IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v18y2025i17p4680-d1741231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An AHP-Based Multicriteria Framework for Evaluating Renewable Energy Service Proposals in Public Healthcare Infrastructure: A Case Study of an Italian Hospital

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Ventura

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Elettronica ed Informatica (D.I.E.E.I.), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Ferdinando Chiacchio

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Elettronica ed Informatica (D.I.E.E.I.), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Diego D’Urso

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Elettronica ed Informatica (D.I.E.E.I.), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Marco Tina

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Elettronica ed Informatica (D.I.E.E.I.), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Gabino Jiménez Castillo

    (Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica, Universidad de Jaén, Edificio A3, dependencia 231, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n., 23071 Jaén, Spain)

  • Ludovica Maria Oliveri

    (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Elettronica ed Informatica (D.I.E.E.I.), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

Abstract

Public healthcare infrastructure is among the most energy-intensive of public facilities; therefore, it needs to become more environmentally and economically sustainable by increasing energy efficiency and improving service reliability. Achieving these goals requires modernizing hospital energy systems with renewable energy sources (RESs). This process often involves Energy Service Companies (ESCOs), which propose integrated RES technologies with tailored contractual schemes. However, comparing ESCO offers is challenging due to their heterogeneous technologies, contractual structures, and long-term performance commitments, which make simple cost-based assessments inadequate. This study develops a structured Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methodology to evaluate energy projects in public healthcare facilities. The framework, based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), combines both quantitative (net present value, stochastic simulations of energy cost savings, and CO 2 emission reductions) with qualitative assessments (redundancy, flexibility, elasticity, and stakeholder image). It addresses the lack of standardized tools for ranking real-world ESCO proposals in public procurement. The approach, applied to a case study, involves three ESCO proposals for a large hospital in Southern Italy. The results show that integrating photovoltaic generation with trigeneration achieves the highest overall score. The proposed framework provides a transparent, replicable tool to support evidence-based energy investment decisions, extendable to other public-sector infrastructures.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Ventura & Ferdinando Chiacchio & Diego D’Urso & Giuseppe Marco Tina & Gabino Jiménez Castillo & Ludovica Maria Oliveri, 2025. "An AHP-Based Multicriteria Framework for Evaluating Renewable Energy Service Proposals in Public Healthcare Infrastructure: A Case Study of an Italian Hospital," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-34, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:18:y:2025:i:17:p:4680-:d:1741231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/17/4680/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/17/4680/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sulman Shahzad & Elżbieta Jasińska, 2024. "Renewable Revolution: A Review of Strategic Flexibility in Future Power Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Caprioli, Caterina & Bottero, Marta, 2021. "Addressing complex challenges in transformations and planning: A fuzzy spatial multicriteria analysis for identifying suitable locations for urban infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Jelena Cvijović & Vladimir Obradović & Marija Todorović, 2021. "Stakeholder Management and Project Sustainability—A Throw of the Dice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    4. David G Hyatt & Nicholas Berente, 2017. "Substantive or Symbolic Environmental Strategies? Effects of External and Internal Normative Stakeholder Pressures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1212-1234, December.
    5. Zopounidis, Constantin & Doumpos, Michael, 2002. "Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 229-246, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Andrzej Tomczewski & Stanisław Mikulski & Jan Szymenderski, 2024. "Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Method to Select the Final Solution for Multi-Criteria Optimization of the Structure of a Hybrid Generation System with Energy Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Marek Stawowy & Adam Rosiński & Jacek Paś & Tomasz Klimczak, 2021. "Method of Estimating Uncertainty as a Way to Evaluate Continuity Quality of Power Supply in Hospital Devices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Geoffrey Pritchard & Golbon Zakeri & Andrew Philpott, 2010. "A Single-Settlement, Energy-Only Electric Power Market for Unpredictable and Intermittent Participants," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(4-part-2), pages 1210-1219, August.
    10. Sniezek, Janet A. & Henry, Rebecca A., 1989. "Accuracy and confidence in group judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, February.
    11. Gawlik, Remigiusz, 2016. "Methodological Aspects of Qualitative-Quantitative Analysis of Decision-Making Processes," MPRA Paper 72362, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Maria Psillaki & Nikolaos Apostolopoulos & Ilias Makris & Panagiotis Liargovas & Sotiris Apostolopoulos & Panos Dimitrakopoulos & George Sklias, 2023. "Hospitals’ Energy Efficiency in the Perspective of Saving Resources and Providing Quality Services through Technological Options: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Roksana Yasmin & B. M. Ruhul Amin & Rakibuzzaman Shah & Andrew Barton, 2024. "A Survey of Commercial and Industrial Demand Response Flexibility with Energy Storage Systems and Renewable Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-41, January.
    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. Gupta, Pankaj & Mittal, Garima & Mehlawat, Mukesh Kumar, 2013. "Expected value multiobjective portfolio rebalancing model with fuzzy parameters," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 190-203.
    2. B. M. Ruhul Amin & Rakibuzzaman Shah & Suryani Lim & Tanveer Choudhury & Andrew Barton, 2025. "Characterization of Energy Profile and Load Flexibility in Regional Water Utilities for Cost Reduction and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1079-1092, November.
    4. Marek Stawowy & Adam Rosiński & Mirosław Siergiejczyk & Krzysztof Perlicki, 2021. "Quality and Reliability-Exploitation Modeling of Power Supply Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Nima Mirzaei & Béla Vizvári, 2015. "A New Approach to Reconstruction of Moody’s Rating System for Countries Investment Risk Rating," Journal of Empirical Economics, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 4(3), pages 167-182.
    6. Doumpos, M. & Marinakis, Y. & Marinaki, M. & Zopounidis, C., 2009. "An evolutionary approach to construction of outranking models for multicriteria classification: The case of the ELECTRE TRI method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 496-505, December.
    7. William L. Smith & Yue Cai Hillon & Yanni Liang, 2019. "Reassessing measures of sustainable firm performance: A consultant's guide to identifying hidden costs in corporate disclosures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 353-365, February.
    8. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, II: More than two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 246-276, April.
    9. Gawlik, Remigiusz, 2016. "Finansowanie innowacyjnych przedsięwzięć przez fundusze podwyższonego ryzyka - determinanty procesu decyzyjnego [Financing of Innovative Enterprises Through Venture Capital – Determinants of Decisi," MPRA Paper 77528, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Xinran Wang & Jiaju Yan & Timothy P. Munyon & T. Russell Crook, 2025. "Breached But Not Broken: How Attributional Information Shapes Shareholder Reactions to Firms Following Data Breaches," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 71-92, February.
    11. Pablo Aragonés‐Beltrán & Mª. Carmen González‐Cruz & Astrid León‐Camargo & Rosario Viñoles‐Cebolla, 2023. "Assessment of regional development needs according to criteria based on the Sustainable Development Goals in the Meta Region (Colombia)," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 1101-1121, April.
    12. Roland W. Scholz & Ralf Hansmann, 2007. "Combining Experts' Risk Judgments on Technology Performance of Phytoremediation: Self‐Confidence Ratings, Averaging Procedures, and Formative Consensus Building," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 225-240, February.
    13. Chetan A. Jhaveri & Jitendra M. Nenavani, 2020. "Evaluation of eTail Services Quality: AHP Approach," Vision, , vol. 24(3), pages 310-319, September.
    14. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    15. Sharma, Mahak & Sehrawat, Rajat, 2020. "A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method for cloud adoption: Evidence from the healthcare sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    16. Gawlik, Remigiusz & Grzesik, Katarzyna & Kwiecińska, Monika, 2018. "Modelowanie AHP wyboru menadżera ds. integracji organizacyjnej w procesie fuzji przedsiębiorstw w kontekście teorii struktury rozwoju przywództwa [Choosing the merger’s organizational integration m," MPRA Paper 87798, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Murat Koray & Ercan Kaya & M. Hakan Keskin, 2025. "Determining Logistical Strategies to Mitigate Supply Chain Disruptions in Maritime Shipping for a Resilient and Sustainable Global Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-24, June.
    18. Victor M. Zavala & Kibaek Kim & Mihai Anitescu & John Birge, 2017. "A Stochastic Electricity Market Clearing Formulation with Consistent Pricing Properties," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 557-576, June.
    19. Ju, Keyi & Su, Bin & Zhou, Dequn & Zhang, Yuqiang, 2016. "An incentive-oriented early warning system for predicting the co-movements between oil price shocks and macroeconomy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 452-463.
    20. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:18:y:2025:i:17:p:4680-:d:1741231. 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.