Computational Economics

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 921–951 | Cite as

Evolutionary Climate-Change Modelling: A Multi-Agent Climate-Economic Model

  • Sylvie GeisendorfEmail author


In climate-economic modelling, agent-based models are still an exception. Although numerous authors have discussed the usefulness of the approach, only a few models exist. The paper proposes an update to a multi-agent climate-economic model, namely the “battle of perspectives” (Janssen, 1996; Janssen and de Vries 1998). The approach of the paper is twofold. First, the reimplementation of the model follows the “model to model” concept. Supporters of the approach argue that replication is a useful way to check a model’s accuracy and robustness. Second, updating a model with current data and new scientific evidence is a robustness check in itself. The long-term validity and usefulness of a model depends on the variability of the data on which it is based, as well as on the model’s sensitivity to data changes. By offering this update, the paper contributes to the development of agent-based models in climate-economics. Acknowledging evolutionary processes in climate-policy represents a useful complement to intertemporal cost-benefit analyses, the latter of which derive optimal protection paths but are not able to explain why people do not follow them. Since the replication and update succeeded, the paper recommends using the model as a basis for further analysis.


Agent-based modelling Evolutionary economics Climate change Climate-economic modelling Bounded rationality Learning 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

No research involving human or animal participants has been conducted for the purposes of this paper.


  1. Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., & O’Brien, K. (2013). Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An, L. (2012). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecological Modelling, 229, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anda, J., Golub, A., & Strukova, E. (2009). Economics of climate change under uncertainty: Benefits of flexibility. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1345–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (1995). Auctions with artificial adaptive agents. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arifovic, J. (1991). Learning by genetic algorithms in economic environments. Dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Arifovic, J. (1994). Genetic algorithm learning and the cobweb model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 18, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arifovic, J. (1996). The behavior of the exchange rate in the genetic algorithm and experimental economies. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 510–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arifovic, J., & Ledyard, J. (2002). Computer testbeds and Mechanism Design. In: Computing in Economics and Finance 2002 262, Society for Computational Economics.Google Scholar
  9. Aurbacher, J., Parker, P. S., Calberto Sánchez, G. A., Steinbach, J., Reinmuth, E., Ingwersen, J., et al. (2013). Influence of climate change on short term management of field crops–A modelling approach. Agricultural Systems, 119, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Balbi, S., & Giupponi, C. (2010). Agent-based modelling of socio-ecosystems: A methodology for the analysis of climate change adaptation and sustainability. International Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems, 2(4), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barthel, R., Janisch, S., Schwarz, N., Trifkovic, A., Nickel, D., Schulz, C., et al. (2008). An integrated modelling framework for simulating regional-scale actor responses to global change in the water domain. Environmental Modelling and Software, 23, 1095–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beckenbach, F., & Briegel, R. (2009). Multi-agent modelling of economic innovation dynamics and its implication for analyzing emissions impact. Working Paper, University of Kassel.Google Scholar
  13. Berman, M., Nicolson, C., Kofinas, G., Tetlichi, J., & Martin, S. (2004). Adaptation and sustainability in a small arctic community: Results of an agent-based simulation model. Arctic, 57(4), 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bharwani, S., Bithell, M., Downing, T. E., New, M., Washington, R., & Ziervogel, G. (2005). Multi-agent modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 360(1463), 2183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Birchenhall, C. (1995). Modular technical change and genetic algorithms. Computional Economics, 8, 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boulanger, P. M. (2010). Three strategies for sustainable consumption. Sapiens, 3, 1–10.Google Scholar
  17. Casari, M. (2004). Can genetic algorithms explain experimental anomalies. Computational Economics, 24, 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dasgupta, P. (2007). Nature and the economy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 457–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawid, H. (1999). Adaptive learning by genetic algorithms: Analytical results and applications to economic models, 2nd revised and (extended ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dean, J. S., Gumerman, G. J., Epstein, J. M., Axtell, R. L., Swedlund, A. C., Parker, M. T., et al. (1999). Understanding Anasazi culture change through agent-based modeling. In T. A. Kohler & G. J. Gumerman (Eds.), Dynamics in human and primate societies: Agent-based modeling of social and spatial processes (pp. 179–205). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  21. De Bruin, K. C., Dellink, R. B., & Tol, R. S. J. (2009). AD-DICE: An implementation of adaptation in the DICE model. Climatic Change, 95(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas, M., & Wildawski, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Duffy, P. (2000). Learning to speculate: Experiments with artificial and real agents. Journal of Economy and Dynamic Control, 25, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edmonds, B., & Hales, D. (2003). Replication, replication and replication: Some hard lessons from model alignment. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(4).
  25. Entwisle, B., Malanson, G., Rindfuss, R. R., & Walsh, S. J. (2008). An agent-based model of household dynamics and land use change. Journal of Land Use Science, 3(1), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Etkin, D., & Ho, E. (2007). Climate change: Perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 10(5), 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Filatova, T. (2009). Land markets from the bottom up. Micro-macro links in economics and implications for coastal risk management. PhD Thesis. University of Twente.Google Scholar
  28. Finus, M., & Pintassilgo, P. (2009). The role of uncertainty and learning for the success of international climate agreements. Stirling Economics discussion paper no. 2009-16.Google Scholar
  29. Geisendorf, S. (2009). The influence of innovation and imitation on economic performance. Economic Issues, 14, 65–94.Google Scholar
  30. Geisendorf, S. (2011). Internal selection and market selection in economic genetic algorithms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(5), 817–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gerst, M. D., Wang, P., Roventini, A., Fagiolo, G., Dosi, G., Howarth, R. B., et al. (2013). Agent-based modelling of climate policy: An introduction to the ENGAGE multi-level model framework. Environmental Modelling & Software, 44, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giupponi, C., Borsuk, M. E., de Vries, B. J. M., & Hasselmann, K. (2013). Innovative approaches to integrated global change modelling. Environmental Modelling and Software, 44, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  34. Gowdy, J. M. (2008). Behavioral economics and climate change policy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 632–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gsottbauer, E., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2013). Bounded rationality and social interaction in negotiating a climate agreement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(3), 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haruvy, E., Roth, A. E., & Ünver, M. U. (2006). The dynamics of law clerk matching: An experimental and computational investigation of proposals for reform of the market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30, 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holland, J. H., & Miller, J. H. (1991). Artificial adaptive agents in economic theory. The American Economic Review, 81, 365–370.Google Scholar
  38. Hope, C. W. (2009). How deep should the deep cuts be? Optimal \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) emissions over time under uncertainty. Climate Policy, 9, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In Core Writing Team: R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) Geneva.Google Scholar
  40. Jager, W., & Mosler, H. J. (2007). Simulating human behavior for understanding and managing environmental resource use. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Janssen, M. A. (1996). Meeting targets: Tools to support integrated assessment modelling of global change. PhD Thesis, University of Maastricht. ISBN 90-9009908-5Google Scholar
  42. Janssen, M. A., & de Vries, B. (1998). The battle of perspectives: A multi-agent model with adaptive responses to climate change. Ecological Economics, 26, 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Governing social–ecological systems. In L. Tesfatsion & K. L. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics II: Agent-based computational economics (pp. 1465–1509). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. LeBaron, B. (2006). Agent-based computational finance. In L. Tesfastsion & L. J. Kenneth (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  45. Lorscheid, I., Heine, B. O., & Meyer, M. (2012). Opening the ‘black box’ of simulations: Increased transparency and effective communication through the systematic design of experiments. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18, 22–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lutz, W., Sanderson, W., & Scherbov, S. (2008). IIASA’s 2007 probabilistic world population projections. IIASA world population program online data base of results 2008. Accessed March 15, 2015.
  47. Manne, A. S., Mendelsohn, R., & Richels, R. G. (1994). MERGE: A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. In N. Nakicenovic, W. D. Nordhaus, R. Richels & F. L. Toth (Eds.), Integrative assessment of mitigation, impacts, and adaptation to climate change (pp. 143–172). CP-94-0, IIASA, Laxenburg.Google Scholar
  48. Martens, P., & Rotmans, J. (1999). Climate change: An integrated perspective. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meier-Reimer, E., & Hasselmann, K. (1987). Transport and storage of \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) in the ocean–An inorganic ocean-circulation carbon cacle model. Climate Dynamics, 2, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Midgley, D. F., Marks, R. E., & Kunchamwar, D. (2007). The building and assurance of agent-based models: An example and challenge to the field. Journal of Business Research, 60, 884–893. (Special Issue: Complexities in Markets).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller, B. W., & Morisette, J. T. (2014). Integrating research tools to support the management of social–ecological systems under climate change. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mitchell, M. (1997). An introduction to genetic algorithms (Vol. 3). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Moss, S., & Edmonds, B. (2005). Sociology and simulation: Statistical and qualitative cross-validation. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1095–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moss, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Downing, T. (2000). Agent-based integrated assessment modelling: The example of climate change. Integrated Assessment, 2, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nannen, V., & van den Bergh, C. J. M. (2010). Policy instruments for evolution of bounded rationality: Application to climate-energy problems. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Natarajan, S., Padget, J., & Elliott, L. (2011). Modelling UK domestic energy and carbon emissions: An agent-based approach. Energy and Buildings, 43(10), 2602–2612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nordhaus, W. D. (1994). Managing the global commons: The economics of climate change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Nordhaus, W. D. (2008). A question of balance weighing the options on global warming policies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Nordhaus, W. D. & Sztorc, P. (2013). DICE 2013R: Introduction and user’s manual. Accessed February 27, 2015.
  60. O’Brien, K. L., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L., & Schjolden, A. (2007). Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate Policy, 7(1), 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Oltedal, S., Moen, B.-E., Klempe, H., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of cultural theory. c Rotunde no. 85, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Psychology. Trondheim: RotundeGoogle Scholar
  62. Patt, A., & Siebenhüner, B. (2005). Agent-based modeling and adaptation to climate change. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 74, 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peck, S. C., & Teisberg, T. J. (1992). CETA: A model for carbon emissions trajectory assessment. The Energy Journal, 13(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rachlinski, J. J. (2000). The psychology of global climate change. University of Illinois Law Review, 1, 299–319.Google Scholar
  65. Rotmans, J. (1990). IMAGE: An integrated model to assess the greenhouse effect. Ph.D. Thesis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rouchier, J., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Polhill, J. G., & Takadama, K. (2008). Progress in model-to-model analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, (11), 28.Google Scholar
  67. Schelling, T. C. (2007, July). Climate change: The uncertainties, the certainties, and what they imply about action. The Economists’ Voice, 1–5.Google Scholar
  68. Statista. (2015). Accessed February 27, 2015.
  69. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2004). Optimal climate policy is a utopia: From quantitative to qualitative cost-benefit analysis. Ecological Economics, 48, 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2007). Evolutionary thinking in environmental economics. Journal of Evololutionary Economics, 17, 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Watson, A. J. (2008). Certainty and uncertainty in climate change predictions: What use are climate models? Environmental and Resource Economics, 39, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang, P., Gerst, M. D., & Borsuk, M. E. (2013). Exploring energy and economic futures using agent-based modeling and scenario discovery. In H. Qudrat-Ullah (Ed.), Energy policy modeling in the 21st century. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Weber, M., Barth, V., & Hasselmann, K. (2005). A multi-actor dynamic integrated assessment model (MADIAM) of induced technological change and sustainable economic growth. Ecological Economics, 54, 306–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weitzman, M. L. (2007). The Stern Review of the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature, 45, 703–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Werner, B. T., & McNamara, D. E. (2007). Dynamics of coupled human landscape systems. Geomorphology, 91(3–4), 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weyant, J. P. (2008). A critique of the stern review’s mitigation cost analyses and integrated assessment. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wikipedia. (2015). Accessed February 24, 2015.
  79. Wildawski, A., & Sweditorlow, B. (Eds.). (2005). Cultural analysis: Politics, public law and administration. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  80. World Bank. (2015)., Accessed 15 September 2015.
  81. Ziervogel, G., Bithell, M., Washingoton, R., & Downing, T. (2005). Agent based social simulation: A method for assessing the impact of seasonal climate forecast applications among smallholder farmers. Agricultural Systems, 83(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Environment and EconomicsESCP Europe BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Research Center SustBusy (Business and Society - Towards a Sustainable World)ESCP Europe BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations