Dear Mark, I think we both hold nearly the same views. I am not (yet) an expert on forestry or modelling. But I can clearly see the need for using the most powerful information tools/ computer models. An increasing population, multitude of competing demands, advances in the scientific knowledge and environmental awareness compel us to make the 'most appropriate' decisions. One of the biggest flaws of model based decision making is the tendency of modeller to fit the problem to the known techniques of his choice, which may not be the best way to approach problem. Perhaps qualitative models should be used more frequently to suplement the quantitative ones. Vivek At 12:20 29/05/98 -0400, Mark Robson wrote: >>Vivek K. Varma wrote: >> >>>Dear Mark, >> >>>First of all I admit I have not been following all the discussion on this >>>topic. I was forced to express my views by your interesting posting as I >>>am myself engaged in developing a decision support system for sustainable >>>forest management. >>> >>>In relation to the use of decison support systems (DSS), I would say," Let >>>us blame the tool." Going back to the very basics of DSS, we need to remind >>>ourselves that it is only a tool which supports IF-THEN type of decisions. >>>If the input given to DSS does not take into consideration public opinion, >>>should we blame the DSS? The final responsibility of selecting the >>>management alternative lies with the decision maker. If manager abdicates >>>this responsibility, are we right in blaming the tool? >>> >>>I agree with you that models made by computer modellers ignorant of natural >>>processes are useless, but why can't we foresters prepare such models >>>ourselves? >>>I would be glad to hear more about the failures of DSS and their causes >>>reported in the literature. >> >>Dear Vivek, >> >>You are quite right, we should not entirely blame the tool since the >>manager of the tool is responsible for how it is used. Again, I must say >>that my experience with this particular DSS was limited so I can only >>report on my initial impressions which are actually a little more >>sympathetic than the opinions of the professors with whom I worked. I also >must add that I have received a response from am person who had a very >similar experience with FORPLAN in the U.S., so similar in fact, the person >thought I had worked with the same model. I had not. >> >>Probably my main concern relates to how people interact with the >technology itself. Are the results of studies on the human interaction >with computer models incorporated into the development of a model to ensure >the model is used appropriately by people when the model is applied in real >life, on the ground situations? Also, every model is based on a certain >view of the world. Therefore, a model will shape how people approach a >problem. Of course a person's training and background also shapes how they >will approach a problem too, but at least one can negotiate with that >person and come to some kind of a consensus when discussing forest >management options. To be fair, I am not critical of all computer models. >Simpler models like ones that demonstrate the visual effects of a proposed >clearcut seem to work well. People can use them to judge the visual effects >of a proposed option. However, as models become more abstract they become >more removed from what average folk experience and understand. I think the >challenge is not to develop the most complex computer similations >technology can provide but to develop the most appropriate technology for a >given situation that keeps people and their values front and centre. > >All of this thinking comes from my own value orientation, that forest >management problems are social problems. They are about conflicts between >people's world views whether those world views emphasise non-human aspects >of ecosystems, popularly referred to as "natural" phenomena, short term >economic benefits, or long term social, economic and ecological benefits. I >also wonder how there are many examples around the world of communities who >have successfully managed all sorts of natural resources for 100s and even >1000s of years without long term ecological damage and without the use of >high technology. > > >Mark Robson > >**************************************************************************** >"Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be >counted counts." Albert Einstein > >"Science is only a tool; in the end all managerial decisions are moral, not >technical." Jack Ward Thomas > >"Ecosystem management is more about people than anything else." > Hal Salwasser >**************************************************************************** > >
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0