Multi‐criteria analysis weighting methodology to incorporate stakeholders' preferences in energy and climate policy interactions

Abstract

PurposeEvaluation of energy and climate policy interactions is a complex issue, whereas stakeholders' preferences incorporation has not been addressed systematically. The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated weighting methodology that has been developed in order to incorporate weighting preferences into an ex ante evaluation of climate and energy policy interactions.Design/methodology/approachA multi‐criteria analysis (MCA) weighting methodology which combines pair‐wise comparisons and ratio importance weighting methods has been elaborated. It initially introduces the users to the evaluation process through a warming up holistic approach for an initial rank of the criteria and then facilitates them to express their ratio relative importance in pair‐wise comparisons of criteria by providing them an interactive mean with verbal, numerical and visual representation of their preferences. Moreover, it provides a ranking consistency test where users can see the degree of (in)consistency of their preferences.FindingsStakeholders and experts in the energy policy field who tested the methodology stated their approval and satisfaction for the combination of both ranking and pair‐wise comparison techniques, since it allows the gradual approach to the evaluation problem. In addition, main difficulties in MCA weights elicitation processes were overcome.Research limitations/implicationsThe methodology is tested by a small sample of stakeholders, whereas a larger sample, a broader range of stakeholders and applications on different climate policy evaluation cases merit further research.Originality/valueThe novel aspect of the developed methodology consists of the combination of ranking and pair‐wise comparison techniques for the elicitation of stakeholders' preferences.

Mapping and Measuring European Local Governments’ Priorities for a Sustainable and Low-Carbon Energy Future

“…However, even though it is recognized as a valid and sound decision making analysis approach [37], its application in the field of climate change policy assessment remains relatively limited albeit its increasing use [21,35]. Recently, other authors provided a more detailed review of MCA applications in climate change policy [37,38].…”

“…It is particularly the systematic and structured weighting process that allows the elicitation of respondents' priorities and preferences. Combined use of different methods and provision of technical support during the entire process result into minimization of potential biases, enhance appropriate use of the MCA methods, and facilitate confident expression of respondents' preferences [38,39]. It is this specific process of criteria weights elicitation of LGs that our study focuses on.…”

“…The different elements of the hybrid weighting methodology have been developed and explained in recent publications by the authors [36,38]. The current hybrid methodology strengthens the flexibility of the preferences elicitation approach by applying the appropriate method according to the different context, while at the same time utilizes a systematic iterative process.…”

“…During the selection process, the evaluation criteria had to meet certain conditions, such as operationality, value relevance, decomposability, reliability, measurability, non-redundancy, minimum in size, completeness, understandability, preferential independence, comprehensiveness, directness and unambiguousness, geographical coverage, local context and data availability [38,40,41].…”

Alternative Solutions to Preserve the Revealed Byzantine Antiquities at the Venizelou Metro Station of Thessaloniki

“…Due to the combination of both quantitative and qualitative criteria, it is necessary to either standardize the scores across all criteria using the Expected Value method, or to normalise the importance of each criterion and use assessment scores varying within a standard and common range. A number of other weighting methods can be also found in the literature, primarily distinguished as compensatory and non-compensatory (Grafakos et al 2010) for safety and maintenance criteria).…”