IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i14p4366-d597484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Positioning Bio-Based Energy Systems in a Hypercomplex Decision Space—A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Judit Oláh

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
    College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa)

  • József Popp

    (College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
    Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Szent István University, 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary)

  • Szabolcs Duleba

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 1111 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Anna Kiss

    (Department of Science Policy and Scientometrics, Library and Infromation Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1051 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Zoltán Lakner

    (Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Szent István University, 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary)

Abstract

The optimization of the energy portfolio for a small, open, landlocked economy with rather limited fossil resources is a complex task because it must find a long-range, sustainable balance between the various goals of society under the constant pressure of different interest groups. The opinions of independent, informed experts could be an essential input in the decision-making process. The goal of this research was to determine the relative importance of the values and goals potentially accompanying projects, based on the utilization of bioenergy. The current research is based on a wide-ranging survey of 65 non-partisan experts, applying the Pareto analytic hierarchy process to ensure the unbiased prioritization of project segments. The results of the survey put a spotlight on the importance of the economic role of bioenergy projects. Contrary to previous expectations and considerations, the social functions of these projects have hitherto been given relatively little importance. The results highlight the importance of bioenergy in increasing the income-generating capacity of agricultural producers by optimal utilization of natural resources for agricultural production. This can be achieved without considerable deterioration of the natural environment. Modern agricultural production is characterized by high levels of mechanization and automatization. Under these conditions, the social role of bioenergy projects (job creation) is rather limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Judit Oláh & József Popp & Szabolcs Duleba & Anna Kiss & Zoltán Lakner, 2021. "Positioning Bio-Based Energy Systems in a Hypercomplex Decision Space—A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:14:p:4366-:d:597484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/14/4366/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/14/4366/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahmad, Salman & Tahar, Razman Mat, 2014. "Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 458-466.
    2. Xiaohua, Wang & Zhenmin, Feng, 2002. "Sustainable development of rural energy and its appraising system in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 395-404, August.
    3. Smith, Pamela J. & Jamiyansuren, Bolormaa & Kitsuki, Akinori & Yang, Jooyoung & Lee, Jaeseok, 2018. "Determinants of Comparative Advantage in GMO Intensive Industries," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 427-449, July.
    4. Olimpia Neagu & Mircea Constantin Teodoru, 2019. "The Relationship between Economic Complexity, Energy Consumption Structure and Greenhouse Gas Emission: Heterogeneous Panel Evidence from the EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-29, January.
    5. Keček, Damira & Mikulić, Davor & Lovrinčević, Željko, 2019. "Deployment of renewable energy: Economic effects on the Croatian economy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 402-410.
    6. Wu, JunJie, 2008. "Land Use Changes: Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1-5.
    7. Jenssen, Till & König, Andreas & Eltrop, Ludger, 2014. "Bioenergy villages in Germany: Bringing a low carbon energy supply for rural areas into practice," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-80.
    8. Goumas, M. & Lygerou, V., 2000. "An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 606-613, June.
    9. Brett Christophers, 2019. "Environmental Beta or How Institutional Investors Think about Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Risk," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(3), pages 754-774, May.
    10. Ali Emrouznejad & Marianna Marra, 2017. "The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(22), pages 6653-6675, November.
    11. Nepal, Sandhya & Tran, Liem T., 2019. "Identifying trade-offs between socio-economic and environmental factors for bioenergy crop production: A case study from northern Kentucky," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 272-283.
    12. Judit Oláh & Eszter Krisán & Anna Kiss & Zoltán Lakner & József Popp, 2020. "PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews of the Bioethanol Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-35, May.
    13. Anna Bluszcz, 2017. "European economies in terms of energy dependence," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 1531-1548, July.
    14. Mohr, Lukas & Burg, Vanessa & Thees, Oliver & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2019. "Spatial hot spots and clusters of bioenergy combined with socio-economic analysis in Switzerland," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 840-851.
    15. Aghbashlo, Mortaza & Khounani, Zahra & Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, Homa & Gupta, Vijai Kumar & Amiri, Hamid & Lam, Su Shiung & Morosuk, Tatiana & Tabatabaei, Meisam, 2021. "Exergoenvironmental analysis of bioenergy systems: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    16. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    17. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Burke, Matthew & Baker, Lucy & Kotikalapudi, Chaitanya Kumar & Wlokas, Holle, 2017. "New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 677-691.
    18. 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.
    19. R. Blanquero & E. Carrizosa & E. Conde, 2006. "Inferring Efficient Weights from Pairwise Comparison Matrices," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 64(2), pages 271-284, October.
    20. Cobo, M.J. & López-Herrera, A.G. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2011. "An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 146-166.
    21. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:75 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Francesco Fuso Nerini & Julia Tomei & Long Seng To & Iwona Bisaga & Priti Parikh & Mairi Black & Aiduan Borrion & Catalina Spataru & Vanesa Castán Broto & Gabrial Anandarajah & Ben Milligan & Yacob Mu, 2018. "Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 10-15, January.
    23. Anna Liddo & Grazia Concilio, 2017. "Making Decision in Open Communities: Collective Actions in the Public Realm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 847-856, September.
    24. Gheorghe Epuran & Claudia-Ioana Ciobanu & Adrian V. Horodnic & Gheorghe Epuran & Claudia-Ioana Ciobanu & Adrian V. Horodnic, 2019. "Green Jobs Creation – Main Element in the Implementation of Bioeconomic Mechanisms," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-60, February.
    25. Aslani, Alireza & Mazzuca-Sobczuk, Tania & Eivazi, Sepideh & Bekhrad, Kaveh, 2018. "Analysis of bioenergy technologies development based on life cycle and adaptation trends," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1076-1086.
    26. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    27. Lin, Boqiang & Sun, Chuanwang, 2010. "Evaluating carbon dioxide emissions in international trade of China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 613-621, January.
    28. Oliveira, Gustavo de L.T. & McKay, Ben & Plank, Christina, 2017. "How biofuel policies backfire: Misguided goals, inefficient mechanisms, and political-ecological blind spots," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 765-775.
    29. Elia, Gianluca & Margherita, Alessandro, 2018. "Can we solve wicked problems? A conceptual framework and a collective intelligence system to support problem analysis and solution design for complex social issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 279-286.
    30. Yedla, Sudhakar & Shrestha, Ram M., 2003. "Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 717-729, October.
    31. Kheybari, Siamak & Kazemi, Mostafa & Rezaei, Jafar, 2019. "Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 612-623.
    32. Bruce Gilley, 2017. "Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 9-22, March.
    33. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    34. Sagar, Ambuj D. & Najam, Adil, 1998. "The human development index: a critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 249-264, June.
    35. Jianliang Wang & Yuru Yang & Yongmei Bentley & Xu Geng & Xiaojie Liu, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    36. Kurka, Thomas, 2013. "Application of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the regional sustainability of bioenergy developments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 393-402.
    37. Lawn, Philip A., 2003. "A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 105-118, February.
    38. Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee & Ali Asghar Rahmani Hosseinabadi & Mehdi Soltani & Arun Kumar Sangaiah & Jin Wang, 2018. "A Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Trip Green Capacitated Arc Routing Problem in the Scope of Urban Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, April.
    39. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    40. Stefan Dragos Cirstea & Andreea Cirstea & Irimie Emil Popa & Gabriel Radu, 2019. "The Role of Bioenergy in Transition to a Sustainable Bioeconomy – Study on EU Countries," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-75, February.
    41. repec:aud:audfin:v:21:y:2019:i:50:p:60 is not listed on IDEAS
    42. Abdolreza Yazdani-Chamzini & Mohammad Majid Fouladgar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & S. Hamzeh Haji Moini, 2013. "Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 957-978, November.
    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. Mirzat Ullah & Hafiz M. Sohail & Muhammad Asif Khan & Hassan Zada & Maria Kovacova & Judit Olah, 2023. "Nexus between Economic Growth and CO2 Emission within the Preview of Institutional Quality: Some New Insights from," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 25(64), pages 849-849, 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. Jamal, Taskin & Urmee, Tania & Shafiullah, G.M., 2020. "Planning of off-grid power supply systems in remote areas using multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    2. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    3. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    4. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Gitinavard, Hossein & Mousavi, S. Meysam & Vahdani, Behnam, 2017. "Soft computing based on hierarchical evaluation approach and criteria interdependencies for energy decision-making problems: A case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 556-577.
    6. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    7. Blanco, G. & Amarilla, R. & Martinez, A. & Llamosas, C. & Oxilia, V., 2017. "Energy transitions and emerging economies: A multi-criteria analysis of policy options for hydropower surplus utilization in Paraguay," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 312-321.
    8. Çelikbilek, Yakup & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2016. "An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1246-1258.
    9. 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.
    10. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Empirical investigation and validation of sustainability indicators for the assessment of energy sources in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    11. Ozorhon, Beliz & Batmaz, Arda & Caglayan, Semih, 2018. "Generating a framework to facilitate decision making in renewable energy investments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 217-226.
    12. 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.
    13. Abteen Ijadi Maghsoodi & Arta Ijadi Maghsoodi & Amir Mosavi & Timon Rabczuk & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2018. "Renewable Energy Technology Selection Problem Using Integrated H-SWARA-MULTIMOORA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, November.
    14. 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).
    15. Chiranjib Bhowmik & Sumit Bhowmik & Amitava Ray, 2020. "Optimal green energy source selection: An eclectic decision," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 842-859, August.
    16. Kayakutlu, Gulgun & Daim, Tugrul & Kunt, Meltem & Altay, Ayca & Suharto, Yulianto, 2017. "Scenarios for regional waste management," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1323-1335.
    17. Hashemizadeh, Ali & Ju, Yanbing & Bamakan, Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini & Le, Hoang Phong, 2021. "Renewable energy investment risk assessment in belt and road initiative countries under uncertainty conditions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    18. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    19. Man Liang & Shuwen Niu & Zhen Li & Wenli Qiang, 2019. "International Comparison of Human Development Index Corrected by Greenness and Fairness Indicators and Policy Implications for China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 1-24, February.
    20. Zamani, Mehdi & Yalcin, Haydar & Naeini, Ali Bonyadi & Zeba, Gordana & Daim, Tugrul U, 2022. "Developing metrics for emerging technologies: identification and assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(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:14:y:2021:i:14:p:4366-:d:597484. 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.