{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015395381385584325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006997900629811056, 'mean_word_length': 5.651162790697675, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
HOW CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT: MODELING WORKSHOP RESULTS 1

ABSTRACT: In two workshops, we evaluated decision analysis methods for comparing Lake Erie levels management alternatives under climate change uncertainty. In particular, we wanted to see how acceptable and effective those methods could be in a public planning setting. The methods evaluated included simulation modeling, scenario analysis, decision trees and structured group discussions. We evaluated the methods by interviewing the workshop participants before and after the workshops. The participants, who were experienced Great Lakes water resources managers, concluded that simulation modeling is user‐friendly enough to enable scenario analysis even in workshop settings for large public planning studies. They felt that simulation modeling can improve not only understanding of the system, but also of the options for managing it. Scenario analysis revealed that the decision for the case study, Lake Erie water level regulation, could be altered by the likelihood of climate change. The participants also recommended that structured group discussions be used in public planning settings to elicit ideas and opinions. On the other hand, the participants were less optimistic about decision trees because they felt that the public might view subjective probabilities as difficult to understand and subject to manipulation.