Sustainable Indicators for Integrating Renewable Energy inBahrain’s Power GenerationAbdulla Alabbasi 1,2,* , Jhuma Sadhukhan 1, Matthew Leach 1 and Mohammed Sanduk 3
1 Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK;[email protected] (J.S.); [email protected] (M.L.)
2 Bahrain Center for Strategic, International and Energy Studies, Riffa P.O. Box 39443, Bahrain3 Chemical Engineering Department, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK; [email protected]* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: The selection of sustainable indicators is crucial in measuring and understanding therequired targets within the theme of sustainability for an energy system. This is because sustainability,as a term, is used in several fields and covers a variety of indicators based on the problem’s contextand identity. Each researcher looks at sustainability from their own perspective and selects theindicators which align best with their objectives and their understanding of the topic. This paper aimsto implement a systematic approach to choosing the sustainable indicators for Bahrain’s electricalproduction with renewables. The proposed framework analyses the frequency of indicators in asample of 73 studies and screens them in accordance with the selection principles and experts’ views.The results reveal 15 indicators with strong relevance to sustainable growth for the power sector withrenewables. These indicators are classified as either qualitative or quantitative, depending on our casestudy’s context and the appropriate practice according to the literature. Finally, each of the selectedindicators was defined to reflect its intended purpose in our study, since the common practice withinthe present literature is to provide such indicators without explaining their actual purpose.
The term ‘sustainability’ has become a widespread catchphrase in modern develop-ment discourse, and its theme has become a significant target for society development.However, before that, the notion of sustainability had emerged through discussion ofseparate but related concepts since 1950. These concepts emphasised the interrelationshipsbetween resource availability, population growth and stress on the environment. Theinvestigation of these thoughts and ideas was conducted before the term ‘sustainable’ itselfwas used [1]. This explains why sustainability as a concept is still not clearly defined, sinceit is based on deeply differing thoughts and perspectives. According to Schaller (1993),sustainability is similar to truth and justice, in that it cannot be presented in an explicitand limited definition [2]. This is because the concept itself can vary from individual toindividual based on the context and time. For instance, what could be considered as truthin one civilisation may be considered lies in other cultures.
There have been several attempts to define sustainability and shed some light on itspositive impact on developing communities. Without a doubt, the Brundtland report’sdefinition of sustainable development (SD) is considered the most common definition. Eventhough sustainability and SD are interchangeable concepts in the literature, the journey ofSD could be more effective in putting the concepts of sustainability into practice. The focusof SD is to transfer the theoretical concepts of sustainability, which are difficult to definewithin a realistic action plan. For instance, in its SD strategy, the UK government definesSD as ‘enabling all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a
better quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations [3]’.The strategy is established to identify a set of indicators through which the government’sprogress could be tracked and reviewed for achieving the SD goals.
Returning to sustainability as a notion, several attempts have been made to define itand explore its positive effect on developing communities. Mebratu [4] states that sustain-ability has over 80 separate definitions and Ciegis, Ramanauskiene and Martinkus [5] countmore than 100 definitions when it is associated with economic challenges. The meaningof sustainability could be generated from the difference between the disciplines in theanalysed literature. Some of these definitions spin around enhancing and maintaining ahealthy economic, environmental and social system for human development [6,7]. Thisleads to three interconnected relationships between the economic, environmental and socialdomains, which are also known as sustainability pillars [8]. The relations between thesepillars imply that any human action or decision has an interrelated impact on the economy,environment and society, which in turn will affect the wellbeing of future generations.
The application of the concept of sustainability is a difficult endeavor, in additionto its lack of precise definition. Hák, Janoušková and Moldan [9] believe that changingthe global economy, society and environmental agenda toward a sustainable one is achallenging target. This explains the call of the World Bank [10] for innovative methods toincorporate sustainability in our lives. Furthermore, the conception of cross-generationalequity should be considered in our seeking of sustainable strategies, and this itself posesseveral challenges, as the needs of future generations are not easy to either determineor define. This adds more complexity to the already complicated idea, since we cannotprecisely know and accurately predict the future requirements of humanity. As a result, themodern tendency in approaching the concept of sustainability relies on a balancing andranking between the economic, social and environmental components required to meethuman needs, and on tackling the exciting challenges while guaranteeing the benefits forcurrent and future generations [11].
Another approach to understanding the meaning of sustainability is conducted bySalas-Zapata and Ortiz-Muñoz (2019) through considering the use of the term in theliterature, rather than its various definitions [12]. The study revealed that there are fouruses for the term:
(1) A set of social-ecological criteria that steer human action;(2) A vision of humankind which facilitates convergence among environmental, economic
and social targets for a particular system under study;(3) An object or phenomenon which occurs in specific social-ecological systems;(4) An approach that includes the study of economic, social and ecological dimensions of
human activity, systems and products.
By identifying these four meanings, the lack of clarity of the concept of sustainabilitycan be partially tackled. Several studies include the term ‘sustainability’ in their titlewithout providing a definition of it or a clear approach of reflecting their understanding ofit. Salas-Zapata, Ríos-Osorio and Cardona-Arias [13], who studied the published researchin 2013, found that 91.3% of those including the term ‘sustainability’ in their title did notexplain what it means.
It is essential to highlight here that the overarching aim of sustainability is to enhanceand improve the progress of the three pillars of sustainability collectively. This can beachieved by selecting the most significant indicators, which may vary from case to casebased on the context and challenges under consideration. Several principles were proposedto control and monitor the selection of sustainability indicators and to measure progress to-ward sustainable development. The essential principles were suggested in 1996 at Bellagio,Italy by international researchers and practitioners from five continents; these are known asthe Bellagio Principles for sustainable development. Some of the principles addressed theneed for a clear definition of sustainability and an emphasis on its holistic meaning. TheBellagio Principles also attempted to manage the selection process of indicators by ensuringwide participation and by standardising the method of measuring the indicators [14]. In
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 3 of 19
other words, these principles aim to operationalise sustainability from concept to practiceby picking limited and crucial indicators for the case under study. It is impossible to coverevery sustainability indicator that could potentially be available. Consequently, indicatorsare usually clustered in several ways, depending on their dimension and purpose.
There is no precedent study that covers sustainability assessment for renewable tech-nologies in Bahrain’s electrical production sector. Thus, this study aims to select andformulate the sustainable indicators that can evaluate the sustainable theme of powergeneration with renewables in Bahrain. In addition, indicators with high importance andrelevance to our case study could be identified and used for future energy planning.
2. Materials and Methods
According to Shaaban and Scheffran (2017), few studies focus on the full spectrum ofsustainability aspects for electricity generation technologies [15]. Even the ones concernedwith sustainability assessment do not usually provide a basis for selecting the indicators.Singh et al. (2009) suggested a set of guidelines for selecting a process and emphasis ondata availability and how relevant the indicators are to the purpose of sustainability [16].The study stated that the chosen indicators should be measurable and comparable toprovide meaning to the assessment, and their target has to be straightforward and flex-ible. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2009)’s principles for selecting indicators intersect withSingh et al. (2009) in relevancy, measurability and comparability; however, consistency andindependence are added [16,17]. These two extra conditions are essential for the appro-priate construction of a sustainability assessment, as consistency between the indicatorscontributes to homogenising outcomes and independently minimising repetition amongthe indicators. It is essential to mention here that these attributes are subjected to relativityin selection and measuring. For instance, there is always partial dependency between someof the indicators, regardless of attempts to isolate them, and this dependency could bedirectly or indirect. This is because they share similar themes, and the interactions amongthe sustainability pillars are interconnected.
Rovere et al. (2010) expanded the attributes for the selection process to fifteen and groupedthem into three main themes: conception, application, and consistency [18]. Despite theadditional guidelines for choosing the indicators, the content of these fifteen attributes is verysimilar to those mentioned in Singh et al. (2009) and Wang et al. (2009) [16,17]. However,Rovere et al. [18] shed light on two crucial attributes: the first is “sensitivity”, whichrepresents the capacity of an indicator to allow for trend analysis; and the second attributeis “reliability”, which reflects the suitability of an indicator for capturing negative andpositive aspects. Liu (2014) and Mainali and Silveira (2015) suggested other principlesfor sustainable indictors, different from the previous guidelines based on reflecting thestrategic view of sustainability as well as the feasibility and transparency of the selectingprocess [19,20].
It is worth drawing attention to the central idea behind using the indicators and whythey are widely implemented to evaluate our dynamic and complex environment. Themain characteristic of indicators is their ability to break down a complex system into itscomponents and then process them into meaningful information. Essentially, the indicatorsare developed to answer the question “How might I know objectively whether things aregetting better or getting worse?” [21]. The objective of a study has a significant role inchoosing and structuring the relevant indicators, which should be performed without losingother essential underlying information related to the topic of research. Thus, constructingthe indicators does not mean that we can analyse every aspect of the system, but it meanswe can evaluate this system as per the selected indicators.
For this reason, there is no consensus on the sets of indicators that should be chosenfor sustainability assessments since each study deals with different aspects to measuresustainability. For example, the challenges related to sustainable growth are dramaticallydifferent among developed and developing countries. Developing countries concentratemore on the infrastructure and diversification of their economy, while developed countries
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 4 of 19
focus more on structuring policies and strategies [22]. The common practice in the litera-ture confirms the above fact about the universal approach or set of indicators for energyapplication since each study proposed different methods and indicators. In addition, theresearchers themselves acknowledged this fact, for example, in Cartelle Barros et al. (2015),Milne and Gray (2013), and Shi et al. (2019) [23–25].
2.1. Proposed Framework for Selection of Indicators
Several energy indicators have been selected to examine sustainable assessment forparticular cases. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), the Statistical Office of the European Communities (EUROSTAT), the EuropeanEnvironment Agency (EEA) and the Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) together derived30 indicators aimed at evaluating the sustainability of energy systems by considering therelevant social, economic and environmental dimensions [26]. The United Nations Commis-sion on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) developed 58 indicators from its worldwideworking list of 134 indicators [16]. Neves and Leal (2010) suggested a framework be es-tablished for assessing and planning in the energy sector with 18 indicators [27]. Shaabanand Scheffran (2017) proposed another framework for choosing sustainable indicators thatapplies to Egypt’s electrical grid, and 13 indicators were selected [15].
Overall, two aspects require more attention when we construct and select sustainableindicators for energy applications. Firstly, the principles for the selection process should befollowed precisely to guarantee a high level of objectivity and the reflection of the purposeof the study. Secondly, each case study has its unique challenges under the broad umbrellaof sustainable growth. Consequently, each case requires a different set of indicators to beconsidered and measured. Figure 1 presents the framework for selecting the sustainableindicators for Bahrain’s electricity generation planning with renewable energy. The varioussteps are described in detail as follows.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20
Figure 1. Framework for indicator selection.
Table 1. Selection principles of indicators.
Selection
Principles Description Reference/s
Data
availability The possibility to gather data for the selected
indicator. Singh et al., 2009 [16]
Broad
participation Wide involvement in selection process
minimises subjectivity and human biases. Hodge and Hardi, 1997 [14]
Relevancy The appropriateness of the chosen indicators
to serve the purpose of the study in a spatial
and temporal manner.
Singh et al., 2009 [16], Wang et al.,
2009 [17]
Simplicity The clarity of indictors and ease of practical
applications.
Singh et al., 2009 [16], Rovere et al.,
2010 [18]
Independency
The chosen indicators must not include any
relationship at the same level and should
measure the performance from different
perspectives.
Wang et al., 2009 [17]
Measurability The indicators have to be measurable either in
quantitative or qualitative terms, which is
consistent with the specific goal of the study.
Singh et al., 2009 [16], Wang et al.,
2009 [17]
Sensitivity The ability of indictors to permit trend
analysis. Rovere et al., 2010 [18]
Figure 1. Framework for indicator selection.
Firstly, the protocol for finding relevant studies for our research in the literature isperformed. This includes the search for topics related to GEP, sustainability, MCDA andrenewable energy with alteration of the wording and crossmatching between the words during
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 5 of 19
the searching process. As a result of this step, 59 indicators were collected from 73 studies,and they are classified into technical, economic, environmental and social indicators.
Secondly, the collected indicators are assessed based on their frequency in the selectedstudies. Then, the ones repeated more than 20% in the studies are considered for furtherevaluation. The next step is to screen the selected indicators against the selection principlesin Table 1. The indictors are determined in this stage based on three features:
(a) Considered in the literature as appropriate for the sustainable growth of electricalgeneration;
(b) Related to power generation with renewable energy applications;(c) Appropriate for Bahrain’s challenges profile.
Table 1. Selection principles of indicators.
Selection Principles Description Reference/s
Data availability The possibility to gather datafor the selected indicator. Singh et al., 2009 [16]
Broad participationWide involvement in selectionprocess minimises subjectivity
and human biases.Hodge and Hardi, 1997 [14]
Relevancy
The appropriateness of thechosen indicators to serve the
purpose of the study in aspatial and temporal manner.
Singh et al., 2009 [16],Wang et al., 2009 [17]
Simplicity The clarity of indictors andease of practical applications.
Singh et al., 2009 [16],Rovere et al., 2010 [18]
Independency
The chosen indicators mustnot include any relationship at
the same level and shouldmeasure the performance
from different perspectives.
Wang et al., 2009 [17]
Measurability
The indicators have to bemeasurable either in
quantitative or qualitativeterms, which is consistent
with the specific goal of thestudy.
Singh et al., 2009 [16],Wang et al., 2009 [17]
Sensitivity The ability of indictors topermit trend analysis. Rovere et al., 2010 [18]
Comparability
The indicators should becomparable among each other,
which also includes theirsuitability to be normalised
for an appropriatecomparison.
Singh et al., 2009 [16],Wang et al., 2009 [17]
Consistency
The selection of indicatorsshould be in line with the
study’s objectives, and eachindicator has to complement
each other to achieve theholistic theme of the research.
Wang et al., 2009 [17],Rovere et al., 2010 [18]
ReliabilityThe ability to reflect both
positive and negativeperformance.
Rovere et al., 2010 [18],Liu, 2014 [19]
Bahrain is classified under the category of a small island developing state (SIDS) bythe UN. SIDS share similar sustainable development challenges, which include limitedresources, growing populations, fragile environments and limited human and institutionalcapacities. Bahrain also has a high level of energy consumption and decent living conditions,which is dissimilar to most other small island developing states [28,29].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 6 of 19
The selected indicators are subjected to the experts’ views for rejecting or amending orsuggesting other indicators. Those experts are from different backgrounds, and they havebeen assigned to evaluate the indicators related to their area of expertise. Finally, the finallist of indicators is also assessed against the principles in Table 1, and the final selection ofindicators is clustered under the technical, economic, environmental and social dimensions.
3. Results and Discussion
After following the protocol set out in the Methods section for finding relevant studiesto our case study, 73 studies were found to meet the study’s purpose. Figure 2 showsthe distribution of the papers according to the year of publication. It can be observedthat interest in investigating and studying sustainable power generation with renewablesgradually increases.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20
Comparability
The indicators should be comparable among
each other, which also includes their
suitability to be normalised for an appropriate
comparison.
Singh et al., 2009 [16], Wang et al.,
2009 [17]
Consistency
The selection of indicators should be in line
with the study’s objectives, and each indicator
has to complement each other to achieve the
holistic theme of the research.
Wang et al., 2009 [17], Rovere et al.,
2010 [18]
Reliability The ability to reflect both positive and
negative performance.
Rovere et al., 2010 [18],Liu, 2014
[19]
Bahrain is classified under the category of a small island developing state (SIDS) by
the UN. SIDS share similar sustainable development challenges, which include limited
resources, growing populations, fragile environments and limited human and institu-
tional capacities. Bahrain also has a high level of energy consumption and decent living
conditions, which is dissimilar to most other small island developing states [28,29].
The selected indicators are subjected to the experts’ views for rejecting or amending or
suggesting other indicators. Those experts are from different backgrounds, and they have
been assigned to evaluate the indicators related to their area of expertise. Finally, the final
list of indicators is also assessed against the principles in Table 1, and the final selection of
indicators is clustered under the technical, economic, environmental and social dimensions.
3. Results and Discussion
After following the protocol set out in the Methods section for finding relevant stud-
ies to our case study, 73 studies were found to meet the study’s purpose. Figure 2 shows
the distribution of the papers according to the year of publication. It can be observed that
interest in investigating and studying sustainable power generation with renewables
gradually increases.
Figure 2. Distribution of studies by their publication years.
In terms of the studies’ geographical distribution, Figure 3 presents their distribution
in Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South America. Some studies are not related to a spe-
cific location and are considered here under the “General” cluster. The graph shows that
Asia has the highest number of studies, 42 out of 73. This could be explained by Asia
having the largest share of gas reserves worldwide, which is normally used for producing
Figure 2. Distribution of studies by their publication years.
In terms of the studies’ geographical distribution, Figure 3 presents their distributionin Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South America. Some studies are not related to aspecific location and are considered here under the “General” cluster. The graph showsthat Asia has the highest number of studies, 42 out of 73. This could be explained by Asiahaving the largest share of gas reserves worldwide, which is normally used for producingelectricity and creates government revenues [30]. In other words, Asia’s countries have thefiscal capacity and the natural resources to diversify their energy mix. Another essentialfactor is that Asia has the second-highest number of developing countries amongst thecontinents [31]. This highlights the necessity and opportunity of restructuring powergeneration to be in line with the UN agenda for prompting sustainability in each sector.
3.1. Collection of Indicators
The process of clustering the indicators depends on the researcher’s explanation ofeach indicator’s meaning or the problem’s context if the definition is not available. Fifty-nine indicators are derived from the studies and are classified into technical, economic,environmental and social dimensions. Some indicators could be counted as two, andothers could be a part of one. The approach of grouping these indicators is associatedmore with their meaning, rather than listing them without an appropriate examination.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 7 of 19
Nevertheless, it is not a straightforward process since the requirement is to classify eachindicator strictly into one of four dimensions when some could be suited to more thanone. For instance, the “Job creation” indicator is considered by some researchers under thesocioeconomic dimension as it contributes to both the social life of the people as well as theeconomy [32,33]. The most convenient approach to deal with these indicators is to look atthe most dominant effect of them, which is more related to the objectives of the problem,and to categorise them based on that assessment. It will also be more appropriate if otherindicators could cover the overlooked part of the indicators in question. For example, if“Job creation” is classified under the social dimension, its economic effect is consideredto contribute to the economic indicator. Table 2 presents the collected indicators, and thereference of each indicator is depicted in Supplementary File.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
electricity and creates government revenues [30]. In other words, Asia’s countries have
the fiscal capacity and the natural resources to diversify their energy mix. Another essen-
tial factor is that Asia has the second-highest number of developing countries amongst the
continents [31]. This highlights the necessity and opportunity of restructuring power gen-
eration to be in line with the UN agenda for prompting sustainability in each sector.
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of the studies.
3.1. Collection of Indicators
The process of clustering the indicators depends on the researcher’s explanation of
each indicator’s meaning or the problem’s context if the definition is not available. Fifty-
nine indicators are derived from the studies and are classified into technical, economic,
environmental and social dimensions. Some indicators could be counted as two, and oth-
ers could be a part of one. The approach of grouping these indicators is associated more
with their meaning, rather than listing them without an appropriate examination. Never-
theless, it is not a straightforward process since the requirement is to classify each indica-
tor strictly into one of four dimensions when some could be suited to more than one. For
instance, the “Job creation” indicator is considered by some researchers under the socio-
economic dimension as it contributes to both the social life of the people as well as the
economy [32,33]. The most convenient approach to deal with these indicators is to look at
the most dominant effect of them, which is more related to the objectives of the problem,
and to categorise them based on that assessment. It will also be more appropriate if other
indicators could cover the overlooked part of the indicators in question. For example, if
“Job creation” is classified under the social dimension, its economic effect is considered to
contribute to the economic indicator. Table 2 presents the collected indicators, and the
reference of each indicator is depicted in Supplementary File.
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of the studies.
Table 2. List of the collected indicators.
Technical Economic Social EnvironmentalT1 Risk E1 R&D cost S1 Societal equity N1 Life-cycle of emission
T2 Technical feasibility E2 Capital cost S2 Accident fatality N2
Adoption ofindependently auditedenvironmentalmanagement systems
T3 Loss of LoadExpectation E3 Economic value/
viability S3 Social cost N3 Waste reduction andmanagement
T4 Equivalent inertia E4 O&M cost S4Electric energyconsumption by thepopulation
N4Implementation of EUand nationalenvironmental policy
T5 Technology progress E5 Electricity cost S5 Population growth N5 Air quality
T6 Deployment time E6 Contribution to theeconomy S6 Social acceptance N6
Progress oninternationalenvironmentalagreements
T7 Distribution gridavailability E7 Return on investment S7 Job creation N7 Climate changes
T13 Reliability E13 Total costs N13 Resource depletion
T14 Resource availability E14Average debt ratio ofelectric powerenterprises
T15 Safety in coveringpeak load demand E15 Cost of generation
T16 Stability of thenetwork E16 Economic availability
T17 MaturityT18 Operational indicatorsT19 Expected life
T20Continuity andpredictability of theperformance
Figure 4 presents the frequency of the used indicators in the literature. The mostfrequent indicator is “Capital cost” (E2), which has been used in 44 studies with a frequencyof 72%, followed by “Impact on emission level” (EN12) with a frequency of 67%. While thesocial indicators have the lowest attention in the literature among the other dimensions,the third-highest indicator is under its category, which is “Job creation” (S7) with 65%. Allindicators with a frequency equal to or bigger than 20% are presented in Table 3.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
Figure 4. Frequency of collected indicators in the sample literature.
Table 3. Indicators with a frequency equal to or bigger than 20%.
Technical Economic Social Environmental
T6 Deployment time E2 Capital cost S6 Social acceptance N9 CO2 emission
T8 Efficiency E4 O&M cost S7 Job creation N10
Compliance
with local condi-
tions
T9 Expert human resource E5 Electricity cost S8 Social benefits N11 Land require-
ment
T12 Installed capacity E6 Contribution to the
economy N12
Emission and
Pollution
T13 Reliability E7 Return on investment
T14 Resource Potential E9 levelised costs
T17 Maturity
In the technical dimension, it is more appropriate to merge the “Installed capacity”
indicator (T12) with the potential resource indicator (T14). This is because the former is
about the technological potential for producing electricity, and the latter is related to the
source of the energy itself, but does not include the extracted power from renewable re-
sources. Thus, the combination between these indicators could be called “Resource availa-
bility” (T21), which is more associated with measuring the generation potential for each re-
newable resource. “Grid compatibility” (T22) could also be essential as an indicator since
renewable energy complicates the control and operation of the national electrical grid.
The “Social acceptance” indicator (S6) is changed to “Social adaptability” (S9) as it
involves more than the acceptance of the technology, and relates instead to the willingness
of customers to change their consumption habits to be more in line with renewable energy
characteristics. In addition, two environmental dimension indicators could be combined:
CO2 emission (N9) and emission and pollution indicators (N12). They would come under
“Impact on emission levels” (N14), which indicates the level of life-cycle emissions from
each renewable application. It could be observed here that the numbers of social indicators
in Tables 2 and 3 are lower than that of other dimensions, which confirms Kumar’s argu-
ment that social dimensions do not have to be taken into account equally with environ-
mental, economic and technical factors.
By following the flowchart for selecting the sustainable indicators in Figure 1, the
selected indicators have to be subjected to the principles of selection in order to be suitable
for our case study. Four of the chosen indicators are rejected, as shown in Table 4. In the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
E2 S6 E4
T12 E5
EN10 T9
EN7
T1 EN5
T16 E8
EN1
T10
T19
E11
E15 S4
S10
EN6
EN15
Figure 4. Frequency of collected indicators in the sample literature.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 9 of 19
Table 3. Indicators with a frequency equal to or bigger than 20%.
Technical Economic Social EnvironmentalT6 Deployment time E2 Capital cost S6 Social acceptance N9 CO2 emission
In the technical dimension, it is more appropriate to merge the “Installed capacity”indicator (T12) with the potential resource indicator (T14). This is because the formeris about the technological potential for producing electricity, and the latter is related tothe source of the energy itself, but does not include the extracted power from renewableresources. Thus, the combination between these indicators could be called “Resourceavailability” (T21), which is more associated with measuring the generation potential foreach renewable resource. “Grid compatibility” (T22) could also be essential as an indicatorsince renewable energy complicates the control and operation of the national electrical grid.
The “Social acceptance” indicator (S6) is changed to “Social adaptability” (S9) as itinvolves more than the acceptance of the technology, and relates instead to the willingnessof customers to change their consumption habits to be more in line with renewable energycharacteristics. In addition, two environmental dimension indicators could be combined:CO2 emission (N9) and emission and pollution indicators (N12). They would come un-der “Impact on emission levels” (N14), which indicates the level of life-cycle emissionsfrom each renewable application. It could be observed here that the numbers of socialindicators in Tables 2 and 3 are lower than that of other dimensions, which confirms Ku-mar’s argument that social dimensions do not have to be taken into account equally withenvironmental, economic and technical factors.
By following the flowchart for selecting the sustainable indicators in Figure 1, theselected indicators have to be subjected to the principles of selection in order to be suitablefor our case study. Four of the chosen indicators are rejected, as shown in Table 4. In thetechnical dimension, the “Deployment time” indicator (T6) is not particularly significantsince the country’s proposed share of renewable energy is relatively modest. Furthermore,most renewable technologies have a long deployment time, rendering this indicator almostwithout any considerable effect on the planning process. The “Expert human resource” (T9)indicator is rejected because there is no available data about the numbers of experts or thelevel of their expertise in the country. Another reason for not considering this indicator isrelated to its possible overlap with the “Job creation” indictor (S7), as the availability ofexpert human resources directly impacts the employment rate in the energy sector.
Two economic indicators are excluded from consideration: “Return on investment”(E7) and “Levelised costs” (E9). Both are not independent indicators because they de-pend on several factors such as the costs of capital, operation and maintenance, as wellas electricity.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 10 of 19
Table 4. Results of screening indicators against selection.
The chosen indicators are subjected to the experts, who have knowledge and involve-ment in Bahrain’s sustainable progress. Figure 5 presents the experts’ affiliation for coveringthe technical, economic, environmental and social dimensions. The expert panel comesfrom various energy sector stakeholders in the country, which include academic, industrial,governmental and commercial sectors. There are 60 total responses to the questionnaireand 56 individual participants. Due to the correlation between some of the participants’field of expertise, some participants were asked to cover more than one dimension. Forinstance, one expert was assigned to cover the technical, economic and environmentalindicators. The responses to the questionnaire are distributed as follows: fifteen individualsfor each dimension.
The vast majority of the experts were satisfied with the selected indicators, and therewas not any rejection of them. Table 5 presents the final selected indicators for Bahrain’ssustainable planning of power generation. However, some experts suggested adding otherindicators to be considered for the study. After reviewing the proposed indicators, theyfall under the broad spectrum of the selected ones. In the following section, the selectedindicators will be discussed based on how they are presented in the selected papers andthe experts’ suggestions, and then they will be defined to be in line with the objectives ofour study.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 11 of 19
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
Emission
and
Pollution
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3.2. Final Selection of the Indicators
The chosen indicators are subjected to the experts, who have knowledge and involve-
ment in Bahrain’s sustainable progress. Figure 5 presents the experts’ affiliation for cov-
ering the technical, economic, environmental and social dimensions. The expert panel
comes from various energy sector stakeholders in the country, which include academic,
industrial, governmental and commercial sectors. There are 60 total responses to the ques-
tionnaire and 56 individual participants. Due to the correlation between some of the par-
ticipants’ field of expertise, some participants were asked to cover more than one dimen-
sion. For instance, one expert was assigned to cover the technical, economic and environ-
mental indicators. The responses to the questionnaire are distributed as follows: fifteen
individuals for each dimension.
Figure 5. Experts’ affiliation for covering the sustainable dimensions. Figure 5. Experts’ affiliation for covering the sustainable dimensions.
3.3. Definition of the Selected Indicators
It is essential to highlight here—prior to defining the selected indicators—that Bahrain’sgovernment has taken several steps to incorporate renewable energy within its energymix. A significant milestone was achieved in January 2017, when the Sustainable EnergyUnit (SEU) launched the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP). This plan isa roadmap for identifying the most appropriate renewable resources and their optimaltechnologies. The action plan imposes a target of 255 MW deriving from renewable energyby 2025, with a generation of 480 GWh annually. It also sets another goal for 2035, which is
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 12 of 19
to produce 700 MW—with 1460 GWh generated annually [34]. Consequently, identifyingsustainable indicators for the country could assist in developing comprehensive strategiesand national plans for additional sectors.
Table 5. The final selected indicators.
Technical Economic Social EnvironmentalT6 Deployment time E2 Capital cost S6 Social acceptance N9 CO2 emission
In the selected case studies, insufficient attention is paid to defining the indicators.Most of the researchers provide only the name of the indicators, which could be satisfactory,but in most cases, they are ambiguous. While a few of the papers suggested a structuredframework for selecting the indicators, the most common approaches are from the liter-ature or experts’ views. This lack of interest in defining and determining the indicatorsamong several case studies shows how essential our proposed framework is. Definingthe indicators adds more clarity and provides a solid basis for each subsequent stage ofour research.
3.3.1. Technical IndicatorsEfficiency
This indicator’s frequency is 55.7% in the selected case studies, which means it iswidely considered in studying power planning. The vast majority of the papers define it asthe useful amount of energy that can be captured from an energy source, and also as theratio of the produced energy to the input energy. Mirjat et al. (2018) linked efficiency withthe performance of the energy policy [35]. This does not seem appropriate as the study’sevaluation applies to the generation of the technologies themselves, not of the policies.
It essential to define efficiency indicators in terms of their relation to renewable energyplanning. Bhandari et al. (2021) mentioned that a better efficiency performance of renewabletechnology could be achieved by improving the customers’ behavior or by the technologyitself [36]. Even though customers’ habits in consuming electricity directly impact theefficiency of renewable technologies, the involvement of customers’ behavior should beconsidered in the social dimension; it is grouped under the “Social adaptability” indicator(S9) in our study. The chosen definition is in line with Al Garni et al. (2016)’s definition,which is an attempt to measure the efficiency level of renewable technology by converting itsfundamental energy source into useful electricity [37]. Ideally, the most efficient technologyis scored 100%; however, in practice, there is always a loss of energy for several reasons.The efficiency indicators for renewable technologies can be measured quantitatively, and forour research, they are obtained from the annual energy report of the US Energy InformationAdministration (EIA) (2012) and Stein (2013) (Table 6) [38,39].
Reliability
Reliability is considered in 41% of the case studies, and its definition is mainly aboutthe electrical system’s capacity to perform as intended without interruption. Theoretically,reliability could be defined as the frequency or probability of failures, which depend onseveral factors such as equipment and maintenance quality. Some experts suggested addingthe “stability” and “resilience” of the electrical network as indicators, since renewableenergy could negatively affect the network. The network’s stability could be a critical
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 13 of 19
factor if the share of renewables is relatively high, and thus, storage technologies have to beconsidered and evaluated. Our case study is based on Bahrain’s action plan for renewableenergy, which suggested a modest goal for incorporating renewable energy. Resilienceis not related to customer interruption, which is the case with the reliability indicator.It is related to the electrical system’s capability to respond to unexpected events and itsrecovery time from these events [40]. Thus, it is more appropriate to consider the conceptof resilience and stability under the “Grid compatibility” indicator because it is aimed atevaluating the suitability of renewable technologies for the national grid.
The reliability indicator could be defined here as the level of continuous and securesupply as designed without interruption. In other words, some renewable technologies aremore prone to interruption than others. For instance, photovoltaic panels cannot be usedat night, and wind turbines do not operate when there is no wind or when wind speedsare too high. The reliability of renewable technologies could be evaluated qualitatively orquantitively [41]. In our research, the reliability is qualitatively assessed because there is nohistorical data to calculate the capacity factor required to quantify reliability (Table 6) [42].
Resource Availability
This indicator is a combination of the “Installed capacity” and “Potential resource”indicators. The former is mentioned in the case studies’ samples with a 34.4% frequency,and the latter 31.1%. The installed capacity is mainly defined as the ratio of the electricalpower produced by a generating unit over a specific time [43,44], while “Potential resource”is defined as the availability of raw input resources to produce electricity [45,46]. Theselected definition for “Resource availability” is about measuring each renewable resource’sactual power production per meter square for one year. The values of Bahrain’s resourceavailability are depicted in Table 6 [47–49].
Maturity
The frequency of this indicator in the selected studies is 37.7%. According to Amerand Daim (2011), a technology’s maturity is identified by its distribution both nationallyand internationally [50]. This also includes the question of whether the technology hasachieved its theoretical efficiency potential or if there is still an opportunity for enhancement.In contrast, Solangi et al. (2020) believe that technological maturity indicates that thetechnology is economically feasible and available commercially [51]. It is more convenientto look at technical maturity from the practical perspective, which is more associated withthe testing and availability of the technology in the national or international market. Thus,it indicates the period that each technology is tested and then made available commerciallyand internationally. The evaluation of renewable technologies for Bahrain follows thecommon practice in the literature and can be found in Table 6 [52–54].
Table 6. Technical indicators for renewable technologies [39,40,43,48–50,53–55].
Technology Efficiency [%] ReliabilityResource
Availability[kwh/m2/year]
Maturity GridCompatibility
PV 20 2160 MatureCSP 21 2050 Least Mature
Wind Turbine 35 910 High matureBiogas 25
Qualitative Data
266.6 Most Mature
Qualitative Data
Grid Compatibility
This indicator is added as a result of the experts’ suggestions to include “stability”and “resilience” as indicators. The grid compatibility indicator can cover the suggestedindicators and shed light on the complexity of integrating renewables into a nationalelectrical grid. It is essential to highlight here that this indicator is about the impact ofrenewables on a grid, which requires technical expertise in both the technology and the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 14 of 19
grid under consideration. Incorporating renewable energy into an electrical system isnot an impossible task, but it should be studied and planned to be consistent with thegrid’s characteristics. The evaluation of the “Grid compatibility” indicator is conducted viaexperts’ views and judgments (Table 6).
3.3.2. Economic IndicatorsCapital Cost
The highest frequency percentage is for the “Capital cost” indicator, at 72%. Thisindicator is essential in the planning stage as it shows the required liquidity to financeinvestment in renewable energy projects. The capital cost becomes more critical withrenewables investments because their initial costs are higher than those of thermal powerplants [55]. Its most common definition in the literature covers the total expenditurerequired to establish a plant with its equipment, labor, installation and commissioningcosts. In other words, it includes all the costs of renewable energy technology just beforebeing energised to the network [56,57]. The capital cost for each renewable technology isobtained from the literature as there is no national database for Bahrain (Table 7) [58].
O&M Cost
Operation and maintenance cost as an indicator has a 52.5% frequency in the selectedcase studies. This indicator consists of the plant running costs, costs of maintainingthe electrical grid and the employees’ salaries [59,60]. It is not feasible to replace theelectrical equipment before its expected life; hence, the electrical system has to be adequatelymaintained on a regular basis to secure the power supply’s reliability. The cost herecomprises of two parts. Firstly, the costs associated with operating the electrical system,which include workers’ salaries, services and products. The second part is related tomaintenance costs, which contribute to increasing the system’s lifespan and decreasingfuture failures and interruptions to the network [42]. The estimated costs of Bahrain’srenewable technology operation and maintenance costs are based on data from the USEnergy Information Administration [58] (Table 7).
Table 7. Economic indicators for renewable technologies [58,61].
This indicator has a 32.8% frequency in the selected case studies. The method ofgenerating electricity has a significant effect on its cost, which is considered at the pointof connection between the power plant and the electrical grid [45]. It includes all costsof establishing, operating and maintaining the power plant over its lifetime. These costsare also affected by other factors such as the type of technology, efficiency and annualgeneration [37,42]. Electricity cost is a quantitative index obtained in our study from TheInternational Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) database [61] as depicted in Table 7.
Contribution to the Economy
This indicator’s frequency is 27.87%, and it directly relates to the job creation indicator.However, contribution to the economy as an indicator has more meaning than simplycreating jobs, for example, developing investment and improving industrial fields. Itmeasures to what extent the national economy could benefit from each renewable technol-ogy [41,62]. The indicator is evaluated qualitatively, and experts can assess the impact ofeach technology on Bahrain’s economy (Table 7).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 15 of 19
3.3.3. Social IndicatorsJob Creation
Even though this indicator could be assessed partially under the contribution tothe economy, its high frequency, at 65.6%, requires considering it as a separate indicator.Furthermore, the indicator could be overlooked when it is mixed with other essentialfactors. According to Luthra, Mangla and Kharb (2015), employment creation is the mostcited social indicator in electrical generation impact assessments [63].
There are three types of job creation associated with power generation. The firstis direct job creation, representing newly created jobs for manufacturing, constructing,operating and maintaining the new power plant. Indirect jobs are the second type ofemployment creation, covering employment associated with the procurement of equipment,construction and services from third parties. The last type covers induced jobs, which arecreated as a result of improving the local economy and investment expansion [64]. Thejobs creation indication in this study covers only the direct jobs, while the other parts areincluded in the “contribution to the economy” indicator. The estimated values for the jobscreated within each renewable energy technology are obtained from a Wei, Patadia andKammen (2010) study, based on historical data, and is used to forecast job creation from2009 to 2030 (Table 8) [65].
Table 8. Social indicators for renewable technologies [65].
Technology Employment Creation[job-Years/GWh] Social Benefit Social Adaptability
PV 0.87CSP 0.23
Wind Turbine 0.17Biogas 0.21
Qualitative Data Qualitative Data
Social Benefit
This indicator is repeated with a 21.3% frequency among other indicators in theselected case studies. Its definition is mainly related to measuring society’s social progressand its influence on education, science and culture [50,66]. Social benefits are usuallyevaluated qualitatively as they cannot be assessed in absolute terms. However, proxymeasures could be used in evaluating social benefits, for instance, local income and thenumber of jobs created [43]. In our study, the experts’ judgments are utilised to assessthe indicator since the other associated aspects are covered by other indicators, eitherquantitatively or qualitatively (Table 8).
Social Adaptability
The “Social adaptability” indicator’s development is based on the social acceptabilityindicator, which has a 60% frequency in the case studies. This reflects how vital socialadaptability is as it covers the public’s acceptance of various renewable technologies. Itshows the community’s readiness in adapting to renewable energy. The indicator is craftedfor our study and aims to measure customers’ willingness to change their consumptionhabits to be more in line with renewable energy characteristics. Social adaptability assess-ment is more consistent with the AHP method because it depends on the experts’ views,while social acceptability is more suited to other types of surveys (Table 8).
3.3.4. Environmental IndicatorsCompliance with Local Conditions
This indicator has a 29.5% frequency among the other indicators, and it measures thesuitability of renewable technology to the country’s ecosystems. The indicator evaluateseach power plant’s impact on the environment and how it suits the local environmen-tal conditions. For instance, wind turbine technology is a potential risk to some avian
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 16 of 19
species [43,67]. In our study, a qualitative impact scale is used for assessing the indicator(Table 9).
Land Requirement
The required land for developing renewable energy power plants is crucial due to itsimpact on human activities and the environment. The frequency of this indicator is 55.7% inthe selected case studies for our study. The indicator aims to determine the required land forpower plant installation, which varies from one renewable application to another. The landrequirement for renewable energy depends on resource availability and efficiency [36,68].The effect of selecting land for power generation extends to the landscape and communitiesclose to it. Land use affects the overall quality of life and social dynamics as the occupiedland could be used for more beneficial purposes involving local communities [43]. The landrequirement data is collected from the literature and from international reports [42,69,70](Table 9).
Table 9. Environmental indicators for renewable technologies [41,59,70,71].
