AHP Dataset on Expert and Lay Assessments of Solar, Wind, and Hydrogen Energy Pathways in South Korea

Description

This dataset contains de-identified respondent-level data used in the study “Comparative Assessment of Clean Energy Pathways in South Korea: An AHP-Based Analysis of Expert and Lay Judgments on Solar Energy, Wind Energy, and Hydrogen Energy Systems.” The data were collected from 88 respondents in South Korea between April and June 2025, including 39 experts and 49 lay respondents. The expert group consisted of respondents from academia/research institutions and industry. The survey employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to assess the relative priorities of solar energy, wind energy, and hydrogen energy systems. Respondents completed pairwise comparisons for four main evaluation criteria—economic, environmental, technical, and socio-political factors—as well as 16 diagnostic sub-criteria and criterion-specific comparisons of the three energy pathways. Pairwise judgments were originally recorded using a 17-point bipolar response scale and subsequently converted to Saaty’s 9-point reciprocal scale for AHP analysis. The dataset also contains three preliminary unconditional comparisons among the energy alternatives; these variables were not included in the AHP synthesis or consistency analyses reported in the associated article. The deposited materials include the de-identified respondent-level dataset, a detailed codebook describing all variables and coding rules, and the original Korean-language survey instrument. No directly identifying information is included. The dataset is intended to support transparency, reproducibility, and further research on stakeholder-based multi-criteria assessment of clean energy technologies.

Steps to reproduce

The dataset contains de-identified respondent-level data from 88 participants. Pairwise-comparison responses were collected using a 17-point bipolar scale. Responses were converted to Saaty’s reciprocal scale as follows: responses 1–8 were converted to 9, 8, ..., 2 in favor of the left-hand item; 9 was treated as equal importance (1); and responses 10–17 were converted to 1/2, 1/3, ..., 1/9 in favor of the right-hand item. The reported AHP framework uses nine pairwise-comparison matrices per respondent: one main-criteria matrix, four diagnostic sub-criteria matrices, and four criterion-specific alternative matrices. The three preliminary unconditional alternative comparisons are included in the dataset for transparency but are not used in the reported AHP synthesis or consistency analyses. Group-level matrices can be constructed using the geometric mean of individual pairwise judgments. Local weights are calculated using the principal eigenvector method. Overall alternative priorities are obtained by combining the main-criterion weights with the criterion-specific alternative weights. Consistency ratios are calculated using the conventional Saaty random-index values. The accompanying codebook describes all variables and coding rules.

Institutions

• Chungnam National University

  Daejeon, Daejeon

Categories

Licence