IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v221y2010i18p2167-2176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An IT perspective on integrated environmental modelling: The SIAT case

Author

Listed:
  • Verweij, P.J.F.M.
  • Knapen, M.J.R.
  • de Winter, W.P.
  • Wien, J.J.F.
  • te Roller, J.A.
  • Sieber, S.
  • Jansen, J.M.L.

Abstract

Policy makers have a growing interest in integrated assessments of policies. The Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) community is reacting to this interest by extending the application of model development from pure scientific analysis towards application in decision making or policy context by giving tools a higher capability for analysis targeted at non-experts, but intelligent users. Many parties are involved in the construction of such tools including modellers, domain experts and tool users, resulting in as many views on the proposed tool. During tool development research continues which leads to advanced understanding of the system and may alter early specifications. Accumulation of changes to the initial design obscures the design, usually vastly increasing the number of defects in the software. The software engineering community uses concepts, methods and practices to deal with ambiguous specifications, changing requirements and incompletely conceived visions, and to design and develop maintainable/extensible quality software. The aim of this paper is to introduce modellers to software engineering concepts and methods which have the potential to improve model and tool development using experiences from the development of the Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool. These range from choosing a software development methodology for planning activities and coordinating people, technical design principles impacting maintainability, quality and reusability of the software to prototyping and user involvement. It is argued that adaptive development methods seem to best fit research projects, that typically have unclear upfront and changing requirements. The break-down of a system into elements that overlap as little as possible in features and behaviour helps to divide the work across teams and to achieve a modular and flexible system. However, this must be accompanied by proper automated testing methods and automated continuous integration of the elements. Prototypes, screen sketches and mock-ups are useful to align the different views, build a shared vision of required functionality and to match expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Verweij, P.J.F.M. & Knapen, M.J.R. & de Winter, W.P. & Wien, J.J.F. & te Roller, J.A. & Sieber, S. & Jansen, J.M.L., 2010. "An IT perspective on integrated environmental modelling: The SIAT case," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(18), pages 2167-2176.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:221:y:2010:i:18:p:2167-2176
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.01.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380010000451
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.01.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brecard, Dorothee & Fougeyrollas, Arnaud & Le Mouel, Pierre & Lemiale, Lionel & Zagame, Paul, 2006. "Macro-economic consequences of European research policy: Prospects of the Nemesis model in the year 2030," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 910-924, September.
    2. Nabuurs, G. J. & Paivinen, R. & Schanz, H., 2001. "Sustainable management regimes for Europe's forests -- a projection with EFISCEN until 2050," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 155-173, November.
    3. Lu, Hsi-Peng & Yu, Huei-Ju & Lu, Simon S. K., 2001. "The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 649-663, June.
    4. van Ittersum, Martin K. & Ewert, Frank & Heckelei, Thomas & Wery, Jacques & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Andersen, Erling & Bezlepkina, Irina & Brouwer, Floor & Donatelli, Marcello & Flichman, Guillermo & , 2008. "Integrated assessment of agricultural systems - A component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 150-165, March.
    5. Voinov, Alexey & Gaddis, Erica J. Brown, 2008. "Lessons for successful participatory watershed modeling: A perspective from modeling practitioners," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 197-207.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bila, J. & Jura, J. & Pokorny, J. & Bukovsky, I., 2011. "Qualitative modeling and monitoring of selected ecosystem functions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(19), pages 3640-3650.
    2. Pérez-Soba, Marta & Verweij, Peter & Saarikoski, Heli & Harrison, Paula A. & Barton, David N. & Furman, Eeva, 2018. "Maximising the value of research on ecosystem services: Knowledge integration and guidance tools mediating the science, policy and practice interfaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 599-607.
    3. Meng, Jijun & Cheng, Haoran & Li, Feng & Han, Ziyan & Wei, Chanjuan & Wu, Yingdi & You, Ng Wuh & Zhu, Likai, 2022. "Spatial-temporal trade-offs of land multi-functionality and function zoning at finer township scale in the middle reaches of the Heihe River," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Bila, Jiri & Pokorny, Jan, 2021. "Modeling of complex ecosystems, extension of deserts and violation of the short water cycle," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 461(C).
