Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Georgina Mace
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction to conservation and conflict
- PART II Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
- Part III Approaches to managing conflicts
- 14 Modelling conservation conflicts
- 15 Defining scales for managing biodiversity and natural resources in the face of conflicts
- 16 Mediation and conservation conflicts: from top-down to bottom-up
- 17 Designing and facilitating consensus-building – keys to success
- 18 Conservation conflict transformation: the missing link in conservation
- 19 Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library Group in California, USA
- 20 Finding a way out of conservation conflicts
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
14 - Modelling conservation conflicts
from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Georgina Mace
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction to conservation and conflict
- PART II Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
- Part III Approaches to managing conflicts
- 14 Modelling conservation conflicts
- 15 Defining scales for managing biodiversity and natural resources in the face of conflicts
- 16 Mediation and conservation conflicts: from top-down to bottom-up
- 17 Designing and facilitating consensus-building – keys to success
- 18 Conservation conflict transformation: the missing link in conservation
- 19 Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library Group in California, USA
- 20 Finding a way out of conservation conflicts
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
Summary
Modelling enables theory and empirical evidence to be brought together to build representations of how real-world systems work and how they are likely to respond to external influences. Models can take many forms, such as simple verbal or written descriptions, flow diagrams, sets of mathematical equations or computer programs. Usually the process begins with the development of a verbal or written description of a real-world system (i.e. a ‘conceptual model’), which subsequently can be translated into a mathematical or computational format (i.e. an ‘implemented model’). This implemented model can then be given appropriate inputs such that outputs, predicting the dynamics of the system of interest, are generated (Edmonds and Hales, 2003; Wilensky and Rand, 2007; Fig. 14.1). The outputs can then be compared to understanding or empirical data related to the behaviour of a natural system and this comparison can result in modification of the conceptual model. This iterative process can make a major contribution to our understanding of how systems work and what may be the crucial drivers of a system (Edmonds, 2000; Fig. 14.1).
It has been argued that the most important goal of modelling is to understand general mechanisms, not to generate specific predictions using models (Grimm, 1999). However, where sufficient, empirically verified, knowledge and understanding of a system exists, models can provide an excellent means for testing how a complex system may respond to different drivers for a natural resource system, and assess the likely responses of a system to alternative possible future management (Frederiksen et al., 2001; Bunnefeld et al., 2011). Importantly, even in cases where knowledge of a system is too limited for modelling to provide robust quantitative predictions, models can still be developed that yield useful qualitative predictions of expected trends and system dynamics (such as population cycles or the risk of extinction), particularly about influential mechanisms of the system.
Models can help us understand where and why ecological conflicts occur. They enable us to identify the main drivers of conflict by simplifying the system to key components that still replicate patterns in the real conflict system.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Conflicts in ConservationNavigating Towards Solutions, pp. 195 - 211Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
(2012). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: review of agent-based models. Ecol. Model., 229, 25–36.Google Scholar
and (2012). Understanding human decisions in coupled natural and human systems. Ecol. Model., 229, 1–4.Google Scholar
, and (2012). Uncertainty and the role of information acquisition in the evolution of context-dependent emigration. Am. Nat., 179, 606–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2011). Management strategy evaluation: a powerful tool for conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2010). Institutions matter! Why the herder problem is not a prisoner's dilemma. Theory and Decision, 69, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2010). Multi-agent modeling and simulation of an Aedes aegypti mosquito population. Environ. Modell. Softw., 25, 1490–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2010). Inductive game theory and the dynamics of animal conflict. PLoS Comput. Biol., 6, e1000782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2011). Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 13,335–13,340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2005). Models of cooperation based on the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Snowdrift game. Ecol. Lett., 8, 748–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). The use of models – making MABS more informative. In Multi-Agent-Based Simulation: Second International Workshop, MABS 2000 Boston, MA, USA, July, Revised and Additional Papers, eds. and , pp. 15–32. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
and (2003). Replication, replication and replication: some hard lessons from model alignment. J. Artif. Soc. S., 6, 11.Google Scholar
, et al. (2013). Predictive systems ecology. Proc. R. Soc. B, 280, 20131452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2001). The interplay between culling and density-dependence in the great cormorant: a modelling approach. J. Appl. Ecol., 38, 617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? Ecol. Model., 115, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2012). Combining socio-economic and ecological modelling to inform natural resource management strategies. In International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. Managing Resources of a Limited Planet: Pathways and Visions under Uncertainty, Sixth Biennial Meeting, Leipzig, Germany, eds. , , and , http://www.iemss.org/society/index.php/iemss-2012-proceedings. ISBN: 978-88-9035-742-8.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2010). Responses to alternative rainfall regimes and antipoaching in a migratory system. Ecol. Appl., 20, 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2012). Multi-objective game-theory models for conflict analysis in reservoir watershed management. Chemosphere, 87, 608–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2011). Trade-offs in model-building: a more target-oriented approach. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci., 42, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2011). Integrating fisheries approaches and household utility models for improved resource management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 1741–1746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2003). Complex systems, trade-offs, and theoretical population biology: Richard Levin's ‘Strategy of model building in population biology’ revisited. Philos. Sci., 70, 1496–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2004). Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human–wildlife conflict: a raptor–grouse case study. Conserv. Biol., 18, 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2006). Seasonal life-history models for the integrated management of the invasive weed nodding thistle Carduus nutans in Australia. J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2003). Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict. J. Appl. Ecol., 40, 667–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (2002). Factors affecting lynx predation on sheep in the French Jura. J. Appl. Ecol., 39, 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1981). Simulation of lion control strategies in a large game reserve. Ecol. Model., 13, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. Syst. Dynam. Rev., 18, 501–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2010). Individual-based ecology of coastal birds. Biol. Rev., 85, 413–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2011). Improving prediction and management of range expansions by combining analytical and individual-based modelling approaches. Method. Ecol. Evol., 2, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2010). An agent-based approach to model land-use change at a regional scale. Landscape Ecol., 25, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1997). Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277, 494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2005). A bio-economic model for optimal harvest of timber and moose. Forest Ecol. Manag., 206, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002). Autonomous agent models of stock markets. Artif. Intell. Rev., 17, 87–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). Making models match: replicating an agent-based model. J. Artif. Soc. Sci., 10, 2.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2009). Cost–benefit analysis model of badger (Meles meles) culling to reduce cattle herd tuberculosis breakdowns in Britain, with particular reference to badger perturbation. J. Wildlife Dis., 45, 1062–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (eds) (2005). The future of coexistence: resolving human–wildlife conflicts in a changing world. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? pp. 388–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2010). The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodivers. Conserv., 19, 3973–3990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 2
- Cited by