Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Decision Support Systems Can Benefit from a Theory of Change Approach

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decision support systems are now mostly computer and internet-based information systems designed to support land managers with complex decision-making. However, there is concern that many environmental and agricultural decision support systems remain underutilized and ineffective. Recent efforts to improve decision support systems use have focused on enhancing stakeholder participation in their development, but a mismatch between stakeholders’ expectations and the reality of decision support systems outputs continues to limit uptake. Additional challenges remain in problem-framing and evaluation. We propose using an outcomes-based approach called theory of change in conjunction with decision support systems development to support both wider problem-framing and outcomes-based monitoring and evaluation. The theory of change helps framing by placing the decision support systems within a wider context. It highlights how decision support systems use can “contribute” to long-term outcomes, and helps align decision support systems outputs with these larger goals. We illustrate the benefits of linking decision support systems development and application with a theory of change approach using an example of pest rabbit management in Australia. We develop a theory of change that outlines the activities required to achieve the outcomes desired from an effective rabbit management program, and two decision support systems that contribute to specific aspects of decision making in this wider problem context. Using a theory of change in this way should increase acceptance of the role of decision support systems by end-users, clarify their limitations and, importantly, increase effectiveness of rabbit management. The use of a theory of change should benefit those seeking to improve decision support systems design, use and, evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen CR, Fontaine JJ, Pope KL, Garmestani AS (2011) Adaptive management for a turbulent future. J Environ Manage 92(5):1339–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen W et al. (2014) Bridging disciplines, knowledge systems and cultures in pest management. Environ Manage 52:429–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen W, Bosch O, Kilvington M, Oliver J, Gilbert M (2001) Benefits of collaborative learning for environmental management: applying the integrated systems for knowledge management approach to support animal pest control. Environ Manage 27:215–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson AA (2005) The community builder’s approach to theory of change: a practical guide to theory development. Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, New York

  • Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 604:726–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell LM (2005) Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conserv Biol 19:574–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona G, Varela-Ortega C, Bromley J (2013) Participatory modelling to support decision making in water management under uncertainty: two comparative case studies in the Guadiana river basin, Spain. J Environ Manage 128:400–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell JP, Kubisch AC (1998) Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and problems. In: Fullbright-Anderson K, Kubisch AC, Connell JP (eds) New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: theory, measurement, and analysis, vol 2. The Aspen Institute, Washington, DC, pp 15–44

  • Cooke B (2002) Rabbit haemorrhagic disease: field epidemiology and the management of wild rabbit populations. Rev Sci Tech OIE 21:347–358

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke BD (2012) Planning landscape-scale rabbit control. Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox PG (1996) Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems. Agr Sys 52:355–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz J, Howard S, Choquenot D, Allen W, Warburton B (2016) Decision support systems for improving invasive rabbit management in Australia. In: Proceedings from the 27th Vertebrate Pest Conference (2016), University of California, Davis (In review)

  • Cvitanovic C, McDonald J, Hobday AJ (2016) From science to action: principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making. J Environ Manage 183:864–874

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KK, Fisher KT, Dickson ME, Thrush SF, Le Heron R (2015) Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecol Soc 20(2):37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Delden H, Seppelt R, White R, Jakeman AJ (2011) A methodology for the design and development of integrated models for policy support. Environ Modell and Softw 26:266–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díez E, McIntosh BS (2009) A review of the factors which influence the use and usefulness of information systems. Environ Modell Softw 24:588–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haapasaari P, Kulmala S, Kuikka S (2012) Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecol Soc 17:6

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayman PT, Easdown WJ (2002) An ecology of a DSS: reflections on managing wheat crops in the northeastern Australian grains region with WHEATMAN. Agr Syst 74:57–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearn AB, Bange MP (2002) SIRATAC and CottonLOGIC: persevering with DSSs in the Australian cotton industry. Agr Syst 74:27–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez M (2000) Using logic models and program theory to build outcome accountability. Educ Treat Children 23:24–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakeman AJ, Sawah S, Guillaume JHA, Pierce SA (2011) Making progress in integrated modelling and environmental decision support. In: Hřebíček J, Schimak G, Denzer R (eds) Environmental Software Systems. Frameworks of eEnvironment: 9th IFIP WG 5.11 International Symposium, ISESS 2011, Brno, Czech Republic, June 27-29, 2011. Proceedings. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 15–25

  • Jakku E, Thorburn P (2010) A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems. Agr Syst 103:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James C (2011) Theory of change review: A report commissioned by Comic Relief. Comic Relief, London

  • Jones C, Cowan P, Allen W (2012) Setting outcomes, and measuring and reporting performance of regional council pest and weed management programmes. Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg WK (2004) Logic Model Development Guide. W.K Kellogg Foundation, Michigan

  • Kerr D (2004) Factors influencing the development and adoption of knowledge based decision support systems for small, owner-operated rural businesses. Artif Intell Rev 22:127–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lees AC, Bell DJ (2008) A conservation paradox for the 21st century: the European wild rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, an invasive alien and an endangered native species. Mammal Rev 38:304–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews KB, Rivington M, Blackstock KL, McCrum G, Miller DG (2011) Raising the bar ?: the challenges of evaluating the outcomes of environmental modelling and software. Environ Modell and Softw 26:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews KB, Schwarz G, Buchan K, Rivington M, Miller D (2008) Wither agricultural DSS ? Comput Electron Agr 61:149–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCown RL (2002a) Changing systems for supporting farmers’ decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects. Agr Syst 74:179–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCown RL (2002b) Locating agricultural decision support systems in the troubled past and socio-technical complexity of ‘model for management’. Agr Syst 74:11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCown RL, Carberry PS, Hochman Z, Dalgliesh NP, Foale MA (2009) Re-inventing model-based decision support with Australian dryland farmers. 1. Changing intervention concepts during 17 years of action research. Crop Pasture Sci 60:1017–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlinchy A (2011) Review of existing decision support systems for rabbit management. Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Van 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. Decis Support Syst 54:164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morra Imas LG, Rist RC (2009) The road to results: designing and conducting effective development evaluations. The World Bank, WA, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murray JV, Berman DM, van Klinken RD (2014) Predictive modelling to aid the regional-scale management of a vertebrate pest. Biol Invasions 16:2403–2425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutze G, Cooke B, Alexander P (1998) The initial impact of rabbit haemorrhagic disease on European rabbit populations in South Australia. J Wildlife Dis 34:221–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Norbury G, Reddiex B (2005) European rabbit. In: King CM (ed) The handbook of New Zealand mammals, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp 131–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker C, Sinclair M (2001) User-centred design does make a difference: the case of decision support systems in crop production. Behav Inform Technol 20:449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson JJ, Smith C, Bellamy J (2015) Enabling and enacting ‘practical action’in catchments: responding to the ‘Wicked Problem’of nonpoint source pollution in coastal subtropical Australia. Environ Manage 55(2):479–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe FN, Myers K, Fennessy BV, Calaby JH (1952) Myxomatosis in Australia: a step towards the biological control of the rabbit. Nature 170:7–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HW, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers PJ (2008) Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 14:29–48

  • Shtienberg D (2013) Will decision-support systems be widely used for the management of plant diseases? Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stein D, Valters C (2012) Understanding ‘Theory of Change’ in international development: a review of existing knowledge’. JSRP and The Asia Foundation, London, JSRP Paper 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Stem C, Margoluis R, Salafsky N, Brown M (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conserv Biol 19(2):295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taplin DH, Clark H, Collins I, Colby DC (2013) Theory of change technical papers: a series of papers to support devlopment of theories of change based on practice in the field. ActKnowledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vere DT, Jones RE, Saunders G (2004) The economic benefits of rabbit control in Australian temperate pastures by the introduction of rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Agr Econ 30:143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel I (2012a) ESPA guide to working with Theory of Change for research projects. ESPA Directorate, Edinburgh

  • Vogel I (2012b) Review of the Use of ‘Theory of Change’ in International Development. Review Report. DFID, London

  • Voinov A, Brown Gaddis EJ (2008) Lessons for successful participatory watershed modeling: a perspective from modeling practitioners. Ecol Model 216:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volk M, Lautenbach S, van Delden H, Newham LTH, Seppelt R (2010) How can we make progress with decision support systems in landscape and river basin management ?: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of four different decision support systems. Environ Manage 46:834–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker DH (2002) Decision support, learning and rural resource management. Agr Syst 73:113–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71(6):2060–2068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss CH (1995) Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and problems. In: Fullbright-Anderson K, Kubisch AC, Connell JP (eds) New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: concepts, methods and contexts, vol 1. The Aspen Institute, pp 65–92

  • Williams K, Parer I, Coman B, Burley J, Braysher M (1995) Managing vertebrate pests: rabbits. Bureau of Resource Sciences and CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the late David Choquenot, Bob Frame, Simon Howard, NSW Local Land Services, Meat and Livestock Association, Australian Wool Innovation, Jessica Marsh, Michael Reid and wool production farmers of the Centre Tablelands region of NSW for their contributions to the production land Decision Support Systems (DSS). The authors also thank Brent Glentworth, Oliver Orgil and Alison McInnes for their contribution to the conservation land DSS. The authors thank the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre for funding. The authors also thank Margaret Kilvington, Marina Apgar, Chris Jones, Phil Cowan and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning for Sustainability, PO Box 3018, Christchurch, 8244, New Zealand

    Will Allen

  2. Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand

    Jennyffer Cruz & Bruce Warburton

Authors
  1. Will Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennyffer Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce Warburton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Will Allen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Will Allen and Jennyffer Cruz equally contributed to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allen, W., Cruz, J. & Warburton, B. How Decision Support Systems Can Benefit from a Theory of Change Approach. Environmental Management 59, 956–965 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0839-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0839-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation