Ecosystem Management Decision Support

Last updated

The Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) system is an application framework for knowledge-based decision support of ecological analysis and planning at any geographic scale.

Contents

EMDS integrates state-of-the-art geographic information system (GIS) as well as logic programming and decision modeling technologies on multiple platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac OS X) to provide decision support for a substantial portion of the adaptive management process of ecosystem management.

EMDS has used Criterium DecisionPlus from InfoHarvest, Inc. and NetWeaver from Rules of Thumb, Inc. as core analytical engines since 2002. The NetWeaver component performs logic-based evaluation of environmental data, and logically synthesizes evaluations to infer the state of landscape features such as watersheds (e.g., watershed condition). The DecisionPlus component prioritizes landscape features with respect to user-defined management objectives (e.g., watershed restoration), using summarized outputs from NetWeaver as well as additional logistical information considered important to the decision maker(s). See the #Applications section below for a current list of published papers by application area.

Several citations provide extensive background on the EMDS system and its potential applications. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

EMDS 8.7 was released in February 2023. Some major new features were added between v5 and 8.7 (see Frontiers in Environmental Science):

  1. Classic multicriteria decision analysis to rate potential management activities in each landscape feature.
  2. Design and evaluation of alternative portfolios of management actions to implement on a landscape.
  3. An advanced table and charting utility for summarizing results of the analytical engines.
  4. Addition of a workflow editor to automate sequences of activities and data processing.
  5. Support for scripting languages (Python, R, JavaScript, and C#script) that can be used standalone or in conjunction with the workflow editor.

Development partners

EMDS was originally developed by the United States Forest Service. The Redlands Institute of the University of Redlands developed and maintained EMDS from 2005 until mid 2014 when the university closed the Redlands Institute. Support and development of EMDS was then transferred to Mountain View Business Group where one of the principal programmers was able to find a new home. Development continues with support from Rules of Thumb, Inc. and InfoHarvest, Inc.. Logic Programming Associates (London, UK) joined the EMDS development group in 2013, bringing VisiRule and their expertise in Prolog programming into the mix. An area of immediate interest for further research and development based on this new expertise is the possibility for implementing natural language generators in EMDS that can interact with the analytical products and maps from NetWeaver and CDP, and render all of this complexity into easy-to-understand executive summaries. The most recent addition to the EMDS development group is BayesFusion, LLC, which brings a customized version of its SMILE engine for running GeNIe Bayesian network applications to the EMDS environment. [15] [16]

Applications

  1. EMDS, the book (March 2014). [17]
  2. Conservation [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
  3. Ecosystems [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]
  4. Forest management [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
  5. Landscapes [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]
  6. Pollution [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]
  7. Urban growth and development [68] [69] [70] [71]
  8. Watersheds and wetlands [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]
  9. Wildlife habitat management [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]
  10. Wildland fire [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]

Citations

  1. Reynolds, K.M. 2001a. Using a logic framework to assess forest ecosystem sustainability. Journal of Forestry 99:26-30. PDF
  2. Reynolds, K.M. 2001b. Fuzzy logic knowledge bases in integrated landscape assessment: examples and possibilities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-521. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 p. PDF
  3. Reynolds, K.M. 2002a. Landscape evaluation and planning with EMDS 3.0. 2002 ESRI User Conference. San Diego, CA. July 9–12, 2002. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. PDF
  4. Reynolds, K.M. 2002b. Logic models as frameworks for thinking about compatibility. Pages 215-224 in Johnson, D.; Haynes, R., eds. Proceedings of the Wood Compatibility Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PDF
  5. Reynolds, K.M. 2003. A logic approach to design specifications for integrated application of diverse models in forest ecosystem analysis. Pages 379-385 in: Amaro, A., Reed, D. and Soares, P. (eds). Modelling Forest Systems. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
  6. Reynolds, K.M. 2005b. Integrated decision support for sustainable forest management in the United States: fact or fiction? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49:6-23. PDF
  7. Reynolds, K.M. 2005c. EMDS 3.0: A Modeling Framework for Coping with Complexity in Environmental Assessment and Planning PDF
  8. Reynolds, K.M., and P.F. Hessburg. 2014. An overview of the Ecosystem Management Decision-Support system. Chapter 1 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  9. Saunders, M.C, and B.J. Miller. 2014 NetWeaver. Chapter 2 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  10. Murphy, P.J. 2014. Criterium DecisionPlus. Chapter 3 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [ PDF]
  11. Paplanus, S., B. Miller, P. Murphy, K. Reynolds, and M.Saunders. 2014. EMDS 5.0 and Beyond. Chapter 13 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  12. Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron. 2014. Synthesis and new directions. Chapter 14 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  13. Reynolds, K., S. Paplanus, B. Miller, and P. Murphy. 2015. Design features behind success of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System and future development. Forests 6:27-46. PDF
  14. Marcot, B.G., and K.M. Reynolds. 2019. EMDS has a GeNIe with a SMILE. Newsletter of the Australian Bayesian Network Modelling Society. August 2019, 12-15. PDF
  15. Marcot, B.G., and K.M. Reynolds. 2019. EMDS has a GeNIe with a SMILE. Newsletter of the Australian Bayesian Network Modelling Society. August 2019, 12-15. PDF
  16. Marcot, B.G., and K.M. Reynolds. 2019. EMDS has a GeNIe with a SMILE. PNW Research Note PNW-RN581. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
  17. Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). 2014. Making Transparent Environmental Management Decisions: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. Available online
  18. Wang, J., J. Chen, W. Ju, and M. Li. 2010. IA-SDSS: A GIS-based land use decision support system with consideration of carbon sequestration. Environmental Modelling & Software 25: 539–553. PDF
  19. Manzuli, A.G. 2005. Knowledge-based monitoring and evaluation system of land Use: assessing the ecosystem conservation status in the influence area of a gas pipeline in Bolivia. Doctoral dissertation. Göttingen: Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultäten der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. PDF
  20. White, M.D., Heilman, G.E. Jr., and Stallcup, J.E. 2005. Science assessment for the Sierra Checkerboard Initiative Archived 2011-07-25 at the Wayback Machine . Conservation Biology Institute, Encinitas, CA.
  21. Humphries, H.C., P.S. Bourgeron, and K.M. Reynolds. 2008. Suitability for conservation as a criterion in regional conservation network selection. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 467-492.online Archived 2013-02-02 at archive.today
  22. Staus, N.L., J.R. Strittholt, and D.A. Dellasala. 2010. Evaluating areas of high conservation value in Western Oregon with a decision-support model. Conservation Biology 24: 711–720. PDF
  23. White, M.D., and J.R. Strittholt. 2014. Forest conservation planning. Chapter 9 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  24. Povak, P.A., C.P. Giardina, P.F. Hessburg, K.M. Reynolds, R.B. Salter, C. Heider, E. Salminen, and R. MacKenzie. 2020. A decision support tool for the conservation of tropical forest and nearshore environments on Babeldaob Island, Palau. Forest Ecology and Management 476. PDF
  25. Bourgeron, P.S., H.C. Humphries, and K.M. Reynolds. 2003. Conducting large-scale conservation evaluation and conservation area selection using a knowledge-based system and GIS framework. In: Parks, BO, Clarke KM, Crane MP, editors. 2003. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling: Problems, Prospectus, and Needs for Research. [CD-ROM, ISBN   0-9743307-0-1]. GIS/EM4 Conference; 2000 Sep 2-8; The Banff Centre, Banff, (AB) Canada. [Jointly published] Boulder: University of Colorado - Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Denver: US Geologic Survey - Center for Biological Informatics, and Boulder: NOAA National Geophysical Data Center - Ecosystem Informatics. PDF
  26. Stoms, D.M., McDonald, J.M., and Davis, F.W. 2002. Fuzzy Assessment of Land Suitability for Scientific Research Reserves. Environmental Management 29:545-558. PDF
  27. Stoms, D.M. 2014. Ecological research reserve planning. Chapter 8 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  28. Krsnik, G., K.M. Reynolds, P. Murphy, S. Paplanus, J. Garcia-Gonzalo, and J.R. González Olabarria.2023. Forest use suitability: Towards decision-making-oriented sustainable management of forest ecosystem services. Geography and Sustainability 4: 414-427. PDF
  29. Abelson, E.S., K.M. Reynolds, P. Manley, S. Paplanus. 2021. Strategic decision support for long-term conservation management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 497. PDF
  30. Abelson, E.S., K.M. Reynolds, A.M. White, J.W. Long, C. Maxwell, and P.N. Manley. 2022. Evaluating pathways to social and ecological landscape resilience. Ecology and Society 27. PDF
  31. Marto, M., IK.M. Reynolds, J.G. Borges, V.A. Bushenkov, and S. Marques. 2018. Combining decision support approaches for optimizing the selection of bundles of ecosystem services. Forests 9: 438-451. PDF
  32. Marques, M., K.M. Reynolds, S. Marques, M. Marto, S. Paplanus, and J.G. Borges. 2021. A participatory and spatial multicriteria decision approach to prioritize the allocation of ecosystem services to management units. Land 10.
  33. Reynolds, K.M., Johnson, K.N.; Gordon, S.N. 2003. The science/policy interface in logic‑based evaluation of forest ecosystem sustainability. Forest Policy and Economics 5:433-446. PDF
  34. Reynolds, K.M. 2005a. Decision support for evaluating the U.S. national criteria and indicators for forest ecosystem sustainability. In: Aguirre-Bravo, Celedonio, et al. Eds. Monitoring Science and Technology Symposium: Unifying Knowledge for Sustainability in the Western Hemisphere; 2004 September 20–24; Denver, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-37CD. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Published on CD-ROM. PDF
  35. Reynolds, K.M., S.N. Gordon, and K.N. Johnson. 2008. Using logic to evaluate forest ecosystem sustainability. Forest Criteria and Indicators Analytical Framework and Report Workshop. 18–21 May 2008, Joensuu, Finland. Gen. Tech Rep. WO-GTR-81.PDF
  36. Jensen, M., K. Reynolds, U. Langner, and M. Hart. 2009. Application of logic and decision models in sustainable ecosystem management. 2009. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 5–8 January 2009. PDF
  37. Reynolds, K.M. 2002c. Social acceptability of natural resource decision-making processes. Pages 245-252 in Johnson, D.; Haynes, R., eds. Proceedings of the Wood Compatibility Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PDF
  38. ChiChuan, C. and L. HunYeu. 2000. Ecosystem management decision support system (I): planning and integration of a geographic database (Chinese with English summary). Taiwan Journal of Forest Science 15: 125-135.
  39. Marques, M., K.M. Reynolds, M. Marto, M. Lakicevic, C. Caldas, P.J. Murphy, and J.G. Borges. 2021. Multicriteria decision analysis and group decision-making to select stand-level forest management models and support landscape-level collaborative planning. Forests 12. PDF
  40. Long, J.W. and P.N. Manley. 2020. Lake Tahoe West science summary of findings report. Unpublished final report to National Forest Foundation and California Tahoe Conservancy, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 57 pp. PDF
  41. Anonymous. 2024. Mature and Old-Growth Forests: Analysis of Threats on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Fulfillment of Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 14072.FS-1215C. Washington, DC. PDF
  42. Krsnik, G., K.M. Reynolds, N. Aquilué, B. Mola‑Yudego, M.Pecurul‑Botines, J. Garcia‑Gonzalo, and J.R. González Olabarria. 2024. Assessing the dynamics of forest ecosystem services to define forest use suitability: a case study of Pinus sylvestris in Spain. Env. Sciences Europe 36. PDF
  43. Cheng, C.-C. 2004. Chapter 2. Pages 94–104 in T. Partap, ed. Evolving sustainable production systems in sloping upland areas: land classification issues and options. Tokyo: Asian Productivity. PDF
  44. Wang, S.-F., Y.-K. Chen, and C.-C. Cheng. 2004a. Establishment and application of forest ecosystem management decision support system. Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 52: 41-52. PDF (in Chinese)
  45. Ray, D., K. Reynolds, J. Slade, and S. Hodge. 1998. A spatial solution to Ecological Site Classification for British Forestry using Ecosystem Management Decision Support. Proceedings of Third International Conference on GeoComputation Conference. Bristol, UK. September 17–19, 1998. Online
  46. Pechanec, V., J. Brus, H. Kilianová, and I. Machar. 2015.Decision support tool for the evaluation of landscapes. Ecological Informatics 30: 305-308. PDF
  47. Hessburg, P. F. Reynolds, K. M., Salter, R. B., and Richmond, M. B. 2004. Using a decision support system to estimate departures of present forest landscape patterns from historical conditions: An example from the Inland Northwest Region of the United States. Chapter 12, In: Perera, A.H., L.J. Buse, and M.G. Weber, eds. Emulating Natural Forest Landscape Disturbances: Concepts and Applications. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. PDF
  48. Reynolds, K.M., and Hessburg, P.F. 2005. Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Forest Ecology and Management 207:263-278. PDF
  49. Stolle, L., C. Lingnau, and J.E. Arce. 2007. Mapeamento da fragilidade ambiental em áreas de plantios florestais. Pages 1871–1873 in Anais XIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Florianópolis, Brasil, 21-26 abril 2007, INPE. PDF (in Portuguese)
  50. Hessburg, P.F., K.M. Reynolds, R.B. Salter, J.D. Dickinson, W.L. Gaines, and R.J. Harrod. 2013. Landscape Evaluation for Restoration Planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, USA. Sustainability 5: 805-840. PDF
  51. Bourgeron, B., H. Humphries, C. Fisher, B. Bollenbacher, and K. Reynolds. 2014. The integrated restoration and protection strategy of USDA Forest Service Region 1: A road map to improved planning. Chapter 5 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  52. Hessburg, P.F., R.B. Salter, K.M. Reynolds, J.D. Dickinson, W.L. Gaines, and R.J. Harrod. 2014. Landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Chapter 7 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  53. O’Callaghan, Joan. 2014. Restoration Planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest: Prescriptions for Resilient Landscapes. PNW Station Science Findings 162. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 pp. PDF
  54. Bollenbacher, B.L. R.T. Graham, and K.M. Reynolds. 2014. Regional Forest Landscape Restoration Priorities: Integrating Historical Conditions and an Uncertain Future in the Northern Rocky Mountains. J. For. 112: 474-483. PDF
  55. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. 2012 The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: adaptive ecosystem management to restore landscape resiliency. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 118 p. PDF
  56. Reynolds, K., B. Bollenbacher, C. Fisher, M. Hart, M. Manning, E. Henderson, and B. Sims. 2016. Decision support for the integrated restoration and protection strategy of Forest Service Region 1. FS-1031. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Published on DVD. Online Archived 2017-03-24 at the Wayback Machine
  57. Higgins, K., B. Randle, K. Rauscher, R. Reinlasoder, and M. Webb. 2017. Snoqualmie Valley Agricultural Production District riparian restoration and agriculture partnership building: reach scale plan. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, water and land resources Division: Seattle, WA. PDF
  58. Cleland, D., K. Reynolds, R. Vaughan, B. Schrader, H. Li, and L. Laing. 2017. Terrestrial condition assessment for national forests of the USDA Forest Service in the continental US. Sustainability 9: 2144-2163. PDF or Online
  59. Cannon, J., R. Hickey, and W. Gaines. 2018. Using GIS and the Ecosystem Management Decision Support Tool for Forest Management on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington State. Journal of Forestry 116: 460-472. PDF
  60. Anonymous. Lake Tahoe West Landscape Restoration Strategy. PDF
  61. Lima, M.L., A. Romanelli, H.E. Massone. 2013. Decision support model for assessing aquifer pollution hazard and prioritizing groundwater resources management in the wet Pampa plain, Argentina. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 185: 5125-5139. Online
  62. Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, T. Sullivan, N. Povak, T. McDonnell, B. Cosby, and W. Jackson. 2012. Spatial decision support for assessing impacts of atmospheric sulfur deposition on aquatic ecosystems in the Southern Appalachian Region. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences. 4–7 January 2012, Maui, Hawaii. PDF
  63. Povak, N.A., P.F. Hessburg, K.M. Reynolds, T.J. Sullivan, T.C. McDonnell. 2013. Hurdle modeling to predict biogeochemical and climatic controls on streamwater acidity in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Water Resources Research 49: 1-16. PDF
  64. Povak, N.A., P.F. Hessburg, T.C. McDonnell, K.M. Reynolds, T.J. Sullivan, R. B. Salter, and B.J. Cosby. 2014. Machine learning and linear regression models to predict catchment-level base cation weathering rates across the southern Appalachian Mountain region, USA, Water Resources Research 50: 2798–2814. PDF
  65. McDonnell, T.C., T.J. Sullivan, P.F. Hessburg, K.M. Reynolds, N.A. Povak, B.J. Cosby, W. Jackson, and R.B. Salter. 2014. Steady-state sulfur critical loads and exceedances for protection of aquatic ecosystems in the US southern Appalachian Mountains. J. Environ. Manage. 146: 407-419. PDF
  66. Hessburg, P., Povak, N., Reynolds, K., and N. Vizcarra. 2015. Sour streams in Appalachia: mapping nature’s buffer against sulfur deposition. PNW Science Findings 175. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PDF
  67. Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, M. Lakicevic, N.A. Povak, R.B. Salter, T.J. Sullivan, T.C. McDonnell, B.J. Cosby, and W. Jackson. 2023. Assessing impacts of sulfur deposition on aquatic ecosystems: A decision support system for the Southern Appalachians. Ecosphere 14. PDF
  68. Johnston, R.A., D.R. Shabazian, and S. Gao. 2002. UPlan, a versatile urban growth model for transportation planning. Transportation Research Record 1831: 202-209. PDF
  69. Puente, C.R., I.F. Diego, J.J. Ortiz Santa María. A.P. Hernando, and P.z de Arróyabe Hernáez. 2007. The development of a new methodology based on GIS and fuzzy logic to locate sustainable industrial areas. 10th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Aalborg University, Denmark. PDF
  70. Ruiz, C. 2014. Planning for Urban Growth and Sustainable Development. Chapter 11 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  71. Krsnik, G., S. Reyes-Paecke, K.M. Reynolds, J. Garcia-Gonzalo, J.R. González Olabarria. 2023. Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being. Land 12. PDF
  72. Reynolds, K., P. Murphy, and S. Paplanus. 2017. Toward geodesign for watershed restoration on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Pacific Northwest, USA. Sustainability 9: 678-697. PDF
  73. Povak, N.A., P.F. Hessburg, C.P. Giardina, R.A. MacKenzie, K.M. Reynolds, C. Heider, E. Salminen, and R.B. Salter. 2017. A Watershed decision support tool for managing invasive species on Hawaii Island, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 400: 300-320. PDF
  74. Londono, O.M.C, A. Romanelli, M. Lourdes Lima, H.E. Massone, and D.E. Martínez. 2016. Fuzzy logic-based assessment for mapping potential infiltration areas in low-gradient watersheds. J. Environmental Management 176: 101-111. PDF
  75. Bleier, C., Downie, S., Cannata, S., Henly, R., Walker, R., Keithley, C., Scruggs, M.; Custis, K., Clements, J. and R. Klamt. 2003. North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Methods Manual. California Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California. 191 pages. PDF
  76. Dai, J.J., S. Lorenzato, and D.M. Rocke 2004. A knowledge-based model of watershed assessment for sediment. Environmental Modelling & Software 19: 423–433. PDF
  77. Gallo, Kirsten; Lanigan, Steven H.; Eldred, Peter; Gordon, Sean N.; Moyer, Chris. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): preliminary assessment of the condition of watersheds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-647. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 133 p. Download page for PDF - in five parts
  78. Gordon, S., and Gallo, K. 2011. Structuring expert input for a knowledge-based approach to watershed condition assessment for the Northwest Forest Plan, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 172(1): 643-661. PDF
  79. Reeves, Gordon, H.; Hohler, David B.; Larsen, David P.; Busch, David E.; Kratz, Kim; Reynolds, Keith; Stein, Karl F.; Atzet, Thomas; Hays, Polly; Tehan, Michael. 2003. Aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80 p. PDF
  80. Reynolds, K.M.; Peets, S. 2001. Integrated assessment and priorities for protection and restoration of watersheds. Proceedings of the IUFRO 4.11 conference on forest biometry, modeling and information science. 26–29 June 2001, Greenwich, UK. PDF
  81. Reynolds, K.M., Jensen, M., Andreasen, J., and Goodman, I. 2000. Knowledge-based assessment of watershed condition. Comput Electron Agr 27:315–334. online
  82. Walker, R., C. Keithley, R. Henly, S. Downie, and S. Cannata. 2007. Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) applied to watershed assessment on California’s north coast. Pages 25-34 in Standiford, R.B., G.A. Giusti, Y. Valachovic, W.J. Zielinski, and M.J. Furniss (eds.) Proceedings of the Redwood Region Forest Science Symposium: What Does the Future Hold? 15–17 March 2004, Rohnert Park, California. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-194. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 553 p. PDF
  83. Gordon, S.N. 2014. Use of EMDS in Conservation and Management Planning for Watersheds. Chapter 4 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  84. Reynolds, K.M., P.J. Murphy, and Steven Paplanus. 2017. Toward geodesign for watershed restoration on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Pacific Northwest, USA. Sustainability 9: 678. PDF
  85. Janssen, R., H. Goosena, M.L. Verhoevenb, J.T.A. Verhoevenb, A.Q.A. Omtzigta and E. Maltby. 2005. Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environmental Modelling and Software 30: 215-229. PDF
  86. Girvetz, E., and Shilling, F. 2003. Decision Support for Road System Analysis and Modification on the Tahoe National Forest. Environmental Management 32:218-233. PDF
  87. Heaton, J.S., K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, R.D. Inman, F.M. Davenport, T.E. Leuteritz, P.A. Medica, N.W. Strout, P.A. Burgess, and L. Benvenuti. 2008. Spatially explicit decision support for selecting translocation areas for Mojave desert tortoises. Biodiversity Conservation 17:575–590. PDF
  88. Leuteritz, Thomas E.J. 2006. Tortoises on the march: modeling and GIS help relocate a threatened species. GeoWorld, May 2006.
  89. Redlands Institute Decision Support Team. 2004. Desert Tortoise habitat potential knowledge base. Redlands Institute, Redlands, CA. 120 pp. PDF
  90. Wang, S.-F., C.-C. Cheng, C.-C. Chang. 2004b. Applying Ecosystem Management Decision Support System on wildlife habitat suitability assessment. Jour. Exp. For. Nat. Taiwan Univ. 19: 69-76. PDF (in Chinese)
  91. Gordon, S.N., H. McPherson, L. Dickson, J. Halofsky, C. Snyder, and A.W. Brodie. 2014. Wildlife Habitat Management. Chapter 10 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  92. Wainwright, T.C., P.W. Lawson, G.H. Reeves, L.A. Weitkamp, H.A. Stout, and JS. Mills. 2014. Measuring Biological Sustainability via a Decision Support System: Experiences with Oregon Coast Coho Salmon. Chapter 12 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  93. Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, R.E. Miller, and R.T. Meurisse. 2011. Evaluating soil risks associated with severe wildfire and ground-based logging. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-840. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. PDF
  94. Hessburg, P., Reynolds, K., Keane, R., James, K., Salter, R. 2008. Evaluating wildland fire danger and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 247:1-17. PDF
  95. Gollnick-Waid, K., S. Goodman, B. Yohn, J. Wallace, K. VanHemelryck, and G. Barnes. 2009. Ecosystem Management and Decision Support, Summary of Fiscal Year 2009 Results, Prepared for the National Interagency Fuels Coordination Group. Boise, ID: US Department of the Interior. 28 p.
  96. Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, R.E. Keane, and J.P. Menakis. 2009. Allocating fuel-treatment budgets: recent federal experience with decision support. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 2373–2381. PDF
  97. Hessburg, P. F., K.M. Reynolds, R.E. Keane, K.M. James, R.B. Salter. 2010. Evaluating wildland fire danger and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments. Pages 329-352 in: Pye, J.M., H.M. Rauscher, Y. Sands, D.C. Lee, and J.S. Beatty, tech. eds. Advances in threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-802. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Southern Research Stations. PDF
  98. Keane, R.E., J. Menakis, P. Hessburg, K. Reynolds, and J. Dickinson. 2014. Evaluating Wildland fire hazard and risk for fire management applications. Chapter 6 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. PDF
  99. Gonzalez-Olabarria, J.R., K.M. Reynolds, A. Larrañaga, E. Busquets, and M. Pique. 2019. Strategic and tactical planning to improve suppression efforts against large forest fires in the Catalonia region of Spain. Forest Ecology and management 432: 612-622. PDF

Related Research Articles

Risk assessment determines possible mishaps, their likelihood and consequences, and the tolerances for such events. The results of this process may be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative fashion. Risk assessment is an inherent part of a broader risk management strategy to help reduce any potential risk-related consequences.

Adaptive management, also known as adaptive resource management or adaptive environmental assessment and management, is a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring. In this way, decision making simultaneously meets one or more resource management objectives and, either passively or actively, accrues information needed to improve future management. Adaptive management is a tool which should be used not only to change a system, but also to learn about the system. Because adaptive management is based on a learning process, it improves long-run management outcomes. The challenge in using the adaptive management approach lies in finding the correct balance between gaining knowledge to improve management in the future and achieving the best short-term outcome based on current knowledge. This approach has more recently been employed in implementing international development programs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental resource management</span> Type of resource management

Environmental resource management or environmental management is the management of the interaction and impact of human societies on the environment. It is not, as the phrase might suggest, the management of the environment itself. Environmental resources management aims to ensure that ecosystem services are protected and maintained for future human generations, and also maintain ecosystem integrity through considering ethical, economic, and scientific (ecological) variables. Environmental resource management tries to identify factors between meeting needs and protecting resources. It is thus linked to environmental protection, resource management, sustainability, integrated landscape management, natural resource management, fisheries management, forest management, wildlife management, environmental management systems, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological engineering</span> Environmental engineering

Ecological engineering uses ecology and engineering to predict, design, construct or restore, and manage ecosystems that integrate "human society with its natural environment for the benefit of both".

Emergy is the amount of energy consumed in direct and indirect transformations to make a product or service. Emergy is a measure of quality differences between different forms of energy. Emergy is an expression of all the energy used in the work processes that generate a product or service in units of one type of energy. Emergy is measured in units of emjoules, a unit referring to the available energy consumed in transformations. Emergy accounts for different forms of energy and resources Each form is generated by transformation processes in nature and each has a different ability to support work in natural and in human systems. The recognition of these quality differences is a key concept.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem service</span> Benefits provided by healthy nature, forests and environmental systems

Ecosystem services are the various benefits that humans derive from healthy ecosystems. These ecosystems, when functioning well, offer such things as provision of food, natural pollination of crops, clean air and water, decomposition of wastes, or flood control. Ecosystem services are grouped into four broad categories of services. There are provisioning services, such as the production of food and water. Regulating services, such as the control of climate and disease. Supporting services, such as nutrient cycles and oxygen production. And finally there are cultural services, such as spiritual and recreational benefits. Evaluations of ecosystem services may include assigning an economic value to them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem model</span> A typically mathematical representation of an ecological system

An ecosystem model is an abstract, usually mathematical, representation of an ecological system, which is studied to better understand the real system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burned area emergency response</span>

Burned area emergency response (BAER) is an emergency risk management reaction to post wildfire conditions that pose risks to human life and property or could further destabilize or degrade the burned lands. Even though wildfires are natural events, the presence of people and man-made structures in and adjacent to the burned area frequently requires continued emergency risk management actions. High severity wildfires pose a continuing flood, debris flow and mudflow risk to people living within and downstream from a burned watershed as well as a potential loss of desirable watershed values.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landscape-scale conservation</span> Holistic approach to landscape management

Landscape-scale conservation is a holistic approach to landscape management, aiming to reconcile the competing objectives of nature conservation and economic activities across a given landscape. Landscape-scale conservation may sometimes be attempted because of climate change. It can be seen as an alternative to site based conservation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation Effects Assessment Project</span> United States government project

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) was established in 2002 to quantify the environmental impact of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) conservation program. The project focuses on how watersheds are affected. CEAP monitored 14 benchmark watershed sites. The CEAP's vision is to enhance "natural resources and healthier ecosystems through improved conservation effectiveness and better management of agricultural landscapes. The goal is "to improve efficacy of conservations practices and programs by quantifying conservation effects and providing the science and education base needed to enrich conservation planning, implementation, management decisions, and policy."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dynamic global vegetation model</span>

A Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (DGVM) is a computer program that simulates shifts in potential vegetation and its associated biogeochemical and hydrological cycles as a response to shifts in climate. DGVMs use time series of climate data and, given constraints of latitude, topography, and soil characteristics, simulate monthly or daily dynamics of ecosystem processes. DGVMs are used most often to simulate the effects of future climate change on natural vegetation and its carbon and water cycles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem management</span> Natural resource management

Ecosystem management is an approach to natural resource management that aims to ensure the long-term sustainability and persistence of an ecosystem's function and services while meeting socioeconomic, political, and cultural needs. Although indigenous communities have employed sustainable ecosystem management approaches implicitly for millennia, ecosystem management emerged explicitly as a formal concept in the 1990s from a growing appreciation of the complexity of ecosystems and of humans' reliance and influence on natural systems.

NetWeaver Developer is a knowledgebase development system. This article

  1. gives a brief history of the system,
  2. summarizes key features of the software,
  3. is a bit of a primer, describing basic attributes of a NetWeaver knowledgebase, and
  4. provides secondary references that independently document some of the NetWeaver applications developed since the late 1980s.

Wildfire suppression in the United States has had a long and varied history. For most of the 20th century, any form of wildland fire, whether it was naturally caused or otherwise, was quickly suppressed for fear of uncontrollable and destructive conflagrations such as the Peshtigo Fire in 1871 and the Great Fire of 1910. In the 1960s, policies governing wildfire suppression changed due to ecological studies that recognized fire as a natural process necessary for new growth. Today, policies advocating complete fire suppression have been exchanged for those who encourage wildland fire use, or the allowing of fire to act as a tool, such as the case with controlled burns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EPA Sustainability</span>

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in July 1970 when the White House and the United States Congress came together due to the public's demand for cleaner natural resources. The purpose of the EPA is to repair the damage done to the environment and to set up new criteria to allow Americans to make a clean environment a reality. The ultimate goal of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

Forest informatics is the combined science of forestry and informatics, with a special emphasis on collection, management, and processing of data, information and knowledge, and the incorporation of informatic concepts and theories specific to enrich forest management and forest science; it has a similar relationship to library science and information science.

The LANDFIRE Program produces geo-spatial products and databases covering the United States. LANDFIRE is a partnership between the wildland fire management programs of the United States Department of Interior, the USDA Forest Service and the Nature Conservancy. LANDFIRE was chartered to create a nationally complete, comprehensive, and consistent set of products that support cross-country planning, and fire and natural resource management. This multi-partner Program produces consistent, comprehensive, geospatial data and databases that describe vegetation, wildland fuel, and fire regimes across the United States and insular areas. LANDFIRE's mission is to provide agency leaders and managers with a common "all-lands" data set of vegetation and wildland fire/fuels information for strategic fire and resource management planning and analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deforestation in British Columbia</span>

Deforestation in British Columbia has resulted in a net loss of 1.06 million hectares of tree cover between the years 2000 and 2020. More traditional losses have been exacerbated by increased threats from climate change driven fires, increased human activity, and invasive species. The introduction of sustainable forestry efforts such as the Zero Net Deforestation Act seeks to reduce the rate of forest cover loss. In British Columbia, forests cover over 55 million hectares, which is 57.9% of British Columbia's 95 million hectares of land. The forests are mainly composed of coniferous trees, such as pines, spruces and firs.

i-Tree is a collection of urban and rural forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools. It was designed and developed by the United States Forest Service to quantify and value ecosystem services provided by trees including pollution removal, carbon sequestration, avoided carbon emissions, avoided stormwater runoff, and more. i-Tree provides baseline data so that the growth of trees can be followed over time, and is used for planning purposes. Different tools within the i-Tree Suite use different types of inputs and provide different kinds of reports; some tools use a 'bottom up' approach based on tree inventories on the ground, while other tools use a 'top down' approach based on remote sensing data. i-Tree is peer-reviewed and has a process of ongoing collaboration to improve it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ponderosa pine forest</span> Plant community where Pinus ponderosa is common

Ponderosa pine forest is a plant association and plant community dominated by ponderosa pine and found in western North America. It is found from the British Columbia to Durango, Mexico. In the south and east, ponderosa pine forest is the climax forest, while in the more northern part of its range, it can transition to Douglas-fir or grand fir, or white fir forests. Understory species depends on location. Fire suppression has led to insect outbreaks in ponderosa pine forests.