Skip to main content

‘Can You Fix It?’ Using Variance-Based Sensitivity Analysis to Reduce the Input Space of an Agent-Based Model of Land Use Change

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Geographic Information Science ((AGIS))

Abstract

The growing body of knowledge on agent-based modeling (ABM) points to statistical and systematic uncertainty as the most challenging obstacles to developing parsimonious models. To decrease ABM dimensionality, a comprehensive uncertainty analysis (UA) and sensitivity analysis (SA) are employed, where input uncertainty is propagated through the model using Monte Carlo simulations, resulting in probability distributions (PDs) of outputs. The PDs are further summarized using variance—a simple yet succinct measure of result variability. The variance is apportioned to model inputs using decomposition, in order to quantify which of them and to what extent affect the variability of ABM results. The calculated sensitivity indices represent fractional contributions of each input to output variance. To simplify the model, inputs with low sensitivity values can be set to constants (e.g. mean), effectively decreasing model input space.

In this chapter, I apply UA and SA to simplify an ABM of agricultural land conservation, in which farmer agents make decisions on participation in a land conservation program. A positive decision leads to the conversion of land use from row crop/pasture to fallow. The results of the ABM are maps of land use change, which are summarized using a number of metrics, from total fallow land acreage, through various measures of compactness and contiguity, to cost of land retirement. The probability distribution of each output variable is used separately in variance-based SA, suggesting different ABM simplifications depending on the type of output variable. The chapter concludes with a list of practical guidelines on choosing the right path to building a transparent land use ABM using the presented UA and SA methodology.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Agarwal C, Green GM, Grove JM, Evans TP, Schweik CM (2002) A review and assessment of land-use change models: dynamics of space, time, and human choice. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newton Square, PA, p 61

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. An L, Linderman M, Qi J, Shortridge A, Liu J (2005) Exploring complexity in a human-environment system: an agent-based spatial model for multidisciplinary and multiscale integration. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95(1):54–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown DG, Verburg PH, Pontius RG Jr, Lange MD (2013) Opportunities to improve impact, integration, and evaluation of land change models. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(5):452–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. NRC (2013) Advancing land change modeling: opportunities and research requirements. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  5. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffmann MJ, Deadman P (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):314–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rindfuss RR, Entwisle B, Walsh SJ, An L, Badenoch N, Brown DG, Deadman P, Evans TP, Fox J, Geoghegan J, Gutmann M, Kelly M, Linderman M, Liu J, Malanson GP, Mena CF, Messina JP, Moran EF, Parker DC, Parton W, Prasartkul P, Robinson DT, Sawangdee Y, Vanwey LK, Verburg PH (2008) Land use change: complexity and comparisons. J Land Use Sci 3(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Verburg PH, Kok K, Pontius JRG, Veldkamp A (2006) Modeling Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. In: Lambin EF, Geist HJ (eds) Land-use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, Berlin, pp 117–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Ligmann-Zielinska A (2013) Spatially-explicit sensitivity analysis of an agent-based model of land use change. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 27(9):1764–1781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tarantola S, Giglioli N, Jesinghaus J, Saltelli A (2002) Can global sensitivity analysis steer the implementation of models for environmental assessments and decision-making? Stoch Env Res Risk A 16(1):63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Longley PA, Goodchild M, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (2010) Uncertainty. In: Geographic information systems and science. Wiley, Jefferson City, pp 147–177

    Google Scholar 

  11. Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM (2000) Sensitivity analysis. Chichester, Wiley-Interscience

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beck MB, Ravetz JR, Mulkey LA, Barnwell TO (1997) On the problem of model validation for predictive exposure assessments. Stoch Hydrol Hydraul 11(3):229–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brooks RJ, Tobias AM (1996) Choosing the best model: level of detail, complexity, and model performance. Math Comput Model 24(4):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Collins A, Petty M, Vernon-Bido D, Sherfey S (2015) A call to arms: standards for agent-based modeling and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 18(3):12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cox GM, Gibbons JM, Wood ATA, Craigon J, Ramsden SJ, Crout NMJ (2006) Towards the systematic simplification of mechanistic models. Ecol Model 198(1–2):240–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Crout NMJ, Tarsitano D, Wood AT (2009) Is my model too complex? Evaluating model formulation using model reduction. Environ Model Softw 24(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eberlein RL (1989) Simplification and understanding of models. Syst Dyn Rev 5(1):51–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Edmonds B, Moss S (2005) From KISS to KIDS—an ‘anti-simplistic’ modelling approach. In: Davidsson P, Logan B, Takadama K (eds) Multi-agent and multi-agent-based simulation, vol 3415. Springer, Berlin, pp 130–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Innis G, Rexstad E (1983) Simulation model simplification techniques. Simulation 41(1):7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moore AD, Noble IR (1993) Automatic model simplification: the generation of replacement sequences and their use in vegetation modelling. Ecol Model 70(1):137–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rexstad E, Innis GS (1985) Model simplification—three applications. Ecol Model 27(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saysel AK, Barlas Y (2006) Model simplification and validation with indirect structure validity tests. Syst Dyn Rev 22(3):241–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zeigler B (1976) Theory of modelling and simulation. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lilburne L, Tarantola S (2009) Sensitivity analysis of spatial models. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23(2):151–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I, Campolongo F, Ratto M, Tarantola S (2010) Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181(2):259–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. Chichester, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  27. USDA FSA (2012) Conservation Reserve Program Overview. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp. Accessed 9 June 2012

  28. Crosetto M, Tarantola S (2001) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: tools for GIS-based model implementation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 15(5):415–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Crosetto M, Tarantola S, Saltelli A (2000) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in spatial modelling based on GIS. Agric Ecosyst Environ 81(1):71–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gómez-Delgado M, Tarantola S (2006) GLOBAL sensitivity analysis, GIS and multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable planning of a hazardous waste disposal site in Spain. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(4):449–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ligmann-Zielinska A, Jankowski P (2010) Exploring normative scenarios of land use development decisions with an agent-based simulation laboratory. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34:409–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ligmann-Zielinska A, Jankowski P (2014) Spatially-explicit integrated uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of criteria weights in multicriteria land suitability evaluation. Environ Model Softw 57:235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ligmann-Zielinska A, Sun L (2010) Applying time dependent variance-based global sensitivity analysis to represent the dynamics of an agent-based model of land use change. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24(12):1829–1850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tang W, Jia M (2014) Global sensitivity analysis of a large agent-based model of spatial opinion exchange: a heterogeneous multi-GPU acceleration approach. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 104(3):485–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. French S (1992) Mathematical-programming approaches to sensitivity calculations in decision-analysis. J Oper Res Soc 43(8):813–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pannell DJ (1997) Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: theoretical framework and practical strategies. Agric Econ 16(2):139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saltelli A, Annoni P (2010) How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis. Environ Model Softw 25(12):1508–1517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2005) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 168:307–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Chichester, Wiley-Interscience

    Google Scholar 

  40. Homma T, Saltelli A (1996) Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 52(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Chan KPS (1999) A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output. Technometrics 41(1):39–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Beven K (2008) Environmental modelling: an uncertain future? Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kucherenko S, Tarantola S, Annoni P (2012) Estimation of global sensitivity indices for models with dependent variables. Comput Phys Commun 183(4):937–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Saltelli A (2002) Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput Phys Commun 145(2):280–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sobol’ IM (1993) Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Math Model Comput Exp 1:407–414

    Google Scholar 

  46. MathWorks (2017) http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/generating-quasi-random-numbers.html. Accessed 6 June 2017

  47. Lambert DM, Sullivan P, Claassen R, Foreman L (2006) Conservation-compatible practices and programs: who participates? USDA Economic Research Report. United States Department of Agriculture, p 48

    Google Scholar 

  48. USDA (2011) Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Ag_Resource_Management/

  49. Hägerstrand T (1968) Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. USDA FSA (2011) Conservation Reserve Program Sign-up 41 Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) Fact Sheet. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/crp_41_ebi.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2012

  52. USDA (2017) United States Census of Agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. Accessed 6 June 2017

  53. USDA NASS (2017) Cropland Data Layer (CDL). https://www.nass.usda.gov/Research_and_Science/Cropland/SARS1a.php. Accessed 6 June 2017

  54. USGS (2013) National Elevation Dataset. http://ned.usgs.gov/. Accessed 15 Oct 2013

  55. Soil Survey Staff (2013) The gridded soil survey geographic (gSSURGO) database for Michigan. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

  56. USDA FSA (2010) Notice CRP-663 sign-up 41 revised soil rental rates (SRR’s) for 2010. United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  57. USDA FSA (2013) Conservation Programs Reports and Statistics. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=rns. Accessed 15 Oct 2013

  58. USDA FSA (2004) Common land unit FSA handbook. United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, p 113

    Google Scholar 

  59. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General technical report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. McGarigal K (2014) Fragstats help. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/downloads/fragstats_downloads.html. Accessed 7 May 2015

  61. Borgonovo E, Castaings W, Tarantola S (2012) Model emulation and moment-independent sensitivity analysis: an application to environmental modelling. Environ Model Softw 34(0): 105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank anonymous reviewers for providing a constructive feedback on the previous version of this manuscript. Financial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation Geography and Spatial Sciences Program Grant No. BCS 1263477. Any opinion, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arika Ligmann-Zielinska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ligmann-Zielinska, A. (2018). ‘Can You Fix It?’ Using Variance-Based Sensitivity Analysis to Reduce the Input Space of an Agent-Based Model of Land Use Change. In: Thill, JC., Dragicevic, S. (eds) GeoComputational Analysis and Modeling of Regional Systems. Advances in Geographic Information Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59511-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics