Advertisement

Decision Support Tools for Coastal and Ocean Planning and Management

  • Michelle Eva Portman
Chapter
Part of the Geotechnologies and the Environment book series (GEOTECH, volume 15)

Abstract

This chapter addresses the use of decision support tools (DSTs) for marine and coastal planning. DSTs are integrative tools, meaning that they can help achieve a wide range of goals and objectives relevant to planning. Today, myriad software applications facilitate the use of these tools for the marine and coastal environment. This chapter starts with how DSTs contribute to the field of conservation planning and describes three such applications with examples of their use for marine planning. While such tools support environmental planning for oceans and coasts, they do have shortcomings, mentioned herein, and their products are usually the starting points of discussions about planning scenarios and options.

Keywords

Decision making Decision support Heuristics Multi-criteria analysis Optimal solutions Optimization algorithms Planning units 

References

  1. Ainsworth CH, Varkey DA, Pitcher TJ (2008) Ecosystem simulation models of Raja Ampat, Indonesia, in support of ecosystem-based fisheries management. In: Bailey M, Pitcher TJ (ed) Ecological and economic analyses of marine ecosystems in the Bird’s Head seascape, Papua, Indonesia: II. Fisheries Centre Research Report, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  2. Ban NC, Picard CR, Vincent ACJ (2009) Comparing and integrating community-based and science-based approaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection. Conserv Biol 23(4):899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown K, Adger W, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K (2001) Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol Econ 37(3):417–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chauvet E, Paullet JE, Previte JP, Walls Z (2002) A Lotka-Volterra three species food chain. Math Mag 75(4):243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coleman H, Foley M, Prahler E, Armsby A, Shillinger G (2011) Decision guide: selection decision support tools for marine spatial planning. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferrier S, Wintle B (2009) Quantitative approaches to spatial conservation prioritization: matching the solution to the need. In: Moilenan A, Wilson KA, Possingham H (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  7. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein CJ, Chan A, Kircher L, Cundiff AJ, Gardner N, Hrovat Y, Scholz A, Kendall BE, Airamé S (2008) Striking a balance between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability in the design of marine protected areas. Conserv Biol 22(3):691–700Google Scholar
  9. Leathwick JR (2006) Exploring the use of reserve planning software for MPAs in New Zealand’s EEZ. NIWA Client Report: HAM2006-064. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd., HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  10. Leathwick JR, Moilanen A, Francis M, Elith J, Taylor P, Julian K, Hastie T (2008) Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conserv Lett 1(2):91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mazor T, Possingham H, Edelist D, Brokovich E, Kark S (2014) The crowded sea: incorporating multiple marine activities in conservation plans can significantly alter spatial priorities. PloS ONE 9(8):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mohn C, Kotta J, Dahl K, Göke C, Blažauskas N, Ruskule A, Aps R, Fetissov M, Janssen F, Lindblad C, Piotrowksi M, Wan Z (2011) Modelling for maritime spatial planning: tools, concepts, applications. BaltSeaPlan Report 19. BaltSeaPlan, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  13. Moilanen A (2007) Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv 134(4):571–579Google Scholar
  14. Moilenan A, Wilson K, Possingham H (eds) (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Pauly D, Christensen V, Walters C (2000) Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 57:697–706Google Scholar
  16. Polovina JJ (1984) An overview of the ECOPATH model. ICLARM Fishbyte 2(2):5–7Google Scholar
  17. Portman ME (2007) Zoning design for cross-border marine protected areas: the Red Sea Marine Peace Park case study. Ocean Coast Manag 50(7):499–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Possingham HP, Wilson KA, Andelman SJ, Vyme CH (2006) Protected areas: goals, limitations and design. In: Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 509–533Google Scholar
  19. Smith PR, Theberge J (1986) A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environ Manag 10(6):715–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Delft A, Nijkamp P (1976) Multi-criteria analysis and regional decision-making. Martinus Nijhoff, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  21. Villa F, Tunesi L, Agardy T (2002) Zoning marine protected areas through spatial multi-criteria analysis: the case of the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve of Italy. Conserv Biol 16(2):115–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Voogd H (1983) Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. Pion Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Watts ME, Ball IR, Stewart RS, Klein CJ, Wilson K, Steinback C, Lourival R, Kircher L, Possingham HP (2009) Marxan with Zones: software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environ Model Softw 24(12):1513–1521Google Scholar
  24. Wilson K, Cabeza M, Klein C (2009) Fundamental concepts of conservation prioritization. In: Moilenan A, Wilson KA HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Eva Portman
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureTechnion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations