440
R. Canessa and C. P. Keller
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Synthesise results
Review draft
Revise strategy
Adopt strategy
Implement strategy
Monitor implementation
Respondents made it clear that these tasks do not represent a prescriptive process of
ordered and discrete steps for coastal management. Some of these tasks may be
addressed simultaneously, backtracked, or omitted altogether depending on the issues
addressed and the process established. This has implications for the development of
Coastal SDSS. Unlike business applications for which DSS were originally designed,
the coastal management decision process has been described as ill-defined, variable
and even ad hoc. This can lead to two avenues. Firstly, the development of Coastal
SDSS would need to focus on flexibility in order to accommodate the characteristics of
coastal decision making. Secondly, the development and implementation of Coastal
SDSS themselves could prompt the coastal management process to become more
structured and defined.
Initiatives described in the questionnaire were dominated by government
agencies primarily at the provincial/state level. Nevertheless, comments supported the
growing trend towards involving community stakeholders in the decision-making
process in various capacities ranging from public presentations to participatory
involvement.
Direct participation of community stakeholders within a decisionmaking group has implications for the implementation of Coastal SDSS. A large and
varied decision-making group requires that a wider range of expertise needs to be
accommodated, and that more participant input needs to be ‘funneled’ through a
Coastal SDSS.
Respondents felt that GIS could play a role in supporting decisions about
multiple use on the coast. The most common roles identified by Phase I respondents
for GIS in coastal management decision making were for the storage of an integrated
inventory, and for communication and display (Fig. 1). In the former role, it was
advocated that GIS accommodate the compilation into a common database of the wide
range of data needs typical of multi-disciplinary initiatives such as coastal
management. In addition, several respondents noted that GIS facilitate data sharing,
accessibility, standardisation and co-ordination. The emphasis on communication and
display was placed on the production of easily understood and customised output
particularly for a wide ranging audience from “professional scientists to environmental
planners and politicians to various public interest groups” (respondent’s quote). Other
roles identified included ‘what-if’ exploration and evaluation of alternative planning
scenarios, and spatial identification of conflicting or competing interests. Of those
who identified roles (32), 28% expected GIS to improve the efficiency of decision
making through flexibility and speed in providing analysis and results to the extent
that GIS allow for a “dynamic decision-making process”.
In addition, several
respondents noted that GIS lend a greater degree of objectivity and accuracy to the
R. Canessa and C. P. Keller
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Synthesise results
Review draft
Revise strategy
Adopt strategy
Implement strategy
Monitor implementation
Respondents made it clear that these tasks do not represent a prescriptive process of
ordered and discrete steps for coastal management. Some of these tasks may be
addressed simultaneously, backtracked, or omitted altogether depending on the issues
addressed and the process established. This has implications for the development of
Coastal SDSS. Unlike business applications for which DSS were originally designed,
the coastal management decision process has been described as ill-defined, variable
and even ad hoc. This can lead to two avenues. Firstly, the development of Coastal
SDSS would need to focus on flexibility in order to accommodate the characteristics of
coastal decision making. Secondly, the development and implementation of Coastal
SDSS themselves could prompt the coastal management process to become more
structured and defined.
Initiatives described in the questionnaire were dominated by government
agencies primarily at the provincial/state level. Nevertheless, comments supported the
growing trend towards involving community stakeholders in the decision-making
process in various capacities ranging from public presentations to participatory
involvement.
Direct participation of community stakeholders within a decisionmaking group has implications for the implementation of Coastal SDSS. A large and
varied decision-making group requires that a wider range of expertise needs to be
accommodated, and that more participant input needs to be ‘funneled’ through a
Coastal SDSS.
Respondents felt that GIS could play a role in supporting decisions about
multiple use on the coast. The most common roles identified by Phase I respondents
for GIS in coastal management decision making were for the storage of an integrated
inventory, and for communication and display (Fig. 1). In the former role, it was
advocated that GIS accommodate the compilation into a common database of the wide
range of data needs typical of multi-disciplinary initiatives such as coastal
management. In addition, several respondents noted that GIS facilitate data sharing,
accessibility, standardisation and co-ordination. The emphasis on communication and
display was placed on the production of easily understood and customised output
particularly for a wide ranging audience from “professional scientists to environmental
planners and politicians to various public interest groups” (respondent’s quote). Other
roles identified included ‘what-if’ exploration and evaluation of alternative planning
scenarios, and spatial identification of conflicting or competing interests. Of those
who identified roles (32), 28% expected GIS to improve the efficiency of decision
making through flexibility and speed in providing analysis and results to the extent
that GIS allow for a “dynamic decision-making process”.
In addition, several
respondents noted that GIS lend a greater degree of objectivity and accuracy to the