of 21/21
Methods to measure stakeholder preferences Stina Alriksson Dep of biology and environmental science

Methods to measure stakeholder preferences of carbon dioxide Emission of nitrogen oxides Emission of sulphur oxides Emission of dioxins Emission of particulate matter Emission of organic

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Methods to measure stakeholder preferences of carbon dioxide Emission of nitrogen oxides Emission of...

  • Methods to measure stakeholder preferences

    Stina Alriksson Dep of biology and environmental science

  • Trade-off between factors Statistical analysis Numerical results Results on individual level Quantitative and qualitative analysis

    Conjoint analysis!

  • Conjoint analysis

    Consider jointly Stated preference Experimental plan (fractional factorial design) 4-6 factors (attributes) in 2-3 levels Widely used in marketing, transportation, health care and

    environmental valuation (environmental economics)

  • An example:

    Brand: Renault Clio Seat Ibiza Volvo V60 Year: 2002 2014 2012 Price (SEK): 17 000 140 000 237 000 Horse power: 58 102 163 Km: 150 000 0 40 000

    Rank the following cars according to how likely you are to buy them:

  • Study 1 Why arent advanced high strength steels more widely used? Aim: To identify how the steel stakeholder groups (suppliers, producers, customers, and R&D) value the typical characteristics of AHSS, such as: weight reduction impact strength (durability) price scrap steel content origin of the steel

    Alriksson & Henningsson (2015) Why arnt advanced high strenght steels more widely used? Accepted in Journal of Industrial ecology. DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12212

  • Design conjoint analysis

    Container Impact strength

    Weight (ton)

    Chromium content (%)

    Swedish steel

    Scrap content (%)

    Price excluding tax (SEK)

    A Normal 2.3 1.0 Yes 20 23500 B High 2.3 0.0 Yes 60 18500 C High 1.6 0.0 Yes 20 23500 D High 2.3 1.0 No 60 23500 E Normal 1.6 0.0 No 60 23500 F High 1.6 1.0 No 20 18500 G Normal 1.6 1.0 Yes 60 18500 H Normal 2.3 0.0 No 20 18500

    Web questionnaire. Approximately 800 addresses, 134 responses (17%).

  • Conjoint analysis, to conclude

    A good method to identify stakeholder preferences Allows for hypothetical situations Compares apples and pears trade off Numerical results appreciated by decision makers Study pre-defined groups or identify hidden groups Large samples (>100) The task demands concentration from the respondent Framing effects / construction of preferences Advanced analysis (PLS, Latent class)

  • Choice of methods; criteria

    Trade-off between factors Statistical analysis Numerical results Results on individual level Quantitative and qualitative

    analysis

    Conjoint analysis!

    Trade-off between factors Statistical analysis Non-numerical results Results on group level Qualitative and quantitative

    analysis

    Q-methodology!

  • Q-methodology compared to conjoint analysis

    Fewer samples (

  • Statements: Emission of carbon dioxide Emission of nitrogen oxides Emission of sulphur oxides Emission of dioxins Emission of particulate matter Emission of organic substances

    (to water) Emission of oil and suspended

    material to water Waste Noise Emission of solvents (VOC) Emission of metals Heavy transports Virgin material Recyclability Use of non-renewable energy Use of non-renewable resources

  • Statements: Emission of carbon dioxide Emission of nitrogen oxides Emission of sulphur oxides Emission of dioxins Emission of particulate matter Emission of organic substances

    (to water) Emission of oil and suspended

    material to water Waste Noise Emission of solvents (VOC) Emission of metals Heavy transports Virgin material Recyclability Use of non-renewable energy Use of non-renewable resources

    Use of non-re-newable energy

  • Q-methodology

    Alriksson S and Filipsson M (2015): Risk perception and worry in environmental decision making a case study within the Swedish steel industry. Submitted.

    Aim: The study aimed to assess if risk perception and personal worries influenced environmental decision making within the Swedish steel industry. Perceived risks Environmental worries Day-to-day work 38 decision-makers: * Hgans AB, Hgans * Ovako, Smedjebacken * Outokumpu, Avesta * Outokumpu, Eskilstuna * Ruukki, Malm * Ruukki, Danderyd * Sandvik Kantahl, Hallstahammar * Sandvik, Sandvik * SSAB, Lule * SSAB, Borlnge * SSAB, Oxelsund

  • Risk perception: Risk aware-discourse

    Eight members, four men and four women All of them worked at ore based steel works, no scrap based steel works

    were represented They represented four different plants All were members of the top management of the plant Their work titles were for example

    Environmental manager (two persons), Head of strategical projects, Manager EHS (environment, health and safety) (two persons) Energy supply manager

    Emission of carbon dioxide was the most important statement Commercial risk

  • Risk perception: Economist-discourse

    Seven members, five men and two women Four of them worked at ore based steel works while three worked at

    scrap based steel works They represented five different plants All except one were members of the top management of the plant Their work titles were for example: production manager, site manager,

    environmental coordinator, environmental manager, manager QEHS (quality, environment, health and safety).

    Emissions of carbon dioxide, use of non-renewable resources and use of

    non-renewable energy were important statements Focused on economic risks,

  • Perceived risk for the facility/operation

  • Number of responses for each statement

  • Number of responses for each statement

  • Conjoint analysis, to conclude

    A good method to identify stakeholder preferences Allows for hypothetical situations Compares apples and pears trade off Numerical results appreciated by decision makers Study pre-defined groups or identify hidden groups Large samples (>100) The task demands concentration from the respondent Framing effects / construction of preferences Advanced analysis (PLS, Latent class)

  • Q-methodology, to conclude

    Reveal discourses, (viewpoints) Trade-offs between the statements Study pre-defined groups or previously unknown groups Small samples (

  • Thank you!

    Stina Alriksson

    0480-446773

    [email protected]

    Methods to measure stakeholder preferences Slide Number 2Conjoint analysisSlide Number 4Study 1 Why arent advanced high strength steels more widely used?Design conjoint analysisSlide Number 7Conjoint analysis, to concludeChoice of methods; criteriaQ-methodology compared to conjoint analysisSlide Number 11Slide Number 12Q-methodologyRisk perception: Risk aware-discourseRisk perception: Economist-discoursePerceived risk for the facility/operation Number of responses for each statementNumber of responses for each statementConjoint analysis, to concludeQ-methodology, to concludeSlide Number 21