Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 ( 2014 ) 526 532 The 4 th International Conference on Sustainable Future for Human Security, SustaiN 2013 Analytic Hierarchy Process of Academic Scholars for Promoting Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction in Taiwan Yi-Ti Tung a, Tzu-Yi Pai b, *, Su-Hwa Lin b, Cheng-Hsien Chih c, Hsin-Yi Lee b, Hui- Wen Hsu b, Zhao-Di Tong b, Hsueh-Feng Lu b, Li-Hua Shih b a School of Medical Sociology and Social Work, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, 40201, Taiwan, ROC b Master Program of Environmental Education and Management, Department of Science Application and Dissemination, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, 40306, Taiwan, ROC c Hsin-Jie Primary School, Mingjian Township, Nantou County 551, Taiwan, ROC Abstract This study adopted analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate the significance of the criterion of social education (SE) regarding promoting energy saving and carbon reduction (ESCR), taking the points of view of scholars from universities and research institutes into consideration. The analytical results of the study are as follows. Regarding the hierarchy of evaluation criteria, on the whole, the academic experts suggest that the most important major criteria are in the following order: positive actions of the government, implementation of education and propaganda activities, support from SE units, and integration with social resources. 2013 2014 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by by Elsevier Elsevier B.V. B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the SustaiN conference committee and supported by Kyoto University; Selection and peer-review under responsibility ofthe SustaiN conference committee and supported by KyotoUniversity; (RISH), (OPIR), (GCOE-ARS) and (GSS) as co-hosts (RISH), (OPIR), (GCOE-ARS) and (GSS) as co-hosts. Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process, Academic Scholars, Social Education, Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction * Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-4-22183541; fax:+886-4-22183540. E-mail address:bai@ms6.hinet.net. 1878-0296 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the SustaiN conference committee and supported by Kyoto University; (RISH), (OPIR), (GCOE-ARS) and (GSS) as co-hosts doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.065
Yi-Ti Tung et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 ( 2014 ) 526 532 527 Nomenclature A CI CR RI the matrix of pair-wise comparison consistency index consistency ratio a value obtained from a tabulated random consistency index 1. Introduction The earth s resources are being gradually depleted because human beings excessively consume the resources. Additionally, the consumption of fuel resources in Taiwan is mostly of fossil fuels, and the combustion of fossil fuels accounts for the largest release source of CO 2 and the prime culprit of greenhouse effect. Therefore, energy saving and carbon reduction (ESCR) has become the most important issue at present. The idea of ESCR can be fulfilled by integrating institutions and systems of educational functions to promote the social education (SE) of ESCR based on the concept of lifelong learning. To further promote SE of ESCR, this study has adopted Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) theory to evaluate the significance of the criterion of SE in regard to promoting ESCR. AHP is a system analysis method proposed in the 1970s by Saaty [1-2]. It decomposes a decision-making problem into several hierarchy levels. In such a way, they form a hierarchy with unidirectional hierarchical relationships between levels [3-8]. This paper describes the criteria affecting the SE of ESCR. Besides, an AHP is proposed to aid decision makers to make their own decisions to prioritize and select SE options of ESCR. Fifteen academic experts from universities and research institutes of Taiwan were asked to answer the questionnaires. The consistent common viewpoints were summarized by arranging and analyzing the research results, in order to serve as a reference for the government to promote the SE of ESCR in the future. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. The First Stage Questionnaire Before the development of AHP, the first stage questionnaire should be first developed on the basis of previous literature. Items in this questionnaire were designed using a Likert five-point scale (ranging from very unimportant, unimportant, normal, important to very important). After the process of analysis and modification of key factors and criteria, the hierarchical structure was constructed. 2.2. Developing the Evaluation Hierarchy The steps adopted in the construction of the AHP model include: (1) obtaining the hierarchy structure for SE of ESCR; (2) the application of AHP; and (3) a questionnaire survey of qualitative and quantitative methods. AHP approach integrates different measures into a single overall score for ranking measure priority. AHP simplifies a multiple criterion problem by decomposing it into multilevel hierarchical structure. The followings are the basic steps in an AHP model development [3-9]: 1. Identify the problem, set the objective and identify the criteria that will affect the measure. 2. Construct the hierarchy which includes the decomposition of problem into interrelated levels with certain hierarchy. The hierarchy must contain all essential elements relevant to the problem. 3. Introduce comparative judgments to construct comparison matrices. This procedure solicits experts opinion to obtain a pair-wise comparison that is necessary for determining the relative importance of elements in each level of the hierarchy. 4. For each comparison matrix, there performs the calculation of eigen values, consistency index and ratio, and weights for each criteria, sub criteria and alternatives to identify priority rating.
528 Yi-Ti Tung et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 ( 2014 ) 526 532 2.3. Pair-Wise Comparison The pair-wise comparison is a numerical representation of the relationship between two elements that determine which element is more important, according to a higher criterion. Satty [1] proposed a scale of 1-9, where 1 represents elements with equal importance, which means the two elements contribute equally. Additionally, 9 represents an extreme importance that favours one element over another of the pair-wise matrix. Table 1 shows the scales and their definition of importance proposed by Saaty [1]. Table 1. Scale for pair-wise comparison [1] Importance Scale Definition of the Importance scale 1 Equally important/preferred 2 Equally to moderately important/preferred 3 Moderately important/preferred 4 Moderately to strongly important/preferred 5 Strongly important/preferred 6 Strongly to very strongly important/preferred 7 Very strongly important/preferred 8 Very strongly to extremely important/preferred 9 Extremely important/preferred The pair-wise comparison data were allocated in the form of a matrix and summarized on the basis of eigenvector procedure from Saaty [2]. The method proposed by Saaty computes w as the principal right eigenvector of the matrix A. The pair-wise comparison data are transformed into absolute values and the normalized weight vector w = (w 1, w 2, w 3,, w n) is obtained by solving the following matrix equation: Aw w (1) Where A is the matrix of pair-wise comparison, w is the normalized weight vector, and is the imum eigen value of matrix A n w j a (2) ij w j 1 i The result is a positive reciprocal matrix A { a ij } with a ij 1/ aij, where a ij is the numerical equivalent of the comparison between criteria i and j. 2.4. Measurement of Pair-Wise Comparison Consistency To regulate the result of AHP, the consistency ratio for each of the matrices and overall inconsistency for the hierarchy were calculated. The value obtained from Eq. (2) is employed to calculate the consistency. The consistency is expressed by the following equation, and the measure of consistency is called the consistency index (CI) n CI (3) n 1
Yi-Ti Tung et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 ( 2014 ) 526 532 529 The consistency ratio (CR) is adopted to determine directly the consistency of pair-wise comparisons. The consistency ratio (CR) is calculated by dividing the CI by a value obtained from a tabulated random consistency index (RI). CI CR (4) RI If the CR is lower than 0.10, the comparisons are acceptable. For this application, all CR inconsistency ratios values were lower than 0.1 (CR < 0.1); hence, all the judgments were consistent. Each sub-criterion possesses a score on all criteria. The criteria scores were combined into an overall score. The overall score indicates the relative importance of each sub-criterion. Subsequently, fifteen scholars and researchers were asked to answer the AHP questionnaires and the relative weights were compared. Commercially available Microsoft Excel Software has been used in the calculation of the AHP model. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. The Results of First Stage Test Based on the literature review, related evaluation criteria were summarized and arranged. The questionnaire was designed by using Likert 5-point scale. The data was analyzed by average means and standard deviation, and 16 items with the mean top 16 weights were selected as the evaluation criteria to complete the hierarchy structure of SE for promoting ESCR, as shown in Fig. 1. Subsequently, the criteria were used to compile the AHP relative weight questionnaire. 3.2. The Relative Weights for Individual Major Criteria and Sub-Criteria Based on the first stage questionnaire test, the criteria were used to compile the AHP relative weight questionnaire. This is divided in the second level into four major criteria: (1) positive actions of the government, (2) support from SE units, (3) implementation of education and propaganda activities, and (4) integration with social resources. The third level consists of 16 sub-criteria. Fig. 1 shows the evaluation hierarchy designed for this problem. After the questionnaires were returned, the consistency test was used to screen effective questionnaires and control the reliability of the results. By using AHP pair-wise comparison, the relative weights of all criteria was obtained to construct the weight system and provide as a valuable reference for relevant units. Table 2 shows the comparison of relative weights for individual major criteria. In respect of the hierarchy of evaluation criteria, fifteen experts from universities and research institutes of Taiwan suggested that the most important four criteria were as follows: positive actions of the government, implementation of education and propaganda activities, support from SE units, and integration with social resources. Table 2 Weights of 4 major criteria Major criteria Weight Order Positive actions of the government 0.460 1 Support of SE units 0.177 3 Implementation of education and propaganda activities 0.243 2 Integration with social resources 0.120 4 Table 3 also shows the relative weight for individual sub-criteria under specific major criteria. Under the evaluation criterion of positive actions of the government, the experts suggest that the most important criterion was promoting the completion of legislation of relevant laws and rectifying the environment of legal system (0.518). Under the evaluation criterion of support of social education units, the experts suggest that
530 Yi-Ti Tung et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 ( 2014 ) 526 532 the most important criterion was drawing up the implementation plan of the education of ESCR (0.426). Under the evaluation criterion of the implementation of education and propaganda activities, the experts suggest that the most important criterion was increasing incentives for the public to participate in the activities of ESCR (0.391). Under the evaluation criterion of integration with social resources, the experts suggest that the most important criterion was developing community energy saving and making use of renewable resources to supply communities with hot water and heating (0.552). Table 3 Weights of 16 sub-criteria Major criteria Sub-criteria Relative weight Order Aggressively investigating and developing new alternative 0.276 2 resources Reducing the price of public transport fees to encourage the use 0.133 3 Positive actions of the government of public transportation Rewarding the installation of energy saving device by the 0.073 4 government Promoting the completion of legislation of relevant laws and rectifying the environment of legal system 0.518 1 SE institutions enhance connection, organize strategic alliance, and share resources 0.250 3 Support from SE units Drawing up the implementation plan of the education of ESCR 0.426 1 Strengthening the in-service training of the staff of SE institutions 0.072 4 Including the concept of ESCR in the focuses of lifelong 0.252 2 education Including energy education in the courses of community 0.268 2 universities Implementation of education Increasing incentives for the public to participate in the activities 0.391 1 and propaganda activities of ESCR Designing diversified educational activities 0.102 4 Establishing demonstration systems of renewable energy 0.239 3 Developing community energy saving and making use of 0.552 1 renewable resources to supply communities with hot water and heating Integration with social Asking enterprises or non-governmental organizations to 0.211 2 resources participate in activities of ESCR Selecting outstanding communities of energy saving to set good 0.109 4 examples Organizing community energy saving volunteer groups 0.129 3 3.3. The Weights for All Sub-Criteria Figure 1 shows the weights for all sub-criteria. Among sixteen sub-criteria, five sub-criteria were ranked most importantly, including promoting the completion of legislation of relevant laws and rectifying the environment of legal system (0.238), aggressively investigating and developing new alternative resources (0.127), increasing incentives for the public to participate in the activities of ESCR (0.095), drawing up the implementation plan of the education of ESCR (0.075), developing community energy saving and making use of renewable resources to supply communities with hot water and heating (0.066). The calculated weights show the suitability of AHP model to be applied in the decision making for the SE of ESCR.
Yi-Ti Tung et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 ( 2014 ) 526 532 531 Promoting the completion of legislation of relevant laws and rectifying the environment of legal system Aggressively investigating and developing new alternative resources Increasing incentives for the public to participate in the activities of ESCR Drawing up the implementation plan of the education of ESCR Developing community energy saving and making use of renewable resources to supply communities with hot water and heating Including energy education in the courses of community universities Reducing the price of public transport fees to encourage the use of public transportation Establishing demonstration systems of renewable energy Including the concept of ESCR in the focuses of lifelong education SE institutions enhance connection, organize strategic alliance, and share resources Rewarding the installation of energy saving device by the government Asking enterprises or non-governmental organizations to participate in activities of ESCR Designing diversified educational activities Organizing community energy saving volunteer groups Selecting outstanding communities of energy saving to set good examples Strengthening the in-service training of the staff of SE institutions 0.075 0.066 0.065 0.061 0.058 0.045 0.044 0.034 0.025 0.025 0.015 0.013 0.013 0.095 0.127 0.238 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 Priority weight Fig. 1. The weights for all sub-criteria 4. Conclusion This study determined the criteria affecting the SE of ESCR by taking the academic experts point of view into consideration. As for the global weights of the criteria, the criteria with top five weights are in the order as follows: promoting the completion of legislation of relevant laws and rectifying the environment of legal system, aggressively investigating and developing new alternative resources, increasing incentives for the public to participate in the activities of ESCR, drawing up the implementation plan of the education of ESCR, developing community energy saving and making use of renewable resources to supply communities with hot water and heating. The calculated weights showed the suitability of AHP model to be applied in the decision making for the SE of ESCR. By using AHP pair-wise comparison, the relative weights of all criteria were obtained to construct the weight system and provide as a valuable reference for relevant organizations. The results could be served as a reference for the government to promote the SE of ESCR in the future. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the National Science Council of R.O.C. for financial support under the grant number NSC 101-3113-S-324-001.
532 Yi-Ti Tung et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 ( 2014 ) 526 532 References 1. Saaty TL. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw Hill; 1980 2. Saaty TL. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process.PittsburghPA: RWS Publications; 1994 3. Tung YT, Pai TY. Use analytical hierarchy process to evaluate the education and management strategy of river watch volunteer. Proc. 3rd IWA-ASPIRE Regional Conference and Exhibition. Taiwan 2009. 4. Tung YT, Pai TY. A practical evaluation for education and management priority of river watch volunteer based on analytical hierarchy process. Proc. 1st IWA-Malaysia Young Water Professionals Conference. Malaysia 2010. 5. Tung YT, Pai TY. Identifying the attitude of competent authority toward management of river watch volunteer using analytical hierarchy process. 2010 MTMI-NIT. Proc. International Conference on Global Issues in Business & Technology. Taiwan 2010. 6. Tung YT, Pai TY, Wu YJ, Chih CH, Tsai YJ, Huang YF, Tseng LT. An expert evaluation for promoting aboriginal ecotourism and cultural tourism based analytical hierarchy process. 2010 MTMI-NIT. Proc. International Conference on Global Issues in Business & Technology. Taiwan 2010. 7. Tung YT, Lin SH, Kang YC, Pai TY. The recognition of NGO for prioritizing the management of river watch volunteer based on analytical hierarchy process. Proc. 4th IWA-ASPIRE Regional Conference and Exhibition. Japan 2011. 8. Tung YT, Pai TY, Lin SH, Lee HY, Lu HF, Chen YF, Chih CH. Identifying the attitude of central authority toward social education for promoting energy saving and carbon reduction in Taiwan using analytical hierarchy process. Proc. The 2nd International Conference on Engineering and Applied Science (2013 ICEAS). Japan 2013. 9. Vaidya OS, Kumar S. Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications. European Journal of Operational Research 2006; 169: 1-29.