1

Biocomplexity in the Environment Proposal (NSF 02-167) Coupled Natural and Human Dimensions Developmental Proposal Visualizing alternative environmental futures for public decision making and action research: a biocomplexity incubation activity Project Description Introduction Background

It is widely accepted that change in land use patterns is one of the most significant factors contributing to environmental degradation. According to some estimates just 10% of impervious surface can irreversibly affect aquatic ecosystems (Beach, 2002). The amount of impervious surface is directly linked to changes in land use. A recent international study suggests that changes in land use may rival greenhouse gases in their contributions to global warming (Pielke et al., 2002). According to Pielke "…land cover changes over the last 300 years, …may have already altered the climate more than would occur associated with the radiative effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide." Another recent report (Otto et al., 2002) links land use change and sprawl with current drought conditions experienced throughout the world.

Understanding the consequences of land use change is complicated because the relevant dynamics are non-linear, with numerous thresholds and bifurcation points that are not intuitive. The fact that humans play a significant role in the evolution of landscapes and watersheds makes these dynamics all the more complex. As a consequence we tend to manage these systems in a piecemeal fashion that results in what Alfred Kahn (1966) described as the "tyranny of small decisions", where quite reasonable, incremental and independent decisions produce unforeseen and undesirable results that, a priori, society would never approve. To avoid this situation we need approaches and tools that allow us to explore, understand, and visualize the complexity of ecosystem processes, interdependencies, and response functions that arise from coupled natural and human systems.

Our long-term goal is to develop an ‘assessment approach’ that will allow stakeholders to predict the likely course of future development in any watershed under a range of socio-economic and regulatory scenarios and then evaluate the impacts of these development scenarios on ecological, social, and economic values. The ‘assessment approach’ will involve a combination of participatory processes and technological innovations. This proposal is for a development grant to specifically engage researchers, stakeholders, and students in an initial exploration of this ‘assessment approach’. We expect this exploration will generate three types of parallel research opportunities. First, we expect that the initial goals of individual participants (both researchers and stakeholders) will differ and we propose to explore theoretical refinements in selected decision support approaches as a means to organize these divergent views. Second, we expect to encounter numerous challenges in technical development of analytical tools that will be an essential part of this assessment approach. In addition, there will be further technical challenges in development of visualization tools and delivery of results to end-users. Finally,

2

even prototype versions of this assessment approach will raise questions about gaps in our ecological, economic, and social knowledge. The purpose of this developmental project is to begin an exploration process with stakeholders so that we can identify and prioritize the key needs for a fully operational project. Indeed, these processes of ‘identification’ and ‘prioritization’ are key research components of this proposed project. This approach is one that is specifically oriented to action research and that relies on adaptive management.

Relevance to the Biocomplexity in the Environment solicitation

This proposal addresses key elements of the CNHS component of the Biocomplexity in the Environment solicitation through:

• development of advance tools for synthesis and visualization, • development of people needed to advance biocomplexity studies, • formation of new communities of investigators from multiple disciplines, and • reaching beyond the US for partners in inquiry on biocomplexity issues

Specific Project Objectives

In this development project we propose to engage in a process leading to an ‘Integrated Development and Environmental Assessment System (IDEAS)’. This developmental project will focus on the process; a subsequent operational project will focus on the product. In this proposal we will refer to IDEAS as a guiding philosophy for our processes, leading to the future product. Our theoretical challenge is to understand how decisions are made and how they can be informed by modeling and visualization tools. The specific objectives of this developmental project are to:

• to explore ways to link multi-criteria decision aids, landscape process models, land use/cover transition models, and spatial visualization tools to create a functional IDEAS product,

• explicitly include key stakeholders in the identification and development of the IDEAS framework, its functionality, and its deliverables,

• identify the primary theoretical challenges (both technical and intellectual) that must be overcome to deliver a functional IDEAS product, and

• generate a plan to efficiently develop the IDEAS product and effectively disseminate both the product and results from initial testing.

We propose a one-year developmental project for several reasons. In the last two years

(2001-2002) several new groups and individuals with complementary interests in regional-to-global scale landscape science and planning, have joined the University of Vermont in Burlington. These new faculty join an existing community of researchers with expertise in ecosystem ecology and management, environment geology and engineering, conservation biology, community and population ecology, community development and planning, and environmental ethics and spirituality. Furthermore, there is a well-established network of influential stakeholder groups in the region, who are well positioned to provide input to research planning as well as to disseminate research outputs to the wider community. Among these

3

groups, there is an emerging consensus that the IDEAS concept would be a useful – perhaps essential – tool for effective integration of research, planning and decision making. However, to accomplish this end, careful planning and clear commitments will be necessary. Thus, we believe that a carefully coordinated research and planning initiative is an essential precursor to a future, integrated research proposal. Table 1 is a list of individuals who have been involved in early stages of discussions about the IDEAS project and who have expressed interest in being involved in the developmental phase. We will expand this list through solicitations to the UVM community, the wider region of researchers and stakeholders, and a select number of national and international colleagues.

Intellectual merit and broader impacts

The intellectual merit of this developmental project and the ultimate IDEAS product is an integration of leading concepts from a variety of related disciplines, including ecology, hydrology, engineering, economics, sociology, planning, and computing sciences. However, to develop a functional IDEAS product will require shrewd simplification of the essential concepts from each component discipline. In addition, the essential data from various sources exists in a wide variety of data types (e.g. vector, raster, image) and specific formats (e.g., Access, ArcInfo, LANDSAT, Iknonos). Thus, there will be significant technical and computational challenges to seamlessly integrate the required input data. Similarly, there will be technical challenges to deliver the output data in forms and formats that are useful to end-users, across a wide spectrum of user interfaces. Finally, and most importantly, the fundamental intellectual merit of this ‘action research’ approach is that it will specifically engage researchers and stakeholders in shared exploration leading to more informed development and better management of the environment. The nominal focus of this project will be on the Lake Champlain basin, however, the framework we develop is intended to be generalizable to any biome. Indeed, an important component of this planning and research is a proposed collaboration with a ‘sister’ project in New Zealand (the Motueka Integrated Catchment Management Programme), as described below. At a fundamental level, researchers and stakeholders are both searching for tools that will allow them to visualize the possible states of future environments that are the product of complex biophysical processes responding to equally complex anthropogenic pressures. The process of developing tools for these tasks provides ample opportunity for basic theoretical knowledge development (e.g., regarding biophysical dynamics, computational processes, and database integration and accessibility) oriented to outcomes relevant to stakeholders interests and needs (e.g., visualizations of alternative development scenarios or historical change analyses). We elaborate on these broader impacts at the end of this Project Description section.

The University of Vermont is well suited to engage in this effort. The university has developed exceptional strengths in disciplines directly related to the science of sustainability, including ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, biodiversity, ecological economics, ecosystem services, resource management, environmental geology, human dimensions research, environmental engineering and design, complex systems simulation and modeling, GIS and

4

Tabl

e 1.

Ini

tial l

ist o

f ind

ivid

uals

who

hav

e be

en in

volv

ed in

ear

ly st

ages

of d

iscu

ssio

ns a

bout

the

IDEA

S pr

ojec

t and

who

hav

e ex

pres

sed

inte

rest

in b

eing

invo

lved

in th

e de

velo

pmen

tal p

hase

. Pr

inci

pal i

nves

tigat

ors o

n th

is p

roje

ct a

re id

entif

ied

in b

old.

Indi

vidu

al

Exp

ertis

e A

ffili

atio

n L

ocat

ion

Will

Alle

n Pa

rtici

pato

ry p

roce

sses

La

ndca

re R

esea

rch

New

Zea

land

Pa

ul B

ierm

an

Envi

ronm

enta

l geo

logy

D

ept o

f Geo

logy

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Bre

ck B

owde

n W

ater

shed

scie

nce

& p

lann

ing

Scho

ol o

f Nat

ural

Res

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Roe

lof B

oum

ans

Syst

ems d

ynam

ics,

ecol

. mod

elin

g G

und

Inst

itute

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Rob

ert C

osta

nza

Ecol

ogic

al e

con,

syst

em m

odel

ing

Gun

d In

stitu

te, U

VM

V

erm

ont,

USA

A

ndre

w F

enem

or

Envi

ronm

enta

l Man

agem

ent

Land

care

Res

earc

h N

ew Z

eala

nd

Jon

Eri

ckso

n Ec

olog

ical

eco

nom

ics

Scho

ol o

f Nat

ural

Res

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Phel

an F

retz

En

viro

nmen

tal e

duca

tion

Lake

Cha

mpl

ain

ECH

O C

tr V

erm

ont,

USA

C

arol

ine

Her

man

s M

ulti-

crite

ria d

ecis

ion

anal

ysis

Sc

hool

of N

atur

al R

es. U

VM

V

erm

ont,

USA

C

ully

Hes

sion

En

viro

nmen

tal e

ngin

eerin

g C

ivil

Engi

neer

ing,

UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Bill

How

land

En

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t La

ke C

ham

plai

n B

asin

Pgm

V

erm

ont,

USA

M

arga

ret K

ilvin

gton

Pa

rtici

pato

ry p

roce

sses

La

ndca

re R

esea

rch

New

Zea

land

. B

ernd

Kla

uer

Mul

ti-cr

iteria

dec

isio

n an

alys

is,

UFZ

Cen

tre fo

r Env

ironm

enta

l Res

earc

h G

erm

any

Tom

Max

wel

l C

ompl

ex sy

stem

mod

elin

g G

und

Inst

itute

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Ade

l Sad

ek

Tran

spor

t eng

inee

ring

Scho

ol o

f Nat

ural

Res

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Ral

f Sep

pelt

Spat

ial o

ptim

izat

ion

Bra

unsc

hwei

g Te

ch.U

nive

rsity

G

erm

any

Sigr

id S

tagl

M

ulti-

crite

ria d

ecis

ion

anal

ysis

U

nive

rsity

of L

eeds

En

glan

d A

ustin

Tro

y G

IS, s

patia

l ana

lysi

s Sc

hool

of N

atur

al R

es, U

VM

V

erm

ont,

USA

Fe

rdin

ando

Vill

a Ec

olog

ical

mod

elin

g G

und

Inst

itute

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Ale

xey

Voi

nov

Land

scap

e m

odel

ing

Gun

d In

stitu

te, U

VM

V

erm

ont,

USA

H

elen

a V

oino

v La

nd tr

ansi

tion

mod

elin

g G

und

Inst

itute

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Jean

-Phi

lippe

Waa

ub

Mul

ti-cr

iteria

dec

isio

n an

alys

is

Dep

t of G

eogr

aphy

, U Q

uebe

c M

ontre

al, Q

uebe

c B

ever

ley

Wem

ple

Wat

ersh

ed a

naly

sis

Dep

t of G

eogr

aphy

, UV

M

Ver

mon

t, U

SA

Ros

s Woo

ds

Reg

iona

l hyd

rolo

gic

mod

elin

g N

at’l

Inst

for W

ater

& A

tmos

N

ew Z

eala

nd

5

remote sensing. Relevant centers of excellence include the School of Natural Resources (SNR) and the recently established Gund Institute for Ecological Economics (GIEE). In parallel, several Vermont-based organizations have developed exceptional capabilities focused on sustainable management of the Lake Champlain basin environment. These organizations include, for example, the Lake Champlain Basin Program, the Vermont Forum on Sprawl, the Vermont State Agency for Natural Resources, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council. These research and stakeholder groups are somewhat independently striving toward similar goals, which provide a substantial opportunity for collaborative learning. Results from Prior NSF Support (See also Literature Cited)

NSF/OPP Award #9911278, $3,999,991, 06/01/2000 to 05/31/2005. Aquatic Ecosystem Responses to Changes in the Environment of an Arctic Drainage Basin: (Bowden, Senior Personnel). The portion of this research project for which Dr. Bowden is responsible focuses on benthic processes including primary production, nutrient turnover, and hyporheic processes in Arctic Streams. This research has illuminated the unique and substantial roles that bryophytes and hyporheic processes play in Arctic streams. Research on these components of Arctic streams was essentially non-existent prior to this (and earlier) awards involving Dr. Bowden. With his students, Dr. Bowden’s research on this project has shown how the ecophysiological characteristics of particular species define their roles in stream ecosystems (Arscott et al., 2000). In addition, his research on hyporheic processes has shown that the nutrient turnover in this neglected region of Arctic streams is at least as important as in temperate streams and is a major contributor to nutrient processing and primary productivity (Edwardson et al., in press). Other aspects of stream ecology directly supported by research from this effort have appeared in several synthesis papers on which Dr. Bowden co-author (Hobbie et al. 2000, Peterson et al. 2001, Dodds et al. 2001, Mulholland et al. 2001, Wollheim et al. 2001). All data from this project is archived on the Arctic LTER web site database (http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/ARC/).

NSF Award 0095196, 02/15/2001-01/31/2003, $273,829. Applications of Interactive Integrated Assessment and Modeling to Design Sustainable Development Strategies for Arctic Watersheds (Voinov, co-PI). This project is a pilot US-Russian research effort to increase understanding of the role of human dynamics on ecosystem functions and explore development strategies to enhance ecosystem health, ecological sustainability and economic diversity (http://www.aaas.org/international/eca/kola/index.shtml). The project focuses on the Imandra Lake watershed, which cuts through the heart of the industrially developed ecosystems of the Kola Peninsula and accounts for the release of major pollutants into the environment. This research effort utilizes participatory modeling exercises and other collaborative projects in the Kola Peninsula to meet its goals. Anticipated products include a variety of qualitative and quantitative models to enhance our understanding of socio-economic and ecological dynamics in the area and provide decision support tools, educational products for local residents, and formal networks integrating this work into the broader Arctic scientific community (Voinov et al., in review).

NSF/LTER DEB-9714835, 1997-2003, $600,00. Human Settlements as Ecosystems: Metropolitan Baltimore from 1797-2100. (Voinov, Senior Personnel) The aim of this project has been to study the spatial structure and temporal changes of socio-economic, ecological, and physical factors in the urban Baltimore area (http://baltimore.umbc.edu/lter/). The project has

6

supported a broad range of ecological and socio-economic data collection activities, and the development of a multiscale suite of integrated dynamic simulation models at the site and watershed scales (Pickett et al., 2001).

EPA/NSF Water and Watersheds program R82-4766-010, 1995-1999, $899,994. Integrated Ecological Economic Modeling and Valuation of Watersheds. (Voinov, Senior Personnel) This project supported the initial development of the Patuxent Landscape Model (PLM) (Voinov et al. 1999a,b, http://www.uvm.edu/giee/PLM).

EPA/NSF Water and Watersheds R82716901–1, 1999-2003, $949,914. Whole Watershed Health And Restoration: Applying The Patuxent And Gwynns Falls Landscape Models To Designing A Sustainable Balance Between Humans And The Rest Of Nature. (Voinov, Co-PI). This project continued development and application of the PLM and Glyniss Fall Landscape Model (GFLM). It has involved broad stakeholder participation in refining the models, designing scenarios and interpreting results (Costanza et al. 2002, http://www.uvm.edu/giee/PLM)

NSF INT-0089771, 01/01/2001 to 12/31/02, $13,390. US-Germany Cooperative Research: Regional Sustainability: Bridging Resource Conservation and Economic Development. (Erickson, Co-PI). This grant funded travel costs to facilitate an exchange between graduate students and faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY) and the UFZ Centre for Environmental Research (Leipzing, Germany). An edited book is currently under contract with Elsevier Science titled "Sustainable Watershed Management in Theory and Practice" that is a direct result of this cooperative research project.

We propose to build on our various background and experiences, funded in part by the

NSF projects identified above, in this proposed Biocomplexity project. Project Approach Overview Management and policy decisions that affect land use are difficult to evaluate for a variety of reasons. First, the goals of various stakeholders typically differ and are often in conflict. Second, even at the local scale, ecological, social, and economic processes and interactions are complex. Third, due to this complexity, it is often difficult to visualize how the consequences of an individual decision, affecting a particular location will develop over time. The complexity increases exponentially if a decision is replicated many times in many locations (over space). And, fourth, because these temporal and spatial trends are hard to visualize, it is difficult to quantitatively evaluate the relative costs and benefits of alternative decision sets.

To realistically address these problems, it is necessary to develop an integrated development and environmental assessment system (IDEAS). Our initial vision for an IDEAS framework is illustrated in Figure 1. In this project we will begin to address the problems noted above and to refine our thinking about the IDEAS concept through three parallel and interacting efforts. Specifically, we will:

• explore how goals are set, how decisions are made, and how they are influenced and shaped under biocomplexity,

7

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for an Integrated Development and Environmental Assessment System (IDEAS).

8

• define the technical and intellectual requirements for a system that integrates multi-

criteria decision aids, landscape process models, land use/cover state transition models, and tools for visualization of complex spatial and temporal dynamics, and

• engage in collaborative learning about decision making in complex systems through an iterative processes of goal setting, assessment, and evaluation with student and stakeholder teams.

In the following sections we elaborate on these efforts.

Decision making in a complex environment

At the watershed scale, conflicts over water and land resources are inherently multi-attribute, multi-stakeholder, and multi-discipline decision problems. Despite its inherent complexity, a holistic watershed perspective is more powerful than a standard analysis of use or exchange value, because it explicitly recognizes emergent properties of biocomplexity, feedback loops between system components, and conflicts amongst competing uses. Conflicts arise over the use and allocation of resources from diverse actors in watershed economies. Characterizing the opportunities for trade-offs and reducing incommensurability between the conflicting goals that often arise in watershed management is at the very heart of improving decision-making in complex systems and ultimately requires expertise drawn from diverse disciplinary perspectives. The challenge for integrated management at the watershed scale is thus to provide an interdisciplinary, transparent decision framework that is both normative and positive. The description of the system (positive analysis) should be open to multiple metrics and points of view, while advice to decision-makers (normative analysis) must be grounded in sound methods and an accepted valuation framework.

Multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA, Fig. 1, upper) is an example of a framework that is transparent to decision-makers, adaptable to many situations across multiple metrics and scales, and amenable to both expert and local stakeholder pools of knowledge. The upper panel in Figure 1 illustrates the typical hierarchy of multi-criteria decision problems. The MCDA process starts with a clear definition of a goal, which is facilitated by some form of participatory process (e.g., dialogue, discussion, survey). For example, in a watershed economy the goal may be to design a watershed management plan. This is followed by identification of alternatives to achieve the goal, for example: (1) business-as-usual, where no management plan is adopted, (2) zoning the landscape for maximum economic activity, (3) alternative 2 with added protection of riparian buffers to surface water systems, (4) development intensity zoning in addition to riparian buffers, (5) strict development restrictions on residential and urban growth. The future outcome of each of these alternatives is then characterized by a suite of indicators, broadly captured in Figure 1 as economic, social, and ecological criterion. For example, economic criterion may include tax revenue, employment generation, and total income. Social criterion may include income distribution, quality of life indices, and social capital. Ecological criterion may include water quality, indices of biotic integrity, and soil loss. Criteria are then measured in multiple units (both quantitative and qualitative) and dimensions (both spatial and temporal).

Once the MCDA problem is structured, the next step is to elicit the preferences of the stakeholders using one of several methods within the family of MCDA frameworks. For example, PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod of Enrichment Evaluation)

9

is a specific example of an outranking method commonly used in MCDA (Brans et al., 1986). PROMETHEE requires criteria-specific and stakeholder-identified: (1) choice of maximizing or minimizing, (2) weight of importance to the overall decision, (3) preference function that translates quantitative or qualitative metrics to consistent rankings, and (4) various decision threshold parameters for each function (for example, indifference thresholds identify ranges where a decision-maker cannot clearly distinguish their preferences). This exercise is carried out by each stakeholder in a decision problem. During sensitivity analysis, criteria weights, preference functions, and decision thresholds can all be varied to estimate stability intervals for the rankings of alternatives and evaluate both imprecision of criterion measurement and uncertainty of preference. The outcome of PROMETHEE includes both complete and partial rankings (depending on the incomparability of decision alternatives), and both pairwise and global comparisons of decision alternatives. Global comparisons can be illustrated with a GAIA (Graphic Analysis for Interactive Assistance) plane diagrams that represent a complete view of the conflicts between the criteria, of the characteristics of the actions, and of the weighing of the criteria.

With multiple stakeholders, MCDA analyses can be used to visual conflict between stakeholder positions and opportunities for compromise, alliances, and group consensus, or to revisit and redefine the goal, alternatives, and criterion themselves (Macharis et al., 1998). In a group context, the entire MCDA process has been recently described as a group decision support system (GDSS) and examples of its use can be found in resource planning and management, forest management, watershed planning, public policy planning, pollution cleanup, transportation planning, and the siting of industrial and power facilities (Hokkanen et al., 2000; Iz and Gardiner, 1993; Malczewski and Moreno-Sanchez, 1996; Van Groenendaal, 2002).

The advent of spatial decision support systems (SDSS) provides an important new opportunity for the evolution of MCDA methods and applications (St-Onge and Waaub, 1998; Malczewski, 1998). Examples where SDSS and GDSS have been used together include an examination of riparian revegetation options in North Queensland, Australia (Qureshi and Harrison, 2001), land-use conflict resolution involving fragile ecosystems in Kenya (Mwasi, 2001), watershed management in Taiwan (Yeh and Lai, 1999), housing suitability in Switzerland (Joerin and Musy, 2000), and water quality issues in Quebec (St.-Onge and Waaub, 1998).

Much of this work has been outside the United States and has relied on static tools of assessment. The time is ripe to merge the recent evolution of MCDA with recent progress in dynamic, spatially explicit modeling. Ultimately, the outcomes from MCDA or GDSS approaches have to be evaluated in some quantitative approach. Linked landscape process and land use/cover transition models provide the opportunity to do this. Landscape process modeling

We recognize that modeling is a goal driven process, and through support from several previous NSF and EPA funded projects, we have developed a generic framework for spatially explicit and dynamic simulation of landscapes and watersheds (Fig. 1). We now propose to link these modeling tools with evolving multi-criteria decision aids – following the group decision support system (GDSS) philosophy described above. Our modeling framework (the Spatial Modeling Environment or SME, Maxwell and Costanza, 1995, 1997a,b) is an integrated environment for high performance, modular, multi-scale spatial modeling. The SME links icon-based modeling environments with distributed computing resources, allowing scientists to

10

develop models graphically, and to transparently access state-of-the-art computing facilities. The general SME framework draws on a Library of Hydro-Ecological Modules (LHEM) which is an archive of models that can be used to simulate key ecosystem processes (hydrology, nutrient uptake, plant growth) at the local scale. These local-scale models can then be integrated into larger and more sophisticated models that describe landscape-scale hydrological processes; nutrient movement and cycling; terrestrial, wetland and estuarine primary productivity; crop growth and rotation; animal consumer dynamics and human system dynamics.

We have used this general modeling environment to develop several specific models that describe complex ecological and economic systems ranging in scale from sites, to small watersheds, to larger watersheds and landscapes (Maxwell and Costanza, 1994; 1995; 1997a; 1997b; Fitz, et al., 1996; Maxwell 1999; Voinov et al., 1999a; 1999b; Costanza et al. 2002; Seppelt and Voinov, 2002). More details are available at http://giee.uvm.edu/PLM. It is important to recognize that the SME/LHEM modeling framework is not ‘a model’, per se. Rather, it is an environment in which any of a wide variety of locally-focused, process-oriented sub-models can be linked to simulate and then visualize environmental outcomes on broad spatial and temporal scales. This generic modeling framework provides a practical and flexible tool to examine coupling of natural and human systems as envisaged in the Biocomplexity in the Environment solicitation. Land use/cover transition modeling

Land use outcomes are a function of a complex combination of human preferences, biophysical constraints, and fiscal and regulatory decisions at all levels of governance. To better understand the forces that create land use change, a myriad of modeling platforms have been used, defined here as land use/cover transition models (for summaries, see: Briassoulis, 1999; EPA, 2000; Dowling et al., 2000; and Agarwal et al. in press). Methodologies developed and tested within this research group include markov chain analysis (Bockstael et al., 1995), logistic regression models (Polimeni, 2002), and spatially referenced social accounting matrices (Nowosielski, 2002). With each of these platforms, scenario analysis can be used to simulate the consequences of policy and planning variables.

While a number of land use models have been created for a variety of purposes, none are designed to be transferable to other regions or use commonly available databases. Rather, all require significant technical skill and theoretical knowledge in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), economics and statistics/econometrics in order to implement meaningfully. The majority of land use change models have been applied to less than 10 places, and many to only one or two (EPA 2000). As such, significant opportunities exist for development of new open source models and model frameworks for several reasons:

• Despite the strong linkages between environment and land use, most models (save a

few “process models”) do not quantify environmental impacts of land use change, nor do they assess how environmental change feeds back into the socio-economic system.

• Most of these models lack the tools for interacting with stakeholders. • Scenario and policy modeling capabilities are lacking or poor in most models. • The most commonly used models are proprietary, expensive to purchase and

implement, which keeps them out of the reach of many of the local and regional government agencies that most need them.

11

• The data requirements are high and in many cases prohibitive for application at local and regional levels.

This capability to link goal setting and identification of alternative policy scenarios to

landscape process models and ultimately to land use/cover transition models, creates the means to engage stakeholders in an iterative process of exploring alternative environmental, social and economic futures. This presents a powerful opportunity for collaborative learning among regulators, policy makers, interest groups, researchers, and students. Our ultimate goal for the future

Our ultimate goal is to create a dynamic, spatially explicit land use modeling and decision support environment that helps stakeholders define goals and simultaneously visualize ecological, economic, and social outcomes of alternative land and water resource management policies to achieve those goals (Fig. 1). Examples of ecological outcomes might include water quality, habitat integrity, and biodiversity value. Examples of economic outcomes might include employment generation, net tax revenue, and industry diversity. Examples of social outcomes might include community fragmentation, access to public services, and distribution of benefits and burdens of development. This ‘Integrated Development and Environmental Assessment System (IDEAS)’ will be groundbreaking in the following ways:

• It will address environmental impacts and feedbacks of land use change; it will be calibrated with environmental data to model the impacts of development on environmental values, such as watershed function and biodiversity, as well as the impacts of environmental degradation on the local and regional economy.

• It will have an interface allowing stakeholders to: a) clearly define decision alternatives and assessment criteria, b) specify preferences amongst alternatives and criteria, c) identify gaps in critical knowledge, d) visualize domains of significant stakeholder agreement and conflict, e) evaluate sensitivity of parameters, and f) restructure or refine the original decision problem in a dynamic learning environment.

• It will be based on standardized spatial and non-spatial data and will include tools to easily input and integrate data. This will allow a wider audience to utilize this product and reap the benefits of predictive land use modeling.

• It will be open source; it will be freely available to all, while still being technically robust, spatially explicit, modular and extensible.

• It will have an interface that will be easy for users to install and run on their computers.

• It will be dynamic in design, meaning it will be able to recalibrate key inputs at each time step, iteratively into the future. This allows for more realistic modeling of the economic processes driving land use.

To achieve this ultimate goal will require careful planning with input from a wide variety

of researchers and stakeholders. We propose to do this initial planning work in this developmental project.

12

Our immediate goals for this project – planning, outreach, and education Our immediate goals for this project are to develop a Working Group comprised of

researchers and stakeholders, who are willing to engage in collaborative learning about the IDEAS concept and to develop a focused plan to produce an IDEAS product. We assume (and there is ample evidence to suggest) that development of an IDEAS concept requires close co-operation between researchers and stakeholders (including communities, as well as regulators, policy makers, and interest groups). The Working Group will be involved in the organization and design of two workshops and a seminar course. The first workshop will be a culmination of specific topical Working Group meetings, to finalize the key objectives and functionality for the IDEAS system. We recognize that several groups, both nationally and internationally, are working in different ways towards similar goals. Thus, we propose a second workshop to invite selected groups to participate in a meeting to share ideas and potentially generate productive synergies among the different groups. The seminar will be explicitly designed to engage students in better understanding the challenges and opportunities inherent in research on coupled natural and human systems. These activities are explained in greater detail, below.

Scoping workshop for Lake Champlain IDEAS: Considerable efforts are currently underway – and will continue under the auspices of this project – to develop a specific framework for the Lake Champlain IDEAS. We expect that much of the time and effort required for this planning work will actually occur outside of the funded components of this proposed project.

Specific goals of a 2-3 day workshop include:

• review the capabilities of the initially parameterized landscape model • identify the additional functionality that stakeholders need and want in a final IDEAS

system • specify the multi-criteria decision problem, balancing stakeholder expertise on

identifying alternatives and selecting criteria, with research expertise on simulating outcomes of alternatives and assessing criteria.

• determine the key research and technical development needs required to deliver this final IDEAS system

• create an on-going stakeholder driven process for goal seeking and decision making • identify resources (either cash or in-kind) that key stakeholders could contribute towards

delivery of the final IDEAS system, and • assign responsibilities to generate a final, operational-phase proposal to develop the Lake

Champlain IDEAS. In support of this effort, we request funds here to develop an initial parameterization of

our landscape modeling framework, for the Lake Champlain basin, to serve as a basis for discussion in the proposed workshops and for future development in the full-scale project. The purpose of this initial parameterization is not to further develop a model, but to provide an initial framework that can ground discussions by the multi-disciplinary Working Group.

Collaborative learning workshop for global IDEAS efforts: We are well aware that several other groups, both nationally and internationally, are working on systems with objective roughly comparable to the IDEAS system discussed here. Sufficient progress has been made on various prototype initiatives that we believe it would be valuable to hold a workshop to share

13

information about, for example, successful approaches, remaining challenges, useful techniques, and common interests. In particular, we propose to collaborate with a ‘sister’ project in New Zealand (The Motueka Integrated Catchment Management Programme). Dr. Bowden was (until September 2002) the Programme Leader for this group and helped lead them in the development of an IDEAS approach. Synergies between the Lake Champlain and New Zealand IDEAS groups would be valuable because the driving functions for an IDEAS system in both areas are similar and each group has expertise and experience that would be valuable to share. We have similar relationships with groups in Canada and in Germany. Funding for these international groups to be involved in this workshop would come from sources outside this proposed project. The two workshops proposed here would be scheduled so that the international groups could efficiently attend both workshops. Education: We will shape most of the project activities around a graduate student course. The form of the course will be that of a “scientific atelier” – a problem-based learning environment that has faculty, students, and stakeholders as participants. We will involve students in the planning processes as an educational experience. A number of invited speakers from leading groups working on integrated landscape modeling and land use change will present to the students as part of this course. They will then take part in brainstorming sessions with the other participants. The students will be engaged in several role-playing exercises that will be essential to further our understanding of how stakeholder meetings may evolve, how modeling goals are identified, and how public decisions are made. This will culminate in the stakeholder workshop, where representatives from local and state agencies, businesses, NGOs, citizens and scientists (some of whom will have been involved in the seminar) will participate in the design of the IDEAS framework.

We will document (tape) the course and make it available in the future as a web course in Land Use Change and Public Decision Making. Tentative course syllabus Week Topic 1 Introduction. Goals of the adaptive modeling and management project.

Pre- survey of students. 2 Multi-criterial decision making 3 Invited speaker: Landscape modeling 4 Identifying and connecting with stakeholders 5 Invited speaker: Public policy and group dynamics 6 Adaptive management. Role-playing game. 7 Data sets and data processing 8 Invited speaker: Land use change 9 Uncertainties and risk 10 Invited speaker: Modeling and decision making 11 Indicators. Biodiversity. Feedbacks. Role-playing game. 12 Stakeholder workshop 13 Processing and understanding the workshop results. Post- survey of students. 14 Defining the scope of the project and writing the draft proposal We hope and anticipate that selected students will become involved in the operational-phase of the project, should this be funded.

14

Outreach: Wider stakeholder and general public engagement with the project will be facilitated in at least two ways. First, we will develop a suitable form of outreach (e.g., public lectures) consistent with the mission of the new ‘ECHO at the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain’ (formerly the Lake Champlain Basin Science Center), a premier new public educational and outreach facility that is currently under construction and due to open in early 2003. The opening of this new facility provides a special opportunity to focus attention on the IDEAS project concept. Second, we will maintain a web site on the IDEAS project on both the Gund Institute and the School of Natural Resources web servers. Information about these sites will be disseminated through various newsletters and communications already distributed by the Institute, by SNR, and by UVM. Management Plan

This developmental project will be co-managed by the named PIs. Dr. Bowden will take responsibility for overall project management and organization of the workshops, with assistance (part-time) from a Post-Doctoral associate. Dr. Bowden is the newly appointed Patrick Professor of Watershed Science Planning in the School of Natural Resources at the University of Vermont. He was formerly the Programme Leader for the Motueka Integrated Catchment Management Programme in New Zealand and will manage the relationship with the New Zealand IDEAS group who are led by Andrew Fenemor (Landcare Resaerch). A letter of support from Mr. Fenemor is included in the Supplemental Documents. Dr. Erickson will lead the effort to integrate the MCDA approach and will supervise a graduate student who will focus on this effort. Dr. Voinov will lead the effort to integrate the land use modeling tools and do the initial Lake Champlain model parameterization. Dr. Troy will provide essential spatial analytical support for both of these efforts. Dr. Voinov will lead the effort to organize the student seminar and all PI’s will participate fully in this course.

The initial Working Group will consist of a number of Senior Personnel from the University of Vermont (Table 1) who have been meeting regularly to co-ordinate and develop their ideas. This working group will be expanded to include relevant research collaborators at other institutions and key stakeholders from lead organizations or agencies in the Lake Champlain basin. The Working Group will be responsible for developing the ultimate framework for IDEAS and for development of the operational-phase proposal. Dr. Bowden will facilitate the Working Group meetings.

Initial liaison with the stakeholder community will be facilitated through Bill Howland, Director or the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). The LCBP has a long history of operation in the basin and an extensive stakeholder network, including a Technical Advisory Committee, members of whom would be part of the Working Group for this project. Public outreach will be coordinated with Phelan Fretz, Director of the new Leahy ECHO Center for Lake Champlain. Descriptions of the facilities brought to the project by these two groups are detailed in the Facilities section. Letters of support from Mr. Howland and Mr. Fretz are included in the Supplemental Documents.

15

Education Plan Education and outreach are central components of this project and as such, are covered in detail in the Project Approach section. Delivery of the Education Plan is covered in the Management Plan section. Broader Impacts

This project addresses a number of the ‘broader impacts’ identified by NSF as essential to the general merit review criteria.

Advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning. The integrated seminar to be offered for senior undergraduate and graduate students will present an unparalleled opportunity for students to observe and learn from the planning process for a major research initiative that involves not only scientists but key stakeholders as well. This learning process will culminate with student involvement in the two key proposed workshops.

Broaden participation of under-represented groups. The University of Vermont has a strong commitment to address the needs and concerns of under-represented groups through both teaching and research. We will approach the university’s program for African American/Latino/Asian American/Native American students (ALANA, http://www.uvm.edu/~alana/) regarding involvement in the seminar and workshop. We also intend to explore whether and how ‘first nation’ stakeholder groups are represented in resource management decision making in the Lake Champlain basin. In this respect, the collaboration with our New Zealand counterparts will be particularly valuable, given the central importance of Maori values in resources decision making in New Zealand.

Enhance infrastructure for research and education. The intention of the Working Group structure is to involve a wide range of key collaborators and stakeholders in the process of research planning. The collaborative learning opportunities we expect from this effort will benefit not only the stakeholders, but the participating researchers as well.

Furthermore, we expect to gain new insights through collaboration with a ‘sister’ project in New Zealand. The ‘Motueka Integrated Catchment Management Programme’ is a currently funded program seeking renewal in 2003 for a period of up to six years. A core component of this renewal proposal is a parallel IDEAS development effort. Funding for the New Zealand IDEAS initiative will come from the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology and related funding partners. However, we will seek funding from the US/NSF International Directorate, the Royal Society of New Zealand International Science and Technology Programme, and private foundations for funding to involve key representatives from the New Zealand group in the final workshop proposed here.

Broad dissemination to enhance science and technological understanding. Our intention is to develop key partnerships with the Lake Champlain Basin Program and the Leahy Center. These collaborations will facilitate communication and interaction with key stakeholders and the broader public, including schools, respectively.

Benefits to society. Given the direct involvement of stakeholders in this project, we expect a benefits from this project to flow directly to the involved agencies and organizations, for immediate use in policy formulation and decision making. Our broader educational goals ideally raise public awareness about the complex interactions and unforeseen consequences of long-term, landscape-scale development patterns.