24
Integrating Ecologic, Economic, and Social Sciences Using a Spatially Explicit, Landscape Dynamic Simulation System Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Integrating Ecologic, Economic, and Social Sciences Using a Spatially Explicit, Landscape Dynamic Simulation System. Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab. Acknowledgement. Jimmie Chew, RMRS Kirk Moeller, RMRS Anne Black, ALWRI Adam Liljeblad, ALWRI. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Integrating Ecologic, Economic, and Social Sciences Using a Spatially Explicit, Landscape Dynamic Simulation System

Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Page 2: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Acknowledgement

• Jimmie Chew, RMRS

• Kirk Moeller, RMRS

• Anne Black, ALWRI

• Adam Liljeblad, ALWRI

Page 3: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Introduction

• Integration of knowledge– The interactions of the biophysical, social,

and economic landscape components

• Use of models for better understanding and communication

• Modeling with SIMPPLLE– A method– A tool developed specifically for integration

Page 4: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Ecologic Social

Economic

Theory

Page 5: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

From theory to reality

Page 6: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Ecologic Social

Economic

Reality

Page 7: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

How do we bring these seemingly divergent

perspectives together?• Modeling that helps us think about

the world by:– Representing interactions of socio-

economic values with biophysical environment

– Displaying trade-offs necessary for sustainability

– Communication using visualization and interactive, ‘real-time’ modeling

Page 8: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Designed to simulate complex landscape-scale interactions

between vegetation and other abiotic and biotic landscape components.

Developed to help managers make decisions that address ecosystem sustainability based on issues, concerns, and knowledge

Runs on site-specific empirical, mechanistic, local and expert-knowledge as logic

SIMPPLLE as the ecological core

Page 9: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

SIMPPLLE, A Simple Methodology

• Basic rule of modeling is to help people better understand the world

• Acronym = modeling philosophy to keep things as simple as possible, add complexity only as needed

• Modeling system platform allows users to interact and communicate issues and concerns about landscapes

• www.fs.fed.us/rm/missoula/4151/SIMPPLLE

Page 10: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Users Decide How to Represent the Landscape

• What is the appropriate scale for issues?• Is the analysis to be irregular polygons

or grid-based?• Should time be in decades, years,

seasons?• Include vegetation, landforms, aquatics,

man-made structures, social values?• Should vegetation be dominant forest

species, multiple life forms, grass types?

Page 11: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

SIMPPLLEthe ecological

core

FIA Plots

Climate Change ModelsNAU

Insect and Disease Research

VegetationFVS Model

Fire ModelsFMOs

Wildlife Models R1,GAP, Birdlife Int’l – Europe

Economic ModelsMAGIS-JFS, BEMRP

SPECTRUM, R1 Planning

FCCS PNW

Invasive Species MSU, MESA VERDE NP

Watershed Models USGS, CO Plateau

Page 12: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

What are we missing?

Ecologic

Economic

SIMPPLLE

SocialSocial

Page 13: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

A planning problem:People care about their landscape; yet most planning and analysis activities don’t explicitly acknowledge or incorporate these attachments.

A solution?Incorporate information about ‘attachment to place’ directly into our ecologic/economic models.

Ecologic Social

Economic

possible acceptable

feasible

Page 14: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

cohesion

identity

Biophysical settings

activities

outcomes

Social settings

Conceptual framework

(c)

(a) (b)

Attachment to place

(d)

(e) PVT

Cover Type

Landform

Cover Type/Structural phase

Location

Page 15: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

cohesion

identity

Biophysical settings

activities

outcomes

Social settings

Conceptual framework

(c)

(a) (b)

Attachment to place

(d)

(e) PVT

Cover Type

Landform

Cover Type/Structural phase

LocationPersonal

Community/Cultural

Family/Friends

Page 16: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab
Page 17: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Social & PhysicalAttachment

Social Outcomes

IndividualFamily/Inter-Social

Community SubjectiveObjective

Physical Associates

ManagementInfluenced

Physical

ActivityRelated

OwnershipRelated

DensityRelated

Page 18: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Social & PhysicalAttachment

IndividualFamily/

Inter-SocialCommunity

Social Outcomes Physical Associates

SubjectiveObjective

ManagementInfluenced

Physical

ActivityRelated

OwnershipRelated

DensityRelated

RelaxationNatural Inquiry

Physical

Economic

EmotionalEmployment

SubsistenceExercise

Page 19: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Social & PhysicalAttachment

Social Outcomes

IndividualFamily/Inter-Social

Community SubjectiveObjective

Physical Associates

ManagementInfluenced

Physical

ActivityRelated

OwnershipRelated

DensityRelated

Density RelatedUncrowdedOpen Space

Ownership RelatedWildernessAbundance of Rec. Opps.

Activity RelatedInterconnected Trail SystemNatural Sounds

Page 20: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

Adapted from Firey, 1960

Page 21: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab
Page 22: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab
Page 23: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab
Page 24: Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

So What?