4.6 Article

Development of a Multi-Criteria Analysis Decision-Support Tool for the Sustainability of Forest Biomass Heating Projects in Quebec

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 14, Issue 20, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su142013200

Keywords

decision-support tool; multicriteria decision making (MCDM); analytic hierarchy process (AHP); forest bioenergy; sustainability indicators; comparative scenario analysis

Funding

  1. Fonds de recherche du Quebec Nature et Technologie (FRQNT) [2019-GS-258862]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a decision support tool to guide public decision makers in selecting the best residual forest biomass heating project and evaluating its sustainability.
Residual forest biomass for heating is an alternative to fossil fuels that is in line with global greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Even if the opportunities and the benefits of such projects may be important, one should not neglect the barriers and potential impacts of these projects regarding their sustainability. The decision support tool developed and presented in this paper will help guide and support public decision makers in selecting the best project and improving its sustainability. A reliable and relevant weighting method is determined, based on the use of the Analytic Hierarchical Process multi-criteria decision analysis method, allowing the integration of stakeholders and the consideration of their views and opinions. This choice, combined with the privileged use of quantifiable qualitative data, allows the use of the tool in a preliminary phase of the project development and enables the evaluation of the project and its sustainability from a social acceptability perspective. The tool was applied to two fictional scenarios to demonstrate its ability to guide decision making and to highlight the differentiation of weights and scenarios through both weighting and evaluation methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available