Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Clean energy and transport pathways for islands: A stakeholder

T
analysis using Q method
Ioannis Kougiasa,b, , Alexandros Nikitasb, Christian Thiela, Sándor Szabóc
⁎

a
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
b
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield Business School, United Kingdom
c
European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT), Budapest, Hungary

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Introducing sustainable ways to use energy and transport resources is of paramount importance
Non-interconnected energy systems for creating pathways to more liveable futures. Islands not interconnected to the main grid offer,
Electric-drive vehicles because of their typically small size, short point-to-point travel distances that suit better than
Renewable energy sources most landscapes the range limitations of today’s electromobile eco-systems. This makes them a
Islands’ sustainable development
unique test-bed that may assist researchers, businesses and policy-makers in developing a better
Q methodology
understanding of the diverse opportunities and challenges that come with supporting electric-
drive vehicle (EV) infrastructure investments that actively prioritise renewable energy sources
(RES). This paper reports the findings of a Q method study that looks into the attitudes of 44 key
stakeholders that have a thorough theoretical and empirical knowledge of the existing power and
mobility portfolios in such islandic landscapes. Our analysis identifies and presents three distinct
groups of stakeholders with different priorities and visions: the ‘Tech Enthusiasts’, the ‘Transform
Transport First Supporters’ and the ‘Fiscal Focus Executives’. All our respondents agree on the
need for radically transforming the current transport-energy nexus offering. They identify the
importance of integrated and clean solutions and recognise that support of pilot applications is
more critical than research and development (R&D). They also expect technological break-
throughs to increase market maturities and reduce renewable energy production costs and feel
that end-users are still hesitant to buy EVs and need incentives to do so.

1. Introduction

The ongoing transition in the power and transport sectors is among others driven by the need to decarbonise them mainly through
increasing the share of renewable energy sources (RES) in the power mix and the adoption of energy infrastructure and electric-drive
vehicles (EVs) that are inter-related and depend on each other more than in the case of internal combustion engine vehicles.
Appropriate infrastructure for instance, according to Levinson and West (2018), can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, even if
some of the expenses are borne by EV drivers. Electromobility has been characterised as a particularly complex eco-system (Madina
et al., 2016) but designing policy measures to support an EV-charging infrastructure that prioritises and it is mainly powered by RES
is an even more challenging process. It involves selecting among different combinations of solutions that have reached different
technological and market maturities.
The present research study analyses the interactions and potential synergies between the energy infrastructure and transport

⁎
Corresponding author at: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
E-mail address: Ioannis.Kougias@ec.europa.eu (I. Kougias).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.009

Available online 18 December 2019

1361-9209/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

systems for the distinct landscape of islands. To do so, it explores the views of key stakeholders including policy-makers, business,
industry and academic mobility and energy experts and analyses their insights using Q methodology. Our aim is to evaluate different
pathways to transform energy and transport systems in relatively remote and small islands i.e. locations not connected with mainland
grid and transport systems where travel distances are finite. Overall, the purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of
the role of power infrastructure as an enabler of electromobility in the island context.
The role of power infrastructure on EV adoption is particularly important in those islands that are not interconnected to central
power grids. In such locations, independent local grids cater to their power requirements using imported fossil fuels —mainly diesel
and heavy oil— to operate thermal power plants. This outdated practice has resulted in a very high cost of electricity (Kougias et al.,
2019) that affects almost every productive activity (e.g. agriculture, small industries, tourism) and remains an obstacle for the
extended use of EVs together with their cost (Nikitas et al., 2017). This non-sustainable status of several islands cannot be addressed
by developing sub-sea interconnections to the central grid, as such projects are not economically viable under the current techno-
economic conditions. An additional issue is the ageing equipment that operates these conventional electricity systems. Apart from
cost and associated GHG and other pollutant emissions of a conventional system based on fossil fuels, obsolete grid equipment and
outdated control strategies require major overhauls in order to enable a wide RES and EV deployment.
Technological breakthroughs of the previous years and the continuously decreasing costs of clean energy and transport tech-
nologies open new opportunities where more efficient and cleaner energy and transport systems can be achieved for the islands
(IRENA, 2016) that raised the awareness of international organisations, governments, policy-makers and non-governmental orga-
nizations (NGOs), also in terms of the global climate goals to reduce GHG emissions. The European Union (EU), in mid-2017,
expressed its political determination to transform islands’ energy systems (European Commission, 2017), a willingness that has led to
implementation projects in 26 selected EU islands (European Commission, 2019). More importantly, these projects have expanded
their scope from the energy infrastructure (production, networks, energy efficiency) to also include transport on the island. Beyond
Europe, the intention to expand policy-making focus beyond power generation and include transportation and electromobility
considerations were also highlighted in the 2019 update (IRENA, 2019) of the “lighthouses initiative” for the small islands developing
states (SIDS).
The recent policy decisions reflect islands’ suitability to adopt electromobility which, in principle, is ideal for short-distanced
inner-island trips. Increased share of EVs will also improve the air quality in islands and reduce other negative transport externalities
as described in Jochem et al. (2016) like costs of accidents, local pollution, climate change, noise and congestion. Moreover, a
potential scenario of introducing an EV fleet enables powering –at least partially– the transport sector from RES and benefit from the
relatively higher efficiency of electric motors over internal combustion engines. Electromobility can also offer flexibility and storage
services that are particularly important to island electricity grids; innovative designs and control strategies allow smart vehicle to grid
(V2G) approaches and the use of the EV fleet as battery storage of excess variable renewable energy production. Such functionality
allows feeding excess energy back into the grid during periods of high demand and can balance irregular local production of elec-
tricity and reduce grid imbalances (Interreg Europe, 2019). The electrification of transport also includes electric biking as a door-to-
door mobility solution that can be adopted in the smaller islands at least supporting mobility and recreation activities of locals and
tourists.

1.1. Scope and contribution of the study

The scope of this study is to provide a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities related to energy infrastructure
and electromobility in terms of islands’ sustainable development. The wide range and inherent complexity of possible pathways to
develop sustainable energy-transport systems in islands create controversies that can hinder decision-making. Different standpoints
and perceptions between specialists result in diverging priorities and policy choices. It is thus important to create a methodological
tool and define a measure that quantifies the perspectives of decision-makers. This study analyses systematically the insights of
experts with relevant experience for the particular context of islands that represent policy organisations, industry, research in-
stitutions and the academia. For this reason, this study develops a Q methodological (Stephenson, 1935) approach to statistically
process and evaluate experts’ views on the different strategies and policy options. Q method processes input information using factor
analyses, to highlight the various “streams” of attitudes and thus allows grouping together specialists that are on the same wave-
length. A limited number of alternative pathways is highlighted and thus policy decision-making becomes more structured and
straightforward. All in all, this work aims to support a sustainable development paradigm transition for islands not connected to the
main grid, by providing solid statistical evidence about the importance of redefining energy and transport use through the lens of RES
and electromobility initiatives.
The main contribution of the study is therefore the creation of a link between policy decision making and scientific evidence in a
key area for sustainable growth that is achieved through processing specialists’ opinions, priorities, and distinguishing strategies in a
systematic manner. The use of Q methodology in a field that has been scarcely used so far provides an additional methodological
contribution since it introduces a powerful qualitative and quantitative tool for designing transport/energy strategies in a nexus
approach. It is an instrument that helped us identify to what extent stakeholders embrace specific policy options and suggestions that
resulted from other scientific analyses (e.g. energy models, impact assessments, cost-benefit analyses).

1.2. Q method’s suitability to the present study and alternatives

Q method suits the objectives of the present study due to its inherent differences from other typically applied social research

2
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

methods. Quantitative research approaches such as surveys, correlation research and causal-comparative research are typically used
to evaluate decisions that have already been taken rather than to design strategies; thus, they do not serve the scope of the present
study. An advantage of the Q method is that it provides more nuanced and sophisticated opinions (Kamal et al., 2014) based on
numerical results to interpret perspectives and, thus, pairs the merits of qualitative and quantitative research. It is considered the best
possible compromise to combine the advantages of survey methods (structure) and individual or focus group interviews (depth)
(Zabala et al., 2018).
Qualitative research techniques that are commonly used are interviews, focus groups, discourse analyses, and case study research.
A difference between Q and other qualitative methods is its ability to mitigate response biases as respondents are explicitly engaged
with pre-defined opinions (Zabala et al., 2018) and the analysis is not affected by dominance effects (Mukherjee et al., 2015). On the
downside, the Q method provides less flexibility for interpretation and less freedom compared to typical qualitative research methods
(e.g. interviews).
The main limitation of Q methodology is that the obtained results cannot be generalised to wider populations because the
selection of respondents in Q is not random. However, drawing generalisations on public opinion is not an objective of this study. On
the contrary, an important target of this study is to assess the impact of existing or prospective policy interventions and this is a topic
where Q has been successfully used. Q has been proven to be an effective approach to address conflict and explore if a policy
mechanism should be accepted; it can even reveal, when this is the case, unexpected perceptions about proposed policies (Zabala
et al., 2018).
Alternative methodologies that organise the ideas of a group in a structured manner are the group concept mapping and the
Delphi technique. The group concept mapping typically includes a visual representation of the ideas of a group and how they relate to
each other (Rosas, 2017). Its fundamental difference from Q is that it requires an initial brainstorming phase and thus forces the
respondents to collaborate. Since we wanted a representation from across the globe this type of ‘collaboration’ could not have been
feasible in practical terms. The Delphi technique relies on a group of experts in a way similar to the Q method. However, it includes at
least two rounds of responses between which the experts need to update or revise their answer in accordance to the answers provided
by the group (Mukherjee et al., 2015). This approach therefore could have fatigued our respondents and this would lead to a decline
in response rates something that would jeopardise the quality of our findings.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 introduces the reader to the topic by providing background information on
previous scientific analyses of electromobility and RES deployment in islands. It also provides a literature review of Q method
application in the energy and transport sector. Section 3 presents the Q method and provides details of the different steps and
processes to conduct such an analysis. Section 4, then presents the developed model as resulted by introducing the specific para-
meters of the analysed case to the processes of Q method. Numerical results and graphs of the factor analysis are provided in Section
5. Section 6 includes the conclusions and provides policy recommendations based on the findings of the study.

2. Background - literature review

An important driver for analysing energy and transport in an integrated manner, is the advent of electromobility. In the context of
islands, scientists have a sustained interest in the role EVs can play in the transition to clean energy island portfolios.
One of the earliest analyses of the role of EVs to create base load demand and thus increase the share of RES that can be absorbed,
was studied by Pina et al. (2008) for the island of Flores in Azores archipelago. Bačelić Medić et al. (2013) analysed the potential
transformation of the Hvar island in Croatia to a location 100% relied on RES under different scenarios of EVs’ penetration. Lopes
et al. (2009) analysed the potential role of V2G functionalities to maximise the integration of RES in concept islandic grids. Later on,
the impact of the introduction of an EV fleet on the power system was studied for Flores, under four different EV penetration
scenarios (Pina et al., 2014). Soon after, Godina et al. (2015) presented a model that evaluates the effect of EVs’ charging loads on the
distribution system of the isolated electrical grid of São Miguel island in Portugal. Camus and Farias (2012) simulated the potential
role of EVs in reducing CO2 emissions and energy costs in an isolated islandic region. The benefits of introducing EVs in island
systems, were assessed for Flores (Baptista et al., 2013) and Canary islands, revealing a potential for cost reduction for energy in
mobility by more than 50% (Colmenar-Santos et al., 2017a). The potential impact of EVs on the electricity system was also analysed
by Colmenar-Santos et al. (2017b) taking into account the penetration of RES and the GHG emissions for the island of Tenerife, Spain.
The suitability of EVs and V2G services was assessed for small islands, with Barbados serving as the case study (Gay et al., 2018). In
2018, Meschede et al. (2018) simulated a 100% RES-based energy system for the case of La Gomera island, Spain. The analysis also
assesses high levels of clean energy in the transport sector analysing scenarios that foresee demand side management, V2G, hydrogen
storage and their combinations.
Introducing Q method applications specifically for islands’ integrated energy and transport infrastructure covers an existing gap in
the scientific bibliography. More importantly, it contributes an additional and reproducible approach that can provide evidence-
based input for decision-making that could be perhaps generalisable in different contexts and to a wider extent including for instance
remote urban and rural environments that face similar challenges with islands.

2.1. Q method applications in energy

For a certain period, Q method applications were focused on social and political sciences, psychology, human geography, and risk
communication. However, applications on environmental analyses, in the fields of transport and energy have been increasing (Curry
et al., 2013; Zabala and Pascual, 2016).

3
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

In the energy field, an early analysis of 2008 used Q to analyse attitudes and behaviours related to energy consumption in support
to energy efficiency policy-making (Owens and Driffill, 2008). Notably, the study anticipated the use of Q on selecting locations for
RES installations as a better understanding of public opinion could mitigate community opposition. Indeed, social acceptance of wind
farms was studied with the use of Q in Northern Ireland (Ellis et al., 2007) and the United States (Fisher and Brown, 2009; Jepson
et al., 2012). The different stakeholder views about the implementation of wind power energy were also analysed with the use of Q
method and compared for the Netherlands, Germany and England (Wolsink and Breukers, 2010). As far as grid infrastructure is
concerned, a Q technique was used to analyse an additional controversial issue i.e. the siting of electricity transmission lines in the UK
(Cotton and Devine-Wright, 2011). Public opposition on large-scale energy projects, in general, was studied in Cuppen et al. (2016),
revealing the various obstacles of the transition towards the future energy portfolios. Q was also used to support a stakeholder
dialogue on biomass energy options and its perspectives in the Netherlands (Cuppen et al., 2010). More recently, Q was used to assess
the three main pathways for hydropower development in Switzerland i.e. either prioritising local development (bottom-up), the
national “green development” agenda (top-down) or empowering regional governments (middle ground) (Díaz et al., 2017). Aiming
at understanding the various perspectives on how to address energy poverty in Africa, Q method was used to translate stakeholder
perceptions on centrally-managed power systems and supporting mechanisms of distributed energy production (Matinga et al.,
2014).

2.2. Q method applications in transport

One of the earliest applications of Q methodology in the transport field investigated the relative importance of the various
parameters that define car-use (Steg et al., 2001). The majority of Q method’s studies in the transport field relate to behavioural
analyses such as medium-distance travel decision-making (Van Exel, 2004), shifting to alternative clean transport modes (Cools et al.,
2009), changing car-use patterns (Van Exel et al., 2011) and understanding drivers’ attitudes at road junctions (Flower and Parkin,
2019). In such analyses “Q” identified important determinants in transport so that more effective policies were designed. Transport-
related social exclusion was analysed in Rajé (2006) and Rajé (2003) using as a point of reference the possible adverse societal
impacts of road user pricing. In a recent study, the Q method assessed the impact of connected and autonomous vehicles on four
accessibility components i.e. land use, transport, temporal and individual (Milakis et al., 2018).

3. Research methodology: Q method

Decision-making to transform energy and transport infrastructure typically involves different views by the various actors (e.g.
governments and local authorities, private sector and industry, scientists, citizens). In order to understand the different viewpoints
around the topic and identify possible pathways that facilitate the islands’ transition, Q methodology was selected as a suitable
technique. Originally mentioned in a 1935 communication article (Stephenson, 1935), Q technique inverts a quantitative technique
known as factor analysis: instead of testing n individuals in m tests the author suggests starting with n different tests which are then
scaled by m individuals. The reason to invert the –until then– standard procedure was simply practical for Stephenson. This inversion
“brings the factor analysis from fieldwork into the lab and reaches into spheres of work hitherto untouched or not amenable to
factorisation”. Q methodology, thus, correlates persons (and their views) and thus links qualitative approaches to quantitative
methods in order to investigate the subjective views of those directly involved in a particular topic. Q builds on a relatively small
sample to systematically study the typical subjectivity of complex issues by processing opinions, highlighting priorities and identi-
fying consensus and disagreements.

3.1. Theory

Q is considered a qualitative research method with certain quantitative features. It adopts a multiple-participant format and is
generally deployed to explore highly complex matters from the point of view of the involved group of participants. Participants of a Q
study are selected and invited to engage in a set of prepared statements. They are invited to rank a heterogeneous set of statements on
a particular topic according to their personal opinions and assign their personal evaluation to each statement.

3.2. Concourse and Q set

Every Q method study deals with a specific research question which is related to a complex and socially contested subject. The
research question defines the nature and content of the key statements that compose the Q set. The latter must cover the different
angles of the research question and be representative of the various opinions that may exist on the topic. Q theory does not define a
specific process to generate the statements. In practice, the creation of the Q set is based on scientific literature, policy documents,
mass media, structured interviews, and informal discussions with specialists. A Q set needs to be representative and this can be
achieved with different combinations of sources. Eventually, the statements need to cover as many issues within the domain as
possible so that the participants can truly express their viewpoints. In a way, statements included in the Q set are potential answers to
the research.
Q studies often commence with a collection of items and collected information of relevance to the research question. This
collection, known as concourse, represents discourses surrounding the question and is the material based on which the Q set is
created. The researchers involved in the Q study are responsible for the creation and selection of statements from the concourse. This

4
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

may introduce researcher bias and subjectivity on specific issues. Some scientists suggest selecting Q statements verbatim from the
concourse (Robbins and Krueger, 2000) but whether bias can be eliminated is a point of controversy among scholars (Block, 2008).
An advantage of the Q method is that it does not focus on the Q set per se but on the respondents’ relative interpretation of the
statements. Given that the statements are unambiguous, they enable participants to sort them and the analysis to identify the relative
(dis) likes. In other words, even an imperfect Q set can produce a useful overview of viewpoints on the topic because of the parti-
cipants’ active involvement (Stainton Rogers, 1995).
In some cases, a large number of statements is initially created; this is then processed and narrowed down to a lower number
through pilots. Typically, a Q set consists of 30 to 60 statements (Newman and Ramlo, 2010) but there are cases where a Q set can
even reach up to 80 statements (Watts and Stenner, 2005).

3.3. Participant group – P set

Typically, Q studies do not require large numbers of participants; a P set of 40–60 individuals is considered very effective (Watts
and Stenner, 2005). Some analysts suggest as a rule of thumb a smaller P set (10–40) with a population lower than the number of
statements of the Q set (Webler et al., 2009). In general, scientists agree that the number of statements (Q set) and participants (P set)
can be flexible and with a relatively wide range of tolerance. In Q studies, participants are not selected randomly as Q is not a survey
study. On the contrary, Q analyses require participants who are experienced or involved in the topic. Accordingly, the selection needs
to be strategic identifying individuals that are familiar with the concourse, are knowledgeable about the topic and have therefore
well-formed opinions. Typically, decision-makers and opinion leaders are considered as suitable participants (Webler et al., 2009). It
is also important to select people with different perspectives and ensure the group’s heterogeneity. Priority should be given to
participants that can potentially express distinctive and pivotal viewpoints.

3.4. Ranking – Q sorting

Participants of a Q study (P set) sort the statements according to their standpoint. Q thus provides a snapshot of the participants’
viewpoints at a specific time in a static manner. Participants assign each statement a ranking in a quasi-normal distribution, typically
ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. The fixed distribution defines the exact number of statements that can be
assigned to each ranking. Fig. 1 shows the fixed quasi-normal distribution applied in the present study (2–4–8–12–8–4–2). Naturally,
it is possible to employ different distributions, less restrictive or even completely free ones.
Q method makes the assumption that participants will agree and disagree with some statements. It is, however, possible that a
participant agrees with all or the vast majority of statements. The participant would, thus, find it difficult to place statements under
the “disagree” columns. It is, thus, important to clarify that in Q method, judgement is relative, not absolute. The statements’ ranking
is done by comparing the various statements and sorting them according to how confident a respondent is about each of them. In
order to address this issue, Webler et al. (2009) suggest sorting statements within the range: “least agree with” – “most agree with”.

3.5. Statistical analysis – Q pattern

Q sorting is the information collecting procedure that is designed to enable the Q pattern analysis. The latter is conducted on the
basis of a person-by-person factor analysis aiming at identifying groups of participants (factors) that sort a number of statements in a
similar manner. It is the Q pattern analysis that allows highlighting existing perspectives on the topic which are the factors in which
participants with comparable views are grouped together.
Q pattern analysis initiates with the calculation of the correlation matrix between the collected Q sorts. This matrix is then subject

Fig. 1. Q sorting interface of this study: Inverted symmetrical pyramid of statements (Q grid). The statements’ ranking values range from + 3
(imperative) to 3 (prohibitive).

5
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

to factor analysis to identify the main streams of opinions. Factor analysis identifies participants (Q sorts) that correlate highly with a
group of other participants and do not correlate with participants outside that group (Field, 2000). Q sorts with high intercorrelations
can potentially form one underlying variable i.e. a factor. Participants that ranked the statements in a similar manner will, thus, load
significantly on the same factor and be associated to it.
Q method allows for different approaches to perform factor extraction (e.g. centroid, principal components analysis (PCA)).
Although initially Stephenson (1935) used centroid for factor extraction, PCA has become the standard feature of statistical packages
to calculate the eigenvalues for each factor. Factor rotation supports the optimal loading of Q sorts on factors and hence improves
interpretation (Kootstra, 2004). Typically, Q analysts use varimax for factor rotation as it maximises the variance explained by
extracted factors.
Selecting the number of extracted factors does not follow strict rules. It is mainly decided based on the eigenvalues, and the
number of Q sorts that load on each factor. As a general rule of thumb, a factor is extracted if it fulfils two requirements a) eigenvalue
greater than 1.00 and b) has at least two Q sorts that load significantly and exclusively upon it (Watts and Stenner, 2005). Naturally,
the higher the number of factors the lower the number of Q sorts that will significantly load on these factors which results in less
heterogeneity among factors. The aim is to select a number of factors that is relatively low but still explains the maximum possible
amount of variance. In Q analyses, the first factor typically explains a large proportion of the variance and the additional variance
explained is reduced with the increasing number of factors.
Q pattern analysis also allows Q to make subjectivity the principal research focus (Watts and Stenner, 2005) by highlighting
consensus and distinguishing statements among factors. It is crucial to discover consensus statements as they indicate areas of the
topic that people do agree on. Distinguishing statements are also enlightening as they highlight areas that stakeholders disagree. This
supports designing well-targeted actions and focusing on the required negotiations and trade-offs in order to reach balanced optimal
solutions.

4. Calculation

The research question underpinning the present study is: how to effectively design sustainable energy and transport systems in islands?
The analysis considers as “islands” locations that fulfil the following conditions:

i. They are inhabited, surrounded by water and at a certain distance from the coast;
ii. Their transport and/or power systems are largely dependent on fossil fuels;
iii. They do not cover all their energy needs through grid and/or pipeline connections with the mainland;
iv. Islands that do have a connection to mainland energy systems (e.g. Bornholm and Samsø in Denmark, Åland in Finland) are not
necessarily excluded from the analysis on the condition that they can accommodate both centrally-managed and independent
solutions.

As shown in Section 1, the study object is complex and associated to controversial public debate. Currently, electricity production
in islands is unsustainable, polluting and heavily subsidised (Kougias et al., 2019). Local transport systems follow conventional
paradigms of technology and ownership and are stressed from the particularly high fuel costs in islands. Policy decisions need to
address the complex techno-economic aspects but also consider the social dimension so that they affect accessibility to clean energy
and transport services. This section presents the specific setup developed for this Q study.

4.1. Concourse and Q set of the study

Setting the scene for the Q set design, information relevant to the research question was collected. This included sources presented
in Section 3.2 but also examined recent and ongoing R&D projects. The resulted collection of discussion points defined the concourse.
Within the concourse, the following five areas were identified:

i. Mobility and Transport;

ii. Electricity production and electromobility;
iii. Social dimension and public acceptance;
iv. Environment and climate change mitigation;
v. Economic and financial aspects.

The identification of the five main themes enabled the strategical and balanced design of the Q sort. To do so, the authors
organised a series of structured discussions that were held in May 2018 in the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.
Initially, a large number of statements was created. This was then narrowed down to eventually reach the pre-defined number of 40
well-targeted statements. Table 1 show the Q set and its five thematic areas. Seven statements cover each area, while the economic/
financial one relates to a fairly higher number of statements (11), due to its spillover effects to the other areas.

4.2. Participants of the study – P set

The selection of the group of respondents was based on the typical practice followed in Q analyses. Clearly, the sampling of

6
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Table 1
Q set. Statements 1-40 and their categorisation.
Mobility and transport
1 Users have no reservations buying e-vehicles over conventional fossil-based ones.
2 Electromobility (e-mobility) is meaningful if it is powered primarily by RES.
3 Investing in an electric car fleet is not a meaningful investment.
4 The relatively short travel distances on islands favour e-mobility.
5 E-bikes and e-motorcycles can only play a minor role in islands’ e-mobility initiatives.
6 Electrification of public transport should be the basis of an island’s e-mobility initiative.
7 Incremental e-mobility development is preferable over a radical full-scale launch for the island context.

Electricity production & electromobility

8 Islands can be innovation leaders of smart e-mobility and clean energy production.
9 Every island should eventually be interconnected to a bigger electricity grid.
10 Good coverage of charging points is more important than fast charging in an island setting.
11 Photovoltaic-powered charging stations are not suitable for remote areas (e.g. near beaches) for charging e-cars, e-bikes and e-motorcycles.
12 Bidirectional charging, achieving V2G along with conventional G2V, is not required for an efficient island power system.
13 E-car battery storage will soon become the cheapest way to provide storage capacities for clean energy production.
14 Clean energy and e-mobility will increase islands’ vulnerability to electricity disruptions.
15 Electricity prices should be uniform in islands of the same Member State, not taking account of their unique characteristics.

Social dimension and public acceptance

16 E-mobility will not improve much the image of the islands.
17 E-mobility will benefit tourism in the islands.
18 E-vehicle sharing will be particularly attractive for tourists.
19 Local authorities are the most appropriate coordinator for clean energy initiatives.
20 Strong campaign to change users’ perception is unnecessary for introducing e-mobility systems on islands.
21 Changing energy-fuel consumption behaviour is a critical element for creating future sustainable islands.
22 Solutions should be tailor-made for the specific characteristics of each island and its local community.

Environment and climate change mitigation

23 Clean energy initiatives (including e-mobility) will create additional benefits for the island ecosystem (e.g. protected areas, biodiversity, and
groundwater).
24 Visual intrusion produced by the renewable energy infrastructure is a significant barrier in the adoption of a clean energy initiative.
25 E-mobility is not the best strategy for consistent traffic noise reductions.
26 Clean energy initiatives (including e-mobility) should be the primary strategy for improved air quality.
27 Clean energy initiatives (including e-mobility) will radically improve the quality of life in islands.
28 Clean energy planning should be prioritised over waste management and wastewater treatment in the islands.
29 Drinking water availability will be improved by clean energy initiatives.

Economic and financial aspects

30 Transition to clean energy and e-mobility will boost the islands’ economy.
31 Clean energy options create less employment than conventional energy solutions.
32 Higher fossil fuel prices in islands are not a strong enough driver for changing the islands’ energy and transport systems.
33 Removing the existing subsidies from the islands’ energy bills will accelerate clean energy and e-mobility initiatives.
34 High capital cost impedes clean energy and e-mobility development.
35 Clean energy and e-mobility investments will result in higher costs to the end-user.
36 Financial incentives should be provided to users adopting e-mobility.
37 Financial incentives should not be provided to producers of clean energy (e.g. rooftop solar photovoltaic systems, wind turbines).
38 PPPs are more efficient than public procurement strategies.
39 Financial models for the development of clean energy deployment (including e-mobility) are not mature enough.
40 Public funding should now focus on pilot applications of e-mobility and clean energy rather than R&D.

respondents is not random, since the authors came in direct contact (via e-mail) with the respondents).
Initially, the authors worked independently on creating a list of potential respondents. Sampling was based on a purposive strategy
where potential respondents are selected following specific criteria. For the purpose of this study the criteria were that the re-
spondents are experienced stakeholders in (at least one of the aspects of) the topic. Special attention was given to select respondents
that were expected to have different opinions and represent different groups so that the sample is ‘balanced’. Subsequently, the
authors combined the lists of potential respondents and reviewed the created list. The final pool of respondents included only
specialists that all authors agreed to be included and contained 115 stakeholders. A standard e-mail was sent to all of them along with
the Q-set to-be-completed and detailed guidelines. Forty-four stakeholders responded to the invitation to participate in this study,
equal to a 38.3% response rate.
Although convenience or snowball sampling may be used in Q method applications, the authors made sure that they have
acquaintance or direct collaboration with only a minor part of the sample. While the authors acknowledge an unconscious element of
subjective criteria in the choice of the respondents, this systematic approach in sampling enabled them to minimise bias and improve
the richness, diversity and quality of the viewpoints of the respondent group; the authors acted as checks and balances to each other
and came up with ‘contributors’ that a single author would probably miss.
Accordingly, the emphasis was given to attract a diverse sample of respondents with different roles, expertise and experience that
could potentially reflect different insights and attitudes. It should be acknowledged that it is not entirely possible to make accurate a
priori assumptions about participants’ viewpoints as a means of ensuring ultimate heterogeneity and diversity of viewpoints.

7
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Nonetheless, effort was made to choose participants that represent a wide range of actors and experts with different backgrounds and
culture. For the present research, the P-set included specialists covering a wide geographic area with an emphasis on including people
actually living and functioning on islands.
Almost half of the participants represent scientific organisations and universities. This is due to the authors’ collaboration network
with researchers but also due to their highest acceptance rate. Scientists are familiar with such analyses and are more likely to accept
and submit Q sorts which take significantly more time to complete than a typical online survey. Policymakers comprise an additional
14%, while one-third of the P set consists of employees in energy and transport companies, consultants, and entrepreneurs. Local
authorities and NGOs are also represented.

– science and knowledge institutes, academia (20);

– policy-makers, international organisations (6);
– utility companies, transport and automotive sector (5);
– consultants and regulatory authorities (5);
– entrepreneurs, project installers etc. (4);
– local or regional governance (2);
– non-governmental organizations (2);

Approximately 60% of the P set has a technical background (engineering), while one out of four is an economist. Participants with
a background in social sciences constitute the remaining 15%.
The respondents are based on the following twenty-two countries: Belgium (2), Cape Verde (1), Chile (1), Cyprus (1), Denmark
(2), Finland (1), France (1), Germany (5), Greece (5), Hungary (2), Indonesia (1), Ireland (2), Italy (2), Lithuania (1), Malta (1),
Netherlands (1), Portugal (3), Spain (1), Sweden (2), UK (7), USA (2).

4.3. Respondents’ completion

The participants were contacted remotely, mainly via e-mail and their answers were processed anonymously. They were asked to
sort the 40 statements according to their personal views and experiences. A spreadsheet was prepared to facilitate Q sorting (see
Fig. 1 and a seven-point scale was employed to rank the degree of agreement or disagreement (+3 to −3) ranging from imperative
elements (absolute agreement) to prohibitive (absolute disagreement) with a neutral mid-point. Typical for Q analyses, a limit has
been placed in the number of statements receiving a particular score. The forced ranking followed a pyramidal structure where
respondents could sort two +3/−3 statements at their extreme preferences (imperative and prohibitive), four +2/−2 statements as
strongly (dis) agree, eight +1/−1 statements as somehow (dis) agree and 12 statements as neutral. Respondents were provided detailed
guidelines for the completion of the Q sorts.
Each Q sort is input data to be analysed using statistical techniques of correlation and factor analysis. Typically, dedicated Q
method software analyses Q sorts in relation with each other and investigates correlations. The present research used PQMethod
(release 2.35), an open-source statistical software tailored to the requirements of Q (Schmolck, 2019).
Initially, with the use of the PQMethod software, the correlation matrix between the 44 Q sorts is calculated. The resulting 44 × 44
matrix shows the Q sorts in relation with each other and is a direct indicator of the level of (dis) agreement between the respondents’
points of view (Curry et al., 2013). Q method aims at grouping together similar viewpoints which is equal to reducing the input to a
few summarising factors (Zabala and Pascual, 2016). In the present study the correlation matrix was subject to factor analysis using
PCA and then rotated using Varimax to extract the eigenvalues and estimate the percentage of variance explained.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Output of Q sorts’ processing

Factor extraction and rotation indicated three basic factors. This number is in line with the suggestion of Webler et al. (2009) to
target between two and five factors but also respects the rules mentioned in Section 3.5. As shown in Table 2, the eigenvalues of all
extracted factors are greater than 1. Moreover, for the case of three extracted factors, a significant number of Q sorts (>2) loads
exclusively in one of them (defining Q sorts, see Table 2).

Table 2
Eigenvalues of the unrotated factor matrix.
Factors I II III

Eigenvalues 18.91 2.62 2.16

Explained Variance (%) 42.97 5.95 4.90
Cumulative explained Variance (%) 42.97 48.92 53.83

Number of defining Q sorts 19 11 5

Composite reliability 0.99 0.98 0.95

8
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Fig. 2. Factor loadings with automatic pre-flagging.

Table 2 shows that factor I explains a large share of the variance (42.97%), a typical condition in Q studies. Factors II and III add
10.85% of variance. For all three factors, the composite reliability is high, greater than 95%, indicating the strength of the extracted
factors (Zabala and Pascual, 2016). The correlations between factors are equal to 0.661 between factor I and factor II, 0.565 between I
and III and 0.564 between II and III. The positive correlations indicate the degree of similarity that exists among the views contained
in each factor.
Following the factor rotation, the rotated factor loadings are calculated and flagged. Factor loadings show the (anti-) correlation
of each Q sort with each factor and range from 1 to + 1 (Fig. 2). Flagging, shown with an 'x' next to the factor loadings, indicates
which factor each Q sort loads, if selected. PQMethod provides an automatic operator that provides indications (Fig. 2), subject to
manual further processing. In this study, nine Q sorts did not correlate significantly to one factor (e.g. the 15th Q sort in Fig. 2 has a
59% correlation with both factors I and II) and were thus not flagged to a specific factor.
Ranking the selected (40) statements within each factor provides the Z-scores, a measure of each statement’s relative position
within the factor. For each factor, Z-scores are calculated as the weighted average of loadings to a statement of Q sorts flagged for this
factor. Z-scores provide a quantitative measure of how much each factor (dis) agrees with a statement and allow drawing conclusions
(Zabala and Pascual, 2016). The calculated Z-scores are provided in Table 3.

5.2. Interpretation of Q method output

The interpretation of the three factors reveals corresponding perspectives that can be considered as three salient views on islands’
sustainable energy and transport systems. Each perspective does not reflect individual views but is an idealised standpoint that is
shared across the respondents associated with each factor (Curry et al., 2013). Z-scores highlight the priority statements of each
perspective. This allows assigning titles to each perspective, in line with the typical Q methodology practice.

5.2.1. Perspective 1: Tech Enthusiasts (small is beautiful)

This perspective explained the largest share of variance and is the dominant discourse among respondents. Its statements in order
of agreement (highest z-score) are 2, 6, 21, 4, 8 (see Table 1) showing that the supporters of this perspective prioritise integrated
solutions that utilise cutting-edge technologies. The development of e-mobility schemes needs to be prioritised, ensuring that they are
mainly powered by RES, something in line with (Nikitas et al., 2017). The electrification of public transport which acts as the starting
point of the transition is also imperative to this group. Zero-emission public transport has been characterised by relevant research as
an institutional need (Bakker and Konings, 2018). In parallel, consumers need to adjust patterns of use and eventually adapt to the

9
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Table 3
Z-scores of the 40 statements within each factor.
Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor I Factor II Factor III

1 −0.129 −1.501 −1.554 21 1.568 1.734 0.941

2 2.232 −0.849 1.167 22 0.941 1.930 1.801
3 −1.541 −1.485 −1.252 23 0.965 0.765 0.527
4 1.518 2.071 2.043 24 −0.775 −0.076 0.940
5 −1.241 −1.109 −1.685 25 −0.687 −0.705 −0.849
6 1.644 1.188 0.408 26 1.137 0.231 1.573
7 0.137 0.479 0.249 27 0.567 0.212 0.000
8 1.189 1.497 0.276 28 −0.694 −0.877 −1.369
9 −1.638 0.172 −0.240 29 −0.029 −0.257 0.427
10 0.412 0.445 0.257 30 0.602 0.721 0.234
11 −1.343 −1.272 −1.173 31 −1.740 −1.029 −0.600
12 −0.943 −0.074 −0.704 32 −0.761 −0.127 1.417
13 0.271 −0.506 −0.295 33 0.719 −0.339 −1.024
14 −1.090 −0.827 0.362 34 0.302 0.567 1.491
15 −0.226 0.400 −2.062 35 −0.657 −0.438 −0.962
16 −1.140 −1.704 −0.120 36 0.337 1.399 −0.078
17 0.729 0.960 0.427 37 −0.600 −1.434 −0.191
18 0.895 0.557 0.127 38 −0.012 −0.363 −0.360
19 0.514 0.123 1.177 39 −0.130 −0.272 −0.922
20 −0.874 −1.130 −0.162 40 −0.429 0.922 −0.242

characteristics of the transformed systems. Thus, this perspective suggests that technological solutions are coupled with actions to
influence social behaviour. This perspective not only suggests a transformation but envisions a leading role for the islands in the
global efforts that takes advantage of their relatively smaller-scale travel eco-systems that favour exemplar applications.
Statements for disagreement for this perspective (lowest z-score) are 31, 9, 3, 11, 16, 14 and further justify the title of this
perspective. This group prioritises small-scale solutions as important job-creation factors and questions the need for large-scale
interconnection projects to the mainland grid. EVs and electric two-wheelers are identified as meaningful investments, in line with
Weinert et al. (2008), and solar-powered charging stations could support their deployment and usage in remote places. Tech en-
thusiasts are confident that these solutions are resilient and, if properly designed, will not decrease the quality of the provided
service; on the contrary, they will improve the image of the islands.

5.2.2. Perspective 2: ‘Transform Transport First’ Supporters

According to the second perspective, the electrification of the transport sector is identified as an absolute priority. Although this
cohort shares views with the previous perspective (hence the relatively high correlation coefficient), it addresses the energy-transport
nexus from a different angle. This is illustrated by the very different Z-score in statement 2 compared to the other perspectives
( 0.849 vs. 2.232 and 1.167 ). The second group of respondents prioritises the electrification of transport and considers RES as a means
to achieve that in a sustainable and cost-efficient way.
Main statements in terms of agreement are 4, 22, 21, 8, 36, 6. The perspective of this group builds on an islands’ particular
characteristic that favours EVs and their dependency on limited battery autonomy: the relatively short travel distances. Accordingly,
it prioritises tailor-made solutions supported by actions to change behavioural patterns. This perspective recognises that making
islands innovation leaders will come at a cost. It anticipates thus the need for financial incentives, at least at the early phase of EVs’
deployment. Potential EV buyers need to be motivated and incentivised because embracing EVs means on the one hand that they will
have to deal with higher running costs which is the most serious reason behind their low uptake as of now (Biresselioglu et al., 2018)
and on the other hand that they will have to make behavioural adjustments. These adjustments could range from minor ones such as
plugging in the vehicle at home at night or at work during the day, to significant ones such as rerouting road trips to correspond with
charging stations or subscribing to a car-share program to have a back-up vehicle for longer distance travel (Carley et al., 2019;
Rezvani et al., 2015). Also although financial incentives work for most potential users there should be a diversity in how this
approach is applied; different user groups do not respond equally well to the same incentives (Bjerkan et al., 2016).
The lowest Z-scores of this perspective are recorded for statements 16, 1, 3, 37, and 11. This group strongly believes that EVs will
not impact the islands’ image (16). However, and contrary to perspective 1, it does not agree that market acceptance and penetration
of EVs has already become a reality (1) which is in line with the reports of many studies (Berkeley et al., 2018; Tamor et al., 2013). It,
thus, underlines the need for supporting investments in EVs infrastructure. Supporting RES system deployment and integrated RES-
EV systems should also be sustained, according to this group (37, 11). In short, this perspective suggests that islands must take
advantage of the merits of electromobility even if the decarbonisation of their power systems is delayed.

5.2.3. Perspective 3: Fiscal Focus Executives

This perspective mainly focuses on the financial aspects. Financial issues including EV high costs, subsidies and tax reliefs and
charging infrastructure investment finance have been central considerations for the energy-transport nexus in many research studies
(Brand et al., 2019; Kester et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018). Main statements in order of agreement are 4, 22, 26, 34, 32,

10
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Fig. 3. Consensus statements’ Z-scores per factor.

and 19. Apart from two consensus statements (4 and 22), this perspective identifies priorities in a different manner than the other two
groups. Respondents of the third group appear to believe that existing technological solutions are more or less sufficient. Accordingly,
this group focus needs to move towards how to realise the transition. It underlines the challenges to finance the transition (34) and
states that fossil-fuel price mechanisms are not a sufficient driver for RES and EV deployment (32). To a large extent, this group
believes that RES and EVs are the main means to improve air quality (26) but the high capital costs have impeded, until now, their
development (34). It considers bottom-up approaches particularly effective for the islands’ settings and is the only group of re-
spondents that clearly supports policy measures coordinated by the local authorities (19).
The lowest Z-scores of this perspective are recorded for statements 15, 5, 1, and 28. This perspective disagrees with the uniform
pricing of energy between islands of the same country (15) and considers it a limiting factor. For this group, different electricity tariffs
within the same country is not a taboo, clearly showing the group’s preference for a liberalised market. Even stronger than the other
perspectives, it suggests that electric two-wheelers play a major role in islands (5) also due to the users’ reservations to buy EVs (1).
This perspective appears to prioritise integrated solutions recognising that sustainable islands’ development needs advanced waste
management and wastewater treatment services (28).

5.3. Consensus and distinguishing statements

Consensus statements are those that do not distinguish between the factors. They are concepts of common agreement, the starting
point for negotiations among stakeholders. In this study, all three perspectives support the transformation and recognise as necessary
to develop sustainable energy and transport systems in islands. This general agreement results in numerous statements receiving
similar Z-scoring, as shown in Table 3.
Six statements that received similar rankings among the factors and are non-significant at p > . 05 are: 25, 10, 11, 3, 7, 30. Fig. 3
shows a similar scoring of these statements. All perspectives agree thus that EVs’ deployment should be prioritised to mitigate traffic
noise (25), including a dense network of conventional charging points (10) and photovoltaic (PV)-powered ones for remote areas
(11). All respondents agree that EV is a meaningful investment (3) without, however, showing a clear preference on incremental or
radical EV system deployment (7). They all also agree that the transformation will be overall positive for the islands’ economy (30).
Distinguishing statements for a factor show statements that receive significantly different Z-scores than the other factors. They
conceal differences in understandings between the participants’ groups (Webler et al., 2009).
The relevant importance of distinguishing statements in one factor ranks significantly higher or lower than in other factors. Fig. 4
shows their distribution (Z-scores) for each factor in a radar chart. It illustrates the highest differences observed (significance at
p < . 01). The identification of these statements supports the interpretation and naming of the perspectives, a qualitative process that
builds on the quantitative input of statistical significance calculations (Newman and Ramlo, 2010).
The analysis identifies five statements as distinguishing for all three factors (2, 15, 24, 32, 33). For these statements all perspectives
have a different view from one another. Perspectives disagree on whether e-mobility is meaningful when mainly powered by RES (2).
They also have different views on the degree visual intrusion of renewable energy infrastructure is a barrier for the deployment of

11
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Fig. 4. Distribution of Z-scores for factors’ I–III distinguishing statements.

RES (24). The three perspectives have very different views on the role of financial policies. They disagree on the necessity to secure
uniform prices within the islands of a certain EU member state (MS) (15), as well as the role of fossil fuel prices (32) and energy
subsidies (33).

5.4. Key findings

In order to interpret the views of respondents of each of the perspectives (factors), distinguishing statements for each factor are
included in tables to allow comparisons. Tables 4–6 provide distinguishing statements for each perspective and distinguish each
factor from the other. As expected, statement sorting took different directions for the three perspectives, meaning that each and every
group has substantially different views. The analysis observed the highest absolute differences in the factors’ Z-scores for the dis-
tinguishing statements (see Table 3). These variances highlight the different views of the perspectives as they relate to the linkage
between RES and EV (2), RES visual intrusion (24), the need for uniform electricity (15) or fossil fuel prices (32), and the existing

12
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Table 4
Distinguishing statements for Perspective 1 and their Z-scores for all factors.
# Factor I Factor II Factor III

2 2.232 −0.849 1.167

15 −0.226 0.400 −2.062
24 −0.775 −0.076 0.940
32 −0.761 −0.127 1.417
33 0.719 −0.339 −1.024

1 −0.129 −1.501 −1.554

9 −1.638 0.172 −0.240
31 −1.740 −1.029 −0.600

Table 5
Distinguishing statements for Perspective 2 and their Z-scores for all factors.
# Factor I Factor II Factor III

2 2.232 −0.849 1.167

15 −0.226 0.400 −2.062
24 −0.775 −0.076 0.940
32 −0.761 −0.127 1.417
33 0.719 −0.339 −1.024

6 1.644 1.188 0.408

16 −1.140 −1.704 −0.120
40 −0.429 0.922 −0.242

Table 6
Distinguishing statements for Perspective 3 and their Z-scores for all factors.
# Factor I Factor II Factor III

2 2.232 −0.849 1.167

15 −0.226 0.400 −2.062
24 −0.775 −0.076 0.940
32 −0.761 −0.127 1.417
33 0.719 −0.339 −1.024

6 1.644 1.188 0.408

14 −1.090 −0.827 0.362
16 −1.140 −1.704 −0.120

subsidy schemes (33).

By interpreting the first column of Table 4, perspective 1 appears to strongly support electrifying EVs with RES (2). It adopts a
slightly negative position on uniform electricity tariffs (15) and finds that higher fuel prices in islands can be an additional driver of
the transition (32). This is the reason why perspective 1 is positive about removing subsidies from the islands (33). Perspective 1
considers that users are willing to buy EVs (1). This group is clearly against interconnecting every island to the central grid (9).
Instead of that, it supports utilising local RES as their visual intrusion is not considered a significant barrier (24). Supporters of this
perspective are tech enthusiasts that prefer ambitious and well-targeted solutions to transform islands. They believe that such so-
lutions are not only superior in technical terms but also contribute to job creation more efficiently (31).
Perspective 2 promotes electromobility whether RES-powered or not. It somehow recognises the need for uniform prices of
electricity within the country (15) and is thus slightly negative on removing subsidies for islands (33). Stronger than any of the other
perspectives, this perspective expects the electrification of transport to improve the image of islands (16) and it considers public
transport as a good starting point of the transformation (6). Respondents of this group are in favour of pilot applications reflecting
their opinion that technology-wise we are ready to proceed with implementing the transition.
The third perspective considers as prohibitive any difference in retail prices within the same country (15). Respondents of this
group are sensitive in social aspects as illustrated by their concerns on the visual intrusion of RES (24). While acknowledging the
potential role of high fossil fuel prices more than any other group (33), they are against removing the existing subsidies (33), due to
expected social impacts. They do not expect an impact (positive or negative) from the electrification of transport (16); this is why
they find less emergent the need to electrify public transport (6).

6. Conclusions and policy recommendations

This analysis used a Q methodology to process for the first time insights, attitudes and distinguishing strategies referring to the

13
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

transition of islands’ energy and transport systems towards paradigms associated more closely with renewable power and electro-
mobility. This is because attitudinal constructs offer additional predictive and understanding power over analysing exclusively so-
cioeconomic characteristics (Morton et al., 2016). Forty-four respondents from fields covering the academia, international organi-
sations, public and local governance, utilities, and industry provided their insights. Following a systematic approach and processing
the collected information with appropriate software, the analysis identified the main viewpoints that correspond to relevant policy
decisions.
Findings reveal a general consensus on developing sustainable energy and transport systems in islands. Respondents agree on the
need for a transformation as the current status is not sustainable and new schemes need to be adopted. They also identify energy and
transport sectors as priority areas enabling integrated solutions of wider scope (e.g. air quality, noise reduction, landscape, recrea-
tion).
It is interesting to understand the respondents’ preference on pilot applications over R&D. Most of them identify a need to further
advance the designs of promoted solutions. They expect technological breakthroughs to increase market maturities by making
available off-the-shelf solutions that benefit from economies of scale. They all agree that end-users are still reluctant to buy EVs. Apart
from market readiness, R&D activities are considered important and specialists highlight that bi-directional charging is still to be
achieved. It is also likely that they expect further improvements in electric power generation either through the development of next-
generation control systems or technological breakthroughs that will substantially reduce the production cost of renewable electricity
(e.g. perovskite photovoltaics). Contrary to that is the viewpoint of respondents that ask for immediate action: pilot applications is the
first step to realising the transformation.
An important finding is a disagreement on whether EVs need to be exclusively powered by RES or not. Specialists generally
prioritise integrated solutions i.e. a clean transport sector that runs on energy produced by clean energy sources. This secures that the
avoided GHG emissions are high and islands contribute to local and global mitigation efforts. Others argue that the widespread use of
EVs will anyhow result in high amounts of avoided CO2 emissions and with the decarbonisation of the power sector, these savings will
eventually increase further.
Based on these findings the present paper proposes that the energy-transport nexus policy and infrastructure, for the context of the
islands not inter-connected to the main grid at least, need reform. In line with what Brand et al. (2019) reported, we believe that
transition should be multidimensional and policy-makers need to have a diverse understanding of the factors underlined in our paper.
Electromobility infrastructure implementation should be further supported to take advantage of the small size of these islands (i.e.
charging is a smaller issue for short-distance travel) and the ability of electric fleets to reserve and storage energy for other uses.
Integrated policies and investments need to be embraced. More investments should be given to R&D activities and more emphasis on
small-scale trials that try to maximise the potential of power produced by RES. More tailor-made tax reliefs and financial incentives
should be provided to potential EV adopters. As Thomopoulos and Harrison (2016) argued, for the very similar context of low carbon
vehicles, we believe that stakeholders and policy-makers need to “do their bit” even if this effectively means short-term sacrifices for
all the actors involved that will help building an advanced energy-transport nexus and therefore more sustainable futures for our
islands.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants of the Q method survey for their valuable input and willingness to contribute to
this research.

References

Bačelić Medić, Z., Ćosić, B., Duić, N., 2013. Sustainability of remote communities: 100% renewable island of Hvar. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 5, 041806.
Bakker, S., Konings, R., 2018. The transition to zero-emission buses in public transport–the need for institutional innovation. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport Environ.
64, 204–215.
Baptista, P.C., Silva, C.M., Lopes, J.P., Soares, F.J., Almeida, P.R., 2013. Evaluation of the benefits of the introduction of electricity powered vehicles in an island.
Energy Convers. Manage. 76, 541–553.
Berkeley, N., Jarvis, D., Jones, A., 2018. Analysing the take up of battery electric vehicles: an investigation of barriers amongst drivers in the UK. Transport. Res. Part
D: Transport Environ. 63, 466–481.
Biresselioglu, M.E., Kaplan, M.D., Yilmaz, B.K., 2018. Electric mobility in europe: a comprehensive review of motivators and barriers in decision making processes.
Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Practice 109, 1–13.
Bjerkan, K.Y., Nørbech, T.E., Nordtømme, M.E., 2016. Incentives for promoting battery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport
Environ. 43, 169–180.
Block, J., 2008. The Q-sort in Character Appraisal: Encoding Subjective Impressions of Persons Quantitatively. American Psychological Association.
Brand, C., Anable, J., Morton, C., 2019. Lifestyle, efficiency and limits: modelling transport energy and emissions using a socio-technical approach. Energ. Effi. 12,
187–207.
Camus, C., Farias, T., 2012. The electric vehicles as a mean to reduce CO2 emissions and energy costs in isolated regions. The São Miguel (Azores) case study. Energy
Policy 43, 153–165.
Carley, S., Siddiki, S., Nicholson-Crotty, S., 2019. Evolution of plug-in electric vehicle demand: assessing consumer perceptions and intent to purchase over time.
Transport. Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 70, 94–111.
Colmenar-Santos, A., de Palacio-Rodriguez, C., Rosales-Asensio, E., Borge-Diez, D., 2017a. Estimating the benefits of vehicle-to-home in islands: The case of the Canary
Islands. Energy 134, 311–322.
Colmenar-Santos, A., Linares-Mena, A.-R., Borge-Diez, D., Quinto-Alemany, C.-D., 2017b. Impact assessment of electric vehicles on islands grids: a case study for
Tenerife (Spain). Energy 120, 385–396.
Cools, M., Moons, E., Janssens, B., Wets, G., 2009. Shifting towards environment-friendly modes: profiling travelers using Q-methodology. Transportation 36,
437–453.

14
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Cotton, M., Devine-Wright, P., 2011. Discourses of energy infrastructure development: a Q-method study of electricity transmission line siting in the UK. Environ.
Planning A 43, 942–960.
Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M., Bergsma, E., 2010. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the
Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 69, 579–591.
Cuppen, E., Bosch-Rekveldt, M.G., Pikaar, E., Mehos, D.C., 2016. Stakeholder engagement in large-scale energy infrastructure projects: revealing perspectives using Q
methodology. Int. J. Project Manage. 34, 1347–1359.
Curry, R., Barry, J., McClenaghan, A., 2013. Northern visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource di-
mensions of sustainability. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 56, 624–649.
Díaz, P., Adler, C., Patt, A., 2017. Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a
hydropower plant in Switzerland. Energy Policy 108, 21–28.
Ellis, G., Barry, J., Robinson, C., 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm
proposals. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 50, 517–551.
European Commission, 2017. Political declaration on clean energy for EU islands, Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy.
European Commission, 2019. 26 islands launch clean energy transition with EU Islands Secretariat support, Available online at: https://www.euislands.eu/. Clean
Energy for EU Islands Secretariat.
Field, A., 2000. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advanced Techniques for the Beginner. SAGE Publications, London, UK.
Fisher, J., Brown, K., 2009. Wind energy on the Isle of Lewis: implications for deliberative planning. Environ. Plann. A 41, 2516–2536.
Flower, J., Parkin, J., 2019. Understanding attitudes to priorities at side road junctions. Transport. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 62, 246–257.
Gay, D., Rogers, T., Shirley, R., 2018. Small island developing states and their suitability for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid services. Utilities Policy 55, 69–78.
Godina, R., Paterakis, N., Erdinc, O., Rodrigues, E., Catalão, J., 2015. Electric vehicles home charging impact on a distribution transformer in a Portuguese island. In:
2015 International Symposium on Smart Electric Distribution Systems and Technologies (EDST). IEEE, pp. 74–79.
Interreg Europe, 2019. E-mobility, Policy Brief, Policy learning platform on low-carbon Economy, Lille (France).
IRENA, 2016. A path to prosperity: renewable energy for islands. Technical Report 1-103. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA, 2019. SIDS lighthouses initiative: progress and way forward. Technical Report 1-24, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
Jepson, W., Brannstrom, C., Persons, N., 2012. “We don’t take the pledge”: environmentality and environmental skepticism at the epicenter of US wind energy
development. Geoforum 43, 851–863.
Jochem, P., Doll, C., Fichtner, W., 2016. External costs of electric vehicles. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 42, 60–76.
Kamal, S., Kocór, M., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., 2014. Quantifying human subjectivity using q method: When quality meets quantity. Qualitat. Sociol. Rev. 10.
Kester, J., Noel, L., de Rubens, G.Z., Sovacool, B.K., 2018. Policy mechanisms to accelerate electric vehicle adoption: a qualitative review from the Nordic region.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 719–731.
Kootstra, G.J., 2004. Exploratory Factor Analysis. University of Groningen.
Kougias, I., Szabó, S., Nikitas, A., Theodossiou, N., 2019. Sustainable energy modelling of non-interconnected Mediterranean islands. Renewable Energy 133, 930–940.
Levinson, R.S., West, T.H., 2018. Impact of public electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport Environ. 64, 158–177.
Lopes, J.P., Almeida, P.R., Soares, F.J., 2009. Using vehicle-to-grid to maximize the integration of intermittent renewable energy resources in islanded electric grids.
In: 2009 International Conference on Clean Electrical Power. IEEE, pp. 290–295.
Lu, C., Liu, H.-C., Tao, J., Rong, K., Hsieh, Y.-C., 2017. A key stakeholder-based financial subsidy stimulation for Chinese EV industrialization: a system dynamics
simulation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 118, 1–14.
Madina, C., Zamora, I., Zabala, E., 2016. Methodology for assessing electric vehicle charging infrastructure business models. Energy Policy 89, 284–293.
Matinga, M.N., Pinedo-Pascua, I., Vervaeke, J., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Szabó, S., 2014. Do African and European energy stakeholders agree on key energy drivers in
Africa? Using Q methodology to understand perceptions on energy access debates. Energy Policy 69, 154–164.
Meschede, H., Child, M., Breyer, C., 2018. Assessment of sustainable energy system configuration for a small Canary island in 2030. Energy Convers. Manage. 165,
363–372.
Milakis, D., Kroesen, M., van Wee, B., 2018. Implications of automated vehicles for accessibility and location choices: evidence from an expert-based experiment. J.
Transp. Geogr. 68, 142–148.
Morton, C., Anable, J., Nelson, J.D., 2016. Assessing the importance of car meanings and attitudes in consumer evaluations of electric vehicles. Energ. Effi. 9, 495–509.
Mukherjee, N., Hugé, J., Sutherland, W.J., McNeill, J., Van Opstal, M., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N., 2015. The delphi technique in ecology and biological
conservation: applications and guidelines. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1097–1109.
Newman, I., Ramlo, S., 2010. Ch. 20: Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed methods research. SAGE Publications, London, UK, pp. 505–530.
Nikitas, A., Kougias, I., Alyavina, E., Njoya Tchouamou, E., 2017. How can autonomous and connected vehicles, electromobility, BRT, hyperloop, shared use mobility
and mobility-as-a-service shape transport futures for the context of smart cities?, Urban. Science 1, 36.
Owens, S., Driffill, L., 2008. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy Policy 36, 4412–4418.
Pina, A., Ioakimidis, C.S., Ferrao, P., 2008. Introduction of electric vehicles in an island as a driver to increase renewable energy penetration. In: 2008 IEEE
International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies. IEEE, pp. 1108–1113.
Pina, A., Baptista, P., Silva, C., Ferrão, P., 2014. Energy reduction potential from the shift to electric vehicles: the Flores island case study. Energy Policy 67, 37–47.
Rajé, F., 2003. The impact of transport on social exclusion processes with specific emphasis on road user charging. Transp. Policy 10, 321–338.
Rajé, F., 2006. The impacts of transport on different social groups. Ph.D. thesis. University of Oxford.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., Bodin, J., 2015. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transport. Res. Part D: Transport
Environ. 34, 122–136.
Robbins, P., Krueger, R., 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer 52, 636–648.
Rosas, S.R., 2017. Group concept mapping methodology: Toward an epistemology of group conceptualization, complexity, and emergence. Quality Quant. 51,
1403–1416.
Schmolck, P., 2019. PQMethod Software and Manual, available online at: http://schmolck.org/qmethod/#PQMethod. Release 2.35-November 2014.
Stainton Rogers, R., 1995. Ch. 12: Q methodology, Sage, pp. 178–193.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., Slotegraaf, G., 2001. Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transport. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 4,
151–169.
Stephenson, W., 1935. Technique of factor analysis. Nature 136, 297.
Tamor, M.A., Gearhart, C., Soto, C., 2013. A statistical approach to estimating acceptance of electric vehicles and electrification of personal transportation. Transport.
Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 26, 125–134.
Thomopoulos, N., Harrison, G., 2016. An ethical assessment of low carbon vehicles using cost benefit analysis. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manage. 16, 227–247.
Van Exel, N., 2004. Inert or reasoned? An investigation of medium-distance travel decision making strategies using Q methodology. In: International Conference on
Traffic & Transport Psychology (ICTTP), Notthingham, pp. 5–9.
Van Exel, N., De Graaf, G., Rietveld, P., 2011. I can do perfectly well without a car!. Transportation 38, 383–407.
Watts, S., Stenner, P., 2005. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitat. Res. Psychol. 2, 67–91.
Webler, T., Danielson, S., Tuler, S., 2009. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Technical Report, Social and Environmental
Research Institute, Greenfield, MA.
Weinert, J., Ogden, J., Sperling, D., Burke, A., 2008. The future of electric two-wheelers and electric vehicles in China. Energy Policy 36, 2544–2555.
Wolsink, M., Breukers, S., 2010. Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. an international study of stakeholder perspectives.
J. Environ. Planning Manage. 53, 535–558.
Yang, T., Long, R., Li, W., 2018. Suggestion on tax policy for promoting the PPP projects of charging infrastructure in China. J. Cleaner Product. 174, 133–138.

15
I. Kougias, et al. Transportation Research Part D 78 (2020) 102180

Zabala, A., Pascual, U., 2016. Bootstrapping Q methodology to improve the understanding of human perspectives. PloS one 11, e0148087.
Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., Mukherjee, N., 2018. When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservat. Biol. 32,
1185–1194.

Glossary

EU: European Union.

EV: electric-drive vehicle.
GHG: greenhouse gas.
G2V: grid to vehicle.
MS: EU member state.
NGO: non-governmental organization.
PCA: principal components analysis.
PPP: private–public partnership.
PV: photovoltaic
RES: renewable energy sources.
SIDS: small islands developing states.
V2G: vehicle to grid.

16