Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Negotiation and Decision Making with Collaborative Software: How MarineMap ‘Changed the Game’ in California’s Marine Life Protected Act Initiative

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Environmental managers and planners have become increasingly enthusiastic about the potential of decision support tools (DSTs) to improve environmental decision-making processes as information technology transforms many aspects of daily life. Discussions about DSTs, however, rarely recognize the range of ways software can influence users’ negotiation, problem-solving, or decision-making strategies and incentives, in part because there are few empirical studies of completed processes that used technology. This mixed-methods study—which draws on data from approximately 60 semi-structured interviews and an online survey—examines how one geospatial DST influenced participants’ experiences during a multi-year marine planning process in California. Results suggest that DSTs can facilitate communication by creating a common language, help users understand the geography and scientific criteria in play during the process, aid stakeholders in identifying shared or diverging interests, and facilitate joint problem solving. The same design features that enabled the tool to aid in decision making, however, also presented surprising challenges in certain circumstances by, for example, making it difficult for participants to discuss information that was not spatially represented on the map-based interface. The study also highlights the importance of the social context in which software is developed and implemented, suggesting that the relationship between the software development team and other participants may be as important as technical software design in shaping how DSTs add value. The paper concludes with considerations to inform the future use of DSTs in environmental decision-making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. IUCN (the World Conservation Union) defines marine protected areas, like their terrestrial counterparts, as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008). Depending on the management goals in a given area, MPAs range from strict no-take marine reserves to allowing certain uses while restricting others.

  2. Ecosystem-based management draws on scientific research that highlights the importance of biodiversity and interconnectedness of various species (McLeod and Leslie 2009). Rather than focusing on a single species, ecologists stress that the health of any one species is likely affected by connections to other ecosystem elements. This perspective shifts thinking to a larger scale. In ocean conservation, this often manifests in emphasizing networks of marine protected areas and connections between them (Foley et al. 2010).

  3. The MLPA Initiative was the third implementation attempt, following two unsuccessful efforts between 1999 and 2004 (Weible 2008; Gleason et al. 2010). The planning process for the four segments of the open coast was completed in 2011, with implementation of the resulting MPAs effectively complete as of writing in 2014. A fifth phase, siting for San Francisco Bay, is planned but the timeline remains uncertain.

  4. Called the MarineMap Consortium, the team comprised scientists and geospatial technology experts from Marine Science Institute at University of California, Santa Barbara; Ecotrust; and The Nature Conservancy, with help from Farallon Geographics.

  5. More basic webGIS systems were built for the first two study regions, but due to difficulty of use, only a small fraction of the stakeholders used these. For details, see Merrifield et al 2013.

  6. Narrative in this paragraph is drawn from my initial interviews with MLPA Initiative staff.

  7. References to MarineMap are in the past tense as the software is no longer in use in the form it existed during the MLPA Initiative process. The experience of developing and implementing MarineMap has influenced new projects created by members of the MarineMap Consortium, including a tool called Madrona developed by Ecotrust and a tool called SeaSketch developed by the McClintock Lab at UCSB.

  8. They define geocollaboration as “visually-enabled collaboration with geospatial information through geospatial technologies” (MacEachren and Brewer 2004, p. 1).

  9. The framework’s fourth task execute—the use of a tool for presentation and implementation tasks—mostly occurred after the planning phase of the MLPA Initiative and so is not included in this study.

  10. The state-maintained list to which the survey invitation was distributed includes approximately 3000 subscribers with users from all four study regions. As MarineMap was only available in the last two study regions, the overall population of potential respondents is unclear. In total, 185 responses were received; 105 were complete.

  11. Results of the survey and log analysis are described in a report distributed to study participants and available from the author.

  12. One interview was not recorded due to an equipment malfunction; one was not recorded at the request of the interviewee.

  13. Cal. Fish and Game Code § 2851(a).

  14. The question about challenges with the software was asked differently in the pilot interviews, so an accurate count from those is not possible.

  15. For a more detailed description of user perceptions of and reactions to the data in MarineMap, see Cravens 2014b.

  16. The MLPA Initiative was funded through a public–private partnership (Gleason et al. 2013). Although most of the funding for MarineMap technically came from private foundation funds, many of those interviewed did not distinguish between the funding source and the public functions of the planning process.

  17. Cravens 2014b describes in greater detail how user perceptions of data accuracy in MarineMap influenced the planning process.

  18. California Department of Fish and Game was renamed as the Department of Fish and Wildlife on January 1, 2013, after the conclusion of MLPA planning.

