IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v7y2014i3p1171-1192d33442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Collins Okello

    (Department of Biosystems Engineering, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu, Uganda
    Department of Agriculture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, Portici 80055, Napoli, Italy)

  • Stefania Pindozzi

    (Department of Agriculture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, Portici 80055, Napoli, Italy)

  • Salvatore Faugno

    (Department of Agriculture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, Portici 80055, Napoli, Italy)

  • Lorenzo Boccia

    (Department of Agriculture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, Portici 80055, Napoli, Italy)

Abstract

Poor access to clean and reliable energy technologies is a major challenge to most developing countries. The decision to introduce new technologies is often faced by low adoption rates or even public opposition. In addition, the data required for effective decision making is often inadequate or even lacking, thus constraining the planning process. In this study, a methodology for participatory appraisal of technologies, integrating desirability functions to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)-analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology was developed. Application of the methodology was illustrated with an example for participatory appraisal of four bioenergy technologies in Uganda. Results showed that the methodology is effective in evaluating stakeholder preferences for bioenergy technologies. It showed a high potential to be used to identify and rate factors that stakeholders take into consideration when selecting bioenergy systems. The method could be used as a tool for technology screening, or reaching consensus in a participatory setup in a transparent manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Collins Okello & Stefania Pindozzi & Salvatore Faugno & Lorenzo Boccia, 2014. "Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:7:y:2014:i:3:p:1171-1192:d:33442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/3/1171/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/3/1171/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walekhwa, Peter N. & Mugisha, Johnny & Drake, Lars, 2009. "Biogas energy from family-sized digesters in Uganda: Critical factors and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2754-2762, July.
    2. Nzila, Charles & Dewulf, Jo & Spanjers, Henri & Tuigong, David & Kiriamiti, Henry & van Langenhove, Herman, 2012. "Multi criteria sustainability assessment of biogas production in Kenya," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 496-506.
    3. 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.
    4. Kebede, Ellene & Kagochi, John & Jolly, Curtis M., 2010. "Energy consumption and economic development in Sub-Sahara Africa," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 532-537, May.
    5. L.C. Koo & Hannah Koo, 2007. "Holistic approach for diagnosing, prioritising, implementing and monitoring effective strategies through synergetic fusion of SWOT, Balanced Scorecard and QFD," World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 62-78.
    6. Vang Rasmussen, Laura & Rasmussen, Kjeld & Bech Bruun, Thilde, 2012. "Impacts of Jatropha-based biodiesel production on above and below-ground carbon stocks: A case study from Mozambique," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 728-736.
    7. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Kalmbacher, Robert S., 2004. "Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 185-199, September.
    8. Shafiee, Shahriar & Topal, Erkan, 2009. "When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 181-189, January.
    9. Lee, Seong Kon & Mogi, Gento & Kim, Jong Wook, 2009. "Energy technology roadmap for the next 10 years: The case of Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 588-596, February.
    10. Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2000. "Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52, May.
    11. O’Mahoney, Amy & Thorne, Fiona & Denny, Eleanor, 2013. "A cost-benefit analysis of generating electricity from biomass," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 347-354.
    12. Catron, Jonathan & Stainback, G. Andrew & Dwivedi, Puneet & Lhotka, John M., 2013. "Bioenergy development in Kentucky: A SWOT-ANP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 38-43.
    13. Dwivedi, Puneet & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2009. "Stakeholders' perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1999-2007, May.
    14. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2012. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 146-156.
    15. 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.
    16. Kratzeisen, M. & Müller, J., 2009. "Effect of fatty acid composition of soybean oil on deposit and performance of plant oil pressure stoves," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2461-2466.
    17. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Okello, Collins & Pindozzi, Stefania & Faugno, Salvatore & Boccia, Lorenzo, 2013. "Development of bioenergy technologies in Uganda: A review of progress," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 55-63.
    20. Masozera, Michel K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Jacobson, Susan K. & Shrestha, Ram K., 2006. "Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 206-216, March.
    21. Gaul, Mirco, 2013. "A comparative study of small-scale rural energy service pathways for lighting, cooking and mechanical power," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 376-392.
    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. Wakeel, Muhammad & Hayat, Tasawer & Shah, Noor Samad & Iqbal, Jibran & Haq Khan, Zia Ul & Shah, Ghulam Mustafa & Rasool, Atta, 2023. "Biogas Energy Resources in Pakistan Status, Potential, and Barriers," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Nogueira, Luiz Augusto Horta & Antonio de Souza, Luiz Gustavo & Cortez, Luís Augusto Barbosa & Leal, Manoel Regis Lima Verde, 2017. "Sustainable and Integrated Bioenergy Assessment for Latin America, Caribbean and Africa (SIByl-LACAf): The path from feasibility to acceptability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 292-308.
    4. D'Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Gastaldi, Massimo & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "RES-T trajectories and an integrated SWOT-AHP analysis for biomethane. Policy implications to support a green revolution in European transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. Qiang Wang & Thomas Dogot & Yueling Yang & Jian Jiao & Boyang Shi & Changbin Yin, 2020. "From “Coal to Gas” to “Coal to Biomass”: The Strategic Choice of Social Capital in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.
    7. Srđan Dimić & Dragan Pamučar & Srđan Ljubojević & Boban Đorović, 2016. "Strategic Transport Management Models—The Case Study of an Oil Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-27, September.
    8. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    9. Trotter, Philipp A. & McManus, Marcelle C. & Maconachie, Roy, 2017. "Electricity planning and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1189-1209.
    10. Lingjie Sun & Yingyi Liu & Boyang Zhang & Yuwei Shang & Haiwen Yuan & Zhao Ma, 2016. "An Integrated Decision-Making Model for Transformer Condition Assessment Using Game Theory and Modified Evidence Combination Extended by D Numbers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Chiranjib Bhowmik & Sumit Bhowmik & Amitava Ray, 2021. "Selection of optimum green energy sources by considering environmental constructs and their technical criteria: a case study," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 13890-13918, September.

    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. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    2. Haque, H.M. Enamul & Dhakal, Shobhakar & Mostafa, S.M.G., 2020. "An assessment of opportunities and challenges for cross-border electricity trade for Bangladesh using SWOT-AHP approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Tahseen, Samiha & Karney, Bryan, 2017. "Opportunities for increased hydropower diversion at Niagara: An sSWOT analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 757-770.
    4. Omkar Joshi & Rajan Parajuli & Gehendra Kharel & Neelam C Poudyal & Eric Taylor, 2018. "Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    6. Darshini, Dina & Dwivedi, Puneet & Glenk, Klaus, 2013. "Capturing stakeholders´ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1128-1137.
    7. Kukrety, Sidhanand & Dwivedi, Puneet & Jose, Shibu & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2013. "Stakeholders' perceptions on developing sustainable Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus L.) wood trade in Andhra Pradesh, India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 43-53.
    8. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    9. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    10. Grima-Olmedo, C. & Ramírez-Gómez, Á. & Alcalde-Cartagena, R., 2014. "Energetic performance of landfill and digester biogas in a domestic cooker," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 301-308.
    11. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    12. Zelin Liu & Xiyan Duan & Hongling Cheng & Zhaoran Liu & Ping Li & Yang Zhang, 2023. "Empowering High-Quality Development of the Chinese Sports Education Market in Light of the “Double Reduction” Policy: A Hybrid SWOT-AHP Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Cheng, Shikun & Li, Zifu & Mang, Heinz-Peter & Neupane, Kalidas & Wauthelet, Marc & Huba, Elisabeth-Maria, 2014. "Application of fault tree approach for technical assessment of small-sized biogas systems in Nepal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1372-1381.
    14. Syed Hammad Mian & Bashir Salah & Wadea Ameen & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah, 2020. "Adapting Universities for Sustainability Education in Industry 4.0: Channel of Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33, July.
    15. Dwivedi, Puneet & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2009. "Stakeholders' perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1999-2007, May.
    16. Starr, Morgan & Joshi, Omkar & Will, Rodney E. & Zou, Chris B., 2019. "Perceptions regarding active management of the Cross-timbers forest resources of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas: A SWOT-ANP analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 523-530.
    17. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    18. Indre Siksnelyte & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene & Deepak Sharma, 2018. "An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Dealing with Sustainable Energy Development Issues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    19. Catron, Jonathan & Stainback, G. Andrew & Dwivedi, Puneet & Lhotka, John M., 2013. "Bioenergy development in Kentucky: A SWOT-ANP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 38-43.
    20. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2013. "Evaluating future scenarios for the power generation sector using a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool: The Portuguese case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 126-136.

    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:7:y:2014:i:3:p:1171-1192:d:33442. 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.