    5. Britz, Wolfgang, 2014. "A New Graphical User Interface Generator for Economic Models and its Comparison to Existing Approaches," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 63(04), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sieber, Stefan & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Reidsma, Pytrik & Koenig, Hannes & Piorr, Annette & Bezlepkina, Irina & Mueller, Klaus, 2018. "Sustainability impact assessment tools for land use policy advice: A comparative analysis of five research approaches," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 75-85.
    2. Uthes, Sandra & Fricke, Katharina & König, Hannes & Zander, Peter & van Ittersum, Martin & Sieber, Stefan & Helming, Katharina & Piorr, Annette & Müller, Klaus, 2010. "Policy relevance of three integrated assessment tools—A comparison with specific reference to agricultural policies," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(18), pages 2136-2152.
    3. Delmotte, Sylvestre & Barbier, Jean-Marc & Mouret, Jean-Claude & Le Page, Christophe & Wery, Jacques & Chauvelon, Phillipe & Sandoz, Alain & Lopez Ridaura, Santiago, 2016. "Participatory integrated assessment of scenarios for organic farming at different scales in Camargue, France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 147-158.
    4. Samuel Sandoval-Solis & Jose Pablo Ortiz Partida & Lindsay Floyd, 2022. "Multi-Objective Water Planning in a Poor Water Data Region: Aragvi River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Jose-Luis Molina & Sergio Martos-Rosillo & Crisanto Martín-Montañés & Suzanne Pierce, 2012. "The Social Sustainable Aquifer Yield: An Indicator for the Analysis and Assessment of the Integrated Aquifers Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(10), pages 2951-2971, August.
    6. Schreefel, L. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Timler, C.J. & Groot, J.C.J. & Zwetsloot, M.J. & Creamer, R.E. & Schrijver, A. Pas & van Zanten, H.H.E. & Schulte, R.P.O., 2022. "How to make regenerative practices work on the farm: A modelling framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    7. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    8. Gerrard, Catherine L. & Padel, Susanne & Simon, Moakes, 2012. "The use of Farm Business Survey data to compare the environmental performance of organic and conventional farms," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 2(1), pages 1-12, October.
    9. L A Franco & M Meadows, 2007. "Exploring new directions for research in problem structuring methods: on the role of cognitive style," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(12), pages 1621-1629, December.
    10. Gregory Hill & Steven Kolmes & Michael Humphreys & Rebecca McLain & Eric T. Jones, 2019. "Using decision support tools in multistakeholder environmental planning: restorative justice and subbasin planning in the Columbia River Basin," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(2), pages 170-186, June.
    11. Nathalie Taverdet-Popiolek, 2022. "Economic Footprint of a Large French Research and Technology Organisation in Europe: Deciphering a Simplified Model and Appraising the Results," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 44-69, March.
    12. Gärtner, Dominique & Keller, Armin & Schulin, Rainer, 2013. "A simple regional downscaling approach for spatially distributing land use types for agricultural land," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 10-19.
    13. Dono, Gabriele & Cortignani, Raffaele & Giraldo, Luca & Doro, Luca & Roggero, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Assessing the awareness of climate change as a factor of adaptation in the agricultural sector," 2014 Third Congress, June 25-27, 2014, Alghero, Italy 173110, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    14. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    15. Britz, Wolfgang & Ciaian, Pavel & Gocht, Alexander & Kanellopoulos, Argyris & Kremmydas, Dimitrios & Müller, Marc & Petsakos, Athanasios & Reidsma, Pytrik, 2021. "A design for a generic and modular bio-economic farm model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Pascal da Costa & Wenhui Tian, 2015. "A Sectoral Prospective Analysis of CO2 Emissions in China, USA and France, 2010-2050," Working Papers hal-01026302, HAL.
    17. Höltinger, Stefan & Salak, Boris & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Scherhaufer, Patrick & Schmidt, Johannes, 2016. "Austria's wind energy potential – A participatory modeling approach to assess socio-political and market acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 49-61.
    18. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    19. Valdivia, Roberto O. & Antle, John M. & Stoorvogel, Jetse J., 2012. "Coupling the Tradeoff Analysis Model with a market equilibrium model to analyze economic and environmental outcomes of agricultural production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 17-29.
    20. Sondoss Elsawah & Elena Bakhanova & Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "A Competency Framework for Participatory Modeling," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 569-601, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:221:y:2010:i:18:p:2167-2176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.