سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات163
تعداد شماره‌ها6,761
تعداد مقالات72,822
تعداد مشاهده مقاله131,621,560
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله103,409,452
افخمی, مریم, قربانی, مهدی, بابایی, سحر. (1404). کاربرد تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی در ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی با تأکید بر حکمرانی مشارکتی منابع آب، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان بروجرد. , 16(1), 39-57. doi: 10.22059/jrur.2025.385529.2002
مریم افخمی; مهدی قربانی; سحر بابایی. "کاربرد تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی در ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی با تأکید بر حکمرانی مشارکتی منابع آب، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان بروجرد". , 16, 1, 1404, 39-57. doi: 10.22059/jrur.2025.385529.2002
افخمی, مریم, قربانی, مهدی, بابایی, سحر. (1404). 'کاربرد تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی در ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی با تأکید بر حکمرانی مشارکتی منابع آب، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان بروجرد', , 16(1), pp. 39-57. doi: 10.22059/jrur.2025.385529.2002
افخمی, مریم, قربانی, مهدی, بابایی, سحر. کاربرد تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی در ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی با تأکید بر حکمرانی مشارکتی منابع آب، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان بروجرد. , 1404; 16(1): 39-57. doi: 10.22059/jrur.2025.385529.2002

کاربرد تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی در ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی با تأکید بر حکمرانی مشارکتی منابع آب، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان بروجرد

پژوهش های روستائی
دوره 16، شماره 1، اردیبهشت 1404، صفحه 39-57    اصل مقاله (941.54 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jrur.2025.385529.2002
نویسندگان
مریم افخمی* 1؛ مهدی قربانی2؛ سحر بابایی1
1گروه حکمرانی آب و کشاورزی، دانشکده حکمرانی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2گروه احیای مناطق خشک و کوهستانی، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران
چکیده
حکمرانی مشارکتی به‌عنوان یک رویکرد نوین، بر مشارکت فعال ذی‌نفعان در فرآیند مدیریت منابع تأکید دارد. موفقیت این رویکرد در جوامع محلی به شناخت دقیق ویژگی‌های اجتماعی و سرمایه اجتماعی آن‌ها وابسته است. استان لرستان، با وجود اقلیم نیمه مرطوب و منابع آبی قابل‌توجه، همچنان با چالش‌های مدیریتی در بهره‌برداری از منابع آب مواجه است. این پژوهش با هدف تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی سرمایه اجتماعی ذی‌نفعان آب کشاورزی شهرستان بروجرد و ارائه راهبردهایی برای تقویت حکمرانی مشارکتی انجام شد. روش تحقیق مبتنی بر تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی است و شاخص‌های کلان و خرد شبکه اجتماعی برای ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی در روستاهای این شهرستان موردبررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که شاخص‌های کلان مانند تراکم و فاصله ژئودزیک در بین روستاها تفاوت‌های قابل‌توجهی دارند. این تفاوت‌ها نشان‌دهنده وضعیت متغیر انسجام اجتماعی و آمادگی برای مشارکت در برنامه‌های حکمرانی مشارکتی است. همچنین، شاخص‌های خرد نشان دادند که سطح سرمایه اجتماعی در میان افراد به‌صورت نابرابر توزیع‌شده و برخی کنشگران نقش کلیدی در تسهیل ارتباطات و تقویت اعتماد دارند. بر اساس نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از این پژوهش، پیشنهاد می‌شود پیش از اجرای برنامه‌های حکمرانی مشارکتی، شاخص‌های کلان و خرد برای ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی، تحلیل‌شده و ظرفیت جوامع محلی به‌دقت سنجیده شود. اقدامات توانمندسازی، تشکیل انجمن‌ها و تعاونی‌ها، و بهره‌گیری از افراد کلیدی با امتیاز بالا در شاخص‌های مرکزیت می‌توانند به تقویت سرمایه اجتماعی و موفقیت و کارآمدی برنامه‌های حکمرانی مشارکتی منابع آب کمک کنند تا درنهایت، پایداری منابع آب و تخصیص عادلانه در بخش کشاورزی صورت پذیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
توسعه جوامع محلی؛ حکمرانی مشارکتی؛ خط‌مشی‌گذاری؛ سرمایه اجتماعی؛ شبکه اجتماعی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Application of Social Network Analysis in Evaluating Social Capital with an Emphasis on Participatory Water Governance: A Case Study of Borujerd County
نویسندگان [English]
Maryam Afkhami1؛ Mehdi Ghorbani2؛ Sahar Babaei1
1) Department of Governance Water and Agriculture, Faculty of Governance, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2Department of Reclamation of Arid and Mountains Regions, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]
A B S T R A C T
Participatory governance, as an innovative approach, emphasizes the active involvement of stakeholders in resource management processes. The success of this approach in local communities largely depends on a thorough understanding of their social characteristics and social capital. Despite its semi-humid climate and substantial water resources, Lorestan Province still faces significant management challenges in utilizing its water resources effectively. This study aimed to analyze the social network of agricultural water stakeholders’ social capital in Borujerd County and propose strategies to strengthen participatory governance. The research methodology is based on social network analysis, examining both macro-level and micro-level network indicators to evaluate social capital across the villages in the county. The findings revealed significant differences in macro-level indicators such as network density and geodesic distance among the villages. These differences reflect the variable levels of social cohesion and readiness for participation in participatory governance programs. Additionally, micro-level indicators showed an unequal distribution of social capital among individuals, with certain actors playing pivotal roles in facilitating communication and building trust. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that before implementing participatory governance programs, both macro-level and micro-level indicators should be analyzed to assess social capital and accurately evaluate the capacity of local communities. Empowerment initiatives, the formation of associations and cooperatives, and leveraging key individuals with high centrality scores can significantly enhance social capital and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of participatory water governance programs. Ultimately, this approach contributes to the sustainability of water resources and equitable allocation in the agricultural sector.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Social network analysis (SNA) is a structural approach in social sciences that examines interactions among social actors, focusing on the patterns and dynamics of relationships between individuals, groups, and contexts. SNA enables researchers to identify influences and dependencies shaping social interactions. Similarly, participatory governance emphasizes stakeholder involvement in policymaking to improve governance, particularly in urban and local contexts, by enhancing collective decision-making and addressing challenges effectively. Public participation is vital for equitable resource management and sustainable development, yet such efforts often fail due to oversimplified assumptions about community homogeneity and unaddressed socio-political divides. SNA offers a robust framework for addressing these challenges by identifying stakeholders and analyzing their relational structures. In shared water resource management, SNA helps understand how social relationships influence the success of resource management initiatives and supports the development of self-regulated systems for sustainable use. Additionally, it links to community capacity building, empowerment, and self-organization, aiding external organizations in fostering trust and collaboration among stakeholders. This study aims to develop evidence-based policies to improve participatory governance in water management. Integrating SNA seeks to bridge gaps in stakeholder relationships, enhance community capacity building, and promote sustainable resource governance practices, thereby strengthening participatory mechanisms and collective decision-making.
 
Methodology
Participatory water governance emphasizes collaborative decision-making among stakeholders, focusing on equitable inclusion and addressing power imbalances to ensure sustainable and effective water resource management. The success of this approach relies on accurately identifying stakeholders and mapping their relationships. Social Network Analysis (SNA) provides a structured framework for analyzing these relationships at macro, meso, and micro levels, offering essential insights for managers. At the macro level, indicators such as network density, reciprocity of links, and mean geodesic distance measure overall network cohesion, trust, and information flow efficiency. At the micro level, indicators like input and output centrality, betweenness centrality, and structural holes highlight individual actors’ influence, authority, and roles in bridging network gaps. These metrics reveal key stakeholders’ power and their roles in participatory governance. The study evaluates governance criteria—including coherence, sustainability, adaptive capacity, power and influence, and controllability—using quantitative SNA indicators. This dual analysis of network structure and functionality provides actionable insights for fostering collaboration, reducing power disparities, and enhancing the adaptive capacity of governance systems. The study aims to support equitable and sustainable water resource management by refining participatory frameworks with these insights.
 
Results and discussion
The study examined trust and participation networks among 175 agricultural water beneficiaries in selected villages. Te trust network density was measured at 55.14%, while the participation network density was higher at 61.84%, indicating a stronger tendency toward social participation. This higher participation level positively impacts sustainable water resource management and promotes ecological balance. However, disparities in trust and reciprocity levels revealed challenges in certain villages. Villages like Rahimabad and Qaleh Shamsi showed weaker mutual trust and less stable networks, highlighting the need to strengthen trust bonds and partnerships to enhance adaptive capacity and network resilience. Conversely, villages like Fayal and Tudeh Zan demonstrated higher reciprocity, with well-established trust and partnerships ensuring efficient coordination and reduced resource access costs. The analysis of network efficiency through geodesic distance revealed generally satisfactory results, though Rahimabad exhibited slower trust circulation, underscoring the need for stronger trust bonds to improve coordination speed during crises. Centrality analysis identified key actors who play significant roles in shaping interactions and promoting trust. Individuals with high input and output degree centrality were pivotal in building authority and disseminating trust and resources, while those with high betweenness centrality served as crucial mediators, ensuring network cohesion and resource flow. Despite the benefits of participatory governance, centralized, top-down approaches remain dominant, hampering sustainable and inclusive water resource management. Addressing these systemic challenges requires strengthening trust in vulnerable areas, empowering key actors to promote trust and innovation, and transitioning to adaptive governance models. Participatory governance can enhance resilience and sustainability in water resource management by integrating social capital and fostering local stakeholder engagement.
 
Conclusion
Despite implementing initiatives such as the Comprehensive Water Plan for Climate Change Adaptation and the Groundwater Restoration and Balancing Plan, the executive sector of water resources governance has achieved only limited success in meeting the objectives of development programs. Many experts in water resource management argue that addressing the ongoing decline of water resources requires fundamental reforms in water governance structures and active participation from relevant stakeholders. To devise effective solutions, it is essential to derive actionable strategies directly from the challenges faced by the system. In this context, assessing the level of stakeholder cooperation becomes a critical factor in understanding the integrity and coherence of the water governance framework. Such evaluations can guide the identification of weaknesses and inform the development of more adaptive and inclusive governance approaches.
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Development of Local Communities, Participatory Governance, Policymaking, Social Capital, Social Network
مراجع
  1. اشتری، حسن؛ قربانی، مهدی؛ خراسانی، محمدامین و غفاری، صدیقه. (1403). تحلیل پویایی انسجام سازمانی در اجرای طرح آبادانی و پیشرفت روستایی (منطقه موردمطالعه: شهرستان گچساران). نشریه پژوهش‌های روستایی، (15)2، 397-382. https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2024.377112.1950
  2. قربانی، مهدی؛ عوض پور، لیلا و خراسانی، محمدامین. (1394). تحلیل و ارزیابی سرمایه اجتماعی شبکه‌های خرد توسعه در راستای توسعه پایدار محلی (مطالعة موردی: پروژة بین‌المللی RFLDL، شهرستان سرایان). نشریه پژوهش‌های روستایی، (6)3، 545-566. https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2015.56060
  3. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
  4. Ashtari, H., Ghorbani, M., Khorasani, M. A., & Ghafari, S. (2024). Dynamic Analysis of Organizational Cohesion in the Implementation of the Development and Advancement Rural Plan (Case Study: Gachsaran County). Journal of Rural Research, 15(2), 382-397 https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2024.377112.1950 [In Persian].
  5. Basati, H., Poursaeid, A., Allahyari, M. S., Eshraghi Samani, R., & Chaharsoqi Amin, H. (2020). Social network analysis of local water user associations’ actors: Evidence from Iran. Meteorology Hydrology and Water Management, 8(1), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.26491/mhwm/117586
  6. Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002
  7. Bodin, Ö., & Prell, C. (2011). Social networks and natural resource management: Uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894985
  8. Bodin, Ö., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective?. Ecology and Society, 11(2), r2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01808-1102r02
  9. Bodin, Ö., Crona, B., Thyresson, M., Golz, A. L., & Tengö, M. (2020). Key players in environmental networks: Understanding leadership and power for effective resource governance. Global Environmental Change, 62, 102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102070
  10. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
  11. Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., ... & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208
  12. Emami Skardi, M. J., Kerachian, R., & Abdolhay, A. (2020). Water and treated wastewater allocation in urban areas considering social attachments. Journal of Hydrology, 124757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124757
  13. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
  14. Freeman, L. C. (2006). The development of social network analysis. Empirical Press.
  15. Ghorbani, M., & Azadi, H. (2020). A social-relational approach for analyzing trust and collaboration networks as pre-conditions for rangeland co-management. Rangeland Ecology & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.03.008
  16. Ghorbani, M., Evazpour, L., & Khorasani, M. A. (2015). Analysis and assessment of "Social capital in small development networks" towards local sustainable development (Case study: International RFLDL project-Sarayan Township, South Khorasan, Iran). Journal of Rural Research, 6(3), 545–566. https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2015.56060 [In Persian].
  17. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. University of California Riverside.
  18. Koontz, T. M., Jager, N. W., & Newig, J. (2020). Social learning and collaboration in environmental governance: Understanding mechanisms and outcomes. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(2), 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1714558
  19. Krupa, M., Cenek, M., Powell, J., & Trammell, E. J. (2018). Mapping the stakeholders: Using social network analysis to increase the legitimacy and transparency of participatory scenario planning. Society & Natural Resources, 31(1), 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1376140
  20. Lubell, M., Robins, G., Wang, P., & Moreno-Cruz, J. (2021). Structural holes and resilience in environmental networks. American Journal of Sociology, 127(1), 84-126. https://doi.org/10.1086/713908
  21. MacAllister, R. R. J., Davidson, J. L., & Taylor, B. M. (2021). Social networks and natural resource governance: Building resilience through trust and cooperation. Environmental Science & Policy, 119, 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.009
  22. Newig, J., Günther, D., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010). Synapses in the network: Learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03713-150424
  23. Palmer, A. G., Fry, A., Libala, N., Ralekhetla, M., Mtati, N., Weaver, M., Mtintsilana, Z., & Scherman, P. A. (2022). Engaging society and building participatory governance in a rural landscape restoration context. Anthropocene, 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2022.100321
  24. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2019). Filling structural holes to improve community resilience in social networks. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101943
  25. Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C., & Stringer, L. C. (2020). Integrating stakeholder knowledge and social capital to enhance natural resource governance. Nature Sustainability, 3, 751-758. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0544-9
  26. Rodrigues, L., Machado, C. R., & Lourenço, N. (2006). Social networks and management of water resources for agriculture in Rio Caia catchment (Portugal). Italian Journal of Agronomy, 4, 741–756.
  27. Rogers, P., & Hall, A. W. (2003). Effective water governance. Technical Committee Background Papers No. 7, Global Water Partnership (GWP).
  28. Sayles, J. S., Baggio, J. A., & Alexander, S. M. (2019). Social-ecological network approaches to water governance: Bridging knowledge and action gaps. Ecology and Society, 24(3), 17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11236-240317
  29. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. Sage Publications.
  30. Shunglu, R., Köpke, S., Kanoi, L., Nissanka, T. S., Withanachchi, C. R., Gamage, D. U., Dissanayake, H. R., Kibaroglu, A., Ünver, O., & Withanachchi, S. S. (2022). Barriers in participative water governance: A critical analysis of community development approaches. Water, 14(5), 762. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050762
  31. Smith, J. M., Halgin, D. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). Power in politically charged networks. Social Networks, 36, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.06.005
  32. Steiner, A., Farmer, J., Bosworth, T., & Smith, S. (2021). Shortening geodesic distance for effective community-based water resource management. Water Resources Research, 57(4), e2020WR028567. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028567
  33. Villamayor-Tomas, S., & García-López, G. (2021). The role of leadership in water governance: A comparative study of social networks in irrigation communities. Ecological Economics, 185, 107030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107030
  34. Vivier, E., & Sanchez-Betancourt, D. (2023). Participatory governance and the capacity to engage: A systems lens. Public Administration and Development, 43(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2018
  35. Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyber-place: Changing portals and the rise of network individualism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00309
  36. Wyborn, C., Bixler, R. P., & Armitage, D. R. (2021). Collective capacity and social capital in natural resource management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49, 23-29.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 328
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 16





سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب