The StormWater Management and Planning Tool: Coastal Water Quality Enhancement through the Use of an Internet-Based Geospatial Tool

Communicating with Coastal Decision-Makers and Environmental Educators via Sea Level Rise Decision-Support Tools

“…We found it was important to distinguish between the computer models and the associated visualization tools and other products that communicate the results of those models. While the risk communication literature argues for stakeholder participation in development of conceptual models about risk [e.g., Morgan et al, 2002], such participation is generally used to develop products that communicate the results of computer models rather than making changes to the models themselves [e.g., Lathrop et al, 2012;Roth et al, 2017; but see Jensen and Uddameri, 2009]. We found it necessary to clarify for stakeholders the distinction between the biogeophysics-based computer models that underlie the EESLR-NGOM project and the map-based visualization tool that enables users to explore results from the computer models.…”

“…Availability, usability, salience, and source credibility can all form barriers to information use in adaptation planning [Heiskanen et al, 2007;Moser and Ekstrom, 2010;Moser and Dilling, 2011]. During communication design, interaction among scientists, communicators, and audiences is crucial to help all parties understand content and format needs [Pidgeon and Fischhoff, 2011], as shown in previous examples of environmental risk communication projects that have incorporated user-centered design [e.g., Lathrop et al, 2012;Morrow et al, 2015;Roth et al, 2017].…”

A Mapping of Tools for Informing Water Sensitive Urban Design Planning Decisions—Questions, Aspects and Context Sensitivity

“…Lathrop et al [34] provided an example of a GIS tool which is much simpler. It is an interactive web-based map query tool which allows for municipalities and counties to see location and basic details about existing stormwater basins.…”

“…The exceptions are the tool that simply displays GIS-data [34] and the tool that reveals stakeholders' preferences [30] (assumed that these preferences are not affected by the options' hydraulic performance since the stakeholders were not informed of these). Table 3.…”

“…The "How Much" category is further divided into tools that quantify different types of impacts: impacts related to hydraulics, i.e., the flow of water through pipes and across surfaces, impacts related to hydrology, i.e., the flow of water through the entire urban water cycle including groundwater and the atmosphere, impacts related to water quality, i.e., the pollution carried with water, impacts that are not directly linked to the flow of water (such as aesthetics and recreation), and economic impacts. Carbon footprint [29] Stakeholder preferences [30] Thorough ecosystem [31] Rapid ecosystem [32] X Flext (DayWater) [33] SWMPT [34] X BMP MCA [35] BMP DSM [36] Project choice [37] MCA/cost [38] X X SWITCH BMP DSS [39] SUDS potential [40] X X X X X SUSTAIN [41] UHRU [42] X X X LIDRA [43] STEPL [44] X X X X X MCA&CBA [45] X X X X Flood Risk CBA [46] X X X SUDSLOC [47] When going through our search results we focused more on water quantity issues than water quality, and hence tools that focus on water quality were omitted. For examples of tools with specific focus on water quality issues, see e.g., [12][13][14].…”