakeholder knowledge, perception and understanding about natural resource
management in a watershed context; 2) provide watershed communities and EARTH
University with information about natural resource management problems, contributing
factors, potential solutions, and statements regarding community members’ willingness tO
collaborate to help improve various aspects of natural resource management; and 3)
evaluate the effectiveness Of a multiple methods approach for understanding and

measuring human dimensions Of watershed management in Costa Rica.

Research questions developed to address these Objectives are grounded in and linked to
previous literature on: A) natural resource management in Costa Rica in global, regional,
and national contexts; B) natural resources and environmental services; C) the watershed
management approach; D) the role Of community participation in watershed management
(including perception-based research and the consideration of institutional arrangements),
and common problems with the participatory watershed management approach.
Additionally, the usefulness Of the study’s multiple methods approach was evaluated with

respect tO literature on E) qualitative multiple method research approaches.

67

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEEDURES

INTRODUCTION

This thesis project examines human dimensions Of natural resource management in a
watershed context. The research was carried out in the D05 Novillos Watershed, located

in Guacimo County, Costa Rica (see Figure 1).

The project’s purpose is tO understand the perspectives Of community members living in
the D05 Novillos Watershed Of eastern Costa Rica with respect tO problems and potential
solutions regarding natural resource management, and to identify support among the
watershed communities for implementing alternative natural resource management and
sustainable development initiatives“. TO accomplish this, the project employed a multiple
method approach designed to collect a variety Of social science data using qualitative

methods.

The research was undertaken through a collaboration by faculty and staff Of the
Agricultural University Of the Humid Tropics (EARTH University) in Guacimo County,
Costa Rica, and Michigan State University (MSU) as part Of an effort to improve natural

resource management in this and other watersheds.

 

‘ There were no specific initiatives proposed to research participants during the phases Of the study reported
here. Rather, questions about community members’ willingness to participate in efforts to improve natural
resource management referred to potential solutions that the community member(s) had suggested or
referred to generalized efforts to improve the resource problems he/she (they) cited during focus group
discussions and individual interviews.

68

REVENTAZON-PARISMINA WATERSHED

Guerrero (1996) states that the ReventazOn-Parismina is one Of Costa Rica’s most
important watersheds. It is located on the eastern side Of the country and drains into the
Caribbean Sea, thus it is essential to the well-being Of communities, farmers, fragile
ecosystems, and biodiversity Of the northern Caribbean lowlands and Tortuguero
National Park, as well as other wetland and marine environments that are critical to the

region’s trOpical ecology and the health of the Caribbean Basin.

DOS NOVILLOS SUB-WATERSHED
The Dos Novillos, a sub-watershed within the ReventazOn-Parismina, is home to
approximately 7,000 peOple that live in a mix Of rural farming communities and more

populated rural towns or settlements (referred to as the ‘urban area’ in this document).

In 1997, Mérida (cited in Tejada et al. 2000) estimated that the Watershed contained
aquifers that could supply potable water to more than 10,000 people. Despite the
apparently sufficient quantity of groundwater in the Watershed, water use throughout the
D05 Novillos is still a concern since it is believed that local peOple have the impression
that the resource is unlimited, and for this reason, water conservation practices are
virtually non-existent. The quality Of the water is also Of great concern due to
sedimentation, and contamination by sewage and agricultural contaminants (Tejada et al.

2000)

69

in

0?:

U31

tin

C11?

1’13

ma

\ic

 

- _ ‘__ .4

According to Tejada and Castro (2000), the D05 Novillos Watershed is unique in that,
from and ecosystem perspective, it is still intact enough tO warrant preventative action as
Opposed to restoration. It is important that the prevention Of further deterioration begins
soon, however, because the Watershed is under pressure from extensive productive
activities (cattle farming and banana, pineapple, and ornamental plant plantations) in the
lower section, and deforestation in the middle and upper sections. “If allowed tO continue
under current management practices, these activities could seriously deteriorate the
watershed’s natural capital and thus, its ability tO carry out important sociO-ecological
functions such as water capture, scenic beauty and biodiversity protection” (Tejada and
Castro 2000). The situation is particularly urgent because one spring located in the upper
watershed currently provides potable water to approximately 1,600 households, and as
Pareja and Sosa (2001) point out, the D05 Novillos River is also extremely important to
the Watershed communities because it is their primary water source for agricultural and

industrial activities.

Additionally, Cuesta (1999) reports that there is an increasing need for natural resource
management strategies to protect water quality and quantity in the D05 Novillos
Watershed due to:
- population growth (LeitOn 2001 cited in Pareja and Sosa 2001 attributes the
country’s pOpulation growth tO immigration by foreigners), especially in the
urban areas, which puts pressure on both quantity (demand) and quality (treatment

' Of potable water and disposal Of wastewater);

70

.—...~..._--—_——0

- growing conflict over the maintenance, capacity and administration Of the Rural
Aqueduct that serves the communities Of La Argentina, Pocora Sur, El Carmen
Sur y Norte, and parts Of Pocora Norte;

- and land use conflicts that threaten the quality Of water in the urban and rural
areas (deforestation, shifting to pesticide and fertilizer intensive crops,

urbanization).

DOS NOVILLOS WATERSHED — GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES
The Dos Novillos Watershed is located between the vertical coordinates 5.66 and 5.83
and the horizontal coordinates 2.24 and 2.47 on the Costa Rican National Institute Of

Geography map sheets Bonilla and Guacimo.

According tO Tosi’s map of ecological life zones of Costa Rica (Tosi 1969 cited in
Guerrero 1996), the Watershed is located within the following zones: Premontane
Rainforest (upper section); Premontane Transition Zone and Very Humid Tropical Forest
(middle section); Very Humid Tropical Forest (upper part Of lower section); Very Humid
Premontane Forest and Transition Zone tO Lowlands (lower section); and Humid

Tropical Forest (lowest elevation in lower section).

According to Guerrero (1996), the Watershed is made up Of 5,100 hectares Of land in the
foothills Of the Turrialba Volcano and is divided into three areas defined by altitude.
Land between 600 and 2,530 meters above sea level (masl) is considered to be in the

upper watershed and is made up of steep, irregular terrain and mountain slopes that are

71

mostly forested with some pastures and regenerating deforested land, and is within the
jurisdiction of a forest reserve (Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcanica Central). The
middle section Of the Watershed is found between 200 and 600 masl. Its rolling hills and
lepes are covered by forests, regenerating deforested land, pastures and annual crOps.
Finally, land in the lower Watershed lies between an elevation Of 30 and 200 mas] and is
characterized by fairly flat land covered mostly by crops and pasture and an urban area.
The major pOpulation center is located around 100 masl., and the middle and lower
sections Of the Watershed are part Of the Tortuguero Conservation Area. Landsat images
analyzed by Gonzalez and Pérez (1995) cited in Guerrero (1996) show that primary forest
cover makes up the largest land use in the Watershed, followed by crop and livestock
areas. These forested areas are located mostly on the steep slopes and riverbanks,
however, the images show evidence of deforestation. Agricultural activity fades Out as
the elevation increases, giving way tO regenerating deforested land. Although the
researcher did not have access to more recent Landsat images, anecdotal and first-hand
visual evidence confirm that expanded agricultural production in the lower and middle

sections of the Watershed has resulted in more deforestation.

Data from the Costa Rican Ministry Of Agriculture and Cattle (MAG) and the Inter-
American Institute for COOperation on Agriculture (IICA 1994 cited in Guerrero 1996)
shows that the Watershed’s climate is characteristic Of the country’s Atlantic zone: year-
round high temperatures and abundant precipitation. Average rainfall in the middle
section Of the Watershed is 4,432.7 mm/year distributed throughout the year with

minimum rainfall recorded in February, March and September, and peaks Of maximum

72

 

 

Ux

8ft,

pi;

rainfall recorded in May, October and November. The lower section receives an average
annual rainfall Of 3,464 mm/year with two yearly peaks of greater rainfall from June-
August and November-December. March, the driest month, receives about 124 mm. Data
from MAG and IICA (1991 cited in Guerrero 1996) report that the temperature varies
between 18.5 C and 29.7 C (24.13 C average) throughout the year with a relative

humidity between 85 and 95 percent.

Using US. Department Of Agriculture (USDA) soil type classifications, Sancho et al.
(1989 cited in Guerrero 1996) found the following soil types in the D05 Novillos
Watershed: upper section: IV and V; middle section (where the farming community Of Ia
Argentina is located): 111 and IV; and lower section (where the farming community of La
Argentina and the urban area are located): [1, III, IV and V. Generally speaking, classes I,
II, and III are appropriate for cultivation with an increasing requirement for soil
conservation practices. Class IV is only productive for occasional crops or permanent

vegetation cover, and class V is only useful for permanent vegetation cover).

According to Navarro and Reyes (1999 cited in Tejada and Castro 2000), in the upper
section Of the Watershed, the forest plays the important role Of water capture, and for this
reason, this watershed has also been considered for its potentially high capacity for
hydroelectric generation. Extensive cattle farming is also carried out in the area. Land
uses in the middle section Of the Watershed are mostly made up Of traditional agricultural
and livestock activities carried out by small, medium and large-scale farmers. The

producers’ soil and water management techniques in this area have led tO erosion and, as

73

a result, loss of productivity. Land in the lower section is used mostly by banana and
ornamental plant plantations, as well as for cattle production and some short-cycle mom
with little economic importance such as corn, yuca and tubers (Navarro and Reyes 1999
and Guerrero 1996 cited in Tejada and Castro 2000). First-hand Observation by the
researcher supports anecdotal evidence that large-scale pineapple production has

increased in the Watershed’s lower and lower-mid sections during the past few years.

DOS NOVILLOS WATERSHED — NATURAL RESOURCES

The Dos Novillos Watershed, as well as the other tropical and subtropical regions of
Costa Rica, makes up part of the Mesoamerican Hotspot as defined by Conservation
lntemational (Mittermeier et al. 2000). According tO the work on global hotspots by
Norman Meyers and Conservation lntemational, the Mesoamerican Hotspot, which
extends from the Panama Canal west and north through parts Of southern and central
Mexico, ranks at the top Of the list Of 25 global hotspots — along with TrOpical Andes and
Sundaland - in terms of total biodiversity. Although some species are very rare, a number
Of key fauna species from this hotspot are found in the D05 Novillos Watershed,
including: spider and howler monkeys; jaguar; tapir; wild boar; and large macaws
(Personal Observation 2000-2003, Community Members of La Argentina, Personal

Communications June 2004, lNBiO 2005).

According tO Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Institute (INBiO), the trOpical area Of the

Neotropical Americas, where Costa Rica is located, is home tO the greatest diversity Of

species and ecosystems in comparison to the other tropical zones around the world. The

74

Institute also states that Costa Rica is considered to be one Of the 20 most biologically
diverse countries in the world, while making up only .03 percent of the Earth’s surface
(lNBiO 2004). The Nature Conservancy makes a similar statement on its website where it
claims that while Costa Rica constitutes just .01 percent of the planet’s landmass, it is
believed be home to approximately five percent Of its biodiversity (The Nature

Conservancy 2004).

Me'rida (1997) and Navarro and Reyes (1999) cited in Tejada and Castro (2000), state
that large amounts Of natural forest exists in the D05 Novillos Watershed (about 10
percent Of the Watershed, which equals approximately 500 ha), but that this resource
could be partially altered or severely deforested in the next few years if the current
natural resource use patterns continue. The National Research Council (1993) and
Navarro and Reyes (1999) cited in Tejada et al. (2000) state that the loss Of forests in the
upper reaches Of the D05 Novillos Watershed is especially concerning since this region is
essential for supplying the water that supports the area’s fiagile ecosystem. Furthermore,
these sources contend that water from this region is used and consumed by the growing
communities in the middle section Of the Watershed (including the rural communities and
parts Of the urban communities). Therefore, it appears that the range Of environmental
services provided by the forest ecosystem in the D05 Novillos Watershed is critical to
sustaining both the natural resources (6. g. ground water, Dos Novillos River, soils,
carbon recycling, biodiversity) and the rural and urban communities that depend on these
resources (e. g. aquifers for potable water; Dos Novillos River for recreation, livestock,

irrigation, and fishing; soils for agriculture; biodiversity for ecological balance).

75

Although the upper section Of the Watershed is located within the boundaries Of the
Cordillera Central Forest Reserve, it is still threatened by illegal logging practices. As
mentioned above, deforesting the upper section Of the Watershed is predicted to have
devastating effects on the natural resources and the people who depend on them. Loss Of
biodiversity is also a problem in this area as intensive hunting is suspected to have greatly
reduced the wild boar population, causing jaguars tO come down from their habitat in the

mountains to hunt livestock (E. Chinchilla, Personal Communication June 2004).

DOS NOVILLOS WATERSHED —- COMMUNITIES

An estimated 7,000 peOple live the Dos Novillos Watershed (Navarro and Reyes 1999 in
Tejada and Castro 2000). Approximately 1,000 live in the rural, farming community Of
[a Argentina, and about 6,000 live in the more urbanized area made up Of the towns of
Pocora, Pocora Sur, El Carmen, El Carmen Sur, and Las Mercedes. Generally speaking,
the people that live in the rural areas are dedicated to small to medium scale agricultural
production. The urban population works on agricultural plantations or in the local public
and private sectors, and some peOple Own cattle and grazing land located in the rural

agricultural area (Navarro and Reyes 1999).

According to a recent study by UNIMER Research lntemational (UNIMER 2003),
Guacimo County, where the D05 Novillos Watershed is located, is ranked 72 out Of the
83 counties in Costa Rica on development and vulnerability indices (the 83’rd county

being the most vulnerable). Ninety-six percent Of the families in Guacimo are categorized

76

 

.CJL

as low income, with 20 percent Of households lacking two or more basic needs (e. g.
housing, basic hygiene, nutrition, education). Pugh and Sarmiento (2004) have found that
peOple who are unable to meet their basic needs will be pushed to exploit natural
resources for short-term survival and are less likely tO be able tO make short-term

sacrifices in order to receive long-term gains.

According to Yglesias et al. 1996 in Navarro and Reyes (1999) and UNIMER (2003), the
main problems that peOple in the D05 Novillos Watershed’s rural areas face are: poverty;
poor road quality; lack Of information regarding the commercialization Of their
agricultural products; lack Of medical services; poor access to credit; and a lack of
reforestation programs. In the urban areas, main problems appear to include: drug
addiction; unemployment; violence and crime; low salaries; lack of affordable housing;

and poverty (UNIMER 2003).

According to Guerrero (1996) and Navarro and Reyes (1999), the community in the
middle section Of the Watershed (La Argentina, which marks the southernmost boundary
Of this study area) is comprised mostly Of small to medium sized farms (1.5 to 45 ha
farms with an average Of 9.7 ha). Farmers in this area typically rely extensively on cattle
production. Coffee, heart Of palm, cacao, and roots and tubers are also grown at the small
or medium scale. Data from the National Research Council (1993) cited in Navarro and
Reyes (1999) shows that farmers in this region are using lands primarily comprised of
deforested, tropical soils which are no longer adequately protected from the erosive

effects Of rainfall. If this land is not properly managed, its utility may be greatly reduced

77

An exp
forests 2
when?

ECOIIQHI

Adding r,
[OWE]; Url
iOCal ndlu
“Pansion
Streams dt
ineffiClCn-t

[he [Wail p

   
  

Surmal p.

”:80“ I'Qc , .

and farmers may ultimately be forced to abandon crop and pasture land in search of new

areas to farm.

An expanding agricultural frontier as well as the accompanying devastation on trOpical
forests is a worldwide phenomena and the Atlantic region of Costa Rica is especially
vulnerable in this regard due to its high rate of poverty and its predominantly agricultural
economic focus (both subsistence and commercial). Clay (2004) states that evidence
suggests that the greatest amount of environmental damage in both developing and
developed countries may result from small-scale farmers’ use of poor soils and their lack

of information about, and access to, sustainable farming methods and technologies.

Adding to this concern, Navarro and Reyes (1999) say that the growing population in the
lower, urban areas of the Watershed (6,000 peOple) is putting ever greater pressure on
local natural resources by: an increased demand on the water supply; the unplanned
expansion of urban areas onto potential agricultural land; the increased contamination of
streams due to a lack of sewage treatment; an increase in impervious surface runoff; and
inefficient waste management techniques. Pugh and Sarmiento (2004) state that just as
the rural poor are more likely to resort to resource exploitation in order to meet their
survival needs, the urban poor are less likely to take a proactive stance to limit natural

resource degradation, especially if it would require them to make financial sacrifices.

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

78

D313 “Zia
3163313 C
1.3531133 I
gamut} 3“
mum ‘35
mgr-c fill)
[hm \k C‘Ul
The prQIC‘
when ln’d
method 10
accurate rr
bizu cause
during foe
the researc
seeping \ 1.
discussion

that achzcx

 

Data collection for this project was carried out using a multiple methods approach with
the goal of thoroughly understanding local citizens’ perspectives regarding natural
resource management (including impacts, problems, and potential solutions) and
identifying their willingness to support and participate in natural resource management
initiatives. Researchers propose that this multiple methods approach will allow them to
more fully understand community members’ perspectives about natural resource issues
than would be possible using only a survey questionnaire or just one qualitative method.
The project’s approach builds on literature that suggests the use of qualitative methods
when in-depth data is sought (Patton 2002), and the use of more than one qualitative
method to help investigators answer their research questions in a more thorough and
accurate manner (Patton 2002, Strauss and Corbin 1998) and to compensate for possible
bias caused by the unwillingness of some participants to disclose sensitive information
during focus group sessions (Kaplowitz 2000, Knodel et al. 1990). To accomplish this,
the research project is specifically designed to allow for preliminary, generalized issue
sc0ping via multiple small-group discussions, followed by in-depth, private, individual
discussions about key issues (Patton 2002, Strauss and Corbin 1998). Researchers intend
that achieving a greater understanding of local community perceptions regarding natural
resource management issues will directly influence the effectiveness of future sustainable
development initiatives in the Watershed (Sen et al. 1997, James et al. 2000, Adegbidi et
al. 1999, Hinchcliffe et a]. 1995, Rhoades 1998). Toward these ends, Phase I (focus
groups) was undertaken in June and July 2004 and Phase 11 (individual interviews) took

place in July and August 2004.

79

Statisti;
Some rt
quar. it;

qualztan

lnthesr
deth an
200:, RL
th 31 d; fil-
conSlmgt
{Search

Cammg .

0f peop 1 c

Patton (:1

FEVlEu- R

mtthodS

“Rn.

butch

 

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

While there are many different ways to practice qualitative research, the term can be
defined simply as “. . .any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by
statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 10-11).
Some researchers would modify this strict definition, however, by pointing out that
quantitative analysis is often carried out on qualitative data as a supplement to the

qualitative analysis (Patton 2002).

In the social sciences, it is generally understood that qualitative research allows for an in-
depth and detailed study of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, perceptions and ideas (Patton
2002, Rubin and Rubin 1995, Strauss and Corbin 1998). This tradition, which accepts
that different people and groups have diverse perceptions, views, value systems, and
constructions of reality, and aims to collect data in the form of rich descriptions told in
research participants’ own words, is often set in contrast to the positivist tradition of
carrying out research under the assumption that there is one reality that exists regardless

of pe0ple’s different perceptions (Holliday 2002, Rubin and Rubin 1995).

Patton (2002) describes three kinds of qualitative data that researchers use to try to
understand their research participants’ reality: interviews; observations; and document
review. Regardless of the kind or combination of data gathered, these methods will allow
the researcher to gain a level of understanding that is not possible through quantitative
methods alone. Patton (2002) points out that the level of detail gained through qualitative

research also has the potential to effect political change in a way that quantitative data

80

 

efsifl‘

\klth qt

ll bile qr,
straight}
and ditiic.

Open {HI-13c

   
   
    
   
 

Purpose of
understan.

POinLg of -.

I” Order r.
Sampk, Si.
PUrPC'set
mOSl p91,.
QUamm

"electing

‘I

 

often cannot do on its own. He states that decision-makers may simply dismiss
unfavorable questionnaire results as inaccurate and biased, but cannot so easily ignore the
points of view, emotions, real life situations, problems, and concerns revealed by
people’s own words. While researchers do not plan to take the results of this study
directly to public officials, researchers do intend for the findings to be useful to
Watershed communities and EARTH’S Community Development Program in their
efforts to deve10p watershed management plans. Therefore, the level of detail associated

with qualitative methods would be important to this planning process.

While quantitative data collections are systematic, succinct, and relatively
straightforward to analyze, qualitative data is typically voluminous, hard to summarize,
and difficult to analyze. Despite the difficulties of working with qualitative data, “. . .the
Open-ended responses permit one to understand the world as seen by the respondents. The
purpose of gathering responses to open-ended questions is to enable the researcher to
understand and capture the points of view of other pe0ple without predetermining those

_ points of view through prior selection of questionnaire categories” (Patton 2002, 20-21).

In order to achieve these goals, qualitative research usually involves working with small
sample sizes (even a single case can constitute the sample) that are selected purposefully.
Purposeful sampling is done in an attempt to gain the most in-depth accounts and the
most pertinent information possible from each research participant. This is in contrast to
quantitative research sampling procedures, which are typically carried out by randomly

selecting large sample sizes (N=3O being the minimum number required to qualify as a

81

large sample) in order to achieve statistically significant (generalizable) findings (Patton

2002)

Grounded Theory

Qualitative researchers such as Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Patton (2002) discuss the
typical problem in which researchers begin their study with such strong preconceptions
and theories based on what they have read and heard, as well as their own experiences,
that they are not able to truly hear or understand the peOple they are interviewing. Strauss
and Corbin (1998, 12) contend that the researcher should instead “. . .allow the theory to

emerge from the data”.

This ‘grounded theory’ approach is used to inductively generate theory that “. . .emerges
from the researcher’s observations and interviews out in the real world rather than in the

laboratory or the academy” (Patton 2002, l 1).

“Flexibility and openness are linked with having learned to sustain a fair
amount of ambiguity. It is not that the researchers do not want to pin
things down analytically, but the urge to avoid uncertainty and to get
quick closure on one’s research is tempered with the realization that
phenomena are complex and their meanings are not easily fathomed or
just taken for granted....ln doing the research, they enjoy the flow of
ideas, but not merely the substantive ones, as they have learned that
theoretical ideas have their own precious value. Yet, they are skeptical of

established theories, however enticing they might seem, unless these

82

HlLTHfl-
Research lit
ansuer the:
Strains and
learn about
communiti.
issue 5C0?!

11min idur;

Data collu
goal of thy.
mandgcmt
\t llllngnb
prfipfixcd
C0mmUl‘i 1f

 

dlSCu\\i(_ '

 

(Pdmm :

 

eventually are grounded through active interplay with the data” (Strauss

and Corbin 1998, 6).

MULTIPLE METHODS

Research literature suggests that the use of more than one method can help investigators
answer their research questions in a more thorough and accurate manner (Patton 2002,
Strauss and Corbin 1998). This research uses two complementary qualitative methods to
learn about people’s perceptions regarding natural resource management in their
communities This multiple methods approach involves first carrying out generalized
issue scoping (focus groups) and then conducting in-depth, individual discussions

(individual interviews) about key issues that were highlighted during the SCOping process.

Data collection for this project was carried out using a mixed methods approach with the
goal of thoroughly understanding local citizens’ perspectives regarding natural resource
management (including impacts, problems, and potential solutions) and identifying their
willingness to support and participate in natural resource management initiatives. It was
pr0posed that a mixed methods approach would allow for a full understanding of
community members’ perspectives about natural resource issues. The approached was
designed to allow for preliminary, generalized sc0ping via multiple small-group
discussions to be followed by in-depth, private, individual discussions about key issues

(Patton 2002, Strauss and Corbin 1998).

83

.p.__«

Triangulation

It is widely accepted that using multiple methods strengthens a study through
triangulation (Patton 2002). The term, ‘triangulation’ originates from land surveying and
is used in research in order to increase validity by employing methods that have, “. . .non-
overlapping weaknesses in addition to their differing strengths” (Brewer and Hunter 1989

in Patton 2002, 248).

Patton (2002, 247) lists the following four kinds of triangulation that were identified by
Denzin (1978): 1) data triangulation; 2) investigator triangulation; 3) theory triangulation;
and 4) methodological triangulation (e. g. mixed methods). While employing some form
of triangulation is ideal, it can also be expensive and time consuming, therefore it is
critical for researchers to use the kind of triangulation that is most feasible as well as

appropriate for their particular research.

FOCUS GROUPS

A focus group is a qualitative data collection method used to generate a discussion among
a small group of people (usually 6-10 participants and a trained moderator) about a
particular issue, event or subject. Patton (2002) specifies that a series of focus group
sessions are ofien held in order for a researcher to hear a number of different

perspectives. Morgan (1998) points out that focus groups can be used alone or as a

compliment to other qualitative and quantitative methods.

Knodel et a1. (1990) emphasize the distinction between ‘focus group discussions’ and

‘group interviews’. While a group interview is conducted using a closed-ended

84

questionnaire with the goal of obtaining factual information (a group of peOple are
interviewed together in case one person cannot provide the information requested), a
focus group discussion is conducted using open-ended topical guidelines or questions
with the goal of stimulating conversation among the participants in order to bring out

perceptions, opinions and in-depth stories about the subject of interest.

It is commonly believed that focus group discussions offer the researcher the opportunity
to go beyond simply learning from individuals’ knowledge, and to benefit from insights
that are arrived at through the group discussion (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989 cited

in Patton 2002, 40).

While some researchers have found that people divulge more detail in the group setting
than they are willing to share during individual interviews due to feelings of
embarrassment or vulnerability (Patton 2002), Kaplowitz (2000) cited in Patton (2002)
found that sensitive topics were more likely to be discussed in individual interviews than
in focus groups. The fact that it is difficult for a researcher to determine whether or not
research participants are being forthcoming during focus group discussions is yet another
reason to triangulate (by using mixed methods) in order to reduce bias. Similarly, Knodel
et al. (1990) discussed the potential bias that can arise during focus group discussions due
to social pressures that may prevent participants from disclosing their true opinions.
Recognizing the limitations of focus group discussions, Krueger (1994) cited in Patton
(2002, 387) says, “The focus group is beneficial for the identification of major themes,

but not so much for the micro-analysis of subtle differences.”

85

in:

[fit

'I
.‘L.

llll

AG

in:

iii]

an

Pd

in\

Car

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

Another qualitative data collection method is the in-depth, open-ended individual
interview. According to Schensul et al. (1999), open-ended interviewing is the most
technically difficult, yet rewarding and exciting interview method. Patton (2002, 341)
states that the purpose of interviewing individuals is to “. . .allow us to enter into the other
person’s perspective. Qualitative interviewing begins with the assumption that the
perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit. We

interview to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind, to gather their stories.”

When administered well, open-ended individual interview questions result in extremely
detailed responses about pe0ple’s perceptions, experiences and Opinions. Ideally, the
actual data is in the form of verbatim transcriptions, and when this is not possible, the
interviewer or an assistant takes detailed notes during the interview. The transcriptions
and notes are then organized by themes, interpreted and analyzed through content
analysis, and findings are illustrated using representative quotes (lLe Compte and

Schensul 1999, Patton 2002).

Patton (2002, 342) describes three different approaches to conducting open-ended,
individual interviews: 1) the informal conversational interview; 2) the general interview
guide approach; and 3) the standardized, open-ended interview. While the informal
approach is totally spontaneous and the general interview guide approach employs a list
of general t0pics for discussion, the standardized, open-ended approach involves using a

carefully worded interview guide so that the same questions can be asked in the same

86

way to all of the respondents. In addition to limiting bias potentially caused by varying
the question language, this approach also helps the interviewer to use time efficiently by
focusing the interview and making it easier to stay on track. Bernard (1995) makes the
distinction that despite being called ‘standardized’ and helping to reduce variation among
the interviews, this approach does not, however, limit the researcher’s flexibility to
follow new lines of questioning that might arise during an interview. He classifies this
type of interview as ‘semi-structured’ and says, “The interviewer still maintains

discretion to follow leads, but the interview guide is a set of clear instructions. .

(Bernard 1995, 2l0).

RESEARCH DESIGN
This project was designed to combine qualitative data collections. The qualitative data
collections were carried out by conducting document review, focus groups, and
individual interviews. With this approach, each data collection was used, together with

the literature, as a basis for the development of the next phase.

In this case, exploratory focus groups were conducted first in order to gain a general idea
about the natural resource issues concerning watershed residents. Findings from these
focus groups were used to deveIOp the discussion guide for another round of focus groups
that were carried out in order to better understand the issues, problems, concerns,
auideS, and perceptions of adult residents. The second round of focus groups represents

Phase I Of this study.

87

Phase I data was then analyzed in order to develop the individual interview guide for
Phase II. In this issue clarification phase, key issues that came up during the focus group
sessions were investigated in greater detail in order to find out if purposefully selected
residents had the same or different kinds of concerns as the focus group participants.

Phases I and II were completed in August 2004.

POPULATION AND STUDY PARTICIPANTS

The Dos Novillos Watershed is about 5,100 hectares in size. Although a government
census has not been completed in Guacimo County since 1995, EARTH University
estimates that the principal communities in the Watershed have a total population of
about 7,000, therefore there are fewer than approximately 1,750 households in the
research area (Navarro and Reyes 1999 in Tejada and Castro 2000). The target population
for Phase I and Phase I] was adult residents from the middle and lower sections of the
distinct geographic areas (e. g. pre-mountain and lowland) and representative residential
densities (e. g. rural village, large town [called an urban area in this thesis], small-medium

sized farm) in the Watershed.

In Phase I, participants were initially contacted via community leaders who were
recommended to the researcher by EARTH University representatives. Six to seven
residents participated in each focus group and a total of 39 participants took part in six
Completed sessions. In Phase II, participants were selected by the researcher through
Purposeful sampling (Patton 2002). A total of 27 adult residents completed in-depth

interviews.

88

INFORMED CONSENT

The researcher used an informed consent procedure approved by the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) of Michigan State
University. Focus group and interview participants were advised verbally of their rights
as research participants, including their right to confidentiality and their right to withdraw
from the study at any time without prejudice (see Appendix 1). The researcher conducted
the interviews, took written notes and also tape-recorded the sessions when consent was
obtained from participants. All research participants’ identities are confidential and each

participant was given a code number for transcription and reporting purposes.

PHASE I — FOCUS GROUPS

Upon arrival to the research site, the researcher spent 10 days better orienting herself with
the Dos Novillos Watershed, meeting with people who have conducted previous research
and project work in the research area, reviewing maps and reports, and organizing the

focus groups. She did this for two reasons.

First, before being able to organize the focus groups, the researcher needed to confirm
exactly which communities and rural farms lie within the Watershed. It took longer than
expected to confirm this information because many of the people that she spoke with
(faculty members of EARTH University, community members, government officials) and
Sources that she reviewed (maps, previous research conducted in the Dos Novillos
Watershed) used different definitions for a watershed, and/or had conflicting perceptions

regarding the Dos Novillos Watershed’s boundaries, regardless of the definition used.

89

After this initial investigation, the researcher confirmed that the communities that lie
within the Dos Novillos Watershed are: La Argentina, Pocora Sur, Pocora (including a
cluster of houses located outside the apparent northern town limit known as Mascota),
and Las Mercedes. She also confirmed that these communities receive their potable water
from two different sources, one of which is located in the Dos Novillos Watershed, while

the other is located outside the Watershed’s boundaries.

Second, in order to be able to select a sample population that is as representative as
possible of the land uses and economic activities being carried out in the Watershed, the
researcher wanted to familiarize herself with the rural and urban areas in order to
understand the land use pattern and see first-hand what kinds of employment activities
exist. Related to this second reason, the researcher also visited the water source for the
rural aqueduct that she was told provides water to La Argentina and Pocora Sur — a
feature of the watershed that she assumed would be discussed during data collection.
Despite this effort to orient herself before starting data collection, the researcher
continued to receive conflicting information regarding the boundaries of the Watershed
and the communities within the research area, which prompted her to continue to consult
individuals, documents and literature in an attempt to confirm the appropriate boundaries

considering the research goals.
While in the process of conducting the second focus group session, she learned that the

community of El Carmen (which is split into north and south sections by the road

between San Jose’ and Limon) also receives its drinking water from the source inside the

90

Dos Novillos Watershed (in addition to La Argentina and Pocora Sur). Although this
community is located on the edge of the Destierro River and would normally be
considered to be outside the Dos Novillos Watershed boundaries, the researcher decided
to include this community in the study since it receives its water from a source within the

Watershed and thus has an impact on how the source is managed.

Discussion Guide Design

Based on a review of the pertinent literature (See Chapter 2), the results of exploratory
focus groups that were carried out in the study area by Dr. Michael Kaplowitz from
March-Apri12004, and the researcher’s general knowledge about the area’s local natural
resource management situation (e. g. two potable water sources administered by different
entities, expansion of plantation agriculture into forested land, history of community
conflict due to illegal deforestation) and institutional arrangements (e. g. Rural Aqueduct
Committee, Community Development Committees), the researcher developed a draft
focus group discussion guide that was submitted to UCRIHS in May 2004 and approved

on July 7, 2004.

After spending 10 days confirming information at the research site and setting up the
focus groups, the researcher made some small edits to the focus group discussion guide
and sent the updated guide with justifications for edits to her advisor for approval. The

final focus group discussion guide was approved (see Appendix 2) for use in the field.

91

Sample Selection Process

During this initial phase of orientation and observation of the study site, the researcher
met with a staff member of EARTH University’s Community Development Program who
has direct, first hand knowledge of the Watershed and its rural communities. This staff
member gave the researcher the names of community leaders that could help organize
focus groups in La Argentina. Other EARTH staff members gave the researcher the
names of community leaders in Pocora Sur, Pocora and Las Mercedes that could do the

same in their communities.

The researcher contacted seven pe0ple (because of the extended area encompassed by the
community of La Argentina, she decided to conduct three focus groups there — one in
each of the upper, middle and lower regions of the community) by phone when possible,
or in person to introduce herself and ask if she could meet with them to talk about the
project in more detail. From July 9-11, she met with the community leaders in the
following order: upper La Argentina, lower La Argentina, Pocora, Las Mercedes, and
Pocora Sur. One of the community leaders in middle-La Argentina was out of town and
another was unable to be reached at his home during that week, so the researcher met
with one of these leaders the following week in order to schedule the focus group in that

community.
In each case, the community leaders said they felt that the research project was important

and that they would help organize a focus group in their community. The researcher

exPlained that it would be important to organize a group of 6-8 people that was made up

92

of men and women representing diverse economic activities in order to be able to hear
from members of the community that represent different opinions. She specifically asked
that they not invite too many EARTH employees, simply because she wanted to hear
from people that work in a variety of sectors. Also, since EARTH University’s mission is
built around sustainable natural resource management techniques, the researcher
suspected that University employees might be more aware of natural resource
management issues and problems than community members who do not work there, and
she wanted to limit the bias that exceptionally well informed peOple could have on the

data.

During each of these conversations, the community leader picked a date, time and
location that he/she thought would work best for most people, taking into account the
other community activities being organized for that week. These logistical decisions had
to be changed, and invitations redone, on two occasions (middle La Argentina and Pocora
Sur) when it was discovered that there was a conflict with the proposed date. In each
case, the community leaders asked the researcher to print out 16-20 half-page invitations
that they could distribute to members of their community (see Appendix 3). The
community leaders said they needed to invite 12-16 individuals in order to ensure that 6-8
would attend and they said they needed to hand out the invitations 7-10 days before the
proposed meeting in order to give peOple enough time to plan ahead and be able to

attend. By July 15, the focus group schedule had been arranged and invitations had been
distributed, except in the case of middle-La Argentina, which was scheduled the

following week once the community leader had returned from a trip. While this focus

93

group sample selection procedure was efficient in terms of the amount of time the
researcher invested in inviting community members to participate in the focus groups, it
was not ideal due to the invitation bias of the community leaders, and the self-selection

bias inherent in the focus groups’ membership.

Focus Group Sessions

The focus groups were moderated by the researcher, who is fluent in Spanish and has
received training in qualitative research methods as part of her graduate studies. She used
a standardized, Open-ended discussion guide (Patton 2002) to steer the conversation but
was carefirl to use only non-directive prompts in order to guide the discussion and ask for
clarification or more detail. Two of the sessions were held in outdoor, open-air structures
on a participant’s farm, three were held inside elementary schools, and one took place in
a community center. Each group allowed the sessions to be recorded, and the sessions

lasted 1.5-2 hours.

The researcher carried out the focus groups with the assistance of two EARTH University
interns who helped the researcher set up refreshments and organize the seating while the
researcher greeted and talked to people before the sessions began. They also helped the

research take notes during the meeting.

After the first focus group session, the researcher made some slight adjustments (word

choice, word order) to the interview guide in order to make the questions easier to

94

understand and to make them flow more naturally. The researcher also made these kinds

of slight wording adjustments after the second and third focus group sessions.

Four of the six focus groups took place without any problems. The session in upper La
Argentina had to be cancelled and reorganized for the following week because two
unexpected community events taking place at the same time as the focus group prevented
people from attending. The session held in Pocora Sur was interrupted when the
researcher’s car was broken into during the discussion. That focus group had to be
rescheduled twice due to conflicting schedules and a national holiday and was completed
two weeks after it was originally planned. The delay in completing this focus group
session made it impossible to organize and conduct a focus group in El Carmen due to

time constraints.

PHASE II — INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

After analyzing the Phase I data, the researcher carried out Phase II in order to learn more
about the issues participants had raised as important to their livelihood and natural
resource management in the area. Specifically, the researcher wanted to find out if the
concerns raised in the focus groups were actually widespread and salient throughout the
Watershed. Researchers also wanted residents to discuss potential solutions to the

problems they discussed.

95

Interview Guide Design

The researcher developed the Phase II individual interview guide based on the Phase I
findings in conjunction with the pertinent literature (see Appendix 4). The researcher
drafied the proposed questions and probes along with justifications for asking these
questions. After receiving comments from a local co-Pl on the project, she edited the
interview guide and sent it to her advisor for review. After multiple iterations of some
questions, the final standardized, open ended, in-depth interview guide was approved.
The Phase II questions were consistent with the general themes that emerged during the
focus group sessions, and they were oriented toward understanding these general themes
in greater detail and finding out if there were other key themes that were not identified in

the focus group sessions.

Sample Section Process

The goal for Phase II was to complete 40 individual interviews with a diverse group of
male and female heads of household throughout the study area, with a greater number of

interviews in the more densely populated urban area.

In the urban area, the researcher purposefully sought male and female participants in the
north, south, east, west and center of each community (see Figure 13). An attempt was
made to interview adults working in the public and private sectors, as well as people who

identify themselves as homemakers, unemployed, or retired.

96

Throughout the upper, middle and lower section of the rural community (which is
situated on the slope of a mountain), the researcher sought out small to medium-scale
producers of a variety of agricultural products, as well as landowners offering agro-
ecotourism activities, and landowners who are employed off-farm (see Figure 12). Poor
roads, long distances between farms, and lengthier than planned interviews all increased
the time it took to conduct the interviews. As a result, there was not enough time to

interview the desired number and diversity of respondents.

The researcher planned to conduct the 40 interviews with the following distribution: in
the Urban Area - Las Mercedes: 4; Pocora: 7; Pocora Sur: 7; El Carmen: 4; El Carmen
Sur: 4; Mascota: 2; and in the Rural Area - La Argentina: 12. This sample distribution
was not intended to be representative of the population distribution between the rural and
urban areas (which would have called for only six interviews in the rural area and 34 in
the urban area). Rather, due to the perceived heterogeneity of the rural community
because of its varied degree and type of interaction with the Dos Novillos Watershed as a
result of the community members’ distribution over a large geographical area and
participation in a variety of different farm and off-farm economic activities, the
researcher decided to interview four people in each of the three geographic regions of the

community (upper, middle, lower).

Individual Interviews

In this phase of the project, the researcher interviewed 27 purposefully selected adults

from different sectors of each of the communities. The interviews took 1-2 hours, and as

97

with the focus groups, the researcher used a standardized, open-ended interview guide
(Patton 2002) and non-directive prompts to guide the conversation. All but two peOple

allowed their interviews to be tape-recorded.

On August 7 and 8, before the researcher located someone to accompany her, she used
the approved interview guide to conduct interviews in Pocora, El Carmen Sur and Las
Mercedes. As mentioned previously, she selected participants in the urban area by trying
to interview someone living in the north, south, east, west and center of town. By using
this approach, the researcher aimed to interview people that live near the Dos Novillos
River (except in the case of El Carmen since this community does not boarder the Dos
Novillos), and peOple that live farther from it. She also aimed to interview peOple
employed in the public and private sectors and a relatively equal number of men and

women .

On August 8, the researcher located a person that was willing to accompany her on her
trips and watch the vehicle while she conducted interviews. On August 9, she conducted
interviews in Pocora. On August 10, she conducted interviews in Pocora Sur and Las
Mercedes. Afier conducting 15 interviews in the urban area of the Watershed, the
researcher calculated that she was running out of time to reach the total (urban and rural)
sampling goal because each of the interviews was taking longer than expected. Due to the
need to conduct interviews in the rural area, and because she found that she was receiving
similar responses from residents in the urban area, she began to conduct interviews in the

rural, farming community of La Argentina.

98

Pt

Ct.

The researcher selected participants in the rural area by using a hand-drawn map of the
community that she had also used to divide the community into the upper, middle, and
lower sections during Phase 1. Within each of these sections, she asked permission to
interview farmers that appeared to be carrying out different types of agricultural
production (e. g. cattle, swine, plantains, coffee) or economic activities in general (e. g.
agriculture, forestry, ecotourism), and of differing sizes. She successfully completed 10
interviews in La Argentina. One interview in the lower section of the community was
interrupted and never completed because the research participant had to leave to attend to

a family issue.

The researcher then returned to the urban area to conduct two interviews in the sector of
Pocora called Mascota because watershed residents had told her that Nicaraguan
immigrants live there, and she wanted to know if they had different perceptions than their
Costa Rican neighbors. She also attempted to conduct an interview with a business owner
in El Carmen, but that interview was interrupted when a client came to the research
participant’s office. The researcher concluded Phase II on August 18 with a total of 27

completed individual interviews, and left the research area on August 19.

RESEARCH CONSTRAINTS
Problems that the researcher encountered were primarily related to the logistics of
conducting interviews in difficult to access rural areas and in high-crime urban areas. Due

to poor telephone service and bad road conditions in the rural area, it was extremely

99

difficult to make multiple attempts to interview a particular person. As a result, some
intended research participants could not be successfully contacted in time to include them
in the study. Also, by investing a lot of time in finding and coordinating with the potential

participants, the researcher had limited time to conduct interviews.

The high incidence of theft and increasing occurrence of violent crime in the urban area
made it necessary for the researcher to take a local chaperon with her when she
interviewed participants. This caused some delays, as it was difficult to contact this
chaperon when research plans had to be adjusted because she does not have a telephone.
Also, because it was considered too dangerous for the researcher and chaperon to conduct
interviews in the urban area after dark, the number of interviews that could be conducted,
especially with men that work outside the home until late in the evening, was limited.
Having a longer time-frame in which to complete the research would have allowed for
more weekend visits, and thus, a better opportunity to interview male heads of household

during the day.

QUALITATIVE DATA - ANALYTICAL APPROACH
As discussed previously, the purpose of conducting qualitative, social-science research is
to achieve an in-depth, holistic understanding of certain aspects (depending on the
research goals) of individuals, groups, organizations, communities or societies (Miles and
Huberrnan 1994). This requires the researcher to be able to make sense of large amounts
of data typically gathered from interviews, observations, and document review (Patton

2002). Contributing to the daunting nature of the task is the fact that there is no

100

 

standardized formula for carrying out qualitative research, leaving it up to the researcher
to draw from the many qualitative research traditions and find the analytical approach

that is most suitable to the study’s purpose.

CONTENT ANALYSIS

While Patton (2002) points out that there is no exact, agreed-upon way to describe how to
carry-out qualitative analysis, he suggests that the term ‘content analysis’ can be used to
generally describe . .any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort that takes a
volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings”
(Patton 2002, 453). He goes on to state that the content of interviews and observations is
analyzed in order to find out what is significant given the research goals. Specifically, it
“. . .involves identifying, coding, categorizing, classifying, and labeling the primary

patterns in the data” (Patton 2002, 463).

One methodology for carrying out content analysis is ‘grounded theory’. Strauss and
Corbin (1998) describe the process of using this methodology, which is based on iterative
qualitative analysis using three coding techniques: open coding; axial coding; and
selective (thematic) coding, in order to create and compare categories and subcategories,
and then integrate them to form theories. The process begins with “Microanalysis: the
detailed line-by—line analysis necessary at the beginning of a study to generate initial
categories (with their properties and dimensions) and to suggest relationships among

categories...” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 57).

10]

Open Coding

Strauss and Corbin (1998, 101) define open coding as: “The analytic process
through which concepts are identified and their properties and dimensions are
discovered in data”. Rubin and Rubin (1995) describe the same process by
explaining how Herbert Rubin reads through the transcriptions marking each
concept or explanation of a concept with a code. Strauss and Corbin (1998)
emphasize that open coding is used to develop categories and understand their
prOperties. As the researcher is carrying out open coding, she should also be

making axial coding notes that will be revisited in an ongoing and repeated

process.

Axial Coding

“The process of relating categories to their subcategories, termed ‘axial’ because
Coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of
PFOperties and dimensions” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 123). The term,
‘PI‘Operties’ refers to the characteristics of a category (e. g. themes related to waste
management problems) and ‘dimensions’ refers to the range of properties in a
gi Ven category (e. g. wastewater, household waste, dead farm animals, recyclable
materials, and the range of problems related to each one of these themes). Rubin
and Rubin (1995) describe this process by explaining how Herbert Rubin

exarnines the concepts he previously established (using open coding) by analyzing

102

 

the themes and concepts within each category as well as among the different
categories. After all of the categories have been analyzed and compared, the

researcher selects a final set of overall themes through selective (thematic)

coding.

Thematic Coding

Strauss and Corbin (1998, 143) describe this coding procedure as, “. . .the process
of integrating and refining theory”. Once the themes and concepts (based on open
and axial coding) have been placed into a smaller number of overarching thematic
categories (selective codes), they contend that the emerging findings can become
theory. Rubin and Rubin describe this process as the “final stage of analysis”
(1995, 251) and explain how after going through the first two stages (described
above under open and axial coding), they aim to “build toward overarching

themes” (1995, 251) that “tie the individual pieces together” (1995, 255) and

allow the researchers to report their results.

Without citing a specific methodology, Rubin and Rubin (1995) describe an analytic
process similar to that of Strauss and Corbin (1998): “Our approach to analyzing data
Parallels Spradley’s (1979) and Strauss’s (1987) systems but accommodates the particular
tyDe of research we do. We each read and reread the interviews to note core ideas and
cotlcepts, recognize emotive stories, and find themes. We code the material to group

S"nilar ideas together and figure out how the themes relate to each other. To reflect the

103

distinct nature of the material we collect, each of us uses different coding techniques that

very in detail from Spradley’s and Strauss’s approaches” (Rubin and Rubin 1995, 229).

Miles and Hubennan (1994) also describe using three types of coding techniques in order
to break the data down into meaningful and manageable pieces: “descriptive codes”,
“interpretive” and “pattern codes” (Miles and Huberrnan 1994, 5 7). They give special
emphasis to pattern coding because, “Just naming or classifying what is out there is
usually not enough. We need to understand the patterns, the recurrences, the plausible
whys” (1994, 69). To do this, they recommend first summarizing pieces of data and then
placing these summarized pieces into groups or themes. They relate this qualitative

technique to the quantitative technique of statistical cluster analysis.

While the literature makes it clear that the research project’s purpose and the researcher’s
epistemology and theoretical perspective will determine exactly how content analysis will
be carried out, Patton’s (2002) explanation of inductive and deductive qualitative analysis
helps to clarify the purpose and usefulness of these two approaches to analysis. Simply
Put, in inductive analysis, “. . .findings emerge out of the data. . .in contrast to deductive
analysis where the data are analyzed according to an existing framework” (Patton 2002,
45 3). Although different types of analysis are typically labeled either inductive or
deCluctive, Patton (2002), Strauss and Corbin (1998), and Natasi (1999) point out that
Cl‘lalitative analysis often combines the two. They explain that researchers that aim, “. . .to
define the phenomenon of interest purely from the perspective of those being studied...”

(Natasi 1999, 29) begin the coding process inductively by letting the coding categories

104

deve10p or evolve out of the data (e. g. open coding as defined by Strauss and Corbin
1998). After the themes and categories are established, the analysis can then become
deductive as the researcher compares what she has found with the literature, her
hypothesis and/or contradictory data from the same research project. This approach is
often used to generate theory (e.g. the purpose of grounded theory) or findings. This
inductive-to-deductive approach could be reversed by someone conducting “analytic
induction” (Patton 2002, 454). In this case, the goal of the research would be to verify a
theory, and the approach is to look at the data, “in terms of theory-derived sensitizing
concepts or applying a theoretical framework developed by someone else” (Patton 2002,
454). Either at the same time, or after the deductive analysis is complete, the researcher

would then try to find new and different understandings in the data by analyzing it

inductively.

Regarding when to begin analysis, Rubin and Rubin (1995), Strauss and Corbin (1998),
Miles and Huberman (1994), and others advise that unlike quantitative analysis,
qualitative analysis should begin in the field, while data collection is ongoing. They point
out that researchers should pay attention to the themes and patterns that seem to be taking
Shape during data collection, however, they should not do so to the point that they will be
diStracted from data collection tasks. Paying attention to the emerging themes during data
collection allows researchers to learn about important issues that they were not aware of,
01’ it could reveal that a theme thought to be key is really not as important to the study as

originally believed (or visa versa). Depending on the research design and purpose, it may

105

be necessary for a researcher to modify her data collection instrument or methods based

on the results of in-field analysis.

After fieldwork has been completed because the sampling goal has been met, research
themes have become “saturated” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 136), or simply because
research constraints impede further data collection, Patton (2002) advises that before
attempting to begin post-fieldwork analysis, field notes should be reviewed for

completeness and re-typed, and recorded interviews listened to and transcribed verbatim.

Since there are strengths and weaknesses to every qualitative analysis approach,
researchers must use the approach and techniques that are most appropriate for the
purpose of their study. Miles and Huberman emphasize that what is important is that
researchers be explicit about the methods they use and that these methods must be,

“. . .credible, dependable, and replicable in qualitative terms” (Miles and Huberman 1994,

2).

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
The researcher analyzed Phase I data by carrying out the following steps: 1) Review of
field notes and tape recordings of the focus group discussions; 2) Transcription of focus
group r(icordings into MS Word © files; and 3) Print out and iterative, hand coding of
transcriptions. Phase II data was analyzed in the same way, and also included: 4) Entry
and analysis of individual transcriptions using Ethnograph © qualitative analysis

SOfiWare.

106

While the researcher used the same iterative, analytical framework (Strauss and Corbin
1998, Rubin and Rubin 1995) to analyze the focus group and individual interview data,

due to the different nature of each data collection, the processes used to analyze each set

of data varied slightly.

PHASE I - FOCUS GROUPS

The goal of this phase of analysis was to learn from the community members about their
environmental realities vis-a-vis their perceptions regarding watershed and natural
resource management in their community. By doing so, the researcher aimed to be able to

find out what themes should be discussed in greater detail in the next phase of research

(individual interviews).

After completing each focus group, the researcher reviewed her notes and the recorded
discussion. This was done immediately after the focus group sessions in order to ensure
that her notes were understandable and complete and that the recording was audible. In
the event that the recording was not audible, she would have expanded her notes while
the discussion was still fresh in her memory. This pre-transcription review of the data
aHOWEd the researcher to note the themes and concepts that were emerging from the data

as it was collected (Miles and Huberman 1994).

The researcher hired two Costa Rican, native Spanish speakers to transcribe each of the
co . . . . .
mpleted focus group sessrons verbatim. As she received the transcriptions, the

r . . . . ‘ '
esearcher can-red out microanalysrs (Strauss and Corbin 1998) by revrewrng the

107

document and then conducting what Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe as open and

axial coding by hand.

Due to a number of delays in completing the focus group sessions, and the slower than
expected transcription-time (due to inconsistent sound quality), the researcher had to

begin selective (thematic) coding on each completed transcription before having received

all six focus group transcriptions.

Coding Procedure

Although the purpose of the Dos Novillos research project was not to develop theory (the
main emphasis of Strauss and Corbin’s ‘grounded theory’ approach), the researcher
found the iterative and comparative technique to be helpfiJl in trying to gain an in-depth

understanding of community members’ perceptions about natural resources and natural

resource management in their watershed.

The researcher began the coding process by carrying out microanalysis (Strauss and
Corbin 1 998, 57) on focus group transcriptions by carefully considering each line of data
and conducting open and axial coding. “It is through carefiil scrutiny of data, line by line,
that researchers are able to uncover new concepts and novel relationships and to

systematically develop categories in terms of their properties and dimensions” (Strauss

and Corbin 1998, 71)-

108

 

Open and Axial Codes

The researcher developed the open and axial codes by carefully reading through the focus
group transcriptions and using a code to mark the words, phrases or larger sections of
texts (one or more paragraphs) that related to the study questions or seemed important to
the respondent/s because the concept was repeated or emphasized and/or because it
seemed particularly out of place to the researcher, indicating that she might be missing

something crucial and should look into this concept further (Strauss and Corbin 1998,

Rubin and Rubin 1995).

The initial plan was to open code all of the transcriptions before carrying out axial and
then thematic coding, however, after the researcher conducted open coding on the first
transcription, there was considerable lag-time between receiving the next focus group
transcription. Due to a time constraint for analyzing the focus group data, the researcher
decided to conduct Open and axial coding sequentially on each transcription as it was
received. For example, instead of coding each different concept first, then going back
through the transcriptions and grouping them into the subcategories as a separate, second
step, as the researcher coded each transcription, she compared and contrasted all of the
different properties and characteristics of the categories (e. g. different threats to well-
being in urban/rural area) and grouped the individual concepts into the subcategories (e. g.
Threats to Well—Being in the Rural Area) in one step. As she received each transcription,
she rePfiated the process again using the same list of open codes established and added to
during the analysis of each subsequent transcription. When new codes were used, they

w . . . . . .
ere added to the lrst and the prevrously coded transcrrptrons were revrewed again to

109

code for the new concepts. Please refer to Figure 2 for an example of open and axial

coding.

Thematic Codes

After reviewing, coding and re-coding all of the focus group transcriptions, a total of 140
open/axial codes were established (see Figure 3). Although another set of codes was not
explicitly developed as part of a second step (as explained previously), afier identifying,
coding, and cross-referencing all of the concepts raised during the focus group sessions,
the researcher then grouped the concepts together using 10 focus group discussion
question topics as the headings, and placed the concepts under the subcategories, urban or
rural, so that she could compare and contrast them in order to gain a more in-depth
understanding of their significance to the research questions (Rubin and Rubin 1995).
Because of the interconnected nature of the concepts, using the discussion guide
questions to organize the concepts by topic was critical to the researcher’s ability to then
Place the concepts into subcategories and continue to compare and contrast the data.
Using these thematic areas simplified the process of analyzing the respondents’
perceptions regarding each of the issues mentioned or discussed in-depth during the focus
group Sessions. This stage of analysis made it possible for the researcher to understand
which issues seemed to be most important for further investigation in Phase II. Please

refer to Figure 4 to see a list of the thematic codes used and Figure 2 for an example of

thematic coding.

110

As the researcher analyzed the thematic data related to each Of the 10 overarching
themes, she wrote up summary sheets for each theme and described similarities and
differences found in the urban and rural areas. The researcher used these summary sheets

to generate findings and determine what to ask community members during the

individual interviews.

PHASE II - INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

The goal Of this phase Of analysis was to learn more about the key issues that were
discovered through the analysis Of the focus group data and find out if these issues and
concerns were widespread and salient. The researcher also wanted residents to tell her
about potential solutions to the problems they raised and indicate whether or not they

were willing to support initiatives like the ones they mentioned.

Since the individual interviews were conducted at a much faster pace than the focus
group sessions, there was not time for the researcher to completely review her notes or
the audio recording immediately after each interview. Rather, the researcher reviewed her
notes and the recordings in the evenings, after the day’s data collection was complete.
This gave her the opportunity tO review her notes, but did not allow her time tO listen tO
all of the recorded interviews (given that there were six or more hours Of interviews taped
On most days). The researcher did skim the recording Of each interview, mostly in order
to test for audibility, but this also gave her the Opportunity to replay each of the day’s

interviews in her head and helped her start forming a list of themes and concepts as they

emerged from each interview (Miles and Huberman 1994).

111

The researcher hired the same two people who had transcribed the focus group
discussions to transcribe the individual interviews. Due to poor sound quality on some Of
the recordings, the transcriptions were completed slowly and the researcher had received
only a quarter of the transcriptions before completing data collection and leaving the

research site. After the recorded interviews were transcribed and the transcriptions

reviewed, the tapes were destroyed.

As required by UCRIHS, the researcher took her interview recordings with her when she
left. Upon returning to Michigan, the researcher converted the audio recordings to digital
files and sent them via DHL tO EARTH University, where the transcribers each took half
of them and continued tO transcribe. The transcribers emailed the researcher each
transcription as soon as it was completed and the researcher ultimately received a total Of

35 7 single-spaced pages of transcriptions (two Of the 27 respondents did not allow their

interview to be recorded).

AS the researcher received transcriptions by email, she carried out the same microanalysis
Process described previously (Phase I - Focus Groups) by reviewing the document and
then conducting open and axial coding by hand (Strauss and Corbin 1998, Rubin and
Rubin 1995). Again, due to the delay in receiving all Of the transcriptions, the researcher
began selective (thematic) coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998) on the completed

transcriptions before having received all Of the individual interview transcriptions. As she

112

received the remaining transcriptions, she reviewed them, carried out Open and axial

coding on them and then incorporated them into the selective (thematic) coding process.

Coding Procedure

As she had done previously with the focus group data, the researcher conducted

microanalysis (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 57) on the individual interview transcriptions by

carrying out Open and axial coding.

Open and Axial Codes

The researcher developed the Open and axial codes by carefirlly reading through the
individual interview transcriptions and using a code to mark the words, phrases and
sections Of texts that stood out because Of their relation to the research questions or
because the researcher thought she should consider a concept in greater depth (Strauss
and Corbin 1998, Rubin and Rubin 1995). While many of the Open/axial codes the
researcher used in this phase of coding were the same as codes she developed when she
Coded the focus group transcriptions, the researcher did not use the list Of focus group
cOdes as a basis for coding the individual interviews. Since she wanted to let the
transcriptions speak for themselves instead Of running the risk Of unconsciously forcing
the individual interview concepts and themes to match the focus group concepts and
t“$11168, the researcher inductively coded the individual interviews. Also, the researcher
decided tO code the individual interviews in Spanish (the language of the transcriptions)

because she had found it difficult to code the Spanish-language focus group transcriptions

113

in English. For this reason, the actual individual interview codes (see Figure 5) are

derived from Spanish words and thus dO not seem tO match their corresponding English

(translated) meanings.

Since the researcher received most of the individual interview transcriptions one-at-a-
time, and she was under a time constraint for analyzing the data, the researcher decided to
repeat the process she had used to code the focus group transcriptions. She, therefore,
conducted Open and axial coding sequentially on each transcription as she received it.
Whenever new codes were used, they were added to the list and the previously coded

transcriptions were reviewed again to code for the new concepts. Please see Figure 8 for

an example Of Open/axial coding.

Thematic Codes

After reviewing, coding and re-coding all Of the focus group transcriptions, a total Of 56
open/axial codes were established (see Figure 5). Since there was such a great deal Of

in formation and so much overlap among the concepts and themes, the researcher then
used the interview guide as a basis for dividing up and recoding the already coded chunks
0f data into 38 (Often overlapping) subcategory thematic codes (see Figure 6). After
cross—referencing and re-coding all Of the concepts and themes that came out of the
individual interviews, the researcher then grouped the concepts together using nine
overarching thematic codes (see Figure 7) that were based on the broad, overarching

thematic sections Of the individual interview guide. Please see Figure 8 for an example of

thematic coding.

114

 

As was the case with the focus group dada, the researcher found that using the interview
guide questions to organize the coded concepts by tOpic was critical tO her ability to
understand the data as best she could. Using this two-stage thematic coding process made
it easier to analyze the respondent’s stated perceptions and suggestions regarding natural
resource management in the Dos Novillos Watershed. This stage Of analysis made it

possible for the researcher to select the issues that appeared to require further

investigation.

The researcher used the qualitative data analysis software, Ethnograph, to analyze the
thematic data related tO each Of the 38 subcategory themes and nine overarching themes
by loading the transcriptions and codes into the program and using it tO generate memos
for each of the 38 subcategory themes. The researcher used these summary sheets to

compare and contrast the perceptions of each respondent, and to gain a more holistic

understanding Of the nine overarching themes in general.

ANALYSIS CONSTRAINTS
The initial coding plan for Phase I data was to Open code all Of the transcriptions before
Carry ing out axial and then thematic coding, however, after the researcher conducted

open coding on the first transcription, there was considerable lag-time between receiving

the next focus group transcription.

115

Due to the inconsistent sound quality Of most of the recordings, it took the transcribers
longer than expected to complete each transcription. The sound quality varied throughout
each recording depending on the location of the meetings. When sessions where held
outside, the sounds Of cicadas, frogs and chickens were sometimes deafening and when
sessions were held in schools, the sounds Of nearby activities sometimes interfered with
the audibility of the group discussion (due tO the hot, humid climate, there is no way to
completely close a room, even if the door is shut). In addition to location-specific noise
interference, many focus group participants were eager to share their views and the
researcher had tO work hard to keep them from talking all at once. Despite her best
efforts, she could not always keep participants from talking at the same time and this also

made it difficult for transcribers to interpret the audiotapes.

Again, with respect to Phase II data analysis, the transcription process proved to be much
slower than anticipated, however, due to the high quality Of the transcriptions she had
received, the researcher decided that the transcribers were doing their best, and that
inconsistent sound quality and the transcribers’ professional schedules interfered with the
timely completion Of transcriptions. The researcher had selected the two people that she
knew would do the best job possible, and as it turned out, she could not find anyone else
that she thought could do the same quality work at a faster pace. The slow return of
transcriptions meant that the researcher had only received a quarter Of the transcriptions
before completing data collection and leaving the research site. The recorded interviews

that were yet to be transcribed presented a different problem.

116

 

As required by UCRI HS, the researcher took her interview recordings with her when she
returned to Michigan. She had tried to have the recordings copied before she left so that
she could leave the transcribers with a copy Of the tapes that they would then return to her
by mail after completing the transcriptions. Unfortunately, no devise could be found at or
near EARTH University that could COpy a micro-cassette. Upon returning tO Michigan,
the researcher intended to copy the micro-cassettes and send them to the transcribers by
courier. She encountered further delays when it became apparent that not even
audiovisual stores in Lansing, Michigan had equipment for copying micro-cassettes. The
researcher spent a great amount Of time trying to copy the cassettes using a variety Of
methods, and ultimately found a software program that allowed her to transfer the

recordings from the micro-cassettes into digital format.

This process was time-consuming and delicate because the researcher had to be present
during the entire recording process in order tO monitor the progress Of the recording
transfer. The software worked well, but the tape recorder had tO be situated in a certain
position in order tO eliminate background noise (from the recorder playing) and when the
sound level increased above a certain point, the researcher had to turn the volume down
or the software would not pick up any Of the recording at all. The researcher was
fiustrated by this process because of the time she invested in making the recordings and
also because she then found that the files, even when converted to MP3 documents, were
too large to send to the transcribers by email. The researcher saved the digital files onto
labeled CDs and sent them via DHL to EARTH University, where the transcribers each

took half of them and continued tO transcribe. It should be noted that upon returning to

117

Michigan, the researcher considered paying a local person/people to transcribe the
interview recordings, however, she realized that she needed to have native Spanish
speakers familiar with Costa Rican slang and local colloquialisms transcribing the
interviews. Additionally, the transcription budget was set at Costa Rican prices, and
additional funds would have to have been allocated to transcription if the researcher hired
a transcriber in Michigan. Since there was still another phase of fieldwork to be

completed, the researcher was hesitant to use more project funds for transcription.

As with the focus group recordings, the individual interview recordings (although cleaned
by the digitizing software) ranged in quality, mostly due to ambient noise. For example,
in one case, someone was using a motor saw to cut down trees across the river from the
respondent. Again, due to the delay in receiving all of the transcriptions, the researcher
had tO begin selective (thematic) coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998) on the completed

transcriptions before having received all Of the individual interview transcriptions.

The researcher’s methodological and analytical implementation techniques and the

results of data analysis are presented in the next chapter.

118

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A
COSTA RICAN WATERSHED

VOLUME 11
By

Delanie Kellon

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree Of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Resource Development

2006

CHAPTER 4

IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

TO learn about Dos Novillos community members’ perceptions regarding natural
resources and natural resource management in their community, focus group and
individual interview data were analyzed (Rubin and Rubin 1995, Strauss and Corbin
1998). An iterative coding procedure (described by Patton 2003 as content analysis)
similar to those described by Rubin and Rubin (1995), Strauss and Corbin (1998) and
Miles and Huberman (1994) was used to identify key themes, consider these themes in
relation and in comparison to each other, and to recognize patterns. This analytical

process resulted in the research findings discussed below.

This chapter presents demographic information about the respondents, researcher
Observations on the implementation and conduct of the focus group sessions and the
individual interviews, and the results of the data analyses. Representative quotes Of
themes as well as interesting points are presented as well. First, the participant
demographics are presented for each phase of the research (focus groups and individual
interviews), followed by a separate presentation Of the focus group and individual

interview analysis.

119

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

Data and analysis regarding participant demographics is presented here. First, there is a
discussion Of the demographic data collected from Focus Group participants (Tables 1-3).
Next, there is a discussion Of the demographic data collected from Individual Interview

respondents (see Tables 4-8).

FOCUS GROUPS

Origin

Understanding where respondents are from can help investigators understand local land
use practices, as well as attitudes and perceptions about natural resource management
(Wang 2001). To this end, respondents were asked about their origin at the beginning Of

the interview.

Most focus group participants have moved tO the study area from another location. As
Table 1 shows, 85% of both the female and male respondents are migrants to the Dos
Novillos Watershed. Of the total respondents, 33 (85%) are migrants to the study area,

five (13%) were born and raised there and one (3%) is from unknown origin.

Of the 33 non-native respondents, half of them migrated from towns in Costa Rica’s

Atlantic region (Turrialba, Guacimo, Guapiles, Pocora, and Iroquois). A total of 41%

came from the country’s Atlantic region, with 21% from the Central Valley (San Jose,

120

 

Alajuela, Heredia), 21% from the Pacific region (Quepos and Guanacaste) and 1% from

Southern Region (Perez Zeledon).

Residential Zone

The focus group participants were evenly distributed between rural and urban residents.
A total Of 19 (49%) respondents were from the rural area and 20 (52%) were from the
urban area. Four (80%) Of the native respondents live in the urban area with one (20%) in

the rural area.

Gender

The focus group participants were almost equally distributed with respect to gender. The

data show that 18 (46%) Of the respondents were female and 21 (54%) were male.

121

Table 1
Focus Group Respondents’ Origin, Residential Zone and Gender

 

Residential Zone
Urban Rural

 

Male Female Male Female Total

Native 1 3 1 5
Migrant
Alaj uela 1
Guacimo 2 l
Guanacaste 2 l 3
Guapiles l 1
Heredia 1
Iroquois l
Perez Zeledon l
Pocora 2
Quepos l 1
San Jose 2 3 1
Turrialba l 4 3
Unknown Origin 1

~N0\w—-

u—quKNNu—nu—

Total 1 l 9 IO 9 39
Percentage 2 8% 2 3% 2 6% 2 3% 100%

 

Respondents’ Years of Residency

The focus group participants varied in the length of their residency in the Dos Novillos
area. As Table 2 illustrates, while 77% have lived in the study area for more than 10

years, this applies to more urban respondents (63%) than rural respondents (37%).

The respondents’ average years Of residency was 17, with an average of 29.2 in the urban

area and 13.7 in the rural area.

122

Table 2

Focus Group Respondents’ Years of Residency

 

 

Years of Residency
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Total
Urban Male 1 4 2 3 1 11
Female 2 4 1 1 l 9
Group Total 1 6 6 4 l 2 20
5.0% 30.0% 30.0% 20.0% 5.0% 10. % 100.0%
Rural Male 4 3 3 10
Female 4 2 3 9
Group Total 8 5 6 19
42.1% 26.3% 31.6% 100.0%
Table Total 9 l l 12 4 l 2 39
23.1% 28.2% 30.8% 10.3% 2.6% 5.1% 100.0%

 

Respondents’ Employment Type

It is evident from the literature that land use has a major impact on natural resource
management (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Wang 2001). The literature also suggests that
people will perceive their impact on their environment based on their practical experience
as well as their level of formal or informal education about the subject (Soderqvist 2003).
Therefore, asking respondents about the way they earn a living should help investigators
interpret respondents’ answers by considering how they interact with natural resources on

a daily basis through their employment activities.

Responses were divided into four general categories: private sector; public sector; retired;

and homemaker. The private sector has been further divided into the following specific

123

categories: employed non-farm; and farmer. Homemakers who are also employed outside

the home are not included in the ‘homemaker’ category.

As Table 3 shows, most respondents were employed in the private sector. A total of 83%
Of respondents are employed in some kind Of job outside Of the home (80% in the private

sector and 3% in the public sector), while 10% are homemakers and 8% are retired.

A total of 36% of all respondents are farmers, 44% are employed (non-farm) in the
private sector, and 3% are employed in the public sector. Looking at the private sector

alone, a total Of 45% are farmers and 55% are employed (non-farm).

Most Of the urban workers are employed in a private sector activity other than farming
(75%), while 10% are retired, 5% are employed in the public sector, 5% are farmers, and

another 5% are homemakers.

In the rural area, 68% Of the respondents are farmers, while 16% are homemakers, 11%

are employed in the private sector (non-farm), and 5% are retired.

Most female respondents work in the private sector with an equal percentage in both

farming (33%) and non-farm employment (33%). A total Of 22% of females are

homemakers, 6% work in the public sector and another 6% are retired.

124

Most male respondents (5 2%) have non-farm private sector jobs, 38% are farmers, and

10% are retired.

Table 3
Focus Group Respondents’ Employment Type

 

Residential Zone

 

 

Urban Rural
Male Female Male Female T3511
Farmer l 7 6 14
35.9%
firsts" 9 . 2 .7
43.6%
Public Sector 1 l
2.6%
Homemaker l 3 4
1 0.3%
Retired 1 l 1 3
7.7%
Total 1 1 9 10 9 39
100.0%

 

Types of Agricultural Production

The importance Of evaluating land use patterns to evaluate natural resource management
practices, threats and Opportunities (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Wang 2001) led
investigators to ask respondents about their agricultural production activities.
Respondents in the rural area of the Dos Novillos Watershed described a variety Of

agricultural activities.

125

Of the 14 farmers, five (36%) grow heart of palm, four (29%) raise beef cattle, three

(21%) raise tilapia, and three (21%) also grow coffee.

Tubers and fruit (rambutan, banana) are each grown by two (14%) farmers, and one
farmer (7%) reported raising dairy cattle, pigs, and chickens, and growing each of the

following: sugar cane; citrus; pejibaye; and medicinal plants.

All but two Of the 14 farmers reported selling their products locally. The two exceptions
were a beef farmer that sells his cattle at the livestock auction in Guapiles, and a filth and
vegetable grower that sells his citrus in Heredia and the rest Of his fruit in San Jose. Three

producers that sell their products locally added that they earn money from agrotourism or

ecotourism carried out on their farms.

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

Origin

Most respondents have moved to the study area from another location. As Table 4 shows,
63% of both the female and male respondents are migrants to the Dos Novillos
Watershed. Of the total respondents, (63%) are migrants to the study area, (30%) were

bom and raised there and (7%) are from unknown origin.

Of the 17 non-native respondents, most Of them migrated from towns in Costa Rica’s
Atlantic region (Tunialba, Guapiles, Iroquois, La Alegria Limon and Siquirres). A total

0f 5 3% came from the country’s Atlantic region, with 29% from the Central Valley

126

(Alajuela, Cartago, Heredia, and San Jose), 12% from the Pacific region (Parrita and

Puntarenas) and 6% from Nicaragua.

Residential Zone

A total of 10 (37%) respondents were from the rural area and 17 (63%) were from the
more populated urban area. As with the focus groups, all but one Of the native
respondents lives in the urban area. A total Of 87.5% of the native respondents live in the

urban area with 12.5% in the rural area.

127

Table 4
Individual Respondents' Origin, Residential Zone and Gender

 

 

 

Urban Rural
Male Fegnal ($321)) Male F6213] (£3,131 Total

Native Native 3 4 7 r 1 8
Total (Native) 3 4 7 1 l 8
Migrant Alajuela l 1 1
Cartago l 1 l
Guapiles l 1 l
Heredia l l l
Iroquois l l 1
La Alegria . l l l
Limon 1 l 1
Nicaragua 1 l l,
Parrita l 1 1
Puntarenas l l 1
San Jose 1 l l l 2

Siquirres l l
Turrialba l 2 3 l l 4
Total (Migrant) 1 8 9 4 4 8 17
Unknown Origin 1 l l l 2
Total 4 l3 l7 4 6 10 27

Percentage Total 15% 48% 63% 15% 22% 37%

Gender

The data show that 70% of the individual interview respondents were female. The
researcher attributes this over sample Of female community members to the time Of day
that she conducted interviews. While focus groups were conducted in the evenings (and

received an almost equal number Of male and female participants), individual interviews

128

were conducted during the day (when men tend to be at work outside the home) due to

concerns of EARTH University security staff about the researcher’s safety conducting

individual interviews in the study area at night.

Respondents’ Years of Residency

The individual interviews revealed that respondents varied in the length Of their residency
in the Dos Novillos area. As Table 5 illustrates, while more than half Of the respondents
(63%) have lived in the study area for more than 10 years, this applies tO more urban

respondents (71%) than rural respondents (50%).

Male respondents from the urban area have lived in the study area for a longer time than
those in the rural area. In the urban area, all of the male respondents have lived in the
study area for more than 30 years (24% Of urban respondents), while no respondents from
the rural area have live in the study area for more than 30 years. As discussed previously,
fact that urban respondents have lived in the study area for a longer period of time than
rural respondents could be explained by the IDA land distribution program and the

apparent prevalence Of migrants to the rural area.

In both the urban and rural areas, more female than male respondents have lived in the
StUdy area for more than 10 years. In the urban area, female respondents that have lived
in the study area for more than 10 years represented 47% Of respondents while male
respondents represented 24% Of respondents. Of the total rural respondents, 40% Of
female respondents and 10% Of male respondents have lived in the study area for more

than 10 Years.

129

Some respondents that have lived in the area for more than 10 years show a more in-
depth understanding of changes in the watershed’s natural resource base. For example,
long-time residents tended to be able to comment with greater detail about changes in
river flow, water quality, groundwater quality, the amount of fish in the river, and the

amount Of forest cover.

The respondents’ average years Of residency was 23.5, with an average of 29.4 in the

urban area and 13.4 in the rural area.

Table 5
I ndividual Respondents' Years of Residency

 

 

Years Of Residency

1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Total

 

Urban
Male 1 l 2 4
Female 5 2 2 2 l l 13

Total '
(Urban) 5 2 2 3 l 3 1 17
29.4% 11.8% 1 1.8% 17.6% 5.9% 17.6% 5.9% 100.0%
Rural
Male 3 r 4
Female 2 1 3 ' 6
Total

(Rural) 5 2 3 '0
50.0% 20.0% 30.0% 100.0%
Total 10 4 5 3 l 3 l 27

37% 14.8% 18.5% 11.1% 3.7% 11.1% 3.7% 100.0%

130

Respondents’ Employment Type

Responses were divided into four general categories: private sector; public sector; retired;
and homemaker. The private sector has been further divided into the following specific
categories: employed (non-farm); self-employed (non-farm); and farmer. Even though
farmers are effectively self-employed, the distinction between “farmers” and “self-
employed” is made in order tO distinguish between the different relationships with, and
impacts on, natural resources Of these very different economic activities. Homemakers

who are also employed outside the home are not included in the “homemaker” category.

As Table 6 shows, most respondents were employed in the private sector. A total Of 67%
of respondents are employed in some kind of job outside of the home (63% in the private
sector and 4% in the public sector), while 30% are homemakers and 4% are retired. A
total of 26% Of all respondents are farmers, 19% are self-employed (non-farm), and 19%
are employed in an activity other than farming. Lookin g at the private sector alone, a total
of 41% are farmers, 29% are self-employed, and 29% are employed by someone else.
Most Of the private sector urban workers are self-employed in an activity other than

farming (71%), and 29% are employed by someone else.

In the rural area, all Of the respondents classified themselves as farmers or employees Of
other peOple. Most Of the rural respondents (70%) are farmers, while 30% are employees
of someone else. Most female respondents are homemakers. A total Of 42% of females
are homemakers, 21% are farmers, 16% are self-employed, 16% are employed by

someone else, and 5% work in the public sector. Of the public and private sector

13]

occupations that female respondents said that they work in, most are farmers.
Specifically, 36% are farmers, 27% are self-employed, 27% are employed by someone
else, and 9% work in the public sector. Most male respondents (38%) are farmers, 25%

are self-employed, 25% are employed by someone else and 13% are retired.

Table 6
Individual Respondents' Employment Type

 

 

 

 

Urban Rural
Male Female Total Male Female Total Total
Urban Rural

Private Employed 0
Sector (not farmer) l l 2 l 2 3 5 [8'5 A
Self Employed 2 3 5 5 18.5%

(not farmer)
Farmer 3 4 7 7 25.9%
Total 0,
(Private) 3 4 7 4 6 10 17 63.0 /o
gum“: Public Sector 1 r 1 3.7%
ector

Total (Public) 1 l 1 3.7%

Retired Retired 1 l l 3 .7%
Total 0,

(Retired) 1 l l 3.7 o

H -

“.312: Homemaker 8 8 8 29.6%
Total (Home- 8 8 8 29.6%
maker)

Total 4 13 17 4 6 10 27 100.0%

“

Types of Agricultural Production

While seven out of the 10 rural respondents described themselves as farmers, the Other

three rural respondents are either farm caretakers (2) or a housekeeper (1). Although the

132

housekeeper did not describe herself as a farmer, she does participate in small scale
agricultural production, the products Of which she sells in the community. The

agricultural production activities of all 10 rural respondents are included below.

As Table 7 shows, most of the .10 rural respondents (70%) raise beef cattle to some
extent. The total number Of beef cattle that respondents reported owning ranges from 5 to
34 heads. Respondents reported selling beef cattle either at the livestock auction in

Guapiles or tO Coope Montecillos R. L.

Dairy cattle are raised by 30% of the rural respondents. One Of the farms’ owners takes
the cheese produced on site outside of the community to sell it. Another family uses the

milk for family consumption and nO market data was collected for the third farm.

Swine are raised by 20% Of the rural respondents. Both people reported selling the pigs

locally within the La Argentina as well as using them for family consumption.

Two of the rural respondents (20%) reported taking part in a new tilapia-breeding project
being promoted by the Port Administration and Development Board Of the Atlantic
Region (JAPDEVA). Both projects are in the early stages and both respondents reported

that the goal Of the project is to sell the tilapia on the national market.

133

Chickens are also being sold by 20% of the rural respondents. In one case, a buyer comes
to the farm tO buy the chickens, which a retailer re-sells in Pocora, and in the other case,

the chickens are sold directly to neighbors in La Argentina.

Two (20%) of rural respondents grow heart Of palm. In one case, a buyer comes tO the

farm to purchase the crop, and the other farmer produces it for family consumption.

The other agricultural products are being grown or raised by just one Of the rural
respondents. Data shows that all of these products are sold or consumed locally in In

Argentina NO market data was collected regarding coconut, maize, and papaya.

Table 7
I Individual Respondents’ Types of Agricultural Production

 

 

 

T e Farmers Producin each
of AgriEulture Type Of AgriculTure Markets
Beef Cattle 70.0% Auction in Guapiles; Cooperativa Montecillos
Dairy Cattle 30.0% Makes cheese to sell outside the community; Family
consumption; NO data
Swine 20.0% Local sales in Argentina; Family consumption
Tilapia 20.0% Goal is to sell in national market (not selling yet)
Chickens 20.0% Buyer comes to farm; Local sales in La Argentina
Heart of Palm 20.0% Buyer comes to farm; Family consumption
Banana 10.0% Family consumption
C‘tt'us 10.0% Family consumption/Local sales in La Argentina
Coconut 10.0% NO Data
COffee 10.0% Local sale to local cooperative in La Argentina
DUCkS 10.0% Local sales in La Argentina
Guanabana 10.0% Family consumption/Local sales in La Argentina
Maize 10.0% NO Data
Papaya 10.0% NO Data
‘Yuca 10.0% F amily consumption
\———.—_—_—.——_—_—

134

FOCUS GROUPS
The focus group session data analysis is presented here. First, there is a review Of the
researcher’s observations about the focus group sessions. Next, the focus group data

analysis is presented, including representative quotes.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Altogether, six focus group sessions were conducted (see Figure 9), with three in the rural
area (La Argentina) and three in the urban area (Pocora, Pocora Sur, Las Mercedes). Each
session was made up of six or seven participants with a total of 21 men and 18 women
participating in the discussions. Each focus group session was carried out using the same
discussion guide. Informed consent procedures were conducted without any problems,
and some participants volunteered that they did not care if anyone knew what they
thought. The majority Of focus group participants appeared to be interested in the

research topic in general, as well as in the specific issues that were discussed.

In four Of the six sessions, there were one or two participants that did not appear to feel as
Comfortable engaging in the discussion as the others, as well as participants that would
tend to dominate the discussion if the researcher did not intervene and ask others what
they thought or if they had anything to share. In an attempt tO compensate for passionate
tones used by some speakers, and to ensure that each participant had the Opportunity to

contribute to the discussion, the researcher specifically asked the less vocal participants

tO share their Opinions.

135

FG-l was made up Of two men and four women from the lower section Of [a Argentina,
which is adjacent tO the southern boundary of Pocora Sur. Their responses show that they
represented a range Of ages (from 20’s to 70’s) as well as a range Of economic activities
(carpenter, farm owner and agrO-ecotourism operator, private forestry Operation for

timber production, and homemakers that maintain different levels Of sustenance

agriculture).

It appeared that the participants in this group were interested in the discussion topics and
that they were responding sincerely. One member Of the group did not participate as
much as the others so the researcher intervened numerous times to ask him what he
thought. After a couple attempts tO encourage him tO participate, he replied that he was
not talking much because the others were expressing what he felt, so he did not need tO
interject. After saying that, he did however interject more often. One elderly participant
that had lived in the community since it was originally granted to colonists by the
Institute for Agrarian Development (IDA) told rich stories to exemplify statements that
she and others made. While rich and entertaining, these stories were Often long. The

researcher used non-directive prompts to urge her to stay on track without deterring her

from participating in the discussion in her own way.

FG-Z consisted of five men and one woman from Pocora. The participants in this session
were less diverse in terms Of age (40’s to 70’s), but equally as diverse in term Of

economic activities (banana plantation worker, EARTH employee, retired homemaker,

retired plantation worker.)

136

Again, based on the participants’ enthusiasm during the discussion, it appeared that they
were interested in the discussion tOpics and that they were speaking sincerely. In this
session, there were two participants that did not contribute as much to the conversation as
the others. Again, the researcher spoke directly to these people to encourage them to join
in the conversation. When spoken to directly, these participants generally responded by

sharing their perceptions about the topic being discussed.

FG-3 was made up of one man and six women from Las Mercedes, and the participants
ranged in age from 30’s to 50’s. While four of the seven participants are employed by
EARTH University, the group still represented a diverse range of economic activities
(two EARTH employees, two women employed on campus by EARTH residents, a local
elementary school teacher, and two retired women). It should be noted that it is not
surprising that four of the seven focus group participants in [as Mercedes would be
employed by EARTH University since the community is located literally on the edge of

campus and many community members are employed by EARTH.

Although this group was similar to the others in that the participants appeared to be
enthusiastic about the subject, this group was different in that there was no reserved
member of the group. All of the participants were eager to share their opinion, often at
the same time. Despite the researcher’s repeated attempts to encourage the participants to
Speak one at a time, there were numerous occasions in which two people were so eager to

""606“ that they tried to do so by speaking louder than the other participant.

137

In F G-4, three men and three women from the middle section of La Argentina
participated in the group discussion. The participants ranged in age from 20’s to 60’s.
Two participants are caretakers of a farm and the other four own farms and practice a
variety of agricultural activities on them. The four participants that own their own farm

(or live on their family’s farm in the case of the young woman in her 20’s) all said that

they practice agro-ecotourism on their farms.

As observed in previous focus group sessions, the participants appeared to be interested
in the discussion topic, and responded as thought they were speaking sincerely. This
focus group session was different, however, due to the presence of one very well
informed community member (the community leader), as well as another community
member that appeared to have an agenda (came prepared with written notes and gave a
speech before the session actually started). These two participants were often long-
winded, making it necessary for the researcher to interrupt them in order to make sure
other participants had ample opportunity to join in the discussion. ln addition to these two
dominating participants, there were two participants who appeared shy and needed
encouragement from the researcher or from other participants to interject. The two more
reserved participants (one man and one woman) explained that they were just learning
about natural resources and did not feel that they could contribute much. When the
researcher reminded them that there were no correct or incorrect answers and that she

simply Wanted to hear their Opinion, these two peOple responded that they had not

138

 

thought about the subject long enough to have a strong opinion, but that they agreed with

the current situation as stated by the other participants.

FG-S was made up of five men and two women from Pocora Sur. This group ranged in
age from late 20’s to 60’s and held a range of occupations (local elementary school

teacher, secretary, agrochemical technician, local committee representative, retired, an

EARTH employee).

Again, these participants appeared to be interested in the focus group discussion topic and
responded as though they were speaking sincerely. In contrast to FG-3, the participants in
this session spoke one at a time, despite having strong feelings about many issues, and as
with FG-3, this group was made up of people who all participated equally. There was no

dominating or passive participant in the group.

In FG-6, five men and two women from the upper section of La Argentina participated in
the session. The participants’ ages ranged between 20’s and 60’s. All of the participants

were farm owners that engage in a range of agricultural production (beef cattle, tilapia,

fi'uit and vegetable crops).

As with the other focus group sessions, the participants in FG-6 appeared interested in the
discussion topic and responded as though they were being sincere. As was the case with

“34, this group included one very well informed community member (the community

139

leader) and there was also one relatively quiet participant that needed encouragement

from the researcher or other focus group participants in order to contribute.

FOCUS GROUP ANALYSIS

The researcher’s findings are organized and presented around the selective (thematic)
codes that emerged from the iterative coding process. In the discussion of thematic areas,

care is taken to distinguish between findings based on data collected in the rural and

urban areas.

Figure 3 presents the open codes established during the first step of analyzing the
interview transcriptions and Figure 4 presents the thematic codes used to further analyze
the data. The analysis includes representative quotes from the interviews as well as some

basic quantitative analysis carried out using SPSS.

Open and Axial Codes

The open and axial codes that the researcher used to analyze the focus group
transcriptions range from extremely specific perceptions (e. g. lack of understanding of
natural resources) to broader themes that the researcher thought of as her axial codes.
These broader codes contain multiple properties and dimensions (e. g. contamination).
Beeause of this, many concepts and themes are connected to more than one code. Please

refer to Figure 2 for an example of open and axial coding.

140

Thematic Codes

The following 10 thematic areas are broad enough that they allowed the researcher to
include data about the different kinds of natural resource issues that focus group
participants discussed (e. g. relating to forests, the river, the water source, agricultural
land), and specific enough that she was able to conduct detailed analysis on different
aspects of these issues (e. g. natural resource management problems, potential
improvements, and impediments to implementing these improvements). Please refer to
Figure 2 for an example of thematic coding. Each of the thematic areas is discussed

below:

Threat to Well-Being — TWB

ln grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

A Threat to Well-Being was perceived by the researcher as any social,
economic, natural resource or other issue, situation or problem that
community members identified as a threat to the well-being of themselves

or their family (e.g. drinking“ water contamination).

Since the researcher wanted to understand how respondents perceive and value the
natural resources in the Dos Novillos Watershed, she asked focus group participants what
they consider to be the greatest threat to their well-being in order to find out if

respondents felt that any natural resource problems represent the greatest threat to their

141

well-being (Rhoades 1998, Farrington and Lobo 1997). This question was asked before
any discussion about natural resources, and was deliberately phrased without using the
term, “natural resource” in order to avoid leading the participants to talk about natural
resource issues, and also to eliminate bias against respondents that were unfamiliar with

the term.

All of the coded text that had to do with something that the focus group participants said
represented a threat to their well-being was also coded TWB since it fell under this

thematic, overarching category.

Examples of TWB (Threat to Well-Being)

0 “The biggest problem is lack of money.” “Yes, being poor. That’s the main
problem.” FG-l [p. 5]

0 “Basically, I think the biggest threat is contamination.” “In the river.”
“Agrochemicals.” “Fumigations.” “Fumigations from the banana plantations.
Fumigations on ornamental plants too.” FG-2 [p. 9]

0 “Now there’s a big one [threat to well-being] here, which is the expansion of
pineapple plantations, which is getting very close to us and is going to affect the
watersheds where our water comes from. Yeah, in order to plant pineapple, they

completely deforest, totally, it ends up totally clear, you can’t see a single tree.”

FG-3 [p. 2]

Rural Area

142

Participants from two rural groups responded that lack of money due to lack of markets
for their agricultural products is the main problem. People from one of these two groups
specified lack of employment Opportunities as another facet of this problem. Participants
from the third rural group responded that deforestation represents the biggest threat to

their well-being.

People from both rural groups that did not mention a natural resource issue as the biggest
threat to their well-being mentioned deforestation as the greatest, or one of the greatest,
natural resource problems in response to other questions. Members of these two rural
groups also revealed that they are concerned about river and tap water quantity and
quality. Participants in the rural group that stated that deforestation is the biggest threat to
their well-being linked their concern about deforestation to both water quantity in the Dos

Novillos River, and tap water scarcity.

Urban Area

Participants in all three of the urban groups mentioned the following natural resource
issues as t0p threats to their well-being: river contamination; deforestation; expansion of
pineapple plantations; and water scarcity. Members of the urban group that cited
deforestation as a top threat also mentioned drug addiction, theft and lack of recreation as

the biggest threats.

N0 participants from the other two of the three urban groups mentioned social problems

in I‘esponse to this question, people in one of these groups said that the community’s

143

social problems (delinquency, crime, lack of police proactivity) keep it from being able to
organize and address the natural resource problems. Participants in the other urban group
that did not mention social problems in response to this question said that their
community does not have the same problems of drug addiction as the watershed’s other
communities. The responses of people from all three urban groups were linked to their

concerns about the quantity and/or quality of their drinking water supply.

Summary

Participants in four out of the six focus groups responded that a natural resource problem
represents the greatest threat to their well-being. Concern about water quantity and
quality was common among all six focus groups, even for the two groups that did not cite

a natural resource problem as the greatest threat to participants’ well-being.

Interaction with Natural Resources — [NR

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

An Interaction with Natural Resources was perceived by the researcher as
any activity mentioned, or feeling expressed, that gives insight into the
way the community members interact with and/or value natural resources

(e. g. hunting for sustenance or sport).

144

The researcher asked focus group participants to describe their interaction with natural
resources in order to understand what natural resources are important to them (Heathcote

1998, Hinchcliffe 1995).

All of the coded text that had to do with something that the focus group participants said
represented the way they interact with or relate to natural resources was also coded INR

since it fell under this thematic, overarching category.

Examples of lNR (Interaction with Natural Resources)

0 “l have a farm that is adjacent to both the Dos Novillos River and the Quebrada
Honda River on this side, and within this area, there are many other rivers and
streams. I’ve been taking care of these areas since 1984, 1985 . . .Almost every day
I visit these places, all over the area, which, although small, are of great value.”
FG-4 [p. 2]

0 “Since EARTH came, we’ve learned a little more about how we should value
nature, protect it, that we should plant trees, that we shouldn’t use poison
[chemicals and agro-chemicals]. Because before we — well, me and my father
used to poison the river to catch fish, and [hunt] animals... ” FG-3 [p. 9]

0 “I go to the river, like on a Sunday outing, um, I like to see all that water. In that
part [pointing to a part of the river], there’s lots of fish because there’s so much

water. It’s beautifiil!” FG-6

145

Rural and Urban Areas

In general, responses by participants from the rural and urban areas were very similar.
Focus group participants from both areas gave numerous examples of activities that they
carry out in the watershed. These activities can be grouped into two overall categories:
protection and recreation. By groups explained “protection” by giving the example of
planting trees in order to protect the river. PeOple in one group of rural respondents also
mentioned protecting animals, while respondents from an urban group mentioned
classifying trash (recycling) and not leaving the water running. According to focus group
participants, outdoor recreation appears to be important to people in both rural and urban
areas, with fishing and swimming in the river being the most mentioned activities among
participants. Finally, participants from the rural area also placed importance on the

aesthetic value of nature, while the urban participants did not mention aesthetic values.

Summary

The focus group participants from the rural and urban areas appeared to relate to the
natural environment through efforts to protect natural resource from harm and through
recreational activities. Rural participants also expressed aesthetic appreciation for the

natural environment.

With respect to protection, rural and urban participants gave examples of activities that
suggest concern about forests, rivers, tap water, waste management, and wildlife. The
m0st often mentioned recreational activities by rural and urban participants rely on the

river.

146

Natural Resource Management Meaning — NRMM
ln grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

A Natural Resource Management Meaning was perceived by the
researcher as any way that community members described what the term

means to them (e. g. to take care of the soil so it will produce crops).

In order to find out how the focus group participants understand the term, “Natural
Resource Management”, respondents were asked what the term means to them

(Heathcote 1998, Farrington and Lobo 1997, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995).

All of the coded text that had to do with the way the focus group participants defined or

described natural resource management was also coded NRMM since it fell under this

thematic, overarching category.

Examples of NRMM (Natural Resource Management Meaning)

' “Well, that we try to protect the animals, watch out for deforestation, river
contamination... .” FG-l [p. ll]

' “Here, we’ve tried to collect trash and maybe recycle it, but money is needed to
do this. Maybe here in the center of Pocora where the trash is collected, everyone

Could recycle. . .but we haven’t been able to do this because of the resources [that

147

are needed]. I’m interested in doing it, but I don’t have the economic resources to
do it.” FG-2 [p. 17]
0 “Conserve.” “Know how to classify trash. We can use peels and all that [organic

kitchen waste] to fertilize the soil. All the organic waste. . .food.” FG-3 [p. 9]

Rural Area

Participants in the rural areas responded with similar explanations of their interpretation
of what “natural resource management” means. The following examples of natural
resource management were given by focus group participants in two of the three rural
groups: protect forests; don’t contaminate rivers; recycle; make organic compost; and

don’t use agrochemicals too much (or at all). Some rural respondents also mentioned:

plant native tree species and use a biodigestor.

Participants in one of the three rural groups did not name specific resources in response

to this question, but said that natural resource management means to: protect; maintain;
not contaminate; and respect the natural resources.

Urban Area

Urban respondents mentioned: not littering; not cutting trees; protecting animal habitat;

reforestation; managing waste properly; making organic compost; and conservation.

Sllmn‘Iar);

148

Although there were differences in the examples given among the groups, participants
from both rural and urban focus groups appeared to understand “natural resource
management” in the same protection-oriented way. Based on participants’ responses, it
appears that protecting forests, rivers, and sustainably managing waste are important

“natural resource management” issues for both rural and urban participants.

Natural Resource Management Aspects — NRMA
In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Natural Resource Management Aspects were perceived by the researcher
as anything that community members identified as positive or negative

aspects of natural resource management in the Dos Novillos Watershed

(e. g. expanding pineapple plantations).

The researcher asked focus group participants if they had any comments or concerns
about the way natural resources are being managed in the watershed (Rhoades 1998,
Farrington and Iobo 1997, Sen et al. 1997). This question was included first and
foremost to find out if people/groups that did not cite a natural resource issue as the
greatest threat to their well-being had any opinions about natural resource management in
their community. Participants that had already cited one or more natural resource issue as
the biggest threat to their well-being, were asked the question as well in order to find out

if . .
there were other natural resource issues of interest or concerned to them.

149

All of the coded text that related to aspects of natural resource management (positive or
negative) in the Dos Novillos Watershed also coded NRMA since it fell under this

thematic, overarching category.

Examples of NRMA (Natural Resource Management Aspects)

0 “A danger for this watershed, here around La Argentina, is that some pe0ple that
own a farm on the other side of the river, are cutting trees without mercy,
deforesting.” FG-4 [p. 3]

0 “Well, José mentioned deforestation, and this can cause, or is causing, damage to
the rivers and our springs — deforestation hurts us in so many ways.” FG-5 [p. 3]

o “The watershed isn’t just this side of the river, it’s on the other side of the river
too, over there by [as Mercedes, where the Arayas live and their farm is big. I
think we’re going to have a problem with the 600 hectares of pineapple. The
spring that gives life to Pocora, Pocora’s aqueduct, is at risk of running out of

water.” FG-6 [p.3]

Rural Area

Participants in all three rural groups identified deforestation as the most urgent natural
resource management problem. Participants from all three groups agree that the people
doing most of the deforestin g are cutting the wood for timber sales. They said that a lot of

the deforestation is taking place in the upper watershed (above La Argentina).

150

Participants from two of the three rural groups (the two groups that represent the lower
2/3 of the community) mention river contamination by trash and also by poison (for
fishing). People in the group from the lower section (closest to the urban area) said that
the peOple contaminating the river with trash are community members (mostly
newcomers) and tourists from San Jose. People who poison the river to fish are both

locals and visitors.

Participants in the group fiom the middle section said that community members are doing
all of the river contamination. PeOple in the groups from the middle and upper sections of
the rural area mentioned the expansion of pineapple farming as a threat to forests and the
water supply. They said that wealthy landowners with lots of land are creating these

pineapple plantations.

Other natural resource concerns cited by participants in rural focus groups were: poor
waste management techniques (by newcomers and other local people, however, the worst
waste management practices are thought to be practiced by people in urban areas);
agrochemical use by small-scale (subsistence) farmers, homeowners (herbicides), and
large farm owners (plantation crops); wasting water (by everyone in the watershed, but
large-quantity users take advantage of the situation the most); environmentally unfriendly
cattle farming (for local or national sale); and illegal hunting (by local people who do it

for sport, not because they need the food).

151

The researcher also asked focus group participants to give examples of any positive
natural resource management practices being carried out in the Dos Novillos Watershed.
People in all three rural groups responded that agro-ecotourism is an option that some
members of the community have taken up in order to earn money and be able to protect
the natural resources on their land. Pe0ple from all three groups also mentioned:
voluntary reforestation by some landowners; and organic production by some
landowners. Participants from one group (the upper section of La Argentina) mentioned
that they reforest with fruit trees in order to be able to harvest something that they can eat
or sell in the community, although one participant sells fruit at the market in Heredia as

well), as well as simply reforesting.

Urban Area

Participants from all three urban groups responded that deforestation, poor waste
management, and pineapple production are the biggest natural resource management
problems. Participants attributed deforestation to peOple who own land (that are not long-
time community members) in the upper part of the watershed that sell trees to harvesters,
as well as to the expansion of large-scale pineapple production (a mix of local, long-time

owner/s of large properties and corporate farms).

Participants in all three groups expressed concern about deforestation’s impact on the
water supply, as well as on the wildlife (although water was more of a concern).
Similarly, concern over pineapple production was related to deforestation and its effect

on water quantity, as well as chemical contamination and its effect on water quality.

152

With respect to waste management, participants from one urban group highlighted the
lack of sewage treatment and the subsequent river contamination (people are building
right along the river, and businesses are also taking advantage of the river to dump their
waste). People from this same group mentioned that there is no recycling program.
Participants from the other urban group highlighted trash burning as a major problem.
People in another urban group also mentioned illegal hunting as a problem (local hunters

who kill deer and wild boar for sport, not for food).

The urban participants did not identify any positive00. natural resource management
activities taking place in the urban area. Some people did mention that a number of things
they have tried to do (planting trees, better waste management) have been thwarted by

thieves who steal trees and trash cans.

Summary

While there was little overlap regarding the positive natural resource management aspects
mentioned by rural and urban groups (only reforestation was mentioned by people in both
areas), participants did discuss many of the same management problems. Specifically,
focus group participants from the rural and urban areas appear to be concerned about:
deforestation; poor waste management; river contamination; poor tap water management
(quality and quantity); agrochemical use; the effects of large-scale pineapple production;

and illegal hunting.

153

Natural Resource Management Problems: Contributing Factors — NRMP

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Natural Resource Management Problems - Contributing Factors were
perceived by the researcher as anything cited by community members as
contributing to problems in managing the watershed’s natural resources

(e. g. lack of environmental awareness).

In order to better understand the perceived underlying, contributing factors that allow
poor natural resource management to occur, the researcher asked focus group participants
to explain what factors they perceive of as contributing to the situation that allows the
natural resource management problems that they mentioned to exist (Rhoades 1998,

Farrington and Lobo 1997, Sen et a1. 1997).

All of the coded text that related to situations that cause or contribute to problems for
natural resource management in the Dos Novillos Watershed was coded NRMP since it

fell under this thematic, overarching category.

Examples of NRMP (Natural Resource Management Problems - Contributing
Factors)
0 “The authorities don’t do their job [to stop peOple from using poison to kill fish in

the river]. Filing a complaint doesn’t do any good. FG-l [p. 14]

154

0 “One of the biggest struggles is to organize the community, so that the community
develops social consciousness.” “All the help that Bremen, the Rojas and Mamita
Yunai [United Fruit Company] gave us is the reason why we can’t do anything
today. Because now everyone’s waiting for them to give us a hand.” FG-2 [p. 18-
19]

0 “And the agro-chemicals that they spray on the pineapple! Yeah, imagine how
they spray at night and all the drainage ditches go right to the river. . .so all the

species [in the river] are dying.” FG-3 [p. 3]

Rural Area

Participants in the rural focus groups stated the following issues cause or contribute to
natural resource management problems: lack of environmental/natural resource
awareness; lack of an understanding about the impact that people have on the
environment/natural resources; and lack of understanding/training for farmers regarding
how to manage resources in a sustainable way that will still allow them to earn a living.
Also, participants from all three groups mentioned that government agencies are not
doing a good job managing natural resources with lack of enforcement of regulations
cited as a specific management problem. Someone in the group from the upper part of the
rural area said that a lack of sustainable, revenue generating Options keeps people from

being able to do more to protect natural resources.

Urban Area

155

People from the urban communities said that lack of understanding about the impact that
a person’s activities has on the environment/natural resources is at the root Of many
natural resource management problems. PeOple in one group added that private
companies are trying to maximize profits by putting workers and natural resources at risk.
People in another group feel that there is a conflict of interest with respect to the peOple
in power and the concepts they have regarding natural resource management and their
own business interests. People in this group also talked about corruption being a problem,

especially with respect to the enforcement Of natural resource management regulations.

Summary

It should be noted that depending on the problem being discussed, text coded NRMP can
simultaneously be a natural resource management problem itself (using pesticides), and a
contributing factor of another natural resource management problem (river

contamination).

Participants in both urban and rural focus groups said that the main Obstacles to good
natural resource management in their communities are: a lack of environmental/natural
resource awareness/understanding about the impact that people have on the
environment/natural resources; and a lack of law enforcement by government
representatives regarding natural resource management issues. lack Of enforcement was

sometimes described further as a corruption problem.

156

In addition to these shared perceptions, some rural participants also emphasized a lack of
training and sustainable, revenue generating Options for farmers in particular, while some
urban participants discussed the perceived power of the private sector (agribusiness

pineapple plantations were given as an example) to maximize profits at the detriment of

workers and natural resources.

Natural Resource Management Improvements - NRMS

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Natural Resource Management Improvements were perceived by the
researcher as anything cited by community members as potential ways to
improve natural resource management in the watershed (e.g. law

enforcement).

In order to better understand what community members perceive as potential solutions,
the researcher asked focus group participants to talk about anything that they think could
help address the natural resource management problems they have identified (Rhoades

1998, Farrington and lobo 1997, Sen et a1. 1997, Hinchcliffe et a1. 1995).

All of the coded text that related to ways to improve natural resource management in the

Dos Novillos Watershed was coded NRMS since it fell under this thematic, overarching

category.

157

Examples of NRMS (Natural Resource Management Improvements)

“The government or the governmental organizations [need to] train farmers, train
them, so that they have the knowledge and understand what’s going on and what
can happen if we keep cutting trees down with no control.” FG-4 [p. 6]
“Unfortunately there’s no adequate government program [to deal with
deforestation], but yes, we need a lot of training, a lot of education. . .with respect
to small farmers, there needs to be more education to make peOple conscious
about this subject — about deforestation and using agrochemicals and all this
stuff.” FG-S [p. 5]

“I think that we need to find a way to earn a living ecologically, so that, well, the
earnings are ecological.” “You’re talking about generating [income] and

protecting the water [at the same time].” FG-6 [p. 10]

Rural Area

Focus group participants from the rural area suggested numerous potential solutions to
deal with these problems. People in one group suggested: explaining the natural resource
situation to neighbors and visitors and putting up signs that explain why people should
not throw their trash on the ground/in the river; organizing meetings about different
issues and having previous participants invite new people to subsequent meetings.
Participants in another group said that it would help to: have NGO and or government
sponsored training programs for farmers; file complaints against MINAE and other

governmental entities; and pass legislation that makes decisions about forest management

158

a communal process. The third group of focus participants suggested: establishing a
system of paying landowners to protect the forest in the upper watershed; and starting

environmentally sustainable enterprises in order to create ecologically sound sources of

employment.

Urban Area

Participants from all three urban groups said that their communities need to organize and
focus on education and training to make citizens (in the urban and rural areas) aware of
the impact that their actions (and others’) have on natural resources. People from one
group said that they should get organized in order to clean trash and plant trees. PeOple in
another group said that the community should try to work closer with the Solidarity
Triangle (government sponsored initiative); work to create its own local solidarity
movement; focus more on educating their children to value communal work; and try to

collaborate with businesses and the government to improve natural resource protection.

Summary

Participants from urban and rural groups suggested strengthening community
organization and said that increasing the community members’ awareness about natural
resource issues and more sustainable farming techniques would help to address the
problem. Rural communities also suggested alternative institutional arrangements
(payment for environmental services, co-management) and entrepreneurial activities that
could help them manage the resources better, as well as filing complaints against

governmental entities responsible for natural resource management, while the urban

159

groups’ other solutions focused more on improving community organization/unity and
members’ commitment to community work, as well as having a dialogue with businesses

and government representatives about ways to improve natural resource management.

Natural Resource Management lmpediments - NRMI

ln grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Natural Resource Management lmpediments were perceived by the
researcher as anything cited by community members as reasons that
past/future attempts to improve natural resource management in the

watershed have not been/might not be as successful as planned (e. g. lack

of funding).

In order to learn from community members about the perceived flaws Of past/fixture
potential solutions, the researcher asked focus group participants to talk about possible
impediments to successfully improving natural resource management situations Rhoades

1998, Farrington and Lobo 1997, Sen et a1. 1997, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995).
All of the coded text that related to impediments to improving the way natural resources

are managed in the Dos Novillos Watershed was coded NRMl since it fell under this

thematic, overarching category.

160

Examples of NRMI (Natural Resource Management lmpediments)

0 “Because they’re people who really don’t know anything about harming the
environment and the problems they cause [through poor resource management].”
FG-l [p. 15]

0 “Now, the young peOple don’t want to do anything [to help the community], not
even in their own home, and if it’s a solidarity movement [organizing the
community], it has to start at home, and they [young people] don’t carry the
solidarity movement with them [from home].” FG-2 [p. 19]

0 “Money.” “Money moves everything in this life.” “It sounds like a lie, but in
order to organize, to be able to speak, for transportation, without this

[money]...[you can’t do these things].” FG-3 [p. 6]

Rural Area

Participants from the rural groups responded that community members are passive when
there is an effort to deal with these problems and that they often do not want to
participate in meetings. They also have the impression that government officials do not
feel that they have to respond to citizens’ complaints about their lack of enforcement or
poor natural resource management practices, and some participants specified that
corruption among governmental representatives inhibits enforcement. Additionally, some
people in the group from the upper section of the rural area also said that peOple in the
urban area (that receive the water produced in the upper watershed) are not willing to pay
for the environmental services they receive. This group also talked about the lack of

financial resources (loans) for farmers to be able to start-up businesses. Other participants

16]

said that they lack the money necessary to carry out conservation and waste management

projects and training programs.

Urban Area

Urban participants said that one problem is that the government and businesses do not
listen to them (individuals) because they are poor. PeOple from another group said that a
lack of government enforcement makes it difficult to address problems such as river

contamination (municipality allows houses to be built on the river banks and the sewage

drains directly into the river).

People from two groups said that a major problem is that the community members are
paternalistic, lack community solidarity and do not participate in these kinds of meetings
(to discuss improving the environment or communal infrastructure). Participants said that
many peOple talk, but do not act, and that people do not want to commit to anything
because often, if a community activity is carried out and something goes wrong, the
organizers get blamed for stealing or wasting the money. Participants said that this
situation makes people shy away from organizing and participating in community
activities. They said that another problem is that projects and training programs are

expensive and the communities do not have the money to implement them.
One group said that peOple also become discouraged because often, when a project has

been initiated (plantings, waste management activity), thieves have stolen the trees or the

trash cans. They also said that the high rates Of crime, drug addiction, and theft (in Pocora

162

and Pocora Sur) combine to inhibit community action. With respect to impediments to
curbing deforestation, participants in one group said that some people deforest out of

necessity, and not because they are trying to get rich.

Summary

It should be noted that depending on the impediment being discussed, text coded NRMI
can appear in this section as an impediment as cited by one context and/or group of
participants, and appear in a previous section as a natural resource management problem
as cited in a different context and/or group of participants (lack of government

enforcement).

People from both urban and rural groups shared the following perceptions: many
community members lack community solidarity and do not want to go to meetings about
environmental/community issues; government representatives act as though they do not
feel like they have to listen/respond to members of the communities in this watershed nor
enforce laws; and communities do not have the money needed to implement natural
resource management projects. In addition to these three impediments, focus group
participants in the rural area also said that urban residents are not willing tO pay for the
environmental services that upstream, rural landowners provide. Urban area focus group

participants also cited social problems as impediments.

163

Willingness to Improve Natural Resource Management - WILL

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Willingness to Improve Natural Resource Management was perceived by
the researcher as any indication of the community members’ perception
about their communities’ willingness to collaborate in improving the way
natural resources are managed in the Dos Novillos Watershed (e. g. people

are too lazy to help).

The researcher asked focus group participants about their fellow community members’
willingness to collaborate in order to improve natural resource management in the
watershed. This question was intended to help the researcher learn about the
communities’ potential willingness to try to improve the natural resource management

situation (Jonsson 2004, White and Runge 1995).

All of the coded text that related to focus group participants’ perceptions about the
willingness of the members of their community to help improve natural resource
management in the Dos Novillos Watershed was coded WILL since it fell under this

thematic, overarching category.

Examples of WILL (Willingness to Improve Natural Resource Management)

164

“Well, I don’t know, the peOpIe are not at all interested in participating. There are
some people organized in agrO-eco-tourism, but we’re a minority, there would
have to be some proselytizing to motivate people to come to a meeting and ask
them what they think, find out what their position is.” FG-4 [p. 1 1]

“I think there will always be interested people. What has to be done is motivate
them and make them understand the importance of these things, I mean, all of us
— or most of us — have children and as Juan said, if not for ourselves, we have to
do it for our kids. I think that although it’s difficult, sometimes it’s hard to get a
small group together for a meeting, but by motivating people, making them
understand the importance, 1 think it can be done.” FG-S [p. 10-11]

“Yes [there is willingness] because consciousness is growing. At least, that’s how
I see it. The people here [in the focus group session], if we have another meeting,
peOple will come. And that way, little by little consciousness grows and others

join in, and others, and others, and it keeps going like that. ” FG-2 [p. 20]

Rural Area

Participants said that despite problems getting community members to participate, peOple

in the watershed can be motivated to manage natural resources better. Participants said

that peOple will participate and change the way they interact with the environment/natural

resources, but that they need to see the good practices (e. g. biodigestor) first-hand so that

they will be motivated to try to use them on their own.

Urban Area

165

Participants in two groups said that community members would be willing to do a better
job protecting and managing natural resources, but that they need to understand the
problems first. People in another group were not sure about the community members’
disposition. They said that community members would have to be invited to find out how
to manage natural resources better, and then it could be determined whether or not people
are “asleep” or ready to “act”. Participants in two groups specified that motivating
community members is the key. One group said that someone has to be able to motivate

the young people in order to get them to care about doing anything for the community.

Summary

Participants in five of the six focus groups said that they felt their fellow community
members would be willing to help improve natural resource management. Participants in
one urban group said that they were not sure if the peOple would be willing to join an

effort.

Both rural and urban participants said that community collaboration would depend on
individuals being motivated to do so (one urban group specified that young peOple need
to be motivated), and on seeing good practices first hand/ learning about better natural
resource management practices. Participants in two urban groups specified that
community members would have to understand the problems before they could be

motivated to collaborate.

I66

Perceived Changes in the Dos Novillos Watershed — CDN W

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Perceived Changes in the Dos Novillos Watershed were perceived by the
researcher as any statement about any kind of change that community
members have noticed during the time that they have lived in the Dos
Novillos Watershed (e. g. there is less forested land now than there was

when I moved here).

The researcher asked focus group participants how they would describe any changes in
the watershed over the time that they have lived there. This question was intended to help
the researcher learn about perceived natural resource management and land use changes
in the watershed, and their perceived impacts (Sanchez-Azofeifa et a1. 2002, Kaimowitz

2001, Wang 2001).

All of the coded text that related to focus group participants’ perceptions about how the

Dos Novillos Watershed has changed over the years was coded CDNW since it fell under

this thematic, overarching category.

Examples of CDNW (Changes in the Dos Novillos Watershed)
0 “Well, I can draw some conclusions, for instance, like what you [talking to

another participant] said, that there used to be more water - that the river has

167

gotten drier.” “Yes, lots of deforestation.” “And the water used to be so cold - like
she said - before, when you crossed the river it was so cold...” FG-l [p. 22]

0 “When I came here, the Dos Novillos was a river that had [a lot Of water]. Now, it
isn’t. After just two or three summer days and we can see that it’s nothing more
than a trickle, so this has had an affect.” “It used to have rapids [even in the
summer] and the water was clean.” FG-2 [p. 21]

0 “There’s a lot of overpopulation. The population has grown a lot.” “Up there [in
La Argentina], there was no electricity. . .there was no road. . . just trails.”
“Prostitution, theft. Before you could walk - there was no lighting, public lighting
— and you could come and go late to Pocora. Now you can’t even go there,

because they’ll get you! In broad daylight! It makes people afraid.” FG-3 [p. 13]

Rural Area

The first comment made by participants in two rural groups was that the Dos Novillos
River has become drier. The second response was: “lots of deforestation”. Participants
from one of these two groups also said that MINAE used to do a better job protecting the
forests. Other comments by rural participants were: “lots of trash”; “the river is warmer

than it used to be , there used to be more fauna in the river and on land”; and “now

there’s a ma ”(from Pocora through La Argentina).

Urban Area

Participants from one of the urban groups responded that everything has deteriorated.

Specifically, they sited: tap water problem; less fish in the rivers; the river used to be

168

clean; people are living right on the banks of the river now; the river is drier; and
deforestation. People in another urban group mentioned both positive and negative
aspects of change. They said that the area has gotten over pOpulated (regarding
population growth, the said that there are a lot of Nicaraguan immigrants that come to
work on plantations) and that there is now a road to La Argentina, as well as electricity
higher up in the watershed now. People in this group also mentioned social problems that
exist now (theft, prostitution). Although this group did not mention natural resource
changes, these participants did mention that deforestation is one of the greatest natural
resource management problems in the watershed in response to another question. This
group (Las Mercedes) was the only one in which nobody said that they think the river has
been getting dryer. Participants in the third urban group said that the climate has become
more erratic and there is more flooding (one person said that the flooding is a result of
deforestation), the river is drier and also contaminated now (trash, livestock waste,
agrochemicals from pineapple plantations) so peOple are worried about swimming in it,

there is more deforestation and more pineapple plantations.

Summary

While participants from the rural and urban areas mentioned many different changes, five
out Of six groups talked mostly about deteriorations in natural resources, while one group
talked exclusively about services and social problems. With respect to the five groups
that discussed natural resource changes, participants from the rural and urban areas most

Often stated that, “the river has become dryer”. The next most Often cited response among

169

rural and urban groups was, “deforestation”. Participants from both areas also said that

there are less fish in the river now than in the past.

Impact of Population on the Dos Novillos Watershed - [POP
In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Impact of Population on the Dos Novillos Watershed was perceived by the
researcher as any reference to changes in the human population in the
watershed, as well as the perceived impacts of the stated changes (e.g.

population growth is causing job shortages).

If no focus group participants brought up population changes during the discussion about
changes in the Dos Novillos Watershed, the researcher asked focus group participants to
comment on any changes that they have perceived with respect to the watershed’s
population. This question was also intended to help investigators learn about perceived
land use changes in the watershed and their perceived impacts (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al.

2002, Kaimowitz 2001, Wang 2001).
All of the coded text that related to focus group participants’ perceptions about

population changes in the Dos Novillos Watershed was coded IPOP since it fell under

this thematic, Overarching category.

170

Examples of IPOP (Impact of Population in the Dos Novillos Watershed)

“The population is growing. . .all over the watershed, and this is putting pressure
on the forests.” FG-4 [p. ]

“In reality, if you all analyze the situation here, there’s been a huge growth in the
population south from the road. I’ll tell you, when we built the Argentina rural
aqueduct there were 366 parcels in Pocora [Sur], with 116 houses - I’m talking
from the road south, and I’m not including El Carmen or the other side, just here,
and today there are 700 people, eh, 700 houses in the same area.” “So, let me see,
we are currently counting on the rural aqueduct for 30 years at the most [at the
current calculation of 4-5 people per household].” FG-5 [p. 17]

“Let’s talk about the squatters. . .there were 316 parcels, and now there are more
than 500 because they divided them. [The population is growing] between 114
and 900 meters above sea level.” “People who come here, I think they adjust to
the environment and the system that we live by here, because you can’t move here

and disrupt what is already organized.” FG-6 [p. 16]

Rural Area

Participants from all three rural groups feel that the population in the watershed has
grown although they gave differing comments regarding where the growth is occurring.
Some participants responded that a lot of people from San José have bought properties in
the rural area that they use as vacation/weekend homes. Others commented that many
peOple have moved into the urban area in order to work on pineapple and banana

plantations. These people feel that the river in the urban area is suffering because of all of

171

the wastewater that is generated by this growing population. One participant from the
group in the middle section of the rural area commented that more peOple are needed in

the rural area in order to have a greater strength [strength in numbers — a more effective

community].

Urban Area

Participants from the urban groups responded that the population is growing in the urban
area and they relate this growth to increased crime, theft and other social problems
(prostitution, flashers), as well as to a deterioration in water quality due to river
contamination, and locating homes on the river banks. These urban participants
mentioned that there is also population growth in the rural areas and peOple in one group
said that this is causing problems with deforestation. Participants from another group said
that the urban population is growing so rapidly because so many Nicaraguan immigrants
have moved there to work on plantations, and many families share one house [so the
impact is even greater]. People in this group stated that although they have nothing
against the Nicaraguans, they feel negatively impacted by the large number of
Nicaraguan immigrants because they are willing to work in terrible labor conditions for
very low pay (conditions that Costa Ricans know are illegal and refuse to accept), so
Costa Rican’s are having a hard time finding work in the area. Participants in the other
urban group described a huge population increase south Of the main road and they

discussed the negative impact that this could have on their tap water supple.

Summary

172

Participants from each of the focus groups said that they feel that the communities in the
watershed are growing, although there was not a uniform response with respect to where
participants perceive that the growth is occurring. Although a variety of perceived
impacts were cited, most participants from both the urban and rural areas appear to feel
negatively impacted by at least some aspect of this growth. Only one group (a rural

group) mentioned a positive impact of population growth (strength in numbers).

While rural participants cited the wastewater management problem, urban participants

cited wastewater problems, as well as deforestation, social and economic problems.

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

The individual interview implementation and data analysis is presented here. First, there
is a review of the researcher’s Observations about the individual interviews. Next, the

individual interview data analysis is presented, including representative quotes.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Altogether, 27 individual interviews (see Figure 10) were conducted and each one was
carried out using the same discussion guide. While most of the interviews were
conducted in private, four were conducted in which a family member were present.
Specifically, a male spouse was present during one interview and teenage children were
present during three others. Although male spouse answered the researcher’s questions
together with his wife and may have influenced some Of her responses, the teenage

children sat quietly and did not appear to influence their parents’ responses. Everybody

173

the researcher approached to interview appeared happy to collaborate. Informed consent
procedures were conducted without any problems, and a number of respondents
volunteered that they were not worried about people finding out what they thought.
Respondents typically expressed an interest in, and asked more about, the purpose of the
research project during the informed consent process. Although some respondents
initially appeared shy or reserved, these people relaxed as the interview got underway and
they answered the first couple of questions. Nobody told the researcher that they did not
want to be interviewed, however, two respondents said that they did not want the

interview to be recorded.

Most of the individual interviews took much longer to complete than anticipated. This
occurred when the respondent was very concerned about one or more issues and/or when
the respondent had a lot of information about, or experience with, one or more issues.
Many respondents had a great deal to say about various subjects, and were enthusiastic
about sharing their thoughts. Due to the respondents’ willingness to share their opinions,
the researcher gained in-depth information during the interviews. Aside from using non-
directive prompts to keep the respondents on track, she did not try to hurry the
respondents along or end the interview before having the Opportunity to explOre all of the
relevant questions with the respondent. The researcher was, however, very sensitive to
the respondents’ time constraints and only extended the interviews as long as the

respondents made it clear that they wanted to continue.

174

As with the focus group sessions, the individuals appeared to be interested in the research
topic and to respond honestly throughout the interview. People appeared to engage in
fiank discussions with the researcher and did not appear to be embarrassed to ask her
what she meant by something or to say that they did not know about an issue. While they
were happy to report what they considered to be positive aspects, they also did not appear
to regret discussing negative issues that they saw as affecting, or being caused by
themselves and their family, neighbors, community, and government. In fact, it appeared
to the researcher that there was more discussion of intra and inter-community problems
during the individual interviews than there was during the focus group sessions (Patton

2002, Kaplowitz 2000).

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW ANALYSIS

The researcher’s findings are organized and presented around the selective (thematic)
codes that emerged from the iterative coding process. Figures 10 and 11 present the
specific, subcategory thematic codes and overarching thematic areas used to analyze the
interview transcriptions. The analysis includes representative quotes from the interviews

as well as some basic quantitative analysis carried out using SPSS.

Open and Axial Codes

As with the focus group coding process, the open and axial codes (Figure 5) that the
researcher used to analyze the individual interview transcriptions range from specific
perceptions (e. g. municipality needs to have a recycling program) to broader themes that

the researcher thought of as her axial codes (e. g. waste management). These broader

175

codes contain multiple properties and dimensions. The fact that many concepts and
themes are not mutually exclusive means that many coded sections of the transcriptions
are coded with more than one code. Please refer to Figure 8 for examples of Open and

axial coding.

Thematic Codes

The following 38 subcategory thematic codes (Figure 6) are specific enough that they
allowed the researcher to conduct detailed analysis on each aspect of natural resource
management that she asked the respondents about (e. g. tap water administration, tap
water quality, tap water quantity). Additionally, when the researcher considered all of the
subcategory data for each of the nine overarching themes (Figure 7), she found the
information to be complete enough to gain a broad understanding of the many issues
surrounding each overarching theme (e. g. contamination). Each of the subcategory

thematic codes is discussed below. Please refer to Figure 8 for examples of thematic

coding.

Threats to Well-Being (Code 3A)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Threats to Well-Being were perceived by the researcher as any social,

economic, natural resource or other issue, situation or problem that

176

respondents identified as a threat to the well-being of themselves or their

family (e.g. drinking water contamination).

The literature shows that well-intentioned watershed/natural resource management
projects are often unsuccessful in reaching their goals due to a fundamental disconnect in
the way community members and project promoters perceive the local natural resource
base (Rhoades 1998, Farrington and Iobo 1997). For this reason, the researcher aimed to
understand how respondents perceive and value the natural resources in the Dos Novillos
Watershed. As was done during the focus group sessions, this first question (see below)
was deliberately asked in order to find out if respondents felt that any natural resource
problems were perceived as representing the greatest threat to their well-being. The
question was asked without using the term, ‘natural resource’ in order to eliminate bias

against respondents that were unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the term.

Examples of 3A (Threats to Well-Being)

0 “Young drug addicts, robbery, vandalism.” II-9: Homemaker, Pocora Sur

0 “Environmental contamination....Well, for example, insecticides. There are a lot
of irrational people that contaminate the rivers, the water. . .poisons [for fishing],
agrochemicals.” II-3: Self-employed, Las Mercedes

0 “What worries me now is that the cost of living is going up a lot, everything is
more expensive, but what I produce doesn’t go up as much [sale price]. The

amount that the price 1 receive for beef cattle has gone up in the last nine years is

177

very little compared to how much the cost of living has increased.” "-24: Farmer,
La Argentina I

0 “Deforestation. They cut a lot of trees here.” Il-25: Employed, La Argentina

0 “Apparently there are no jobs to be found. Like everyone says, people are going
down [to the urban area] because there’s nothing to do up here. . .They say that
because of the kind of soil, it isn’t worth it to plant crops because now you can’t

even grow corn.” II-20: Farmer, La Argentina

Urban Area
More than half of the urban respondents (65%) cited one or more social problem as the
greatest threat to their well-being (see Table 8). A total of 11 peOple responded that social

problems represent the greatest threat to their well-being and six (35%) cited one or more

natural resource problem as the greatest threat.

Rural Area

Similarly, more than half of the rural respondents (60%) cited one or more social problem
as the greatest threat tO their well-being (see Table 8). Six rural respondents said that
social problems represent the greatest threat to their well-being and two (20%) cited one
or more natural resource problem as the greatest threat. One person cited both a social

problem and a natural resource problem, and another said that he could not think of any

threats to his well-being.

Summary

178

When asked directly the open-ended question: In your opinion, what are the greatest
threats to your well-being?, more than half of the respondents (63%) cited social
problems (see full list of responses below, following Table 8). A total of 17 respondents
named one or more social problem that they feel represent the greatest threat to their
well-being, while eight (30%) of the respondents named one or more natural resource
problem (see full list Of responses below, following Table 8). One person named a social
problem as well as a natural resource problem, and another responded that he does not
have any concerns. (This person lives in the rural area where, in addition to his own
agricultural activity, he works as a day laborer for neighbors and his adult children send

him extra money.)

Overall, a higher percentage of urban respondents (35%) cited one or more natural
resource problem as the greatest threat to their well-being than did rural respondents
(20%, or 30% if taking into account the rural respondent that cited both a natural resource
problem and a social problem). However, it should not be assumed from the answers to
this question that rural respondents are unaware of or not concerned about natural
resource problems. Questions about the state of specific natural resources (to be
discussed) show that rural residents are also concerned about the way natural resources

are being managed in the Dos Novillos Watershed.

I79

Table 8

Individual Respondents' Perceived Threats to Well-Being

 

 

 

 

Urban Rural
Total Total
Male Female (Urban) Female (Rural) Total
Natural Resource 2 4 6 l. 2 8 29.6%
Problem
Social Problem 2 9 I l 4 6 17 63.0%
Social and
Natural Resource l 1 1 3.7%
Problems
NO Problems 1 l 3.7%
Total 4 l3 l7 6 10 27 100.%

 

 

 

 

The list below shows what the respondents from each community cited as representing

the greatest threat to their well-bein g.

Natural Resource Problems

Pocora = 1 Respondent

0 River contamination, deforestation affecting river and potable water

quantity (this person lives on the river bank).

Mascota = 2 Respondents

0 Trash, rotting dead animals, wastewater and trash from medical clinic in

the road, which floods frequently. Lots of mosquitoes from standing water.

0 Her family doesn’t have potable drinking water.

Well water contaminated by sewage.

Las Mercedes = 3 Respondents

0 Environmental contamination, river contamination

0 Pineapple plantations, deforestation, contamination
- Tall grass at the edge of EARTH’s forest reserve [at the boarder of EARTH’s
property and Las Mercedes] clogs drainage ditches and is home to lots of
poisonous snakes that come near and into houses.
La Argentina = 2 Respondents
o Deforestation and hunting

0 Deforestation

Social Problems
El Carmen = 1 Respondent
o Delinquency, drugs, robbery
Pocora = 5 Respondents
0 Drug addiction (3)
0 No tranquility, drugs, robbery
0 Lots of young thieves, lots of mafia. [In addition to drug addiction] there’s
lots of robbery because of the drug addiction.
Pocora Sur = 3 Respondents
0 Youth drug addiction, robbery, vandalism
0 Bad attention by the CCSS (national health care system), lots Of drugs and
thieves
0 Drugs
Las Mercedes = 2 Respondents

- Unemployment

181

0 Lack of community organization

La Argentina = 7 Respondents
0 No jobs available
0 Cattle theft
0 Lack of economic resources, little money, no jobs
0 NO jobs, land doesn’t produce [agriculture]
0 Family security, children not being able to go to school, poverty
0 Delinquency, theft, hunters
0 Cost of living has risen a lot, but income from cattle sales has risen only

slightly.

Proposed Solutions to Problems (Code 38)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Proposed Solutions to Problems were perceived by the researcher as any
solutions suggested by respondents regarding ways to help combat the
problems they cite (e. g. improved law enforcement by responsible

government agency).

182

After respondents said what they felt most worried about with respect to their well-being,
they were asked what they thought could help to address these problems (Rhoades 1998,

Farrington and Lobo 1997, Sen et al. 1997, Hinchcliffe et a1. 1995).

Examples of 3B (Proposed Solutions to Problems)

0 “They [government representatives] should support community members,
especially in enforcement because citizens that turn in their neighbors for
breaking the law make their neighbors mad and bring problems on themselves.”
"-3: Self-Employed, Pocora

o “PeOple need to ask for what they need. The municipal Mayor is willing to help,
but people don’t communicate what they need. I think they want everything to be
done for them. If the community would organize and ask the Health Ministry and
the Municipality for help in installing septic tanks, it could be done. But, people
don’t want to do it.” II-25: Employed, La Argentina

0 “Well, if the police enforced better, maybe. Look, so many drunks and all these
peOple [delinquents], they should be made to clean the community and maybe
they’d feel ashamed. If the law was stricter with these peOple, with these poor
peOple who get into trouble [drug addicts], there should be a treatment center for

them.” II-6: Employed, Pocora

Rural and Urban Areas

Respondents from both the rural and urban areas proposed a number of things that could

be done to address the natural resource and social problems that they feel are threatening

183

their well-being. Although natural resource problems and social problems are often
interrelated, this research project is focused on learning specifically about the natural
resource issues in the Dos Novillos Watershed, therefore the following analysis will not

address respondents’ comments about social problems.

With respect to natural resource problems, respondents criticized the government and

local community itself, and focused on three specific areas for improvement: education,

enforcement, and citizen action.

With respect to the role of government, respondents’ comments reflect a concern that
government agencies are neither adequately monitoring natural resources nor enforcing
existing laws meant to protect the resources. Community members also expressed
frustration with government agencies for what they appear to perceive as a lack of
proactivity in addressing natural resource problems (current and potential) and a lack of
support for community members who are trying to do their part to protect natural

resources.

Respondents also said that the government (or another entity) should offer environmental
education/training in the communities. These respondents said that many people in their
community do things that harm the environment because of ignorance and a lack of

understanding about the environment.

184

With respect to the role of communities, respondents said that even though there are
resources available to communities, community members/organizations do not ask for
help. Similarly, the Development Committees were criticized for not being proactive, and

for not coordinating activities with each other (with the Committees in other

communities).

Summary
Respondents from the rural and urban areas appeared to share the perception that both the
Costa Rican government and the local communities share the blame for the natural

resource problems that are threatening the quality of life in the Dos Novillos Watershed.

lmpediments to Improving the Situation (Code 3C)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

lmpediments to Improving the Situation were perceived by the researcher
as any problems, issues or situations that have in the past or could in the
future impede the success of these suggested solutions (e. g. government

agency corruption).

Respondents were asked why they thought that the issue or issues they mentioned had not
been successfully dealt with so far (Rhoades 1998, Farrington and Lobo 1997, Sen et al.

1997, Hinchcliffe et a1. 1995). Respondents mentioned a number of things that currently

185

keep these (above) and other attempted solutions from being effective in trying to address

natural resource problems.

Examples of 3C (lmpediments to Improving the Situation)

“They’ve [community members] lost their motivation. . .this community has an
Association — the head of the community is supposed to be the Association. So,
when people see that the Association only does things for themselves
[Association members] and nothing for the community. . .people lose their
motivation [to participate].” 11-5: Homemaker, Pocora

“What happens is that a lot of deals are made between the authorities and the
peOple involved in cutting trees. SO, say I file a complaint about illegal
deforestation, what happens? Ministry peOple come, do a study and they tell the
owner of the trees, ‘Give me so much and. . . ’, [indicating a pay-Off] and with that
nothing happens with the complaint.” 11-25: Employed, La Argentina

“Things are very difficult here, things have gotten out of hand. I feel like it’s
really difficult [to improve the situation] because there’s no law here, no

authority.” ll-lS: Employed, Pocora Sur

Rural and Urban Areas

Respondents from the rural and urban areas offered a variety of perspectives with respect

to the environmental education/training programs. One respondent insisted that outsiders

(not a community member) needed to come in and motivate the community because

people there did not trust their neighbors to be able to lead such a program. Another

186

person in a different community cited good work being done by a local teacher and said
that more of that kind of work needed to be done. She said that the teacher was working
very well with the children, but adults need training too. Some people said that in the
past, it has been hard to get residents to attend environmental education/training sessions,
but that the effort should continue even if just a few peOple come in the beginning. They
said that over time, when others hear from their neighbors that the program is good and

see that it is still operating, more peOple will attend.

Concerning the reason why communities are not more proactive/successful in addressing
poor resource management, some respondents said that peOple are ignorant about
environmental issues in general and lack an understanding about the impact of their
actions on natural resources. Others said that the people who harm the environment
simply do not care about natural resource problems. One respondent specified that while
the peOple who do not care about the environment might benefit from environmental
education, she thinks that the only thing that will really make them change their actions is
to hold them legally responsible for the violations they commit. Others seemed to support
this idea that ignorance was only part of the problem by stating that community members
lacked motivation to change their practices, and that governmental agencies do not do a

good job enforcing existing environmental regulations.
Some respondents said that there is a lack of local organization because people have

gotten their hopes built up and then let down so often (based on past failed attempts to

organize) that people do not even bother attending meetings now. Some complained that

187

the individuals on the Development Committee are not really concerned about helping
the community. Others said that the Development Committee or other groups in the
community could do good work but that the government does not help with law

enforcement or financial assistance.

The concept of holding citizens legally responsible for illegal activities that negatively
impact the environment appears to be related to the issue of government agencies being
more proactive about monitoring natural resources and enforcing laws. In this case,
corruption was cited as a factor that limits the Government’s effectiveness in protecting
natural resources, upholding the law and supporting citizens who are trying to help. One
respondent also said that Nicaraguans can not file legal complains (in this case, about
neighbors dummng wastewater into the river) because they are not legal residents of

Costa Rica, so she believes that numerous violations do not even get reported.

Summary

Respondents from the rural and urban areas cited similar impediments to carrying out
successfirl natural resource management programs in the Dos Novillos Watershed. With
respect to the perceived failings of the Costa Rican Government, respondents specified
that corruption keeps government agencies from effectively managing the watershed’s
natural resources. Regarding the local communities’ role in managing natural resources,
respondents cited a variety Of problems that make community members and community
organizations ineffective. Specifically, respondents cite the following impediments to

implementing better practices: lack of understanding regarding human impact on natural

188

resources; lack of motivation to collaborate; lack of trust in local groups/organizations;

lack of financial resources to carry-out activities; lack of legal enforcement of

environmental laws.

Meaning of ‘Natural Resources ’ (Code 4A)
In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Meaning of ‘Natural Resources’ was perceived by the researcher as any

statement or description reflecting how the respondents define/understand

the term, “natural resources”.

In order to find out how the term, ‘Natural Resources’ was understood by respondents,
they were asked what the term means to them (Heathcote 1998, Farrington and Lobo
1997, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995). Although the term, ‘natural resources’ was used in the
process of receiving informed consent, the researcher was careful not to define the term
in any way in order to ensure that community members’ conceptions of the term would
not be influenced.

The results of this question did not impact the respondents’ ability to participate in the
rest of the interview. It was an exploratory question aimed at gaining insight into the
respondents’ exposure to the term and their perception Of its meaning. It was important

for the researcher to see that respondents demonstrated a range of familiarity with the

term .

189

Examples of 4A (Meaning of ‘Natural Resources’)

0 “Well, ‘natural resources’ deals with protecting the river, right? So that there are,
what, more fruit trees [along the river]?” lI-6: Pocora, Homemaker

o “For me, the deforestation, the fauna, the rivers, water.” "-15: Pocora Sur,
Employed

o “The truth is, I don’t know.” II-20: La Argentina, Farmer

Rural and Urban Areas

Some of the respondents Who had cited a natural resource issue as the biggest threat to
their well- being had already used the term themselves, however, others had not. All but
three respondents replied by giving examples Of what they believe tO be natural resources
(e. g. river, water, trees, forest, plants, animals, pasture, wood). Some Of these respondents
mixed in problems (e. g. contamination, deforestation) or solutions (e. g. reforestation)
with the resources they named. Two respondents from the urban area and one from the
rural area replied outright that they were not familiar with the term and did not offer any

examples of what they thought it might mean.

Summary
While some respondents appeared to be confident in articulating their understanding of

the term, others appeared to be unsure of the terrn’s exact meaning, or focused on just one

or two examples.

190

It is important to note that just because a respondent was not able to give a clear
definition of what the term, ‘natural resources’ means to him/her, it does not imply that
he/she did not understand natural resource issues. For example, an urban respondent that
gave an in-depth explanation of what he perceives as a serious river contamination

problem was unsure about exactly what the term “natural resources” means.

Meaning of ‘Natural Resource Management’ (Code 43)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Meaning of ‘Natural Resource Management’ was perceived by the
researcher as any phrase or description reflecting how respondents

define/understand the term, “natural resource management”.

In order to find out how respondents understood the term, ‘Natural Resource
Management’, respondents were asked what the term means to them (Heathcote 1998,

Farrington and Iobo 1997, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995).

Examples of 4B (Meaning Of ‘Natural Resource Management’)

0 “That there should be people that are concerned about how the natural resources
are managed.” lI-3: Self-Employed, Las Mercedes

0 “‘Natural resource management’ is how natural resources are treated.” Il-9:

Homemaker, Pocora Sur

191

0 “‘Natural resource management’ means using the environment in the best way.”
lI-10: Self-Employed, Pocora Sur
0 “I’d like to have a place to attend tourists, keep the environment beautiful, have a

plaza to play football, a spring.” “-23: Employed, La Argentina

Rural and Urban Areas

All of the people who had cited a natural resource issue as the biggest threat to their well-
being had already talked about natural resource management issues (e. g. how forests
should be protected or how wastewater should be disposed of) even though they had not
used the term, ‘natural resource management’. These people often referred me to the
conversation we had just had when I asked them this question (Well, it means the same as
what I was just describing.) Others gave a variety of explanations of what the term
means to them (see examples above). One respondent explained exactly how she would
like to manage the natural resources on her property (see quote above). Three respondents
from the urban area and one respondent from the rural area replied that they were not
familiar with the term and did not Offer any examples of what they thought it might
mean. Two of these four peOple (one rural and one urban) had also responded that they

did not know what the term, ‘natural resource’ means.

Summary
For the most part, rural and urban respondents understood ‘natural resource management’
in the same way: protecting and take care of the resources they identified (e. g. rivers, tap

water, forests).

I92

Regardless, as with the previous question, the results of this question did not impact the
respondents’ ability to participate in the rest of the interview. It was an exploratory
question aimed at gaining insight into the respondents’ exposure to the term and their

perceptions of its meaning.

Dos Novillos River (Code 5A)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Dos Novillos River was perceived by the researcher as any responses regarding a

description of the Dos Novillos lRiver (e. g. it floods more now).

Respondents were asked to describe the Dos Novillos River in order to learn about their
perceptions without prompting them to talk about river quality or quantity (Jonsson 2004,

Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Heathcote 1998).

Examples of 5A (Dos Novillos River)
0 “It’s beautiful. I’ve never seen a river like this one, well, I don’t know how it is
downstream. But here the water is so clear, fresh and clean.” "-16: Employed, La

Argentina

193

0 “Very contaminated. There’s trash, a lot of people throw trash in there because
the truck [municipality] doesn’t come by here to collect it.” 11-25: Employed, La
Argentina

0 “It’s really dirty. Before, you could go to the river and the water was clean, but
now you can’t swim in it because the next day you break out with a rash or a
fungus.” II-7: Self-Employed, Pocora

0 “This river used to have a lot of water! It had % more water back then [about 35

years ago].” “-1: Self-Employed, Pocora

Rural Area

All but one of the respondents from the rural area said that the section of the Dos
Novillos River near them is clean. The person who said the river is contaminated lives in
the lower section of [a Argentina (close to the urban area) in a group of houses where
she says the residents dump their wastewater directly into the river. Two rural
respondents said that while the river is clean where they are, they do not know how clean

or contaminated it is farther downstream.

Regarding perceptions of river quantity, all but two rural respondents said that they have
noticed that the river seems drier than it has been in years past. The two people that said
that the volume appears to be normal described natural fluctuations in water quantity.
One respondent described flooding that caused the river to break its banks and form

various smaller channels in the downstream area near the lower section of la Argentina.

194

She thinks that the river looks like it has less water because volume was dispersed from

the main channel during this flood.

Urban Area
All but one of the respondents from the urban area said that the Dos Novillos River is
contaminated. Similarly, all of the urban respondents said that the river is drier or much

drier now than it was in years past.

Summary

While some respondents explained their perception that the section upstream of the urban
area is clean, while the downstream section that passes through more pOpulated areas is
contaminated, respondents that just referred to the section where they live appear to be
describing two different rivers. While most rural residents responded that the Dos
Novillos River is clean, most urban residents responded that it is contaminated (one

person in the rural area had no comment).

Regarding quantity, all but two rural respondents and all urban respondents said that the

river is drier now (one person in each area did not have an opinion).

Imrracr River Quality (Code SB)

1" gTOUping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

195

Impact River Quality was perceived by the researcher as respondents’

perceptions about what could negatively or positively affect the Dos

Novillos River’s quality (e. g. wastewater runoff from urbanizations).

In order to learn about respondents’ perceptions regarding river management,

respondents were also asked what they thought could affect the quality of water in the

river (Jonsson 2004, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Heathcote 1998).

Examples of 5B (Impact River Quality)

“The Arayas’ new pineapple plantation will do away with the Dos Novillos just
like the pineapple plantations have done to the Destierro. Pineapple plantations
require lots of fumigations and the machinery causes erosion, and this area
receives a lot of rainfall. . .it all goes into the river. Heavy rainfall requires them to
apply lots of fumigations.” II-8: Self-Employed, Pocora [He gave an example of
this happening on the Destierro River and said that he gives the area 10 years
before the pineapple production leaves the land totally barren. He gives the Dos
Novillos River a year and a half before it’s destroyed because of the Arayas’
Proposed pineapple project] I

“The contamination that we put into the river, chemical residues, organic waste
ftom cattle and swine, and so many things that peOple throw into the river. Plastic

b388, plastic containers. Unfortunately, it happens here, not often, but it does.” 11-

24: Farmer, La Argentina

196

 

0 “Oh, really contaminated [the Dos Novillos River], beginning with the trash that
peOpIe throw in it, I think there are bathrooms that drain into the Dos Novillos
River that runs from the drainage [ditch] here at the bridge, the bridge on the road.
There’s a drain there where all the gross stuff gets dumped in, including the water
from the Arayas’ garage -— oils and gasoline and all that.” II-l8: Employed, Las

Mercedes

Rural Area
Respondents in the rural area said that sometimes people dump agrochemicals,
wastewater, manure and trash into the river, but it does not happen often. Some said that

there is a general lack Of education about how to take care of the river.

Urban Area

Respondents in the urban area cited contamination by chemical runoff from current and
prOposed pineapple plantations, wastewater contamination from homes and businesses
located next to the river (a number of people singled out a group of houses in lower La

Argentina as a source of wastewater contamination), trash, dead animals and manure.

Summary
Although respondents from the rural and urban areas have differing perceptions about the
quality of the river’s water, respondents from both areas Offered basically the same ideas

about how the river could be contaminated. Respondents fiom both areas cited:

197

agrochemicals, wastewater, trash and manure. Only urban residents mentioned “dead

animals” as a source of contamination.

Impact River Quantity (Code 5 C)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Impact River Quantity was perceived by the researcher as the respondents’
perceptions about what could negatively or positively change the quantity

of water in the River (e. g. cutting trees in the catchment area).

In order to learn about respondents’ perceptions regarding river management,
respondents were also asked what they thought could affect the quantity of water in the

river (Ionsson 2004, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Heathcote 1998).

Examples of 5C (Impact River Quantity)

0 “I think [the river is drier now] because of all the trees they cut, there are a lot of
places that have been cut [along the river].” Il-20: Farmer, Ia Argentina

0 “The river isn’t like it was when we got here — it was summer and you could hear
the river flowing! Not anymore. They’re deforestin g a lot higher up. There use to

be a waterfall, but not anymore, it dried up.” “-26: Homemaker, Mascota

198

0 “Everyone blames the deforestation. Ever since they [IDA] gave away these
properties [in La Argentina], everyone has been deforestin g.” II-8: Self-

Employed, Pocora

Rural and Urban Areas

In both the rural and urban areas, most respondents said that deforestation (for the
purpose of selling timber or to clear land for pineapple plantations) is causing (or could
cause) a reduction in the volume of water in the river. One urban respondent specifically
blamed IDA for much of the watershed’s deforestation. He said that IDA’s land
distribution program did not include any support/training for farmers and since they were
poor, the first thing they did was sell the trees on their prOperty. Another urban
respondent said that dredging for rocks and sand in the river cuts the roots of trees and
causes them to fall. Two urban respondents said that they did not know what would cause

the river to become drier.

Summary
Both rural and urban respondents perceived a strong correlation between the presence or
absence of forests and the volume of water in the river. Most blamed loss in river volume

on deforestation.

Impact of Deforestation in the Watershed (Code 6A)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

199

Impact of Deforestation in the Watershed was perceived by the researcher
as the respondents’ perceptions about the negative or positive effects of

deforestation (e. g. loss of fauna).

In order to understand community members’ perceptions of deforestation, respondents
were asked about the impact that deforestation has had in the watershed. (Jonsson 2004,

Pfaff and Sanchez-Azofeifa 2004, Kaimowitz 2001).

Examples of 6A (Impact of Deforestation in the Watershed)

0 “It [deforestation] makes it warmer, drier, it hardly rains.” II-23: Employed, La
Argentina

0 “What worries me [about tap water] is deforestation. That is going to affect us.
And not just us, it will affect everyone.” "-16: Employed, La Argentina

0 “. . .I think that cutting trees will make the river dry-up. . .they shouldn’t cut trees

from the river banks...” “-2: Homemaker, E1 Carmen

Rural and Urban Areas

Most respondents in the rural and urban areas appeared to be sure about at least one
negative impact of deforestation. Respondents said that deforestation affects the quantity
of water in the river (causes droughts when it is not raining and floods when it rains).
Many people were concerned that deforestation could affect their drinking water supply.

Respondents were also concerned about deforestation’s negative effect on wildlife

200

(habitat and food). Rural respondents also cited lack of wood for building, and a decrease

in tourism.

Summary
Both rural and urban respondents had strong opinions about the perceived problems
caused by deforestation. Negative affects on river volume and water supply were most

Often cited.

Deforestation Location, Purpose and Participants (Codes 6C, 6D)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Deforestation Location, Purpose and Participants were perceived by the
researcher as respondents’ perceptions about where deforestation is
occurring (e. g. along the river), why it is occurring (e. g. to build fences

and homes), and who is responsible (e. g. local settlers).

In order to better understand residents’ perceptions of deforestation, the researcher asked

to describe where it is taking place, why it is taking place and who was responsible

(Jonsson 2004, Pfaff and Sanchez-Azofeifa 2004, Kaimowitz 2001).

Examples of 6C, 6D (Deforestation Location, Purpose and Participants)

201

“They [pineapple producers] get people to sell their farms and move away. The
Araya Family is buying a lot of land to produce pineapple.” lI-l: Self-Employed,
Pocora

“Up here, people take care [of the forests], but sometimes you need a little wood
and you cut a tree. There were a lot of trees here when I came here.” "-21:
Farmer, La Argentina

“I’m seeing that the pineapple plantation deforestation isn’t leaving any trees.
What did CODELA do when it planted pineapple — cut all the huge, Old Laurel
trees, made a hole and buried them. Well, honestly, they’re a source Of
employment [pineapple plantations] for a lot of people, but the deforestation they
do, they don’t leave anything [forests]. Up in la Argentina. . .here in Las

Delicias.” II-18: Employed, Las Mercedes

Rural Area

There was not consensus among rural respondents as to where deforestation is occurring.

Like the urban respondents, they said all over the watershed, but they also said, near the

source of the rural aqueduct, upper left fork of La Argentina, and pastureland (not along

rivers as urban respondents said). As far as causes, in addition to citing timber sales and

pineapple production, a few rural residents said that the timber is cut to use on the farm

and not for sale. With respect to participants, respondents said that in addition to wood

buyers who typically come from outside the community, local landowners also cut trees

for farm use, while some large landowners are deforesting to make room for pineapple

plantations on their properties.

202

Urban Area

Urban respondents cited a variety of places where deforestation is occurring. Responses
ranged from all over the watershed and middle to upper watershed to along the rivers.
Regarding the causes, respondents said that timber sales and pineapple production are the
main causes. They said that timber is sold to local and outside (of the community) buyers
and that pineapple is produced by large landowners. One person said that she does not
know how it is in the rural area, but that she deforested her property in Pocora Sur in
order to make room in her yard to bury yard waste since the municipality will not collect

it.

Summary
While there was some variation in the perceptions among rural and urban respondents
with respect to where deforestation is occurring, Overall, responses from rural and urban

residents regarding where, why and by whom were similar.

Forest Administration (Code 6E, 6F)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Forest Administration was perceived by the researcher as respondents’

perceptions about who is administering the forested land (e. g. MINAE),

203

and any perceptions respondents have about that administration (e. g. lacks

funding).

In order to better understand residents’ perceptions Of forest management, the researcher

asked about the administration of forests in the watershed (Pfaff and Sanchez-Azofeifa

2004, Kaimowitz 2001).

Examples of 6E, 6F (Forest Administration)

“You don’t see MINAE around here. MINAE only comes when someone has
asked for permission to cut. But they don’t come to check out the area and see
what’s going on. Every day you hear saws around here, but they never come to
inspect. I don’t think they’re working like they should.” II-24: Farmer, Ia
Argentina

“The community doesn’t take care of the trees, even me, because I had a bunch of
trees and I cut them down. We deforest and we don’t treat natural resources like
we should — we don’t value them like we should...” II-10: Self-Employed, Pocora
“NO, not that I’m aware of [nobody is in charge of protecting or administering the
forests], nobody looks after anything here, everyone just protects their own

property.” "-2: Homemaker, El Carmen

Rural and Urban Areas

When asked who/what entity is responsible for administering the forested areas, 17

respondents (63%) from the rural and urban areas said that the Ministry of Environment

204

and Energy (MINAE), which some referred to by its former acronym — MIRENEM, is
responsible for protecting the forests and administering permits for cutting trees. Of the
17 respondents that named MINAE as responsible for managing the forests, 14 of them
also said that MINAE either does not do its job well or that it does not do its job at all.
The remaining three people said that they thought MINAE was doing a good job. A total
of six respondents said that from what they could tell, nobody was responsible for

managing the forests, and four people responded that they did not know.

Most respondents from the rural and urban areas said that forest management problems
exist due to a lack of proactivity on the part of MINAE. One specific criticism is that
instead of patrolling the area, MINAE only shows up if a violation is reported, however,
one urban resident said that a major reason that MINAE does not do its job is because of
a lack Of financial and human resources. He said that the whole region has these same
problems and MINAE can not be here [Dos Novillos] all the time because it has a large
area to cover. Respondents also said that MINAE takes bribes from people carrying out
illegal deforestation. Both rural and urban respondents said that the Costa Rican
Government is not worried about this area (one person specified that this indifference is
due to the area’s low level of agricultural production), thus MINAE does not patrol there.
Some respondents said that community members themselves do not protect the forest like
they used to and that the lack of education/training programs about forest management

adds to the area’s forest administration problems.

Summary

205

 

Just as more rcspr

tor managing the
more than half of
some resrdans al:
for the forest mar
is the pan} respo
raidcnts feel that
members are gen
‘Mrli neighbors a1
rericence by sun
rfl’t’lt‘llss‘long m

mfmbt’h for 1101

the are \iolarm:

Forest Manager
In grouping the
10110“ int3 0Pcr“
‘ . .1
Forest ‘

rmI‘On

 

lure-(t r
l

Just as more respondents (63%) identified MINAE (or MIRENEM) as being responsible
for managing the forests, more also said that the entity is doing a poor job (52%). While
more than half of the respondents blamed MINAE for poor forest management practices,
some residents also blamed lack of support from local residents and budgetary constraints
for the forest management problems. Although respondents did not identify landowners
as the party responsible for managing the forests, it appears that many watershed
residents feel that the landowners need to be regulated by MINAE because community
members are generally reticent to gain enemies in these small communities by arguing
with neighbors about their forest management practices. Some residents justify this
reticence by stating that MINAE does not do enough to back-up citizens who risk social
repercussions to file complaints, while other respondents criticize their fellow community
members for not being proactive and not working together to put pressure on landowners

who are violating forest management laws.

Forest Management Improvements (Code 6 G)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Forest Management Improvements were perceived by the researcher as
respondents’ suggestions about ways to improve forest administration and

forest protection (e. g. improve forestry law enforcement).

sh

Bard] (”In
Rural and
managcmt
title m E’CI‘

(1U; a

In order to learn from community members about the things that they think could
be done to improve forest management, the researcher asked respondents about
potential solutions to the problems they cited (Pfaff and Sanchez-Azofeifa 2004,

Kaimowitz 2001).

Examples Of 6G (Forest Management Improvements)

0 “I don’t have the right to tell someone to stop cutting down trees. If there was any
support from MINAE, then I could say something. MINAE doesn’t come up here,
but it’s their job to come up here and watch out for and protect the forest.” ll-16:
Employed, La Argentina

0 “I see lots of trucks go by with felled trees, but I don’t know if they have permits
or not. They harvest at night when it’s dark.” [When MINAE’s Office is closed]
“-21: Farmer, [a Argentina

0 “People should take action instead Of just talking. Here, everyone talks about what

should be done but they don’t act.” “-5: Homemaker, Pocora
Rural and Urban Areas
Rural and urban respondents gave many examples of ways to help improve forest
management. Their responses can be grouped into three categories: the Government’s

role in general; MlNAE’s specific role; and the community’s role.

Government’s Role

207

0 Needs l

forests

o Needst
0 Needs!
(educat
\llNAE's Role
' Needs!
0 Needs!
9 Needst
' Necdst
rangers

C0mmunirx-‘s p
Commu

and mm

dCfOICxI

 

Needs to hire people [at MINAE] who have the capacity to really protect the
forests

Needs to give MINAE a larger budget so it can be effective

Needs to inform community members about how to protect natural resources

(education/training programs)

MINAE’s Role

Needs to be more proactive and more dedicated

Needs to patrol and inspect more often

Needs to enforce Costa Rica’s good forestry laws

Needs to address its corruption problem and bring in independent or outside forest

rangers to patrol

Community’s Role

Community members (and Development Committees) need to stop being passive
and they need to work together and protest when they want to put a stop to a
deforestation project

Development Committee [La Argentina] should provide training on forestry
protection and file reports of violations on behalf of the community so individuals
do not have to

Communities need to organize and communicate: communities need to talk and
work together with business people, MINAE representatives, pineapple plantation

representatives, and other stakeholders

208

Sirflfilh
Rural :‘
fsrest r
GO" CIT

RCSPQF

In Emu;

fl: ”31‘“ n.

0 Plant more shade trees
0 Need someone from an outside organization to help organize and motivate the

community

Summary

Rural and urban community members gave similar responses regarding ways to improve
forest management. Their responses can be grouped into three categories: the
Government’s role in general; MINAE’s specific role; and the community’s role.
Respondents from the rural and urban areas suggest that: the government help MINAE be
more effective by giving the ministry greater human and economic resources, and by
giving the communities information and training; MINAE be more proactive, enforce the
forestry laws and address its corruption problem; and community members be more
proactive and organized with respect to collaborating as a community and with other

sectors to protect the forests.

Willingness to Collaborate — Forest Management (Code 6H)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Willingness to Collaborate was perceived by the researcher as the
respondents’ stated disposition to collaborate with efforts to improve
forest protection in their watershed (Jonsson 2004, White and Runge

1995)

209

In order to
Unprox e n;
hair on n r
respondent
of the lacl.
researcher
share their

Could \\ Oul

Examp]
° "Di
and
up~ -

plan

All bu, thr-

CC

that lhetv C0

In order to learn from community members about their willingness to help
improve natural resource management, the researcher asked the respondents about
their own disposition to collaborate. While the researcher expected that the
respondents’ expression of their willingness to help would be overstated because
of the lack of a cost (financial, social, etc.) associated with their help, the
researcher chose to ask the question with the hope that some respondents would
share their thoughts about the conditions under which they could/would or

could/would not collaborate.

Examples of 6H (Willingness to Collaborate — Forest Management)

0 “Oh, of course [I’d be willing to help]! Well, some peOple think it’s a good thing
and some think it’s bad [pineapple plantations], but when the rivers start to dry
up, we’re done, no matter how much work is available [at the pineapple
plantations].” II-18: Employed, Las Mercedes

0 “Well, yes, any way I can, yes.” "-15: Employed, Pocora Sur

0 “Yes. In my case, I think that say, if someone is doing this [deforesting] [’11 report
them. They say I’m a busybody but if I want to protect the trees it’ll report them.”

[II-22: Homemaker, La Argentina

Rural and Urban Areas
All but three respondents (89%) said that they would be willing to collaborate in any way

that they could with an effort to protect the forests. The three people that said they could

210

IIC'l Coll.
haw”
of lllt‘ll' :
he is ~1US

1.17m {‘1' S

helOfl

TnOOll
sndthat
llfi‘l '3 l0. l

birepor

Szrnrrrnrr‘
\lOSl TL‘\
mddm

thn

not collaborate live in the rural area. Two farmers said that they would like to participate
in a forestry protection program by reforesting, but that they can not afford to reforest any
of their land since that would reduce its carrying capacity. One of these farmers said that
he is just barely earning a living with the number of cattle he currently owns. The third
farmer said that she does not participate in anything anymore because Of her illnesses and

lack of time.

Two of the 24 respondents that said they would help, but limited their collaboration. One
said that she did not have much time to spare and the other said that the program would
have to be a serious one because people do not want to make enemies in their community

by reporting illegal deforestation if it.

Summary
Most respondents said that they would be willing to collaborate in whatever way they
could to improve forest protection. The three people that said they could not collaborate

live in the rural area.

Tap Water Quality (Code 7A)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Tap Water Quality was perceived by the researcher as respondents’

perceptions about the quality of their tap water (e. g. clean and fresh).

211

ll SITOI

resnor

I
"1.3
LL;

In order to learn about the quality of tap water in the Dos Novillos Watershed, the
researcher asked the respondents to describe their own tap water (Sanchez-

Azofeifa et al. 2002, Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

It should be noted that the researcher began her questions about tap water by asking the
respondents where their water comes from (unless the respondent had already discussed
the source previously. All but one respondent said that he/she knew the location of

his/her tap water source.

Examples of 7A (Tap Water Quality)

0 “They just started adding chlorine, but they add too much. My wife has to let the
tap run for a while before making coffee because there’s too much chlorine. They
began adding chlorine about 5 months ago because the water was very dirty. The
quality has improved.” "-1: Self-Employed, Pocora

0 “It’s natural water. It’s better than Alpina (bottled water). We have natural water.
We have water that was approved by a microbiologist.” ll-10: Self-Employed,
Pocora Sur

0 “I have to get water from my neighbors for drinking and cooking because my well

water is so contaminated.” 11-27: Homemaker, Mascota

212

It should b
not adhere

organized I

.it! 5t“ I"
ll hen 1““
ualfil from
qudhl) 1’ g
chlorine h”
mad. he)
been addec

debris in h

RWUIAgUr
All 14 OM
\nSwThc
One respor
tater from
not she pa]
tell Vt ater
neighbor‘s

area) has a

It should be noted that tap water service provision in the Dos Novillos Watershed does
not adhere to the rural/urban distinction, therefore the discussion about tap water will be

organized in terms of type Of service.

AyA Service

When asked to describe their tap water quality, 10 Of the l l respondents that receive
water from AyA (Costa Rican Institute Of Aqueducts and Drains) said that their tap water
quality is good or great. Four of these respondents mentioned that they have noticed that
chlorine has been added to the water. While one person said that far too much has been
added, they all said that they feel the water quality has improved since the chlorine has
been added. One AyA user said that her water is not very potable and complained about

debris in her water.

Rural Aqueduct Service

All 14 of the RA users reported having very good, very clean, or excellent water quality.
No Service

One respondent (urban area) that is not connected to either system said that she gets her
water from a neighbor that is connected to the AyA system (it was not clear whether or
not she pays her neighbor for the water). This respondent said that she cannot use her
well water for drinking and cooking because it is contaminated by feces from her
neighbor’s pit latrine. The other respondent that is not connected to either service (rural

area) has a spring on her prOperty and says that the water is very good.

213

Sum/rim

llatershed resi
administrated .~
for the Rural A

he naiershed :

Both .MA and
retire Ol‘thc
content it rm 1],

C‘fhil \\ ell \\ a:

“P ”liter 0a
In gmuline th

relating OPCI

Tap \\'

pCICQP

“Oluni

 

Summary

Watershed residents receive their tap water from one of two sources (the AyA
administrated service is located on a farm called Las Delicias and the source of the water
for the Rural Aqueduct comes from a natural mountain spring located in the upper part of

the watershed above La Argentina), or they are not connected to either system.

Both AyA and Rural Aqueduct users were positive about the quality of the tap water they
receive. Of the two respondents that do not receive tap water from either service, one is
content with the quality of her water and the other is extremely upset by the poor quality

Of her well water.

Tap Water Quantity (Code 73)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Tap Water Quantity was perceived by the researcher as respondents’
perceptions about the quantity of their tap water (e.g. inconsistent

volume).

In order to learn about the quantity of tap water in the Dos Novillos Watershed,

the researcher asked the respondents to describe their own tap water (Sanchez-

Azofeifa et al. 2002, Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

214

Exaniples of l

0 “ldnn‘th.
reqUNeirl
uh}th}
hlascota

' “I‘m \\ ill
high prex

the \r. 3101

henses,|

iii-i Serra "e
“henasledig
hater from Ay
fifipfindentcor

Rural Aquedh

ill l-l Ollhc ‘

 

 

Examples of 7B (Tap Water Quantity)

0 “I don’t have water yet. You have to pay 32,000 colones, plus the form that they
require which costs 10,000 to have the right [to connect to AyA’s system]. That’s
why they don’t give me water yet, because I can’t pay.” I I-26: Homemaker,
Mascota

0 “I’m without water every once in a while when a pipe breaks — sometimes due to
high pressure, especially during storms. But somehow they fix it. I’m happy with
the water here.” “-21: Farmer, la Argentina

0 “I get a sufficient amount here, but there are a lot of houses that don’t [in
Mercedes]. Yeah, there are a lot of households that have only one tap for four

houses. "-14: Employed, Las Mercedes

AyA Service
When asked to describe their tap water quantity, 10 of the 1 l respondents that receive
Water from AyA said that their water quantity is good and more regular now. One

respondent complained that she receives less volume now.

Rural Aqueduct Service

All 14 of the RA users reported receiving good, very good, or excellent water quantity.
The only exception to this occurs when water service is disrupted due to a broken pipe,
hoWever all but one person said that the pipes are always repaired as quickly as possible,

50 they are not upset about this problem.

215

htlscl

[non

Srrnrrrzr
BnhA

nadir

mOMt
re>l‘0n

lglnch

Eta

C

No Service
Two respondents (one in Mascota and one in La Argentina) do not have access to tap

water.

Summary
Both AyA and Rural Aqueduct users were positive about the volume of tap water they

receive. There are two respondents that do not receive water from either service.

Impact Tap Water Quality (Code 7F)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Impact Tap Water Quality was perceived by the researcher as respondents’
perceptions about factors that could negatively or positively affect the

quality of their tap water (e. g. infiltration of agro-chemicals).

In order to leam about respondents’ perceptions regarding tap water management,
respondents were also asked what they thought could affect the quality of their tap water

(Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

Examples of 7F (Impact Tap Water Quality)
0 “Over the years, when the area gets deveIOped because of an increase in the

population. . .due to contamination it won’t be pure water anymore. By

216

l‘0

h‘

dc

at

.h‘l and Run
11 hen (sled ‘
and Rural Aq
r'i‘iniumiriurh r
or broken tan
that agncultu
rater quality

Slimllldl'l‘

   
  

tiers of 1h

c

populating the area around the source, the greatest threat is contamination.
Where there’s a person there’s contamination!” II-15 : Employed, Pocora Sur

0 “If the [water] pipes are in good condition, we won’t have any problems. . .but
if they keep cutting down trees we’re going to have a lot of problems with the
water [then referred to cutting trees to plant pineapple plantations]. II-15:
Employed, [as Mercedes

0 “The only think that I’d say [could affect the tap water quality] is if the
plumbers or the peOple that work with the water do something incorrectly or
do a bad job. But if they keep working like they are now, the water won’t be

affected. Because it’s a spring up there. "-22: Homemaker, La Argentina

A yA and Rural Aqueduct Systems

When asked what could impact the quality Of their tap water, respondents using the AyA
and Rural Aqueduct systems said that: contamination of the spring / source with human
contamination and/or livestock manure; and poor system maintenance (having dirty, old
or broken tanks and pipes) were the biggest threats. Some Rural Aqueduct users added
that agricultural expansion and deforestation around the source could impact their tap

water quality.

Summary

Users of the AyA and Rural Aqueduct systems cited the same situations that could

negatively impact their water quality.

217

Impact lap ”i
In grouping the

fallen in g nper:
Impact
nspont
aft-ect t1
In order to lear
[Cilii‘ndentx‘ \1 r

lSrnchez-Azni

Eumples (

Ur

lli

 

 

Impact Tap Water Quantity (Code 7G)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Impact Tap Water Quantity was perceived by the researcher as
respondents’ perceptions about factors that could negatively or positively

affect the quantity/volume of the tap water they receive (e. g. more users).

In order to learn about respondents’ perceptions regarding tap water management,
respondents were also asked what they thought could affect the quantity of their tap water

(Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

Examples of 7G (Impact Tap Water Quantity)

0 “I think that as the community grows [population increases], there’s less water
[available].” "-2: Homemaker, El Carmen

0 “It’s a spring [the water source] that bubbles up and there’s another one higher
up, it’s in layers of pure rock and there’s a piece of intact forest up there and
now they’re planting pineapple everywhere. It might be intact [the forest], but
if they start to cut around there the water will start to dry up there.” "-18:
Employed, Las Mercedes

0 “Let’s say there’s a huge storm and it rains too much, that would affect the

water, and it would affect us for a long time, this happened to us before and

218

‘ir-

\\

“.5

H11”!

Slop"
C‘Cln

enrr

the pipes break and no water comes through.” “-22: Homemaker, La

Argentina

A yA and Rural Aqueduct Services

When asked what could impact the quantity of their tap water, respondents that receive
water from AyA and those that are connected to the Rural Aqueduct cited three main
issues: pipe size, connection and placement; deforestation; and increased demand flom

increasing population.

Respondents that receive water from AyA also cited people wasting water (leaving it

running, not reporting leaks) and A yA wasting water (not fixing leaks quickly).

Respondents that receive water from the Rural Aqueduct added that a natural disaster/big
storm in the mountain could destroy access to the source, and that if the Rural Aqueduct
Committee does not find an alternative source they will be left without water if the

current source is depleted or made inaccessible.

Summary

For the most part, respondents that receive water from AyA and the Rural Aqueduct cited
the same situations that could cause a reduction in the quantity of tap water they receive.
Both groups did, however, also cite what appear to be location—specific concerns. Data
suggests that AyA users, a group that does not include rural residents, see wasting water

as more Of a problem than do their rural neighbors. The data also suggests that the Rural

219

Aquedu
natural c
hat the c‘

SOLITCC.

Tap II are

in groupir.

s

following.

Tar

that

In Order to l
rebpo“dens

E’Pelk’la 2m

EXamNU
. st
h.

 

Aqueduct users feel that their water source is more susceptible to being damaged by a
natural disaster than do the AyA users. Only Rural Aqueduct users expressed concern
that the entity responsible for administering their water has not located an alternative

SOUI’CC.

Tap Water Administration (Code 7H)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Tap Water Administration was perceived by the researcher as the entity

that respondents think administers their tap water (e. g. AyA).

In order to Ieam about respondents’ perceptions regarding tap water administration,
respondents were asked how they pay for their tap water (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002,

Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

Examples of 7H (Tap Water Administration)

0 “Yes, the charge is fine [monthly fee isn’t too expensive]. My sister-in-law
has a meter, and this house has a meter and it isn’t too expensive. The truth is
that water is as valuable as gold!” "-6: Employed, Pocora

0 “So, each month there’s a set monthly fee. It’s a little more than 1,000

colones. . .” ll-14: Employed, [as Mercedes

220

90

iii 58 "i‘lt‘c’

ll hen :sled 1
it! said that
colones limo;
meter. One of

ii remoxed be.

Rural Aqua/U
RC>P0ndents 1
connection fe.
”Ported nor h

Fear.

gunman.
lhe dim slim

[hike Ihill dl'.

 

We mom],

0 “We used to pay 500 colones and now we pay 1,000 and I don’t think it will

go up any more.” "-22: Homemaker, In Argentina

A yA Service

When asked how they pay for their tap water service, respondents that receive water from
AyA said that they pay a one-time connection fee then a set monthly charge of 800-2,000
colones (amounts varied among respondents). These respondents reported not having a
meter. One of these respondents said that she did have a meter in the past but that she had

it removed because she was charged 7,000-8,000 colones a month with the meter.

Rural Aqueduct Service

Respondents that are connected to the Rural Aqueduct said that they pay a one-time
connection fee then a set monthly charge of 1,000 colones. These respondents also
reported not having a meter. They said that the monthly charge increases a little every

year.

Summary
The data show that there is not one standard fee paid by AyA service users (even among
those that do not use meters), whereas it appears that Rural Aqueduct users all pay the

same monthly fee.

221

 

11 Um .I

In group

fallen in

In order
respond;

tater bi]

Exan

Water Meter (Code 7])

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Water Meter was perceived by the researcher as respondents’ perceptions
of the use of water meters to generate water bills (e.g. in favor if they

work well).

In order to learn about respondents’ perceptions regarding tap water administration,
respondents were asked what they thought of the use of water meters to determine tap

water bills (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

Examples of 71 (Water Meter)

0 “My neighbors say that they worked hard to build the aqueduct and it is
community property and nobody has the right to charge them. They worked hard
to have ‘free’ water and they say they’d rather go to jail than use a meter.” "-23:
Employed, La Argentina

0 “See, if they had a meter, they wouldn’t be wasting water.” lI-18: Employed, las
Mercedes

0 “. . .people complain that there should not be tap meters here because we have
abundant water, thank God, because of the rivers. There are springs everywhere.”

“—6: Employed, Pocora

222

 

\ltl5l
mCIL‘
after
i“ h

lllc

am

0i lh

A yA Service

Most (seven of nine) residents that use the AyA service feel that basing payment on water
meters would result in higher bills and respondents worry that they would not be able to
afford the higher charges. This concern was also revealed as a trust issue in some cases in
which residents felt that AyA could use the meters to make them pay very high prices
even if they did not use the amount of water they were charged for using (e.g. the meter
readings could be easily manipulated), or that the meters simply do not work well and
miscalculate the amount of water used. Concern about having to pay for water leaked out
Of pipes was also expressed. Alternatively, two AyA service users were in favor of using
meters because they think they would make peOple conserve water. These two

respondents also said that the monthly bill does not increase much when a meter is used.

Rural Aqueduct Service

Of the Rural Aqueduct users that discussed meters, more (five of eight) were in favor of
using meters to calculate monthly water bills. While five users of the Rural Aqueduct
said that basing payments on a meter would increase their monthly bill, two of these
respondents are in favor of using meters because they feel the meter forces people to
conserve water. Three other Rural Aqueduct users that are in favor of using meters
contend that meters do not increase monthly bills, rather bills can decrease because one is

only charged for what they use, and if they save water, they will benefit financially.

Perhaps the strongest anti-meter sentiment among the Rural Aqueduct users comes from

respondents who helped to build the Rural Aqueduct, or know someone who helped to

223

innn.o
lhdl lllls Pl
amesm;

511,0er 1 n
A tom] of
”m§“an
”’9 Us at
Runliqu
hnann
meter, \\ C
mails n 0
the WONG

Rmpondei
o “}
“x

o “1
mt

mu

 

build it. One respondent said that her neighbor worked to build the Rural Aqueduct and
that this person says that she worked so hard to build the system that she should have
access to all the water she wants and should not have to pay for the volume she

COIISUII‘ICS.

Summary

A total of nine AyA users and eight Rural Aqueduct users discussed their feelings about
using water meters. Respondents from both service areas revealed mixed feelings about
the use of meters. Overall, more AyA users were opposed to using meters (78%) than
Rural Aqueduct users (38%). While some respondents feel that using a meter would save
them money, and it appears that people who have lived previously in a community where
meters were used were in favor of using them again, other respondents thought that using
meters would automatically increase their monthly water bills. Two respondents said that
the peOple that helped to build the aqueduct felt that they deserved access to the water

and would not accept the use of meters.

Respondents that were strongly opposed gave the following reasons:
0 When the AyA installs meters, they charge higher prices even though you did not
use a lot of water
0 With a meter, you pay more [this person was not referring to AyA playing a role
in this increase and admits that people waste water since they do not have a

meter]

224

an

Responde

o M.

lap ll titer

in E’WUPin:

hilon int“

 

 

0 I worked hard to build the Rural Aqueduct and I should not have to pay for the

amount of water I use

Respondents that were in favor of using water meters gave the following reasons:
0 Meters would make people conserve water
0 PeOple who do not use an excessive amount of water pay about the same if they
use a meter or pay the current monthly fee
0 You only pay what you use with a meter [one could actually pay less using a

meter than paying the monthly fee]

Tap Water Service Problems (Code 7])

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Tap Water Service Problems were perceived by the researcher as

respondents’ perceptions about problems related to their tap water service

(6. g. dirty pipes).

In order to learn about respondents’ perceptions regarding their tap water service,
respondents were asked what they thought of the tap water service that they receive from

their provider (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002, Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

Examples Of 7] (Tap Water Service Problems)

225

0 “As long as the water doesn’t get cut Off, everything’s fine. But, a while ago we
were without water for three or four days. It seems like the administration isn’t
going well.” ”-15: Employed, Pocora Sur

0 “Well, no, there have never been any problems [with AyA’s service]. ”-18:
Employed, Las Mercedes

0 “. . .a man came and told me that he’d come to cutoff the water because Juan was
two months behind [paying the bill]. ..and now they tell us that there are a bunch
of peOple in E1 Carmen and Pocora Sur, that there are a ton of peOple that don’t
pay their water bills and their water doesn’t get cut off!” "-20: Farmer, La

Argentina

AyA Service

All but one of the AyA users said that they are happy with their water service, although
when water meters were mentioned, seven Of the AyA users expressed that they are upset
at AyA for having attached meters to people’s homes without asking permission or
explaining why they were doing it (see previous section: 71). According to respondents,
this incident occurred about two or three years ago and several respondents were still
very upset about it. The one AyA user that complained about the service said that she is
being charged an unfairly high monthly fee and AyA will not explain why or correct the
problem. She would also like the water quality and quantity to improve since she feels

that she is paying enough to receive good service.

Rural Aqueduct Service

226

Similarly. altli
reported lk’lll!
administratioi
Committee (I
leiel experiei
would like in
they want lhfl
like the RM
said that the

rel’resentutii
only cuts 5c]
SJid that the
C0mmittee, :
being bmkc

311d sen 3.3,.

Con’ldk’f he

The N 0 [C
thou] lheir

Mel quill

Urban area

that men

Similarly, although all 14 respondents that receive water from the Rural Aqueduct
reported being happy with their water service, eight people complained about the
administration. Specifically, these eight people said that members of the Rural Aqueduct
Committee (RAC) are not well trained in administration and do not have professional-
level experience in providing water service. One of these respondents also said that she
would like to be involved in picking the members of the RAC. Two respondents said that
they want the RAC to work together with AyA in general, and specifically, they would
like the RAC to ask AyA for help in identifying an alternative source. One respondent
said that the committee needs to be better organized and that they should have two
representatives from the rural area (la Argentina). Another respondent said that the RAC
only cuts service in the rural area and not in the urban area when bills are not paid. She
said that the RAC is intimidated by the urban residents. Two respondents said that the
committee should evaluate the pipes’ placement and make changes to avoid the pipes
being broken by vehicles and flooded rivers and to avoid contamination from the river
and sewage ditches. One of these respondents is annoyed that the RAC has I'CfiJSCd to

consider her complaints and has not invited her to any meetings.

No Service

The two respondents that have neither AyA nor RA service have very different opinions
about their lack of water service. While the respondent in the rural area is happy with the
water quality and quantity she receives from a spring on her farm, the respondent in the
urban area that only has access to a contaminated well is extremely frustrated. She said

that most government agencies have not taken responsibility for helping them (the

227

rtSlilcnb ‘
AtA'S set
interienti

proper!) l.

Stun/mitt
llhile all
the C\CCp‘.
problems
the AyA (
concerned
focused or
li‘l @l of CC

placement

SOluIions

I" STOUpi n

lllllCt“ in!

SUI
lC\]

Pro

 

residents in her section of the community that do not have tap water service) connect to
AyA’s service, and the officials that have tried to help have been thwarted by

interventions by EARTH’s Banana Workers Association (the original owner of the

property).

Summary

While all but one of the AyA users are also very pleased with AyA’s administration (with
the exception of the use of meters), more than half of the 14 RA users reported different
problems with the RA’s administration. While a number of AyA users were mistrustful of
the AyA (because of the reportedly unannounced installation of meters) and one was very
concerned about water quality and quantity, Rural Aqueduct users that had concerns were
focused on the Rural Aqueduct Committee members’ lack of administrative skills, their
level of collaboration with AyA as a means to find an alternative source, and the

placement and security of the pipes.

Solutions to Tap Water Problems (Code 7K)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following Operational definition was used:

Solutions to Tap Water Problems were perceived by the researcher as

respondents’ perceptions about potential ways to resolve their tap water

problems (e. g. education about saving water).

228

ln orde
>€f\lC€

probler

Ext

AH

In order to learn from community members about possible ways to improve tap water
service, respondents were asked what they thought could help to address the tap water

problems they had cited (Sanchez Azofeifa et al. 2002, Espeleta 2001, Calvo 1990).

Examples of 7K (Solutions to Tab Water Problems)

0 “Only that they [AyA] make sure the mountains aren’t deforested. That they
protect the virgin forest around the water sources, don’t allow any more illegal
deforestation so that the community isn’t threatened...” "-6: Employed, Pocora

0 “There are so many things that can be done to protect the [tap] water. ..like
protecting the environment, planting trees. . .form a group to work together.” [I-
22: Homemaker, La Argentina

0 “I say that they should do the same as they do with us, make them [urban Rural
Aqueduct water users] pay for their water too. It isn’t fair that the people who
worked so much to have water pay, and those that didn’t work aren’t even

charged.” "-20: Farmer, La Argentina

A yA and Rural Aqueduct Services
AyA and Rural Aqueduct users gave many examples of ways to help improve their tap
water service. Their responses can be grouped into three categories: the Government’s

role; the service provider’s role; and the community’s role.

A yA Service

Government’s Role

229

RM]

{/5

0 Government should inform community members about how to protect their water
source

0 Government should protect or buy land around the water source

Service Provider’s Role
0 AyA needs to communicate with the community about plans
0 AyA needs to meet with community members and pineapple plantation owners to

talk about the community’s concerns

Community’s Role

0 Community members need to be more involved, attend meetings, and gain
consciousness about water protection issues

0 Community members need to cooperate with each other

0 Community members need to report leaks faster

0 Community members need to stop wasting water
Rural Aqueduct Service
Government’s Role
0 Authorities need to arrest people who manipulate the valves to divert water for

personal projects

Service Provider’s Role

230

it

re

RAC needs to organize information and training sessions so community members
know how to better manage the water

RAC needs professional members

RAC needs support from AyA in promoting and enforcing good water
management practices

RAC needs to locate an alternative source

RAC needs to inform users about plans and activities

RAC needs to put locks on the tanks so water cannot be contaminated

Community’s Role

Community members need to be more involved, attend meetings, and gain
consciousness about water protection issues

Community members need to cooperate with each other

Community members need to report leaks faster

Community members need to stop wasting water

Summary

Respondents offered numerous solutions, all of which can be grouped into three

categories: Government’s role; service provider’s role (AyA and RAC); and community’s

role. AyA users appear to want the Government to provide information, protection (of the

resource) and legal enforcement, and they want the AyA to communicate better with

community members and business interests that could impact the water supply. They also

feel that community members should c00perate more to protect the resource.

231

ll'hile Rural .
suggest an ex
users. RA use
communicati
Pd users alst

“316T.

Millingnm .
ln grouping t

folloxx lng 0?.

Willi
b) th
main

like]

 

While Rural Aqueduct users want the Government to provide legal enforcement, they
suggest an expanded role for the service provider compared to that suggested by the AyA _
users. RA users said that RAC should provide information, protection, enforcement and
communication, and they also want a more highly skilled committee. Like the AyA users,
RA users also feel that community members need to COOperate more to protect the tap

water.

Willingness to Collaborate — Tap Water Service (Code 7L)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Willingness to Collaborate to improve Tap Water Service was perceived
by the researcher as respondents’ stated disposition to collaborate to help
maintain or improve the quality/quantity of their tap water (e. g. I would

like to help).

In order to learn from community members about their willingness to help
improve their tap water service, the researcher asked the respondents about their
own disposition to collaborate (Jonsson 2004, White and Runge 1995). While the
researcher expected that the respondents’ expression of their willingness to help
would be overstated because of the lack of a cost (financial, social, etc.)

associated with their help, the researcher chose to ask the question with the Mm

232

til

Coll

Rim

that some respondents would share their thoughts about the conditions under

which they could/would or could/would not collaborate.

Examples of 7L (Willingness to Collaborate - Tap Water Service)

0 “Yes, yes, like if they were protecting the springs in the mountain that provide
water to the community.” I 1-6: Employed, Pocora

0 “Right, at least, the way I see it. . .if I have a problem with the faucet [leaking
water], I turn it off and immediately look for someone to fix it. So, that way I
wouldn’t be wasting water here.” "-22: Homemaker, La Argentina

0 “Well, yes, because it’s something necessary. As long as I don’t have to go and
protect it myself [she was joking about standing guard at the tank].” "-14:

Employed, Las Mercedes

AyA Service

All but one AyA user said that they would be willing to collaborate to help improve and
protect their tap water service. The respondent that said she was not willing to help said
that she had been willing to help in the past, but that AyA’s attitude had discouraged her.
She said that depending on how the program was working, she might be willing to

collaborate again.

Rural Aqueduct Service

233

In the case of Rural Aqueduct users, all but two respondents said that they would be
willing to help. These two respondents said that they did not have time to collaborate on

such a program.

No Service

Of the two respondents that do not have a tap water provider, the one with a spring did
not comment on this question, but the one using a contaminated well responded that she
has become discouraged by the passive attitude of her neighbors who expect her to do all
the work. She said that she has worked very hard in the past to try to achieve a safe water
supply for the community only to receive no help from her neighbors, so she is not going

to keep trying for the time being.

Summary
The vast majority of respondents said that they would be willing to collaborate in efforts

to improve and protect tap water service (quality and quantity).

Willingness to Pay More for Tap Water (Code 70)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Willingness to Pay More for Tap Water was perceived by the researcher as

respondents’ stated willingness to pay more for tap water in order to

234

protect th

because l

In order to lean'
imprme tap u;
u atershed \\ Qt
order to be at
the long~tcrr
researcher C
OVCl‘flgcucd l
pYOPOSL‘d t
responder

COUld \\ Q

Exat

protect their water quality and/or quantity (e.g. I won’t pay more for water

because I already pay too much).

In order to learn about community members’ willingness to collaborate in projects to
improve tap water management in the watershed, respondents in the lower region of the
watershed were asked if they would be willing to pay more for their water service in
order to be able to better protect the quality and quantity of the water they receive over
the long-term (Jonsson 2004, Pagiola 2002, White and Runge 1995). While the
researcher expected that the respondents’ expression of their willingness to help would be
overstated because of the lack of a realistic payment scenario associated with their
proposed collaboration, the researcher chose to ask the question with the hope that some
respondents would share their thoughts about the conditions under which they

could/would or could/would not collaborate.

Examples of 70 (Willingness to Pay More for Tap Water)

0 “Yes, I think so because it’s something really important and it’s important that
when we receive it it’s good, pure. l think that if we have to pay more to improve
it, then we would support that.” “-2: Homemaker, El Carmen

0 “Yes, as long as we see improvements, the work, the results. I wouldn’t be right
for them to ask for more money and they not do anything, right?” "-1 5:

Employed, Pocora Sur

235

0 “Well, as long as the water is protected and the cost doesn’t go up too much and
as long as the cost in within my budget. Because there are people that can’t [pay

much].” II-l4: Employed, Las Mercedes

AyA Service

Six of the 10 AyA users said that they would be willing to pay more. These respondents
qualified their statements by saying that they could do it if: the water quality improved;
the water quality and quantity really stays good; the increase is not too high; and meters

are not used.

Three of the four AyA users that were not willing to pay more for their tap water said that
if the quality was bad, they would pay more to improve it, but that the quality is already
good, so they do not want to pay more. One person said that all AyA does is increase the

price without improving the service, so he is not willing to pay more.

Rural Aqueduct Service

Of the 11 RA users that answered this question, nine said that they would be willing to
pay more. Like the AyA users, the RA users specified the conditions under which they
would agree to pay more. They said that they would be willing to pay more for their tap
water if: the water quality improved; the water quality and quantity really stays good; the

increase is not too high; they could afford the increase; and the service is good.

236

Of the two respondents that said they would not be willing to pay more, one said that if
the RAC administration was working like it should, the amount she currently pays should
be enough to provide good quality water. The other person said that peOple in Pocora pay
more, but they do not even have good service, so she thinks she pays enough for good

service.

Summary

Overall, most respondents were receptive to the idea of paying more for tap water service
in order to help ensure the improvement of poor service or the maintenance of good
service. AyA and Rural Aqueduct users gave almost the exact same range of conditions
on their willingness to pay more. In both cases, these conditions are based on their
current perception of their water quality and quantity, and their personal budgetary

constraints.

It appears that while some respondents that are content with their service might be willing
to pay more to maintain that service, others might only pay more in order to improve
poor service. Others who may or may not be content with the current service feel that the
amount they are currently paying should be enough to provide good service, and they are

not willing to pay more.

Willingness to Change Natural Resource Management Practices (Code 7P)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

237

Willingness to Change Natural Resource Management Practices was
perceived by the researcher as respondents’ stated willingness to consider
reforesting their land or changing some agricultural practices in exchange
for payment with the goal of protecting the source, as well as downstream
water quality and quantity ( e. g. raise fewer head of cattle and reforest

pasture).

In order to learn about community members’ willingness to collaborate in projects to
improve tap water management in the watershed, respondents in the upper region of the
watershed (water capture zone) were asked if they would be willing to consider
alternative production activities on their farms that would be aimed at protecting the
water source in return for economic compensation (Jonsson 2004, Pagiola 2002,
Kaimowitz 2001, White and Runge 1995). As with the previous willingness to
collaborate question, while the researcher expected that the respondents’ expression of
their willingness to help would be overstated because of the lack of a realistic land use
compensation scenario associated with their proposed collaboration, the researcher chose
to ask the question with the hope that some respondents would share their thoughts about

the conditions under which they could/would or could/would not collaborate.

Examples of 7P (Willingness to Change Natural Resource Management'Practices)

0 “That would be great and I would be willing and could collaborate with

something good like that.” ”—22: Homemaker, La Argentina

238

 

o “What I like is to have cattle, so if I take this little piece [of land], which is a
really small piece of land, and I reforest it, then I wouldn’t be able to have cattle
so that wouldn’t work...” ”-18: Farmer, La Argentina

0 “Yes, if there are funds [provided to fund the changes]. Most peOple have things
planted [crops], but it would be like making an investment in the community. II-

16: Employed, La Argentina

Rural Area
Of the six rural respondents located in the mid-upper section of La Argentina, three
responded that they thought they could reforest if the activity was funded since the only

reason they were not reforesting was for lack of money to buy trees and pay for the labor.

Of the three farmers that said they would not be able to agree to such a proposal, two (a
cattle farmer and a coffee grower) said that they did not think they could spare any of
their property to reforest but that if the payment was high enough, it might be worth it for
them to reforest some or, in the case of the coffee grower, all of the property. Both
farmers said that they would evaluate the financial costs and benefits of such a prOposal.
The cattle farmer said that the amount of money that MINAE currently pays for
reforesting is far too little for him to justify doing it, so he could only consider a project
that proposed to pay more than MINAE. The third farmer said that he would not be
willing to reforest because he bought his land to raise cattle and he needs all his pasture-

land for his cattle.

239

Summary

While three respondents were very receptive to the idea, two were cautiously receptive
but said that they would have to carefully review the cost-benefit of changing their
practices for compensation since other programs (e. g. MINAE’s) do not offer sufficient
compensation. One respondent was opposed to the idea of reforesting any of his land in

exchange for financial compensation.

Waste Management Problems (Code 8C)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Waste Management Problems were perceived by the researcher as
respondents’ perceptions about the impact of waste disposal methods (e. g.

household trash in the streets).

Waste management problems are known to have serious environmental and health
impacts (Espeleta 2001). This, together with the fact that focus group participants
discussed waste issues, led interviewers to ask more detailed questions about the impact
of waste disposal methods in the Dos Novillos Watershed. Respondents were asked to
talk about any impacts that result from the way in which community members dispose of

their waste.

Examples of 8C (Waste Management Problems)

240

 

0 “If the trash truck doesn’t come, peOple throw trash in the river. They throw in
everything: tires; dead animals; containers. I was swimming once and a dead dog
floated down the river.” I I-5: Homemaker, Pocora

0 “There are burns, lots of burns, of trash or grass when people want to plant
something. Garage owners burn a lot of tires and this causes a lot of
contamination.” II-15: Employed, Pocora Sur

0 “People throw everything in that river [Dos Novillos]: trash, pieces of cars,
washing machines, they throw anything they have in the river! Some people even

have their toilets right on the river!” “-20: Farmer, La Argentina

Rural Area

Seven of the 10 rural respondents said that there are no waste management problems in
their community. They explained how they take care of their waste in the rural area
(burning and burying, septic tanks) and said that they felt their neighbors did a good job
of keeping the community clean. The other three rural respondents cited river
contamination as a major problem. They said that household trash (including discarded
appliances), human wastewater, livestock manure and agrochemicals contaminate the
Dos Novillos River. It should be noted that two of these three people live in the lower
section of the rural area which is more pOpulated and closest to the urban area. These
three respondents also complained that there is no trash collection service in their
community and that this leads to the trash disposal problems (dumping in river and

sometimes, on the road).

241

Urban Area

Sixteen of the 17 urban respondents said that serious waste management problems in
their communities cause river contamination. These 16 respondents cited the following
sources of contamination (each cited more than one source): I l respondents cited
household trash; 10 cited human wastewater; seven cited agrochemicals (either in general
or from a pineapple plantation), three cited dead animals/bones; two cited livestock
manure; two cited medical waste from Pocora’s clinic (bandages, syringes); two cited
automotive waste from repair shops and gas stations (motor oil); and one cited poison

used in rivers to kill and catch fish.

Twelve of these 17 urban respondents said that they are also concerned about the
municipal trash collection service’s irregular collection times and incomplete collection
practices. Specifically, seven people complained that the municipal service does not
regularly collect household trash, and does not collect yard waste and junk (e. g. discarded
appliances, tires), which they have no room to burn or bury on their small lots. Aside
from being visually unattractive, most of these people fear that having junk sitting in their
yards will collect rainwater where Dengue Fever carrying mosquitoes will breed. Some
of these respondents said that the municipality only collects junk after there has been an
outbreak of Dengue, not before. Two other respondents said that they wished there was a
recycling program in their community. Three urban respondents complained that despite
living in an area where the municipality is expected to collect trash (for a fee), the
municipality does not collect from their communities (El Carmen and Mascota). They

said that this leads to trash being dumped in the river and in the street.

242

Two urban respondents from Mascota said that Pocora uses Mascota as a dump. They
said that people from Pocora dump everything imaginable (e. g. trash, dead animals) into
the field next to their small neighborhood and that trash and wastewater from households
and the clinic fill the road that connects Mascota to Pocora every time there are heavy
rains. They also said that many people in the neighborhood use pit latrines (instead of
septic tanks) and that wastewater from these latrines and from Pocora filters into their

wells (one section of the community is not connected to a tap water service).

Two other urban respondents also mentioned the problem of burning trash, tires and yard
waste which they say results in air pollution. One of these people specifically said that

this damages the ozone layer.

The one urban respondent that did not cite river contamination as a problem said that the
only waste management problem she is aware of is that community members leave their

trash bags where dogs can tear them up and the trash gets strewn all over the street.

Summary

While more than half of rural respondents said that there are no waste management
problems in their communities, and all 17 urban respondents cited what they consider
waste management problems, rural and urban respondents cited similar problems, most of
which were linked to river contamination, while some problems also appear to contribute

to town/street contamination. River contamination by trash and human wastewater were

243

most often cited (15 and 13 times respectively by the 27 respondents) as a serious waste
management problem. Three urban respondents also cited a complete lack of municipal
trash collection service and one urban resident said that human wastewater has

contaminated her well (her only direct source of water).

Sources of contamination cited by rural and urban respondents can be divided into four
general categories: household trash; yard waste/junk; wastewater (human and livestock);

and toxic waste (agrochemicals, medical waste, motor oil).

Household Trash
0 Trash and dead animals contaminate the river, the streets, and the land near
Mascota.
Yard Waste/Junk
0 The municipality will not collect yard waste, machinery, old appliances and tires.
As a result, they end up sitting in peoples’ yards, in open spaces or in the river.
Wastewater
0 Human wastewater contaminates the river and groundwater.
o Livestock manure contaminates the river.
Toxic Waste
0 Agrochemical runoff from pineapple plantations and, to a reportedly small degree,
other agricultural activities, contaminate the river.
0 Medical waste from the Pocora’s medical clinic floats onto the road to Mascota

when it rains and floods.

244

 

0 Motor oil and other residues from an auto repair shop contaminate the river.

Causes of Waste Management Problems (Code 80 and 8E)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Causes of Waste Management Problems were perceived by the researcher
as respondents’ perceptions about reasons why waste management
problems occur (e. g. people throw trash in the river); where they occur

(e. g. in urban areas); and who is responsible (e. g. peOple who live on the

river).

Understanding why waste management problems exist will help to ensure that actions
taken to address the problem are developed based on the local reality (Heathcote 1998).
For this reason, investigators aimed to understand community members’ perceptions

about the factors that contribute to existing waste management problems.

Examples of 8D, 8E (Causes of Waste Management Problems)
0 “Well, because they’re not educated, they don’t know the impact that they have.”
"-1 5: Employed, Pocora Sur

0 “Because they don’t understand the impact of what they’re doing, they need to

send a lot of information here.” “-3: Self-Employed, Las Mercedes

245

0 “Because they’re lazy. I think they do it because they’re lazy and because they’re

disgusting peOple.” "-20: Farmer: La Argentina

Rural Area

Of the five rural residents that cited waste management problems, two said the problems
exist because community members are not aware of the impact that their actions have on
the environment. One of these two (this person cited a combination of factors) and two
other respondents said that the peOple who contaminate know that what they are doing is
wrong, but they do it anyway because they are lazy and they think it is easier to dump
trash and wastewater in the river than dispose of it properly. One of these three
respondents who said that peOple contaminate because they are lazy also said that the
government (e. g. Municipality, Ministry of Health) should enforce laws so that peOple
are forced to stop contaminating. The fifth rural respondent blamed the lack of services
provided by the local government and said that there is nowhere for people in the rural
area to put their trash and there is no recycling program, so people have to dispose of

their trash somehow.

Urban Area

Of the 17 urban respondents that cited waste management problems, nine said that these
problems exist because community members are not aware of the impact that their
actions have on the environment. Six of these nine (these people cited a combination of
factors) plus four other respondents said that the people who contaminate know that what

they are doing is wrong, but they do it anyway because they are lazy, they do not care

246

about the negative impact they are causing, and they think it is easier to dump trash and

wastewater in the river than dispose of it properly.

The remaining four urban respondents that had not cited lack of understanding nor
laziness blamed the lack of services provided by the government and said that there is
nowhere for peOple to put the trash that the municipality does not pick up, so people have
to dispose of their trash somehow. Nine other urban respondents that cited other problems
(laziness or lack of understanding) also said that the municipal government needed to do
more to keep residents from polluting. Two people said that the government needs to
install a sewage treatment facility. Others said that the municipal waste collection service
needs to be expanded and improved and that there needs to be a recycling program. The
two respondents from Mascota said that municipal and local government officials (e. g.
Municipality, Ministry of Health, AyA, Mayor) need to extend trash collection service to
their neighborhood, prevent peOple from Pocora from dumping trash next to their
community, and keep waste from Pocora and its clinic from flooding into their road and
community. Two urban respondents also said that the local Development Committees in
their communities were not working well and were not helping to solve the communities’

waste management problems.

Summary
Rural and urban respondents cited a variety of factors that they feel cause waste
management problems in their communities. Of the 22 respondents that cited waste

management problems, 15 gave more than one reason for the existence of these

247

 

problems. Urban respondents most often blamed problems on a lack of government
services or support (14 references), followed by saying that individual polluters are lazy
or do not care about the harm they cause (10 references) or that individuals do not
understand the negative impact they cause (nine references). Rural residents’ responses
were slightly more evenly distributed among these three categories, making two, three,

and two references respectively.

Waste Administration (Code 8F)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Waste Administration was perceived by the researcher as the entity that
respondents think is responsible for handling and disposing of their waste

(e. g. municipality).

In order to gain a better understanding of the waste management Options available to
watershed residents, the researcher asked respondents how they dispose of their waste

(Heathcote 1998).

Examples of SF (Waste Administration)
0 “Here, everyone takes his or her bags of trash outside [for municipal collection].
Sometimes, we throw peels and organic waste in a pit in order to make organic

fertilizer for the plants...” "-6: Employed, Pocora

248

0 “I’m good at burning trash. . .they say it’s bad because it contaminates the
environment. Now, I take all the peels [organic kitchen waste] and I put it on the
plants so that it’ll decompose there.” “-20: Farmer, La Argentina

0 “We have tons of trash. We have to burn all these bags of trash. . .cans,
everything, because there is nowhere for us to throw away trash here. There isn’t
anywhere left to bury it. . .everywhere you stick in a shovel, you find trash. It’s

impossible! How can we live like this?” "-27: Homemaker, Mascota

Rural Area

Rural residents said that they do not have access to municipal trash collection. These
respondents said that they burn flammable trash, use appropriate organic waste to make
fertilizer, and bury the rest. Some rural respondents take what they can not dispose of to
town for collection by the municipality. Two rural residents said that an organization (one
person thinks it is CREA — a youth drug rehabilitation organization) passes through the
communities about two or three times a year to collect recyclables in order to raise
money. Rural residents say that they dispose of their wastewater in pits or septic tanks

that they have built themselves.

Urban Area

Fourteen of the 17 urban respondents pay a monthly fee in order to have access to a
municipal trash collection service that picks up trash every eight days in Las Mercedes,
once a week in Pocora Sur, and twice a week in Pocora. Despite this service, some urban

residents report burying the trash that the service does not collect (yard waste and junk).

249

The respondent that lives in El Carmen and the two respondents that live in Mascota said
that the municipal trash truck does not collect any waste from their area, so they try to
burn and bury their trash. Urban respondents say that there is no recycling program. They
also report that there is no municipal sewage treatment facility and that each household
has to build a septic tank to dispose of their wastewater. Some people, however, use a pit

latrine or channel their waste into the river using a drainage ditch.

Summary

The data show that waste management is carried out differently in the rural and urban
areas, and also in different parts of the urban area. All of the urban respondents, with the
exception of the respondents from Mascota and El Carmen, said that the municipality is
responsible for administering solid waste management in their community, while all of
the rural respondents said that they are responsible for disposing of their solid waste.
Both rural and urban respondents said that they are responsible for disposing of their own

wastewater.

Waste Administration Problems (Code 80)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Waste Administration Problems were perceived by the researcher as
problems respondents perceive with respect to the way their waste is

handled and disposed (e. g. trash truck does not always come).

250

 

In order to understand waste management problems from the community members’
perspective, the researcher asked respondents about any problems that they perceive with

their waste management system (Heathcote 1998).

Examples of 8G (Waste Administration Problems)

0 “The Health Ministry used to be active and concerned when peOple contaminated
the river, but now they don’t do anything and the river is so contaminated you
can’t swim or fish.” "-5: Homemaker, Pocora

0 “It’s a terrible service that takes 15-22 days to come [and pick up trash] and all
the dogs scatter the trash.” II-18: Employed, Las Mercedes

0 “Yes, when they pick up the trash, they only pick up half of it, they don’t collect it
all [the municipality]. For example, two weeks ago they came on Wednesday, so
everyone took their trash out on Tuesday [this week], and the truck never came

and there were the dogs ripping up the bags.” II-l4: Employed, [as Mercedes

Rural Area

One rural respondent said that with a small property, he is having trouble finding room to
bury his trash. Others complained that a group of people that were allowed to build
houses right next to the river dump their wastewater and trash into the river; and that

there is no recycling program.

Urban Area

251

Thirteen of the 17 urban respondents said that wastewater is improperly disposed of in
the river and two residents said that sewage left in pit latrines also contaminates
groundwater. Urban respondents said that the municipal government allows peOple to
build houses right next to the river, which adds to the problem of dumping wastewater
and trash into the river. Respondents said that the municipal government does not help
the communities properly manage their wastewater. They also cited the municipality’s
unreliable trash collection service (in terms of day and time) and the fact that it does not
collect junk and yard waste; the lack of a recycling program; and the lack of wastewater
treatment. In the case of three respondents, the municipal trash truck does not collect any
waste from their area, so they try to burn and bury their trash, however they say that this
is a major problem because they live in urban lots that are not big enough to bury and
burn much waste. Urban respondents also said that community members do not keep the
plaza clean; the Development Committee in Pocora does not do anything to help improve
wastewater management; the municipal government does not provide information to
community members about how to manage waste better; and the Health Ministry is not

proactive in addressing waste management problems.

Summary

While urban respondents had more complaints about the way waste is managed than rural
respondents, concerns among residents of both areas overlapped with respect to houses
being built too close to the river contributing to wastewater and trash contamination of
the river, and to a lesser degree, the lack of a trash collection service and a recycling

program.

252

Waste Management Improvement (Code 8H)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Waste Management Improvement was perceived by the researcher as
respondents’ perceptions about potential ways to resolve these waste

management problems (e.g. initiate a recycling program).

Researchers wanted to learn from community members about the things that they think

could be done to improve waste management (Heathcote 1998).

Examples of 8H (Waste Management Improvement)

“Some people need education, but others won’t stOp contaminating unless they
get fined for breaking the law.” ”-25: Employed, La Argentina

“If the municipality won’t do it, we should organize a truck to go around and pick
up yard waste and other things that the municipality won’t collect, and take it
somewhere. We should ask for help from EARTH, CODELA, Matas, la pifiera,
Siempre Verde.” II-5: Employed, Pocora

“I think we need to learn what can be done with the waste, learn about this,
because there are people who would be interested, it would be great if there was

some training, a course to learn how to use waste.” "-6: Employed, Pocora

253

Rural and Urban Areas

Rural and urban respondents suggested very similar improvements. Of the suggestions
listed below, only the first point under “Municipality’s Role” was given by respondents
in just one of the two areas; in this case the urban area. The suggestions made by both
rural and urban respondents can be grouped into the following three categories:

govemment’s role; municipality’s role; and community’s role.

Government’s Role
0 Needs to give community members (including school children) information and
training on waste management (education efforts need to target the people living
near the river)

0 Needs to enforce the law that prohibits dumping wastewater into the river

Municipality’s Role
0 Needs to collect more often and from all urban areas (including Mascota and El
Carmen)
0 Needs to collect yard waste, tires, appliances, etc. in addition to household trash
0 Needs to implement a recycling program
0 Needs to move the houses located right on the river back off the bank and not

allow more to be built on the bank

CorIlmunity’s Role

254

0 Community members should be proactive (e. g. find alternatives to current poor
practices, collaborate on contracting septic tank cleaners, and store waste where

dogs can not rip open the bags)

Summary

Both rural and urban respondents suggested that: the government should provide
information/education and legal enforcement; the municipality should expand its trash
collection service and keep houses and business from being built on riverbanks; and
community members should be more proactive and collaborative about managing their

waste better.

Willingness to Collaborate to Improve Waste Management (Code 81)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Willingness to Collaborate to Improve Waste Management was perceived
by the researcher as respondents’ stated disposition to collaborate on
efforts to help improve their waste management situation (e. g. I don’t have

time to help).

In Order to learn from community members about their willingness to help
lrnDrove their waste management system, the researcher asked the respondents

abOut their own disposition to collaborate (Jonsson 2004, White and Runge 1995).

255

While the researcher expected that the respondents’ expression of their
willingness to help would be overstated because of the lack of a cost (financial,
social, etc.) associated with their proposed collaboration, the researcher chose to
ask the question with the hope that some respondents would share their thoughts

about the conditions under which they could/would or could/would not

collaborate.

Examples of 81 (Willingness to Collaborate — Waste Management)

0 “Yes, it would be wonderful if they would teach us to do these things [manage
waste], that would be great. II-6: Employed, Pocora

0 “I think so. And I’m sure other people would want to participate too. All this trash
[here on the farm] is a bother.” “-21: Farmer, La Argentina

0 “Yes, yes, of course. But I can only speak for myself [not for other community

members].” "-26: Homemaker, Mascota

Rural and Urban Areas
All of the 15 urban respondents (of 17) and five rural respondents (of 10) that were asked

this question responded that they would be willing to collaborate in an effort to improve

Waste management.
Summary

All rural and urban respondents that were questioned said that they would be willing to

collaborate in efforts to improve waste management.

256

Natural Resource Issues of Concern (Code 9A)

In grouping the ideas and concepts presented by respondents into this theme, the

following operational definition was used:

Natural Resource Issues of Concern were perceived by the researcher as

respondents’ perceptions about any natural resource concerns that where

not discussed during the interview (e. g. disappearance of wildlife).

Even though the themes discussed in the individual interviews were selected based on the
analysis of focus groups carried out in the Dos Novillos Watershed communities, the

researcher wanted to find out what other natural resource issues are of concern to the

respondents (Jonsson 2004, James et al. 2002, Rhoades 1998, Sen et al. 1997, Hinchcliffe

et a]. 1995).

Examples of 9A (Natural Resource Issues — Other Concerns)

“Ah, I tell my son that before, it used to be more beautiful here. There were

9
forests and fewer houses and there were more animals too.” I I-l4: Employed, Las
Mercedes

' “ . ..I don’t like hunting. Other people think it’s fine, but I don’t.” ”-21: Farmer,

La Argentina

257

0 “Now there are fewer animals, and you have to protect the i guanas now because

there aren’t as many as before. Now you don’t see monkeys, we used to see

them.” "-1: Self-Employed, Pocora

Rural Area

Six of eight rural respondents said that they have other natural resource management
concerns. Five of the six rural respondents are concerned about diminishing numbers of
wildlife. Three of these people are especially worried about hunting and a fourth states
that the river has been over fished. One person concerned about the bird population fears
that deforestation eliminates bird habitat and food. The sixth rural respondent cited
concerns about negative health affects caused by agrochemicals used on agricultural

products that she buys outside the community (she is not worried about agrochemical use

in La Argentina because she says farmers there do not use much).

Urban Area

Nine of 16 urban respondents said that they have other natural resource management
concerns. Three of these nine urban respondents are concerned about diminishing
numbers of wildlife (including fish and birds). One of these people is especially worried
about hunting. Five respondents said that tall grasses (abandoned lots or unmanaged
grassy areas) concern them because they attract poisonous snakes or mosquitoes that
carry Dengue Fever. One of these people said that open pit latrines act as a breeding
ground for mosquitoes. Two people expressed concern that urban residents can no longer

r . . . . .
g Ow 1:l’ults or vegetables in their yards (this person said she does not have room because

258

she has to use her whole yard to bury trash that the municipality will not collect), or raise

animals (this person said that the Ministry of Health will not allow peOple to raise

chickens, ducks or pigs in their yards).

Summary

When asked if there were any other natural resource issues that concerned them, most
respondents (15 of 24 respondents) cited something that had not been directly discussed
during the interview. Two of eight rural respondents and seven of 16 urban respondents
said that they did not have any other natural resource management concerns. Both rural
and urban respondents cited decreasing wildlife (including birds and fish) in the
watershed and at least one person from both areas cited hunting as a problem. Although
there were no specific questions about any of the cited concerns in the interview guide,
some factors perceived as contributing to these problems were discussed during the

interviews (e. g. deforestation, river contamination, and waste management).

259

Figure 2: Focus Group Coding Example

FG—l [p. 15]
Researcher: In what way to you think your neighbors in this area manage natural

resources?

Respondent: {There’s something regarding (the rivers) that seems important to me, and
[everyone that sees it should (denounce the people doing it)]. . .they [put (poison) in (the
rivers) to kill (the shrimp and fish)]. {And the reality is that this is leaving (the rivers)
without any (animals), now there’s no [(fishing)]} }.

Open Coding - (In parenthesis above)

RIV: “the rivers”

POI: “poison”

FAU: “(the shrimp and fish)”
FAU: “(animals)”

EN: “(denounce peOple)”
FISH: “(fishing)”

Axial Coding — (In brackets above)

NRM: “everyone that sees it should denounce the peOple doing it”
DP: “they put poison in the rivers to kill the shrimp and fish.”
RQUAL: “they put poison in the rivers to kill the shrimp and fish.”
REC: “fishing”

Thematic Coding — (In wavy parenthesis above)

NRMP: “they put poison in the rivers to kill the shrimp and fish.
And the reality is that this is leaving the rivers without any
animals, now there’s no fishing.”

NRMS: “There’s something regarding the rivers that seems
important to me, and everyone that sees it should denounce the
peOple doing it. . .they put poison in the rivers to kill the shrimp and
fish.

CDNW: “And the reality is that this is leaving the rivers without
any animals, now there’s no fishing.”

260

Figure 3: Focus Group Open I Axial Codes

Meaning
Agriculture Works for
Corporations
Ag. Production
Agrochemicals
Apathy

AyA

BMPs

Biting Insect
Bribery
Bureaucracy
Climate

Commitment
Community Police
Community
Organization
Conflict Interest
Consciousness
Contamination
Corruption

Crops -— Market

Crops — Subsistence
Deforestation
Del inquency

Desertifrcation
Development
Committee
Dialogue
Direct Action
Don ’ t Protect
Dmgs
Ecology
Emplob’ment
Enforcement

Environmental
Educati0n

“Vll‘onmemal Services

Expensi ve Inputs

Fauna

Fertile Land
Fertilizer

Code

AWC
AGP
AC
AP
AyA
BMP
BI
BRI
BUR
CLI

COM
CP

C0

C1
CON
CONT
COR

CM

CS
DEF
DEL

DES

DC
DIAL
DA
DP
DR
ECO
EMP
EN

EE
ES
El

lFAU
FL
FERT

FISH

Meaning
Likes Rural Areas

Local Benefit
Locals’ Responsibility
Lots of Trees
Money

Motivation

Naive

Native

NR

NR Management
NR Management
Education
Nicaraguan Workers
No Enforcement

No Markets

No Recreation
Organic Markets
Organize Coops.
Organize to Repair
Road

Outsiders’
Responsibility

Own Land
Participation
Payment for
Environmental Services
Pineapple Production

Plant Trees
Power

Poison

Poor Roads
Pop. Growth
Poverty
Private Comp.
Private Sector

Prostitution
Protect
Protect Water
Source/Ri ver
Public Sector
Recreation
Recycling
Infrastructure

261

Code
LRA

LB

LR

LT
MON
MOT
NAI
NAT
NR
NRM
NRME

NW
NE

NM
NREC
OM
OC
OR

OR

OL
PART
PES

PP

PT
POD
POI
PR
PG
POV
PC
PS

PROS
PRO
PWS

PBS
REC
RI

Figure 3 (cont’d)

Meaning

Flood

Food Safety Standards
Forestry

Forests

Frustration

Gender Divide
Government
Management

Grassroots Movement
Greedy

Health Probs.
Healthy Lifestyle

Homemaker

Hunting
I mmigrated Adult
Immigrated Child
Infrastructure
Institutional
Arrangement
I ntemational
Organization
lntemational Quality
Standards
Invite People to
Participate
Kill Livestock
Laborer
LaCk Employment
Lack Environmental
Education
Lack Government
suppon

ransportation
Understanding. of

Code
FLD
FSS
FORY
FOR
FRU
GD

GM
GMOV

GRED

HP
HL

HM

HUN
IA
IC
INF

IAR

IO

[08

INV
KLIV
LAB
LEMP

LEE

LGS
LI
LMOT

LRI
LS
LTRN
LUNR

LU
LZ

Meaning
Reforest

Report

Retired

Rivers

River Quality
River Quantity
Rural Aqueduct

Seek Markets

Sell Environmental
Services
Social/Environmental
Response.
Solidarity
Sustainable Energy
Production
Sustainable.
Development

Tap Water

Tap Water Quality
Tap Water Quantity
Taxes

Theft

Threat Well-Being
Time

Tourism

Training

Trash
Understand NRM

Values

Values Ed.
Violation of Regulation
Violence

Waste Management
Wastewater

Water Temperature

Worker Conditions
Years Resident

262

Code
REF
REP
RET
RIV
RQUAL
RQUAN

SM
SES

SER

SOL
SEP

SD

TAP
TWQUAL
TWQUANT
TX

TH
TWB
TM
TOUR
TRAIN
TRSH
UNRM
VAL
VE

VR
VIO
WM
WW
WT

WC
YR

 

Figure 4: Focus Group Thematic Codes

Meaning

Threats to Well-Being

Interaction with Natural Resources

Natural Resource Management Definition

Natural Resource Management Aspects

Natural Resource Management Problems

Natural Resource Management Improvements
Natural Resource Management lmpediments
Willingness to Improve Natural Resource Management
Perceived Changes in the Dos Novillos Watershed
Impact of Population on the Dos Novillos Watershed

263

Code
TWB
INR
NRMD
NRMA
NRMP
NRMS
NRMI
WILL
CDNW
IPOP

Figure 5: Individual Interview Open / Axial Codes

Meaning

Tap Water
Administration
Forest Administration
Waste Administration
Agrochemicals
Wastewater

Air

Threats to Well-Being
Years of Residence
Banana Companies
Trash

Biodiversity

Hunting

Tap Water Quality
River Quality (Water
and River)

Land Use Change
Tap Water Quantity
River Water Quantity
Development
Committee
Consciousness
Contamination

River Contamination
Convenience
Community Cooperation
Corruption
Deforestation
Unemployment
Dialogue

Disposition to
Collaborate
Education

Geography

Code
AAT

AB
AD
AC
AN

A
ABIEN
AR
BAN
BAS
BIO
CAC
CALT
CALR

CUT
CANTT
CANTR
CD

CON
CONTAM
CR
CONVEN
CC

COR

D

DE

DIAL
DCOL

ED
GEO

Meaning

Ignorance

Impediment
Immigration

Agrarian DeveIOpment
Institute

Place of Origin
Ministry of Environment
and Energy

Ministry of Health
Municipality
Nicaraguan
Community
Organization

Passive

Perceived Definition of
Natural Resources
Perception of Natural
Resource Management
Pineapple (production,
expansion)

Population

Social Problems
Agricultural Production
Recreation

Natural Resources
Reforestation
Government’s Role
Other Entity’s Role
Residents’ Role
Employment Sector
Solutions

Free Trade Agreement
Tourism

264

Code

IMP
MIGRA
IDA

LP
MIN AE

MINS
MUNI
NIC

0C
PAS
PDRN

PMRN

POB
PS
PA
REC

REFOR
RG
ROE

SE

SOL
TLC
TUR

Figure 6: Individual Interview Subcategory Thematic Codes

Meaning
Respondent’s Origin
Years of Residence

Employment Sector
Type of Agricultural
Production

Threats to Well-Being
Solutions to Threats
lmpediments to Solutions

Natural Resource Definition
Natural Resource
Management Definition

Description of Dos Novillos
River

Affects River Quality
Affects River Quantity

Deforestation: Impact
Deforestation: Where/By
Whom

Deforestation: Why

Forest Administration
Forest Administration
Problems

Forest Administration: How
to Improve Protection
Disposition to Collaborate

Code
1A
1B
2A
23

3A
3B
3C
4A
48
5A

SB
5C

6A
6C

6D
6E
6F
6G

6H

Meaning

Description of Tap Water
Source

Affects Quality

Affects Quantity
Administration (payment,
meters)

Administration Problems
Administration: How to
Improve

Disposition to Collaborate
Willingness to Pay
Willingness to be Paid to
Reforest

Waste Management
Problems

Why

Where / Who

Waste Administration
Waste Administration
Problems

Waste Administration: How
to Improve

Disposition to Collaborate

Other Natural Resource
Issues
Other Issues

265

Code

7A
7E
7F
7G
7H

7I
7K

7L
7O
7P
8C
8D
8E
8F
8G
8H
81
9A

9B

Figure 7: Individual Interview Overarching Thematic Codes

Meaning Code
Demographics 1
Employment or Agricultural Production 2
Threats to Well-Being 3

Natural Resources & Natural Resource Management 4
Dos Novillos River

Deforestation & Forest Management
Tap Water

Waste Management

Other Natural Resource Issues

\DOO\IC\LII

266

Figure 8: Individual Interview Coding Example

“-3 [p. 1-2]
Researcher: In your Opinion, what are the greatest threats to your well-being? Things that
threaten you and your family. . .what kinds of things worry you the most?

Respondent: {[(Environmental contamination)] } .

Researcher: Can you give me some examples of environmental contamination that you
nofice?

Respondent: (Well, for example, (insecticides), {there are a lot Of irrational people that
[contaminate the (rivers)]} }.

Researcher: And how do they contaminate them, with what?

Respondent: [(Poisons and pesticides)].

Open Coding — (In parenthesis above)

CONTAM: “Environmental contamination.”
AC: “insecticides”

RIV: “the rivers”

AC: “poisons and pesticides”

Axial Coding — (In brackets above)

ABIEN: “Environmental contamination.”
CR: “contaminate the rivers”

CALR: “contaminate the rivers”

CR: “poisons and pesticides”

CALR: “poisons and pesticides”

Thematic Coding - (In wavy parenthesis above)

3A: “Environmental contamination.”

3C: “there are a lot of irrational people that contaminate the
rivers.”

5B: “Well, for example, insecticides, there are a lot of irrational
people that contaminate the rivers.”

267

Figure 9: Focus Group Sessions and Locations

Session

FG-l

FG-2

FG-3

FG—4

FG-5

FG-6

Location

La Argentina (lower section)

Pocora

Las Mercedes

La Argentina (middle section)

Pocora Sur

La Argentina (upper section)

Figure 10: Individual Interview Locations

 

 

Session Location Session Location
II-l Pocora (West) II-l4 Las Mercedes (West)
”-2 El Carmen Sur (SE) ”-15 Pocora Sur (West)
”-3 Las Mercedes (SE) ”-16 La Argentina (Upper)
II-4 Pocora (Center) ”-1 7 La Argentina (Middle)
“-5 Pocora (East) ”-18 La Argentina (Middle)
II-6 Pocora (South) II- 1 9 La Argentina (Upper)
II-7 Pocora (North) “-20 La Argentina (Middle)
“-8 Pocora (Center) “-21 La Argentina (Upper)
II-9 Pocora Sur (East) "-22 La Argentina (Middle)
Il-lO Pocora Sur (Center) II-23 La Argentina (Lower)
"-1 1 Las Mercedes (Center) “-24 La Argentina (Upper)
II-12 Las Mercedes (East) “-25 La Argentina (Lower)
II-l3 Las Mercedes (North) II-26 Pocora (North - Mascota)
II-27 Pocora (North - Mascota)

 

268

Figure 11: Dos Novillos Watershed Communities

 

    
 

Turrialba Volcano
4"”

‘ Dos Novillos River

 

AyA Aqueduct

 

 

/
u/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Pocora. Norte it -,

 

 

  
 
 
  

El Carmen S
. .c. 30' §an Jose
co 7% N“
r ““1" r ‘“ -.:;'..._..;. . - .. . 1 i -_ flip—.7-
. El Carmen Norte ] . l
. O :7
w ] I. Mercedes . 3
I:1'Ii(,‘."t.ll.“HUSH!) ‘ ‘- ' v73? ,,.. ‘ . ,._ v; - ,wh ”I“. "I 1.4 . .. i I l
. _; T A 4,1. ‘ .A A .mu A... “ a.
O. i l I‘.

 

 

269

Figure 12: Upper Dos Novillos Watershed Community — Sampling Guide

 

Source: Aerial photo courtesy of Dr. Ricardo Russo, EARTH University

270

Figure 13: Lower Dos Novillos Watershed Communities - Sampling Guide

 

Source: Aerial photo courtesy Of Dr. Ricardo Russo, EARTH University

271

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings and conclusions drawn from the data. First, findings
that correspond to the research goals are presented. Then, additional findings from each
phase of research are presented, followed by a discussion of a comparison of responses
from both phases; citizens living in the rural and urban areas; and users of the AyA and
Rural Aqueduct (RA) water services. Finally, a review Of the research project’s strengths

and weakness, suggestions for future work, and conclusions are presented.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The perception-based data collected from community members in the Dos Novillos
Watershed met the project’s objectives by addressing the project’s five main research

questions (please see Chapter 4 for more detail about the issues discussed below):

1) How are natural resources currently being managed in the Dos Novillos Watershed?

Research findings suggest that the natural resource management problems cited in
literature about resources in Costa Rica and the study area (Espeleta 2001, Sanchez-
Azofeifa et al. 2002, Calvo 1990, Tejada and Castro 2000, Guerrero 1998, Cuesta l999,
Navarro and Reyes 1999, Pareja and Sosa 2001) dO exist in the Dos Novillos and appear

to be worsening due a combination of factors including land use changes in the study area

272

and a lack Of collaborative, proactive natural resource management efforts on behalf Of

the governmental service providers and the local community members.

In order to better understand community members’ responses (James et al. 2002, Sen et
al. 1997, Adegbidi et al. 1999), the researcher asked them to explain how they define
‘natural resources’ and ‘natural resource management’. While some respondents
appeared to be confident in articulating their understanding Of the terms, while others
appeared to be unsure how to define the term. In both cases, respondents gave examples
of natural resources (e. g. forests, river, wildlife, tap water). For the most part, respondents

said that ‘managing’ resources means ‘protecting’ and ‘taking care of’ resources.

It is important to note that just because a respondent was not able to give a clear
definition of what the term, ‘natural resources’ means to him/her, does not imply that
he/she did not understand natural resource issues. For example, an urban respondent that
gave an in-depth explanation of what he perceives as a serious river contamination

problem was unsure how to express exactly what the term “natural resources” means.

When asked specifically about natural resources, participants identified the following

natural resource problems as the greatest causes Of concern:

the watershed’s forests and deforestation;

threats to their tap water supply and quality;
0 waste management problems; and

Dos Novillos River contamination.

273

With respect to forest management and deforestation, just as more than half of the
respondents (63%) identified MINAE (or MIRENEM) as being responsible for managing
the forests, more than half also said that the entity is doing a poor job (52%). While these
respondents blamed MINAE for poor forest management practices (e. g. lack Of
proactivity, accepting bribes), some residents blamed lack of support and proactivity
from local residents and MINAE’s budgetary constraints for the forest management

problems.

Although respondents did not identify landowners as the party responsible for managing
the forests, it appears that many watershed residents feel that the landowners need to be
regulated by MIN AE because community members are generally reticent to gain enemies
in these small communities by arguing with neighbors about their forest management
practices. Some residents justify this reticence by stating that MINAE does not do enough
to back-up citizens who risk social repercussions to file complaints, while other
respondents criticize their fellow community members for not being proactive and not
working together to put pressure on landowners who are violating forest management

laws.

While there was some variation in the perceptions among rural and urban respondents
with respect to where deforestation is occurring, overall, responses from rural and urban
residents regarding where, why, and by whom were similar. As far as causes, in addition

to citing timber sales and pineapple production, a few rural residents said that the timber

274

is cut to use on the farm and not for sale. With respect to who is deforesting, respondents
said that in addition to wood buyers who typically come from outside the community,
local landowners also cut trees for farm use, while some large landowners are deforesting

to make room for pineapple plantations on their properties.

Regarding tap water, watershed residents receive their tap water services from one Of two
sources (the AyA administrated service is located on a farm called [as Delicias and the
source of the water for the Rural Aqueduct comes from a mountain spring located in the
upper part of the Watershed above La Argentina), or they are not connected to either
system. The data show that there is not one standard fee paid by AyA service users (even
among those that do not use meters), whereas it appears that Rural Aqueduct (RA) users

are all charged the same monthly fee.

Both AyA and RA users were positive about the quality of the tap water they receive. Of
the two respondents that do not receive tap water from either service, one is content with
her water quality (rural user) and the other is extremely upset by the poor quality of the
family’s well water (urban user). Both AyA and Rural Aqueduct users were positive

about the volume Of tap water they receive.

A total of nine AyA users and eight Rural Aqueduct users discussed their feelings about
using water meters. Respondents from both service areas revealed mixed feelings about
the use of meters. Overall, more AyA users were Opposed to using meters (78%) than

Rural Aqueduct users (38%). While some respondents feel that using a meter would save

275

them money, and it appears that peOple who have lived previously in a community where
meters were used were in favor of using them again, other respondents thought that using
meters would automatically increase their monthly water bills. Two respondents said that
the people that helped to build the Rural Aqueduct felt that they deserve access to the

water and would not accept the use of meters.

While all but one Of the AyA users are very pleased with AyA’s administration of their
tap water service (with the exception of the use of meters), more than half of the 14 Rural
Aqueduct users reported different problems with the Rural Aqueduct’s administration.
While a number Of AyA users were mistrustful of the AyA (because of the reportedly
unannounced installation of meters) and one was very concerned about water quality and
quantity, Rural Aqueduct users that had concerns were focused on the Rural Aqueduct
Committee members’ lack Of administrative skills, their low level of collaboration with

AyA as a means to find an alternative source, and the placement and security of the pipes.

The two respondents that have neither AyA nor Rural Aqueduct service have very
different Opinions about their lack of water service. While the respondent in the rural area
is happy with the water quality and quantity she receives from a spring on her farm (and
therefore has no complaints about her lack Of service), the respondent in the urban area
that only has access to a contaminated well is extremely frustrated. This respondent said
that most government agencies have not taken responsibility for helping them (the
residents in the section of the community that do not have tap water service) connect to

AyA’s service, and the Officials that have tried to help have been thwarted by

276

interventions by EARTH ’3 Banana Workers Association (the original owner of the

prOperty).

With respect to waste management, the data show that waste is disposed Of differently in
the rural and urban areas, and also in different parts of the urban area. All Of the urban
respondents, with the exception of those from Mascota and El Carmen, said that the
Municipality is responsible for administering solid waste management in their
community, while all of the rural respondents said that they are responsible for disposing
of their solid waste. Both rural and urban community members said that they are

responsible for disposing of their wastewater.

Rural and urban respondents cited a variety of factors that they feel cause waste
management problems in their communities. Of the 22 peOple that cited waste
management problems, 15 gave more than one reason for the existence of these
problems. Urban respondents most Often blamed problems on a lack Of government
services or support (14 references), followed by saying that individual polluters are lazy
or do not care about the harm they cause (10 references) or that individuals do not
understand the negative impact they cause (nine references). Rural residents’ responses
were similarly distributed among these three categories, making two, three, and two

references respectively.

When asked if there were any other natural resource issues that concerned them, most

respondents (15 Of 24) cited something that had not been directly discussed during the

277

interview. Both rural and urban residents cited decreasing wildlife (including birds and
fish) in the Watershed and at least one person from both areas cited hunting as a problem.
Although there were no specific questions about any of these other concerns in the
interview guide, some factors perceived by respondents as contributing to these problems
were discussed during the interviews (e. g. deforestation, river contamination, and waste
management). Two of eight rural residents and seven Of 16 urban respondents said that

they did not have any other natural resource management concerns.

2) How does this management impact the local communities?

Whereas authors Of literature on environmental and sociO-economic impacts of natural
resource management in Costa Rica contend that urgent natural resource management
problems exist, and call upon policymakers to address the problems (Calvo 1990,
Costanza 1998, Espeleta 2001, Tejada and Castro 2000, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2002,
Carpenter et al. 2001, Pagiola 2002), data from this study shows that community
members appear to be aware that their way of life (especially that Of large landowners)
directly impacts how natural resources are managed, and that this natural resource
management also impacts their well—being in a wide variety Of areas (e.g. health,
economics, agriculture, aesthetics, recreation, free-time). The level of awareness and
concern of respondents suggests that community members could play a more active role
in improving natural resource management through a participatory watershed

management approach.

278

Although more than half of the individuals interviewed (63%) responded that social
problems represent the greatest threat to their well-being, both urban and rural
respondents expressed concern about the way natural resources are managed (and 30%
said that one or more natural resource management problems represented the greatest

threat to their well-being).

With respect to the Dos Novillos River, although respondents from the rural and urban
areas have differing perceptions about the quality of the river’s water, respondents from
both areas Offered basically the same ideas about how the river could be contaminated.
Respondents from both areas cited: agrochemicals, wastewater, trash, and manure. Only
urban residents mentioned ‘dead animals’ as a source Of contamination. Regarding river
quantity, both rural and urban respondents perceive a strong correlation between the
presence or absence of forests and the volume of water in the river. Specifically,
respondents said that deforestation affects the quantity of water in the river by causing

droughts when it is not raining and floods when it rains.

In addition to negative effects on river volume, both rural and urban respondents had
strong Opinions about other perceived problems caused by deforestation. Many people
were concerned that deforestation could negatively impact their drinking water supply,

wildlife (habitat and food), the amount of wood available for building, and tourism.

When asked what could impact the quality of their tap water, users of the AyA and Rural

Aqueduct systems cited the same situations that could negatively impact their water

279

quality. Users Of both systems cited: contamination of the spring or source with human
contamination and/or livestock manure; and poor system maintenance (having dirty, old
or broken tanks and pipes) as the biggest threats. Some Rural Aqueduct users added that

agricultural expansion and deforestation around the source could impact their tap water

quality.

For the most part, respondents that receive water from AyA and the RA also cited the
same situations that could cause a reduction in the quantity of tap water they receive.
Users of both services cited three main issues: pipe size, connection and placement;
deforestation; and increased demand from a growing population. Both groups also cited
what appear to be location-specific concerns. Data suggests that AyA users, a group that
does not include rural residents, see wasting water as more Of a problem than do their
rural neighbors. The data also suggests that the Rural Aqueduct users feel that their water
source is more susceptible to being damaged by a natural disaster than do the AyA users.
Only Rural Aqueduct users expressed concern that the entity responsible for

administering their water has not located an alternative source.

Regarding waste management, while more than half Of rural respondents said that there
are no waste management problems in their communities, and all 17 urban respondents
cited what they consider waste management problems, overall, rural and urban residents
cited similar problems. Most Of the cited problems were linked to river contamination,
while some problems also appear to contribute to town/street contamination. River

contamination by trash and human wastewater were most Often cited (15 and 13 times

280

respectively by the 27 respondents) as serious waste management problems. Residents Of
both areas specified that building houses tOO close to the river contributes to this problem.
Three urban respondents also cited a complete lack Of municipal trash collection service
and one urban resident said that human wastewater has contaminated the family’s well
(the family’s only direct source Of water). The lack of a recycling program was also
mentioned as a problem. Sources Of contamination cited by rural and urban respondents
can be divided into four general categories: household trash; yard waste/j unk; wastewater
(e. g. human and livestock); and toxic waste (e. g. agrochemicals from pineapple and

ornamental plant plantations, medical waste from the clinic, motor oil from the gas

station).

3) What alternatives exist for achieving more sustainable natural resource management

and improved quality of life in the Watershed?

Just as respondents expressed awareness of a link between natural resource management
and their well-being, they also provided suggestions about ways they felt management
problems could be addressed, as well as explanations about impediments that have
thwarted previous efforts. Again, although literature about natural resource management
in Costa Rica appears to accurately identify management problems that exist in the Dos
Novillos Watershed, these authors’ calls for policymakers to address the problems (Calvo
1990, Costanza 1998, Espeleta 2001, Tejada and Castro 2000, Sanchez-Azofeifa et al.
2002, Carpenter et al. 2001) and potential solutions (Pagiola 2002, Panayotou 2001,

Deshazo 2001) appear to neglect the potentially valuable role of local knowledge and

281

community participation in watershed management (Sen et al. 1997, Hinchcliffe et al.

1995, Farrington and Lobo 1997, Rhoades 1998, Swallow et al. 2001, Blackburn and

Holland 1998, White and Runge 1995, Girot et al. 1998).

Respondents from the rural and urban areas appeared to share the perception that both the
Costa Rican Government and the local communities share the blame for the natural
resource problems that are threatening the quality of life of communities in the Dos
Novillos Watershed. They discussed the role Of the national government, the
administrator/service provider (e. g. MINAE, AyA, Rural Aqueduct, Municipality), and
the community and focused on three specific areas for improvement: enforcement;
education; and citizen action. Specifically, with respect to the role Of the government,
respondents’ comments reflect a concern that government agencies are neither adequately
monitoring natural resources nor enforcing existing laws meant to protect the resources.
Community members expressed frustration with government agencies for what they
appear to perceive as a lack of proactivity in addressing current and potential natural
resource problems and a lack of support for community members who are trying to do
their part to help agencies protect natural resources. Respondents also said that the
government (or another entity) should Offer environmental education/training in the
Communities. These respondents said that many people in their community do things that
harm the environment because of ignorance and a lack of understanding about the
environment. Others seemed to feel that ignorance is only part Of the problem. They state
that, With respect to the role of communities, even though there are resources available to

communities, community members/organizations are not motivated and do not ask for

282

help. Similarly, the Development Committees were criticized for not being proactive, and

for not coordinating activities with each other (with the Committees in neighboring

communities).

Specifically with respect to forest management, respondents from the rural and urban
areas suggest that: the government help MINAE be more effective by giving the Ministry
greater human and economic resources, and by giving the communities information and
training; MINAE be more proactive, enforce the forestry laws and address its corruption
problem; and community members be more proactive and organized with respect to

collaborating as a community and with other sectors tO protect the forests.

With respect to tap water provision, AyA users appear to want the government to provide
information, resource protection and legal enforcement, and they want the AyA to
communicate better with community members and business interests that could impact
the water supply. They also feel that community members should cooperate more to
protect the resource. While Rural Aqueduct users want the government to provide legal
enforcement, they suggest an expanded role for the service provider compared to that
Suggested by the AyA users. Rural Aqueduct users said that Rural Aqueduct Committee
Should provide information, resource protection, legal enforcement, and communication,
and they also want a more highly skilled committee. Like the AyA users, RA users also

feel that community members need to cooperate more and do their part to protect their

tap Water.

283

 

Regarding waste management, rural and urban respondents suggested that: the
government should provide information/education and legal enforcement; the
municipality should expand its trash collection service and keep houses and businesses
from being built on riverbanks; and community members should be more proactive and

collaborative about managing their waste better.

In addition to suggesting potential solutions to existing problems, respondents fiom the
rural and urban areas also cited similar impediments to implementing these solutions and
carrying out successful natural resource management programs in the Dos Novillos
Watershed. With respect to the perceived failings of the government, respondents
specified that corruption keeps government agencies from effectively managing the
Watershed’s natural resources. Regarding the local communities’ role in managing
natural resources, respondents cited the following problems that make community
members and community organizations ineffective: lack Of understanding regarding
human impact on natural resources; lack of motivation to collaborate; lack Of trust in
local groups/organizations; lack of financial resources to carry-out activities; lack Of
confidence in governmental agencies (due to the agencies’ lack of legal enforcement Of

environmental laws).

4) Are community members willing to participate in efforts to improve natural resource

management using methods that they deem viable?

284

While the researcher expected that the respondents’ expression of their willingness to

help would be overstated because of the lack of a cost (financial, social, etc.) associated
with their help, the researcher chose to ask the question with the hope that some
respondents would share their thoughts about the conditions under which they
could/would or could/would not collaborate (Sen et al. 1997, Hinchcliffe et al. 1995,
Rhoades 1998, Farrington and Lobo 1997, Swallow et al. 200], White and Runge 1995,
Blackburn and Holland 1998, Pagiola 2002). As was expected, most respondents said that
they would be willing to collaborate in whatever way they could (although there were
exceptions, and some conditions were specified - see Chapter 4) to improve forest

protection; improve and protect tap water service (quality and quantity); and improve

waste management.

Additionally, with respect to tap water provision, most respondents in the lower
watershed were receptive to the idea of paying more for tap water service in order to help
ensure the improvement of poor service or the maintenance of good service. AyA and
Rural Aqueduct users gave almost the exact same range of conditions on their willingness
to pay more. In both cases, these conditions are based on their current perception of their
water quality and quantity, and their personal budgetary constraints. It appears that while
some respondents that are content with their service might be willing to pay more to
maintain that service, others might only pay more in order to improve poor service.
Others who may or may not be content with the current service feel that the amount they

are currently paying should be enough to provide good service, and they are not willing

to Day more.

285

While three respondents in the upper watershed were very receptive to the idea of
evaluating the possibility of changing their land uses in exchange for payment, two were
cautiously receptive but said that they would have to carefully review the cost-benefit Of
changing their practices for compensation since other programs (e. g. MINAE’s) do not
Offer sufficient compensation. One respondent said he would be Opposed to the idea of

reforesting any of his land in exchange for financial compensation.

5) Did the qualitative, multiple method approach used in this study yield in-depth,
salient and accurate information regarding community members’ perceptions about

natural resource issues in their watershed?

The research revealed that using focus groups and individual interviews yielded in-depth
and different, but complementary, results concerning stakeholders’ perceptions of natural
resources and their management (Patton 2002, Kaplowitz 2000, Knodel et al. 1990,
Morgan l998, Strauss and Corbin 1998). Based on this experience, the researcher
believes that using focus groups for sc0ping is ideal at any scale. However, being aware
of the challenges of using both qualitative methods (e. g. time intensive data collection
and analysis), she contends that if a project is lacking sufficient time or other resources to
PrOperly conduct focus groups in addition to one or two subsequent phases Of research,
informal scoping should be carried out instead; possibly by interviewing a cross-section
0f Stakeholders. She asserts, however, that this would be a viable alternative as long as

the qualitative or quantitative instrument that results from this scoping phase is rigorously

286

 

pre-tested to ensure relevance, utility and understandability. Alternatively, a resource-

constrained researcher might choose to have a smaller overall sample and still use both

methods.

PHASE I (FOCUS GROUP) FINDINGS

The data collected from the focus groups suggests that many participants perceive a
natural resource management problem to be the greatest threat to their well-being.
Groups of participants that did not cite a natural resource problem as the greatest threat to
their well-being (two of the six groups), did express concern about the way one or more
natural resources are being managed in the Dos Novillos Watershed. When discussing
natural resources, participants raised a variety of concerns, but the researcher found that
the following natural resource problems were identified as causing the greatest concern:

0 deforestation;

o threats to tap water supply and quality;

0 waste management problems; and

o Dos Novillos River contamination.

In each of the six focus groups, some participants expressed their perception of the
interconnected nature of the natural resource problems that the group as a whole had
cited. For example, some participants talked about deforestation with respect to
decreasing river levels, river contamination (agro-chemical runoff), decreasing aquifer
levels and/or loss of wildlife habitat. The researcher could not be sure, however, if these

PCI‘Ceptions of interconnectedness were entirely shared by most participants due to the

287

presence of local environmental activists or Obviously well-informed community

members in each Of the sessions (Knodel et al. 1990).

Among the numerous contributing factors mentioned, community members most Often
cited the following factors as reasons for the above natural resource problems:
0 a lack Of environmental/natural resource awareness in general and regarding the
impact that people have on the environment/natural resources;
0 a lack Of natural resource management law enforcement by government
representatives; and
0 a lack of community cohesion and motivation needed to work together to learn
about and address natural resource problems. With respect to this point,
community members’ lack of concern for their negative impact on natural
resources, paternalism, a feeling that the government does not care about them
because they are poor, and social problems (crime, drug addiction, prostitution)
were also cited as reasons for lack Of community support for managing natural

resources better.

Although focus group participants suggested a wide range Of ways to improve the
situation, community members most Often made the following suggestions about ways to
address the natural resource management problems they identified:
0 increase the community members’ awareness and understanding about natural
resource issues through formal and informal education (informal education being

word of mouth among neighbors and friends);

0 train farmers so that they can find out how to manage resources more sustainably
and still make a living;

0 promote collaboration and dialogue among community members, businesses and
government representatives regarding ways to improve natural resource
management; and

0 work to improve community solidarity and motivate youth participation in

community activities.

PHASE II (INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW) FINDINGS

The individual interview findings mirrored the focus group findings in that the data
suggest that a diverse group Of Dos Novillos Watershed residents are most concerned
about the same watershed and natural resource issues as the focus group participants.
Again, even the respondents that did not cite a natural resource management problem as
the greatest threat to their well-being, are concerned about:

0 the watershed’s forests;

0 their tap water;

0 trash and wastewater disposal; and

0 the Dos Novillos River.

The individual interview data also revealed new aspects of wastewater management and
tap water provision that were not discussed in great detail during the focus group
Sessions. The researcher considers it possible that topics related to perceived poor

domestic wastewater management practices by some community members may not have

289

been discussed in detail during the focus group sessions due to their potentially sensitive
nature (Kaplowitz 2000, Patton 2002), or simply due to the fact that focus group

participants were not aware of localized problems.

The respondents discussed three main natural resource management problems that they
feel represent a threat to these key resources (forests, tap water, Dos Novillos River).
Since the following problems and their impacts on the above natural resources are not
mutually exclusive, they do not each relate to only one of the stated natural resources:
0 deforestation (primarily for timber and pineapple plantation expansion);
0 lack of tap water quality/quantity assurance (in part due to problems with the
water service provider’s administration); and

0 poor waste management.

While community members Offered many different suggestions about ways to address
each natural resource management problem they identified, their suggestions repeatedly
included;
‘ communities need information/education/training on how to manage the resource
better;
’ the responsible agency needs to enforce laws protecting the resource and support
citizens when they try tO do their part to protect the resource; and
° community members/Community Development Associations need to be more

proactive and collaborative in their efforts to manage the resource better.

290

COMPARISON FINDINGS
As multiple layers of data were analyzed during this research, various sets of findings
were compared and contrasted in order to better understand individual layers of data.
First, there is a discussion Of the similarities and differences between the findings drawn
from the two phases Of research (Phase I and Phase II). Next, there is a discussion of the
similarities and differences between the findings derived from research in the urban and

rural areas. Finally, there is a comparison of the findings regarding the two water service

providers in the study area (AyA and Rural Aqueduct).

FOCUS GROUPS (PHASE I) AND INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS (PHASE II)

As stated above, the two data collections yielded the same general findings, although the
individual interviews revealed greater depth with respect to most of the concepts and
themes that were discussed in both sessions, as well as more specific information about

Perceived problems with wastewater management and tap water provision.

The one area where data analysis Of the two phases yielded slightly different findings was
with respect to ‘Threats to Well-being’. Comparative analysis of this data from Phase I
and Phase II reveals that natural resource-based threats to well-being were more Often
reported by respondents during the focus group sessions than during the individual
interviews. Specifically, while four out of the six focus groups reported natural resource
problem]S as the greatest threats to their well-being, the majority of both urban and rural
individual interview respondents (65% and 70% respectively) cited sociO-economic

pmbleI‘ns as representing the greatest threat to their well-being. This difference could be

291

due to the fact that peOple felt more comfortable discussing possibly sensitive socio-
economic problems in one-on-one interviews than in the group setting, and/or because
some focus group participants did not feel comfortable disagreeing with other
participants who they perceived as being more aware of, or more passionate about,

natural resource problems (Kaplowitz 2000, Knodel et al. 1990).

It was clear from both data collections that many of the natural resource management
issues that community members talked about are not mutually exclusive. Almost all of
the problems they raised and discussed during the focus groups and individual interviews
are connected and interrelated in a way that makes it impossible to study one without
simultaneously studying the others. For example, community members that said they
were most concerned about river contamination due to the expansion of pineapple
plantations (e. g. soil erosion and agrO-chemical runoff into the river), may or may not
have mentioned deforestation (e. g. to clear land to plant pineapple) as another grave
concern. Similarly, people most concerned about deforestation by timber harvesters
because of its perceived impact on water production (for drinking water and/or river
Water), may or may not have shared some community members’ perception that forests in
the Watershed are severely threatened due to the expansion of pineapple plantations.
Additionally, although social problems (e. g. crime, drug addiction, unemployment) were
"Qt the focus of this research, the data make it clear that it is impossible to attempt to
underStand a community’s reality without considering the natural resource issues together

With the socio-economic situation (Hinchcliffe et al. 1995, Sen et al. I997).

292

RURAL AND URBAN AREAS
The following comparative analysis Of rural versus urban findings is presented first with

respect to the focus group data, followed by the individual interview data.

Focus Groups

A comparison of responses from rural and urban focus group respondents reveals that
rural and urban perceptions about many of the issues discussed during the focus group
sessions appear to be remarkably similar. The data does, however, reveal some
differences. Specifically, differences between rural and urban focus group participants’

perceptions are notable with respect to the following themes:

Threats to Well-Being (TWB)

Although concern about water quantity and quality was common among participants in
all six focus groups, only one of three rural focus groups cite a natural resource problem
as the greatest threat to participants’ well-being compared to all of the three urban
groups. This could be attributed to the more easily identifiable contamination that
residents live with in the densely populated, downstream urban area (e. g. trash, river
contamination, traffic, dust, noise pollution), as opposed to the apparently cleaner,
upstream, rural lifestyle characterized by abundant open space and vegetation in the rural
area. Additionally, many urban respondents appear to be under the impression that their
well-being depends on what happens in the rural areas (e. g. tap water quality and

quantity), and their lack of control over these issues may make them seem even more

293

 

pressing. At the same time, since most residents in the rural area rely on farming for their
livelihood, problems growing, transporting or selling their products, combined with a
lack of off-farm employment Opportunities could be most pressing to many peOple,

despite their knowledge of, or concern about, natural resource problems.

Natural Resource Management Problems (NRMP)

Participants in both urban and rural focus groups said that the main obstacles to good
natural resource management in their communities are: a lack of environmental/natural
resource awareness/understanding about the impact that people have on the
environment/natural resources; a lack of environmental law enforcement; and corruption
by government representatives regarding natural resource management issues.

In addition to these shared perceptions, some rural participants also emphasized a lack of
training and sustainable, revenue generating options for farmers, while some urban
participants discussed the perceived power Of the private agribusiness sector (e. g.

pineapple plantations) to maximize profits at the expense of natural resources.

Natural Resource Management Improvements (NRMS)

While participants from both rural and urban groups suggested strengthening community
organization and increasing the community members’ awareness about natural resource
issues, focus group participants from the rural and urban areas also gave seemingly area-
specific suggestions. Specifically, rural communities also suggested alternative

institutional arrangements such as payment for environmental services and co-

294

 

management, as well as entrepreneurial activities that could help farmers manage natural
resources better. Respondents from the urban groups focused more on discussing ways to

improve natural resource management with business and government representatives.

Natural Resource Management lmpediments (NRMI)

While people from both rural and urban focus groups shared the following perceptions:
many community members lack community solidarity and do not want to go to meetings
about environmental/community issues; government representatives act as though they
do not feel obligated to enforce laws or listen/respond to members of the communities in
this watershed; and communities do not have the money needed to implement natural
resource management projects, some perceived impediments were not shared by
participants from both areas. While focus group participants in the rural area also said
that urban residents are not willing to pay for the environmental services that upstream,
rural landowners provide, urban area focus group participants also cited social problems

as impediments.

Impact of Population (IPOP)

While participants from each of the focus groups said that they feel that the communities
in the Watershed are growing, and most participants from both the rural and urban areas
appear to feel negatively impacted by at least some aspect Of this growth, one rural group
mentioned a positive impact of population growth (strength in numbers). Another

difference is that although rural participants appear to feel somewhat negatively

295

 

 

impacted, overall, rural participants appear to be less concerned about the perceived
pOpulation growth than their urban neighbors. While rural and urban participants cited
wastewater management impacts (e. g. river contamination), urban participants also cited
deforestation, and social and economic impacts. Urban participants expanded to say that
the immigrating plantation workers represent a threat to their community’s employment
Opportunities because they feel that immigrants (identified as Nicaraguans) have lower

employment standards than Costa Ricans.

Individual Interviews

As with the focus group analysis, a comparison of responses from individually
interviewed rural and urban respondents reveals that rural and urban perceptions about
many of the issues discussed during the individual interviews appear to be remarkably
similar. The data does, however, reveal some important differences. Specifically,
differences between rural and urban individual interview participants’ perceptions are

notable in the following themes:

Threats to Well-Being (3A)

Overall, a slightly higher percentage of urban respondents (35%) cited natural resource
problems as the greatest threat to their well-being than did rural respondents (20%, or
30% if taking into account the rural respondent that cited both a natural resource problem
and a social problem). Although the sample size of this phase of research is too small to

draw generalizable conclusions, this apparently greater concern about natural resource

296

 

problems in the urban area could possibly be explained by the fact that the urban
residents are downstream inhabitants of the Watershed and receive the impact of any
poor natural resource management practices that occur upstream. This is not to say that
the people in the rural area are responsible for the contamination, rather it is just to say
that activities that occur upstream in the rural area (e. g. deforestation and pineapple
production) and the upstream portion of the urban area (e. g. wastewater and trash
disposal), all appear to have more noticeable negative impacts on the downstream urban

residents that were interviewed.

Dos Novillos River (5A)

Rural and urban residents almost uniformly perceive that the Dos Novillos River is drier
now than it used to be, however, rural and urban respondents cited different perceptions
about the quality of the river’s water. While most rural residents responded that the Dos
Novillos River is clean, most urban residents responded that it is contaminated. The
differences in opinion between rural and urban respondents with respect to the quality Of
the river water appears to be attributed to the perception that the river is very clean at the
source and in its course down the mountain until it reaches the more populated
rural/urban frontier area (lower La Argentina, southern Pocora Sur) where it becomes

visually contaminated by trash, debris and wastewater.

297

 

 

Waste Management Problems (8C )

While rural and urban respondents cited similar problems, more than half of rural
respondents said that there are no waste management problems in their communities, and
all 17 urban respondents said that they have waste management problems. This
apparently greater dissatisfaction with waste management practices in the urban area
could be attributed to the fact that the impacts of poor waste management practices are
more evident in a densely populated, downstream urban area than they are in the less

pOpulated, upstream rural area.

Waste Administration (8F)

While both rural and urban respondents said they are responsible for disposing of their
wastewater, the data shows that solid waste management is carried out differently in the
rural and urban areas, and also in different parts of the urban area. With the exception of
respondents from Mascota and El Carmen, urban residents said that the Municipality is
responsible for administering solid waste management in their communities. Urban
residents from Mascota and El Carmen, as well as all of the rural respondents said they

are responsible for disposing of their solid waste.

Waste Administration Problems (86)

While concerns among residents from rural and urban areas overlapped, more urban
respondents had complaints (76%) about the waste management administration than rural

respondents (30%). This apparently greater dissatisfaction with the waste disposal system

298

 

 

 

 

 

in the urban area could be attributed to the fact that residents in the urban area expect
good service from the Municipality since they are paying for trash collection service, or
feel they should have access to the service since it is available throughout most of the
urban area. Rural residents have no service to be disappointed in, and unless they have a
particularly small prOperty, they do not appear concerned about continuing to dispose of

their trash.

Natural Resource Issues — Other Concerns (9A)

While both rural and urban respondents most often cited decreasing amounts of wildlife
(e. g. mammals, birds, fish), more of the rural residents responded that they had natural
resource concerns in addition to those discussed during the interview. Six of eight (75%)
rural respondents compared to nine of 16 (56%) urban respondents said that they did have

at least one other natural resource concern.

AyA AND RURAL AQUEDUCT SERVICES

Just as responses from the rural and urban residents were compared, responses from users
of the AyA and RA tap water services were also compared. While the data reveals that
the perceptions of users of both services appear to be similar in many instances, there are
some exceptions in which apparent strong differences are evident. Differences between
AyA and Rural Aqueduct users’ perceptions are strongly notable with respect to the

following themes:

299

Impact on Tap Water Quantity (70)

For the most part, respondents that receive water from AyA and the Rural Aqueduct cited
the same situations that could cause a reduction in the quantity of tap water they receive.
Both groups did, however, also cite what could be source-specific concerns. The data
suggests that AyA users, a group that does not include rural residents, see wasting water
as more of a problem than do their rural neighbors. The data also suggests that the Rural
Aqueduct users feel that their water source is more susceptible to being damaged by a
natural disaster than do the AyA users. Only Rural Aqueduct users expressed concern
that the entity responsible for administering their water has not located an alternative

SOUl’CC.

Tap Water Administration (7H)

The data shows that there is not one standard fee paid by AyA service users (even among
those that do not use meters), whereas it appears that Rural Aqueduct users are all

charged the same monthly fee.

Water Meter (7])

Respondents from both service areas revealed mixed feelings about the use of meters.
Overall, more AyA users were opposed to using meters (78%) than were RA users

(3 8%). It should be noted however that the Rural Aqueduct users that are Opposed to the
use of meters are very strongly Opposed. This difference could be due to the fact that

AyA users see the installation of water meters as a more likely possibility than RA users

300

do (since some have already been installed in the AyA service area), and therefore, more

of an immediate threat.

Tap Water Service Problems ( 7J)

While all but one of the AyA users are very pleased with AyA’s administration (with the
exception of the use of meters), more than half of the RA users reported having problems
with the Rural Aqueduct Committee’s (RAC) administration. While a number of AyA
users were mistrustful of the AyA (because of the reportedly unannounced installation of
meters) and one was very concerned about water quality and quantity, RA users that had
concerns were focused on the RAC members’ lack of administrative skills, their lack of
collaboration with AyA as a means to find an alternative source, and the placement and

security of the water pipes.

Solutions to Tap Water Problems (7K)

Respondents offered numerous solutions, all of which can be grouped into three
categories: national govemment’s role; service provider’s role (AyA and RAC); and
community’s role. AyA users appear to want the government to provide information,
resource protection and legal enforcement, and they want the AyA to communicate better
with community members and business interests that could impact the water supply.

They also feel that community members should cooperate more to protect the resource.

301

While RA users also want the government to provide legal enforcement in order to
protect the resource, they suggest an expanded role for the service provider compared to
that suggested by the AyA users. RA users said that the RAC should provide information,
protection, enforcement, and communication, and they also want a more highly skilled
committee. Like the AyA users, RA users also feel that community members need to

cooperate more to protect the tap water.

OTHER FINDINGS

DEMOGRAPHICS - GEOGRAPHICAL ZONE

In both the focus groups and individual interviews, all but one Of the native respondents
live in the urban area. The higher number of urban respondents that are native to the
study area could reflect the fact that the Institute for Agrarian DevelOpment (IDA)
distributed land in what is now La Argentina beginning in 1976. Current landowners have
been migrating to the area since that time, thus residents that were born there would be
relatively young (late 20’s) and anecdotal evidence by some residents in the area suggests

that many of the young people are moving away in search of employment.

DEMOGRAPHICS — GENDER

Forty-six percent (46%) of focus group participants were female, while 70% of the
individual interview respondents were female. While the focus groups were held late in
the evening or on the weekend when men were available to meet, the individual

interviews were conducted between 83m and 6pm when most men in the community

302

 

 

 

appeared to be away from home at work. The researcher was restricted to this time-frame

because of logistical constraints and concerns about her security.

FOCUS GROUP DYNAMIC

While the focus group session held in Las Mercedes (FG-3) was similar to the others in
that the participants appeared to be enthusiastic about the subject, this group was different
in that there was not one reserved member in the group. All of the participants were eager
to share their opinions, often at the same time. Despite the researcher’s repeated attempts
to encourage the participants to speak one at a time, there were numerous occasions in
which two peOple were so eager to interj ect that they tried to do so by speaking louder

than the other participant.

The group dynamic observed during this session may reflect the fact that Las Mercedes is
the smallest of the communities in the study area, therefore, community members
probably know each other very well, and for that reason, they may not be as concerned
about offending each other by talking over or contradicting each other. Also, the group
was extremely concerned about the potential impact that a proposed pineapple plantation
could have on the community’s drinking water supply. The community had already been
organizing to address the problem at the local, regional and national level. The degree of
community-wide organization in Las Mercedes around the perceived impacts of a
proposed pineapple plantation could explain why this group was so concerned, focused

and conversant about natural resource concerns.

303

 

 

FG-4 (middle La Argentina) and FG-6 (upper La Argentina), both included one very well
informed community member (the community leader) and one relatively quiet participant
that needed encouragement from the researcher or other focus group participants in order
to contribute. The self-confident tone used by the community leaders in FG-4 and FG-6
could have encouraged the other participants to give greater emphasis to the natural
resource issues raised by these leaders or inhibited other participants from contradicting

her/him (Knodel et al. 1990).

INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT BEHAVIOR

Most of the individual intervieWs took much longer to complete than anticipated. This
occurred when the respondent was very concerned about one or more issues and/or when
the respondent had a lot of information about, or experience with, one or more issues.
Many respondents had a great deal to say about various subjects, and were enthusiastic
about sharing their thoughts. Their enthusiasm to talk with the researcher could be due to
the respondents’ concern about natural resource issues and/or a lack of opportunity to

voice their opinions on these issues.

As with the focus group sessions, the individuals appeared to be interested in the research
topic and to respond honestly throughout the interview. Respondents seemed to engage in
frank discussions with the researcher and did not appear to be embarrassed to ask her

what she meant by something or to say that they did not know about an issue. While they
were happy to report what they considered to be positive aspects, they also did not appear

to regret discussing negative issues that they saw as affecting, or being caused by

304

 

themselves and their family, neighbors, community, and government. It appeared to the
researcher that there was more discussion of intra-community problems (with respect to
neighbors or other residents, the Community Development Committees, and the Rural
Aqueduct Committee) during the individual interviews than there was during the focus
group sessions. While this could have occurred simply because residents had a longer
time-period available to discuss their perceptions during the individual interviews, it
could be that the group setting of the focus groups inhibited more frank discussions of

sensitive topics (Kaplowitz 2000, Patton 2002).

RIVER VOLUME

Regarding volume, all but two rural respondents and all urban respondents that expressed
an Opinion said that the river is drier now than it was in the past (one person in each area
did not have an Opinion). It appears that the difference between respondents who replied
that the river is drier and those that believe it is at its normal level could be due to the
number Of years that the respondents have lived in the area (longer-term residents
perceive a greater change) and/or the respondents’ proximity to the river or amount of
time spent near the river (residents living near or spending more time by the river appear

to perceive a greater change).

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF APPROACH
The following section outlines some specific strengths and weaknesses inherent in this
project’s approach that may benefit others planning to conduct research using a similar

approach.

305

 

STRENGTHS

The researcher found the project’s inductive approach useful for understanding
community members’ perceptions about natural resource management in their watershed.
Based on her experience, the researcher believes that carrying out consecutive data
collections by relying on the analysis of data collected in a previous scoping phase to
develop the instrument for the next issue clarification phase was critical to her being able
to gain a broad understanding of the community members’ perceptions regarding a

variety of natural resource issues.

Specifically, conducting focus groups first allowed the researcher to make sure that she
was on track with her line of inquiry. The researcher’s experience corresponds to research
literature, which states that using focus groups in a preliminary scoping phase allows
researchers to gather a substantial amount of diverse information relatively quickly (when
compared to seeking out and interviewing the same number of focus group participants
on an individual basis). The literature contends that the key findings from this sc0ping
phase can then be reevaluated for relevancy and investigated more profoundly through

the implementation of in-depth, individual interviews (Morgan 1998).

However, the researcher’s experience carrying out both focus groups and individual
interviews supports the findings of Kaplowitz (2000) and Patton (2002) regarding the
apparent unwillingness of some participants to disclose sensitive information during

focus group sessions. Since it appears that the local context, the subject being discussed,

306

 

and issues of trust all have an impact on whether or not respondents will be willing to
share sensitive information during focus group discussions or individual interviews,
whenever possible, researchers should conduct both kinds of qualitative research (as well
as other qualitative methods such as participant Observation if warranted) in order to
reduce the possibility that they are missing potentially crucial information that

respondents did not feel comfortable disclosing.

Although a quantitative data collection may not always be possible or necessary
(depending on the project’s resources, time limitations, and objectives), the researcher
feels that many projects, including this one, can benefit greatly from the implementation
of a quantitative data collection. For example, the third, quantitative phase of this
research should help to confirm how generalizable the Phase I and Phase II findings are,

as well as generate new information and lines of research for future work.

In the case of this research, the multiple-method, inductive qualitative process made it
possible for the researcher to develOp a survey instrument that she was confident would
be both understood by respondents in terms of language and content, and thought of as
pertinent and important to the respondents. This was possible precisely because the
researcher had carried out two phases of research (and also reviewed results of a
previous, exploratory phase) with the goal of finding out what natural resource issues
community members are concerned about, what potential solutions they suggest, and how

willing they think their community is to help address the concerns they cite. This

307

 

 

 

information allowed her to frame the survey instrument’s main themes, and to deveIOp

pertinent questions and response options.

With respect to the data analysis, the researcher feels that the advantage of having just
one researcher carry-out all of the data collections, and conduct all of the coding and
iterative analysis is that it can make the process of analysis and interpretation more
reliable. While depending on one person to carry out the research and analysis eliminates
the ability to triangulate coding and interpretation, the fact that the researcher conducted
all of the data collections herself in the respondents’ native language gave her a much
better contextual understanding of what the respondents said, how they said it (e. g.
sarcastic, joking, serious), and in some cases, why they said what they did (e.g. they
visibly felt comfortable with the interviewer or group; they were angry with another
participant). This level of knowledge about the data would not have been possible if the
researcher had conducted only some of the data collections and then helped analyze the
transcriptions of other interviews that someone else had conducted. A researcher who
actually carries out each data collection also has the added advantage of being able to
compare what each respondent said in each situation. By doing so, the researcher might
be able to determine what the respondents may have left out, and why (e. g. in the case of
sensitive information). This kind of interpretation lends itself to careful follow-up during

the next phase of data collection that the researcher develops and implements.

Alternately, a second researcher would have made it possible to conduct more interviews

in the given time period. This would also have allowed the researchers to triangulate the

308

 

coding procedure and check each other’s interpretation of the data. While having more
than one researcher carry-out the data collections and analysis would have eliminated the
one-researcher/analyst strength described above, depending on the time restrictions and

the minimum number of interviews to be collected, this could be an appropriate trade-off.

WEAKNESSES

Although the researcher found great value in using the qualitative, multiple method
approach to carry out phases I and II of this project, it should be noted that the approach
does have weaknesses if the project is to be conducted in a country foreign to the field
researcher and if the PI is financially or logistically restricted to spending less than two

months in the field carrying out research.

The researcher feels that due to the need to meticulously analyze one or more sets of data
in the field before being able to develop and carry-out the in-depth, individual interviews,
it would be extremely difficult for a researcher to use this approach successfully in this
time period without being fluent in the local language and without having some
experience living/working in the community, or at least, elsewhere in the region or in a
similar culture. The researcher has based this on her own experience since she found that
she was short on time despite the fact that she had lived in the research area for three
years, knew her way around, was familiar with the local cultures, is fluent in Spanish,
understands much of the local slang (thus, she needed no translators or translations), and

did not need a guide to drive her around the research site and help her select and

309

approach respondents (she was accompanied into the field during the individual interview

phase strictly for safety reasons).

As with most qualitative research, the focus group discussions and individual interviews
were time consuming due to the interrelated and often emotional nature of the research
questions, combined with the apparent lack of Opportunities for many respondents to
share their thoughts on the research subject. For this reason, not only should the
researcher be fluent in the local language in order to be able to stay alert and follow the
discussion for long periods of time, but the researcher should be an empathetic person,
totally devoted to the project goals and to conducting high quality qualitative research.
These qualifications will help the researcher remain patient and alert during repeated,
long discussions about the same general tOpic, and then to meticulously pick through the

voluminous amount of data that this type of data collection produces.

Based on her experience, the researcher believes that using focus groups for scoping is
ideal. However, being aware of the challenges of doing so, she contends that if a project
is lacking sufficient time and/or resources to properly conduct focus groups in addition to
one or two subsequent phases of research, informal scoping should be carried out instead,
possibly by interviewing a cross-section of stakeholders. She asserts, however, that this
would be a viable alternative as long as the qualitative or quantitative instrument that
results from this scoping phase is pre—tested to ensure relevance, utility, and
understandability. Alternatively, a resource constrained researcher might choose to have a

Smaller overall sample and still use both methods.

310

 

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
The researcher suggests the completion of a survey questionnaire in order to take full
advantage Of the new knowledge about local perceptions regarding natural resource
management gained through this project. Additional work to expand the scope of the
research to include complementary areas of inquiry is also suggested. Doing so
successfully would allow for the development and eventual implementation of viable
initiatives with the goal of improving natural resource management in the Watershed,
while simultaneously contributing to the long-term process of improving the quality of

life of the Watershed’s residents.

Nest steps include working with project partners to draft manuscripts for publication in
peer-reviewed journals. As part of this process, the researcher will take into consideration
the history of the study area (resource management; land tenure; water rights and use;
community conflicts and cooperation) and also compare the findings of this study with
the results of other related research projects. This information will allow the researcher to
develop more conceptual conclusions about the findings presented in this chapter, as well
as their implications for future work in the study area. The results of this process will

allow the researcher to develop realistic follow-up questions for future research.
Similarly, the project’s findings will be made available to the residents of the Dos

Novillos Watershed communities. This will be coordinated though EARTH University’s

Community Development Program (CDP). The CDP and the researcher should present

311

 

the findings to community members and request their feedback. Since there is no project
funding available for this, the CDP and the researcher will do this on their own. The CDP
and/or the researcher should then follow-up on any comments and feedback made by

community members and other stakeholders, and report on any additional findings.

After receiving and responding to community, stakeholder and scholar-practitioner
feedback on the findings, a proposal to carry out a. scaled-up study in the Reventazén-
Parismina Watershed should be draftedThe researcher’s Observations regarding
strengths and weaknesses Of the pilot project, other scholar-practitioner comments
regarding the project’s approach, and feedback regarding the findings should be
considered when drafting the new proposal in order to correct weaknesses and ensure that
strengths are taken advantage of to the fullest. Researchers may want to submit this
scaled-up proposal for firnding, or they may decided to wait for results of the socio-
economic study (discussed below) in order to find out how they could better support this
research by asking certain key questions not considered in this pilot study. Altemately,
researchers may decide to carry-out both aspects of research (perceptions of natural
resource management and socio-economic factors) in a more coordinated, overlapping

fashion, instead of completing one project and then beginning the other.

Since socio-economic data is already being collected in the ReventazOn-Parismina
Watershed, the researcher suggests that while options for scaling-up the Dos Novillos
pilot project are being considered, the sociO-economic data should be reviewed and

findings regarding factors affecting natural resource management in the Dos Novillos

312

 

Watershed should be considered as well. The data on sociO-economic problems that was
collected during the Dos Novillos pilot project should serve as inputs for the researchers
studying the links between socio-economic factors and the natural resource management

situation in the Watershed.

Again, while bio-physical data has already been collected in the Dos Novillos Watershed,
and will continue to be collected in the ReventazOn-Parismina Watershed, the researcher
suggests that the bio-physical data collections follow-up on areas of particular concern (to
be presented as pilot project findings) if they were not previously studied (e.g. domestic

wastewater contamination levels in the Dos Novillos River).

After the socio-economic and bio-physical research has been completed and the findings
of all three reports synthesized, a workshOp could be held in which certain stakeholders
(depending on the Objective of the meeting) are invited to Openly discuss the findings and
their impact for the future of the Watershed. Among the stakeholders that could be
invited to participate are:
0 community members (recognizing existing community organizations and
committees);
0 government representatives: local and municipal officials, MINAE, AyA,
Ministry of Health, and the congressional representative;
0 agro-industry representatives with current and planned projects in the area;
’ universities working in the area; and

0 NGOs working in the area.

313

 

The initial workshop could be conducted with the goal of discussing the findings and
asking community members and other stakeholders what they would like to do with this
information. If stakeholders express an interest in collaborating to try to improve
any/various aspects of the natural resource management situation, future workshops
could be organized to discuss filrther action. For example, one option could involve
establishing working groups to focus on each of the general areas targeted for
improvement (e. g. forest management, potable water supply, river health, drug addiction,
unemployment, lack of agricultural markets). Task forces could then be established to
deal directly with specific issues (e. g. domestic wastewater management) and to
coordinate with the other task forces working on related projects. Any such efforts should
build upon existing local programs (e. g. EARTH’s Community Development Program) in
an effort to complement these activities and avoid disrupting or duplicating work already

in progress.

Due to the interconnected nature of the problems to be addressed, it would be essential
that the task forces share their ideas and proposals with each other and with the working
groups so that partnerships can be established with other individuals and entities working
nationally and internationally in these areas. This collaboration could help the project
participants find creative ways to implement as many Of their initiatives as possible by
leveraging community, local, regional and national support, and to develop proposals to

fund the implementation of more expensive initiatives (e.g. wastewater treatment) by

314

 

partnering with other institutions and taking advantage of international funding

Opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings derived from phases 1 and II of this pilot project revealed a number of
apparently serious natural resource management problems in the Dos Novillos
Watershed, as well as contributing factors, potential solutions, and statements regarding
community members’ willingness to collaborate to help improve various aspects of
natural resource management. Subsequent research including a household questionnaire
will help to determine how widespread and salient the phase I and II findings are among
the Watershed pOpulation. The final, synthesized findings should give EARTH
University useful input for its Research Program, which is oriented toward integrated
watershed management of the ReventazOn-Parismina Watershed. These findings should
also help EARTH University’s Community Development Program develop work plans
and priority areas, and also seek funding and collaboration in order to address issues

reported in the findings.

It is hOped that the findings could be used by the Watershed residents’ Community
Development Associations and other local groups to engage more residents in a dialogue
about the natural resource problems that negatively affect their well-being and the natural
environment. The findings could also help community groups develop work plans and
designate priority issues. Other stakeholders could also benefit from the report. The

wealth of information disclosed about community members’ perceptions Of the work

315

 

being done by governmental representatives (local and municipal Officials, MINAE,
AyA, Ministry of Health) could help these representatives understand the residents’
points of view. While residents and officials are bound to disagree on many issues, if this
information is used in the spirit of finding viable solutions to problems, governmental
representatives and other stakeholders (agroindustry representatives) could use the
findings as a starting point to begin a process of communication and collaboration with

the communities.

In addition to EARTH University, other universities and NGOs working in the area could
also benefit from the project’s findings by eliminating the need for duplicative studies in
the same sub-watershed (thus saving scarce resources), serving as an input for future,
complimentary studies, and Opening a forum to discuss the project’s methodology,
implementation, and results, with the goal Of improving future work. While it is intended
that various aspects of this research project be published in peer-reviewed journals, it is
important to ensure that the findings are also distributed through other means in order to

reach stakeholders and practitioners that may not have access to these publications.

In conclusion, this research appears to demonstrate that potential exists within the Dos
Novillos Watershed communities for addressing a variety of the natural resource
management concerns cited by community members due to: the existence of a relatively
well informed citizenry that is concerned about a wide variety of natural resource
management issues; community members’ stated willingness to help address the natural

resource management problems they cited; and a history of collaborative community

316

 

development work with EARTH University’s Community Development Program.
However, it also appears that community members and service providers would benefit
from a continuing dialogue about the cited natural resource management concerns in an
effort to develop collaborative ways to address problems. Such a process might also
motivate more peOple to be willing to collaborate individually and as communities. With
respect to the research methods, this pilot project demonstrates the strengths of utilizing a
multiple method qualitative approach to address natural resource management issues, and
also highlights some weaknesses and possible alternatives. This said, the researcher
acknowledges that input from stakeholders and further data analysis is needed in order to

validate the researcher’s perceptions, as well as future lines of research.

317

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Verbal Informed Consent Script

Acuerdo Verbal de Consentimiento

Como dije antes, me llamo: . T rabajo para un
proyecto de investigaciOn social de la Universidad Michigan State en Estados Unidos y la
Universidad EARTH de aca de Guacimo.

La informacién que usted nos dé nos va perrnitir aprender de usted con respecto a cOmo
los miembros de la comunidad perciben y usan los recursos naturales en la cuenca del r1'o
Dos Novillos.

La conversaciOn durara aproximadamente 30 minutos. NO existen respuestas correctas, ni
incorrectas. No tiene que contestar a ninguna pregunta que no le guste, y tiene la libertad
de dejar la discusiOn en cualquier momento sin problemas o preocupaciones por haberlo
hecho.

Le aseguro que su identidad y respuestas seran estrictamente confidenciales y que su
privacidad sera protegida al maximo, tanto como la ley nos lo permite. No utilizaremos
su nombre, sino un c6digo numérico para identificarle en nuestro cuestionario y en los
analisis e informes. Seremos cuidadosos de no describir sus actividades en forma tal que
permita que alguien pueda adivinar su identidad, y mantendremos nuestros datos siempre
en un lugar seguro.

Quiero tomar nota cuidadosamente de todo lo que usted tenga o desee decir. Para
ayudarrne a hacer esto voy a tomar notas y si me perrnite, me gustarr’a grabar nuestra
conversacio'n.

Su participacién en esta entrevista es voluntaria y sepa que usted no esta bajo ninguna
obligacién de terrninar la entrevista O a contestar alguna pregunta que no le guste.
Esperamos que la informaciOn que recibamos de su parte y de otros miembros de su
comunidad sirva para entender mejor cOmo nosotros y los colegas en la Universidad
EARTH podemos apoyar a personas como usted y a las comunidades en la cuenca del rio
Dos Novillos.

gTiene alguna pregunta? Si / No

318

 

Si en el firturo usted tuviera alguna pregunta con respecto a este estudio, por favor
contacte directamente a cualquiera de las personas indicadas en esta hoja [entregar la hoja
con informacio’n de contacto].

Si tiene alguna pregunta con respecto a sus derechos como participante de esta
investigaciOn, O esta descontento en algr’rn momento con este estudio, puede contactar a]
Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Encargado del Comité Universitario de InvestigaciOn que Involucra
Sujetos Humanos (UCRIHS por sus siglos en inglés). Su informaciOn de contacto
también esta en esta hoja, pero siempre lo puede contactar por medio de los contactos de
EARTH.

gBasado en esta informacién, entiende usted sus derechos? Sr' / No
(“,Tiene alguna pregunta? Sr’ / No
gEsta de acuerdo en participar en la entrevista? Sr’ / NO

319

 

 

Appendix B. Focus Group Discussion Guide

Guidn de Discusidn
Proyecto: El Manejo de Recursos Naturales en la Cuenca del Rio Dos Novillos

Fecha: Hora:

 

Lugar:

 

Participantes: (Usar c6digos)

 

 

Metas de la Discusidn

> Entender que significa, “manejo de recursos naturales” para la gente de la
zona.

> Entender la opinidn de los residentes de la cuenca respecto al impacto del
manejo de RN en su calidad de vida.

> Identificar, con los residentes de la cuenca, los principales retos y
oportunidades del manejo de RN en la zona.

> Identificar las soluciones y alternativas potenciales que los residentes creen
que podrr'an ayudar a enfrentar los problemas identificados.

ANTES DE CONTINUAR:

1) LEER EL GUION DEL ACUERDO DE CONSENTIMENTO VERBAL A LOS
ASISTENTES DE INTREVISTA, Y

2) DISTRIBUIR LA INFORMACION DE CONTACTO A LOS ASISTENTES DE
INTREVISTA

GRACIAS, CONTINUAREMOS

Los hemos invitado a estar aqur' para que podamos tener una conversacio’n grupal.
Queremos conocer lo que ustedes Opinan sobre los temas que les voy a mencionar ahora.
Por favor, siéntanse con la confianza de hablar a los demas participantes en este grupo y
de responder a los comentarios de cada uno y a no sentirse restringidos a contestar

solamente a mis preguntas.

gTiene alguien alguna pregunta?

320

 

Preguntas

1. (,Por cuanto tiempo ha vivido en nombre de comunidad ?

Profundizar: Si no nacio en , preguntar donde vivio antes.

2. gCuénteme en que trabaja usted para ganarse la vida?
Profirndizar: Si es un/una agricultor/a, preguntar qué produce.

Profundizar: Si la persona es duefio(a) de un terreno: cuénteme sobre este terreno
- gtiene bosques, riachuelos, etc.?

Profundizar: Si es duer’io/a de su propio negocio, O si es empleado en el sector
pr’rblico o privado, preguntar si e’l/ella se dedica a producir algr'rn cultivo/ganado
para consumo familiar 0 para vender.

3. En sus opiniones, (,cuales son las amenazas mas grandes a su bienestar — su
calidad de vida?

Profundizar: gQue cree que podrr’a solucionar estos problemas (tratar un problema
a la vez)?

Profundizar: 'Cuales cree ue son los im edimentos mas im ortantes a la
_ . . o q P . P

posrbrlrdad de implementar O llevar a cabo estas solucrones (tratar un
problema/una soluciOn a la vez)?

’4. LCémo describen ustedes su interaccidn con los recursos naturales (la naturaleza)
de la cuenca?

Profundizar: Entender si e'l/ella piensa que su bienestar depende en los recursos
naturales, y si es asi, chmo?

5. (,Qllé significa para ustedes Ia frase: “manejo de los recursos naturales?”

Profundizar: Pedir ejemplos segr'rn los diferentes respuestas.

6. (,Cémo describirr'an la manera en que los residentes manejan los recursos
naturales por aca en ? (Nombrar los recursos que él/ella lra
mencionado como importantes.)

 

Profirndizar: gY en la cuenca en general?

Profundizar: Entender que son los problemas mas graves con el manejo de los RN
aqur' en la cuenca? (Entender “quien” lo hace y “para el beneficio de quien”.)

Profundizar: Entender que son los mejores ejemplos del buen manejo de los RN
en la cuenca? (Entender “quien” lo hace y “para el beneficio de quien”.)

321

 

7. (De los recursos que sufren de un mal manejo, que se podrr’a hacer para mejorar
este manejo? (Nombrar los recursos que éI/ella ha mencionado.)

Profirndizar: En su opinién, [que son los impedimentos mas importantes a la
habilidad de manejar bien estos recursos (nombrar los recursos que él/ella ha
mencionado)?

Profundizar: En su OpiniOn, gque podria ayudar a enfrentar estos impedimentos
para asegurar que los recursos naturales (nombrar los recursos que él/ella ha
mencionado) podrr’an ser manejados mejor?

Profundizar: Entender su opiniOn con respecto a la disposiciOn de la gente de
de mejorar el manejo de RN. En la cuenca en general?

8. (,Qué Opinan ustedes sobre la manera en que la cuenca Dos Novillos ha cambiado
a lo largo de los afios? En términos del manejo de los RN?

Profirndizar: Entender porque e’l/ella piensa que estos cambios (positivas y/o
negativas) han ocunido.

Profundizar: Entender cuales soluciones él/ella piensa que podrr'an ayudar a
resolver los problemas.

Profundizar: Entender cuales impedimentos existen a la implementacién de estas
soluciones.

9. LSienten ustedes que la poblacidn en la cuenca ha cambiado? gCOmo? LDOnde?

Profundizar: Si dicen que si, gCOmo se sienten afectados por este cambio?

Bueno, muchr’simas gracias. gHabra algo mas que les gustarr'an agregar y que no tuvieron
Oportunidad de decir anteriormente?

Agradecemos mucho su voluntad a compartir con nosotros sus Opiniones respecto a estos
temas. gSerr’a posible contactarles en el futuro para clarificar O confirrnar algr’rn dato que
nos han brindado hoy?

Por favor, no duden en contactamos. Nuestra informaciOn de contacto esta en la hoja que
les entregamos al principio.

322

 

Appendix C. Focus Group Invitation

Sabado, 10 de julio de 2004

Sefior(a)

 

Estimado(a) miembro de la comunidad:

Tengo el gusto de invitarlo a participar con nosotros en una corta reunién de una hora y
media para conversar y aprender de usted sobre el manejo de los recursos naturales en la
cuenca del Rio DOs Novillos.

Esta reuniOn se llevara a cabo el prOximo sabado, 17 de julio a las 4pm en la casa de
don Eladio Chinchilla y contara con la participacién de otros siete miembros de la
comunidad de La Argentina, quienes hart sido seleccionados para participar en este
estudio. Este estudio tiene como propOsito recoger informacién que servira para que
conjuntamente identifiquemos alternativas de manejo de recursos naturales que
beneficien a la comunidad. Por tal razOn, consideramos que su participacio'n es
sumarnente importante.

Ia informacién que se genere en esta reuniOn sera tratada en forma ano’nima y
cuidadosamente analizada. Al final del estudio los resultados seran compartidos con la
comunidad para que puedan ser considerados en la toma de decisiones comunales.

Anticipadamente, agradecemos su colaboraciOn con la Universidad EARTH y con mi
persona en particular.

Estamos conscientes de su limitado tiempo y esperamos que esta hora sea conveniente
para usted.

Esperando poder contar con su presencia para aprender de sus experiencias y
conocimientos, mientras degustamos de un refiigerio. Por cualquier duda, por favor
comuniquese directamente conmigo 0 con don Eladio Chinchilla.

Se despide cordialmente,

Delanie Kellon

Responsable del Estudio
Teléfono 713 - 00 - 00 Extensién 4100

323

 

Appendix D. Individual Interview Discussion Guide

Guidn de Entrevista

Proyecto: El Manejo de Recursos Naturales en la Cuenca del Rio Dos Novillos

Fecha: Hora:

 

Lugar:

 

Descripcidn del Lugar: (Uso de la tierra)

 

Participante: (Usar c6digo)

 

Metas de la Entrevista

> Entender que significa, “recurso natural” y “manejo de recursos naturales”
para la gente de la cuenca.

> Entender la opinidn de los residentes de la cuenca con respecto aI impacto de
la deforestacidn, el servicio y la administracién del agua y el manejo de
desechos en su bienestar.

> Entender como funcionan (y como pueden ser mejorados) los arreglos
institucionales que actualmente dirigen el manejo de los RN.

> lldentificar, con los residentes de la cuenca, las principales oportunidades y
soluciones potenciales para mejorar el manejo de los RN en la cuenca.

> Identificar la disposicién de los participantes de participar activamente en la
brisqueda de mejores formas de manejar los RN y las condiciones bajo cuales
estarr’an dispuestos si actualmente no estan.

ANTES DE CONTINUAR:

I) LEER EL GUION DEL ACUERDO DE CONSENTIMENTO VERBAL AL
PARTICIPANTE DE LA ENTREVISTA, Y

2) DISTRIBUIR LA INFORMACION DE CONTACTO AL PARTICIPANTE DE
LA ENTREVISTA

GRACIAS, CONTINUAREMOS

324

Preguntas

1. (Per cuanto tiempo ha vivido en ?

Profundizar: Si no nacio en , preguntar donde vivio
antes.

 

2. gCuénteme en que trabaja usted para ganarse la vida?
Profundizar: Si es un/una agricultor/a, preguntar que’ produce.

Profundizar: Si la persona es duefro(a) de un terreno: cuénteme sobre este terreno
— gtiene bosques, riachuelos, etc.?

Profundizar: Si es duefiO/a de su propio negocio, o si es empleado en el sector
pr’rblico O privado, preguntar si e’l/ella se dedica a producir algr'rn cultivo/ganado
para consumo familiar 0 para vender.

3. En su opinién, geuales son Ias amenazas mas grandes para su bienestar - para su
calidad de vida?

Profirndizar: gCOmo cree que podrr'a solucionar estos problemas (tratar un
problema a la vez)?

Profundizar: gCuales cree que son los impedimentos mas importantes para
implementar o llevar a cabo estas soluciones (tratar un problema/una solucic’m a la

vez)?

4. gMe puede dar unos ejemplos de recursos naturales que son importantes para i
Usted? (Cosas del ambiente/la naturaleza que usemos err nuestras vidas.)

Profundizar: gCuales recursos naturales son importantes para usted?

Profirndizar: gQue significa para usted la frase: “manejo de los recursos
naturales”?

5. gCémo describe usted el Rio Dos Novillos?
Profirndizar: En su OpiniOn, gQué afecta la calidad del agua en el Rio?

Profundizar: En su OpiniOn, LQue’ afecta la cantidad del agua en el Rio?

6. (,En su opinién, qué impacto tiene la deforestacién que ocurre en esta cuenca?

Profundizar: (3L3 deforestaciOn impacta a usted, su familia o su comunidad?
gCo’mo?

Profundizar: gDOnde esta ocurriendo esta deforestacio’n y por quien?

325

Profundizar: gPor que esta ocurriendo la deforestaciOn?

Profundizar: gCo’mO se maneja/administra actualmente los bosques aqui en la
cuenca del Rio Dos Novillos?

Profundizar: gQué problemas tiene este Sistema?

Profundizar: gEn su OpiniOn, que se puede hacer para proteger mej or los bosques?
Profundizar: gQué estaria dispuesto a hacer para ayudar a enfrentar el problema?
Profirndizar: Si no esta dispuesto a hacer algo, gpor qué no?

Profundizar: Si esta dispuesto, pero no puede ahora, gQué tendrr'a que ocurrir para
que usted realmente haga un esfuerzo para ayudar a enfrentar el problema?

Profundizar: gQué papel deben jugar las personas que viven en la cuenca del Rio
Dos Novillos en el manejo de los bosques?

Profundizar: (JQue' papel deben jugar otros entes en el manejo de los bosques de la
cuenca?

7. (,COmo describe usted el agua que recibe en su casa/negocio?

Profundizar: gOpr'na usted que la calidad y cantidad del agua que llega a su casa
impacta a usted, su familia o su comunidad? gCOmO?

Profundizar: {De dOnde viene el agua que llega a su casa/negocio?

Profundizar: En su OpiniOn, gQue’ afecta la calidad de su agua? gQuién lo hace y
por que’?

Profundizar: En su opiniOn, gQue’ afecta la cantidad que llega a su casa? gQuién lo
hace y por que?

Profundizar: LCOmO se administra el agua actualmente que usa esta comunidad?
Profundizar: gQué problemas tiene el Sistema de administracién de su agua?

(Entender si paga por cantidad usada o solo para la conexic’m. gCuantO es el
cobro?)

Profundizar: gQué soluciones sugeria usted para mejor el servicio (calidad y
cantidad) y la administracidn del agua?

Profundizar: gQue’ estaria dispuesto a hacer para ayudar a mej orar el servicio
(calidad y cantidad) 0 la administracién del agua?

Profundizar: Si no esta dispuesto a hacer algo, gPor que’ no?

Profundizar: Si esta dispuesto pero no puede ahora, gQue’ tendrr'a que ocurrir para
que usted realmente haga un esfuerzo para ayudar a mejorar el servicio?

Cuenca media/baja: Profirndizar: gEstarr’a dispuesto a pagar algo adicional para
asegurar 1a proteccién de su fuente de agua? gBajo cuales circunstancias?

326

 

 

 

Cuenca alta: Profundizar: 5A cambio de recibir financiamiento de parte de los
usuarios del agua, estaria dispuesto a ajustar o cambiar sus practicas agricolas
para poder proteger mejor la fuente del agua? gQué estaria dispuesto a cambiar y
que' no? gBajo cuales circunstancias?

Profundizar: gQue’ papel deben jugar las personas que viven en la cuenca del Rio
Dos Novillos en la protecciOn de agua y la administraciOn del servicio? gPor que’?

Profundizar: gQué papel deben jugar otros entes en el manejo del agua en la
cuenca? gPor que’?

8. aEn su opinién, que' impacto tiene la manera en que los residentes (familias y
agricultores, industrias, empresas privadas) de ésta cuenca desechan su basura,
aguas residuales y desechos de produccidn — digamos, la forma en que se manejan
los desechos?

Profundizar: gEl manejo de desechos impacta a usted, su familia o su comunidad?
LCOmo?

 

Profundizar: gQué tipo de mal manejo de los desechos es mas preocupante para
usted?

Profundizar: gPor que esta ocurriendo este mal manej O? gQuie’n lo hace y por
qué?

Profundizar: gCo’mo se maneja actualmente los desechos aqui en la cuenca del
Rio Dos Novillos? (Tratamiento? Reciclaje? ColecciOn?)

Profundizar: gQué problemas tiene este sistema?

Profundizar: gEn su opiniOn, que se puede hacer para mejorar e1 manejo de
desechos?

Profundizar: gQué estaria dispuesto a hacer para ayudar a enfrentar este
problema?

Profundizar: Si no esta dispuesto a hacer algo, gpor que’ no?

Profirndizar: Si esta dispuesto pero no puede ahora, gQué tendria que ocurrir para
que usted realmente haga un esfuerzo para ayudar a enfrentar el problema?

Profundizar: gQué papel deben jugar las personas que viven en la cuenca del Rio
Dos Novillos en el manejo de sus desechos?

Profundizar: (“,Qué papel deben jugar otros entes en el manejo de los desechos en
la cuenca?

9. gHay algr’rn otro RN que usted cree que debe ser manejado diferente aqui en la
cuenca del Rio Dos Novillos?

Bueno, muchr’simas gracias. gHabra algo mas que le gustaria agregar y que no tuvo
Oportunidad de decir anteriorrnente?

327

 

Agradezco mucho su voluntad para compartir conmigo sus Opiniones con respecto a estos
temas.

Por favor, no dude en contactarme. Mi informacién de contacto esta en la hoja que le
entregue al principio.

328

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

Adegbidi, A., K. Burger, E. Gandonou, I. Mulder (1999). Farmers' Perceptions and
Sustainable Land Use in the Atacora, Benin. Working Paper Series No 22. CREED.
London, lntemational Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Arreaga, C., and A. Bracamontes. (2001) "Valoracio’n EconOmica del Servicio Ambiental
Hidrico de la Subcuenca del Rio Dos Novillos, Zona Atlantica de Costa Rica. "
Universidad EARTH. Licenciatura.

Baland, J. M., J.P. Platteau (1996). Halting Degradation of Natural Resources. Is there a
Role for Rural Communities? New York, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations and Oxford University Press.

Bernard, H. R. (1995). Research Methods in Anthropology. Walnut Creek, AltaMira
Press.

Blackburn, J ., J. Holland, Ed. (1998). Who Changes? Institutionalizing Participation in
Development. London, lnterrnediate Technology Publications, Ltd.

 

Calvo, J. C. (1990). "Water Resources Development in Costa Rica 1970-2000."
HydroLogical Sciences Journal 35(2): 185-196.

Carpenter, F. L., S.P. Mayorga, et al. (200]). "Land-use and Erosion of 3 Costa Rican
Ultisol affect Soil Chemistry, Mycorrhizal Fungi and Early Regeneration." Forest
Ecology and Management 144(1-3): 1-1 7.

Chaves, G., S. Lobo (2000). El Pago de Servicios Ambientales en Costa Rica. Folleto
lnforrnativo. MINAE-SINAC. Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica, INBio.

Chinchilla, E. (2004). Personal Communication.

CIA (2005). The World Factbook - Costa Rica. Available from
http://www.ciagOv/cia/publications/factbofi/geos/cshtml.

Clay, J. (2004). World Agriculture and the Environment. Washington, Island Press.

Costanza, R. (1998). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital."
Ecological Economics 25: 3-15.

Cuesta, T. (1999). Indentificacién de Aspectos Criticos y Conflicto de Uso del Suelo en

la Microcuenca del Rio Dos Novillos, La Argentina, LimOn, Costa Rica. Guacimo,
Universidad EARTH. Licenciatura.

329

DeShazo, J. R. (2001). Linking the Growth in Tourism with the Conservation of
Protected Areas: Toward a National Paradigm in Central America. Environment for
Growth in Central America. Environmental Management for Sustainability and
Competitiveness. T. Panayotou. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Dzurik, A. A. (2003). Water Resources Planning, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.

Espeleta, Y. A. (200]). "The State of Water Resources in Costa Rica. " Waterlines 20(1):
15-17.

Faris, R. (2001). Deforestation in Central America: Causes, Costs, and Policy Options.
Environment for Growth in Central America. Environmental Management for
Sustainability and Competitiveness. T. Panayotou. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Farrington, J., C. Iobo (1997). Scaling Up Participatory Watershed Development in
India: Lessons From the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme. 0. D.
Institute. London.

Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (F ONAFIFO) (2000). El Desarollo del
Sistema de Pago de Servicios Ambientales en Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica,
FONAFIFO.

Girot, P., V. Weitzner, M. Fonseca Borras (1998). From Conflict to Collaboration: The
Case of Cahuita National Park, LimOn, Costa Rica.

Guerrero, A. (1998). Indicadores AutOctonos Tendientes a la Sostenibilidad en los
Sistemas de ProducciOn de la Microcuenca del Rio Dos Novillos. Guacimo, Universidad
EARTH. Licenciatura.

Heame, R, Z. Salinas (2002). "The Use of Choice Experiments in the Analysis of Tourist
Preferences for Ecotourism DevelOpment in Costa Rica. " Journal of Environmental
Management 65: 153-163.

Heathcote, I. W. (1998). Integrated watershed management: principles and practice. New
York, Wiley.

Hinchcliffe, F., I. Guijt, J. Pretty, P. Shah (1995). New Horizons: The Economic, Social
and Environmental Impacts Of Participatory Watershed DevelOpment. Gateikeeper Series
No. 50. Iondon, lntemational Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Holliday, A. (2002). Doug and WritingQualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications.

INBiO (2004). Biodiversidad en Costa Rica. Available from
h ://www.inbio.ac.cr/es/biOd/bio biodiverhtml.

   

330

INBiO (2005). Estado de la Biodiversidad en Costa Rica. Available from
h_ttp://www.inbio.ac.cr/es/biod/estrategia/estudio.htrnl.

James, A. J ., V.K. Pangtey, P. Singh and K. Virgo (2002). "Bringing people's perceptions
to project management desktops: a quantified participatory assessment of the Doon
Valley Watershed Project in North India." Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
20(3): 201-214.

Joda, N. (1996). PrOperty Rights and Development. Rights to Nature. Ecological,
Economic. Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. S.
Hanna, C. Folke, KG. Maler. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Kaimowitz, D. (2001). Useful Myths and Intractable Truths: The Politics of the Link
Between Forests and Water in Central America. Forests, Water and People in the Humid
Tropics. M. Bonell. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Kaplowitz, M. D. (2000). "Statistical analysis of sensitive topics in group and individual
interviews." Qualigg and (handy: International Joprnal of Methodologv 34: 419-431.

Knodel, J ., W. Sittitrai, T. Brown (1990). Focus Group Discussions for Social Science
Research: A Practical Guide with an Emphasis on the Topic of Aging, POpulation
Studies Center, University of Michigan.

Knox, A., S. Gupta (2000). CAPRI Technical Workshop on Watershed Management
Institutions: A Summary Paper. CAPRI Working Paper No. 8.

LeCompte, M., J .J . Schensul (1999). Malgirpg and Interpretirg Ethnographic Data.
Walnut Creek, AltaMira Press.

McKean, M. (1996). Common-Property Regimes as a Solution to Problems of Scale and
Linkage. Rights to Nature. Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of
Institutions for the Environment. S. Hanna, C. Folke, KG. Maler. Washington, DC,
Island Press.

Miles, M. B., A.M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publishing.

Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers, C.G. M itterrneier (2000). HotspotgspEarth's Biologically
Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions.. CEMEX.

Morgan, D. L. (1998). The Focus Group Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publications.

Natasi, B. (1999). Audiovisual Methods in Ethnography. Enhanced Ethnographic
Methods. J. e. Schensul. Walnut Creek, AltaMira Press.

331

 

Navarro, L., E. Reyes (1999). Seguridad del Agua: Proceso de Identificacio’n de Aspectos
Prioritarios (PIAP) en una Cuenca del TrOpico Hr'rmedo de Costa Rica. Guacimo,
Universidad EARTH. Licenciatura.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University
Press.

Ostrom, E., E. Schlager (1996). The Formation of Property Rights. Rights to Nature.
Ecological, Economic. Cultural. and Political Principles of Institutions for the
Environment. S. Hanna, C. Folke, K.G. Maler. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Ostrom, E., R. Gardner, J. Walker (1994). Rules, Games, & Common-Pool Resources.
Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.

Pagiola, S. (2002). Paying for Water Services in Central America: Learning from Costa
Rica. Selling Forest Environmental Services. Market-Based Mechanisms for
Conservation and Development. S. Pagiola, J. Bishop, N. Iandell-Mills. London,
Earthscan Publications Limited.

Panayotou, T. (2001). Environmental Sustainability and Competitiveness: Central
America's Challenge in the 2 1 st Century. Environment for Growth in Central America.
Environmental Management for Sustairpfility and Competitiveness. T. Panayotou.
Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Pareja, A., A. Sosa (200]). EvaluaciOn de la Calidad Natural del Agua del Rio Dos
Novillos y Algunas Observaciones sobre los Sistemsas de ProducciOn AgrOpecuarios
Desarrollados en sus Margenes. La Argentina de Pocora, Provincia de LimOn, Zona
Atlantica de Costa Rica. Guacimo, Universidad EARTH. Licenciatura.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications.

Pfaff, A. S. P., G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa (2004). "Deforestation pressure and biological
reserve planning: a conceptual approach and an illustrative application for Costa Rica. "
Resource and Energy Economics 26(2): 237-254.

Pugh, J., F. Sarmiento (2004). "Selling the Public on Sustainable Watershed
Conservation." Bulletin of Latin American Research 23(3): 303-318.

Rhoades, R. E. (1998). Participatory Watershed Research and Management: Where the
Shadow Falls. Gatekeeper 81.

Rubin , H., I. Rubin (1995). Qualitative lnterviewin g: The Art of HearingData. Thousand
Oaks, Sage Publications.

332

 

Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., R.C. Harris, et al. (2002). "Water resources and regional land
cover change in Costa Rica: Impacts and economics." lntemational Journal of Water
Resources Development 18(3): 409-424.

Schensul, S. L., J.J. Schensul, M.D. LeCompte (1999). Essential Ethnographic Methods.
Walnut Creek, AltaMira Press.

Schmid, A. A. (2004). Conflict and Cooperation. Malden, Blackwell Publishing.

Sen, C. K, P. Partap, P.N. Shanna (1997). The Farmer-led Integrated Upl_and Watershed
M_anagement Trainers' Resource Book. Kathmandu, ICIMOD.

Simpson, M., C. Covel (2000). Strategy for a Watershed Assessment in a NeotrOpical
Setting. Guacimo, EARTH University.

Skidmore, T., P. Smith (2005). Modern Latin America. New York, Oxford University
Press.

Strauss, A., J. Corbin (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Proceedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Swallow, B., D. Garrity, M. van Noordwijk (2001). The Effects of Scales, Flows and
Filters on Property Rights and Collective Action in Watershed Management. CAPRI
WorkingPaper NO. 16.

Tejada, J., E. Castro (2000). Seguridad del Agua: Proyecto para el Manejo Participativo y
Sostenible de la Subcuenca del Rio Dos Novillos, Zona Atlantica de Costa Rica.
Guacimo, Universidad EARTH.

Tejada, J ., M. Cerrato, C. Hernandez (2000). Seguridad del Agua: Metodologia para el
Manejo Participativo y Sostenible de las Cuencas del TrOpico Hr’rmedo de Costa Rica.
Guacimo, Universidad EARTH.

The Intercultural Center for Research in Education (2004). Environmental Education in
Costa Rica. Available from http://www.dot-edu.org/about/partners/increhtm.

The Nature Conservancy (2004). The Nature Conservancy in Costa Rica. Available from
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/centraLamerica/costarica/.

UNIMER Research lntemational (2004). Resumen de Resultados. Impacto de EARTH en
los Cantones de Pococi, Guacimo y Siquirres. San Jose', UNIMER.

US Department of State (2004). Post Reports - Costa Rica. Available from
ht_tp://www.foia.state.gov/MMS/postrpt/pr view_flasp?Cntrle=37.

333

 

 

van Hofwegen, P., F. Jaspers (1999). Analytical Framework for Integrated Water
Resources Management. Delft.

White, T. A., C.F. Runge (1995). "The Emergence and Evolution Of Collective Action -
Lessons from Watershed Management in Haiti." World Development 23(10): 1683-1698.

 

 

 

   

i"tinglintijrnnt