Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:40:15.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Modeling for Integrating Science and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

Daniel G. Brown
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Derek T. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Nancy H. F. French
Affiliation:
Michigan Technological University
Bradley C. Reed
Affiliation:
United States Geological Survey, California
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The stakeholders involved in management of land and carbon (C) are diverse. Farmers and foresters are concerned with plants and management practices that are most likely to sustain profits. The opportunity to sell C sequestration credits adds a new dimension to production strategies. Land managers may be asking questions, such as how tillage and fertilizer practices in a specific location affect C storage and crop yields. Regional planners and governing bodies may have the opportunity to influence where and how cultivation occurs and interacts with other land uses and industries. They may ask questions related to how crops can be distributed across a landscape to achieve multiple goals that reflect local priorities (water quality, scenic views, traditional lifestyles, tax revenues, etc.). At state and national levels, there are requirements to manage human activities to comply with land, water, and air-emission regulations as well as policy objectives such as job creation and energy security. Decision makers at these levels may desire guidance on how the interactions of policy options provide incentives or disincentives for certain land-use practices and resulting environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Many decision makers are most interested in how scientific information can be used to guide land-use practices in the near term, typically one to five years. However, the scientific information may derive from data measured at entirely different scales or locations and in time spans that range from decades to centuries. With rising attention to global markets and climate change, managers are concerned about how changes in their region are affected by global processes. National and regional decision makers want to know how their choices affect productivity, incomes, C and nutrient cycles, and other development goals. There needs to be a better match between the diverse needs of managers and the information provided by scientific analysis and models.

Type
Chapter
Information
Land Use and the Carbon Cycle
Advances in Integrated Science, Management, and Policy
, pp. 209 - 238
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

Aber, J. 1997. Why don't we believe the models? Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 78:232–233.Google Scholar
Aber, J.D., and Driscoll, C.T. 1997. Effects of land-use, climate variation, and N deposition on N cycling and C storage in northern hardwood forests. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 11:639–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, B., Rose-Ackerman, S., Sawyer, J. Jr., and Henderson, D. 1974. The uncertain search for environmental quality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Allen, J.P., Nelson, M., Alling, A. 2003. The legacy of Biosphere 2 for the study of biospherics and closed ecological systems. Advances in Space Research, 31(7):1629–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G.E.P. 1979. Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In Robustness in statistics, ed. Launer, R.L. and Wilkinson, G.N.. New York: Academic Press, p. 202.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Hall, M., Andrasko, K., Ruiz, F., Marzoli, W., and Guerrero, G. 2007. Baselines for land-use change in the tropics: Application to avoided deforestation projects. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12:1001–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, R.A., Koh, L.P., and Ghazou, J. 2009. REDD in the red: Palm oil could undermine carbon payment schemes. Conservation Letters, 2:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CBES. 2009. Land-use change and bioenergy. Report from the 2009 workshop, ORNL/CBES-001, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. .
Colson, F., Bogaert, J., Carneiro, A., Nelson, B., Pinage, E.R., and Ceulemans, R. 2009. The influence of forest definition on landscape fragmentation assessment in Rondônia, Brazil, Ecological Indicators, 9:1163–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbera, E., Estrada, M., and Brown, K. 2010. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: Revisiting the assumptions. Climatic Change, 100:355–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, V.H., Brown, S., Calderón, M.O., Montoya, A.S., and Martínez, R.E. 2003. Estimating baseline carbon emissions for the Eastern Panama Canal Watershed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 8:323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, V.H., and King, A.W. 1996. Implications of uncertainty in land use change for global terrestrial CO2 flux. In Caring for the forest: Research in a changing world, vol. II, ed. Korpilahti, E., Mikkela, H., and Salpnen, T.. Jyvaskyla International Union of Forestry Research Organizations XX World Congress Report. Finland: Gummerus Printing.Google Scholar
Dale, V.H., Kline, K.L., Wright, L.L., Perlack, R.D., Downing, M., and Graham, R.L. 2011. Interactions among bioenergy feedstock choices, landscape dynamics and land use. Ecological Applications, 21(4):1039–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, V.H., and O’Neill, R.V. 1999. Tools for assessing environmental conditions. In Tools to aid environmental decision making, ed. Dale, V.H. and English, M.R.. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, V.H., O’Neill, R.V., Southworth, F., and Pedlowski, M.A. 1994. Modeling effects of land management in the Brazilian settlement of Rondônia. Conservation Biology, 8:196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, V.H., and Van Winkle, W. 1998. Models provide understanding, not belief. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 79:169–170.Google Scholar
Dehue, B., Meyer, S., and van de Staaij, J. 2010. Responsible cultivation areas: Identification and certification of feedstock production with a low risk of indirect effects. Ecofys. .
Demeulemeester, J., and Diebolt, C. 2009. The Economist, August 6, 2009. .
Doyle, T. 1981. The role of disturbance in the gap dynamics of a montane rain forest: An application of a tropical forest succession model. In Forest succession: Concepts and application, ed. West, D.C., Shugart, H.H., and Botkin, D.B.. New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echeverria, C., Coomes, D.A., Hall, M., and Newton, A.C. 2008. Spatially explicit models to analyze forest loss and fragmentation between 1976 and 2020 in southern Chile. Ecological Modelling, 212:439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO and IIASA. 2007. Mapping biophysical factors that influence agricultural production and rural vulnerability. Food and Agriculture Organization and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Giglio, L., Randerson, J.T., van der Werf, G.R., Kasibhatla, P.S., Collatz, G.J., Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S. 2010. Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences 7:117–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnansounou, E., Dauriat, A., Villegas, J., and Panichelli, L. 2009. Life cycle assessment of biofuels: Energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresources Technology, 100:4919–4930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grainger, A. 2008. Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 105:818–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grainger, A. 2010. Uncertainty in the construction of global knowledge of tropical forests. Progress in Physical Geography, 34:811–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C.A.S. 1988. An assessment of several of the historically most influential theoretical models used in ecology and of the data provided in their support. Ecological Modeling, 43:5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C.A.S., ed. 2000. Quantifying sustainable development: The future of tropical economics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hall, C.A.S., Tian, H., Qi, T., Pontius, G., and Cornell, J. 1995. Modelling spatial and temporal patterns of tropical land use change. Journal of Biogeography, 22:753–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC. 2000. IPCC special report: Emission scenarios, ed. Nakicenovic, N. and Swart, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, D., and Azar, C. 2007. A scenario based analysis of land competition between food and bioenergy production in the U.S. Climatic Change, 82:267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R., and Hertel, T.W. 2009. Indirect land use impacts of US biofuels policies: The importance of acreage, yield and bilateral trade responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91:895–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., Kim, S., and Dale, B.E. 2009. Biofuels, land use change, and greenhouse gas emissions: Some unexplored variables. Environmental Science and Technology, 43:961–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S., and Dale, B.E. 2011. Indirect land use change for biofuels: Testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(7):3235–3240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, K.L., and Dale, V.H. 2009. Biofuels, causes of land-use change, and the role of fire in greenhouse gas emissions. Science, 321:199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, K.L., Oladosu, G.A., Dale, V.H, and McBride, A.C. 2011. Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects: In response to the paper by Kin and Dale on “Indirect land use change for biofuels: Testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies.” Biomass and Bioenergy, 35:4488–4491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambin, E.F., Geist, H.J., and Lepers, E. 2003. Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28:205–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.B. Jr. 1973. Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 39(3):163–178.Google Scholar
Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M.R., Canadell, J.G., Marland, G., Bopp, L., Ciais, P.,…Woodward, F.I. 2009. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geoscience, 2:831–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, A.S., Fairbairn, J., and Needle, C.L. 1999. The course and drivers of the forest transition: The case of France. Journal of Rural Studies, 15:65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, A.S., and Needle, C.L. 1998. The forest transition: A theoretical basis. Area, 30:117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, D., Randers, J., and Meadows, D. 2004. Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Moran, E.F., and Brondizio, E. 1998. Land-use change after deforestation in Amazonia. In People and pixels: Linking remote sensing and social science, ed. Liverman, D., Moran, E.F., Rindfuss, R.R., and Stern, P.C.. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 94–120.Google Scholar
Moran, E.F., Brondizio, E.S., and McCracken, S.D. 2002. Trajectories of land use: Soils, succession, and crop choic. In Deforestation and land use in the Amazon, ed. Wood, C.H. and Porro, R.. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, pp. 193–217.Google Scholar
Morgan, G., and Henrion, M. 1990. Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis, ch. 1–3. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakakaawa, C.A., Vedeld, P.O., and Aune, J.B. 2011. Spatial and temporal land use and carbon stock changes in Uganda: Implications for a future REDD strategy. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16:25–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC. 2010. Verifying greenhouse gas emissions: Methods to support international climate agreements. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oladosu, G., Kline, K., Uria-Martinez, R., and Eaton, L. 2011. Sources of corn for ethanol production in the United States: A decomposition analysis of the empirical data. Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining, 5(6):640–653, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, W.S. 1977. A strategy of model construction. In Ecosystem modeling in theory and practice: An introduction with case histories, ed. Hall, C.A.S. and Day, J.W. Jr. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pp. 49–73.Google Scholar
Panichelli, L., and Gnansounou, E. 2008. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from indirect land-use change in biofuels production: Concepts and exploratory analysis for soybean-based biodiesel production. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 67:1017–1030.Google Scholar
Pontius, R.G., Huffaker, D., and Denman, K. 2004. Useful techniques of validation for spatially explicit land-change models. Ecological Modelling, 179:445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontius, R.G., Versiuis, A.J., and Maizia, N.R. 2006. Visualizing certainty of extrapolations from models of land change. Landscape Ecology, 21:1151–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontius, R.G. Jr., Boersma, W., Castella, J.C., Clarke, K., de Nijs, T., Dietzel, C.,…Verburg, P.H. 2008. Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change. Annals of Regional Science, 42(1):11–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontius, R.G. Jr., and Li, X. 2010. Land transition estimates from erroneous maps. Journal of Land Use Science, 5(1):31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontius, R.G. Jr., and Neeti, N. 2010. Uncertainty in the difference between maps of future land change scenarios. Sustainability Science, 5:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontius, R.G. Jr., and Petrova, S. 2010. Assessing a predictive model of land change using uncertain data. Environmental Modeling and Software, 25(3):299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A., Monfreda, C., and Foley, J.A. 2008. Farming the planet. 1: The geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22:GB1003, .
Rautiainen, A., Wernick, I., Waggoner, P.E., Ausubel, J.H., and Kauppi, P.E. 2011. A national and international analysis of changing forest density. PLoS ONE, 6(5):e19577, .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, J.F. 1990. Land transformation. In The Earth as transformed by human action: Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years, ed. Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Matthews, J., and Meyer, W.B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–178.Google Scholar
Richards, J.F., and Flint, E.P. 1994. A century of land-use change in South and Southeast Asia. In Effects of land use change on atmospheric CO2 concentrations: Southeast Asia as a case study. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 15–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudel, T.K., Perez-Lugo, M., and Zichal, H. 2000. When fields revert to forest: Development and spontaneous reforestation in postwar Puerto Rico. Professional Geographer, 52:386–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shivers, D.E., and Moglen, G.E. 2008. Spurious correlation in the USEPA rating curve method for estimating pollutant loads. Journal of Environmental Engineering: ASCE, 134(8):610–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swartzman, G. 1996. Resource modeling moves into the courtroom. Ecological Modelling, 92:277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannert, C., Elvers, H.D., Jandrig, B. 2007. The ethics of uncertainty. In the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty. EMBO Reports, 8(10):892–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ugarte, D.G.D., and Ray, D.E. 2000. Biomass and bioenergy applications of the POLYSYS modeling framework. Biomass and Bioenergy, 18:291–308.Google Scholar
Van Winkle, W., and Dale, V.H. 1998. Model interactions. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 79:257–259.Google Scholar
Veldkamp, A., Verberg, P.H., Kok, K., De Koning, G.H.J., Priess, J.A., and Bergsma, A.R. 2001. The need for scale sensitivity approaches in spatially explicit land use change modeling. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 6:111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verburg, P.H., Veldkamp, A., Willemen, L.E., Overmars, K.P., and Castella, J.C. 2004. Landscape level analysis of the spatial and temporal complexity of land-use change. In Ecosystems and land use change in geophysical monographs, eds. DeFries, R.S., Asner, G.P., and Houghton, R.A.. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. 1996. Oil, seabirds, and science: The effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. BioScience, 46:587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D., Minotti, P.G., Barczak, M.J., Sifneos, J.C., Freemark, K.E., Santelmann, M.V.,…Preston, E.M. 1997. Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change. Conservation Biology, 11:349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WRI. 2009. World greenhouse gas emissions. Updated July 2, 2009, from the original graph in Baumert, K.A., Herzog, T., and Pershing, J. 2005. Navigating the numbers: Greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. .
Zeng, N., Yoon, J.H., Vintzileos, A., Collatz, G.J., Kalnay, E., Mariotti, A.,…Lord, S. 2008. Dynamical prediction of terrestrial ecosystem and the global carbon cycle: A 25-year hindcast experiment. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22(4):GB4015.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
×