It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Given the multitude of scenarios on the future of our energy systems, multi-criteria assessments are increasingly called for to analyze and assess desired and undesired effects of possible pathways with regard to their environmental, economic and social sustainability. Existing studies apply elaborate lists of sustainability indicators, yet these indicators are defined and selected by experts and the relative importance of each indicator for the overall sustainability assessments is either determined by experts or is computed using mathematical functions. Target group-specific empirical data regarding citizens’ preferences for sustainability indicators as well as their reasoning behind their choices are not included in existing assessments.
Approach and results
We argue that citizens’ preferences and values need to be more systematically analyzed. Next to valid and reliable data regarding diverse sets of indicators, reflections and deliberations are needed regarding what different societal actors, including citizens, consider as justified and legitimate interventions in nature and society, and what considerations they include in their own assessments. For this purpose, we present results from a discrete choice experiment. The method originated in marketing and is currently becoming a popular means to systematically analyze individuals’ preference structures for energy technology assessments. As we show in our paper, it can be fruitfully applied to study citizens’ values and weightings with regard to sustainability issues. Additionally, we present findings from six focus groups that unveil the reasons behind citizens’ preferences and choices.
Conclusions
Our combined empirical methods provide main insights with strong implications for the future development and assessment of energy pathways: while environmental and climate-related effects significantly influenced citizens’ preferences for or against certain energy pathways, total systems and production costs were of far less importance to citizens than the public discourse suggests. Many scenario studies seek to optimize pathways according to total systems costs. In contrast, our findings show that the role of fairness and distributional justice in transition processes featured as a dominant theme for citizens. This adds central dimensions for future multi-criteria assessments that, so far, have been neglected by current energy systems models.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 University of Stuttgart, Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies (ZIRIUS), Stuttgart, Germany (GRID:grid.5719.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9713); Carl Von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Institute of Social Sciences, Working Group ‘Organization and Innovation’, Oldenburg, Germany (GRID:grid.5560.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 1009 3608)
2 University of Stuttgart, Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies (ZIRIUS), Stuttgart, Germany (GRID:grid.5719.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9713)
3 Institute of Economic Structures Research (GWS), Osnabrück, Germany (GRID:grid.425040.7)
4 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe, Germany (GRID:grid.7892.4) (ISNI:0000 0001 0075 5874)
5 Pforzheim University, Institute for Industrial Ecology (INEC), Pforzheim, Germany (GRID:grid.449261.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 1349 5207)
6 Institute of Networked Energy Systems, German Aerospace Centre (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany (GRID:grid.7551.6) (ISNI:0000 0000 8983 7915)
7 Institute of Economic Structures Research (GWS), Osnabrück, Germany (GRID:grid.425040.7); International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Masdar City, United Arab Emirates (GRID:grid.500312.5)
8 University of Freiburg, Department of Sustainable Systems Engineering (INATECH), Freiburg, Germany (GRID:grid.5963.9)