The range of datasets, methods, and other tools available for environmental research and decision‐making is rapidly expanding. How should the quality of these tools be evaluated? When are new resources better than existing resources? We advocate an adequacy‐for‐purpose perspective, according to which the quality of environmental research tools depends on both research aims and context of use: a good tool is one that will allow its users—given their knowledge, expertise, and practical resources—to achieve their aims. The adequacy‐for‐purpose approach to assessment differs in various ways from standard practice and, we argue, has several advantages. It can help researchers and environmental managers avoid using “best available” datasets and models for purposes for which they are ill‐suited. It can also help researchers recognize the value of tools that are not state‐of‐the‐art. We illustrate the adequacy‐for‐purpose approach with examples from lake and reservoir forecasting.
Parker et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: