Model Solution, Validation, and Control

  • Darius M. Adams
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 14)

Solving the overall Timber Assessment Projection System entails coordination of the internal solution or computational procedures of the TAMM, NAPAP, ATLAS, and AREACHANGE modules. Our approach involves ordered solutions of the modules and iterative (Gauss–Seidel) procedures. Model validation is a critical step in model development but is particularly difficult in the present case given the size and complexity of the system. The validation process in the Timber Assessment Projection System considers the correspondence of model structure with underlying determinants, consistency with historical data, and the appropriateness of the model structure for extrapolation in policy analysis. The long (50-year) projection period and the nature of some policy scenarios can lead to values of both inputs and projected outputs that lie outside the range of historical observation. To insure “reasonable” and consistent projection behavior, a structure of model controls on capacity change and private timber harvest was implemented.


Model Solution Capacity Change Policy Scenario Projection Period Forest Sector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brooke A, Kendrick D, Meeraus A, Raman R (2005) GAMS a user guide. GAMS Development Corp., Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Cuthbertson K, Hall S, Taylor M (1992) Applied econometric techniques. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI (especially Chap. 8)Google Scholar
  3. Dhrymes P, Howrey E, Hymans S, Kmenta J, Leamer E, Quandt R, Dhrymes J, Shapiro H, Zarnowitz V (1972) Criteria for evaluation of econometric models. Ann Econ Soc Meas 1(3):291-324Google Scholar
  4. Fair R (1984) Specification, estimation and analysis of macroeconometric models. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Chap. 7Google Scholar
  5. Fromm G, Klein LR (1969) Solutions of the complete system. In: Duesenberry J, Fromm G, Klein LR, and Kuh E, et al. (eds) The Brookings model: some further results. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Chap. 11Google Scholar
  6. Hendry D, Mizon G (2000a) On selecting policy analysis models by forecast accuracy. In: Atkinson A, Glennerster H, Stern N (eds) Putting economics to work: volume in honour of Michio Morishima, London School of Economics, STICERD, pp71-113Google Scholar
  7. Hendry D, Mizon G (2000b) Reformulating empirical macroeconometric modeling. Oxford Rev Econ Pol 16(4):138-159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jonas M, Nilsson S (2001) The Austrian Carbon Database (ACDb) study overview. Interim Report IR-01-064. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
  9. Meadows D, Richardson J, Bruckmann, G (1982) Groping in the dark. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Quandt R (1983) Computational problems and methods. In: Griliches Z, Intriligator M (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Chap. 12Google Scholar
  11. Sargent R (2005) Verification and validation of simulation models. In: Kuhl M, Steiger N, Armstrong F, Joines J (eds) Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Conference Proceedings all.jsp?arnumber=1574246
  12. Schrage L (1991) LINDO: an optimization modeling system, 4th edn. The Scientific Press, South San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darius M. Adams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations