A framework for co‐designing decision‐support systems for policy implementation: The LANDSUPPORT experience

This work proposes a framework for co‐designing decision‐support tools for sustainable land management and soil protection at multiple scales. Geospatial dashboards, due to their key capabilities in the use of spatial or geospatial information, are quickly gaining traction for planning and policymaking. Developing the decision‐support system (DSS) as a transversal system capable of capturing trends in land and soil properties at the local, regional, national, and EU levels has been co‐designed with policy stakeholders. This work seeks to link (i) the main goal of the Soil Mission and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to raise awareness and knowledge on soil conditions (ii) and the LANDSUPPORT (LS) project cross‐evaluation on how the spatial decision‐support system (SDSS) can support policy‐related stakeholders and help them to take evidence‐based decisions. To achieve this objective, we present the user engagement process to ensure broad testing and evaluation of the LS SDSS's ability to support selected EU policies and soil‐related SDGs by testing the LS platform's European scale tools, including an analysis and conformity check of the data delivered by the LS tools and a critical review of results. The indicators were assessed via direct contact with end users, such as semi‐structured interviews (SSI) and 184 questionnaires. Results of the test series have been analyzed by the spatial scale per respective tool and performance indicators. We present a unique, integrated, science‐based approach to co‐create data‐driven decision‐making with the stakeholders to promote sustainable land management practices. This methodology strives to involve many stakeholders in scientific research, empowering them to participate in the decisions on topics that directly affect them. Public bodies responsible for land policy implementation, environmental stakeholders, spatial planners, and other users have engaged in the process to ensure broad testing of the LS platform from 2020 to 2022. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis provided a synthesis of the performance of the LS tools. The testing phase proved the utmost importance of usability, underlining that the mixed method of testing allowing quantitative and qualitative analyses based on the same key indicators proved essential for co‐designing SDSS tools to be used by a wide range of stakeholders.

ties at the local, regional, national, and EU levels has been co-designed with policy stakeholders.This work seeks to link (i) the main goal of the Soil Mission and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to raise awareness and knowledge on soil conditions (ii) and the LANDSUPPORT (LS) project cross-evaluation on how the spatial decision-support system (SDSS) can support policy-related stakeholders and help them to take evidence-based decisions.To achieve this objective, we present the user engagement process to ensure broad testing and evaluation of the LS SDSS's ability to support selected EU policies and soil-related SDGs by testing the LS platform's European scale tools, including an analysis and conformity check of the data delivered by the LS tools and a critical review of results.The indicators were assessed via direct contact with end users, such as semi-structured interviews (SSI) and 184 questionnaires.Results of the test series have been analyzed by the spatial scale per respective tool and performance indicators.We present a unique, integrated, science-based approach to co-create data-driven decision-making with the stakeholders to promote sustainable land management practices.This methodology strives to involve many stakeholders in scientific research, empowering them to participate in the decisions on topics that directly affect them.Public bodies responsible for land policy implementation, environmental stakeholders, spatial planners, and other users have engaged in the process to ensure broad testing of the LS platform from 2020 to 2022.A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis provided a synthesis of the performance of the LS tools.The testing phase proved the utmost importance of usability, underlining that the mixed method of testing allowing quantitative and qualitative analyses based on the same key indicators proved essential for co-designing SDSS tools to be used by a wide range of stakeholders.

K E Y W O R D S
decision-support tools DSS, monitoring, policy support, soil protection and conservation, SWOT, stakeholders

| INTRODUCTION
The different sub-strategies of the European Green Deal (2019) and the EU's Soil Mission (2021) aim to support the development of innovative solutions to reduce soil degradation and restore soil health (Montanarella & Panagos, 2021).According to the Soil Mission, one of the main causes of soil degradation is a lack of knowledge and awareness among land managers, industries, consumers, and society about the importance of long-term soil health (Vanino et al., 2023).Even before the Soil Mission was formulated its objectives LS already set on its flag of the promotion of better land use and land management by creating the SDSS that can be employed to assist with integrated algorithms for decision-making (De la Rosa et al., 2004;Rudner et al., 2007).The SDSS is created through an interactive process typically by end users (end-user SDSS development approach), which promotes the designing and development of the software system depending upon the specific or individual needs of the decisionmakers (Power, 2007) and typically consists of several coupled environmental models, databases, and assessment tools that are brought together under a graphical user interface (GUI), which is frequently realized using the spatial data management capabilities offered by geographical information systems (Matthies et al., 2007).The appraisal of irreducible uncertainties and the illustration of important strategic decisions can both be supported by scenario construction with stakeholder participation and analysis using simulation technologies, according to experiences in other policy-making contexts (Baker & Landers, 2004;Schlüter & Rüger, 2007).The LS tools offer real information on the results of the policy options put up by the discussion participants as scenarios.The co-creation of the LS SDSS with the end users is demonstrated in this work.The objective of this work is to highlight the suitability of LS tools for support policies, SDGs, and Soil Mission support based on the users' experience.This study contains the LS project cross-evaluation analysis on how the LS SDSS can support policy-related stakeholders and help them to make better-informed decisions (Terribile et al., 2023).A literature review of existing applications of SDSS for environmental policies support has been carried out to see how such tools have effectively supported environmental policy so far, for the uptake of existing models and tools, to discover the reasons behind the failure or success of these models and collecting additional good practices that might serve as an inspiration for the project (De Paoli et al., 2019).This was done to assess the feasibility of using geospatial tools from the LS SDSS to conduct a multiscale study of the key socioeconomic variables important for the implementation of land management.According to previous studies (Patel et al., 2018;Poch et al., 2004;Zhai et al., 2020), the most typical use appears to involve a system analyst operating the SDSS in coordination with environmental managers and decisionmakers.The best practice recommendations for the success factors already identified in the literature mentioned by McIntosh et al. (2011) are as follows: (i) designing for ease of use and the usefulness of the tools; (ii) establishing trust and credibility; (iii) promoting SDSS for acceptance; and (iv) planning for longevity and starting small and simple.Even though there are many instances of SDSS applications to environmental policies in the literature, the use of the case study method is less typical; therefore, only in the following four case studies-MULINO SDSS, SEAMLESS, RUBDA, and NB SDSS in the Nile Basin-the corresponding approach are presented.The setting for decision-making supports the implementation of the Framework Directive, focusing on water management agencies.The MULINO SDSS, developed by researchers Mysiak et al. (2002Mysiak et al. ( , 2005)), integrates socioeconomic and environmental modelling methodologies with GIS capabilities and multi-criteria decision-support systems.Further examples include the SEAMLESS project van Ittersum and Wery (2008), funded by the EU Framework Programme 6, which developed science and a computerized framework for integrated assessment of agricultural systems and the environment.It aims to complete a working version of the integrated framework by 2009 for its primary users in the European Commission.The RUaha Basin Decision Aide (RUBDA) was created to assist users, such as the District Councils or the Rufiji Basin Water Office, in making decisions regarding the distribution of water among different sectors.It offers ways to run scenarios based on policy, physical changes, and water demand (Cour et al., 2005).The most difficult information concerned the participation approach, follow-up after the project was completed, and success criteria.One of the biggest obstacles to the creation and implementation of SDSS is how to measure the success of the system.While success can be defined in terms of interactions with end users, there are problems with defining and measuring how well the system works.
Despite the promise of DSSs, previous research has emphasized the difficulties in implementing these systems due to the absence of user-centered design consideration and the complexity of machine learning algorithms (Khairat et al., 2018;Lee et al., 2020).We present an integrated approach to co-create data-driven tools for decisionmaking with the stakeholders to inform policy and promote sustainable land management practices.This methodology strived to involve many stakeholders in scientific research, so empowering them to take part in the decisions on topics that directly affect them.We collected and analyzed feedback from the end users such as public bodies responsible for land policies implementation, environmental stakeholders, spatial planners, and other users in Austria, Hungary, and Italy, who have been involved in a user engagement process to ensure broad testing and use of the LS platform in 2020 and 2022.The results are presented based on large-scale testing events with questionnaires and reporting on direct contact events, including SSI.In mixed-method investigations, questionnaires and interviews are frequently combined (Brookhart & Durkin, 2003;Harris & Brown, 2019;Lai & Waltman, 2008).While questionnaires can reveal trends among sizable populations, qualitative interview data can elicit a deeper understanding of participant attitudes, thoughts, and behaviours (Kendall, 2008).In a previous work, a summary of all actions performed during the project was made available in a technical report JRC129911 (Schillaci et al., 2022) to test the LANDSUPPORT DSS's ability to support EU policies when applied at the EU scale.
We provide quantitative and qualitative analyses that are used as a benchmark of the performance of the SDSS platform.In this work, we propose a framework for co-designing decision-support tools for sustainable agriculture and soil protection at multiple scales to support policy stakeholders.

