- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Adaptive Learning: A practical framework for the implementation of adaptive co-management - lessons from selected experiences in South and Southeast Asia
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
MiscellaneousSource:
MRAG Ltd., London (2004)Keywords:
Adaptive; Asia; co-management; collaboration; Evaluation; framework; guidelines; LearningAbstract:
For the last five years we have been applying 'adaptive learning' approaches to the management of fisheries systems in South and Southeast Asia. Fisheries, like many renewable natural resources, are often complex and dynamic in both their nature and their management arrangements. This means it is often not possible to say with certainty how the system works, or be able to accurately predict what the outcomes of management actions might be. This uncertainty surrounding the resource system leads to conditions where complete control of the system is not possible.Our experience with the management of inland fisheries in South and Southeast Asia led us to feel that there has been a lack of guidance for
those involved in management under such circumstances. Existing guidelines we have seen often not only suggest some form of 'best practice' but also assume that the resources
necessary to implement it already exist. This is different from the sort of complex and dynamic bioeconomic systems we encountered that have so often been characterised by low
technology, low skills and a lack of available capital. In these cases, not only is management 'best practice' itself either uncertain or unknown but the resources to implement such
practices, even if they were known, are often lacking. While imposing constraints, we believe these systems also provide many opportunities. Local users may have little financial capital but often have a wealth of knowledge about the resource system, management arrangements, local communities and their needs that can be utilised. Often resource systems, for example paddy fields and reservoirs are both common as well as different in their biology and/or management arrangements. This provides an opportunity to compare differences across systems and learn. In addition, given the opportunity to do so, individuals and communities will often experiment with management over time to better adapt management to local requirements. As well as information from experimentation, communities and individuals have been found to value, and benefit from, opportunities to share experiences with
others. These opportunities are also enhanced by the potential of external agents. These agents can complement these attributes with their access to technical and scientific knowledge potential to facilitate communication between users.
Sublibrary:
Evaluation
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page