IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v100y2017icp126-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linking advanced biofuels policies with stakeholder interests: A method building on Quality Function Deployment

Author

Listed:
  • Schillo, R. Sandra
  • Isabelle, Diane A.
  • Shakiba, Abtin

Abstract

The field of renewable energy policy is inherently complex due to the long-term impacts of its policies, the broad range of potential stakeholders, the intricacy of scientific, engineering and technological developments, and the interplay of complex policy mixes that may result in unintended consequences. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) provides a systematic consideration of all relevant stakeholders, a rigorous analysis of the needs of stakeholders, and a prioritization of design features based on stakeholders needs. We build on QFD combined with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to develop a novel method applied to the area of advanced biofuel policies. This Multi-Stakeholder Policy QFD (MSP QFD) provides a systematic approach to capture the voice of the stakeholders and align it with the broad range of potential advanced biofuels policies. To account for the policy environment, the MSP QFD utilizes a novel approach to stakeholder importance weights. This MSP QFD adds to the literature as it permits the analysis of the broad range of relevant national policies with regards to the development of advanced biofuels, as compared to more narrowly focused typical QFD applications. It also allows policy developers to gain additional insights into the perceived impacts of policies, as well as international comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • Schillo, R. Sandra & Isabelle, Diane A. & Shakiba, Abtin, 2017. "Linking advanced biofuels policies with stakeholder interests: A method building on Quality Function Deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 126-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:100:y:2017:i:c:p:126-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516305225
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.056?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mafakheri, Fereshteh & Nasiri, Fuzhan, 2014. "Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 116-126.
    2. Karoline S. Rogge & Kristin Reichardt, 2015. "Going Beyond Instrument Interactions: Towards a More Comprehensive Policy Mix Conceptualization for Environmental Technological Change," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-12, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Fiorese, Giulia & Catenacci, Michela & Verdolini, Elena & Bosetti, Valentina, 2013. "Advanced biofuels: Future perspectives from an expert elicitation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 293-311.
    4. Linares, Pedro & Pérez-Arriaga, Ignacio J., 2013. "A sustainable framework for biofuels in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 166-169.
    5. Shin, Juneseuk & Shin, Wan-Seon & Lee, Changyong, 2013. "An energy security management model using quality function deployment and system dynamics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 72-86.
    6. Chan, Lai-Kow & Wu, Ming-Lu, 2005. "A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 119-139, April.
    7. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    8. Polzin, Friedemann & Migendt, Michael & Täube, Florian A. & von Flotow, Paschen, 2015. "Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study across OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 98-111.
    9. Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Cuppen, Eefje & Suurs, Roald, 2014. "Analysing the past and exploring the future of sustainable biomass. Participatory stakeholder dialogue and technological innovation systems research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 227-235.
    10. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    11. Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2000. "Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52, May.
    12. Wiesenthal, Tobias & Leduc, Guillaume & Christidis, Panayotis & Schade, Burkhard & Pelkmans, Luc & Govaerts, Leen & Georgopoulos, Panagiotis, 2009. "Biofuel support policies in Europe: Lessons learnt for the long way ahead," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 789-800, May.
    13. Ziolkowska, Jadwiga R., 2014. "Optimizing biofuels production in an uncertain decision environment: Conventional vs. advanced technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 366-376.
    14. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2013. "Strategic sourcing in the UK bioenergy industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 478-490.
    15. Rajagopal, D. & Plevin, Richard J., 2013. "Implications of market-mediated emissions and uncertainty for biofuel policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-82.
    16. Chan, Lai-Kow & Wu, Ming-Lu, 2002. "Quality function deployment: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 463-497, December.
    17. Rajagopal, Deepak & Zilberman, David, 2007. "Review of environmental, economic and policy aspects of biofuels," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4341, The World Bank.
    18. Turcksin, Laurence & Macharis, Cathy & Lebeau, Kenneth & Boureima, Faycal & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Bram, Svend & De Ruyck, Jacques & Mertens, Lara & Jossart, Jean-Marc & Gorissen, Leen & Pelkmans, Luc, 2011. "A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 200-214, January.
    19. Sorda, Giovanni & Banse, Martin & Kemfert, Claudia, 2010. "An overview of biofuel policies across the world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6977-6988, November.
    20. Turnheim, Bruno & Geels, Frank W., 2013. "The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry (1913–1967)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1749-1767.
    21. Scott, James & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K. & Talluri, Srinivas, 2015. "A decision support system for supplier selection and order allocation in stochastic, multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria environments," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 226-237.
    22. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2013. "Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1647-1656.
    23. Quitzow, Rainer, 2015. "Assessing policy strategies for the promotion of environmental technologies: A review of India's National Solar Mission," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 233-243.
    24. Mohr, Alison & Raman, Sujatha, 2013. "Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 114-122.
    25. Darshini, Dina & Dwivedi, Puneet & Glenk, Klaus, 2013. "Capturing stakeholders´ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1128-1137.
    26. Demirbas, Ayhan, 2009. "Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(Supplemen), pages 108-117, November.
    27. 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.
    28. Parra-López, Carlos & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Rossing, Walter A.H., 2008. "Integrating public demands into model-based design for multifunctional agriculture: An application to intensive Dutch dairy landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 538-551, November.
    29. Carriquiry, Miguel A. & Du, Xiaodong & Timilsina, Govinda R., 2011. "Second generation biofuels: Economics and policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4222-4234, July.
    30. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    31. Carnevalli, Jose A. & Miguel, Paulo Cauchick, 2008. "Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFD--Types of research, difficulties and benefits," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 737-754, August.
    32. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    33. 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.
    34. Glithero, N.J. & Ramsden, S.J. & Wilson, P., 2013. "Barriers and incentives to the production of bioethanol from cereal straw: A farm business perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 161-171.
    35. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    36. Wilson, P. & Glithero, N.J. & Ramsden, S.J., 2014. "Prospects for dedicated energy crop production and attitudes towards agricultural straw use: The case of livestock farmers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 101-110.
    37. Dey, Prasanta Kumar & Bhattacharya, Arijit & Ho, William, 2015. "Strategic supplier performance evaluation: A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 192-214.
    38. Faaij, Andre P.C., 2006. "Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 322-342, February.
    39. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2013. "Towards a more comprehensive policy mix conceptualization for environmental technological change: A literature synthesis," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S3/2013, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    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. Siivari, Elina & Safrutin, Ilia & Mozaffari, Khalil & Käyhkö, Esa & Jouttijärvi, Risto, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Biofuels - Case Study: Frames of Biofuel Discussion in the Finnish Context," SocArXiv 5u6yp, Center for Open Science.
    2. Ahmad, Salman & Ouenniche, Jamal & Kolosz, Ben W. & Greening, Philip & Andresen, John M. & Maroto-Valer, M. Mercedes & Xu, Bing, 2021. "A stakeholders’ participatory approach to multi-criteria assessment of sustainable aviation fuels production pathways," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    3. Madu, Christian N. & Kuei, Chu-hua & Ozumba, Benjamin C. & Nnadi, Valentine E. & Madu, Ifeanyi E. & Ezeasor, Ikenna C., 2018. "Using the DPSIR framework and data analytics to analyze oil spillages in the Niger delta area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-90.
    4. Kalvis Kons & Boško Blagojević & Blas Mola-Yudego & Robert Prinz & Johanna Routa & Biljana Kulisic & Bruno Gagnon & Dan Bergström, 2022. "Industrial End-Users’ Preferred Characteristics for Wood Biomass Feedstocks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Enas Alhassan & R. Sandra Schillo & Margaret A. Lemay & Fred Pries, 2019. "Research Outputs as Vehicles of Knowledge Exchange in a Quintuple Helix Context: The Case of Biofuels Research Outputs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 958-973, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Cantner, Uwe & Graf, Holger & Herrmann, Johannes & Kalthaus, Martin, 2016. "Inventor networks in renewable energies: The influence of the policy mix in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1165-1184.
    3. Xu, Lei & Su, Jun, 2016. "From government to market and from producer to consumer: Transition of policy mix towards clean mobility in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 328-340.
    4. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    6. Enas Alhassan & R. Sandra Schillo & Margaret A. Lemay & Fred Pries, 2019. "Research Outputs as Vehicles of Knowledge Exchange in a Quintuple Helix Context: The Case of Biofuels Research Outputs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 958-973, September.
    7. Janssen, Matthijs J., 2019. "What bangs for your buck? Assessing the design and impact of Dutch transformative policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 78-94.
    8. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    9. Kargbo, Hannah & Harris, Jonathan Stuart & Phan, Anh N., 2021. "“Drop-in” fuel production from biomass: Critical review on techno-economic feasibility and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    10. Imbert, Enrica & Ladu, Luana & Morone, Piergiuseppe & Quitzow, Rainer, 2017. "Policy strategies for a transition to a bioeconomy in Europe: the case of Italy and Germany," MPRA Paper 78143, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    12. Kergroach, Sandrine, 2019. "National innovation policies for technology upgrading through GVCs: A cross-country comparison," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 258-272.
    13. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi & Alessandro Palma, 2015. "Characterizing the policy mix and its impact on eco-innovation in energy-efficient technologies," SEEDS Working Papers 1115, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Jun 2015.
    14. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    15. Rogge, Karoline S. & Pfluger, Benjamin & Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    17. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Sewerin, Sebastian, 2019. "Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – An empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    18. Matthijs Janssen, 2016. "What bangs for your bucks? Assessing the design and impact of transformative policy," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 16-05, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Dec 2016.
    19. Uyarra, Elvira & Shapira, Philip & Harding, Alan, 2016. "Low carbon innovation and enterprise growth in the UK: Challenges of a place-blind policy mix," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 264-272.
    20. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).

    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:eee:enepol:v:100:y:2017:i:c:p:126-137. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.