|
Evidence of successful 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 |
| |
|
Conservation/sustainable resource use and ecosystem
health |
5.70 |
1.29 |
96.7 |
|
5.59 |
1.40 |
93.1 |
|
Equitable distribution of resources, i.e., benefits and
burdens |
5.17 |
1.53 |
86.6 |
|
5.17 |
1.26 |
93.0 |
|
A process in which stakeholders and government
develop, implement, learn, and make adjustments in pursuit of a more resilient
socioecological system |
5.43 |
1.63 |
86.6 |
|
5.59 |
1.30 |
96.5 |
|
Incorporation of multiple sources of information and
types of knowledge |
4.87 |
1.41 |
83.3 |
|
4.97 |
1.12 |
93.0 |
|
Evaluation/monitoring of management actions through
reflection aimed at learning and making subsequent modifications
|
5.45 |
1.24 |
89.6 |
|
5.62 |
1.08 |
96.4 |
|
Persistence or durability of the ACM
arrangement |
4.80 |
1.97 |
76.6 |
|
5.07 |
1.58 |
86.1 |
|
Commitment, trust, i.e., social capital, and integrity
amongst participants |
5.03 |
1.45 |
86.6 |
|
5.03 |
1.35 |
93.1 |
|
Robustness to solve or overcome challenges, e.g.,
ecological, economic, legal |
5.53 |
1.10 |
96.7 |
|
5.79 |
0.787 |
100.0 |
|
Balance/negotiation of conflicts, stakeholder
needs, and options for the future |
4.83 |
1.42 |
86.6 |
|
4.83 |
1.04 |
93.1 |
|
The incremental achievement of the agreed upon
intent, which is place specific |
4.69 |
1.56 |
79.2 |
|
4.75 |
1.24 |
89.3 |
|
The benefits associated with ACM arrangement exceed
the full cost of it or the alternative of a more centralized
approach |
3.93 |
1.68 |
63.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
A more resilient socioecological system capable of
buffering exogenous shocks or internal failures |
5.17 |
1.80 |
83.3 |
|
5.34 |
1.42 |
93.0 |
|
Sensitive to context and situation |
4.38 |
1.76 |
72.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Empowering the actors involved, fostering ecological
and social justice, and achieving credible sustainability objectives, e.g., poverty
alleviation, future options |
5.43 |
1.43 |
86.7 |
|
5.41 |
1.24 |
96.4 |
|
Implementation of legalized decisions and higher
level of rule compliance |
4.43 |
1.25 |
76.7 |
|
4.21 |
1.37 |
75.8 |
|
Shared authority, clear role and responsibility
definition and recognition |
4.80 |
1.35 |
86.7 |
|
4.90 |
1.11 |
93.1 |
|
Evidence of explicit experimentation, feedback, and
modification, i.e., adaptation |
5.27 |
1.17 |
93.3 |
|
5.31 |
0.85 |
100 |
|
Inclusion and effective participation in the
process |
5.23 |
1.31 |
86.7 |
|
5.41 |
0.87 |
96.6 |
|
Effective two-way communication |
4.97 |
1.55 |
86.2 |
|
5.25 |
1.14 |
96.4 |
|
Consensus among stakeholders on priorities,
approaches, and collective actions |
4.47 |
1.57 |
83.3 |
|
4.31 |
1.39 |
82.8 |
|
Flexibility of the institution; forming and
disbanding when required |
4.60 |
1.40 |
76.7 |
|
4.55 |
1.38 |
79.2 |