Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
the Forest:
A Guide to Decision Making
and Decision Models for
Forest Biodiversity
March 1, 2007
K. Norman Johnson
Dept. of Forest Resources
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
norm.johnson@oregonstate.edu
Sean Gordon
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Sally Duncan
Institute for Natural Resources
Oregon State University
Denise Lach
Dept. of Sociology
Oregon State University
Brenda McComb
Dept. of Natural Resources Conservation
University of Massachusetts
Keith Reynolds
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
12
21
35
47
56
68
88
Executive Summary
and how complicated and contentious are their relationships, and (2)
the informational dimension asks
to what degree available data and
relationships must be organized. Our
experience suggests that, as either or
both of these dimensions increase
in complexity, the need and call for
systematic, transparent analysis will
also increase.
In those cases, we may quickly
come face-to-face with sophisticated
decision support systems (DSS).
Fundamentally, DSS are tools that
help evaluate alternative options
or scenarios (decision), deal with
complexity (support), and have a
clear, reproducible protocol (system).
More specifically, DSS is the name
often given to computerized decision
aids to help with complex decisions.
Committing to DSS can have significant ramifications for decision
effectiveness, ranging from exhilarating to disastrous, so whether to use
a decision support system is a major
decision in its own right. In addition, it would be a mistake to think
of DSS merely as models into which
you feed data and the answer to your
biodiversity problems pops out the
other end. Rather, we believe they
should be seen as a possible component in the decision process, a set
of specified tools that can be useful
to enhance deliberation in certain
circumstances.
Thus, our philosophy on using DSS is somewhat cautionary,
in the sense that we suggest a very
How do we make
decisions?
Most of us have conducted or
experienced what is known as a
classic decision-making process
composed of the following distinct
stages: characterize the problem
or question, identify a full range of
alternatives and determine criteria
for selecting one, collect information about each option and rate it
on the criteria, then make the final
decision based on the rating. Classic decision models are rational
in that they promise us an orderly
and systematic approach to complex
problems. Whats more problematic
is that this classic understanding
of decision-making has also been
defined as rational in the normative
sense that any other sort of decision
process is by default characterized as
irrational and therefore significantly
flawed, thereby making the resulting decision suspect. This rational
approach to environmental decisions
has provided the framework for federal decision making since passage of
the National Environmental Policy
Act and has led to the development
and use of decision models and deci-
Choosing a DSS
Perhaps counterintuitively, we
address the choice of the particular
DSS to use last. We do this to stress
that serious thinking about whether
and how to use a DSS should occur
first. Our questions about who will
be involved, who will do the work,
and how it should be done should
also influence which DSS is right
for the context. From previous DSS
reviews, journal articles, and interviews with DSS experts, we generated a master list of over 100 DSS.
We then screened this list down to
those systems (~30) most applicable
to forest biodiversity decisions and
surveyed the designers for more in-
depth information.
Our survey covered 20 different
aspects of systems, including descriptions of their purpose and past
applications, specific indicators and
resources covered, costs, and hardware and software needs. Although
quite a few systems are available, we
found they can be grouped into the
following relatively few categories
by their overall focus and the major
functions they perform.
In addition, we present a matrix
that provides a quick reference to
Population modeling
Reserve selection
Activity scheduling
Forest growth & management
Evaluation & prioritization
Forest growth & management
Land use simulation & evaluation
Restoration prioritization
DSS Count
2
8
5
9
3
2
2
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Norm Johnson and Sally Duncan
High
Social Complexity
Low
Decision about
whether to
remove geese
from the city pond
Reintroduction of
grizzly bears into
Montana wilderness
Individual
deciding which
kind of bird seed
to use in a feeder
Low
High
Information Complexity
Figure 1.1 Classification system for informational and social complexity.
10
11
Traditional
Understandings of
Decision Making
Most of us have conducted or
experienced what is known as a classic
decision making process: characterize
the problem or question, identify a
full range of alternatives and determine criteria for selecting one, collect
information about each option and
rate it on the criteria, then make the
final decision based on the rating.
Various so-called stage models like
this have been proposed from two
stages (idea getting and idea evaluation) to seven or eight (problem sensing, problem definition, alternative
generation, alternative evaluation,
choice, action planning, and implementation). Some of these models
propose that successful decisions require that the stages be completed in
sequence; others propose that effective
decision making may be more flexible
[see Lipshitz and Bar-Ilan (1996) for
a concise review of classical decision
making]. For most stage models,
however, the goal is to optimize, or
come up with the best choice. Most
computer-based decision support
systems are based on the stage model
of decision making, and the computer
allows us to weight and rank multiple
alternatives on many variables very
quickly and easily.
12
Irrational Decision
Making?
Recent decision research suggests
that only about 5% of all decisions
are actually made by individuals or
organizations using a classic stage
model (Klein 2001). In many of those
cases, the model was used to justify a
decision made using other strategies
(e.g., Soelberg 1967). Starting from
Chess, Anyone?
An article on chess in the New Yorker provides an intriguing mathematical perspective on decision making:
With about 10128 possible unique gamesvastly more than there are
atoms in the known universechess is one of mankinds most complex
activities. In an average arrangement on the board, white has thirtyfive moves and black has thirty-five replies, yielding twelve hundred
and twenty-five potential positions after one full turn. With subsequent
moves each of these positions branches out exponentially in further
lines of play1.5 million positions after the second turn, 1.8 billion after
the third---forming a gigantic map of potential games that programmers
call the search tree."
How human beings confront this complexity and seize on a few good
moves remains a mystery. Experienced players rely on subconscious faculties known variously as pattern recognition, visualization and aesthetic
sense. All are forms of educated guessworkaids to making choices
when certainty through exhaustive calculation is impossibleand may
be summed up in a word: intuition.Your Move, Tom Mueller, 12/12/05
Characteristics
of Naturalistic
Tasks and Settings
complex decisions
ambiguous and uncertain
information
large quantity of information to consider
poorly structured problems
shifting, poorly defined, or
competing goals
iterative outcomes due to
ongoing evaluation
high stakes and consequences for decision makers
organizational goals and
norms involved
dynamic decision making
environment
time constrained
adapted from Zsambok and Klein (1997)
13
14
grow into the future. And expert decision makers see many things that are
invisible to the rest of us:
patterns the rest of us miss
events that did not happen but
should have
the big picture
mental models of the way things
work
opportunities and ways to improvise
events that either already happened or are likely to happen
soon
their own limitations
Most of us make most of our
decisions using intuition and mental
simulations. Strategies that take advantage of our experience are generally quite successful at relatively low
cost. We dont want to be developing
extensive decision support systems
for our dailyor perhaps even for
most ofour decisions. Its too timeconsuming and not guaranteed to
produce a better decision.
15
Externally imposed
restrictions on choices
The Fatalist
The Hierarchist
Of course, one of the reasons
we have difficulty making decisions
Fatalistic rationality:
Procedural rationality:
as a group is that we all bring difIt doesnt matter
A place for everything
ferent experiences, knowledge, and
expectations to the group. There is a
Individual
Group
large business (and a lot of money to
be made) in helping dysfunctional
The Individualist
The Egalitarian
groups operate effectively. One powSubstantive rationality:
Critical rationality:
erful tool for thinking about underlyWe
are right; therefore
The bottom line
ing differences that we bring to group
you must be wrong
decision making is a framework
No externally imposed
developed by Douglas, a cultural anrestrictions on choices
thropologist (e.g., Douglas 1982). This
framework has been tested in multiple Figure 2.1. Dimensions of social relationships (adapted from Douglas 1982).
settings in many countries and apthe individualism of the market and
Scientists looking at how we
pears to be a robust characterization
manage natural resources, like
of how people tend to view the world. the inequalities of the hierarchy; they
prefer
the
egalitarian
group
(Schwarz
forests, have found that organizaHer framework is based on two
and
Thompson
1990:
7).
Egalitarians
tions adopt management strategies
central and eternal questions for
stress the values of cooperative and
that reflect their understanding of
humans: Who am I? and How
the human-nature interface (Holling
should I behave? As a social species, volunteer relationships. Finally, there
1979, 1986). These myths of nature
are marginalized members of society
the answer to these questions is decan be graphically represented by a
who
feel
that
they
have
no
capacity
or
termined by how we relate to groups:
ability to influence events, leading to a ball in the landscape. Figure 2.2 is a
How connected are we to strong
fatalist approach in which outcomes, mapping of the worldviews regarding
groups that bind our decisions in
good or bad, are simply to be enjoyed nature onto the dimensions of social
different ways? How constrained are
relationships.
we by those ties to the groups? Figure or endured, but never achieved
Nature benign is a hospitable
2.1 describes how these two dimen(Schwarz and Thompson 1990: 8).
sions generate four basic and stable
Externally imposed
forms of social relationships.
restrictions on choices
Individualists stress the autonomy
The Fatalist
The Hierarchist
of individuals, especially their freedom to bid and bargain with others.
The bottom line is what they care for,
not relationships with people who
Nature capricious
Nature perverse/tolerant
come together to achieve results.
Individual
Group
Most of our organizations, however,
are made up of orderly and ranked
The Individualist
The Egalitarian
relationships in hierarchies. Organizational attempts to manage these relationships create a sense that it is more
Nature ephemeral
Nature benign
important to regulate who does what
No externally imposed
than to focus on an outcome (if there
restrictions on choices
even is one). According to scholars,
Figure 2.2: The myths of nature mapped onto the dimensions of social relationships
however, some people reject both
(adapted from Holling 1986).
16
17
18
approachoften identified as an
inquiring and learning process
provides a framework for tackling
complex organizational and social
problems that typically resist easy
or quick definition (Checkland and
Scholes 1999, Wilson and Morren
1990) A key to problem definition,
according to Soft Systems practitioners, is in fact to resist the idea of
identifying a problem, for problems
do not exist independently of human beings: they are constructs of
concerned minds, defined by worldviews. Instead, they suggest, seek to
identify an overall situation. With a
situationa somewhat open-ended
conceptidentified and described,
shared perceptions, persuasion, and
debate are more likely to lead to improvements than is grappling with a
closed problem definition.
A second approach to understanding the shape and size of
problems before making decisions
about them is called cooperative inquiry (Heron 1996). This methodology is based on the fundamental
difficulty with empirical scientific
research, which is that, contrary to
the associated worldview, no one
can rightly claim objective knowledge or facts about what other
people want, feel, or believe. The
approach is based on a cycle in
which practical action alternates
with reflection. This cycle, notably,
is based on the premise of adaptive
management, which is not always
implemented in ways that include
or encourage reflection.
But reflection is surely a crucial
component of decision making, and
certainly one in which intuition and
mental simulation come fully into
play. To our cumulative loss, it is too
often passed over as an unproductive
use of time.
References Cited
19
20
ct
ru
al
Landscape
patterns
si
tio
St
ur
po
Habitat
Population
Genetic
Genes
Genetic
processes
Demographic
processes
Ecosystem
processes
Landscape
processes
Fu n c t i o n a l
What is Biodiversity?
Jim Petranka
Figure 3.1. The scientific concept of biodiversity is a nested set of processes and conditions that interact to reflect the breadth of life on the planet (left, adapted from
Meffe et al. 2002). That biological complexity is often perceived as a collage of life
by nonscientists (right, from www.unca.edu/tulula/biodiversity.html; used with permission). Scientific concepts can be used to conserve the collage of life by developing
maps of species richness for various groups of organisms.
21
these are tiny drops in the huge speSpecies and their Ranges
cies bucket. Over 1.6 million species
have been described on earth, and this
The geographic ranges of species and their relationships to the range
is known to be only a fraction of what
vary widely. Knowledge of where in the world a species occurs is the first
occurs. Furthermore, patterns of speconsideration in biodiversity conservation. Some, such as the Siskyou
cies richness (the number of species
mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi), have ranges so small that they
in an area) for one taxonomic group
remain vulnerable to a large disturbance or stresses that may accumulate
do not reflect patterns of other groups
among multiple management actions over time. Others, such as the northvery well at all (Flather et al. 1997). So
ern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), extend around the globe in boreal and
there are clear challenges to conservnorthern hardwood forests. But because they require large areas to feed
ing biodiversity.
and reproduce, they remain vulnerable to habitat loss as well. Still other
Although species are the primary
species, such as the black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virescens),
currency of conservation, genetic
select eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forests in the northern part of
representation of species is also
their range, but are more associated with mesic hardwoods in the southimportant. Planners and managern part of their range. Hence one set of assessment criteria applied to the
ers usually assume that genes will
entire species geographic range would not likely give a realistic estimate of
be successfully conserved among
habitat availability (Collins 1983).
individuals within a species if we
can ensure the long-term viability of each species throughout its
3.2). Energy flow, nutrient cycling,
the functions produced from this
geographic range. If we artificially
population dynamics, population
complexity is to understand the
reduce a geographic range through
ecosystem processes that support and genetics, and evolution all interact to
policies or actions, it is assumed that maintain life on the planet (Figure
maintain this collage of life, and the
we reduce the genetic
diversity of the species Disturbance
Forest structure
Seed production
and increase the risk
and dispersal
events
and composition
that the species would
be less able to tolerate
climate change, exotic diseases or
Digestible
Moisture
predators, or further attacks on its
Soils
energy
stress
habitat in the future. This decision
in plants
rule, keep the gene pool intact by
keeping the subpopulations, is an
Litter
Herbivore
Vegetative
important assumption that probably
quality and
biomass
reproduction
is true for many species. We certainly
decomposition
see geographic variation in a species
appearance, diets, habitat selection,
and home range sizes within many
Availablility
Predator
Light
species of vertebrates. A reasonable
of
nutrients/
biomass
availablility
water
assumption is that these differences
reflect some evolutionary advantage
to the species in those places. Very
Competition among
Regeneration
Regeneration
rarely have these assumptions been
trees, shrubs, and herbs
consumption
establishment
tested, so the approach follows the
precautionary principle: err on the
Figure 3.2 Example of a set of ecological processes occurring in forest ecosystems
side of preservation.
that supports and maintains a variety of life. Ensuring that the plant communities,
Another approach to understructural conditions, and processes are all present increases the likelihood that spestanding the complexity of life and
cies and genes will be conserved.
22
Species
A
Coarse filter
Legacy retention
Ecosystem state
or process
Mesofilter
If we acknowledge that biodiversity is a resource
that society is increasingly coming to value and understand, and if we recognize that it is mind-bendingly complex, what are we as scientists, managers,
Recovery plans
planners, or decision makers to do to ensure that
biodiversity is conserved for future generations?
Fine filter
How can we hope to understand and consider the
needs for all species in a planning area?
We have several options. A tiered approach
Figure 3.3. Coarse filter goals are met using vegetative types and sucto decision making considers the needs of some
cessional stages that are likely to meet the needs for many species (listspecies explicitly, while assuming the needs of
ed as A through G in this diagram) in a planning area. For those
other species will be met through a more general- not likely to be met using this approach, special features are retained
ized strategy of habitat protection and/or manage- for some species (B D, F, and G) (mesofilter), and a fine filter
ment. So scientists simplify the problem by taking (single-species) plan is developed for one species (D).
a logical step-wise approach, albeit with significant
assumptions. The coarse-filter/fine-filter approach
is often used as a basis for reducing the risk of
losing a species from an ecosystem (Hunter 1999)
Historic range
(Figure 3.3). In this approach, the coarse filter is
applied to the landscape by describing the distribution of biophysical classes (e.g., vegetation, slope,
Reduced variability
and stream classes) that occur in an area of concern,
and documenting the arrangement and connectivity of these biophysical classes across the landscape.
These current conditions may then be projected into
the future under various alternative management
New state
assumptions.
Time
The current and possible future conditions are
Disturbance
then compared to some reference condition(s).
Recently that comparison has quite often been to
Figure 3.4. An ecosystem condition (plant community representathe historical range of variability (HRV) (Landres
tion, successional stage area, wood biomass) fluctuates over time.
et al. 1999) (Figure 3.4). The more that the current
Human activities may reduce the amount of variability over time
and likely future conditions depart from the HRV,
(top line after disturbance) or cause the condition to depart from the
the greater the risk that genes or species may be
historic range (bottom line after disturbance) leading to increased
lost from the system. Scientists assume that species risk to biodiversity (Used with permission of K. McGarigal, pers.
are more likely to persist into the future under the
comm. 2006).
23
Conservation
2050
Plan trend
2050
Pre-EuroAmerican
settlement
Circa
1990
Development
2050
Figure 3.5. Past and current conditions and alternative futures for the Willamette
Basin, Oregon. Darker areas represent older forested lands (from Hulse et al. 2002)
Used with permission of Oregon State University Press.
24
25
Challenges to Making
Effective Biodiversity
Decisions
Multiple factors influence the
degree to which a decision regarding protection of biodiversity will
be effective. The spatial scale(s) at
which the decision is made, its context, and the level of spatial detail
used in the decision all contribute to
effectiveness. Similarly, the temporal framework within which the
decision is made is critical. Will the
decision meet the concerns of constituents now? 10 years from now?
100 years? What is the appropriate
time frame? And all decisions are
couched within a number of factors associated with the ever-present uncertainty of ecological and
sociological processes. How do we
keep these uncertainties clearly in
mind while still making effective
decisions? The following sections
discuss these issues in more detail.
6
5
CNB
CND
DTWR
DRCR
CND
DTWR
DTWR
NFSQ
NFSQ
NFSQ
DOSQ
DOSQ
DOSQ
10
20
30
40
50
Tolerance level
30%
50%
80%
60
70
80
90
100
Spatial scale
Land ownership implies a certain level of commitment to part of
the earth, and that commitment is
expressed through the accumulation
of individual landowner behaviors
over space and time. It may seem
obvious that one landowner making
a decision to manage for cavity-nesting birds in a stand on her land can
achieve her goal easily. Just leave a
certain number of trees or snags of
certain sizes, and the goal is reached.
Or is it? How will the actions of her
neighbors influence the likelihood
that her biodiversity objectives will
be achieved? And how will her actions influence the achievement of
her neighbors goals to provide a
corridor for migrating elk (Cervus
elaphus)? Can she trust her federal neighbors to follow through on
their plans even as administrations
26
Mt. Toby
Forest
Time
Politicians may view effective
time frames for decisions as days,
weeks, maybe years or, more rarely,
decades. Some of us try to plan for
our financial security by thinking in
multiple decades. And most people
want to leave a legacy of their values
to the next generation. But humans
27
60
40
20
0
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
28
Uncertainty
One of the greatest uncertainties facing conservation biologists
and land planners is development
of conservation and management
strategies with incomplete information about the suite of species under
consideration. Past research on many
species allows us to develop reasonable management plans for them. For
some species we know nearly nothing, however, and many species are
yet to be discovered. In the face of
this uncertainty, managers may use
one or several DSS to organize and
synthesize information, hoping to
improve their decisions. Obviously,
DSS rely on what is known, not what
is unknown, and therein lies the biggest challenge. Information-hungry
DSS can do only a minimally useful
job of aiding decisions for poorly understood species, so how helpful are
they likely to be for species that have
not yet been identified?
Thus, biodiversity planners must
recognize that professional judgment is a key part of the decision
process. If biodiversity conservation
is a primary goal, then a reasonable
course of action is to follow the precautionary principle and err on the
side of conservation over resource
extraction. The plan should include
techniques that add to the information required to make decisions, such
as adaptive management and formal
monitoring protocols.
Planning requires identifying the
finest level of information needed,
29
Extent of forested
wetlands in 1982
Cache River
Pearl River
Atchafalaya Basin
30
Society
Figure 3.12. Society views natural resources through a prism of values (based on discussion with R. Muth).
31
anew. A similarly likely outcome, especially given the number of assumptions on which future projections
are based, is that the affected parties
reach agreement on a preferred option and implement it, but observed
responses are not what were expected. Should these surprises mean that
important societal values are not being sustained, there may yet again be
a reason to start anew. But even if the
system responds as anticipated and
current social values are sustained,
social values, including biodiversity
goals, are not static. Stuff happens.
Societal expectations evolve. Biodiversity goals change. Evolution of
cultural mores, in addition to unanticipated events (9/11, tsunamis,
wildfires, disease), can drastically
alter the perceived values and importance of biodiversity, and assessments
will need to be revisited as new social
issues emerge.
Setting Biodiversity
Goals
Most biodiversity objectives
reflect the paraphrased text of Aldo
Leopold: the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the
pieces. Indeed, the pieces, genes,
species, and processes are exactly
what are often considered within the
coarse-filter/fine-filter approach to
biodiversity conservation. The key
word in this quote is all, and it demands that we address the question,
How much of each? The answer,
obviously, is Enough. Saving all
the pieces is a noble goal and keeps
future generations in the picture. But
at what price will all the pieces be
saved? It is not a price that society is
necessarily willing to pay in all instances: human self-preservation and
preservation of life styles can trump
Addressing Biodiversity
Problems with DSS
Many goals for achieving biodiversity are prescribed in federal,
state, and occasionally local policies or are reflected in the goals and
actions of NGOs. Specific decisions
regarding what constitutes take
32
33
H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F.
DErchia, T. C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman, and G. Wright. 1993. Gap
analysis: a geographic approach
to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monograph 123.
Spies, T.A., K.N. Johnson, P. Bettinger, W.C. McComb, J.L.
Ohmann, and G.H. Reeves. 2002.
Challenges to integrating wood
production, biodiversity, and
other socio-economic values at
broad scales: an example from
Coastal Oregon. P. 1326 in
Congruent management of multiple resources: Proceedings from
the wood compatibility initiative
workshop, Johnson, A.C., R.W.
Haynes, and R.A. Monserud
(eds.). U.S.D.A. Forest Service
General Technical Report PNWGTR 563, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, OR.
34
Chapter 4. DSS: How Might They Help? How Might They Hurt?
Norm Johnson and Sean Gordon
35
Estimating their
Social and Analytical
Complexity
Case Name
Type of Decision
1
2
Mixed
Federal mgt
Regional assessment
National forest management plan
Federal species recovery planning
Landowner assistance planning
7
8
State mgt
Chesapeake Forest
Oregon Harvest & Habitat Model
9
10
State reg
11
12
13
14
Industry mgt
15
Nipf mgt
Consulting foresters
3
4
5
6
mgt = land management process; reg = regulatory process; nipf = nonindustrial private forest owner
To provide a general
context for thinking about
these cases relative to one
another, we have ranked them on the
two dimensions charted in Chapter
Table 4.2. Summary of analytical and social complexity measures.
1: social and analytical complexity.
Description
Score
We gave each case a score from 1
(simplest) to 5 (most complex) on
Analytical complexity
each of these dimensions (Table 4.2,
Small geographic and short temporal extent, simple biodiversity and forest measures
1
with further explanation in Appen$ (gradient of increasing complexity in these factors) $
$
dix A).
Large geographic and long temporal extent, complex biodiversity and forest measures
5
The results of this ranking are
Social complexity
presented in Figure 4.1. At the
Single decision maker
1
simplest end of the spectrum, the
Multiple decision makers within one organization
2
Vermont Consulting Foresters case
Decision shared between two organizations (e.g., regulator and regulated)
3
involved only single decision makOpen stakeholder process with no immediate allocation of resources
4
ers (the landowner) and very simple,
Open stakeholder process involving direct allocation of resources
5
qualitative measures of biodiversity
(Management option A will increase
wild turkey habitat) on relatively
small properties without explicit
50 years, including estimating effects ity was associated with low analytical
complexity or vice versa. One excepanalysis over time. At the other
on as many as 30 species.
tion is the Washington Water Typextreme, the Boise-Payette-Sawtooth
What is most striking about
ing case, which attempted to use a
National Forest Plan involved an
these results is the general correlarelatively simple model to estimate
open stakeholder decision-making
tion found between analytical and
fish habitat for setting riparian harprocess over about 6.6 million acres
social complexity. Few cases were
and projected seven alternatives over found in which high social complex- vest rules. Although some observers
36
4
11
12
Social Complexity
14
13
8
1
2
7
6
3
10
15
Analytical Complexity
Figure 4.1 Analytical and social complexity of potential case studies (numbered
labels correspond to case numbers in Table 4.1).
37
38
Enable Consideration of
Detailed and Complex
Information and
Relationships
Chapter 2 discussed the strengths
of human decision makers, namely
a very flexible and fast capacity for
pattern matching and mental simulation. But, lets face it, unless you have
savant syndrome (think Rain Man),
your capacity to remember and
manipulate large amounts of numbers or other information is quite
limited. Miller (1956) published a
classic review on cognitive limits
entitled The magical number seven
(plus or minus two). Seven was the
approximate number of unrelated
items a person could reliably hold
in short-term memory, and also the
number of categories a person could
deduce from various types of sensory
input. More recently, Klein (1998)
found that even experts construction
of mental simulations was generally
limited to three factors and six transition states.
As can be seen in the cases we
reviewed, many biodiversity questions are often asked at the level of
thousands or millions of acres and
possibly looking many years in the
futuresimply too much information for mental simulation. Computers are an excellent complement to
people in this regard. Computers
can keep track of and process vast
amounts of information quickly, but
they are not as nimble as the human
brain because they must be carefully
programmed by someone to do so.
The example given was that nonradical (politically plausible) behavior changes under the Conservation
scenario led to an unexpectedly large
rebound in biodiversity. The case also
emphasized how the modeling process extended and reinforced some
perhaps better known, but often forgotten, aspects of our management,
such as the general concentration of
conservation in uplands and neglect
of lowlands, and the cumulative impacts of frequent exceptions to land
use regulations.
A significant advantage of a
DSS is that patterns and processes
not immediately apparent to the
users emerge from the results. If
these emergent properties also make
sense (are believable), the users have
learned something new that may be
useful to their collective decisions.
39
Provide an Institutional
Memory for Decision
Analyses
A major problem with many
watershed (and other habitat) assessments based on expert opinion has
been that the assessment methodology was difficult to document. How
exactly did a group of experts arrive
at a particular assessment, and what
knowledge had they used? One or
two years later, when the assessment
was being considered for another
decision, no one might be able to
recall. Using a DSS leaves an explicit
model of how the assessment was
done, and the model can be updated
as new data or knowledge comes into
play. These were primary reasons the
Sandy Basin Anchor Habitats project
decided to use a model in prioritizing watershed restoration options.
They hoped that they could continue
to refine their results by maintaining
and updating their data bases as new
information became available. In
general, this type of dynamic institutional memory resembles adaptive
management in that it allows decisions to be viewed as hypotheses,
which then can be supported, rejected, or refined as new information
becomes available.
40
41
environment. In the literature exploring the difficulties of integrating science into policy, time is often cited as
a major disconnect (Dale et al. 2003).
New research typically takes longer
than decision imperatives allow, and
even science assessments chartered
for specific decision needs can face
this problem (Johnson et al. 1999).
The estimated time needed to gather
data and implement a DSS must be
compared against expected decision
deadlines and the general volatility of
the decision-making process. If the
time needed exceeds the deadline, a
DSS approach is unlikely to succeed.
If the process is volatile, time taken
may either have a calming influence
or cause the entire process to derail.
42
Deemphasize Unknown or
Poorly Known Aspects of a
System
With biodiversity conservation decisions, we are constantly
struggling with balancing outcomes
among species or systems about
which we have highly variable information, e.g., we know a lot about
owls and almost nothing about
sharptail snakes. Keep this firmly in
mind: DSS will tend to focus efforts on
the aspects of the problem for which
we have the most data, but these areas
may not actually be the most important for our overall objectives. Expert
opinion and local qualitative knowledge can become much more important than the typically quantitative
data used in a DSS, but there must
be a process for incorporating this
nonquantitative knowledge. Given
the highly disparate knowledge bases
among the species, how do we take
what we know and project likely outcomes of actions on multiple species
in a way that reflects these disparities
in knowledge? Combining coarseand fine-filter approaches that draw
on different types of information
can help, but realize that these filter
approaches are also almost always
fraught with assumptions.
43
they are intended to be spatially accuratethink of this as map tyrannywhen in fact another model
run under the same assumptions (or
the same model run with different
assumptions) is likely to produce different results. In a follow-up project,
they are addressing uncertainty by
looking at ways to document and
communicate the variability produced by multiple model runs. Likewise, stakeholders growing familiar
with a modeled approach will reliably
start to ask about the assumptions for
any given model-based projection.
Be carefulpeople are getting wise
to models!
time, probably because of the complexity of the model and the bureaucratic control the agency was able to
exert. We wish to emphasize that the
evolution of such a priesthood is not
always due to the evil plans of analysts, but rather seems to be a natural
tendency in organizational decisionmaking behavior. As George Bernard
Shaw once said, Every profession
is a conspiracy against the layman.
Methods used to counter this tendency include deliberately keeping
models simple and providing training to many in their use (as in the
International Paper case) or putting
representative laymen in charge of
setting goals and regularly reviewing
modeling progress (as did the Willamette Basin Futures Analysis).
Create a Feeling of
Powerlessness and
Discourage Participation
Many of the potential disadvantages described above can generate a feeling of powerlessness and
discourage participation from the
decision stakeholders. An organization might take on a modeling
project beyond their capacity and
end up feeling that they simply cannot solve the problem (instead of
realizing that the approach needs to
change). Participants may feel that
the wrong problem is being addressed, but that they cannot change
the focus because a (DSS) process
has been locked in. Or, even if the
focus is right, they may feel that
their input is not valued because
it does not fit well into the DSS, or
at least it must be filtered through
an unsympathetic priesthood of
analysts. Then, when any process
gets drawn out by time-consuming
analyses, participation is naturally
likely to wane. These changes may
44
Summary
We have intended this chapter
as a quick synthesis of our experiences with DSS, both good and
bad. You have undoubtedly noticed
some of the similarities in the Help
and Hinder lists, e.g., DSS can help
focus group work, but they can
also lead groups down the wrong
path. Most of the negative issues
can be overcome with some careful
thought and thorough discussion
before embarking on a decisionmaking effort or conflict-resolution
scenario, just as many of the positive contributions can fail without
such considerations.
Perhaps our most compelling
general observation is that if users (that is, people who use the
DSS results, not just the users of
the software) are involved in the
original development of a DSS,
then they can be empowered in the
decision making. Unfortunately,
this is rarely the case. Analytical
approaches, especially when embedded in computer code, are naturally
45
References
Dale, V.H., C. Rewerts, W. van Winkle, M.A.Harwell, M. Vasievich,
and S. Hodapp. 2003. Barriers to
the use of ecological models in
decision making. P. 109122 in
Ecological modeling for resource
46
Chapter 5. Tips For Successful DSS Use: Its All About People
Sean Gordon
Occasional Review
47
State of Knowledge
High
Stakeholder deliberation
Occasional review
Low
Integrated deliberation
Scientist deliberation
Low
High
Agreement on Values
Figure 5.1 Recommended types of deliberation (adapted from Chess et al. (1998)).
Scientist Deliberation
When agreement on values is
high but knowledge is low, deliberation by scientists is recommended.
The Northwest Forest Plan Watershed Assessment case fits this
model. Watershed condition could be
defined in many ways, but from the
agencies view their legal mandate to
protect endangered fish species was
clearly dominant. Because knowledge was scarce on how to evaluate
fish habitat over this large area, they
gathered experts on fish biology and
hydrology to deliberate and construct the models used.
Stakeholder Deliberation
Stakeholder deliberation turned
out to be the dominant force in the
Chesapeake Forest Plan. A DSS had
been used to analyze timber harvest versus options for endangered
Integrated Deliberation
Integrated deliberation refers
to the need for an ongoing dialog
involving both scientists and stakeholders. A number of the cases we
reviewed used such an integrated
strategy. The Willamette Basin
Futures Analysis had a stakeholder
group meet regularly with scientists
to review and guide the evolving
analysis. The project leader for the
Summit County biodiversity analysis recruited representatives from
several sectors, such as a county
commissioner, a planner, a developer,
a land owner, a wildlife manager,
and an environmental advocate. In
both these cases, the project leaders
selected who they believed to be the
right mix of representative participants, rather than just opening the
process to anyone interested.
48
Public hearings
Public inquiries
Social surveys
Arbitration
Scientific advisory groups
Citizen advisory committees
Citizen panels (planning cells)
Citizen juries
Citizen initiatives
Negotiated rule making
Mediation
Compensation and benefit sharing
Dutch study groups
Hire a Consultant
Expertise in building or running a DSS often can be purchased
from commercial businesses. In
some cases, such as the RAMAS and
Woodstock DSS, one firm sells both
the software and consulting services.
In others, the software may be free,
but consultants make a living helping people apply it to their problems.
Engaging such consultants is probably the quickest and surest way to
access DSS expertise. They tend to be
more client-focused than researchers,
but also more expensive. The Oregon
Department of Forestry hired a consulting firm to do the growth modeling and a university professor to design their harvest scheduling model.
At the same time, the department
largely handled the public outreach
component themselves, working with
the timber and environmental interest groups to design and run their
preferred model scenarios.
Do It Yourself
49
50
group, which did the data analysis and created the model.
Some private contractors were used to help with data
compilation and analysis.
10. The Nature ConservancyWashington State Ecoregional Planning
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife provided most of the core staff,
but hundreds of people from a wide array of organizations
participated. Five specialist teams (plants, animals, freshwater, marine, ecosystems) were assembled for each of the
nine ecoregions. A core team composed primarily of the
specialist team leaders oversaw the entire effort. Much of
the technical modeling work was done by TNC staff, who
have developed and applied the methods in other states.
11. Baltimore Watershed Plan
The city contracted with the state forestry department to
create the plan. The lead forester both implemented the
public outreach and worked with the DSS designer and a
GIS specialist to do the modeling.
12. Summit County (Colorado) Master Plan
Research staff from Colorado State University conceived
of and executed the effort. They refined the initial general
ideas using a collaborative design group, consisting of a
variety of people representing the types of professionals
expected to use the planning tool.
13. International Papers Forest Patterns
The system was designed by a small team chosen to
represent the organization both vertically, from managers to operations foresters, and horizontally, across the
four northeastern states. A Forest Service researcher also
participated on the team, and its draft products were
reviewed by a number of academics, agency personnel,
and water and wildlife consultants. Field foresters use the
system directly for their day-to-day management planning; they are assisted by specialized GIS foresters for the
more complex tasks.
14. SFI Forest Management Certification
A number of consulting firms specialize in forest management
certification, and they send a small team of experts to do each
audit. Their teams do not do any modeling, but they review
any modeling work done by the company and may suggest
methods for improving biodiversity-related analyses.
15. Consulting Foresters
The consulting foresters we spoke with ran the DSS themselves
and presented results to the landowners. They did not use the
wildlife module, however, and landowners did not appear to
use the DSS themselves.
51
52
Summary
Deciding how to use a DSS
involves a host of interrelated questions. We have focused on three: (1)
Who needs to be involved? (2) Who
is going to do the work? and (3) How
53
adjustments in the plan and its explanation. Upon its public announcement and description, the local press
that had been so hostile became enormously supportive and the plan was implemented and largely followed for the next decade.
As an interesting side note to this story, the quantitative decisions support system used was FORPLAN
the system discussed in the sidebar on p. 41 as a major contributor to the failure of national forest planning.
What was different here? First, FORPLAN was a mature, well-tested system by this time. Second, FORPLAN
was not the focus of planning and the final answer, but rather a mechanism to try out ideas in a back-andforth discussion about the implications of different proposed plansthe ideal use of
any decision support system. Third, it was deeply embedded in a
social process of plan revision.
The university forest planning approach made use of several
different types of decision support systems and, by using them as
components of a longer process, achieved widely acceptable and usable results.
References
Carr, D.S., S.W. Selin, and M.A.
Schuett. 1998. Managing public
forests: Understanding the role of
collaborative planning. Environmental Management 22:767776
Chess, C., T. Dietz, and M. Shannon,
1998. Who should deliberate
when? Human Ecology Review
5(1):4548.
Duncan, S.L., and D.H. Lach. 2006.
GIS technology in natural resource management: Process as
a tool of change. Cartographica
41(3):201215.
54
Information Visualisation
(IV05), London, England.
NRC (National Research Council).
1996. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic
society. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. 1995. Fairness and
55
http://www.sfiprogram.org/
Last accessed March 1, 2006.
Strauch, R. 1975. Squishy problems
and quantitative methods. Policy
Sciences 6:174184.
Webler, T. 1997. Organizing public
participation: a critical review of
three handbooks. Human Ecology
Review 3(2):245254.
What is a DSS?
The phrase decision support
system has multiple meanings.
Specialists in the field of information
systems use it to describe a type of
computer software, but in more general usage it could refer to any system
for supporting decisions (whether
involving computers or not). Our
review in this chapter uses the term
in the former, more technical, sense.
As discussed in the previous chapters
and in the appendix of cases, how-
The technology
Data management
Analytical models
User interface
The use
Helps evaluate alternative options or scenarios (decision)
Helps deal with complexity (support)
Has a clear, reproducible protocol (system)
56
57
58
Table 6.4 Biodiversity conservation goals and DSS used in the case studies
Categories and cases
1. Evaluating current (and past) habitat
FSP Spatial Analysis Project
Use several GIS layers to evaluate the conservation value of properties that
are or might be enrolled in the stewardship program
FWS Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Help landowners evaluate woodpecker habitat value and consider the
complex habitat needs of overlapping population clusters
International Papers Forest Patterns
Use a land classification system to evaluate amounts of different habitats
at the landscape scale and guide day-to-day management planning
NW Forest Plan Watershed Condition
Evaluate watershed condition for fish habitat at two points in time (past and
present) to gauge the impacts of the NW Forest Plan
Sandy Basin Anchor Habitats
Score the habitat potential of different stream segments, in order to prioritize
restoration activities
SFI Forest Management Certification
Meet the requirements for planning to conserve native biological diversity (ecolog-
ical communities and individual species) in general, and to locate and protect known
sites associated with viable occurrences of imperiled species and communities
Washington State Water Typing Model
Delineate parts of the stream network that are useful fish habitat in order to set
timber harvest regulations
Baltimore Watershed Plan
Analyze risks to the long-term sustainability of reservoir lands, including
maintaining water quality and enhancing forest habitat as a contribution
towards regional biodiversity
2. Simulating future habitat
Summit County (CO) Master Plan
Understand the impact of development regulations on biodiversity by projecting
the landscape to maximum allowed development density
Willamette Basin Futures Analysis
Simulate the effects of three different land use scenarios 50 years into the future
on a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic species
3. Finding efficient harvest and habitat solutions
Boise-Payette-Sawtooth National Forest Plan
Help select a management alternative by simulating the effects of different
alternatives on harvest levels and habitat for a variety of species over 50 years
Chesapeake Forest
Analyze trade-offs between timber production and Delmarva fox squirrel
habitat over 50 years
Oregon Harvest & Habitat Model
Model the effects of different harvesting alternatives on timber production and
habitat over 150 years in order to set harvest goals and tactical strategies
TNC-WA State Ecoregional Planning
Prioritize all lands in the state in terms of their biodiversity conservation values
59
DSS used
Custom GIS
application
Custom GIS
application
Custom GIS
application
EMDS
EMDS
Custom GIS
application
Custom GIS
application
NED + custom
GIS application
Custom GIS
application
Variety of custom
models + PATCH
FVS, Spectrum +
custom HSIs
Growth simulator
+ Habplan
FVS + custom
activity scheduler
Sites/Marxan
How to Characterize
Biodiversity?
As Chapter 3 discussed, you will
face fundamental choices in deciding how to measure biodiversity. You
may already have decided this point,
in which case you will want a system
that can handle your method, or you
may be more open to seeing what the
different systems have to offer. Our
review covered this point by generalizing an internationally adopted set
of nine forest biodiversity indicators
(from the Montreal Process, MPCI
2003) into eight indicator classes (Table 6.5). Indicators 14 tend toward
the category of coarse-filter measures
of forest structure and management,
while 58 are more fine-filter indicators generally tied to specific species.
We found a split between the forest modeling systems, which tend to
focus on indicator classes 13 (forest
60
Table 6.5 Comparison of available DSS to forest biodiversity decision-making considerations (see key, p. 60)
Complexity
Inf
or
ma
ti
Mu on in
teg
lti
pl e
rat
sc a
ion
So
l
e
ci a
s
ln
eg
ot
iat
ion
ag
e
Mg
mt
cl a
ss
Fra
gm
en
tat
Sp
ion
ec
ies
div
ers
Sp
ec
it y
ies
via
bil
Sp
it y
ec
ies
dis
tri
Sp
bu
ec
tio
ies
n
ab
un
S il
da
vic
nc
ul t
e
ur
e
La
nd
us
ec
ha
Cli
ng
ma
e
te
ch
a
ng
B io
e
log
ic a
l th
Fir
rea
e
ts
Forest Disturbances
Fo
res
t
typ
Fo
res
t
Us
er
d
efi
ne
d
Decision-making Needs
Gaps indentfied in
DSS capabilities
L
System includes
specific support
for this function
L Links to another
system with this
function
L
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a No specific
support, but has
been applied
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Forest Disturbances
Most questions involve how
changes in the forest affect biodiversity. The Forest Disturbances
category documents the DSS that
address specified change agents. The
biodiversity systems do not simulate such disturbances; instead, they
depend on the user to provide one
or more existing landscapes, which
they then evaluate. From the documentation we were able to review,
it does not appear as if any of these
systems contains built-in relationships for particular disturbances. In
other words, they do not distinguish
between patches of forest lost to fire
versus timber harvesting. In general,
these systems are quite flexible, so
a user could set up such distinc-
61
a
a
a
a
a
a
62
Decision Context
In Chapter 5 we presented a
framework for thinking about your
decision context based on levels of
knowledge and agreement on values
(Figure 5.1). Because optimization
approaches require more structure,
they tend to be more appropriate in
situations with relatively high levels
of agreement on the problem definition and relevant information. The
What if questions, answerable by
simulation systems, generally need
less agreement on the problem and
its components. They often are used
to project different means for addressing a problem and do not have
to incorporate an evaluation mechanism for explicitly comparing results.
Evaluation systems focus attention
on explaining differences in means
and ends. As mentioned in the
previous chapter, a DSS is not recommended when the problem is very
unstructured; conceptual modeling
and problem structuring methods
are likely to be more useful. Chapter
2 discussed some approaches more
suitable for problem structuring, and
Rosenhead (1989) has edited a volume that introduces six such problem-structuring methodologies.
Another aspect of decision context to consider is the different needs
DSS
Capacity needs*
Biodiversity
Regional assessment
Forestry
General
BMAS
CAPS
C-Plan
MARXAN
PATCH
RAMAS
RefugeGAP
ResNet
Sites
Vista
CLAMS
LUCAS
MRLAM
Restore
WBAFA
FVS
Harvest
LANDIS
LANDSUM
LMS
MAGIS
NED
RELM
RMLANDS
SIMPPLLE
Spectrum
TELSA
VDDT
Woodstock
DEFINITE
EMDS
Netica
High
(High)
Medium
Medium
(Medium)
(Medium)
Medium
Low
(High)
(High)
(High)
(Medium)
(High)
(Medium)
Low
High
(Medium)
(High)
(Medium)
(High)
(High)
(Medium)
(Medium)
Low
(High)
Low
(Low)
(Low)
63
64
65
66
References
Barrett, T.M. 2001. Models of vegetation change for landscape planning: a comparison of FETM,
LANDSUM, SIMPPLLE, and
VDDT. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. General Technical Report RMRS-76WWW, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station,
Ogden, UT. Online: http://www.
fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr76.pdf
Bonnicksen, T.M. 1996. Reaching
consensus on environmental
issues: the use of throwaway
computer models. Politics and the
Life Sciences 15(1):2334.
Chess, C., T. Dietz, and M. Shannon,
1998. Who should deliberate
when? Human Ecology Review
5(1):4548.
Costanza, R., and M. Ruth. 2001.
Modeling for scoping, research
and management. P. 169178 in
Institutions, ecosystems, and sustainability, Costanza, R., B.S. Low,
E. Ostrom, and J. Wilson (eds.).
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
IGDSNRE 1998. A strategy for the
development and application of
decision support systems for natural resources and the environment.
Interagency Group on Decision
Support for Natural Resources
and the Environment. Online:
http://www.i4sd.org/strat.html.
Last accessed August 4, 2003.
Johnson, P., and B. Lachman. 2001.
Rapid scan of decision support
67
Multisectoral applications
Federal
State
Local
Private
68
Multisectoral Applications
Willamette Basin Alternative Futures Analysis
Time frame: 19962001
DSS used: PATCH + variety of custom models
W
Description
Key Points
The project engaged stakeholders in constructing
the analysis, which helped
create buy-in/trust of the
model results.
A facilitated working group
was used as a forum for
translating between experts
and stakeholders.
The project did not engage
stakeholders in defining
overall framework, so it
missed key concerns such
as economic outcome measures.
Project leaders developed a
multi-level communication
strategy to reach different
audiences.
Project leaders took advantage of other deliberative
forums at the same scale.
The project did not directly
involve a political allocation
of resources, so it was less
controversial than some
other cases included here (it
was aimed at deliberation
support rather than decision support).
More Information
http://www.orst.edu/Dept/pnw-erc/ (Last accessed June 15, 2006)
http://willametteexplorer.info/ (Last accessed June 15, 2006)
69
Description
The convening purpose of this project was to bring all the entities (federal, state,
local governments, watershed council, NGOs) together and develop a basin-wide
watershed restoration strategy for the Sandy River Basin in northwest Oregon. The
process was structured to focus on aquatic habitat and produce a collaborative stakeholder vision across all ownerships. This first phase of the project identified anchor
habitats. These are distinct stream and river reaches that harbor specific life-history
stages of four species of salmon and steelhead to a greater extent than the river system at large, are critical for the creation and maintenance of high quality habitat, or
both. Three data sources were used: empirical data from
existing stream surveys, habitat modeling data generated
Key Points
by the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model, and
professional judgment from three local experts. Anchor
The DSS helped to combine different sources of
habitat stream segments were identified for the four
information.
species, and these priority areas can now be used to help
The DSS helped to structure an explicit approach
guide habitat restoration planning activities.
to evaluation.
More information
http://www.oregontrout.org/images/8success/Sandy%20Habitat%20Report.pdf
(Last accessed July 3, 2006)
70
Description
The U.S.D.A. Forest Service Forestry Support Program (FSP) provides technical assistance, through State forestry agency partners, to nonindustrial private forest owners to
encourage and enable active long-term forest management. A primary focus of the program
is the development of comprehensive, multi-resource management plans that provide landowners with the information they need to manage their forests for a variety
of products and services. Under pressure from the Office of Management
Key Points
and Budget to better demonstrate program effectiveness, the FSP has been
Involvement of local (i.e., state) repredeveloping the Spatial Analysis Program to track and summarize informasentatives seems desirable; in the pilot
tion about properties enrolled in the program. It is providing an online
phase it resulted in a broad buy-in
interface that helps create stewardship plans that qualify for the program
from the states.
and stores the information in a central database. It provides a basic set of
Flexibility given to state analytical
GIS data which can be used to evaluate impacts of (and possibly prioritize)
methods has created consistency
stewardship activities. States can add their own data layers and weighting
problems and made quality control/
systems.
oversight more difficult.
Information privacy is a big issue
Analytical Complexity: Medium (3)
because the system deals with private
Although the forest and biodiversity measures used are likely to be relalands data; arranging appropriate levtively simple, the overall analytical complexity was rated medium because
els of access for different hierarchical
of the very large geographic scope and likely state-to-state variability of the
levels is a major task. (Records must
analyses. The spatial extent of the DSS is very large, incorporating the 354
be anonymous at higher levels.)
million acres of the U.S. estimated to be under nonindustrial private owner- Although not originally intended to
ship, and spatial resolution needs to be quite fine to pick out properties
prioritize assistance (a somewhat sensidown to 10 acres (or less in some states). The actual analysis area is reduced,
tive issueFSP support has been on a
however, because individual states are responsible for determining their
first-come first-served basis), there is
priority areas and only a small portion of private lands are actually involved
concern that state and federal pressures
for efficiency may drive it that way.
in the program. Twelve basic data layers are proposed nationally (including threatened and endangered species) and more can be added by states, if
they wish.
More Information
http://www.fs.fed.us/na/sap/
(last accessed June 20, 2006)
71
Description
To guide biodiversity conservation and land use planning across Washington
State, the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Natural Resources (WDNR) joined with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in a partnership to do
an ecoregional assessment for each of Washingtons nine ecoregions. Each assessment
attempts to identify and prioritize places for the conservation of all biodiversity in an
ecoregion. The relative priorities are based on such factors as species rarity, species
richness, species representation, site suitability, and overall efficiency. Statistical models for suitability are typically not available, so therefore much of the index is based on
expert opinion. Expert opinion was incorporated by using an abbreviated version of
the analytic hierarchy process. The analysis utilizes an optimization program known
as Sites to find the most efficient set of conservation units.
Key Points
More Information
http://www.ecotrust.org/placematters/assessment.html (Last
accessed July 5, 2006)
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/era (Last accessed July 5, 2006)
72
Federal
Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic & Riparian Monitoring Program
Time frame: 20032005
DSS used: EMDS
Description
he Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) is
charged with monitoring and assessing the condition of aquatic ecosystems
and their riparian and upslope influences in the Northwest Forest Plan
area. The NW Forest Plan is a common management strategy that was
implemented in 1994 across all federal lands in the range of the northern
spotted owl, approximately 24 million acres in western Washington, Oregon, and
northern California. AREMP uses a randomized sampling strategy to sample instream, riparian, and upslope indicators on a total of 250
watersheds (about 10% of the total) every five years.
Key Points
Assessment of watershed condition is a complex task
involving considerable social and scientific uncertainty,
Regulatory agencies were not initially invited to
such as what attributes of the watershed are important
participate (to avoid typically contentious ESA
and what are the influences of the myriad of watershed
consultation procedures).
processes on one another? Many of the past watershed
Although the Northwest Forest Plan has been
assessments had been done using expert teams, who were
highly contentious, this analysis was not, most
able to use their best judgment to make assumptions
likely because it was not directly tied to any alabout these complexities and uncertainties. A group of
location of resources.
experts would be confined to a room with maps and data
and not allowed out until they had colored all the water A relatively simple evaluation model (roads &
sheds good, fair, or poor. The main problems with this
vegetation) was used for a complex concept.
approach were that such decisions were difficult to understand or repeat. A year (or week) down the line, the forest
Neither scientists nor stakeholders complained
supervisor might not be able to explain why a particular
about simplicity, and both supported the attempt
area was rated poor, or a different group of experts
at making the evaluation explicit and quantitamight well come up with a different set of ratings.
tive.
The science team that designed AREMP understood
Results were presented to the Regional Interthese problems and recommended the use of a decision
agency Executive Committee, but there are no
support system called Ecosystem Management Decision
clear mechanisms for how results are expected to
Support (or EMDS for short). EMDS could be used to
influence decision making.
capture the experts assessment criteria, so they would be
documented and consistently applied. Other reasons for
the DSS choice were that it was developed by the Forest
Service and had been tested for watershed evaluations before.
The AREMP team drafted an initial model internally to become familiar with the
process. This initial model did not distinguish the biophysical differences between
different areas of the plan (e.g., water temperature might naturally be higher in some
areas than in others), nor did it capture the range of expertise available. To address
these shortcomings, the AREMP team divided the Plan area into seven biophysical
provinces and held a series of workshops to develop a model for each. A total of 36
experts from the Forest Service and BLM attended the 2-day workshops, and an ad-
73
ditional 41 provided some input but did not attend. For the most part, attendees did
not appear to have a difficult time understanding the modeling process concepts, after
a short Powerpoint presentation on them.
Construction and testing of the different models were relatively rapid (a few days
each), but assembling the data to run through the models took the team most of the
next year. Final formatting of the data to fit the models also took as much effort as
building the models themselves. These runs were presented in a second round of
workshops intended to verify whether the models actually worked as intended. In
most cases, at least a few changes were needed to bring the models into line with the
experts knowledge.
The AREMP team published the model results as part of the 10-year evaluation of
the Northwest Forest Plan. Next they will need to decide when and how the models
should next be updated.
More Information
http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/watershed/
(Last accessed August 4, 2006)
74
Description
National forests are required to update their management plans every 1015
years. The adjacent Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests in southern Idaho
and northern Utah decided to update their plans together in order to better understand larger landscape issues and to address their many common concerns
more efficiently. National forest plans do not make specific decisions about
Key Points
timber harvesting or other activities, but rather have been described as more
The scope of the modeling
akin to land use zoning in determining overall rules and activities appropriate
project can change signififor certain areas. As part of planning, forests are required to calculate an Alcantly during the project;
lowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) of timber, which led the forest to use Spectrum,
initial calls for back of the
the standard DSS used for this purpose on national forests. The forests soon
envelope analyses for ASQ
realized that the basic forest growth and harvesting model could be expanded
eventually evolved into a
to help evaluate other effects of the different possible management alternamodel with 120 vegetation
tives. The model was expanded to include 120 vegetation classes (combinaclasses.
tions of vegetation types, successional stages, and canopy closures) that were
The kinds of DSS traditiondistributed across seven land allocation zones over 50 years for each of seven
broad management alternatives. To get a more detailed view of the feasibility
ally used to calculate timof these alternatives, the RELM DSS was used to take these Spectrum outputs
ber harvest levels are now
th
and distribute them further down to 6 field watersheds (about 200 per forbeing used to model more
est). Because fire is an important influence in the region that was not explicitly
complex vegetation dynammodeled by Spectrum and because there was some suspicion of inherent biases
ics over time for a variety of
in optimization modeling, a parallel modeling exercise using the VDDT DSS
resource outputs.
was also undertaken near the end of the planning process. (VDDT had also
Multiple DSS are often
been used to model the unforested parts of the planning area.)
needed to meet complex
needs: separate models
Analytical Complexity: High (5)
were needed to handle the
The forests cover a relatively large area (6.6 million acres), and analyses of
strategic (Spectrum) and
management options were disaggregated to the subwatershed level (approximately
tactical (RELM) aspects
200 per forest). Habitat trends were analyzed for seven alternatives over 50 years.
of planning; a simulation
The effects on approximately 2030 species were analyzed, ~10 quantitatively and
approach (VDDT) was also
the rest qualitatively. The analytical complexity was considerable, but we could say
done to provide an alternait was limited by choosing no more than seven alternatives, modeling them for no
tive view.
more than 50 years (some other national forest plans have gone up to 150 years),
looking at the subwatershed (rather than stand-level), and using groups of indicator species, rather than trying to model effects on all species.
More Information
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sawtooth/arevision/revision.htm (Last accessed December 21, 2005)
75
Description
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Picoides borealis) is one of the longest
recognized federally endangered species. It lives only in open, mature, and old-growth
pine ecosystems in the southeastern United States, a habitat that has declined rapidly
due to fire suppression and short-rotation forestry. Its current abundance is estimated
at less than 3% of its abundance at the time of European settlement.
In 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a major new revision of the
RCW recovery plan that includes updated management guidelines for both federal and nonfederal lands. Applying these guidelines on the ground can be complex
because breeding groups often occupy a cluster of nesting trees, and multiple groups
may be found adjacent to one another. To encourage compliance with the
new regulations, the FWS has developed an extension to the popular ArcGIS
Key Points
software that can assist managers in meeting the new guidelines. The software
As the sophistication of our
is referred to as the RCW Foraging Habitat Matrix Application and can be
understanding of habitat
downloaded free from the internet (http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/matrix.
needs increases, computer
html). It builds on previous work by Fort Bragg on automating habitat evalutools may be able to help
ations based on digital forest inventories. The GIS software company (ESRI)
managers keep up.
and U.S. Army Environmental Center also contributed significant resources
Building flexibility into the
to the effort. One important difference from the past effort is that the new
software allows users to
guidelines require habitat details not normally present in forest inventories,
modify model parameters to
including ground cover and midstory hardwoods.
reflect their local conditions.
The software was released in April 2006, so it is too early to gauge its
impact. The authors expect considerable feedback and refinement of the tool,
Data not commonly coland a central design goal was to build in as much flexibility as possible.
lected for forest inventories
A few RCW modeling efforts simulate how populations of the bird
are often needed for habitat
will fluctuate over time given environmental influences. These models are
evaluations.
considerably more complex in that they simulate individual birds over
time in a spatially explicit manner. Designers of one of these models run it
on their mainframe computer for clients on a contractual basis. They have
also recently (2006) received a contract from the Department of Defense to create a
desktop computer version for managers, expected to be completed in 2009.
76
More Information
http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/matrix.html
(Last accessed June 27, 2006)
http://www.serdp.org/Research/upload/SI_FS_1472.pdf
(Last accessed June 27, 2006)
77
State
Chesapeake Forest Project
Time frame: 1999present
DSS used: Habplan and GIS
Description
he Chesapeake Forest consists of 58,000 acres of forest land scattered over
the eastern shore of Maryland, and it makes up about 12% of productive
timberland in the region. In 1999, the state of Maryland and the Conservation Fund cooperated to purchase the lands from an exiting industrial
owner. The Conservation Fund transferred title to the state the next year,
but also included a sustainable forestry management plan and ongoing contract with
consultants for management. As part of the management plan, the Habplan DSS was
used to model a possibility curve for endangered Delmarva fox squirrel habitat versus
timber volume extraction. The Habplan model has not been rerun since the transfer;
the project instead relies on relatively simple GIS system for its ongoing planning.
However, a recent forest certification audit recommended more attention to future
habitat modeling.
Key Points
More Information
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/chesapeakeforestlands.asp
(Last accessed November 11, 2005)
78
Description
To provide decision support to the Board of Forestry for its 2001 revision of the
strategic long-term plans for state forest management, the Oregon Department of
Forestry (ODF) modeled different alternatives on timber production and complex
stand structure development. A public planning process, begun in the mid-1990s,
had identified a range of management options, from industrial forestry to conservation-focused approaches. A compromise active-management approach, referred to as
structure-based management, was identified as the preferred alternative. The first
analytical effort in 1999 compared outputs from structure-based management to five
other scenarios from the identified range of alternatives. Originally scheduled to be
completed in five months, the effort took nearly a year longer because of the extensive
work needed to prepare all the necessary data. A variety of growth and thinning options were generated with the ORGANON growth-and-yield program. These were fed
into a custom-programmed, spatially explicit harvest scheduling model created by a
professor at Oregon State University. The model projected the alternatives for a 200-year planning horizon in 10-year intervals. The primary Key Points
indicators used to describe the results of the alternatives were harvest
Existing data were not adequate (in
volume, net present value and area of land in the oldest two (of five)
accuracy or format) for the modelstructure classes. The Board of Forestry approved the structure-based
ing goals; a new (and expensive) data
management plan in early 2001.
generation initiative was needed.
As with most modeling efforts, both available time and data were major constraints. Stand-level inventories, road access data, and information Although initial results were charon the growth-retarding effects of an emerging disease problem (Swiss
acterized as relative, they created
needle cast) were all weak or not available in formats that could be easily
concrete expectations that have been
incorporated into the model. Further, there was little time to involve the
hard to break.
various district and field foresters in refining the results. Because of these Engaging field personnel in an iterashortcomings, the results from these initial modeled alternatives were
tive model refinement process was
portrayed as relative, not absolute. Nevertheless, when operational estinecessary to incorporate on-themates the districts produced (after the plan had been adopted) came in
ground constraints and generate
at only about half the model-predicted harvest, it became a major politirealistic model outputs.
cal issue with the counties and forest industry that depended heavily on
Involving stakeholders is a widely
revenues from these forests.
recommended strategy, but scenarios
In 2003, the counties and the state agreed to a formal three-year,
they generate may be outside what
$2 million dollar project to enhance the modeling process in order to
decision makers see as their viable
provide decision support for a potential revision to the management
decision space.
plan, to support a decision on whether to pursue a habitat conservation
plan, and to help set harvest levels. This Harvest and Habitat Model
Project (H&H) utilized a new stand-level inventory, improved growth
projections (including updated impacts from Swiss needle cast and the use of the
Forest Vegetation Simulator program), and incorporated the costs and constraints of
silvicultural options and operational harvest units, including associated transportation
systems. District foresters were involved at every stage in the development of model
inputs and in a feedback loop with the modelers to help check and refine the feasibil-
79
ity of model operations. A separate GIS-based tool was developed to help facilitate
this checking. Four alternatives were modeled: the current management plan, using
both a proposed habitat conservation plan and an endangered species take avoidance strategy; the current management plan with only take avoidance; and timber
and conservation-oriented alternatives (elaborated in conjunction with these separate
stakeholder groups). The final results of this second phase were presented to the Board
in early 2006. Although Board members seemed to understand the model results,
they were not clear on their decision space, i.e., how much legal latitude they have
to adjust the plan and what are the specific features they can adjust. Timber interests
questioned the validity of the plan (not the model) because the new model estimates
are considerably below earlier estimates and what they consider sustainable. Although
the H&H project is now officially completed, the tools created will continue to be
refined and used in the states forest planning processes. In August 2006, a peer review
of the model was conducted, providing considerable information on the strengths and
weaknesses of this effort (available at the website cited below).
More Information
http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/Harvest_and_
Habitat_Model_Project.shtml (Last accessed December 5, 2006)
Overhulser, P., J. Sessions, R. Holloway, M. Rasmussen, and D.L.
Johnson. 2006. Oregon State ForestsAn approach to policy analysis
under complex demands. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR.
80
Description
The Washington Forest Practice rules require different riparian buffer widths
to fishbearing and nonfishbearing streams (making this distinction is referred to as
water typing). The regulatory maps in force in the mid-1990s were found to significantly underestimate fish habitat, so the multi-stakeholder group negotiating the new
regulations agreed to develop a new scientific, model-based approach. The state Board
of Forestry adopted a regulation supporting the model-based approach, with the stipulations that the model achieve 95% accuracy and that a precautionary interim rule, which overestimates
Key Points
fish presence, would be followed during model development.
The burden of proof can swing dramatiA multistakeholder science group has been working on the
cally in a political process.
model since 2000, but their modeling has not been able to meet
DSS can improve the accuracy of predicthe 95% accuracy threshold in all areas of the state because of
tions; however, this inevitably threatens
geomorphic variability and the limited resolution of the topothose parties whose interests are favored
graphic data. Debate on the further development and potential
by the existing burden of truth.
use of the water-typing model continues, and the interim rule
Basing model acceptance on a standard of
remains in force.
accuracy (especially a high absolute one)
Analytical Complexity: Medium-low (2)
appears to be a common sense approach,
but parties can use technical debate to
The extent of the modeling task was large, the whole state
delay implementation on what ultimately
of Washington, but the analytical complexity of the modeling
must be a political decision.
process was deliberately kept low (at least conceptually). The
model results were simply fish presence versus absence, which
was based on only four geographic attributes: basin size, elevation, downstream gradient, and mean annual precipitation. The
model was designed to represent just one snapshot in time. Analytical complexity was
limited by limiting the number of models developed to two (east/west) and using only
a small subset of possible habitat variables.
More Information
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/watertyping/ (Last accessed July 3, 2006)
81
Local
Summit County Lower Blue Subbasin Master Plan
Time frame: 19952000
DSS used: GIS (System for Conservation PlanningSCoP)
Description
Much of the responsibility for land use planning in the U.S. falls to county-level
government. There are, however, few written examples of DSS use related to biodiversity issues at the county level. One exception is the work of Tom Hobbs and David
Theobold at Colorado State University. One of their examples is a collaboration with
Summit County, Colorado, which is located about 60 miles west of Denver and is
the home of the mountain resorts of Breckenridge, Vail, and
Keystone. In terms of population, it has been one of the fastest
Key Points
growing counties in the nation (99.5% increase from 1990
There is a gap between the general scien2000). The White River National Forest occupies over 80% of
tific principles established on landscape
the total land area in the county, and considerable develophabitat evaluation and the specificity
ment has occurred in forested areas or on private urbanized
needed to implement them in a land use
lands that are forested and adjacent to federal lands (i.e., the
plan; expert interpretation is needed.
wildland/urban interface). As is common in many U.S. counties, a citizen committee updates a master plan for the county
Citizen involvement is needed to make
every few years. These plans do not directly set regulations,
the many value-based judgments needed
but rather provide guidance in setting legal standards, such as
in conservation planning.
zoning regulations. In Summit County, the comprehensive plan
Models used must be simple enough for
is further subdivided into four subbasins, of which the Lower
stakeholders to understand.
Blue subbasin is the least developed to date.
Models tend to become complex as they
Dr. Hobbs championed the need to better integrate biodiare customized for a particular use; in
versity information into county-level planning and received
order to be transferable to other locales,
funding in 1994 to develop such a system from the Great
they must be stripped to a few core eleOutdoors Colorado fund (state lottery money) and the Coloments.
rado Division of Wildlife. County commissioners from Sum Landowners value plans and regulations
mit and Larimer expressed interest and provided support for
that are constant and predictable, which
implementation in their counties. In addition to the computer
conflicts with the learn as you go proprogrammers and scientists, Hobbs assembled a collaborative
cess of adaptive management favored by
design group consisting of a county commissioner, a planner,
ecologists.
a developer, a land owner, a wildlife manager, and some environmental advocates. The system was built using an iterative
process of collecting ideas from the design group, constructing
prototypes, and obtaining feedback. Theobald et al. (2000) describe one of the lessons
learned in the collaborative design process:
Scientists on our design team originally advocated development of generalized population viability models as a way to analyze the consequences of development of a patch of
habitat. However, the citizen participants found this approach to be obtuse and excessively technical, requiring them to take on faith the validity of models produced by experts. There was a strongly expressed sentiment among these nontechnical members of
our design team that they must be able to explain any analysis we used in a reasonable
way to their fellow citizens, without relying on outside technical expertise to establish
the credibility of the analysis.
82
Additionally, they found a gap between the generalized theories that scientists
work with and the more specific information needed in local land-use planning.
Bridging this gap required experts willing to make difficult judgments or assumptions.
Many of the assumptions and parameters also involved value judgments, which were
most appropriately derived from the stakeholders. They also encountered difficulties
in bridging the differences in time and space as they relate to ecological processes
(long times and large areas) versus county planning processes (shorter times and
smaller areas). Most biodiversity data is collected at the state level, so the level of detail
is often less than ideal for local planning.
The resulting maps were used by the county in the update of their Lower Blue
Master Plan. By the end of the process, the SCoP tool had become too complex to be
easily transferable to other counties, and there was less political support at the state
level for such planning related to private lands. Some of the ideas were incorporated
into a statewide service operated by the Division of Wildlife called the Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). NDIS provides basic county-level statistics, species
status lists, and internet maps of historical land use development trends. It does not,
however, provide the type of species distribution and future build-out analyses that
formed the core of the Blue Subbasin analysis.
More Information
Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). Online: http://www.ndis.nrel.colostate.
edu/ (Last accessed July 31, 2006)
Theobald, D.M., and N.T. Hobbs. 2002. A framework for evaluating land use planning
alternatives: protecting biodiversity on private land. Conservation Ecology 6(1):5.
Online: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art5 (Last accessed July 31, 2006)
Theobald, D.M., N.T. Hobbs, T. Bearly, J.A. Zack, T.Shenk, and W.E. Riebsame. 2000.
Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing
a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecology 15(1):355.
Duerksen, C.J., N.T.Hobbs, D.L. Elliott, E. Johnson, and J.R. Miller. 1996. Managing
development for people and wildlife: a handbook for habitat protection by local governments. Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC and Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Denver, CO. Online: http://www.ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/handbook/
handbook.html (Last accessed July 31, 2006)
83
Description
The city of Baltimore, Maryland, used a combination of computer-based tools,
primarily the ArcView geographic information system (GIS) and the NED-1 system,
to analyze risks to the long-term sustainability of their reservoir lands and to develop
and evaluate alternative scenarios for management of the lands. While maintaining
water quality was the primary goal, the second and third goals were maintaining and
enhancing the forest habitat as a contribution towards regional biodiversity. NED-1
inventories incorporated data needed to evaluate wildlife habitat composition and
structure and the quality of habitat along first- and second-order streams. While
providing a platform for the management and analysis of data
Key Points
on numerous key abiotic and biotic forest characteristics, the
NED-1 decision support software did not provide a mechanism
NED provided the best data structuring
for evaluating the relationships of these landscape elements.
mechanism the analyst could find, but it
The need to understand how landscape context and current
still left out major ecological elements, such
ecological processes were shaping the forest required a synas streams, roads, nutrient movement, and
thesis of tools and often required stepping outside the decidisturbance regimes.
sion support mechanism for critical answers to conservation
GIS provided a platform that was generic
problems.
enough to integrate these other ecological
elements, but, because it was generic, much
Analytical Complexity: Medium-low (2.5)
work was required to model them from
The spatial complexity of the analysis was relatively low: it
scratch.
covered 17,580 acres divided into 836 stands. Fourteen types of
The analyst emphasized that the final
forest plant communities were distinguished, and several eleproduct needed to be more than a report;
ments of forest habitat structure were analyzed (vertical canopy
it needed to include an information system
structure, interior habitat, coarse woody debris). Simplifying
that could be transferred to the City.
assumptions included using only these coarse filter measures
The analyst thought that communication
of biodiversity; no individual species needs were tracked, and
was best if organic and flexible, and he conno temporal aspect of the analysis was mentioned, so it appears
sidered the term communication strategy
it was based only on the current inventory.
to imply selling a predetermined solution.
Social Complexity: Medium-high (4)
The best approach was to attend citizen
advisory group meetings from the start,
The social complexity of the case was rated medium-high
express openness to their ideas, and volunbecause the report was expected to significantly influence the
teer to attend their interest group meetings
management of these public lands. Several local recreation
(which minimized the need for advisory
groups (bird watchers, mountain bikers, hunters, boaters) had
members to be messengers).
considerable interest in the lands. Rather than relying primarily on large, formal public forums, the lead planner appears to
have reduced the potential conflict by attending the various meetings of individual
interest groups to explain the effort and solicit their input more informally.
More information
http://cityservices.baltimorecity.gov/dpw/waterwastewater03/watershed_fcp/ (Last
accessed November 11, 2005)
84
Private
International Papers Forest Patterns System
Time frame: 1996present
DSS used: Forest Patterns (internally developed, based on ArcGIS and Microsoft Access)
Description
IP developed their Forest Patterns system to help them manage at the landscape
level and comply with environmental laws and the sustainable forestry certification
standards. The program tracks a hierarchy of land uses beginning with three broad
tiers of management: timber production, conservation, and nonforest. It contributes
to the conservation of biodiversity via management of landscape units (typically
40,000 to 60,000 acres). Landscape units can be assessed to determine structure and
forest cover type gaps or surpluses when compared with regional vertebrate landscape
scale models developed by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
Key Points
Top management support is critical.
More Information
http://ipaper.com/Our%20Company/Environment/EnvironmentalStewardship.html
(Last accessed May 23, 2006)
85
SFI Certification
Time frame: 20002003
DSS used: GIS
Description
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard (SFIS) is a form of self-regulation initiated by the forest industry. All companies belonging to the American Pulp and Paper
Association are required to undergo SFIS certification. As seen in the IP case above, DSS
can contribute significantly towards the certification process. In contrast to the previous
case, here we look at DSS use from the perspective of those doing the certification (regulators), rather than the landowners. Under SFIS objective 4, companies are required to
have programs to promote biological diversity at stand and landscape levels. A review
of several certification summary reports and interviews with two certification specialists
revealed that there is no one standardized procedure for these biodiversity analyses. It is
up to each company to devise methods and each certifier to judge their acceptability.
Key Points
The most visible emerging trends are collaboration with and borrowing techniques from The Nature Conservancys (TNC) ecoregional analyses and the use of
Few details are publicly
a global species ranking system devised by NatureServe and its network of Natural
available on how compaHeritage programs. Companies are required to have plans to conserve native bionies do SFIS biodiversity
logical diversity (ecological communities and individual species) in general, and
analyses; they are only
to locate and protect known sites associated with viable occurrences of critically
required to publicize brief
imperiled (NatureServe rank G1) and imperiled (rank G2) species and communisummaries of their certities. These requirements are most often met by developing customized GIS analyfication processes.
ses that combine the companys forest inventory data with other biophysical layers
Companies appear to
(e.g., slope, soils) to identify important biodiversity areas. These GIS screens are
have been largely devisused to identify both ecological communities (coarse filter) and individual species
ing their own individual
(fine filter) habitat needs. NatureServe recently came out with a new DSS named
methods to meet biodiVista, which could help companies integrate economic and biodiversity values to
versity analysis requireprioritize conservation areas. The SFIS 20052009 standards now require expertise
ments, usually using a
in forest modeling on the certification teams, which may begin to raise the bar
standard GIS package.
on expectations for habitat analysis (especially simulations into the future).
Companies should be
Analytical Complexity: Medium-low (2)
able to continue to build
Analyses done for SFI certification have been fairly simple to date. Geographic
on information and
areas
are usually confined to one companys land holdings, although they may reftools provided by TNC,
erence broader analyses done by other organizations (TNC, states). Little evidence
NatureServe, and the
of habitat analyses over time was found. The characterization of biodiversity was
state Natural Heritage
moderately complex, as it included both coarse and fine filter measures.
programs; NatureServes
Vista DSS can help
Social Complexity: Medium-low (2)
integrate economic and
Social complexity is relatively simple and was ranked as medium-low because
biodiversity values.
the process mainly consists of developing standards internally within one company.
Standards and implementation are reviewed by a third party certification team;
however, the level of conflict is typically much less than for enacting public regulations.
More information
http://www.sfiprogram.org/ (Last accessed July 14, 2006)
http://www.natureserve.org/ (Last accessed July 14, 2006)
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/ecotools (Last accessed July 14, 2006)
86
Description
In the Phase I review of available decision support tools, NED was the system
most oriented towards small landowners. In an interview with the software developer,
he noted that few small landowners appear to use it themselves; rather, the main users
seem to be consulting foresters. Three foresters were contacted and interviewed about
their use of NED with small landowners. The NED system contains a
wildlife module that uses a forest inventory to estimate habitat types
Key Points
and qualitative likelihood of wildlife presence/absence (based on
DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). None of the consultants interviewed
The main appeal of the software has
has used the NED wildlife module with clients, however; instead they
been to calculate inventories from
simply use their own knowledge to advise landowners on wildlife
sample cruises.
issues.
Many landowners are interested in
wildlife, but the qualitative evaluaAnalytical Complexity: Low (1)
tion provided by the software does
Analytical complexity was rated low because the spatial complexnot provide any value-added to
ity was limited by the small properties involved. The DSS was generthe consulting foresters who use the
ally only used to structure the current forest inventory, rather than
system; it is easier for them to simto project forest growth over time. As mentioned above, the DSS was
ply draw on their own knowledge.
not used to assess biodiversity indicators, and the type of analysis
needed for the situation was a simple, qualitative assessment of wildlife effects of different forest management options.
More Information
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/burlington/ned/index.htm (Last accessed July 5, 2006)
Degraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife. Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.
87
Abbreviation
BMAS
CAPS
C-Plan
MARXAN / SPEXAN
PATCH
RAMAS
Refuge GAP
ResNet & Surrogacy
Sites
Vista
FVS
Habplan
Harvest
LANDIS
LANDSUM
LMS
MAGIS
NED
RELM
RMLANDS
SIMPPLLE
Spectrum
TELSA
VDDT
Woodstock
DEFINITE
EMDS
Netica
CLAMS
LUCAS
MRLAM
Restore
WBAFA
Full name
Biodiversity Management Area Selection
Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System
C-Plan
MARXAN / SPEXAN
Program to Assist in Tracking Critical Habitat
RAMAS
Refuge GAP
ResNet & Surrogacy
Sites/Site Selection Module
NatureServe Vista
Forest Vegetation Simulator
Habplan
Harvest
LANDIS
Landscape Successional Model
Landscape Management System
Multiple-resource Analysis and Geographic Information System
NED
Regional Ecosystem and Land Management Decision Support System
Rocky Mountain Landscape Simulator
Simulating Patterns and Processes at Landscape Scales
Spectrum
Tool for Exploratory Landscape Scenario Analyses
Vegetation Dynamic Development Tool
Woodstock, Spatial Woodstock & Stanley
DEFINITE
Ecosystem Management Decision Support
Netica
Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling System
Land-Use Change and Analysis System
Multi-Resource Land Allocation Model
Restore
Willamette Basin Alternative Futures Analysis
88
Website or reference
Fischer, D. and Church, R. 2003. Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an
extension of the Biodiversity Management Area Selection model. Forest Science 49(4): 555565.
www.umass.edu/landeco/research/caps/caps.html
www.uq.edu.au/~uqmwatts/cplan.html
www.ecology.uq.edu.au/marxan.htm
www.epa.gov/wed/pages/models/patch/patchmain.htm
www.ramas.com
www.sdvc.uwyo.edu/wbn/refuge/
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~consbio/Cons/Labframeset.html
www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/tnc/toolbox.html
www.natureserve.org/Vista
www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/
http://ncasi.uml.edu/projects/habplan/
www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4153/harvest/harvhome.asp
http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu/projects/landis.htm
www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescription20.php
http://lms.cfr.washington.edu
www.fs.fed.us/rm/econ/magis
www.fs.fed.us/ne/burlington/ned
www.fs.fed.us/institute/planning_center/plan_relm.html
www.umass.edu/landeco/research/rmlands/rmlands.html
www.fs.fed.us/rm/missoula/4151/SIMPPLLE
www.fs.fed.us/institute/planning_center/plan_spectrum.html
www.essa.com/downloads/telsa/
www.essa.com/downloads/vddt/
www.remsoft.com
http://tinyurl.com/2prcxe
http://www.institute.redlands.edu/emds/
www.norsys.com
www.spiritone.com/~brucem/bbns.htm
www.fsl.orst.edu/clams
www.cs.utk.edu/~lucas
http://www.fvle.org/
http://biosys.bre.orst.edu/restore/default.cfm
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pnw-erc/