The need for information to help the decision making process
Information required for effective decision making
Examples
The availability of high quality, reliable
information is a key requirement for the effective development
and implementation of management in marine areas. Previous sections
have already outlined the need for such information in relation
to feature and recreation characteristics, type and intensity
of recreational activities and feature sensitivity.
Although a considerable body of knowledge exists
concerning some of these issues, there are large information
gaps, as outlined in previous sections. It is not always accessible
or may not be applicable to different sites. Whether the information
is useful or not, management decisions will invariably be based,
at least in part, on value judgements.
The use of value judgements is a fundamental
part of decision making, even where scientific information is
readily available. However, the way in which these judgements
are made, and are seen to be made, is of importance to the management
process. If the process is less than transparent it can lead
to a great deal of disagreement between those individuals and
organisations affected by the subsequent decision.
Effective planning and management of recreational
activities in mSAC areas should, therefore, be based on the
best available scientific information complemented by the input
of organisations and local individuals.
In cases where there is insufficient data,
the value judgements may be based on the precautionary principle.
This states that:
Where it is assumed that there are real threats
of serious damage to the environment, lack of full scientific
information should not be used as a justification for postponing
measures to prevent such damage occurring. (DETR 1998)
When considering the application of the principle,
regard should be given to the magnitude of the impact and the
risk of the impact happening. However, the precautionary principle
can be exploited by some individuals to find support for their
position. The consultation process for this project has highlighted
this as a concern of many recreational representatives who feel
it is being used to limit their activities in certain areas.
It should, however, be stressed that the precautionary principle,
as promoted by government, is not designed to curtail those
activities which cannot be shown to be harmless. It is more
a ‘stop gap’ policy mechanism which gives decision makers ‘breathing
space’ to assess more fully the costs and benefits of potential
management decisions and, where necessary, to undertake further
research.
The authors suggest that a consideration of
historic, present and future trend data is instrumental in enabling
effective decision making. This will help to place current activities
in the context of long term natural and human influences and
suggest possible future outcomes. Table 8.2 outlines some of
these data sets.
Information Required for Effective
Decision Making
Category of Data set
|
Data set
|
Sub set
|
Historic
|
Feature
|
Quality, quantity and location
|
Historic
|
Recreation
|
Types, levels, and location
|
Historic
|
Geology
|
Sediment, formation and location
|
Present
|
Feature sensitivity
|
Estuary, inlets, sea caves etc.
|
Present
|
Recreational use of site
|
Water side and land side
|
Present
|
Industrial use of site
|
Type, location
|
Present
|
Urban use of site
|
Type and location
|
Present
|
Rural use of site
|
Type and location
|
Present
|
Water regimes
|
Depth, currents, temperature, salinity
|
Present
|
Sediment transport
|
Direction, intensity, duration
|
Present
|
Management strategies
|
Voluntary, regulatory
|
Future
|
Recreation
|
Types, levels and location
|
The table of information above is by no means
exhaustive. As sensitivity assessment and management decision
methods improve, the relevance of other additional forms of
data will become apparent.
During the course of this project it has become
evident that, although there is a variety of information available
regarding the types and levels of recreational activities currently
occurring in mSAC sites, this information is often not comparable
between sites. This is largely because the information collection
and evaluation methods differ greatly. In addition, there are
a number of examples of one-off surveys of recreational activities
which are methodologically flawed.
Future recreational management in European marine sites would
benefit greatly from the development of a standardised survey
methodology which could be used in all future reviews of mSAC
sites. There are many methods available for the evaluation of
recreational types and levels with two example of good practice
shown below.
Examples
Next Section
|