Comparison of deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy logic uncertainty modelling for capacity extension projects of DI/WFI pharmaceutical plant utilities with variable/dynamic demand

The last 30 years have seen Fuzzy Logic (FL) emerging as a method either complementing or challenging stochastic methods as the traditional method of modelling uncertainty. But the circumstances under which FL or stochastic methods should be used are shrouded in disagreement, because the areas of application of statistical and FL methods are overlapping with differences in opinion as to when which method should be used. Lacking are practically relevant case studies comparing these two methods. This work compares stochastic and FL methods for the assessment of spare capacity on the example of pharmaceutical high purity water (HPW) utility systems. The goal of this study was to find the most appropriate method modelling uncertainty in industrial scale HPW systems. The results provide evidence which suggests that stochastic methods are superior to the methods of FL in simulating uncertainty in chemical plant utilities including HPW systems in typical cases whereby extreme events, for example peaks in demand, or day-to-day variation rather than average values are of interest. The average production output or other statistical measures may, for instance, be of interest in the assessment of workshops. Furthermore the results indicate that the stochastic model should be used only if found necessary by a deterministic simulation. Consequently, this thesis concludes that either deterministic or stochastic methods should be used to simulate uncertainty in chemical plant utility systems and by extension some process system because extreme events or the modelling of day-to-day variation are important in capacity extension projects. Other reasons supporting the suggestion that stochastic HPW models are preferred to FL HPW models include: 1. The computer code for stochastic models is typically less complex than a FL models, thus reducing code maintenance and validation issues. 2. In many respects FL models are similar to deterministic models. Thus the need for a FL model over a deterministic model is questionable in the case of industrial scale HPW systems as presented here (as well as other similar systems) since the latter requires simpler models. 3. A FL model may be difficult to "sell" to an end-user as its results represent "approximate reasoning" a definition of which is, however, lacking. 4. Stochastic models may be applied with some relatively minor modifications on other systems, whereas FL models may not. For instance, the stochastic HPW system could be used to model municipal drinking water systems, whereas the FL HPW model should or could not be used on such systems. This is because the FL and stochastic model philosophies of a HPW system are fundamentally different. The stochastic model sees schedule and volume uncertainties as random phenomena described by statistical distributions based on either estimated or historical data. The FL model, on the other hand, simulates schedule uncertainties based on estimated operator behaviour e.g. tiredness of the operators and their working schedule. But in a municipal drinking water distribution system the notion of "operator" breaks down. 5. Stochastic methods can account for uncertainties that are difficult to model with FL. The FL HPW system model does not account for dispensed volume uncertainty, as there appears to be no reasonable method to account for it with FL whereas the stochastic model includes volume uncertainty.

Pretty good governance: balancing policy drivers and stakeholder interests in developing fisheries ecosystem plans

The central research question that this thesis addresses is whether there is a significant gap between fishery stakeholder values and the principles and policy goals implicit in an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). The implications of such a gap for fisheries governance are explored. Furthermore an assessment is made of what may be practically achievable in the implementation of an EAFM in fisheries in general and in a case study fishery in particular. The research was mainly focused on a particular case study, the Celtic Sea Herring fishery and its management committee, the Celtic Sea Herring Management Advisory Committee (CSHMAC). The Celtic Sea Herring fishery exhibits many aspects of an EAFM and the fish stock has successfully recovered to healthy levels in the past 5 years. However there are increasing levels of governance related conflict within the fishery which threaten the future sustainability of the stock. Previous research on EAFM governance has tended to focus either on higher levels of EAFM governance or on individual behaviour but very little research has attempted to link the two spheres or explore the relationship between them. Two main themes within this study aimed to address this gap. The first was what role governance could play in facilitating EAFM implementation. The second theme concerned the degree of convergence between high-level EAFM goals and stakeholder values. The first method applied was governance benchmarking to analyse systemic risks to EAFM implementation. This found that there are no real EU or national level policies which provide stakeholders or managers with clear targets for EAFM implementation. The second method applied was the use of cognitive mapping to explore stakeholders understandings of the main ecological, economic and institutional driving forces in the Celtic Sea Herring fishery. The main finding from this was that a long-term outlook can and has been incentivised through a combination of policy drivers and participatory management. However the fundamental principle of EAFM, accounting for ecosystem linkages rather than target stocks was not reflected in stakeholders cognitive maps. This was confirmed in a prioritisation of stakeholders management priorities using Analytic Hierarchy Process which found that the overriding concern is for protection of target stock status but that wider ecosystem health was not a priority for most management participants. The conclusion reached is that moving to sustainable fisheries may be a more complex process than envisioned in much of the literature and may consist of two phases. The first phase is a transition to a long-term but still target stock focused approach. This achievable transition is mainly a strategic change, which can be incentivised by policies and supported by stakeholders. In the Celtic Sea Herring fishery, and an increasing number of global and European fisheries, such transitions have contributed to successful stock recoveries. The second phase however, implementation of an ecosystem approach, may present a greater challenge in terms of governability, as this research highlights some fundamental conflicts between stakeholder perceptions and values and those inherent in an EAFM. This phase may involve the setting aside of fish for non-valued ecosystem elements and will require either a pronounced mind-set and value change or some strong top-down policy incentives in order to succeed. Fisheries governance frameworks will need to carefully explore the most effective balance between such endogenous and exogenous solutions. This finding of low prioritisation of wider ecosystem elements has implications for rights based management within an ecosystem approach, regardless of whether those rights are individual or collective.