IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i12p3385-d241084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Balance of Individual and Infrastructure Values in Decisions Regarding Advanced Science and Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Shunichi Hienuki

    (Center for Creation of Symbiosis Society with Risk, Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan)

  • Kazuhiko Noguchi

    (Center for Creation of Symbiosis Society with Risk, Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan)

  • Tadahiro Shibutani

    (Center for Creation of Symbiosis Society with Risk, Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan)

  • Takahiro Saigo

    (Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc., 2-10-3, Nagatacho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8141, Japan)

  • Atsumi Miyake

    (Institute of Advanced Sciences, Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan)

Abstract

A country’s scientific technology policy rarely reflects public opinion. In this study, we created a hierarchical model of societal well-being, comprising five value components for both individual and infrastructure well-being, to analyze the balance among these values. We conducted a survey in two stages; first, both individual and infrastructure well-being were investigated, and then the weights between pairs of value categories composing individual and infrastructure well-being were scored to assess which categories were most important. The analysis of the first stage used the score magnitudes, while that of the second stage used the analytic hierarchy process. The results showed that people value individual well-being more than infrastructure well-being. For both types of well-being, values related to the economy and safety were ranked as more important than the other values, but the weights were distributed over all value components. For individual well-being, the most important value category was the one related to safety, while for infrastructure well-being, it was economy. Therefore, people prioritize different values for themselves and for society as a whole. This suggests that when making decisions regarding technology, it is necessary to understand its effects on all fields and consider the balance between the value categories of well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Shunichi Hienuki & Kazuhiko Noguchi & Tadahiro Shibutani & Takahiro Saigo & Atsumi Miyake, 2019. "The Balance of Individual and Infrastructure Values in Decisions Regarding Advanced Science and Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3385-:d:241084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3385/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3385/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahmad, Salman & Tahar, Razman Mat, 2014. "Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 458-466.
    2. Helliwell, John F., 2003. "How's life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 331-360, March.
    3. Hideyuki Mizobuchi, 2014. "Measuring World Better Life Frontier: A Composite Indicator for OECD Better Life Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 987-1007, September.
    4. M. Marković & S. Zdravković & M. Mitrović & A. Radojičić, 2016. "An Iterative Multivariate Post Hoc I-Distance Approach in Evaluating OECD Better Life Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Kablan, M. M., 2004. "Decision support for energy conservation promotion:: an analytic hierarchy process approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1151-1158, July.
    6. Felicia Huppert & Timothy So, 2013. "Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 837-861, February.
    7. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 144-156.
    8. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    9. Tajda Potrč Obrecht & Roman Kunič & Sabina Jordan & Mateja Dovjak, 2019. "Comparison of Health and Well-Being Aspects in Building Certification Schemes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Jan Lorenz & Christoph Brauer & Dirk Lorenz, 2017. "Rank-Optimal Weighting or “How to be Best in the OECD Better Life Index?”," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 75-92, October.
    11. Felicia Huppert & Timothy So, 2013. "Erratum to: Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 1245-1246, February.
    12. Stein, Eric W., 2013. "A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 640-654.
    13. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    14. Rosso, M. & Bottero, M. & Pomarico, S. & La Ferlita, S. & Comino, E., 2014. "Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 870-881.
    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. Shunichi Hienuki & Yoshie Hirayama & Tadahiro Shibutani & Junji Sakamoto & Jo Nakayama & Atsumi Miyake, 2019. "How Knowledge about or Experience with Hydrogen Fueling Stations Improves Their Public Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.

    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. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    2. Resce, Giuliano & Maynard, Diana, 2018. "What matters most to people around the world? Retrieving Better Life Index priorities on Twitter," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 61-75.
    3. Savatore Puglisi & Ionuț Virgil Șerban, 2019. "Beyond Gdp: Which Options To Better Represent Modern Socio-Economic Progress?," Sociology and Social Work Review, International Society for projects in Education and Research, vol. 3(1), pages 17-32, June.
    4. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    5. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    7. Papageorgiou, Athanasios, 2018. "The Effect of Immigration on the Well-Being of Native Populations: Evidence from the United Kingdom," MPRA Paper 93045, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Leezna Saleem & Imran Ahmad Siddiqui & Intikhab Ulfat, 2021. "The prioritization of renewable energy technologies in Pakistan: An urgent need," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2021(1), pages 81-103.
    9. Tahsin Mehdi, 2019. "Stochastic Dominance Approach to OECD’s Better Life Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 917-954, June.
    10. Jamal, Taskin & Urmee, Tania & Shafiullah, G.M., 2020. "Planning of off-grid power supply systems in remote areas using multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    11. Eni Dardha & Nicky Rogge, 2020. "How's Life in Your Region? Measuring Regional Material Living Conditions, Quality of Life and Subjective Well-Being in OECD Countries Using a Robust, Conditional Benefit-of-the-Doubt Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 1015-1073, October.
    12. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Resce, Giuliano & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2017. "Is the Grass Always Greener on the Other Side of the fence? Composite Index of Well-Being Taking into Account the Local Relative Appreciations in Better Life Index," MPRA Paper 82718, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Anissa Frini & Sarah Benamor, 2018. "Making Decisions in a Sustainable Development Context: A State-of-the-Art Survey and Proposal of a Multi-period Single Synthesizing Criterion Approach," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(2), pages 341-385, August.
    14. Ahmad, Salman & Nadeem, Abid & Akhanova, Gulzhanat & Houghton, Tom & Muhammad-Sukki, Firdaus, 2017. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable and nuclear resources for electricity generation in Kazakhstan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1880-1891.
    15. Horváth Zsuzsánna E. & Nováky Erzsébet, 2016. "Development of a Future Orientation Model in Emerging Adulthood in Hungary," Social Change Review, Sciendo, vol. 14(2), pages 69-95, December.
    16. Mizuki Wada & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Michio Murakami, 2022. "Role of Values and Resilience in Well-Being among Individuals Affected by the Fukushima Disaster," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(6), pages 3503-3515, December.
    17. Mohamed Ali Elleuch & Marwa Mallek & Ahmed Frikha & Wafik Hachicha & Awad M. Aljuaid & Murad Andejany, 2021. "Solving a Multiple User Energy Source Selection Problem Using a Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    18. Sakari Kainulainen, 2020. "Flourishing within the Working-Aged Finnish Population," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(1), pages 187-205, March.
    19. repec:eco:journ2:2017-04-06 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. R. A. Burns, 2020. "Age-Related Differences in the Factor Structure of Multiple Wellbeing Indicators in a Large Multinational European Survey," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 37-52, January.
    21. Jesús Peiró-Palomino & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2018. "Assessing well-being in European regions. Does government quality matter?," Working Papers 2018/06, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).

    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:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3385-:d:241084. 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.