The varied contexts of environmental decision problems and their implications for decision support

French, Simon; Geldermann, Jutta

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.04.008

Cited by 104 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That the context within which models are used will affect the required functionality and/or accuracy is well recognized by model developers (French and Geldermann 2005). This is particularly apparent when comparing models developed to represent the same process at different scales and for which different qualities of input variables, parameterization/initialization, and data for evaluation will be available, for example, soil water balances at plot, farm, catchment, and region (e.g., Keating et al 2002;Vischel et al 2007).…”

Section: Dependence On the Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In part, this is simply a matter of realizing that there are four kinds of issues (French and Geldermann 2005)-the known (for which models are irrelevant as decision makers already have the knowledge that they need), the knowable with additional information (a case where models may have a key role in providing or synthesizing data to provide information), the complex (where models may have a similar role but where there is significant and irreducible uncertainty), and, finally, the chaotic where only short-term planning is possible and efforts need to be focused on adapting to unpredictable events. Uncertainty can arise from any number of sources (model structure, parameterization, input data, initialization), and how it manifests itself in the model estimates can be difficult to determine, but incorporation of expert stakeholder interpretation helps separate the knowable with additional information from the chaotic.…”

Section: Model Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review

Bellocchi

Rivington

Matthews

et al. 2014

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.

show abstract

Section: Dependence On the Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review

Bellocchi

Rivington

Matthews

et al. 2014

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Via its structured and transparent approach MAVT is an ideal technique to support decision making in these heterogeneous groups (Stewart, 1992;French and Geldermann, 2005). Developing the attribute tree in a group and discussing preferences can be effective in developing more conscious decisions and integrating different views.…”

Section: Group Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation strategies for nuclear and radiological emergency and post-accident management

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nuclear and radiological emergency and post-accident management decisions on countermeasures and remediation strategies have to be made. Whereas in the early phase decisions on emergency actions must be made in a very short time, according to emergency plans and dose thresholds, in the recovery phase complexity is higher. But there is also more time for evaluating alternative countermeasures and remediation strategies with respect to several goals. In this paper evaluation strategies supporting the decision makers throughout all phases are presented. The applied decision support techniques range from graphical presentations of decision relevant information about the alternatives for action to multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. In particular methods to cope with several types of uncertainties inherent in the different phases are presented. By the integration of these techniques, the decision support system RODOS is able to provide support for more conscious, transparent and coherent decision making.

show abstract

“…Despite the need for climate science to inform climate policy making, there is a current disconnect between the scientific information being generated and the information needed to guide policy (Adger et al 2007;Bushell et al 2015). While scientists continue to produce more data and information, much of this scientific research is being generated without taking into account the needs of policy makers (Agrawala et al 2001;Cash et al 2003;French and Geldermann 2005;Rayner et al 2005). In addition, policy makers often have limited time, resources or ability to review and use the scientific information that is being produced (Dabelko 2005;Morss et al 2005;Rayner et al 2005;Moser and Luers 2008;Heller and Zavaleta 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What information do policy makers need to develop climate adaptation plans for smallholder farmers? The case of Central America and Mexico

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific and technical information can increase the ability of policy makers to make strategic decisions. However, climate change policy is often formulated without significant input from science. We examine whether the availability and accessibility of information related to climate change is a major barrier for policy action on climate change adaptation for smallholder farmers. We also investigate whether scientific information related to climate Climatic Change (2017) 141:107-121 DOI 10.1007/s10584-016-1787 This article is part of a Special Issue on BClimate change impacts on ecosystems, agriculture and smallholder farmers in Central America^edited by Camila I. Donatti and Lee Hannah. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1787-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. change is available and used in policy making in Central America and Mexico. Our online survey of 105 decision makers indicated that a lack of scientific and technical information hinders policy makers from developing policies to help smallholder farmers adapt to climate change. Specific needs include information on the impacts of climate change on water availability for agriculture and the areas that are or will be prone to flooding, droughts or landslides. Information about the location of the farmers who are most vulnerable to climate change, the projected temperature and precipitation in agricultural areas and the expected impacts of climate change on crop yields or animal productivity, is also needed. Despite high interest in having scientific information guide policy making, many respondents indicated that policy makers rarely use this information in adaptation planning. In addition to ensuring that relevant information is available to inform policy making, technical and scientific information must be published in venues that are readily accessible for policy makers, easy to understand, and written in a format that is policy-relevant. It is also critical that scientific articles provide specific recommendations for achieving desired policy outcomes.

show abstract

The varied contexts of environmental decision problems and their implications for decision support

Cited by 104 publications

References 38 publications

Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review

Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review

Evaluation strategies for nuclear and radiological emergency and post-accident management

What information do policy makers need to develop climate adaptation plans for smallholder farmers? The case of Central America and Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About