Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Integrated Assessment

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. J.R. Anderson, Rules of the Mind (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, NJ, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  3. K.J. Arrow and G. Debreu, Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy, Econometrica (1954) 265–290.

  4. K.J. Arrow and F.H. Hahn, General Competitive Analysis (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  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).

  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. 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.

  8. P. Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Wiley, Chichester, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.B. Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (Macmillan, New York, 1893).

    Google Scholar 

  10. G. Debreu, Excess demand functions, J. Mathematical Economics 1 (1974) 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Funtowicz and J. Ravetz, Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25 (1993) 735–755.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G.C. Harcourt, Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  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. W.P. Hogan, Technical Progress and Production Functions, The Review of Economics and Statistics 40 (1958) 407–411.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D. Kahneman and A. Tverski, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision-making under risk, Econometrica 47 (1985) 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. R.J. Mantel, On the characterisation of aggregate excess demand, J. Economic Theory 7 (1974) 348–353.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Marshall, Principles of Economics (Macmillan, London, 1893 [1961]); (8th ed. (variorum edition) published in 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  20. S. Moss, An Economic Theory of Business Strategy (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

  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. 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).

  26. A. Newell, Unified Theories of Cognition (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  27. W. Nordhaus, Managing the Global Commons. The Economics of Climate Change (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  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. C. Pahl-Wostl, The Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems: Chaos and Order Entwined (Wiley, Chichester, 1995) p. 288.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. G. Porter and H. Livesay, Merchants and Manufacturers (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  33. R. Radner, Competitive equilibrium under uncertainty, Econometrica 10 (1968) 31–59.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. R. Solow, Technical change and the aggregate production function, The Review of Economics and Statistics 39 (1957) 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  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. D. Tillman, T. Larsen, C. Pahl-Wostl and W. Gujer, Modelling the actors in water supply systems, Water Science and Technology 39, 203–211.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building, Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH, UK

    Scott Moss

  2. Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG), Überlandstrasse 133, CH-8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Claudia Pahl-Wostl

  3. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 1a Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK

    Thomas Downing

Authors
  1. Scott Moss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Pahl-Wostl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Downing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moss, S., Pahl-Wostl, C. & Downing, T. Agent-based integrated assessment modelling: the example of climate change. Integrated Assessment 2, 17–30 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011527523183

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011527523183

Search

Navigation