Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review
Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review
复制标题
农业生态模型综合评估的审议过程。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
7.3
通讯作者：
M. Acutis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Bellocchi;M. Rivington;K. Matthews;M. Acutis
过去几十年来，农业生态学中生物物理模型的使用有所增加，主要原因有两个：需要将经验知识形式化，以及需要为决策者（例如农民、顾问和政策制定者）传播基于模型的决策支持。第一个鼓励数学模型的开发和使用，通过超越地点、季节和管理限制的推断来提高实地研究的效率。第二个反映了（科学家、管理者和公众）对模拟实验的日益增长的需求，以探索各种选择和后果，例如，未来的资源利用效率（即可持续集约化的管理）、气候变化的影响和适应、了解在需求增加和供应能力有限的情况下对生物物理层面上发起的冲击的市场和政策反应。因此，生产问题主导了大多数模型应用，但人们越来越重视环境、经济和政策维度。考虑到影响模型输出的各种因素，确定评估模型质量和性能的有效方法已成为一项具有挑战性但至关重要的任务。了解利益相关者在模型使用方面的要求，从逻辑上讲意味着需要将其纳入模型评估方法中。我们审查了模型评估指标的使用，特别强调利益相关者的参与，以扩大传统结构化数字分析之外的视野。讨论了两个主要主题：（1）模型评估审议过程的重要性，以及（2）计算机辅助技术在将审议过程纳入农业生态模型评估中可能发挥的作用。我们指出，（i）可以通过利益相关者的后续行动来改进农业生态模型的评估，这是实践中模型实现的可接受性的关键，（ii）模型的可信度不仅取决于结构良好、基于数字的评估的结果，还取决于可能需要使用补充审议过程来解决的不太有形的因素，（iii）通过偏好和感知的权重系统整合利益相关者的期望，可以实现模拟模型的综合评估，（iv）基于问卷的调查可以实现对模拟模型的全面评估。帮助理解审议过程带来的挑战，以及（v）如果从决策角度构思模型评估，并且评估技术的开发与模型本身的创建和改进步伐相同，则可以获得好处。科学知识中心也被认为是推进与模型评估（包括使用专用软件工具）相关的良好建模实践的关键支柱，这一活动在有时间限制的框架计划中经常被忽视。
The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.