Performance Indicator Importance in MPA Management Using a Multi-Criteria Approach

Much has been written about the usefulness of marine protected areas (MPAs) as a management tool. Their performance has been measured using biological and ecological indicators. However, objectives of management also include economic and social responsibilities. As such, stakeholder objectives in MPA management are frequently incompatible. This has been attributed to the variety of stakeholders with an interest in how MPAs are managed. This article considers the development of a performance indicator hierarchy for the Egadi Islands Marine Reserve, and a multi-criteria approach implemented to define compromise positions between stakeholders in decision-making. Data was obtained from a pairwise comparison survey using the analytic hierarchy process to investigate preferences of stakeholder groups for performance indicators in evaluating marine protected area management. The analysis showed that although there are five key stakeholder groups, none are homogenous in prioritizing performance indicators and that none are clear with respect to what the MPA means for them.

[1]  Sajjad Zahir,et al.  Clusters in a group: Decision making in the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Robert R. Bianchi,et al.  Interest groups and organizations as stakeholders , 2001 .

[3]  A. Himes Small-Scale Sicilian Fisheries: Opinions of Artisanal Fishers and Sociocultural Effects in Two MPA Case Studies , 2003 .

[4]  Sean Pascoe,et al.  A Review of Applications of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques to Fisheries , 1999, Marine Resource Economics.

[5]  Simon Mardle,et al.  Stakeholder preferences towards conservation versus development for a wetland in Sri Lanka. , 2005, Journal of environmental management.

[6]  A. Himes Performance indicators in MPA management: Using questionnaires to analyze stakeholder preferences , 2007 .

[7]  P. Leung,et al.  Evaluating fisheries management options in Hawaii using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) 1 Senior au , 1998 .

[8]  Stephen Fletcher,et al.  Stakeholder representation and the democratic basis of coastal partnerships in the UK , 2003 .

[9]  T. L. Saaty A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[10]  J. Duke,et al.  Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process , 2002 .

[11]  W. Neil Adger,et al.  Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management , 2001 .

[12]  L. Phillips,et al.  Multi-criteria analysis: a manual , 2009 .

[13]  Olivier Thébaud,et al.  Designing indicators for assessing the effects of marine protected areas on coral reef ecosystems: A multidisciplinary standpoint , 2005 .

[14]  R. Forthofer,et al.  Rank Correlation Methods , 1981 .

[15]  Sean Pascoe,et al.  Management Objective Importance in Fisheries: An Evaluation Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) , 2004, Environmental management.

[16]  Jeffrey Unerman,et al.  Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? , 2004 .