Design of a decision support tool for visualising E. coli risk on agricultural land using a stakeholder-driven approach

Abstract

Enabling knowledge exchange between scientists and decision-makers is becoming increasingly necessary to promote the development of effective decision-support tools (DSTs) for environmental management. Participation of stakeholders in the design process beyond a basic level of consultation is essential for promoting trust in modelled outputs and accelerating eventual uptake of resulting tools and models by end-user communities. This study outlines the development of a DST to visualise and communicate the spatial and temporal patterns ofE. coli(a faecal indicator organism) on agricultural land, as a first step in managing microbial pollution risks to the wider environment. A participatory approach was used to engage regulators, catchment managers, environmental scientists, farmers and farm advisors, researchers in geospatial technologies and water industry staff in the co-design of a novel, user-friendly and accessible DST for guiding on-farm microbial risk assessment. Recommendations for maximising the benefits of a participatory process to DST design are discussed with reference to a series of opportunities and limitations identified by our stakeholder cohort during the development of the Visualising Pathogen & Environmental Risk (ViPER) DST. The resulting toolkit provides environmental managers and farm advisors with one of the first freely-available DSTs for visualising patterns ofE. coliinputs to pasture in space and time, and begins to address the lack of advisory tools currently available for informing decision-making with respect to managing microbial risks in agricultural systems

Finding the right connection: what makes a successful decision support system?

“…As we enter an ever‐more sophisticated information age, there is a need to bring science and farming communities together to turn information into relevant, actionable farming knowledge (Allen, Cruz, & Warburton, ; Bruce, ; Oliver, Bartie, Louise Heathwaite, Pschetz, & Quillam, ; Rose et al., ). As part of an advisory network, which includes trusted advisers and support networks, there is enormous potential for web‐based knowledge exchange to facilitate two‐way flow of information to and from farms, and to share information about “what works” (Bruce, ).…”

“…), (2) asking if, and how, the user would benefit, (3) investigating whether rural infrastructure is in place for the tool to be used, (4) testing, with actual users instead of colleagues, whether the system is easy to use, (5) adopting a good delivery plan, considering peer‐to‐peer networking and trusted advisory networks, and (6) thinking about how the system will be maintained after release, otherwise it will quickly become obsolete (see Rose et al., ). Where farmers and advisers have been included in the design from the outset, DSS have been better targeted, much easier to use, and provided enhanced benefits (Allen et al., ; Oliver et al., ).…”

Managing Multiple Catchment Demands for Sustainable Water Use and Ecosystem Service Provision

“…Priorities of stakeholder groups vary depending on local values and pressures [100], therefore policy-makers face the challenge of developing stakeholder-led, catchment-based approaches [101], which in turn can enable stakeholder groups to understand the pressures on their catchment system, assess their differing objectives and responsibilities, and help them consider possible synergies and conflicts of different management options. Involving stakeholders in decision-making throughout the planning process can make management options more inclusive, socially acceptable and maximise the likelihood of successful implementation of measures and strategies [102][103][104]. Participatory approaches can also enable the inclusion of services such as aesthetics or cultural values within ecosystem service assessments, which may not be quantified using spatial mapping.…”

“…To prevent this 'implementation gap' there should hence be active engagement between providers and users throughout the development of any tool to maximise its utility, acceptability and speed of uptake [130]. Involving stakeholders in the design of a decision support tool for visualizing E. coli risk on agricultural land for instance, has helped to promote enthusiasm and understanding of the tool, and has enhanced its applicability [104].…”

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

“…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.…”