4.7 Article

Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 417-434

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00293-7

Keywords

stakeholders; participatory approaches; multi-criteria analysis; tourism; coral reefs; Tobago; Caribbean

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper outlines an approach to natural resource management that incorporates multiple objectives for protected area management within a decision-making framework. Both regulators and other major stakeholders are directly incorporated into the approach to enhance decision-making processes. We call this approach trade-off analysis. The approach uses a framework based on multi-criteria analysis (MCA) but involves stakeholders at all stages. This holistic approach is appropriate for multiple use, complex systems such as marine protected areas (MPAs), where many different users are apparently in conflict and where linkages and feedbacks between different aspects of the ecosystem and economy exist. The paper applies trade-off analysis to the case of Buccoo Reef Marine Park (BRMP) in Tobago. Stakeholder analysis is undertaken, and social, economic and ecological criteria identified. The impacts of four different development scenarios are evaluated for these criteria. Stakeholders are asked to weight different criteria and then the outcomes of different stakeholder weightings in the MCA are used to explore different management options. For BRMP, the MCA suggests consensus around development options characterised as limited tourism development for the area surrounding the park in association with the implementation of complementary environmental management. The approach has been used to enhance stakeholder involvement in decision-making and develop consensus-based approaches to management of the MPA. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. Ail rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available