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

VL - 29

SP - 452

EP - 464

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

IS - C

ER -