Advertisement

Meaningful and Meaningless Statements in Landscape Ecology and Environmental Sustainability

  • Fred S. RobertsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 92)

Abstract

The growing population and increasing pressures for development lead to challenges to life on our planet. Increasingly, we are seeing how human activities affect the natural environment, including systems that sustain life: climate, healthy air and water, arable land to grow food, etc. There is growing interest (and urgency) in understanding how changes in human activities might lead to long-term sustainability of critical environmental systems. Of particular interest are large ecological systems that affect climate, air and water, etc. Landscape Ecology is concerned with such systems. Understanding the challenges facing our planet requires us to summarize data, understand claims, and investigate hypotheses. To be useful, these summaries, claims, and hypotheses are often stated using metrics of various kinds, using a variety of scales of measurement. The modern theory of measurement shows us that we have to be careful using scales of measurement and that sometimes statements using such scales can be meaningless—in a very precise sense. This paper summarizes the theory of meaningful and meaningless statements in measurement and applies it to statements in landscape ecology and environmental sustainability.

Keywords

Measurement Meaningfulness Landscape ecology Environmental sustainability Biodiversity Indices 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation under grant number DMS-0829652 to Rutgers University. A number of ideas and some of the examples and language in this paper are borrowed from my papers Roberts [21, 23], which explore meaningful and meaningless statements in operations research and in epidemiology and public health, respectively. The author gratefully and thankfully acknowledges the many stimulating and fruitful scientific interchanges with Boris Mirkin over a period of many years, and wishes him many years of continued good health and success.

References

  1. 1.
    Dalton, H.: The measurement of inequality of incomes. Econ. J. 30, 348–361 (1920)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleming, P.J., Wallace, J.J.: How not to lie with statistics: the correct way to summarize benchmark results. Commun. ACM 29, 218–221 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gini, C.: Il diverso accrescimento delle classi sociali e la concentrazione della richezza. Giornale degli Economist, serie II, 2 (1909)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gini, C.: Variabilite mutabilita. Studi Economicoaguridic della Facotta di Giurisprudenza dell Univ. di Cagliari III. Parte II. (1912)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldman, A.J.: Discrete mathematics in government. Lecture presented at SIAM Symposium on Applications of Discrete Mathematics, Troy, NY, June 1981Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heath, J.L.: Re-evaluation of RISC I. Comput. Archit. News 12, 3–10 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson, R.D., Huete, A.R.: Interpreting vegetation indices. Prev. Vet. Med. 11, 185–200 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A.: Foundations of Measurement, vol. I. Academic, New York (1971)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruskal, J.B.: On the shortest spanning tree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 7, 48–50 (1956)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luce, R.D., Krantz, D.H., Suppes, P., Tversky, A.: Foundations of Measurement, vol. III. Academic, New York (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magurran, A.E.: Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman & Hall, London (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahadev, N.V.R., Pekeč, A., Roberts, F.S.: On the meaningfulness of optimal solutions to scheduling problems: can an optimal solution be non-optimal? Oper. Res. 46(Suppl.), S120–S134 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Steiglitz, K.: Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pekeč, A.: Limitations on conclusions from combinatorial optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pekeč, A.: Scalings in linear programming: necessary and sufficient conditions for invariance. Center for Basic Research in Computer Science (BRICS), Technical report RS-96-50 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfanzagl, J.: Theory of Measurement. Wiley, New York (1968)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roberts, F.S.: Building an energy demand signed digraph I: choosing the nodes. Rept. \(927/1 - NSF\). April. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (1972)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberts, F.S.: Building and analyzing an energy demand signed digraph. Environ. Plan. 5, 199–221 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roberts, F.S.: Measurement Theory, with Applications to Decisionmaking, Utility, and the Social Sciences. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1979). Digital Reprinting (2009). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberts, F.S.: Meaningfulness of conclusions from combinatorial optimization. Discrete Appl. Math. 29, 221–241 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roberts, F.S.: Limitations on conclusions using scales of measurement. In: Pollock, S.M., Rothkopf, M.H., Barnett, A. (eds.) Operations Research and the Public Sector. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 6, pp. 621–671. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts, F.S.: Meaningless statements. In: Contemporary Trends in Discrete Mathematics. DIMACS Series, vol. 49, pp. 257–274. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts, F.S.: Meaningful and meaningless statements in epidemiology and public health. In: Berglund, B., Rossi, G.B., Townsend, J., Pendrills, L. (eds.) Measurements with Persons, pp. 75–95. Taylor and Francis, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shannon, C.E.: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423 (1948)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simpson, E.H.: Measurement of diversity. Nature 163, 688 (1949)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stevens, S.S.: On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103, 677–680 (1946)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stevens, S.S.: Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In: Stevens, S.S. (ed.) Handbook of Experimental Psychology, pp. 1–49. Wiley, New York (1951)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stevens, S.S.: Measurement, psychophysics, and utility. In: Churchman, C.W., Ratoosh, P. (eds.) Measurement: Definitions and Theories, pp. 18–63. Wiley, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stevens, S.S.: Ratio scales of opinion. In: Whitla, D.K. (ed.) Handbook of Measurement and Assessment in Behavioral Sciences. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1968)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suppes, P.: Measurement, empirical meaningfulness and three-valued logic. In: Churchman, C.W., Ratoosh, P. (eds.) Measurement: Definitions and Theories, pp. 129–143. Wiley, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Suppes, P.: Replies. In: Bogdan, R.J. (ed.) Patrick Suppes, pp. 207–232. Reidel, Dordrecht (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suppes, P., Zinnes, J.: Basic measurement theory. In: Luce, R.D., Bush, R.R., Galanter, E. (eds.) Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 1–76. Wiley, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suppes, P., Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Tversky, A.: Foundations of Measurement, vol. II. Academic, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    UNEP: Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20) (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Urban, D., Keitt, T.: Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82, 1205–1218 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Wijk, M.T., Williams, M.: Optical instruments for measuring leaf area index in low vegetation: application in Arctic ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1462–1470 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zettenberg, A.: Network based tools and indicators for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Licentiate Thesis, KTH-Environmental Management and Assessment Research Group, Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIMACS CenterRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations