IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i2p1030-1039.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts

Author

Listed:
  • Gallego Carrera, Diana
  • Mack, Alexander

Abstract

Sustainability assessment of energy technologies oftentimes fails to account for social repercussions and long-term negative effects and benefits of energy systems. As part of the NEEDS1 project, an expert-based set of social indicators was developed and verified by the European stakeholders with the objective of contributing in the development of social indicators for the assessment of societal effects of energy systems. For this purpose, scientific experts from four sample countries France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland were interviewed to assess 16 different energy systems on a specific stakeholder reviewed indicator set. The indicator set covers the four main criteria: "security and reliability of energy provision; "political stability and legitimacy"; "social and individual risks" and "quality of life". This article will review the process of indicator development and assessment and highlight results for today's most prominent and future energy technologies and some likely to make an impact in the future. Expert judgments varied considerably between countries and energy systems, with the exception of renewable technologies, which were overall positively assessed on almost all evaluation criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:2:p:1030-1039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(09)00814-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Lund, Henrik & Munster, Ebbe, 2006. "Integrated energy systems and local energy markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1152-1160, July.
    2. Elghali, Lucia & Clift, Roland & Sinclair, Philip & Panoutsou, Calliope & Bauen, Ausilio, 2007. "Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6075-6083, December.
    3. Heinz-Herbert Noll, 2002. "Towards a European System of Social Indicators: Theoretical Framework and System Architecture," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 47-87, June.
    4. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 69-105, March.
    5. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    6. Afgan, Naim H. & Carvalho, Maria G., 2002. "Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 739-755.
    7. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, 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. Cartelle Barros, Juan José & Lara Coira, Manuel & de la Cruz López, María Pilar & del Caño Gochi, Alfredo, 2015. "Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 473-489.
    2. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    3. Parajuli, Ranjan & Dalgaard, Tommy & Jørgensen, Uffe & Adamsen, Anders Peter S. & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman & Birkved, Morten & Gylling, Morten & Schjørring, Jan Kofod, 2015. "Biorefining in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 244-263.
    4. Simone Di Zio & Mara Maretti, 2014. "Acceptability of energy sources using an integration of the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2973-2991, November.
    5. Lund, H. & Mathiesen, B.V., 2009. "Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 524-531.
    6. Chang, Pao-Long & Hsu, Chiung-Wen & Lin, Chiu-Yue, 2012. "Assessment of hydrogen fuel cell applications using fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-99.
    7. 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.
    8. Lund, Henrik, 2007. "Renewable energy strategies for sustainable development," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 912-919.
    9. Prommer, Lisa & Tiberius, Victor & Kraus, Sascha, 2020. "Exploring the future of startup leadership development," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    10. Robert MacCulloch & Silvia Pezzini, 2010. "The Roles of Freedom, Growth, and Religion in the Taste for Revolution," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 329-358, May.
    11. Lewkowicz, Jacek & Woźniak, Michał & Wrzesiński, Michał, 2022. "COVID-19 and erosion of democracy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    12. Jian-Guang Shen, 2002. "Democracy and growth: An alternative empirical approach," Development and Comp Systems 0212002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Johannes W. Fedderke & John M. Luiz, 2005. "Does Human Generate Social and Institutional Capital? Exploring Evidence From Time Series Data in a Middle Income Country," Working Papers 029, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    14. Seghezza, Elena & Pittaluga, Giovanni B., 2018. "Resource rents and populism in resource-dependent economies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 83-88.
    15. Marianna Belloc & Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati, 2016. "Earthquakes, Religion, and Transition to Self-Government in ItalianCities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1875-1926.
    16. Ahmet Faruk Aysan & …mer Faruk Baykal & Marie-Ange Véganzonès–Varoudakis, 2011. "The Effects of Convergence in Governance on Capital Accumulation in the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Countries," Chapters, in: Mehmet Ugur & David Sunderland (ed.), Does Economic Governance Matter?, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Bokrantz, Jon & Skoogh, Anders & Berlin, Cecilia & Stahre, Johan, 2017. "Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing: Delphi-based scenarios for 2030," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 154-169.
    18. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," THEMA Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    19. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data," MPRA Paper 90093, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Gary Goertz & Tony Hak & Jan Dul, 2013. "Ceilings and Floors," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-40, February.

    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:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:2:p:1030-1039. 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/enpol .

    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.