Including coastal resource users in fisheries management evaluation of San Miguel Bay, Philippines

Social objectives of fisheries management: What are managers' priorities?

“…which is compared with other higher order aggregations). This reduces the number of direct comparisons Andalecio (2011) that need to be made, as only objectives at the same level and within the same broader objective need to be compared. Preference weightings are highly subjective, and inconsistency is a common problem facing AHP, particularly when decision makers are confronted with many sets of comparisons (Bodin and Gass, 2003).…”

Use of the participatory approach to develop sustainability assessments for natural resource management

“…In most cases, it was driven by a genuine concern for systemic, long-term sustainable management. However, for a few cases, the process was driven by stakeholders' interest to sustainably optimize the benefits of the system or to build compromise among stakeholders with conflicting interests and priorities (Videira et al 2003;Adrianto et al 2005;Simon & Etienne 2009;Andalecio 2011;Marques et al 2013).…”

“…In some cases, the term 'participatory' implied the participation of community members only (Cromwell et al 2001;Simon & Etienne 2009;SantanaMedina et al 2013), while in others, a 'participative phase' included representatives from concerned public, private and civil sectors (Mendoza & Prabhu 2000a;Videira et al 2003;Pokorny et al 2004;Adrianto et al 2005;Balana et al 2010;Andalecio 2011;Jalilova et al 2012;Marques et al 2013). The level of community engagement in the process ranged from involving less than a few local community members, end-beneficiaries or their leaders (Mendoza & Prabhu 2000a;Balana et al 2010), to including more than 20-30 beneficiaries or local community members (Cromwell et al 2001;Simon & Etienne 2009;Jalilova et al 2012;Khadka & Vacik 2012b;Marques et al 2013;Santana-Medina et al 2013).…”

“…The number of community members involved in the process depended more on the type of approach or tools employed for the assessment, rather than the objective or the spatial extent of the project. While in some cases, participative analysis was limited to tailoring and contextualization of the expert-driven set (Mendoza & Prabhu 2000a;Pokorny et al 2004;Adrianto et al 2005;Balana et al 2010;Andalecio 2011;Jalilova et al 2012), in other cases, community participation was sought from the beginning to the end of the process, and occasionally even for the implementation phase of the sustainability assessment (Simon & Etienne 2009;Khadka & Vacik 2012b). Likewise, the role of researchers and experts also ranged from only facilitating or mediating to actively participating in the development of the final set of C&I.…”

“…Although sustainability indicators generated through any techniques are ideally expected to meet the sustainability objectives of the system or the project, they often reflect the diverse interests and preferences of the participating stakeholders (Pokorny et al 2004;Adrianto et al 2005;Andalecio 2011;Jalilova et al 2012). The resulting indicators are also often too general, vague, irrelevant, and immensurable to be useful for management or policymaking, especially when stakeholders with very little technical/scientific knowledge are involved in identifying and developing C&I (Cromwell et al 2001;Fraser et al 2006;Khadka & Vacik 2012b;Santana-Medina et al 2013).…”