university of idaho - using the delphi … readin… · web viewresults also are informing the...

Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program

USING THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE TO IDENTIFY TOPICS FOR A

PROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING

PROGRAM

S. De Urioste-Stonei, W.J. McLaughlinii and N. Sanyaliii

1. Abstract

Co-management and co-administration are increasingly being promoted

as protected area governance tools to encourage local involvement in

protected area management in the Mesoamerican region. This increase has

exposed the need to strengthen co-management capacities of institutions

and organizations. We contend that creating capacity building programs in

co-management should reflect the wisdom of experts and practicing co-

managers from around the world. This study used the Delphi Technique and

the Internet to assemble information from such experts. The purpose of this

study was to better understand co-management capacity building needs.

The panel of experts was comprised of 30 professionals, with vast

experience on co-management in developing countries. Three rounds of

questionnaires were sent to the experts. Twelve topic categories were

identified and rated in terms of their importance. Power sharing, negotiating

co-management agreements, financing co-management, and understanding

the co-management idea showed to be the most important categories.

Scoring of final topic categories were analyzed using the Wilcoxon, Median,

and Kruskall-Wallis non-parametric statistical tests. These results are being

used to refine the development of a dynamic resource web-based database

to support co-management capacity building programs. Results also are

1


informing the development, implementation, and evaluation of a co-

administration capacity building program in Guatemala.

2. Co-Management and Capacity Building

For many years, within protected areas around the world, top-

down approaches to management and ‘Western’ ideas of conservation

have been promoted and in some cases imposed. This is in spite of

the fact that many of the protected areas where these were applied

were inhabited for centuries by Indigenous and non-Indigenous

peoples. These protected area management approaches and

accompanying foreign ideas of conservation have often caused

adverse effects on the livelihoods and food security of local people

living within and around protected areas (Berkes 1997; Borrini-

Feyerabend, Pimbert, Farvar, Kothari, & Renard 2004; Wakeford &

Pimbert 2004). As a result of this and other pressures, protected area

managers in Latin America started noticing numerous differences

between local populations and development agencies due to

divergence in land use paradigms and livelihood goals. As a

consequence of these differences, conflicts emerged and threats to

the integrity of protected areas (PAs) surfaced (Pimbert & Pretty

1997; Wakeford & Pimbert 2004).

As a result of these ongoing conflicts alternative approaches to

conservation and management of PAs, which include local populations

2


and their values and needs, continue to be tried. Co-management—

also referred to as collaborative management, co-administration,

partnership, joint management, and participatory management—

emerged as one of the promising alternatives to promote conservation

while ensuring human development (Berkes 1997; Borrini-Feyerabend

1996; Pimbert & Pretty 1997; Wakeford & Pimbert 2004).

At the 1980 World Conservation Strategy convention, collaborative

management approaches first appeared in the field of international

parks and PAs (Berkes 1997). According to Borrini-Feyerabend et al.

(2004), co-management refers to ‘a situation in which two or more

social players negotiate, define and guarantee amongst themselves a

fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements and

responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources’

(68). These types of collaborative management strategies are now

seen as alternative ways to govern and care for ‘places’ and ‘cultural

landscapes.’ The reasons behind this ‘caring’ varying from ones

associated with conservation and protection of special places to

others more directly related to maintaining livelihoods and cultural

practices.

During the last 15 years, the Mesoamericaniv region has

experienced a rapid increase in the number of PAs under various

types of co-management agreements (McCarthy Ramírez, Martínez

Artavia, & Salas 2006; Solís Rivera, Madrigal Cordero, Ayales Cruz, &

3


Fonseca Borras 2003). By 2006, the IUCN Mesoamerican Regional

Office reported a 133% increase in the number of PAs under some

form of co-management or ‘gestión compartida’ (42)--joint

administration—from the 1998 figure. The 196 PAs co-managed

represent 29.2% per cent of the total number of PAs in the

Mesoamerican region (McCarthy Ramírez et al. 2006). In addition,

77.5% of protected areas with institutional presence in the region are

under a form of joint administration.

Responding to this trend of increased co-management

arrangements, several authors (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004;

Castro & Nielsen 2001; Kellert, Mehta, Ebbin, & Lichtenfeld 2000;

Luna 1999; Maldonado 2000; Ruitenbeek & Cartier 2001) have

emphasized the need to develop the capacity and readiness of

individuals and institutions to carry out co-management activities. In

addition, capacity building programs have to be action oriented and

learner-centered (Leonard 2002; Panitz 1996). We conclude that

capacity building programs for protected area personnel need to

include new content that addresses the added complexities and

unique issues collaborative arrangements bring to protected area

management and that they cannot be delivered using the same old

train the manager model.

Hence, the purpose of this Delphi study was to better understand

the co-management phenomenon, especially as it refers to the

4


identification of capacity building needs among institutions. Using

the expertise of the panel of experts, a list of definitions was identified

and generated, as well as a prioritization of topics that need to be

included in protected area co-management capacity building

programs for developing countries.

3. The Delphi Technique

The Delphi technique (Stewart 2001) has been widely used since

its conception in the 1950’s to collect opinions from experts (Gupta &

Clarke 1996; Linstone & Turoff 2002b; Sharkey 2001), who usually

cannot be brought together around a discussion table to develop

consensus among them about a particular topic (Gupta & Clarke

1996; Rowe & Wright 1999). It was developed to ‘obtain the most

reliable consensus of opinion of a group of experts… (through) a

series of intensive questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion

feedback’ (Dalkey & Helmer 1963: 458). It also has been used to

establish facts, generate ideas, or make decisions (Gupta & Clarke

1996; Stewart 2001). The technique has been widely used in fields

such as nursing, business, education, industry, as well as in the social

science and natural resources disciplines (McKenna 1994). Its

flexibility as a technique allows for it to be used in different ways, and

therefore, in many instances it is referred to as ‘modified Delphi’

5


(Stewart 2001). Its key components are: ‘anonymity, iteration,

controlled feedback, and the statistical aggregation of group

response’ (Rowe 1999: 354).

The technique relies on a series of sequential rounds of

questionnaires, which should lead to consensus among the panel of

experts (Delbecq, Van de ven, & Gustafson 1975; Linstone & Turoff

1975a; Powell 2003; Rowe & Wright 1999; Sharkey 2001). It has

shown to be valuable ‘when individual judgments must be tapped and

combined in order to address a lack of agreement or incomplete state

of knowledge’ (Powell 2003: 376). In addition, it has shown to be

useful for organizing and structuring communication within a group

(Gupta & Clarke 1996). Its success lies on the convergence of expert

opinions (Jairath & Weinstein 1994; Powell 2003).

According to several authors (McKenna 1994; Powell 2003) the

strengths of the Delphi include the following 1): achieve consensus on

topic of uncertainty or little empirical evidence, 2) widen knowledge

through multiple rounds (Powell 2003), 3) stimulate new ideas among

the panel members (Powell 2003), and 4) encourage decision-making

(Gupta & Clarke 1996). The technique also has been shown to be an

inexpensive and efficient way to combine wisdom and capacities of

experts who are spatially separated (McKenna 1994; Powell 2003).

The Delphi process also has been shown to facilitate group learning

6


and team work among panel members (Gupta & Clarke 1996; Stokes

1997), while minimizing group conflict (Gupta & Clarke 1996).

The technique also presents certain limitations. Williams & Webb

(1994) found that the time requirement and commitment needed from

panel members led to members dropping out and losing interest.

Other researchers have argued that there is a lack of accountability

and panel members may make rushed decisions due to the anonymity

(Gupta & Clarke 1996; Powell 2003; Williams & Webb 1994).

McKenna (1994) contends that the exclusion of non-expert knowledge

can result in the loss of valuable ideas and insights. Finally, low

response rates in the final rounds has been a major limitation of the

technique in some studies (McKenna 1994).

4. Co-management Capacity Building Program Delphi

Process

Purpose of the Delphi Process in this Study

We selected the Delphi because we believed it would allow us to

capitalize on experts' wisdom (practicing professionals and

academics) about co-management and co-administration. The experts

we wished to include were spread throughout the world. The

technique also would allow us to capture needed definitions of the

phenomenon we were interested in studying, as well as determine if

there was a consensus about topics that were essential to co-

7


management capacity building programs. Finally, we felt the

technique would allow us to obtain quantitative and qualitative data,

and by using the Internet, we could accomplish all of this in a

relatively short period of time.

Selecting the Panel of Experts

Powell (2003) contends the panel of experts should include

individuals that 1) reflect current knowledge, 2) have recognition and

credibility based on their knowledge on the topic, and 3) present

diverse perspectives to include a wide range of viewpoints. In

selecting the panel of experts for our Delphi Process, we followed the

advice of Patton (2002) who recommends creating criteria for

including respondents. Our criteria for inclusion were: (1) recognized

co-management field expertise as evidenced by scientific publications,

active participation in ongoing co-management efforts, participation

in international, co-management working groups, or (2) by nomination

of others involved in co-management strategies in accordance with

the ways previously listed criteria. Experts had to believe they were

able to make a valid contribution to the phenomenon under study. To

insure a diversity of viewpoints, panel members from around the

world were invited and we attempted to search for potential members

who had different levels of formal education, varied field and

administrative experience, and a diversity of experiences in the

8


capacity building or teaching experience areas. Finally, panel

members had to be willing and available to participate throughout the

three phases of the Delphi process. An initial letter was sent

requesting their participation; and they were also asked to fill-out an

information profile.

Throughout the study, response rates of panel members differed.

Thirty eight experts showed interest in the study. From this initial

group of interested individuals with the desired expertise, we had 30

who participated in all three rounds (Table 1). As Table One shows

we had very high response rates during rounds two and three, in spite

of suggestions from the literature that response rates get extremely

reduced in later rounds (Keeney Hasson, & McKenna 2001; Sharkey

2001; Williams & Webb 1994). This might be due to the level of

interest in the topic at this point in time, and/or our use of the

Internet, which allowed the technique to be carried out in a relatively

short time period.

Table Two shows percentages of panel members’ geographic area

of work. Fifty seven per cent of panel members have worked in one

region of the World. Most of them have experience in the

Mesoamerican and Caribbean regions (65 per cent). Twenty three

per cent have worked in three or more regions; 50 per cent of which

have worked in all regions of the world.

9


In addition, related to the professional background of experts, 53

per cent of panel members have a background in the social sciences.

Thirty per cent studied in a discipline from the biophysical sciences,

while 17 per cent focused their studies in forestry and agricultural

fields.

Delphi Process Rounds

Normally, three rounds with the expert panel are used and this too

was the case in our study (Powell 2003; Williams & Webb 1994).

Each round consisted of the generation and analysis of the data,

followed by development of the material and response format to be

shared with the panel in the next round. All response forms and

letters were pilot tested (Jairath & Weinstein 1994; Keeney et al.

2001) with English and Spanish speakers. After each round, we

shared all of the ideas generated by the panel with all panel members.

Round One

During the first round, 33 panel members shared their own

definitions of co-management and a list of topics to be included in a

co-management capacity building program. A semi-structured

response form, with open ended questions was prepared to allow for

richness of data to be generated in the first round. Thirty three (33)

10


definitions were generated. Following are some of the definitions

provided by the panel of experts, which reflect some of the common

and unique ideas.

(Co-management is defined) as the formalized sharing

of management authority among two or more

organizations. Two points to clarify in this short

definition: (1) Not all the management authority needs

to be shared for co- management to occur, it could be

the authority over one or some aspects of management,

i PhD Candidate, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, College of Natural

Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139, USA

[email protected]; Researcher and Professor, Universidad del Valle de

Guatemala, 18 Avenida 11-95, Zona 15, Vista Hermosa III, Guatemala, Guatemala

01015.

ii Professor, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, College of Natural

Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139, USA,

[email protected]

iii Assistant Professor, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, College of

Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139, USA.

[email protected]

iv For the purpose of this study, we will refer to Mesoamerica as the area including parts of Southern

Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. In the field of

international conservation, this term is important due to the initiative for the establishment of a

Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, connecting all the protected areas in the region (World Resources

Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, & World

Bank, 2003) and efforts by the Central American Commission for the Environment.

11

mailto:[email protected]




e.g. enforcing rules, monitoring, etc.; (2) I deliberately

used the word organization, because participants in co-

management need to have some sort of status, but it

can be legal or customary. (Member # 16, 12/19/2005)

(Co-management) is a partnership by which two or more

relevant social actors collectively negotiate, agree upon,

guarantee and implement a fair share of management

functions, benefits and responsibilities for a particular

territory, area or set of natural resources. (Member #

29, 1/12/2006)

From my perspective, co-management is a form of

transferring responsibilities and resources for the

management of a protected area, from centralized

agency leadership to an independent entity. It can be

conceived as a mechanism for decentralizing

management authority and responsibilities. (Member #

9, 12/15/2005)

It is a dynamic process between the State (Central

government) and one or more civil society non-profit

entities, with the purpose of sharing legal, technical,

and financial responsibilities in order to achieve the

objectives and implement the management and

operations plans of a protected area. (Member # 1,

12/15/2005)

12


Table Three shows a list of common components in co-management

and co-administration definitions, and unique ideas. At a minimum,

definitions included the following ideas: (1) a formal agreement or

formalized partnership relationship; (2) between two or more social

actors from the State and Civil Society; (3) negotiating the sharing of

responsibilities, functions, rights, and benefits; and (4) serving

planning and management of protected areas and/or natural

resources. Definitions, for the most part, range on how they use these

common ideas.

In addition, 282 co-management topics were proposed by the panel

members to be included in a capacity building program. These were

then classified into topic categories based upon similarity of meaning.

The classification was done by a team of researchers and scientists at

the University of Idaho using QSR NVivo (2002), a contextual analysis

software program to facilitate the analysis of the qualitative data. A

total of 12 topic categories emerged (Table 4). A definition for each

topic category was then written using wording derived from the

responses provided by the experts. In developing the topic

descriptions we attempted to eliminate overlapping concepts across

categories in order to make each category mutually exclusive.

Round Two

13


Next, panel members were asked to rate the 12 topic categories

that emerged during the first round. Thirty three (33) questionnaires

were sent and received, resulting in a response rate of 100 per cent

for this round. The purpose of this round was to prioritize the topic

categories, using each expert’s assigned score to each category.

Experts were instructed to organize categories in order of priority,

and then asked to distribute 100 points among the 12 categories.

Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2005), to

facilitate the analysis of quantitative data, the median, range, mean,

and standard deviation (St. Dev.) were calculated for each category

based upon the scores given by the panel members (Table 5).

Round Three

In the third and final round—using a form that included mean,

median, standard deviations, and range of each category by all panel

members—each expert was given the opportunity to re-rate the

categories and provide feedback on any changes made. The purpose

of this concluding round was to finalize the prioritization of topic

categories to include in a protected area co-management capacity

building program, while moving toward consensus. Therefore, this

final round provided an opportunity to re-assess initial ratings from

the second step in light of knowing how the entire panel rated the 12

topic categories. Experts also were encouraged to include comments

14


about topics that were overlooked in previous rounds, information to

help us clarify the contents of each category, or allow items not

thought about in earlier rounds to be incorporated in co-management

capacity building programs.

Thirty out of the 33 response forms were returned from round

three (91 per cent response rate). As shown on Table Five, the

reduction in standard deviation for ALL topic categories represents a

movement towards greater consensus among experts in terms of the

relative importance of each topic category. The greatest change

among the panel members was with the topic category on

‘Understanding the Co-management Idea’, while the least change

occurred with ‘Monitoring and Evaluating Co-management’.

Comparisons in the rankings of the topic categories across rounds

was conducted using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test and the results

showed no statistically significant differences between ranking of the

ratings for rounds two and three. As presented on Table Five, panel

members for the most part did not change the priority given to the

topic categories from rounds two to three. This can be interpreted as

a stability of opinion of the relative importance of the topic categories.

The only changes observed in the ranking of topics category were in

the cases of ‘Financing Co-management’, ‘Organizational Design and

Development, & Co-management’, and ‘Understanding the Co-

management Idea’ (Table 5).

15


A Median nonparametric test was run to generate groups based on

equality of medians (table 5). The topic categories that were ranked

as the most important by the experts (Group One) included

‘Negotiating Co-management Agreements’; ‘Power Sharing and Co-

management’; ‘Financing Co-management’; ‘Organizational Design

and Development, and Co-management’; and ‘Understanding the Co-

management Idea’.

The second most important topics (Group Two) were: ‘Planning in a

Co-management Situation’, and ‘Management in a Co-management

Situation’. Following in importance, group three, integrated topic

categories such as: ‘Monitoring and Evaluating Co-management

Implementation’, and ‘Co-management and Legal Framework Fit’.

Less important (Group Four) were topic categories of ‘Participatory

Action Research and Co-management’, and ‘Understanding the

Context and its Relevance to Co-management’. Finally, the topic

category considered least important (Group Five) was ‘Social

Marketing and Co-management’.

Expert Background and Prioritization of Topic Categories

An information profile was sent along the initial letter inviting

experts to participate in the Delphi process. The profile included

questions on dominant professional background, geographic area of

experience, capacity building experience, current work, number of

16


years of experience with co-management (administrative, field, and/or

training), and highest educational degree held. This information was

collected to compare ratings, and identify if there were statistically

significant differences on prioritization according to background

characteristics. A Kruskall-Wallis test was used in order to fulfil this

purpose.

Using ratings for each of the topic categories, the results of a

series of non-parametric Kruskall-Wallis tests, showed variables such

as professional background, geographic region, capacity experience

and current work showed no statistically significant differences.

Hence, ratings were not influenced by these variables.

Differences in respondent group characteristics for years in

administration and ratings for ‘Financing Co-management’ (α=0.033),

and ‘Monitoring and Evaluating Co-management Implementation’

(α=0.001) were statistically significant. In other words, panel

members who had experience in administration gave a higher rating

to the financing, and monitoring and evaluation topic categories

mentioned above than those with no administrative experience.

Therefore, those with administration experience considered these

topics to be more important for inclusion in a co-management

capacity building program than those lacking administrative

experience.

17


In addition, ‘Social Marketing and Co-management’ (α=0.044), and

‘Monitoring and Evaluating Co-management Implementation’

(α=0.024) differed by level of experience in co-management fieldwork.

In this case, fieldwork experience resulted in lower rating being given

to both topic categories as compared to higher scores being assigned

by people with no fieldwork experience. These findings suggest that

these two topic categories are seen as be of lesser importance to

panel members having a greater number of years of field level

experience.

For the topic category dealing with ‘Financing Co-management’ (α

=0.023), higher scores were assigned by members with no

teaching/training experience. Finally, rating the importance of ‘Co-

management and Legal Framework Fit’ differed relative to the highest

educational degree held (α=0.036). Experts with an undergraduate

degree considered this topic category as more of a priority for

including in a co-management capacity building program. On the

other hand, panel members with a Master’s assigned middle range

scores (score of 7-8), while those with a PhD degree allocated the

lowest scores from the group.

Quality of the Delphi Research Process

18


The source of all data remained confidential throughout the study.

Names were not shared among panel members until all the rounds

were finished, and in accordance with the willingness of participants

to have their names publicly known. As recommended by McKenna

(1994), and to protect all participants, the opinions and specific

ratings of an individual remain anonymous to other panel members.

Credibility of this Delphi process and the results generated, are

based on the use of experts on co-management (Powell 2003), high

response rate (Williams & Webb 1994), and triangulating across

multiple sources (Mertens 2005). In addition, a ‘clear decision trail’

(Powell 2003: 380) and availability of the NVivo and SPSS databases

were used to ensure confirmability and dependability (Erlandson,

Harris, Skipper, & Allen 1993). In addition, questionnaires were pre-

tested by native English and Spanish speakers knowledgeable in

protected area management, but not involved in the study (Linstone &

Turoff 2002b).

Consensus was not defined a priori, but rather emerged from the

data (Williams & Webb 1994). Hence, we compared levels of

consensus from rounds two and three.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

19


Our panel of co-management experts (practitioners, policy-makers,

and academics) generated topic ideas that were assembled into 12

topic categories. The results of the Delphi suggest there is agreement

that these topic categories are relevant for inclusion in co-

management capacity building programs. However, they are not

equal in terms of importance (Table 6). The topic categories with the

higher importance rankings were: (a) ‘Negotiating Co-management

Agreements’; (b) ‘Power Sharing and Co-management’; (c) ‘Financing

Co-management’; and (d) ‘Understanding the Co-management Idea’.

These topics are essential to any co-management capacity building

program. Those with the lower importance rankings were: (a)

‘Participatory Action Research and Co-management’; (b)

‘Understanding Context and its Relevance to Co-management’; and

(c)’ Social Marketing and Co-management’. Finally those in the

middle included: (a) ‘Organizational Design and Development, and

Co-management’; (b) ‘Planning in a Co-management Situation’; (c)

‘Management in a Co-management Situation’; (d) ‘Monitoring and

Evaluating Co-management Implementation’; (c) ‘Co-management and

Legal Framework Fit’. The most important topics identified by the

Panel focus on power, developing the relationships, defining co-

management strategies, and financing them. Those in the middle deal

with implementing these types of collaborative management

strategies on the ground. Finally, those topics of lesser importance to

20


include in capacity building programs focus on understanding the

situational context, participatory action research, and social

marketing. With the exception of situational context these latter two

categories consist of items that are more indirectly connected and

perhaps less obvious in terms of their role in co-management and

administration of PA’s. In the case of the topic category,

‘Understanding Context and its Relevance to Co-management’ it

included a vast array of ideas. For some, this topic of understanding

the context is indispensable for co-management to be effective due to

the following: 1) the rapidly changing environment/context we

experience in societies and democracies under construction, which

affects co-management efforts; 2) the need for historical context to

shape local realities and how co-management is carried out; and 3)

the need to understand land tenure issues and recognize the huge

role it plays in shaping co-management arrangements. For others, the

topic did not merit its own module, but rather it could be included as

part of other modules since it was considered not to be intrinsically

related to co-management. Finally, an expert shared his belief on the

lack of clarity of the topic.

One limitation of this study is knowing whether or not our list of

potential panel members truly captured the diversity of co-

management experts around the world. Since we depended on

published names of authors who have written documents on co-

21


management identified through the library search engines, referrals

from these initial experts, and our personal contacts in conservation

we may have missed some individual experts, especially those

engaged in the practice of co-management at the field level. In

addition, due to the use of e-mail as our communication means, some

individuals at the field level who could not easily be reached by e-mail

were eliminated. Finally, in a geographic sense we probably best

captured Central and South America, although our panel included

multiple members who reported having had experience at the global

level, thereby bringing knowledge and insights from around the

world. We believe these two limitations are likely to be minor given

the diversity of our final panel members.

Another limitation is related to the complexity of the topic. As

much as we tried to develop mutually exclusive categories we have

some evidence to suggest that some panel members saw overlap.

Others suggested the merging of two topic categories together, due to

their similarity. Still others suggested dividing the topic categories

into smaller categories to allow for more clarity. These comments

identified in responses to an open-ended question suggest that our

categorization was not perfect in the eyes of all panel members.

However, this needs to be balanced against the fact that as

individuals were exposed to the detailed topic category definitions and

learned about how other panel members rated them, the group moved

22


to consensus on the rankings of the categories suggesting a common

understanding emerged during the Delphi process.

As suggested by experts in our panel, co-management capacity

building programs need to be sensitive to contextual variables.

Therefore, we believe that the ranking of topic categories obtained in

this study would very likely fluctuate to some extent when embedded

in a local situation. However, we believe based upon this research

that the topic categories are likely to remain relatively constant.

In future research on this topic, as Linstone & Turoff (2002b)

suggest, it would be useful to employ additional rankings or scales

that would measure the ‘feasibility (practicality), desirability

(effectiveness or benefits), confidence (validity of argument or

premise) and importance (priority or relevance)’ of the topic

categories (86-88). These additional measurements would increase

our understanding of the dimensions that need to be considered when

developing co-management and co-administration strategies for

specific application situations.

We believe the high response rates obtained throughout the study

were in part due to the constant remainders we sent during each

round (Hasson, Keeney, & McKenna 2000), the ongoing open sharing

of round outcomes with panel members, and the organization and

management of the Delphi Process itself (e.g. having a coding and

filing systems, personalizing all the correspondence, providing timely

23


feedback). In addition, some panel members also openly expressed

their belief in the usefulness of the results of the study. This too is

likely to have stimulated their continued participation. Finally, as

Hasson et.al. (2000) assert, ‘decisions (in a Delphi study) are

strengthened by reasoned argument in which assumptions are

challenged, thus helping to enhance validity’ (1013) and this occurred

throughout our Delphi Process.

In closing, we believe the Dephi Technique employed via Internet

has potential to be used to more fully understand other aspects of

protected area management. Additionally, we believe that the topics

to be included in co-management and co-administration have to be

adequately defined and ordered in terms of importance for inclusion

in capacity building programming for co-management and co-

administration as a result of this research.

6. Acknowledgements

This research was possible through funding provided by the

Consortium for International Protected Area Management (CIPAM),

and its partners (University of Montana, Colorado State University,

University of Idaho, and USDA Forest Service—Office of International

Programs). We appreciate the input provided by those who

participated during several sections of the Delphi process. Special

24


thanks to experts who participated throughout the process, sharing

their wisdom and extensive experience in protected area co-

management: James Barborak, Roan Balas McNab, Grazia Borrini-

Feyerabend, Marlon Javier Calderón Barrios, Jorge Mario Cardona

Rivas, Ada Ruth Castillo Ordinola, José Courrau , Mario Del Cid,

Alvaro Gaillour Ferradas, Juventino Gálvez, Pablo Gómez, Sam Ham,

Barbara Knuth, Oscar Iván Maldonado, Rafael Manzanero, Javier

Márquez, Douglas Mason, Roberto Morales, Adolfo Moreno, Oscar

Manuel Núñez Saravia, Mayra Lisseth Oliva Perez, Gonzalo Oviedo

Carrillo, Michael Painter, Marie-Claire Paiz, Yves Renard, Oscar

Estuardo Rojas, Vivienne Solís Rivera (Coope Solidar), Gustavo Suárez

de Freitas Calmet, and Graham Watkins.

7. References

25


Table 1. Response Rate Throughout the Delphi Process.

Round Sent Received Response Rate

1st round 38 33 87 per cent

2nd round 33 33 100 per cent

3rd round 33 30 91 per cent

26


Table 2. Geographic Areas Panel Members Have Worked

Number of regions Frequency Per cent

One region 17 57

Two regions 6 20

Three or more regions 7 23

27


Table 3. List of Common Ideas and Components and Unique

Ideas Identified from Definitions of Co-management and Co-

administration Provided by Panel Members

Common Ideas and Components Unique Ideas

- Formal agreement

- Natural resource governance

arrangement

- Institutional arrangement

- Partnership

- Two or more entities involved

- Between the State and Civil

Society

- Transfer of responsibilities and

resources for the management of

a protected area

- Does not mean transferring

authority, but sharing some

authority and responsibilities

- Coordinate efforts and combine

resources

- Sharing of management

- Dynamic process

- Decentralization of

competencies

- Coordination of efforts

- Achieve management and

operations plans

- Responsibility over co-

administration process

- Mechanisms and instruments

to enhance participation

- Generate social, economic,

and environmental

incentives

- Objectives of the area (End)

go beyond the co-

management arrangement

(Means)

28


responsibilities

- Fair share of management

functions, benefits, and

responsibilities

- Sharing responsibilities (legal,

technical, and financial)

- Complementary actions agreed

upon as a result of an analysis of

the potential roles to play by

different social actors

- Negotiation

- Respect

- Commitment

- Joint decision-making

- Transparency

- Diverse co-management models

according to level of participation

and sharing of responsibilities

- Follow-up and monitoring of

accomplishments and fulfilment of

objectives

- Share its strengths, while

compensating for the

weaknesses

- Limiting concept

- Confusing term

- Co-managers have some sort

of status (legal or customary)

- Recognize legitimacy of

social actors’ participation

- Sharing power

- Synergetic process

29


Table 4. Description of Topic Categories Identified During the

First Round of the Co-management Capacity Building Program

Delphi Process

Topic

Category

Description

Co-

management

and Legal

Framework

Fit

This covers the process of identifying and understanding the

constraints and opportunities that a country’s legal framework

has on co-management. This includes gaining knowledge of

and enforcement of issues with formal and customary

international, national, and local treaties, laws, policies, and

regulations that may affect protected area co-management.

This covers legal instances which support or inhibit co-

management, and understanding the connections between

protected area and more general environmental laws, policies,

and regulations. Finally, it considers international and

national public policy that directly affects effective co-

management, such as policies related to basic human rights,

the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, and

nomadic groups to engage in natural resource management

and stewardship; democratization and decentralization as

ways to enhance shared protected area management.

