Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies capture CO2 waste emissions and utilize them to generate new products (such as fuels, chemicals, and materials) with various environmental, economic, and social opportunities. As most of these CCU technologies are in the R&D stage, their technical and economic viability are examined with less attention to the social aspect which is an important pillar for a holistic sustainability assessment. The lack of systematic social impact research is mainly due to the difficulty of identifying and quantifying social aspects through the entire life cycle of products. We will fill this gap for CCU technologies and identify the main social indicators. A multi-criteria decision making tool: technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) was applied to empirically determine which indicators are more relevant for assessing the social impact of a company operating CCU activities within a European context. First, seeing that social impact categories are linked to key stakeholder groups, we considered workers, consumers, and local communities as relevant stakeholders. Second, the main social impact categories and their potential performance indicators associated to each group of stakeholders were listed using the United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) guidelines. In the third step, an online questionnaire was distributed to identify the main social categories and indicators for CCU, to which 33 European CCU experts responded. Finally, a modified TOPSIS was applied to rank the indicators based on their relevance. We found that the indicators related to “end of life responsibility” and “transparency” within a CCU company achieved the highest rank affecting the consumers group, whereas “fair salary” and “equal opportunities/discriminations” were determined as the most relevant impact categories for the workers. For the local community group, “secure living conditions” and “local employment” received the highest priority from the experts’ point of view. Furthermore, “health and safety” considerations were identified as one of the most important criteria affecting all three groups of stakeholders. The ranking list of the main social indicators identified in our study provides the basis for the next steps in the social sustainability assessment of CCU technologies; that is, data collection and impact assessment. Our outcomes can also be used to inform the producers regarding the most and least relevant social aspects of CCU so that the potential social impacts caused by their production activities can be improved or prevented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afsordegan, A., Sánchez, M., Agell, N., Zahedi, S., & Cremades, L. V. (2016). Decision making under uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for selecting sustainable energy alternatives. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,13, 1419–1432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amine, M. E., Pailhes, J., & Perry, N. (2014) Comparison of different multiple-criteria decision analysis methods in the context of conceptual design: Application to the development of a solar collector structure. In Proceedings of joint conference on mechanical, design engineering advanced manufacturing, Toulouse, France June 2014, France (pp. 1–6).

  • Aparcana, S., & Salhofer, S. (2013). Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(5), 1106–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arning, K., van Heek, J., & Ziefle, M. (2017). Risk perception and acceptance of CDU consumer products in Germany. Energy Procedia,114, 7186–7196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, H., Arvidsson, R., Tong, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Does the Production of an Airbag Injure more People than the Airbag Saves in Traffic? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(4), 517–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications,39, 13051–13069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoît, C., & Mazijn, B. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. UNEP/SETAC. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2019.

  • Bocin-Dumitriu, A., Perez Fortes, M.-M., Tzinas, E., & Sveen, T. (2013). Carbon capture and utilisation workshop background and proceedings. Scientific and technical report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2790/11560.

  • Bruhn, T., Naims, H., & Olfe-Kräutlein, B. (2016). Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage. Environmental Science & Policy,60, 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, T., Volk, T. A., & Luzadis, V. A. (2009). Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy,37(2), 484–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartelle Barros, J. J., Coira, M. L., de la Cruz López, M. P., & Caño Gochi, A. D., (2015). Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems. Energy, 89, 473–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colodel, C. M., Kupfer, T., Barthel, L. P., & Albrecht, S. (2009). R&D decision support by parallel assessment of economic, ecological and social impact: Adipic acid from renewable resources versus adipic acid from crude oil. Ecological Economics,68(6), 1599–1604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement,60(6), 821–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuéllar-Franca, R. M., & Azapagic, A. (2015). Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts. Journal of CO2 Utilization,9, 82–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dikopoulou, Z., Nápoles, G., Papageorgiou, E. I., & Vanhoof, K. (2015). Ranking and aggregation of factors affecting companies’ attractiveness. In 5th International symposium on knowledge acquisition and modelling, Atlantis Press, London.

  • Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., & Psarras, J. (2010). Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Expert Systems with Applications,37, 5491–5497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, L. C., Hauschild, M. Z., & Schierbeck, J. (2010). Characterization of social impacts in LCA. Part 1: Development of indicators for labour rights. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,15(3), 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekener-Petersen, E., & Finnveden, G. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: A case study of a laptop computer. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(8), 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2017). Carbon capture and utilization. Smart Specialisation Platform. http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/carbon-capture-and-utilization. Accessed March 29, 2017.

  • Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(1), 155–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnansounou, E. (2011). Assessing the sustainability of biofuels: A logic-based model. Energy,36(4), 2089–2096.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardisty, P. E., Sivapalan, M., & Brooks, P. (2011). The Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Carbon Capture and Storage. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(5), 1460–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harms, D., Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2013). Strategies in sustainable supply chain management: An empirical investigation of large German companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,20(4), 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan, K. N., Saha, T. K., & Eghbal, M. (2014). Investigating the priority of market participants for low emission generation entry into the Australian grid. Energy,71, 445–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassini, E., Surti, C., & Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics. International Journal of Production Economics,140(1), 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Dong, H. Y., Lom, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2017). Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1373-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, L. F., Chin, J. B., & Wu, M. C. (2006). Performance evaluation for university electronic libraries in Taiwan. The Electronic Library,24(2), 212–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment,409(19), 3578–3594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huguenin, J.-M. (2015). Data envelopment analysis and non-discretionary inputs: How to select the most suitable model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Expert Systems with Applications,42, 2570–2581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, A., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S. (1962). Research methods in social relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. R., Kaklamanou, D., Stuttard, W. M., Radford, R. L., & Burley, J. (2015a). Investigating public perceptions of carbon dioxide utilisation (CDU) technology: A mixed methods study. Faraday Discussions,183, 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5FD00063G.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. R., Olfe-Kräutlein, B., Naims, H., & Armstrong, K. (2017). The social acceptance of carbon dioxide utilisation: A review and research agenda. Front: Energy Res. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Ch. R., Radford, R. L., Armstrong, K., & Styring, P. (2014). What a waste! Assessing public perceptions of Carbon Dioxide Utilisation technology. Journal of CO 2Utilization, 7, 51–54.

  • Jones, S., Snowden-Swan, L., Meyer, P., Zacher, A., Olarte, M., & Drennan, C. (2015b). Fast pyrolysis and hydrotreating: 2014 State of Technology R&D and projections to 2017. Richland, WA: PNNL-24176, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications,38, 6577–6585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klankermayer, J., & Leitner, W. (2015). Love at second sight for CO2 and H2 in organic synthesis. Science,350, 629–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalewski, S., Arning, K., Minwegen, A., Ziefle, M., & Ascheid, G. (2012). Extending the engineering trade-off analysis by integrating user preferences in conjoint analysis. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., et al. (2002). The impact of ‘no opinion’ response options on data quality. Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly,66, 371–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhnen, M., & Hahn, R. (2017). Indicators in social life cycle assessment, a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuramochi, T., Ramírez, A., Turkenburg, W., & Faaij, A. (2011). Techno-economic assessment and comparison of CO capture technologies for industrial processes: Preliminary results for the iron and steel sector. Energy Procedia,4, 1981–1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: A case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(7), 1386–1392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankins, J. C. (2009). Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta Astronautica,65, 1216–1223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maroun, M. R., & La Rovere, E. L. (2014). Ethanol and food production by family smallholdings in rural Brazil: Economic and socio-environmental analysis of micro distilleries in the State of Rio Grande do Sul. Biomass and Bioenergy,63, 140–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., Heavey, C., & McGrath, P. (2015). Environmental and social supply chain management sustainability practices: Construct development and measurement. Production Planning & Control,26(8), 673–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., et al. (2014). Application challenges for the social LCA of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production,69, 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2003). Qualitative multi-criteria approaches to assessing indicators of sustainable forest resource management. Forest Ecology and Management,174(1–3), 329–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, M. C., & Adams, D. C. (2012). Increasing response rates to web-based surveys. Journal of Extension,50(6), 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naims, H. (2016). Economics of carbon dioxide capture and utilization—A supply and demand perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,23(22), 22226–22241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niero, M., & Kalbar, P. (2019). Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,140, 305–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management,42(1), 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onat, N. C., Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2016a). Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies. Sustainable Production and Consumption,6, 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., & Zheng, Q. P. (2016b). Combined application of multi-criteria optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative passenger cars in US. Journal of Cleaner Production,112, 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papong, S., Itsubo, N., Malakul, P., & Shukuya, M. (2015). Development of the social inventory database in Thailand using input–output analysis. Sustainability,7(6), 7684–7713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, S. (1951). The art of asking questions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdan, S., Jones, C. R., & Azapagic, A. (2017). Public awareness and acceptance of carbon capture and utilisation in the UK. Sustainable Production and Consumption,10, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Fortes, M., & Tzimas, E. (2016). Techno-economic and environmental evaluation of carbon dioxide utilisation for fuel production. Synthesis of methanol and formic acid; EUR 27629 EN. https://doi.org/10.2790/981669.

  • Pieri, T., Nikitas, A., Castillo-Castillo, A., & Angelis-Dimakis, A. (2018). Holistic assessment of carbon capture and utilization value chains. Environments,5, 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5100108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe, G. S., Seeman, I., McLaughlin, J., Mehl, E., & Dietz, M. (1988). Don’t know boxes in factual questions in a mail questionnaire. Public Opinion Quarterly,52, 212–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quadrelli, E., Centi, G., Duplan, J.-L., & Perathoner, S. (2011). Carbon dioxide recycling: emerging large-scale technologies with industrial potential. Chemsuschem,4, 194–1215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafiaani, P., Kuppens, T., Van Dael, M., Azadi, H., Lebailly, Ph, & Van Passel, S. (2018). Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: Towards a systemic approach. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,82(2), 1839–1853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragland, C. J., Feldpausch-Parker, A., Peterson, T. R., Stephens, J., & Wilson, E. (2011). Socio-political dimensions of CCS deployment through the lens of social network analysis. Energy Procedia,4, 6210–6217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, E. S., Mantripragad, H., Marks, A., Versteeg, P., & Kitchin, J. (2012). The outlook for improved carbon capture technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science xxx,2012, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2012.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoyo-Castelazo, E., & Azapagic, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80, 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. A., Ho, W., & Dey, P. K. (2012). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy system. Energy,42(1), 146–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamford, L., & Azapagic, A. (2011). Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nuclear power. Energy, 36(10), 6037–6057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitiene, I., & Balezentis, A. (2012). Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,16, 3302–3311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sultana, A., & Kumar, A. (2012). Ranking of biomass pellets by integration of economic, environmental and technical factors. Biomass and Bioenergy,2(39), 344–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen, G., Van Dael, M., & Van Passel, S. (2018). The potential of microalgae biorefineries in Belgium and India: An environmental techno-economic assessment. Bioresource Technology,267, 271–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traverso, M., Asdrubali, F., Francia, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2012). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,17(8), 1068–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turcksin, L., Macharis, C., Lebeau, K., Boureima, F., Mierlo, J. V., Bram, S., et al. (2011). A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium. Energy Policy,39(1), 200–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyagi, M., Kumar, P., & Kumar, D. (2015). Analyzing CSR issues for supply chain performance system using preference rating approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,26(6), 830–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillancourt, P. M. (1973). Stability of children’s survey responses. Public Opinion Quarterly,37, 373–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Heek, J., Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2017). Reduce, reuse, recycle: Acceptance of CO-utilization for plastic products. Energy Policy,105, 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schoubroeck, S., Springael, J., Van Dael, M., Malina, R., & Van Passel, S. (2019). Sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals: A Delphi study using multi-criteria decision analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,144, 198–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations Research,10(2), 56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinyes, E., Oliver-Solà, J., Ugaya, C., Rieradevall, J., & Gasol, C. M. (2013). Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(2), 445–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreys, K., Lizin, S., Van Dael, M., Tharakan, J., & Malina, R. (2019). Exploring the future of carbon capture and utilisation by combining an international Delphi study with local scenario development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 494–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, E. (2015). Benchmarking whole-building energy performance with multi-criteria technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution using a selective objective-weighting approach. Applied Energy,146, 92–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S.-W., Hsu, C.-W., & Hu, A. H. (2016). An analytic framework for social life cycle impact assessment—Part 1: Methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,21, 1514–1528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., & Zhao, J.-H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,13(9), 2263–2278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wassermann, S., Schulz, M., & Scheer, D. (2011). Linking public acceptance with expert knowledge on CO storage. Outcomes of a Delphi approach. Energy Procedia,4, 6353–6359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G., Travaly, Y., Brun, T., Knippels, H., Armstrong, K., Styring, P., et al. (2015). A vision for smart CO 2transformation in Europe: Using CO 2as a resource. SCOT Project. http://www.scotproject.org/images/SCOT%20Vision.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2019.

  • Xu, Q., Zhang, Y.-B., Zhang, J., & Lv, X.-G. (2015). Improved TOPSIS model and its application in the evaluation of NCAA basketball coaches. Modern Applied Science,9(2), 259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaunbrecher, B. S., & Ziefle, M. (2016). Integrating acceptance-relevant factors into wind power planning: A discussion. Sustainable Cities and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z. (2016). Missing data imputation: Focusing on single imputation. Annals of Translational Medicine,4(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.12.38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, A. W., & Schomacker, R. (2017). Assessing early-stage CO2 utilization technologies—Comparing apples and oranges? Energy Technology,5, 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201600805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would also like to thank James Morrison from the JamesEdits agency for proof reading and editing the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UHasselt - Hasselt University, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Agoralaan, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Parisa Rafiaani, Miet Van Dael, Tom Kuppens, Hossein Azadi & Steven Van Passel

  2. Economics and Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium

    Parisa Rafiaani, Hossein Azadi & Philippe Lebailly

  3. UHasselt - Hasselt University, Business Informatics, Agoralaan, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Zoumpolia Dikopoulou

  4. Unit Separation and Conversion Technologies, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

    Miet Van Dael

  5. Department of Geography, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 S8, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Hossein Azadi

  6. Department of Engineering Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Steven Van Passel

Authors
  1. Parisa Rafiaani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zoumpolia Dikopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miet Van Dael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tom Kuppens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hossein Azadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Philippe Lebailly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steven Van Passel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parisa Rafiaani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rafiaani, P., Dikopoulou, Z., Van Dael, M. et al. Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making. Soc Indic Res 147, 15–44 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02154-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02154-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation