the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Apr 2021
Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for transdisciplinary co-design of the FANFAR flood forecasting and alert system in West Africa
Abstract. Climate change is projected to increase flood risks in West Africa. The EU Horizon 2020 project FANFAR co-designed a pre-operational flood forecasting and alert system for West Africa in three lively workshops with 50–60 stakeholders, adopting a transdisciplinary framework from Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). We aimed to (i) exemplify MCDA as a structured transdisciplinary process; (ii) prioritize suitable FANFAR system configurations; and (iii) document and discuss empirical evidence. We used various interactive problem structuring methods in stakeholder sessions to generate 10 objectives and design 11 FANFAR system configurations. The non-additive MCDA model combined expert predictions about system performance with stakeholder preferences elicited in group sessions. All groups preferred a system producing accurate, clear, and accessible flood risk information that reaches recipients well before floods. To receive this, most groups would trade off higher operation and maintenance costs, development time, and implementing several languages. We accounted for uncertainty in expert predictions with Monte Carlo simulation. Sensitivity analyses tested the results’ robustness for changing MCDA aggregation models and diverging stakeholder preferences. Despite many uncertainties, three FANFAR system configurations achieved 63–70 % of the ideal case over all objectives in all stakeholder groups, and outperformed other options in cost-benefit visualizations. Stakeholders designed these best options to work reliably under difficult West African conditions rather than incorporating many advanced features. The current FANFAR system combines important features increasing system performance. Most respondents of a small online survey are satisfied, and willing to use the system in future. We discuss our learning drawing from design principles of transdisciplinary research. We attempted to over-come “unbalanced ownership” and “insufficient legitimacy” by including key West African institutions as consortium partners and carrying out co-design workshops with mandated representatives from 17 countries. MCDA overcomes challenges such as “lack of technical integration”, or “vagueness and ambiguity of results”. Whether FANFAR will have a “societal impact” depends on long term financing and system uptake by West African institutions after termination of EU sponsoring. We hope that our promising results will have a “scientific impact” and motivate further stakeholder engagement in hydrology research.
- Preprint
(1724 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6104 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-177', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Apr 2021
This manuscript does not meet the standards of a good research paper. It more like a diary or a story of what was done. It is also quite annoying that the authors are so strong agenda in advocating the terms transdisciplinary and co-creation without really demonstrating what new those ideas bring into the traditional MCDA process.. There are lots of unjustified claims and procedural statements. There is no clear structure of the overall modelling procedure and methods used. New twists and approaches are introduced here and there along the text. The structure used in the modelling seems to be very different from standard procedures so a description and justification is needed in one place not scattered in the text.
The essential question is whom is the paper intended to and what are its real contributions? As it is now the modelling parts can possibly be understood by someone who is well familiar with different MCDA methodologies. I do not think that the readership of this journal has the required background in MCDA. The contribution can be that such an extensive project has been set up and completed. But for a project description there should also be some critical evaluations of the possible weaknesses and challenges related to the modelling approaches used. Now the report only provides a happy story. This is never the case in real life.
The paper is about the design of a forecasting system and as such the topic is one that is common and well-studied in engineering. For an exemplary paper see: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09544828.2016.1214693
Perhaps a note to this literature would be help the reader to place the article in the general literature.
The paper strongly advocates the terms transdisciplinary and co-creation (in the text also co-coproduction, co-design). These are ideas which have been embedded in interactive MCDA for tens of years. MCDA uses data produced by experts from different fields. I personally do not see this as a novel co-creation or transdisciplinary process. In my opinion the paper reports a typical MCDA project and not anything else. There might be room for a separate paper discussing what new do the terms transdisciplinary and co-creation bring into MCDA and vice versa.
The paper is full of poorly formulated sentences. I will not go into these in detail. As an example I have included a copy of the abstract with some exemplary points noted with question marks or BOLD text. The abstract is way too long and anecdotal.
Abstract. Climate change is projected to increase flood risks in West Africa. The EU Horizon 2020 project FANFAR co-designed a pre-operational flood forecasting and alert system for West Africa in three lively? workshops with 50–60 stakeholders, BY? adopting a transdisciplinary framework from Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). We aimed to (i) exemplify MCDA as a structured transdisciplinary process; (ii) prioritize suitable FANFAR system configurations; and (iii) document and discuss empirical evidence WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE DISCUSSED?. We used various interactive problem structuring methods DID YOU REALLY USE MANY PROBLEM STRUCTURING METHODS OR SOME OTHER PROCEDURES in stakeholder sessions to generate 10 objectives and design 11 FANFAR system configurations. The non-additive MCDA model combined expert predictions about system performance with stakeholder preferences elicited in group sessions.A VERY STRANGE WAY OF SAYING THAT THE MCDA MODEL WAS BASED ON EXPERT DATA ON THE EXPECTED PERFORMANCE. All groups preferred a system producing accurate, clear, and accessible flood risk information that reaches recipients well before floods. THIS WOULD BE THEIR IDEAL BUT PREFENCES RELALE TO TRADE-OFFS.To receive HOW IS THAT RECEIVED? this, most groups would trade off SPELLING, higher operation and maintenance costs, development time, and implementing several languages TRADE-OFF TO WHAT . We accounted for uncertainty in expert predictions with Monte Carlo simulation. Sensitivity analyses tested the results’ robustness for changing MCDA aggregation models and diverging stakeholder preferences. Despite many uncertainties, three FANFAR system configurations achieved 63–70 % of the ideal case over all objectives in all stakeholder groups, and outperformed other options in cost-benefit visualizations. VERY STRANGE CLAIM Stakeholders designed these best options to work reliably? under difficult West African conditions rather than incorporating many advanced features WHAT DOES THIS REFER TO?. The current OR THE PROPOSED?FANFAR system combines important features increasing system performance. Most respondents WHO? of a small online survey are satisfied, and willing to use the system in future THIS KIND OF SURVEY DOES NOT REALLY PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD BE USED IN REALITY- THE PAPER DID NOT CONSIDER ANY USABILITY QUESTIONS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL WHEN DEVELOPING NEW SOFTWARE. We discuss our learning ? drawing from design principles of transdisciplinary research. We attempted to over-come CHECK SPELLING “unbalanced ownership” and “insufficient legitimacy” WHY THESE CONCERNS AND NOT E.G. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY OF THE MODELby including key West African institutions as consortium partners and carrying out co-design workshops with mandated representatives from 17 countries. MCDA overcomes TOO GENERAL STATEMENT challenges such as “lack of technical integration” WHAT DOES THIS MEAN AND HOW IS IT OVERCOME, or “vagueness and ambiguity of results”. Whether FANFAR will have a “societal impact” depends on long term financing and system uptake by West African institutions after termination of EU sponsoring. We hope ? that our promising results will have a “scientific impact” ON WHAT and motivate further DO YOU MEAN :STUDIES OF ?stakeholder engagement in hydrology research.
Some more remarks:
The paper uses the terms expert predictions, predicted outcome (section 2.8) and data ( Box 7 in Fig.1.) . Why not Uuse the word data always?
Section 2.8 : The authors make strong claims in favor of non-linear models but do not critically discuss the new problems created. For example , the introduction of the coefficient gamma is not at all simple. How do you justify and explain the value selected for gamma to the stakeholders? The justification that attributes are non-compensatory can also be challeged. Typically any system design starts with some minimum requirement with respect to the attributes and only when these are met one starts to compare extra features.
Also the aggregation of opinions by taking averages is quite problematic as the result is then nobody´s opinion.
The notation and names used for the options and variables etc. are so difficult that the reader really cannot follow the text. Are they all needed? Who can understand Table 1 and 2.
Discussion is not a discussion of the approach but a report of the process. The claim that this co-design would meet the main requirements is strong. The discussion of the process continues in an anecdotal mode in 4.1.1. Where is critical evaluation?
4.1.2. is quite strange and unclear and full of unsupported claims with these cryptic notations. Quote: The weights indicate that most groups preferred that the system produces accurate, clear, and reliable information that reaches recipients well before a flood (11_accur_info; 12_clear_info; 21_reliable_info; 22_timely info; Figure 4)
4.2.2. This section uses concepts and statements from Lang et al. but in this context they remain un-understandable such as this: `` Possible coping strategies are “Low thresholds for and appropriate levels of participation” (Lang et al., 2012)``
In this section the authors seem to accept a preference modelling approach which is not understandable to the stakeholders. This is not really supported by the professionals in the field.
