Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2016.66.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Knowledge Creation between Integrated Assessment Models and Initiative-Based Learning - An Interdisciplinary Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Enrica De Cian

    (FEEM and CMCC)

  • Johannes Buhl

    (Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy)

  • Samuel Carrara

    (FEEM and CMCC)

  • Michela Bevione

    (FEEM and CMCC)

  • Silvia Monetti

    (Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy)

  • Holger Berg

    (Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy)

Abstract
This paper explores the opportunities for integrating Initiative Based Learning (IBL) and Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) in order to improve our understanding of learning in the context of societal transition pathways, and more specifically by focusing on solar PV as an energy transition technology. Our analysis shows that IAMs and IBL conceptualize learning in a very different way, and the two approaches have major structural differences with respect to the geographical as well as the temporal scale of analysis. This is also due to the different goals of the two methodologies. The aim of IAM is to develop long-term energy and technology scenarios for the next thirty to eighty years, and to describe learning processes mostly to account for future potential improvements in technologies, while IBL focuses on understanding the configuration of actors in specific institutional settings that legitimize and support specific technologies and ultimately lead to dynamics of social learning. Although ambitious forms of integration between IAMs and IBL are not feasible today, the two approaches can be used in parallel and lead to mutual enrichment via a process that we label a two-way recursive collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrica De Cian & Johannes Buhl & Samuel Carrara & Michela Bevione & Silvia Monetti & Holger Berg, 2016. "Knowledge Creation between Integrated Assessment Models and Initiative-Based Learning - An Interdisciplinary Approach," Working Papers 2016.66, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2016.66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2016-066.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2008. "Technological learning in energy-environment-economy modelling: A survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 138-162, January.
    2. Witajewski-Baltvilks, Jan & Verdolini, Elena & Tavoni, Massimo, 2015. "Bending the learning curve," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 86-99.
    3. Bosetti, Valentina & Catenacci, Michela & Fiorese, Giulia & Verdolini, Elena, 2012. "The future prospect of PV and CSP solar technologies: An expert elicitation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 308-317.
    4. Neij, Lena, 2008. "Cost development of future technologies for power generation--A study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2200-2211, June.
    5. Habermeier, Karl F., 1990. "Product use and product improvement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 271-283, June.
    6. Stoneman, Paul & Battisti, Giuliana, 2010. "The Diffusion of New Technology," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 733-760, Elsevier.
    7. Criqui, P. & Mima, S. & Menanteau, P. & Kitous, A., 2015. "Mitigation strategies and energy technology learning: An assessment with the POLES model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 119-136.
    8. Argote, L. & Epple, D., 1990. "Learning Curves In Manufacturing," GSIA Working Papers 89-90-02, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    9. Johannes Emmerling & Laurent Drouet & Lara Aleluia Reis & Michela Bevione & Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Samuel Carrara & Enrica De Cian & Gauthier De Maere D'Aertrycke & Tom Longden & Maurizio M, 2016. "The WITCH 2016 Model - Documentation and Implementation of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways," Working Papers 2016.42, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Jayati Sarkar, 1998. "Technological Diffusion: Alternative Theories and Historical Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 131-176, April.
    11. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    12. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    13. Schilling, Melissa A. & Esmundo, Melissa, 2009. "Technology S-curves in renewable energy alternatives: Analysis and implications for industry and government," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1767-1781, May.
    14. Söderholm, Patrik & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2007. "Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(15), pages 2559-2578.
    15. de La Tour, Arnaud & Glachant, Matthieu & Ménière, Yann, 2013. "Predicting the costs of photovoltaic solar modules in 2020 using experience curve models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 341-348.
    16. Dedehayir, Ozgur & Steinert, Martin, 2016. "The hype cycle model: A review and future directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-41.
    17. Sagar, Ambuj D. & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2006. "Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2601-2608, November.
    18. Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
    19. William D. Nordhaus, 2014. "The Perils of the Learning Model for Modeling Endogenous Technological Change," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    20. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    21. Grubler, Arnulf & Nakicenovic, Nebojsa & Victor, David G., 1999. "Dynamics of energy technologies and global change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 247-280, May.
    22. Ruben Bibas & Aurélie Méjean, 2012. "Potential and limitations of bioenergy options for low carbon transitions," CIRED Working Papers hal-00866407, HAL.
    23. repec:bla:jecsur:v:12:y:1998:i:2:p:131-76 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. M. Hodson & S. Marvin, 2007. "Cities Mediating Technological Transitions: The Adaptability of Infrastructure and Infrastructures of Adaptability?," Chapters, in: H. S. Geyer (ed.), International Handbook of Urban Policy, Volume 1, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mauleón, Ignacio, 2016. "Photovoltaic learning rate estimation: Issues and implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 507-524.
    2. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    3. Reinhard Haas & Marlene Sayer & Amela Ajanovic & Hans Auer, 2023. "Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), March.
    4. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    5. Santhakumar, Srinivasan & Meerman, Hans & Faaij, André, 2021. "Improving the analytical framework for quantifying technological progress in energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Elia, A. & Taylor, M. & Ó Gallachóir, B. & Rogan, F., 2020. "Wind turbine cost reduction: A detailed bottom-up analysis of innovation drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    7. Bossink, Bart, 2020. "Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    8. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    9. Strupeit, Lars & Neij, Lena, 2017. "Cost dynamics in the deployment of photovoltaics: Insights from the German market for building-sited systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 948-960.
    10. Schauf, Magnus & Schwenen, Sebastian, 2021. "Mills of progress grind slowly? Estimating learning rates for onshore wind energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Farmer, J. Doyne & Lafond, François, 2016. "How predictable is technological progress?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 647-665.
    12. Gao, Xue & Rai, Varun & Nemet, Gregory F., 2022. "The roles of learning mechanisms in services: Evidence from US residential solar installations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    13. Shayegh, Soheil & Sanchez, Daniel L. & Caldeira, Ken, 2017. "Evaluating relative benefits of different types of R&D for clean energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 532-538.
    14. Wilson, Charlie, 2012. "Up-scaling, formative phases, and learning in the historical diffusion of energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 81-94.
    15. Mauleón, Ignacio & Hamoudi, Hamid, 2017. "Photovoltaic and wind cost decrease estimation: Implications for investment analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1054-1065.
    16. Elia, A. & Kamidelivand, M. & Rogan, F. & Ó Gallachóir, B., 2021. "Impacts of innovation on renewable energy technology cost reductions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    17. Heuberger, Clara F. & Rubin, Edward S. & Staffell, Iain & Shah, Nilay & Mac Dowell, Niall, 2017. "Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous technology cost learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 831-845.
    18. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    19. Strupeit, Lars, 2017. "An innovation system perspective on the drivers of soft cost reduction for photovoltaic deployment: The case of Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 273-286.
    20. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social Learning; Innovation Diffusion; Technology Adoption; Integrated Assessment; Case Study; Transition Research; Initiative-based Learning; Solar PV Learning Curves;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O35 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Social Innovation
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2016.66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.