Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available ScienceDirect
Availableonline
onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia147 (2018) 000–000
00 (2017) 419–427
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

International Scientific Conference “Environmental and Climate Technologies”, CONECT 2018

International Scientific Conference “Environmental and Climate Technologies”, CONECT 2018
A systemThedynamics model for COon2 emission mitigation policy
A system dynamics model
15th International for CO2 emission
Symposium mitigation
District Heating and Coolingpolicy
design in road transport sector
Assessing thedesign in road
feasibility transport
of using sector
the heat demand-outdoor
Aiga Barisa*, Marika Rosa
temperature function for
Aigaa Barisa*,
long-term district
Marika Rosa heat demand forecast
Institute of Energy Systems and Environment, Riga Technical University, Azenes iela 12/1, Riga, LV-1048, Latvia
Institute ofa,b,c
Energy Systems and aEnvironment, Rigaa Technical University,
b Azenes iela 12/1, Riga,cLV-1048, Latvia
I. Andrić *, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Correc
a
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract b
Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
Abstract c
Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
This paper presents methodology and assumptions underlying the DTReM-LV model. DTReM-LV (Dynamic TRansport
emission
This Model
paper for Latvia)
presents is a System
methodology and Dynamics
assumptions based computer the
underlying simulation
DTReM-LVmodel model.
for CO2DTReM-LV
emission mitigation
(Dynamicanalysis in the
TRansport
road transport
emission Model sector in Latvia.
for Latvia) is a To date, Dynamics
System decouplingbasedtransport energy
computer consumption
simulation model from
for increasing
CO2 emission greenhouse gasanalysis
mitigation emissionin has
the
proved
road to be asector
transport
Abstract difficult and challenging
in Latvia. task. The DTReM-LV
To date, decoupling transport energy modelconsumption
aims to forecast
from CO 2 emission
increasing generation
greenhouse gasfrom transport
emission has
sub-sectors
proved to beina response to changes
difficult and challengingin social,
task. Theeconomic
DTReM-LV and technical
model aims aspects, as well
to forecast COas policies.generation
2 emission The modelfrom gives better
transport
understanding
sub-sectors in of the underlying
response to factors
changes in behind
social, emission
economic generation
and in
technical the road transport
aspects, as wellsector
District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasingas and is
policies. applicable
The for
model the
givesanalysis
better
the
and design
understanding of clean
of transport
the underlying policies at
factors the state
behind level.
emission generation in the road transport sector
greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat and is applicable for the analysis
and design
sales. Dueoftoclean the transport
changed policies
climate atconditions
the state level.
and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
©prolonging
2018 The Authors.
the Published
investment returnbyperiod.
Elsevier Ltd.
© 2018
This The
is an openAuthors.
access Published
article by Elsevier
under Ltd.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
©The
2018
This
The
ismain
an open
Authors.
scope Published
of this
access isby
paperunder
article to Elsevier
assess
the CCthe
Ltd.
feasibilitylicense
BY-NC-ND of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat) demand
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection
This is an
forecast.and
Selection
and
open peer-review
access
Thepeer-review article
district ofunder under
Alvalade, responsibility
the CC
responsibility
BY-NC-ND
located of in the of
Lisbon the
license (
(Portugal),
scientific
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
scientific
committee wascommittee
ofused as a ofcase
thestudy.
the International
International Scientific
The Conference
Scientific district Conference
is consisted ) of 665
‘Environmental
‘Environmental
Selection
buildings and
that and
vary Climate
peer-review
in both
and Climate Technologies’, CONECT 2018.Technologies’,
under
construction CONECT
responsibility
period of
and 2018.
the scientific
typology. Three committee
weather of the
scenarios International
(low, medium, Scientific
high) and Conference
three district
‘Environmental
renovation scenarios and Climate Technologies’,
were developed CONECT
(shallow, 2018. deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
intermediate,
comparedemissions;
Keywords: with resultsLatvia;
frommodel; scenarioheat
a dynamic analysis;
demand system dynamics;
model, transport
previously developed and validated by the authors.
Keywords: emissions; Latvia; model; scenario analysis;
The results showed that when only weather change is considered, system dynamics; transport
the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
(the error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
1.scenarios,
Introductionthe error value increased up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
1.The
Introduction
value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
The European
decrease in the numberUnionof(EU) heatinghashours
set aofgoal to reduce
22-139h duringgreenhouse
the heating seasongas (GHG) emissions
(depending on theincombination
sectors of the economy
of weather and
not The
renovationEuropean
covered by the
scenarios UnionEU (EU)
Emission
considered). has
Onset aother
goal hand,
Trading
the to reduce
System greenhouse
(ETS)
function gas
by 30 increased
intercept % by(GHG) for emissions
2030 comparedper
7.8-12.7% intosectors of
the 2005
decade thelevel.
economy
(depending This
on the
not covered
commitment
coupled by theTheEUvalues
is translated
scenarios). Emission
intosuggestedTrading
national Member
could System (ETS)
State
be used to targets
modify by ranging
30 function
the % by from20300–40compared
parameters % for thetoscenarios
reduction thecompared
2005considered,
level. This
to 2005and
improve the accuracy
commitment of heatinto
is translated demand estimations.
national Member State targets ranging from 0–40 % reduction compared to 2005

