Table 3. Key challenges or constraints results summary. ACM= adaptive co-management.


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