Integrating Ecologic, Economic, and
Social Sciences Using a Spatially
Explicit, Landscape Dynamic
Simulation System
Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab
Acknowledgement
• Jimmie Chew,
RMRS
• Kirk Moeller,
RMRS
• Anne Black,
ALWRI
• Adam Liljeblad,
ALWRI
Introduction
• Integration of knowledge
– The interactions of the biophysical, social, and
economic landscape components
• Use of models for better understanding
and communication
• Modeling with SIMPPLLE
– A method
– A tool developed specifically for integration
Theory
Ecologic
Social
Economic
From theory to
reality
Reality
Ecologic
Economic
Social
How do we bring these seemingly
divergent perspectives together?
• Modeling that helps us think about
the world by:
– Representing interactions of socioeconomic values with biophysical
environment
– Displaying trade-offs necessary for
sustainability
– Communication using visualization and
interactive, ‘real-time’ modeling
SIMPPLLE as the ecological core
Designed to simulate complex
landscape-scale interactions
between vegetation and other
abiotic and biotic landscape
components.
Developed to help managers make decisions
that address ecosystem sustainability based
on issues, concerns, and knowledge
Runs on site-specific empirical, mechanistic,
local and expert-knowledge as logic
SIMPPLLE, A Simple Methodology
• Basic rule of modeling is to help people
better understand the world
• Acronym = modeling philosophy to keep
things as simple as possible, add complexity
only as needed
• Modeling system platform allows users to
interact and communicate issues and
concerns about landscapes
• www.fs.fed.us/rm/missoula/4151/SIMPPLLE
Users Decide How to Represent
the Landscape
• What is the appropriate scale for issues?
• Is the analysis to be irregular polygons or
grid-based?
• Should time be in decades, years, seasons?
• Include vegetation, landforms, aquatics,
man-made structures, social values?
• Should vegetation be dominant forest
species, multiple life forms, grass types?
Climate Change Models
NAU
Insect and Disease
Research
Wildlife Models
R1,GAP, Birdlife Int’l – Europe
Watershed Models
Vegetation
FVS Model
USGS, CO Plateau
SIMPPLLE
the ecological
core
FCCS
PNW
Fire Models
Economic Models
FMOs
MAGIS-JFS, BEMRP
SPECTRUM, R1 Planning
FIA Plots
Invasive Species
MSU, MESA VERDE NP
What are we missing?
Ecologic
Social
SIMPPLLE
Economic
A planning problem:
People care about their landscape; yet most planning and analysis activities
don’t explicitly acknowledge or incorporate these attachments.
Ecologic
possible
Social
acceptable
Economic
feasible
A solution?
Incorporate information about ‘attachment to place’ directly into our
ecologic/economic models.
Conceptual framework
Social settings
Biophysical settings
cohesion
Landform
(e)
(a)
(b)
activities
PVT
Cover Type
(c)
Cover Type/
Structural phase
outcomes
Location
identity
Attachment to place
Conceptual framework
Social settings
Biophysical settings
cohesion
Community/
Cultural
Landform
(e)
Family/Friends
(a)
(b)
activities
PVT
Cover Type
(c)
Cover Type/
Structural phase
Personal
outcomes
Location
identity
Attachment to place
Social & Physical
Attachment
Physical Associates
Social Outcomes
Family/
Inter-Social
Individual
Community
Objective
Physical
Activity
Related
Subjective
Management
Influenced
Ownership
Related
Density
Related
Social & Physical
Attachment
Physical Associates
Social Outcomes
Family/
Inter-Social
Community
Objective
Subjective
Individual
Physical
Subsistence
Exercise
Physical
Economic
Management
Influenced
Employment
Emotional
Relaxation
Natural Inquiry
Activity
Related
Ownership
Related
Density
Related
Social & Physical
Attachment
Physical Associates
Social Outcomes
Family/
Inter-Social
Individual
Community
Activity Related
Interconnected Trail System
Natural Sounds
Objective
Physical
Subjective
Management
Influenced
Ownership Related
Wilderness
Abundance of Rec. Opps.
Density Related
Uncrowded
Open Space
Activity
Related
Ownership
Related
Density
Related
Adapted from Firey, 1960
So What?