Introduction to
Simulation Modeling

Module 4 - Project and Group Selection

Course Learning Outcome(s): Collaborating with classmates, produce a suite of models

Module Outcome(s):

1. Propose a topic to model for your class project and publication.
2. Formulate connections between your topic and the topics of your classmates.
3. Develop a constitution on how you will work together.

Activities:

1. Come up with an idea that you are passionate about and a modeling paper that goes with it. Post your selection in the ????? It is important that you are passionate about your subject because you need to already understand or want to understand the system you are working with.  It is also helpful in maintaining your voice in the modeling process.
2. Look at the subjects your classmates have chosen and select a few that might fit with your subject. Write a brief justification stating which topics would be the best fit with yours. Based on this propose a work group that fits the best with what you want to accomplish.
3. Form a group. Work to compromise with other group members or create a model that is inclusive of the passions of all of the group members.
4. Negotiate and write a constitution/contract to be followed by yourself and your group members. Include how and when to meet online, how to communicate, responsibilities people will have/Roles people will play, how to handle disputes, file saving methods. Submit to Instructor.

To hand in:

• Model of Max-Neef’s system of value
• Alternative Value Strategy

Ecological Services Research Program: Problem Statements and Conceptual Models

Willamette River Basin Problem Statement:

The main goal of the Willamette Ecosystem Services Project (WESP) is to provide a rigorous scientific basis for (1) quantifying and mapping ecosystem services in the Willamette River Basin (WRB), (2) understanding the effects of anthropogenic and natural stressors on those services, and (3) valuating ecological and human benefits of existing and proposed policies. Achieving these goals for a complex region like the WRB (Media:WRB_Map.gif) will depend on how well a daunting array of ecological, economic, demographic, and regulatory information can be integrated and extrapolated in space and time.

The Willamette conceptual model (Media:WillametteCM.jpg) illustrates how research for agricultural, forest, riparian and urban areas within the WRB will be integrated and scaled up to quantify, in biophysical and economic terms, the effects of natural and anthropogenic stressors on multiple ecosystem services and, ultimately, how those changes affect human health and well being. Our conceptual model links several major research activities in a logical sequence of steps, highlighted in general terms by the green boxes on the left, and elaborated in some detail on the right.

Central questions and methods pertaining to the integration of these steps include:

Q1. ∆ Stressors: What data and methods are needed to establish alternative stressor scenarios for investigating the combined effects of land use, land cover, climate and other stressors on ecosystem services for agricultural, forest, riparian and urban systems?

Approach: WESP will develop alternative stressor scenarios that include anthropogenic drivers such as land use and land cover change, as well as natural drivers such as climate and hydrogeomorphology. These scenarios will represent a range of alternative paths that decision makers might face in evaluating different regulatory and management options. Scenarios will be of two types – prescribed or dynamic. Prescribed scenarios define a priori the changes in conditions (e.g., land use, climate, etc.) expected at some future point in time (e.g., http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/proj_summary.pdf ). In contrast, dynamic scenarios define initial conditions, but land use and other drivers dynamically evolve over time according to specified economic, demographic, and policy-based rules. Prescribed scenarios for land use and climate will generally be used early in the project for use with Phase 1 and 2 models (Media:Model_Steps.gif). Dynamic scenarios will be developed later in conjunction with decision support tools (see Q5 approach, below).

Q2. ∆ Ecosystem Processes: What methods and models are needed to integrate and scale up plot and stand-level data describing Ecological Response Functions (ERFs) for the numerous processes – hydrologic, biogeochemical, physiological, and population – that regulate landscape and basin-scale changes in ecosystem structure and function?

Q3. ∆ Ecosystem Services: What methods and models are needed to translate ERFs into Ecological Production Functions (EPFs) that quantify biophysical changes and tradeoffs among ecosystem services in response to any given set of stressors (Media:EPF_concepts.gif)? Note that whereas ERFs characterize underlying processes (e.g., C, N, and H2O cycles) that support ecosystem services, EPFs provide service-level information that can be communicated to economists (e.g., metric tons of marketable wood fiber produced per year, or millions of gallons of potable water provided per year).

Approach for Q2 and Q3: Major challenges for integrating and scaling up data describing ecosystem processes and services are highlighted in Media:Challenges.gif and Media:Scaling.gif. Because no single model can address all stressors, processes, services and spatial scales of importance to WESP, we will use a suite of complementary models: GT-MEL, AGWA, SPARROW, MODFLOW, FORCLIM, PATCH, and UFORE. Media:Services.gif and Media:Model_Scales.gif summarize the services and spatial scales, respectively, that each of these models addresses. These models will be applied in several steps or phases, based on data requirements and model complexity (Media:Model_Steps.gif). In some cases, models will be linked to capture interactions among processes that occur at different spatial, temporal and biological scales, an essential step for quantifying tradeoffs among multiple services. For example, Media:MultiModel.gif illustrates the linkage of hydrologic (GT), biogeochemical (MEL), plant community (FORCLIM) and wildlife (PATCH) models for forecasting the effects of interacting stressors on a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem services. Our goal is to quantify and map spatial and temporal changes in ecosystem services within the WRB (e.g., Media:Service_Maps.gif), emphasizing how alternative scenarios alter tradeoffs among the region’s full suite of services (e.g., Media:TradeOffs.gif).

Q4. ∆ Value and ∆ Human Well-Being: What methods and models are needed to establish Economic Valuation Functions (EVFs) for translating biophysical quantities of ecosystem services (EPFs) into monetary or other market-based terms? Which valuation methods most equitably address changes in the net value of a region’s ecosystem service bundle so that decisions affecting tradeoffs among multiple services can be evaluated?

Approach: WESP will apply and evaluate different monetary and non-monetary approaches for estimating the value of ecological goods and services produced under alternative stressor scenarios. This will be done in collaboration with Dr. Stephen Polasky, Fesler-Lampert Professor of Ecological/Environmental Economics at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Polasky’s extensive experience includes an earlier project in the Willamette Basin for which different valuation approaches were compared to assess tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services (http://www.apec.umn.edu/faculty/spolasky/).

Q5. Decision Support Tools for Adaptive Management: How can decision support tools best be designed to help land managers and other decision-makers assess how alternative management actions will affect tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services? Which adaptive management strategies will most effectively maximize the net value of ecosystem services (i.e., human well-being) for the WRB?

Approach: The culmination of WESP will be the development of a decision support tool (DST) that enables planners and decision makers to explore how alternative planning and policy strategies affect ecosystem services. WESP will build on the ENVISION software system developed by Dr. John Bolte and colleagues at Oregon State University (http://envision.bioe.orst.edu/Publications.htm). As shown in Media:ENVISION.gif, this DST combines a spatially-explicit polygon-based representation of a landscape, a set of user-defined policies (decision rules) that define alternative scenario strategies, landscape change models, ecological process models (e.g., GT-MEL and PATCH), and economic valuation models. Feedbacks among these software components capture the interaction of human activities and the environment. An interactive user interface allows planners to dynamically play out various stressor scenarios, visualize growth and development patterns, and estimate biophysical and economic changes in ecosystem services. ENVISION has been applied previously for a limited portion of the Willamette Valley, specifically for analyzing alternative land use plans for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area (ref). We are collaborating with Dr. Bolte to scale up ENVISION for the entire WRB, beginning with sub-basin demonstrations in the forested Blue River & Santiam watersheds in the western Cascades, and the predominantly agricultural Calapooia watershed in the central Willamette Valley.

Willamette River Basin Conceptual Model:

Coral Reefs Problem Statement:

ERP’s research on coral reef services is organized to improve understanding, delivery and sustainability of ecosystem services from coral reefs. The research is organized by flow of information: (1) ecosystem assessments to inventory the extent and condition of coral reefs and to quantify linkages between reef attributes and ecosystem services, (2) quantifying environmental agents of change, particularly adverse anthropogenic drivers, on existing reef attributes and their services, (3) forecasting sustainability of existing attributes and services in view of future environmental changes and potential management activities, including evaluation of restoration activites. Through this process tools and models will be developed that will allow managers to incorporate environmental valuation methods into coral reef management.

Initial efforts will focus on the four services currently believed to have the greatest value; shoreline protection, tourism, fish production, and biodiversity (Costanza et al. 1997; Cesar et al. 2003) and their relationships to social well-being. The reef attributes that provide these services include stony corals, soft corals and sponges, fish and benthic invertebrates. Some of these attributes provide the service directly (e.g., stony corals provide coastline protection); others support the production of fish—notably habitat provided by stony corals, soft corals and sponges and benthic invertebrates as fish prey. All of these attributes contribute to biodiversity. Additional attributes and services will be investigated as necessary. Much of the initial research for Coral Reef Services will occur in U.S. Caribbean jurisdictions (U.S. Virgin Islands); however, it is anticipated that information and decision support tools will be useful and transferrable to the entire eastern Caribbean.

The ERP Coral Reef Services project will facilitate implementation of environmental valuation for management of coral reefs through research to address the following questions:

1. What is the relationship of coral reef extent, distribution and condition with the delivery of ecosystem services and human well-being?
1. ∆ Ecosystem -> ∆ Ecosystem Services -> ∆ Value
2. What services are derived from coral reefs?
3. What are the extent, distribution and condition of significant biological attributes?
4. What is the value of the services delivered?
5. What is the spatial context for attributes and services?

2. What environmental conditions and human activities affect the value and sustainability of coral reef ecosystem services?
1. ∆ Stressors -> ∆ Ecosystem -> ∆ Ecosystem Services -> ∆ Value
2. How do local and regional environmental factors affect coral reef attributes and services?
3. Which local human activities have the greatest influence?
4. What is the intensity and distribution of anthropogenic stressors?
5. What are the effects on reef attributes and services?
6. What conditions will sustain services indefinitely?

3. What decision-support tools are needed to maximize and sustain coral reef services?
1. Decisions -> ∆ Stressors -> ∆ Ecosystem -> ∆ Ecosystem Services -> ∆ Value
2. How can we maximize the value of services?
3. What services can be bundled because they respond similarly?
4. What trade-offs are there among services?
5. What resource decisions will support maximization and sustainability of reef services?

Coral Reefs Conceptual Model:

Tampa Bay Problem Statement:

The ERP Tampa Bay demonstration project will serve as an example place-based system which models the impact of human development and natural stressors on the economic, aesthetic and cultural value of local ecosystems. Services for individual ecosystems within and around the Tampa Bay area (wetlands, open water, agriculture, forests, and urban) are assessed and weighted with respect to prioritized research needs, to develop forecasting tools that model service fidelity and sustainability under different urban development scenarios. The ecosystem services will include: water supply and quality, CO2 sequestration, flood and storm surge protection, food and fiber production, habitat/refuge and biodiversity, recreation, toxicant regulation, and nitrogen regulation.

A literature inventory is conducted to determine the extent of existing research on the impacts of human and natural stressors on each ecosystem service. Based on this review, conceptual models are contructed using C-map to determine connections between land use type, ecoservice, and drivers. C-map models provide the backbone structure for contructing dynamic models using the MIMES-SIMILE concept, with inclusion of legacy models where appropriate.

Effects of stressors on services, and ultimately human well-being, will be quantified and valued to develop forecasting tools that will allow city planners the capacity to assess the impact of urban development. The Tampa Bay conceptual model (see Figure) illustrates how the research for each ecosystem will be integrated to quantify the effects of human and natural stressors on ecosystem services. For each ecosystem, production functions will describe the impact of stressors on services. Functions for each ecosystem will be connected within a spatially-explicit modeling framework to display landscape connectivity of ecosystems and synergistic effects of stressors and drivers.

The Tampa Bay demonstration project is organized around four research questions:
1. 1) How does the level of human use (i.e., drivers of change) influence the delivery of ecological services in the landscape?
2. 2) How does the spatial arrangement of landscape parcels contribute to ecological services provided by different land cover/uses?
3. 3) What datasets are required to provide adequate information for valuation of ecological services at the regional scale and how transferable are they to other systems?
4. 4) What decision support tools are needed to protect, enhance, and restore ecological services at the regional scale?

Tampa Bay Conceptual Model:

Midwest Problem Statement

The FML Study will characterize a variety of ecosystem services for a 12-state area of the Midwest. Although FML will be conducted for a broad array of ecosystem services, it makes sense to examine changes in response to biofuels and/or conservation practices by studying the Midwest as an “ecosystem service district.” A large-scale shift is occuring from one ecosystem service, food production, to another, energy production. While these services may be closely related in that they both rely on soil productivity, and sometimes merely represent different end uses of the same crop, their difference is nonetheless apparent in the abrupt change in the mix of land uses that occurred in 2007. The fact that many other services may also be affected by this shift is inherently recognized.

Detailed land use/land cover maps will be constructed for the baseyear (2001/2002 with modification) and then two alternative future scenarios will be constructed for the 2022. Future scenarios will contrast the current path (i.e., the incentivized ramp-up of biofuel production) with an alternative path in which land uses producing a wider range of services are hypothetically incentivized. Conceptual models of these scenarios will be used to explore the nature and magnitude of changes to ecosystems and human well-being expected for each scenario and to set priorities for research. A series of computational models will be linked to simulate the effects of these land use changes in terrestrial, atmospheric and aquatic environments. A socio-economic framework and a set of indicators will be developed for evaluating these ecological changes in terms of societal well-being. A web-based decision-support tool will construct maps showing interscenario comparisons of produced services, according to user-weighted service indices; we envision that the tool will highlight opportunities for conservation, flag policies or practices that can result in a decrease in services, and will lower service trading-related transaction costs. Development of the research approach and the decision support tool will be guided by an outreach and education approach, which will include stakeholder interactions and case studies to evaluate the needs of specific decision-makers.

The FML conceptual model, study, and flow are organized around the following problem statements/questions from client and research perspectives in order to facilitate valuation of ecosystem services:

FML Problem Statements from a Client Perspective:
1. How do landscapes of the Midwest - including working lands, conserved areas, wetlands, lakes and stream - contribute to human well-being?
2. What ecosystem servies are provided by Midwestern landscapes from agriculture, water and air provisioning, recreation, cultural values, etc. and how large is their contribution to societal well-being?
3. How are ecosystem services in the Midwest likely to change over the next 10-15 years given both the growing demand for biofuels and food, with a recognition that different ecosystem servies are valuable to society?
4. What are the trade-offs in future ecosystem services associated with decisions made today and how will the landscapes be configured for best societal value?
5. What are the potential policy and/or market options that would allow for a landscape that sustains the broad spectrum of ecosystem services valued by society?

FML Problem Statements from a Research Perspective:
1. How do the structures, functions and processes of Midwestern ecosystems contribute to societal well-being, and to what degree (i.e., how much) do they contribute?
2. How do we quantify the ecological, technological, and economic production functions associated with the landscapes of the Midwest?
3. What future landscape configurations, and corresponding allocations of ecosystem services, do current trends and policies imply?
4. What economically and ecologically feasible landscape configurations can generate socially-preferred quantities of ecosystem services?
5. What indicators resonate with decision-makers in terms of communicating social and economic system vulnerabilities and trade-offs associated with changes in ecosystem services?
6. How can we facilitate the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of ecosystem services through existing or future market structures or policies?

Midwest Conceptual Models

Wetlands Problem Statement

The goal of the Wetlands Ecosystem Services Program (WetESP) is to conduct the science that will support management actions and decision-making to maintain and increase the ecosystem services provided by wetlands. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the average global value of wetland ecosystem services in US 1994 dollars to be almost $15K ha-1 yr-1, which is the highest value reported for any biome, and urged that future environmental decision-making processes weigh the value of ecosystem services as an important contribution to human well-being. WetESP will focus on ecosystem services of carbon sequestration, water quality/quantity, flood/storm protection, wildlife habitat, fisheries support, and human well-being in freshwater and coastal wetlands at multiple scales, from individual wetlands to regional and national scales. The stressors considered include infrastructure development, hydrologic modification, invasive species, pollution, land-use change, and resource exploitation. Initial studies will correspond to place-based locations selected for the ERP.

Three questions will be addressed with this research:
1. 1) How do drivers of change affect the ecological function of wetlands and the delivery of services at multiple spatial scales?
   WetESP research will establish the relationship between ecological function and delivery of services by wetlands and determine the effect of drivers of change on wetland structure, ecological functions, and the delivery of specific ecosystem services and bundles of services.
2. 2) What is the relationship between the abundance, distribution, and condition of wetlands in the landscape and the delivery of ecosystem services?
   WetESP research will use remote sensing data to develop landscape profiles functional surfaces for determining the hydrologic and ecological functions of wetlands and associated delivery of ecosystem services, and develop empirical stressor response models predicting the delivery of specific ecosystem services and bundles of services at a national level.
3. 3) What decision support tools are needed to protect, enhance, and restore the delivery of wetland services at multiple spatial scales?
   The WetESP will develop interactive mapping tools that provide decision makers with accurate place-based information on wetland ecosystem services and value and the effects of management actions on the provision of wetland ecosystem services and summary landscape valuation. These will initially be developed at the watershed scale.
   

   As an outcome of the WetESP, restoration, protection, and improvement of wetlands will consider all services provided by wetlands and values of these services; wetland management decisions will be based on knowledge of ecosystem services using interactive maps, scenarios, and decision-support tools to evaluate alternative scenarios; and wetlands policy will include no loss of wetland services.

Wetlands Conceptual Model:

Coastal Carolinas Problem Statement

TDB
Coastal Carolinas Conceptual Model