Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

This paper develops a framework for evaluating sustainability assessment methods by separately analyzing their normative, systemic and procedural dimensions as suggested by Wiek and Binder [Wiek, A, Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making – a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2005, 25: 589-608.]. The framework is then used to characterize indicator-based sustainability assessment methods in agriculture. For a long time, sustainability assessment in agriculture has focused mostly on environmental and technical issues, thus neglecting the economic and, above all, the social aspects of sustainability, the multifunctionality of agriculture and the applicability of the results. In response to these shortcomings, several integrative sustainability assessment methods have been developed for the agricultural sector. This paper reviews seven of these that represent the diversity of tools developed in this area. The reviewed assessment methods can be categorized into three types: (i) top-down farm assessment methods; (ii) top-down regional assessment methods with some stakeholder participation; (iii) bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods with stakeholder participation throughout the process. The results readily show the trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. A clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites. However, this comes at the cost of system specificity. As the top-down methods often have low stakeholder involvement, the application and implementation of the results might be difficult. Our analysis suggests that to include the aspects mentioned above in agricultural sustainability assessment, the bottomup, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary methods are the most suitable ones.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

A normative approach to multi-agent systems for intelligent buildings

Building Management Systems (BMS) are widely adopted in modern buildings around the world in order to provide high-quality building services, and reduce the running cost of the building. However, most BMS are functionality-oriented and do not consider user personalization. The aim of this research is to capture and represent building management rules using organizational semiotics methods. We implement Semantic Analysis, which determines semantic units in building management and their relationship patterns of behaviour, and Norm Analysis, which extracts and specifies the norms that establish how and when these management actions occur. Finally, we propose a multi-agent framework for norm based building management. This framework contributes to the design domain of intelligent building management system by defining a set of behaviour patterns, and the norms that govern the real-time behaviour in a building.

Are normative properties descriptive properties?

Some philosophers think that normative properties are identical to descriptive properties. In this paper, I argue that this entails that it is possible to say which descriptive properties normative properties are identical to. I argue that Frank Jackson’s argument to show that this is possible fails, and that the objections to this argument show that it is impossible to say which descriptive properties normative properties are identical to. I conclude that normative properties are not identical to descriptive properties. I then show that if we combine this conclusion with the conclusion of a different argument that Jackson has given to show that there are no irreducibly normative properties, it follows that there are no normative properties at all.

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems do often not fully (i) take into account the multifunctionality of agriculture, (ii) include multidimensionality, (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade-offs. This chapter reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator-based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis and (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies: first, top-down farm assessments, which focus on field or farm assessment; second, top-down regional assessments, which assess the on-farm and the regional effects; and third, bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches, which focus on a regional scale. Our analysis shows that the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.

A normative method to analyse workarounds in a healthcare environment: motivations, consequences, and constraints

Healthcare information systems have the potential to enhance productivity, lower costs, and reduce medication errors by automating business processes. However, various issues such as system complexity and system abilities in a relation to user requirements as well as rapid changes in business needs have an impact on the use of these systems. In many cases failure of a system to meet business process needs has pushed users to develop alternative work processes (workarounds) to fill this gap. Some research has been undertaken on why users are motivated to perform and create workarounds. However, very little research has assessed the consequences on patient safety. Moreover, the impact of performing these workarounds on the organisation and how to quantify risks and benefits is not well analysed. Generally, there is a lack of rigorous understanding and qualitative and quantitative studies on healthcare IS workarounds and their outcomes. This project applies A Normative Approach for Modelling Workarounds to develop A Model of Motivation, Constraints, and Consequences. It aims to understand the phenomenon in-depth and provide guidelines to organisations on how to deal with workarounds. Finally the method is demonstrated on a case study example and its relative merits discussed.

Normative modeling for personalized clinical pathway using organizational semiotics methods

Clinical pathways are widely adopted by many large hospitals around the world in order to provide high-quality patient treatment and reduce the length and cost of hospital stay. However, nowadays most of them are static and nonpersonalized. Our objective is to capture and represent clinical pathway using organizational semiotics method including Semantic Analysis which determines semantic units in clinical pathway, their relationship and their patterns of behavior, and Norm Analysis which extracts and specifies the norms that establish how and when these medical behaviors will occur. Finally, we propose a method to develop clinical pathway ontology based on the results of Semantic Analysis and Norm analysis. This approach will give a contribution to design personalized clinical pathway by defining a set of possible patterns of behavior and theClinical pathways are widely adopted by many large hospitals around the world in order to provide high-quality patient treatment and reduce the length and cost of hospital stay. However, nowadays most of them are static and nonpersonalized. Our objective is to capture and represent clinical pathway using organizational semiotics method including Semantic Analysis which determines semantic units in clinical pathway, their relationship and their patterns of behavior, and Norm Analysis which extracts and specifies the norms that establish how and when these medical behaviors will occur. Finally, we propose a method to develop clinical pathway ontology based on the results of Semantic Analysis and Norm analysis. This approach will give a contribution to design personalized clinical pathway by defining a set of possible patterns of behavior and the norms that govern the behavior based on patient’s condition.