A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management
We survey and evaluate selected participatory tools that have been proven effective in natural resources management and research during our extensive experience with forest communities. We first establish a framework for our analysis by identifying a set of criteria for evaluating each tool. Next we...
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2007
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/19596 |
| _version_ | 1855539263071846400 |
|---|---|
| author | Lynam, T. Jong, W. de Sheil, Douglas Kusumanto, T. Evans, K. |
| author_browse | Evans, K. Jong, W. de Kusumanto, T. Lynam, T. Sheil, Douglas |
| author_facet | Lynam, T. Jong, W. de Sheil, Douglas Kusumanto, T. Evans, K. |
| author_sort | Lynam, T. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | We survey and evaluate selected participatory tools that have been proven effective in natural resources management and research during our extensive experience with forest communities. We first establish a framework for our analysis by identifying a set of criteria for evaluating each tool. Next we provide a brief description of each tool, followed by an evaluation and comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of all the tools examined and how well they can be adapted to diverse contexts. We also provide suggestions for avoiding common pitfalls. Our findings suggest that most tools are flexible enough to be adapted to a range of applications, and that results are more robust when tools are used in concert. Practitioners should not be disturbed when results are contradictory or unexpected; initial surprises can lead to unexpected discoveries. Given the complexity of natural resources and their management, picking the right tool does not guarantee that the data desired will be produced, but selecting the wrong tool does make success less likely. The tools assessed are Bayesian belief networks and system dynamic modeling tools, discourse-based valuation, the 4Rs framework, participatory mapping, scoring or the Pebble Distribution Method, future scenarios, spidergrams, Venn diagrams, and Who Counts Matrices. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace19596 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publishDateRange | 2007 |
| publishDateSort | 2007 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace195962025-01-24T14:20:42Z A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management Lynam, T. Jong, W. de Sheil, Douglas Kusumanto, T. Evans, K. participation tools natural resources resource management collaboration learning We survey and evaluate selected participatory tools that have been proven effective in natural resources management and research during our extensive experience with forest communities. We first establish a framework for our analysis by identifying a set of criteria for evaluating each tool. Next we provide a brief description of each tool, followed by an evaluation and comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of all the tools examined and how well they can be adapted to diverse contexts. We also provide suggestions for avoiding common pitfalls. Our findings suggest that most tools are flexible enough to be adapted to a range of applications, and that results are more robust when tools are used in concert. Practitioners should not be disturbed when results are contradictory or unexpected; initial surprises can lead to unexpected discoveries. Given the complexity of natural resources and their management, picking the right tool does not guarantee that the data desired will be produced, but selecting the wrong tool does make success less likely. The tools assessed are Bayesian belief networks and system dynamic modeling tools, discourse-based valuation, the 4Rs framework, participatory mapping, scoring or the Pebble Distribution Method, future scenarios, spidergrams, Venn diagrams, and Who Counts Matrices. 2007 2012-06-04T09:12:33Z 2012-06-04T09:12:33Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/19596 en Lynam, T., de Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., Evans, K. 2007. A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management . Ecology and Society 12 (1) :5. (10p.) [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/. ISSN: 1708-3087. |
| spellingShingle | participation tools natural resources resource management collaboration learning Lynam, T. Jong, W. de Sheil, Douglas Kusumanto, T. Evans, K. A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management |
| title | A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management |
| title_full | A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management |
| title_fullStr | A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management |
| title_full_unstemmed | A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management |
| title_short | A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management |
| title_sort | review of tools for incorporating community knowledge preferences and values into decision making in natural resources management |
| topic | participation tools natural resources resource management collaboration learning |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/19596 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lynamt areviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT jongwde areviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT sheildouglas areviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT kusumantot areviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT evansk areviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT lynamt reviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT jongwde reviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT sheildouglas reviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT kusumantot reviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement AT evansk reviewoftoolsforincorporatingcommunityknowledgepreferencesandvaluesintodecisionmakinginnaturalresourcesmanagement |