Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.
Lab for Uncertainty in Data and Decision Making, School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK.
J Environ Manage. 2022 Sep 1;317:115352. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115352. Epub 2022 May 26.
Inadequate definition of key terms and their relationships generates significant communication and analytical problems in environmental planning. In this work, we evaluate an ontological framework for environmental planning designed to combat these problems. After outlining the framework and issues addressed, we describe its evaluation by a group of experts representing a range of expertise and institutions. Experts rated their level of agreement with 12 propositions concerning the definitions and models underpinning the framework. These propositions, in turn, were used to assess three assumptions regarding the expected effectiveness of the framework and its contribution to addressing the abovementioned planning problems. In addition to point-based best estimates of their agreement with propositions, expert ratings were also captured on a continuous interval-valued scale. The use of intervals addresses the challenge of measuring and modelling uncertainty associated with complex assessments such as those provided by experts. Combined with written anonymous expert comments, these data provide multiple perspectives on the level of support for the approach. We conclude that the framework can complement existing planning approaches and strengthen key definitions and related models, thus helping avoid communication and analytical problems in environmental planning. Finally, experts highlighted areas that require further development, and we provide recommendations for improving the framework.
在环境规划中，关键术语及其关系的定义不充分会产生重大的沟通和分析问题。在这项工作中，我们评估了一个旨在解决这些问题的环境规划本体论框架。在概述了框架和所解决的问题之后，我们描述了一组代表各种专业知识和机构的专家对其进行的评估。专家们根据 12 个关于框架基础的定义和模型的命题来评估他们的一致性程度。这些命题反过来又被用来评估关于框架预期有效性及其对解决上述规划问题的贡献的三个假设。除了对命题的一致性进行基于点的最佳估计外，专家的评级还在连续的区间值尺度上进行了记录。区间的使用解决了与复杂评估（如专家提供的评估）相关的测量和建模不确定性的挑战。结合专家的匿名书面意见，这些数据提供了对该方法的支持程度的多个视角。我们得出的结论是，该框架可以补充现有的规划方法，并加强关键定义和相关模型，从而有助于避免环境规划中的沟通和分析问题。最后，专家们强调了需要进一步发展的领域，我们提供了改进框架的建议。
