Collaborative Water Resource Decision Support: Results of a Field Experiment

Abstract

This article presents results of an empirical study about the use of a group-based geographic information system (GIS), called WaterGroup, developed as a collaborative spatial decision support system. WaterGroup was designed to enable stakeholder groups to participate in the solution of conjunctive water resource administration decision problems being addressed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources in the Boise River Basin of southwestern Idaho. The decision situation, software development, and empirical investigation are described within the context of other research activities/literatures related to group/community/public geographic information systems, helping us sort through the burgeoning terminology of this continually emerging field. We used Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory 2 to motivate research questions investigated by way of a field experiment research design. Decision process is characterized in terms of human-computer-human interaction coding. We used a technique called ''interaction coding'' to compile three streams of data from videotapes as a record of interaction in two stakeholder-oriented decision workshops. Coded data are examined using nonparametric, exploratory sequential data analysis. Additionally, we used questionnaires to gather data regarding participant perceptions of WaterGroup and the decision process. The findings of this study indicate that different technology configurations foster a different balance between analytic and deliberative activities within phases of a conjunctive administration decision process. A low-technology, chauffeur-driven configuration in a phase encourages more deliberation, and a medium-technology, participant-driven configuration in a phase encourages more analysis. We discuss the findings and their implications for group-based GIS decision support. This article will be of interest to researchers involved in group-based GIS decision support software design, in empirical studies of stakeholder group-based decision support, and facilitators desiring to gain deeper insight into field settings involving group-based GIS decision support. Key Words: collaborative decision making, decision support system, groupbased GIS, participatory GIS, water resource planning.

A framework to implement Stakeholder participation in environmental projects

“…Within the next few decades, ITC technology is likely to be more widely available, and project leaders will be required to use it to optimize public participation. Nevertheless, work such as Nyerges and Agguirre (2011) and Nyerges et al (2006), dealing with online deliberation, give advice and limits regarding the design of ICT tools within the participation process. They also provide evidence that the role of technology in improving the quality of participation can be questionable.…”

GIS, modeling, and politics: On the tensions of collaborative decision support

“…In many cases, these systems rely upon problem structuring methodologies, such as multicriteria analysis (e.g., Jankowski, 1995;Thill, 1999), which require pre-defining many important aspects of the problem (e.g., the criteria to be considered in solution identification). When SDSS are adapted for group use, the problem in question tends to be pre-defined in advance of any collaborative process as a necessity for data gathering and system design (Jankowski et al, 1997;Jankowski and Nyerges, 2001;Nyerges et al, 1998;Nyerges et al, 2006a;Sengupta, 2006).…”

Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making

“…Answering this question is crucial for structuring future public participation processes that take advantage of specialized decision support software. The main finding of the study was that the control group was more satisfied with the software than the test group (for detailed interpretation of the study results see Nyerges et al, 2006). The control group developed fewer decision options (two) than the test group (five) and spent more time deliberating the decision options than the test group.…”