442
R. Canessa and C. P. Keller
Analysis
Despite the proliferation of coastal management initiatives, there are surprisingly few
examples published on specific methods and techniques used to develop the strategies
that are produced (see for example Clark (1990)). Whereas the general decisionmaking process may be described in reports and papers, methodological details are
passed over with phrases such as, “what eventually emerged from the year-long process
was a zoning plan” (respondent’s quote) or “a plan was delivered by a consultant”
(respondent’s quote). Therefore, in Phase II of the questionnaire specific information
on analytical techniques for Coastal SDSS was directly sought from decision-makers.
Based on the general decision-making approach that emerged from Phase I, emphasis
was placed on techniques to generate and evaluate alternatives.
Despite the analytical emphasis of the question, there were few responses
which specifically referred to methods of generating alternatives as opposed to
information or process elements that would contribute to an understanding of
alternatives. Although the responses were characterised by great variability and in
many cases generality, the most common groups of techniques to generate alternatives
comprised ecological and environmental assessment such as environmental impact
assessment, carrying capacity assessment, and principles of ecology. Almost as many
responses were received on spatial analysis with particular emphasis on mapping
techniques and GIS, however no details were given on specific methodologies.
Recipients were also asked to identify methodologies, techniques or
procedures for evaluating alternatives.
As with the responses for generating
alternatives, these responses were diverse and in many cases very general such as
“compare scenarios”, or use “evaluative criteria”. However, a dominant method
identified for evaluating alternatives was impact assessment, namely such as economic,
environmental and/or social. Traditional cost-benefit analysis was suggested in terms
of natural resources, environmental quality and economic viability. Ranking and
weighting methodologies were suggested for specific criteria such as economic, social
impacts, regional strategies, jurisdiction, political will and research data as well as
overall ranking of alternatives. Group processes also mentioned include negotiation,
consensus building, round table procedures and simulations.
The general responses to these questions did not provide the specificity
desired in order to incorporate appropriate analytical techniques. Further direction was
provided when questioned on the analytical strengths of GIS to contribute to coastal
management. The most common analytical strength identified was their general
efficiency and flexibility in manipulating and analysing data particularly towards
exploring data, and testing new ides and plans. The overlay procedure was the most
often-mentioned GIS analytical procedure. Overlaying several themes could allow
users to compare maps thereby reveal relationships, cross-correlations and spatial
conflicts. The overlay could be used to identify target areas such as sensitive areas,
priority areas, suitability areas and ‘no-go’ areas based on specified criteria, and to
explore ‘what-if’ scenarios with pre-defined parameters and interactively. The general
R. Canessa and C. P. Keller
Analysis
Despite the proliferation of coastal management initiatives, there are surprisingly few
examples published on specific methods and techniques used to develop the strategies
that are produced (see for example Clark (1990)). Whereas the general decisionmaking process may be described in reports and papers, methodological details are
passed over with phrases such as, “what eventually emerged from the year-long process
was a zoning plan” (respondent’s quote) or “a plan was delivered by a consultant”
(respondent’s quote). Therefore, in Phase II of the questionnaire specific information
on analytical techniques for Coastal SDSS was directly sought from decision-makers.
Based on the general decision-making approach that emerged from Phase I, emphasis
was placed on techniques to generate and evaluate alternatives.
Despite the analytical emphasis of the question, there were few responses
which specifically referred to methods of generating alternatives as opposed to
information or process elements that would contribute to an understanding of
alternatives. Although the responses were characterised by great variability and in
many cases generality, the most common groups of techniques to generate alternatives
comprised ecological and environmental assessment such as environmental impact
assessment, carrying capacity assessment, and principles of ecology. Almost as many
responses were received on spatial analysis with particular emphasis on mapping
techniques and GIS, however no details were given on specific methodologies.
Recipients were also asked to identify methodologies, techniques or
procedures for evaluating alternatives.
As with the responses for generating
alternatives, these responses were diverse and in many cases very general such as
“compare scenarios”, or use “evaluative criteria”. However, a dominant method
identified for evaluating alternatives was impact assessment, namely such as economic,
environmental and/or social. Traditional cost-benefit analysis was suggested in terms
of natural resources, environmental quality and economic viability. Ranking and
weighting methodologies were suggested for specific criteria such as economic, social
impacts, regional strategies, jurisdiction, political will and research data as well as
overall ranking of alternatives. Group processes also mentioned include negotiation,
consensus building, round table procedures and simulations.
The general responses to these questions did not provide the specificity
desired in order to incorporate appropriate analytical techniques. Further direction was
provided when questioned on the analytical strengths of GIS to contribute to coastal
management. The most common analytical strength identified was their general
efficiency and flexibility in manipulating and analysing data particularly towards
exploring data, and testing new ides and plans. The overlay procedure was the most
often-mentioned GIS analytical procedure. Overlaying several themes could allow
users to compare maps thereby reveal relationships, cross-correlations and spatial
conflicts. The overlay could be used to identify target areas such as sensitive areas,
priority areas, suitability areas and ‘no-go’ areas based on specified criteria, and to
explore ‘what-if’ scenarios with pre-defined parameters and interactively. The general