Cereghino 2014 DRAFT nimble spatial reassessment
- Last Ten Documents
- Cereghino 2015 grant administrative streamlining
- WDNR 2001 shorezone data dictionary
- Thurston County 2015 county-wide planning policies
- TRPC 2013 sustainable thurston development plan
- TNC 2011 fisher slough monitoring baseline report
- TCAMRC 2018 thurston amphibian road survey summary
- TCAMRC 2017 thurston amphibian road survey protocols
- Sync 2018 infrastructure coordination fact sheet
- Sync 2018 DRAFT strategic plan for infrastructure coordination
- Stuart & Canty 2010 environmental markets for agriculture
- Product Categories
- Google scholar search
- Linked To This Product
- Wiki Rules
- Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
- Please adhere to our Social Contract and Style Guide
- Complain here, and be nice.
Cereghino, P. 2014. Moving towards nimble spatial reassessment. Prepared by NOAA Restoration Center for Puget Sound Partnership.
Notes[edit]
- This was developed as an appendix to a report from the Integrated Nearshore Priorities Project.
- It aims to provide a clear strategy for reducing cost of assessment and using it as a tool for identifying locations of shared interest by developing cross agency platforms for query management.
Introduction[edit]
Every spatial assessment for ecosystem management involves a group of stakeholders asking questions of a data universe to determine where and how to achieve stated objectives. These assessments are unstable. If our spatial data change, or the stakeholders change, or our values and objectives shift, or we learn something new about ecosystems, we may choose to reassess.
The goal of “integrating the Nearshore Project and Watershed Characterization” was an attempt to answer questions not adequately resolved by either assessment in isolation. By assembling a stakeholder group and defining objectives, we discovered that we were best able to answer our new and refined questions by conducting a new assessment.
This kind of repeated spatial reassessment is likely inevitable and may be desirable. There are hundreds of agents working over tens of jurisdictions to manage the nearshore ecosystem. If we never reassess our priorities based on new knowledge, we are not adapting to stakeholder interests or new information.
The risks of continuous reassessment are at least two-fold. First, if we never develop comfort with our assessment, we never act and may become paralyzed in continuous reassessment. We must act, because action is the mechanism for actually testing our assumptions and strategies. Second, reassessment can become redundant when successive generations of technical staff unwittingly fail to build on previous work. We may waste effort reinventing the same assessments without integrating new learning or refining our strategies. There is an opportunity cost to assessment in the form of reduced action.
For spatial reassessment to be part of a coherent adaptive effort requires we need to 1) develop the social infrastructure to remember and refine our strategies over time, and to support this, 2) make our assessments systematic, accessible, and flexible. This chapter focuses on the technical aspects of nimble reassessment, that will more likely to support the development of social infrastructure.