Financing Co-

management

The financial aspects of co-management range from broad

practices like business planning, accounting, fundraising,

and financial accountability procedures to the application

30


of specific techniques like balance sheet preparation,

completing cash flow statements, and financial report

writing. In addition to covering this range, the topics of

transparent financial management, payment for

environmental services, sustainable products and services

(e.g., ecotourism; clean water; organic, shade-grown

coffee), total costs including environmental costs, and

amortizing capital investments are covered. Another topic

included here in some depth is that of product

development. Finally, alternative ways (e.g., endowments,

adequately pricing goods and services, public investment)

to financially sustain co-managed areas along with their

trade-offs are addressed.

Management

in a Co-

management

Situation

This includes basic principles and concepts related to

protected area management (e.g., adaptive management,

management categories, zoning, biodiversity, carrying

capacity), as well as management tools and techniques

(e.g., counting visitors, monitoring impacts, tracking

environmental services, patrolling). It encompasses ideas

of traditional/indigenous resource management strategies,

science-based management strategies, and analysis of the

interface between indigenous/local and modern/often

imported agro-industrial natural resource management

systems. It also incorporates technologies to monitor

programs and projects, as well as biological, cultural, and

31


user systems involved.

Monitoring

and

Evaluating

Co-

management

Implementati

on

This topic covers the tools and processes for supervising,

monitoring, evaluating, and assessing the effectiveness and

success of co-management arrangements/agreements. It

addresses these at the ‘how to do it’ level. For example, in

the case of monitoring co-management arrangements

details like methods, indicators, criteria, and who should do

it are explored. It also provides examples of ‘good’ and

sustainable co-management agreements that have resulted

in successful implementation of co-management practices.

Lessons learned about social communication, organizing

collaborating parties, negotiation procedures, and

facilitating effective group interactions are also covered.

Negotiating

Co-

management

Agreements

This addresses the process of and the techniques used to

identify, describe, and obtain a shared understanding of

potential roles, functions, responsibilities, obligations, and

rights assigned to participating co-management entities. In

some cases they can also be assigned to external actors

(third party auditing or monitoring) who are likely to be

affected (positively or negatively) by the negotiated Co-

management agreement. These negotiated results serve as

the foundation for designing the Co-management structure.

During the agreement negotiation process responsibilities,

obligations, and rights that the government protected area

management agency should not delegate are identified.

32


Examples reflecting lessons learned of how to structure a

co-management agreement are included.

Organization

al Design and

Development,

& Co-

management

This topic will cover aspects of organizational culture,

structure, procedures, and teamwork for effective and

efficient co-management. Methods and tools for conducting

an organizational performance diagnosis are included.

These focus on identifying existing management skills and

needed capacity requirements of the co-management

partners (e.g., technical, administrative, and management

capacities). Approaches to designing and implementing

capacity-building strategies and programs to strengthen

institutions (governmental and non-governmental

organizations, local/indigenous groups, and community-

based organizations) are presented. How to do this work in

different institutional cultures will be demonstrated.

Visualizing organizations as learning institutions will be

integrated throughout this topic.

Participatory

Action

Research &

Co-

management

This topic area focuses on demonstrating the use of the

methods, tools, and techniques central to participatory

action research. This research methodology fits co-

management in that it requires participants from different

organizations and interest groups to actively collaborate

among themselves and with the researchers. How the

concepts of participant empowerment, power sharing,

respect for human dignity, social and political

33


transformation, and social justice are connected to

participatory action research are explained. Because

participatory action research is an approach that puts

together research, education, and action processes, existing

models applied to co-management situations will be shared

and their strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities

identified. The effects of such models on individual,

organizational, and community change as well as changes

at the society level are covered.

Planning in a

Co-

management

Situation

This topic addresses planning styles (e.g., rational-

comprehensive, participatory, expert-driven, top-down),

legal requirements, and techniques and tools (e.g., GPS and

GIS for land-use planning, demographic analysis, Rapid

Rural Appraisal, market analysis, SWOT) used in

management, program, and project planning. Important

planning principles such as stages in the planning process;

project cycles; developing conceptual models of the

planning situation; generating and drafting goals,

objectives, strategies, and actions are addressed. The

variety of planning instruments (e.g., regional economic

development plan, regional tourism plan, national protected

area systems plan, management or master plan, annual

work or operations plan, land-use plan) and their roles in

co-management are covered. It also includes mechanisms

to enhance joint planning by combining efforts across

34


multiple organizations to support and create more effective

co-management.

Power

Sharing &

Co-

management

This includes a description and understanding of the idea of

power and the potential power relationships among the co-

management entities (partners), between the co-

management authority and the external entities, and the

role of representation, social justice, trust building,

management decision-making power, and equity.

Discussions about lessons learned and practical

mechanisms to enable effective and equitable participation

of marginalized groups (e.g., local people, poor and

powerless people and sectors, indigenous groups, nomadic

groups) in planning, implementation, and monitoring of co-

management processes and arrangements is included. In

addition, strategies and mechanisms to manage, negotiate,

transform, and resolve conflicts among co-management

partners are covered. Governance issues (e.g.,

transparency, accountability, decision-making structures

and processes) as they relate to protected areas and their

management are addressed.

Social

Marketing &

Co-

management

This topic includes the use of marketing and education

principles to develop, implement, evaluate, and assess

social, intercultural, intracultural, and stakeholder

communication that promotes voluntary behaviour change,

which benefits individuals, groups or society as a whole.

35


Often the desired behaviour is participation in efforts that

advocate for improving the quality of life and/or the

environment. Specific methods, tools, and techniques of

effective social marketing are covered. Benefits (outputs

and outcomes) to entities involved in co-management are

considered. Finally, strategies and practical techniques to

communicate to targeted audiences about the importance

of protected areas and co-management, and to strengthen

links between protected areas, co-managers and local

communities are addressed.

Understandin

g the Co-

management

Idea

This topic presents the variety of ways the co-management

concept has been defined and approached by academics

and practicing professionals around the world. The

resulting conceptual complexity allows for a multiplicity of

co-management alternatives each with its own set of

associated trade-offs to be explored. How to access co-

management experts and relevant literature (theoretical

and empirical studies) on co-management as well as

common-pool resources and tragedy of the commons is

demonstrated. Examples of applications of co-management

in different contexts, along with analyses of why it has

succeeded or failed are covered. Also addressed are the

different stages of co-management—situational analysis,

agreement development, arrangement implementation,

monitoring, and initiating improvements. Finally, a

36


discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, threats,

opportunities, risks, benefits, and costs of engaging in co-

management is included.

Understandin

g Context &

its Relevance

to Co-

management

This topic addresses how natural, cultural, political, and

human built systems (e.g., highways, oil and gas pipelines,

residential development) affect protected areas and the co-

management of them. The reasons why it is important to

understand the role of history of these areas as cultural

landscapes (a defined geographic space and place), in

terms of land tenure, conservation management, and

patterns of land-use also are covered. Ways to assess how

human values centered on gender, poverty, equity, and

cultural diversity may be connected to co-management are

included. The topic also addresses how co-managed

protected areas fit into larger scale conservation planning

efforts (e.g., watershed management, national coastal zone

management, national protected area system, Meso-

American Biological Corridor), development frameworks

(e.g., international free-trade agreements, regional

sustainable development, ecotourism, sustainable

agriculture) and across other initiatives being promoted by

private sector, governmental, and non-governmental

organizations.

37


Table 5. Rank, Median, Mean, and Standard Deviations of

Scores Assigned by Panel Members During Rounds Two and

Three.

Category Results Round Twoa Results Round

Threeb

Ran

k

Media

n

Mea

n

Sta

ndD

ev

Ran

k

Media

n

Mea

n

Stan

d.

Dev.

Co-management and

Legal Framework Fit

8.5 8 7.6 3.4 8.5 8 7.6 2.9

Financing Co-

management

5 9 9.3 5.1 3 9.5 9.8 4.5

Management in a Co-

management Situation

7 9 8.1 3.7 7 9 8.3 2.7

Monitoring and

Evaluating Co-

management

Implementation

8.5 8 7.6 2.7 8.5 8 7.6 2.6

Negotiating Co-

management

Agreements

1 10 10.4 5.1 1 10 10.4 4.5

Organizational Design 3 9 9.8 4.5 4 9.5 9.6 3.6

38


and Development, and

Co-management

Participatory Action

Research and Co-

management

10 6 6.7 4.9 10 6 6.8 4.3

Planning in a Co-


6 9 9.2 4.6 6 9 9 3.5

Power Sharing and Co-

management

2 10 10.1 4.6 2 10 10.3 4

Social Marketing and

Co-management

12 5 5.5 3.2 12 5 5.3 2.7

Understanding the Co-

management Idea

4 10 9.4 6.1 5 10 9.3 4.6

Understanding

Context and its

Relevance to Co-

management

11 6 6.4 4.1 11 6 6 3.7

a 33 experts

b 30 experts

39


Table 6. Median Test to Calculate Importance Grouping

Category Sampl

e size

Rank

Order

p-

value

Groupa

Negotiating Co-management

Agreements

30 1 .221 1

Power Sharing and Co-

management

30 2 1 1

Financing Co-management 30 3 .577 1

Organizational Design and

Development, and Co-

management

30 4 .353 1

Understanding the Co-

management Idea

30 5 .772 1

Planning in a Co-management

Situation

30 6 .871 2

Management in a Co-


30 7 .559 2

Monitoring and Evaluating Co-

management Implementation

30 8 1 3

Co-management and Legal

Framework Fit

30 9 .221 3

Participatory Action Research 30 10 .969 4

40


and Co-management

Understanding Context and its

Relevance to Co-management

30 11 0.08

8

4

Social Marketing and Co-

management

30 12 1 5

a Group of topic categories that had identical median.

41

university of idaho - using the delphi … readin… · web viewresults also are informing the...

Documents