Page 16 - HIMES_2007_

616 A. H. Himes

such incompatibility lies in the sheer variety of stakeholder groups that have an interest
in how the marine environment is managed (Brown et al., 2001). Different user groups
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 13:49 18 January 2008
place varying importance on individual criteria for successful management and, therefore,
judge the performance of an MPA against their own set of priorities. Over the last decade,
many MPA managers have attempted to integrate management schemes with a varied set
of objectives that take into account the varied needs and interests of key stakeholders.
However, rarely have managers attempted to elicit the preferences of stakeholder groups in
order to quantifiably represent stakeholder interests in management decisions.
When the MPA in the present study was instituted, the general lack of local support
for the program had little impact due to the low level of threats to the environment at that
time. However, as the local marine environment has become more and more degraded over
the last 15 years, the need for local awareness and investment in the success of the MPA
has increased. The present study demonstrates the application of the AHP framework using
the method in the EIMR as an aid to decision-making and performance evaluation in MPA
management. EIMR managers can use the results of this survey to better understand the
needs and interests of the people that use the resources they are trying to manage, and
thus improve management to benefit both the environment and stakeholders. One of the
most important features of this method is that both quantitative and qualitative criteria
can be integrated into the analysis of MPA performance (Mardle et al., 2004). The use of
quantitative information associated with stakeholder opinions and attitudes is innovative in
the field of MPA management.
The AHP-based survey was used here to prioritize a set of eight stakeholder-nominated
performance indicators for five stakeholder groups present in the EIMR. The survey revealed
some important results. The analysis showed that the preferences of the key stakeholder
groups identified a priori are not homogeneous in the prioritization of performance
indicators. Instead, a cluster analysis showed virtually no similarity within common a
priori defined stakeholder groups, but instead showed similarity among individuals with
similar personal interests, for example conservation or tourism.
The results of this study can be applied to future management of the EIMR and MPAs
in general. As is likely in other MPAs, stakeholder groups in the Egadi Islands do not seem
at all clear with respect to what the MPA means for them. The variability found in responses
to the AHP survey shows this clearly—for example, where priorities relative to the fishing
industry, such as increasing the number of fish caught, were expected to be ranked high
for fishers, instead, fishers generally show virtually no agreement on ranking of any of the
objectives. It is also clear in the case of the EIMR that no natural clusters exist that overlap
with stakeholder-identified groups for stakeholder preferences in defining “success.” This
information can also help managers understand where conflicts exist and give insight into
how to deal with that conflict. With respect to this result, the AHP framework has shown to
be particularly strong, providing quantitative information about the links and divergences
between attitudes regarding the MPA, both between and within established stakeholder
groups.
These conclusions leave some doubt about the robustness of characterizing stakehold-
ers into predefined groups a priori. Based on this study, group incoherence could indicate
that preconceived stakeholder affiliations given by respondents in each of the methods
could lead to the wrong division of resource users. If representatives of stated stakeholder
groups (e.g., fishers) are used as a means to accomplish stakeholder participation, the group
incoherence results found in this study indicate that it would be nearly impossible to appoint
stakeholder representatives that could accurately represent their constituencies. In fact, it
has been acknowledged that group representatives often “speak only for themselves and