|
Attribute |
Key variable |
Outcome indicator |
| |
Social capital
(Pretty and Ward 2001, Pretty 2003) |
Trust building |
Trust building takes place among the groups involved in collaborative decision making. - Decision making is perceived as open and
fair; information is shared and understood by all participants |
|
|
Common rules and norms |
See “Rule compliance” under Preconditions for adaptive governance |
|
|
There are common-interest groups |
There is a common interest and a shared vision. - Participants jointly
identify and agree on the problems to be solved and what the future should look
like; it is clear to all participants why a decision-making body is needed;
participants agree on what the major problems are and what the benefits might
be of resolving these problems |
|
|
Financial and capacity support from higher levels of organization |
A long-term investment has been made. - The state or its partners are
committed to making a substantial and long-term financial investment in the
project; long-term skills and leadership development programs are in place; planning and decision-making support is offered |
|
|
Security of tenure over the resources of concern |
Security of access to resources. - There is long-term security of
access to resources; the decision-making body is confident that they are or will be
able to prevent outsiders from using the resources |
|
|
Economic or other incentives for collective action |
Incentives exist. - People who contribute more are rewarded; people who
lose ways of earning a living because of the project are compensated |
Adaptive capacity
(Armitage 2005) |
Willingness to learn from mistakes |
All actors, within and outside the community, listen to each other
and are willing to change what they are doing in response. - The organization
or committee involved in the initiative is made up of people from the community and
from outside the community; these actors respect one another and listen to each
others’ points of view |
|
|
Willingness to engage in collaborative decision making |
All participants are willing to engage in collaborative learning and
decision making. - Participants recognize the value of sharing information
among actors; experts are willing to learn from resource users, and
resource users are open to alternative ways of doing things; the project is
viewed as a learning process by everyone involved |
|
|
Willingness to accept a diversity of
institutions |
Diversity of institutions. - Participants understand that it is
unlikely that one institution will be able to manage the entire ecosystem; although
a broad institution should be established to provide vision and overall
coordination, members of the institution are aware that smaller groups may be
formed to deal with specific issues |
|
|
Maintaining options for adaptation (e.g., diversity of ecosystems,
livelihoods, institutions) |
Maintaining options. - Projects can bring many benefits, but they
cannot solve all the problems; for example, it should be understood that
not everyone can be employed on the project; people understand this and
continue to do their work as usual; over time, the projects provide some
new opportunities |
Self-organization
(Olsson et al. 2004a) |
Enabling legislation is in place, is accessible, and is understood |
Enabling legislation. - Legislation is in place that allows people to
form legal entities to manage natural resources; project participants have
access to and an understanding of the legislation |
|
|
Funds are available for adaptive management |
See “A long-term investment has been made” under Social
capital |
|
|
Information flow and social networks |
Networks are established that connect the local decision-making body
with other institutions. - Outside partners such as government officials,
researchers, and nongovernmental organizations are involved and willing to devolve decision-making powers.
Other, relevant, local decision-making bodies are consulted and
included in decision making; the roles of these different actors are clearly
defined |
|
|
Various sources of information are combined for sense making |
Information flow. - There is good communication among everyone
involved; people are informed about what is happening, and their views and
opinions are heard |
|
|
Arenas of collaborative learning |
See “All actors, from within and outside the community, listen to
each other and are willing to change what they are doing in response” and
“All participants are willing to engage in collaborative learning
and decision making” under Adaptive capacity |
|
|
Leadership |
Leadership is effective and recognized. - The leaders of
the initiative care about more than just their own interests; the leaders are
trusted and acknowledged by all actors |
Preconditions for adaptive governance
(Dietz et al. 2003) |
Access to accurate and relevant knowledge and information |
Combination of “Enabling legislation” and “Networks are established that connect the
local decision-making body with other institutions” under Self-organization |
|
|
Conflict resolution mechanisms |
Conflict resolution mechanisms are in place. - Participants
are aware that there will be conflict; the decision-making body is prepared for
conflict and solves problems before they become serious; people are kept
informed and their complaints and problems are heard |
|
|
Compliance with rules and regulations |
Rule compliance. - There are a management plan and rules for the use
of natural resources, especially those that people depend on for their
livelihoods; resource users respect and adhere to the rules |
|
|
Being prepared for change |
Being prepared for change. - A combination of “All
actors, from within and outside the community, listen to each other and are
willing to change what they are doing in response” under Adaptive capacity
and “Conflict resolution mechanisms are in place” under Adaptive governance |