IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i3p1060-d1578736.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Potential Evaluation of Photovoltaic Technologies in the Context of Future Architectural Trends

Author

Listed:
  • Jianguo Di

    (School of International Economics and International Relations, Faculty of Economics, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China)

  • Wenge Liu

    (School of International Economics and International Relations, Faculty of Economics, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China)

  • Jiaqi Sun

    (School of Economics, Faculty of Economics, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China)

  • Dianfeng Zhang

    (School of Management, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276800, China)

Abstract

In order to elucidate the market potential and competition strategies of various photovoltaic (PV) technologies in the context of future architectural trends, taking into account the aesthetic impact and evolving architectural styles, a suite of market assessment methodologies was proposed and applied to systematically evaluate five commercially available PV technologies. Three methodologies were employed or introduced: a comprehensive weighting approach that integrates the TOPSIS entropy weight method with user weight surveys, cumulative prospect theory (CPT), and a market integration method. The survey revealed that price emerged as the paramount factor distinguishing technologies, with a score of 4.8766, closely followed by conversion rates, at 4.8326. Aesthetics was deemed 3% more significant than government subsidies to consumers, scoring 4.4414. During the evaluation, technical indicators were translated into professional financial metrics. The results indicated that crystalline silicon PV technologies hold market advantages in both traditional and transparent applications. Monocrystalline silicon exhibited the highest utility in traditional settings, with a value of −0.0766, whereas polysilicon topped the charts in transparent applications, scoring −0.0676. However, when aesthetics was fully factored in, thin-film technologies began to outperform crystalline silicon, initially in transparent settings and subsequently in traditional ones. When both scenarios were merged, the market share of thin-film PVs increased with a rise in transparent applications, while that of crystalline silicon PVs decreased. Sensitivity and comparative analyses yielded diverse outcomes, validating the robustness of the findings. Further research unveiled that, beyond utility and cost, competition and technological factors also influence market shares, particularly when contemplating future shifts in architectural styles and innovations in product aesthetics. Considering the above, crystalline silicon PV can dominate the PVs in the building market due to their advantages of cost and efficiency, and thin-film PVs can increase their own market share with their aesthetic advantages in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianguo Di & Wenge Liu & Jiaqi Sun & Dianfeng Zhang, 2025. "Market Potential Evaluation of Photovoltaic Technologies in the Context of Future Architectural Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-27, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:1060-:d:1578736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/1060/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/1060/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tian, Xinyi & Wang, Jun & Ji, Jie & Wang, Chuyao & Ke, Wei & Yuan, Shuang, 2023. "A multifunctional curved CIGS photovoltaic/thermal roof system: A numerical and experimental investigation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Alistair J. Hobday & Michael T. Burrows & Karen Filbee-Dexter & Neil J. Holbrook & Alex Sen Gupta & Dan A. Smale & Kathryn E. Smith & Mads S. Thomsen & Thomas Wernberg, 2023. "With the arrival of El Niño, prepare for stronger marine heatwaves," Nature, Nature, vol. 621(7977), pages 38-41, September.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    6. Dianfeng Zhang & Yanlai Li & Yiqun Li & Zifan Shen, 2022. "Service Failure Risk Assessment and Service Improvement of Self-Service Electric Vehicle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-26, March.
    7. Fang, Hong & Wang, Xu & Song, Wenyan, 2020. "Technology selection for photovoltaic cell from sustainability perspective: An integrated approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1029-1041.
    8. Meijing Liu & Changqi Liu & Hao Xie & Zhonghui Zhao & Chong Zhu & Yangang Lu & Changsheng Bu, 2023. "Analysis of the Impact of Photovoltaic Curtain Walls Replacing Glass Curtain Walls on the Whole Life Cycle Carbon Emission of Public Buildings Based on BIM Modeling Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    9. Chen, Liutao & Sun, Yong & Zhang, Ning & Yang, Jiachuan & Wang, Dan, 2024. "Quantifying the benefits of BIPV windows in urban environment under climate change: A comparison of three Chinese cities," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    10. Ecer, Fatih & Pamucar, Dragan & Mardani, Abbas & Alrasheedi, Melfi, 2021. "Assessment of renewable energy resources using new interval rough number extension of the level based weight assessment and combinative distance-based assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1156-1177.
    11. Filip Johnsson & Jan Kjärstad & Johan Rootzén, 2019. "The threat to climate change mitigation posed by the abundance of fossil fuels," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 258-274, February.
    12. Yu, Guoqing & Yang, Hongxing & Luo, Daina & Cheng, Xu & Ansah, Mark Kyeredey, 2021. "A review on developments and researches of building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) windows and shading blinds," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    13. Xu, Lijie & Ji, Jie & Luo, Kun & Li, Zhaomeng & Xu, Ruru & Huang, Shengjuan, 2020. "Annual analysis of a multi-functional BIPV/T solar wall system in typical cities of China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    14. Xiaolu Zhang, 2016. "New Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Behavioral MADM Method and Its Application in the Selection of Photovoltaic Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    15. Kannan, Nadarajah & Vakeesan, Divagar, 2016. "Solar energy for future world: - A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1092-1105.
    16. Gastwirth, Joseph L, 1972. "The Estimation of the Lorenz Curve and Gini Index," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 54(3), pages 306-316, August.
    17. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    2. Olivier Armantier & Nicolas Treich, 2016. "The Rich Domain of Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1954-1969, July.
    3. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    4. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    5. Ilbahar, Esra & Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebi, Selcuk, 2022. "Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    6. Jeeva Somasundaram & Vincent Eli, 2022. "Risk and time preferences interaction: An experimental measurement," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 215-238, October.
    7. Sebastian Oelrich, 2019. "Making regulation fit by taking irrationality into account: the case of the whistleblower," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 175-207, April.
    8. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Mengxing Wei, 2018. "Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 7158, CESifo.
    9. Nana Liu & Zeshui Xu & Yue He & Xiao-Jun Zeng, 2021. "An inverse prospect theory-based algorithm in extended incomplete additive probabilistic linguistic preference relation environment and its application in financial products selection," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 397-428, September.
    10. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    11. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2016. "The Ellsberg paradox: A challenge to quantum decision theory?," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/08, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    12. Jian-Peng Chang & Heng-Xin Ren & Luis Martínez & Witold Pedrycz & Zhen-Song Chen, 2024. "Requirement-driven supplier selection: a multi-criteria QFD-based approach under epistemic and stochastic uncertainties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 342(2), pages 1079-1128, November.
    13. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    14. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    15. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    16. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    17. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    18. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    20. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.

    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:17:y:2025:i:3:p:1060-:d:1578736. 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.