AIM Modeling: Overview and Major Findings

  • Mikiko Kainuma
  • Yuzuru Matsuoka
  • Tsuneyuki Morita


The Asia-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM) is a set of computer simulation models for assessing policy options on sustainable development particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. It started as a tool to evaluate policy options to mitigate climate change and its impacts, and extended its function to analyze other environmental issues such as air pollution control, water resources management, land use management, and environmental industry encouragement. More than 20 models have been developed so far, and they are classified into emission models, climate models and impact models from the viewpoint of climate policy assessment. The outline of these models is explained in this chapter. These models have been used as single models or in combinations depending on the policy needs, and they have contributed not only to the governments in the Asian regions, but also to international organizations such as IPCC, UNEP, Eco Asia, ESCAP, and OECD. Previous assessment based on AIM could clarify many important knowledge related to mitigation policies of climate change at global, regional, and country levels. These findings which are summarized in this chapter, have been or are expected to be reflected to the climate policies as well as sustainable development policies.


Climate Policy Integrate Assessment Model Global Environmental Issue Sustainable Development Policy Global Change Assessment Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alcomo J, Shaw R and Hordijk L (eds) (1990) The RAINS model of acidification: Science and strategies in Europe, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcamo J (ed) (1994) IMAGE 2.0–Integrated model of global climate change. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Amann M, Johansson A, Lukewille D et al. (2001) An integrated assessment model for fine particulate matter in Europe. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 130:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk MM, Hordijk L et al. (1999) Climate options for the long term (COOL). Interim report, NOP, Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmonds J and Reilly J (1985) Global energy: Assessing the future, Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Edmons J, Wise M, MacCracken (1994) Advanced energy technologies and climate change: an analysis using the global change assessment model (GCAM). Presentation to the Air and Waste Management Meeting, 6 April, Tempre AZ, Air and Waste Management Association, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  7. Green C (ed) (2000) Developing country case-studies: integrated strategies for air pollution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Progress Report for the International Co-Control Benefits Analysis Program, The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, The Office of Atmosphere Programs of the US Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  8. Groenveld RA, van Ierland EC (2000) Economic modelling approaches to land use and cover change. NRP Report No.410200045, Wageningen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Haefele W, Anderer J, McDonald A and Nakicenovic N (1981) Energy in a finite world, Ballinger, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Hootsman RM, Bouwman AF, Leemans R, Kreileman GJ (2001) Modeling land degradation in IMAGE 2. RIVM report 481508009, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Hulme M, Lu X, Turnpenny J, Mitchell T et al. (2002) Climate change scenarios for the United Kingdom. The UKCIP02 Scientific Report, Tyndall Centre, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (1996) Climate change 1995: economic and social dimensions of climate change. Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites E (eds), Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. IPCC (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Nakicenovic N et al (eds), Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Jannsen M, de Vries B (1998) The battle of perspectives: a multi-agent model with adaptive responses to climate change. Ecological Economics 26:43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johansson M, Alveteg A, Amann M et al. (2001) Integrated assessment modeling of air pollution in four European countries. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 130:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lorenzoni I, Jordan A, O’Riordan T, et al. (2000) A co-evolutionary approach to climate change impact assessment: Part II. a scenario-based case study in East Anglia (UK). Global Environmental Change 10:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manne AS and Richels RG (1993) MERGE–A model for evaluation regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. Energy Policy, 23(1):17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsuoka.
    Y (2000) Extrapolation of carbon dioxide emission scenarios to meet long-term atmospheric stabilization targets. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 3: 255–265Google Scholar
  19. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J and Behrens WW (1972) The limits to growth, Universe Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Mesarovic MD and Pestel E (1974) Mankind at the turning point: The second report to the Club of Rome, Dutton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Morita T, Matsuoka Y, et al. (1993) AIM–Asian Pacific integrated model for evaluating policy options to reduce GHG emissions and global warming impacts. In “Global warming issue in Asia”, Asian Institute of Technology, pp. 254–273Google Scholar
  22. Nordhaus WD (1979) The efficient use of energy resources, Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  23. Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Rotmans J (1995) TARGETS in transition. RIVM report, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. Rotmans J, van Asselt M et al. (2001) Integrated visions for a sustainable Europe: changing mental maps:VISIONS final report. ICIS, Maastricht/UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. van Asselt MA, Middelkoop H et al. (2001) Integrated water management strategies for the Rhine and Meuse basins in a changing environment. Final Report of the NRP project 0/958273/01, ICIS, Maastricht/UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. van Asselt MA, Rotmans J (2002) Uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling, from positivism to pluralism. Climate Change 54:75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. WEC and IIASA (1995) Global energy perspectives to 2050 and beyond. World Energy Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Weyant JP, Olavson T (1999) Issues in modeling induced technological change in energy, environmental, and climate policy. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 4:67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikiko Kainuma
    • 1
  • Yuzuru Matsuoka
    • 2
  • Tsuneyuki Morita
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute for Environmental StudiesTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations