1 / 15

Review of the CBP proposed land use/land cover change modeling approach

Review of the CBP proposed land use/land cover change modeling approach. Presentation to the CBP Water Quality Steering Committee, November 14, 2006 Chris Pyke, Ph.D. CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee CTG Energetics, Alexandria, Virginia. Goals and Scope.

dorit
Download Presentation

Review of the CBP proposed land use/land cover change modeling approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of the CBP proposed land use/land cover change modeling approach Presentation to the CBP Water Quality Steering Committee, November 14, 2006 Chris Pyke, Ph.D. CBP Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee CTG Energetics, Alexandria, Virginia

  2. Goals and Scope • Not a formal STAC peer review • Advice and comment on planned land use/land cover modeling activities • Opportunity to: • Understand the proposed approach • Compare it to alternatives • Identify options for meeting CBP goals

  3. STAC Chris Pyke (EPA/ORD) Ted Graham (WCOG) Claire Welty (UMBC) Denise Wardrop (PSU) Gerrit Knaap (UMD) Carl Hershner (VIMS) Don Weller (SERC) Academic experts Keith Clarke (UCSB) Charles Hopkinson (Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA) Glenn Moglen (UMD) Dawn Parker (GMU) Brian Pijanowski (Purdue) Gil Pontius (Clark) Participants

  4. Questions for CBP • How does the CBP use information about land use/land cover patterns and processes to meet its goals of restoring water quality and living resources? • Will the proposed modeling approach accomplish these goals? • Describe the technical modeling approach.

  5. Questions for outside experts • Is the CBP’s proposed approach to land use/land cover change adequate to meet its restoration goals? • What alternative (“clean slate”) approaches are available that might meet CBP goals within available time constraints and financial resources? • What are the positive and negative aspects of the proposed vs. “clean slate” approaches? • What specific changes or additions might improve the proposed land use/land cover modeling approach?

  6. General findings • More stakeholder participation • Simple, highly transparent approach to model and scenario development • Development of policy relevant scenarios • “Build out” • Bounding analysis • Improved modeling • Focus on Hydrologic Response Unit scale • Representation of key socio-economic processes • Attention to implications of modeling scale • Clear, well-documented links between outputs and Phase V inputs

  7. Issue 1: Model complexity • Tension between desire for simple models and need for complexity to represent key processes: • “My #1 suggestion is that the CBP should first present simple scenarios based on present zoning and simple extrapolations of major drivers, before it performs more complicated, expensive analysis.”

  8. Issue 2: Scale • Need to consider the costs and benefits of model spatial resolution: • “…There is an incompatibility in scale between models. HSPF incorporates very large Hydrologic Resource Units (HRUs) that treat land use within them as homogenously distributed…If HSPF doesn’t discriminate on how land use is distributed within HRU catchments, then it doesn’t make sense to model land use change with a 30 m resolution.”

  9. Issue 3: Scenarios • Need for careful attention to scenario development. • “I am concerned about land use forecasts…I’d like to see sensitivity analyses of forecasting models that characterize the upper/lower bounds of credible estimates of future land use.”

  10. Issue 4: Drivers of change • Socio-economic drivers are exogenous to GAMe • GAMe allocates population and employment projects from outside sources. • Socio-economic drivers endogenous to SLEUTH. • SLEUTH bases future growth on patterns and rates observed in the past.

  11. Issue 5: Uncertainty • The proposed approaches does not explicitly address uncertainty. • “A model is useful if either it has a clearly articulated scenario (in which case uncertainty analysis is not really relevant) or it has a clear assessment of uncertainty (which requires a rigorous scientific assessment).”

  12. Issue 6: Interoperability • Interactions between GAMe and SLEUTH • “The relationship between the GAMe and SLEUTH models is poorly fleshed out. The flowchart provided doesn’t make the linkages clear...I’d like to see a document that explicitly describes how these two tools are to be used/linked.”

  13. Issue 7: Land use/land cover classification • Tension between concepts of land use and land cover • Need for clear, well-documented method for linking land use/land cover output with Phase V inputs

  14. Next steps • Proposed STAC workshops on specific areas of concern, such as: • Use of land use/land cover information by local decision makers • Peer review of final modeling products • As requested by the CBP

  15. Contact information Chris Pyke cpyke@ctgenergetics.com

More Related