Model complexity

Pete Loucks

How does a modeler know the ’optimal’ level of complexity needed in a model when those desiring to
gain insights from the use of such a model aren’t sure what information they will eventually need? In
other words, what level of model complexity is needed to do a job when the information needs of that
job are uncertain and changing?

Simplification is why we model. We wish to abstract the essence of a system we are studying, and
estimate its likely performance, without having to deal with all its detail. We know that our simplified
models will be wrong. But, we develop them because they can be useful. The simpler and hence the
more understandable models are the more likely they will be useful, and used, ‘as long as they do the
job.’

Modelers of real systems addressing real problems have the job of providing the information needed by
those making recommendations or decisions. But those individuals themselves often don’t know what
they will need or want until they get what our models give them. And models are not their only source
of information, as they will also receive advice from their staffs of engineers, planners and lawyers – and
even relatives. But all this advice and information is worthless unless there is a level of trust between
those providing it and those receiving it. This includes trust in any models used to generate information.

One way to build that level of trust and at the same time help guide modelers in determining just what
level of complexity may be most appropriate is to start simple and only add complexity when it is called
for. I illustrate this with examples from two planning projects I’ve been involved in.

Example #1 Regulating flows and water levels in the lower Great Lakes

The issue in this project was how to regulate the flows and water levels in Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River, so as to keep all its users happy or, at least, minimally unhappy. This included
maintaining the health of its wetland ecosystems that had not been a goal when the existing operating
policy for that system was originally established.

Those of us involved in leading this 5-year, 20-million-dollar, study felt it was very important to have
stakeholder buy-in if any new policy was to be successfully implemented. Stakeholders included:

 shoreline owners concerned about their land being eroded

 the navigation (shipping) industry that made it clear to us that lowering river flow levels even by
a foot would cost them millions of dollars in reduced cargo carrying capacity
 hydropower interests desiring high water levels and flows
 recreational boaters who wanted access to their marinas without incurring boat damage
 environmental interests that wanted to protect and restore wetland species and fish
 commercial fishing interests
 water supply utilities who wanted flows above their supply intakes.

We went to great efforts to involve stakeholders in the building of what we called a ‘shared vision
model’ – an interactive graphics-based spreadsheet model that could address any stakeholder concern
or question and display the results in a number of attractive, and hopefully meaningful, ways. When
needed we added additional complexity to address evolving or emerging issues. Some of the
relationships in this spreadsheet model were based on much more detailed models developed to
address, for example, shoreline erosion as influenced by changing water levels, waves caused by
shipping or wind, and ice.

Building trust in our analyses, and in the models we were using, was a big effort. To fast forward, I think
over time we did get that level of trust, but we didn’t get a ‘shared vision’ of what to do because
different stakeholders were not willing to give up anything to reach that ‘minimally unhappy’
compromise.

Example #2 Hydropower dams in the Mekong River basin

In the Lower Mekong River basin the development of hydropower dams has become attractive to
investors, as well as to potential consumers of electrical energy. Since the ending of the wars that
plagued the region, that basin – containing one of the most bio-diverse rivers in the world—has become
the site for about 150 potential reservoirs, some of which are under construction today.

What has maintained the river’s natural biodiversity has been its hydrologic and sediment regimes.
Sediment not only transports nutrients that support over 1200 species of fish, but it also helps maintain
the Vietnam delta that is the food basket for much of the region. Dams alter those flow and sediment
regimes. Hence the challenge in this project has been to identify alternative ways of siting, designing and
operating hydropower reservoirs that allow sediment and fish passage that would extend the life of
reservoirs and reduce ecosystem degradation.

To estimate the effectiveness of alternative siting, designs and operating policies, models were
developed. Initially they were developed for use on spreadsheets to aid in technology transfer. Later it
became obvious we needed to address a number of uncertainties that caused us to increase the model
complexity and develop software that replaced our use of spreadsheets.

Addressing the fish and larval passage issue resulted in an increase in the model’s complexity. As in the
Great Lakes example, the outputs of other models addressing in more detail some of the hydraulic
issues, for example, were inputs to the overall planning model designed to communicate information to
those making decisions in the region. This simulation model helped address various what-if questions
and identify tradeoffs among various objectives, and in general helped focus the debate among various
ministries in the basin on just what decisions to make.

Conclusion

In both cases model complexity was determined in an adaptive manner. As different concerns were
expressed, the model or models were modified to address those concerns. Such modifications increased
model complexity. But starting with relatively simple models, and adding additional complexity only
when needed, built up trust, and promoted understanding.