IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v155y2021ics0301421521002251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport

Author

Listed:
  • Kulisic, Biljana
  • Dimitriou, Ioannis
  • Mola-Yudego, Blas

Abstract

Environmental, energy, transport and agriculture policies are intersecting when deciding on renewable energy in transport (RES-T) implementation strategies. The uncertainty related to the advanced biofuels, limitations and underperformance of readily available technologies for decarbonization of transport sector challenges RES-T policy making. This paper employs partitioning as a choice architecture tool to create a concerted RES-T policy. The approach collects the preferred attributes of an alternative fuel rather than the preferred fuel by guiding stakeholders through RES-T policy, ensuring that all aspects of concerted policy are covered. Fuzzy analytical hierarchical process (fAHP) has been superimposed on the partitioning related to the biofuels to mathematically weight the alternatives. fAHP ranks the weighted preferences on biofuels to build a consensus among stakeholder groups, later translated to the actual RES-T mix, quantities and investments needed to meet the mandated share. Applied on Croatia, the preferences of three stakeholder groups were weighted and ranked; whereas some discrepancies were identified, the consensus outlined the national transport decarbonization policy with related investments. When the consensual RES-T mix contrasted with the least-cost alternative, the investment needed was reduced to a quarter. The collaborative management process proved to be a time-effective participatory approach for a silo-based policy structure.

Suggested Citation

  • Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:155:y:2021:i:c:s0301421521002251
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002251
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moataz Mahmoud & Julian Hine, 2013. "Using AHP to measure the perception gap between current and potential users of bus services," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 4-23, February.
    2. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    3. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    4. William K. Jaeger & Thorsten M. Egelkraut, 2011. "Biofuel Economics in a Setting of Multiple Objectives & Unintended Consequences," Working Papers 2011.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Oliveira, Gustavo de L.T. & McKay, Ben & Plank, Christina, 2017. "How biofuel policies backfire: Misguided goals, inefficient mechanisms, and political-ecological blind spots," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 765-775.
    6. Jaeger, William K. & Egelkraut, Thorsten M., 2011. "Biofuel economics in a setting of multiple objectives and unintended consequences," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4320-4333.
    7. Jaeger, William K. & Egelkraut, Thorsten M., 2011. "Biofuel Economics in a Setting of Multiple Objectives & Unintended Consequences," Energy: Resources and Markets 108203, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. German, Laura & Goetz, Ariane & Searchinger, Tim & Oliveira, Gustavo de L.T. & Tomei, Julia & Hunsberger, Carol & Weigelt, Jes, 2017. "Sine Qua Nons of sustainable biofuels: Distilling implications of under-performance for national biofuel programs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 806-817.
    9. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    10. repec:eco:journ2:2017-04-06 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    12. Ekener-Petersen, Elisabeth & Höglund, Jonas & Finnveden, Göran, 2014. "Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 416-426.
    13. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    14. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, July-Dece.
    15. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    16. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    17. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L.S., 1995. "Energy alternatives for lighting in households: An evaluation using an integrated goal programming-AHP model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 63-72.
    18. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    19. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    20. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    21. Millinger, M. & Ponitka, J. & Arendt, O. & Thrän, D., 2017. "Competitiveness of advanced and conventional biofuels: Results from least-cost modelling of biofuel competition in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 394-402.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiang, Chenxi & Xie, Lunyu & Zheng, Xinye, 2024. "Can a mandate be justified by unrealized gains? Evidence from a heating energy transition program in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Lauma Balode & Kristiāna Dolge & Dagnija Blumberga, 2023. "Sector-Specific Pathways to Sustainability: Unravelling the Most Promising Renewable Energy Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Leanda C. Garvie & David J. Lee & Biljana Kulišić, 2024. "Towards a Bioeconomy: Supplying Forest Residues for the Australian Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Kalvis Kons & Boško Blagojević & Blas Mola-Yudego & Robert Prinz & Johanna Routa & Biljana Kulisic & Bruno Gagnon & Dan Bergström, 2022. "Industrial End-Users’ Preferred Characteristics for Wood Biomass Feedstocks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Elias Carayannis & Pantelis Kostis & Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel, 2022. "Balanced-Scorecard-Based Evaluation of Knowledge-Oriented Competencies of Distributed Energy Investments," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-23, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    2. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    3. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    4. Zhao, Qiankun & Cai, Ximing & Mischo, William & Ma, Liyuan, 2020. "How do the research and public communities view biofuel development?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    5. Abreu Kang, Takanni Hannaka & da Costa Soares Júnior, Antônio Marques & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Evaluating electric power generation technologies: A multicriteria analysis based on the FITradeoff method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 10-20.
    6. Çelikbilek, Yakup & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2016. "An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1246-1258.
    7. Chinese, Damiana & Nardin, Gioacchino & Saro, Onorio, 2011. "Multi-criteria analysis for the selection of space heating systems in an industrial building," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 556-565.
    8. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    9. Muhammad Riaz & Wojciech Sałabun & Hafiz Muhammad Athar Farid & Nawazish Ali & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2020. "A Robust q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Information Aggregation Using Einstein Operations with Application to Sustainable Energy Planning Decision Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-39, May.
    10. Noel, Michael D. & Roach, Travis, 2017. "Marginal reductions in vehicle emissions under a dual-blend ethanol mandate: Evidence from a natural experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 45-54.
    11. Nair, Sujith & Paulose, Hanna, 2014. "Emergence of green business models: The case of algae biofuel for aviation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 175-184.
    12. Nasrollahi, Sadaf & Kazemi, Aliyeh & Jahangir, Mohammad-Hossein & Aryaee, Sara, 2023. "Selecting suitable wave energy technology for sustainable development, an MCDM approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 756-772.
    13. Iyabo Adeola Olanrele & Adedoyin I. Lawal & Ezekiel Oseni & Ahmed Oluwatobi Adekunle & Bukola, B. Lawal-Adedoyin & Crystal O. Elleke & Racheal Ojeka-John & Henry Nweke-Love, 2020. "Accessing the Impacts of Contemporary Development in Biofuel on Agriculture, Energy and Domestic Economy: Evidence from Nigeria," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(5), pages 469-478.
    14. Read, Laura & Madani, Kaveh & Mokhtari, Soroush & Hanks, Catherine, 2017. "Stakeholder-driven multi-attribute analysis for energy project selection under uncertainty," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 744-753.
    15. Şengül, Ümran & Eren, Miraç & Eslamian Shiraz, Seyedhadi & Gezder, Volkan & Şengül, Ahmet Bilal, 2015. "Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 617-625.
    16. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    17. Vasileiou, Margarita & Loukogeorgaki, Eva & Vagiona, Dimitra G., 2017. "GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for site selection of hybrid offshore wind and wave energy systems in Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 745-757.
    18. Giovanni Alessandro Cappelli & Fabrizio Ginaldi & Davide Fanchini & Sebastiano Andrea Corinzia & Salvatore Luciano Cosentino & Enrico Ceotto, 2021. "Model-Based Assessment of Giant Reed ( Arundo donax L.) Energy Yield in the Form of Diverse Biofuels in Marginal Areas of Italy," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.
    19. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    20. Rajagopal, D. & Plevin, R. & Hochman, G. & Zilberman, D., 2015. "Multi-objective regulations on transportation fuels: Comparing renewable fuel mandates and emission standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 359-369.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:155:y:2021:i:c:s0301421521002251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.