Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Ontology, epistemology, and methodologies of energy-related system dynamics practices
Having reviewed the literature on social theoretic beliefs underlying system dynamics practice and particularly the system dynamics paradigms of Pruyt, an attempt at placing the system dynamics practices of the energy literature on Pruyt’s extended paradigmatic table is attempted in this section. While it is not that easy to position the bulk of the energy literature utilizing system dynamics to study an assortment of energy issues wholly on Pruyt’s extended paradigmatic table categorised in terms of ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodologies, causality, logic and appropriateness of model and strategy, due to that no detailed information is given in the articles to enable full placement, it is very clear from the model built (reviewed fully in chapter 4) that the ontological/epistemology positions and methodologies of most of the present-day energy literature corresponds with the critical pluralist paradigm and to a lesser extent the post-positivists paradigm.
Examples of these type of modelling in the energy literature are the models of: Pruyt (2007) who built a system dynamics model and used it to investigate the transition of EU-25 electricity generation system, towards a more sustainable energy system characterised by lower CO2 emissions; Bassi, Shilling and Herren (2007) who constructed a system dynamics model designed to analyse the main energy challenges and choices faced by the United States of America in the wider context of their relation to society, environment and the economy, and with associations with rest of the world; Saysel and Hekimoglu (2010) who developed a dynamic simulation model of the electric power industry in Turkey and used it to study options for CO2 mitigation; Ford, Vogstad and Hilary (2007) and Vogstad (2005) who modeled green electricity certificates; Jeong et al. (2008) who designed a system dynamics model for power generation costs comparison in a liquefied natural gas combined cycle and coal-based power plants while also taking into account control costs of CO2 and NO2; Vogstad, Botterud, Maribu and Jensen (2002) who built a system dynamics model for the Nordic electricity market and used it to investigate the short-term and long-term energy planning trade-offs. The aim was to find efficient policies to aid the transition from fossil-fueled based power supply to renewables; and Musango, Brent, Amigun, Pretorius, & Müller (2012) who used a system dynamics approach to develop a model for assessing the sustainability of bioenergy and used it to assess the effects of the development of a biodiesel industry on a number of sustainability indicators in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa.
Other examples of these system dynamics practices include those that have combined system dynamics models with other methods, for example, Pereira & Saraiva (2010, 2011) who combined system dynamics with generic algorithms, Sanchez, Barquin, Centeno and Lopez-Pea (2008) who combined system dynamics with game theoretical approaches, Tan, Anderson, Dyer and Parker (2010) who combined system dynamics with decision trees, Pasaoglu (2006) who integrated system dynamics with analytical hierarchy processes and Dyner, Ochoa and Franco (2011) who built a system dynamics model linked to an iterative algorithm. System dynamics approach has thus been used widely for modelling various energy issues. The ontological, epistemological and methodological placement of this current study and its links with the economics schools underlying this study are discussed in the following section.
The ontological, epistemological and methodological placement of this current study and its links with the economics schools underlying this study
The placement of the system dynamics research conducted in this study based on Pruyt’s extended paradigmatic table is undertaken. The ontological and epistemological positions for the system dynamics that is taken in this study is realism and (moderately) objective with subjective elements. The view taken is thus that an external real-world exists (or the modeled system resembles a real-world system) and the causal loop and stock-and-flow diagrams are interesting formulations to structure, describe and understand real-world issues such as the social cost assessment issue investigated in this study. Though no primary valuation of externalities is conducted in this study, the manner of knowing and construction of this knowledge (externality costs), can only be grasped mainly through subjective views of the participants, hence the subjective stance. The methodology is mainly quantitative with qualitative models (causal loop diagrams) used for developing quantitative models. The model developed in this current study was also validated in keeping with mainstream system dynamics and due to concerns of value-ladeness. Based on Pruyt’s (2006) system dynamics paradigms, the system dynamics investigation conducted in this study can therefore be categorized within the critical pluralist and post-positivist paradigms.
