Advertisement

Barriers to the Use of Ecological Models in Decision Making

  • Virginia H. Dale
  • Chris Rewerts
  • Webb Van Winkle
  • Mark A. Harwell
  • Mike Vasievich
  • Steve Hodapp
Chapter
  • 192 Downloads

6.6 Conclusions

In this chapter, the discussion focused on situations in which models can, should, or have been used as well as on how models helped or could have helped the decisions. Our perspective is that models and sound science should be used because they can improve the decision process or the like-lihood of making the best decision with the available data and the under-standing of the processes involved. Such an adoption of models will cost more, take more time, and be potentially more complex, but it will improve the management of natural resources and will save money and other resources in the long term.

Keywords

Ecological Model United States Environmental Protection Agency Ecological Risk Assessment Ecological Society Public Land Manager 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aber, J.D. 1997. Why don’t we believe the models? Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 78:232–233.Google Scholar
  2. Cannon, J.R., J.M. Dietz, and L.A. Dietz. 1996. Training conservation biologists in human interaction skills. Conservation Biology 10:1277–1282.Google Scholar
  3. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dale, V.H. and G.L. Swartzman. 1984. Simulating the effects of increased temperature in a plankton ecosystem: A case study. Pages 395–428 in E. Shubert, editor. Algae as Ecological Indicators. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  5. English, M.R., V.H. Dale, C. Van Riper-Geibig, and W.H. Ramsey. 1999. Overview. Pages 1–31 in V.H. Dale and M.R. English, editors. Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making. New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Karacapilidis, N. and D. Papadias. 2001. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems 26:259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McDuff, M.D. 2001. Building the capacity of grassroots conservation organizations to conduct participatory evaluation. Environmental Management 27:715–727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. McMahon, S.M., K.H. Miller, and J. Drake. 2001. Social science and ecology-Networking tips for social scientists and ecologists. Science 293:1604–1605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mehler, R. and M.W. Ostrowski. 1999. Comparison of the efficiency of best stormwater management practices in urban drainage systems. Water Science and Technology 39:269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mitro, M.G. 2001. Ecological model testing: verification, validation, or neither? Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82:235–237.Google Scholar
  11. Rabe, B.G. 1994. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States. The Brookings Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Rose, K.A., R.B. Cook, A.L. Brenkert, R.H. Gardner, and J.P. Hettelingh. 1991. Systematic comparison of ILWAS, MAGIC, and ETD watershed acidification models: 1. Mapping among models inputs and deterministic results. Water Resources Research 27:2577–2589.Google Scholar
  13. Russell, M. 1992. Lessons from NAPAP. Ecological Applications 2:107–110.Google Scholar
  14. Shipley, J. 1995. The Applegate partnership. Watershed Management Council Newsletter 6(3).Google Scholar
  15. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. USEPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Walker, R., W. Landis, and P. Brown. 2001. Developing a regional ecological risk assessment: A case study of a Tasmanian agricultural catchment. Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7:417–439.Google Scholar
  17. Wondolleck, J.A. and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Zhu, X. and A.P. Dale. 2001. JavaAHP: A web-based decision analysis tool for natural resource and environmental management. Environmental Modelling and Software 16:251–262.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginia H. Dale
  • Chris Rewerts
  • Webb Van Winkle
  • Mark A. Harwell
  • Mike Vasievich
  • Steve Hodapp

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations