226
Jeffery P. Holland et al.
Sidebar 12.1
Examples of toolkits
The existence of the large number of decision aids and of modeling
systems from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Holland, 1998;
Holland et al. 2001) and the U.S. Geological Survey (Leavesley et al.
1996) is indicative of the paucity of and need for integrated decision maker’s toolkits. Several U.S. federal agencies are active in the
partnered development of integrated computational frameworks
to support natural and cultural resource management and decision making. A partnership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), USEPA, Department of Energy, and Nuclear Regulatory
Agency is devel-oping a joint risk-assessment, decision-support
system [e.g., Deliman et al. (2000)]. The USEPA, in conjunction with
industry, has developed the BASINS software package (Lahlou et al.
1998) to support decision making regarding total maximum daily
loadings. The U.S. Geological Survey in concert with the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (Fulp and Frevert 1998) and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (Zagona et al. 1998) have developed decision support
systems for water resources management. Numerous journals, many
online (go to http://www.iwap.co.uk and select “journals”), are specifically oriented toward decision support and knowledge management
in natural resources.
While there are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of “decision
support” systems, most of these systems are site-specific or placebased in design and function. Only recently have broad-based, integrated computational frameworks of the type envisioned herein as a
“decision maker’s toolkit” begun to surface. Most of these toolkits
[e.g., Holland (2001); Danish Hydraulics Institute (1999)] are in their
formative stages. Industry groups, such as the OGC and Nobility, Inc.
(http://www.nobility.com/), are also developing products ranging from
interoperability protocols to proprietary marketplace solutions. The
need for such toolkits, along with descriptions of required functionality, have an ever-broadening base of support among a variety of
technical organizations. As an example, a recent report from the U.S.
Government’s Interagency Group on Decision Support (Case et al.
2000) mirrors many of the requirements listed above for computational toolkits and frameworks that support natural resource
management.
Jeffery P. Holland et al.
Sidebar 12.1
Examples of toolkits
The existence of the large number of decision aids and of modeling
systems from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Holland, 1998;
Holland et al. 2001) and the U.S. Geological Survey (Leavesley et al.
1996) is indicative of the paucity of and need for integrated decision maker’s toolkits. Several U.S. federal agencies are active in the
partnered development of integrated computational frameworks
to support natural and cultural resource management and decision making. A partnership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), USEPA, Department of Energy, and Nuclear Regulatory
Agency is devel-oping a joint risk-assessment, decision-support
system [e.g., Deliman et al. (2000)]. The USEPA, in conjunction with
industry, has developed the BASINS software package (Lahlou et al.
1998) to support decision making regarding total maximum daily
loadings. The U.S. Geological Survey in concert with the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (Fulp and Frevert 1998) and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (Zagona et al. 1998) have developed decision support
systems for water resources management. Numerous journals, many
online (go to http://www.iwap.co.uk and select “journals”), are specifically oriented toward decision support and knowledge management
in natural resources.
While there are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of “decision
support” systems, most of these systems are site-specific or placebased in design and function. Only recently have broad-based, integrated computational frameworks of the type envisioned herein as a
“decision maker’s toolkit” begun to surface. Most of these toolkits
[e.g., Holland (2001); Danish Hydraulics Institute (1999)] are in their
formative stages. Industry groups, such as the OGC and Nobility, Inc.
(http://www.nobility.com/), are also developing products ranging from
interoperability protocols to proprietary marketplace solutions. The
need for such toolkits, along with descriptions of required functionality, have an ever-broadening base of support among a variety of
technical organizations. As an example, a recent report from the U.S.
Government’s Interagency Group on Decision Support (Case et al.
2000) mirrors many of the requirements listed above for computational toolkits and frameworks that support natural resource
management.