Journal article_Delphi technique_November 14_2006_revisions

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 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 comanagers 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 comanagement idea showed to be the most important categories Scoring of final topic categories were analyzed using the Wilcoxon, Median, and KruskallWallis non-parametric statistical tests These results are being used to refine the development of a dynamic resource web-based database to support comanagement capacity building programs Results also are informing the Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program development, implementation, and evaluation of a co-administration capacity building program in Guatemala 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 and their values and needs, continue to be tried Co-management— Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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, & Fonseca Borras 2003) By 2006, the IUCN Mesoamerican Regional Office reported a 133% increase in the number of PAs under some form of co3 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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 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 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program in protected area co-management capacity building programs for developing countries 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’ (Stewart 2001) Its key components are: ‘anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and the statistical aggregation of group response’ (Rowe 1999: 354) Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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 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 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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) 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-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 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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 comanagement 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 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 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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 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 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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) 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 10 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program Table List of Common Ideas and Components and Unique Ideas Identified from Definitions of Co-management and Coadministration Provided by Panel Members Common Ideas and Components - Formal agreement - Natural resource governance Unique Ideas - Dynamic process - Decentralization of arrangement competencies - Institutional arrangement - Coordination of efforts - Partnership - Achieve management and - Two or more entities involved - Between the State and Civil operations plans - Responsibility over coadministration process Society - - Mechanisms and instruments Transfer of responsibilities and resources for the management of - Generate social, economic, a protected area - and environmental incentives Does not mean transferring - Objectives of the area (End) authority, but sharing some - - to enhance participation authority and responsibilities go beyond the co- Coordinate efforts and combine management arrangement resources (Means) - Share its strengths, while Sharing of management compensating for the responsibilities 27 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program - - Fair share of management weaknesses functions, benefits, and - Limiting concept responsibilities - Confusing term Sharing responsibilities (legal, - Co-managers have some sort technical, and financial) - of status (legal or customary) Complementary actions agreed - Recognize legitimacy of upon as a result of an analysis of the potential roles to play by - Sharing power different social actors - Synergetic process - Negotiation - Respect - Commitment - Joint decision-making - Transparency - Diverse co-management models according to level of participation and sharing of responsibilities - social actors’ participation Follow-up and monitoring of accomplishments and fulfilment of objectives 28 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program Table Description of Topic Categories Identified During the First Round of the Co-management Capacity Building Program Delphi Process Topic Description Category Co- This covers the process of identifying and understanding the management constraints and opportunities that a country’s legal framework and Legal has on co-management This includes gaining knowledge of Framework Fit 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 comanagement, 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 Financing Co- shared protected area management The financial aspects of co-management range from broad management practices like business planning, accounting, fundraising, and financial accountability procedures to the application of specific techniques like balance sheet preparation, 29 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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 Management addressed This includes basic principles and concepts related to in a Co- protected area management (e.g., adaptive management, management management categories, zoning, biodiversity, carrying Situation 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 Monitoring user systems involved This topic covers the tools and processes for supervising, 30 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program and monitoring, evaluating, and assessing the effectiveness and Evaluating success of co-management arrangements/agreements It Co- addresses these at the ‘how to it’ level For example, in management the case of monitoring co-management arrangements Implementati details like methods, indicators, criteria, and who should on 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 Negotiating effective group interactions are also covered This addresses the process of and the techniques used to Co- identify, describe, and obtain a shared understanding of management potential roles, functions, responsibilities, obligations, and Agreements 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 Comanagement 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 Examples reflecting lessons learned of how to structure a co- Organizationa management agreement are included This topic will cover aspects of organizational culture, 31 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program l Design and structure, procedures, and teamwork for effective and Development, efficient co-management Methods and tools for conducting & Co- an organizational performance diagnosis are included management 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 communitybased organizations) are presented How to this work in different institutional cultures will be demonstrated Visualizing organizations as learning institutions will be Participatory integrated throughout this topic This topic area focuses on demonstrating the use of the Action methods, tools, and techniques central to participatory Research & action research This research methodology fits co- Co- management in that it requires participants from different management 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 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 32 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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 Planning in a the society level are covered This topic addresses planning styles (e.g., rational- Co- comprehensive, participatory, expert-driven, top-down), management legal requirements, and techniques and tools (e.g., GPS and Situation 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 comanagement are covered It also includes mechanisms to enhance joint planning by combining efforts across multiple organizations to support and create more effective co- Power management This includes a description and understanding of the idea of Sharing & Co- power and the potential power relationships among the co- management management entities (partners), between the co- 33 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 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 comanagement 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 Social management are addressed This topic includes the use of marketing and education Marketing & principles to develop, implement, evaluate, and assess Co- social, intercultural, intracultural, and stakeholder management communication that promotes voluntary behaviour change, which benefits individuals, groups or society as a whole 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 34 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program communicate to targeted audiences about the importance of protected areas and co-management, and to strengthen links between protected areas, co-managers and local Understandin communities are addressed This topic presents the variety of ways the co-management g the Co- concept has been defined and approached by academics management and practicing professionals around the world The resulting Idea conceptual complexity allows for a multiplicity of comanagement alternatives each with its own set of associated trade-offs to be explored How to access comanagement experts and relevant literature (theoretical and empirical studies) on co-management as well as commonpool 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 discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, threats, opportunities, risks, benefits, and costs of engaging in co- Understandin management is included This topic addresses how natural, cultural, political, and g Context & human built systems (e.g., highways, oil and gas pipelines, its Relevance residential development) affect protected areas and the co- to Co- management of them The reasons why it is important to 35 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program management 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, MesoAmerican 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 36 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program Table Rank, Median, Mean, and Standard Deviations of Scores Assigned by Panel Members During Rounds Two and Three Category Results Round Twoa Results Round Threeb Rank Media Mea Sta n n ndD Co-management and 8.5 7.6 ev 3.4 Legal Framework Fit Financing Co- 9.3 management Management in a Co- management Situation Monitoring and 8.5 Rank Media Mea Stan n n d 8.5 7.6 Dev 2.9 5.1 9.5 9.8 4.5 8.1 3.7 8.3 2.7 7.6 2.7 8.5 7.6 2.6 10 10.4 5.1 10 10.4 4.5 9.8 4.5 9.5 9.6 3.6 10 6.7 4.9 10 6.8 4.3 Evaluating Comanagement Implementation Negotiating Comanagement Agreements Organizational Design and Development, and Co-management Participatory Action Research and Co- 37 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program management Planning in a Co- 9.2 4.6 9 3.5 management Situation Power Sharing and Co- 10 10.1 4.6 10 10.3 management Social Marketing and 12 5.5 3.2 12 5.3 2.7 Co-management Understanding the Co- 10 9.4 6.1 10 9.3 4.6 management Idea Understanding 11 6.4 4.1 11 6 3.7 Context and its Relevance to Comanagement a 33 experts b 30 experts 38 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program Table Median Test to Calculate Importance Grouping Category Sampl Rank p- Groupa Negotiating Co-management e size 30 Order value 221 Agreements Power Sharing and Co- 30 1 management Financing Co-management Organizational Design and 30 30 577 353 1 management Understanding the Co- 30 772 management Idea Planning in a Co-management 30 871 Situation Management in a Co- 30 559 management Situation Monitoring and Evaluating Co- 30 management Implementation Co-management and Legal 30 221 Framework Fit Participatory Action Research 30 10 969 and Co-management Understanding Context and its 30 11 0.08 12 Development, and Co- Relevance to Co-management Social Marketing and Coa 30 management Group of topic categories that had identical median 39 Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building program 40 i PhD Candidate, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139, USA deur5735@uidaho.edu; 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, billm@uidaho.edu iii Assistant Professor, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139, USA nsanyal@uidaho.edu 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