The conclusion that system would be used in reality, when people say that they intend to use it, not really supported real life experience. There is no guarantee of real use even if people say they will use . User acceptance is a much more complicated issue and depends on the system and interface design and not only on the configuration. There is a rich literature on human computer interaction and the user acceptance of software
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-177-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Response to referee # 1
Dear Referee
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript:
Judit Lienert, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, Martijn Kuller, “Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for transdisciplinary co-design of the FANFAR flood forecasting and alert system in West Africa”. hess-2021-177
This manuscript was written for the HESS Special Issue “Contributions of transdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and water resources management”
We are grateful for the work that has gone into reviewing our paper. We do know that this takes a lot of time, which receives no direct reward. We are very willing to improve the manuscript based on your inputs, wherever possible.
We have addressed your comments one-by-one in the attached pdf. The referees’ comments are given in Italics, our response is given in normal font.
We look forward to suggestions for improving the manuscript so that it meets requirements of publications in HESS.
With best regards,
Judit Lienert
also on behalf of my co-authors, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, and Martijn Kuller
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-177', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 May 2021
General comments:
While the paper does address relevant scientific questions within the scope of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, it does not do so in a novel, innovative and comprehensible way. The manuscript in its current format seems to resemble a project report in memo style that describes what has been done in the FANFAR project. Already the very long abstract leaves readers confused about the actual research question, the target audience, the methodological innovation, the novel results and derived insights. Not much more clarity can be gained from reading the full lengthy report, which could not only be shortened and streamlined but also better structured and more clearly written (native speaker check needed; jargon and buzzword heavy) to qualify as a journal publication.Specific comments:
I understand that the authors argue that their MCDA approach is more transdisciplinary in nature – emphasized by adding the buzzword co-design – than existing MCDA approaches. Reading the methods, results and discussion section I do, however, not see this claim substantiated. If the authors still see this as the USP of their contribution I suggest that their work must be better embedded in and contrasted with the existing MCDA literature. Maybe there really is a methodological innovation that has scientific and policy relevance – in the current manuscript this ‘treasure’ is very effectively hidden though (see general comments on the overall quality of this preprint above).Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-177-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Dübendorf, 23 June 2021
Response to referee # 2
Dear Referee
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript:
Judit Lienert, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, Martijn Kuller, “Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for transdisciplinary co-design of the FANFAR flood forecasting and alert system in West Africa”. hess-2021-177
This manuscript was written for the HESS Special Issue “Contributions of transdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and water resources management”
We are grateful for the work that has gone into reviewing our paper. We do know that this takes a lot of time, which receives no direct reward. We are very willing to improve the manuscript based on your inputs, wherever possible.
We have addressed your comments one-by-one below. The referees’ comments are given in Italics, our response is given in normal font.
We look forward to suggestions for improving the manuscript so that it meets requirements of publications in HESS.
With best regards,
Judit Lienert
also on behalf of my co-authors, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, and Martijn Kuller
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on hess-2021-177', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 May 2021
The paper reports on the FANFAR project and its opportunities and challenges of developing a reliable and useable flood forecast system in West and Central Africa. It discusses the opportunities and challenges of integrating stakeholder knowledge and producing both scientific reliable and useful information (more about this in Lemos and Morehouse 2005). In section 1.3 MCDA is presented as a remedy for all transdisciplinary projects supported with the enumeration of six central lines of argumentation. In sum, the paper is rather descriptive than analytic. However, this is a very common problem of reporting about transdisciplinary projects, which is depended on transparent and thick descriptions about how processes of knowledge integration haven been implemented, how “data” from non-scientific experts is included and so on. The paper handles this endeavor with sufficient accuracy. In addition, a comprehensive annex is provided with helpful tables and feedback derived from stakeholder surveys.
The paper has a lot of merits of getting published, but I have also three critical comments:
The paper starts by defining transdisciplinarity using a for the context very appropriate definition of Lang et al. 2012. However, the discussion about the aims and obstacles of transdisciplinary research is almost exclusively referencing this source (and not others). This is far away of being a comprehensive literature review adequate for a journal publication. In addition, please explain (briefly) the “ordinary” challenges of transdisciplinary research in a transnational context already at the beginning and not only in the discussion.
I would suggest reducing some of the more biased assumptions like “lively workshops”, “FANFAR project is unique”, “unique practice and outcome oriented project”, “producing a good flood forecast and alert system” … to prevent the impression of reading a project proposal or advertisement and not a scientific paper. If you want to judge your own project, you would have better stick to an evaluation of the project by other researchers or at least to a survey among participants.
My third point questions parts of the structure. In the methods section I would suggest focusing on methods and tools of conducting and writing the paper and not on how the FANFAR project and its transdisciplinary methods were implemented. I would rather add another main section called “Processes of transdisciplinarity” (or something similar), where the main project’s undertakings are described.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-177-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Dübendorf, 23 June 2021
Response to referee # 3
Dear Referee
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript:
Judit Lienert, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, Martijn Kuller, “Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for transdisciplinary co-design of the FANFAR flood forecasting and alert system in West Africa”. hess-2021-177
This manuscript was written for the HESS Special Issue “Contributions of transdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and water resources management”
We are grateful for the work that has gone into reviewing our paper. We do know that this takes a lot of time, which receives no direct reward. We are very willing to improve the manuscript based on your inputs, wherever possible.
We have addressed your comments one-by-one below. The referees’ comments are given in Italics, our response is given in normal font.
We look forward to suggestions for improving the manuscript so that it meets requirements of publications in HESS.
With best regards,
Judit Lienert
also on behalf of my co-authors, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, and Martijn Kuller
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-177', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Apr 2021
This manuscript does not meet the standards of a good research paper. It more like a diary or a story of what was done. It is also quite annoying that the authors are so strong agenda in advocating the terms transdisciplinary and co-creation without really demonstrating what new those ideas bring into the traditional MCDA process.. There are lots of unjustified claims and procedural statements. There is no clear structure of the overall modelling procedure and methods used. New twists and approaches are introduced here and there along the text. The structure used in the modelling seems to be very different from standard procedures so a description and justification is needed in one place not scattered in the text.
The essential question is whom is the paper intended to and what are its real contributions? As it is now the modelling parts can possibly be understood by someone who is well familiar with different MCDA methodologies. I do not think that the readership of this journal has the required background in MCDA. The contribution can be that such an extensive project has been set up and completed. But for a project description there should also be some critical evaluations of the possible weaknesses and challenges related to the modelling approaches used. Now the report only provides a happy story. This is never the case in real life.
The paper is about the design of a forecasting system and as such the topic is one that is common and well-studied in engineering. For an exemplary paper see: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09544828.2016.1214693
Perhaps a note to this literature would be help the reader to place the article in the general literature.
The paper strongly advocates the terms transdisciplinary and co-creation (in the text also co-coproduction, co-design). These are ideas which have been embedded in interactive MCDA for tens of years. MCDA uses data produced by experts from different fields. I personally do not see this as a novel co-creation or transdisciplinary process. In my opinion the paper reports a typical MCDA project and not anything else. There might be room for a separate paper discussing what new do the terms transdisciplinary and co-creation bring into MCDA and vice versa.
The paper is full of poorly formulated sentences. I will not go into these in detail. As an example I have included a copy of the abstract with some exemplary points noted with question marks or BOLD text. The abstract is way too long and anecdotal.
Abstract. Climate change is projected to increase flood risks in West Africa. The EU Horizon 2020 project FANFAR co-designed a pre-operational flood forecasting and alert system for West Africa in three lively? workshops with 50–60 stakeholders, BY? adopting a transdisciplinary framework from Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). We aimed to (i) exemplify MCDA as a structured transdisciplinary process; (ii) prioritize suitable FANFAR system configurations; and (iii) document and discuss empirical evidence WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE DISCUSSED?. We used various interactive problem structuring methods DID YOU REALLY USE MANY PROBLEM STRUCTURING METHODS OR SOME OTHER PROCEDURES in stakeholder sessions to generate 10 objectives and design 11 FANFAR system configurations. The non-additive MCDA model combined expert predictions about system performance with stakeholder preferences elicited in group sessions.A VERY STRANGE WAY OF SAYING THAT THE MCDA MODEL WAS BASED ON EXPERT DATA ON THE EXPECTED PERFORMANCE. All groups preferred a system producing accurate, clear, and accessible flood risk information that reaches recipients well before floods. THIS WOULD BE THEIR IDEAL BUT PREFENCES RELALE TO TRADE-OFFS.To receive HOW IS THAT RECEIVED? this, most groups would trade off SPELLING, higher operation and maintenance costs, development time, and implementing several languages TRADE-OFF TO WHAT . We accounted for uncertainty in expert predictions with Monte Carlo simulation. Sensitivity analyses tested the results’ robustness for changing MCDA aggregation models and diverging stakeholder preferences. Despite many uncertainties, three FANFAR system configurations achieved 63–70 % of the ideal case over all objectives in all stakeholder groups, and outperformed other options in cost-benefit visualizations. VERY STRANGE CLAIM Stakeholders designed these best options to work reliably? under difficult West African conditions rather than incorporating many advanced features WHAT DOES THIS REFER TO?. The current OR THE PROPOSED?FANFAR system combines important features increasing system performance. Most respondents WHO? of a small online survey are satisfied, and willing to use the system in future THIS KIND OF SURVEY DOES NOT REALLY PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD BE USED IN REALITY- THE PAPER DID NOT CONSIDER ANY USABILITY QUESTIONS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL WHEN DEVELOPING NEW SOFTWARE. We discuss our learning ? drawing from design principles of transdisciplinary research. We attempted to over-come CHECK SPELLING “unbalanced ownership” and “insufficient legitimacy” WHY THESE CONCERNS AND NOT E.G. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY OF THE MODELby including key West African institutions as consortium partners and carrying out co-design workshops with mandated representatives from 17 countries. MCDA overcomes TOO GENERAL STATEMENT challenges such as “lack of technical integration” WHAT DOES THIS MEAN AND HOW IS IT OVERCOME, or “vagueness and ambiguity of results”. Whether FANFAR will have a “societal impact” depends on long term financing and system uptake by West African institutions after termination of EU sponsoring. We hope ? that our promising results will have a “scientific impact” ON WHAT and motivate further DO YOU MEAN :STUDIES OF ?stakeholder engagement in hydrology research.
Some more remarks:
The paper uses the terms expert predictions, predicted outcome (section 2.8) and data ( Box 7 in Fig.1.) . Why not Uuse the word data always?
Section 2.8 : The authors make strong claims in favor of non-linear models but do not critically discuss the new problems created. For example , the introduction of the coefficient gamma is not at all simple. How do you justify and explain the value selected for gamma to the stakeholders? The justification that attributes are non-compensatory can also be challeged. Typically any system design starts with some minimum requirement with respect to the attributes and only when these are met one starts to compare extra features.
Also the aggregation of opinions by taking averages is quite problematic as the result is then nobody´s opinion.
The notation and names used for the options and variables etc. are so difficult that the reader really cannot follow the text. Are they all needed? Who can understand Table 1 and 2.
Discussion is not a discussion of the approach but a report of the process. The claim that this co-design would meet the main requirements is strong. The discussion of the process continues in an anecdotal mode in 4.1.1. Where is critical evaluation?
4.1.2. is quite strange and unclear and full of unsupported claims with these cryptic notations. Quote: The weights indicate that most groups preferred that the system produces accurate, clear, and reliable information that reaches recipients well before a flood (11_accur_info; 12_clear_info; 21_reliable_info; 22_timely info; Figure 4)
4.2.2. This section uses concepts and statements from Lang et al. but in this context they remain un-understandable such as this: `` Possible coping strategies are “Low thresholds for and appropriate levels of participation” (Lang et al., 2012)``
In this section the authors seem to accept a preference modelling approach which is not understandable to the stakeholders. This is not really supported by the professionals in the field.
The conclusion that system would be used in reality, when people say that they intend to use it, not really supported real life experience. There is no guarantee of real use even if people say they will use . User acceptance is a much more complicated issue and depends on the system and interface design and not only on the configuration. There is a rich literature on human computer interaction and the user acceptance of software
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-177-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Response to referee # 1
Dear Referee
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript:
Judit Lienert, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, Martijn Kuller, “Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for transdisciplinary co-design of the FANFAR flood forecasting and alert system in West Africa”. hess-2021-177
This manuscript was written for the HESS Special Issue “Contributions of transdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and water resources management”
We are grateful for the work that has gone into reviewing our paper. We do know that this takes a lot of time, which receives no direct reward. We are very willing to improve the manuscript based on your inputs, wherever possible.
We have addressed your comments one-by-one in the attached pdf. The referees’ comments are given in Italics, our response is given in normal font.
We look forward to suggestions for improving the manuscript so that it meets requirements of publications in HESS.
