IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v291y2014icp42-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a stakeholder-driven spatial modeling framework for strategic landscape planning using Bayesian networks across two urban-rural gradients in Maine, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Meyer, Spencer R.
  • Johnson, Michelle L.
  • Lilieholm, Robert J.
  • Cronan, Christopher S.

Abstract

Land use change results from frequent, independent actions by decision-makers working in isolation, often with a focus on a single land use. In order to develop integrated land use policies that encourage sustainable outcomes, scientists and practitioners must understand the specific drivers of land use change across mixed land use types and ownerships, and must consider the combined influences of biophysical, economic, and social factors that affect land use decisions. In this analysis of two large watersheds covering a total of 1.9 million hectares in Maine, USA, we co-developed with groups of stakeholders land use suitability models that integrated four land uses: economic development, ecosystem protection, forestry, and agriculture. We elicited stakeholder knowledge to: (1) identify generalized drivers of land use change; (2) construct Bayesian network models of suitability for each of the four land uses based on site-level factors that affect land use decisions; and (3) identify thresholds of suitability for each factor and give relative weights to each factor. We then applied 12 distinct Bayesian models using 99 spatially explicit, empirical socio-economic and biophysical datasets to predict spatially the suitability for each of our four land uses on a 30m×30m pixel basis across 1.9 million hectares. We evaluated both the stakeholder engagement process and the land use suitability maps. Results demonstrated the potential efficacy of these models for strategic land use planning, but also revealed that trade-offs occur when stakeholder knowledge is used to augment limited empirical data. First, stakeholder-derived Bayesian land use models can provide decision-makers with relevant insights about the factors affecting land use change. Unfortunately, these models are not easily validated for predictive purposes. Second, integrating stakeholders throughout different phases of the modeling process provides a flexible framework for developing localized or generalizable land use models depending on the scope of stakeholder knowledge and available empirical data. The potential downside is that this can lead to more complex models than anticipated. The trade-offs between model rigor and relevance suggest an adaptive management approach to modeling is needed to improve the integration of stakeholder knowledge into robust land use models.