References

  • Agrawala M, Stolte C (2001) Rendering effective route maps. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques—SIGGRAPH’01, pp 241–249

  • Agrawala M, Phan D, Heiser J et al (2003) Designing effective step-by-step assembly instructions. ACM Trans Graph 22:828–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Airame S (2003) Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecol Appl 13:S170–S184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris M, Schön D (1974) Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong M (1993) Perspectives on the development of group decision support systems for locational problem solving. Geogr Syst 1:69–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Balram S, Dragicevic S (eds) (2006) Collaborative geographic information systems. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthelmess P, Anderson KM (2002) A view of software development environments based on activity theory. Comp Support Coop Work 11:13–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout F, Hertin J, Jordan A (2002) Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as “learning machines”. Global Environ Chang 12:83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourget L (ed) (2011) Converging waters: integrating collaborative modeling with participatory processes to make water resources decisions. IWR Press, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Brest P, Krieger L (2010) Problem solving, decision making, and professional judgment: A guide for lawyers and policymakers. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr M, Saarman E, Caldwell M (2010) The role of “rules of thumb” in science-based environmental policy: California’s Marine Life Protection Act as a case study. Stanford J Law Sci Policy 2:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Ocean Solutions (2011) Decision guide: selecting decision support tools for marine spatial planning. Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cluts MM (2003) The evolution of artifacts in cooperative work: constructing meaning through activity. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, ACM, New York, pp 144–152

  • Collins P, Shukla S, Redmiles D (2002) Activity theory and system design: a view from the trenches. Comp Support Coop Work 11:55–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Cravens A (2014a) Needs before tools: using technology in environmental conflict resolution. Conflict Resolut Q 32:3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cravens AE (2014b) Evaluating software in environmental conflict resolution: the role of MarineMap in coastal planning and decision making in California. Dissertation, Stanford University

  • Davidson J, Sternberg R (2003) The psychology of problem solving. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Liddo A, Buckingham Shum S (2010) Cohere: a prototype for contested collective intelligence. In: ACM Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2010)—Workshop: Collective Intelligence in Organizations—Toward a Research Agenda, February 6–10, 2010, Savannah, Georgia

  • Dobson M, LeBlanc D, Burgoyne D (2004) Transforming tensions in learning technology design: operationalising activity theory. Can J Learn Technol 30. http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/116

  • Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y, Meittinen R (1999) Activity theory: a well-kept secret. In: Engestrom Y, Meittinen R, Punamaki R (eds) Perspectives in activity theory. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström Y, Engeström R, Kärkkäinen M (1995) Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learn Instr 5:319–336. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley M, Halpern B, Micheli F et al (2010) Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Mar Pol 34:955–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason M, McCreary S, Miller-Henson M et al (2010) Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: a successful case study from north-central California. Ocean Coast Manag 53:52–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason M, Fox E, Ashcraft S et al (2013) Designing a network of marine protected areas in California: achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead. Ocean Coast Manag 74:90–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodspeed R (2013) Planning support systems for spatial planning through social learning. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Goodwin C (1995) Seeing in depth. Soc Stud Sci 25:237–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of British Columbia (n.d.) Citizens @ the Centre: B.C. Government 2.0. Government of British Columbia. http://www.gov.bc.ca/citz/citizens_engagement/gov20.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2014

  • Greeno J (2006) Learning in activity. In: Sawyer K (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 79–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson C, Miller-Henson M, Sikich S, Rosales H, Gibson T (2013) California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: a public marine protected area planning process. Environmental Law News (California Bar Association) 22: 1

  • Haklay M (2006) Usability dimensions in collaborative GIS. In: Balram S, Dragicevic S (eds) Collaborative geographic information systems. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 25–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan H, Gould E (2001) Support for the sense-making activity of managers. Decis Support Syst 31:71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey C, Enns J (2012) Attention and visual memory in visualization and computer graphics. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 18:1170–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiser J, Phan D, Agrawala M, Tversky B, Hanrahan P (2004) Identification and validation of cognitive design principles for automated generation of assembly instructions. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces, pp 311–319

  • Hokajärvi R, Hujala T, Leskinen LA, Tikkanen J (2009) Effectiveness of sermon policy instruments: forest management planning practices applying the activity theory approach. Silva Fenn 43:889–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski P (2009) Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. J Environ Manag 90:1966–1971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) GIS-supported collaborative decision making: results of an experiment. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91:48–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin V, Kuutti K, Bannon L (1995) Activity theory: basic concepts and applications. In: Blumenthal B, Gornostaev J, Unger C (eds) Human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–201

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karasavvidis I (2009) Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Comput Educ 53:436–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirlin J, Caldwell M, Gleason M et al (2013) California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: supporting implementation of legislation establishing a statewide network of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manag 74:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight Foundation (2013) The emergence of civic tech: investments in a growing field. Knight Foundation. http://knightfoundation.org/features/civictech/. Accessed 12 Dec 2013

  • Lind E, Tyler T (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacEachren A, Brewer I (2004) Developing a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geocollaboration. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 18:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 20:703–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchionini G (2002) Digital government research: understanding co-evolution of service and citizen expectations. Kennedy School of Government White Paper. http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/events/2002Workshop/Papers/marchionini_white.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2014

  • Masterman E (2009) Activity theory and the design of pedagogic planning tools. In: Lockyer L, Bennett S, Agostinho S, Harper B (eds) Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 209–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews T, Rattenbury T, Carter S (2007) Defining, designing, and evaluating peripheral displays: an analysis using activity theory. Hum Comput Interact 22:221–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthies M, Giupponi C, Ostendorf B (2007) Environmental decision support systems: current issues, methods and tools. Environ Model Softw 22:123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod KL, Leslie H (eds) (2009) Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrifield M, McClintock W, Burt C et al (2013) MarineMap: a web-based platform for collaborative marine protected area planning. Ocean Coast Manag 74:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munzner T (2009) A nested model for visualization design and validation. InfoVis 2009. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2009.111

  • Nyerges T, Jankowski P, Tuthill D, Ramsey K (2006) Collaborative water resource decision support: results of a field experiment. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96:699–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osmond M, Airame S, Caldwell M, Day J (2010) Lessons for marine conservation planning: a comparison of three marine protected area planning processes. Ocean Coast Manag 53:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea R (1993) Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In: Salomon G (ed) Distributed cognitions. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 47–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira A, Rinaudo J, Jeffrey P, Blasques J (2003) ICT tools to support public participation in water resources governance & planning: experiences from the design and testing of a multi-media platform. J Environ Assess Pol Manag 5:395–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff B, Topping J, Baker-Sennett J, Lacasa P (2002) Mutual contributions of individuals, partners, and institutions: planning to remember in Girl Scout Cookie sales. Soc Dev 11:266–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarman E, Gleason M, Ugoretz J et al (2013) The role of science in supporting marine protected area network planning and design in California. Ocean Coast Manag 74:45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta K, Te’eni D, Melone NP, Limayem M, Weisband SP (1994) Views of work and the design and use of group support systems. Acc Manag Technol 4:245–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L (2000) Embodied practices of engineering work. Mind Cult Activ 7:4–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trafton G, Kirschenbaum J, Tsui S et al (2000) Turning pictures into numbers: extracting and generating information from complex visualizations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53:827–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ury W, Fisher R, Patton B (1991) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (2009) Technology and environmental conflict resolution: report from the national strategic planning session, May 6–8, 2009. U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, 2009. http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/TechECR_Conference_Summary_Institute.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2011

  • Van den Belt M (2004) Mediated modeling: A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts M et al (2009) Marxan with zones: software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environ Model Softw 24:1513–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible C (2008) Caught in a maelstrom: implementing California marine protected areas. Coast Manag 36:350–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werts J, Mikhailova E, Post C, Sharp J (2012) An integrated WebGIS framework for volunteered geographic information and social media in soil and water conservation. Environ Manag 49:816–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson TD (2008) Activity theory and information seeking. Annu Rev Inf Sci 42:119–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Won Suh K, Couchman PK, Won Park J, Hasan H (1998) The application of activity theory to web-mediated communication. In: Gould E (ed) Information systems and activity theory. University of Wollongong Press, Wollongong, New South Wales

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright D, Duncan S, Lach D (2009) Social power and GIS technology: a review and assessment of approaches for natural resource management. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 99:254–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a McGhee Research Grant from Stanford University School of Earth Sciences, a Goldsmith Research Grant from Stanford Law School, and by the Stanford Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources. The author is grateful for feedback from M. Caldwell, N. Ardoin, R. White, J. Martinez, and two anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda E. Cravens.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

All empirical data collection methods described here comply with the laws of the United States and were approved by the author’s institution’s Institutional Review Board.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cravens, A.E. Negotiation and Decision Making with Collaborative Software: How MarineMap ‘Changed the Game’ in California’s Marine Life Protected Act Initiative. Environmental Management 57, 474–497 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0615-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0615-9

Keywords

Navigation