132 research outputs found

    TAI Project - WP4 Workshops report

    Get PDF

    Trends of rainfall onset, cessation, and length of growing season in northern Ghana: comparing the rain gauge, satellite, and farmer's perceptions

    Get PDF
    Open Access Journal; Published: 13 Dec 2021Rainfall onset and cessation date greatly influence cropping calendar decisions in rain-fed agricultural systems. This paper examined trends of onsets, cessation, and the length of growing season over Northern Ghana using CHIRPS-v2, gauge, and farmers’ perceptions data between 1981 and 2019. Results from CHIRPS-v2 revealed that the three seasonal rainfall indices have substantial latitudinal variability. Significant late and early onsets were observed at the West and East of 1.5◩ W longitude, respectively. Significant late cessations and longer growing periods occurred across Northern Ghana. The ability of farmers’ perceptions and CHIRPS-v2 to capture rainfall onsets are time and location-dependent. A total of 71% of farmers rely on traditional knowledge to forecast rainfall onsets. Adaptation measures applied were not always consistent with the rainfall seasonality. More investment in modern climate information services is required to complement the existing local knowledge of forecasting rainfall seasonalit

    Potential impact of groundnut production technology on welfare of smallholder farmers in Ghana

    Get PDF
    Open Access Journal; Published online: 14 Jan 2022This study was conducted to assess the potential impact of applying a new groundnut planting density on welfare of smallholder farmers in northern Ghana. We used data from on-farm experiments, focus group discussions, and a household survey. We followed three steps in our analysis. First, we conducted cost-benefit analysis in which we showed the economic advantage of the new technology over the farmers’ practice. Second, we predicted adoption rates along timeline using the Adoption and Diffusion Outcome Prediction Tool (ADOPT). Third, using the results of the first and the second steps, we estimated the potential impact of the technology on poverty at household level using a combination of methods such as economic surplus model and econometric model. The cost-benefit analysis shows that increasing plant density increases farmers’ financial returns i.e., the benefit-cost-ratio increases from 1.05 under farmers’ practice to 1.87 under the best plant density option, which is 22 plants/sqm. The adoption prediction analysis shows that the maximum adoption rate for the best practice will be 62% which will take about nine years to reach. At the maximum adoption rate the incidence of extreme poverty will be reduced by about 3.6% if farmers have access to the international groundnut market and by about 2% if they do not have. The intervention will also reduce poverty gap and poverty severity. The results suggest that policy actions which can improve farmers’ access to the international market will enhance farmers’ welfare more than the situation in which farmers have access to domestic markets only. Furthermore, promoting a more integrated groundnut value-chain can broaden the demand base of the produce resulting in higher and sustainable impact of the technology on the welfare of groundnut producers and beyond

    Participatory development of decision support systems: which features of the process lead to improved uptake and better outcomes?

    Full text link
    Decision support systems (DSSs) are important in decision-making environments with conflicting interests. Many DSSs developed have not been used in practice. Experts argue that these tools do not respond to real user needs and that the inclusion of stakeholders in the development process is the solution. However, it is not clear which features of participatory development of DSSs result in improved uptake and better outcomes. A review of papers, reporting on case studies where DSSs and other decision tools (information systems, software and scenario tools) were developed with elements of participation, was carried out. The cases were analysed according to a framework created as part of this research; it includes criteria to evaluate the development process and the outcomes. Relevant aspects to consider in the participatory development processes include establishing clear objectives, timing and location of the process; keeping discussions on track; favouring participation and interaction of individuals and groups; and challenging creative thinking of the tool and future scenarios. The case studies that address these issues show better outcomes; however, there is a large degree of uncertainty concerning them because developers have typically neither asked participants about their perceptions of the processes and resultant tools nor have they monitored the use and legacy of the tools over the long term.The authors would like to thank COST Action FP0804-Forest Management Decision Support Systems (FORSYS) for financing a three month Short-Term Scientific Mission (STSM) in Forest Research (Roslin, UK) in 2012, making possible this research; Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for supporting the project Multicriteria Techniques and Participatory Decision-Making for Sustainable Management (Ref. ECO2011-27369) where the leading author is involved; and the Regional Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (Valencia, Spain) for financing a research fellowship (Ref. ACIF/2010/248).Valls Donderis, P.; Ray, D.; Peace, A.; Stewart, A.; Lawrence, A.; Galiana, F. (2013). Participatory development of decision support systems: which features of the process lead to improved uptake and better outcomes?. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 29(1):71-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2013.837950S7183291Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225Atwell, R. C., Schulte, L. A., & Westphal, L. M. (2011). Tweak, Adapt, or Transform: Policy Scenarios in Response to Emerging Bioenergy Markets in the U.S. Corn Belt. Ecology and Society, 16(1). doi:10.5751/es-03854-160110Barac, A., Kellner, K., & De Klerk, N. (2004). Land User Participation in Developing a Computerised Decision Support System for Combating Desertification. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 99(1-3), 223-231. doi:10.1007/s10661-004-4022-6Bennet, A., & Bennet, D. (2008). The Decision-Making Process in a Complex Situation. Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1, 3-20. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-48713-5_1Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726-742. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014Breuer, N. E., Cabrera, V. E., Ingram, K. T., Broad, K., & Hildebrand, P. E. (2007). AgClimate: a case study in participatory decision support system development. Climatic Change, 87(3-4), 385-403. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9323-7Bunch, M. J., & Dudycha, D. J. (2004). Linking conceptual and simulation models of the Cooum River: collaborative development of a GIS-based DSS for environmental management. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(3), 247-264. doi:10.1016/s0198-9715(03)00021-8Byrne, E., & Sahay, S. (2007). Participatory design for social development: A South African case study on community-based health information systems. Information Technology for Development, 13(1), 71-94. doi:10.1002/itdj.20052Cain, J. ., Jinapala, K., Makin, I. ., Somaratna, P. ., Ariyaratna, B. ., & Perera, L. . (2003). Participatory decision support for agricultural management. A case study from Sri Lanka. Agricultural Systems, 76(2), 457-482. doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(02)00006-9Chakraborty, A. (2011). Enhancing the role of participatory scenario planning processes: Lessons from Reality Check exercises. Futures, 43(4), 387-399. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.01.004Cinderby, S., Bruin, A. de, Mbilinyi, B., Kongo, V., & Barron, J. (2011). Participatory geographic information systems for agricultural water management scenario development: A Tanzanian case study. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 36(14-15), 1093-1102. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.039Drew, C. H., Nyerges, T. L., & Leschine, T. M. (2004). Promoting Transparency of Long‐Term Environmental Decisions: The Hanford Decision Mapping System Pilot Project. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1641-1664. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00556.xDriedger, S. M., Kothari, A., Morrison, J., Sawada, M., Crighton, E. J., & Graham, I. D. (2007). Using participatory design to develop (public) health decision support systems through GIS. International Journal of Health Geographics, 6(1), 53. doi:10.1186/1476-072x-6-53Evers, M. (2008). An analysis of the requirements for DSS on integrated river basin management. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 19(1), 37-53. doi:10.1108/14777830810840354Iivari, N. (2011). Participatory design in OSS development: interpretive case studies in company and community OSS development contexts. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(3), 309-323. doi:10.1080/0144929x.2010.503351Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423. doi:10.1080/01944369908976071Jakku, E., & Thorburn, P. J. (2010). A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems. Agricultural Systems, 103(9), 675-682. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.08.007Jessel, B., & Jacobs, J. (2005). Land use scenario development and stakeholder involvement as tools for watershed management within the Havel River Basin. Limnologica, 35(3), 220-233. doi:10.1016/j.limno.2005.06.006Kautz, K. (2011). Investigating the design process: participatory design in agile software development. Information Technology & People, 24(3), 217-235. doi:10.1108/09593841111158356Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., & Omann, I. (2009). Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(3), 1063-1074. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.049Lawrence, A. (2006). ‘No Personal Motive?’ Volunteers, Biodiversity, and the False Dichotomies of Participation. Ethics, Place & Environment, 9(3), 279-298. doi:10.1080/13668790600893319Mao, J., & Song, W. (2008). Empirical study of distinct features and challenges of joint development of information systems: The case of ABC bank. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(3), 414-419. doi:10.1016/s1007-0214(08)70066-xMenzel, S., Nordström, E.-M., Buchecker, M., Marques, A., Saarikoski, H., & Kangas, A. (2012). Decision support systems in forest management: requirements from a participatory planning perspective. European Journal of Forest Research, 131(5), 1367-1379. doi:10.1007/s10342-012-0604-yMoote, M. A., Mcclaran, M. P., & Chickering, D. K. (1997). RESEARCH: Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 877-889. doi:10.1007/s002679900074Peleg, M., Shachak, A., Wang, D., & Karnieli, E. (2009). Using multi-perspective methodologies to study users’ interactions with the prototype front end of a guideline-based decision support system for diabetic foot care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(7), 482-493. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.02.008Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247-1263. doi:10.1016/0305-750x(95)00046-fReed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds.Reed, M. S., & Dougill, A. J. (2010). Linking degradation assessment to sustainable land management: A decision support system for Kalahari pastoralists. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(1), 149-155. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.06.016Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29. doi:10.1177/016224390002500101Schielen, R. M. J., & Gijsbers, P. J. A. (2003). DSS-large rivers: developing a DSS under changing societal requirements. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 28(14-15), 635-645. doi:10.1016/s1474-7065(03)00109-8Sheppard, S. R. J., & Meitner, M. (2005). Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1-2), 171-187. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032Thursky, K. A., & Mahemoff, M. (2007). User-centered design techniques for a computerised antibiotic decision support system in an intensive care unit. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(10), 760-768. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.07.011Webler, S. T., Thomas. (1999). Voices from the Forest: What Participants Expect of a Public Participation Process. Society & Natural Resources, 12(5), 437-453. doi:10.1080/089419299279524Van Meensel, J., Lauwers, L., Kempen, I., Dessein, J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2012). Effect of a participatory approach on the successful development of agricultural decision support systems: The case of Pigs2win. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 164-172. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.002Von Geibler, J., Kristof, K., & Bienge, K. (2010). Sustainability assessment of entire forest value chains: Integrating stakeholder perspectives and indicators in decision support tools. Ecological Modelling, 221(18), 2206-2214. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.03.02

    "Even if the test result is negative, they should be able to tell us what is wrong with us": a qualitative study of patient expectations of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The debate on rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria has begun to shift from whether RDTs should be used, to how and under what circumstances their use can be optimized. This has increased the need for a better understanding of the complexities surrounding the role of RDTs in appropriate treatment of fever. Studies have focused on clinician practices, but few have sought to understand patient perspectives, beyond notions of acceptability. METHODS: This qualitative study aimed to explore patient and caregiver perceptions and experiences of RDTs following a trial to assess the introduction of the tests into routine clinical care at four health facilities in one district in Ghana. Six focus group discussions and one in-depth interview were carried out with those who had received an RDT with a negative test result. RESULTS: Patients had high expectations of RDTs. They welcomed the tests as aiding clinical diagnoses and as tools that could communicate their problem better than they could, verbally. However, respondents also believed the tests could identify any cause of illness, beyond malaria. Experiences of patients suggested that RDTs were adopted into an existing system where patients are both physically and intellectually removed from diagnostic processes and where clinicians retain authority that supersedes tests and their results. In this situation, patients did not feel able to articulate a demand for test-driven diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in communication between the health worker and patient, particularly to explain the capabilities of the test and management of RDT negative cases, may both manage patient expectations and promote patient demand for test-driven diagnoses

    Strategies and policies to reach a land-degradation neutral world

    Get PDF
    Despite the difficulties in quantifying the extent and degree of land degradation or restoration, evidence shows that continued land degradation will be an impediment to meeting several SDGs. The United Nations states that it aims for land degradation neutrality (LDN) which in 2015 became firmly established as an agreed-upon objective in the realm of international environmental politics. First, as part of the SDGs whose Target 15.3 calls to “combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradationneutral world” by 2030 (UNGA, 2015). The Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) took the decision to align the implementation of the Convention with SDG 15.3 and invited its Parties to set voluntary LDN targets (UNCCD, 2015). From that point onwards, the key question is how to implement these global aspirations at the national level and what is needed to operationalize the LDN concept and translate it into concrete strategies to meet LDN at scale..
    • 

    corecore