IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v24y1999i2p157-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of a preference disaggregation method in energy analysis and policy making

Author

Listed:
  • Diakoulaki, D.
  • Zopounidis, C.
  • Mavrotas, G.
  • Doumpos, M.

Abstract

Following the oil crisis, most developed countries have increasingly implemented measures for energy conservation and fuels substitution aimed at decreasing the energy intensities of their economies. These efforts have been further augmented during the eighties due to growing awareness of adverse effects of energy use on the environment. The measures and their effectiveness differ greatly from country to country, without clear identification of the relevant cause–effect relations. We examine this issue by using a multicriteria decision aid (MCDA) method based on preference disaggregation analysis. The method used is the UTADIS (UTilités Additives DIScriminantes) method that has already been widely applied for financial management. The problem examined in this paper has been formulated following the segmentation approach where a number of countries are grouped into a set of predefined classes according to their energy intensities. The UTADIS method proceeds to the estimation of a set of additive utility functions referring to various indices characterizing the economic and energy structure of each country. The analysis is performed at 3 distinct points in time in order to check for consistency of results and investigate time-dependent phenomena. The results show to what extent each of the examined characteristics influences the countries' energy effectiveness and may be further exploited in energy-policy making. They confirm that the UTADIS method is a powerful tool for examination of a wide range of real decision situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Diakoulaki, D. & Zopounidis, C. & Mavrotas, G. & Doumpos, M., 1999. "The use of a preference disaggregation method in energy analysis and policy making," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 157-166.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:24:y:1999:i:2:p:157-166
    DOI: 10.1016/S0360-5442(98)00081-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544298000814
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/S0360-5442(98)00081-4?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kübra Akyol Özcan, 2023. "Sustainability Ranking of Turkish Universities with Different Weighting Approaches and the TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-24, August.
    2. 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).
    3. Papapostolou, Aikaterini & Karakosta, Charikleia & Nikas, Alexandros & Psarras, John, 2017. "Exploring opportunities and risks for RES-E deployment under Cooperation Mechanisms between EU and Western Balkans: A multi-criteria assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 519-530.
    4. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Zopounidis, Constantin & Doumpos, Michael, 2002. "Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 229-246, April.
    8. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    9. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Ruiz, Francisco & Agell, Núria, 2017. "A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1073-1084.
    10. Murat Köksalan & Vincent Mousseau & Selin Özpeynirci, 2017. "Multi-Criteria Sorting with Category Size Restrictions," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 5-23, January.
    11. Doukas, Haris & Siskos, Eleftherios & Psarras, John & Malamatenios, Charalampos & Tournaki, Stavroula & Tsoutsos, Theocharis, 2016. "Qualification roadmap empowering the Greek building sector workforce in the field of energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 992-1004.
    12. Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid & Madlener, Reinhard & Omann, Ines, 2009. "Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1063-1074, September.
    13. Grigoroudis, E. & Orfanoudaki, E. & Zopounidis, C., 2012. "Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: A multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 104-119, January.
    14. Greening, Lorna A. & Bernow, Steve, 2004. "Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 721-735, April.
    15. Jacquet-Lagreze, Eric & Siskos, Yannis, 2001. "Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 233-245, April.
    16. Ren, Yulong & Fu, Shijun, 2010. "A quantitative model of regulator’s preference factor (RPF) in electricity–environment coordinated regulation system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5185-5191.
    17. Kayakutlu, Gulgun & Daim, Tugrul & Kunt, Meltem & Altay, Ayca & Suharto, Yulianto, 2017. "Scenarios for regional waste management," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1323-1335.
    18. Manley, Dawn K. & Hines, Valerie A. & Jordan, Matthew W. & Stoltz, Ronald E., 2013. "A survey of energy policy priorities in the United States: Energy supply security, economics, and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 687-696.
    19. Kadziński, Miłosz & Ciomek, Krzysztof & Słowiński, Roman, 2015. "Modeling assignment-based pairwise comparisons within integrated framework for value-driven multiple criteria sorting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 830-841.
    20. Eirini Stergiou & Kostas Kounetas, 2021. "European Industries’ Energy Efficiency under Different Technological Regimes: The Role of CO2 Emissions, Climate, Path Dependence and Energy Mix," The Energy Journal, , vol. 42(1), pages 93-128, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:energy:v:24:y:1999:i:2:p:157-166. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.