DESIGNING PROJECTS IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD

Recommendations

Info

B.3 STABILITY DOMA<strong>IN</strong>S The term “domain” is used to reflect the underlying concept that in any social–ecological system there can be multiple “stability domains”. Each domain has a different set of functions, structure, feedbacks and identity. Domains are separated by thresholds that mark a critical change in feedbacks. Once a threshold is crossed the changes in feedbacks work to keep the system in the alternate domain. This is also known as “regime” in the resilience literature, but we have used the term “domain” in this report due to the negative connotations in the common usage of “regime”. Figure 23 Stability domains B.4 DECISION CONTEXT AND THE VALUES-KNOWLEDGE-RULES “LENS” Decisions are always made within a particular context. One way to understand this is to use a Values-Knowledge-Rules “lens” 21 To make a decision: • you need some knowledge about the likely outcomes of decisions and interventions (Knowledge) • enough people must want the outcome (Values) • the decision must be allowable (Rules). The prevailing set of Values, Knowledge and Rules defines the context in which decisions are made. The overlapping space in the middle metaphorically holds the options are that are available to a decision maker. It is relatively easy to make an intervention that falls within this space. When decisions are needed that are not consistent with the current decision context, interventions are needed to change the context. Using the Values-Knowledge-Rules lens can enable you, and stakeholders to: • articulate the values, knowledge and rules that decision makers use now • identify how decision processes and options can be constrained by exclusion of certain forms of knowledge, values or rules • recognize societal structures and processes that maintain constraints on decision-making • develop strategies and agency to overcome these constraints. Knowledge (K) Values, rules and knowledge interact with each other. Increased knowledge can drive changes in values, a shift in values can create social pressure to change the rules and a decision that had been blocked may become feasible. Rules (R) decision context Values (V) 21 Contributed by the Enabling Adaptation Pathways team at CSIRO Land and Water, based on Gorddard, R., Colloff, M.J., Wise, R.M., Ware, D., Dunlop, M., 2016. Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context. Environmental Science & Policy 57, 60–69. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004 Figure 24 Values, Knowledge and Rules lens to characterize the decision context 98 Appendices
B.5 KEY REFERENCES FOR TERM<strong>IN</strong>OLOGY Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? .Progress in human geography, 24(3), 347–364. Barrett, C. B., & Constas, M. A. (2014). Toward a theory of resilience for international development applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(40), 14625–14630. Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., Hauff, V., Lang, I., Shijun, M., and de Botero, M. M. (1987). Our Common Future (‘Brundtland report’). DiFD (2002) Tools for Development, found at http://www.managingforimpact.org/resource/ tools-development-handbook-those-engaged-development-activity Krievins, K., Baird, J., Plummer, R., Brandes, O., Curry, A., Imhof, J., ... & Gerger Swartling, Å. (2015). Resilience in a Watershed Governance Context: A Primer. St. Catharines, ON: Environmental Sustainability Research Centre. Trout Unlimited Canada, 3. Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434–450. Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology, 2(04), 425–444. McCann, K. S. (2000). The diversity–stability debate. Nature, 405(6783), 228–233. UNDP (2006) Multi-Stakeholder Engagement processes, found at http://www.undp.org/content/ dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/drivers-of-change/accountability/ multi-stakeholder-engagement-processes/Engagement-Processes-cp7.pdf. WALKER, B., ABEL, N., ANDREONI, F., CAPE, J., MURDOCH, H. & NORMAN, C. 2014. General Resilience: A discussion paper based on insights from a catchment management area workshop in south-eastern Australia. Resilience Alliance discussion paper available at http://www. resalliance.org/ bibliography/index.php/discussion-papers. Walker, B. H. & Salt, D. 2012. Resilience Practice: Building capacity to absorb disturbance and maintain function, Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Appendices 99
Page 1 and 2:
DESIGNING PROJECTS IN A RAPIDLY CHA
Page 3:
DESIGNING PROJECTS IN A RAPIDLY CHA
Page 6 and 7:
CONTENTS FOREWORD..................
Page 8 and 9:
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES
Page 10 and 11:
6
Page 12 and 13:
ABSTRACT RAPTA is a unique tool to
Page 14 and 15:
RAPTA COMPONENTS 1. Scoping: a stan
Page 16 and 17:
HOW TO USE THIS REPORT RAPTA was de
Page 18 and 19:
14
Page 20 and 21:
INTRODUCTION TO RAPTA AND ITS APPLI
Page 22 and 23:
1.2 KEY CONCEPTS: RESILIENCE, ADAPT
Page 24 and 25:
BOX B Seven principles of resilienc
Page 26 and 27:
BOX C Intervention options and adap
Page 28 and 29:
gaps. In short, it is a flexible, a
Page 30 and 31:
OVERVIEW OF THE RAPTA PROCESS 2 If
Page 32 and 33:
The “systems view” encouraged b
Page 34 and 35:
description is available. The Syste
Page 36 and 37:
are not intended to replace current
Page 38 and 39:
and requirements that RAPTA could b
Page 40 and 41:
36
Page 42 and 43:
RAPTA GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT IDENTI
Page 44 and 45:
Scoping is a standard component of
Page 46 and 47:
Step 5 Review how resources are to
Page 48 and 49:
3.2.3 Steps to Multi-Stakeholder En
Page 50 and 51:
• How should the identified stake
Page 52 and 53: BOX G Example of engagement process
Page 54 and 55: • How do you make this RAPTA comp
Page 56 and 57: 3.3 THEORY OF CHANGE RAPTA PROCESS
Page 58 and 59: BOX I Use of term ‘Pathways’ in
Page 60 and 61: 3.4 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION RAPTA PROCES
Page 62 and 63: assess the difficulty or not of cha
Page 64 and 65: Step 4 Describe key social-ecologic
Page 66 and 67: shared and used to inform adaptive
Page 68 and 69: BOX L Example: different domains in
Page 70 and 71: BOX N The RESILIENCE ATLAS and Vita
Page 72 and 73: 3.5.4 What this component will prod
Page 74 and 75: 3.6.3 Steps to take Step 1 Draw on
Page 76 and 77: Table 1 Characterizing and prioriti
Page 78 and 79: long-term role of the Theory of Cha
Page 80 and 81: decision points, implementation tri
Page 82 and 83: Learning serves four objectives:
Page 84 and 85: all RAPTA components and activities
Page 86 and 87: BOX R An approach to learning for p
Page 88 and 89: HOW TO USE RAPTA IN THE GEF PROJECT
Page 90 and 91: input of different knowledge types,
Page 92 and 93: Table 3 The RAPTA components, activ
Page 94 and 95: System Assessment Options and Pathw
Page 96 and 97: APPENDICES 5 92 Appendices
Page 98 and 99: APPENDIX B GLOSSARY AND KEY CONCEPT
Page 100 and 101: Multi-stakeholder Engagement Projec
Page 104 and 105: APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENT TO SECTION 3.
Page 106 and 107: FACTORS THAT MAY HINDER IMPLEMENTAT
Page 108 and 109: APPENDIX D LEARNING EXAMPLES Table
Page 110: 106 Appendices
show all

DESIGNING PROJECTS IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?