Ecosistem Change

Operational use of Geo-information for rapid identification and evaluation of feasible areas for marine habitat conservation.
Application to Banten Bay on Java's Northwest Coast, Indonesia
Michael Anthony Cusi March, 2002
Operational use of Geo-information for rapid identification and evaluation of feasible areas for marine habitat conservation. Application to Banten Bay on Java's Northwest coast, Indonesia
by Michael Anthony Cusi
Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in (fill in the name of the course)
Degree Assessment Board Name Professor Name Examiners
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS
Disclaimer
This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.
ABSTRACT
Within the framework of an MSc research project in Geo-information for Coastal Zone Studies at ITC, methods for the operational use of geo-information for rapid identification and evaluation of areas for marine habitat conservation is being developed. The work aims to develop specific procedures and protocols with the use of multi-criteria evaluation and knowledge-based expert systems that will allow the semi-automatic / automatic identification of candidate areas that could be used for conservation or nature reserve purposes. The traditional method of delineating such areas involves a tedious system of expensive and time-consuming field exploration activities that are focused entirely on the biochemical-physical characteristics of the areas concerned. This method being developed uses not only such data but includes to a nominal extent the use of socio-economic and demographic data for the identification of sites suitable for use as marine reserves that could be managed at the local government or community level. Selected sites will also have as an added value its own level of potential sustainability as may be deduced from this additional input. Likelihood of success will be implicit in the selection. The need for time-consuming and expensive field surveys will also be minimized by this method which pre-selects the prospective areas before any field surveys are done contrary to the classical method which always begins with an intensive and therefore expensive, site visit of the entire area being considered before the selection of prospective sites for more detailed evaluation can even begin. This method is expected to aid planners and government environmental agencies in the rapid delineation of reserves thereby focusing their valuable manpower and financial resources on only those areas that are feasible for adoption and has the most likely chance of success as a reserve.
Acknowledgements
ii
Table of Contents
page Abstract Acknowledgement Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1 Introduction to the topic 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Problem Definition 1.3 Aim of the Research 1.4 Research Objectives 1.5 Research Questions Chapter 2 Conceptual Framework and Background 2.1 Conceptual Framework 2.2 Background of the Study 2.3 Attributes, Criteria and Values 2.4 The Study Site Chapter 3 Methodology & Practical Approach 3.1.1 Criteria for Nature Reserve Site Selection 3.1.2 Computer Systems for Site Selection 3.2 Selection of the Criteria for the Study 3.3 Criteria Valuation / Value Functions 3.3.1 Biotope / Benthic Habitat 3.3.2 Bathymetry / Depth 3.3.3 Total Suspended Materials (TSM) 3.3.4 Hydrology River Mouth 3.3.5 Sand Mining Activities 3.3.6 Industries / Factories 3.3.7 Other Existing Reserves 3.3.8 Fishing Activities 3.3.9 Population Coastline Index 3.4 Data Sources 3.5 Detailed procedure for each criteria iii 3.1 Review of Related Literature i ii iii v vi 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 6 9 9 9 11 12 15 16 17 17 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21
3.5.1 Biotope / Benthic Habitat 3.5.2 Bathymetry / Depth 3.5.3 Total Suspended Materials (TSM) 3.5.4 Hydrology River Mouth 3.5.5 Sand Mining Activities 3.5.6 Industries / Factories 3.5.7 Other Existing Reserves 3.5.8 Fishing Activities 3.5.9 Population Coastline Index 3.6 The map overlays 3.6.1 The Ilwis Overlays 3.6.2 The ArcView Overlays Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 4.1 The Criteria Maps 4.2 The Selected Sites 4.3 Comparison between the Ilwis and ArcView procedures. 4.4 Minimum Geo-Information Requirements Chapter 5 Appendices: Appendix A Appendix B References Listing of Ilwis Script for the calculations of the bathymetric criteria map Listing of Ilwis script for the calculations of the fishing activities criteria map Conclusions and Recommendations

23 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 30 32 32 33 35 35 39 47 48 49 51 53 54
iv
List of Tables
page Table 3.1. The guiding rules used in the generation of the values in the criteria maps. The best area for a marine reserve is one which has the following set of characteristics. Projection parameters used for the customized map projection for all the various maps. The properties of the map extents defined for the raster maps used in the study. The description of the fishing methods (Nuraini, 2001) included in this study together with the weights assigned them in the computations. Area in hectares of the suitability classes for marine reserves. Criteria name indicates those criteria that was omitted from the calculations. The column difference shows the area of the maps that deviate from the ideal which is taken as the calculations for scenario 5. Negative values in parentheses. The scores and their respective weights used for the five different scenarios created for the analysis of the site selection for marine reserves. The calculated area in hectares of the selected sites for the three scenarios that appeared to have a more realistic output. The values in the maps ranged from 0 to 1. (Upper boundary for unsuitable is 0.5) 15
Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. Table 4.1.
22 23 29 39
Table 4.2. Table 4.3.
44 45
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The study area. Red dot in map A, indicates the location of the study site while the red box (in Map B) shows the limits of the area used in the analysis. Note that the extent of data available was much larger than the study area considered. A schematic diagram showing the general steps followed in the identification, selection and preparation of the criteria maps. The preliminary criteria tree created for the comprehensive examination of all possible criteria that could be included in the analysis. The pruned criteria tree showing the final criteria selected for the analysis. Numbers indicate hierarchy. Graphical representations of the various value functions applied to the different criteria used in the study. The mosaiced map sheets used for the examination of the spatial accuracy of the input maps taken from various sources. Only one sheet was missing, Serang (1109-634) from the series. The map sheet Pontang (1109-643) was not scanned since it did not include areas that were within the study site. The different types of common stretching parameters available in ENVI which allows on-the-fly visualization of the most favorable stretching method that can be based either on the entire image, the selected view or only on the zoomed part. The partial cross table generated from distance classes of the various biotope types with the assigned weights for each class. Highlighted row A shows the score given to areas which are far from coral reefs but have mangrove and seagrass near each other. Highlighted row B is the highest class with all three biotope types occurring near each other. The domain table used for converting the total suspended materials to criteria values. The procedure followed for the creation of the coastline population index criteria map. The analysis types provided in the ArcView extension for multicriteria decision making. A decided advantage for the use of the MultiCriteria Decision Making Tool extension is the provision of an interactive slider for the assignment of criteria weights (map scores) which shows not only the actual assigned score but also its relative weight as a percentage of the total. 7
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3. Figure 3.4. Figure 3.5
13 14 15 18 23
Figure 3.6.
24
Figure 3.7.
25
Figure. 3.8. Figure 3.9. Figure 3.10. Figure 3.11.
27 31 33 34
Figure 4.1.
The various source and the resulting criteria maps as used in the analysis. 35 -38 All the criteria maps share the same legend and have been standardized to values between 0 and 1.
vi
Figure 4.2
The output maps generated using the index overlay with multi-class maps in Ilwis 2.23, using different criteria weights. Although the legend is the same for all the maps, the underlying class boundaries differ between all the maps. The common class boundary for all the maps is only for the not suitable class that was approximately at a value of 0.50. The output maps generated using the multi-criteria decision making extension (MCDM.AVX) for ArcView 3.2 , using different criteria weights. Although the legend is the same for all the maps, the underlying class boundaries differ between all the maps. The common class boundary for all the maps is only for the not suitable class that was approximately at an upper boundary value of 50. The weights table generated using the pairwise comparison in Definite 2.0. The final weight values were multiplied by ten and used for the scenario 5 run of the overlay procedure. Zoomed in portion of coral reefs showing the suitability selections for the three scenarios considered. The areas within the study site that was selected as highly suitable for a marine reserve. The six main sites that were at least four hectares in size. Numbers indicate the area in hectares. The red polygons indicate the areas where the heaviest fishing takes place being the intersection of all the fishing methods surveyed. Areas selected as reserves that lie within them cannot be used as a reserve without changing fishing rules or policies. The same area output for scenario 5 showing the similarity in the classifications done using Ilwis (A) and ArcView (B).
40 - 41
Figure 4.3
42 -43
Figure 4.4.
44
Figure 4.5. Figure 4.6. Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8.
45 46 46 47
Figure 4.9.
48
vii
1. Introduction to the topic

1.1 Introduction
From the days our ancestors first walked this planet to the dawn of the technological age, man's relationship with his environment is specifically characterized as maximum exploitation for the maximal survival of the species. It was only in the later part, (the very recent last decades) of the second millenium, after the persistent lobbying by several growing and increasingly vocal and persistent environmental groups when particular attention was given by governments to such factors as environmental protection and conservation of biodiversity. It is in this context that planners and government agencies that are tasked to protect the environment, are usually drawn to make decisions regarding the establishment and maintenance of nature / biodiversity reserves and sanctuaries. Initial efforts to establish natural reserves were based on the classical notion of bigger is better and more diverse is more desirable. This attitude has relaxed considerably such that more recently, there are more efforts to establish such reserves / sanctuaries at the much smaller and more manageable local government level. Such efforts have been enhanced by the concerted decision of most of the developing worlds governments (the ones that are most in need of such nature reserves) to progressively decentralize and devolve the actual operations of their environmental agencies (de Fontaubert et al., 1996) to the lowest possible levels of government, having the focused efforts and therefore the effects and benefits reaching up to the very grassroots of society. These have led to the efforts by small communities and their leaders to additionally inculcate conservation attitudes by the establishment of "community" managed nature reserves. The logic being, that having the people themselves involved will make the exercise more meaningful and consequently provide it with a much better chance for success. Not surprisingly, the major choke point for these efforts have been in the identification of and eventual selection of suitable sites for use as a marine or nature reserve. More often, the communities decide on the location of their reserves using their or their leaders personal preferences such as proximity and existing non-use of the area, which may or may not coincide with the inherent suitability of the bio-physical characteristics for a reserve. On the other hand, some government agencies which assist the communities often use solely bio-physical characteristics to decide where a reserve should be located, also mostly completely disregarding the practical aspects of maintaining the reserve and the social costs involved in the setting up of the reserve. This study aims to provide a desirable mix of objective and subjective information for determining the suitability of coastal sites as marine reserves and therefore also implicitly includes the identification of the likelihood of success for each identified site.
1.2
Problem definition
Current classical method of identifying areas for marine reserves involves numerous physical and financial requirements. It usually begins with an identified need for highly trained /expert individuals who can perform the usually costly and time consuming field verification of numerous prospective sites. Due to the natural constraints posed by the marine environment, selection procedures for reserve site establishment always involves a considerable amount of financial capital, particularly since field surveys done in an aquatic medium is always much more expensive than one done on land. This study aims to develop operational procedures for creating an automatic (rapid) system for marine reserve site identification / selection using a desirable mixture of both objective and subjective geoinformation utilizing the available tools for remotes sensing and a GIS. The main purpose of the research is to develop an acceptable operational procedure to carry out the objective using a minimum mix of geoinformation with the least need for pre-site selection field visits.
1.3
Aim of the Research
The aim of this research is to develop: A procedure /method or model for the automatic identification of prospective sites with a high potential as a marine reserve using geo-information of various types without a need for previous site visits or an intimate knowledge of the area A checklist of minimum number and types of geo-information needed to accomplish the objective.
1.4
Research Objectives
Illustrate the use of geo-information for the automatic selection of candidate sites for marine reserves. Determine the minimum number and quality of the geo-information needed to accomplish the objectives. Demonstrate how a GIS maybe used for planning purposes to assist environmental planners in making informed decisions regarding marine reserve site selection.
1.5
Research Questions
Can GIS be used to determine where a marine sanctuary or reserve may be located? 2
What are the minimum number and quality of geo-information needed to determine in a GIS where a marine sanctuary or reserve should be located? What can improve the process of site selection for marine sanctuaries /reserves?
2. Conceptual Framework and Background

2.1 Conceptual Framework
A very important concept that serves as a backbone for this work is the notion of conservation in general and nature reserves in specific. To a large extent, the practice of environmental conservation has been going on a worldwide scale with the establishment of nature reserves / sanctuaries in almost every corner of the earth. These activities have brought to light the importance of such reserves not only for its originally anticipated function of protection and preservation of plant and animal species and its fragile ecosystem habitats, but for its added benefit of serving as a rallying tool for introducing and embedding the conservation ideas and values of a safeguarding minority to the majority of occupants of the planet. Stringently following the widely accepted norms and procedures for the establishment of reserves, it is probably the case that the rate of reserve creation can never sufficiently cover its intended goals. Rainforests continue to be destroyed. Corals reefs continue to be blasted. And even areas as remote as the frozen Southern Continent become increasingly palatable targets for human exploitation. What is needed then is a means of not only creating more reserves or series of reserves but a means of inculcating the values of conservation, protection and preservation to those members of society that have made it their business to exploit to the maximum nature and its resources. For indeed, direct conservation measures are the most effective method of biodiversity conservation (Ferraro and Simpson, 2001). The system proposed in this study should allow for a more lenient although fairly accurate and convenient system for nature reserve establishment particularly at the local government or community level, the grassroots level. Since the output provides for a set of possible sites where a marine reserve should be situated, there is still a need to eventually carry out some amount of field surveys to verify and justify the selections (most probably to officially satisfy national or international funding requirements). Convenience and fast fairly accurate output would in the long run save more of the meager government funds allocated for this purpose. That can accomplish not only the original rationale behind the concept of conservation itself but have the added benefit of providing the participant peoples themselves the feeling of being part of the conservation efforts and therefore give them the impetus to, in their own way conserve and preserve and protect nature and ultimately themselves.
2.2
Background of the Study
The title of this paper provides the best launching structure for explaining some important concepts directly used in the study. Operational use of geo-information involves the development of procedures that are equipped with the proper methods for a specified purpose, that of identifying and evaluating areas for marine habitat conservation. These procedures and methods include from the onset, the identification of relevant information that should be used, and including the procedures employed to prepare and formulate these information into a form which can be handled in a geographical information system (GIS), employing GIS tools for the manipulation and creation of these resulting significant information, and the use of spatial models for the purpose of deriving the intended output, identifying sites suitable for marine habitat conservation. Since the studys areas of concern are geographically fixed, all information used in the evaluation should be in the form of spatially referenced data. Required information that is normally not available in a geographic context would have to be generated. This process of identification and evaluation also implies that an intensive assessment and comparison of available information are conducted to eventually come up with a value judgment. And the presence of value judgments mean that certain factors included in the evaluation may or may not be entirely objective. Indeed, in any pursuit where one is made to choose something over another, the activity approaches subjectivity and the information used in the evaluation is then used to objectively justify the choices one makes.
2.3
Attributes, Criteria and Values
Some important elements in the evaluation procedure described in this study involve attributes, criteria and values. As these elements will be used intensively in the course of this study, its definition will be explained keeping in mind that the evaluation procedure being described is related to the selection of possible marine conservation sites with a purpose other than the usual rationale. (Colson and Bruyn, 1989) in (Sharifi, 2001), defines attributes as a characteristic of an option / object which can be evaluated objectively or subjectively by one or several persons according to a measurement scale. They are those characteristics or properties of a spatial object that can be used to emulate the conservation interest in that object. They can be measured or recorded either by surveying a site or by deriving them from topographic maps, satellite images or field reports. By itself, an attribute cannot be directly used in an evaluation since it gives only the properties of an object. It needs to be converted into a criterion, which is the way of expressing an attribute in a form that can be used in an evaluation. To illustrate, we use as a good example, the study of a small patch of reef our spatial object - so that a possible attribute which we can measure by surveying the reef will be the 5
listing of species of corals occurring in that patch of reef. On its own, the species listing provides just that, a list of the coral species. But as a consequence of listing down the species of occurring corals, without having to exert any additional effort, the number of coral species can also be derived. Such that when converting this attribute into a criteria that can be used for evaluation, it can be translated into either species richness which is simply calculated by counting the total number of species present (Krebs, 1978), or by calculating any of a number of indices of diversity such as the Shannon-Weiner index piLogpi (Pielou, 1977) which is simply the summation of all occurrences of all species multiplied by the logarithm of the occurrences. This implies that both attributes and criteria are quantifiable and are therefore also differentiable into any number of arbitrary classes. Values on the other hand, reflects the significance and meaning given to the attribute / criteria being considered. It demonstrates how much weight is given to a criteria and how important it is. Within a criteria, a range of values may also be applied. This range of values only has to be consistent to be effective. Going back to our example, we can regard a reef with fifteen coral species, as having a higher value than one which has only ten, and one with only five species as having lesser value than one with ten. It should also be emphasized that the value one places on a criteria is reflective of ones basic principles and standards, which may or may not be influenced by the social order in which the valuation is being applied.
2.4
The Study Site
The study area is situated on the northwestern coast of Java, Indonesia approximately 60 kilometers west of Jakarta (see Figure 2.1). The Banten Bay (Teluk Banten) area is a north-facing bay with approximately 150 km2 (Hoekstra et al., 2000) area characterized by shallow and highly turbid waters. The main ecological communities are aptly represented in that coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass, softbottom communities are present. In addition, a large population of breeding egrets are located all over the bay but more particularly in specific breeding grounds that occur in the mainland, along the central part of the southern margin of the bay, Pulau Dua and in an island approximately on the northeastern section of the bay, Pulau Pamujan Besar. Along the eastern border of the bay, an inactive delta of the Ciujung (ci, meaning river) can be found. This inactive delta was present from the beginning of the 1920's, so that the main flow of the Ciujung no longer discharged directly into Banten Bay, but was carried by a short-cut canal eastwards away from the bay. From then on, the abandoned, unprotected delta has been subjected to erosion while, a new river-dominated delta was forming to the coastal areas east of the bay. The mangrove areas, which were in earlier times more extensive and therefore more suitably equipped for its traditional role as an erosion buffer and wave damper, have already been reduced to a thin belt, where traditional coastal defenses are applied to prevent further erosion due to wave attack. 6
A.
B.
Figure 2.1 The study area. Red dot in map A, indicates the location of the study site while the red box (in Map B) shows the limits of the area used in the analysis. Note that the extent of data available was much larger than the study area considered.
On the southern boundary of the bay, a low-lying coastal mud plain is present where the continuous process of sediment deposition has moved the shoreline seaward several hundreds of meters over the last centuries. This continuous accretion has resulted in the formation of two tombolos, which are links of sediment between islands and the mainland. The resulting peninsula is named Pulau Dua, which became a Waterbird Nature Reserve of national importance. The last of the Pulau Dua islands merged with the mainland coast around 1980, to the detriment of nearby coral reefs and their associated biota. The process of sediment accumulation is continuing, which is apparent from recent deposition rates of 7
up to 2.6 g cm-2 yr-1. Moreover, isobaths near the islands Kubur, Lima and Pisang suggest that the islets are in a process of attaching to the coast, probably following the recent history of the Pulau Dua islands (Douven, 2001). Further west of the bay is the Sunda Strait. The coastal areas on this side of the bay are lined by numerous industrial sites, including a steel mill which can greatly impact the shore in this area. In addition, large-scale land reclamation and jetty construction have taken place at the north and northwestern tip of the peninsula. Further southward, shorelines are characterized by an array of cross-shore bamboo structures anticipating possible future land reclamations. Close to the western coast, a 100hectare wide, dense seagrass bed can be found (Douven, 2001). Owing to its geographical location, being very close to the equator, Banten Bay is predominated by a typical monsoonal climate with mostly gentle winds and only very few storms. The typically wet Northwest Monsoon lasts from December to March, whereas the normally dry Southeast Monsoon occurs from April to October. Fortunately, during the Northwest Monsoon, or wet season, wind driven circulation promote drift flows in the bay that are generally directed eastward, protecting Banten Bay from the rain-induced increased flow of sediment laden Ciujung waters. The Southeast Monsoon bring on westerly flows, which sometimes transport waters that originate from the new Ciujung towards the bay. Turbidity (suspended sediment concentrations) rarely exceeds 15 mg/l at depths larger than 4 meters. Close to the coral reef fringes and in the shallow nearshore area however, local hydrodynamic processes frequently raise incidental turbidity levels over 100 mg/l (Douven, 2001). The increasing presence of large industrial activities and its proximity to the highly navigable Sunda Strait places the area under very high environmental threat not only from industrial and shipping related pollution but also from increasing domestic discharges and incompatible landuse induced erosion. The main issues facing the Banten Bay coastal zone may be traced to an increased threat of environmental degradation brought about by intensified development activities coming from all sectors of society. Already, a good portion of the coastline, roughly 70%, has been converted into aquaculture facilities tasked with producing monospecific although commercially important export products.
3. Methodology & Practical Approach

3.1.
3.1.1
Review of Related Literature

Criteria for Nature Reserve Site Selection
The selection of sites for conservation including the procedures and criteria used are discussed exhaustively by (Margules and Usher, 1981), (McKenzie et al., 1989), (Gehlbach, 1975), (Wright, 1977). A detailed methodology for the assessment of priorities and values in nature conservation was also prepared by (Helliwell, 1971). A central and persistent concept expounded in all these discussions is focused on the main purposes or the justification for the establishment, and the characteristics of a reserve, that is for the express intention of preserving and conserving biodiversity, covering a relatively large area, while keeping in mind a very broad range of conservation goals. These include preservation of rare and endangered species, maintenance and upkeep of fragile environments, preservation of biodiversity and environmental stability. The economic value and financial rewards of a healthy environment (Pearce and Moran, 1994) particularly to the tourism and recreation industries (Baldwin, 1989; Zins and Jacques, 1999), has also received some attention. Even such mundane grounds as preservation of an areas natural beauty (Dower, 1976) and aesthetics has been used as a rationale. Whatever the justification or purpose that is used for the establishment of a nature reserve, it is precisely due to this variety of reasons that these confusing and overlapping assortment of criteria has become evident. In the studies dealing with the selection of relevant criteria for the establishment of reserves, there appears to be an overall similarity in the types of factors/ criteria chosen and the manner of quantifying them. Most if not all of the criteria are a direct result of actual measurements and observations made in the field. Other qualitative information may be acquired by simple site visits. Field surveys are therefore a necessity in order to acquire enough facts to sufficiently express or represent criteria. On the other hand, the collection of secondary data in the form of case studies represent another method of acquiring information that can also be used in the formulation of criteria used for site selections of natural reserves. The main purpose of collecting such data is to develop a system of selection that is structured with objectivity in mind, even when the final evaluation method results in a working situation that has a mix of both subjective and empirical data. Depending on the type of reserve in mind, site selection for natural reserves can choose to consider only a limited specific set of criteria that may also be irrelevant for other types of reserves with a different purpose. The evaluation may for example include the natural beauty of an area, its accessibility and availability of infrastructure support (Tans, 1974). These criteria are a mixture of both subjective and objective
types that may not be warranted if the reserve is established primarily as a seed source, gene bank or natural stock replenishment site for commercially important food species. Criteria that may be relevant for one type of reserve may not necessarily be relevant for another. (Howard et al., 2000) used a combination of biological and economic factor to choose between previously identified potential nature area reserves. Initially they selected the sites using purely biological criteria but later modified their procedure to ensure that both opportunity costs and potential land-use conflicts were minimized by considering other non-biological criteria. A study conducted by (Polasky et al., 2001) on the reserve site selection for terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon used data on species ranges (biological) and land values (economic) and was able to find a variety of cost-effective strategies that can represent a maximum number of species for a given conservation budget. By varying the budget, he was able to demonstrate the cost of obtaining various levels of nature reserve species representation. In general, effective conservation decision-making requires integrated analysis of both biological and economic data. In general, criteria for reserve site selection may be grouped into those that are essentially scientific and those that are political (Margules and Usher, 1981). Scientific criteria are commonly those criteria that can be measured directly from the environment and may require a field survey or site visit to be sufficiently described. The assessment of the conservation value of an area may be based entirely on its scientific characteristics. Indeed, most of the larger nature reserves that are recognized both at the national and international levels (and are therefore funded accordingly) are all fully supported and justified by a detailed comprehensive scientific study that is focused almost entirely on its ecological merits. However, when the assessment provides equal indices so that the certain areas in consideration appear to be equally desirable as a natural reserve, some other deciding criteria needs to be introduced to allow decisions to be made as to which ones among the potentially possible sites should be established as the reserve. This brings us to the realm of the unempirical yet inevitable political basis for reserve site evaluation. Political based criteria are those that are not founded on any biological, ecological or physical characteristic of the area and are therefore not used for the primary assessment of the potential of an area as a reserve. It is however specially considered when final decisions on the establishment of a site has to be made whenever there are choices to be made with all other criteria being considered as equal. The merits of a scientific evaluation may not always bring about a decisive selection and a site evaluation may be in need of a tie-breaker. The danger however is that in some cases, the location of a reserve is fully determined from the choice of a powerful political entity whose criteria is based entirely on their own rules and not on any other. In such cases the reserve established operate more as a political trophy more than anything else. On the extreme side, some politically motivated establishment of marine reserves act mainly as a personal playground in the guise of a nature reserve 10
for some politicians where the ordinary fisherman is lawfully prevented from fishing but where a politician and their cohorts are free to do whatever they please. 3.1.2. Computer Systems for Site Selection Studies on site selection with the use of computers were extensively reviewed by (Cleveland et al., 1979). Similarly, there are also numerous specific papers written on the use of computer models for the selection of various types of localization projects such as land fill sites (Basagaoglu et al., 1997; Chalkias and Stournaras, 1997; Chang and Wang, 1995; Frantzis, 1993; Hussey et al., 1996; Juang et al., 1995; Kao and Kao, 1996; Karthikeyan et al., 1993; Lin and Kao, 1999; Lindquist, 1987; Lolos et al., 1997; Muttiah et al., 1996; Rouhani and Kangari, 1990; Siddiqui et al., 1996; Van-Zee and Lee, 1989), aquaculture facilities (Aguilar-Manjarrez and Ross, 1995; Arnold et al., 2000; De Silva et al., 2001; Ross et al., 1993; Stagnitti and Austin, 1998), land treatment systems (Sun et al., 1998), waste water treatment facilities (Wenbo, 2001), oil storage tank farms and pipelines (Kuna, 2001), communication facilities (Piyasiri, 2001), forest management (Church et al., 2000; Stohlgren et al., 1997), housing (Dawson, 1996; Helmy, 2001; Mahmoud Humeida, 2000)and tourism (Chilufya, 2001; Falan, 1996; Reichel et al., 1998). A common factor in most of the studies has been the development and implementation of an expert system that is specifically tailored to the objective in consideration. In addition all these studies employ some kind of multi-criteria evaluation that then eventually determines, selects or suggests the specific target areas where the objective is best put into practice or best not to be implemented. Typically, these systems identify a broad set of suitable sites that are assigned varying levels of suitability. The most common method employed for these systems include the typical overlaying of attribute / criteria maps using a number of commonly accepted aggregating functions. Moreover, the attribute / criteria maps used maybe utilized in its current form, derived from base source maps or may be a combination of two or more criteria. Some systems were also designed to provide planners, and people who make locational decisions, the use of knowledge based systems in which their domain specific expert knowledge is combined with some problem solving strategies, techniques and mathematical models of locational analysts (Armstrong et al., 1990). The problem for example, of selecting nature reserves has been recognized and has become prominent in recent times such that a variety of approaches have been promoted for selecting those sites that should be included in a reserve network. Some of the techniques developed employ heuristic algorithms. Others use a set of models and accompanying algorithms with an integer programming formulation of the problem (Arthur et al., 1997). In order to provide complete information to decision makers, the ones who decide where the reserves should be, the determination of all alternate optimal solutions is necessary. And although sophisticated computational methods have been developed to help us to identify the optimal sets of potential nature reserves, because of unresolved problems on data quality and an identified lack of communication between scientists and 11
managers, the impact of computational site-selection tools in applied conservation planning in general has been minimal (Cabeza and Moilanen, 2001).
3.2.
Selection of the Criteria for the Study
The most comprehensive review of the subject of selecting criteria for the establishment of reserves and conservation sites available in literature is the paper done by (Margules and Usher, 1981). The specific criteria selected for this study were taken primarily from the list provided, although some were actually a derivative of another criteria or may belong to the same class of criteria mentioned. Since this study intends to be as comprehensive as possible, both bio-physical and socio-economic / demographic criteria were considered. There were however some guidelines that were considered in making the selections particularly when selecting the specific criteria. The first step to any multicriteria evaluation problem is the proper identification and definition of all the criteria that is relevant to the purpose of the evaluation. As criteria are determined, their individual and collective relevance and therefore their role in the multicriteria evaluation is also given consideration. Although the initial emphasis was on the comprehensive identification of all possibly relevant criteria, special attention was also given on the availability of the data that may be used to represent the criteria. Quality of available data was also given enough consideration and where it merits and accuracy was clearly dubious, they were disregarded. It goes without saying that although efforts to include all possible criteria were done, it is almost impossible to have all identified criteria included in the multicriteria evaluation. In reality most of the criteria suggested in literature would not be practical for the purposes in mind in this study as their rationale in the suggestion of those criteria were somewhat different from this one. Keeping in mind that one of the main objectives of the study was also to determine the minimum amount of geo-information needed to accomplish the site selection, the next step after identification of all problem specific and relevant criteria was the evaluation of its importance or significance. Figure 3.1 shows the general steps followed in the identification, selection and preparation of the criteria maps. In the initial stages of the research, a comprehensive criteria tree was developed as shown in Figure 3.2. This was eventually pruned to a much lesser tree after the preliminary map overlays were conducted and initial site selections were compared (see Fig. 3.3). Some criteria maps that were found not to be contributing sufficiently to the selection process were removed from the analysis. Some other important criteria such as species diversity, etc., that were highly suggested in literature could not be included due to the lack of required data that could be used as a source map. On the other hand, most of these non-included criteria would need a more detailed study of the area before the data could be made available in a form that could be used in the evaluation so that it defeats the main purpose of the study which is to facilitate the rapid evaluation of sites for marine reserves without the need for the 12
Figure 3.1. A schematic diagram showing the general steps followed in the identification, selection and preparation of the criteria maps.
costly and time consuming field surveys. Other identified criteria such as representativeness and size were not given much significance as they become critically important only if one regards strictly the purpose of establishment of a nature reserve in its classical sense, which is first and foremost, the preservation of biodiversity. As mentioned earlier (Chapter 1.1), the supposed purpose of marine reserve establishment taken in this study is not all throughout the same as the purpose of a classical reserve and therefore it is not expected to perform exactly as one and subsequently need not be subjected to the same strict selection process. Their exclusion in this study however, does not in any way intend to diminish their importance, only that in this particular case, their use may serve to impede more than smooth the progress of the process of selection that is intended. It would be important to emphasize that the final criteria used in the analysis could be divided into two major groups (see Fig. 3.3), the bio-physico-chemical factor and a threat factor. The first principally considers all the biological and physico-chemical parameters that contribute to an area being suitable for the establishment of a marine reserve. The inherent ecological characteristics present in the area define the limits or boundaries of these criteria. As such, the main emphasis is given on those factors that clearly contribute to defining where a marine reserve should be placed. Taken alone, it picks out the areas where a marine reserve should be best located assuming a continuing state or natural progression of the environmental factors, without the addition of any external unnatural extenuating 13
factors, which is what the second factor intends to cover. The threat factor comes from a combination of factors that are mostly contributed by man, the main source of the unnatural extenuating factors. The logic behind using this factor is for tempering the selection made by the previous one since it gives a general indication of the restricting factors that will tend to emphasize those areas with characteristics that are not very suitable for a marine reserve due to the presence of unnatural conditions.
Corals Biotope / Benthic Habitat Seagrasses Mangroves Primary productivity Chlorophyll concentration
Biological
Water depth currents Hydrology Rivers / canals catchment temperature Total suspended materials
Marine Reserve
chlorides
Physical -Chemical
Water Quality Dissolved oxygen pH nutrients conductivity Total coliform landcover Land use
Domestic discharges Population employment Other reserves Seaweed culture
Anthropogenic
Fishing activities Economic activities Industries / factories Industrial discharges Ports and harbors Sand mining Resource extraction coral mining
Figure 3.2. The preliminary criteria tree created for the comprehensive examination of all possible criteria that could be included in the analysis.
14
1.1 Corals 1.2 Seagrasses Biotope / Benthic Habitat
Bio-physico-chemical
1.3 Mangroves 5 Other reserves 2 Water depth Hydrology 4 Rivers / canals Water Quality 3 Total suspended
Marine Reserve
6 Population 9 Fishing activities
Threat Factor
Human Activities 7 Industries / factories 8 Sand mining
Figure 3.3. The pruned criteria tree showing the final criteria selected for the analysis. Numbers indicate hierarchy.
3.3.
Criteria Valuation / Value Functions
Assigning values to the different identified criteria was done keeping in mind a set of general guiding rules as shown in Table 3.1. The available source or input maps were then converted into criteria maps using a variety of GIS processing manipulations using the software packages ILWIS2.23, Arcview3.2, ENVI3.4, and Surfer7. The valuation procedure for each criteria selected in the evaluation is described in detail in the following paragraphs. It would be important to note that as the valuation progressed in the course of the work, several
Table 3.1. The guiding rules used in the generation of the values in the criteria maps. The best area for a marine reserve is one which has the following set of characteristics. The presence of one or more marine benthic habitat (coral reef, seagrass beds, mangroves) either singly or in combination with the others; depth between 0.5 15 meters; good water quality (clear water); at least 4 hectares of contiguous area; furthest distance from river mouths discharging large amounts of sediments; least fishing pressure; controlled fishing practices; proximity to other previously defined nature reserves; furthest distance from aquaculture centers; furthest distance from resource exploitative activities; furthest distance from harmful industrial activities; furthest distance from population centers / coastal development;
possibilities and methods of valuation became evident for each criteria. The actual method followed for each criteria map was made with due consideration of the nature of the source maps. There are for example only so much methods allowable for a distance map. In general the value functions used were mostly
15
linear with exceptions noted in the detailed description of the valuation procedure for each map that follows. 3.3.1. Biotope / Benthic Habitat Valid types are areas that are containing any of three possible major biotope types; coral reefs, seagrass beds or mangroves. The most important habitat or biotope was assigned to coral reefs followed by seagrass beds and then to mangroves. Needless to say, this order of importance is purely incidental and is based solely on the authors preference (a coral reef biologist by training) and may be rearranged by anyone who has a special predilection for another biotope type. It would be interesting however to find out how the order of importance for the major biotope types can influence or affect the outcome of the analysis since their value and therefore their effects are taken not just individually but in combination with the other types. Any variations should however, not be expected to significantly alter the major candidate sites that will be selected, as the final map that will be used to represent this criteria is an aggregate of all three. This aspect is nonetheless investigated further and is discussed in more detail in a later chapter. Areas with valid habitat types that are in proximity to another habitat (with a combination of two or more of the biotopes) get the highest values. Therefore, the value of any valid area increases if another habitat type is near it. As an example, an area with a coral reef is valid and has a high value, but a coral reef area that is occurring very near a seagrass bed and a mangrove forest would be assigned the highest value. Consequently, areas where seagrass beds are found would have better values if they occur close to mangrove forests or even much higher if situated close to a coral reef. Likewise, areas with mangroves become more valuable if they are found close to either seagrass beds or coral reefs. This leads us then to our definition of proximity. From experience, six arbitrary distance boundaries were specified. These include distances of 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 and 40000 meters. Since the pixel resolution used for the analysis was 20 meters, a minimum distance attribute of fifty covers at least those pixels that are almost contiguous with the pixel in question and at the same time is distant enough so that it can be differentiated in the satellite image. It was also not very difficult to choose a 20-meter pixel size for the analysis since it is also the resolution of the satellite image (SPOT-XS) used in the delineation of the underwater habitats (coral reefs and seagrass beds). In reality, a distance of fifty meters as a transition zone between different biotope types is not uncommon and is usually the case particularly in shallow tropical reefs. Except for the last exceedingly large class, which is more a required computational boundary constant more than any, the succeeding distance classes chosen are all almost a representation of a subsequent two-fold increase ending with 1000 meters or 1 kilometer, a distance which is certainly, already too far for the biotope types to effectively influence another and therefore change its valuation. 16
3.3.2
Bathymetry / Depth
Figure 3.4a. shows a graphical representation of the symmetrical value function applied to the depth. Since we are concerned with areas to be designated as nature reserves, an innate limitation for any reserve containing such biotopes as corals and seagrasses would have to consider the inherent limits of growth and development of such biotopes in their natural environments. (This is of course not true for mangroves.) Due to the natural requirements of corals and seagrasses for relatively shallow waters, only the relatively shallow depths would have any value. A depth of 30 meters is considered as the maximum depth that will be included in the analysis. This depth is considered as the lowermost boundary of the optimal depth in which corals and seagrasses would thrive. To compensate for the unavoidable although predictable variations in water depth due to tidal influences, the range of the tides in the study area (1 meter) was considered such that those areas whose depth is less than half a meter, and therefore completely exposed or above water during low tides, were considered as having no value in the analysis. To closely mimic the real world situation, it is also important to note that the best growth rates for coral and seagrasses occur at depths between five to fifteen meters due to the maximal availability of sunlight, an important biotic necessity. Areas therefore, that are found between these depths will have the highest values and those areas with depths between the minimal and maximal limits to these optimal depths will have a progressively increasing value although their highest value will never approach the maximum and their lowest will never be naught. On the maximum boundary, all areas with depths of twenty meters or greater will have no value. 3.3.3 Total Suspended Materials (TSM)
Figure 3.4b. shows a graphical representation of the value function applied to the criteria of total suspended materials. This is a monotonically decreasing function that has a cut-off value at the observed measurement of total suspended materials standard of 6 mg/L. The class boundaries defined (and indeed the input map) in this criteria is derived, without alteration from the work of (Ambarwulan, 2002) and will not be rationalized further in this paper. The logic however, of deciding on the cut-off class is explained. And the explanation can again be found in considering the essential biotic requirements of the major organisms present in the study site. Corals thrive in clear water with low amounts of suspended sediments which tend to clog their digestive and respiratory tracts, and which at the same time lowers the amount of sunlight that their symbiotic zooxanthellae (provides the corals with their food and nutrients) needs for survival. The higher the amount of suspended materials the more detrimental to coral growth and development. Such areas will be given the lowest values. Although the increased sediment load, if it settles to the bottom, will tend to provide some form of benefit for a seagrass community that can use it as a growth 17
A. The value function applied to the depth criteria
B. The value function applied to the criteria on total suspended materials.
C. The value function for the distance to river nouths.
D. The value function for distance from sand mining activities
E. The value function as applied to the distance to industrial facilities.
F. The value function as applied to the presence of other existing reserves.
G. The value function for the presence of different types of fishing activities.
H. The value function as applied to the criteria of distance from populated areas.
Figure 3.4. Graphical representations of the various value functions applied to the different criteria used in the study.
substrate, its initial effect is patently unconstructive since its suspension in water dissipates the greatly needed sunlight and lowers its penetration depth and therefore diminishes the seagrasses photosynthetic activities. For a plant, that can only be a drawback. 18
3.3.4
Hydrology River Mouth
The influence of rivers to the marine environment may be simplified by considering its main contribution sediment laden fresh water. Although not immediately obvious, the presence of sediment in the river discharge would tend to relate this criterias valuation to the previous. The main difference is that the previous criteria refers to in situ sediment, that which is already in the water column and constitutes a clear and present danger, completely different from the kind of detriment as the future sediment that are still coming forth from the rivers. Additional volumes of fresh water input from the river are also not very favorable for coral growth and development, as the organisms prefer marine saline environments in contrast to estuarine saline environments with low salinity. Seagrasses on the other hand are more tolerant of lower salinities and may in some instances even thrive at slightly less than pure marine waters. In general however, the cons outnumber the pros so that the greater the possibility of an increase in future fresh water and sediment from the rivers, the lesser the benefits expected for the target biotopes and therefore the greater its impact. It should be noted however that the presence of a strong dispersing factor such as wind driven or tidal currents would tend to mitigate this influence making its effects less intense. However, it is assumed that the water currents occurring in the study area is on the average fairly constant and relatively not so intense as is expected in areas characterized by shallow water embayments. The characteristics of the watershed / catchment that are found upstream of the river mouths is also expected to contribute largely to varying levels of impact. These are all dependent among others, on the size of the watershed, the actual volume of water that is discharged, the general slope of the area, its internal relief and the prevailing land use practices that may retard or promote soil erosion rates. A more comprehensive characterization / representation for this criteria was not possible because enough information that will allow even a rough computation of an index (for example, total discharge multiplied by the average slope then divided by the total area of the catchment) for the impact potential for each river was unavailable for the entire area so that it was assumed that for this situation, the impact potential and consequently the effects of each river were equal (which makes everything simpler). The value function created for this criteria, therefore is monotonically increasing (see Fig. 3.4c). The further the distance from the river mouths (where the sediment laden freshwater pours out) the greater the value. 3.3.5 Sand Mining Activities
Since sand mining tends to increase the release of additional potentially erodable sediment to the environment, it is very similar in form as in manner of impact with the previous criteria. Albeit probably more consequential since the process of sand mining would also tend to release potential 19
pollutants (a very definite deficiency for nature reserves) that would otherwise remain trapped and inaccessible among the terrigenous deposits, a monotonically increasing value function (see Figure 3.4d) was also applied to this criteria. The further is the distance from the sand mining activities the greater the values applied. 3.3.6 Industries / Factories
The presence of any type of industry or factory is almost always considered as a negative factor for any type of nature reserve. They are immiscible in disposition, and are from any point of view, contraindicated. Nature reserves need to be located as far away as possible from industrial areas with their pollutants, by-products and disturbances. By default, a cut-off distance should be imposed on this criteria for indeed, only up to a certain extent, can factories and industries affect the natural environment. But considering that the area is characterized as a shallow water embayment, and that the prescribed cut-off distance (Bryant et al., 1998) is more than the longest fetch in the study area, the cut-off distance was not applied. A monotonically increasing value function (see Fig. 3.4e) was applied to this criteria. 3.3.7 Other Existing Reserves
Ideally, a series or nature reserves forming a coherent network with segments that are neither too far away nor too near to be considered as one is the preferred configuration from both a biological and management point of view. With this in mind, the valuation for this criteria is described as a monotonically decreasing function (see Fig. 3.4f), with increasingly reduced values the farther away one moves from the two defined and already managed mangrove egret breeding reserves. 3.3.8 Fishing Activities
The practice of any type of fishing activity represents a certain kind of disturbance that is not very compatible with nature reserves. In fact, one of the main reasons for the establishment of a reserve is to provide areas where no fishing activities or for that matter any kind of exploitative activity can take place thereby setting aside a definite part of the reef area for reproductive and growth purposes of the economically important target species of fish. Fishing as an exploitative endeavor represents a defined disruption of the natural state of the environment and the greater the diversity of methods employed in fishing, the more efficient the activity becomes and therefore the more damaging its effect. It is also true that some fishing methods have more negative effects or are more damaging than the others. Taken singly, if only one fishing method is employed in the area, it can be considered as behaving in a Boolean manner, either it exists or not and should impact an area equally all throughout. However when diverse types of fishing methods are employed covering areas of concern that are also all overlapping, the impacts to specific individual areas become additive, so that in general we applied to 20
this criteria, a monotonically decreasing value function (see Fig. 3.4g). The more fishing methods employed in an area the lesser the value. Locations within the bay where only one type of fishing method is operational or allowed gets the highest values. 3.3.9 Population Coastline Index
The effect of human populations on natural environments can only be described as being detrimental if not outright destructive. In general with very few exceptions, the larger the population is, the greater the stress that it puts on to the environment. This is mainly due to the inherently finite nature of resources and space available for everyones use. And with increased population come increased resource use and the evenly balanced distribution and replenishment of such resources also become more difficult. Areas that exhibit high population densities, if left unrestrained, generally demonstrate an increased rate of environmental deterioration. Particularly for coastal areas where the main source of protein is usually right outside ones front yard, the impulsion to extract as much from the resource becomes more difficult to curb. For this criteria, a monotonically increasing value function was applied.
3.4.
Data Sources
The major source of the data in this study was taken from the Teluk Banten GIS CD, and the Banten Bay MIS version 3.0 CD. All the vector data were available in Arcview shapefile, AutoCAD (*.dxf) or in ArcInfo format. Although the major topographic layers were in the same coordinate system, some were in another unkown coordinate system that was significantly different. This was evident in the presence of a consistent shift to the east of about 135m in some of the vector files. The raster layers were the most problematic when it comes to the georeferencing. Since the studies were conducted by different people at different times, each data set were essentially using their own georeferences and most of the preparatory work for raster maps constituted the re-georeferencing to the same georeference as the vector files.
3.5.
Detailed procedure for each criteria
It is essential to remember that each criteria considered for use in this model is fundamentally represented by one map although as explained in Chapter 2.2, some criteria may in reality be an aggregate of two or more related criteria. The purpose of aggregating the maps are varied and may be considered as essentially one way of simplifying the model procedures carried out. It is always easier to consider fewer elements in the analysis and aggregating some criteria into one is one way of making it simpler.
21
All the maps available for the study was examined to determine spatial and attribute quality. Spatial quality / accuracy was verified by direct
Table 3.2. Projection parameters used for the customized map projection for all the various maps. Projection Type Projection Datum : : : : : : : Transverse Mercator WGS-84 500000.00 10000000.00 0 0 0.00 105 0 0.00 0.999600
comparison with the latest version (Edisi 1-1999) of analog topographic maps of the area which was scanned and georeferenced (see Table 3.2 for the projection parameters) to within an RMS error of 1 pixel. The maps
Scale Factor False Easting False Northing Latitude of projection origin Longitude of central meridian
were scanned to a resolution of 300 pixels per inch (dpi) and with 32K colors. Since the size of the scanner precluded the single pass scanning, the analog maps were scanned in four sections with more than sufficient overlaps and with the edges firmly in place along the fixed sides of the scanner. The section scans for each map (four each per analog map) were then individually georeferenced in ENVI 3.4 using as tiepoints/ ground control points, the visible corners / grid intersections of the map. A minimum of six points were chosen for each scanned section. Each section was then individually resampled to within a pixel resolution of 5 meters. The output map from this operation was then mosaiced together, again with a pixel size of 5 meters to form the final map sheet. Each map sheet was then mosaiced with other map sheets to cover almost the entire study area. A total of 5 whole map sheets (see Fig. 3.5) were treated this way with one more map missing to make up the complete study area. Since map overlays will be done for the analysis and with map sources being quite varied, it was very important that from the very beginning, all maps were sure to be within the same map extents and having the same pixel size. For this purpose, a fixed geo-reference (hereinafter referred to as banten.grf) was created with the properties listed in Table 3.3. All raster maps and vector maps that were later rasterized were then resampled to this same geo-reference. Vector maps were also examined in the manner in which they would be overlaid. Since the study requires that map overlays will be done, it is a given requirement that all maps should be properly overlaying each other. Consistency checks for topology and for cleaning and building were also done using ArcInfo 8. This was done to ensure the validity of the raster files that will eventually be generated since some vector files that had spurious topologies could not be correctly rasterized. There is no conclusive means of assessing absolute attribute quality so that this was done primarily only on the level of how well the attribute conforms to the tabular requirements of the data. The attribute population 1990 by kecamatan for example cannot be checked for its absolute accuracy, but within the database it can be cross - checked with the population 1990 by desa to determine 22
whether the data is consistent. Consistent data were considered as acceptable. Where no other information can be used to check consistence, it is assumed that the information is correct.
1110-311
1110-312
1110-321
Bojonegara
Pasirputih
Lontar
1109-633
1109-634
1109-643
Cilegon
Serang
Pontang
Figure 3.5 The mosaiced map sheets used for the examination of the spatial accuracy of the input maps taken from various sources. Only one sheet was missing, Serang (1109-634) from the series. The map sheet Pontang (1109-643) was not scanned since it did not include areas that were within the study site.
Criteria Standardization All of the final criteria maps used for the calculations were subjected to standardization. Primarily for purposes of comparisons, we need to convert all the criteria to the same scale allowing for the maintenance of the relative importance for each criteria. All the standardizations were done to a final map value range of 0 to 1. 3.5.1. Biotope Map / Benthic Habitat The only input / source map that was actually generated for this study is the biological habitat or biotope map. The existing data that was included with the provided information that came with the
Pixel size 20 20 meters 1319 1077 Table 3.3. The properties of the map extents defined for the raster maps used in the study. Minimum x Maximum x Minimum y Maximum y 617020.00 638540.00 9329060.00 9355420.00
Teluk Banten and Banten MIS cds were not entirely sufficient for the requirements of the study which 23
Number of Lines Number of Columns
needed a more comprehensive albeit a bit less accurate habitat map. The major concern was with finding all possible sites where these habitats could be identified from the satellite images and not on the accuracy of such identification. A general procedure therefore, for using satellite images as a source for visual interpretation together with expert knowledge was implemented for this purpose. It is important to emphasize at this point that no field verifications were carried out for this part of the data interpretation. Only expert knowledge of the author was used to deduce from the images the location of the various benthic habitats of interest. Where applicable, the already prepared landuse maps were also consulted.
This involved a series of creating various color composites using archive SPOT XS and Landsat TM images of 1997 which were taken from some of the images used as input files by (Wignyowinoto, 2001) and to a lesser extent the newer images available for free, the ASTER images. The color composites were then examined and on-screen digitizing of the location of the benthic habitats were carried out based on where the author can best discern the presence of such habitats. In some cases, additional stretching of different parts of the image provided better contrast for some of the habitats being distinguished such that
stretching was done interactively with continuous Some manual stretch
delineation.
combinations were good for some parts of the images but made other parts of the image too bright or too dark. Upon reaching such parts, another stretch is applied which is based on the values of the pixels currently in consideration. One of the benefits of using the software package ENVI (version 3.4) is the way one can interactively apply various enhancing stretch
algorithms depending either on the entire image or only the currently loaded part of the image (see Figure 3.6). The images were not subjected
Figure 3.6. The different types of common stretching parameters available in ENVI which allows on-the-fly visualization of the most favorable stretching method that can be based either on the entire image, the selected view or only on the zoomed part.
24
to any type of radiometric correction except for submitting it through the darkest pixel method as described in (Chavez et al., 1977) in (Green et al., 2000).
After the delineation of the three major benthic habitats, distance maps were generated for each of them. The output distance maps were then reclassified into the six arbitrary classes mentioned in Chapter 3.3.1. To determine the areas with the desired
combination of classes, these output reclassified maps were then crossed. Since map
crossing can only be done to two maps at any one time, the coral and seagrass maps were first crossed and its output subsequently crossed with the mangrove distance classes. A combined domain from all three maps yielded 188 items. The domain items were then sorted into an ascending order of importance and then
appropriate hierarchic scores assigned using a maximum score of 15 and minimum of 0.1 (see Figure 3.7). Utilizing A the original final cross maps domain weights as its domain, was a
table
then
generated and the assigned scores placed in one column. Together with the final cross B map output, this table was then used in the generation of an
Figure 3.7. The partial cross table generated from distance classes of the various biotope types with the assigned weights for each class. Highlighted row A shows the score given to areas which are far from coral reefs but have mangrove and seagrass near each other. Highlighted row B is the highest class with all three biotope types occurring near each other.
attribute maps applying the scores column as the attribute. The resulting attribute map was
25
then divided by the maximum score of 15 to get a standardized biotope criteria map with values ranging from 0 to 1. 3.5.2. Bathymetry / Depth Various sources were considered for this criteria. Some of the maps were already in the form of a DEM while others consisted of raw point files and even scanned analog navigation maps. For purposes of identifying which maps to use, various sources were examined. The optical method of determining depths (Wignyowinoto, 2001) were examined together with the maps generated by the SIMBA project. If however, some fairly accurate navigation maps are available, then such maps can also be a good source for bathymetric data. In this study, because the area was near a fairly busy shipping lane, the Sunda Strait, navigation maps as a source of bathymetric information was extensively examined. In some cases, the only other source of bathymetric data may even be topographic maps with at least five, ten, fifteen and twenty meters isobaths depicted as lines parallel to the shore. Where present, such maps may be acceptable. If on the other hand no other maps are present, due to its convenience, the optical method for determining depths was also examined. Particularly in areas not frequently used for as a shipping lane (a characteristic not present in the study area), the presence of bathymetric data is at best sparse and unreliable. In this case, the use of optical methods for determining water depths could be a possible solution. In this study though, a more reliable source was available. To simulate the real world situation, it was decided that the source map that will be used for this criteria was to be a merge of the scanned navigation map and the field measurements in x, y and z made by (Wignyowinoto, 2001). Indeed, with a cheap GPS, a boat, and a weighted line, one can easily generate a point map of depth measurements with the minimum of time and finances. The scanned navigation maps were geo-referenced using the visible grid markings on the map as the tiepoints. The geo-referenced map was then resampled to the prepared geo-reference and coordinate system with parameters mentioned in Table 3.3. On screen digitizing of depth points was then carried out followed by the merging with data taken from the field measurements. The resulting point file was then subjected to a kriging interpolator using Surfer with configuration setting based on a linear model and with an output extent and grid size similar to all the other maps (banten.grf). The interpolated depths were then reclassified based on the symmetrical value function mentioned in Chapter 3.3.2, which is easier said than done. To begin with, in the GIS processing, all the depth measurements were in negative depth values so that to simplify the arithmetic computations, all the values were first converted to positive by multiplying the entire depth map with negative one. A series
26
of map calculation statements were then executed as listed in Appendix A., the script used to generate a final criteria map that had values from 0 to 1. 3.5.3. Total Suspended Materials (TSM) The source maps inspected for use with this criteria were taken directly and without alteration of the content from the output maps generated by the procedures outlined by (Ambarwulan, 2002). The GIS operations performed on the source maps were limited to the adjustment of the georeference and the reclassification of the classes to facilitate the adaptation of the defined value function that was supposed to be employed and is discussed in Chapter 3.3.3. These involved the conversion of the interval scale used in the source maps to values ranging from 0 to 1 as shown in Figure 3.8. 3.5.4. Hydrology River mouth The location of the different rivers and canals emptying into the bay was digitized onscreen using the digital topographic maps provided by the Teluk Banten GIS project. The created point maps were then rasterized and distance maps generated. Since reclassifying the distance maps into distinct arbitrary boundaries will tend to imply the presence of an artificial hierarchic class where there was none, it was decided that the absolute distance from the river mouths best represents the value function for the criteria. However for purposes of facilitating the standardization, the maximum distance was taken as a divisor for all other pixels within the map to redistribute the values between 0 and 1. 3.5.5. Sand Mining Activities The distance function was used to generate a distance map showing the increasing distance from the areas where this resource extraction activity takes place. No reclassification was done as the absolute distance was sufficient enough to represent the value function defined for the criteria. There was however the standardization of the distance map to values between 0 to 1 which was done by dividing each pixel with the maximum distance value present.
Figure. 3.8. The domain table used for converting the total suspended materials to criteria values.
27
3.5.6
Industries / Factories
Similar to the previous criteria, the distance function was used to generate a distance map. There was also no reclassification done on the map as the absolute distance was sufficient enough to represent the value function defined for the criteria. There was however the standardization of the distance map to values between 0 to 1 which was done by dividing each pixel with the maximum distance value present. 3.5.7. Other Existing Reserves Although the value function for the criteria was different from the previous, the distance function was also used to generate a distance map. The only difference is that areas that were considered as further from the reserve sites should get lower values, whereas the distance function generates values that increases as one moves further away. To compensate for this and to reverse the trend, the maximum distance value present in the map was subtracted from each pixel and then multiplied by negative one to make the value positive. The resulting map was then divided by the maximum value to generate a standardized criteria map with values from 0 to 1. Although the study area had two separate locations where other reserves could be found, only one input criteria map was generated for this criteria. There was no distinction made between the two previously declared reserve areas. 3.5.8. Fishing Activities Since each fishing method by its very nature, has a different effect on the environment, it is quite obvious that each method should be given a different weight in its contribution to the criteria. This was done by determining the nature of the fishing method and its manner of operation together with its target species. The following Table 3.4 lists the general characteristics of each method as explained by an expert (Nuraini, 2001). To account for these differences in impacts between fishing gears /methods used, more weight was accorded to active fishing methods than to passive methods. Obviously, since active methods tend to catch more fish, its operations are more detrimental. The inherently invasive nature of active fishing methods, which is usually accomplished by driving a net either by motorized boat or by manual methods, can also destroy some parts of the substrate, particularly if done indiscriminately. The greater the weights assigned to a method, the more destructive it is perceived to be. Since the maps that are available only indicates the presence or absence of a particular type of fishing method, this was converted immediately to the map score by assigning the weight to all pixels that were within the locations where a particular method was practiced. An aggregate score of all maps was then made by summing up all the maps and then dividing it by the summation of all weights (see operational Ilwis 2.23 script listing, Appendix B). A criteria map with values between 0 and 1 was then generated.
28
Table 3.4. The description of the fishing methods (Nuraini, 2001) included in this study together with the weights assigned them in the computations. Assigned Weight
Fishing Method
Description
Standing - Bagan (stationary lift net)
It is the most important gear used to catch anchovies in many parts of the shallow areas in Indonesia. There is a platform of bamboo stick functioning as rollers to lift the net and operating during the night. Kerosene pressure lamps is used to attract the schooling fish. Fishing is done during a dark moon. Mostly two fishers operate one bagan. a square gear. A beach seine that operated using small boat with 7 to 9 crews targeted for estuarine small fishes such as mysids, and ponyfishes. This gear has small mesh sizes range from 0.5 to 1 cm. Therefore, in non pelagic season, this gear in the shallow water caught young fishes in segrass such as rabbitfish, groupers, apogon etc in rainy season. A stationary trap that is set up near the mouth of the river. Catches of the fish based on diel tidal. The fish will enter the trap when the water is high. Catches estuarine fish, mullet, catfish, sardine etc. Gear targeted for pelagic species, anchovies or sardine a few miles from the coastal area. It is operated from an outboard or inboard engine boat. The net consists of several parts with its own mesh size ranging from the smallest (3/8inch) at the bag part to the widest 8 inches at the wings part. The length of the net varies from 120 to 300m. A three-layer bottom gillnet which consists of different mesh sizes. It is targeted for prawn, namely udang jerbung (Penaeus merguensis), udang dogol (P. indicus), rajungan (Portunus pelagicus). It ranged from 120150m in length and 3m wide. A line with a hook on the end placed with bait.
Bondet (beach seine)
Sero
Payang (danish seine)
jaring-udang (shrimp trammel net)
Pancing (hand line) jaring rampus (gill net /nylon gill net) Bubu (fish trap)
targeted for all kind of fish, mullet, pelagic fish. The mesh size usually small
made of bamboo or wire. There are many types of traps but mostly having a hexagonal shaped mesh, others are cubic or rounded. The length is 80cm and with 30-40cm height. Its mesh size is about 1 inch in diameter. The entrance mouth is round in shape and 15 - 20cm diameter. Setting and hauling are conducted during the day at the reef flat or reef slopes and having a soak time of 2-3 days. It targets live groupers and reef fish. Without wings and otterboard, only a bag with the diameter of the bag of about 1.5m. The mesh size is small, 0.5inch. Targeted mostly for shrimp or demersal fishes. Usually fished at muddy area or seagrass beds when the catch is low.
Arad (Trawl)
29
3.5.9. Population Coastline Index This criteria map was created specifically with a modeling difficulty in mind that can be defined by addressing its main problem. This is, stated simply, how to project the effects of an attribute that is usually existing in the form of a land-based polygon file over the water part of the study area, the part we are concerned about. The population data for example, is available as one of the attribute columns within the "desa" or village polygon file, which intrinsically means that the population itself is distributed equally within the extents of the individual village polygon (which is of course also not entirely true). To put it in another way, how can population data be represented on the map area so as to allow for variable effects or weights (based on the attribute itself like population) on the aquatic part of the bay when the stored location available is defined only by the position of the village polygons. Some literature (Bryant et al., 1998) suggests using derived indices like population density instead of actual counts but the problem remains even when using a derived index since the location pointers and therefore its extent of influence remains generally the same. For this purpose, the procedure followed for the criteria is shown in Figure 3.9. This basically involves a series of spatial data and tabular data manipulations beginning with extracting the coastline from the polygon files and determining the length of the coastline. The population attribute that is attached to the same polygon as the extracted coastline is then divided by the total calculated length of coastline providing an index of population based on the coastline rather than on the area. This procedure assumes that communities with larger populations (more mouths to feed) but with a smaller coastline (less resources available) would tend to adversely influence the environment more due to their increased exploitation pressure potential. For purposes of simplifying the calculations it was decided to use the level of the Kecamatan for this purpose although the data available was for the much finer level of the desa or village. Each extracted coastline was then disaggregated by kecamatan and then for each one along the coastal area, the coastline index of population for 1998 was calculated by dividing the population for 1998 with the length of the coastline. For any given population, the longer the coastline, the lower this index becomes. For this index, it is assumed that the greater the value of this index, the greater the negative impact of the population on the environment. Distance maps were then created for each individual kecamatan coastline followed subsequently by the generation of a weighted distance map calculated by dividing the distance map created by the coastal population index. Since the distance values generated by the distance function are divided by the index, a lower weighted value indicates a greater influence of the population to that pixel since it will make the absolute value smaller. Finally, the weighted distance maps for each kecamatan were combined by adding together all the individual maps to produce an overall criteria map. The final map was then standardized by dividing it with the maximum value present in all the combined map.
30
1. Use polygon of administrative boundaries using the Kecamatan as index.
2. Extract polygons that have a side adjacent to the coastline.
3. Extract the coastline by manual clipping and determine length.
4. Join table of extracted coastline to the original administrative boundaries via the Desa key.
5. Calculate the coastline population density index for 1998 based on the length of coastline and the 1998 population.
6. Create distance maps for each kecamatan coastline.
7. Create weighted distance map by dividing output of Step 6 with the coastline population density index calculated in Step 5.
8. Combine all kecamatan weighted distance maps by adding them together.
Figure 3.9. The procedure followed for the creation of the coastline population index criteria map.
31
3.6.
The Map Overlays
To attain the objective of selecting suitable sites for marine reserves, a series of overlay procedures were pursued. In general this involved the process of applying appropriate weights to the different criteria determined previously and then combining the maps to reflect the effects of each criteria to the overall score that will eventually be calculated. Since the combination of the maps will be done at the pixel level, it was very important to determine whether all the maps used were properly geo-referenced to each other and that one feature on one map properly overlays on the other maps. This was done previously and is described in Chapter 3.5. The original intention was to use exclusively, ArcView for all the overlay operations. However, due to the inherent design limitations of the software, it was decided that the actual process of doing the overlaying of the maps was to be done following two different procedures. One involved the use of a modified index overlay with multiple attribute maps employing Ilwis 2.23 and described in (Van Westen, 1997), and the other involved the use of a customized extension for multi-criteria decision making with ArcView 3.2 and Spatial Analyst that was also employing an index overlay algorithm for its map combinations. This customized extension was downloaded previously from the ESRI website (but is not available anymore) and was created specifically for use in an ArcView 3.2 environment with the calculations consisting primarily of Spatial Analyst procedures (Pouliot, 2000) and written in Avenue. 3.6.1. The Ilwis Overlays Prior to the overlays in Ilwis, weights were assigned to the different criteria maps as shown in Table 3.6. The original test run weights were arbitrarily assigned by the researcher based on expert knowledge and was adjustable in almost any manner to attain varying degrees of selection resolution or for providing more importance to any another criteria based on the natural preference of the current analysis persona. There appears however to be numerous problems with the use of arbitrary assignment of weights as it was difficult to take into consideration the weight being given in relation to the other criteria. For this purpose, the same criteria weights (map scores) that were assigned in the overlays done using the ArcView extension were the same weights used for the overlays done with the use of Ilwis. A modification of the procedure described in (Van Westen, 1997) and this study is that all the criteria maps are derived from input maps whose class scores are all assigned based on the value functions applied to the criteria as mentioned in Chapter 3.3 and are already containing the class scores in each pixel that are already standardized to the increasing values between 0 and 1. Except for the criteria maps for the biotope type and bathymetry that had crisp and well defined boundaries, all the other criteria maps (which were all made up mostly of derived distance maps) had ratio type measurement 32
scales rather than an interval type and therefore had some type of a threshold boundary. Their suitability was therefore also considered as following a ratio scale.
3.6.2. The ArcView Overlays The main purpose for including this
procedure in the research was for finding out whether a site selection procedure for nature reserves could be carried out with a minimum of technical knowledge in ArcView, a software package that offers ease of use and extendibility using its relatively powerful built-in scripting
functionalities present in the form of Avenue. Because the author (Christopher Pouliot) of the program extension
(MCDM.avx) provided only rudimentary information and was unresponsive to the researchers queries regarding the actual operations carried out in the extension, the researcher was forced by the circumstances to extract some parts of the extension. This would enable an examination of the
procedures used by the extension author in the map calculations. Furthermore, the builtin settings of the extension prohibited its use in the researchers workstation without some revisions as the extension assumes that it is installed in a stand-alone system and not in the security protected ArcView extensions directory that resides in the Institutes applications server. Fortunately, the program extension author did not encrypt the scripting procedures so that a direct examination of the extension script procedures yielded the actual basis for the overlays and allowed a slight modification that supported its proper operation within the workspace environment of the researchers workstation security setting limitations. Examination of the procedures followed in the extension reveal that it also performs a combination of maps via a modified index overlay method similar to that mentioned earlier. Before the overlay is conducted however, the input maps are all converted to grid maps if it is in the vector format, followed 33
Figure 3.10. The analysis types provided in the ArcView extension for multicriteria decision making.
by the reclassification of the maps into a maximum of three user-defined classes (four upper boundaries) based on the analysis type that was chosen. The available analysis types and therefore criteria valuation or suitability rating methods available differed depending on the format (raster or vector) of the source criteria map as described in the help dialog box shown in Figure 3.10. This is one of the limitations of the extension as the original input maps are reclassified to only a maximum of three possible classes with criteria valuation / suitability rating also consequently limited in the same manner that is as restrictive. If the monotonically increasing function was selected for example, values less than the first class boundary get the minimum suitability score equal to naught, and values greater than the second class boundary get the maximum score of one hundred. Between the first and second class boundaries, the suitability increases linearly from one to ninety-nine. The class boundaries in this case serve more as cutoff points and determine either zero suitability or maximum suitability.
A major advantage of the extension however is in the provision of an interactive weights assignment procedure (see Fig. 3.11) which is far superior to the manual assignment of weights implemented (and the only choice) for the Ilwis overlay. Even to an untrained person the use of interactively adjustable and dynamic sliders for assigning the weights to the individual criteria maps provides an added benefit in that the process of assigning weights can be done spontaneously. The presence of the dynamic visual cues was very helpful in that it allowed for a visually intuitive compensatory weight assignment since one can see the overall difference of the assigned weight in a criteria being rated and at the same time have the simultaneous overall picture of how much is its significance in relation to the whole. The result being that a more realistic criteria weights assignment can be accomplished.
Figure 3.11. A decided advantage for the use of the MultiCriteria Decision Making Tool extension is the provision of an interactive slider for the assignment of criteria weights (map scores) which shows not only the actual assigned score but also its relative weight as a percentage of the total.
34
4. Results and Discussion

4.1 The Criteria Maps
The source maps and the resulting criteria maps for all the criteria used in the study are presented in Figure 4.1. After the initial overlay operations were carried out, it was apparent that of all the criteria, it was the criteria on fishing methods that was not giving a meaningful contribution to the selection of the reserve site. With exception, excluding it from the overlay operations resulted in site selections that appeared very similar to when it was included. This criterion was found to be superfluous for the overlay operation and was not anymore considered in the overlay computations. Considered alone however, the fishing method map was very insightful. It showed particularly those areas that are not subjected to any kind of fishing pressure and therefore was probably a very good place for a sanctuary or reserve. Consequently and probably more interestingly, heavily fished areas can also be identified and avoided. It is possible that for the final choice of the site, one can use this information as a nonformalized criteria which can temper the choice considering all other criteria are equal or it may be used as a definitive exclusion criteria immediately after site selection as explained in Chapter 4.2. Depending on the intensity of the weights applied, some of the criteria, particularly for the biotope type and bathymetry, appeared to strongly influence the selection such that the other criteria apparently did not contribute much to the selection. This may be a direct result of the nature of the measurement scales used for the input maps as both the biotope type and bathymetry had essentially the same type of measurement scale, the interval type and all the others had a ratio scale. The crisp boundaries of both the biotope type and bathymetry were fairly evident in the output maps where the weights assigned them were substantially larger than the rest of the criteria.
Source Maps Criteria Maps
A. Biotope Type
35
Source Maps
Criteria Maps
B. Distance from Other Reserves
C. Bathymetry
D. Distance form River Mouths
36
Source Maps
Criteria Maps
E. Total Suspended Materials
F. Coastline Population Index
G. Fishing Methods
37
Source Maps
Criteria Maps
H. Distance from Industries
I. Distance from Sand Mining Operations Figure 4.1. The various source and the resulting criteria maps as used in the analysis. All the criteria maps share the same legend and have been standardized to values between 0 and 1.
To determine how a certain criteria can affect the calculations, some comparisons were carried out between some output maps generated without the criteria in consideration and the output map that was taken as the basis for comparison, that of scenario 5 with all other weight settings taken as a constant. Table 4.1 shows the differences between the outputs maps generated without the specific criteria as compared to the scenario 5 output. Negative values mean that the selection identified more areas than was selected in scenario 5 and therefore indirectly indicates the influence of that criteria to the selection process. Consider for example, the column on -river mouth which shows a highly negative value for the difference in the highly suitable class. This would suggest that without this criteria included in the calculations, there is a greater tendency to classify an area as highly suitable even if it
38
was not entirely true. Highly positive values indicate the reverse, which is that there is a greater tendency not to classify an area as highly suitable even if it was in reality highly suitable.
Table 4.1. Area in hectares of the suitability classes for marine reserves. Criteria name indicates those criteria that was omitted from the calculations. The column difference shows the area of the maps that deviate from the ideal which is taken as the calculations for scenario 5. Negative values in parentheses. Not Suitable area (ha.) Scenario 5 - tsm - sandmining - river mouth - population - industries - other reserves 55869.88 55918.64 55861.32 55797.44 55897.84 55859.56 55881.68 (48.76) 8.56 72.44 (27.96) 10.32 (11.80) Difference Least Suitable area (ha.) 194.80 178.16 186.76 196.92 180.44 185.52 194.48 16.64 8.04 (2.12) 14.36 9.28 0.32 Difference Moderately Suitable area (ha.) 216.04 190.80 222.28 204.72 221.20 223.72 207.32 25.24 (6.24) 11.32 (5.16) (7.68) 8.72 Difference Highly suitable area (ha.) 59.72 52.84 70.08 141.36 81.32 71.64 56.96 6.88 (10.36) (81.64) (21.60) (11.92) 2.76 Difference
4.2
The Selected Sites
The different output maps showing the selected marine reserve sites are shown in Figure 4.2a 4.2e (Ilwis) and 4.3a 4.3e (ArcView). Each map represents the overlay outputs using four different sets of weighting schema that were considered as listed in Table 4.2. For the actual site selection done, to ensure consistency in the overall analysis since there are numerous possible permutations in the weights assignment, a general rule on the hierarchy of the different criteria was observed while assigning the weights. This follows the hierarchic listing given in Figure 3.3. Except for the exploratory analysis indicated, where several possibilities were being tested, this hierarchy of criteria was strictly imposed particularly for the first and most important criteria. And although the absolute values of the weights may change relative to each other, the sequence of the hierarchy essentially remains permanent and unchanging. In addition, since the scenario being pursued in this study is such that we intend to establish a marine reserve based on some specific biotope type, one cannot establish a marine reserve where the specific biotope does not exist so that in reality, only in those areas where any of the three preferred biotope types exists can one have a marine reserve. However, if the purpose or intention is merely to find out where it would be best to establish a reserve without any specific qualified consideration for the presence of any of the preferred biotopes (there are of course also other biotope types), then the biotope type becomes only as important as the other criteria and is therefore given as much weight as the others. This is however not the case in this study. Nonetheless, these variable conditions were also explored.
39
The rationale for the use of these varying weighing schemes was to simulate actual conditions a planner may take when conducting the selection. One of the biggest problems was in maintaining the consistency and logic of the weighting. And although random weighing may work for some other type of problem, in this case a random or illogical weighing scheme will result in a meaningless output. The different weighing schemes used represent only some of many possibilities and as the results themselves show, the manner and choice of a weighing scheme has a direct effect on the selection process. For example, even while maintaining the general rule of hierarchy, if the differences between criteria were kept to a minimum, i.e., barely enforced hierarchy, the result show a tendency to select more suitable sites than any of the other weighing schemes. Of particular importance to the actual classification of whether a pixel value is suitable or unsuitable for a reserve, is the manner in which the final overlay maps are sliced according to their class boundaries. Indeed, whether a certain value falls within highly suitable or moderately suitable depends to a large extent on the manner in which the class boundaries are actually defined. To ensure consistency and to allow meaningful comparisons between the schemes, arbitrary values were used after examining all the maps. And except for scenario 4, all the others used the same class boundaries for the density slicing / reclassification / legend classes, as shown in Table 4.3.
Figure 4.2a. Scenario 1 (Assigned weights by direct assessment with a strongly enforced hierarchic rule.)
Figure 4.2b. Scenario 2 (Assigned weights by direct assessment without a strongly enforced hierarchic rule.)
40
Figure 4.2c. Scenario 3 (Weights assigned using the software Definite 2.0, weighted summation with expected value method.)
Figure 4.2d. Scenario 4 (Weights assigned by direct assessment while maintaining the hierarchic scores although barely. The differences between criteria are very small.)
Figure 4.2e. (Weights assigned using the software Definite 2.0, weighted summation with pair-wise comparison) Figure 4.2 The output maps generated using the index overlay with multi-class maps in Ilwis 2.23, using different criteria weights. Although the legend is the same for all the maps, the underlying class boundaries differ between all the maps. The common class boundary for all the maps is only for the not suitable class that was approximately at a value of 0.50.
41
Figure 4.3a. Scenario 1 (Assigned weights by direct assessment with a strongly enforced hierarchic rule.)
Figure 4.3b. Scenario 2 (Assigned weights by direct assessment without a strongly enforced hierarchic rule.)
Figure 4.3c. Scenario 3 (Weights assigned using the software Definite 2.0, weighted summation with expected value method.)
42
Figure 4.3d. Scenario 4 (Weights assigned by direct assessment while maintaining the hierarchic scores although barely. The differences between criteria are very small.)
Figure 4.3e. (Weights assigned using the software Definite 2.0, weighted summation with pair-wise comparison)
Figure 4.3 The output maps generated using the multi-criteria decision making extension (MCDM.AVX) for ArcView 3.2 , using different criteria weights. Although the legend is the same for all the maps, the underlying class boundaries differ between all the maps. The common class boundary for all the maps is only for the not suitable class that was approximately at an upper boundary value of 50.
After the overlay maps were generated in both procedures, the resulting values were examined carefully and compared to the actual locations of the biotope types to determine whether there was any truth to the selection. The location of the coral reefs were taken as a basis for the comparison as the greatest value was given to this biotope type and the reserve intended for establishment is a coral reef reserve. Examination of areas other than the reefs followed, after which a general pattern emerged. In all the overlays, the value of 0.50 (range 0 to 1) for the Ilwis procedure equivalent to 50 (range 0 100) in the Arcview procedure, appeared to be the cut-off point for those area that are not in any way suitable for the establishment of a reserve. This is fairly evident from all the output maps and across all the weighing schemes. 43
Table 4.2. The scores and their respective weights used for the five different scenarios created for the analysis of the site selection for marine reserves. biotope type Scenario 1 Score Weight Weighting rationale Scenario 2 Score Weight Weighting rationale Scenario 3 Score Weight Weighting rationale Scenario 4 Score Weight Weighting rationale Scenario 5 Score Weight Weighting rationale 60 26.20% bathymetry tsm river other reserves 20 8.73% population industries sandmining
40 17.47%
30 13.10%
25 10.92%
18 7.86%
18 7.86%
18 7.86%
Assigned weights by direct assessment with a strongly enforced hierarchic rule. 50 18.52% 50 18.52% 40 14.81% 30 11.11% 25 9.26% 25 9.26% 25 9.26% 25 9.26%
Assigned weights by direct assessment without a strongly enforced hierarchic rule. 74.8 34.00% 47.3 21.50% 33.44 15.20% 24.42 11.10% 17.38 7.90% 11.88 5.40% 7.26 3.30% 3.52 1.60%
Using the software Definite 2.0, weighted summation with expected value method. 50 15.92% 47 14.97% 44 14.01% 41 13.06% 38 12.10% 35 11.15% 32 10.19% 27 8.60%
Maintains the hierarchic scores although barely. The differences between the criteria is very small. 42.5 42.46% 24.7 24.68% 10.2 10.19% 8.7 8.69% 5.4 5.39% 3.8 3.80% 2.7 2.70% 2.1 2.10%
Using the software Definite 2.0, weighted summation with pair-wise comparison of the different criteria were done taking care that the inconsistency was below 0.1 as suggested. The inconsistency was pegged at 0.06 (see Fig. 4.4)
Figure 4.4. The weights table generated using the pairwise comparison in Definite 2.0. The final weight values were multiplied by ten and used for the scenario 5 run of the overlay procedure.
44
Of the five scenarios analyzed in the study, three (1, 3, 5) were found to produce an output map that appeared to be most realistic for the situation. This was true for both procedures followed. And among the three, it was the fifth scenario, the one with a pairwise comparison weighing scheme, that appeared to be the most logical and most appealing to the researcher. Particularly since it selected as highly suitable those areas that were near the centroids of most of the identified coral reefs. An objective comparison of the three scenarios is shown in the Table 4.3 that shows the area of the selections of the three scenarios as derived from their histograms. Pairwise comparisons weighing between criteria appears to be the best method as it produces the more logically defined selections. In addition, it also yielded the best in terms of identifying the prime areas highly suitable for a marine reserve. In all the three weighing schemes, the highest values in the overlay occurs in basically the same general area and as shown in Figure 4.5, the resolution of the problem was far superior in scenario 5 as it not only selects the biggest areas for the highly suitable areas, it also properly selects the lowest acceptable areas for a reserve which is in scenarios 1 and 3 a bit more liberal.
Least Suitable Moderately Suitable Highly suitable upper boundary 0.6 scenario 1 scenario 3 scenario 5 Table 4.3. The calculated area in hectares of the selected sites for the three scenarios that appeared to have a more realistic output. The values in the maps ranged from 0 to 1. (Upper boundary for unsuitable is 0.5)
3409.32
1983.6
194.8
0.7
102.44
216
216.04
1.0
3.08
34.04
59.72
Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Scenario 5
Figure 4.5. Zoomed in portion of coral reefs showing the suitability selections for the three scenarios considered.
45
A final criterion that is considered only after selection of all the possible candidate sites, is that of the minimum area of the reserve which should at least be four hectares of contiguous areas. Sites that are identified as suitable but are smaller than this threshold size should be discarded and only those that are of sufficient size should be considered and if needed, ranked. Figure 4.6 shows all the areas within the study site that was selected as suitable in scenario 5. Of these areas, the final six areas within the study area that are at least four hectares in size are shown in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.6. The areas within the study site that was selected as highly suitable for a marine reserve.
At this point depending upon a planner, a choice may be made as to which one among these sites should be declared as a reserve. The choice becomes easier when the options are visually inspected. A visual comparison can be made easily and choices made based on other non-formal criteria mentioned earlier. Additional information in the form of the specific properties of each area is also helpful in deciding which one among the selected suitable sites should be the choice. Table 4.4 gives a summary of the properties of each of the selected suitable areas. One can, at this time, also consider the actual contribution of fishing pressure by consulting the fishing method criteria maps which were
Figure 4.7 The six main sites that were at least four hectares in size. Numbers indicate the area in hectares.
not included in the calculations for the analysis, but can just as well be used to produce a map showing not only where there is less fishing pressure but more
importantly where the heaviest fishing actually takes place (see Fig. 4.8). If this map were compared with the final six selected sites, then it is quite evident that the two southernmost sites are definitely out of the running as candidate sites for reserves since they fall within the area where the greatest fishing pressure can be found. Without changing the fishing regulations in these areas (which is 46
usually easier said than done), these sites cannot be used for a reserve regardless of whether they fit very nicely into the highly suitable range. The use of the fishing method criteria as a constraining factor in this manner is probably better than if it was used as part of the analysis or calculations since it can clearly show that if were the fishing to
Table 4.4. The specific properties of the areas found suitable for the establishment of a marine reserve. Name Area (ha.) 6.32 4.92 10.52 7.64 10.40 8.64 Mean score 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.74 0.72 Total score 115.69 91.39 197.60 147.48 191.83 156.14 Min Score 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.71 0.71 Max Score 0.75 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.79 0.74 npix
Area_1 Area_4 Area_10 Area_28 Area_29 Area_34
158 123 263 191 260 216
regulations
changed
accommodate these sites, they can become nature reserves because they have all the characteristics of a good nature reserve. If it was used as part of the index overlay calculations and then given a fairly heavy weight, it would have precluded the two southern sites, regardless of their inherently reserve friendly and favorable characteristics. Furthermore, if it were not given the proper weight then it would have still erroneously selected those areas as moderately suitable even if because of the actual heavy fishing practices taking place in the areas, they were not.
4.3 Comparison between the Ilwis and ArcView procedures.

The overall site selections between the two procedures were generally the same. Figure 4.9 shows the same area under both
procedures. The differences between the two depend upon the generalizations that the ArcView extension does to the input data before the actual overlay operations are carried out. The weights are also only accepting integer inputs that can also
contribute to the generalizations due to the rounding errors of the values.

Figure 4.8. The red polygons indicate the areas where the heaviest fishing takes place being the intersection of all the fishing methods surveyed. Areas selected as reserves that lie within them cannot be used as a reserve without changing fishing rules or policies.
However,
except for the more detailed output maps produced in Ilwis and the convenience of the command line when implementing the
47
overlays, everything could also be done very well in ArcView. The limitations in fact, of the ArcView extension are not insurmountable and may be easily remedied by an astute Avenue programmer. In terms of technical capability one can actually implement the multi-criteria analysis entirely in ArcView with at least the Spatial Analyst extension available. ArcView alone is insufficient to accomplish the task. The advantage of carrying out the multi-criteria analysis in an environment like ArcView is the availability of customizable tools that can be used to facilitate the analysis even for a planner with minimal hands-on experience with GIS software. This advantage is of course lost to the advanced user who can with one hand type in an Ilwis command on the readily available command line. Therefore, implementing an ArcView based multi-criteria analysis for reserve site selection is probably more desirable particularly for implementation in a regional or municipal planning office. The ease of using, and therefore of teaching the use of, a customized tool that is implementing a multi-criteria analysis like MCDM.AVX in Arcview appears to be very promising. A B
Figure 4.9. The same area output for scenario 5 showing the similarity in the classifications done using Ilwis (A) and ArcView (B).
4.4
Minimum Geo-Information Requirements
The minimum geo-information requirements to accomplish a site selection for marine reserves are listed in Figure 3.3. There may be cases however where some of the information may not be available so that the reader is referred to Table 4.1 for guidance. It would be important to note that excluding some of the criteria in the list may not severely affect the accuracy of the selection. The most important thing to remember though is that omitting one or more criteria may tend to classify an area as highly suitable when in fact it is not, a Type II error, which is in this case not very desirable. Some criteria, such as fishing methods, may not be used in the selection process per se, although as mentioned earlier in Chapter 4.2, having a general impression about the intensity of fishing in an area can also be used as a management tool such that it can be used to justify the enforcement of a no fishing zone in certain areas where the suitability as a reserve is so high that it merits such extra attention. Using this criteria in the index overlay calculations will probably have a lesser impact than when it is used as a post-selection exclusion criterion.
48
5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions
GIS can be used to employ a multi-criteria analysis for marine reserve site selection. Allowing planners to conduct the reserve site selection without costly field verification. Analog navigation maps, when scanned properly and with detailed geo-referencing may be used as a source for bathymetric information. ArcView with Spatial Analyst extension and an improved version of the multi-criteria decision making extension tool can be used as a starting platform for a local government based decision support system for rapid marine reserve selection. The ability of the customized decision making tool to allow the planner to visually assign weights to the various criteria is an added advantage of this tool. Ilwis provides a more detailed analysis for the index overlays so that it may be used when a more detailed examination is required, i.e., for justification in aid of legislation for the legal declarations of the selected sites.
5.2
Recommendations
Update and improve the ArcView extension MCDM.AVX to accommodate valuation methods other than linear; to accept real number inputs instead of just integers; to allow preanalysis reclassification to more than three classes to avoid excessive generalization; to provide customized map query features that can determine total area by suitability class; to use external tables as a data source for the evaluation settings; to provide a pairwise comparison module for criteria weighting Implement the method using another dataset of input maps to test the performance of the selection. Conduct an interview with the pertinent and site-experienced source people regarding the validity of the site selections made. This will allow for a sort of test for the accuracy of the procedure / method.
49
Appendix A.
Listing of the ILWIS script for the calculation of the bathymetric criteria map.
rem convert all negative values to positive bathypos=bathymap*-1 calc bathypos.mpr rem extract first class boundary areas with depths <0.5m convert rem it to a score and make sure it gets a maximum score of no rem more than 0.75 and make all other pixels undefined bathy1=iff((bathypos<0.5),(bathypos/0.5)-0.25,?) calc bathy1.mpr rem extract second class boundary areas with depths <5m and >0.5m rem convert it to a score and make sure it gets a maximum score of 1.45 rem and make all other pixels undefined bathy2=iff(((bathypos<5) and (bathypos >0.5)),(bathypos/5)+0.45,?) calc bathy2.mpr rem extract third class boundary areas with depths <10m and >5m rem convert it to a score and make sure it gets the maximum score of 1.5 rem and make all other pixels undefined bathy3=iff(((bathypos<10) and (bathypos >5)),1.5,?) calc bathy3.mpr rem extract 4th class boundary areas with depths <15m and >10m rem and make all other pixels undefined bathy4=iff(((bathypos<15) and (bathypos >10)),bathypos,?) calc bathy4.mpr rem convert the 4th class values between values of 0 to 5 rem undefined remains undefined bathy4a=Bathy4-10 calc bathy4a.mpr rem this will convert all values to 10 bathy4b=(bathy4-bathy4a) calc bathy4b.mpr rem this will convert all values between 5-10 bathy4c=bathy4b-bathy4a calc bathy4c.mpr rem this will convert the values to a score by dividing all values by rem the maximum value of 9.9999 and add 0.25 to make rem the maximum value = 1.25 bathy4d=(bathy4c/9.9999)+0.25 calc bathy4d.mpr rem extract 5th class boundary areas with depths <20m and >15m rem and make all other pixels undefined bathy5=iff(((bathypos<20) and (bathypos >15)),bathypos,?) calc bathy5.mpr rem convert the 5th class values between values of 0 to 5 rem undefined remains undefined bathy5a=bathy5-15
50
calc bathy5a.mpr rem this will convert all values to 15 bathy5b=(bathy5-bathy5a) calc bathy5b.mpr rem this will convert all values between 10-15 bathy5c=bathy5b-bathy5a calc bathy5c.mpr rem this will convert the values to a score by dividing all values by rem the maximum value of 14.9999 and subtracting 0.25 to make rem the maximum value = 0.75 bathy5d=(bathy5c/14.9999)-0.25 calc bathy5d.mpr rem extract 6th class boundary areas with depths >20m rem and give it the value 0 bathy6=iff((bathypos>20),0.0,?) calc bathy6.mpr rem merge 1st and 2nd classes b12=ifnotundef(bathy1,bathy1,(ifnotundef(bathy2,bathy2))) calc b12.mpr rem merge 3rd class with previous b123=ifnotundef(b12,b12,(ifnotundef(bathy3,bathy3))) calc b123.mpr rem merge 4th class with previous b1234=ifnotundef(b123,b123,(ifnotundef(bathy4d,bathy4d))) calc b1234.mpr rem merge 5th class with previous b12345=ifnotundef(b1234,b1234,(ifnotundef(bathy5d,bathy5d))) calc b12345.mpr rem merge 6th class with previous b123456=ifnotundef(b12345,b12345,(ifnotundef(bathy6,bathy6))) calc b123456.mpr rem create standardized criteria map by dividing b123456 with rem maximum possible score of 1.5 to create values between 0-1 bathyc=b123456/1.5 calc bathyc.mpr rem negative values are on areas on land so extracting this out rem and converting it to undefined bathy_c=iff((bathyc<0),?,bathyc) calc bathy_c.mpr
51
Appendix B.
Listing of the ILWIS script to calculate the fishing activities criteria map.
rem take the arad map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 7 rem this assigns a value of 7 to all pixels where the arad fishing method is practiced zfish_1=ifnotundef(arad,7,0) calc zfish_1.mpr rem take the bubu map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 2 rem this assigns a value of 2 to all pixels where the bubu fishing method is practiced zfish_2=ifnotundef(bubu,2,0) calc zfish_2.mpr rem take the jarampus map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 4 rem this assigns a value of 4 to all pixels where the jaring rampus fishing method is practiced zfish_3=ifnotundef(jarampus,4,0) calc zfish_3.mpr rem take the pancing map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 1 rem this assigns a value of 1 to all pixels where the pancing fishing method is practiced zfish_4=ifnotundef(pancing,1,0) calc zfish_4.mpr rem take the jarudang map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 4 rem this assigns a value of 4 to all pixels where the jarring udang fishing method is practiced zfish_5a=ifnotundef(jarudang,4,0) calc zfish_5a.mpr rem take the payang map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 6 rem this assigns a value of 6 to all pixels where the payang fishing method is practiced zfish_5b=ifnotundef(payang,6,0) calc zfish_5b.mpr rem take the sero map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 5 rem this assigns a value of 5 to all pixels where the sero fishing method is practiced zfish_6a=ifnotundef(sero,5,0) calc zfish_6a.mpr rem take the bondet map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 9 rem this assigns a value of 9 to all pixels where the bondet fishing method is practiced zfish_6b=ifnotundef(bondet,9,0) calc zfish_6b.mpr rem take the stdbagan map and if not an undefined value give it the value of 7 rem this assigns a value of 7 to all pixels where the standing bagan fishing method is practiced zfish_7=ifnotundef(stdbagan,7,0) calc zfish_7.mpr rem calculate the criteria map by adding all maps rem then dividing by the sum of all map scores rem the additional operation of subtracting 0.98 and multiplying 1 is for converting all values so that rem the highest values represent the best condition zfish_c=(((zfish_1+zfish_2+zfish_3+zfish_4+zfish_5a+zfish_5b+zfish_6a+zfish_6b+zfish_7)/45)-0.98)*-1 calc zfish_c.mpr
52
References:
Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. and Ross, L.G., 1995. Geographical information system (GIS) environmental models for aquaculture development in Sinaloa State, Mexico. Aquaculture International, 3(2): 103-115. Ambarwulan, W., 2002. Mapping of TSM concentration from SPOT and Landsat TM satellite images for Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Teluk Banten, Indonesia. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 90 pp. Armstrong, M.P. et al., 1990. A knowledge - based approach for supporting locational decisionmaking. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 17(3): 341-364. Arnold, W.S., White, M.W., Norris, H.A. and Berrigan, M.E., 2000. Hard clam (Mercenaria spp.) aquaculture in Florida, USA: geographic information system applications to lease site selection. Aquacultural Engineering, 23: 1-3. Arthur, J.L., Hachey, M., Sahr, K., Huso, M. and Kiester, A.R., 1997. Finding all optimal solutions to the reserve site selection problem: formulation and computational analysis. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 4(2): 153-165. Baldwin, C.L., 1989. Water quality and management in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Water Science and Technology, 21(2): 267-272. Basagaoglu, H., Celenk, E., Marino, M.A. and Usul, N., 1997. Selection of waste disposal sites using GIS. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33(2): 455464. Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J. and Spalding, M., 1998. Reefs at Risk. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., 54 pp. Cabeza, M. and Moilanen, A., 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16(5): 242-248. Chalkias, C.N. and Stournaras, G., 1997. GIS application for the selection of sanitary waste disposal landfills and quarries sites in major Sparti area, Greece. Engineering geology and the environment Proc symposium Athens: 1675-1680. Chang, N.B. and Wang, S.F., 1995. A locational model for the site selection of solid waste management facilities with traffic congestion constraints. Civil Engineering Systems, 11(4): 287-306. Chavez, P.S., Berlin, G.L. and Mitchell, W.B., 1977. Computer enhancement techniques of Landsat MSS digital images for landuse/landcover assessments. Remote Sensing of Earth Resources, 6: 259. Chilufya, K.A., 2001. Using GIS and MCE to select a suitable trail route to eco - tourism sites in Bataan natural park, Bagac, Philippines. Individual Final Assignment, Professional
53
Masters Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 35 pp. Church, R. et al., 2000. Understanding the tradeoffs between site quality and species presence in reserve site selection. Special section: Spatial modeling. Forest Science, 46(2): 157167. Cleveland, J.-A., Grover, R.-B., Petrillo, J.-L. and Ladd, E., 1979. Using computers for site selection. Environmental Science and Technology, 13(7): 792-797, 4 figs, table, 5 refs. Colson, G. and Bruyn, C.d., 1989. Models and methods in multiple objectives decision making. Mathematical Computer Modelling, 12(10-11): 1201-1211. Dawson, N.A., 1996. Site selection for the relocation of squatters : a case of the Msimbazi river valley Dar Es Salaam. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 156 pp. de Fontaubert, A.C., Downes, D. and Agardy, T., 1996. Biodiversity in the Seas: Implementing the convention on Biological Diversity in Marine and Coastal Habitats., World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. De Silva, S.S., Amarasinghe, U.S., Nissanka, C., Wijesooriya, W.A.D.D. and Fernando, M.J.J., 2001. Use of geographical information systems as a tool for predicting fish yield in tropical reservoirs: Case study on Sri Lankan reservoirs. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8(1): 47-60. Douven, W.J.A.M., 2001. Banten Bay MIS Version 3.0. IHE, International institute for Infrastructure, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering. Dower, M., 1976. National parks, three paces forward, march! Town and Country Planning: 152-155. Falan, G., 1996. Tourism potential assessment for the city of Jingsha. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 100 pp. Ferraro, P.J. and Simpson, R.D., 2001. Cost-effective conservation: a review of what works to preserve biodiversity. Resources Washington(143): 17-20. Frantzis, I., 1993. Methodology for municipal landfill sites selection. Waste Management and Research, 11(5): 441-451. Gehlbach, F.R., 1975. Investigation, evaluation, and priority ranking of natural areas. Biological Conservation, 8: 79-88. Green, E.P., Mumby, P.J., Edwards, A.J. and Clark, C.D., 2000. Remote Sensing Handbook for Tropical Coastal Management. Coastal Managements Sourcebooks 3. UNESCO, Paris, 316 pp. Helliwell, D.R., 1971. A methodology for the assessment of priorities and values in nature conservation., Merlewood Research and Development Paper, pp. 51.
54
Helmy, Y.A.E.H.M., 2001. Governmental low - income housing site selection. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 85 pp. Hoekstra, A.Y., Douven, W.J.A.M. and Meesters, E.H., 2000. The influence of human activities on the coral reefs in Banten Bay, West Java. Howard, P.C. et al., 2000. Protected area planning in the tropics: Uganda's national system of forest nature reserves. Conservation Biology, 14(3): 858-875. Hussey, V., Dodd, V.A. and Dennison, G.J., 1996. Locating a landfill site for Dublin using geographic information systems. Proceedings, ICE: Municipal Engineer, 115(3): 125133. Juang, C.H., Lee, K. and Chen, J.W., 1995. A new approach for siting landfills using fuzzy sets. Civil Engineering Systems, 12(2): 85-103. Kao, J. and Kao, J.J., 1996. A raster-based C program for siting a landfill with optimal compactness. Computers and Geosciences, 22(8): 837-847. Karthikeyan, K.G., Elliott, H.A., Brandt, R.C. and Mitchell, J.K., 1993. Using a geographic information system for siting water treatment sludge monofills. Integrated resource management & landscape modification for environmental protection. Proceedings of the International Symposium Chicago, Illinois, USA. Krebs, C.J., 1978. Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Harper & Row, 678 pp. Kuna, G.K., 2001. Site selection for construction of oil storage tank farm and pipeline in L'Ufinac area of Spain and preparation of tender document. IFA Professional Masters Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 55 pp. Lin, H.Y. and Kao, J.J., 1999. Enhanced spatial model for landfill siting analysis. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 125(9): 845-851. Lindquist, R.C., 1987. Applying a geographic information system to the site selection of a regional landfill, GIS '87. Proc. 2nd international conference, San Francisco, 1987. Asprs/Acsm, pp. 621-627. Lolos, G. et al., 1997. A multicriteria decision support system for landfill site selection. Engineering geology and the environment Proc symposium Athens: 1975-1981. Mahmoud Humeida, S., 2000. Environmental impact assessment for low - income housing site - selection using GIS and MCE : case study, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IFA Professional Masters Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 31 pp. Margules, C. and Usher, M.B., 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation, 21(2): 79-109, 3 figs, 5 tables, c125 refs.
55
McKenzie, N.L., Belbin, L., Margules, C.R. and Keighery, G.J., 1989. Selecting representative reserve systems in remote areas: a case study in the Nullarbor Region, Australia. Biological Conservation, 50(1-4): 239-261. Muttiah, R.S., Engel, B.A. and Jones, D.D., 1996. Waste disposal site selection using GISbased simulated annealing. Computers and Geosciences, 22(9): 1013-1017. Nuraini, S., 2001. Personal Communication. Fishing gear information To: M.A. Cusi Pearce, D. and Moran, D., 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan ; IUCN The World Conservation Union, London; Cambridge, 172 pp. Pielou, E.C., 1977. Mathematical Ecology. Wiley & Sons., New York, 385 pp. Piyasiri, A.V.L., 2001. Site selection for an underground communication center at I'Aufinac area of Spain and preparation of tender document. IFA Professional Masters Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 65 pp. Polasky, S., Camm, J.D. and Garber Yonts, B., 2001. Selecting Biological Reserves CostEffectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon. Land Economics, 77(1): 68-78. Pouliot, C., 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Tool. Reichel, A., Mehrez, A. and Altman, S., 1998. Neve-Ilan, Israel, a site selection and business feasibility case study. Tourism Management, 19(2): 161-170. Ross, L.G., Mendoza-Q.-M, E.A. and Beveridge, M.C.M., 1993. The application of geographical information systems to site selection for coastal aquaculture: an example based on salmonid cage culture. Aquaculture, 112(2-3): 165-178. Rouhani, S. and Kangari, R., 1990. Landfill site selection. In: T.J. Kim and et al. (Editors), Expert systems: applications to urban planning. Springer-Verlag, pp. 159-169. Sharifi, M.A., 2001. Introduction to Decision Support Systems and Multicriteria Evaluation Techniques - Lecture Notes. Siddiqui, M.Z., Everett, J.W. and Vieux, B.E., 1996. Landfill siting using geographic information systems: a demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE, 122(6): 515-523. Stagnitti, F. and Austin, C., 1998. DESTA: a software tool for selecting sites for new aquaculture facilities. Aquacultural Engineering, 18(2): 79-93. Stohlgren, T.J., Chong, G.W., Kalkhan, M.A. and Schell, L.D., 1997. Rapid assessment of plant diversity patterns: A methodology for landscapes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 48(1): 25-43. Sun, T. et al., 1998. Evaluation on suitability for land treatment of municipal waste water. China Environmental Science, 18(6): 506-509.
56
Tans, W., 1974. Priority ranking of biotic natural areas. Michigan Botanist, 13: 31-39. Van Westen, C.J., 1997. Tools for map analysis applied to the selection of a waste disposal site, Ilwis Applications Guide. ITC, Enschede. Van-Zee, C. and Lee, J.E., 1989. Hazardous waste disposal site selection using interactive GIS technology, Auto carto 9. Proc. symposium, Baltimore, MD, 1989. ASPRS/ACSM, Falls Church, VA, pp. 391-396. Wenbo, X., 2001. Site selection for new wastewater treatment plants : case study, Han Kou Town, Wuhan City, China. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 64 pp. Wignyowinoto, I., 2001. Remote sensing applications for bathymetric mapping of Banten bay, Indonesia, using LANDSAT TM. MSc. Thesis, International Institute for GeoInformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, 95 pp. Wright, D.F., 1977. A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves. Biological Conservation, 11: 293-305. Zins, M. and Jacques, J., 1999. The tourism and economic value of landscapes. Teoros, Revue de Recherche en Tourisme, 18(1): 48-51.
57

Ecosistem Change

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ecosistem Change

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Operational use of Geo-information for rapid identification and evaluation of feasible areas for marine habitat conservation.

Application to Banten Bay on Java's Northwest Coast, Indonesia

Michael Anthony Cusi March, 2002

Degree Assessment Board Name Professor Name Examiners

Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. Table 4.1.

Table 4.2. Table 4.3.

Figure. 3.8. Figure 3.9. Figure 3.10. Figure 3.11.

Figure 4.5. Figure 4.6. Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8.

1. Introduction to the topic

Aim of the Research

2. Conceptual Framework and Background

Background of the Study

Attributes, Criteria and Values

The Study Site

3. Methodology & Practical Approach

Review of Related Literature

Selection of the Criteria for the Study

Domestic discharges Population employment Other reserves Seaweed culture

6 Population 9 Fishing activities

Human Activities 7 Industries / factories 8 Sand mining

Criteria Valuation / Value Functions

A. The value function applied to the depth criteria

B. The value function applied to the criteria on total suspended materials.

C. The value function for the distance to river nouths.

D. The value function for distance from sand mining activities

E. The value function as applied to the distance to industrial facilities.

F. The value function as applied to the presence of other existing reserves.

Hydrology River Mouth

Detailed procedure for each criteria

stretching was done interactively with continuous Some manual stretch

Standing - Bagan (stationary lift net)

Bondet (beach seine)

Payang (danish seine)

jaring-udang (shrimp trammel net)

1. Use polygon of administrative boundaries using the Kecamatan as index.

2. Extract polygons that have a side adjacent to the coastline.

3. Extract the coastline by manual clipping and determine length.

6. Create distance maps for each kecamatan coastline.

8. Combine all kecamatan weighted distance maps by adding them together.

The Map Overlays

4. Results and Discussion

B. Distance from Other Reserves

D. Distance form River Mouths

E. Total Suspended Materials

F. Coastline Population Index

H. Distance from Industries

The Selected Sites

Area_1 Area_4 Area_10 Area_28 Area_29 Area_34

158 123 263 191 260 216

4.3 Comparison between the Ilwis and ArcView procedures.

contribute to the generalizations due to the rounding errors of the values.

Minimum Geo-Information Requirements

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen