Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ICT applications in the research into environmental sustainability: a user preferences approach

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Whether information and communication technology (ICT) constitutes a threat or a cure to environment’s deterioration is controversially discussed. Empirical evidence on the impacts of ICT is rare, so that generalizable lessons can hardly be drawn. This study provides empirical results on the role of ICT in research for environmental sustainability, but instead of ascertaining the impact of ICT on environmental protection, we conduct an analysis of the use of ICT in sustainability research. We assess the preferences of experts in different thematic sustainability fields for applying ICT tools, and we investigate ways to improve the application of these tools in order to augment their returns with respect to environmental protection research. This analysis is based on a set of surveys that were administered to international experts to evaluate the importance of ICT in environmental sustainability research and the research demands in key environmental sectors, such as climate change, natural resources, energy and biodiversity. The methodological framework is built on the analysis of users’ preferences for future developments in ICT tools using stated preferences techniques. Overall results suggest that ICT tools need to be developed in specific contexts, taking into account users’ needs and expectations. Our analysis shows that the use of ICT in environmental research is of great importance in the scientific community, but it can also play a crucial role in the policy context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Arnold et al. (2005) for a description of a concerted action aiming at bridging the gap between research and EU Water Framework Directive implementation among others by using ICT tools.

  2. Von Hauff and Wilderer (2008) hint to the positive impact of the internet on reducing transaction cost, for example.

  3. Of course, we implicitly also touch third order aspects in our analysis, since life style changes are regularly in the researchers’ range of vision.

  4. Røpke (2001: 419) stresses the role of information technology as “a core technology constituting a strong technological push and influencing a large number of products. Both new processes and completely new functions are introduced, and a major cluster of related technologies is developed.”

  5. However, according to Fuchs (2008: 306), on the one hand ICTs can foster a higher publication rate and speed in science and on the other hand may—due to the rising publication speed—have a negative influence on quality standards.

  6. The study of Labelle et al. (2008) presents a review of trends in the use of ICT tools and methods in order analyse the impact of ICT on the environment and how it can help to cope with climate change (Geneva Plan of Action, 2003—World Summit on the Information Society Action Line C7—http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c7-20).

  7. The ICT tools included in the list have been identified in a previous stage of the ICT-ENSURE project. For more information see the webpage http://www.ict-ensure.eu.

  8. Requirements for future developments of ICT were proposed and discussed during focus groups meetings.

  9. Adaptation of the questionnaire to each context and survey administration were performed by the following persons of reference contacted in each sector: David Patterson (Maple-Ferryman, Belfast, Great Britain) for the biodiversiyt sector; Ulrich Strasser (Institute of Geography and Regional Science, University of Graz, Austria) for the climate change sector; Anna Spiteri (Integrated Resources Management IRM Company Ltd, Malta) for the natural resources sector; Luigi Crema and Chiara Ghidini (Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Povo Trento, Italy) for the energy sector.

  10. The choice of the variable to include in the model was decided and discussed during the focus groups meetings.

  11. Detailed results are reported in the project’s technical reports (Patterson 2010; Spiteri 2010; Strasser 2010; Crema and Ghidini 2010).

  12. In a stratified sample the categories chosen are proportionate to the categories in the whole population. This option was unfeasible in the present case study considering the large scientific community that should be represented.

  13. The total percent is not 100 % as only the answers on “high importance” have been reported, excluding the alternatives of low and medium importance.

References

  • Alberini, A., Chiabai, A., & Muehlenbachs, L. (2006). Using expert judgment to assess adaptive capacity to climate change: Evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Global Environmental Change, 16(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, G. E., de Lange, W. J., & Blind, M. W. (2005). The concerted action Harmoni-CA: Facilitating the dialogue and bridging the gap between research and the WFD implementation. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(3), 213–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barratt, R. S. (2006). Meeting lifelong learning needs by distance teaching—Clean technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 906–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J., Carson, B., Day, B. H., Hanemann, N., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout, F., & Hertin, J. (2001). Impacts of information and communication technologies on environmental sustainability: Speculations and evidence. Brighton: Report to the OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M., & Wright, J. L. (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72(1), 80–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiabai, A., Travisi, C., Markandya, A., Ding, H., & Nunes, P. A. L. D. (2011). Economic assessment of forest ecosystem services losses: Cost of policy inaction. Environmental and Resource Economics. First published online: May 11, 2011. doi:10.1007/s10640-011-9478-6.

  • Choi, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2011). Driving factors of post adoption behavior in mobile data services. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1212–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crema, L., & Ghidini, C. (2010). Focus area survey (WP8): Information and communication technologies (ICT) in energy efficiency research. Technical report for ICT-ENSURE.

  • de Dios Ortúzar, J., & Rodriguez, G. (2002). Valuing reductions in environmental pollution in a residential location context. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 7(6), 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFTEC. (2000). Guidance on using contingent valuation and related techniques for the monetary valuation of non-market effects. London: Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D. C. (2004). Environmental protection in the information age. New York Law Review, 79, 115–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fichter, K. (2003). E-Commerce—Sorting out the environmental consequences. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(2), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forge, S. (2007). Powering down: Remedies for unsustainable ICT. Foresight, 9(4), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2008). The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(3), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, K., Shackley, S., Dewick, P., & Miozzo, M. (2002). Long-wave theories of technological change and the global environment. Global Environmental Change, 12(2), 79–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves Heap, S., Hollis, M., Lyons, B., Sugden, R., & Weale, A. (1992). The theory of choice: A critical guide. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempell, T. (2005). Does experience matter? Innovations and the productivity of information and communication technologies in German services. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(4), 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2005). A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2–3), 164–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1994). New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150(1), 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaijkawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework for sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 3(2), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labelle, R., Ludwig, K., Rodschat, R., & Vetter, T. (2008). ICTs for e-environment. Guidelines for developing countries, with a focus on climate change. Geneva: ICT Applications and Cybersecurity Division, Policy and Strategies Department, ITU Telecommunication Development Sector, International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279(5350), 491–497.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrae, D., & Whittington, D. (1996). Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, L., Marsh, J., & Tochtermann, K. (2010). Limitations and potential of information and communication technologies for environmental sustainability. In: EnviroInfo 2010, integration of environmental information in Europe, Proceedings of the 24th international conference on informatics for environmental protection, Cologne/Bonn.

  • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

  • Nishino, K., Iribe, Y., Mizuno, S., Aoki, K., & Fukumura, Y. (2010). An analysis of learning preferences and e-learning suitability for effective e-learning architecture. Intelligent Decision Technologies, 4(4), 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, B. J. (2003). The potential contribution of ICTs to the political process. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 1(1), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, D. (2010). Focus area survey (WP8): Information and communication technologies (ICT) in biodiversity. Technical report for ICT-ENSURE.

  • Pearce, D., Özdemiroglu, E., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Summary guide. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D., & Turner, K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Essex: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). ICT in teacher education in an emerging developing country: Vietnam’s baseline situation at the start of ‘The Year of ICT’. Computers & Education, 56(4), 974–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejeski, D. (2002). E-commerce, the internet, and the environment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(2), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Røpke, I. (2001). New technology in everyday life—Social processes and environmental impact. Ecological Economics, 38(3), 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K., & Huan, J.-C. (1995). Can market value air quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property value models. Journal of Political Economy, 103(1), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiteri, A. (2010) Focus area survey (WP8): Information and communication technologies (ICT) in natural resources management. Technical report for ICT-ENSURE.

  • Strasser, U. (2010). Focus area survey (WP8): Information and communication technologies (ICT) for climate change, Technical Report for ICT-ENSURE.

  • Toffel, M. W., & Horvath, A. (2004). Environmental implications of wireless technologies: News delivery and business meetings. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(11), 2961–2970.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Veraart, J. A., van Ierland, E. C., Werners, S. E., Verhagen, A., de Groot, R. S., Kuikman, P. J., et al. (2010). Climate change impacts on water management and adaptation strategies in The Netherlands: Stakeholder and scientific expert judgements. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(2), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hauff, M., & Wilderer, P. A. (2008). Industrial ecology: Engineered representation of sustainability. Sustainability Science, 3(1), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, D. (1998). Administering contingent valuation studies in developing countries. World Development, 26(1), 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, L., & Thomas, H. R. (2007). A review of research on the environmental impact of e-business and ICT. Environment International, 33(6), 841–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study has been developed in the course of the ICT-ENSURE project (EUROPEAN ICT-ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH, www.ict-ensure.eu). ICT-ENSURE is financed under the grant agreement number 224017 of the European Commission’s seventh framework programme, Theme 3, Information and Communication Technologies. The authors wish to thank the whole research team and specifically David Patterson (Maple-Ferryman, Belfast, Great Britain), Ulrich Strasser (Institute of Geography and Regional Science, University of Graz, Austria), Anna Spiteri (Integrated Resources Management IRM Company Ltd., Malta), Luigi Crema and Chiara Ghidini (Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Povo Trento, Italy).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Bilbao, Spain

    Aline Chiabai & Dirk Rübbelke

  2. Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain

    Dirk Rübbelke

  3. Knowledge Management Institute, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria

    Lisa Maurer

Authors
  1. Aline Chiabai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dirk Rübbelke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa Maurer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aline Chiabai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chiabai, A., Rübbelke, D. & Maurer, L. ICT applications in the research into environmental sustainability: a user preferences approach. Environ Dev Sustain 15, 81–100 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9376-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9376-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation