Page 19 - Himes_2007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 347
become integrated into MPA management if ‘success’ is to be ultimately reached. These
preliminary conclusions are substantiated by the Egadi Islands case study. It is clear that
the majority of stakeholders do not believe that the EIMR is a success and that extensive
conflicts exist that have developed at least in part from the presence of the MPA. In an
attempt to understand the reasons for this, a framework for analyzing stakeholders’ beliefs
and preferences in-depth must be developed. The lack of such a framework and the
perception of failure of the EIMR formed the impetus for collecting the qualitative data
presented here.
One of the most important insights discovered is the approximate level of importance
that stakeholders assign to a variety of components of MPA performance. It is clear from
both the stakeholder nominated performance indicators and management interventions
that all groups tend to assign importance to a mixture of management components. This
follows the theory that Boncoeur and Mesnil [30] present regarding Charles’ [29] triangle of
paradigms. No group’s interests can be expected to fit into only the social, conservation or
economic paradigm. Instead, the performance indicators and management interventions
suggested by stakeholders cross boundaries between these three management paradigms to
create a unique set of criteria for management that each group upholds. In this way, it is
reasonable to hypothesize that stakeholders in the Egadi Islands, and potentially other
MPAs, consider multiple management criteria and objectives on a regular basis,
strengthening the argument for the use of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
techniques in protected area management and evaluation [19].
This hypothesis also sheds light on an additional problem. How do stakeholder defined
performance indicators differ from a priori developed indicators? Managers are faced with
a number of choices regarding how to assess the performance of de facto management and
how to then increase its effectiveness. The sole use of managers’ personal experience and
previously developed theories regarding MPA ‘success’ lies at one extreme. At the other
lies stakeholder defined and controlled evaluation of management effectiveness. If one is
considering the collective group of stakeholders, then MPA managers must also be
considered. Under this point of view, management evaluation and the selection of
performance indicators must combine the two extremes; both user groups and managers
must monitor and evaluate management together in order to achieve a well-rounded,
successful protected area. From the start, the process of management should be aimed at
reaching consensus about the multiple objectives, criteria, and targets that are utilized to
design management interventions.
Another noteworthy finding is that the differences in stakeholder perceptions and
opinions in the EIMR could be significant enough to negatively affect the overall potential
of obtaining a successful MPA in the future. The preferences elicited from EIMR
stakeholders present a wide variety of potential indicators for what is needed to make the
MPA successful. This becomes even more complicated if stakeholder preferences and the
MPA managers objectives are in conflict, for example, in the EIMR, where local residents
prefer decreasing pollution as the primary target while managers prefer increasing the level
of tourism. Whose preferences should be weighted more?
Considering the significant influence that many stakeholder groups have on an MPA as
consumptive and non-consumptive resource users, if local stakeholders are expected to
support an MPA and buy in to how it is managed, then they must be given the opportunity
to participate in management and decision-making and their interests will need to be
seriously taken into account in future management interventions. Given this, if MPA