Tag Archives: land-use change

Cross-site Comparison of Land-Use Decision-Making

The cumulative effects of local land-use and livelihood changes are a global force of environmental and socio-economic change. Land-use changes result from decisions of individual farmers, pastoralists,  and housing consumers and developers (to name a few). Their decisions are influenced by not only local environmental, social, and economic conditions, but also by far-reaching forces such as economic globalization. The choice of a farmer in Brazil to grow soybeans, for example, can be influenced by the consumption of people in China.

Not all land-uses are created equal. Some have minimum impact on the environment, and some offer sustainable livelihoods for local farmers – finding land uses that accomplish both is difficult. Crafting policies to achieve this two-part goal must contend with both local and global considerations.

Location of one of the study sites near Taoyuan, Hunan Province, China.

A study site near Taoyuan, Hunan Province, China.

On January 29th, my colleagues and I published a paper in PLoS ONE, titled “Cross-site comparison of land-use decision-making and its consequences across land systems with a generalized agent-based model” that describes the development and application of an agent-based virtual laboratory for comparing  land-use and livelihood decision-making processes of rural farmers across geographically distant locations and qualitatively different land-use systems. We use this modeling system across multiple study sites to understand the underlying motivations and rationale of land-use and livelihood decisions of our ‘farmer agents’ and the landscape and livelihood changes that result under various environmental, demographic, and economic scenarios.

Since the traditional mode of scientific experimentation is not feasible with real land-use systems – we are talking about people’s land and livelihoods here – we use simulation-based cross-site comparisons to teach us about what drives the choice of particular land uses and livelihood strategies under different conditions. We use the set of study sites as local examples to synthesis more broadly applicable knowledge of which factors are most important in what contexts.

To explore this question, our investigation had to happen at the decision-making level – a task to which agent-based models are well suited. We also needed a modeling framework that was sufficiently general that it could be applied across multiple locations, yet realistic enough that it could be grounded in real-world data. These needs gave rise to an innovative agent-based virtual laboratory approach that provides a powerful tool for model-based experimentation and synthesis.

Such a model synthesis system can generate the kind of high-level knowledge needed to inform regional policies designed to foster sustainable local land uses and livelihood strategies. Cross-site comparisons use each study site as an example of alternative conditions and/or potential future states, which can aid scenario analysis and the exploration of potential adaptive responses to changing conditions. Furthermore, insights gained from the application of the modeling system to one site can improve our understanding of other similar sites, and foster future research and policy efforts that are sensitive to both the global influence on and local realities of land-use and livelihood change.

Click here to see the web story about this article on SESYNC’s blog.

Exploring Land-Livelihood Transitions

Figure5_rev (2)Rural livelihoods are changing rapidly with economic globalization and global environmental change, which have direct impacts to environmental and socio-economic suitability. All too often the most vulnerable communities – those with the least resources – face the greatest transitions triggered by changing local and global conditions. Those communities also have livelihoods tied to the land, which may lead to environmental degradation and/or fail to support livelihoods in the future. We must advance our understanding of the causes and consequences of land-livelihood transitions in order to avoid maladapted responses that can lead to a loss of land-livelihood sustainability.

My colleagues and I recently published an article in PLoS ONE that explores these issues with an innovative, generalized agent-based model. Because human decision-making drives land-livelihood transitions, a process-level explanation of adaptive responses is needed to explore the conditions under which land-livelihood transitions emerge. In the short-term, this approach advances the use of agent-based virtual laboratories in sustainability research. In coming generations of this modeling approach, we hope to use model insights to devise effective policy interventions aimed at the decision-making level for supporting sustainability .

Complexity in land-livelihood systems

China_FarmerRural livelihoods are inextricably linked to sustainable land-use, and vice versa.

This message seems to be popping-up continuously and forcefully in much of the research articles I’ve been reading lately. And I agree – certainly land-use lies at the heart of the sustainability question, since it is a means of food and income production as well as a main source of impacts to ecosystems. Something I read far less often (still looking if you have suggestions!) is a holistic framework for understanding the complex causes and consequences of land-use and livelihood changes.

The factors driving rural household land-use and livelihood decisions are incredibly complex –  originating and acting both locally and globally, and often creating both rapid and slow changes in incentives and constraints. For example, see this post about both fast and gradual changes occurring in Chinese food systems. Researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers alike are thus left with huge gaps in understanding of how land-use and livelihood changes come about, and you can forget about accurately predicting such changes and how they might influence environmental and/or livelihood sustainability.

Thinking about this challenge led me back to some of my earlier work in complex system science. In particular, I revisited one of my earlier papers about ‘induced coupling‘ – an idea that faster and slower processes sometimes become ‘coupled’ and lead to dramatic systemic changes. So I tried my hand at throwing together a simple version of what this might look like for a coupled land-livelihood system.HCSM_LLS

The red, downward arrows represent ‘entrainment’, or ‘slaving’, of the dynamics of lower-level variables by higher-level variables. The green, upward arrows represent processes of ‘self-organization’, or ‘revolt’, in which the dynamics of lower-level variables influence those of higher-level variables. Dashed arrows represent processes that link variables operating at the same time scales. If you would like to know more about this type of framework, referred to as hierarchical complex systems modeling, I will direct you to work by my friends and colleagues Brad Werner and Dylan McNamara (2007).

Now, the recognition that processes, or ‘drivers’, across multiple scales influence land-use and livelihood decisions is nothing new. However, rarely are temporal scales used as the organizing framework. This viewpoint has the potential to explain why certain drivers have different influences in different contexts due to the relative frequencies of interacting processes.

OK, great … so what? Beyond the potential to advance our fundamental understanding of the causes and consequences of livelihood and land-use changes, such a perspective could help craft policy interventions that address not only short-term needs of rural land-users, but also the effects of long-term challenges to sustainability and well-being.

As always, please feel free to yell at me on twitter @nickmags13 if you disagree, or if you prefer to disagree with me on a more regular basis don’t hesitate to follow this blog or subscribe to the RSS feed or email list. 😉

ABM and GLOBE Project Sessions at the Global Land Project’s 2014 Open Science Meeting

GLP_OSM2014The Global Land Project will hold its second Open Science Meeting (OSM) in Berlin from March 19-21, 2014. This will be a unique opportunity to hear about cutting-edge land and global environmental change research. A list of sessions was recently released here – check it out and see if anything peaks your interest. In particular, I will be co-chairing three sessions related to ABMs, synthesis, and/or GLOBE:

1. Research Session 0126: “Bridging local to global land change studies with the GLOBE online tool” (co-chaired with Erle Ellis)

2. World Cafe Workshop 0075: “From meta-analysis to modeling: understanding local land change globally” (co-chaired with Jasper van Vliet)

3. Short Training Session 0125: “The GLOBE project: evolving new global workflows for land change science” (co-chaired with Erle Ellis and the GLOBE Team)

I attended the first OSM in 2010 (wow, that long ago?!) held at Arizona State University, and it was a great meeting. Session content was exceptional and the meeting was not too big. I highly recommend getting to Berlin next year if you can!

Used Planet: A Global History

Are we living in the Anthropocene? Published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Erle Ellis and colleagues paint a picture of historical land-use that significantly shaped the Earth’s surface more than 3000 years ago.

See a blog post or media coverage in the New Scientist for more details and to download the paper.

Notes from AAG 2013

AAG2013Last week I attended the 2013 annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers in Los Angeles, CA. In particular, I attended the Land Systems Science Symposium and the Agent-Based and Cellular Automata Model for Geographical Systems sessions. It was great to catch-up with old friends and meet a few new colleagues. Now that the chaos of coming back to work after a week off has passed, I thought this would be a good time to reflect on the happenings of the conference.

Overall, I thought this was a much stronger meeting than last year’s. It was apparent from the Land Systems Science (LSS) Symposium that the field formerly known as “Land Change Science” is beginning to come into its own. The full scope of LSS was on display, as the first two days were dedicated to case studies from different world regions, followed on the last two days by LSS modeling, theory, and applications. I was also impressed by the agent-based modeling (ABM) sessions this year. I sense a real transition in ABM research, as the presentations demonstrated much deeper thinking about the implications of model result, and model building as an art and tool for learning. There also seemed to be a sense that ABM is no longer on the fringe – it’s no longer a new method and the ABM community can now discuss the challenges and weaknesses of ABM more comfortably. It was a sure sign that the ABM method and paradigm are maturing.

Several themes in particular caught my attention over the course of the week:

1. YAAWN – Yet Another Agent-based model … Whatever … Nevermind.

That clever acronym came courtesy of the organizers of the panel on ABMs and land-use change modeling organized by David O’Sullivan and Tom Evans. The general motivation for the title was the observation that the number for place-based, case-specific ABMs has exploded, and as a research community, it is worth asking, “What is the marginal gain from one more case-study ABM?” I, of course, was thrilled to hear such a question, as the drive for more systematic, generalized knowledge motivates my use of agent-based virtual laboratories. The question was posed to the panel, and I particularly liked Dan Brown‘s response. The message was that there will always be a role for case-study ABMs, but it is also necessary to balance the use of empirically detailed models with more abstracted models to build theory. This sentiment was reinforced by Sarah Metcalf, who argued that model hybridity was the next wave of ABM research.

2. Attempts to forge systematic ABM practice and knowledge.

Going along with the general observation of higher quality presentations, the thinking about ABM practice was notably deeper this year. I particularly enjoyed David O’Sullivan‘s presentation of creating a ‘pattern language’ for ABMs and cellular automata. The general idea is to create ‘building block’ models out of generalized processes/structures that facilitate the development of more complicated models. I found this idea analogous to Len Troncale‘s work with isomorphies and systems of systems processes theory. Another important question posed by James Millington was, “When should we use ABMs and how complex do they need to be?” Indeed, this is a fundamental question that should be revisited often.

3. Understanding model outcomes and variability.

Finally, another sign that the ABM field is maturing, there was much discussion about the importance of more thoroughly understanding uncertainty and variability in our models. Chris Bone presented an innovative temporal variant/invariant method for evaluating model performance, which shows much promise for deepening our understanding of the sources of variability within complex systems models.

Human decision-making in climate system models

GLP_reportOn November 28th, 2011, a workshop in Lake Crackenback, Australia was organized by Prof. Mark Rounsevell, CECS, University of Edinburgh, UK and sponsored by the Global Land Project (GLP) and Australia’s CSIRO. The aim of the workshop was to explore theoretical and modeling approaches for incorporating human decision-making into large-scale climate system models. This theme arose from the recognition that the cumulative effects of local land-use change contribute significantly to global environmental change, and land-use is the result of adaptive decision-making of land-users. In order to understand the linkages between climate systems and land-use, we must integrate decision-level, process-based models (for example, agent-based models) with large-scale climate models.

The perspectives, ideas, and contributions of workshop participants have been synthesized and released as a report from the GLP. A collaborative effort between regional and global climate modelers, land change scientists, and agent-based modelers, this report describes methods for up-scaling local land system models for integration with large-scale climate models.

Although there is much room for improvement in both climate system and agent-based modeling, the integration of these approaches is an important next step for creating realistic climate change scenarios that account for the adaptive responses of land-users.

New Paper: Pattern-Oriented Modeling in Multi-Scale ABMs of Land Change

TGIS_screen_captureA particular challenge of investigating the causes of land-use change is the multi-scale nature of factors that influence land-use decisions. In an increasingly globalized world, land-use choices and livelihood strategies are linked to local AND regional to global forces. But attempts to incorporate such multi-scale causation in land change models often run into significant knowledge and data gaps – especially when trying to link incomplete and/or low quality global data to individual agents’ decision-making processes.

Figure4_mainOne way forward, which my co-author Dr. Erle Ellis and I present in this new open-access article in Transactions in GIS, is to use pattern-oriented modeling (Grimm et al., 2005) within an agent-based virtual laboratory to experimentally bound the possible values of uncertain parameters. By targeting characteristic patterns tied to important individual- and landscape-level processes – the selection of which are informed by theory, data, or both – ABMs can be designed and tested to be more realistic despite data limitations. We propose that this experimental method can help overcome significant data gaps, and help land change scientists begin to quantify some global trends in local land change processes.

Comments welcome!

Abstract

Local land-use and -cover changes (LUCCs) are the result of both the decisions and actions of individual land-users, and the larger global and regional economic, political, cultural, and environmental contexts in which land-use systems are embedded. However, the dearth of detailed empirical data and knowledge of the influences of global/regional forces on local land-use decisions is a substantial challenge to formulating multi-scale agent-based models (ABMs) of land change. Pattern-oriented modeling (POM) is a means to cope with such process and parameter uncertainty, and to design process-based land change models despite a lack of detailed process knowledge or empirical data. POM was applied to a simplified agent-based model of LUCC to design and test model relationships linking global market influence to agents’ land-use decisions within an example test site. Results demonstrated that evaluating alternative model parameterizations based on their ability to simultaneously reproduce target patterns led to more realistic land-use outcomes. This framework is promising as an agent-based virtual laboratory to test hypotheses of how and under what conditions driving forces of land change differ from a generalized model representation depending on the particular land-use system and location.

