Peer review

Few studies have addressed the benefits and costs of computerized geographical information systems (GIS) as compared to manual methods of cartographic analysis. However, GIS require substantial investment in equipment and personnel which is of particular importance to small or financially strapped resource management agencies. In this case study, land cover maps created as part of a riparian restoration research project were used to compare the time-costs involved in calculating land cover areas with a GIS and manually with a planimeter and dot-grid. Simple modeling of riparian forest restoration potential was also performed to investigate the GIS value for restoration planning. While estimates of land cover areas were similar for the two methods, GIS time-costs were many times higher than manual technique time-costs. Development of even a simple modeling procedure for restoration planning proved difficult and time-consuming. Modeling results, although useful, also require validation. As the complexity of modeling increases, the need for technical expertise and analyst time increases without negating the need for validation. Natural resource managers should carefully evaluate long-term benefits and costs before adopting a GIS for riparian restoration planning.

Text in English