|
|
de Wit, A., Boogaard, H., van Diepen, K., van Kraalingen, D., Rötter, R., Supit, I., et al. (2015). WOFOST developer’s response to article by Stella et al., Environmental Modelling & Software 59 (2014): 44–58. Env. Model. Softw., 73, 57–59.
|
|
|
|
Sieber, S., Amjath-Babu, T. S., McIntosh, B. S., Tscherning, K., Müller, K., Helming, K., et al. (2013). Evaluating the characteristics of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) for the development of policy impact assessment tools. Env. Model. Softw., 49, 53–63.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) used for the purpose of developing the Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT). By ‘non-standardised’ we mean not strictly following a published MRA method. The underlying question we are interested in addressing is how non-standardised methods, often employed in research driven projects, compare to defined methods with more standardised structure, with regards their ability to capture model requirements effectively, and with regards their overall usability. Through describing and critically assessing the specific features of the non-standardised MRA employed, the ambition of this paper is to provide insights useful for impact assessment tool (IAT) development. Specifically, the paper will (i) characterise kinds of user requirements relevant to the functionality and design of IATs; (ii) highlight the strengths and weaknesses of non-standardised MRA for user requirements capture, analysis and reflection in the context of IAT; (iii) critically reflect on the process and outcomes of having used a non-standardised MRA in comparison with other more standardised approaches. To accomplish these aims, we first review methods available for IAT development before describing the SIAT development process, including the MRA employed. Major strengths and weaknesses of the MRA method are then discussed in terms of user identification and characterisation, organisational characterisation and embedding, and ability to capture design options for ensuring usability and usefulness. A detailed assessment on the structural differences of MRA with two advanced approaches (Integrated DSS design and goal directed design) and their role in performance of the MRA tool is used to critique the approach employed. The results show that MRA is able to bring thematic integration, establish system performance and technical thresholds as well as detailing quality and transparency guidelines. Nevertheless the discussion points out to a number of deficiencies in application – (i) a need to more effectively characterise potential users, and; (ii) a need to better foster communication among the distinguished roles in the development process. If addressed these deficiencies, SIAT non-standardised MRA could have brought out better outcomes in terms of tool usability and usefulness, and improved embedding of the tool into conditions of targeted end-users. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Houska, T., Kraft, P., Liebermann, R., Klatt, S., Kraus, D., Haas, E., et al. (2017). Rejecting hydro-biogeochemical model structures by multi-criteria evaluation. Env. Model. Softw., 93, 1–12.
Abstract: Highlights • New method to investigate biogeochemical model structure performance. • Process based hydrological modelling can improve biogeochemical model predictions. • Modelling efficiency dramatically drops with multiple objectives. Abstract This work presents a novel way for assessing and comparing different hydro-biogeochemical model structures and their performances. We used the LandscapeDNDC modelling framework to set up four models of different complexity, considering two soil-biogeochemical and two hydrological modules. The performance of each model combination was assessed using long-term (8 years) data and applying different thresholds, considering multiple criteria and objective functions. Our results show that each model combination had its strength for particular criteria. However, only 0.01% of all model runs passed the complete rejectionist framework. In contrast, our comparatively applied assessments of single thresholds, as frequently used in other studies, lead to a much higher acceptance rate of 40–70%. Therefore, our study indicates that models can be right for the wrong reasons, i.e., matching GHG emissions while at the same time failing to simulate other criteria such as soil moisture or plant biomass dynamics.
|
|
