National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 11

4th International Scientific Conference on “Energy and Climate Change”,

13-14 October 2011, Athens, Greece

Selecting AMS as the appropriate Selecting AMS as the appropriate multi-criteria evaluation method for multi-criteria evaluation method for

climate change policy portfoliosclimate change policy portfolios

Dr. Popi KONIDARI Dr. Popi KONIDARI Research Fellow of KEPAResearch Fellow of KEPA

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 22

StructureStructure

IntroductionIntroduction Comparison of multi-criteria evaluation Comparison of multi-criteria evaluation

methodsmethods• Objectives Objectives • Structural backgroundStructural background• MethodologyMethodology• Advantages and disadvantages for the userAdvantages and disadvantages for the user• ApplicationsApplications

ConclusionsConclusions

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 33

IntroductionIntroduction ProblemProblem

• Development and implementation of policy Development and implementation of policy instruments instruments

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissionsMitigation of greenhouse gas emissions Adaption of human activities towards climate change Adaption of human activities towards climate change

effectseffects

• Evaluation of policy mixtures Evaluation of policy mixtures Need to understandNeed to understand

• Aggregate performance of a policy instrumentAggregate performance of a policy instrument• Climate Policy interactionsClimate Policy interactions

Outcome of effortsOutcome of efforts• Identification of optimum alternativeIdentification of optimum alternative

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 44

Multi-criteria Decision AnalysisMulti-criteria Decision Analysis

Used extensively for evaluationsUsed extensively for evaluations Exhibits large number of methodsExhibits large number of methods Adopted rule “Facilitation of the Adopted rule “Facilitation of the

decision maker according to needs”decision maker according to needs”

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 55

Framework of comparisonFramework of comparison

Ninety papers exploitedNinety papers exploited Seven MCDA methods evaluated qualitativelySeven MCDA methods evaluated qualitatively

• AHPAHP - Analytical Hierarchy Process - Analytical Hierarchy Process• F-AHPF-AHP - Fuzzy AHP - Fuzzy AHP • MAUTMAUT - Multi-Attribute Utility Theory - Multi-Attribute Utility Theory • SMARTSMART - Simple Multi-Attribute Ranking Technique - Simple Multi-Attribute Ranking Technique• AMSAMS - Acronym for combination of AHP, MAUT and SMART - Acronym for combination of AHP, MAUT and SMART• ELECTREELECTRE - Elimination Et Choix Traduisant le REalite - Elimination Et Choix Traduisant le REalite• PROMETHEEPROMETHEE - Preference Ranking Organization METHod - Preference Ranking Organization METHod

of Enrichment Evaluation of Enrichment Evaluation

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 66

ObjectivesObjectives

OutcomesOutcomes Set of criteria/sub-criteriaSet of criteria/sub-criteria Ability to incorporate model outcomesAbility to incorporate model outcomes

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 77

Structural backgroundStructural background

Mathematical backgroundMathematical background Weight coefficients, parameters, Weight coefficients, parameters,

thresholds, indexesthresholds, indexes

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 88

MethodologyMethodology

Understanding the problemUnderstanding the problem Selecting criteria/sub-criteria and Selecting criteria/sub-criteria and

determining their weight coefficientsdetermining their weight coefficients Measurement scales and assessment Measurement scales and assessment

of the performanceof the performance Sensitivity analysisSensitivity analysis

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 99

Advantages-disadvantages for userAdvantages-disadvantages for user

Ease of useEase of use Low requirements on time and effortsLow requirements on time and efforts Available softwareAvailable software

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 1010

ApplicationsApplications

AHPAHP F-AHPF-AHP MAUTMAUT SMARTSMART AMSAMS ELECTREELECTRE PROMHTHEEPROMHTHEE

CasesCases 55 22 00 00 44 44 44

RES Policy goals in Taiwan

Subsidy schemes for PV technology in Cyprus

Transport policy options

Options in energy, transportations, forestry in Peru

Low-carbon development scenarios in Bangkok (Thailand)

Renewable energy sources for Taiwan

Energy alternatives for Turkey

EU-ETS performance

Pairs of climate policy interactions under the Hellenic framework

Policy scenarios for RES-E penetration in Greece

GHG Emission Mitigation Policy instruments for Trinidad and Tobago

Adaptation actions in Canada

CO2 reduction measures in Greece

Subsidy Schemes for PV technology in Cyprus

Energy Efficiency initiatives

Subsidy schemes for PV technology in Cyprus

Options in energy, transportations, forestry in Peru

Scenarios for RES in Austria

Scenarios for power generation in Greece

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 1111

ComparisonComparison

Qualitative scaleQualitative scale• High (+, 0, -)High (+, 0, -)• Moderate (+, 0, -)Moderate (+, 0, -)• Low (+, 0, -)Low (+, 0, -)

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 1212

Results of comparison (1/3)Results of comparison (1/3)AHPAHP F-AHPF-AHP MAUTMAUT SMARTSMART AMSAMS ELECTREELECTRE PROMETHEEPROMETHEE

ObjectivesObjectivesOutcomesOutcomes H+H+ H+H+ H+H+ H+H+ H+H+ H-H- H-H-

Set of Set of criteria/sub-criteria/sub-

criteriacriteria

L-L- L-L- L-L- L-L- H+H+ L-L- L-L-

Ability to Ability to incorporate incorporate

model outcomesmodel outcomes

H 0H 0 H 0H 0 H 0H 0 L-L- H 0H 0 L-L- L-L-

Structural Structural backgroundbackground

Mathematical Mathematical backgroundbackground

H-H- L-L- H-H- M+M+ H-H- H+H+ M+M+

Weight Weight coefficients, coefficients, parameters, parameters, thresholds, thresholds,

indexesindexes

H-H- M-M- M+M+ M+M+ H+H+ M+M+ M+M+

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 1313

Results of comparison (2/3)Results of comparison (2/3)AHPAHP F-AHPF-AHP MAUTMAUT SMARTSMART AMSAMS ELECTREELECTRE PROMETHEEPROMETHEE

MethodologyMethodology

Understanding Understanding the problemthe problem

H+H+ H+H+ M-M- M+M+ H+H+ M-M- M+M+

Selecting Selecting criteria/sub-criteria/sub-criteria and criteria and

determining determining weight weight

coefficientscoefficients

H+H+ H+H+ M-M- M-M- H+H+ M-M- M-M-

Measurement Measurement scales and scales and

assessment of assessment of performance performance

H-H- H-H- H 0H 0 M+M+ H+H+ M-M- M+M+

Sensitivity Sensitivity analysisanalysis

H-H- L+L+ H 0H 0 M+M+ H+H+ M+M+ M+M+

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 1414

Results of comparison (3/3)Results of comparison (3/3)AHPAHP F-AHPF-AHP MAUTMAUT SMARTSMART AMSAMS ELECTREELECTRE PROMETHEEPROMETHEE

Advantages – Advantages – Disadvantages Disadvantages for the userfor the user

Ease of useEase of use H-H- M-M- H+H+ H+H+ H+H+ M+M+ M-M-

Low requirements Low requirements on time and on time and

moneymoney

M-M- L-L- H-H- H-H- H+H+ M-M- M-M-

Software Software H+H+ L+L+ H 0H 0 M-M- M-M- H-H- H-H-

ApplicationsApplications H+H+ L+L+ L +L + L -L - M -M - M -M - M 0M 0

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 2222

ConclusionsConclusions

Most appropriate MCDA method: AMS Most appropriate MCDA method: AMS • Aggregate evaluation of performance of Aggregate evaluation of performance of

policy instrumentspolicy instruments• Evaluation of policy interactionsEvaluation of policy interactions• Complete criteria-treeComplete criteria-tree• Incorporation of model outcomesIncorporation of model outcomes• Easy to useEasy to use

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development CentreNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre 2323

Thank you Thank you