center for environmental systems research, kassel
Post on 12-Jan-2016
40 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
SoNARe
Modelling social and economic influences on the decision making of farmers
in the Odra case study region
Center for Environmental Systems Research,Kassel
2CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Outline
• Motivation• The CAVES Odra case study
– Spatially explicit biophysical model (developed by WUT)
• The „finer grained“ agent-based model– Explicit empirically supported farmer decision rules– Modelling economic and social aspects of decision making– First simulation run(s)
• Outlook
3CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Motivation
• Asymmetric dependency relation requires collective action
• Evidence for different farmer types and their respective sets of decision rules
• Explicitly contrast social and economic influences on decision making
• Make social pressure explicit in order to model the influence of water partnership initiators (WPIs) and model general opinion dynamics
4CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Biophysical model setup
• Land parcels– Located along a channel, uniform size– Upstream-downstream neighbouring relationship between
owners– LRS condition, LU type, sluice gate
• Channels– Uniform slope– No branching, no interconnections
• Number of land parcels per channel– Same for all channels
• Weather conditions– Normal, drought, flooding, set yearly– Different weather sequences
6CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Agent-based model setup
• Agents– Farmer– WPI, not necessarily a farmer itself
• Networks– Dependency “network” reflects spatial neighbourhood
relationship– Farmers are embedded in an acquaintance network– WPI is acquainted with, i.e. linked to, all farmers in a star-
like fashion
7CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Agent-based model setup – economic Aspects
• Farmer agents recall their past economic success– Number of years memorised – Yield threshold
• defines “good years” or “bad years”– Economic sensitivity
• determines how much “good”/”bad” yields affect the perceived economic success
– Economic success• good years memorised increase the perceived
economic success, bad years decrease it
• WPI uses social network to observe farmers’ economic success
8CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Agent-based model setup – Social aspects
• Farmers exert social influence– Use outgoing network edges– Positive influence, endorsement
• acquaintances using the same LRS-strategy are supported
– Negative influence • acquaintances using the opposite LRS-strategy are
pressured into switching the strategy
• Farmers perceive their present level of social support– Use incoming network edges– (sum of) social influences received from neighbours in the
acquaintance network (including WPI)
• WPI may exert additional social influence pro LRS
9CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Agent-based model setup – Network types
10CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Agent Decision Making
• Farmers– IF
social support + economic success sufficiently lowTHEN switch LRS maintenance strategy (maintain/¬maintain)
– IFWP exists and maintain LRSTHENjoin / stay in WPELSEdo not join / leave WP
– (always exert social influence in favour of own strategy; possibly higher influence when member of WP)
• Water Partnership Initiator (WPI)– IF
number of farmers with big losses >= 3THENexert social influence pro LRSELSEdo not exert social influence
• Water Partnership (WP)– IF
number of farmers maintaining LRS >= 3THEN activate WPELSEdeactivate WP
11CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Model Execution Cycle
• May: plant crops• October: harvest crops• December: make decisions for the coming year, i.e.
1. perceive and memorise yield 2. exert social influence3. perceive social influence and economic success4. decide (decisions are buffered => synchronised)5. commit to decisions
12CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Abstract Land Parcel Map
Flow direction of channel
Agents maintaining LRS
Agents neglecting LRS
13CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario A
• Baseline scenario, 1 channel, 10 farmers• 2 normal years followed by 1 year of flooding• Farmers do not rate their economic success• No social influence• Thus: no opinion dynamics
14CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario A
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
15CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario B
• 1 channel, 10 farmers• 2 normal years followed by 1 year of flooding• Farmers rate their economic success
– yieldThreshold = 9.0
• No social influence
16CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario B
17CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario B
18CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario B
84 96 120 132 144 180 192 360... ......
19CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
• 10 channels, each 10 farmers• 2 normal years followed by 1 year of flooding• Farmers rate their economic success
– yieldThreshold = 9.0
• Scale-Free topology for acquaintance network• WPI (linked to all farmers in a star-like fashion)• Farmers and WPI exert social influence
20CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
21CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
22CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
23CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
24CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
36 48
25CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
168 180
26CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
288 300
27CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Scenario C
336 480
28CAVES Meeting, 28 March 2007
Outlook
• calibrate the model• include allowances and compensation payments• include sluice gate operation / fish ponds• include additional land use types• distribute farmer types heterogenously• apply different network topologies• perform sensitivity analyses
top related