Deenapanray and Bassi - NRF - System Dynamics Modeling As An Integrated Planning Tool - Feb 2014

Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 6781
DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12037
The experience of ISLANDS in deploying system dynamics

modeling as an integrated policy tool
Prakash N K Deenapanray and Andrea M Bassi
Abstract
The ISLANDS project is implemented by the Indian Ocean Commission using the European Development Fund of the
European Union to support the implementation of the Mauritius Strategy in beneficiary countries. This paper shares the
experiences of ISLANDS in deploying system dynamics modeling in five countries in the Eastern and Southern African and
Indian Ocean Region (Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles and Zanzibar) for sustainable development planning.
Lessons learned regarding the design and conceptualization of the project ISLANDS, including the adoption of system
dynamics modeling as an integrated assessment tool for policy planning, are discussed. Although Madagascar and Zanzibar
are not defined as small island developing States (SIDS) in the UN System, the lessons learned from these countries are
applicable to all SIDS. The approach used by ISLANDS for technical assistance consists of nesting learning-by-doing,
multi-stakeholder processes, and dedicated capacity-building in system dynamics modeling, as well as advocacy for the
integrated modeling tool with decision-makers. While island developing States are recognized for their inherent vulnerabilities
to shocks, the adoption of system dynamics modeling helps to achieve policy-induced resilience by exposing the challenges
and constraints posed by the lack of reliable statistical data. Institutionalization of the tool is progressing well in the region.
Keywords: System dynamics modeling; integrated policy planning; sustainable development; Mauritius Strategy; SIDS.
1. SIDS: From vulnerability to resilience

Small island developing States (SIDS) were recognized as a
special case for both environment and development in
Chapter 17(G) of Agenda 21 (UN, 1992). The grounds
for this special consideration relate to the inherent
vulnerabilities to which SIDS are exposed, including their
small size, limited and narrow resource bases, geographic
dispersion, isolation from markets, susceptibility to climate
change and natural disasters, and exposure to external
shocks from such sources as energy, financial and economic
crises. These vulnerabilities have been reaffirmed in the
Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA) (UN, 1994) and
the Mauritius Strategy (MS) for the further implementation
of the BPOA (UN, 2005) that have translated Agenda 21 in
the specific contexts of SIDS. The Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation, (JPOI) (UN, 2002) and, more recently, the
Rio+20 outcome document, The future we want (UN, 2012)
have also stressed the unique vulnerabilities of SIDS.
Prakash Deenapanray is at Ecological Living In Action, La Gaulette
Mauritius, and works with ISLANDS, Ebne, Mauritius. E-mail:
sanju@ecolivinginaction.com
Andrea Bassi is at KnowlEdge Srl, Italy, and works with ISLANDS.
E-mail: andrea.bassi@ke-srl.com
2014 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum 2014 United Nations
Vulnerability expresses the susceptibility of being

harmed by external forces as a result of exposure. Joined
with vulnerability are the concepts of resilience and
sustainable development: the former describes the ability to
cope with the exposure to vulnerabilities through a
combination of withstanding damage and/or developing a
propensity to recover from any damage (Briguglio et al.,
2008), whereas the latter refers to development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs. While they
are exposed to numerous vulnerabilities, SIDS also exhibit
low levels of coping capacity due mainly to a lack of
financial resources, as well as human and institutional
capacity limitations that make it even more difficult
for them to achieve sustainable development (UN, 2012).
The combination of exposure and low coping capacity
places SIDS at relatively high risk to the vulnerabilities
discussed earlier. The vulnerabilities faced by SIDS are
intrinsic, and by definition therefore, they are also mostly
permanent.
This explains the historical shift of focus from the
vulnerability of SIDS towards the practical means to
enhance their resilience and foster sustainability. For
instance, whereas Chapter 17(G) of Agenda 21 that focuses
68
Prakash N K Deenapanray and Andrea M Bassi / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 6781
on the sustainable development of SIDS makes reference to

the vulnerabilities of SIDS, it does not make any reference
to their resilience (UN, 1992). Even the BPOA did not make
any reference to building the resilience of SIDS to external
shocks (UN, 1994). Almost a decade later, the MS explicitly
recognized that particular attention should be given to
building resilience in SIDS (UN, 2005). The MS introduced
the vulnerability-resilience nexus as a central theme in
addressing the sustainable development of SIDS. Specific
reference is made to the concept that promoting sustainable
development, eradicating poverty and improving the
livelihoods of peoples in SIDS would be achieved through
the implementation of country-specific strategies that build
resilience and capacity to address their unique and
particular vulnerabilities. It is also important to note that
whereas the BPOA (UN, 1994) and JPOI (UN, 2002)
proposed the development of vulnerability indices and
related indicators for SIDS, it was in the MS that emphasis
was placed on the development of a resilience index. A
strong emphasis on building resilience through appropriate
context-based strategies to achieve sustainable development
and the green economy is very clear in the outcome
document of Rio+20 (UN, 2012).
Since our focus is on SIDS, it is timely here to visit the
five year review of the MS (UN, 2010) that will also serve
as a prelude to introducing the regional project ISLANDS.
The five year review of the MS (also MSI+5 Review) was
carried out under the office of the Secretary-General to
gauge progress made by SIDS in achieving sustainable
development through the implementation of the MS. The
report was presented at the sixty-fifth session of the UN
General Assembly (UN, 2010). In the light of the progress
made, the lessons learned and the constraints to the
implementation of the MS, section IV of the MSI+5 Review
proposed six issues for consideration by SIDS. These
considerations that continue to be relevant to the sustainable
development of SIDS are:
1. strengthen support for national development planning
focused on building resilience to external shocks;
2. undertake vulnerability-resilience profiling of SIDS;
3. further focus on key thematic areas. The proposed subareas were: sustainable energy; transport; trade; climate
change mitigation and adaptation; marine and coastal
resources; fisheries; tourism; and finance;
4. support partnership initiatives for the further
implementation of the BPOA;
5. strengthen access to and provision of financial resources
for SIDS; and
6. institutionalize special support for SIDS.
As will be discussed throughout this paper, the focus of
lessons learned will be principally on the design and
conceptualization of the project ISLANDS, including the
adoption of system dynamics modeling as an integrated
assessment tool for policy planning. The sharing of lessons
learned is therefore squarely related to addressing the first

