Main authors: M. L. Madsen, R. K. Laursen, L.K. Thostrup, L. Tendler, J. R. Williams, I. Wright, P. Schipper, K. Verloop, G. Clements, M. Hoogendoorn, F. Nicholson, J. Brandt, D. Doody, L. Farrow, G. Velthof
FAIRWAYiS Editor: Jane Brandt
Source document: »Madsen, M. L. et al. (2021) Development of a decision support framework. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 5.4 18 pp


The Decision Support Framework is hosted at CLM and is based on 30 DSTs divided into two sections concerning nutrient management and pesticide management.

fairway square w50 Decision Support Framework:

Contents table
1. Home page
2. DSTs for nutrient management  
3. DSTs for pesticide management 
4. Future of the Decision Support Framework

1. Home page

D5.4 fig01
Figure 1

On the home page of the framework (Figure 1) the user is met with information on:

  • Aim of the framework
  • Target groups
  • Publications supporting the Decision Support Framework
  • Maintenance
  • How to submit a new tool (contact to add or edit content)

Those sections provide links for possible downloads, demonstration materials and contact information and there is a link to a »Short manual for the users.

2. DSTs for nutrient management

When the user clicks on the nutrients tab to search for DSTs on nutrient management, they are directed to a list of possible DSTs to assess and compare (Figure 2).

 D5.4 fig02
Figure 2
D5.4 fig03
Figure 3

The left side of the page includes a filter option connected to drop-down menus. “Country of origin” and “Language” are initial options. In “Focus” the user can choose between tools for farm management, water catchment management and tools for regional/national policy advice.

In “Farming system” the user can choose between arable, livestock or mixed farming systems, and in “Fertilizer type” there is a choice between mineral or organic fertilizers.

The drop-down menu under “Output” (Figure 3) gives three options: “Recommend on individual farm management”, “suggest mitigation measures to reduce nutrient losses” and “estimate expected environmental impact”, which reflect which level you as a user want your selected tools to provide information on.

When the users have made their choices on the drop-down menus, they can activate the “Compare” functionality and the framework automatically produces a sheet that compares the DSTs that complies with the chosen criteria. This sheet links to factsheets for each DST, where additional information and links for the web pages or contact details of the DSTs are provided.

3. DSTs for pesticide management

The other section of the framework concerns DSTs for pesticide management (Figure 4).

D5.4 fig04
Figure 4
D5.4 fig05
Figure 5

The functionality is parallel to the nutrient management- section, but other drop-down menus are provided relevant to pesticide management (Figure 5).

The “Pesticide type” menu offers “Fungicide”, “Herbicide”, “Insecticide” or “All” as filtering options. Furthermore, the “Output” drop-down menu provides seven options that suggest outputs on identification of the problem, recommendations on solutions and practice as well as mitigation measures.

In the background of the chosen categories in the drop-down menus, the output window for comparison of the DSTs shows the data of the relevant DSTs and links to information sheets and further information on the web pages. The functionality provides the user easy access to all available DSTs connected to the DST Framework.

4. Future of the Decision Support Framework

It is intended that the framework can continue to be used and updated after the FAIRWAY project has been completed. The intention is that osolete or redundant tools can be removed at no cost and that updated, and any new tools can be integrated at a modest cost. It may be appropriate to discuss the possibility of DG Agri hosting the framework.


Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References


Go To Top