MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESS MODELS

The Pareto Optimal Model Assessment Cycle (POMAC), a multiple-criteria model assessment methodology, is described for exploring uncertainty in the relationships between ecological theory, model structure, and assessment data. Model performance is optimized to satisfy, simultaneously, each component of a vector of assessment criteria (model outputs), rather than the usual procedure of optimizing performance with respect to a single criterion. Pareto Optimality is used to define the vector optimization. The Pareto Optimal Set reveals which combinations of assessment criteria the model can satisfy si- multaneously. Binary interval error measures, which classify whether a parameterization result is within an acceptable range of values, are defined for each criterion. Their use masks small differences in the performance of different parameterizations, allowing the Pareto Optimal Set to reveal conflicts in ability to achieve simultaneously different col- lections of criteria. POMAC improves the researcher's ability to detect deficiencies and locate their sources. It is more stringent and informative than traditional model assessment procedures because it uses multiple criteria without weighting and aggregating them. The Pareto Optimal Set reveals the presence of deficiencies through the model's inability to satisfy all the criteria simultaneously. POMAC then guides the researcher in locating deficiencies in: inadequate selection of component ecological hypotheses underlying the model, inadequate mathe- matical representations of these hypotheses, inadequate parameterization, poor selection and formulation of the assessment criteria, or combinations of these. In an example, POMAC is applied to the spatially explicit canopy competition model WHORL using ten assessment criteria. Each criterion was selected to provide information on different aspects of WHORL's functioning: three stand height distribution criteria, three crown morphology criteria, and four criteria focusing on stand competition's characteristic differentiation of growth rates. The Pareto Optimal Set was generated using simulated evolution optimization. POMAC revealed deficiencies in both the model structure and its assessment criteria, leading to an improved model and better understanding of its effective domain.

[1]  Eric F. Wood,et al.  Model Calibration Based on Random Environmental Fluctuations , 1988 .

[2]  Thomas L. Vincent,et al.  Renewable Resource Management , 1981 .

[3]  G. Hornberger,et al.  Approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems , 1981 .

[4]  E. David Ford,et al.  Theory and Models of Inter-Plant Competition as a Spatial Process , 1992 .

[5]  George M. Hornberger,et al.  Selection of parameter values in environmental models using sparse data: A case study , 1985 .

[6]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  A Survey of Evolution Strategies , 1991, ICGA.

[7]  Ross E. McMurtrie,et al.  The temporal response of forest ecosystems to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration , 1996 .

[8]  Douglas H. Deutschman,et al.  Details That Matter: The Spatial Distribution of Individual Trees Maintains Forest Ecosystem Function , 1995 .

[9]  Annikki Mäkelä,et al.  Performance analysis of a process‐based stand growth model using Monte Carlo techniques , 1988 .

[10]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1996, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[11]  R. S. Laundy,et al.  Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Application , 1989 .

[12]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[13]  Louis J. Gross,et al.  Individual-based modeling: Summary of a workshop , 1990 .

[14]  M. B. Beck,et al.  Uncertainty, identifiability and the propagation of prediction errors: A case study of lake ontario , 1991 .

[15]  S. Gentil,et al.  Validation of complex ecosystems models , 1981 .

[16]  Z. Michalewicz,et al.  A modified genetic algorithm for optimal control problems , 1992 .

[17]  William Gurney,et al.  Individual-based models: combining testability and generality , 1992 .

[18]  Edward J. Rykiel,et al.  Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation , 1996 .

[19]  Joel Howard Reynolds,et al.  Multi-criteria assessment of ecological process models using pareto optimization , 1997 .

[20]  D. B. Fogel,et al.  Applying evolutionary programming to selected control problems , 1994 .

[21]  T. L. Vincent,et al.  Optimality in parametric systems , 1981 .

[22]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[23]  John Pastor,et al.  State-of-the-Art of Models of Production-Decomposition Linkages in Conifer and Grassland Ecosystems. , 1991, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[24]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  Individual-Based Models and Approaches in Ecology , 1992 .

[25]  Yacov Y. Haimes,et al.  A Hierarchical Multiobjective Framework for Water Resources Planning , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[26]  Karel J. Keesman,et al.  Uncertainty propagation and speculation in projective forecasts of environmental change - a lake eutrophication example. , 1991 .

[27]  W. Cleveland Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots , 1979 .

[28]  Bernard W. Taylor,et al.  APPROACHES TO MULTIOBJECTIVE PLANNING IN WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS1 , 1975 .

[29]  M. B. Beck Lake eutrophication: Identification of tributary nutrient loading and sediment resuspension dynamics , 1985 .

[30]  Thomas Maxwell,et al.  Development of a general ecosystem model for a range of scales and ecosystems , 1996 .

[31]  E. David Ford,et al.  A Model of Competition Incorporating Plasticity through Modular Foliage and Crown Development , 1993 .

[32]  Dan Boneh,et al.  On genetic algorithms , 1995, COLT '95.

[33]  D. Schimel,et al.  CONTINENTAL SCALE VARIABILITY IN ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES: MODELS, DATA, AND THE ROLE OF DISTURBANCE , 1997 .

[34]  Frank Kursawe,et al.  A Variant of Evolution Strategies for Vector Optimization , 1990, PPSN.

[35]  P. G. Jarvis,et al.  Evaluating progress toward closed forest models based on fluxes of carbon, water and nutrients. , 1991, Tree physiology.

[36]  Michael de la Maza,et al.  Book review: Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs by Zbigniew Michalewicz (Springer-Verlag, 1992) , 1993 .

[37]  Kenneth A. Rose,et al.  Parameter sensitivities, monte carlo filtering, and model forecasting under uncertainty , 1991 .

[38]  M. B. Beck,et al.  Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty , 1987 .

[39]  Marc Roubens,et al.  Multiple criteria decision making , 1994 .

[40]  Karel J. Keesman,et al.  Identification and prediction propagation of uncertainty in models with bounded noise , 1989 .