issue for consideration discussed above.
2. An overview of ISLANDS
The Rio+20 outcome document noted with concern that
the outcome of the five-year review of the Mauritius
Strategy concluded that small island developing States have
made less progress than most other groupings, or even
regressed, in economic terms, especially in terms of poverty
reduction and debt sustainability (UN, 2012). Further,
unlike SIDS in the Pacific and the Caribbean, the regional
review for AIMS (Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean
and South China Sea) stated that the ESA-IO (Eastern and
Southern Africa and Indian Ocean) region lacks a sustained
strategic programme with appropriate specialized
institutional support and funding (UN, 2010).
The MS sets out clearly the strategic objectives,
accompanied by well-defined vehicles for accomplishing
change and well-articulated adaptive mechanisms to
respond to each of the thematic issues delineated in its 19
thematic chapters, but it has shed less light on the tools and
mechanisms for its implementation (chapter 20).
The ISLANDS project attempts to bridge these gaps and
address some of the key issues for consideration that
emanated from the MSI+5 Review. The overall objective of
the project is to contribute to an increased level of social,
economic and environmental development and deeper
regional integration in the ESA-IO region through the
sustainable development of SIDS, and more specifically, to
accelerate the implementation of the MS in the ESA-IO
region. Innovative pillars of the programme are: regional
cooperation and integration, SIDS-SIDS knowledge
exchange, and a learning-by-doing approach to deal with
the large asymmetries between the developmental stages of
the beneficiary countries.
Phase I of ISLANDS is composed of four key stages: (1)
a monitoring and evaluation system for the implementation
of the MS is developed and operational at national, regional
and international level; (2) best practices in mitigating the
vulnerabilities of SIDS on the four selected themes are
established (including a high level political strategy for
transforming an island State into a sustainable development
island State, where economic and social development and
environmental sustainability will be optimally integrated, is
operational with Comoros (Union of), Madagascar,
Mauritius, Seychelles and Zanzibar (of the United Republic
of Tanzania) as beneficiaries; (3) capacity to leverage
commitments for the pursuit of best practices on the four
selected themes and to attract investments for
implementation is developed in the region; and (4)
partnership for implementation of the MS at national,
regional and global level strengthened.
ISLANDS is implemented by the Indian Ocean
Commission (IOC) in collaboration with the United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and

with financing from the European Union. The Technical
Assistance Team and the Secretariat of ISLANDS are
located at the headquarters of the IOC in Mauritius. Phase I
of the project started in August 2011 and will be completed
in June 2014. A Phase II building on lessons learned from
Phase I is being developed and is expected to have a lifetime
of 42 months.
3. Methodological approach
The overall methodology adopted by ISLANDS is
predicated on three building blocks. The first is an ecosystem
approach for integrating complex system theories into the
conceptualization and implementation of sustainable
development projects. The second consists of a multistakeholder process (MSP), created and reinforced through
the organization of several meetings, to design and implement
sustainable development in each country and to establish a
community of practice (Li et al., 2009). The last building
block is the learning-by-doing capacity development
approach that seeks to simultaneously address the large
asymmetries between the capacities (human and institutional)
in beneficiary countries and increase the likelihood of
sustainable activities beyond the lifetime of the project.
3.1. The ecosystem approach
The ISLANDS project uses an ecosystem-based approach,
defined by the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) as
a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and
living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable
use in an equitable way. The diamond heuristic of the
ecosystem approach used in the design of ISLANDS is
shown in Figure 1. It reflects the cross-disciplinary
evaluation of sustainability that emerges at the intersection
of different conceptualizations of sustainable development
and analyses based on the science of complex systems.
Sustainable development can therefore be seen as an
emerging property of the complex eco-social system
where visions and preferences of societies interact with
ecological possibilities. The framework allows scenarios for
implementing sustainable development to be contextualized,
in order to reflect specific needs and national development
priorities, and guide the elaboration of targeted programmes
and action plans. This is very important in the
implementation of ISLANDS since the mix of beneficiary
countries is heterogeneous in terms of geographical scale
and spread, culture and language, and level of socioeconomic development. Some of these characteristics are
listed in Table 1.
The diamond in Figure 1 is the implementation of the MS
(through ISLANDS) and is the nexus where ecological
understanding and sociocultural preferences meet and where
they interface with policymakers. At the heart of the process
69
lies the understanding of the DPSIR framework (OECD,

1994), a rigorous approach being implemented at the
international level to analyse environmental pressures.
According to this framework, the Drivers (D) describe the
social, demographic and economic developments of societies
that exert pressures on the environment. The primary driving
forces are population growth and developments in the needs
and activities of individuals, which result in changing levels of
production and consumption. Pressures (P) are emissions of
substances, release of physical and biological agents, (e.g.,
rate of CO2 emissions) and the use of land and resources by
humans. Pressures on the environment cause the State (S) of
the environment to alter. State indicators describe the quantity
and quality of physical phenomena (e.g., temperature),
chemical phenomena (e.g., CO2 levels in the atmosphere) or
biological phenomena (e.g., community structure). Alteration
of the environment Impacts (I) the functions of the
environment. Impacts are changes in the environmental use
functions (e.g., biodiversity loss, health impacts). Responses
(R) are the policy, societal and technological responses by
governments, groups and individuals to prevent, compensate,
ameliorate or adapt to changes, thus fostering sustainable
development.
Despite its normative significance, sustainable
development is a contested concept, with theories shaped by
peoples and organizations different worldviews, which in
turn influence how issues are formulated and actions
proposed (Giddings et al., 2002; Sderbaum, 2007; Vivien,
2008; Christen and Schmidt, 2012). It is clear from all the
debates about sustainable development that there is no
common philosophy. Neither the BPOA (UN, 1994) nor the
MSI (UN, 2005) has provided a functional definition of
sustainable development for SIDS to adopt. United Nations
Member States are provided the space to construct their
own definition of sustainable development, first to adhere
with the principle of sovereignty, and second, to cater to
the different national contexts and countries varying
development stages. The ecosystem approach adopted by
the ISLANDS project promotes a functional definition of
sustainable development that prioritizes the conservation of
ecosystems and biodiversity, ensuring stable economic
growth and measurable improvements in social well-being.
It aims to support decision-makers in the identification,
assessment and implementation of concrete policy
interventions to redress worrying trends (e.g., increasing
vulnerability to climate change impacts and progressive
depletion of natural capital). Policy options are assessed
with the help of system dynamics models and analyzed
through the lens of local culture and values. As a result, in
any meaningful dialogue concerning priority issues, system
dynamics analysis requires a MSP that draws on a range of
disciplinary perspectives, as well as expert and non-expert
knowledge (Waltner-Toews and Kay, 2005; Tovey, 2009;
Sen, 2013). Given the continuous evolution of sustainable
development challenges, the collaborative process for the
sharing of knowledge and the definition of common visions
70
Figure 1. Ecosystem approach used in the design and conceptualization of ISLANDS.

Source: Adapted from Waltner-Toews and Kay (2005).
Table 1. Selected socio-economic, cultural and geographic characteristics of beneficiary countries

Characteristics
Population (2012, millions)
Area (km2)
GDP per capita (2011 in 2005
PPP US$)
Languages
Human Development Index (2012)
Comoros
Madagascar
Mauritius
Seychelles
Zanzibara
0.8
1,862
980
21.9
587,041
853
1.3
2,040
12,737
0.1
451
23,172
1.274 (2010)
2,654
1,334
Comorian/Arabic/French
0.429
Malagasy/French
0.483
English/French/Creole
0.737
English/French/Creole
0.806
Swahili/English
0.476
Note: a Except for population and area, data are for the United Republic of Tanzania.
Source: OCGS (2010) and UNDP (2013).
and preferences are intended as iterative and continuative,

aimed at the establishment of an expert community. In
effect, establishing an MSP involves developing a
community of practice (Li et al., 2009), which would
repeatedly exchange ideas and explore inclusive solutions
based on cultural values and preferences.
In addition to the cultural preferences of individuals,
sustainable development also includes the bio-physical
and monetary flows between the economic, social and
environmental spheres. The interactions between these
preferences and bio-physical and monetary flows can be
treated as a complex system (Forrester, 1987; Abel, 1998;
Sterman, 2000; Waltner-Toews and Kay, 2005). An
understanding of these complex interactions requires the
use of appropriate tools and techniques. In ISLANDS, and
as proposed by the MSI+5 Review (UN, 2010) to adopt
integrated assessment tools in planning, system dynamics
modeling (SDM) has been adopted to achieve this
objective. Scenario analysis using SDM can both create a
better understanding of the behaviour of the complex ecosocial system and point to trade-offs that may be made
to achieve the overall vision. Moreover, it has been noted
that SDM generates opportunities for monitoring the
performance of the adopted policies and the possibility of
improving the effectiveness of the process of water
provision (Stave, 2003; Winz and Brierley, 2007). A more
recent study has demonstrated the application of simple
system dynamics models to guide the public policy process,
and it also covered references to the use of SDM in various
areas of public affairs, including public health, energy and
the environment, social welfare, sustainable development,
and security (Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2011). SDM has been
adopted by UNEP in its green economy endeavour to
investigate the global socio-economic and environmental
impacts of green investments (UNEP, 2011). A green
investment study has subsequently been carried out using
SDM for Mauritius (Bassi and Deenapanray, 2012).
The ecosystem approach provides a framework for
carrying out social-ecological analysis of resilience. It offers
the possibility to frame people-environment transactions
across varying dimensions, time periods, and scales.
Furthermore, in its openness to experiential knowledge and
action research, the eco-social framework coheres well with
participative-collaborative modes of inquiry, which traverse
institutional, epistemological, and scale-related boundaries
(Stokols et al., 2013). Importantly, the systems approach
allows the sustainable development process to be
contextualized at the national level, meaning that no
prescribed approach (or one size fits all) is imposed on
beneficiary countries. It also enhances inclusive, evidencebased policy decision-making as proposed in the Rio+20
outcome document (UN, 2012). In sum, the ecosystem
approach provides the evaluative space to inform policy and
decision-making through scenario analyses that combine
socio-cultural preferences of development and the
concurrent ecological possibilities.
71
The successful implementation of the ecosystem

approach in several cases remains an elusive goal for a
variety of reasons, including: (1) scarcity of sustained
observations of coastal ecosystems across the land-sea
interface (landscape to seascape, which for most SIDS
includes the entire island and its exclusive economic zone,
EEZ) that enable rapid detection and timely anticipation of
changes in ecosystem states and impacts on the provision of
ecosystem goods and services; (2) challenges of balancing
trade-offs involved between sustaining goods and services
and socio-economic development; and (3) lack of adequate
systems of governance. ISLANDS is mainly focused on
addressing the latter problem, the solution of which depends
on how well (1) and (2) are addressed.
The approach also has a structure consisting of a triad of
activities (monitoring, governance and management) that
allow assessments of performance against the objectives of
the ecosystem-based approach and adaptive learning at the
project level. A core characteristic of the adaptive learning
structure is the results-oriented management approach that
is shown in the bottom right hand corner of Figure 1. The
connections between the outcomes and impacts, and the
immediate (specific) and development (overall) objectives
of the project, respectively, are also illustrated. A key aspect
of the adaptive learning infrastructure is to capture and
disseminate the outputs and results of the project.1
3.2. Multi-stakeholder process for sustainable
development
The imperative need for multi-stakeholder inclusiveness in
sustainable development is summarized in the Rio+20
outcome document:
We underscore that broad public participation and
access to information and judicial and administrative
proceedings are essential to the promotion of sustainable
development. Sustainable development requires the
meaningful involvement and active participation of
regional, national and subnational legislatures and
judiciaries, and all major groups [. . .]. In this regard,
we agree to work more closely with the major groups
and other stakeholders, and encourage their active
participation, as appropriate, in processes that contribute
to decision-making, planning and implementation of
policies and programmes for sustainable development at
all levels. (UN, 2012:8)
Similarly, regarding a freedom and capacity-based
approach for sustainability, Sen (2013) has argued that
finding solutions to the quandary of unsustainability would
1
For the specific case of Result 2.3 of ISLANDS, all the deliverables in
terms of reports, statistics and analyses can be accessed at the National
Sustainable Development Platform at: https://coi.sharesrvr.com/islands/
nsds, Member NSDS (read-only access), Login for other members of
NSDS: nsds@sharesrvr.com, Password: Develop2012.
72
Figure 2. The five sequential steps of the multi-stakeholder process used in model development.
Source: Hemmati (2002).
require collaboration and non-divisive commitments. This

reaffirms the coupling of MSP with the systems perspective
of the ecosystem approach, supported by the Rio+20
outcome document. Individuals have the opportunity and
ability to participate in setting the agenda for sustainable
development, not only in terms of envisioning the future
they want but also in deciding the means in terms of the
priorities and process to achieve that end.
Within the constraints of time and resources (financial and
human), ISLANDS has attempted to adopt a widely tried and
tested MSP for governance and sustainability (Hemmati,
2002). The five sequential steps of a generic MSP are
illustrated in Figure 2. Each step involves specific actions to
ensure maximum ownership of the process by the
beneficiary stakeholders so that their visions and preferences
are discussed through dialogue and consequently integrated
in the national agenda (Hemmati, 2002). In the framework of
the ecosystem approach (Figure 1), MSP is used as an
iterative and permanent process through which an epistemic
community is cultivated (Li et al., 2009). The sequential
steps of MSP are designed in a way to continuously inform

the analysis of scenarios and the elaboration of targeted
programmes and policies for the realization of a shared
vision. MSP was adopted for the conceptualization,
customization and validation of system dynamics models
developed in all the beneficiary countries.
3.3. The learning-by-doing capacity development
approach
The vulnerability of SIDS is accentuated by their limited
human capacity (UN, 1994; 2005; 2010). During the design
phase, it was noted that the level of understanding or
framing of sustainable development as a complex issue was
virtually absent in all the beneficiary countries. Seychelles
was the only country that had already developed its
Seychelles Sustainable Development Strategy that was
largely carried out sectorally (GOS, 2012), and therefore,
lacked cross-sectoral interactions or lacked integration. A
parallel process was ongoing in Mauritius to develop the
Maurice Ile Durable (MID) policy, strategy and action

plan.2 This process also lacked cross-sectoral integration or
the integration of economic, social and environmental
issues. In both cases, any possible interactions were
captured qualitatively using mental models, which from a
systems perspective can lead to undesired outcomes (Senge,
1990; Sterman, 2000). The lack of a systems perspective in
the public policy arena is well documented (Ghaffarzadegan
et al., 2011), and the reasons are also fairly well established.
Forrester (2007:4) is of the opinion that the failure of
system dynamics to penetrate Governments lies directly
with the system dynamics profession and not with those in
government. The low level or lack of knowledge of system
dynamics was also documented earlier (Repenning, 2003);
it meant that the institutionalization of SDM for integrated
policy planning would be gradual and require: (1) capacity
development in systems thinking and SDM; and (2)
advocacy and communication of systems thinking and
SDM with policymakers. The goal of modelers and
policymakers should be a relationship of mutual trust, built
on a foundation of communication, supported by the twin
pillars of policy relevance and technical credibility (Karas,
2004).
Guided by lessons learned (Karas, 2004; Forrester,
2007), ISLANDS adopted the following principles and
strategies that are continuously being monitored and
reviewed.
3.3.1. A two-staged approach
An initial stage of capacity development and advocacy for
SDM (February to December 2012), followed by a second
stage (January 2013 to June 2014) of institutionalization of
the tool for integrated policy planning at the national level.
The plan is to reinforce institutional structures for
integrated policy-planning for sustainable development in
beneficiary countries in Phase II of ISLANDS. The initial
stage was to build credibility in the process and to
demonstrate the usefulness of SDM as a policy planning
tool.
3.3.2. Learning-by-doing model
This model (Figure 3) is characterized by a virtuous circle
of positive feedback that enhances the acquisition of
knowledge through real-life application of skills. The
learning-by-doing approach is based on a continuous
assessment of policy performance, in turn informing the
capacity development phase. Between February and
December 2012 an average of three missions were carried
out in each country, with the exception of Mauritius where
only two missions were carried out and where delays
extended the process to March 2013 (this is further
discussed below). A capacity development component on
2
At the time of writing this paper, the MID policy, strategy and action plan
was still in the process of validation, and hence was not yet made public.
Understanding how
systems work (structure
and behaviour)
+
Cross-sectoral
integration of issues &
indicators
73
+
Policy-induced
resilience
virtuous
circle
Capacity development
on systems thinking and
+
SDM
+
+
Policy performance
assessment
Technical assitance
of ISLANDS
Figure 3. Learning-by-doing approach to capacity development.

Source: Authors elaboration.
systems thinking and/or SDM was included in each

in-country mission to gradually enhance local capacity.
Following periodic contact with the working groups, four
persons per country were identified and provided with
advanced training in SDM either at the University of
Bergen (Department of Geography) or through a 3-week
training session in Mauritius in April 2013. Ten people
(4-Madagascar; 2-Seychelles; 4-Zanzibar) received training
at the University of Bergen (UiB), Norway for a period of 4
weeks (September-October 2012) by participating in a
masters level modeling course on SDM for integrated
policy planning. In order to prepare the participants for the
course, they participated in a one-week preparatory course
held in Mauritius (September 2012). In order to ensure a
level playing field, 3 weeks of fulltime training was
provided to another 10 persons (4-Comoros; 5-Mauritius;
1-Seychelles) in Mauritius (April 2013) based on the
syllabus of UiB. In both sets of training, each country was
allowed to develop models based on priority issues that had
been identified through the MSPs (see below). The
international consultant worked with the staff of UiB to set
the assignments and final exam for the ISLANDS
participants. The simple models developed by trainees now
form the basis for further model development based on each
countrys requirements.
Using the learning-by-doing methodology and the MSP
shown in Figure 2, ISLANDS has sought to create an
epistemic community (Figure 1), composed of a network of
experts that have skills in integrated policy planning. In
addition to gathering the experts during training sessions,
regional meetings are carried out periodically to enhance
sharing of lessons learned between beneficiary countries. To
date, two regional meetings have taken place, with the first
one (August 2012, Comoros) covering the critical review of
MSPs used by beneficiary countries to develop their
sustainable development strategies, and a training on the
development of economic and environmental vulnerability
and resilience indicators, including a statistical data gap
74
analysis for each country. The second regional meeting

(April 2013, Mauritius) was dedicated to sharing
experiences on the development of system dynamics models,
reviewing training needs and means and ways to
institutionalize SDM as a sustainable development planning
tool at the national level. The outcomes of these meetings can
be downloaded using the information provided in footnote 1.
The diversity of the countries in terms of their
development stages and constraints not only generates
different problems to solve but also different solutions to
test, each at their own pace and adapted to national or local
capabilities, resources and requirements. Moreover the
stimulation of local creativity leads to the definition of new
needs over the course of the project, and the learning-bydoing approach has proven to be an adequate means to
adapt to and cater to emerging needs.
3.3.3. Valuing local and regional expertise
Either a national or regional (where no national expertise
was identified) expert was seconded to the international
consultant in each country. This proved a useful way to
further enhance national and regional capacity in systems
thinking and SDM. The role of the national or regional
expert was to support the international expert with a better
understanding of the national contexts, carry out follow up
activities with national stakeholders, support the collection
of statistical data, and write reports to capture the outcomes
of country missions. The use of national and regional
experts also favoured continuity of work in each country
between the country missions. In countries where national
expertise could not be identified previously (e.g., Comoros,
Madagascar, and Zanzibar), ISLANDS would henceforth
capitalize on the newly acquired capacity through the
trainings discussed above.
4. Experiences and lessons learned on system

dynamics modeling
4.1. The modeling process
As discussed in the previous section, SDM lies at the heart of
our approach. It has been shown previously that downplaying
the modeling to focus on the policy questions plays a critical
role in the use of the results by decision-makers (Thompson
and Duintjer Tebbens, 2008). Consequently, the entry point
for policy analysis using SDM was not on mathematical
modeling but rather on understanding the policy context.
Typically, a system dynamics analysis proceeds through
several steps (e.g., Richardson and Pugh, 1989; Sterman,
2000). The generic steps were designed to establish
credibility for the process used in model development, and to
build trust between stakeholders on the one hand, and
between these stakeholders and the technical assistance team
of ISLANDS.
4.1.1. Step 1: Identification of key issues and

opportunities
The first imperative was to understand the policy context in
which the model would be developed, while noting a key
axiom that a model is not built for its own sake but to
address an issue or a set of issues. In order to achieve this,
a working group was established in each country. The
technical assistance team provided guidance on the profile
for membership to the multi-stakeholder platform and the
modalities for model development in each country. Where
diverse stakeholders are involved in developing the model
from the beginning, those stakeholders may come to trust in
the fairness of the process, thus creating an epistemic
community that provides diverse knowledge and
perspectives in a collaborative environment (Figure 1).
Further, if those outside the process see that diverse
stakeholders were monitoring each others input, they, too,
may see the work as more credible (Karas, 2004).
In accordance with the defining issues and objectives in
the MS (UN, 2005) and with the cross-sectoral nature of the
simulation methodology utilized for the project, countries
were advised to ensure the presence of a variety of local
actors; these include those from government, academia, civil
society (e.g., NGOs), the private sector, and any other key
stakeholders that the beneficiary country would see fit to
participate in the visioning and model development exercise.
Also, three key profiles would be needed throughout the
project: (1) modelers, who are usually younger professionals
and researchers that have an interest in simulation models or
sectoral/national planning. Specific knowledge of existing
models and methodologies was not a requirement, nor any
high level proficiency in mathematics (Sterman, 2000); (2)
data analysts familiar with national and sectoral datasets and
aware of data availability and quality constraints. They
provide the information needed to customize and calibrate
the model, working in close collaboration with modelers and
policy analysts. In the ISLANDS case, involving the national
Bureau of Statistics from the onset of the project was
instrumental; and (3) policy analysts, who are experienced
professionals and government officials familiar with sectoral
and national planning. They are responsible for setting future
performance, socio-economic and environmental targets,
and for identifying existing and possible future policies to be
analyzed. Policy analysts provide inputs on how to shape and
where to focus the analysis of future scenarios.
While the proposed group size was 20-40 persons, the
actual size of working groups varied from around 15 in the
Seychelles where human capacity is limited by the small
size of the population to some 50 participants in
Comoros. This is a reflection of the different contexts of the
beneficiary countries as highlighted by the indicators in
Table 1.
Due to time and resources constraints, the MSP was
carried out at the level of the national working groups, and
not broadly at the country level as could transpire from the
75
Table 2. Modeling framework arising from MSP in Comoros, energy sector example
Indicators for monitoring and evaluation of
interventions
Issues/sectors
Problem statement
Proposed interventions
Energy
Energy supply is
constrained
Develop an energy sector strategy

Investment in fuel efficient power generation
with low operation and maintenance costs
Development of alternative sources of energy
(solar, wind, hydroelectricity)
The transmission and

distribution
networks are
constrained
Commercialization
not optimal
Enhance the medium voltage network, and

installing secure cables for the low voltage
distribution network
Set up an integrated management system
Widespread use of prepaid meters
Production capacity (MW)

Electricity generation (MWh)
Cost of electricity generation (local currency/kWh)
Potential for generation of power from alternative
energy sources (MW)
Generation of renewable electricity (MWh)
Cost of generation of renewable electricity (local
currency/kWh)
Distribution network (km)
Number of connections
Network losses (%)
Number of sequential transformers
Number of potential customers
Number of prepaid meters installed (per year)
Electricity tariff
Revenues (local currency)
Percentage of sales recovered
Source: Outcome of consultations carried out between 16 and 19 April 2012.
discussions on the ecosystem approach. This was not a

limitation of the project.
To begin the model development, each country identified
four to six priority issues, including identification of
possible interventions and indicators that could be used to
monitor the impacts of policies. Focus group discussions
were used in each country, and the results synthesized after
plenary discussions. Because of space limitations, the
outcomes of these discussions are shown for Comoros in
Table 2, while noting that similar outcomes were obtained
for each country.
4.1.2. Step 2: Data collection and consistency check
This step is time consuming but important, as the data are
used to establish a preliminary but accurate understanding
of how the issues identified relate to society, the economy
and the environment. This step revealed large data gaps
in most countries except for Mauritius, and it reflects the
call for countries to strengthen national data collection
and management systems (UN, 2010). One of the main
constraints that countries acknowledge as being the weakest
link in policy planning and policy monitoring and
evaluation is the lack of reliable and timely statistical data.
This certainly imposes limitations to model development
and validation. Several forms of data gaps have been
observed and in some instances have been identified. There
are instances like in the case of Comoros, Seychelles and
Zanzibar3 where data are not available. The data gap
analysis has therefore sent a signal to policymakers for the
need to collect these data in the future through sustained
3
Zanzibar forms part of the Republic of United Tanzania, and most

statistical data are collected for mainland Tanzania only.
monitoring. In the case of Madagascar, data are not collated

centrally (e.g., by the bureau of statistics or similar) but are
available from individual institutions, making the data
collection process very tedious and often dependent on a
good knowledge of who are the bearers of data. Some
institutions in Madagascar would only make data available
against payment of a fee. There are examples (e.g.,
Comoros and Madagascar) where data exists but are not
collected periodically in a way that would provide good
time series. This is often attributed to a lack of human and
financial resources. In some cases, consistency checks have
revealed gaps in the quality of data.
Lack of reliable and timely statistical data is certainly
acknowledged as a constraint for the modeling process,
and for which ISLANDS does not necessarily bring
an immediate solution. Nevertheless, this situation has
also generated opportunities: (a) countries involved in
ISLANDS have engaged in a regional debate about the
critical importance of data management systems, and this
dialogue is informing national and regional preparations for
the Third International Conference on SIDS that will take
place in Samoa in 2014. This is a positive step since the
need for reliable data and indicators is not always
acknowledged as being necessary in developing countries
(Krank et al., 2013); (b) beneficiary countries are providing
clear guidance on their need for technical assistance in the
strengthening of national data systems in a potential Phase
II of ISLANDS and/or for the technical assistance for
leveraging international financing for achieving this
objective; (c) in countries where the modeling tool has been
institutionalized (e.g., Zanzibar and Rodrigues an
autonomous island of the Republic of Mauritius) and where
data are available in various institutions, the project is
enhancing collaboration between institutions; and (d) the
76
+
education
labour
productivity
fiscality
+
-
investment
political stability
bureaucracy
investment in
climate adaptation
security
agricultural
- productivity
climate change
business
environment
taxation law
jobs
gdp
+
agricultural land
-
population
+
urban space
forest land
+
biodiversity
Figure 4. CLD showing the causal relationships within the agricultural

sector in Madagascar.
Source: Developed by stakeholders during country mission carried in
Madagascar, 15-18 May 2012.
lack of data has forced some countries to develop simple

models. In situations where familiarity with models is low,
it has been shown that using simple models is an efficient
way to develop capacity and helps gain acceptance of the
tool (Karas, 2004). Small models also yield accessible,
insightful lessons for policymaking stemming from
the endogenous and aggregate perspective of SDM
(Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2011). Even in the absence of data,
a much better understanding of the complexity surrounding
an issue can be obtained through the development of causal
loop diagrams (CLDs) as discussed next.
4.1.3. Step 3: Causal mapping and identification of
feedback loops
The understanding generated in steps 1 and 2 along with the
cross-disciplinary consultations with stakeholders, allow
the drivers and feedback loops present in the system
become more apparent. The drivers and feedback loops that
define the interactions between the variables of the system
and capture the mental models of the participants are
mapped out in CLDs (Senge, 1990; Sterman, 2000). The
CLDs highlight the combined effects that may exist which
reinforce or hinder key processes, and enable the setting of
boundaries for the model. Since the CLDs capture the
structural relationships between the elements of the system
(Meadows, 2008), they also form the basis for model
development. CLDs are not used for policy decisionmaking, and their development is just one of the steps in
model development. It is the scenario analysis of policies
that is eventually used. As discussed earlier, and although
not explicitly applied in the ISLANDS methodology, the
CLDs, by capturing causes and their effects, also capture
the drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses i.e.
DPSIR model (OECD, 1994) of the systems.
Figures 4 and 5 show the CLDs emanating from MSPs in
Madagascar and Seychelles, respectively, which reveal a
combination of data availability, technical capacity of
participants and use of local language (the CLD shown in

Figure 4 was originally developed in French). Figure 4
shows the simple CLD for the agriculture sector in
Madagascar. In particular, it highlights the competing uses
of land for agriculture, urban development, and forests (that
enhance biodiversity), including population pressure.
Figure 5 shows the integration of the tourism, fisheries and
finance sectors. The key feedback loops include current
development patterns, with reliance on tourism and foreign
investments, as well as emerging issues related to the
availability of natural resources. The parameters shown in
orange are policy interventions of the kind identified in
Table 2 for the respective countries. A comparison of
Figures 4 and 5 serves to demonstrate how ISLANDS has
been able to employ a context specific approach for the
introduction of the integrated assessment tool. Figure 4
represents only one sector that is not integrated crosssectorally, whereas the CDL in Figure 5 reveals a higher
level of complexity through several feedback loops between
the three dominant economic sectors (fisheries, tourism and
finance) in Seychelles. The boundary of the fisheries sector
is highlighted in Figure 5. The comparison between Figures
4 and 5 shows the country-specific approach that ISLANDS
has taken to deploy SDM as an integrated planning tool.
The level of detail contained in a CLD depends on: (1) the
issues that are treated; (2) the level of disaggregation
required to understand the system; (3) the level of
understanding of the issues by the epistemic community;
and (4) the technical capacity of the community.
As previously reported (Karas, 2004), developing CLDs
have proved to have multiple benefits. It provides the
opportunity to develop a systemic view of issues through
feedback loops and allows for integration across sectors.
Importantly, it allows a departure from linear thinking that
typically characterizes conventional policymaking using
mental models (Sterman, 2000). Participation in the
development of CLDs has allowed stakeholders to get a
better understanding of the complex relationships between
the variables that underlie the issue. The focus is mainly on
getting a better understanding of the problem rather than
on modeling, and hence does not require data collection.
It provides reassurances to stakeholders (including
policymakers) that their interests and values have been taken
into account, and therefore that they can believe that the
subsequent model is not biased against them. CLDs provide
a framework for discussion, mutual learning, and negotiation
among stakeholders, which in turn provides an effective way
to further engage and motivate stakeholders in the modeling
process. They form the basis for model development and
make the process more transparent.
4.1.4. Step 4: Creation of customized mathematical
models
SDM should capture and integrate the quantitative
dimensions of the sectors (from step 2) and the insights
provided by step 3 through mathematical models. As
77
+
turnaround cost of
<cost of
supply>
time
landings
+
share of revenues
+
+
fleet size
+ byproduc
social st
subject to
+
t
security
synergies domestic +
ability
domestic
taxation
+
+
+
workers
fish catch
licensing
+
+
tourist
+
productivity
+ occupancy
++
external economic
arrivals
+
fish
construction
rate
+
tourism industry
+
performance
+
-+
fishery - price
revenues
cost of operation
revenues
average price per +
impact of
- fisheries
state of the natural
+
+
night
construction on
environment
+
+
+
subsidy
(tax removed)
the environment
tourism
fisheries - industry
+
<quality of
climate
financial
cost of
awareness
services>
services +
change
indirect
operation
raising
+
contribution of
+
planning and
+
+
+
taxation
tourism to gdp
-+ gdp
regulation
other recurrent
+ +
+
costs
<planning and
- consumption
+
regulation>
ecotourism
+
+ + +
water, - of inputs
and
income
entertainment
+
+
quality of cost of
energy,
+
+
services services
land ...
- cost of
cost and access
quality and cost of
+
+
+
to credit
hotel infrastructure
+ supply
+
- +
consumption
quality of hr
reliance on
training
+ managemen
+ +
t
technology
foreign manpower
+
+
investment
+
availability of
+
consumption of
+
salary
of
local
local
quality
intermediate
- - +
inputs
training
-+employees
+
availability of
employment
+ local manpower
savings
+
productivity of
local manpower
transport
infrastructure
quality and
availability of public
infrastructure
international
fish catch
Figure 5. CLD showing the causal relationships between the tourism, fisheries and finance sectors in Seychelles.
Source: Developed by stakeholders during country mission carried in Seychelles between 27 and 30 March 2012.
explained earlier, the first stage of the model development

process was aimed at capacity development and for
galvanizing credibility of the SDM as a policy planning
approach. With this in mind, and faced with the constraints of
limited data, small models were developed. Small system
dynamics models have a unique ability to capture important
and often counterintuitive insights and relating behaviour
to the feedback structure of the system without sacrificing
the ability for policymakers to easily understand and
communicate those insights (Karas, 2004). In particular,
SDMs bring together the environmental, social and
economic variables influencing the system analyzed, thereby
facilitating the understanding of the dynamic interplay
between production and consumption, environmental
degradation, and vulnerability to climate change. Indicators
of resilience and vulnerability can be built into the model,
and trends may therefore be analyzed to evaluate the impact
of policy interventions to the system (e.g., on whether these
interventions increase or reduce vulnerability and resilience,
and support a more coherent socio-economic development
and environmental preservation). Based on the systemic
analysis of vulnerability, additional relevant policy options
can be identified and tested, with a view to anticipate
potential unintended consequences, and effectively support
informed decision-making for sustainable development.
Some selected simple models developed for Zanzibar are

shown in Figure 6. Complex models have been developed
for Mauritius to investigate the energy-climate change
mitigation nexus and to carry out a green economy scenario
analysis (Bassi and Deenapanray, 2012). The simple model
describing the population dynamics of Zanzibar is shown in
Figure 6. Population (stock) can be explained by the flows
of births (in-flow), deaths (out-flow) and net migration
(defined as an in-flow). These flows are driven by birth rate,
death rate and net migration rate, respectively. Similar
models were developed for each country.
4.1.5. Step 5: Validation and analysis
For a model to be validated, stakeholders must be satisfied
that the causal relationships captured within the model
structure reflect reality; simulation outputs of the base case
must accurately match historical data for a multitude of
socio-economic and environmental indicators (this may
require some calibration to obtain a consistent and reliable
baseline simulation); and stakeholders must feel
comfortable with the overall behaviour of the model, as
observed from simulations for the base case and alternative
scenarios.
The analysis of the results of the models completed to
date indicates an average error between the simulation and
78
net migration rate

net migration
<Time>
population
births
birth rate
deaths
<Time>
<Time>
death rate
Figure 6. Stock and flow diagram to describe the population dynamics of Zanzibar.
4M
15,000
400,000
room
person/year
3M
person
2M
1M
12
1 2 1 2
12
1 2 1 2
1 2 1
2
1 2 1
1994
room
person/year
1998
2002
population : Baseline Dec 18

population : data 2 2
2006 2010 2014

Time (year)
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2018
1
2
1
2
2022
1
1
2
2026
1
2030
1
2
Figure 7. Simulation of the historical increase in the population of

Zanzibar.
historical data of about 1%, for those variables for which

causal relations are identified and data are available. In
other cases, the average error is higher, but the trend of the
data and simulation remains consistent. There are some
results that need further model improvement and validation.
In general, three shortcomings that have been faced are:
(1) implications of the use of calibration in models; (2)
commensurability between terminologies and definition of
variables; and (3) impact of lack of data. Understanding the
strengths and limitations of the approach also forms part of
the learning-by-doing methodology adopted by ISLANDS.
Here the results from Zanzibar will serve as lessons
learned, including their limitations. The simulation of the
population model is shown in Figure 7. Historical data is
shown in red (-2-) and the simulation of the model is shown
in blue (-1-). The basic population model replicates the
historical increase in population very well and shows that,
all else being equal, the total population of Zanzibar will
cross the 2 million persons mark in 2026, illustrating that
population growth remains a developmental challenge for
2
1
0 room
0 person/year
0
1990
7,500
200,000
12
1990
34 2
1
1996
4
1
3412
2002
41234
2008
2014
Time (year)
2020
2026
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
hotel rooms : Baseline Dec 18 1
room
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
hotel rooms : data
room
3
3
3
3
3
yearly number of incoming tourists : Baseline Dec 18
person/year
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 person/year
yearly number of incoming tourists : data
Figure 8. Simulation of number of hotel rooms and annual arrival of

tourists.
Zanzibar. The error between the simulation and historical

data is around 1%.
Figure 8 shows the results of simulations for two
parameters, namely the stock of hotel rooms and yearly
tourist arrivals. Comparison with historical data shows that
the model is able to explain the causal structure of the
tourism sector in Zanzibar. The curve for incoming tourists
shows a key attribute of the system dynamics model: the
model is useful for simulating the medium-to-long term
trend in parameters and not year-on-year variations in the
number of arrivals. For explaining short-term variations,
complementary tools and techniques have to be used.
A simple model has been developed for energy demand
(not shown), and Figure 9 shows the simulated and
historical data. The elasticity for energy price and income
on per capita energy demand has been calibrated so that the
model is able to simulate historical data as shown. However,
there is a range of elasticity combinations that may yield
similar or better results. Calibration is also used for effect
of improved marketing and effect of economic crises on
2M
1
1
eq Ktons of oil
1.5 M
1
1
1
1
1M
2
500,000
12
1 2
1 2 1
1 2
2 1 2
0
1990
1996
2002
2008
2014
Time (year)
total energy demand : Baseline Dec 18

total energy demand : data 2 2 2
1
2
1
2
2020
1
2
1
2
1
2
2026
1
1
2
1
2
Figure 9. Simulated and historical total energy demand for Zanzibar.

100
dmnl
50
75
25
0
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006 2010 2014

Time (year)
average adult literacy rate : Baseline Dec 18

2
2
average adult literacy rate : data
1
2
2018
1
2
1
2
2022
1
1
2
2026
1
2030
1
2
Figure 10. Comparison between adult literacy rate from simulation and
historical data.
tourism arrivals to simulate tourist arrivals in Figure 8.

Calibration should be used with caution since these data
have to be objectively verified. A powerful feature of system
dynamics modeling is that most parameters are calculated
endogenously, and all calibration should be derived
empirically wherever possible. This has not yet been done in
the current models but will have to be carried out when the
models are further developed and connected by feedback
loops.
Figure 10 gives an example of divergence between the
results of simulation of the model and the historical data for
average adult literacy rate that is generated in the education
sector (see Figure 7). The simulated result shows declining
average adult literacy rate because total population is
increasing faster than the stock of adult literate population
over time. In contrast, historical average adult literacy is
increasing.
One explanation concerns the consistent definition of
terminology. In the model, average adult literacy rate is
calculated as the quotient of adult literate population and
population, and the age for defining adults is calculated by
adding the cumulative time delays for students to complete
79
primary education (7 years) and for the young literates to

become adults (3 years). In official statistics, adult literacy
rate is defined as the fraction of total population of persons
above 15 years who are literate. The variable average adult
literacy rate is calculated using a different methodology in
the model. In order to align the definition of the parameter,
the population model shown in Figure 6 will have to be
expanded to calculate the distribution of total population by
age cohorts (as per definition used in official statistics) and
to disaggregate between male and female populations. The
latter may be important since there may well be genderdifferentiated adult literacy rates.
The example shown in Figure 10 allows revisiting of the
first shortcoming, namely, model calibration. It gives more
insights in the use of calibration to adjust the output of the
model to replicate historical data. Average adult literacy rate
is used in the calculation of yearly arrival of tourists (see
Figure 8). Assuming that the historical data for average
adult literacy rate were correct, the results shown in
Figure 8 would imply incorrect use of calibrations for the
parameters effect of economic crises on tourism arrivals
and/or effect of improved marketing. In other words,
parameters (that are constant) can be used to force the
model to replicate historical data without establishing the
correct causal relationships, that is, structure of causal
relationships between variables in the model. These issues
will be addressed with further model development.
As an example, the value added by tourism is not
measured in Zanzibar despite the fact that this has been
identified as the key sector for economic growth and
poverty reduction. Model development can be used to
highlight the list of key variables for which data would need
to be collected in a systematic fashion. It also provides a
way to review data collection and analysis by the Office of
the Chief Government Statistician (OCGS) in Zanzibar (and
respective agencies in other countries). This example
provides the justification for including OCGS as a key
stakeholder in the model development process, and it
motivated the selection of staff at OCGS to undertake
training on system dynamics modeling at UiB.
5. Conclusions
It is clear that as they stand, the models developed for the
five countries have to be further developed before crosssectoral policy scenario analysis can be carried out.
However, this paper has shown that the ecosystem approach
that combines scenario analysis using system dynamics
modeling with multi-stakeholder processes and the
learning-by-doing approach is an effective way to develop
capacity and generate credibility for the use of SDM in
integrated policy planning at the national level. In
particular, multi-stakeholder processes have led to the
creation of an epistemic community in each of the countries
addressed by the ISLANDS project. These communities of
80
experts, which have established iterative and continuative

knowledge-sharing processes, provide invaluable insights
for the development of system dynamics models, the
analysis of scenarios, and the identification of key policy
options to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability.
The experience with ISLANDS is that the need for
meticulousness in the process cannot be underestimated. By
grounding the model development process, including
capacity development within key institutions, the
institutionalization of the modeling tool is ensured. For this,
including key policymakers through MSPs in the model
development process cannot be bypassed. Also, the results
of the model development process must be used for
advocacy within the policy arena, while noting both the
strengths and limitations of the approach. The models have
been used to advocate for the use of integrated planning
tools as a way to first capture the complexity of sustainable
development planning and to provide a means for evidencebased policy planning. The model development process has
helped countries carry out data gaps analyses and find ways
to bridge these gaps.
Applying the ecosystem approach shows that the
institutionalization of the tool for cross-sectoral mediumto-long policy planning which we consider one of the
key objectives of ISLANDS is proceeding well. The tool
has been successfully adopted by the Planning Commission
of Zanzibar that is seeking to formally adopt the SDM for
developing MKUZA III by 2015, and the Rodrigues
Regional Assembly in their efforts to update the integrated
sustainable plan for Rodrigues and develop a 10-year
Economic and Social Transformation Plan. Dialogues
regarding the institutionalization of the tool in Comoros and
Seychelles are ongoing. The governance and political
situation in Madagascar means that the tool cannot be
institutionalized at the national level yet. So the emphasis in
Madagascar will continue to be on capacity development
and further advocacy within the political arena. A book
detailing the development and institutionalization of system
dynamics modeling for sustainable development planning
in the five countries will be launched by ISLANDS at the
forthcoming Third International Conference on SIDS in
September 2014, in Samoa.
Acknowledgements
ISLANDS (FED/2009/021-331) is implemented by the
Indian Ocean Commission through the technical assistance
funded under the European Development Fund of the
European Union (EuropeAid/129535/D/SER/MULTI). The
University of Bergen (UiB) is duly acknowledged for
providing training on system dynamics modeling for policy
planning between September and October 2012. Our
deepest gratitude extends to Professor Pl Davidsen and to
Santiago Blanco, Department of Geography, UiB.
References
Abel, T., 1998. Complex adaptive systems, evolutionism, and ecology
within anthropology: Interdisciplinary research for understanding
cultural and ecological dynamics. Georgia Journal of Ecological
Anthropology 2(1): 629.
Bassi, A.M., Deenapanray, P.N.K., 2012. Chapter 4 A green investment
analysis using system dynamics modelling The case study of
Mauritius. Small States: Economic Review and Basic Statistics, 16(12):
256265.
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N., Vella, S., 2008. Economic
vulnerability and resilience: Concepts and measurements. WIDER
Research Paper No. 2008/55. United Nations University World
Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki.
Christen, M., Schmidt, S., 2012. A formal framework for conceptions of
sustainability a theoretical contribution to the discourse in
sustainable development. Sustainable Development 20(6): 400410.
Forrester, J., 1987. Lessons from system dynamics modeling. System
Dynamics Review 3(2): 136149.
Forrester, J.W., 2007. System dynamics: The next fifty years. System
Dynamics Review 23(23): 359370.
Ghaffarzadegan, N., Lyneis, J., Richardson, G.P., 2011. How small system
dynamics models can help the public policy process. System Dynamics
Review 27(1): 2244.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., OBrien, G., 2002. Environment, economy
and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development.
Sustainable Development 10(4): 187196.
GOS (Government of Seychelles), 2012. The Seychelles Sustainable
Development Strategy (SSDS) 20122020. GOS, Victoria, Mahe.
Hemmati, M. (2002). Multistakeholder Processes for Governance and
Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. Earthscan, London.
Karas, T.H., 2004. Modelers and Policymakers: Improving the
Relationships. SAND 20042888. Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA.
Krank, S., Wallbaum, H., GrtRegamey, A., 2013. Perceived contribution
of indicator systems to sustainable development in developing
countries. Sustainable Development 21(1): 1829.
Li, C.L., Grinshaw, J.M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P.C., Graham, I.D.
2009. Evolution of Wengers Concept of Community of Practice.
Implementation Science 4: 11. doi: 10.1186/17485908411.
Meadows, D.H., 2008. Thinking in Systems A primer. Earthscan, London.
OCGS (Office of the Chief Government Statistician), 2010. Zanzibar
Statistical Abstract 2010. OCGS, Zanzibar.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development),
1994. Environmental Indicators OECD Core Set. OECD, Paris.
Repenning, N.P., 2003. Selling system dynamics to (other) social
scientists. System Dynamics Review 19(4): 303327.
Richardson, G.P., Pugh, A.L., 1989. Introduction to System Dynamics
Modeling. Pegasus Communications, Inc, Waltham, MA.
Stave, K.A., 2003. A system dynamics model to facilitate public
understanding of water management options in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Journal of Environmental Management 67(4): 303313.
Sen, A., 2013. The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human
Development and Capabilities 14(1): 620.
Senge, P., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. Doubleday, New York.
Sderbaum, P., 2007. Issues of paradigm, ideology and democracy in
sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60(3): 613626.
Sterman, J., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for
a Complex World. McGrawHill, Boston, MA.
Stokols, D., Lejano, R.P., Hipp, J., 2013. Enhancing the resilience of
humanenvironment systems: a socialecological perspective. Ecology
and Society 18(1): 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES05301180107.
Thompson, K.M., Duintjer Tebbens, R.J., 2008. Using system dynamics to
develop policies that matter: Global management of poliomyelitis and
beyond. System Dynamics Review 24(4): 433449.
Tovey, H., 2009. Sustainability: a platform for debate. Sustainability 1(1):
1418.
UN (United Nations), 1992. Agenda 21. Available at: http://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
(accessed 16 April 2013).
UN (United Nations), 1994. Report of the Global Conference on the
Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. A/CONF
167.9. United Nations, New York. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.167/9 (accessed 16 April
2013).
UN (United Nations), 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development. A/CONF.199/20*. United Nations, New York. Available
at: http://www.undocuments.net/jburgpln.htm (accessed 16April 2013).
UN (United Nations), 2005. Report of the International Meeting to Review
the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable
Development of Small Island Developing States. A/CONF 211.2.
United Nations, New York.
UN (United Nations), 2010. Five-year review of the Mauritius Strategy for
the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the
Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. A/65/
115. United Nations, New York.
81
UN (United Nations), 2012. The future we want. A/CONF.216/L.1. United

Nations, New York. Available at: http://www.stakeholderforum.org/
fileadmin/files/FWWEnglish.pdf (accessed 16 April 2013).
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2011. Towards a green
economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty
eradication a synthesis for policy makers. Available at:
www.unep.org/greeneconomy (accessed 16 April 2013).
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2013. Human
Development Report 2013 the rise of the south human progress in
a diverse world. UNDP, New York.
Vivien, F.-K., 2008. Sustainable development: An overview of economic
proposals. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment &
Society 1(2): 18.
Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J., 2005. The evolution of an ecosystem
approach: The diamond schematic and an adaptive methodology for
ecosystem sustainability and health. Ecology and Society 10(1): 38
53.
Winz, I., Brierley, G., 2007. The use of system dynamics simulation in
integrated water resource management, Proceedings of the 25th
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston,
MA.

Deenapanray and Bassi - NRF - System Dynamics Modeling As An Integrated Planning Tool - Feb 2014

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Deenapanray and Bassi - NRF - System Dynamics Modeling As An Integrated Planning Tool - Feb 2014

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 6781

The experience of ISLANDS in deploying system dynamics

1. SIDS: From vulnerability to resilience

Vulnerability expresses the susceptibility of being

on the sustainable development of SIDS makes reference to

learned is therefore squarely related to addressing the first

Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and

lies the understanding of the DPSIR framework (OECD,

Figure 1. Ecosystem approach used in the design and conceptualization of ISLANDS.

Table 1. Selected socio-economic, cultural and geographic characteristics of beneficiary countries

and preferences are intended as iterative and continuative,

The successful implementation of the ecosystem

require collaboration and non-divisive commitments. This

steps of MSP are designed in a way to continuously inform

Maurice Ile Durable (MID) policy, strategy and action

2014 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum 2014 United Nations

Figure 3. Learning-by-doing approach to capacity development.

systems thinking and/or SDM was included in each

analysis for each country. The second regional meeting

4. Experiences and lessons learned on system

4.1.1. Step 1: Identification of key issues and

Develop an energy sector strategy

The transmission and

Enhance the medium voltage network, and

Production capacity (MW)

Source: Outcome of consultations carried out between 16 and 19 April 2012.

discussions on the ecosystem approach. This was not a

Zanzibar forms part of the Republic of United Tanzania, and most

monitoring. In the case of Madagascar, data are not collated

Figure 4. CLD showing the causal relationships within the agricultural

lack of data has forced some countries to develop simple

participants and use of local language (the CLD shown in

explained earlier, the first stage of the model development

Some selected simple models developed for Zanzibar are

net migration rate

population : Baseline Dec 18

2006 2010 2014

Figure 7. Simulation of the historical increase in the population of

historical data of about 1%, for those variables for which

Figure 8. Simulation of number of hotel rooms and annual arrival of

Zanzibar. The error between the simulation and historical

total energy demand : Baseline Dec 18

Figure 9. Simulated and historical total energy demand for Zanzibar.

2006 2010 2014

average adult literacy rate : Baseline Dec 18

tourism arrivals to simulate tourist arrivals in Figure 8.

primary education (7 years) and for the young literates to

experts, which have established iterative and continuative

2014 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum 2014 United Nations

UN (United Nations), 2012. The future we want. A/CONF.216/L.1. United

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi