Tackling communication and analytical problems in environmental planning: Expert assessment of key definitions and their relationships. (1st September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wallace, Kenneth J.; Wagner, Christian; Pannell, David J.; Kim, Milena Kiatkoski; Rogers, Abbie A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of environmental management. Volume 317(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-09-01
• Subjects: Environmental planning -- Values -- Assessing definitions -- Interval-valued analysis -- Framework evaluation -- Ontology; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Environmental management -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Periodicals; 363.705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115352
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-4797

Abstract

Abstract: 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. Highlights: Key environmental terms are not well defined or modelled in the literature. Consequences include poor communication and analysis. Explicit ontological frameworks can provide one means of avoiding problems. Using novel techniques with experts we assess the merit of an ontological framework. We conclude that the framework helps address poor communication and analysis.