Suggested Citation

  • Meyer, Spencer R. & Johnson, Michelle L. & Lilieholm, Robert J. & Cronan, Christopher S., 2014. "Development of a stakeholder-driven spatial modeling framework for strategic landscape planning using Bayesian networks across two urban-rural gradients in Maine, USA," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 291(C), pages 42-57.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:291:y:2014:i:c:p:42-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.06.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014003056
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.06.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcot, Bruce G., 2012. "Metrics for evaluating performance and uncertainty of Bayesian network models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 50-62.
    2. Uusitalo, Laura, 2007. "Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 312-318.
    3. Price, Jessica & Silbernagel, Janet & Miller, Nicholas & Swaty, Randy & White, Mark & Nixon, Kristina, 2012. "Eliciting expert knowledge to inform landscape modeling of conservation scenarios," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 76-87.
    4. Gray, Steven & Chan, Alex & Clark, Dan & Jordan, Rebecca, 2012. "Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 88-96.
    5. Qureshi, M. E. & Harrison, S. R. & Wegener, M. K., 1999. "Validation of multicriteria analysis models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 105-116, November.
    6. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mulazzani, Luca & Manrique, Rosa & Malorgio, Giulio, 2017. "The Role of Strategic Behaviour in Ecosystem Service Modelling: Integrating Bayesian Networks With Game Theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 234-244.
    2. Yangyang Yuan & Yuchen Yang & Ruijun Wang & Yuning Cheng, 2022. "Predicting Rural Ecological Space Boundaries in the Urban Fringe Area Based on Bayesian Network: A Case Study in Nanjing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Hossein Azadi & Guy Robinson & Ali Akbar Barati & Imaneh Goli & Saghi Movahhed Moghaddam & Narges Siamian & Rando Värnik & Rong Tan & Kristina Janečková, 2023. "Smart Land Governance: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Meineri, Eric & Dahlberg, C. Johan & Hylander, Kristoffer, 2015. "Using Gaussian Bayesian Networks to disentangle direct and indirect associations between landscape physiography, environmental variables and species distribution," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 313(C), pages 127-136.
    5. Daigneault, Adam & Strong, Aaron L. & Meyer, Spencer R., 2021. "Benefits, costs, and feasibility of scaling up land conservation for maintaining ecosystem services in the Sebago Lake watershed, Maine, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    6. Enrico Celio & Adrienne Grêt-Regamey, 2016. "Understanding farmers' influence on land-use change using a participatory Bayesian network approach in a pre-Alpine region in Switzerland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(11), pages 2079-2101, November.
    7. Zhang, Quanzhong & Wei, Haiyan & Liu, Jing & Zhao, Zefang & Ran, Qiao & Gu, Wei, 2021. "A Bayesian network with fuzzy mathematics for species habitat suitability analysis: A case with limited Angelica sinensis (Oliv.) Diels data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 450(C).
    8. Alexandra M. Thorn & Jonathan R. Thompson & Joshua S. Plisinski, 2016. "Patterns and Predictors of Recent Forest Conversion in New England," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-17, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moe, S. Jannicke & Haande, Sigrid & Couture, Raoul-Marie, 2016. "Climate change, cyanobacteria blooms and ecological status of lakes: A Bayesian network approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 337(C), pages 330-347.
    2. Leonel Lara-Estrada & Livia Rasche & L. Enrique Sucar & Uwe A. Schneider, 2018. "Inferring Missing Climate Data for Agricultural Planning Using Bayesian Networks," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Anna Sperotto & Josè Luis Molina & Silvia Torresan & Andrea Critto & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Antonio Marcomini, 2019. "Water Quality Sustainability Evaluation under Uncertainty: A Multi-Scenario Analysis Based on Bayesian Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-34, August.
    4. Alessandro Pagano & Irene Pluchinotta & Raffaele Giordano & Anna Bruna Petrangeli & Umberto Fratino & Michele Vurro, 2018. "Dealing with Uncertainty in Decision-Making for Drinking Water Supply Systems Exposed to Extreme Events," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(6), pages 2131-2145, April.
    5. Barton, David N. & Benjamin, Tamara & Cerdán, Carlos R. & DeClerck, Fabrice & Madsen, Anders L. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Salazar, Álvaro G. & Sanchez, Dalia & Villanueva, Cristóbal, 2016. "Assessing ecosystem services from multifunctional trees in pastures using Bayesian belief networks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 165-174.
    6. Marcot, Bruce G., 2017. "Common quandaries and their practical solutions in Bayesian network modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 358(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Guo, Kai & Zhang, Xinchang & Kuai, Xi & Wu, Zhifeng & Chen, Yiyun & Liu, Yi, 2020. "A spatial bayesian-network approach as a decision-making tool for ecological-risk prevention in land ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 419(C).
    8. Gieder, Katherina D. & Karpanty, Sarah M. & Fraser, James D. & Catlin, Daniel H. & Gutierrez, Benjamin T. & Plant, Nathaniel G. & Turecek, Aaron M. & Robert Thieler, E., 2014. "A Bayesian network approach to predicting nest presence of the federally-threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) using barrier island features," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 276(C), pages 38-50.
    9. Ropero, R.F. & Aguilera, P.A. & Rumí, R., 2015. "Analysis of the socioecological structure and dynamics of the territory using a hybrid Bayesian network classifier," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 311(C), pages 73-87.
    10. Junquera, Victoria & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Sun, Zhanli & Latthachack, Phokham & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2020. "From global drivers to local land-use change: Understanding the northern Laos rubber boom," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 109, pages 103-115.
    11. Le, Hai Dinh & Smith, Carl & Herbohn, John, 2015. "Identifying interactions among reforestation success drivers: A case study from the Philippines," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 62-77.
    12. Lim, R.B.H. & Liew, J.H. & Kwik, J.T.B. & Yeo, D.C.J., 2018. "Predicting food web responses to biomanipulation using Bayesian Belief Network: Assessment of accuracy and applicability using in-situ exclosure experiments," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 384(C), pages 308-315.
    13. McLaughlin, Douglas B. & Reckhow, Kenneth H., 2017. "A Bayesian network assessment of macroinvertebrate responses to nutrients and other factors in streams of the Eastern Corn Belt Plains, Ohio, USA," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 345(C), pages 21-29.
    14. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    15. Tamara S. Wilson & Benjamin M. Sleeter & Rachel R. Sleeter & Christopher E. Soulard, 2014. "Land-Use Threats and Protected Areas: A Scenario-Based, Landscape Level Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, April.
    16. Wilson Charles Wilson & Maja Slingerland & Frederick P. Baijukya & Hannah Zanten & Simon Oosting & Ken E. Giller, 2021. "Integrating the soybean-maize-chicken value chains to attain nutritious diets in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1595-1612, December.
    17. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    18. Di Zhang & Xinping Yan & Zaili Yang & Jin Wang, 2014. "An accident data–based approach for congestion risk assessment of inland waterways: A Yangtze River case," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(2), pages 176-188, April.
    19. Wang, Haoluan, 2017. "Land Conservation for Open Space: The Impact of Neighbors and the Natural Environment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258125, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Francisco J. André & Laura Riesgo, 2006. "A Duality Procedure to Elicit Nonlinear Multiattribute Utility Functions," Working Papers 06.02, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:291:y:2014:i:c:p:42-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.