Page 4 - Himes_2007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
332 A.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351
2. Considerations of stakeholder preference analysis in MPA management

At a fundamental level, the presence of stakeholder conflicts requires that multiple
objectives be incorporated into resource management policy. This is warranted by the
sheer diversity of heterogeneous stakeholder groups in coastal areas and the potential for
conflicting perceptions of ‘success’ and how a protected area should be managed. Such
conflict is heightened when stakeholder groups depend on the species and habitats to be
protected for their annual income and long-term livelihoods.
In the presence of conflict, it is clear that an evaluation of the perceptions of MPA
management must attempt to uncover the preferences of diverse stakeholder groups, from
the identification of performance indicators to preferred management objectives and future
interventions. Generally, in resource management regimes, management objectives and
decisions can be subdivided into one of four categories: biological, social, economic, or
political [8,28]. The initial questions that face analyses of such regimes are: (1) Who are the
stakeholders? (2) What are their preferences for management?, and (3) How are their
preferences in conflict with one another?
Charles [29] attempted to clarify the analysis of stakeholder conflicts by proposing a
conceptual framework, the ‘triangle of paradigms,’ that describes three theoretical
viewpoints that clash in the definition of resource management policies. While Charles’
framework was created out of the identification and analysis of recurring conflicts in the
fisheries sector, the same framework can be used to explain the structure of conflicts
present in MPA regimes since many of the stakeholders and conflicts are the same. Due to
the comprehensive nature of the ‘triangle of paradigms,’ it can also be used as a tool for the
analysis of the reasons behind overfishing [30] and guidance in the development of MPA
management interventions.
Charles’ [29] ‘triangle of paradigms’ relates to the key concepts of ‘rationalization,’
‘conservation’ and ‘social-community’ (Fig. 1). At each of the vertices of the triangle is an
independent viewpoint that represents one way of looking at resource management. The
first vertex relates to the conservation paradigm. As the central concern for biologists and
conservationists, the concept of conservation can be prioritized by stock conservation,
habitat protection, and prevention of resource depletion. In order to achieve conservation,
it is hypothesized that top–down regulations, such as limits on the number of users, must
be utilized [30].
The second vertex of the triangle encompasses the paradigm of rationalization. The
supporters of this viewpoint are resource economists who would prioritize the achievement

Conservation
(stock conservation and habitat
protection)

Social-community Rationalization
(well-being of society (economic efficiency and
and equity) maximizing economic rent)
Fig. 1. The triangle of paradigms as proposed by Charles [29].