Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery

Abstract

Decision support tools, usually considered to be software-based, may be an important part of the quest for evidence-based decision-making in agriculture to improve productivity and environmental outputs. These tools can lead users through clear steps and suggest optimal decision paths or may act more as information sources to improve the evidence base for decisions. Yet, despite their availability in a wide range of formats, studies in several countries have shown uptake to be disappointingly low. This paper uses a mixed methods approach to investigate the factors affecting the uptake and use of decision support tools by farmers and advisers in the UK. Through a combination of qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys, we found that fifteen factors are influential in convincing farmers and advisers to use decision support tools, which include usability, cost-effectiveness, performance, relevance to user, and compatibility with compliance demands. This study finds a plethora of agricultural decision support tools in operation in the UK, yet, like other studies, shows that their uptake is low. A better understanding of the fifteen factors identified should lead to more effective design and delivery of tools in the future

Decision support tools in conservation: a workshop to improve user-centred design

“…Users are busy and if decision support tools cannot facilitate efficient decision-making, then they will not be used (Rose et al 2016). It is insufficient for the tools to be tested on scientific colleagues.…”

“…This is problematic because resources are wasted, and effort duplicated, designing systems that never make a practical contribution to evidence-based conservation. The low uptake of systems due to poor design mirrors findings in other sectors such as agriculture, medicine, and forestry, where systems are also rarely used in practice (see Rose et al 2016).…”

“…Sustained insights from social science are needed because, as Bagstad et al (2013) argue, these tools are best designed in a collaborative manner with intended end users. For effective co-production of knowledge, a user-centred design approach should be taken by tool developers, otherwise outputs risk being irrelevant, unusable, and poorly matched to user workflows (Parker and Sinclair 2001;Oliver et al 2017;Rose et al 2016;Rose et al in press;Weatherdon et al 2017). A review by Rodela et al (2017) of social science involvement in spatial decision support tools found a lack of approaches geared towards collaboration and communication with intended end users.…”

4th European Biodiversity Observation Network (EU BON) Stakeholder Roundtable: Pathways to sustainability for EU BONs network of collaborators and technical infrastructure

“…There are different models how the products and the network can be sustained (Thalmann 2016, Pan 2015 for example with establishing an EU BON core so that basic services could be still delivered ( Fig. 2) and developing (optional) components for offering additional products.…”

“…They provided a framework for how products could be clearly communicated to users and decision-makers (see Fig. 1) and outlined key chracteristics for decision support tools (Rose et al 2016). …”