Download all Technical Policy Briefing Notes in a single ... - Mediation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DecisionSupport 8Box 2: The Concepts of NetworksThe structure of a network is comprised of a topology of points, linkages and structural forms. Thesediffer within networks, depending on the type of actors, which actor is the focus, whose perspectiveis used, and affect social processes such as knowledge transfer, information sharing, flows andexchange of types of capital, consensus building and power relations. Key issues and illustrativeexamples for climate adaptation are provided below.Strength of connections. The ‘strength of connections’ refers a) to the proximity of actors to eachother and b) the number of links between actors. The closer the actors are to each other and/or themore the links, the stronger the bond. Ties within cohesive subgroups are known as ‘bonding ties’.Adaptation example: an existing research network with strong ties will be more productive thanestablishing a new network solely dedicated to climate adaptation.Bridges. Bridging actors link actors and institutions. They may span ‘clusters’ of actors who havespecialized knowledge and provide access to new knowledge for others. Links between subgroupsare known as ‘bridging ties’ and are important for innovation and adaptive management. A lack oflinks to important or influential actors can also be a barrier and an area where ‘boundary-spanning’actors (Berkes and Folke, 1998) have an important role to play. Example: the Dialogue on Climateand Water bridges two communities of practice.Clusters. A cluster is where actors have significantly more ties between group members thanbetween members and non-members. The existence of many sub-clusters within a network can be abarrier, as low ‘network cohesion’ can produce ‘us-and-them’ attitudes or keep organizations withdifferent agendas apart. Example: integrated assessment modelling is a technical area that tends toconcentrate learning among specialists, with relatively limited access from other disciplines orperspectives.Centrality. There are several types of centrality: for example, degree centrality (number of ties anactor has) and ‘between-ness’ centrality (the degree to which an actor connects other actors whowould not otherwise be connected). Degree centrality can be problematic if there is too muchresponsibility for one actor. Example: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change creates acentral tendency in networks as a singular focus for expertise on climate vulnerability, impacts andadaptation.Homogeneity versus heterogeneity. Bridging ties can be important in building trust amongstunconnected actors and facilitating information exchange. Bridging ties link clusters ofhomogeneous actors to other different, yet homogeneous actors. These ties can link different typesof actors both vertically and horizontally. Example: participatory processes that engage socialentrepreneurs, local decision makers and global experts are vastly heterogeneous and are achallenge to manage as productive adaptation processes.Goals – conflicts and potential synergies. Moser and Ekstrom (2010) outline that adaptation maybe ‘initiated in non-climatic windows of opportunity (e.g. infrastructure replacement, renovating abuilding) or moments of potentially high human ‘agency’ (Ballard et al., 2012). The differing goals ofvarious actors can create obstacles to adaptation, because institutional goals or values and normsare not aligned, or there is disagreement about the strength of the climate signal (Berkhout et al.,2006). Example: social network analysis in small islands highlights the disparity between the rights oflocal resource-based livelihoods and the imperative of long term coastal zone management facedwith sea level rise.Influence. The perceived influence of different actors can reveal insights into why overall objectiveson climate adaptation are not being met. Outliers are interesting if they are influential and do notpossess a large number or ‘bonding’ or ‘bridging’ ties. Insufficient linkages leads to less potential forintervention and capacity building. Example: the shift from ‘impacts’ as an environmental issue to‘adaptation’ in the allocation of finance is also one of influence between relatively weak ministriesand the role of the state in managing the economy.6
Social Network AnalysisBox 3. Network analysis and future stakeholder regimesInstitutional scenarios and opportunities. Institutional mapping allows a group (stakeholders orexperts) to play out scenarios of different knowledge-action networks. It is often useful for thinkingthrough particular outcomes which may be ‘known’ by stakeholders, or ‘anticipated’ but not readilyarticulated. Often, building adaptive capacity is seen as adding staff or increasing skills within anorganization. However, the real challenges are likely to require new institutional relationships andeven new players.Given a map, participants can take an actor out of the network (or add a new one) and ask ‘whatchanges? ’Not identifying, and losing, ‘windows of opportunity’ for making decisions is a commonimpediment to effective and strategic adaptation planning. While such windows may be internal to aninstitution, often they realign the network as well. Thus, differing agendas and time-horizons fordecision-making in different institutional bodies can lead to conflicts in implementing adaptationplans or result in missed opportunities for collaboration or for facilitating the emergence of ademand-led institutional entity.Building adaptive capacity and avoiding ‘lock-in’. The topology of a network can help to explain howactors and networks behave and