IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v68y2019ics0038012117300046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects

Author

Listed:
  • Lerche, Nils
  • Wilkens, Ines
  • Schmehl, Meike
  • Eigner-Thiel, Swantje
  • Geldermann, Jutta

Abstract

The public sector plays an important role in the German “Energiewende”. Besides energy management in municipal properties the local government can also support the switch to renewable energy sources through a change in energy supply structures within in their region. Methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) from Operations Research are helpful regarding that challenge, as they are able to assess the sustainability of local energy concepts, since they not only offer stakeholders the opportunity to participate, but also consider multiple conflicting criteria. In that way, the acceptance of local energy projects and the participation of stakeholders in the decision process are supported. The case study presented in this paper illustrates the results of a MCDM process employed to identify a sustainable bioenergy concept in a rural village in Lower Saxony, Germany. Our analysis revealed not only the opportunities and challenges associated with executing an MCDM process to support the realization of local bioenergy projects, but also discusses potential limitations of the methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Lerche, Nils & Wilkens, Ines & Schmehl, Meike & Eigner-Thiel, Swantje & Geldermann, Jutta, 2019. "Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:68:y:2019:i:c:s0038012117300046
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2017.08.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012117300046
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2017.08.002?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. Ruud Kempener & Jessica Beck & Jim Petrie, 2009. "Design and Analysis of Bioenergy Networks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(2), pages 284-305, April.
    2. Dowds, Jonathan & Hines, Paul D.H. & Blumsack, Seth, 2013. "Estimating the impact of fuel-switching between liquid fuels and electricity under electricity-sector carbon-pricing schemes," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 76-88.
    3. John Michael Humphries Choptiany & Ron Pelot & Kate Sherren, 2014. "An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Carbon Capture and Storage Assessment Methods," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 445-458, May.
    4. Haralambopoulos, D.A. & Polatidis, H., 2003. "Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 961-973.
    5. Jutta Geldermann & Otto Rentz, 2005. "Multi‐criteria Analysis for Technique Assessment:Case Study from Industrial Coating," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(3), pages 127-142, July.
    6. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    7. Pollesch, N. & Dale, V.H., 2015. "Applications of aggregation theory to sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 117-127.
    8. Ines Wilkens (nee Braune) & Peter Schmuck, 2012. "Transdisciplinary Evaluation of Energy Scenarios for a German Village Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-26, April.
    9. Rogers, Martin & Bruen, Michael, 1998. "Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 542-551, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Anna Wesselink & Jouni Paavola & Oliver Fritsch & Ortwin Renn, 2011. "Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2688-2704, November.
    12. Jyri Seppälä & Lauren Basson & Gregory A. Norris, 2001. "Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life‐Cycle Impact Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 5(4), pages 45-68, October.
    13. Mareschal, Bertrand, 1988. "Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 54-64, January.
    14. Nils Lerche & Jutta Geldermann, 2015. "Integration of prospect theory into PROMETHEE - a case study concerning sustainable bioenergy concepts," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(4), pages 309-333.
    15. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    16. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Delponte, Ilaria & Pittaluga, Ilaria & Schenone, Corrado, 2017. "Monitoring and evaluation of Sustainable Energy Action Plan: Practice and perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 9-17.
    18. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    19. Uhlemair, Harald & Karschin, Ingo & Geldermann, Jutta, 2014. "Optimizing the production and distribution system of bioenergy villages," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PA), pages 62-72.
    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. Ruby Pineda‐Henson & Alvin B. Culaba & Guillermo A. Mendoza, 2002. "Evaluating Environmental Performance of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Life‐Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 6(1), pages 15-28, January.
    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. Donald J. Jenkins & Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2022. "A decision analytic tool for corporate strategic sustainable energy purchases," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 504-520, December.
    2. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Tobias Witt & Matthias Klumpp, 2021. "Multi-Period Multi-Criteria Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Renewable Energy Transition Case from Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Mrówczyńska, M. & Skiba, M. & Sztubecka, M. & Bazan-Krzywoszańska, A. & Kazak, J.K. & Gajownik, P., 2021. "Scenarios as a tool supporting decisions in urban energy policy: The analysis using fuzzy logic, multi-criteria analysis and GIS tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    5. Pereira, André Alves & Pereira, Miguel Alves, 2023. "Energy storage strategy analysis based on the Choquet multi-criteria preference aggregation model: The Portuguese case," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. Jessica Weber & Johann Köppel, 2022. "Can MCDA Serve Ex-Post to Indicate ‘Winners and Losers’ in Sustainability Dilemmas? A Case Study of Marine Spatial Planning in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-30, October.

    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. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Batubara, Marwan & Purwanto, Widodo Wahyu & Fauzi, Akhmad, 2016. "Proposing a decision-making process for the development of sustainable oil and gas resources using the petroleum fund: A case study of the East Natuna gas field," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 372-384.
    3. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    4. Ruxing Gao & Hyo On Nam & Won Il Ko & Hong Jang, 2017. "National Options for a Sustainable Nuclear Energy System: MCDM Evaluation Using an Improved Integrated Weighting Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-24, December.
    5. József Dombi & Tamás Jónás, 2024. "Learning the weights using attribute order information for multi-criteria decision making tasks," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(4), pages 2379-2409, December.
    6. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    7. Szántó, Richárd, 2012. "Több szempontú részvételi döntések a fenntarthatósági értékelésekben. A legnépszerűbb módszerek összehasonlítása [Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis. A comparison of methodologies]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1336-1355.
    8. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    9. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    10. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Miller, Michael & Mattes, Katharina, 2014. "Demonstration of a multi-criteria based decision support framework for selecting PSS to increase resource efficiency," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    12. Haralambopoulos, D.A. & Polatidis, H., 2003. "Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 961-973.
    13. Georgiou, Dimitris & Mohammed, Essam Sh. & Rozakis, Stelios, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision making on the energy supply configuration of autonomous desalination units," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 459-467.
    14. Philip Mayer & Christopher Stephen Ball & Stefan Vögele & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs & Dirk Rübbelke, 2019. "Analyzing Brexit: Implications for the Electricity System of Great Britain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-27, August.
    15. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Stefanos Xenarios & Heracles Polatidis & Matthew McCartney & Attila Nemes, 2015. "Developing a User-Based Decision-Aid Framework for Water Storage Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Blue Nile Basin in Ethiopia," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(04), pages 1-30, December.
    18. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    19. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos & Livanos, Georgios A., 2017. "Evaluation of future sustainable electricity generation alternatives: The case of a Greek island," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 775-787.
    20. Gao, Ruxing & Nam, Hyo On & Ko, Won Il & Jang, Hong, 2018. "Integrated system evaluation of nuclear fuel cycle options in China combined with an analytical MCDM framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 221-233.

    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:soceps:v:68:y:2019:i:c:s0038012117300046. 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/seps .

    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.