Insert the title here - EVUR - TU Berlin

Application of multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of sustainable
energy systems - A review of recent literature
Ines Braune
Department of Energy Engineering
Berlin Institute of Technology
e−mail: ines.braune@tu-berlin.de
Alexander Pinkwart
Department of Energy Engineering
Berlin Institute of Technology
e−mail: alexander.pinkwart@gmail.com
Matthias Reeg
Department of Energy Engineering
Berlin Institute of Technology
e−mail: mattoddh@mailbox.tu-berlin.de
Citation:
Braune, I., Pinkwart, A., Reeg, M. (2009). Application of Mulit-Criteria Analysis for The
Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Systems - a Review of Recent Literature. 5th Dubrovnic
Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems. ISBN
978-953-6313-97-6
ABSTRACT
Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is suitable for the sustainability evaluation of energy
projects. But how widespread are MCDA methods for energy decisions already? In this paper
a review of the recent literature is published to analyse the potential of MCDA for real world
applications. A classification is presented to indicate trends and challenges.
A trend of increasing energy applications for MCDA can be found. Also there is a strong
focus on renewable energy systems. Especially the literature of the last two years shows that
participation of stakeholders becomes more important. Most of the studies are real world
applications i.e. in our sense that the results could be implemented in a certain region.
Unfortunately there is just little evidence that they are also implemented. Moreover, there is a
need for ex post-evaluation giving an idea whether the MCDA-process was successful and
indicating what could be learned for further applications.
KEYWORDS: multi criteria evaluation, MCDA, MCDM, real world application, energy
system, ex post analysis
1. INTRODUCTION
Decisions with relations to energy systems became more complex over the past decades. In
the 50s and 60s energy systems usually were optimised according to technical and financial
criteria. With the oil crisis in the 70s and climate change conferences or the montreal protocol
in the 80s criteria such as security of supply and ecological consequences became more and
more important. With the concept of sustainable development published by the Brundtland
Commission 1987 and widely recognised at the Rio Conference in 1992 the challenge for a

sound evaluation of energy systems grew significantly. Sustainable development claims that
at least the economic, ecological and social impacts of an activity are considered equally. 1
For sustainable development within energy supply energy systems have to be looked at from
different disciplines as to incorporate all the consequences brought along with their
implementation. This approach makes an evaluation of energy systems more complex. In
addition to that participation of stakeholders becomes more important as energy systems face
an increasing opposition of the public. Not only decentralized energy systems like wind
power plants have to deal with problems of acceptance. In Germany utilities are struggling
with approval processes from local governments as the public offers resistance to the building
of new central power plants. Therefore, participation of stakeholders in decision processes of
new energy systems is necessary for the success and stability of energy systems. As energy
issues are usually complex, dynamic, dealing with uncertainty and different stakeholders,
there is a need for new decision tools such as multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
(Loken07).
But how widespread are MCDA methods for energy decisions already? In this paper a review
of the recent literature is published to analyse the potential of MCDA for real world
applications. A classification is presented to indicate trends and challenges.
Multi criteria decision making or analysis is a generic term used for methods that help people
to make decisions in cases when there is a trade off between conflicting criteria (Loken07).
Multi criteria methods have been developed in the discipline of “Operations Research” which
is part of applied mathematics. Literature offers different appellations that are sometimes used
simultaneously. Therefore, a short description of differences is given below.
There are two main groups of multi criteria methods that are distinguished
(Zimmermann1991):
• In Multi Criteria Decision Analysis or Making (MCDA/MCDM) there exist a limited
amount of previously known alternatives that have to be evaluated and ranked.
Depending on the method applied a complete or a partial ranking can be achieved.
• In Multi Objective Decision Making (MODM) an optimal solution will be calculated
out of a set of unlimited feasible alternatives. The alternatives are not predetermined
but instead a set of functions is optimised subject to certain conditions. Here the best
solution is sought.
Since the origin of Multi Criteria Decision Making in the 1960s two main schools have
evolved that underline different approaches and methods:
• “European School” with the approach of “Multi Criteria Decision Aid”(MCDA)
• “American School” with the approach of “Multi Criteria Decision Making” (MCDM)
The principle of MCDM is based on clear preferences of an unspecified decision maker. A
clear structured optimisation problem will be solved with a mathematical process (Omann04).
MCDA compared to MCDM gives more importance to the process of decision aiding than on
1
There are different approaches available. For further information compare (Kopfmüller00), (Empacher99),
(Omann00)

the mathematical process and the final result. With MCDA the European school seeks to give
recommendations whereas the American school tries to find an ideal solution (Roy96).
Moreover, MCDA looks at the pros and cons of the corresponding alternatives without
necessarily presenting a dominant solution. Therefore, the decision aiding process itself is the
centre of attention providing an opportunity to learn from the corresponding stakeholders.
MCDM works with so called monoistic ethics only. Thus the diversity of ethical approaches
within sustainable development cannot be accounted for in the evaluation process. According
to Omann MCDM is not regarded as suitable for decision problems in the context of
sustainable development (Omann04).
In this paper the term MCDA is used in the sense of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis
covering both approaches.
There are several approaches in the literature that categorize the MCDA methods (Hwang81,
Zimmermann91, Polatidis06, Hobbs00). According to Polatidis et al. there are –next to the
above mentioned MODM- “Utility or Value based methods”, “Outranking Methods” and
others (Polatidis06). Utility based methods rank the alternatives according to an aggregated
single value that represents the overall performance of the alternatives. Methods such as
multiattribute utility theory (MAUT), multiattribute value theory (MAVT) and the Analytical
Hierarchie Proces (AHP) belong to this category. The outranking methods originated in the
European school try to find a ranking or partial ranking based on pair wise comparisons. This
approach aims at building a binary relation on the set of alternatives (often called an
outranking relation). Contrary to the utility or value based approach this relation is not built
via a single criterion.
Some reasons for the application of MCDA in a decision process are their ability to deal with
subjective elements and qualitative criteria. MCDA methods are able to incorporate different
perspectives of stakeholders by adding subjective elements such as the weighting of the
different evaluation criteria (Omann04). By separating subjective and objective data the
decision process becomes more transparent as subjective opinions are clearly communicated
and are not hidden in underlying assumptions. Moreover, MCDA has the opportunity to
incorporate qualitative as well as quantitative criteria. Especially ecological and social criteria
are difficult to measure so that through relative scales expert opinion can be quantified and
included in the decision process.
On the other hand, trying to incorporate all these aspects (subjective judgments, stakeholder
participation, modeling of the complex environment, sustainability issues) in one method, can
lead to a bulky approach, thus making it too complex to handle. The risk is that the decision
maker cannot follow the method and feels uncomfortable with the solution. The main
challenge is therefore to build a scientifically valid, thus manageable method (Omann04) 2 .
In the next chapter preceding reviews are introduced and the methodology in this article
discussed. In chapter three the literature review according to the corresponding criteria is
presented. In the final chapter main finding, trends and challenges are summarized.
2. FORMER REVIEWS AND METHOD
2 For more detailed information on MCDA compare (Figueira05)

Reviews have been done so far by Huang et al. (Articles from 1960 until 1994), Pohekar et al.
(Articles from 1983 until 2003) and Kowalski et al. (exerpt of articles between 1990 and
2007).
Huang et al. published the first review of literature on decision analysis in energy and
environmental modelling in 1995 (Huang95). A total of 95 articles have been surveyed
including methods of MCDA, MODM, DSS 3 and other methods such as decision tree or
influence diagram.
A categorisation according to application area (e.g. site selection of power plants or energy
planning and policy analysis), MCDA method and type of energy source is presented.
Furthermore, the application areas are described according to criteria such as level of
uncertainty and number of evaluation criteria. Finally, a corresponding MCDA method is
recommended by the authors.
In 2004 Pohekar et al. gave an overview on more than 90 published papers using MCDA and
MODM methods within energy applications (Pohekar04). Seven fields of application such as
renewable energy planning or energy resource allocation have been identified. The articles are
clustered by field of application, method used and period of time.
In 2008 Kowalski et al. showed a list of articles published until 2007. However, that review
includes key articles only and was not comprehensive.
Since Pohekars research covered the literature on MCDA for energy applications until 2003
our research focussed on published articles since 2004. This work focuses on MCDA only as
MODM methods usually end up with an unfeasible solution and are thus unsuitable for
energy management problems in a real world context (Polatidis06).
In order to learn about trends in MCDA within energy application the following criteria have
been analysed during the study of literature:
1. Type of energy system:
As MCDA has the opportunity to look at quantitative and qualitative data especially
the merits and impacts of renewable energy systems can be incorporated. This
evaluation criterion distinguishes between mere renewable energy application (RE),
renewable and conventional (fossil, nuclear) applications (RE + CE) and other energy
applications such as a ranking of policy instruments (others).
2. MCDA method applied:
This criterion shows the MCDA method or methods that have been used for the
corresponding case study.
3. Real world application:
In order to find out the real world potential of MCDA this criteria shows whether the
applications has been conducted within a real world case study i.e. with data from a
local or national application compared to a work based on theoretical calculations.
According to this classification the results of a real world case study could be
implemented within a certain region.
3 DSS (decision support system) refers to any interactive, flexible and adaptable computerbased system,
developed for supporting the solution of a particular management problem (Huang 95)

4. Participation of stakeholders:
Participation has several advantages such as an increasing legitimacy, including
multiple perspectives of affected stakeholders and learning about uncertain issues.
Stakeholders who are integrated in the decision process feel bound to and responsible
for agreed activities (Omann08). However, participation has its risks and
disadvantages. If participation fails it can lead to mistrust and resistance of the project.
This criteria shows whether the MCDA application has been conducted with
participation of stakeholders or if the MCDA was based on calculations of scientists
only. Depending on the method chosen stakeholders can be involved by for instance
giving subjective weights to the evaluation criteria.
5. Ex-post evaluation:
This criteria indicates whether or not an in depth evaluation of the MCDA application
or lessons learned from the process were mentioned and recommendations for further
applications were given.
For the criteria “type of energy system” and “methods” are data available in the preceding
reviews done by Huang et al. and Pohekar at al. The criteria “real world application”,
“participation of stakeholders”, and “ex-post evaluation” have not been comprehensively
reviewed for energy applications so far.
The review includes case studies only. Overview articles such as (Loken07), (Polatidis06),
(Diakoulaki04) or (Diakoulaki05) are not included in the analysis.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
In a literature review of journal articles for the period 2004 until 2008 a total of 34 articles
have been found.
Compared to the number of publications published in Pohekar et al. an increasing trend of
energy applications can be observed. As Pohekar et al. showed 34 articles dealing with
MCDA in a period from 1991 until 2003 we found 34 articles in a much shorter period from
2004 to 2008. 24 out of these 34 articles were published in the last two years with the main
emphasis on the year 2007.
In the following the results of the analysis according to the five criteria (type of energy
system, method applied, participation of stakeholders, real world case study, ex-post
evaluation) are discussed. Table 1 shows a list of the articles.

Table 1. List of articles 2004-2008
Author Year Title System* Method Real world Partizipation Ex post
Afgan04 2004 Sustainability assessment of hydrogen energy systems RE & CE SCA no no no
Kablan04 2004 Decision support for energy conservation promotion:: an analytic hierarchy process approach Others AHP yes planned no
Nigim04 2004 Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources RE AHP and SIMUS yes yes yes
Noble04 2004 A multi-criteria analysis of Canadian electricity supply futures RE & CE AHP yes yes no
Cavallaro05a 2005 A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island RE NAIADE, fuzzy sets yes no no
Cavallaro05b 2005
An Integrated Multi-Criteria System to Assess Sustainable Energy Options: An Application of the
Promethee Method
RE PROMETHEE yes no no
Pilavachi06 2006 Multi-criteria evaluation for CHP system options CE SCA yes no no
Shackley06 2006
Trade-offs in assessing different energy futures: a regional multi-criteria assessment of the role of carbon
dioxide capture and storage
RE & CE Value benefit analysis yes yes yes
Wijayatunga06 2006
Strategies to overcome barriers for cleaner generation technologies in small developing power systems:
Sri Lanka case study
RE AHP yes yes no
Afgan07a 2007 Multi-criteria evaluation of hydrogen system options RE & CE SCA yes no no
Afgan07b 2007 Biomass-fired power plant: The sustainability option RE SCA no no no
Alanne07 2007 Multi-criteria evaluation of residential energy supply systems CE PAIRS no planned no
Alphen07 2007 Renewable energy technologies in the Maldives-determining the potential RE & CE SCA yes no no
Begic07 2007 Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system--Bosnian case RE & CE SCA yes no no
Buchholz07 2007 A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy RE AHP, ANP no yes no
Burton07
2007
Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-scale energy technology applications in local
governments
RE MACBETH yes yes no
Cherni07 2007 Energy supply for sustainable rural livelihoods. A multi-criteria decision-support system RE & CE SURE/ DSS yes yes no
Diakoulaki07 2007
Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation
sector in Greece
RE PROMETHEE II yes no no
Dinca07 2007 A multi-criteria approach to evaluate the natural gas energy systems CE NAIADE yes no no
Doukas07
2007
Multi-criteria decision aid for the formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic
variables
RE & CE Fuzzy sets yes yes no
Elghali07 2007 Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems RE not chosen no yes no
Gamboa07 2007 The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework RE SMCE yes yes no
Madlener07 2007
New ways for the integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: The case of renewable energy use in
Austria
RE PROMETHEE yes yes no
McDowall07 2007
Towards a sustainable hydrogen economy: A multi-criteria sustainability appraisal of competing
hydrogen futures
RE & CE multi criteria mapping yes yes no
Patlitzianas07 2007 Assessing the renewable energy producers' environment in EU accession member states RE OWA yes no no
Zhou07 2007 Life cycle sustainability assessment of fuels RE & CE SCA no no no
Afgan07 2007 Sustainability assessment of a hybrid energy system RE & CE SCA no no no
BenSalah08 2008 Multi-criteria fuzzy algorithm for energy management of a domestic photovoltaic panel RE fuzzy sets yes no no
Higgs08
2008
Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: Prospects and
challenges
RE not chosen yes yes no
Jaber08 2008 Evaluation of conventional and renewable energy sources for space heating in the household sector RE & CE AHP, Fuzzy Sets yes no no
Jovanovic08 2008 Sustainable development of the Belgrade energy system RE & CE SCA yes no no
Kowalski08 2008
Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multicriteria
analysis
RE PROMETHEE yes yes yes
Neves08 2008 A multi-criteria decision approach to sorting actions for promoting energy efficiency Others ELECTRE III yes yes no
Papadopoulos08 2008
Application of the multi-criteria analysis method Electre III for the optimisation of decentralised energy
systems
RE ELECTRE III yes no no
* RE = renwable energies, CE = conventional energies (fossil, nuclear)

3.1. Type of energy system:
The articles survey showed a strong focus on renewable energy systems. Already Pohekars
review underlined that the MCDA methods are popular for renewable energy planning
(Pohekar04). They found that 16 out of 48 MCDA articles reviewed deal with renewable
energy planning. In comparison, Huang et al. found only three mere renewable energy
applications out of 76 studies analysed until 1994 (Huang95)
In our review 16 out of 34 articles were evaluating renewable energy systems, 13 were
dealing with both renewable and conventional energy sources and only two with energy
systems without renewable energy. Two further studies were looking at energy efficiency
actions and energy policies in general.
Thus the trend of increasing application of MCDA for renewable energy systems can be
confirmed. An explanation could be the increased commitment of national and local
governments as well as a change in the public perception of energy systems.
Due to increasing environmental challenges especially with regard to global warming as well
concerns about the security of supply renewable energies has gained a vast interest. They are
considered environmentally friendly and able to substitute the exhaustible fossil fuels. Many
countries have committed themselves to certain targets of renewable energies within the
energy mix. As renewable energies usually have a decentralised character there is a stronger
local impact compared to centralized energy projects. There are local influences on e.g. land
use, noise, ecosystem on the one hand but also the creation of local value, new businesses,
and an increased independence of conventional supply systems on the other hand. Polatidis et
al. give an overview of the special features of renewable energy projects and argue that
MCDA is more suitable for their evaluation than conventional financial evaluation tools
(Polatidis06).
3.2. MCDA methods applied:
Pohekar et al. found in their review that AHP was the most applied MCDA method followed
by ELECTRE and PROMETHEE. The utility or value based methods MAVT and MAUT
were not widespread in the period between 1990 and 2003. However, according to Huang et
al. many MAUT studies exist in the time before 1990. MAVT or other single criteria analysis
in general (SCA) studies are not explicitly stated in their review. Huang et al. also found an
increasing application of AHP.
Compared to those results the case studies we found in the period 2004 and 2008 used mainly
single criteria methods such as simple additive weighting (12 out of 34). AHP and outranking
methods (6 articles each) were applied quite often as well followed by fuzzy sets (4
applications).
It is quite interesting to observe that there are many single criterion applications available in
the recent literature although Pohekar et al. found mainly AHP and outranking applications.
However, our result is dominated by publications of Afghan et al. who presented 7 out of the
12 single criterion applications.
3.3. Participation of stakeholders:
Kowalski et al. summarized in their review the key literature for energy applications and
stated that there is a trend towards increased involvement of stakeholders (Kowalski08). The
fact that Huang et al. and Pohekar et al. did not mention participation of stakeholders
explicitly in their reviews could indicate that participation was not yet considered that
important at this time. The focus of both reviews was on methods applied and not on the
process of decision making in general.

In our review the trend of increasing stakeholder involvement can be underlined. 17 out of 34
articles showed a direct involvement of stakeholders in the respective case study or a tool that
is built for a future participation of stakeholders. As an example the ARTEMIS project can be
given (Kowalski08, Omann08; Madlener07): In a national case study representatives of
different interest groups and energy experts evaluated energy scenarios. Two workshops and
25 interviews for the purpose of scenario development and for the deliberation of criteria and
weights were conducted.
3.4. Real world application:
The criteria real world application were not analysed with the first reviews done by Huang et
al. and Pohekar et al.. Kowalski et al. offer that information in their review without going into
a detailed discussion.
In our review it can be seen that most of the case studies published are real world applications
according to our definition that the decision process could be applied to the corresponding
region and the results could be implemented. 28 out of 35 articles are showing real world
applications. The remaining “not real world case studies” are either mere comparison of
technologies such as (Afghan04) or (Zhou07) or approaches, which are still on a more
abstract level but under preparation for a future real world case study as (Buchholz 07).
However, the fact that nearly all articles publish real world case studies does not show that the
decision process was realized. There are just a few articles, which clearly mention that the
alternatives identified by the MCDA process were actually implemented. The case study by
Ben Salah et al. is presenting a tool that decides whether a domestic apparatus should be
connected either to the electrical grid or to a photovoltaic panel (BenSalah08). This tool
decides and implements the decision automatically so that implementation is always a
necessary consequence. Further the above introduced local case study within the ARTEMIS
project in Austria showed recommendations, which the communities planned to implement
after the MCDA decision process was accomplished (Kowalski08, Omann08; Madlener07).
Most of the case studies provide recommendations or decision tools for politics or for local
energy utilities without giving evidence of an actual realization.
Another indication for the real world potential of MCDA is the involvement of companies
compared to a mere research environment. Many case studies integrate companies for
interviews or workshops (e.g. Neves08) but there are no companies clearly mentioned that
ordered the MCDA decision process. However, case studies such as (Wijayatunga06) indicate
a jointly conduction with companies. In this case the Sri Lanka Energy Managers Association
was involved for an evaluation of strategies to overcome barriers for cleaner production
technologies.
Compared to that the publication by Hobbs and Meyer in the year 2000 “Energy Decisions
and the environment: A guide to the use of multicriteria methods” offers several case studies
that were conducted at companies such as Canadian and American Utilities (Hobbs00).
Therefore, it is quite possible that there are further real world case studies that are ordered and
conducted by companies but have not been published in the scientific literature. Also the
company that sells the software of the MCDA method AHP “expert choice” publishes a list of

eference projects on their website including 7 utilities 4 . In order to find out how widespread
MCDA applications are further research is necessary.
3.5. Ex-post Evaluation:
In the “Manifesto for the New MCDA Era” published by Bouyssou, Pirlot, Tsoukias and
Vincke in 1993 more ex-post analysis of the MCDA applications was claimed (Bouyssou93).
For the field of energy there are overview studies published by e.g. Polatidis et al. in 2004
giving a review of methods and suitability recommendations for corresponding applications
(Polatidis04). However, lessons learned from applications as requested in the abovementioned
manifest are not available in the literature we reviewed. There are only three case
studies providing a discussion of results and challenges faced during the process. Especially
Nigim et al. give a more detailed feedback on the method chosen, problems encountered
during the process and recommendations to solve the issues (Nigim04).
The literature reviewed mainly emphasises the advantages of MCDA for energy applications
especially its ability to deal with their complex and multidimensional character. However,
usually risks of such a process are not mentioned in the articles. Questions addressing for
instance the effort of data acquisition for a comprehensive evaluation are not discussed. An
ex-post analysis documenting lessons learned from the case study and providing a kind of
manual for future applications would help to learn from each other and thus increasing the
real world potential of MCDA. Again the guide published by Hobbs and Meyer is an
exception. The case studies presented are discussed and reviewed very detailed so that the
reader can learn for future applications (Hobbs00).
4. CONCLUSION
For sustainable development within energy supply energy systems have to be looked at from
different disciplines as to incorporate all the consequences brought along with their
implementation. As energy issues are usually complex, dynamic, dealing with uncertainty and
different stakeholders there is a need for new decision tools. MCDA has been applied
manifold for decisions in energy management already. These decision tools are able to
incorporate different perspectives of stakeholders, they account for quantitative as well as
qualitative criteria and they separate objective and subjective aspects of a decision problem.
Since the 1960s many applications using MCDA-methods for energy issues have been
published. Reviews done before cover the literature comprehensively until 2003. In this paper
a review of journal articles published between 2004 and 2008 is presented.
In order to learn about trends and real world potential of MCDA for energy application the
analysis looks at the criteria “type of energy system”, “method applied”, “participation of
stakeholders”, “real world application” and “ex-port analysis”.
A trend of increasing energy applications for MCDA can be found. Also there is a strong
focus on renewable energy systems. Especially the literature of the last two years shows that
participation of stakeholders becomes more important. According to our definition most of
the studies are real world applications i.e. the results could be implemented in a certain
region. Unfortunately there is just little evidence that they are also implemented. The case
4 Compare http://www.expertchoice.com/

studies we analysed are mainly conducted by research institutes and thus public funding. This
review does not show whether MCDA-methods reached the energy supplying companies
already. Moreover, there is a lack of ex post-evaluation giving an idea whether the MCDAprocess
was successful and indicating what could be learned for further applications.
In order to learn about the status quo of energy applications in companies but also in politics
further research is necessary. At this stage interviews with the business managers are under
preparation.
REFERENCES
(Afgan04) Nain H. Afgan and Maria G. Carvalho. Sustainability assessment of hydrogen energy
systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 29(13):1327_1342, 2004.
(Afgan08)Nain H. Afgan and Maria G. Carvalho. Sustainability assessment of a hybrid energy
system. Energy Policy, 36(8):2903 _2910, August 2008.
(Afgan07a) Naim H. Afgan, Ayfer Veziroglu, and Maria G. Carvalho. Multi-criteria evaluation
of hydrogen system options. International Journal of Hydrogen
(Afgan07b) Naim H. Afgan, Maria G. Carvalho, and Marina Jovanovic. Biomass- red power
plant: The sustainability option. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 26(4):179_193,
2007.
(Alanne07) Kari Alanne, Ahti Salo, Arto Saari, and Stig-Inge Gustafsson. Multicriteria
evaluation of residential energy supply systems. Energy and Buildings, 39(12):1218_1226,
December 2007.
(Begic07) Fajik Begic and Naim H. Afgan. Sustainability assessment tool for the decision
making in selection of energy system_bosnian case. Energy,
32(10):1979_1985, October 2007.
(Beccali03) M. Beccali, M. Cellura, and M. Mistretta. Decision-making in energy planning.
application of the electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy
technology. Renewable Energy, 28(13):2063_
2087, October 2003.
(Bouyssou93) Denis Bouyssou et al.. A Manifesto for the New MCDA Era. Journal of Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis, 2:125_127, 1993
(Burton07) Jonathan Burton and Klaus Hubacek. Is small beautiful? a multicriteria assessment of
small-scale energy technology applications in local governments. Energy Policy,
35(12):6402_6412, December 2007.
(Buchholz07) Thomas S. Buchholz, Timothy A. Volk, and Valerie A. Luzadis. A participatory
systems approach to modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy.
Energy Policy, 35(12):6084_6094, December 2007.
(Cavallaro05a) Fausto Cavallaro and Luigi Ciraolo. A multicriteria approach to evaluate
wind energy plants on an italian island. Energy Policy, 33(2):235_244, January 2005.
(Cavallaro05b) Fausto Cavallaro. An integrated multi-criteria system to assess sustainable
energy options: An application of the promethee method. Social Science Research Network,
2005.
(Cherni07) Judith A. Cherni, Isaac Dyner, Felipe Henao, Patricia Jaramillo, Ricardo Smith, and
Raúl Olalde Font. Energy supply for sustainable rural livelihoods. a multi-criteria decisionsupport
system. Energy Policy, 35(3):1493_1504, March 2007.
(Dinca07) Cristian Dinca, Adrian Badea, Patrick Rousseaux, and Tiberiu Apostol. A multicriteria
approach to evaluate the natural gas energy systems. Energy Policy, 35(11):5754_5765,
November 2007.

[Diakoulaki04] Danae Diakoulaki and Stelios Grafakos. Externalities of energy: Extension of
accounting framework and policy applications. Technical report,
National Technical University Athens, Greece, 2004.
[Diakoulaki05] D. Diakoulaki, C. Henggeler Antunes, and A. G. Martins. Mcda and
energy planning. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, editors,
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pages
859_898. Springer Verlag, 2005.
(Diakoulaki07) D. Diakoulaki and F. Karangelis. Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-bene_t
analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in greece. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(4):716_
727, May 2007.
(Empacher1999) C. Empacher and P. Wehling: Indikatoren sozialer Nachhaltigkeit-Grundlagen
und Konkretisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Institu für sozial-ökologische Forschung, 1999
(Figueira05] José Figueira, Salvatore Greco, and Matthias Ehrgott. Multiple Criteria
Decision Analysis:State of the Art Surveys, volume 78. Springer New
York, 2005.
(Gamboa07) Gonzalo Gamboa and Giuseppe Munda. The problem of windfarm location: A
social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy, 35(3):1564_1583, March 2007.
(Hobbs00) Benjamin F. Hobbs and Peter Meier. Energy Decision and the Environment: A Guide
to the Use of Multicriteria Methods. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2000.
(Haralambopoulos03) D.A. Haralambopoulos and H. Polatidis. Renewable energy projects:
structuring a multicriteria group decision-making framework. Renewable Energy,
28(6):961_973, 2003.
(Huang95), J.P. Huang, K.L. Poh, B.W.Ang. Decision analysis in energy and environmental
modelling. Energy, 20(9): 843_855, 1995
(Hwang81)C.L. Hwang and K. Yoon. Multiple attribut decision making : Methods
and applications. Springer-Verlag, 1981.
(Jovanovic08) Marina Jovanovic, Naim Afgan, Predrag Radovanovic, and Vladimir Stevanovic.
Sustainable development of the belgrade energy system. Energy, In Press, Corrected Proof,
2008.
(Jaber08) J.O. Jaber, Q.M. Jaber, S.A. Sawalha, and M.S. Mohsen. Evaluation of conventional
and renewable energy sources for space heating in the household sector. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(1):278_ 289, January 2008.
(Kablan04)M. M. Kablan. Decision support for energy conservation promotion:: an analytic
hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy, 32(10):1151_1158, July 2004.
(Kopfmüller 2000) J. Kopfmüller et al.: Konkretisierung und Operationalisierung des Leitbildes
einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung im Energiebereic. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe:
Wissenschaftlicher Bericht FZKA 6578, 2000
(Kowalski08) Katharina Kowalski, Sigrid Stagl, Reinhard Madlener, and Ines Omann.
Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory
multi-criteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, In Press, Corrected Proof,
2008.
(Loken07) E. Loken. Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy
planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
11(7):1584_1595, 2007.
(McDowell07) William McDowall and Malcolm Eames. Towards a sustainable hydrogen
economy: A multi-criteria sustainability appraisal of competing hydrogen futures. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 32(18):4611_ 4626, December 2007.

(Madlener07) Reinhard Madlener, Katharina Kowalski, and Sigrid Stagl. New ways for the
integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: The case of renewable energy use in austria.
Energy Policy, 35(12):6060_6074, December 2007.
(Neves08) Luís Pires Neves, António Gomes Martins, Carlos Henggeler Antunes, and Luís
Cândido Dias. A multi-criteria decision approach to sorting actions for promoting energy
e_ciency. Energy Policy, 36(7):2351_2363, July 2008.
(Nigim04) K. Nigim, N. Munier, and J. Green. Pre-feasibility mcdm tools to aid communities in
prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. Renewable Energy, 29(11):1775_1791,
September 2004.
(Noble04) Bram F. Noble. A multi-criteria analysis of canadian electricity supply futures.
Canadian Geographer, 48(1):11_28, 2004.
(Omann 04) Ines Omann. Multi-Criteria Decision Aid as an Approach for Sustainable
Development Analysis and Implementation. PhD thesis, Karl- Franzens Universität Graz, 2004.
[O'N93] J. O'Neill. Ecology, policy and politics: human well-being and the natural
world. Ecology, policy and politics: human well-being and the natural
world, page 227, 1993.
(Omann08) Ines Omann, Katharina Kowalski, Lisa Bohunovsky, Reinhard Madlener,
and Sigrid Stagl. The in_uence of social preferences on multicriteria evaluation of energy
scenarios. Energy Research Center, 2008.
(Polatidis04) H. Polatidis and D.A. Haralambopoulos. Local renewable energy planning: a
participatory multicriteria approach. Energy Sources, 26(13):1253_1264, 2004.
(Polatidis06) Heracles Polatidis, Dias A. Haralambopoulos, Giussepe Munda, and Ron Vreeker.
Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy
planning. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 1(2):181_193, 2006.
(Papadopoulos08) Agis Papadopoulos and Avraam Karagiannidis. Application of themulticriteria
analysis method electre iii for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems. Omega,
36(5):766_776, October 2008.
(Patlitzianas07) Konstantinos D. Patlitzianas, Konstantinos Ntotas, Haris Doukas, and John
Psarras. Assessing the renewable energy producers' environment in eu accession member states.
Energy Conversion and Management, 48(3):890_897, March 2007.
(Pohekar04) S. D. Pohekar and M. Ramachandran. Application of multi-criteria
decision making to sustainable energy planning - a review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(4):365_381, August 2004.
(Pilavachi06) P.A. Pilavachi, C.P. Roumpeas, S. Minett, and N.H. Afgan. Multicriteria
evaluation for chp system options. Energy Conversion and Management, 47(20):3519_3529,
December 2006.
(Roy96) B. Roy and D. Vanderpooten. The european school of mcda: Emergence, basic features
and current works. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5(1):22_38, 1996.
(BenSalah08) Chokri Ben Salah, Maher Chaabene, and Mohsen Ben Ammar. Multicriteria fuzzy
algorithm for energy management of a domestic photovoltaic panel. Renewable Energy,
33(5):993_1001, May 2008.
(Shackley06) Simon Shackley and Carly McLachlan. Trade-o_s in assessing di_erent energy
futures: a regional multi-criteria assessment of the role of carbon dioxide capture and storage.
Environmental Science & Policy, 9(4):376_ 391, June 2006.
(VanAlphen07) Klaas van Alphen, Wilfried G.J.H.M. van Sark, and Marko P. Hekkert.
Renewable energy technologies in the maldives-determining the potential. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(8):1650_1674, 2007.
(Wijayatunga06) Priyantha D.C. Wijayatunga, Kanchana Siriwardena, W.J.L.S. Fernando, Ram
M. Shrestha, and Rahula A. Attalage. Strategies to overcome barriers for cleaner generation

technologies in small developing power systems: Sri lanka case study. Energy Conversion and
Management, 47(9-10):1179_1191, June 2006.
(Zimmermann1991) H.J. Zimmermann, L. Gutsche: Multi-Criteria Analyse. Einführung in die
Theorie der Entscheidungen bei Mehrfachzielsetzungen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg,
1991
(Zhou07)] Zupeng Zhou, Hua Jiang, and Liancheng Qin. Life cycle sustainability
assessment of fuels. Fuel, 86(1-2):256_263, January 2007.