With best regards,
Judit Lienert
also on behalf of my co-authors, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, and Martijn Kuller
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-177', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 May 2021
General comments:
While the paper does address relevant scientific questions within the scope of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, it does not do so in a novel, innovative and comprehensible way. The manuscript in its current format seems to resemble a project report in memo style that describes what has been done in the FANFAR project. Already the very long abstract leaves readers confused about the actual research question, the target audience, the methodological innovation, the novel results and derived insights. Not much more clarity can be gained from reading the full lengthy report, which could not only be shortened and streamlined but also better structured and more clearly written (native speaker check needed; jargon and buzzword heavy) to qualify as a journal publication.Specific comments:
I understand that the authors argue that their MCDA approach is more transdisciplinary in nature – emphasized by adding the buzzword co-design – than existing MCDA approaches. Reading the methods, results and discussion section I do, however, not see this claim substantiated. If the authors still see this as the USP of their contribution I suggest that their work must be better embedded in and contrasted with the existing MCDA literature. Maybe there really is a methodological innovation that has scientific and policy relevance – in the current manuscript this ‘treasure’ is very effectively hidden though (see general comments on the overall quality of this preprint above).Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-177-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Dübendorf, 23 June 2021
Response to referee # 2
Dear Referee
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript:
Judit Lienert, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, Martijn Kuller, “Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for transdisciplinary co-design of the FANFAR flood forecasting and alert system in West Africa”. hess-2021-177
This manuscript was written for the HESS Special Issue “Contributions of transdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and water resources management”
We are grateful for the work that has gone into reviewing our paper. We do know that this takes a lot of time, which receives no direct reward. We are very willing to improve the manuscript based on your inputs, wherever possible.
We have addressed your comments one-by-one below. The referees’ comments are given in Italics, our response is given in normal font.
We look forward to suggestions for improving the manuscript so that it meets requirements of publications in HESS.
With best regards,
Judit Lienert
also on behalf of my co-authors, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, and Martijn Kuller
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on hess-2021-177', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 May 2021
The paper reports on the FANFAR project and its opportunities and challenges of developing a reliable and useable flood forecast system in West and Central Africa. It discusses the opportunities and challenges of integrating stakeholder knowledge and producing both scientific reliable and useful information (more about this in Lemos and Morehouse 2005). In section 1.3 MCDA is presented as a remedy for all transdisciplinary projects supported with the enumeration of six central lines of argumentation. In sum, the paper is rather descriptive than analytic. However, this is a very common problem of reporting about transdisciplinary projects, which is depended on transparent and thick descriptions about how processes of knowledge integration haven been implemented, how “data” from non-scientific experts is included and so on. The paper handles this endeavor with sufficient accuracy. In addition, a comprehensive annex is provided with helpful tables and feedback derived from stakeholder surveys.
The paper has a lot of merits of getting published, but I have also three critical comments:
The paper starts by defining transdisciplinarity using a for the context very appropriate definition of Lang et al. 2012. However, the discussion about the aims and obstacles of transdisciplinary research is almost exclusively referencing this source (and not others). This is far away of being a comprehensive literature review adequate for a journal publication. In addition, please explain (briefly) the “ordinary” challenges of transdisciplinary research in a transnational context already at the beginning and not only in the discussion.
I would suggest reducing some of the more biased assumptions like “lively workshops”, “FANFAR project is unique”, “unique practice and outcome oriented project”, “producing a good flood forecast and alert system” … to prevent the impression of reading a project proposal or advertisement and not a scientific paper. If you want to judge your own project, you would have better stick to an evaluation of the project by other researchers or at least to a survey among participants.
My third point questions parts of the structure. In the methods section I would suggest focusing on methods and tools of conducting and writing the paper and not on how the FANFAR project and its transdisciplinary methods were implemented. I would rather add another main section called “Processes of transdisciplinarity” (or something similar), where the main project’s undertakings are described.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-177-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Dübendorf, 23 June 2021
Response to referee # 3
Dear Referee
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript:
Judit Lienert, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, Martijn Kuller, “Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for transdisciplinary co-design of the FANFAR flood forecasting and alert system in West Africa”. hess-2021-177
This manuscript was written for the HESS Special Issue “Contributions of transdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and water resources management”
We are grateful for the work that has gone into reviewing our paper. We do know that this takes a lot of time, which receives no direct reward. We are very willing to improve the manuscript based on your inputs, wherever possible.
We have addressed your comments one-by-one below. The referees’ comments are given in Italics, our response is given in normal font.
We look forward to suggestions for improving the manuscript so that it meets requirements of publications in HESS.
With best regards,
Judit Lienert
also on behalf of my co-authors, Jafet Andersson, Daniel Hofmann, Francisco Silva Pinto, and Martijn Kuller
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Judit Lienert, 23 Jun 2021
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12,482 | 12,069 | 45 | 24,596 | 127 | 25 | 27 |
- HTML: 12,482
- PDF: 12,069
- XML: 45
- Total: 24,596
- Supplement: 127
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1