Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 The Shared Vision Model
2 The Shared Vision Model
Pages 30-62
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 30... ...
Shared Vision Planning and Modeling in the LOSLR Study The LOSLR Study Board describes the Shared Vision Model (SVM) as "a unified computer simulation of the system" (SVM 1, p.
|
From page 31... ...
In referencing the 1996 Scope of Work, the Plan of Study emphasizes the need to consider wetlands, other environmental factors, and recreational boating interests, which had not been addressed in the original regulation plan. The LOSLR Plan of Study called for formulation of alternative regulation plans and evaluation of them with respect to multiple criteria, including both existing and new criteria that may be added.
|
From page 32... ...
It stated: The evaluation of Lake Ontario regulation plans, the practicality of proposed criteria, and the hydrologic impacts on the interests, require computer simulation of water levels and flows of the Great LakesSt. Lawrence River system downstream as far as Trois-Rivères, Quebec.
|
From page 33... ...
. The LOSLR Study attempts to integrate these criteria in an innovative water resources planning process in the Lake Ontario-St.
|
From page 34... ...
34 Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies FIGURE 2-1 Structure of the shared vision model.
|
From page 35... ...
The Committee received a report on Lake Erie outflows (Fan and Fay, 2003) but did not receive other documentation of the time series of inflows to Lake Ontario used in the LOSLR study, and was not charged to review the hydrologic and hydraulic work.
|
From page 36... ...
The Data Warehouse and Control Panel were not included in this review. Brief Description of Regulation Plan Options The primary purpose of the LOSLR study is to formulate regulation plan options for the releases from Lake Ontario and the upper St.
|
From page 37... ...
EVALUATION OF THE SVM OVERALL FINDINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS The overall strength of the SVM is its ability to support multi-stakeholder decision-making with data-driven comparisons of tradeoffs among the economic, environmental, and social effects of regulation plan options. The inter-disciplinary scope of inquiry of the SVM and its inclusive approach will likely serve as an important case study for other large-scale, multi-interest, water resources planning projects.
|
From page 38... ...
The STELLA model produces a single water elevation value for Lake Ontario for each quarter-month time period. This STELLA model value must be accurate for the SVM to function reliably because it is used in other models as input for wetlands, fauna, erosion, and bathymetric calculations.
|
From page 39... ...
Lawrence System The STELLA model calculates river water levels and flows at a limited number of points based on regression equations (Fan and Fay, 2001, 2002, 2003)
|
From page 40... ...
Also omitted from the SVM analysis are the impacts of changes in externally specified water demands and land uses on the economic and environmental performance indicators modeled under alternative regulation plans. These deficiencies in socioeconomic analysis, forecasting, and scenario construction limit the long-term utility of the SVM, and the influence of dynamic socioeconomic factors on modeled output variables must be treated more fully.
|
From page 41... ...
The SVM Board Room displays scatter plots for some variables, and it has links for contextual narratives that address uncertainty in qualitative terms, but it lacks a comprehensive framework to assess uncertainty among its interacting models. The LOSLR Study should inform decision-makers about the ways that uncertainties were, and were not, addressed in the Shared Vision Model, and provide a detailed discussion of their relevance for decision-making.
|
From page 42... ...
, and the STELLA model quarter-month output is used in environmental models that were designed with daily time steps. The introduction of error due to the lack of model feedback is unexamined, but could be significant.
|
From page 43... ...
As discussed above, the STELLA model generates water levels and flows in quarter-monthly intervals. The Flooding Erosion and Prediction System, the Integrated Ecological Response Model, and other environmental sub-models use water-related information on shorter time-steps.
|
From page 44... ...
More thorough documentation of the SVM is needed to convey transparency, specifically on the rationale for model choices, methods used, treatment of error and uncertainty, and resolution of spatial and temporal scales. Criterion 7: Effective Scientific Communication The primary venue for communicating information in the SVM is the "Board Room," a spreadsheet that displays the effects of regulation plans for visualization, deliberation, and further modeling decisions by the LOSLR Study Board.
|
From page 45... ...
. It also indicates the array of documents, tables, graphs, and diagrams developed to compare the potential effects of different regulation plan options, including the following information in Figure 2-3: · Plan Descriptions (column 1)
|
From page 46... ...
46 Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies 2)
|
From page 47... ...
Shared Vision Model 47 d oarB SOURCE: . oomR ard Bo e th ni torsa ndici nce rma .)
|
From page 48... ...
48 Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies time.
|
From page 49... ...
Spatial and temporal scaling present challenges for the SVM because the STELLA model produces water levels and flows per quarter month time step while many of the SVM sub-models operate on a much shorter time step. In addition, disparities in reporting economic and environmental indicators constrain stakeholders and decision-makers' ability to weigh these outputs intuitively.
|
From page 50... ...
OVERALL APPROPRIATENESS AND SUFFIENCY TO INFORM REGULATION OPTIONS Charge C in the statement of task questions the extent to which the models and studies are sufficient and appropriate to evaluate the various regulation plans and the impacts of changes in water levels and flows in the LOSLR system. Three evaluation criteria are used to address this charge with respect to the SVM: breadth of inquiry and scope of the SVM, its balance between scientific and practical professional approaches; and identification of future studies needed to fill information gaps.
|
From page 51... ...
changes in a specific regulation plan that reduce a negative impact; (2) measures applicable to all regulation plan options; or (3)
|
From page 52... ...
For example, IJC and LOSLR Study representatives reported that the economically most beneficial plan, particularly beneficial to hydropower, was rejected because it produced disproportionate losses to the environmental sector. The Board Room spreadsheet displays losses from selected plans, but it does not provide a record of the versions of those and other plans rejected as unacceptable, the progress made toward Pareto optimality through the SVM, the quantitative criteria for judgments of disproportionate loss, or changes in those criteria over time (though again see Leger et al., 2005)
|
From page 53... ...
For example, while environmental performance indicators were subjected to an arbitrary "10% rule" to assess their significance, economic indicators were not. There is no statistical or practical justification offered for the decision to use the "10% rule" to express confidence in the significance of environmental performance indicator ratios.
|
From page 54... ...
. The coastal erosion performance indicator discounts future expenditures on shore protection, which vary under different hydroclimatic and water regulation scenarios (FEPS 7, pp.
|
From page 55... ...
. Criteria 4 and 5 on study linkages and feedback, and spatial and temporal resolution, respectively, have strong scientific as well as practical professional roles in the LOSLR Study.
|
From page 56... ...
After the revisions are made and a new regulation plan is selected, the new plan will need on-going evaluation to determine how well it satisfies performance objectives under conditions of dynamic change in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River basin.
|
From page 57... ...
Similarly, as noted earlier, socioeconomic trends will likely have substantial relevance for future water level and flow regulation. The LOSLR Study takes an important step by examining scenarios of climate change and water regulation, but these and other environmental and socioeconomic scenarios will likely change and require further evaluation.
|
From page 58... ...
SUMMARY The LOSLR study is commended for its incorporation of broader water management goals for the LOSLR system and its commitment to public participation. Technically, however, its formulation and evaluation of alternative water regulation plans using the SVM modeling system are not likely to serve the intended purpose as well as they could.
|
From page 59... ...
Lawrence River Hourly Water Levels About the Quarter-Monthly Mean. Hydrology and Hydraulics Technical Working Group.
|
From page 60... ...
Lawrence River Water Levels & Flows: Final Report. July 1, 2005 Draft.
|
From page 61... ...
1998. A history of shared vision modeling in the ACT-ACF compre hensive study: A modeler's perspective, presented at the 25th Annual Confer ence on Water Resources Planning and Management, Chicago, IL., June, 1998.
|
From page 62... ...
62 Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies White, G
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.