Designing effective visualization software in the context of super wicked problems includes incorporating understanding of public policy and decision making settings into the software development process. Case study findings presented here show that a problem-driven design approach must include both the primary and secondary users of visualization software. The primary lesson learned is that extending the scope of the problem domain beyond the explicit functionality of creating visualizations, to include the reactions or enhanced participation of decision makers, will likely provide scientists with more effective software.
FuntowiczSO, RavetzJR. Science for the post normal age: Springer; 1995.
2.
LiuJ, DietzT, CarpenterSR, AlbertiM, FolkeC, MoranE, et al. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science. 2007; 317(5844): 1513-6.
3.
RittelHW, WebberMM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973; 4(2): 155-69.
4.
PretoriusAJ, Van WijkJJ. What does the user want to see? What do the data want to be? Information Visualization. 2009; 8(3): 153-66.
5.
LevinK, CashoreB, BernsteinS, AuldG. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences. 2012; 45(2): 123-52.
6.
RozanskiN, WoodsE. Software systems architecture: working with stakeholders using viewpoints and perspectives: Addison-Wesley; 2012.
7.
AndersonC. The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired; 2008.
8.
FislerK, KrishnamurthiS, DoughertyDJ, editors. Embracing policy engineering. Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering research; 2010: ACM.
9.
LachD, ListP, SteelB, ShindlerB. Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: a regional study. BioScience. 2003; 53(2): 170-8.
EvansE. Domain-driven design: tackling complexity in the heart of software: Addison-Wesley Professional; 2004.
12.
LamH, BertiniE, IsenbergP, PlaisantC, CarpendaleS. Empirical studies in information visualization: Seven scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2012; 18(9): 1520-36.
13.
MunznerT. A nested model for visualization design and validation. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on. 2009; 15(6): 921-8.
14.
Mayer-SchönbergerV, CukierK. Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2013.
15.
WintersKM, LachD, CushingJB, editors. Considerations for characterizing domain problems. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Beyond Time and Errors: Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization; 2014: ACM.
16.
KuhnTS. The structure of scientific revolutions: University of Chicago press; 2012.
17.
LachD, SanfordS. Public understanding of science and technology embedded in complex institutional settings. Public Understanding of Science. 2010; 19(2): 130-46.
18.
MenonD, StafinskiT. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expectations. 2008; 11(3): 282-93.
19.
PetersenAC, CathA, HageM, KunselerE, van der SluijsJP. Post-normal science in practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2010.
20.
CashDW, ClarkWC, AlcockF, DicksonNM, EckleyN, GustonDH, et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003; 100(14): 8086-91.
21.
KennelC, DaultreyS. Knowledge Action Networks: Connecting regional climate change assessments to local action. UCSD Sustainability Solutions Institute. 2010.
22.
YinRK. Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications; 2013.
23.
HolmbergJ, RobèrtK-H. Backcasting - A framework for strategic planning. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2000; 7(4): 291-308.
24.
MeadowsDH, WrightD. Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing; 2008.
25.
AbdelnourA, B McKaneR, StieglitzM, PanF, ChengY. Effects of harvest on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a Pacific Northwest forest catchment. Water Resources Research. 2013; 49(3): 1292-313.
26.
GailW. Climate conundrums: What the climate debate reveals about us. University of Chicago press; 2014.
27.
GailW. What's after global warming? USA Today Editorial. 2015; April 17, 2015.
28.
KahanDM, Jenkins-SmithH, BramanD. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research. 2011; 14(2): 147-74.
29.
MeyerM, SedlmairM, QuinanPS, MunznerT. The nested blocks and guidelines model. Information Visualization. 2013: 1473871613510429.
30.
LotovAV. Internet tools for supporting of lay stakeholders in the framework of the democratic paradigm of environmental decision making. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis. 2003; 12(2-3): 145.
31.
MeoM, FochtW, CanedayL, LynchR, MoredaF, PettusB, et al. Negotiating science and values with stakeholders in the Illinois River Basin. Wiley Online Library; 2002.
32.
HasanH, SmithS, FinneganP. An activity theoretic analysis of the mediating role of information systems in tackling climate change adaptation. Information Systems Journal. 2016.
33.
ChunSA, ShulmanS, SandovalR, HovyE. Government 20:. Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity. 2010; 15(1): 1.
34.
GravesA, HendlerJ. A study on the use of visualizations for Open Government Data. Information Polity. 2014; 19(1, 2): 73-91.
35.
CarterL, BélangerF. The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal. 2005; 15(1): 5-25.
