(Get Answer)

management question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn. Please use your own word to Solve these questions in this word document. mention question numbers clearly in the answer. the words that are unique and devoid of plagiarism. no copying, and other resources without proper referencing. All answers must be typed using Times New Roman. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism. Also, work with the instructions inside the file in the solution should The minimum number of required references is each answer should include several sources such as 2 sources. Every idea of a quote written is along with a paragraph, not at the end of the paragraph. Do adhere to the word limit strictly, mere one or two-sentence answers will not be entertained, they need to be supported with further explanation and facts. It is mandatory to support each answer with at least two scholarly, peer-reviewed journals Requirements: 1250-1500 ArticleModelingAutonomousDecision-MakingonEnergyandEnvironmentalManagementUsingPetri-Net:TheCaseStudyofaCommunityinBandung,IndonesiaNikenPrilandita*,BenjaminMcLellanandTetsuoTezukaGraduateSchoolofEnergyScience,KyotoUniversity,Yoshida-Honmachi,Sakyo-ku,Kyoto606-8501,Japan;[email protected](B.M.);[email protected](T.T.)*Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:+81-75-753-4739;Fax:+81-75-753-9189AcademicEditor:PalmiroPoltronieriReceived:28December2015;Accepted:5April2016;Published:14April2016Abstract:Autonomousdecision-makinginthisstudyisdefinedastheprocesswheredecision-makershavethefreedomandabilitytofindproblems,selectgoals,andmakedecisionsforachievingtheselectedproblems/goalsbythemselves.Autonomousbehaviorisconsideredsignificantforachievingdecisionimplementation,especiallyinthecontextofenergyandenvironmentalmanagement,wheremultiplestakeholdersareinvolvedandeachstakeholderholdsvaluablelocalinformationformakingdecisions.Thispaperaimstobuildastructuredprocessinmodelingtheautonomousdecision-making.Apracticaldecision-makingprocessinwaste-to-energyconversionactivitiesinacommunityinBandung,Indonesia,isselectedasacasestudy.Thedecision-makingprocesshereisconsideredasadiscreteeventsystem,whichisthenrepresentedasaPetri-netmodel.First,thedecision-makingprocessinthecasestudyisdecomposedintodiscreteeventsordecision-makingstages,andthestakeholders’propertiesineachstageareextractedfromthecasestudy.Second,severalstakeholderpropertiesthatindicateautonomousbehaviorareidentifiedasautonomousproperties.Third,presentedisamethodtodevelopthedecision-makingprocessasaPetri-netmodel.ThemodelisutilizedforidentifyingthecriticalpointsforverifyingtheperformanceofthederivedPetri-net.Keywords:autonomy;decision-making;Petri-net;energy;environmental;community;Indonesia1.IntroductionTherecentglobalagendaandtechnologicalchallengesforcreatingamoresustainableenvironmenthaveencouragedcountriesaroundtheworldtograduallyshifttowardssustainableenergytransitions.UponthenewglobalagreementofSustainableDevelopmentGoals,everycountryisnowhighlyanticipatedtodirecttheireffortstowardsrealizingamoresustainableenergysystemandenvironment[1].Fromthetechnologyside,theemergenceofnewtechnologies,suchassmartgridsandsource-centeredrenewableenergies,haveexpandedthepotentialandrequirementsofenergygenerationandmanagementinwaysthathavenotbeenavailablepreviously.Thesefactssuggestthattheenergysystemislikelytobecomemoredistributedandlocalized,thusthedecision-makingandpolicy-makingprocessintheenergysectorshouldbeadjustedtofollowthisfuturetendency[2].Mostdecisionsmadeonenergyandenvironmentalmanagementaffectalargenumberofpeopleand,thus,areofpublicinterest.Decision-makinginthissectorusuallybecomescomplicatedsincevariousinterestsneedtobeaccommodatedintheprocess.Moreover,onceaconsensushasbeensuccessfullyreached,itdoesnotguaranteesuccessfulimplementation.Variousdecision-makingapproachesforreachinganeasyconsensus,aswellasforachievingsuccessfulimplementation,havebeenproposed.Twocommonapproachesindecision-makingarewiththecentralizedandtheChallenges2016,7,9;doi:10.3390/challe7010009www.mdpi.com/journal/challenges Challenges2016,7,92of26decentralizedapproaches[3,4].Thequestofbalancingbetweenthecentralizedandthedecentralizedsystemsfordecision-makingisoftenanissueinorganizationalmanagement.Easyaccesstoinformationwiththeadvancementofinformationtechnology,theinternet,andothermeanstoday,havemadethedecision-makingstyleinorganizationsleantowardsamoredecentralizedstyle[5,6].However,thisapproachmaynotbeentirelyapplicableforcasesinenergyandenvironmentalmanagementthatoccurinthepublicdomain.Thisstudyputsmorefocusonautonomyindecision-makingprocessesregardlessofwhethertheyareconductedunderacentralizedoradecentralizedsystem.Twowaysofunderstandingtheconceptofautonomyareconsideredhere.Firstly,autonomyinthepoliticalorpublicadministrationfield,whichisoftenseenasoneofthetraitsofamoredecentralizedsystem[4].Secondly,asunderstoodinthecurrentstudy,autonomycanbeconsideredasapropertyofpersonsregardlessofthesystemiccontext[7–9].Therefore,wearguethatautonomycanexistinbothcentralizedanddecentralizedapproachesbecauseautonomyisthepropertyofeachdecision-maker.Thehypothesisofthisstudyisthatdecisionsmadeautonomouslyaremorelikelytoachievesuccessfuloutcomes.Autonomyinmakingdecisionsisbelievedtoberelatedtoanincreaseinqualityoflife.Researchfromneurosciencehasfoundthatactivelymakingdecisionscanboostpleasureandincreasethedecision-makers’happiness,satisfaction,andperceivedcontrol[10].Furthermore,highlevelsofhappinessandsatisfactionarecausalinfluencesonsuccessandachievement,nottheotherwayaround[11].Simplystated,ifadecision-makerhasmadeanautonomousdecision,withoutbeingcoercedorforced,itisconsideredmorelikelythatthedecision-makerwillachievethedecisiongoalandbenefitfromthat.Normatively,stakeholders’autonomyinmakingdecisionsisimportant,thoughitsimportantroleindecision-makingmaynotbeenobjectivelyexamined[7].Thefactthatwehavenotfoundstudiesthatobjectivelyexaminedtheroleofautonomyindecision-makinginenergy-environmentalmanagementshowedthatthisthemehastodatebeeninsufficientlyexamined.Wearguethattherecentglobalagendaandtechnologicaladvancesintheenergy-environmentalsector(e.g.,smart-gridtechnologies,decentralizedenergy,andmarketliberalization)expectdecision-makerstobecomemoreautonomous.Thissituationhascreatedthenecessitytodevelopaframeworkthatcanrepresentandidentifytheroleofstakeholders’autonomyinthedecision-makingprocess.Suchaframeworkwouldconsistofseveralelementsemployedforspecifictasks,andisthepurposeofthecurrentresearch.Thispaperdiscussesoneoftheimportantelementsoftheframework,amodelthataimstorepresent,analyze,andsimulatetheautonomousdecision-makingprocess.Theautonomousdecision-makingmodelinthispaperisdevelopedasadiscreteeventsystem,andthispaperpresentsthemethodtobuildsuchamodel.Thedecision-makingprocessisdecomposedintodiscreteeventsthatwecalldecision-makingstages.Afterwards,thepropertiesofstakeholdersinvolvedineachstageareidentified;thus,theconceptofadiscreteeventsystemforautonomousdecision-makingisestablished.Petri-netisutilizedtorepresentthediscreteeventsystemoftheautonomousdecision-makingprocess.Eachdecision-makingstage,thestakeholders’properties,andthestateafterdecisionsaremade;correspondingtoasmallPetri-netmodelconsistingofafewtransitionsandplaces.Theautonomousdecision-makingmodelisconstructedbycombiningallofthesesmallPetri-netmodelsofeachevent/stage.Asanaddition,weconductedanalysisofthePetri-netmodel’sbehaviorforidentifyingthestageswhichareindispensableforanautonomousdecision-makingsystem.Thesestagesarecalledthecriticalpointsintheautonomousdecision-makingprocess.2.TheDefinitionofAutonomousDecision-MakingThissectionexplainsthedefinitionofautonomousdecision-making.Theterm,autonomousdecision-makingisdefinedbydissectingitintotherootwordscomprisingit,whichare“autonomy”and“decision-making”.Thedevelopmentoftheconceptofautonomyasapoliticalandpersonalpropertyishistoricallyexplained,followedbyabriefexplanationonvariousscopesofthe Challenges2016,7,93of26decision-makingprocess,andvarioustypesofenergydecision-making.Basedonthisinformation,weconstructthedefinitionofautonomousdecision-makingusedinthisstudy.2.1.TheConceptofAutonomyThedefinitionofautonomyhasbeenthroughseveralchangesthroughoutthecourseofhistory.Asmentionedabove,thereareatleasttwodifferentconceptsofautonomyexplainedinthispaper.AutonomyoriginatedfromtheGreekwords“auto”whichmeansself,and“nomos”whichmeanslaw.ThisconceptwasfirstlycoinedreferringtothecitystatesinancientGreecethatwereself-governing.Originally,autonomywasdefinedinapoliticalmanner,whichwastherightofthestates(orcity-states,inthatinstance)toadministertheirownaffairs[9].Inthecontextofpublicadministrationmanagement,territorialorlocalautonomyistheresultofadecentralizationprocess[12].IntheIndonesiancontextforexample,theLawofDecentralizationnumber22/1999,wasthebeginningofthecountry’sjourneytowardsamoredecentralizedpoliticalstructure.Thislawhassincebecomethelegalbasisforprovidingmoreautonomytolocalgovernmentsinmakingdecisionsregardingtheirownterritoryandenvironment.Thespiritofthelawhashadasideeffect,however,inthatitcausedtheIndonesianpeopletogaingreaterawarenessofautonomy,knowingthattheyhadmorefreedominchoosingamongoptions.Thishaspromoteddecision-makingprocessestobeperformedmoreautonomouslyinvariouslevelsofsociety’shierarchicalstructure,includingatthelowerauthoritylevels,suchasvillagesandsub-districts[13].Lookingatthisfact,thetermautonomyinIndonesiahasgraduallybecomeunderstoodnotonlyasthepropertyofastateorterritory,butalsoasapersonaltrait.OneofthemostimportantmomentsinthehistoryoftheconceptofautonomywaswhenthedefinitionofautonomywastransformedfromthepropertyofastateintheancientGreekera,intoapropertyofpersonsduringtheRenaissanceera[7,8].Sincethen,theconceptofautonomyhasbeenunderstoodinbothways.However,autonomyinthemajorityofcontemporaryworksisseenasapropertyofpersons,orpersonalautonomy[7].Althoughtheconceptofautonomymainlyrevolvesaroundthesetwodefinitions,thedimensionsofautonomyareunderstoodinmanydifferentways,dependingonwhichfieldofstudyisviewingit.Mackenzie,forexample,definedthreedimensionsofautonomy,namelyself-determination,self-governance,andself-authorization[14].Otherstudiesfocusontheself-directednessandresolutenessdimensionsofautonomy[9].Meanwhile,thecomputerscienceandinformationtechnologyfieldsviewtheabilitytocontinuouslylearnorself-learningtraitsintheemergenceofautonomousmachinesorartificialintelligenceasoneofthemostimportantcharacteristicsofautonomy[15].2.2.Decision-MakingProcessThedefinitionofdecision-makinghasbeenlongestablished,andsincedecision-makingisunderstoodasaprocessofmakingdecisions,thenthedefinitionsmostlyevolvedonthescopeoftheprocess.Therearetwopredominatelydifferentviewsindecisiontheoryregardingtheextentofthedecision-makingscope.Firstly,decision-makingisdefinedasaprocessstartedbyidentifyingproblemsorgoals,andendedafteradecisionhasbeenmade.OneofthemainsupportersofthisconceptwasHerbertSimon(1960)[16].Later,Huber(1980)expandedtheconceptofdecision-makingbydefiningitas“theprocessthroughwhichacourseofactionistaken”[17],andtheprocessbywhichthedecisionisimplementedisconsideredaspartoftheproblem-solvingprocess.Mostofthestudiesthatdefinedthedecision-makingprocesscamefromthefieldoforganizationalmanagement.Meanwhilewhendecisionsneedtobemadeinthepublicdomain,thedecision-makingprocessisoftenregardedasthewholecyclefromproblemidentificationuptodecisionimplementationandevaluation,andthenfeeding-backtoproblemidentification.Thisisknownasagenericdecisioncycle[18],oraplanningprocess[19].Anexampleofadecision-makingcycleispresentedinFigure1.Inthisstudy,weinvestigatethedecision-makingprocessextendedtotheimplementationstages. Challenges2016,7,94of26Figure1.Exampleofadecision-makingcycle[18,19].2.3.Energy-EnvironmentalDecision-MakingatVariousStakeholderLevelsThefollowingsectionexplainsdecision-makinginenergyandenvironmentbyvariousstakeholders,suchasnationalgovernment,localgovernment(provincial/city/regencygovernments,andformalagencies/bodieswithintheselocalgovernments),community,householdandindividual(householdsandindividualsareconsideredasasingledecision-maker),andnon-governmentalinstitutions(i.e.,internationalandlocalNGOs,businessorprivatesectorstakeholders,media,expertsandacademicians).Asmentionedearlier,decision-makinginenergyandenvironmentalmanagementoftenbecomescomplexbecauseitoccursinthepublicdomainand,therefore,variousstakeholdersareinvolvedinit.AccordingtoSexton,etal.[20],themainstakeholdersthatareusuallyinvolvedinenvironment-relateddecision-makingarenationalgovernments,regionalorlocalgovernmentbodies,businessassociations,environmentaladvocacygroups,communityorneighborhoodgroups,andaffectedorinterestedindividuals.Therelationshipsbetweenthesestakeholderscanbeclassifiedintotwotypesofrelationship,whicharevertical(hierarchical)andhorizontal(parallel)relationshipswitheachother[21,22].Decision-makingforindividualstakeholdersandgroupsofstakeholdersisinfluencedbothbythestructureofrelationshipsandthecharacteristicsoftheindividualstakeholders.Energyrelateddecision-makingandpolicy-making(Weusethephrase“energy(andenvironmental)decision-makingandpolicy-making”or“decision-makinginenergysector”interchangeablyinthispaperbecausetheresearchobjectisrelatedwithbothenergyandenvironmentalsector.)atthenationalleveltendstooccurinatop-downmanner,followingthehierarchicalstructureofthecountry’sinstitutions.IntheUK,forexample,energydecision-makingfunctionshavehistoricallybeenperformedmainlybythecentralgovernmentandlargecorporationsintheprivatesector.ThissituationbegantochangeaftertheLocalismBillwasstipulatedin2010aimingtoshiftdecision-makingpowerfromcentralgovernmentstoindividuals,communities,andlocalgovernment[23,24].Anotherexampleisfromadevelopingcountry,Indonesia,whereformorethantwodecadessincethefirstnationalenergypolicywasintroducedin1981,thekeystrategicenergydecisionsandpoliciesaremadecentrallybythenationalgovernment[25].TheroleoflocalgovernmentintheenergysectorwasrecognizedafterthepromulgationoftheEnergyActin2007.Theactmandateseachlocalgovernmenttoformulateitsownlocalenergymasterplan,basedonthetargetsoutlinedbythenationalenergymasterplan.Recentexperiencesfrombothcountrieshaveshownthatthelocalauthoritiesaremandatedandexpectedtohavemorecapacityinenergydecision-makingfunctions.Thelongperiodofcentralizedenergydecision-makingexperienceinbothcountrieshascreatedagreatchallengeforthelocalauthoritiestopickupthetask.Lackofcapacityofthelocalgovernmentwithregardstoenergyplanning,andlimitedguidelinesonhowtoformulatethemasterplanitself,aresomeofthechallengesfacedbythelocals.Despitethelimitedcapacityandexperience,localgovernmentsaroundtheworldhavedevelopedvariousenergy-environmentalmeasuresandlocalactionplans,asa Challenges2016,7,95of26formofparticipationinglobalinitiativessuchastheInternationalCouncilforLocalEnvironmentalInitiatives(ICLEI)andtheClimateAlliance[26].Asidefromhavingamandatetoimplementenergy-environmentalmeasuresatthelocallevel,localauthoritiesarealsoexpectedtoinvolveandnurturethecommunityorgrassrootslevelsinlocalenergyinitiatives[27].Energydecision-makingfunctionsatthecommunitylevelhavebeenempiricallyobservedinNorthAmerica[28–30].Mostofthedecisionsandmeasurestakenareonclimatechangemitigationplanning,consideredasthere-emergenceoftheenergyplanningeffortswhichincreasedaftertheoilcrisisinthe1970s,butlaterdeclinedinthe1980sduetolowerenergyprices[28].AlthoughthenumberoflocalactionsforenergymeasuresinUSAwereincreasedafter2006,allofthedecision-makingprocessesidentifiedwereinitiallydevelopedatthemunicipalitylevelfirst[28].Themunicipalitiestheninvolvedthecommunityintheirplanstoreducecommunity-wideenergyuseandGHGemissions.Althoughsimilar,theCanadianexperiencewithitscommunityenergymanagementorcommunityenergyplanningprogramisslightlydifferentfromwhathappenedintheUSA.ObservationsoftheCommunityEnergyPlans(CEPs)thatemergedduring2003–2007[29,30]haveshownthepotentialofcommunityrolesinformulatingactionplansspecificallyrelatedtoenergyefficiency,energyconservation,andapplicationofrenewableenergies[30].However,sinceCEPispartofabroadercommitmentofthemunicipalitiesonforminglocalactionplansforGHGreduction,thecontentoftheCEPisoftenwritteninaccordancetowhatthemunicipalityormunicipalcouncilneeds[29].ThesepracticesaresomewhatdifferentfromwhatwasconceivedbyJaccard,etal.[31]ascommunityenergymanagement.Thepracticesofenergyrelateddecision-makingatthecommunitylevelisalsoevidentinEuropeancountries,suchasintheUKandGermany[27,32,33].Oftenreferredtoasgrassrootsinitiatives[27,34]orcommunity(renewable)energy[33,35],itisdefinedasprojectswherecommunitiesexhibitahighdegreeofownershipandcontrol,andcollectivelybenefitfromtheoutcomes[35].Thetermcommunityinthisliteratureisrelativelybroad,referringtoagroupofpeoplewhosharethesamegeographicallocation(neighborhoodcommunities)orthesameinterest(non-governmentalorganizations)[33].TherecentpracticesofcommunityenergyinEuropearegraduallyshiftingaspartofsocio-politicalmovementsfromthegrassrootslevel[27]and,thus,theyaremorelikelytobeconsideredasbottom-upinitiativeswhencomparedtotheCEPsinNorthAmerica.Energydecision-makingattheindividuallevelistraditionallystudiedasapartofconsumerbehaviorstudieswhichviewtheindividualastheenergycustomerorend-user[36,37].Individualsasconsumersmakeeverydaydecisionsrelatedtoenergy;therefore,theyarebecomingthetargetofvariousenergymeasures[37],suchasthebehaviorchangeprogramsinenergyconsumptionandenergytechnologyadoption[38].Thehighpotentialofnewenergysystemsandtechnologiessuchasrenewableenergysystemsandsmartgridshaveshiftedthefocusofindividualenergydecision-making.Inthelightofthesetechnologies,individuals’energydecisionsarenotonlyshapedbytheenergysystemandpolicy,butcanalsoshapethesystem[39].Thesocialfoundationofsmartgridsconsistsof“decentralizedsocio-technicalnetworksthatunderpintheelectricityconsumptionofgroupsofconsumerswhoareincreasinglybecomingautonomous”[40].However,foreffectivetechnologyadoption,itissuggestedtonolongerviewtheindividualsolelyasaconsumerofenergy,butalsoasacitizen,partofacommunityorsociety[37].Fromtheresearchrelatedwithenergydecision-makingabove,itisfoundthatenergydecision-makingfunctionsoccuratvariousstakeholderlevels,andthedecisionsmadebyonestakeholdermayaffectothersinthetotalenergysystem.Thechallengeofshiftingtowardsamorelocalizedanddistributedenergysystemcreatesaneedforeverystakeholdernotonlytoactivelyparticipateinenergydecision-making,butalsotobecomemoreautonomous.2.4.DefinitionofAutonomousDecision-MakingInthisresearch,weputmorefocusonautonomyasthepropertyofpersons,notasapropertyofthesystemorenvironment.Thisstudyconsidersthateachdecision-makerisseenasanautonomous