Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:36:30.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Modelling conservation conflicts

from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

By
Johannes P. M. Heinonen  and
Justin M. J. Travis
Edited by
Stephen M. Redpath ,
R. J. Gutiérrez ,
Kevin A. Wood  and
Juliette C. Young
Johannes P. M. Heinonen
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Justin M. J. Travis
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Stephen M. Redpath
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
R. J. Gutiérrez
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Kevin A. Wood
Affiliation:
Bournemouth University
Juliette C. Young
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Get access

Summary

Modelling enables theory and empirical evidence to be brought together to build representations of how real-world systems work and how they are likely to respond to external influences. Models can take many forms, such as simple verbal or written descriptions, flow diagrams, sets of mathematical equations or computer programs. Usually the process begins with the development of a verbal or written description of a real-world system (i.e. a ‘conceptual model’), which subsequently can be translated into a mathematical or computational format (i.e. an ‘implemented model’). This implemented model can then be given appropriate inputs such that outputs, predicting the dynamics of the system of interest, are generated (Edmonds and Hales, 2003; Wilensky and Rand, 2007; Fig. 14.1). The outputs can then be compared to understanding or empirical data related to the behaviour of a natural system and this comparison can result in modification of the conceptual model. This iterative process can make a major contribution to our understanding of how systems work and what may be the crucial drivers of a system (Edmonds, 2000; Fig. 14.1).

It has been argued that the most important goal of modelling is to understand general mechanisms, not to generate specific predictions using models (Grimm, 1999). However, where sufficient, empirically verified, knowledge and understanding of a system exists, models can provide an excellent means for testing how a complex system may respond to different drivers for a natural resource system, and assess the likely responses of a system to alternative possible future management (Frederiksen et al., 2001; Bunnefeld et al., 2011). Importantly, even in cases where knowledge of a system is too limited for modelling to provide robust quantitative predictions, models can still be developed that yield useful qualitative predictions of expected trends and system dynamics (such as population cycles or the risk of extinction), particularly about influential mechanisms of the system.

Models can help us understand where and why ecological conflicts occur. They enable us to identify the main drivers of conflict by simplifying the system to key components that still replicate patterns in the real conflict system.

Type
Chapter
Information
Conflicts in Conservation
Navigating Towards Solutions
 , pp. 195 - 211
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An, L. (2012). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: review of agent-based models. Ecol. Model., 229, 25–36.Google Scholar
An, L. and López-Carr, D. (2012). Understanding human decisions in coupled natural and human systems. Ecol. Model., 229, 1–4.Google Scholar
Bocedi, G., Heinonen, J. and Travis, J. M. J. (2012). Uncertainty and the role of information acquisition in the evolution of context-dependent emigration. Am. Nat., 179, 606–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bunnefeld, N., Hoshino, E. and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011). Management strategy evaluation: a powerful tool for conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, D. H. and Grossman, P. Z. (2010). Institutions matter! Why the herder problem is not a prisoner's dilemma. Theory and Decision, 69, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvan, M., Justus, J. and Regan, H. M. (2011). The conservation game. Biol. Conserv., 144, 1246–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Almeida, S. J., Ferreira, R. P. M., Álvaro, E. E., Obermayr, R. P. and Geier, M. (2010). Multi-agent modeling and simulation of an Aedes aegypti mosquito population. Environ. Modell. Softw., 25, 1490–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeDeo, S., Krakauer, D. C. and Flack, J. C. (2010). Inductive game theory and the dynamics of animal conflict. PLoS Comput. Biol., 6, e1000782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delton, A. W., Krasnow, M. M., Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (2011). Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 13,335–13,340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doebeli, M. and Hauert, C. (2005). Models of cooperation based on the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Snowdrift game. Ecol. Lett., 8, 748–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, B. (2000). The use of models – making MABS more informative. In Multi-Agent-Based Simulation: Second International Workshop, MABS 2000 Boston, MA, USA, July, Revised and Additional Papers, eds. Moss, S. and Davidsson, P., pp. 15–32. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Edmonds, B. and Hales, D. (2003). Replication, replication and replication: some hard lessons from model alignment. J. Artif. Soc. S., 6, 11.Google Scholar
Evans, M. R., et al. (2013). Predictive systems ecology. Proc. R. Soc. B, 280, 20131452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frederiksen, M., Lebreton, J.-D. and Bregballe, T. (2001). The interplay between culling and density-dependence in the great cormorant: a modelling approach. J. Appl. Ecol., 38, 617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, V. (1999). Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? Ecol. Model., 115, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinonen, J. P. M., Travis, J. M. J., Redpath, S. M. and Pinard, M. A. (2012). Combining socio-economic and ecological modelling to inform natural resource management strategies. In International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. Managing Resources of a Limited Planet: Pathways and Visions under Uncertainty, Sixth Biennial Meeting, Leipzig, Germany, eds. Seppelt, R., Voinov, A. A., Lange, S. and Bankamp, D., http://www.iemss.org/society/index.php/iemss-2012-proceedings. ISBN: 978-88-9035-742-8.Google Scholar
Holdo, R. M., Galvin, K. A., Knapp, E., Polasky, S., Hilborn, R. and Holt, R. D. (2010). Responses to alternative rainfall regimes and antipoaching in a migratory system. Ecol. Appl., 20, 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C.-S. (2012). Multi-objective game-theory models for conflict analysis in reservoir watershed management. Chemosphere, 87, 608–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levins, R. (1968). Ecological engineering: theory and technology. Q. Rev. Biol., 43, 301–305.Google Scholar
Liu, J., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthewson, J. (2011). Trade-offs in model-building: a more target-oriented approach. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci., 42, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011). Integrating fisheries approaches and household utility models for improved resource management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 1741–1746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odenbaugh, J. (2003). Complex systems, trade-offs, and theoretical population biology: Richard Levin's ‘Strategy of model building in population biology’ revisited. Philos. Sci., 70, 1496–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, M. J. and Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Redpath, S. M., et al. (2004). Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human–wildlife conflict: a raptor–grouse case study. Conserv. Biol., 18, 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, K., Sheppard, A. and Woodburn, T. (2006). Seasonal life-history models for the integrated management of the invasive weed nodding thistle Carduus nutans in Australia. J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., Smith, R. J. and Leader-Williams, N. (2003). Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict. J. Appl. Ecol., 40, 667–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, P., Vandel, J. M., Ruette, S., Coat, L., Coat, Y. and Balestra, L. (2002). Factors affecting lynx predation on sheep in the French Jura. J. Appl. Ecol., 39, 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starfield, A. M., Shiell, J. D. and Smuts, G. L. (1981). Simulation of lion control strategies in a large game reserve. Ecol. Model., 13, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterman, J. D. (2002). All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. Syst. Dynam. Rev., 18, 501–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillman, R. A. and Goss-Custard, J. D. (2010). Individual-based ecology of coastal birds. Biol. Rev., 85, 413–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Travis, J. M. J., Harris, C. M., Park, K. J. and Bullock, J. M. (2011). Improving prediction and management of range expansions by combining analytical and individual-based modelling approaches. Method. Ecol. Evol., 2, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valbuena, D., Verburg, P. H., Bregt, A. K. and Ligtenberg, A. (2010). An agent-based approach to model land-use change at a regional scale. Landscape Ecol., 25, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. and Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277, 494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wam, H. K., Hofstad, O., Nævdal, E. and Sankhayan, P. (2005). A bio-economic model for optimal harvest of timber and moose. Forest Ecol. Manag., 206, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, H. A., Hunter, A. and Dunne, P. (2002). Autonomous agent models of stock markets. Artif. Intell. Rev., 17, 87–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U. and Rand, W. (2007). Making models match: replicating an agent-based model. J. Artif. Soc. Sci., 10, 2.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D., Bennett, R., McFarlane, I., Rushton, S., Shirley, M. and Smith, G. C. (2009). Cost–benefit analysis model of badger (Meles meles) culling to reduce cattle herd tuberculosis breakdowns in Britain, with particular reference to badger perturbation. J. Wildlife Dis., 45, 1062–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (eds) (2005). The future of coexistence: resolving human–wildlife conflicts in a changing world. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? pp. 388–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. C., et al. (2010). The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodivers. Conserv., 19, 3973–3990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×