Technology Compliance with LocalConditions
Land Requirement[m2/kw]
Impact on Emission Level[gCO2eq/kWhe]
PV 75 300CSP 100 150
Wind Turbine 150 124Biogas
Qualitative Data
30 550
Impact on Emission Level
This indicator is one of the most commonly used indicators when evaluating renewableenergy sustainability [59]. In our study, the indicator has a 67.2% frequency, which isthe second highest. The indicator aims to assess the level of life-cycle emissions fromeach renewable application, expressed in equivalent emission of CO2 per energy unitproduced (g CO2eq/kWh). The selected emission level for renewable energy is collatedfrom Amponsah et al. (2014), which is implemented in several studies, such as Troldborg,Heslop and Hough (2014) and Lee and Chang (2018) [41,59,71] (Table 9).
4. Conclusions
The sustainable indicators for Bahrain’s power generation are identified in this study.The selection process follows a particular framework, which is based on both the literatureand on expert views. At each stage, the principles for selecting indicators are implemented.Seventy-three studies are selected based on the suggested protocol in Section 2.1. Thevast majority of the studies are conducted for Asian countries, followed by Europeancountries. The North and South America cluster has the third highest number of studies.Fifty-nine indicators are obtained from the studies and categorised into technical, economic,environmental and social dimensions. The most used indicator is “Capital cost”, which isrepeated in 72% of the studies. The second highest indicator is “Impact on emission level”,with 67% frequency, followed by “Job creation” with 65%.
After experts had evaluated the derived indicators and applied the selection princi-ples, 15 indicators were selected for Bahrain’s sustainable planning of power generation.The technical indicators are efficiency, reliability, maturity, resource availability and gridcompatibility, while the economic indicators are capital cost, O&M cost, electricity costand contribution to the economy. Job creation, social benefit and social adaptability arethe social indicators. Finally, the environmental indicators are as follows: compliance withlocal conditions, land requirements and impact on emission level.
Despite the effectiveness of our approach in linking the themes of sustainabilityand power generation planning with renewables, there is a requirement for an in-depthinvestigation between sustainability (as a notion) and the considered sectors within thestudy: technical, economic, environmental and social. This is because our research has shed
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6535 17 of 19
some light on the interconnection among the four sectors holistically. Thus, more attentioncould be paid to each sector individually in order to study its role in promoting sustainablethemes for the country.
Further studies are required to understand and identify the sustainable indicatorsfor GEP with renewables in Bahrain. Even though this research effort covered technical,economic, environmental and social indicators, other significant indicators were excluded,such as political and security aspects. The overlooked dimensions were not in the scopeof this study. Furthermore, it could be more efficient—in future studies—to conductfocus groups and interviews with policy makers and experts to gain further knowledgeconcerning such essential sustainable indicators, together with their relationship to powergeneration planning. Due to the time limitation for this study, a questionnaire tool wasimplemented to engage with policy makers and experts in Bahrain.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14116535/s1.
Author Contributions: Supervision, J.S., M.L. and M.S.; Writing—original draft, A.A. All authorshave read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References1. Kidd, C.V. The evolution of sustainability. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 1992, 5, 1–26. [CrossRef]2. Schaller, N. The concept of agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1993, 46, 89–97. [CrossRef]3. UK Government. Securing the Future: Delivering the UK Sustainable Development Strategy; Department for Environment Food &
Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2005.4. Mebratu, D. Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1998, 18,
493–520. [CrossRef]5. Ciegis, R.; Ramanauskiene, J.; Martinkus, B. The Concept of Sustainable Development and Its Use for Sustainability Scenarios.
Eng. Econ. 2009, 2, 1392–2785.6. Thomas, C. Naturalizing Sustainability Discourse: Paradigm, Practices and Pedagogy of Thoreau, Leopold, Carson and Wilson; Arizona
State University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2015.7. Tjarve, B.; Zemıte, I. The Role of Cultural Activities in Community Development. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2017, 64,
2151–2160. [CrossRef]8. Wanamaker, C. The Environmental, Economic, and Social Components of Sustainability. Available online: https://soapboxie.
com/social-issues/The-Environmental-Economic-and-Social-Components-of-Sustainability (accessed on 20 April 2022).9. Hak, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573.
[CrossRef]10. World Bank. Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2017, World Development Indicators; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.11. Hussain, F.; Chaudhry, M.N.; Batool, S.A. Assessment of key parameters in municipal solid waste management: A prerequisite
for sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2014, 21, 519–525. [CrossRef]12. Salas-Zapata, W.A.; Ortiz-Muñoz, S.M. Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 153–161.
[CrossRef]13. Salas-Zapata, W.A.; Ríos-Osorio, L.A.; Cardona-Arias, J.A. Methodological characteristics of sustainability science: A systematic
review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 1127–1140. [CrossRef]14. Hodge, R.A.; Hardi, P. The Need for Guidelines: The Rationale Underlying the Bellagio Principles for Assessment. In Assessing
Sustainable Development Principles in Practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba; IISD: Winnipeg,MB, Canada, 1997.
15. Shaaban, M.; Scheffran, J. Selection of sustainable development indicators for the assessment of electricity production in Egypt.Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 22, 65–73. [CrossRef]
16. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An Overview of Sustainability Assessment Methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9,189–212. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, J.-J.; Jing, Y.-Y.; Zhang, C.-F.; Zhao, J.-H. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2263–2278. [CrossRef]
18. La Rovere, E.L.; Soares, J.B.; Oliveira, L.B.; Lauria, T. Sustainable expansion of electricity sector: Sustainability indicators as aninstrument to support decision making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 422–429. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, G. Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.2014, 31, 611–621. [CrossRef]
20. Mainali, B.; Silveira, S. Using a sustainability index to assess energy technologies for rural electrification. Renew. Sustain. EnergyRev. 2015, 41, 1351–1365. [CrossRef]
21. Bell, S.; Morse, S. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-1-84977-272-3.22. Razmjoo, A.; Sumper, A. Investigating Energy Sustainability Indicators for Developing Countries. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan.
Manag. 2019, 21, 59–76.23. Barros, J.J.C.; Coira, M.L.; de la Cruz López, M.P.; del Caño Gochi, A. Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity
generation systems. Energy 2015, 89, 473–489. [CrossRef]24. Milne, M.J.; Gray, R. W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability
Reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 13–29. [CrossRef]25. Shi, Y.; Ge, X.; Yuan, X.; Wang, Q.; Kellett, J.; Li, F.; Ba, K. An Integrated Indicator System and Evaluation Model for Regional
Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2183. [CrossRef]26. Vera, I.; Langlois, L. Energy indicators for sustainable development. Energy 2007, 32, 875–882. [CrossRef]27. Neves, A.R.; Leal, V. Energy sustainability indicators for local energy planning: Review of current practices and derivation of a
new framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2723–2735. [CrossRef]28. Atteridge, A.; Savvidou, G. Development aid for energy in Small Island Developing States. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019, 9, 10.
