Consultation on BioDT draft Cultural Ecosystem Service Digital Twin: responses to structured interviews BES 2024

Dick, J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4180-9338; Carbone, D. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5290-786X; Sara-aho, K.; Andrews, C. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2428-272X; Martinovic, T.. 2025 Consultation on BioDT draft Cultural Ecosystem Service Digital Twin: responses to structured interviews BES 2024. UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 72pp.

Before downloading, please read NORA policies.

Preview

Text N538779RE.pdf - Published Version Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract/Summary

Interviews were conducted at British Ecological Society meetings in Liverpool 10-13 Dec 2024. The interviews consisted of an introduction to the digital twin and an invitation to provide personal views via a semi-structured feedback tool accessed by a QR code or on paper. The interviews focused on (i) the graphical user interface, (ii) the components of both the (ii) recreational and (iii) species distribution models and (iv) the sustainability of the digital twin following the completion of the BioDT research project. For the graphical user interface and the models, the format was bold statements which the interviewee had to mark their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale. If the interviewee was unfamiliar with the technical details of anything e.g. species distribution models they were invited to select the neutral option. If they disagreed with the statement or had additional thoughts, they were encouraged to write them in the open question which followed the Likert scale question. The prototype digital twin trailed with participants was demonstrated and a handout explaining the main features given to 77 people, 58 provided feedback via the tool and one sent an email with their thoughts (75% response rate). The prototype digital twin (pDT) was well received with the concept of linking recreational potential maps with the probability of viewing biodiversity considered very relevant. The overall conclusions were: • Most respondents considered the three base maps provided in the digital twin sufficient (74%) but several commented that the addition of the OS map or a cost-effect alternative would be helpful. • Most respondents agreed that the filters were a useful addition to the graphical user interface of the pDT for both the recreational potential (78%) and species (93%) occurrence but questioned why it was possible to move the slider in both directions. • Most respondents (88%) agreed that viewing the probability of encountering a specific species or multiple species (e.g. all birds) was valuable. • The colour scheme was questioned by many respondents even when they scored the question positively. Many recognised that there was a lot of information to impart but considered the present colour scheme unclear. • The use of additional tabs such as viewing supplementary information on other web sites or apps was welcomed with suggestions in addition to the biodiversity including route planners, public transport routes and timetables, and weather apps. • There was general agreement that the recreational potential model incorporated the main elements (72%) but concern that the user may need to parameterise the model with 87 parameters, the concept of personas to choose from and only alter specific parameters of interest to the user was suggested. • Over 90% of respondents considered the 20 m resolution of the digital twin output map sufficient but many respondents considered that both the recreational potential and biodiversity data should be seasonally adjusted and not only updated an annually. • Species distribution models were considered a sensible approach for the biodiversity aspect of the digital twin, but it was recommended by many respondents that other biodiversity datasets not just citizen science data should be used. • Funding to ensure sustainability of the prototype digital twin from some government source was favoured by 81% of respondents. The reason given were typically either because they considered the digital twin a public good or because restricting the knowledge was seen as fostering inequality or they did not think private subscription would be commercially viable. Many people were complimentary on the work completed so far writing statements such as Congratulations, amazing tool, and Great job!!!

Item Type:	Publication - Report (Project Report)
UKCEH and CEH Sections/Science Areas:	Biodiversity and Land Use (2025-)
Funders/Sponsors:	European Commission
NORA Subject Terms:	Ecology and Environment
Date made live:	21 Jan 2025 14:41 +0 (UTC)
URI:	https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/538779

Actions (login required)

View Item

Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...