1 / 58

(Support for) Decision-making

(Support for) Decision-making. Marjan van Herwijnen Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Program. Decision-making Planning processes: meadows of Rijnwaarden water management in IJsselmeer Evaluation and valuation: Hondsbossche seawall. What can go wrong?.

nanda
Download Presentation

(Support for) Decision-making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. (Support for)Decision-making Marjan van Herwijnen Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

  2. Program • Decision-making • Planning processes: • meadows of Rijnwaarden • water management in IJsselmeer • Evaluation and valuation: • Hondsbossche seawall

  3. What can go wrong? • No decision • Wrong decision • Wrong decision strategy

  4. No decision

  5. Rt Ra Rt-Ra Wrong decision Assume a rope around the earth which is 10 meter longer than the circumference of the earth. Can a mouse walk under it? 2Ra +10 = 2Rt Rt = Ra + 10/2 Rt-Ra = 10/2  1.6 m

  6. Solution Height = 1/8 * 10 meter = 1.25 meter The height is independent of the radius!

  7. ^ ^ Scrooge NH > H > HBDrunkard HB > NH > HHealth freak H > NH > HB ^ ^ ^ ^ 1. House with bar (HB) 2. House without bar (H) 3. No house (NH) 1. Scrooge2. Drunkard3. Health freak

  8. First x x x Second xx x Third x xx No house House House with bar

  9. Step by step or simultaneous • Alternatives 1. Kamper island storage above ground level 2. Lake Ketel storage under water level 3. Lake Ketel storage above water level • Criteria 1. Costs 2. Landscape 3. Nuisance • Performance Costs Kamper island > LK under > LK above water Landscape LK under > Kamper island > LK Above water Nuisance LK above > Kamper island > LK under water

  10. Kamper island Lake Ketel Lake Ketel under water above water first x x x second xx x third x xx

  11. ill-structured problems multiple objectives alternatives actors reduce complexity to manageable proportions facts (objectivity) and values (subjectivity) uncertainty need for transparency Characteristics of problems

  12. Information processing (I) Input Output information decision procedure decision

  13. Information processing (II) Input Output information decision procedure decision persons organisation

  14. SustainabilityA-TestAdvanced Techniques for Evaluation of Sustainability Assessment Tools

  15. SustainabilityA-Test: Overview • EU project (DG research) in 6th Framework; • Start: March 2004 • End: August 2006 • Budget: 1.3 million euro • 18 European project partners • Three phases: • Design phase; • Case study on agriculture and land use; • Integration and synthesis

  16. SustainabilityA-Test: goals • Overall goal is: • to give support to the definition and implementation of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy; • This will be done by: • recognizing the common and emerging tools that can be used to measure or assess sustainable development; • examining the theoretical and conceptual basis of the tools; • developing an evaluation framework that includes aspects for: • various stages of policy and • sustainable development • applying the evaluation framework consistent and peer-reviewed.

  17. The webbook: home page

  18. The webbook: Overview

  19. The webbook: Book of References

  20. Dissemination • Webbook can be found on: • www.SustainabilityA-Test.net • Final conference: • Tuesday June 20, 2006Royal AcademyBrussels, Belgium

  21. Het gebruik van ICT instrumenten ter ondersteuning van de ruimtelijke planvorming M.van Herwijnen, M,S,G, Horrevoets, R.Janssen en A.Teunissen Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken Vrije Universiteit De Boelelaan 1115 1081 HV Amsterdam http://www.vu.nl/ivm

  22. Planning processes • meadows of Rijnwaarden • water management in IJsselmeer

  23. search screen judgement autorisation evaluation/choice diagnose design analysis/evaluation recognition negotation evaluation/choice identification development selection

  24. Goal: Screening the band width By means of: Design by landscape architects of three extreme scenario’s Supported by GIS Rijnwaarden: Screening

  25. Rijnwaarden: Vision making Goal: • Formulating a compromise alternative; the draft design By means of: • Presentation of the extreme alternatives • Input of stakeholders through idea-evenings • Supported by photographs, maps, oral explanation, a puzzle and discussion

  26. Rijnwaarden: Design Goal: • Expanding the draft design to an integral design By means of: • Presentation evenings • Interaction between stakeholders and landscape architects

  27. Rijnwaarden: screening

  28. Rijnwaarden: vision making

  29. ICT instruments for Rijnwaarden • Smartmap can replace the drawings on flap-overs • Spatial evaluation methods can support the evaluation of the extreme alternatives and help translate them to draft design. • The map presentations are already very suitable to communicate the information to the stakeholders.

  30. Planning processes • meadows of Rijnwaarden • water management in IJsselmeer

  31. zoek screen beoordeling autorisatie evaluatie/keuze diagnose ontwerp analyse/evaluatie erkenning onderhandeling evaluatie/keuze

  32. IJsselmeer: recognition phase

  33. IJsselmeer: generating alternatives

  34. IJsselmeer: evaluation/prioritize

  35. The use of WINBOS output • The results of WINBOS have played a minor role in the evaluation and the design rounds. Part of this is due to the delayed availability of WINBOS in the various phases. • Limiting factor was not so much the reliability of the model, which was judged very highly, but the way the information was offered.

  36. Mosaic map Dominant map Very deep water Deep water with water plants Deep water without water plants Moderately deep water with water plants Ecotopes Moderately deep water without water plants Shallow water with water plants Shallow water without water plants Shallow water with helophytes Low situated forest Low situated grassland Low situated bare Low situated shrub High situated forest High situated grassland High situated bare High situated shrub 2 2 1 1

  37. Low situated shrub Low situated forest Low situated grassland 2 2 2 1 1 1 Probability Probability Probability

  38. Water stored horizontally Water directly transported Water stored vertically Ecotopes Water with water plants Water without water plants Low situated forest Low situated grassland Low situated bare Low situated shrub High situated forest High situated grassland High situated bare High situated shrub

  39. Ecotopes Water stored vertically Water stored horizontally Water directly transported

  40. 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Number of target types of breeding birds Number of target types of breeding birds 1-7 1-2 8-14 3-6 15-21 7-15 22-28 16-28 Value map of breeding birds Value map of breeding birds Number of target types Number of target types

  41. Value breeding birds Value non-breeding birds Value birds (0.5-0.5) Value birds (0.75-0.25) Value (the least valuable) (the most valuable)

  42. Value map birds Water stored vertically Value map birds Water stored horizontally Difference map Difference (WSV-WSH) WSV << WSH WSV < WSH WSV = WSH WSV > WSH WSV >> WSH Value 1 (the least valuable) 2 3 4 (the most valuable)

  43. Best alternative map Worst alternative map Alternatives No alternatives best or worst Water directly transported Water stored vertically Water stored horizontally

More Related