Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects

被引:24
|
作者
Lerche, Nils [1 ]
Wilkens, Ines [2 ]
Schmehl, Meike [1 ]
Eigner-Thiel, Swantje [3 ]
Geldermann, Jutta [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Goettingen, Chair Prod & Logist, Pl Goettinger Sieben 3, D-37073 Gottingen, Germany
[2] Inst Decentralized Energy Technol, Staendepl 15, D-34117 Kassel, Germany
[3] Univ Appl Sci & Arts Goettingen, Res Grp Rural Areas & Village Dev, Buesgenweg 1A, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany
关键词
Socio-economic planning; Local energy projects; Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Acceptance; Public sector management; Structured decision process; PUBLIC-PARTICIPATION; SUSTAINABILITY; PROMETHEE; CRITERIA; SYSTEM; AID;
D O I
10.1016/j.seps.2017.08.002
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The public sector plays an important role in the German "Energiewende". Besides energy management in municipal properties the local government can also support the switch to renewable energy sources through a change in energy supply structures within in their region. Methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) from Operations Research are helpful regarding that challenge, as they are able to assess the sustainability of local energy concepts, since they not only offer stakeholders the opportunity to participate, but also consider multiple conflicting criteria. In that way, the acceptance of local energy projects and the participation of stakeholders in the decision process are supported. The case study presented in this paper illustrates the results of a MCDM process employed to identify a sustainable bioenergy concept in a rural village in Lower Saxony, Germany. Our analysis revealed not only the opportunities and challenges associated with executing an MCDM process to support the realization of local bioenergy projects, but also discusses potential limitations of the methods. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] SAFETY OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS USING MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
    Dejus, Titas
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 2011, 17 (02) : 177 - 183
  • [2] A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems
    Scott, James A.
    Ho, William
    Dey, Prasanta K.
    [J]. ENERGY, 2012, 42 (01) : 146 - 156
  • [3] Cognitive support methods for multi-criteria expert decision making
    Bisdorff, R
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1999, 119 (02) : 379 - 387
  • [4] Visual support for multi-criteria decision making
    Laine, T.
    Forns-Samso, F.
    Kukkonen, V.
    [J]. EWORK AND EBUSINESS IN ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, 2016, : 371 - 376
  • [5] EVALUATION OF TRANSPORT PROJECTS USING MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHOD
    Macura, Dragana
    Bojovic, Nebojsa
    Nuhodzic, Resad
    Selmic, Milica
    Boskovic, Branislav
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT ENGINEERING (ICTTE), 2012, : 547 - 554
  • [6] SELECTION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS IN INDUSTRY BY APPLICATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS
    Vasovic, Jasmina Vesic
    Radojicic, Miroslav
    Vasovic, Stojan
    [J]. METALURGIA INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 17 (06): : 118 - 124
  • [7] Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study
    Ben-Arieh, D
    [J]. INTERFACES, 2002, 32 (02) : 81 - 83
  • [8] Drone selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods
    Khan, Muhammad Sohaib
    Shah, Syed Irtiza Ali
    Javed, Ali
    Qadri, Nafees Mumtaz
    Hussain, Nadeem
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF 2021 INTERNATIONAL BHURBAN CONFERENCE ON APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES (IBCAST), 2021, : 256 - 270
  • [9] Evaluating the sustainability of hotels using multi-criteria decision making methods
    Wang, Chia-Nan
    Hoang-Phu Nguyen
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-ENGINEERING SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 175 (03) : 129 - 140
  • [10] Selection of Construction Equipment by Using Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods
    Temiz, I.
    Calis, G.
    [J]. CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE 2017, CCC 2017, 2017, 196 : 286 - 293