Early in the development of environmental regulation, and particularly
in dealing with toxic and hazardous wastes, the environmental community
learned the hard lesson that they were not communicating with the lay
public. This fact was particularly evident with communicating the concept
of health risk, which is the basis for all regulatory standards. The modeling
community is now in a similar position in explaining the error bounds and
uncertainty inherent in predictive modeling. Not all results from modeling
projects can or should be published in a manner found most impressive to
a scientific audience. Nor should all scientific modeling be designed to
produce the most elegant results when simpler, but more useable results
can be achieved.
In conclusion, ecological modeling is essential to achieve environmental
security goals. It is simply the only method capable of projecting future
conditions that are needed to understand the environmental impacts
of human activity. There is much good work available already that should
be better utilized. Policy analysts and planners are remiss in their poor use
of the data and model projections, but the scientific community can do
better in developing and communicating results. If the model projections
of environmental change are even close to accurate, we cannot afford to
fail in this mission.
References
Aber, J., R.P. Neilson, S. McNulty, J.M. Lenihan, D. Bachelet, and R.J. Drapek. 2001.
Forest processes and global environmental change: Predicting the effects of
individual and multiple stressors. BioScience 51:735–751.
Armitage, Ambassador Richard. Lecture at the Naval War College, May 2000.
Brown, L. and H. Kane. 1994. Full House: Reassessing the Earth’s Carrying
Capacity. Norton, New York, New York, USA.
Campbell, B.D. and D.M.S. Smith. 2000. A synthesis of recent global change research
on pasture and rangeland production: Reduced uncertainties and their management implications. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 82:39–55.
Chen, R.S. and R.W. Kates. 1994. Climate change and world food security. Global
Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimensions 4:3–6.
Dale, V. and M. Rauscher. 1994. Assessing impacts of climate change on forests: the
state of biological modeling. Climatic Change 28:65–90.
Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan,
P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson,
B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Forest disturbances and climate change.
BioScience 51:723–734.
Droogers, P., G. Kite, and H. Murray-Rust. 2000. Use of simulation models to
evaluate irrigation performance including water productivity, risk and system
analyses. Irrigation Science 19:139–145.
Feddema, J.J. 1999. Future African water resources: Interactions between soil degradation and global warming. Climatic Change 42:561–596.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2000. Forest
resources assessment 1990: global synthesis. URL:
www.igc.apc.org/wri/wr-96-97/lc_ttxt2.html.
15. Using Models for Environmental Security
307
in dealing with toxic and hazardous wastes, the environmental community
learned the hard lesson that they were not communicating with the lay
public. This fact was particularly evident with communicating the concept
of health risk, which is the basis for all regulatory standards. The modeling
community is now in a similar position in explaining the error bounds and
uncertainty inherent in predictive modeling. Not all results from modeling
projects can or should be published in a manner found most impressive to
a scientific audience. Nor should all scientific modeling be designed to
produce the most elegant results when simpler, but more useable results
can be achieved.
In conclusion, ecological modeling is essential to achieve environmental
security goals. It is simply the only method capable of projecting future
conditions that are needed to understand the environmental impacts
of human activity. There is much good work available already that should
be better utilized. Policy analysts and planners are remiss in their poor use
of the data and model projections, but the scientific community can do
better in developing and communicating results. If the model projections
of environmental change are even close to accurate, we cannot afford to
fail in this mission.
References
Aber, J., R.P. Neilson, S. McNulty, J.M. Lenihan, D. Bachelet, and R.J. Drapek. 2001.
Forest processes and global environmental change: Predicting the effects of
individual and multiple stressors. BioScience 51:735–751.
Armitage, Ambassador Richard. Lecture at the Naval War College, May 2000.
Brown, L. and H. Kane. 1994. Full House: Reassessing the Earth’s Carrying
Capacity. Norton, New York, New York, USA.
Campbell, B.D. and D.M.S. Smith. 2000. A synthesis of recent global change research
on pasture and rangeland production: Reduced uncertainties and their management implications. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 82:39–55.
Chen, R.S. and R.W. Kates. 1994. Climate change and world food security. Global
Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimensions 4:3–6.
Dale, V. and M. Rauscher. 1994. Assessing impacts of climate change on forests: the
state of biological modeling. Climatic Change 28:65–90.
Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan,
P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson,
B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Forest disturbances and climate change.
BioScience 51:723–734.
Droogers, P., G. Kite, and H. Murray-Rust. 2000. Use of simulation models to
evaluate irrigation performance including water productivity, risk and system
analyses. Irrigation Science 19:139–145.
Feddema, J.J. 1999. Future African water resources: Interactions between soil degradation and global warming. Climatic Change 42:561–596.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2000. Forest
resources assessment 1990: global synthesis. URL:
www.igc.apc.org/wri/wr-96-97/lc_ttxt2.html.
15. Using Models for Environmental Security
307