IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v67y2014icp16-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multi-objective approach for developing national energy efficiency plans

Author

Listed:
  • Haydt, Gustavo
  • Leal, Vítor
  • Dias, Luís

Abstract

This paper proposes a new approach to deal with the problem of building national energy efficiency (EE) plans, considering multiple objectives instead of only energy savings. The objectives considered are minimizing the influence of energy use on climate change, minimizing the financial risk from the investment, maximizing the security of energy supply, minimizing investment costs, minimizing the impacts of building new power plants and transmission infrastructures, and maximizing the local air quality. These were identified through literature review and interaction with real decision makers. A database of measures is established, from which millions of potential EE plans can be built by combining measures and their respective degree of implementation. Finally, a hybrid multi-objective and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model is proposed to search and select the EE plans that best match the decision makers’ preferences. An illustration of the working mode and the type of results obtained from this novel hybrid model is provided through an application to Portugal. For each of five decision perspectives a wide range of potential best plans were identified. These wide ranges show the relevance of introducing multi-objective analysis in a comprehensive search space as a tool to inform decisions about national EE plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Haydt, Gustavo & Leal, Vítor & Dias, Luís, 2014. "A multi-objective approach for developing national energy efficiency plans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 16-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:67:y:2014:i:c:p:16-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151300640X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.133?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. Haydt, Gustavo & Leal, Vítor & Dias, Luís, 2013. "Uncovering the multiple objectives behind national energy efficiency planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 230-239.
    2. Neves, L.P. & Dias, L.C. & Antunes, C.H. & Martins, A.G., 2009. "Structuring an MCDA model using SSM: A case study in energy efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 834-845, December.
    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. Lee, Amy H.I. & Chen, Hsing Hung & Chen, Jack, 2017. "Building smart grid to power the next century in Taiwan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 126-135.
    2. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    3. Vera, Sonia & Sauma, Enzo, 2015. "Does a carbon tax make sense in countries with still a high potential for energy efficiency? Comparison between the reducing-emissions effects of carbon tax and energy efficiency measures in the Chile," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 478-488.
    4. Anissa Frini & Sarah Benamor, 2018. "Making Decisions in a Sustainable Development Context: A State-of-the-Art Survey and Proposal of a Multi-period Single Synthesizing Criterion Approach," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(2), pages 341-385, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Bertoldi, Paolo & Mosconi, Rocco, 2020. "Do energy efficiency policies save energy? A new approach based on energy policy indicators (in the EU Member States)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    7. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    8. Spyridaki, Niki-Artemis & Banaka, Stefania & Flamos, Alexandros, 2016. "Evaluating public policy instruments in the Greek building sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 528-543.
    9. Juan Carlos Leyva Lopez & Jesus Jaime Solano Noriega & Diego Alonso Gastelum Chavira, 2017. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Rank the Municipalities of the States of Mexico by its Marginalization Level: The Case of Jalisco," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 473-513, March.

    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. Tim H¨ofer & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Reinhard Madlener, 2020. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 330-355, December.
    2. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    3. Faramondi, Luca & Oliva, Gabriele & Setola, Roberto & Bozóki, Sándor, 2023. "Robustness to rank reversal in pairwise comparison matrices based on uncertainty bounds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 676-688.
    4. Lucas Miguel Alencar Correia & Jonhatan Magno Norte Silva & Wilza Karla Leite & Ruan Eduardo Carneiro Lucas & Geraldo Alves Colaço, 2022. "A multicriteria decision model to rank workstations in a footwear industry based on a FITradeoff-ranking method for ergonomics interventions," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3335-3371, September.
    5. Francesca Ziller, 2014. "Integrated Assessment for a Sustainable Valorization Project," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1 Suppl.), pages 71-92.
    6. Temitope Adeyemi-Kayode & Sanjay Misra & Hope Orovwode & Anthony Adoghe, 2022. "Modeling the Next Decade of Energy Sustainability: A Case of a Developing Country," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Cayir Ervural, Beyzanur & Zaim, Selim & Delen, Dursun, 2018. "A two-stage analytical approach to assess sustainable energy efficiency," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 822-836.
    8. G Montibeller & L A Franco, 2011. "Raising the bar: strategic multi-criteria decision analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 855-867, May.
    9. Haydt, Gustavo & Leal, Vítor & Dias, Luís, 2013. "Uncovering the multiple objectives behind national energy efficiency planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 230-239.
    10. Cuoghi, Kaio Guilherme & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2019. "A group MCDA method for aiding decision-making of complex problems in public sector: The case of Belo Monte Dam," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    11. Chen-Hui Chou & Gin-Shuh Liang & Hung-Chung Chang, 2013. "A fuzzy AHP approach based on the concept of possibility extent," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    13. Yen-Cheng Chen & Tung-Han Yu & Pei-Ling Tsui & Ching-Sung Lee, 2014. "A fuzzy AHP approach to construct international hotel spa atmosphere evaluation model," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 645-657, March.
    14. Doukas, Haris, 2013. "Modelling of linguistic variables in multicriteria energy policy support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 227-238.
    15. Georgia Makridou, Kostas Andriosopoulos, Michael Doumpos, and Constantin Zopounidis, 2015. "A Two-stage approach for energy efficiency analysis in European Union countries," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    16. Dias, Luis C. & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dantas, Guilherme & de Castro, Nivalde & Zamboni, Lucca, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach to sort and rank policies based on Delphi qualitative assessments and ELECTRE TRI: The case of smart grids in Brazil," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 100-111.
    17. Haag, Fridolin & Zürcher, Sara & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Enhancing the elicitation of diverse decision objectives for public planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(3), pages 912-928.
    18. Mirakyan, Atom & De Guio, Roland, 2013. "Integrated energy planning in cities and territories: A review of methods and tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 289-297.
    19. Barfod, Michael Bruhn, 2012. "An MCDA approach for the selection of bike projects based on structuring and appraising activities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 810-818.
    20. Payam Hanafizadeh & Mohammad Mehrabioun, 2018. "Application of SSM in tackling problematical situations from academicians’ viewpoints," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 179-220, April.

    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:67:y:2014:i:c:p:16-27. 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.