144 Oscar Van Vliet
Research process and methods
Four research methods inform this narrative: energy system modelling,
Q- methodology, a choice experiment, and a stakeholder workshop.
The core of energy system modelling is to represent major supply- and-demand technologies in our energy system, and the flows between these, in one single model. The
mix of these technologies is constrained by existing real- world circumstances and scenario assumptions, and can be optimised within these constraints, e.g. for lowest total
cost given high reliability and low CO 2 emissions. We looked specifically at electricity
and included various supply technologies, including run- of-river and dam hydropower,
PV and CSP, wind turbines, gas turbine power plants, and pumped storage. Our model,
using the Calliope framework (Pfenninger, 2017) represents sources in Switzerland and
abroad. We use hourly data for intermittent sources like wind and solar from www.
renewables.ninja, a website with open renewable energy potential data (Pfenninger and
Staffell, 2016; Staffell and Pfenninger, 2016) to find how intermittency limits the
renewable electricity sources we can reliably use together, and how much we would
have to use other sources as a backup to balance supply and demand.
The core of Q- methodology is the development of a set of statements expressing
potential stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs about a particular issue, ensuring coverage
and balance of the topic (Watts and Stenner, 2012). We started by interviewing a
diverse range of stakeholders and systematically reviewing mass- media coverage. A
sample of participants then ranked the statements according to whether they agree or
disagree with their own perspectives. Using factor analysis, we identified patterns in
the ranking and identified groups of participants who are likely to rank the various
statements differently. In this way, we identified correlations and/or major differences
between group perspectives. We could then match these perspectives to any shared
institutional and/or demographic attributes of the groups’ members. Q- methodology
is used to explore perspectives of a small group of individuals that should not be interpreted as representative of a larger populace without further research to confirm it.
We used Q- methodology to unravel stakeholder perceptions in three Swiss villages.
The core of a choice experiment is to make explicit what people base their decision
on (Alriksson and Öberg, 2008). During the experiment we give respondents a set of
different choice tasks, so- called ‘choice sets’. Within each choice set, respondents chose
their preferred option from three alternatives, one of which was a status quo option. It
is assumed that the individual utility of a choice depends (in part) on different observable attributes that characterise the options within the choice sets. In our experimental
design, we estimated part- worth utilities of the choice attributes by decomposing
respondents’ answers as well as other variables. We could also group respondents based
on the similarity of their preferences using principal component analysis.
The core use for a stakeholder workshop is to make explicit the viewpoints of
the different participants and facilitate an exchange of opinions and arguments
between them. This may in turn create a shared vision but a more important goal
is to build mutual trust and understanding for different viewpoints. Our workshop
used a role- playing format, where we asked stakeholders to reason from the point
of view of the voter groupings we found in our survey, to emphasise understanding
other viewpoints and stimulate out- of-the- box thinking. We invited representatives of different governments, NGOs, utilities, and consultancies.
Research process and methods
Four research methods inform this narrative: energy system modelling,
Q- methodology, a choice experiment, and a stakeholder workshop.
The core of energy system modelling is to represent major supply- and-demand technologies in our energy system, and the flows between these, in one single model. The
mix of these technologies is constrained by existing real- world circumstances and scenario assumptions, and can be optimised within these constraints, e.g. for lowest total
cost given high reliability and low CO 2 emissions. We looked specifically at electricity
and included various supply technologies, including run- of-river and dam hydropower,
PV and CSP, wind turbines, gas turbine power plants, and pumped storage. Our model,
using the Calliope framework (Pfenninger, 2017) represents sources in Switzerland and
abroad. We use hourly data for intermittent sources like wind and solar from www.
renewables.ninja, a website with open renewable energy potential data (Pfenninger and
Staffell, 2016; Staffell and Pfenninger, 2016) to find how intermittency limits the
renewable electricity sources we can reliably use together, and how much we would
have to use other sources as a backup to balance supply and demand.
The core of Q- methodology is the development of a set of statements expressing
potential stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs about a particular issue, ensuring coverage
and balance of the topic (Watts and Stenner, 2012). We started by interviewing a
diverse range of stakeholders and systematically reviewing mass- media coverage. A
sample of participants then ranked the statements according to whether they agree or
disagree with their own perspectives. Using factor analysis, we identified patterns in
the ranking and identified groups of participants who are likely to rank the various
statements differently. In this way, we identified correlations and/or major differences
between group perspectives. We could then match these perspectives to any shared
institutional and/or demographic attributes of the groups’ members. Q- methodology
is used to explore perspectives of a small group of individuals that should not be interpreted as representative of a larger populace without further research to confirm it.
We used Q- methodology to unravel stakeholder perceptions in three Swiss villages.
The core of a choice experiment is to make explicit what people base their decision
on (Alriksson and Öberg, 2008). During the experiment we give respondents a set of
different choice tasks, so- called ‘choice sets’. Within each choice set, respondents chose
their preferred option from three alternatives, one of which was a status quo option. It
is assumed that the individual utility of a choice depends (in part) on different observable attributes that characterise the options within the choice sets. In our experimental
design, we estimated part- worth utilities of the choice attributes by decomposing
respondents’ answers as well as other variables. We could also group respondents based
on the similarity of their preferences using principal component analysis.
The core use for a stakeholder workshop is to make explicit the viewpoints of
the different participants and facilitate an exchange of opinions and arguments
between them. This may in turn create a shared vision but a more important goal
is to build mutual trust and understanding for different viewpoints. Our workshop
used a role- playing format, where we asked stakeholders to reason from the point
of view of the voter groupings we found in our survey, to emphasise understanding
other viewpoints and stimulate out- of-the- box thinking. We invited representatives of different governments, NGOs, utilities, and consultancies.