a well-presented graphical representation of the conceptual model can
make clear and transparent to all what is meant by particular terms or
categories, what linkages are considered relevant, etc. If the conceptual
model development process continues through a relative ranking exercise,
then the graphic can readily show what linkages, inputs, system components,
etc. are most important and which are relatively minor. Further, if done
properly, the conceptual model development process can identify the
most important uncertainties about the ecosystem. Finally, the conceptual
model can be an extremely useful management tool for thinking though the
potential efficacy of management options.
Our experience is that the success or failure of science in support of environmental decision making, including models as one set of assessment tools,
fundamentally relates to the explicit definition of the ecological goals,
ecological endpoints, and reference ecological conditions for the specific
problem at hand. Conceptual models are very important tools in this
process, serving to facilitate the synthesis of existing scientific understanding and, along with the active participation by decision makers and stakeholders, to define the assessment questions and ecological goals. Two brief
examples will serve to illustrate these points. In the Everglades restoration,
a process of stakeholder involvement, directed at the Governor’s level, was
instituted to define spatially explicit goals for the assessment. This process,
in concert with scientific workgroups, translated those goals into specific
hydrologic, water quality, and ecological endpoints and performance criteria that will be used to guide the restoration. Without a general consensus
on these points, the process would have stalled or been mired in litigation.
A second example involves a large superfund site where stakeholder
participation was minimal. In this situation, scientists took the lead in developing a detailed set of temporal and spatial goals for both source remediation and ecological recovery that provided the benchmarks for judging the
efficacy of the assessment. The following is a list of specific issues relating
to this level of confidence in the decision context.
5.2 Issues Related to Confidence in Ecological Models
for Use in Decision Making
Here we will discuss criteria that, if satisfied, will reduce the uncertainty and
increase confidence when using conceptual and quantitative predictive
models. In so doing, we address one of the major barriers to the acceptance
of models in ecological risk assessments. The specific points are not necessarily listed in any order of importance, but inadequate attention to one or
more points will increase uncertainty and thus create barriers to using
models. Conversely, addressing these points is one mechanism by which
uncertainty can be reduced and the barriers can be overcome.
5. Overcoming Barriers to the Use of Models
95
make clear and transparent to all what is meant by particular terms or
categories, what linkages are considered relevant, etc. If the conceptual
model development process continues through a relative ranking exercise,
then the graphic can readily show what linkages, inputs, system components,
etc. are most important and which are relatively minor. Further, if done
properly, the conceptual model development process can identify the
most important uncertainties about the ecosystem. Finally, the conceptual
model can be an extremely useful management tool for thinking though the
potential efficacy of management options.
Our experience is that the success or failure of science in support of environmental decision making, including models as one set of assessment tools,
fundamentally relates to the explicit definition of the ecological goals,
ecological endpoints, and reference ecological conditions for the specific
problem at hand. Conceptual models are very important tools in this
process, serving to facilitate the synthesis of existing scientific understanding and, along with the active participation by decision makers and stakeholders, to define the assessment questions and ecological goals. Two brief
examples will serve to illustrate these points. In the Everglades restoration,
a process of stakeholder involvement, directed at the Governor’s level, was
instituted to define spatially explicit goals for the assessment. This process,
in concert with scientific workgroups, translated those goals into specific
hydrologic, water quality, and ecological endpoints and performance criteria that will be used to guide the restoration. Without a general consensus
on these points, the process would have stalled or been mired in litigation.
A second example involves a large superfund site where stakeholder
participation was minimal. In this situation, scientists took the lead in developing a detailed set of temporal and spatial goals for both source remediation and ecological recovery that provided the benchmarks for judging the
efficacy of the assessment. The following is a list of specific issues relating
to this level of confidence in the decision context.
5.2 Issues Related to Confidence in Ecological Models
for Use in Decision Making
Here we will discuss criteria that, if satisfied, will reduce the uncertainty and
increase confidence when using conceptual and quantitative predictive
models. In so doing, we address one of the major barriers to the acceptance
of models in ecological risk assessments. The specific points are not necessarily listed in any order of importance, but inadequate attention to one or
more points will increase uncertainty and thus create barriers to using
models. Conversely, addressing these points is one mechanism by which
uncertainty can be reduced and the barriers can be overcome.
5. Overcoming Barriers to the Use of Models
95