Advertisement

Decision-Making Analysis to Improve Public Participation in Strategic Energy Production Management

  • Fabio De Felice
  • Antonella Petrillo
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 305)

Abstract

Environmental challenges decisions are often characterized by complexity, irreversibility, and uncertainty. Much of the complexity arises from the multiple-use nature of goods and services, difficulty in monetary valuation of ecological services and the involvement of numerous stakeholders. From this point of view, the objective of this paper is to propose a multicriteria methodological approach based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process methodology (AHP) in order to examine the scope and feasibility of AHP integrated with public participation approach. The main goal is to incorporate the prioritization criteria for the assessment of various energy policies for power alternatives, and evaluate these policies against these criteria. The three types of energy selected are: electricity production from wind farms, thermal power plants, and nuclear power plants. The results show that our model can help in the decision-making process and increase the transparency and the credibility of the process including tangibles and intangibles attributes.

Keywords

Environmental Analytic Hierarchy Process Key performance indicators Public Participation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ananda, J., Herath, G.: The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics 5, 13–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D.R., Sweeney, D.J., Williams, T.A.: An Introduction to Management Science: Quantitative Approaches to Decision- making. West Publishing, Minneapolis, St. Paul (1994)Google Scholar
  3. Carbone, F., De Montis, A., De Toro, P., Stagl, S.: MCDA methods comparison: environmental policy evaluation applied to a case study in Italy. In: Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, Austria, May 3-6 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. CCSG. From consultation to civic engagement: The road to better policymaking and governance in Hong Kong. Centre for Civil Society and Governance, HKU (2007), http://www.bauhinia.org/publications/BFRC-CES-Report.pdf (accessed March 11, 2010)
  5. Chambers, R.: Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. Intermediate Technology, London (1997)Google Scholar
  6. Creighton, J.L.: The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Davis, G.: Consultation, Public Participation and the Integration of Multiple Interests into Policy Making. OECD, Paris (1996)Google Scholar
  8. De Felice, F., Petrillo, A.: A new multicriteria methodology based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. The “Expert” AHP International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management 5(6), 439–445 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., Falcone, D.: Multi-criteria analysis for improving public participation in strategic environmental and social planning. Multicriteria and multiagent decision making. Social and Economical Applications, Naples, November 26-27 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. Duffey, R.B.: Sustainable futures using nuclear energy. Progress in Nuclear Energy 47(1-4), 535–543 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enserink, B., Koppenjan, J.: Public participation in China: sustainable urbanization and governance. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18(4), 459–474 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Entzinger, J.O., Ruan, D.: Optimizing nuclear reactor operation using soft computing techniques. In: Kahraman, C. (ed.) Fuzzy Applications in Industrial Enginnering. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Fiore, K.: Nuclear energy and sustainability: understanding ITER. Energy Policy 34(17), 3334–3341 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hampton, G.: Environmental equity and public participation. Policy Sciences 32, 163–174 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hošková-Mayerová, Š., Talhofer, V., Hofmann, A., Kubíček, P.: Mathematical model used in decision-making process with respect to the reliability of geodatabase. In: Proto, A.N., Squillante, M., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Adv. Dynamic Modeling of Economic & Social Systems. SCI, vol. 448, pp. 143–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kangas, J.: An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. Forest Ecology Management 70, 75–88 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kangas, J.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): standard version, forestry application and advances. In: Helles, F., Holten- Anderson, P., Wichmann, L. (eds.) Multiple Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources, pp. 96–105. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keeney, R.L.: Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  19. Lizarralde, G.: Stakeholder participation and incremental housing in subsidized housing projects in Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International 35(2), 175–187 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manowong, E., Ogunlana, S.O.: Critical factors for successful public hearing in infrastructure development projects: a case study of the On Nuch waste disposal plant project. International Journal of Construction Management 8(1), 37–51 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. Mau-Crimminsa, T., de Steiguera, J.E., Dennis, D.: AHP as a means for improving public participation: a pre–post experiment with university students. Forest Policy and Economics 7, 501–514 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore, A., Warren, A.: Legal advocacy in environmental public participation in China: raising the stakes and strengthening stakeholders. China Environment Series 8, 3–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. Munda, G.: Conceptualising and responding to complexity. In: Spash, C., Carter, C. (eds.) Environmental Valuation in Europe, Cambridge Research for the Environment, Cambridge (2000) Policy research brief, No. 2Google Scholar
  24. Munro-Clark, M. (ed.): Citizen Participation in Government. Hale & Ironmonger, Sydney (1990)Google Scholar
  25. Nakicenovic, N., Swart, R. (eds.): IPCC, WG III. Cambridge University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, N., Wright, S.: Power and Participatory Development. Theory and Practice. Intermediate Technology, London (1995)Google Scholar
  27. Omann, I.: How can multi-criteria decision analysis contribute to environmental policy making? a case study on macro-sustainability in Germany. In: Third International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, Austria, May 3-6 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. Pateman, C.: Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1970)Google Scholar
  29. Plummer, J., Taylor, J.G.: Community participation in China: Issues and processes for capacity building. Earthscan, London (2004)Google Scholar
  30. Rahman, A.: People’s Self Development. Perspectives on Participatory Action Research. Zed Publications, London (1993)Google Scholar
  31. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of the analytic network process. In: Proc of International Symposium on Analytical Hierarchy Process, Kobe, Japan (1999)Google Scholar
  33. Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, vol. 6. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2000)Google Scholar
  34. Varol, C., Ercoskun, O.Y., Gurer, N.: Local participatory mechanisms and collective actions for sustainable urban development in Turkey. Habitat International 35(1), 9–16 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saaty, T.L.: Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks, p. 15213. RWS Publications, 4922 Ellsworth Ave., Pittsburgh (2005)Google Scholar
  36. Vettivel, S.K.: Community Participation. Empowering the Poorest. Roles of NGOs. Vetri, New Delhi (1992)Google Scholar
  37. Wignaraja, P., Hussain, A., Sethi, H., Wignaraja, G.: Lessons from South Asia. Lessons from. Oxford University Press, Karachi (1991)Google Scholar
  38. Woltjer, J.: Concepts of participatory decision-making in Dutch infrastructure planning. In: Woltjer, J. (ed.) Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions, pp. 153–163. Springer, London (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yildirim, M., Erkan, K.: Determination of acceptable operating cost level of nuclear energy for Turkey’s power system. Energy 32, 128–136 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Cassino and Southern LazioFRItaly

Personalised recommendations