The Social Networks of Wild Edible Fungi (WEF) Collectors and Their Implications for Conservation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON Faculty of Life Sciences (University of London) Centre for Environmental Policy The social networks of wild edible fungi (WEF) collectors and their implications for conservation. A case study from Romania by Andreea Gaitan A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London September 2011 2 DECLARATION OF OWN WORK I declare that this thesis “The social networks of wild edible fungi (WEF) collectors and their implications for conservation: A case study from Romania.” is entirely my own work and that where material could be construed as the work of others, it is fully cited and referenced, and/or with appropriate acknowledgement given. Signature Name of student Andreea Gaitan Name of Supervisor E.J.Milner-Gulland Timothy Davies 3 AUTHORISATION TO HOLD ELECTRONIC COPY OF MSc THESIS Thesis title: The social networks of wild edible fungi (WEF) collectors and their implications for conservation: A case study from Romania. Author: Andreea Gaitan I hereby assign to Imperial College London, Division of Biology, the right to hold an electronic copy of the thesis identified above and any supplemental tables, illustrations, appendices or other information submitted therewith (the “thesis”) in all forms and media, effective when and if the thesis is accepted by the College. This authorisation includes the right to adapt the presentation of the thesis abstract for use in conjunction with computer systems and programs, including reproduction or publication in machine-readable form and incorporation in electronic retrieval systems. Access to the thesis will be limited to Conservation Science MSc teaching staff and students and this can be extended to other College staff and students by permission of the Conservation Science MSc Course Directors/Examiners Board. Signed: Name printed: Andreea Gaitan Date: 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables……………………………………………………………………………….7 List of figures……………………………………………………………………………...7 Acronyms………………………………………………………………………………….8 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………9 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….10 I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………11 1.1 Research approach…………………………………………………………11 1.2 Research aims………………………………………………………………12 II. Background………………………………………………………………….....14 2.1 Social networks……………………………………………………………..15 Social networks study in conservation……………………………...16 The study of social networks’ structures……………………………18 Limitations of SNA in Conservation…………………………………20 2.2 Wild edible fungi……………………………………………………………21 2.3 Study site…………………………………………………………………….22 III. Methods………………………………………………………………………...23 3.1 Questionnaire interviews for SNA…………………………………………23 3.2 Practice of methodology……………………………………………………24 3.2.1 Sampling methods……………………………………………….25 3.2.2 The questionnaire……………………………………………….25 3.2.3 The pilot…………………………………………………………27 3.3 Data analysis………………………………………………………………...27 IV. Results………………………………………………………………………….30 4.1 Background and harvesting practices……………………………………....30 4.1.1 Dragus village…………………………………………………...31 4.1.2 Vistea Village…………………………………………………...32 4.1.3 Harvesting practices…………………………………………….32 4.2 The social networks of wild mushroom pickers……………………………36 4.2.1 The network structure –DRAGUS……………………………...36 Communication and information sharing……………………36 Network structure....................................................................37 Centrality measures in the information-sharing network……43 5 4.2.2 The network structure – VISTEA ……………………………..44 Network structure…………………………………………...45 Centrality measures in the information-sharing network…..51 4.3 Perceived importance of information-sharing in decision-making………...52 V. Discussion………………………………………………………………………58 Social interaction and information sharing in harvesters’ networks…………..59 Limitations………………………………………………………………………61 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………62 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………..63 Apendices…………………………………………………………………………………..69 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1..............................................................................................................................30 Table 4.2..............................................................................................................................33 Table 4.3..............................................................................................................................37 Table 4.4..............................................................................................................................45 Table 4.5..............................................................................................................................54 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1..............................................................................................................................30 Figure 4.2..............................................................................................................................30 Figure 4.3..............................................................................................................................33 Figure 4.4..............................................................................................................................34 Figure 4.5..............................................................................................................................38 Figure 4.6..............................................................................................................................39 Figure 4.7..............................................................................................................................40 Figure 4.8..............................................................................................................................41 Figure 4.9..............................................................................................................................42 Figure 4.10............................................................................................................................43 Figure 4.11............................................................................................................................46 Figure 4.12............................................................................................................................46 Figure 4.13............................................................................................................................48 Figure 4.14............................................................................................................................49 Figure 4.15............................................................................................................................50 Figure 4.16............................................................................................................................51 Figure 4.17............................................................................................................................53 Figure 4.18............................................................................................................................55 Figure 4.19............................................................................................................................56 7 ACRONYMS NTFPs Non timber forest products SNA Social Network Analysis WEF Wild edible fungi C Site C (Cotcoroaza) D Site D (Dumbrava) J Site J (Jariste) P Site P (Padurice) VM Site VM (Valea Mierii) VP Site VP (Valea Podului) 8 ABSTRACT It is important to understand how people interact and the way in which social interactions affect people’s behavior, as this may have several implications for conservation. This study used social network analysis to investigate the underlying mechanisms of information sharing in wild edible fungi harvesters and how they affect the spatial behavior of harvesting. The study identified two separate networks in the two study villages. The social relations of these groups were the foundation for the information-sharing networks, and their number proved to be a positive indicator of the degree in sharing ties. Harvesters exchange information with the people they feel closest to and use that information to increase their chances of harvesting success. Some noticeable differences in the reported ties were observed between sexes and age groups. The majority of people over 50 and in particular men were found to be the key actors of the network. The same individuals were part of the subgroups that harvested in areas with higher popularity. The popularity of a harvesting site was significantly linked to the higher connectivity inside the group that preferred that site. The study supports the argument that harvesters’ behaviour and decision-making is conditioned by the social context in which they live. Therefore it provides evidence that social context should be taken into account and thoroughly studied in projects that deal with natural resource exploitation. Word count: 13932 9 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. E.J. Milner-Gulland for her support and understanding, for her enthusiasm and the encouragement she provided during this research. I would also like to thank Tim Davies for his initiative, patience and help throughout the stages of the entire research. I am also very grateful to my friend, Tudor Anghel who established all the useful contacts that have lead to the successful completion of the field work and for all his