A representation of some phenomenon of the real world made in order to facilitate an understanding of its workings. A model is a simplified and generalized version of real events, from which the incidental detail, or ‘noise’, has been removed; an ‘abstraction of an object, system or process that permits knowledge to be gained about reality by conducting experiments on the model’ (Clarke in P. Atkinson et al., eds 2004). Malmberg (1992, Geografiska B 74, 2) defines idealist models as ‘designations of theories that lack a specification of how this model is related to processes in time and space’.
In the 1960s, the quantitative revolution in geography saw an emphasis on models: basic mathematical equations and models, such as gravity models, deterministic models, such as von Thünens and Weber’s location models, and stochastic models that use probability. The ‘cultural’ turn—the counter-positivist response from human geography—stressed the weaknesses of models. O’Sullivan (2004) TIBG 29, 3 writes of geocomputational modelling, that ‘the compositional model represents a theory about the world, rather than the world itself. The end result is a model…whose behaviour may be almost as intractably difficult to account for as the world it represents’. Connecting the model back to the world it represents is difficult for a number of reasons, principally the equifinality problem, which makes it impossible to judge the relative merits of alternative models on purely technical grounds.
In physical geography, the basic requirement of a model is that it includes the important phenomena controlling a system, yet is restricted in complexity. One solution is to use a lumped model, which is constructed using average or ‘lumped’ representation of the relevant phenomena. Thus a lumped model of a catchment area would assume that catchment is homogeneous, by using representative soil properties and precipitation inputs. All this is reasonably clearly set out in Maurer et al. (2010) J. Amer. Water Res. Ass. 46, 5, 1024. Or try V. P. Singh, M. Fiorentino, eds (1996), section 10.2.1.