0549-A1
Boyd Brown[1]
The demand for environmental monitoring information is high but the supply is low. At the same time, activities in the environment are being measured, environmental data are being updated and useful information is being produced. The link between the monitoring report and the original field data is missing. This gap is filled by the automated monitoring protocol (AMP), which acts like a beneficial computer virus, quietly updating monitoring reports on an easily accessible public Web site each time the base data are updated.
Since any monitoring model is arbitrary, this paper takes the perspective for monitoring land use activities through the provincial Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM), in British Columbia, Canada. Planning for a desired future state has been the objective of BC’s Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) over the last decade. To reach a consensus, LRMP participants must consider the triple bottom lines of economic, social and environmental capital during decision-making. These strategic land use plans, which cover approximately 1 million ha, define sustainability of resource use and are the basic requirement of the monitoring described in this paper.
This paper proposes the AMP, which uses scientific expertise, systems analysis techniques for documentation and Web-based computers. A working example is provided. Monitoring, if done right, will help us understand the complexity of the ecosphere and form the basis of adaptive management. AMP reduces uncertainty by using the ability of high-speed computer programs to manipulate complex data consistently and in a timely manner that supports the decision cycle required of forest managers. AMP would provide everyone, (i.e. forest managers, decision-makers, the public, ENGOs, or forest resource customers) with the ability to track environmental changes and make their own decisions about sustainability. Whether you are adapting your management practices to reflect new knowledge or simply observing the progress of forest management, timely, relevant and appropriate monitoring information is essential.
The demand for environmental monitoring information is high but the supply is low (Brown et al 2002). At the same time, activities in the environment are being measured, environmental data are being updated and useful information is produced. The link between the monitoring report and the original field data are missing. This gap is filled by the automated monitoring protocol (AMP), which acts like a beneficial computer virus to quietly updating monitoring reports on an easily accessible public Web site each time the base data are updated.
In its fullest sense, sustainability can only be understood on a global scale. Yet this scale presents almost insurmountable obstacles for measurements needed for monitoring. "Given that structure and function, be they ecological, social or economic interact across a wide range of different spatial (and equally temporal) scales in unequal fashion, selecting any subset scale e.g., a nation or a forest, for monitoring or assessment will result in an artificially and incomplete bounded area"(Beasley et al 2001). Since any monitoring model is arbitrary, this paper takes the perspective for monitoring land use activities through the provincial Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM), in British Columbia, Canada.
Planning for a desired future state has been the objective of BC’s Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) over the last decade. To reach a consensus, LRMP participants must consider the triple bottom lines of economic, social and environmental capital during decision making. These strategic land use plans, which cover approximately one million hectares, define sustainability of resource use and are the basic requirement of the monitoring described in this paper.
The ecosphere’s ability to sustain productivity and biodiversity of ecosystems, and thereby their ability to sustain society with its demands for services and resourced from the ecosphere, is dependent on very complex interactions among various species within the ecosystem and between the ecosystem and the surrounding geophysical world (Robert 2002). To articulate these complex interactions, much has been said and written about sustainability planning, criteria/indicators and monitoring. Yet a comprehensive, timely and automated system for monitoring has not been provided. This paper proposes the automated monitoring protocol (AMP), which uses scientific expertise, systems analysis techniques for documentation and Web based computers. A working example is provided.
Monitoring, if done right, will help us understand the complexity of the ecosphere and form the basis of adaptive management. AMP reduces uncertainty by using the ability of high speed computer programs to manipulate complex data consistently and in a timely manner that supports the decision cycle required of forest managers. AMP would provide everyone, (i.e. forest managers, decision makers, the public, ENGOs, or forest resource customers) with the ability to track environmental changes and make their own decision about sustainability. Whether you are adapting your management practices to reflect new knowledge or simply observing the progress of forest management, timely, relevant and appropriate monitoring information is essential.
AMP concepts were piloted in the Bulkley Monitoring Model Project (BMMP). Our first efforts have been to post the sustainability of biodiversity (as defined by the Bulkley LRMP) on the Web site. A 37-page monitoring report of maps, charts, graph, tables and text is available at www.plums.ca.
See the schematic diagram in Figure 1, below, for a conceptual model. As the world changes, descriptive data are updated. These data are processed into information (called indicators) and reside on the data suppliers’ site. The indicators are made available for transfer via the Internet to the values model which resides on the same Web site as the LRM plan. The values model evaluates indicators relative to the planned targets and displays or changes graphs, maps and tables accordingly in the monitoring report.
The data model is resource issue specific and bridges the gap between the raw inventories and the indicators. Under normal conditions, the data model would have inventories as the input and measures for indicators as the output.
The values model is where the evaluation of indicators against the targets outlined in a plan takes place. This single model is envisioned to be closely tied to the geographic area and the targets outlined for the LRMP. Values models have indicator measures as input and the monitoring report as output.
Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Automated Monitoring
The AMP is achieved with three procedures: a workshop to reach agreement on which indicators are best (indicators workshop); agreement on how indicators will be derived from data (data flow logic); and a commitment to evaluate indicators in a perspective to a plan on a Web site (Internet access). Combined the three procedures provide a voice for the forest which then can speak in a language of sustainability easily understood by all.
The core to this approach is agreements on data processing. These agreements are made among experts in the disciplines important to monitoring i.e. experts in data acquisition; experts in indicators of sustainability; experts in planning or values articulated in plans and experts in reporting of monitored results. In a chain of reasoning, the plan determines what information is important to monitor, the monitoring needs drive the selection of indicators and the indicators determine which raw data are selected for processing.
But is the data flow logic realistic? Each indicator is then tested against data availability and the plan rationale to determine its worth in the monitoring report. Only the best indicators, appropriately supported with data, are selected for the monitoring report. Emphasis is to be placed on practical considerations such as: Is the value reported required by the LRMP? Is the indicator the most effective for the LRMP values statement? Are the data available?
The workshop should begin with a brain storming session that brings out all the indicators without critical judgement. The second step is to discuss the characteristics of a good indicator.
A structured discussion follows. The list of potential indicators is examined with the objective of reducing the number through combining and clarifying. Here is where the large and growing body of knowledge about criteria and indicators finds expression. Consideration of stakeholders’ expectations for information, the design of the final monitoring report and the connection to the values expressed in the plan focuses the criteria and indicators discussion. A discussion of the practicality of supplying data for each indicator will bring reality and immediacy to choosing indicators because of the limited supply of information for indicators. A through understanding of the meta data associated with data sources is essential at this stage.
In the interest of efficiency the indicator workshop should have only the staff experts necessary to achieve consensus on data flow logic. This means limiting the number of experts and the length of time to reach decisions. Emphasis is placed on consensus building but not to the detriment of efficiency and progress. The facilitation team will follow up on the meeting with documentation of the data flow logic in data flow diagrams and building monitoring report mock-ups.
After workshops for all resource issues are completed, a second workshop is required to verify the initial workshop results and to integrate the separate documents. A trial run of the data flow logic is provided from real data as a starting point for verification and integration discussions. Called a "straw dog" AMP, this first attempt, will become the baseline or benchmark monitoring report at the end of the workshop.
The primary purpose of the data flow diagrams is to document the flow of data from raw inventories to the final monitoring report. The logic is grouped into two models: a data model and a values model.
The data model primarily contains logic that changes raw inventory data to information on measures of indicators for storage on an URL. Data are processed into information for several reasons. Inventories are usually more complex and exact than needed for monitoring. Excess data are best left in the data warehouse. Data are also collected to exacting field standards to reduce uncertainty yet this volume of information is overwhelming to the average person. Summaries and interpretation of the raw data are necessary. The perspective provided by the plan acts like a filter to help inform the process of changing data into information useful for monitoring.
Different types of data are stored in different data warehouses. For example data for timber monitoring could come from forest valuation, which is stored in the Ministry of Forests Harvest Data Billing System (HDBS) and from forest cover which is stored in Data Service Centre in Skeena Region. Data on subsurface resources are stored in a different location from tourism data. Each data type has its own discipline/standards and perhaps location and may require special protocols for access. Separate data models are required for each data type. The logic of data-to-information flow from raw inventory to indicators is captured in data flow diagrams in the data model.
The values model is built from the values expressed in a plan. For example an LRMP has a series of strategies to achieve land use goals. Each of these strategies could be seen as an expression of the balancing of competing resource opportunities or as a statement of the relative value of each resource. Values may be expressed as desirable future conditions or as targets. Creating relevant, realistic and measurable targets is often the most difficult task the experts in the indicators workshop must perform. Vague statements of values provide an opportunity for experts to be creative in determining how the value will be monitored but also provide the greatest opportunity to get it wrong. Yet the creation of measurable indicators for each value drives the data flow process.
Each plan requires a different values model but a single values model receives indicators from many data models (see Figure 1: Conceptual Model on page 4). Measures of indicators go into the values model, monitoring reports come out of the values model
The data flow diagrams (DFD) attempt to find the middle ground between the broad conceptual representation and the extreme details of a programming language. DFDs should be written to provide guidance to any programmer scripting in any language: i.e. just enough information to consistently provide the logic but not so much as to force the use of a specific scripting language. In theory future programmers should have no trouble interpreting the logic and creating the same data flow with any scripting language.
The Internet in AMP has two functions: 1) to allow communication between the data models and the values model and 2) to distribute the completed monitoring report.
Logic produced by experts at the indicators workshop will point to various data bases for the best data. These databases might be at different locations but are linked to the values model through the Internet. This will require development of partnerships with other data providers. Developing the data models as close as possible to the site where data are updated reduces time lost to non essential data transformations but increases the number of data models and the potential of getting unverified data. Several data models may be accessed to satisfy the needs of a plan. In other words partnerships with industry or a number of government agencies may be necessary to satisfy the needs of a land use plan. Linking the models through URLs on the Internet provides easy and automated information transfer.
The distribution function of an Internet Web site is under construction. Both land use plans and monitoring reports are envisioned on the same site for easy reference between the plan and its outcome. Decision Support Services Branch (DSS), MSRM, is the custodian of strategic land use plan (SLUP) data prior to and after the submission to and approval of the plans by cabinet.
Initially, DSS created a Web site dedicated to publishing this data and making it available to the public and government. This tool which is referred to as the Strategic Land Use Plan Tracking, has been developed as an Internet Web site with ‘active’ content for the mapping, document viewing and reporting requirements.
There are several types of users for this site with each type having different expectations from the site. These users may be the general public, interest groups and other members of government, and data administrators. All users benefit from the improved and consistent layout of the Web site.
The following are some functional highlights.
Link spatial data with associated portions of plan text document.
Provide document search functionality.
Adhere to a consistent layout from plan to plan.
Provide full featured pan/zoom and identify mapping features.
Provide specific structured queries for plan information.
Able to update plan status and log information, through password protected interface.
Able to view plan status and log information.
Download arc/info resource management zone coverages and associated data.
The values model would reside on the site and provide all monitoring results in context to the LRMP that is monitored. With both the plan statement of desired future condition and the actual measurements of monitored condition the progress towards sustainability can be judged by each visitor to the Web site. This same concept could be used for any other set of values or statement of desired future condition that is directly related to data being updated in the environment. The Web site which has been created British Columbians, is available to anyone in the world. Non governmental organizations in Germany, for example, could evaluate the sustainability of BC products they are about to purchase at their local lumber yard or stationary store.
The AMP principles have been successfully applied to biodiversity in the Bulkley Land and Resource Management Plan area and results are available on the Web site at www.plums.ca Besides this success with biodiversity, considerable additional work has been completed. Experts considered monitoring146 LRMP tasks to accomplish 90 strategies during six indicator workshops and agreed to 51 indicators for all remaining resource uses.
Consensus among the experts was facilitated by clear direction on the definition of sustainability found in the comprehensive language in the LRMP. Agreement was achieved because the public choices made in the LRMP limited the scope of indicators and because data flow logic required experts to link existing data structures with a desired monitoring product. Indicators that were not clearly supported by public choices and indicators that could not be supported by existing data were not included. Indicator workshops which were intense but congenial, varied in length up to one day.
Six data flow diagrams and mock monitoring reports have been completed for all indicators. Baseline information is being assembled. The first steps of adaptive management are being practiced by industry and government decision makers. The true impact will be felt when all resource uses are automatically monitored and resource managers can receive information in a timely manner that fits with the decision cycle needed for adaptive management.
An effectiveness assessment is an important part of the monitoring process (Zweck et al 1999) and procedures are being developed. The assessment includes an evaluation of the implementation trends for each resource in the land use plan and an analysis of the appropriateness of indicators. The AMP will supply the information for trend analysis. An indicators expert at the workshop will evaluate indicators to maximize their use for effectiveness trends. Are the indicators in the implementation monitoring reports trending towards sustainability? Based on the assessment, a section of the monitoring report will be prepared that summarizes the effectiveness of plan strategies to meet sustainability. Currently effectiveness monitoring is seen as a manual process that an expert in monitoring would undertake after about five years of study of trends.
In the future, the AMP may provide a look-ahead system for changes in plans or development of scenarios. Since all targets would be integrated and the data processing consistent, a scenario or theoretical desired future states could be displayed as if the future already existed. By changing base data to some anticipated future state, running it through the data flow logic, and evaluating it against plan targets, one could determine if the intent of the plan would be achieved with the scenario. Scripting data flow logic into fast and powerful computers may have many uses currently unforeseen.
Automated monitoring could change the way the public view the forests. The Automated Monitoring Protocol is a natural progression of the use of scientific expertise and powerful computer systems to satisfy the complex and changing needs of people and the environment. Professional resource managers could have a responsive feedback mechanism and thereby reduce uncertainty around the impact of their decisions on sustainability. The public could monitor sustainability at a level of detail appropriate to their curiosity. Customers could satisfy their need for sustainability information about forest products purchased. In other words the AMP could provide an information environment that rivals the depth, extent and complexity of the real environment.
The AMP project has the following key advantages:
It is based on new and innovative work that provides an exceptional advance over existing procedures and practices. Yet it is a logical step because it brings together capacities available from new technology developed in other fields.
It targets critical areas of uncertainty that will clearly lead to significantly higher levels of confidence and credibility of resource management decisions.
It is likely to develop significant, leading edge knowledge, skills or tools that will clearly contribute to more effective policies, regulations and/or guidelines needed by policy makers, decision makers and resource practitioners. The proposal demonstrates how these will serve as the basis for innovative policies and improved standards
An Internet address for monitoring could be printed on each piece of lumber or forest product as part of the existing Council of Forest Industries (COFI) stamp. This would provide world wide access for BC’s forest products customers to information on efforts towards sustainability. The amount of complex information required by a person is dependent on their interest in the subject. The Internet-address-on-forest-products system could satisfy this need with wide distribution of the best possible information.
We live in a global village. British Columbians should use a global approach to communicate both planning and monitoring actions that are used to sustain the environment.
Beasley, Barb and Wright, Pamela; March 2001, "North Coast LRMP: Criteria & Indicators Briefing Paper", Background Report to North Coast Planning Team, page 12.
Brown, Daryl and Dick, John; March 2001, "Environmental Monitoring: Business and Information Needs Study", Report to Land Information and Inventory Coordination Committee, Province of BC, page 49.
Robert, Karl-Henrik, 2002, "The Natural Step story", New Society Publishers, page 243.
Zweck, Elizabeth and Reay, Gary, 1999, "Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans", Draft internal document, Province of BC, page 16.
Data flow diagrams: a flowchart developed to show how data are changed, processed and manipulated from raw inventory through indicators to monitoring reports.
Data model: the group of relationships that determines the metrics of indicators from measurements in the inventory; a series of computer programs that reside on the information suppliers computer to process inventory data into a file of important facts to be stored on the URL and passed to the values model.
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP): a consensus land use plan that balances social, economic and environmental concerns for a defined geographic area.
Results Based Code: an administrative concept of checking results of activities not the procedures to achieve results. Usually refers to the administrative system for legislation such as the Forest and Range Practices Act.
Protocol: the rules, formalities and accepted norms of any procedure or group of procedures.
Script: A computer language that processes manipulate or evaluate data and information. These languages include AML, Oracle and ArcIMS among others.
Trends: recursive measurements of an indicator over time; the comparison of the results of measurement procedures for an indicator over time.
Values Model: the script or group of computer programs that evaluate the indicators against the targets in the value set; the second AMP model that compares the measured results against the values in the land use plan and creates a monitoring report.
|
[1] Plan Implementation and
Monitoring Officer, Skeena Region, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management,
Bag 5000, Smithers BC Canada V0J 2N0. Tel: 1 250 847 7508; Fax: 1 250 847
7217; Email: [email protected] |