ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351

0964-5691/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

�CorrespoTel.: +1760

E-mail ad

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Performance indicators in MPA management: Usingquestionnaires to analyze stakeholder preferences

Amber H. Himes�

CEMARE, University of Portsmouth, Boat House No. 6, College Road, H.M. Naval Base,

Portsmouth P01 3LJ, UK

Available online 7 February 2007

Abstract

Concerns about marine protected area (MPA) ecological and social effectiveness have led to a

growing interest in conducting management evaluations. The variety of stakeholder interests and

needs calls into question the typical notion of MPA ‘success’ and suggests that managers need a

practical set of techniques to measure performance and evaluate trade-offs. This study explores how

success can be analyzed from the compilation of differing stakeholder viewpoints. Qualitative data

was collected through interviews with stakeholders to explore the state of an Italian MPA, selection

of performance indicators to evaluate the MPA, and whether it can be deemed a success according to

those indicators. The results show that stakeholder groups hold significantly different preferences for

biological, economic and socio-cultural performance indicators in judging MPA performance. The

elicitation of stakeholder preferences here is an important first step in understanding the criteria

through which stakeholders view MPA management.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As governments and organizations around the world promote the establishment ofprotected areas to preserve biodiversity and prevent environmental degradation,recognition of the existence of both environmental and societal values held by stakeholdergroups has increased. Many authors have discussed the importance of the role thatstakeholders play in achieving successful marine protected areas (MPAs) [1–4]. Before

see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ocecoaman.2006.09.005

nding author at. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011, USA.

431 9440.

dress: amber@tuppers.com.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351330

moving forward with a meaningful discussion over the future management of MPAs andhow they can be more successful, it is essential that communities and managing authoritiesagree on common aspirations and expectations. Many studies have shown that stakeholderinput is critical in increasing stakeholder buy-in to the management process, developingthe goals and objectives of an MPA, identifying appropriate management effectivenessindicators by which to measure MPA effectiveness, and ultimately critical to successfulmanagement [5–7]. As a result, researchers have been developing new methods to uncoverstakeholders’ opinions of past, present, and future management strategies, the results ofwhich can be used to improve MPA management overall and increase support by localstakeholders [8–10].In recent years, many methods have been developed to get at the heart of this, including

the IUCN’s ‘‘How is Your MPA doing?’’ Workbook [5], the United Nations Foundation’s‘‘World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook’’ [11], the IUCN Eastern AfricanRegional Programme’s Workbook for the Western Indian Ocean [12], and the WorldBank’s Score Card to assess progress in achieving goals for MPAs [13]. These methods allargue that the inclusion of information on the human context of the MPA is essential forassessing sources of stress to the local marine ecosystem, developing effective conservationstrategies, measuring threat abatement, increasing stakeholder buy-in, and increasingstakeholder compliance.The purpose of this paper is to delve into how the definition of ‘success’ in individual

MPAs can be crafted from the compilation of differing stakeholder viewpoints. Theconcept of ‘success’ is inherently a social construct; different people, depending on theirbackground and stakeholder affiliations, will construct its definition differently [6,14]. Byanalyzing the opinions of stakeholders in MPA evaluation, a much more appropriatedefinition of ‘success’ in MPAs can be constructed from the reality of individualcommunities and MPAs [2,15–18]. The purpose of using such an approach is an attempt toinvolve stakeholders at all levels of analysis of MPA performance, to identify and combinesocial, economic, and ecological contextual factors and criteria for use in managementevaluation, and ultimately provide for better fundamental management of the MPA [19].The present research aimed at using both qualitative and quantitative data to analyze

the overall socio-economic impact of a Mediterranean MPA on local stakeholders andsubsequent stakeholder preferences for performance indicators in achieving a successfulprotected area. It was understood that perceptions form an important component ofcompletely understanding the interfaces between biophysical reality, management, and theperceived purpose and role of conservation. However, although many authors note therelevance of the issue of considering local perceptions in social research [20–22], fewexplore their specific content, how they are socially constructed, and how they influencebehavior [23].MPAs typically affect heterogeneous communities that include many stakeholders with

diverse and sometimes conflicting perspectives and outlooks on the marine environment. Itis therefore fundamental to successful conservation that these diverse perceptions areexplored and considered. Yet, the perceptions and attitudes of the various stakeholdersconcerned with the marine environment can significantly affect the outcomes and thereforethe overall performance of an MPA. The outcome of the decision-making process, andtherefore success or failure in reaching management objectives, can be affectedconsiderably by the reaction of those affected by an MPA to the regulations and thelevel of participation in management that they are allowed.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 331

Social research on protected areas has generally focused on visitors to these areas[24,25]. Research into local perceptions and values of marine conservation and manage-ment of MPAs has been limited, especially in the Mediterranean basin. To date, ‘‘studieson the knowledge, aptitude, and perceptions of local people are very limited’’ [24]. Focusedresearch is needed on the local stakeholders who have a direct impact on the achievementmanagement objectives and are directly influenced by management decisions. Toaccomplish this, an attempt is made here to uncover the similarities and differences inhow stakeholder groups construct the definition of ‘success,’ through the analysis ofstakeholder identified local resources and threats, performance indicators, and necessarymanagement interventions in a case study of the Egadi Islands Marine Reserve (EIMR) innorthwestern Sicily, Italy.

Extended time was spent by the author in situ with the community and stakeholdersassociated with the EIMR. The community in this study encompasses those stakeholdersthat live in or around the geographical area of the EIMR and those that manage (e.g., localgovernment) or occasionally use the resources within the area (e.g., researchers). Thecommunity is considered to be a heterogeneous entity, fragmented by different interestsand points of view [26].

The impetus for this research lies in the perceptions of fishers that operate in the EIMR;as reported by Himes [27], overwhelmingly, the EIMR was thought to be a failure. Initialinformal interviews with local stakeholders also showed that residents, MPA managers,and local researchers all hold pessimistic views about the current and future state of theMPA. All stakeholders interviewed for this study acknowledged that virtually noenforcement of the EIMR’s regulations exists, and that as a result, biological resourcesare being degraded. Fishers added that because little enforcement of the regulationsoccurs, and because the EIMR director and advisory council do not consult with them,their confidence in current management is very low. Managers complain that they are notgiven enough resources to properly manage the MPA. Local residents are frustratedbecause the MPA managers have not taken the time to get their input into how the MPAshould be managed and have not educated locals on the need for the MPA and what theregulations are. Researchers also expressed discontent, citing the lack of positive effect thatthe MPA has had on marine organism biomass and overall ecosystem health. Althougheach of these viewpoints leads to the conclusion that the EIMR is not being managed aseffectively as possible, each group’s reason for citing the EIMR as a failure is based ondifferent aspects and expectations of management.

Assuming the same conclusion can be drawn for stakeholder management preferences,the central hypothesis of this research was: MPA stakeholders have objectives andpreferences that are not congruent between stakeholder groups. To test this, the approachtaken herein was to have the evaluator (the author) let stakeholders themselves defineindicators of performance for the EIMR as opposed to using a priori indicators that he/sheor another researcher has developed through prior experience. Moreover, the evaluatorwas an individual not involved in the general management and use of the protectedresources so that he/she can give an unbiased report of performance. Concerning the casestudied in the present research, it was hypothesized that in the EIMR, each stakeholdergroup (e.g., fishers and residents) has unique objectives and preferences regarding how theMPA should be managed. In testing this hypothesis, an unbiased evaluator would be ableto discern problems and the overall performance of the current management design and beable to propose appropriate changes.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351332

2. Considerations of stakeholder preference analysis in MPA management

At a fundamental level, the presence of stakeholder conflicts requires that multipleobjectives be incorporated into resource management policy. This is warranted by thesheer diversity of heterogeneous stakeholder groups in coastal areas and the potential forconflicting perceptions of ‘success’ and how a protected area should be managed. Suchconflict is heightened when stakeholder groups depend on the species and habitats to beprotected 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, fromthe identification of performance indicators to preferred management objectives and futureinterventions. Generally, in resource management regimes, management objectives anddecisions can be subdivided into one of four categories: biological, social, economic, orpolitical [8,28]. The initial questions that face analyses of such regimes are: (1) Who are thestakeholders? (2) What are their preferences for management?, and (3) How are theirpreferences 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 theoreticalviewpoints that clash in the definition of resource management policies. While Charles’framework was created out of the identification and analysis of recurring conflicts in thefisheries sector, the same framework can be used to explain the structure of conflictspresent in MPA regimes since many of the stakeholders and conflicts are the same. Due tothe comprehensive nature of the ‘triangle of paradigms,’ it can also be used as a tool for theanalysis of the reasons behind overfishing [30] and guidance in the development of MPAmanagement 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 anindependent viewpoint that represents one way of looking at resource management. Thefirst vertex relates to the conservation paradigm. As the central concern for biologists andconservationists, 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, mustbe 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

Rationalization (economic efficiency and

maximizing economic rent)

Conservation (stock conservation and habitat

protection)

Social-community (well-being of society

and equity)

Fig. 1. The triangle of paradigms as proposed by Charles [29].

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 333

of economic efficiency and the maximization of economic rent in resource extractionactivities. Charles argues that the fishing industry is also aligned with this paradigm.

Finally, the third vertex describes the social-community paradigm. This paradigm isgenerally supported by social scientists, members of the local community, and individualsand organizations directly affected by resource management institutions. The generalpriorities of these groups tend to be the overall well-being of society and the equitabledistribution of the benefits achieved from the institution. This paradigm gives particularweight to the concepts of collective rights to resources, community-based management,and co-management [29,30].

While Charles’ framework can be used to conceptualize a number of problems present infisheries and MPA management, Boncoeur and Mesnil [30] suggest that the borderbetween the three paradigms is inconsistent and ambiguous. Concerning the conservationand rationalization paradigms, they propose that one cannot pursue one objective withouttaking into consideration components of the others. As an example, they cite the objectiveof profit maximization. While seemingly economic in nature, one ‘‘cannot disregard therenewable character (within finite boundaries) of fish resources’’ and the resulting issues ofconservation that develop from the attempt to maximize economic rent drawn from agiven fishery, particularly in the long term [30]. They also cite the ambiguous nature of thegeographical, professional, and social limits of the term ‘community.’ Depending on howthe ‘community’ is defined, different value judgments may be made in considering thenotion of well-being and how different individuals are weighted in the consideration ofassuring that conservation and economic benefits are equitably divided.

Recognizing these inconsistencies and the ambiguous nature of some of the terminologyused, Boncouer and Mesnil [30] propose that in reality, resource management perceptionsand initiatives are rarely at one of the extremes of the triangle, but instead represent acombination of two or more of Charles’ paradigms. Wattage et al. [28] furthers this theoryby suggesting that by recognizing the differences in the paradigms supported by variousstakeholder groups, conflicts can be minimized and result in better performing manage-ment institutions. They explain that ‘‘a major factor in conflicts between interest groups iscaused by a lack of understanding of the importance of objectives held by the variousinterest groups involved. An explicit appreciation of the objectives of the different groupswould facilitate negotiations between the stakeholders resulting in more desirablecompromise solutions being achieved’’ [28]. This is especially true in MPAs where a largenumber and diverse range of interest groups exists, from commercial and recreationalfishers to local residents, researchers and even tourists. Therefore, the use of approaches toassess stakeholder preferences for increasing management effectiveness and in decision-making arenas is exceptionally relevant.

3. Study area

The EIMR, situated off the northwest coast of Sicily in the central Mediterranean,constitutes the largest functional MPA in the Mediterranean Sea. The EIMR wasestablished by Italian national law in 1991. Covering a total of 53,992 ha, the EIMRstretches westward from the coastal town of Trapani surrounding the three populatedislands of Favignana, Marettimo, and Levanzo, and two rocky outcroppings (Fig. 2). Inmost cases, the establishment of MPAS in Italy was done bureaucratically at the Ministryof the Environment in Rome with the only input being from local governments and high

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. The Egadi Islands Marine Reserve.

A.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351334

profile environmental organizations. Rarely were local peoples’ issues, ideas, or objectionsconsidered. In the Egadi Islands, the main proponents of the MPA were localenvironmental groups that successfully lobbied the Ministry of Environment to create aprotected area to eliminate the threat of oil drilling in local waters. Local residents andfishermen were not given the opportunity to comment on MPA design and most have beenadamantly opposed to its existence from the beginning. This is important because localresidents and fishermen interact with local resources on a daily basis and their actions aredirectly correlated with regulatory compliance. They feel that the MPA as it exists isworthless and refuse to believe it could benefit them in the long run under currentmanagement, all of which assists in the EIMR’s failure to meet management objectives.The EIMR is partitioned into four zones, A, B, C, and D, with varying levels of

restriction. Zone A can be considered a no-take/no-entry area where only permittedresearch can take place. Zone B allows only general non-consumptive uses (e.g.,swimming, boating beyond 500m from the coast). In Zone C, all non-consumptive usesand permitted recreational and commercial fishing are allowed, with the exception oftrawling. In Zone D, all activity is allowed; only trawling has limitations. At inception, theEIMR was given six stated objectives: (1) protect the local environment, (2) protect thelocal biological resources, (3) educate the public about the unique characteristics of local

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 335

waters, (4) support scientific research, (5) increase the understanding and protection oflocal archaeological resources, and (6) promote socio-economic development connected tothe environmental importance of the area.

The EIMR’s management body is currently the city government of Favignana. Thelocal mayor is the official President of the MPA and has responsibility of insuringthe presence of an MPA director, an advisory board, and that the MPA is beingsuccessfully managed. The Trapani Harbor Master’s Office has the responsibility forenforcement of the regulatory framework of the MPA and all relevant regional andnational fishing regulations. To date, no management plan has been drafted for the EIMR.Active management has been based partly on the six objectives stated in the previousparagraph and partly on the political needs of the current local government’sadministration.

4. Methods

The main objective of the research was to develop an initial set of stakeholder indicatorsof ‘success’ for the EIMR. To accomplish this, a semi-structured questionnaire wasdesigned to elicit a range of stakeholder definitions of ‘success’, to determine howsuccess can be achieved, to develop an index regarding respondent knowledge of theEIMR, and to determine how evaluations of MPAs should be conducted in the EIMR.Demographic information was collected for each respondent, including the category ofrespondent, sex, age, education, occupation and activities that the respondent undertakesin the MPA.

A total of 293 questionnaires were completed. Questionnaires were presented in face-to-face interviews to 50 fishers, 208 local residents, 12 MPA management officials and 23 localresearchers (mostly biologists). Questionnaires were presented to fishers at their fishingvessels, to MPA managers at their offices, to researchers at local universities, and to localresidents in bars and cafes in the center of town on each island. All data collection tookplace between January 17 and March 31, 2004. Due to low population numbers, a censuswas attempted for the populations of fishers, management officials and researchers. Arandom, stratified sample was taken of local residents; an attempt was made atinterviewing an equal number of men and women.

The questionnaire was centered on three open-ended questions:

�

What do you think are the most important resources of the Egadi Islands(environmental, cultural, and economic) and the most important threats to thoseresources? � Please describe your own vision of what a successful EIMR would be. Complete the

following sentence: In my opinion, the EIMR would be a success in the future if/wheny

�

What management initiatives would need to be undertaken to achieve your vision ofsuccess?

To test stakeholder knowledge of the MPA’s regulations, respondents were asked torespond to five questions regarding the regulations of the MPA. Furthermore, respondentswere asked a series of nine opinion questions about the state of the MPA, and threequestions regarding the need for an evaluation of MPA management.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351336

The same questionnaire was used for each stakeholder group in order to makecomparisons. The survey was modeled after a similar survey conducted in Indonesia byDahl-Tacconi in 2003 [31,32]. However, in the present survey, questions were modifiedspecific to the Egadi Islands and added to further characterize the present case study. Themajority of the questions were closed-ended, with open-ended questions scatteredthroughout.Due to the nature of the survey, conducting the interviews face-to-face was the most

logical method to use in order to get the most thorough answers for the open-endedquestions in the questionnaire [33,34].A sample of 281 local residents (approximately 12% of the local population) was

randomly approached, of which 73 refused. Therefore, 208 respondents were interviewedthroughout the archipelago, showing a 74% response rate. For the purpose of this study,the category ‘local resident’ is defined as individuals that live in the Egadi Islands yearround, excluding individuals that could fall in to one of the other three stakeholdercategories.The same questionnaire was aimed at the population of all commercial fishers. The

stakeholder group ‘fishers’ is defined as anyone working on a fishing vessel registered in theEgadi Islands. Information on the number of crew aboard each vessel was taken from aprevious survey conducted by the author. The data showed a count of 83 fishers that workon vessels in the Egadi Islands. Because of the small numbers of fishers, a census ofregistered fishers was attempted on an opportunistic basis. Questionnaires were presentedto fishers either on board the vessel that they work on or at the commercial fishing port ateach island. A total of 54 individuals related to the fishing sector were located andapproached with 4 refusals (92.6% response rate). In addition, two fishing cooperativerepresentatives were interviewed.Finally, a census was attempted of local researchers and MPA managers. A total

of 22 out of 25 researchers (3 refusals) and 12 of 17 managers were interviewed duringthis stage of the research. For the purposes of this questionnaire, the stakeholder

group ‘researcher’ includes anyone that is conducting or has conducted biological,social or economic research in the Egadi Islands. This includes researchers from theUniversity of Palermo, University of Siena and an Italian National Research Councilmarine biology laboratory based in western Sicily. The stakeholder group ‘manager’includes individuals that are or have been in control of MPA management. This includespast and present MPA directors, Harbor Master officers (who are in charge ofenforcement), the president of the MPA’s advisory committee, and past and presentrepresentatives from the local government that are given responsibilities within the MPAmanagement structure.In addition, informal focus group meetings were conducted frequently throughout

the study in order to evaluate how stakeholders are coping with and feel about theEIMR and how they have been affected, respective to individual stakeholder affiliations.Key informants were also questioned about the relationships and commonalitiesthat define stakeholder groups and to allow them to freely express themselves aboutthe success or failure of the EIMR. In-depth interviews were conducted with theMPA management staff, town council members and other relevant management bodiesto discover whether they consider the EIMR to be successful and properly managed,how it can be better managed, and how stakeholders should be involved inmanagement.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 337

5. Results

5.1. Perceived resources and threats

Before entering into a discussion about stakeholder preferences, an analysis ofstakeholder perceptions of the most important resources (and activities) present in theEgadi Islands and what particular threats to those resources they feel are significant isimperative. Different stakeholder groups will inherently perceive different resources to bemore useful and thus important than others depending on their particular needs andinterests. Likewise, stakeholders will each perceive different threats to those resources. Anunderstanding of each group’s perspective is important in fully understanding theimportance that they assign to performance indicators and management interventions inan MPA setting.

Respondents were asked to consider what the most important resources of the Islandsare and the existing and potential threats that could damage them. A total of 80 individualresources and 238 threats were obtained and coded into primary and secondary categories.The categories assigned to each individual response are given in Tables 1 and 2.Respondents were not limited in nominating resources and threats. As such, individualrespondents may be represented in more than one resource category.

Interestingly, with regards to importance, the majority of fishers cited purely economicand cultural resources as important much more frequently than the marine resources (e.g.,fish, clean water) that form the basis of their primary livelihood. The two most importantactivities fishers cited were fishing and other maritime traditions, cited by 60% ofrespondents, and the local tourism industry, cited by 52% of fishers. This is most likelybecause fishers’ livelihoods are dependent on fishing and the tourism industry.

Not surprisingly, the most cited threat by fishers is illegal trawling with the EIMR—which should be predictable since illegal trawling within the MPA’s boundary, observed

Table 1

Respondent identification of the most important resources in the Egadi Islands

Primary category Secondary category

Ecological resources Coastal areas Marine environment

Natural Beauty Clean water

Fish Sea grass beds

Marine life in general Benthic environment

Protected species Terrestrial environment

Community resources Fishers Locals

Youth

Cultural resources Local traditions Local culture/context

Archaeological sites Local history

Local gastronomy (seafood based) Local well-being

Maritime traditions (e.g. tuna fishing)

Economic resources Tourism Tourists

Existing jobs Local livelihoods

MPA presence This category includes the basic existence of the MPA

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Respondent identification of the most important threats to local resources

Primary category Secondary category

Resource extraction Overexploitation Modernization

Fishing (recreational and commercial) Petroleum mining

Pollution Noise from ferries Vessel discharge

Garbage left on beaches Boat discards

Inadequate/insufficient management Lack of enforcement Bad organization

Insufficient regulations Regulations too restrictive

Lack of management Lack of funding

Lack of political support

Lack of community value Local disinterest Ignorance of tourists and locals

Lack of awareness Lack of local benefits

Lack of community involvement

Illegal activities Trawling Boating in no-entry zones

Pirating

Boat traffic Shipping traffic Ballast water exchange

Recreational boating Anchoring

Environmental degradation Extinction of fish species Irresponsible construction

Overuse of local habitats

Tourism Mass tourism Diving

A.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351338

frequently, is expected to significantly affect the local fish resource base. Fishers alsomentioned a variety of other threats including fishing in general, overexploitation, otherillegal activities, trash, noise pollution, discharge, boating, lack of enforcement, badorganization, insufficient regulations, environmental degradation, and shipping ballastwater exchange (Table 2). It should be noted that all of the threats that fishers noted areeither directly or indirectly related to the health of local fish stocks that the fishing sector isdependent on.Tourism, maritime traditions and the marine environment are the most important

resources for local residents of the Egadi Islands. A significant percentage of the localeconomy is based on the summer tourism season; without it, the local community wouldsurely undergo significant economic hardship. Moreover, local maritime traditions,specifically annual tuna fishing rituals and the artisanal fishing industry and consequentlythe environment in which they are based, are at the core of the local culture and haveprovided the backbone of the community for hundreds of years. Due to the importance ofthese resources, local residents have become aware of many recently strengthening threatsthat could damage them. The most important threats to them are pollution, excessiveresource extraction, mass tourism, and inadequate management of the MPA; however,many also note that trawling and environmental degradation are causing serious harm tothe local marine environment. Local residents identified pollution as a threat more thanany other, and, incidentally, twice that of any other group.Researchers and the MPA’s managers are outsiders to the local community and thus are

expected to have a more wide-ranging view of what local resources are important and what

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 339

threats are causing the most damage. This is somewhat the case in the Egadi Islands.Researchers, in particular, concentrate on the marine environment and other ecologicalresources as the most important assets of the Islands. They also show value for the localcommunity by assigning a relatively high importance to the local cultural context andmaritime traditions. Managers, on the other hand, weight all of the resource categoriessignificantly, except tourism. Interestingly, three-fourths of all managers identified themarine environment, other ecological resources and the local cultural context as importantlocal resources.

The main threats to local resources, identified by researchers, are relatively concentratedexcessive resource extraction and environmental degradation, including mass tourism.While managers tend to agree, they are most frequently concentrated on the effect thatinadequate management of the MPA has on local resources.

Residents too, however, tend to be relatively widespread in their identification ofimportant resources and threats. A key difference, however, is that tourism is a much moreimportant resource to fishers and local residents. Since managers and researchers do notmake a living from local tourism, it is understandable that they would not classify it as animportant resource.

5.2. What are stakeholders’ criteria for a successful MPA?

Following the proposal by Boncouer and Mesnil [30] and Wattage et al. [28] thatstakeholder identified categories of preferences for any aspect of MPA management shouldbe characterized by one or more of Charles’ [29] three paradigms, an in-depth analysis ofstakeholder preferences for indicators of EIMR performance and management interven-tions needed to achieve a successful MPA was undertaken. Similar to that hypothesized forstakeholder identified resources and threats, it was expected that the range of performanceindicators and management interventions would be extremely diverse among stakeholdergroups and that each group would assign a unique order of importance to each indicatorand intervention identified.

Respondents were asked to complete the sentence: ‘In my opinion, the EIMR will be asuccess in the future when or ify’ The aim of the question was to determine what aspect ofmanagement and what kind of management issues were most important to eachrespondent in determining overall success of the MPA. Asking about each respondent’spersonal vision attempted to evoke an initial and emotive response that would indicatewhere the respondent’s priorities were. Most respondents were able to list one to four briefindicators of good performance of the EIMR. Very few were able to list more than fourdistinct responses.

Each response was examined and coded according to the terms that the respondent usedin describing their vision of a successful MPA. Occasionally a respondent’s descriptionreferred to the same category more than once. In these cases, the related components oftheir responses were combined and tallied only once in the associated performanceindicator category.

Two levels of analysis were undertaken. Responses were first coded into one of six pre-determined categories, reflecting different aspects of management as described in theWorld Commission for Protected Areas Management Framework [35]: (1) contextualissues, (2) planning activities, (3) inputs (including financial, technical and humanresources), (4) management processes and the way in which decisions are made, (5) outputs

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351340

(including products and services) from management, and (6) outcomes (that is,achievements and changes) derived from those management activities. The category‘outcomes’ was further divided into four specific areas that reflect the range of answersprovided: increased awareness; economic changes; changes in social behaviors and/orattitudes; and biological and ecological improvements. Secondly, responses in eachcategory were divided into indicators of MPA performance.A description of the management categories and most frequently identified performance

indicators are listed in Tables 3 and 4 to give an indication of how respondents’ prioritiesand criteria for success are distributed across various aspects of management. From Table4 it is noticeable that all stakeholder groups clearly value the planning, output andoutcome aspects of management. With the exception of researchers, a clear majority ofrespondents in each stakeholder group nominated a performance indicator in these threecategories. However, while researchers were more concentrated in the outcome category ofindicators, a still relatively large percentage nominated indicators in the output andplanning categories. It is noteworthy that most stakeholders identified performance

Table 3

Explanation of the categories used to code data on visions of performance indicators and proposed management

interventions

Element of

management

Applies to responses

regarding:

Suggested performance

indicator

Suggested management

intervention

Context Overarching contextual

issues outside of daily

management that have

indirect impacts on

management activities

� No change in current

institutional

arrangements

� Politics are not involved

� MPA can never be a

success

None

Planning Planning activities and

plans for managing the

park, including issues

of design and

developing regulations

� Management better

organized

� Tourism is better

organized

� Change regulations

� Management better

organized

� Tourism is connected to

the MPA

� Appoint a new

management body

� Change regulations,

redraw zone boundaries

Inputs The adequacy and/or

appropriateness of

financial, technical and

human resources

needed to manage well

None � Hire qualified director

� More efficient

management

(financially, timely,

needed projects carried

out)

Processes Efficiency and

appropriateness of

processes for making

decisions and

implementing

management strategies

� Community involved in

management

� Achieve sustainable

development

� Community involved in

management

� Enforcement done by

local fishers and

community

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3 (continued )

Element of

management

Applies to responses

regarding:

Suggested performance

indicator

Suggested management

intervention

Outputs The quantity or quality

of products or services

delivered directly from

management

� Improve basic services,

signage, port, facilities

� Increase enforcement/

compliance

� Increase accuracy and

quantity of information

� Research and

monitoring conducted

� Increase enforcement/

compliance

� Increase quantity of

educational materials

� Biological rest period

put into effect

� Research and

monitoring conducted

� Provide means to clean

up pollution

� User fees implemented

for visitors

Outcomes Biological or ecological

improvements

� Decrease in pollution

� Environment protected

and repopulated (e.g.

habitat is protected,

increase in fish biomass)

None

Economic changes � Increase in economic

development

� Community benefits

economically from MPA

� Tourism increases

� Tourism is maintained

or decreases

� Work provided to locals

� Decrease prices of

transport and living

Positive changes in

social behaviors or

attitudes

� Community recognizes

the benefits of an MPA

� Community begins to

value the MPA

� Obtain better quality

tourism

� No more conflict

� Obtain better quality

tourism

� Local traditions

maintained and

supported

Increased awareness of

stakeholders

� Local community is

helped to cope with

MPA

� Managers take fishers

and the local community

into account in

management

A.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 341

indicators that are directly associated with the resources and threats to resources that theyidentified previously.

A noticeable result is that no one from any group nominated a management input. Thisis an interesting finding as it goes against the idea that in order to successfully obtain manyof the other indicators, there must be staff associated with the management body that canundertake necessary work and there must be adequate funding available to carry out anyprojects relevant to making the MPA successful. In this case, however, it appears that

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tables 4

Priorities for MPA performance indicators by stakeholder group

MPA performance indicator Local residents Fishers Managers Researchers

Context 8.2 8 8.3 0

Politics is not involved 3.8 0 8.3 0

MPA cannot be a success 1.9 8 0 0

MPA managed the same as now 2.4 0 0 0

Planning 54.3 80 66.7 47.8

Management better organized 39.4 66 50 34.8

More strict regulations 19.7 30 33.3 30.4

Less strict regulations 3.8 6 16.7 0

Processes 12 24 41.7 26.1

Community involved or benefits 8.2 22 25 13

Use of sustainable development principles 4.3 2 16.7 17.4

Outputs 55.8 54 66.7 47.8

Increase enforcement and compliance 36.5 48 25 13

More and accurate information 27.4 6 50 30.4

Research and monitoring conducted 2.9 0 8.3 26.1

Better services, signage, port, facilities 4.8 2 8.3 0

Outcomes 66.8 58 66.7 78.3

Environment is protected/increase in biomass 17.8 26 8.3 34.8

Tourism increases or is better organized 18.8 12 16.7 8.7

Community is helped to cope with MPA 19.2 12 8.3 8.7

Begin to value/understand benefits of MPA 15.4 4 16.7 21.7

Economic development 15.4 2 8.3 4.3

Quality tourism 10.1 0 33.3 21.7

Tourism is maintained or decreases 4.3 0 8.3 34.8

Increase in fisher’s catch 2.9 16 0 0

Less pollution 4.8 6 8.3 0

No more conflict 0 0 8.3 4.3

The numbers in the table represent percentages of respondents in each stakeholder group (N ¼ 50 fishers, 208

local citizens, 12 MPA managers and 23 researchers).

A.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351342

stakeholders, including managers, do not consider a lack of staff or funding an importantissue or they take the presence of staff and funding for granted.The results from the interviews were helpful in establishing several points to consider

about stakeholder preferences for performance indicators in evaluating the EIMR. Thedistribution by stakeholder group of coded responses for 20 all-inclusive categories issummarized in Table 4. For each stakeholder group, the indicators are ordered in terms ofhow frequently they were ranked. The ranks were based on the frequency of citation.Table 4 shows that for half of the indicators, stakeholders group assign relatively similar,but low importance, while all other indicators were ranked differently by each group. Byfar, the most cited indicator of all stakeholder groups is improvement in the organizationof MPA management. This includes performance indicators such as qualified staff, theconsideration of locals and fishers by management authorities, and when the MPA ismanaged seriously. Researchers were the only respondents that deviated in ranking thisindicator first, placing it second after protecting the marine environmental andrepopulating local fish stocks.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 343

Beyond improving management organization, stakeholder groups tended to varysignificantly. Local residents and fishers agreed that increasing enforcement andcompliance is the second most important performance indicator. Third, local residentsranked an increase in the quantity and accuracy of information about the MPA whilefishers put active protection and repopulation of the marine environment in third place andresidents placed active protection in fourth place.

They then differ substantially in indicator preferences. Fishers ranked increasingavailable information about the MPA relatively low. Instead they place more importanceon changing the regulations and zone boundaries and involving fishers (and thecommunity) in management. Residents, on the other hand, identify helping the communitycope with the MPA both economically and mentally in the top five indicators.

Other than the agreement on improving management organization, MPA managersdiffered significantly from other groups in their preferences. First of all, increasing theavailability and accuracy of information about the MPA was tied in first with improvingmanagement organization. Following, modifying the regulations and boundaries andincreasing quality-based tourism were tied in third place. While researchers gave littleconsideration, managers ranked increasing enforcement and compliance as the fifth mostimportant performance indicator. For managers, this tied with increasing communityinvolvement, which was also significantly important for fishers.

As stated previously, researchers ranked the protection and repopulation of the marineenvironment as the most important performance indicator. This was followed by‘maintaining or decreasing the local tourism industry’ and ‘better organization of MPAmanagement’. In addition, researchers indicated a strong preference for increasing thequantity and accuracy of information about the MPA. Not surprisingly, while all othergroups ranked increasing monitoring and research close to the bottom of the importancescale, researchers ranked it in fifth place.

5.3. Achieving good performance through management interventions

To follow up on stakeholder cited performance indicators, respondents were asked,‘‘What management initiatives would need to be done to achieve your vision of success?’’The goal of this question was to give respondents the opportunity to suggest managementinitiatives that could provide the mechanism for achieving the successful MPA theydescribed in the previous question. This question probed for a more detailed explanationof stakeholder preferences for performance indicators in the EIMR. It also provides amore natural indication of criteria respondents use to judge how successful the EIMR is;for a given respondent, a minimum of success will be reached with the implementation ofthe management interventions that they suggest. While many respondents proposedrelatively general or vague management initiatives, many used very specific language intheir suggestions. The responses were categorized and coded in the same way as seen inTable 3. The distribution by stakeholder group of citations of 17 all-inclusive categories issummarized in Table 5.

In comparing the responses given in these two questions about performance and‘success’ indicators and management interventions, it is clear that respondent descriptionsof what makes a successful MPA differ slightly from their criteria for managementinterventions that would help to maximize the achievement of those indicators. Whilestakeholders’ vision of success tended to focus heavily on planning, outputs and outcomes

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Percentage of respondents by stakeholder group citing MPA management interventions

MPA performance indicator Local

residents

Fishers Managers Researchers

Context 0 0 0 0

Input 12 12 33.3 4.3

More efficient management (e.g. appropriate

staff, approved management interventions)

12 12 33.3 4.3

Planning 69.2 76 75 69.6

Management better organized (e.g. install

buoys, qualified staff)

41.8 46 50 30.4

Tourism is better organized (e.g. guided trips

organized)

32.2 18 41.7 17.4

Appoint new management body 12.5 26 8.3 4.3

Implement more strict regulations 11.1 22 16.7 17.4

Change the MPA’s zonation 4.8 14 8.3 4.3

Implement less strict regulations 3.4 8 0 0

Process 27.4 46 41.7 30.4

Community is involved in management,

enforcement

30.8 30 50 13

Management supports local traditions 1.4 0 8.3 8.7

Output 73.6 60 75 82.6

Increase enforcement 38.9 66 41.7 26.1

Increase community education and available

information

33.7 20 75 43.5

Increase publicity of the MPA 14.9 0 33.3 4.3

Clean up pollution and provide means to

dispose of solid waste

11.1 8 8.3 0

Implement user fees 4.8 2 25 4.3

Research and knowledge gathering

conducted

4.3 0 8.3 26.1

Decrease enforcement 0 2 0 0

Outcome 19.7 14 16.7 34.8

Local benefits realized (e.g. locals given

work)

11.5 26 33.3 0

Decrease prices in general 8.7 0 0 4.3

The numbers represent percentages of respondents in each stakeholder group (N ¼ 50 fishers, 208 local citizens, 12

MPA managers and 23 researchers).

A.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351344

(Table 4), management interventions still concentrated on planning; however, much moreimportance was given to management outputs and processes (Table 5). This should beexpected since the outcomes that were cited stakeholder visions of ‘success’ should beautomatic derivatives of the planning, processes and outputs of management.The differences between stakeholder groups become more apparent in an analysis of the

components of these general categories. As in the question regarding the respondent’svision of a successful MPA, a striking result was the variety of suggestions given and thenumber of new regulations that were proposed. However, like each group’s vision of‘success’, the four stakeholder groups differed much more in their priorities for how the

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 345

MPA should be managed to achieve that vision. The most significant difference is seen inthe order of the top five management interventions ranked by each group. Again, rankswere determined based on the frequency of citation. Managers and researchers tended toprovide similar responses. Both ranked increasing community education and availableinformation first, followed by improving management organization. However, a far higherpercentage of managers than any other group identified education as an importantmanagement intervention, strongly indicating where their priorities lie. Managers tiedimproving management organization with involving the community in managementactivities, similarly seen in the top five interventions suggested by fishers and localresidents.

Researchers, however, placed community involvement much farther down on the list ofpriorities, replacing it with increasing enforcement and research and monitoring. Again,researchers were in the only group that gave any significant weight to research andmonitoring. They also suggested that tourism should be organized better, linking it withthe MPA to help teach tourists about the local environment through education and guidedboat trips. Moreover, researchers and fishers were the only groups that suggestedimplementing more strict regulations in their top six interventions for reaching success.This is an interesting result since the activities of both groups are strongly affected by theregulations. Creating more strict regulations would directly impact the work that bothgroups.

Unlike the other stakeholder groups, fishers tended to concentrate specifically oninterventions that directly affect MPA planning and processes as well as outputs thatspecifically benefit them. Their answers were also more varied and specific than othergroups. In the top five indicators, they ranked increasing enforcement, organizingmanagement better, involving the community (specifically fishers) in management,appointment of a new management body and director, and compensating fishers,respectively. From these responses, it should be reasonable to suggest that fishers wouldprefer to work side by side with MPA managers that value and support the community andthe opinions of local fishers, and will not support the MPA without enforcement of theregulations. Additionally, fishers suggested a number of management interventions thatillustrate their intense desire to be involved in all aspects of management and have morestrict fishing regulations. The following includes some of their suggestions:

�

Fishing regulations: regulate mesh size, prohibit fishing for juveniles, limit soak time,prohibit spear fishing, allow occasional permits to fish in no-take zone. � Zonation: improve the zonation to protect sensitive areas, make the MPA bigger. � Control and limit vessel discharges (recreational boating and shipping). � Enforcement: give enforcement responsibility to fishers, constantly enforce the MPA. � Give work to fishers with the MPA. � Provide compensation for fishers: start a biological rest period, contribute to renovating

fishing vessels.

� Managers must include fishers in management activities. � The director should be a fisher.

Finally, the responses of local residents closely followed that of the MPA managers, withslightly different preferences of the top five management interventions suggested. Residentsranked improvement of management organization, increasing enforcement, increasing

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351346

community education and the availability of information, providing better services for thetourism industry, and involving the community in management, respectively, in order ofpriority. In addition to managers, residents ranked increasing external publicity of theMPA and the Egadi Islands closely behind the first five interventions.

5.4. Data collection problems

It is important to acknowledge the problems associated with data collection in thisresearch. There is a possibility that survey respondents may not have fully understood thedistinction between questions regarding what performance indicators they regard asimportant (i.e. In my opinion, the EIMR will be a success when/ify, e.g. increaseenforcement) and what management interventions could be used to improve that aspect ofperformance. Many respondents gave the same answer to both questions (e.g. increaseenforcement), indicating that they might not comprehend the difference betweenperformance indicators (e.g. decrease in illegal activity) and management interventionsthat could improve those indicators (e.g. increase in number of enforcement vessels on thewater). This could result in confusion over the extent to which both processes andoutcomes can be viewed as indicators of success; however, the data collected from thesetwo questions is still valid as it provides an important look into stakeholder preferences asa whole.

6. Discussion

In a perfect world, every MPA would have a management plan that is created by adiverse group of stakeholders that represent a variety of interests and preferences for howthe MPA should be managed and how it can be more successful. In addition, themanagement plan would provide specific measurements of performance that could be usedin analyzing an MPA’s overall effectiveness and ‘success;’ for example, ‘develop a programto train fishers to help in enforcing the MPA’s regulations.’ Unfortunately, as in manycases around the world, the EIMR, as of now, lacks a management plan and,consequently, lacks any formally stated performance measures. It also has consistentlylacked stakeholder input and, as a result, stakeholder buy-in into the need for an MPA andhow the EIMR has been managed thus far.As was undertaken for the present research, one method for overcoming the lack of a

management plan and stakeholder input is to conduct structured and informal interviewsto understand where a diverse group of stakeholders’ preferences for management lie.While this may be less than feasible for some MPA practitioners, due to time, budget andcapacity constraints, obtaining significant stakeholder input in this way provides a viablealternative to either the absence or inadequacy of a management plan in assessingperformance and effectiveness.The findings from this case study in eliciting stakeholder definitions of performance

indicators and necessary management interventions in the EIMR allow for the acceptanceof the hypotheses described at the beginning of this paper, as well as add new insightsregarding the similarities and differences between stakeholder needs, interests, andconcerns.A key conclusion is that there is tremendous potential for conflict between the various

perspectives of stakeholder groups. Moreover, these differences must be understood and

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 347

become integrated into MPA management if ‘success’ is to be ultimately reached. Thesepreliminary conclusions are substantiated by the Egadi Islands case study. It is clear thatthe majority of stakeholders do not believe that the EIMR is a success and that extensiveconflicts exist that have developed at least in part from the presence of the MPA. In anattempt to understand the reasons for this, a framework for analyzing stakeholders’ beliefsand preferences in-depth must be developed. The lack of such a framework and theperception of failure of the EIMR formed the impetus for collecting the qualitative datapresented here.

One of the most important insights discovered is the approximate level of importancethat stakeholders assign to a variety of components of MPA performance. It is clear fromboth the stakeholder nominated performance indicators and management interventionsthat all groups tend to assign importance to a mixture of management components. Thisfollows the theory that Boncoeur and Mesnil [30] present regarding Charles’ [29] triangle ofparadigms. No group’s interests can be expected to fit into only the social, conservation oreconomic paradigm. Instead, the performance indicators and management interventionssuggested by stakeholders cross boundaries between these three management paradigms tocreate a unique set of criteria for management that each group upholds. In this way, it isreasonable to hypothesize that stakeholders in the Egadi Islands, and potentially otherMPAs, 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 definedperformance indicators differ from a priori developed indicators? Managers are faced witha number of choices regarding how to assess the performance of de facto management andhow to then increase its effectiveness. The sole use of managers’ personal experience andpreviously developed theories regarding MPA ‘success’ lies at one extreme. At the otherlies stakeholder defined and controlled evaluation of management effectiveness. If one isconsidering the collective group of stakeholders, then MPA managers must also beconsidered. Under this point of view, management evaluation and the selection ofperformance indicators must combine the two extremes; both user groups and managersmust 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 atreaching consensus about the multiple objectives, criteria, and targets that are utilized todesign management interventions.

Another noteworthy finding is that the differences in stakeholder perceptions andopinions in the EIMR could be significant enough to negatively affect the overall potentialof obtaining a successful MPA in the future. The preferences elicited from EIMRstakeholders present a wide variety of potential indicators for what is needed to make theMPA successful. This becomes even more complicated if stakeholder preferences and theMPA managers objectives are in conflict, for example, in the EIMR, where local residentsprefer decreasing pollution as the primary target while managers prefer increasing the levelof tourism. Whose preferences should be weighted more?

Considering the significant influence that many stakeholder groups have on an MPA asconsumptive and non-consumptive resource users, if local stakeholders are expected tosupport an MPA and buy in to how it is managed, then they must be given the opportunityto participate in management and decision-making and their interests will need to beseriously taken into account in future management interventions. Given this, if MPA

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351348

managers can bring important stakeholders on board and allow them to participate inmanagement and decision-making, a protected area can more easily gain social acceptance,meet a variety of stakeholder needs, and begin to be more successful in everyone’s eyes. Butif stakeholder interests and objectives are in direct conflict with one another, how is theachievement of MPA objectives and targets affected? In such cases, is it possible for aprotected area to ever become an overall success?As the marine environment and stakeholder interests change and evolve, so does the

concept of ‘success.’ With this argument, it becomes clear that the concept of ‘success’ willalways remain relatively elusive. The purpose then of the present research is not to directlydefine what constitutes the definition of ‘success’ in the EIMR, but rather to identify andcompare the most important aspects of management as perceived by each stakeholdergroup. This information can then be used in making trade-offs in management decisionsthat are directly informed by stakeholders and that can be actively used to improve MPAeffectiveness.

7. Conclusion

To develop successful MPA institutions, implementation, and achieve results, manage-ment objectives must be defined, targets set and evaluations done to monitor the overallachievement of those targets. Frequently, MPA governing bodies have taken on theseresponsibilities in their attempts at management. More often than not, however, managersfail to recognize and encompass stakeholder opinions in their attempt at realizing asuccessful MPA. Individual stakeholders in MPA management often exhibit conflictingneeds and interests. Consequently, conflicting management objectives and points of viewusually develop on how natural resources should be managed. These differences can allowstakeholders to work together to develop a unique definition of ‘success’ that may considerthe economic, social, biological, or management components of performance, or perhaps amixture thereof, and help managers improve MPA management. Therefore, in order toachieve a well-rounded and well-performing MPA, managers must begin to recognize andincorporate these differences into management plans and interventions.The EIMR case study presented in this paper is designed to highlight some of the

variation in stakeholders preferences for MPA performance indicators and managementinterventions that should be undertaken to achieve those indicators. The results presentedhere have provided significant insight into the priorities that local stakeholders give tovarious performance indicators that can then be used to develop managementinterventions that will lead to a more successful MPA.It is evident that there are distinct differences both between and within stakeholder

groups regarding individual conceptualization of MPA ‘success.’ It is clear, in the case ofthe EIMR, that even within stakeholder groups (e.g. fishers, residents, managers), noconsensus exists for stakeholder preferences in defining ‘success.’ Interestingly, the sameresult was found in the two Indonesian MPAs where stakeholders were asked questionssimilar to those discussed here [31,32]. Individuals interviewed in those MPAs tended toprovide indicators of ‘success’ that were not related to any particular stakeholder groupaffiliation and did not show any pattern of responses that could be explained.At least in the EIMR, this result indicates two conclusions. First, stakeholders as groups

may not have a consensus or clear idea about the purpose of the MPA and that individualpreferences for performance indicators vary widely depending on their unique needs and

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 349

interests. This can become extremely problematic when MPA managers disagree amongthemselves and with local stakeholders about the definition of ‘success’ and informationrequirements needed to undertake a meaningful evaluation of management. However, asBaber [35] suggests, even if stakeholder groups are substantially diverse, they should not beexempted from participatory processes as this would surely institutionalize their marginalstatus and ultimately diminish stakeholder trust in resource managers. Second, it ispossible that all that is needed is increased dialogue with stakeholders to develop more of aconsensus within predetermined groups, such as fishers, that may have mutually exclusiveideas about how a protected area can be more effective [35].

Frequently, stakeholders feel that their opinion in MPA management is not taken intoconsideration and thus show limited support for overall management. Consequently,stakeholder buy-in to the whole management process and need for conservation ofsensitive biological resources is often low. However, through the development and use ofpreference elicitation methods, such as questionnaires, some of this animosity andstakeholder conflict may be reduced and help to reduce the problems that managers face inachieving successful natural resource management regimes in individual locations. Inunderstanding how success can be achieved in an MPA, a measure of the importance thatstakeholder groups attach to performance indicators can be determined through structuredsurveys.

While undertaking structured surveys is often a time consuming and costly process thatmany MPA managers cannot afford, as an alternative, managers can gain similar insightsinto stakeholder needs through informal interviews with key informants on a regular basis,occasional focus groups representing stakeholder viewpoints, or involving stakeholdersfrom the very beginning in major aspects of management, from developing a managementplan and needed management actions to implementing management actions. Any of thesemethods would help managers at some level to prioritize key areas of management toconcentrate on as well as comprehensibly understand the fundamental interests ofstakeholder groups. Whatever the method chosen, this is an important step in designingMPA management strategies that will be accepted by stakeholder groups and ultimatelylead to a successful MPA.

Acknowledgments

This is a contribution from a Ph.D. dissertation completed at the University ofPortsmouth (United Kingdom). I am most grateful to the researchers at the University ofPortsmouth’s Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources, especiallyDr. David Whitmarsh, Dr. Victoria Edwards and Dr. Simon Mardle. I am also grateful tothe researchers at the Istituto per l’Ambiente Marino Costiero in Castellammare del Golfo,Sicily and the fishers and residents of the Egadi Islands.

References

[1] Dahl C. Integrated coastal resources management and community participation in a small island setting.

Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36(1–3):23–45.

[2] Russ GR, Alcala AC. Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their

influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 1999;18:307–19.

[3] Tompkins E, Adger N, Brown K. Institutional networks for inclusive coastal management in Trinidad and

Tobago. Environment and Planning A 2002;34:1095–111.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351350

[4] White AT, Courtney CA, Salamanca A. Experience with marine protected area planning and management in

the Philippines. Coastal Management 2002;30:1–26.

[5] Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Watson LM. How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators

for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2004. p. 216.

[6] Steins N. All hands on deck: an interactive perspective on complex common-pool resource management

based on case studies in the coastal waters of the Isle of Wight (UK), Connemare (Ireland) and the Dutch

Wadden Sea. PhD dissertation, Wageningen Universiteit, The Netherlands, 1999.

[7] Suman D, Shivlani M, Milon JW. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of

stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean and Coastal Management

1999;42:1019–40.

[8] Leung P, Muraoka J, Nakamoto ST, Pooley S. Evaluating fisheries management options in Hawaii using

analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Fisheries Research 1998;36:171–83.

[9] Mardle S, Pascoe S, Herrero I. Management objective importance in fisheries: an evaluation using the

analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management 2004;33(1):1–11.

[10] Mardle S, Pascoe S. Multiple objectives in the management of EU fisheries: preference elicitation. CEMARE

report 64, University of Portsmouth, UK, 2003.

[11] Hockings M, Stolton S, Courrau J, Dudley N, Parrish J. The world heritage management effectiveness

workbook. Washington, DC: The United Nations Foundation; 2004. p. 97.

[12] Mangubhai S. Assessing management effectiveness of marine protected areas: a draft workbook for the

Western Indian Ocean. Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN Eastern African Regional Programme; 2003. p. 74.

[13] Staub F, Hatziolos ME. Score card to assess progress in achieving management effectiveness goals for marine

protected areas. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2003. p. 28.

[14] Eriksen TH. Small places, large issues: an introduction to social and cultural anthropology. London: Pluto

Press; 1995.

[15] Alder J, Sloan NA, Uktolseya H. A comparison of management planning and implementation in three

Indonesian marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management 1994;24:179–98.

[16] Miller M. Culture, ethnography and marine affairs. Coastal Zone Management 1983;10:301–11.

[17] Pomeroy R, Pido M. Initiatives towards fisheries co-management in the Philippines: the case of San Miguel

Bay. Marine Policy 1995;19:213–26.

[18] Sen S, Nielsen JR. Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. Marine Policy 1996;20:405–18.

[19] Brown K, Adger WN, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K. Trade-off analysis for marine protected

area management. Ecological Economics 2001;37:417–34.

[20] Bunce L, Townsley P, Pollnac R, Pomeroy R. socioeconomic manual for coral reef management. Townsville,

Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Sciences; 2001. p. 251.

[21] Salm RV, Clark XR. Marine and coastal protected areas: a guide for planners and managers, 3rd ed. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN; 2000. p. 370.

[22] White A, Hale L, Renard Y, Cortesi L. Collaborative and community based management of coral reefs. West

Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; 1994. p. 129.

[23] Burke BE. Hardin revisited: a critical look at perception and the logic of the commons (Garrett Hardin).

Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2001;29(4):449.

[24] Rao KS, Nautiyal S, Maikhuri RK, Saxena KG. Local peoples’ knowledge, aptitude and perceptions of

planning and management issues in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Management

2002;31(2):168–81.

[25] Trakolis D. Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park,

Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 2001;61(3):227–41.

[26] Palmer CT, Sinclair PR. Perceptions of a fishery in crisis: dragger skippers on the Gulf of St. Lawrence Cod

Moratorium. Society and Natural Resources 1996;9:267–79.

[27] Himes AH. Small-scale Sicilian fisheries: opinions of Artisanal Fishers and sociocultural effects in two MPA

case studies. Coastal Management 2003;31(4):389–408.

[28] Wattage P, Mardle S. Stakeholder preferences towards conservation versus development for a wetland in Sri

Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management 2005;77(2):122–32.

[29] Charles AT. Fishery conflicts: a unified framework. Marine Policy 1992;16:379–93.

[30] Boncoeur J, Mesnil B. Overfishing and conflicts in fisheries: a discussion of Anthony Charles’ ‘‘triangle of

paradigms’’ in the European context. Problemes Economiques 2000;2650:5–9.

[31] Dahl-Tacconi N. Information requirements for designing evaluations of management effectiveness for

marine protected areas: an Indonesian case study. In: Beumer JP, Grant A, Smith DC, editors. Aquatic

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.H. Himes / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 329–351 351

protected areas: what works best and how do we know? Proceedings of the world congress on aquatic

protected areas. Cairns, Australia, August 2002, 2003. p. 477–85.

[32] Dahl-Tacconi N. Information requirements for evaluating effectiveness of marine protected areas—

Indonesian case studies. Coastal Management 2005;33(3):225–46.

[33] Babbie E. Chapter 2: science and social science. In: Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing Company; 1990. p. 19–35.

[34] Rea L, Parker R. Designing and conducting survey research: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossy-

Bass Publishers; 1997.

[35] Baber WF. Ecology and democratic governance: toward a deliberative model of environmental politics. The

Social Science Journal 2004;41:331–46.