Evaluating Climate Change Mitigation Options in the Philippines with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

  • Michael Angelo B. Promentilla Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering,De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue 1004 Manila Philippines
  • Carla Angeline M. De la Cruz Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering,De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue 1004 Manila Philippines
  • Katrina C Angeles Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering,De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue 1004 Manila Philippines
  • Kathrina G Tan Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering,De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue 1004 Manila Philippines
Keywords: climate change, AHP, Renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, nuclear energy

Abstract

The environmental problem of climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed worldwide. As the electricity-generating power sector is the largest contributor of CO2 in the country, low-carbon technologies or sustainable energy systems are being considered as viable alternatives to reduce the CO2 emissions from this sector. These are fossil-based power plants with carbon capture and storage (F-CCS) technology, nuclear energy (NE) and renewable energy (RE) technologies, particularly solar energy (SE), wind energy (WE), hydroelectricity (HE), geothermal energy (GE) and biomass (BE). However, successful implementation of any of these CCMOs depends not only on the technical and economic aspect but also the socio-political aspect of the project. This study therefore proposes an analytical decision modeling framework to evaluate these options by incorporating the subjective judgment of stakeholders. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to structure the problem and quantify the relative preference of each option with respect to four criteria namely environmental effectiveness (EE), economic viability (EV), technical implementability (TI), and social acceptability (SA).Results from the decision model indicate that the most important criterion is environmental effectiveness, and the least important is social acceptability. With respect to environmental effectiveness, their most preferred CCMO was solar energy whereas their least preferred is nuclear energy mainly because of the risk posed by the generated nuclear wastes. With respect to economic viability, their most preferred CCMO was geothermal energy, and the least preferred was nuclear energy. With respect to technical implementability, the respondents gave the highest preference weight on geothermal energy and the least preferred is nuclear energy. With respect to social acceptability, the most preferred was wind energy and again, the least preferred was nuclear energy.

References

1. Department of Energy (2009). Key Energy Statistics 2009. Policy Formulation and Research Division, Energy Policy and Planning Bureau, DOE, Republic of the Philipines.
2. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2009). World energy outlook. [PDF Document]. Available from: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/d ocs/weo2009/WEO2009_es_english.pdf . Accessed February 2011.
3. Leiserowitz,A. (2007). International public opinion, perception, and understanding of global climate change [PDF Document]. Available from: Table 2. Overall priority weights of the CCMOs CCMOs Aggregated priorities (Rank) Hydroelectric Energy (HE) 0.205 (2) Wind Energy (WE) 0.180 (3) Geothermal Energy (GE) 0.214 (1) Solar Energy (SE) 0.157 (4) Biomass Energy (BE) 0.150 (5) Nuclear Energy (NE) 0.040 (7) Fossil-based with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 0.054 (6) http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/ hdr2007-
8/papers/leiserowitz_anthony6.pdf. Accessed March 2012. 4. Promentilla M.A.B. (2012). Application of ANP to complex environmental and energy-related decision problems. 4th Regional Conference on Global Environment, Emerald Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, 18-19 Jan 2012.
5. Promentilla,M.A.B.,Furuichi,T.Ishii,K. and TanikawaN. (2006). Evaluation of remedial countermeasures using the Analytic Network Process. Waste Management 26 (12), 1410-1421.
6. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, USA.
7. Vaidya, O and Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169, 1-29.
Published
2013-12-31
How to Cite
Promentilla, M. A. B., Cruz, C. A. M. D. la, Angeles, K. C., & Tan, K. G. (2013). Evaluating Climate Change Mitigation Options in the Philippines with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). ASEAN Journal of Chemical Engineering, 13(1), 61-66. Retrieved from https://dev.journal.ugm.ac.id/v3/AJChE/article/view/8147
Issue
Vol 13 No 1 (2013)
Section
Articles

Copyright holder for articles is ASEAN Journal of Chemical Engineering. Articles published in ASEAN J. Chem. Eng. are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. 

Authors agree to transfer all copyright rights in and to the above work to the ASEAN Journal of Chemical Engineering Editorial Board so that the Editorial Board shall have the right to publish the work for non-profit use in any media or form. In return, authors retain: (1) all proprietary rights other than copyright; (2) re-use of all or part of the above paper in their other work; (3) right to reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above paper for authors’ personal use or for company use if the source and the journal copyright notice is indicated, and if the reproduction is not made for the purpose of sale.