The cultural consensus model is based on the premise that variation in knowledge among individuals can be attributed to cultural differentials, and allows us to test for differences in responses for subcultures of knowledge within the Delphi panel based on professional affiliation: biologists and nonbiologists.
Throughout SEDEP, we focused on two main stakeholder groups: biologists and nonbiologists.
Nonbiologists, mostly comprised of fishing interests, focused on the economic and social implications of MPA's on the fishing industry and their communities, while the biologists generally focused on socioeconomic effects relating to stock conditions and ecosystem services.
In general, both cultural subgroups consistently displayed majority support regarding the net directional influence of individual effects although conclusions about the level of influence of these effects specific to the Amendment 14 MPA's were mixed with nonbiologists concluding that the potential economic and social consequences of MPA's to be more influential than biologists.
Nonbiologists explicitly took into account the small size of the proposed MPA's and generally merged to the consensus point that the overall financial impact, especially outside of the short term on fishermen and their communities, would be minimal.
Given the small sample sizes, nonparametric estimators were used in conjunction with PCM to investigate cultural differences among biologists and nonbiologists regarding individual MPA options.
The differences in impact scores arose from one biologist and two nonbiologists forecasting larger negative impacts realized by the fishing sector for Alternative 1 relative to Alternative 2.
That searing flames could help rescue a tiny band of animals from extinction may not seem terribly logical to nonbiologists
, especially those of us raised to equate big fires with the ecology of hell.