Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

System dynamic simulation: A new method in social impact

assessment (SIA)
Shobeir Karami a, Ezatollah Karami a,⁎, Laurie Buys b, Robin Drogemuller b
a
Agricultural Extension and Education, Shiraz University, Iran
b
Creative Industries Faculty, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many complex social questions are difficult to address adequately with conventional methods and techniques,
Received 8 October 2015 due to the complicated dynamics, and hard to quantify social processes. Despite these difficulties researchers
Received in revised form 17 July 2016 and practitioners have attempted to use conventional methods not only in evaluative modes but also in predic-
Accepted 18 July 2016
tive modes to inform decision making. The effectiveness of SIAs would be increased if they were used to support
Available online 13 October 2016
the project design processes. This requires deliberate use of lessons from retrospective assessments to inform
Keywords:
predictive assessments. Social simulations may be a useful tool for developing a predictive SIA method. There
Social simulation have been limited attempts to develop computer simulations that allow social impacts to be explored and under-
System dynamic stood before implementing development projects. In light of this argument, this paper aims to introduce system
Analytical SIA methods dynamic (SD) simulation as a new predictive SIA method in large development projects. We propose the poten-
tial value of the SD approach to simulate social impacts of development projects. We use data from the SIA of
Gareh-Bygone floodwater spreading project to illustrate the potential of SD simulation in SIA. It was concluded
that in comparison to traditional SIA methods SD simulation can integrate quantitative and qualitative inputs
from different sources and methods and provides a more effective and dynamic assessment of social impacts
for development projects. We recommend future research to investigate the full potential of SD in SIA in compar-
ing different situations and scenarios.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
While large scale development projects deliver the necessary infra-
structure to enable communities to thrive (Basa, 2007), they have envi-
ronmental, economic and social impacts - particularly for the local
community and surrounding areas (Asselin and Parkins, 2009;
Vanclay, 2002). Research has focused on the environmental and eco-
nomic impacts and a variety of methods have been used to identify
these impacts (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009; Sairinen and
Kumpulainen, 2006). Computer simulations are often used to explore
the likely impacts prior to development to enable the mitigation of im-
pacts (Iba, 2013).
“Many social problems are difficult to address adequately with tradi-
tional analytical and statistical techniques, due to the diversity and great
number of factors involved (e.g. evolution of culture), complicated dy-
namics (e.g. social networks) and hard to measure social processes
(e.g. psychological processes, world size phenomena)” (Hassan et al.,
2010). Thus the practical use of SIA methods is mainly to ‘stock-take’
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shobeirkarami@gmail.com (S. Karami), ekarami@shirazu.ac.ir
(E. Karami), l.buys@qut.edu.au (L. Buys), robin.drogemuller@qut.edu.au (R. Drogemuller).
and explain what has already happened. Such retrospective SIA
methods add to hindsight experience and understanding of how change
takes place (Barrow, 2000). SIA practitioners have devised some
methods, such as comparison case approach, to address the challenges
of trying to predict social outcomes prior to implementation. However,
the need for alternative approaches that provide a systematic frame-
work and also straightforward possibility of different scenario compar-
isons remains to be answered.
In order to increase the effectiveness of SIAs, better use needs to be
made of whatever relevant comparison-case information can be
brought to bear on the predictive assessment of future impacts. Simula-
tion may offer a systematic way of doing this. Although, computer sim-
ulation faces challenges such as (1) validation: simulation methods are
only valid for static systems, where a state in a system is deterministical-
ly changed and not for dynamic systems where a state is dynamically
changed (Axelrod, 2006; Billari et al., 2003; Figueredo and Aickelin,
2011), (2) calibration: for calibrating simulation results it is necessary
to compare a lot of output parameters from the model with a lot of sys-
tem samples in order to get trustworthy results (Axelrod, 2006;
Figueredo et al., 2011), and (3) modelling: “In order to model heteroge-
neous opinions with simulation, each agent is defined with specific abil-
ities, goals and strategies and the multitude of agents implemented

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.009
0195-9255/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
26 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34
creates a diversity of behaviors and somehow, of opinions. Thus,
through modelling, researchers attempt to formalize the specific nature
of representation, as an intermediary mental object between agent and
its environment. This task is not an easy one as the concept of represen-
tation itself is subject to several contrasted theories” (Becu et al., 2003).
It is widely used technique due to the following advantages:
(i) low cost: there is a considerable cost differentiation between a
simulation and setting up an experimental facility (Iba, 2013);
(ii) speed: simulated experiments are often completed substantially
faster than experiments using real-world phenomena (Axelrod,
2006; Iba, 2013);
(iii) reproducibility: while real-world verification is difficult to con-
duct and replicate, a computer-based experiment can easily be
reset and restarted (Helleboogh et al., 2005; Iba, 2013);
(iv) preparation: simulation can be used to analyze proposed scenar-
ios before implementation in real world (Helleboogh et al.,
2005);
(v) flexibility: multiple systems with different characteristic can be
used to model scenarios (Axelrod, 2006; Helleboogh et al., 2005).
There have been limited attempts to develop computer simulations
that allow social impacts to be explored and understood during the de-
sign of developments. This paper introduces system dynamic (SD) sim-
ulation as a predictive SIA method in large development projects.
2. Social impact assessment
Social impacts are the result of change in societies and cultures
(Basa, 2007) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) methods are used to
study these consequences. The scope of SIA and the methods used
have widened considerably in recent decades (Esteves et al., 2012),
with SIA developing concepts and methods to assess the social impacts
of development projects on people and their livelihoods (Asselin and
Parkins, 2009; Tang et al., 2008; Vanclay, 2006; Vanclay, 2002). “In the
United States, the National Environmental Protection Act 1969 (NEPA)
provided strong legislative impetus for the development of procedures
for environmental impact assessment, and early references to SIA
came in the 1970s regarding the impact of pipeline development on in-
digenous culture” (Asselin and Parkins, 2009).
According to Vanclay (2003), SIA “includes the processes of analyz-
ing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social con-
sequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions
(policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes in-
voked by those interventions”. Barrow (2000) believes that “SIA seeks
to answer the following question: Will there be a measurable difference
in the quality of life in the community as a result of the proposed ac-
tion?”. SIA has also been defined as “the process of identifying the future
consequences of a current or proposed action which are related to indi-
viduals, organizations and social macro-systems” (Becker, 2001). This
study adheres to the definition of SIA by Becker (2001). SIA supports
the assessment of the impact of the project progressing or not, identifi-
cation and mitigation of adverse effects and identification of potential
beneficial outcomes (Barrow, 2010).
SIA also supports the integration of social and human ecosystems at
the same level of importance as economic and environmental factors
(Ahmadvand et al., 2009; Basa, 2007; Esteves and Vanclay, 2009;
Slootweg et al., 2001). The holistic perspective of SIA provides a useful
mechanism to improve the knowledge and decision-making of
policymakers, planners, and local community about socio-economic as-
pect of a specific planned development project (Ahmadvand et al.,
2009; Sairinen and Kumpulainen, 2006). This results in better manage-
ment of development projects and a more inclusive process through
participation of stakeholders. SIA can be used as part of a democratic
process, using public participation to ensure equity, transparency and
ownership. This results in maximizing social benefits through good
“fit” with the target populations and minimization or mitigation of ad-
verse social impacts (du Pisani and Sandham, 2006; Esteves et al.,
2012; Francis and Jacobs, 1999; Sairinen et al., 2010).
Social scientists are being challenged to change from their conven-
tional concentration on structure in social organizations to a more dy-
namic appraisal of the social impacts of interventional projects
(Sairinen and Kumpulainen, 2006). In spite of ongoing debates over
the basic aim of SIA and by considering all of SIA benefits and costs,
the scope of SIA practices has widened considerably (Lockie et al.,
2009). This widened scope along with SIA's link to research, decision
and policy-making processes (du Pisani and Sandham, 2006) has
given a hybrid nature to SIA (Sairinen et al., 2010). The extent or dura-
tion of impacts in time and space is also being considered within the SIA
(Schirmer, 2011).
Successful application of SIA depends on the effective integration of
planning processes with regard to the different levels of authority with
stakeholders (Prenzel and Vanclay, 2014). Conventional SIA methods
assist stakeholders in understanding the community impacts of devel-
opment projects during planning. However, these methods do not ade-
quately account for the effect of external linkages and processes and the
impact on the target community or the target population, because: a)
most common SIA methods are qualitative and predictions about the fu-
ture are perceived as weak, and b) the number of contributing factors
existing in external linkages and processes is a significant challenge in
assessment the externalities of the project. That is the externalities of
the project in a wider socio-environmental system are of less concern.
Also, although the extent of SIA in time and space is limitless, most
methods are time restricted and cannot predict far into the future. To
focus on the locally unique parameters, a range of adaptations and reac-
tions to future change based on past impacts becomes necessary. Hence,
a new approach to analytical methods for analyzing SIA results is
required.
3. Conventional SIA methods
A plethora of models exist that aim to measure social impacts, each
with a unique methodological approach. Hence, numerous methods
have been used to measure SIA, including classical sociological quantita-
tive and qualitative methods. SIA methods (refer to Table 1) - according
to Asselin and Parkins (2009) - “range from technical approaches that
utilize survey instruments, secondary data, multiplier effects, and
straight line analysis, to political approaches where social scientists
are embedded within communities, use ethnographic techniques, and
work alongside communities to secure benefits and mitigate costs
from a given project”. So there are two approaches in the field of SIA;
• first, technocratic approaches which emphasize objectivity and quan-
titative method;
• second, participatory approaches, which by contrast, use qualitative
methods to collect data regarding the information and experiences
of local people that are most affected by development projects
(Becker et al., 2004; Becker, 2001).
However, some authors (Macfarlane, 1999) argue that in practice,
good SIAs are neither purely technocratic nor purely participatory but
draw strengths from both orientations. Most conventional SIA methods
describe current conditions, but are not able to forecast outcomes in
changing conditions. As many practitioners agree that the goal of SIA
is to monitor and predict changes in social factors such as ecosystem
services, socio-economic development, etc. (Becker, 2001). To make re-
liable forecast of complex scenarios, novel approaches to SIA are need-
ed. Social simulation can be a platform for such novel approaches, as it
can provide a proactive view, so that mitigation and adaptation
 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34 27

Table 1
Data characteristic, data collection, analyzing method, and data sources in technocratic and participatory approaches.

Technocratic Participatory

Data Nature Non-partisan (independent) Multiple value

characteristic Source Expert Community
Type Quantitative Qualitative
Source: Scope Nomothetic Idiographic
Macfarlane (trends in variables based on patterns assumed to stay constant) (consideration given to specific political and cultural setting)
(1999)
Data collection Beneficiary Assessment (BA) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) (Asselin and Parkins, 2009;
Semi-structured Interviews (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Basa, 2007; Cope et al., Basa, 2007; Becker et al., 2003; Sairinen et al., 2010).
2010; Sairinen et al., 2010). Participant observation (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Barrow, 2010;
Structured interview (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Basa, 2007; Cope et al., 2010; Basa, 2007; Lockie et al., 2009; Sairinen et al., 2010).
Sairinen et al., 2010). Focus Group Meetings (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Ahmadvand and
Tree Diagrams (Basa, 2007). Karami, 2009; Basa, 2007; Cope et al., 2010; Sairinen et al., 2010).
Team UP (Basa, 2007). Village Meetings (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Basa, 2007; Sairinen et
Survey (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Asselin and Parkins, 2009; Sairinen et al., al., 2010).
2010; Schirmer, 2011). Role Playing (Environmental Impact Assessment Training
Comparative diachronic (Asselin and Parkins, 2009; Basa, 2007; Resources Mannual, 2002).
Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resources Mannual, 2002; Lockie Wealth Ranking (Environmental Impact Assessment Training
et al., 2009). Resources Mannual, 2002).
Cause-effect matrices (Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resources Access to Resources (EIATRM, 2002)
Mannual, 2002). Analysis of Tasks (Barrow, 2010).
Scenario analysis (Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resources Mapping (Barrow, 2010; Environmental Impact Assessment
Mannual, 2002). Training Resources Mannual, 2002).
Needs Assessment (Environmental Impact Assessment Training
Resources Mannual, 2002; Esteves and Vanclay, 2009).
Pocket Charts (Environmental Impact Assessment Training
Resources Mannual, 2002).
Tree Diagrams (EIATRM, 2002).
Ethnography (Asselin and Parkins, 2009).
Sample group learning (Becker et al., 2003).
Ex-ante evaluation (Becker, 2001; Lockie et al., 2009).
In-depth survey (Cope et al., 2010).
Unstructured interviews (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Basa, 2007;
Cope et al., 2010; Sairinen et al., 2010).
Comparative case study (Asselin and Parkins, 2009; Basa, 2007;
EIATRM, 2002; Lockie et al., 2009).
Delphi (EIATRM, 2002).
Cause-effect matrices (EIATRM, 2002).
Scenario analysis (EIATRM, 2002).
Interactive community group (Becker et al., 2003).
Data analysis Expert analysis Stakeholder analysis
Comparative analysis (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009). Gender analysis
Time series (Schirmer, 2011). Secondary data review
Flow chart (EIATRM, 2002). Expert analysis
GIS (EIATRM, 2002).
Data sources Secondary Previous surveys Local histories/accounts
sources Census data Previous studies/SIAs
Official statistics Other literature
Monitoring studies Newspapers
Maps Photos, video, film
Maps
Primary Sample surveys Interviews
sources Observations Discussion/focus groups
Workshops
Participant observation
Photos, video, film

strategies can be developed or adjusted within timeframes, and oppor-
tunities can be researched and followed up.
4. Social simulation as a tool for SIA
Social simulation is the application of computational methods to is-
sues within the social sciences, including sociology, political science,
economics, geography and anthropology (Takahashi et al., 2008).
There are a number of benefits in assessing social impacts by simulation,
including:
1. a robust tool to support government, industry and communities to
prepare and plan for the future, manage risks and harness opportuni-
ties (Greiner et al., 2014);
2. creating simulations of artificial societies where social structures and
group behaviors emerge from the interactions between individual
agents (Zimbres and de Oliveira, 2009);
3. allows the study of the impact of different combinations of technical,
socio-economic, and natural characteristics of systems at various
time scales (Raptis et al., 2013);
4. can be utilized to predict the effect of a variety of social factors on the
emergence and evolution of social norms (Chen et al., 2012);
5. models can identify the complexity through modelling the interac-
tion of autonomous factors and deducing the rules for such a systems
(Galland et al., 2014);
6. analysis of non-linear interactions between individuals in a dynamic
community (Dabbaghian et al., 2010);
7. providing a simplification of the real world (Harvey et al., 2011); and
28 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34
8. social impacts represent a learning strategy for the development of
policy options (Boskma, 1986).
The above factors mean that social simulation shows promise
through combining social, mathematical and computer science
methods (Kasprzyk et al., 2013). According to Chen (Chen, 2003) the in-
creased access to powerful computing facilities supports the study of
complex processes. Behavioral patterns, organizational structures and
social order can emerge through defining processes of social processes,
such as cooperation, coordination, etc. Through these evolutions, simu-
lation has become a new discipline with its ontology, epistemology and
methodology (Tolk, 2013).
In social simulation, when developing an ontology to understand the
knowledge for a particular field, Gruber (Gruber, 1995) suggests there
must be an underlying ontological framework. According to Tolk
(2013) “in the modelling and simulation realm, two main application
domains are identifiable: methodological ontologies to address the
question “How we model?” and referential ontologies to address the
question “What do we model?”“. Alongside these ontological issues,
methodological epistemology is required to address the question
“what is the best method for doing a simulation research?” (Gilbert
and Ahrweiler, 2009). In practice, experts say that methodological and
referential ontologies should be addressed by subject matter experts,
but they do not state their criteria for qualifying such an expert
(Kasprzyk et al., 2013).
4.1. Simulation ontology
“Referential Ontology: In response to ‘How we model?’, the explana-
tion of macro (population-level) situations with micro-founded theo-
ries is one of the central points” (Billari et al., 2003). Many researchers
have used simulation in their social investigations and modelled differ-
ent macro situations with micro theories, including: policy intervention
within social reality (Boskma, 1986), rationality of social network
(Zimbres and de Oliveira, 2009), residential migration in response to
neighborhood (Dabbaghian et al., 2010), behavior in evacuation sys-
tems (Tissera et al., 2013), the impacts of social forces on evolution of
socio-ecological systems (Saqalli et al., 2010), long-term location and
mobility decisions and short-term activity and travel decisions
(Ettema et al., 2011), factors and policies for poverty (Raptis et al.,
2013), social norm and cooperation (Yu and Zhang, 2013), behavior of
community members at the individual level (Perez-Mujica et al.,
2014), social modelling in socio-technical systems (Ferscha et al.,
2011), smallholder crop–livestock production (Parsons et al., 2011), in-
teractions between natural resource-based poverty traps and food secu-
rity for smallholder farms (Stephens et al., 2012), interactions between
water resources, Environmental Flow (EF) and socio-economy (Wei et
al., 2012), motivating the creation of entrepreneurship actions (Sakas
et al., 2013), social determinants of health (Mahmoudi et al., 2013),
trade-offs between maintenance of ecosystem services and socio-eco-
nomic development (Vidal-Legaz et al., 2013), and analyzing social pat-
terns (Pavón et al., 2008). This broad range of application demonstrates
the significant capacity for SIA modelling, given proper methodology
and epistemology.
Methodological Ontology: Over time, researchers have used differ-
ent modelling methods for simulation, such as archival research, con-
tent analysis and expert judgment in modelling process (Boskma,
1986; Dabbaghian et al., 2010; Ettema et al., 2011; Ferscha et al.,
2011; Parsons et al., 2011; Perez-Mujica et al., 2014; Saqalli et al.,
2010; Tissera et al., 2013; Yu and Zhang, 2013; Zimbres and de
Oliveira, 2009) and participatory modelling process (Parsons et al.,
2011; Stephens et al., 2012). The key issue is to determine modelling
methods that relate directly to the nature of the problem to be ad-
dressed. For more complicated problems, using participatory modelling
may be most appropriate; but, due to the time consuming process of
participatory modelling, few researchers use this modelling method in
their studies.
4.2. Simulation epistemology
Addressing what is the most appropriate method for social simula-
tion? has been the basis of an ongoing discussion among social scien-
tists. Currently, several simulation platforms are used for social and
non-social phenomena simulation such as Gaming methods (GM),
Agent-based methods (ABM), Cellular automata (CA), and system dy-
namic (SD). To address the question, these simulation methods must
be compared with each other (refer to Table 2). Hot spots in different di-
mensions of SIA have been considered as comparison criteria. These di-
mensions can be used for assessment as well as for a specification of
desirable characteristics for constructing a social simulation model.
When selecting the most appropriate method for SIA, a number of ‘hot
spots’ are worthy of consideration (Cioffi-Revilla, 2014) at the begin-
ning of each development project. These hot spots are (Cioffi-Revilla,
2014):
1. Dynamic: assess dynamic processes.
2. Scope: study a broad scope of phenomena, such as using SD as part of
the SIA toolkit is most relevant for large scale, physical infrastructure
projects where it may be possible to quantify certain social impacts in
a meaningful and relevant way.
3. Judgment: provide a judgmental statement for decision makers
about a specific project.
4. Participation: attract participation in most stages of SIA projects.
5. Comparison: comparing the impacts in situations involving a control
and treatment groups.
6. Prediction: predict of the future impacts of projects.
7. Integration: give social criteria value along with socio-economic and
ecological criteria in planning and decision-making.
In addition to simulation methods, common SIA methods are com-
pared as a choice in Table 2. SD and ABM are robust methods for SIA
simulation, but these methods are rarely used in SIA studies. It could
be due to (1) researcher inability or hardship in using simulation
methods and software (Boskma, 1986; Ermolieva, 2005; Pavón et al.,
2008), (2) technical problems relating to simulation soft and hard
ware (Boskma, 1986; Pavón et al., 2008; Ronald et al., 2012), (3) difficul-
ties in modelling a robust social process (Apperly, 2008), (4) validation
problems (Apperly, 2008; Bazinger and Kühberger, 2012), and (5) diffi-
culties with gathering a data and quantify for the best use in simulation
models (Apperly, 2008; Chen et al., 2012).
Most of simulation platforms (GM, ABM, and CA) are based on the
idea of a reactive agent; in other words, these platforms are linear and
experts may not be able to adequately demonstrate feedback between
agents. In these models, an agent can be anything, an idea, a specific per-
son, GDP, so forth, whereas in SIA, the causes of complexity are the rela-
tionships that exist between differing agents. In studying these
complexities, these simulation platforms are not a proper device for
simulation and thus, the system dynamic (SD) approach and its simula-
tion software may be a reasonable method for SIA simulation (many
Table 2
comparison of SIA conventional methods and most used simulation platforms.
Agent-based simulation System dynamic Conventional SIA
platforms platform methods
Dynamic M⁎ Ha La
Scope H H M
Judgment M M L
Participation M M H
Comparison H H L
Prediction H H L
Integration M H L
a
L: Low, M: Medium, H: High.
 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34
articles exist which showed SD non-linearity capabilities in different
context (McRoberts et al., 2013; Parsons et al., 2011). Also, compared
to the traditional simulation methods, SD simulation approach analyzes
the complex dynamics, interrelations, and feedback mechanisms that
directs a system over time without longitudinal (Panel and Time Series
Cross-Section) data (Wei et al., 2012).
Many systems can be modelled by either the SD or ABS approach, as
they are powerful and complementary tools (Figueredo et al., 2011).
The modelling approaches used in these two methods are fundamental-
ly different:
1. ABS uses a bottom up approach, starting by defining the individual
entities within the system and their interactions. SD takes a top
down approach by breaking the system into successively more de-
tailed sub-systems/components and modelling the interactions at
the appropriate levels (Macal, 2010);
2. SD relies on a deterministic approach, while ABS is a stochastic ap-
proach (Figueredo et al., 2011);
3. SD is less complex and uses fewer computational resources when
modelling the same scenarios. Increasing the number of cells does
not impact as significantly on SDS simulations (Figueredo et al.,
2011);
4. SD is more applicable to systems at high levels of aggregation and ab-
straction (due to (3) above), but the inability of SD to simulate recep-
tors, molecules and their interactions means that ABS is more
appropriate where these are critical (Figueredo et al., 2011;
Figueredo and Aickelin, 2011).
1. System dynamic (SD) for SIA simulation
The SD modelling is a subdivision of dynamic simulation modelling.
“SD was introduced by Jay Forrester in the 1960s and provides effective
methodology for better understanding large-scale and complex man-
agement problems” (Tao et al., 2011). “System dynamics is a theory of
system structure and an approach for representing such a complex sys-
tem and analyzing its dynamic behavior “ (Forester, 1969). Sterman de-
scribes it as “a method to enhance learning in complex systems,
fundamentally interdisciplinary, grounded in theory of nonlinear dy-
namics and feedback control developed in mathematics, physics, and
engineering, to solve real-world problem,” (Sterman, 2000). Thus, the
application of SD uses a set of concepts and tools that support the under-
standing of the structure and interactions within complex systems
(Reynoso-Campos et al., 2004), making it useful for modelling and ana-
lyzing complex socio-economic-ecological systems (He et al., 2011).
“The structure of SD approaches contain five steps: (1) problem recog-
nition, (2) problem understanding and system description, (3) qualita-
tive analysis, (4) simulation modelling and model testing and (5) policy
testing and design” (Coyle, 1996).
In SD the model should deliver a robust description of the original
system (Reed et al., 2013). The purpose of an SD study is to describe
why problems are generated and how problematic factors are likely to
be abolished (Zhan et al., 2012). SD has been applied to the following
main fields; carrying capacity of water resources (Sun, 2006) and land
resources (He et al., 2011); simulating problems in water use (Tao et
al., 2011; Winz et al., 2007); environmental impacts (Deaton and
Winebrake, 2000; Wei et al., 2012; Zhan et al., 2012); global modelling
of water resources (Simonovic, 2002); interrelationships between envi-
ronmental, ecological and economic resources (Costanza et al., 1998;
Vidal-Legaz et al., 2013; Wei et al., 2012); reservoir operations
(Ahmad and Simonovic, 2000); sustainable development (Reed et al.,
2013; Xu et al., 2002; Zhan et al., 2012); garbage disposal (Cai, 2006);
water resources planning (Ma et al., 2012; Xi and Poh, 2013; Zhang et
al., 2012) and water quality management (Rivera, 2007; Tangirala et
al., 2003; Xi and Poh, 2013). SD has some perspectives that may be use-
ful for SIA including;
29
(1) focus on dynamic complexity (as is often the case with SIA, SD
can assist in understanding dynamic systems composed of interrelated
roles and processes);
(2) policy resistance (Policy resistance is produced by negative feed-
back within the system (Sakas et al., 2013). SD is a useful tool to under-
stand and analyze system's negative feedback);
(3) endogenous perspective (SD assists in identifying recurring long
term social problems within the internal causal structure of the
system);
(4) emphasis on feedback (SD models are capable of providing un-
derstanding of two way causation or feedback loops);
(5) explicit characterization of system stocks and flows (SD models
make explicit the nature of variables characterized a stocks (state or
level), flows (rate) or axillary (Tedeschi et al., 2011));
(6) problem focus, not system focus (typical SD models focus on de-
veloping dynamic hypotheses about the origins of a particular problem-
atic situation);
(7) analysis of general dynamic tendencies (SD is more concerned
with general dynamic tendencies; in identifying conditions within the
system as a whole, its stability, declining, self-correcting, or in equilibri-
um and etc. (Tedeschi et al., 2011));
(8) broader variable and data definitions (SD could cover both qual-
itative and quantitative measures for build variables);
(9) use of archetypal structures (SD has a potential to combine mul-
tiple data sources to develop a better forecasting structure); and
(10) model development and evaluation (The SD modelling process
is explicitly iterative and self-critical (Tedeschi et al., 2011; Stephens et
al., 2012)).
5. SIA by simulation: a case study
There is limited evidence regarding the application of SD for SIA. In
one study, Boskama (Boskma, 1986) conducted an SIA by social simula-
tion using gaming as his simulation approach. Despite limited evidence,
we argue the potential value of SD approach to simulate social impacts
of development projects. We use data from the SIA of Gareh-Bygone
floodwater spreading project (FWSP) (Ahmadvand et al., 2011;
Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009) to illustrate the potential of SD simula-
tion in SIA.
5.1. A brief review of SIA of the floodwater spreading project
Ahmadvand and Karami (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009) and
Ahmadvand et al., (Ahmadvand et al., 2011) explored the social impacts
of the FWSP in the Gareh-Bygone plain, Iran. The study used a causal
comparative design and triangulation technique. Data were collected
by using survey, archival data, and a participatory rural appraisal
(PRA). Ahmadvand and Karami (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009) argued
the causal comparative method required comparison of villages with
and without the FWSP. Therefore, a survey was conducted using strati-
fied random sampling to select 202 households in villages with and
without FWSP in the plain.
Ahmadvand and Karami (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009) catego-
rized the social impacts into six criteria. They included: perceived
wellbeing (9 items), social capital (10 items), quality of life (15 items),
social structure development (7 items), rural and agricultural economic
conditions (7 items), and conservation of community resources (13
items). Definition of variables and their measurements are presented
in Table 3. Comparison of social dimensions in villages with and without
FWSP before and after the project are shown in Table 4.
5.2. 6.2. SIA of Gareh-Bygone plain by social simulation
The model presents an integrated agricultural socio-economic im-
pact, with dynamic linkages among socio-economic, farm structure,
and attitude components. The two scenarios included, villages with
30 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34

Table 3 Table 4
Definition and measurement of study variables. Comparison of villages under study.

Variable name Variable definition Range Variable name With projecta Without
project
Rural and agricultural This variable was measured using a Likert type 1–5
economic conditions scale to appraise respondents' opinions with Before After Before After
regard to the status of a series of items such as (T 1) (T 2) (T 1) (T 2)
agricultural production, agricultural income,
Rural and agricultural economic conditions 2.50 2.72 3.26 2.17
buying and selling agricultural products before
Quality of life 2.80 2.78 2.81 2.83
and after the FWSP.
Perceived wellbeing 4.03 2.63 3.96 3.12
Quality of life QoL was measured using indicators such as 1–5
Social capital 3.51 2.67 3.32 3.08
social status (social participation, education,
Conservation of community resources 2.79 3.01 3.19 2.59
access to credit, and use of hired-labor in farm),
Social structure development 3.11 2.69 3.02 2.69
income status (annual household per capital
Education 3.98 4.28
income) assets (land ownership, livestock
Irrigated area 10.99 4.03
ownership, agricultural machinery and
Information about project 9.48 8.82
equipment, living assets and equipment, care
Environmental worldview 32.11 32.94
and other transportation equipment),
Religious values 33.67 33.53
nutritional status (quality and quantity of
household food), clothing (annual household Source: (Ahmadvand et al., 2011).
a
clothing cost per capital), housing (quality and Contrary to Ahmadvand et al. (2011), in simulation part of this study only data from
quantity), and social security (use of health and upper hand villages were used.
medical insurance and other insurance
services).
Perceived wellbeing Subjective wellbeing (SWB) was measured 1–5 calculated for villages with and without FWSP, and the resulting coeffi-
using an adapted version of the Satisfaction
cients were entered into simulation model.
with Life Scale. The scale composed of nine
items designed to measure overall Different methods were used to calculate slope of the parameters'
self-judgments of respondents' lives. line. For social impacts criteria (quality of life, perceived wellbeing, so-
Social capital Social capital has two dimensions, 1–5 cial capital, conservation of community resource, and social structure
organizational membership and trust.
development), before and after mean scores, the slope of line was calcu-
Organizational membership was measured by
the number of organizations of, which the
lated using the following procedure:
respondent belongs. Trust was measured by
questionnaire items such as reciprocity and xT 2 −xT 1
m¼
mutual help. T 2 −T 1:
Conservation of Community resources include the availability 1–5
community resources and condition of groundwater, forests, where:
rangeland, soil condition, irrigated area and dry
land farm area.
m was the line slope,
Social structure Social structure means the distinctive 1–5 xT 1 was the mean score of T1,
development arrangements of institutions whereby human xT 2 was the mean score of T2,
beings in a society interact and are able to live T1 was the time of beginning (1984),
together. It involves the character of the sum
total of all relationships, which exist between
and T2 was the time of ending (2005) study.
members of the group. Social patterns, cultural For education, Iran's rural area annual rate of educational develop-
norms, formal rules and indigenous informal ment for thirty years (Iran's Statistical Center, 2015) was used as the
social structures are the components of social slope of the line. For others variables (information about project, envi-
structure.
ronmental worldview, and religious value) the slope of the line for pa-
Education Years of respondents' education –
Irrigated area The hectare of irrigated lands which are – rameters was estimated by experts, as recommended by Agami et al.
managed by household (2010).
Information about It was measured with regard to farmers' access 7–14 The ‘IF THEN ELSE’ equation (if then else is a traditional IF statement
project to seven sources of information (extension that returns to the first argument (in here, for example Scenario 1) if the
programs, extension publications, radio and TV
programs, etc.)
condition is true, and the second argument (in here, for example Sce-
Environmental Environmental worldview was assessed using 15–45 nario 2) if the condition is false.) was considered to be the best type of
worldview the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale which function for this study, because the two different scenarios (with and
was developed by Dunlap et al. (2000). without FWSP) were to be simulated. Hence, the simulation model
Religious values A scale measuring agreement with series of 16–48
equation was:
religious and spiritual beliefs: summation of
response to 16 items.
IF THEN ELSEðfcondg; fontrueg; fonfalsegÞ
Source: Ahmadvand et al., 2011.
where:
{cond} was the type of villages (with FWSP = 1, and without
(Scenario 1) and without (Scenario 2) the FWS project. Scenario is the
FWSP = 2),
process of visualizing (1) what future conditions or events are probable,
{ontrue} was the formula for villages with FWSP, and
(2) what their consequences or effects would be like, and (3) how to re-
{onfalse} was the formula for villages without FWSP.
spond to, or benefit from, them, in this case the separator dimension is
The {ontrue} and {onfalse} equation were written by the RAMP for-
access to FWS project. Rural and agricultural economic conditions were
mula (The RAMP formula is a ramp equation. RAMP is a predefined
used as the main variable in both scenarios. Mean score, unstandardized
function that allows to ramp up linearly with a particular slope between
regression coefficient, and the line slope of variable between T1 and T2 of
the ramp start time and the ramp end time.):
each variables entered to the Vensim PLE software are presented in
Table 5. The slope of a line is the ratio of the amount that y increases Mean score þ ðmean score  RAMP ðfslopeg; fstartg; ffinishgÞÞ
as x increases some amount. Slope tells you how steep a line is, or
how much y increases as x increases. The slope is constant (the same) where:
anywhere on the line. The unstandardized regression coefficient was {slope} was the slope of line which was discussed before,
 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34 31

Table 5
Variables characteristics in Vensim equation.

Variable name With project Without project

Mean Unstandardized regression Slope of line Mean Unstandardized regression Slope of line
score coefficient (1984–2005) score coefficient (1984–2005)

Regression constant 5.961 3.107

Project 1 2
Quality of life 2.80 0.141 −0.0008 2.81 0.311 0.0012
Perceived wellbeing 4.03 −0.164 −0.06342 3.96 −0.215 −0.03814
Social capital 3.51 −0.178 −0.03818 3.32 0.343 −0.01094
Conservation of community 2.79 1.092 0.0102 3.19 0.227 −0.0268
resources
Social structure development 3.11 −1.481 −0.01935 3.02 −0.32 −0.01487
Education 3.98 0.021 0.065 4.28 0.005 0.065
Irrigated area 10.99 −0.003 – 4.03 −0.008 –
Information about project 9.48 −0.048 0.1 8.82 0.004 0.1
Environmental worldview 32.11 −0.037 0.02 32.94 0.021 0.02
Religious values 33.67 0.017 0.02 33.53 −0.044 0.02

{start} was the year which project was started and the calculation for
slope too (1984), and
{finish} was the year which study was finished and the calculation
for slope too (2005).
In the simulation model, it was assumed that if the model is success-
ful, it can predict the mean score of rural and agricultural economic con-
ditions parameter at T2 (after project).
All variables (except variable called project) were auxiliary variables
(Any dynamic variable that is computed from other variables at a given
time. Auxiliaries are typically the most numerous variable type. An aux-
iliary variable has an expression involving other variables in its equation
(Vensim PLE help, 2016)). For all variables, the unit of measurement
was point per year, except education and irrigated area. Education and
irrigated area units were year and hectare per year, respectively. Vari-
ables of all regression coefficients' unit were point per year.
Fig. 1 illustrates the simulated model for rural and agricultural socio
economic condition in Gareh-Bygone plain FWSP.
In this simulation example we were constrained to develop our
model only within Ahmadvand and Karami (2009) study boundaries.
Other relationships among parameters could also have been simulated,
but were not considered because the model needed to be comparable to
the baseline study (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009).
5.3. 6.3. Result of SIA by SD simulation
The results showed that the rural and agricultural economic condi-
tions scores ranged from 2.49 to 3.43 in the villages with projects and
from 3.27 to 3.06 in the villages without projects (Fig. 2 and Table 6)
within the time span of 1984–2005. In comparison to villages without
project, the significant increase in rural and agricultural economic con-
dition score of villages with project during this period is an indicator of
project success.
Validation of a simulation involves understanding the extent to
which the model is a good representation of the processes that generat-
ed the observed data (Miller and Page, 2004; Windrum et al., 2007;
Zimbres and de Oliveira, 2009). In order to validate the simulation of
this study, the model's results were compared to findings of
Ahmadvand and Karami (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009) study.

religous irrigated area

religous values effect
values effect irrigated
area project
environmental
worldview education
effect
environmental
worldview effect education
<project>
social structure constant
development

Rural social capital

social structure Economic effect
development effect
Condition
quality of life social
capital

quality of information
life effect about project <project>
effect

percived percived conservation of information

wellbeing wellbeing conservation of community about project
effect community resource effect
resource

<project>

Fig. 1. Rural and agricultural economic conditions' simulation model.

32 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34
1984 1990 1995 2000 2005
Continuous line: villages with project
Discrete line: villages without project
Fig. 2. Simulated results for rural and agricultural economic conditions in village with and
without FWS project.
Ahmadvand and Karami (Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009) indicated that
the rural and agricultural economic conditions score changed from 2.50
to 2.72 and from 3.26 to 2.17 in villages with and without project, re-
spectively (Table 5). Although the direction of rural and agricultural
economic conditions in the simulation model was the same as the orig-
inal work, the simulated scores were somewhat inflated. That is the
simulation model indicated that rural and agricultural economic condi-
tions scores have changed from 2.50 to 3.43 and from 3.26 to 3.06 in vil-
lages with and without project, respectively.
6. Conclusion
The purpose of this paper is to introduce system dynamic (SD) sim-
ulation as a new predictive SIA method in large development physical
infrastructure projects where it may be possible to quantify certain so-
cial impacts in a meaningful and relevant way. As most SIA problems
are complex and difficult to address with traditional analytical and sta-
tistical techniques, computer simulations provides an opportunity to
deal with this issue due to low cost, speed, reproducibility, preparation,
and flexibility. System dynamic is a computer simulation method which
could be used as a predictive SIA method. SD models a system by break-
ing it into different elements and modelling the interrelationship
among elements, particularly at an abstraction level.
The data from SIA of Gareh-Bygone floodwater spreading project
(FWSP) (Ahmadvand et al., 2011; Ahmadvand and Karami, 2009) was
used to validate our argument regarding the possibility of SD as a pre-
dictive SIA method. Based on the data we developed an integrated agri-
cultural socio-economic impact model with dynamic linkage among
socio-economic, farm structure, and attitude components. The two sce-
narios which analyzed by model included village with and without FWS
project.
The simulated model of this study indicated the same trend in rural
economic condition of the villages with and without water spreading
project as the conventional SIA study of Ahmadvand and Karami
(2009). Although, the simulation results were somewhat inflated. This
difference could be due to following factors: (1) the low R2 of regression
model developed by original data reported by Ahmadvand and Karami
(2009); and (2) linear relationship assumption between parameters in
Table 6
Agricultural economic conditions results of different SIA methods.
SIA methods Rural with project Rural without project
Before After Before
Conventional 2.50 2.72 3.26
Simulation 2.50 3.43 3.26
4 the original model. The SD simulation has the potential to consider
both linear and non-linear relationships and unlike regression model
3.5
to extrapolate for a long range of time. Considering the fact that this
3 study used only data from one study with all its limitations, exploration
2.5 of potential of SD to SIA needs further application of this approach in a
wider range of conditions and scenarios.
2
1.5
Financial support
1
0.5 This research was supported by Shiraz University (no. 94-GR-AGR-
7) and a grant (no. BN025) from the National Elites Foundation.
0
References
Agami, N., Saleh, M., El-Shishiny, H., 2010. A fuzzy logic based trend impact analysis meth-
od. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.009.
Ahmad, S., Simonovic, S., 2000. System dynamics modeling of reservoir operations for
flood management. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 14 (3), 190–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0887-3801(2000)14:3(190).
Ahmadvand, M., Karami, E., 2009. A social impact assessment of the floodwater spreading
project on the Gareh-Bygone plain in Iran: a causal comparative approach. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 29 (2), 126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.08.001.
Ahmadvand, M., Karami, E., Zamani, G.H., Vanclay, F., 2009. Evaluating the use of social
impact assessment in the context of agricultural development projects in Iran. Envi-
ron. Impact Assess. Rev. 29 (6), 399–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.03.
002.
Ahmadvand, M., Karami, E., Iman, M.T., 2011. Modeling the determinants of the social im-
pacts of agricultural development projects. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31 (1), 8–16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.06.004.
Apperly, I.a., 2008. Beyond simulation-theory and theory-theory: why social cognitive
neuroscience should use its own concepts to study “theory of mind”. Cognition 107
(1), 266–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.019.
Asselin, J., Parkins, J.R., 2009. Comparative case study as social impact assessment: possi-
bilities and limitations for anticipating social change in the far north. Soc. Indic. Res.
94 (3), 483–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9444-7.
Axelrod, R., 2006. Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Handbook of Re-
search on Nature Inspired Computing for Economy and Management. 12(3),
pp. 90–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199711/12)3:2b16::AID-
CPLX4N3.0.CO;2-K.
Barrow, C.J., 2000. Social Impact Assessment: An Introduction. Arnold. Elsevier B.V, Lon-
don http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.04.003.
Barrow, C.J., 2010. How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA? Environ. Impact As-
sess. Rev. 30 (5), 293–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.001.
Basa, K.K., 2007. Social Impact Assessment (A MODULE).
Bazinger, C., Kühberger, A., 2012. Is social projection based on simulation or theory? Why
new methods are needed for differentiating. New Ideas Psychol. 30 (3), 328–335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2012.01.002.
Becker, H.A., 2001. Social Impact Assessment. 128 pp. 311–321.
Becker, D.R., Harris, C.C., McLaughlin, W.J., Nielsen, E.a., 2003. A participatory approach to
social impact assessment: the interactive community forum. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 23 (3), 367–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00098-7.
Becker, D., Harris, C., Nielsen, E., McLaughlin, W., 2004. A comparison of a technical and a
participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Project Apprais-
al 22 (3), 177–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765932.
Becu, N., Bousquet, F., Barreteau, O., Perez, P., and Walker, A. (2003). A Methodology for
eliciting and modelling stakeholders' representations with agent based modelling.
Edited by: Carbonell, J.G., and Siekmann, J. (2003). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelli-
gence, 131–148.
Billari, F.C., Ongaro, F., Prskawetz, A., 2003. Introduction: agent-based computational de-
mography. In: Billari, F.C., Prskawetz, A. (Eds.), Agent-Based Computational Demogra-
phy: Using Simulation to Improve Our Understanding of Demographic Behaviour.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin.
Boskma, P., 1986. Social impact assessment by social simulation. Impact Assess. 4 (3–4),
133–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1986.9725781.
Cai, L., 2006. System dynamics application to the population growth and garbage disposal
in Beijing. Beijing Social Science 3, 56–61.
Chen, S., 2003. Agent-based computational macro-economic: a survey. In: Terano, T.,
Deguchi, H., Takadama, K. (Eds.), Meeting the Challenge of Social Problems Via
Agent-Based Simulation. Springer, Yokohama, pp. 141–170.
Chen, X., Lupi, F., An, L., Sheely, R., Viña, A., Liu, J., 2012. Agent-based modeling of the ef-
fects of social norms on enrollment in payments for ecosystem services. Ecol. Model.
229, 16–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.06.007.
Cioffi-Revilla, C., 2014. On the quality of social simulation model: a lifecycle framework.
In: Kaminski, B., Koloch, G. (Eds.), Advances in Social Simulation. Springer-Verlag Ber-
lin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 13–23.
Cope, S., Frewer, L.J., Renn, O., Dreyer, M., 2010. Potential methods and approaches to as-
sess social impacts associated with food safety issues. Food Control 21 (12),
After 1629–1637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.05.008.
2.17 Costanza, R., Duplisea, D., Kautsky, U., 1998. Ecological modelling on modelling ecological
and economic systems with STELLA. Ecol. Model. 110 (1), 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3.06
1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.030.
 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34
Coyle, R.G., 1996. System Dynamics Modelling: A Practical Approach. Chapman and Hall,
Hong Kong.
Dabbaghian, V., Jackson, P., Spicer, V., Wuschke, K., 2010. A cellular automata model on
residential migration in response to neighborhood social dynamics. Math. Comput.
Model. 52 (9–10), 1752–1762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.07.002.
Deaton, M.L., Winebrake, J.J., 2000. Dynamic modeling of environmental systems. Spring-
er, New York.
du Pisani, J.a., Sandham, L.a., 2006. Assessing the performance of SIA in the EIA context: a
case study of South Africa. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26 (8), 707–724. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.07.002.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new eco-
logical paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 425–442.
Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resources Mannual, (EIATR), 2002,. Social
Impacts Assessment Tools and Methods. Retrieved from http://www.unep.ch/etu/
publications/EIA_2ed/EIA_E_top13_hd1.pdf.
Ermolieva, T., 2005. Simulation-based optimization of social security systems under un-
certainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 166 (3), 782–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.
03.044.
Esteves, A.M., Vanclay, F., 2009. Social development needs analysis as a tool for SIA to
guide corporate-community investment: applications in the minerals industry. Envi-
ron. Impact Assess. Rev. 29 (2), 137–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.08.
004.
Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., Vanclay, F., 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art.
Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 30 (1), 34–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.
2012.660356.
Ettema, D., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H., 2011. Social influences on household location,
mobility and activity choice in integrated micro-simulation models. Transp. Res. A
Policy Pract. 45 (4), 283–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.01.010.
Ferscha, A., Zia, K., Riener, A., Sharpanskykh, A., 2011. Potential of social modelling in
socio-technical systems. Proc. Comput. Sci. 7, 235–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2011.09.051.
Figueredo, G.P., Aickelin, U., 2011. Comparing System Dynamics and Agent-Based
Simulation for Tumour Growth and its Interactions With Effector Cells. … of
the 2011 Summer Computer Simulation …. p. 8http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3235
(Retrieved from).
Figueredo, G.P., Aickelin, U., Siebers, P., 2011. Systems dynamics or agent-based model-
ling. 10th International Conference on Artificial Immune Systems (ICARIS 2011),
pp. 81–94.
Forester, J.W., 1969. Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press.
Francis, P., Jacobs, S., 1999. Institutionalizing social analysis at the World Bank. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 19 (3), 341–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-
9255(99)00004-9.
Galland, S., Knapen, L., Yasar, A.-U.-H., Gaud, N., Janssens, D., Lamotte, O., ... Wets, G., 2014.
Multi-agent simulation of individual mobility behavior in carpooling. Transp. Res. C
Emerg. Technol. 45, 83–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.012.
Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P., 2009. The epistemologies of social simulation research. In:
Squazzoni, F. (Ed.), Epistemological Aspects of Computer Simulation in Social Sci-
ences. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 12–28.
Greiner, R., Puig, J., Huchery, C., Collier, N., Garnett, S.T., 2014. Scenario modelling to sup-
port industry strategic planning and decision making. Environ. Model. Softw. 55,
120–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.011.
Gruber, T., 1995. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge shar-
ing. Int. J. Human Comput. Stud. 43 (5–6), 907–928 (doi:citeulike-article-id:230211).
Harvey, S., Mcmahon, L., Humphries, R., 2011. Routes for Social and Health Care A Simu-
lation Exercise.
Hassan, S., Antunes, L., Pavon, J., 2010. Mentat: a data-driven agent-based simulation of
social values evolution. Multi-agent-based Simulation X. Springer, pp. 135–147.
He, R., Liu, S., Liu, Y., 2011. Application of SD model in analyzing the cultivated land car-
rying capacity: a case study in Bijie Prefecture, Guizho Province, China. Prog. Environ.
Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2011.09.311.
Helleboogh, A., Holvoet, T., Weyns, D., Berbers, Y., 2005. Extending time management
support for multi-agent systems. In: Davidsson, P., Logan, B., Takamada, K. (Eds.),
Multi-agent and Multi-agent-based Simulation. Springer, pp. 37–48 http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-540-32243-6_16.
Iba, H., 2013. Agent-based Modeling and Simulation With Swarm.
Iran's Statistical Center, 2015. Iran's annual statistical reports. Iran's Statistical Center Pub-
lications, Tehran Available at: http://www.amar.org.ir/.
Kasprzyk, J.R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P.M., Lempert, R.J., 2013. Many objective robust decision
making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environ. Model.
Softw. 42, 55–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007.
Lockie, S., Franettovich, M., Petkova-Timmer, V., Rolfe, J., Ivanova, G., 2009. Coal mining
and the resource community cycle: a longitudinal assessment of the social impacts
of the Coppabella coal mine. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29 (5), 330–339. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.008.
Ma, C., Zhang, G.Y., Zhang, X.C., Zhou, B., Mao, T.Y., 2012. Simulation modeling for wetland
utilization and protection based on system dynamic model in a coastal city, China.
Prog. Environ. Sci. 13 (2011), 202–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.
019.
Macal, C.M., 2010. To agent-based simulation from system dynamics. Proceedings of the
2010 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 135–150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WSC.
2010.5679148.
Macfarlane, M., 1999. An Evaluation of Social Impact Assessment Methodologies in the
Mining Industry. Univeristy of Bath.
Mahmoudi, H., Renn, O., Vanclay, F., Hoffmann, V., Karami, E., 2013. A framework for com-
bining social impact assessment and risk assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43,
1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.003.
33
McRoberts, K.C., Nicholson, C.F., Blake, R.W., Tucker, T.W., Díaz Padilla, G., 2013. Group
model building to assess rural dairy cooperative feasibility in South-Central Mexico.
Int. Food Agribusiness Manag. Rev. 16 (3), 55–98.
Miller, J.H., Page, S.E., 2004. The standing ovation problem. Complexity 9 (5), 8–16. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20033.
Parsons, D., Nicholson, C.F., Blake, R.W., Ketterings, Q.M., Ramírez-aviles, L., Fox, D.G., ...
Cherney, J.H., 2011. Development and evaluation of an integrated simulation model
for assessing smallholder crop – livestock production in Yucatán, Mexico. Agric.
Syst. 104 (1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.006.
Pavón, J., Arroyo, M., Hassan, S., Sansores, C., 2008. Agent-based modelling and simulation
for the analysis of social patterns. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 29 (8), 1039–1048. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2007.06.021.
Perez-Mujica, L., Duncan, R., Bossomaier, T., 2014. Using agent-based models to design so-
cial marketing campaign. Australas. Mark. J. AMJ 22 (1), 36–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ausmj.2013.12.006.
Prenzel, P.V., Vanclay, F., 2014. How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict
management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 45, 30–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2013.11.003.
Raptis, K., Vouros, G.a., Kapros, E., 2013. Exploring factors and policies for poverty by
agent-based simulation. Proc. Comput. Sci. 16, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2013.01.001.
Reed, M.S., Kenter, J., Bonn, a., Broad, K., Burt, T.P., Fazey, I.R., et al., Ravera, F., 2013. Par-
ticipatory scenario development for environmental management: a methodological
framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. J. Environ. Manag.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016.
Reynoso-Campos, O., Fox, D.G., Blake, R.W., Barry, M.C., Tedeschi, L.O., Nicholson, C.F., ...
Oltenacu, P.a., 2004. Predicting nutritional requirements and lactation performance
of dual-purpose cows using a dynamic model. Agric. Syst. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.agsy.2003.06.003.
Rivera, E.E.A., 2007. Systems models to evaluate eutrophication in the Broa Reservoir, São
Carlos, Brazil. Ecol. Model. 202, 518–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.
11.016.
Ronald, N., Dignum, V., Jonker, C., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H., 2012. On the engineering
of agent-based simulations of social activities with social networks. Inf. Softw.
Technol. 54 (6), 625–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.12.004.
Sairinen, R., Kumpulainen, S., 2006. Assessing social impacts in urban waterfront regener-
ation. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26 (1), 120–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.
2005.05.003.
Sairinen, R., Barrow, C., Karjalainen, T.P., 2010. Environmental conflict mediation
and social impact assessment: approaches for enhanced environmental gover-
nance? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30 (5), 289–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2010.04.011.
Sakas, D.P., Vlachos, D.S., Gikas, S.I., 2013. Simulation model for motivating the creation of
entrepreneurship actions. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 73, 354–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.062.
Saqalli, M., Gérard, B., Bielders, C., Defourny, P., 2010. Testing the impact of social forces on
the evolution of Sahelian farming systems: a combined agent-based modeling and
anthropological approach. Ecol. Model. 221 (22), 2714–2727. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.08.004.
Schirmer, J., 2011. Scaling up: assessing social impacts at the macro-scale. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 31 (3), 382–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.12.007.
Simonovic, S.P., 2002. World water dynamics: global modeling of water resources.
J. Environ. Manag. 66 (3), 249–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.
0585.
Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F., van Schooten, M., 2001. Function evaluation as a framework for
the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess. Pro-
ject Appraisal 19 (1), 19–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767186.
Stephens, E.C., Nicholson, C.F., Brown, D.R., Parsons, D., Barrett, C.B., Lehmann, J., ... Riha,
S.J., 2012. Modeling the impact of natural resource-based poverty traps on food secu-
rity in Kenya: the crops, livestock and soils in smallholder economic systems (CLAS-
SES) model. Food Sec. 4 (3), 423–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0176-1.
Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex
world. Management http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601336.
Sun, R., 2006. Cognitive and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social
Simulation.
Takahashi, S., Sallach, D., Rouchier, J., 2008. Advancing Social Simulation: The First World
Congress: The First World Congress (Google eBook). p. 370 Retrieved from http://
books.google.com/books?id=jvkxp1QTDpkC&pgis=1.
Tang, B., Wong, S., Lau, M.C., 2008. Social impact assessment and public participation in
China: a case study of land requisition in Guangzhou. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
28 (1), 57–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.004.
Tangirala, A.K., Teegavarapu, R.S.V., Ormsbee, L., 2003. Modeling adaptive water quality
management strategies using system dynamics simulation. Environ. Inform. Arch. 1,
245–253.
Tao, G., Xiaojian, Z., Tiexin, C., 2011. Evaluation of wetland ecological restoration project
based on SD: a case study on Qilihai Wetland in Tianjin. Prog. Environ. Sci. 10,
2587–2593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2011.09.402 (Esiat).
Tedeschi, L.O., Nicholson, C.F., Rich, E., 2011. Using system dynamics modelling ap-
proach to develop management tools for animal production with emphasis on
small ruminants. Small Rumin. Res. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.
2011.03.026.
Tissera, P.C., Castro, A., Printista, a.M., Luque, E., 2013. Evacuation simulation supporting
high level behaviour-based agents. Proc. Comput. Sci. 18, 1495–1504. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.317.
Tolk, A., 2013. Ontology, Epistemology, and Teleology for Modeling and Simulation.
Springer, London.
34 S. Karami et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62 (2017) 25–34
Vanclay, F., 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 22 (3),
183–211.
Vanclay, F., 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess.
Proj. Apprais 21, 5–12.
Vanclay, F., 2006. Principles for social impact assessment: a critical comparison between
the international and US documents. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26 (1), 3–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.05.002.
Vensim PLE help, 2016. Vensim PLE software help. Available at: http://vensim.com/.
Vidal-Legaz, B., Martínez-Fernández, J., Picón, A.S., Pugnaire, F.I., 2013. Trade-offs between
maintenance of ecosystem services and socio-economic development in rural moun-
tainous communities in southern Spain: a dynamic simulation approach. J. Environ.
Manag. 131, 280–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.036.
Wei, S., Yang, H., Song, J., Abbaspour, K.C., Xu, Z., 2012. System dynamics simulation
model for assessing socio-economic impacts of different levels of environmental
flow allocation in the Weihe River Basin, China. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 221 (1), 248–262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.03.014.
Windrum, P., Fagiolo, G., Moneta, A., 2007. Empirical validation of agent-based models: al-
ternatives and prospects. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simulation 10 (2), 8 (doi:Article).
Winz, I., Brierly, G., Cavana, R., 2007. The use of system dynamics simulation in integrated
water resources management. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference of
the System Dynamics Society, pp. 1–26.
Xi, X., Poh, K.L., 2013. Using system dynamics for sustainable water resources manage-
ment in Singapore. Proc. Comput. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.017.
Xu, Z.X., Takeuchi, K., Ishidaira, H., Zhang, X.W., 2002. Sustainability analysis for Yellow
River water resources using the system dynamics approach. Water Resour. Manag.
16, 239–261.
Yu, T., Zhang, L., 2013. An agent-based model of social norm and cooperation. Proc.
Comput. Sci. 17, 951–957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.121.
Zhan, S.F., Zhang, X.C., Ma, C., Chen, W.P., 2012. Dynamic modelling for ecological and eco-
nomic sustainability in a rapid urbanizing region. Prog. Environ. Sci. 13 (2011),
242–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.023.
Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Wu, L., 2012. Research on demand-driven leagile supply chain oper-
ation model: a simulation based on AnyLogic in system engineering. Syst. Eng. Proc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sepro.2011.11.027.
Zimbres, R.a., de Oliveira, P.P.B., 2009. Dynamics of quality perception in a social network:
a cellular automaton based model in aesthetics services. Electron. Notes Theor.
Comput. Sci. 252, 157–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2009.09.020.