Modeling biocomplexity - actors, landscapes and alternative futures

Increasingly, models (and modelers) are being asked to address the interactions between human influences, ecological processes, and landscape dynamics that impact many diverse aspects of managing complex coupled human and natural systems. These systems may be profoundly influenced by human decisions at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and the limitations of traditional process-level ecosystems modeling approaches for representing the richness of factors shaping landscape dynamics in these coupled systems has resulted in the need for new analysis approaches. New tools in the areas of spatial data management and analysis, multicriteria decision-making, individual-based modeling, and complexity science have all begun to impact how we approach modeling these systems. The term ''biocomplexity'' has emerged as a descriptor of the rich patterns of interactions and behaviors in human and natural systems, and the challenges of analyzing biocomplex behavior is resulting in a convergence of approaches leading to new ways of understanding these systems. Important questions related to system vulnerability and resilience, adaptation, feedback processing, cycling, non-linearities and other complex behaviors are being addressed using models employing new representational approaches to analysis. The complexity inherent in these systems challenges the modeling community to provide tools that capture sufficiently the richness of human and ecosystem processes and interactions in ways that are computationally tractable and understandable. We examine one such tool, EvoLand, which uses an actor-based approach to conduct alternative futures analyses in the Willamette Basin, Oregon.

[1]  Lance Gunderson,et al.  Resilience and the Behavior of Large‐Scale Systems , 2003 .

[2]  Denis White,et al.  Planning Alternative Future Landscapes in Oregon: Evaluating Effects on Water Quality and Biodiversity , 2000, Landscape Journal.

[3]  Virginia H. Dale,et al.  Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management , 2001, Springer New York.

[4]  S. Manson Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory , 2001 .

[5]  Thomas Maxwell,et al.  Patuxent landscape model: integrated ecological economic modeling of a wathershed , 1999, Environ. Model. Softw..

[6]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  Alternative Futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania: A Case Study in Applying Ecological Principles , 2001 .

[7]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Panarchy Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems , 2002 .

[8]  Thomas Maxwell,et al.  Distributed modular spatial ecosystem modeling , 1995, Int. J. Comput. Simul..

[9]  David A. Bella,et al.  Organized Complexity in Human Affairs: The Tobacco Industry , 1997 .

[10]  Alan Borning,et al.  An extensible, modular architecture for simulating urban development, transportation, and environmental impacts , 2001, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[11]  Denis White,et al.  ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON , 2004 .

[12]  M. Janssen,et al.  Multi-Agent Systems for the Simulation of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: A Review , 2003 .

[13]  E. Trist,et al.  The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments , 1965 .

[14]  Niels Lepperhoff SAM - Simulation of Computer-mediated Negotiations , 2002, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[15]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Resilience and Restoration of Lakes , 1997 .

[16]  John H. Holland,et al.  Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity , 1995 .

[17]  W. Arthur,et al.  The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II , 1988 .

[18]  David Hulse,et al.  ENVISIONING ALTERNATIVES: USING CITIZEN GUIDANCE TO MAP FUTURE LAND AND WATER USE , 2004 .

[19]  M. Scheffer,et al.  Dynamic Interaction of Societies and Ecosystems: Linking Theories from Ecology, Economy, and Sociology , 2002 .

[20]  Tang,et al.  Self-organized criticality. , 1988, Physical review. A, General physics.

[21]  C. S. Holling Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems , 2001, Ecosystems.

[22]  R. Colwell Balancing the biocomplexity of the planet’s living systems: a 21st century task for science , 1999 .

[23]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Ecological and Social Dynamics in Simple Models of Ecosystem Management , 1999 .

[24]  David A. Bennett,et al.  Agent-based modelling environment for spatial decision support , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[25]  S. Levin Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems , 1998, Ecosystems.

[26]  Pau Fernandez,et al.  The Role of Computation in Complex Regulatory Networks , 2003, q-bio/0311012.

[27]  John Van Sickle,et al.  PROJECTING THE BIOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS UNDER ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS OF HUMAN LAND USE , 2004 .

[28]  S. Kauffman Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. , 1969, Journal of theoretical biology.

[29]  U. Aswathanarayana,et al.  Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management , 2001 .

[30]  Edmund Chattoe-Brown Just How (Un)realistic Are Evolutionary Algorithms As Representations of Social Processes , 1998 .

[31]  C. S. Holling,et al.  STABILITY OF SEMI-ARID SAVANNA GRAZING SYSTEMS , 1981 .

[32]  Richard M. Cruse,et al.  Applying ecological principles to land-use decision making in agricultural watersheds , 2001 .