Permit Coordination and Interagency Review in Coastal States

Permit Coordination and Interagency Review in Coastal States

K. Winson-Geideman W. Berson P. Mcintosh

Department of Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Law, University of North Texas, USA.

Georgia Conservancy, Savannah, Georgia, USA.

Page: 
481-489
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V2-N4-481-489
Received: 
N/A
| |
Accepted: 
N/A
| | Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Vegetation indices are usually defined and evaluated empirically, according to their performance on images of areas with certain vegetation types and targets of interest. In this paper we propose a probabilistic approach to the problem of assessing the efficiency of a vegetation index, more precisely the transformed vegetation index (TVI), in its two versions (TVIa and TVIb). A proper distribution is introduced in order to describe the histograms of the red and near infrared channels. Then, the mathematical expressions for the distribution of the TVIa and TVIb values are derived, according to theorems of statistics. The study of the behavior of this distribution shows that the standard deviation of TVIa is bigger than that of the more often employed normalized differences vegetation index (NDVI). This theoretical prediction is verified using satellite images of various regions in Greece and in the Mediterranean Sea. The signal to noise ratio of TVIa and TVIb images is also studied and it is shown that this ratio is bigger than that of NDVI, if the brightness value in the near infrared channel is considerably bigger than that of the red channel. The general conclusion is that TVIa produces images with a good contrast and TVIb presents a good signal to noise ratio over areas with a rich vegetation cover.

Keywords: 

NDVI, signal to noise ratio, standard deviation, TVI, TVIa, TVIb

  References

[1] Dunlap, R.E., Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970–1990, eds R.E. Dunlap & A.G. Mertig, Taylor & Francis: Philadelphia, pp. 89–116, 1992.

[2] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Offi ce of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, available at http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/national.html (accessed on 30 March 2005).

[3] Bernd-Cohen, T., Pogue, P.M., Lee, V. & Delaney, R.F., Review of the section 309 coastal states enhancement grants program. Coastal Management, 23, pp. 173–194, 1995.

[4] Rosentraub, M.S. & Warren, R., Information utilization and self-evaluating capacities for coastal zone management agencies. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 2, pp. 193–222, 1976.

[5] Englander, E., Feldmann, J. & Hershman, M., Coastal zone problems: a basis for evaluation. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 3, pp. 217–236, 1977.

[6] Knecht, R.W., Coastal zone management: the fi rst fi ve years and beyond. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 6, pp. 259–272, 1979.

[7] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Federal Coastal Programs Review: A Report to the President, U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, 1981.

[8] Lowry, K., Assessing the implementation of federal coastal policy. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51, pp. 288–298, 1985.

[9] Godschalk, D.R., Implementing coastal zone management: 1972–1990. Coastal Management, 20, pp. 93–116, 1992.

[10] Swanson, G.C., Coastal zone management from an administrative perspective: a case study of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 2, pp. 81–102, 1975.

[11] Healy, R.G., Protecting the Golden Shore: Lessons from the California Coastal Commission. The Conservation Foundation: Washington, DC, 1978.

[12] Kinsey, D.N., Lessons from the New Jersey Coastal Management Program. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51, pp. 330–336, 1985.

[13] Born, S.M. & Miller, A.H., Assessing networked coastal zone management programs. Coastal Management, 16, pp. 229–243, 1988.

[14] Sabatier, P., State review of local land use decisions: the California Coastal Commission. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 3, pp. 255–290, 1977.

[15] McCreary, S., Twiss, R., Warren, B., White, C., Huse, S., Gardels, K. & Roques, D., Land use change and impact on the San Francisco estuary: a regional assessment with national policy implications. Coastal Management, 20, pp. 219–255, 1992.

[16] Good, J.W., Shore protection policy and practices in Oregon: an evaluation of implementation success. Coastal Management, 22, pp. 325–352, 1994.

[17] Owens, D.W., National goals, state fl exibility, and accountability in coastal zone management. Coastal Management, 20, pp. 143–165, 1992.

[18] Imperial, M.T. & Hennessey, T.H., An ecosystem-based approach to managing estuaries: an assessment of the National Estuary Program. Coastal Management, 24(2), pp. 115–139, 1996.

[19] Lester, C., Contemporary federalism and new regimes of ocean governance: lessons from the case of outer continental shelf oil development. Ocean & Coastal Management, 23, pp. 7–47, 1994.

[20] Vollmer, M., Economic development in sensitive and protected coastal areas: sustainable management in confl ict with political reality. Proceedings of the July 1999 Coastal Zone Management Conference, pp. 521–523, 1999.

[21] Hershman, M.J., Good, J.W., Bernd-Cohen, T., Goodwin, R.F., Lee, V. & Pogue, P., The effectiveness of coastal zone management in the United States. Coastal Management, 27, pp. 113–138, 1999.

[22] Weiss, R.S., Learning from Strangers, Simon & Schuster: New York, 1994.

[23] Louisiana Department of Natural Resources News Brief, State agencies fi nd ways to streamline permitting in coastal zone, 1 April 2005, available at http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/ execdiv/pubinfo/newsr/2005/0401crm-streamline-permitting.ssi (accessed on 25 May 2005).