IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i1p200-214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Turcksin, Laurence
  • Macharis, Cathy
  • Lebeau, Kenneth
  • Boureima, Faycal
  • Van Mierlo, Joeri
  • Bram, Svend
  • De Ruyck, Jacques
  • Mertens, Lara
  • Jossart, Jean-Marc
  • Gorissen, Leen
  • Pelkmans, Luc

Abstract

The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) is a methodology to evaluate different policy measures, whereby different stakeholders' opinions are explicitly taken into account. In this paper, the framework is used to assess several biofuel options for Belgium that can contribute to the binding target of 10% renewable fuels in transport by 2020, issued by the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). Four biofuel options (biodiesel, ethanol, biogas and synthetic biodiesel (also referred to as "biomass-to-liquid" or BTL)) together with a reference fossil fuel option, are evaluated on the aims and objectives of the different stakeholders involved in the biofuel supply chain (feedstock producers, biofuel producers, fuel distributors, end users, vehicle manufacturers, government, NGOs and North-South organizations). Overall, the MAMCA provided insights in the stakeholder's position and possible implementation problems for every biofuel option. As such, it helps decision makers in establishing a supportive policy framework to facilitate implementation and to ensure market success, once they have decided on which biofuel option (or combination of options) to implement.

Suggested Citation

  • Turcksin, Laurence & Macharis, Cathy & Lebeau, Kenneth & Boureima, Faycal & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Bram, Svend & De Ruyck, Jacques & Mertens, Lara & Jossart, Jean-Marc & Gorissen, Leen & Pelkmans, Luc, 2011. "A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 200-214, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:1:p:200-214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(10)00719-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Macharis, Cathy & De Witte, Astrid & Turcksin, Laurence, 2010. "The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 303-311, September.
    2. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Buysse, Jeroen & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2009. "Perceived importance of fuel characteristics and its match with consumer beliefs about biofuels in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3183-3193, August.
    3. Di Lucia, Lorenzo & Nilsson, Lars J., 2007. "Transport biofuels in the European Union: The state of play," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 533-543, November.
    4. Silvestrini, A. & Monni, S. & Pregernig, M. & Barbato, A. & Dallemand, J.-F. & Croci, E. & Raes, F., 2010. "The role of cities in achieving the EU targets on biofuels for transportation: The cases of Berlin, London, Milan and Helsinki," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 403-417, July.
    5. Vermeir, Iris & Verbeke, Wim, 2008. "Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 542-553, January.
    6. Bomb, Christian & McCormick, Kes & Deurwaarder, Ewout & Kaberger, Tomas, 2007. "Biofuels for transport in Europe: Lessons from Germany and the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2256-2267, April.
    7. Faaij, Andre P.C., 2006. "Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 322-342, February.
    8. Macharis, Cathy & Verbeke, Alain & De Brucker, Klaas, 2004. "The Strategic Evaluation Of New Technologies Through Multicriteria Analysis: The Advisors Case," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 443-462, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Charles, Michael B. & Ryan, Rachel & Oloruntoba, Richard & Heidt, Tania von der & Ryan, Neal, 2009. "The EU-Africa Energy Partnership: Towards a mutually beneficial renewable transport energy alliance?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5546-5556, December.
    2. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Litvine, Dorian & Gazull, Laurent & Dabat, Marie-Hélène, 2014. "Assessing the potential demand for biofuel by combining Economics and Psychology: A focus on proximity applied to Jatropha oil in Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 85-95.
    4. Pradip Kundu & Ömer Faruk Görçün & Chandra Prakash Garg & Hande Küçükönder & Mustafa Çanakçıoğlu, 2024. "Evaluation of public transportation systems for sustainable cities using an integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27655-27684, November.
    5. Johanna Camargo Pérez & Martha Carrillo & Jairo Montoya-Torres, 2015. "Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 69-87, March.
    6. Lee, Deok-Joo, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach for prioritizing advanced public transport modes (APTM) considering urban types in Korea," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 148-161.
    7. Henry Huang & Yves De Smet & Cathy Macharis & Nguyen Anh Vu Doan, 2020. "Collaborative decision-making in sustainable mobility: identifying possible consensuses in the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis based on inverse mixed-integer linear optimization," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/311571, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Charles, Michael B. & Ryan, Rachel & Ryan, Neal & Oloruntoba, Richard, 2007. "Public policy and biofuels: The way forward?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5737-5746, November.
    9. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    10. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Buysse, Jeroen & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2009. "Perceived importance of fuel characteristics and its match with consumer beliefs about biofuels in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3183-3193, August.
    11. Zhang, Yong & Yu, Yifeng & Li, Tiezhu & Zou, Bai, 2011. "Analyzing Chinese consumers' perception for biofuels implementation: The private vehicles owner's investigating in Nanjing," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 2299-2309, June.
    12. Levi Vermote & Cathy Macharis & Koen Putman, 2013. "A Road Network for Freight Transport in Flanders: Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Assessment of Alternative Ring Ways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(10), pages 1-25, September.
    13. Hickman, Robin & Ashiru, Olu & Banister, David, 2010. "Transport and climate change: Simulating the options for carbon reduction in London," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 110-125, March.
    14. Kautish, Pradeep & Paço, Arminda & Thaichon, Park, 2022. "Sustainable consumption and plastic packaging: Relationships among product involvement, perceived marketplace influence and choice behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    16. Gasol, Carles M. & Martínez, Sergio & Rigola, Miquel & Rieradevall, Joan & Anton, Assumpció & Carrasco, Juan & Ciria, Pilar & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2009. "Feasibility assessment of poplar bioenergy systems in the Southern Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 801-812, May.
    17. Hsu, Chia-Lin & Chang, Chi-Ya & Yansritakul, Chutinart, 2017. "Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 145-152.
    18. Zijun Luo & Xu Tian, 2018. "Can China’s meat imports be sustainable? A case study of mad cow disease," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(9), pages 1022-1042, February.
    19. Antonino Galati & Giuseppina Migliore & Alkis Thrassou & Giorgio Schifani & Giuseppina Rizzo & Nino Adamashvili & Maria Crescimanno, 2023. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Products Delivered with Electric Vehicles in the Short Supply Chains," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 12(2), pages 193-207, June.
    20. Wen, Shaoting & Buyukada, Musa & Evrendilek, Fatih & Liu, Jingyong, 2020. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of co-combustion/pyrolysis of textile dyeing sludge and incense sticks: Regression and machine-learning models," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 463-474.

    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:39:y:2011:i:1:p:200-214. 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.