Heterogeneity and Collective Action: Case Studies from the United States and India DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Pranietha Mudliar Graduate Program in Environment & Natural Resources The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Tomas Koontz, Advisor Dr. Jeremy Brooks, Advisor Dr. Cathy Rakowski Dr. Eric Toman Copyrighted by Pranietha Mudliar 2016 Abstract Past scholarship on community-based natural resource management and common- pool resource governance has provided insights into the conditions that facilitate self- organization to improve natural resource management outcomes. While some enabling conditions are clearly important across contexts, there remains considerable uncertainty about how socio-cultural heterogeneity affects collective action in rural communities. Many scholars suggest that socio-cultural heterogeneity can prohibit collective action. However, some studies find that socio-cultural heterogeneous groups can craft institutions that allow them to address the challenges that such heterogeneity can pose. In my dissertation, I explore the relationships among socio-cultural heterogeneity, institutions, and collective action in the context of watershed management in the United States and in India. I employ a case study approach and in-depth interviews to examine the institutional arrangements and mechanisms that allow socio-culturally groups to act collectively to manage their watershed. My results suggest that socio-culturally heterogeneous communities can develop institutions that allow them to overcome any additional costs to collective action that may result from that heterogeneity. The analysis suggests that equity, accountability, symbolic capital, and capacities are key features of institutions that allow heterogeneous groups to develop good governance practices. I also explore the dynamic interactions between the contextual factors (group attributes, ii community attributes, and resource attributes) and institutional arrangements and how this relationship has shaped collective action in these communities. For instance, a group attribute of small size facilitated an institution of deliberative decision-making where every member contributes to decision-making. Institutions have also changed existing community attributes that prevented members from acting collectively. This study contributes to the debate about whether and in which contexts socio-cultural heterogeneity negatively affects collective action. These results further support other empirical and theoretical work that demonstrates that socio-cultural heterogeneity does not prohibit collective action in all contexts. iii Dedication At the end of some seventy-two thousand words, I dedicate this dissertation to my mother who taught me to write my first word. iv Acknowledgments The past five years have been an incredible journey and I would like to acknowledge the people who shaped my time at the School of Natural and Environment Resources. My advisor—Dr. Tomas Koontz for his warm friendship, kindness, and the countless hours of academic meetings and Skype sessions as I struggled to make sense of the messy world of boxes and arrows, I owe it all. I am indebted to my co-advisor, Dr. Jeremy Brooks, for giving me thoughtful feedback on my ideas and nudging me to think harder, even until the last minute. I am immensely grateful to Dr. Cathy Rakowski for her guidance, encouragement, and empathy. And finally, I am thankful to Dr. Eric Toman for his patient understanding and advice during my times of confusion. I have been extremely fortunate in having an extraordinarily supportive network of friends, both in Columbus and in India. The security that their friendship has provided has been invaluable during my time in graduate school. My deepest thanks to Olga Kondratjeva, Samyam Rajbhandari, Bishal Karna, Ania Stakun, Bala Subramani, Emily Hutchins, Alex Heeren, Joe Campbell, Kelly Clayborn, Pranay Ranjan, Meenal Tatpati, Shruti Mokashi, Shubhashree Patra, Zareen Khan, Nikhil Nair, Sidharth Mohan, Priyanka Shetty, Navni Verma, Travis Jones, Ravi Jambhekar, Shraddha Mahadik, Rashmi Mahajan, Gargi Chandane, Travonya Kenly, Sagar Sharma, and Dima Kondratjeva. Finally, the biggest thanks to my mother and sister, without whom, I would never have dreamed of attending graduate school in the United States. Thank you. v Vita 2009……………………………………………..……...…B.S. Biotechnology, University of Pune 2011…………………………………..................M.S. Environmental Science, University of Pune 2016 ………….............School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University Publications Koontz, T. M., Gupta, D., Mudliar, P., & Ranjan, P. (2015). Adaptive institutions in social-ecological systems governance: A synthesis framework. Environmental Science & Policy, 53, Part B, 139–151 Koontz, T., Gabagambi, R., Marquis, C, Mudliar, P., and Zwickle, S. 2013. Human Dimensions of Soil Degradation. Advances in Soil Science: Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems, Eds. Rattan Lal and B.A.Stewart. Taylor & Francis Group. Koontz, Tomas M, and Pranietha Mudliar, 2012. “Collaborative Watershed Planning Experiences in Ohio: Survey Results from Members.” Columbus, Ohio: Environmental and Social Sustainability Lab, School of Environment and Natural Resources vi Fields of Study Major Field: Environment and Natural Resources vii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Vita ..................................................................................................................................... vi Publications ........................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………....xii Chapter 1: Heterogeneity and Collective Action: A Literature Review ............................ 1 Section 1: Common-Pool Resource Dilemmas…………………………………………2 Section 2: Heterogeneity and Collective Action for Natural Resource Governance...…4 Section 3: Theoretical Approach………………………………………………………12 Section 4: Methods…………………………………………………………………….13 Chapter 2: Collective Action in a Racially Heterogeneous Watershed Organization in Montgomery, West Virginia ............................................................................................. 24 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………24 Section 1: Prior Research……………………………………………………………...26 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….53 Section 3: Results……………………………………………………………………..58 Section 4: Discussion…………………………………………………………………94 viii Section 5: Conclusion………………………………………………………………...111 Chapter 3: Institutions for Community-based Natural Resource Management in Heterogeneous Community: A Case Study from Karnataka, India …………………….114 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..114 Section 1: Prior Research: Watershed Development in India………………………..116 Section 3: Results…………………………………………………………………….130 Section 4: Discussion………………………………………………………………...166 Section 6: Conclusion………………………………………………………………...184 Chapter 4: A Dynamic Interaction of Context and Institutions in Shaping Collective Action Outcome: Evidence from West Virginia and India ............................................. 187 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..187 Section 1: Prior Research…………………………………………………………….189 Section 2: Methods…………………………………………………………………...194 Section 3: West Virginia, U.S. and Karnataka, India………………………………...195 Section 4: Discussion………………………………………………………………...224 Section 5: Conclusion………………………………………………………………..230 Chapter 5: Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 233 Section 1: Findings…………………………………………………………………..234 Section 2: Policy Implications……………………………………………………….242 Section 3: Future Research…………………………………………………………..249 Section 4: Concluding Thoughts……………………………………………………..254 References ....................................................................................................................... 255 Appendix A: Notes……………………………………………………………………..283 ix Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................... 287 Appendix C: Data Coding ............................................................................................... 299 x List of Tables Table 1: Population by Race in Montgomery, West Virginia .......................................... 51 Table 2: Factors that Facilitate Collective Action in the OCWA ..................................... 60 Table 3: Theoretical Propositions versus Key Findings in the OCWA ............................ 99 Table 4: Factors that Facilitate Collective Action in the ABPWA ................................. 132 Table 5: Theoretical Propositions versus Key Findings in the ABPWA ........................ 171 Table 6: Features of OCWA and the ABPWA ............................................................... 205 Table 7: Comparing Factors that Facilitate Collective Action in the OCWA and the ABPWA .......................................................................................................................... 209 Table 8: Contextual Factors and Institutional Arrangements in the OCWA