IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6168-d392521.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Water–Energy Nexus: Addressing Stakeholder Preferences in Jordan

Author

Listed:
  • Nadejda Komendantova

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria)

  • Leena Marashdeh

    (Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Jordan, 11942 Amman, Jordan)

  • Love Ekenberg

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
    Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, P.O. Box 7003, SE-164 07 Kista, Sweden)

  • Mats Danielson

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
    Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, P.O. Box 7003, SE-164 07 Kista, Sweden)

  • Franziska Dettner

    (Energy and Environmental Management, Europe University Flensburg, Auf dem Campus 1, 24943 Flensburg, Germany)

  • Simon Hilpert

    (Energy and Environmental Management, Europe University Flensburg, Auf dem Campus 1, 24943 Flensburg, Germany)

  • Clemens Wingenbach

    (Energy and Environmental Management, Europe University Flensburg, Auf dem Campus 1, 24943 Flensburg, Germany)

  • Kholoud Hassouneh

    (Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Jordan, 11942 Amman, Jordan)

  • Ahmed Al-Salaymeh

    (Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Jordan, 11942 Amman, Jordan)

Abstract

The water and energy sectors are fundamentally linked. In Jordan, especially in the face of a changing climate, the water–energy nexus holds a number of challenges but also opportunities. A key point in exploring synergies is the identification of such, as well as the communication between the water and energy sectors. This paper promotes the importance of using a co-creative approach to help resolve opposing views and assessing stakeholder preferences in the context of the water–energy nexus in Jordan. A computer-supported, co-creative approach was used to evaluate stakeholder preferences and opinions on criteria and future scenarios for the energy and water sector in Jordan, identifying common difficulties and possibilities. The criteria describe socio-ecological aspects as well as techno-economic aspects for both systems. Discussing a set of preliminary scenarios describing possible energy and water futures ranked under a set of sector relevant criteria, a consensus between both stakeholder groups is reached. The robustness of results is determined, using a second-order probabilistic approach. The results indicate that there are no fundamental conflicts between the energy and water stakeholder groups. Applying a participatory multi-stakeholder, multi-criteria framework to the energy-water nexus case in Jordan promotes a clear understanding of where different stakeholder groups stand. This understanding and agreement can form the basis of a joint water–energy nexus policy used in the continued negotiation process between and within national and international cooperation, as well as promoting and developing acceptable suggestions to solve complex problems for both sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadejda Komendantova & Leena Marashdeh & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & Franziska Dettner & Simon Hilpert & Clemens Wingenbach & Kholoud Hassouneh & Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, 2020. "Water–Energy Nexus: Addressing Stakeholder Preferences in Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6168-:d:392521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6168/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6168/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danielson, Mats & Ekenberg, Love, 2007. "Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 808-816, September.
    2. Komendantova, Nadejda & Schinko, Thomas & Patt, Anthony, 2019. "De-risking policies as a substantial determinant of climate change mitigation costs in developing countries: Case study of the Middle East and North African region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 404-411.
    3. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    4. Didier Dubois, 2010. "Representation, Propagation, and Decision Issues in Risk Analysis Under Incomplete Probabilistic Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 361-368, March.
    5. Danielson, Mats & Ekenberg, Love, 1998. "A framework for analysing decisions under risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 474-484, February.
    6. Mats Danielson, 2004. "Handling Imperfect User Statements In Real-Life Decision Analysis," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(03), pages 513-534.
    7. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    8. Tobias Fasth & Samuel Bohman & Aron Larsson & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson, 2020. "Portfolio Decision Analysis for Evaluating Stakeholder Conflicts in Land Use Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 321-343, April.
    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. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg & Jim Idefeldt & Aron Larsson, 2007. "Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka Municipality," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 76-90, June.
    2. Karin Hansson & Aron Larsson & Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2011. "Coping with Complex Environmental and Societal Flood Risk Management Decisions: An Integrated Multi-criteria Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Marco Araújo & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & João Confraria, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Decision Making in Broadband Technology Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 387-418, April.
    4. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2019. "A note on using centroid weights in additive multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 391-393.
    5. Sarat Sivaprasad & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2018. "The Hurwicz Decision Rule’s Relationship to Decision Making with the Triangle and Beta Distributions and Exponential Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 139-153, September.
    6. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    7. Björkqvist, Olof & Idefeldt, Jim & Larsson, Aron, 2010. "Risk assessment of new pricing strategies in the district heating market: A case study at Sundsvall Energi AB," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2171-2178, May.
    8. Danielson, Mats & Ekenberg, Love, 2007. "Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 808-816, September.
    9. Ahn, Byeong Seok & Park, Haechurl, 2014. "Establishing dominance between strategies with interval judgments of state probabilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 53-59.
    10. Mohamed Gouraizim & Abdelhadi Makan & Hossain Ouarghi, 2023. "A CAR-PROMETHEE-based multi-criteria decision-making framework for sustainability assessment of renewable energy technologies in Morocco," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 1343-1358, September.
    11. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    12. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    13. Joanna Jaroszewicz & Anna Majewska, 2021. "Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    15. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    17. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    18. Tu Duong Le Duy & Laurence Dieulle & Dominique Vasseur & Christophe Bérenguer & Mathieu Couplet, 2013. "An alternative comprehensive framework using belief functions for parameter and model uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment applications," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 471-490, October.
    19. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.
    20. Đukan, Mak & Kitzing, Lena, 2023. "A bigger bang for the buck: The impact of risk reduction on renewable energy support payments in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6168-:d:392521. 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.