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
* Corresponding author.
Cooling.
aiga.barisa@rtu.lv
E-mail address:author.
* Corresponding
E-mail address:
Keywords: aiga.barisa@rtu.lv
Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
1876-6102 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open
1876-6102 access
© 2018 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection
This is an and
openpeer-review under
access article responsibility
under of the scientific
the CC BY-NC-ND licensecommittee of the International Scientific Conference ‘Environmental and Climate
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Technologies’, CONECT 2018.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Scientific Conference ‘Environmental and Climate
1876-6102 © 2017
Technologies’, CONECTThe Authors.
2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1876-6102  2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Scientific Conference ‘Environmental and
Climate Technologies’, CONECT 2018.
10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.112
420 Aiga Barisa et al. / Energy Procedia 147 (2018) 419–427
2 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

(final proposal still to be approved). Transport is one of the sectors expected to contribute in meeting the target.
Previous trends of development have highlighted the difficult task of decarbonizing the transport sector. In fact, for
many countries important uncertainties remain related to emission reduction potentials in the non-ETS sectors. It is
important to study the decarbonisation potential in the transport sector to narrow the gap.
Overall, there are a great number of different modelling tools used in the transport sector, which can be
diversified by various research scopes, geographic coverage, modelling approaches and assumptions, as well as
through complexity of tools. Finding that previous research has mostly focused on effects of specific transport
segments such as urban public transport [1] or freight transport [2], individual policy measures e.g. mobility
services [3], taxes or scrappage schemes [4], and particular technologies like [5] biofuels or electric vehicles [6], and
that the well-known macro-planning energy system models such as MARKAL, LEAP or EnergyPlan do not provide
the level of detail and are not explanatory and informative enough for policy makers, authors believe that there is
still a gap in studies offering a complex evaluation of policy packages and their effects, especially if one looks at
European countries with less advanced economies. This papers aims to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive
tool for CO2 (carbon dioxide) emission reduction policy analysis in the road transport sector at the country level.
Authors present a new mathematical simulation model for CO2 emission mitigation analysis in the road transport
sector. The overall aim of the model is to improve the knowledge-base and modelling capacity underpinning policy
decision-making in the transport sector by providing a comprehensive tool for CO2 emission reduction policy
analysis in the road transport sector.
The model is based on the System Dynamics modelling approach. System Dynamics discipline has been used for
more than half a century for a wide variety of applications due to its unique ‘systems’ perspective and capability to
address the fundamental structural causes of problems arising in complex dynamic socio-economic systems.
The major strength of the System Dynamics modelling approach is the ‘open structure’ of the models making them
flexible for input parameters and structural modifications. This advantage is especially beneficial in the transport
sector which is represented by complex connections between system elements, feedbacks, non-linearity, and time
delays [7].
The aim of this paper is to present the underlying assumptions and methodology of the DTReM-LV model
(Dynamic TRansport emission Model for Latvia). The results of the modelling with policy analysis under five
different scenarios are presented in [8].

2. Model build-up

The DTReM-LV model was built using Powersim Studio 8 modelling software. It forecasts CO2 emissions from
2013 to 2030 with a time step of one year. The model is limited to capture CO2 emissions from road and railway
transport modes (excluding domestic navigation and domestic aviation) since they contribute the greatest share of
CO2 emissions from the transport sector (95.2 % in EU-28 in 2013 according to [9]). Only CO2 emissions related to
direct use of fuel in transportation are considered since they make up 98.8 % of EU-28 transport GHG emissions [9].
As shown in Fig. 1, the model consists of six modules processed in the following sequential steps:

 Transport activity modelling;

 Mode split;
 Vehicle demand forecast;
 Technology distribution;
 Energy demand modelling;
 CO2 emission modelling.

Each of the steps is described in the following sub-sections.

2.1. Transport demand modelling

The first step is transport demand modelling by 2030. In general, this part can be an input to the model if data
sources are available. There is no official forecast available on transport activity in Latvia, therefore, it was
 Aiga Barisa et al. / Energy Procedia 147 (2018) 419–427 421
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

necessary to make assumptions about the travel demand. As suggested in the research literature [10], transport
energy consumption is causally related to gross domestic product (GDP). A good correlation between GDP and
travel activity can be observed in Latvia. To model the future demand of transport, the historic relation between the
GDP, transport activity and population in Latvia were collected and applied for the period 2002–2013 for passenger
transport and 1995–2014 for freight transport.

Population Fuel price Emission

Consumer Occupancy rates Fuel economy
GDP Capital costs factors
choice factors Annual utilization
O&M costs

Private Diesel
Private cars
Passenger Public Gasoline
transport Internal
transport Buses
combustion
(pkm) LPG

CO2 emissions
engine
Non- Trolley-buses
motorized Natural gas
Freight means of
transport Trams Electric
travel engine Biofuels
(tkm)
Road Train Hybrid Electricity

Railway Trucks Hydrogen

Transport Vehicle Technology Energy CO2,

activity Mode split, % demand Distribution, % demand, GWh 1000 t
modelling

Fig. 1. General structure of the DTReM-LV.

Data sets were chosen corresponding to the data availability in the data sources. Data on GDP and population
were collected from national statistics. Data on passenger and freight transport activity under individual travel
modes were collected from national statistics and official EU statistics presented in the Eurostat database. Both data
sources are publicly available, thus ensuring replicability of the methods used. For population projections it was
assumed that no major changes in historically observed trends will occur by 2030, i.e. the population will continue
to decline with an average rate of 1.2 % per year. This assumption is slightly more optimistic than the Eurostat
projected demographic balances for Latvia (1.63 million people in 2030) [11]. The outcome of the transport demand
module is a forecast of passenger and freight transport demand by 2030 expressed in passenger-kilometers (pkm)
and ton-kilometers (tkm) travelled, respectively.

2.2. Mode split

The second step involves defining the modal split. Three alternatives were defined to be available for passenger
transport: private cars, public transport, and non-motorized means of transport. Two alternatives were defined to be
available for freight transport: road and railway transport.
Travel behaviour of individuals is a complex decision based on many factors and considerations. The goal of the
model is to achieve transition from car use to other means of transport. In the proposed model, the speed of this
transition is determined endogenously considering transport mode choice factors described in the literature:

 Cost of private car use [12];

 Travel time [12];
 Accessibility to infrastructure [13];
 Social acceptance determined by such factors as previous experiences [14];
 satisfaction with the service [15] and socio-economic position [16];
 Environmental consciousness [17].
422 Aiga Barisa et al. / Energy Procedia 147 (2018) 419–427
4 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

The shift from the initial car user’s stock to public transport and cycling is the result of changes introduced in
consumer choice factors, e.g. an increasing number of cars on roads leads to more congestion and increased travel
time, which, in turn, makes public transport and cycling more attractive compared to car use.

2.3. Vehicle demand and technology distribution

In the following step, annual aggregated transport demand is transformed into annual vehicle demand. This is
performed by applying corresponding vehicle occupancy rates (person per vehicle for passenger transport or ton per
vehicle for freight transport) and annual vehicle utilization rates (mileage, km per year). The average annual mileage
of cars was taken from the national statistics and was assumed to be 15,000 km per car. The average annual mileage
of trucks and buses was assumed to be 50,000 km per vehicle. The values of occupancy rates and load factors were
found empirically, based on statistical data for the corresponding registered vehicle fleet. The following values were
used: 1.2 persons per car, 9.0 persons per bus, and 3.5 tons per truck. It should be noted that these values are
representative for the whole vehicle fleet rather than individual vehicles.
The whole vehicle fleet is later categorised into particular technologies. Eight different technologies are included
in the analysis, including conventional fuels (diesel, gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)) and alternative
fuels and technologies (biofuels, compressed natural gas (CNG), electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and hydrogen
and fuel cell vehicles). Logit function is used to describe technology choice based on cost estimation [18], see
Eq. (1):

exp Ci (1)

Si 
 j exp j
C

where
Si the market share of technology i;
α a coefficient representing the cost sensitivity of market demand;
Ci the total cost of vehicle owning and driving of technology i, EUR/km;
Cj the cost sum of owning and driving vehicles of all technologies, EUR/km.

The total cost of vehicle owning and driving Ci (EUR/km) is calculated as the sum of four components: vehicle
costs per lifetime Cveh; fuel costs Cfuel; vehicle operation and maintenance costs CO&M, and inconvenience costs IC,
see Eq. (2):

Ci  Cveh  C fuel  CO&VM  IC (2)

A general principle of stocks and flows representing the technology distribution module in the Powersim
modelling platform is illustrated in Fig. 2.
 Aiga name
Author Barisa/ Energy
et al. / Energy Procedia
Procedia 147000–000
00 (2018) (2018) 419–427 4235

New vehicle
registrations
Vehicle demand based
Awareness IC
Registered EV fleet on travel demand
Vehicle lifetime
Public charging
EV fleet after 5 years EV written-off vehicle accessibility
EV fleet under 5 years
fleet
EV fleet from under to EV 2nd hand fleet Effect of experience
after 5 years scrappage on Awareness IC Infrastructure IC
New EV price Lifetime of a new
vehicle Effect of
Cummulative EV stock infrastructure
alpha Annual EV increase Cost IC development on
2nd hand EV sales Inconvenience costs
Capital costs of new New EV sales IC
Infrastructure IC
EV Investment share in Investment share in
new EV fleet 2nd hand EV fleet
2nd hand EV cost
Capital costs of 2nd Effect of EV price on
New EV cost hand EV Cost IC
Total investments in O&M costs of 2nd 2nd hand EV price
Charges of new EV
vehicle fleet hand EV
Charges of 2nd hand
Electricity price EV New EV price
Inconvenience costs
O&M costs of new IC Energy costs of 2nd
Maintenance costs of EV hand EV
Maintenance costs of
new EV Electricity price 2nd hand EV
Average energy
Energy costs of new consumption of new Average energy
EV EV consumption of 2nd
hand EV
EV – electric vehicles; IC – inconvenience costs

Fig. 2. Representation of the technology choice module in the System Dynamics model.

As an example, the technology choice of electric vehicles (EV) is shown, demonstrating the dependence of
investment shares on total vehicle ownership costs. Similar stock-flow diagrams are developed and applied for each
of the eight technologies under each of the vehicle types (cars, buses, and trucks). Total annual investments in
vehicle fleet (‘Total investments in vehicle fleet’) is a sum of annual depreciation of vehicle fleet (‘EV 2nd hand fleet
scrappage’) and the number of new vehicles introduced in the vehicle stock due to increased travel activity (‘New
vehicle registrations’). The investment shares influencing input flows ‘New EV sales’ and ‘2nd hand EV sales’ are
determined based on technology costs, as determined in Eq. (2). Inconvenience costs IC were introduced in the
Eq. (2) to capture existing barriers attributed to the use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) compared to conventional
fuels. For example, range anxiety, lengthy charging time, and high purchase price are main concerns regarding
electric vehicles [19]. It is assumed that inconvenience costs represent additional costs to consumers which delay
them when choosing alternative fuel technologies. The low acceptance of AFVs is an especially topical issue in
Latvia as shown by the low number of AFVs in the market. Therefore, in the system dynamics model three types of
inconvenience costs are included:

 Cost inconvenience costs (‘Cost IC’) representing higher initial costs of AFVs compared to conventional vehicles;
 Infrastructure inconvenience costs (‘Infrastructure IC’) representing the lack of charging/refuelling infrastructure;
 Awareness inconvenience costs (‘Awareness IC’) representing the risk factor associated with the low knowledge
and experience of AFV use.

The initial numerical value of the total inconvenience costs was found empirically and was assumed to be
10.0 EUR/km. The three inconvenience cost parameters were assumed to have initial importance values: 30 % for cost
related inconvenience costs, 60 % for infrastructure related inconvenience costs and 10 % for experience related
inconvenience costs. To model the changes of the inconvenience costs in response to changes in the surrounding
environment (influenced by policies, technology development and accumulation of AFV market share), results from a
survey describing AFV user’s attitude presented in [20] were used. The results present the degree of reduction of the
424 Aiga Barisa et al. / Energy Procedia 147 (2018) 419–427
6 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

inconvenience costs (in % of the initial inconvenience costs) in response to observed improvements: reduction of AFV
price, increased availability of charging/refuelling infrastructure and increased access to information about AFVs.
The price of alternative fuel vehicles is around 30 % higher compared to similar size conventional vehicles.
The current high prices of alternative fuel vehicles delay their wider adoption and price reduction is a critical factor
to increase the market share of these vehicles. However, if compared to prices a decade ago, a decreasing trend is
observed. Further cost reduction can be assumed in the future. Wess et al. [21] has provided forecasts of electric
vehicle prices based on the experience curve approach by analysing the price development of electric vehicles.
By 2030, it is suggested that the prices of electric cars will reduce by 70 % compared to 2010 level due to battery
technology development. The price of hybrid electric cars is assumed to reduce by 20 % by 2030, compared
with 2010. These assumptions were incorporated in the DTReM-LV.

2.4. Energy demand and CO2 emissions

The CO2 emissions from the transport sector were calculated based on IPCC methodology for national GHG
emission inventories [22]. CO2 emissions from road vehicles are calculated on the basis of the amount and type of
fuel combusted and its carbon content as shown in Eq. (3) and Eq. (4):

CO2  a ( Fuela  EFa ) (3)

where
CO2 emissions of CO2, kg;
Fuel fuel consumed, TJ;
EF emission factor, kg/TJ;
a type of fuel (eg. diesel, gasoline, LPG).

The standard Tier1 and Tier2 methodologies of the IPCC guidelines use estimated fuel sold in the country to
determine road transport CO2 emissions. Energy data on transport fuel consumption by type is available from the
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. The data were used to validate the system dynamics model. To make future
projections of fuel consumption in the model, activity and energy efficiency patterns were taken into account:

Estimated fuelroad transport  i , j (Vehiclesij  Dis tan ceij  Consumptio nij ) (4)

where
Estimated fuelroad transport total estimated fuel use in road transport, l/year;
Vehicles i,j number of vehicles of type i using fuel j;
Distance i,j annual kilometres travelled per vehicle of type i using fuel j, km;
Consumption i,j average fuel consumption by vehicles of type i using fuel j, l/km;
i vehicle type (e.g. car, bus, truck);
j fuel type (e.g. diesel, gasoline, LPG).

The model is constructed from three different road transport sub-categories: cars, trucks, and buses. Total
emissions are calculated by summation. Emissions from fuel use abroad are not calculated in national totals.
To estimate fuel consumption in passenger and freight railway transport a simplified approach was used since
locomotive-specific data were not available. Instead of estimating the number of vehicles and the average fuel
efficiency per locomotive, an average specific fuel consumption per passenger-and-ton-kilometres was applied, as
shown in Eq. (5):

Estimated fuelrailway  ij ( Activityij  Consumptionij ) (5)

 Aiga Barisa et al. / Energy Procedia 147 (2018) 419–427 425
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

where
Estimated fuelrailway total estimated fuel use in railway transport, TJ;
Activity i,j annual kilometres travelled per railway type i using fuel j, pkm or tkm;
Consumption i,j specific fuel consumption by railway type i using fuel j, TJ/pkm or TJ/tkm;
i railway type (diesel, electric);
j fuel type (diesel, biodiesel, electricity).

Specific fuel consumption in railway passenger and goods transport was determined based on historic energy
consumption and transport activity data available in national statistics. The following values were used: 0.46 TJ per
million pkm in electric urban transport; 0.26 TJ per million pkm in electric passenger railway transport; 0.75 TJ per
million pkm in non-electric passenger railway transport; 0.16 TJ per million pkm in freight railway transport (only
non-electric). These assumptions are in line with average data representative for Europe. According to the data
from [23], railway specific energy consumption in Europe has decreased from around 475 kJ per pkm in 1990, to
400 kJ per pkm in 2012 for passenger transport and from around 240 kJ per tkm in 1990 to 185 kJ per tkm in 2012
for freight transport.
Fuel specific CO2 emission factors used in the model [22]: gasoline 69,300 kgCO2/TJ, diesel 74,100 kgCO2/TJ,
LPG 63,100 kgCO2/TJ and CNG 56,100 kgCO2/TJ. Assumptions of energy consumption consider continuous
improvements for conventional fuel vehicles. It is assumed that the new car fleet will fulfil EU requirements for
specific CO2 emissions [24]. In terms of fuel consumption, the mid-term target (year 2015) was approximately
equivalent to 5.6 litres of petrol and 4.9 litres of diesel per 100 km. The 2021 target equates to approximately 4.1 litres
of petrol and 3.6 litres of diesel per 100 km. As for the used car fleet, it is assumed that the average fuel
consumption improves by 0.5 % annually. Similar fuel economy improvement is considered for bus and truck fleets.

3. Model validation

No model precisely matches the system under study because all models are something less than the system
modelled. Generally, System Dynamics model builders are much more interested in dynamic tendencies than in
specific values of system variables in specific years. In practice, the usefulness of a developed model is of major
concern [25]. Forrester and Senge [26] believe that confidence is the best criterion for model behaviour assessment
because there is no absolute proof of the capability of the model to describe reality. System Dynamics models are
found to be valid when they can be used with confidence [25].
In this study structural and behavioural validation tests were performed, which are usually performed in System
Dynamics models. This included:

 Structure and parameter verification tests which compare structure and parameters of the model to the available
knowledge of the real system;
 An extreme conditions test to discover any flaws in the model structure and enhance the usefulness of the model
for policy analysis;
 A dimensional consistency test of the model’s rate equations;
 Behaviour reproduction tests to examine the degree to which the model’s generated behaviour matches
historically observed behaviour of the real system;
 A behaviour sensitivity test examining the sensitivity of the model’s behaviour to changes in values of major
parameters.

Fig. 3(a) shows a comparison of simulated and historic CO2 emissions from transport modes covered by the
study. Fig. 3(b) shows the comparison of simulated and historic car stock which is the major contributor to transport
CO2 emissions in Latvia. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the behaviour generated by the model is consistent with the
historic data. It is therefore assumed that the model is capable of replicating the structure of the real system and
generating meaningful predictions. It is thereby concluded that the model is useful for further policy design aiming
to improve the future behaviour of the system.
8426 Aiga
Author Barisa
name et al. Procedia
/ Energy / Energy Procedia
00 (2018)147 (2018) 419–427
000–000

50 00 10 00
CO2 emissions, grams

40 00 8 00

Cars, thousands
30 00 6 00
Historic
20 00 Historic 4 00
Modelled
10 00 Modelled 2 00

0 0

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (a) Historic and modelled data on CO2 emissions from road and railway transport; (b) registered car stock in Latvia, 2003–2013.

In addition, model forecasts were compared to available statistics on: passenger and freight transport demand in
different sub-categories (cars, buses, and railway transport modes for passenger transport and road and railway
modes for freight transport), the number of registered vehicles per fuel type in different sub-categories (cars, buses
and trucks), fuel/energy consumption in passenger and freight transport by different fuel types, and CO2 emissions
by transport modes (private cars, trucks and buses, and railway transport).

4. Conclusions

This paper presents the methodology and assumptions underlying the DTReM-LV model developed in the
Institute of Energy Systems and Environment, Riga Technical University. Besides the economy-wide energy models
such as MARKAL [27] and Energy Plan [28] and sector specific models such as [29] that have been used for policy
and technology analysis in the transport sector in Latvia, the DTReM model is the first model developed and applied
with a particular interest for comprehensive CO2 mitigation policy analysis in the transport sector in Latvia. There
are two major strengths of the model. Firstly, the model is unique in its ability to model the effect of many discrete
policy measures unlimited in their numerical values (e.g. the subsidy rate for alternative fuel vehicle purchase).
Policy packages available in DTReM include policy measures promoting public transport, alternative fuel vehicles,
technical progress, mode shift and combined policy packages. Secondly, the ‘white box’ modelling approach makes
researching the existing causalities more efficient in the transport system and build the understanding and
conference of the dynamic behavior generated by the real system. Moreover, this approach allows further
improvements to be made in the structure of the model and assumptions used, thus ensuring the opportunity for
accuracy improvement of the model, as well as its use for transport system analysis from other perspectives or
within the context of other country case studies.
The DTReM-LV model contributes to a better understanding of the major technical, economic and behavioural
drivers behind the dynamic behaviour of CO2 emissions originating from the transport sector in Latvia. Research
results provide a tool for development of sustainable transport policies at a national level and are useful for
evaluating the effects of support instruments for low-carbon road transport development. National level government
officials should find this analysis useful for understanding the dynamics that are likely to drive carbon dioxide
emissions from the road transport sector over the coming decades and find optimal strategies for reaching national
transport, climate and energy policy goals.

Acknowledgements

The work has been supported by the National Research Program “Energy efficient and low-carbon solutions for a
secure, sustainable and climate variability reducing energy supply (LATENERGI)”.
 Aiga Barisa et al. / Energy Procedia 147 (2018) 419–427 427
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 9

