Advertisement

Integrated Assessment

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 17–30 | Cite as

Agent-based integrated assessment modelling: the example of climate change

  • Scott Moss
  • Claudia Pahl-Wostl
  • Thomas Downing
Article

Abstract

Current approaches to deal with the socio-economic implications of climate change rely heavily on economic models that compare costs and benefits of different measures. We show that the theoretical foundations underpinning current approaches to economic modelling of climate change are inappropriate for the type of questions that are being asked. We argue therefore that another tradition of modelling, social simulation, is more appropriate in dealing with the complex environmental problems we face today.

social simulation integrated assessment climate change complexity agent-based modelling stakeholder participation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Allais, Le Comportement de l'Homme Rationnel Devant le Risque: Critique des postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Americaine, Econometrica 21 (1953) 503–546.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.R. Anderson, Rules of the Mind (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, NJ, 1993).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    K.J. Arrow and G. Debreu, Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy, Econometrica (1954) 265–290.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    K.J. Arrow and F.H. Hahn, General Competitive Analysis (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1972).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Bernow, A. Rudkevich, M. Ruth and I. Peters, A Pragmatic CGE model for assessing the influence of model structure and assumptions in climate change policy analysis, Report No. #96-190, Tellus Institute Boston (1998).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    K. Binmore, M. Piccione and L. Samuelson, Bargaining between automata, in: Simulating Social Phenomena, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, eds. R. Conte, R. Hegselmann and P. Terna (Springer, Berlin, 1997) pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    K. Carley, M. Prietula and Z. Lin, Design Versus Cognition: The Interaction of Agent Cognition and Organizational Design on Organizational Performance 1 (1998); http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/3/1.html.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Wiley, Chichester, 1993).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.B. Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (Macmillan, New York, 1893).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Debreu, Excess demand functions, J. Mathematical Economics 1 (1974) 15–23.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Funtowicz and J. Ravetz, Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25 (1993) 735–755.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G.C. Harcourt, Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1972).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    K. Hasselmann and S. Hasselmann, Multi-actor opimization of greenhouse gas emission paths using coupled integral climate response and economic models, in: Earth System Analysis - Integrating Science for Sustainability, eds. H.-J. Schellnhuber and V. Wenzel (Springer, Berlin, 1998).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W.P. Hogan, Technical Progress and Production Functions, The Review of Economics and Statistics 40 (1958) 407–411.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    D. Kahneman and A. Tverski, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision-making under risk, Econometrica 47 (1985) 263–291.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    N. Kaldor, Speculation and Economic Stability, Review of EconomicStudies [reprinted in: Kaldor Essays on Economic Stability and Growth] (Gerald Duckworth & Co., London, 1939 [1960]) pp. 17–58.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R.G. Lipsey and K.J. Lancaster, The general theory of the second best, Review of Economic Studies 24 (1956) 11–32.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R.J. Mantel, On the characterisation of aggregate excess demand, J. Economic Theory 7 (1974) 348–353.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Marshall, Principles of Economics (Macmillan, London, 1893 [1961]); (8th ed. (variorum edition) published in 1961).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Moss, An Economic Theory of Business Strategy (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. Moss, H. Gaylard, S. Wallis and B. Edmonds, SDML: amulti-agent language for organisational modelling, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 4 (1998) 43–69.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. Moss, The Economics of positive methodology, in: Economics as Worldly Philosophy, eds. R. Blackwell, J. Chatha and E. Nell (Macmillan, New York, 1992).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Moss, Critical incident management: an empirically derived computational model, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 1 (1998); http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/4/1.html.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    S. Moss, A cognitively rich methodology for modelling emergent socioeconomic phenomena, in: Computational Techniques for Modelling Learning in Economics, ed. T. Brenner (Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam, 1999).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    S. Moss, Applications-centred multi agent systems design (with special reference to markets and rational agency), in: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Multi Agent Systems, IEEE (2000).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Newell, Unified Theories of Cognition (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    W. Nordhaus, Managing the Global Commons. The Economics of Climate Change (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    N. Oreskes, K. Shrader-Frechette and N. Belitz, Verification, validation and conformation of numerical models in the Earth sciences, Science 263 (1994) 641–646.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    C. Pahl-Wostl, The Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems: Chaos and Order Entwined (Wiley, Chichester, 1995) p. 288.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    C. Pahl-Wostl, Integrated assessment of regional climate change and a new role for computer models at the interface between science and society, in: Prospects for Integrated Environmental Assessment: Lessons Learnt from the Case of Climate Change, eds. A. Sors, A. Liberatore, S. Funtowicz, J.C. Hourcade and J.L. Fellous, European Commission, DG XII, Toulouse (1996) pp. 156–160.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    C. Pahl-Wostl, C.C. Jaeger, S. Rayner, C. Schär, M. Van Asselt, D.M. Imboden and A. Vckovski, Integrated assessment of climate change and the problem of indeterminacy, in: Views from the Alps: Regional Perspectives on Climate Change, eds. P. Cebon, U. Dahinden, H.C. Davies, D.M. Imboden and C.C. Jaeger (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998) pp. 435–498.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    G. Porter and H. Livesay, Merchants and Manufacturers (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD, 1971).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    R. Radner, Competitive equilibrium under uncertainty, Econometrica 10 (1968) 31–59.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    J. Rotmans and H. Dowlatabadi, Integrated assessment of climate change: evaluation of methods and strategies, in: Human Choice and Climate Change, eds. S. Rayner and L. Malone (Battelle Press, Columbus Ohio, 1998).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    A.H. Sanstad and L.A. Greening, Economic models for climate policy analysis: A critical discussion, Environmental Modelling and Assessment 3 (1998) 3–18.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    S. Shackley, P. Young, S. Parkinson and B. Wynne, Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: are GCMs the best tools?, Climate Change 38 (1998) 159–205.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    A. Shaikh, Laws of production and laws of distribution: the humbug production function, The Review of Economics and Statistics 56 (1974) 115–120.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    R. Solow, Technical change and the aggregate production function, The Review of Economics and Statistics 39 (1957) 312–320.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    R. Solow, Laws of production and laws of distribution: the humbug production function: a comment, The Review of Economics and Statistics 56 (1974) 121.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    D. Tillman, T. Larsen, C. Pahl-Wostl and W. Gujer, Modelling the actors in water supply systems, Water Science and Technology 39, 203–211.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    M. Ye and K. Carley, Radar Soar: towards an artificial organization composed of intelligent agents, Journal ofMathematical Sociology 20 (1995) 219–246.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Moss
    • 1
  • Claudia Pahl-Wostl
    • 2
  • Thomas Downing
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Policy ModellingManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG)DübendorfSwitzerland
  3. 3.Environmental Change InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations