用价值导向思维和多准则群体决策评价能源转型方案

T. Höfer, Ruediger von Nitzsch, R. Madlener
{"title":"用价值导向思维和多准则群体决策评价能源转型方案","authors":"T. Höfer, Ruediger von Nitzsch, R. Madlener","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3501616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The future transformation of the energy system is a contentious topic, involving a variety of conflicting opinions and interests. In order to structure and evaluate these opinions, we develop a group decision-making process with professional stakeholders and energy experts. The aim of this process is to develop a common objective system for the energy transition and to evaluate four possible energy transition alternatives for Germany until 2030. The stakeholders are involved in every step of the decision-making process – the development of the alternatives, the definition of the objective system, and the final evaluation of the alternatives. We apply Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) to define and structure the objectives of the stakeholders and use Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) to evaluate the preferences of the stakeholders towards these objectives. The results show that a majority of the stakeholders prefers the energy transition alternative, which has the highest ambitions to limit climate change. A minority prefers the pan-European alternative where Germany’s power system is further integrated into the European energy system.","PeriodicalId":170831,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives\",\"authors\":\"T. Höfer, Ruediger von Nitzsch, R. Madlener\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3501616\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The future transformation of the energy system is a contentious topic, involving a variety of conflicting opinions and interests. In order to structure and evaluate these opinions, we develop a group decision-making process with professional stakeholders and energy experts. The aim of this process is to develop a common objective system for the energy transition and to evaluate four possible energy transition alternatives for Germany until 2030. The stakeholders are involved in every step of the decision-making process – the development of the alternatives, the definition of the objective system, and the final evaluation of the alternatives. We apply Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) to define and structure the objectives of the stakeholders and use Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) to evaluate the preferences of the stakeholders towards these objectives. The results show that a majority of the stakeholders prefers the energy transition alternative, which has the highest ambitions to limit climate change. A minority prefers the pan-European alternative where Germany’s power system is further integrated into the European energy system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501616\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501616","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

未来能源体系的转型是一个有争议的话题,涉及各种相互冲突的观点和利益。为了组织和评估这些意见,我们开发了一个由专业利益相关者和能源专家组成的小组决策过程。这一过程的目的是为能源转型制定一个共同的目标体系,并评估德国到2030年的四种可能的能源转型替代方案。利益相关者参与决策过程的每一步——备选方案的制定、目标系统的定义以及备选方案的最终评估。我们应用价值聚焦思维(VFT)来定义和构建利益相关者的目标,并使用多属性效用理论(MAUT)来评估利益相关者对这些目标的偏好。结果表明,大多数利益相关者更倾向于能源转型替代方案,这对限制气候变化具有最大的雄心。少数人更喜欢泛欧方案,即德国的电力系统进一步融入欧洲能源体系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives
The future transformation of the energy system is a contentious topic, involving a variety of conflicting opinions and interests. In order to structure and evaluate these opinions, we develop a group decision-making process with professional stakeholders and energy experts. The aim of this process is to develop a common objective system for the energy transition and to evaluate four possible energy transition alternatives for Germany until 2030. The stakeholders are involved in every step of the decision-making process – the development of the alternatives, the definition of the objective system, and the final evaluation of the alternatives. We apply Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) to define and structure the objectives of the stakeholders and use Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) to evaluate the preferences of the stakeholders towards these objectives. The results show that a majority of the stakeholders prefers the energy transition alternative, which has the highest ambitions to limit climate change. A minority prefers the pan-European alternative where Germany’s power system is further integrated into the European energy system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Violent Conflict and the Strength of Civil Society A Model of Embedded Autonomy and Asymmetric Information Endogenous Networks and Legislative Activity Judicial Independence: Why Does De Facto Diverge from De Jure? Does Ethnic Diversity Always Undermine Pro-Social Behavior? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1