overview of system dynamics modelling - ucl · system dynamics elevator pitch from george...
TRANSCRIPT
Richardson, George P. und Jack Homer: System Dynamics Modeling, 2007, http://obssr.od.nih.gov/pdf/RichardsonSystems.pdf, 10.10.2011
Managing the Mississippi
Flood years
1718
1724
1725
1735
1740
…
20112
A system dynamics perspective of the issue
Deegan, Michael A.: Exploring U.S. flood mitigation policies: A feedback view of system behavior, Ann Arbor, MI 2007, S. 131.
Flooding and Damage
100 properties
20 flooding
50 properties
10 flooding
0 properties
0 flooding 3
3
3 3
3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
22
2
2
2
2
2
1 1
1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Damaged Properties properties1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Vulnerable Properties properties2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
flooding : base flooding3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3
Why system dynamics?
• Policy
resistance
• Counterintuitive
behaviour
• Man-made
causes
• What will be the overall impact of polices aimed at
energy efficiency and indoor environmental quality
of dwellings?
• We know from history that single focus policies lead
to ‘unintended’ effects
Our starting point
5
Participatory approach of collaborative learning
Pablo Picassohttp://www.pablopicasso.org/picasso-paintings.jsp 6
System dynamics elevator pitch
From George Richardson:
• ‘System dynamics is the use of computer simulation
for policy analysis in complex systems. It's big
contribution is helping people to build progressively
richer understandings of some dynamic problem,
and anticipate weaknesses in policy initiatives that
would develop over time. …
• It gets a lot of its power from a 'feedback' perspective
… rather than simple one-way causal chains.
• Humans are good at thinking up all that interconnected
complexity and weak at inferring its implications.’ 8
Systems
Technical systems Social systems
Socio-technical systems
http://zensus11.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/maschine.png
9
Structure generates behaviour: Green Deal
GD
up
take
time
Desire…Actual…
today
GD Implementations
6 M
3 M
03 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 2 2
22 2 2 2 2 2
11
1
1
11
1 1 1 1 1
2012-10-01 2015-10-01 2018-10-01 2021-10-01Date
ho
use
hold
s
Households Who Happily Implemented GD : financial-rational 1 1Households Who Happily Implemented GD : user-driven 2 2Households Who Happily Implemented GD : full model 3 3 3
10
HouseholdsUnaware of
GD
HouseholdsAware of GD
HouseholdsPotentially
Interested inGD
Householdsthat
ImplementedGD
Assessment
HouseholdsPotentially
Interested inGD
Financing
getting awareinitiating
assessmentgetting
interested
getting aprovider
Trust inQuality orComfort
indicatedtrust
awareness-gainingfrom advertising
fraction gettinginterested
fraction initiatingassessment
fraction receivingassessment
+
fraction overcominginconvenience barrier
HouseholdsNot
Interested inGD
not gettinginterested
HouseholdsWho
ImplementedDifferentSchemes
HouseholdsWho HappilyImplemented
GD
HouseholdsWho LostInterest
financing GD
loosinginterest afterassessment
loosing interest afterassesing actual
constrains and benefits
fraction receivingfinancing
satisfactioneffect on WoM
time to gaintrust
IndustryExperience
gainingexperience
+
quality of work andcost effectiveness
+
+fraction overcomingcapital cost barrier
fractionovercomingtrust barrier
HouseholdsWho Got
Dissatisfied
gettingdissatisfied
implementingdifferent schemes
gaining trust+
via the causal map on ventilation, mould, and healthcommunity
social connection
renovating
R R BR
B
B
fraction gettingdissatisfied
TRUSTEXPERIENCE
FINANCESATTITUDESVALUES
AWARE-NESS
OTHERSCHEMES
Zimmermann, N., Black, L., Shrubsole, C.,
Davies, M., 2015. Meaning-making in the
process of participatory system dynamics
research, Proceedings of the 33rd International
Conference of the System Dynamics Society,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–12.