| Literature DB >> 24701380 |
Hai Chen1, Xiaoying Liang2, Rui Li3.
Abstract
Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) offer a conceptual approach to include multi-actor decision making into models of land use change. Through the simulation based on the MAS, this paper tries to show the application of MAS in the micro scale LUCC, and reveal the transformation mechanism of difference scale. This paper starts with a description of the context of MAS research. Then, it adopts the Nested Spatial Choice (NSC) method to construct the multi-scale LUCC decision-making model. And a case study for Mengcha village, Mizhi County, Shaanxi Province is reported. Finally, the potentials and drawbacks of the following approach is discussed and concluded. From our design and implementation of the MAS in multi-scale model, a number of observations and conclusions can be drawn on the implementation and future research directions. (1) The use of the LUCC decision-making and multi-scale transformation framework provides, according to us, a more realistic modeling of multi-scale decision making process. (2) By using continuous function, rather than discrete function, to construct the decision-making of the households is more realistic to reflect the effect. (3) In this paper, attempts have been made to give a quantitative analysis to research the household interaction. And it provides the premise and foundation for researching the communication and learning among the households. (4) The scale transformation architecture constructed in this paper helps to accumulate theory and experience for the interaction research between the micro land use decision-making and the macro land use landscape pattern. Our future research work will focus on: (1) how to rational use risk aversion principle, and put the rule on rotation between household parcels into model. (2) Exploring the methods aiming at researching the household decision-making over a long period, it allows us to find the bridge between the long-term LUCC data and the short-term household decision-making. (3) Researching the quantitative method and model, especially the scenario analysis model which may reflect the interaction among different household types.Entities:
Keywords: MAS; household; multi-scale; the framework of the decision-making
Year: 2013 PMID: 24701380 PMCID: PMC3973413 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-S1-S12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Figure 1The scale transformation mechanism from individual household decision-making to the whole household decision-making.
The crop importance of the planted households
| The typical household | Corn | Vegetable | Other crops |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.06 | 0.94 | 0.00 |
| 2 | 0.13 | 0.87 | 0.00 |
| 3 | 0.73 | 0.27 | 0.00 |
| 4 | 0.70 | 0.30 | 0.00 |
| 5 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.99 |
| 6 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.95 |
| 7 | 0.28 | 0.47 | 0.25 |
| 8 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
The interaction between households
| The interaction coefficient | The interaction among households | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 0.94 | 0.01 | - | 0.01 | 0.05 | - |
| 2 | 0.87 | 0.09 | - | 0.11 | 0.07 | - |
| 3 | 0.37 | 0.71 | - | 0.22 | 0.20 | - |
| 4 | 0.82 | 0.69 | - | 0.09 | 0.23 | - |
| 5 | 0.99 | - | 0.00 | 0.01 | - | 0.00 |
| 6 | 0.95 | - | 0.04 | 0.04 | - | 0.04 |
| 7 | 0.65 | 0.88 | 0.75 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.19 |
| 8 | 0.86 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 0.09 |
The effect of the market to the whole household and to the individuals
| The difference level effect of the market | Corn | Vegetable | other crops | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The effect to the whole household | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | -0.25 | 0.21 | 0 | |
| 4 | -0.03 | 0.19 | 0 | |
| 5 | 0 | 0.51 | -0.84 | |
| 6 | 0 | 0.45 | -0.79 | |
| 7 | 0 | 0.34 | -0.09 | |
| 8 | 0 | 0.27 | 0 | |
| The effect to the whole household | 0.35 | 0.49 | 0.16 | |
The final decision-making of the household
| The final decision-making of the household ( | The standardization of the final decision-making ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 0.11 | 0.95 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.88 | 0.01 |
| 2 | 0.24 | 0.95 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.78 | 0.02 |
| 3 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.02 | 0.52 | 0.46 | 0.02 |
| 4 | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.02 | 0.54 | 0.45 | 0.01 |
| 5 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.31 | 0.61 |
| 6 | 0.04 | 0.54 | 0.20 | 0.05 | 0.69 | 0.26 |
| 7 | 0.65 | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.24 | 0.32 |
| 8 | 0.43 | 0.73 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.51 | 0.19 |
The illustrate of the error count and types of the household
| The household type | The household count | The error type and count | The accuracy rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type1 | 40 | Risk averse(2), decision-making(1) | 92.5% |
| Type2 | 30 | Risk averse(2), decision-making(1) | 90.0% |
| Type3 | 13 | 0 | 100% |
| Total | 83 | 6 | 92.7% |
The decision-making type of the household groups
| Household group type | Corn | Vegetable | Other crops |
|---|---|---|---|
| Household group 1 | 0.26 | 0.55 | 0.19 |
| Household group2 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.20 |
| Household group 3 | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.26 |
| The whole household | 0.31 | 0.47 | 0.22 |
The illustration of the errors
| Household group type | The household count | The error type and count | The accuracy rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Household group 1 | 40 | Risk averse (2), decision-making (3) | 87.5% |
| Household group 2 | 30 | Risk averse (2), decision-making (2) | 86.7% |
| Household group 3 | 13 | 0 | 100% |
| The whole households | 83 | The above-mention (9) + decision-making (1) | 87.9% |
Figure 2The error of the decision-making.