The purpose of the project was to analyze the logistics of a poor country and analyze how the developing country can be improved. This research project was awarded Honable Mention from COMAP.

1. Sustainability of a Country – Summary
We developed a model that took into account thirty one different factors to predict the
sustainability level of a country. Our model weighted the different factors depending on the
significance each had to the sustainability level and divided them into three main categories:
society, economy, and environment. We quantified each factor and set up a numerical scale
from 0-10 with zero being unsustainable and ten being the ideal of a sustainable country. We
then focused our model on the country of Madagascar and found Madagascar’s sustainability
level to be 5.58. Using our model, we pinpointed the exact locations that Madagascar’s
sustainability was suffering and developed two programs, two policies, and an amount of
monetary aid needed in order to raise the sustainability level to 6.63. Raising the level to 6.63
would greatly increase the chances of Madagascar remaining sustainable due to the design of
our model. Madagascar would have a 66% chance of sustainability with the implementations of
our programs, as opposed to a 56% sustainability without them.
According to our model, in twenty years, the quality of life in Madagascar would change
drastically, which would in turn increase the sustainability a sufficient amount. With
Madagascar’s societal score increasing, other factors would increase as well because of how
interconnected the society, economy, and environment are. Our model showed the
interconnection between the three main factors by the immediate impact changing one had
upon the others. Overall, we found that sustainability in general is very complex, but by
defining the factors in a specific numerical way, we can simplify sustainability and use models
such as ours to develop efficient strategies to help less developed countries achieve long-term
sustainability.

2. Page 2 Team # 40732
Table of Contents
1. Introduction (page 3)
2. The Model (page 3)
3. The Solutions (page 10)
4. Programs/Development Plan (page 13)
5. Conclusions (page 15)
6. References (page 17)

3. Page 3 Team # 40732
Sustainability of a Country
1. Introduction
Our problem was to develop a model to predict the sustainability of any given country. We
used the 1987 Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development which is
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generation to meet their own needs.” We understood that there were many different factors in
defining a country’s sustainability and that most of the formulas to develop sustainability are
dependent on the personal preference on the researcher. In our model, we attempted to
remove the bias from sustainability by giving a formulaic system to assign a quantitative
definition to sustainability and gave researchers a systematic approach in defining each factor
that we believed would impact a country’s sustainability level.
Our model is a series of different ratings for the factors that would impact the sustainability
level weighted depending on the importance of the factor. Because of the detailed way we
defined each of the sustainability factors, we were able to pinpoint the exact areas where a
country suffers and the weight those weaknesses have on the sustainability level as a whole.
After the exact weaknesses are located, we will be able to focus our governmental policies on
those areas to raise sustainability. Some factors that negatively affect sustainability are out of
the country’s control, but by weighting the factors, we are able to show that it is possible to
raise sustainability levels despite the country having an unfair predisposition.
2. The Model
To begin our model, we brainstormed different factors that contribute to a country’s
sustainability level. We found that it was possible to group all the factors into three main
categories that easily defined sustainability: society, economy, and environment. Our model
assigned a number out of ten to each of the three main factors and averaged those scores to
get a final sustainability score out of ten for our countries. Each of the three main factors has
different contributing aspects to their individual scores of ten.
The societal score of a country is based on the countries’ life expectancies, infant mortality
rates, working populations, and demographics. Our societal score takes the scores of these four
categories, totaling forty points, and averages them. This results in our final societal score out
of ten, with a higher score representing greater sustainable in the country. We defined the life

4. Page 4 Team # 40732
expectancy in an ideally sustainable country as 100 years. This demonstrates that the country
has the resources to help its inhabitants live a long life. Also we determined that a longer life
expectancy would provide a country with the ideas of its older citizens, which could positively
increase the country’s productivity. Therefore for the countries’ life expectancy score out of
ten, we simply divided the life expectancy by 10. With this score, our ideal nation would have a
perfect ten, and all other nations would have scores below. Infant mortality rates were
configured the same way, as a score out of 10 with a perfect score being a 0% infant mortality
rate. We determined that a high mortality rate would compromise future generation’s
population and productivity levels (due to less people in the workforce). We calculated infant
mortality rate similarly to life expectancy. However, since infant mortality is number of infant
deaths per one thousand live births, we took the infant mortality rate and divided it by 10 (so it
was a percentage) and then subtracted that number by 10 to give us the infant mortality score
out of ten. Therefore, an ideal sustainable country with a score of 10 for infant mortality would
have an infant mortality rate of 0-9 deaths per 1000 live births. The next aspect in the societal
score of a country is the working population. In an ideal sustainable country, we decided that
the working population should be 70% because children between the ages of 0-15 who are not
parts of the working population are approximately 20% of the population and people aged 65
and on who are not parts of the working population are approximately 10% of the population.
To find a country’s score out of ten for the working population then, we take the absolute value
of seventy (our ideal working population) subtracted by the country’s percentage of working
population and divide that number by the ideal working population, which is the formula for
percentage error. We then subtract that number by one to find our percentage accuracy and
multiply it by ten to find our score out of ten. A country’s working population helps
sustainability by providing more workers to increase productivity. The working population also
helps keep the industries in the country alive, contributing to the country’s wealth. The last
aspect in our societal score is demographics, which has multiple different parts because of its
complexity. We scored demographics as a total of forty points, ten for each supplementing
factor. Later this was adjusted to a score out of ten, so it was weighted equally with the other
societal factors.
The four subcategories of demographics are relationships with other countries, location, level
of development, and access to technology. We believe that each of these divisions are equally
important to the sustainability of a country. Relationships with other countries allows the
country in question to reach out to its neighboring countries for assistance in times of need,
location determines the availability of resources, level of development provides us with the
advantages the country has for the survival of future and current generations, and a country’s

5. Page 5 Team # 40732
access to technology affects its ability to request aid and trade goods and services with other
countries. Each of these divisions were given scores out of ten each. To better define the
subcategories of demographics, we gave each three to five subsections weighted such that the
subcategories would equal ten. For relationships with other countries, we had five subsections;
trade embargos, trade with neighboring countries, trade with outside countries, active
diplomatic relations, and active treaties; that were each assigned scales from zero to two that,
combined, would give the relationships with other countries score out of ten. We defined trade
embargos as a prohibition set up against our country that restricts exportation of certain goods.
A country would get a score of zero is there are two or more trade embargos against it, a score
of one is there is one trade embargos against it, and a score of two is there are no trade
embargos against it. Trade with neighboring countries was defined as the amount (as a percent)
of countries the given country traded with, within the same continent. A country would get a
score of zero if it traded with less than forty percent of its neighboring countries, a score of one
if it traded with forty to sixty percent of neighboring countries, and a score of two if it traded
with over sixty percent of its neighboring countries. Trade with outside countries was defined
as the amount (as a percent) of countries the given country traded with outside of its continent.
As with the previous subcategory, a country would get a score of zero if it traded with less than
forty percent of outside countries, a score of one if it traded with forty to sixty percent of
outside countries, and a score of two if it traded with over sixty percent of outside countries.
Active diplomatic relations was defined as the percent of countries that have active relations
with the given country. A country would get a score of zero if the percentage was zero to
twenty-five, a score of one if the percentage was twenty-five to seventy-five, and a score of two
if the percentage was seventy-five or greater. Active treaties was defined as the number of
countries involved in treaties with the given country. A country would get a score of zero if
there were no active treaties, a score of one if there were one to forty active treaties with
different countries, and a score of two if there were forty-one or more active treaties with
different countries.
We divided location into five subsections; access to water, access to farmland, distance to other
countries, weather danger, and animal danger. Each of these subsections were assigned scales
from zero to two that will give location a score of ten when combined. Access to water was
defined as the unrestricted access of water formations such as lakes, rivers and oceans. A
country would get a score of zero if there was no access to water, a score of one if there is only
salt water accessible, and a score of two if there is ready access to both salt and fresh water.
Access to farmland was defined as the amount of land in the country that can be used to grow
crops. A country would get a score of zero if zero to fifteen percent of the land can be farmed, a

6. Page 6 Team # 40732
score of one if fifteen to forty percent of the land can be farmed, and a score of two if greater
than forty percent of the land can be farmed. Distance to other countries is defined as the
number of countries that share a border with the country in question. A country would get a
score zero if it is an island, a score of one if it has one to three bordering countries, and a score
of two if it has four or more bordering countries. Weather danger is a measure of consistency,
with the goal being clearly defined seasons that have minimal temperature fluctuations
throughout them. A country would get a score of zero if it has inconsistent weather for more
than six months per year, a score of one if there is inconsistent weather for three to six months
per year, and a score of two if there is inconsistent weather for less than three months per
year. Animal danger is the deadliness and aggressiveness of the wildlife in the country. A
country would get a score of zero if there are aggressive deadly wildlife with will attack when
unprovoked, a score of one if there is deadly wildlife that will only attack when provoked, and a
score of two if the wildlife leaves the county’s inhabitants alone.
Level of development was only divided into three subsections; internal conflict, access to
medical professionals and sanitation. These subsections were assigned scales of one to four,
three and three respectively giving the level of development a score out of ten. Internal conflict
is defined as the level of conflict within the country. A country would get a score of zero if there
is an active civil war, a score of one if there is civil unrest with fighting, a score of two if there is
a civil war looming, a score of three if there is civil unrest with no fighting or demonstrations,
and a score of four is there is no unrest in the country. Access to medical professionals is
defined as the degree of professionals that are stationed in the country. A country would get a
score of zero if there are no medical professionals in the country, a score of one if the country’s
only access to medical professionals is doctors without borders or similar programs, a score of
two if the country has doctor’s offices that have minimal equipment, and a score of three if the
country has fully equipped doctor’s offices. Sanitation is measured by the number of
regulations put on sanitation within the country. A country would receive a score of zero if
there are no sanitation regulations, a score of one if there are minimal regulation (only on
human waste), a score of two if there are regulations on human waste and disease control, and
a score of three if the country has programs to promote health through sanitation.
Access to technology is also divided into three subsections; communication technology, farming
technology, and transportation. These subsections are assigned scores of one through four, two
and four respectively. Communication technology is measured through the ease of
communications within and outside of the country. A country would receive a score of zero if
there are no technologies to make communication easier available, a score of two if it is easy to

7. Page 7 Team # 40732
communicate within the country but not outside of it, and a score of four if there is easy
communication both within and outside of the country. Farming technology is measured by the
amount of human labor required to harvest crops. A country would receive a score of zero if all
harvesting was done by hand, a score of one if less advanced machinery (such as horse-
powered plows) are used, and a score of two if automated machinery is used. Transportation is
measured by the means the people in the country travel. A country would receive a score of
zero if everyone walks, a score of one if travel is done by man-powered devices (such as bikes),
a score of two if horse-and-buggies or trains are the preferred mode of transportation, a score
of three if everyone has access to automobiles, and a score of four if there is access to easy air
transportation.
The economic score of a country is based off the country’s trade, GDP, and the GDP per capita.
As with the societal score, the economic score takes the results of these categories and
averages them. We are given a score out of ten for the economic score, with a higher number
indicating a greater chance of sustainability. We picked these categories to help predict
sustainability because trade increases and diversifies the resources available to a country, GDP
gives an accurate snapshot of the money a country has available to invest in current and future
generation, and the GDP per capita demonstrates an individual’s ability to provide the
necessary resources for survival. Trade is divided into four subsections; imports, exports,
imports vs. exports, and trade reliability. Imports, exports and trade reliability are assigned a
score of one through two, while imports vs. exports is assigned a score of one through four.
This results in a total score out of ten for trade. Imports is measured by the type of products
imported by a country. A country receives a score of zero if all of its essential resources (such as
food, clothing, medicine, etc.) are imported, a score of one if its imports are superfluous (such
as movies and music), and a score of two if the country does not import many products. Exports
is also measured by the type of products. A country would receive a score of zero if it does not
export any products, a score of one if it exports nonessential products, and a score of two if it
exports essential products (such as food, clothing, and natural resources). Trade reliability is
measured by the world’s dependence on the country’s exports. A country would receive a zero
if there is no reliance, a score of one if there is a reliance on nonessential products, and a score
of two if there is a heavy reliance on the products to sustain the economy. Imports vs. exports
is measured by which the country does more of, that is, does the country import more than it
exports or vice versa. A country would receive a score of zero if its imports are more than its
exports, a score of two if its imports equal its exports, and a score of four if its imports are less
than its exports. The GDP of a country is scored based on the country’s GDP in billions.

8. Page 8 Team # 40732
We determined the scoring after inspecting the World Bank’s GDP indicator1. A country’s would
receive their score based on the following table.
The GDP per capita of a country is scored based on the
country’s GDP in millions. We determined the scores
after inspecting the World Bank’s GDP per capita
indicator2. A country would receive their score based
on the following table.
GDP(Per Capita)
GDP/cap score GDP/cap score
0-300 0 4800-8000 6
300-800 1 8000-15000 7
800-1500 2 15000-28000 8
1500-2600 3 28000-40000 9
2600-3700 4 40000+ 10
3700-4800 5
The environmental score of a country is based on the country’s resources, soil type/farmable
land, weather predictability and access to clean water. Unlike the past two categories, a
country’s environmental score has a subcategory that is weighted more than the others. We
decided to put more emphasis on a country’s resources, which are weighted at twenty points
rather than ten, due to the advantages a country is given with a greater amount of or
resources. Therefore the environmental score is calculated by summing the score of all three
subcategories, and dividing it by four. These subcategories were picked to help predict
sustainability because soil type determines the diversity of the land, which in turn gives an idea
of current and future crop production, weather predictability is used to prepare the country
from future natural disasters and can be used to protect the country’s inhabitants and access to
clean water is of vital importance for all living beings. Resources is divided into three
subsections; fauna, natural resources, and renewable resources. Each subsection is assigned a
score from zero to four, two and four respectively. These scores are then multiplied by two to
give resources a final score out of twenty. Fauna is defined as access to animals for
consumption. A country would receive a score of zero if there is no edible fauna, a score of one
if the country could sustain itself off the fauna produced for six months, a score of two if the
1
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries
2
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
GDP(in billions)
GDP score GDP score
0-0.5 0 100-450 6
0.5-1.0 1 450-750 7
1.0-4.0 2 750-1000 8
4.0-10.0 3 1000-3000 9
10.0-50.0 4 3000+ 10
50-100 5

9. Page 9 Team # 40732
country could sustain itself for one year, a score of three if the country could sustain itself for
five years, and a score of four if the country could sustain itself off the fauna produced for
twenty years. Natural Resources are defined as unrenewable resources such as natural gas,
precious gems and metals. A country would receive a score of zero if there are no natural
resources, a score of one if there are precious metals and gems but no natural gas, and a score
of two if the country has precious metals, gems and natural gas. Renewable resources are
defined as the resources a country has that renew quickly such as wind, water, and trees. A
country would receive a score of zero if there are no renewable resources, a score of one if the
resources are used at a rate two times greater than it takes for them to renew, a score of two if
the resources are used at a rate less than two times greater than it takes for them to renew, a
score of three if the resources are used at the same rate as it takes for them to renew, and a
score of four if the resources are used at a rate less than the time it takes for them to renew.
Soil type is measured by both the amount of farmable land in the country and by the diversity
of the soil, that is, if more than two different crops can be
grown in the soil. A country would receive
their score based on the following table.
Weather predictability is measured by the
number of months per year the country has
regular seasons and predictable weather. In
order to have a score out of ten, the country’s
score is multiplied by 2.5. A country would
receive their score based on the following table.
Soil Type
type of land score type of land score
0% farmable 0 30% diverse 6
10% farmed 1 40% farmed 7
10% diverse 2 40% diverse 8
20% farmed 3 50% farmed 9
20% diverse 4 50% diverse 10
30% farmed 5

10. Page 10 Team # 40732
Weather
type/weather score type/weather score
Unexpected
weather at all
times of the
year
0
Expected
weather 6-9
months per year
3
3-6 months
consistent
1
Expected
weather at 9-12
months/year
4
6 months
weather
consistent
2 Total
3. Solutions
Due to the nature of our model, it is very easy to see exactly what categories a country would
need to improve on in order to increase sustainability. Keeping this in mind we began to
research our country, Madagascar, in search of the inputs for our model. The first area we
focused on was Madagascar’s societal score. Our original model took into account life
expectancy, infant mortality rate, total population, family size, and demographics. We later
decided that we needed a more accurate way to demonstrate sustainability, therefore we
replaced total population and family size with the working population. Working populations
shows a more accurate representation of a countries productivity while still providing us with a
quantitative number of people. Once we had settled on societal factors, we began to gather our
data. Madagascar has an average life expectancy of 64.2 years3, giving it a score of 6.42. Its
infant mortality rate is 33.6%4, which means that 66.4% of infants survive child birth. This gives
us a score of 6.64 for infant mortality rate. The working population of Madagascar is 54.5%5.
Given our ideal population has a working population of 70%, Madagascar is 77.9% accurate and
is given a score of 7.79. This combined with a demographics score of 5.25 (which will be
explained in detail below) gives Madagascar a societal score of 26.10 with an adjusted score of
6.52.
3 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN/countries/1W-MG?display=graph
4 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN/countries/1W-MG?display=graph
5 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL/countries/1W-MG?display=graph

11. Page 11 Team # 40732
Society
Life Expectancy 1 6.42
InfantMortalityRate 1 6.64
Population(Total)** 0 ?/10
FamilySize 0 ?/10
Demographics*** 1 5.25
WorkingPopulation* 1 7.79
Total 26.10
SocietyScore 6.52
As described earlier, we used four categories to measure demographics; relationship with other
countries, location, level of development, and access to technology, all of which were further
divided for clarification. Madagascar’s score for its relationship with other countries totaled to 4
points. It received a 1 for trade embargoes6, a 2 for trade with neighboring countries7, a 1 for
trade with outside countries7, and a 0 for active treaties and diplomatic relations8.
Madagascar’s score for location totaled to 7 points; receiving a 2 for access to water, a 2 for
farmable land9, a 0 for distance from countries, a 1 for weather related danger10, and a 2 for
wildlife related danger11. Level of Development was given a total score of 5; internal conflict
received a score of 312, access to medical professionals a score of 213, and sanitation a score of
014. Access to technology was given a total score of 5; communication was given a score of 215,
farming technology a score of 116, and transportation a score of 217. These scores combined
gives Madagascar a demographics score of 21, with an adjusted score of 5.25.
6 http://www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/Madagascar-resumes-lucrative-beef-exports/-
/979184/1324010/-/3jcqymz/-/index.html
7 http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/mdg/
8 http://mae.gov.mg/nos-representations/
9 http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Madagascar/madagascareng.htm#2.SOILSAND
10 http://www.worldtravelguide.net/madagascar/weather-climate-geography
11 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/madagascar/surviving/frights.html
12 http://www.prio.org/Publications/Publication/?x=5033
13 http://www.africapedia.com/DOCTOR-TO-PATIENT-RATIO-IN-AFRICA
14 http://www.wsup.com/programme/where-we-work/madagascar/
15 http://www.internetworldstats.com/af/mg.htm
16 http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=MDG
17 http://www.internetworldstats.com/af/mg.htm

12. Page 12 Team # 40732
Demographics***
Relationshipwithothercountries 4
Location 7
Level of Development 5
Accessto Technology 5
Total 21
DemographicsScore 5.25
Economy was originally divided into five categories; trade, GDP, GDP per capita, agriculture
industry, and technology. Technology was later put into demographics, while agriculture
industry was taken out of our model completely. This left our economic model with three
factors, trade, GDP, and GDP per capita. Trade was given a score of 5; imports received a score
of 1, exports received a score of 2, imports vs. exports received a score of 0, and trade reliability
was given a score of 218. Madagascar’s GDP is $10,613,494,031.419, giving it a score of 4 and its
GDP per capita is $463 giving it a score of 1. These scores combined give Madagascar an
economic score of 10, with an adjusted score of 3.33.
Economy
Trade 1 5
Gross DomesticProduct(perCapita) 1 1
Gross DomesticProduct 1 4
Agriculture Industry 0 ?/10
Technology 0 ?/10
Total 10
EconomyScore 3.33
A country’s environmental score was divided into five categories originally; resources, soil type,
weather, fauna, and access to clean water. We later changed fauna from a main factor, to a
subcategory under resources. Madagascar received a total resource score of 10; fauna received
a score of 320, natural resources received a score of 121, and renewable resources received a
score of 121. Madagascar’s land is approximately 30% for agricultural use and it is used to
18 http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/mdg/
19 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/1W-MG?display=graph
20 http://www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/Madagascar-resumes-lucrative-beef-exports/-
/979184/1324010/-/3jcqymz/-/index.html
21 http://www1.american.edu/ted/madagas.htm

13. Page 13 Team # 40732
sustain a variety of crops22 23. Therefore it receives a total of 6 points for soil type. The weather
in Madagascar can be extremely unpredictable from December to March24 (cyclone season).
Given the five months of unpredictability, Madagascar’s weather score was a 7.5. Finally, only
45-50% of Madagascar’s inhabitants have access to clean water. Therefore it receives a score of
4. These scores combined give Madagascar a combined environmental score of 27.5, with an
adjusted score of 6.88.
Madagascar’s environmental,
economic, and social adjusted scores
were then averaged giving Madagascar
a total sustainability score of 5.58. To
put this in context, the United States of
America was given a score of 9.84
when run through the same model.
4. Programs/ Development Plan
Our model explicitly defines sustainability level and what areas need to be improved upon in
order to improve the overall sustainability score. We looked at the sustainability level of
Madagascar (5.58) and due to the nature of our model, we can pin-point exactly which
programs need to be implemented to increase sustainability. While there are many areas that
require our attention, we decided to focus on increasing Madagascar’s access to clean water
and increasing their working population.
We originally focused on Madagascar’s access to clean water, which in turn would increase life
expectancy, decrease infant mortality rates, and increase overall sanitation. Our first solution
was to implement a water tower project, requiring a certain number of water towers per
thousand people. We planned to ask for monetary assistance frommore developed nations to
build and maintain the water towers. However, after consideration of the cost and complexity
of this project, we looked into more efficient options. One of the other concepts we considered
was a mass distribution of spigots, a tool used to tap water from trees. While this idea was
cheaper than the previous, it was still a highly inefficient way to gather water. Thus we arrived
at our final water program, which was the distribution of water filtration systems to each
household. Assuming the population is 23 million and each household has seven people, we
22 http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/mdg/
23 http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Madagascar/madagascareng.htm#2.SOILSAND
24 http://www.worldtravelguide.net/madagascar/weather-climate-geography
Environment
Resources 1 10
Soil Type 1 6
Weather 1 7.5
Fauna 0 0
Accessto CleanWater 1 4
Total 27.5
EnvironmentScore 6.88

14. Page 14 Team # 40732
need approximately 3.3 million filtration systems. If each systemcosts $6025, it would cost
approximately 198 million dollars to provide every household in Madagascar access to clean
water. We would propose a policy to distribute the filtration devices in order to ensure that
every household has access.
Our second program would involve increasing the working population of Madagascar, which
would in turn increase production and overall quality of living among the lower classes. We
would use an incentive program for businesses, providing them with stipends that directly
correlated with the amount of workers employed. By offering these stipends, we could increase
the working population and give more citizens the opportunity to earn money. With more
people earning a wage, the country’s GDP per capita would increase, which would increase the
country’s overall GDP. With more money in the country’s economy, overall quality of life would
increase because there would be more money to put towards programs such as these. We
would propose a policy to enforce the Employee Work Program stated above. The main
difficulty of implementing these programs is the initial cost. We believe that Madagascar could
request aid from wealthier nations in order to execute these projects. If we could acquire 500
million dollars, Madagascar would have more than enough resources to accomplish both
programs and raise their sustainability score.
Assuming that we could raise Madagascar’s water score to an eight, meaning that eighty to
ninety percent of people have access to clean water, and working population score to 9.29,
meaning that sixty-five percent of the population is working, we could raise the total
sustainability score by .46 to a new sustainability level of 6.04. However, because the water
score would increase life expectancy and decrease infant mortality rate, the total sustainability
score would increase as well. If the life expectancy of Madagascar increased to 70 and the
infant mortality rate decreased to 15, the total sustainability score would increase to 6.24.
Finally Madagascar’s GDP and GDP per capita would rise as a result of a larger working class.
Due to the unpredictability of Madagascar’s economy though our model, we will assume an
increase in one point for both GDP and GDP per capita. This would raise Madagascar’s
sustainability score to 6.63, over one point greater than before our programs.
25 http://www.tanksforless.com/p/753/rainwater-collection-starter-kit-w-downspout-
diverter?gclid=COjN4OTR1cMCFVIV7AodIhAAwQ

15. Page 15 Team # 40732
Society
Life Expectancy 1 7
InfantMortalityRate 1 8.5
Population(Total)** 0 ?/10
FamilySize 0 ?/10
Demographics*** 1 5.25
WorkingPopulation* 1 9.29
Total 30.04
SocietyScore 7.51
Economy
Trade 1 5
Gross DomesticProduct(perCapita) 1 2
Gross DomesticProduct 1 5
Agriculture Industry 0 ?/10
Technology 0 ?/10
Total 12
EconomyScore 4.00
Environment
Resources 1 10
Soil Type 1 6
Weather 1 7.5
Fauna 0 0
Accessto CleanWater 1 10
Total 33.5
EnvironmentScore 8.38
5. Conclusions - Strengths & Weaknesses – Future Plans
Currently, our model shows that Madagascar has a sustainability level of 5.58 out of 10. We
have shown that with the implementation of our programs the sustainability level of
Madagascar can be raised a significant amount. Our model was easy to manipulate, because
the factors were very dependent on one another. It was very easy to follow our model because
we only defined our factors quantitatively. Therefore, our model had a precise number

16. Page 16 Team # 40732
assigned to whatever country we wanted to define. The quantitative approach also allowed us
to easily define other countries and compare total sustainability levels on an even scale.
Although our model was specific in defining what factors influence the sustainability level, it did
not account for every factor because there is, in fact, an infinite amount of factors that could
impact the sustainability level. Our model was very human driven; we defined the ideal
sustainability level and we defined each of the numerical values. In a perfect sustainability
model, the specific scores of sustainability would be based upon a perfectly sustainable
country. Since we have no way of knowing what the ideals would be for a perfectly sustainable
country, we developed our own. Because the ideals were developed by our group, it is possible
that some of our ideal rates are not perfectly sustainable, which would skew the model.
In the future, a sustainability model would need to be tested to prove the overall sustainability,
and our model would need to be further specified in order to decrease the amount of human
error on the total sustainability of the countries. It would also be important to define the
carrying capacity of the country that was being studied for not only the human population, but
also some of the more important wildlife of the country. For a country like Madagascar, it is
especially important to know what type of wildlife is essential to survival as well as their
predators and prey. In an island setting, it is important not to introduction any new species that
could negatively impact the already diverse wildlife there.
6. References
 http://www.wateraid.org/mg/what-we-do/the-crisis/water
 http://www.worldtravelguide.net/madagascar/weather-climate-geography
 http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Madagascar/madagascareng.htm#2.S
OILSAND
 http://www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/Madagascar-resumes-lucrative-beef-
exports/-/979184/1324010/-/3jcqymz/-/index.html
 http://www1.american.edu/ted/madagas.htm
 http://www.internetworldstats.com/af/mg.htm
 http://www.prio.org/Publications/Publication/?x=5033
 http://www.africapedia.com/DOCTOR-TO-PATIENT-RATIO-IN-AFRICA
 http://www.wsup.com/programme/where-we-work/madagascar/
 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/madagascar/surviving/frights.html

17. Page 17 Team # 40732
 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN/countries/1W-MG?display=graph
 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL/countries/1W-MG?display=graph
 http://www.wildmadagascar.org/wildlife/animals.html
 http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/mdg/
 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries
 http://www.tanksforless.com/p/753/rainwater-collection-starter-kit-w-downspout-
diverter?gclid=COjN4OTR1cMCFVIV7AodIhAAwQ
 http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=MDG
 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN/countries/1W-MG?display=graph
 http://mae.gov.mg/nos-representations/