|
Key challenges or constraints confronting ACM
identified in round one: |
Importance assigned by the expert panel in round
two: |
|
Importance assigned by the expert panel in round
three: |
|
Mean |
SD |
% = Percent of expert panelists who
ranked ≥ 4 |
|
Mean |
SD |
% = Percent of expert panelists who
ranked ≥ 4 |
| |
|
Unwillingness and inflexibility of the state and
resource managers to share power |
6.20 |
1.10 |
96.7 |
|
6.21 |
1.05 |
96.5 |
|
Power asymmetries among those
involved |
5.90 |
1.13 |
96.7 |
|
6.00 |
0.80 |
100 |
|
Reliance on, and imposition of, western scientific
information, structures, and models for management that often limit
learning-by-doing. |
5.07 |
1.46 |
90.0 |
|
5.17 |
1.28 |
93.1 |
|
Incommensurability or ingrained world views that
prevent shared understanding |
4.83 |
1.58 |
80.1 |
|
4.79 |
1.37 |
82.7 |
|
Group dynamics - preconceived attitudes about a
stakeholder(s), unresolved conflicts and defensiveness, mistrust, domination of
particular (self) interests |
5.47 |
1.17 |
96.6 |
|
5.41 |
1.18 |
96.6 |
|
Unclear or poorly defined privileges, guidelines, and
responsibilities. |
4.40 |
1.33 |
83.3 |
|
4.21 |
1.24 |
86.1 |
|
Lack of capacity and information
asymmetries |
5.07 |
1.36 |
86.2 |
|
5.34 |
1.05 |
96.5 |
|
Lack of incentives or reward structures for
collaboration and experimentation |
5.10 |
1.27 |
86.7 |
|
5.31 |
1.07 |
93.0 |
|
Absence of nonregulatory mechanisms that bind
individuals to ACM and permit free-riding |
3.93 |
1.49 |
65.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions and policies that inhibit or constrain
self-organization and information exchange |
4.87 |
1.36 |
86.6 |
|
5.24 |
1.09 |
96.5 |
|
Insufficient commitment of resources, e.g., financial,
human, technical, etc. |
5.30 |
1.42 |
93.3 |
|
5.45 |
1.18 |
96.4 |
|
Lack of understanding concerning social organization,
mechanics of ACM experimentation and complexity |
4.37 |
1.25 |
76.6 |
|
4.41 |
1.21 |
86.2 |
|
Integration of sociocultural and ecological
environments with micropolitics of an area and the economic viability of ACM.
|
4.37 |
1.33 |
77.7 |
|
4.35 |
1.20 |
88.5 |
|
Understanding the different types of participation by
stakeholders in ACM |
3.73 |
1.57 |
63.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of effective multiple monitoring systems and
identified information to collect |
4.10 |
1.63 |
66.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deciding what stakeholders to include or legitimate
representation |
4.20 |
1.67 |
69.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Institutionalizing ACM and fostering it across
multiple scales |
4.43 |
1.81 |
60.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Who should design experiments to ensure they are
relevant to users |
3.34 |
1.50 |
44.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Balancing adaptation and precaution. |
3.60 |
1.71 |
49.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of external agents with the appropriate social or language skills
to facilitate ACM |
4.83 |
1.60 |
80.0 |
|
4.86 |
1.46 |
82.7 |
|
Resolution and/or management of conflict that often
impedes ACM |
4.73 |
1.48 |
83.3 |
|
4.72 |
1.22 |
89.6 |
|
Unwillingness to approach ”big problems„
and/or use systems thinking over a long-time scale |
4.60 |
1.59 |
80.0 |
|
4.76 |
1.46 |
86.1 |
|
Desire to get rid of redundancy |
2.79 |
1.17 |
25.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Inadequate amount of time for ACM to develop, i.e.,
structure, process, learning, and evaluate consequences, e.g., feedback of
interventions |
4.90 |
1.71 |
76.7 |
|
5.17 |
1.37 |
93.1 |
|
Translating the concept of ACM into practical ideas
that can be implemented |
4.57 |
1.68 |
66.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Reluctance to proactively revise arrangements in the
absence of crisis |
4.30 |
1.58 |
73.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deficiencies in communication and information, which
block key ACM processes |
4.50 |
1.43 |
76.7 |
|
4.45 |
1.43 |
82.7 |
|
Authority of actors is outside or disconnected from
formal or informal structures |
4.13 |
1.55 |
70.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Developmental policies place emphasis on physical
capital rather than social capital: social and human capital lost or
destroyed |
4.63 |
1.56 |
76.7 |
|
4.72 |
1.33 |
82.7 |
|
Lack of a framework to understand
ACM |
4.33 |
1.63 |
63.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Resentment of participants, e.g., board members, because of
the perceived opportunities they might get due to their involvement
|
3.00 |
1.34 |
40.0 |
|
|
|
|