IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/complx/v2022y2022i1n1193891.html

An Inquiry into Model Validity When Addressing Complex Sustainability Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Şerban Scrieciu
  • Liz Varga
  • Nici Zimmermann
  • Zaid Chalabi
  • Rachel Freeman
  • Tom Dolan
  • Dmitry E. Borisoglebsky
  • Mike Davies

Abstract

Scientific modelling is a prime means to generate understanding and provide much‐needed information to support public decision‐making in the fluid area of sustainability. A growing, diverse sustainability modelling literature, however, does not readily lend itself to standard validation procedures, which are typically rooted in the positivist principles of empirical verification and predictive success. Yet, to be useful to decision‐makers, models, including their outputs and the processes through which they are established must be, and must be seen to be “valid.” This study explores what model validity means in a problem space with increasingly interlinked and fast‐moving challenges. We examine validation perspectives through ontological, epistemic, and methodological lenses, for a range of modelling approaches that can be considered as “complexity‐compatible.” The worldview taken in complexity‐compatible modelling departs from the more standard modelling assumptions of complete objectivity and full predictability. Drawing on different insights from complexity science, systems thinking, economics, and mathematics, we suggest a ten‐dimensional framework for progressing on model validity when investigating sustainability concerns. As such, we develop a widened view of the meaning of model validity for sustainability. It includes (i) acknowledging that several facets of validation are critical for the successful modelling of the sustainability of complex systems; (ii) tackling the thorny issues of uncertainty, subjectivity, and unpredictability; (iii) exploring the realism of model assumptions and mechanisms; (iv) embracing the role of stakeholder engagement and scrutiny throughout the modelling process; and (v) considering model purpose when assessing model validity. We wish to widen the debate on the meaning of model validity in a constructive way. We conclude that consideration of all these elements is necessary to enable sustainability models to support, more effectively, decision‐making for complex interdependent systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Şerban Scrieciu & Liz Varga & Nici Zimmermann & Zaid Chalabi & Rachel Freeman & Tom Dolan & Dmitry E. Borisoglebsky & Mike Davies, 2022. "An Inquiry into Model Validity When Addressing Complex Sustainability Challenges," Complexity, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2022(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:complx:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:n:1193891
    DOI: 10.1155/2022/1193891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1193891
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2022/1193891?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boulanger, Paul-Marie & Brechet, Thierry, 2005. "Models for policy-making in sustainable development: The state of the art and perspectives for research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 337-350, November.
    2. Hamid Beigy & M. R. Meybodi, 2004. "A Mathematical Framework For Cellular Learning Automata," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(03n04), pages 295-319.
    3. Oubraham, Aïchouche & Zaccour, Georges, 2018. "A Survey of Applications of Viability Theory to the Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable Resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 346-367.
    4. Sheila C. Dow, 2012. "Foundations for New Economic Thinking," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-00072-9, September.
    5. Sarah A Sheard & Ali Mostashari, 2009. "Principles of complex systems for systems engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 295-311, December.
    6. Fabian Dembski & Uwe Wössner & Mike Letzgus & Michael Ruddat & Claudia Yamu, 2020. "Urban Digital Twins for Smart Cities and Citizens: The Case Study of Herrenberg, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Sterman, J.D., 2006. "Learning from evidence in a complex world," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(3), pages 505-514.
    8. Farzana Quoquab & Jihad Mohammad, 2020. "Cognitive, Affective and Conative Domains of Sustainable Consumption: Scale Development and Validation Using Confirmatory Composite Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-22, September.
    9. John Foster, 2005. "From simplistic to complex systems in economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(6), pages 873-892, November.
    10. Sibel Eker & Elena Rovenskaya & Michael Obersteiner & Simon Langan, 2018. "Practice and perspectives in the validation of resource management models," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Guillaume Ollivier & Daniele Magda & Armelle Mazé & Gaël Plumecocq & Claire Lamine, 2018. "Agroecological transitions: what can sustainability transition frameworks teach us? An ontological and empirical analysis," Post-Print hal-02622145, HAL.
    12. Berill Blair & Amy L. Lovecraft, 2020. "Risks Without Borders: A Cultural Consensus Model of Risks to Sustainability in Rapidly Changing Social–Ecological Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Pierpaolo Andriani & Bill McKelvey, 2009. "Perspective ---From Gaussian to Paretian Thinking: Causes and Implications of Power Laws in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(6), pages 1053-1071, December.
    14. Sartorius, Christian, 2006. "Second-order sustainability--conditions for the development of sustainable innovations in a dynamic environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 268-286, June.
    15. Sorrell, Steve, 2018. "Explaining sociotechnical transitions: A critical realist perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1267-1282.
    16. Brian Arthur, W. & Ermoliev, Yu. M. & Kaniovski, Yu. M., 1987. "Path-dependent processes and the emergence of macro-structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 294-303, June.
    17. Camaren Peter & Mark Swilling, 2014. "Linking Complexity and Sustainability Theories: Implications for Modeling Sustainability Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-29, March.
    18. Jonathan Köhler & Fjalar de Haan & Georg Holtz & Klaus Kubeczko & Enayat Moallemi & George Papachristos & Emile Chappin, 2018. "Modelling Sustainability Transitions: An Assessment of Approaches and Challenges," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8.
    19. Don Lavoie, 2011. "The interpretive dimension of economics: Science, hermeneutics, and praxeology," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(2), pages 91-128, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Donovan Guttieres & Carla Van Riet & Nico Vandaele & Catherine Decouttere, 2025. "Expanding modeling boundaries to design more resilient vaccine supply networks," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 583-590, December.

    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. Tara Maireid Conway, 2025. "The role of intermediaries in transitions to agroecology in the Upper Midwest," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 42(3), pages 2151-2169, September.
    2. Zolfagharian, Mohammadreza & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2019. "Studying transitions: Past, present, and future," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    3. Ciarli, Tommaso & Savona, Maria, 2019. "Modelling the Evolution of Economic Structure and Climate Change: A Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 51-64.
    4. De Lapparent, Alice & Sabatier, Rodolphe & Paut, Raphaël & Martin, Sophie, 2023. "Perennial transitions from market gardening towards mixed fruit tree - vegetable systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    5. Brice Dattée & James Barlow, 2017. "Multilevel Organizational Adaptation: Scale Invariance in the Scottish Healthcare System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 301-319, April.
    6. Ioana Negru, 2013. "Revisiting the Concept of Schools of Thought in Economics: The Example of the Austrian School," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(4), pages 983-1008, October.
    7. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    8. Matthew Callcut & Jean-Paul Cerceau Agliozzo & Liz Varga & Lauren McMillan, 2021. "Digital Twins in Civil Infrastructure Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-32, October.
    9. Sridharan, Sanjeev & Jones, Bobby & Caudill, Barry & Nakaima, April, 2016. "Steps towards incorporating heterogeneities into program theory: A case study of a data-driven approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 88-97.
    10. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. McKelvey, Bill & Wycisk, Christine & Hülsmann, Michael, 2009. "Designing an electronic auction market for complex 'smart parts' logistics: Options based on LeBaron's computational stock market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 476-494, August.
    12. Ekaterina V. Orlova, 2022. "Design Technology and AI-Based Decision Making Model for Digital Twin Engineering," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Wenjing Luo & Zhi Qiu & Yurika Yokoyama & Shengyuan Zheng, 2022. "Decision-Making Mechanism of Joint Activities for the Elderly and Children in Integrated Welfare Facilities: A Discussion Based on “Motivation–Constraint” Interaction Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-23, August.
    14. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    15. Metin Türkay & Öztürk Saraçoğlu & Mehmet Can Arslan, 2016. "Sustainability in Supply Chain Management: Aggregate Planning from Sustainability Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Zhu, Lei & Yan, Shaocong & Geng, Lili & Liang, Xiaomeng & Xue, Yongji, 2025. "How opportunity and cognition improve family farms' low-carbon production behavior: Evidence from China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    17. Gill Seyfang & Alex Haxeltine, 2012. "Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 381-400, June.
    18. Arman Canatay & Leonel Prieto & Muhammad Ruhul Amin, 2025. "Navigating the Convergence of Global Competitiveness and Sustainable Development: A Multi-Level Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-39, June.
    19. Fragkandreas, Thanos, 2025. "Case study research on innovation systems: Paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    20. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:complx:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:n:1193891. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/8503 .

    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.