IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16623-d1000812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Validation of Agent-Based Models

Author

Listed:
  • Kristoffer Wikstrom

    (School of Social Science, Policy & Evaluation, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA 91711, USA)

  • Hal T. Nelson

    (Department of Public Administration, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA)

Abstract

This paper adapts an existing techno–social agent-based model (ABM) in order to develop a new framework for spatially validating ABMs. The ABM simulates citizen opposition to locally unwanted land uses, using historical data from an energy infrastructure siting process in Southern California. Spatial theory, as well as the model’s design, suggest that adequate validation requires multiple tests rather than relying solely on a single test-statistic. A pattern-oriented modeling approach was employed that first mapped real and simulated citizen comments across the US Census tract. The suite of spatial tests included Global Moran’s I, complemented with bivariate correlations, as well as the local indicators of spatial association (LISA) test. The global tests showed the model explained up to 65% of the variation in the historical data for US Census tract-level citizen comments on a locally unwanted land use. These global tests were also found helpful to inform the model’s calibration for the current application. The LISA results were even stronger, showing that the model predicted citizen comment clustering correctly in five of six Census tracts. It slightly over predicted comments further away from the land use. The LISA results and pattern-oriented modeling validation techniques identified theoretical factors to improve the modeling specification in future applications. The combined suite of validation techniques helped improve confidence in the model’s predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristoffer Wikstrom & Hal T. Nelson, 2022. "Spatial Validation of Agent-Based Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16623-:d:1000812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16623/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16623/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. Robert Axelrod, 1997. "Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 97-05-048, Santa Fe Institute.
    3. Craig W. Trumbo, 1996. "Examining Psychometrics and Polarization in a Single‐Risk Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 429-438, June.
    4. Claudius Graebner, 2018. "How to Relate Models to Reality? An Epistemological Framework for the Validation and Verification of Computational Models," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 21(3), pages 1-8.
    5. Nelson, Hal T. & Wikstrom, Kris & Hass, Samantha & Sarle, Kirsten, 2021. "Half-length and the FACT framework: Distance-decay and citizen opposition to energy facilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Jule Thober & Birgit Müller & Jürgen Groeneveld & Volker Grimm, 2017. "Agent-Based Modelling of Social-Ecological Systems: Achievements, Challenges, and a Way Forward," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(2), pages 1-8.
    7. Giorgio Fagiolo & Alessio Moneta & Paul Windrum, 2007. "A Critical Guide to Empirical Validation of Agent-Based Models in Economics: Methodologies, Procedures, and Open Problems," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 195-226, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1270, December.
    2. Annetta Burger & Talha Oz & William G. Kennedy & Andrew T. Crooks, 2019. "Computational Social Science of Disasters: Opportunities and Challenges," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-31, April.
    3. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    4. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    5. Matteo Richiardi, 2003. "The Promises and Perils of Agent-Based Computational Economics," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 29, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    6. Ernesto Carrella & Richard M. Bailey & Jens Koed Madsen, 2018. "Indirect inference through prediction," Papers 1807.01579, arXiv.org.
    7. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    8. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    9. António Madureira & Nico Baken & Harry Bouwman, 2011. "Value of digital information networks: a holonic framework," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-30, April.
    10. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Kukacka, Jiri & Jang, Tae-Seok & Sacht, Stephen, 2018. "On the estimation of behavioral macroeconomic models via simulated maximum likelihood," Economics Working Papers 2018-11, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    12. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    13. Juan Manuel Larrosa, 2016. "Agentes computacionales y análisis económico," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 18(34), pages 87-113, January-J.
    14. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    15. Günter Küppers & Johannes Lenhard, 2005. "Validation of Simulation: Patterns in the Social and Natural Sciences," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 8(4), pages 1-3.
    16. Andrew W. Bausch, 2014. "Evolving intergroup cooperation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 369-393, December.
    17. Claudius Gräbner & Wolfram Elsner & Alex Lascaux, 2021. "Trust and Social Control: Sources of Cooperation, Performance, and Stability in Informal Value Transfer Systems," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(4), pages 1077-1102, December.
    18. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    19. Ulfia A. Lenfers & Julius Weyl & Thomas Clemen, 2018. "Firewood Collection in South Africa: Adaptive Behavior in Social-Ecological Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16623-:d:1000812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.