IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i5p2097-d330170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opening up the Black Box of Group Decision-Making on Solar Energy: The Case of Strata Buildings in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Judith C. M. Roodenrijs

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Dries L. T. Hegger

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Heleen L. P. Mees

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Peter Driessen

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The adoption of solar energy is lagging behind in urban areas worldwide. Although the literature on energy transition is abundant, it has been focused mostly at the systems level. Few studies have addressed on-the-ground implementation. This paper examines a specific but prominent example of such on-the-ground practice: decision-making processes in strata buildings whose owners are organized in a (home) owners’ association. These buildings constitute a significant proportion of the housing stock in European cities, and hence their role in energy transition cannot be underestimated. In strata buildings, homeowners have to reach an agreement before renewable energy measures can be implemented. These related group decision-making processes are still a black box, however. We constructed a tentative framework based on a review of group decision-making and applied literature, which we validated and refined using a survey and in-depth interviews with (home) owners’ associations in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Our study aimed to explore what the stimuli and barriers for the adoption of renewable energy measures in group settings are. Our empirical findings suggest that leadership and information processing are key factors that explain the outcomes of group decision-making processes. Whereas many are convinced that energy transitions are technically possible, their day-to-day implementation has proven to be complicated. For energy transitions to succeed, the recognition of key factors that explain the outcomes of group decision-making needs to be taken into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith C. M. Roodenrijs & Dries L. T. Hegger & Heleen L. P. Mees & Peter Driessen, 2020. "Opening up the Black Box of Group Decision-Making on Solar Energy: The Case of Strata Buildings in Amsterdam, the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:2097-:d:330170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2097/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2097/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcello Graziano & Kenneth Gillingham, 2015. "Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: The influence of neighbors and the built environment," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 815-839.
    2. Kern, Florian & Smith, Adrian, 2008. "Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4093-4103, November.
    3. Verbong, Geert & Geels, Frank, 2007. "The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1025-1037, February.
    4. Whyte, Glen, 1998. "Recasting Janis's Groupthink Model: The Key Role of Collective Efficacy in Decision Fiascoes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 185-209, February.
    5. Derk Loorbach & Rutger Van Der Brugge & Mattijs Taanman, 2008. "Governance in the energy transition: Practice of transition management in the Netherlands," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(2/3), pages 294-315.
    6. Peterson, Randall S. & Owens, Pamela D. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Fan, Elliott T. & Martorana, Paul, 1998. "Group Dynamics in Top Management Teams: Groupthink, Vigilance, and Alternative Models of Organizational Failure and Success," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 272-305, February.
    7. Klöckner, Christian A. & Nayum, Alim, 2017. "Psychological and structural facilitators and barriers to energy upgrades of the privately owned building stock," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(P1), pages 1005-1017.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nava-Guerrero, Graciela-del-Carmen & Hansen, Helle Hvid & Korevaar, Gijsbert & Lukszo, Zofia, 2022. "An agent-based exploration of the effect of multi-criteria decisions on complex socio-technical heat transitions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PB).
    2. Nava-Guerrero, Graciela-del-Carmen & Hansen, Helle Hvid & Korevaar, Gijsbert & Lukszo, Zofia, 2021. "The effect of group decisions in heat transitions: An agent-based approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    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. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.
    2. Tambach, Milly & Hasselaar, Evert & Itard, Laure, 2010. "Assessment of current Dutch energy transition policy instruments for the existing housing stock," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 981-996, February.
    3. Tasa, Kevin & Whyte, Glen, 2005. "Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in group decision making: A non-linear model," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 119-129, March.
    4. Jacob Hale & Suzanna Long, 2020. "A Time Series Sustainability Assessment of a Partial Energy Portfolio Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Neukirch, Mario, 2012. "Adaptive capacities, path creation and variants of sectoral change: The case of the transformation of the German energy supply system," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2012-02, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    6. Adrian Neacșa & Mirela Panait & Jianu Daniel Mureșan & Marian Catalin Voica & Otilia Manta, 2022. "The Energy Transition between Desideratum and Challenge: Are Cogeneration and Trigeneration the Best Solution?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-22, March.
    7. Lee, Taedong & Glick, Mark B. & Lee, Jae-Hyup, 2020. "Island energy transition: Assessing Hawaii's multi-level, policy-driven approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    8. Farrelly, M.A. & Tawfik, S., 2020. "Engaging in disruption: A review of emerging microgrids in Victoria, Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    9. Barton, John & Davies, Lloyd & Dooley, Ben & Foxon, Timothy J. & Galloway, Stuart & Hammond, Geoffrey P. & O’Grady, Áine & Robertson, Elizabeth & Thomson, Murray, 2018. "Transition pathways for a UK low-carbon electricity system: Comparing scenarios and technology implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2779-2790.
    10. Nemeth, Charlan & Goncalo, Jack, 2004. "Influence and Persuasion in Small Groups," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt9n8060j4, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    11. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    12. Timothy J. Foxon, 2014. "Technological lock-in and the role of innovation," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 20, pages 304-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Yuan, Jiahai & Xu, Yan & Hu, Zhaoguang, 2012. "Delivering power system transition in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 751-772.
    14. René Kemp & Jan Rotmans, 2009. "Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 303-322, November.
    15. Yuan, Jiahai & Xu, Yan & Hu, Zhen & Yu, Zhongfu & Liu, Jiangyan & Hu, Zhaoguang & Xu, Ming, 2012. "Managing electric power system transition in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5660-5677.
    16. Solomon, Barry D. & Krishna, Karthik, 2011. "The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7422-7431.
    17. Hecher, Maria & Vilsmaier, Ulli & Akhavan, Roya & Binder, Claudia R., 2016. "An integrative analysis of energy transitions in energy regions: A case study of ökoEnergieland in Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 40-53.
    18. Hultman, Nathan E. & Malone, Elizabeth L. & Runci, Paul & Carlock, Gregory & Anderson, Kate L., 2012. "Factors in low-carbon energy transformations: Comparing nuclear and bioenergy in Brazil, Sweden, and the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 131-146.
    19. Lachman, Daniël A., 2013. "A survey and review of approaches to study transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 269-276.
    20. Taewook Huh & Kee-Young Yoon & I Re Chung, 2019. "Drivers and Ideal Types towards Energy Transition: Anticipating the Futures Scenarios of OECD Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:2097-:d:330170. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.