Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: Experiences within the OpenNESS project

Ron I. Smith; David N. Barton; Jan Dick; Roy Haines-Young; Anders L. Madsen; Graciela M. Rusch; Mette Termansen; Helen Woods; Laurence Carvalho; Relu Constantin Giucă; Sandra Luque; David Odee; Verónica Rusch; Heli Saarikoski; Cristian Mihai Adamescu; Rob Dunford; John Ochieng; Julen Gonzalez-Redin; Erik Stange; Anghelută Vădineanu; Peter Verweij; Suvi Vikström

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004

Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: Experiences within the OpenNESS project

Ron I. Smith^*, David N. Barton, Jan Dick, Roy Haines-Young, Anders L. Madsen, Graciela M. Rusch, Mette Termansen, Helen Woods, Laurence Carvalho, Relu Constantin Giucă, Sandra Luque, David Odee, Verónica Rusch, Heli Saarikoski, Cristian Mihai Adamescu, Rob Dunford, John Ochieng, Julen Gonzalez-Redin, Erik Stange, Anghelută VădineanuPeter Verweij, Suvi Vikström

^*Corresponding author for this work

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Nine Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) were developed within the OpenNESS project specifically for modelling ecosystem services for case study applications. The novelty of the method, its ability to explore problems, to address uncertainty, and to facilitate stakeholder interaction in the process were all reasons for choosing BBNs. Most case studies had some local expertise on BBNs to assist them, and all used expert opinion as well as data to help develop the dependences in the BBNs. In terms of the decision scope of the work, all case studies were moving from explorative and informative uses towards decisive, but none were yet being used for decision-making. Three applications incorporated BBNs with GIS where the spatial component of the management was critical, but several concerns about estimating uncertainty with spatial modelling approaches are discussed. The tool proved to be very flexible and, particularly with its web interface, was an asset when working with stakeholders to facilitate exploration of outcomes, knowledge elicitation and social learning. BBNs were rated as very useful and widely applicable by the case studies that used them, but further improvements in software and more training were also deemed necessary.

Original language	English
Journal	Ecosystem Services
Volume	29
Issue number	C
Pages (from-to)	452-464
Number of pages	13
ISSN	2212-0416
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004
Publication status	Published - Feb 2018
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Decision scope
Spatial modelling
Stakeholder participation
Uncertainty
Web interface

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004

Cite this

Smith, R. I., Barton, D. N., Dick, J., Haines-Young, R., Madsen, A. L., Rusch, G. M., Termansen, M., Woods, H., Carvalho, L., Giucă, R. C., Luque, S., Odee, D., Rusch, V., Saarikoski, H., Adamescu, C. M., Dunford, R., Ochieng, J., Gonzalez-Redin, J., Stange, E., ... Vikström, S. (2018). Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: Experiences within the OpenNESS project. Ecosystem Services, 29(C), 452-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004

Smith, RI, Barton, DN, Dick, J, Haines-Young, R, Madsen, AL, Rusch, GM, Termansen, M, Woods, H, Carvalho, L, Giucă, RC, Luque, S, Odee, D, Rusch, V, Saarikoski, H, Adamescu, CM, Dunford, R, Ochieng, J, Gonzalez-Redin, J, Stange, E, Vădineanu, A, Verweij, P & Vikström, S 2018, 'Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: Experiences within the OpenNESS project', Ecosystem Services, vol. 29, no. C, pp. 452-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004

@article{30fe7e45a13042eb96530dce12a37a09,

title = "Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: Experiences within the OpenNESS project",

abstract = "Nine Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) were developed within the OpenNESS project specifically for modelling ecosystem services for case study applications. The novelty of the method, its ability to explore problems, to address uncertainty, and to facilitate stakeholder interaction in the process were all reasons for choosing BBNs. Most case studies had some local expertise on BBNs to assist them, and all used expert opinion as well as data to help develop the dependences in the BBNs. In terms of the decision scope of the work, all case studies were moving from explorative and informative uses towards decisive, but none were yet being used for decision-making. Three applications incorporated BBNs with GIS where the spatial component of the management was critical, but several concerns about estimating uncertainty with spatial modelling approaches are discussed. The tool proved to be very flexible and, particularly with its web interface, was an asset when working with stakeholders to facilitate exploration of outcomes, knowledge elicitation and social learning. BBNs were rated as very useful and widely applicable by the case studies that used them, but further improvements in software and more training were also deemed necessary.",

keywords = "Decision scope, Spatial modelling, Stakeholder participation, Uncertainty, Web interface",

author = "Smith, {Ron I.} and Barton, {David N.} and Jan Dick and Roy Haines-Young and Madsen, {Anders L.} and Rusch, {Graciela M.} and Mette Termansen and Helen Woods and Laurence Carvalho and Giuc{\u a}, {Relu Constantin} and Sandra Luque and David Odee and Ver{\'o}nica Rusch and Heli Saarikoski and Adamescu, {Cristian Mihai} and Rob Dunford and John Ochieng and Julen Gonzalez-Redin and Erik Stange and Anghelut{\u a} V{\u a}dineanu and Peter Verweij and Suvi Vikstr{\"o}m",

year = "2018",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "452--464",

journal = "Ecosystem Services",

issn = "2212-0416",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "C",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks

T2 - Experiences within the OpenNESS project

AU - Smith, Ron I.

AU - Barton, David N.

AU - Dick, Jan

AU - Haines-Young, Roy

AU - Madsen, Anders L.

AU - Rusch, Graciela M.

AU - Termansen, Mette

AU - Woods, Helen

AU - Carvalho, Laurence

AU - Giucă, Relu Constantin

AU - Luque, Sandra

AU - Odee, David

AU - Rusch, Verónica

AU - Saarikoski, Heli

AU - Adamescu, Cristian Mihai

AU - Dunford, Rob

AU - Ochieng, John

AU - Gonzalez-Redin, Julen

AU - Stange, Erik

AU - Vădineanu, Anghelută

AU - Verweij, Peter

AU - Vikström, Suvi

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - Nine Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) were developed within the OpenNESS project specifically for modelling ecosystem services for case study applications. The novelty of the method, its ability to explore problems, to address uncertainty, and to facilitate stakeholder interaction in the process were all reasons for choosing BBNs. Most case studies had some local expertise on BBNs to assist them, and all used expert opinion as well as data to help develop the dependences in the BBNs. In terms of the decision scope of the work, all case studies were moving from explorative and informative uses towards decisive, but none were yet being used for decision-making. Three applications incorporated BBNs with GIS where the spatial component of the management was critical, but several concerns about estimating uncertainty with spatial modelling approaches are discussed. The tool proved to be very flexible and, particularly with its web interface, was an asset when working with stakeholders to facilitate exploration of outcomes, knowledge elicitation and social learning. BBNs were rated as very useful and widely applicable by the case studies that used them, but further improvements in software and more training were also deemed necessary.

AB - Nine Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) were developed within the OpenNESS project specifically for modelling ecosystem services for case study applications. The novelty of the method, its ability to explore problems, to address uncertainty, and to facilitate stakeholder interaction in the process were all reasons for choosing BBNs. Most case studies had some local expertise on BBNs to assist them, and all used expert opinion as well as data to help develop the dependences in the BBNs. In terms of the decision scope of the work, all case studies were moving from explorative and informative uses towards decisive, but none were yet being used for decision-making. Three applications incorporated BBNs with GIS where the spatial component of the management was critical, but several concerns about estimating uncertainty with spatial modelling approaches are discussed. The tool proved to be very flexible and, particularly with its web interface, was an asset when working with stakeholders to facilitate exploration of outcomes, knowledge elicitation and social learning. BBNs were rated as very useful and widely applicable by the case studies that used them, but further improvements in software and more training were also deemed necessary.

KW - Decision scope

KW - Spatial modelling

KW - Stakeholder participation

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Web interface

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85034441213

SN - 2212-0416

VL - 29

SP - 452

EP - 464

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

IS - C

ER -

Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: Experiences within the OpenNESS project

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this