Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: 

GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

November 30 – December 1, 2005 

Pacific Grove, CA 

National Marine Protected Areas Center 

WORKSHOP SUMMARY 

www.MPA.gov 
 1 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

I. Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the results of the workshop “Mapping Human Activity in the 

Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods,” convened by the National 

Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center Science Institute on November 30 – December 1, 

2005 in Pacific Grove, California. The workshop brought together 20 social scientists, 

geographers, and GIS specialists from government agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in characterizing human use patterns in the 

marine environment with the aid of GIS tools. The goal of the workshop was to develop 

general design criteria for a practical participatory method or a suite of methods to collect 

spatial data on human use patterns to inform local and regional MPA planning processes. 

Workshop participants were asked to discuss and identify the relational data associated 

with human activities in the marine environment that are needed to inform MPA planning 

processes at the regional and local levels, and to assess the applicability of GIS for the 

storage, analysis, and representation of these data. Participants also generated a set of 

recommendations for designing a methodological approach for collecting the data types 

necessary at the regional and local levels. 

Results of the workshop will further the goal of the MPA Center’s Human Use Patterns 

and Impacts project, which is to develop a broadly applicable method for identifying the 

patterns, intensities, and socioeconomic significance of human uses of the marine 

environment. This method, and the data captured through its application, will aid the 

planning and design of effective and equitable MPA sites and networks, and compliment 

efforts to conduct ecosystem-based management. 

II. Workshop Background 

A. Rationale 

Understanding human activities in the marine environment is a critical need in coastal 

and ocean management and conservation. Regardless of the management model being 

employed, (e.g. single-species management, ecosystem-based management, integrated 

coastal zone management, adaptive management, community-based management), it is 

necessary to understand patterns of human activities as they relate to marine resources 

and ecosystem services. The recent Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission 

on Ocean Policy reports highlight the potentially deleterious effects that human activities 

in and adjacent to marine environments can have on marine ecosystems. Hence, 

documenting use patterns is important for determining areas and resource characteristics 

that may be at risk and in need of further protection. Knowledge about human uses of the 
 2 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

marine environment is not only critical for assessing threats to marine resources, but also 

for understanding the social, economic, and cultural values associated with uses and the 

potential impacts of management measures on human communities. Documenting 

human uses of the marine environment is especially important for the planning, 

management, and evaluation of marine protected areas (MPAs). Siting MPAs requires a 

careful consideration of the sources and intensities of human and non-human threats to 

resources, as well as the concerns among user groups for continued access and sustained 

participation in consumptive and non-consumptive use patterns. Marine protected area 

management often necessitates balancing access needs among multiple and at times 

competing user groups. This need, coupled with a concern for the effects of displacement, 

and consideration of the ecological and socioeconomic connectivity among and between 

places at sea, watersheds, and shore-side communities, highlights the importance of 

employing sound data on use patterns in the planning, management, and evaluation of 

MPAs. 

B. Human Use Patterns and Impacts Project 

The National MPA Center designed the Human Use Patterns and Impacts project in order 

to address the need for documenting human activities in the marine environment. The 

goal of the project is to develop a broadly applicable method for identifying the patterns, 

intensities, and socioeconomic significance of human uses of the marine environment. 

The application of the method will yield data on human activities that may be used to 

assess the potential impact of uses on key resource variables, analyze the compatibility 

among uses, and to determine the socioeconomic value and significance of the activities. 

The results of the project will aid future efforts to identify gaps in management and high 

priority sites for area-based coastal and ocean management where use patterns pose a 

potential threat to resources; the categories of user groups that need to be engaged 

through participatory management processes; user conflicts and equity issues that may 

need to be addressed; and, potential socioeconomic impacts of management 

alternatives. Products will include a methodological process and guidelines for 

documenting human use patterns in marine ecosystems; a synthesis of secondary data on 

spatial patterns of human activities in a pilot region (west coast); tools for storing, 

analyzing, and presenting use data; and, tools for assessing the compatibilities among and 

potential impacts of human uses. 
 3 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

C. Project Review Summary 

The MPA Center conducted a review of projects related to the characterization of human 

activities in the marine environment in the process of scoping the Human Use Patterns 

and Impacts project. The review was conducted to provide guidance and a set of lessons 

learned for determining the scope and function of the project and focused on efforts that 

represent a range of potential approaches to characterizing human use patterns in marine 

environments. The review generated the following key findings related to mapping 

human activities in the marine environment. 

Collecting available secondary datasets across a large geographical area can provide a 

coarse snap-shot of use patterns at the regional level. Time and effort should be devoted 

in the early stages of development to locate and assess the quality of existing secondary 

datasets in order to identify gaps. Metadata should be meticulously kept for all datasets 

gathered and analyzed. This approach is usually employed when the specific 

management needs are not known and a rough baseline is considered to be generically 

useful for a range of future planning and management concerns. Data must be available 

or collected across the entire study area in order to provide consistent coverage and to 

make valid generalizations. At the regional level, documenting and mapping fine-grained 

distinctions between use areas and use categories is not feasible due to the expansive 

geographical scope and the lack of quality data on many use patterns, most notably 

nonconsumptive uses. This option typically produces a static atlas with the primary goal 

of yielding a starting point for further investigations. Building a regional picture of use 

patterns in this manner does not typically allow for the collection of important relational 

data such as user demographics, socioeconomic values, intensity of use, and temporal 

dimensions of activities. Ideally, these findings are subsequently reviewed through 

expert-panel/key informant methodologies that provide more contextual information on 

spatial patterns of use. The benefits of this approach include providing large geographic 

coverage of human uses and resource zones that may indicate ‘hotspots’ of potential 

threats and areas of use incompatibilities. It provides a baseline for identifying data gaps 

that need to be filled and potential areas of resource and use incompatibilities for further 

investigation. This approach represents a first step that requires more in-depth, primary 

data-gathering for informing specific planning and management objectives. 

The collection of both primary and secondary data at a finer level of detail across smaller 

geographic areas, coupled with the creation of a dynamic database to house the data, 

allows the layering of data and the use of query tools to generate findings required to 

meet the specific needs of an evolving management planning process. Prioritization of 

project needs, including the geographic coverage of the study, the scale at which data are 

collected, and use types documented, should be conducted within the framework of the 

management process the findings are intended to inform in order to maximize buy-in and 
 4 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

support. This approach is predicated upon integration with a formal management process 

with known objectives and identifiable needs, thereby requiring a much greater degree of 

coordination with decision makers and stakeholders in the specific geographic area or 

region in which it is employed. This model also requires larger-scale data (greater detail) 

on uses and resources that would likely necessitate more in-depth fieldwork and higher 

costs. 

In any study of use patterns, significant efforts are needed to integrate the effort with 

current and ongoing research in the region of interest in order to build partnerships and 

prevent ‘burnout’ among stakeholders. Access to secondary datasets is often hindered by 

confidentiality concerns, proprietary data protocols, lack of trust, and costliness of 

cooperation. Further, access to primary data depends on building trust and rapport 

among user groups. The review emphasized the need for coupling archival and 

secondary data gathering with a participatory approach to the collection of primary data. 

The findings of the review highlight the challenge of developing an accurate, regional, or 

ecosystem-based portrait of use patterns and their significance. The difficulty of 

developing a regional picture is related to the lack of extant data and the disjuncture 

between regional planning needs and local management concerns. The review 

underscores the importance of designing a methodology that moves between regional and 

local levels in documenting use patterns in order to inform regional site planning, engage 

local communities, and build support for more in-depth research that can inform various 

phases of MPA planning, management, and evaluation. 

 

III. Workshop Design 

A. Workshop Goal and Objectives 

The workshop was intended to inform the design of a methodology for documenting 

human use patterns at both the regional level (for identifying gaps in protection, user 

groups and stakeholders, compatibility and equity issues) and the local level (for more indepth understanding of use values and significance, and for meeting local management 

needs). The workshop brought together researchers with expertise in the design and 

application of GIS-based mapping tools and methodological approaches to participatory 

mapping. The specific goal of the workshop was to develop general design criteria for a 

practical participatory method or a suite of methods to collect spatial data on human use 

patterns to inform local and regional MPA planning processes. There were two 

objectives associated with this goal. The first objective was to identify the relational data 

associated with human activities in the marine environment that are needed to inform 

MPA planning processes at the regional and local levels, and to assess the applicability of 
 5 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

GIS for the storage, analysis, and representation of these data. The second objective was 

to generate a set of recommendations for designing a methodological approach for 

collecting the data types necessary at the regional and local levels. 

The workshop focused on GIS-based mapping in combination with an emphasis on 

participatory research. Geographic Information Systems are considered to be an ideal 

tool for decision makers and conservation planning due to functionalities that allow the 

integration of physical, biological, and socioeconomic data into a single spatial frame of 

reference. The GIS platform also allows for the integration of data with different spatial 

and temporal scales, the application of a broad suite of software tools including statistical 

packages, and the visual representation and manipulation of data through user interfaces. 

Developing a participatory approach to mapping human activities in support of MPA 

planning and management is important for a number of reasons. Human dimensions of 

MPAs are the keys to the success of MPA design and management. Participatory 

methods can empower people and provide a platform for voicing diverse needs, concerns, 

and perspectives. Participatory research can increase the legitimacy of the planning 

process in which the data collection efforts are embedded, foster greater cooperation and 

consensus building, and increase the long-term viability of the management decisions. 

Methods that encourage participation can also facilitate future commitment to monitoring 

and evaluation, and may yield valuable local and experience-based knowledge that would 

otherwise remain untapped. 

B. Workshop Process 

The workshop was convened over the course of one and a half days. The morning of the 

first day was devoted to an overview of the Human Use Patterns and Impacts project, 

workshop goals, and formal presentations on mapping human uses in the marine 

environment. The presentations covered a range of methodological, theoretical, and 

ethical issues pertaining to the use of GIS and participatory methods, the collection of 

primary and secondary data on human uses at both local and regional scales, and the 

integration of findings into MPA management processes. 

In the afternoon on the first day, participants engaged in a dialogue session that was 

intended to identify priority data needs associated with documenting spatial patterns of 

human activity at the regional and local levels. Participants were asked to consider the 

full range of uses, both consumptive and non-consumptive, in identifying the relational 

data that would be needed to inform MPA planning. They were also asked to identify 

how data needs might differ between regional planning efforts and local management 

needs. 
 6 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

The distinctions that emerged between data needs for regional and local planning were 

further investigated on day two, when breakout sessions were held to address 

methodological approaches to data needs. Participants split into two groups, one focused 

on developing a methodological process for collecting data needs at the regional level, 

and the other focused on the local level. 

