The HUMan Impact on LANDscapes (HUMLAND) 2.0.0 is an enhanced version of HUMLAND 1.0.0, developed to track and quantify the intensity of various impacts on landscapes at a continental scale. The model is designed to identify the most influential factors in the transformation of interglacial vegetation, with a particular focus on the burning practices of hunter-gatherers. HUMLAND 2.0.0 incorporates a wide range of spatial datasets as both inputs and targets (expected modelling results) for simulations across Last Interglacial (~130,000–116,000 BP) and Early Holocene (~11,700–8,000 BP).

A logging agent builds roads based on the location of high-value hotspots, and cuts trees based on road access. A forest monitor sanctions the logger on observed infractions, reshaping the pattern of road development.

The HUMan impact on LANDscapes (HUMLAND) model has been developed to track and quantify the intensity of different impacts on landscapes at the continental level. This agent-based model focuses on determining the most influential factors in the transformation of interglacial vegetation with a specific emphasis on burning organized by hunter-gatherers. HUMLAND integrates various spatial datasets as input and target for the agent-based model results. Additionally, the simulation incorporates recently obtained continental-scale estimations of fire return intervals and the speed of vegetation regrowth. The obtained results include maps of possible scenarios of modified landscapes in the past and quantification of the impact of each agent, including climate, humans, megafauna, and natural fires.

Amidst the global trend of increasing market concentration, this paper examines the role of finance
in shaping it. Using Agent-Based Modeling (ABM), we analyze the impact of financial policies on market concentration
and its closely related variables: economic growth and labor income share. We extend the Keynes
meets Schumpeter (K+S) model by incorporating two critical assumptions that influence market concentration.
Policy experiments are conducted with a model validated against historical trends in South Korea. For policy
variables, the Debt-to-Sales Ratio (DSR) limit and interest rate are used as levers to regulate the quantity and
…

LogoClim is a NetLogo model designed to be integrated into other simulations through the LevelSpace extension (Hjorth et al., 2020), providing high resolution climate data from sources validated and used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The model simplifies and standardizes the integration of climate data into NetLogo, allowing researchers to focus their efforts on the model itself with the assurance of using reliable and widely recognized data. Although its main use is as a component of larger simulations, LogoClim also has its own graphical interface for monitoring and checking the datasets.

The climate data comes from the WorldClim 2.1 project (Fick & Hijmans, 2017), for which LogoClim works as an interface to NetLogo. The model supports all three WorldClim data series: (1) Historical Climate Data (1970 to 2000), with 12 monthly points for minimum, mean, and maximum temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, wind speed, vapor pressure, elevation, and bioclimatic variables; (2) Historical Monthly Weather Data (1951 to 2024), based on downscaling of CRU-TS-4.09, developed by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (Harris et al., 2020), with minimum and maximum temperature and total precipitation; and (3) Future Climate Data, based on downscaling climate projections derived from global climate models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) (Eyring et al., 2016) for four future periods (2021 to 2040, 2041 to 2060, 2061 to 2080, and 2081 to 2100) and four scenarios based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs 126, 245, 370, and 585), covering minimum and maximum temperature, total precipitation, and bioclimatic variables. All series are available at multiple spatial resolutions, from 10 minutes (about 340 km² at the equator) to 30 seconds (about 1 km² at the equator).

…

This study investigates a possible nexus between inter-group competition and intra-group cooperation, which may be called “tribalism.” Building upon previous studies demonstrating a relationship between the environment and social relations, the present research incorporates a social-ecological model as a mediating factor connecting both individuals and communities to the environment. Cyclical and non-cyclical fluctuation in a simple, two-resource ecology drive agents to adopt either “go-it-alone” or group-based survival strategies via evolutionary selection. Novelly, this simulation employs a multilevel selection model allowing group-level dynamics to exert downward selective pressures on individuals’ propensity to cooperate within groups. Results suggest that cooperation and inter-group conflict are co-evolved in a triadic relationship with the environment. Resource scarcity increases inter-group competition, especially when resources are clustered as opposed to widely distributed. Moreover, the tactical advantage of cooperation in the securing of clustered resources enhanced selective pressure on cooperation, even if that implies increased individual mortality for the most altruistic warriors. Troubling, these results suggest that extreme weather, possibly as a result of climate change, could exacerbate conflict in sensitive, weather-dependent social-ecologies—especially places like the Horn of Africa where ecologically sensitive economic modalities overlap with high-levels of diversity and the wide-availability of small arms. As well, global development and foreign aid strategists should consider how plans may increase the value of particular locations where community resources are built or aid is distributed, potentially instigating tribal conflict. In sum, these factors, interacting with pre-existing social dynamics dynamics, may heighten inter-ethnic or tribal conflict in pluralistic but otherwise peaceful communities.

