Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values

Geodesign tools are increasingly used in collaborative planning. An important element in these tools is the communication of stakeholder values. As there are many ways to present these values it is important to know how these tools should be designed to communicate these values effectively. The objective of this study is to analyse how the design of the tool influences its effectiveness. To do this stakeholder values were included in four different geodesign tools, using different ways of ranking and aggregation. The communication performances of these tools were evaluated in an online survey to assess their ability to communicate information effectively. The survey assessed how complexity influence user performance. Performance was considered high if a user is able to complete an assignment correctly using the information presented. Knowledge on tool performance is important for selecting the right tool use and for tool design. The survey showed that tools should be as simple as possible. Adding ranking and aggregation steps makes the tools more difficult to understand and reduces performance. However, an increase in the amount of information to be processed by the user also has a negative effect on performance. Ranking and aggregation steps may be needed to limit this amount. This calls for careful tailoring of the tool to the task to be performed. For all tools it was found maybe the most important characteristic of the tools is that they allow for trial and error as this increases the opportunity for experimentation and learning by doing

Interactive Marine Spatial Planning: Siting Tidal Energy Arrays around the Mull of Kintyre

The rapid development of the offshore renewable energy sector has led to an increased requirement for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and, increasingly, this is carried out in the context of the ‘ecosystem approach’ (EA) to management. We demonstrate a novel method to facilitate implementation of the EA. Using a real-time interactive mapping device (touch-table) and stakeholder workshops we gathered data and facilitated negotiation of spatial trade-offs at a potential site for tidal renewable energy off the Mull of Kintyre (Scotland). Conflicts between the interests of tidal energy developers and commercial and recreational users of the area were identified, and use preferences and concerns of stakeholders were highlighted. Social, cultural and spatial issues associated with conversion of common pool to private resource were also revealed. The method identified important gaps in existing spatial data and helped to fill these through interactive user inputs. The workshops developed a degree of consensus between conflicting users on the best areas for potential development suggesting that this approach should be adopted during MSP

Spatial Analysis of Soil Subsidence in Peat Meadow Areas in Friesland in Relation to Land and Water Management, Climate Change, and Adaptation

Dutch peatlands have been subsiding due to peat decomposition, shrinkage and compression, since their reclamation in the 11th century. Currently, subsidence amounts to 1–2 cm/year. Water management in these areas is complex and costly, greenhouse gases are being emitted, and surface water quality is relatively poor. Regional and local authorities and landowners responsible for peatland management have recognized these problems. In addition, the Netherlands Royal Meteorological Institute predicts higher temperatures and drier summers, which both are expected to enhance peat decomposition. Stakeholder workshops have been organized in three case study areas in the province of Friesland to exchange knowledge on subsidence and explore future subsidence rates and the effects of land use and management changes on subsidence rates. Subsidence rates were up to 3 cm/year in deeply drained parcels and increased when we included climate change in the modeling exercises. This means that the relatively thin peat layers in this province (ca 1 m) would shrink or even disappear by the end of the century when current practices continue. Adaptation measures were explored, such as extensive dairy farming and the production of new crops in wetter conditions, but little experience has been gained on best practices. The workshops have resulted in useful exchange of ideas on possible measures and their consequences for land use and water management in the three case study areas. The province and the regional water board will use the results to develop land use and water management policies for the next decades.</p

The results of the ‘local knowledge’ workshop.

<p>a) fisheries stakeholder output, b) recreational sailing stakeholder output, c) tourism stakeholder output.</p

The results of the ‘negotiation’ workshop.

<p>a) device allocation for ∼40 MW alternative, b) device allocation for ∼100 MW alternative, c) device allocation for ∼200 MW alternative.</p

Steps taken during the ‘local knowledge’ workshop.

<p>a) the base value map, b) stakeholder drawings of areas of importance including a creel route, and an area of semi-pelagic fishing, c) the re-valued map.</p

Steps taken during the ‘negotiation’ workshop.

<p>a) the underlying nautical chart, b) the best and worst areas for each of three stakeholder groups, c) the negotiated device allocation area.</p