This preprint is under consideration at Energy, Sustainability and Society. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Original article
Piradee Jusakulvijit
Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Umweltforschung UFZ
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9702-9448
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background:
The availability of underexploited agricultural residues in Thailand opens up the opportunity to supply second-generation bioethanol production. The national implementation of residues-to-biofuel can potentially initiate the bioeconomy and greenhouse gas mitigation, requiring engagement from the multi-stakeholders to develop effective policy recommendations. Thus, the study aims to optimize the implementation of the national strategy from a multi-criteria approach to evaluate the concerned aspects and important indicators for second-generation bioethanol development through a participatory prioritization by the actual stakeholders
Methods:
To analyze the relevance of the different dimensions regarding important levels of criteria, a Delphi-AHP technique was applied. The evaluation process was conducted with different stakeholders and elaborated by using a pairwise comparison of 4 dimensions (main-criteria) and 12 indicators (sub-criteria). The evaluation was applied to the participants to share their preferences evaluating the most important factors from the aspect of technical feasibility, environmental impacts, economic feasibility and social impacts.
Results:
Bioethanol stakeholders in Thailand from 5 different branches (industry/ business sectors, NPO/NGO, governmental sectors, academic/research institute and financial institution/bank) participated in the Delphi survey. The 20 expert’s evaluation of four dimensions reveals the highest score from the economic feasibility (32.3%), followed by environmental impacts (25.6%), technical feasibility (24.0%) and social impacts (18.1%). From the sub-criteria assessment, the participants selected ‘final price per liter’, ‘added value of input materials’ and ‘net energy balance’ for the top three important indicators among 12 sub-criteria. From the identification of connection between preferable criteria and participants’ expertise, the results encouraged the process of employing different associated backgrounds into account at the step of policy planning in addition to the consideration of affiliations.
Conclusions:
The stakeholder’s participatory evaluation indicated the importance of economic aspects, highlighting the necessity of the governmental driven policy that needs to be considered. However, implementation scenarios have to be embedded in a broader range of aspects because all the dimension were rated with high impacts. For the future sustainable bioenergy, involvement from stakeholders’ opinions can imply multifaceted scenarios that may interconnect to the social acceptance and benefits for all relevant players when considering the development of advanced bioenergy as a policy recommendation.
Keywords
Second-generation bioethanol, stakeholder’s perception, Delphi-AHP technique, participatory criteria prioritization
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
This preprint is available for download as a PDF.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version (no preprint)
Posted 25 Sep, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 25 Sep, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 22 Aug, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Aug, 2021
Reviews received
Received 13 Aug, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 Aug, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Aug, 2021
Editor assigned
On 10 Aug, 2021
First submitted
On 10 Aug, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 09 Aug, 2021
Editor invited
On 09 Aug, 2021
This version was not preprinted
Version (no preprint)
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Version 1
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 24 Jun, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 22 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 19 May, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 18 May, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 18 May, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 25 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 17 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Energy, Sustainability and Society. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Original article
Piradee Jusakulvijit
Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Umweltforschung UFZ
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9702-9448
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version (no preprint)
Posted 25 Sep, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 25 Sep, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 22 Aug, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Aug, 2021
Reviews received
Received 13 Aug, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 Aug, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Aug, 2021
Editor assigned
On 10 Aug, 2021
First submitted
On 10 Aug, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 09 Aug, 2021
Editor invited
On 09 Aug, 2021
This version was not preprinted
Version (no preprint)
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Version 1
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 24 Jun, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 22 May, 2021
Reviews received
Received 19 May, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 18 May, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 18 May, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 25 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 17 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background:
The availability of underexploited agricultural residues in Thailand opens up the opportunity to supply second-generation bioethanol production. The national implementation of residues-to-biofuel can potentially initiate the bioeconomy and greenhouse gas mitigation, requiring engagement from the multi-stakeholders to develop effective policy recommendations. Thus, the study aims to optimize the implementation of the national strategy from a multi-criteria approach to evaluate the concerned aspects and important indicators for second-generation bioethanol development through a participatory prioritization by the actual stakeholders
Methods:
To analyze the relevance of the different dimensions regarding important levels of criteria, a Delphi-AHP technique was applied. The evaluation process was conducted with different stakeholders and elaborated by using a pairwise comparison of 4 dimensions (main-criteria) and 12 indicators (sub-criteria). The evaluation was applied to the participants to share their preferences evaluating the most important factors from the aspect of technical feasibility, environmental impacts, economic feasibility and social impacts.
Results:
Bioethanol stakeholders in Thailand from 5 different branches (industry/ business sectors, NPO/NGO, governmental sectors, academic/research institute and financial institution/bank) participated in the Delphi survey. The 20 expert’s evaluation of four dimensions reveals the highest score from the economic feasibility (32.3%), followed by environmental impacts (25.6%), technical feasibility (24.0%) and social impacts (18.1%). From the sub-criteria assessment, the participants selected ‘final price per liter’, ‘added value of input materials’ and ‘net energy balance’ for the top three important indicators among 12 sub-criteria. From the identification of connection between preferable criteria and participants’ expertise, the results encouraged the process of employing different associated backgrounds into account at the step of policy planning in addition to the consideration of affiliations.
Conclusions:
The stakeholder’s participatory evaluation indicated the importance of economic aspects, highlighting the necessity of the governmental driven policy that needs to be considered. However, implementation scenarios have to be embedded in a broader range of aspects because all the dimension were rated with high impacts. For the future sustainable bioenergy, involvement from stakeholders’ opinions can imply multifaceted scenarios that may interconnect to the social acceptance and benefits for all relevant players when considering the development of advanced bioenergy as a policy recommendation.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
This preprint is available for download as a PDF.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...