You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage:

A resilience-based approach for comparing expert preferences across two

large-scale coastal management programs
Jongseong Ryu a, *, Thomas M. Leschine a, Jungho Nam b, Won Keun Chang b, Karen Dyson a
School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105-6715, USA
Korea Maritime Institute, 1652 Sangam-dong, Seoul 121-270, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This report proposes a method for assessing resilience-building components in coastal socialeecological
Received 27 August 2009 systems. Using the proposed model, the preferences of experts in Masan Bay (South Korea) and Puget
Received in revised form Sound (USA) are compared. A total of 30 management objectives were determined and used to build
16 July 2010
a hierarchic tree designed using the principles of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Surveys were
Accepted 20 August 2010
Available online 9 September 2010
performed with 35 Puget Sound experts using face-to-face interviews and with 28 Masan Bay experts by
mail. The results demonstrate that the legal objective, which enables legislation, was the highest
preferred component in both regions. The knowledge translation variable was also given a high pref-
erence score in both regions. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the Puget Sound experts
Coastal management significantly favored attention to education, habitat restoration and species protection objectives in
Prioritization comparison to the Masan Bay experts. The Masan Bay experts placed greater emphasis on legislation and
Multiple criteria decision analysis the type of institutional design than did the Puget Sound experts. Using cluster analysis, four distinct
Analytic hierarchy process groups of respondents were independently identified in Puget Sound and three groups were identified in
Masan Bay. One unique subgroup in the Puget Sound experts group, which was characterized by its high
preferences for habitat restoration and species protection, was not observed in Masan Bay. Demographic
variables (length of career and role in coastal issue) failed to account for the differences in groupings and
preferences in either region, except for the variable ‘favoring information source’ in the Puget Sound
group. This finding implies that the demographic information was not related to differences in group
opinions in both regions. The analysis framework presented here was effective in identifying expert
preferences regarding the overall structure and emphasis in coastal management programs. Thus, this
framework can be applied towards coastal policy development.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction change and the current global economic crisis, stem from complex
underlying interdependencies, which have made it difficult to deal
Coastal areas are attractive regions for living, recreation and with environmental problems using steady-state approaches (Folke
economic activity. Approximately one third of the United States’ et al., 2005). It is now evident that environmental policies must
gross domestic product (about $4.5 trillion) is generated within shift from aiming to control ecosystems towards a new paradigm of
coastal watershed areas (US COP, 2004). Human populations are supporting sustainable development (Costanza et al., 2000).
concentrated along coasts, and consequently, coastal ecosystems Emerging theories and approaches in environmental manage-
are some of the most impacted and altered worldwide (Adger et al., ment have stressed the importance of assessing and strengthening
2005). Additionally, human societies and globally linked economies resilience (Gibbs, 2009). Two aspects of resilience are considered
heavily rely on ecosystem services and support (MA, 2005). Given valuable to this new paradigm. The first is the capacity to absorb
the concentration of human activities in coastal zones, coastal shocks while maintaining system functions. This aspect has been
environmental issues are too complex to be addressed by existing the focus in many ecological and social studies. The second
environmental management approaches that focus on single issues concerns the capacity for renewal, re-organization and develop-
or resources. Furthermore, many global issues, such as climate ment, should the system collapse, and although this aspect has
been less studied, it is essential for socialeecological sustainability
(Gunderson, 2003). The capacity to adapt and shape change is an
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 253 303 2203; fax: þ1 206 543 1417. important component of resilience in a socialeecological system.
E-mail addresses:, (J. Ryu). Scientific studies and policies addressing sustainability are needed

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101 93

to clarify the complex feedbacks between the interlinked social and preferences and the differences between the two regions are also
ecological systems and their capacity for resilience. Additionally it discussed.
is important to account for interactions across spatial and temporal
scales that secure the capacity to reorganize in the face of change 2. Geographical settings
(Berkes et al., 2003; Folke et al., 2005). Resilience is essential when
building an adaptive governance system to deal with ecosystem The geography and history of environmental management in
complexity and when delivering ecosystem services and resources Masan Bay and Puget Sound are briefly introduced in Fig. 1, which
for societal development (Gunderson, 1999; Adger et al., 2005). serves to justify the comparability of the two regions in this study.
In practice, limited budgets restrain the number of resilience-
building projects that can be addressed simultaneously (Leach and 2.1. Masan Bay
Pelkey, 2001). When a manager makes a resource allocation deci-
sion through a transparent, scientific process, it should in theory be Masan Bay is a small, semi-enclosed bay located on the southern
supported by multiple stakeholders. Furthermore, increasing coast of South Korea. The bay area covers an area of 70.9 km2, and it
transparency enhances the legitimacy of the process for mediation is 8.5 km long and measures 5 km across at its widest part. The
between experts and decision makers, allowing science and tech- average tidal range is 1.3 m, and the bay has a low water-exchange
nology to be mobilized for sustainability (Cash et al., 2003). rate with the ocean in comparison to other nearby bays. In the
Managers introduce their own intuition, judgment, and common south, the bay is connected to the Jinhae Bay system (approxi-
sense in the decision-making process. Therefore, using a rational mately 637 km2 in area) which includes the Masan Bay and several
procedure can increase a manager’s confidence in decision-making, other small bays. Three cities surround Masan Bay, namely Masan-
allowing the management process to be more easily open to si, Changweon-si, and Jinhae-si. These three cities are highly
stakeholders (Low et al., 2003; Hajkowicz, 2008). This strategy may industrialized and had a combined population of 914,375 people as
reduce conflict among multiple stakeholders and increase the of 2005. The population density is 3167 persons per km2, which is
possibility of success in environmental management (Regan et al., 6.5 times the national average population density. The Masan Bay
2006; Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). watershed covers approximately 263 km2 and is 43% of the size of
This study employed surveys designed to determine the expert the three cities. The relatively small size of the watershed is due to
preferences regarding various resilience-building techniques in its steep slope towards the coast. Sixteen small streams quickly
two socialeecological systems. The study tested the hypothesis that flow into the bay due to this steep slope, supplying an average of
resilience-focused management could be an essential component 660,000 tons of freshwater daily.
of successful environmental management. The term “experts” is Two major national industrial districts (Masan Free Trade Zone
used here to refer to the group of scientists and managers inter- and Changweon National Industrial Complex) and one large-scale
viewed for this study who are experts on the issues and context of commercial harbor (Masan Harbor) are located around the Masan
coastal management programs. The rationale for performing Bay. These two large industrial districts were established on
surveys is that the decision makers would at some point introduce reclaimed lands that were originally coastal wetlands and waters
their own intuition, judgment, or common-sense arguments into during the 1970s and 1980s. More than 60,000 companies operate
their decision-making process rather than depending on a rational within the watershed, which constitutes nearly 90% of the economy
procedure (Low et al., 2003; Hajkowicz, 2008). of the three cities. Given its small, concentrated socio-geographical
This study uses multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to setting, the Masan Bay was quickly and heavily polluted by a variety
evaluate the relative importance of multiple objectives to of wastes, including untreated municipal and industrial sewage. As
a diverse group of experts. MCDA is commonly used to provide a result, Gapo Beach was permanently closed in 1975, and shellfish
a transparent, structured, rigorous and objective evaluation of harvesting around Masan Bay has been prohibited since 1979. In
multiple criteria (Hajkowicz, 2008). Several studies have indicated 1982, the Korean government designated the Masan Bay as
the importance of including stakeholder preferences in environ- a ‘Special Management Area of Coastal Pollution’. Since then, most
mental management (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008); however, governmental activities have combated the pollution in the bay by
most MCDA studies have focused on the general public, and few focusing on sewage treatment and dredging contaminated sedi-
have focused on the opinions of scientific experts. The novelty of ments (Lee, 1998). About 2 million cubic meters of contaminated
this study lies in targeting experts in the area of sustainable bottom sediments were dredged from the bay from 1990 to 1994
coastal management. (Masan-si, 1994). In total, 36 million USD has been invested in this
This study has two goals. The first goal is to provide a decision dredging effort. Through similar concentrated efforts by the
model when choosing between different approaches for estab- government, the sewage treatment rate in point source reached
lishing resilience in coastal socialeecological systems. The second over 97.1% as of 2005. However, the water quality of Masan Bay was
is to compare expert preferences based on the proposed decision the worst among Korean bays in 2006, which is evident that both of
model between two coastal regions (Masan Bay vs. Puget Sound). these efforts failed to improve its water quality. Only 43% of
These two regions were selected because they have a similar freshwater inputs from streams (283,000 out of 660,000 tons per
history of environmental management and a comparable social day), including surface runoff, are now treated prior to flowing into
context, since there is a strong governmental and public commit- the bay (MLTM, 2008). The Korean government has begun to
ment to restoring the coastal ecosystems in both areas (Fig. 1). recognize the need for an integrated coastal management scheme
There are also well acknowledged cultural and institutional that considers various pollutant inputs and stakeholders partici-
differences between South Korea and the United States. pation in terms of their combined effect on the environmental
Researchers do not often consider how cultural and institutional health of the bay. Consequently, in 2005, the local and central
differences are expressed through views on environmental governments reached an agreement to adopt a Total Maximum
management, and quantitative cross-cultural comparisons are even Daily Load (TMDL) of pollutants approach (focusing on nitrogen) in
rarer. In this study, the collective opinions of experts from these order to regulate the chemical oxygen demand. In the same year,
two countries were quantitatively analyzed. The goal of the study the Masan Bay Partnership was created to encourage the input and
was to compare the overall preferences and response patterns cooperation of diverse stakeholders in the TMDL program. Imple-
using survey questionnaires. The implications of the overall mentation of the TMDL program began in 2007.
94 J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101

Fig. 1. Geography and environmental history of Masan Bay and Puget Sound. Note the difference in scale in the inserted maps. The abbreviations used stand for the following. CWA:
Clean Water Act; ESA: Endangered Species Act; MMPA: Marine Mammal Protection Act; SMA: Special Management Area; TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load; USD: US Dollars; WQ:
water quality.

2.2. Puget Sound freshwater inflow is approximately 3.4 billion tons daily, and the
major sources of freshwater are the Skagit and Snohomish Rivers.
Puget Sound is an estuary containing multiple semi-enclosed The shorelines and estuaries along the eastern side of Puget Sound
glacial fjords, bays, and islands in Washington State in the United provide excellent harbors, especially Elliott Bay in Seattle and
States. It extends from the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca Commencement Bay in Tacoma. The flatlands in the estuaries
in the north to Olympia (the capital of Washington State) in the adjacent to these bays provide extensive space for industrial and
south. The Puget Sound basin covers approximately 41,422 km2 of agricultural development. These uplands were originally extensive
watershed area and encloses 2330 km2 of water. The sound has an estuarine wetlands and mudflats that were filled in during the early
average depth of 62.5 m, nearly 3700 km of shoreline, and more 1900s. At least 76% of the wetlands around Puget Sound have been
than 200 islands (Gustafson et al., 2000). The tidal range is 2.4 m at eliminated, particularly in urbanized estuaries. Substantial losses of
the northern end of the Sound and 4.6 m at its southern end. The mudflats and beaches have also occurred in the deltas of these
J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101 95

estuaries (Gustafson et al., 2000). This highly developed area con- 2. Perform a criteria-oriented pairwise comparison, which is
tained within the King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap Counties has based on a mail/face-to-face survey, typically using a 9-point
become the urban and population center of the Puget Sound region. scale. This study used the face-to-face method (Puget Sound)
The combined population of these four counties was over 3.6 and mail method (Masan Bay) to interview a total of 63 experts
million residents as of 2008 (PSRC, 2008a). These four counties (35 in Puget Sound and 28 in Masan Bay).
forecast an increase to almost 5 million by 2040 (PSRC, 2008b). 3. Compute local priorities based on the respondents’ relative
Puget Sound was once considered to have a nearly inex- weights for the decision criteria and evaluate the consistency of
haustible resource base of timber, minerals, and fish. As the comparisons using the eigenvalue method (Saaty, 1988). To
economy grew, untreated sewage and toxic wastes routinely determine the maximum eigenvalue, positive reciprocal
began to be dumped into the Sound and its tributaries. Since 1972, matrices of judgment were constructed and algebraically
when the Clean Water Act (CWA) was introduced, progress has computed, according to the methods of Saaty (1988), using
been made towards controlling these wastes. The Puget Sound Microsoft EXCEL.
Water Quality Authority, first established in 1983 and broadened 4. Aggregate local priorities using an arithmetic mean. Forman
and clarified by 1985 amendments, developed the water quality and Peniwati (1998) have shown that the aggregation of indi-
management plan (Leschine, 1990). The Sound became part of the vidual priorities will satisfy the unanimity condition (Pareto
National Estuary Program in 1988 under Section 320 of the CWA. principle) with either an arithmetic or geometric mean.
Even though point source pollution is much better regulated
today, there are significant amounts of “legacy” pollution The AHP is capable of analyzing both management objectives
remaining in Puget Sound. Around the Sound, 972 companies and and alternatives, but this study did not consider management
government facilities currently hold water pollution permits alternatives. Consistency, a key component of the AHP, is based on
issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The list the largest eigenvalue obtained when solving the eigenvalue
includes about 300 sand and gravel mines, over 100 boatyards, equation in step 2. The consistency of the judgmental matrix can be
more than 60 dairies and commercial farms, five oil refineries, determined by a measure called the Consistency Ratio (CR ¼ CI/RI),
four paper mills and one of the nation’s largest aluminum where CI is the Consistency Index and RI is the Random Index. If the
smelters (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 18e22, 2002). CR of the matrix is high, then the preferences are not consistent,
Throughout Puget Sound, there remain concerns about the and thus they are not reliable. In general, a CR of 0.1 or less is
disposal of municipal and industrial wastes, although, in contrast considered to be acceptable. However, after validation of each
with the past, most wastes are now treated prior to being dis- individual’s internal consistency, responses in the 0.1e0.2 CR range
charged into the Sound. Surface runoff associated with the rapid may also be accepted (Wattage and Mardle, 2005). Therefore, the
increase in development that has occurred over the past several tier-2 analysis (see Section 3.2 for an explanation of the tiers)
decades is now seen as one of the top threats to Puget Sound (PSP, undertaken in the results section was completed with 33 (out of
2009). The Puget Sound Partnership was created by state legis- a total of 35) responses in Puget Sound and 26 (out of a total of 28)
lation in 2007. Under the aegis of this partnership, government responses in Masan Bay. For the tier-3 analysis, the number of
agencies, environmentalists, Indian tribes, businesses and other responses used in the analysis differed among the groups within
groups are working to restore the health of Puget Sound by which aggregate individual priorities were compared.
minimizing the environmental consequences of their actions.
3.2. Building decision models

3. Materials and methods The management objectives in this study were selected to
represent both the similarities and differences of the two regions. A
3.1. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) list of objectives was compiled by combining information from
preliminary manager interviews and a literature review. It was
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the most widely arranged into a hierarchical tree to build a decision model to
used methods in MCDA. It provides a framework for planning, evaluate expert preferences using AHP. This tree structure was then
priority setting and resource allocation (Saaty, 1988). It was reviewed independently by the two professors at the School of
developed by a business school professor, Thomas L. Saaty, in the Marine Affairs, University of Washington. The final decision model
early 1970s. AHP has been applied in a wide range of areas, for the survey is shown in Fig. 2.
including natural resources, to analyze preferences for manage- At the top of the tree is the overarching goal, which is the
ment objectives and alternatives. Its wide usage is likely due to the integrity and resilience of the socialeecological systems in the area.
simplicity relative to the analytical power. In this study, the AHP Under this overall goal, the model contains three levels or tiers.
technique is used to quantify an expert’s preference between Three tier-1 criteria are identified as essential to achieve the goal:
different management objectives for increasing resilience in 1) Legal/institutional structure, 2) Social infrastructure and 3)
a coastal socialeecological system. To accomplish this, a hierarchy Action.
of objectives is first developed, and then preference information is The legal/institutional structure includes two subcriteria (tier-
elicited based on a series of pairwise comparisons between the 2): 1) Enabling legislation and 2) Type of institution/agency.
objectives. A detailed description of AHP and its applications can be Legislation is further divided into two types of law (tier-3) that 1)
found in numerous articles (Leung et al., 1998; Ramanathan, 2001; Protect ecosystems (conserving law), and 2) Direct and regulate
Mardle et al., 2004; Wattage and Mardle, 2005). This study follows growth and development (developing law). Similarly, the institu-
the four main steps outlined by Mardle et al. (2004) for applying tion/agency criterion is further broken down into 1) Central control,
AHP: and 2) Polycentric, which refers to voluntary citizen organizations
in partnership with the government.
1. Develop a hierarchy of interrelated decision objectives The Social infrastructure category refers to components that
describing the problem and create a survey format. The process increase the resilience of social systems, such as social capital and
of building the hierarchical tree for this study will be detailed in social memory (Putnam, 2000; Folke et al., 2005). There are four
Section 3.2. main objectives under Social infrastructure: 1) Scientific research,
96 J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101

Elements of success of adaptive coastal management in Puget Sound and Masan Bay

Legal/institutional Social infrastructure Actions
(social capital & social memory)

a b a b c d
Legislation Institution/agency Cleanup & Habitat Species Sewage
removal restoration recovery and treatment
a Conserving a Central
law control
a b c d
b Scientific Educating actor Stakeholders Knowledge
b Developing Polycentric
research groups participating in translation
a a a Regular workshops
Natural Managers Planning only
b b b Participatory research
Social General public Implementation only
c c Boundary management
Interdisciplinary NGOs
c Both planning and
d implementation

Fig. 2. A decision model to evaluate the expert preferences regarding management objectives in two coastal areas (Masan Bay and Puget Sound). Each alphabetical character outside
each box symbolizes the objectives in Fig. 3.

2) Education, 3) Stakeholders participation and 4) Knowledge should be the relative importance of the given objectives to achieve
translation. Scientific research is further divided into three fields of the overarching goal, from the perspective of policy makers to
study: 1) Natural science, 2) Social science, and 3) Interdisciplinary allocate budgets and resources?” Scores were computed using paired
research. Education refers to efforts directed at four targets: comparisons among objectives of the same tier under the superior
1) Managers; 2) General public; 3) Non-governmental organiza- objective common to the group of lower-tier objectives. In total, 33
tions (NGOs); and 4) Elected officials. The stakeholders’ participa- pairwise comparisons were made to evaluate expert preferences
tion is further broken down into three components according to the between objectives using the 9-point AHP scale. In addition, the
extent of participation in different stages of a project: 1) Manage- following demographic information was collected: 1) number of
ment planning only; 2) Implementation only; and 3) Both planning years of experience; 2) role in coastal issues (scientist vs. manager, 3-
and implementation. Knowledge translation refers to the integra- point scale); and 3) personal preferences regarding information
tion of knowledge and systems to communicate and mediate sources (public values vs. scientific literature, 9-point scale).
among experts, stakeholders and policy makers. Knowledge
translation is categorized in three specified components: 1) Regular 3.3. Quantitative analysis
workshops; 2) Participatory research by multiple users; and 3)
Presence of a boundary organization. Workshops are used to A total of 63 people were surveyed, including 35 in Puget Sound
facilitate communication among experts, managers and decision and 28 in Masan Bay. The respondents included elite technical
makers. Participatory research refers to joint research performed representatives, scientists, and managers with science backgrounds.
by multiple users that encourages discussion between these groups All of the respondents were familiar with coastal management
and promotes understanding among them. A “boundary organi- programs due to their roles in these programs.
zation” is an organization created through legislation as part of an Aggregated priorities were calculated using the arithmetic mean
existing agency that acts as an intermediary between science and of the individual priorities, according to the recommendation by
policy (Cash et al., 2003) Forman and Peniwati (1998). One-way analysis of variance
The Actions category encompasses ongoing governmental (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean differences between the
projects to restore the Masan Bay and Puget Sound ecosystems. two regions. To classify the respondents according to their prefer-
There are four types of projects in this category: 1) Cleanup and ence patterns, a cluster analysis was performed using the Pearson
removal; 2) Habitat restoration; 3) Species recovery and protection; product-moment correlation similarity based on preference scores
and 4) Sewage treatment. Cleanup and removal projects include with no data transformation. Cluster analysis can identify groups of
dredging contaminated sediments and removing garbage and dis- respondents that prefer certain management objectives based on
carded fish nets. Habitat restoration involves removing dikes and the similarity of their relative scores. Once the groups were deter-
levees and restoring riverine and coastal habitats for salmon. Species mined, representative objectives were selected to characterize each
recovery and protection involves recovering endangered species, group using group statistics. A mean value >0.2 of the relative
such as Orca and Chinook (King) salmon and encouraging the preference score indicated a strong representative objective. To
recovery of shellfish and migratory birds. Eelgrass recovery is also determine the extent to which the background information
included in the species recovery category. Although some overlap collected could explain the differences in the clusters, one-way
exists between the habitat restoration and species protection cate- ANOVA tests and pairwise comparisons were performed. When the
gories, they were intentionally separated to reflect hypothesized ANOVA results indicated that the demographic group means
cultural distinctions between Korea and the United States. (number of years of experience, role in coastal issues, or preference
Based on this hierarchic decision model, all of the respondents of information sources) were significantly different each other (i.e.,
were requested to answer the question, “In your opinion, what p < 0.05), Fisher’s modified Least Significant Difference (LSD) test
J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101 97

was used to perform a post-hoc pairwise comparison among the Legislation. Knowledge translation and Sewage treatment were
clusters. The LSD test is the least stringent and most powerful also important to both regions. Experts from both regions placed
among the commonly used multiple pairwise comparison tests, lowest importance on actions involving Cleanup and dredging (0.05
and its use minimizes the chances of false positives (type I errors). in Puget Sound, 0.04 in Masan Bay). Among the tier-3 objectives,
both groups preferred a Polycentric objective over a Central insti-
4. Results tution objective. Additionally, experts from both regions gave
higher scores to Natural and Interdisciplinary sciences than Social
4.1. Comparison of aggregated priorities science and considered managers and politicians the most impor-
tant targets for education. Stakeholder participation in Both plan-
The management preferences of the coastal planners in the ning and implementation was preferred over the ‘Planning only’ or
study areas (Fig. 3) were aggregated priorities determined from the the ‘Implementation only’ objectives for both regions. In summary,
average of all the individual responses for each area across the there were similar response patterns in both regions for three of the
coastal management objectives shown in Fig. 2. The technical tier-2 objectives and five of the tier-3 objectives. Therefore, despite
experts in the two regions showed several significant differences in having several different preferences between the two regions, the
their preferences for management objectives, as elaborated below. two groups also had many similar preferences for coastal
The relative importance of tier-1 objectives can be inferred by management.
summing the tier-2 scores for each tier-1 objective (Fig. 3a). In
Puget Sound group, the Social infrastructure objectives (0.42) were 4.2. Analysis of response patterns
the highest concern, followed by Action objectives (0.34) and Legal/
institutional objectives (0.24). However, the Masan Bay experts had In order to classify groups of individuals according to their
a different order of managerial preferences. Their most important response patterns, a cluster analysis was performed. Respondents
management objectives were Legal/institutional (0.43), followed by who showed similar opinions were grouped into the same cluster.
Social infrastructure (0.35) and then Action (0.23). The mean values The 33 valid responses from the Puget Sound experts were grouped
between the two regions differed for Legal/institutional (p < 0.01) into four clusters, and the 26 responses from the Masan Bay experts
and Action objectives (p < 0.05), but not for Social infrastructure were classified into three clusters. The clustering was done using
objectives. These results indicate that experts in the two regions the similarity of the Pearson product-moment correlation, based on
have significantly different preferences for the broad coastal the relative importance scores for the tier-2 objectives (Fig. 4). Each
management objectives. resulting group was characterized by strong representative
There were even more dramatic differences in management components, which were defined as average preference scores of
preferences between the two regions in the tier-2 objectives. The over 0.2 for the group (Table 1).
preferences for five out of ten tier-2 objectives differed significantly In the Masan Bay group, three clusters were defined (Fig. 4).
between the two regions (Fig. 3). The Puget Sound experts accorded Cluster A included the 15% of respondents who showed an equally
more importance to Education (p < 0.05), Habitat restoration strong preference for Legislation and Institutions. Cluster B
(p < 0.01) and Species protection (p < 0.01) objectives than did the comprised 19% of respondents and was characterized by high
Masan Bay experts. The Masan Bay experts showed a higher scores in Research and Knowledge translation objectives under
proclivity for Legislation (p < 0.05) and Institutional (p < 0.05) Social infrastructure objective. Cluster C included the 65% of
objectives than did the Puget Sound experts. respondents who favored Stakeholder participation and reliance on
Legislation was the number one objective in both regions. For Sewage treatment.
example, the mean preference value was 0.27 in the Masan Bay In the Puget Sound group, Cluster A included the 24% of
group, implying that more than a quarter of total program effort respondents who exhibited a strong preference for Legislation.
should be invested into legislation. In addition, the second highest Cluster B included the 39% of respondents who favored Knowledge
value in the Masan Bay group was given to the Institutional translation. Cluster C included the 21% of respondents who showed
objective (0.16). Taken together, the Legal/institutional objective in a strong preference for Habitat restoration and Species protection
tier-1 is the most important component for coastal management in under Action objective. The remaining 15% of the respondents in
Masan Bay. In the Puget Sound group, the second highest prefer- Puget Sound formed Cluster D, which showed a particular prefer-
ence was for the Knowledge translation objective (0.15), which was ence for Sewage treatment relative to other clusters.
given a similar aggregated score in the Masan Bay group (0.12). In the Masan Bay group, three clusters were similar to the
Further comparisons between the two regions in the tier-3 clusters found for the Puget Sound group (A, B, D); however, Cluster
analysis provide more detail about the response patterns (Fig. 3b). C was unique to the Puget Sound group. Interestingly, the largest
There were significant differences between the two regions in proportion of Puget Sound respondents (13 out of 33) selected
seven of the seventeen tier-3 objectives. Under the Legislation Knowledge translation as their highest priority, but the largest
objectives (tier-2), the Puget Sound experts favored laws for regu- proportion of respondents from Masan Bay (17 out of 26) favored
lating and directing development (Developing law; p < 0.01). In Stakeholder participation and reliance on Sewage treatment.
contrast, the Masan Bay experts preferred laws that conserve and To understand the extent to which demographic components
protect endangered species and habitats (Conserving law; could explain the clustering, group averages of the respondents’
p < 0.01). The Puget Sound experts gave higher scores for educating demographic data were compared by ANOVA and the LSD test as
the general public, stakeholder participation in both the planning a post-hoc comparison. The demographic data included the number
and implementation stages, and holding regular workshops than of years of experience, role in coastal issues, and preference of
the Masan Bay experts (p < 0.05 in all three cases). On the other information sources. The ANOVA results showed that the preference
hand, the Masan Bay experts showed significantly higher prefer- of information sources was the only significantly different variable
ence for the “planning only” tier-3 option under stakeholder among the clusters of Puget Sound (p < 0.05). Subsequently, the LSD
participation and for “boundary management” under the Know- test reported a significant difference of group means between clus-
ledge translation objective (p < 0.01 in both cases). ters A and D, and clusters A and C. In the Puget Sound group, the
Regardless of the significant differences between the two number of years of experience and role in coastal issues was not
regions, experts from both areas placed the highest preference on related to the group clustering. For the Masan Bay experts, there was
98 J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101

Fig. 3. Comparison of overall relative importance scores between Masan Bay and Puget Sound. Comparison of scores for the a) tier-2 management objectives and b) tier-3
management objectives are shown. The number of samples in each comparison is displayed in parenthesis. Each alphabetical character represents the corresponding objective in
a hierarchical manner as shown in the legend. Significant differences in the relative preference scores between the two regions are denoted by *(p < 0.05) and **(p < 0.01) in the
legend, based on the ANOVA test. Relative preference (%) is calculated using the mean of the responses for the group.

no significant relationship between demographic data and clus- models, towards building socialeecological resilience in systems
tering. Therefore, it is unlikely that the demographic backgrounds of (Adger, 2000; Adger et al., 2005). The present study revealed that
the respondents impacted their preferences in this study. South Korea and the United States share preferences for resilience-
building components. Legislation, Knowledge translation and
5. Discussion Sewage treatment objectives received the highest scores from both
regions’ experts. Although these components are not necessarily
In the last few decades, scientists have had to confront the fact applicable to every country, adaptation of these resilience-building
that technologically-based environmental management cannot components could generally be valuable in coastal systems.
control the variability of complicated ecologicalesocial systems The aims of the present research were to quantify and compare
(Berkes et al., 2003). An alternative approach to this complexity is to expert preferences regarding coastal management in South Korea
transform preexisting management approaches, based on linear and the United States. One of the major differences between these
J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101 99

Fig. 4. Two dendrograms for clustering the respondents from Masan Bay and Puget Sound. The dendrograms were used to cluster the a) 26 respondents in Masan Bay and b) 33
respondents in Puget Sound by group average linking of the Pearson product-moment similarity based on the relative importance scores of the tier-2 objectives with no data

two countries that emerged in this study was the relative impor- in comparison to the Masan Bay experts, who assigned lower scores
tance given to legal concerns. The strong inclination to favor to these activities. This difference may have resulted from the long
legislation in Masan Bay may be due to the lack of robust legislation history of salmon restoration efforts in Puget Sound over the past
for coastal management in South Korea (Hong, 1995). Moreover, the few decades, whereas concern for the protection of individual
two regions showed opposite preferences for conservation and marine species is generally absent in South Korea. In addition, Orcas
development laws. This discrepancy likely reflects difference in the and Chinook salmon have long been regarded as iconic species that
social context of the two regions. Masan Bay has a long history of have been protected under the ESA and MMPA in Puget Sound. These
coastal development, and environmentally-friendly legal institu- environmental laws protect diverse habitats for species of social
tions have only recently begun to emerge to restore the bay. As importance, and as a result marine environments for these species
a result, Korean culture seems to rely more heavily on laws that have been protected in Puget Sound. The Puget Sound ecosystem is
encourage conservation rather than laws that restrict development better off now than it was in the 1970s. In contrast, the Masan Bay
for environmental protection. On the other hand, the Puget Sound respondents are less concerned about species and habitat issues,
experts favored laws focusing on development over conservation. which have received less attention than pollution itself.
Coastal areas in the United States are protected by several conser- Interestingly, the Puget Sound respondents assigned more
vation-based Acts, including the CWA, the Endangered Species Act importance to education and had a stronger preference for species
(ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which were and habitat protection. This tendency might reflect a more bottom-
all passed in the early 1970s. The Puget Sound respondents seemed up viewpoint in Puget Sound and a more top-down viewpoint in
to consider development management laws, such as the federal Masan Bay. The United States is accustomed to working closely with
Coastal Zone Management Act and the state’s Shoreline Manage- a wider range of stakeholders in management processes. On the
ment Act, to be the ones with the greatest relevance to current other hand, the South Korean coastal management is generally
environmental concerns. driven by the government, which unintentionally limits stake-
The cluster analysis results indicated another major difference holder participation in the early stage of the management process.
between the two cultures, since Cluster C was unique to Puget The in-person research interviews included the AHP-based
Sound. In Puget Sound, 21% of the experts (Cluster C) underscored survey and a follow up semi-structured interview. Taken together,
the importance of habitat restoration and species protection efforts these interviews revealed some interesting results. First, the

Table 1
Classification of tier-2 management objectives based on the average preference of responses for the cluster.

Cluster Strong (>0.2) Intermediate (0.2e0.1) Weak (<0.1) N (%)

Puget Sound
A Legislation Institution Others 8 (24)
B Translation Stakeholders, Education, Others 13 (38)
Research, Legislation
C Species, Habitat Research, Education, Sewage Others 7 (21)
D Sewage Cleanup, Habitat, Species Others 5 (15)
Masan Bay
A Legislation, Institution Sewage Others 4 (15)
B Research, Translation Legislation Others 5 (19)
C Stakeholders, Sewage Translation, Research Others 17 (65)
100 J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101

development of quantitative data on the attitudes of expert groups Knowledge translation, Sewage treatment), as well as one group
is innovative in marine and coastal management. Second, there are favoring habitat and species protection that was only identified in
advantages in using personal surveys to obtain useful information. Puget Sound.
The concerns noted by Leung et al. (1998) over vital interactions This study joins a growing body of research that addresses
between the participants being lost when using mailed surveys building socialeecological resilience in a multi-disciplinary
did not arise in this study. Qualitative information was also analytical framework. Such a framework of analysis can offer useful
gathered during the interview to complement and help interpret information to the management process, potentially assisting in
the AHP survey data, including the respondent’s main role in policy-making. Finally, linking efforts across disciplines can
supporting the coastal management. Third, the development of enhance the quality of coastal management despite the complexity
links in ideas between groups and between sectors is a particu- and uncertainty of the ecological systems.
larly interesting strength of the face-to-face surveys. The biases of
the interest groups are made more explicit during the interview.
Overall, the interviewees felt that the relevance of the survey was
very high. All those who participated showed enthusiasm about
The authors wish to express sincere appreciation to four anon-
the aims of the survey and the research, and showed an interest in
seeing the results and participating in future activities related to ymous reviewers for their valuable reviews, and the Washington
Sea Grant (New Models for Solving Future Policy and Management
this study.
Challenges in the Nearshore and Estuarine Environment) and the
The decision model presented in this study is just one applica-
Korean Ministry of Land, Transportation and Marine Affairs
tion of the presently employed approach. The management objec-
(Establishing Total Pollution Load Management System (TPLMS) in
tives included in this model might not represent all possible
Masan Bay of Korea, 2007) for research funding. We especially
influences on the resilience and integrity of the socialeecological
thank Professors E. Miles, D. Fluharty and T. Klinger (School of
system in the two regions. For example, there are jurisdictional
Marine Affairs, University of Washington) for useful discussions on
issues between local and state governments in Puget Sound, which
the ideas presented in this paper. We also wish to thank all the
were not reflected in the ‘type of institution’ objective as we
participants who were surveyed in this study in Masan Bay and
defined it. A few respondents pointed out that ambiguity in some
Puget Sound.
objectives made their judgments more difficult. For example,
habitat restoration and species protection could not be clearly
distinguished in the view of some respondents. One respondent felt References
that the tier-1 objectives were too interrelated for him to assign
ratings of relative importance. Our data analysis and interpretation Adger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in
have drawn on the respondents’ comments and feedback obtained Human Geography 24 (3), 347e364.
Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carperter, S.R., Rockstrom, J., 2005. Sociale
during the interview. However, it was necessary to maintain the ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309, 1036e1039.
same hierarchical structure throughout the survey for reliable Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003. Introduction. In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C.
comparisons to be made between the two regions. An advantage of (Eds.), Navigating SocialeEcological Systems: Building Resilience for
Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1e29.
AHP is that additional objectives may easily be added to the model Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jager, J.,
without changing the basic principles of estimation and the Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development.
calculation procedures, which facilitates future studies that may Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 100, 8086e8091.
provide additional comparative results. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., Folke, C., Hawken, P., Holling, C.S., McMichael, T.,
Pimentel, D., Rapport, D.J., 2000. Managing our environmental portfolio.
6. Conclusions BioScience 50, 149e155.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of sociale
ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 441e473.
Determining the relative importance of management objectives Forman, E., Peniwati, K., 1998. Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with
is essential for successful management for several reasons. First, the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 108,
preferences based on existing information are a powerful means for
Gibbs, M.T., 2009. Resilience: what is it and what does it mean for marine policy-
evaluating the alignment of current policies with what needs to be makers? Marine Policy 33, 322e331.
done in order to establish more sustainable coastal areas. Second, Gunderson, L.H., 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management: antidotes
determining relative priorities is important for developing appro- for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3 (1), 7. Available at: http://www.
priate strategies, since there are multiple, often conflicting, objec- Gunderson, L.H., 2003. Adaptive dancing: interactions between social resilience and
tives in coastal management. Finally, this study highlights the ecological crises. In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating Sociale
different viewpoints of experts in two regions in the prioritization Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 33e52.
of coastal management. Gustafson, R.G., Lenarz, W.H., McCain, B.B., Schmitt, C.C., Grant, W.S., Builder, T.L.,
The analysis presented in this paper does not require complex Methot, R.D., 2000. Status Review of Pacific Hake, Pacific Cod, and Walleye
models and assumptions. The method used here is effective in Pollock from Puget Sound. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo, Washington, U.S.,
NMFS-NWFSC-44, 275 pp.
revealing expert preferences and can be used in policy develop- Hajkowicz, S.A., 2008. Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions.
ment. In particular, it could help policy makers have confidence in Journal of Environmental Management 88, 607e614.
their decisions, and create credibility and legitimacy from various Hong, S.-Y., 1995. Marine policy in the Republic of Korea. Marine Policy 19, 97e113.
Leach, W.D., Pelkey, N.W., 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: a review of
stakeholders. the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
In this cross-cultural comparison, we found both similar and 127, 378e385.
differing responses between the two regions. The results suggest Lee, J., 1998. Policy issues and management framework of Chinhae bay, Republic of
Korea. Ocean and Coastal Management 38, 161e178.
that experts in both regions strongly perceive the importance of
Leschine, T.M., 1990. Setting the agenda for estuarine water quality management:
Social infrastructures, which are being underinvested in the current lessons from Puget Sound. Ocean and Shoreline Management 13, 295e313.
coastal management of both countries. Improvement of Social Leung, P., Muraoka, J., Nakamoto, S.T., Pooley, S., 1998. Evaluating fisheries
infrastructures is a strong candidate for building resilience in social management options in Hawaii using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Fish-
eries Research 36, 171e183.
systems. Our cluster analysis revealed three expert subgroups in Low, B., Ostrom, E., Simon, C., Wilson, J., 2003. Redundancy and diversity: do they
the both regions characterized by similar preferences (Legislation, influence optimal management? In: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.),
J. Ryu et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 92e101 101

Navigating Socialeecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), 2008b. Vision 2040: final environmental
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 83e114. impact statement. Available at:
Mardle, S., Pascoe, S., Herrero, I., 2004. Management objective importance in fish- index.htm.
eries: an evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Management 33, 1e11. Community. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Masan-si, 1994. Monitoring of Masan Bay during sediments dredging, (1990e1994). Ramanathan, R., 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for envi-
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005. Synthesis. Island Press, Wash- ronmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63, 27e35.
ingtonDC. Available at: Regan, H.M., Colyvan, M., Markovchick-Nicholls, L., 2006. A formal model for
Ministry of Land, Transportation and Marine affairs (MLTM), 2008. Basic plan for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Envi-
coastal TMDL in Masan Bay, a special management area. ronmental Management 80, 167e176.
Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine Saaty, T.L., 1988. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eta
spatial planning process. Marine Policy 32, 816e822. Services Ltd., Suffolk, UK.
Puget Sound Partnership (PSP), 2009. Puget sound action agenda, updated may US Commission on Ocean Policy (US COP), 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
27th 2009. Available at: Century (Final report, Washington DC).
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), 2008a. Puget Sound trends: population of Wattage, P., Mardle, S., 2005. Stakeholder preferences towards conservation versus
cities and towns. Available at: development for a wetland in Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management
d3oct08.pdf. 77, 122e132.