IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i10p3978-d1142537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Potential of MAMCA as a Framework for Stakeholder Engagement during the Setup of Energy Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Shary Heuninckx

    (Mobilise Research Group, BUTO Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), 1050 Brussels, Belgium
    EVERGi—MOBI Research Group, ETEC Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Cathy Macharis

    (Mobilise Research Group, BUTO Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Geert te Boveldt

    (Mobilise Research Group, BUTO Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Thierry Coosemans

    (EVERGi—MOBI Research Group, ETEC Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

Abstract

The current energy transition is characterized by a high level of consumer and prosumer involvement. Energy communities (ECs) are instruments that fit into this trend, as they organize the collective and mainly citizen-driven exchange of clean energy. Most stakeholder engagement research for ECs focuses on one aspect such as awareness raising or deployment acceptance. Hitherto, no specific research has been conducted on a participatory approach that can be applied throughout all the phases of an EC setup and for different purposes. In our study, we determine how the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria analysis (MAMCA) methodology can be used as an engagement tool for this purpose. By linking potential engagement goals and their connected tools and techniques to the corresponding MAMCA step, we have created a multi-layered practical framework that can be used by all types of EC initiators for stakeholder engagement throughout the setup of a new EC. As this practical tool stimulates solutions that cater better to stakeholder needs, it can contribute to smoother deployment and an associated increase in ECs in the general system. A theoretical evaluation and a performed case study demonstrate the utility of the methodology that is developed in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Shary Heuninckx & Cathy Macharis & Geert te Boveldt & Thierry Coosemans, 2023. "Evaluating the Potential of MAMCA as a Framework for Stakeholder Engagement during the Setup of Energy Communities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:10:p:3978-:d:1142537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/10/3978/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/10/3978/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    3. Giuseppina Siciliano & Linda Wallbott & Frauke Urban & Anh Nguyen Dang & Markus Lederer, 2021. "Low‐carbon energy, sustainable development, and justice: Towards a just energy transition for the society and the environment," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1049-1061, November.
    4. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    5. Vangelis Marinakis & Alexandra G. Papadopoulou & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2015. "A web tool for sustainable energy communities," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 18-31.
    6. 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.
    7. van der Schoor, Tineke & Scholtens, Bert, 2015. "Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 666-675.
    8. Heuninckx, Shary & Boveldt, Geert te & Macharis, Cathy & Coosemans, Thierry, 2022. "Stakeholder objectives for joining an energy community: Flemish case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    9. Lauriane Milan & Bram Kin & Sara Verlinde & Cathy Macharis, 2015. "Multi-actor multi-criteria analysis for sustainable city distribution: a new assessment framework," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(4), pages 334-354.
    10. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    11. te Boveldt, Geert & Keseru, Imre & Macharis, Cathy, 2022. "When monetarisation and ranking are not appropriate. A novel stakeholder-based appraisal method," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 192-205.
    12. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    13. Roger A. Hart, 1992. "Children's Participation: From tokenism to citizenship," Papers inness92/6, Innocenti Essay.
    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. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    2. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Sara Gabellini & Giovanni Belletti & Andrea Marescotti, 2021. "Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, November.
    3. Fouladvand, Javanshir & Aranguren Rojas, Maria & Hoppe, Thomas & Ghorbani, Amineh, 2022. "Simulating thermal energy community formation: Institutional enablers outplaying technological choice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    4. Ezbakhe, Fatine & Pérez-Foguet, Agustí, 2021. "Decision analysis for sustainable development: The case of renewable energy planning under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 601-613.
    5. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Seker, Sukran & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2021. "Socio-economic evaluation model for sustainable solar PV panels using a novel integrated MCDM methodology: A case in Turkey," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Höfer, Tim & Madlener, Reinhard, 2020. "A participatory stakeholder process for evaluating sustainable energy transition scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    10. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Sollis, Kate & Yap, Mandy & Campbell, Paul & Biddle, Nicholas, 2022. "Conceptualisations of wellbeing and quality of life: A systematic review of participatory studies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Çolak, Murat & Kaya, İhsan, 2017. "Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 840-853.
    13. Helena Neves de Almeida, 2022. "Critical Reflections Concerning the Concept of Participation in Social Intervention and Research," Humanities Today: Proceedings Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 1, July -Dec.
    14. Pablo-Romero, María del P. & Pozo-Barajas, Rafael & Sánchez-Braza, Antonio, 2016. "Analyzing the effects of Energy Action Plans on electricity consumption in Covenant of Mayors signatory municipalities in Andalusia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 12-26.
    15. Javanshir Fouladvand & Niek Mouter & Amineh Ghorbani & Paulien Herder, 2020. "Formation and Continuation of Thermal Energy Community Systems: An Explorative Agent-Based Model for the Netherlands," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, June.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. Manuel Sousa & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-37, April.
    19. Höfer, Tim & von Nitzsch, Rüdiger & Madlener, Reinhard, 2019. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," FCN Working Papers 4/2019, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    20. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    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:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:10:p:3978-:d:1142537. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.