Agent-based and System Dynamics Modeling :

A Call for Cross Study and Joint Research

Hans J. (Jochen) Scholl
University at Albany / State University of New York
Center for Technology in Government
jscholl@ctg.albany.edu

Abstract
In recent years, the "Science of Complexity", as promoted
by the Santa Fe Institute, has been recognized by
mainstream scholars in prominent scientific disciplines
ranging from physics over economics and computer
science to the social sciences. In various reviews, it
appears, however, as if Complexity Theory and
techniques such as agent-based modeling are unique in
their capacity of modeling nonlinear systems. These
reviews overlook that such systems have been modeled
and simulated at least since the late 1950s, e.g., by the
research track known as System Dynamics, a discipline
with a rich body of literature. This paper gives an
overview of the general modeling principles of both
tracks, describes their areas of applicability, and
discusses their relative strengths and weaknesses. It tries
to identify areas in which the two modeling traditions
complement each other, and where they overlap. The
paper concludes that cross study and joint research are
overdue..

1. Introduction
With the advent of computers, the traditional
experimental research design was augmented by what is
now widely known as computer simulation or computer
experiment. As opposed to the traditional experiment, the
computer experiment is capable of delivering rigorous
results across large to very large data sets with impressive
accuracy in a fraction of the time needed for a traditional
set-up. Experiments involving non-linear complexities
particularly thrived through computer simulation. Over
time, two major non-linear modeling techniques emerged,
agent-based and System Dynamics modeling. Rather than
benefiting from one another, the two disciplines ignored
each others literature almost entirely. This is even more
remarkable since the study areas significantly overlap.
Still, results were seldom compared nor shared. This
paper calls for closing this gap and for bringing the two
literatures into contact. Hence the modeling principles of
each technique will be described, and the respective
strengths and weaknesses highlighted. Fields of research

and application for each discipline will be exemplified,

and the broad overlap in research topics demonstrated. It
will be concluded that the prevailing mutual ignorance of
the other disciplines methods and results is unfortunate
since the two techniques have a high potential for
supporting and complementing each other. Joint ABM
and SD research is proposed that may have the capacity
for delivering results superior to those based on one
technique only. This paper is a call for the cross study of
both fields.

2. Modeling as such
In a sense, all science is creating models of "the world"
or of the "perceived/constructed world" depending on a
scholar's or discipline's ontological and epistemological
vantagepoint. As Holland & Miller [1] pointed out,
scientific models traditionally were either linguistic or
mathematical. While linguistic models maintain a high
level of flexibility, mathematical models employ rigor in
formulation and consistency in structure, however, at the
expense of flexibility. Before the advent of computer
modeling techniques, the effective combination of both
traditional
modeling
strengths,
flexibility
and
rigor/consistency, seemed to be unattainable. According
to the two authors, this is what computer-based modeling
has the capacity to offer to science. Many traditional
sciences and scholars, though, have been slow in
accepting these opportunities for various reasons ranging
from fundamental philosophy-of-science standpoints to
plain scholarly computer illiteracy, sometimes for both of
these two ends of the continuum at the same time. In
recent years, however, it has become clear that computer
modeling is capable of supporting extreme positivist as
well as extreme constructivist scholarly positions.
Moreover, computer literacy has dramatically
improved. Thus, it seems only natural that computer
modeling becomes more acceptable, since it has opened
new avenues of research, in particular in areas of
complexity and nonlinearity of large scale that are barred
to traditional scientific approaches. Holland (1999)
positions computer-based modeling within the range of
scientific research methods by explaining that models

provide a halfway house between theory and

experiment. Computer-based models are not
experiments in the usual sense because they do
not directly manipulate the world being
modeled. Nevertheless, as the model is
executed, patterns and symmetries will
typically show up in the ongoing action [2,
119-120]
He further points out that though models are not
experiments in the physical sense, they are nevertheless
completely rigorous and unambiguous:
Run the same model with the same settings
twice and you will get the same results. In its
rigor, a computer-based model is similar to a
mathematical (equation-based or axiomatic)
model, but its results hold only for the
particular settings used when it is executed. A
mathematical model, on the other hand, yields
results that hold over some well-specified
domain. Still, by executing the computerbased model several times, with different
initial settings, we may discern patterns and
regularities that recur in the results. [2, 120]
He concludes that these regularities then give practical
hints for the construction of mathematical models "in
which the regularities can be deduced from the
structure."[2, 120]
Since across disciplines the long-lasting research
methods debate is finally turning away from crass eitheror-positions in terms of qualitative or quantitative
research toward a growing acceptance of true
multimethod and integrative approaches, computermodeling techniques can also be seen as instrumental part
in this process. In other words, computer modeling and
experimentation can be understood as an methodological
array of growing influence in the standard arsenal of
research methods with the additional capacity of
integrating quantitative and qualitative research efforts.

3. Agent-based modeling
The aim of agent-based (or individual-based)
modeling is to look at global consequences of individual
or local interactions in a given space [3]. Agents are seen
as the generators of emergent behavior [2] in that space.
Interacting agents, though driven by only a small set of
rules which govern their individual behavior, account for
complex system behavior whose emergent dynamic
properties cannot be explained by analyzing its
component parts. In Holland's words, "The interactions
between the parts are nonlinear; so the overall behavior
cannot be obtained by summing the behaviors of the
isolated components. Said another way, there are
regularities in system behavior that are not revealed by

direct inspection of the laws satisfied by the components.

[2, 225]. Emergence, thus, is understood as the property
of complex systems where "much (is) coming from
little." [2, 1]. Emergence is the focal point of what now is
called the theory of Complexity.
Agent-based models consist of a space, framework, or
environment in which interactions take place and a
number of agents whose behavior in this space is defined
by a basic set of rules and by characteristic parameters
[3]. Models can be spatially explicit, i.e., agents are
associated with a specific location from which they may
or may not be able to move. Not all models need to be
spatially explicit (i.e., the location does not play a role
such as in simulations of networks).
Individual-based models are a subset of multiagent
systems
which
includes
any
computational system whose design is
fundamentally composed of a collection of
interacting parts. For example an "expert
system" might be composed of many distinct
bits of advice which interact to produce a
solution.
Individual-based
models
are
distinguished by the fact that each "agent"
corresponds to autonomous individuals in the
simulated domain. [3]
Reynolds also makes clear the relationship between
agent-based systems and cellular automata:
There is an overlap between individual-based
models and cellular automata. Certainly,
cellular automata are similar to spatially
explicit, grid-based, immobile individualbased systems. However, CAs are always
homogenous and dense (all cells are identical),
whereas a grid-based individual-based model
might occupy only a few grid cells, and more
than one distinct individual might live on the
same grid.The philosophical issue is
whether the simulation is based on a dense and
uniform dissection of the space (as in a CA),
or based on specific individuals distributed
within the space [3]
Agent-based models' resulting emergent dynamic
behaviors can be linked with those of other models
forming an even higher level of complexity and emerging
behaviors. In summary, Complexity Theory is the
"science of emergence" [4, 38], and agent-based models
are a key element for modeling emergent phenomena.

4. System Dynamics Modeling

As opposed to the concept of emergence and agentbased modeling whose roots can be traced back to the
1970s, the scientific concept of feedback which is at the
core of System Dynamics modeling is significantly older
as Richardson demonstrates in his seminal book on

Feedback Thought [5]. The underlying concept of

feedback is its loop structure, or the notion of circular
causality. Thinking in circles, and particularly, circular
reasoning has been considered flawed by mainstream
Western science throughout the last couple of centuries,
even though strong evidence for feedback (at least in
higher order systems) has permeated Western science at
all times. It is worthwhile to recall, how traditional
science establishes causality: "(1) the cause precedes the
effect in time, (2) there is an empirical correlation
between them, and (3) the relationship is not found to be
the result of some third variable" [6, 75]. Only
relationships satisfying all three criteria are recognized as
causal by traditional research
This strict distinction and isolation of cause and effect
has served science well as long as relatively simple (and
linear) systems of relationships were studied. The
traditional approach of independent / dependent variables,
however, does not cope well, if at all, with complex
systems, as Jay W. Forrester, the founding father of the
discipline, pointed out very clearly (which is why this is
quoted in full):
in complex systems cause and effect are
often not closely related in either time or
space. The structure of a complex system is
not a simple feedback loop where one system
state dominates the behavior. The complex
system has a multiplicity of interacting
feedback loops. Its internal rates of flow are
controlled by nonlinear relationships. The
complex system is of high order, meaning that
there are many system states (or levels). It
usually contains positive-feedback loops
describing growth processes as well as
negative, goal-seeking loops.
In the complex system the cause of a difficulty
may lie far back in time from the symptoms, or
in a completely different and remote part of
the system (emphasis mine). In fact, causes are
usually found, not in prior events, but in the
structure and policies of the system. To make
matters still worse, the complex system is even
more deceptive than merely hiding causes. In
the complex system, when we look for a cause
near in time and space to a symptom, we
usually find what appears to be a plausible
cause. But it is usually not the cause (emphasis
mine). The complex system presents apparent
causes that are in fact coincident symptoms.
The high degree of time correlation between
variables in complex systems can lead us to
make cause-and-effect associations between
variables that are simply moving together as
part of the total dynamic behavior of the
system. Conditioned by our training in simple
systems, we apply the same intuition to

complex systems and are led into error. As a

result we treat symptoms, not causes. The
outcome lies between ineffective and
detrimental [7, 8-9]
As can be inferred from this citation, the feedback loop
is the basic building block of a complex feedback
structure, and as such the basic unit of analysis and
communication of system behavior [5, 4]. As Richardson
also emphasizes, the endogenous perspective of a
dynamic system may be the "single most characteristic
and significant feature of the field."
Feedback loops have either positive or negative
polarities. This polarity indicates whether a loop has the
tendency to reinforce or to counterbalance a change in
one or more of its loop elements. The basic concept of
feedback has enjoyed a wide range of applications in
engineering fields such as fluid, temperature, centrifuge,
and steam pressure regulations over centuries. But it
needed the advent of the computer to become accepted
and serve as modeling discipline also for other areas than
engineering.
System Dynamics models help trace the patterns of
behavior of a dynamic system to its feedback structure.
The models are formal, employing differential equations,
i.e., they are rigorously quantitative. In the SD view,
feedback structures are seen as intrinsic in real systems.
As such feedback is the structure that makes a system
adapt over time [5, 313]. Moreover, System Dynamics
models are continuous, they do not model discrete events,
rather they "view separate events and decisions as riding
on the surface of an underlying tide of policy, pressures,
and dynamic pattern" [5, 323]. Building a causal model is
an iterative process in which the modeler quantitatively
formulates feedback relationships between elements of a
given system that he is able to identify. A typical
feedback-rich model can consist of several dozens to
several hundreds of equations. The model goes through
various stages of expansion and reduction until a minimal
feedback structure in terms of number of differential
equations is identified which is capable of simulating a
predefined reference mode of the systemic problem under
study. Testing a model's behavior against historical data
and verifying its robustness can be a tantalizing procedure
[8].
In summary, SD models are feedback based, they
model systemic problems at an aggregate level over time.
The model of causal relationships is the result of a
cognitive abstraction process on behalf of the modeler.

5. Fields of Application and Tools

Agent-based models have been used in a wide range of
fields such as ecology, biology, anthropology, artificial
societies, psychology, sociology, economics, traffic &
vehicle simulations, animation and interactive media, and
the military. There are currently at least three development

toolkits that help develop and implement agent-based

models: Swarm (http://www.santafe.edu/projects/swarm/)
was originally developed at the Santa Fe Institute. It is a
package for multi-agent simulation of complex system and
a "tool for researchers in a variety of disciplines,
especially artificial life. The basic architecture of Swarm
is the simulation of collections of concurrently interacting
agents". Echo (http://www.santafe.edu/projects/echo/
echo.html/) is another package widely used for ecological
simulations. It "is a simulation tool developed to
investigate mechanisms which regulate diversity and
information-processing in systems comprised of many
interacting adaptive agents, or complex adaptive systems
(CAS)". A third tool is XRaptor (http://www.informatik.
uni-mainz.de/~polani/XRaptor/XRaptor.html) which "is
an environment for simulation of scenarios in continuous
virtual multi-agent worlds. It is written in C++ XRaptor
allows studying the behavior of agents in different 2- or 3dimensional continuous worlds."
For reasons of space we can only give one example for
each modeling technique that conveys some essence of
this particular technique. The two examples are not meant
to be in any way representative, rather they are intended to
provide the reader with a sort of tangibility for the subject.
A famous and frequently enhanced agent-based system
is Craig Reynolds's "Boids" (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.
au/~conradp/boids/). This program simulates a flock of
"boids" which very much resemble real birds in their
flying behavior. The boids "are able to wheel in unison
and avoid obstacles as if conducting highly complex,
highly coordinated maneuvers" [9, 229].

Figure 1: Flock of boids in action avoiding

cylindrical obstacles [10]

Surprisingly, the flock's complex behavior emerges

from only three simple rules by which any boid in the
flock obeys:
1. It tried to maintain a minimum distance from
other objects in the environment, including
other boids.
2. It tried to match velocities with boids in its
neighborhood.
3. It tried to move toward the perceived center of
mass of boids in its neighborhood. [4, 242]
The three local, individual-based rules lead to an
emergent complex behavior of the whole flock (see figure
1). A C++ program listing is provided in Appendix B for
further information.
System Dynamics modeling is applied to an equally
wide range of fields as agent-based modeling. Typical
fields are biology, ecology, economics, education,
engineering, medicine, public administration and policy
design, law, business administration, psychology,
sociology, the military among others. System Dynamics
has become popular when its general principles of
feedback thought were presented to a wider audience
under the label of systems thinking [11]. However,
systems thinking can ultimately not be applied without
rigorous modeling.
Three popular SD modeling tools are Stella, Powersim,
and Vensim. Stella (http://www.hps-inc.com/edu/stella/
stella.htm) is one of the older simulation packages which
is widely used in K-12 to graduate education. Students,
teachers, and researchers use Stella "to render, then test,
their mental models of everything from how a bowl of
soup cools to how a galaxy expandsand everything in
between." A second modeling package is Powersim
Constructor (http://www. powersim.com/products/produc
ts.htm). It is supposed to be "used to create models of
processes and competitive markets, demonstrate strategies
and identify leverage points for managing change." The
modeler can also "import historical information,
experiment with future scenarios and develop the best
long-term strategy." A third modeling software package is
Vensim (http://www. vensim.com/software.html) which
"is used for develop-ing, analyzing, and packaging high
quality dynamic feedback models. Models are
constructed graphically or in a text editor. Features
include dynamic functions, subscripting (arrays), Monte
Carlo sensitivity analysis, optimization, data handling,
application interfaces" etc.

*UDSK IRU <



X
dX dt
initial x
Z

dZ dt
B
RminusZ




Y
dY dt





7LPH WLPH





<  EDVH
<  EDVH
<  EDVH

Figure 2: Feedback loop structure of the Lorenz

model (Richardson, 1991)

Figure 3: Horizontal temperature variations Y

with slightly varying initial values for R = 28,
27.999, 28.001

The System Dynamics modeling example presents the

famous Lorenz weather equations [5, 309, 12] for reasons
of their conciseness and their popularity.

6. Relative strength and weaknesses of the

two modeling disciplines

The model was originally designed to be a

highly simplified picture of certain weatherrelated variables in an atmosphere heated from
below: x is related to convection, while y and z
represent horizontal and vertical temperature
variations (Lorenz, 1963)the Lorenz model
contains six loops: three little loops involving
x, y, and z individually, and three major loops
involving x and y, y and z, and x, y, and z.
Because x and y can take on both positive and
negative values, the polarities of the major
loops can shift back and forth. For particular
values of the parameters, this stock-and-flow
feedback structure exhibits deterministic chaos
and extreme sensitivity to initial conditions (
= 10, r= 28, b = 8/3 is one such parameter set.)
[5, 310]
The loop diagram is shown in figure 2: The output
shown in figure 3, for example for Y, is the classic
behavior of deterministic chaos that Lorenz discovered
back in 1963. A Vensim model for the Lorenz equations
is included in Appendix A.
As Richardson concludes, "nonlinear models can
endogenously change dominant structure we now face
the likelihood that the enormous range of feedback
systems social sciences have observed includes structures
that can endogenously generate unpredictable behavior"
[5, 310]

The major differences between the modeling

techniques also mark their relative strengths and
weaknesses. Agent-based modeling focuses on
individuals who interact on the basis of generally simple
rules. The resulting emergent behavior of such agents as a
complex system is the basic unit of analysis. The
approach is inductive. The researcher may modify rules
and environmental parameters and then try to understand
what the resulting outcomes are with regard to the
emergent behavior of the overall system.
As long as rules are known or can be discovered by
some sort of observation, the modeling and testing of such
emergent structures is a relatively straightforward
process. However, once the reverse direction of study is
employed, that is, a complex aggregate behavior of a
system has been observed, and now its agents and the
rules by which they interact shall be identified, the
process can be anything but straightforward.
"Discovering" agents and rules and then building a model
which in turn is capable of mimicking the previously
observed dynamic behavior can become a very tedious
avenue of research. If rules and agents are identified,
leverage points can be found at an individual level that
may influence the complex aggregate behavior of a
system significantly.
In SD modeling the feedback loop is the unit of
analysis as seen earlier. Dynamic systems are deductive,
in that they are described by their feedback structure at an
aggregate level. That is, individual agents or events do not

matter much in SD models, since the dynamics of the

underlying structures are seen as dominant. Feedback
structures, for example in social-science fields of study,
can become subject to controversy since perspectives on a
problem and perceptions thereof may differ widely.
Constructing models, hence, is a process in which
expert consensus regarding the feedback structure is
essential to the credibility of any given model. If the
feedback structure of a model captures the structure of a
system insufficiently, the resulting insights may be faulty,
even if the model matches historical data of the modeled
system to some degree.
On the other hand, if the model does represent the
systemic problem sufficiently, leverage points for
intervention can be identified fairly effectively. This,
however, is not possible at an individual rather than an
aggregate level.
Both techniques aim at discovering leverage points in
complex aggregate systems, modelers of agent-based
models seek them in rules and agents, while SD modelers
do so in the feedback structure of a system.

7. How do the two modeling techniques fit

together?
As Steven Phelan recently stated upon analyzing
similarities and divergences between the complexity
school and the System Dynamics track: "As a complexity
scientist, I was both surprised and embarrassed to find
such an extensive body of literature virtually
unacknowledged in the complexity literature" [9, 237].
Indeed, the same holds true vice versa. It may be time to
overcome this mutual partial blindness, since both tracks
have a lot in common and a capacity to complement each
other in various ways.
One problem of understanding on behalf of complexity
theorists is obviously to find a clear distinction between
System Dynamics and the various schools of "systems
theory". From a complexity theory standpoint, this
distinction seems non-existent. Phelan, for example,
subsumes SD and systems theory into one uniform body
of understanding, while most of his comments obviously
relate specifically to System Dynamics. As mentioned
earlier, Richardson gave a full account of the unfolding of
feedback thinking in social and other sciences in which he
particularly described overlaps and fundamental
differences between System Dynamics and the "system
theory" schools [5].
As Phelan notes, "Several terms carry virtually the
same definition in both theories, including system,
emergence, dynamic, nonlinear, adaptive and hierarchy.
Both theories also share a belief that there are universal
principles underlying the behavior of all systems. This has
led some commentators to suggest that the two fields are

substantially similar" [9, 238]. In Phelan's view, system

theory/SD is mainly focused on "confirmatory analysis"
and is a "problem solving perspective". He identifies one
of SD's objectives as "generating shared understanding
and consensus one requires to improve the system" [9,
238-239]. As opposed to SD's confirmatory type of
analysis, complexity theory typically focuses on
exploratory research.
Another major point of departure between complexity
theory and System Dynamics in his view is marked by the
fact that though SD models can generate extremely
complex models, the building blocks "at the disposal of
the modeler are basically limited to stocks and flows, with
flows representing either positive or negative feedback in
a given element in the model" and he concludes, "One of
the weaknesses of the approach is that stocks and flows
invariably refer to the quantity rather than to the quality
(or any other characteristic) of an element (or its
attributes)" [9].
It seems clear from this statement, that the expectation
what a model must be able to do is driven from an
individual-based rather than an aggregate modeling point
of view. Most importantly, the statement does not
acknowledge the principle of feedback which underlies
the aggregate structures. Phelan also states that, by and
large, SD models lack the capacity to modify themselves
structurally, which is one of the capacities of agent-based
models. Holland makes this point even clearer: " there
is no easy way to predict the overall behavior by looking
at the behavior of an "average" individual. The difficulty
increases enormously when individual agents can learn or
adapt. Then an agent's strategy is not only conditioned by
the current situation, it can also change over time" [2,118]
We also find Phelans assertion conclusive, that SD
models have difficulty to explain for example production
and decisions at an individual level.
What both Holland and Phelan may not be aware of is
that SD models have a capacity to model "learning
effects" and are able to explain dynamics in what occurs
as "environment" to individual agents, which these may
have no capability to influence according to their limited
rules.
At the very least, it will be insightful to compare the
aggregate behavior and emergent influence on the
environment of agent-based models with the predictions
of aggregate-level feedback models regarding the same
subject area.
This is by no means far-fetched. Looking at some
topics in the portfolio of complexity theory such as the
tragedy of the commons [13], predator-and-prey [14],
deer management [15], to name a few, to a system
dynamicist this would all look like a dj vu. It should be

a fruitful undertaking to compare both sides' results and

discuss the insights.
However, there are even more striking areas of
collaboration. All models - as Richardson is fond of
saying - are wrong [16]. Scientists who use models
because they can cope with high degrees of nonlinearities
and enormous search spaces also face the problem of
validating their models. Validation of complex models is
inherently difficult [17].Miller proposes to use computerbased Active Nonlinear Tests (ANTs) that are capable of
performing multivariate sensitivity analysis, model
breaking and validation, extreme cases, and policy
discovery. "ANTs search across sets of parameter values,
they are capable of detecting important nonlinear
relationships among the parameters - relationships that
typically go unnoticed using standard techniques"[17,
821]

theory helped discover hidden orders, and that most

complex systems stay on the edge of chaos in a rather
regular state.
In view of complexity theory, System Dynamics is
located toward the constructivist end of the continuum,
since feedback mechanisms are "constructed", sometimes
by group consensus, which leaves them on a less rigorous
foundation than agent-based models in their view.
Feedback thinkers (many of whom also believe to sit
on the positivist end of the spectrum) could argue that the
definition of agents and rules is equally deliberate as the
definition of feedback appears, and that similar emergent
behaviors could be accomplished with different agents
and rules. By virtue of this argument, the two disciplines
are seen in close vicinity.

Miller further describes ANTs algorithms such as hillclimbing and Holland's genetic algorithms that use the
two genetic operators of crossover and mutation (in fact,
an agent-based algorithm), combined with simple random
algorithms which subsequently search for new
populations of solutions. "Solutions" in this sense can be
those that shatter and break the model. By means of
ANTs, Miller was able to show that the famous SD model
WORLD3 [18, 19] exposes extreme sensitivities to at
least two parameters. Due to the influence of these two
parameters and opposed to Meadows's conclusions from
the model, ANTs were able to demonstrate that the model
was able to produce significantly different results than
those Meadows et al. presented. Miller makes clear that
his interest is not one of denouncing Meadows's model as
flawed rather than to demonstrate the potential of ANTs.
In fact, when it comes to rigorous model testing, both
modeling techniques share a common interest. As Miller
notes, "ANTs can be used to discover worst (or best) case
scenarios and therein give the user an idea about which
parameters should either be altered (if possible) or most
closely monitored" [17, 829].

Agent-based modeling and complexity theory on the

one hand, and System Dynamics on the other hand, have
both produced rich bodies of research and literature on
widely overlapping fields of application. Both have a high
capacity of explanatory power. The cross study of these
bodies of literature is overdue. Results on identical or
neighboring research topics must be compared.
Individual-based modeling and aggregate feedback
modeling may complement each other in ways that are
unimagined from today's perspective. The comparison of
results in the same subject areas will most probably lead
to some fine insights.
It would also be desirable to see an agent-based
implementation of some other SD classics such as the
"beer game" (Senge, 1990) which, in particular, may have
the potential to become a classic in the agent-based
modeling field as well. Testing techniques are a starting
point for more active and mutually influential
collaboration.

8. Where on the continuum between

positivism and post-modernism/constructivism do the two fields stand?
According to Phelan, complexity scientists view their
discipline as a positivist theory. They believe that rules
and equations can explain the observable complexity of
the world as it really is (in the meaning "really is").
Positivist theory, however, in the wake of chaos theory
has suffered from "an attack from within". If minute
initial differences as shown above in the Lorenz model
can produce huge alterations in outcome, then, so the
argument goes, the positivist "clockwork" view does not
hold. Complexity theorists though argue, that chaos

9. Conclusion

The epistemological and ontological standpoints

(whether differing or not) cannot preclude the practical
benefits of having a working relationship. As Phelan
remarks, agent-based models could be set up in a way,
that they mimic individuals "with different perceptions of
an underlying ontological realityAgent-based methods
may thus go some way toward operationalizing the
constructivist worldview." One would most probably
arrive at some exciting insights.

10. Appendices
10.1 Appendix A: Vensim model of the Lorenz
equations (Author: George P. Richardson, University at
Albany)
(01)

B=8/3

(02)
(03)
(04)
(05)

(06)

(07)
(08)
(09)
(10)
(11)

(12)

(13)
(14)
(15)

Units: dmnl
dX dt=S*(Y-X)
Units: dmnl
dY dt=-Y+RminusZ*X
Units: dmnl
dZ dt=(X*Y)-(B*Z)
Units: dmnl
FINAL TIME = 50
Units: time
The time at which the simulation ends.
INITIAL TIME = 0
Units: time
The time at which the simulation starts.
initial x = 10
Units: dmnl
R=28
Units: dmnl
RminusZ=R-Z
Units: dmnl
S=10
Units: dmnl
SAVEPER = TIME STEP
Units: time
The frequency with which results are saved.
TIME STEP = 0.015625
Units: time
The solution interval for the model.
X=INTEG((dX dt),initial x)
Units: dmnl
Y=INTEG((dY dt),10)
Units: dmnl
Z=INTEG((dZ dt),20)
Units: dmnl

10.2 Appendix B : The Boids Model

For reasons of readability and space economies the source
code listings had to be omitted in this print version of the
paper.
However,
several,
publicly
accessible
implementations exist; one of the most popular is
Christopher Klines C++ Boids. As of September 25,
2000, his implementation was accessible under

[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

[19]

http://www.media.mit.edu/~ckline/cornellwww/boid/boid
s.html

11. References
[1]

[2]
[3]

J. H. Holland and J. H. Miller, Artificial adaptive

agents and economic theory, American Economic
Review, vol. 81, pp. 365-370, 1991.
J. H. Holland, Emergence : from chaos to order, 1st
PBK ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1999.
C. W. Reynolds, Individual-based modeling, , vol.
1999, 1999.

M. M. Waldrop, Complexity: the emerging science at

the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1992.
G. P. Richardson, Feedback thought in social science
and systems theory. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1991.
E. R. Babbie, The practice of social research, 8th ed.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1998.
J. W. Forrester, Urban dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.,:
M.I.T. Press, 1969.
J. W. Forrester and P. M. Senge, Tests for building
confidence in system dynamics models, in Modelling
for management: simulation in support of systems
thinking., vol. 2, G. P. Richardson, Ed. Aldershot,
Hants, England ; Brookfield, Vt.: Dartmouth, 1996,
pp. 414-434.
S. E. Phelan, A note on the correspondence between
complexity and systems theory, Systemic Practice
and Action Research, vol. 12, pp. 237-246, 1999.
C. W. Reynolds, Boids.: background and update., ,
vol. 1999, 1995.
P. M. Senge, The fifth discipline : the art and practice
of the learning organization, 1st ed. New York:
Doubleday/Currency, 1990.
E. N. Lorenz and World Meteorological Organization,
The nature and theory of the general circulation of the
atmosphere. [Geneva]: World Meteorological
Organization, 1967.
P. J. Deadman, Modeling individual behavior and
group performance in an intelligent agent-based
simulation of the tragedy of the commons, Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 56, pp. 159-172,
1999.
L. Berec, On individual-based models for singlespecies population growth, predator-prey interaction
and optimal foraging, , vol. 1999, 1998.
K. L. Risenhoover, Deer management simulator, ,
vol. 1999, (1999).
G. P. Richardson, All models are wrong, , 1999.
J. H. Miller, Active nonlinear tests (ANTs) of
complex simulation models., Management Science,
vol. 44, pp. 620-830, 1998.
D. H. Meadows, D. L. Meadows, Project on the
Predicament of Mankind., and Potomac Associates.,
The limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome's
project on the predicament of mankind. New York,:
Universe Books, 1972.
D. H. Meadows, D. L. Meadows, and J. Randers,
Beyond the limits : confronting global collapse,
envisioning a sustainable future. Post Mills, Vt.:
Chelsea Green Pub. Co., 1992.