Abstract
Growing energy demand and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are driving a significant hydropower (HP) generation expansion in the Alpine area. However, despite its advantages, HP implementation causes several impacts on the ecological status of river systems and the preservation of characteristic landscapes. The use of decision-making tools, like multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, can provide helpful support to achieve more sustainable solutions for complex water management problems. In Aosta Valley (NW Italy), an MCDM experimental approach is being applied to define the optimal environmental flow scenario to be released by HP plants, in an attempt to balance energy production needs, economic profitability and environmental safeguard. Four criteria are considered (energy, environment and fishing, landscape, economy) and key stakeholders are involved in the entire decision-making process. However, there is a need to test also other MCDM methodologies in order to understand if an alternative approach could be more suitable for future, more complex, HP management decisions. Therefore, in this paper, seven different MCDM methods are applied to an existing small run-of-the-river HP plant for the selection of the optimal flow release scenario, i.e., SAW, WPM, AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, ELECTRE III, and the initially adopted method, SHARE MCA. The results obtained with the application of the different MCDM methods are investigated and statistically compared. The strengths and weaknesses of the different methodological approaches are also discussed. Based on the comparative results and the consequent evaluations, SHARE MCA, WPM, and VIKOR appear to have the most interesting characteristics in terms of overall feasibility.
Highlights
IntroductionComparing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) Methods for Hydropower (Alpine Convention–Platform Water Management in the Alps, 2011) and helping the stabilization of the European energy grid (Alpine Convention, 2009)
Hydropower (HP) generation is a key topic for Alpine water resources management
The higher weight of Environment and fishing was due to the fact that this criterion represents two stakeholders’ interests and the related sets of laws
Summary
Comparing MCDM Methods for Hydropower (Alpine Convention–Platform Water Management in the Alps, 2011) and helping the stabilization of the European energy grid (Alpine Convention, 2009). For these reasons, during the twentieth century, hydropower capacity has further increased in the Alps, providing more than 90% of electricity production (Gingrich et al, 2009), and applications for new, small and micro, HP stations, are still increasing (Ferrario and Castiglioni, 2017). Common guidelines and support for decision-making are increasingly required to tackle this challenging issue (Alpine Convention–Platform Water Management in the Alps, 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