References

[1] Liu X, Ma S, Tian J, Jia N, Li G. A system Dynamics approach to scenario analysis for urban passenger transport energy consumption and
CO2 emissions: A case study of Beijing. Energ Policy 2015;85:253–70.
[2] Hao H, Geng Y, Li W, Guo B. Energy consumption and GHG emissions from China’s freight transport sector: Scenarios through 2050.
Energ Policy 2015;85:94–101.
[3] Grischkat S, Hunecke M, Bohler S, Haustein S. Potential for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the use of mobility
services. Transp Policy 2014;35:295–303.
[4] Brand C, Anable J, Tran M. Accelerating the transformation to a low carbon passenger transport system: The role of car purchase taxes,
feebates, road taxes and scrappage incentives in the UK. Trans. Res Part A, Policy Pract 2013;49:132–48.
[5] Zhang H, Chen W. The Role of Biofuels in China’s Transport Sector in Carbon Mitigation Scenarios. Energy Proced 2015;75:2700–5.
[6] Noori M, Zhao Y, Onat NC, Gardner S, Tatari O. Light-duty electric vehicles to improve the integrity of the electricity grid through
Vehicle-to-Grid technology: Analysis of regional net revenue and emissions savings. Appl Energ 2016;168:146–58.
[7] Selvakkumaran S, Limmeechokchai B. Low carbon society scenario analysis of transport sector of an emerging economy – The
AIM/Enduse modelling approach. Energ Policy 2015;81:199–214.
[8] Barisa A, Rosa M. A system dynamics model for CO2 emission mitigation policy design in road transport sector. Energy Procedia 2018;In
Press.
[9] European Environment Agency. EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. Available: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-
viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer
[10] Liddle B, Lung S. The long-run causal relationship between transport energy consumption and GDP: Evidence from heterogeneous panel
methods robust to cross-sectional dependence. Economics Letters 2013;121(3):524–7.
[11] Eurostat. Main scenario – Projected demographic balances and indicators.
[12] Asensio J. Transport mode choice by commuters to Barcelona’s CBD. Urban Studies 2002;39(10):1881–95.
[13] Marques R, Hernandez-Herrador V, Calvo-Salazar M, Garcia-Cebrian JA. How infrastructure can promote cycling in cities: Lessons from
Seville. Res Transp Econ 2015;53:31–44.
[14] Nerhagen L. Travel mode choice: effects of previous experience on choice behaviour and valuation. Tourism Econ 2003;9(1):5–30.
[15] Mehbub Anwar AHM. Paradox between Public Transport and Private Car as a Modal Choice in Policy Formulation. Journal of Bangladesh
Institute of Planners 2009;2:71–7.
[16] Rachele JN, Kavanagh AM, Badland H, Giles-Corti B, Washington S, Turrell G. Associations between individual socioeconomic position,
neighborhood disadvantage and transport mode: baseline results from the HABITAT multilevel study. J Epidemiol Commun H
2015;69:1217–23.
[17] Anable J. Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transp
Policy 2005;12(1):65–78.
[18] Moxnes E. Interfuel substitution in OECD-European electricity production. System Dynamics Review 1990;6(1):44–65.
[19] Hidrue MK, Parsons GR, Kempton W, Gardner MP. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour Enery Econ
2011;33(3):686–705.
[20] Barisa A, Rosa M, Ķisele A. Introducing Electric Mobility in Latvian Municipalities: Results of a Survey. Energ Proced 2016;95:50–7.
[21] Weiss M, Patel MK, Junginger M, Perujo A, Bonnel P, van Grootveld G. On the electrification of road transport - Learning rates and price
forecasts for hybrid-electric and battery-electric vehicles. Energ Policy 2012;48:374–93.
[22] Waldron CD, Harnisch J, Lucon O, Mckibbon RS, Saile SB, Wagner F, Walsh MP, Maurice LQ, Hockstad L, Hohne N, Hupe J, Lee DS,
Rypdal K, Kapshe M, Allyn DM, Locke M, Lukachko S, Pesmajoglou S. Mobile Combustion. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories 2006;1–78.
[23] OECD/IEA. Railway Handbook, 2015. Available: https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/iea-uic_2015-2.pdf
[24] European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission
performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty
vehicles. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009;L140.
[25] Shreckengost RC. Dynamic simulation models: how valid are they? Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Current Challenges to
Validity. Washington: Office of Science of the National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1985.
[26] Forrester JW, Senge PM. Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences.
Amsterdam: North Holland Press; 1980.
[27] Klavs G, Kudrenickis I, Rekis J. Development of Latvia greenhouse gas reduction policy: Modelling and analysis. 5th International
Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference and EXPO, SGEM 2015;921–32.
[28] Rusanova J, Bazbauers G. Analysis of Long-Term Plan for Energy Supply System for Latvia that is 100 % Based on the Use of Local
Energy Resources. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2010;4:82–90.
[29] Barisa A, Romagnoli F, Blumberga A, Blumberga D. Future biodiesel policy designs and consumption patterns in Latvia: a system
dynamics model. J Clean Prod 2015;88:71–82.