Complexity Theory and Spatial Simulations of Land Use/Land

Cover Dynamics: The Use of What if Scenarios for Education,

Land Management, and Decision-Making

Christine M. Erlien*, Julie P. Tuttle, Amy L. McCleary, Carlos F. Mena and Stephen J. Walsh
Department of Geography and Carolina Population Center
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
North Carolina 27599-3220, U.S.A.
*
E-mail: erlien@email.unc.edu

Abstract

Land use/land cover (LULC) change occurs through the interactions of people, place, and environment. LULC
simulation models can be used to examine pattern-process relations through the lens of complexity theory, by
incorporating nonlinear relationships such as feedbacks and analyzing resultant emergent patterns. This paper
focuses on the use of LULC simulation models, particularly cellular automata (CA) and, to a lesser extent, agent-
based models (ABM), as a means to engage educators and students, as well as land managers and other decision-
makers, in critical thinking about LULC dynamics. To that end, we detail the importance of systems thinking and
complexity theory as background to the use of CA and ABM and briefly describe how CA/ABM work. We then provide
a case study of current LULC simulation work in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon (NEA) and describe plans for
education/outreach. We discuss the benefits and challenges of classroom implementation as well as possibilities for
extension to land managers and other decision-makers.

Introduction & Objectives As one of the human dimensions of global environmental

In recent decades, systems thinking and complexity theory
have become important frameworks for understanding
pattern-process relations in a wide range of scientific
disciplines. In particular, the characterization of coupled
human-natural systems as complex systems has led to a
focus on how patterns of LULC change at the landscape
scale emerge from local interactions of human decision-
makers and their social and natural environments. Complex
systems approaches in LULC work are often intertwined
with spatial simulation modeling techniques, such as cellular
automata (CA) and agent-based models (ABM), because of
their ability to incorporate nonlinear processes, feedbacks,
and dynamic local interactions in a spatially explicit, cross-
scale context that can reveal emergent properties, indirect
effects, and pattern-process linkages (Parker et al., 2003;
Deadman et al., 2004; Manson, 2005). CA have been used to
simulate LULC change in a variety of scenarios ranging
from urban land use change to tropical deforestation (Messina
and Walsh, 2001; Soares et al., 2002; Claggett et al., 2004;
Menard and Marceau, 2005). ABM have been used to
examine land use and human behavior in tropical forests and
elsewhere (Hoffman et al., 2002; Deadman et al., 2004; An
et al., 2005; Fernandez et al., 2005).
change, LULC change represents human transformation of
the earths surface that is linked to a variety of scientific and
policy issues including deforestation, agricultural
extensification, land degradation, urbanization, and migration.
These human-environment relationships are linked through
causal loops across scales, from individual human decision-
making to global policies, from local biophysical endowments
to global climate change. Feedbacks in these causal loops
influence subsequent human decision- and policy-making
and, consequently, future trajectories of land use (Lambin et
al., 2003). Extension of emerging scientific understanding
of the causes and consequences of LULC change to educators,
students, land managers, and other decision-makers is,
therefore, an important endeavor.
Simulation of LULC change with CA and ABM, as
interactive investigative and learning environments, is ripe
for translation to classrooms and extension to land managers
and decision makers. CA/ABM are unique, flexible
frameworks with which to develop a deep understanding of
LULC dynamics, test hypotheses and assumptions about the
drivers of LULC change, and explore what if scenarios of
LULC change, in which model parameters are modified to
explore a change scenario of interest. However, while
scientific data visualization and decision-support systems

Geocarto International, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2006 E-mail: geocarto@geocarto.com 67

Published by Geocarto International Centre, G.P.O. Box 4122, Hong Kong. Website: http://www.geocarto.com
have expanded into the educational and decision-making
domains (Gordin et al. 1995; Edeleson et al. 1999; Khattak
et al. 2005), CA/ABM have received little attention in these
realms. In this paper, we (1) describe how systems thinking,
complexity theory, CA, and to a lesser degree ABM, are
used to examine LULC change and pattern-process relations
in the context of coupled human-natural systems, (2) highlight
how educational modules addressing systems thinking,
complexity, and CA/ABM analysis environments meet U.S.
science and geography teaching standards for secondary
education as well as fill the need for material addressing
complex systems at the post-secondary level, (3) indicate
how CA and associated spatial simulations can be used to
understand the drivers of LULC change by providing a case
study that illustrates how what if scenarios of LULC change
in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon (NEA) can be used to
challenge students and educators to think critically about
pattern-process relations involving human-environment
interactions, while enhancing their understanding of science
and technology, and (4) describe how material developed for
classroom use may also be extended to land managers and
decision makers.
Background: Systems Thinking, Complexity
Theory, and Spatial Simulation Modeling
The central concept of systems thinking is most commonly
conveyed as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,
implying that properties of a system cannot be understood
from the structural attributes of system components alone.
Contextual thinking focused on relationships, organization,
pattern, and process, in addition to structure is necessary to
understand how properties not apparent at the local level
emerge at the system level from a network of local
interactions. Over several decades, the study of biotic, abiotic,
and artificial systems has revealed some remarkable features
now considered indicative of complex systems (Bak and
Chen, 1991; Capra, 1996; Lansing, 2002, 2003). System-
level emergent properties/patterns are one such feature, while
spatiotemporal feedback loops and other nonlinear processes
are considered fundamental generators of complexity.
Complex systems also may exhibit self-organization, in
which order, in the form of system-level structures and
behaviors, may arise (and evolve) spontaneously from local
interactions and inputs from the systems environment (Capra,
1996). Criticality refers to points of instability, where small
changes in a systems parameters may result in spontaneous
reorganization to a different system phase or state (Capra,
1996). Central questions include: Do systems exhibit tell-
tale threshold behavior or patterns at phase transitions?
Conversely, do some systems self-organize to such a critical
1
For highly dynamic land cover types, transition probabilities can be developed that depend on the state of the cell and its surrounding cells, on
its resource endowments (e.g., slope, soils, vegetation, hydrology), demographic characteristics (e.g., population density and number of
households), and its geographic proximity (e.g., roads, markets, water, and other villages).
68
state, and does this self-organized criticality confer
adaptability (Bak and Chen, 1991)?
Broad, diverse applications of complexity theory across
the sciences over several decades has produced both
progressive understanding of coupled human-natural systems
and a recognition of the need, in both the natural and social
sciences, for focused research and framework development
around complexity-related concepts (Colwell 1998;
Malanson, 1999; OSullivan, 2004; Pickett et al., 2005).
Accordingly, complex systems approaches and concepts
continue to inform human-environment and related research
in disciplines such as geography, ecology, and environmental
science (e.g., Manson, 2001; Richards, 2002; Stallins and
Parker, 2003; Alftine and Malanson, 2004, Green and Sadedin
2005). The ability to investigate complex systems concepts
has been augmented by recent advances in technology and
related increases in computing power. Developments in
spatial simulation modeling in the form of CA/ABM, as well
as increasing availability of spatially explicit social and
biophysical data, enhance the study of coupled human-natural
systems, particularly LULC dynamics.
While CA and ABM differ in exactly how they represent
a system, both model types embody the fundamentals of
complexity theory by constructing the system through the
local interactions of constituents (a bottom-up approach)
and incorporating feedbacks and other nonlinear processes
(Wolfram, 1984; Bonabeau, 2002). Both approaches generate
spatial and temporal patterns (although ABM do not have to
be implemented with a spatial component) that can be
analyzed at multiple scales to reveal emergent properties,
self-organization, and criticality. Both CA and ABM enable
tests of hypothesized LULC relationships (Walsh et al., in
press). In addition, controlled simulation experiments can
be performed by manipulating model rules or parameters to
examine how such changes affect outcomes in the modeled
system (Walsh et al., 2003; OSullivan, 2004). In this way,
models may be used to address a range of what if scenarios.
In CA, the spatial extent of the system is modeled as a
grid of homogeneous cells that can assume different states.
In the case of LULC change, cell states consist of a finite set
of land use or land cover classes. Based on a set of initial
conditions and growth or transition rules, LULC change is
simulated across the landscape on a cell-by-cell basis for
multiple iterations, often annual time-steps. Behavior of
each grid cell depends on the states of cells in a defined
spatial neighborhood (Wolfram, 1984). The rules embodied
in a CA can be developed to realistically represent the
decision-making of multiple actors. Rules may be determined
by (1) transition probabilities derived from a remotely sensed
image time-series of an existing system1, (2) theory, (3)
statistically generated weights and relationships, (4) functions
constructed from data analysis, or (5) an expert system
developed through qualitative field techniques involving
knowledgeable local informants. Once rules have been
determined, the model runs stochastically to explore the full
range of possible outcomes. Model convergence and variable
sensitivities of the analysis tracks can then be compared and
analyses of system dynamics and uncertainty assessed. CA
results are calibrated and validated by comparing the
composition and spatial pattern of simulated to observed
land cover as depicted in a classified satellite data set for the
same annual time periods (Messina and Walsh, 2001).
Summary correlations and pattern metrics can be used to
assess differences between observed and expected land cover
on the basis of composition and spatial organization.
While CA models are well-suited to the exploration of
pattern-process relations in LULC, ABM may be better-
suited to the explanation of LULC change by more explicitly
representing the interactions of heterogeneous actors in a
heterogeneous environment and incorporating the systems
human and non-human feedbacks (Berry et al., 2002; Parker
et al., 2003). In ABM, agents consist of autonomous decision-
making entities that have unique characteristics, an
environment in which they interact, learn, and adapt, and
rules that define the relationships between agents and their
dynamic environment.
Science Education in the United States:
Current Status and Critical Linkages
U.S. students begin falling behind children from other
countries in math and science between grades four and eight
(Martin et al., 2000), resulting in a near-bottom ranking in
mathematics and science by 12 th grade (U.S. Department of
Education, 1998), and leaving children inadequately prepared
to compete in a science and technology-driven global
economy. The results of having a lost generation of
American scientists are rapidly becoming clear as the U.S.
falls behind other countries in producing college graduates
in natural sciences and engineering (National Science Board,
2004).
Access to high-quality, locally and globally relevant
educational opportunities focused on leading-edge scientific
research, such as LULC dynamics and modeling, may attract
students back to science. This research, therefore, aims to
recruit students to science by exposing them, at both the high
school and college levels, to cutting-edge research exploring
the intersection of people, place, and environment. Exploring
the intersection of people, place, and environment through
LULC dynamics, complexity theory, and CA/ABM has
particular relevance for U.S. geography and science
classrooms at both the high school and university levels.
Lessons constructed around these topics meet U.S. high
school geography standards for the spatial analysis of people,
place, and environment, as well as the analysis of how
humans modify their environment and how changes in
physical systems affect human systems (Geography standards
are detailed in Bednarz et al., 1994). Teaching materials
addressing LULC dynamics, complexity theory, and
simulation modeling also align with national science
standards, which aim to use the concepts of systems, order,
and organization, as well as evidence, models, and explanation
to unify study across grade levels (National Research Council,
1998). In addition, teaching using CA/ABM capitalizes on
two important elements of high school science curriculum
science as inquiry and science as technology. At the university
level, incorporation of material on these topics satisfies the
need to address complexity theory in geography and ecology
curricula, as complexity theory has transformed research in
these disciplines (Manson, 2001; Green and Sadedin, 2005).
The critical issue is how to link science research and
teaching. The use of systems thinking in the classroom is
instructive. Draper (1993) noted that systems thinking
develops cognitive abilities including (a) discovery and
representation of system feedback processes, (b) identification
of nonlinearities, (c) understanding the emergence of patterns
from local interactions, and (d) scientific thinking, including
quantifying relationships and hypothesizing and testing
assumptions and models. Assaraf and Orion (2005), in a
review of the systems thinking education literature, reiterate
the need for systems thinking in the classroom, particularly
with respect to environmental issues, and identify the
following characteristics of systems thinking:
ability to identify the components of a system and
processes within the system
ability to identify relationships among the systems
components
ability to organize the systems components and processes
within a framework of relationships
ability to make generalizations
ability to identify dynamic relationships within the system
understanding the hidden dimensions of the system
thinking temporally: retrospection and prediction
These characteristics serve as our goals as we prepare lessons
addressing LULC change through systems thinking,
complexity theory, and spatial simulation modeling. We
also look to recent examples that link critical scientific
thinking and an understanding of complex systems through
hands-on model development (Klopfer et al., 2002; Klopfer,
2003; Klopfer and Begel, 2003).
Case Study: the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon
Over the last 40 years, the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon
(NEA), comprising Sucumbios, Napo, and Orellana
provinces, has experienced dramatic landscape change. With
the discovery of oil, attendant road construction, and
spontaneous migration of colonists seeking land, the area
has experienced rapid deforestation, agricultural
extensification, secondary forest succession, and, more
recently, urbanization (Figure 1).
In the early 1970s, as migrants began claiming land for
fincas (farms) along roads recently built by oil companies,
69
deforestation occurred at the farm or household level, initially through
squatting that evolved into secured land title, then as fledgling
communities that developed near oil encampments, at important road
intersections, and around newly settled development sectors. In-
migration, high local fertility levels, and formation of increasing numbers
of new households have sustained deforestation in the NEA and fueled
agricultural expansion and urbanization.
Fundamental research questions for the NEA include: (1) What are
the rates, patterns, and mechanisms of forest conversion to agriculture,
pasture, secondary plant succession, and urban uses in the NEA and the
Amazon Basin more broadly? (2) What are plausible scenarios of
future LULC change and their policy implications? To address these
questions, we are creating CA and ABM that allow integrative and
synthetic studies of the causes and consequences of LULC change. The
capability to create alternative LULC change scenarios and to implement
them within a graphic-oriented, spatially explicit, what if context
Figure 1 The Northern Ecuadorian Amazon (NEA), with intensive study areas (ISAs)
outlined. The South ISA has been used to focus modeling activities.
70
facilitates seeing the impact of land use decisions
on LULC dynamics. A base model of LULC
change has been developed that is iteratively
perturbed relative to various land change scenarios.
Example scenarios include (1) varying population
growth rates depending on human fertility levels
and national and international in-migration, (2)
comparing development vs. conservation policies,
(3) changing land tenure or rates and patterns of
subdivision, (4) changing geographic accessibility
through enhancements to or expansion of the road
network, (5) comparing colonist vs. indigenous
land uses, with attention to differences in market
integration, and (6) examining the effects of
additional discoveries of petroleum in and around
conservation and protected areas. The models are
then used to forecast potential LULC change
patterns and to examine pattern-process
relationships for historical, contemporary, and
future periods.
An overview of our base CA model of LULC
dynamics in the NEA is shown in Figure 2.
The CA model is applied iteratively across a
grid of 30-m cells for annual time-steps. Initially,
the land classes are modeled separately. Whether
a pixel is in forest or in agriculture depends on a
stochastic element (to allow for spontaneous
change), the influence of neighboring pixels, and
landscape criteria such as elevation, slope, soils,
access to water, and proximity to communities.
Because the land classes are modeled separately,
it is possible for a given pixel to be allocated to
both. When this happens, the cell is assigned a
given land cover according to preset rules about
crop precedence. The entire grid is then updated,
and the CA model moves to the next iteration.
Example output from the CA model (Figure 3)
shows LULC patterns for a 90,000-ha intensive
study area (ISA) located in the southern portion
of the NEA.
Planning and Implementation of the
Case Study
We plan to implement this case study in both
high school and university classrooms. This will
be accomplished by working with teachers at both
levels to develop materials. An advisory board
consisting of high school science and geography
instructors as well as university instructors
teaching courses in Environmental Systems and
Environmental Conservation will be asked to
provide feedback during development and pilot
testing of the modules. Following classroom beta-
testing, both instructors and students will evaluate
the modules, which will be adjusted accordingly
prior to posting on the web for public access.

Compute cell
GIS inputs suitabilities
derived from static &
START dynamic GIS inputs
Year = 1986
Satellite Class growth (stochastic + diffusive)
Land cover
Urban
Flux classes
Agriculture
Separate
classes Class
Pasture
transition
Probabilities
For. Succession
(sat.time.series)
No Modeled
Final model
year? Land cover
Yes
END
Figure 2 Diagrammatic flow of the base CA model of LULC change in the NEA. The
model is initialized in 1986 using a satellite classification of urban,
agriculture, pasture, and secondary forest succession, the last three classes
designated as flux classes as cells can change from or to that LULC type.
Transition probabilities are used to define the propensity of change from
class to class. Class assignment is linked to site suitabilities for various land
use types based on geographic site and situation.
Dissemination to educators as well as the public will be accomplished
through our website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/ecuador), where
the educational modules, including the lectures, datasets, and CA
interface will be presented as a package. Access to the materials,
therefore, simply requires internet access and Microsoft Office suite
software (Excel and Powerpoint).
Sustainability is achieved through careful selection of the educational
targets. For example, university-level courses were selected for beta-
testing the modules on the basis of substantive and methodological
fit and scientific contribution of our case study context, data, and
methods to the aims of the course curricula, thereby, contributing to the
likelihood that the modules will enjoy continued use for a number of
years. At the high school level, sustainability is based on the alignment
of the modules with science and geography standards.
The educational modules are conceived as a set that would take 4
class periods to cover, allowing 1 class period for each module and a 4 th
class to wrap up the section. The first module will couple image
animation of classified imagery with study area background that
addresses (1) factors involved in migration to the Amazon, including
oil development, the political climate, and the environment, and (2) the
settlement and agricultural development that has occurred as described
through Ecuadorian population census data as well as our surveys of
colonists (1990 and 1999), communities (2000), and indigenous
populations (2001). Complex systems will be introduced through a
second module addressing the systems approach to the study of
population-environment systems, covering nonlinear relationships such
as feedbacks and thresholds, self-organization, and system criticality.
The third module emphasizing CA (and ABM) will introduce these
models in theory and practice, through background materials and
simulation scenarios that are either (1) pre-run, with users simply being
provided with input rules and the resulting output or (2) pre-programmed
but presented as an interactive simulation environment in which users
choose from a range of parameter settings. In
either case, classified time series imagery would
be provided for comparison. Pre-run scenarios
have the advantage that each serves as a contained
case study in which study background and
information about the modeling choices are
included. For classroom use, pre-run scenarios
offer greater detail for the instructor in terms of
Resolve class
Competition
learning goals for the module. If users are allowed
based on suitabilities to make choices from a range of parameter settings,
this provides the advantage of drawing them into
the modeling exercise and allowing them to
Merge experiment with a range of possible outcomes.
classes
Using a combination of pre-run and interactive
Year +1
scenarios to introduce the modeling concepts, then
allow students to explore the outcomes of varying
parameter settings, may prove most fruitful. This
use of simulations is intended to aid in critical
thinking about changing landscape patterns and
associated processes. The spatial simulations will
be linked back to complexity theory concepts
through accompanying text addressing how
feedbacks and thresholds influence LULC change
outcomes at the farm level and how patterns
emerge along fronts of deforestation.
Packaged as such, this material can be used as
an introduction to the region, ongoing population-
environment interactions, challenges of land
change science, and the relevance of complexity
theory in this frontier environment. In addition,
the models and the associated modules can fuel
discussion and examination of processes
hypothesized to affect LULC change within the
region, such as migration or human modification
of the physical environment through road building.
In their examination of LULC dynamics, educators
and students will be compelled to think critically
about how the interactions between oil
development, road expansion, communities,
population growth among colonists and indigenous
groups, and protected areas have influenced LULC
change patterns; how feedbacks between pattern
and process influence these LULC change
outcomes; whether critical thresholds mediate
system behaviors; and whether model outcomes
suggest complexity characteristics (e.g., emergent
patterns at development fronts as a consequence
of household decisions at the farm level or path
dependence of LULC change trajectories set by
the prior actions of stakeholders and the pattern-
process relations that result).
Discussion
Spatial simulations provide an interesting and
engaging format in which LULC dynamics can be
presented in the classroom. Simulations are helpful
71
 Figure 3 Satellite derived LULC classification (left) and model output (right) for 1999 for our southern ISA.
in examining complex, dynamic systems, because students
and others are outside the simulated process, thereby allowing
them to critically review the models and their outcomes
(Parush 2002). The development of modules that address
LULC dynamics, complexity theory, and CA/ABM fills two
distinct needs: (1) sharing cutting-edge research in the
classroom and (2) providing students and teachers with
materials that will not only enhance their scientific and
technological background, but also expose them to spatial
analytical methods and new science/technology topics that,
in this case, describe an ecological hot spot and
development frontier.
A number of issues must be considered concerning
integration and successful classroom implementation of
modules addressing complexity theory and CA/ABM. First,
the courses into which these modules are integrated must be
chosen carefully, so that they align with course goals. In
addition, for students to fully engage with a simulation
exercise, they must be allowed sufficient time for the exercise,
be able to navigate and explore the simulation products
easily, and understand the exercises objective (Sims, 2000;
Davies, 2002). Teacher training is also an issue, as some
training will likely need to be provided to help teachers feel
comfortable with covering these topics in their courses.
Pedagogical effectiveness of the use of CA/ABM in the
classroom will also need to be measured by pre- and post-
test evaluations of student learning, as few studies document
the effectiveness of simulations on learning outcomes (Gosen
et al., 2004). Assessment materials must, therefore, be
developed from a framework in which the learning outcomes
have been defined and are objective and appropriate for the
exercise being evaluated (Anderson and Lawton, 1997).
72
In addition to broadening students exposure to science
and technology, the use of CA/ABM in education/outreach
serves another potential purpose, that of providing an
opportunity for dialogue between scientists, land managers,
and other decision-makers. The same types of learning
outcomes discussed for students are equally valid for decision-
makers and should promote greater understanding of the
human-natural system in question. LULC simulation
scenarios provide other benefits to decision-makers as well.
First, LULC simulation scenario building provides the
opportunity to engage this group of potential users in
developing scenarios relevant to them. In addition, scenario
modeling provides a way in which decision-makers can
confront potential results of various decisions or policy
interventions, as generated by simulation models based on
those decisions or policies. For example, simulations of
defined scenarios allow decision-makers to examine the
spatial implications of growth in population or transportation
routes or of environmental policies on LULC dynamics. CA/
ABM offer a unique set of tools for considering these what
if scenarios, linking patterns and processes, testing the
sensitivity of variables used in the model, and engaging and
empowering a diverse set of stakeholders and decision-
makers in assessing the direct and indirect effects of human
activities on LULC change patterns over space and time.
These tools must be recognized for what they are, however -
one of many sources of information about the landscape in
question. Rather than providing the ultimate answer to
questions of how landscapes will change, these spatial
simulations will broaden the perspective of decision-makers
as to the range of possible outcomes and the dependence of
those outcomes on a variety of factors.
Conclusions
LULC change is transforming the world at local, regional,
and global scales. Complexity theory, CA, and ABM show
great promise for increasing our understanding of the systems
undergoing such transformations. Although a number of issues
need to be resolved, including teacher training and assessment
as well as how we as scientists can use these models to begin
dialogue with land managers and other decision-makers, we
believe CA/ABM outputs provide a vital way to communicate.
The application of CA/ABM suggested in this paper provides
an opportunity for impacting future scientists as well as those
currently engaged in land management and decision-making.
The proposed education modules encourage users to think
critically and enhance their understanding of science,
technology, and the local, regional, and global forces that
affect LULC change processes in a particular place. Finally,
educating decision-makers on the examination of LULC
change patterns and processes adds relevance and urgency to
the work done both by LULC simulation modelers and by
decision-makers in the shaping of landscape dynamics.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the support of the NASA Land Cover/
Land Use Change Program (LBA-ECO Phases 1-3: S.J. Walsh
and R.E. Bilsborrow, co-PIs) as well as support from the NSF
Biocomplexity Program (S.J. Walsh, PI) in the development
of our spatial simulations of LULC change in the Ecuadorian
Amazon. We also thank the Department of Geography and
the efforts of students in its Landscape Characterization and
Spatial Analysis Lab, as well as the Carolina Population
Center at the University of North Carolina, particularly the
support from its NSF IGERT Program on population-
environment interactions. Finally, we thank our Ecuadorian
collaborators at Ecociencia, PROFORS (Proyecto Forestal
Sucumbios), and the Centro de Estudios de Poblacion y
Desarrollo Social (CEPAR), and the many individuals who
have contributed to our understanding through field efforts,
discussions, and personal insights. The work of doctoral
students involved in this project has been supported by NASA
(Erlien and Tuttle, NCC5-699; Mena, NNG04GR12H) and
NSF IGERT (McCleary, DGE-0333193).
References
Alftine, K.J., and G.P. Malanson. 2004. Directional positive feedback
and pattern at an alpine treeline. Journal of Vegetation Science 15
(l): 3-12.
An L., M. Linderman, J. Qi, A. Shortridge, J. Liu. 2005. Exploring
complexity in a human-environment system: An agent-based spatial
model for multidisciplinary and multiscale integration. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 95(l): 54-79.
Anderson, P.H., and L. Lawton. 1997. Demonstrating the learning
effectiveness of simulations: Where we are and where we need to
go. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises
24: 68-73.
Assaraf O.B.Z. and N. Orion. 2005. Development of system thinking
skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 42(5): 518560.
Bak, P., and K. Chen. 199 1. Self-organized criticality. Scientific
American 264(l): 46-53.
Bednarz, S.W., N.C. Bettis, R.G. Boehm, A.R. DeSouza, R.M. Downs,
IF Marran, R.W. Morrill, and C.L. Salter. 1994. Geography for
Life, National Standards in Geography. Washington, DC: National
Council for Geographic Education and the National Geographic
Society.
Berry, B.J.L., L.D, Kiel, and E. Elliott. 2002. Adaptive agents,
intelligence, and emergent human organization: capturing
complexity through agent-based modeling. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 99(3): 7187-7188.
Bonabeau, E. 2002. Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques
for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 99(3): 72807287.
Capra, F. 1996. The web of life: a new scientific understanding of
living systems. New York: Anchor Books.
Claggett, P.R., C.A. Jantz, S.J. Goetz, C. Bisland. 2004. Assessing
development pressure in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: an
evaluation of two land-use change models. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 94(1-3): 129-146.
Colwell, R. 1998. Balancing the biocomplexity of the planets living
systems: a twenty-first century task for science. BioScience 48:
786-787.
Davies, C.H.J. 2002. Student engagement with simulations, a case
study. Computers and Education 39: 271-282.
Deadman P., D. Robinson, E. Moran, E. Brondizio. 2004. Colonist
household decisionmaking and land-use change in the Amazon
Rainforest: an agent-based simulation. Environment and Planning
B 31 (5): 693 -709.
Edelson, D.E., M. Brown, D.N. Gordin, and D.A. Griffin. 1999. Making
Visualization Accessible to Students. GSA Today 9(2): 8-10.
Fernandez, L.E., D.G. Brown, R.W. Marans, J.I. Nassauer. 2005.
Characterizing location preferences in an exurban population:
implications for agent-based modeling. Environment and Planning
B 32 (6): 799-820.
Gordin, D.N. and R.D. Pea. 1995. Prospects for Scientific Visualization
as an Educational Technology. The Journal of Learning Sciences 4
(3): 249-279.
Gosen, J., and J. Washbush. 2004. A review of scholarship on assessing
experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming 35(2):
270-293.
Green, D.G., and S. Sadedin. 2005. Interactions matter - complexity in
landscapes and ecosystems. Ecological Complexity 2(2): 117-130.
Hoffmann, M., Kelley, H., Evans, T.P. 2002. Simulating land-cover
change in Indiana: an agent-based model of de/reforestation. In:
Complexity and Ecosystem Management: The theory and Practice
of Multi-agent Systems, (Janssen, M. Editor), Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, 218-247.
Khattak, A.J., and H. Shamalyeh. 2005. Highway safety assessment
through geographic information system-based data visualization.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 19 (4): 407-411.
Klopfer, E. 2003. Technologies to support the creation of complex
systems models using StarLogo software with students. Biosystems
71: 111-122.
73
Klopfer, E., and A. Begel. 2003. StarLogo under the hood and in the
classroom. Kybernetes 32(1/2): 15-37.
Klopfer, E., V. Colella, and M. Resnick. 2002. New paths on a
StarLogo adventure. Computers & Graphics 26: 615-622.
Lambin, E.F., H.J. Geist, and E. Lepers. 2003. Dynamics of land-use
and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Energy
and the Environment 28: 205-242.
Lansing, J.S. 2002. Artificial societies and the social sciences.
Artificial Life 8(3): 279-292.
Lansing, J.S. 2003. Complex Adaptive Systems. Annual Review of
Anthropology 32: 204.
Malanson, GP, 1999. Considering complexity. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 89: 746-753.
Manson, S.M. 2001. Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity
theory. GeoForum 32: 405414.
Manson, S.M. 2005. Agent-based modeling and genetic programming
for modeling land change in the Southern Yucatan Peninsular
Region of Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment I
11: 47-62.
Martin, M.O., I. V.S. Mullis, E.J. Gonzalez, K.D. Gregory, T.A.
Smith, S.J. Chrostowski, R.A. Garden, and K.M. OConnor. 2000.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Boston:
International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston
College.
Menard, A. and D.J. Marceau. 2005. Exploration of spatial scale
sensitivity in geographic cellular automata. Environment and
Planning B 32(5): 693 -714.
Messina, J.P. and S.J. Walsh. 2001. 2.5D Morphogenesis: modeling
landuse and landcover dynamics in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Plant
Ecology 156(l): 75-88.
National Resarch Council. 1998. National Science Education Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resource Statistics.
Ordford, S., R. Harris, and D. Dorling. 1999. Geography: Information
Visualization in the Social Sciences: A State of the Art Review.
Social Science Computer Review 17(3): 289-304.
OSullivan, D. 2004. Complexity science and human geography.
Transactions of the British Institute of Geographers 29: 282-295.
74
Parker, D., Manson, S., Janssen, M., Hofmann, M., and Deadman, P.
2003. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land use and land
cover change: a review. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 93(2), 314-337.
Parush, A., H. Hamm, and A. Schtub. 2002. Learning histories in
simulation based teaching: the effects on self-learning and transfer.
Computers in Education 39: 319-332.
Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, and J.M. Grove. 2005. Biocomplexity
in coupled natural-human systems: a multidimensional framework.
Ecosystems 8(3): 225-232.
Richards, A. 2002. Complexity in physical geography. Geography 87
(2): 99-107.
Roberts, N. 1978. Teaching dynamic feedback systems thinking: an
elementary view. Management Science 24(8): 836-843.
Sims, R. 2000. An interactive conundrum: constructs of interactivity
and learning theory. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
16: 45-57.
Soares, B.S., G.C. Cerqueira, and C.L. Pennachin. 2002. DINAMICA
- a stochastic cellular automata model designed to simulate the
landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier.
Ecological Modelling 154(3): 217-235.
Stallins, J.A., and A.J. Parker. 2003. The influence of complex systems
interactions on barrier island dune vegetation pattern and process.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(l): 13-29.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
1998. Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-Grade
Mathematics and Science Achievement in International Context,
NCES 98-049. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Walsh, S.J., D.R. Butler, G.P. Malanson, K.A. Crews-Meyer, J.P.
Messina, N. Xiao. 2003. Mapping, Modeling, and Visualization of
the Influences of Geomorphic Processes on the Alpine Treeline
Ecotone, Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Geomorphology,
53(1-2): 129-145.
Walsh, S.J., Malanson, G.P., Messina, J.P., and Mena, C.F. in press.
Complexity and Land Use Dynamics in the Northern Ecuadorian
Amazon. GeoForum, Special Issue on Biocomplexity of Coupled
Human-Natural Systems (D. McGinnis and S.J. Walsh, Co-
Editors).
Wolfram, S. 1984. Cellular Automata as Models of Complexity. Nature
311: 419-424.