IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v185y2023ics1364032123004653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A distance-to-sustainability-target approach for indicator aggregation and its application for the comparison of wind energy alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Buchmayr, A.
  • Taelman, S.E.
  • Thomassen, G.
  • Verhofstadt, E.
  • Van Ootegem, L.
  • Dewulf, J.

Abstract

Sustainability impact assessments studies combine several indicators to cover environmental, economic and social impacts. These indicators describe different impact pathways and are expressed in different units, which makes comparing alternatives challenging. An aggregated metric is required to facilitate the presentation and communication of sustainability. The presented aggregation framework is based on the distance-to-target method NR-TOPSIS and adapted to a distance-to-sustainability-target approach. A procedure is given for aggregating 12 sustainability indicators into a single score sustainability indicator. Reference points for normalization of diverse impact indicators and weighting factors are investigated. The framework was applied to a wind energy case study comparing one offshore and two onshore alternatives. The case study results were compared using both a dashboard of 12 endpoint indicators and an aggregated sustainability indicator. The indicator was presented on a sustainability scale that indicated the distance of the investigated cases to an ideal (sustainable) solution. A sensitivity analysis of the weighting factors showed that the distribution of weights influenced the ranking of alternatives, especially when the alternatives are positioned close to each other on the sustainability scale, as it is the case for the wind energy scenarios. For most of the weighting scenarios, the onshore wind energy project using permanent magnet synchronous generators appeared to be the most sustainable solution.

Suggested Citation

  • Buchmayr, A. & Taelman, S.E. & Thomassen, G. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Dewulf, J., 2023. "A distance-to-sustainability-target approach for indicator aggregation and its application for the comparison of wind energy alternatives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:185:y:2023:i:c:s1364032123004653
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032123004653
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113608?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas & Krisciukaitienė, Irena & Balezentis, Alvydas, 2012. "Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 3302-3311.
    2. Carlos Henggeler Antunes & Carla Oliveira Henriques, 2016. "Multi-Objective Optimization and Multi-Criteria Analysis Models and Methods for Problems in the Energy Sector," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1067-1165, Springer.
    3. Neves, Lui­s Pires & Martins, António Gomes & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Dias, Lui­s Cândido, 2008. "A multi-criteria decision approach to sorting actions for promoting energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2351-2363, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Thomassen, G. & Taelman, S.E. & Dewulf, J., 2022. "Exploring the global and local social sustainability of wind energy technologies: An application of a social impact assessment framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    6. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Al-Yahyai, Sultan & Charabi, Yassine & Gastli, Adel & Al-Badi, Abdullah, 2012. "Wind farm land suitability indexing using multi-criteria analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 80-87.
    8. Pradip P. Kalbar & Morten Birkved & Simon Elsborg Nygaard & Michael Hauschild, 2017. "Weighting and Aggregation in Life Cycle Assessment: Do Present Aggregated Single Scores Provide Correct Decision Support?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1591-1600, December.
    9. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834.
    10. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    11. Heinrich, G. & Basson, L. & Cohen, B. & Howells, M. & Petrie, J., 2007. "Ranking and selection of power expansion alternatives for multiple objectives under uncertainty," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 2350-2369.
    12. 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.
    13. Kosugi, Takanobu & Tokimatsu, Koji & Kurosawa, Atsushi & Itsubo, Norihiro & Yagita, Hiroshi & Sakagami, Masaji, 2009. "Internalization of the external costs of global environmental damage in an integrated assessment model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2664-2678, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Cucchiella, Federica & D’Adamo, Idiano & Gastaldi, Massimo & Koh, SC Lenny & Rosa, Paolo, 2017. "A comparison of environmental and energetic performance of European countries: A sustainability index," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 401-413.
    16. Pradip Kalbar & Morten Birkved & Simon Elsborg Nygaard & Michael Hauschild, 2017. "Response to Comment on “Weighting and Aggregation in Life Cycle Assessment: Do Present Aggregated Single Scores Provide Correct Decision Support?â€," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1603-1605, December.
    17. Wenguang Yang, 2020. "Ingenious Solution for the Rank Reversal Problem of TOPSIS Method," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-12, January.
    18. Christina Wulf & Petra Zapp & Andrea Schreiber & Josefine Marx & Holger Schlör, 2017. "Lessons Learned from a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Rare Earth Permanent Magnets," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1578-1590, December.
    19. Christina Wulf & Petra Zapp & Andrea Schreiber & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs, 2021. "Setting Thresholds to Define Indifferences and Preferences in PROMETHEE for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of European Hydrogen Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-21, June.
    20. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Drandaki, Maria & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Iosifidis, Eleftherios & Kiosses, Ioannis, 2009. "Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1587-1600, May.
    21. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    22. Baležentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia, 2017. "Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P1), pages 862-871.
    23. Diakoulaki, D. & Karangelis, F., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 716-727, May.
    24. Maria Rosaria Guarini & Fabrizio Battisti & Anthea Chiovitti, 2018. "A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-28, February.
    25. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2009. "Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1082-1088, June.
    26. Jeffrey C. Cegan & Ashley M. Filion & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 123-133, June.
    27. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 778-787, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    4. Stein, Eric W., 2013. "A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 640-654.
    5. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    6. 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.
    7. Wang, Ni & Heijnen, Petra W. & Imhof, Pieter J., 2020. "A multi-actor perspective on multi-objective regional energy system planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    12. 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).
    13. Phillips, Jason, 2013. "Determining the sustainability of large-scale photovoltaic solar power plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 435-444.
    14. 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).
    15. Tobias Witt & Matthias Klumpp, 2021. "Multi-Period Multi-Criteria Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Renewable Energy Transition Case from Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Maxim, Alexandru, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 284-297.
    17. Chiranjib Bhowmik & Sumit Bhowmik & Amitava Ray, 2020. "Optimal green energy source selection: An eclectic decision," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 842-859, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Liu, Gang, 2014. "Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 611-621.
    20. 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.

    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:185:y:2023:i:c:s1364032123004653. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.