some topologies are more likely to foster adaptive capacity andgovernance than others (Sandström and Rova 2010).Low density networks with few or weak connections between actors or sub-groups or with stronghierarchies are associated with lower potential adaptability because of the divergence andcompetition of views, absence of a common understanding and common problem definition, as wellas common decision space for the management of natural resources. In this context, it is moredifficult to strive for legitimacy of formal management rules (Sandström and Rova 2010, Bodin andCrona 2009).On the contrary, denser networks or decentralized and less hierarchical networks can facilitatebridges between disparate views and help formulate shared understandings and framings of theproblem leading to a more sound management strategy based on collective action. This can beimportant over time where it is key to remain flexible and adaptive to new information as it arisesinstead of becoming ‘locked-in’ to a particular pathway because of previous investments.It has been suggested that a successful management strategy (particularly, in governing naturalresources) is one where actors, during periods of stability, develop new relational ties with variousother actors and stakeholders which can be drawn upon in times of change (Olsson et al., 2006) andthis resonates with the proposition that informal networks or ‘shadow spaces’ are especially useful intimes of changes (Pelling et al. 2008).Adaptive management. Generally speaking, empirical studies support the hypothesis that the higherthe network density (i.e. the number of existing ties divided by the number of possible ties), the morepotential for collective action due to increased opportunities for communication, and over time,reciprocity and trust (Bodin and Crona, 2009).This support can facilitate ‘joined-up’ and integrated thinking. If the network is responsive andflexible, this density is also an important aspect of ‘adaptive management’ as it allows thedevelopment of knowledge though the exposure to both an increased amount of information andnew knowledge through boundary spanning actors who act as vehicles for knowledge transfer. In theabsence of these actors, there can be areas for intervention, either by groups coming together innew institutional arrangements, facilitating new connections between actors, or through the creationof other ‘platforms for communication’ such as online communities or the formalisation of ‘networks’.7
Page 2 and 3:
Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 4:
DecisionSupport 1Stage three relate
Page 7 and 8:
Method OverviewAs a result there is
Page 9 and 10:
Method OverviewThe advantage of the
Page 11 and 12:
Method OverviewTable 1. Strengths a
Page 13 and 14:
Iterative Risk AssessmentMethod Ove
Page 15 and 16:
Method OverviewTable 3. Inputs, Ben
Page 17 and 18:
Method OverviewThird, there some di
Page 19 and 20:
Method Overviewhttp://reports.eea.e
Page 22 and 23:
Further informationThe research lea
Page 24 and 25:
Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 26 and 27:
DecisionSupport 2Box 2. Comparing M
Page 28 and 29:
DecisionSupport 2Table 1. Possible
Page 30 and 31:
DecisionSupport 2location and techn
Page 32 and 33:
DecisionSupport 2Discussion and App
Page 34:
DecisionSupport 2ReferencesBoyd, R
Page 37 and 38:
Decision SupportMethods for Climate
Page 39 and 40:
Robust Decision MakingIntroductionT
Page 41 and 42:
Robust Decision Makingit more close
Page 43 and 44:
Robust Decision MakingCase Study 2:
Page 45 and 46:
Robust Decision MakingReferencesDes
Page 47 and 48:
Decision SupportMethods for Climate
Page 49 and 50:
Real Options AnalysisIntroductionTh
Page 51 and 52: Real Options AnalysisBox 1: The Con
Page 53 and 54: Real Options AnalysisStrengths and
Page 55 and 56: Real Options AnalysisCase Study 2:
Page 57 and 58: Real Options AnalysisDiscussion and
Page 60 and 61: Further informationThe research lea
Page 62 and 63: Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 64 and 65: DecisionSupport 5portfolios of two
Page 66 and 67: DecisionSupport 5Case Study 1: Fore
Page 68: DecisionSupport 5Discussion and App
Page 71 and 72: Decision SupportMethods for Climate
Page 73 and 74: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIntroduction
Page 75 and 76: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIn the imple
Page 77 and 78: Multi-Criteria AnalysisBox 1. MCA f
Page 79 and 80: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIn assessing
Page 81 and 82: Multi-Criteria Analysis3, 4 en 5),
Page 85 and 86: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessIntroduct
Page 87 and 88: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe AHP m
Page 89 and 90: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe resul
Page 91 and 92: Analytic Hierarchy Processwith an a
Page 93 and 94: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessRamanatha
Page 97 and 98: Social Network AnalysisIntroduction
Page 99 and 100: Social Network Analysistransfer, th
Page 101: Social Network Analysisadvantage of
Page 105 and 106: Social Network AnalysisThe overall
Page 107 and 108: Social Network AnalysisComparing th
Page 109 and 110: Social Network AnalysisCash, D., Cl
Page 113 and 114: Adaptation Turning PointsIntroducti
Page 115 and 116: Adaptation Turning Pointsalso be ro
Page 117 and 118: Adaptation Turning PointsCase Studi
Page 119 and 120: Adaptation Turning PointsCase Study
Page 121 and 122: Adaptation Turning PointsDiscussion
Page 123 and 124: Adaptation Turning PointsLeary, D.
show all

Download all Technical Policy Briefing Notes in a single ... - Mediation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?