Figure 1
Case study location.
Figure 2
Conceptual framework (adopted from Ostrom 2011).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of data use in statistical analyses (by community).6
| COMMUNITY ID | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variables | ||||||||||||
| Attendance (% high) | 62.5 | 100.0 | 63.1 | 97.0 | 100.0 | 51.5 | 81.3 | 38.9 | 95.6 | 54.5 | 80.3 | 50.0 |
| Active participation (% active) | 69.2 | 53.8 | 25.8 | 62.1 | 56.3 | 40.3 | 68.8 | 51.4 | 37.7 | 31.8 | 53.7 | 60.0 |
| Opinion respected (% yes) | 60.0 | 76.9 | 35.9 | 30.8 | 50.0 | 31.6 | 68.8 | 32.4 | 26.6 | 27.3 | 50.7 | 55.0 |
| Agree with exec. committee (% yes) | 57.7 | 84.6 | 63.1 | 51.5 | 68.8 | 60.0 | 100.0 | 37.8 | 53.6 | 31.8 | 61.2 | 40.0 |
| Individual/household attributes | ||||||||||||
| Gender (% women) | 69.2 | 46.2 | 66.2 | 50.7 | 62.5 | 55.1 | 50.0 | 73.7 | 49.3 | 72.7 | 52.9 | 60.0 |
| Age (average) | 48.0 | 47.9 | 41.8 | 47.6 | 55.5 | 49.3 | 43.4 | 52.2 | 40.9 | 48.1 | 45.7 | 44.9 |
| Education (% 7 years or more) | 37.5 | 23.1 | 25.4 | 29.9 | 25.0 | 20.6 | 25.0 | 21.1 | 22.1 | 18.2 | 14.7 | 40.0 |
| Off-farm income (%) | 23.1 | 7.7 | 11.9 | 7.5 | 18.8 | 30.4 | 25.0 | 7.9 | 5.8 | 4.5 | 7.4 | 5.0 |
| Wealth index | 0.27 | –0.94 | 0.11 | 0.49 | 0.26 | 0.07 | –0.22 | –0.08 | 0.08 | –0.06 | –0.31 | –1.04 |
| Community sector (% high) | 11.5 | 0.0 | 44.1 | 10.4 | 0.0 | 42.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.5 | 0.0 | 48.5 | 57.9 |
| Community/Governance attributes | ||||||||||||
| Community size | 48 | 17 | 179 | 120 | 30 | 450 | 26 | 45 | 417 | 33 | 216 | 31 |
| Organization index | –0.17 | 1.36 | –1.02 | 3.38 | 0.33 | –0.34 | 0.33 | 0.68 | 1.29 | –0.11 | –0.56 | 0.68 |
| –Assemblies (#/year) | 6 | 12 | 4 | 48 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 4 | 24 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| –Work Parties-Mingas (#/year) | 12 | 48 | 24 | 12 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 48 | 10 | 20 | 4 | 48 |
| –Monetary sanction for not attending assemblies | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Women in executive committee (%) | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 40 | 60 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 22 |
| Leadership training | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| PES Program participant | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| HH interviewed | 26 | 13 | 68 | 67 | 16 | 69 | 16 | 38 | 69 | 22 | 68 | 20 |
| % interviewed | 54 | 76 | 38 | 56 | 53 | 15 | 62 | 84 | 17 | 67 | 31 | 65 |
Table 2
Logit models for participation and agreement with executive committee.
| VARIABLES | ATTENDANCE | ACTIVE PARTICIPATION | OPINION RESPECTED | AGREE WITH EXEC. COMMITTEE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| Gender = 1, Woman | –0.510** | –0.232 | –0.591*** | –0.606*** | –0.461** | –0.537** | –0.404*** | –0.419** |
| (0.246) | (0.210) | (0.178) | (0.190) | (0.199) | (0.248) | (0.145) | (0.177) | |
| Age | –0.010 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.019* | 0.018* | –0.023*** | –0.021* |
| (0.011) | (0.008) | (0.009) | (0.009) | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.009) | (0.011) | |
| Education = 1, 7 years or more | –0.196 | –0.146 | 0.266 | 0.101 | 0.518* | 0.412 | –0.563** | –0.602** |
| (0.256) | (0.244) | (0.193) | (0.229) | (0.276) | (0.254) | (0.251) | (0.288) | |
| Off-farm income = 1, Yes | –0.790** | –0.302 | 0.580* | 0.880*** | 0.163 | 0.262 | 0.127 | 0.106 |
| (0.359) | (0.260) | (0.307) | (0.331) | (0.308) | (0.284) | (0.364) | (0.387) | |
| Wealth index | 0.190 | 0.162** | –0.057 | –0.078 | 0.013 | 0.070 | 0.066 | 0.074 |
| (0.122) | (0.083) | (0.111) | (0.079) | (0.096) | (0.092) | (0.125) | (0.135) | |
| Community sector = 1, High | 0.025 | 0.298 | 0.346 | 0.745** | 0.776*** | 0.988*** | 0.467* | 0.457* |
| (0.427) | (0.549) | (0.351) | (0.322) | (0.252) | (0.198) | (0.254) | (0.267) | |
| Community size | 0.006*** | –0.003*** | –0.002** | 0.001 | ||||
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |||||
| Organization index | 0.702*** | 0.250*** | –0.129 | –0.112 | ||||
| (0.128) | (0.090) | (0.097) | (0.073) | |||||
| Women in executive committee | –3.045*** | –0.343 | –0.362 | 0.335 | ||||
| (0.459) | (0.582) | (0.555) | (0.726) | |||||
| Leadership training = 1, Yes | 1.843*** | –0.286 | 0.464 | 0.999 | ||||
| (0.229) | (0.645) | (0.545) | (0.784) | |||||
| PES Program = 1, SB | –1.520*** | –0.022 | –0.440 | –0.405 | ||||
| (0.299) | (0.427) | (0.386) | (0.606) | |||||
| Constant | 1.915** | 0.458 | –0.398 | 0.202 | –1.378** | –0.827 | 1.566*** | 1.083 |
| (0.796) | (0.469) | (0.590) | (0.714) | (0.574) | (0.563) | (0.411) | (0.680) | |
| Observations | 474 | 474 | 473 | 473 | 459 | 459 | 474 | 474 |
| McFadden’s Pseudo R2 | 0.0235 | 0.190 | 0.0320 | 0.0685 | 0.0424 | 0.0741 | 0.0321 | 0.0449 |
| Overall correct predictions (%) | 73.21 | 75.74 | 61.73 | 63.42 | 63.40 | 65.36 | 60.13 | 62.66 |
| AIC | ||||||||
[i] Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table 3
Logit models with gender interaction.
| VARIABLES | ATTENDANCE | ACTIVE PARTICIPATION | OPINION RESPECTED | AGREE WITH EXEC. COMMITTEE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| Gender = 1, Woman | –0.361 | –1.208*** | –0.927 | –0.649** |
| (0.248) | (0.218) | (0.683) | (0.283) | |
| Age | 0.005 | 0.007 | 0.018* | –0.021* |
| (0.009) | (0.009) | (0.010) | (0.011) | |
| Education = 1, 7 years or more | –0.124 | 0.078 | 0.385 | –0.586** |
| (0.261) | (0.233) | (0.267) | (0.293) | |
| Off-farm income = 1, Yes | –0.329 | 0.949*** | 0.318 | 0.103 |
| (0.259) | (0.354) | (0.288) | (0.402) | |
| Wealth index | 0.162* | –0.084 | 0.068 | 0.063 |
| (0.085) | (0.082) | (0.094) | (0.132) | |
| Community sector = 1, High | 0.271 | 0.710** | 0.981*** | 0.399 |
| (0.540) | (0.326) | (0.197) | (0.268) | |
| Community size | 0.006*** | –0.003*** | –0.002*** | 0.001 |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
| Organization index | 0.694*** | 0.250*** | –0.115 | –0.132* |
| (0.127) | (0.089) | (0.093) | (0.079) | |
| Women in executive committee | –4.077*** | –1.371** | –0.445 | –0.920 |
| (0.845) | (0.553) | (0.996) | (1.023) | |
| Gender * Women in executive committee | 1.479* | 1.672** | 0.176 | 1.926** |
| (0.801) | (0.657) | (1.470) | (0.765) | |
| Leadership training = 1, Yes | 2.163*** | –0.689 | –0.006 | 1.174 |
| (0.324) | (0.604) | (0.658) | (0.871) | |
| Gender * Leadership training | –0.495 | 0.690** | 0.734 | –0.224 |
| (0.328) | (0.295) | (0.615) | (0.275) | |
| PES Program = 1, PSP Participant | –1.481*** | –0.013 | –0.416 | –0.400 |
| (0.296) | (0.446) | (0.399) | (0.620) | |
| Constant | 0.487 | 0.532 | –0.571 | 1.171 |
| (0.549) | (0.611) | (0.464) | (0.719) | |
| Observations | 474 | 473 | 459 | 474 |
| McFadden’s Pseudo R2 | 0.196 | 0.0742 | 0.0790 | 0.0517 |
| Overall correct predictions (%) | 76.37 | 64.27 | 64.71 | 63.08 |
[i] Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Figure 3
Household agreement and participation variables by community.7