Moral Values as Factors for Social Acceptance of Smart Grid Technologies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Perspectives
2.1. Ethics of Technology
2.2. Technology Acceptance and Adoption
2.2.1. Technology and Innovation Management
2.2.2. Social Psychology
3. Method
4. Results
4.1. Moral Values That Act as Drivers of Smart Grid Acceptance
4.2. Moral Values That Form Barriers for Smart Grid Acceptance
4.3. Moral Values with Ambiguous Effects on Smart Grid Acceptance
5. Discussion
5.1. Values as Factors for Consumer and Citizen Acceptance
5.2. Combining Insights from Ethics with Technology Acceptance Literature
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Authors | Year | Journal | Citations * | Main Contribution | Methodology | Technology |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aduda et al. | 2016 | Sustainable Cities and Society | 18 | Investigate effect of demand-side management on building performance indicators | Field study with follow-up survey | DSM |
Balta-Ozkan et al. | 2013 | Energy Policy | 88 | Explore key barriers to smart home adoption in the UK | Expert interviews, deliberative public workshops | Smart Home |
Balta-Ozkan et al. | 2013 | Energy | 28 | Explore key barriers to smart home adoption in the UK | Expert interviews, deliberative public workshops | Smart Home |
Balta-Ozkan et al. | 2014 | Technology Analysis and Strategic Management | 11 | Explore technical and economic drivers and barriers to smart home market development in three European countries (UK, DE, IT) | Deliberative public workshops | Smart Home |
Balta-Ozkan et al. | 2014 | Energy Research & Social Science | 22 | Explore drivers and barriers to smart home market development in three European countries (UK, DE, IT) | Deliberative public workshops | Smart Home |
Barnicoat & Danson | 2015 | Energy Research & Social Science | 17 | Explore how older tenants in rural Scotland interact with technology | In-depth interviews | Smart Home |
Begier | 2014 | Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society | 0 | Explore strategies to build relationships with energy consumers during exchange of energy meters | Focus groups, survey | Smart Metering |
Berry et al. | 2017 | Energy Efficiency | 0 | Explore residential consumers’ attitudes towards and experiences with an in-home display and energy management system | In-depth interviews | Smart Home |
Buchanan et al. | 2016 | Energy Policy | 6 | Explore opportunities and threats of smart metering initiatives | Focus groups | Smart Metering/Smart Services |
Buryk et al. | 2015 | Energy Policy | 11 | Investigate impact of disclosing environmental benefits on DSM adoption | Choice experiment | DSM |
Chen et al. | 2017 | Energy Research & Social Science | 8 | Investigate social-psychological factors affecting smart meter support and adoption intention | Survey | Smart Metering |
Cherry et al. | 2017 | Energy Research & Social Science | 6 | Explore experts’ and public’s visions of smart homes | Semi-structured interviews | Smart Home |
Chou & Yutami | 2014 | Applied Energy | 16 | Investigate antecedents of willingness to adopt smart meter | Survey | Smart Metering |
Chou et al. | 2015 | Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews | 6 | Investigate antecedents of willingness to adopt smart meter | Survey | Smart Metering |
Dedrick et al. | 2015 | Electronic Markets | 3 | Examine factors influencing smart grid adoption among US utilities | Semi-structured interviews | Smart Grid |
Ehrenhard et al. | 2014 | Technological Forecasting and Social Change | 19 | Explore acceptance of smart home among the elderly | In-depth interviews | Smart Home |
Fell et al. | 2015 | Energy Research & Social Science | 18 | Investigate factors for acceptance of different demand-side response tariffs | Experiment | DSM |
Gerpott & Paukert | 2013 | Energy Policy | 27 | Investigate factors for willingness-to-pay for smart meters | Survey | Smart Metering |
Ghazal et al. | 2015 | Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews | 3 | Investigate factors for consumer acceptance of a smart plug system | Survey | Smart Home |
Goulden et al. | 2014 | Energy Research & Social Science | 90 | Explore perceptions of centralized and decentralized smart grid platforms | Focus groups | Smart Grid |
Guerreiro et al. | 2015 | Energy Efficiency | 3 | Understand socio-psychological and technological aspects that influence use of smart meters | Survey, discourse analysis | Smart Metering |
Hall et al. | 2016 | Energy Policy | 6 | Explore consumer interest and responses to the concept of cost-reflective pricing | Focus groups | DSM |
Hammer et al. | 2015 | User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction | 5 | Build user-trust model for decision making on energy management systems in office buildings | Survey experiment, (Living Lab) model | Energy management systems |
Hess & Coley | 2014 | Public Understanding of Science | 16 | Explore complaints in the public debate on wireless smart meters in California | Discourse analysis | Smart Metering |
Kahma & Matschoss | 2017 | Energy Research & Social Science | 4 | Investigate the non-adoption of smart energy services through focus on non-users | Survey | Smart Home |
King & Jessen | 2014 | International Journal of Law and Information Technology | 5 | Explores the key privacy and data protection concerns for both the EU and USA consumers related to data sharing in smart metering systems | Secondary data analysis (of legal regimes) | Smart Metering |
Krishnamurti et al. | 2012 | Energy Policy | 93 | Explore consumer beliefs about smart meters in the US | In-depth interviews, survey | Smart Metering |
Li et al. | 2017 | Applied Energy | 1 | Investigate user perception of smart grids and energy flexible buildings to identify suitable user groups | Survey | Smart Grid |
Luthra et al. | 2014 | Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews | 61 | Explore barriers to smart grid adoption | Expert interviews | Smart Grid |
Matschoss et al. | 2015 | Energy Efficiency | 4 | Identify pioneering customers for novel energy efficiency services enabled by smart grid technologies | Survey | DSM |
Mesarić et al. | 2017 | Sustainability | 2 | Explore the influence of users’ energy-related behavior on smart grid processes | Focus groups | DSM |
Michaels & Parag | 2016 | Energy Research & Social Science | 7 | Investigated perceptions of demand reduction, load shifting, and energy storage as prosumer activities in Israel | Survey | DSM |
Moser | 2017 | Energy Efficiency | 1 | Investigate factors for social acceptance of load-shifting programs for smart appliances | Experiment | DSM |
Muench et al. | 2014 | Energy Policy | 21 | Explore barriers to smart grid implementation | Expert interviews | Smart Grid |
Ornetzeder et al. | 2009 | WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment | 1 | Explore public’s opinion on future sustainable energy technology research | Participatory technology assessment workshop | Smart Metering Smart Home |
Paetz et al. | 2012 | Journal of Consumer Policy | 85 | Explore behavioral aspects, motives, and barriers for smart home acceptance | Focus groups | Smart Home |
Park et al. | 2014 | Energy Policy | 19 | Tested factors for consumer acceptance of smart meters | Survey | Smart Metering |
Park et al. | 2017 | Sustainability | 0 | Investigate consumer acceptance of a home energy management system | Survey | Smart Home |
Raimi & Carrico | 2016 | Energy Research & Social Science | 4 | Examine the American lay public’s level of knowledge about smart meters | Survey | Smart Metering |
Römer et al. | 2015 | Electronic Markets | 4 | Investigate factors for household acceptance of electricity storage systems | Survey | Household Storage |
Sandström & Keijer | 2010 | OPEN HOUSE INTERNATIONAL | 0 | Explore attitudes and acceptance of residents towards smart homes | Survey | Smart Home |
Schmalfuß et al. | 2015 | Energy Research & Social Science | 3 | Investigate user experience with smart charging system | Field study with follow-up interviews | Smart Charging |
Schweitzer et al. | 2016 | Psychology & Marketing | 2 | Investigate impact of perceived disempowerment on adoption intention of smart home applications | Experiment | Smart Home |
Shrouf & Miragliotta | 2015 | Journal of Cleaner Production | 54 | Explore experts view on energy-efficient production management practices supported by the Internet of Things | Expert interviews | Smart Metering and appliances in factory production processes |
Spence et al. | 2015 | Nature Climate Change | 14 | Investigate public perceptions of different demand-side management possibilities in the UK | Survey | DSM |
Will & Schuller | 2016 | Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies | 8 | Investigate factors for the acceptance of smart charging | Survey | Smart Charging |
Wilson et al. | 2017 | Energy Policy | 12 | Identify perceived benefits and risks of smart home technologies | Survey | Smart Home |
Yang et al. | 2017 | Industrial Management and Data Systems | 4 | Investigate customers’ adoption intentions of smart home services | Survey | Smart Home |
Zhou & Brown | 2017 | Journal of Cleaner Production | 10 | Compare factors for smart metering penetration rates across five European countries | Case study research (secondary data) | Smart Metering |
References
- European Commission 2030 Energy Strategy. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy/2030-energy-strategy (accessed on 16 December 2016).
- Muench, S.; Thuss, S.; Guenther, E. What hampers energy system transformations? The case of smart grids. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Römer, B.; Reichhart, P.; Picot, A. Smart energy for Robinson Crusoe: An empirical analysis of the adoption of IS-enhanced electricity storage systems. Electron. Mark. 2015, 25, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, H.; Hvelplund, F.; Østergaard, P.; Möller, B.; Mathiesen, B.V.; Connolly, D.; Andersen, A.N. Analysis: Smart Energy Systems and Infrastructures. In Renewable Energy Systems; Lund, H., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Oxford, UK; Waltham, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 131–184. ISBN 9780124104235. [Google Scholar]
- Fallah, S.; Deo, R.; Shojafar, M.; Conti, M.; Shamshirband, S. Computational Intelligence Approaches for Energy Load Forecasting in Smart Energy Management Grids: State of the Art, Future Challenges, and Research Directions. Energies 2018, 11, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pooranian, Z.; Abawajy, J.; P, V.; Conti, M. Scheduling Distributed Energy Resource Operation and Daily Power Consumption for a Smart Building to Optimize Economic and Environmental Parameters. Energies 2018, 11, 1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xenias, D.; Axon, C.J.; Whitmarsh, L.; Connor, P.M.; Balta-Ozkan, N.; Spence, A. UK smart grid development: An expert assessment of the benefits, pitfalls and functions. Renew. Energy 2015, 81, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pooranian, Z.; Nikmehr, N.; Najafi-Ravadanegh, S.; Mahdin, H.; Abawajy, J. Economical and environmental operation of smart networked microgrids under uncertainties using NSGA-II. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), Split, Croatia, 22–24 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sintov, N.D.; Schultz, P.W. Adjustable green defaults can help make smart homes more sustainable. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuijpers, C.; Koops, B.-J. Smart Metering and Privacy in Europe: Lessons from the Dutch Case. In European Data Protection: Coming of Age; Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P., Poullet, Y., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 269–293. ISBN 978-94-007-5170-5. [Google Scholar]
- Raimi, K.T.; Carrico, A.R. Understanding and beliefs about smart energy technology. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenna, E.; Richardson, I.; Thomson, M. Smart meter data: Balancing consumer privacy concerns with legitimate applications. Energy Policy 2012, 41, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ligtvoet, A.; Van de Kaa, G.; Fens, T.; Van Beers, C.; Herder, P.; Van den Hoven, J. Value Sensitive Design of Complex Product Systems. In Policy Practice and Digital Science: Integrating Complex Systems, Social Simulation and Public Administration in Policy Research; Janssen, M., Wimmer, A.M., Deljoo, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 157–176. ISBN 978-3-319-12784-2. [Google Scholar]
- Buchanan, K.; Banks, N.; Preston, I.; Russo, R. The British public’s perception of the UK smart metering initiative: Threats and opportunities. Energy Policy 2016, 91, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilling, M.A. Technology Success and Failure in Winner-Take-All Markets: The Impact of Learning Orientation, Timing, and Network Externalities. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 387–398. [Google Scholar]
- Suarez, F.F. Battles for technological dominance: An integrative framework. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.; Xu, X. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cusumano, M.A.; Mylonadis, Y.; Rosenbloom, R.S. Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta. Bus. Hist. Rev. 1992, 66, 51–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Katz, M.L.; Shapiro, C. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75, 424–440. [Google Scholar]
- Schilling, M.A. Technological Lockout: An Integrative Model of the Economic and Strategic Factors Driving Technology Success and Failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrader-Frechette, K.S.; Westra, L. Overview: Ethical Studies about Technology. In Technology and Values; Shrader-Frechette, K.S., Westra, L., Eds.; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 1997; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Taebi, B.; Kadak, A.C. Intergenerational considerations affecting the future of nuclear power: Equity as a framework for assessing fuel cycles. Risk Anal. 2010, 30, 1341–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van de Poel, I. Values in engineering design. In Handbook of the Philosophy of Science; Meijers, A.W.M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 9, pp. 973–1006. [Google Scholar]
- Künneke, R.W.; Mehos, D.C.; Hillerbrand, R.; Hemmes, K. Understanding values embedded in offshore wind energy systems: Toward a purposeful institutional and technological design. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 53, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, B.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Borning, A.; Huldtgren, A. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory; Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., Van de Poel, I., Gorman, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 55–95. ISBN 9400778430. [Google Scholar]
- Manders-Huits, N. What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2011, 17, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Albrechtslund, A. Ethics and technology design. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2007, 9, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winner, L. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 1980, 109, 121–136. [Google Scholar]
- Shilton, K.; Koepfler, J.A.; Fleischmann, K.R. Charting Sociotechnical Dimensions of Values for Design Research. Inf. Soc. 2013, 29, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry, C. The Ethical Assessment of Technological Change: An overview of the issues. J. Hum. Dev. 2001, 2, 167–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flanagan, M.; Howe, D.C.; Nissenbaum, H. Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice. In Information Technology and Moral Philosophy; Van Den Hoven, J., Weckert, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 322–353. [Google Scholar]
- Friedman, B.; Kahn, P.; Borning, A. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. In University of Washington Technical Report; University of Washington: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 2–12. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, J.; Nathan, L.P. Value Sensitive Design: Applications, Adaptations, and Critiques. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains; van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P.E., van de Poel, I., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 11–40. [Google Scholar]
- Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sauter, R.; Watson, J. Strategies for the deployment of micro-generation: Implications for social acceptance. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2770–2779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broman Toft, M.; Schuitema, G.; Thøgersen, J. Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and application to consumer acceptance of Smart Grid technology. Appl. Energy 2014, 134, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuitema, G.; Steg, L.; Forward, S. Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2010, 44, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huijts, N.M.A.; Molin, E.J.E.; Steg, L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suarez, F.F.; Utterback, J.M. Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 1995, 16, 415–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gallagher, S.; Park, S.H. Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: A historical analysis of the US home video game market. Eng. Manag. IEEE Trans. 2002, 49, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; Van den Ende, J.; de Vries, H.J.; Van Heck, E. Factors for winning interface format battles: A review and synthesis of the literature. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 1397–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; De Vries, H.J.; Rezaei, J. Platform selection for complex systems: Building automation systems. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2014, 23, 415–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; De Vries, H.J. Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 91, 222–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; De Vries, H.J.; Van den Ende, J. Strategies in network industries: The importance of inter-organisational networks, complementary goods, and commitment. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2015, 27, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 1986, 15, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal Studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Berkowitz, L., Ed.; Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, S.H.; Howard, J.A. A normative decision-making model of altruism. In Altruism and Helping Behavior: Social, Personality and Developmental Perspective; Rushton, J.P., Sorrentino, R.M., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1981; pp. 198–211. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, S.H. Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahn, M.; Kang, J.; Hustvedt, G. A model of sustainable household technology acceptance. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrenhard, M.; Kijl, B.; Nieuwenhuis, L. Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 89, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerreiro, S.; Batel, S.; Lima, M.L.; Moreira, S. Making energy visible: Sociopsychological aspects associated with the use of smart meters. Energy Effic. 2015, 8, 1149–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, N.L.; Jeanneret, T.D.; Rai, A. Cost-reflective electricity pricing: Consumer preferences and perceptions. Energy Policy 2016, 95, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paetz, A.-G.; Dütschke, E.; Fichtner, W. Smart Homes as a Means to Sustainable Energy Consumption: A Study of Consumer Perceptions. J. Consum. Policy 2012, 35, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, E.-S.; Hwang, B.; Ko, K.; Kim, D. Consumer Acceptance Analysis of the Home Energy Management System. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vagropoulos, S.I.; Balaskas, G.A.; Bakirtzis, A.G. An Investigation of Plug-In Electric Vehicle Charging Impact on Power Systems Scheduling and Energy Costs. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 1902–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobus, C.B.A.; Klaassen, E.A.M.; Mugge, R.; Schoormans, J.P.L. A real-life assessment on the effect of smart appliances for shifting households’ electricity demand. Appl. Energy 2015, 147, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Altman, D.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; Barbour, V.; Barrowman, N.; Berlin, J.A.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dedrick, J.; Venkatesh, M.; Stanton, J.M.; Zheng, Y.; Ramnarine-Rieks, A. Adoption of smart grid technologies by electric utilities: Factors influencing organizational innovation in a regulated environment. Electron. Mark. 2015, 25, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghazal, M.; Akmal, M.; Iyanna, S.; Ghoudi, K. Smart plugs: Perceived usefulness and satisfaction: Evidence from United Arab Emirates. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 55, 1248–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, R.; Dane, G.; Finck, C.; Zeiler, W. Are building users prepared for energy flexible buildings?—A large-scale survey in the Netherlands. Appl. Energy 2017, 203, 623–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mesarić, P.; Đukec, D.; Krajcar, S. Exploring the Potential of Energy Consumers in Smart Grid Using Focus Group Methodology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moser, C. The role of perceived control over appliances in the acceptance of electricity load-shifting programmes. Energy Effic. 2017, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.K.; Kim, H.-J.; Kim, Y.-S. A study of factors enhancing smart grid consumer engagement. Energy Policy 2014, 72, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmalfuß, F.; Mair, C.; Döbelt, S.; Kämpfe, B.; Wüstemann, R.; Krems, J.F.; Keinath, A. User responses to a smart charging system in Germany: Battery electric vehicle driver motivation, attitudes and acceptance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrouf, F.; Miragliotta, G. Energy management based on Internet of Things: Practices and framework for adoption in production management. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 100, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spence, A.; Demski, C.; Butler, C.; Parkhill, K.; Pidgeon, N. Public perceptions of demand-side management and a smarter energy future. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 550–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Will, C.; Schuller, A. Understanding user acceptance factors of electric vehicle smart charging. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 71, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, C.; Hargreaves, T.; Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Policy 2017, 103, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, S.; Brown, M.A. Smart meter deployment in Europe: A comparative case study on the impacts of national policy schemes. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 144, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balta-Ozkan, N.; Davidson, R.; Bicket, M.; Whitmarsh, L. The development of smart homes market in the UK. Energy 2013, 60, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balta-Ozkan, N.; Amerighi, O.; Boteler, B. A comparison of consumer perceptions towards smart homes in the UK, Germany and Italy: Reflections for policy and future research. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 1176–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balta-Ozkan, N.; Boteler, B.; Amerighi, O. European smart home market development: Public views on technical and economic aspects across the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buryk, S.; Mead, D.; Mourato, S.; Torriti, J. Investigating preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: The effect of environmental and system benefit disclosure. Energy Policy 2015, 80, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cherry, C.; Hopfe, C.; MacGillivray, B.; Pidgeon, N. Homes as machines: Exploring expert and public imaginaries of low carbon housing futures in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 23, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, S.; Whaley, D.; Saman, W.; Davidson, K. Finding faults and influencing consumption: The role of in-home energy feedback displays in managing high-tech homes. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 787–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balta-Ozkan, N.; Davidson, R.; Bicket, M.; Whitmarsh, L. Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begier, B. Effective cooperation with energy consumers: An example of an ethical approach to introduce an innovative solution. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 2014, 12, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Xu, X.; Arpan, L. Between the technology acceptance model and sustainable energy technology acceptance model: Investigating smart meter acceptance in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 25, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, J.-S.; Yutami, G.A.N. Smart meter adoption and deployment strategy for residential buildings in Indonesia. Appl. Energy 2014, 128, 336–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, J.-S.; Kim, C.; Ung, T.-K.; Yutami, G.A.N.; Lin, G.-T.; Son, H. Cross-country review of smart grid adoption in residential buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 192–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, D.J.; Coley, J.S. Wireless smart meters and public acceptance: The environment, limited choices, and precautionary politics. Public Underst. Sci. 2014, 23, 688–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- King, N.J.; Jessen, P.W. Smart metering systems and data sharing: Why getting a smart meter should also mean getting strong information privacy controls to manage data sharing. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 2014, 22, 215–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnamurti, T.; Schwartz, D.; Davis, A.; Fischhoff, B.; de Bruin, W.B.; Lave, L.; Wang, J. Preparing for smart grid technologies: A behavioral decision research approach to understanding consumer expectations about smart meters. Energy Policy 2012, 41, 790–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthra, S.; Kumar, S.; Kharb, R.; Ansari, M.F.; Shimmi, S.L. Adoption of smart grid technologies: An analysis of interactions among barriers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 554–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matschoss, K.; Kahma, N.; Heiskanen, E. Pioneering customers as change agents for new energy efficiency services???an empirical study in the Finnish electricity markets. Energy Effic. 2015, 8, 827–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michaels, L.; Parag, Y. Motivations and barriers to integrating ‘prosuming’ services into the future decentralized electricity grid: Findings from Israel. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 21, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Lee, H.; Zo, H. User acceptance of smart home services: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 68–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ornetzeder, M.; Bechtold, U.; Nentwich, M. Participatory assessment of sustainable end-user technology in Austria. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 121, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goulden, M.; Bedwell, B.; Rennick-Egglestone, S.; Rodden, T.; Spence, A. Smart grids, smart users? the role of the user in demand side management. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammer, S.; Wißner, M.; André, E. Trust-based decision-making for smart and adaptive environments. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 2015, 25, 267–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kahma, N.; Matschoss, K. The rejection of innovations? Rethinking technology diffusion and the non-use of smart energy services in Finland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandström, G.; Keijer, U. Smart home systems—Accessibility and trust. Open House Int. 2010, 35, 6–14. [Google Scholar]
- Gerpott, T.J.; Paukert, M. Determinants of willingness to pay for smart meters: An empirical analysis of household customers in Germany. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnicoat, G.; Danson, M. The ageing population and smart metering: A field study of householders’ attitudes and behaviours towards energy use in Scotland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fell, M.J.; Shipworth, D.; Huebner, G.M.; Elwell, C.A. Public acceptability of domestic demand-side response in Great Britain: The role of automation and direct load control. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schweitzer, F.; Van den Ende, E. To Be or Not to Be in Thrall to the March of Smart Products. Psychol. Mark. 2016, 33, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Aduda, K.O.; Labeodan, T.; Zeiler, W.; Boxem, G.; Zhao, Y. Demand side flexibility: Potentials and building performance implications. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 22, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, M. Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept. In Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice; Dobson, A., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999; pp. 21–45. [Google Scholar]
- Dignum, M.; Correljé, A.; Cuppen, E.; Pesch, U.; Taebi, B. Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2016, 22, 1171–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Type of Factors | Factors (Examples) | Technology & Innovation Management | Social Psychology |
---|---|---|---|
Environmental and market characteristics | Network effects, switching costs, installed base, regulators, suppliers | √ | |
Technology-specific characteristics | Technological superiority, complementary goods, compatibility | √ | |
Firm-level characteristics | Financial strength, brand reputation, pricing strategy, time of market entry | √ | |
Perceived technology-specific characteristics | Performance and effort expectancy, cost-benefit perceptions, hedonic motivations | √ | |
Perceived social influences | Subjective norm, image | √ | |
Perceived personality characteristics | Personal norms, ecological worldviews, innovativeness | √ | |
Others | Experience, habit | √ |
Database | Search Query | # of Results | Date |
---|---|---|---|
Scopus | ((TITLE-ABS-KEY (smart AND grid) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (smart AND meter*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (smart AND energy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (smart AND home*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (home AND energy AND management) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (smart AND technology) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (energy AND digital*)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (acceptance) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (acceptability) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (adoption))) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar “) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ip”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ENER “) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “OCI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) | 444 | 5 January 2018 |
Web of Science | (TS = (smart grid OR smart energy OR smart meter* OR smart home* OR home energy management OR smart technology OR energy digital*) AND TS = (acceptance OR acceptability OR adoption)) AND LANGUAGE: (English) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article) Refined by: WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: (ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES OR ECONOMICS OR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OR PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED OR BUSINESS OR SOCIOLOGY OR GREEN SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY OR URBAN STUDIES OR PSYCHOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL OR SOCIAL SCIENCES INTERDISCIPLINARY) | 262 | 5 January 2018 |
Values | # of Articles (N = 49) | Technological Context | Sources | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Smart Grid | Smart Metering | Smart Home | DSM | Household Storage | Smart EV Charging | |||
Environmental Sustainability | 22 | + | + | + | + | + | [11,56,57,58,59,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] | |
Security of Supply | 7 | + | + | + | + | + | [3,67,68,69,72,78,79] | |
Transparency and Accuracy | 6 | + | + | + | [56,58,67,76,77,80] | |||
Privacy | 24 | − | − | − | − | [2,11,14,55,56,58,63,74,75,76,77,79,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92] | ||
Security | 15 | − | − | − | [2,11,55,68,74,75,76,77,79,81,85,86,89,92,93] | |||
(Mis)Trust | 14 | − | − | − | − | [14,63,75,76,81,83,90,91,92,94,95,96,97,98] | ||
Health | 5 | − | [11,56,68,86,91] | |||||
Distributive and Procedural Justice | 5 | − | − | − | [14,56,57,75,96] | |||
Control and Autonomy | 14 | − | − | +/− | +/− | [14,55,56,66,67,73,79,81,88,93,94,99,100,101] | ||
Inclusiveness | 7 | − | +/− | [14,75,76,77,79,81,93] | ||||
Quality of Life | 7 | + | − | [58,66,73,75,76,77] | ||||
Reliability | 5 | +/− | [75,77,79,80,81] | |||||
Affordability of energy | 4 | +/− | +/− | − | [11,71,76,99] |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Milchram, C.; Van de Kaa, G.; Doorn, N.; Künneke, R. Moral Values as Factors for Social Acceptance of Smart Grid Technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082703
Milchram C, Van de Kaa G, Doorn N, Künneke R. Moral Values as Factors for Social Acceptance of Smart Grid Technologies. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8):2703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082703
Chicago/Turabian StyleMilchram, Christine, Geerten Van de Kaa, Neelke Doorn, and Rolf Künneke. 2018. "Moral Values as Factors for Social Acceptance of Smart Grid Technologies" Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082703
APA StyleMilchram, C., Van de Kaa, G., Doorn, N., & Künneke, R. (2018). Moral Values as Factors for Social Acceptance of Smart Grid Technologies. Sustainability, 10(8), 2703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082703