Thesis (M.S.) in Geological Sciences--University of Maine, 2001. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 106-114).

Thesis (M.Sc. (Ichthyology and Fisheries Science)) - Rhodes University, 2006.

Thesis (M. S.)--Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 108-112).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2007. / Principal faculty advisor: Gerard J. Mangone, College of Marine and Earth Studies. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Rhode Island, 2006. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 283-295).

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (M.S.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1994. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-143). Also available via the Internet.

The coast is subject to increasing pressure from a multitude of often competing users. Coastal managers are faced with the challenge of balancing the distribution and activities of users. They must take into account user conflicts, environmental impacts, socioeconomic benefits, and the voices of the coastal community. On another stream. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are being heralded as decision support tools. These tools range from inventory warehouses to dedicated Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS) to impending Collaborative Spatial Decision Making Systems (CSDMS) for decision-making groups. This research investigated the marriage of these two fields, coastal management and GIS, through the development and pilot implementation of a Coastal SDSS for multiple-use management. The investigation was pursued by exploring the component parts of a Coastal SDSS: (1) the decision makers and process within which they function; (2) the analysis upon which decisions are made; and (3) the data which are analysed and in themselves contribute to an understanding of the decision problem and solution. Information and observations for each of these components were gathered and woven together from five sources: (1) literature survey; (2) a two-phase questionnaire of coastal decision makers; (3) interviews of participants of a resource management multi-stakeholder process; (4) non-participant observation of an ongoing coastal management process; and (5) two workshops involving the pilot implementation of a Coastal SDSS to evaluate its effectiveness for group-based coastal management. The workshops, involving members from eight stakeholder groups, formed part of a current coastal management initiative in Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island. The pilot Coastal SDSS was programmed in Arclnfo™. It included the development of position analysis and multi-criteria analysis models accessed from a customised interface. The results from the workshops were assimilated with previous findings into design and implementation specifications of a Coastal SDSS. Twenty-one specifications are made for the development and implemention of a Coastal SDSS under categories of: 1) format; 2) decision making; 3) analysis; and 4) data. A chauffeur-driven system is advocated as the preferred format of implementation directed by a GIS facilitator and GIS analyst. Of critical importance to the successful implementation of a Coastal SDSS is adequate preparation of technical accessibility for participants. The decision making approach of a Coastal SDSS should lie in the generation and evaluation of alternatives with an emphasis on graphic communication and dynamic decision making. The analytical component of a Coastal SDSS must balance quantitative analysis with qualitative, and deterministic with interactive. Analytical specifications recommended include capability analysis, spatial coincidence, multi-criteria analysis, consensus evaluation, alternative evaluation, environmental modelling and generic GIS functionality. The points of emphasis for the data component include a taxonomy of coastal inventory with particular reference to coastal use and administrative framework, representation of the coast as a continuous transition zone between marine and terrestrial environments, cartographic communication geared towards decision making, and a metadata strategy for managing data quality. This research concludes that Coastal SDSS can fill a void in and enhance coastal management particularly with respect to supporting communication and objective spatial analytical methods. However, decision makers were cautious in embracing a central role for Coastal SDSS. Their concerns can be addressed by involving the full range of coastal decision makers in the design and development of Coastal SDSS particularly through experimental research design and by incorporating GIS into coastal management curricula. / Graduate

As a pilot study into questionnaire investigation of beach user opinions and perceptions, a survey was conducted of users of four beaches (Southerndown, Nash, Ogmore and Llantwit), at the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, Wales. Beach perceptions were assessed in terms of socio-demographics, psychological parameters (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and related to the existing beach environment. Few changes to general facility provision could be recommended, but a number of management recommendations were made. Beach user gender, socio-economic status, planned length of stay and anxiety/neuroticism level were shown by discriminant function analysis to influence beach selection. A beach rating scheme was developed, based on a novel beach user questionnaire/checklist system. This questionnaire was used to interview users (n = 859) at 23 randomly selected Welsh beaches with regard to preferences/priorities for a wide range of beach aspects. Questionnaire data analysis generated scores which could be applied to checklists appropriate to other beaches of various commercialisation levels. Seventy Welsh beaches were assessed, producing scores from 39% (Porthcawl - Trecco Bay) to 69% (Broadhaven, S. Pembs. and Pembray). Landscape was assessed by panel judgements of a video panorama sequence, with scores for this aspect ranging from 19% (Prestatyn) to 80% (Broadhaven, S. Pembs.). The rating scheme took into account a larger number of beach aspects (47) than any beach award/recommendation in common use in the UK. It successfully took account of differing beach user preferences/priorities for various beach aspects and also the differing beach user demands at commercialised as opposed to undeveloped beaches. Many differences in beach user preferences/priorities were observed according to differences in stated preferred beach type, many of which could be important for management. In addition, pilot scale studies were undertaken at the Costa Dorada, Spain and on the Turkish Aegean Coast. For the latter, beach rating was also carried out. Future studies aiming to use stated perceptions, preferences and priorities of beach users to guide management should take account of possible influences such as beach user familiarity, expectation, cultural background and past experience. Much further work is required to develop beach user questionnaires to investigate aspects of beach user perception. Future rating exercises based on beach user preferences/priorities should take account of the need for beaches to meet minimum standards for the most important (as identified by beach users), beach aspects, in order to achieve a high rating or grade. The limitations of beach user surveys in terms of sampling difficulties need to be addressed. For valid management decision support, other stakeholders such as residents, tourist trade workers and those choosing not to visit beaches in particular areas need to be reached using other investigative methodologies.