The first step is to form a core team composed of two structured-decision-making (SDM) coaches with skills in decision analysis and workshop facilitation along with one authority representing each protected area in the transboundary region. In consultation with park directors, one primary contact person is identified as having the necessary knowledge and time availability to participate in the entire decision process. The core team then holds a series of conference calls or meetings to identify a joint transboundary management question. Between calls, the core team reviews any available management plans from the two respective protected areas and a guidance document on transboundary cooperation between the parks to identify shared management topics. The core team then formulates a concise 1-sentence transboundary conservation question, which summarizes the focal decision, associated objectives, and time-horizon: “Over the next 10 years, how can the managers of Triglav National Park and Julian Prealps Nature Park allocate their resources to best satisfy all stakeholders concerned about brown bears in the Julian Alps?”

The first step is to identify stakeholder groups that should be considered when addressing the transboundary management question, including but not limited to the protected area staffs themselves. Six stakeholder groups were identified: nature conservation, agriculture, forestry, tourism, research, and local communities and municipalities. The core team then identifies up to 8 stakeholder representatives to include in the decision-analytic process. Each participating park authority then independently identifies 2-5 concerns and/or wishes from the perspective of each stakeholder group. Next, each core team converts the wishes and concerns into statements of objectives, and ultimate objectives are then distinguished from intermediate objectives that are only means to achieve ultimate objectives. A reduced set of three ultimate, quantifiable objectives are then identified to represent the main trade-offs and concerns across stakeholder groups while serving as measures of success for the focal transboundary conservation efforts. Focusing on a smaller number of ultimate objectives ensures feasibility and understandability for conducting the participatory decision analysis.

Working with the coaches, the park authorities identify a list of factors that have strong potential influence on the ultimate objectives and that are at least partly beyond the control of park staff. They then narrow down the external factors to a focal set that has a high degree uncertainty about their magnitude and effects on the ultimate objectives. Next, park authorities develop two alternative scenarios representing possible future trajectories for the external factors. A status quo scenario assumes that system dynamics (i.e., external factors along with their impacts and effectiveness of management activities for achieving objectives) will follow the most likely future trajectory. An optimistic scenario assumes that system dynamics are more favorable than expected for achieving the objectives. To keep the participatory decision analysis feasible, additional scenarios (e.g., pessimistic) may be documented for future analyses. After listing possible management activities, park authorities independently assign a percent allocation toward each activity in a way they believe will most likely achieve the objectives under each scenario for external factors.

Through workshops and conference calls, the core team develops a concise influence diagram that represents the key hypothesized relationships between the possible actions, external factors, and ultimate objectives. The coaches use this diagram as a conceptual basis when developing a Bayesian decision network, which allows for assigning stakeholder values and probabilities within the influence diagram. The Bayesian decision network therefore provides a visualization of the quantitative decision model. Within another workshop setting that includes the 8 representative stakeholders and up to 2 experts, the coaches ask each participant to individually provide numerical inputs for the model. There are two types of questions for the elicitation on a scale from 0 to 100%: 1) percent chance that a given external factor or ultimate objective will follow a particular trajectory while accounting other external factors and allocation options; 2) percent satisfaction with each possible combination of outcomes for the three ultimate objectives. During a following discussion, stakeholders agree on set of predictions and satisfaction scores to represent the averages among participants in the decision analysis.

The recommended allocation option is defined as the one with the greater expected stakeholder satisfaction, which is calculated based on inputs and structure of the Bayesian decision network. Recognizing uncertainties about elicited predictions and satisfaction levels, analysts conduct a sensitivity analysis explore whether the recommended allocation changes depending on the set of inputs used for the analysis. In particular, they run the analysis twice: once using the averaged inputs and then a second time based only the input (from the individual) for each variable that is most favorable for the opposing allocation option (i.e., the option with the lower expected satisfaction under the averaged inputs). If the recommendation changes following the second model run, then the analysts use results from both model runs to calculate the expected value of perfect information. This calculation represents the expected percent increase in satisfaction if the uncertainties about the variables and relationships in the model are fully resolved through further research. This provides a way to check the robustness of the recommended allocation to uncertainty and can lead to recommendations for further research to improve decision-making.

Many of the Fin Fighters are non-scientists and do not have backgrounds in biology or conservation. We have therefore created a system of collaboration with scientists to produce a tangible and reasoned method of generating action for species conservation. We established a committee of shark scientists to share skills and bring new technology to shark conservation, and specifically to the Moroccan studies. Working with scientists to collect data for their studies as well as for our own reports, ensures a circular needs based relationship: Scientists come to us with data requirements, we fill these by collecting data, which is then used in their scientific research, and the results are made available for Fin Fighters to use in pushing practical conservation or working to implement enforcement/policy. In this way we are all working collectively to ensure our needs are met and any papers published credit Fin Fighters as an institution for data collection, which adds to our credibility.

During the planning phase extensive formative research informs the Social Marketing, as well as the Technical Assistance components of a campaign. Research sets the baselines that allow the assessment of social and conservation impacts following a campaign. Qualitative research (e.g. focus groups, observation, in-depth interviews) is geared towards understanding target audience opinions, feelings, concerns and perceived benefits of current as well as desired management practices. Qualitative research is about creating a casual conversation with and between participants to establish a comfortable relationship, and to reveal underlying information unobtainable through quantitative research. Quantitative research surveys capture specific answers to specific questions to describe demography, identify media preferences, and assess the current state of knowledge, attitude, communication and readiness of target audiences regarding a certain behavior change. Both components ultimately inform campaign decisions like objectives, respective activities, materials, and messages for both Social Marketing and Technical Assistance.

The results of the project have been shared with Belize’s Ministry of Forest, Fisheries and Sustainable Development (including Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute and National Climate Change Office) and the Ministry of Tourism to facilitate replication, and uptake of the process and recommendations. The results have also been shared with local communities, local NGOs, land developers and the private tourism sector to build capacity, awareness and implementation of greener landscape practices within the coastal zone.

From the beginning of creation of the ICCA, the local community engaged in the monitoring of quality and quantity of fish catch, socio-economic change and ecosystem health.