Normally, three rounds with the expert panel are used and this too was the case in our study (Powell 2003; Williams & Webb 1994). Each round consisted of the generation and analysis of the data, followed by development of the material and response format to be shared with the panel in the next round. All response forms and letters were pilot tested (Jairath & Weinstein 1994; Keeney et al. 2001) with English and Spanish speakers. After each round, we shared all of the ideas generated by the panel with all panel members.Next, panel members were asked to rate the 12 topic categories that emerged during the first round. Thirty three (33) questionnaires were sent and received, resulting in a response rate of 100 per cent for this round. The purpose of this round was to prioritize the topic categories, using each expert’s assigned score to each category. Experts were instructed to organize categories in order of priority, and then asked to distribute 100 points among the 12 categories. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2005), to facilitate the analysis of quantitative data, the median, range, mean, and standard deviation (St. Dev.) were calculated for each category based upon the scores given by the panel members (Table 5).In the third and final round—using a form that included mean, median, standard deviations, and range of each category by all panel members—each expert was given the opportunity to re-rate the categories and provide feedback on any changes made. The purpose of this concluding round was to finalize the prioritization of topic categories to include in a protected area co-management capacity building program, while moving toward consensus. Therefore, this final round provided an opportunity to re-assess initial ratings from the second step in light of knowing how the entire panel rated the 12 topic categories. Experts also were encouraged to include comments about topics that were overlooked in previous rounds, information to help us clarify the contents of each category, or allow items not thought about in earlier rounds to be incorporated in co-management capacity building programs.Thirty out of the 33 response forms were returned from round three (91 per cent response rate). As shown on Table Five, the reduction in standard deviation for ALL topic categories represents a movement towards greater consensus among experts in terms of the relative importance of each topic category. The greatest change among the panel members was with the topic category on ‘Understanding the Co-management Idea’, while the least change occurred with ‘Monitoring and Evaluating Co-management’.Table 5. Rank, Median, Mean, and Standard Deviations of Scores Assigned by Panel Members During Rounds Two and Three.Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building programUSING THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE TO IDENTIFY TOPICS FOR APROTECTED AREA CO-MANAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDINGPROGRAMS. De Urioste-Stonei, W.J. McLaughlinii and N. Sanyaliii1. AbstractCo-management and co-administration are increasingly being promoted as protected area governance tools to encourage local involvement in protected area management in the Mesoamerican region. This increase has exposed the need to strengthen co-management capacities of institutions and organizations. We contend that creating capacity building programs in co-management should reflect the wisdom of experts and practicing co-managers from around the world. This study used the Delphi Technique and the Internet to assemble information from such experts. The purpose of thisstudy was to better understand co-management capacity building needs. The panel of experts was comprised of 30 professionals, with vast experience on co-management in developing countries. Three rounds of questionnaires were sent to the experts. Twelve topic categories were identified and rated in terms of their importance. Power sharing, negotiatingco-management agreements, financing co-management, and understanding the co-management idea showed to be the most important categories. Scoring of final topic categories were analyzed using the Wilcoxon, Median, and Kruskall-Wallis non-parametric statistical tests. These results are being used to refine the development of a dynamic resource web-based database to support co-management capacity building programs. Results also are 1Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building programinforming the development, implementation, and evaluation of a co-administration capacity building program in Guatemala.2. Co-Management and Capacity BuildingFor many years, within protected areas around the world, top-downapproaches to management and ‘Western’ ideas of conservation have been promoted and in some cases imposed. This is in spite of the factthat many of the protected areas where these were applied were inhabited for centuries by Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. These protected area management approaches and accompanying foreign ideas of conservation have often caused adverse effects on the livelihoods and food security of local people living within and around protected areas (Berkes 1997; Borrini-Feyerabend, Pimbert, Farvar, Kothari, & Renard 2004; Wakeford & Pimbert 2004). As a result of this and other pressures, protected area managers in Latin America started noticing numerous differences between local populations and development agencies due to divergence in land use paradigms and livelihood goals. As a consequence of these differences, conflicts emerged and threats to the integrity of protectedareas (PAs) surfaced (Pimbert & Pretty 1997; Wakeford & Pimbert 2004).As a result of these ongoing conflicts alternative approaches to conservation and management of PAs, which include local populations2Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building programand their values and needs, continue to be tried. Co-management—also referred to as collaborative management, co-administration, partnership, joint management, and participatory management—emerged as one of the promising alternatives to promote conservationwhile ensuring human development (Berkes 1997; Borrini-Feyerabend1996; Pimbert & Pretty 1997; Wakeford & Pimbert 2004). At the 1980 World Conservation Strategy convention, collaborative management approaches first appeared in the field of international