Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Chapter 2: Adaptive Collaborative Management: A Conceptual Model • 37
draws from Lewin, Dewey and Piaget and links to Freire—offers insights into
a cycle of experiential learning that is generally applicable to individuals.
He suggests a four-stage model of learning: ‘concrete experience’ forms
the basis for ‘reflective observation’, which is transformed into ‘abstract
concepts’ that generate ideas for ‘active experimentation’, which in
turn creates new experiences (Kolb et al. 2000). Kolb’s work (1984) also
correlates learning style preferences with this learning cycle. The strong
connection between the action-reflection-action spiral of the social change
group and the experiential learning cycle indicates that learning-based and
change-oriented processes need to be centred on such cyclical processes.
An adaptive collaborative management approach in action is built around
such processes, with collaborative monitoring (phase 1) being both the
‘home’ and the ‘engine’ of the process. The nature of this learning is that
it is routinised (rather than one-off), and applied, with the learner-actors
coming together repeatedly to reflect, internalise and innovate.
Thus far, we have explored the question of who is learning and how.
Finally, we briefly explore the question of what is being learned (and what
is the subject for innovation). Guijt (2007) suggests that to be effective,
learning in natural resource management needs to take place in three
ways: using information to improve next steps in management through
continual practical improvements (single-loop learning), making strategic
adjustments and changes (double-loop learning), and improving the
learning processes themselves (triple-loop learning). Simply changing an
action as a result of reflective experience—for example, making a technical
improvement in seedling planting techniques—would constitute singleloop
learning. Changing the way a resource is managed—for example,
adjusting overall harvesting levels and practices for nontimber forest
products—would constitute double-loop learning. Learning about how
to learn more effectively as a part of the management process—as when
actors meet regularly to reflect on their own governance, learning, and
collaborative monitoring processes and then implement improvements
based on their reflections—would be triple-loop learning.
The ACM approach encourages triple-loop learning and assumes that
lower-order forms of learning, following hierarchy theory, will benefit as
a result. Maarleveld (personal communication, 27 August 2002) warns
against overemphasising the higher-order learning loop because all three
kinds of learning are important. She suggests that a bias for single-loop
learning may lead to a ‘technical fix’—that is, treating the symptoms but
not the root of the problem; a bias for double- or triple-loop learning may