IV. Workshop Results 

A. Data Priorities 

Workshop participants generated a comprehensive list of research questions and data 

needs pertaining to the mapping of use patterns in the marine environment. This list 

represents a wide range of potential areas of inquiry that shed light on the socioeconomic 

and cultural dimensions of spatial patterns. 

• Who are they and what are they doing? This research question is both one of the 

most basic and complex. It is basic in that it requires, at a minimum, the 

identification and categorization of the activity types. It is complex in that 

membership in use groups can be characterized by myriad demographic variables 

including residence, ethnicity, gender, age, income, employment, and a host of 

additional behavioral and cultural variables.

• Where do they go in space and time? The spatial patterns of the user groups are the 

obvious subject of mapping efforts. Spatial patterns are inextricably tied to 

temporal dimensions that can be understood in reference to various time frames. 

Long-term trends in spatial patterns can be discerned through a historical time 

frame, while short-term patterns may vary in relation to a seasonal frame of 

reference.

• How much do they go? Determining the intensity of use activities is a core 

dimension of mapping spatial patterns that is necessary for conducting numerous 

analyses such as threat and impact assessments. Intensity of use may be measured 

in different ways depending on the activity type and the intended use of the data. 

For example, intensity may be measured by frequency of use, duration of visitation, 

number of different uses per unit area, or number of man hours or ‘fisherman days’ 

per area.

• Where do they come from? This question explores the complex linkages between 

marine areas where activities take place, and the wider spatial, socioeconomic, and 
 7 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

cultural worlds of the users. This area of inquiry not only includes geospatial 

linkages, such as residence, points of access, distance traveled, and other marine 

areas used, but the socioeconomic and cultural connections among and between 

places. These connections include, for example, the link between activities at sea 

and local communities (both geopolitical and identity-based), support infrastructure, 

market and exchange networks, and kinship ties.

• Why do they go there? The underlying motivations behind the use activities and 

their association with particular places are an additional dimension of spatial 

patterns. While difficult to measure, the motivation for using particular areas is 

important for modeling behavior and predicting outcomes of management 

alternatives. This area of inquiry may include research on site selection criteria, 

site preference and ranking, and the identification of the sources of attachment to 

places. Motivations are complex and may be based on a combination of 

material/economic considerations; cultural identity and lifestyle choices; 

historical/personal connections; regulatory constraints, opportunities, and 

cumulative effects; perceptions of resource abundance/quality; and, particular event 

drivers.

• What are the costs/values/significance of the activities? This question pertains to 

the need for understanding the value of the spatial activities to both the user groups 

engaged in them, and to non-users. Methodologically, the question is extremely 

complex and admits a wide range of theoretical models and practical tools for 

establishing the importance of places. For example, significance and value can be 

assessed according to economic principles (e.g. gross revenues, market values, cost 

of entry, costs per trip, non-market valuation and willingness to pay), sociocultural 

variables (substitutability of the activities, quality of experience, aesthetics, 

resilience of user groups), or a combination of approaches.

• What do they know? The users of marine places have local and experience-based 

knowledge as a result of their interactions with the environment. This knowledge 

is often applied to their use of the marine environment and can shed light on a 

number of other research questions. For example, perceptions of resource 

abundance, quality, and biophysical trends can help answer the question concerning 

motivation and can also yield important knowledge for identifying areas in need of 

protection. Knowledge of regulations, boundaries, and governance structures can 

help assess the functioning of current management processes. Finally, bringing 

place-based knowledge to the planning process can increase the support for the 

process, build rapport, and encourage participation. 
 8 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

The applicability of these data types to MPA planning, management, and evaluation and 

the methods employed in their capture will vary in accordance with the goals and 

objectives of the management process as well as the scale of the effort. The following 

sections will summarize the differences between regional and local MPA mapping efforts 

that were identified during the workshop. 

B. Regional Data Needs and Research Process

Use patterns can be documented across large geographic areas for the purpose of 

establishing a baseline for regional MPA planning through a variety of research methods. 

Data that are needed for creating a regional picture are essentially limited to the 

categorization of use activities (who is doing what?) and identification of where these 

activities are taking place (where are they doing it?). The lack of secondary data and the 

difficulty of generating data that provide adequate coverage across a large study area 

constrain the ability to capture data on other dimensions of use such as intensity, spatial 

linkages, motivation, value, and knowledge. 

The research process for documenting uses at the regional level requires the following 

key steps: 

• Define the boundaries of the study area: The region of interest must be spatially 

delimited. In addition, the ecosystems within the region (if the region is not, itself, 

defined by ecosystem boundaries) should be identified, as well as the vertical and 

horizontal political and regulatory boundaries that pertain to the region. 

• Identify and prioritize the use types within the study area: The use types need to be 

identified and then selected and categorized according to their relevance to the 

regional planning need. The categorization should meaningfully reflect reality 

and/or meet the planning needs of the documentation effort. For example, certain 

use types, or fine-grained distinctions among use types, may not be important for 

management or planning purposes. 

• Collect secondary data on priority use types: Archival research is needed to locate 

sources of information on use types, assess their quality and value, and collect 

available spatial data. Secondary data may be available from state governments, 

federal agencies, and the private sector. Accessibility of the data will vary, as will 

its quality and usefulness. There may be no extant data for certain use types. 

• Design sampling strategy: Representatives and key informants of user groups in the 

region and/or individuals knowledgeable about the region’s use types need to be 
 9 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

identified and brought into the research process. Due to the dearth of extant data on 

uses and the variable quality of what is available, information from key informants 

is necessary for filling gaps in the regional picture and ground-truthing existing 

data. It is important to provide informants with the data that are already known as a 

starting point. In certain cases, however, the regional picture will have to be built 

by aggregating local knowledge of use patterns (see below). The spatial extent of 

informant knowledge will vary according to use type and particular qualities of the 

informants, including their level of experience. 

 

• Determine data collection methods: Data can be elicited from key informants 

through individual interviews and/or through the formation of panels and focus 

group interviews that feature a mapping component. Focus groups designed 

explicitly to be heterogeneous (different use group representatives) may be 

important for cross-checking validity, but numerous approaches can be employed. 

The goal of this process is to produce a spatially-explicit representation of uses across a 

large region with some reference to intensity and timing. While key informants can 

provide insight on other relational aspects of use patterns such as values, meanings, 

motivations, and knowledge, the regional picture will have limited power to describe 

these socioeconomic and cultural nuances of spatial patterns. This general process and 

the methods of data collection may differ between regions and within regions, between 

different use types. It is important to consider the need to maintain the rapport developed 

with key informants and their communities through the process of building a regional 

picture because it is likely that more in-depth, local data gathering will be needed to 

address these information needs. 

C. Local Data Needs and Research Process

The planning, siting, and management of MPA sites at the local level demand a much 

more detailed understanding of the contextual dimensions of uses. The obvious need for 

understanding the use types, the user groups, and the spatial patterns of use is joined by 

the importance of measuring intensity of use across time and understanding the spatial 

connections beyond the marine sites, the values of use, and the motivations/causes behind 

use preferences and patterns. Establishing the proper indicators for these variables and 

the appropriate measures is challenging, but essential for creating a baseline for 

understanding change. Local knowledge may also be captured through the mapping 

process in order to build rapport and inform understandings of a range of phenomena 

such as the state of natural resources, the motivation behind site selection, and 

perceptions of management authorities and regulations. 
 10 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

The process of documenting human uses at the local level is relatively similar to the 

methodological steps required at the regional level. One significant difference, however, 

is the importance of combining traditional scientific data-gathering methods with a 

greater emphasis on participatory methods, and the complexities that this entails. The 

following steps outline the process and methodological considerations that are pertinent 

at the local level. 

• Define the boundaries of the study area. 

• Identify and prioritize use types within the study area: Much greater attention needs 

to be given to engaging the user groups that are identified. The local level is where 

participatory methods of data collection are most successful and so great care is 

needed in identifying the relevant user groups. The categorization of uses needs to 

consider the socioeconomic interests, political fault-lines, and cultural similarities 

and differences among and between the various user types. This analysis will have 

ramifications for the level of trust, cooperation, and interest that is generated by the 

research effort. In addition, it is important during this stage to identify those use 

groups that may be less visible as a result of their social and political 

marginalization. 

• Collect secondary data on priority use types: An examination of secondary data for 

its usefulness in describing spatial patterns is extremely important at the local level. 

The use of participatory methods must account for past efforts in order to avoid 

redundancy and ‘burnout’ among community members that may derail the project. 

• Design sampling strategy: Collecting data at the local level may require a suite of 

methods and approaches, each with their own sampling strategy that depends on the 

level and nature of participation. Participatory research ranges from cooperation to 

collaboration and many models may be of use in determining the proper 

methodological approach. Regardless of the sampling design, selecting 

representatives of user groups is very challenging due to the social and cultural 

complexities of power, identity, and representation. 

• Determine data collection methods: At the local level, different use types may 

demand different approaches to mapping spatial patterns and associated data. 

Researchers need to determine in consultation with use group representatives the 

most appropriate methods including the geographic interface (paper maps and 

charts, digital tablets, etc.) and scale, and the style, timing, and location of 

interviews. This also pertains to methods for capturing values associated with 
 11 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

spatial activities, which may differ according to the marine environment and the 

use types associated with it. 

D. Overarching Principles and Lessons Learned 

The following points that emerged from the workshop describe general opportunities and 

challenges associated with mapping human activities in the marine environment. They 

provide valuable guidance on how to design and conduct research in support of MPA 

planning and management. 

1. Data Issues 

• It is important to generate a baseline that includes key socioeconomic dimensions 

of use before the MPA planning process is fully engaged. 

• Secondary data on uses can be used to begin building the baseline but they have 

significant limitations and gaps. 

• Primary data collection, including the use of key informants, is necessary to fill 

gaps in our understanding of use patterns at all scales. 

• Ecosystem management necessitates balancing a regional perspective with an 

understanding of local needs and issues. Establishing a baseline at a wider regional 

scale can be an effective method of catalyzing interest in further research at the 

local level. 

• Socioeconomic data need to be better integrated with biogeographic and physical 

data for a variety of analyses that include assessing the values of users and the 

motivations for site selection. 

2. GIS Uses and Limitations 

• GIS is limited in terms of its ability to capture the full complexity of 

socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of use patterns and should not be the only 

tool for decision making. 

• Not all data need to have defined spatial coordinates. GIS is flexible enough to 

permit the use of qualitative data to inform mapped spatial patterns. 
 12 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

• Representation of spatial data (especially their scale and level of aggregation) 

influences the response to data. 

• Drawing lines is inherently political (social, cultural, economic), which influences 

the incentive structure as the planning and designation process unfolds. Once lines 

are drawn, the assignation of socioeconomic value becomes political. However, 

depending on how the process is designed, drawing lines can facilitate a 

meaningful discourse. 

3. Opportunities and Challenges of Participatory Research 

• Timelines associated with MPA planning determine what can be collected, 

analyzed, and represented, and how people respond to the call for information and 

cooperation. It is, therefore, necessary to develop a transparent research process 

that fully describes the timeline, research objectives, data collection efforts, and 

analysis tools. 

• Interest and participation in the research process can be catalyzed as the MPA 

timeframe moves further into site designation and implementation phases, as long 

as opportunities for meaningful participation are provided at the outset. 

• The process of engaging people (as members of communities and user groups) is as 

important as the data that emerge. 

• Knowledge of local users is often devalued in management and planning. The use 

of local knowledge and participatory data collection methods can establish rapport, 

build commitments, and bolster understanding of social and natural conditions. 

V. Next Steps 

The results of the workshop and the principles outlined in this summary provide a starting 

point for the development of a methodology for documenting spatial patterns of use in the 

marine environment for MPA planning. The National MPA Center will combine these 

results with the findings from subsequent research in publishing draft methodological 

guidelines. These guidelines will be tested as part of the West Coast Pilot, a project that 

will be conducted in coordination with federal, state, and tribal MPA agencies to provide 

information and tools for examining ecosystem-based conservation and management 

needs. 
 13 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

Appendix A: Abstracts 

Marine Protected Area Decision Support Tool 

Kelly Chapin, Spatial Projects Coordinator, National Marine Protected Areas Center 

Science Institute, Monterey, CA 

In 2005-2006, the MPA Center collaborated with the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary and the California Marine Life Protection Act Team to produce a web-based, 

spatial decision support tool which supports central California MPA processes. Currently 

available spatial data from many sources were imported into the decision support 

tool. The goals of the tool are: 1) to allow equal access to the tool by multiple users in 

various settings, 2) to provide spatial datasets relevant to MPA processes, 3) to encourage 

users to evaluate the datasets using a simple web interface, and 4) to capture and present 

MPA ideas generated by stakeholders and working groups. Even though the decision 

support tool is still under development, it has already been tested in MPA processes. Due 

to the comprehensive nature of this decision support tool, the development and data 

preparations have been time consuming and costly. Even though the tool functions too 

slowly to be used in large interactive group settings, the stakeholders have reacted 

positively to the use of the tool. They especially praise the equitable nature of presenting 

all the data in one product and the versatility of drawing and proposing individual MPA 

candidates. 

Analysis of Spatial and Socioeconomic Baseline Information and Fishing Profiles in 

Support of the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR) Process: An Application of 

the Ocean Communities 3E Analysis (OCEAN) Tools 

Charles Steinback, Astrid J. Scholz, and Mike Mertens, Ecotrust, Portland, OR 

Ecotrust was contracted by the three central California National Marine Sanctuaries - 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries - to collect, compile, and 

analyze spatially explicit socioeconomic information pertaining to commercial and 

recreational fisheries in and around sanctuary waters. We present methods and results 

based upon analytical and informational needs identified by two stakeholder-working 

groups, which was conducted in support of the Joint Management Plan Review process. 

Analysis was conducted using Ecotrust’s Ocean Communities “3E” (economy, ecology, 

and equity) Analytical (OCEAN) suite of tools. The OCEAN framework utilizes a GIS 

database for spatial analysis and interpretation of a wide range of ecological and 
 14 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

socioeconomic data, coupled with an interface that allows scientists, managers, and 

communities to take an integrated and systemic look at ecosystems, fishery policy and 

marine conservation issues, as well as the effects of policy changes on central California 

coastal communities. The data sources used for this project were both quantitative, 

including fishery dependent and independent data, and qualitative, relying on fishermen’s 

knowledge and direction. Most significantly, the project relied on a participatory process 

for eliciting local fishermen’s knowledge of critical economic areas for each fishery. This 

information was captured spatially and then used to constrain agency data sources. 

Specifically, we used the local characterizations of the fishing grounds to interpolate the 

fishery dependent data sets, and to derive use patterns and fishing effort on the grounds. 

Summarizing this information to the port level, we constructed detailed socioeconomic 

profiles of communities adjacent to the sanctuaries and of fleet sectors whose livelihoods 

rely upon the sanctuaries areas. Future applications of the products from this project 

likely include decision-support for the consideration of marine protected area siting and 

other management issues in central California and beyond. 

EcoGIS – GIS Tools for Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management 

David Moe Nelson, NOAA / NOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, Silver 

Spring, MD 

Tim Haverland, NOAA / NMFS Science and Technology, Silver Spring, MD 

The EcoGIS project is developing a set of GIS tools to better enable both fisheries 

scientists and managers to adopt ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. 

EcoGIS is a collaborative effort between NOS, NMFS, and four regional Fishery 

Management Councils. The need for these types of tools was highlighted in a September 

2004 workshop in Charleston, SC, with fishery scientists and managers from NOAA, 

Fishery Management Councils, academia, and NGOs. Based on the issues identified by 

the Workshop, four topic areas were identified to guide the development of prototype 

GIS tools: Area Characterization – Within a selected area, what are the physical 

parameters (e.g. sediment type), and biological parameters (e.g. species abundance), and 

regulatory framework? Fishing Effort Analysis – Where, when, and how do fisheries 

operate within a given area? How have fisheries been impacted as a result of regulatory 

changes? Habitat Interactions – What types and amount of habitats have been fished 

using bottom-tending gear? Bycatch Analysis – What are the trends in bycatch among 

different fisheries, geographic areas, time periods, depth ranges, and habitat types? 

GIS needs of the end users range from simple map-based queries to complex ecosystem 

modeling. The end product will enable a simplified means to query data and create 
 15 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

models of complex multi-dimensional datasets and a visualization of results that will help 

communicate information to support decision makers. 

Implementation of the Mapping Initiative Sec. 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(P.L.109-58) 

Leland F. Thormahlen, Chief, Mapping and Boundary Branch, Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service 

This paper will look at the Mapping Initiative described in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(P.L.109-58) Sec. 388 – Alternative Energy-Related Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

The discussion will include the Implementation Plan MMS proposes to use to meet the 

requirements of the Act. On August 8, 2005, President George Bush signed the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Sec. 388 – Alternative Energy-Related Uses on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, of the Act grants the Minerals Management Service (MMS) new 

authority to regulate energy uses on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Moreover, it 

directs the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Secretary of Defense, to establish an OCS 

Mapping Initiative to assist in decision making related to alternative energy uses on the 

OCS. The goal of the initiative is the identification of OCS locations of federallypermitted activities; obstructions to navigation; submerged cultural resources; undersea 

cables; offshore aquaculture projects; and any area designated for the purpose of safety, 

national security, environmental protection, or conservation and management of living 

marine resources. 

 

Spatial Assessment and Analysis of Non-Consumptive Uses in California’s National 

Marine Sanctuaries 

Chris LeFranchi, Coordinator, Social Science Program for the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary and Spatial Assessment and Analysis of Non-Consumptive Uses in 

California's Marine Sanctuaries 

This study will address a critical gap in information needed to inform National Marine 

Sanctuary management and the greater Marine Life Protection Act process – an 

assessment of the economic magnitude of private non-consumptive activities within 

marine sanctuaries and the ways in which marine protection affects these values. Nonconsumptive recreation includes any recreation activity that does not involve removing 

Sanctuary resources (e.g. scuba diving, snorkeling, whale watching, bird watching, 

viewing other wildlife, viewing/photographing scenery, surfing, kayaking, and sailing). 
 16 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

Outcomes of the proposed research will include the first geographically organized 

inventory of private non-consumptive users and values, insight into how biological and 

physical attributes influence user behavior and values, and the economic impacts 

associated with these users, in terms of local expenditures and social welfare. All stages 

of the study will involve a formal peer review process. Three core tasks will be 

completed for Channel Islands and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries: 

Establish baseline data: i) Total amount and spatial distribution of non-consumptive use, 

ii) Socioeconomic and expenditure profiles of non-consumptive users, and iii) 

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of sanctuary management strategies and 

regulations; Analyze the market and non-market economic impact of non-consumptive 

use; and, Analyze how non-market use varies with respect to attributes of marine and 

coastal environments. 

Atlas Project 

Kevin St. Martin, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Rutgers, The State 

University of New Jersey 

Madeleine Hall-Arber, Anthropologist, Center for Marine Social Sciences, MIT Sea 

Grant College Program 

The Atlas project is an action oriented participatory research project where fishermen are 

interviewing other fishermen concerning the resource areas upon which fishing 

communities depend. Using GIS tools, we have developed maps using federal VTR data 

that show community areas at sea. These maps, then, are the focus of interviews where 

the maps are corrected and amended by fishermen. While the maps themselves are 

corrected/amended in this process, they also serve to facilitate discussions about how the 

spaces indicated on the map are inhabited/used by fishing communities. The project is 

on-going and the presentation will focus on background, methods, and preliminary results. 

The Channel Islands Spatial Support and Analysis Tool (CI-SSAT): Public 

Participation GIS in Marine Reserves Planning 

Ben Waltenberger, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

Engaging communities in the government decision-making process is a vital component 

of national policy implementation. Often, the data presented to communities are of a 

complex and non-intuitive nature. This was the case in NOAA’s Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) Marine Reserve implementation process. To 

promote community and stakeholder involvement in the process, CINMS partnered with 
 17 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

NOAA’s Coastal Services Center to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) 

tool that created an intuitive visualization interface for data access. The tool allowed 

stakeholders to query and spatially display decision-making data, and to weight those 

data based on perceived negative or positive effects to individual stakeholders and to 

stakeholder groups. Maps were created by various stakeholder groups based on these 

perceived effects, then overlaid with one another to look for areas of spatial commonality 

that would lead to the least negative, and most positive, impacts resulting from marine 

reserve implementation. 

Mapping Human Uses in the Marine Environment: Selected Florida Examples 

Rob Hudson, Senior Project Manager, Photo Science Geospatial Solutions 

Florida’s coastal environment is becoming increasingly threatened by a wide variety of 

human uses that generate impacts to the marine ecology or conflict with other dissimilar 

human activities. The state’s coastal zone is quite diverse. The west coast is generally 

composed of sandy white beaches and estuaries along the panhandle, low-lying marshes 

and seagrass beds in the “big bend,” a mixture of sandy barrier islands and mangrove 

shorelines along the west coast that eventually give way to mangrove islands bordering 

Florida Bay. The Everglades, the “River of Grass,” also interfaces with Florida Bay and 

is considered one of the nation’s top ecological assets. The east coast includes long 

stretches of beaches with various inlets that lead to estuarine waters, lagoons, and river 

systems. Of course, there are the Florida Keys and its associated coral reef ecosystem in 

South Florida. Because of this ecological diversity, people use the coastal resources 

differently. For example, Apalachicola Bay is well known for its commercial oyster 

fishery while the Florida Keys are known for its recreational lobster fishery. In addition, 

the coastal waters off of Jacksonville are considered to be calving grounds for right 

whales but are also highly traversed by commercial and military ships. Several initiatives 

have aimed at mapping and characterizing human uses in the coastal zone. The Florida 

Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) 

has been mapping human uses through its Florida Blueways project. Initially started in 

Charlotte Harbor characterizing boating patterns and usage, FWRI is now investigating 

boating usage in the Tampa Bay area. This analysis has also been expanded to investigate 

the spatial footprint of boating regulations in the area. In addition to FWRI’s efforts, Dr. 

Ashley Johnson, from the University of Florida, mapped human uses in the Guana 

Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. Dr. Johnson employed a 

participatory approach in mapping human uses that resulted in an estuarine plan. 

Additional examples of human use mapping related projects include the Florida Keys 

Carrying Capacity Study that sought to determine the effects of additional coastal 

development on several key ecological and social factors, including the marine 
 18 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

environment. Approaches, lessons learned, and recommendations will be discussed as 

part of this presentation. 

Participatory Action Research 

Patrick Christie, Assistant Professor, School of Marine Affairs and Jackson School of 

International Studies, University of Washington 

Participatory action research is a well established framework to engage diverse 

constituencies into a process of information collection, analysis and action. It has been 

used extensively to foster environmental management, especially as a complement to 

traditional science-based policy making. The use of participatory action research (PAR) 

with GIS spatial data management tools would be a novel and potential rewarding marine 

protected area research and planning framework.
Appendix B: Agenda 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: 

GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California 

November 30 – December 1, 2005 

National Marine Protected Areas Center 

Science Institute 

Monterey, California 

WORKSHOP GOAL 

The goal of the workshop is to develop general design criteria for a practical participatory 

method or a suite of methods to collect spatial data on human use patterns to inform local 

and regional MPA planning processes. 

WORKSHOP AGENDA 

Wednesday Morning, November 30, 2005 

7:30 Breakfast 

8:00 Welcome and Orientation 

• Charles Wahle, MPA Center Science Institute 

8:15 Workshop Goals 

 19 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 
 20 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

• Bryan Oles, MPA Center Science Institute 

8:30 Workshop Participant Introductions 

8:45 – 12:00 GIS and the Human Dimension of Place-Based Conservation: 

Examples and Case Studies 

8:45 Marine Protected Area Decision Support Tool 

• Kelly Palacios, MPA Center Science Institute 

9:05 OCEAN Framework 

• Astrid Scholz, Ecotrust 

• Mike Mertens, Ecotrust

9:25 EcoGIS – GIS Tools for Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries 

Management 

• David Moe Nelson, NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and 

Assessment 

9:45 Minerals Management Service Mapping Initiative 

• Leland Thormahlen, Minerals Management Service 

10:05 Break 

10:20 Spatial Patterns of Non-consumptive Use on the California Central 

Coast 

• Chris LeFranchi, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

10:40 ATLAS Project 

• Kevin St. Martin, Rutgers University 

• Madeleine Hall-Arber, MIT Sea Grant 

11:00 Channel Islands Spatial Support and Analysis Tool (CI-SSAT) 

• Ben Waltenberger, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

11:20 Mapping Human Uses in the Marine Environment: Selected Florida 

Examples 

• Rob Hudson, Photo Science Geospatial Solutions

11:40 Participatory Action Research 
 21 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

• Patrick Christie, University of Washington

12:00 Lunch 

Wednesday Afternoon, November 30, 2005 

1:00 Priority Data Needs and GIS Capabilities 

Objective: The objective of this working session is to identify the relational data 

associated with human activities in the marine environment that are needed to inform 

MPA planning processes, and assess the applicability of GIS for the storage, analysis, and 

representation of these data. 

Guiding Questions: 

• What information do we need to know about patterns of human uses for MPA 

planning at the regional and local scales? 

• What are the potentials for and limitations to using GIS to store, analyze, and 

represent each of these data needs? 

Topical Discussion Points: 

• Intensity of use 

• Temporal dimensions; seasonal patterns and historical trends

• Extra-local spatial connections and networks

• Economic values of the activities and places

• Sociocultural values and meanings of the activities and places

• Knowledge of the conditions and attributes of the places

3:00 Break 

3:15 Priority Data Needs and GIS Capabilities (continued) 

5:00 Adjourn 

6:00 Dinner 
 22 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

Thursday Morning, December 1, 2005 

7:30 Breakfast 

8:00 Review of Previous Day: Identified Data Needs and GIS Capabilities 

8:15 Best Practices for Documenting Human Use Patterns through 

Participatory Methods

Objective: The objective of this working session is to generate a set of best practices and 

recommendations for applying a participatory method in the collection of data types 

identified during Day 1. 

Guiding Questions: 

• What are the alternative methods (models) of participatory research, and 

which are most appropriate for the collection of data identified during Day 1? 

• How might these approaches differ on regional vs. local scales of MPA 

planning? 

Topical Discussion Points: 

• Who to ask (sampling strategies: experts, key informants, random samples, 

community representatives, etc.)? 

• How to engage communities (building rapport and legitimacy, gaining entrée, 

fostering engagement)? 

• How to elicit data (what to ask people and how to ask it)? 

• What to do with the data (issues of access, use, and control)? 

10:00 Break 

10:15 Best Practices for Documenting Human Use Patterns through 

Participatory Methods (continued) 

11:30 Summary and Next Steps 

• What we’ve done 

• What needs to be done next 

• Outputs and outcomes 
 23 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

12:00 Adjourn 
 24 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

Appendix C: Participants

BJ Atanasio 

CA Sea Grant Fellow 

MPA Center Science Institute 

99 Pacific St., Suite 100F 

Monterey, CA 93940 

bjatanaz@earthlink.net 

Marybeth Bauer 

Human Dimensions Program Leader 

NOAA National Ocean Service 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

1305 East West Highway, SSMC4 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA 

301-593-4724 

marybeth.bauer@noaa.gov 

Patrick Christie 

Assistant Professor 

School of Marine Affairs 

Jackson School of International Studies 

University of Washington 

3707 Brooklyn Ave NE 

Seattle, WA 98105-6715 

206-685-6661 

patrickc@u.washington.edu 

Monica Diaz 

GIS Technician 

MPA Center Science Institute 

99 Pacific St, Suite 100F 

Monterey, CA 93940 

831-645-2712 

Monica.Diaz@noaa.gov 

Sarah Fischer 

Pacific Regional Coordinator 

MPA Center 

99 Pacific ST, Suite 100F 

Monterey, CA 93940 

831-242-2054 

Sarah.Fischer@noaa.gov 

Natalie Hargraves 

MPA Center Science Institute 

99 Pacific ST, Suite 100F 

Monterey, CA 93940 

831-645-2708 

Natalie.Hargraves@noaa.gov 

Madeleine Hall-Arber 

Anthropologist 

Center for Marine Social Sciences 

MIT Sea Grant College Program 

3 Cambridge Center, NE20-368 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

Arber@MIT.edu 

Rob Hudson 

Senior Project Manager Photo Science 

Geospatial Solutions 

9800 4th St. North; Suite 402 

St. Petersburg, FL 33702 

727-576-9500 

727-896-5913 

rhudson@photoscience.com 

Chris LaFranchi 

Social Science Coordinator 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

114 Oak Knoll Dr. 

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

415-602-7302 

E-mail: chris@naturalequity.com 

Jim Lima 

EIS Coordinator 

Minerals Management Service 

3801 Centerpoint Dr. 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

907-334-5266 

James.Lima@mms.gov 

Mike Mertens 

Director of Spatial Analysis 

Ecotrust 

721 NW 9th Avenue 
 25 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

Portland, OR 97209 

mikem@ecotrust.org 

David Moe-Nelson 

NOAA NCCOS 

1305 East-West Hwy. 

Silver Springs, MD 20910 

301-713-3028 x154 

David.Moe.Nelson@noaa.gov 

Bryan Oles 

Senior Social Scientist 

MPA Center Science Institute 

1305 East West Highway Room 12255 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301- 713-3100 ext. 113 

Bryan.Oles@noaa.gov 

Kelly Chapin 

Spatial Projects Coordinator 

MPA Center Science Institute 

99 Pacific ST, Suite 100F 

Monterey, CA 93940 

831-645-2711 

Kelly.Chapin@noaa.gov 

Carrie Pomeroy 

California Sea Grant Marine Advisor 

UCCE Santa Cruz County 

1432 Freedom Blvd. 

Watsonville, CA 95076-2796 

(831) 763-8002 

cmpomeroy@ucdavis.edu 

Kevin St. Martin 

Assistant Professor 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

Department of Geography 

54 Joyce Kilmer Drive 

Piscataway, NJ 08854-8045 

kstmarti@rci.rutgers.edu 

Astrid Scholz 

Ecological Economist 

Vice President Knowledge Systems 

Ecotrust 

721 NW 9th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97209 

503 467 0758 

ajscholz@ecotrust.org 

Valerie Termini 

Intern 

MPA Center Science Institute 

99 Pacific ST, Suite 100F 

Monterey, CA 93940 

831-645-2705 

Valerie.Termini@noaa.gov 

Leland Thormahlen 

Chief, Mapping and Boundary Branch 

Minerals Management Service 

12600 W. Colfax, Suite C-210 

Lakewood, CO 80215 

303-275-7120 

Leland.Thormahlen@mms.gov 

Ryan Vaughn 

765 Weyburn Terrace #67 

Los Angeles, CA, 90024 

415-420-5350 

rkvaughn@gmail.com 

Charles Wahle 

Director 

MPA Center Science Institute 

99 Pacific ST, Suite 100F 

Monterey, CA 93940 
 26 

www.MPA.gov Workshop Summary 

Mapping Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory Methods 

831-242-2052 

Charles.Wahle@noaa.gov 

Ben Waltenberger 

NOAA / Channel Islands NMS 

113 Harbor Way 150 

Santa Barbara, CA 93109 

Ph (805)966-7107 X461 

Fax (805)568-1582 

Ben.Waltenberger@noaa.gov