Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Development of Capacity Assessment Methodology for NRM Regional Arrangements

Dr Jim Cavaye

Cavaye Community Development, 6 Martindale Court, Toowoomba Qld 4350
E mail: cavaye@bigpond.com, Web: www.communitydevelopment.com.au

Abstract

Gaining NRM outcomes depends on critical human and community capacities such as being able to assess situations, work collaboratively, interpret information and implement on-the-ground action. The human/community capacities, critical for the delivery of NRM practice change, were identified. A practical capacity assessment “tool” was then developed to help regional NRM partners to assess these elements of capacity in regions.

The assessment tool consists of three tiers. The first tier measures the extent and effectiveness of NRM activity in regions. The second tier assesses the “process” of community engagement, communication and partnership. The third tier assesses the capacity of individuals and organisations involved with NRM, and the community-at-large.

The assessment tool is structured so that “core” criteria and indicators can be measured across all regions allowing conclusions to be drawn across the state. Other criteria and indictors are optional and regional NRM partners can choose to use them, if they wish, to measure particular aspects of capacity. Additional criteria can also be included.The methodology has been trialled by the Burnett Mary Regional Group and the Condamine Alliance.

Introduction

Gaining NRM outcomes depends on human and community capacities such as being able to assess situations, work collaboratively, interpret information and manage complex projects and issues. The capacity of local communities to respond to major change, such as industry restructuring, rapid coastal development, are influencing the motivation and ability of people to achieve sustainable NRM.

What then are the critical capacities that are most relevant to achieving improved NRM? How might the capacity of individuals, organisations and communities to implement NRM practices be assessed? This paper outlines a practical capacity assessment “tool” aimed at broadly measuring the capacity of individuals, organisations and communities to implement NRM practices. The focus of the work was to firstly, identify which human/community capacities critical for the delivery of NRM practice change, and then to develop a tool to measure these capacities.

The structure and use of the tool has been trialled by the Burnett Mary Regional Group and the Condamine Alliance. Other regional bodies had input into the design of the tool.

Components of Capacity Relevant to NRM

Several authors have described components of capacity that relate to NRM outcomes. Some elements of capacity include social and physical underpinnings of a region such as the available infrastructure or social situation of a region. Other elements relate to the specific ability of people and enterprises to adopt more sustainable practices. Taylor et. al. (2000) collated indicators of capacity for change in natural resource management into 5 “clusters” including community vitality and political efficacy. Aitken (2001) also clustered social and community issues in NRM including understanding communities and structuring and supporting partnerships,

Thomson and Pepperdine (2003) identified correlations between a range of individual and community attitudinal characteristics and NRM related behaviours. Webb and Curtis (2002) identified several elements of capacity in relation to NRM practice grouped under forms of capital including human capital, economic capital and social capital.

Ross (1999), in identifying research priorities, suggested that several factors were important to the social dimensions of NRM including perceptions, values, attitudes and beliefs; communication and learning; and the function of groups and other social processes.The National Natural Resource Management Taskforce (1999) interpreted capacity as largely enhancing landholder skills to adapt technology, access data and use decision support tools.

Bellamy et. al. (2004) placed some key components of capacity within a broader framework of regional NRM planning where NRM outcomes were achieved through a set of structures and processes. Cary et. al. (2001) argued that the key factors influencing decisions to adopt a certain NRM practice included perceived financial advantages, simplicity, and how compatible new practices were with existing ones.

Capacity Assessment Tool for Regional NRM Arrangements

The assessment tool is based on a logic of evaluation(figure 1).

Figure 1. The logic of capacity assessment

Key elements of capacity most relevant to NRM were identified from the literature and from feedback from several regional bodies. From these, criteria were objectively identified in three steps:

1. Listing the key components of community capacity from the literature,

2. Narrowing these down to a “short list” of components of capacity that relate most directly to NRM and changing NRM practice from the literature,

3. Incorporating the aspects of capacity that partners in regional arrangements are seeking to measure, based on feedback from some regional bodies.

The Structure of the Assessment Tool

The assessment tool consists of three tiers (figure 2). The first tier measures the extent and effectiveness of NRM activity in regions. The second tier assesses the “process” of community engagement, communication and partnership. The third tier assesses the capacity of individuals and organisations involved with NRM, and the community-at-large.

Figure 2. A tiered approach to a capacity assessment tool

Criteria and Indicators for Each Tier

The assessment tool is structured so that “core” criteria and indicators can be measured across all regions allowing conclusions to be drawn across the state (table 1). Other criteria and indicators are optional and regional NRM partners can choose to use them, if they wish, to measure particular aspects of capacity. Additional criteria can also be included.

Table 1. Core and Optional Criteria

Tier

Core Criteria

Optional Criteria

Tier 3.
Community
Capacity

Social: The extent of contacts and networks

Social: Trust and cooperation

Social: Community participation in NRM

Social: Incorporation into everyday behaviour

Social - Knowledge transfer, sharing and acquisition

Economic: Economic viability of key NRM stakeholders in a region.

Economic: Capacity to make economic transitions

 

Economic : Capacity to assess the economics of changed NRM practice

 

Tier 3.
Organisational
Capacity

Partnership and collaboration between organisations

 

Governance and functional operation of organisations

 

The effectiveness of institutional arrangements

 

Tier 3.
Individual
Capacity

Knowledge sharing and acquisition

Attitudes and awareness towards NRM

Development of individual skills

 

Changed practices and decision making by individual NRM stakeholders

 

Tier 2.
Process

Community engagement by regional NRM partners

Facilitation of regional NRM planning and activities

Communication between regional NRM partners and stakeholders

 

Tier 1.
Activities

The extent to which actions to support capacity in regional plans are implemented

The effectiveness of activities for regional stakeholders

The extent to which activities have supported learning, knowledge, changed attitudes and practice

Inputs

Using the Assessment Tool

Step 1. Identifying Criteria and Indicators

The first step involves planning the capacity assessment process and identifying the optional criteria and indicators to measure in addition to the core criteria.

Step 2. Collating Existing Information

Collating any relevant existing information and data involves:

  • Accessing existing statistical information
  • Incorporating any other appropriate feedback and previous evaluation
  • Information from the Regional NRM Partners themselves such as participants at NRM activities, or media output.

Step 3. Identifying Who to Talk with in the Community

A key method of gaining feedback from the community is from selected “informed people”. These are people that have had enough contact with regional NRM issues to give an informed comment, and they are also connected enough with the local community to be able to comment on broader community perceptions. Checklists are used to ensure that people from a range of community sectors and geographic sub-regions are included.

Step 4. Gaining Day to Day Feedback

The information in the tool can be gained on both a day to day basis and annually. Gaining some feedback on a day to day basis involves activities such as maintaining a media output portfolio and gaining feedback from participants in NRM activities.

Step 5. Annual Feedback from Stakeholders

The main methods for gaining annual feedback are:

  • Individual discussions with community members from different sectors using several prompt questions,
  • Conducting several focus groups of 4-6 people each,
  • Each person interviewed, or participating in a focus group, would be invited to fill out a likert scale questionnaire,
  • Relationships are assessed using a collaboration chart

Step 6. Reporting

A report is developed using qualitative methods for assessing the main themes in the feedback, and providing conclusions about the main aspects of regional NRM capacity.

References

Bellamy, J; Smith, T.; Taylor, B. and Walker M. (2004) Regional Natural Resource Management Planing Arrangements: Evaluating Through the Regional Lens. CSIRO/CIRM Symposium on Regional Natural Resource Management Planning: The Challenges of Evaluation as seen through Different Lenses. Brisbane.

Cary, J.; Webb, T. and Barr, N. (2001) The Adoption of Sustainable Practices: Some New Insights: An Analysis of Drivers and Constraints for the Adoption of Sustainable Practices Derived from Research. Report for the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia. Canberra.

National Natural Resource Management Taskforce (1999) Managing Natural Resources in Rural Australia for a Sustainable Future. A Discussion Paper for Developing a National Policy. National Natural Resource Management Taskforce, Canberra.

Ross, H. (1999) Social R & D for Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Rural Australia: Issues for LWRRDC. In Social, Economic, Legal, Policy and Institutional R & D for Natural Resource Management Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Taylor, B.; Lockie, S.; Dale, A.; Bischof, R.; Lawrence, G.; Fenton, M.; Coakes, S. (2000) Capacity of Farmers and Other Land Managers to Implement Change. Technical Report. Theme 6 Fitzroy Implementation Project, National Land and Water Resources Audit. Natural Heritage Trust

Thomson, D. and Pepperdine, S. (2003) Assessing Community Capacity for Riparian Restoration. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page