[CrossRef]29. Romano, A.A.; Scandurra, G.; Carfora, A.; Pansini, R.V. Assessing the determinants of SIDS’ pattern toward sustainability: A
statistical analysis. Energy Policy 2016, 98, 688–699. [CrossRef]30. BP. Statistical Review of World Energy; British Petroleum: London, UK, 2020; p. 66.31. United Nations. World Economic Situation and Prospects; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2020.32. Terrados, J.; Almonacid, G.; Perez-Higueras, P. Proposal for a combined methodology for renewable energy planning. Application
to a Spanish region. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2022–2030. [CrossRef]33. Brand, B.; Missaoui, R. Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation mix scenarios in Tunisia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014,
39, 251–261. [CrossRef]34. Sustainable Energy Unit. The Kingdom of Bahrain National Renewable Energy Action Plan; Sustainable Energy Unit: Manama,
Bahrain, 2017.35. Mirjat, N.H.; Uqaili, M.A.; Harijan, K.; Mustafa, M.W.; Rahman, M.; Khan, M.W.A. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electricity
Generation Scenarios for Sustainable Energy Planning in Pakistan. Energies 2018, 11, 757. [CrossRef]36. Bhandari, R.; Arce, B.; Sessa, V.; Adamou, R. Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation in Niger Using a Weighted
Multi-criteria Decision Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 385. [CrossRef]37. Al Garni, H.; Kassem, A.; Awasthi, A.; Komljenovic, D.; Al-Haddad, K. A multicriteria decision making approach for evaluating
renewable power generation sources in Saudi Arabia. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2016, 16, 137–150. [CrossRef]38. USEIA. Annual Energy Review 2011, Energy; U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.39. Stein, E.W. A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2013, 22, 640–654. [CrossRef]40. Gacitua, L.; Gallegos, P.; Henriquez-Auba, R.; Lorca, Á.; Negrete-Pincetic, M.; Olivares, D.; Valenzuela, A.; Wenzel, G. A
comprehensive review on expansion planning: Models and tools for energy policy analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 98,346–360. [CrossRef]
41. Troldborg, M.; Heslop, S.; Hough, R.L. Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis:Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 1173–1184.[CrossRef]
42. Shaaban, M.; Scheffran, J.; Böhner, J.; Elsobki, M.S. Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in EgyptUsing Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Energies 2018, 11, 1117. [CrossRef]
43. Büyüközkan, G.; Güleryüz, S. Evaluation of Renewable Energy Resources in Turkey using an integrated MCDM approach withlinguistic interval fuzzy preference relations. Energy 2017, 123, 149–163. [CrossRef]
44. Dester, M.; Francato, A.L. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Electric Energy Generation Technologies Using a Multi-CriteriaDecision Methodology. Int. J. Energy Technol. Policy 2018, 14, 64–87. [CrossRef]
45. Baharul, A. Technology Assessment by Applying Fuzzy Hierarchical Process for Priority Ranking of Different Power Generation Methods inBangladesh; Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2016.
46. Büyüközkan, G.; Güleryüz, S. An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey. Int. J.Prod. Econ. 2016, 182, 435–448. [CrossRef]
47. Alnaser, W.; Alnaser, N. The status of renewable energy in the GCC countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3074–3098.[CrossRef]
48. EMD. Powering the Kingdom of Bahrain by Wind Energy; EMD: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017.
49. Blanchard, R.; Albuflasa, H.; Musa, I.; Radu, T.; Thomson, M. An Evaluation of Waste Management for Energy Recovery for Bahrain;Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 247–261.
50. Amer, M.; Daim, T.U. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: A case of Pakistan. Energy Sustain.Dev. 2011, 15, 420–435. [CrossRef]
51. Solangi, Y.A.; Longsheng, C.; Shah, S.A.A.; AlSanad, A.; Ahmad, M.; Akbar, M.A.; Gumaei, A.; Ali, S. Analyzing RenewableEnergy Sources of a Developing Country for Sustainable Development: An Integrated Fuzzy Based-Decision Methodology.Processes 2020, 8, 825. [CrossRef]
52. Brown, A.; Muller, S. Deploying Renewables 2011: Best and Future Policy Practice–Analysis. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/deploying-renewables-2011-best-and-future-policy-practice (accessed on 20 April 2022).
53. IEA. Renewable Energy-RD&D Priorities Insights from IEA Technology Programmes; IEA: Paris, France, 2006.54. IRENA. REmap: Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future, 2016 Edition; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2016.55. Aryanpur, V.; Atabaki, M.S.; Marzband, M.; Siano, P.; Ghayoumi, K. An overview of energy planning in Iran and transition
pathways towards sustainable electricity supply sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 112, 58–74. [CrossRef]56. Mourmouris, J.; Potolias, C. A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a
regional level: A case study Thassos, Greece. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 522–530. [CrossRef]57. Öztaysi, B.; Isik, M.; Ercan, S. Multi-Criteria Decision Aid for Sustainable Energy Prioritization Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design.
Int. J. Energy Optim. Eng. 2013, 2, 1–20. [CrossRef]58. USEIA. Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants’, US Department of Energy; USEIA: Washington,
DC, USA, 2013; pp. 1–201.59. Lee, H.C.; Chang, C.-T. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 883–896. [CrossRef]60. Haddad, B.; Liazid, A.; Ferreira, P. A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system. Renew. Energy
2017, 107, 462–472. [CrossRef]61. IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2019.62. Çolak, M.; Kaya, I. Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case
application for Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 840–853. [CrossRef]63. Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Kharb, R.K. Sustainable assessment in energy planning and management in Indian perspective. Renew.
due to nuclear power resurgence in the United States. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4894–4900. [CrossRef]65. Wei, M.; Patadia, S.; Kammen, D.M. Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy
industry generate in the US? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 919–931. [CrossRef]66. Mourmouris, J.; Potolias, C.; Fantidis, J. Evaluation of Renewable Energy Sources Exploitation at Remote Regions, Using
Computing Model and Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Case-Study in Samothrace, Greece. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2012, 2, 2.67. Wu, Y.; Xu, C.; Zhang, T. Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A
case in China. Energy 2018, 147, 1227–1239. [CrossRef]68. Beccali, M.; Cellura, M.; Mistretta, M. Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for
the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renew. Energy 2003, 28, 2063–2087. [CrossRef]69. Fritsche, U.; Berndes, G.; Cowie, A.L.; Dale, V.H.; Kline, K.L.; Johnson, F.X.; Langeveld, H.; Sharma, N.; Watson, H.; Woods, J.
Energy and Land Use, Global Land Outlook; UNCCD: New York, NY, USA, 2017.70. Stevens, L. Footprint of Energy: Land Use of U.S. Electricity Production. Available online: https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017
/footprints-full.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).71. Amponsah, N.Y.; Troldborg, M.; Kington, B.; Aalders, I.; Hough, R.L. Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources:
A review of lifecycle considerations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 461–475. [CrossRef]