Story Map of Global Crop and Land-Use Data

ESRI_story_map

Source: ESRI Story Map and the Institute of the Environment, U. of Minnesota.

I’ve used these global crop and land-use data many times, as they are excellent data sets by Foley et al (2011) and Monfreda et al. (2008). But this visualization in the form of an ESRI story map gives the data new life and power. An excellent and thought-provoking presentation, which is made all the better with its interactive qualities.

I will have to explore such a presentation for conveying the results of spatial ABMs.

Decision-Making and Data

Cross_scale_dataThe popularity of agent-based modeling has exploded in the past decade – and for good reason. More and more researchers are recognizing that human decision-making – as messy and unpredictable as it seems – is an incredibly powerful driver of human and natural system dynamics. Agent-based models (ABMs) offer the means to test our understanding of decision-making processes and their consequences with more sophisticated (and often more realistic) simulations. Despite this growing popularity, though, ABMs introduce new and profound challenges in their use, testing, and interpretation.

A question that I am confronted with regularly – and have been thinking a lot about recently – is this: “What are the spatial and temporal scales of human-decision-making relevant to the land change phenomenon I want to study?”

I will likely return to this question in some form or another many times on this blog, but lately I am concerned with the data dimensions of this question. For example, if one wants to model household-driven land use changes in frontier regions (e.g. Parker et al., 2008), then land-use decisions at the household level are probably your likely target. However, what if you want to apply this model over a large region? With lots of agents? Or have it be general enough to apply across many sites in different land-use systems ( a la virtual laboratory!)? Then the relevant level of decision-making becomes murkier, especially when considering the data that will be needed to parameterize and test the model. In this example, you might need to combine household surveys, regional land-use/cover data, census data, and perhaps some global data such as market influence (Verburg et al., 2006).

Much has been written on this topic, and as there are many facets to this challenge, there are also many different ways to address it. The various perspectives on this issue seem to consistently fall into categories:

  • How to coordinate different sources of data?
  • What types of data should be used to test the model?
  • What is the focal scale of analysis?

These questions are often raised in the context of using ABMs in combination with a geographic information system (GIS). Crooks and colleagues (2008), Parker (2005), and Brown and colleagues (2005) are good sources to begin answering these questions.

For our purposes here, I’ll ask a simpler question: How does one get these different kinds of data that cover different scales and resolutions to play nicely together?

Coordinating the scale and/or resolution of spatial data in a GIS with those of the decision-making processes in an ABM can be quite tricky. So, as the modeler, you have to make some choices about how closely the model should be “coupled” with the GIS: 1) Spatial data layers can be used simply to initialize an ABM by parameterizing the simulated landscape; 2) GIS and the ABM can be “loosely coupled” such that spatial data files are updated independently and then passed back and forth at designated times; or 3) the ABM can be fully embedded within the GIS (e.g. the new Agent Analyst tool with Repast). The choice of either of these methods will depend on factors such as the research question and the computational expense of passing files between systems. Whichever path one chooses, though, the challenge of coordinating low resolution spatial data with fine-grain social data remains.

Arguably a more important consideration, then, is the level of abstraction within the model. I have recently toyed with this question in a model in which my agents represent aggregations of households in settlements rather than individual households. This, of course, has some conceptual limitations. However, it has important conceptual and practical advantages as well; in particular, the ability to represent a landscape-level entity generally by avoiding some social interactions among households that are notoriously difficult to generalize. This representation is certainly controversial (and probably nonsense to some household livelihoods researchers), but considering the types of data needed to address regional land-use questions, an agent representation that works nicely with global datasets is not entirely a bad thing.

Thus, I will plant this seed: In what situations does a settlement-level agent act as a reasonable representation of land-use decision-making? This is an ongoing topic of research for me, and will undoubtedly lead to subsequent posts. Stay tuned!

References

Brown, D.G., Riolo, R., Robinson, D.T., North, M., and Rand, W. (2005). Spatial process and data models: Toward integration of agent-based models and GIS. Journal of Geographical Systems, 7:25–47.

Crooks, A. T., Castle, C. J. E., and Batty, M. (2008), Key Challenges in Agent-Based Modelling for Geo-spatial Simulation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32(6): 417-430.

Parker, D.C.  (2005). Integration of geographic information systems and agent-based models of land use: Prospects and challenges. GIS, Spatial Analysis, and Modeling (2005): 403-422.

Verburg PH, Ellis EC, Letourneau A (2011) A global assessment of market accessibility and market influence for global environmental change studies. Environ Res Lett, 6.