Cited by 205Complex Systems and Decision MakingSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Eight grand challenges in socio-environmental systems modeling

Open access
Elsawah, Sondoss, Filatova, Tatiana, Jakeman, Anthony J., Kettner, Albert J., Zellner, Moira L., Athanasiadis, Ioannis N., Hamilton, Serena H., Axtell, Robert L. +7 more·2020·Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling

Abstract

Modeling is essential to characterize and explore complex societal and environmental issues in systematic and collaborative ways. Socio-environmental systems (SES) modeling integrates knowledge and perspectives into conceptual and computational tools that explicitly recognize how human decisions affect the environment. Depending on the modeling purpose, many SES modelers also realize that involvement of stakeholders and experts is fundamental to support social learning and decision-making processes for achieving improved environmental and social outcomes. The contribution of this paper lies in identifying and formulating grand challenges that need to be overcome to accelerate the development and adaptation of SES modeling. Eight challenges are delineated: bridging epistemologies across disciplines; multi-dimensional uncertainty assessment and management; scales and scaling issues; combining qualitative and quantitative methods and data; furthering the adoption and impacts of SES modeling on policy; capturing structural changes; representing human dimensions in SES; and leveraging new data types and sources. These challenges limit our ability to effectively use SES modeling to provide the knowledge and information essential for supporting decision making. Whereas some of these challenges are not unique to SES modeling and may be pervasive in other scientific fields, they still act as barriers as well as research opportunities for the SES modeling community. For each challenge, we outline basic steps that can be taken to surmount the underpinning barriers. Thus, the paper identifies priority research areas in SES modeling, chiefly related to progressing modeling products, processes and practices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18174/sesmo.2020a16226

Cites

241 of 241 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Modeling, regardless of improvements, may simply be incapable of capturing rare tipping-points and is not intended to accurately predict or foresee non-rational political dynamics.

    “Modeling, regardless of improvements, may simply be incapable of capturing rare tipping-points and is not intended to accurately predict or foresee non-rational political dynamics (Elsawah et al., 2020).”

    From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Elsawah et al., 2020

    The section on systemic change says Black Swan events are harder to incorporate, but recommends that models allow low-probability scenarios to emerge; it does not say tipping points may be beyond modeling regardless of improvements. Sections 2.7.2 and 'Advancing multi-method approaches' favor exploration over accurate prediction in some contexts and discuss political judgment, but do not establish a blanket claim that modeling is not intended to foresee non-rational political dynamics. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 244 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Brown, D.G., Robinson, D.T., French, N.H.F., and B.C. Reed (eds), in Land use and the carbon cycle: Advances in Integrated Science, Management, and Policy. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 178-208.
  2. Ferson, S., & Sentz, K. (2016). Epistemic Uncertainty in Agent-based Modeling. In S. Freitag, R. L. Muhanna, & R. L. Mullen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop of Reliable Engineering Computing: Computing with Polymorphic Uncertain Data (pp. 65-82).
  3. Jordan, R., Gray, S., Zellner, M., Glynn, P., Voinov, A., Hedelin, B., Sterling, E., Leong, K., Schmitt Olabisi, L., Hubacek, K., Bommel, P., BenDor, T., Jetter, A., Laursen, B., Singer, A., Giabbanelli, P., Kolagani, N., Basco Carrera, L., & Jenni, K. (2018). 12 Questions for the participatory modeling community. Earth's Future, 6(8), 1046-1057.
  4. Mingers, J. (2006). Philosphical foundations: critical realism. In: Mingers, J. Realising system thinking: knowledge and action in management science. Springer. pp. 11-31.
  5. Rasmussen, C.E., & Williams, C.K.I (2006). Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, the MIT Press, ISBN 026218253X. http://www.gaussianprocess.org/gpml.
  6. Rounsevell, M. et al. (2016) Linking Earth System Dynamics and Social System Modeling. Report of the Computational Human and Earth Systems Science (CHESS) group from the Workshop: 'Linking Earth System Dynamics and Social System Modeling', 23-25 May 2016, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Retrieved from: https://csdms.colorado.edu/wiki/CHESS on August 6th, 2018.
  7. Schmolke, A., Thorbek, P., DeAngelis, D.L., Grimm, V. (2010). Ecological modelling supporting environmental decision making: a strategy for the future. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25 (8), 479-486.
  8. Sætra, H.S., 2017. Exploring the use of agent-based modelling in mixed methods research. Barataria. Revista Castellano- Manchega de Ciencias Sociales, 22, 15-31. https://doi.org/10.20932/barataria.v0i22.337. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elsawah, S., Filatova, T., Jakeman, A. J., Kettner, A. J., Zellner, M. L., Athanasiadis, I. N., Hamilton, S. H., Axtell, R. L., Brown, D. G., Gilligan, J. M., Janssen, M. A., Robinson, D. T., Rozenberg, J., Ullah, I. I. T., & Lade, S. J.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
  • George Mason University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • World Bank (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
Venue
Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling
Published
2020-01-01
Volume
2
Pages
16226
ISSN
2663-3027 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2970509049
Cited by
205
References
244
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 1
FWCI
16.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1052875, 0621695)
  • National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (1052875, DBI—1052875)
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (2014-589)
  • Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
societal challenges, uncertainty analysis, scaling, qualitative-quantitative integration, policy adoption, structural change, human dimension, new data sources, stakeholder engagement, social learning, decision support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review