Posting Break...

Wow, this is the longest I have gone without posting anything since I started this blog. This creates a bit of a dilemma as I have been so busy doing so many cool things it is hard to go back and recap all the things.

So let's see... Since the last time I made a post I have:

• Finished one of my ag models (although there is always room for improvement)


• Kicked ass in my second course on System Dynamics


• Started as a TA for GenEd 111 - World Civilizations 1500 to the Present


• Completed a new draft of the dissertation/research funding proposal


• Got a new office in the Department of Community and Rural Sociology


• Won a Scholarship for Rural Community Development

And while I have been all over the place mentally about my research and professional
goals the last two months I feel as if things are all coming into place.

Anyway, there are a few things I will be posting soon, the first of which will probably be the ag model I developed over the winter break. The problem here is that it is so big I need to find a way to post it in a readable format. Maybe, I'll post an unintelligible picture and then just let people download the model and play with it, improve or whatever. Next, I will probably get my draft proposal up on here or at least a part of it. It is pretty big and not great for a blog but some of you might find it interesting to see how all my mental masturbation has paid off.

First Iteration - a system dynamics model of food vs. biomass

I have been doing a lot of research lately and as a result my blog has been relatively sparse on posts. However, this research has enabled me to develop a very crude model of the impact of biomass production for fuel on food yield within a finite space of land.

This model is by no means close to representing the various dimensions needed to make it worthwhile. However, this is my blog and I wanted to post what I'm working on at this moment.

Keep in mind this model does not account for:

• Demand on food due to growing population
• Demand on biofuel (biodiesel specifically)
• Energy requirements for planting and harvesting
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Carbon Taxes (as incentives for adopting biofuel)
• Rate of Land Degradation
• Price Fluctuations in Petrol Markets

Now, these aren't all of the parameters that will be added to the model, but they are some of the most important ones at this stage. The idea is to provide this general model that can be adapted to fit with various farming systems, ie mainstream industrial farming represented as a mono cropping system and alternative multi-cropping systems where there a number of various crops with differing values competing for resources. Each system present different management practices and therefore different energy consumption patterns.

Over the next few months this will represent a central theme on my blog as this is what I'm working on... imagine that!

Anyway, here is the current model structure (I will post the equations in another post but this is hopefully a useful visual):


Here is the output:

Interesting Report...

Emerging Challenges for Farming Systems: Lessons from Australian and Dutch agriculture

This report is an interesting little piece of work as it intersects in many ways with what I'm focusing on. Although the specific questions they are addressing are different, the methods and sentiment regarding complex non-linear systems is right on.

I think this will serve as a good foundation for arguing precedence in my area of work and in the application of systems thinking/computer simulation in the assessment of sustainable agricultural systems.

Conversations on Research

You may have not noticed but I have made some minor edits to the post on my "new research topic" These edits were the result of some feedback I got from a former professor and thesis advisor.

Here is the conversation, a response to my write-up:

My initial reaction is wow! I think the whole food issue is really important given all the underlying situations that affect it as you mention—environment, fuel costs, production, cultural barriers, conflict, etc. The food riots at the height of the oil price hike this year really went under reported masking a real problem…the failure of the Doha round also indicates large pressure on the area…my sense is that however important… in its present form in your paper, the topic is way too large for a dissertation…the choice of case countries also adds to the expanse.

I sense the choice of cases to be problematic as well…while I don’t know the terrain, the agricultural system in the US is patently different from that of India…so much so that perhaps it may render the comparative advantage moot. In looking at India on this issue, I would make sure you would have access to the data required prior to undertaking the research…I am sure you are also aware that Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze have written extensively (1989, 1990) on Food Security through examinations of famine in India…as a matter of fact, Dreze has moved on to a right to work program during fallow and famine times as a means to insure livelihood…the policy is now an India wide program…

Not to discourage you Justin, but to gently push to a narrower focus, with smaller cases J. You have to finish….

Note: I love the last comment! Yes, I have to finish and sooner than later!

Ok, so here was my LONG response:

Thanks for the response!

Your comments point out to me that there is still a need to better articulate the project so that others understand the actual scope of what I'm trying to do. To clarify, the project is not looking to model national food systems but rather the community interface to the food system, represented as a sub-system. So the primary scale of analysis is the community, anything beyond that is really outside the boundaries. Yet, this is not to say that this project is not overly ambitious. The issue as you say though is getting the data. Building a computer model is not really the hard part, it is getting the data to run the simulation experiments. Some of this data can be acquired through the FAO, State and National govs, NGOs and climate labs around the world. The difficulty is in calculating the fractions of community level inputs, through-puts and outputs related to the larger data sets that are out there.

This is where the case studies come in, to help fill in these gaps and provide ground level information on patterns of consumption and access as well as production and distribution, and how communities adapt to time of uncertainty, etc. The cases also are meant to provide a way to trace food habits and types of foods people use to gain their nutritional requirements back through the production chain. Some of those foods come from personal or community scale food production and some can from more "conventional" or industrial types of food production. The goal is to know what is that ratio between the two at the community level. Along with the ratio is the need to identify origin. The origin will help in calculating the carbon footprint related to distribution and processing. However, if the products are made in say the US and shipped to India and to this particular community (say Ranchi and surrounding areas), the US production system exists outside the scope of the case boundaries. The models will only deal with materials moving into the system, materials used and produced within and for the system, and materials leaving the system. Now, the models will reference resources existing outside the model boundaries and be brought in to the system as fractions of these larger resource pools, energy is just one example, capital inputs might be another. Note: it is not my intent to replicate the World3 model used in Limits to Growth, I may be crazy, but not crazy AND stupid....hahaha!

The reason for the comparison is to better understand how these food system configurations are different. While the differences between say India and the US are obvious to us, there are still efforts to apply uniform frameworks for food production. This scares me and I think that efforts to rationalize production and industrialize these systems as promoted by the World Bank and corporate backers from companies like ADM and Monsanto are potentially problematic, not just on environmental sustainability but on food equity. The rationalization model seems to promote corporate farming and a restructuring of labor. Localists argue that this will actually lead to less security as small-scale farmers will relinquish personal ownership over both their labor and the assets associated with being able to be self-reliant in favor of other forms of work that might put these people in a serious disadvantage considering the potential for further crisis in food prices. So I feel like I need to bludgeon people over the heads and remind them. Of course, maybe such a system could be perfected, but I'm not convinced.

Now, in relation to Dreze's program I would argue that the policy misses the structural problems of the system, it doesn't do anything to really address self-reliant food systems, nor environmental sustainability nor resilience of the system itself in times of hardship. Rather the focus is to offset the problems. I'm not trying to be critical of the work in the sense that I think it is wrong, but from the data that I do have on production systems, environmental decay and the regional climate indicators associated with global warming suggests that such problems will only worsen. This would further suggest that we need to be thinking about additional solutions. Some of the problems might be unavoidable and in those situations mitigation and adaptation is the best we can do, but in other situations the system itself is only exacerbating the problems.

Thanks Bro. Ed! You always have a way of getting me all amped up, thinking more deeply and pointing out the things I miss.

Shanti to Bro. Ed

Formally Announcing New Research Path - Food Security and Climate Change

It has been a while since I posted a blog entry, but I have a good reason. I have been off the Internet for a bit so that I could focus my attention on re-drafting my dissertation topic. I have hinted at this shift in some previous posts, but it is official. So Monday of next week I get the opportunity to defend the proposal, which I already suspect will get overwhelming approval.

I have decided to post a quasi-lengthy abstract about the proposal. Note: some of the specifics are likely to be amended based upon the feedback I get from this meeting, but the general focus will remain.


Achieving Community Level Food Security:
Constructing Equitable, Sustainable and Resilient Food-Systems in the Face of Global Climate Change
Revised Abstract 9/9/2008
Justin Smith


INTRODUCTION:
With continued uncertainty over the impacts of climate change, rising fuel prices and degradation of the natural resource base necessary for agricultural production, there is a remerging Malthusian fear regarding the world's ability to feed itself in the coming decades (Evans, 1998; Meadows, Randers & Meadows, 2004; FAO, 2006; Slater, Peskett, Lundi & Brown, 2006). The concerns are perhaps more relevant than ever before when one considers the continued inability of governments, international institutions, NGOs and private firms to adequately address the persistence of food insecurity in selected populations throughout the world. In fact, depending upon the source it is estimated that between 750 and 900 million are currently undernourished and when factoring the impacts of resource loss, climate change and population increases the numbers are expected to nearly double to 1,300 million by 2080 (Slater, Peskett, Lundi & Brown, 2006).

In response, a number of idealized solutions have emerged, sparking debate on how best to ensure the long-term sustainability of agricultural production systems while simultaneously reducing food insecurity among vulnerable populations. At one end of this debate are those who believe that the answer lies in “perfecting” the prevailing model of agricultural modernization that has been developed over the past 60 years. This conception of a modern agricultural system emphasizes industrialization and mass production of food commodities linked to global trading systems (Lyson, 2004, Pollan, 2006). At the other end is an alternative model of local food systems that emphasizes local production, distribution and consumption of foods produced in more sustainable production systems and that are integrated with an ideal of self-reliance (Curtis, 2003; Lyson, 2004; Morgan, Marsden & Murdoch, 2006; Connell, 2008). Within the context of these two idealized types lies a variety of strategies that represent a complex hybridization of these two competing conceptions. Many of the hybrid strategies have been proposed by international institutions such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. These strategies aim to support both trade and industrialization policies, yet with a principle focus on communities and self-reliance (FAO, 2006).

However, with the complexity of issues surrounding food security, such as increasing populations and the end of cheap oil, as well as the wide regional variations in climate, resource base and socio-political environments, it is unclear which configuration(s) will produce the kinds of stability and access needed by those most vulnerable to food insecurity. For example, can industrial based agri-food production systems eventually provide the means to achieve food security? What are the impacts of such systems on the environment and how do they feedback to either increase or decrease food production? Similarly, do local agri-food systems provide more sustainable means through which to achieve food security? Again, what are the environmental impacts and do such systems actually enable distribution of food to the most vulnerable? And finally, are hybrid systems better suited than either of the other food-system configurations to address the problems of environmental impact and food access in a world confronted by climate change? In an effort to fill in the gaps missed by past research, this investigation seeks to assess the capacity of different agricultural production strategies in meeting a basic (yet critical) three part criteria: 1.) Social equity by ensuring food-security for "ALL" segments of a population, 2.) Environmental sustainability by successfully reducing (if not eliminating) negative environmental impacts, and 3.) Resilience by successfully mitigating/adapting to environmental shocks associated with global climate change.

Linked to the questions put forth above, the research is guided by a set of assumptions that among all agri-food systems land, labor, water, energy (solar, biofuel, petrol, etc.) and capital are present. It is also assumed that the ways in which these assets are managed and interact other elements within the system (and elements outside the system) will produce varying patterns of dynamic behavior in relation to peoples access to nutritional requirements for healthy livelihoods, environmental sustainability, and resilience, or the time delays in food output associated with environmental shocks. Both the questions and assumptions will be assessed by examining two case studies scaled to focused on two individual communities, one in the US and the other in India (this is open based upon request from funders seeking to address similar questions). The case studies will allow for a comparative analysis into the capacity for shifts in food system configurations commensurate with the three overarching themes of the research. This comparative analysis is also meant to open up windows into the potential for differing policies contingent upon resources, climate, and social context. Differing configurations and impacts on both environment and food security might indicate a further need for locally based analysis regarding policies linked to food security rather than a reliance on broad frameworks meant to be applied uniformly across diverse regions and populations. An additional rationale for this approach is based upon a need to provide an empirically based conceptualization of different food-system configurations and the degree to which they address food security, as well as allowing for the identification of diversified and alternative solutions in achieving environmentally sustainable and resilient food systems specifically relevant to the communities of interest.

The inherent complexity in apprehending the role that agricultural production systems play in impacting the environment and in supporting food access among all sectors of a population suggests the need for a systems based approach, rather than breaking all of the pieces into discrete parts for separate analysis. To accomplish this task the empirical studies will serve as the basis for constructing a portfolio of interconnected system dynamics models that will focus upon the stocks and flows of production, distribution and consumption with a special emphasis upon the system feedbacks that exist between communities, the environment and food stocks.

System dynamics, as a methodology, is one approach to help in understanding the dynamic character of complex non-linear systems by emphasizing the feedbacks that lead to dynamic behavior (Coyle, 1977; Ford, 1999). The main components that make up these models are described as stocks and flows, where the stocks represent points of accumulation within the system, whereas the flows describe the movement of materials such as food, water, energy, CO2 and capital throughout the system. By breaking down the components of local food systems into these explicit parts it is possible to simulate the movement of resources into the system, track the flow of greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production, as well as other negative environmental inputs. The methodology also enables a way to understand the effects of shocks on food production and consumption that are critical to evaluating the stability and resilience of the system (Ford, 1999). Based upon this conception the use of system dynamics provides several opportunities that are critical to identifying the types of policies and practices leading to more sustainable and equitable food systems.

The identification of appropriate place-based policies through system dynamics is further supported by the ability to experiment with our assumptions by iterating through various simulations that can help track the effects of these policies on the system. For example, by reducing the flow of greenhouse gas emissions in the model in order to reach some environmentally sustainable standard, it is possible to simulate the effects of such a policy on food productivity and distribution. Such a cap on emissions might reduce food availability and increase costs for consumers (as well as producers). Such a consequence might adversely affect all income levels or only those with the least spending (or productive) power. The model could be further adapted to reflect increases in land use for food production to offset emissions caps and maintain similar food outputs. But would this reduce prices? What would the effects be on the environment if such a policy were implemented? Perhaps, a policy is to increase small-scale part time farming among the poorest. We can simulate to see if such a policy helps in offsetting potential external factors that might affect food consumption. This sort of iterative approach enables deeper understanding of the types of impacts that policies can have on the effectiveness of a system, and thereby in identifying the sort of food system configurations that best meet these criteria, as well as which configuration poses the weakest potential for success based upon the community context.

While computer simulation is one piece of the research it is important to note that there are limits to the quantification of certain aspects of social systems. Together, with the case studies and the computer models it is possible to strike a balance between the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of food security in relation to food production systems. By integrating these two approaches into a coherent ‘whole it is hoped that this research will provide a guide to help managers, governments and NGOs to use this research as a stepping off point for conducting similar place-based analysis for understanding the impacts (intended as well as unintended) of following specific policies related to food security in a world facing potentially dramatic environmental shifts.

Sources:
Connell, D., Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). ‘Farmers’ markets and the ‘good food’ value chain: a preliminary study, Local Environment, 13:3 169-185.

Curtis, F. (2003). Eco-localism and sustainability. Ecological Economics, Vol. 46, pp. 83-102.

Evans, L.T. (1998). Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

FAO. (2006). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Eradicating world hunger – taking stock ten years after the World Food Summit. Accessed on 6/20/2008 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.HTM

Ford, A. (1999). Modeling the Environment: An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems. Island Press; Washington, DC.

Lyson, T. (2004). Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. Tufts University Press, Medford, MA.

Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT.

Morgan, K., Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (2006). Worlds of Food: Place, Power and Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: a natural history of four meals. Penguin Press, New York, NY.

Slater, R., Peskett, L., Ludi, E., & Brown, D. (2006). Climate change, agricultural policy and poverty – how much do we know? Overseas Development Institute. Accessed on 6/25/2008 at www.odi.org.uk/publications/nrp/109-climate-change-agricultural-policy-poverty-reduction.pdf

Randomness: Politcs, GPSI and MetisSD

I'm back from vacation and I have had a lot of time to think about a whole host of issues. It has also been a while since I have posted and a lot has gone on. Russia invaded Georgia, Russia threatens Poland with Nukes due to signing the missle defense system with the US, Obama is now a rock star with no real leadership experience, blah blah...

Oh and according to some, Obama and Polosi are going to cause the annihilation of our country. Out right laughable since the single greatest threat does not come from outside the US, but from within and that threat is the economy of mass consumption that persistently tells the country that we must consume in order to be viable, but forget our consumption has raped the Earth and that climate change threatens the very survival of humanity as a whole; that includes any notion of the nation-state we call the United States of America.

But anyway, enough of that! The GPSI site was approved and the site users are beginning to add content. As soon as I get the thumbs up that the site is ready for the public from the perspective that the content is ready I will go ahead and repost the link.

Along side getting this site completed I have been working on a new project directly related to the food systems research. The project has been tentatively named MetisSD which is a web based system dynamics application that provides a causal loop diagram application, an equation builder for stocks and flows as well as an interface to pattern languages that are intended to support the testing of various policy interventions or more specifically, the application of patterns to address the forces that emerge within the systems being modeled.

Right now, the main thing I have been working on is the construction of a database and the equation builder interface. From those two pieces all else follows. As soon as I have some I will post some screen shots of the interface that I'm working on as well.

The other thing I have been working on is the development of a mental model that will serve as the foundation for the numerical or SD model. This part is proving to be much more complex and the range of variables and dimensions tells of the huge undertaking that this project is shaping up to be, but then again it is sorely needed. I will be posting some ideas on this mental model in the next couple of weeks after a few more meetings with some colleagues on the topic but we are making progress.

Ignoring the Debate to Generate Real Solutions!

For the context of this post see: Metamorphosis!

In doing an evaluation of the literature on food security and food systems I’m wondering if the actual focus of the questions being asked should be local vs. global, or alternative vs. mainstream. It would appear to me that such reification could seriously constrain the research. And while I’m not going to fault those who have taken this stance in the past, but there is so much overlap that by creating such a dichotomy between these paradigms one runs the risk of presenting an oversimplification. Now, I do agree that there are clear differences, but is this research really about the debate between the mainstream industrial system versus local eco based food system(s) or is it about optimal solutions to support food access, sustainability and stability? I mean, what are we after here?

The real goal is to address food insecurity, and simultaneously identify patterns of sustainable and resilient food systems in the wake of climate change. This means our food systems need to be environmentally sustainable in the sense that they lessen the negative environmental impacts of agricultural production, processing, distribution and consumption. This includes reducing the carbon waste that is generated and pumped into the atmosphere, this means addressing the usage of and over-dependence upon inorganic fertilizers and pesticides that contaminate water ways and strip soils of essential nutrients. This also means addressing the global reach of food distribution and fossil fuels used to ship these products world-wide as well as the energy consumption and creation of waste products associated with the processing and subsequent consumption of these food goods. With these issues in mind it is hoped that we as a society can drastically cut these impacts and thereby minimize the potential for catastrophic climate change.

However, most scientists are in agreement that climate change is upon us and that the damage has been done. Right now, our job is to avert an all out biotic collapse. So if we are constructing food systems to minimize the effects of food production (etc) on our climate, then we will also need to understand how these methods fair when confronted with the types of climatic shifts that most are warning us of. With the types of shifts expected our way in the next 50 to 100 years, it is necessary for us to assess whether the types of solutions we decide to implement within the food systems of the world will be able to withstand the shock of regional adverse weather, soil degradation, rising sea levels and subsequent massive population migrations away from coastal cities. According to most scientists the effects of climate change will be more severe depending upon the region, which would suggest that regional variations in the configuration of food systems would be most appropriate. This means certain regions will be more dependent upon global imports of food and it might be necessary for these regions to begin identifying alternative means for generating the type of capital needed to feed themselves in a volatile world.

Yet, coupled with these issues is the persistent need to maintain our work to eradicate food insecurity and chronic hunger. Forget climate change for a second, we still have nearly 2 billion people who are food insecure at any given time throughout the year and according to the Food and Agricultural Organization we have roughly 10 million people dying annually from hunger. That kind of death toll is more than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined! So we have a tripartite problem to address. One, we need to minimize the carbon leak (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere, our practice of food production need to become more ecologically aware, meaning we need a global adoption of agro-ecological principles for food production. Second, we need to construct systems that include practices, trade and networks that support adaptive and flexible systems that can withstand shocks and disturbances brought on by climate shifts (which are already happening). And third, we need a system that is configured in such a way that it provides a level of food equity that ensures that ALL people have their nutritional needs met, in a healthy and just way. This doesn’t mean tons of canned vegetable that processed with massive amounts of sodium and calcium chloride for preservatives, or access to a McDonalds on every street corner, but rather healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate foods.

Now the hypothesis is that a mixture of global and local food system configurations is going to be needed to address these issues in the future, but with an emphasis upon the local eco based system. But what is that ratio for say the Sahel or the Negev, meaning what percentage of food consumption could take place within the region of origin compared to the percentage of food imported from around the world and still minimize the greenhouse gases, ensure food access for all and provide a stable and resilient food system?

To accomplish this task and fully engage this question I still think it will be appropriate to include the discussion on mainstream versus alternative, but this discussion is more of a means to provide a basis for understanding the impacts of climate change on food security, or the environmental impacts of food production (eg the climate) and each opposing side could be assessed in relation to either one’s ability to provide healthy access to food. This would suggest the need to generate two generic models indicative of each of these two paradigms followed by place-based models that allow for mix-up of these different paradigms in order to identify the optimal configuration for each region in the study.

Metamorphosis!

The past month has been a flurry of activity, revaluation of my research interests in light of stumbling across some new insights, and well honestly I have been undergoing a dramatic cognitive shift for the past year.

While most of my preliminary ideas have focused on issues such as biofuels adoption or water resource allocation linked with participatory practices using patterns and pattern langauges, things have shifted. In some ways DIAC-08 was the final straw pushing me over the edge. This shift in thinking resulted in a rapid redrafting of my PhD topic, a meeting with my committee chair, further refinement and now a newly approved research program.

The new (current) title of the research is:
Reconfiguring the World’s Agri-Food Systems – Food Security and Poverty Reduction in an Era of Climate Change?

The overarching research question(s) driving this work is:
Can a reconfiguration away from the mainstream agri-food system, towards alternative localized food-system(s) increase food security while also promoting poverty reduction and environmental restoration in the face of global climate change? Similarly, by promoting such a shift can an alternative food-system provide insulation from price volatility associated with shifts in production due to climate and conversion of food crops to biofuels?

To answer this question I'm tentatively planning on three case-studies that include a system dynamics approach to material flows modeling and policy analysis. Linked with the analysis phase is the construction of systems based policies to increase the resilience of local alternative food-systems. These policies will be fashioned in structure after patterns (see previous post: Patterns as Policies, and Pattern Languages as Policy Frameworks? ).

Together with quantitative dimensions provided by the system dynamics models and the elements within specific "patterns as policies" it is suggested that a deeper understanding and thereby opportunity for successful interventions for reconfiguring our food systems will be more likely to achieve the benefits cited with local small-scale agriculture with regards to community economic development, reduction of environmental impact from agricultural production, poverty reduction and thereby support food security.

For those interested here is a link to the evolving research overview. However as you might notice this title is different than the one provided in this blog entry. This just means that I'm revising and clarifying the specifics of the research. Once this is complete I will restart the process of identifying case study locations.

Preparing for DIAC - 08

DIAC -08 is coming up quick and I'm working to get all of my things in order for the trip and the two presentations I'm putting together for the conference. Currently I have two papers accepted, one research paper and one exploratory paper. So I'm scrambling to get everything set.

I have uploaded my papers for public view and hopefully we can increase the visibility of the conference. With that in mind, if you are in Berkeley June 26-29 check out the Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing.

Ok, without further ado, here are the papers:
Research Paper - “Liberating Voices” in South Asia: Case Study of Networked Resistance in Jharkhand

ABSTRACT:
In 2006, a study was conducted to analyze the relevance of Liberating Voices, a project emphasizing the use of pattern languages as a method of supporting ‘civic communication.’ The study sought to evaluate whether effective networks exhibit the elements defined within the Liberating Voices database, which claims to have amassed a number of archetypical patterns for effective communication and political transformation. The results of this study revealed that while the Liberating Voices project is not yet complete, various pattern configurations can be observed among effective instances of networked advocacy. This points to both legitimacy of the pattern language while opening up opportunities to further study these patterns as approaches to capacity building for ineffective networks struggling to influence political discourse at local and global spheres of policy making.

Exploratory Paper - Patterns, Process and Systems-Thinking: Putting Social Pattern Languages to Work

ABSTRACT
Following a 2006 study aimed at evaluating the validity of pattern languages within the context of civic communication and social change, a number of insights emerged connected to the field of system dynamics and the practice of process monitoring. The study revealed that both system dynamics and process monitoring provide a number of opportunities for further grounding pattern thinking, as well as in supporting adaptive approaches to pattern based capacity building among community networks. Based upon these initial findings it would appear that further investigation is necessary to better understand how patterns, systems and process can be integrated for ever more effective planning and capacity building among civil society, community networks and social change advocates.

More Questions, Less Answers!

Theoretical Questions:
Can the integration of systems-thinking, pattern languages and process monitoring as iterative approaches to sustainability lead to more effective development planning, implementation and outcomes?

Evidence has shown that each approach can contribute to effective policy construction and useful outcomes aimed at supporting sustainability.

However, each approach is inherently complex, often times requiring and generating masses of information needed to properly understand socio-environmental issues and corresponding solutions. This data is often presented in the form of GIS, System Dynamics Models, Influence Diagrams, Case Study Reports, Patterns as "Best Practices" and Transcripts of Actor Interactions, just to name few.

Considering the complexity of these models and the reliance on iterative processes of problem definitions, solution construction, feedback and adaptation, the research seeks to answer a parallel question; can ICTs structured to incorporate these models effectively enable better practice, information retention, community memory and overall facilitate in the application of collaborative use of these models?

Rationale:
No explicit integration of these models has been attempted despite their relevance to each other. Similarly, little effort has been pursued to enable these practices within collaborative spaces online (except for perhaps process monitoring).

Personal Brainstorming Session

About two nights ago I got a wild hair and walked to the office late at night and began going at it on the white-board. During this process I clarified several things.

1.) Defined an assumption about ICT's need to reflect community praxis, rather than ICT redefining praxis in haphazard ways.

2.) Articulated the components that make up the theory and practice of the work I'm focusing on.

3.) Wrote out a preliminary model for the architecture of the system I'm working on to support this work.

The images below reflect the evening's work.








This summer, is going to be devoted to building the base application, along with coordinating with potential case-study participants. Busy times...

The process of visualizing complex environments

In order to make patterns an effective approach to any community empowerment project it is necessary that planners, community members and other stakeholders understand the social, political, economic and environmental context in which they are working within. This perhaps the case in any situation regardless of whether patterns are the model you use or not. Questions must obviously arise to help understand power relations within the system, as well as the nature of information and communicative influences among actors within the system. Likewise it is necessary to evaluate the influence of resources, such as money, access to technology, levels of social capital.

The list below shows areas where project planners, social analysts and community members might want to consider in the construction of a visual model that represents the current context and forces associated within a community system. Though it is not exhaustive it does represent some important considerations.


Trust
Cooperation
Natural and Human Resources
Information – Production and Consumption
Health of Environment (Ecology)
Economic Capacity


Education – Literacy
Political Influence
Social Capital – Affiliations
Health
Technology


Along with this list it is also perhaps necessary to define the nature of these influences by structuring this model to include different levels of analysis.

• Global-Level Forces, e.g. influence of FDI, multinational corporations (MNCs), International Norms and Treaties, influence from adversarial or cooperative nation-states, transnational advocacy networks (TANs)
  


• 
  State-Level Forces, e.g. nature of governance (political opportunity structure), presence of corruption, oppositional policies, media propaganda, elites,
  


• 
  Community Level Forces, e.g. community divisions, resources, education, cooperation vs. fragmentation, gender relations, effectiveness of leaders (see list above)
  

Once a list has been generated among participants, the next task is to begin understanding how each of these elements link to each other to construct the context. There are several ways in which this can be done. For instance, Joanne Tippett from the University of Manchester uses a modified version of mind-mapping to elicit insights into the contextual nature of a community system (yet with an emphasis on design). Others use concept mapping or interaction diagrams borrowed from the UML, popular among software developers.

However, it is felt that simple influence diagrams can be much more revealing in showing multiple interactions across multiple dimensions. One can define the elements in the system, how they influence one another, as well as define the boundaries of the system. Users can also identify elements from outside the defined system, which can be useful in understanding the potential effects of second or third-order influences on a system. An example of one these influences might be the role of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, for framing grievances against state abuses of a particular population.

(Source: UK Open Systems Society)
Yet, despite the potentials, influence diagrams lack the visual appeal of mind-maps. Though it is unclear whether this is a problem, it is possible that developers could extend the influence diagram model to include pictures or other images in order to pull these diagrams out of the antiseptic feel they currently possess. Nevertheless, these models do provide a tidy methodology and visualization approach that can be useful in understanding complex social environments and thereby perhaps useful in the construction of pattern languages as responses to these environments.

While this has yet to be tested with patterns as central to the overall process, the use of influence diagrams have been relied upon heavily in the application of qualitative system dynamics and therefore have a history of success. The question then becomes, can we use influence diagrams in configuring pattern languages and can these models be useful in non-expert contexts where multiple stakeholders with varying levels of literacy can in fact make sense and use of these tools.

This of course requires further investigation

Exploratory Paper - Patterns, Process and Systems-Thinking: Putting Social Pattern Languages to Work

ABSTRACT
Following a 2006 study aimed at evaluating the validity of pattern languages within the context of civic communication and social change, a number of insights emerged connected to the field of system dynamics and the practice of process monitoring. The study revealed that both system dynamics and process monitoring provide a number of opportunities for further grounding pattern thinking, as well as in supporting adaptive approaches to pattern based capacity building among community networks. Based upon these initial findings it would appear that further investigation is necessary to better understand how patterns, systems and process can be integrated for ever more effective planning and capacity building among civil society, community networks and social change advocates.

KEYWORDS: Pattern Languages, System Dynamics, Process Monitoring, Community Networks

Patterns and Systems
In 2006 a study of the Liberating Voices project was carried out, which aimed at evaluating the validity of pattern languages within the context of civic communication and social change. Following from Christopher Alexander’s conception of design patterns (1977; 1979), the L.V. project has been an attempt to utilize Alexander’s model for constructing effective civic communicative systems (Schuler, 2002). And just as Alexander envisioned multiple applications for designing buildings and towns, the Liberating Voices project perceives patterns as useful constructs for community empowerment, as well as supportive for an overall re-conceptualization of the ways in which communities and a networked civil society think and engage in social change (Schuler, 2001; Smith, 2007). The study, reiterated past research on advocacy networks, showing that these networks possess a very real potential for influencing social policies within local, as well as in global contexts. Similarly, the study also showed that these successes are often mitigated by any number of internal and external forces that can be difficult to perceive and address (Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Rodrigues, 2004; Smith, 2007). This of course has led to some serious problems in the capacity of networks to achieve intended outcomes, and points to the need to perceive the shifting socio-political landscape these networks function within (Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Rodrigues, 2003).

With the dynamic nature of social landscapes in mind, the L.V. patterns represent yet another approach to the ways networks can construct dynamic solutions to the internal and external forces that act as blockages to success. However, before such pattern configurations can occur, it is often appropriate to understand the interaction among forces within a system a group is working within. Based upon this need for effective models to perceive complex environments it is suggested that the use of system dynamics represents a useful addition to the process of perceiving dynamic environments common among shifting social landscapes. In fact, there are numerous parallels between the literature of system dynamics and pattern languages. For instance, though Alexander emphasized the use of patterns as elements of design (1979), the structure of patterns and its parallels to system archetypes found within the literature of system dynamics (Senge, 1990) suggests the opportunity to use patterns as a structured model connected to the methodologies within systems thinking in order to better understand a social environment along with the various forces influencing a system.

Similarly, critical systems theory proposes an alternative to traditional social planning. Rather than reducing problems into manageable pieces seeking solutions to each, and thereby solving the problem piece-by-piece to address larger issues, systems designers argue that getting rid of the pieces does not necessarily produce what is desired (Banathy, 2000). In sharp contrast with this traditional model, systems thinking proposes that people seek to understand the problem situation as a system of interconnected, interdependent and interacting problems, and therefore construct a response as a system of interconnected, interdependent, and interacting solutions (ibid, 2000). This is not unlike the conceptions of use for patterns put forth by Alexander in describing the process of constructing ‘living buildings and towns’ (1977).

Further more, both Jay W. Forrester (noted as the father of system dynamics) and Christopher Alexander (the father of pattern languages) place a great deal of emphasis upon the ideal of structure. For Alexander, the pattern language possesses a structure that enables good design across multiple dimensions of abstraction, from high-level patterns to more specific patterns. The idea behind this structure is the ability to more readily share knowledge within the domain of architecture and environmental planning. Tignor (2001) also recognizes the linkage between system dynamics and pattern languages through the common emphasis on structure. For example, he highlights several points made by Forrester, where Forrester argues that, “without an organizing structure, knowledge is a mere collection of observations, practices and conflicting incidents” (Forrester, 1990). At the core of the pattern language Alexander and his colleagues attempt to produce a structured collection of knowledge pieces moving along a hierarchical path. For instance, the beginning patterns in A Pattern Language (1977) start out as large elements such as The Distribution of Towns (2). Now as one moves down through the hierarchy, patterns such as Pedestrian Street (100) and Columns at the Corners (212) appear. By integrating both fields it is thought that each paradigm can be enhanced, and together provide an effective extension into the domain of analysis and action for enabling civic communication, networked advocacy and ameliorative social change in general.

This idea of an inherent linkage between both fields was advanced within the study of an advocacy network in South Asia, where the information obtained was visually configured in order to represent the interactions and influences between forces effecting a community and subsequent network. These visual representations closely followed the model and method for qualitative systems modeling presented by influence diagrams, which are popular among scholars working in qualitative system dynamics (Coyle, 1999; See Appendix). Through this modeling process and the linking of central elements present within a particular socio-political context, a conceptual window emerged into the shortcomings, highlighting areas where the network could strengthen its capacity to engage, as well as where specific patterns might be effectively applied (Kummer & Schlange, 1997; Smith, 2000; Smith, 2007). Overall, this processes of highlighting relationships enabled a clearer understanding of how the issues within the case were interdependent, thus creating a complex and difficult environment for political representation, responsive governance and empowering vs. debilitating social policies.

However, this study was not specifically focused on the integration of system dynamics and pattern languages, and therefore necessitates further more focused engagement in order to further understand the potential implications and opportunities afforded by such a marriage. For instance, linked to the process of modeling community context, there is a need to focus on similar approaches to visually representing patterns and the ways in which they are configured to solve specific community problems. In keeping with the spirit of L.V. it would be interesting to see collaborative modeling applications connected to pattern language configuration become a part of the project’s application suite. Together with conducting a more extensive literature review to better perceive where both strains of thought might intersect, providing a collaborative application to model influences of forces and patterns could support further empirical examples of the potential possibilities associated with linking system dynamics and pattern languages.

Patterns, Systems and Process
Along with the ability of system dynamics to support processes of modeling complex social environments, the practice of process monitoring provides yet another layer to pattern application that enables feedback from peoples experiences to be used to adapt these models over time as networked interventions affect these systems. Recalling the adaptive nature of social systems that can produce any number of outcomes based upon these internal and external problems requires a way in which groups can respond rapidly to feedback that is distributed through information channels maintained by members of these networks. Similarly, the L.V. pattern language is attempting to serve as a transformative construct within a dynamic and inherently transformative and responsive social system that necessitates an ongoing process of evaluation and adaptation to meet the changing context as the social dynamics of power, resources and thinking shift (Smith, 2007).

As a result, pattern development and approaches to systems-thinking in general could be strengthened through an adoption of process monitoring as an iterative, structured and multi-source exercise for gauging and increasing the effectiveness of a pattern language. This might be an important piece in furthering the power of qualitative system dynamics, as well as in pattern language usage. This process could also provide a useful mechanism for enabling the development of adaptive pattern constructs designed to fit these transformative social realities. The features of the process monitoring methodology include an open communicative processes aimed at supporting participatory evaluations and enable collaborative responses based upon the related characteristics between the patterns and the actual problems or responses identified by the group. Together with providing methods for evaluation and consistent interaction for further refinement these constructs could be made more applicable in the context of structured organizational ventures that seek to address a range of socio-political and economic issues.

Though process monitoring has been primarily applied within businesses and more recently within the development field, the idea of providing timely feedback to enable group adaptation fits appropriately with the continued constructing and refinement of relevant patterns and pattern languages. Fortunately, there are a range of methods associated with process monitoring that emphasizes participatory and collaborative methods (similar to what is found within the pattern language) such as field reports, diaries, online reflection among participants, blogs, open-flows for research development and feedback, as well as continuous practices of information development and distribution among community members, stakeholders and facilitators (Mosse, 2001; Schuler, 2007). All of these methods could prove critical to maintaining open and responsive channels of communication.

The orientation towards ongoing exchanges of information feedback refer back to some of the initial assertions of the Liberating Voices project that already recognizes the relevance in developing newer, yet more appropriate and inclusive information systems. In this case these technologies could be designed specifically for channeling feedback, and for coordinating rapid responses by groups working on the ground, or those working directly with the policy makers. In this sense, we might not only use patterns for systems based design and analysis, but the L.V. application itself could be infused with a fundamental orientation towards an open dynamic system itself. This could include a versioning system connected to real world case studies presented on the application of particular patterns or sets of patterns.

While these sorts of systems exist within the business world, their adoption and development within the context of civil society and for communities in general are still needed. Certainly, community portals such as IndyMedia and OneWorld.net provide an outlet for some of these needs; however, problems of access, knowledge of technology and the inability of tightly linked organizations to monitor their internal communications within these online systems means that there is still room for more specific or so-called appropriate technologies and programs aimed at individual groups and their associated networks.

Likewise, in acknowledging issues surrounding lack of access to these communicative systems as well as the technological capacity to harness peoples potential, parallel programs must be pursued to successfully develop and enable the types of rapid feedback proposed by a process monitoring exercise. Through coordinated efforts to build relationships with appropriate local facilitators, as well as through links to larger networks and structures, issues of access could be mitigated. Similarly, by addressing technological and organizational know-how these networks can encourage the building of mutual capabilities. The point is inclusion and responsiveness among the groups and individuals seeking to transform non-responsive systems of political and economic power, and a hope that as many people as possible could be active participants in defining the social change they seek, whether that be political, economic, cultural or all of the above.

L.V. participants, potential pattern users and current civic networks have an opportunity to further their efforts through the application of systems approaches to planning, implementation and monitoring of the work they do. As a result, the merging of these fields to support better responses to complex systems possess a potential value yet to be realized, except through further research and real-world application.

References:
Alexander, C. (1979). A Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. A. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. (also see: http://www.patternlanguage.com)

Banathy, B. (2001). “The Evolution of Systems Inquiry.” In The Primer Project. International Society for the Systems Science. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.isss.org/primer/003evsys.htm

Coyle, G. (1999). Qualitative Modeling in System Dynamics or What are the wise limits of quantification? Keynote Address to the Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Wellington, New Zealand.

Forrester, J.W. (1990). Principles of Systems. Productivity Press; Portland, OR.

Keck, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. Pp. 1-37.

Kummer, S. & Schlange, L. (1997). Strengthening the Bridge between Qualitative and Quantitative Modeling: Contributions to the toolbox for analyzing qualitative models. Presented at the System Dynamics Conference. Accessed at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/1997/paper039.htm.

Mosse, D., Farrington, J. & Rew, A. (2001). Development as Process: Concepts and methods for working with complexity. Indian Research Press. New Delhi, India. P. 3-27.

Schuler, D. (2001). “Cultivating Society’s Civic Intelligence: Patterns for a New ‘World Brain’”. In Information, Communication and Society. Routledge Press. London, UK. 4:2, p. 157-181.

_____. (2002). A Pattern Language for Living Communication: Global Participatory Project. Presented at the Participatory Design Conference; Malmo Sweden. CPSR. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.scn.org/sphere/patterns/pdc-02.html.

Senge, P. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday; New York, NY.

Smith, J. (2007). Patterns, Systems and Advocacy Networks: Heuristics for Civic Empowerment in Jharkhand. Masters Thesis, St. Mary’s Press; San Antonio, TX

Smith, N. (2000). Introducing Formal Qualitative Reasoning Techniques to System Dynamics Modeling and Analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), pp. 839-848.

Tignor, W.W. (2001). Design Pattern Languages and System Dynamics Components. Accessed at: www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2001/papers/Tignor_1.pdf

DIAC-08 Abstract (Revised to fit with evolving research interests)

“Liberating Voices” in South Asia: Patterns as a Systems Approach to Analysis and Action

ABSTRACT:
Since its inception in 2001 the Liberating Voices project has been built upon a global effort drawing upon a wealth of experience and research among various scholars, activists technologists and students; the purpose, to help co-construct a pattern language for civic communication. The result has been an ever-evolving repository of several hundred patterns spanning numerous disciplines from environmental sustainability and economic development, to community networks and political advocacy, and of course, the design, deployment and assessment of community centered ICTs.

In 2006 a research project was conducted at St. Mary’s University in conjunction with the Indian Social Institute (New Delhi) to analyze the relevance of these patterns as related to network-centric advocacy. The results of this study revealed three interesting insights regarding patterns and the Liberating Voices project in particular: 1.) Patterns and pattern languages represent a useful model for applying qualitative system dynamics to multi-level problem identification and solution mapping; 2.) While the Liberating Voices project is not yet complete various pattern configurations as sub-sets of the pattern language can be observed among effective instances of networked advocacy, both at the local as well as global levels. Thus, pointing to the relevance of the knowledge contained within the online system; 3.) Despite the promise and openness of the Liberating Voices project and its central software component, there are a number of shortcomings that must be addressed in order to help users engage in both evaluation and pattern configuration for their work in the field.

KEYWORDS:
Pattern Languages, Advocacy Networks, Community Information Systems, Qualitative System Dynamics

Pattern Languages and System Dynamics

Yes! I have found what I was looking for. I just stumbled across a number of articles discussing the intersection between quantitative systems modeling and the use of patterns and pattern languages.

Here are two articles I came across that seem very interesting and relevant to my work.

"Design Pattern Language and System Dynamics Components"


"Towards a Network Pattern Language for Complex Systems"

A little redundant, but what the hell...

Pursuing this path to integrate systems thinking and patterns I have been thinking about combining the basic principles of both. First, I was considering the utility of system dynamics modeling as the quantitative process for investigating social and environmental processes connected with emergent energy production.

Some of these energy alternatives or supplements could be biodiesel and ethanol produced from agricultural goods or from forest products. Another thought I had was the use of waste materials such as trash compressed in land-fills to produce methane for use in natural gas based combustion engines. The idea of systems modeling could provide an easy way to numerically understand the nature of "flows" into and out of the "stocks" of an energy system, as well as the potential effects upon the environmental systems that these fuels are supposed to protect.

However, modeling these flows in and out of the system is only a part of the equation when we are dealing with energy production and consumption, especially when we consider the effects of an emergent agro-based energy economy. Once we enter into issues of social empowerment, equity and community-defined approaches to development the systems modeling approach is weakened as it fails to account for the numerous variables that are hard to quantify within a system. In these situations we must move to another approach that can help us understand the other variables within the system.

It is my feeling that patterns as an approach to analyzing the qualitative elements of a system are to be the most useful in providing managers, community development officers and socially oriented NGOs with another set of effective tools necessary in decision making, advocacy and policy development. First of all, patterns present a model for looking at the central elements effecting a system. This I have termed the “problem space” this problem space helps us to understand and visualize the various interactions between forces within a system that effect communities abilities to promote or pursue their development programs and policies. These forces can be described as myriad of elements, but some common forces that undermine development have to do with structural hindrances within the political system, problems with education and literacy levels, access to resources such as technologies, low-levels of social capital or minimal accumulation of durable assets. While some of these can be quantified the purpose of understanding the interactions between forces does not necessitate a quantifiable model, instead we want to know the factors that generate the problem space.


Secondly, as patterns (that represent “ideal practices”) grow, the number of solutions to address various forces increases giving communities the ability to more effectively respond to these complex set of interacting forces. While these patterns are often abstracted ideas they do in many cases provide practical solutions to a number of the entrenched issues that commonly effect people and the communities they live within.

For instance, if one takes a look at the list of patterns cited below, you can see the basic problems, context or forces and the description of the solution to address the problem.

Citizen Science

Community Currencies

Grassroots Public Policy Development

Conversational Support Across Boundaries

Public Agenda

Appropriating Technology

Appreciative Collaboration

Labor Visions

This can provide a model for envisioning not only the use of an abstracted pattern, but communities can also co-construct the actual implementation of a pattern to address the specific environmental and social context that they face.

Together, systems modeling helps us understand the possible effects of certain policies upon the economic and environmental systems (again these are the elements we can easily quantify), whereas the pattern modeling approach helps us fill in the gaps that must address the social dimensions of pursuing and implementing such policies.

It is also possible that patterns could be devised regarding environmental mechanisms, as well, and these could be further analyzed through the systems modeling process.

A good reference for systems modeling is provided here (Check this book out!): Modeling the Environment: An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems.

Note: I will be posting the basic method of defining a problem space and the development of a corresponding solution or pattern map as a response to the problem space. I hope that this rather simple process can help readers cut through some of the language that can be difficult to muddle through as people try to understand the elements of systems thinking and how it can be applied to problem solving at the community level. This will also help people see the basic model developed in my thesis, without having to read the thesis…

Patterns (Ideal Types), Systems Archetypes (The Anti-Patterns) and Causal Loop Diagrams

In looking at operationalizing my thesis work, and in order to further develop pattern thinking as an evaluative framework for community empowerment, I have been doing some reading on System Dynamics again. In my readings I came across the notion of System Archetypes. These archetypes are interesting as they correlate in a way to the idea of forces or context that are reoccurring or that effect a broad range of systems. This is useful as I find that many patterns that describe potential forces or context are often dense and problematically vague (or at least they can be). System Archetypes attempt to describe these forces in a more pattern like way, by labeling them with simple names and providing a description. In some ways I guess we could equate these to anti-patterns.

Yet despite the perceptiveness of the use of archetypes to help describe a specific “problem space” it seems to me that there are important pieces missing within some of the more mainstream systems literature I have come across (BTW, I have by no means exhausted the scope of systems lit) when compared to the level of explicitness presented within the pattern language paradigm. For example, in systems literature I find little that deals with both forces as influencing factors that can undermine a systems, as well as those elements such as patterns that are meant to breathe life into a system. Most of the work seems directed towards being able to effectively identify problematic forces and fail to fully address the possibility archetypal solutions. Instead, systems thinking looks at the problem and describes solutions as an outgrowth of dynamic modeling processes.

Not to discount the modeling process, but this is where pattern thinking seems important as the paradigm seeks to incorporate a range of elements and perspectives in order to support proper configuration and problem solving within complex environments. Yet again, that is not to say that systems dynamics as a field doesn’t posses some very useful insights for supporting the development of the pattern model. For instance, the work done with Causal Loop Diagrams represent a very useful method for describing the types of relationships between patterns. This means we can use these diagrams to help represent the directional interaction between patterns, as well as show the nature of that flow, ie; do these patterns reinforce one another or do they support a dynamic equilibrium within the system.

Overall, I think there are great potential for an integration between these fields and both are essentially seeking to produce the same results, which is effective problem, solving in response to overwhelming levels of complexity. For my work though, I will stick with patterns as there is a solid body of literature emerging that is focused upon community development, communication and civic empowerment that is seriously needed. I think by incorporating some fundamental components from the systems dynamics field we can only make the pattern model more effective in producing what it is intended to produce.

Pattern Re-Visited

While I know I said I was going to show case a pattern a day and a different pattern at that I have felt the need to re-visit a pattern as I have come to see it's deeper and more fundamental relationship to my research objective.

The pattern is Alan Borning's "Citizen Access to Simulation" and when I wrote my first response to this pattern I was thinking of community simulation where actors are involved in a sort of mock experiment similar to the one we are conducting in my environmental conflict course. However, in reading some of the material behind this pattern I have come to see this as dynamic simulations as a way to support decision making in community context.

Now, this is exactly what I'm doing in my other class "Systems Dynamic Modeling," and the more I get into this course the more I recognize how this can play a central element in collaborative planning. For instance, in following along with my interest in a planning approach that promotes pattern mapping to develop a cognitive map of sustainable development design, the use of systems modeling could play a central role in helping groups become more informed about their proposed policies or designs for development.

And as a result of this centrality, it represents what I think to be a first order pattern in any planning process that deals with the interaction between natural and built systems. Now, being a pattern person I see that sustainable development is more more complex than what can be modeled, however, there are certain elements that modeling can tell us about our environment that might not be obvious. Things that if overlooked could spell disaster for our proposals. To me this makes sense as we can bring in a quantitative model and apply it in a qualitative way to help people learn about their environment.

The problem is that many seem to confuse these models as predictors or forecasters of dynamic change, but when really they are educational tools that are meant to do just that, educate us. So great care must be taken to ensure that people recognize modeling for what it is. Alexander, talks about this in the 'Nature of Order.'

With that in mind, I wonder how a simulation of this sort might influence a pattern based approach to planning a development program. In fact, this might make a very useful pattern as part of a pattern based planning methodology that seeks to inform the ways patterns are contextualized by communities.