How to conduct more systematic reviews of agent-based models and foster theory development: Taking stock and looking ahead

Sebastian Achter; Melania  Borit; Clémentine Cottineau; Matthias Meyer; J. Gareth Polhill; Viktoriia Radchuk

doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105867

How to conduct more systematic reviews of agent-based models and foster theory development: Taking stock and looking ahead

Sebastian Achter, Melania Borit, Clémentine Cottineau^*, Matthias Meyer, J. Gareth Polhill, Viktoriia Radchuk

^*Corresponding author for this work

Urban Studies

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

29 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Agent-based models (ABMs) are increasingly utilized in ecology and related fields, yet concerns persist regarding the lack of consideration for lessons learned from previous models. This study explores the potential of systematically conducted ABM reviews to contribute to cumulative science and theory development by synthesizing individual ABM findings more effectively. We are conducting a meta-review of ABM reviews to assess current practices, compare them to systematic literature review (SLR) literature recommendations, and evaluate their engagement with theory and theory development. Our analysis of the ecology and social science sample reveals that many reviews are not conducted systematically and lack transparency. The analysis step of SLRs holds significant potential to advance theory development. Reviews primarily focus on model design, while other avenues of theory development receive less attention. Our findings suggest ways to improve current practices and may guide future ABM reviews via benchmarks for methodological decisions and dimensions for advancing theory development.

Original language	English
Article number	105867
Journal	Environmental Modelling & Software
Volume	173
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105867
Publication status	Published - 2024

Funding

We thank Johannes Marold and Katarina Frey for their support with the processing of data and the creation of illustrations. Furthermore, we thank Andreas Flache and Flaminio Squazzoni for their inspiration during the earlier stages of the project. For the same reason and her role as a friendly reviewer, we also want to thank Birgit Müller and Nanda Wijermans. Lastly, we thank the Volkswagen foundation for hosting and financially supporting three symposia in the context of which this paper was written. A link to the project, including all data, analysis steps, and program code, can be found on GitHub.

Borit acknowledges funding from the Research Council of Norway (project references AFO-JIGG 302635 and FUTURES4Fish 325814). Cottineau acknowledges funding from the European Research Council (reference: Starting Grant 101039455 / SEGUE). Polhill acknowledges funding from the Scottish Government Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (project references JHI-C5-1, JHI-E1-1).

Keywords

Systematic literature review
Literature review
Agent-based modelling
Model design
Theory development
Cumulative science

Access to Document

10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105867

1-s2.0-S1364815223002530-mainFinal published version, 4.09 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{512ca0f27b8a45fa9b8b266508e77126,

title = "How to conduct more systematic reviews of agent-based models and foster theory development: Taking stock and looking ahead",

abstract = "Agent-based models (ABMs) are increasingly utilized in ecology and related fields, yet concerns persist regarding the lack of consideration for lessons learned from previous models. This study explores the potential of systematically conducted ABM reviews to contribute to cumulative science and theory development by synthesizing individual ABM findings more effectively. We are conducting a meta-review of ABM reviews to assess current practices, compare them to systematic literature review (SLR) literature recommendations, and evaluate their engagement with theory and theory development. Our analysis of the ecology and social science sample reveals that many reviews are not conducted systematically and lack transparency. The analysis step of SLRs holds significant potential to advance theory development. Reviews primarily focus on model design, while other avenues of theory development receive less attention. Our findings suggest ways to improve current practices and may guide future ABM reviews via benchmarks for methodological decisions and dimensions for advancing theory development.",

keywords = "Systematic literature review, Literature review, Agent-based modelling, Model design, Theory development, Cumulative science",

author = "Sebastian Achter and Melania Borit and Cl{\'e}mentine Cottineau and Matthias Meyer and Polhill, {J. Gareth} and Viktoriia Radchuk",

year = "2024",

doi = "10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105867",

language = "English",

volume = "173",

journal = "Environmental Modelling & Software",

issn = "1364-8152",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to conduct more systematic reviews of agent-based models and foster theory development

T2 - Taking stock and looking ahead

AU - Achter, Sebastian

AU - Borit, Melania

AU - Cottineau, Clémentine

AU - Meyer, Matthias

AU - Polhill, J. Gareth

AU - Radchuk, Viktoriia

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Agent-based models (ABMs) are increasingly utilized in ecology and related fields, yet concerns persist regarding the lack of consideration for lessons learned from previous models. This study explores the potential of systematically conducted ABM reviews to contribute to cumulative science and theory development by synthesizing individual ABM findings more effectively. We are conducting a meta-review of ABM reviews to assess current practices, compare them to systematic literature review (SLR) literature recommendations, and evaluate their engagement with theory and theory development. Our analysis of the ecology and social science sample reveals that many reviews are not conducted systematically and lack transparency. The analysis step of SLRs holds significant potential to advance theory development. Reviews primarily focus on model design, while other avenues of theory development receive less attention. Our findings suggest ways to improve current practices and may guide future ABM reviews via benchmarks for methodological decisions and dimensions for advancing theory development.

AB - Agent-based models (ABMs) are increasingly utilized in ecology and related fields, yet concerns persist regarding the lack of consideration for lessons learned from previous models. This study explores the potential of systematically conducted ABM reviews to contribute to cumulative science and theory development by synthesizing individual ABM findings more effectively. We are conducting a meta-review of ABM reviews to assess current practices, compare them to systematic literature review (SLR) literature recommendations, and evaluate their engagement with theory and theory development. Our analysis of the ecology and social science sample reveals that many reviews are not conducted systematically and lack transparency. The analysis step of SLRs holds significant potential to advance theory development. Reviews primarily focus on model design, while other avenues of theory development receive less attention. Our findings suggest ways to improve current practices and may guide future ABM reviews via benchmarks for methodological decisions and dimensions for advancing theory development.

KW - Systematic literature review

KW - Literature review

KW - Agent-based modelling

KW - Model design

KW - Theory development

KW - Cumulative science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85182399499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105867

DO - 10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105867

M3 - Article

SN - 1364-8152

VL - 173

JO - Environmental Modelling & Software

JF - Environmental Modelling & Software

M1 - 105867

ER -

How to conduct more systematic reviews of agent-based models and foster theory development: Taking stock and looking ahead

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this