IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i13p7009-d579620.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Setting Thresholds to Define Indifferences and Preferences in PROMETHEE for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of European Hydrogen Production

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Wulf

    (Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Energy and Climate Research—Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), 52428 Jülich, Germany)

  • Petra Zapp

    (Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Energy and Climate Research—Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), 52428 Jülich, Germany)

  • Andrea Schreiber

    (Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Energy and Climate Research—Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), 52428 Jülich, Germany)

  • Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs

    (Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Energy and Climate Research—Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), 52428 Jülich, Germany)

Abstract

The Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) is a proven method for sustainability assessment. However, the interpretation phase of an LCSA is challenging because many different single results are obtained. Additionally, performing a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is one way—not only for LCSA—to gain clarity about how to interpret the results. One common form of MCDAs are outranking methods. For these type of methods it becomes of utmost importance to clarify when results become preferable. Thus, thresholds are commonly used to prevent decisions based on results that are actually indifferent between the analyzed options. In this paper, a new approach is presented to identify and quantify such thresholds for Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) based on uncertainty of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods. Common thresholds and this new approach are discussed using a case study on finding a preferred location for sustainable industrial hydrogen production, comparing three locations in European countries. The single LCSA results indicated different preferences for the environmental, economic and social assessment. The application of PROMETHEE helped to find a clear solution. The comparison of the newly-specified thresholds based on LCIA uncertainty with default thresholds provided important insights of how to interpret the LCSA results regarding industrial hydrogen production.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7009-:d:579620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7009/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7009/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Korpi & Timo Ala-Risku, 2008. "Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(3), pages 240-261, March.
    2. Christina Wulf & Jasmin Werker & Christopher Ball & Petra Zapp & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs, 2019. "Review of Sustainability Assessment Approaches Based on Life Cycles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-43, October.
    3. Jan Christian Koj & Christina Wulf & Andrea Schreiber & Petra Zapp, 2017. "Site-Dependent Environmental Impacts of Industrial Hydrogen Production by Alkaline Water Electrolysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    5. Jasmin Werker & Christina Wulf & Petra Zapp, 2019. "Working conditions in hydrogen production: A social life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(5), pages 1052-1061, October.
    6. Salminen, Pekka & Hokkanen, Joonas & Lahdelma, Risto, 1998. "Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 485-496, February.
    7. Denis Bouyssou, 1990. "Building Criteria: A Prerequisite for MCDA," Post-Print hal-02920174, HAL.
    8. Branker, K. & Pathak, M.J.M. & Pearce, J.M., 2011. "A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4470-4482.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. Kasin Ransikarbum & Wattana Chanthakhot & Tony Glimm & Jettarat Janmontree, 2023. "Evaluation of Sourcing Decision for Hydrogen Supply Chain Using an Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Tool," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, April.
    2. 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).
    3. Martin Kügemann & Heracles Polatidis, 2022. "Methodological Framework to Select Evaluation Criteria for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    4. 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).
    5. Sebastian Fredershausen & Henrik Lechte & Mathias Willnat & Tobias Witt & Christine Harnischmacher & Tim-Benjamin Lembcke & Matthias Klumpp & Lutz Kolbe, 2021. "Towards an Understanding of Hydrogen Supply Chains: A Structured Literature Review Regarding Sustainability Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.

    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. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    2. Evangelos-Nikolaos D. Madias & Lambros T. Doulos & Panagiotis A. Kontaxis & Frangiskos V. Topalis, 2021. "A decision support system for techno-economic evaluation of indoor lighting systems with LED luminaires," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 1403-1422, June.
    3. Neofytou, H. & Nikas, A. & Doukas, H., 2020. "Sustainable energy transition readiness: A multicriteria assessment index," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. Stefanos Xenarios & Heracles Polatidis & Matthew McCartney & Attila Nemes, 2015. "Developing a User-Based Decision-Aid Framework for Water Storage Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Blue Nile Basin in Ethiopia," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(04), pages 1-30, December.
    5. Dorota Górecka, 2012. "Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding techniques in the process of project management within the wedding planning business," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 22(4), pages 41-67.
    6. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    7. Mahsa Ghandi & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Risk Management of Drinking Water Supply in Critical Conditions Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE V Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 595-615, January.
    8. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    9. Ute Weißfloch & Jutta Geldermann, 2016. "Assessment of product-service systems for increasing the energy efficiency of compressed air systems," European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(3), pages 341-366.
    10. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Miller, Michael & Mattes, Katharina, 2014. "Demonstration of a multi-criteria based decision support framework for selecting PSS to increase resource efficiency," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    12. Yunna Wu & Meng Yang & Haobo Zhang & Kaifeng Chen & Yang Wang, 2016. "Optimal Site Selection of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Based on a Cloud Model and the PROMETHEE Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    14. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    15. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    16. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessandra Oppio, 2019. "Ranking of Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Abandoned Industrial Heritage in Vulnerable Contexts: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Rogna, Marco, 2020. "A first-phase screening method for site selection of large-scale solar plants with an application to Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Rahimdel, Mohammad Javad & Noferesti, Hossein, 2020. "Investment preferences of Iran's mineral extraction sector with a focus on the productivity of the energy consumption, water and labor force," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Evangelos-Nikolaos D. Madias & Lambros T. Doulos & Panagiotis A. Kontaxis & Frangiskos V. Topalis, 2022. "Multicriteria decision aid analysis for the optimum performance of an ambient light sensor: methodology and case study," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1333-1361, April.
    20. Pelissari, Renata & Oliveira, Maria Célia & Ben Amor, Sarah & Abackerli, Alvaro José, 2019. "A new FlowSort-based method to deal with information imperfections in sorting decision-making problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 235-246.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7009-:d:579620. 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.