292
A. Song and R. Chuenpagdee
Results
Figure 15.3 is a simpli fi ed version of a damage schedule that illustrates the rankings
of conservation awareness and conservation value based on the results of the two
paired comparison sets. According to the Kendall’s tau rank correlation analysis
( p = 0.05), the survey results revealed no signi fi cant difference among the respondent groups as to which fi shing activities are more or less damaging to the fi sheries
resources in the SEA. Hence, the judged responses of all seven groups were combined into a single scale as shown in Fig. 15.3 . ‘Fishing in spawning area’ was
unanimously identi fi ed to be the most damaging practice with the normalized score
of 82 out of 100. This was followed by ‘ fi shing using gears that disturb lake bottom’
and ‘ fi shing using non-selective gear’, which shared the identical score of 65.
‘Catching juvenile fi sh’ was the next most damaging activity. As for activities with
moderate damage, ‘too many fi shers in one area’ was deemed as damaging as
‘ fi shing using mechanized gear’. With a score of 8, ‘ fi shing in offshore deep water’
was overwhelmingly judged to be the least damaging form of fi shing activity.
Understanding the ecological impact of pertinent fi shing activities forms an
essential aspect of realizing fi sheries conservation. Not only are the results attained
here agreed on by all surveyed groups in the SEA fi shery, they are also judged to be
consistent with the commonly-held knowledge about fi shing gears and their impacts
in other fi sheries worldwide. For instance, utmost attention on fi shing in spawning
areas observed in the SEA corresponds with the high emphasis placed on the role of
marine reserves in enhancing spawning stocks and protecting juvenile production
(Murawski et al. 2000 ; Manríquez and Castilla 2001 ) . Also, the relatively severe
damage from disturbing the lake bottom perceived by the respondents in the SEA is
a contentious issue globally. with special regard given to bottom-trawling (Watling
and Norse 1998 ; Chuenpagdee et al. 2003 ) . Hence, the general correspondence of
the survey result with prevailing ecological issues in global fi sheries suggests that
the stakeholder groups in the SEA hold a moderately high level of understanding of
fi sheries conservation.
Unlike the awareness portion, the survey results demonstrate the existence of a
signi fi cant divergence of judgments and preferences between the resource-dependent
groups and the manager/scientists group when it comes to the preference of fi sheriesrelated programs. While the resource-dependent groups unequivocally preferred the
program that provides micro-credit loans for the expansion of their fi shing-related
work, the same inclination was not found within the managers/scientists, who
ranked the program near the bottom. The second notable difference between the two
groups lies in the preference ranking of the program that provides ownership of
resources to local communities, which was ranked relatively low for the resourcesdependent groups compared to a high ranking among the managers/scientists.
The third disparity concerns the program that helps reduce fi sh spoilage during
catching and processing. This was by far the least preferred program in the eyes of
resource-dependent groups with the score of 7, and in stark contrast to the score
provided by the managers/scientists, 50. Two programs that have direct relevance for
A. Song and R. Chuenpagdee
Results
Figure 15.3 is a simpli fi ed version of a damage schedule that illustrates the rankings
of conservation awareness and conservation value based on the results of the two
paired comparison sets. According to the Kendall’s tau rank correlation analysis
( p = 0.05), the survey results revealed no signi fi cant difference among the respondent groups as to which fi shing activities are more or less damaging to the fi sheries
resources in the SEA. Hence, the judged responses of all seven groups were combined into a single scale as shown in Fig. 15.3 . ‘Fishing in spawning area’ was
unanimously identi fi ed to be the most damaging practice with the normalized score
of 82 out of 100. This was followed by ‘ fi shing using gears that disturb lake bottom’
and ‘ fi shing using non-selective gear’, which shared the identical score of 65.
‘Catching juvenile fi sh’ was the next most damaging activity. As for activities with
moderate damage, ‘too many fi shers in one area’ was deemed as damaging as
‘ fi shing using mechanized gear’. With a score of 8, ‘ fi shing in offshore deep water’
was overwhelmingly judged to be the least damaging form of fi shing activity.
Understanding the ecological impact of pertinent fi shing activities forms an
essential aspect of realizing fi sheries conservation. Not only are the results attained
here agreed on by all surveyed groups in the SEA fi shery, they are also judged to be
consistent with the commonly-held knowledge about fi shing gears and their impacts
in other fi sheries worldwide. For instance, utmost attention on fi shing in spawning
areas observed in the SEA corresponds with the high emphasis placed on the role of
marine reserves in enhancing spawning stocks and protecting juvenile production
(Murawski et al. 2000 ; Manríquez and Castilla 2001 ) . Also, the relatively severe
damage from disturbing the lake bottom perceived by the respondents in the SEA is
a contentious issue globally. with special regard given to bottom-trawling (Watling
and Norse 1998 ; Chuenpagdee et al. 2003 ) . Hence, the general correspondence of
the survey result with prevailing ecological issues in global fi sheries suggests that
the stakeholder groups in the SEA hold a moderately high level of understanding of
fi sheries conservation.
Unlike the awareness portion, the survey results demonstrate the existence of a
signi fi cant divergence of judgments and preferences between the resource-dependent
groups and the manager/scientists group when it comes to the preference of fi sheriesrelated programs. While the resource-dependent groups unequivocally preferred the
program that provides micro-credit loans for the expansion of their fi shing-related
work, the same inclination was not found within the managers/scientists, who
ranked the program near the bottom. The second notable difference between the two
groups lies in the preference ranking of the program that provides ownership of
resources to local communities, which was ranked relatively low for the resourcesdependent groups compared to a high ranking among the managers/scientists.
The third disparity concerns the program that helps reduce fi sh spoilage during
catching and processing. This was by far the least preferred program in the eyes of
resource-dependent groups with the score of 7, and in stark contrast to the score
provided by the managers/scientists, 50. Two programs that have direct relevance for