Department Environmental Social Sciences

array(2 items)
   publications => '10404,7276,9167,8973' (20 chars)
   libraryUrl => '' (0 chars)

array(4 items)
   0 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=10404, pid=124)
      originalId => protected10404 (integer)
      authors => protected'Langhans, S. D.; Lienert, J.' (43 chars)
      title => protected'Four common simplifications of multi-criteria decision analysis do not hold 
         for river rehabilitation' (100 chars)
      journal => protected'PLoS One' (8 chars)
      year => protected2016 (integer)
      volume => protected11 (integer)
      issue => protected'3' (1 chars)
      startpage => protected'e0150695 (27 pp.)' (17 chars)
      otherpage => protected'' (0 chars)
      categories => protected'' (0 chars)
      description => protected'River rehabilitation aims at alleviating negative effects of human impacts s
         uch as loss of biodiversity and reduction of ecosystem services. Such interv
         entions entail difficult trade-offs between different ecological and often s
         ocio-economic objectives. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a very 
         suitable approach that helps assessing the current ecological state and prio
         ritizing river rehabilitation measures in a standardized way, based on stake
         holder or expert preferences. Applications of MCDA in river rehabilitation p
         rojects are often simplified, i.e. using a limited number of objectives and 
         indicators, assuming linear value functions, aggregating individual indicato
         r assessments additively, and/or assuming risk neutrality of experts. Here, 
         we demonstrate an implementation of MCDA expert preference assessments to ri
         ver rehabilitation and provide ample material for other applications. To tes
         t whether the above simplifications reflect common expert opinion, we carrie
         d out very detailed interviews with five river ecologists and a hydraulic en
         gineer. We defined essential objectives and measurable quality indicators (a
         ttributes), elicited the experts´ preferences for objectives on a standardi
         zed scale (value functions) and their risk attitude, and identified suitable
          aggregation methods. The experts recommended an extensive objectives hierar
         chy including between 54 and 93 essential objectives and between 37 to 61 es
         sential attributes. For 81% of these, they defined non-linear value function
         s and in 76% recommended multiplicative aggregation. The experts were risk a
         verse or risk prone (but never risk neutral), depending on the current ecolo
         gical state of the river, and the experts´ personal importance of objective
         s. We conclude that the four commonly applied simplifications clearly do not
          reflect the opinion of river rehabilitation experts. The optimal level of m
         odel complexity, however, remains highly case-study specific depending on da
         ta and resource availabi...' (2062 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'' (0 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1371/journal.pone.0150695' (28 chars)
      uid => protected10404 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected10404 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected10404 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   1 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=7276, pid=124)
      originalId => protected7276 (integer)
      authors => protected'Langhans, S. D.; Lienert, J.; Schuwirth, N.; Reichert,&n
         bsp;P.' (82 chars)
      title => protected'How to make river assessments comparable: a demonstration for hydromorpholog
         y' (77 chars)
      journal => protected'Ecological Indicators' (21 chars)
      year => protected2013 (integer)
      volume => protected32 (integer)
      issue => protected'' (0 chars)
      startpage => protected'264' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'275' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'ecological assessment; comparability; intercalibration; bioassessment; river
          management; multi-criteria decision analysis' (121 chars)
      description => protected'River monitoring and assessment programs are important tools to quantify the
          condition of river ecosystems, identify deficits, and provide preliminary i
         ndication of how to improve them. But, they are limited in delivering compar
         able assessment results across national or transnational borders, aggregatin
         g site-specific assessments into broader scale assessments, and supporting r
         iver management decisions. We present a multi-criteria decision analysis app
         roach for improving the comparability of ecological assessment methods of di
         fferent origin and for combining these assessments into a joint procedure. T
         he approach consists of seven consecutive steps. The most central ones conce
         rn the hierarchical allocation of ecological assessment endpoints, and the h
         armonization of the scoring procedure of attributes (ecological indicators o
         r assets) to a common scale from 0 to 1. We demonstrate the approach integra
         ting three programs developed to assess the hydromorphological river conditi
         on in Switzerland, Germany, and the USA. In our example, the integrated asse
         ssment produces comparable results for the whole range from natural to impac
         ted rivers, while data continuity with original assessments was maintained. 
