Guidelines for Policy Modellers - 30 years on: New Tricks or Old Dogs?

Systems thinking and the use of modelling to assist in natural resources decision making started in the early 1960’s (Forrester, 1961). In the early 1970’s a multidisciplinary program was established in CSIRO’s Division of Land Resources Management to, among other issues, research and develop models to assist in the resolution of persistent and multi-faceted environmental issues. The authors of this paper were members of that group. We recently decided to look at what has been learned about these reasonably intractable problems over the more than 30 years period since. If it is true that the half life of modelling papers is around eight years and, apparently, decreasing (Haggett, 2005), then we can expect that the wheel has often been reinvented. So we describe issues as they were expressed up to the early 1980’s and compare and contrast them with concerns after the turn of the century in two contexts - the development of systems thinking in modelling and deciding when and how to model. Three general criticisms of systems analysis were evident then: (1) the models were highly mathematical and therefore opaque to the user, and it was hard even for ’experts’ to explain unexpected findings; (2) welfare, as expressed by economic or utilitarian criteria, was considered to be poorly represented in systems practice (systems thinking was being viewed here as rational, while it was slowly being recognized that apparently irrational behaviour is an important part of the social fabric and could not be ignored (Glazer, 1978)); (3) the systems approach relied on lists derived from planners, but in the absence of “systems thinking” guidelines they were only lists of what planners thought of doing, not comprehensive in any strong sense. These three major drawbacks still exist and in much the same form today. Development of systems thinking is now much more widespread. The applications gap does not appear to be filled, though there have been attempts to broaden the client base by participative model construction to reach a consensus of what is agreeable to most stakeholders. “Irrational behaviour” still threatens systems analysis and comes in several forms. There is lack of acceptance that utilitarian criteria should be used to drive the solution. And the consequences of implementing a model’s solution may lead to unforeseen consequences and behaviours by and to affected parties. Very few papers have been written in recent years on guidelines on when to model and when not to do so. There seems to be no connection with earlier publications. The field does not appear to have progressed. We perceive a world in which those who can, model, and those who can’t still feel little need to try. It is to be hoped that interest in the issues of when and why to model will not wane. It would be a shame, perhaps a source of conflict, if modelling remained yet another marker that separates a ‘them’ from an ‘us’. Some of us have now been much closer to decision-makers. Our observations include: (a) Timing is critical in decision-making. Sometimes there are a few hours for deliberation, for others decades. A modeller has to be close to help with the quick ones. Advice that comes too late will not be relevant. (b) Close contact with decision makers is essential, as is their training. (c) A contract from the client is a desirable/necessary precondition. (d) Trust, and lack of it, will always be important in accepting advice. (e) Committees, especially those charged with doing something and feel that they cannot progress without assistance, are good targets. But committees, like modelling contracts, can be solely methods of delaying decisions. (f) Modelling physical and biological systems is less contentious than using utility to guide advice

Integrated Modelling for Understanding Watershed Development Impacts on Social and Biophysical Systems

The intention of watershed development (WD) programs in India is to improve the livelihoods of people and preserve the natural resource base, particularly in areas where water scarcity limits the development potential of rural communities. In practice, there are many complications to implementing WD programs in an effective and equitable way for all people within and between villages in a catchment. Our understanding of the potential implications of a program is often limited by the way in which we investigate the biophysical-social-economic system. Two common failings are (a) not properly considering the importance of the place, scope and scale of a problem and (b) using a disciplinary approach to make conclusions about the system as a whole. This paper discusses how we are addressing these issues as part of an integrated assessment project looking at WD in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. The multi-disciplinary project team includes agronomists, economists, environmental modellers, groundwater and surface water hydrologists, and social scientists who together are aiming to develop a holistic understanding of the impacts of WD on biophysical, social and economic systems. Key to the project philosophy is the inclusion of government representatives, communities, and non-government organisations (NGOs) in developing the researchers\u27 understanding of the issues and complexities associated with WD and the critical questions that need addressing by the project. An integrated model is being developed that will incorporate crop production water use and hydrological (surface water and groundwater) models in addition to knowledge gained from extensive household surveys in villages in two case study catchments. The household surveys were developed based on discussions with NGOs working with the rural communities in Andhra Pradesh and are being used to examine economic and social outcomes (positive and negative) of WD for households. Measures of equity and resilience are being developed to measure differences in outcomes between villages (e.g. upstream, downstream) and within villages (e.g. income groups, gender, land ownership, etc)

A multi-model approach to stakeholder engagement in complex environmental problems

We describe the different types of models we used as part of an effort to inform policy-making aiming at the management of the Ningaloo coast in the Gascoyne region, Western Australia. This provides an overview of how these models interact, the different roles they cover, how they fit into a full decision making process and what we learnt about the stakeholders involved in our project via their use. When modelling is explicitly used to address socio-ecological issues, the key determinant of success is whether the models, their results and recommendations are taken up by stakeholders; such uptake in turn depends on addressing stakeholders’ concerns, on engaging them in the project, on ensuring they feel ownership of the decision process at large, and that they understand and trust the modelling effort. This observation has guided our approach and has resulted in treating ‘building a model’ as the catalyst, rather than the final aim, of the process. In other words, extensive interactions in order to introduce, showcase, discuss and tune the model used for final decision making have represented both a requirement and an opportunity to ensure (i) model relevance, (ii) its acceptance, (iii) that all information available in the stakeholder team was accounted for and (iv) that stakeholders holding different levels of understanding of modelling, what it does and what it can provide to decision-making could develop an informed opinion on its use. To fulfil these roles we developed five broad classes of models: conceptual models, toy-models, singlesystem models, shuttle-models and a full-system model. In conceptual models the main drivers of a system are highlighted for subsequent representation as components of the full-system model. This usually results in a diagram summarising our understanding of how the system works. In toy-models a problem is simplified in such a way that only a handful of components are included. The purpose of these models is mostly educational: we want to understand how each component affects the problem and in order to achieve this, we temporarily renounce a satisfactory understanding of the overall problem. In single-system models we include a fairly detailed representation of a single component of the system (in our case recreational fishing and tourism); these models can be used to introduce stakeholders to modelling, provide temporary results from the study of a single activity, which will feed into the development of the final full-system model, or address sector-specific issues. In shuttle-models, we include the minimum number of processes we believe are crucial for a basic understanding of the overall problem. We know these models are still too simple for full system description, but they provide a sufficient understanding to enable us to contemplate, build and use the more complex models needed for full problem description. The term ‘shuttle’ refers to taking us from a minimum to a full description of the problem, a journey which is necessary both to developers in model definition and parameterisation and to stakeholders in the interpretation of the final full-system model results. Finally, the full-system model includes all information collected through the project and addresses all scenarios of stakeholders concern, and whose definition has been greatly eased by use of the ‘simpler’ models. As an example, a conceptual model may identify fishing and tourism as the main drivers of a region; a toymodel may describe how catches affect fish stocks; a single-system model may include the effect of gear, regulations and other processes affecting recreational fishing; a shuttle-model may include a simplified representation of the interaction between fishing, tourism, and infrastructure development on the overall health of the local ecosystem; this will gradually ‘take’ us to comprehend the ‘full’ model which may include tourism pressure, fish market values, climate effect, larger food-webs, etc

Integrated assessment—how does it help unpack water access by marginalized farmers?

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Water is critical to the lives and livelihoods of rural communities in developing countries; however, access to water can be inequitable within communities. This paper uses a generalized integrated assessment approach to explore the determinants of water access by marginalized farmers in two villages in coastal Bangladesh, before and after the setup of local water institutions. The study was part of a broader project aimed at promoting socially inclusive agricultural intensification. An integrative framework was developed in this study to capture and link the diverse range of factors that influence the distribution of water, including the often-overlooked role of social dynamics and governance arrangements. While interventions around improving water resource infrastructure can be critical for freshwater availability, the case studies show that a breakdown of asymmetric power structures may also be needed for water access to all individuals, especially marginalized groups. Establishing a community-based water institution on its own does not necessarily address power issues in a community. It is imperative that the agency and capacities of the marginalized members are developed and that the institutional arrangements foster an enabling environment for marginalized members to influence decision making. Integrated assessment allowed the case studies to be explored from multiple perspectives so as to gain a greater understanding of the barriers and levers to obtaining equitable outcomes from water interventions

Integrated Assessment-How Does It Help Unpack Water Access by Marginalized Farmers?

Water is critical to the lives and livelihoods of rural communities in developing countries; however, access to water can be inequitable within communities. This paper uses a generalized integrated assessment approach to explore the determinants of water access by marginalized farmers in two villages in coastal Bangladesh, before and after the setup of local water institutions. The study was part of a broader project aimed at promoting socially inclusive agricultural intensification. An integrative framework was developed in this study to capture and link the diverse range of factors that influence the distribution of water, including the often-overlooked role of social dynamics and governance arrangements. While interventions around improving water resource infrastructure can be critical for freshwater availability, the case studies show that a breakdown of asymmetric power structures may also be needed for water access to all individuals, especially marginalized groups. Establishing a community-based water institution on its own does not necessarily address power issues in a community. It is imperative that the agency and capacities of the marginalized members are developed and that the institutional arrangements foster an enabling environment for marginalized members to influence decision making. Integrated assessment allowed the case studies to be explored from multiple perspectives so as to gain a greater understanding of the barriers and levers to obtaining equitable outcomes from water interventions.This study was a part of the project ‘Promoting Socially Inclusive and Sustainable Agricultural Intensification in West Bengal and Bangladesh (SIAGI)’ funded by Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR) [grant number LWR/2014/072]

Pathogenesis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in girls - a double neuro-osseous theory involving disharmony between two nervous systems, somatic and autonomic expressed in the spine and trunk: possible dependency on sympathetic nervous system and hormones with implications for medical therapy

Anthropometric data from three groups of adolescent girls - preoperative adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), screened for scoliosis and normals were analysed by comparing skeletal data between higher and lower body mass index subsets. Unexpected findings for each of skeletal maturation, asymmetries and overgrowth are not explained by prevailing theories of AIS pathogenesis. A speculative pathogenetic theory for girls is formulated after surveying evidence including: (1) the thoracospinal concept for right thoracic AIS in girls; (2) the new neuroskeletal biology relating the sympathetic nervous system to bone formation/resorption and bone growth; (3) white adipose tissue storing triglycerides and the adiposity hormone leptin which functions as satiety hormone and sentinel of energy balance to the hypothalamus for long-term adiposity; and (4) central leptin resistance in obesity and possibly in healthy females. The new theory states that AIS in girls results from developmental disharmony expressed in spine and trunk between autonomic and somatic nervous systems. The autonomic component of this double neuro-osseous theory for AIS pathogenesis in girls involves selectively increased sensitivity of the hypothalamus to circulating leptin (genetically-determined up-regulation possibly involving inhibitory or sensitizing intracellular molecules, such as SOC3, PTP-1B and SH2B1 respectively), with asymmetry as an adverse response (hormesis); this asymmetry is routed bilaterally via the sympathetic nervous system to the growing axial skeleton where it may initiate the scoliosis deformity (leptin-hypothalamic-sympathetic nervous system concept = LHS concept). In some younger preoperative AIS girls, the hypothalamic up-regulation to circulating leptin also involves the somatotropic (growth hormone/IGF) axis which exaggerates the sympathetically-induced asymmetric skeletal effects and contributes to curve progression, a concept with therapeutic implications. In the somatic nervous system, dysfunction of a postural mechanism involving the CNS body schema fails to control, or may induce, the spinal deformity of AIS in girls (escalator concept). Biomechanical factors affecting ribs and/or vertebrae and spinal cord during growth may localize AIS to the thoracic spine and contribute to sagittal spinal shape alterations. The developmental disharmony in spine and trunk is compounded by any osteopenia, biomechanical spinal growth modulation, disc degeneration and platelet calmodulin dysfunction. Methods for testing the theory are outlined. Implications are discussed for neuroendocrine dysfunctions, osteopontin, sympathoactivation, medical therapy, Rett and Prader-Willi syndromes, infantile idiopathic scoliosis, and human evolution. AIS pathogenesis in girls is predicated on two putative normal mechanisms involved in trunk growth, each acquired in evolution and unique to humans