4.7 Article

The decision support matrix (DSM) approach to reducing environmental risk in farmed landscapes

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 172, 期 -, 页码 74-82

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.03.008

关键词

Environmental risk; Decision support; Farming; Visualization; Communication; Modelling; Participatory action research; Land management; Decision support matrix; DSM

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
  2. European Commission Seventh Framework Programme
  3. Defra [FD2114]
  4. EPSRC [GR/N26074/01]
  5. SEAL project (Strategic Management of Non point Source Pollution from Sewage Sludge)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern intensive farming is an essential reality of modern life which brings major benefits but results in environmental pressures in constant need of solution, from increased flood risk and soil erosion to nutrient and pesticide export. The Decision Support Matrix (DSM) approach described here utilizes visualization and communication tools to help reduce environmental risk in farmed landscapei Drawing on methods from physical and human geography, from mathematical modelling to participatory action research, the approach captures research expertise and local knowledge in forms accessible to farmers, land-use managers, planners and policy-makers. Conceptual models, easy-to-use interactive tools and examples of good and bad practice are co-developed by researchers and stakeholders, resulting in tools that enable practitioners to better understand the risks associated with specific land-use practices and assess measures to attenuate those risks. Most importantly it encourages users to take steps to reduce environmental risks. This paper sets out the philosophy underpinning the DSM approach and describes the tools developed. Examples are given of how the approach has been applied successfully to phosphorus and nitrate export, and to flood risk associated with arable and livestock farming. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据