Interactive genetic algorithm for user‐centered design of distributed conservation practices in a watershed: An examination of user preferences in objective space and user behavior

Interactive Genetic Algorithms (IGA) are advanced human-in-the-loop optimization methods that enable humans to give feedback, based on their subjective and unquantified preferences and knowledge, during the algorithm's search process. While these methods are gaining popularity in multiple fields, there is a critical lack of data and analyses on (a) the nature of interactions of different humans with interfaces of decision support systems (DSS) that employ IGA in water resources planning problems and on (b) the effect of human feedback on the algorithm's ability to search for design alternatives desirable to end-users. In this paper, we present results and analyses of observational experiments in which different human participants (surrogates and stakeholders) interacted with an IGA-based, watershed DSS called WRESTORE to identify plans of conservation practices in a watershed. The main goal of this paper is to evaluate how the IGA adapts its search process in the objective space to a user's feedback, and identify whether any similarities exist in the objective space of plans found by different participants. Some participants focused on the entire watershed, while others focused only on specific local subbasins. Additionally, two different hydrology models were used to identify any potential differences in interactive search outcomes that could arise from differences in the numerical values of benefits displayed to participants. Results indicate that stakeholders, in comparison to their surrogates, were more likely to use multiple features of the DSS interface to collect information before giving feedback, and dissimilarities existed among participants in the objective space of design alternatives.

[1]  Nicolas Gaud,et al.  A Review and Taxonomy of Interactive Optimization Methods in Operations Research , 2015, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst..

[2]  Warren Viessman,et al.  Integrated Water Management , 1997 .

[3]  G. Schramm Integrated river basin planning in a holistic universe , 1980 .

[4]  M. Tomer,et al.  Agricultural conservation planning framework: 2. Classification of riparian buffer design types with application to assess and map stream corridors. , 2015, Journal of environmental quality.

[5]  L. Reder Implicit memory and metacognition , 1996 .

[6]  Bennett L. Schwartz,et al.  Sources of information in metamemory: Judgments of learning and feelings of knowing , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Joseph H. A. Guillaume,et al.  Integrated assessment and modelling: Overview and synthesis of salient dimensions , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[8]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  A co-evolutionary approach to climate change impact assessment: Part I. Integrating socio-economic and climate change scenarios , 2000 .

[9]  T. O. Nelson Consciousness and metacognition. , 1996 .

[10]  M. Helmers,et al.  Agricultural conservation planning framework: 1. Developing multipractice watershed planning scenarios and assessing nutrient reduction potential. , 2015, Journal of environmental quality.

[11]  François Bousquet,et al.  Modelling with stakeholders , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[12]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[13]  François Bousquet,et al.  Modelling with stakeholders : special issue of: environmental modelling & software, 25(2010)11 , 2010 .

[14]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Environmental decision support systems (EDSS) development - Challenges and best practices , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[15]  M. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[16]  Meghna Babbar-Sebens,et al.  Spatial identification and optimization of upland wetlands in agricultural watersheds , 2013 .

[17]  Meghna Babbar-Sebens,et al.  Standard Interactive Genetic Algorithm—Comprehensive Optimization Framework for Groundwater Monitoring Design , 2008 .

[18]  Meghna Babbar-Sebens,et al.  Interactive Genetic Algorithm with Mixed Initiative Interaction for multi-criteria ground water monitoring design , 2012, Appl. Soft Comput..

[19]  M. Arabi,et al.  Cost‐effective allocation of watershed management practices using a genetic algorithm , 2006 .

[20]  James D. A. Millington,et al.  Participatory evaluation of agent-based land-use models , 2011 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[22]  Ilan Fischer,et al.  When do those who know more also know more about how much they know? The development of confidence and performance in categorical decision tasks , 2005 .

[23]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Panarchy Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems , 2002 .

[24]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Metacognition : knowing about knowing , 1994 .

[25]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Optimal restoration of altered habitats , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[26]  K. Madani,et al.  Optimality versus stability in water resource allocation. , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[27]  Meghna Babbar-Sebens,et al.  A Case-Based Micro Interactive Genetic Algorithm (CBMIGA) for interactive learning and search: Methodology and application to groundwater monitoring design , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[28]  Jürgen Branke,et al.  Interactive Multiobjective Optimization from a Learning Perspective , 2008, Multiobjective Optimization.

[29]  Meghna Babbar-Sebens,et al.  A web-based software tool for participatory optimization of conservation practices in watersheds , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[30]  Joe Marks,et al.  Human-guided search , 2010, J. Heuristics.

[31]  Richard N. Palmer A History of Shared Vision Modeling in the ACT-ACF Comprehensive Study: a Modeler's Perspective , 1998 .

[32]  Martin Welp The Use of Decision Support Tools in Participatory River Basin Management , 2001 .

[33]  Alexey Voinov,et al.  Optimization methodology for land use patterns using spatially explicit landscape models , 2002 .

[34]  J. Holden,et al.  If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: traditional versus participatory model building , 2007 .

[35]  Bernard A. Engel,et al.  MULTIPLE CRITERIA DYNAMIC SPATIAL OPTIMIZATION TO MANAGE WATER QUALITY ON A WATERSHED SCALE , 2000 .

[36]  R. Vogel,et al.  Optimal Location of Infiltration-Based Best Management Practices for Storm Water Management , 2005 .

[37]  Daniel P. Loucks,et al.  Generic Simulation Models For Facilitating Stakeholder Involvement In Water Resources Planning And Management: A Comparison, Evaluation, and Identification of Future Needs , 2006 .

[38]  Nicole Rijkens-Klomp,et al.  A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective , 2002 .

[39]  Maggi Kelly,et al.  Expanding the table: the web as a tool for participatory adaptive management in California forests. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[40]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009 , 2011 .

[41]  Meghna Babbar-Sebens,et al.  Usability evaluation of an interactive decision support system for user-guided design of scenarios of watershed conservation practices , 2017 .

[42]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[43]  Abhishek Singh,et al.  An interactive multi-objective optimization framework for groundwater inverse modeling , 2008 .

[44]  David E. Rosenberg,et al.  Water Resources Systems Analysis: A Bright Past and a Challenging but Promising Future , 2014 .

[45]  Meghna Babbar-Sebens,et al.  Optimizing conservation practices in watersheds: Do community preferences matter? , 2013 .