If the hillock does not survive, the community does not survive:
Insights from the SD Winter Institute in Andhra Pradesh
Bambry Xiao
Masha Serdyukova
Washington University in St. Louis
1 Brookings Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63110
(314) 935-5000
zhu.xiao@wustl.edu
masha.serdyukova@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper is a documentation of the process and insights from a two-week
intensive course in Andhra Pradesh India through the Winter Institute. This course was
attended by students from Washington University in St. Louis, and staff members from the
Foundation for Ecological Security based in India. The authors will detail the specific
village setting in which the work took place. Next, we will elaborate our research and
skill-sharing process using participatory rural appraisal, group model building and
systems thinking. This will be followed by an explanation of the reference mode, system
dynamics model and results of simulation runs. Finally, we will conclude with the pivotal
insights we learned throughout the entire process, and ideas for next steps.
Background
This paper will document the process and insights of an effort that put system dynamics,
group model building and participatory rural appraisal techniques in to practice. The goal
of this work was to interpret the system related to resource management in
Chennappagaripalle, a rural village in Andhra Pradesh province in India. This experience
took place during a two week intensive program called the Winter Institute. It was
comprised of students from Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) in
collaboration with employees of the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES). FES is
predominantly interested in relieving the weight of chronic poverty due to poor
management of resources, particularly through watershed management.
The purpose of the Winter Institute was ultimately to assist the work of FES by
incorporating systems thinking and methodology in to their village planning processes, as
well as by introducing FES staff to SD skills and modeling. By combining the System
Dynamics skills of the WUSTL students, with the PRA expertise of the FES staff, the
teams were able to situate SD modeling within participatory research methods. FES staff
served as local experts and field visit facilitators/translators and worked with WUSTL
students in developing exercises and questions to ask community members that would
give us a comprehensive and clear understanding of the systems relevant to the village we
were working in. The students served as the expert modelers and taught FES staff how to
build models that focus on endogenous factors, how to use Vensim, and also a more
scientific approach to gaining system level insights.
The purpose of this paper is to detail the research process, modeling process, and the
insights we experienced throughout the two-week institute. First, we begin with an
overview of the social setting in which the Winter Institute took place. Followed by a
review of relevant literature we then delve deeper in to our process through a discussion
of the field work, problem structuring, and the iterative modeling process. After
establishing the context, we will discuss our reference mode, model, and simulation
results. And finally we will conclude with a detailed account of our insights and
limitations, and suggest next steps.
Chennappagaripalle is made up of 57 families, with a population of approximately 219
people. Agriculture has been the main source of income for the families, primarily
through groundnut cultivation. However, due to water shortages many are shifting to
animal husbandry to stabilize their livelihoods throughout the year. Families are able to
sell livestock, and milk to supplement their income.
FES has been working in this village since 1991. Collaboration with the residents of the
village has resulted in a strong village institution known as the Tree Growers Cooperative
Society (TGCS) that has succeeded in organizing and leveraging grassroots power. For
over 20 years this institution has been instrumental in the protection and restoration of a
nearby hillock, which the village collectively maintains legal rights to as a result of the
work of the TGCS. The institution’s tangible victories have motivated village-reported
complete participation in the TGCS from all those who are able to. Therefore, through the
village institution the residents are able to have democratic participation in a consensus
process that enables the sharing of information, and collective decision making over
common resources. Additionally, the TGCS has strengthened the traditional practice of
the village fund, which collects a portion of the residents’ earnings for projects that
benefit the entire village.
The staff of FES is made up of experts in PRA activity facilitation. FES deliberately
engages all identified stakeholders in the village planning process through time intensive
exercises, and multi-level research that spans oral history to legal documentation.
Consequently, the plans developed by FES are comprehensive and sensitive to village
life. Additionally, the plans developed by FES are made publically available on the
village level for reference in TGC meetings, or whenever necessary. Consequently, the
individuals participating in a TGC are able to turn the plan in to a living document that is
alterable based on social and biological changes; thereby empowering the community to
take control over the TGC once FES staff complete the rigorous facilitation process.
Through the focus groups, conversations and other PRA activities the vision that the
community had for itself was illuminated. Most importantly, the participants in our
sessions communicated their sense of cohesion and consensus over common resources.
The level of information shared and democratic decision-making in the village was
extremely high and a point of pride for people. Therefore, this translated to a desire for
equitable water, fodder, and non-timber wood product cultivation and usage. For
example, it is common knowledge among the people in the village that building more
bore-wells will deplete their aquifer, and is not an acceptable option. As a result, people
are committed to building more water-catchment structures on the hillock with the help
of FES. Therefore, ensuring participation and consent from all the families in decisions
related to resources is critical.
Another important aspect to the community’s vision relates to their livelihoods. Thus far,
the families have been able to be resourceful and adjust their income sources to offset
agricultural losses. However, they recognize that their current situation is not ideal
because of the depletion of soil quality and their inability to predict future yields, which
also relates to droughts and other natural variables that are out of their control. For some
individuals, migrating to cities for work opportunities has been an occasional option to
increase their yearly income. At this point, the village has very little migration out, and it
is largely temporary. So, increasing income opportunities is closely related to the gravity
they place on preventing out migration.
The community’s desire for more income opportunities is also related to their vision for
improved soil fertility. Individuals expressed a hope to become less reliant on cash crops,
and the chemical fertilizer associated with their cultivation. Additionally, they would like
to have more land used to diversify their harvests and save more for personal use.
Another potential avenue to increase income comes from the success of their hillock
restoration and preservation efforts. Participants in our activities suggested that the
potential for renting more wasteland from the government for restoration purposes in
order to increase fodder, non-timber forest products and water catchment structures is an
interesting option for them, and one that they are willing to explore in more detail.
Review of Literature
There is abundant research on the topic of joint forest management (JFM), which is an
instrumental strategy in poverty alleviation in rural areas in India. This policy evolved
from being primarily run through the government’s Forest Department, to include a
second model facilitated by non-governmental organizations (NGO) in order to address
the numerous critiques of its efficacy and exclusionary tendencies when operated by the
state (Baruah 2010). FES has been a crucial player among non-governmental
organizations implementing this policy in rural villages and hamlets throughout India.
The set of PRA strategies utilized by FES mirrors community forest management systems
that have historically been the process for management of forests in these communities
(Baruah 2010). This represents an alternative JFM approach, contrasted to the top-down,
project based strategy put forth in areas dominated by Forest Department intervention
(Baruah 2010).
Evaluations of both models of JFM suggest that FES’ methods result in policies that are
flexible and relevant to the particular circumstances that exist in the lives of the
participants. The effectiveness of PRA in policy planning is in a comprehensive
understanding of the needs of individuals, including historical practices and relevant legal
concerns (Murali Murthy Ravindranath 2006). Additionally, participatory decision
making in village institutions have shown to be more sustainable, transparent, and
demonstrate more effective use of resources, as well as more efficient reforestation
efforts (Hovmand Yadama 2010). Unlike FES, the Forest Department does not make the
research and policies available to the communities in which they work. Consequently,
Forest Department plans are rigid and based on specific models that do not incorporate
feedback from the individuals impacted by them (Murali Murthy Ravindranath 2006).
JFM is a policy and set of practices that maintains a stable role in the future efforts to
alleviate poverty in rural areas (Yadama Hovmand 2010). Consequently, in order to meet
the changing environment it is important for the implementation methods to have an
iterative and evaluative process imbedded, similar to that which SD requires. JFM claims
to increase participation and democratic decision making, however history has shown
otherwise in areas where it is implemented by the Forest Department (Conner Deal
2010).
FES has attempted a solution to this problem from its inception by grounding its work in
a PRA framework. Moreover, through the Winter Institute FES is improving its efforts
for greater inclusion and participation. System’s thinking and GMB methods are critical
to the organization’s answer, particularly in terms of a culturally competent attempt to
include women and other marginalized social groups. Our work in Chennapagaripalle
was reflective of this intention as the students and FES staff planned exercises that were
sensitive to this reality utilizing our respective skill sets.
JEM institutions that are facilitated by NGOs are able to root their village plans in the
customs and traditions of the people that are participating through the use of PRA (Scholl
2004). This presents another intuitive opportunity to include SD methods in effectively
revealing the most useful leverage points for the policies to focus on. Therefore,
integrating system’s thinking and group model building in to the regular activities of the
TGCSs presents a future that can accommodate iterative policy re-evaluation that can
adjust to natural changes in the village. This is unlike typical governmental bureaucratic
legal reforms that often perpetuate conflict in this setting, instead of problem solving
(Baruah 2010). Therefore, the plans that are grounded in participation become tools
owned by the village, and they have the power to adjust them to their needs.
Incorporating SD thinking in this process can provide strategies that streamline the plan
development process and identify the most critical leverage points to focus policies and
maximize desired behavior in the intervention variables.
Another potential benefit of the integration of SD thinking in FES’ work is related to the
conflicts that naturally arise in democratic, community processes. Utilizing participatory
approaches already affords village institutions opportunities to address the problems that
arise, unlike those villages that did not involve residents in plans (Murali Murthy
Ravindranath 2006). Adding the dimension of modeling to the work may prevent
conflicts by identifying the feedback loops involved in the system, and engaging those
who live in it.
Methodology
The Winter Institute commenced on January 3" and ended on January 12 (see Table 1).
In that time we conducted field research, and through experiential learning developed
models with the FES staff that focused on livelihood and its limits based on initially on
water scarcity, and later evolved to consider other resource concerns.
Table 1. Project Timeline
Date Work
January 3 Intro to Andhra Pradesh region and intro to problem structuring
January 4 Intro to SD, preparing for field visit
January 5 Field visit 1, debrief and begin modeling CLD
January 6 Lecture, develop first Stock and Flow, prep field visit
January 7 Field visit 2, debrief
January 8 Lecture, further develop stock and flow
January 9 Lecture, modeling continues
January 10 Field visit 3, debrief
January 11 Lecture, finishing up final model
January 12 Final Presentation
The first field visit consisted of resource mapping with village men and social mapping
with village women. In both activities community members used rangoli (colored chalk)
to paint the physical and human resources in the village as they see it. These exercises
also helped us start conversations about what resources were lacking and in what areas
problems arose. Our second activity was a transect walk to see the physical space of the
village. During this activity we were able to see the hillock that is so vital to the
sustainability of the village. It is government owned land rented and managed by the
TGCS to ensure fertile grazing land for livestock. To ensure that the hillock constantly
provided fodder for livestock the community established and collectively enforced rules
that prevented over-grazing, and other behaviors that may harm the vegetation.
Additionally FES has worked with the community to build water conservation structures
on the hillock while simultaneously increasing plant diversity and quantity. Increased
vegetation and water catchment rock beds stop soil erosion and they also allow for
groundwater recharge, which ensures that the water table is able to supply for the entire
community to consistently water their flocks. We also saw a large dam that was
constructed in association with 3 neighboring villages and through the assistance of FES.
This dam created a functional lake to improve groundwater recharge, as well as provide a
source of water for everyday household and livestock use.
(Figure 1. PRA activity with women)
The second field visit consisted of several PRA activities carefully selected and tailored
to answer our questions. The first activity consisted of community members ranking the
most pressing problems in their environment. The group differed to the village elders, all
men, to answer the questions. Consequently, encouraging women and younger men to
participate was key to the successful accumulation of data. They ranked four main
problems: unstable electricity, lack of work, no rain and agriculture. The FES facilitator
then asked the participant’s evaluate on a one to one basis which problem was more
pressing than the other. The problem that was consistently rated above the rest was lack
of work. This data helped us structure our model based on lack of work and interest in
increasing wealth became our focus. Next we had the community participants build their
own cause and effect chart, asking them to consider what conditions reduce the
availability of work, and what the consequences of lack of work are. We also had a
questionnaire prepared to help us elicit more specific information about the pricing of
livestock and average lifespan, data that would allow us to build the necessary equations.
These PRA exercises are all techniques that FES expertly employs to establish a
comprehensive understanding of the community’s strengths and needs.
(Figure 2. Modeling with the village)
In the third field visit we presented the community with a nascent causal-loop diagram
(CLD) written in Telegu, the local language. This CLD served as a dialogue tool based
on the stock and flow we had developed. We were particularly interested in developing
our understanding of collective action as it pertains to the feedback loops contributing to
livelihood. We recognized that cooperation was integral to their success as a community
and we wanted to explore their notions of collectivized power through the TGCS. We
also had a questionnaire prepared for this field visit in order to collect crucial data that to
build equations in the modeling process. Upon completing these tasks we took a walk
through the village with community members and were invited in to in their homes.
Social activities like this assist the development of relationships and trust, which would
improve the outcomes of further field visits.
Le ‘ae
(Figure 3. PRA focus group discussion)
System Dynamics Modeling
As part of the Winter Institute we were taught the concept of problem structuring as a
way to guide the groups understanding of the models function and purpose. The problem
structuring chart shows the way problems are framed on two spectrums (Appendix A).
The vertical has to do with whether the community’s problems are radical or regulatory
within common views of society, while the horizontal deals with community’s problems
based on a spectrum from objective to subjective views of social science. We understood
our community’s problem- wanting more work- as an analysis problem. It is situated in
the regulatory side of society because it is limited by inability to produce a high export
crop yield due to a decrease in soil fertility over time as an effect of fertilizer and high
yield crops subsidized by the Indian government. The problem is positioned in objective
views of social science because the aim of the modeling process was to find leverage
points that were found amongst objective facts of societal limits. Finding the right
leverage points, for the community, involves seeing the structures in which they exist that
limit their ability to increase income.
Description of the Reference Mode and Model
Wealth (RS) 4
100,000
Hoped
>
1990 2012 2020 Feared
Year
Reference Mode
Figure 5. Reference Mode
For the reference mode, we regarded increasing wealth for households as the priority
issue to address in the village because it determined villagers’ well-being. More
specifically, since villagers switched to livestock as a coping strategy to the loss of yield,
they are converting their wealth to the ability of buying new stocks. Different from the
terminology used by asset-building researchers, debt and some substantial assets (like
electric appliances, furniture) are currently out of discussion (but should be addressed in
the future). With the unit of Rupees, wealth was regarded as a stock in the model, and
was defined as the average amount of money that is accumulated throughout years for
each household. It has inflows and an outflow, which represent income and expenditure.
To illustrate the reference mode, initially the switch to chemical fertilizer caused an
increase in wealth but as chemical fertilizer continued to be used, it began degrading soil
fertility. Soil fertility is now so low no matter how much chemical fertilizer is used, the
yield cannot increase and so the villagers have switched to livestock to stabilize their
wealth. The behavior of wealth has been goal seeking, and is now stagnant but they hope
it will increase.
After much deliberation we arrived at the following model (see Figure 4). It tells the story
of two competing feedback loops. The first loop models the relationship of fertilizer on
soil fertility, measured in yield. As fertilizer is first applied it increases yield and a
reinforcing loop is created. Over time the fertilizer and the mono-crop agriculture
exhausts the soil and yield decreases thus creating a balancing loop and this change in
behavior is represented as a delay. The dynamic that we are interested in is that the cost
of fertilizer (and seed) is now more expensive than the income generated from yield and
so agriculture becomes a drain on wealth for families.
The second loop is one that models animal husbandry. It is a reinforcing loop that allows
families to raise livestock, make a profit and eventually reinvest. This profit is made
possible by collective action. The community protects their communal land (the hillock)
by monitoring and limiting grazing and maintaining the watershed system through
planting vegetation and building water conservation structures. In doing so they ensure
that there is enough fodder and water to raise healthy sheep for sale and healthy cows,
which provide quality milk for sale. The relationship between these two loops is that they
even each other out and families break even at the end of year.
change m ywie 1
ie 3
pce of Seritzer
Figure 4. Simplified Model
The above figure shows a simplified form of our model’, The model is composed of five
stock and flow structures. Stocks include yield, livestock, availability of fodder,
collective action and wealth. Yield and livestock are essential to wealth as they pertain to
income and expenditure. Though the dynamic interaction between yield and fertilizer was
significantly affecting wealth approximately 10 years ago, its impact has been leveraged
since families adopted raising livelihood as a living strategy. With that being said,
farming activity is still playing an important role in villager’s daily life, and the loss from
agriculture is affecting households’ wealth, and further influencing their ability to invest
on livestock.
One essential dynamic takes place among the structures of livestock, availability of
fodder, collective action and wealth. As mentioned, collective action is the coping
mechanism in managing fodder in the village for livestock as it pertains to resource
conservation. As the availability of fodder goes up, the average price of livestock and
milk is also going up because the current market price is depending on the weight and
productivity of each livestock. As a result, the income from livestock should go up and
increase household’s wealth.
1 This is not an actual model but for the convenience of explaining the main feedback
loops in our model
10
=i a ik
vcting a baying lrwemock_
weer comereton
ees
mepilabality of water
leverage pount_
Figure 5. Conceptually Simplified Model
It should be noted that what allows the reinforcing feedback loop between the livestock
and wealth structure is the collective action. In this model, our focus should be leaning
toward checking how collective action is ultimately affecting wealth. However, it is
challenging to model collective action as endogenous by figuring out how it is interacting
with people’s incentive to participate in collective action. More specifically, the question
to ask here is how villagers are incentivized to devote themselves to collective action.
This topic has not been fully addressed during our visit to the village. Another thing is
that managing fodder is not the only activity in the TGCS. While they help build the
water conservation structures to help village restore water, this structure should also be
included as a key leverage point. To illustrate, we used a dotted line and bold lines to
point out these missing links in our actual model, hoping that they will be addressed in
the future (see Figure 5).
11
Simulation
collective action
75
CAU
a
2:5
0
1990 1996 2002 2008 2014 2020 2026 2032 2038 2044 2050
Time (year)
collective action : simulatior:
Graph 1. Collective action over time
Collective action (see Graph 1) was modeled through a scale from 0 to 10. It is now
showing a goal seeking behavior implying that it is reaching its upper limit. In this village
in particular, it seems that TGCS is reaching its full capacity by sustaining the
effectiveness from current projects. As a result, it raised the availability of fodder in the
first few years, and increased the average selling price of livestock from 1990 to 2000.
12
wealth
200,000
150,000
2 100,000
50,000
0
1990 1996 2002 2008 2014 2020 2026 2032 2038 2044 2050
Time (year)
wealth : simulatior
Graph 2. Wealth over time
Highlighting the behavior of wealth over time, it is reflecting the behavior trend we
expected from the reference mode (see graph 2). We treated it as a stock because we
think its accumulating throughout years depending on families’ income and expenditures
in each year. In the simulation, wealth went up for the first few years. As the yield
decreases due to continued loss in soil fertility, families turned to livestock to offset
losses. Collective action initially had a positive impact because it increased the market
price for livestock by effectively manages resources, thus resulting in more livestock
income. However, wealth came down and stagnated after 1998 (see Graph 2) because of
the continuing loss from agriculture, while income from livestock did not fully
compensate the loss (see Graph 3, 4). From this model we can conclude that collective
action helped the community to maintain livestock income within a specific time range,
but was not able to save recuperate the losses over time. It should be noted that we did
not fully model the villagers’ other income resources in the structure such as non-
agriculture income, labor wages, welfare allowances, small business, etc. Consequently,
we did not fully model all the living expenses that contribute to the outflow of wealth on
daily basis. We did not include these in the model because we were unable to model the
complexity in all of their financial systems. Furthermore, we also did not take into family
assets in to consideration (furniture, house, and livestock) that also make up wealth.
13
yield
200
150
2
= 100
2
50
0
1990 1996 2002 2008 2014 2020 2026 2032 2038 2044 2050
Time (year)
yield : simulati
Graph 3 Yield over time
livestock
40
32.5
3
= 25
17.5
10
1990 1996 2002 2008 2014 2020 2026 2032 2038 2044 2050
Time (year)
livestock : simulati
Graph 4 Livestock over time
Discussion and Next Steps
The key insight is about collective action. This insight emphasizes what FES has already
shown through TGCS organizing; that cooperatives are structures that lessen the burden
of drought and poverty. This insight is reflected in the representation of community
action in a stock and flow model where it further articulates they way it enables a steady
income from livestock, and also reveals the insight that cooperation has the potential to
uncover other leverage points in the future. It also allows the community to get
perspective from the day-to-day realities such as the debt scheme in which they are
14
entrenched that involves buying seeds and fertilizer. A systems view allows them to
visualize such specific strains on the larger system and to think about how community
action could help a desired transition from export crops to a more sustainable form of
agriculture, or how the community could use the cooperative to sell crops that are less
intensive for the soil. The community may also see the cooperative’s potential to allow
them to become less dependent on agriculture despite their deeply rooted identity as
farmers. This would allow the land to recover and in the interim the potential to rent more
land to protect from the government allowing them to focus on livestock.
A non-SD insight gained from simply spending time in the village was that there is power
in community cooperation. Many neighboring villages were experiencing population
decline. Parents were sending their children to work in cities as the future of farming in
the region was looking less possible. In the PRA process, the Chennappagaripalle
explained that there was virtually no migration out of the village. They explained that the
hillock provided enough fodder to ensure that all the families had sufficient food for
livestock, providing a steady income from the sale of milk and sheep. The collective
action and retention was a reinforcing loop as village members became dedicated and
enhanced by the cooperative, they took care of each other and the collective took care of
the individual. Spending time in the village made us reflect on the value that comes with
an organized supportive community model.
The primary purpose for FES to host the WI was to incorporate SD models and insights
from the institute into their VPPs for the selected villages. As mentioned elsewhere, SD
lends itself very well to creating a holistic resource management model village
perspective planning as planning is about creating that maps the web of resources and
relationships into a development plan for villages. It is a process-oriented approach and
so through engaging the community in discussion and planning, a shared reality is
established and a common understanding of needs and solutions is too. The same can be
said for group modeling building using SD.
FES employs the LEAP method to implement VPP: learn about the issue; experience and
evaluate the knowledge; adapt to knowledge; promote the knowledge. Because the VPP
attempts to give communities a systems view, SD can help with every step of this method
whether it is a means to learning and evaluating the system or adapting and promoting it.
Additionally, the methods used to bring the community to a systems-level awareness are
methods that lend themselves to SD modelers who are working with groups including:
direct and participant observations, semi-structured interviews, analytical games, PRA.
exercises, stories and portraits, diagrams and maps, and workshops. All provide
necessary information to create a correct yet simplified model that reproduces behavior
and captures the feedback loops that drive it.
SD is a particularly interesting tool for analyzing systems and designing intervention
plans with communities. Using feedback perspective, SD models visualize the behavior
and offer a helpful place to start the conversation about whether the system modeled is
accurate and why. Additionally, a benefit of simulation is that policies and interventions
can be tested resulting in better investment decisions that will address root causes. Once
15
the model is built it offers a common ground to discuss interventions and leverage points
within a community because all involved share a similar reference point for system
behavior.
Our model is one that can be used to tell the story of rural Indian farmers who face
decreasing soil fertility and increased reliance on livestock. This model can be shared
with communities to explain the position for greater protection of collectively managed
land, and how that can support the livelihood of the entire community. Additionally, it
can serve as an example for FES when approaching new communities to establish
cooperatives.
As student modelers, our next step is to refine the model in order to better identify and
test interventions and policies in Vensim. At this juncture, our recommendation for FES’
future work in this village is based on what the strength we observed in the village
institution. Farmers will not change their occupations, and it is not our role to suggest
such a drastic change, therefore we recommend that the village utilize their community
institution in novel ways to further uphold their livelihood and improve sustainable
management of resources.
Self-Reflection and Feedback
When building models with communities it is important to be aware of the scale of the
problem, being sure to place it in relation to factors within, as well as consider those
beyond the control of the community. This also leads modelers to the desired insights as
it helps reveal the communities leverage points in relation to the forces that they see as
disabling. Keeping in mind that Systems Dynamics focuses on an endogenous
perspective is helpful in establishing the correct scale as well because, for example,
rainfall is exogenous and therefore it is not a helpful leverage point. Seed subsidies may
also be exogenous but modelers may be inclined to include them because they provide an
integral pressure that shifts behavior of farmers to purchase these seeds and the necessary
fertilizer. But the most helpful scale, if one’s reference mode emphasizes income, is to
focus strictly on yield and what creates a decline over time in income.
A critical insight for our team was to understand that creating a properly simulating
model should not necessarily be the end goal when working with communities. If we are
applying SD to problem solve and to help communities gain perspective on the implicit
feedback structures that create delays and vicious loops, then it is the questions we ask of
and modeling process that is most useful. It is the discussion that spurs when we must
decide where model boundaries lie. It is about distilling problems into a reference mode
that brings clarity to attainable goals and possible barriers. For example, we struggled to
figure out whether we should represent fertilizer and yield as stocks, or auxiliaries, or
whether we model the behavior using a table function, or using two distinct feedback
loops, one with a delay. Ultimately the behavior produced from our model was less
important than the insights this decision making process afforded us. In having to adjust
the scale and explore different model boundaries, larger understandings of systemic
oppression came to light that contributed to the accuracy of our model; but, more
16
importantly such insights encouraged the team to think about leverage points that lead to
intervening in terms of social issues and access to power.
For the FES staff the process is helpful as well because of SD’s focus on the endogenous
perspective. Implicit feedback loops are hard to detect and so learning SD allows FES
staff to build a system level view, communicate that story and ultimately change mental
models. It also allows them to hold the dynamics in their proper place. For example
model building allows them to see that resilience is a characteristic of a system and not a
factor within it or to understand that biodiversity is a product of a system that functions
properly. It also allows them to more precisely think about collective action, an
establishment that is central to their interventions through understanding how it relates to
behavior trends. This helps change mental models of FES staff and mental models of the
communities they work with.
The insights from our work in Chennapagaripalle principally reveal an intuitive direction
to improve upon the successes achieved by FES. Systems thinking and group model
building can contribute to village planning, policy implementation, and iterative
evaluation of the systems involved in resource management. The main leverage point for
the utility of SD in these contexts is through community empowerment and an emphasis
on collective action as an endogenous variable in the system.
Our work illustrated that shifting focus to such intangible variables as critical components
of the system highlighted useful leverage points and supported innovative thinking in our
group activities with the village. Specifically, in terms of resource management SD has
the potential to focus time intensive planning processes by clarifying the behavior of a
system over time. As well as providing an opportunity to test reforestation techniques to
make successful and transparent policy decisions.
Ultimately, model behavior is less important that the insights we came up with because
most of the variables are dependent on external forces. This idea is consistent with
Harich’s (2010) analysis of failure of historical environmental interventions that target
individual behavior instead of root system failures. The implications of that study support
the notion that collective action is the solution to social, specifically sustainability, issues.
While it is important to understand how the relationships play out to improve or
impoverish the lives of people, ultimately the strongest leverage point comes from
collective action. Therefore, collective action is a useful variable to include because it is
something that people have the most control over.
17
References
Baruah, Mitul. "Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Role of NGOs: Cases from
Rajasthan, India." PhD diss., State University of New York, College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 2010.
Conner, D., A. Deal, et al. (2010). The Livelihood-Energy-Conservation Nexus:
Intervention strategies to promote conservation in forest villages. Proceedings of the 28th
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Seoul, Korea, System
Dynamics Society.
Hovmand, P., G. Yadama, et al. (2010). Combining Group Model Building and
Participatory Rural Appraisal in Southeast Rural India. Proceedings of the 28th
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Seoul, Korea, System
Dynamics Society.
Kuhlberg, J., P. Hovmand, et al. (2012). Transdisciplinary Learning in Rural India:
Reflections and Considerations from an Intensive Two-Week Course. Proceedings of the
30th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. E. Husemann and D.
Lane. St. Gallen, Switzerland, System Dynamics Society.
Murali, K.S., Indu K. Murthy, and N. H. Ravindranath (2006). Sustainable community
forest management systems: A study on community forest management and joint forest
management institutions in India. International Review for Envir | Strategies
6:23-40.
Scholl, H. J. (2004). Can System Dynamics Models Have Greater Relevance to Practice
When Used within Participatory Action Research Designs? Proceedings of the 22nd
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Oxford, England, The System
Dynamics Society.
‘Yadama, G., P. Hovmand, et al. (2010). Community Driven Modeling of Social-
Ecological Systems: Lessons from Andhra Pradesh, India. Proceedings of the 28th
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Seoul, Korea, System
Dynamics Society.
18
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the tremendous staff of the Foundation for
Ecological Security; all those who participated in the Winter Institute, and in particular
Snigdha, Raman, Siddharth, and Raghu. Additionally, we would like to thank the
instructional team: Peter Hovmand, Guatam Yadama, and Jill Kuhlburg.
19
APPENDIX A: Problem Structuring Chart
Subjective Views of Social Science
BOUBINS |BIN0S jo SMAI, BANIAIGO
Radical Change Views of Society
Leaming problems: , Restructuring problems:
Difficulty learning and Difficulty identifying how to
adapting to a changing restructure the material
environment or local and information flows,
context, self-organizing in changing the goals of the
response to change system
Coordination problems: Analysis problems:
Difficulty agreeing on Difficulty finding and
goals and rules of the adjusting parameters of
system, reaching high leverage points,
consensus, coordinating adjusting size of buffers,
action ¥ changing delays
Regulation Views of Society
Adapted from Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and
organizational analysis: Elements of sociology of corporate life. London:
Heinemann; Lane, D. C. (1999). Social Theory and system dynamics practice. Journal
of Operational Research Society, 113, 501---527; and, Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage
points: places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability institute.
20
APPENDIX B: Full Model
teins
ratio of fertilizer to
max fertilizer avg price for
yield
thl effect of chemical \
fertilizer on changes in
yield
change in yield
| a=
snay collective change in yekd gS
action eld income yield expeocicoe
gap of collective
action
TBL effect of time fo adjust
collective action on
FR of inerease in
collective action {
os is
[ea
ecole ation =
Semis aa te ne
selling income price
oe + + avg maitenance
¢ fee
FR o rate ,
avg price of
foster time pean in ae?
rhs
lath vests
a FR wealth on
buying
avg Mfespan of
livestock
21
