Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is widely applied to aid decision making in the context of energy management and energy policy, e.g. Stewart and Horowitz 1991, Mirasgedis and Diakoulaki 1997, Dodgson et al. 2000. Most applications in energy planning focus however on technical planning (e.g. as described in Hobbs and Meier 2000), and typically do not include either society-nature interactions or stakeholders in a systematic and participatory way. However, as in other research areas, a trend towards an increased involvement by stakeholders can be observed in energy research. In several case studies, MCA has been combined with participatory processes. It is considered to be particularly well suited for the participatory design of new strategies addressing environmental and sustainable development issues. (De Marchi et al.
2000) A participatory MCA approach for renewable energy planning was applied in Georgopoulou’s case on a Greek island in the 1990s. Renewable energy options were evaluated using the MCA approach- ELECTRE III66- embedded in a participatory process. Eight renewable energy strategies were formulated and evaluated by stakeholders using 15 sustainability criteria. (for further detail see Georgopoulou et al. 1997); further examples are Haralambopoulos and Polatidis 2003, Polatidis et al. 2003, Greening and Bernow 2004, Madlener and Stagl 2005, and Stagl 2006, Gamboa et al. 2008. Multi-criteria mapping, a
66 ELECTRE III is based on pair-wise comparison as is PROMETHEE.
specific participatory MCA tool, works with data intervals and therefore addresses the issue of uncertainty within the evaluation data in a very thoughtful way (Stirling and Mayer 2001, Burgess et al. 2007), whereas the applied aggregation mode, the weighted sum method, is rather simple and has certain limitations when using for multi-dimensional problems. (Pohekar and Ramachandran 2004)
A general overview of the application of different MCAs to sustainable energy planning indicates a paradigm shift in energy planning approaches. Analytical Hierarchy Processes and outranking techniques like PROMETHEE and ELECTRE are the most popular methods in use at the current time. (Pohekar and Ramachandran 2004)
The theoretical foundation of MCA is built on the concepts of weak comparability and incommensurability. (Martinez-Alier et al. 1998) They describe in practical terms the way in which different units of measurement need to be accounted for, avoiding the immense information loss of solitary accounting systems as in economic accounting (in monetary units) or physical accounting (in physical units e.g. t or J). Weak comparability, hitherto, implies that these different dimensions cannot be traded against each other fully, in the sense of the strong sustainability concept.
In the method strand of social multi-criteria evaluation incommensurability is further sub-divided into the concepts of social incommensurability and technical incommensurability.
(Munda 2004) Social incommensurability refers to the existence of a multiplicity of legitimate interests and values in society, whereas technical incommensurability refers to the issue of representation of multiple identities in descriptive models.
The application of MCA allows one to integrate or even “overcome conflicts between long-term ambitions and short term concerns” (Polatidis et al. 2003). In the context of energy transition management, the authors suggest the weighting of the criteria to make sure the long-term consequences are adequately addressed. An increased weight on environmental criteria is thus helpful in the pre-development phase of transitions (to “include externalities”). Whereas, for the acceleration phase, a high weight on energy resource criteria is suggested in this framework.
And finally, high weight on socio and economic criteria in the stabilisation phase. (Polatidis et al. 2003)
In MCAs there are generally six elements to be defined. In participatory MCAs, an agreement according these six elements has to be found. They are, either to a certain extent or comprehensively negotiated with the stakeholders:
− the set of alternative options
− the set of criteria
− the scores attributed to each of these criteria for each of these options
− the weight to apply to criteria
− the ranking method to be used to compare options
− the role to be given to the MCA in the (participatory) decision process at hand van den Hove 2003
Therefore “MCA establishes the basis for decomposing and structuring the decision exercise on which different actors with various criteria bring their particular interests.” (Polatidis et al.
2003)
PROMETHEE is one of the most widely-used outranking methods based on pair-wise comparison, which allows input data according to the alternative options, the criteria, the weights on the criteria, and the preference functions. (Brans and Mareschal 1990, Geldermann and Zhang 2001) The specificity of the information requirements, e.g. the specific form of input data defining the social preferences, is determined by the model assumptions of PROMETHEE.
(De Keyser and Peeters 1996) In a Swiss case study nine different electricity scenarios have been evaluated according to sustainability indicators67 with PROMETHEE. A group of ten stakeholder representatives focused on the technological options of future electricity generation.
(Haldi 2000)
The PROMETHEE multi-criteria evaluation will be applied to assess the identified performances of renewable energy scenarios along sustainability indicators in a transparent way in a so-called impact matrix. Weights can be given to the criteria expressing the preference of certain interest groups and, therefore, different rankings of the scenarios are accomplished through the accumulation of the data.
Embedding scenario development and MCA in a participatory stakeholder process enables the multiplicity of legitimate perspectives to be taken on board. Furthermore, such a process allows
67 Eleven sustainability criteria were selected with 28 indicators from the economic dimension (8), environmental dimension (16) and social dimension (5).
room (1) to learn more about the ambiguous arguments formed by different interest groups (social learning) and (2) to have the consequences reflected in the evaluation and consequently the ranking of the scenarios.
When evaluating the multi-dimensional sustainability performance of future energy options, a certain set of sustainability criteria is usually applied.
Sustainable development is based on the three pillars and so are usually the indicator frameworks: the social, the economic, and the environmental indicators. The institutional dimension of sustainability is regularly added as a fourth dimension. (UNCSD 1996) To measure the sustainable performance, criteria and indicators have been developed. The political process itself in moving towards sustainability is considered to be subject to social and institutional sustainability issues, e.g., opportunities for participation. (Spangenberg et al. 2002a, Spangenberg 2002b) The work on economic and environmental sustainability criteria and indicators is far more developed than that carried out on the social and institutional indicators.
In particular, the relevant topics for social indicators differ greatly according to the context, e.g., whether developing countries or industrialised countries. The key issues of paid work and gender are specifically pointed out by some social sustainability studies. (Littig and Griessler 2005)
Despite a general attempt to agree on a common set of sustainability criteria to allow comparability, the contexts of specific cases seem to address sustainability issues in different ways and the set of indicators varies with that. A further question to be addressed, concerns whether the eliciting of indicators should be a part of the participatory process. (Fraser et al.
2006) In the specific context of energy planning, a set of official indicators for energy related evaluations is called for. (Vera and Langlois 2007) Practice shows, however, that these vary despite certain constant indicators.
The UK Sustainable Development Strategy published in 1999 says “at the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come” and presents four main objectives and an extensive list of indicators (UK Government, 1999):
− social progress which recognises the needs of everyone
− effective protection of the environment
− prudent use of natural resources; and
− maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment
These objectives indicate that some of these different interests will be contradictory at some point. “The political challenge is then to integrate the dimensional objectives and policy goals into a joint perspective of sustainable development, avoiding or at least minimizing trade-offs between different objectives”. (Spangenberg 2002b)