In section 3.5 it was determined that neoclassical and environmental economics provided the theoretical base for this study. The ontology, epistemology and methodology of both neoclassical and environmental economics were discussed to be realist, objective and quantitative, respectively, and hence to fall within the positivist research paradigm of Guba and Lincoln’s classification. The proposed modelling approach (system dynamics) thus shares many elements that are consistent with the two economic disciplines that underpin this study, for instance, ontology and epistemology elements and the usage of quantitative techniques. In addition though, the modelling approach proposed in this study offers more features than the two economic disciplines, such as non-linear structures, dynamic structures, experimental approach (Forrester, 1975a; Robertshaw, Mecca & Rerick, 1978), transdisciplinarity methods, disequilibrium approach and case study approach instead of using abstractions to develop models (Beed & Beed, 2006). Other additional attributes include that it offers a complex unitary approach with the ability to deal with large number of elements and many interactions between elements, a problem-orientated approach, empirical solutions (Forrester, 1975a; Flood & Jackson, 1991) and confidence based on model structure over coefficient accuracy, focus on closed loop information feedback structures and focus not on predictions but on understanding the structure of the system and our assumptions about it (Forrester, 1961)..
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
-SOUTH AFRICA’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS
-EIA REGULATION AND PROCESS IN SOUTH AFRICA
-EIA EFFECTIVENESS AND WEAKNESSES
-POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS TO SELECTED EIA ISSUES
-TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SHORTCOMINGS AND SOLUTIONS
-PROBLEM STATEMENT
-RATIONALE FOR SYSTEM DYNAMICS APPROACH AND A LIFE-CYCLE VIEWPOINT
-RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
-ORGANISATION OF THESIS
-EXTERNALITIES AND SOUTH AFRICA’S POWER AND COAL
CHAPTER 2: INDUSTRIES
-INTRODUCTION
-EXTERNALITIES DEFINED
-THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIETAL IMPACTS LINKED WITH THE COAL- FUEL CYCLE
-SOUTH AFRICA’S COAL INDUSTRY
-SUMMARY
-ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY AND SYSTEM DYNAMICS CHAPTER 3:PHILOSOPHY
-INTRODUCTION
-RESEARCH PARADIGMS DEFINED
-GUBA AND LINCOLN’S SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH PARADIGM FRAMEWORK
-RESEARCH PARADIGM(S) UNDERPINNING THE CURRENT STUDY
-SYSTEM DYNAMICS ORIGINS, FEATURES, MODELLING PROCESS AND ITS LINKS WITH -SOCIAL THEORIES
-ONTOLOGY, EPISTEMOLOGY AND METHODOLOGIES OF ENERGY-RELATED SYSTEM DYNAMICS PRACTICES
-THE ONTOLOGICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PLACEMENT OF THIS CURRENT STUDY AND ITS LINKS WITH THE ECONOMICS SCHOOLS UNDERLYING THIS STUDY
-SUMMARY
-A REVIEW OF POWER GENERATION ASSESSMENT TOOLS
CHAPTER 4: AND THEIR APPLICATION
-INTRODUCTION
-POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT TOOLS
-A REVIEW OF POWER GENERATION STUDIES
-RESEARH DESIGN AND METHODS
CHAPTER 5:
-INTRODUCTION
-RESEARCH PARADIGM/PHILOSOPHY
-DESCRIPTION OF INQUIRY STRATEGY
-RESEARCH METHOD
-CONCLUSION
-COAL-BASED POWER AND SOCIAL COST ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 6:(COALPSCA) MODEL
-INTRODUCTION
-SOFTWARE USED IN THE MODELLING
-PROBLEM FORMULATION
-DYNAMIC HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION
-MODEL BOUNDARY
-MODEL FORMULATION: STRUCTURE AND EQUATIONS
-SUMMARY
-RESULTS
CHAPTER 7:
-INTRODUCTION
-BASELINE RESULTS
-MODEL VALIDATION
-POLICY ANALYSIS
-SUMMARY
-CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 8:
-THE RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN THIS STUDY AND MAIN FINDINGS
-COALPSCA MODEL LIMITATIONS
-WHAT COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE COALPSCA MODEL AND ENERGY RESEARCH
-WAY FORWARD FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT
REFERENCES
