69
2.8. Map of Actors/Objectives relationship
A factorial analysis method of relationship is applied to the 3MAO matrix. It produces a map
emphasising convergences between actors with respect to objectives, which are also shown on
the map in figure 30. This map gathers actors whose position towards an objective is relatively
similar.
Keys to reading:
Identifying the axes is fundamental to analysing the correspondences between actors, and
objectives. This map places great emphasis on proximity structures. Nevertheless, one must be
careful about false proximity due to perspective effects: the graph being a projection, apparent
proximities on the graph may not reflect a real proximity. The map of actor/objective
relationship can be interpreted intuitively, using a few simple reading keys:
- The centre of the graph corresponds to the average values, the closer the points are to the
centre of gravity, the more their profiles are identical to the average. The further the
points are from the centre, the more original their profiles are.
- The proximity between two points of the same category (actors or objectives) means that
they have similar profiles.
- The proximity between two points of different categories (actors and objectives) is a sign
of attraction; conversely, two opposite points on the graph indicate repulsion.
Most points (actors and objectives) are not gathered around the centre which means there are a
lot of original profiles in theory, and real MSP systems. We can observe some attractions in the
maps. Although it is quite difficult to distinguish which actors are included in these
proximities, some attractions are readable, for example port facilities are close to each other
especially around the Development, and Valorisation objective in theory MSP meaning that
their position on the objective is relatively similar.
Compared to the first map (A), points are more dispersed in real MSP (B) meaning that there
are more repulsions than attractions in reality, although some similarities appear between A,
and B like the proximity of environment protection associations to Conservation, and
Protection of Marine Biodiversity objective.
In “theory MSP”, two objectives are close from each other: Cooperation, and Collaboration,
and Data, and Knowledge Providing, while no considerable proximity between any of the
objectives is observed in real MSP. This could be justified by the fact that of all the
cooperation, and collaboration processes require a reliable base of data, and knowledge, and
this base also depends on the decisions, and processes of cooperation, and collaboration that
may facilitate the production of data, and knowledge.
We notice one difference in particular between A, and B which is that ME, and MFPP are close
in theory, but they are very far apart in real MSP. Probably because the legal framework
dictates strong functional links between these two sectors; to the contrary, this situation in the
field is completely different. Indeed, this theoretical proximity is constrained by the gaps of
operational coordination and sharing data. In addition, the lack of common planning is one of
the main factors causing this distance between “theoretical”, and “real” MSP
2.8. Map of Actors/Objectives relationship
A factorial analysis method of relationship is applied to the 3MAO matrix. It produces a map
emphasising convergences between actors with respect to objectives, which are also shown on
the map in figure 30. This map gathers actors whose position towards an objective is relatively
similar.
Keys to reading:
Identifying the axes is fundamental to analysing the correspondences between actors, and
objectives. This map places great emphasis on proximity structures. Nevertheless, one must be
careful about false proximity due to perspective effects: the graph being a projection, apparent
proximities on the graph may not reflect a real proximity. The map of actor/objective
relationship can be interpreted intuitively, using a few simple reading keys:
- The centre of the graph corresponds to the average values, the closer the points are to the
centre of gravity, the more their profiles are identical to the average. The further the
points are from the centre, the more original their profiles are.
- The proximity between two points of the same category (actors or objectives) means that
they have similar profiles.
- The proximity between two points of different categories (actors and objectives) is a sign
of attraction; conversely, two opposite points on the graph indicate repulsion.
Most points (actors and objectives) are not gathered around the centre which means there are a
lot of original profiles in theory, and real MSP systems. We can observe some attractions in the
maps. Although it is quite difficult to distinguish which actors are included in these
proximities, some attractions are readable, for example port facilities are close to each other
especially around the Development, and Valorisation objective in theory MSP meaning that
their position on the objective is relatively similar.
Compared to the first map (A), points are more dispersed in real MSP (B) meaning that there
are more repulsions than attractions in reality, although some similarities appear between A,
and B like the proximity of environment protection associations to Conservation, and
Protection of Marine Biodiversity objective.
In “theory MSP”, two objectives are close from each other: Cooperation, and Collaboration,
and Data, and Knowledge Providing, while no considerable proximity between any of the
objectives is observed in real MSP. This could be justified by the fact that of all the
cooperation, and collaboration processes require a reliable base of data, and knowledge, and
this base also depends on the decisions, and processes of cooperation, and collaboration that
may facilitate the production of data, and knowledge.
We notice one difference in particular between A, and B which is that ME, and MFPP are close
in theory, but they are very far apart in real MSP. Probably because the legal framework
dictates strong functional links between these two sectors; to the contrary, this situation in the
field is completely different. Indeed, this theoretical proximity is constrained by the gaps of
operational coordination and sharing data. In addition, the lack of common planning is one of
the main factors causing this distance between “theoretical”, and “real” MSP