changes in social capital and networks: a study of community-based environmental management through...

Changes in Social Capital and Networks: A Studyof Community-Based Environmental Management Througha School-Centered Research Program

Teresa Thornton • Jessica Leahy

Published online: 17 April 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Social network analysis (SNA) is a social sci-

ence research tool that has not been applied to educational

programs. This analysis is critical to documenting the

changes in social capital and networks that result from

community based K-12 educational collaborations. We

review SNA and show an application of this technique in a

school-centered, community based environmental moni-

toring research (CBEMR) program. This CBEMR employs

K-12 students, state and local government employees,

environmental organization representatives, local busi-

nesses, colleges, and community volunteers. As citizen

scientists and researchers, collaborators create a database

of local groundwater quality to use as a baseline for long-

term environmental health management and public edu-

cation. Past studies have evaluated the reliability of data

generated by students acting as scientists, but there have

been few studies relating to power dynamics, social capital,

and resilience in school-centered CBEMR programs. We

use qualitative and quantitative data gathered from a sci-

ence education program conducted in five states in the

northeastern United States. SPSS and NVivo data were

derived from semi-structured interviews with thirty-nine

participants before and after their participation in the

CBEMR. Pajek software was used to determine participant

centralities and power brokers within networks. Results

indicate that there were statistically significant increases in

social capital and resilience in social networks after

participation in the school-centered CBEMR program

leading to an increased community involvement in envi-

ronmental health management. Limiting factors to the

CBMER were based on the educator/administration

relationship.

Keywords SNA � Social capital � Community �Groundwater � Education

Introduction

School-centered community based environmental moni-

toring research (CBEMR) projects can be effective at

information dissemination and fostering community action

(Hanifan 1920). This could be useful to the more than

2.3 million homes in New England that, under little or no

regulation, use private wells as their primary drinking

water source (USEPA 2008). The lack of regulation creates

significant problems resulting in many unknowingly dis-

tressed drinking water sources. Private well owners and

community officials that participate in the school-centered

CBEMR project could potentially form interpersonal rela-

tionships which foster communication with respect and

understanding as they work toward sustainable drinking

water solutions (Schneider et al. 2003). These kinds of

relationships promote social capital, which is defined by

DeGraaf and Jordan (2003) as the intangible resource that

‘‘enables participants to act together more effectively to

pursue shared objectives,’’ and is created as people develop

‘‘a habit of coming together…then by skillful leadership

this social capital will be directed toward the general

improvement of community well-being’’ (Leahy and

Anderson 2008, p. 3). Social capital is also defined by its

parameters of familiarity based on the frequency of

T. Thornton

School of Forest Resources, University of Maine,

231 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469, USA

J. Leahy (&)

School of Forest Resources, University of Maine,

241 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:167–182

DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9296-1

interactions, common rules, norms, and sanctions; a trust in

the reciprocity and exchanges of embedded network

resources; and a connectedness in the form of networks,

and groups (Pretty and Ward 2001). Social capital has been

said to be a function of place-based education (Powers

2004) and outdoor education (Beamesa and Atencioa

2008), and it has also been measured in community col-

laborations (Leach and Sabatier 2005; Sabatier et al. 2005;

Schneider et al. 2003; Wagner and Fernandez-Gimenez

2008), but social capital parameters have not been mea-

sured in the outcomes of a school-centered CBEMR

project.

Social networks are inherently an important component

of social capital as the sharing of embedded resources

within and between connected networks allows for

opportunities to gain or lose feelings of reciprocity and

trust (Granovetter 1973; Coleman 1988; Portes 1998, 2000;

Putnam 1995a, b, 2001). Analyzing social networks can

determine information pathways, power dynamics through

control of information flow, and the networks areas of

weakness where information may be lost. Social network

analysis (SNA) has been documented in the interactions of

a teacher’s professional communities (Penuel et al. 2009)

and environmental health (Bodin et al. 2005; Janssen et al.

2006; Lauber et al. 2008; Mandarano 2009), but there are

no known SNA studies focused on a school-centered

CBEMR project.

Communities involved in science data collection have

become proactive and active toward local environmental

health problems (Carr 2004; Schneider et al. 2003). These

citizen scientists of varied ages have collected environ-

mental data that has been used in legal battles to prevent

pollution, stop development or modify sustainable resource

management decisions (Carr 2004). Using students as data

collectors has also been validated by the scientific com-

munity in many studies and have been documented as

producing results as accurately as professionals (Galloway

et al. 2006; Lawless and Rock 1998; Rock and Lauten

1996). Historically, community based groups are small

exclusive factions of the community that are repeatedly

involved in local concerns (Carr 2004) with very little

‘‘bridging’’ to other members of the community (Granovetter

1973; Parisi et al. 2004; Warwick-Booth 2008). Analyzing

the social networks of participants will determine which

people need to be included and who in the network can help

facilitate that information exchange.

The overall goal of this research is to examine the

relationship between social capital, collaboration, and a

willingness to act on environmental health concerns. Using

data before and after participation in a school-centered

CBEMR project our objectives are to: (1) identify social

capital parameters that are created or developed from

new collaborations in a school-centered CBEMR project;

(2) evaluate existing social networks and implications for

school-centered CBEMR project participants; and (3)

investigate relationships between social capital, school-

centered CBEMR project involvement, and future action.

In this study we evaluated the social capital parameters of

familiarity, trust, reciprocity, and the technical nature of

the information shared before and after participation in the

school-centered CBEMR project to determine if there were

significant changes in the networks. We used SNA to

determine where the new relationships were formed and

who controls the information flow within the networks.

Qualitative data were collected to support findings and

determine what participants perceived as the causes of the

changes in their relationships within each network.

Many communities in the New England region have

either no regulations on private well testing or no

enforcement of the guidelines outside of a legal transfer of

property. The lack of compulsory management of the

groundwater resources leaves little incentive for well

owners to test their wells. This has resulted in areas of

unknown drinking water quality with potentially deadly

contaminants. Effective strategies for educating decision-

makers and households about improved private drinking

water management and monitoring are currently lacking.

The need for informed citizens and community-based

programs to establish baseline surveys of ecological health

has increased as government funding of programs have

decreased (Carr 2004).

The school-centered CBEMR project that will be used

for this research is an acronym for Groundwater Education

Through Water Evaluation and Testing (GET WET!). GET

WET! typically employs students in grades 5–12, state

employees, local governmental employees, geographic

information system (GIS) technicians, local business

owners and employees, environmental non-government

organization (ENGO) representatives, conservation com-

mission members, local college students and professors,

parents, local scientists, retirees, and other community

members. GET WET! is a collaboration of stakeholders to

assist students in testing their private wells and researching

the chemical inputs to the groundwater that students and

the community use as a drinking water source. Student-

generated results are mapped, graphed, statistically ana-

lyzed and presented to the community. Results are also

used as a baseline for a long-term study to be managed by

the school-centered, community-based effort.

There is a need to study school-centered CBEMRs that

involve a broad array of community members and students

that collect environmental data as these may generate dif-

ferent social capital outcomes than those previously iden-

tified among small groups of advocacy-oriented individuals

(Leach and Sabatier 2005; Sabatier et al. 2005). Attitudes

of students in a classroom, and their parents, represent a

168 J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:167–182

123

more diverse population than the small homophilic group

of adults in a community who would normally volunteer to

collect science data (Roth and Lee 2004). The school-

centered CBEMR project may be able to increase

engagement among previously unwilling participants in

citizen science by bridging the active and non-active

members in the community, and propelling active members

to become even more involved in monitoring and

addressing environmental health problems. According to

Parisi et al. (2004), this kind of research is especially

needed in rural areas where little social capital exists.

Educators and water resource managers may benefit by

understanding the importance of social networks when

developing a CBEMR project within a classroom setting.

Educators and water resource managers can learn to iden-

tify the pathways of communication to determine which

participants control the transfer and distribution of infor-

mation in the network. They can form a more resilient

network by recognizing areas of weakness or where

important players are isolated from the network. This is

useful in creating a strong, well-connected network that is

unaffected by changes in personnel or organizations.

Managers and educators may use this information to assure

stability in the collaboration and in the dissemination of

information.

Collaborations focusing on environmental health and

science education allow for participation of a diverse group

within the community to agree upon outcomes. An agree-

ment, unifying the diverse populations, forms social capital

within the school-centered CBEMR project and may

enable the group to better understand the intricacies of

local environmental health policy. Educators and water

resource managers can use the newly formed social capital

to foster the idea that resources could be shared among all

stakeholders and facilitate action toward environmental

resource management.

In terms of a theoretical contribution, this study brings a

new perspective to existing social capital theory literature.

Other studies have not applied social capital theory to a

CBEMR project in K-12 educational settings. Education

researchers and other social scientists will be able to

understand the processes, attitudes, and parameters that

foster a sustainable school-centered CBEMR project. Par-

ticularly, the research will identify which factors of social

capital influence a school-centered CBEMR project par-

ticipant’s willingness to collaborate on future endeavors, or

act towards environmental health policy modification. This

information is useful in understanding the components of

broader community participation, particularly in processes

aimed at engaging the public in environmental manage-

ment. Analyzing social networks and applying that to a

school-centered CBEMR project will help researchers to

define and map the growth of collaborative networks

through participation. It will identify participants that cre-

ate connections made outside of their personal networks

and assist in understanding their motivations. Connections

formed can also be enhanced with qualitative data to define

the technical level of the information transfer within the

network. Researchers will be able to determine where

education efforts within the network are best suited.

Literature Review

Social Capital Parameters in New Collaborations

The factors that define social capital are familiarity, a sense

of belonging, trust that the other members of the group will

follow through with their beliefs, the feeling that the

relationship is reciprocal or that network resources are

shared, and that there has been enough time to facilitate

frequent interaction in order to properly assess the rela-

tionship (Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988; Lin 2001; Putnam

1995a, b, 2001). However, within new collaborations,

frequency of interaction and familiarity are unavailable.

Uncertainty and the lack of familiarity are replaced by an

altruistic or general socail trust (Leach and Sabatier 2005;

Sabatier et al. 2005). Trust is marked by the assumption

that everyone has a similar goal and they are all working

together to achieve that goal (Leach and Sabatier 2005).

Those with strong altruistic trust enter a group with a

greater sense of confidence that all parties will be treated

fairly and that an individual’s external network resources

will be available to the collaboration (Sabatier et al. 2005).

However, the nature of the relationship between those

who have a stake in network resources and those who

control the resources affect the exchange of power within

the collaborations (Crona and Bodin 2006; Mitchell et al.

1997; Oh et al. 2004; Ramirez-Sanchez and Pinkerton

2009; Schneider et al. 2003). It is these exchanges within

and between groups or networks that define social capital

as a sentiment of friendship (Granovetter 1983; Leach and

Sabatier 2005). Only with trust and time will new collab-

orations gain familiarity and reciprocity aimed at reaching

a level of agreement or success. Although network for-

mation has not been previously researched, there is a need

to establish that these successes form new social networks

and/or connections between existing social networks that

may decentralize power (Larson and Lach 2007) and

eliminate polarization (Petersen 1984). The need exists to

examine the formation of a larger environmental health

network through participation in a school-centered

CBEMR project. This may allow for greater information

dispersal, the ability to share more technical information,

the reciprocation of a greater number of nested resources,

and the potential for social capital growth.

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:167–182 169

123

Evaluate Existing Social Networks and Implications

for School-centered CBEMR Project Participants

Social capital allows communities to advance more

smoothly and effectively when the social connections are

embedded (Putnam 1995a). Strong ties isolated within one

network may be less effective at obtaining a diversity of

resources through reciprocation than if resources were

shared between networks (Granovetter 1983; Putnam 2001;

Woolcock 1998). The interaction of these groups with what

Granovetter (1973, 1983) terms ‘‘weak ties’’ and Woolcock

(1998) calls ‘‘bridging’’ allows for the flow of information

and resources out of, and into, each group’s separate

‘‘communities’’ or networks. This creates stronger net-

works that can distribute information more efficiently

(Reagans and McEvily 2003).

If the purpose of the collaboration is to inform, edu-

cate, and motivate then it is these ‘‘weak ties’’ that create

strength of the common goal (Granovetter 1973; Cox

2006). Collaboration across weak ties lessens what

Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) warn as blindness or group

think. It assists in the decrease of the marginalization of a

certain population by allowing their voices, which are

outside the network, to be heard. Involvement in a school-

centered CBEMR project enables existing networks to

join together through a central core network. The newly

formed core within the larger network may assist in the

elimination of the ‘‘density’’ formed through exclusion

(Mandarano 2009). Thus, participation in the school-cen-

tered CBEMR project may form a larger network that

would diversify the information transferred, disseminate

each network’s embedded resources, and develop social

capital.

SNA mapping allows for a pictorial representation of

relationships that are bonds (within network), and those

which are bridges (connections to other networks or iso-

lated people). Strong ties or bonds are characterized by the

strength of social capital in the connections within a core

group (Granovetter 1973, 1983; Prell et al. 2009). People

(nodes) with frequent social relations (lines) represent the

primary players or brokers in each network (Bodin et al.

2005). The most important role a broker can have is to be a

gatekeeper. Gatekeeper brokers (also known as cutpoints)

decide what information goes in and out of a group. If the

gatekeeper broker is removed then the people or networks

he/she bridges would be isolated from information

exchange (de Nooy et al. 2005). Through the use of cen-

tralities it is possible to satisfy the need to quantify the

changes in the power dynamics of gatekeepers and infor-

mation control before and after participation in a school-

centered CBEMR project.

Centralities are calculated to determine the strength of

positions within the network (de Nooy et al. 2005; Knoke

2008; Scott 2000). Degree centrality refers to the number

of connections a person has within the network, the greater

the number of connections the greater its degree.

Betweenness centrality measures the location of a person in

a network. According to de Nooy et al. (2005), the person

with most advantageous betweenness position is a gate-

keeper broker or one who is between important constitu-

ents. Closeness centrality is calculated to determine a

person’s ability to access information or people quickly.

They may not have the most connections, or the most

powerful location, but their location allows them to make

contact faster than another person in the network. Each of

these centralities may apply to more than one person in a

network. There may be several brokers, or people with

large numbers of connections within and outside central

networks. Although these centralities have been used in

previous research to determine the strength of a specific

position in a network, they have not been used to identify

or quantify power shifts or moves within a network before

and after a specific event.

Relationships Between Social Capital, School-centered

CBEMR Project Involvement, and Future Action

When all of the social capital parameters are positive, the-

oretically a group will move toward acting on policy change

(Schneider et al. 2003). In an effective school-centered

CBEMR project, social capital will theoretically be created

because there is a safe place for all participants to feel

included, respected, and heard (Nahapiet and Ghoshal

1998). Frequent interactions of this kind can impose an

influence on participants (Bodin et al. 2005; Crona and

Bodin 2006; Frank and Yasumoto 1998) forming what Frank

and Yasumoto (1998) term a ‘‘norm of solidarity’’ (p. 644).

This facilitates that sense of belonging and a kinship

amongst what are now like-minded participants to move the

group towards action.

Participation in a collaboration can also promote groups

to look beyond their clique for assistance and answers

(Portes 1988). These connections allow people to evolve

from a narrow purely self-serving viewpoint to a more

altruistic point of view. When this kind of bonding occurs,

there is the potential for a decrease in what James Blake

(1999) calls the Value-Action Gap: the distance between

what a person knows is important and their willingness to

act upon that knowledge. Some believe that action includes

working toward policy changes (Schneider et al. 2003;

Wagner and Fernandez-Gimenez 2008; Wondolleck and

Yaffee 2000). It is the participation in a collaborative

effort, like a school-centered CBEMR project, that forms

the bonds which may encourage an individual to act within

a group effort that she/he might not otherwise act upon

alone.


123

Methods

This research took place in non-urban communities within

five states where private wells are a drinking water source

for a high percentage of residents: Rhode Island, Con-

necticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (Table 1).

In each of the study sites the area sampled ranged

approximately from fifty to sixty-five square miles. Popu-

lation in these communities ranged from 1,022 to 12,568

people and median income ranges from $33, 000 to $74,

000. The education levels ranged from 80 to 91% of the

population completing high school or some college to

18–38% of the population completing a bachelors degree

or higher (US Census 2000). School age children sampling

their private well water ranged from fifth grade to high

school seniors.

Research Approach & Protocol

Data Collection

Both the 2000 Census data and specific well information

from each state’s United States Geologic Survey (USGS)

office was obtained to determine which areas in each of the

six states had percentages of approximately 70–100% of

their homes using private well water as the primary

drinking water source. Once areas of interest were located,

secondary schools in those areas were researched to

determine if at least 60% of the student body used private

well water. This second step was necessary as regional

schools in non-urban areas draw from many locations. This

radial draw from urban and non-urban settings can

decrease the overall percentage of student homes that use

well water as their drinking water source.

After a school was located that fits the research needs,

teachers were contacted and recruited via telephone and

email. Once a teacher expresses an interest, phone calls

were made to the local governing boards (i.e., planning,

conservation commission, etc.) and local businesses to

encourage participation in the GET WET! program.

Although multiple parties offered to volunteer, qualitative

data were gathered from approximately 8 people at each

study site: an educator, administrator, state employee, local

government employee, professor, an ENGO representative,

a local business representative, and a community volunteer.

This participatory action research included mixed method

data analysis (Creswell 2007). Stakeholders that volunteered

to participate in the CBEMR bounded the sampling pool.

Interviewees from the CBMER volunteers were identified

as: an Educator, an Administrator, an ENGO Representa-

tive, a College Professor, a Local Business owner, a State

Employee, a Town Employee, and a Community Volunteer.

If multiple CBEMR participants fit these categories, then the

participant that committed to a greater level of participation

was chosen for the research interviews.

Data were collected via participant observations and

semi-structured qualitative interviews. NVivo software was

used to code interviewee responses. Questions included

directed and undirected name generation and participant

identification. To facilitate network analysis CBEMR par-

ticipants were asked during the semi-structured interview

both pre and post participation in a CBEMR, ‘‘Who do you

primarily speak to regarding groundwater, private well, or

drinking water issues?’’ to determine their Groundwater

Network. This created an ego-centered network bounded by

the ties that the interviewee has with others. Interviewees

were also provided with a list of CBEMR participants and

were asked to identify anyone familiar in order to determine

their CBEMR Network. The list of the CBEMR participants

included only those participants that were involved from

beginning to end; participants that joined after pre-visit

interviews were not included in the statistical results.

In order to facilitate quantitative data, questions were

asked of interviewees for each person they identified in

their groundwater network and their CBEMR network.

Interviewees ranked questions on a Likert scale that ranged

from 1 (Not Very: familiar, trustworthy, reciprocal, etc.) to

5 (Very: familiar, trustworthy, reciprocal, etc.). The ques-

tions were headed according to their topic: Familiarity,

Trust, Trust in Organizations, Reciprocity, and the

Table 1 Demographics of study sites participating in the school-centered CBEMR (US Census, 2000; individual town web sites were used for

approximate size of location, and participating classrooms were identified for school year of participating students)

CBEMR location RI CT VT NH ME

Size (approximate square miles) 49 50 65 56 65.9

Population 8,441 1,022 3,756 2,241 12, 568 2,640

Median income $74 K $53 K $34 K $57 K $42 K $33 K

Education levels

Completed high school or some college 81% 80% 88% 91% 90% 88%

Bachelor’s or higher 31% 21% 18% 38% 35% 25%

School year of participating students 10th–12th 10th–12th 10th–12th 5th–8th 10th–12th 10th–11th


123

Technical Nature of the Information Transferred. Results

from these questions were entered into an SPSS database.

A mean and standard deviation compared pre and post

participation and statistical significance (a = 0.05) using

the paired sample T test was calculated. Pair-wise deletion

was used.

Data were also entered into the program Pajek where the

participant’s Groundwater Network and their CBEMR

Network pre- and post-participation were made into four

separate two-dimensional sociograms. The CBEMR Net-

work was mapped as a separate network from the partici-

pant’s Groundwater Network. Each state was mapped and

analyzed with two separate pre- and post-sociograms for

the sake of visual clarity. Each sociogram was analyzed for

degree, betweenness, and closeness centralities; gatekeeper

brokers; and new connections post participation in the

CBEMR. Only paired responses were analyzed for social

capital parameters.

Limitations

The GET WET! program is limited by the percentage of

homes on private wells in a given area. Most areas are not

completely 100% on private wells. If they are, they may

not have a school that goes beyond the elementary grades.

The program was designed for secondary grades. Most

schools in this type of area use regional middle and high

schools which further decrease the percentage of students

coming from homes with private well usage. The type of

teacher who would allow the program in the classroom is

also another limitation (Bennett and Matthews 2003;

Cherif 1992; Sosu et al. 2008). Most courses in high school

that generate large numbers of students for participation are

core science courses that may not see the environmental

curriculum as part of their classroom outcomes (Cherif

1992; Chi-chung Ko and Chi-kin Lee 2003; Chubin 1984;

Lin 1993; Sosu et al. 2008). The courses that are consid-

ered environmental science are usually electives and have

smaller numbers of students.

While this study advances social capital studies with a

pre and post comparison, the post interview was completed

within 1 month of the student-led presentation of results to

the community. Long-term data collection would improve

the understanding of which social capital parameters keep

teachers and communities working together in a real and

meaningful way. It would enable managers and researchers

to identify areas of potential conflict within the networks

and who would be best suited to assist in a resolution.

Long-term data could also help managers and researchers

identify where in the network new connections are needed

in order to foster resilience in the system.

Social network analysis was limiting in that it only maps

what is put into the system. Qualitative data informs why

people chose to increase their personal groundwater net-

works, why a person might leave a network, and what the

actual concerns are surrounding communication issues. It

also enables an understanding of the nature of the rela-

tionships that connect networks: proximity, business,

family, friendship, etc. SNA is also limited to those who

participate. Participants are limited to those who are pre-

disposed to volunteer. Those who volunteer in a school-

centered CBMER program are those who believe education

or natural resource protection is important enough to act

toward its betterment. The volunteers in this research were

also limited to more rural areas where private well water is

used as home drinking water.

Results

Identify Social Capital Parameters in New

Collaborations

Significant Social Capital Parameters

Social capital increased in both the groundwater and

CBEMR networks. There were statistically significant

increases in Trust in Organizations (p = 0.037) and the

Technical Nature of the Information (p = 0.019) in the

groundwater networks (Table 2). There was little change in

the other social capital parameters. The means (M) of

Familiarity, Trust in Knowledge of Groundwater, and Rec-

iprocity had change ranging from 0.01 to 0.02 or a percent

change ranging from 2 to 6% in the groundwater networks

post participation in the CBEMR. In the CBMER networks

every social capital parameter had an increase in mean

(M) after participation. Changes in those means (M) range

from 0.05 to 0.25 or ranged from 7 to 19% in percent change

(Table 3). The statistically significant changes in the

CBEMR networks were in the parameters of Familiarity

(p = 0.002), and Trust in Organizations (p = 0.033).

Evaluate Existing Social Networks and Implications

for School-centered CBEMR Project Participants

Changes in Personal Networks

Although a few individuals increased their personal

groundwater networks, the groundwater networks as a

whole had very little change after participation in the

CBEMR. In each state there was at least one individual

who added people to their primary groundwater network.

In Rhode Island, it was Educator #1. In Connecticut, it was

Educator #1. New Hampshire and Vermont shared the

participant with the largest personal network growth, the

Community Volunteer (Fig. 1). In Maine, several people


123

added at least one person to their personal network (Fig. 1),

but the participant who added the most people was the

State Employee. Each of these participants added to the

number of people they talk to about groundwater concerns

on a regular basis after collaborating in the CBEMR. They

increased their personal groundwater networks, but did

little to affect each other’s groundwater network, as evi-

denced through little overlap between participants’ net-

work members. Only Maine has made the overall set of

groundwater networks more resilient by creating bridges

between personal groundwater networks (Fig. 1).

These bridges could be due to the fact that volunteers in

Maine came from different communities throughout the

state. The ENGO representative of Maine, the Local

Business volunteer, the State Employee, and the College

Professor all work or live more than an hour from the

school testing site. By connecting with new people and

increasing the dialogue across a wider area, this ground-

water network was able to gain the most new bridges.

I’ve known of him [down in Augusta] for twenty years,

but I had never worked with him before [participation

in the CBEMR]. Maine ENGO representative

Participants who were intricately involved in ground-

water/drinking water issues did not show great changes in

his/her personal groundwater network (Fig. 1). However,

participants who have not been previously involved in

drinking water issues became exposed to the new ideas and

people thereby increasing the number of people they spoke

to about groundwater concerns. In most states Community

Volunteers and Educators increase their personal networks

after participation in the CBEMR (Fig. 1). The Community

Volunteer shared by Vermont and New Hampshire learned

how water resource protection and bottled water are

intertwined. This set the volunteer on what she called a

‘‘mission’’ to inform others of the pitfalls of bottled water.

She already had strong feelings about the issue, but now,

post participation, she felt she had alternatives to offer. The

result is that she began to speak to more people about

groundwater resource protection:

‘‘If you have a problem with the faucet water here

bring a reusable bottle from home and we don’t need

to bring water from miles and miles and miles away

to drink… So I wrote [an editorial in the local] paper

about that and in retrospect [it] had a lot to do with

the GET WET! program because people’s perceptions

of what is … and what isn’t in the water…I just feel

like that probably, subconsciously, affected that and

along with opinions I already had … so I have been

pretty interested in and adamant about talking to

people about bottled water and reusable bottles and

Table 2 Statistical outcomes of social capital in groundwater networks

Social capital parameter groundwater N Mean Percent change

in parameter (%)

Paired Sample T test

p values (a B 0.05)Pre Post

Familiarity 266 3.43 3.44 ?3 .286

Trust in knowledge of groundwater 258 4.08 4.09 ?2 .740

Trust in organization 181 4.21 4.28 ?6 .037

Reciprocity 266 3.76 3.74 -4 .252

Technical nature of information 257 3.67 3.72 ?6 .019

Groundwater network members were identified by interviewees as people they would talk to about groundwater/private well topics. Results were

based on interviewee responses pre and post participation in the school-centered CBEMR. Statistically significant results were bolded. Mean is

based on 1–5 rating of social capital parameters. N = sample number of total paired answers for all 5 states

Table 3 Statistical outcomes of social capital in CBEMR networks based on interviewee responses pre and post participation in the school-

centered CBEMR

Social capital parameter CBMER N Mean Percent change

in parameter

Paired sample T-test

p values (a B 0.05)Pre Post

Familiarity 101 2.73 2.89 ?19% .002

Trust in knowledge of groundwater 90 3.84 4.01 ?12% .215

Trust in organization 99 4.22 4.40 ?11% .033

Reciprocity 88 3.40 3.45 ?7% .356

Technical nature of information 87 3.23 3.48 ?13% .076

Statistically significant results were bolded. Mean is based on 1–5 rating of social capital parameters. N = sample number of total paired answers

for all 5 states


123

water coolers.’’ New Hampshire Community

Volunteer

Educators were open to new areas of science and com-

munity through participation and also increased their per-

sonal networks as volunteers entered their classrooms and

relationships were formed.

‘‘I learned an incredible amount and certainly feel

more knowledgeable now… [and] we made so many

connections in the community… this woman [a par-

ent] who came out of the woodwork … who is an

environmental consultant … contacted me and told

me what she does…If I did not have the information

having to do with the whole GET WET! program and

the situation we are in with our ground water and so

forth, I would not have had the same enthusiasm in

my response and … I would not have appreciated

what she knew and how I could tie it in [to my

classroom curriculum].’’ Connecticut Educator #1

Increasing one’s personal groundwater network to form

bridges will create more resilience in the network by

allowing more than one pathway of information flow. In

New Hampshire, the Administrator in the school increased

his/her personal network and created more resilience

(Fig. 1) in the overall state groundwater network. The same

can be said for the Administrator, the Local Business, the

State Employee, and the Town Employee in Maine. Their

participants had the greatest growth across the entire net-

work (Fig. 1). Located between the Town Employee and

the Local Business in the Maine Groundwater Network is

the Town Water Superintendant. The new connection for

the ENGO representative is a Maine State Drinking Water

Program employee. Located between the Administrator

and the Town Employee is the Town Manager. Where one

person removed may have eliminated information transfer

before these connections were made, these participant’s

new additions allow for information dissemination despite

a potential loss in the network.

Change in the CBEMR Network and Brokers

The CBEMR networks in every state increased connections

between participants (Fig. 2). These connections allow for

the CBMER networks to gain resilience and transfer

Fig. 1 Groundwater networks throughout New England. Interviewees are labeled as squares. Heavy lines are connections made post

participation in the CBEMR


123

information with ease. They also connect the personal

groundwater networks within each state helping to foster

overall more comprehensive groundwater networks. The

participants that became the most important brokers were

the Town Employee in Vermont, the Town Employee in

New Hampshire, the Educator in Maine, the ENGO rep-

resentative in Rhode Island, and the State Employee in

Connecticut (Table 4). These brokers control the flow of

information through their numbers of connections and their

reach to others outside the core of the CBMER network

(Fig. 2).

With the exception of Vermont, these brokers were all

educators. In New Hampshire the broker with the highest

centrality measurements, the Town Employee, was also on

the school board, as well as a retired teacher and principal

from out-of-state. The Educator #1 is a broker with less

centrality measurements than the Town Employee but he/

she is the only connection to the Local Business repre-

sentative. The County Employee in New Hampshire was

also a broker with less centrality measurements than the

Town Employee, but like the others is involved in science

education and water testing. Connecticut’s State Employee

was an educator in the water resources division. The

ENGO representative in Rhode Island was the head

Fig. 2 CBEMR networks throughout New England. Interviewees are labeled as squares. Heavy lines are connections made post participation in

the CBEMR. Interviewee brokers with the greatest number of connections are identified by triangles

Table 4 Closeness, betweenness, and degree centralities calculated

from Pajek pre and post participation in the school-centered CBMER

Interviewee

brokers

State Network Closeness Betweenness Degree

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Educator #1 CT GW 0.06 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.15

State

Employee

CT CBEMR 0.25 1.00 0.10 0.70 0.15 1.08

Town

Employee

ME GW 0.11 0.17 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.12

Educator ME CBMER 0.33 1.25 0.00 0.23 0.25 1.25

Educator #1 RI GW 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.58 0.22 0.27

ENGO RI CBEMR 0.74 0.88 0.24 0.22 0.93 1.21

Community

Volunteer

VT GW 0.08 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.21

Town

Employee

VT CBEMR 0.75 0.88 0.33 0.57 1.00 1.43

Community

Volunteer

NH GW 0 0.04 0.07 0.22 0.05 0.21

Town

Employee

NH CBEMR 0.00 0.27 0.39 0.73 0.18 0.64

Only the participants who are both interviewees and brokers in both

the groundwater (GW) and CBEMR networks are listed. If a state has

more than one educator participating, the interviewee received the

title with a number one


123

education coordinator for the watershed. And, in Maine,

the Educator was the only participant to connect with every

volunteer in the CBEMR. In Vermont, the Town Employee

was a broker to two participants compared to the Educators

brokerage of one participant. The Town Employee in

Vermont is not an educator, but has children at the school

that tested their water and is very involved as a facilitator

of school activities and in land-use activities within the

town. Those with an interest in education were the impetus

for creating lines of communication between CBEMR

participants and their own personal groundwater networks.

Betweenness, Density, and Closeness Centralities

The CBEMR brokers listed above also have the largest

changes in betweenness, density, and closeness centralities

(Table 4). The State Employee in Connecticut had increases

of 0.25–1.00 in closeness, 0.10–0.70 in betweenness, and

0.15–1.08 in degree centrality. In Maine the Educator rose in

closeness 0.33–1.25, in betweeness from 0.00 to 0.23, and in

degree from .25 to 1.25. The ENGO representative in Rhode

Island grew in closeness 0.74 to 0.88, decreased slightly

from 0.24 to 0.22 in betweenness, and grew slightly from

0.93 to 1.21 in degree centrality. Vermont’s Town Employee

went from 0.75 prior to participation to 0.88 post partici-

pation in closeness, 0.33 to 0.57 in betweenness, and 1.00 to

1.43 in degree centrality. Finally, New Hampshire had the

greatest centrality changes by the Town Employee who rose

from 0.00 to 0.27 in closeness, 0.39 to 0.73 betweenness, and

0.18 to 0.64 in degree centrality.

For the groundwater networks listed by participants, the

greatest changes were not from bridging, but within their

personal network. Therefore, the centrality figures changed

with figures far lower than in the CBEMR Networks. In

Connecticut, Educator #1 increased their closeness 0.06 to

0.17, betweenness from 0.00 to 0.02, and degree centrality

from 0.03 to 0.15 (Table 4). The Town Employee in Maine

went from 0.11 to 0.17 in closeness, 0.07–0.10 in

betweenness, and from 0.11 to 0.12 in degree centrality.

Rhode Island Educator #1 grew only slightly as closeness

went from 0.50 to 0.51, betweenness from 0.53 to 0.58 and

in degree from 0.22 to 0.27 in centrality. The Community

Volunteer in Vermont had a change in closeness centrality

of 0.08–0.22, a 0.00–0.04 in betweenness, and 0.06–0.21 in

degree centrality. Finally, in New Hampshire, the Com-

munity Volunteer increased the closeness centrality from

0.00 to 0.04, betweenness grew from 0.07 to 0.22, and from

0.05 to 0.21 in degree centrality.

Proximity and Network Facilitation

Proximity had a great deal to do with network connectivity

and growth potential. There was cross over in the New

Hampshire and Vermont sites because they were within

20 min of each other separated only by the Connecticut

River. Many participants worked in one location site and

lived in the other. The ENGO representative worked across

state lines and was a part of both sites, the Community

Volunteer in Vermont worked near that school and lived

near the school in New Hampshire. She, too, volunteered at

both sites. The County Employee in New Hampshire lived

near the school in Vermont. She only volunteered for the

New Hampshire location, but knew the Administrator and

the Town Employee in Vermont. The Local Business

volunteer in Vermont recruited the Local Business volun-

teer for New Hampshire, as they were neighbors.

The same was true for the Connecticut site that was within

five miles of the state of Rhode Island. The ENGO repre-

sentative that volunteered in Connecticut worked in a

watershed education facility in Rhode Island. The watershed

and an aquifer crossed the state lines, and so did the ENGO

representative. The Connecticut site’s watershed was not the

same as the testing site in Rhode Island. They did not share

any volunteers and did not cross over into each other’s

networks the same way Vermont and New Hampshire. Other

than state employees who had to travel at least an hour to the

schools in every location except Vermont, volunteers

worked within a more centralized location.

Parameters that Affect Action

The ability of volunteers to share their knowledge; the

meeting of and gathering with new, like-minded individ-

uals to work towards the protection of a resource they felt

was important; and what volunteers saw as the importance

of working with local student populations that would be

responsible future citizens led to participant commitment to

continue with GET WET! in subsequent years. Every par-

ticipant in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island

signed up for a second year of GET WET!. In Vermont, the

Administrator and the Educator left the participating sec-

ondary school, the College Professor changed careers, and

the ENGO representative’s position was eliminated. The

Business Owner in Vermont did express an interest in

being involved if another teacher committed. In Maine, the

Educator and the College Professor were relieved of their

present positions. The Maine Community Volunteer was

willing to take the program to the Senior College, and all

other volunteers are interested in repeating GET WET! The

Maine ENGO representative even went so far as to facili-

tate GET WET! involvement in other Maine schools that

were not part of this research. The same can be said for

New Hampshire as the State Employee brought GET WET!

to a western mountain region watershed of five schools,

and announced department support for the CBEMR

throughout the state. The act of wanting to continue with


123

GET WET! in subsequent years was expressed by volun-

teers because they felt it was a valuable program, fun, and

important to education:

I think it is a good program and I think it is a great

premise and I think it is well organized and I think the

concept is good and I think it is a great way [to go]

from a very small to large scale [in order] have an

idea how the whole system works and how to

understand why your water supply and its protection

and what it is, is an important thing for the commu-

nity to know. From the students on up through

everyone in the community.

Connecticut State Employee

I think it is really valuable …to the students and to be

involved and plus to have that many people with

expertise come into your classroom is like a teacher’s

dream to have experts in your room teaching your kids.

Maine Educator

I think that programs that are especially focused on a

school’s community are useful [in] getting kids

interested in different science topics [it] is just a good

way to try and build our next group of environmental

professionals.

New Hampshire State Employee

I would. It is a strong program. I like what it’s doing.

I think it is important information for students to

have, for communities to have, and it is especially

key in a state like Rhode Island which is so close to

the water, surface water and groundwater.

Rhode Island College Professor

Although familiarity and the gain of trust were impor-

tant social capital factors towards collaboration, immediate

action toward groundwater remediation in the community

was a product of student private well chemical results. In

New Hampshire, the student-generated results of high

chloride and nitrates happened to be found in a well owned

by a high-ranking town official (as well as several other

homes). The placement of the town salt shed and the

nearby livestock had made that private well vulnerable.

The Town Employee said the next town planning board

meeting and the conservation commission had scheduled a

discussion of remediation.

One of our other school board members sort of won

the prize for the worst water…and I think [the results]

support what a core group of people have been con-

cerned about for the past several years…and I will

certainly have some involvement with them on these

sorts of issues but more likely through the planning

board and the conservation commission.

New Hampshire Town Employee

In Rhode Island there were several concerns of nitrates

due to antiquated septic systems. Although the Town

Employee had applied for a grant to subsidize the cost of

remediation for residents, the awareness of the student-

generated results made public allowed his grant greater

visibility. The Rhode Island town received the grant to

supplement septic remediaiton. Parents informed teachers

they had their wells professionally tested, and the school

had also been made aware of a nitrate issue in its water due

to construction on campus. Remediation of all school

related drinking water concerns are presently in place.

Although immediate action is based on student-generated

results, the success of the collaborative effort, to make the

community aware of those results, appeared to rest on the

relationship between the Administrator and the Educator. If

the final student presentation did not happen in the com-

munity then program effects on the community were not

well known. Of the parameters tested, Maine private well

water was within safe drinking water levels, but it was not

known if well owners were made aware of arsenic, radon,

and a host of other chemicals that students did not test. The

Maine students completed the presentation on time, but

there was a communication breakdown between the Edu-

cator and the Administrator. This event caused a loss of trust

between the two. The Educator’s rating in Trust of the

Administrator went from 3.0 (Somewhat Trustworthy) pre-

participation to 1.0 (Not Very Trustworthy) post participa-

tion and his/her feelings of Reciprocity fell from 3.0

(Somewhat Reciprocal) to 2.0 (Slightly Reciprocal). The

Administrator’s rating of the Educator also decreased from

5.0 (Very Trustworthy and Familiar) to 4.0 (Trustworthy and

Familiar) in both the categories of Trust and Familiarity. The

educator no longer has a desire to perform any process that

requires working with that Administrator.

I was trying to be a really good sport about it but …sometimes the way things happen around here [is]

‘here [it is] we are not going to tell you anything

about it but here you go and figure it out and I will

give you all of the help you need.’ But when the time

comes, no help. Nothing. Not an answer.

Maine Educator

Although the community volunteers, the students and

the educator fulfilled their obligations to the program, it

will not continue in that school due to the communication

breakdown between the Educator and the Administrator.

Vermont had a few wells with nitrates, but there was

also a breakdown between the Educator and the rest of the

participants. No presentation was publically advertized,

and by viewing their results, no one in the community

collaboration made clear to the students or the community

the ramifications of the nitrate results. The Vermont

Administrator expressed an interest in bringing the


123

program to his/her new school, but was unable to devote

the necessary resources his/her first year. The teacher was

send to have gone to ‘‘go live in the woods’’ and was

unable to be contacted with any frequency.

Having more than one teacher participate in the CBEMR

appeared to be as a solution to potential communication

concerns. Managers and ENGO representatives that

develop a relationship with the administration or more than

one educator, such as in Rhode Island, were able to assure

resilience in the network and potentially circumvent com-

munication breakdowns. If an education employee left the

network, then there were alternatives for program facili-

tators through the extended relationships developed.

[A positive outcome to participation in the CBMER]

was the relationship that I was able to develop with

[Teacher #2] and to connect on some level with

[Teacher #3] because I did want to have closer ties

with people within the school department as well as

[the principal] and the school committee in case

[Teacher #1] leaves I can still [have people] aware of

our programs … [and] a greater depth of exposure to

the resources that are available to them.

Rhode Island ENGO representative

Connecticut’s presentation to the town’s Conservation

Commission created even more contacts, networking and

participants for the following year. The commission was

excited and eager to take the program under their wing and

help promote results and community engagement. The

coastal town is in a seasonal flood plain and often has

private well concerns. Although the impact of the first year

was not widespread beyond the hundred or so families that

participated, the new and existing volunteers, and the

Educator, felt that they knew better how to make the pro-

gram more effective the following year. The collaborative

efforts and gain in social capital facilitated the ability for a

stronger program to be created.

I was astonished at the number of people who came

forward and were willing to work with students for an

entire day. I was really impressed with the quality of

the people that came forward and I just did not expect

[that] when I asked for volunteers. I expected people

who were retired from jobs other than being involved

in oh, you know the environment and some of the

people that came forward I was really impressed

with… there are a lot of people in [this town] who are

environmentally aware and concerned. I think they

have a really good network with each other and so I

think once one person spoke with someone and then

there were others and there were more and more

connections being made… [this encouraged me] to

expand what I have done starting next year and

continuing on into the future.

Connecticut Educator #1

Discussion

Social Capital Parameters Created or Developed

from New Collaborations in a School-centered CBEMR

Social capital parameters had a significant influence in both

groundwater and CBMER networks. In the groundwater

networks Trust in Organization and the Technical Nature

of the Information Transfer were the only statistically

significant increases. Since the trust of an organization can

be directly related to the interpersonal relationship between

the people in the organizations (McAllister 1995; Gulati

1995; Dirks and Ferrin 2001), this is not in line with Leach

and Sabatier (2005) who claim existing networks have

already developed an understanding and level of trust in

each other. Leach and Sabatier (2005) believe expectations

have been fulfilled and change in familiarity or trust is

unlikely. However, the technical nature of the information

shared became more complex and participants became

more trusting of the organizations with which the people in

their networks were associated. Reagans and McEvily

(2003) support the findings that strengthening of the core of

a network allows the distribution of more complex infor-

mation. As the discussions become more technical, the

organizations people are associated with are considered

more trustworthy.

In CBEMR networks, all of the social capital parameters

were affected. There was an increase in statistical means of

every parameter. As stated earlier, Leach and Sabatier (2005)

support this growth of social capital as they found newly

formed collaborations tend view their new relationships as

friendships. They go on to say participants are willing to

extend trust beyond the potential pitfalls as they feel they are

together to work on an agreed upon outcome. This is sup-

ported by the statistically significant increases Familiarity

and Trust in the CBEMR networks. Volunteers came toge-

ther with the common interest of sharing their expertise with

students, elevating understanding of local natural resource

protection, and giving back to the community.

Social Networks and Implications for School-centered

CBEMR Project Participants

Change in Personal Networks

In most states the changes in an individual’s groundwater

network did not bridge to another participant’s network.


123

Only personal relationships within one’s own network were

affected. Participants who had the greatest changes where

the educators and community volunteers who had little

groundwater experience prior to participating in the

CBEMR project. They were exposed to new people or new

information and began to discuss his or her newly acquired

groundwater knowledge with more people. Educators were

exposed to groundwater and drinking water professionals

as volunteers in their classrooms. In some cases this

increased their science knowledge and their role in the

community collaboration, as a personal connection to

information also increased understanding of drinking water

concerns. Like previous research, volunteers that were

already involved in groundwater or drinking water prior to

participation in the CBMER had little or no increase to

their personal network and very little bridging to other

members of the community (Granovetter 1973; Parisi et al.

2004; Warwick-Booth 2008).

Maine was the only state that formed new relationships

between groundwater and drinking water professionals.

This may be because Maine volunteers came from longer

distances than other states to participate in the CBEMR.

The distance allowed for bridges to form; a relationship

developed between people who might not otherwise meet.

Although the existing connections in Rhode Island made it

the most resilient network overall, the bridges formed post

participation in the CBEMR increased Maine’s resilience

the most.

Change in the CBEMR Network and Brokers

The CBEMR networks in every state connected every

participant allowing for greater resilience in the networks

and facilitating capabilities for faster information transfer.

Positions of power held by participants that were deemed

brokers post participation, had the greatest changes in

centralities. With the exception of Vermont, the partici-

pants that were brokers who dominated the network

information transfers were either educators in schools, or

volunteers that were connected to education in some form.

These connections of all participants in the CBEMR had

the added benefit of connecting each of them with all

other’s personal groundwater networks forming an even

larger network of groundwater/drinking water alliance.

Well connected volunteers and volunteers in positions of

power within the community allow for faster responses to

results generated; well-connected networks also foster

sustainability.

Well connected volunteers and volunteers in positions of

power within the community also allow for faster responses

to results generated. In accordance with social capital

researchers, well-connected networks have shown the

ability to foster sustainability of the CBMER into

subsequent years (Coleman 1988; Frank and Yasumoto

1998; Klaminski and Smith 2004; Leach and Sabatier

2005; Lin 2001; Mandarano 2009; Putnam 1995a, b, 2001).

Even, as in Maine, where there was a communication

breakdown at one school, the strong network formation

allowed for the program to be facilitated in a different

school and continue elsewhere.

In agreement with Pretty and Ward (2001), these groups

were willing to share their embedded resources to aid in

expediting private well testing for each of their commu-

nities. All participants in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and

New Hampshire have already agreed to participate again

and are presently meeting to take ownership of the project.

They have involved new volunteers by recruiting from

their own networks. In Maine and New Hampshire vol-

unteers that participated the first year used their resources

and network connections to seek out other schools and

groups. These new sites have already recreated the project

in their area and have made arrangements to participate

again. The Vermont network lost both the educator and the

administrator at the school that participated and did not

report wanting to repeat the project. If there were more

than one educator at that school who had participated, the

resilience in the network may have afforded the opportu-

nity for that community to repeat the project.

Proximity and Network Facilitation

Although no previous research regarding SNA and partic-

ipant proximity has been published, the actual physical

distance between CBEMR participants in this study

affected the networks. States like Vermont and New

Hampshire had very little distance between the sites. This

facilitated a crossover of networks that allowed the quick

increase of volunteers once the program began as word

moved quickly throughout the networks. Not all partici-

pants were included in the data as many volunteered after

the pre-participation interviews. The short distance also

facilitated the sharing of volunteers as participants often

lived in one state and worked in the other.

Physical distance between participants was also a factor

in Connecticut and Rhode Island where the state line was

less than a 5-min drive to the school testing site. These two

states shared an aquifer and a watershed, so the ENGO

steward of the watershed in Rhode Island volunteered to

cross state lines to assist students in the school in Con-

necticut. The sites in Rhode Island and Connecticut did not

share volunteers though as the watersheds were too far

apart. However, as stated earlier, the longer distances

between participants in Maine were actually a benefit to the

connecting of primary groundwater networks. The hin-

drance to a successful CBEMR was not proximity, but

teacher–administrator relationships.


123

Relationships Between Social Capital, School-centered

CBEMR Project Involvement, and Future Action

The desire for the community to act upon new information

was primarily due to the student-generated results, but the

dissemination of those results were directly related to the

commitment of Administrators, Educators, and the strength

of the networks formed. If community presentations were

performed and results were of concern, homeowners and

community leaders were willing to open new dialogue

regarding remediation. Affected town officials, and con-

cerned leaders actually acted within the school year. This

was supported by Finnegan and Sexton (1999) who

believed that the only way to have change in a community

was to involve those local government employees who had

the power to create change. However, if the results were

not disseminated or shared with community leaders then

they were confined to participating homes. When educators

excluded community volunteers from the entire process, as

in Vermont, some of the results where even interpreted

poorly.

In the short term, action is a combination of community

involvement and awareness, incorporating community

leaders that have power in the decision making process,

and most importantly, because this was a school-centered

CBEMR, it was vital to have strong communication and

trust between the administration and the teachers. The new

networks formed have been able to recreate the CBEMR

efforts, but the relationship between the educators and

administration determine the success of the CBEMR pro-

gram within their community.

Conclusion

The Significance of Social Capital and SNA

Although input of local government employees was the

force in immediate action toward drinking water remedi-

ation, educators and their relationship to their administra-

tion was the driving force in the success of a school-

centered CBEMR. It appeared a significant factor was the

relationship between the educator and the administration.

Educators and natural resource facilitators should include

the administration in every level of the program through

calendars with expected deadlines, updates of changes in

information, and invitations to view the classroom during

specific student/community events. Additional educators

should also be sought out to share the responsibilities of

communication and create a more resilient network. School

administrators may want to foster greater social capital

within their region and have a presence with students and

community volunteers. A positive relationship seemed to

foster opportunities for increased trust and familiarity

through the hosting of gatherings that allowed for infor-

mation dissemination throughout the entire community

network.

School-centered CBEMRs also allowed an opening to

the dialogue of change that was inclusive because they

encouraged participation under the benefit of increased

science comprehension within schools and environmental

health within the community. Local governing boards may

want to explore school-centered CBEMR projects as a

means of information dissemination throughout the com-

munity and to assure that their future citizenry is making

informed decisions. They may use SNA to identify who

holds key positions within the community’s networks so

that they get wide spread results and foster social capital

through ‘‘face time’’ in order to gain support with less

effort.

Educators, administrators, researchers, and managers

may also use this information of communication, social

capital, and SNA to decide which locations within the

network need improvement. They will be able to rec-

ognize who should be more involved in the network in

order to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge and

where to strengthen the transfer of technical information

within the network. They can recognize their role in the

network and decide if they need to increase their con-

nections, get assistance, or remove their influence from

the outcome.

Implications for Future Research

In the fields of human dimensions and science education,

long-term research regarding how social capital, social

networks, and trust change over a long period of time in

school-centered CBEMRs still needs to be done. This

research covers these ideas in the start-up process, but not

long-term data collection. No one has studied these ideas in

community-based educational collaborations from onset

through to a long-term study; what factors allow for these

collaborative science education programs to endure. Other

ideas for future research in a school-centered CBMER

could be related to community perception of student data

and their definition of success. Which teacher personality

traits tend to participate in more complex and time con-

suming educational opportunities would also be helpful to

anyone looking to recruit a professional for a school-cen-

tered CBMER. College professors and administrators can

then identify these qualities and reproduce these key ele-

ments to create more effective educators. Student

involvement in community concerns post participation in a

complex community collaboration would be another pos-

sibility as would measuring a support system that goes

beyond the classroom to community.


123

References

Beamesa S, Atencioa M (2008) Building social capital through

outdoor education. J Adventure Educ Outdoor Learn 8(2):

99–112

Bennett KR, Matthews CE (2003) Motivations and teaching practices

of K-12 teachers with EE certification. Paper presented at the

thinking globally while acting culturally NAAEE 32nd annual

conference anchorage, Alaska

Blake J (1999) Overcoming the ‘Value-Action Gap’ in environmental

policy: tensions between national policy and local experience.

Local Environ 4(3):257–278

Bodin O, Crona B, Ernston H (2005) Social networks in natural

resource management: what is there to learn from a structural

perspective? Ecol Soc 11(2):r2

Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed)

Handbook for theory and research for sociology of education.

Greenwood Press, New York

Carr AJL (2004) Why do we all need community science? Soc Nat

Resour 17:841–849

Cherif AH (1992) Barriers to ecology education in North American

high schools: another alternative perspective. J Environ Educ

23(3):36–46

Chi-chung Ko A, Chi-kin Lee J (2003) Teachers’ perceptions of

teaching environmental issues within the science curriculum: a

Hong Kong perspective. J Sci Educ Technol 12(3):187–204

Chubin D (1984) Research missions and the public: over-selling and

buying the U.S. war on cancer. In: Petersen JC (ed) Citizen

participation in science policy. The University of Massachusetts

Press, Amherst, pp 109–129

Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital.

Am J Sociol 94(Supplement: Organizations and Institutions:

Sociologica and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social

Structure):S95–S120

Cox R (2006) Environmental communication and the public sphere.

Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing

among five approaches, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand

Oaks

Crona B, Bodin O (2006) What you know is who you know?

Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite

for co-management. Ecol Soc 11(2):1–23

DeGraaf D, Jordan D (2003) Social capital: how parks and recreation

help to build community. Parks and Recreation

Dirks KT, Ferrin DL (2001) The role of trust in organizational

settings. Oragan Sci 12:450–467

de Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2005) Exploratory social network

analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, New York

Finnegan JR Jr, Sexton K (1999) Community-based environmental

decisions: analyzing power and leadership. In Sexton K, Marcus

AA, Easter KW, Burkhardt TD (eds) Better environmental

decisions. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 331–351

Frank KA, Yasumoto JY (1998) Linking action to social structure

within a system: social capital within and between subgroups.

Am J Sociol 104(3):642–686

Galloway AE, Tudor MT, Vander Haegen WM (2006) The reliability

of citizen science: a case study of Oregon white oak stand

surveys. Wildl Soc Bull 34(5):1425–1429

Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol

78(6):1360–1380

Granovetter MS (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network theory

revisited. Sociol Theory 1:201–233

Gulati R (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? the implications of

repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad Manage J

38(1):85–112

Hanifan LJ (1920) The community center. Silver, Burdett &

company, Boston

Janssen MA, Bodin O, Anderies JM, Elmqvist T, Ernstson H,

McAllister RRJ et al. (2006) Toward a network perspective of

the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc

11(1: 15):1–20

Klaminski G, Smith EC (2004) Community education and social

capital. Commun Educ J 27(3/4):1–5

Knoke D (2008) Social network analysis, vol 154, 2nd edn. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks

Larson KL, Lach D (2007) Participants and non-participants of place-

based groups: an assessment of attitudes and implications for

public participation in water resource management. J Environ

Manage 88:817–830

Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Knuth BA (2008) Social networks and

community-based natural resource management. Environ Manage

42:677–687

Lawless JG, Rock BN (1998) Student scientist partnerships and data

quality. J Sci Educ Technol 7(1)

Leach WD, Sabatier PA (2005) Are trust and social capital the keys to

success? Watershed partnerships in California and Washington.

In: Sabatier P, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A,

Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches

to watershed management. The MIT Press, Cambridge

Leahy JE, Anderson DH (2008) Trust factors in community–water

resource management agency relationships. Landscape Urban

Plan 87:100–107

Lin ESY (1993) Barriers to environmental education in British

Columbia. Unpublished Master of arts. The University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Lin N (2001) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action

(vol 19). Cambridge University Press, New York

Mandarano LA (2009) Social network analysis of social capital in

collaborative planning. Soc Nat Resour 22(3):245–260

McAllister DJ (1995) Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations

for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J

38(1):24–59

Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward A theory of

stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of

who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):853–886

Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and

the organizational advantage. Acad Manage Rev 23(2):242–266

Oh H, Chung M-H, Labianca G (2004) Group social capital and group

effectiveness: the role of informal socializing ties. Acad Manage

J 47(6):860–875

Parisi D, Taquino M, Grice SM, Gill DA (2004) Civic responsibility

and the environment: linking local conditions to community

environmental activeness. Soc Nat Resour 17:97–112

Penuel W, Riel M, Krause A, Frank K (2009) Analyzing teachers’

professional interactions in a school as social capital: a social

network approach. Teachers College Record 111(1):124–163

Petersen JC (1984) Citizen participation in science policy. In:

Petersen JC (ed) Citizen participation in science policy. TheUniversity of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, pp 1–17

Portes A (1998) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern

sociology. Annu Rev Sociol 24:1–24

Portes A (2000) The two meanings of social capital. Sociol Forum

15(1):1–12

Powers AL (2004) An evaluation of four place-based education

programs. J Environ Educ 35(4):17–32

Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social

network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat

Resour 22:501–518

Pretty J, Ward H (2001) Social capital and the environment. World

Dev 29(2):209–227


123

Putnam RD (1995a) Bowling alone: America’s declining social

capital. J Democracy 6(1):65–78

Putnam RD (1995b) Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance

of social capital in America. Political Sci Politics 28(4):664–683

Putnam RD (2001) Social capital: measurement and consequences.

Can J Policy Res

Ramirez-Sanchez S, Pinkerton E (2009) The impact of resource

scarcity on bonding and bridging social capital: the case of

fishers’ information-sharing networks in Loreto, BCS, Mexico.

Ecol Soc 14(1:22):1–22

Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge

transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm Sci Q 48:

240–267

Rock BN, Lauten G (1996) K-12th grade students as active

contributors to research investigations. J Sci Educ Technol

5(4):255–266

Roth WM, Lee S (2004) Science education as/for participation in the

community. Sci Educ 88(2):263–291

Sabatier P, Leach WD, Lubell M, Pelkey NW (2005) Theoretical

frameworks explaining partnership success. In: Sabatier P, Focht

W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds)

Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed

management. MIT Press, Cambridge

Schneider M, Scholz J, Lubell M, Mindruta E, Edwardsen M (2003)

Building consensual institutions: networks and the national

estuary program. Am J Political Sci 47(1):143–158

Scott J (2000) Social network analysis: a handbook. Sage Publica-

tions, Thousand Oaks

Sosu EM, McWilliam A, Gray DS (2008) The complexities of

teachers’ commitment to environmental education: a mixed

methods approach. J Mixed Methods Res 2(2):169–189

USEPA (2008) Drinking water in New England. From http://www.

epa.gov/region01/eco/drinkwater/private_well_owners.html

Wagner CL, Fernandez-Gimenez ME (2008) Does community-based

collaborative resource management increase social capital? Soc

Nat Resour 21(4):324–344

Warwick-Booth L (2008) Locally directed policy and the fostering of

social capital within regeneration: the case of objective 1 South

Yorkshire. Soc Policy Soc 7(1):53–63

Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work:

lessons from innovation in natural resource management, revised

edn. Island Press, Washington, DC

Woolcock M (1998) Social capital and economic development:

toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory Soc

27(2):151–208


123

http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/drinkwater/private_well_owners.html

http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/drinkwater/private_well_owners.html

changes in social capital and networks: a study of community-based environmental management through...

Documents