See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223597449

Mathematical modelling and environmental decision-

making

Article  in  Ecological Modelling · May 1975

DOI: 10.1016/0304-3800(75)90004-6

CITATIONS READS

26 521

1 author:

Asit K Biswas
University of Glasgow
866 PUBLICATIONS   6,129 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Channel News Asia View project

Singapore Water story View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asit K Biswas on 31 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ecological Modelling, 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) 3 1 - - 4 8
© Elsevier Scientific Publishing C o m p a n y , A m s t e r d a m - P r i n t e d in The N e t h e r l a n d s

MATHEMATICAL MODELLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

DECISION-MAKING

ASIT K. BISWAS

Rockefeller Fellow in International Relations, b\N\ Environment Programme,

Nairobi (Kenya)
Present address: Director, E n v i r o n m e n t a l S y s t e m s Branch, D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t ,
Ottawa, Ont. (Canada)
(Received D e c e m b e r 15th, 1974)

ABSTRACT

Biswas, A.K., 1975. M a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l l i n g and e n v i r o n m e n t a l decision-making. Ecol.

Modelling, 1: 3 1 - - 4 8 .

The p r i m a r y role o f a d e c i s i o n - m a k e r is to m a k e right decisions o n the basis o f avail-

able i n f o r m a t i o n and within the allowable t i m e and resources c o n s t r a i n t s . T h e t w o basic
t y p e s o f m o d e l s used for decision-making, t e c h n o c r a t i c and i n c r e m e n t a l , are discussed,
and so are the c o m m o n criteria o f the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process in a real world. The in-
t e n s i t y and diversity o f d e m a n d s o n our limited water resources have increased t o such
an e x t e n t t h a t d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s are finding it increasingly difficult to c o n s i s t e n t l y attain
the n e e d e d flexibility and d e x t e r i t y . Thus, even t h o u g h d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g has b e c o m e ex-
ceedingly c o m p l e x at p r e s e n t , and will b e c o m e m o r e so in the future, it is a p p a r e n t t h a t
the average d e c i s i o n - m a k e r has b e e n p r o v i d e d with few, if any, n e w t o o l s a n d c o n c e p t s
in the past several decades. One o f t h e s e very few t e c h n i q u e s is s y s t e m s analysis.
Even t h o u g h m o d e l l i n g can add an i m p o r t a n t d i m e n s i o n to the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g pro-
cess, surprisingly e n o u g h it still lacks credibility with the policy-makers. The several
reasons t h a t have given rise to this " c r e d i b i l i t y g a p " are discussed in d e p t h . Ten basic
rules are suggested as guidelines for realistic m o d e l d e v e l o p m e n t . The positive and
negative aspects o f m o d e l l i n g as used for d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g are discussed. A p p r o p r i a t e
r e m e d i e s are suggested to i m p r o v e the image o f m o d e l l i n g in t h e eyes o f the decision-
makers, which will r e d u c e t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f unvalidated, u n t e s t e d and u n u s e f u l m o d e l s ,
m u c h o f w h i c h can be classified s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n d i l e t t a n t i s m and a c a d e m i c exercises.
It is c o n c l u d e d t h a t even t h o u g h s o m e o f our c u r r e n t m o d e l s in this field are r a t h e r
crude, and s o m e w h a t d e p e n d e n t on t h e e x p e r i e n c e and j u d g e m e n t o f the analysts, t h e
issue, in t h e final analysis, is very d e f i n i t e l y o n the side o f having a m o d e l , even a c r u d e
one, against having no m o d e l at all.

INTRODUCTION

It was possible f o r a brilliant p e r s o n to k n o w n e a r l y all t h e r e was to k n o w

a b o u t w h a t we can l o o s e l y d e f i n e as science till a b o u t t h e e n d o f t h e six-
t e e n t h c e n t u r y (Biswas, 1972). Versatile geniuses like Aristotle, T h e o p h r a s -
32

tus, Vitruvius, Isidore o f Seville or L e o n a r d o da Vinci c o u l d discuss m o s t

subjects a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y during t h e i r time. M a n ' s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e n a t u r a l
and social s y s t e m s was at a stage w h e r e it was still possible, a l b e i t difficult,
f o r really gifted m a n to m a s t e r all the i n f o r m a t i o n available.
T h e s i t u a t i o n s t a r t e d to change a r o u n d t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d b y
the early e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t r e m e n d o u s a d v a n c e s in n a t u r a l sciences h a d
m a d e it i m p o s s i b l e f o r a n y one to be an universal e n c y c l o p e d i s t . This realiza-
tion was gradually r e f l e c t e d in the d e v e l o p m e n t of a n e w area o f k n o w -
ledge, w h i c h initially b e c a m e k n o w n as n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h y and b e g a n to be
distinguished increasingly f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y . T h e n i n e t e e n t h cen-
t u r y witnessed n o t o n l y an e x p l o s i o n o f h u m a n p o p u l a t i o n b u t also an ex-
p o n e n t i a l increase in h u m a n k n o w l e d g e , and with it t e c h n o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p -
m e n t s . I t was no longer possible for a n y p e r s o n to m a s t e r n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h y
c o m p l e t e l y , and h e n c e it h a d to be s u b d i v i d e d f u r t h e r - - initially in to
Physics a n d C h e m i s t r y , and later to o t h e r areas like life sciences and biolo-
gical sciences.
T h e i n f o r m a t i o n e x p l o s i o n of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y e n s u r e d t h a t it was
a l m o s t h u m a n l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r a n y o n e to k n o w as m u c h as t h e r e is to
k n o w o n even o n e individual subject- say, w a t e r or energy. E v e n if this
was possible, it is n o w virtually i m p o s s i b l e for a n y one t o read, u n d e r s t a n d
and assess the latest d e v e l o p m e n t s in the field o f w a t e r or e n e r g y , a n d t h u s
r e m a i n c u r r e n t with the s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t .
T h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s clearly indicate t h a t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g in t h e area of
e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t , or in o t h e r areas o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s m a n a g e -
m e n t , has b e c o m e progressively c o m p l e x o v e r the decades, and is b o u n d to
b e c o m e m o r e c o m p l e x in the f u t u r e .

DECISION-MAKING

One o f the f u n d a m e n t a l facts t h a t is n o t o f t e n r e c o g n i z e d is p l a n n e r s

m a k e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , m a n a g e m e n t scientists m a k e m o d e l s a n d m a n a g e r s
m a k e decisions. A certain a m o u n t o f overlap in such a s t r u c t u r e is n o t o n l y
necessary b u t also essential. H o w e v e r , the p r o b l e m arises w h e n this simple
f a c t is o v e r l o o k e d and m o d e l l e r s try to u s u r p the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s
or d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s a b d i c a t e t h e i r responsibilities to modellers. D r a k e ( 1 9 7 3 )
suggests t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n o f this simple p r i n c i p l e is the single m o s t i m p o r -
t a n t e l e m e n t t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s b e t w e e n successful and u n s u c c e s s f u l projects.
T h e p r i m a r y role o f a d e c i s i o n - m a k e r is to m a k e right decisions, w h i c h m a y
be d e f i n e d as decisions m a d e on t h e basis o f p e r f e c t k n o w l e d g e ( C h u r c h m a n ,
1 9 6 1 ; Biswas, 1971). P e r f e c t k n o w l e d g e in this c o n t e x t m e a n s t h a t the
d e c i s i o n - m a k e r k n o w s e x a c t l y the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f each o f the o u t c o m e s as
well as t h e i r values to him. Since no d e c i s i o n - m a k e r can ever h a v e p e r f e c t
k n o w l e d g e , o n e has to a c c e p t t h e f a c t t h a t s o m e o f t h e decisions m a d e will
be i m p e r f e c t (i.e., n o t t h e best). T h e b e s t o n e can a i m f o r is to m a k e t h e
right decisions o n t h e basis o f available i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n t h e t i m e con-
 33

straint u n d e r w h i c h the decisions have to be made. Ideally, u n d e r our ex-

isting d e m o c r a t i c f r a m e w o r k , the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r chooses a specific course
o f a c t i o n o v e r a series o f available alternatives sent to him for c o n s i d e r a t i o n
by h i s advisors, and the decision m a d e stems f r o m the logical c o n s e q u e n c e
o f his assessment o f possible o u t c o m e s and his personal evaluation o f the
o u t c o m e s in the sense t h a t the assessment and the valuation d e t e r m i n e the
u l t i m a t e action. By valuation, we m e a n the b o d y o f views which an individ-
ual d e c i s i o n - m a k e r holds t h a t enables him to c h o o s e one alternative over an-
other.
Basically t h e r e are t w o d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f m o d e l s f o r decision-making:
t e c h n o c r a t i c and incremental. In the t e c h n o c r a t i c a p p r o a c h , one starts f r o m
the r e c o g n i t i o n and analysis o f the p r o b l e m , and t h e n t h r o u g h a series o f
sequential and progressive steps, and t h o r o u g h review of all feasible alterna-
tives and the possible c o n s e q u e n c e s o f these alternatives, the " o p t i m a l " so-
l u t i o n is e v e n t u a l l y chosen. It requires specialized inputs f r o m d i f f e r e n t
disciplines, and generally tends to f a v o u r q u a n t i t a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s over qual-
itative ones. It o f t e n disregards irrationalities o f political processes, idiosyn-
crasies of h u m a n b e h a v i o u r and the vagaries o f ideas and p r e f e r e n c e s o f in-
dividual decision-makers. C o n s e q u e n t l y , solutions are o f t e n u n a c c e p t a b l e to
the p o l i c y - m a k e r s , and, if a c c e p t e d , s o m e t i m e s d i f f i c u l t to i m p l e m e n t for
soeio-political reasons.
T h e s e c o n d m o d e l is i n c r e m e n t a l decision-making, and is the t r a d i t i o n a l
b u r e a u c r a t i c a p p r o a c h . T h e advances are m a d e in small steps, and t h e r e is
rarely any drastic change or r e o r i e n t a t i o n o f policies. It assumes t h a t t h e r e
is n o o n e right decision or solution, b u t a c o n t i n u o u s s t r e a m of m i n o r de-
cisions on a subject w h e n e v e r it c o n f r o n t s the decision-maker. It eschews
a b s o l u t e solutions, and is in a sense a t y p e o f trial and error a p p r o a c h , or
can be d e s c r i b e d as a process of " m u d d l i n g t h r o u g h " . It is invariably a short-
t e r m a p p r o a c h , and rarely are the s h o r t - t e r m objectives linked to the long-
t e r m goals or the eventual m a s t e r plan. T h e a t t r a c t i o n o f i n c r e m e n t a l de-
cision-making to o u r p r e s e n t d e m o c r a t i c f r a m e w o r k is obvious. V e r y few
politicians really have an o p p o r t u n i t y to be i n t e r e s t e d in the l o n g - t e r m ob-
jectives o f the society: in fact, very few countries, if any, have m a d e any
decision as to the t y p e o f society t h e y w o u l d like to develop in t h e year
2 0 0 0 or 2020. National dialogues in this area have even h a r d l y begun! Most
politicians are p r a g m a t i c , and c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e i r m a j o r objectives are t o get
elected in the n e x t e l e c t i o n and to retain p o w e r for t h e i r p a r t y . Thus, t h e y
have to be m o r e i n t e r e s t e d in the s h o r t - t e r m results t h a t w o u l d satisfy a
m a x i m u m n u m b e r o f people, or at least alienate the least n u m b e r , so t h a t
t h e i r e l e c t i o n is n o t in j e o p a r d y . Thus, i n c r e m e n t a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g appeals
to t h e m because it is a process o f " s a t i s f y i n g " -- in c o n t r a s t to the process
o f optimizing.
T h e r e are o t h e r " a d v a n t a g e s " to the i n c r e m e n t a l decision-making. It allows
c o m p r o m i s e s , t r a d e o f f s and revision o f views; in fact it e n c o u r a g e s such pro-
cesses because t h e y invariably " d i l u t e " the actions initially suggested and
34

thus eschewing absolute solutions. It tolerates a m b i g u i t y , and i m p l i c i t y con-

siders b u r e a u c r a t i c interests and p o w e r struggles, and the rigidity and ineffi-
c i e n c y o f the institutions which m a y be involved in m a k i n g decisions. It
also considers the p o w e r and effectiveness o f e x t e r n a l pressure groups, and
prefers traditional and c u s t o m a r y a p p r o a c h e s r a t h e r t h a n e x p e r i m e n t i n g with
radically d i f f e r e n t p r o c e d u r e s and solutions.
The appeal o f i n c r e m e n t a l i s m will be f u r t h e r clarified if we c o n s i d e r the
decision-making process in a real world. S o m e o f its c o m m o n traits are the
following:
(1) A d e c i s i o n - m a k e r can d e v o t e o n l y a limited a m o u n t o f t i m e to any
one individual subject u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . It is primarily because a signifi-
c a n t p o r t i o n of the available t i m e is d e v o t e d to the discussion and s o l u t i o n
o f trivial p r o b l e m s o r m i n o r crises r a t h e r t h a n detailed c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
m a j o r p o l i c y issues and p r o b l e m s . Thus, it is n o t unusual to see t h e entire
t o p m a n a g e m e n t o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n spend lk-day arguing o n insignificant
p r o b l e m s like the l o c a t i o n o f bulletin boards in a building instead o f con-
sidering m a j o r p o l i c y alternatives.
(2) Nearly all decision-makers are involved in m o r e activities t h a n t h e y
can c o n s i d e r carefully and simultaneously. (Whether t h e y should be involved
in all these activities is a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n . ) C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e y can consider
o n l y a p a r t o f their m a j o r responsibilities while the r e m a i n d e r e i t h e r d o n o t
get t h e necessary a t t e n t i o n or r e m a i n latent.
(3) A d e c i s i o n - m a k e r has o n l y a limited span o f a t t e n t i o n , t h a t is, be-
cause o f physical and m e n t a l constraints, t h e y can only h a n d l e a limited
a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n at any one time.
(4) Only a limited n u m b e r of p o l i c y alternatives are c o n s i d e r e d f o r any
one decision.
(5) T h e alternatives c o n s i d e r e d are generally those t h a t d i f f e r i n c r e m e n -
tally f r o m existing policies.
(6) F o r the limited n u m b e r o f alternatives considered, even f e w e r pos-
sible c o n s e q u e n t scenarios are c o n s t r u c t e d , analysed and evaluated.
(7) T h e e x t e n t o f relevant i n f o r m a t i o n available to a d e c i s i o n - m a k e r o n
the p o l i c y u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is o n l y a small f r a c t i o n o f p o t e n t i a l infor-
m a t i o n available o n the subject. More i n f o r m a t i o n can be m a d e available,
b u t it w o u l d necessitate e x p e n d i t u r e o f m o r e t i m e and m o n e y . In addition,
s o m e decision-makers suffer f r o m the " D o n ' t c o n f u s e me with d e t a i l s "
syndrome.
(8) Decisions e v e n t u a l l y m a d e are rarely n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l and controversial.
This does n o t m e a n t h a t decisions m a d e d o n o t p r o v o k e controversies, b u t
o n l y t h a t reasons f o r such c o n t r o v e r s i e s were n o t foreseen. In o t h e r words,
decision-makers t e n d to p r e f e r safe and traditional solutions t h a t d o n o t
create any wave.
(9) T h e general t e n d e n c y is to solve m i n o r kinks in a m a j o r p r o b l e m , and
this way b u y s o m e t i m e until the n e x t kink appears. In o t h e r words, t h e r e
is a general r e l u c t a n c e t o tackle the disease: t h e r e is a m a r k e d p r e f e r e n c e
for curing individual s y m p t o m s as t h e y surface.
 35

(10) Consequently, most of the time is devoted to the solution of m i nor

crises as th ey surface. Thus, the entire decision-making process oft en be-
comes one o f "crises m a n a g e m e n t " , rather than d e v e l o p m e n t and pursuance
of fu t ur e long-range policies and goals. Current decisions are rarely linked
to the long-range plans, and the future is of t e n discounted. In fact, oft en
times a viable long-range plan even does not exist!
(11) Most managers, by the time they reach the real decision-making role,
are fairly close to retirement. T he y have very little inclination for radical
innovative solutions and the resulting problems of implementation. Thus,
t h e y would prefer to " c o a s t " rather than innovate. For others t h a t reach
the decision-making role at a relatively y o u n g e r age, they plan to stay in one
position for a definite span of time before moving on to " g r e e n e r pastures".
Thus, very o f t e n their m o t t o is " D o n ' t rock the boat ".
Decision-making in North America and probably in ot her countries as well,
is innately incremental. This does n o t mean t hat a decision-maker that fol-
lows incremental decision-making process is automatically irrational. The in-
h e r e n t complexities and interconnectedness of the present-day resource and
environmental m a n a g e m e n t problems make the a t t a i n m e n t of rationality in
decision-making a difficult task because rationality, in most circumstances,
is neither clearcut nor can be automatically determined. When the multi-
dimensionality o f the problems is considered, in terms of social, economic,
technical, legal and political rationalities, it soon becomes evident t hat multi-
dimensional o p timiz a t i on is no simple task. The solution t hat is technically
and economically optimal may be socially u n i m p l e m e n t a b l e or politically
unacceptable. Our present state of knowledge for obtaining multidimensional
optimal solutions in such diverse sectors leaves much to be desired.
This, however, does n o t mean that the present m o d e of decision-making
c a n n o t be improved. Even assuming the fact t h at incremental decision-making
is a fact o f life and is here to stay for a considerable period of time, we can
improve the process substantially. There is absolutely no reason why such a
process should remain p r e d o m i n a n t l y remedial wherein ambiguity and lack
of hard decicions is tolerated or the future effects of present decisions are
discounted. In a democratic, diverse and pluralistic society, incremental
decision-making has much to offer. What is necessary is to change or m o d i f y
the existing process. Decisions, within such a framework, can still be made
on the basis of t h o r o u g h systematic analysis and thought. Most decision-
makers, if they wish, have access to adequate expertise who can successfully
use systems analysis and o t h e r logical techniques to analyse the m o s t com-
plex problems. There is no reason why a model c a n n o t be developed so that
the c u r r en t decisions can be linked to the long-range objectives. What is
necessary is a change of style and reordering or restructuring of priorities.
We need to think a little m or e of the f ut ur e and a little less of the present.
36

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DECISION-MAKING

In the c o n t e x t of the p r e s e n t discussion, we shall d e f i n e m a n a g e m e n t as

the process o f c o n v e r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n into a c t i o n as s h o w n in Fig. 1. Manage-
m e n t success d e p e n d s on n o t o n l y the quality and e x t e n t o f the i n f o r m a t i o n
available b u t also w h a t i n f o r m a t i o n is selected for use and u l t i m a t e l y chan-
nelled in t o the decision-making process.
T h e c o m p l e x i t y and bewildering variety o f questions and p r o b l e m s faced
b y a p r e s e n t - d a y resources manager m a k e him singularly hard pressed to
develop rational and e f f i c i e n t policies and strategies w i t h i n r a t h e r limited
time and b u d g e t a r y constraints. T h e i n t e n s i t y and diversity o f d e m a n d s on
o u r limited natural resources have increased to such an e x t e n t w i t h i n a r a t h e r
limited p e r i o d o f time, t h a t the m a n a g e m e n t policies m u s t be increasingly
finely t u n e d to r e s o u r c e availabilities, in t e r m s o f space, time and cost. T h e
r e c o g n i t i o n and a c c e p t a n c e o f the c o n c e p t of m u l t i - p u r p o s e planning, in-
creasing societal awareness o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s e r v a t i o n and q u a l i t y o f life,
e m e r g e n c e o f articulate and p o w e r f u l special-interest groups and rapidly
changing public p e r c e p t i o n s o f and a t t i t u d e s to the f u n d a m e n t a l principles
o n which natural resources m a n a g e m e n t is based, need~ flexibility and dex-
t e r i t y t h a t is b e c o m i n g increasingly d i f f i c u l t for decision-makers and ad-
m i n i s t r a t o r s to attain consistently. The p r o b l e m is f u r t h e r c o m p o u n d e d by
the f a c t t h a t the a p p r o p r i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d to m a k e a decision o f t e n
seems t o be scarce, and invariably i n a d e q u a t e . Even if the r e q u i r e d informa-
tion is available, it is o f t e n n o t c h a n n e l l e d into the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process
because it is e i t h e r in a diffused or i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r m or c o u l d n o t be ob-
tained and analysed w i t h i n the time f r a m e by which decisions have to be
made. In fact, one can argue t h a t the u n k n o w n is like the universe -- ex-
panding constantly.
Thus, even t h o u g h decision-making in the area o f natural resources plan-
ning and m a n a g e m e n t has b e c o m e e x c e e d i n g l y c o m p l e x at p r e s e n t , and will
b e c o m e m o r e so in the f u t u r e , it is b e c o m i n g increasingly a p p a r e n t t h a t the
average d e c i s i o n - m a k e r has been supplied with few, if any, n e w tools and
c o n c e p t s in the past several decades. T h e a d v e n t o f e l e c t r o n i c c o m p u t e r s
has p r o v i d e d s o m e relief, b u t the c o m p u t e r can be viewed as an i d i o t with

ORNAT~

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the management process, illustrating the basic components and
sequence of events.
 37

an I.Q. o f zero and c a n n o t by itself solve any problem. The c o m p u t e r , how-

ever, can be used to analyse complex resource m a n a g e m e n t problems by
building models. Thus, it is essential that right i n f o r m a t i o n be fed into a
c o m p u t e r so that the analysis is logical and reasonably comprehensive for the
policy u n d er consideration. This will ensure t hat decision-makers have
better understanding and insight in to the problems so as to significantly
improve their performances.
R e cen t developments in the arena of systems analysis have made it pos-
sible to provide decision-makers with a selected range of viable alternatives
within which decisions may be made. Thus, systems analysis provides relevant
facts and alternatives; the decision-maker chooses the strategy. The problem,
however, is that in any comprehensive natural resources planning, an infinite
n u m b e r o f alternatives present themselves. A dmi t t edl y, one can explore
m o re alternatives by mathematical modelling with the aid of c u r r e n t high-
speed digital c o m p u t e r s than otherwise possible, but it should be realized
that even utilizing the m os t advanced techniques and the latest computers,
one c a n n o t examine all the alternatives. This is a p o i n t worth stressing, and
an example will make it clear. If it is assumed that there are 50 major de-
sign parameters in a moderately-sized resources m anagem ent study, and if
each o f these parameters are assigned three values, say the m ost expected,
and 15% higher and 15% lower than it, one would have to analyse a total
o f 35o designs -- a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 × 1024 designs. Clearly such an analysis
is n o t only impossible but also impractical. One has to be selective, and
hence modelling necessitates sampling. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , our present state of
knowledge of sampling in 50 or more dimensions leaves much to be desired.
Thus, the quality o f decision-making, within a modelling c o n t e x t , will greatly
depend on the analyst's experience and j u d g e m e n t in the sense t hat the
viable alternatives presented to a decision-maker, within which the final de-
cision is to be made, is constrained by the analyst's abilities and limitations.
Models c a n n o t replace experience, but t he y can augment it.
If we accept the fact t hat modelling adds one more dimension to the
decision-making process, and has the potential to improve it significantly,
one can legitimately ask why does it lack credibility with the policy-makers
to such an e x t e n t th at it is rarely used to develop or select ultimate poli-
cies? Modelling is used quite extensively in an operational sense b u t rarely
within a decision-making framework. To the best of our knowledge, nowhere
in the No r th America or the Western Europe does systems analysis and ex-
tensive mathematical modelling e nt e r directly in to policy-making. There is
no built-in inter-active capability between decision-makers and systems-type
tools and techniques. Modelling is carried o u t by technical experts and at
best is used as an input to the technical r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s requested by de-
cision-makers. Nowhere do the decision-makers get their hands on the model
itself.
One question th a t may be asked at this p o i n t is if models lack credibility
in general, why has the Club of Rome's study on " T h e Limits to G r o w t h "
38

(Meadows et al., 1972) enjoyed such popularity and credibility with the
public? Perhaps an analysis of this question would provide some insight into
the reluctance of the decision-makers and, at times, of the public to accept
the results of formal m et hods of complex analyses. Clearly, " T h e Limits to
G r o w t h " , a highly condensed but well-written r e p o r t on a c o m p u t e r i z e d glob-
al model, provided a bandwagon for parties who were already convinced that
the world is headed straight for disaster. Whatever be the merits or demerits
of the c o n t e n t i o n , the r e p o r t was the first comprehensive a t t e m p t to aria-
lyse the global resource management problems and the future o f mankind
through a systematic framework. The interesting poi nt is that the results of
this c o m p u t e r analysis were generally accepted by the public, but it is n o t
y e t clear th at the b o ok has influenced decision-makers to a significant ex-
tent. This particular incident is a simple but effective illustration to indicate
that mathematics and abstract model f or m ul a ti on do n o t necessarily p u t
people off.

THE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM

During the last decade or so, resources planners and managers have been
deluged with ever increasing n u m b e r of publications on the modelling of
ecological and environmental systems, and it is highly unlikely t h a t there
would be any a b a t e m e n t of this flood in the foreseeable future. Nearly all
of the models developed remain academic exercises, and are seldom used.
While the i m p o r t a n c e of the d e v e l o p m e n t of such models as a training exer-
cise c a n n o t be denied, far too high a percentage of models are being devel-
oped that are n o t being used, or are of dubious practical values, oft en for some
very good reasons. Considering the potential o f systems analysis to improve
the decision-making process, and the resources and efforts t hat go in to the
d e v e l o p m e n t of these models, it is i m p o r t a n t to analyse why models do not
have credibility with the decision-makers.
There are man y reasons for the "credibility gap". The first and f o r e m o s t
one is p r o b ab ly of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . The p r o p o n e n t s of mathematical mod-
elling and c o m p u t e r technology generally have done a very p o o r job of
translating o u t p u t s into terms that are readily understandable to those n o t
so intimately involved in the art. Aside from the inescapable fact t hat the
systems analysts' f unda m ent al language is mathematical and, therefore, n o t
easily comprehensible to all, their oral and written c o m m u n i c a t i o n is replete
with jargon th at serves only to " t u r n o f f " non-modellers. In addition, the
results o f modelling exercises are generally r e p o r t e d in several bulky volumes
that are full o f differential equations and o t h e r com pl ex mathematical
algorithims. Very few people, e x c e p t perhaps for the handful of systems ana-
lysts working in th at area, have time to read the massive reports, and even
if t h e y had time, still fewer could understand it. Seldom are the results of
modelling e f f o r t presented in simple, straightforward, meaningful ways -- not
at all condescending, but nevertheless understandable to those for w h o m the
 39

results are i n t e n d e d . A d m i t t e d l y , we c a n n o t escape the fact t h a t m a t h e m a t -

ics and the c o m p u t e r are essential ingredients o f modelling, b u t in this case
it is n o t the m e a n s to the end t h a t c o u n t , it is the e n d itself. We should
s h o w the results to o t h e r t h a n fellow m o d e l l e r s in f o r m s t h a t all can under-
stand, a p p r e c i a t e and p e r h a p s act u p o n .
It is b e c o m i n g increasingly critical for m o d e l l e r s to take every possible
o p p o r t u n i t y to d r a w the users, including decision-makers, into their circle
o f discussion. Modellers t e n d to c o m m u n i c a t e with themselves, and o f t e n
t e n d to f o r m self-sufficient cells, p e r h a p s because p a r a d o x i c a l l y it is easier
n o t to r e d u c e their language t o n o n - m a t h e m a t i c a l terms (Biswas e t al., 1974).
One is r e m i n d e d o f P o o h Bah in the Mikado, w h o w h e n asked to explain a
piece o f m e n d a c i t y f o r which he was a b o u t to be tried, and w h e n asked w h y
he told the p a r t i c u l a r lie, replied: "Well, it was m e r e l y c o r r o b o r a t i v e detail
i n t e n d e d to add versimilitude t o an o t h e r w i s e bald and u n c o n v i n c i n g narra-
tire".
We n e e d b e t t e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n decision-makers
and m o d e l l e r s so t h a t the p r o b l e m s o f the p o l i c y - m a k e r s are b r o u g h t m o r e to
the fore and the m o d e l is relegated to its p r o p e r status -- as an aid to the
decision-making process. T h e e f f o r t to e f f e c t this c o m m u n i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o t
be one-sided. T h o s e who c o u l d or should use the results o f m o d e l l i n g pro-
cesses s h o u l d m a k e an e q u i v a l e n t d e t e r m i n e d e f f o r t to a c q u a i n t themselves
with the new t o o l and w h a t it can d o for t h e m .
A n o t h e r m a j o r r e a s o n f o r the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the credibility gap is the
lack o f user i n v o l v e m e n t in the d e v e l o p m e n t process. McKinsey and Com-
p a n y ( 1 9 6 8 ) carried o u t a s t u d y on the relative successes o f 36 m a j o r cor-
p o t a t i o n s in using c o m p u t e r s , and c o n c l u d e d t h a t user i n v o l v e m e n t is widely
neglected, and the neglect invariably proves to be costly. T h e c o n t i n u o u s
user i n v o l v e m e n t ensures t h a t the m o d e l l e r has the full k n o w l e d g e o f the
p e r c e p t i o n o f the s i t u a t i o n being m o d e l l e d f r o m the v i e w p o i n t o f the users.
Such i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t e n p r o v e to be m u t u a l l y beneficial and e d u c a t i o n a l .
T h e m o d e l thus d e v e l o p e d will t e n d to be m o r e r e l e v a n t f o r the p u r p o s e for
which it was devised, and the user will have m o r e t r u s t o n its validity and
capabilities, since he had a h a n d in d e v e l o p i n g it. What generally h a p p e n s is
t h a t the u l t i m a t e user has very little i n v o l v e m e n t with the d e v e l o p m e n t
phase, and c o n s e q u e n t l y has to a c c e p t the final p r o d u c t o n faith. Thus, n o t
surprisingly, decision-makers d o n o t rely o n the m o d e l s f o r evaluating alter-
natives.
T h e r e is also n e e d t o dispel some m y t h s a b o u t modelling; m i s t a k e n im-
pressions t h a t have g r o w n over the years t h r o u g h o u r failure t o e f f e c t g o o d
c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A m o n g these is t h a t m o d e l l i n g is o n l y an intellectual exer-
cise and t h a t no practical e x a m p l e s can be s h o w n where it has served the de-
cision-making process. Even t h o u g h t h e r e is s o m e t r u t h in the above state-
m e n t , it is n o t e x a c t l y c o r r e c t . We have e x a m p l e s to p r o v e t o the c o n t r a r y ,
and can p r o v e the p o i n t , if given the o p p o r t u n i t y (Biswas, 1974a, 1975).
Here again, the fault m a y lie m o r e with the m o d e l l e r for n o t p r e s e n t i n g his
40

results so t h a t b o t h their origin and their merits are clearly evident.

A n o t h e r m y t h is t h a t the a p p r o a c h is t o o c o s t l y and t i m e c o n s u m i n g .
Model d e v e l o p m e n t s take man-years and time, and c o m p u t e r s are expensive
to run. But t h e n physical m o d e l s have b e e n used for years in m a n y areas.
M a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l s are n o t any m o r e expensive and are easy to i n t e r p r e t .
Thus, this m y t h is largely nonsense, b u t o n e has to a d m i t t h a t as systems
analysts we have n o t d o n e a good j o b o f c o n v i n c i n g those w h o have to p a y
the bills t h a t we can deliver all the p r o m i s e d goods, o n time, and at reason-
able budgets.
T h e r e are o t h e r reasons w h y the p o t e n t i a l o f m o d e l s are n o t used as an
aid to m a k i n g decisions. Many m a j o r events are t o o c o m p l e x f o r g o o d
m a t h e m a t i c a l modelling to have any p r e d i c t i v e utility. Since t h e u n d e r l y i n g
h y p o t h e s e s and a s s u m p t i o n s and their p r e d i c t i o n s are u n t e s t a b l e , the situa-
tion warrants t h e o r e t i c a l e x c u r s i o n s to the f u t u r e . T h e r e is n o t h i n g basically
w r o n g with such a situation, e x c e p t s o m e t i m e s the analysts get carried away
with the m a t h e m a t i c a l sophistications, and t h e n carry o u t careful s i m u l a t i o n
o f the s e v e n t e e n t h - o r d e r situations w h e n the z e r o t h - o r d e r s i t u a t i o n s are com-
pletely c o n t r o l l e d b y the noise and thus i m p r c p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d . F r o s c h
( 1 9 7 1 ) provides some interesting e x a m p l e s o f such pitfalls.
A m o n g o t h e r reasons for the existing sad state o f affairs are t h e following.
P r o p o n e n t s o f modelling have o f t e n b e e n unrealistic a b o u t the costs o f m o d e l s
d e v e l o p e d or the t i m e within which a p r o d u c t can be delivered. C o m p u t e r
p r o g r a m s n o t o r i o u s l y take longer time t h a n planned, and d a t a are o f t e n n o t
accessible in the f o r m wanted. Data r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r some have b e e n ex-
tensive and o f t e n unrealistic. This makes the initial cost and d e v e l o p m e n t
t i m e estimates s o m e w h a t unrealistic, and can seriously a f f e c t s p o n s o r ' s time
schedule and r e p u t a t i o n . In o t h e r cases, m o d e l s have b e e n i n c a p a b l e o f
m e e t i n g the objectives for which t h e y were c o n t r a c t e d for. S o m e did n o t
r e p r e s e n t the realities a d e q u a t e l y , and c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e i r use f o r decision-
m a k i n g would have been unrealistic. Many m o d e l s have t e n d e d to be some-
w h a t inflexible, and some are d e v e l o p e d for one objective b u t u s e d f o r an-
other. Finally, it is n o t e x a c t l y unusual to find t h a t it is a specific p r o c e d u r e
t h a t is being o f f e r e d as a general solution to all p r o b l e m s r a t b e r t h a n a di-
r e c t a t t e m p t to start with a decision-maker's p e r c e i v e d p r o b l e m and t h e n
a t t e m p t t o solve it. In general, solution-in-search-of-problems a p p r o a c h has
p r o v e d to be a failure.

BASIC RULES OF MODELLING

T h e r e are no h a r d and fast rules o n m o d e l d e v e l o p m e n t s or t h e i r use, b u t

the following are o f f e r e d as an initial guideline. It s h o u l d be realized t h a t
like o t h e r areas o f research and d e v e l o p m e n t , there are always e x c e p t i o n s to
the rules.
(1) Start with a simple m o d e l and keep it simple. This is p r o b a b l y the
m o s t i m p o r t a n t rule o f m o d e l building. In m o s t cases o f m a t h e m a t i c a l mod-
 41

elling, no a t t e m p t is m a d e to include all the p a r a m e t e r s and variables, since

this will m a k e the m o d e l unnecessarily large and u n w i e l d y . The simplicity
or c o m p l e x i t y o f any m o d e l should be d e p e n d e n t o n the t y p e s o f informa-
tion desired f r o m it, and its i n t e n d e d end-use, t t o w e v e r , the limitations o f
the a s s u m p t i o n s m a d e to simplify a real world s i t u a t i o n so that it can be
m o d e l l e d and m a n o e u v r e d relatively easily, should be clearly spelt o u t and
u n d e r s t o o d . In o t h e r words, individual m o d e l s are operative over a specified
range, and the user will d o well to r e m e m b e r this s h o r t c o m i n g .
It is n o t surprising to find t h a t managers and decision-makers p r e f e r
simple m o d e l s t h a t t h e y can u n d e r s t a n d , even t h o u g h these m o d e l s m a y
have b e e n based on a qualitative s t r u c t u r e , b r o a d a s s u m p t i o n s and limited
data, to c o m p l e x m o d e l s whose assumptions m a y have been partially hidden,
and whose p a r a m e t e r interrelationships m a y be the result o f o b s c u r e mathe-
matical m a n i p u l a t i o n s (Little, 1970).
(2) In general it is worth-while n o t to build generalized all-purpose mod-
els. These m o d e l s are expensive to develop, d i f f i c u l t to c o n t r o l because they
are u n w i e l d y , and have huge d a t a r e q u i r e m e n t s . T h e sensitivities o f results
f r o m such m o d e l s at the micro level are i n a d e q u a t e for m o s t purposes. T h e y
are d i f f i c u l t to ut~derstand, e x c e p t perhaps b y specialists, and t h e r e f o r e
their a c c e p t a b i l i t y to the decision-makers is d a n g e r o u s l y suspect.
(3) T h e r e should be s o m e initial c o m m i t m e n t f r o m the decision-makers
to use a m o d e l , and this s u p p o r t should c o m e f r o m the u p p e r e c h e l o n of
m a n a g e m e n t . T h e r e are t h r e e basic considerations, b e f o r e such c o m m i t m e n t s
m a y be o b t a i n e d . These are technical (is it possible?), e c o n o m i c a l (is it
w o r t h w h i l e ? ) and organizational (will it be a c c e p t e d and used?).
(4) If the success o f a m o d e l is j u d g e d by its use, the user m u s t play an
imlcortant p a r t in its d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e user i n v o l v e m e n t should start right
f r o m the f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b l e m s o f the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the objectives and
c o n t i n u e right t h r o u g h o u t the process. T h e systems analysts s h o u l d give
special a t t e n t i o n to the user's p e r c e p t i o n o f the p r o b l e m . Such an involve-
m e n t will ensure t h a t the user is n o t o n l y familiar with the b r o a d working
principles of the m o d e l (thus requiring less e d u c a t i o n and training later), but
also substantially increase the p r o b a b i l i t y of the m o d e l ' s a c c e p t a b i l i t y since
the user had a h a n d in its d e v e l o p m e n t . This i n v o l v e m e n t process has to be
p l a n n e d carefully so t h a t it does n o t c o n s u m e t o o m u c h o f the user's time.
(5) Modelling and d a t a c o l l e c t i o n process should p r o c e e d in parallel. Mod-
elling o f t e n gives a b e t t e r insight to the t y p e o f d a t a t h a t should be col-
lected. The mere e x i s t e n c e o f d a t a is n o t enough, its accessibility, a c c u r a c y
and usability are i m p o r t a n t criteria. R a w d a t a o f t e n require a great deal o f
massaging b e f o r e it can be c o n v e r t e d t o a f o r m where it can be used as in-
p u t to a m o d e l .
(6) The chances of a m o d e l being used are greatly e n h a n c e d if g o o d
d o c u m e n t a t i o n s are available. It also ensures t h a t if the chief p r o g r a m m a r
leaves the o r g a n i z a t i o n , its use and f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t are n o t u n d u l y
handicapped.
42

(7) Very few models d e v e l o p e d are o n e - s h o t affairs. T h e y have to be con-

tinually u p d a t e d as m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n and data b e c o m e available, under-
standing of the process being m o d e l l e d improves or the user b e c o m e s m o r e
s o p h i s t i c a t e d in their use. W i t h o u t such i m p r o v e m e n t s , models t e n d to be-
c o m e o u t - o f - d a t e , with the resulting loss o f their usefulness and credibility.
(8) T h e m o d e l should be so s t r u c t u r e d t h a t c u r r e n t decisions can be
linked to the long-term plans. It should be able to p r o v i d e answers to ques-
tions like w h a t decisions should be m a d e at present to realize the long-term
plans or h o w d o the c u r r e n t decisions a f f e c t and are a f f e c t e d by f u t u r e
plans.
(9) Modelling and managing are in a sense d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of art: t h e y
require d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f k n o w l e d g e and skill, and t e n d to a t t r a c t d i f f e r e n t
t y p e s o f p e o p l e ( G r a y s o n , 1973; H a m m o n d , 1974). Thus, the m o d e l l e r
should n o t o n l y k n o w the e n v i r o n m e n t for which the m o d e l is i n t e n d e d , b u t
also should have close w o r k i n g relations with the decision-makers w h o will
eventually use the model. Ideally the m o d e l l e r should be an inside m a n so
as to facilitate b e t t e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n the devel-
opers and users.
(10) S o m e degrees o f user e d u c a t i o n is essential if a m o d e l has t o gain accep-
tance. Since m o s t o f the senior m a n a g e m e n t in existing e n v i r o n m e n t a l agencies
were trained prior to the systems analysis era, t h e y d o n o t fully c o m p r e h e n d
the strengths and weaknesses o f such analyses, and c o n s e q u e n t l y have little
faith in the results. One a p p r o a c h is to lead the p o t e n t i a l user t h r o u g h a
s e q u e n c e of m o d e l s o f increasing scope and c o m p l e x i t y .

SOME FACTORS TO CONSIDER

L e t us consider some o f the major factors and d e v e l o p m e n t s t h a t have

substantial bearing o n the possible use of m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l l i n g in environ-
m e n t a l and ecological decision-making.

Positive factors

(1) D e v e l o p m e n t s in c o m p u t e r t e c h n o l o g y has been so rapid in r e c e n t

years t h a t h a r d w a r e capability is seldom a limiting f a c t o r in solving even the
m o s t c o m p l e x p r o b l e m s t h a t m a y be e n c o u n t e r e d in natural resources man-
agement.
(2) C o m m e n s u r a t e advances have also t a k e n place in our m a t h e m a t i c a l
k n o w h o w . As the c o m p u t e r t e c h n o l o g y has advanced, it has given a great
i m p e t u s to m a t h e m a t i c i a n s to widen t h e i r h o r i z o n s by d e v e l o p i n g new m e t h -
ods and refining old techniques. D e v e l o p m e n t s in o n e area have spurred de-
v e l o p m e n t s in the o t h e r , and overall this has t u r n e d o u t t o be a construc-
tive circle.
(3) These advances have r e d u c e d the cost o f solving p r o b l e m s . Costs o f
solving specific p r o b l e m s have declined by as m u c h as 50% d u r i n g the past
 43

5 years, and h e n c e , c o s t p e r se is less o f a l i m i t a t i o n t o d a y . F o r e x a m p l e , in

m o s t p r a c t i c a l studies in the areas o f w a t e r q u a l i t y m a n a g e m e n t or w a t e r re-
sources a l l o c a t i o n , c o m p u t e r costs are in the range o f 5 - - 7 % o f t h e t o t a l
s t u d y costs.
(4) E x p e r t i s e in m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l l i n g is n o longer c o n f i n e d to univer-
sities: it is n o w available in m a n y p u b l i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s and p r i v a t e institu-
tions. Y o u n g engineers, e c o n o m i s t s , and scientists, as well as g r a d u a t e s in
business m a n a g e m e n t a n d public a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , n o w e n t e r i n g the l a b o u r
m a r k e t , are familiar with c o m p u t e r s and m o d e l l i n g . T h e y m a y n e e d m o r e
training to h a n d l e real life p r o b l e m s , b u t the basic t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e is al-
r e a d y there.
(5) N a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s p l a n n i n g and m a n a g e m e n t p r o b l e m s can be and have
b e e n solved b y m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l l i n g t e c h n i q u e s . O f t e n it is t h e o n l y prac-
tical and r a t i o n a l m e a n s to s i m u l a t e f u t u r e scenarios o r e v a l u a t e t h e conse-
q u e n c e s o f a l t e r n a t i v e p o l i c y decisions.

Negative [actors

In spite of t h e positive f a c t o r s discussed above, all has n o t b e e n s w e e t n e s s

and light w i t h this relatively n e w t e c h n i q u e . T h e r e are several negative fac-
t o r s t o c o n s i d e r as well.
(1) M a t h e m a t i c s is a language b y itself, and it is n o t easily t r a n s l a t e d f o r
t h o s e w h o are n o t " n a t i v e " to it. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , very little, if a n y , a t t e n t i o n
has b e e n given to t h e m e a n s b y which such a t r a n s l a t i o n p r o c e s s can be
achieved. T h e r e has b e e n a l m o s t negligible i n v e s t m e n t in t r a n s f o r m i n g m o d e l
results i n t o a c o m m o n e r a n d m o r e u n d e r s t a n d a b l e m e d i a of c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
in c o n t r a s t , h u n d r e d s o f millions have b e e n s p e n t on m o d e l d e v e l o p m e n t s .
(2) D a t a r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r m o d e l l i n g activities o f t e n appear to be f o r m i d a b l e ,
a n d certain t i m e s t h e r e is a t e n d e n c y to s i m p l i f y d a t a c o l l e c t i o n p r o g r a m s
w i t h o u t regard to the real need. In a c t u a l practice, r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r meaning-
[ul i n f o r m a t i o n m a y be less with the m o d e l l i n g a p p r o a c h . In fact, w i t h judici-
ous e f f o r t s , m o d e l s can be used to reduce wastes in c o l l e c t i o n , storage and
m a n a g e m e n t o f largely useless data.
(3) T h e r e is n o t a clear d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the role o f m o d e l as an instru-
m e n t o f r e s e a r c h , a t e a c h i n g t o o l a n d as an aid t o d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . T h e s e roles
are distinct a n d t h e r e exists a n e e d to c o r r e c t the p o p u l a r n o t i o n t h a t m o d e l s
are o n l y t h e p r o d u c t of a c a d e m i a , a n d as such ivory t o w e r exercises w i t h v e r y
little v a l i d i t y in the real w o r l d of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . T h e r e is n o t h i n g basically
w r o n g f o r a s y s t e m s a n a l y s t to live in an ivory t o w e r , p r o v i d e d it is n o t his o n l y
place o f residence.
(4) Certain t i m e s the user is given the e r r o n e o u s i m p r e s s i o n t h a t the m o d e l
d e v e l o p e d is his sole guide t o d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , r a t h e r t h a n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n a l ,
albeit i m p o r t a n t , s o u r c e o f insight to the p r o b l e m s .
(5) Models s o m e t i m e s b e c o m e a s u b s t i t u t e f o r h a r d t h i n k i n g . C o m p u t e r
p r i n t o u t s o f t e n p r o v i d e an unreal a u r a o f a c c u r a c y , a n d the results t h u s m a y be
44

a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t a n y challenge. Models are o n l y as g o o d as the a s s u m p t i o n s

a n d d a t a on w h i c h t h e y are based. T h e " g a r b a g e in, garbage o u t " c o n c e p t is
c e r t a i n l y v e r y valid for modelling. F r o m a d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g v i e w p o i n t , it is m o r e
desirable to have a p e r s o n w h o voices h e a l t h y s c e p t i c i s m a b o u t the results t h a n
a gullible one.
(6) T h e r e s e e m s to be s o m e r e s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n m o d e l s and m o t h e r h o o d
- - p e o p l e t e n d to c o n s i d e r b o t h desiralJle. M o d e l d e v e l o p e r s o f t e n f o r g e t to ask
the m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n d r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s -- " F o r w h a t ? " and " F o r w h o m ? "
- - until the m o d e l is a l m o s t c o m p l e t e d .
(7) Practical and successful cases o f m o d e l use have n o t b e e n well p r e s e n t e d ,
d o c u m e n t e d or publicized. In c o n t r a s t , the n o t o r i o u s failures are w e l l - k n o w n ,
a n d have received c o n s i d e r a b l e p u b l i c i t y to the d e t r i m e n t of m o d e l l i n g gener-
ally. M a n y of these failures are largely due to the aero-space and defense-
o r i e n t e d industries t h a t m o v e d into n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s m a n a g e m e n t area due to
c u t b a c k s in their o w n industries. T h e y c h a m p i o n e d m o d e l l i n g as the all-pur-
p o s e s o l u t i o n , and n o t surprisingly c o u l d n o t deliver the g o o d s p r o m i s e d due to
t h e i r failure to c o m p r e h e n d the s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c a l - e c o l o g i c a l c o m p l e x i t i e s and
u n c e r t a i n t i e s t h a t are i n h e r e n t in all r e s o u r c e and e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t
problems.

POSSIBLE REMEDIES

T h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n with regard to the use o f m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l l i n g f o r

d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g has b e e n discussed in the p r e v i o u s sections. I t clearly indicates
t h a t t h e r e is no solid r e a s o n w h y the m o d e l l i n g a p p r o a c h s h o u l d n o t be widely
used in e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t , and y e t , as s y s t e m s analysts a n d modellers,
we have d o n e a m i s e r a b l e j o b of m a k i n g o u r p o i n t w i t h t h o s e w h o w o u l d bene-
fit m o s t b y its use. If s y s t e m s analysis is to t a k e its p r o p e r place in decision-
m a k i n g , we have to m a k e a c o n c e r t e d a t t e m p t to i m p r o v e the c r e d i b i l i t y of the
t e c h n i q u e w i t h the users. We have to s h o w t h a t this m o d e of analysis n o t o n l y
has t r e m e n d o u s p o t e n t i a l for p r o b l e m solving b u t can a c t u a l l y be u s e d in the
p r e s e n t d a y and age to m a k e decisions r a t i o n a l l y and e f f e c t i v e l y . S u c h an at-
t e m p t w o u l d n o t require a r e v o l u t i o n or t r e m e n d o u s a m o u n t of resources, b u t
it w o u l d n e e d d e v e l o p m e n t of a new m e n t a l i t y a m o n g s t the p r o p o n e n t s of t h e
t e c h n i q u e - - a J o h n R o e b l i n g t y p e of m e n t a l i t y .
J o h n R o e b l i n g h a d a d r e a m , a great d r e a m , b u t its e f f e c t i v e c u l m i n a t i o n de-
p e n d e d on his ability to spin wire. He never gave up. He designed a n d built the
m a c h i n e s to spin wire, and successfully carried t h r o u g h the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the
B r o o k l y n Bridge t h r o u g h his son. fie died figuratively l o o k i n g o u t o f the win-
d o w of his h o m e in B r o o k l y n while his son was in the process of c o m p l e t i n g
the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the bridge. T h e p r o b l e m with m o d e l l i n g is t h a t we have
very f e w s y s t e m s a n a l y s t s w h o have the m e n t a l i t y a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of J o h n
R o e b l i n g , w h o are willing t o get t h e i r h a n d s a n d f e e t d i r t y so t h a t t h e t a s k
is c o m p l e t e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a n d usefully. As a result t h e r e has b e e n a prolifera-
tion o f u n v a l i d a t e d , u n t e s t e d a n d u n u s e f u l m o d e l s , m u c h o f w h i c h can be
 45

classified s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n d i l e t t a n t i s m a n d a c a d e m i c exercises.
T h e basic p r o b l e m t h a t has c r e a t e d this u n f o r t u n a t e s t a t e o f affairs is the
lack o f p r o p e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h o s e w h o build the m o d e l s and t h o s e
w h o use t h e m . T h e r e f o r e , high p r i o r i t y s h o u l d be given to i m m e d i a t e m e a n s of
i m p r o v i n g it. T h e r e are at least f o u r a t t r a c t i v e w a y s to i m p r o v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n
a n d the i m a g e of m o d e l l i n g in the e y e s (and m i n d s ) o f d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . T h e s e
are the following:

(1) Define concisely the decision-maher's p r o b l e m and his i n f o r m a t i o n require-

men ts. -- Modellers s h o u l d k n o w w h a t i n f o r m a t i o n is r e q u i r e d by e n v i r o n m e n -
tal and n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s m a n a g e r s , p o l i c y - m a k e r s and certain t e c h n o l o g i s t s at
each h i e r a r c h i c a l level o f the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process. T h e a m o u n t r e q u i r e d
and the f o r m of useful i n f o r m a t i o n varies with e a c h level, a n d we s h o u l d devise
the m e a n s to p r o v i d e o n l y t h a t r e q u i r e d and t h a t can be successfully assimi-
lated w i t h i n the t i m e f r a m e available for m a k i n g decisions.
It is suggested t h a t we s h o u l d initiate p r o g r a m s t o define this scaling o f in-
f o r m a t i o n with t h e level of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , starting with the highest level and
w o r k i n g d o w n w a r d . Such a p r o g r a m w o u l d require the c o o p e r a t i o n and the
p e r s o n a l a t t e n t i o n o f k e y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and the active ~.nvolvement of a f e w
k n o w l e d g e a b l e p r o p o n e n t s o f the art of m o d e l l i n g w h o can get to the h e a r t o f
the c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o b l e m . T h e j o b is n o t big, b u t it is c e r t a i n l y the m o s t
i m p o r t a n t one.
E q u a l l y n e c e s s a r y f o r the m o d e l l e r s is to k e e p a close w a t c h on t h e changes
in p e r c e p t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s of the p r o b l e m s or set
of p r o b l e m s being m o d e l l e d . M o d e l d e v e l o p m e n t s t a k e t i m e , a n d v e r y o f t e n it
t a k e s m o r e t h a n a y e a r f r o m the t i m e the decision to build a m o d e l is t a k e n to
the t i m e o f its c o m p l e t i o n . Since the real w o r l d is s e l d o m static, the w o r l d o f
the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r changes s o m e w h a t during the m o d e l d e v e l o p m e n t phase.
His p e r c e p t i o n of the p r o b l e m being m o d e l l e d , its p r i o r i t y in t e r m s o f o t h e r
p r o b l e m s t h a t have to be solved or o t h e r events t h a t are b e y o n d his c o n t r o l ,
c o u l d significantly a f f e c t the d i r e c t i o n o f the m o d e l l i n g process. T h u s , it is n o t
e n o u g h to decide on the objective of the m o d e l l i n g at the b e g i n n i n g o f the
process with the user: the m o d e l l e r m u s t k n o w the change in t h i n k i n g o f the
user or the chain of events t h a t c o u l d a f f e c t the d i r e c t i o n of m o d e l develop-
m e n t . Models, d e v e l o p e d in a v a c u u m , w o u l d s e l d o m be used.

(2) C o n d u c t "hands o n " w o r k s h o p s using simple but practical e x a m p l e s o f h o w

decision capability can be e n h a n c e d by considering a h o s t o f d i f f e r e n t alterna-
tives within the m o d e l l i n g process. -- T h e m a n a g e m e n t g a m i n g t e c h n i q u e w i t h
m a n - m a c h i n e i n t e r a c t i o n to illustrate the p o w e r a n d fallibilities o f m o d e l l i n g
is a g o o d w a y t o initiate the n o n - i n i t i a t e d . By c a r e f u l l y selecting a p r o b l e m t h a t
has r e l e v a n c e to t h e user a n d d i s p l a y i n g the results i m m e d i a t e l y on C R T dis-
plays, the subjective p r o w e s s of the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r - p l a y e r can be t e s t e d . M a n y
s i m p l e m o d e l s of ecological a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n s have b e e n designed,
or can be easily designed, f o r these t y p e s o f w o r k s h o p s w h e r e t h e p r i m a r y a i m
46

is e d u c a t i o n . This t y p e o f a p p r o a c h has already been tried in a few organiza-

tions, (including the a u t h o r ' s own), and the results so far have been quite
promising and stimulating.

(3) Illustrate s o m e real cases in straightforward and u n d e r s t a n d a b l e terms. --

T h r e e or f o u r case studies can be selected, addressed to p r o b l e m s t h a t are of
relevance t o the organization. These can be graphically illustrated, b y slides,
film strips or movies, to highlight the role of models in decision-making. T h e
e x a m p l e s m u s t be real, b u t need n o t be specifically identified, in the i n t e r e s t
of c o n v e y i n g the general r a t h e r t h a n the specific a p p r o a c h . S o m e e x a m p l e s in
the area of w a t e r resources m a n a g e m e n t c o u l d be: (a) screening alternative
strategies f o r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l in a river s y s t e m or an estuary; (b) d e t e r m i n i n g
the i m p a c t o f e f f l u e n t charges; (c) siting of a t h e r m a l or nuclear p o w e r p l a n t
on a large lake or river; (d) d e t e r m i n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l and ecological effects
due to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a large dam; (e) assessing ecological response to
n u t r i e n t removal; and (f) evaluating alternative strategies to c o n t a i n an oil spill.

(4) D e v e l o p i m p r o v e d m e t h o d s for displaying m o d e l results o f m o d e l applica-

tions. -- T h e capability c u r r e n t l y exists to p r o d u c e graphic displays, directly
f r o m the c o m p u t e r . An a n i m a t e d film s e q u e n c e o f a simulation o f an environ-
m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t p r o b l e m w o u l d go far t o w a r d bridging the c o m m u n i c a t i o n
gap. T o the best of the a u t h o r ' s k n o w l e d g e no such d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f results
is y e t available, or has y e t been a t t e m p t e d .
Consider the possibility of showing in a few minutes on the screen the in-
trusion o f salinity i n t o an e s t u a r y , the b l o o m i n g of algae in a lake, e f f e c t o f
pipeline on the migration p a t t e r n s o f wildlife, the r o u t i n g of a f l o o d t h r o u g h
a river system, or the spreading o f an oil spill f r o m a t a n k e r in the high sea.
Results c o u l d be m a d e available on video tapes p r o d u c e d f r o m c o m p u t e r out-
p u t or on film p r e p a r e d f r o m C R T displays or graphic plotters. Such media
for c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o u l d be e m p l o y e d directly in the process o f screening
alternatives b y technical p e r s o n n e l or in presenting alternatives ( a f t e r prelimi-
n a r y screening) to n o n - t e c h n i c a l decision-makers.
It is evident t h a t the d e v e l o p m e n t o f e c o n o m i c a l means t o " a n i m a t e "
m o d e l results is a must. Much of the k n o w l e d g e and t e c h n o l o g y is already
available; it o n l y needs to be assembled and d i r e c t e d t o the task. Costs t o pro-
d u c e a " p i l o t " to d e m o n s t r a t e the a p p r o a c h w o u l d be o n l y a f r a c t i o n of the
i n v e s t m e n t m a d e to develop models. One c o u l d even visualize t h a t the p r o d u c -
tion o f a " c o m p u t e r graphic p a c k a g e " c o u l d be a s t a n d a r d part o f m o d e l de-
v e l o p m e n t in the f u t u r e , like calibration or sensitivity analysis. A t m o d e s t
cost, we c o u l d t h e r e b y achieve m u c h i m p r o v e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g a m o n g all w h o
are still in d o u b t as to the practical f u t u r e o f m a t h e m a t i c a l modelling.
CONCLUSION
T h e w o r l d is b e c o m i n g increasingly m o r e c o m p l e x , and the m a j o r p r o b l e m s
o f resources m a n a g e m e n t are n o t o n l y b e c o m i n g m o r e c o m p l e x , b u t also in-
 47

creasingly m o r e intricate and i n t e r w o v e n . T h e r e f o r e , it is essential to utilize

all the t e c h n i q u e s t h a t are available so t h a t the a p p r o p r i a t e strategies and
viable alternatives can be d e t e r m i n e d , and the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f possible p o l i c y
decisions can be evaluated. T h e r e is no d o u b t t h a t s y s t e m s analysis can signif-
icantly aid the p o l i c y m a k e r s t o carry o u t their f u n c t i o n s better, b u t w h e t h e r
s y s t e m s analysis, in spite of its great promise, will actually be used f o r these
p u r p o s e s is a n o t h e r question.
F e w m o d e l s fail because technical expertise or state-of-the-art of c o m p u t e r
t e c h n o l o g y is i n a d e q u a t e or because t h e y are i m p r o p e r l y i m p l e m e n t e d f r o m a
technical v i e w p o i n t : t h e y fail m o r e because t o o m u c h c o n c e n t r a t i o n is placed
on the t e c h n i c a l issues, and n o t e n o u g h on the managerial ones. T h e r e is n o
d o u b t t h a t the p r e s e n t state-of-the-art o f m a t h e m a t i c a l m o d e l l i n g has a d v a n c e d
s u f f i c i e n t l y to be o f decisive use in p o l i c y planning and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
(Biswas, 1 9 7 4 b , 1 9 7 4 c ) . A d m i t t e d l y , some of o u r c u r r e n t m o d e l s in this field
are r a t h e r crude, and s o m e w h a t d e p e n d e n t on the e x p e r i e n c e and j u d g e m e n t
of the analysts, b u t in the final analysis, t h e issue is v e r y d e f i n i t e l y o n t h e
side o f h a v i n g a m o d e l , e v e n a c r u d e o n e , a g a i n s t h a v i n g n o m o d e l a t all.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

S o m e o f the ideas discussed here owe m u c h to m y discussions with Dr Gerald

T. Orlob, President, R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t Associates, L a f a y e t t e , California.
O p i n i o n s expressed are t h o s e o f m y o w n , and n o t necessarily t h o s e o f the U n i t e d
N a t i o n s E n v i r o n m e n t P r o g r a m m e , R o c k e f e l l e r F o u n d a t i o n or C a n a d a Depart-
m e n t o f the E n v i r o n m e n t .

REFERENCES
Biswas, A.K., 1971. Mathematical models and their use in water resources decision-making.
Proc. 14th Congr. Int. Assoc. Hydraul. Res. Paris, 5: 241--248.
Biswas, A.K., 1972. History of Hydrology. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam,
336 pp.
Biswas, A.K., 1974a. Mathematics and computers. In: A. Utton and D.H. Henning (Editors),
Interdisciplinary Environmental Approaches. Educational Media Press, Costa Mesa,
Calif., pp. 154--167.
Biswas, A.K., 1974b. Introduction. In: A.K. Biswas (Editor), Modelling of Water Resources
Systems. Harvest House Ltd, Montreal, Que., Vol. 1, p. VI.
Biswas, A.K., 1974c. Application of mathematical models to water resources planning. In:
J.A. Taylor (Editor), Climatic Resources and Economic Activity. David and Charles,
Newton Abbot, pp. 159--172.
Biswas, A.K., 1975. Systems approach to water management. Bull. Int. Comm. Irrig. Drain.,
New Delhi, January issue, pp. 12--19.
Biswas, A.K., Reynolds, P.J. and Pentland, R.L., 1974. Water quality modelling: state-of-the-
art. In: A.K. Biswas (Editor), Modelling of Water Resources Systems. Harvest House Ltd,
Montreal, Que., Vol. 2, pp. 427-442.
Churchman, C.W., 1961. Prediction and Optimal Decision. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 394 pp.
Drake, J.W., 1973. The Administration of Transportation Modelling Projects. D.C. Heath,
Lexington, Mass.
48

Frosch, R.A., 1971. The sin of simulation. In: D.D. Sworder (Editor), Systems and Simula-
tion in the Service of Society. Simulation Councils, Inc., La Jolla, Calif., pp. 7--10.
Grayson, C.J., 1973. Management science and business practice. Harv. Bus. Rev., July--
August issue, p. 41.
Hammond, J., 1974. The role of the manager and management scientist in successful im-
plementation. Sloan Manage. Rev., Winter Issue.
Little, J.D.C., 1970. Models and managers: The concept of a decision calculus. Manage.
Sci., 16(8): p. B-466.
McKinsey & Company, 1968. Unlocking the Computer's Potential. McKinsey & Co., Inc.,
New York, N.Y.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth.
Universe Books, New York, N.Y., 205 pp.

View publication stats