Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy

Part of the book series: Springer Climate ((SPCL))

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.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Notes

  1. 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Augenstein K (2015) Analysing the potential for sustainable e-mobility – the case of Germany. Environ Innov Soc Trans 14:101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain PG et al (2016) Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat Clim Chang 6(2):154–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baležentis T, Streimikiene D (2017) Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation. Appl Energy 185(Part 1):862–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2018) IKT für Elektromobilität III: Einbindung von gewerblichen Elektrofahrzeugen in Logistik-, Energie- und Mobilitätsinfrastrukturen. BMWi, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekins P (1996) The secondary benefits of CO2 abatement: how much emission reduction do they justify? Ecol Econ 16(1):13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esch F-P (2016) Nutzeranforderungen an Elektrofahrzeuge. Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman GA, Seres S, Haites E, Spalding-Fecher R (2012) Benefits of the clean development mechanism. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loken E (2007) Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11(7):1584–1595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmgren, I. (2016) Quantifying the societal benefits of electric vehicles. In: EV29 Symposium. Montreal, World Electric Vehicle Journal

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayrhofer JP, Gupta J (2016) The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ Sci Policy 57(Supplement C):22–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller NZ (2012) The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits. Resour Energy Econ 34(4):696–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD/EC/JRC (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rive N, Rübbelke DTG (2010) International environmental policy and poverty alleviation. Rev World Econ 146(3):515–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhilber S, Wells P, Thankappan S (2013) Socio-technical inertia: understanding the barriers to electric vehicles. Energy Policy 60:531–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theisen TMRF (2010) Market models for the roll-out of electric vehicle public charging infrastructure. Eurelectric, Union of the Electricity Industry, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Poh KL (2014) A survey of integrated decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy 77:691–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winning I (2015) Deliverable 2.2: Successes encountered in the electromobility policy making process. Green E-motion, European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Energy and Climate Research - Systems Analysis and Technology Evaluation (IEK-STE), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany

    Stefan Vögele, Christopher Ball & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs

Authors
  1. Stefan Vögele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Ball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Vögele .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Econometrics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Wolfgang Buchholz

  2. Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Vizcaya, Spain

    Anil Markandya

  3. Faculty of Economics, Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany

    Dirk Rübbelke

  4. Institute of Energy and Climate Research, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany

    Stefan Vögele

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation