USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70220399

Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job

Alexey Voinov·Karen Jenni·Steven Gray·Nagesh Kolagani·Pierre D. Glynn·Pierre Bommel·Christina Prell·Moira Zellner·Michael Paolisso·Rebecca Jordan·Eleanor J. Sterling·Laura Schmitt Olabasi·Philippe J. Giabbanelli·Zhanli Sun·Christophe Le Page·Sondoss Elsawah·Todd K. BenDor·Klaus Hubacek·Bethany K. Laursen·Antonie J. Jetter·Laura Basco Carrera·Alison Singer·Laura G. Young·Jessica Brunacini·Alex Smajgl
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Various tools and methods are used in participatory modelling, at different stages of the process and for different purposes. The diversity of tools and methods can create challenges for stakeholders and modelers when selecting the ones most appropriate for their projects. We offer a systematic overview, assessment, and categorization of methods to assist modelers and stakeholders with their choices and decisions. Most available literature provides little justification or information on the reasons for the use of particular methods or tools in a given study. In most of the cases, it seems that the prior experience and skills of the modelers had a dominant effect on the selection of the methods used. While we have not found any real evidence of this approach being wrong, we do think that putting more thought into the method selection process and choosing the most appropriate method for the project can produce better results. Based on expert opinion and a survey of modelers engaged in participatory processes, we offer practical guidelines to improve decisions about method selection at different stages of the participatory modeling process.

Explore related subjects

Environmental Modeling and SoftwareArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alexey Voinov, Karen Jenni, Steven Gray, Nagesh Kolagani, Pierre D. Glynn, Pierre Bommel, Christina Prell, Moira Zellner, Michael Paolisso, Rebecca Jordan, Eleanor J. Sterling, Laura Schmitt Olabasi, Philippe J. Giabbanelli, Zhanli Sun, Christophe Le Page, Sondoss Elsawah, Todd K. BenDor, Klaus Hubacek, Bethany K. Laursen, Antonie J. Jetter, Laura Basco Carrera, Alison Singer, Laura G. Young, Jessica Brunacini, Alex Smajgl. 2018. Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Multiple machine-learning estimation of groundwater levels and trends for the regional Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer

The Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer provides irrigation, public, and domestic water supplies across the south-central United States. Declining groundwater levels require improved characterization of changing conditions. Traditional potentiometric-surface mapping does not use all available water-level data or quantify uncertainty. To address these limitations, we developed a data-driven multiple machine-learning (MML) framework delivered through two open-source R packages. The covMRVAgen1 software assembles covariates to 155,960 monthly groundwater levels from 57,695 wells; the mmlMRVAgen1 software trains Cubist and Random Forest models, blends them, and makes 1-kilometer gridded predictions of monthly potentiometric surfaces for the period January 1980–December 2022. The MML approach provides a methodological foundation for region-scale spatiotemporal groundwater prediction and uncertainty quantification, generating 90-percent prediction limits with appropriate empirical coverage. Model performance is acceptable, with a root-mean-square error of about 4.2 feet, standard deviation of 24.82 feet, and a normalized Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency of 0.973.

Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missou↗
USGS2023

Leveraging machine learning to automate regression model evaluations for large multi-site water-quality trend studies

Large multi-site trend studies provide an opportunity to evaluate progress of waterbodies towards water-quality goals across broad geographic areas. Such studies often aggregate the results of site-specific models and thus contend with evaluating each model for appropriate fit and statistical assumptions. We explored the use of four traditional machine learning models (logistic regression, linear and quadratic discriminant analysis, and k-nearest neighbors) to perform these checks and estimate probabilities that an analyst would publish or reject a site-specific trend model from a multi-site study. We trained these “model-checking models” (MCMs) using a national study of over 6000 trend models and tested the MCMs using a smaller set of novel trend models. Although the MCMs did not perform well enough to bypass analyst review entirely, we found incorporating an MCM into a larger evaluation workflow can reduce the number of trend models needing an analyst review by more than half.

Environmental Modeling and Software↗
USGS2022

A machine learning approach to predicting equilibrium ripple wavelength

Sand ripples are geomorphic features on the seafloor that affect bottom boundary layer dynamics including wave attenuation and sediment transport. We present a new equilibrium ripple predictor using a machine learning approach that outputs a probability distribution of wave-generated equilibrium wavelengths and statistics including an estimate of ripple height, the most probable ripple wavelength, and sediment and flow parameterizations. The Bayesian Optimal Model System (BOMS) is an ensemble machine learning system that combines two machine learning algorithms and two deterministic empirical ripple predictors with a Bayesian meta-learner to produce probabilistic wave-generated equilibrium ripple wavelength estimates in sandy locations. A ten-fold cross validation of BOMS resulted in an adjusted R-squared value of 0.93 and an average root mean square error (RMSE) of 8.0 cm. During both cross validation and testing on three unique field datasets, BOMS provided more accurate wavelength predictions than each individual base model and other common ripple predictors.

Environmental Modeling and Software↗