IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v18y2015i2p178-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for Aviation with Scenario‐Based Expert Elicitation

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth B. Connelly
  • Lisa M. Colosi
  • Andres F. Clarens
  • James H. Lambert

Abstract

The aviation sector relies almost exclusively on petroleum‐derived fuels at the present time. Due to concerns including national security, long‐term availability of crude oil feedstock, and environmental impacts, there is an increasing interest in identifying alternatives to conventional jet fuel. Viable alternatives must meet a number of criteria, related to quality and quantity of supply, cost‐competitiveness, and environmental sustainability. Priorities for diverse industry initiatives for the development of a biojet fuel industry are influenced by uncertainties including environmental regulation, market prices of crude oil and refinery products, and competition from other industries. This work uses scenario‐based preferences to elicit and inform decision makers on the combinations of emergent and future conditions that are most impactful to the priorities for the industry. The analysis also reveals which initiatives are robust to evolving political, economic, and technological conditions, thus supporting decision‐making relevant to establishing a secure supply of biojet fuel. The method and its results are helpful to the generation of systems engineering requirements recognizing key sources of risk for an emerging industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth B. Connelly & Lisa M. Colosi & Andres F. Clarens & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for Aviation with Scenario‐Based Expert Elicitation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 178-191, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:178-191
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21298
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21298?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rudolf Smaling & Olivier de Weck, 2007. "Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Fiorese, Giulia & Catenacci, Michela & Verdolini, Elena & Bosetti, Valentina, 2013. "Advanced biofuels: Future perspectives from an expert elicitation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 293-311.
    3. Joost Santos & Kash Barker & Paul Zelinke, 2008. "Sequential Decision-making in Interdependent Sectors with Multiobjective Inoperability Decision Trees: Application to Biofuel Subsidy Analysis," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 29-56.
    4. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    5. Tommi Gustafsson & Ahti Salo & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2003. "Multicriteria methods for technology foresight," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 235-255.
    6. Christopher W. Karvetski & James H. Lambert, 2012. "Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority‐setting with an application to facility energy investments," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 483-493, December.
    7. Paul Goodwin & George Wright, 2001. "Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Stan Kaplan & Yacov Y. Haimes & B. John Garrick, 2001. "Fitting Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into the Theory of Scenario Structuring and a Resulting Refinement to the Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 807-807, October.
    9. Teng, Kuei-Yung & Thekdi, Shital A. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Identification and evaluation of priorities in the business process of a risk or safety organization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 74-86.
    10. Robert Perlack, Robert & Eaton, Lawrence & Thurhollow, Anthony & Langholtz, Matt & De La Torre Ugarte, Daniel, 2011. "US billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry," MPRA Paper 89324, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2011.
    11. Martinez, Lauro J. & Lambert, James H. & Karvetski, Christopher W., 2011. "Scenario-informed multiple criteria analysis for prioritizing investments in electricity capacity expansion," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(8), pages 883-891.
    12. Yacov Y. Haimes & Stan Kaplan & James H. Lambert, 2002. "Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management Framework Using Hierarchical Holographic Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 383-397, April.
    13. Baker, Erin & Keisler, Jeffrey M., 2011. "Cellulosic biofuels: Expert views on prospects for advancement," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 595-605.
    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. Heimir Thorisson & James H. Lambert & John J. Cardenas & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Resilience Analytics with Application to Power Grid of a Developing Region," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1268-1286, July.
    2. Michelmann, Johannes & Schmalz, Ulrike & Becker, Axel & Stroh, Florian & Behnke, Sebastian & Hornung, Mirko, 2023. "Influence of COVID-19 on air travel - A scenario study toward future trusted aviation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    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. James H. Lambert & Rachel K. Jennings & Nilesh N. Joshi, 2006. "Integration of risk identification with business process models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 187-198, September.
    2. James H. Lambert & Benjamin L. Schulte & Priya Sarda, 2005. "Tracking the complexity of interactions between risk incidents and engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 262-277, September.
    3. Hong Sun & Fangquan Yang & Peiwen Zhang & Yunxiang Zhao, 2023. "Flight Training Risk Identification and Assessment Based on the HHM-RFRM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Ioanna Ioannou & Jaime E. Cadena & Willy Aspinall & David Lange & Daniel Honfi & Tiziana Rossetto, 2022. "Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2773-2795, July.
    5. Barry M. Horowitz & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2003. "Risk‐based methodology for scenario tracking, intelligence gathering, and analysis for countering terrorism," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 152-169.
    6. Maria Leung & James H. Lambert & Alexander Mosenthal, 2004. "A Risk‐Based Approach to Setting Priorities in Protecting Bridges Against Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 963-984, August.
    7. Barry Charles Ezell, 2007. "Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 571-583, June.
    8. Gregory A. Lamm & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2002. "Assessing and managing risks to information assurance: A methodological approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 286-314.
    9. Hamilton, Michelle C. & Lambert, James H. & Connelly, Elizabeth B. & Barker, Kash, 2016. "Resilience analytics with disruption of preferences and lifecycle cost analysis for energy microgrids," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 11-21.
    10. Wenjun Zhang & Yingjun Zhang & Weiliang Qiao, 2022. "Risk Scenario Evaluation for Intelligent Ships by Mapping Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into Risk Filtering, Ranking and Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Christopher W. Karvetski & James H. Lambert, 2012. "Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority‐setting with an application to facility energy investments," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 483-493, December.
    12. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Hassler, Madison L. & Andrews, Daniel J. & Ezell, Barry C. & Polmateer, Thomas L. & Lambert, James H., 2020. "Multi-perspective scenario-based preferences in enterprise risk analysis of public safety wireless broadband network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    14. Rogerson, Ellen C. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Prioritizing risks via several expert perspectives with application to runway safety," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 22-34.
    15. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    16. Matthew H. Henry & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "A Comprehensive Network Security Risk Model for Process Control Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 223-248, February.
    17. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    18. Laura Diaz Anadon & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2016. "Expert views - and disagreements - about the potential of energy technology R&D," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 677-691, June.
    19. Erin Baker & Olaitan Olaleye & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2015. "Decision Frameworks and the Investment in R&D," Working Papers 2015.42, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Yacov Y. Haimes & Alfred Anderegg, 2015. "Sequential Pareto‐Optimal Decisions Made During Emergent Complex Systems of Systems: An Application to the FAA NextGen," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 28-44, 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:wly:syseng:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:178-191. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.