1. Integrating Ecologic, Economic, and Social Sciences Using a Spatially Explicit, Landscape Dynamic Simulation System Chris Stalling, RMRS Forestry Science Lab

2. Acknowledgement Jimmie Chew, RMRS Kirk Moeller, RMRS Anne Black, ALWRI Adam Liljeblad, ALWRI

3. Introduction Integration of knowledge –The interactions of the biophysical, social, and economic landscape components Use of models for better understanding and communication Modeling with SIMPPLLE –A method –A tool developed specifically for integration

4. Ecologic Social Economic Theory

5. From theory to reality

6. Ecologic Social Economic Reality

7. How do we bring these seemingly divergent perspectives together? Modeling that helps us think about the world by: –Representing interactions of socio- economic values with biophysical environment –Displaying trade-offs necessary for sustainability –Communication using visualization and interactive, ‘real-time’ modeling

8. Designed to simulate complex landscape-scale interactions between vegetation and other abiotic and biotic landscape components. Developed to help managers make decisions that address ecosystem sustainability based on issues, concerns, and knowledge Runs on site-specific empirical, mechanistic, local and expert-knowledge as logic SIMPPLLE as the ecological core

9. SIMPPLLE, A Simple Methodology Basic rule of modeling is to help people better understand the world Acronym = modeling philosophy to keep things as simple as possible, add complexity only as needed Modeling system platform allows users to interact and communicate issues and concerns about landscapes www.fs.fed.us/rm/missoula/4151/SIMPPLLE

10. Users Decide How to Represent the Landscape What is the appropriate scale for issues? Is the analysis to be irregular polygons or grid-based? Should time be in decades, years, seasons? Include vegetation, landforms, aquatics, man-made structures, social values? Should vegetation be dominant forest species, multiple life forms, grass types?

11. SIMPPLLE the ecological core FIA Plots Climate Change Models NAU Insect and Disease Research Vegetation FVS Model Fire Models FMOs Wildlife Models R1,GAP, Birdlife Int’l – Europe Economic Models MAGIS-JFS, BEMRP SPECTRUM, R1 Planning FCCS PNW Invasive Species MSU, MESA VERDE NP Watershed Models USGS, CO Plateau

12. What are we missing? Ecologic Economic SIMPPLLE Social

13. A planning problem: People care about their landscape; yet most planning and analysis activities don’t explicitly acknowledge or incorporate these attachments. A solution? Incorporate information about ‘attachment to place’ directly into our ecologic/economic models. Ecologic Social Economic possibleacceptable feasible

14. cohesion identity Biophysical settings activities outcomes Social settings Conceptual framework (c) (a) (b) Attachment to place (d) (e) PVT Cover Type Landform Cover Type/ Structural phase Location

15. cohesion identity Biophysical settings activities outcomes Social settings Conceptual framework (c) (a) (b) Attachment to place (d) (e) PVT Cover Type Landform Cover Type/ Structural phase Location Personal Community/ Cultural Family/Friends

17. Social & Physical Attachment Social Outcomes Individual Family/ Inter-Social CommunitySubjectiveObjective Physical Associates Management Influenced Physical Activity Related Ownership Related Density Related

18. Social & Physical Attachment Individual Family/ Inter-Social Community Social Outcomes Physical Associates SubjectiveObjective Management Influenced Physical Activity Related Ownership Related Density Related Relaxation Natural Inquiry Physical Economic Emotional Employment Subsistence Exercise

19. Social & Physical Attachment Social Outcomes Individual Family/ Inter-Social CommunitySubjectiveObjective Physical Associates Management Influenced Physical Activity Related Ownership Related Density Related Density Related Uncrowded Open Space Ownership Related Wilderness Abundance of Rec. Opps. Activity Related Interconnected Trail System Natural Sounds

20. Adapted from Firey, 1960

24. So What?