Dynamic models

To determine the types of dynamic simulation models developed to support the framework one Lead was asked: what dynamic models are being used in the national framework developed by the ESRP? The response was “there is no consistency in model type being applied”. There is no "one size fits all" model. The most common models being applied are listed and described in the Final Draft Modelling Plan for the program (EPA 2011e). Some models were "stand alone" and "built to fit" for specific purposes (e.g. specifically for a place-based study), whilst other models provide the infrastructure to support the integration of many models and often rely on inputs from existing

internally and externally built models to the ESRP (i.e. "plug and play models like ENVISION”).

A modelling plan was developed for the ESRP in 2008 in recognition of one highly desirable output of the ESRP, a “whole of system” model (EPA 2011e). Workshops were held in 2009 and 2010 to refine the goal and build on this proposal. This whole of system model would provide an ”interface to integrate and run models in parallel to enable cross-communication and provide representations of dynamic systems that include feedbacks, feed forwards, non-linear relationships and time-lagged responses”. One workshop outcome was two sets of requirements that a system satisfying this goal

168

would need to meet: 1/ user requirements; and 2/ software engineering requirements (EPA 2011e). These requirements were used to rate a series of models for their potential application into this system. “The ENVISION model rated the highest” (EPA 2011e).

“An area of much contention within the ESRP”, as identified by majority of Leads, was “a strong reluctance to adopt a common modelling approach across the place-based projects”. The Final Draft Modelling Plan suggests it is now best to wait until the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program is fully planned before embarking on this research. There has been no mention of a “national scale” model to date. "Given a national scale question however a national model could be developed – eco-regions could be the spatial unit for a national model".

To better understand the benefits and dis-benefits of maps and dynamic models as tools to conduct and communicate ecosystem services assessments nine Leads were asked:

what do you think are the benefits and dis-benefits of using maps versus dynamic simulation models as tools to extract and communicate information on ecosystem services (and their use in isolation)? One respondent stated that “models assist us with better understanding other peoples’ mental visions”. Another said maps are models because they provide a "representation of reality". However, comparing static maps and temporally and spatially dynamic models, “the primary benefit of simulation models is their ability to provide future projections”. Two respondents stated that maps were great for looking at what you had now and trying to make some assessment of current

conditions - but they did not cover the dynamics required to understand the context of ecosystem services decision making and assessing alternative futures.

For ecosystem service assessments “point' models” were considered insufficient; "an ecological point at the top of a mountain – this data cannot be used to address issues at the bottom of a mountain – one point is not equal to another point - one point is not necessarily representative of other points in the landscape - more sampling units (points) are required". Another Lead supported this comment, "because it is not just where we have databases it has got to be where we don't have data bases, it has got to be where we don't have data period, and then you have to calculate something new and point models just can't do that”.

Some of the words used to describe the development and use of dynamic models included "complicated", "complex", "time consuming", "back-boxish" and "having to have technical expertise and time – because you can't just give someone a model and say ‘trust me all this stuff works’”. Experience in "participatory modelling" was found to be positive and a learning experience; "if you have people working with the model and developing the model they can learn more about the outputs". Maps on the other hand were described as "simple", "straight forward" and "easy to understand" whilst "not requiring a whole lot of complicated software development or machinery". Maps were also recognised as cheaper to develop and apply than simulation models.

People were considered to "trust" and "relate" to maps - it was more difficult to get people to have "faith" in dynamic models. Maps "spoke easy to people" and were "able to reach many more people than technical model output". It was thought this was because maps were "visual" - "if people can see where these things are coming from then there is a huge difference in how they become interested in them". One of the problems with all maps is identifying uncertainty that underlies the images - this is not easily represented. Additionally, “maps often have very discrete boundaries and this is rarely the case in nature”.

Although it was thought that some decision makers might be happy with only maps, and regardless of the benefits or dis-benefits of dynamic models and maps, both maps and models were considered necessary for ecosystem services assessments. "Maps and simulation models are not isolated and juxtaposed ... they often are used in concert". One Lead was asked: how do you see FEGS interacting with the modelling and mapping components of the ESRP? They responded:

…if we are modelling and mapping FEGS then our work would be

foundational ... the FEGS work would allow those making models and maps to make sure they are presenting output that resonates with people and their well-being and is non-duplicative.

The following section discusses any websites and technical reports developed to conduct ecosystem services assessments or to communicate aspects of this national program.

170

5.3.4 Reports and websites

A number of documents and forms of media were released by the EPA for internal and external stakeholder use and communication. These documents can be found on the EPA’s extranet and intranet and are introduced in the following sections.

5.3.4.1 Journal articles and reports

Numerous academic journal articles have been developed communicating aspects of the ESRP, the framework, and how this research builds on the current state of knowledge of ecosystem services. Articles on this program used to guide this PhD research, provide data, and develop outcomes are listed in Table 3.1 and referenced at the end of this thesis. No technical or communication reports have been developed for external stakeholders beyond a one page fact sheet on ecosystem services located on their website. The development of such materials was the mission of LTG1 on Effective Decision Support which and as described in Section 5.1.4 dissolved early in the program.