Monitoring and modeling land change for hydrologic and ecosystem models: the way forward
Session Date: May 28th 2010
Session Time: 12:26
Session Lead: Claire Jantz
Session Co-Lead(s):
Session Abstract: A number of efforts that loosely couple land change models with hydrologic and/or ecosystem models have been completed or are in progress in the mid-Atlantic region, many of which have direct relevancy for resource managers at local and regional scales. This session will bring together modelers working on these projects to discuss their findings, challenges and solutions. Central questions will include: how can coupled models capture feedbacks between land change processes and ecosystem or hydrologic processes; how are issues of spatial and temporal scale addressed; how can we better incorporate climate change impacts and feedbacks; how can results of these complex modeling efforts be best communicated to decision makers; what land classification schemes are most relevant for ecosystem and hydrologic modeling; what should the periodicity of monitoring of land, hydrologic and ecosystem changes; what should the 'next generation' of coupled models look like? This session will highlight the current challenges faced by this modeling community, and will pave the way for a future research for coupled modeling.
Presentations:
Post-Session Review: This session focused on land change monitoring and modeling, and included presentations by Eric Brown de Colstoun (NASA), Fred Irani (USGS), Claire Jantz (for Scott Goetz, WHRC), Kathy Boomer (for Xulong Li, SERC), Peter Claggett (USGS), Leslie Milheim (USGS), Marcela Suarez-Rubio (UMCES), Glenn Moglen (Virginia Tech), Claire Welty (UMBC-CUERE), and David Donato (USGS). Each presenter highlighted specific challenges related to monitoring and modeling land change for hydrologic or ecosystem models. For example:
- Dr. Brown de Colstoun noted that there are no community algorithms available for standardized image processing, and asked who should take up the responsibility for image processing and classification.
- In his comparison of several remotely sensed data sets, Peter Claggett pointed out that very different views of land use and land cover can be reached using different data products. This highlighted a fundamental question of how a selected representation of the earth’s surface does not necessarily represent “reality.” Similarly, Leslie Milheim pointed out parallel issues regarding the chosen scale of analysis, and the temporal and spatial resolution of a particular data set.
- Several presenters highlighted the disconnects between various land change models and hydrologic models—all of which were developed separately without model coupling in mind. This presents challenges in terms of basic issues (like data sharing and transfer between models) and theoretical issues (how can we quantify the cumulative effects of the assumptions embedded in each model, plus the assumptions that are made when coupling them?). David Donato offered some concluding thoughts regarding our choices to develop coupled models from the ground up or work with existing models; the pros and cons of either approach need careful consideration.