| Co-design of tools for EU policies via testing with stakeholders
The evaluation of the LS tools through testing was conducted during the second half of the project after the creation of the first version of the SDSS.The performance of the LS SDSS reflecting on selected EU policies and SDGs was assessed at European, national, regional, and 3 "good health and well-being," 13 "Climate action," SDG 15, with a special emphasis to the key SDG 15.3.1 (Schillaci et al., 2023), "achieving a land degradation-neutral world" (LDN) and climate change (CC) mitigation goals.The following section provides a description of the details of the policy-support analyses, the linkages of the SDSS with SDG 15, and the co-design of tools with stakeholders.Co-design activities contained three main phases: (i) the preparatory phase, (ii) the testing phase, and (iii) the feedback phase (Figure 1).

| The preparatory phase's activities
The preparatory phase activities identification of the potential institutions/persons involved in the land and soil-relevant decision-making process was followed by establishing contacts and setting up testing events either by organizing ones or participating at stakeholders' events.Organizing training sessions for those conducting the interviews was an important step to have a common understanding of the The process to co-design SDSS tools.[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] tools and the relationships between the tools and the policies.We developed introductory materials that supported the understanding of the tools and their operation.The testing was focusing on seven key performance indicators (KPIs): • usability, • operational capabilities, • accessibility, • interoperability, • reliability, • policy needs, • satisfaction with functionality Table 1 elaborates the meaning of the KPIs through the set of questions included in the semi-structured interviews (SSI) related to seven aspects of the project objectives.The questionnaire (Qs) includes the full set of questions related to the seven major LS topics.
The total number of institutions involved in the testing process in the three countries (AU; HU; IT) is 55, and the number of persons who tested the tools is 367.By categories, the numbers are as follows: 32 public bodies were involved with 127 persons testing the tools.For stakeholders of agriculture, environment, and spatial planning, the following numbers are provided for the institutions: 9, 5, and 9 and persons: 85, 106, and 49

| The testing phase's activities
The purpose of the testing phase was not the comparative analysis of the participants but to see whether the tools meet the needs of T A B L E 1 Comparison of the Semi-structured interviews (SSI), Questions of the questionnaire (Qs).different stakeholders engaged in various land/soil relevant policy development and implementation.The testers were free to evaluate the platform for validation with regard to the KPIs.In the testing phase, different methods were used for testing depending on the stakeholders' needs and expectations, including: • hands-on tests and development: while experts were testing the tools, their reflection was taken simultaneously and suggestions to adapt them to fit their needs were recorded; • moderated tests: moderate tests were performed in workshops, during face-to-face and/or online meetings with various stakeholders; • unmoderated tests: in some cases, experts asked for time to test the tools by themselves before evaluation (sending comments and/or filling in the questionnaire); • workshops: workshops were organized for getting more people to take part in the testing process, to allow discussions on the tools, and to learn about the participants' opinions.The last aspect was particularly important because participants were often reluctant to fill out the questionnaire; • case studies: case studies were performed to test some of the tools; • desk work: (i) results of the LS platform were verified using national data; (ii) policy documents at different levels were reviewed for relevance to the LS tools.
The wide range of testing methods complemented each other.They were followed by the completion of a questionnaire by the end users and/or by reports addressing the KPIs on SSIs and other direct testing events.Direct contacts offered the chance to thoroughly examine stakeholders' KPIs-relevant viewpoints and experiences.It allowed us to review the tools from the various policy aspects that experts represented.

| Feedback phase activities
Feedback phase activities included feedback to system developers (IT developers and agriculture/environment experts in the developer's group) in a different form depending on the issues raised, such as (i) reports on SSI and other events, including questions and remarks of experts; (ii) emails describing tools-related issues; (iii) direct communication with developers; and (iv) entries to the online questionnaire.
Along with the general assessment, policy-specific feedback was sent to the developers.The feedback activities helped the co-development and co-creation of the SDSS tools by identifying the main issues and concerns of the stakeholders regarding the tools.

| Results of the test
The introduction of the results below highlights and reinforces that the co-design requires more than filling in questionnaires, and it contains the different methods (presented in 2.1.2.) complemented each other that were used for testing depending on the stakeholders' needs and expectations.Direct contacts after filling out the questionnaires offered the chance to examine stakeholders' KPIs-relevant perspectives and experiences thoroughly.By using qualitative methods, end users can express their requirements, opinions, and ask questions to clarify various concerns with using the tools and interpreting the results.Using a mixed testing method for a co-designing process is more advantageous.The results are presented according to the KPIs.Below three sets of results are introduced: (i) reports of the questionnaires filled in the three test countries: AT; HU; IT (Group1) (Figure 2); (ii) reports on the Hungarian Green Parliament (HGP) (The National Assembly of the Environmental and Nature Protection Civil Organisations) and the SSIs at national level; and (iii) the report on the tools policy relevance at EU level.The use of mixed methods was a general approach during the testing phase.The variations depended on stakeholders involved and the specific task being tested (e.g., in the case of testing environmental stakeholders in Hungary, researchers participated in the 3-day 30th annual meeting of HGP.Qualitative data were collected during a workshop with moderated tests and at the freely approachable stand for moderated and unmoderated tests and the results were summarized; in the case of testing policy relevance of the tools at the European level, desktop work and SSI were performed).).This is illustrated in Figure 3, where the more positive results of end users indicating affiliation to the government (Group 2) underline the policy orientation of the tools and the special knowledge of governmental officials.

| The qualitative data of HGP and national experts' SSI
Responses to the question on the usability of the LS SDSS could be grouped into three main categories: (i) influencing policy and policy measures at different scales; (ii) looking for evidence supporting public participation in concrete procedure related to urban development and/or investments; and (iii) individual interest (including not just farming, but planning, research, education, etc.).In all three, it was important for the user what kind of information could be gained by using the tools and whether the kind of information could be used for the decisions they need to take.Users' interest in factual data corresponds to their special application needs and it was not necessarily linked to the original aim of the main tool set by developers at the early phase of system design.This fact underlined the multifunctionality and the horizontal nature of the tools, for example allowing easy access to information that is otherwise difficult to obtain even if they are freely available somewhere.It was noticeable that the testers' approach was open but topic and task oriented.In general, they did not have any expectations first.Expectations came along with testing the tools and raised questions on the possibility of uploading data, use of additional layers and databases, new aspects to be included in the model, and whether existing models used for decisions can be replaced.In general, users were not questioning the functionality of the program and they found that it serves their interest.At HGP, it was argued that functions serving the public interest in maintaining This function would significantly improve the use of the platform.

Reliability is often a key question about who and for what issues
SDSS can be used.Compared to laymen, experts are aware of the different limitations of the various sets of data and models.For that reason, experts found it outmost importance to have a clear indication on the platform about those limitations (including references to the level and/or size of ROIs) and emphasize the need for expert evaluation of the results by visualizing this need.There was a general agreement that all data describing the chosen territory (different NUTS or designated ROI) support reaching policy objectives irrespective of which set of families the tool belongs to.Thus, experts concluded that the platform's tools strengthen the horizontal approach to land and soil protection.However, testers found sometimes it is difficult how to value reliability.They asked how it was possible to learn about the reliability of the data set used by the tools; and/or the reasons behind reliability problems; whether it was possible to avoid it with more specific data provided for the project, or by uploading them.
Concerning the policy needs question, stakeholders agreed that policies mentioned in the description of the family tools were supported by them.The summary of the responses proves that this goal was reached by the platform developed.Urban planning and development were highlighted as the policies most supported by the tools.It was pointed out that they affect all other policies mentioned in the tools.It was underlined that all policies having nice aims and goals could fail if urban development did not take into account the ecological constraints, or did not respect our natural environment and the needs of the present and future generations.

| Policy relevance at EU level
In Table 2, the key results of EU level policy support are presented.
Eleven senior EU officials and expert employees of the European Commission (EC) were interviewed.The interview results were sorted by tool family, considering land take, land degradation neutrality, and climate change resilience.The results of the interoperability of the platform were appreciated and a high score through the group was given.Data behind the tools were evaluated well.Methodologies used for the assessment of land degradation neutrality have been debated (Schillaci et al., 2022).The discussion was focused on the capability of the platform to perform calculations with continuous updates considering the newest data sources when available.The lack of availability to download raw data has been a subject of criticism.
On the European level after an extensive literature analysis, LS SDSS tools were defined based on their policy relevance (Table 3).
We examined the 15 sub-tools of the three European scale tools and ranked their potential relevance using the Likert scale (1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = adequate, 4 = high, and 5 = very high) as it was adopted in Pe'er et al., 2019.For the INSPIRE directive, we refer to fully compliant (5) when data and metadata are available for visualization and download in the LS platform and otherwise, partly compliant (3).We obtained 14 replies, with a proportional representation between EU officials and expert employees by EC (n = 7) and EC experts from modeling and earth sciences (n = 7).Some answers with such qualitative replies (e.g., neutral), which were not possible to rank, were replaced by the average value.The potential relevance of the LS tools and data to each selected policy was then classified as low, moderate, high, and very high based on the results of the interviews.

| The SWOT analyses of the results
The qualitative data obtained allowed to make a SWOT analysis (Aslan et al., 2012;Shrestha & Flacke, 2019) and helped the co-design process.Table 3 is the summary of its results.Below, some of the most important aspects are highlighted.

| Strength
Providing easy access to various databases is one of the features that make the LS tools unique.Calculations and results are available on various scales: a region, a province, and a municipality.The usage of the platform is free and available on a local level that was considered positive since national policy development and implementation are very much dependent upon it.LS could integrate multidimensional attributes to assist in decision-making considering the large amount of data available and enhance the availability of spatial data, which can boost communication with non-experts as they can easily interpret the data by seeing a multidimensional graph.The methods used for calculation are stated on the results sheets and the results are provided not only for the past but the platform works also as a planning tool.

| Weaknesses
The major weakness of the LS platform is its complexity, which makes it hard to be utilized by non-trained and non-experienced users, and not easy to be adopted by decision-makers.Some attributes need to be simplified in order to portray the different country's images that are the potential source of error.The fact that the downloaded files have the same names and only the serial numbers might distinguish them could lead to confusion.Concerning interoperability, it was found important that the platform should offer the possibility to integrate the user's own data and database to gain information on specific regions (e.g., watersheds, Natura 2000 territories).

| Opportunities
The SDSS system provides the tools needed to obtain spatial information, ground information, and planning tools on a single data platform.
As the toolbox is free to use, interested citizens and scientists from all over the world can use it without paying for data.It can create the possibility that the different authorities working in policy implementation start to employ highly skilled experts in the different fields who would be expected to handle the GIS functionalities.Local politicians or local planners, who most likely do not have planning tools and maps mainly for their region, can make use of the platform to compare their situation with comparable regions elsewhere.The LS provides a T A B L E 2 Averages and spreads of scores of the semi-structured interviews to expert knowledge and evaluation of LS tools (1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = adequate, 4 = high, and 5 = very high).4 ± 1 4.5 ± 1 4.5 ± 0.5 3 ± 1 3 ± 1 3.5 ± 1 Do you think it might be useful for international agreement reporting at national scale?

Additional Opinions
Did the tool actually meet your expectations or did you expect other functionalities and content?

| Threats
LS requires a too wide range of different information and data providers.If the platform wants to meet every need, it can't provide enough detailed new information in a particular field.Misuse of the system and its information by non-experts can lead to a serious national public dilemma.For national security concerns or privacy questions, the availability of national, regional, and local data could become limited.

| CONCLUSIONS
The different methods and analyses used during the testing phase proved to be essential for co-design.Using the presented KPIs for the quantitative analysis of the questionnaires and the qualitative analysis of the results of the events with direct contact with end users The critical approach of the experts underlined the importance of data collection at various levels, their validation, and the need to have open access to raw data and transparency of how data were processed for getting the results.Furthermore, the necessity of the LS platform to provide up-to-date data sets also in future has been emphasized.The testing phase proved the utmost importance of usability.End users are willing to consult with platforms like the LS platform only if the platform is easy to use and its operation is reliable.
However, there was a general agreement that different stakeholders' interests could be better aligned using the platform.There is a clear interest in using the platform for public policy development and implementation.The availability of a large amount of multidimensional spatial information in the system is the biggest influence on the transferability of functions.One of the biggest advantages of such a system is the joint availability of a diverse and multidimensional database on different scales.Since the system makes it possible to run functions and perform analysis tasks on a multidimensional database, it is up to the user what scale and database to use.This gives rise to the cross effect, one of the strengths of using the system also carries its threats since a non-professional user may not use the appropriate database level for his analysis tasks.The LS testing reinforces the academic literature regarding the beneficial nature of using performance indicators and mixed methods for a co-design process.It underlines that the mixed method of testing allowing quantitative and qualitative analyses based on the same key indicators proved to be essential for co-designing SDSS tools aiming to be used by a wide range of stakeholders.
local scales based on several testing events with stakeholders and evaluation of the participants' feedback.Public bodies responsible for land policy implementation, environmental stakeholders, spatial planners, and other users have been involved in a user engagement process to ensure broad testing of the LS platform.Policy stakeholders' needs were analyzed based on a set of semi-structured interviews and panel discussions with project collaborators.The purpose of LS was to encourage SDSS use both during and after the project's completion by ensuring users' participation in the SDSS's design and testing as well as technical training on the SDSS's.Policy analysis was based on four pertinent land policies and directives that were identified as having overarching importance in the EU and its Member States: (i) 7th Environmental Action Plan; (ii) COM 2006/231 Soil Strategy; (iii) Dir 2000/60/EC Water Directive; (iv) Dir 2007/2/EC INSPIRE Directive, and the land-related targets of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular, SDGs 2 "Zero Hunger," , respectively.One hundred eighty-four persons filled in the anonymous questionnaire and 76 indicated affiliation with the government.A 5-point Likert scale (1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = adequate, 4 = high, and 5 = very high) was used for each question.

Figure 2
Figure 2 Quantitative results summary of 184 anonymous questionnaires for all KPIs (functionalities, interoperability, accessibility, operational capabilities, usability).The very low percentage of end users from the three countries evaluating the tools below average demonstrates an overall positive reception of the SDSS.A thorough comparative analysis of the data by grouping the results by nationalities and socioeconomic factors makes it possible to identify the underlying factors behind stakeholders' differences and to gain a better perception of stakeholder needs (related to information, training, awareness raising, etc.).This is illustrated in Figure3, where the more positive

F
I G U R E 2 Aggregated results of the questionnaires filled in by the 184 persons (number of responses from top down: N = 164; N = 158; N = 162; N = 162; N = 169; and N = 166, respectively).The results of the answers were aggregated into three main groups (i) below average (Likert scale 1 and 2); (ii) average (Likert scale 3); and (iii) above average (Likert scale 4 and 5).[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]F I G U R E 3 Comparative table of the aggregated results of Group1 and Group2 (number of responses of Group2 from top down: N = 73; N = 73; N = 70; N = 72; N = 72; and N = 73, respectively).[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] ecosystem services, biodiversity, mitigating soil degradation should be strengthened over individual farmers' needs.Regards the operational capabilities, the information obtained was positively received, especially when it was provided and visualized on a map.The concerns and suggestions fall into four main categories: (i) how to interpret the results of the tools, especially the importance of warning signs of expert's interpretation is needed;(ii) how the tools could improve acknowledgment and the protection of the regulating and maintaining ecosystem services; (iii) how to balance and prioritize public and individual interests, especially regarding ecosystem services; and (iv) the importance of the use of public data and the operation of the uploading function.It was also pointed out that the use of common vocabulary with commonly accepted meanings is of utmost importance.It was argued that this common understanding could be reached only if the tools are available in Hungarian since language could be a barrier or even an obstacle to reaching that goal.Regarding accessibility, experts welcome having a platform that gathers and provides access to different sets of information and organizes them around different aspects of land use.It was considered positive to have access to not just national but regional and local data since national policy development and implementation are very much dependent upon policy implementations at the regional and/or local level.It also improves the quality of public participation.Concerning interoperability, experts and farmers found it important that the final version of the platform would offer the possibility to integrate their own data and database to gain information on specific regions (e.g., watersheds, Natura 2000 (EEA, 2021) territories).
(e.g., SSIs, workshops) sheds light on the needs and direction of further development of the LS tools.A co-designing process becomes more beneficial to end users if they are able to articulate their needs and views, and could ask questions to clarify various issues concerning the use of the tools and the interpretation of the results.It is important to adjust the testing methods to the different end users in order to reflect on their special needs, objectives, and reasons to use the SDSS.The analyses of responses of the end users in the form of questions showed a high degree of common interest in the tools.Experts and stakeholders agreed to a high extent that the platform promotes the integration of different policies affecting land/soil use and is an important tool for awareness raising for various stakeholders.
The co-design process involving mixed testing methods allowed to identify the different educational and training needs of stakeholders stemming from the complexity of LS platform.A comparative analysis taking into consideration all the details of LS and the existing models used by public bodies improves the quality of the outcome of the co-design process.Users' participation in the SDSS's design and testing as well as technical training on the SDSS's operation were T A B L E 3 Summary results of a visualized SWOT analysis.
for practical implementation of the tools.Manuals and training materials development should reflect on public and private experts' concerns regarding interpretation issues of the results. prerequisites