Spatial Decision Support Ron Janssen

1. Institute for Environmental Studies Spatial Decision Support Ron Janssen

2. Doelgerichte presentatie van informatie

3. De TGV

4. Napoleon’s campaign to Moscow Poland 422000 Moscow 100.000 Poland 10000 Berezina500002800020° 28 oct

5. Tijd, plaats en omvang

6. Amoebe 2

8. Outline • Introduction to the plan area • Evaluation of management alternatives • A virtual environment of the alternatives • Design of management alternatives • Use of maps for evaluation

9. Land use map of the plan area

10. A typical Dutch fen meadow area

11. High natural values

12. Marginal agriculture

13. High recreational values

14. Land use in the Wormer- and Jisperveld

15. Policy alternatives • Modern fen meadow (current) water drainage to support agriculture open landscape food for meadow birds • Historical fen meadow educed drainage raise of water table negative impacts for agriculture opp. for some bird and plant species • Dynamic mire floods in winter permanent waterlogged soils no agriculture peat growth

16. Stakeholders and their interests • Agricultural organisationsConstant water levels , water quality Accessibility, Size Continuity and future perspectives for farms • Recreation (fisheries)Variation in landscapes Accessibility Water quality • Nature Conservation Organisations Flexible water levels, water quality Variation in landscapes also cultural/historic landscapes Corridors, Larger units of protected nature • Provincial/regional authorities Safety Water quality Water quantity

17. Water quality

18. Water quantity

19. Climate change

20. Biodiversity

21. Socio-economic

22. Results of evaluation3 alternatives x 10 criteria -> 30 evaluation maps Modern fen meadow Historical fen meadow Dynamic fen mire c1 c2 c.. c10

23. Three evaluation paths a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 Path 3 SA c1 c2 c3 c4 c1 c2 c3 c4 Path 1 Path 2 MCA MCA a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 SA

24. Evaluation maps a1 a2 a3 c1 c2 c3 c4 Total value maps a1 a2 a3

25. Evaluation maps

26. Aggregated impact table a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 Spatial Aggregation c1 c2 c3 c4 c1 c2 c3 c4

27. Evaluation table

28. MCA result

29. Total ranking Weights Water quality Water quantity Biodiversity Climate change Socio- economic 0.44 0.43 0.35 0 Histor Dynam Modern

30. Ranking per policy objective Gewichten Water quality Water quantity Biodiversity Result 0.44 0.43 Climate change 0.35 Socio- economic Water quality 0.40 0.12 0.07 0.68 Water quantity 0.28 0.06 0.54 Biodiversity 0.46 0.42 0.71 Climate 0.48 0.18 0.58 0.55 Socio-economic 0.19 Histor Dyn Modern

31. Ranking per policy priority

32. A virtual environment of the plan area

33. Raising the water table to –1.5 NAP

34. Current situation

35. Raising the water table to –1.5 NAP

36. Current situation

37. Raising the water table to –1.5 NAP

38. DESIGN of land use plans for the Jisperveld

39. A 20x20 representation of the Jisperveld

40. Design interface

41. Six Policy objectives Maximize totals 1.Maximize the natural value of the area, 2.Maximize the recreational value of the area, 3.Minimize cost of changing land use, Optimize spatial characteristics 4.Minimize fragmentation 5.Maximize cluster size, 6.Maximize compactness.

42. Spatial compactness Spatial compactness is defined as a combination of three indicators: fragmentation largest cluster compactness

43. Interactive design of a land use plans:round 1-3

44. Results round 1-9

45. Interactive design of a land use plans:round 4-6

46. Interactive design of a land use plans:round 6-9

47. A 200x200 grid representation of the Jisperveld

48. How to use this system? • First round of policy design, scanning of alternatives • Preparation of land use and water management plans • Support of land use planners • Support of interactive processes

49. a. graph b. table c. text d. maps 2100 nat jaar ongewijzigd beheer 2100 nat jaar 2100 nat jaarwater direct afvoeren The future 1: Combine different types of information

50. The future 2: Support different stages of design processes