1
THE SOCIAL FACTORS THAT FACILITATE OR CONSTRAIN RESTORATION 1
MANAGEMENT: WATERSHED REHABILITATION AND WET MEADOW (BOFEDAL) 2
RESTORATION IN THE BOLIVIAN ANDES 3
Brett D. Hartmana, David A. Clevelanda,b 4 aDepartment of Geography, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 5
bDepartment of Environmental Science, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 6
Abstract 7
Restoration ecology holds promise for addressing land degradation in impoverished rural 8
environments, provided the approach is adapted as it is applied to rural development settings. 9 There is a need for increased integration of social dynamics in land restoration, however few 10
systematic studies exist. We explored the social factors that influence restoration management, 11 including local motives and perceived benefits, incentives, land tenancy, institutional factors, 12 conflict resolution, accessibility, off-farm labor, and outmigration. The study area is a successful 13 watershed rehabilitation and wet meadow restoration project ongoing in the Bolivian Andes since 14
1992. We used household survey methods (n=237) to compare the four highest restoration 15 management intensity communities (HighRMI) with the four lowest restoration management 16
intensity communities (LowRMI). The results suggest several factors that facilitate investments in 17 land restoration, including aligning restoration objectives with local motives and perceived 18 benefits, ensuring incentives are in place to stimulate long term investments, conflict resolution, 19
land tenancy, and accessibility. Institutional factors such as community organization and 20 leadership capacity play a supporting or mediating role. In addition to social benefits reported by 21
local communities, land restoration helped slow the rate of rural to urban migration, with 29.1% 22 outmigration in HighRMI communities compared to 70.3% in LowRMI communities. Results 23
suggest that land restoration projects that integrate community development into project planning 24 and implementation will achieve greater success. 25
Keywords: Aymara, bofedal, check dams, erosion control, restoration ecology, community development, 26 socio-ecological system 27
1. Introduction 28
Reversing land degradation in impoverished rural environments is a global priority 29
(Gisladottir and Stocking 2005). Restoration ecology provides a promising framework (Brown 30
and Lugo 1994; Hobbs and Norton 1996; Lamb et al. 2005), but it will need to be modified when 31
applied to a rural development setting. The major challenge for restoring heavily managed rural 32
environments lies in increased integration of social dynamics into restoration efforts (Burke and 33
Mitchell 2007, Temperton 2007, Aronson et al. 2010, Shackelford et al. 2013). There is an 34
emerging body of literature which suggests that local and indigenous people can be effective at 35
land restoration, provided there are sufficient levels of social coordination and mobilization 36
2
(Walters 2000, Long et al. 2003, Amede et al. 2007, Stringer et al. 2007, Weston et al. 2015, 37
Hartman et al. 2016). Restoring ecosystem services also creates a series of social benefits that 38
help maintain rural livelihoods (Badola and Hussain 2005, Walton et al. 2006, Blay et al. 2008, 39
Nielson-Pincus et al. 2013, Barral et al. 2015, Reed et al. 2015). While these studies provide 40
preliminary insight into the social dynamics influencing land restoration, the social conditions 41
required for restoration success remain poorly studied. There is a need to better understand the 42
factors that support the social coordination and mobilization required for impoverished rural 43
communities to invest in land restoration. 44
People make land use decisions in response to a complex set of individual, social, 45
economic, and institutional factors that ‘pressure’ or ‘nudge’ change (Zimmerer 1993, Lambin et 46
al. 2003). Land degradation can stress societies by reducing the flow of ecosystem services 47
(Lamb et al. 2005, Scherr 2000, Carter et al. 2007), leaving populations vulnerable to food 48
scarcity, infectious disease, civil conflict, and involuntary migration (Myers 1997, Collins 2001, 49
Patz et al. 2004, Theisen 2008, Reuveny and Moore 2009). These stressors can, in turn, trigger 50
fundamental social changes that reduce the local ability to sustain the investments in time, 51
energy, and resources required to return degraded ecosystems to full functionality (Brown and 52
Lugo 1994). Robust social systems are needed for local communities to be able to initiate and 53
sustain land restoration, or at the very least, such systems need to be developed in the course of 54
land restoration (Leach et. al. 1999, Anderies et al. 2004, Amede et. al. 2007). The imperative is 55
to identify key social factors that either facilitate or constrain restoration trends, and which can 56
be managed through community development or policy initiatives. 57
Previous studies have identified several factors that influence land management 58
decisions, but their role in facilitating or constraining land restoration have been poorly studied. 59
These include aligning restoration objectives with local motives and perceived benefits (Blay et 60
al. 2008, Bullock et al. 2011, Reed et al. 2015); credits and incentives to stimulate long-term 61
investment (Mekuria et al. 2011, Montagnini and Finney 2011, Schiappacasse et al. 2012); road 62
networks and accessibility (Jungerius 2002, Nyssen et. al. 2002, Pender 2004, Valentin et. al. 63
2005); land tenancy and institutional factors (Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Leach et. al. 1999, 64
Hodge and McNally 2000, Gebremedhin et. al. 2004); conflict resolution (Amede et. al. 2007, 65
Theisen 2008); and pursuit of alternative economic opportunities through off-farm labor and 66
outmigration (Gray 2009, Baptista and Rudel 2006, Kull et. al. 2007, Izquierdo et. al. 2008). We 67
3
conducted an exploratory analysis to investigate the social factors that facilitate or constrain land 68
restoration at a long-term and large-scale watershed rehabilitation and wet meadow restoration 69
program in the highland Andes. In this paper, we first describe the social and environmental 70
characteristics of the study area, and the history of land degradation and subsequent restoration. 71
We then discuss the study variable selection process, and describe the household survey and 72
other methods used to collect data. Finally, we present results, contextualize them in the 73
literature, and draw preliminary conclusions about the implications for land restoration in a rural 74
development setting. 75
2. Study Area 76
The study area is a watershed rehabilitation and wetland restoration program in the 77
Bolivian Andes. It is located the Ayllu Majasaya-Aransaya-Urunsaya, an indigenous Aymara 78
territory situated along the Cochabamba-Oruro Highway in the Tapacarí Province, Department 79
of Cochabamba, Bolivia (Figure 1). Ayllus are communal territories, with agropastoral activities 80
conducted through institutions such as the ayanoka (communal planting areas), the mink'a 81
(communal planting and work days), the ayni (reciprocal work exchanges between families), and 82
traditional authorities such the hilakata (regulates communal planting and grazing activities). 83
Population densities are low (14.7 people/km2), with families living in dispersed and isolated 84
ranchos. The climate is semi-arid, with the majority of the rain falling between November and 85
March. Elevation ranges from 3,800 to 4,600 m and vegetation is dominated by Puna grasslands 86
with seeps and wet meadows (bofedales) embedded within the grassland matrix. Local 87
livelihoods are based on llama and sheep grazing in high elevation grasslands, with agriculture 88
concentrated in the more mesic valleys. 89
The highland Andes have been subjected to human influence for 7,000-8,000 years 90
(Ellenberg 1979; Baied & Wheeler 1993; Chepstow-Lusty et al. 1998). Land degradation in the 91
study area is a result of modern population growth, cultivation on steep slopes, and overgrazing, 92
which led to severe gully erosion, reduced agropastoral production, and bofedal degradation 93
(Siebert 1983; Harden 2001; Brandt & Townsend 2006). Bofedales provide important dry season 94
grazing, and impacts to these systems can negatively impact local communities (Squeo et al. 95
2006, Washington-Allen et al. 2008). According to oral histories, land degradation intensified 96
after the land reforms of 1952, which superimposed private land tenancy over the ayllu system 97
4
and created a complex of individual, communal, and intra-communal land use rights (La Fuente 98
1997, Delgado 2001, Rist et al. 2003). The complex of land use rights weakened the traditional 99
ayllu system of agropastoral management, and worsened resource disputes. Land degradation 100
exacerbated the levels of poverty and contributed to a reliance on off-farm labor and 101
outmigration to urban centers (e.g. to Cochabamba and Oruro) and to the coca (Erythroxylem 102
coca) regions in the Chapare (La Fuente 1997). People began working in the city for 3-4 weeks 103
out of the year to earn money as a supplement to their production in order to buy such things as 104
sugar and kerosene. The trips to the city became more prolonged over the years, and some 105
families established households in the city. Some individuals moved abroad, primarily to 106
Argentina and Spain, typically returning after a number of years to invest earnings in cargo 107
trucks or taxis that they would use to earn money in the region. 108
Land restoration began in 1992 through a partnership between the Ayllu Majasaya-109
Aransaya-Urunsaya and the Dorothy Baker Environmental Studies Center (Centro de Estudios 110
Ambientales Dorothy Baker, CEADB). CEADB documented the restoration process in project 111
records that included quarterly monitoring, annual evaluations, unpublished reports, and thesis 112
studies. Land restoration was planned through participatory community workshops in 1992 and 113
1995, consultation with community work groups, and feedback from community leaders and 114
promotores (community volunteers that received special training in land restoration techniques, 115
and that helped coordinate restoration activities and provide training to the rest of the 116
community). The partnership between CEADB and the Ayllu Majasaya-Aransaya-Urunsaya 117
eventually grew into to a program that included over 30 communities and multiple governmental 118
and non-governmental organizations. One of these organizations (Food for the Hungry, FHI) 119
used a food-for-work program to encourage terrace construction in exchange for foodstuffs. 120
When land restoration efforts began, conflict was identified as a major impediment to building 121
erosion controls. The sources of conflict identified included 1) disputes over land tenancy and 122
resource use rights; 2) intergenerational conflict from the younger generation leaving for military 123
service, and upon their return, not respecting the old ways, and 3) interpersonal disputes 124
(Hartman 1996, La Fuente 1997). Effective land restoration requires a high degree of 125
coordination, and conflict resolution was perceived to be a critical step before land restoration 126
could begin. To help address resource use disputes, several communities elected to privatize 127
communal lands. Communities that privatized lands allocated 42 ha to each family, with a very 128
5
small minority of families currently living on parcels from 5 - 21 ha (CEADB project records). 129
Land privatization was facilitated by legal reforms enacted in 1996 that granted a greater degree 130
of local control over economic and natural resources. 131
Land restoration was conducted in community work groups (aines). Land restoration 132
started in the upper reaches of the watershed in the early 1990s. Community work groups began 133
by building check dams in the headwaters of gullies along the paved Cbba-Oruro Highway, 134
working their way down slope as gullies were stabilized. Other erosion control structures such as 135
terraces, inlfiltration ditches, gabions, tree planting, grazing exlcosures, and stock ponds were 136
introduced in later stages of project development. The project was highly succesful, and over 137
30,000 erosion control structures (ECSs) were built. ECSs led to increased bofedal vegetation 138
and standing water in gullies, and increased greenness on approximately 50 km2 (Hartman et al. 139
2016a). 140
3. Methods 141
3.1 Sample frame 142
The sample frame for this study is based on a comparison between communities that had 143
conducted the most restoration management and those that had conducted the least. There is a 144
high degree of variability in the density of erosion control structures in project communities 145
(from 14.7 - 225.3 ECSs/km2, according to CEADB project records). Therefore, restoration 146
management intensity (RMI) was defined as RMI = No ECSs/km
2. We explored alternate 147
measures of RMI (e.g. normalizing RMI by population density). However, such measures did not 148
improve the differentiation of HighRMI and LowRMI communities. Using RMI, four high 149
restoration management intensity communities (HighRMI) and four low restoration management 150
intensity communities (LowRMI) were identified as study communities (Figure 1, Table 1). The 151
study communities are from the same ayllu system, and social structure, cultural norms and 152
practices, production methods, population density, and income are all similar. The study 153
communities are from a similar elevation belt, and soils and vegetation types are similar as well. 154
However, several communities in the lower reaches of the watershed (below 3,850 m) began 155
land restoration after 2003, and these were not considered in the selection of HighRMI and 156
LowRMI communities. Control communities were not selected for the household survey, as 157
6
many of the questions asked are not relevant outside the context of a land restoration program. 158
Control communities were included in two related studies to measure the biophysical effect of 159
ECSs (Hartman et al. 2016a) and evaluate changes in local knowledge and attitudes with 160
increased restoration management intensity (Hartman et al. 2016b). Two additional communities 161
with low to medium levels of RMI were surveyed (Table 1), and data from these communities 162
were used in selected data analyses as described below. 163
3.2 Study variable selection 164
This research was exploratory, and hypotheses about potential social factors influencing 165
land restoration in impoverished rural environments were developed from a review of the rural 166
development and natural resource management literature. The study variables (Table 2) were 167
selected based on relevance to a watershed rehabilitation and wet meadow restoration program 168
conducted by an Aymara indigenous group in the highland Andes. Study variable selection was 169
informed by prior research conducted in the study area in 1996, semi-structured interviews with 170
five key informants and nine community members in a reconnaissance survey in 2008, and 171
CEADB project records. Social factors that are not relevant to the study area but may be relevant 172
to land restoration in other social and environmental contexts were excluded from the analyses, 173
e.g. ecotourism (Blangy and Mehta 2006). The final list of study variables included: participation 174
rates, ECSs built, motives for and perceived benefits of land restoration, incentives (food-for-175
work program), institutional factors (land tenancy, active leadership, community development), 176
conflict resolution, accessibility (road networks), off-farm labor, and outmigration. The 177
information was solicited through a combination of open questions that allowed a variety of 178
responses, closed questions to elicit specific information, and scaled response questions to 179
evaluate perceptions about the factors that facilitate or constrain ECS construction (Table 2). 180
Data were evaluated by triangulating responses about motivations for and perceived benefits of 181
land restoration, perceptions about the factors that facilitate or constrain ECS construction, and 182
available study variable data. 183
3.3 Household survey 184
A questionnaire was developed for the household survey. Information solicited included: 185
1) participation rates, including whether or not they participated, year the respondent began 186
project participation, number of erosion controls constructed, whether or not the respondent 187
7
received any benefits from land restoration, and whether or not the respondent experienced any 188
negative side effects from land restoration efforts; 2) motivational factors for participating in 189
land restoration efforts and the perceived benefits of land restoration; 3) scaled response 190
questions about the levels of soil erosion when the land restoration began, and the current levels 191
of land restoration; 4) a facilitations and constraints analysis, which consisted of scaled responses 192
about the factors that either facilitate or constrain erosion control construction; 5) information 193
about levels of conflict, conflict resolution, and cooperation via comparisons between the present 194
level of conflict with the level of conflict at the time of project initiation; 6) days spent in off-195
farm labor, locally and in the city; 7) number of family members that live in the city or abroad; 196
and 8) general demographic information (age, sex, plot size, family size, household location). 197
The questionnaire was designed to begin with relatively simple information and then cover 198
potentially sensitive topics once a rapport was established, ending with easily answered 199
quantitative data, in case respondents became fatigued. The interview was designed to be 200
completed in 30 minutes or less. The questionnaire was tested with 11 respondents from 201
communities that were not part of the HighRMI and LowRMI sample population. Following 202
each test interview, the questionnaire was reviewed and revised by the survey team. Additional 203
information on the survey team, training, and interview protocols in included in the 204
supplementary information. 205
The facilitation and constraints analysis was a set of scaled response questions designed 206
to elicit perceptions of whether selected social factors facilitate or constrain the construction of 207
erosion control structures (ECSs). The facilitating and constraining factors were: improved 208
accessibility through road construction, incentives such as food-for-work, off-farm work in the 209
city, off-farm work in the ayllu, land privatization, living in ayanokas (collective lands), if 210
leaders are active or not, if community organization is strong, if there is conflict in the 211
community, and if conflict resolution occurs. The scaled response (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2) was 212
translated to verbal categories. Respondents were asked if the factor under consideration helped 213
(ha ayudado), hindered (ha afectado), or did not affect (no ha afectado) their ability to build 214
erosion control structures. If the response was neutral, no further questions were asked. If the 215
response was that the factor helped or hindered, then a follow-on question about magnitude was 216
asked, i.e. did it help a lot, or help a little? 217
8
The household survey was conducted between October 2010 and February 2011, during 218
the growing season. Interviews were conducted in one of three languages - Aymara, Quechua, or 219
Spanish. The questions were asked the same way each time without leading information or 220
gestures, and probing questions (who, what, when, where, and why) were asked when necessary. 221
Answers were recorded in Spanish directly into the spaces in the questionnaire, and later 222
translated to English. Interviews were conducted with the male or female head of household, 223
with a household defined as a residence unit comprising parents, children, and any additional 224
extended family members. Only one family member was interviewed per household. There were 225
a total of 210 respondents in the HighRMI and LowRMI groups (Table S1). An additional 27 226
respondents were interviewed in the two communities with low to medium levels of restoration 227
management intensity (n=237 total). Data from these communities were not included in the 228
comparison of HighRMI and LowRMI respondents, but were used to compare communities with 229
communal and private land tenancy and to calculate outmigration rates. Respondents were 76.7% 230
male and 23.3% female. Family size ranged from 2 - 14 people, and respondents ranged from 20 231
- 84 years of age. 232
Permission to conduct the survey was granted by the regional indigenous authorities. 233
With the support of the indigenous authorities, the non-response rate was not significant, and 234
only one household refused to be interviewed. Given the low population densities, a 100% 235
sample was conducted in most study communities. In the larger communities (Lakolakoni, Yawri 236
Totora, Japo, and Tallija), sampling was conducted by selecting routes that covered all 237
geographic regions of the community. Routes were selected in consultation with the promotores 238
and by reviewing aerial photographs. Routes were selected that traversed town centers, 239
secondary roads, and remote areas accessible by footpaths. Once a route was selected, a 100% 240
sample of all households along the route was conducted, including any households located in 241
side valleys. There was a potential sample bias created by people who were absent at the time of 242
survey as they were working in the city, planting or tending herds. Therefore, a list of households 243
that were not at home during the 1st visit was kept. The survey team returned for a 2
nd or 3
rd visit 244
to secure an interview, or the resident was located in other areas, such as at regional fairs. This 245
measure increased the sample from 52% to 67.5% of the households. 246
9
3.4 Additional data sources 247
A detailed census of the project area was conducted by CEADB in 2006. The census 248
included data on the number of males, females, and families resident in project communities in 249
2006. The 2006 census also included data on the number of families that had emigrated as of 250
2006. During the 2012 household survey, the number of resident families resident in each 251
community was documented in consultation with community leaders. 252
Town center points were identified from Instituto Geografico Militar 1965 1:50,000 253
topographic maps (6240 I, 6240 IV, 6241 II, 6241 III) and adjusted based on ground-truthing and 254
Googe Earth® imagery. Community boundaries were delineated in ArcGIS. Data sources 255
included the 1:50,000 topographic maps, detailed sketch maps created by local communities, 256
GPS points of key landmarks, and watershed boundaries from a 30m resolution ASTER Global 257
DEM. In general, the community boundaries followed ridgelines and river center lines, and it 258
was possible to delineate community boundaries by merging and clipping watershed polygons. 259
Road networks were delineated in Google Earth® and exported to ArcGIS. 260
3.5 Data analysis 261
Given that erosion control structures were built in communal work groups, the rates of 262
ECS construction were only meaningful at the group level. It was not possible to conduct a 263
disaggregated analysis of ECSs/household. Therefore, data were analyzed using a between-group 264
design: a Two-tailed t-Test for Equality of Means; a One-Way ANOVA (assuming equal 265
variance following a Levene's test) or a Brown-Forsythe One Way ANOVA (assuming unequal 266
variance following a Levine's test) with a Games-Howell post-Hoc Multiple Comparison of 267
Means for numerical data; and Person's Chi-Square or Fisher’s Exact Test for categorical data. 268
The scaled-response data in the facilitations and constraints analysis was evaluated for 269
asymptotic significances, using an Independent Samples Mann-Whitney U Test and an 270
Independent Samples Median Test. The Independent Samples Mann-Whitney U Test is used to 271
compare differences between independent groups when the variables are either ordinal or 272
continuous but are not normally distributed. The Independent Samples Mann-Whitney U Test 273
and Independent Samples Median Test are non-parametric tests that can be used to state whether 274
two groups have significant asymptotic differences in their histogram distributions, either 275
through differences in the shape of the distribution or the median. 276
10
4. Results 277
4.1 Participation 278
The HighRMI and LowRMI respondents had similar rates of participation in the 279
watershed rehabilitation and wet meadow restoration program (Table 3). However, on average, 280
HighRMI respondents participated in restoration earlier and built a greater number of erosion 281
control structures (ECSs). This pattern was observed across all types of ECSs, including check 282
dams, terraces, infiltration ditches, slow-forming terraces, diversion ditches, stock ponds, grazing 283
enclosures, micro irrigation, improved pasture plantings (Phalaris sp.), and reforestation. 284
4.2 Motives and perceived benefits 285
The reported motivations for and perceived benefits of land restoration (Table 4) are 286
related to local community livelihoods. The majority of respondents (96.6%) reported one or 287
more benefits from land restoration such as soil and water conservation, increased agropastoral 288
production, community development, and new land restoration knowledge. HighRMI 289
respondents identified a higher number of motivational factors (p=0.062) and perceived benefits 290
(p=0.015) per person compared to LowRMI respondents. Pasture rehabilitation, water "filtration" 291
and increased soil moisture, conflict resolution, and staple food items from the food-for-work 292
program were cited as motivating factors at significantly higher rates by HighRMI respondents. 293
In contrast, trees for housing and firewood was cited as a motivating factor at a significantly 294
higher rate by LowRMI respondents. 295
4.3 Incentives 296
The only incentive to build ECSs in the study area was the food-for-work program. The 297
HighRMI respondents cited the food-for-work program as a motivational factor at a significantly 298
higher rate (Table 4). In the facilitation and constraint analysis (Figure 2), the majority of 299
respondents perceived the food-for-work program to be a moderate facilitating factor for erosion 300
control construction. There are significant asymptotic differences in the histogram distributions, 301
with a higher proportion of LowRMI respondents citing food-for-work as a strong facilitating 302
factor. 303
11
4.4 Conflict and conflict resolution 304
The most common types of conflict reported were disputes over territory and resource 305
use rights, and the tensions that arise from some people in the ayanoka communities residing 306
only part of the year and acting as free riders on the efforts of permanent residents. Conflict 307
resolution was cited as a benefit of land restoration at significantly higher rates by HighRMI 308
respondents. The HighRMI group also responded at a significantly higher rate that there was less 309
conflict now, compared to when the land restoration project began (Table 7). Additionally, a 310
significantly higher proportion of people in the LowRMI group declined to respond or gave an 311
evasive answer (e.g. "yes, the project is very important"). The majority of respondents stated 312
conflict in the community was a significant constraint to building ECSs, whereas conflict 313
resolution was a moderate facilitating factor (Figure 2). There are significant asymptotic 314
differences in terms of the perceived role conflict resolution plays in building ECSs, with a 315
higher proportion of the HighRMI group stating that conflict resolution plays a neutral role in 316
building ECSs. 317
4.5 Land tenancy and other institutional factors 318
The rate of ECS construction is significantly higher in communities with private land 319
tenancy (61.2 ± 9.4) and ayanoka communities (19.3 ± 3.9) (t(186)=4.22, p=0.016). Increased 320
efficiency due to land privatization and resource consolidation was cited as a benefit of land 321
restoration by both HighRMI and LowRMI respondents (Table 4). Land privatization was 322
viewed as a moderate facilitating factor for building ECSs by HighRMI and LowRMI 323
respondents (Figure 2). In contrast, collective land tenancy is the only factor that has a bimodal 324
distribution, i.e. a portion of respondents perceives ayanokas to be a facilitating factor for 325
building ECSs, and a portion perceives ayanokas to be a constraint (Figure 2). There are 326
significant asymptotic differences in the histogram distributions of other institutional factors as 327
well. A higher proportion of LowRMI respondents cited active leaders and community 328
organization as a moderate to strong facilitating factor compared to HighRMI respondents. A 329
similar pattern was observed when the facilitation and constraint data was analyzed by land 330
tenancy groups (ayanoka vs. private): a significantly higher proportion (p<0.05) of ayanoka 331
respondents cited active leadership, community organization, and conflict resolution as being 332
strong facilitating factor, compared to the private land tenancy respondents. 333
12
4.6 Road networks 334
Increased animal, pedestrian, and vehicular access was cited as a benefit of land 335
restoration at similar rates in both groups (Table 4). For example, vehicular access to one 336
community (T'ola Marka) was possible only after gullies were consolidated and residents built a 337
a gabion to create a land bridge across a ravine. The majority of respondents perceived road 338
networks to be a strong facilitating factor for building erosion control structures (Figure 2). This 339
pattern existed regardless of whether a person lived on the main road, a secondary road, or a 340
footpath. However, the relationship between household location and the number of ECSs built 341
reveals a different pattern (Table 3). There is a significantly lower mean total number of ECSs 342
for families living along the Cbba-Oruro highway, compared to families living on secondary 343
gravel roads or on footpaths. The difference in Total ECSs between households located on 344
secondary roads and on footpaths is not significant. 345
4.7 Outmigration and off-farm labor 346
There was a significantly higher percentage of emigrant families in the LowRMI 347
communities compared to the LowRMI communities (Table 3). Moreover, there was no 348
significant difference in outmigration rates between groups in the 2006 census (p=0.28), but 349
there was a significant difference in outmigration rates in the 2012 census (p=0.02). The majority 350
of families (51.9%) engage in some form of off-farm labor. The most common types of off-farm 351
labor in the city are in construction, as a taxi or truck driver, or factory worker. The most 352
common types of off-farm labor in the Ayllu as a merchant, a tailor, weaver or embroiderer, or in 353
trades such as teacher or veterinarian. The LowRMI group worked off-farm an average of 25.7 354
days/yr more than the HighRMI group. However, this difference is not statistically significance 355
due to high variance. Working in the city is perceived to be a strong constraint to building ECSs, 356
whereas working in the local area was considered a moderate constraint by both the HighRMI 357
and LowRMI respondents. 358
5. Discussion 359
5.1 Participation 360
The results regarding participation indicate that although a similar percentage of people 361
invested in land restoration in both groups, the HighRMI group adopted land restoration 362
13
technologies at earlier stages of project development and sustained higher levels of restoration 363
management. This is consistent with the early adopter-laggards theory of diffusion of innovation 364
(Rogers 2003). In the context of this study, the HighRMI group may have had more innovators 365
and early adopters, and the LowRMI group may have had more of the late adopters and laggards. 366
5.2 Motives and perceived benefits 367
The reported motives and perceived benefits indicate that the rural poor participate in 368
land restoration in order to maintain their livelihoods. Motivations for land restoration included 369
soil and water conservation and food and fiber production. Perceived benefits also included 370
broader aspects of community development such as improved mobility and efficiency, 371
increased restoration knowledge, community development, and conflict resolution. This is 372
consistent with other studies that documented the social benefits of community-based restoration 373
projects. For example, communities planted mangroves for storm protection and fish nurseries in 374
south-east Asia (Walters 2000, Badola and Hussain 2005, Walton et al. 2006). Farmers planted 375
trees and managed natural regeneration for timber, non-timber, and agricultural resources in 376
Ghana (Blay et al. 2008), and the increased tree cover led to additional health and psycho-social 377
benefits (Weston et al. 2015). Watershed rehabilitation was seen as a way to secure access to 378
clean drinking water in Bolivia (Schulz and Soliz 2007). Forest and watershed restoration led to 379
job creation and increased organizational capacity in the western United States (Nielson-Pincus 380
et al. 2013). Land restoration can be a tool for securing local livelihoods (Reed et al. 2015) by 381
stabilizing production, decreasing vulnerability to natural disasters, and increasing prospects for 382
economic development. In contrast, ecosystem restoration is regarded as a globally important 383
strategy for biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration (Millennium Ecosystem 384
Assessment 2005). However, conflicts may arise when managing for both ecosystem services 385
important to rural livelihoods and biodiversity objectives important to the global community 386
(Bullock et al. 2011). These potentially contrasting objectives must be reconciled for land 387
restoration in impoverished rural areas to be successful. 388
5.3 Incentives 389
Credits and incentives can promote land restoration in economically stressed rural 390
populations that may have to overcome significant barriers to long-term investments (Beyene 391
2009, Mekuria et al. 2011, Schiappacasse et al. 2012). The food-for-work program was 392
14
perceived to be a strong motivational factor and a moderate facilitating factor, but was not 393
commonly cited as a perceived benefit in this study. These results suggest that food-for-work 394
helped incentivize terrace construction in the initial stages of project development. However, it 395
may be only marginally effective in ensuring terrace construction and maintenance over the long 396
term. In a related study probing indigenous knowledge and attitudes in the study area, 397
respondents mentioned that "some people engage in land restoration for the wrong reasons, just 398
to get foodstuffs, and then no longer maintain the erosion controls" (Hartman et al. 2016). This is 399
consistent with a food-for-work program for terrace construction in Ethiopia, where communities 400
were observed to construct terraces but not maintain them over time (Amede et al. 2007). Given 401
the high levels of investments required, some form of incentive to stimulate land restoration may 402
be necessary, and payment for ecosystem services (Montagnini and Finney 2011) and carbon 403
credits (Mekuria et al. 2011) are policy alternatives to food-for-work programs. 404
5.4 Conflict and conflict resolution 405
Previous studies have linked civil conflict and land degradation (Thiesen 2008), and 406
conflict resolution and stakeholder coordination have been identified as integral to community-407
based land management (Leach et. al. 1999, Amede et. al. 2007, Beyene 2009). Conflict was 408
perceived to be a strong constraint to building ECSs, while conflict resolution was perceived to 409
be a moderate facilitating factor. There were lower levels of conflict reported in the HighRMI 410
communities, and higher rates of non-responsive respondents in the LowRMI group. This 411
suggests there might be more conflict in the LowRMI group, but that members were reluctant to 412
reveal or discuss conflicts. It may be easier to answer when there is less conflict, but difficult for 413
community members in tightly knit ayllus to answer candidly when there are high levels of 414
conflict. The regional and collective nature of the watershed restoration efforts in this study 415
would suggest conflict resolution and stakeholder coordination would be particularly important 416
(Hodge and McNally 2000, Gebremedhin et. al. 2004). However, while the levels of conflict 417
have influenced land restoration in the study area, it does not appear to be a determining factor. 418
For example, one HighRMI community (Yawri Totora) cited high rates of conflict and they were 419
still successful in building ECSs. There may be a temporal lag between ECS construction and 420
when conflicts arise, communities may be able to compensate for the high levels of conflict, or 421
conflict may stimulate competition between households with private landholdings. Moreover, it 422
15
is possible that the influence of conflict is mediated by other factors, such as land tenancy and 423
community leadership, as described below. 424
5.5 Land tenancy and other institutional factors 425
Previous studies that have identified the strengthening and adaptation of existing 426
organizations, creation of new institutional arrangements, and conflict resolution as prerequisites 427
for effective land management (Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Leach et. al. 1999, Amede et. al. 428
2007). In collectively managed lands strong institutional frameworks are required to achieve land 429
restoration (Hodge and McNally 2000, Gebremedhin et. al. 2004). A transition from communal 430
land tenancy (ayanokas) to private parcels was observed in some study area communities. While 431
the data suggest a positive relationship between privatization and erosion control construction, 432
ayanoka communities can still achieve meaningful levels of land restoration. For example, 433
Qanaw Pallqa has an RMI of 219.6 ECs/km2, and Thaya Laka has an RMI of 123.1 ECSs/km
2. 434
This suggests that the effect of land tenancy may be contingent on other institutional factors. For 435
example, a significantly higher proportion of ayanoka respondents cited active leadership, 436
community organization, and conflict resolution as a strong facilitating factor for land 437
restoration. This can be interpreted by understanding the way in which construction of erosion 438
controls is coordinated in ayanokas compared to private land tenancy communities. In private 439
tenancy communities, people can organize into small work groups to address land degradation 440
and engage in reciprocal work exchanges. In ayanoka communities, coordination of work days 441
and location of erosion control structures requires consensus building within the whole 442
community. This may occur more frequently when there are low levels of conflict, there is a 443
strong and active community leader, and/or there is a high level of community organization. In 444
addition, this study shows that clear resource use rights, roles, and responsibilities appear to play 445
an important role in mediating and overcoming potential constraints from to land restoration on 446
communal lands. 447
5.6 Road networks 448
The economic and community development benefits associated with increased 449
accessibility (Pender 2004) may extend to land restoration as well. According to local reports 450
and CEADB project records, road networks facilitated erosion control construction by increasing 451
vehicular access to carry people in work groups, development personnel, and tools. The first 452
16
check dams were constructed along the main road, starting at the headwaters of each gully and 453
working progressively down slope as gullies were stabilized. The higher rate of ECS 454
construction along the main road is corroborated by a related remote sensing study (Hartman et 455
al. 2016), where the greatest increase in greenness (∆NDVI) occurred in an approximately 1 km 456
buffer zone along the Cbba-Oruro Highway. The benefits of increased accessibility must be 457
balanced with the potential for increased gully erosion as culverts discharge high energy water 458
flows from a single point source (Harden 2001, Jungerius 2002, Nyssen et. al. 2002, Valentin et. 459
al. 2005). Some local people perceived roads to contribute to erosion and increased need for 460
ECSs, with 3% of the HighRMI respondents citing a link between roads and gully erosion. 461
Although accessibility influences where ECSs are built at the community or regional 462
level, a different pattern emerges at the household level. There appears to be a significant 463
disincentive to build ECSs for community members that live along the paved Cbba-Oruro 464
highway. However, the difference in accessibility from living on a secondary road, compared to 465
a footpath, does not influence the rate of ECS construction. The reduced rate of ECS 466
construction for households living along the Cbba-Oruro highway is likely due to the ease with 467
which families can engage in alternative economic activities dependent on a main road (e.g. 468
merchant, taxi driver) and the ease of transportation to cities. A person living along the main 469
road has ready access to buses and can reach the city in 2 - 3 hours. A person living on a 470
secondary road or a footpath has to walk significant distances (up to 18 km) to get to the main 471
road and catch a bus and may have to invest a full day to reach the city. This may influence 472
people's decision-making in terms of the trade-offs between local investment and off-farm labor, 473
as discussed below. 474
5.7 Outmigration and off-farm labor 475
Alternative economic opportunities may distract from local investments in land 476
restoration. This includes outmigration and off-farm labor, which can be responses of rural 477
farmers no longer able to secure livelihood from land degraded by drought, soil erosion, 478
deforestation, or environmental disasters (Gray 2009, Reuveny 2009). Outmigration and off-farm 479
labor are forms of income diversification leading to decreased dependency on agriculture, 480
abandonment of marginal lands, and a decline in labor-intensive cultivation methods. For these 481
reasons a greening trend has been associated with decreased land use pressure in several tropical 482
17
biomes (Grau et. al. 2003, Olsson et. al. 2005, Baptista and Rudel 2006, Hecht and Saatchi 2007, 483
Kull et. al. 2007, Izquierdo et. al. 2008, Calvo-Alvarado 2009). However in other cases, 484
increased outmigration and off-farm labor led to continued net land degradation (Garcia-Barrios 485
2009). 486
People have been moving to urban areas at high rates throughout the Andes (Suarez and 487
Torrelaba 1982; Zimmerer 1993; Gray 2009). Outmigration is a relatively recent phenomenon in 488
the study area, beginning in the late 1990s. There was a decreased rate of outmigration in the 489
HighRMI compared to the LowRMI communities, and this difference only became apparent in 490
the later years of project development between 2006 and 2012. This suggests that although land 491
degradation may have stimulated outmigration, land restoration may have reduced the rate of 492
outmigration. Land restoration may have played a role in families' decision-making process, with 493
a greater proportion of people deciding to stay and invest in local natural resources rather than 494
build a life in the city. The decreased rate of rural-urban migration in HighRMI communities is 495
noteworthy, as the dislocation of indigenous peoples from their territory can lead to a loss of 496
language, culture, and identity (insert cite). If land restoration can help stem the tide of rural-497
urban migration and serve as a vehicle for institution building in indigenous territories, it can 498
contribute to cultural survival. 499
While there is a significant difference in the outmigration rates, the difference in off-farm 500
labor rates is not so clear. Once a family has made the decision to stay in the region, off-farm 501
labor appears to be a tool to supplement economic needs and maintain rural livelihoods. The 502
LowRMI group worked off-farm an average of 25.7 days/yr more than the HighRMI group. 503
Although not statistically significant due to high variance, if the LowRMI group is off-farm for 504
almost a month more than the HighRMI group it could have practical ramifications. There may 505
be a trade-off occurring, as people allocate resources between farm and off-farm activities to 506
meet the families’ economic needs. This trade-off is highly variable among families. While, on 507
average, more ECSs correlates with fewer days spent working off-farm, at least some HighRMI 508
respondents indicated high rates of off-farm labor (300+ days/yr) and still built high numbers of 509
ECSs. This may be due to a temporal lag between erosion control construction and current off-510
farm labor rates, or due to good social networks and participation in strong work groups. The 511
data also suggest local off-farm labor is a more effective tool to manage the trade-offs between 512
off-farm labor and local investments in land restoration. When working locally, a person can 513
18
spend a day laboring, and still attend to the needs of the farm in the mornings and evening, 514
whereas work in the city requires an extended absence. This suggests that policies that promote 515
local economic development may create synergies with land restoration. There was no evidence 516
of the use of remittances to pay laborers to help build erosion controls (Gray 2009). 517
6. Conclusions 518
Results of this study suggest that local and indigenous people invest in land restoration to 519
ensure productivity and economic stability. If local and indigenous people define restoration 520
objectives based on productivity and other ecosystem services, it may contrast with restoration 521
objectives based on biodiversity or carbon sequestration (Bullock et. al. 2011). In a meta-522
analysis of restoration projects designed to increase biodiversity, Rey Benayas (2009) and Barral 523
et al. (2015) found that ecosystem services also increased. However, the effect of restoration 524
projects explicitly designed to restore ecosystem services to enhance rural livelihoods has not 525
been sufficiently evaluated. For example, restoration designed to increase productivity of grazing 526
lands may negatively impact plant diversity. If restoration objectives are defined by outside 527
donor groups, these must be reconciled with local land use priorities for restoration to be 528
successful. 529
This study highlights the interdependencies between social processes and land restoration 530
in impoverished rural environments. This implies that concomitant investments in land 531
restoration and rural development will increase the effectiveness of restoration initiatives. This is 532
analogous to Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, which aim to achieve 533
biodiversity conservation goals through investments in social and economic development (Alpert 534
1995, Hughes and Flint 2001). Further research into these interdependencies may help expand 535
the reach of land restoration into rural development settings. This study suggests that land 536
restoration projects that include rural development components such as credits and incentives, 537
institution building, leadership development, conflict resolution, and increased accessibility will 538
have a higher success rate. Moreover, land restoration can slow rural-urban migration and 539
provide new ways for local people to invest in local resources rather than move to urban areas. 540
Indigenous people – such as the Aymara in this study – have a strong identity with their territory. 541
If land restoration can help slow the loss of people from indigenous territories, it has important 542
implications for the survival, empowerment, and self-determination of indigenous cultures. 543
19
7. References 544
Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment or disenchantment: the role of community in natural 545 resource conservation. World Development 27(4):629-649. 546
Alpert, P. 1995. Applying ecological research at integrated conservation and development projects. 547 Ecological Applications 5(4): 857-860. 548
Amede, T., H. Kassa, G. Zeleke, A. Shiferaw, S. Kismu, and M. Teshome. 2007. Working with 549 communities and building local institutions for sustainable land management in the Ethiopian 550 Highlands. Mountain Research and Development 27(1):15-19. 551
Anderies, J., M.A. Janssen and E. Ostrom. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-552 ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9(1):18. 553
Aronson, J. J.M. Blignaut, S.J. Milton, D. Le Maitre, K.J. Esler, A. Limouzin, C. Fontaine, M.P. de Wit, 554 W. Mugido, P. Prinsloo, L. van de Elst, amd N. Lederer. 2010. Are socioeconomic benefits of 555 restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000-2008) in Restoration Ecology 556 and 212 other scientific journals. Restoration Ecology 18(2):143-154. 557
Badola, R. and S.A. Hussain. 2005. Valuing ecosystem functions: an empirical study on the storm 558 protection function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India. Environmental Conservation 32(1):85-559 92. 560
Barral, M.P., J.M. Rey Benayas, P. Meli, and N.O. Meceira. 2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological 561 restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. 562 Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 202:223-231. 563
Baied, C.A. and J.C. Wheeler. 1993. Evolution of High Andean puna ecosystems: environment, climate, 564 and culture change over the last 12,000 years in the Central Andes. Mountain Research and 565 Development 13(2):145-156 566
Baptista, S.R. and T.K. Rudel. 2006. A re-emerging Atlantic forest? Urbanization, industrialization and 567 the forest transition in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Environmental Conservation 33(3):195-202. 568
Beyene, F. 2009. Exploring incentives for rangeland enclosures among pastoral and agropastoral 569 household in eastern Ethiopia. 19:494-502. 570
Blangy, S. and H. Mehta. 2006. Ecotourism and ecological restoration. Journal for Nature Conservation 571 14:233-236. 572
Blay, D., M. Appiah, L. Damnayag, F. Dwomoh, O. Luukkanen, and A. Pappinen. 2008. Involving local 573 farmers in rehabilitation of degraded tropical forests: some lessons from Ghana. Environment, 574 Development and Sustainability 10:503-518. 575
Brandt, J.S. and P.A. Townsend. 2006. Land use – land cover conversion, regeneration and degradation in 576 the high elevation Bolivian Andes. Landscape Ecology 21:607-623. 577
Brown, S. and A.E. Lugo. 1994. Rehabilitation of tropical lands: a key to sustaining development. 578 Restoration Ecology 2:97-111. 579
Bullock, J.M., J. Aronson, A.C. Newton, R.F. Pywell, and J.M. Rey-Benayas. 2011. Restoration of 580 ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 581 26(10):541-549. 582
Burke, S.M. and N. Mitchell. 2007. People as ecological participants in ecological restoration. Restoration 583 Ecology 15(2):348-350. 584
20
Calvo-Alvarado, J, B. McLennan, A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, and T. Garvin. 2009. Deforestation and forest 585 restoration in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: Putting conservation policies in context. Forest Ecology and 586 Management 258(6):931-940. 587
Carter, M., P. Little, T. Mogues, and W. Negatu. 2007. Poverty traps and natural disasters in Ethiopia and 588 Honduras. World Development 35(5):835-856. 589
Chepstow-Lusty, A.J., K.D. Bennet, J. Fjelda, A. Kendall, W. Galliano, and A.T. Herrera. 1998. Tracing 590 4,000 years of environmental history in the Cuzco area, Peru, from the pollen record. Mountain 591 Research and Development 18(2):159-172. 592
Collins, A.E. 2001. Health ecology, land degradation and development. Land Degradation and 593 Development 12:237-250. 594
Delgado Burgoa, J.M.F. 2001. Simbiosis interzonal en las estrategias de autodesarrollo sostenible en 595 ecosistemas de montaña: el caso del Ayllu Mujlli,Departamento de Cochabamba, Bolivia (Doctoral 596 Dissertation). Universidad de Cordoba, España. 597
Ellenberg, H. 1979. Man's influence on tropical mountain ecosystems in South America. Journal of 598 Ecology 67:401-416. 599
Garcia-Barrrios, L., Y.M. Galvan-Miyoshi, I.A. Valdivieso-Perez, O.R. Masera, G. Bocco, and J. 600 Vandermeer. 2009. Neotropical forest conservation, agricultural intensification, and rural out-601 migration: the Mexican experience. BioScience 59(10):863-873. 602
Gebremedhin, B, J. Pender, and G. Tesfay. 2004. Collective action for grazing land management in crop-603 livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 82(3):273-290. 604
Grau, H. R., T. M. Aide, J. K. Zimmerman, J. R. Thomlinson, E. Helmer, and X. Zou. 2003. The 605 ecological consequences of socioeconomic and land-use changes in postagricultural Puerto Rico. 606 Bioscience 53:1159–1168. 607
Gisladottir, G. and M. Stocking. 2005. Land degradation control and its global environmental benefits. 608 Land Degradation and Development 16:99-112. 609
Gray, C.L. 2009. Environment, land, and rural out-migration in the southern Ecuadorian Andes. World 610 Development 37(2):457-468. 611
Harden, C.P. 2001. Soil erosion and sustainable mountain development: experiments, observations and 612 recommendations from the Ecuadorian Andes. Mountain Research and Development 21:77-83. 613
Hartman, B.D. 1996. Sociocultural constraints to land management decisions: the case of bofedal 614 restoration in Bolivia. Tropical Resources Institute 15(1):24-28. 615
Hartman, B.D., B. Bookhagen, and O.A. Chadwick. 2016a. The effects of check dams and other erosion 616 control structures on the restoration on Andean bofedal ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 24(5):1-12. 617
Hartman, B.D., D.A. Cleveland, and O.A. Chadwick. 2016b. Linking changes in knowledge and attitudes 618 with successful land restoration in indigenous communities. Restoration Ecology 24(5):1-12. 619
Hecht, S.B, and S.S. Saatchi. 2007. Globalization and Forest Resurgence: Changes in Forest Cover in El 620 Salvador. BioScience 57(8): 663-672. 621
Hughes and Flint (2001) 622
Hobbs, R.J., and D.A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. 623 Restoration Ecology 4(2):93-110. 624
Hodge, I. and S. McNally. 2000. Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management 625 institutions. Ecological Economics 35:107-118. 626
21
Izquierdo, A.E., C.D. DeAngelo, T.M. Aide. 2008. Thirty Years of Human Demography and Land-Use 627 Change in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina: an Evaluation of the Forest Transition Model. 628 Ecology and Society 13(2):3. 629
Jungerius, P.D., J. Matundura, and J. Van de Ancker. 2002. Road construction and gully erosion in West 630 Pokot, Kenya. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 27:1237-1247. 631
Kull, C.A., C.K. Ibrahim and T.C. Meredith. 2007. Tropical forest transitions and globalization: neo-632 liberalism, migration, tourism, and international conservation agendas. Society and Natural Resources 633 20:723-737. 634
La Fuente, M.C.T. 1997. Una propuesta metodologica para la comunicacion para el desarrollo: el uso del 635 Diagnostico Rural Participativo en la investigacion de actitudes. Nur University, Final Thesis for the 636 Licenciatura en Ciencias de Comunicacion Social. Santa Cruz, Bolivia.136 p. 637
Lamb, D., P. Erskine and J. Parrotta. 2005. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 638 310:1628-1632. 639
Lambin, E., H.J. Geist, and E. Lepers. 2003. Dynamics of Land-use and land-cover change in tropical 640 regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28:205-241. 641
Leach, M., R.Mearns, I. Scoones. 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in 642 community-based natural resource management. World Development 27(2):225-247. 643
Long, J., A. Tecle, and B. Burnette. 2003. Cultural foundations for ecological restoration on the White 644 Mountain Apache reservation. Conservation Ecology 8(1):4. 645
Mekuria, W., E. Veldkamp, M. Tilahun, and R. Olschewski. 2011. Economic valuation of land 646 restoration: the case of esclosures established on communal grazing lands in Tigray, Ethiopia. Land 647 Degradation & Development 22:334-344. 648
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, 649 Washington, D.C. 650
Montagnini, F. and C. Finney. 2011. Payments for environmental services in Latin America as a tool for 651 restoration and rural development. Ambio 40:285-297. 652
Myers, N. 1997. Environmental refugees. Population and the Environment 19(2):167-182. 653
Nielson-Pincus, M. and C. Moseley. 2013. The economic and employment impacts of forest and 654 watershed restoration. Restoration Ecology 21(2):207-214. 655
Nyssen, J. J. Poessen, J. Moeyersons, E. Luyten, M. Veyret-Picot, J.Deckers, M. Haile, and G. Govers. 656 2002. Impact of road building on gully erosion risk: a case study from the northern Ethiopian highlands. 657 Earth surface processes and landforms 27:1267-1283. 658
Olsson, L., L. Eklundh, J. Ardo. 2005. A recent greening of the Sahel – trends, patterns and potential 659 causes. Journal of Arid Environments 63:556-566. 660
Patz, J.A., P. Daszak, G. Tabor, A. Alonso Aguirre, M. Pearl, J. Epstein, N.D. Wolfe, A.M, Kilpatrick, J. 661 Foufopoulos, D. Molyneux, D. Bradley. 2004. Unhealthy landscapes: policy recommendations on land 662 use change and infectious disease emergence. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:1092-1098. 663
Pender, J. 2004. Development pathways for hillsides and highlands: some lessons from Central America 664 and East Africa. Food Policy 29:339–367. 665
Reed, M.S., L.C. Stringer, A.J. Douglii, J.S. Perkins, J.R. Atlhopheng, K. Mulale. 2015. Reorienting land 666 degradation towards sustainable land management: linking sustainable livelihoods with ecosystem 667 services in rangeland systems. Journal of Environmental Management 151:472-485. 668
22
Reuveny, R., W.H. Moore. 2009. Does environmental degradation influence migration? Emigration to 669 developed countries in the late 1980s and 1990s. Social Science Quarterly 90(3):461-479. 670
Rey Benayas, J.M., A.C. Newton, A. Diaz, and J.M. Bullock. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and 671 ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:1121-1124. 672
Rist S., F. Delgado Burgoa, U. Wiesmann. 2003. The role of social learning processes in the emergence 673 and development of Aymara land use systems. Mountain Research and Development 23(3):263–270. 674
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (5th Edition). New York: Free Press. 576 p. 675
Scherr, S. 2000. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural 676 resource degradation. Food Policy 25: 479-498. 677
Schiappacasse, I., L. Nahuelhual, F. Vasquez, C. Echeverría. 2012. Assessing the benefits and costs of 678 dryland forest restoration in central Chile. Journal of Environmental Management 97:38-45. 679
Schulz, S. and B. Soliz. 2007. Stakeholder willingness to pay for watershed restoration in rural Bolivia. 680 Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(4):947-956. 681
Shackelferd, N., R.J. Hobbs, J.M. Burgar, T.D. Erickson, J.B. Fontaine, E. Laliberte, C.E. Ramalho, M.P. 682 Perring, and R.J. Standish. 2013. Primed for Change: Developing Ecological Restoration for the 21st 683 Century. Restoration Ecology 21(3):297-304. 684
Siebert, P. 1983. Human impact on landscape and vegetation in the central high Andes. pp. 261-276 in 685 Holzner, M. J.A. Werger, and I. Ikusima (eds.) Man's impact on vegetation. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, 686 The Netherlands. 687
Squeo, F.A., B.G. Warner, R. Aravena, and D. Espinosa. 2006. Bofedales: high altitude peatlands of the 688 central Andes. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 79:245-255. 689
Stringer, L.C., C. Twyamn, and D.S.G. Thomas. 2007. Combating land degradation through participatory 690 means: the case of Swaziland. Ambio 36(5):387-393. 691
Suarez, M.M. and R. Torrealba. 1982. Recent trends in human migrations: the case of the Venezuelan 692 Andes. Mountain Research and Development 2:299-306. 693
Temperton, V.M. 2007. The recent double paradigm shift in restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 694 15(2):97-111. 695
Theisen, O.M. 2008. Blood and soil? Resource scarcity and internal armed conflict revisited. Journal of 696 Peace Research 45:801-818. 697
Valentin, C., J. Poesen, Yong Li. 2005. Gully erosion: Impacts, factors and control. Catena 63:132–153. 698
Walters, B.B. 2000. Local mangrove planting in the Philippines: are fisherfolk and fishpond owners 699 effective restorationsits? Restoration Ecology 8(3):237-246. 700
Walton, M.E.M., G.P.B. Samonte-Tan, J.H. Primavera, G. Edwards-Jones, and L. LeVay. 2006. Are 701 mangroves worth replanting? The direct economic benefits of a community-based reforestation project. 702 Environmental Conservation 33(4):335-343. 703
Washington-Allen, R.A., R.D. Ramsey, N.E. West and B.E. Norton. 2008. Quantification of the 704 ecological resilience of drylands using digital remote sensing. Ecology and Society 13:33 705
Weston, P., R. Hong, C. Kaboré, C.A. Kull. 2015. Farmer-managed natural regeneration enhances rural 706 livelihoods in dryland West Africa. Environmental Management 55:1402-1417. 707
Zimmerer, K.S. 1993. Soil erosion and labor shortages in the Andes with special reference to Bolivia, 708 1953-91: Implications for “conservation-with-development.” World Development 21(10):1659-1675. 709
23
710 Figure 1. Location of the HighRMI, LowRMI, and Non-project control communities, watershed 711
rehabilitation and wet meadow (bofedal) restoration project in the Ayllu Majsaya-Aransaya-712
Urunsaya. The HighRMI, LowRMI and NonProject communities were selected from communities 713
that participated in land restoration after controlling for social and biophysical variables and based 714
on the levels of Restoration Management Intensity, where RMI = No of Erosion Control Structures / 715
km2. Erosion control structures included check dams, terraces, and infiltration ditches in each 716
project community. RMI was not calculated for the NonProject communities. There were two 717
additional communities included in the study (Thaya Laka and Chulpani) that had low to medium 718
levels of RMI. 719
24
HighRMI LowRMI
Food-for-work
p=0.05
Conflict in the
community
RE
SP
ON
SE
FR
EQ
UE
NC
Y
p=0.25
Conflict
resolution
p=0.01
Land
privatization
p=0.44
Collective
lands
p=0.81
Community
organization
p=0.001
Active leaders
p=0.001
Road
networks
p=0.06*
Work in the
city
p=0.42
Work in the
Ayllu
p=0.44
Figure 3. Facilitation and constraints analysis, including perceptions of factors that facilitate or constrain land restoration, as 720
measured by the effect of selected social factors on their ability to construct check dams and other erosion controls. Data from a 721
household survey (n=210), with answers recorded on an ordinal scale from (-2) Strong constraint, (-1) moderate constraint, (0) 722
Neutral, (1) Moderate facilitation, (2) Strong facilitation. Responses are evaluated by an Independent Samples Mann-Whitney U 723
Test and Independent Samples Median Test (non-parametric test used to state whether the two groups have significant 724
asymptotic differences in the histogram distribution). p-values indicate the asymptotic significance at a significance level of 0.05, 725
with (*) denoting conditional significance if p<0.10. 726
0.00 0.00 0.11
0.69
0.18
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.01 0.16
0.52
0.31
0.00
0.80
0.69
0.21 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.80 0.75
0.16 0.07
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.27
0.61
0.10
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.00 0.14
0.65
0.19
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.01
0.26
0.46
0.25
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.04
0.30 0.39
0.26
0.00
0.80
0.31 0.14 0.07 0.07
0.31
0.00
0.80
0.23 0.20 0.11
0.19 0.23
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.00 0.16
0.59
0.25
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.00 0.01
0.52 0.47
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.01 0.11
0.49 0.39
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.00 0.03
0.32
0.64
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.03 0.09
0.32
0.57
0.00
0.80
0.00 0.00 0.05
0.25
0.69
0.00
0.80
0.68
0.18 0.14 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.80 0.73
0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00
0.00
0.80
0.33 0.44
0.20 0.03 0.00
0.00
0.80
-2 -1 0 1 2
0.43 0.28 0.24
0.04 0.00
0.00
0.80
-2 -1 0 1 2
Facilitation Constraint Facilitation Constraint
25
Table 1. Characteristics of the study communities, watershed rehabilitation and wet meadow (bofedal) restoration 727
project in the Ayllu Majsaya-Aransaya-Urunsaya. 728
Area Elevation Location
Land
Tenancya
No
Familiesb Erosion Controls (ECs) RMI
c
km2 m a.s.l. Latitude Longitude Check
Dams Terraces Infiltr.
Ditches Total
No ECs
(EC/km
2)
HighRMI Communities
Lakolakoni 32.84 4,126-4,594 17⁰34’46”S 66⁰56’11”W Private 81 3400 2600 1400 7400 225.3
Qañaw Pallqa 17.76 3,846-4,397 17⁰44’31”S 66⁰44’50”W Ayanoka 52 500 1200 2200 3900 219.6
Yawri Totora 15.09 4,019-4,480 17⁰37’55”S 66⁰49’28”W Private 71 1200 1100 900 3200 212.1
Pasto Grande 14.41 4,027-4,480 17⁰39’32”S 66⁰47’40”W Private 38 2000 320 250 2570 178.4
LowRMI Communities
Waylla Tambo 7.21 3,934-4,384 17⁰44’10”S 66⁰47’26”W Ayanoka 38 300 120 110 530 73.5
Japo 28.84 4,074-4,390 17⁰41’45”S 66⁰45’50”W Private 87 1100 420 20 1540 53.4
Tola Marka 14.58 3,986-4,595 17⁰36’22”S 66⁰49’00”W Private 25 110 180 40 330 22.6
Tallija 63.32 3,821-4,430 17⁰40’45”S 66⁰43’49”W Ayanoka 129 580 320 30 930 14.7
Other Project Communities
Thaya Laka 7.47 4,006-4,366 17⁰45’04”S 66⁰47’06”W Ayanoka 24 400 240 280 920 123.1
Chulpani 11.05 3,961-4,375 17⁰47’56”S 66⁰46’23”W Ayanoka 47 420 400 80 900 81.4
aPrivate refers to communities that have allocated titled landholdings (average size=40 Has.) to individual families; Ayanoka refers to communities that have 729 maintained the traditional Aymara communal system of land tenancy 730
bNo of Families resident in each community, from a census conducted within the project area in 2006 to determine outmigration rates 731 cRMI is a measure of the Restoration Management Intensity in each project community. RMI = Total No of Erosion Control Structures (Total ECSs) per Km2, 732
with Total ECSs = sum total of the check dams, terraces, and infiltration ditches in each project community. RMI was not calculated for the NonProject 733 community. 734
26
Table 2. Social variables used in the study. The study variables were selected based on a literature review, prior 735
research conducted in the region, and project records for the watershed rehabilitation and wet meadow (bofedal) 736
restoration project in the Ayllu Majsaya-Aransaya-Urunsaya. Further explanation of the study variables and their 737
measurement is provided in the household survey section. 738
Study variable Measurement
Participation
Percent participation Closed question (Yes/No)
Year begin participation Closed question (Year)
Erosion Control Structures(ECSs)
Check dams (No/family) Closed question (No/family)
Terraces (No /family) Closed question (No/family)
Infiltration ditches (No /family) Closed question (No/family)
Other ß (No /family) Closed question (No/family)
Total ECs (No /family) Closed question (No/family)
Motives and perceived benefits
Motives Open question (No of responses, % response)a
Perceived benefits Open question (No of responses, % response)a
Incentives (food-for-work) Scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis)b
Institutional factors
Land tenancy Closed question (ayanoka vs. private); scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis) b
Active leadership Scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis)b
Community development Scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis)b
Conflict resolution Open question; scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis)b
Road networks Closed question (household location); scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis)b
Outmigration and off-farm labor
Family members living in city Closed question (No/family)
Families emigrated/community Closed question (% families/community)
Working in city Closed question (No days/yr per family); scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis)b
Work in the ayllu Closed question (No days/yr per family); scaled response (facilitation and constraints analysis)b
Total off-farm labor Closed question (No days/yr per family, aggregated)
a Based on coded responses to open ended questions about the motives and perceived benefits of participating in land restoration, and is expressed as a count 739 (No of responses) and the percent of respondents that cited a given response in the the HighRMI and LowRMI groups. 740
b The Facilitation and constraints analysis measured perceptions of whether selected factors helped, hindered or had a neutral effect on building erosion control 741 structures. For more explanation, see the household survey section below. 742
27
Table 3. Comparison of study variable data in HighRMI and LowRMI communities, watershed rehabilitation and 743
wet meadow (bofedal) restoration project in the Ayllu Majsaya-Aransaya-Urunsaya. 744
HighRMIa (n=114) LowRMIa (n=96) t-Testb,
Chi-squarec
x̄ ± SE x̄ ± SE p-value
Participation
Percent of respondents participating 90.4 83.3 1.21c 0.27
Year respondent began participation 1998.1 ± 0.3 2000.2 ± 0.4 9.32b 0.01
Erosion Control Structures d
Check dams (No/family) 35.0 ± 6.0 7.3 ± 11.3 4.19b <0.001
Terraces (No/family) 23.9 ± 5.2 4.7 ± 1.0 3.35b <0.001
Infiltration ditches (No/family) 15.9 ± 4.4 1.0 ± 0.4 3.12b <0.001
Othere (No/family) 0.4 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.03 2.16b 0.001
Total ECSs (No/family) 75.3 ±11.7 13.0 ± 4.1 4.86b <0.001
Conflict and conflict resolutionf
Less conflict (%) 67.5 46.9 9.30c 0.026
Same level of conflict (%) 6.1 10.4
More conflict (%) 6.1 8.3
Did not respond (%) 20.2 34.4
Outmigration
No family members living in city 0.93 ± 0.15 1.08 ± 0.18 0.67b 0.51
Families emigrated/community (%)g 29.1 ± 13.3 70.3 ± 6.4 3.00b 0.02
Off-farm labor /householdh
Work in city (No days/yr) 56.2 ± 10.8 72.4 ± 11.3 1.04b 0.30
Working in the Ayllu (No days/yr) 25.7 ± 6.1 34.6 ± 9.0 0.84b 0.40
Total off-farm labor (No days/yr) 81.7 ± 11.5 107.0 ± 13.0 1.46b 0.15
a The HighRMI and LowRMI communities provided the data frame and were selected after controlling for social and biophysical variables, and based on the 745 levels of Restoration Management Intensity (RMI = No of Erosion Control Structures / Km2). The sampling unit was the household, with a single male or 746 female head of household responding for each household. 747
b Two-tailed t-Test for Equality of Means, following Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances 748 c Pearson’s Chi-Square Test 749 d In Ayanoka communities respondents estimated the No of ECSs in the vicinity of their residence, using an area equivalent to a private parcel (42 ha). 750 e Other erosion control structures included slow forming terraces, diversion ditches, grazing enclosures, improved pasture (Phalaris sp.), and reforestation 751 f Response rates to the question “is there more or less conflict in your community compared to when the land restoration project began” 752 g Families emigrated/community was calculated from the 2006 and 2012 census information. The 2006 census contained numbers of resident families, as 753
well as the number of emigrant families. In 2012, the number of resident families was recorded based on examination of community records and verified 754 by community leaders. Therefore, the No of families emigrated/community (%) = (2006 resident families + 2006 emigrant families) – 2012 resident 755 families)/ (2006 resident families + 2006 emigrant families). Two communities with low- to medium levels of RMI (Thaya Laka and Chullpani) were 756 included in the LowRMI group. 757
h Respondents quantified the No of days the men, women, and youth had worked in the city in the past year. Responses were recorded from 0 – 365 days/yr 758 and summed for the whole family. 759
i Calculated by adding the No of days for off-farm labor in the city and in the Ayllu for each household 760
28
Table 4. Comparison of motives for and perceived benefits of land restoration in HighRMI and LowRMI 761
communities, Ayllu Majsaya-Aransaya-Urunsaya 762
High-RMI (n=103)a Low-RMI (n=81)a
% % p-valueb
Motiveb
To combat soil erosion and the loss of land 83.5 63.0 0.002
Because of the ‘food-for-work’ program 63.1 24.7 0.000
Due to soil desiccation 44.7 64.2 0.008
Due to the lack of water 40.8 39.5 0.86
Due to reduced agricultural production 17.5 23.5 0.32
Due to reduced forage production 10.7 13.6 0.55
Due to the contact with development organizations 3.9 1.2 0.27
Because the leaders made it obligatory 2.9 1.2 0.40
To reduce runoff and sedimentation 2.9 0.0 0.17
To combat river scour and the loss of land 1.9 4.9 0.25
Awareness was raised and the whole community participated 1.0 1.2 0.69
We saw that the project was useful 1.0 2.5 0.41
Due to my own initiative 0.0 1.2 0.44
Perceived benefitb
Pasture rehabilitation 73.7 58.1 0.008
Increased animal mobility and reduced injury 72.8 66.7 0.20
Water ‘filtration’ and increased soil moisture 69.3 34.4 0.000
Increased land restoration knowledge 33.3 39.8 0.43
Increased agricultural production 24.6 31.2 0.36
Bofedal restoration 24.6 18.3 0.23
Resolution of conflicts in community 8.8 2.2 0.04
Trees for housing and firewood 7.9 21.5 0.007
Nutrition from the ‘food-for-work’ program 6.1 9.7 0.38
Soil conservation and erosion control 6.1 8.6 0.54
Increased efficiency (land consolidation) 5.3 3.2 0.45
Reduced runoff and river scour 1.8 6.5 0.27
Increased community organization 3.5 2.2 0.42
Increased vehicle and pedestrian mobility 3.5 0.0 0.09
Did not see a benefit 2.6 4.3 0.41
New crops and new planting areas 1.8 1.1 0.56
The terraces act as windbreaks, frost protection 1.7 0.0 0.54
a The sample size for the motives is lower because the question "why did you participate in the land restoration project" was only asked of respondents 763 that had answered that they had participated in the land restoration project. All respondents were asked if they had seen any benefits from land 764 restoration regardless of whether or not they had participated, so the sample size for perceived benefits is HighRMI (n=114) and LowRMI (n=96) 765
bResponses were checked off from a list of pre-coded motives and perceived benefits that was developed based on semi-structured interviews 766 conducted in 2008 and during the pre-testing of the questionnaire in 2012. If respondents listed more than one motive or benefit, each response 767 was recorded, but if the same motive or benefit was repeated it was only recorded once. ‘Did not respond’ was included as a potential response 768 and ‘Others’ was provided as an additional line to record answers not included in the original list of coded responses. 769
cp-values are reported from a Pearson’s Chi-Square Test. If the number of observations was ≤5, p-values were reported from Fisher’s Exact Test. 770
29
Table 5. Comparison of the Total ECSs/family and household location 771
Accessibility Total ECSs (No / family)
x̄ ± SE df F p-value
Household locationa 200 4.22 0.016
1. Cbba-Oruro Hwyß 7.8 ± 2.3
2. Secondary Road 61.4 ± 10.4
3. Footpaths 51.5 ± 10.4
a The household location was recorded as the name of the rancho and any additional identifying information, including whether 772 the household was located on the paved Cbba-Oruro highway, on a graveled secondary road, or in a remote area that was 773 only accessible by footpaths. 774
ß The mean difference between [1 and 2] and [1 and 3] is significant at the <0.01 level, Brown-Forsythe One Way ANOVA 775 following a Levene's F Test for Equality of Variances, with a Games-Howell post-Hoc multiple comparison of means. The 776 mean difference between 2 and 3 is not significant. 777