Advertisement

A Systematic Approach to the Analysis of Barriers and Drivers of the ESCO Market in Turkey

  • Özgür Yanmaz
  • Cigdem Kadaifci
  • Umut Asan
  • Erhan Bozdag
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 149)

Abstract

This chapter suggests a new systematic approach to analyze the barriers and drivers of energy service contracting. In order to identify the key barriers, the proposed approach examines both direct and indirect causal relationships among barriers and allows a systematic analysis of the actors’ roles in influencing the market’s development. To justify the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed approach, a case is provided where the energy service contracting market in Turkey is examined.

References

  1. Akman, U., Okay, E., & Okay, N. (2013). Current snapshot of the Turkish ESCO market. Energy Policy, 60, 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asan, U., Bozdağ, C. E., & Polat, S. (2004). A fuzzy approach to qualitative cross-impact analysis. Omega, 32, 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asan, U., Kutlu, A. C., & Kadaifci, C. (2011). Analysis of critical factors in energy service contracting using fuzzy cognitive mapping. In The 41st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, Los Angeles, USA, October 23–26, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Bañuls, V. A., Turoff, M., & Lopez, J. (2010). Clustering scenarios using cross-impact analysis. In Proceedings of the 7th International ISCRAM Conference, Seattle, USA, May 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Basak, E., Asan, U., & Kadaifci, C. (2012). Analysis of the energy service market in turkey using the fuzzy dematel method. In Proceedings of The 10th International FLINS Conference on Uncertainty Modeling in Knowledge Engineering and Decision Making, Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 58–63), August 26–29, 2012.Google Scholar
  6. Bendahan, S., Camponovo, G., & Pigneur, Y. (2004). Multi-issue actor analysis: Tools and models for assessing technology environments. Journal of Decision Systems, 13(2), 223–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertoldi, P., & Boza-Kiss, B. (2017). Analysis of barriers and drivers for the development of the ESCO markets in Europe. Energy Policy, 107, 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chao, K. (2008). A new look at the cross-impact matrix and its applications in futures studies. Journal of Futures Studies., 12(4), 45–52.Google Scholar
  9. Duperrin, J. C., & Godet, M. (1973). Methode de hierarchisation des elements d’un systeme. Rapport economique du CEA, R-45-41.Google Scholar
  10. EIE. (2007). Energy efficiency law. http://www.eie.gov.tr, Access January 28, 2014.
  11. EIE. (2012). Energy efficiency strategy paper. http://www.eie.gov.tr. Access January 28, 2014.
  12. Godet, M. (1982). From forecasting to ‘La Prospective’: A new way of looking at futures. Journal of Forecasting, 1(3), 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godet, M. (1994). From anticipation to action. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, T. J. (1994). The cross-impact method. A publication of United Nations Development Program’s African Futures Project in collaboration with the United Nations United Nations University’s Millennium Project Feasibility Study—Phase II.Google Scholar
  15. Hannon, M. J., Foxon, T. J., & Gale, W. F. (2015). ‘Demand pull’ government policies to support product-service system activity: The case of energy service companies (ESCOs) in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 900–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heger, T., Monath, T., & Kind, M. (2010). A multi-actor analysis of the QoE environment. In the 9th Telecommunications Internet and Media Techno Economics (CTTE) (pp. 1–9), Ghent, Belgium, June 7–9, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Jeong, G. H., & Kim, S. H. (1997). A qualitative cross-impact approach to find the key technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 55, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kadaifci, C., Kucukyazici, G., Asan, U., & Bozdag E. (2014). Dynamic modeling of critical factors in energy service contracting using fuzzy time cognitive mapping. In Proceedings of the Global Conference on Engineering and Technology Management 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, June 23–26, 2014.Google Scholar
  19. Kalangos, C. (2017). Barriers and policy drivers to energy efficiency in energy intensive Turkish industrial sectors. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7(3), 110–120.Google Scholar
  20. Kindström, D., Ottosson, M., & Thollander, P. (2017). Driving forces for and barriers to providing energy services—A study of local and regional energy companies in Sweden. Energy Efficiency, 10(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mariconda, S., & Lurati, F. (2015). Stakeholder cross-impact analysis: A segmentation method. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(3), 276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Munteanu, R., & Apetroae, M. (2007). Journal relatedness: An actor-actor and actor-objectives case study. Scientometrics, 73(2), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Okay, E., Okay, N., Konukman, A. E. Ş., & Akman, U. (2008). Views on Turkey’s impending ESCO market: Is it promising? Energy Policy, 36, 1821–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Onaygil, S., & Meylani, E. A. (2007). Energy efficiency consulting companies: An overview of the current situation in the world. Energy Efficiency Congress, 2007, 41–54. (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  25. Parashar, A., Paliwal, R., & Rambabu, P. (1997). Utility of fuzzy cross-impact simulation in environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17, 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pätäri, S., & Sinkkonen, K. (2014). Energy service companies and energy performance contracting: is there a need to renew the business model? Insights from a Delphi study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, A., & Hu, H. (1990). Cross-impact analysis. Project Appraisal, 5(3), 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saritas, O., & Aylen, J. (2010). Using scenarios for roadmapping: The case of clean production. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 1061–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sorrell, S. (2007). The economics of energy service contracts. Energy Policy, 35, 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sorrell, S., Schleich, J., Scott, S., O’Malley, E., Trace, F., Boede, U., et al. (2000). Barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organisations. Final report. SPRU. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/reports/barriers/final.html. Accessed November 5, 2017.
  31. Turkyilmaz, O. (2013). Turkey energy outlook. Wec Regional Meeting For Central and Eastern Europe, Bucharest, Romania.Google Scholar
  32. Turoff, M. (1972). An alternative approach to cross-impact analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3, 309–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turoff, M., & Bañuls, V. A. (2011). Major extensions to cross-impact analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th International ISCRAM Conference. Lisbon, Portugal, May 2011.Google Scholar
  34. Villacorta, P. J., Masegosa, A. D., Castellanos, D., & Lamata, M. T. (2014). A new fuzzy linguistic approach to qualitative cross impact analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 24, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weimer-Jehle, W. (2006). Cross-impact balances: A system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Özgür Yanmaz
    • 1
  • Cigdem Kadaifci
    • 2
  • Umut Asan
    • 1
  • Erhan Bozdag
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringIstanbul Technical UniversityMackaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringDoğuş UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations