User Assessment of Coastal DSS
439
decision-makers rather than GIS experts per se. One hundred and fifty questionnaires
were mailed to coastal decision-makers in April 1994. Forty-four questionnaires were
returned completed (29% response rate). Phase II was administered by mail in March
1995 to 83 coastal decision makers comprising all 44 respondents from Phase I and an
additional 39 subjects. Twenty-four participants returned completed questionnaires
(29% response rate) of which 14 had completed Phase I.
Respondents in both phases exhibited a similar professional profile in terms of
geographical range, organisational representation, responsibilities and professional
disciplines. Almost half of the respondents came from British Columbia, with the
remainder from eastern Canada, the United States, Europe and South Africa.
Organisations represented were primarily provincial/state, and federal governments.
Other organisations represented comprised regional governments, independent
commissions, universities and consulting firms. Most respondents were at that time
engaged in planning and regulatory work or research primarily focused on providing
scientific information. Respondents worked in a wide range of fields related to coastal
management with primary emphasis on ecology/environment, and comprehensive
resource and land use planning. In addition, sectors such as aquaculture, conservation,
tourism, navigation, geology and geomatics were represented. GIS experience of Phase
I participants ranged from none (20%) to post-secondary education (14%).
The following sections report on the results of the questionnaires. They are
presented according to the components of Coastal SDSS, namely decision making,
analysis and data. General characteristics of coastal management relating to these
components are first described followed by their relevance to GIS and SDSS including
strengths and weaknesses.
The last section deals with method of system
implementation.
Decision Making
Prior to exploring the potential application of SDSS to coastal decision making, it was
necessary to characterise the decision-making context particularly the goals of coastal
management, the general process followed and the participants.
The predominant impetus for coastal management revealed by the respondents
is the occurrence of environmental impact interactions. These are addressed through
the establishment of protected areas, use strategies and activity siting. Coastal
management initiatives described involved a multitude of sector interests dominated by
commercial fisheries, and recreation and tourism. Coastal management is generally
approached by generating and evaluating alternative strategies by a group of decisionmakers. Within the general process, there were various tasks identified. Responses
were distilled into ten tasks comprising:
Define problem
Establish process
Collect data
Analyse/assess data
1)
2)
3)
4)
439
decision-makers rather than GIS experts per se. One hundred and fifty questionnaires
were mailed to coastal decision-makers in April 1994. Forty-four questionnaires were
returned completed (29% response rate). Phase II was administered by mail in March
1995 to 83 coastal decision makers comprising all 44 respondents from Phase I and an
additional 39 subjects. Twenty-four participants returned completed questionnaires
(29% response rate) of which 14 had completed Phase I.
Respondents in both phases exhibited a similar professional profile in terms of
geographical range, organisational representation, responsibilities and professional
disciplines. Almost half of the respondents came from British Columbia, with the
remainder from eastern Canada, the United States, Europe and South Africa.
Organisations represented were primarily provincial/state, and federal governments.
Other organisations represented comprised regional governments, independent
commissions, universities and consulting firms. Most respondents were at that time
engaged in planning and regulatory work or research primarily focused on providing
scientific information. Respondents worked in a wide range of fields related to coastal
management with primary emphasis on ecology/environment, and comprehensive
resource and land use planning. In addition, sectors such as aquaculture, conservation,
tourism, navigation, geology and geomatics were represented. GIS experience of Phase
I participants ranged from none (20%) to post-secondary education (14%).
The following sections report on the results of the questionnaires. They are
presented according to the components of Coastal SDSS, namely decision making,
analysis and data. General characteristics of coastal management relating to these
components are first described followed by their relevance to GIS and SDSS including
strengths and weaknesses.
The last section deals with method of system
implementation.
Decision Making
Prior to exploring the potential application of SDSS to coastal decision making, it was
necessary to characterise the decision-making context particularly the goals of coastal
management, the general process followed and the participants.
The predominant impetus for coastal management revealed by the respondents
is the occurrence of environmental impact interactions. These are addressed through
the establishment of protected areas, use strategies and activity siting. Coastal
management initiatives described involved a multitude of sector interests dominated by
commercial fisheries, and recreation and tourism. Coastal management is generally
approached by generating and evaluating alternative strategies by a group of decisionmakers. Within the general process, there were various tasks identified. Responses
were distilled into ten tasks comprising:
Define problem
Establish process
Collect data
Analyse/assess data
1)
2)
3)
4)