IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i11p1114-d81845.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference Construction Processes for Renewable Energies: Assessing the Influence of Sustainability Information and Decision Support Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Kiyotada Hayashi

    (Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, 3-1-3 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan)

  • Hiroki Hondo

    (Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University, 79-7 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan)

  • Yue Moriizumi

    (Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University, 79-7 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan)

Abstract

Sustainability information and decision support can be two important driving forces for making sustainable transitions in society. However, not enough knowledge is available on the effectiveness of these two factors. Here, we conducted an experimental study to support the hypotheses that acquisition of sustainability information and use of decision support methods consistently construct preferences for renewable power generation technologies that use solar power, wind power, small-scale hydroelectric power, geothermal power, wood biomass, or biogas as energy sources. The sustainability information was prepared using a renewable energy-focused input-output model of Japan and contained life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, electricity generation costs, and job creation. We measured rank-ordered preferences in the following four steps in experimental workshops conducted for municipal officials: provision of (1) energy-source names; (2) sustainability information; (3) additional explanation of public value; and (4) knowledge and techniques about multi-attribute value functions. The degree of changes in preference orders was evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The consistency of rank-ordered preferences among participants was determined by using the maximum eigenvalue for the coefficient matrix. The results show: (1) the individual preferences evolved drastically in response to the sustainability information and the decision support method; and (2) the rank-ordered preferences were more consistent during the preference construction processes. These results indicate that provision of sustainability information, coupled with decision support methods, is effective for decision making regarding renewable energies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kiyotada Hayashi & Hiroki Hondo & Yue Moriizumi, 2016. "Preference Construction Processes for Renewable Energies: Assessing the Influence of Sustainability Information and Decision Support Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1114-:d:81845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1114/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1114/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fischer, Gregory W., 1995. "Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 252-266, June.
    2. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    3. Gallego Carrera, Diana & Mack, Alexander, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1030-1039, February.
    4. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Milch, Kerry F. & Weber, Elke U. & Appelt, Kirstin C. & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Krantz, David H., 2009. "From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 242-255, March.
    6. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    7. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    8. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2009. "Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1082-1088, June.
    9. Sanders, David, 2012. "The Effects of Deliberative Polling in an EU-wide Experiment: Five Mechanisms in Search of an Explanation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 617-640, July.
    10. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    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. Lin, Boqiang & Xu, Bin, 2018. "How to promote the growth of new energy industry at different stages?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 390-403.
    2. Xu, Bin & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Do we really understand the development of China's new energy industry?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 733-745.
    3. Julia Szulecka, 2019. "Towards Sustainable Wood-Based Energy: Evaluation and Strategies for Mainstreaming Sustainability in the Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Kuller, M. & Beutler, P. & Lienert, J., 2023. "Preference change in stakeholder group-decision processes in the public sector: Extent, causes and implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(3), pages 1268-1285.
    5. Gabriel Cucui & Constantin Aurelian Ionescu & Ioana Raluca Goldbach & Mihaela Denisa Coman & Elena Liliana Moiceanu Marin, 2018. "Quantifying the Economic Effects of Biogas Installations for Organic Waste from Agro-Industrial Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Xu, Bin & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Assessing the development of China's new energy industry," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 116-131.

    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. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    2. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    3. Butler, John C. & Dyer, James S. & Jia, Jianmin & Tomak, Kerem, 2008. "Enabling e-transactions with multi-attribute preference models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 748-765, April.
    4. Berjawi, A.E.H. & Walker, S.L. & Patsios, C. & Hosseini, S.H.R., 2021. "An evaluation framework for future integrated energy systems: A whole energy systems approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    6. Anuja Shaktawat & Shelly Vadhera, 2021. "Risk management of hydropower projects for sustainable development: a review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 45-76, January.
    7. Scholz, Michael & Dorner, Verena & Schryen, Guido & Benlian, Alexander, 2017. "A configuration-based recommender system for supporting e-commerce decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 205-215.
    8. Richard M. Anderson & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2002. "Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1555-1568, December.
    9. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Kumar, Deepak & Katoch, S.S., 2014. "Sustainability indicators for run of the river (RoR) hydropower projects in hydro rich regions of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 101-108.
    11. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    12. Chao Fu & Weiyong Liu & Wenjun Chang, 2020. "Data-driven multiple criteria decision making for diagnosis of thyroid cancer," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 833-862, October.
    13. Liu, Qianqian (Ben) & Karahanna, Elena & Watson, Richard T., 2011. "Unveiling user-generated content: Designing websites to best present customer reviews," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 231-240, May.
    14. Loibl, Cäzilia & Kraybill, David S. & DeMay, Sara Wackler, 2011. "Accounting for the role of habit in regular saving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 581-592, August.
    15. Jana B. Jarecki & Jörg Rieskamp, 2022. "Comparing attribute-based and memory-based preferential choice," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 49(1), pages 65-90, March.
    16. Luthra, Sunil & Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Kharb, Ravinder K., 2015. "Sustainable assessment in energy planning and management in Indian perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 58-73.
    17. Akber, Muhammad Zeshan & Thaheem, Muhammad Jamaluddin & Arshad, Husnain, 2017. "Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Pakistan: Policy regime for a sustainable energy mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 111-126.
    18. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Kurt Carlson & Chris Janiszewski & Ralph Keeney & David Krantz & Howard Kunreuther & Mary Luce & J. Russo & Stijn Osselaer & Detlof Winterfeldt, 2008. "A theoretical framework for goal-based choice and for prescriptive analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 241-254, December.
    20. Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas & Krisciukaitienė, Irena & Balezentis, Alvydas, 2012. "Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 3302-3311.

    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:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1114-:d:81845. 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.