IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v15y2011i5p2385-2396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A confusion of tongues or the art of aggregating indicators--Reflections on four projective methodologies on sustainability measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Özdemir, Enver Doruk
  • Härdtlein, Marlies
  • Jenssen, Till
  • Zech, Daniel
  • Eltrop, Ludger

Abstract

To achieve consensus on the broad term sustainability abstractness is required. In turn, to take sustainability as an action guiding mandate for implementation it needs to be concrete. The paper seeks to bridge the gap from theory of sustainability to practical application by implementing four different methods, i.e. social cost analysis, ecological footprint analysis, exergy approach and multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA). These methods will be exemplarily applied for sustainability analysis of household heating technologies focusing on wood pellet boilers, wood chip fired district heating stations and natural gas fired condensing boilers. Based on the integrated assessment of exemplary heat supply technologies a critical outlook on the four projective approaches is given.

Suggested Citation

  • Özdemir, Enver Doruk & Härdtlein, Marlies & Jenssen, Till & Zech, Daniel & Eltrop, Ludger, 2011. "A confusion of tongues or the art of aggregating indicators--Reflections on four projective methodologies on sustainability measurement," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 2385-2396, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:15:y:2011:i:5:p:2385-2396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364-0321(11)00063-3
    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. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. 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.
    3. Krewitt, Wolfram, 2002. "External costs of energy--do the answers match the questions?: Looking back at 10 years of ExternE," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(10), pages 839-848, August.
    4. Terrados, J. & Almonacid, G. & Pérez-Higueras, P., 2009. "Proposal for a combined methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(8), pages 2022-2030, October.
    5. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    6. Pearce, David W. & Atkinson, Giles D., 1993. "Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of "weak" sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 103-108, October.
    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. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:3:p:811-:d:136297 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Michiel C. Zijp & Reinout Heijungs & Ester van der Voet & Dik van de Meent & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Anne Hollander & Leo Posthuma, 2015. "An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for Sustainability Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    4. Fabrizio, Enrico & Seguro, Federico & Filippi, Marco, 2014. "Integrated HVAC and DHW production systems for Zero Energy Buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 515-541.

    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:rensus:v:15:y:2011:i:5:p:2385-2396. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.