Advertisement

Modeling the Effects of ICT on Environmental Sustainability: Revisiting a System Dynamics Model Developed for the European Commission

  • Mohammad Ahmadi Achachlouei
  • Lorenz M. Hilty
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 310)

Abstract

This chapter revisits a System Dynamics model developed in 2002 with the aim of exploring the future impacts of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) on environmental sustainability in the EU, which then consisted of 15 countries. The time horizon of the study was 20 years (2000–2020). We analyze the results in light of empirical data that is now available for 2000–2012. None of the three scenarios that were developed by experts to specify the external factors needed to run the model were realistic from today’s point of view. If the model is re-run with more realistic input data for the first half of the simulation period, however, the main results regarding the impact of ICT remain qualitatively the same; they seem to be relatively robust implications of the causal system structure, as it is represented in the model. Overall, the impacts of ICT for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental burdens for 2020 tend to be slightly stronger if the simulation is based on the empirical data now available.

Keywords

Information and communication technology Environmental impact Sustainable development Information society Socioeconomic modeling and simulation System dynamics Prospective technology assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Empa, KTH (Center for Sustainable Communications), and Vinnova, which made this work possible as a part of the first author’s Ph.D. project.

References

  1. 1.
    Erdmann, L., Würtenberger, F.: The future impact ICT on environmental sustainability. First interim report. Identification and global description of economic sectors. Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (IPTS), Sevilla (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erdmann, L., Behrendt, S.: The future impact ICT on environmental sustainability. Second interim report. Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (IPTS), Sevilla (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodman, J., Alakeson, V.: The future impact ICT on environmental sustainability. Third interim report. Scenarios. Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (IPTS), Sevilla (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hilty, L.M., Wäger, P., Lehmann, M., Hischier, R., Ruddy, T.F., Binswanger, M.: The future impact of ICT on environmental sustainability. Fourth interim report. Refinement and quantification. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Sevilla (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arnfalk, P.: The future impact ICT on environmental sustainability. Fifth interim report. Evaluation and recommendations. Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (IPTS), Sevilla (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erdmann, L., Hilty, L.M., Goodman, J., Arnfalk, P.: The future impact ICT on environmental sustainability. Synthesis report. Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (IPTS), Sevilla (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnfalk, P., Erdmann, L., Goodman, J., Hilty, L.M.: The future impact of ICT on environmental sustainability. In: Proceedings EU-US Scientific Seminar on New Technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods, 13–14 May 2004, Seville, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wäger, P., Hilty, L. M., Arnfalk, P., Erdmann, L., Goodman, J.: Experience with a system dynamics model in a prospective study on the future impact of ICT on environmental sustainability. In: Voinov, A., Jakeman, A.J., Rizzoli, A.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the iEMSs Third Biennial Meeting, Summit on Environmental Modelling and Software. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Burlington, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hilty, L.M., Arnfalk, P., Erdmann, L., Goodman, J., Lehmann, M., Wäger, P.: The relevance of information and communication technologies for environmental sustainability—a prospective simulation study. Environ. Modell. Softw. 11(21), 1618–1629 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erdmann, L., Hilty, L.M.: Scenario analysis: exploring the macroeconomic impacts of information and communication technologies on greenhouse gas emissions. J. Ind. Ecol. 14(5), 826–843 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahmadi Achachlouei, M., Hilty, L.M.: Simulating the future impact of ICT on environmental sustainability: validating and re-calibrating a system dynamics model. Working report, Centre for Sustainable Communications CESC, KTH Royal Institute of Technology http://www.cesc.kth.se/publications (in preparation)
  12. 12.
    Ruddy, T.F., Hilty, L.M.: Impact assessment and policy learning in the European commission. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28(2–3), 90–115 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelly (Letcher), R.A., Jakeman, A.J., Barreteau, O., Borsuk, M.E., ElSawah, S., Hamilton, SH., Henriksen, H.J., Kuikka, S., Maier, H.R., Rizzoli, A.E., Van Delden, H., Voinov, A.A.: Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environ. Modell. Softw. 47, 159–181 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G.: Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38(7), 723–739 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eurostat: GDP and main components—volumes. Product code: nama_gdp_k (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eurostat: Employment (main characteristics and rates)—annual averages. Product code: lfsi_emp_a (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eurostat: Demographic balance and crude rates. Product code: demo_gind (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eurostat: Number of private households by household composition, number of children and age of youngest child (1000). Product code: lfst_hhnhtych (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Saunders, W.: Server efficiency: aligning energy use with workloads. data center knowledge. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2012/06/12/server-efficiency-aligning-energy-use-with-workloads (2012)
  21. 21.
    Green500: The Green500 List—November 2013: The Green500’s energy-efficient supercomputers. http://www.green500.org/lists/green201311 (2013)
  22. 22.
    Belady, C., Rawson, A., Pfleuger, J.O.H.N., Cader, T.A.H.I.R.: The green grid data center power efficiency metrics: PUE and DCiE. Technical report, Green Grid (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Coroama, V.C., Hilty, L.M.: Assessing internet energy intensity: a review of methods and results. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 45, 63–68 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Finnish Environment Institute: Average commuting distance. http://www.findikaattori.fi/en/70 (2012)
  26. 26.
    The European Environment Agency: Odyssee energy efficiency index (ODEX) for EU-27. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/energy-efficiency-and-energy-consumption-5/assessment (2012)
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    The European Environment Agency: Efficiency of conventional thermal electricity and heat production. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/efficiency-of-conventional-thermal-electricity-4 (2012)
  29. 29.
    Babbitt, C.W., Kahhat, R., Williams, E.: Evolution of product lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and management: a case study of personal computers in higher education. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 5106–5112 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Robinson, B.H.: E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 408(2), 183–191 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eurostat: Generation and treatment of municipal waste (1 000 t) by NUTS 2 regions. Product code: env_rwas_gen (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mannaerts, H.: Environmental policy analysis with STREAM: a partial equilibrium model for material flows in the economy. In: van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Janssen, M. (eds.) Economics of Industrial Ecology: Materials, Structural Change, and Spatial Scales, pp. 195–222. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Borenstein, S.: To what electricity price do consumers respond? Residential demand elasticity under increasing-block pricing. Preliminary draft. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/download/NBER_SI_2009.pdf (2009)
  34. 34.
    Smyth, M., Pearce, B.: IATA economics No 9: Air travel demand. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/air_travel_demand.pdf (2008)
  35. 35.
    de Jong, G., Schroten, A., Van Essen, H., Otten, M., Bucci, P.: Price sensitivity of European road freight transport–towards a better understanding of existing results. A report for transport and environment. 9012-1 (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    European Parliament: The Impact of the Oil Price on EU Energy Prices. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/518747/IPOL-ITRE_ET(2014)518747_EN.pdf (2014)
  37. 37.
    US EPA: Report to congress on server and data center energy efficiency, public law 109-431. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ENERGY STAR Program, by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-363E (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taylor C., Koomey J.: Estimating energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of internet advertising. IMC2 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    European Commission: World energy, technology and climate policy outlook. EC Research DG (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Borenstein, S.: A microeconomic framework for evaluating energy efficiency rebound and some implications. No. WP 242R. National Bureau of Economic Research (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    European Commission: Statistical pocketbook. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2013_en.htm (2013)
  42. 42.
    Eurostat: Supply, transformation, consumption—all products—annual data. Product code: nrg_100a (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eurostat: EuroStat: municipal waste. Product code: env_wasmun (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eurostat: Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Product code: env_waselee (2014)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Greene, D.L., Tishchishyna, N.I.: Costs of oil dependence: a 2000 update. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2000/152, Oak Ridge, TN, 2000, and data updates. http://cta.ornl.gov (2012)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Ahmadi Achachlouei
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lorenz M. Hilty
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Environmental Strategies Research FMSKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Sustainable Communications CESCKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and TechnologySt. GallenSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of InformaticsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations