Integrated Dynamic
Ecological Economic
Modeling
• Used as a Consensus Building Tool in an
Open, Participatory Process
• Multi-scale, Landscape Scale and Larger
• Acknowledges Uncertainty and
Limited Predictability
• Acknowledges Values of Stakeholders
• Simplifies by Maintaining Linkages and
and Synthesizing
• Evolutionary Approach Acknowledges History,
Limited Optimization, and the Co-Evolution
of Humans and the Rest of Nature
Three Step Modeling Process*
1. Scoping Models
high generality, low resolution models produced
with broad participation by all the stakeholder groups
affected by the problem.
2. Research Models
more detailed and realistic attempts to replicate the
dynamics of the particular system of interest with the
emphasis on calibration and testing.
3. Management Models
Increasing
Complexity,
Cost, Realism,
and Precision
medium to high resolution models based on the
previous two stages with the emphasis on producing
future management scenarios - can be simply exercising
the scoping or research models or may require further
elaboration to allow application to management questions
*from: Costanza, R. and M. Ruth. 1998. Using dynamic modeling to scope environmental problems
and build consensus.Environmental Management 22:183-195.
Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Global
Large Watersheds
Natural Capital Built Capital Human Capital Social Capital
General Unified Metamodel of the BiOsphere (GUMBO)
HSPF RHESSys
Everglades Landscape Model (ELM)
Patuxent Landscape Model (PLM)
Gwyns Falls Landscape Model (GFLM)
Small Watersheds
Site/Patch
Unit Models
Modules
Biome BGC,
UFORE
hydrology,
nutrients,
plants
General Ecosystem Model (GEM)
buildings,
roads,
power grid
population,
education,
employment,
income
institutions,
networks,
well being
Suite of interactive and intercalibrated models over a range of
spatial, temporal and system scales (extents and resolutions)
Model Predictability
(different models have different slopes and points of intersection)
Data Predictability
"Optimum" resolutions for particular models
Higher
(smaller grain)
Lower
(larger grain)
Ln of Resolution
from: Costanza, R. and T. Maxwell. 1994
. Resolution and predictability: an
approach to the scaling problem. Landscape Ecology 9:47-57
GUMBO (Global Unified Metamodel of the BiOsphere)
Solar
Energy
Natural Capital
Atmosphere
Human-made
Capital
11 Biomes
(includes Built Capital
Human Capital,
and Social Capital
Ecosystem
Services
Hydrosphere
Biosphere
Human
Impacts
Anthroposphere
Lithosphere
From: Boumans, R., R. Costanza, J. Farley, M. A. Wilson, R. Portela, J. Rotmans, F. Villa, and M. Grasso. 2002.
Modeling the Dynamics of the Integrated Earth System and the Value of Global Ecosystem Services Using the
GUMBO Model. Ecological Economics 41: 529-560
Anthroposphere
QuickTime™ and a
Cinepak decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Marc
Imhoff
Biospheric
Sciences
Branch
NASA
Human impacts on
global biology and material cycles
Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont
Atmosphere
QuickTime™ and a
YUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Weather-related economic damages have
increased
Biosphere
QuickTime™ and a
YUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS)
data on marine and terrestrial plant productivity
“Full World” Model of the Ecological Economic System
positive impacts on human capital capacity
Well Being
(Individual and
Community)
being, doing, relating
Complex property
rights regimes
Individual Common
Solar
Energy
Restoration,
Conservation
Education, training,
research.
Institutional
rules, norms, etc.
Building
Ecological
services/
amenities
having, being
doing, relating
- having,
- being
Public
having
Consumption
(based on changing,
adapting
preferences)
Wastes
Natural Capital
Human Capital
SocialCapital
Economic GNP
Production
Process
Goods
and
Services
Evolving
Cultural
Norms and
Policy
Investment
(decisions about, taxes
community spending,
education, science and
technology policy, etc., based
on complex property
rights regimes)
Manufactured
Capital
negative impacts on all forms of capital
Materially closed earth system
Waste heat
From: Costanza, R., J. C. Cumberland, H. E. Daly, R. Goodland, and R. Norgaard. 1997. An Introduction to
Ecological Economics. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, 275 pp.
COOL POWERPOINT 1-from ESR
5.00
4.00
Burlington
Intentional Communities
3.00
2.00
s)
(N
ei
Fa
m
So
ci
al
Ca
pi
ta
l2
(F
rie
nd
s
&
an
um
H
ia
lC
ap
ita
l1
So
c
gh
bo
r
ily
)
ta
l
Ca
pi
ta
l
ap
i
lC
at
ur
a
N
ilt
Bu
ua
lit
y
of
L
Ca
pi
ta
l
ife
1.00
To
ta
lQ
Average Score (1=not at all to 5= very greatly)
Comparison Between Quality of Life and Its Components Between
Burlington VT, and a Selection of Intentional Communities
A range of goals for national accounting and their corresponding frameworks,
measures, and valuation methods
Goal
___________
Marketed
Basic
Framework
Nonenvironmentally
adjusted measures
Economic
Income
Weak
Sustainability
___________
Economic Welfare
Human
Welfare
value of the wefare
effects of income and
other factors
(including
distribution,
household work, loss
of natural capital
etc.)
assessment of
the degree to
which human
needs are
fulfilled
Strong
Sustainability
value of
1 + non2 + preserve
marketed goods marketed goods essential natural
and services
and services
capital
produced and
consumption
consumed in an
economy
GNP
MEW
(Gross National
Product)
(M easure of Economic
Welfare)
HDI
(Human
Development Index)
GDP
(Gross Domestic
Product)
NNP
(Net National Product)
Environmentally
adjusted measures
NNP’
(Net National Product
ENNP
SNI
including non(Environmental Net (Sustainable National
produced assetts)
National Product)
Income)
SEEA
ISEW
HNA
(Index of Sustainable
Economic Welfare)
(Human Needs
Assessment)
3+
Constructed
Preferences
4+
Consensus
Building
Dialogue
SEEA
(System of
(System of
Environmental
Environmental
Economic Accounts) Economic Accounts)
Market values
Appropriate
Valuation
Methods
1 + Willingness 2 + Replacement
to Pay Based
Costs,+
Values (see
Production
Table 2)
Values
from: Costanza, R., S. Farber, B. Castaneda and M. Grasso. 2000. Green national accounting: goals and
methods. Chapter in: Cleveland, C. J., D. I. Stern and R. Costanza (eds.) The nature of economics
and the economics of nature. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, England (in press)
ISEW (or GPI) by Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
A: Personal Consumption Expenditures
B: Income Distribution
C: Personal Consumption Adjusted for Income Inequality
D: Value of Household Labor
E: Value of Volunt eer Work
F: Servic es of Household Capital
G: Services High ways and Street
H: Cost of Crime
I: Cost of Family Breakdown
J: Loss of Leisure Time
K: Cost of Underemployment
L: Cost of Consumer Durables
M: Cost of Commuting
N: Cost of Household Pollution Abatement
O: Cost of Automobile Accidents
P: Cost of Water Pollution
Q: Cost of Air Pollution
R: Cost of Noise Pollution
S: Loss of Wetlands
T: Loss of Farmland
U: Depletion of Nonrenewable Resources
V: Long-Term Environmental Damage
W: Cost of Ozone Depletion
X: Loss of Forest Cover
Y: Net Capital Inv estment
Z: Net Foreign Lending and Borrowing
US
UK
Indices of ISEW
140
140
90
90
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
40
1940
German y
(Index of Sustainable
Economic Welfare)
1960
1980
2000
and GDP
(1970 = 100)
Austri a
Chile
240
140
140
90
90
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
40
1940
Netherland s
140
90
90
1960
1980
140
90
1960
1980
2000
Sweden
140
40
1940
190
2000
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
40
1940
1960
1980
2000
Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) per capita
20,000
18,000
Burlington
Chittenden
16,000
Vermont
US
$/capita
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
Year
1990
2000
Ecosystem Services and Functions
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Gas regulation
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS
Regulation of atmospheric chemical composition.
Climate regulation Regulation of global temperature, precipitation, and other biologically mediated
climatic processes at global, regional, or local levels.
Disturbance regulation Capacitance, damping and integrity of ecosystem response to environmental
fluctuations such as sea level rise.
Water regulation Regulation of hydrological flows.
Water supply
Erosion control and sediment retention
Soil formation
Storage and retention of water.
Retention of soil within an ecosystem.
Soil formation processes.
Nutrient cycling
Storage, internal cycling, processing, and acquisition of nutrients.
Waste treatment
Recovery of mobile nutrients and removal or breakdown of excess or
xenic nutrients and compounds.
Movement of floral gametes.
Pollination
Biological control
Refugia
Food production
Raw materials
Genetic resources
Trophic-dynamic regulations of populations.
Habitat for resident and transient populations.
That portion of gross primary production extractable as food.
That portion of gross primary production extractable as raw materials.
Sources of unique biological materials and products.
Recreation
Providing opportunities for recreational activities.
Cultural
Providing opportunities for non-commercial uses.
GUMBO (Global Unified Metamodel of the BiOsphere)
Solar
Energy
Natural Capital
Atmosphere
Human-made
Capital
11 Biomes
(includes Built Capital
Human Capital,
and Social Capital
Ecosystem
Services
Hydrosphere
Biosphere
Human
Impacts
Anthroposphere
Lithosphere
From: Boumans, R., R. Costanza, J. Farley, M. A. Wilson, R. Portela, J. Rotmans, F. Villa, and M. Grasso. 2002.
Modeling the Dynamics of the Integrated Earth System and the Value of Global Ecosystem Services Using the
GUMBO Model. Ecological Economics 41: 529-560
Global Unified Metamodel of the BiOsphere (GUMBO)
• was developed to simulate the integrated earth system and assess the dynamics and
values of ecosystem services.
• is a “metamodel” in that it represents a synthesis and a simplification of several
existing dynamic global models in both the natural and social sciences at an
intermediate level of complexity.
• the current version of the model contains 234 state variables, 930 variables total, and
1715 parameters.
• is the first global model to include the dynamic feedbacks among human technology,
economic production and welfare, and ecosystem goods and services within the
dynamic earth system.
• includes modules to simulate carbon, water, and nutrient fluxes through the
Atmosphere, Lithosphere, Hydrosphere, and Biosphere of the global system. Social
and economic dynamics are simulated within the Anthroposphere.
• links these five spheres across eleven biomes, which together encompass the entire
surface of the planet.
