Judith Anne Verstegen and Floor van der Hilst and Derek Karssenberg and André Faaij.
Communicating Uncertainty in Spatial Decision Support Systems: a Case Study of Bioenergy-Crop Potentials in Mozambique.
In Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol. 13, no. EGU2011-8339, 2011.


Links:

Abstract:

Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSSs) are interactive, computer-based systems designed to support policy making. Important components of SDSSs are models that can be used to assess the impact of possible decisions. These models usually simulate complex spatio-temporal phenomena, with input variables and parameters that are often hard to measure. The resulting model uncertainty is however rarely communicated to the user of the SDSS, mostly because the user prefers clear and unambiguous results, or because of limitations of the used software regarding uncertainty analysis. Current SDSSs thus yield clear, but therefore sometimes deceptively precise outputs. Yet, calculation and communication of the uncertainty and its distribution in space and time makes the model more transparent and the output more informative, which gives policy makers a better basis for decision making. So, there is a strong need to include uncertainty in SDSSs. This requires modelling tools to calculate uncertainty and tools to visualise indicators of uncertainty that can be understood by users of an SDSS, having mostly limited knowledge of spatial statistics. Until recently however, most software packages were monolithic, i.e. either dedicated to model development, or to uncertainty analysis, or to visualization, where most visualisation tools do not support visualisation of stochastic spatio-temporal data. This hampers easy implementation in an SDSS as multiple toolboxes need to be linked. The PCRaster Python framework provides an important step towards a solution of this issue. It comprises both a spatio-temporal modelling framework and a Monte Carlo analysis framework as a Python class. These classes include methods to write the simulation results and uncertainty analysis to disk as stochastic maps, which can be visualized with the Aguila software, included in the PCRaster Python distribution package. This research shows how a modeller can use the PCRaster Python framework to construct an SDSS that integrates simulation, uncertainty analysis and visualization. This is illustrated by the implementation of a land use change model of Mozambique. The aim of this already fully operational model is to evaluate where bioenergy crops can be cultivated without endangering food production now and in the near future when population and food intake per capita and thus food arable land and pasture areas will increase. Population growth predictions and future change in food intake patterns are highly uncertain, so this uncertainty needs to be taken into account in the SDSS. It is shown that due to the capabilities of the PCRaster Python modelling framework the integration of modelling and uncertainty analysis can be accomplished without too much additional work on the modeller's side. Also, the outputs can be visualized and interpreted by users without specialist knowledge of statistics. This is considered a major step forward in the exposure of uncertainty in SDSSs.

Bibtex:

@Article{        verstegen:2011:CUDS,
  author = 	 {Judith Anne Verstegen and Floor van der Hilst and
                  Derek Karssenberg and André Faaij},
  title = 	 {Communicating Uncertainty in Spatial Decision
                  Support Systems: a Case Study of Bioenergy-Crop
                  Potentials in Mozambique},
  journal = 	 {Geophysical Research Abstracts},
  year = 	 {2011},
  volume = 	 {13},
  number = 	 {EGU2011-8339},
}

Images:

References:

Aerts, J.C.J.H., Goodchild, M.F. and Heuvelink, G.B.M., 2003. Accounting for Spatial Uncertainty in Optimization with Spatial Decision Support Systems. Transactions in GIS, 7(2): 211-230.
Arndt, C., Benfica, R., Tarp, F., Thurlow, J. and Uaiene, R., 2010. Biofuels, poverty, and growth: a computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. Environment and Development Economics, 15: 81-105.
Baas, A.C.W., 2002. Chaos, fractals and self-organization in coastal geomorphology: Simulating dune landscapes in vegetated environments. Geomorphology, 48(1-3): 309-328.
Batidzirai, B., Faaij, A.P.C. and Smeets, E.M.W., 2006. Biomass and bioenergy supply from Mozambique. Energy for sustainable development, X(1): 28.
Bradshaw, G.A. and Borchers, J.G., 2000. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. Conservation Ecology, 4(1): [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art7/
Brandt, J., Christensen, J.H., Frohn, L.M. and Zlatev, Z., 2000. Numerical modelling of transport, dispersion, and deposition - Validation against ETEX-1, ETEX-2 and chernobyl. Environmenteal Modelling and Software, 15(6-7 SPEC. ISS): 521-531.
Brown, D.G., Page, S., Riolo, R., Zellner, M. and Rand, W., 2005. Path dependence and the validation of agent-based spatial models of land use. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 19(2): 153-174.
Brown, J.D. and Heuvelink, G.B.M., 2007. The Data Uncertainty Engine (DUE): A software tool for assessing and simulating uncertain environmental variables. Computers and Geosciences, 33(2): 172-190.
Chang, N.B., Parvathinathan, G. and Breeden, J.B., 2008. Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. Journal of Environmental Management, 87(1): 139-153.
D'Ambrosio, D., Iovine, G., Spataro, W. and Miyamoto, H., 2007. A macroscopic collisional model for debris-flows simulation. Environmental Modelling and Software, 22(10): 1417-1436.
Eckhardt, K., Breuer, L. and Frede, H.-G., 2003. Parameter uncertainty and the significance of simulated land use change effects. Journal of Hydrology, 273: 164-176.
FAO, 2003. World agriculture towards 2015/2030 an FAO perspective, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
Foody, G.M., 2003. Uncertainty, knowledge discovery and data mining in GIS. Progress in Physical Geography, 27(1): 113-121.
Geertman, S., 2006. Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33: 863-880.
Geertman, S. and Stillwell, J., 2004. Planning support systems: An inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(4): 291-310.
Goovaerts, P., 2010. Geostatistical Software. In: M.M. Fischer and A. Getis (Editors), Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 129-138.
Gosling, S.N. and Arnell, N.W., 2010. Simulating current global river runoff with a global hydrological model: model revisions, validation, and sensitivity analysis. Hydrological Processes: n/a.
Heuvelink, G.B.M., 1998. Error propagation in environmental modelling with GIS. Error propagation in environmental modelling with GIS.
Ivanovic, R.F. and Freer, J.E., 2009. Science versus polictics: truth and uncertainty in predictive modelling. Hydrological Processes, 23: 2549-2554.
Jerolmack, D.J. and Paola, C., 2007. Complexity in a cellular model of river avulsion. Geomorphology, 91(3-4): 259-270.
Karssenberg, D. and De Jong, K., 2006. Towards improved solution schemes for Monte Carlo simulation in environmental modeling languages. In: P.J.M. Oosterom (Editor), GeoInformation and computational geometry. NGC (Nederlandse Commissie voor Geodesie, in English: Nertherlands Geodetic Commission), Delft.
Karssenberg, D., de Jong, K. and van der Kwast, J., 2007. Modelling landscape dynamics with Python. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(5): 483-495.
Karssenberg, D., Schmitz, O., Salamon, P., de Jong, K. and Bierkens, M.F.P., 2010. A software framework for construction of process-based stochastic spatio-temporal models and data assimilation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25: 489-502.
Manson, S.M., 2007. Challenges in evaluating models of geographic complexity. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34: 245-260.
Nearing, M.A. et al., 2005. Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. Catena, 61(2-3 SPEC. ISS.): 131-154.
NetLogo, 2010. NetLogo website, Available online at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. and Belitz, K., 1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263(5147): 641-646.
PCRaster, 2010. PCRaster internet site, Available online at: http://pcraster.geo.uu.nl.
Pebesma, E.J., de Jong, K. and Briggs, D., 2007. Interactive visualization of uncertain spatial and spatio-temporal data under different scenarios: An air quality example. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(5): 515-527.
Python, 2010. Python programming language, Available online at: http://www.python.org.
Smeets, E.M.W., Faaij, A.P.C. and Lewandowski, I.M., 2004. A quickscan of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. An analysis of the regional availability of biomass resources for export in relation to the underlying factors. Report NWS-E-2004-109, ISBN 90-393-3909-0, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Stella, 2010. Stella website, Available online at: http://www.iseesystems.com.
UNDP, 2008. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat.
van der Hilst, F., Faaij, A., Karssenberg, D. and Verstegen, J.A., forthcoming. Land use change modeling for the assessment of land availability for energy crops: the case of Mozambique. In prep.
Verburg, P.H. and Overmars, K.P., 2009. Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: Exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landscape Ecology, 24(9): 1167-1181.
Watson, H., 2010. Potential to expand sustainable bioenergy from sugarcane in southern Africa. submitted.