Tiellemans, N; Kemperman, A; Maussen, S and Arentze, T (2022) The influence of group decision-making on residents' preferences for sustainable energy measures of dwellings. Building Research & Information, 50(4), pp. 410-423. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
As a part of the shift towards a more sustainable society, improving the energy efficiency of the current dwelling stock has gained momentum in the past few years. In case of co-ownership of a building (e.g. apartment building), the residents of a home-owner association have to come to a collective agreement when deciding upon the implementation of sustainable energy measures of the dwellings. Stated choice modelling is a well-known technique to measure individuals' preferences of attributes of choice alternatives. This study introduces an extension of the technique to estimate preferences of residents that takes into account group influences and group dynamics in joint decision-making. The findings of an application based on a national sample of 167 home-owner associations members indicate that owner association members show cooperative behaviour. They are willing to make concessions to their own preferences in order to reach a group decision. When preferences of members differ on outcomes that are considered to be very important, however, the willingness to adapt may be limited. We conclude therefore that compromise alternatives have a higher probability of acceptance than high-gain high-cost alternatives, given the group decision context.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | discrete choice model; group decision-making; mixed logit model; owner associations; stated choice experiment; sustainable housing |
| Index terms: | group dynamics, decision-making, preference, society, cooperative behaviour, experiment, apartment building, ownership, sustainable housing, implementation, estimate, modelling, sustainable energy, energy efficiency, owner |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, sociology, housing and residential development, communities and social development, economics, decision-making and reasoning, sustainability and energy, psychology, analytical methods, financial and cost management, renewable energy, contractual arrangements, construction type, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Procurement, Urban Studies, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here