可再生能源选择:多标准决策在约旦的应用

IF 3.6 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/15487733.2021.1930715
Nawras Shatnawi, H. Abu-Qdais, Farah Abu Qdais
{"title":"可再生能源选择:多标准决策在约旦的应用","authors":"Nawras Shatnawi, H. Abu-Qdais, Farah Abu Qdais","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2021.1930715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Renewable energy sources are environmentally friendly and sustainable resources. However, there is no unique renewable energy resource that suits all countries. As such, nations must select the right option ‒ or combination of options ‒ that aligns with their local economic, technical, and environmental circumstances. Such a selection process is usually performed using a decision-making tool based on multi-criteria analysis. This study aims to find the most effective renewable energy option for Jordan by soliciting experts’ opinions under several criteria and sub-criteria. The collected responses of experts from the energy field were analyzed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP model used in the study consisted of four criteria, eleven sub-criteria, and four renewable energy alternatives. The results indicate that the technical criterion had the highest weight of 53.6% as compared to the environmental criterion which came second with a weight of 29.0% followed by geographical and socioeconomic criteria which have the lowest weights of 11.3% and 6.0%, respectively. The results reveal that under the technical criterion a high rank has given to maturity of the technology followed by availability of know-how with a weight of 0.875 and 0.125, respectively. The sequence of the preferable options based on the study results was: wind energy with 51.9%, followed by the solar energy option with 31.3%, and finally biomass and hydropower with 10.5% and 7.1%, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was performed and showed that the renewable energy options are not sensitive to the technical or environmental criteria, while they were slightly sensitive to the geographical and socioeconomic criteria.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selecting renewable energy options: an application of multi-criteria decision making for Jordan\",\"authors\":\"Nawras Shatnawi, H. Abu-Qdais, Farah Abu Qdais\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15487733.2021.1930715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Renewable energy sources are environmentally friendly and sustainable resources. However, there is no unique renewable energy resource that suits all countries. As such, nations must select the right option ‒ or combination of options ‒ that aligns with their local economic, technical, and environmental circumstances. Such a selection process is usually performed using a decision-making tool based on multi-criteria analysis. This study aims to find the most effective renewable energy option for Jordan by soliciting experts’ opinions under several criteria and sub-criteria. The collected responses of experts from the energy field were analyzed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP model used in the study consisted of four criteria, eleven sub-criteria, and four renewable energy alternatives. The results indicate that the technical criterion had the highest weight of 53.6% as compared to the environmental criterion which came second with a weight of 29.0% followed by geographical and socioeconomic criteria which have the lowest weights of 11.3% and 6.0%, respectively. The results reveal that under the technical criterion a high rank has given to maturity of the technology followed by availability of know-how with a weight of 0.875 and 0.125, respectively. The sequence of the preferable options based on the study results was: wind energy with 51.9%, followed by the solar energy option with 31.3%, and finally biomass and hydropower with 10.5% and 7.1%, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was performed and showed that the renewable energy options are not sensitive to the technical or environmental criteria, while they were slightly sensitive to the geographical and socioeconomic criteria.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1930715\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1930715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

可再生能源是一种环境友好、可持续发展的资源。然而,没有一种独特的可再生能源适合所有国家。因此,各国必须根据本国的经济、技术和环境情况选择正确的方案或多种方案的组合。这种选择过程通常使用基于多标准分析的决策工具来执行。本研究旨在通过在几个标准和子标准下征求专家意见,为约旦找到最有效的可再生能源选择。利用层次分析法(AHP)对收集到的能源领域专家的反馈进行分析。研究中使用的AHP模型包括4个标准、11个子标准和4个可再生能源替代方案。结果表明,技术指标的权重最高,为53.6%;环境指标的权重次之,为29.0%;地理和社会经济指标的权重最低,分别为11.3%和6.0%。结果表明,在技术标准下,技术成熟度排名较高,其次是专有技术的可获得性,权重分别为0.875和0.125。根据研究结果,优选方案的顺序为:风能占51.9%,其次是太阳能占31.3%,最后是生物质能和水电,分别占10.5%和7.1%。敏感性分析表明,可再生能源方案对技术或环境标准不敏感,而对地理和社会经济标准略微敏感。
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
Selecting renewable energy options: an application of multi-criteria decision making for Jordan
Abstract Renewable energy sources are environmentally friendly and sustainable resources. However, there is no unique renewable energy resource that suits all countries. As such, nations must select the right option ‒ or combination of options ‒ that aligns with their local economic, technical, and environmental circumstances. Such a selection process is usually performed using a decision-making tool based on multi-criteria analysis. This study aims to find the most effective renewable energy option for Jordan by soliciting experts’ opinions under several criteria and sub-criteria. The collected responses of experts from the energy field were analyzed using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP model used in the study consisted of four criteria, eleven sub-criteria, and four renewable energy alternatives. The results indicate that the technical criterion had the highest weight of 53.6% as compared to the environmental criterion which came second with a weight of 29.0% followed by geographical and socioeconomic criteria which have the lowest weights of 11.3% and 6.0%, respectively. The results reveal that under the technical criterion a high rank has given to maturity of the technology followed by availability of know-how with a weight of 0.875 and 0.125, respectively. The sequence of the preferable options based on the study results was: wind energy with 51.9%, followed by the solar energy option with 31.3%, and finally biomass and hydropower with 10.5% and 7.1%, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was performed and showed that the renewable energy options are not sensitive to the technical or environmental criteria, while they were slightly sensitive to the geographical and socioeconomic criteria.
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
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy is a refereed, open-access journal which recognizes that climate change and other socio-environmental challenges require significant transformation of existing systems of consumption and production. Complex and diverse arrays of societal factors and institutions will in coming decades need to reconfigure agro-food systems, implement renewable energy sources, and reinvent housing, modes of mobility, and lifestyles for the current century and beyond. These innovations will need to be formulated in ways that enhance global equity, reduce unequal access to resources, and enable all people on the planet to lead flourishing lives within biophysical constraints. The journal seeks to advance scientific and political perspectives and to cultivate transdisciplinary discussions involving researchers, policy makers, civic entrepreneurs, and others. The ultimate objective is to encourage the design and deployment of both local experiments and system innovations that contribute to a more sustainable future by empowering individuals and organizations and facilitating processes of social learning.
期刊最新文献
The role of interest in the unsustainability of growth: analytical findings using an accounting model Deliberating just transition: lessons from a citizens’ jury on carbon-neutral transport Driving sustainable transportation: insights and strategies for shared-rides services Sustainable fashion: to define, or not to define, that is not the question Accelerating transition toward district heating-system decarbonization by policy co-design with key investors: opportunities and challenges
×
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