The Impact of Training on Druze Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes Towards and Intended Behaviors Regarding Local Sustainability Governance: A Field Experiment at the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Land Regulation and Spatial Inequality
2.2. From Conservation to Local Sustainability Governance: The Concept of the Biosphere Reserve
2.3. The Case of the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve—from Ecological Rehabilitation to Crisis Management
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Rationale for the Study
3.2. The Relationship between Residents’ and Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes Towards and Intended Behavior Regarding Local Sustainability Governance
3.3. The Effect of Green Business-Guidance Training on Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes and Intended Behaviors Regarding Local Sustainability Governance
4. Method
4.1. Procedure
4.2. Action Research and the Green Business-Guidance Training Program
4.3. Sample
4.4. Measures
4.5. Data Analysis
5. Findings
5.1. Relationships between Attitudes Towards and Intended Behaviors Regarding Local Sustainability Governance
5.2. Predicting Participation and Involvement in Operating the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
5.3. Predicting Active Resistance to the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
5.4. The Effect of Green Business-Guidance Training on Attitudes Towards and Intended Behaviors of Druze Entrepreneurs Regarding Local Sustainability Governance
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The Measurement Tool
Appendix A.1. Awareness of the Existence of the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I am aware that there is a biosphere reserve in the Carmel
- I know the borders of the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I know the people and institutions engaged in conserving the environment and am aware of their activities in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
Appendix A.2. Attitude Towards Social and Economic Opportunities in the Area of the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- The Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve creates unique opportunities for economic development for local residents
- Cooperation between me and the parties responsible for the natural environment in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve can create more profits for me and for the rest of the residents in the area
- Development of nature and the environment in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve can contribute significantly to the economic development of businesses in the area
- The activities of environmental organizations in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve are positive and contribute to the development of nature and the environment in the region (r)
- The natural environment in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve should serve the needs of the community and businesses
Appendix A.3. Resistance to the Restrictions and Enforcement of The Environmental Regulations in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I am opposed to a situation where, because of environmental aspects, I will lose money
- Conservation of nature and the environment in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve will cause economic damage to the residents of the area
- People have the right to change nature in accordance with their needs
- The environmental crisis is exaggerated out of proportion and therefore there is no need to inspect and restrict the business activity of local residents in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- The representatives of environmental organizations in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve should not be allowed to impose fines on residents and business owners in Druze villages
Appendix A.4. Participation and Involvement in Operating the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I am in constant contact with representatives of environmental organizations in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I feel that I am a partner with and affect the management of the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I take part in decision-making about environmental aspects in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
Appendix A.5. Active resistance to the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I am opposed to the existence of the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- I work to overturn the restrictions and compromises reached with representatives of environmental organizations in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- My friends and I are working to abolish the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
- My friends and I are working to dissolve or remove the environmental organizations in the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve
References
- UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). Biosphere Reserves—Learning Sites for Sustainable Development. 2019. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Doyon, S.; Sabinot, C. A new ′conservation space′? Protected areas, environmental economic activities and discourses in two yucatán biosphere reserves in Mexico. Conserv. Soc. 2014, 12, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). Biosphere Reserves: Special Places for People and Nature; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2002; Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001213/121361Eo.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Castillo-Eguskitza, N.; Schmitz, M.; Olalde, M.O.; Rescia, A.J.; Castillo-Eguskitza, N. Linking biophysical and economic assessments of ecosystem services for a social–ecological approach to conservation planning: Application in a biosphere reserve (Biscay, Spain). Sustainability 2019, 11, 3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferreira, A.F.; Zimmermann, H.; Santos, R.; Von Wehrden, H. A social–ecological systems framework as a tool for understanding the effectiveness of biosphere reserve management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Levine, J.; An Even Less Convenient Truth: Addressing the Challenge of Sustainable Development through an Integration of Cognition and Culture. University of British Columbia. 2014. Available online: https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0135557) (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Ministry of Environmental Protection. Summary of the Meeting of the Council for National Parks and Nature Reserves; Ministry of Environmental Protection: Jerusalem, Israel, 2018. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Ken-Li, C.N. A Merge between Ecological Needs and Social Preference in Order to Create a Sustainable System at the Carmel Biosphere Reserve. Master’s Thesis, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Batisse, M. Biosphere reserves: A challenge for biodiversity conservation & regional development. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 1997, 39, 6–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridgewater, P. The Man and Biosphere programme of UNESCO: Rambunctious child of the sixties, but was the promise fulfilled? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1996; Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001038/103849Eb.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Heinen, J.T. Emerging, diverging and converging paradigms on sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 1994, 1, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinen, J.T.; Low, R.; Bobbi, S. Human behavioural ecology and environmental conservation. Environ. Conserv. 1992, 19, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Low, B.S.; Heinen, J.T. Population, resources, and environment: Implications of human behavioral ecology for conservation. Popul. Environ. 1993, 15, 7–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edge, S.; McAllister, M.L. Place-based local governance and sustainable communities: Lessons from Canadian biosphere reserves. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkland, T. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts and Models of Public Policy Making; Routledge: Abington, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ward, K.; Jonas, A.E.G. Competitive city-regionalism as a politics of space: A critical reinterpretation of the new regionalism. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2004, 36, 2119–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzfadia, E. Academic discourse on making new towns in Israel: Three approaches in social science. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2005, 23, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Floersheimer Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Local Democracy in Israel: Decentralization, Localism, Participation and Local Politics; Beeri, I., Razin, E., Eds.; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Jerusalem, Israel, 2015. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, N.; Aharon-Gutman, M. Labor agencies and the temporality of struggles: A comparative study in the Israeli periphery. Geoforum 2016, 74, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNeely, J.A. Protected areas for the 21st century: Working to provide benefits to society. Biodivers. Conserv. 1994, 3, 390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnett, M. Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foley, P. The territorialization of transnational sustainability governance: Production, power and globalization in Iceland’s fisheries. Environ. Politics 2017, 26, 915–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulkeley, H.; Betsill, M. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the ’urban’ politics of climate change. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 42–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawkins, C.A.; Kwon, S.-W.; Bae, J. Balance between local economic development and environmental sustainability: A multi-level governance perspective. Int. J. Public Adm. 2016, 39, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Corbera, E.; Boyero, D.C.; García-Frapolli, E.; Brown, K. How do biosphere reserves influence local vulnerability and adaptation? Evidence from Latin America. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 33, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meadowcroft, J.; Farrell, K.N.; Spangenberg, J. Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, M.F. The periodic review of biosphere reserves: A mechanism to foster sites of excellence for conservation and sustainable development. Environ. Sci. Policy 2002, 5, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouamrane, M.; Agrawal, A.; Spierenburg, M.; Amadou, B.; Cormier-Salem, M.-C.; Le Page, C.; Levrel, H.; Etienne, M.; Mathevet, R. Stakeholder engagement and biodiversity conservation challenges in social-ecological systems: Some insights from biosphere reserves in western Africa and France. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stollkleemann, S.; Welp, M. Participatory and integrated management of biosphere reserves: Lessons from case studies and a global survey. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2008, 17, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawhon, M.; Patel, Z. Scalar politics and local sustainability: Rethinking governance and justice in an era of political and environmental change. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2013, 31, 1048–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bäckstrand, K. Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the world summit on sustainable development. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 2006, 12, 467–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brody, S.D. Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2003, 22, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oates, J.F. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- García-Frapolli, E.; Ayala-Orozco, B.; Oliva, M.; Smith, R.J. Different approaches towards the understanding of socio-environmental conflicts in protected areas. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frankenberg, E.; Cohen, Y. Carmel project—Declaration of the carmel as a biosphere reserve. Ecol. Environ. 1996, 3, 121–126. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
- Jansson, A. Holding the Borders of Mount Carmel: A study of Management and Land Issues in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. 2014. Available online: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:728375/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Frisch-Aviram, N.; Cohen, N.; Beeri, I. Low-level bureaucrats, local government regimes and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Sci. 2017, 51, 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aviram, N.F.; Cohen, N.; Beeri, I. Policy entrepreneurship in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Public Adm. Dev. 2019, 40, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheeran, P. Intention—Behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 12, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, T. From participation to partnership in biodiversity protection: Experience from Germany and South Africa. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2002, 15, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: A Quest for Control G; Peters, B.; Pierre, J. (Eds.) Routledge: Abington, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Stoker, G. Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour; Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, D.J.; Game, C.; Leach, S.; Stoker, G. Local Government in the United Kingdom; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, B.D.; Baumgartner, F.R. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Gollwitzer, P.M.; Sheeran, P. Self-regulation of consumer decision making and behavior: The role of implementation intentions. J. Consum. Psychol. 2009, 19, 593–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fayolle, A.; Liñán, F. The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheeran, P.; Silverman, M. Evaluation of three interventions to promote workplace health and safety: Evidence for the utility of implementation intentions. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56, 2153–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liñán, F. Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccolla Impresa Small Bus. 2004, 3, 11–35. [Google Scholar]
- Mintrom, M.; Norman, P. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Stud. J. 2009, 37, 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adelman, C. Kurt lewin and the origins of action research. Educ. Action Res. 1993, 1, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wisker, G.; Tiley, J.; Watkins, M.; Waller, S.; Thomas, J. Discipline-based research into student learning in English, law, social work, computer skills for linguists, women’s studies, creative writing: How can it inform our teaching? Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2001, 38, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beeri, I. The measurement of turnaround management strategies in local authorities. Public Money Manag. 2009, 29, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molotch, H. The City as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. Am. J. Sociol. 1976, 82, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, N. Policy entrepreneurs and the design of public policy: The case of the National Health Insurance Law in Israel. J. Soc. Res. Policy 2012, 3, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
Attitudes | Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Awareness of the existence of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | 3.18 | 1.53 | (0.86) | ||||
2. Attitude towards social and economic opportunities | 4.15 | 1.01 | 0.48 *** | (0.72) | |||
3. Resistance towards restrictions and environmental enforcement | 3.07 | 1.05 | 0.10 | −0.08 | (0.67) | ||
Intended Behaviors | |||||||
4. Participation and involvement in operating the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | 2.05 | 1.27 | 0.39 *** | 0.28 *** | 0.07 | (0.92) | |
5. Active resistance towards the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | 1.97 | 1.13 | 0.01 | −0.12 * | 0.43 *** | 0.17 ** | (0.91) |
Intended Behaviors Regarding the Mt. Carmel Biosphere Reserve | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Participation and Involvement in Operating the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | Active Resistance to the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | |||
Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 1 | Step 2 | |
Control Variables | ||||
Gender | 0.03 (0.33) | 0.03 (0.41) | 0.08 (1.03) | 0.05 (0.72) |
Age | 0.17 * (2.36) | 0.12 (1.78) | 0.18 * (2.41) | 0.11 (1.66) |
Education | −0.06 (−0.89) | −0.07 (−1.05) | 0.06 (0.79) | 0.08 (1.18) |
Salary | 0.05 (0.60) | 0.05 (0.68) | −0.07 (−0.88) | −0.06 (−0.85) |
Attitudes towards the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | ||||
Awareness of the existence of the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | 0.34 ** (4.51) | 0.06 (0.77) | ||
Attitude towards social and economic opportunities | 0.11 (1.46) | −0.16 * (−2.21) | ||
Resistance towards restrictions and environmental enforcement | −0.01 (−0.07) | 0.39 ** (5.96) | ||
R2 | 0.21 | 0.23 | ||
Adjusted R2 | 0.18 | 0.20 | ||
F | 6.98 ** | 8.11 ** | ||
ΔR2 | 0.16 | 0.19 | ||
F for ΔR2 | 12.89 ** | 15.65 ** |
The General Population at T1 | Entrepreneurs at T2 | Difference | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | T |
1. Awareness of the existence of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | 3.11 | 1.53 | 3.68 | 1.42 | −1.73 * |
2. Attitude towards social and economic opportunities | 4.12 | 1.04 | 4.58 | 0.91 | −2.13 ** |
3. Resistance to restrictions and environmental enforcement | 3.06 | 1.03 | 2.97 | 1.01 | 0.38 |
Intended Behaviors | |||||
4. Participation and involvement in operating the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | 2.03 | 1.29 | 2.17 | 1.32 | −0.441 |
5. Active resistance to the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve | 1.97 | 1.17 | 1.45 | 0.46 | 4.05 *** |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Beeri, I.; Gottlieb, D.; Izhaki, I.; Eshet, T.; Cohen, N. The Impact of Training on Druze Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes Towards and Intended Behaviors Regarding Local Sustainability Governance: A Field Experiment at the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4584. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114584
Beeri I, Gottlieb D, Izhaki I, Eshet T, Cohen N. The Impact of Training on Druze Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes Towards and Intended Behaviors Regarding Local Sustainability Governance: A Field Experiment at the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve. Sustainability. 2020; 12(11):4584. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114584
Chicago/Turabian StyleBeeri, Itai, Dan Gottlieb, Ido Izhaki, Tzipi Eshet, and Noam Cohen. 2020. "The Impact of Training on Druze Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes Towards and Intended Behaviors Regarding Local Sustainability Governance: A Field Experiment at the Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve" Sustainability 12, no. 11: 4584. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114584