Page 10 - HIMES_2007_

610 A. H. Himes

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 13:49 18 January 2008

Figure 3. Comparison of priorities of indicator categories by stakeholder group.

community involvement in management” and “increasing the availability of information
about the MPA,” perhaps recognizing these indicators as a means to increasing management
effectiveness. On the other hand, managers gave the individual economic and biological and
environmental indicators a relatively low ranking (Table 2). This is interesting as it indicates
that managers claim to be most interested in managing the MPA effectively and involving
the local community, which are associated with the procedural aspects of management,
whereas maintaining the health of the local marine environment and developing the local
economy in conjunction with the MPA, two of the EIMR’s stated management objectives,
seem to be met with low priority.
Researchers ranked an “increase the biomass of biological resources” in the local
marine environment the most important as an indicator of performance and given it a
priority that is double that of any other group. The only other indicators researchers ranked
very high were “an increase in management efficiency” and “an increase in benefits that

Figure 4. Aggregated priorities for stakeholder groups.