Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Since ancillary impacts can be positive and negative, we prefer to use the term ‘ancillary effects’ instead of ‘ancillary benefits’, even if ‘ancillary benefits’ is the term which is more popular.
References
Acatech (2018) Coupling the different energy sectors – options for the next phase of the energy transition. acatech - National Academy of Science and Engineering, Munich
Augenstein K (2015) Analysing the potential for sustainable e-mobility – the case of Germany. Environ Innov Soc Trans 14:101–115
Bain PG et al (2016) Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat Clim Chang 6(2):154–157
Baležentis T, Streimikiene D (2017) Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation. Appl Energy 185(Part 1):862–871
Behzadian M, Kazemadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200(1):198–215
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 109:1–13
BMUB (2018) General information – Electric mobility. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). https://www.bmu.de. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects – the PROMETHEE METHOD. Eur J Oper Res 24(2):228–238
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2018) IKT für Elektromobilität III: Einbindung von gewerblichen Elektrofahrzeugen in Logistik-, Energie- und Mobilitätsinfrastrukturen. BMWi, Berlin
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 66:624–634
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 9–49
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):716–727
Ekins P (1996) The secondary benefits of CO2 abatement: how much emission reduction do they justify? Ecol Econ 16(1):13–24
Esch F-P (2016) Nutzeranforderungen an Elektrofahrzeuge. Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, Darmstadt
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, Brussels
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 106:31–36
Groosman B, Muller NZ, O'neill-Toy E (2011) The ancillary benefits from climate policy in the United States. Environ Resour Econ 50(4):585–603
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 18:11–17
IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kirkman GA, Seres S, Haites E, Spalding-Fecher R (2012) Benefits of the clean development mechanism. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn
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 53–93
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 69:596–609
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 57:506–517
Loken E (2007) Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11(7):1584–1595
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 37:177–186
Malmgren, I. (2016) Quantifying the societal benefits of electric vehicles. In: EV29 Symposium. Montreal, World Electric Vehicle Journal
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 100:79–88
Mayrhofer JP, Gupta J (2016) The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ Sci Policy 57(Supplement C):22–30
Muller NZ (2012) The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits. Resour Energy Econ 34(4):696–722
Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2005) Tools for composite indicator building. http://compositeindicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Document/EUT%2021682%20EN.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2017
Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität (2014) Fortschrittsbericht 2014 – Bilanz der Marktvorbereitung. Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität, Berlin
Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P (2010) Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ Res Lett 5(1):1–9
Nissan Center Europe (2018) LEAF. https://www.nissan.de. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
OECD (2000) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. OECD, Paris
OECD/EC/JRC (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, Paris
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 210:477–486
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):210–220
Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8(4):365–381
Rive N, Rübbelke DTG (2010) International environmental policy and poverty alleviation. Rev World Econ 146(3):515–543
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 68:183–194
Steinhilber S, Wells P, Thankappan S (2013) Socio-technical inertia: understanding the barriers to electric vehicles. Energy Policy 60:531–539
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):2022–2030
Theisen TMRF (2010) Market models for the roll-out of electric vehicle public charging infrastructure. Eurelectric, Union of the Electricity Industry, Brussels
Toyota Deutschland (2018) Auris. https://www.toyota.de. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
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 122:34–48
Ürge-Vorsatz D, Herrero ST, Dubash NK, Lecocq F (2014) Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:549–582
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, Brussels
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):444–460
Wang Q, Poh KL (2014) A survey of integrated decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy 77:691–702
Winning I (2015) Deliverable 2.2: Successes encountered in the electromobility policy making process. Green E-motion, European Commission, Brussels
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vögele, S., Ball, C., Kuckshinrichs, W. (2020). Multi-criteria Approaches to Ancillary Effects: The Example of E-Mobility. In: Buchholz, W., Markandya, A., Rübbelke, D., Vögele, S. (eds) Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy. Springer Climate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30978-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30978-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30977-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30978-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)