Abstract
This chapter presents a reflection on the challenges of combining participatory fuzzy-set multi-criteria analysis (MCA) with narrative scenario building and energy modelling, in the context of the SEPIA project. SEPIA aims to investigate participatory decision support systems for sustainable energy policymaking. More precisely, SEPIA elaborates on aspects of sustainability assessment (SA) in the energy policy context in order to reach consensus among the stakeholders involved. SEPIA provides the basis for an SA procedure adapted to the context of Belgian energy governance.
The authors wish to dedicate this chapter to the memory of our friend and colleague Da Ruan. We will remember Da as a motivated scientist with an indefatigable but also very congenial personality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The SEPIA project is being carried out by five partners: the University of Antwerp (UA, acting as the coordinator), the Free University of Brussels (VUB), the University of Liège (ULg), the Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO) and the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK•CEN). It is funded by the Belgian Office of Science Policy. Further details on this project can be found at the project’s website www.ua.ac.be/sepia.
- 2.
The final version of the SEPIA TOR can be downloaded from the project website (www.ua.ac.be/sepia).
- 3.
For more information, see http://www.mesydel.com/mesydel.php.
- 4.
The final version can be downloaded from the project website (www.ua.ac.be/sepia).
- 5.
More information on the ‘SuperSmart Grid’ concept can be downloaded from www.supersmartgrid.net.
References
Bunn, D., & Salo, A. (1993). Forecasting with scenarios. European Journal of Operational Research, 68(3), 291–303.
Gamboa, G., & Munda, G. (2007). The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy, 35(3), 1564–1583.
Granat, J., & Makowski, M. (2006). Multicriteria methodology for the NEEDS project, NEEDS project deliverable T9.2 – RS2b. International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg.
Granger Morgan, M., & Keith, D. (2008). Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Climatic Change, 90(3), 189–215.
Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., & Omann, I. (2009). Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(3), 1063–1074.
Lu, J., Zhang, G., Ruan, D., & Wu, F. (2007). Multi-objective group decision making – Methods, software and applications with fuzzy set technology. London: Imperial College Press.
Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662–667.
Paredis, E., Heyerick, A., Doom, R., Bauler, T., Zaccaï, E., Waktare, M., Bonifazi, A., Boulanger, P.-M., Lussis, B., Varone, F., Lavrysen, L., Thomaes, P., & Risse, N. (2006). Methodology and feasibility of sustainability impact assessment. Case: Federal policy making processes (Final Report of a BELSPO Project). Belgian Science Policy, Brussels.
Ruan, D., Lu, J., Laes, E., Zhang, G., Ma, J., & Meskens, G. (2010). Multi-criteria group decision support with linguistic variables in long-term scenarios for Belgian energy policy. Journal of Universal Computer Sciences, 15(1), 103–120.
Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2007). Moving inside or outside? Objectivation and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(3–4), 1–23.
Stagl, S. (2009). Value articulating institutions and changing social preferences (REFGOV Working Paper Series GPS-11). Centre for Philosophy of Law, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve.
Stirling, A. (2008). Opening up’ and ‘closing down. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.
van Notten, P., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M., & Rothman, D. (2003). An updated scenario typology. Futures, 35, 423–443.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laes, E., Ruan, D., Maes, F., Verbruggen, A. (2013). Methodological Challenges in Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Foresight Methods for Sustainable Energy Futures: The SEPIA Project. In: Giaoutzi, M., Sapio, B. (eds) Recent Developments in Foresight Methodologies. Complex Networks and Dynamic Systems, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5215-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5215-7_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5214-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5215-7
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)