Toward a complete interdisciplinary treatment of scale
Author:
Iwanaga Takuya1, Wang Hsiao-Hsuan2, Koralewski Tomasz E.2, Grant William E.2, Jakeman Anthony J.1, Little John C.3
Affiliation:
1. Institute for Water Futures, Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 2. Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA 3. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Abstract
The pathways taken throughout any model-based process are undoubtedly influenced by the modeling team involved and the decision choices they make. For interconnected socioenvironmental systems (SES), such teams are increasingly interdisciplinary to enable a more expansive and holistic treatment that captures the purpose, the relevant disciplines and sectors, and other contextual settings. In practice, such interdisciplinarity increases the scope of what is considered, thereby increasing choices around model complexity and their effects on uncertainty. Nonetheless, the consideration of scale issues is one critical lens through which to view and question decision choices in the modeling cycle. But separation between team members, both geographically and by discipline, can make the scales involved more arduous to conceptualize, discuss, and treat. In this article, the practices, decisions, and workflow that influence the consideration of scale in SESs modeling are explored through reflexive accounts of two case studies. Through this process and an appreciation of past literature, we draw out several lessons under the following themes: (1) the fostering of collaborative learning and reflection, (2) documenting and justifying the rationale for modeling scale choices, some of which can be equally plausible (a perfect model is not possible), (3) acknowledging that causality is defined subjectively, (4) embracing change and reflection throughout the iterative modeling cycle, and (5) regularly testing the model integration to draw out issues that would otherwise be unnoticeable.
Publisher
University of California Press
Subject
Atmospheric Science,Geology,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology,Ecology,Environmental Engineering,Oceanography
Reference136 articles.
1. Andres, HP. 2012. Technology-mediated collaboration, shared mental model and task performance. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing24: 18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2012010104. 2. Arnold, T, Guillaume, JHA, Lahtinen, TJ, Vervoort, RW, 2020. From ad-hoc modelling to strategic infrastructure: A manifesto for model management. Environmental Modelling & Software123: 104563. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104563. 3. Ayllón, D, Railsback, SF, Gallagher, C, Augusiak, J, Baveco, H, Berger, U, Charles, S, Martin, R, Focks, A, Galic, N, Liu, C, van Loon, EE, Nabe-Nielsen, J, Piou, C, Polhill, JG, Preuss, TG, Radchuk, V, Schmolke, A, Stadnicka-Michalak, J, Thorbek, P, Grimm, V. 2021. Keeping modelling notebooks with TRACE: Good for you and good for environmental research and management support. Environmental Modelling & Software136. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104932. 4. Badham, J, Elsawah, S, Guillaume, JHA, Hamilton, SH, Hunt, RJ, Jakeman, AJ, Pierce, SA., Snow, VO, Babbar-Sebens, M, Fu, B, Gober, P, Hill, MC, Iwanaga, T, Loucks, DP, Merritt, WS, Peckham, SD, Richmond, AK, Zare, F, Ames, D, Bammer, G. 2019. Effective modeling for Integrated Water Resource Management: A guide to contextual practices by phases and steps and future opportunities. Environmental Modelling & Software116: 40–56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.02.013. 5. Bakker, M, Post, V, Langevin, CD, Hughes, JD, White, JT, Starn, JJ, Fienen, MN. 2016. Scripting MODFLOW model development using Python and FloPy. Groundwater54: 733–739. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12413.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|