sustainability

Article
System Dynamics versus Agent-Based Modeling:
A Review of Complexity Simulation in Construction
Waste Management
Zhikun Ding, Wenyan Gong, Shenghan Li and Zezhou Wu *
Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University,
Shenzhen 518060, China; ddzk@szu.edu.cn (Z.D.); gwy920230@163.com (W.G.); shenghan@szu.edu.cn (S.L.)
* Correspondence: wuzezhou@szu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-755-2653-4286




Received: 29 June 2018; Accepted: 11 July 2018; Published: 16 July 2018


Abstract: The environmental impacts caused by construction waste have attracted increasing
attention in recent years. The effective management of construction waste is essential in order
to reduce negative environmental influences. Construction waste management (CWM) can be
viewed as a complex adaptive system, as it involves not only various factors (e.g., social, economic,
and environmental), but also different stakeholders (such as developers, contractors, designers,
and governmental departments) simultaneously. System dynamics (SD) and agent-based modeling
(ABM) are the two most popular approaches to deal with the complexity in CWM systems. However,
the two approaches have their own advantages and drawbacks. The aim of this research is to conduct
a comprehensive review and develop a novel model for combining the advantages of both SD and
ABM. The research findings revealed that two options can be considered when combining SD with
ABM; the two options are discussed.

Keywords: construction waste management; system dynamics; agent-based modeling

1. Introduction
With the fast urbanization and rapid growth of construction activities, the amount of construction
waste has been increasing significantly in past years [1–3]. In the United States, the generation of
construction debris was 530 million tons in 2013; cement concrete and asphalt concrete constituted the
top two components [4]. In the European Union (EU), it was reported that construction waste represents
approximately 25–30% of all EU waste; however, the recycling rate was very low [5]. In Hong Kong,
the generation of construction waste also took a great proportion of total solid waste, representing
about one third in 2014 and 2015, respectively [6]. It also encouraged the environmentally sound
management of construction waste in China [2,7,8]. From the above statistics, it can be seen that there
is an urgent need for effective construction waste management. So far, relevant waste management
policies and strategies have been investigated, such as waste effective design [9], on-site sorting [10],
barcode system [11], low waste technology [12], prefabrication [13,14], lean management [15], building
information modeling [16], etc.
The implementation of construction projects involves complexity and dynamics. Alvanchi, et al. [17]
claimed that the modeling of construction systems aims to improve construction work performance by
tracking the dynamic behavior of construction systems. From a systematics perspective, construction
waste management (CWM) can be viewed as a complex adaptive system (CAS). A CAS is defined
as “a system in which a perfect understanding of the individual parts does not automatically convey
a perfect understanding of the whole system’s behavior” [18]. It is a collection of individual agents
that are free to act in ways that are not totally predictable [19]. However, the actions of agents are

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484; doi:10.3390/su10072484 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 2 of 13

interconnected, which makes it is possible to learn from experiences and adapt to changes according
to the external environment [20].
As CWM involves not only various factors (e.g., social, economic, environmental) but also
different stakeholders (such as developers, contractors, designers, and governmental departments)
simultaneously; thus, bearing the philosophy of complexity to investigate the routes of achieving
effective CWM has great research potential. Scholars have investigated the adaptive characteristics
of CWM systems in the literature. For example, Yuan and Wang [21] employed dynamic modeling
to investigate the economic effectiveness of CWM. Ding, et al. [22] simulated the environmental
performance of construction waste reduction management in China. Au, et al. [23] analyzed the
impacts of government charges on the disposal of construction waste.
System dynamics (SD) and agent-based modeling (ABM) are the two most commonly used
approaches for investigating the complexity in CWM. Each approach has its particular advantages and
drawbacks. For example, the method of SD, as a top–down approach, allows for convenient model
construction and validation. On the contrary, ABM, as a bottom–up approach, allows for sophisticated
interactions between agents and heterogenous state space [24]. Currently, the existing CWM studies
were conducted independently without combining the advantages of the two approaches. However,
the two approaches have great potential for combining with each other so as to be more powerful.
The aim of this research is to thoroughly investigate the applications of SD and ABM in CWM studies,
and to discuss the potential of combining the advantages of SD and ABM in order to comprehensively
deal with CWM complexities. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Firstly, the SD and ABM
approaches are introduced in Section 2. Then, the applications of these two approaches in CWM
studies are reviewed and presented in Section 3. Subsequently, a comparison of the two approaches
is made, and discussions of the combination are made in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are given in
Section 5.

2. Overview of System Dynamics (SD) and Agent-Based Modeling (ABM)

Complexity science has attracted substantial attention from scholars in various disciplines, ranging
from physics, economics, and computer science to social science [25–27]. It deals with the nonlinear
relationships in a complex system, focusing on the characteristics and interaction rules among the
components. To explore the complexity in a complex system, system dynamics (SD) and agent-based
modeling (ABM) are the two most commonly used approaches.

2.1. System Dynamics (SD)

System Dynamics (SD) is a top–down information feedback method that was proposed
by Professor Forrester [28]. The essence of this method is the feedback structures with high
order, multiloop, and nonlinearity. SD is a well-developed approach for visualizing, analyzing,
and understanding complex dynamic feedbacks [29].
Diagramming tools, such as causal loop diagrams (CLDs) and stock–flow diagrams (SFDs),
are used to capture the structure of a complex system [30]. CLDs are able to map the feedback
structures of a complex system; they can show how the system is dynamically influenced by the
interactions of all of the variables. A CLD consists of variables connected by arrows; the arrows denote
the causal influences among the variables. Each causal link is assigned a polarity—either positive (+)
or negative (−)—to indicate how the dependent variables are influenced by the independent variables.
The important loops are highlighted by a loop identifier, showing whether the loops are positive
(reinforcing) or negative (balancing). An illustrative CLD is presented in Figure 1. A positive feedback
illustrates that a change in any of the variables within the causal loop will eventually affect itself in a
positive way, while a negative feedback means that a change on any variables within the causal loop
will affect itself in a negative way [22].
Sustainability
Sustainability2018, 10,10,
2018, 2484
x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 3ofof
1313
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

Figure 1. An illustrative causal loop diagram (CLD).

Figure
Figure 1.
1. An
An illustrative
illustrative causal
causal loop
loop diagram
diagram (CLD).
(CLD).
The
TheCLDs can successfully describe the basic logical structures; however, ininorder to conduct a
The CLDs
CLDs cancan successfully
successfully describe
describe thethe basic
basic logical
logical structures;
structures; however,
however, in orderorder to to conduct
conduct aa
quantitative
quantitative analysis, SFDs should be employed. SFDs can distinguish the nature of different variables
quantitative analysis,
analysis, SFDs
SFDs should
should be be employed.
employed. SFDs SFDs can can distinguish
distinguish the the nature
nature of of different
different
and use integral
variables or integral
differential equations to representtothe described information. Four building
variables and use integral or differential equations to represent the described information. Four
and use or differential equations represent the described information. Four
blocks
buildingare blocks
used toare develop
used toa quantitative
develop a SFD from aSFD
quantitative qualitative
from a CLD: stock,CLD:
qualitative flow, stock,
converter,
flow,
building blocks are used to develop a quantitative SFD from a qualitative CLD: stock, flow,
and connector [31],
converter, as shown in Figure 2. Stocks create delays by accumulating the difference between
converter, and and connector
connector [31],
[31], as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 2. 2. Stocks
Stocks create
create delays
delays by by accumulating
accumulating the the
the inflow and
difference the outflow.
between the By decoupling
inflow and the the ratesBy
outflow. of flows, stocksthe
decoupling are rates
the source
of of disequilibrium
flows, stocks are the
difference between the inflow and the outflow. By decoupling the rates of flows, stocks are the
dynamics.
source Flows are the functions of the stock and other state variables and parameters [30]. The value
source of of disequilibrium
disequilibrium dynamics.
dynamics. Flows
Flows areare the
the functions
functions of of the
the stock
stock and
and other
other state
state variables
variables and
and
ofparameters
a flow can[30].be positive or negative. A positive flow is an inflow that will fill in the stock, while a
parameters [30]. The value of a flow can be positive or negative. A positive flow is an inflow that
The value of a flow can be positive or negative. A positive flow is an inflow that will
will
negative
fill flow is anwhile
outflow drainingflow from the stock. A draining
convertor has athe utilitarianArole in selecting a
fill in
in the
the stock,
stock, while aa negative
negative flow is is an
an outflow
outflow draining from from the stock.
stock. A convertor
convertor hashas a
the proper
utilitarian values and functions of the parameters in the model, and a connector is an information
utilitarian role
role in
in selecting
selecting thethe proper
proper values
values andand functions
functions of of the
the parameters
parameters in in the
the model,
model, and
and aa
transmitter
connector connecting elements [32].
connector is is an
an information
information transmitter
transmitter connecting
connecting elements
elements [32].
[32].

Figure
Figure2.
Figure 2. An
2. An illustrative
An illustrative stock–flow
illustrativestock–flow diagram
diagram
stock–flow (SFD).
(SFD).
diagram (SFD).

A flow chart of the model development and simulation process is

is presented in
in Figure 3.
3. From
AA flow
flow chart
chart of of
thethe model
model development
development andand simulation
simulation process
process presented
is presented in FigureFigure
3. From From
this
this figure,
this figure, it can
it can be seen that the basic procedure of an SD modeling covers the system analysis
figure, it can be seenbethat
seen
thethat theprocedure
basic basic procedure
of an SDof modeling
an SD modeling
covers thecovers the analysis
system system analysis
stage,
stage,
stage, the
the establishment
establishment of
of the
the conceptual
conceptual model stage,
modelthe
stage, the
the establishment
establishment of
of the
the quantitative
quantitative model
model
the establishment of the conceptual model stage, establishment of the quantitative model stage,
stage,
stage, the
the model
model verification
verification stage,
stage, and
and the
the model
model simulation
simulation stage.
stage.
the model verification stage, and the model simulation stage.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 4 of 13

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

1. Explicit modeling purpose and system boundary
Systems Analysis
2. Put forward dynamic hypotheses
1. Explicit modeling purpose and system boundary
Systems Analysis
2. Put forward dynamic hypotheses
3. Distinguish stock, flow, and auxiliary variables
Conceptual Model
4. Establish causal relationships between variables
Repeat in case 3. Distinguish stock, flow, and auxiliary variables
of failure Conceptual Model
4. Establish causal relationships between variables
Repeat in case Quantitative Model 5. Determine the parameter values
of failure
Quantitative Model 5. Determine the parameter values

Model Test 6. Test the validity of the structure

Model Test 6. Test the validity of the structure

Pass the test
Pass the test 7. Model simulation
Model Simulation 8. Simulation results analysis
7. Model simulation
Model Simulation 8. Simulation results analysis

Figure 3. A flow chart of system dynamics (SD) modeling.

Figure 3. A flow chart of system dynamics (SD) modeling.
Figure 3. A flow chart of system dynamics (SD) modeling.
2.2. Agent-Based Modeling (ABM)
2.2. Agent-Based Modeling (ABM)
2.2. Agent-Based Modeling (ABM)
In contrary to SD, agent-based modeling (ABM) is a bottom–up computational modeling
In contrary
approach. Bytousing
In contrarySD,toagent-based
SD, agent-based
ABM, modeling
the individual (ABM)(ABM)
modeling
entities is aabottom–up
in is aare
CAS computational
bottom–up
represented modeling
computational
by discrete approach.
modeling
agents that
By interact
using ABM,
approach. the individual
By using ABM,
autonomously entities
the individual
in a simulated in
space a CAS
entities are represented
in a CAS
to produce by
are represented
emergent discrete agents
by discrete
and non-intuitive that interact
agents that
outcomes at the
autonomously
population in a simulated
interact autonomously
level aspace to produce
[33]. Theininteractions
simulated space
or emergent
to produce and
communications non-intuitive
emergent
among and outcomes
the non-intuitive
agents are made ataccording
the population
outcomes at theto a
level population level [33]. The interactions or communications among the agents
set of predefined “rules” [34]. The rules governing individual agents’ behavior are influentialto
[33]. The interactions or communications among the agents are are
mademade according
according to
toaathe
set
set of
of predefined predefined
“rules” “rules”
[34]. [34].
The The
rules rules governing
governing individual
individual agents’
agents’ behavior
behavior
outcomes/predictions of ABM; thus, it is necessary to tightly couple all of the rule-based algorithms are
areinfluential to
influential the
to the
at outcomes/predictions
outcomes/predictions
all of the stages ofofmodelof ABM;
ABM; thus,
thus, it isit necessary
development. is necessarytototightly
tightlycouple
couple all
all of
of the
the rule-based
rule-basedalgorithms
algorithms at
at all of the stages of model development.
all of theABM
stagescanofbe
model development.
implemented by programming languages (e.g., C, Java, and Python) or specialized
ABM can be implemented by programming languages (e.g., C, Java, and Python) or specialized
toolkits
ABM can suchbeasimplemented
NetLogo, Swarm, and Repast. languages
by programming Generally, (e.g.,
ABMC, follows
Java, andan incremental modeling
Python) or specialized
toolkits such as NetLogo, Swarm, and Repast. Generally, ABM follows an incremental modeling
process
toolkits by as
such starting from aSwarm,
NetLogo, simple model
and Repast.to a complex modelABM
Generally, [35]. This process
follows is illustrated in
an incremental Figure
modeling
process by starting from a simple model to a complex model [35]. This process is illustrated in Figure
4. by starting from a simple model to a complex model [35]. This process is illustrated in Figure 4.
process4.

Figure 4. The process of agent-based modeling (ABM).

Figure 4.
Figure The process
4. The processof
ofagent-based
agent-basedmodeling
modeling(ABM).
(ABM).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 5 of 13

3. The Application of SD and ABM in CWM Studies

Both SD and ABM have been used successfully to explore and understand CASs in different
disciplines [36]. The applications of SD and ABM in CWM studies are presented as follows.

3.1. The Application of SD in CWM Research

A CWM system involves various aspects: waste generation, reduction, reuse, recycling,
transportation, etc. Several factors can affect the process of CWM, such as environment-related
factors, economic-related factors, social-related factors, etc. There are interactions among these factors;
thus, it is necessary to select an appropriate technique to simulate the complex relationships. SD can
be used to investigate CWM systems, because it could not only precisely describe the cause–effect
relationships among the quantitative variables, it could also properly define qualitative variables.
A summary of SD application in CWM studies is shown in Table 1. From Table 1, it can be seen that
the previous studies mainly focused on the general aspects of CWM, such as policy, the environment,
the economy, society, and construction waste management issues. In terms of modeling software,
iThink, Vensim, and Stella are the most popular.

Table 1. Construction waste management (CWM)-related studies based on system dynamics (SD).

Topic Selected Paper Software Main Focus

Develop an SD-based model to determine an optimal charging system that
[37] Vensim
could reduce construction waste generation and maximize waste recycling.
Assess the effectiveness of two policies (i.e., incentives and tax penalties) to
Policy [38] Vensim evaluate how the government can influence the behavior of firms in terms
of construction waste recycling.
Evaluate the possible impacts arising from the application of prefabrication
[39] Vensim
on construction waste reduction.
Develop an SD-based model for evaluating the environmental performance
[40] iThink
of CWM.
Environment
Simulate the environmental performance of construction waste
[22] Vensim
reduction management.
Develop an SD-based model for quantitatively evaluating the social
Society [41] iThink
performance of CWM to provide insights for an effective promotion.
Highlight the dynamics and interrelationships of CWM practices and
[42] iThink
analyze the cost–benefit of this process.
Investigate the economic effectiveness of CWM and provide insightful
Economy [21] Vensim
recommendations for decision making.
Analyze the cost and benefit of CWM from the standpoint of the contractor,
[43] iThink
and simulate the effects of economic compensations and penalties.
Evaluate alternative types of recycling centers under different policy and
Policy–economy [44] Vensim
economy scenarios.
Evaluate the impacts of two alternatives (i.e., recycling and disposing)
Environment–economy [45] Stella
for CWM.
Develop an SD-based model by incorporating the relationships of major
[46] Stella activities to assist practitioners in better understanding the complexity
of CDW.
Develop a simulation model that can better reveal the interrelationships of
[47] iThink
factors during the on-site waste sorting process.
Develop a model of on-site construction waste management.
[48] Stella The interconnections of the main activities are included in the model, with
Management a focus on planning and management.
Develop a simulation model integrating four sub-systems including
[49] iThink construction waste generation, on-site waste sorting, waste landfill,
and public filling.
Propose a model that can serve as a decision support tool for construction
[50] iThink waste reduction and provide a platform for simulating the effects of
various reduction strategies.
Examine the complexity of CWM by analyzing waste generation,
[51] Stella
transportation, recycling, landfilling, and illegal dumping.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 6 of 13

Although SD has been successfully employed in CWM research, some limitations were identified
during application. Generally speaking, the SD model is based on the idea that all of the dynamics
occur due to the accumulation of flows in stocks. Through a literature review, it was found that
SD models did not provide an appropriate means to depict individual differences (e.g., various
waste management participants’ preferences and waste collection levels). For instance, the SD model
established by Yuan, et al. [42] only showed that the environmental awareness had an influence on
waste generation and recycling. In other words, it was assumed that the interaction differences between
related stakeholders (e.g., contractors, governments, designers) and the information distribution among
them are homogeneous. However, in reality, the environmental awareness of different stakeholders is
different; the environmental awareness among stakeholders may interact with each other. Thus, SD has
a drawback that cannot provide full interpretations of how the microscopic stakeholders’ behavior
would affect the emergent macro phenomena. It is necessary to explore a solution to investigate CWM
more comprehensively.

3.2. The Application of ABM in CWM Research

A CWM system involves various stakeholders, such as contractors, developers, transportation
companies, recycling/landfilling centers, government departments, etc. These stakeholders are
adaptable to the environment; they can communicate with the environment to change their behavior
through continuous learning and the accumulation of experience. Hence, a bottom–up ABM method
is capable of bridging the gap between microscopic behavior and macro phenomena in a CWM
system [52].
Previous research using ABM primarily focused on the treatment alternatives of construction
waste. Based on empirical data, Knoeri, et al. [53] presented an ABM of the Swiss recycled construction
material market. It was found that raising construction stakeholders’ awareness of recycled materials
in combination with small price incentives was most effective for promoting the use of recycled
materials. Gan and Cheng [54] employed ABM to analyze the dynamic network of a backfill supply
chain so as to maximize the backfill recovery and reduce the amount of construction waste to landfills.
Ding, et al. [55] developed an ABM for simulating CWM measures to reveal interactions between
the primary stakeholders and impacts on the environment. The construction waste generation and
effects of various policies were investigated. In terms of the waste generated from demolition activities,
Ding, et al. [56] compared the differences of environmental impacts between green demolition and
traditional dismantling using the ABM method.
From the above research, it can be concluded that ABM is more applicable to simulate a dynamic
system due to its decentralization and fast reaction to unexpected disturbances. ABM has the advantage
of direct one-to-one mapping between real and virtual agents in terms of parameter acquisition from
experiments and model validation. In a CWM simulation model, agents are divided according
to CWM stakeholders, such as construction enterprises, demolition companies, and transportation
companies. Each agent has its own states, attributes, and behavior, allowing ABM to investigate
system complexity and interactions from a lower individual agent level to emergent results at a higher
level [57]. ABM generally focuses on micro-level interactions that may explain emergent patterns
such as waste environmental performance at a system level. However, it ignores the feedback effect
of various social and economic factors on the individuals. For example, in the ABM developed by
Ding, et al. [55], the interactions between the agents and the economic and social environment were
not considered.

4. Discussion
From the above literature review, it can be seen that both SD and ABM have been successfully
applied to investigate CWM-related studies. However, there are drawbacks for each approach. It is
worthwhile to explore the possibility of combining the advantages of the two approaches.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 7 of 13

4.1. Comparison of SD and ABM

Both SD and ABM can explore complexity problems in a CAS; however, there are differences
between the two approaches:
• SD is usually used to analyze problems from a macro and holistic-thinking perspective. It is
Sustainability 2018,modeling
a “top–down” 10, x FOR PEERapproach
REVIEW that can avoid the limitations of one-sided thinking 7 of 13 (e.g.,
the micro perspective) and help understand the structure behind
Both SD and ABM can explore complexity problems in a CAS; however, there are differencesa complex phenomenon [58].
An between
SD model the twocan be used to study a dynamic evolution process under different situations.
approaches:
The• philosophical foundation is reductionism. Reductionism is a process of breaking complex
SD is usually used to analyze problems from a macro and holistic-thinking perspective. It is a
entities,“top–down”
concepts, modeling
or phenomena
approachdown that caninto
avoidtheir
the smallest
limitationsconstituents; it can (e.g.,
of one-sided thinking transform
the ideas
into simplemicroforms [59]. However,
perspective) SD is often
and help understand the criticized, because
structure behind a complex
a complex system[58].
phenomenon cannot
An be fully
understood SD model candealing
by just be used with
to study a dynamic
a single evolution
discipline. In process
terms of under
the different
CWM system,situations.
SDThe cannot give
philosophical foundation is reductionism. Reductionism is a process of breaking complex
a profound explanation of the micro behaviors in the system, because it ignores the relationship
entities, concepts, or phenomena down into their smallest constituents; it can transform ideas
between thesimple
into macro behavior
forms and micro
[59]. However, SD isbehavior.
often criticized, because a complex system cannot be
• ABM provides a dynamic
fully understood by justapproach
dealing with byabuilding a virtual
single discipline. system.
In terms of theItCWM
follows a “bottom–up”
system, SD
procedure cannot thatgiveemphasizes
a profound explanation
the spatial of the
ormicro behaviors
social in the system,
interactions because
between it ignores theand their
individuals
environmentrelationship
[60]. between the macro behavior
The philosophical and micro
foundation behavior.
is syncretism. The importance of holistic analysis
• ABM provides a dynamic approach by building a virtual system. It follows a “bottom–up”
is emphasized; meanwhile, the composing parts are also involved
procedure that emphasizes the spatial or social interactions between individuals and their
[61]. ABM is an effective
cross-scale modeling method that combines time dimension
environment [60]. The philosophical foundation is syncretism. The importance with space dimension, and bears the
of holistic
characteristics
analysis is ofemphasized;
heterogeneity, space discretization,
meanwhile, the composing parts timeare
discretization,
also involved and[61]. discrete
ABM is an states [60].
Through effective
computer cross-scale modeling
simulation, themethod that combines
microscopic time dimension
mechanism of complex withmacro
space phenomena
dimension, can be
and bears the characteristics of heterogeneity, space discretization, time discretization, and
revealed. However, Wang and Deisboeck [62] claimed that ABM also has some weaknesses. Firstly,
discrete states [60]. Through computer simulation, the microscopic mechanism of complex
it is toomacro
detailed to simulate over a long period because of the large number of parameters and
phenomena can be revealed. However, Wang and Deisboeck [62] claimed that ABM also
rules, which makes
has some weaknesses.parameter identification
Firstly, difficult
it is too detailed and requires
to simulate extensive
over a long period sensitivity
because of the analyses to
determine largethe prediction
number robustness.
of parameters Secondly,
and rules, whichABM makes is parameter
sensitive to small variations;
identification difficult thus,
and current
ABM can requires
only extensive
process asensitivity
relatively analyses
small to determine
number the prediction
of agents. robustness.
Thirdly, Secondly,
ABM ignores ABM
the interactions
is sensitive to small variations; thus, current ABM can only process a relatively small number of
between agents and macro factors.
agents. Thirdly, ABM ignores the interactions between agents and macro factors.
In summary, SD and ABM have their own advantages and disadvantages for analyzing complex
In summary, SD and ABM have their own advantages and disadvantages for analyzing
systems.complex
SD focuses
systems.onSD
thefocuses
“flow” on relationships and feedbacks
the “flow” relationships that can
and feedbacks thatlongitudinally simulate a
can longitudinally
system’ssimulate
dynamic behavior.
a system’s It isbehavior.
dynamic appropriate to analyze
It is appropriate the interactions
to analyze between
the interactions different
between different elements
elements and
and cumulative cumulative effects.
longitudinal longitudinal effects. However,
However, spatial factors
spatial factors are notarecovered
not covered in the
in the SDSDmodeling
modeling process. In contrast, ABM considers the spatial interactions. However, the feedback effect
process. In contrast, ABM considers the spatial interactions. However, the feedback effect of various
of various social and economic factors on agents is ignored. A more detailed comparison is
social and economic factors on agents is ignored. A more detailed comparison is presented in Figure 5.
presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Comparison between SD and ABM.

Figure 5. Comparison between SD and ABM.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 8 of 13

4.2. Combination of SD and ABM for CWM Research
Considering the advantages and drawbacks of SD and ABM, a combination of the two
4.2. Combination
approaches of SD andinABM
is essential orderfortoCWM Research
overcome their limitations:
(1) Considering
SD modelsthe advantages
cannot anddifferent
consider drawbacks of SD
levels of and ABM, a combination
aggregation; of thehas
however, ABM twothe
approaches
ability to
is essential in order to overcome their limitations:
capture a fine level of detail. Thus, SD can have the highest abstraction level, and ABM can be
(1) SD used at lower
models abstraction
cannot considerlevels, varying
different theof
levels nature and scalehowever,
aggregation; of elements
ABM [63,64].
has the ability to
(2) capture
SD ignores
a finethe effects
level of heterogeneous
of detail. Thus, SD canmixing; each
have the stockabstraction
highest consists of level,
homogeneous
and ABMelements.
can be
Thus, distinctions within the elements (i.e., heterogeneities of any kind)
used at lower abstraction levels, varying the nature and scale of elements [63,64]. have to be modeled by
(2) SD adding
ignoresnewthestocks.
effectsHowever, the heterogeneous
of heterogeneous mixing; eachagents canconsists
stock be easily ofestablished
homogeneous by using ABM
elements.
[65].
Thus, distinctions within the elements (i.e., heterogeneities of any kind) have to be modeled
(3) by
SDadding
is equation-based, and needs
new stocks. However, thequantified
heterogeneousrelationships between
agents can variables;
be easily thus,byitusing
established is not
suitable
ABM [65]. for complex systems with unknown structures. However, ABM can reasonably
represent complex systems
(3) SD is equation-based, and needs based on a relationships
quantified limited number of relatively
between variables;simple
thus, it rules
is not to reveal
suitable
emergent
for complexbehavior [36]. unknown structures. However, ABM can reasonably represent complex
systems with
systems based on aoflimited
The combination SD andnumber
ABM has of relatively simplein
been attempted rules
othertodisciplines.
reveal emergent behaviorGrößler,
For instance, [36].
et al.
The [66] presented aofsoftware-based
combination SD and ABMintegration
has been of SD and ABM
attempted in otherthatdisciplines.
investigatedFor supply chain
instance,
management. The results showed that Vensim and RePast can be used simultaneously
Größler, et al. [66] presented a software-based integration of SD and ABM that investigated supply to solve the
technical
chain problem of
management. combining
The the two
results showed methods.
that Vensim In
and theRePast
same canvein,beitused
is feasible to integrate
simultaneously toSD and
solve
ABM
the to solve
technical complexity
problem problemsthe
of combining in the
twoCWM field.In the same vein, it is feasible to integrate SD
methods.
and ABM There are two
to solve options to
complexity integrateinSD
problems theand
CWMABM,field.as shown in Figure 6. The first option is the
ABM method,
There are twowhich is based
options on SD.SD
to integrate This
andoption
ABM, models
as shown a certain
in Figure number of objects
6. The first optionon macro
is the ABM
level (SD part), inside which agents are modeled at the micro level (ABM
method, which is based on SD. This option models a certain number of objects on the macro levelpart). An illustration of the
ABM method based on SD for CWM is presented in Figure 7. The other option
(SD part), inside which agents are modeled at the micro level (ABM part). An illustration of the ABM is the SD method
based on
method ABM.
based It models
on SD for CWM interactions of agents
is presented at 7.
in Figure theThemacro
otherlevel (ABM
option is thepart), and their
SD method internal
based on
ABM. It models interactions of agents at the macro level (ABM part), and their internal structure at theas
structure at the micro level (SD part). An example of the SD method based on ABM is given,
shown
micro in Figure
level 8. An example of the SD method based on ABM is given, as shown in Figure 8.
(SD part).

+ -
Variable A R Variable B B Variable C
+ +

+ -
Variable A Variable B B Variable C
R
+ +

+ -
Variable A R Variable B B Variable C
+ +

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Two optionsfor
Two options forcombining
combining
SD SD
andand ABM.
ABM.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 9 of 13
Sustainability2018,
Sustainability 2018,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 9 9ofof1313

Wastereduction
Waste reduction
culture + +
culture
Behaviorand
Behavior and+ + Design
Design Environmental
Environmental
-- awareness
attitudetotowaste
attitude waste modification awareness
modification
reduction
reduction ++
++
++ Wastereduction
Construction Waste
- - Construction reduction
++
Industrialized
Industrialized rework amount training
training
Wastemanagement
Waste management rework amount
housedesign
house design ++
on-site
on-site
++ --
Managementtoto
Management Wastereduction
reduction
On-sitewaste
On-site wastereduction
reduction Waste
constructionworker
construction worker managementefforts
management effortstoto management
managementinvestment
investment
reduce
+reduce
+ waste
waste
++ ++ ++ ++
++
Wastereduction
Waste reduction
Wasterecycle
Waste recycle Wastereduction
Waste reduction management
management
andreuse
and reuseon-site
on-site managementefforts
management effortstoto
reducewaste
waste + regulation
+ regulation
- - reduce
Totalamount
Total amount ofof
waste generated
waste generated
Environmental
- - Environmental
performance
performance

Figure7.
Figure
Figure 7. ABM
ABMmethod
7.ABM method
methodbased onon
based
based SD.
on SD.
SD.

Attitude
Attitude toward
toward waste
waste
Attitudetoward
toward + + Sourcereduction
Source reduction
reduction
reduction behavior
behavior Technical
+ + Technical level
level ofof Attitude
++ wastereduction
reduction intention
intention
Source reduction + demolition
demolition waste
Source reduction + ++ behavior
behavior behavior ++
behavior Sourcereduction
reductionrate
rate
Level
Level ofof demolition
demolition Source Wastereduction
reduction
++ Waste reduction waste management Waste
Waste reduction + + waste management
awareness
awareness
bybydesign
designcompany
++
company
training
training
Source
Source reduction
reduction rate
rate management
management
byby demolition
demolition company
company investment
investment Enforceability ++ ++
++
+ Enforceability ofof ++
++ ++ + laws
laws and
and regulations
regulations Sourcereduction
Source reduction On-sitewaste
wastereduction
reduction
On-site Wastereduction
reduction
Effection
Effection ofof waste
waste + behavior
behavior managementefforts
effortstoto Waste
Penalty
Penalty paid
paid due
due toto
+ management management
management
reduction
reduction Unit
Unit cost
cost ofof reducewaste
reduce waste
illegal
illegal dumping
dumping landfilling Demolitionwaste
Demolition waste investment
investment
landfilling ++
++ ++ source reductedbyby + +
sourcereducted
++ designcompany
design company
Demolition
Demolition waste
waste source
source Wastereduction
Waste reduction
Perfection
Perfection ofof laws
laws management
management
reducted
reducted byby demolition
demolition regulation
company
company + and
and regulations
+ regulations ++ + + regulation
++ Benefit
Benefit
Benefit Benefit

Figure
Figure 8.8.SD
Figure8. SDmethod
SD method
method based
based
based on
onon ABM.
ABM.
ABM.

5.5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
Conclusions
Constructionwaste
Construction
Construction wastehas
waste hasgreat
has greatnegative
great negativeimpacts
negative impactson
impacts onthe
on theenvironment.
the environment.Recently,
environment. Recently,researchers
Recently, researchersand
researchers and
and
practitioners
practitioners have
have paid
paid attention
attention to
to the
the effective
effective management
management of
of construction
construction waste.
waste.
practitioners have paid attention to the effective management of construction waste. Construction Construction
Construction
waste
waste
waste management(CWM)
management
management (CWM)isisisaaacomplex
(CWM) complexadaptive
complex adaptivesystem
adaptive systemthat
system thatinvolves
that involvesnot
involves notonly
not onlyvarious
only variousfactors
various factors(e.g.,
factors (e.g.,
(e.g.,
social, economic,
social, economic, and
and environmental)
environmental) but but also
also different
different stakeholders
stakeholders (such
(such asas developers,
developers,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 10 of 13

social, economic, and environmental) but also different stakeholders (such as developers, contractors,
designers, and governmental departments) simultaneously. Thus, it is necessary to investigate the
complexity of CWM based on complexity theories.
This paper reviewed the SD and ABM applications in the field of CWM. The findings revealed
that the economic, social, and environmental aspects of CWM have been investigated. SD and ABM
are totally different from each other: SD is a top–down modeling method that describes systems from a
macro perspective, requiring knowledge of the system relations and causalities. ABM, on the contrary,
is a bottom–up approach that models single acting entities of the system and the agents’ interactions
during simulation in order to determine the macro behavior of a system.
Both SD and ABM approaches have their advantages and drawbacks; thus, it is necessary to
combine the two approaches in order to achieve a more powerful approach. Two options are proposed
in this study for potential combination: namely, an ABM method based on SD, and an SD method based
on ABM. Based on the proposed combinations, further studies can be conducted to comprehensively
investigate the complexity in CWM-related systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.D.; Investigation, W.G. and S.L.; Methodology, W.G.; Writing-original
draft, Z.D., W.G., S.L. and Z.W.; Writing-review & editing, Z.W.
Funding: This research was funded by Shenzhen Government Basic Research Foundation for Free Exploration
(JCYJ20170818141151733) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (51478267).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Feng, Y.; Lau, W.S.T.; Mao, C. Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase
of a building: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 249–259. [CrossRef]
2. Wu, Z.; Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, L. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s construction and demolition
waste management behavior in Mainland China. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 290–300. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Wu, Z.; Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, L.; Liu, G. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review.
Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1683–1692. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report. Available online: https:
//www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2013_advncng_smm_rpt.pdf (accessed on
14 May 2017).
5. EC. CDW: Material Recovery & Backfilling. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/
studies/pdf/CDW%20Statistics%202011.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2017).
6. EPD. Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong—Waste Statistics for 2015. Available online: https://www.
wastereduction.gov.hk/sites/default/files/msw2015.pdf (accessed on 29 March 2017).
7. Duan, H.; Wang, J.; Huang, Q. Encouraging the environmentally sound management of C&D waste in China:
An integrative review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 611–620.
8. Peng, Y.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, F.; Huang, L.; Xue, J.; Xu, Y. Farmers’ risk perception of concentrated rural
settlement development after the 5.12 Sichuan Earthquake. Habitat Int. 2018, 71, 169–176. [CrossRef]
9. Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Akinade, O.O.; Bilal, M.; Alaka, H.A.; Owolabi, H.A.; Kadiri, K.O. Attributes
of design for construction waste minimization: A case study of waste-to-energy project. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 1333–1341. [CrossRef]
10. Yuan, H.; Lu, W.; Hao, J.J. The evolution of construction waste sorting on-site. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2013, 20, 483–490. [CrossRef]
11. Li, H.; Chen, Z.; Wong, C.T. Barcode technology for an incentive reward program to reduce construction
wastes. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2003, 18, 313–324. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, X.L.; Wu, Y.Z.; Shen, L.Y. Application of low waste technologies for design and construction: A case
study in Hong Kong. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2973–2979. [CrossRef]
13. Tam, C.M.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Chan, J.K.W.; Ng, W.C.Y. Use of Prefabrication to Minimize Construction Waste—A
Case Study Approach. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2005, 5, 91–101. [CrossRef]
14. Lu, W.S.; Yuan, H.P. Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream processes of offshore
prefabrication construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 804–811. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 11 of 13

15. Mandujano, M.G.; Mourgues, C.; Alarcón, L.F.; Kunz, J. Modeling Virtual Design and Construction
Implementation Strategies Considering Lean Management Impacts. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.
2017, 32, 930–951. [CrossRef]
16. Lu, W.; Webster, C.; Chen, K.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X. Computational Building Information Modelling for
construction waste management: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68,
587–595. [CrossRef]
17. Alvanchi, A.; Lee, S.; AbouRizk, S. Modeling framework and architecture of hybrid system dynamics and
discrete event simulation for construction. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2011, 26, 77–91. [CrossRef]
18. Lansing, J.S. Complex Adaptive Systems. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003, 32, 183–204. [CrossRef]
19. Holden, L.M. Complex adaptive systems: Concept analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 52, 651–657. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
20. Lansing, J.S. Complex Adaptive Systems; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2003.
21. Yuan, H.; Wang, J. Dynamic modeling the economic effectiveness of construction waste management.
Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2013, 33, 2415–2421.
22. Ding, Z.; Yi, G.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Huang, T. A system dynamics-based environmental performance simulation of
construction waste reduction management in China. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 130–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Au, L.; Ahn, S.; Kim, T. System Dynamic Analysis of Impacts of Government Charges on Disposal of
Construction and Demolition Waste: A Hong Kong Case Study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1077. [CrossRef]
24. Teose, M.; Ahmadizadeh, K.; O’Mahony, E.; Smith, R.L.; Lu, Z.; Ellner, S.P.; Gomes, C.; Grohn, Y.
Embedding system dynamics in agent based models for complex adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the
Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence—Volume Volume Three, Barcelona,
Spain, 16–22 July 2011; pp. 2531–2538.
25. Scholl, H.J. Agent Based and System Dynamics Modeling: A Call for Cross Study and Joint Research.
In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34: IEEE
Computer Society), Maui, HI, USA, 6 January 2001; pp. 3003–3010.
26. Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Guo, S.; Xue, F.; Zheng, W. Energy use embodied in China’s construction industry:
A multi-regional input-output analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1303–1312. [CrossRef]
27. Peng, Y.; Lai, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, X. An alternative model for measuring the sustainability of urban regeneration:
The way forward. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 76–83. [CrossRef]
28. Forrester, J.W. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft, O.R. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1994, 10, 245–256. [CrossRef]
29. Nasirzadeh, F.; Khanzadi, M.; Mir, M. A hybrid simulation framework for modelling construction projects
using agent-based modelling and system dynamics: an application to model construction workers’ safety
behavior. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2018, 18, 132–143. [CrossRef]
30. Ahmad, S.; Tahar, R.M.; Muhammad-Sukki, F.; Munir, A.B.; Rahim, R.A. Application of system dynamics
approach in electricity sector modelling: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 29–37. [CrossRef]
31. Ye, G.; Yuan, H.; Wang, H. Estimating the Generation of Construction and Demolition Waste by Using
System Dynamics a Proposed Model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Bioinformatics and
Biomedical Engineering, Chengdu, China, 18–20 June 2010; pp. 1–4.
32. Ding, Z.; Zhu, M.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yi, G.; Tran, C.N.N. A system dynamics-based environmental benefit
assessment model of construction waste reduction management at the design and construction stages.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 676–692. [CrossRef]
33. Nejat, A.; Damnjanovic, I. Agent-Based Modeling of Behavioral Housing Recovery Following Disasters.
Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2012, 27, 748–763. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, Z.; Deisboeck, T.S. Agent-Based Modeling; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
35. Nikolić, I. Co-Evolutionary Method for Modelling Large Scale Socio-Technical Systems Evolution.
Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, The Netherlands, 2010.
36. Hivin, L.F. Sustainability of Multimodal Intercity Transportation Using a Hybrid System Dynamics and
Agent-Based Modeling Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014.
37. Yuan, H.; Wang, J. A system dynamics model for determining the waste disposal charging fee in construction.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 237, 988–996. [CrossRef]
38. Calvo, N.; Varela-Candamio, L.; Novo-Corti, I. A dynamic model for construction and demolition (C&D)
waste management in Spain: Driving policies based on economic incentives and tax penalties. Sustainability
2014, 6, 416–435.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 12 of 13

39. Li, Z.; Shen, G.Q.; Alshawi, M. Measuring the impact of prefabrication on construction waste reduction: An
empirical study in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 91, 27–39. [CrossRef]
40. Ye, G.; Yuan, H.; Shen, L.; Wang, H. Simulating effects of management measures on the improvement of
the environmental performance of construction waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 62, 56–63.
[CrossRef]
41. Yuan, H.P. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management. Waste Manag.
2012, 32, 1218–1228. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Yuan, H.P.; Shen, L.Y.; Hao, J.J.L.; Lu, W.S. A model for cost–benefit analysis of construction and demolition
waste management throughout the waste chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 604–612. [CrossRef]
43. Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhen, Z. Cost-benefit analysis of construction and demolition waste management
based on system dynamics: A case study of Guangzhou. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2014, 34, 1480–1490.
44. Zhao, W.; Ren, H.; Rotter, V.S. A system dynamics model for evaluating the alternative of type in construction
and demolition waste recycling center—The case of Chongqing, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55,
933–944. [CrossRef]
45. Marzouk, M.; Azab, S. Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and demolition
waste disposal using system dynamics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 82, 41–49. [CrossRef]
46. Hao, J.L.; Hills, M.J.; Huang, T. A simulation model using system dynamic method for construction and
demolition waste management in Hong Kong. Constr. Innov. Inf. Process Manag. 2007, 7, 7–21. [CrossRef]
47. Wang, J.; Yuan, H. Classification management model of construction waste classification based on system
dynamics. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2008, 25, 74–78.
48. Hao, J.; Hill, M.J.; Shen, L. Managing construction waste on-site through system dynamics modelling:
The case of Hong Kong. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2008, 15, 103–113. [CrossRef]
49. Wang, J.; Yuan, H. Construction waste management model based on system dynamics. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract.
2009, 29, 173–180.
50. Yuan, H.; Chini, A.R.; Lu, Y.; Shen, L. A dynamic model for assessing the effects of management strategies on
the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 521–531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Tam, V.W.; Li, J.; Cai, H. System dynamic modeling on construction waste management in Shenzhen, China.
Waste Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 441–453. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Ding, Z.; Wu, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, H. A New Horizon for Construction Waste Management Research
from a Complex Adaptive System Perspective. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on
Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing, China, 7–9 November 2014;
Yang, D., Qian, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 581–592.
53. Knoeri, C.; Nikolic, I.; Althaus, H.-J.; Binder, C.R. Enhancing recycling of construction materials: An agent
based model with empirically based decision parameters. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2014, 17, 181–191. [CrossRef]
54. Gan, V.J.L.; Cheng, J.C.P. Formulation and analysis of dynamic supply chain of backfill in construction waste
management using agent-based modeling. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2015, 29, 878–888. [CrossRef]
55. Ding, Z.; Wang, Y.; WU, J. ABM based Simulation Research on Construction Waste Management.
In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and
Real Estate, Hangzhou, China, 23–25 October 2016; pp. 465–476.
56. Ding, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zou, P.X.W. An agent based environmental impact assessment of building demolition
waste management: Conventional versus green management. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 1136–1153. [CrossRef]
57. Peirce, S.M. Agent-Based Models, Discrete Models and Mathematics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
58. Swanson, J. Business Dynamics—Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. J. Oper. Res. Soc.
2002, 53, 472–473. [CrossRef]
59. Burns, C.P.E. Reductionism. In Encyclopedia of Psychology & Religion; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2010; pp. 758–759.
60. Railsback, S.F.; Grimm, V. Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction; Princeton
University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2011.
61. DeMarinis, V. Syncretism. In Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2014; pp. 1769–1772.
62. Wang, Z.; Deisboeck, T.S. Computational modeling of brain tumors: Discrete, continuum or hybrid?
Sci. Model. Simul. 2008, 15, 381. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2484 13 of 13

63. Silva, V.M.D.; Coelho, A.S.; Novaes, A.G.; Lima, O.F. Remarks on Collaborative Maritime Transportation’s
Problem Using System Dynamics and Agent Based Modeling and Simulation Approaches. In Proceedings
of the IFIP Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, São Paulo, Brazil, 17–19 October 2011; pp. 245–252.
64. Figueredo, G.P.; Aickelin, U. Investigating immune system aging: System dynamics and agent-based
modeling. In Proceedings of the 2010 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada,
11–14 July 2010; pp. 174–181.
65. Parragh, S.; Einzinger, P. Modelling health care utilisation: A method comparison. In Proceedings of the 1st
International Workshop on Innovative Simulation for Health Care, Vienna, Austria, 19–21 September 2012;
pp. 87–92.
66. Größler, A.; Stotz, M.; Schieritz, N. A software interface between system dynamics and agent-based
simulations: Linking Vensim®and RePast®. In Proceedings of the 21st International conference, System
Dynamics Society, New York, NY, USA, 20–24 July 2003; pp. 20–24.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).