Advertisement

Hybrid System Dynamics—Agent-Based Simulation for Research in Economics and Business

  • Małgorzata ŁatuszyńskaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

In a rapidly evolving business environment, the question of searching of effective methods and tools for researching and analyzing economic entities becomes more and more important. One of the ways of studying this world of growing dynamic complexity and supporting the process of decision-making is the use of computer simulation. According to the reference literature, there are three most commonly used methods of computer simulation for research in management: system dynamics, discrete event, and agent-based simulation. However, the complex, multifaceted nature of modern-day economic and business systems can pose considerable challenges for single-methodology simulation approach. In such cases, it may be that (should be removed) an alternative simulation approach, using either another modeling paradigm or a hybrid approach, could provide a simpler, more natural, or more efficient solution. Hybrid simulation, defined as a combination of two or more computer simulation methods, has become an increasingly common approach to modeling complex systems in the past two decades. The study concentrates on one particular hybrid—that involving agent-based simulation (ABS) and system dynamics (SD). It aims to discuss the issue of combining system dynamics and agent-based simulation approaches for research in economics and business. First, the two methods will be briefly characterized with the indication of their differences and similarities. Then, the possible ways of combining them in a single model will be described. Finally, examples of hybrid SD-ABS model applications in economics and business will be presented.

Keywords

Computer simulation System dynamics Agent-based simulation Hybrid simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project is financed within the framework of the program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education under the name “Regional Excellence Initiative” in the years 2019–2022, project number 001/RID/2018/19, the amount of financing PLN 10,684,000.00.

References

  1. 1.
    Humphreys, P.: Computer simulations. In: Fine, A., Forbes, M., Wessels, L. (eds.) PSA 1990. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 497–506 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Humphreys, P.: Extending ourselves: computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford University Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winsberg, E.: Sanctioning Models: the epistemology of simulation. Sci. Context 12, 275–292 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0269889700003422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winsberg, E.: Simulations, models, and theories: complex physical systems and their representations. Philos. Sci. 68(3), 442–454 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nava Guerrero, G.D.C., Schwarz, P., Slinger, J.H.: A recent overview of the integration of system dynamics and agent-based modelling and simulation. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Delft, Netherlands, 17–21 July 2016Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meadows, D., Robinson, J.M.: The electronic oracle: computer models and social decisions. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18, 271–308 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Behdani, B.: Evaluation of paradigms for modeling supply chains as complex socio-technical systems. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference WSC, pp. 1–15, Berlin, Germany, 9–12 Dec 2012.  https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc.2012.6465109
  8. 8.
    Borshchev, A.: The big book of simulation modelling. Anylogic, North America (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brailsford, S.C., Eldabi, T., Kunc, M., Mustafee, N., Osorio, A.F.: Hybrid simulation modelling in operational research: a state-of-the-art review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (In Press): 1–17. (2018). Doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.10.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mustafee, N., Brailsford, S.C., Djanatliev, A., Eldabi, T., Kunc, M., Tolk, A.: Purpose and benefits of hybrid simulation: contributing to the convergence of its definition. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 1631–1645, Crystal City, VA, 3–6 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Djanatliev, A., German, R., Kolominsky-Rabas, P., Hofmann, B.M.: Hybrid simulation with loosely coupled system dynamics and agent-based models for prospective health technology assessments. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 1–12., Berlin, Germany, 09–12 Dec 2012.  https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc.2012.6465024
  12. 12.
    Eldabi, T, Balaban, M., Brailsford, S.C., Mustafee, N., Nance, R.E., Onggo, B.S., Sargent, R.G.: Hybrid Simulation: historic.al lessons, present challenges and futures. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 1388–1403, Arlington, Virginia, 11–14 Dec 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Swinerd, C., McNaught, K.R.: Design classes for hybrid simulations involving agent-based and system dynamics models. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 25, 118–133 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2011.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin, R., Schlüter, M.: Combining system dynamics and agent-based modeling to analyze social-ecological interactions—An example from modeling restoration of a shallow lake. Front. Environ. Sci. 3, 66 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vincenot, C.E., Giannino, F., Rietkerk, M., Moriya, K., Mazzoleni, S.: Theoretical considerations on the combined use of system dynamics and individual-based modeling in ecology. Ecol. Model. 222, 210–218 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.09.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamilton, S.H., ElSawah, S., Guillaume, J.H.A., Jakeman, A.J., Pierce, S.A.: Integrated assessment and modelling: overview and synthesis of salient dimensions. Environ. Modell. Softw. 64, 215–229 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stemate, L., Pasca, C., Taylor, I.: A comparison between system dynamics and agent based modeling and opportunities for cross-fertilization. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Washington, DC, 9–12 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wallentin, G., Neuwirth, Ch.: Dynamic hybrid modelling: switching between AB and SD designs of a predator-prey model. Ecol. Model. 345, 165–175 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forrester, J.W.: Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers. Harv. Bus. Rev. 36, 37–66 (1958)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Phelan, S.E.: A note on the correspondence between complexity and systems theory. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 12, 237–246 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022495500485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coyle, R.G.: Management System Dynamics. Wiley, Chichester (1979)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sterman, J.D.: Business Dynamics. Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, McGraw-Hill Education, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Macal, C.M.: To agent-based simulation from system dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 371–382, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 5–8 Dec 2010.  https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc.2010.5679148
  24. 24.
    Parunak, H.V.D., Savit, R., Riolo, R.L.: Agent-based modeling versus equation-based modeling: a case study and users’ guide. In: Sichman, J.S., Conte, R., Gilbert, N. (eds.) Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation, pp. 10–25. Springer, Berlin - Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meadows, D.: Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Solutions J. 1(1), 41–49 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scholl, H.J.: Agent-based and system dynamics modeling: a call for cross study and joint research. In: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, p. 8, Maui, Hawaii, 3–6 Jan 2001. (2001a).  https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2001.926296
  27. 27.
    Macal, C.M., North, M.J.: Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation PART 2: how to model with agents. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 73–83, Monterey, CA, USA, 3–6 Dec 2006.  https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc.2006.323040
  28. 28.
    Frank, A.U., Bittner, S., Raubal, M.: Spatial and cognitive simulation with multi-agent systems. In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) Spatial Information Theory—Foundations of Geographic Information Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 124–139 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wooldridge, M.: Intelligent Agents. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent Systems—A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 27–77. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multi-agent Systems. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Łatuszyńska, M., Wawrzyniak, A., Furaiji, F.: Multi-agent based simulation in investigating consumer behavior. Iraqi J. Market Res. Consum. Prot. 4(2), 141–158 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bonabeau, E.: Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 7280–7287 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082080899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Epstein, J.M.: Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Epstein, J.M., Axtel, R.L.: Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jennings, N.R., Sycara, K., Wooldridge, M.: A roadmap of agent research and development. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 1, 7–38 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010090405266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Holland, J.H.: Emergence: from chaos to order. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City (1998)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cherif, R., Davidsson, P.: Software development process simulation: multi agent-based simulation versus system dynamics. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 5683, 73–85 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13553-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ding, Z., Gong, W., Li, S., Wu, Z.: System dynamics versus agent-based modeling: a review of complexity simulation in construction waste management. Sustainability 10(7), 1–13 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fallah-Fini, S., Rahmandad, H., Chen, H.J., Xue, H., Wang, Y.: Connecting micro dynamics and population distributions in system dynamics models. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 29(4), 197–215 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lättilä, L., Hilletofth, P., Lin, B.: Hybrid simulation models–when, why, how? Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 7969–7975 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Osgood, N.D.: Using traditional and agent based toolsets for system dynamics: present tradeoffs and future evolution. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 29 July–2Aug 2007Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Teose, M., Ahmadizadeh, K., O’Mahony, E., Smith, R.L., Lu, Z., Ellner, S.P., Gomes, C., Grohn, Y.: Embedding system dynamics in agent based models for complex adaptive systems. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) Proceedings of The Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11), vol. 3, pp. 2531–2538, AAAI Press. (2011). doi:dx.doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.5591/978-1-57735-516-8/ijcai11-421
  43. 43.
    Swanson, J.: Business dynamics—Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 53(4), 472–473 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Railsback, S.F., Grimm, V.: Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bobashev, G.V., Goedecke, D.M., Yu, F., Epstein, J.M.: A hybrid epidemic model: combining the advantages of agent-based and equation-based approaches. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), p 1532–1537, Washington, DC, 9–12 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dyke, V., Savit, R., Riolo, R.L.: Agent-based modeling versus equation-based modeling: a case study and users’ guide. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1534, 10–25 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marin, M., Zhu, Y., Meade, P.T., Sargent, M., Warren, J.: System dynamics and agent-based simulations for workforce climate. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 667–671, Monterey, CA, USA, 3–6 Dec 2006Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Norling, E.: Contrasting a system dynamics model and an agent-based model of food web evolution. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4442, 57–68 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rahmandad, H., Sterman, J.: Heterogeneity and network structure in the dynamics of diffusion: comparing agent-based and differential equation models. Manage. Sci. 54, 998–1014 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wakeland, W., Gallaher, E.J., Macovsky, L.M., Aktipis, C.A.: A comparison of system dynamics and agent-based simulation applied to the study of cellular receptor dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Science, Big Island, Hawaii, 5–8 Jan 2004Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wilson, W.G.: Resolving discrepancies between deterministic population models and Individual-Based simulations. Am. Nat. 151, 116–134 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Akkermans, H.A.: Emergent supply networks: system dynamics simulation of adaptive supply agents. In: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Maui, Hawaii, 3–6 Jan 2001Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Scholl, H.J.: Looking across the fence: comparing findings from SD modeling efforts with those of other modeling techniques. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 23–27 July 2001 (2001b)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pourdehnad, J., Maani, K.E., Sedehi, H.: System dynamics and intelligent agent-based simulation: where is the synergy? In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy, 28 July–1 Aug 2002Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schieritz, N.: Integrating system dynamics and agent-based modeling. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy, 28 July–1 Aug 2002Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Größler, A., Stotz, M., Schieritz, N.: A software interface between system dynamics and agent-based simulations: linking Vensim® and RePast®. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference, System Dynamics Society, pp. 20–24, New York, NY, USA, 20–24 July 2003Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Swinerd, C.: On the Design of Hybrid Simulation Models: Focusing on the Agent-Based System Dynamics Combination. Cranfield University, PhD (2014)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shanthikumar, J.G., Sargent, R.G.: A unifying view of hybrid simulation/analytic models and modeling. Oper. Res. 31(6), 1030–1052 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kim, Y., Son, J., Lee, Y.-S., Lee, M., Hong, J., Cho, K.: Integration of an individual-oriented model into a system dynamics model: an application to a multi-species system. Environ. Model Softw. 112, 23–35 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    BenDor, T., Scheffran, J., Hannon, B.: Ecological and economic sustainability in fishery management: a multi-agent model for understanding competition and cooperation. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1061–1073 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Martinez-Moyano, I.J., Sallach, D.L., Bragen, M.J., Thimmapuram, P.R.: Design for a multilayer model of financial stability: exploring the integration of system dynamics and agent-based models. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of System Dynamics Society, Boston, Mass, 29 July –2 August 2007Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schieritz, N., Größler, A.: Emergent structures in supply chains: a study integrating agent-based and system dynamics modeling. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Science, Waikoloa, Hawaii, 06–09 Jan 2003Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jahangirian, M., Eldabi, T., Naseer, A., Stergioulas, L.K., Young, T.: Simulation in manufacturing and business: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 203(1), 1–13 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Barbosa, C., Azevedo, A.: Hybrid simulation for complex manufacturing value-chain environments. Procedia Manuf. 11, 1404–1412 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Scheidegger, A.P., Pereira, T.F., Oliveira, M.L., Banerjee, A., Montevechi, J.A.: An introductory guide for hybrid simulation modelers on the primary simulation methods in industrial engineering identified through a systematic review of the literature. Comput. Ind. Eng. 124, 474–492 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.07.046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kolominsky-Rabas, P.L., Djanatliev, A., Wahlster, P., Gantner-Bär, M., Hofmann, B., German, R., Sedlmayr, M., Reinhardt, E., Schüttler, J., Kriza, Ch.: Technology foresight for medical device development through hybrid simulation: the ProHTA project. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 97, 105–114 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ebrahimi, M.: Hybrid simulation approach for technological innovation policy making in developing countries. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 528, 109–119 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47253-9_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Swinerd, C., McNaught, K.R.: Simulating the diffusion of technological innovation with an integrated hybrid agent-based system dynamics model. J. Simul. 8(3), 231–240 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shafiei, E., Stefansson, H., Asgeirsson, E.I., Davidsdottir, B., Raberto, M.: Integrated agent-based and system dynamics modelling for simulation of sustainable mobility. Trans. Rev. 33(1), 44–70 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2012.745632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Swinerd, C., McNaught, K.R.: Comparing a simulation model with various analytic models of the international diffusion of consumer technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 100, 330–343 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nasirzadeh, F., Khanzadi, M., Mir, M.: A hybrid simulation framework for modelling construction projects using agent-based modelling and system dynamics: an application to model construction workers’ safety behavior. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 18(2), 132–143 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1285485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Liang, H., Lin, K.-Y., Zhang, S.: Understanding the social contagion effect of safety violations within a construction crew: a hybrid approach using system dynamics and agent-based modeling. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15(12), 2696 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Khanzadi, M., Nasirzadeh, F., Mir, M., Nojedehi, P.: Prediction and improvement of labor productivity using hybrid system dynamics and agent-based modeling approach. Constr. Innov. 18(1), 2–19 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-06-2015-0034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Nassehi, A., Colledani, M.: A multi-method simulation approach for evaluating the effect of the interaction of customer behaviour and enterprise strategy on economic viability of remanufacturing. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 67, 33–36 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rondini, A., Tornese, F., Gnoni, M.G., Pezzotta, G., Pinto, R.: Comparing simulation approaches for designing sustainable PSS. In: Proceedings of the Summer School Francesco Turco, pp. 108–113, Senigallia, 09–12 Sep 2014Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wang, B., Brême, S., Moon, Y.B.: Hybrid modeling and simulation for complementing lifecycle assessment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 69(1), 77–88 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Barbosa, C., Azevedo, A.: Hybrid modelling of MTO/ETO manufacturing environments for performance assessment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56(15), 5147–5171 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1421788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Barbosa, C., Azevedo, A.: Towards a hybrid multi-dimensional simulation approach for performance assessment of MTO and ETO manufacturing environments. Procedia Manuf. 17, 852–859 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Fahhama, L., Zamma, A., Mansouri, K., Elmajid, Z.: Towards a mixed method model and simulation of the automotive supply chain network connectivity. In: 2017 International Colloquium on Logistics and Supply Chain Management (LOGISTIQUA), p 13–18, Rabat, 27–28 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Manisri, C., Pichitlamken, J.: Hybrid Simulation Model for the Upstream Rubber Supply Chain. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems 16(9), 330–341 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.7232/iems.2017.16.3.330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kortelainen, S., Lättilä, L.: Hybrid modeling approach to competitiveness through fast strategy. Int. J. Innovation Technol. Manage. 10(5), 1340016 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877013400166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kieckhäfer, K., Walther, G., Axmann, J., Spengler, T.: Integrating agent-based simulation and system dynamics to support product strategy decisions in the automotive industry. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), p 1433–1443, Austin, Texas, USA, 13–16 Dec 2009Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Alvi, M.S.Q., Mahmood, I., Javed, F., Malik, A.W., Sarjoughian, H.: Dynamic behavioural modeling, simulation and analysis of household water consumption in an urban area: a hybrid approach. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Gothenburg, Sweden, 09–12 Dec 2018Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nikolic, V.V., Simonovic, S.P.: Multi-method modeling framework for support of integrated water resources management. Environ. Process. 2(3), 461–483 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-015-0082-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Meza, C.M.C., Dijkema, G.P.J.: Modelling infrastructure systems: a hybrid approach for system transition. In: 1st International Conference on Infrastructure Systems and Services: Building Networks for a Brighter Future (INFRA), pp. 1–6, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 10–12 Nov 2008.  https://doi.org/10.1109/infra.2008.5439677
  86. 86.
    Asif, F.M.A., Lieder, M., Rashid, A.: Multi-method simulation based tool to evaluate economic and environmental performance of circular product systems. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 1261–1281 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G., Tornese, F.: Improving logistic efficiency of WEEE collection through dynamic scheduling using simulation modeling. Waste Manage 72, 78–86 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Block, J.: A hybrid modeling approach for incorporating behavioral issues into workforce planning. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 326–331, Budapest, Hungary, 9–12 Oct 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1109/smc.2016.7844261
  89. 89.
    Sitepu, M.H., McKay, A., Holt, R.J.: Towards a framework for sustainable development planning in the Indonesian natural rubber industry supply network. Procedia CIRP 48, 164–169 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wang, Y., Van Den Heuvel, W.-J.: Towards a hybrid simulation modelling framework for service networks. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 6569, 119–128 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22760-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SzczecinSzczecinPoland

Personalised recommendations