[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Rurality and Collective Attitude Effects on Wolf Policy
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Risk in Chinese Shale Gas Investments Abroad: Modelling and Policy Recommendations
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 8
Issue 8
10.3390/su8080702
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Green Energy for a Green City—A Multi-Perspective Model Approach

by
Jarosław Wątróbski
1,*,
Paweł Ziemba
2,
Jarosław Jankowski
3 and
Magdalena Zioło
4
1
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Systems, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Zolnierska 49, 71-210 Szczecin, Poland
2
Department of Technology, The Jacob of Paradyż University of Applied Science, Chopina 52, 66-400 Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland
3
Department of Computational Intelligence, Wrocław University of Technology, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
4
Faculty of Management and Economics of Services, University of Szczecin, Cukrowa 8, 71-004 Szczecin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2016, 8(8), 702; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080702
Submission received: 22 May 2016 / Revised: 13 July 2016 / Accepted: 14 July 2016 / Published: 26 July 2016
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Alternative locations on the map of wind conditions [<a href="#B61-sustainability-08-00702" class="html-bibr">61</a>]; (<b>b</b>) Alternative locations on the map of Poland’s road network [<a href="#B62-sustainability-08-00702" class="html-bibr">62</a>]; (<b>c</b>) Alternative locations on the map of the power grid [<a href="#B63-sustainability-08-00702" class="html-bibr">63</a>]; and (<b>d</b>) Alternative locations on the map of Natura 2000 protected areas [<a href="#B64-sustainability-08-00702" class="html-bibr">64</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Hierarchical structure in the analytic hierarch process (AHP) method.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Preference functions used in the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) method [<a href="#B83-sustainability-08-00702" class="html-bibr">83</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Sensitivity analysis (criteria C1, C3, C5 and C10).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Analysis of the influence of the value of “social acceptance” criterion for alternative A1 on positions in the ranking of alternatives.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The basis for implementing demands for a green city is the use of, among other things, innovative “clean” technologies. However, it is mostly and directly connected to the increased use of electric energy. Green transport is an appropriate example of this. By contrast, conventional sources of energy (e.g., based on coal) have a very negative impact on people and the environment. Therefore, this article mentions an attempt to solve a complex problem of employing renewable energy sources (RES) as an element of the “green city” system. The research was carried out on the basis of a feasibility study (decision game) for the location of a wind farm in the vicinity of the city of Szczecin, Poland. When constructing the decision models, multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods were applied, especially analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE).

1. Introduction

Green cities are defined as cities characterized as having clean air and water, running a low risk of major infectious disease outbreaks, being resilient to natural disasters, encouraging green behavior, and having a relatively small ecological impact [1]. Therefore, green cities are related to, among other things, renewable energy sources (RES), the use of which is environmentally friendly, minimizes ecological influence and increases the quality of air in the city. The relationship between green cities and renewable energy sources can be found in a report prepared by the European Green City Index, in which 30 European capitals were evaluated in terms of their current environmental performance [2]. The ranking takes the following factors into consideration: air cleanliness, CO2 emission, a strategy of CO2 reduction or the percentage of renewable energy in the total energy production [3]. Similarly, Albino and Dangelico [4] noticed that the RES use is closely related to the philosophy of green cities and is an essential practical aspect.
Another element of green cities is environmentally friendly transport [3,5]. It is about, among other things, supporting bicycle mobility, as is being done by municipal authorities of Polish cities, such as in the city of Szczecin, by building bicycle paths and urban bicycle stations. Nevertheless, a larger ecological potential for cities is the application of solutions used by a higher number of citizens rather than the expansion of bicycle infrastructure. It is obvious that far more city dwellers use their own cars and public means of transport. Consequently, better results in terms of reducing pollution emissions can be obtained by solutions such as electric or hybrid cars [6] as well as public transport powered by electricity, i.e., trams and electric buses [7]. However, it should be noted that the use of electric vehicles in the city causes increased demand for electric energy related to the necessity of charging vehicle batteries. As a result, such a demand brings about the increase in energy production from conventional sources, mostly from coal, even in cities where the power industry is to a great extent based on RES [8]. Therefore, air pollution reduction resulting from the use of electric vehicles is lower than is assumed [9]. The problem is even bigger, since almost all energy for the city is produced by coal power plants. It may turn out that air pollution emission generated by a coal power plant (resulting from the necessity of energy production for charging electric vehicles) is larger than the air pollution emission when conventional vehicles are used instead of electrically powered vehicles [10]. Therefore, one cannot talk about a green city as long as it mostly relies on coal energy. Instead, energy production technologies based on RES should be introduced more frequently.
The use of RES as pro-environmental action is one of the main aims of the energy policy [11]. Renewable energy sources are the basic element of a low-carbon economy [12], and their percentage in the total energy production is continuously increasing and will continue to increase in both the European Union [13] and Poland [14,15]. On the other hand, the highest portion of energy production in Europe [13] and Poland is supplied by wind turbines [15,16,17]. The Polish wind potential is comparable to that of the “world wind giant” Germany and other countries in which a significant share of energy is obtained from wind, such as Denmark or Sweden [18]. An inland wind turbine is distinguished by lower capital spending and maintenance costs among RES, as seen in Table 1.
The data show that wind is the most optimal renewable energy source. What is more, the highest economic and market potential for wind energy in Poland (by 2020) is in West Pomeranian Province, as depicted in Table 2. The economic potential was determined by considering arable lands in a given province with appropriate wind conditions on which wind farms can be constructed. From the potential investment areas, all areas subject to protection were excluded. These areas are national parks, landscape parks, nature reserves, the Natura 2000 protected areas, areas of protected landscapes and protected area buffer zones. The market potential (part of the economic potential that can be used within a definite period of time) was calculated by means of a Modular Energy System Analysis and Planning Environment (MESAP) model, as part of an Energy [R]evolution project, on the basis of current market and political factors [20].
The city of Szczecin plays an important role in the West Pomeranian region. The analysis of the present energy policy of the city confirms that it is primarily based on a conventional source of energy; that is, coal [21]. There are two coal power plants, “Pomorzany” and “Szczecin”, located in the city. They significantly support the electric power grid during rush hours and therefore generate harmful emissions in the city. The situation with regard to potential wind conditions and ecological limitations seems to be unfavorable and is reflected in the Regional Innovation Strategy which emphasizes the need for a continuous increase of the RES share in energy production, as presented by Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego [22]. An analysis of other economic and social factors of the city also conveys substantial RES investment possibilities such as the use of technological and social potentials of the city and the region as well as the availability of investment grounds; for instance, neighboring districts that have low economic value but are also “good” locations for wind farms, e.g., an area between the town of Goleniów and the northwest part of DąbieLake [23].
The complex analysis of an RES investment location also requires a detailed analysis of the technological potential of the city and the region. In Szczecin, and in the vicinity of the city, there are many production companies related to wind energy. In Goleniów, LM Wind Power is manufacturing rotor blades for wind turbines. In total, about PLN (Polish złoty) 600 million will be invested, which is going to generate about 1400 jobs (currently 600) [24]. LM Wind Power also has a service center in Szczecin, where approximately 140 workers are employed [25]. There is also KK Wind Solutions, located in Szczecin, which produces wind turbine control systems. The company employs about 570 workers in the area of Szczecin [26,27]. As for the ability of investment to diversify an economically unstable shipbuilding sector within the city, Bilfinger MARS Offshore serves as a prime example. This company manufactures foundations for offshore wind farms, and over PLN 500 million were invested to build the factory, which will employ about 500 workers [28].
Apart from manufacturers of wind farm elements, an important part of a potential investment process is planning and the realization of wind farm projects. Here, EPA-Wind, a Szczecin-based company, should be mentioned. This company, which employs over 40 workers [29], deals with data analysis, measurements, preparation and realization of wind energy projects. A Polish division of the RP Global concern also has its registered office in Szczecin. RP Global Poland deals with the design, implementation and maintenance of wind farms [30]. There are many business entities that act as subcontractors and are responsible for constructing wind turbines. The detailed analysis of a broader social context of investment makes us consider the social potential of the city. Wind energy investment in the vicinity of Szczecin would also positively increase the number of workplaces related to wind energy when investment preparation is concerned, as well as the management, maintenance and repair of wind turbines. Estimates concerning the number of positions created by the wind energy sector are presented in Table 3.
Furthermore, according to research for the European Commission, people employed in the RES sector often come from other sectors where they had lost their jobs, such as the shipbuilding or steel industries [32]. This observation is of utmost importance in the context of Szczecin, where the most significant social problem has been the bankruptcy of one of the biggest employers, i.e., Szczecin Shipyard, in 2002 [33].
On the basis of the arguments presented above, one can state that the construction of wind farms in the vicinity of Szczecin is very important, both for perceiving the city as a “green city” and for social and economic reasons. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify conditions that should take place so that a potential investor would chose the Szczecin region as a construction area of wind farms. The aim is achieved by means of a kind of a decision game, which assumes that the investor, who has several good locations for constructing wind farms, makes a decision with the use of a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method. Methodologically, the article presents an attempt to build guidelines for using MCDA methods as a tool for identifying and constructing the decision-maker’s preference model by maximizing the utility of a given decision variant. Such an approach is a complement to possible plains of application of MCDA methodology in areas different than classical problems of choice, ranking and sorting.

2. State of the Art

Decisions related to RES ought to be seen as multiple criteria decision making problems with correlating criteria and alternatives [34]. As far as RES decision problems are concerned, many criteria, which are usually mutually conflicting, should be considered [35]. Often, a decision made in this field is related to the necessity of taking into account different and contradictory interest groups [36,37]. This is because of complex relationships between technological, economic, environmental, ecological, social and political conditions and aspects of the application of RES. Therefore, a natural tool for supporting such decisions are MCDA methods [38]. This stems from the fact that MCDA methods can provide a technical–scientific decision-making support tool that is able to justify choices clearly and consistently, especially in the renewable energy sector [39,40].
In the literature, one can find many examples of MCDA applications in the field of RES. These methods are employed in order to: choose an energy production technology, analyze different scenarios of RES development, optimize energy production, and evaluate RES-based power plants on the environment or to select location for this kind of power plants. RES-related problems and MCDA methods applied to solve the problems have been variously reviewed [34,36,41]. Research also deals with the application of MCDA methods to wind energy; for example, Kaya and Kahraman [42] first selected an energy production technology (wind energy received the highest mark), and then faced the problem of finding a location for an on-shore wind farm working in the chosen technology. Lee, Chen and Kang [43] presented the problem of location selection of an on-shore power plant and Wątróbski, Ziemba and Wolski [44] for an off-shore power plant. Moreover, Latinopoulos and Kechagia [45] as well as Al-Yahyai et al. [46] based frameworks for location evaluation of on-shore wind farms on GIS (Geographical Information System); Aydin, Kentel and Duzgun [47] presented a similar framework for location evaluation of hybrid power plants, which use wind energy and solar-PV energy. Yeh and Huang [48] determined criteria and their weights for the problematic of selection of a wind farm location. Aras, Erdogmus and Koc solved another problem concerning the location selection of a wind observation station [49]. Chang [50] considered a more complex problem presented in the selection of specific energy production technologies and their locations. As for other decision problems, Cavallaro and Ciraolo [40] carried out an evaluation of wind power plants designs. The designs were different in quantity and power of wind turbines and were evaluated in terms of their suitability to one specific location. Lozano-Minguez, Kolios and Brennan [51] evaluated foundations (truss) for off-shore wind installations. Individual articles, along with their criteria and MCDA method are presented in Table 4. Here, the criteria were divided into seven categories:
  • technical aspects of the wind farm and its devices;
  • spatial location of the farm with reference to surrounding area;
  • economic issues especially ones related to the planned investment costs;
  • social factors related to building and operating the wind farm;
  • issues concerned with ecological aspects of the investment;
  • environmental factors of the vicinity in which the farm is to operate; and
  • legal articles and aspects related to the internal policy in terms of constructing wind farms.
In Table 4, one can find out that the location evaluation of wind farms is often influenced by spatial criteria, such as a distance from the road network and the power grid. Another frequent technical criterion is the amount of generated energy. In the context of generated energy, the environmental aspect is essential; i.e., wind speed, as it directly influences the amount of generated energy. Among the economic criteria, the most crucial ones seem to be investment, operation and maintenance costs. Social factors are also of importance; above all, the social acceptance of constructing a wind farm and of changes to the surroundings. A basic ecological factor that is often mentioned among the criteria is an estimated emission intensity reduction related to withdrawals from fossil fuels. The volume level of wind turbines, the influence on protected area and distance from such areas are often listed among the ecological factors.
Lately, a dynamic development of MCDA methods has been observed. Both new methods are created and well-known techniques are further developed. They are widely used in decision problems related to, for instance, sustainable development, ecology or wind energy. In this area, both European and American school decision-making methods are applied [52]. When analyzing the literature, one can notice in order to solve decision problems related to wind energy, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method is most often used. A generalization of the AHP method, in the form of analytic network process (ANP), is also employed. The reasons for this are relatively simple: computational algorithms for these methods and the possibility of hierarchical structurization of a decision problem [43]. However, AHP/ANP methods are based on qualitative evaluations, therefore, they do not make it possible to precisely present quantitative data. In decision problems related to wind power engineering, other methods of the American decision-making school are also applied, such as Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I KOmpromisno Resenje (VIKOR), simple additive weighting (SAW) or ordered weighted averaging aggregator (OWA) and their developments using fuzzy number arithmetic [42]. As far as the European decision-making school methods are concerned, ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE) methods as well as the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) method are often used [44]. These methods are especially used when a quantitative data approach is applied. Independently, e.g., Latinopoulos and Kechagia [45], Al-Yahyai et al. [46] as well as Yeh and Huang [48] attempted, successfully, to combine several methodological approaches. The AHP (or also ANP) method is frequently used to determine a priority vector, whereas other techniques (e.g., Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), OWA, and SAW) are often employed in the aggregation process of final decision variants.

3. Methodological Background

3.1. General Assumptions

The adopted research procedure is based on Roy’s [52] four-stage model of a decision process. The model consists of the following stages:
  • determining the object of the decision and defining the set of potential decision alternatives A;
  • analyzing consequences and developing the consistent set of criteria C;
  • modeling comprehensive preferences and operationally aggregating performances; and
  • the investigation and development of the recommendation, based on the results of Stage 3.
Roy stresses that the stages do not go serially, but, for example, some elements of Stage 1 can require performing elements of Stage 2. Similarly, a decision process cannot be simplified by eliminating individual elements of Stage 2. In Stage 3, there are three possible operational approaches for the decision-maker in respect of the scope of aggregating performance of alternatives:
  • use of a single synthesizing criterion;
  • synthesis by outranking relation; and
  • interactive local judgments with trial-and-error iterations.
It should be noted that among methods selected to solve the decision problem, there is both a method using a single synthesized criterion (AHP) and a method carrying out a synthesis with the use of an outranking relation (PROMETHEE). Both of these methods are described, Section 3.2 and Section 3.3, respectively.
In Stage 1, the object of a decision is determined. The considered decision problem concerns the selection of the best location, among those suggested, for a wind farm. The problem is considered from an investor’s point of view, as it is the investor who wants to build a wind farm in a location with suitable spatial, environmental, social and ecological characteristics and at the same time he or she wants the investment to by economically rational. The decision problem is a background for presenting a decision game, in which one alternative location is in the vicinity of Szczecin. Other alternatives were situated in potentially the most attractive locations in other regions of the country. Assuming a certain decision model, the decision game is to point out the conditions that the Szczecin location would have to meet to be the best alternative. In order to accurately present all alternative locations, it is necessary to define criteria according to which the alternative locations are to be evaluated.
In Stage 2 of the research procedure, a set of criteria relating to individual alternatives were assessed are prepared. The basic technical aspect depending indirectly on a location is the amount of generated energy. It is mainly influenced by the number and power of wind turbines installed in the wind farm. The number of wind turbines is limited by the area of the available location. It is assumed that turbines should be at a distance of at least four times greater than the rotor diameter (usually about 80–90 m × 4 m) [53]. Furthermore, the amount of generated energy is to a great extent dependent on wind speed in a given region [54]. Therefore, among the considered criteria, the environmental conditions, such as wind speed at the height of 100 m, were taken into account.
Among spatial criteria, the following were taken into consideration: distance from a power grid connection, voltage of the power grid at the connection and its vicinity, and distance from the road network. The distance from a power grid connection influences the ease of connecting the wind farm to the grid, whereas the voltage of the transmission grid to which the wind farm is going to be connected is related to the voltage sweep, which consequently leads to power grid failures. Connecting high electric power (from several dozen megawatts) wind farms to grids with too low voltage (i.e., 110 kV) may cause damages to transmission lines or transformers [55]. The distance from the road network is closely related to, among other things, the construction of the wind farm, since the shorter the distance from roads, the easier it is to deliver elements on the construction site and the less expensive it is to connect the area to the road network. It is a significant factor, for in Poland the road infrastructure in areas characterized by good wind conditions is usually insufficiently developed [54].
As far as ecological criteria are concerned, it is important to know if a location belongs to Natura 2000 nature protected areas. In these areas, it is forbidden to take any action that would negatively influence the protection aims of the Natura 2000 area. However, in the case of an important public interest, business activity permits can be issued even if this activity might have a significant negative impact on the aims of protecting the Natura 2000 area [56]. Nevertheless, it is necessary to take efforts, incur financial costs and devote much time to obtain such permits. Furthermore, wind farms, like other buildings and technical facilities, cannot be located in national parks, landscape parks or nature reserves [56].
The most essential social factor conditioning the construction of a wind farm is social acceptance of such an investment. This social acceptance also contains other social factors influencing the level of acceptance, such as changes to the surrounding area, generated noise or benefits for the local community. It is worth noting that, according to research, a high level of acceptance for a wind farm is declared by about 12% of Poles, 85% of Poles accepts wind energy at a medium level, and 3% at a low level [57].
With reference to economic rationality, the basic criterion should be the investment cost, which mainly consists of: the costs of purchase and assembly of the wind farm (turbine and tower), power grid connection, foundations and design preparation. It is estimated that an average cost of constructing wind farms per 1 MW of installed power amounted to PLN 6.6 million/1 MW and the price is similar to the price of constructing an equivalent coal power station. Only gas energy requires lower investment costs [31]. In addition, operational costs, both fixed and variable costs, should be considered. Fixed costs include: operation and overhaul, maintenance, land lease, management, insurance, energy consumption of the wind farm, taxes and payment to the local community. Variable costs include variable maintenance and balance costs. In total, it is assumed that operational costs of a wind farm in 2011 amounted to PLN 83/MWh [31]. The profit is the price for generated energy that is sold to consumers. The average price of electric energy on the competitive market in the third quarter of 2015 came to about PLN 173/MWh [58]. However, new regulation in the form of a so-called RES auction influences the estimated profits. The regulation reads that RES-based power stations can participate in energy sales auctions. The bidder offering the lowest energy price will have a guaranteed purchase price of their energy for a period of 15 years at their offered price indexed by an inflation level [59]. The reference price for an RES auction in 2016 for on-shore wind energy of the total power greater than 1 MW amounts to PLN 385/MWh [60].
The selection of criteria used for considering location alternatives results from the fact that the problem of location selection was considered from an investor’s point of view. Based on the above considerations, a set of criteria is presented in Table 5.
Locations of individual decision alternatives are presented on maps in Figure 1, against the background of wind conditions (Figure 1a), the road network (Figure 1b), the power grid (Figure 1c), and Natura 2000 protected areas (Figure 1d).
Criteria values of individual alternatives in the spatial scope (among other things, distance from the road network) were obtained from Google Maps. Mean wind speed was received on the basis of analyses conducted by the authors of Global Atlas of Renewable Energy [65]. As far as the kind of wind turbines is concerned, research indicated that Vestas V90 3 MW (Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Aarhus, Denmark) turbines would be installed in the wind farms [66]. The amount of generated energy was calculated by means of the power output of the turbine and mean wind speed. Costs and profits were calculated on the basis of the data presented in this paper concerning approximate wind investment costs and estimated energy prices. Moreover, an average value of social acceptance was assumed for the alternatives. The exception here is alternative A2, because recently Pomeranian Province residents have expressed opposition to constructing more wind farms [67,68]. Criteria values of individual alternatives are presented in Table 6.
Having a defined set of criteria and alternative values, Stages 3 and 4 of the decision process were carried out; that is, preference modeling and aggregating performances as well as issuing a recommendation. The stages were conducted separately for methods AHP and PROMETHEE.

3.2. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method

The AHP is a MCDA method stemming from the expected utility hypothesis. One can distinguish four steps:
  • defining a decision problem and the kind of knowledge one is looking for;
  • preparing a hierarchical structure containing the main goal, intermediate goals (criteria) and alternatives;
  • a pairwise comparison of alternatives in relation to each of the criteria and a pairwise comparison of importance of individual criteria; and
  • using vectors of priorities obtained in comparisons to receive a solution to the decision problem [69].
A decision problem and the construction of hierarchical structure are closely related to each other. The decision problem, while constructing the hierarchical structure, is decomposed into subgoals (criteria), which are placed on subsequent structure levels. Decision alternatives play the role of leaves in the structure. One should individually define the goals of the decision, its subgoals, evaluation criteria and potential subcriteria as well as hierarchical connections between them, decision alternatives and actors [70]. An example of a hierarchical structure is illustrated in Figure 2.
Comparison of criteria and their alternatives comparisons are conducted with the use of a pairwise comparison matrix. Each matrix should be reciprocal and positive. The proportion means that every matrix element fulfills the characteristics defined by Equation (1):
aji = 1/aij
The interpretation of Equation (1) is as follows: if an element aij contains a value a, then the element aji should contain an opposite value, i.e., 1/a. Moreover, elements on the main diagonal aii should include unitary values [71]. When specifying the positivity of matrices, one needs to point out that it should contain the Saaty’s ratio scale, i.e., from the range of 1 to 9 and their opposite values, where 1 indicates equality of compared alternatives or criteria and 9 indicates an extreme advantage of an alternative or criterion i over j [69]. Therefore, each matrix is completed with one of 17 values: 1/9, 1/8, …, 1/2, 1, 2, …, 8, 9 [72]. The meanings of individual values of the Saaty’s ratio scale are presented in Table 7.
For every pairwise comparison matrix, a preference vector w = [w1, w2, …, wn]T is defined, which demonstrates the force of alternatives or criteria compared in matrices. Components of the vector are included in the pairwise comparison matrix, which is presented in Equation (2) [70]:
Sustainability 08 00702 i001
In the AHP method, one calls for determining a preference vector W by determining a right eigenvector of a matrix [74]. It is calculated by solving Equation (3):
A w = λmax w
If a pairwise comparison matrix is consistent, then there is only one non-zero eigenvalue λmax of a matrix and it is equal to the size of the matrix. A vector w is a preference vector related to the value λmax [61]. When there are relatively insignificant inconsistencies in the matrix, the preference vector is one related to the highest eigenvalue (other λs have values close to 0). In other words, when the matrix is consistent, the preference vector w corresponds to a true preference vector v. Consistency of the matrix takes place if: aij × ajk = aik for each i, j, k [75], when elements of the preference vector are their own multiples (e.g., [1 3 6]T or [4 2 1 8]T). Therefore, preference consistency is identical to transitivity of evaluations, for instance, if in the decision-maker’s opinion that an alternative ai is two times better than an alternative aj and four times better than ak, then the alternative aj should be two times better than the alternative ak. However, the true preference vector v mostly does not contain single and exclusive values, which are their mutual multiples; therefore, the vector w is only its approximation [76]. The phenomenon brings about the occurrence of minor inconsistencies in the pairwise comparison matrix, which results from rounding of true preferences to the values from a set {1/9, 1/8, …, 1, …, 8, 9}. More significant inconsistencies in the pairwise comparison matrix are most often caused by the decision-maker’s mistakes which lie in the omission of the rule of full transitivity of evaluations between compared alternatives [77].
Inconsistencies of a pairwise comparison matrix can be calculated by, among other things, determining a consistency index (CI), and then by determining a consistency ratio (CR) in accordance with Equations (4) and (5) [70]:
CI= (λmax − n)/(n − 1)
CR = CI/R
Here, R is a constant whose value depends on the size of a pairwise comparison matrix. The values of R, dependent on the size of a matrix, are presented in Table 8.
Solving the decision problem is obtained by a synthesis of weights of criteria and alternative preference with relation to every criterion. This synthesis is in the form of a weighted mean in which every alternative product of weights of criteria and evaluations of a given alternative with relation to these criteria are added up. As a result, a generalized utility measure of this alternative is obtained. It is presented in Equation (6) [70]:
U i = ∑ k = 1 n w k * u ik
where Ui is the total utility of the i-th alternative, wk is the weight of the k-th criterion, and uik is the value of the i-th alternative with regard to the k-th criterion.

3.3. The PROMETHEE Method

The PROMETHEE method uses an outranking relation in order to choose the best decision alternative [79]. The method employs positive and negative preference flows determining how much a given alternative outranks other ones and how much it is outranked by other alternatives [80]. The procedure PROMETHEE I consists of four steps and PROMETHEE II consists of five steps:
  • pairwise comparison decision alternatives with regard to subsequent decision criteria;
  • applying a preference function selected for each criterion;
  • determining an alternative preference index according to accepted weights of criteria;
  • determining positive and negative preference flows for alternatives; and
  • determining net preference flow [81].
In the PROMETHEE method, the decision-maker may choose from six preference functions using a usual criterion, a quasi-criterion with an indifference threshold, a criterion with linear preference and a preference threshold, a level-criterion with indifference and preference thresholds, a criterion with linear preference and an indifference area, or, finally, a Gaussian criterion, described by [82]. Preference functions of the PROMETHEE method are graphically presented in Figure 3.
A preference index of alternatives calculated according to Equation (7):
π ( a i , b j ) = ∑ k = 1 n w k * f k ( a i , b j ) ∑ k = 1 n w k
where ϕ k means a concordance factor for a pair of alternatives compared with regard to a criterion k in accordance with the assumed preference function. Positive and negative preference flows are calculated with the use of Equations (8) and (9).
ϕ + ( a i ) = ∑ j = 1 n π ( a i , b j )
ϕ - ( a i ) = ∑ j = 1 n π ( b j , a i )
Up to this point, operations in the PROMETHEE I and II methods are the same. While solving the task, the decision-maker can create a partial (PROMETHEE I) or total (PROMETHEE II) ranking of alternatives. The partial ranking employed in the method PROMETHEE I is based on isolated positive and negative preference flows. In the ranking, one can distinguish indifference, preference and incomparability relations:
  • an alternative ai is preferred over bj (ai P bj) when ϕ +(ai) ≥ ϕ +(bj) and ϕ −(ai) ≤ ϕ −(bj), but at least one of the inequalities should be strong (> or <);
  • an alternative ai is indifferent to an alternative bj (ai I bj) when ϕ +(ai) = ϕ +(bj) and ϕ −(ai) = ϕ −(bj); and
  • in other cases, alternatives are incomparable (ai R bj).
According to the PROMETHEE II method, in order to construct a total order of alternatives, a net preference flow described by Equation (10) should be calculated:
ϕ ( a i ) = ϕ + ( a i ) - ϕ - ( a i )
In this method, indifference and preference relations can be distinguished:
  • an alternative ai is preferred over bj (ai P bj), when ϕ (ai) > ϕ (bj); and
  • an alternative ai is indifferent to an alternative bj (ai I bj), when ϕ (ai) > ϕ (bj) [84].

4. Research Results

Preference modeling in the PROMETHEE method consists of defining a preference direction for each criterion (max, min), indicating preference functions used for individual criteria (usual criterion, quasi-criterion, criterion with linear preference, level-criterion, a criterion with linear preference and indifference area or Gaussian criterion) and determining potential thresholds and providing their weights of criteria. These preferences are depicted in Table 9.
Next, performance aggregation of alternatives based on the PROMETHEE procedure was conducted. The obtained positive, negative and net values of preference flows are presented in Table 10.
The analysis of the obtained ranking (Table 10) indicates that the location of Szczecin is not an alternative that should be selected. Therefore, which actions should be taken in the active decision model so that alternative A1 would win the first place in the ranking should be considered. There are two kinds of action that can be taken:
  • persuading the investor to change their criteria preferences and support Szczecin as better than Alternatives A2 and A3; or
  • taking action in order to increase the values of alternative A1 to improve the criteria that currently the location of Szczecin is considered worse than alternatives A2 and A3.
The research, conducted with the use of a sensitivity analysis into an investor’s criteria preference changes was carried out in such a way it could influence the improvement of the Szczecin location. Location A1 outperforms the best alternatives with regard to criteria C1, C3, C5 and C10. Therefore, it can be in first place in the case of increasing weights of only these criteria. The sensitivity analysis for the weights of the above-mentioned criteria is presented in Figure 4.
The sensitivity analysis points out that for any increase in the weights of the criteria C3 and C5, alternative A1 will never be first in the ranking. The effect can be achieved only by increasing the weights of the criteria C1 and C10 and proportionally decreasing the other criteria. For C1, the limit weight when alternative A1 is first in the ranking is 35%. With reference to the initial weight of 12%, it would be a considerable change in the decision-maker’s preference. However, for criterion C10 it is 23%, which is only 3% higher than the initial weight of this criterion. The values of ϕ net and rankings obtained for the indicated weights of the criteria C1 and C10 are depicted in Table 11.
It is doubtful that the decision-maker changes their criteria preferences, so one needs to consider how alternative A1 could become more attractive than A2 and A3. Considering criteria, one should eliminate those which would be difficult to influence. These include mean wind speed, the amount of generated energy, the distance from the road network and being situated in the Natura 2000 protected area. Similarly, one cannot significantly influence the estimated investment costs and profits because they are based on approximate data. One can take into account the connection of the potential wind farm to a 400 kV power grid, which would improve the evaluations of alternative A1 with reference to the “power grid voltage” criterion. However, such action results in a significant increase in the distance to the connection and moves the location of Szczecin into the second position in the ranking, just behind alternative A2. Justified action would be to increase acceptance for the potential investment in the local community (social acceptance). Indeed, an analysis of the value of this criterion for alternative A1 without introducing any modifications to other criteria indicates that when social acceptance for locating a wind farm in the vicinity of Szczecin is at the level of 59%, alternative A1 is ranked first. The analysis is presented in Figure 5.
It should be noted that when the value of social acceptance for alternative A1 is at the level of ca. 40%, there is a change in the sequence of alternatives A2 and A3 in the ranking, although these alternatives have not been modified in any way. Nevertheless, such a phenomenon is possible in the case of methods based on an outranking relation, and PROMETHEE method belongs to this family.
In the case of the AHP method, preference modeling is carried out by pairwise comparisons of criteria. The weights of the criteria are very close to those used in the PROMETHEE method. A pairwise comparison matrix of the criteria is depicted in Table 12.
The performance aggregation of the alternatives was conducted by pairwise comparison of the alternatives with regard to subsequent criteria. Aggregated preference vectors for individual criteria as well as the final preference vector, synthesized to a single criterion, are presented in Table 13.
When comparing Table 10 and Table 13, it can be easily noticed that due to the application of the AHP method, alternatives A2 and A4 changed their positions in the ranking. The change is drastic, since the positions were not neighboring ones, but the first and the second positions in the ranking. Moreover, alternative A1, as in the PROMETHEE ranking, comes third.
In the case of the AHP ranking, an increase in weight of selected criteria cannot put alternative A1 first in the ranking. This statement results from the analysis of Table 12, where it can be noticed that there is no criterion with regard to which alternative A1 would outperform alternatives A3 and A4, which take the leading positions in the ranking. This is why, in this case, the sensitivity analysis was omitted.
In the next step of the research, when the preference vector of variants was calculated, similar to the ranking obtained by means of the PROMETHEE method, whether leveling evaluations of A1 and A4 with regard to criterion C7 (social acceptance) would allow alternative A1 to be the best in the ranking was tested. However, it turned out that it was unsuccessful, since after this, alternative A1 came second, just behind A4. Only a considerable increase in the value A1 for criterion C7 allowed it to move to the first position and become a preferred alternative. Pairwise comparison matrices and preference vectors for social acceptance and the final ranking of alternatives, obtained with a given pairwise comparison matrix, are presented in Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16.

5. Summary

Conditions and environmental, economic and social factors determine the complexity of issues related to green cities. They reflect a close relationship between green technology and transport as well as green RES. Local economic and social conditions can simultaneously be a way to redirect goals and priorities set in the given decision problem of a RES location.
The article makes a successful attempt to model the problem of evaluating the usefulness of a wind farm location for the needs of the green city of Szczecin. Therefore, the article has carried out a multiple-criteria evaluation of the potential of the wind farm location in the region of the city of Szczecin against the background of reference (regarding the best wind conditions) location alternatives in Poland. Consequently, the detailed analysis of the economic and social factors of the city resulted in including them in the prepared decision model. The research was conducted in the form of a decision game with the use of carefully-selected MCDA methods (AHP and PROMETHEE) and the research depicted the gravity of criteria determining social acceptance of an RES investment in a given region. The necessity of using complementary approaches was dictated, on the one hand, by the possibility of an intuitive dialog with the decision-maker and the simplicity of structuring and expanding the model (the AHP method), and, on the other hand, the possibility of taking into account several different types of data (forms of preference information) in one model, which was the domain of the model prepared with the use of the PROMETHEE method.
While this paper was focused on the problem of identifying conditions that should take place so that a potential investor could chose the Szczecin region as a construction area of wind farms, the selected approach can be generalized towards other areas in the field of decision making. In the situations when it is possible to adjust parameters during the search for compromise solutions, the use of the proposed approach extends typical areas of MCDA models applications beyond the classic Roy problematics [52] and can be used as a generalized framework.
In the course of the research, it has been found that there are possibilities of developing and completing the prepared model. Undoubtedly, taking into consideration real interest groups and adapting the decision model to these conditions seem to be an interesting direction. The use of the Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environments (NAIADE) or group development of the PROMETHEE method can be a suggested direction.

Author Contributions

Jarosław Wątróbski wrote the paper and supervised the MCDA analysis; Paweł Ziemba implemented algorithms and performed the MCDA analysis; Jarosław Jankowski performed data processing; and Magdalena Zioło performed economic analysis. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kahn, M.E. Green Cities: Urban Growth and the Environment; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. Maijering, J.V.; Kern, K.; Tobi, H. Identifying the methodological characteristics of European green city rankings. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 43, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Siemens. European Green City Index. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Europe’s Major Cities; Siemens AG: Munich, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. Albino, V.; Dangelico, R.M. Green Cities into Practice. In The Economy of Green Cities: A World Compendium on the Green Urban Economy; Simpson, R., Zimmermann, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tundys, B.; Rzeczycki, A.; Zioło, M.; Jankowski, J. Models of an Integrated Performance Measurement System of Intelligent and Sustainable Supply Chains. In Intelligent Information and Database Systems; Springer International Publishing: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 504–514. [Google Scholar]
  6. Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Kijewski, D. Possibilities of Applying Electrically Powered Vehicles in Urban Freight Transport. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carrese, S.; Gemma, A.; La Spada, S. An Emission Model to Compare Bus and Tramway Transport. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 1025–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Robinson, A.P.; Blythe, P.T.; Bell, M.C.; Hubner, Y.; Hill, G.A. Analysis of electric vehicle driver recharging demand profiles and subsequent impacts on the carbon content of electric vehicle trips. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sandy Thomas, C.E. How green are electric vehicles? Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37, 6053–6062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ajanovic, A. Promoting Environmentally Benign Electric Vehicles. Energy Procedia 2014, 57, 807–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mesjasz-Lech, A. Planning of production resources use and environmental effects on the example of a thermal power plant. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 213, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Halicka, K. Designing routes of development of renewable energy technologies. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 156, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.F.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Banja, M.; Motola, V. Renewable energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Union—An overview from National Renewable Energy Action Plans and Progress Reports. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 969–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oniszk-Popławska, A.; Rogulska, M.; Wiśniewski, G. Renewable-energy developments in Poland to 2020. Appl. Energy 2003, 76, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Paska, J.; Surma, T. Electricity generation from renewable energy sources in Poland. Renew. Energy 2014, 71, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brzezińska-Rawa, A.; Goździewicz-Biechońska, J. Recent developments in the wind energy sector in Poland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Energy Regulatory Office. Potencjał krajowy OZE w liczbach. Available online: http://www.ure.gov.pl/pl/rynki-energii/energia-elektryczna/odnawialne-zrodla-ener/potencjal-krajowy-oze (accessed on 31 December 2015).
  18. Paska, J.; Sałek, M.; Surma, T. Current status and perspectives of renewable energy sources in Poland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. EU Comission. Energy Sources, Production Costs and Performance of Technologies for Power Generation, Heating and Transport. Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication on a Second Strategic Energy Review. SEC (2008) 2892 Final. Available online: http://aei.pitt.edu/39570/ (accessed on 13 November 2008).
  20. Wiśniewski, G.; Michałowska-Knap, K.; Koć, S. Energetyka Wiatrowa—Stan Aktualny I Perspektywy Rozwoju W Polsce. Available online: http://www.senat.gov.pl/gfx/senat/userfiles/_public/k8/senat/zespoly/energia/raport.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  21. Cylwik, A.; Kułagowski, W.; Kulesa, M.; Gawlik, A.; Osiak, J.; Dwórznik, M. Program Rozwoju Sektora Energetycznego w Województwie Zachodniopomorskim do 2015 r. z Częścią Prognostyczną do 2030 r. Case-Doradcy Sp. z.o.o. Available online: http://eregion.wzp.pl/strategie/program-rozwoju-sektora-energetycznego-w-wojewodztwie-zachodniopomorskim-do-2015-z-czescia (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  22. Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego. Regionalna Strategia Innowacji Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego na lata 2011–2020. Program rozwoju. Available online: http://www.rsi.wzp.pl/regionalna-strategia-innowacji-0 (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  23. Zarząd Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego. Raport z realizacji Pierwszego Dwuletniego—2012–2013—Okresu Programowego Programu Ochrony Środowiska Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego na lata 2012–2015 z Uwzględnieniem Perspektywy 2016–2019. Available online: http://www.srodowisko.wzp.pl/sites/default/files/raport_pos_wz_0.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  24. Bartoszewski, P. Duński Gigant w Goleniowskim Parku Przemysłowym. Available online: http://www.coi.wzp.pl/aktualnosci/dunski-gigant-w-goleniowskim-parku-przemyslowym (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  25. Kielmas, J.; Bartoszewski, P. LM Rozpościera Śmigła w Szczecinie. Available online: http://www.coi.wzp.pl/aktualnosci/lm-rozposciera-smigla-w-szczecinie (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  26. Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego. Duński Tydzień w Zachodniopomorskiem Trwa. Available online: http://www.coi.wzp.pl/aktualnosci/dunski-tydzien-w-zachodniopomorskiem-trwa (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  27. Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Zachodniopomorskiego. Dynamiczne 12 lat Polskiej Spółki KK Wind Solutions. Available online: http://www.coi.wzp.pl/aktualnosci/dynamiczne-12-lat-polskiej-spolki-kk-wind-solutions (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  28. Jasina, P. Fabryka za Ponad pół Miliarda i 500 Miejsc Pracy. Minister Zwiększył Dofinansowanie. Available online: http://www.gs24.pl/wiadomosci/szczecin/art/4973044,fabryka-za-ponad-pol-miliarda-i-500-miejsc-pracy-minister-zwiekszyl-dofinansowanie,id,t.html (accessed on 17 July 20164).
  29. Szczecin Biznes. Szukamy Dobrego Wiatru. Available online: http://szczecinbiznes.pl/informacje/Szukamy-dobrego-wiatru-_1017 (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  30. RP GLOBAL. Spółki RP GLOBAL w Polsce. Available online: http://www.rp-global.pl/kontakt/kontakt-spolki (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  31. Ernst & Young. Wpływ Energetyki Wiatrowej na Wzrost Gospodarczy w Polsce. Raport Przygotowany Przez Ernst & Young we Współpracy z Polskim Stowarzyszeniem Energetyki Wiatrowej oraz European Wind Energy Association. Available online: http://www.continowind.com/site/showarticle/menu_id/15/article_id/177 (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  32. Aleksandrow, S.; Staniszewska, M. Znaczenie Odnawialnych Źródeł Energii w Globalnej Gospodarce Oraz ich Wpływ na Rynek Pracy. Acta Innov. 2013, 6, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sibilski, W. Porta Holding i Stocznia Szczecińska Upadły. Gazeta Wyborcza. Available online: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75248,952680.html (accessed on 20 December 2015).
  34. Taha, R.A.; Daim, T. Multi-Criteria Applications in Renewable Energy Analysis: A Literature Review. In Research and Technology Management in the Electricity Industry; Daim, T., Oliver, T., Kim, J., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2013; pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wątróbski, J.; Sałabun, W. Green Supplier Selection Framework Based on Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis Approach. In Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016; Setchi, R., Howlett, R.J., Liu, Y., Theobald, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 361–371. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Cavallaro, F.; Khalifah, Z. Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13947–13984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jankowski, J.; Michalski, R.; Bródka, P.; Kazienko, P.; Utz, S. Knowledge acquisition from social platforms based on network distributions fitting. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 685–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Watróbski, J.; Sałabun, W. The Characteristic Objects Method: A New Intelligent Decision Support Tool for Sustainable Manufacturing. In Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016; Setchi, R., Howlett, R.J., Liu, Y., Theobald, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 349–359. [Google Scholar]
  39. Guerrero-Liquet, G.C.; Sánchez-Lozano, J.M.; García-Cascales, M.S.; Lamata, M.T.; Verdegay, J.L. Decision-Making for Risk Management in Sustainable Renewable Energy Facilities: A Case Study in the Dominican Republic. Sustainability 2016, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cavallaro, F.; Ciraolo, L. A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wimmler, C.; Hejazi, G.; de Oliveira Fernandes, E.; Moreira, C.; Connors, S. Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Renewable Energy Systems on Islands. J. Clean Energy Technol. 2015, 3, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kaya, T.; Kahraman, C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy 2010, 35, 2517–2527. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee, A.H.I.; Chen, H.H.; Kang, H.Y. Multi-criteria decision making on strategic selection of wind farms. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wątróbski, J.; Ziemba, P.; Wolski, W. Methodological Aspects of Decision Support System for the Location of Renewable Energy Sources. In Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Lodz, Poland, 13–16 September 2015; pp. 1451–1459.
  45. Latinopoulos, D.; Kechagia, K. A GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for wind farm site selection. A regional scale application in Greece. Renew. Energy 2015, 78, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Al-Yahyai, S.; Charabi, Y.; Gastli, A.; Al-Badi, A. Wind farm land suitability indexing using multi-criteria analysis. Renew. Energy 2012, 44, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aydin, N.Y.; Kentel, E.; Duzgun, H.S. GIS-based site selection methodology for hybrid renewable energy systems: A case study from western Turkey. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 70, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yeh, T.M.; Huang, Y.L. Factors in determining wind farm location: Integrating GQM, fuzzy DEMATEL, and ANP. Renew. Energy 2014, 66, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aras, H.; Erdogmus, S.; Koc, E. Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 1383–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chang, C.T. Multi-choice goal programming model for the optimal location of renewable energy facilities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lozano-Minguez, E.; Kolios, A.J.; Brennan, F.P. Multi-criteria assessment of offshore wind turbine support structures. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 2831–2837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Roy, B. Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kusiak, A.; Song, Z. Design of wind farm layout for maximum wind energy capture. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 685–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Michalak, P.; Zimny, J. Wind energy development in the world, Europe and Poland from 1995 to 2009: Current status and future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2330–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Paska, J.; Kłos, M. Elektrownie wiatrowe w systemie elektroenergetycznym—Przyłączanie, wpływ na system i ekonomika. Rynek Energii 2010, 1, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  56. Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w Sprawie Ogłoszenia Jednolitego Tekstu Ustawy o Ochronie Przyrody. Available online: www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2015/1651/D2015000165101.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2015).
  57. Mroczek, B. Akceptacja Dorosłych Polaków dla Energii Wiatrowej i Innych Odnawialnych Źródeł Energii (Streszczenie Raportu). Polskie Stowarzyszenie Energetyki Wiatrowej. Available online: domrel.pl/_publikacje/raport_akceptacja.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2011).
  58. Energy Regulatory Office. Informacja Prezesa Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki nr 46/2015 w Sprawie Średniej Ceny Sprzedaży Energii Elektrycznej na Rynku Konkurencyjnym w III Kwartale 2015 Roku. Available online: http://www.ure.gov.pl/pl/stanowiska/6361,Informacja-nr-462015.html (accessed on 21 December 2015).
  59. Ustawa o Odnawialnych Źródłach Energii. Available online: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20150000478 (accessed on 20 February 2015).
  60. Rozporządzenie Ministra Gospodarki w Sprawie Ceny Referencyjnej Energii Elektrycznej z Odnawialnych Źródeł Energii w 2016 r. Available online: http://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2015/2063/1 (accessed on 13 November 2015).
  61. Energia i Przemysł. Data of Prof. Halina Lorenc, IMiGW. Available online: http://www.enis.pl/energia-wiatrowa.html (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  62. MapGO. Available online: http://www.mapgo.pl (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  63. KSE. Krajowa Sieć Energetyczna. Available online: http://www.rozbudowastacjikrajnik.pl/krajowy-system-elektroenergetyczny.html (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  64. Geoserwis. Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska. Available online: http://geoserwis.gdos.gov.pl/mapy/ (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  65. Global Atlas Energy. Available online: http://irena.masdar.ac.ae (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  66. Vestas. V90-3.0 MW. Skuteczny Sposób na Zwiększenie Mocy. Available online: http://agroenergetyka.pl/articles/87/pdf/V90_3_PL.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2016).
  67. Marecki, Z. Referendum ws. Farm Wiatrowych w Gaci i Redęcinie. Większość Przeciw. Głos Pomorza. Available online: http://www.gp24.pl/wiadomosci/slupsk/art/4849067,referendum-ws-farm-wiatrowych-w-gaci-i-redecinie-wiekszosc-przeciw,id,t.html (accessed on 21 February 2015).
  68. Marecki, Z. Od lat Walczą o Drogę, a Budują im Tylko Wiatraki. Spotkanie z Wójtem Potęgowa. Głos Pomorza. Available online: http://www.gp24.pl/wiadomosci/slupsk/art/9211200,od-lat-walcza-o-droge-a-buduja-im-tylko-wiatraki-spotkanie-z-wojtem-potegowa-wideo,id,t.html (accessed on 20 December 2015).
  69. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making—The Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2004, 13, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  72. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Dispersion of group judgements. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 46, 918–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Saaty, T.L. How to Make a Decision. In Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  74. Saaty, T.L. Ranking by Eigenvector versus Other Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Appl. Math. Lett. 1998, 11, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions. Soc. Choice Welf. 2011, 38, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lin, C. A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 176, 1145–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Laininen, P.; Hamalainen, R.P. Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003, 148, 514–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Saaty, T.L.; Sodenkamp, M. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Measurement Processes: The Measurement of Intangibles. Decision Making under Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risk. In Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis; Zopounidis, C., Pardalos, P.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 91–166. [Google Scholar]
  79. Zhao, H.; Guo, S. External Benefit Evaluation of Renewable Energy Power in China for Sustainability. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4783–4805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R.B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Brans, J.P.; Mareschal, B. Promethee Methods. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys; Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 163–195. [Google Scholar]
  83. Kodikara, P.N. Multi-Objective Optima Operation of Urban Water Supply Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ghafghazi, S.; Sowlati, T.; Sokhansanj, S.; Melin, S. A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 1134–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 08 00702 g001 1024
Figure 1. (a) Alternative locations on the map of wind conditions [61]; (b) Alternative locations on the map of Poland’s road network [62]; (c) Alternative locations on the map of the power grid [63]; and (d) Alternative locations on the map of Natura 2000 protected areas [64].
Figure 1. (a) Alternative locations on the map of wind conditions [61]; (b) Alternative locations on the map of Poland’s road network [62]; (c) Alternative locations on the map of the power grid [63]; and (d) Alternative locations on the map of Natura 2000 protected areas [64].
Sustainability 08 00702 g001
Sustainability 08 00702 g002 1024
Figure 2. Hierarchical structure in the analytic hierarch process (AHP) method.
Figure 2. Hierarchical structure in the analytic hierarch process (AHP) method.
Sustainability 08 00702 g002
Sustainability 08 00702 g003 1024
Figure 3. Preference functions used in the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) method [83].
Figure 3. Preference functions used in the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) method [83].
Sustainability 08 00702 g003
Sustainability 08 00702 g004 1024
Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis (criteria C1, C3, C5 and C10).
Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis (criteria C1, C3, C5 and C10).
Sustainability 08 00702 g004
Sustainability 08 00702 g005 1024
Figure 5. Analysis of the influence of the value of “social acceptance” criterion for alternative A1 on positions in the ranking of alternatives.
Figure 5. Analysis of the influence of the value of “social acceptance” criterion for alternative A1 on positions in the ranking of alternatives.
Sustainability 08 00702 g005
Table
Table 1. Capital spending and maintenance costs of renewable energy sources (RES) [19].
Table 1. Capital spending and maintenance costs of renewable energy sources (RES) [19].
Energy SourceCapital Investment (€2005/kW)Operational Costs (€2005/kW)
On-shore Wind114035
Off-shore Wind200080
Landfill Gas1530200
Biogas plant3140245
Hydropower—large scale1350, 1800, 251040, 55, 75
Hydropower—small scale2900, 450085, 130
Photovoltaics470080
Concentrating Solar Power5000115
Biomass combustion steam cycle—large scale2450135
Biomass combustion steam cycle—small scale3800260
Table
Table 2. Economic and market potential of wind energy in Poland [20].
Table 2. Economic and market potential of wind energy in Poland [20].
Province (Voivodeship)Economic Potential (MW)Market Potential (MW)
West Pomeranian~14,100~3100
Pomeranian~10,400~1900
Lower Silesia~9800~300
Warmian-Masurian~7100~300
Subcarpatian~6700~300
Kuyavian-Pomeranian~5200~1500
Greater Poland~4100~1400
Podlaskie~4000~800
Lesser Poland~1800~50
Opole~1600~50
Silesian~1400~50
Lublin~1000~50
Lubuskie~500~50
Świętokrzyskie~200~100
Łódz~100~100
Masovian~50~50
Table
Table 3. Number of jobs created by the wind energy sector [31].
Table 3. Number of jobs created by the wind energy sector [31].
Kind of JobNo of Jobs for 1 MW of Wind Farm Power Installed in a Given YearNo of Jobs for 1 MW of Cumulated Wind Farm Power Installed in a Given Year
Production of wind farm elements—direct workplace7.5-
Production of wind farm elements—indirect workplace5-
Wind turbine installation1.2-
Management and maintenance of wind farms-0.33
Other indirect workplaces1.30.07
Total employment potential in the sector150.4
Table
Table 4. Application of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods in the field of wind Energy.
Table 4. Application of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods in the field of wind Energy.
Decision ProblemCMain CriteriaNCMCDA MethodReference
TeEcSoElEnSpPo
Selection of location for on-shore wind farmSLoTEIC, OCSA, VIAN, IE 7Fuzzy AHP + Fuzzy VIKOR[42]
Selection of location for on-shore wind farmSLoTE, TSIC, OCSC WS, GS RS, OS25AHP[43]
Selection of location for off-shore wind farmSLoEPIC, PTSCPAGSDE 10PROMETHEE II[44]
Geographical Information System (wind)SLo SL, WSDR, DP 6AHP + SAW[45]
Geographical Information System (wind and solar-PV)SLo ANSL, WSDE, DR, DP 10—wind; 9—solarOWA[47]
Geographical Information System (wind)SLo WSDR 7AHP + OWA[46]
Key factors of location for wind farmsSLoTS LB, VICRWSDRRS, OS15Fuzzy DEMATEL + ANP[48]
Selection of location for a wind observation stationSLo IC, OCIA TBDE 13AHP[49]
Adjustment of energy production technology for their best locationsSLoEPIC, OCLB, SACR 7MCGP[50]
Selection of foundations for off-shore wind installationsTSlTE, TSNV CRTB 9TOPSIS[51]
Abbreviations: AHP—analytic hierarchy process, AN—acoustic noise, ANP—analytic network process, C—category, CR—carbon reduction, DE—distance from the national energy connection, DEMATEL—decision making trial and evaluation laboratory, DP—distance from protected areas, DR—distance from road network, El—Ecological, Ec—Economic, En—Environmental, EP—energy production, GS—geology suitability, IA—infrastructure accommodation, IC—investment cost, IE—impact on ecosystems, LB—local benefits, MCGA—multi-choice goal programming, NC—number of criteria, NV—net present value, OC—operational cost, OS—other support, OWA—ordered weighted averaging aggregator, PA—influence on the protected areas, Po—Political, PROMETHEE—preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation, PT—payback time, RS—regulation for energy safety, SA—social acceptability, SAW—simple additive weighting, SC—social conflicts, SLo—site location, SL—Slope, So—Social, Sp—Spatial, TB—topography-natural barrier, Te—Technical, TE—technical efficiency, TOPSIS—technique for order of preference by similarity to deal solution, TS—technical safety, TSl—technology selection, VI—visual impact, VIKOR—vlsekriterijumska optimizacija i kompromisno resenje; WS—wind speed.
Table
Table 5. Criteria adopted for evaluation of wind farm locations.
Table 5. Criteria adopted for evaluation of wind farm locations.
CriterionUnitPreference Direction
C1yearly amount of energy generated(MWh)Max
C2average wind speed at the height of 100 m(m/s)Max
C3distance from power grid connection(km)Min
C4power grid voltage on the site of connection and its vicinity(kV)Max
C5distance from the road network(km)Min
C6location in Natura 2000 protected area[0;1]Min
C7social acceptance(%)Max
C8investment cost(PLN)Min
C9operational costs per year(PLN)Min
C10profits from generated energy per year(PLN)Max
Table
Table 6. Criteria values for individual alternatives.
Table 6. Criteria values for individual alternatives.
Basic DataA1 (Szczecin)A2A3A4
No of turbines V90-3 MW (pieces)23172114
Installed power (MW)69516342
Criterion
C1yearly amount of energy generated (MWh)106,78086,370104,85046,600
C2average wind speed at the height of 100 m (m/s)6.757.126.956.04
C3distance from power grid connection (km)23601
C4power grid voltage on the site of connection and its vicinity (kV)220400220220
C5distance from the road network (km)61073
C6location in Natura 2000 protected area [0;1]1010
C7social acceptance (%)52206050
C8investment cost (million PLN)455.5336.5416277
C9operational costs per year (million PLN)8.97.28.73.9
C10profits from generated energy per year (million PLN)36.829.836.216
Table
Table 7. Numerical and verbal values of the scale for the AHP method [73].
Table 7. Numerical and verbal values of the scale for the AHP method [73].
Numerical EvaluationVerbal Evaluation
1Compared objects (decision alternatives or criteria) are equivalent
2The decision-maker hesitates between an equivalent and weak advantage of one object compared to over the other
3A weak advantage of one object over the other
4The decision-maker hesitates between a weak advantage and a considerable advantage of one object compared to the other
5A considerable advantage of one object over the other
6The decision-maker hesitates between a considerable advantage and a significantly bigger advantage of one object compared to the other one
7A significantly bigger advantage of one object over the other
8The decision-maker hesitates between a significantly bigger advantage and a huge advantage of one object compared to the the other
9A huge advantage of one object over the other
Table
Table 8. Values of a consistency factor R depending on the size of a matrix [78].
Table 8. Values of a consistency factor R depending on the size of a matrix [78].
n12345678910
R000.520.891.111.251.351.401.451.49
Table
Table 9. Preference model for the PROMETHEE method.
Table 9. Preference model for the PROMETHEE method.
CriterionWeight of CriterionPreference DirectionPreference Function 1Indifference Threshold (q)Preference Threshold (p)
C1yearly amount of energy generated (MWh)12max(5)200020,000
C2average wind speed at the height of 100 m (m/s)8max(3)-1
C3distance from power grid connection (km)6min(3)-15
C4power grid voltage on the site of connection and its vicinity (kV)6max(4)02
C5a distance from the road network (km)2min(3)-15
C6location in Natura 2000 protected area [0;1]6min(1)--
C7social acceptance (%)10max(3)-20
C8investment cost (million PLN)10min(5)140
C9operational costs per year (million PLN)20min(5)0.12
C10profits from generated energy per year (million PLN)20max(5)0.510
1 (1)—usual criterion; (2)—quasi-criterion; (3)—criterion with linear preference; (4)—level-criterion; (5)—criterion with linear preference and indifference area; and (6)—Gaussian criterion.
Table
Table 10. The values of ϕ net and positions in the ranking of individual alternatives.
Table 10. The values of ϕ net and positions in the ranking of individual alternatives.
Alternative ϕ + ϕ − ϕ netRank
A1 (Szczecin)0.29250.2979−0.00543
A20.37110.35350.01761
A30.32090.31680.00412
A40.40360.4199−0.01634
Table
Table 11. The values ϕ net and positions in the ranking of alternatives for given weights of the criteria C1 and C10.
Table 11. The values ϕ net and positions in the ranking of alternatives for given weights of the criteria C1 and C10.
AlternativeCriterion C1—Weight: 35%Criterion C10—Weight: 23%
ϕ netRank ϕ netRank
A1 (Szczecin)0.170310.01981
A2−0.066830.01692
A30.169920.01643
A4−0.27344−0.05324
Table
Table 12. Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria.
Table 12. Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria.
CR = 0.006C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10Vector of Weights
C1122262111/21/20.1165
C21/211141111/21/20.0804
C31/2111311/21/21/31/30.0614
C41/2111311/21/21/31/30.0614
C51/61/41/31/311/31/51/51/91/90.0205
C61/2111311/21/21/31/30.0614
C7112252111/21/20.1064
C8112252111/21/20.1064
C922339322110.1926
C1022339322110.1926
Table
Table 13. Preference vectors for subsequent criteria.
Table 13. Preference vectors for subsequent criteria.
CRA1 (Szczecin)A2A3A4
C10.03020.42690.10670.42690.0394
C20.02270.15760.5160.2840.0423
C300.32140.32140.03570.3214
C400.16670.50.16670.1667
C50.00390.2270.12230.2270.4236
C600.08330.41670.08330.4167
C70.00920.25250.04050.45450.2525
C80.01160.09540.27720.16010.4673
C90.00110.09240.19220.09240.6229
C100.03020.42690.10670.42690.0394
Preference vector-0.23930.22390.26030.2765
Rank-3421
Table
Table 14. Pairwise comparison matrix for a criterion “social acceptance” and the final ranking of alternatives.
Table 14. Pairwise comparison matrix for a criterion “social acceptance” and the final ranking of alternatives.
CR = 0.0092A1A2A3A4Preference Vector C7Final Preference VectorRank
A1171/210.25250.23933
A21/711/91/70.04050.22394
A329120.45450.26032
A4171/210.25250.27651
Table
Table 15. Modified pairwise comparison matrix for a criterion “social acceptance” and the final ranking of alternatives.
Table 15. Modified pairwise comparison matrix for a criterion “social acceptance” and the final ranking of alternatives.
CR = 0.0092A1A2A3A4Preference Vector C7Final Preference VectorRank
A119120.37560.25242
A21/911/91/70.03760.22364
A319120.37560.25193
A41/271/210.21120.27211
Table
Table 16. Pairwise comparison matrix for the criterion knows as “social acceptance” which allows alternative A1 to be the first in the ranking.
Table 16. Pairwise comparison matrix for the criterion knows as “social acceptance” which allows alternative A1 to be the first in the ranking.
CR = 0.006A1A2A3A4Preference Vector C7Final Preference VectorRank
A119250.52590.26841
A21/911/91/70.03540.22334
A31/29120.28250.2423
A41/571/210.15620.26632

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wątróbski, J.; Ziemba, P.; Jankowski, J.; Zioło, M. Green Energy for a Green City—A Multi-Perspective Model Approach. Sustainability 2016, 8, 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080702

AMA Style

Wątróbski J, Ziemba P, Jankowski J, Zioło M. Green Energy for a Green City—A Multi-Perspective Model Approach. Sustainability. 2016; 8(8):702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080702

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wątróbski, Jarosław, Paweł Ziemba, Jarosław Jankowski, and Magdalena Zioło. 2016. "Green Energy for a Green City—A Multi-Perspective Model Approach" Sustainability 8, no. 8: 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080702

APA Style

Wątróbski, J., Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., & Zioło, M. (2016). Green Energy for a Green City—A Multi-Perspective Model Approach. Sustainability, 8(8), 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080702

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop