IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Acceptability of energy sources using an integration of the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process

Listed author(s):
  • Simone Di Zio


  • Mara Maretti


Registered author(s):

    The research presented in this paper is structured on the basis of the extensive literature on the world energy shift and, in particular, the dynamics of the political, social, market, and community acceptability of different energy sources. This study attempts to determine which sources of energy are most accepted or preferred by political systems, public opinion, and the market and the weights that these dynamics of acceptability have on the global energy shift. In this theoretical framework, we present an application and propose a methodology resulting from the integration of two methods: the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). While Delphi seeks a convergence of opinions among a group of experts, the AHP helps solve complex decision problems using a hierarchical structure. To integrate the Delphi and AHP methods, we propose an innovation in the way the feedbacks are circulated among the participants. The experts’ judgements are given in a box-plot using a slider, which simplifies the procedure because the respondents have all the most important information on the distribution of responses from the previous round. At the same time, our method eliminates the problem of the choice of one of the diverse methods of aggregation, which are necessary when the AHP is applied in a group setting. The application of this method to energy issues and the dynamics of the acceptability of the different sources in particular revealed the feasibility and advantages of the instrument and produced interesting results. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Quality & Quantity.

    Volume (Year): 48 (2014)
    Issue (Month): 6 (November)
    Pages: 2973-2991

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:6:p:2973-2991
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-013-9935-0
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L. & Shang, Jen S., 2007. "Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 22-37, March.
    3. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    4. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    5. Lai, Vincent S. & Wong, Bo K. & Cheung, Waiman, 2002. "Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 134-144, February.
    6. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:6:p:2973-2991. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.