Scales and Tradeoffs
The diagram below depicts how landscape scale (size) makes a difference in how trade-offs among land uses can affect landscape functions, and those who depend on them. Back to Conceptual Tools
5.5 Collecting and Analyzing Data
UNDER DEVELOPMENT Data Collection Link to practice page: Data collection tools Data Analysis Coding and data entry of survey data Summary statistics and frequency analysis of survey data (quantitative analysis) Content analysis of interview and focus group data (qualitative analysis) Pattern analysis of land use data Observation analysis of participants in their daily activities Back [...]
6.4 Institutions Examples
The first two pie charts are visual examples of the various institutions that make up a landscape and how they might change between 2005 and 2009. Notice how the hybrid institutions increase – this is indicative of a more ecoagricultural landscape. The third chart shows an example of the comparison of spending between NGO’s and [...]
6.3 Livelihood Examples
The following three charts illustrate measured indicators that pertain to livelihood, as well as conservation and production criteria. Research on water is especially important in measuring livelihood criteria. The folllowing examples can be used to measure both L1 and L3, as well as various conservation and production criteria. This chart provides information that can be used to [...]
6.2 Production Examples
The first chart is an example of measuring a single criterion. In this case, the criterion being investigated is P2. The second example is one measuring percentage of soil organic carbon (SOC), an indicator for Production and Livelihoods. Most production criteria indicators can also be used to measure criteria in the other two legs of the [...]
6.1 Conservation Examples
The following two charts represent possible trend analysis for Criterion C3: The chart below chart represents an historical trend analysis and relates to Criterion C4. This example, and the three succeeding it, are also integrative, and are related to Criteria P2, P4, L1, and L3. The next chart relates to Criteria C4 and C5, and can also represent [...]
Policy Toolkit
Ecoagriculture Partners is working with partners to track key international and national policy issues and processes that impact ecoagriculture. This research includes the development of a ‘policy indicator toolkit’ for monitoring institutional change towards ecoagriculture-friendly policies and programs and will be piloted with partners in East Africa and Mesoamerica. Stay tuned for information about the development [...]
Criterion I3: Supportive public policy
Supportive public policy means that institutional practices and coordination mechanisms for integrated landscapes are in place among relevant local and regional government agencies and NGOs, and that these are supported by property rights laws, customs and regulations (tenure systems). Criterion I3: Public policy supports integrated landscapes. Indicator Measurement Unit Means of Measure Land use policy [...]
Criterion I2: Capacity to learn and innovate
Introductory text Criterion I2: Producers and other community members have adequate capacity to learn and innovate about integrated landscape planning and management. Indicator Measurement Unit Means of Measure Technical service access Presence/absence of facilitators/leaders Reliable, relevant, and current information Key Informant Interview Internet access # of internet capable computers in walking distance Reliability of internet [...]
Criterion I1: Cross-sectoral interaction
Introductory text here Criterion I1: Mechanisms are in place and functioning for cross-sectoral interaction at landscape scale. Indicator Measurement Unit Means of Measure Platforms Diversity of public, private, civic, and hybrid organizations Institutional performance scorecard – Part I Organizational performance Cross-sectoral (organizational category) performance score Sector-specific (characteristic) score Institutional performance scorecard – Part II Continue [...]
keep looking »