Environmental Performance Evaluation Beijing

Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Environmental performance evaluation of Beijings energy use planning

Lei Wang, Linyu Xu n, Huimin Song
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Received 10 July 2010
Accepted 22 March 2011
Available online 14 April 2011
In line with rapid economic development, urban energy consumption is increasing rapidly, resulting in
environmental problems. After considering several methods to evaluate the environmental performance of energy use, including: energy ecological footprint, inputoutput analysis, emergyexergy
analysis, and multi-criteria decision-making, an environmental performance evaluation model is
proposed, which combines the analytical hierarchy process, fuzzy extent analysis, and membership
degree analysis. In the model, 18 sub-indicators of environmental performance from energy use
planning are classied into four categories: structure of energy use and industry, technology and
efciency of energy use, environmental impacts caused by energy use, and the socio-economic benets
of energy use. Membership degree analysis is applied to each indicator. Three energy use scenarios
which are, respectively, environment-friendly, technology-led, and economic policy-led are evaluated.
The results show that the technology-led energy use planning is best. The sustainable energy use
policies are proposed from three aspects, including optimizing the energy use and industrial structure,
encouraging development of energy-saving and air pollution control technologies, and enhancing
legislation on energy use management. The policies are helpful to optimize the trade-offs between
economic growth and environmental protection in Beijing.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Energy use planning
Environmental performance
Multi-criteria decision-making
1. Introduction
Energy has a profound effect on human life. Throughout human
history, progress in civilization has always been accompanied by
signicant improvements and replacement of energy technologies.
The utilization of energy has greatly promoted the development of
the global economy, but the considerable energy consumption
has resulted in serious environmental problems such as: global
warming, local air pollution, acid deposition, and human respiratory
diseases.
Crucially, the environmental problems in the atmosphere are
caused by the energy consumption which sustains human needs
and economic growth. In fact, most economic sectors are directly or
indirectly associated with energy use. The largest source of atmospheric pollution is fossil fuel combustion, on which current energy
use patterns rely heavily. In this context, it is vital to provide
planners and decision-makers with adequate tools to evaluate the
different options in order to develop appropriate policy responses to
pollution control and achieve sustainable development.
Reasonable energy planning plays a very important role in the
implementation of a citys energy policy. The environmental
performance evaluation, consistent with sustainable energy
Corresponding author. Tel.: 86 105 9893228; fax: 86 105 9893228.

E-mail address: xly@bnu.edu.cn (L. Xu).
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.047
strategies, economic growth, social welfare, and environmental

friendliness are explicitly considered. Thus, the environmental
performance evaluation of any proposed energy use can be an
effective measure for reconciling economic growth with environmental protection.
Since 2001 when Beijing won the bidding for the Olympic
Games, the Beijing Municipal Government, has been actively
fullling its environmental commitments. The energy efciency,
urban air quality and public living environment are constantly being
improved on the basis of rapid economic development. Fig. 1
compares the change in air quality with the energy consumption
and economic development of Beijing. Over the past eight years, the
citys gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by 323.1%, the
number of motor vehicles has increased by 138.1%, the energy
consumption by 54.8%, and the number of permanent residents by
24.3%, while the energy consumption per 10,000 Yuan GDP has
decreased by 49.6%. Even though a certain level of progress in
energy use and environmental protection has been achieved,
Beijings energy use patterns and economic development models
have not yet met the requirements for environmental protection. In
order to carry forward the valuable environmental protection
experience learnt from the Olympic Games, three concepts of green,
high-tech and Peoples Beijing will be developed to guide the
planning of Beijings energy use.
In this paper, an environmental performance evaluation model
is formulated, based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
3484
L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495
Fig. 1. The comparison of Air Quality Change with Economic Development of Beijing (20012008).
approach, fuzzy synthetic extent analysis, and membership

degree analysis, where a detailed evaluation of the environmental
performance for urban energy use planning is presented. Appropriate environmental performance indicators are also dened.
These can be used in order to measure the extent to which the
urban energy use planning is fullled. Using such an approach,
decision-makers can evaluate both the potential and the actual
environmental performance of urban energy use planning.
2. Literature review
The concept of environmental performance, which comes from
business management, was identied by Charles and Pan (2002)
as the effect of environmental management on enterprises.
Environmental performance is an integrated evaluation of prots
from enterprises and environmental impact. In this paper, a
variety of energy use activities in the urban system (e.g. production, living, consumption, and transportation) will be considered
as a whole. They are similar to production activities in enterprises. The prots and the environmental impacts of urban energy
use will be compared, then its environmental performance will be
evaluated in terms of the economic, energy, and environmental
dimensions.
Ecologists, economists, and environmentalists have established
different methods to evaluate the environmental performance of
energy use from their respective competencies. These evaluation
methods can be grouped into four categories: the energy ecological
footprint (EEF) method, inputoutput evaluation, emergyexergy
method, and the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method.
2.1. EEF
The EEF, in line with the theoretical principle of the ecological
footprint, attempts to collect the energy consumption of the
economy being studied and to compare it with the amount of
energy that can be supplied annually by an ecologically
productive hectare. The EEF evaluation method distinguishes

between the energy consumed by fossil fuel combustion, nuclear
power, and renewable energy.
2.1.1. Fossil fuel combustion ecological footprint

According to the original calculation model of Wackernagel
and Rees (1997), the land need for fossil energy can be calculated
in three ways which all lead to similar results: in the rst
calculation method, footprint of fossil fuels is expressed as the
land requirement of an energy carriers produced by agriculture or
forestry; the second calculation method calculates the land
requirement for fossil energy consumption by assessing the forest
area that is necessary to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions
generated by burning fossil fuels. This calculation procedure is
used in many EEF calculations (Ferng, 2002; Haberl et al., 2001;
van Vuuren and Smeets, 2000); in the third calculation method,
the land requirement for fossil energy is estimated by the area
required to compensate the amount of energy burned from fossil
fuels with renewable resources at the depletion rate of fossil
energy.
With the three original EEF methods above, it is not suitable
for evaluating environmental performance of energy utilization,
because these methods do not determine the area corresponding
to the consumption of fossil fuels but the area needed for the
production of renewable energy carriers, which are suitable for
substituting fossil fuels. In the rst and third methods, the area
for the production of renewable energy carriers is directly
calculated, while the second method is based on the CO2 absorption capacity of a renewable energy carrier. Therefore only energy
saving measures can be evaluated with the original evaluation
methods and not substitution potentials of fossil through renewable energy carriers. Therefore many important measures in
making energy utilization more sustainable have no signicant
effects on the size of the EEF, which makes the original methods
inapplicable for the evaluation of the sustainability of energy
utilization.
2.1.2. Nuclear power ecological footprint

The inclusion of nuclear energy in the footprint analysis
presents a special problem. On the one hand, the high density
of the fuels used favors that the demand of biological productivity
be very low in relation to the quantity of energy produced
(Wackernagel and Monfreda, 2004). On the other hand, the
capacity to assimilate radioactive materials in the biosphere is
minimal, as the problem of waste storage is still pending. In the
same way, the truly devastating effects on the territory in case of
an accident would substantially increase the EF of this type of
energy source.
Some researchers dealt with nuclear power as a fossil fuel,
even though nuclear power and fossil fuels have substantially
different impacts and risks (McDonald and Patterson, 2004). From
this perspective, it is estimated that the ecologically productive
hectare absorbs the CO2 derived from nuclear energy use, as if
that energy would have been produced with fossil fuels. Other
methods are also conceivable and some researchers include the
risk of a nuclear accident in the EEF, raising the footprint in
accordance with the affected surface in a hypothetical disaster.
2.1.3. Renewable energy ecological footprint
Hydroelectric, wind, and solar energies have in common a
higher productivity by hectare than that from fossil fuels
(Wackernagel and Rees, 1997), although there are important
differences among them. Their EF includes both the surface
occupied by the facilities intended for electricity production (area
inundated by the reservoir created by the dam, wind mills, and
photovoltaic panels, respectively), the energy embodied in this
infrastructure, and the loss of productivity due to the use of the
surface for energy production. As Wackernagel and Monfreda
(2004) indicated, the signicance of the energy incorporated to
the infrastructure needed to produce renewable energy is the
most important component of the footprint corresponding to
renewable energies, on the contrary than in case of fossil fuels,
where the energy needed for the extraction, transport, and
combustion is the most important component. Therefore the
environmental impacts of renewable energy utilization could
not be comprehensively evaluated only by using ecological
energy footprint method.
Despite the fact that the EEF is a relatively new indicator, it has
attained considerable popularity, both within the scientic
community and among decision-makers, as well as consumers.
However, it is difcult for any single indicator to efciently collect
all the different dimensions related to sustainability. So, to
improve its accuracy, the EEF should be used in conjunction with
other economic, social, or environmental indicators (Rees, 2000).
2.2. Inputoutput analysis
On the basis of the inputoutput theory in economics, environmentalists make an analogous analysis of environmental
impact. Taking the environment resource as the resources input,
we should maximize output while minimizing the environmental
resources in order to reconcile the economic development with
environmental protection. Therefore, the environmental performance represents the environmental cost incurred by the economic development of modern society.
At present, inputoutput analysis has been widely used in energy
efciency analysis and environmental performance of energy utilization. Bevilacqua and Braglia (2002) proposed an inputoutput
based model for evaluating the relative environmental efciency of
the Italian oil reneries without any more discussion on nding
benchmarks or efciency improvement using inputoutput analysis
models. Fare et al., 2004 provided a formal index number of
3485
environmental performance which can be computed using input

output techniques. Ramanathan (2006) has employed inputoutput
analysis to study the impacts of CO2 emissions and energy consumption simultaneously on economic growth. Gross domestic
product and CO2 emissions are outputs, while non-fossil fuel energy
consumption is the inputs.
2.3. Emergyexergy evaluation
Emergy is dened as the total amount of available energy of
one kind (usually solar) that is directly or indirectly required to
make a given product or to support a given ow (Odum, 1996).
Exergy is a measure of the maximum capacity of a system to
perform useful work as it proceeds to a specied nal state in
equilibrium with its surroundings. Many scholars have used
emergyexergy theories to study environmental performance
evaluation in energy systems. Rosen (2002) has studied the
connections between exergy and energy, sustainable development, and environmental impact in order to provide useful
insights and directions for analyzing and solving environmental
problems of varying complexity using the concept of exergy.
It can be argued that emergyexergy evaluation serves as a key
link in environmental performance evaluation, which is mainly
responsible for quantization and standardization, but it not a
complete method for evaluating environmental performance. The
most attractive characteristics of the emergyexergy evaluation
methods are that they provide a bridge between economic and
urban energy systems: they allow all resources to be compared on
a fair basis, and they recognize the different qualities of energy or
abilities to do work.
Like the emergy evaluation method, the exergy evaluation
method derived from systematic ecology studies the overall
urban system. However, urban energy use is a part of the energy
ow system of a city. If urban energy utilization is evaluated by
the emergy and exergy evaluation methods, it will be separated
from the urban system. This leads to the fact that the exergy and
emergy cannot be calculated accurately and that the environmental impact of the urban ecosystem cannot be evaluated
reasonably.
2.4. MCDM method
The MCDM is one of the conventional tools often employed by
decision-makers to structure a complex array of data into a
manageable form and provide an objective and consistent basis
on which to choose the best solution for a given situation. It is
particularly useful for environmental performance, which cannot
easily be quantied in normal market transactions. It applies
weightings to this performance to determine a preferred outcome. The MCDM involves measuring factors such as: air quality,
quality of life, economic development, amenities, etc. in physical
units which are then turned into comparative functions.
Because of their exibility and capacity to support the views of
many decision-makers, MCDM methods are ideal for supporting
the formulation of policies in energy planning and environmental
protection (Greening and Bernow, 2004). The methods are subject
to many sources of uncertainty, long time frames and capitalintensive investments (Huang et al., 1995), along with multiple
decision-makers and many conicting criteria. Over the years,
hundreds of MCDM methods have been proposed. Some methods
have been created for a specic problem, and are not useful for
other problems. Other methods are more universal, and many of
them have attained popularity in various areas. The main idea of
all the methods is to create a more formalized and betterinformed decision-making process.
3486
A review of the published literature is given below in order to

highlight the application areas and trends. We will consider the
application MCDM to: renewable energy planning, energy
resource allocation, building energy management, transportation
energy management, planning for energy projects, electric utility
planning, and other miscellaneous areas.
Haralambopoulos and Polatidis (2003) have described a decision-making framework for assisting with multi-criteria analysis
in renewable energy projects, which utilizes the PROMETHEE II
outranking method. Some studies in the literature have considered energy resource allocation on the basis of the MCDM.
Ramanathan (1999) has used AHP methods to evaluate and
screen energy supply and demand options, which have different
attributes such as: cost-effectiveness, operating characteristics,
types and amounts of potential emissions reductions, political
and social feasibility, and ease of implementation. In a study
focusing on building energy management, a multi-criteria evaluation (Pohekar and Ramachandran, 2004) was conducted to rank
the alternative fuels for cooking on the basis of PROMETHEE.
Tzeng et al. (2005) have developed a multi-criteria model of
alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. In their research,
experts from different decision-making groups performed
a multi-attribute evaluation of alternative vehicles. AHP was
applied to determine the relative weighting of the evaluation
criteria. The technique for order preference by similarity to ideal
solution (TOPSIS) was applied to determine the best compromise
alternative-fuel mode. Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2008)
have employed an AHP structure to evaluate 10 types of the
most important and widely applied power plants that are currently available (including fossil fuel, nuclear as well as renewable-energy-based power plants), with regard to their overall
impact on the living standard of local communities.
Nowadays, more than one MCDM method is applied in many
application areas to validate the results. Some researchers have
tried to combine the use of different MCDM methods. The AHP
method has been especially popular, when combined with other
methods. Liang et al. (2006) have presented a model based on
fuzzy evaluation and AHP for decision support when choosing
optimal power generation projects. Loken (2007) has described
different combinations of uses from the research literature that
include: AHP with PROMETHEE, AHP with TOPSIS, and AHP with
goal programming. Loken has also advocated MCDM methods as a
planning tool in the local energy system, if several energy sources
and energy carriers are involved.
It can be seen from the above literature survey that the
generalized application areas have common features which
include: minimization of costbenet ratios, high degrees of
uncertainty in formulating the problems, incommensurable units,
and the need to handle the socio-economic aspects of planning.
However, AHP is very widely used in energy planning. This may
be due to its ability to convert a complex problem into a simple
hierarchy, exibility, intuitive appeal, its ability to mix qualitative
as well as quantitative criteria in the same decision framework,
and the use of computational aids leading to successful decisions
in many domains.
A proper combination of two (or more) methods might be
advantageous. Such integration would help to utilize the
strengths of both methods. Even though both methods have their
limitations, these might be complementary.
complicated structures and relations between each factor in the

urban energy use system, it is difcult to use the above methods to
efciently collect all the different dimensions of sustainable energy
strategies, economic growth, social welfare, and environmental
friendliness. On the other hand, EEF, inputoutput, and emergy
exergy methods require high-quality data. If we want to assess the
environmental performance of the urban energy use planning
accurately and effectively, both qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation methods should be considered and combined. But
the qualitative data in the evaluation cannot meet the requirements
of these methods.
In contrast, MCDM methods provide a better understanding of
the inherent features of decision-making, promote the role of
participants in the decision-making processes, facilitate compromise and collective decisions, and provide a good platform from
which to understand the perception of models in a realistic
scenario. These methods help to improve the quality of the
decisions that are made, by making them more explicit, rational,
and efcient.
In order to make our study representative, this paper aims to
build an indicator system and a comprehensive MCDM model
with the help of AHP, fuzzy synthetic extent analysis, and
membership degree analysis.
3. Environmental performance evaluation model

This paper presents an environmental performance evaluation
model that uses AHP, fuzzy synthetic extent analysis, and membership degree analysis to determine the environmental performance of
urban energy use planning. It is composed of the following
seven steps.
3.1. Establishment of decision group
In order to assess the environmental performance of urban
energy use planning, a group of decision-makers composed of
scientists, urban planning engineers, government ofcials, and
other specialists should be formed. Subject coverage and different
academic viewpoints should be taken into account when determining the membership of the group, also the ratio of scientists,
engineers, and ofcials.
3.2. Identication of indicators and sub-indicators
A proper system of evaluation indicators is established on the
basis of an analysis of the urban energy use system. The synthetic
evaluation of the urban energy use system is affected by many
factors that can neither be quantied nor neglected. In-depth
analysis and discussion by the decision group are used to
determine the system of indicators that is to be used.
Based on actual conditions and some relevant references
(Pilavachi et al., 2006; Jovanovic et al., 2009; Doukas et al.,
2007; Afgan and Carvalho, 2008), the indicators used to evaluate
the energy systems in the literature mainly divide into four
aspects: structure of energy use and industry, technology and
efciency of energy use, environmental impacts caused by energy
use, and the socio-economic benets of energy.
3.3. Structure of environmental performance evaluation model
2.5. Summary
From the analysis of each method for evaluating environmental
performance we nd that EEF, inputoutput, and emergyexergy
methods are not quite suitable for evaluating the environmental
performance of urban energy use planning. Because of the
A proper structure for the evaluation model is the basis of

environmental performance evaluation of urban utilization planning. This study aims to assess environmental performance by
using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. This method
requires a hierarchical structure. It is structured so that the
3487
Fig. 2. Linguistic scale for relative importance.
Table 1
Linguistic scales for importance.
Linguistic scale for
importance
Triangular fuzzy
scale
Triangular fuzzy
reciprocal scale
Just equal
Equally important (EI)
Weakly more important
(WMI)
Strongly more important
(SMI)
Very strongly more
important (VSMI)
Absolutely more important
(AMI)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(3/2, 2, 5/2)
(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
(2, 5/2, 3)
(1/3, 2/5, 1/2)
(5/2, 3, 7/2)
(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
objective is at the rst level, the indicators are at the second level,
and the sub-indicators of the indicators from the second level are
on the third level.
Fig. 3. Membership functions of linguistic values.
Fcost x
8
>
<1
>
:
x r LB
UBx
UBLB
LB r x/UB
x Z UB
3.4. Local and global weights of indicators and sub-indicators

The fuzzy scale which measures the relative importance of the
weights is given in Fig. 2 and Table 1.This scale was proposed by
Kahraman et al. (2006) and used to solve fuzzy decision-making
problems.
Based on the fuzzy pairwise comparison results, the local
weights of indicators and sub-indicators are calculated by the
fuzzy synthetic extent analysis method. The denition of the
triangular fuzzy number and the steps in the fuzzy synthetic
extent analysis method are given in Appendix A.
Global sub-factor weights are computed by multiplying the
local weight of the sub-factor with the local weight of the factor
to which it belongs.
3.5. Membership degree analysis of quantitative sub-indicators

We set a scale for the quantitative sub-indicators in which the
upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) are determined according to local urban planning standards, relevant international
standards and a comparison with similar cities.
The membership functions Fbenefit x, Fcost x of benet and cost
sub-indicators can be expressed as follows:
8
x ZUB
>
<1
xLB
LB rx/UB
1
Fbenefit x UBLB
>
:
0
x rLB
3.6. Linguistic values of qualitative sub-indicators

Members in the decision group are required to provide their
judgments on the basis of their knowledge and expertise for each
sub-indicator at the bottom level of the hierarchy. The expert can
provide a precise numerical value, a range of numerical values, a
linguistic term or a fuzzy number. In many instances, experts nd
that it is hard to give numerical values, either due to the
uncertainties involved, or because the evaluation factor cannot
be measured quantitatively.
In order to make a quantitative analysis of the sub-indicators,
the linguistic variables proposed by Cheng (1997) are used in this
step. The membership functions of these linguistic variables are
shown in Fig. 3. The assessment grades are ranked into ve levels:
very high (1), high (0.75), medium (0.5), low (0.25), and very
low (0).
3.7. Environmental performance of urban energy use planning
The environmental performance of urban energy use planning
can be calculated by using the global sub-indicator weights,
membership, and linguistic values. We rank them by preference
order and then select the best scenario.
The environmental performance of urban energy use planning
can be obtained from the proposed model. In order to determine
the level of environmental performance, an environmental performance rating system will be established, after consultation
3488
with the relevant government departments, scientists, and engineers in the eld. This rating system could help us to determine
the best scenario for urban energy use planning from the
perspective of environmental protection, sustainable energy
use, and coordinated economic development. A diagram of the
proposed comprehensive model for determining environmental
performance is provided in Fig. 4.
4. Case study
The environmental performance of Beijings energy use planning was evaluated using the above model. Beijing, the capital of
the Peoples Republic of China, is an ancient city with a long

cultural history. It is now a rapidly developing, large city. For
historical reasons, the citys infrastructure for environmental
protection is poor. The large quantity of pollutant discharges
during its rapid development, and the adverse energy structure as
well as an excessively high proportion of coal burning have
caused SO2 and particulate pollution in the air. Low energy
efciency and high energy consumption also increase the greenhouse gas emissions. However, vehicle emissions are the major
sources of CO and NO2 in the atmosphere. For the reasons
mentioned above, we chose Beijing as the study area, which has
been shown in Fig. 5.
4.1. Identication of indicators and sub-indicators

As a rst step, the indicators and sub-indicators which are
used to measure the environmental performance of the energy
use planning in Beijing are determined. For this purpose, past
urban energy use planning was analyzed in detail by the team of
experts. The indicators which related technology, economy,
environment, and society were determined. After analyzing the
urban energy use planning and comparing the typical evaluation
indicators of energy systems, 18 sub-indicators were determined
and then used to obtain the environmental performance of urban
energy use planning. These 18 factors are classied into four as:
structure of energy use and industry, technology and efciency of
energy use, environmental impacts caused by energy use, and
socio-economic benets of energy use.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the environmental performance evaluation model.
Structure of energy use and industry (A1): Raw coal consumption rate (A11), high-quality energy usage rate (A12), renewable
energy usage rate (A13), rationality of energy consumption
structure (A14), tertiary industry proportion (A15).
Technology and efciency of energy use (A2): Energy consumption per unit of GDP (A21), elasticity coefcient of energy
consumption (A22), new energy development (A23), energysaving rate in buildings (A24).
Environmental impacts caused by energy use (A3): Annual
concentration of SO2 (A31), particulate matter concentration
(A32), trafc emissions compliance rate (A33), per capita carbon
emission (A34), annual concentration of NO2 (A35)
Fig. 5. The study area.
Socio-economic benets of energy use (A4): Penetration rate of

central heating (A41), satisfaction with energy supply (A42), energy
efciency (A43), creation of jobs in energy enterprises (A44).
4.2. Structure of environmental performance evaluation indicators

The environmental performance evaluation structure formed by
the indicators and sub-indicators determined in the rst step is
shown in Fig. 6. The structure has three levels. The goal of determining the environmental performance of the Beijing energy use planning is located on the rst level. The indicators are located on the
second level and the sub-factors are located on the third level.
3489
4.3. Calculation of local weights and global weights

4.3.1. Local weights
In this step, the local weights of the indicators and subindicators which take part in the second and third levels of AHP
structure (see Fig. 6) are calculated.
At the second level of the AHP structure, all four indicators
(structure of energy use and industry, technology and efciency
of energy use, environmental impacts caused by energy use, and
socio-economic benets of energy use) play very important roles
in urban energy use planning. However, these four indicators are
difcult to compare with each other. Therefore, we use their
average weights to represent their relative importance.
At the third level of the AHP structure, pairwise comparison
matrices are formed by the team of experts by using the
scale given in Table 1 to compare the importance of each subindicator. The local weights of the sub-indicators are calculated
by using the fuzzy comparison values presented in Table 2
with the fuzzy synthetic extents method (see Appendix A) as
follows:
SA11 3:15,4:67,8:00 1=37:00,1=26:02,1=18:32 0:09,0:18,0:44
SA12 4:00,5:67,7:50 1=37:00,1=26:02,1=18:32 0:11,0:22,0:41
SA13 4:00,6:00,8:00 1=37:00,1=26:02,1=18:32 0:11,0:23,0:44
SA14 3:50,4:51,6:00 1=37:00,1=26:02,1=18:32 0:14,0:22,0:48
SA15 3:67,5:17,7:50 1=37:00,1=26:02,1=18:32 0:09,0:20,0:41
The degrees of possibility are calculated as:

0:110:44
0:89
0:180:440:220:11
0:110:44
0:87
VSA11 Z SA13
0:180:440:230:11
VSA11 Z SA12
VSA11 Z SA14
0:140:44
0:88
0:180:440:220:14
VSA11 Z SA12
0:090:44
0:95
0:180:440:200:09
VSA12 Z SA21 1,
0:110:41
0:97,
0:220:410:230:11
VSA12 Z SA14 1,
VSA12 Z SA15 1
VSA13 Z SA11 1,
VSA13 Z SA15 1
VSA13 Z SA12 1,
VSA14 ZSA11 1,
VSA14 ZSA12 1,
VSA14 Z SA13
VSA13 ZSA14 1,
0:110:48
0:97,
0:220:480:230:11
VSA15 Z SA11 1,
Fig. 6. Structure of environmental performance of Beijing Energy use planning.
VSA12 Z SA13
VSA15 Z SA13
VSA15 Z SA12
VSA14 Z SA15 1
0:110:41
0:94
0:200:410:220:11
0:110:41
0:91
0:200:410:230:11
Table 2
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of sub-factors of A1.
Factors
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
Raw coal consumption rate (A11)

High-quality energy usage rate (A12)
Renewable energy investment strength (A13)
Rationality of energy consumption structure (A14)
Tertiary industry proportion (A15)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(2/3,1,2)
(1,3/2,2)
(1/2,1,3/2)
(1/2,2/3,1)
(1,1,1)
3490
VSA15 Z SA14
0:140:41
0:93
0:200:410:220:14
minVSA15 Z SA11 ,SA12 ,SA13 ,SA14 0:91

These values yield the following weights vector:
For each pairwise comparison, the minimum of the degrees of

possibility is
W 0 0:87,
0:97,
1,
0:91T
0:97,
The normalized weights vector is
minVSA11 ZSA12 ,SA13 ,SA14 ,SA15 0:87

W 0:184,
0:206,
0:212,
0:193T
0:206,
The local weights for the sub-indicators are calculated similarly

to the fuzzy evaluation matrices, as shown below. Pairwise comparison matrices for the sub-indicators are given in Tables 35,
together with the calculated local weightings.
minVSA13 ZSA11 ,SA12 ,SA14 ,SA15 1

Table 3
Factors
A21
A22
A23
A24
Local weights
Energy consumption per unit of GDP (A21)

Elasticity coefcient of energy consumption (A22)
New energy development (A23)
Energy-saving rate in buildings (A24)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(3/2, 2, 5/2)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
0.376
0.256
0.248
0.120
Table 4
Factors
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
Local Weights
SO2 annual emission of energy use (A31)

Particulate matter concentration (A32)
Trafc Emissions compliance rate (A33)
Carbon emission per capita (A34)
NO2 annual emission of energy use (A35)
(1, 1, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(3/2, 2, 5/2)
(1,3/2,2)
(1/2, 3/2, 1)
(1, 1, 1)
(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(3/2, 2, 5/2)
(1, 1, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)

(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 3/2, 1)
(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1, 2/3, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
0.163
0.251
0.158
0.213
0.198
Table 5
Factors
A41
A42
A43
A44
Local Weights
Penetration rate of central heating (A41)

Satisfaction rate of energy supply (A42)
Energy efciency (A43)
Energy enterprises job creation (A44)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(3/2, 2, 5/2)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
(1, 3/2, 2)
(1/3, 2/5, 1/2)
(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)

(1/2, 2/3, 1)
(1, 1, 1)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(1/2, 1, 3/2)
(2, 5/2, 3)
(2/3, 1, 2)
(1, 1, 1)
0.206
0.289
0.308
0.197
Table 6
Computed global weights for sub-indicators.
Indicators and local weights
Sub-indicators
Local weights
Global weights
Structure of energy use and industry A1 (0.25)

Renewable energy usage rate (A13)
0.184
0.206
0.214
0.206
0.046
0.052
0.054
0.052
Technology and efciency of energy use A2 (0.25)

Building energy-saving rate (A24)
0.193
0.376
0.256
0.248
0.120
0.048
0.094
0.064
0.062
0.030
Environmental impacts caused by energy use A3 (0.25)
SO2 annual emission of energy use (A31)

Particulate matter emission (A32)
Trafc emissions compliance rate (A33)
0.163
0.251
0.158
0.213
0.198
0.041
0.063
0.040
0.053
0.050
Socio-economic benets of energy use A4 (0.25)

Satisfaction of energy supply (A42)
0.206
0.289
0.308
0.197
0.052
0.072
0.077
0.049
4.3.2. Global weights

Global weights for the sub-indicators can be calculated by
using the local weights of the indicators and sub-indicators. The
weights of the global sub-indicators are computed by multiplying
the local weight of the sub-indicator with the local weight of the
indicator. The global weights computed for the sub-indicators are
shown in Table 6.
3491
environmental quality complies with national standards, and the

major emissions of air pollutants do not increase. On the other
hand, urban environmental protection can be improved with the
power of economic development.
Each of the above scenarios was quantied and qualied for all
of the sub-indicators (see Table 8).
4.5. Scale value of sub-indicators
4.4. Formulation of scenarios

After preliminary screening, three scenarios were available for
this empirical study (see Table 7).
4.4.1. Scenario 1: environment-friendly planning
The general objective of scenario 1 is to slow down the pace of
economic growth to an appropriate level, in order to hold the
average annual growth rate at 5% for the period 20102015, thus
reducing energy consumption and improving the environmental
conditions.
4.4.2. Scenario 2: technology-led planning
The core idea of this scenario is to achieve the target for energy
saving and reduction of air pollutants by encouraging technological innovation. Thus, the environmental quality could be further
improved, whilst maintaining the current pace of economic
growth.
4.4.3. Scenario 3: economic policy-led planning
The general thinking behind scenario 3 is that: on one hand, a
more lenient environmental protection policy will be adopted, so
that the urban economy can develop rapidly without excessive
restrictions. Paying more attention to economic development,
keeping the annual economic growth rate at 10%, so that the
4.5.1. Membership degree analysis of quantitative sub-indicators

The upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) of 14 quantitative
sub-indicators are determined according to local urban planning
standards, the relevant international standards and comparison
with similar cities.
While it is very difcult to collect data for 14 sub-indicators
that are valid worldwide, every effort has been made to use
average values that are universally accepted. The scale and scale
values of quantitative sub-indicators for each scenario are shown
in Tables 9 and 10.
4.5.2. Linguistic values of qualitative sub-indicators
According to the linguistic variables shown in Fig. 5, the
linguistic rating set {VL, L, M, H, VH} is employed to present ve
states in terms of triangular fuzzy numbers, where VL (0), L (0.25),
M(0.5), H(0.75), and VH(1). The linguistic values of the qualitative
sub-indicators were determined by a team of experts and are
shown in Table 10.
4.6. Ranking and decisions
At this stage, the environmental performance of three different
scenarios were calculated through the proposed environmental
performance evaluation model by using the global weights of the
Table 7
Scenarios of Beijing energy use planning in 2015.
Scenarios
Outline of Beijing energy use planning in 2015
Scenario 1 (Environmental
friendly)
Structure of energy use and industry

Technology and efciency of energy use
Environmental impacts caused by energy use
Socio-economic benets of energy use
Scenario 2 (Technology-led)

Scenario 3 (Economic-led)


Ban the utilization of coal; increase the high-quality energy usage rate at 85%;
develop public transport instead of small cars
Establish more stringent standards for motor vehicle exhaust emission
30% reduction in emission of major air pollutions, the blue sky days up to 310 days
Control annual economic growth rate at 5%, thus reducing energy consumption
and improving environmental conditions
Total coal consumption will reduced by 30%, high-quality energy in the energy
structure accounted for more than 80%, the proportion of renewable energy in
total energy consumption increased to 10%; the proportion of Beijings tertiary
industry reached 78%
Develop geothermal energy, solar and wind, build a positive new energy and
renewable energy systems; enhance the capability of independent innovation,
develop low-carbon technologies; establish a elimination mechanism of backward
process and technology, implement strict energy efciency standards for industry;
the energy consumption per unit of GDP will reduce by 20% compared with 2008
Strengthen prevention and control of vehicle emission; reduce the air pollutants
emission, call for a 20% reduction in emission of major air pollutions
Establish a low-carbon economic development strategy, encourage public
participation in low-carbon lifestyle; maintain the rate of economic growth at 8%
Beijings tertiary industry approach 80%; encourage
High-quality energy in the energy structure accounted for 70%
Develop urban road and rail transport system, in order to provide the public with a
variety of travel options, thereby reducing energy waste and air pollution emission
caused by trafc jam
Environmental quality complies with national standards, and the major air
pollutant emissions do not increase
Keep the annual economic growth rate at 10%; carry out the construction of
energy conservation and environmental protection in urban inhabitable
environment
3492
Table 8
The feature value of 3 scenarios in 2015.
Sub-indicators
Current status (2008)b
2015
Scenario1a Scenario2a Scenario3a
Structure of energy use and industry A1

Renewable energy usage rate (A13)
20
85
8
M
75
30
80
10
H
78
40
70
4
M
80
49.2
65
2.5
L
72.4
Technology and efciency of energy use A2

Building energy-saving rate (A24)
0.6
0.45
M
65
0.5
0.40
VH
80
0.65
0.51
H
70
0.66
0.48
L
58
0.025
0.07
100
6.2
0.04
0.03
0.08
97
7.6
0.045
0.06
0.10
95
8.2
0.05
0.036
0.122
91
6.9
0.049
70
L
80
L
75
H
85
M
80
VH
90
VH
65
M
75
M
Environmental impacts caused by energy use A3 SO2 annual emission of energy use (A31)
Particulate matter concentration (A32)
Trafc emissions compliance rate (A33)
Socio-economic benets of energy use A4
a
b

Satisfaction of energy supply (A42)
Planning Outline of Municipal Environmental Protection and Ecological Construction Planning in Beijing (20092015).
Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics, Beijing Statistics Yearbook (2009).
Table 9
Scale of quantitative sub-indicators.
Sub-indicators (unit)
Attribute LB
UB
Raw coal consumption rate (%)

High-quality energy usage rate (%)
Renewable energy usage rate (%)
Tertiary industry proportion (%)
Energy consumption per unit of GDP (tce/10,000
Yuan)
Energy consumption elasticity coefcient
Energy-saving rate for buildings (%)
Annual concentration of SO2 (mg/m3)
Particulate matter concentration (mg/m3)
Trafc emissions compliance rate (%)
Per capita carbon emission (ton)
Annual concentration of NO2 (mg/m3)
Penetration rate of central heating
Energy efciency
20h
50b
8h
45d
0.29a
50a
80b
20a
80d
1.10a

0.25a
50f
0.02c
0.04c
90e
3.8c
0.04c
50h
70g
1.45a
100f
0.10c
0.15c
100e
12.4c
0.08c
85e
90g
Note: means benet item and means cost item.

a
Energy Information Administration, Ofcial Energy Statistics from the U.S.
Government, 2009.
b
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2009.
c
Ministry of environmental protection, Major pollutants Concentration Limits
for National Ambient Air Quality Standard (GB 3095-1996), 1996.
d
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD
Environmental Performance Reviews China, 2007.
e
Beijing Municipal Commission of Development and Reform, The overall
urban planning of Beijing (20042020), 2005.
f
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China (MOHURD),
Design standard for energy efciency of public buildings (GB50189-2005),
2005.
g
National Development and Reform Commission, China Medium and Longterm Energy Conservation Plan, 2004.
h
National Municipal Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Yearbook (2009).
sub-indicators (Table 7) and the scale value of the sub-indicators

(Table 10).
The environmental performance of these three scenarios is
shown in Table 10. The sub-factors used to determine the
environmental performance, and their global weights (gw) are
shown in the rst and second columns of Table 10, respectively.
The details of these computations, made by using the global
weights and the scale values, within the scenarios are provided in
the third and fourth columns of Table 10, respectively.
The ranking order of the scenarios determined by environmental performance is: scenario 24scenario 14 scenario 34the
current status. The environmental performance of the three
scenarios exceeds the current status, so all the scenarios are
available for future energy use planning in Beijing. The best
scenario is technology-led planning, and the worst is scenario 3
(economic policy-led planning). The scenarios for energy use
planning for Beijing can also be evaluated and ranked for just
one aspect (see Table 11).
From the structure of the energy use and industry indicator,
scenario 2 (technology-led planning) is the optimal scheme,
scenario 1 (environmental-friendly planning) follows, and scenario 3 (economic policy-led) is the worst. Scenario 2 is also the
best in terms of the technology and efciency of Beijings energy
use and scenario 1 is the worst. With regard to the environmental
aspects, scenario 1 has a value of 0.846 while the next best value
is 0.705, thus scenario 1 is better than the others due to the low
emission of pollutants. In terms of the socio-economic benets of
the energy use indicator, scenario 3 is best.
As for the case study, although scenario 1 is the best option in
terms of environmental impacts caused by energy use, and
scenario 3 is the best from the point of view of the socioeconomic benets of energy use, scenario 2 is the optimal
scheme, as it provides a better performance overall.
4.7. Sustainable energy use policies
Based on the analysis of Beijings current energy use and the
evaluation results of the environmental performance in the
scenarios, suggestions about sustainable energy use policies have
been proposed to guide future energy use planning in Beijing.
4.7.1. Optimize the energy use and industrial structure
Accelerating the transformation of the energy use and industrial structure is of vital important to establish energy-saving
industries and society. The government should develop and bring
in clean and high-quality energies to establish a complementary
3493
Table 10
Environmental performance for three scenarios.
Sub-indicators
Global weights (gw)
0.064
0.049
0.052
0.041
0.052
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.055
0.049
0.077
0.049
0.065
0.062
0.073
0.049
0.051
0.024
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A21
A22
A23
A24
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
A41
A42
A43
A44
EP
Current status
Scenario 1
gw sv
Scale values
gw sv
Scale values
gw sv
Scale values
gw sv
0.03
0.50
0
0.25
0.78
0.54
0.81
0.25
0.16
0.80
0.25
0.10
0.64
0.77
0.43
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.002
0.025
0.000
0.010
0.041
0.033
0.049
0.015
0.009
0.039
0.019
0.005
0.042
0.048
0.031
0.025
0.013
0.012
1.00
1.00
0
0.50
0.86
0.62
0.83
0.50
0.30
0.94
0.73
1.00
0.72
1.00
0.57
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.064
0.049
0.000
0.021
0.045
0.038
0.051
0.031
0.017
0.046
0.056
0.049
0.047
0.062
0.042
0.012
0.038
0.006
0.67
1.00
0.17
0.75
0.94
0.74
0.87
1.00
0.60
0.87
0.64
0.70
0.56
0.87
0.71
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.043
0.049
0.009
0.031
0.049
0.045
0.053
0.061
0.033
0.043
0.049
0.034
0.036
0.054
0.052
0.037
0.051
0.012
0.33
0.67
0
0.50
1.00
0.56
0.78
0.75
0.40
0.50
0.45
0.50
0.49
0.75
0.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.021
0.033
0.000
0.021
0.052
0.034
0.048
0.046
0.022
0.025
0.035
0.025
0.032
0.047
0.063
0.049
0.013
0.018
S1 0.659
Table 11
The evaluation results of three scenarios from single indicator.
Evaluation of each aspect

A1
0.659
A2
A3
A4
0.606
0.846
0.393
Integrated evaluation
Scenario 3
Scale values (sv)
S0 0.417
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 2
0.702
Scenario 24Scenario 1 4Scenario
0.821
0.705
0.693
Scenario 3
0.495
3
0.644
1
S2 0.728
S3 0.625
research accomplishments need to be as universal, key and leading

energy-saving technologies, e.g., advanced and mature new technologies, new equipments and new materials for energy conservation in buildings. Major energy-saving demonstration projects and
relevant exhibitions are helpful to promote the industrialization of
energy-saving technology. More international and domestic communications should be encouraged to accelerate the development
of technologies and applications.
0.526
3
0.971
1
Scenario 2 4Scenario 14 Scenario 3
and coordinated energy use system, in which gas and electricity

are the main sources, clean coal and oil act as secondary sources,
and new energy and renewable energy are the supplementary
sources. Considerable efforts need to be made to develop geothermal, solar, and wind energies in order to build a positive system of
new and renewable energies.
The optimization of industrial structure contributes to enhance
the energy use efciency and decrease the environmental stress.
The government should make a major effort to improve the
proportion of the tertiary industry, which has the characteristics
of high energy use efciency, low energy consumption and low
environmental pollutant emissions. The government needs to
promote high-tech industries, giving priority to the development
of the information industry with low energy consumption that may
signicantly catalyze Beijings economic growth. The traditional
energy-intensive industries should be encouraged to use the latest
energy saving technologies in industrial production processes.
4.7.2. Encourage development of energy-saving and air pollution

control technologies
The authorities should encourage the research organizations,
enterprises, and individuals to cooperate to develop advanced
energy-saving and air pollution control technologies. The government should establish an energy-saving and air pollution control
technology innovation system, taking the enterprises as the principal component. After careful assessment, the latest scientic
4.7.3. Enhance legislation on energy use management

The municipal government should speed up the establishment
of sustainable energy use laws and regulations. Firstly, it should
formulate laws and regulations on energy conservation, including power conservation management, petroleum conservation,
energy-efcient labeling, and energy-saving in buildings. Secondly, it should implement mandatory and incremental energy
efciency standards for industrial energy-consuming equipments,
household electrical appliances, lighting, and motor-driven vehicles. Thirdly, a monitoring and supervision system of energy use
needs to be established and improved. From this system, the
government can supervise energy supply and demand, and
promote energy conservation management of energy-intensive
industries such as those manufacturing iron and steel, nonferrous metals, building materials, chemicals, and petrochemicals.
5. Conclusion
In this study, a comprehensive model has been developed to
determine the environmental performance of urban energy use
planning. AHP was applied to formulate a framework of indicators. The fuzzy synthetic extent analysis method has been used to
determine the relative importance of the indicators and subindicators. This method can capture the vagueness of the human
style of thinking and effectively solve uncertainty in the environmental performance evaluation system. The membership analysis
method was applied to determine the values of the quantitative
sub-indictors, which makes the results of the evaluation more
accurate and comparable. In addition, the environmental performance level of the general energy use planning, and the best
scenarios for coordinating economic development with environmental protection can be identied. Although the model was
3494
developed and tested for use in a specic city, it could also be

used, with slight modications, in other cities.
The results of this study indicate that a rapid increase in energy
use during the past decade is the main cause of air pollution in
Beijing. Therefore, it is important to reduce the energy intensity by
means of energy conservation, technological innovation, efciency
improvement, and industrial structure adjustments. According to
the analysis of the three scenarios for Beijings energy use planning
in 2015, both scenarios 1 and 3 optimize the environmental
protection and socio-economic development, respectively, but
scenario 2 focuses on coordinating the relationship of each factor
in the planning. From the results of the environmental performance evaluation of these three scenarios, we nd that local suboptimal and global optimum energy use planning is better than the
local optimum and global sub-optimal one. It is not inevitable that
economic growth will conict with environmental protection.
There can be a winwin measure to reconcile economic growth
with environmental protection in Beijings energy use planning.
The key to this measure is to improve the patterns of development
and encourage technological innovation.
The proposed methodology for environmental performance evaluation of urban energy use planning has several innovative characteristics. First, it establishes a comprehensive system of indicators
with which to evaluate the environmental performance of urban
energy use planning. This includes the key elements of structure of
energy use and industry, technology and efciency of energy use,
environmental impacts caused by energy use, and the socio-economic benets of energy use. Second, the weighting method has
been improved, by using a fuzzy triangular scale instead of actual
values. Thus, the environmental performance evaluation model
becomes more exible and reasonable. On the basis of the traditional MCDM method, we have established an environmental
performance evaluation model combined with a fuzzy synthetic
extent analysis and a membership degree analysis, which not only
performs a comprehensive evaluation from the perspective of
experts, but also takes both quantitative calculation and qualitative
analysis into consideration. Finally, the scenario analysis results can
serve as an important basis for making decisions about the urban
energy use planning of Beijing in the future.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by grants from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 40871262) and the
National Science & Technology Pillar Program, China (No.
2007BAC28B03).
Fig. 7. The membership function of triangular fuzzy number A.
with Nom rro N. The triangular fuzzy number A can be

expressed by (l, m, r) shown in Fig. 7. Where lrm rr, and m is the
most possible value of the fuzzy number A, and l and r are the LBs
and UBs, respectively.
According to the extension principle, we have two triangular
fuzzy numbers, with parameters:
A la ,ma ,ra
B lb ,mb ,rb
1. The fuzzy number sum is dened as
A B la lb ,ma mb ,ra rb
2. The fuzzy number multiplication is dened as
A B la lb ,ma mb ,ra rb
A.1. Triangular fuzzy number

In a universal set of discourse X, a fuzzy subset A of X is dened
by a membership function fA(x) which maps each element x in A to
a real number in the interval [0, 1]. The function fA(x) represents
the grade of membership of x in A. The larger the value of fA(x), the
stronger is the grade of membership for x in A.
A triangular fuzzy number A is a fuzzy number with a
piecewise linear membership function mA(x) dened by (Gisella
and Roberto, 2004):
8
1
xm
>
>
>
> xl
<
l rx/m
ml
3
mA x rx
m/x r r
>
>
rm
>
>
:0
x/l or xSr
3. The inverse of the triangular fuzzy numbers A is dened as

1 1 1
,
,
6
A1
ra m a l a
A.2. Fuzzy synthetic extent analysis

Let X {o1, o2, y, on} be an object set, and U{g1, g2, y, gm}
be a goal set. According to the method of fuzzy synthetic extent
analysis, each object is considered by itself, and for each object,
the analysis is carried out for each of the possible goals, gi.
Therefore, m extent analysis values for each object are obtained
and are shown as follows:
~ 1 ,M
~ 2 , . . ., M
~ m,
M
gi
gi
gi
Appendix A
i 1,2, . . ., n,
~ j (j 1, 2, y, m) are triangular fuzzy numbers.

where all the M
gi
The membership function of the triangular fuzzy number is
denoted by M(x). The steps of the fuzzy synthetic extent analysis
are as follows:
Step 1: The value of the fuzzy synthetic with respect to the ith
object is dened as
2
31
m
n X
m
X
X
j
j
~
~
4
M gi
M gi 5
Si
8
j1
i1j1
where denotes the extended multiplication of two fuzzy

Pm
~j
numbers. In order to obtain
j 1 M gi , we perform the fuzzy
addition operation of m extent analysis values for a particular
matrix such that
0
1
m
m
m
m
X
X
X
X
j
~
@
9
M gi
lj ,
mj ,
uj A
j1
j1
j1
j1
3495
References
~ 2 ZM
~ 1 .
Fig. 8. Denition of the degree of possibility of V M
and to obtain
2
31
n X
m
X
j
~
4
M 5
gi
i1j1
j
~ (j 1, 2, y, m)
We perform the fuzzy addition operation of M
gi
values such that
!
n X
m
n
n
n
X
X
X
X
~j
10
li ,
mi ,
ui
M
gi
i1j1
i1
i1
i1
We can then calculate the inverse of the vector in Eq. (3) such that
2
31

n X
m
X
j
1
1
1
~
4
, Pn
, Pn
:
11
M gi 5 Pn
i 1 ui
i 1 mi
i 1 li
i1j1
~1
~ 2 l2 ,m2 ,u2 Z M
Step 2: The degree of possibility of M
l1 ,m1 ,u1 is dened as
~ 1 supminM
~ 1 x, M
~ 2 y
~ 2 ZM
VM
12
and can be equivalently expressed as

8
1
>
>
<
~ 2 ZM
~ 1 hgtM
~ 1 \M
~ 2 M2 d 0
VM
>
u2
>
: m2 ul21 m
,
1 l1
if m2 Z m1
if l1 Z u2
otherwise
13
~ 1 , for the case m2 o l1 o u2 om1 ,
~ 2 ZM
Fig. 8 illustrates VM
where d is the abscissa value corresponding to the highest crossover
~ 1 and M
~ 2 . To compare M
~ 1 and M
~ 2 , we need the
point D between M
~ 1 ZM
~ 2 and VM
~ 2 ZM
~ 1 .
values of both VM
Step 3: The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be
~ i (i1, 2, y, k) can be
greater than k convex fuzzy numbers M
dened by
~ 2 , . . ., M
~ k min VM
~ ZM
~ i ,
~ ZM
~ 1,M
VM
i 1,2, . . ., k
Step 4: Finally

T
W min VS~ 1 Z S~ k ,min VS~ 2 Z S~ k , . . ., VS~ n Z S~ k
is the weighting vector for k1, 2, y, n.
14
15
Afgan, N.H., Carvalho, M.G., 2008. Sustainability assessment of a hybrid energy

system. Energy Policy 36, 29032910.
Bevilacqua, M., Braglia, M., 2002. Environmental efciency analysis for ENI oil
reneries. Journal of Cleaner Production 10, 8592.
Charles, J.C., Pan, J.N., 2002. Evaluation environmental performance using statistical
process control techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 139, 6883.
Chatzimouratidis, A.I., Pilavachi, P.A., 2008. Multicriteria evaluation of power
plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process.
Energy Policy 36, 10741089.
Cheng, C.H., 1997. Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on
the grade value of membership function. European Journal of Operational
Research 96, 343350.
Doukas, H.C., Andreas, B.M., Psarras, J.E., 2007. Multi-criteria decision aid for the
formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic
variables. European Journal of Operational Research 182, 844855.
Fare,
R., Grosskopf, S., Hernandez, S.F., 2004. Environmental performance: an index
number approach. Resource and Energy Economics 26, 343352.
Ferng, J.J., 2002. Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints.
Ecological Economics 40, 5369.
Gisella, F., Roberto, G.R., 2004. A characterization of a general class of ranking
functions on triangular fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 146,
297312.
Greening, L.A., Bernow, S., 2004. Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32,
721735.
Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., 2001. How to calculate and interpret
ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria
19261995. Ecological Economics 38, 2545.
Haralambopoulos, D.A., Polatidis, H., 2003. Renewable energy projects: structuring a
multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renewable Energy 28, 961973.
Huang, J.P., Poh, K.L., Ang, B.W., 1995. Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy 20, 843855.
Jovanovic, M., Afgan, N., Radovanovic, P., Stevanovic, V., 2009. Sustainable development of the Belgrade energy system. Energy 34, 532539.
uk
ozkan,
Kahraman, C., Ertay, T., Buy

G., 2006. A fuzzy optimization model for QFD
planning process using analytic network approach. European Journal of
Operational Research 171, 390411.
Liang, Z.H., Yang, K., Sun, Y.W., 2006. Decision support for choice optimal power
generation projects: fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on the
electricity market. Energy Policy 34, 33593364.
Loken, E., 2007. Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning
problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11, 15841595.
McDonald, G.W., Patterson, M.G., 2004. Ecological footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecological Economics 50, 4967.
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision-making. Wiley, New York.
Pilavachi, P.A., Roumpeas, C.P., Minett, S., Afgan, N.H., 2006. Multi-criteria evaluation for CHP system options. Energy Conversion and Management 47,
35193529.
Pohekar, S.D., Ramachandran, M., 2004. Multi-criteria evaluation of cooking
energy alternatives for promoting parabolic solar cooker in India. Renewable
Energy 29, 14491460.
Ramanathan, R., 1999. Selection of appropriate greenhouse gas mitigation options.
Global Environmental Change 9, 203210.
Ramanathan, R., 2006. A multi-factor efciency perspective to the relationships
among world GDP, energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73, 483494.
Rees, W.E., 2000. Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats. Ecological Economics 32, 371374.
Rosen, M.A., 2002. Can exergy help us understand and address environmental
concerns. Exergy, an International Journal 2, 214217.
Tzeng, G.H., Lina, C.W., Opricovicb, S., 2005. Multi-criteria analysis of alternativefuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33, 13731383.
van Vuuren, D.P., Smeets, E.M.W., 2000. Ecological footprints of Benin Bhutan,
Costa Rica, and the Netherlands. Ecological Economics 34, 115130.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1997. Perceptual and structural barriers to investing
in natural capital: economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics 20, 324.
Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., 2004. Ecological footprints and energy. Encyclopedia of energy, 111.

Environmental Performance Evaluation Beijing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Performance Evaluation Beijing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental performance evaluation of Beijings energy use planning

Corresponding author. Tel.: 86 105 9893228; fax: 86 105 9893228.

strategies, economic growth, social welfare, and environmental

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

approach, fuzzy synthetic extent analysis, and membership

productive hectare. The EEF evaluation method distinguishes

2.1.1. Fossil fuel combustion ecological footprint

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

2.1.2. Nuclear power ecological footprint

environmental performance which can be computed using input

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

A review of the published literature is given below in order to

complicated structures and relations between each factor in the

3. Environmental performance evaluation model

A proper structure for the evaluation model is the basis of

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

Fig. 2. Linguistic scale for relative importance.

(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)

(1/3, 2/5, 1/2)

(2/7, 1/3, 2/5)

Fig. 3. Membership functions of linguistic values.

3.4. Local and global weights of indicators and sub-indicators

3.5. Membership degree analysis of quantitative sub-indicators

3.6. Linguistic values of qualitative sub-indicators

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

the Peoples Republic of China, is an ancient city with a long

4.1. Identication of indicators and sub-indicators

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the environmental performance evaluation model.

Fig. 5. The study area.

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

Socio-economic benets of energy use (A4): Penetration rate of

4.2. Structure of environmental performance evaluation indicators

4.3. Calculation of local weights and global weights

The degrees of possibility are calculated as:

Fig. 6. Structure of environmental performance of Beijing Energy use planning.

Raw coal consumption rate (A11)

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

minVSA15 Z SA11 ,SA12 ,SA13 ,SA14 0:91

For each pairwise comparison, the minimum of the degrees of

The normalized weights vector is

minVSA11 ZSA12 ,SA13 ,SA14 ,SA15 0:87

minVSA12 ZSA11 ,SA13 ,SA14 ,SA15 0:97

The local weights for the sub-indicators are calculated similarly

minVSA13 ZSA11 ,SA12 ,SA14 ,SA15 1

Energy consumption per unit of GDP (A21)

SO2 annual emission of energy use (A31)

(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)

Penetration rate of central heating (A41)

(2/5, 1/2, 2/3)

Structure of energy use and industry A1 (0.25)

Raw coal consumption rate (A11)

Technology and efciency of energy use A2 (0.25)

Tertiary industry proportion (A15)

Environmental impacts caused by energy use A3 (0.25)

SO2 annual emission of energy use (A31)

Socio-economic benets of energy use A4 (0.25)

Penetration rate of central heating (A41)

L. Wang et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 34833495

4.3.2. Global weights

environmental quality complies with national standards, and the

4.4. Formulation of scenarios

4.5.1. Membership degree analysis of quantitative sub-indicators