IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v197y2009i3p1063-1074.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kowalski, Katharina
  • Stagl, Sigrid
  • Madlener, Reinhard
  • Omann, Ines

Abstract

This paper analyses the combined use of scenario building and participatory multi-criteria analysis (PMCA) in the context of renewable energy from a methodological point of view. Scenarios have been applied increasingly in decision-making about long-term consequences by projecting different possible pathways into the future. Scenario analysis accounts for a higher degree of complexity inherent in systems than the study of individual projects or technologies. MCA is a widely used appraisal method, which assesses options on the basis of a multi-dimensional criteria framework and calculates rankings of options. In our study, five renewable energy scenarios for Austria for 2020 were appraised against 17 sustainability criteria. A similar process was undertaken on the local level, where four renewable energy scenarios were developed and evaluated against 15 criteria. On both levels, the scenario development consisted of two stages: first an exploratory stage with stakeholder engagement and second a modelling stage with forecasting-type scenarios. Thus, the scenarios consist of a narrative part (storyline) and a modeled quantitative part. The preferences of national and local energy stakeholders were included in the form of criteria weights derived from interviews and participatory group processes, respectively. Especially in the case of renewable energy promotion in Austria, the paper systematically analyses the potentials and limitations of the methodology (1) for capturing the complexity of decision-making about the long-term consequences of changes in socio-economic and biophysical systems and (2) for appraising energy futures. The paper concludes that assessing scenarios with PMCA is resource intense, but this methodology captures successfully the context of technology deployment and allows decision-making based on a robust and democratic process, which addresses uncertainties, acknowledges multiple legitimate perspectives and encourages social learning.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:197:y:2009:i:3:p:1063-1074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(08)00277-4
    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. Fausto Cavallaro & University of Molise, 2005. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria System to Assess Sustainable Energy Options: An Application of the Promethee Method," Working Papers 2005.22, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    3. Renn, Ortwin, 2003. "Social assessment of waste energy utilization scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 1345-1357.
    4. 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.
    5. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    6. Madlener, Reinhard & Stagl, Sigrid, 2005. "Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 147-167, April.
    7. Kablan, M. M., 2004. "Decision support for energy conservation promotion:: an analytic hierarchy process approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1151-1158, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Ghanadan, Rebecca & Koomey, Jonathan G., 2005. "Using energy scenarios to explore alternative energy pathways in California," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1117-1142, June.
    10. Lootsma, F. A. & Boonekamp, P. G. M. & Cooke, R. M. & Van Oostvoorn, F., 1990. "Choice of a long-term strategy for the national electricity supply via scenario analysis and multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 189-203, September.
    11. Nigim, K. & Munier, N. & Green, J., 2004. "Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1775-1791.
    12. Oniszk-Poplawska, A. & Rogulska, M. & Wisniewski, G., 2003. "Renewable-energy developments in Poland to 2020," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-3), pages 101-110, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Enzensberger, N. & Wietschel, M. & Rentz, O., 2002. "Policy instruments fostering wind energy projects--a multi-perspective evaluation approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 793-801, July.
    18. Figueira, Jose & Roy, Bernard, 2002. "Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos' procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 317-326, June.
    19. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    20. Georgopoulou, E. & Sarafidis, Y. & Diakoulaki, D., 1998. "Design and implementation of a group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 483-500, September.
    21. Greening, Lorna A. & Bernow, Steve, 2004. "Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 721-735, April.
    22. Goumas, M. G. & Lygerou, V. A. & Papayannakis, L. E., 1999. "Computational methods for planning and evaluating geothermal energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 147-154, March.
    23. Mirasgedis, S. & Diakoulaki, D., 1997. "Multicriteria analysis vs. externalities assessment for the comparative evaluation of electricity generation systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 364-379, October.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. Georgopoulou, E. & Lalas, D. & Papagiannakis, L., 1997. "A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: The case of renewable energy option," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 38-54, November.
    27. Bunn, Derek W. & Salo, Ahti A., 1993. "Forecasting with scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 291-303, August.
    28. Diakoulaki, D. & Zopounidis, C. & Mavrotas, G. & Doumpos, M., 1999. "The use of a preference disaggregation method in energy analysis and policy making," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 157-166.
    29. Stewart, William Jr & Horowitz, Evan R., 1991. "Environmental factor weighting at the federal energy regulatory commission," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 123-132.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ejores:v:197:y:2009:i:3:p:1063-1074. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.