lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Understanding undergraduate students’ perceptions of dynamicpricing policies: An exploratory study of two pilot deliberativepollings (DPs) in Guangzhou, China and Kyoto, Japan

Daphne Ngar-yin Mah a, b, *, Victor Lam a, b, Alice Siu c, Hua Ye d, Seiichi Ogata e,Yun-Ying Wu f

a Department of Geography, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kongb Asian Energy Studies Centre, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kongc Center of Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University, USAd Department of Sociology and Social Work, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Chinae Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Japanf School of Materials Science and Engineering, Hanshan Normal University, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 March 2018Received in revised form17 July 2018Accepted 26 July 2018Available online 1 August 2018

Keywords:Smart gridsDynamic pricingPublic perceptionDeliberative participationUndergraduate studentsAsia

* Corresponding author. Department of GeograpStudies Centre, Hong Kong Baptist University, 12/F, ABuilding, 15 Baptist University Road, Kowloon Tong, H

E-mail address: daphnemah@hkbu.edu.hk (D.N.-y

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.2550959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Smart grids (SGs) are being deployed as a transformational technology in energy transitions. However,negative consumer responses to both smart meters and new pricing systems indicate that building publicacceptance of these transitions is critically important. Deliberative Pollings (DPs) offer the potential toeffectively integrate public perceptions into energy transition decision-making. Most deliberativegovernance studies focus on western countries and very few examine the Asian context. This paperpresents an exploratory study of undergraduate students' perceptions of dynamic pricing options in twopilot DPs conducted in the cities of Guangzhou and Kyoto. The study indicates that deliberative processesyield mixed outcomes in changing participants' choice of pricing options. While many welcomed newpricing options, a significant number supported status quo options. Second, the normative mechanismsand outcomes of deliberative participation seem to apply in the Asian context. DP appears to enhanceparticipants' acceptance of complex and sophisticated pricing options. Dialogic processes enhanced theparticipants’ ability to understand complex issues and weigh up trade-offs when comparing options.Third, national level contextual differences associated with public distrust and familiarity with marketlogic may explain the differences in responses between Chinese and Japanese participants. We argue thatcomplex and controversial energy decision-making needs to be supported by deliberative participatoryprocesses to enable citizens to make informed and considered choices.

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Climate change concerns, rising energy costs, and the risksassociated with nuclear power have heightened the urgency of atransition to a low-carbon future. By applying advanced informa-tion technology to modernise existing electricity networks, smartgrids (SGs) are seen as an enabling technology to realise energytransitions through extending the choice of energy options on both

hy, Director, Asian Energycademic and Administrationong Kong.

. Mah).

the supply-side (e.g. major uptake of renewable energy sources)and demand-side (e.g., demand-sidemanagement (DSM)). They areincreasingly being adopted and implemented in both developedand developing economies (e.g. the US, South Korea, Japan, andChina). These trends have become evenmore pronounced in recentyears since the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011.

In this context the role of residential electricity consumers hasbecome increasingly significant. In the literature on energy tran-sitions, dynamic pricing systems are attracting growing attentionas mechanisms to realise the vast untapped potential of DSM(Barton et al., 2013). In contrast to traditional flat-rate systems, indynamic pricing systems electricity prices vary across time. Dy-namic pricing may therefore induce consumers to reschedule their

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173 161

consumption of electricity and reduce consumption, and therebycontribute to load shifting and load reduction (Barton et al., 2013).

The introduction of more sophisticated and potentially moreefficient pricing systems may, however, provoke public contro-versies or even public distrust (see, for example, Mah et al., 2012a;b). Deliberative approaches e innovative forms of public partici-pation that emphasise the empowerment of a more informed cit-izenry to discuss, debate, and reflect on energy issues e have thepotential to improve energy literacy and facilitate the governanceof controversial energy technologies (CDD, 2012; DeWaters andPowers, 2013; Hankyoreh, 2017). These governing approaches arebeing increasingly adopted worldwide (including in the US, Ger-many, Japan, and South Korea). However, informed analysis of theseapproaches focuses almost exclusively on western countries.

This study analyses the influence of deliberative processes onenergy decisions among undergraduate students in two Asian cit-ies. This study focuses on undergraduate students for two mainreasons. First, in recent years, the young population, includinguniversity undergraduate students, has increasingly become afocus in studies on youth-led social change as well as student-ledcampus sustainability initiatives (DeWaters and Powers, 2011;Helferty and Clarke, 2009; Ho et al., 2015; Trencher et al., 2013;Yarime and Tanaka, 2012). Second, previous studies suggest thatuniversity students are a group of future decision-makers, leaders,and entrepreneurs who may be possible agents of change towardssustainability and possibly act as a benchmark for other socialgroups to follow (Vicente-Molina et al., 2013). University studentstherefore warrant study as a key stakeholder group in regard tosustainable futures (Lozano et al., 2013; Vicente-Molina et al.,2013).

This study has a geographical focus in Asia. Asian countries haveplayed a pivotal role in the impacts of and responses to globalclimate change. These countries are diverse and differ from eachother and Western countries in terms of their institutions, regula-tions, energy profiles, stakeholder landscapes, and public contro-versies. A better understanding of how and to what extent Asiancountries might introduce participative and deliberative practicesfor energy policymaking is therefore of scholarly value and policysignificance.

China and Japan are used as case study countries for thisresearch. Both have been pioneering green-technology, includingthe deployment of SGs. They also possess shared characteristics intheir energy regimes, which include the presence of partial elec-tricity reforms, a dominant state, and incumbent utilities. Thesesimilarities provide common ground for the cross-case comparison.On the other hand, they differ in their approaches to deploying SGs.Japan's community-oriented approach and China's vision for super-grids demonstrate different development pathways for SGs (Mahet al., 2013, 2017). In addition, there has recently been sometransposition of deliberative participation from the West to Asia.The recent national energy-related DPs conducted in Japan andSouth Korea in 2012 and 2017 respectively are examples of suchinitiatives (CDD, 2012; Hankyoreh, 2017). In China, althoughdeliberative participation has yet to be practised in the area ofenergy, a DP was recently conducted in 2015 on local budget issuesin Shanghai. Much of the research on deliberative governancehowever focuses on the West (Petts, 2004; Turcanu et al., 2014).Relatively little is known about the practice, processes, and mech-anisms of deliberative governance outside the Western context.

This is an exploratory study of public perceptions of dynamicpricing options. As such, we do not attempt to develop a newframework or provide a path-breaking perspective (Moon andDeleon, 2001). Rather, we present a cross-national comparativeperspective of two pilot Deliberative Polls (DPs) on dynamic pricingand demand-side-management (DSM) in Guangzhou, China and

Kyoto, Japan. The study has threemain aims. First, it aims to providea better understanding of how dynamic pricing options, as acomplex energy policy, are perceived by university students. Sec-ond, it explores if there are changes in attitudes of participantsbefore and after deliberation, and how and why undergraduatestudents in different national and socio-economic contexts respondto difficult “trade-off” decisions after going through intensivelearning and deliberative processes. Third, it also aims to extendknowledge of whether and under what conditions westernnormative processes of deliberative participation could be appliedeffectively across Asia. The premise behind this approach is thatnormative processes of deliberative participation could apply inChina and Japan. Wewill test firstly whether deliberative processesincrease participants’ acceptance of complex and sophisticatedpricing options; and secondly whether dialogic and learning pro-cesses enable participants to become more informed and compe-tent in weighing trade-offs associated with complex energydecisions.

2. Theoretical perspectives

2.1. The role of electricity consumers in energy transitions

Electricity consumers have traditionally been overlooked inenergymanagement systems. Policymakers in many countries havebeen preoccupied with nuclear power and other supply-sidemeasures (IEA, 2010, 2016). A growing body of literature has sug-gested that residential electricity consumers, either as decision-makers for household electricity consumption or policy stake-holders through their votes, can become active agents in energytransitions driven by SG technologies (Fox-Penner, 2010; IEA, 2016;Ogunjuyigbe et al., 2015).

Dynamic pricing as an approach to realise the untapped po-tential of DSM has gained increasing attention (Barton et al., 2013;Sioshansi, 2012). DSM is not a new concept. It emerged as anapproach for utility management in the US in the 1970s. DSM maybring consumer, utility, and societal benefits by lowering electricitybills, helping utilities operate more efficiently, and reducinggreenhouse gases emissions (Strbac, 2008). Traditionally, largeelectricity users such as industrial end-users have been the mainparticipants in DSM in both developed (see, for example, in the U.S.(Eto, 1996)) and developing economies (see, for example, in China(Zhang et al., 2017)); residential end-users have played a much lesssignificant role.

Recent technological breakthroughs in SGs have, however, led togreater interest in DSM activities in the domestic household sector.Through the use of smart meters, home energy management sys-tems (HEMSs), and real-time electricity information linked to dy-namic pricing systems, electricity consumers can become activeplayers through reducing or rescheduling consumption (see, forexample, Brown and Zhou (2013); World Energy Council (2012)).Studies suggest that consumers may substantially reduce overallenergy consumption levels and reduce peak loads by up to 30%(Faruqui et al., 2010; IEA, 2010). The IEA also projects that as muchas 50% of the decarbonising effort by 2030 will have to come fromenergy efficiency measures (IEA, 2010).

2.2. Dynamic pricing: its typology and the associated trade-offdecisions

Together with the increasing policy attention given to dynamicpricing and DSM, a growing body of literature explores typologiesand mechanisms of pricing options. The literature suggests thatthere are threemain types of pricing systems: flat rate tariffs, tiered-based (or block-based) tariffs, and dynamic pricing systems. Dynamic

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173162

pricing systems provide varying rates across time and can befurther divided into three sub-types: time-of-use, critical peakpricing, and real-time tariffs (see, for example, Brown and Zhou,2013). When compared with traditional flat-rate systems, dy-namic pricing may induce price-sensitive consumers to rescheduleconsumption of electricity and reduce overall consumptionthrough load shifting and load reduction (Barton et al., 2013; Brownand Zhou, 2013; Silva and Santiago, 2017).

As shown in Fig. 1 (in the Supplementary Information Section),different pricing systems have distinctive features: each of themhas their own functions and mechanisms creating opportunitiesfor residential consumers to reduce electricity bills in variousways (see, for example, Brown and Zhou, 2013). They also involvedifferent sets of trade-off decisions (see, for example, Fell et al.,2015; Silva and Santiago, 2017) which are associated withdifferent sets of benefits, costs, and risks. There are at least fivekey dimensions that need to be considered when comparingpricing options: economic, environmental, technological, social andregulatory factors (Faruqui and Palmer, 2011; Mah et al., 2014;Wang et al., 2012) (Table 1 e in the Supplementary InformationSection).

2.3. Managing public perceptions in energy transitions throughdeliberative governance

Despite the potential benefits offered by dynamic pricing, agrowing body of empirical evidence suggests dynamic pricing mayhave limited impacts (Guo et al., 2017). In addition, smart meterinstallation and the introduction of dynamic pricing systems oftenattract a consumer backlash and provoke public distrust (Mah et al.,2012a, b; Park et al., 2014). The public can be highly skeptical of themotives of introducing dynamic pricing andmay, for example, see itas simply a way to disguise a utility's intention to increase tariffs(Mah et al., 2012a; b).

There are various possible explanations for this. Work byDevine-Wright (2007) and Sovacool and Ratan (2012), for example,argue that public perception is a determining factor in energytransitions but it cannot be taken for granted. Sovacool and Ratan(2012) suggest that public acceptance is a multi-dimensionalconcept that operates at socio-political, market, and communitylevels. As such, engaging consumers in SG deployment may rely notonly on the availability of technologies, but also on markets andinstitutions through which SG technology is applied and adoptedby households (Bell et al., 1996; Brown and Zhou, 2013). The liter-ature also suggests that public acceptance can be affected by per-sonal (e.g. age, social class), psychological (e.g. level of trust,knowledge, and direct experience), technology type and scale, andcontextual factors (e.g. institutional structure) (Devine-Wright,2007).

Around the world, growing concern over public distrust and alack of legitimacy have exposed the limitations of conventionalforms of top-down, expert-led, technocratic energy policymaking(Lee et al., 2014; Lehtonen and Kern, 2009). Deliberative partici-pation is a form of stakeholder involvement that emphasises theempowerment of a more informed citizenry to discuss, debate, andreflect on energy issues (Petts, 2004; Turcanu et al., 2014). Suchdeliberative practices can take various forms, including DPs, citi-zens’ juries, consensus conferences, and scenario development(Einsiedel et al., 2001, 2001; Lehtonen and Kern, 2009; van deKerkhof, 2006).

Deliberative participation has several important normativecharacteristics. It emphasises the need to dissolve the demarcationbetween science and the public, and to facilitate rational publicdebate as ameans to achieve a socially viable consensus (Sundqvist,2004). This approach has been increasingly recognised as an

important governance mechanism for enhancing social learning,decision quality, policy legitimacy, and trust (Bull et al., 2008; Petts,2004). In the context of energy transitions, such an approach isexpected to enhance the overall efficiency of the processes of SETs(Pidgeon et al., 2014; Turcanu et al., 2014), and facilitate the for-mation of more sustainable decisions (Turcanu et al., 2014).Deliberative approaches are, however, logistically challenging andare constrained by limits of time, cost and space (Epstein, 2000;Vel�asquez and Gonz�alez, 2010).

DPs are a specific method of deliberative participation.Traditional polls have the limitation of being static, revealingonly snapshots of public opinion. Respondents are generally ill-informed. DPs have the potential to overcome these constraintsby integrating deliberative processes into more traditionalpublic opinion polling methods (Fishkin et al., 2010a, b;Nabatchi, 2010; Shigetomi et al., 2009). DPs integrate smallgroup discussions, expert Q&A sessions, and plenary discussioninto deliberative events (CDD, 2017). Quantitative analysis ofthe pre- and post-deliberation questionnaires of DPs cantherefore provide insights into public opinion that are not onlyrepresentative, but also more accurately reflect the consideredand informed opinion of the public (Fishkin et al., 2010a; b;Luskin et al., 2002). The resulting changes in public opinionrepresent the conclusions the public would probably reach, ifthey are given opportunities to be informed and more engagedin the dialogue or public debate (CDD, 2017; Fishkin et al.,2010a, b).

Many countries, including Germany, France, and theNetherlands, have engaged in deliberative participation in thepursuit of energy transitions (Kern and Smith, 2008; Schneider,2013; Schweizer et al., 2014). In Asia, recent initiatives includethe national DPs on environment and energy options conducted inJapan in 2012 (CDD, 2012), and a nuclear deliberative opinion pollof sampled citizen jurors conducted in South Korea in 2017(Hankyoreh, 2017).

2.4. Knowledge gaps

There are several knowledge gaps in the energy transitionliterature and specifically in the Asian context that need to beaddressed. First, there is a lack of a firm understanding of thesocial aspects of energy transitions, particularly from the per-spectives of consumer engagement and public acceptance.Theoretical linkages between consumer engagement and delib-erative governance in the context of energy transitions are notwell developed. Second, the use of DPs as an innovative tech-nique of public engagement in complex energy policy issues re-quires further testing in contexts beyond the Westernindustrialised nations. The literature on energy transitions anddeliberative participation is mainly rooted in the West (e.g. frominternational and European perspectives (see, for example, Kernand Smith, 2008; Lehtonen and Kern, 2009; Petts, 2008). Thereremain major knowledge gaps concerning Asian countries, whichdiffer from their Western counterparts in terms of their in-stitutions, regulations, energy profiles and issues, as well as thenature of energy-related public controversies (Berman et al.,2010; Mah et al., 2013). Third, there is a lack of comparativecross-national studies in the fields of energy-related innovationsystems and deliberative governance (Lin et al., 2013). Finally, thesignificance of multi-method approaches for research has beenincreasingly acknowledged, but energy research combiningquantitative and qualitative methods is still generally lacking inthe Asian context (Winskel et al., 2015). Our analysis combinesquantitative with qualitative data and could potentially add sig-nificant value in the field of SETs.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173 163

3. Material and methods

3.1. A comparative perspective of two pilot DPs

This study provides a comparative perspective of two pilot DPson dynamic pricing and DSM conducted in Guangzhou, China andKyoto, Japan (Fig. 2). When compared with a single case studyapproach, this comparative-case approach can enhance both in-ternal and external validity of the observed phenomenon ofdeliberative processes and outcomes across the two selected Asiancities (Chesbrough and Burgelman, 2001).

By comparing participants’ responses in these two pilots, weaddress the following questions:

a) What were undergraduate students' (most) preferred pricingoptions? Did they change their preferences after deliberation(i.e. after evaluating strengths, limitations, and risks ofdifferent pricing options)? Did they prefer not to change afterdeliberation?

b) Why were undergraduate students supportive of particularpricing option(s)? What were their concerns over variouspricing options?

c) Can cultural differences in national and socio-economiccontexts explain some of the observed phenomenon?

d) Can western normative processes and consequences ofdeliberative participation travel across, and be realised in theAsian context?; And under what conditions, and how, candeliberative participation lead to improvements in energygovernance?

3.2. Formats, sampling, and recruitment of the pilot DPs

Our two pilot DPs were conducted in the format of a one-daydeliberative workshop. The first DP took place in Sun Yat-sen

Fig. 2. Geographical locations of Guangzhou and Kyoto.

University in Guangzhou (GZ) in March 2016 and the second DPtook place in Kyoto University in Kyoto (KY) in January 2017. EachDP had 47 undergraduate participants. Compared with full-scaleDPs which typically involve at least 250 randomly sampled par-ticipants, our pilots are small in scale, focusing only on under-graduate participants. This study cannot claim statisticalrepresentativeness and has limits in generalising findings to thelocal population of GZ or KY. Our approach does however allow usto optimise the quality of the study given our budget constraintsand various logistical challenges.

While these pilots are relatively small in scale, they comprise allkey and essential elements of DPs. Participants received a briefingdocument and completed a pre-deliberation questionnaireapproximately one week prior to the one-day DP. During the DP,participants had the opportunity to engage in dialogue in two one-and-a-half-hour small group sessions and two one-and-a-half-hourexpert Q&A sessions which were all facilitated by trainedmoderators.

In the first small group discussion, participants focused oncomparing five electricity pricing options (flat-rate, tier-based,time-of-use, critical peak, and real-time tariffs) and assessing thestrengths, weaknesses and risks of each tariff structure. Questionsthat arose from the first small group discussions were subsequentlydirected to experts during the expert Q&A session. Each smallgroup was allowed to raise two questions shortlisted by their groupmembers. In the second small group discussion, participants dis-cussed different scenarios on pricing options. Participants had theopportunity to ask questions on different scenarios, receive feed-back from expert panelists, and then reflect on his or her opinionsof pricing options. At the end of the DP, participants completed apost-deliberation questionnaire. An overview of the pilot DPs isprovided in Fig. 3.

Pre- and post-deliberation questionnaires were designed totrack participants’ perceptions of (i) energy goals, (ii) approaches tosolving energy problems, (iii) DSM as one of the solutions to reduceenergy consumption; (iv) different dynamic pricing options, and (v)different scenarios on pricing options prior to and after the work-shop. Post-workshop questionnaires included an additional sectionfor participants to reflect on the DP process itself.

We adopted similar methodological approaches for samplingand recruitment in order to ensure methodological consistencybetween the two pilots (Table 2). DP normally requires the use ofrandom sampling. As our pilot DPs were not full scale exercises, ourpilots conducted quota sampling to determine the proportionalnumber of undergraduate students to be recruited in considerationof the distribution of students across major disciplines, as well asthe gender ratio. Students in campuses of their respective univer-sity were then recruited (Tables 3a and b, in Section ofSupplementary Information).

There were two relatively minor discrepancies associated withthe sampling and recruitment methods in the DPs. First, the KYsample and recruited participants had a disproportionate largenumber of males which reflected the population makeup of theuniversity (Kyoto University, 2017), and the number of recruitedparticipants either exceeded or fell short of the targeted sample byfaculty (Table 3b). Second, the recruitment process differed in someways: the GZ sample was recruited by visiting school classrooms.The remaining participants were recruited by promoting the DPover social media outlets or by referral. The KY sample wasrecruited by a cluster methodwith the help of six recruiters. Each ofthem recruited five to 20 students. Different recruitment methodswere needed in order to address some logistical difficulties inrecruitment in the local context. It is important to note that both GZand KY samples generally reflect the demographics of the sampleduniversity populations. The final number and composition of

Fig. 3. An overview of the format of the project's pilot DPs.

Table 2An overview of the Guangzhou and Kyoto DP workshops.

Guangzhou Kyoto

Deliberation Date 19 March 2016 14 January 2017Location South Campus, Sun Yat-sen University Yoshida Campus, Kyoto UniversityCampus Population 7,910a 13,374Sampling Frame By proportional representation by size based on

campus population (Table 3a)By proportional representation by size based oncampus population with weighting given tofemales due to low numbers (Table 3b)

Participant Demographics(gender; school/faculty distribution)

Recruitment Method Campus recruitment in one day, 3 March 2016 Cluster recruitment from 2 to 12 January 2017Participants 47 47Number of Small Groups

(participants per group)5 (8e10 each) 4 (12e13 each)

Expert Panels � Total of three experts� One senior executive from China Southern Power Grid,

one senior executive from a local electricity distributor company,and one scholar who has an expertise in energy policy in China

� Total of three experts� One local utility expert from Kansai Power

Electric Company (KEPCO) and two scholars,one in socio-environmental sciencesand one in energy scenario development and analysis

a The total targeted sample of the GZ pilot was reduced from originally 50 to 48. This was because after determining the initial sampling of 50 students, the local researchcollaborator found out that students from the Department of Psychology and School of Education did not have classes at South Campus; therefore, these students wereexcluded from the school target population and sample size. One recruited student in the GZ DP did not show up on the day of the event. The actual number of participants wastherefore 47. For the KY DP, 47 students were recruited and they all showed up and participated in the event.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173164

participants therefore reflected an effort to obtain a diversity ofundergraduate views, set against the resources available to convenethe DPs, generate quantitative questionnaire data and qualitativetranscription data, and analyse the data in a timely but sufficientlydetailed manner.

3.3. Data collection and analysis

This study adopts a mixed-method approach. Our analysis isbased on quantitative data collected from pre- and post-DP ques-tionnaires, and qualitative data derived from transcriptions of smallgroup discussions and expert panel sessions at the two DPs.Quantitative data collected from the pre- and post-deliberationquestionnaires is used to: (i) track changes in participants' accep-tance on four pricing options after deliberation; (ii) understandparticipants' perceived usefulness of various aspects of the work-shop. Qualitative data is used to understand participants’ views,particularly why and how they form their perceptions. This mixed-method approach has been perceived as a valuable and importantway to derive combined insights into observed phenomenon.

In relation to the qualitative data, small group and expert paneldiscussions were all audio-taped. Full (verbatim) transcription wasconducted for the GZ DP; summary transcription was done for the

KY DP. There has been an on-going debate whether it is necessaryto transcribe all audio-recorded interview data verbatim, particu-larly in relation to mixed-method investigations (Halcomb andDavidson, 2006). Verbatim transcriptions refer to word-for-wordwritten reproduction of the words spoken in the audio-recordingwhereas summary transcripts provide key words and points. Bothtranscription strategies have strengths and limitations as sum-marised in Table 4. Verbatim transcriptions, for example, are usefulin establishing the trustworthiness of the transcripts but are time-consuming and resource intensive. Summary transcription can savetime but may be considered less trustworthy (Halcomb andDavidson, 2006; Poland, 1995).

In this study qualitative data is used to complement quantitativedata. In our view summary transcripts can provide rich and detaileddata which are sufficient for this level of analysis. In considerationof the relative merits of these two types of transcripts and ourbudget constraints, summary transcriptions instead of verbatimtranscriptions were produced in the KY DP (McLellan et al., 2003).

To ensure the quality of the summary transcriptions, two mea-sures were adopted. First, approximately one-fifth of the summarytranscripts were spot checked by one of the co-authors who isfluent in Japanese. The spot-check results suggest that generally asmuch as 80% of texts were effectively summarised, and the

Table 4A comparison of summary transcriptions and verbatim transcriptions.

Verbatim Transcriptions Summary Transcriptions

Characteristics ▪ word-for-word written reproduction of the words spoken in the audio-recording ▪ key words and pointsStrengths ▪ useful in establishing the trustworthiness of the transcripts ▪ save time

▪ can still provide rich and detailed data forrequired levels of analysis of specific issues

Limitations ▪ time-consuming▪ resource intensive▪ can be subject to transcriber errors such as misinterpretation of

content and cultural differences

▪ less trustworthy

Sources: Halcomb and Davidson, 2006; Poland, 1995.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173 165

summary transcripts are thus sufficient to provide detailed enoughdata for our qualitative analysis. Second, the summary transcriptswere triangulated with direct observation and notes taken by threeof the paper's authors who participated in the event.

We deployed two strategies to integrate data in this compara-tive study. First, across the two pilot DPs, we adopted similar ap-proaches and formats for developing the briefing documents, pre-and post-deliberation questionnaires to ensure methodologicalconsistency. Second, we utilised the multiple datasets to derivecombined insights into the observed phenomena and underlyingmechanisms, as well as explaining the differences in response be-tween Chinese and Japanese participants.

4. Our case study contexts of China and Japan

National and local contexts often represent determining factorsaffecting energy technology and policy choices. This section pro-vides an overview of the national and local energy, economic, andsocio-political contexts of our two pilot DPs.

4.1. The national and local energy contexts

China and Japan are two of themost important economies in theAsia. China is a rapidly developing economy, and is expected to bethe primary driver of global energy demand growth in the nearfuture (IEA, 2016). In its 13th five-year plan, China has proposed thestrategy of green energy development which seeks to improveenergy efficiency and accelerate the development of renewableenergy. As part of electricity market reforms, China started tointroduce dynamic pricing in the early 2000s (WEC, 2016).

Japan is a highly developed nation. Historically a resource-poorcountry, Japan has long relied on importing energy to meet itsdemand (Vivoda, 2014). Japan's energy supply is mainly from fossilfuels which provide approximately 67% of electricity generation.The 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident led to a review of nuclearenergy policies and in a major reduction of nuclear power fromapproximately 25% in 2010 to only 1% in fiscal 2015 (StatisticsBureau, 2017). Japan has introduced policies to promote thedeployment of renewable energy and DSM in its post-Fukushimaenergy plans (WEC, 2016). The country started to introduce elec-tricity market reforms in the 1990s. It has been recently completingthe reforms by introducing retail market competition to residentialend-users in April 2016 (METI, 2016).

China and Japan are also politically and socially distinct. Chineseenergy decision-making system is relatively authoritarian and top-down (Lo, 2014). Japan is a democratic country which has a longertradition of inclusive and open energy decision-making (Huckfeldtet al., 2005; Mah et al., 2013). It is also interesting to note that eventhough deliberative participation is a concept that originated in theWest, this specific form of participation has already been adoptedin Japan as well as in China. The Japanese government conducted its

first national DP on energy and its nuclear plan in August 2012e17months after the Fukushima accident (Aldrich, 2013; CDD, 2012).That DPwas the first of its kind in the energy field in Asia to the bestof our knowledge. In China, deliberative participation has beenintroduced in various public policy areas (e.g. the price of water andeven in relation to taxi strikes) at both national and local levelsalthough not yet in the area of energy (Fishkin et al., 2006; Fishkinet al., 2010a; b; He, 2005; He and Warren, 2011; Jiang, 2010). Arecent example is a DP conducted in 2015 concerning local budgetissues in Shanghai (Han et al., 2015).

At the local level, Guangzhou and Kyoto offer different economicand socio-political contexts for examining young peoples' percep-tion of pricing options (Table 5). Guangzhou is a highly populatedcity. Traditionally a manufacturing hub, the city has emergedrapidly in recently years as China's southern business hub and in-dustrial centre (HKTDC, 2016). Kyoto, located in the Kansai Regionof Japan, is a much less populated area but is of great politicalsignificance. As the ancient capital of Japan for more than onethousand years, the city has emerged as a hub for informationtechnology, electronics, and tourism. Kyoto is also home to theheadquarters of Nintendo and Nissin Electric (Nintendo, 2017;Nissin Electric, 2017).

Although Guangzhou and Kyoto are distinctive in many aspects,these two cities share similar energy challenges associated withtheir fossil fuel-based electricity sectors. Guangdong is the largestelectricity consumer of all the Chinese provinces with electricityconsumption reaching 531 TWh in 2015. Air pollution and powershortage have remained serious problems (NBS, 2016). Guangdonghas experienced power blackouts, most notably in 2004 and 2011(GZPS, 2015a, 2015b; Liang, 2006; SCMP, 2005).

Similarly, the Kansai Region where Kyoto is located has tradi-tionally been a major electricity consumer. Kansai has been thesecond highest electricity consumer among the 10 major electricitysupply regions in Japan (134.5 TWh) (FEPC, 2016), surpassed onlyby the Greater Tokyo area. Prior to the Fukushima accident, Kansaiwas once the most nuclear-intensive region in Japan with nuclearcontributing to 45% of the then monopoly KEPCO's fuel mix prior tothe Fukushima accident. After the accident, nuclear contributedonly 1% of the total electricity generated by KEPCO in 2016 (KEPCO,2017). Kansai's major energy challenges are to develop energy plansto compensate for the lost nuclear power production and to satisfyelectricity demand (Nakata et al., 2015). Keihanna Science City, oneof the four sites selected for Japan's national smart grid pilot pro-gram, is situated within Kyoto Prefecture (PFKRI, 2016).

4.2. Dynamic pricing in China and Japan: major developments

In recent decades, residential electricity pricing systems havebeen evolving in China and Japan. Changes have been introducedinto the traditional flat-rate systems and there has been a movetowards pricing structures based on dynamic-pricing. We identify

Table 5A comparison of Guangzhou and Kyoto.

Guangzhou Kyoto

Administrative Status Sub-provincial city level Capital city of Kyoto PrefectureProvince/Administrative Region Guangdong Province Kansai RegionProvincial/Regional Population (million in 2015) 108.5 21.7City Population (million in 2015) 13.5 1.475City Geographical Area (km2) 7434 828Provincial/Regional GDP (2015) (US$ billion) 1095 789City GDP (US$ billion)a 271.51 (1810.04 billion yuan (2015)) 89.41 (9825 billion yen (FY 2013))b

Provincial/Regional Electricity Consumption (TWh) 523.5 (2014) 148.2 (FY2014)Provincial/Regional Electricity Mix Total installed capacity: 91.1 GW (59% from coal,

16% from natural gas, 8% from nuclear, 7% from largehydro, 7% from small hydro, 2% from wind, and 1%from biomass and waste) (2014)

Total installed capacity: 36.0 GW (83% from thermal,10% from hydro, 6% from nuclear,1% from renewable) (FY 2014)

Source: compiled by authors from the following sources: Provincial/Regional Population: (Kansai-METI, 2016; NBS, 2016); City Population: (GZBS, 2016b; Kyoto City Web,2016); City Geographical Area: (GZBS, 2016a; Kyoto City Web, 2008); Provincial/Regional GDP: (MIPIM Japan, 2016; NBS, 2016); City GDP: (HKTDC, 2016; Statistics Japan,2015); Provincial/Regional Electricity Consumption: (BNEF, 2015; NBS, 2015); Provincial/Regional Electricity Mix: (BNEF, 2015; KEPCO, 2014).

a At 1 yuan¼ $0.15 USD; 1 Yen¼ $0.0091 USD (7 June 2017).b At the Prefectural level.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173166

three distinct phases in the evolution of these pricing systems(Fig. 4).

In China, Phase 1 refers to the period prior to July 2012 when theflat-rate tariff was used. Phase 2 started in July 2012 when Chinaeffectively introduced a nationwide three tier-based tariff (TBT)system for the residential sector. Phase 3 started in December 2013when the government introduced a national policy on residentialTOU on the basis of TBT (NDRC, 2011). In December 2013, the Na-tional Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announcedthat residential TOU would be implemented nationwide, and localauthorities that had not rolled out such policies had to do so by theend of 2015. Under this national policy framework, residents areexpected to be encouraged to participate in shifting peak loads.

At present, TBT has remained the basis of electricity tariffs forChinese households, while TOU has been a voluntary opt-in elec-tricity add-on to TBT. Initially as pilot projects, TOU is now at thepoint of being implemented nationwide at the local level. However,the adoption rate of TOU has been minimal in the domestic sector(Transcript T02).

Fig. 4. The evolution of electricity pri

Similarly, three distinct phases of tariff reform can be identifiedin Japan. Phase 1 covers the period prior to 2008. At that time a flat-rate tariff was adopted for household consumers in Japan. Phase 2started in January 2008 and ended in April 2016. Like the tariffs inPhase 2 in China, TBT remained as the basis of the electricity tariffacross Japan but residential consumers could voluntarily opt-in toTOU tariffs if such alternatives were made available by theirtraditional monopoly electricity suppliers. Phase 3 started in April2016 and was marked by the full liberalisation of retail markets inJapan. While opt-in TOU with TBT prevails, residential consumerscan now choose their own electricity suppliers. There has been anincreasing, though still a small proportion of residential consumerswho have shifted to new electricity suppliers. While the nationaldata is not available to the present study, the experience in theKansai region may be indicative. Between April 2016 and January2017 approximately 4% of residential consumers in Kansai shiftedaway from the former regional monopoly Kansai Electric Power(KEPCO) to new electricity suppliers (Transcript T14).

cing systems in China and Japan.

Fig. 5. GZ (5A) and KY (5B) participants' response to what extent they would want to make these pricing options available. in GZ or KY before (pre) and after (post) deliberation.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173 167

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Mixed outcomes in participants’ choices of pricing optionsrevealed the complexity of trade-off decisions

Deliberative processes have the potential of facilitatinginformed decisions and subsequently the substantive quality ofdecisions that are made (Petts, 2004; Turcanu et al., 2014). Animportant question for this study is whether deliberation changedparticipants' acceptance of different pricing options. In our two DPs,we asked participants their perceptions of different electricitypricing options both before and after the workshop. The DP resultsshowed that deliberation yielded mixed outcomes in changingparticipants’ choices of pricing options. There are three importantobservations:

(a) Most participants of the two DPs consistently showed theirsupport for new pricing options both before and afterdeliberation. As shown in Fig. 5, before deliberation, a ma-jority of participants supported TOU (n¼ 28 in GZ and 33 inKY), and a moderate number of them supported RTT (n¼ 18in GZ and 10 in KY); although few supported CPT (n¼ 10 inGZ and 6 in KY). After deliberation, most participants sup-ported new tariff plans, including TOU (n¼ 44 in GZ and n ¼39 in KY), with a moderate number supporting CPT (n¼ 31 inGZ and n¼ 12 in KY) while fewer supported RTT (n¼ 14 in GZand n¼ 4 in KY).

(b) Participants' acceptance of complex and sophisticated energypolicy options noticeably increased after deliberation. Wefound that deliberative processes can increase participants'acceptance of complex and sophisticated energy policy op-tions, i.e. the more sophisticated pricing options of TOU andCPT. We asked participants the extent to which they agreedto make the four pricing options available in their city. Therewas an increase in support for TOU and CPT in both locations(Fig. 5A and B).1 Prior to deliberation, there was moderate

1 Numbers reported in this finding are expressed as aggregate numbers of'strongly agree', 'agree', and 'disagree', 'strongly disagree' responses.

support for TOU (n¼ 28 in GZ and 33 in KY) and low supportfor CPT (n¼ 10 in GZ and 6 in KY). After, deliberation,Guangzhou participants' support for TOU (n increased from28 to 44) and CPT (n increased from 10 to 31) increased whilein Kyoto participants' support for TOU (n increased from 33to 39) and CPT (n increased from 6 to 12) also increased.

(c) While many participants welcome new pricing options, aconsiderable number of participants were supportive of thestatus quo. Before deliberation, in GZ, the Business-As-Usual(BAU) scenario (i.e. a tier-based system with opt-in TOU)received the greatest support (n¼ 34). In KY, BAU receivedthe second highest level of support (n¼ 17). After delibera-tion, support for BAU remained steady in GZ (n changed from34 to 33). However, there was a noticeable increase in KYparticipants' support for BAU (n increased from 17 to 30).These data suggest that participants in both DPs weregenerally conservative about pricing options, and the KYparticipants preferred the no-change option even more afterdeliberation.

The mixed findings of the DP results are inconclusive and needto be interpreted with caution. It is important to note that a ma-jority of GZ and KY participants chose the status quo pricing option,and some KY participants even more so after deliberation. Thesefindings raise an important question: why did some participantsnot favour change even though they were given the opportunity todo so?

Our findings seem to shed light on the centrality of under-standing benefits, costs, and risks in making trade-off decisions.Our qualitative data suggest that participants obtained a relativelysophisticated understanding of alternative pricing options. On theone hand, they seemed to recognise the potential benefits of newpricing options, most notably raising public awareness of energyefficiency, reducing electricity consumption, and improving theefficiency of energy systems (see, for example, T03, T15). On theother hand, they did raise concerns over a broad range of issuesassociated with the costs and risks of new pricing options. A senseof uncertainty may result in a more conservative view amongparticipants. They particularly welcomed the existing pricing ar-rangements for their simplicity and convenience (see, for example,

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173168

T07, T15).We summarised and categorised the key questions raised by GZ

and KY participants during expert Q&A sessions for comparison (aspresented in Table 6 in Supplementary Information Section). It isevident that the GZ and KY participants shared concerns over newtariff systems in many areas. These concerns include peak shifting,electricity tariffs, electricity generation, electricity consumption,electricity markets, and information accuracy. In addition, both GZand KY participants were keen to seek clarification on the purposesof potential applications and benefits of peak shifting if new pricingoptions are adopted. They showed considerable interest in learningexperiences from previous demonstration projects and industriesthat have implemented demand response programmes.

Participants were also able to develop a more sophisticatedunderstanding of the subject matter during the DPs. They raisedquestions that went beyond costs and technologies. In the GZ DP,one participant raised equity concerns about the use and flexibilityof electricity between the rich and the poor (e.g. the rich may bemore flexibility in rescheduling daily routines and have a highercapacity to pay for electricity use at time-based periods) (TranscriptT06). In the KY DP, one participant suggested that because Kyotohas diverse groups of people (e.g. elders, parents, students, andtourists) with different energy needs and consumption patterns, itmay be more reasonable to open electricity pricing options foreveryone to choose so that those who are less adaptable to newtariff systems can choose to stay in the current one (Transcript T22).

In addition, there were serious concerns over uncertaintiesassociated with smart meter installation and applications. Three ofthe five GZ small groups were concerned about the installationcosts of smart meters (Transcripts T05, T07, and T09). One GZparticipant asked: “For RTT, apart from the installation of smartmeters, what are the other costs?” (Transcript T02). Some GZ par-ticipants also raised issues over the risk of smart meter readinginaccuracies (Transcript T09), privacy and cyber security (Tran-scripts T10, T12). While KY participants did not explicitly mentionconcerns over smart meter rollout, one participant did query thepublic acceptance of smart meters (Transcript T14).

5.2. The normative mechanisms and outcomes of deliberativeparticipation seem to apply in the Asian context

Our findings seem to be consistent with the literature ondeliberative participation that dialogic processes and deliberativeformats may attain some normative outcomes of deliberation. Wefound that after deliberation, participants perceived themselves asbetter informed, competent in weighing trade-offs, and being ableto reflect on his or her own trade-off decisions.

We asked participants to complete a post-workshop question-naire in which they reflected on the effectiveness of the DPs. Mostparticipants agreed that the dialogic DPs, particularly the smallgroup discussion and expert Q&A sessions, were useful (Fig. 6). Amajority of them found the small group discussion facilitatedlearning from different participants (n¼ 40 and 46 respectively).2

In relation to the effectiveness of the expert Q&A sessions, a largenumber of GZ (n¼ 35) and KY (n¼ 36) participants found thesessions to be useful (Fig. 7). Participants agreed that the expertQ&A sessions facilitated not only their own learning (n¼ 40 in GZand n¼ 45 in KY), but also facilitated the small group discussions(n¼ 40 in GZ and n¼ 39 in KY)(Fig. 7).

What, then, are the reasons for the positive comments fromparticipants? Our quantitative questionnaire and qualitative

2 Numbers reported in this finding are expressed as aggregate numbers of'strongly agree', 'agree', and 'disagree', 'strongly disagree' responses.

workshop data suggest that these deliberative processes enabledour participants toweigh trade-offs and then reflect on his/her ownviews on pricing options. In our two pilot DPs, small group sessionsand expert Q&A sessions were structured and moderated in orderto facilitate participants to discuss not only the potential benefits,but also the costs and risks associated with various pricing options.As Fig. 8 shows, most participants in both GZ and KY DPs agreedthat they could understand complicated issues (n¼ 42 for GZ;n¼ 38 for KY). Almost all GZ and KY participants’ agreed that theiropinions became clearer (n¼ 44 for both GZ and KY).

Qualitative data derived from direct observations of the projectteam and workshop transcriptions are consistent with the findings.In various sessions, GZ and KY participants raised a number ofquestions regarding each pricing option's key features, strengths,weaknesses, risks, and applicability in other countries as well astheir own.

Qualitative analysis from our transcripts suggests that someparticipants were able to develop reasoning for his or her views bydrawing on the comments by experts. Generally, experts in bothpilot DPs were able to provide clarification and elaborations onissues raised by participants.

For instance, one GZ participant developed his argumentsagainst TOU based on the comments from experts that a noticeabledifference between the tariff at peak and off-peak periods in TOUmust be evident.

In summarising their discussions, that GZ participant stated, “…we think that the price difference between peak and off-peak periodsfor TOU must be high … but for example, if the peak period is duringnoontime, I also have to prepare food for some people, wouldn't thishigher electricity price make it unfair for some groups such as theresidents?”.

The expert then further responded, “… I believe that setting theright price difference between peak and off-peak periods is the bestway tomodulate electricity consumption. For residents, this maymeanpostponing cooking and using electric appliances by about an hour. Ifthere is only a one-time difference between peak-time and off-peakperiods, then you might not care about it. But if there is a 5- timesdifference between peak and mid-peak periods, they may choose touse electricity during the mid-peak period …” (Transcript T01).

5.3. National level cultural differences may explain heterogeneity ofconcerns and responses among young people in these two cities

There are two noticeable differences between the responsesfrom the GZ and KY participants. First, our qualitative workshopdata show that KY participants appeared to be more sensitive to afair distribution of potential benefits from energy savings betweenutilities and residential end-users. A KY participant asked thefollowing question in the Expert Q&A session: “How would thebenefits from cost saving through DSM be shared? Would utilities orresidential end-users get most of the money?”. GZ participants, incontrast, appeared to be more subtle when raising questions of thisnature.

Another noticeable difference in participants’ responses in thetwo DPs is that KY participants appeared to be more receptive tomarket-based pricing options. TOU, followed by BAU (i.e. the cur-rent TBT system with opt-in TOU), was supported by most KYparticipants as a preferred pricing option (Fig. 5A and B) bothbefore and after the deliberative workshop. In contrast, GZ partic-ipants chose to support the status quowith TOU playing a relativelyminor role.

Cultural differences associated with public trust and familiaritywith market logic across these two countries may explain the dif-ferences in KY and GZ participants’ responses. Public distrust of themarket regulators and operators of the power sector in Japan has

Fig. 6. GZ (6A) and KY (6B) participants' response to the usefulness of the various aspects of the workshop.

Fig. 7. GZ (7A) and KY (7B) participants' response to their opinions on the content and process of expert Q&A sessions.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173 169

been well documented, particularly after the Fukushima nuclearaccident (Fam et al., 2014; Kingston, 2013). In contrast, it has beendocumented that Chinese electricity consumers are generally lessskeptical about state-owned grid companies (Mah et al., 2017). Itwas found that the trust relationships between grid companies andhousehold end-users in China can at least partly explain the rela-tively rapid deployment of smart meters in the country.

On the other hand, the relatively rapid progression of electricitymarket reforms may have created an environment in which theJapanese are familiar withmarket mechanisms, including the use ofpricing systems to incentivise DSM. The recent completion of retailmarket electricity reforms may send a strong signal to the Japanesepublic that more sophisticated tariff options are prominent com-ponents of energy policy. In China, domestic electricity consumersstill do not have the choice of their suppliers because retail market

liberalisation has remained minimal. Chinese participants maytherefore be less receptive to alternative pricing options that areunderpinned by market mechanisms.

6. Conclusions

This study advances the energy transition literature by bringingthe deliberative perspective on participation in the Asian context.We examined how dynamic pricing options were perceived byundergraduate students in Guangzhou and Kyoto. This exploratorystudy conducted through two pilot DPs is not intended to gener-alise the findings to the population. It has however derived threemain findings which contribute to theory building in transitionstudies as follows:

Fig. 8. GZ (8A) and KY (8B) participants' views on the effectiveness the DP events.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173170

i. Deliberation tended to increase participants' acceptance ofmore sophisticated energy options and our finding shedslight on the complexity of the deliberative outcomes. Whiledeliberation tended to increase participants' acceptance ofmore sophisticated energy options, the data also suggest thatsupport for no-change (i.e. the BAU option) was considerable.KY participants who preferred the BAU option actuallyincreased noticeably after deliberation. This finding providesa better understanding of how the public may react to trade-offs in electricity system transition. Dynamic pricing is atypical example of the use of market instruments to replacegovernment intervention in energy governance. Our partic-ipants however expressed deep concerns about the effec-tiveness of dynamic pricing, as well as equity issues. Theconcerns expressed by our participants enrich the literatureon the importance of understanding the complexity of trade-off decisions as government intervention and marketmechanisms interact (see, for example, da Silva and Santiago,2017; Einsiedel et al., 2013; Trutnevyte et al., 2015).

ii. Dialogic and learning processes enabled participants tobecome more informed and competent in weighing trade-offs associated with complex energy decisions. Our findingssuggested that the normative mechanisms and outcomes ofdeliberative participation such as stakeholder dialogue andsocial learning can travel across, and be realised in the Asiancontext (Bull et al., 2008; Turcanu et al., 2014). Our findingsare consistent with the literature that deliberation isconducive to nurturing an informed, energy-literate publicthat is better equipped to make thoughtful, considered, andresponsible energy-related decisions and choices (Callan andThomas, 1996; DeWaters and Powers, 2011).

iii. National level contextual differences are important factors inshaping young people's energy decisions. We found thatcontextual differences associated with public distrust andfamiliarity with market mechanisms may explain the dif-ferences in responses between Chinese and Japanese par-ticipants. Our findings are consistent with the literature inwhich a range of cultural factors, including individualism,public distrust, and familiarity with market mechanisms,

may affect energy decisions (Einsiedel et al., 2013; Fam et al.,2014; Mallett et al., 2017). Although this study only involvedpilots with undergraduate participants, our findings pro-vided insights on the possible cross-national socio-economicand political factors that may influence energy transitiontrajectories in these two distinct countries.

Our study also makes empirical contributions in the field ofenergy transitions from the stakeholder perspective, and in thecontext of Asia. This research is among the first multi-methodstudies comparing public perceptions of dynamic pricing optionsacross Asian cities. Undergraduates are an important sub-group ofthe young population, as well as a broader policy stakeholdergroup. Our findings also enrich the growing body of the literaturefocusing on young people (see, for example, Fell et al., 2015; Lozanoet al., 2013; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013), and shed light on how thisparticular group perceive different pricing options, express theirconcerns, as well as how and why their perceptions might changeafter deliberation.

Our findings have policy implications for effective engagementin the context of energy transitions. The first policy implicationrelates to the importance of deliberative participation for energytransitions. There are studies that suggest university students are akey stakeholder group in regard to sustainable futures (Lozanoet al., 2013; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013). Our findings show thatundergraduate students in two Asian cities changed their energydecisions on complex subject matters after undergoing intensivelearning and deliberative processes. In this sense, we argue that thisgroup of future decision-makers, leaders, and entrepreneurs can bebetter equipped to make thoughtful and responsible energy de-cisions through participating in intensive and deliberative pro-cesses. It is therefore essential to introduce higher forms ofparticipatory approach in order to ensure society progresses to-wards sustainable energy futures.

The second policy implication relates to possible measures toaddress barriers to engaging stakeholders in dynamic pricing andother energy policies. Our findings shed light on the complexity ofpublic perceptions on pricing options. We found that participants’perceptions of different pricing options were influenced by

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173 171

tradeoffs between alternatives, perceptions of the distribution ofcosts and benefits between utilities and electricity consumers, anda number of other contextual factors. These findings suggest thatpolicy makers and other policy stakeholders, including utilities,need to give sufficient attention to the wide range issues that thepublic may be concerned about when engaging them on newpricing options.

Clearly, there are some limitations of this study. First, it haslimitations in generalising the findings beyond the pilots. Acomparative study between the youth in a number of western andAsian cities could enhance the generalisability of findings. Second,detailed qualitative analysis of workshop transcripts has yet to beconducted. In-depth understanding of several emerging themesfrom this study, especially new utility-consumer relationships, therole of market regulatory reforms in energy technological transi-tions, and trust dimensions of energy transitions, could be furtherdeveloped with detailed qualitative analysis in order to enrich theliterature in these fields (see, for example, Mitchell and Woodman,2010; Shen et al., 2014; Stephens et al., 2017).

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the funding of our research by HongKong Baptist University (through the Faculty Research Grants fromthe Faculty of Social Sciences, FRG2/12-13/057; FRG2/13-14/074;FRG1/14-15/081) and the Research Grants Council (through theEarly Career Scheme (Project No. HKBU 22400614-ECS and GeneralResearch Fund (Project No. HKBU 12602717)). We also wish tothank participants for taking part in the study, and four reviewersfor their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.Any errors and omissions should be attributed to the authors.

Appendix 1. List of Transcripts and Codes

Guangzhou DPT01 Morning Expert Q&A SessionT02 Afternoon Expert Q&A SessionT03 Small Group A Morning DiscussionT04 Small Group A Afternoon DiscussionT05 Small Group B Morning DiscussionT06 Small Group B Afternoon DiscussionT07 Small Group C Morning DiscussionT08 Small Group C Afternoon DiscussionT09 Small Group D Morning DiscussionT10 Small Group D Afternoon DiscussionT11 Small Group E Morning DiscussionT12 Small Group E Afternoon DiscussionKyoto DPT13 Morning Expert Q&A Session (status: missing

transcription; two versions of audio-recordings efrom two recorders)

T14 Afternoon Expert Q&A SessionT15 Small Group A Morning DiscussionT16 Small Group A Afternoon DiscussionT17 Small Group B Morning Discussion (status: done)T18 Small Group B Afternoon Discussion (status: done)T19 Small Group C Morning DiscussionT20 Small Group C Afternoon Discussion (status: transcription missing’)T21 Small Group D Morning Discussion (Status: transcript done)T22 Small Group D Afternoon Discussion

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found athttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.255.

References

Aldrich, D.P., 2013. Rethinking civil societyestate relations in Japan after theFukushima accident. J. Northeastern Political Sci. Assoc. 45 (2), 249e264.

Barton, J., Huang, S., Infield, D., Leach, M., Ogunkunle, D., Torriti, J., Thomson, M.,2013. The evolution of electricity demand and the role for demand sideparticipation, in buildings and transport. Energy Pol. 52, 85e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.040.

Bell, M., Lowe, R., Roberts, P., 1996. Energy Efficiency in Housing (Aldershot, Hants,England: Brookfield, Vt.: Avebury).

Berman, E., Moon, M., Choi, H., 2010. Public Administration in East Asia. FL CRCPress, Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Boca Raton.

Guangdong. New York City BNEF, 2015. Bloomberg New Energy Finance. http://global-climatescope.org/en/download/reports/countries/climatescope-2015-cn-44-en.pdf.

Brown, M., Zhou, S., 2013. Smart-grid policies: an international review. WIREs En-ergy Environ 2, 121e130 doi: 110.1002/wene.1053.

Bull, R., Petts, J., Evans, J., 2008. Social learning from public engagement: dreamingthe impossible? J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 51 (5), 701e716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560802208140.

Callan, S., Thomas, J., 1996. Environmental Economics and Management: Theory,Policy, and Applications. Irwin, Chicago.

CDD, 2012. Results of Deliberative Polling® Energy and Environmental Policy Op-tions in Japan. Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University, Stanford.http://cdd.stanford.edu/2012/results-of-deliberative-polling-energy-and-environmental-policy-options-in-japan/.

CDD, 2017. What Is Deliberative Polling. The Center for Deliberative Democracy,Stanford University, Stanford. http://cdd.stanford.edu/2015/deliberative-polling-1-pager/.

Chesbrough, H., Burgelman, R., 2001. Introduction to comparative studies in tech-nological evolution. In: Burgelman, R., Chesbrough, H. (Eds.), Research onTechnological Innovation, Management and Policy, vol. 7. JAI - Elsevier Science,Amsterdam; London; New York; Oxford; Paris; Shannon; Tokyo, pp. ixexvi.Comparative Studies of Technological Evolution.

da Silva, B., Santiago, P., 2017. On the Trade-off between Real-time Pricing and theSocial Acceptability Costs of Demand Response.

Devine-Wright, P., 2007. Reconsidering Public Attitudes and Public Acceptance ofRenewable Energy Technologies: a Critical Review. School of Environment andDevelopment, University of Manchester, Manchester. http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/.

DeWaters, J., Powers, S., 2013. Establishing measurement criteria for an energyliteracy questionnaire. J. Environ. Educ. 44 (1), 38e55.

DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2011. Energy literacy of secondary students in New YorkState (USA): a measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Pol. 39 (3),1699e1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.049.

Einsiedel, E.F., Boyd, A.D., Medlock, J., Ashworth, P., 2013. Assessing socio-technicalmindsets: public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context ofenergy sources and climate change. Energy Pol. 53, 149e158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.042.

Einsiedel, E.F., Jelsøe, E., Breck, T., 2001. Publics at the technology table: theconsensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Publ. Understand. Sci.10 (1), 83e98. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306.

Epstein, R., 2000. The necessity for constrained deliberation. Harv. J. Law Publ. Pol.24 (1), 159e164.

Eto, J., 1996. The Past, Present, and Future of U.S. Utility Demand-side ManagementProgramms (LBNL-39931). Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Labo-ratory, Berkeley, CA. http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~kildegac/Courses/Enviro/3008/Readings/Energy%20Conservation/DSM%20in%20the%20USA.pdf.

Fam, S.D., Xiong, J., Xiong, G., Yong, D.L., Ng, D., 2014. Post-Fukushima Japan: thecontinuing nuclear controversy. Energy Pol. 68, 199e205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.014.

Faruqui, A., Harris, D., Hledik, R., 2010. Unlocking the ₤53 billion savings from smartmeters in the EU: how inceasing the adoption of dynamic tariffs could make orbreak the EU's smart grid investment. Energy Pol. 38 (10), 6222e6231.

Faruqui, A., Palmer, J., 2011. Dynamic pricing and its discontents. Regulation 34 (3),16e32. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼1956020.

Fell, M.J., Shipworth, D., Huebner, G.M., Elwell, C.A., 2015. Public acceptability ofdomestic demand-side response in Great Britain: the role of automation anddirect load control. Energy Res. Social Sci. 9, 72e84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.023.

FEPC, 2016. History of Japan's Electricity Power Industry. Retrieved from http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/history/.

Fishkin, J., He, B., Luskin, R., Siu, A., 2010a. Deliberative democracy in an unlikelyplace: deliberative polling in China. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 40 (2), 435e448.

Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Luskin, R.C., Siu, A., 2010b. Deliberative democracy in an unlikelyplace: deliberative polling in China. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 40 (2), 435e448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123409990330.

Fishkin, J.S., He, B., Siu, A., 2006. Public consultation through deliberation in China:the first Chinese deliberative poll. In: Leib, E.J., He, B. (Eds.), The Search forDeliberative Democracy in China. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 229e244.

Fox-Penner, P., 2010. Smart Power: Climate Change, the Smart Grid, and the Futureof Electric Utilities. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Guo, P., Li, V.O.K., Lam, J.C.K., 2017. Smart demand response in China: challenges anddrivers. Energy Pol. 107, 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.019.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173172

GZBS, 2016a. Administrative Divisions Area and Population Density (2015) (行政区

域面积和人口密度(2015年) ). Guangzhou Bureau of Statistics, Guangzhou, China.http://210.72.4.52/gzStat1/chaxun/njsj.jsp.

GZBS, 2016b. Population Structure and Distribution in Guangzhou in 2015 (2015年广州市人口规模及分布情况). Guangzhou Bureau of Statistics, Guangzhou (InChinese). http://www.gzstats.gov.cn/tjyw/201604/t20160412_39495.htm.

GZPS, 2015a. Corporate Social Responsibility Action Report 2014. Guangzhou PowerSupply Bureau, Guangzhou, China (In Chinese). https://www.guangzhou.csg.cn/shzr/zrbg/201508/P020150806384524482177.pdf.

GZPS, 2015b. Some Districts in Guangzhou May Not Have Enough Power ThisSummer. Retrieved from. https://www.guangzhou.csg.cn/ydb/xwzx/gsxw/201507/t20150714_1847.html (In Chinese).

Halcomb, E.J., Davidson, P.M., 2006. Is verbatim transcription of interview data al-ways necessary? Appl. Nurs. Res. 19 (1), 38e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2005.06.001.

Han, F., Jing, H., Xu, Y., 2015. Making Democracy Practicable in China: the FirstDeliberative Polling® on Urban Governance in Shanghai. Center for DeliberativeDemocracy, Stanford University, Stanford. http://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2015/10/thepaper-shanghai.pdf.

Hankyoreh, 2017, June 29. Shin-Kori nuclear reactors to be a case study in delib-erative democracy. The Hankyoreh. Retrieved from. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/800807.html.

He, B., 2005. Participatory and deliberative institutions in China. J. Zhejiang Univ.(Humanit. Soc. Sci.) 35 (3), 13e21.

He, B., Warren, M.E., 2011. Authoritarian deliberation: the deliberative turn inChinese political development. Perspect. Polit. 9 (2), 269e289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711000892.

Helferty, A., Clarke, A., 2009. Student-led campus climate change initiatives inCanada. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 10 (3), 287e300.

HKTDC, 2016. Guangzhou (Guangdong) City Information. Retrieved from. http://china-trade-research.hktdc.com/business-news/article/Facts-and-Figures/Guangzhou-Guangdong-City-Information/ff/en/1/1X000000/1X09VTH4.htm.

Ho, E., Clarke, A., Dougherty, I., 2015. Youth-led social change: topics, engagementtypes, organizational types, strategies, and impacts. Futures 67, 52e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.01.006.

Huckfeldt, R., Ikeda, K., Ichi, Pappi, F.U., 2005. Patterns of disagreement in demo-cratic politics: comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. Am. J. Polit.Sci. 49 (3), 497e514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00138.x.

IEA, 2010. Energy Efficiency Governance: Handbook. International Energy Agency,Paris. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/gov_handbook-1.pdf.

IEA, 2016b. World Energy Outlook 2016. International Energy Agency, Paris.Jiang, M., 2010. Authoritarian deliberation on Chinese internet. Electron. J. Commun.

20 (3&4) (e-journal). http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/020/2/020344.html.Kansai-METI, 2016. Welcome to Kansai. Kansai-METI, Osaka. http://www.kansai.

meti.go.jp/3-1toukou/_INVEST_support_eng/2016welcome-eng/Welcome2016_E_all.pdf.

KEPCO, 2014. Kansai Electric Power Group Report 2014: CSR & Financial Report.Kansai Electric Power Group, Osaka, Japan. http://www.kepco.co.jp/english/corporate/list/report/pdf/e2014.pdf.

KEPCO, 2017. Power Book 2016: the Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. Company Profile.KEPCO, Kyoto. http://www.kepco.co.jp/english/corporate/list/document/pdf/2016_en.pdf.

Kern, F., Smith, A., 2008. Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energytransition policy in The Netherlands. Energy Pol. 36 (11), 4093e4103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.018.

Kingston, J., 2013. After 3.11: imposting nuclear energy on a skeptical Japanesepublic. The Asia-Pacific Journal 11, 1e20 (23(4)). http://apjjf.org/site/make_pdf/4129.

Kyoto City Web, 2008. Geography of Kyoto City. Retrieved from. https://www2.city.kyoto.lg.jp/koho/eng/databox/geography.html.

Kyoto City Web, 2016. Topics of City Government: October 2016. Kyoto, Japan: Cityof Kyoto. https://www2.city.kyoto.lg.jp/koho/eng/topics/2016_10/index.html.

Kyoto University, 2017. Facts and Figures Covering Our 110-year History. Retrievedfrom. http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/explore/en/data/.

Lee, T., Lee, T., Lee, Y., 2014. An experiment for urban energy autonomy in seoul: theone 'less' nuclear power plant policy. Energy Pol. 74, 311e318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.023.

Lehtonen, M., Kern, F., 2009. Deliberative socio-technical transitions. In: Scrase, I.,MacKerron, G. (Eds.), Energy for the Future: a New Agenda. Palgrave MacmillanUK, London, pp. 103e122.

Liang, Q., 2006. Heat Wave Causes Power Shortage in Guangzhou. Retrieved from.http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2006-07/15/content_641412.htm.

Lin, C.-C., Yang, C.-H., Shyua, J.Z., 2013. A comparison of innovation policy in thesmart grid industry across the pacific: China and the USA. Energy Pol. 57,119e132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.028.

Lo, K., 2014. A critical review of China's rapidly developing renewable energy andenergy efficiency policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 508e516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.09.006.

Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarationsfor sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, throughaddressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006.

Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., Jowell, R., 2002. Considered opinions: deliberative polling inBritain. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 32 (3), 455e487.

Mah, D., Leung, K.P.Y., Hills, P., 2014. Smart grids: the regulatory challenges. In:Mah, D., Hills, P., Li, V., Balme, R. (Eds.), Smart Grid Applications and De-velopments. Springer, London; Heidelberg; New York; Dordrecht, pp. 115e140.

Mah, D., van der Vleuten, J., Hills, P., Tao, J., 2012a. Consumer perceptions of smartgrid development: results of a Hong Kong survey and policy implications. En-ergy Pol. 49 (0), 204e216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.055.

Mah, D. N.-y., van der Vleuten, J.M., Ip, J. C.-m., Hills, P.R., 2012b. Governing thetransition of socio-technical systems: a case study of the development of smartgrids in Korea. Energy Pol. 45, 133e141.

Mah, D. N.-y, Wu, Y.-Y., Hills, P.R., 2017. Explaining the role of incumbent utilities insustainable energy transitions: a case study of the smart grid development inChina. Energy Pol. 109, 794e806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.059.

Mah, D.N.-y, Wu, Y.-Y., Ip, J.C.-m., Hills, P.R., 2013. The role of the state in sustainableenergy transitions: a case study of large smart grid demonstration projects inJapan. Energy Pol. 63, 726e737.

Mallett, A., Stephens, J.C., Wilson, E.J., Langheim, R., Reiber, R., Peterson, T.R., 2017.Electric (dis) connections: comparative review of smart grid news coverage inthe United States and Canada. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.017.

McLellan, E., MacQueen, K.M., Neidig, J.L., 2003. Beyond the qualitative interview:data preparation and transcription. Field Meth. 15 (1), 63e84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239573.

METI, 2016. What Does Liberalization of the Electricity Market Mean? Retrievedfrom. http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/electricity_and_gas/electric/electricity_libe.

MIPIM Japan, 2016. Invest 2015-Economic Profile of Osaka. MIPIM Japan, Osaka,Japan. http://www.mipimjapan.com/RM/RM_MIPIMJapan-en/2016/documents/mipimjapan-2016-invest-osaka.pdf?v¼636072106092796346.

Mitchell, C., Woodman, B., 2010. Towards trust in regulationdmoving to a publicvalue regulation. Energy Pol. 38 (6), 2644e2651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.040.

Moon, M.J., Deleon, P., 2001. Municipal reinvention: managerial values and diffusionamong municipalities. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor.: J-PART 11 (3), 327e351. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003505.

Nabatchi, T., 2010. Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: the Potentialof Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration, vol. 40, pp. 376e399.

Nakata, M., Sano, I., Mukai, S., 2015. Air pollutants in Osaka (Japan). Front. Environ.Sci. 3 (18) https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00018.

NBS, 2015. Electricity Consumption by Region (分区总消费量). In: Chinese. NationalBureau of Statistics, Beijing. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2015/indexch.htm.

NBS, 2016. China Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2016/indexeh.htm.

NDRC, 2011. Guidelines Regarding Pilot Demonstration of Tier-based ElectricityPricing on Residential Users (关于居民生活用电试行阶梯电价的指导意见). In:Chinese. National Development and Reform Commission, Beijing. http://www.sdpc.gov.cn/fzgggz/jggl/zcfg/201111/t20111130_448436.html.

Nintendo, 2017. Principal Offices and Facilities. Retrieved from. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/corporate/en/offices/map_kyoto.html.

Nissin Electric, 2017. Company Outline. Retrieved from. http://nissin.jp/e/about/company.html.

Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Monyei, C.G., Ayodele, T.R., 2015. Price based demand sidemanagement: a persuasive smart energy management system for low/mediumincome earners. Sustain. Cities Soc. 17, 80e94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.04.004.

Park, C.-K., Kim, H.-J., Kim, Y.-S., 2014. A study of factors enhancing smart gridconsumer engagement. Energy Pol. 72, 211e218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.017.

Petts, J., 2004. Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidencefrom waste management. J. Risk Res. 7 (2), 115e133.

Petts, J., 2008. Public engagement to build trust: false hopes? J. Risk Res. 11 (6),821e835.

PFKRI, 2016. Kansai Science City: Keihanna Science City. Public Foundation of KansaiResearch Institute, Kyoto, Japan. https://www.kri.or.jp/news-event/img/outline_2016_E.pdf.

Pidgeon, N., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., Spence, A., 2014. Creating a nationalcitizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. StatesAm. 111 (Suppl. 4), 13606e13613. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317512111.

Poland, B.D., 1995. Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research.Qual. Inq. 1 (3), 290e310. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100302.

Schneider, M., 2013. France's great energy debate. Bull. At. Sci. 69 (1), 27e35.https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340212471284.

Schweizer, P.-J., Renn, O., K€ock, W., Bovet, J., Benighaus, C., Scheel, O., Schr€oter, R.,2014. Public Participation for Infrastructure Planning in the Context of theGerman “Energiewende”. Utilities Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2014.1007.1005.

SCMP, 2005. Guangzhou Pays Price for Power Shortages. Retrieved from. http://www.scmp.com/article/496712/guangzhou-pays-price-power-shortages.

Shen, B., Ghatikar, G., Lei, Z., Li, J., Wikler, G., Martin, P., 2014. The role of regulatoryreforms, market changes, and technology development to make demandresponse a viable resource in meeting energy challenges. Appl. Energy 130,814e823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.069.

Shigetomi, N., Kumagai, T., Takase, H., 2009. Building confidence in CCS through on-line deliberation. Energy Procedia 1 (1), 4775e4782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.303.

D.N.-y. Mah et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 202 (2018) 160e173 173

Silva, H. B. d., Santiago, L.P., 2017. On the trade-off between real-time pricing andthe social acceptability costs of demand response. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.219.

Sioshansi, F.P., 2012. Smart Grid: Integrating Renewable, Distributed & EfficientEnergy. Academic Press, Waltham, MA.

Sovacool, B., Ratan, P., 2012. Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solarelectricity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 5268e5279.

Statistics Bureau, 2017. Statistical Handbook of Japan 2017. Statistics Bureau ofJapan, Tokyo. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c0117.htm#c07.

Statistics Japan, 2015. Chapter 3 National Accounts. Retrieved from. http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/66nenkan/1431-03.htm.

Stephens, J.C., Kopin, D.J., Wilson, E.J., Peterson, T.R., 2017. Framing of customerengagement opportunities and renewable energy integration by electric utilityrepresentatives. Util. Pol. 47, 69e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2017.05.005.

Strbac, G., 2008. Demand side management: benefits and challenges. Energy Pol. 36(12), 4419e4426.

Sundqvist, G., 2004. Constrained Deliberation: Public Involvement in Swedish Nu-clear Waste Management. G€oteborg University for STAGE, Gothenburg. http://nonuclear.se/files/sundqvist200404.pdf.

Trencher, G.P., Yarime, M., Kharrazi, A., 2013. Co-creating sustainability: cross-sectoruniversity collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. J. Clean.Prod. 50, 40e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.047.

Trutnevyte, E., Strachan, N., Dodds, P.E., Pudjianto, D., Strbac, G., 2015. Synergies andtrade-offs between governance and costs in electricity system transition. En-ergy Pol. 85, 170e181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.003.

Turcanu, C., Perko, T., Laes, E., 2014. Public participation processes related to nuclearresearch installations: what are the driving factors behind participationintention? Publ. Understand. Sci. 23 (3), 331e347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513476405.

van de Kerkhof, M., 2006. Making a difference: on the constraints of consensusbuilding and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Pol. Sci. 39

(3), 279e299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9024-5.Vel�asquez, J.D., Gonz�alez, P., 2010. Expanding the possibilities of deliberation: the

use of data mining for strengthening democracy with an application to edu-cation reform. Inf. Soc. 26 (1), 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240903423329.

Vicente-Molina, M.A., Fern�andez-S�ainz, A., Izagirre-Olaizola, J., 2013. Environmentalknowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: com-parison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean.Prod. 61, 130e138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.015.

Vivoda, V., 2014. Energy Security in Japan: Challenges after Fukushima. AshgatePublishing Limited, England.

Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Zhang, Y., 2012. Determinants of public acceptance of tieredelectricity price reform in China: evidence from four urban cities. Appl. Energy91 (1), 235e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.09.002.

WEC, 2016. World Energy Trilemma Index 2016: Benchmarking the Sustainability ofNational Energy Systems. World Energy Council, London. http://www.worldenergy.org/data/sustainability-index/.

Winskel, M., Ketsopoulou, I., Churchouse, T., 2015. UKERC Interdisciplinary Review:Research Report. UK Energy Research Centre, London. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/ukerc-interdisciplinary-review-research-report.html.

World Energy Council, 2012. Smart Grids: Best Practice Fundamentals for a ModernEnergy System. World Energy Council, London. http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/20121006_smart_grids_best_practice_fundamentals_for_a_modern_energy_system.pdf.

Yarime, M., Tanaka, Y., 2012. The issues and methodologies in sustainabilityassessment tools for higher education institutions. J. Edu. Sustain. Dev. 6 (1),63e77. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340821100600113.

Zhang, S., Jiao, Y., Chen, W., 2017. Demand-side management (DSM) in the contextof China's on-going power sector reform. Energy Pol. 100, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.057.