• simulates the dynamics of eleven major ecosystem goods and services for each of the
biomes
Organic Matter Harvested
Fossil Fuel Extraction
Ore Production
Water use
Economic Production
Savings rates
Ecosystem Goods Production
Social Capital
Knowledge
Economic
Production
Labor Force
Built Capital
GOODS
&
SERVICES
WASTE
Ecosystem Services Production
Gas Regulation
Climate Regulation
Soil Formation
Plant Nutrient Uptake
Disturbance Regulation
Waste Assimilation Potential
Recreation and Cultural Services
Knowledge Formation
Built Capital Formation
Social Capital Formation
Personal Consumption
Natural Capital Formation
Social Capital
Welfare
Knowledge
Built Capital
Welfare from Ecosystem Services
Welfare from consumption
- Welfare from waste
Welfare from human made capital
Welfare
Landus e Changes
10 00
We tlan d
30 00
80 0
25 00
60 0
20 00
Ice a nd Rock
15 00
40 0
10 00
20 0
50 0
0
0
20 00
60 00
Tu ndra
Grass land s
55 00
15 00
50 00
10 00
45 00
40 00
50 0
35 00
0
30 00
60 00
10 00
Fo rests
Urban
55 00
80 0
50 00
60 0
45 00
40 0
40 00
20 0
35 00
30 00
0
40 00
20 00
Cropl ands
30 00
15 00
20 00
10 00
10 00
50 0
0
0
19 00
19 50
20 00
20 50
21 00
Dese rt
19 00
Years
19 50
20 00
20 50
21 00
Physics
Glob al Temp
Giga Ton C
12 00
22
21
Basecase
Observati ons
0.4
Sea level
meters
0.3
0.2
0.1
10 00
90 0
80 0
70 0
20 00
Wa ste
15 00
10 00
50 0
0
Altern ative
En ergy
Fo ssil Fue l
extra cti on
12
Giga Ton C
4.0
3.5
10
8
6
4
3.0
2
0
1.0
0.8
16
Fo ssil Fue l
Market s hare
Giga Ton C equivalents
uel_Market_Share equivalents (normalized for 1900)
Giga Ton C equivalents
0.0
Atmosp heric
Carbo n
11 00
Startrek
Big Goverment
Ecoptopia
Mad Max
20
Waste equivalents (normalized for 1900)
°C
23
13 00
0.6
0.4
0.2
14
To tal Energy
12
10
8
6
4
0.0
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
21 00
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
billions of individuals
20
Huma n Pop ulation
Ecotopia
Startrek
Mad Max
Big Goverment
Basecase
Observati ons
15
10
5
30 0
Kno wl edge
Productivity Invested
Productivity Invested
20 00
15 00
10 00
50 0
Kno wl edge
pe r ca pita
25 0
20 0
15 0
10 0
50
0
0
80 0
Productivity Invested
40 00
20 00
IAL_NETWORK equivalents (normalized for 1900)
0
Th e Social Network
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
21 00
NETWORK_PerCap equivalents (normalized for 1900)
Productivity Invested
60 00
4.0
Bui lt capi tal
pe r ca pita
Bui lt Cap ital
80 00
60 0
40 0
20 0
0
Social netwo rk
pe r ca pita
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
21 00
0.030
0.025
30
Price o n so il formation
Price o n waste tre atme nt
25
0.020
20
0.015
15
0.010
10
0.005
5
0.000
0
3.0
2.5
20
Price o n Cultural
an d recreationa l se rvi ce
15Price o n Nutri ent cycl ing
2.0
1.5
10
1.0
5
0.5
0.0
0
10
30
Price o n ga s reg ulation
8
Pri ce on
Dis turba nce
re gula tiuo n
25
20
6
15
4
10
2
5
0
0
10
10 0
Ene rgy price
Clim ate price
8
80
6
60
4
40
2
20
0
0
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
21 00
70 00
Wa ste_ Treatment
Soi l Fo rmati on
7.2
60 00
6.8
Ecotopia
Startrek
Mad Max
Big Goverment
Basecase
50 00
6.4
40 00
6.0
30 00
24
Recreati on a nd_Cul ture
0.9
20
0.8
16
0.7
12
0.6
12
Nutri ent_ Cycling
Gas_ regul atio n
Disturban ce Re gula tion
10
2.76
8
2.72
6
2.68
4
2.64
2
10 .90
50 0
Cli mate Regul atio n
10 .85
Ecosystem s ervice s valu e
40 0
10 .80
30 0
10 .75
20 0
10 .70
10 0
10 .65
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
21 00
19 00
19 50
20 00
Ye ar
20 50
21 00
1.0
Globa l_We lfare
Wel fare_ per_capi ta
0.1 6
0.8
0.1 2
0.6
0.0 8
0.4
0.0 4
0.2
120
GWP
80
1989 dollars
100
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
welfare per capita equivalents (normalized for 1900)
GWP_p er_Capi ta
Wel fare_ GNP_Index
10
10
Ecotopia
Startrek
MadMax
Big Goverment
Basec ase
Observations
-3
-4
2.0
Energ y_ per_Cap ita
foo d_pe r_ca pita
0.2 0
1.5
0.1 6
1.0
0.1 2
0.5
0.0 8
190 0
195 0
200 0
Yea r
205 0
210 0
190 0
195 0
200 0
Yea r
205 0
210 0
In Conclusion:
The main objective in creating the GUMBO model was not to accurately predict the future, but to provide simulation
capabilities and a knowledge base to facilitate integrated participation in modeling.
GUMBO Conclusions
It should be noted that this is “version 1.0” of the model. It will undergo substantial changes and improvements as we continue
• To our knowledge, no other global models have yet achieved the level of dynamic integration
to develop it, and the conclusions offered here can only be thought of as “preliminary.” Nevertheless, we can reach some
between the biophysicalimportant
earth system
and the human socioeconomic system incorporated in
conclusions from the work so far, including:
GUMBO. This is an important first step.
calibrations
1900
to 2000
forhave
14 key
variables
which
quantitative
timebetween
series the
 • Historical
To our
knowledge,from
no other
global
models
yet achieved
thefor
level
of dynamic
integration
2
earth system
the human
socioeconomic
system incorporated in GUMBO.
data wasbiophysical
available produced
anand
average
R of
.922.
• A range of future scenarios representing different assumptions about future technological change,

Preliminary
calibration
variables show very good agreement with historical data.
investment
strategies
andresults
other across
factorsa broad
have range
been of
simulated
This builds confidence in the model and also constrains future scenarios.
• Assessing global
sustainability can only be done using a dynamic integrated model of the type
we haveWe
created
in GUMBO. But one is still left with decisions about what to sustain (i.e. GWP,
•
produced a range of scenarios that represent what we thought were reasonable rates of change of key
welfare,
welfare per
capita,and
etc.)
decisions
to bethat
made
explicitly
andfor
in further
parameters
and investment
policies,
theseGUMBO
bracketedallows
a rangethese
of future
possibilities
can serve
as a basis
the context
of the complex
world system.
allows
both desirable
and sustainable
futures the
to be
discussions,
assessments,
and improvements.
Users areItfree
to change
these parameters
further and observe
results.
examined.

Assessingservices
global sustainability
can only be into
donethe
using
a dynamic
the type we have created in
• Ecosystem
are highly integrated
model,
bothintegrated
in terms model
of theofbiophysical
GUMBO.functioning
But one is still
what
sustain (i.e.
welfare,
welfare
pertheir
capita,
etc.) GUMBO
of left
thewith
earthdecisions
systemabout
and in
thetoprovision
ofGWP,
human
welfare.
Both
physical
and allow
these decisions to be made explicitly and in the context of the complex world system. It allows both desirable and sustainable
value dynamics are shown to be quite complex.
futures to be examined.
• The overall value of ecosystem services, in terms of their relative contribution to both the
production
andservices
welfare
is shown
significantly
higher
than
GWP (4.5
times inofthis

Ecosystem
arefunctions,
highly integrated
into to
thebe
model,
both in terms
of the
biophysical
functioning
the earth
preliminary
version of
of human
the model).
system
and in the provision
welfare. Both their physical and value dynamics are shown to be quite complex.
• “Technologically skeptical” investment policies are shown to have the best chance (given

The overall
valuekey
of ecosystem
services,
in terms of
theirand
relative
contribution
to both
production
uncertainty
about
parameters)
of achieving
high
sustainable
welfare
perthecapita.
Thisand welfare
functions,
is shownrelative
to be significantly
higher than GWP
(4.5 times insocial
this preliminary
version
of the
model).
means
increased
rates of investment
in knowledge,
capital, and
natural
capital,
and
reduced relative rates of consumption and investment in built capital.

“Skeptical” investment policies are shown to have the best chance (given uncertainty about key parameters) of
achieving high and sustainable welfare per capita. This means increased relative rates of investment in knowledge, social
capital, and natural capital, and reduced investment in built capital and consumption.