Multi‐criteria analysis weighting methodology to incorporate stakeholders' preferences in energy and climate policy interactions

Abstract

Purpose Evaluation of energy and climate policy interactions is a complex issue, whereas stakeholders' preferences incorporation has not been addressed systematically. The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated weighting methodology that has been developed in order to incorporate weighting preferences into an ex ante evaluation of climate and energy policy interactions. Design/methodology/approach A multi‐criteria analysis (MCA) weighting methodology which combines pair‐wise comparisons and ratio importance weighting methods has been elaborated. It initially introduces the users to the evaluation process through a warming up holistic approach for an initial rank of the criteria and then facilitates them to express their ratio relative importance in pair‐wise comparisons of criteria by providing them an interactive mean with verbal, numerical and visual representation of their preferences. Moreover, it provides a ranking consistency test where users can see the degree of (in)consistency of their preferences. Findings Stakeholders and experts in the energy policy field who tested the methodology stated their approval and satisfaction for the combination of both ranking and pair‐wise comparison techniques, since it allows the gradual approach to the evaluation problem. In addition, main difficulties in MCA weights elicitation processes were overcome. Research limitations/implications The methodology is tested by a small sample of stakeholders, whereas a larger sample, a broader range of stakeholders and applications on different climate policy evaluation cases merit further research. Originality/value The novel aspect of the developed methodology consists of the combination of ranking and pair‐wise comparison techniques for the elicitation of stakeholders' preferences.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 48 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.