Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Decision-making in energy planning.

Application of the Electre method at regional
level for the diffusion of renewable energy
technology
M. Beccali, M. Cellura , M. Mistretta
Dipartimento di Ricerche Energetiche e Ambientali, Universita` degli Studi di Palermo,
Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
Received 19 December 2002; accepted 12 March 2003

Abstract
The authors show an application of the multicriteria decision-making methodology used to
assess an action plan for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies at regional scale. This
methodological tool gives the decision-maker considerable help in the selection of the most
suitable innovative technologies in the energy sector, according to preliminary fixed objectives.
In this paper, a case study is carried out for the island of Sardinia. This region presents, on
one hand, a high potential for energy resources exploitation, but on the other hand, it represents
a specific case among other Italian regions, because of its socio-economic status and history.
Three decision scenarios have been supposed, each one representing a coherent set of
actions, on the basis of which strategies of diffusion are developed.
2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multicriteria decision-making; Renewable energy technologies

1. Introduction
Energy planning processes usually include a study of sectorial demand and supply,
forecasts of the trends of inputoutput items, based on economics and technological
models, and a list of actions, collecting several measures voted to fulfill the main

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-39-91236123; fax: +1-39-91484425.

E-mail address: mcellura@dream.unipa.it (M. Cellura).

0960-1481/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00102-2

2064

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

objectives of the energy plan. This action plan (AP) is addressed to specific strategies
and interventions, which are able to fit, in the best way, demand and supply, according to the many constraints and factors.
The addressing of these needs could be supported by the adoption of multicriteria
approaches in the selection of the most suitable action among all the alternatives.
The selection of the alternative options derives from the goal set identified by the
decision-maker (DM), with regard to the environmental, technical and economical
spheres.
A decision support approach, called Electre III [1], is presented for energy planning application. This method also represents the first methodology with fuzzy concepts incorporated in it, able to help the decision-maker to select the most suitable
innovative technologies in the energy sector [2].

2. Multicriteria decision-making methods and the Electre III approach

In a decisional process the making of choices derives from complex hierarchical
comparisons among alternative options, which are often based on conflictual criteria.
A large number of external variables plays a relevant role in orienting decisionmaking. Some of these can be manipulated by numerical models, such as costbenefit
analysis, market penetration strategies and environmental impacts. Other factors,
dealing with social and cultural context, political drawbacks and aesthetic aspects,
can be assessed only in a qualitative way or with subjective judgment [3]. The aims
of multicriteria decision-making methods (MDMM) are generally the following [4]:
to aid decision-makers to be consistent with fixed general objectives;
to use representative data and transparent assessment procedures;
to help the accomplishment of decisional processes, focusing on increasing its
efficiency.
The Electre III method, in which the criteria of the set of decisional alternatives
are compared by means of a binary relationship, defined as outranking relationship,
are more flexible than the ones based on a multi-objective approach [5].
In detail, the following paragraphs will describe the steps, which characterize the
Electre III methodology.

3. The Electre III methodology

3.1. Definition of the actions to be assessed (decisional objectives)
This consists in the definition of a set of potential alternatives or actions A =
(A 1,A 2,...Ai) to be assessed in the evaluation process.
It is quite relevant because the selected actions have to synthesize significantly
the state of art, as regards technological issues, economic factors and production

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2065

systems at different levels of intervention. In such a way, the DM can have a complete framework of different performances of planning alternatives.
3.2. Criteria of evaluation and evaluation of alternatives, according to each
criterion
The criteria of evaluation have to provide tools of judgment for DM, which must
verify the consistence of choices with the expectations of the DM and with the needs
of the other involved actors. The main target of the analyst is to show the effects
of each alternative, by means of a set of suitable criteria, F = {1,2,...j,...m}, which
allows constitution of a rank order of the alternatives [6].
Given two alternatives Ai and Ak, assume that gj = gj(Ai) and gj = gj(Ak) express
the performance values of Ai and Ak, respectively, according to the jth criterion. Ai
is predominant over Ak, if and only if:
gj(Ai) gj(Ak)

jF

(1)

The inequality (1) must be verified for at least one criterion. F is consistent if it
is accepted by all the actors involved in the decisional process.
Criteria express qualitative or quantitative viewpoints, objectives, aptitudes, and
constraints of an action, and allow assessment of the alternatives, by means of a
rank order.
A coherent set of criteria has to fulfill the following requirements:
Exhaustivity: criteria must not be insufficient or in excess:
If F, gj(Ai) = gj(Ak) Ai and Ak are indifferent
If the DM does not consider the previous statement to be true, then it implies that
some important evaluation criteria have not been taken into account.
Coherence: the set of decision-makers preferences on each criterion has to be consistent with the global preferences:
If gj(Ai) = gj(Ak) j k and gk(Ai) gk(Ak) Ai is preferred to Ak
Not redundancy: criteria must not be in excess and must not be duplicated. Deleting
some criteria can make invalid one of the previous condition for
at least a pair of actions.
3.3. Definition of aggregation procedure
Aggregation of criteria is necessary to give a synthetic judgment, stemming from
the results of the criteria application. In particular, the Electre III approaches are
characterized by a partial aggregation of preferences.
Under the above considerations, it is possible to define the outranking relation of
the alternative Ai on the alternative Ak, as a binary relation on A, if it is possible
clearly to assert that Ai is at least as good as Ak, given the problem essence, the
DMs preferences and the quality of the assessment about each alternative [7].
The hypothesis of outranking is supported by two test conditions: (1) concordance;
and (2) discordance. An index, which is defined in the range [0,1], provides a judg-

2066

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

ment on the degree of credibility of each outranking relation and represents a test
to verify the performance of each alternative.
While a criterion is defined as a rigid tool1 according to the classic conception,
the Electre methodology introduces the flexible concept of pseudo-criterion. It defines
an indifference condition in a zone where the difference between Ai and Ak is
rather small.
A zone of weak preference is also defined between the zones of indifference and
strict preference. Such zones represent uncertainty between indifference and strict
preference conditions [8].
The above procedure allows net judgments to be avoided, when data are not completely available and are uncertain.
An indifference threshold qj and a strict preference threshold pj are fixed, with
regard to the jth criterion. In particular, qj indicates the minimum boundary of uncertainty, associated with the performed calculations, while pj can be considered as the
maximum boundary of error, connected to the performed calculations. Therefore, a
pseudo-criterion is a function gj, in which the discriminant capacity is characterized
by two Ai and Ak A thresholds, indicated with qj and pj and defined as follows:
Ai and Ak are indifferent if:
|gj(Ai) gj(Ak)| qj

(2)

Ai is weakly preferred to Ak if:

qj [gj(Ai) gj(Ak)] pj

(3)

Ai is strictly preferred to Ak if:

gj(Ai) gj(Ak) pj

(4)

According to the same criterion it is always true that:

qj pj

(5)

A pseudo-criterion becomes a real criterion if:

qj pj

(6)

For the jth criterion it can be defined the so-called veto threshold vj, as the limit
value of the difference gj(Ak)gj(Ai), over which it is reasonable to reject the hypothesis of outranking of Ai over Ak, with regard to the considered criterion. It implies
that:
qj pj vj

(7)

The above thresholds are not experimental values, of which the exact score is
required, but they are suitable quantities that experts introduce in order to make the
methodology more flexible, taking into account data uncertainty and approximation [9].

If Ai and Ak are not mutually indifferent, then Ai is preferred to Ak or vice versa.

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2067

3.4. Weighting of criteria

Weighting is carried out, according to the simplified Simos approach [10], based
on the following items:
a first ranking of criteria;
a subsequent assignment of weights, depending on each criterion rank.
Table 1 shows a detailed example of the above weighting procedure.
3.5. Indices of concordance
In the comparisons among different alternatives, the analyst calculates the two
following indices to assess the degree of concordance between such comparisons
and the adopted system of weights and thresholds:
The index of concordance under a given criterion;
The index of global concordance.
The first one, indicated by cj(Ai, Ak), informs us about the strength of preference
for the alternative Ai, with respect to the alternative Ak, under the jth criterion. This
is a function of the difference gj(Ak)gj(Ai) and is defined in this way:
cj(Ai, Ak) 0pj gj(Ak)gj(Ai)

Ak is strictly preferred to Ai

0 cj(Ai,Ak) 1qj gj(Ak)gj(Ai)pj

cj(Ai, Ak) 1gj(Ak)gj(Ai)qj

Ak is weakly preferred to Ai

Ak and Ai are indifferent

(8)
(9)
(10)

where pj and qj are the strict preference and indifference thresholds, respectively. In
other words, cj(Ai, Ak) shows the degree of concordance with the judgmental statement that Ai outranks (is at least as good as) Ak. It decreases linearly from the top
level as soon as gj(Ak) has passed the indifference threshold, and it arrives at the
bottom level as soon as gj(Ak) has reached the preference threshold.
The index of global concordance Cik represents the amount of evidence to support
the concordance among all the criteria, under the hypothesis that Ai outranks Ak [11].
It is defined as the weighted average of all cj(Ai,Ak) F, with regard to the statement
that Ai outranks Ak:

Cik

Wjcj(Ai, Ak)

j1

(11)

Wj

j1

where Wj is the weight associated with the jth criterion.

c, g, l
d

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

3
1

Number of criteria in each place

Nr

From the worst to the best criterion.

Without the weights in brackets.

b, f, i, j 4
e
1
a, h
2
k
1

Criteria

Rankinga

1, 2, 3
4
(5)
6, 7, 8, 9
10
11, 12
13
86b

Weight W

Table 1
Example of criteria weighting according to Simos approach

(6 + 7+8 + 9) /4 = 7.5
10
(11 + 12) / 2 = 11.5
13

(1 + 2+3) /3 = 2
4

Average weights W = W /
Nr

9
12
13
15

2
5

Relative weight (rounded

off %) Wr = W/ W

49 = 36
112 = 12
213 = 26
115 = 15
100

32 = 6
15 = 5

Test

2068
M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2069

3.6. The index of discordance

The index of discordance of alternative Ai vs. Ak, under the jth criterion, is
defined as:
dj(Ai,Ak) 1vj gj(Ak)gj(Ai)

(12)

0 dj(Ai,Ak) 1pj gj(Ak)gj(Ai) vj

(13)

dj(Ai,Ak) 0gj(Ak)gj(Ai) pj

(14)

dj(Ai, Ak) shows the degree of discordance with the judgmental statement that Ai
outranks Ak. It increases linearly from the bottom level as soon as gj(Ak) has passed
the preference threshold, and it arrives at the top level as soon as gj(Ak) has reached
the veto threshold [12].
3.7. Flexibility in the outranking relation
Flexibility allows verification if the outranking relation between two alternatives
is indisputable, not very convincing, or included between the previous conditions.
It is expressed as an index dik, termed credibility degree of outranking. As regards
to Ai and Ak, it is defined as:
1dj(Ai, Ak)
when dj Cik
1 Cik
jF

dik Cik

(15)

where F is defined as F = {j / jF,dj(Ai, Ak) Cik} and FF.

The introduction of dik is necessary, because Cik is a reliable index of credibility
of the outranking until discordance indices dj assume low values. Furthermore, given
the degree of credibility of outranking dem of the two actions Ae and Am, the fact
that dik dem does not imply that the outranking of Ai on Ak is stronger than the
outranking of Ae on Am.
A function, the so-called discrimination threshold s(l), is defined in order to verify
if an outranking relation is more credible than another. If l[0, 1] dik = l and
dem = h, with h s(l), then it verified that the outranking of Ai on Ak is strictly
more credible than the outranking of Ae on Am.
3.8. Final ranking of alternatives
The final rank derives from the so-called distillation, a process which provides
two orders of outcome:
the first one results from a descendant distillation, where the rank order is performed starting from the strongest preferred actions;
the last one results from an ascendant distillation, where the rank order starts from
the weakest preferences.
The intersection between the previous orders, which are defined complete, is a
partial order, which is obtained applying the following rules:

2070

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

if Ai is preferred to Ak in both two orders, then it is also preferred in the final order;
if Ai and Ak are indifferent in one of the two orders, while Ai is preferred to Ak
in the other one, then Ai is preferred to Ak in the final order, too;
if Ai is preferred to Ak in one of the two orders, while Ak is preferred to Ai in the
other one, then Ai and Ak are incomparable in the final order.
The rank order of the alternatives is presented in a diagram, where scores on the
two reference axis represent the position of alternatives, derived from both distillation
phases. The best alternatives are situated on the upper right side, while the worst
alternatives are positioned on the bottom left of the diagram. The more an alternative
is far from the bisecting line, the more it will be incomparable with the others.
The diagram area, with regard to the best actions, contains the following actions
(Fig. 1):
excellent actions in the two orders

Fig. 1.

Examples of possible best actions areas.

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2071

good actions in the two orders and not totally incomparable

excellent actions in at least one of the two orders
good actions in the two orders and at least excellent in one of the two orders.
4. Case study
4.1. Application of the Electre method to energy planning in Sardinia
This paper presents an application of the MDMM for the selection of the most
suitable technologies in a RET2 diffusion plan for the Sardinia region [13].
A set of technologies of energy conversion and saving, has been selected in order
to assess energy, environmental and economic effects, which are associated with
their diffusion in Sardinia. Such a set has been further restricted only to those technologies oriented to energy saving and renewable resources use. Table 2 shows the
Table 2
List of the selected actions to be diffused
Number

Energy source

Technology/Action

Size

1
2

Solar energy

Domestic solar water heaters

Solar water heating for large
demands at low levels of
temperature
PV roofs: grid connected system
generating electric energy
(without storage)
Wind turbines (grid connected)

Small
Mediumlarge

Wind energy

Hydraulic energy

6
7
8

Biomass

9
10

Animal manure
Energy saving in
residential and
industry sectors

11
12
13
14

CHP

Renewable energy technologies.

hydro plants in derivation

schemes
hydro plants in existing water
distribution networks
high efficiency wood boilers
CHP plants fed by agricultural
wastes or energy crops
CHP plants fed by biogas
Building insulation

High efficiency lighting

High efficiency electric
householders appliances
High efficiency boilers
Plants coupled with refrigerating
adsorption machines

Mediumlarge

Mediumlarge (one turbine:

200 kW-1 MW)
Mediumsmall (100 kW-2
MW)
Mediumsmall (1 MW)
Small (40 kWt)
Medium (10 MWe)
Small ( 100 kWe)
In all new building and in a
large parte of existing ones
Wide
Wide
Smallmedium
Mediumlarge (100 kW-500
MWe)

2072

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

selected actions. The order number in the first column will be used to synthesize
the position of each action in the diagram.
4.2. Definition of evaluation criteria
A process of diffusion of an innovative technology needs the following requirements:
compatibility with political, legislative and administrative situation;
consistence with the local technical and economic condition, which depends on the
local capacity of managing the innovation both at technical and financial levels;
consistence with energy demand predictions, which will have to confirm or reject
the expectations of lasting development for the considered innovation;
compatibility with the existing environmental and ecological constraints.
According to the above considerations, 12 criteria are identified and collected in
Table 3.

5. Description of criteria and evaluation of actions according to each

criterion
5.1. Target of primary energy saving at regional scale (criterion a)
It provides an estimation of the amount of primary energy that a given action
allows to save. Such a saving can be estimated by means of: (1) technologies of
conversion which use renewable sources; or (2) reduction of final energy consumptions, under the same operating conditions. This criteria is assessed as the annual
saved energy, which derives from fossil fuels, as TJ/year.

Table 3
Groups of criteria
Technological criteria

Energy and environmental criteria Social and economic criteria

Targets of primary energy saving in

regional scale
Technical maturity, reliability

Sustainability according to
greenhouse pollutant emissions
Sustainability according to other
pollutant emissions
Land requirement

Consistence of installation and

maintenance requirements with local
technical know-how
Continuity and predictability of
Sustainability according to other
performances
environmental impacts
Cost of saved primary energy

labour impact
Market maturity
Compatibility with political,
legislative and
administrative situation

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2073

5.2. Technical maturity, reliability (criterion b)

It is essentially based on the state of art of the applied technology. The judgment
is expressed by means of a score encompassed within the range [1,4]. A rank order
is applied, with increasing preference from 1 to 4, as follows:
1. technologies that are only tested in laboratory;
2. technologies that are only performed in pilot plants, where the demonstrative goal
is linked to the experimental one, referring to the operating and technical conditions;
3. technologies that could be still improved;
4. consolidated technologies, which are close to reaching the theoretical limits of
efficiency.
5.3. Consistence of installation and maintenance requirements with local
technical know-how (criterion c)
Evaluation is oriented to a qualitative comparison between the complexity of the
considered technology, and the capacity of local actors of ensuring an appropriate
operating support.
Then the following qualitative scale of ranking is used:
1. insufficient technical background for installation/maintenance;
2. middle technical background for installation/maintenance;
3. great technical background for installation/maintenance.
5.4. Continuity and predictability of performance (criterion d)
It is important to know if conditions of not continuous operational patterns can
exist. This condition is often a characteristic of a given technology and does not
indicate a factor of unreliability.
However, when not continuous operational condition conveys toward condition
of unpredictability, it could be a sign of weakness.
Therefore, judgment will be articulated according to the following scale:
1. unpredictable and not continuous operation;
2. predictable but not continuous operation;
3. predictable and continuous operation.
5.5. Cost of saved primary energy (criterion e)
The economic assessment of the different actions is made through the cost associated with the saving of a unit of primary energy (MJ).
For a RET, the cost associated with the saving of primary energy is used.
In the same way, in thermal energy plants, which use renewable sources, energy

2074

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

saving depends on the efficiency of the substituted combustion system, strictly

referred to as the considered application.
As regard to the interventions of electricity and thermal energy saving, the saved
primary energy is calculated, referring to efficiency values of conventional production system, which are the Enel system for electricity and a reference thermal
generator of given efficiency for the thermal energy production [14].
The actualized cost C of a unit of produced, or saved energy, depends on the costs
of investment, of operation, and of the fuel used. It is also influenced by the typical
characteristics of the technology, such as efficiency, annual production, service life,
by the nature of the energy source utilized, and by the money cost. It is calculated
in this way:
C

starting cost annualization factor annual costs

produced or saved energy

(18)

It must be highlighted that earnings from the sale of energy are not considered in
this parameter. In this way the effects of tariff policies are avoided.
5.6. Sustainability according to greenhouse pollutant emissions (criterion f)
This criterion is introduced to measure the equivalent emission of CO2, which is
avoided by the examined action. Therefore it is a reference index, expressed in
grCO2/MJ of saved primary energy. Also in this case, reference volumes of emission
of substituted conventional technologies have been considered.
5.7. Sustainability according to other pollutant emissions (criterion g)
Pollutants are divided into the following categories:
air emissions mainly due to combustion process;
liquid wastes, which are associated mainly with secondary products by fumes
treatment or with process water;
solid wastes, which are generated during the life cycle of actions.
Type and quantity of emissions, and costs associated with wastes treatments are
assessed. In order to have a synthetic index, the score is expressed through the following qualitative scale of values:
1.
2.
3.
4.

very high emissions, when each category is relevant;

high emissions, when at least two of the categories are relevant;
middle emissions, when at least one category is relevant;
low emissions, when all the emissions category are insignificant or do not exist.

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2075

5.8. Land requirement (criterion h)

It represents one of the most critical factors for the intervention site, especially
where the human activities are relevant factors of environmental pressure.
A strong demand for land can also determine economic losses, which are proportional to the specific value of site and the possible attendant alternative needs.
In this paper, because of the large scale of the proposed actions, it is difficult to
perform specific evaluations and a mean index of land requirement is assessed and
expressed as m2/kW of installed power. Obviously, local scale evaluations could
describe better drawbacks or possible benefits, which can derive from the considered actions.
5.9. Sustainability according to other environmental impacts (criterion i)
Landscape impact, acoustic emissions, electro-magnetic interferences, bad smells,
and microclimatic changes are evaluated. The synthetic judgment is expressed
through the following scale:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

very high intensity impacts;

high intensity impacts;
middle intensity impacts;
low intensity impacts;
not existing impacts.

5.10. Labor impact (criterion l)

We estimated labor potentials, due to employment of RET, with regard to literature
data [15]. Additional direct and indirect employment, and the possible indirect creation of new professional figures are also assessed. The index of labor impact is
expressed as the number of engaged persons per MJ of energy saved in 1 year.
5.11. Market maturity (criterion m)
This criterion estimates the market availability and the status in the penetration
process of a given technology, materials and services associated with the considered action.
Judgment scale is the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

not present on the market at least in a experimental stage;

pilot plants;
start of market availability;
market availability of the technology for less than 10 years;
market availability of the technology for more than 10 years.

2076

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

5.12. Compatibility with political, legislative and administrative framework

(criterion n)
Italian normative promotes several innovative strategies of energy saving and conversion.
The different strength of these national incentives represents a judgmental element
among different alternative interventions. However, other limits or legislative facilities can exist, especially in regional contexts which are provided with legislative
autonomy.
The examined criterion assesses the qualitative relevance of the above considerations, with regard to government support, the tendency of institutional actors, and
the policy of public information.
The overall value judgment is expressed in the following way:
1. lacking;
2. middle;
3. high.
All the scores, resulting from the scores application of the criteria to each action,
are collected in the matrix of evaluation (Table 4).
6. Weighting of criteria and definition of three decisional scenarios
Weighting of criteria is carried out, according to three different scenarios. Each
scenario emphasizes different hierarchy of preferences of DMs, being at the same
time consistent with different technical, economical and political constraints. In this
case three scenarios have been supposed in order to represent:
a preference toward actions generating the lowest environmental impacts
(environmental-oriented scenario);
a preference toward actions involving the highest economical and social benefits
(economy-oriented scenario);
a preference toward actions addressed to energy saving and a rationalization of
global energy system (energy saving and rationalization scenario).
In this way it is possible to point out three different options, each one representing
a coherent set of actions, on the basis of which to develop strategies of diffusion [16].
Table 5 shows the three priority orders for the three assumed scenarios, which
will be described in the following paragraphs.
7. Environmentaloriented scenario
In this scenario the criteria of the environmental group have the highest relevance
and the preferences of the DM are oriented towards the most environmental friendly

1 Domestic
solar water
heaters
2 Solar water
heating for
large
demands at
low
temperatures
3 PV roofs:
grid
connected
system
generating
electric
energy
4 Wind
turbines
(grid
connected)

Alternatives

649

1842

2790

Technical
maturity,
reliability
(1-5)

1255

Targets of
primary
energy
saving in
regional
scale
[TJ/year]

Consistence
of
installation
and
maintenance
requirements
with local
technical
know-how
(1-5)

Continuity
and predictability of
performances (1-3)

0.013

0.077

0.022

0.017

Cost of
saved
primary
energy
( /MJ)

Table 4
Matrix of evaluation of alternatives, according to the fixed criteria

48

48

63.6

49

Sustainability
according
to
greenhouse
pollutant
emissions
(gCO2/MJ)

Sustainability
according
to other
pollutant
emissions
(1-4)

10.0

Sustainability
according to
other
environmental
impacts (15)

0.0

0.0

0.0

Land
requirement
[m2/KW]

30

268

160

160

Compatibility
with
political,
legislative
and
administrative
situation (13)

(continued on next page)

labour
Market
impact [n. maturity
engaged
(1-5)
persons/MJ
year]

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2077

5 hydro plants
in derivation
schemes
6 hydro plants
in existing
water
distribution
networks
7 high
efficiency
wood boilers
8 CHP plants
fed by
agricultural
wastes or
energy crops
9 CHP plants
fed by
biogas

Alternatives

574

921

1884

1047

Technical
maturity,
reliability
(1-5)

574

Targets of
primary
energy
saving in
regional
scale
[TJ/year]

Table 4 (continued)

Consistence
of
installation
and
maintenance
requirements
with local
technical
know-how
(1-5)

Continuity
and predictability of
performances (1-3)

0.028

0.015

0.003

0.004

0.004

Cost of
saved
primary
energy
( /MJ)

55.8

56.7

63.6

48

48

Sustainability
according
to
greenhouse
pollutant
emissions
(gCO2/MJ)

Sustainability
according
to other
pollutant
emissions
(1-4)

12.5

70.0

0.3

3.5

0.0

Sustainability
according to
other
environmental
impacts (15)

Land
requirement
[m2/KW]

20

45

1000

1200

labour
Market
impact [n. maturity
engaged
(1-5)
persons/MJ
year]

Compatibility
with
political,
legislative
and
administrative
situation (13)

2078
M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

10 Building
insulation
11 high
efficiency
lighting
12 high
efficiency
electric
householders
appliances
13 high
efficiency
boilers
14 Plants
coupled with
refrigerating
adsorption
machines

Alternatives

2784

2215

1172

703

Technical
maturity,
reliability
(1-5)

4187

Targets of
primary
energy
saving in
regional
scale
[TJ/year]

Table 4 (continued)

Consistence
of
installation
and
maintenance
requirements
with local
technical
know-how
(1-5)

Continuity
and predictability of
performances (1-3)

0.005

0.014

0.009

0.002

0.021

Cost of
saved
primary
energy
( /MJ)

55.8

63.6

48

48

63.6

Sustainability
according
to
greenhouse
pollutant
emissions
(gCO2/MJ)

Sustainability
according
to other
pollutant
emissions
(1-4)

0.3

Sustainability
according to
other
environmental
impacts (15)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Land
requirement
[m2/KW]

294

44

labour
Market
impact [n. maturity
engaged
(1-5)
persons/MJ
year]

Compatibility
with
political,
legislative
and
administrative
situation (13)

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2079

2080

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

Table 5
Levels of priority in the three decisional scenarios
Environmental-oriented scenario

Economy-oriented scenario

Energy saving and

rationalization scenario

High priority
Sustainability according to
greenhouse pollutant emissions

High priority
Compatibility with political,
legislative and administrative
situation
Market maturity

High priority
Continuity and predictability
of performances

Sustainability according to other

pollutant emissions
Land requirement
labour impact
Sustainability according to other
Technical maturity, reliability
environmental impacts
Targets of primary energy saving in Cost of saved primary energy
regional scale
Middle priority
Middle priority
Technical maturity, reliability
Land requirement

Consistence of installation and

maintenance requirements with local
technical know-how
Continuity and predictability of
performances
Cost of saved primary energy
labour impact
Low priority
Compatibility with political,
legislative and administrative
situation
Market maturity

Consistence of installation and

maintenance requirements with
local technical know-how

Technical maturity, reliability

Cost of saved primary energy
Targets of primary energy
saving in regional scale

Middle priority
Sustainability according to
greenhouse pollutant
emissions
Sustainability according to
other pollutant emissions
Land requirement

Low priority
Sustainability according to
greenhouse pollutant emissions

Low priority
Market maturity

Sustainability according to other

pollutant emissions
Sustainability according to other
environmental impacts

Labour impact
Compatibility with political,
legislative and administrative
situation

Continuity and predictability of

performances
Targets of primary energy saving
in regional scale

actions. It can be supposed that it assigns the highest importance to labor impact
among the social and economical criteria, locating them in the middle priority rank.
The other criteria of the same group are associated with the low priority rank.
All the criteria, which assess technical reliability of actions, are assigned to the
middle priority rank, except for the criterion of energy saving targets. In particular,
the reduction of fossil fuel consumption represents not only an economic target, but
also one of the most relevant issue of environmental sustainability.

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2081

8. Economy-oriented scenario
One of the main targets of decision-makers is the promotion of RET, as a means
to increase enterprise capacity and generate new profit. In this sense, the possibility
to create new employments, the economical efficiencies of projects and the consistence with the constraints and the legislative facilities represent the most relevant criteria.
Besides, a good judgment on market maturity implies that the selected actions
show a high capability of market penetration.
The technical maturity criterion describes the reliability of a given technology,
which is associated with the safety of investment. The cost of primary energy saved
is a reliable indicator for the energetic and economical efficiency of the examined
technology.
The two criteria land requirement and consistence with local technical know-how
are assigned in the middle priority rank. The first one is an environmental indicator,
which also has an economic implication. In fact, the increase of the occupied land
often involves an increase of initial operating costs. The last one measures the presence of a local technical know-how, suitable to allow the introduction of the given
technology. The remaining criteria are associated with the low priority rank.

9. Energy saving and rational use scenario

Since the selected technology must not reduce system reliability, the criteria of
technical maturity and continuity and predictability of performance are considered
with high priority, together with the energy-saving criterion. The cost of saved primary energy indicates a global measure of the convenience to substitute the conventional primary sources with the resources used by the examined technologies.
Environmental criteria are assigned to the middle priority rank. In fact, the valorization of renewable energy technologies is connected with a reduction of the environmental releases by the energy production processes.
The lowest priority is assigned to the social and economical criteria. In fact, it
can be supposed to overcome the possible legal and financial difficulties, due to the
selected strategy, by means of appropriate political or administrative interventions
in the considered social context.

10. Aggregation procedure

The thresholds of indifference, the strict preference and the veto thresholds are
defined. As these thresholds mainly depend on the nature and the reliability of available data, and on the importance of each criterion in the evaluation, two terns of
values for each criterion are considered. The first one is valid when a given criterion

2082

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

does not assume the highest priority in the global evaluation, while the last one takes
value when it reaches the highest priority (Table 6).

11. Results
11.1. Environmental-oriented scenario
The outcomes of the distillation procedure are the final order for each decisional
scenario. In each order a best actions area is defined as the area within which the
best alternatives are placed for both distillations. These alternatives represent the
actions that fulfill the objectives that the decision-maker has fixed.
In Fig. 2 the dotted area at the top right is the best alternative area. Actions 1, 4,
6, 10, 11 and 12 belong to such an area. As regards to the excluded ones, actions
2 and 7 are the nearest to the best actions area.
Action 13 is the only excluded action that deals with building energy saving. The
other alternatives are excluded because their performances are too low in the most
significant criteria for the considered scenario. However, they also have a consistent
weight in the criteria of middle and high priority. For example, action 3 is excluded
from the best actions area, but it reaches high performances on average for the priority criteria in the considered scenario.
11.2. Economy-oriented scenario
Actions 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are the best ones (Fig. 3). Action 4 is the
best among the excluded ones, mainly depending on the evaluation in the criteria
of land requirement and labor impact. It must be remembered that earnings from
energy sales are not considered.
The low score of actions 11, 12, and 13 in labor impact is balanced by the good
values that these actions reach in the criterion cost of saved primary energy.

Table 6
Thresholds of veto, indifference and preference for the different criteria
a

Not prioritary criteria

Veto
3600 4
Indifference
100 0
Preference
500 0.5
Prioritary criteria
Veto
1800 1.9
Indifference
50 0
Preference
100 0.5

3
0
0.5

3
0
0.5

100
5
15

120
20
40

4
0
0.5

71
0
3

5
0
0.5

1000
0
100

5
0
0.5

3
0
0.5

1.9
0
0.5

20
0
10

50
0
5

1.9
0
0.5

0.1
0
0.1

1.9
0
0.5

1000
0
100

1.9
0
0.5

1.9
0
0.5

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

Fig. 2.

2083

Outcomes of distillation procedure in the environmental-oriented scenario.

11.3. Energy saving and rational use scenario

In this scenario, the actions 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 are the best ones (Fig. 4).
Action 6 and 7 are the best alternatives, concerning renewable sources technologies, while actions 1, 5, 13 and 14 are the best excluded ones. In this case the
actions 10, 11 and 12, dealing with energy saving in building, have been selected.

12. Discussion
Table 7 shows a comparison among the results of the aggregation procedure for
the three examined scenarios. It can be noted that the following actions always belong
to the best actions zone:

action
action
action
action

6;
10;
11;
12.

2084

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

Fig. 3.

Outcomes of distillation procedure in the economy-oriented scenario.

Action 1 is always included for the environmental-oriented and economy-oriented

scenarios, while it is excluded for the scenario of energy saving and rational use.
Finally, the following actions are present once among the best alternatives and
once among the best excluded ones:

action
action
action
action
action

2;
4;
5;
7;
13.

Therefore, the four most recurring actions and the best excluded one are characterized by more relevant robustness than the others. In other words, they are not
much dependent on weights variation or other constraints that characterize the three
scenarios. They are considered consistent with the priority expectations of all the
three decision scenarios, each one representing a hierarchy of different values and
targets.
The last group of actions (actions 2, 4, 5, 7, and 13) contains potential best

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

Fig. 4.

2085

Outcomes of distillation procedure in the energy saving and rational use scenario.

Table 7
Panel of results
Scenario

The best actions

The best excluded actions

1. Environmentaloriented scenario
2. Economyoriented scenario
3. Energy saving and
rationalization scenario

1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12
1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13
6, 7, 10, 11, 12

2, 7
4, 14
1, 5, 13, 14

actions, for which an improvement in one of the priority criteria could bring a
significant variation in the overall evaluation.

13. Conclusions
A MDMM is applied in order to assess groups of actions focused on the implementation of RET innovative technologies voted to use energy renewable resources. The

2086

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

introduction of a multicriteria approach makes a decisional process more flexible

and transparent [17,18].
In the case study 12 evaluation criteria and three possible decisional scenarios
have been defined, in order to increase the flexible approach to the decision-making.
In the first scenario, high priority is assigned to the environmental effects of the
examined actions. In the second scenario, economic and social aspects are emphasized, while in the third one attention is focused on the saving strategies and the
rationalization of the energy production system. The reduction of uses of fossil fuels,
coherently with the technical needs of the current system, is the most relevant issue.
A sensitivity analysis could allow identification of the most robust solutions, which
are less influenced by the weights attributed to criteria.
This approach, on one hand, gives the decision-maker more degree of freedom in
the sense of being able to modify and test his priority framework. On the other hand
it allows testing of a robustness of the actions, according to the priorities scenarios.

References
[1] Roy B. Me todologie multicrite`re daide a` la de cision. Economica, Collection Gestion, Paris 1985.
[2] Lootsma FA, Schuyt H. The multiplicative AHP, Smart, and ELECTRE in a common context. The
Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 1997;6.
[3] Eom Hyun BT. he current state of multiple criteria decision support systems. Human Systems Management 1989;8:1139.
[4] Beinat E. Value functions for environmental management. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997; 239 pp.
[5] Maystre L, Pictet J, Simos J. Me thodes multicrite`res Electre. Lusanne: Presse Polytechniques et
Universitaires Romandes, 1994.
[6] Roy B, Bouyssou D. Comparison of two decision-aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting
example. Cahier 47, LAMSADE, Universite de Paris-Dauphine.
[7] Roy B, Bouyssou D. Aide multicrite`re a la de cision: me thodes et cas. Economica, Collection Gestion,
Paris 1993.
[8] Ostanello Borreani A. Elementi di analisi multicriteriale e teoria di aiuto alla decisione. Appunti
del corso di ricerca operativa, anno accademico 1977/1978. Torino: Libreria Editrice Universitaria
Leprotto & Bella, 1983; 104.
[9] Cusin R. Methodes mathematiques de laide multicritere a la decision. Chania: GREQE Groupe de
recherche en Economie Quantitative et Econometrie, 1993; 188203.
[10] Simos J. Evaluer limpact sur lenvironnement. Une approche originale par lanalyse multicrite`re de
ne gotiation. Lausanne: Presse Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 1990.
[11] Triantaphyllou E. Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000; Vol. 44, 263 pp.
[12] Lootsma Freerk A. In: Fuzzy logic for planning and decision making. P.O. Box 17, AA Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1997. p. 14960.
[13] Regione Autonoma Sardegna. Sistema informativo per lenergia: Bilancio energetico e quadro di
riferimento per la pianificazione energetica regionale. Snam Progetti and Enel/CESEN, 1997.
[14] Ciocca B, Zucca C. Cogenerazione di energia elettrica, termica e frigorifera per la comunita` di S.
Patrignano. In: Proceedings of Aicarr Conference Le centrali frigotermoelettriche negli impianti di
climatizzazione: esperienze e idee, Padova 1994.
[15] Ambiente Italia. Sustainable alternative fluent energy based development of small Mediteranean
islands. Istituto di ricerche, Cec DG XVII, Milano, 1995.

M. Beccali et al. / Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 20632087

2087

[16] Beccali M. Nuove tecnologie energetiche e sviluppo sostenibile, un approccio multicriteria per la
valutazione delle probabilita` di successo di una pianificazione innovativa. PhD thesis, 1994.
[17] Roy B. Classement et choix en pre sence de point de vue multiple (la me thode Electre). Revue
Informatique et Recherche Operationelle 1968;8.
[18] Beccali G, Cellura M, Mistretta M. A decision support system software based on multi-criteria
analysis for the selection of urban sustainability scenarios. In: Proceedings of the International Conference RIO 02 World Climate and Energy Event. 2002. p. 3018.