IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i8p10922-10960d54003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences Matter: A Constructive Approach to Incorporating Local Stakeholders’ Preferences in the Sustainability Evaluation of Energy Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Stelios Grafakos

    (Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS) and Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Alexandros Flamos

    (Department of Industrial Management, University of Piraeus, 80, Karaoli & Dimitriou str, PC18534 Piraeus, Greece)

  • Elena Marie Enseñado

    (Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This research paper aims at developing and applying a constructive weighting methodology for the elicitation of local stakeholders’ preferences regarding a set of sustainability evaluation criteria during the assessment of low-carbon energy technologies. The overall methodology has been applied and tested for the sustainability evaluation of selected low-carbon energy technologies in Europe from a local stakeholders’ perspective. The researchers applied a constructive weighting methodology based on different Multiple Criteria Analysis (MCA) techniques to test the consistency of stakeholders’ preferences. The methodology was piloted based on a small-scale European local stakeholders’ survey within the framework of Covenant CapaCITY, an Intelligent Energy Europe project that supports the development of Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAPs). It became evident that the local stakeholders who participated placed high priorities on aspects such as CO 2 eq emissions reduction, ecosystem damages reduction, and resilience to climate change during the evaluation of low-carbon energy technologies. Considering the overall energy technologies assessment, wind off-shore, solar PV, hydropower, and wind on-shore achieved the highest scores and better reflected the priorities of local stakeholders considering a large set of multiple sustainability criteria. The high number of criteria led to some inconsistencies of stakeholders’ preferences, confirming the need for consistency checks and/or combining different methods of preference elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Stelios Grafakos & Alexandros Flamos & Elena Marie Enseñado, 2015. "Preferences Matter: A Constructive Approach to Incorporating Local Stakeholders’ Preferences in the Sustainability Evaluation of Energy Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-39, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:8:p:10922-10960:d:54003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/8/10922/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/8/10922/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norton, Bryan & Costanza, Robert & Bishop, Richard C., 1998. "The evolution of preferences: Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 193-211, February.
    2. Madlener, Reinhard & Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid, 2007. "New ways for the integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: The case of renewable energy use in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6060-6074, December.
    3. Gamboa, Gonzalo & Munda, Giuseppe, 2007. "The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1564-1583, March.
    4. Gallego Carrera, Diana & Mack, Alexander, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1030-1039, February.
    5. Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
    6. Streimikiene, Dalia, 2010. "Comparative assessment of future power generation technologies based on carbon price development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 1283-1292, May.
    7. Løken, Espen & Botterud, Audun & Holen, Arne T., 2009. "Use of the equivalent attribute technique in multi-criteria planning of local energy systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1075-1083, September.
    8. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2011. "Supporting energy initiatives in small communities by linking visions with energy scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7884-7895.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Cavallaro, Fausto & Ciraolo, Luigi, 2005. "A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 235-244, January.
    12. Topcu, Y.I & Ulengin, F, 2004. "Energy for the future: An integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 137-154.
    13. Wei, Max & Patadia, Shana & Kammen, Daniel M., 2010. "Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 919-931, February.
    14. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Drandaki, Maria & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Iosifidis, Eleftherios & Kiosses, Ioannis, 2009. "Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1587-1600, May.
    15. Doukas, Haris Ch. & Andreas, Botsikas M. & Psarras, John E., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision aid for the formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 844-855, October.
    16. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2008. "Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1074-1089, March.
    17. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
    18. Bell, Michelle L. & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Ellis, Hugh, 2003. "The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 289-316, December.
    19. Beccali, M. & Cellura, M. & Mistretta, M., 2003. "Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 2063-2087.
    20. Stefan Hajkowicz & Mike Young & Darla Hatton MacDonald, 2000. "Supporting Decisions: Understanding natural resource management assessment techniques," Natural Resource Management Economics 00_003, Policy and Economic Research Unit, CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide, Australia.
    21. Shen, Yung-Chi & Lin, Grace T.R. & Li, Kuang-Pin & Yuan, Benjamin J.C., 2010. "An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4604-4616, August.
    22. Begić, Fajik & Afgan, Naim H., 2007. "Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system—Bosnian case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1979-1985.
    23. Kaldellis, J.K. & Kapsali, M. & Kaldelli, El. & Katsanou, Ev., 2013. "Comparing recent views of public attitude on wind energy, photovoltaic and small hydro applications," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 197-208.
    24. Mourmouris, J.C. & Potolias, C., 2013. "A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: A case study Thassos, Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 522-530.
    25. San Cristóbal, J.R., 2011. "Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The Vikor method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 498-502.
    26. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2009. "Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1082-1088, June.
    27. Burton, Jonathan & Hubacek, Klaus, 2007. "Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-scale energy technology applications in local governments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6402-6412, December.
    28. Ralph L. Keeney & Robin S. Gregory, 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, February.
    29. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    30. Borges, Pedro C. & Villavicencio, Arturo, 2004. "Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emissions abatement studies with MCDA:: The Peruvian case," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 641-654, February.
    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. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    2. 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.
    3. Gulnoza Usmonova & Deniza Alieva & Carmelo J. León, 2022. "Yurt Invited: Combining Tourists and Stakeholders Perceptions of Sustainable Community-Based Tourism in Central Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Raghu KC & Jarno Föhr & Tapio Ranta, 2023. "Public Perception on the Sustainable Energy Transition in Rural Finland: A Multi-criteria Approach," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 735-755, June.
    5. Thushara, De Silva M. & Hornberger, George M. & Baroud, Hiba, 2019. "Decision analysis to support the choice of a future power generation pathway for Sri Lanka," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 680-697.
    6. Meron Tekalign & Nicole Groot Zevert & Amanuel Weldegebriel & Jean Poesen & Jan Nyssen & Anton Van Rompaey & Lindsey Norgrove & Bart Muys & Liesbet Vranken, 2018. "Do Tourists’ Preferences Match the Host Community’s Initiatives? A Study of Sustainable Tourism in One of Africa’s Oldest Conservation Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Stelios Grafakos & Elena Marie Enseñado & Alexandros Flamos & Jan Rotmans, 2015. "Mapping and Measuring European Local Governments’ Priorities for a Sustainable and Low-Carbon Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Vasiliki Zepatou & Maria Loizidou & Archontoula Chaloulakou & Nicolas Spyrellis, 2016. "School Facilities and Sustainability-Related Concepts: A Study of Hellenic Secondary School Principals’, Teachers’, Pupils’ and Parents’ Responses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, March.
    9. Devin Diran & Thomas Hoppe & Jolien Ubacht & Adriaan Slob & Kornelis Blok, 2020. "A Data Ecosystem for Data-Driven Thermal Energy Transition: Reflection on Current Practice and Suggestions for Re-Design," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-28, January.
    10. Corinna Salzer & Holger Wallbaum & Luis Felipe Lopez & Jean Luc Kouyoumji, 2016. "Sustainability of Social Housing in Asia: A Holistic Multi-Perspective Development Process for Bamboo-Based Construction in the Philippines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, February.
    11. Chiara D’Alpaos & Andrea D’Alpaos, 2021. "The Valuation of Ecosystem Services in the Venice Lagoon: A Multicriteria Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-15, August.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    4. Stelios Grafakos & Elena Marie Enseñado & Alexandros Flamos & Jan Rotmans, 2015. "Mapping and Measuring European Local Governments’ Priorities for a Sustainable and Low-Carbon Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-26, October.
    5. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Participatory selection of sustainability criteria and indicators for bioenergy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 92-102.
    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. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    8. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    9. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2011. "The inclusion of social aspects in power planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4361-4369.
    10. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    11. Shen, Yung-Chi & Lin, Grace T.R. & Li, Kuang-Pin & Yuan, Benjamin J.C., 2010. "An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4604-4616, August.
    12. Liu, Gang, 2014. "Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 611-621.
    13. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    14. Zhang, Ling & Zhou, Peng & Newton, Sidney & Fang, Jian-xin & Zhou, De-qun & Zhang, Lu-ping, 2015. "Evaluating clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: An improved multi-criteria decision making method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P1), pages 953-964.
    15. Mainali, Brijesh & Silveira, Semida, 2015. "Using a sustainability index to assess energy technologies for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1351-1365.
    16. Shmelev, Stanislav E. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2016. "Optimal diversity of renewable energy alternatives under multiple criteria: An application to the UK," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 679-691.
    17. Doukas, Haris, 2013. "Modelling of linguistic variables in multicriteria energy policy support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 227-238.
    18. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Mourmouris, J.C. & Potolias, C., 2013. "A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: A case study Thassos, Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 522-530.
    20. 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.

    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:7:y:2015:i:8:p:10922-10960:d:54003. 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.