overview of ideas modelling -...

Overview of IDEAS modellingIntegrated Dynamic Environmental Assessment System

Presenters:

John Dymond Anthony Cole

Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia(Landcare Research)

Ben Knight (Cawthron Institute)

Triple bottom-line approach

Economy Society

Environment

spatial land and marine sector activity (gross

output and gross margin)

watercarbon

nitrogensediment

pollutants

spatial mass-energy flows

spatial demographicssettlementsland ownership

jobs

IDEAS helps facilitate catchment planning

Biophysical models (spatial)Economic and population models

(aspatial)

Agent based model of land use and land management

(spatial)

Rapid reporting on social, economy, and environment

Reporting on social, economy, and environment

Reporting on environment and economy

Model linkages in IDEAS

Database link

Reporting on environment

historic present intensive present b.m.p.

intensiveb.m.p.

cropland/horticulture

0.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

sheep/beef farming

0.0 0.5 3.0 0.4 2.1

dairy farming 0.0 7.8 18.8 5.5 13.2scrub 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2tussock grassland

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

production forest

0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

indigenous forest

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

Environmental intensity of nitrogen export (kg/ha/yr).

Natural – Present – Intensive land use scenarios

Intensive land usesocio-economic outcomes

Socio_economic performance

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

Agricultural job numbers(FTE*1000)

Gross output ($100/yr) -land and marine

Marine job numbers(FTE*1000)

Gross margin ($100/yr) -land and marine

historic

present

intensive

Intensive land useenvironmental outcomes

-1000000.0

-500000.0

0.0

500000.0

1000000.0

1500000.0

Low flow -max. water

take -(l/minute)

Nitrogen load in river (kg/yr)

Sediment yield (tonnes/yr)

Area of natural ecosystems

(ha)

Carbon sink rate (t/yr) -land and marine

Net nitrogen yield to marine

(kg/yr)

E.coli/100litres exceeded 5%

of time

Trout numbers (no/1000 km)

Environmental performance

historicpresentintensive

Best management practice

Socio-economic performance

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

Agricultural job numbers(FTE*1000)

Gross output ($100/yr) - landand marine

Marine job numbers(FTE*1000)

Gross margin ($100/yr) - landand marine

historicpresentbmp_present

Best management practice

0.0

100000.0

200000.0

300000.0

400000.0

500000.0

600000.0

Low flow -max. water

take -(l/minute)

Nitrogen load in river (kg/yr)

Sediment yield (tonnes/yr)

Area of natural ecosystems

(ha)

Carbon sink rate (t/yr) -land and marine

Net nitrogen yield to marine

(kg/yr)

E.coli/100litres exceeded 5%

of time

Trout numbers (no/1000 km)

Environmental performance

historic

present

bmp_present

Catchment futures modelling

What development scenarios for the Motueka catchment

environment - economy - social system are sustainable?

The ICM programme

Land

Freshwater

Estuary / sea

Cola

bora

tive

lear

ning

Issu

es

State &response

Humandimension

Integration &innovation

1. Influence matrix2. Catchment

futures modelwith GPI accounts

3. IDEAS

Catchment futures modelling results

• Only one line of evidence (sustainability)

• Business-as-usual run is not sustainable– Indicators (illustrate)

• Question – what does sustainable catchment development look like?

Contents

• Motueka catchment futures• Origin of the model• The business-as-usual model run• Social indicators• Conclusions• Conclusions – building a sustainable

scenario• Supporting material – if required

Motueka catchment futures model

What is it?

This futures model

• Mathematical description

• Holistic

• Model parts are interconnected

• Run model scenarios (explore system change)

• Sustainability accounting tool

Origin of the model

Why did we build this?

Where did this all start?

• Motueka Community Reference Group (CRG)

• Influence matrix project– Catchment development goals (esp.

sustainability)

– Preferred developmental factors

• The futures model was the next step

Goal identification

“The residents of the Motueka Catchment want to manage their Catchment so as to ensure they continue to enjoy a safe place to play and live, its pristine character and beauty, its identity, economic and ecological balance, its economic viability for business development, its exceptional climate, biological, community and landscape diversity & coastal integrity”

Motueka community reference group (6/5/02)

EcoLink Re-designing Resources

Murray Sustainable (spreadsheet Pathways (NCC/TDC)prototype)

Waikato project Waikato(MatLab/Stella) Case study

Gary (Data sets) PhD Consultancy Futures model

Mattihas (Demographic) TDC/NCC

Ron Colman (GPI)/Vicky/Whatarangi Takapuwahia

Sustainable Ecosystems(Canberra) Goulburn Broken

Influence Matrix ICM/GRC

ICM iMatrix Pop Economy Labour Market EcoServ GPI (Nelson EDA)

Mediated Ecosystem iMatrix Transdisciplinarity Kaupapa/tikanga Genuine progress GIS Modelling Services accounting indicators

Desktop Mediated Participatory Mediated Collaborative Desktop (Teaching)modelling modelling modelling modelling modelling modelling Communication to

Time

The business-as-usual model run

What have we discovered?

Let’s assume business-as-usual growth

• Our key question – “are we on track?”

• Focus on emerging tensions

How much economic growth?

Motueka consumption GCP500 M

350 M

200 M1 6 11 16 21 26

Time (Year)

Estimating genuine progress

Motueka GPI400 M

250 M

100 M1 6 11 16 21 26

Time (Year)

> economic growth ≠ wellbeing improvements (social / ecological)

Motueka GCP/GPI550 M550 M

100 M100 M

1 6 11 16 21 26Time (Year)

400 M

250 M

100 M

Consumption GCPGenuine progress indicator

GCP

GPI

Motueka GCP/GPI

Balance of trade/capita

Motueka_total_BOT/capita-8,000

-9,000

-10,0001 6 11 16 21 26

Time (Year)Cat

chm

ent

impo

rts –

expo

rts (

$)

Direct material & energy flows

Industry and household

The basic model concept

MotuekaCatchment

social-economicsystem

Mass

Energy

Pollutants

WasteEnergy

Motueka catchment ecosystems

People, energycommodities, pollutants

Direct effectsDirect effects

Indirect effects

Direct material flows (industry)

Indic 10 – CO2 (t) Indic 11 – N2O (kg) Indic 12 – CH4 (kg)

Indic 4 – SW (t) 3,700

1,5001 11 21

Time (Year)

175,000

45,0001 11 21Time (Year)

17,000

4,0001 11 21Time (Year)

70,000

17,0001 11 21Time (Year)

GHG emissions

Offset direct (industry) GHG emissions

70,000

17,0001 11 21Time (Year)

17,000

4,0001 11 21Time (Year)

230

501 11 21

Time (Year)

190,000

50,0001 11 21Time (Year)

Exotic pine (ha) Indigenous forest (ha) Hard beech (ha)

Total direct CO2 (t/yr)

Option 1 Option 2 Opti

GHG emissions as CO2 equivalent

Direct material flows (Household)

19,500

12,0001 11 21Time (Year)

3,600

2,2001 11 21

Time (Year)

40,000

25,0001 11 21Time (Year)

3,500

2,2001 11 21

Time (Year)

Indic 22 – CO2 (t) Indic 23 – N2O (kg) Indic 24 – CH4 (kg)

Indic 16 – SW (t) GHG emissions

Offset direct (house) GHG emissions

54

311 11 21

Time (Year)

40

251 11 21

Time (Year)

37

221 11 21

Time (Year)

45,000

23,0001 11 21Time (Year)



Option 1 Option 2 Optio


Direct energy use (industry) GJ/yr

850,000

540,000

230,0001 6 11 16 21 26

Time (Year)

GJ

of e

nerg

y

Direct energy use (household) GJ/yr

200,000

162,000

124,0001 6 11 16 21 26

Time (Year)

GJ

of e

nerg

y

Indirect material & energy flows

Industry and household

The basic model concept

MotuekaCatchment

social-economicsystem

Mass

Energy

Pollutants

WasteEnergy

Motueka catchment ecosystems

People, energycommodities, pollutants

Direct effectsDirect effects

Indirect effects

Indirect

• Direct cause and effect is mediated by contributory intermediate steps (i.e. a chain of events)

• These should be measured

• Typically account for ca. 90% of the effect

• An embodied effect– Everything we purchase has embodied water,

energy, GHG emissions etc

Indirect material flows (industry)

15 M

10 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

380 M

260 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

190 M

127 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

850,000

550,0001 11 21Time (Year)

Indic 1 - Energy (GJ) Indic 3 – Water take (M3) Indic 4 – Water disc (M3)

Indic 7 – CO2 (t)

GHG emissions

Offset indirect (industry) GHG emissions

230

501 11 21

Time (Year)



750

4501 11 21

Time (Year)

720

4501 11 21

Time (Year)

850,000

550,0001 11 21Time (Year)

Option 1 Option 2 Opti


Indirect material flows (Household)

Indic 1 - Energy (GJ) Indic 3 – Water take (M3) Indic 4 – Water disc (M3)

Indic 7 – CO2 (t)

1.9 M

1.1 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

24,000

15,0001 11 21Time (Year)

20,000

12,0001 11 21Time (Year)

85,000

50,0001 11 21Time (Year)

GHG emissions

Offset indirect (household) GHG emissions



230

501 11 21

Time (Year)

750

4501 11 21

Time (Year)

720

4501 11 21

Time (Year)Option 1 Option 2 Opti


45,000

23,0001 11 21Time (Year)

Summary

• Direct offset (industry) 17-70,000 ha/yr• Direct offset (household) 70-80 ha/yr• Indirect offset (industry) 720-750 ha/yr• Indirect offset (household ) 70-80 ha/yr

• Total offset range (yr) 17,860 – 70,910 ha/yr• Time (horizon) 2001 - 2025

Sum of annual GHG offset

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Sum

of f

ores

t pla

nted

(Ha.

)

Time (years)

1 catchment equivalent

2 catchment equivalents3x

2x

1x

Social indicators

GPI accounts

Social domain

• Economic growth also causes social effects

• Tensions in this area too

• GPI accounts module (monetary)

GPI (Social indicators)

200 M

100 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

80,000

40,0001 11 21Time (Year)

10 M

4 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

20 M

8 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

6 M

2 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

1.9 M

1.8 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

GPI indic 11 – Cons Dur GPI indic 12 – Unemp GPI indic 13 – Prod (Un)

GPI indic 14 – Veh AccGPI indic 15 – CommuteGPI indic 15 – Crime

GPI (Social indicators)

6 M

01 11 21

Time (Year)

4 M

01 11 21

Time (Year)

4 M

1 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

GPI indic 17 – Fam BreakGPI indic 18 – SuicideGPI indic 19 – Gambling

Social cost of growth

400 M

100 M1 11 21

Time (Year)

2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

400 M

100 M

Time (years)

Socialcost ($)

Conclusions

What development scenarios for the Motueka catchment

environment - economy - social system are sustainable?

Business-as-usual (sustainable?)

• Business-as-usual growth scenario is unlikely to achieve the development goals identified by the community reference group

• We have looked at indicators in the– Ecological sustainability area (tensions)

– Social sustainability area (tensions)

≠ Economically sustainable (either)

Key problems

• Economic growth is also growing debt• Indirect + direct GHG emission (offsets) will

exceed available catchment land area• Reason:

– consumption (Indirect effects)– our focus on mitigation is direct effects (i.e.

recycling, solar power, building insulation, hybrid cars etc), 5-10%

• Social costs of business-as-usual growth

Key problems

• GCP/GPI diverge long term

• We haven’t considered offsetting:

• water takes/discharges,

• other point and non-point source pollutants,

• landfill (solid waste streams) ,

• non-renewable resources etc …

Conclusions

Building a sustainable scenario

Planning for a sustainable future

• If business-as-usual is not sustainable, then … what is?

• Question - how do we build a sustainable model scenario?

• Assume an ideal world

• On-the-ground implementation is another matter

To make a sustainable model run

• Manufacture, sell and buy local– Strategy for smart/local intermediate industry dev.

• Mitigation of direct effects (important) - yes• Critical issues - reduce consumption (indirect

effects)• Substantial gains in energy efficiency and local

renewable energy production• Increase ecosystem service capacity (water

discharges)

To make a sustainable model run

• Innovation associated with sustainableintermediate production and ecological restoration to offset preferred indirect consumption effects

• Reduction of fossil fuel transport (commuting)

• Demographic plans/policy needed– ageing population (labour market)– attract a local skilled workforce

Other important factors

• Sea-level change mitigation

• Managed net growth (rather than net decline) of threatened ecosystem services (& species) – this implies offsetting should focus on indigenous ecosystem restoration (i.e. more land area)

[email protected]

www.natureonfilm.co.nz

mailto:[email protected]�

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.natureonfilm.co.nz/�

How can cultural impacts of land use change be modelled?

Oscar Montes de Oca

Garth Harmsworth

Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research

How can Agent Based Modelling be used for resource management?

• Tool that helps with discussion on land use options

• Brings together:– “hard data” – gross margins, jobs,

environment– “soft data” – aspirations, common goals

• Represents diversity of interests

Definition of a cultural metric for IDEAS

• Collaboration with Tiakina iwi group

• Visualisation was an effective trigger to discuss cultural values

• Integrated into the IDEAS framework

Pre-European cover to present cover to define original cultural values

Forest and wetlands lost – cultural values impacted

Cultural metric outcomesCultural score, land use scenarios

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

historic present bmp_present intensive bmp_intensive

Trade off analysis –IDEAS indicatorsNitrogen

$ Output

Jobs

E Coli

Sediment

Cultural

Carbon

NOW

SCENARIO

Trade off analysis for policy evaluation –quick prototyping

Land use and the marine environment

ICM IDEAS: using marine models to extend our assessment of land use decisions beyond the river mouth.

Catchment footprint on the coast can be large and persistent.

Why? Because size matters…

Connections

Catchment Model

River Transport Model

Coastal Models

Water quality & quantity

Transport

Salinity Fine Sediments

… historic sediment still causing problems (e.g. decline in scallop fishery).

Marine Aquaculture

Nitrogen and phytoplankton.

521

234

3,806

Nitrogen Load

(ton/yr)

Phytoplankton

Shellfish Zooplankton

Baitfish

Fish

Benefits for ecosystem/catchment economy?

Jobs

Conclusions

• Land use can have positive and negative impacts on coast.

• Region and time of influence on coast can be large.

• Therefore need to consider coast in catchment decisions to avoid problems.

• IDEAS offers flexible approach to plan for the future.

Satellite image of turbidity (29 october, 2007). Red = high turbidity.

overview of ideas modelling -...

Documents