User Assessment of Coastal DSS
447
respondents, implementing this option would require easily understood output or
screen display, and application specific training.
An Interactive implementation, which represents the most direct and dynamic
involvement of decision-makers, was preferred by 23% of respondents. It was noted
that this option would provide a transparent box for decision-makers, and the
flexibility and immediacy of display. This option was determined to be the most
inclusive and participatory of the implementation scenarios, and would provide equal
access and a level playing field. On the other hand, one respondent noted that an
interactive system could in fact create an unbalanced playing field giving an advantage
to those ‘techno-philic’ decision-makers and a disadvantage to the ‘techno-phobic’.
Suggested requirements for implementing an interactive system include training at
various levels, the flexibility and methodology to update, and a mediator to manage the
flow of information.
Conclusion
The results of the user assessment questionnaire show that potential users of Coastal
SDSS have both a guarded and optimistic view of their use. The perceived expertise
required to operate GIS, their potential seductive nature and their technocratic
emphasis led some respondents to be cautious about using a GIS-based decision
support system in coastal management. The expertise required specifically represented
a barrier to the implementation of Coastal SDSS directly by decision-makers. The
barrier was exemplified by respondents’ overwhelming choice of Coastal SDSS format,
namely as a background tool handled by technical staff away from the decisionmaking table. The cautions can be summarised by the view that GIS should be
considered one decision support tool among many, rather than an exclusive decision
making system.
The over-riding strength of GIS identified, and the one most familiar to
decision-makers, was the ability to efficiently and flexibly stored, display and query
information. It is clear from the findings that inventory should be an important
function of Coastal SDSS both in terms of the manner in which data are maintained
and, more importantly, the manner of communication. In fulfilling this role, the ease
with which GIS output, whether hardcopy or softcopy (screen), could overwhelm
decision makers to the detriment of its communication goal should be considered.
With respect to inventory content, the findings indicate that human elements of coastal
management such as public perception, local knowledge, and the administrative
framework of coastal management, somehow should be included in the inventory.
Finally, the potential to use Coastal SDSS for generating and evaluating alternatives
both analytically and interactively through the exploration of ‘what-if’ scenarios
especially by taking advantage of overlay capabilities was clearly and repeatedly noted.
In conclusion, technical requirements of developing Coastal SDSS are only
half the challenge towards getting a system to the decision-making table and used
effectively by decision makers. More important is the method of incorporating the
system within the decision-making process including the commitment and knowledge
447
respondents, implementing this option would require easily understood output or
screen display, and application specific training.
An Interactive implementation, which represents the most direct and dynamic
involvement of decision-makers, was preferred by 23% of respondents. It was noted
that this option would provide a transparent box for decision-makers, and the
flexibility and immediacy of display. This option was determined to be the most
inclusive and participatory of the implementation scenarios, and would provide equal
access and a level playing field. On the other hand, one respondent noted that an
interactive system could in fact create an unbalanced playing field giving an advantage
to those ‘techno-philic’ decision-makers and a disadvantage to the ‘techno-phobic’.
Suggested requirements for implementing an interactive system include training at
various levels, the flexibility and methodology to update, and a mediator to manage the
flow of information.
Conclusion
The results of the user assessment questionnaire show that potential users of Coastal
SDSS have both a guarded and optimistic view of their use. The perceived expertise
required to operate GIS, their potential seductive nature and their technocratic
emphasis led some respondents to be cautious about using a GIS-based decision
support system in coastal management. The expertise required specifically represented
a barrier to the implementation of Coastal SDSS directly by decision-makers. The
barrier was exemplified by respondents’ overwhelming choice of Coastal SDSS format,
namely as a background tool handled by technical staff away from the decisionmaking table. The cautions can be summarised by the view that GIS should be
considered one decision support tool among many, rather than an exclusive decision
making system.
The over-riding strength of GIS identified, and the one most familiar to
decision-makers, was the ability to efficiently and flexibly stored, display and query
information. It is clear from the findings that inventory should be an important
function of Coastal SDSS both in terms of the manner in which data are maintained
and, more importantly, the manner of communication. In fulfilling this role, the ease
with which GIS output, whether hardcopy or softcopy (screen), could overwhelm
decision makers to the detriment of its communication goal should be considered.
With respect to inventory content, the findings indicate that human elements of coastal
management such as public perception, local knowledge, and the administrative
framework of coastal management, somehow should be included in the inventory.
Finally, the potential to use Coastal SDSS for generating and evaluating alternatives
both analytically and interactively through the exploration of ‘what-if’ scenarios
especially by taking advantage of overlay capabilities was clearly and repeatedly noted.
In conclusion, technical requirements of developing Coastal SDSS are only
half the challenge towards getting a system to the decision-making table and used
effectively by decision makers. More important is the method of incorporating the
system within the decision-making process including the commitment and knowledge