Multi-criteria Approaches to Ancillary Effects: The Example of E-Mobility

  • Stefan VögeleEmail author
  • Christopher Ball
  • Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs
Part of the Springer Climate book series (SPCL)


Ambitious targets like the ones formulated in the Paris Agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) cannot be achieved without a decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Like other policy interventions, policies focusing on this sector will be linked with primary and ancillary effects. In this study, we assess to what extent stakeholders will benefit or suffer from a switch to e-mobility by applying the ancillary benefit approach. Since the attitudes of stakeholders depend on many different factors and the list of factors differs between the stakeholders, an appropriate assessment of a decarbonisation of the transport sector requires the consideration of a broad range of factors including the weighting of options by actors. Using a multi-criteria approach we show that stakeholders, like car users and vehicle manufacturers, will show resistance if they are urged to go for e-mobility. Since the assessment of the characteristics of e-mobility is linked with high uncertainty, we conducted intensive sensitivity analyses. According to these analyses, it is difficult to cause a shift in the attitude of car users towards electric vehicles, since electric vehicles have a lot of disadvantages for the car users (including loss of comfort). According to our assessment, hybrid cars face less resistance since the technology is linked with more benefits/less negative effects for the stakeholders than e-mobility.


  1. Acatech (2018) Coupling the different energy sectors – options for the next phase of the energy transition. acatech - National Academy of Science and Engineering, MunichGoogle Scholar
  2. Augenstein K (2015) Analysing the potential for sustainable e-mobility – the case of Germany. Environ Innov Soc Trans 14:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain PG et al (2016) Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat Clim Chang 6(2):154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baležentis T, Streimikiene D (2017) Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation. Appl Energy 185(Part 1):862–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behzadian M, Kazemadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200(1):198–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biresselioglu ME, Demirbag Kaplan M, Yilmaz BK (2018) Electric mobility in Europe: a comprehensive review of motivators and barriers in decision making processes. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 109:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BMUB (2018) General information – Electric mobility. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  8. Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects – the PROMETHEE METHOD. Eur J Oper Res 24(2):228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2018) IKT für Elektromobilität III: Einbindung von gewerblichen Elektrofahrzeugen in Logistik-, Energie- und Mobilitätsinfrastrukturen. BMWi, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Chavez-Baeza C, Sheinbaum-Pardo C (2014) Sustainable passenger road transport scenarios to reduce fuel consumption, air pollutants and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in the Mexico City metropolitan area. Energy 66:624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis DL, Krupnick A, Mcglynn G (2000) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation – an overview In: OECD (ed) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Paris, pp 9–49Google Scholar
  12. Diakoulaki D, Karangelis F (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost–benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renew Sust Energ Rev 11(4):716–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekins P (1996) The secondary benefits of CO2 abatement: how much emission reduction do they justify? Ecol Econ 16(1):13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Esch F-P (2016) Nutzeranforderungen an Elektrofahrzeuge. Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: delivering on low emission mobility, a European Union that protects the planet, empowers its consumers and defends its industry and workers. European Commission, COM(2017) 675 Final, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. Gebauer F, Vilimek R, Keinath A, Carbon C-C (2016) Changing attitudes towards e-mobility by actively elaborating fast-charging technology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 106:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groosman B, Muller NZ, O'neill-Toy E (2011) The ancillary benefits from climate policy in the United States. Environ Resour Econ 50(4):585–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagman J, Ritzén S, Stier JJ, Susilo Y (2016) Total cost of ownership and its potential implications for battery electric vehicle diffusion. Res Transp Bus Manag 18:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirkman GA, Seres S, Haites E, Spalding-Fecher R (2012) Benefits of the clean development mechanism. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, BonnGoogle Scholar
  21. Krupnick A, Burtraw D Markandya A (2000) The ancillary benefits and costs of climate change mitigation: a conceptual framework. In: OECD (ed) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Paris, pp 53–93Google Scholar
  22. Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, Bansal RC (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:596–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lo Schiavo L, Delfanti M, Fumagalli E, Olivieri V (2013) Changing the regulation for regulating the change: innovation-driven regulatory developments for smart grids, smart metering and e-mobility in Italy. Energy Policy 57:506–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loken E (2007) Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11(7):1584–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macharis C, Bernardini A (2015) Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: time for a multi-actor approach. Transp Policy 37:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malmgren, I. (2016) Quantifying the societal benefits of electric vehicles. In: EV29 Symposium. Montreal, World Electric Vehicle JournalGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthews L, Lynes J, Riemer M, Del Matto T, Cloet N (2017) Do we have a car for you? Encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles at point of sale. Energy Policy 100:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayrhofer JP, Gupta J (2016) The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ Sci Policy 57(Supplement C):22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muller NZ (2012) The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits. Resour Energy Econ 34(4):696–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2005) Tools for composite indicator building. Accessed 24 Feb 2017
  31. Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität (2014) Fortschrittsbericht 2014 – Bilanz der Marktvorbereitung. Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P (2010) Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ Res Lett 5(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nissan Center Europe (2018) LEAF. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  34. OECD (2000) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD/EC/JRC (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Parkinson SC, Makowski M, Krey V, Sedraoui K, Almasoud AH, Djilali N (2018) A multi-criteria model analysis framework for assessing integrated water-energy system transformation pathways. Appl Energy 210:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rive N, Rübbelke DTG (2010) International environmental policy and poverty alleviation. Rev World Econ 146(3):515–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sierzchula W, Bakker S, Maat K, Van Wee B (2014) The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 68:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steinhilber S, Wells P, Thankappan S (2013) Socio-technical inertia: understanding the barriers to electric vehicles. Energy Policy 60:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Terrados J, Almonacid G, Perez-Higueras P (2009) Proposal for a combined methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(8):2022–2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Theisen TMRF (2010) Market models for the roll-out of electric vehicle public charging infrastructure. Eurelectric, Union of the Electricity Industry, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  44. Toyota Deutschland (2018) Auris. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  45. Truffer B, Schippl J, Fleischer T (2017) Decentering technology in technology assessment: prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 122:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Herrero ST, Dubash NK, Lecocq F (2014) Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:549–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Usmani, O., Rösler, H., DE Wilde, H., Straver, K. & Weeda, M. (2015) Policies and good practices to foster electromobility roll-out at the local, national and European level. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Vuuren DP, Cofala J, Eerens HE, Oostenrijk R, Heyes C, Klimont Z, Den Elzen MGJ, Amann M (2006) Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto protocol for air pollution in Europe. Energy Policy 34(4):444–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang Q, Poh KL (2014) A survey of integrated decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy 77:691–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winning I (2015) Deliverable 2.2: Successes encountered in the electromobility policy making process. Green E-motion, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Vögele
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher Ball
    • 1
  • Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Energy and Climate Research - Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE)Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbHJülichGermany

Personalised recommendations