03055naa a2200325 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902200140006002400380007410000130011224501250012526000090025050006110025952014670087065300230233765300150236065300200237565300300239565300250242570000180245070000190246870000200248770000180250770000140252570000170253970000160255670000160257270000160258877301250260410610182020-04-08       2020    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d  a1462-90117 a10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.0242DOI1 aAUER, A.  aThe role of social capital and collective actions in natural capital conservation and management.h[electronic resource]  c2020  aArticle history: Received 24 May 2019; Revised 21 December 2019; Accepted 27 February 2020; Available online 12 March 2020. Corresponding author: Auer, A.; EEA Balcarce, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Balcarce, Argentina; email:aleauer@gmail.com Funding text: The following projects funded this study: Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) CRN3 095, which is supported by the US National Science Foundation (Grant GEO-1128040) ; PICT 2016-2150; PICT 2015 0672; FONDECYT 1190207. We want to thank all the interviewers and the interviewees for their valuable help.  aABSTRACT. The relationships among social capital (SC) and collective actions (CA) for nature conservation and management were analyzed across five case studies characterised by specific land-use dynamics in the South American continent. Data on SC and CA were obtained through a semi-structured questionnaire to groups of selected social actors. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to identify SC components and to evaluate SC across actors and cases. The results reaffirm that: i) the multidimensional nature and complexity of SC; ii) Higher levels of SC are related to higher levels of CA; iii) social actors with developed internal and external SC can better counter adverse conditions through CA compared to actors who only have one type of SC; iv) vulnerable social actors do not necessarily have a higher SC or engage in more CA, despite their higher dependence on natural resources; v) those who hold more power or influence in the territory, have higher levels of SC and CA; vi) vulnerable actors often carry out civil/community, economic and judicial actions, while dominant and structuring actors carry out more educational/technical and political actions. Therefore, the formation and maintenance of SC of the most vulnerable actors and those who support them must be a priority for political action, in order to counteract the asymmetric power relations that lead to the exclusion and marginalization of many rural actors. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd  aEcosystem services  aGovernance  aSocial networks  aSocial-Ecological systems  aStakeholder analysis1 aVON BELOW, J.1 aNAHUELHUAL, L.1 aMASTRANGELO, M.1 aGONZÁLEZ, A.1 aGLUCH, M.1 aVALLEJOS, M.1 aSTAIANO, L.1 aLATERRA, P.1 aPARUELO, J.  tEnvironmental Science and Policy, May 2020, Volume 107, Pages 168-178. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.024