Water Controversies Between Conflict and Cooperation: Agent-Based Models for Non-traditional Security

Chapter

Abstract

In the last decade, a lot of attention has been increasingly devoted to ABMs (Agent-Based Models), facilitated also by the availability of computational power and open-source platforms. ABMs are thus becoming especially popular in social and political sciences for modelling complex situations with multiple actors that can evolve in highly unpredictable scenarios, due to a series of endogenous and exogenous variables often difficult to identify and even less to measure and predict. Conflicts and wars often qualify as ones. The aim of the present paper is to apply ABMs to analyse the complex issues arising from dam development on the Mekong River and the endless controversies this development has provoked since the 1960s, making it one of the most pressing non-traditional security issues in the region. It will preliminary examine the challenges of implementing ABMs to complex real-world situation like the ones into exam and which preliminary steps and theoretical considerations are necessary before the formulation of a definitive model. Finally, it will provide indications the state of the work in progress on the model created for this case-study, a few preliminary conclusions about its effectiveness, and some notes for future development.

Keywords

Water security River management Shared resources Non-traditional security Mekong River 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In R. Conte, R. Hegselmann, & P. Terna (Eds.), Simulating social phenomena (pp. 21–40). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axtell, R. (2000). Why agents? On the varied motivations for agent computing in the social sciences (Working Paper 17). Washington DC: Center on Social and Economic Dynamics, Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  3. Axtell, R., Axelrod, R., Epstein, J. M., & Cohen, M. D. (1995). Aligning simulation models: A case study and results (Working Papers 95-07-065). Santa Fe Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, K. (1999). The politics of hydropower: Developing the Mekong. Political Geography, 18, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandini, S., Manzoni, S., & Vizzari, G. (2009). Agent based modeling and simulation: An informatics perspective. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4), 4. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/4/4.html.
  6. Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Briguglio, L., Kaly, U., McLeod, H., Schmall, S., Pratt, C., & Pal, R. (1999). Environmental vulnerability index (EVI) to summarise national environmental vulnerability profiles (Technical Report 275, p. 1). Fiji: SOPAC.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, R. A. (1986). A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 2, 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chander, R. (1996). Measurement of the vulnerability of small states. London, UK: Commonwealth Secretariat.Google Scholar
  11. Collier, Paul, A. Hoeffler, & D. Rohner (2008, August). Beyond greed and grievance: Feasibility and civil war. In Oxford Economic Papers 61: (pp. 1–27).Google Scholar
  12. Dalby, S. (2002). Security and ecology in the age of globalization (ECSP Report, Issue 8) (Summer).Google Scholar
  13. Deudney, D., & Matthew, R. A. (1999). Contested grounds: Security and conflict in the new environmental politics. Albany: Albany State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Diehl, P. (1991). Geography and war: A review and assessment of the empirical literature. International Interactions, 17(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliot, L. (2002). Regional environmental security: Pursuing a non-traditional approach (Non-traditional security issues). Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Emmers, R. (2004). Non traditional security in South-East Asia Pacific: The dynamics of securitisation. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.Google Scholar
  17. Epstein, J. M. (2002). Modelling civil violence: An agent-based computational approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(Suppl 3), 724–750.Google Scholar
  18. Eriksson, M., Wallensteen, P., & Sollenberg, M. (2003). Armed conflict 1989–2002. Journal of Peace Research, 40(5), 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferber, J. (1999). Multi-agent systems. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Galliers, J. R. (1988). A strategic framework for multi-agent cooperative dialogue. In: Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-88), pp. 415–420, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  21. Gleditsch, N. P., Furlong, K., Hegre, H., Lacina, B., & Owen, T. (2006). Conflicts over shared rivers: Resource scarcity or fuzzy boundaries? Political Geography, 25(4), 361–382. Google Scholar
  22. Gleditsch, N. P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M., & Strand, H. (2002). Armed conflict 1946–2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39(5), 615–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: Fresh water resources and international security. International Security, 11(1), 79–112.Google Scholar
  24. Gleick, P. H. (2008). Water conflict chronology, Pacific Institute website, http://www.worldwater.org/conflictchronology.pdf.
  25. Gleick, P. H. (1998). The world’s water 1998–1999: The Biennial Report on freshwater resources. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goh, E. (2001). The hydro-politics of the Mekong River Basin: Regional cooperation and environmental security. In K. Boutin & A. Tan (Eds.), Non-traditional security issues in Southeast Asia (pp. 468–506). Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University.Google Scholar
  27. Goldstein, J. (1992). A conflict-cooperation scale for WEIS events data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hassani-Mahmooei, B., & Parris, B. W. (2012). Why might climate change not cause conflict? An agent-based computational response. Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44918/1/MPRA_paper_44918.pdf.
  29. Hassas, S., Serugendo, G. D. M., & Phan, D. (2007). Multi-agents for modelling complex systems (MA4CS).Google Scholar
  30. Homer-Dixon, T. (1994). Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: Evidence from cases. International Security, 19(1), 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Homer-Dixon, T. (2000). Environment, scarcity and violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Humphreys, M. (2005). Natural resources, conflict, and conflict resolution: Uncovering the mechanisms. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (August 2005): 508–537.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, R. (2000). The coming anarchy: Shattering the dreams of the post cold war. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  34. Klare, M. (2001, May 1). The new geography of conflict. Foreign Affairs. Available online at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57030/michael-t-klare/the-new-geography-of-conflict.
  35. Kustov, A. (2012). Modeling Ethnic Conflict. Online at https://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Kustov.pdf.
  36. Le Billon, P. (2001). The political ecology of war: Natural resources and armed conflicts. Political Geography, 20(5), 561–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li, X., & Liu, X. (2008). Embedding sustainable development strategies in agent-based models for use as a planning tool. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(1), 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macal, C., & North, M. (2005). Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. In M. E. Kuhl, N. M. Steiger, F. B. Armstrong, & J. A. Joines (Eds.), Proceedings 2005 Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, FL, December 4–7, pp. 2–15. Available at http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc05papers/002.pdf.
  39. North, M., Collier, N., & Vos, J. (2006). Experiences in creating three implementations of the repast agent modeling toolkit. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 16(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. North, M. J., & Macal, C. M. (2007). Managing business complexity: Discovering strategic solutions with agent-based modeling and simulation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paladini, S. (2006). Mekong: il fiume delle controversie [The controversial river: Mekong]. Rivista Giuridica Dell’ambiente [Environmental Law Review], 21(6), 210–225 (Torino: Giuffre’ Editore).Google Scholar
  42. Paladini, S. (2012). Evaluating water security in the Asia-Pacific: New approaches by vulnerability indices. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 52(6), 1–32.Google Scholar
  43. Rao, A., & Georgeff, M. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Google Scholar
  44. Rosenschein, J. S, & Genesereth, M. R. (1985). Deals among rational agents. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85), pp. 91–99, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  45. Sambanis, N. (2004). What is civil war? Conceptual and empirical complexities of an operational definition. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(6), 814–858.Google Scholar
  46. Sarkees, M. R. (2000). The correlates of war data on war: An update to 1997. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18(1), 123–144.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, P., & Gross, C. H. (2003). Water and conflict in Asia? In D. E. Lorey (Ed.), Global environmental challenges of the twenty-first century: Resources, consumption, and sustainable solutions. Wilmington, DE: SR Books.Google Scholar
  48. Tesfatsion, L. (2003). Agent-based computational economics: Modeling economies as complex adaptive systems. Information Sciences, 149(4), 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Theisen, O. M. (2008). Blood and soil? Resource scarcity and internal armed conflict revisited. Journal of Peace Research, 45(6), 801–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Volker, G., & Railsback, S. F. (2005). Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  51. Windrum, P., Fagiolo, G., & Moneta, A. (2007). Empirical validation of agent-based models: Alternatives and prospects. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 10(2), 8. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/10/2/8.html.
  52. Wooldridge, M. J., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 115–152. Available at http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/252102/4/publisher_download.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yilmaz, L., Oren, T. I., & Ghasem-Aghaee, N. (2006). Simulation-based problem-solving environments for conflict studies. Simulation & Gaming, 37, 534–556.Google Scholar
  54. Yoffe, S. B., & Wolf, A. T. (1999). Water, conflict, and cooperation: Geographical perspectives. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12(2), 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CoventryCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations