Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Multi-stakeholder Approach to Energy Transition Policy Formation in Jordan

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World (GDN 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 315))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present the method used in an ongoing project in Jordan for a multi-stakeholder, multi-criteria problem of formulating a nationwide energy strategy for the country for the next decades. The Jordanian government has recognized the need for energy transition and the main goal of the energy strategy is to provide a reliable energy supply by increasing the share of local energy resources in the energy mix, while reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels, by diversifying energy resources, also including renewable energy sources, nuclear and shale oil, and by enhancing environmental protection. There were strong incentives for a collaborative approach, since the ways in which different stakeholder groups subjectively attach meanings to electricity generation technologies are recognized as important issues shaping the attainment of energy planning objectives. To understand the meaning of these constructs, we are using a multi-stakeholder multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to elicit criteria weights and valuations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

  • 10 November 2018

    The original version of this chapter contained an error in the third author’s name. The spelling of Nadejda Komendantova’s name was incorrect in the header of the paper. The author’s name has been corrected.

References

  1. Afgan, N.H., Carvalho, M.G.: Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants. Energy 27, 739–755 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Mistretta, M.: Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renew. Energy 28, 2063–2087 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bidwell, D.: Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions. Nat. Energy 1, 16051 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: A framework for analysing decisions under risk. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104(3), 474–484 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: A robustness study of state-of-the-art surrogate weights for MCDM. Group Decis. Negot. 7 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9494-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., He, Y.: Augmenting ordinal methods of attribute weight approximation. Decis. Anal. 11(1), 21–26 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181(2), 808–816 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: Rank ordering methods for multi-criteria decisions. In: Zaraté, P., Kersten, G.E., Hernández, J.E. (eds.) GDN 2014. LNBIP, vol. 180, pp. 128–135. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07179-4_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: The CAR method for using preference strength in multi-criteria decision making. Group Decis. Negot. 25(4), 775–797 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9460-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: Trade-offs for ordinal ranking methods in multi-criteria decisions. In: Bajwa, D., Koeszegi, S.T., Vetschera, R. (eds.) GDN 2016. LNBIP, vol. 274, pp. 16–27. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52624-9_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Del Rio, P., Burguillo, M.: Assessing the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability: towards a theoretical framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 12, 1325–1344 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Del Rio, P., Burguillo, M.: An empirical analysis of the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 1314–1325 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards, W., Barron, F.: SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 60, 306–325 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards, W.: How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 7(5), 326–340 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Edwards, W.: Social utilities. Eng. Econ. Summer Symp. Ser. 6, 119–129 (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Erol, Ö., Kilkis, B.: An energy source policy assessment using analytical hierarchy process. Energy Convers. Manag. 63, 245–252 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Figueira, J., Roy, B.: Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 139, 317–326 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fligstein, N., McAdam, D.: A Theory of Fields. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Grafakos, S., Flamos, A., Enseñado, E.M.: Preferences matter: a constructive approach to incorporating local stakeholders’ preferences in the sustainability evaluation of energy technologies. Sustainability 7, 10922–10960 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grafakos, S., Gianoli, A., Tsatso, A.: Towards the development of an integrated sustainability and resilience benefits assessment framework of urban green growth interventions. Sustainability 8, 461 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hirschberg, S., Burgherr, P., Spiekerman, G., Dones, R.: Severe accidents in the Energy Sector. PSI Report No. 98-16, Villigen (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Komendantova, N., Irshaid, J., Marashdeh, L., Al-Salaymeh, A., Ekenberg, L., Linnerooth-Bayer, J.: Country Fact Sheet Jordan: Energy and Development at a Glance 2017: Background Paper. Middle East North Africa Sustainable Electricity Trajectories (MENA-SELECT) Project Funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), 65 pp. (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., Omann, I.: Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197, 1063–1074 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Latinopoulos, D., Kechagia, K.: A GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for wind farm site selection. A regional scale application in Greece. Renew. Energy 78, 550–560 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Oberschmidt, J., Geldermann, J., Ludwig, J., Schmehl, M.: Modified PROMETHEE approach for assessing energy technologies. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 4, 183–212 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N., Hoagwood, K.: Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 42, 533–544 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15, 234–281 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Simos, J.: Evaluer l’impact sur l’environnement: Une approche originale par l’analyse multicriteere et la negociation. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Simos, J.: L’evaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitif neegociee. Theese de doctorat, DGF-EPFL, Lausanne (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schweizer, P.-J., Renn, O., Köck, W., Bovet, J., Benighaus, C., Scheel, O., Schröter, R.: Public participation for infrastructure planning in the context of the German “Energiewende”. Utilities Policy (2014, in press)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M., Henggeler Antunes, C., García-Cascales, M.S., Dias, L.C.: GIS-based photovoltaic solar farms site selection using ELECTRE-TRI: evaluating the case for Torre Pacheco, Murcia, Southeast of Spain. Renew. Energy 66, 478–494 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shortall, R., Davidsdottir, B., Axelsson, G.: Development of a sustainability assessment framework for geothermal energy projects. Energy. Sustain. Dev. 27, 28–45 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsoutsos, T., Drandaki, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Iosifidis, E., Kiosses, I.: Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 37, 1587–1600 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., Zhao, J.-H.: Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 2263–2278 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zangeneh, A., Jadid, S., Rahimi-Kian, A.: A hierarchical decision making model for the prioritization of distributed generation technologies: a case study for Iran. Energy Policy 37, 5752–5763 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partly funded by the project Middle East North Africa Sustainable Electricity Trajectories (MENA-SELECT) and partly by the strategic grants from the Swedish government within ICT – The Next Generation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Postbox 7003, 164 07, Kista, Sweden

    Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg

  2. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, Schlossplatz 1, 2361, Laxenburg, Austria

    Mats Danielson, Love Ekenberg & Nadejda Komendantova

  3. Department of Environmental Systems Science, Institute for Environmental Decisions (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland

    Nadejda Komendantova

Authors
  1. Mats Danielson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Love Ekenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nadejda Komendantova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Love Ekenberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China

    Ye Chen

  2. Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Gregory Kersten

  3. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Rudolf Vetschera

  4. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Haiyan Xu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Komendantova, N. (2018). A Multi-stakeholder Approach to Energy Transition Policy Formation in Jordan. In: Chen, Y., Kersten, G., Vetschera, R., Xu, H. (eds) Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World. GDN 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 315. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92873-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92874-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation