GIS and Public Involvement in Marine Spatial Planning
This bibliography is intended to provide an overview of literature on marine spatial planning, how it is impacted by the level of public involvement in respective decision-making, and what role GIS may play to support this processes.
Plasman, C., (2008) Implementing marine spatial planning: A policy perspective. Marine Policy 32, 811-815.
Marine Spatial Planning is used to guide uses of the marine environment in a way the reduces potential environmental impacts. This paper looks at barriers to implementing marine spatial planning and points to a divide between scientist and policy makers that cause many plans to remain unimplemented including complexity of management plans, marginal returns of proposals, and political apathy. Using efforts in Belgium as an example, authors suggest that these challenges can be overcome by coordinating the hierarchy governmental authorities, using politicians to communicate the importance of science to the general public, and develop plans with transparency and opportunity for public input.
Foster, E., Haward, M., Coffen-Smout, S., (2005). Implementing integrated oceans management: Australia’s south east regional marine plan SERMP and Canada’s Scotian shelf integrated management (ESSIM) initiative. Marine Policy 29, 391-405
This paper compares approaches from Canada and Australia in managing each country’s respective ocean resources using Integrated Ocean Management (IOM), which seeks to coordinate fragmented managing authorities and public input. Canada’s efforts focus on developing a nationally developed management framework while Australia employs a more regionally based approach. For the purposes of this research it is most noteworthy that Australia’s regional approach seems to have more successfully incorporate public and stakeholder input.
Flannery, W., O´ Cinne´ide, M., (2008) Marine spatial planning from the perspective of a small seaside community in Ireland. Marine Policy 32, 980-987.
This study looks at the social acceptability of marine spatial planning. While there is evidence of support for this management approach in national and international forums, researchers investigate if this holds true at the local level in Ireland. Through survey and interview techniques, researchers conclude that there may be support for such a management practice so long as the stakeholders are incorporated in “meaningful” ways. Overall this work reaffirms findings in other studies that indicate public support for management is influence by the degree of public participation in those decisions.
Fletcher, S., (2007) Influnences on stakeholder representation in participatory coastal management programes. Ocean and Coastal Management 50, 314-328
This paper attempts to identify factors that influence the representation of stakeholders in management decisions through a case study of in the UK. This was done through in-person and over-the-phone interviews. Findings indicate that stakeholders pass concerns/views onto representatives who participate in policy working groups or partnerships. Specific factors that impact representation of stakeholder views are the ability of representatives to respond to concerns, effectiveness of policy working groups to provide meaningful input, and the degree to which that input was taken into consideration by decision makers.
Johnson, D., Dagg, S. (2003) Achieving Public Participation in Coastal Zone Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Coastal Conservation 9, 13-18
This study looks at several plans that proposed to expand shipping ports in the UK and focuses on when and how to engage stakeholders. Given the wide range of interest in the coastal zone biome, stakeholder processes can become large and unwieldy given the its potential volatile nature. Researchers suggest developing strategic outreach plans that focus on engaging top-priority stakeholders first and early on in the process. Building on this, outreach can broaden to a wider range of interests. Overall the paper, demonstrates that outreach is an important, yet not fully understood, practice. Moreover it requires specific skill of managers and dedicated resources to support these processes.
Guénette, S., Alder, J., (2007) Lessons from Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Ocean Management Initiatives in Canada. Coastal Management 35, 51-78
Looking at seven case studies in the Canada, authors point out that stakeholder involvement can facilitate leadership opportunities for the public, incorporates greater bodies of knowledge, and brings legitimacy to decision-making. This study reiterates many of the same points drawn from Johnson and Dagg (above) but focuses specifically on processes involving development of marine protected areas. They note that managing the public processes can be difficult especially when the information used to make decisions is complex. Overcoming these challenges is essential if managers are to maintain social buy-in and are recommended to invest in the resources necessary to support these efforts.
Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., (2008) The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy 32, 816-822
Like the articles above, this paper underscores a need for stakeholder inclusion during management decisions about ocean spaces. Moreover, they note that way stakeholders are involved in the process must be modeled to support the complexity of the issues being addressed such as marine reserves, aquaculture or energy development. Like Johnson and Dagg, this paper calls for a comprehensive method that characterizes stakeholder beliefs as they relate to specific parts of the ocean using GIS and mapping support technologies. Using this method, authors argue that managers can create meaningful participation.
William, C., Elwood, S., (1998) How and Why Community Groups Use Maps and Geographic Information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2) 95-104
Authors discuss the role of community empowerment in decision-making and argue that GIS can serve as a medium to have their preferences and proposals taken more seriously. This latter point is important when considering Flannery and O´ Cinne´ide’s points about community support that is predicated on ‘meaningful’ participation, especially in the marine environment. Through review of literature and interviews with community group leaders, Williams and Elwood suggest that community groups use maps and information in five broad ways: Administrative, Strategic, Tactical, and Organizing. The paper closes with on a cautionary note, pointing out that while this technology may empower certain community groups that adopt it, it may by default, disempower other groups who do not.
Harris, T., Weiner, D., (1998) Empowerment, Marginalization, and "Community-integrated" GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2) 65- 66
Harris and Weiner take up the closing points from Williams and Elwood in a review of case studies looking at public participation and the role of GIS in decision-making. Based on their work, authors conclude that GIS does play a role and that it can have a positive or negative impact depending on the particular characteristics of the community using the technology. Specific factors of influence include the historical distribution of wealth, political and technological characteristics of a community.
Barndt, M., (1998) Public Participation GIS-Barriers to Implementation. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2) 105-112.
This paper looks that the popularity of GIS tools to support public participation in decision making and concludes that it is still a work in progress with several barriers to be over come and opportunities to capitalize on. Specifically, Barndt notes that data analysis, policy assessment, and effective frameworks to include the public are more difficult than many realize when embarking in a participatory GIS effort. To overcome these challenges, managers must form partnerships with communities that bridge gaps between the public and governmental spheres and invest in resources beyond the technology itself such as trained staff. Lastly, the process must be truly inclusive and ensure that all groups and interests are represented in the process.
Rennie, H., White, R., Brabyn, L., (2009) Developing a conceptual model of marine farming in New Zealand. Marine Policy 33, 106-117.
This article provides a specific case study of inclusive efforts using GIS in marine spatial planning in New Zealand. This article focuses on development of marine aquaculture (fish farms) and the role of GIS to identify areas that would meet industry needs, decrease environmental impacts, and identify potential spatial conflicts with existing ocean uses. Under this model, managers can enlist the public to identify barriers and potential solutions.
Klein, C., Chan, A., Kircher, L., Cundiff, A., Gardner, N., Hrovat, Y.
Scholz, A, Kendall, B., Airam´E, S. (2007) Striking a Balance between Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Viability in the Design of Marine Reserves. Conservation Biology. V** N*
Similar to the work above, researchers in this study sought to identify areas suitable for the goals of marine reserves along California’s coast while minimizing loss of existing uses including commercially important fishing grounds. Using a two tiered approach areas of high biological value were first identified using four criteria. Next, this study conducted interviews with existing ocean users to map areas of current use. In the final analysis, researcher identified several areas that increased reserve size by 3% and decreased impacts to fishing effort by 21% compared to other plans drafted during the same legislative process.