For special issue submission in JASSS.

The basic premise of the model is to simulate several ‘agents’ going through build-buy cycles: Build: Factories follow simple rules of strategy in the allocation of resources between making exploration and exploitation type products. Buy: Each of two types of Consumers, early-adopters and late adopters, follow simple purchase decision rules in deciding to purchase a product from one of two randomly chosen factories. Thus, the two working ‘agents’ of the model are ‘factories’ and […]

We present an agent-based model of worker protest informed by Epstein (2002). Workers have varying degrees of grievance depending on the difference between their wage and the average of their neighbors. They protest with probabilities proportional to grievance, but are inhibited by the risk of being arrested – which is determined by the ratio of coercive agents to probable rebels in the local area. We explore the effect of similarity perception on the dynamics of collective behavior. If […]

This NetLogo model is an implementation of the mostly verbal (and graphic) model in Jarret Walker’s Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives (2011). Walker’s discussion is in the chapter “Connections or Complexity?”. See especially figure 12-2, which is on page 151.

In “Connections or Complexity?”, Walker frames the matter as involving a choice between two conflicting goals. The first goal is to minimize connections, the need to make transfers, in a transit system. People naturally prefer direct routes. The second goal is to minimize complexity. Why? Well, read the chapter, but as a general proposition we want to avoid unnecessary complexity with its attendant operating characteristics (confusing route plans in the case of transit) and management and maintenance challenges. With complexity general comes degraded robustness and resilience.

How do we, how can we, choose between these conflicting goals? The grand suggestion here is that we only choose indirectly, implicitly. In the present example of connections versus complexity we model various alternatives and compare them on measures of performance (MoP) other than complexity or connections per se. The suggestion is that connections and complexity are indicators of, heuristics for, other MoPs that are more fundamental, such as cost, robustness, energy use, etc., and it is these that we at bottom care most about. (Alternatively, and not inconsistently, we can view connections and complexity as two of many MoPs, with the larger issue to be resolve in light of many MoPs, including but not limited to complexity and connections.) We employ modeling to get a handle on these MoPs. Typically, there will be several, taking us thus to a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) situation. That’s the big picture.

STiMUS-HAI (Stigmergic–Mutualistic IMOI Model, Human-AI extension) is an agent-based model of teamwork in socio-technical systems where human and AI contributors collaborate through shared digital artefacts — wiki pages, code files, issue tickets, project cards, Scratch projects — represented as patches in a NetLogo world. It extends the human-only base model STiMUS v2.2, which established that two coordination mechanisms — stigmergy (indirect coordination through traces left in the environment) and mutualism (mutual benefit between contributors and the artefacts they tend) — can be decoupled: stigmergy decides where a contributor works, mutualism decides with what effort. STiMUS-HAI preserves this decoupling unchanged and adds two further theoretical questions: whether mixing AI agents into a human team distorts human coordination in ways that aggregate indicators hide, and whether AI’s cost to team outcomes depends on the type of work AI performs, not only on how much of it is present.

Two breeds of turtle — humans and ai-agents — follow identical target-selection, pheromone, and mutualism rules, so that any behavioural difference is attributable to team composition rather than a built-in advantage. The one designed asymmetry: AI agents never accumulate shared-mental-model and their motivation is fixed rather than adaptive. On top of this v3.0 baseline, v3.1 adds a task-type dimension to artefacts (“prediction” versus “judgment”, set via a judgment-share slider) that scales down AI edit-power specifically on judgment-requiring artefacts, and an ai-trust mechanic: humans build or lose trust in AI contributions based on the population-relative percentile rank of observed AI work quality (bottom-quartile work counts as an observed “error”), and that trust gates how much mutualistic benefit a human derives from continuing an AI’s work. Trust erodes quickly on a single error and recovers only after a streak of confirmed successes — an intentional asymmetry.