IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multi-criteria optimization analysis for Jordan's energy mix


  • Malkawi, Salaheddin
  • Al-Nimr, Moh'd
  • Azizi, Danah


In this study Jordan's energy options were evaluated and ranked with respect to several criteria clusters including financial, technical, environmental, ecological, social, and risk assessment. The Analytical Hierarchy Process; a multi-criteria decision-making analysis, was selected to evaluate the electricity generation options for Jordan. Energy options covered in the analysis include both conventional and renewable sources. Conventional sources evaluated include Oil and Natural Gas. Renewable sources covered wind, biomass, Photovoltaic and concentrated solar systems. The study also investigated generation from nuclear energy and direct combustion of oil shale as well as demand side savings from energy efficiency measures as a resource. Results indicate that to date; conventional fuels remain Jordan's most feasible options from a technical and financial perspective. Nonetheless diversification is essential to promoting energy security as well as environmental welfare. Results indicate that Jordan's best diversification options are nuclear, oil shale, biomass, and wind energy.

Suggested Citation

  • Malkawi, Salaheddin & Al-Nimr, Moh'd & Azizi, Danah, 2017. "A multi-criteria optimization analysis for Jordan's energy mix," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 680-696.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:127:y:2017:i:c:p:680-696
    DOI: 10.1016/

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Whalley, Stephanie, 2015. "Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 127-149.
    2. 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.
    3. AfDB AfDB, . "AfDB Group Annual Report 2011 (Portuguese)," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 393.
    4. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1995. "Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and quantitative criteria: An integrated model using goal programming and AHP," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 197-218, September.
    5. AfDB AfDB, . "Annual Report 2012 (Arabic Version)," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 462.
    6. Gwo-Hshiung, Tzeng & Tzay-an, Shiau & Chien-Yuan, Lin, 1992. "Application of multicriteria decision making to the evaluation of new energy system development in Taiwan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 17(10), pages 983-992.
    7. Mahbub, Md Shahriar & Viesi, Diego & Crema, Luigi, 2016. "Designing optimized energy scenarios for an Italian Alpine valley: the case of Giudicarie Esteriori," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 236-249.
    8. AfDB AfDB, . "AfDB Group Annual Report 2011," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 392.
    9. Mondal, Md. Alam Hossain & Kennedy, Scott & Mezher, Toufic, 2014. "Long-term optimization of United Arab Emirates energy future: Policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 466-474.
    10. Zhang, Ling & Zhou, Peng & Newton, Sidney & Fang, Jian-xin & Zhou, De-qun & Zhang, Lu-ping, 2015. "Evaluating clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: An improved multi-criteria decision making method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P1), pages 953-964.
    11. 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.
    12. AfDB AfDB, . "Annual Report 2012," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 461.
    13. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2013. "Evaluating options for the future energy mix of Japan after the Fukushima nuclear crisis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 418-424.
    14. Alarcon-Rodriguez, Arturo & Ault, Graham & Galloway, Stuart, 2010. "Multi-objective planning of distributed energy resources: A review of the state-of-the-art," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 1353-1366, June.
    15. Wu, Qiong & Ren, Hongbo & Gao, Weijun & Ren, Jianxing, 2016. "Multi-criteria assessment of building combined heat and power systems located in different climate zones: Japan–China comparison," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 502-512.
    16. Silva, Francisco & Teixeira, Brígida & Pinto, Tiago & Santos, Gabriel & Vale, Zita & Praça, Isabel, 2016. "Generation of realistic scenarios for multi-agent simulation of electricity markets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 128-139.
    17. Mourmouris, J.C. & Potolias, C., 2013. "A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: A case study Thassos, Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 522-530.
    18. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Streimikiene, Dalia & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil M.D. & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2016. "Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy saving technologies and solutions in five star hotels: A new hierarchical framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(P1), pages 131-148.
    19. AfDB AfDB, . "Annual Report 2012 (Portuguese Version)," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 463.
    20. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    21. Grujić, Miodrag & Ivezić, Dejan & Živković, Marija, 2014. "Application of multi-criteria decision-making model for choice of the optimal solution for meeting heat demand in the centralized supply system in Belgrade," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 341-350.
    22. Theodorou, Savvas & Florides, Georgios & Tassou, Savvas, 2010. "The use of multiple criteria decision making methodologies for the promotion of RES through funding schemes in Cyprus, A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7783-7792, December.
    23. Brand, Bernhard & Missaoui, Rafik, 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation mix scenarios in Tunisia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 251-261.
    24. AfDB AfDB, . "AfDB Group Annual Report 2011 (Arabic)," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 394.
    25. AfDB AfDB, . "Zambia Country Office Annual Report 2012," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 975.
    26. Kahia, Montassar & Ben Aïssa, Mohamed Safouane & Charfeddine, Lanouar, 2016. "Impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on economic growth: New evidence from the MENA Net Oil Exporting Countries (NOECs)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 102-115.
    27. WorldFish, 2013. "Annual report 2012/13," Working Papers, The WorldFish Center, number 40306, October.
    28. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "Nuclear power can reduce emissions and maintain a strong economy: Rating Australia’s optimal future electricity-generation mix by technologies and policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 712-725.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Abreu Kang, Takanni Hannaka & da Costa Soares Júnior, Antônio Marques & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Evaluating electric power generation technologies: A multicriteria analysis based on the FITradeoff method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 10-20.
    2. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    3. Nock, Destenie & Baker, Erin, 2019. "Holistic multi-criteria decision analysis evaluation of sustainable electric generation portfolios: New England case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 655-673.
    4. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    5. Dagoumas, Athanasios S. & Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E., 2019. "Review of models for integrating renewable energy in the generation expansion planning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1573-1587.
    6. Hamed, Tareq Abu & Bressler, Lindsey, 2019. "Energy security in Israel and Jordan: The role of renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 378-389.
    7. Simsek, Yeliz & Watts, David & Escobar, Rodrigo, 2018. "Sustainability evaluation of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) projects under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by using Multi Criteria Decision Method (MCDM)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 421-438.
    8. Thushara, De Silva M. & Hornberger, George M. & Baroud, Hiba, 2019. "Decision analysis to support the choice of a future power generation pathway for Sri Lanka," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 680-697.
    9. Jui-Yuan Lee & Han-Fu Lin, 2019. "Multi-Footprint Constrained Energy Sector Planning," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(12), pages 1-18, June.
    10. Lihui Zhang & He Xin & Zhinan Kan, 2019. "Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Hybrid Energy System Using an Improved Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, February.


    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:energy:v:127:y:2017:i:c:p:680-696. 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: .

    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.