4.7 Article

User-driven design of decision support systems for polycentric environmental resources management

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages 58-73

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.10.012

Keywords

Environmental decision support systems; Participatory research; Polycentric management; User-driven design

Funding

  1. UK Research Council NERC/ESRC/DFID ESPA programme [NE-K010239-1]
  2. UK NERC [NE/I00200/1]
  3. ESPA [NE/I004017/1]
  4. NERC [NE/K010204/1, NE/K010123/1, NE/K010182/1, NE/K010239/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/K010239/1, NE/K010204/1, NE/K010182/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Open and decentralized technologies such as the Internet provide increasing opportunities to create knowledge and deliver computer-based decision support for multiple types of users across scales. However, environmental decision support systems/tools (henceforth EDSS) are often strongly science driven and assuming single types of decision makers, and hence poorly suited for more decentralized and polycentric decision making contexts. In such contexts, EDSS need to be tailored to meet diverse user requirements to ensure that it provides useful (relevant), usable (intuitive), and exchangeable (institutionally unobstructed) information for decision support for different types of actors. To address these issues, we present a participatory framework for designing EDSS that emphasizes a more complete understanding of the decision making structures and iterative design of the user interface. We illustrate the application of the framework through a case study within the context of water-stressed upstream/downstream communities in Lima, Peru. (C) 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available