Page 4 - Himes_2007
P. 4

         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

                                    (stock conservation and habitat

                         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].
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9