         Our approach provides a common assessment standard due to the definition of 
         the minimum amount of information required, is flexible regarding measuremen
         t and assessment endpoints, and bridges the gap between river quality assess
         ment and management.' (1464 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'1470-160X' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.027' (29 chars)
      uid => protected7276 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected7276 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected7276 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   2 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=9167, pid=124)
      originalId => protected9167 (integer)
      authors => protected'Reichert, P.; Langhans, S. D.; Lienert, J.; Schuwirth,&n
         bsp;N.' (82 chars)
      title => protected'The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support' (59 chars)
      journal => protected'Journal of Environmental Management' (35 chars)
      year => protected2015 (integer)
      volume => protected154 (integer)
      issue => protected'' (0 chars)
      startpage => protected'316' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'332' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'multi-criteria decision analysis; environmental management; societal decisio
         n support; stakeholder involvement; intersubjective probabilities; multi-att
         ribute value theory; multi-attribute utility theory; uncertainty; river mana
         gement' (234 chars)
      description => protected'Environmental decision support intends to use the best available scientific 
         knowledge to help decision makers find and evaluate management alternatives.
          The goal of this process is to achieve the best fulfillment of societal obj
         ectives. This requires a careful analysis of (i) how scientific knowledge ca
         n be represented and quantified, (ii) how societal preferences can be descri
         bed and elicited, and (iii) how these concepts can best be used to support c
         ommunication with authorities, politicians, and the public in environmental 
         management. The goal of this paper is to discuss key requirements for a conc
         eptual framework to address these issues and to suggest how these can best b
         e met. We argue that a combination of probability theory and scenario planni
         ng with multi-attribute utility theory fulfills these requirements, and disc
         uss adaptations and extensions of these theories to improve their applicatio
         n for supporting environmental decision making. With respect to (i) we sugge
         st the use of intersubjective probabilities, if required extended to impreci
         se probabilities, to describe the current state of scientific knowledge. To 
         address (ii), we emphasize the importance of value functions, in addition to
          utilities, to support decisions under risk. We discuss the need for testing
          "non-standard" value aggregation techniques, the usefulness of flexibility 
         of value functions regarding attribute data availability, the elicitation of
          value functions for sub-objectives from experts, and the consideration of u
         ncertainty in value and utility elicitation. With respect to (iii), we outli
         ne a well-structured procedure for transparent environmental decision suppor
         t that is based on a clear separation of scientific prediction and societal 
         valuation. We illustrate aspects of the suggested methodology by its applica
         tion to river management in general and with a small, didactical case study 
         on spatial river rehabilitation prioritization.' (1947 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'0301-4797' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.053' (29 chars)
      uid => protected9167 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected9167 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected9167 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   3 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=8973, pid=124)
      originalId => protected8973 (integer)
      authors => protected'Renner, R.; Schneider, F.; Hohenwallner, D.; Kopeinig, C
         .; Kruse, S.; Lienert, J.; Link, S.; Muhar, S.' (142 chars)
      title => protected'Meeting the challenges of transdisciplinary knowledge production for sustain
         able water governance' (97 chars)
      journal => protected'Mountain Research and Development' (33 chars)
      year => protected2013 (integer)
      volume => protected33 (integer)
      issue => protected'3' (1 chars)
      startpage => protected'234' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'247' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'water governance; transdisciplinary knowledge production; water resource man
         agement; stakeholder integration; science-practice interface; Austria; Switz
         erland' (158 chars)
      description => protected'Increasing pressure on mountain water resources is making it necessary to ad
         dress water governance issues in a transdisciplinary way. This entails drawi
         ng on different disciplinary perspectives, different types of knowledge, and
          different interests to answer complex governance questions. This study iden
         tifies strategies for addressing specific challenges to transdisciplinary kn
         owledge production aiming at sustainable and reflective water governance. Th
         e study draws on the experiences of 5 large transdisciplinary water governan
         ce research projects conducted in Austria and Switzerland (Alp-Water-Scarce,
          MontanAqua, Drought-CH, Sustainable Water Infrastructure Planning, and an i
         ntegrative river management project in the Kamp Valley). Experiences were di
         scussed and systematically analyzed in a workshop and subsequent interviews.
          These discussions identified 4 important challenges to interactions between
          scientists and stakeholders—ensuring stakeholder legitimacy, encouraging 
         participation, managing expectations, and preventing misuse of data and rese
         arch results—and explored strategies used by the projects to meet them. St
         rategies ranged from key points to be considered in stakeholder selection to
          measures that enhance trustful relationships and create commitment.' (1284 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'0276-4741' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-13-00002.1' (32 chars)
      uid => protected8973 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected8973 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected8973 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)