Challenges2016,7,96of26system,orinotherwords,autonomyisapropertyofeachstakeholderwhoparticipatesinthedecision-makingprocess.Thismeansthateverydecision-makerorstakeholderhastheirowngoaltoachieveandhastheautonomytodecidebythemselves.Thus,asmentionedearlier,thisstudyviewsthatautonomycanexistinbothcentralizedanddecentralizedapproaches.Inlightofthis,wedefinetheautonomousdecision-makingastheprocesswheredecision-makershavethefreedomandabilitytofindproblems,selectgoals,andmakedecisionsforachievingtheselectedproblems/goalsbythemselvesinaresponsiblemannerbasedonavailableinformation.Itfollowsthatpersonshavingtheabilitytoself-determine,self-govern,showself-control,andself-learningarepersonswhoexhibitautonomousbehavior.ThedefinitionforeachautonomousbehaviorusedinthispaperispresentedinTableA1intheAppendix.3.MethodologyforModelinganAutonomousDecision-MakingProcessTheaimofthisstudyistodeveloptheautonomousdecision-makingmodelfortheenergyandenvironmentalmanagementprocessbyusingPetri-net.Forthisaim,anenergy-environmentalmanagementprojectinIndonesiancommunity(RukunWarga)isselectedasacasestudy.Thestepsperformedformodelinginthispaperare:(1)caseselectionanddatacollection;(2)decomposingthedecision-makingprocessandextractionofthestakeholders’properties;(3)identificationofstakeholders’autonomousproperties;and(4)modelingthedecision-makingprocessfromtheobservedcaseusingPetri-netandanalysisofthemodel.3.1.CaseStudySelectionandDataCollectionThispaperundertookonedecision-makingprocessasacasestudytobemodeled,andthereisastrongindicationtoselectthisparticularcase.Theselectedcasestudywasincludedandinvestigatedalongwithotherfivecommunitydecision-makingprocessesinourpreviouswork[41].Thesecaseswere,inturn,selectedfromabroadersetofaround20casestudies.Thefivecaseswereselectedduetotheirsuccessinprojectimplementationandtheavailabilityofdetaileddocumentationandinformation.Amongthefivecases,thecommunitypresentedinthisstudywasconsideredtohaveutilizedbothcentralized(top-down)anddecentralized(bottom-up)decision-makingapproaches.Sincewearguedthatautonomousdecision-makingcanoccurunderbothapproaches,byselectingthiscasewecaninvestigateandmodelautonomousdecision-makingunderbothapproachesusingthesamecase.Inadditiontothat,byusingthesamecasestudywhichexhibitstwodifferentdecision-makingapproachesoveraperiodoftime,thebehaviorchangeandimprovedcapabilityofthecommunityinmakingdecisionwereobserved.Themodeldevelopedhereisbasedonacasestudyofapracticaldecision-makingprocessforawastemanagementsystemprojectinacommunityinBandungCity,Indonesia.Thewastemanagementtechniqueutilizedinthecommunityprojectisabio-digesterinstallationtotransformhouseholdwastetoenergy(biogas).Thiscasewasselectedbecauseaconsiderablenumberofstakeholderswereinvolvedintheactivitieswithrelativelyeveninputstotheproject.Variousstakeholders’involvementinaprojectisarareoccasion,especiallywhenalmostallstakeholderscancontributerelativelyevenlyintheproject.Thissituationoccurredbecausetheprojectdevelopedintwophases.Thefirstphasestartedasoneprojectandthenchangedtoanotherprojectafterthefirstwentthroughastagnantphase.Thesecondphaseachievedquiteasuccessfuloutcomeandisstillinoperationatthetimeofwriting.Thestakeholdersthatwereinvolvedineachphasearedifferent,whichisonereasonwhytherewerevariousstakeholdercontributions.Thisuniquesituationisconsideredusefulforunderstandingthepossibleoutcomesfromvariousstakeholders’engagementwhentheprojectchangedcourse.Athoroughdatacollectionisnecessaryforunderstandingthecasestudywell.Informationaboutthecommunityactivitiesanddecision-makingprocesswerecollectedusingsecondaryandprimarysources.Varioussecondaryrecordsusedwereprojectreports,academicreports,journalarticles,newspaperarticles,andweb-basedarticles.Interviews,informaldiscussions,observation,anddemonstrationofthebiogasinstallationwerealsoundertakenduringsitevisits.Theprimarysources Challenges2016,7,97of26interviewedarethechiefofthecommunity,theformercommunitychief,bio-digesteroperators,andtherecyclingcenteroperator.3.2.DecomposingtheDecision-MakingProcessandExtractionoftheStakeholders’PropertiesThedecompositionofthecasestudyisimportantforconstructingtheautonomousdecision-makingmodelasadiscreteeventsystem.Therearetwostepsinvolvedinthisdecomposition,whichyieldtwomajorresultsthatbecomethefoundationofthediscreteeventsystemformodelingautonomousdecision-making.Firstly,thecommunitydecision-makingprocessisdecomposedintodecision-makingstages.Secondly,thepropertiesofeachstakeholderinvolvedineachstageareidentified.Utilizingtheframeworkdevelopedinourpreviouswork[41],thedecision-makingprocessisdecomposed.ModifiedfromSimon[16],Huber[17],andPetrie[18],theframeworkconsistsoffourimportantphases,namely:(1)problemfinding;(2)knowledgeandinformation;(3)consensusbuilding;and(4)decisionandimplementation(seeFigure2).Thepointsorquestionsineachphasefunctionasguidanceindecomposingdecision-makingstagesandidentifyingthestakeholders’involvement.Figure2.Thedecision-makingdecompositionframework[41].Theprocedureforextractionofstakeholders’generalpropertieswasperformedbasedonourpreviousworkwhichutilizedfivecasestudiesofcommunityenergy-environmentalprojects,ofwhichthepresentcasestudywasone[41].Thefivedifferentcasesofcommunityprojectsselected(fromasetofaround20)exhibitvarioustypesofdecision-makingprocesses,rangingfromcentralizedtodecentralizedapproaches.Allofthefivecaseswereconsideredassuccessfulinreachingtheprojectgoals.Fromanalysisofthesesuccessfulcases,theroleandpropertiesofthestakeholders’areextractedbyutilizingtheframeworkinFigure2,withthepropertiesandtheframeworkdevelopmentitselfbasedonthedecision-makingliterature. Challenges2016,7,98of263.3.IdentifyingtheStakeholders’AutonomousPropertiesThestructuredmethodforidentifyingthestakeholders’autonomouspropertiesfromthestakeholders’generalpropertiesisexplainedhere.Thelistofstakeholders’generalpropertieswhichcontributedtothesuccessofthecommunityprojectwasderivedfromathoroughliteraturereviewintodecision-makingprocesses,cross-checkedwithsuccessfulcasestudies.Inordertodeterminewhichofthesepropertiesarealignedwithautonomyindecision-making,afurtheranalysiswasundertaken.Thedecision-makingprocess,asawhole,isconsideredtobeautonomousdecision-makingifthestakeholdersinthesystemaremakingdecisionsautonomously.Inotherwords,thestakeholdersneedtoexhibitanautonomousbehavior.Therefore,thestakeholders’autonomouspropertiesareidentifiedbycross-comparingthestakeholders’generalpropertieswithelementsofautonomousbehavior.Thecross-comparisonprocesswasperformedqualitativelyusingcontentanalysisoftheautonomousbehaviorsandstakeholders’propertiesdefinitions.Thestakeholders’generalpropertiesareidentifiedinthepreviousstep,whiletheelementsofautonomousbehaviorareidentifiedinSection2,namely:(1)self-governance;(2)self-control;(3)self-learning;and(4)self-determination.Upondefiningeachstakeholders’propertyandautonomousbehavior,eachpropertyisexamined.Thosewhichcomplywithatleastonedefinitionofautonomousbehaviorareidentifiedasstakeholders’autonomousproperties.Utilizingthismethod,thestakeholders’autonomouspropertiescanbeobjectivelyidentified.3.4.DevelopingandAnalyzingtheAutonomousDecision-MakingModelUsingPetri-NetThemethodforconstructingtheautonomousdecision-makingprocessusingPetri-netispresentedinthissection.ThejustificationofPetri-netutilizationisexplained,followedbythePetri-nethistoryanditsutilization.Afterwards,abriefexplanationofastandardPetri-netmodel.Theautonomousdecision-makingmodeldevelopedinthispaperisbuiltasadiscreteeventsystembycompilingtheresultsfromprevioussteps,whicharethedecisionstagesandthestakeholders’properties.ThemethodtorepresentsthediscreteeventsintoaPetri-netmodelisalsoexplainedinthissection.Inthispaper,weconsiderthedecision-makingprocessasasystembuiltupondiscreteeventswhichperformandinteractwitheachothersequentiallyandinparallel.Energy-environmentaldecision-makingisofpublicinterest,thereforethedecision-makinginvolvesmanyandvariousstakeholders.Inourresearch,thestakeholdersareautonomous.Theyarebeingshapedby,andcanalsoshape,thesystem.Therefore,aninterrelatedbi-directionalconnectionbetweenstakeholdersandthedecision-makingprocessisexpected.Petri-nethasanadvantageofrepresentingthemodelintwo-ways:graphicallyandmathematically.Therefore,weconsiderthatPetri-netisasuitabletooltorepresentthecomplexityofmultipleautonomousstakeholdersinenergy-environmentaldecision-making.Moreover,theutilizationofPetri-netenablesasimplesimulationofautonomousdecision-makingmodeltobeperformedfurther.Petri-netisoneofthetoolsoftenutilizedformodelingadiscreteeventsystem,andnowadaysitsapplicationhasbeenemployedonaverybroadfieldofstudy,includingdecision-making.ThehistoryofPetri-netisestablishedbyitsdevelopmentbyCarlAdamPetriin1962.Petri-netisusefulformodelingtheflowofinformationandcontrolinsystems,especiallythosewhichexhibitasynchronousandconcurrentevents[42–44].Petri-netiscommonlyappliedtomodelvariouskindsofdynamicdiscrete-eventsystemssuchascomputernetworks,manufacturingplants,communicationsystems,logisticnetworks,andcommandandcontrolsystems[45].Inrecentyears,theutilizationofPetri-nethasreachedfarbeyondcomputerscienceandmanufacturingstudies.Forexample,Petri-nethasbeenusedtomodeldecision-makingprocessesinalegalcase[46]andmodelingthestoryplotforgames[47,48].Intheenergy-environmentalfield,severalstudieshaveemployedPetri-netinmodeling:amoreenergyefficientmachinetool[49],multisourceenergyconversionsystems[50],energymanagementsystemforautonomousmicro-grids[51],municipalwastemanagement[52],andenvironmentaleffectsofbiofuelutilization[53].TheadvantageofutilizingPetri-netinthisstudyisthatitcandescribeobjectivelyadecision-makingprocesswithmulti-stakeholderinvolvement. Challenges2016,7,99of26AstandardPetri-netconsistsofP,T,I,O,(places,transitions,inputs,outputs,marking/token).Indetail,Pisafinitesetofplaces,whicharerepresentedbycircles;Tisafinitesetoftransitions,whicharerepresentedbyrectangles/bars;IisaninputfunctionwhichrepresentsconnectionfromPtoT;OisanoutputfunctionwhichrepresentsaconnectionfromTtoP;andistheinitialmarkingwhichisrepresentedbyasmalldotcalledatoken[54].Inordertotransformthediscreteeventsofautonomousdecision-makingintoPetri-netaccordingly,theresultsfrompreviousstepsarecompiled.First,theresultfromdecomposingthedecision-makingprocessarethedecisionstages.Thesedecision-makingstages,whichareconsideredasdiscreteevents,aretransformedinto“transitions”inthePetri-netmodel,whereastheresultfromtheautonomouspropertiesextractionisthestakeholders’properties.Thestateorthecombinationsofthestakeholders’properties,arerepresentedas“places”.Likewise,theresultsoroutputsfromeachevent/stagearealsorepresentedas“places”.Therelationshipbetweenthestateandthestagesarerepresentedwithinboundandoutboundarcs.Inshort,thedecision-makingstagescanbetransformedintothePetri-netby:1.DescribingthestateofaffairsoraconditionexperiencedbythestakeholderasaPlace(P).2.Describingthedecision-makingprocess,orevent,oractionconductedbythestakeholderasaTransition(T).3.DescribingtherelationshipofPlace(s)andTransition(s)andthemovementofthetoken()withinboundandoutboundarcs.Thetokenmovesfromoneplacetoanotherby“firing”throughatransition.Aplacehasatokenifaparticularstakeholders’conditionorpropertyissatisfied,thusfiringthetransition.TheexistenceortheabsenceoftheconditionisthekeyfactorthatdetermineswhetheratransitioninthePetri-netisenabledornot.Thedecision-makingmodelisconstructedbycombiningallofthetransitionsandplacesrepresentingthedecision-makingstagesintoonePetri-netmodel.Forsimplificationpurposes,severaldecisionstagesarerepresentedassimplePetri-netmodels,whicharedrawnhierarchicallyinanotherlayerunderthemainmodel.TheselowerlayersofPetri-netmodelsdonotaffectthepurposeofthewholemodel,whichtriestoshowtherelationshipbetweenstakeholders’autonomouspropertiesineachdecision-makingstageanddecisionoutcomes.TheutilizationofPetri-nettodescribethedecision-makingprocessmadetheautonomouspartofthedecision-makingmoreprominentandeasiertobeidentified.Therefore,wecanidentifythecriticalpointsinthedecision-makingprocess,wheretheexistenceorabsenceofautonomouspropertieswillleadtoadifferentdecisionorachievedifferentoutcomes.Theperformanceofautonomouspropertiesinthesuccessofthedecision-makingisgoingtobeevaluatedbyanalyzingthecombinationsoftheconditionsresultingfromthesimulation.4.ResultsThissectionpresentstheresultsobtainedfromeachmethodaforementioned.Abriefdescriptionoftheselectedcasestudyispresentedpriortotheresultsfromdecomposingthecasestudydecision-makingprocessintostages.Thestakeholders’autonomouspropertiesareidentifiedafterwards.Lateron,thedevelopmentandanalysisofthedecision-makingmodelusingPetri-netareexplained.4.1.OverviewoftheCaseStudyAsdescribedearlier,thecasestudyprojecthadtwophases,andeachphasesisbrieflyexplainedhere.TheinitialprojectwascalledaCommunity-basedBasicInfrastructureImprovementProgram(CBIIP),withthefinalgoaltoimprovethesanitationsituationinthecommunity.Thecasestudyconsistsoftworelatedprojects,whichareacompostingcenterandbio-digesterinstallation.Thebio-digester Challenges2016,7,910of26installationprojectwasanimprovementtoanexistingcompostingprojectintheRW11community(RWareoftenidentifiedbynumber.RW11meansitisthe11thcommunitytoexistintheparticularvillage).Thiscommunity,inhabitedby3000people,orroughly800households,isoneofthelow-incomeslumareasinBandung.Itisoneofthedensestdistrictsinthecity.Recognizingtheneedforimprovementofcommunitylife,CBIIPwasinitiatedbytheMinistryofPublicWorksintheBandungBranchwithassistancefromtheBandungCitygovernmentin1996.Focusingoneconomic,social,andenvironmentalaspects,oneoftheprojectsconductedwastheconstructionofacompostingcenterlocatedinRW11toimprovethepoorsanitationandwastesituation[55].Aftertheprojecttermwasfinishedandthebudgetterminated,thecompostingcenteroperationbecamestagnant,andwasthenreplacedbyabio-digesterinstallation.Thesecondproject,abiogasproductionprojectintheformofabio-methanedigesterinstallation,wasinitiatedbythecommunityincollaborationwithacademicians,theprivatesector,andcommunity-basedorganizations(CBO).Afterthecompostingsystemwasnotassuccessfulasplanned,especiallyintermsofprofit,itwasterminatedaround2009–2010.However,viewsonwasteandgarbageintheRW11communityhadchanged.Theymaintainedthewastesegregationactivities,andthewomen’sorganization(MyDarling)begansellingplasticwasteandtriedtoreuseitforhandicrafts.Moreover,theexistingCBOtriedtoseekfinancialsupportbysubmittingproposalstointernationalandnationalnon-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)[56].Eventually,withassistanceandconsultationfromacademicscholars,theEnvironmentalAgencyandalocalNGO,andfinancialhelpfromthelocalbank,thecompostingsystemwaschangedtothebio-methanesystem,whichproducesbiogasforhouseholdsandliquidfertilizer.Onerecentstudyaboutthebiogasproductioninthiscommunityhasbeenconductedthoroughly[57].Theoutcomesfromthebiogasproductionprojectwerestudiedfromsocio-economicperspectives.ItwasfoundthatthebiogasproductionatRW11iscurrentlynoteconomicallyfeasibleduetolimitedmarketreachforthebio-slurryproducts.Meanwhilefromthesocialpointofview,thestudyidentifiedthatthecommunitywasrelativelyacceptingoftheprojectdespiteamixofresponsesfoundamongRW11communitymembers.Itcanbeconcludedthatthispilotprojectinbiogasproductionisstilloperatingbecauseofthesocialacceptancefactorsratherthaneconomicfactors.4.2.TheDecision-MakingStagesandStakeholders’PropertiesThedecompositionofthedecision-makingprocessresultedintotwomajoroutputs.Thefirstoutputarethedecision-makingstages,andthesecondarethestakeholders’generalproperties.Theseoutputsarethefoundationinestablishinganautonomousdecision-makingmodelasadiscreteeventsystem.Thecasehistoryandotherrelatedinformationobtainedfromvarioussourcesareanalyzedqualitativelytodecomposethedecision-makingprocessofthecasestudyintodecisionstages.UtilizingtheframeworkinFigure2,wedecomposedthedecision-makingprocessofthebiogasproductionprojectinRW11intosixstages,whichare:1.Findordefinetheproblem2.Designthesolutionalternatives3.Agreement/consensusbuilding4.ImplementationandconstructionoftheWasteManagementSystem(WMS)5.Management(OandM)6.TerminationoftheprojectEventhoughtheframeworksuggestedfourmajorphases,thenumberofstagesdrawninthePetri-netmodelmayvaryand,thereby,bemorethanfour.ThebiogasproductionprojectinRW11hasbeenestablishedforalongtime,therefore,ithasbeengonethroughthestagesof“management”and“projecttermination”.Moreover,theprojecthasbeenregeneratedintoanotherproject,whichisstillrunning.Dependingonthecasestudy,thedecompositionofthedecision-makingprocessmay Challenges2016,7,911of26resultinvariousnumbersofstages.ThesestagesarerepresentedinthePetri-netmodelastransitions.Therelationshipsbetweeneachtransitionaredrawnbycombiningitwiththestakeholders’properties.AsmentionedinSection3.2,thestakeholders’propertiesareextractedfromthesuccessfulcasestudiesbyapplyingthesameframework(Figure2)andbasedonliteratureonvariousdecision-makingprocesses.Thesepropertiesweretakenfromvariousenergy-environmentaldecision-makingstudies,aspresentedinTableA2intheAppendix.Thisprocessresultedinthestakeholders’generalproperties,listedinTable1.Theseextractedpropertiesareconsideredtobethosewhichcontributedtosuccessfulcommunitydecision-makingimplementation.Thestakeholders’generalpropertiesarefurtherexaminedusingautonomousbehaviorelementsinSection2toidentifythestakeholders’autonomousproperties.Table1.Stakeholders’generalproperties.Stakeholders’GeneralProperties1Self-control11Trust2Initiative12Interaction3Self-learning13Collaboration4Motivation14Openness5Abilitytoorganize15Commitment6Leadership16Localculture7Self-governance17Networkingability8Abilitytocollectandunderstandinformation18Creativity9Communicationability19Innovativeness10Responsibility20Proximity4.3.TheStakeholders’AutonomousPropertiesIdentificationofthestakeholders’autonomouspropertiesisoneoftheimportantprocessconductedinthispaper.Thepropertiesextractedinprevioussteparegeneralstakeholderpropertiesthatcontributedtothesuccessoftheprojectgoal.Thesepropertiesarecross-comparedwiththeautonomousbehaviorsmentionedinSection2.Amongthe20generalpropertieslistedabove,threeofthemarealreadyincludedasautonomousbehaviors(self-control,self-learning,andself-governance).Theremaining17propertieswerecross-checkedwiththeautonomousbehaviors.Themethodforidentifyingstakeholders’autonomouspropertiesexplainedinSection3.3requireseachautonomousbehaviorandthegeneralpropertieslistedinTable1tobeclearlydefined.Fromthesedefinitions(seeAppendix,TablesA1andA2),thestakeholders’generalpropertiesareobjectivelyidentifiedastowhichautonomousbehaviortheyexhibit(ifany).Theresultsofthiscross-comparisonarepresentedinTable2.FromTable2,elevenoutofseventeenpropertiesareconsideredasexhibitingstakeholders’autonomousbehavior.Theothersixarenotmarkedasautonomousbehaviorofthestakeholder,foratleasttworeasons.First,theyarenotapropertyofpersonsorindividuals.Theproperties,suchaslocalculture,trust,andproximityarecategorizedasasystemorenvironmentproperty.Therefore,eventhoughtheyexhibitsometraitsofautonomy,theyarenotincludedasstakeholderproperties.Second,thepropertiesofcreativityandinnovativeness,bydefinition,arenotregardedascorrespondingwiththeautonomydefinitionordimensions. Challenges2016,7,912of26Table2.ExtractionofStakeholders’autonomousproperties.NoGeneralDecision-MakingPropertyAutonomousBehaviorSelf-GovernanceSelf-ControlSelf-LearningSelf-Determination1InitiativeXXXO2MotivationXXXO3AbilitytoorganizeOOXX4LeadershipOOXX5AbilitytocollectandunderstandinformationXXOX6CommunicationabilityOXXX7ResponsibilityXOXO8TrustXXXX9InteractionXXOX10CollaborationXXOX11OpennessXXXX12CommitmentXOXO13LocalcultureXXXX14NetworkingabilityXXOX15CreativityXXXX16InnovativenessXXXX17ProximityXXXXAftercorrelatingthesepropertieswiththeautonomydimensions,selectedpropertiesarefurtherclassifiedintosevenpointsbasedondefinitionalsimilarity,andtheyareasfollows:1.Motivation,initiative;selectedbecausethedecision-makersneedtohavemotivationorinitiative,orabilitytothinkbythemselvesinordertobeconsideredasautonomous.2.Leadership,abilitytoorganize;selectedbecauseautonomyalsorequiresself-governanceandself-control.Inordertohavetheabilitytogovernororganizethemselves,thedecision-makersneedtohavesomelevelofleadershipandabilitytocoordinateandcommunicatetheirgoalwiththeirsubordinatesormembers.3.Self-learning,abilitytomanageinformation;selectedbecauseanautonomousdecision-makerneedstohavethewillingnessandabilitytolearn,tomanageandcollectinformation,andtounderstandtheinformationnecessarytomakedecisions.4.Interactionbetweenthecommunitymembers;oneoftheresultsoftheanalysisconductedonthefivecaseswasthattheinteractionamongcommunityleadersandmembershasanimportantroleinreachingaconsensusordecision,aswellasindecisionimplementation,andsustainingtheoperationandmaintenanceoftheproject.Adecisionthatisreachedthroughgroupinteractionperformsbetterwhencomparedtoadecisionreachedbyagroupofpeoplethatdoesnotinteractatall[58].5.Networkingandcollaborationbetweenstakeholders;thispropertyislinkedwiththepreviousproperty.Wedifferentiateitbecause,inthisproperty,thecommunity(leadersandmembers)isconsideredasonestakeholder.Thenetworkingandcollaborationbetweenthecommunityandotherstakeholdersoutsidethecommunity,suchasgovernmentagencies,officials,localNGOs,privatesectors,andothers,wasseeninthefivecasesandcontributedtothesuccessoftheproject.6.Persuasionandnegotiationability;thispropertyiscloselyrelatedwiththeleadershiplevelofthestakeholder.Thispropertywasalsoveryusefulinreachingaconsensusordecision,especially Challenges2016,7,913of26whentheprojectinvolvedmultiplestakeholders.Thispropertyisfoundpredominantlyinthecaseswheretheinitiativedoesnotcomefromgovernments.7.Responsibilityandcommitment;thispropertyisespeciallyimportantwhenthedecisionisreadytobeimplemented.Inorderfortheprojecttobeconstructed,eachstakeholderinvolvedneedstoberesponsiblefortheirdutyandcommittothedecisionthathasbeenmade.4.4.ThePetri-NetModelTheautonomousdecision-makingmodel,whichinthispaperisregardedasadiscreteeventsystem,isrepresentedusingPetri-net.Theprincipalprocessofmodelingthedecision-makingintoPetri-netcanbedescribedasfollows.Eachstageofthedecision-makinginSection4.2istransformedintotransitionforthePetri-netmodel.Forgraphicalpurpose,weprovidetwoversionofPetri-netgraphs.ThesimplifiedPetri-netdiagramforthiscasestudyispresentedinFigure3,meanwhilethecompletePetri-netgraphusingYasperispresentedinFigureA1intheAppendix.Theconditionsforeachstakeholderinvolvedaregivenatthebeginningofthenet,andarenotchangedduringthecourseoftheprocess.Therearethreesubnetsadded(fordetailseeAppendix,FigureA2–A4).Eachsubnetisdesignedforoneautonomousproperty,namelytheMotivationSubnet(T1),theLeadershipSubnet(T2),andtheabilitytomanageinformation,shortenedastheInformationSubnet(T3).Thereasonbehindthesubnets’creationisbecausethemodelwillbesimulatedbychangingthenumberofstakeholdersinvolvedandchangingthecombinationoftheirproperties.Therefore,itisimportanttoshowtheprocessofhoweachstakeholderbecomesautonomousornon-autonomousindetail.However,werealizedthatthisprocesscanmakethewholedecision-makingprocessmodelmorevisuallycomplex.Therefore,weaddedseveralsubnetsinthePetri-netmodel,hence,makingitahierarchicalmodel.Thesubnetsshowtheprocessofeverystakeholderinbecomingautonomousornon-autonomous.Autonomousstakeholderswillhaveatokeninthecorrespondingplaces,whereasthosewhodonothaveautonomouspropertieswillhavenotoken.Theotherreasonisbecausethecontentofthesehierarchicaltransitionsarefluid,dependingonhowmanystakeholdersareinvolved.Thismakesitinefficienttodrawdirectlyontheprimarylayer.Theresultsfromthesehierarchicaltransitionsfromthesubnetsareshownontheprimarylayerasonesingleplace,whichisasimplificationofthenumberofplacescorrespondingtoeachstakeholderinvolved(inFigure3,thesearedesignatedbybluecoloring,hereaftertheyarecalled“blue”places).Ifthenumberofstakeholdersismorethanone,theneachblueplaceconsistsofacombinationofstakeholders’conditions.Thissimplificationispurelyforgraphicalpurposes.TheseblueplacesaredrawnasseveralsingleplacesinthecompleteversionofthePetri-netmodel.TheexamplegiveninFigureA1oftheAppendixshowsthatiftherearefiveautonomousstakeholdersinvolvedinthedecision-makingprocess,thiswouldresultineachofthehierarchicaltransitions(T1,T2,andT3)producingfivetokensineachofthecorrespondingplaces.Therefore,eachblueplaceinprimarylayer(P2,P3,andP4)actuallyconsistsoffivesingleplaceswithatokeninit.Forsimulationpurposes,itisnotpossibletosimplyputfivetokensineachofP2,P3,andP4.Thisisbecauseatlatertransitions(T6andT8),therulesarespecificallydifferentiatedbasedonthestakeholdertypes.Decision-makingprocessesmayrequirecertainspecificstakeholderstomakeanautonomousdecision—inthiscaseatokenfromthesestakeholderswillbecompulsory.Inadditiontothis,thespecificdirectionthatadecisiontakesmaybedesignatedbywhich,orhowmany,otherstakeholdershaveautonomousproperties(atoken,inthiscase).InFigure3,therearethreevariationsoftransition.First,isthestandardtransition,whichismarkedbyablackbox.Second,theorangediamond-shapetransition,whichrepresentsanXORtransition.AnXORtransitionconsumesonetokenfromoneofitsinputplacesandproducesatokeninoneofitsoutputplaces.Thismeansthatthistransitioncanbefiredifthereisatleastonetokeninoneofitsinputplaces.Thethirdtransitionisahierarchicaltransition(T1–T3).Asmentionedbefore,thePetri-netmodelinthispaperisahierarchicalone,meaningthereisanotherprocessoranotherset Challenges2016,7,914of26ofPetri-netmodelsundertheprimarylayer.AdetailexplanationonthevariationsoftransitionswiththecorrespondingdecisiontypeusedinthispaperispresentedinTable3.TherearethreeotherimportantelementsofthePetri-netmodelshowninFigure3,namelytheinboundarcs,outboundarcs,andtokens.Theinboundandoutboundarcsbetweenplacesandtransitionsshowthedirectionoftokenmovement.Inaddition,theyalsoshowtherelationshipbetweenplacesandtransitions.Sinceplacesrepresenttheconditionsneedingtobefulfilledforfiringthetransitions,itiseasytoidentifywhatkindofconditionsarerequiredforanactionoreventtooccur.Thebidirectionalarcrepresentsasimplificationofasituationinwhichwheneveratransitionisfired,thenthetransitionwillproduceatokenintheoutputplaceandalsoputthetokenbackintheinputplace.ThelegendforthePetri-netinFigure3ispresentedinTable4.ThePetri-netdevelopedinthispapershowsthatthediscreteeventsystemconsistsofdecision-makingstagesandtheroleofstakeholdersinvolvedinadecision-makingprocesscanbeobjectivelyandlogicallymodeled.Utilizingtheproceduresexplainedabove,otherdecision-makingcasescanalsoberepresentedusingPetri-net.Althoughthemodelmightbedifferentindetail,thedecision-makingstagesarerelativelysimilar.Table3.Typeoftransitionswithitscorrespondingdecisionstype.TypeofTransitionTypeofDecisionStandardtransitionUsedifthecondition(s)toreachaparticularaction/decisionisunnegotiable,orifthenumberofstatesresultedfromaparticularaction/decisionaredefinite.XORtransitionUsediftherearetwoormorestatesthatpossibleasinputsoroutputsoftheparticularaction/decision.Thistypeoftransitionisusuallyappliedtodecisionsthatbranchessubjecttocertainconditions.HierarchicaltransitionUsedasarepresentativeofasub-layerinthePetri-net.Thesub-layercontainsanothersetoftransitions-placeswhichisdeliberatelyhiddentosimplifythemainPetri-netmodel.Table4.LegendforplacesandtransitionsinthePetri-netmodel.PlaceDescriptionTransitionDescriptionP1:WasteandsanitationproblemsituationT1:MotivationsubnetP2:Setofstakeholders’motivationlevelT2:InformationsubnetP3:Setofstakeholders’abilitytomanageinformationlevelT3:LeadershipsubnetP4:Setofstakeholders’leadershiplevelT4:ProblemfindingprocessP5:ProblemisdefinedT5:DesigningalternativesprocessP6:AlternativesaredesignedT6:Decision-makingP7:WMStechniqueisselected(decisionismade)T7:ConstructionofWMSP8:WMSisconstructed(decisionisimplemented)T8:Operation&MaintenanceP9:WasteisreducedT9:TerminationoftheprojectP10:ProjectstoppedP11:Projectcontinued Challenges2016,7,915of26Figure3.HierarchicalPetri-net(simplified)describingthedecision-makingprocessofaWMScasestudy. Challenges2016,7,916of265.AnalysisandDiscussionsTwomainstepswereperformedthroughthemethodsexplainedinthispaper.Firstisthemethodtodecomposethecommunitydecision-makingprocessintodiscreteevents.Thisprocessresultedintotwooutputs,whicharethedecision-makingstages(Section4.2)andthestakeholders’autonomousproperties(Section4.3).ThesecondstepisthemethodtobuildthediscreteeventsystemintheformofthePetri-netmodel,whichgeneralizesthedecision-makinginacaseofenergyandenvironmentalmanagement(Section4.4).Thedecompositionprocessproducesdecision-makingstagesandthestakeholders’autonomousproperties.Thedecision-makingstagesareperformedutilizingtheframeworkinFigure2.Asaresult,sixdecision-makingstagesareobtained;namely,problemdefinition,alternativesdesign,agreementorconsensusbuilding,implementationandconstruction,management,andprojecttermination,whereasthestakeholders’propertiesareidentifiedbyqualitativelycross-comparingthestakeholders’generalpropertieswiththeautonomousbehaviors.Therearesevenautonomouspropertiesidentifiedhere;namely,(1)motivationandinitiative;(2)leadershipandabilitytoorganize;(3)self-learningortheabilitytomanageinformation,(4)interaction;(5)networkingandcollaboration;(6)persuasionandnegotiationability;and(7)responsibilityandcommitment.Amongthese,properties(4)and(5)areconsideredasmoreapropertyofgroupsofpeople,meaningtheyexistifthereareatleasttwotypesofstakeholdersinvolvedinthedecision-making,whereastheotherpropertiesbelongtoanindividualstakeholder.TheresultsfromthedecompositionprocessarethenrepresentedbyPetri-net.Themodelisconstructedbycombiningthedecision-makingstagesthatalreadyconvertedintotransitionsandplaces.AnalysisofthePetri-netprovideafurtherunderstandingthatthereareseveraltransitionsthatwouldyielddifferentoutcomesiftheconditionsattheblueplacesarechanged.Thesetransitionsareidentifiedascriticalpoints,whichareidentifiedfromPetri-netgraphinFigure3.AsdiscussedinSection4.4,ablueplacecontainstheresultfromthehierarchicaltransitionsandeachblueplacecanrepresentmorethanone“standard”place.Atokeninoneofthesub-placescontainedinablueplacerepresentstheparticularstakeholders’autonomouspropertiesanditwillnotbechangedduringthecourseofthesimulation.Forexample,ifastakeholderissetsincethebeginningasnothavingmotivationproperties,thenitwillcontinuetolackmotivationuntiltheendofthemodelortheterminationofthemodel.AcriticalpointinthisstudyreferstoacertaintransitioninthePetri-netmodelthatisinfluencedbytheconditionssetintheblueplaces,whichhaveparticularinfluenceonautonomy.Fromthemodel,thecriticalpointsidentifiedinthisdecision-makingprocessare:1.Problemfindingprocess(T4).Atthiscriticalpoint,therearetwodeterminingproperties,whichresultedfrommotivationsubnet(T1)andinformationmanagementcapability(T2).T4firesifthereisatleastonetokeninoneofitsinputplaces(P2andP3).Thismeansthatatthisstage,anystakeholder,regardlessthetype,cancontributeinfindingtheproblemaslongtheyhavehighmotivationorstrongleadership.2.Designingalternatives(T5),firesdependingonthepropertyofinformationmanagementcapability(T2).T5firesifthereisatokeninP5andthereisatleastonetokeninP3.Thismeansthatinordertodesigndecisionalternatives,atleastonestakeholdermusthavethecapabilitytomanageinformation.3.Decision-makingprocessorconsensus-buildingprocess(T6),whichisdeterminedbythepropertyofleadershiplevel(T3).T6firesifthereisatokeninP6andatleastonetokeninP4.Thismeansthatinordertoreachadecisionoraconsensustogether,atleastonestakeholderneedstohavestrongleadership.Theoutputofthistransitionisdifferentiatedbythespecificstakeholders’conditions. Challenges2016,7,917of264.Operationandmaintenancephase(T8),isdeterminedbyallthreepropertiesof:leadershiplevel(P4),motivationlevel(P2),andinformationmanagementcapability(P3).Basically,T8firesifthereisacombinationbetweenthepropertiesofseveralstakeholderstogether.Thismeansthatcollaboration,networking,andinteractionbetweenstakeholdersplaysanimportantroleinthisOperationandMaintenancestage.However,sincetheleadershipproperty(P4)isalreadygiveninT6,thereforethereisnoneedtoconnectT8withtheinboundarcfromP4.TheresultofT8willbedifferentiatedbasedonthepropertiesfromblueplacesbasedontypesandpropertiesofstakeholders.5.Terminationoftheproject(T9),determiningproperty:resultfromtheOandMphase(T8).Theoutputsfromtheprevioustransition(T8)aredifferentiatedbasedonthestakeholdertypesandproperties.Inthesimulation,therulewillbeimposedonT9astowhethertoproduceatokenforP10orP11,basedonthetokenconditioninP9.Forexample,ifthetokenproducedfromT8showsaconditionofautonomouslocalpeople(communityleadersorinterestedindividuals),thentheprojectwillbemorelikelytogobeyondprojecttermination,andthereforeT9willproduceatokeninP11.SinceT9isanXORtransition,thefiringofT9canonlybeproducedinoneofP10orP11.Amongthesecriticalpoints,thefirsttwopoints(T4andT5)determinewhethertheprocesswillreachadecisionorfailtoreachadecision.Thelatterthreepoints(T6,T8,andT9)determinethevarietyofsuccesslevelsinachievingtheprojectgoal.MeanwhileT7isnotidentifiedasacriticalpointbecausethetransitiononlydependsononeinputplace.ThePetri-netmodelinthispaperrepresentsthedecision-makingprocessasitoccurredincommunitycasestudies.Thecommontraitsofcommunitydecision-makingshouldnotbeneglected.Forexample,inacommunity,ifacertainproblemexistsandastakeholderproposessomesolutionalternativesbuttheremainingstakeholdersarenotabletoreachaconsensusordecision,thenthewholedecision-makingprocessfails/stagnatesandtheproblemwillpersist.Thismeansthat,forsolvingthesameproblem,thedecision-makingprocessneedstobestartedfromthebeginningagain.Inthesimulation,thistraitwillberepresentedbytheinstantterminationofthemodelsimulationeverytimeatransitionisnotfired.ThecriticalpointsinthispaperareidentifiedbydevelopingthePetri-netmodelwhichresultedfromcarefullydecomposingthecasestudy.Therefore,themostimportantpartisdecomposingthecase’sstoryintodecision-makingstages,whichcanonlybeperformedifthecasestudyorprojecthistoryiswellunderstood.Thismadethedatacollectionprocedureholdsanimportantroleinunderstandingthecontextunderwhichthedecisionwastaken.Althoughcompleteinformationmightbeavailableintheformofreportsandsecondaryrecords,directfieldvisitsandobservationsarehighlyrecommendedtoobtainathoroughunderstandingofthetargetedcommunity,andalsotoavoidbiasfrompreviousresearchers.Anotherimportantpointistheselectionofprincipalinformantstobeinterviewed.Itisbesttointerviewstakeholdersthatareinvolveddirectlyatthebeginningoftheprojecteventhoughtheymightalreadybeveryoldorhavealreadysteppeddownfromtheirpositioniftheprojecthasbeenconductedforanumberofyears.Themethodexplainedthroughoutthispapercomprisesofdecomposingthecommunitydecision-makingprocess,extractionofthestakeholders’autonomousproperties,andmodelingtheautonomousdecision-makingprocess.Theresultsofthesestepsarecomplementedbytheresultsobtainedfromvariousliteratureanddatacollection.ThestructuredmethodutilizedinthispapercanbesummarizedinFigure4below. Challenges2016,7,918of26Figure4.Generalmethodfordevelopingautonomousdecision-makingmodel.6.ConclusionsThispaperpresentsamethodtobuildanautonomousdecision-makingmodel,whichisconsideredtobeimportantwithinthedevelopmentofdecentralizedgenerationanddemand-centeredprojectsinenergyandenvironmentalbeneficiation.However,theapproachisgeneralizabletootherfieldsandcasestudiesbeyondthatpresentedhere.ThespecificPetri-netmustbedesignedgiventheunderstandingofthestakeholdersandprojectelementsinvolvedindecisionmaking,whichisperformedbydecomposingadecision-makingprocessintodiscreteeventsordecision-makingstagesasshowninFigure4.UsingPetri-netasatool,thedecision-makingstagesaretransformedintoasetofplace-transitionsorsimplePetri-netmodels,andthesesmallmodelsarecompiledtoconstructtheautonomousdecision-makingmodel.TheutilizationofPetri-nettorepresentdecision-makingmodelshelpsthedecision-makingprocesstobeanalyzedobjectivelyandimportantstagesofautonomousdecision-makingareprominentlyshown.Theseimportantstagesareidentifiedascriticalpointsofautonomousdecision-making.Acriticalpointisinfluencedbythestakeholders’propertiesanddeterminestheoutputofthemodel,orwhetherthemodelcanreachtheendofthenetworkornot.TheresultsofthispaperaregoingtobefurtheremployedforsimulationsbasedonthePetri-netmodel.TheutilizationofPetri-netinbuildingtheautonomousdecision-makingmodelisconsideredasoneoftheeffectivewaystoperformthemodelsimulationinthefuturestudy.Someofthestakeholders’autonomouspropertiesidentifiedabovesuchasmotivation,leadership,andabilitytomanageinformation,aregoingtobeassigneddeterministicallytoeachstakeholderinvolvedinthedecision-makingprocessandvariousoutcomesfromthesimulationswillbeobservedinordertoidentifythekeyconditionssuitableforsuccessfullyachievinggoals.Acknowledgments:Theauthorsaregratefulforthecommentsandsuggestionsfromthreeanonymousreviewers.ThefirstauthorwouldliketoextendhergratitudetotheMinistryofEducation,Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology(MEXT),Japan,forsupportingthisstudy.AuthorContributions:ThemanuscriptispreparedbyNikenPrilandita,underthesupervisionofTetsuoTezukaandBenjaminMcLellan,whoassistedinco-authoringandimprovingpaper.ConflictsofInterest:Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest. Challenges2016,7,919of26AppendixTableA1belowlistedthebehaviorsorcharacteristicsthatcommonlyassociatedwithautonomousindividual,orevenusedtodefinetheconceptofautonomy.Thesecondcolumnshowsthatthesebehaviorsappearedorevenmentionedasaprerequisiteforsucceedingadecisionimplementationbasedonvariousliteratureindecision-making,especiallyintheenergyandenvironmentalsector.Thethirdcolumncontaingeneraldefinitionofeachbehavior,whichareusefulforthecross-comparingprocessinSection4.3.TableA1.Definitionofelementsofautonomousbehavior.AutonomousBehaviorDefinitionMentionedinSelf-governanceGovernancereferstotheprocessesofinteractionanddecision-makingamongtheactorsinvolvedinacollectiveproblemthatleadtothecreation,reinforcement,orreproductionofsocialnormsandinstitutions[59].Therefore,self-governancedefinedasthecapabilityofanindividualorgrouptodeveloptheirownwaytoestablishthegovernanceandrunningitwithoutintervention.[40]Self-controlReferstoasetofprocessesthatenableindividualstoguidetheirgoaldirectedactivitiesovertimeandacrosschangingcontexts[60].Oftenusedinterchangeablywithself-regulation[61].[61–63]Self-learningThecapabilitytoperformtheactoflearningbyoneself.Learningheredefinedastheacquisitionofknowledgeand/orskillsthatserveasanenduringplatformforadaptivedevelopmentandtocomprehendandnavigatenovelproblems[61].[15]Self-determinationThecapacitytochooseandtohavethosechoices,ratherthanreinforcementcontingencies,drives,oranyotherforcesorpressures,bethedeterminantsofone’sactions.Self-determinationofteninvolvescontrollingone’senvironmentorone’soutcomes,butitmayalsoinvolvechoosingtogiveupcontrol[64].[2,65]TableA2belowaretheobservedstakeholders’propertiesexistedinthesuccessfulcasesofcommunityprojectinenergy-environmentalmanagement.Thesecondcolumnshowsthatthesepropertiesappearedorevenmentionedasaprerequisiteforsucceedingadecisionimplementationbasedonvariousliteratureindecision-making,especiallyintheenergyandenvironmentalsector.Thethirdcolumncontaingeneraldefinitionofeachproperties,whichareusefulforthecross-comparingprocessinSection4.3.TableA2.Definitionofstakeholders’generalproperties.PropertiesMentionedinDefinitionInitiative[4]Behaviorcharacterizedbyself-startingnature,proactiveapproach,andbybeingpersistentinovercomingdifficultiesthatariseinthepursuitofagoal[61].Motivation[3,4]Referstothesetofpsychologicalprocessesgoverningthedirection,intensity,andpersistenceofactionsthatarenotduesolelytooverwhelmingenvironmentaldemandsthatcoerceorforceaction[61]. Challenges2016,7,920of26TableA2.Cont.PropertiesMentionedinDefinitionInitiative[4]Behaviorcharacterizedbyself-startingnature,proactiveapproach,andbybeingpersistentinovercomingdifficultiesthatariseinthepursuitofagoal[61].Motivation[3,4]Referstothesetofpsychologicalprocessesgoverningthedirection,intensity,andpersistenceofactionsthatarenotduesolelytooverwhelmingenvironmentaldemandsthatcoerceorforceaction[61].Abilitytoorganize[4]Capacitytocoordinate,manage,facilitate,aparticularobject/tasksamonggroupofpeopletoreachacertaingoal[61].Leadership[66,67]Asetofrolebehaviorsbyindividualsinthecontextofthegroupororganizationtowhichtheybelong.Theexerciseofinfluenceoverothersbyutilizingvariousbasesofsocialpower,tactics,andsooninordertoelicitthegroupmembers’compliancewithcertainnormsandtheircommitmenttoachievethegroup’sobjectives[61].Abilitytocollectandunderstandinformation[3]Capacitytocollectandunderstandinformationwithouthelpfromotherparties.Communicationability[4]Capacitytoexchangeinexchangeinformation,formunderstandings,coordinateactivities,exerciseinfluence,socialize,andgenerateandmaintainsystemsofbeliefs,symbols,andvaluesamongmembersofinstitution/organizations[61].Responsibility[68,69]Anattributethatanadultpersonisduty-boundtoundertake[70].Inenvironmentalbehavior,itdefinedasanindividualsenseofobligationordutytotakemeasuresagainstenvironmentaldegradation[71].Trust[3]Ageneralizedexpectancyheldbyanindividualorgroupthattheword,promise,verbal,orwrittenstatementofanotherindividualorgroupcanbereliedon[61].Interaction[72–74]Aparticularkindsofsocialrelationshipthataredifferentfrom,butconstitutiveof,groups,organizations,andnetworks.Interactionoccurswhentwoormoreparticipantsareineachother’sperceptualrangeandorienttoeachotherthroughtheiractionandactivity[75].Collaboration[76,77]Collectiveactionoreffortperformedbyagroupofpeopletosolveproblemoradjustenvironmentsinordertodiscovernewmutuallybeneficialoptions[77].Openness[4]Referredastransparencytoaccessinformationwithinorganization,institution,orsociety[78]Commitment[79,80]Referredasthelevelofidentificationwith,andattachmentandloyaltyto,anorganization,anoccupation,orsomeotherfeatureofwork[61].Localculture[61]Somesharedsetofcharacteristicsincommontoaparticulargroupofpeople[61].Networkingability[73,81]Capacitytoperformaprocessofcontactingandbeingcontactedbypeopleinone’ssocialortechnical/professionalworldandmaintainingtheselinkagesandrelationships[61].Creativity[4,82,83]Thegenerationofideasorproductsthatarebothnovelandappropriate(correct,useful,valuable,ormeaningful)[61].Innovativeness[83,84]Thedegreetowhichanindividualisrelativelyearlierinadoptingnewideasthantheothermembersofasystem[85].Proximity[86,87]Referredtothespatialdistanceorfamiliarityofacertainobjectorproblemtoapersonorgroupofperson. Challenges2016,7,921of26FigureA1.ThePetri-netmodeldrawnusingYasper(nosimplification). Challenges2016,7,922of26FigureA2.The“Motivation”Subnet.FigureA3.The“Leadership”Subnet. Challenges2016,7,923of26FigureA4.The“Information”Subnet.References1.InternationalCouncilforScience(ICSU)andInternationalSocialScienceCouncil(ISSC).ReviewofTargetsfortheSustainableDevelopmentGoals:TheSciencePerspective;ICSU:Paris,France,2015.2.Scheer,H.EnergyAutonomy:TheEconomic,SocialandTechnologicalCaseforRenewableEnergy,2nded.;Earthscan:London,UK,2007;Volume41.3.Malone,T.W.IsEmpowermentJustaFad?Control,DecisionMaking,andIT.MITSloanManag.Rev.1997,38,22–35.4.Malone,T.W.TheFutureofWork:HowtheNewOrderofBusinessWillShapeYourOrganizations,YourManagementStyle,andYourLife;HarvardBusinessSchoolPress:Boston,MA,USA,2004.5.Malone,T.W.;Laubacher,R.;ScottMorton,M.S.InventingtheOrganizationsofthe21stCentury;MITPress:Cambridge,MA,USA,2003.6.Kralewski,D.Bottom-updecentralizedapproachtoinnovationstrategy.InProceedingsofthe1stWorkshoponNewGenerationEnterpriseandBusinessInnovationSystems(NGEBIS-2012),Gdansk,Poland,26June2012;Missikoff,M.,Smith,F.,Eds.;CEUR-WS:Gdansk,Poland,2012;Volume864,pp.55–61.7.Piper,M.Autonomy:Normative.Availableonline:http://www.iep.utm.edu/aut-norm(accessedon20November2015).8.Dryden,J.Autonomy.Availableonline:http://www.iep.utm.edu/autonomy/(accessedon21November2015).9.Prause-Stamm,J.Self-DirectednessandResoluteness:TheTwoDimensionsofAutonomy;TheHumboldtUniversityofBerlin:Berlin,Germany,2013.10.Korb,A.TheUpwardSpiral:UsingNeurosciencetoReversetheCourseofDepression,OneSmallChangeataTime;NewHarbingerPublications,Inc.:Oakland,CA,USA,2015.11.Achor,S.TheHappinessAdvantage:TheSevenPrinciplesofPositivePsychologythatFuelSuccessandPerformanceatWork;CrownBusiness:NewYork,NY,USA,2010.12.Zaharia,P.Autonomyanddecentralization:Currentprioritiesinthelocalpublicadministrationmanagement.USVAnn.Econ.PublicAdmin.2011,11,288–292. Challenges2016,7,924of2613.Beard,V.A.;Miraftab,F.;Silver,C.PlanningandDecentralization:ContestedSpacesforPublicActionintheGlobalSouth;Routledge:NewYork,NY,USA,2008.14.Mackenzie,C.Threedimensionsofautonomy:Arelationalanalysis.InAutonomy,Oppression,andGender;Veltman,A.,Piper,M.,Eds.;OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford,UK,2014;pp.15–41.15.DiPaolo,E.A.;Iizuka,H.How(not)tomodelautonomousbehaviour.Biosystems2008,91,409–423.[CrossRef][PubMed]16.Simon,H.A.TheNewScienceofManagementDecision;HarperandBrothers:NewYork,NY,USA,1960.17.Braunstein,D.N.Reviewofmanagerialdecisionmaking/modelbuildingfordecisionanalysis.Acad.Manag.Rev.1981,6,515–517.18.Petrie,J.;Cohen,B.;Stewart,M.Decisionsupportframeworksandmetricsforsustainabledevelopmentofmineralsandmetals.CleanTechnol.Environ.Policy2007,9,133–145.[CrossRef]19.Montana,P.J.;Charnov,B.H.Management;Barron’sEducationalSeries,Inc.:NewYork,NY,USA,2000.20.Sexton,K.;Marcus,A.F.;Easter,K.W.;Burkhardt,T.D.BetterEnvironmentalDecisions:StrategiesforGovernments,BusinessesandCommunities;IslandPress:Washington,DC,USA,1999.21.Jollands,N.;Gasc,E.;Pasquier,S.B.InnovationsinMulti-LevelGovernanceforEnergyEfficiency;IEA:Paris,France,2009.22.OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.Cities,ClimateChangeandMultilevelGovernance;OECD:Paris,France,2009.23.Bale,C.S.E.;Foxon,T.J.;Hannon,M.J.;Gale,W.F.StrategicenergyplanningwithinlocalauthoritiesintheUK:AstudyofthecityofLeeds.EnergyPolicy2012,48,242–251.[CrossRef]24.Bale,C.S.E.;Abuhussein,A.M.;Foxon,T.J.;Hannon,M.J.;Gale,W.F.Deliveringnationalpolicyatthelocallevel:TheroleforlocalauthoritiesintheimplementationoftheUKsflagshipGreenDealpolicy.InProceedingsoftheInternationalSustainableDevelopmentResearchConference,Hull,UK,24–26June2012.25.IndonesiaMinistryofEnergyandMineralResources(KementrianESDM).BlueprintPengelolaanEnergiNasional2006–2025;KementrianESDM:Jakarta,Indonesia,2006.26.Bulkeley,H.;Kern,K.LocalGovernmentandtheGoverningofClimateChangeinGermanyandtheUK.UrbanStud.2006,43,2237–2259.[CrossRef]27.Blanchet,T.StruggleoverenergytransitioninBerlin:Howdograssrootsinitiativesaffectlocalenergypolicy-making?EnergyPolicy2014,78,246–254.[CrossRef]28.Pitt,D.Harnessingcommunityenergy:ThekeystoclimatemitigationpolicyadoptioninUSmunicipalities.LocalEnviron.Int.J.JusticeSustain.2010,15,717–729.[CrossRef]29.StDenis,G.;Parker,P.CommunityenergyplanninginCanada:Theroleofrenewableenergy.Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev.2009,13,2088–2095.[CrossRef]30.Tozer,L.CommunityenergyplansinCanadiancities:Successandbarriersinimplementation.LocalEnviron.Int.J.JusticeSustain.2013,18,20–35.[CrossRef]31.Jaccard,M.;Failing,L.;Berry,T.Fromequipmenttoinfrastructure:Communityenergymanagementandgreenhousegasemissionreduction.EnergyPolicy1997,25,1065–1074.[CrossRef]32.Walker,G.;Hunter,S.;Devine-Wright,P.;Evans,B.;Fay,H.HarnessingCommunityEnergies:ExplainingandEvaluatingCommunity-BasedLocalisminRenewableEnergyPolicyintheUK.Glob.Environ.Polit.2007,7,64–82.[CrossRef]33.Seyfang,G.;Park,J.J.;Smith,A.Athousandflowersblooming?AnexaminationofcommunityenergyintheUK.EnergyPolicy2013,61,977–989.[CrossRef]34.Seyfang,G.;Haxeltine,A.Growinggrassrootsinnovations:Exploringtheroleofcommunity-basedinitiativesingoverningsustainableenergytransitions.Environ.Plan.CGov.Policy2012,30,381–400.[CrossRef]35.Walker,G.;Devine-Wright,P.Communityrenewableenergy:Whatshoulditmean?EnergyPolicy2008,36,497–500.[CrossRef]36.Axsen,J.;Kurani,K.S.SocialInfluence,ConsumerBehavior,andLow-CarbonEnergyTransitions.Annu.Rev.Environ.Resour.2012,37,311–340.[CrossRef]37.Heiskanen,E.;Johnson,M.;Robinson,S.;Vadovics,E.;Saastamoinen,M.Low-carboncommunitiesasacontextforindividualbehaviouralchange.EnergyPolicy2010,38,7586–7595.[CrossRef]38.Moloney,S.;Strengers,Y.“GoingGreen”?TheLimitationsofBehaviourChangeProgrammesasaPolicyResponsetoEscalatingResourceConsumption.Environ.PolicyGov.2014,24,94–107.[CrossRef] Challenges2016,7,925of2639.Naus,J.;Spaargaren,G.;vanVliet,B.J.M.;vanderHorst,H.M.Smartgrids,informationflowsandemergingdomesticenergypractices.EnergyPolicy2014,68,436–446.[CrossRef]40.Wolsink,M.Theresearchagendaonsocialacceptanceofdistributedgenerationinsmartgrids:Renewableascommonpoolresources.Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev.2012,16,822–835.[CrossRef]41.Prilandita,N.;McLellan,B.C.;Tezuka,T.TheFrameworkforIdentifyingAutonomousDecision-MakingProcessonEnergyandEnvironmentalIssues:TheCaseStudiesinIndonesianCommunities(RukunWarga).Availableonline:http://www.j-sustain.com(accessedon4January2016).42.Hillion,H.P.PerformanceEvaluationofDecision-MakingOrganizationsUsingTimedPetriNets;MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology:Cambridge,MA,USA,1986.43.Shukla,A.;Robbi,A.D.APetrinetsimulationtool.InProceedingsofthe1991IEEEInternationalConferenceonSystems,Man,andCybernetics,“DecisionAidingforComplexSystem”,Charlottesville,VA,USA,13–16October1991;pp.361–366.44.Bullers,W.I.ATripartiteApproachtoInformationSystemsDevelopment.Decis.Sci.1991,22,120–135.[CrossRef]45.Wang,J.Petrinetsfordynamicevent-drivensystemmodeling.InHandbookofDynamicSystemModeling;Fishwick,P.,Ed.;CRCPress:BocaRaton,FL,USA,2007;pp.1–17.46.Sileno,G.;Boer,A.Legalknowledgeconveyedbynarratives:Towardsarepresentationalmodel.InProceedingsoftheWorkshoponComputationalModelsofNarrative(CMN2014),QuebecCity,QC,Canada,31July–2August2014;pp.182–191.47.Balas,D.;Brom,C.;Abonyi,A.;Gemrot,J.Hierarchicalpetrinetsforstoryplotsfeaturingvirtualhumans.InProceedingsofthe4thArtificialIntelligenceandInteractiveDigitalEntertainmentConference,PaloAlto,CA,USA,22–24October2008;AssociationfortheAdvancementofArtificialIntelligence:Stanford,CA,USA,2008;pp.2–9.48.Araújo,M.;Roque,L.Modelinggameswithpetrinets.InBreakingNewGround:InnovationinGames,Play,PracticeandTheory;DigitalGamesResearchAssociation(DiGRA):London,UK,2009.49.Xie,N.;Duan,M.;Chinnam,R.B.;Li,A.;Xue,W.AnenergymodelingandevaluationapproachformachinetoolsusinggeneralizedstochasticPetriNets.J.Clean.Prod.2015,113,523–531.[CrossRef]50.Sava,A.;Adjallah,K.H.;Lagaza,H.HybridPetrinetsformodelingandcontrolofmulti-sourceenergyconversionsystems.InProceedingsofthe2014InternationalConferenceonControl,DecisionandInformationTechnologies(CoDIT),Metz,France,3–5November2014;pp.516–521.51.Kyriakarakos,G.;Dounis,A.I.;Arvanitis,K.G.;Papadakis,G.Afuzzycognitivemaps–petrinetsenergymanagementsystemforautonomouspolygenerationmicrogrids.Appl.SoftComput.2012,12,3785–3797.[CrossRef]52.Bat’a,R.;Obršálová,I.;Volek,J.;Jordão,T.C.Petrinetsapplicationformanagementofbiodegradablecomponentsofmunicipalwaste.WSEASTrans.Environ.Dev.2008,4,1057–1066.53.Bat’a,R.;Kárník,J.ModelingofenvironmentaleffectofbiofuelsbyPetriNets.InAdvancesinEnvironment,BiotechnologyandBiomedicine;WSEASPress:Zlin,CzechRepublic,2012;pp.69–74.54.Zhou,M.PetriNetsinFlexibleandAgileAutomation;KluwerAcademicPublishers:NewYork,NY,USA,1995.55.IndonesiaMinistryofPublicWorks.BestPracticesofSolidWasteManagementinIndonesia(inBahasaIndonesia);DepartemenPekerjaanUmum:Jakarta,Indonesia,2007.56.Hidayat,M.;Tanuwidjaja,G.ProposalRevitalisasiPermukimandanSistemLingkunganKelurahanCibangkongBertumpukepadaMasyarakat;GreenImpactIndonesia:Bandung,Indonesia,2009.57.Amir,E.;Hophmayer-Tokich,S.;Kurnani,T.Socio-EconomicConsiderationsofConvertingFoodWasteintoBiogasonaHouseholdLevelinIndonesia:TheCaseoftheCityofBandung.Recycling2015,1,61–88.[CrossRef]58.Plous,S.ThePsychologyofJudgmentandDecisionMaking;McGraw-Hill:NewYork,NY,USA,1993.59.Hufty,M.Investigatingpolicyprocesses:TheGovernanceAnalyticalFramework(GAF).InResearchforSustainableDevelopment:Foundations,Experiences,andPerspectives;Wiesmann,U.,Hurni,H.,Eds.;GeographicaBernensia:Bern,Switzerland,2011;pp.403–424.60.Ameriks,J.;Caplin,A.;Leahy,J.;Tyler,T.MeasuringSelf-ControlProblems.Am.Econ.Rev.2007,97,966–972.[CrossRef]61.Nicholson,N.;Audia,P.G.;Pillutla,M.M.TheBlackwellEncyclopediaofManagement:OrganizationalBehavior,2nded.;BlackwellPublishingLtd.:Oxford,UK,2005. Challenges2016,7,926of2662.Schweizer-Ries,P.Energysustainablecommunities:Environmentalpsychologicalinvestigations.EnergyPolicy2008,36,4126–4135.[CrossRef]63.Barr,S.;Gilg,A.;Shaw,G.Citizens,consumersandsustainability:(Re)Framingenvironmentalpracticeinanageofclimatechange.Glob.Environ.Chang.2011,21,1224–1233.[CrossRef]64.Deci,E.;Ryan,R.M.IntrinsicMotivationandSelf-DeterminationinHumanBehavior,1sted.;SpringerScience&BusinessMedia:NewYork,NY,USA,1985.65.Wittayapak,C.;Dearden,P.Decision-MakingArrangementsinCommunity-BasedWatershedManagementinNorthernThailand.Soc.Nat.Resour.1999,12,673–691.66.Getimis,P.;Heinelt,H.LeadershipandCommunityInvolvementintheEuropeanCities:ConditionsofSuccessand/orFailure.Availableonline:http://www.sampac.nl/EUKN2015/www.eukn.org/dsresourcefaad.pdf?objectid=148461(accessedon14May2015).67.Fahmi,F.Z.;Prawira,M.I.;Hudalah,D.;Firman,T.Leadershipandcollaborativeplanning:ThecaseofSurakarta,Indonesia.Plan.Theory2015.[CrossRef]68.Wenshun,W.;Xiaohua,L.;Hualong,L.EmpiricalResearchoftheEnvironmentalResponsibilityAffectedontheUrbanResidentialHousingEnergySavingInvestmentBehavior.EnergyProcedia2011,5,991–997.[CrossRef]69.Barr,S.;Gilg,A.;Shaw,G.“HelpingPeopleMakeBetterChoices”:Exploringthebehaviourchangeagendaforenvironmentalsustainability.Appl.Geogr.2011,31,712–720.[CrossRef]70.Williams,G.Responsibility.Availableonline:http://www.iep.utm.edu/responsi/(accessedon30January2016).71.Fransson,N.;Gärling,T.Environmentalconcern:Conceptualdefinitions,measurementmethods,andresearchfindings.J.Environ.Psychol.1999,19,369–382.[CrossRef]72.Bale,C.;McCullen,N.;Foxon,T.;Rucklidge,A.;Gale,W.LocalAuthorityInterventionsintheDomesticSectorandtheRoleofSocialNetworks:ACaseStudyfromtheCityofLeeds.Availableonline:http://opus.bath.ac.uk/33041(accessedon21January2016).73.Bale,C.S.E.;McCullen,N.J.;Foxon,T.J.;Rucklidge,A.M.;Gale,W.F.Harnessingsocialnetworksforpromotingadoptionofenergytechnologiesinthedomesticsector.EnergyPolicy2013,63,833–844.[CrossRef]74.Seyfang,G.;Smith,A.Grassrootsinnovationsforsustainabledevelopment:Towardsanewresearchandpolicyagenda.Environ.Polit.2007,16,584–603.[CrossRef]75.Ritzer,G.TheBlackwellEncyclopediaofSocology,4thed.;BlackwellPublishingLtd.:Oxford,UK,2009.76.Innes,J.E.;Booher,D.E.ConsensusBuildingandComplexAdaptiveSystems.J.Am.Plan.Assoc.1999,65,412–423.[CrossRef]77.Innes,J.E.;Booher,D.E.PlanningwithComplexity:AnIntroductiontoCollaborativeRationalityforPublicPolicy,1sted.;Routledge:NewYork,NY,USA,2010.78.Peters,M.A.TheIdeaofOpenness:OpenEducationandEducationforOpenness.Availableonline:http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=open_education_and_education_for_openness(accessedon30January2016).79.Abrahamse,W.;Steg,L.;Vlek,C.;Rothengatter,T.Areviewofinterventionstudiesaimedathouseholdenergyconservation.J.Environ.Psychol.2005,25,273–291.[CrossRef]80.Spaargaren,G.;Oosterveer,P.Citizen-ConsumersasAgentsofChangeinGlobalizingModernity:TheCaseofSustainableConsumption.Sustainability2010,2,1887–1908.[CrossRef]81.Booher,D.E.;Innes,J.E.NetworkPowerinCollaborativePlanning.J.Plan.Educ.Res.2002,21,221–236.[CrossRef]82.Amabile,T.M.CreativityinContext;WestviewPress:Boulder,CO,USA,1996.83.DeVries,M.S.Theriseandfallofdecentralization:AcomparativeanalysisofargumentsandpracticesinEuropeancountries.Eur.J.Polit.Res.2000,38,193–224.[CrossRef]84.Monger,R.F.ManagerialDecisionMakingwithTechnology,1sted.;PergamonPress:NewYork,NY,USA,1987.85.Rogers,E.M.DiffusionofInnovations,5thed.;SimonandSchuster:NewYork,NY,USA,2003.86.Devine-Wright,P.RenewableEnergyandthePublic:FromNIMBYtoParticipation;Earthscan:London,UK,2011;Volume32.87.Hodson,M.;Marvin,S.Cancitiesshapesocio-technicaltransitionsandhowwouldweknowiftheywere?Res.Policy2010,39,477–485.[CrossRef]©2016bytheauthors;licenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.ThisarticleisanopenaccessarticledistributedunderthetermsandconditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution(CC-BY)license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). CopyrightofChallenges(20781547)isthepropertyofMDPIPublishinganditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse. Course Learning Outcomes-Covered Assignment Instructions: Log in to Saudi Digital Library (SDL) via University’s website On first page of SDL, choose “English Databases” From the list find and click on EBSCO database. In the Search Bar of EBSCO find the following article: Title: “Modeling Autonomous Decision-Making on Energy and Environmental Management Using Petri-Net: Case Study”. Author: Niken Prilandita, Benjamin McLellan, Tetsuo Tezuka. Assignment Questions: (Marks 15) Read the above case study and answer the following Questions: Question 1: Explain the autonomous decision-making process, its advantages and disadvantages (250-300 words) (3-Marks). Question 2: Discuss the Centralized and De-centralized Decision-making Approaches with suitable examples (250-300 words). (3-Marks). Question 3: Explain the various stages of Decision-Making Cycle based on this case study (250-300 words) (3-Marks). Question 4: Why are the most decisions made on energy and environmental management known as the decisions of community interest. (250-300 words) (3-Marks). Question 5: What is your learning from this case study and how it is beneficial for you? (250-300 words) (3-Marks). Answers: 1 2 3 4 5