Working with the coaches, the park authorities identify a list of factors that have strong potential influence on the ultimate objectives and that are at least partly beyond the control of park staff. They then narrow down the external factors to a focal set that has a high degree uncertainty about their magnitude and effects on the ultimate objectives. Next, park authorities develop two alternative scenarios representing possible future trajectories for the external factors. A status quo scenario assumes that system dynamics (i.e., external factors along with their impacts and effectiveness of management activities for achieving objectives) will follow the most likely future trajectory. An optimistic scenario assumes that system dynamics are more favorable than expected for achieving the objectives. To keep the participatory decision analysis feasible, additional scenarios (e.g., pessimistic) may be documented for future analyses. After listing possible management activities, park authorities independently assign a percent allocation toward each activity in a way they believe will most likely achieve the objectives under each scenario for external factors.

Through workshops and conference calls, the core team develops a concise influence diagram that represents the key hypothesized relationships between the possible actions, external factors, and ultimate objectives. The coaches use this diagram as a conceptual basis when developing a Bayesian decision network, which allows for assigning stakeholder values and probabilities within the influence diagram. The Bayesian decision network therefore provides a visualization of the quantitative decision model. Within another workshop setting that includes the 8 representative stakeholders and up to 2 experts, the coaches ask each participant to individually provide numerical inputs for the model. There are two types of questions for the elicitation on a scale from 0 to 100%: 1) percent chance that a given external factor or ultimate objective will follow a particular trajectory while accounting other external factors and allocation options; 2) percent satisfaction with each possible combination of outcomes for the three ultimate objectives. During a following discussion, stakeholders agree on set of predictions and satisfaction scores to represent the averages among participants in the decision analysis.

The recommended allocation option is defined as the one with the greater expected stakeholder satisfaction, which is calculated based on inputs and structure of the Bayesian decision network. Recognizing uncertainties about elicited predictions and satisfaction levels, analysts conduct a sensitivity analysis explore whether the recommended allocation changes depending on the set of inputs used for the analysis. In particular, they run the analysis twice: once using the averaged inputs and then a second time based only the input (from the individual) for each variable that is most favorable for the opposing allocation option (i.e., the option with the lower expected satisfaction under the averaged inputs). If the recommendation changes following the second model run, then the analysts use results from both model runs to calculate the expected value of perfect information. This calculation represents the expected percent increase in satisfaction if the uncertainties about the variables and relationships in the model are fully resolved through further research. This provides a way to check the robustness of the recommended allocation to uncertainty and can lead to recommendations for further research to improve decision-making.

Effective management in the marine realm can be greatly assisted by various technological aids; examples include: • Global Positioning System (GPS) - a satellite navigation system accessible to anyone with a GPS receiver (including most cell phones). Provided there is unobstructed access to four or more GPS satellites, a GPS will provide three-dimensional position, velocity and time anywhere on Earth. • Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) - an electronic tracking system used by regulatory agencies to monitor the activities of commercial fishing vessels. VMS can play important roles in fisheries management, including the prevention of illegal fishing and protecting the marine environment. VMS requires a GPS on the vessel and communication between the vessel and shore, usually via satellite. It has wider applications (e.g. collision avoidance) and may be used to monitor vessels up to 200 nm from the coast of most countries. • Automatic Identification System (AIS) - a radio broadcasting system enabling AIS equipped ships and shore stations to identify and locate ship’s positions, course and speed. Vessel traffic services (VTS) uses AIS to monitor vessels in ports, busy waterways and inshore waters, primarily for safety and efficiency.

The boundaries of an MPA (or zones within an MPA) should be identifiable while on the water. Traditionally, inshore MPA boundaries were referenced to some obvious natural feature or by using a distance from a feature like the shoreline. In some instances, physical demarcation of marine boundaries has occurred using fixed markers on the land or floating marker buoys, but there are significant costs to install and maintain such infrastructure. For deepwater, open-ocean conditions or for large MPAs the placement of marker buoys is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and the cost is prohibitive. For these reasons, MPA managers delineate such offshore boundaries using GPS coordinates (see Resources for Coordinate-based zone boundaries). Experience has shown that submerged features (e.g. depth contours, reefs, banks, shipwrecks, etc) may be hard to identify so should not be used for marine boundaries. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has considerable experience with installing offshore infrastructure for marine boundaries; FKNMS staff have installed >100 yellow boundary buoys marking marine zones; over 120 boundary buoys and/or signs marking Wildlife Management Areas, and are responsible for > 500 mooring buoys.

An obvious preference of most MPA managers is to have a fleet of reliable, safe, fit for-purpose vessels, which are well maintained and operational. However, sometimes vessel patrols or some marine management tasks are more appropriately shared (e.g. with other governmental agencies or by chartering a vessel from the private sector). The operation and ongoing maintenance of specialised management vessels can pose significant challenges, especially if there are insufficient staff in the agency with the necessary technical capacity, or if the operating funds for ongoing regular operations are limited. Determining whether to purchase expensive assets (e.g. specialised fast patrol vessels for enforcement or a stable working vessel to install facilities such as moorings or no-anchoring markers) should consider the objective of providing the required level of service and its frequency of likely use in the most cost-effective manner. MPA management may also be enhanced by sharing responsibility and information as explained in the Blue Solution on Shared Governance in the GBR. Management may also involve sharing other physical assets than just boats; e.g. shared assets may include operational bases, offices, vehicles and even aircraft.

Many issues facing MPAs cannot be effectively addressed by managing the marine realm alone; e.g: • water quality – most water quality issues arise on land • coastal developments, e.g. ports – most are outside the jurisdictional control of an MPA • increasing population growth and recreation – marine management does little to curtail growth or reduce some consequential impacts • climate change – management may build resilience but climate change is a global issue The GBR Marine Park is confined to waters seaward of low water mark so does not include tidal lands/tidal waters; key coastal areas e.g. ports and ‘internal waters’ of Queensland are also excluded (another Blue Solution outlines complementary zoning, irrespective of which jurisdiction applies). An integrated management approach with other agencies extends the management influence outside the Marine Park so that the islands, tidal areas and many activities in the catchments are effectively addressed. For example, the mapping of coastal ecosystems, the identification of key areas within catchments, and working with farmers to minimise their impacts on water quality, are specifically aimed at addressing the land-sea interface and the adjoining coastal lands and waters.

Zoning is only one of many spatial tools used in the Great Barrier Reef. Other spatial layers are depicted in the maps below, showing the same area of the GBR with differing layers overlying the zoning. A range of multi-dimensional management tools (spatial, non-spatial and temporal) are applied, some of which are part of the statutory GBR Zoning Plan, while others are in other statutory documents. Non-spatial management includes bag limits or size limits for fishing, or a wide range of permits; temporal management includes seasonal closures at key fish spawning times or temporary closures for short-term activities like military training. So rather than a single GBR management plan, a comprehensive three-dimensional Management system exists, comprising federal agency plans, State agency plans and other plans (e.g. fisheries management, ports, etc). Today this full suite of management tools comprises a comprehensive management framework, integrated and coordinated across agencies and jurisdictions. However, not every aspect of spatial management is shown in the publicly available zoning maps. Permits (often tied to specific zones or locations within zones) allow a detailed level of site management not possible by zoning alone.