Next Article in Journal
A Preliminary Experimental and Numerical Analysis of a Novel Solar Dryer
Previous Article in Journal
Examining the Nexus Between Renewable Energy, CO2 Emissions, and Economic Factors: Implications for Countries Marked by High Rates of Coronary Heart Disease
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review of Social Sustainability Assessments of Electricity Generating Systems

by
Allen Lemuel G. Lemence
1,
Jordi Cravioto
2 and
Benjamin C. McLellan
1,*
1
Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
2
Institute of Advanced Energy, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(23), 6058; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236058
Submission received: 8 November 2024 / Revised: 28 November 2024 / Accepted: 30 November 2024 / Published: 2 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section B: Energy and Environment)

Abstract

:
In the quest for sustainable development, the energy sector must address the three pillars of sustainability: economic, environmental, and social. However, compared to the other pillars, research on social sustainability has been relatively limited. A systematic literature review was conducted covering 143 peer-reviewed articles (after initial screening) to explore the current state and opportunities in the social sustainability assessment of electricity generating systems. The contributions of this research are two-fold: first is the analysis of the elements of social sustainability assessment, particularly the explicit and implicit definitions of social sustainability as well as the roles and nature of involvement of stakeholders. Second is the analysis of the intersections among framework elements. The insights provided serve as a valuable resource in conducting social sustainability assessments of electricity generating systems as well as inform researchers and stakeholders concerning future research directions.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The global pursuit for sustainable development has necessitated the transition of the energy industry to a low-carbon future. While serving as the cornerstone of progress and modern society, the energy sector, particularly electricity generating systems, is expected to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Additionally, electricity generating systems play an important role in advancing economic growth and influencing various aspects of people’s daily lives [1]. In this regard, sustainability in these systems entails three fundamental aspects: economic, environmental, and social sustainability.
The most common definition of sustainability stems from the Brundtland Report, which suggests that development must “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2].
Based on this principle, economic sustainability in electricity generating systems typically revolves around cost-effectiveness, profitability, and financial viability. It involves analyzing factors related to costs (investment, operating costs, etc.) and potential returns on investment. Indicators such as the capital cost and the cost of energy provide clear quantitative measures to assess economic sustainability [3]. For instance, if an electrification project can generate electricity at a lower cost over its lifetime compared to alternatives, it is considered economically sustainable.
Similarly, environmental sustainability in electricity generating systems focuses on minimizing negative environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and habitat destruction. Common indicators used to measure environmental sustainability include the amount of carbon dioxide emissions and fraction of renewable energy in the system [3].
Aspects of social sustainability are core to sustainable development in that they consider the “needs” of current generations and the distribution of the benefits both inter- and intra-generationally. However, in comparison to economic and environmental sustainability, the social pillar has received less attention despite the growing amount of research on sustainability assessment. This can be attributed to different reasons, such as lack of a common definition of the concept and the absence of mature quantitative and qualitative tools to measure social sustainability, among others [3,4,5].
Furthermore, only minimal research has sought to address the ambiguity of social sustainability. For example, the work of Vallance et al. [6] attempted to clarify the concept and presented a three-point scheme—development sustainability, bridge sustainability, and maintenance sustainability—to represent social sustainability. Meanwhile, the work of Eizenberg et al. [7] proposed that social sustainability is principally grounded on the concept of risk. Their work encompasses equity, safety, eco-consumption, and urban forms as the main facets of their proposed conceptual framework for social sustainability.
Despite these attempts to clarify social sustainability, less work has focused on applying the concept in the context of energy system assessments. Although various review articles have covered the sustainability assessment of energy systems [8,9,10,11,12,13,14], these works catered to a more general sense of sustainability, thereby limiting the discussion of the social aspect, while heavily discussing the economic and environmental ones. Not many review articles solely focused on social sustainability. One example is the list of 101 social impacts of energy systems presented by Ribeiro et al. [4]. Meanwhile, the work of Rafiaani et al. [15] compared three major social sustainability assessment tools used in the biobased economy, namely social impact assessment (SIA), socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA), and social life cycle analysis (SLCA). Recently, SLCA was reviewed in the context of industrial solar energy applications in the work of Zafar et al. [16].
The recent work of Afshari et al. [17] developed a framework for social sustainability assessment based on studies covering energy and non-energy sectors, such as manufacturing, supply chain, and construction sectors. The authors identify three gaps in the literature of energy system social sustainability assessment: lack of a common definition for social sustainability, lack of studies about social sustainability aspects, and absence of a comprehensive review of indicators to assess the social sustainability of energy systems. Overall, however, their work focused highly on the indicators.
Generally, four major problems are identified from the existing literature. First, the reviews [8,9,10,11,12,13,14] focused on general sustainability and have only partially discussed the social aspect. Some of these reviews recommend further investigation of the social aspect [9,13].
Another problem is the limited number of articles considered in previous reviews, such as in refs. [4,14], which can potentially exclude other relevant information. While Afshari et al. [17] reviewed relatively more articles, not all articles pertain to the energy sector.
The third problem is that some review articles covered only specific tools, such as the work of Wang et al. [8] focused on multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), the work of Campos-Guzmán et al. [9] focused on combining MCDA with the life cycle analysis (LCA) approach, and the work of Rafiaani et al. [15] focused on only SIA, SEIA, and SLCA. Meanwhile, other review articles focused solely on negative social impacts, such as in the work of Feron [12].
The last problem is that some articles focused only on a particular energy type, for example the literature reviews of refs. [10,11,15] focused on bioenergy while refs. [12,16] focused on solar energy.
Acknowledging the above limitations in the existing literature explains our motivation to examine the literature related to social sustainability assessments of energy systems to update the status of the research in the field. In this regard, this study’s objectives are to explore the existence of explicit definitions and social sustainability indicators, to develop themes categorizing social sustainability, to identify the roles of stakeholders involved in the related literature, and to investigate the intersections between the themes and the energy types studied.
In doing so, this study also presents the current research landscape and a conceptual framework centered on the social sustainability assessment of energy systems. This is achieved through a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed articles, to ensure that texts exhibit academic rigor and have undergone constructive scrutiny. Compared to previous literature reviews, this work focuses on the intersection of the literature covering energy systems and the literature covering social sustainability assessments as depicted in Figure 1.
This study significantly contributes to social sustainability research by examining the contextual definition of social sustainability, scrutinizing the indicators used to measure energy systems’ social sustainability, and expounding the roles and nature of involvement among stakeholders. Furthermore, this study presents research opportunities by analyzing the intersections between the social sustainability themes, stakeholders, and energy types studied.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines the literature search protocol and analysis, Section 3 presents the framework and its elements, Section 4 provides deeper analyses regarding the intersection of the framework elements, and Section 5 concludes this study by highlighting the main points as well as presenting future research directions.

2. Literature Review Methodology

A literature review was performed to explore the state of research on social sustainability within the context of energy systems. Figure 2 outlines the sequential steps undertaken during this investigation. These steps are discussed in detail in Section 2.1, which narrates the literature search and screening process, and Section 2.2, which expounds the analysis performed on the gathered information.

2.1. Literature Search and Screening

This study commenced with a literature search on the Scopus database in October 2022, employing “social sustainability” and “energy systems” as the primary keywords. The search considered original research articles and review articles, with no temporal restrictions to incorporate earlier contributions. The literature search was updated on October 2024 to include additional articles from 2022 to 2024. A total of 4302 articles were identified through this process.
To refine the selection of pertinent studies for the review, a two-level screening process was implemented. The first level involved evaluating the title and abstract of each article. An article was deemed relevant if its title and/or abstract indicated a focus on electricity generating systems and an assessment of the system’s social sustainability. No constraints were imposed regarding energy type or assessment tool. Following this screening criteria, 361 articles progressed to the next level.
Subsequently, the second level of screening involved a comprehensive examination of the article’s entire text to ensure adherence to the criteria established in the first screening. Articles were also excluded for reasons such as solely evaluating either positive or negative social impacts, relying extensively on the previous literature without conducting an independent assessment, or lacking clear discussion of methods for measuring social sustainability. Additionally, certain review articles, including those mentioned in the introduction, were excluded to prevent redundancy, while 19 articles were excluded due to inaccessibility. A total of 143 articles successfully passed the second screening and were included in the literature review. Table 1 summarizes the criteria for including and excluding articles for the literature review.
By considering the literature that includes both “social sustainability” and “energy systems” as a starting point, there is inevitably some omission of the literature that does not explicitly include these terms. Particularly, some papers will evaluate elements of these—including those identified by this current study—but would not be captured by the current review process. In this regard, it is recommended that future work could undertake a reverse analysis that goes from the identified themes outwards to capture broader overlapping studies that do not explicitly mention the highest-level concepts.
While this study focused on the social sustainability assessment of electricity generating systems, readers interested in exploring social sustainability assessment in other aspects of the energy sector can consider the following: energy supplier selection [18], specific energy system components [19], energy scenarios [20,21], energy storage systems [22,23,24], policy evaluation [25,26,27], plant location decisions [28,29,30], energy sector trends [31], and fuel/supply choices [32,33,34].

2.2. Data Extraction and Analysis

The 143 articles that passed the two levels of screening were subjected to data extraction. In particular, this study gathered the following information from the selected articles: geographic origins, case study locations, research gaps and aims, considered energy types, social sustainability definitions, stakeholder information, sustainability assessment methods, and social sustainability indicators. Microsoft Excel and Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org, accessed on 11 February 2023) were employed to organize and analyze the gathered information. Covidence is a web-based tool that helps in streamlining literature reviews.
All of the above data, except social sustainability definitions, were retrieved and analyzed in a straightforward manner. These data are explicitly available and were extracted upon reading an article’s full text. The next step was to count the frequency of similar data to generate insights. Some aspects regarding stakeholder information also require careful comprehension, specifically the nature of the stakeholders’ involvement. Additionally, some indicators were not straightforward (e.g., the indicator name is ambiguous or means something different from how it was defined), as such additional description needed to be comprehended.
Meanwhile, the social sustainability definition required a more complex approach. In this study, conceptual content analysis [35,36] was used to derive meaning out of the data generated from the articles. Phrases, sentences, and/or paragraphs which provide an explicit definition of social sustainability were first extracted from the articles. The next step was to identify and comprehend concepts that exist within these texts to develop common themes.
The information that was collected and analyzed represents the elements of a simple framework developed for the social sustainability assessment of energy systems. Finally, the intersections of selected framework elements were examined to explore possible research gaps and opportunities.
It is noted that a preliminary version of the results based on the initial literature search conducted in October 2022 was presented in a conference [37], but additional analysis has since been undertaken, including the addition of more recent literature.

2.3. Background of the Reviewed Literature

The detailed analysis component of this review analyzed 143 articles, comprising 133 original research articles and 10 review articles. The reviewed articles span the years 2000 to 2024. Figure 3 illustrates the annual count of articles incorporated in the literature review. The figure shows that there has been an increase in research activity in recent years, aligning with the overall trend in research during this period (no attempt has been made in this study to compare the increase quantitatively across fields).
Among the 143 articles analyzed in this review, over half originate from Europe and Asia, based on the country affiliation of the article’s first author. Meanwhile, 118 articles incorporated case studies, and, consistent with the regional distribution of articles, these case studies were predominantly carried out in Asia and Europe. The remaining 25 articles either did not conduct a case study or did not explicitly specify the location. Figure 4 displays the distribution of article counts and case studies per region of origin.
The majority of the articles examined in this literature review have incorporated evaluations of solar energy systems, with biomass and wind energy technologies following closely. In general, a greater emphasis has been placed on the sustainability assessment of renewable energy technologies. Figure 5 shows how frequently different energy types were considered in previous articles.

3. Selected Elements of the Proposed Framework for Social Sustainability Assessment

The primary results of this paper highlight three elements of the proposed framework for social sustainability assessments of energy systems. Section 3.1 introduces the simple framework for social sustainability assessment. This is followed by sections that describe selected framework elements: Section 3.2 summarizes the social sustainability definitions found in the literature; Section 3.3 discusses the indicators found in the previous literature to measure social sustainability; Section 3.4 synthesizes the two previous sections into cohesive themes; and Section 3.5 discusses the role of stakeholders in previous assessments.

3.1. Overview of the Proposed Framework

A conceptual framework for the social sustainability assessment of energy systems was developed as shown in Figure 6. Elements 1 and 3 are discussed briefly in this subsection while elements 2, 4, and 5 are discussed more thoroughly in the succeeding subsections.
An assessment of social sustainability begins with a clear motivation—which can be represented in the form of a problem statement, a specific goal, or a list of objectives. This element is not discussed extensively in this paper since all research mainly points to the overarching goal to evaluate the sustainability of energy systems. In addition to this main goal, four other motivations have been identified:
  • To try a new approach/method for sustainability assessment. For example, Shakouri G. et al. [38] and Pereira et al. [39] explored the application of data envelopment analysis in sustainability assessment. Other studies explored combinations of weighting and aggregation techniques in MCDA [40,41,42] or incorporated life cycle approaches [43,44];
  • To conduct sustainability assessment in a particular country or region. There were studies conducted in China [45,46,47], Egypt [48,49,50], India [44,51,52], Iran [53,54,55], and the United Kingdom [56,57,58], to name a few. Meanwhile, others shifted their focus to wider geographic coverage, such as developing countries [38,41,59], Europe [60,61,62], remote communities [63,64], countries along the Belt and Road [65], or the Arctic region [66];
  • To conduct sustainability assessment for a particular energy type. The most prevalent energy types under this context are biomass [50,53,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83] and solar energy systems [56,84,85,86,87,88,89];
  • To explore the social aspect of energy system sustainability assessments. Only a few studies exclusively or heavily focused on social sustainability [39,61,73,80,81,84,86,90]. Others conducted a multi-pillar sustainability assessment but have emphasized the role of the social pillar [1,49,63,72,74,75,78,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103].
Next, to proceed with the assessment, the term “social sustainability” should be clearly defined or operationalized. Doing so will guide the selection of the assessment method and the indicators to measure social sustainability, among others. A more detailed discussion of social sustainability can be found in Section 3.2 and Section 3.4. Respectively, these sections summarize the existing definitions of social sustainability found in the literature and present synthesized themes generated from such definitions as well as the indicators that were used in the prior literature.
The next element in the framework is the assessment method. The present work does not focus on this topic for two main reasons. Firstly, previous work has already reviewed prevalent social sustainability assessment methods. For example, the work of Rafiaani et al. [15] previously discussed three main assessment methods for social sustainability: socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA), social impact assessment (SIA), and social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Additionally, a methodological review paper would warrant a more extensive discussion, and often this would involve a significant in-depth discussion of the context and other components, which is not in balance with the analysis of the remaining components discussed below.
The review of 143 peer-reviewed articles performed in this research highlighted various methods. In order to streamline the discussion of such methods, the three major assessment categories provided by Ness et al. [104] were adopted as follows:
  • Indicators and indices are simple measures that reflect system status according to their economic, social, and/or environmental aspect. Indicators/indices can be integrated (involves aggregation of sustainability aspects) or non-integrated (sustainability aspects are treated as mutually exclusive);
  • Product-related assessments comprise methods focused on analyzing the systems’ flows and processes. Since life cycle analysis is the most common assessment under this category, this type usually addresses the environmental aspect. However, life cycle tools for economic (life cycle costing) and social aspects (SLCA) have also emerged;
  • Integrated assessments are usually conducted for policy or project decision-making and often involve evaluating different scenarios or alternatives. This type generally applies systems analysis approaches to incorporate all sustainability dimensions. Common examples of this type of assessment are multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), conceptual modelling, system dynamics, risk and uncertainty analyses, vulnerability analysis, cost–benefit analysis, and impact assessments.
Table 2 summarizes the articles covered in this review according to the abovementioned categories. A more detailed categorization of the assessment methods can be accessed from Supplementary Material File S1.
From the pool of reviewed articles, integrated assessments are the most used assessment tool, with MCDA as the leading approach to perform sustainability assessment. The common MCDA tools used in previous studies were analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), and fuzzy MCDA, among others. However, to improve the assessment and address certain limitations, other articles have combined MCDA with tools such as strengths–weaknesses–opportunities–threats analysis [46], fuzzy logic [135], and system dynamics [139]. The scope, advantages, and disadvantages of MCDA are already adequately discussed in the previous literature [8,15,104]. Readers are directed to the work of Wang et al. [8], where detailed background about general MCDA steps and the different weighting, aggregation, and ranking techniques are thoroughly discussed.
Related to assessment methods are indicators, which were observed to have widespread use across all identified assessment methods in this literature review. In Section 3.3, sub-themes (sub-criteria) surrounding the main themes of social sustainability have been developed to depict the variety of indicators that have been used in the pool of articles included in this review.
Finally, energy system stakeholders represent the final element of the proposed framework. These stakeholders can influence the social sustainability assessment of energy systems. Specifically, they help in providing data, selecting indicators, and assigning weights to these indicators. In other cases, they also help define scenarios as well as identify assumptions. The stakeholder groups identified from previous studies, as well as the common nature of involvement among these stakeholders, are presented in Section 3.5.
From a practical standpoint, this framework offers a valuable reference for stakeholders tasked with evaluating the social sustainability of energy systems. It provides a structured approach that can be seamlessly integrated with economic and environmental assessments, particularly through the utilization of MCDA techniques.
From an academic standpoint, the framework illustrates numerous avenues for researchers to explore further. For instance, researchers could delve into refining the definition of social sustainability within energy systems. Moreover, considering the widespread use of MCDA tools in sustainability assessment, there is room for researchers to enhance existing tools or investigate tools that have not yet been utilized in the energy sector. Stakeholder involvement can also be investigated, specifically the nature, methods, and extent of their involvement in sustainability assessments. Lastly, the intersections of these elements, as elaborated in Section 4, offer diverse research opportunities.

3.2. Social Sustainability Definitions

This research argues that, along with having a clear motivation, it is fundamental to define social sustainability first before performing an assessment. The definition will guide how to perform the assessment, as well as the tools or indicators that will be used to measure social sustainability.
After analyzing the full texts, 51 articles were found to have explicit definitions of social sustainability. In these articles, their authors have clearly defined how they view social sustainability. “Social sustainability is…”, “the social impacts of energy systems are…”, and “the social aspect is concerned with…” were some of the phrases that signaled an article’s definition of the concept. The extracted definitions are presented in Supplementary Material File S1.
Meanwhile, 92 articles were identified to have an unclear or non-specific explanation of social sustainability. These studies either immediately proceeded to enumerate indicators or methods they used to measure social sustainability or just referred to a broad statement mentioning “social impacts” or “influences of the energy system to society”, without defining what those impacts or influences are. Despite the absence of an explicit definition, it can be implied that these articles view social sustainability based on the indicators that they use, which will be discussed in Section 3.3.
Through conceptual content analysis, ten themes were developed from the definitions provided by the 51 articles. This is summarized in Table 3, along with a brief description of each theme. The succeeding parts of this subsection provide insights into how previous articles’ definitions relate to each developed theme.
To this end, “social development/well-being and quality of life” and “socio-economic benefits” are the predominant themes reflecting social sustainability based on the number of articles, with 28 and 24 articles referring to said themes, respectively. Meanwhile, social sustainability in the form of “health and safety”, “energy access, quality, and reliability”, “social acceptance”, and “social equity” were also attributed to social sustainability, although in fewer articles. The remaining parts of this subsection briefly discuss each theme, as reflected by the definitions provided in the previous literature.

3.2.1. Social Development/Well-Being and Quality of Life

The theme “social development/well-being and quality of life” takes on several essential aspects of society and daily life, with prevalent terms and phrases including the words and phrases “welfare”, “well-being”, “quality of life”, and “living conditions/standards”, as commonly found in the previous literature [47,55,64,80,98,100,103,111,112,119,136,139,160,161,177]. Articles frequently attribute energy systems as instrumental in enhancing or improving this “quality of life” [47,136,160,161,162] or as solutions to address diverse social issues while contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [51,62,63,177]. In the same context, Refs. [111,139] associate social sustainability with indicators that measure quality of life or well-being.
However, “quality of life” and “well-being” are inherently broad and subject to various interpretations. Moreover, expounding these terms inevitably intertwines with other themes of social sustainability described in the following subsections and with the other pillars of sustainability overall. For instance, Fedorova et al. [80] correlates well-being with factors such as “prosperity, education, health, and safety”, while Fonseca et al. [98] attributes quality of life to elements of equity and health.
Overall, the concept of social sustainability in the context of this theme is also intricately linked with diverse factors. These include environmental health and effects on local scenery [105,133], societal and human development [55,61,64,74,180], workplace dynamics in the form of social support for the labor force [166], and cultural preservation [161], all of which collectively shape the well-being and quality of life within society.

3.2.2. Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment

Under the “socio-economic benefits and employment” theme, the majority of the articles referred to job creation, employment, or provision of livelihood opportunities as one of the significant social impacts of energy systems [39,50,74,101,103,116,129,150,166]. Although some articles did not directly refer to employment, they mention the energy systems’ impacts on people’s livelihood [83,86,173].
In addition to the focus on job creation and livelihood opportunities, several articles explore the broader socio-economic implications of energy systems [64,80]. These discussions include factors such as affordability [127] and economic growth [50,74,133,166].
By providing opportunities for employment and livelihood, coupled with the wider socio-economic impacts brought by energy systems, it can be said that socially sustainable energy systems also contribute to lifting individuals and communities out of poverty [55,160].

3.2.3. Health and Safety

Health and safety are fundamental aspects of the social sustainability of energy systems, intersecting with various dimensions of social development, well-being [80], and quality of life [98], as previously mentioned. Across several studies, there is a consistent call to address health concerns as integral components of social sustainability in the context of energy systems [55,64,80,83,98,107,116,160,164,180].
In rural electrification projects, as outlined by Assefa et al. [163] and Juanpera et al. [164], the establishment of energy systems facilitates access to vital health services, further proving the vital role of energy in improving public health.
Alongside health considerations, several authors advocate prioritizing safety within energy systems [55,73,80]. As emphasized by Fedorova et al. [80], safety not only impacts individual well-being but also influences broader societal well-being.
In a broader scope, socially sustainable energy systems are expected to contribute to the overall improvement of society’s living environment [50,80]. Additionally, as highlighted by Wilkens et al. [105], evaluating social sustainability encompasses factors such as the impact on personal and local environments, reflecting the interconnection between energy systems and community well-being.
Lastly, it is essential to recognize the broader environmental implications of energy systems that are related to health and safety. For instance, the type of energy systems directly affects indoor and air pollution [107,160], as well as determines how much the system can contribute to global warming [107].

3.2.4. Energy Access and Reliability

A significant portion of the literature under this theme highlights the fundamental role of energy access [51,103,111,119,127,129,136,137]. However, some articles delve deeper into this concept. For instance, the social aspect of an energy system is attributed to the right of consumers to energy access [137]. Meanwhile, others underscore the importance of ensuring that this access to energy must be delivered in an equitable, affordable, and reliable manner [51,111]. Moreover, several authors argue that energy access facilitates other social benefits, including employment opportunities [129], enhancements in an individual’s quality of life [136], and improved access to essential services such as water [84].
Alongside access, discussions about energy access and social sustainability often extend to reliability [38,51,73,151], as previously mentioned, and to energy security [151].

3.2.5. Social Acceptance

Public perception and social acceptance play a critical role in the success of sustainable development projects, particularly those involving energy systems. Effectively addressing concerns and garnering support from different stakeholders are essential for overcoming barriers to implementation. The most widely used term is “social acceptance” [38,80,112,137,154], but other terms have been used: public acceptance [74] and community acceptance [84].
Notably, measuring social acceptance poses challenges, specifically in terms of cultural values as well as stakeholder perception and opinion [80]. Previous studies have equated social sustainability with stakeholders’ perceptions [100,105] or preferences [100], but it can also be ultimately aligned with societal preferences [90].
Ultimately, the study of social acceptance can be linked to other aspects of social sustainability, specifically the quantifiable ones such as job creation, access to energy, and economic growth. But it is also influenced by context-specific and subjective aspects such as preservation of cultural preservation, visual aesthetics, and well-being.

3.2.6. Social Equity

The majority of articles within the social equity theme emphasize the importance of equity [71,83,85,98,161,163,164] and addressing social disparities [85,127] as key issues that energy systems can help mitigate. However, in the work of Lillo et al. [180], energy systems are not directly presented as solutions to equity issues; rather, it underscores the necessity of addressing these disparities when introducing such systems, especially in rural contexts. Finally, as previously highlighted, there is an overlap between the themes of social sustainability and socio-economic impacts, which is particularly evident in the context of poverty alleviation [55,160].

3.2.7. Education

The availability of energy systems is central to education primarily because energy availability enhances educational opportunities and reduces illiteracy by facilitating better access to education [160,164]. This theme does not have an in-depth discussion compared to other themes since the previous literature mainly espouses the idea that energy systems are means to improve society through education [46,64,74,80,103,160,163,164,180]

3.2.8. Involvement and Governance

The theme of involvement and governance is primarily derived from the notion that microgrids are rooted in social structures, because they comprise decentralized socio-technical networks that foster a community characterized by significant interaction among its participants [136]. This can be applicable at different scales of energy systems, but the complexity between participant interactions can be greater in larger-scale systems and more manageable in smaller-scale systems.
As such, this theme corresponds to the nature of involvement among different stakeholders in the development and eventual operations of energy systems. This can be accomplished through open and participatory practices [73,170] in order to solicit the opinions and perceptions of stakeholders [48]. By involving stakeholders, particularly end-users, the concept of empowerment can be fulfilled [164]. More broadly, this theme also relates to the compatibility of the energy system with societal infrastructure, specifically in politics and governance [50].

3.2.9. Gender

Despite gender gaining attention in the research sphere in recent decades, few articles included in this review have explicitly integrated gender and gender equity with the concept of social sustainability [160,163,180]. However, a specific literature search using the terms gender and energy produces numerous recent articles concerning these topics. For example, a recent study explored how female labor participation is impacted by energy access and availability in developing countries [181].

3.2.10. Human Rights

The “human rights” theme recognizes that socially sustainable energy systems firstly promulgate people’s right to have access to energy [137]. However, this theme also corresponds to energy systems’ obligations to other humanitarian and human rights issues [73], such as the rights of indigenous and traditional communities to their lands as well as protecting society’s heritage in the cultural, historical, and archeological aspects [39].
The discussion up to this point, and in reference to Table 3, only considers the articles that have provided an explicit definition or contextualization of social sustainability. Even though most of the articles in this review did not have an explicit working definition of social sustainability, it can be implied that social sustainability aspects are reflected by the indicators chosen by the articles’ authors. As such, Section 3.3, which focuses on indicators, will reflect an updated categorization of articles based on the social sustainability themes.

3.3. Social Sustainability Indicators

In this study, a total of 709 social sustainability indicators (SSIs) were identified from the pool of reviewed articles. The number of SSIs used in these articles range from as few as 1 indicator to as many as 30 indicators, as depicted in Figure 7. On average, about five SSIs were used, although using two indicators was the most common among the reviewed articles.
For this research, the major categories for SSIs were based on the themes that have been identified in Section 3.2. Sub-themes were also developed by the researchers to group indicators that cover similar characteristics. Table 4 summarizes the number of indicators per theme and sub-theme.
A complete list of the indicators is provided in Supplementary Material File S1. Meanwhile, Supplementary Material File S2 visually presents the connections of the themes, sub-themes, and indicators through concept diagrams.
The categorization of the indicators into themes and sub-themes was conducted to create a streamlined discussion and to allow readers to obtain a general sense of the types of indicators found in the literature. However, it should not be ignored that some of these indicators are context-specific. For example, the work of Terrapon-Pfaff et al. [86] provided an extensive list of SSIs, but some of them are specifically addressed to the circumstances of their studied site, which is Morocco. Meanwhile, the indicators used by Khan [1] are catered to developing countries. As such, when actual assessments are performed, proponents should also consider stakeholder inputs and other specific or unique circumstances.
When developing Table 4, an indicator was allowed to be classified under two or more themes based on their description or how the authors defined them. Furthermore, themes and sub-themes can overlap in some aspects—for example, “pollution and emissions-related indicators” under the “health and safety” theme can be related to “surroundings, environment, ecosystems” sub-theme of the “social development, well-being, quality of life” theme. This suggests the multi-faceted nature of social sustainability and the challenge of defining and contextualizing the concept. Nonetheless, the themes and sub-themes provided here establish a starting point for stakeholders to identify potential social aspects to be considered when performing an energy system sustainability assessment.
Overall, similar to the themes based on explicit definitions discussed in Section 3.2, the prominent themes based on the number of indicators are “socio-economic benefits and employment” and “social development, well-being, quality of life”, with 210 and 183 SSIs, respectively. These themes are followed by “health and safety”, “energy access and reliability”, and “social acceptance”. The “involvement and governance” theme surpasses the “social equity” theme based on the number of indicators.
Sub-themes mainly from the prominent themes have more indicators compared to other major themes. For example, job creation, economic benefits/economic-related, social welfare, surroundings/environment/ecosystems, labor- and plant-related safety, and energy access sub-themes have more indicators compared to social equity, education, gender, and human rights themes. This could signal the need to develop more indicators under the less-incorporated themes or to further standardize the indicators of these themes to ensure that they are more frequently used in sustainability assessments. A dedicated literature review covering these specific less-incorporated themes can be explored to expound the discussion.
Taking into account all individual indicators, the most used SSI in the pool of articles considered in this review was job creation, which essentially corresponds to the total number of jobs that an energy system employs. A total of 98 studies used this indicator to measure social sustainability. Other common terms for this indicator include employment, employment generation, and created jobs. There are also different ways to measure this indicator: total number of jobs [55,63], total number of jobs per generating capacity [67,95,121], and total number of working hours per generating capacity [117,118,123], among other variations. Although most studies have classified the job generation indicator under the social aspect, some studies [39,112] have classified it under the economic aspect.
In some cases, the social aspect is extended to include matters concerning culture and traditions [85]. Others [10] have treated the cultural aspect as an entirely separate sustainability pillar from the social aspect. As such, indicators that pertain to cultural sustainability were also identified and were treated separately from the social ones.
Section 3.2 previously discussed that, in the absence of an explicit definition of social sustainability, it can be assumed that the authors’ definition of the concept is reflected by the indicators that they use. Following this approach, the articles were categorized under the same themes as in Section 3.2 based on the indicators they used. Table 5 summarizes the updated article count per theme.
Finally, a more comprehensive study about indicators in general is recommended. Such a study could cover the meanings (description) of the indicators, their data sources, methods/techniques/quantification/qualification, units of measurement, and criteria for inclusion.

3.4. Focus on the Social Sustainability Themes

Considering both the explicit definitions discussed in Section 3.2 and the indicators discussed in Section 3.3, there were minor adjustments to the article count per social sustainability theme. An article is considered to incorporate a theme as long as it either has an explicit definition or used an indicator that falls under the corresponding theme. The adjustments are reflected in Table 6.
Ideally, the articles that provided definitions of social sustainability would have used indicators that correspond to the themes present in their definitions. However, this was not the case in a number of articles. For example, the definition provided by Assefa et al. [163] incorporates social equity, education, involvement and governance, and gender; however, the main indicators used in the article fall primarily under the social acceptance theme. Meanwhile, the definition of Shakouri G. et al. [38] attributes social sustainability to socio-economic benefits and employment, energy access and reliability, and social acceptance themes, but used job creation as the only indicator to measure social sustainability. On the other hand, some of the articles that provided definitions had indicators that fall under themes that were not present in the definitions.
Overall, the most prevalent themes remain as “socio-economic benefits and employment” and “social development, well-being, quality of life”. These are followed by “health and safety”, “energy access and reliability”, and “social acceptance”. The remaining themes may be considered minor themes if only article count is considered. However, this does not necessarily mean that they are less important with regards to their actual implications in practice.
Analyzing the articles from a chronological perspective provides additional insights into the growth of each theme in terms of the number of articles incorporating them. Figure 8 shows the annual number of studies that reflect different social sustainability themes, considering both the explicit and implicit definitions discussed in the previous sections. The themes of “socio-economic benefits and employment” and “social equity” were already present in the earlier studies considered in this review, specifically in 2000. This was followed by the themes of “social development, well-being, quality of life” and “health and safety” in studies appearing in 2002.
Most of the other themes—“energy access and reliability”, “social acceptance”, “involvement and governance”, “education”, and “gender”—appeared later (2007), while the theme of “human rights” emerged the most recently compared to other themes, in 2011.
A more focused view of each theme is represented in Figure 9, which shows individual line charts of the number of articles reflecting each social sustainability theme. Based on these charts, it can be observed that the number of articles covering the themes of “socio-economic benefits and employment” and “social development, well-being, quality of life” generally have an upward trend since 2000.
Articles reflecting the theme of “health and safety” did not grow as much despite having appeared as early as 2000. Meanwhile, starting in the mid-2010s, more articles have started incorporating the themes of “energy access and reliability”, “social acceptance”, and “involvement and governance”. Generally, the number of articles covering the themes of “social equity”, “education”, “gender”, and “human rights” did not grow as significantly as the more predominant themes. As research on sustainability assessment of electricity generating systems progresses, it is expected that these themes will continue to be incorporated.
The discussion up to this point has primarily treated the themes as mutually exclusive facets of social sustainability. However, the multifaceted nature of social sustainability has been a recurring discussion in the previous literature and in earlier sections of this paper. As such, the co-occurrence of themes was investigated and is graphically shown on Figure 10. The percentage shows the frequency of co-occurrence of the theme in the column relative to the number of articles that incorporated the theme in the row. For example, 80% of the 82 articles that incorporated “social development, well-being, quality of life” have also employed “socio-economic benefits and employment”.
Across all themes, “socio-economic benefits and employment” and “social development, well-being, quality of life” are the themes that were co-incorporated with the other themes. This complements earlier findings that the two themes were the most prominent. Furthermore, it also suggests two possible implications: first, other themes hinge upon the said themes. Another is that the two themes have been studied more frequently, resulting in more indicators and a frequent appearance in sustainability assessments. Future social sustainability assessments of energy systems can also benefit from including less incorporated aspects, such as social equity, education, gender, and human rights. Doing so can help make the assessments more holistic.
Meanwhile, Figure 11 serves as an attempt to synthesize these facets, illustrating their interconnectedness and the simple relationships they form.
Firstly, energy access is an essential driver of social sustainability since it allows for the realization of other social benefits and impacts. However, considering a life cycle perspective requires incorporating other social sustainability themes at earlier stages of the energy system. For instance, ensuring health and safety during the system’s construction must be ensured. Moreover, involvement of different stakeholders during the planning phase can significantly contribute to the long-term success of the energy system, as they have more ownership of the system. Simultaneously, adhering to existing administrative and political frameworks is crucial for ensuring legitimacy and securing institutional support. Meanwhile, gender empowerment and human rights issues must also be considered prior to the establishment of energy systems to ensure respecting all who might be involved.
Once energy becomes accessible to society, a variety of benefits can be realized, particularly in terms of social development and socio-economic growth. This is supported by the number of indicators that have been used which relate to these themes. Additionally, energy availability facilitates improved access to essential social services such as health and education. Access can also play a vital role in addressing social inequities and gender disparities. From the inception to disposal or decommissioning of electrification systems, considerations of involvement and governance, as well as human rights, must be upheld to ensure holistic adherence to social sustainability principles.
Figure 11 also highlights the current prominence of socio-economic benefits and employment along with social development, well-being, and quality of life as the major themes that represent social sustainability. Although these two themes are the most incorporated, the bi-directional arrows represent that these themes connect and exist simultaneously with other themes.
Ultimately, these net social benefits shape the social acceptance of energy systems. This level of acceptance—or opposition—eventually significantly influences the success of future electrification projects. Thus, understanding and addressing social dimensions are imperative for fostering widespread acceptance and ensuring the efficacy of these initiatives.
Although it is ideal to incorporate all social sustainability themes when conducting an assessment of an energy system, the decision can be influenced by the interests of different stakeholders. In particular, the stakeholders can direct the criteria considered in the sustainability assessment and dictate how these criteria match each other. The roles of stakeholder are discussed more thoroughly in the next subsection.

3.5. Stakeholder Roles and Nature of Involvement

Stakeholders correspond to the actors that are directly or indirectly involved in electrification systems throughout their life cycle. In this research, stakeholders were classified into seven major groups: industry experts, academics, government, end-users/public, non-government organizations and community groups, suppliers, and private companies. These terms were taken directly from the articles and merged for similarities. The following list provides a brief description for each stakeholder group:
  • Industry experts are individuals who were involved specifically because they have extensive experience in various fields; for example, in the energy sector [41,58], specific energy technologies [43,50,159], or sustainability or life cycle assessments [43,89,92]. These stakeholders are usually drawn from other categories, such as government or academia. When an article provides a description or profile that clearly identifies the background of the stakeholder, the stakeholder was categorized to the appropriate group (e.g., if stakeholder ABC comes from University XYZ, then the stakeholder will be assigned to the academic group);
  • Academic stakeholders are people who are currently employed at universities or research institutes and also provide specific expertise related to the sustainability assessment [46,85,113];
  • Government stakeholders are representatives from different government agencies or offices, such as environmental ministries [52,65,95], energy ministries [54,165], or local government units [56,68,106];
  • End-users/public are the primary recipients of the energy systems; they are usually the consumers of the energy produced by the system and/or those who live within the approximate vicinity of the energy system [105,165,180];
  • Non-government organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations, and community groups are associations that usually represent or advocate environmental [61,154,173], labor-related [40], or humanitarian causes [68,173];
  • Suppliers are actors along the supply chain, specifically those who are from the trade industry or those that provide or manufacture technologies or fuel [57,61,105];
  • Private companies are those who participate in energy projects through corporate social responsibility mandates or by providing financial assistance to enact such projects [40,80,95].
The full-text investigation of the 143 articles included in this review reveals that the article pool is divided almost evenly, with 73 articles involving stakeholders, and with the remaining 70 articles not involving stakeholders. Involvement of stakeholders means that the authors of the articles specified that they have invited persons outside of the authors pool or research team to solicit assistance for the sustainability assessment. The nature of this assistance is also discussed in this subsection.
In this study, no attempt was made to investigate the reasons other articles did not involve stakeholders. Additionally, studies of this type often referred to the findings of other studies in terms of criteria selection, weight assignments, or indicator valuations.
Overall, industry experts, academics, and representatives of the government have been the most involved stakeholders in the reviewed articles. The involvement of these stakeholder groups is expected as they have more knowledge in the different operations along the life cycle of an energy system as well as in the field of sustainability assessments. They also have technical expertise that allows them to provide information regarding certain features of energy systems and, eventually, to evaluate system alternatives.
The remaining stakeholder groups, namely the end-users/public, NGOs, suppliers, and private companies were involved to a lesser extent. Meanwhile, eight studies did not explicitly disclose the backgrounds of the stakeholders involved in their respective studies. Table 7 shows the number of articles involving the different stakeholder groups (a study can involve multiple stakeholder groups).
In terms of the nature of involvement, stakeholders were primarily involved in four major ways, as outlined in Table 8. Predominantly, their involvement centered around assessing energy system options or assigning values to sustainability indicators. Moreover, they were also usually involved in developing or selecting the sustainability criteria, alongside assigning relative weights to these criteria. A smaller subset of studies engaged stakeholders in additional aspects of research, such as validating assumptions, crafting scenarios, and coordinating on-site activities.
To clarify the understanding of the specific nature of how each stakeholder group participated in the assessment, this research attempted to cross-tabulate each stakeholder group with respect to the specific activity categories. Table 9 and Table 10 summarize the level of involvement of each stakeholder group across the four primary involvement categories discussed earlier. Table 9 and Table 10, respectively, depict percentages relative to the total number of studies covering different involvement categories and the total number of studies involving different stakeholder groups.
However, it is important to note that the values presented are only approximations since not all articles included in this study provided clear or transparent indications of the extent and manner of involvement for each stakeholder group. The assumption was made that an article involved all mentioned stakeholders in all described activities unless explicitly stated otherwise. For future studies, it is advisable to provide explicit clarification on how each stakeholder group was engaged, especially concerning activities related to the social aspect of sustainability assessment. This transparency would enhance the accuracy and reliability of the findings.
Referring to Table 9, it can be seen that across all natures of involvement, industry experts are the primarily involved stakeholder group, followed by representatives from academics and the government. End-users/public and NGOs were involved to a lesser extent when developing or selecting criteria. While NGOs are more involved in evaluating alternatives or assigning values to sustainability indicators, the end-users/public were more involved in auxiliary assessment activities such as providing data or other necessary information. Generally, suppliers and private companies were the least involved across all major assessment activities.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of the number of studies involving each stakeholder group, as shown in Table 10, stakeholders are more often involved in developing or selecting criteria as well as the evaluation of alternatives or assigning values to indicators. That is, if a certain stakeholder group was involved, they are more likely to assist in developing sustainability criteria. Overall, industry experts, academics, and government representatives were more involved in the evaluation of alternatives, but slightly less involved when it comes to assigning weight to these criteria—complementing the insights from Table 9.
To involve stakeholders, previous studies have mainly implemented surveys or questionnaires [39,61,92,95,113,128] and interviews [41,50,87,152,154]. These methods were used primarily for stakeholders to convey which criteria were most relevant as well as to assign weights to these criteria. Focus group discussions [86,90,112,121] and workshops [68,80,83,105] were employed less frequently. These methods were used to gather more qualitative information and were useful when developing scenarios or formulating assumptions.
There were few studies that used more specific methods, such as the Delphi method [136] and discrete choice experiment [90]. All in all, there were 22 articles that were unclear about the method used to involve stakeholders; these articles simply indicated “participatory process” or similarly non-specific methods. A complete picture of the manner of involvement is presented in tabular form in Supplementary Material File S1.

4. Intersection of Framework Elements: Opportunities for Research

This section presents results as intersections of the different elements of the framework as well as the energy types studied to provide insights that can be useful for future research. Two intersections are specifically discussed in this paper: energy type and social sustainability themes (Section 4.1) and stakeholders and social sustainability themes (Section 4.2). The article count for social sustainability themes reflect the updated count based on Section 3.4.

4.1. Energy Type and Social Sustainability Themes

The first intersection is focused on energy types and social sustainability themes. Figure 12 illustrates the percentage of studies that consider each energy type and that fall within the corresponding social sustainability themes, relative to the total number of studies considered in this study.
The general picture that can be derived from Figure 12 is that the “socio-economic” theme is the most explored, particularly in solar, biomass, and wind energy systems. This is followed by the theme of “social development”. It can also be interpreted that most other themes have room to be explored further in the context of conventional energy types (natural gas, coal, oil/diesel, nuclear, and geothermal) and emerging renewable energy types (ocean/tidal and hydrogen).
Meanwhile, Figure 13 shows the same data but presented as the percentage of the number of studies covering each energy type. Likewise, “socio-economic” and “social development” were the prevalent themes. The same pool of articles has incorporated the “involvement and governance”, “social equity”, “education”, “gender”, “and human rights” themes to a lesser extent, indicating that improvements on social sustainability assessment covering these aspects can be explored further.
Taking both figures into account suggests that future research on the social sustainability assessment of electrification systems could cover more energy types and thematic considerations. In particular, ocean/tidal and hydrogen energy systems warrant deeper investigation given their recent emergence compared to established systems like solar, biomass, and wind.
Integrating social aspects to these emerging technologies presents a significant challenge. One of the main obstacles is the lack of practical applications, which hinders researchers from gathering empirical evidence about the social impacts of these technologies. To address this gap, researchers could use proxies from established technologies to estimate the potential social impacts of emerging technologies. However, this approach also poses difficulties, specifically in terms of identifying the most appropriate existing technologies for comparison, as the characteristics may differ substantially between the new and established technologies.
On the other hand, consideration of social aspects in emerging energy technologies should not overshadow the need to evaluate conventional energy systems such as coal, oil/diesel, and natural gas power plants, since these technologies are still being used as society transitions to a low-carbon future.
In terms of the themes, two suggestions are available. The first suggestion involves broadening the thematic scope of social sustainability assessments. This approach entails incorporating a diverse array beyond socio-economic and social development themes, such as social equity, gender, and human rights considerations. By integrating these additional themes into the assessment framework, a more holistic understanding of the social implications of energy systems can be achieved. This comprehensive approach ensures that the assessment accounts for the multi-faceted nature of social sustainability and allows for the production of context-specific indicators across different energy types and even locations.
On the other hand, a more targeted examination of specific themes is also suggested, with the aim of contributing to holistic evaluation as the end goal. Each energy source carries unique social implications that may vary depending on factors such as geographical location, supply chain, community demographics, and cultural context. By focusing on the social aspects relevant to each energy type, researchers can identify specific indicators or aspects that are most pertinent for assessment.
This analysis, however, is primarily limited due to the present study’s search and screening criteria. In this study, articles that implied a more holistic social sustainability assessment were prioritized, while those focusing solely on specific social aspects were not included. This does not dismiss the extent of research performed to explore a specific social sustainability aspect, such as the work of Johnson et al. [182], which investigated the impacts of low-carbon technologies on gender and social equity or works focused on human rights and energy justice [183,184]. Nonetheless, Figure 12 and Figure 13 imply that several studies, despite promising to perform a holistic and multi-faceted sustainability assessment, still lack certain social aspects.

4.2. Social Sustainability Themes and Stakeholders

The second intersection that was investigated is that between stakeholder groups and social sustainability themes. Figure 14 shows the percentage of studies that incorporated different social sustainability themes relative to the total number of studies that involved stakeholders, which is 73 articles.
The figure shows that industry experts, academics, and government representatives were the most involved stakeholder groups, particularly in the “socio-economic” and “social development” themes. Industry experts were involved to a lesser extent in studies covering the other themes, but overall, they were still more involved compared to other stakeholder groups.
Some intersections are particularly interesting. For example, studies involving end-users/citizens and NGOs were less involved in studies incorporating the “social acceptance” theme. This is counterintuitive to how “social acceptance” was explained in Section 3.2, in which the theme generally reflects the public’s or society’s priorities. A more thorough study that investigates the role of stakeholders in terms of criteria selection is recommended. This can verify if certain stakeholder groups favor certain themes or influence the inclusion/exclusion of the different themes.
From the perspective of the number of studies covering each stakeholder group, as shown in Figure 15, all stakeholder groups have been generally involved in studies incorporating themes on “socio-economic” and “social development”. In other words, if a certain stakeholder group is involved, they will likely be in studies that incorporate “socio-economic” and “social development” themes. The stakeholder groups have been less involved in studies that incorporated “social equity”, “education”, “gender”, and “human rights” themes.
Two research directions can be explored following this analysis. First is to investigate how each stakeholder group can contribute to each theme. Previous research has demonstrated the involvement of key stakeholders such as government, industry experts, and academics. However, this approach overlooks the potential contributions of other less commonly engaged groups, including end-users/public, NGOs, suppliers, and private companies.
By focusing on these stakeholders, researchers can gain valuable insights into their perspectives, priorities, and potential contributions to advancing social sustainability within specific themes. For instance, understanding how end-users perceive and interact with energy systems can inform strategies for enhancing accessibility and affordability. Similarly, NGOs may offer expertise in community engagement and advocacy, while suppliers and private companies could provide insights into supply chain management and environmental, social, and governance goals. By exploring the diverse perspectives and capabilities of all stakeholder groups, researchers can develop more inclusive and effective strategies for promoting social sustainability across all themes.
Another direction that can be undertaken is to focus on a specific theme and to investigate the relevance and contributions of different stakeholder groups within that context. Rather than examining a broad range of themes, future research can concentrate on a single dimension. In doing so, researchers can explore the nuanced interactions between stakeholders and identify opportunities for collaboration and intervention. For example, in the “socio-economic benefits and employment” theme, researchers might examine how various stakeholders can support initiatives to create jobs, stimulate local economies, and alleviate poverty. By focusing on a specific theme, researchers can tailor their engagement strategies to address the unique challenges and opportunities associated with that theme with respect to each stakeholder group, ultimately facilitating more targeted and relevant interventions.
In general, future studies could investigate to what extent stakeholder groups should be involved in social sustainability assessments. Furthermore, the level of involvement among these stakeholder groups might differ based on the interests and roles they play along the entire energy supply chain.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

Social sustainability assessment in electrification systems is still an evolving topic. This research analyzed an updated sample of articles that have included the social component in sustainability assessments of energy systems. At the onset, a simple conceptual framework of social sustainability assessment was proposed, where three elements—social sustainability definition, social sustainability indicators, and stakeholders—are highlighted as the main results of this research.
Based on the explicit definitions inside the reviewed research, this study developed ten themes that surround social sustainability in electrification system assessment: “social development/well-being, quality of life”, “socio-economic benefits and employment”, “health and safety”, “energy access and reliability”, “social acceptance”, “social equity”, “education”, “involvement and governance”, “gender”, and “human rights”.
The indicators identified through this review were also categorized according to the ten themes, in addition to subcategories that can provide future researchers with a baseline when considering which social aspects to include in assessing sustainability.
Next, the roles of stakeholders as well as the nature of their involvement were discussed. Industry experts, academics, and government representatives were identified as the most commonly involved stakeholder groups. In particular, they significantly help in developing criteria and evaluating energy system alternatives.
Aside from the detailed discussion of the framework elements, this study also identified research opportunities by examining the intersection of the framework elements. Some social sustainability themes (e.g., social equity, gender, and human rights) can be investigated further. Likewise, emerging energy technologies, such as ocean/tidal and hydrogen energy systems, present opportunities for a more meaningful integration of social sustainability concepts. Meanwhile, in terms of stakeholders, while industry experts are already highly involved in existing assessments, it would be beneficial to engage other stakeholder groups, such as end-users/citizens, suppliers, and private companies. The extent and value of their involvement is also an aspect that researchers could look further into.
Finally, two main suggestions are presented for improving research in the social sustainability assessment of electrification systems. Since the present research included only peer-reviewed research articles, the first suggestion is to include gray literature (project reports, white papers, government documents, etc.). These types of literature can provide more practical insights and validated information from actual implementation and from stakeholders involved in these projects. Furthermore, other academic articles that are more focused, e.g., covering a specific aspect of social sustainability for a specific energy type, can be considered. As this would likely result in a bigger pool of articles to review, automation tools and/or more researchers, among others, can help make the review more efficient and effective.
In conclusion, this research provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolving field of social sustainability assessment in electrification systems. By reviewing the current literature, this research identifies key themes that shape the social sustainability dimension of energy systems. Additionally, this research also categorizes relevant indicators as well as highlights the roles and involvement of stakeholders. The findings suggest several avenues for future research, including further exploration of themes like gender, human rights, and social equity and the integration of social sustainability considerations in emerging energy technologies. Lastly, further investigation of stakeholder engagement, particularly end-users, suppliers, and private sector representatives, could enhance the robustness and relevance of sustainability assessments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en17236058/s1: Supplementary Material File S1. Bibliometric and Extracted Data and Supplementary Material File S2. Conceptual Diagram of Social Sustainability Themes and their Sub-Themes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.L.G.L., J.C., and B.C.M.; methodology, A.L.G.L. and J.C.; validation, A.L.G.L., J.C. and B.C.M.; formal analysis, A.L.G.L.; investigation, A.L.G.L.; resources, A.L.G.L.; data curation, A.L.G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L.G.L. writing—review and editing, A.L.G.L., J.C. and B.C.M.; visualization, A.L.G.L.; supervision, J.C. and B.C.M.; project administration, A.L.G.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article and Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

A.L.G.L. expresses gratitude to the Japanese Government for awarding him the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) Scholarship to fund his doctoral studies. This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled “Social Sustainability Assessment of Energy Systems: Research Status and Opportunities” which was presented at the 8th International Conference on Green Energy and Applications (ICGEA), Singapore, 14–16 March 2024.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. MEXT did not have a role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of this manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Khan, I. Power Generation Expansion Plan and Sustainability in a Developing Country: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 707–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Brundtland, G. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; Geneva, UN-Dokument A/42/427. 1987. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm (accessed on 7 November 2024).
  3. Cuesta, M.A.; Castillo-Calzadilla, T.; Borges, C.E. A Critical Analysis on Hybrid Renewable Energy Modeling Tools: An Emerging Opportunity to Include Social Indicators to Optimise Systems in Small Communities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 122, 109691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ribeiro, F.; Ferreira, P.; Araújo, M. The Inclusion of Social Aspects in Power Planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4361–4369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ingeborgrud, L.; Heidenreich, S.; Ryghaug, M.; Skjølsvold, T.M.; Foulds, C.; Robison, R.; Buchmann, K.; Mourik, R. Expanding the Scope and Implications of Energy Research: A Guide to Key Themes and Concepts from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 63, 101398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vallance, S.; Perkins, H.C.; Dixon, J.E. What Is Social Sustainability? A Clarification of Concepts. Geoforum 2011, 42, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Eizenberg, E.; Jabareen, Y. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Campos-Guzmán, V.; García-Cáscales, M.S.; Espinosa, N.; Urbina, A. Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Review of Approaches for the Sustainability Evaluation of Renewable Energy Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 343–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lähtinen, K.; Myllyviita, T.; Leskinen, P.; Pitkänen, S.K. A Systematic Literature Review on Indicators to Assess Local Sustainability of Forest Energy Production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 1202–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Padilla-Rivera, A.; Paredes, M.G.; Güereca, L.P. A Systematic Review of the Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy: The Case of Gaseous Biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 125, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Feron, S. Sustainability of Off-Grid Photovoltaic Systems for Rural Electrification in Developing Countries: A Review. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Strantzali, E.; Aravossis, K. Decision Making in Renewable Energy Investments: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 885–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Buchmayr, A.; Verhofstadt, E.; Van Ootegem, L.; Sanjuan Delmás, D.; Thomassen, G.; Dewulf, J. The Path to Sustainable Energy Supply Systems: Proposal of an Integrative Sustainability Assessment Framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 138, 110666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rafiaani, P.; Kuppens, T.; Van Dael, M.; Azadi, H.; Lebailly, P.; Passel, S. Van Social Sustainability Assessments in the Biobased Economy: Towards a Systemic Approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 1839–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zafar, I.; Stojceska, V.; Tassou, S. Social Sustainability Assessments of Industrial Level Solar Energy: A Systematic Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 113962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Afshari, H.; Agnihotri, S.; Searcy, C.; Jaber, M.Y. Social Sustainability Indicators: A Comprehensive Review with Application in the Energy Sector. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 31, 263–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liaqait, R.A.; Warsi, S.S.; Zahid, T.; Ghafoor, U.; Ahmad, M.S.; Selvaraj, J. A Decision Framework for Solar PV Panels Supply Chain in Context of Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. YoosefDoost, A.; Lubitz, W.D. Archimedes Screw Turbines: A Sustainable Development Solution for Green and Renewable Energy Generation-a Review of Potential and Design Procedures. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Locoh, A.; Thiffault, É.; Barnabé, S. Sustainability Impact Assessment of Forest Bioenergy Value Chains in Quebec (Canada)—A ToSIA Approach. Energies 2022, 15, 6676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Naegler, T.; Becker, L.; Buchgeister, J.; Hauser, W.; Hottenroth, H.; Junne, T.; Lehr, U.; Scheel, O.; Schmidt-Scheele, R.; Simon, S.; et al. Integrated Multidimensional Sustainability Assessment of Energy System Transformation Pathways. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yuan, J.; Luo, X.; Li, Z.; Li, L.; Ji, P.; Zhou, Q.; Zhang, Z. Sustainable Development Evaluation on Wind Power Compressed Air Energy Storage Projects Based on Multi-Source Heterogeneous Data. Renew. Energy 2021, 169, 1175–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wu, Y.; Xu, C.; Zhang, B.; Tao, Y.; Li, X.; Chu, H.; Liu, F. Sustainability Performance Assessment of Wind Power Coupling Hydrogen Storage Projects Using a Hybrid Evaluation Technique Based on Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Set. Energy 2019, 179, 1176–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Balezentis, T.; Streimikiene, D.; Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I. Energy Storage Selection for Sustainable Energy Development: The Multi-Criteria Utility Analysis Based on the Ideal Solutions and Integer Geometric Programming for Coordination Degree. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 91, 106675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sharma, T.; Balachandra, P. Will the Integration of Renewable Energy Enable Sustainable Transition of Indian Electricity System? Energy Strategy Rev. 2018, 21, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blanco, G.; Amarilla, R.; Martinez, A.; Llamosas, C.; Oxilia, V. Energy Transitions and Emerging Economies: A Multi-Criteria Analysis of Policy Options for Hydropower Surplus Utilization in Paraguay. Energy Policy 2017, 108, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Feron, S.; Cordero, R.R. Is Peru Prepared for Large-Scale Sustainable Rural Electrification? Sustainability 2018, 10, 1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tsoutsos, T.; Maria, E.; Mathioudakis, V. Sustainable Siting Procedure of Small Hydroelectric Plants: The Greek Experience. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2946–2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vagiona, D.G.; Kamilakis, M. Sustainable Site Selection for Offshore Wind Farms in the South Aegean-Greece. Sustainability 2018, 10, 749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khanjarpanah, H.; Jabbarzadeh, A.; Seyedhosseini, S.M. A Novel Multi-Period Double Frontier Network DEA to Sustainable Location Optimization of Hybrid Wind-Photovoltaic Power Plant with Real Application. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 159, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lior, N. Sustainable Energy Development: The Present (2009) Situation and Possible Paths to the Future. Energy 2010, 35, 3976–3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Perimenis, A.; Walimwipi, H.; Zinoviev, S.; Müller-Langer, F.; Miertus, S. Development of a Decision Support Tool for the Assessment of Biofuels. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1782–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Collotta, M.; Champagne, P.; Tomasoni, G.; Alberti, M.; Busi, L.; Mabee, W. Critical Indicators of Sustainability for Biofuels: An Analysis through a Life Cycle Sustainabilty Assessment Perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 115, 109358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Janssen, R.; Rutz, D.D. Sustainability of Biofuels in Latin America: Risks and Opportunities. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 5717–5725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The Qualitative Content Analysis Process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gaur, A.; Kumar, M. A Systematic Approach to Conducting Review Studies: An Assessment of Content Analysis in 25 Years of IB Research. J. World Bus. 2018, 53, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lemence, A.L.G.; McLellan, B.C. Social Sustainability Assessment of Energy Systems: Research Status and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Green Energy and Applications, ICGEA, Singapore, 14–16 March 2024; pp. 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shakouri, G.H.; Aliakbarisani, S. At What Valuation of Sustainability Can We Abandon Fossil Fuels? A Comprehensive Multistage Decision Support Model for Electricity Planning. Energy 2016, 107, 60–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pereira, A.O.; Morais, R.C.; Tavares, M.; Morozowski Filho, M.; Furtado, R.C.; Furtado, M.G.; Pessanha, J.F.M. Inserting Socio-Environmental Variables in the Power Sector Expansion Planning. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 87, 106531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ren, J.; Ren, X.; Liang, H.; Dong, L.; Zhang, L.; Luo, X.; Yang, Y.; Gao, Z. Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Sustainability Assessment Framework for Energy and Industrial Systems in Life Cycle Perspective under Uncertainties. Part 2: Improved Extension Theory. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1406–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abdul, D.; Wenqi, J.; Tanveer, A. Prioritization of Renewable Energy Source for Electricity Generation through AHP-VIKOR Integrated Methodology. Renew. Energy 2022, 184, 1018–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alao, M.A.; Popoola, O.M.; Ayodele, T.R. A Novel Fuzzy Integrated MCDM Model for Optimal Selection of Waste-to-Energy-Based-Distributed Generation under Uncertainty: A Case of the City of Cape Town, South Africa. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 343, 130824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Petrillo, A.; De Felice, F.; Jannelli, E.; Autorino, C.; Minutillo, M.; Lavadera, A.L. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis Model for a Stand-Alone Hybrid Renewable Energy System. Renew. Energy 2016, 95, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nagarkatti, A.; Kolar, A.K. Life Cycle Based Sustainability Index of Coal Power Plants in India. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021, 16, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ji, H.; Niu, D.; Wu, M.; Yao, D. Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of the Wind-PV-ES and Transmission Hybrid Power System Consideration of System Functionality and Proportionality. Sustainability 2017, 9, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lin, R.; Liu, Y.; Man, Y.; Ren, J. Towards a Sustainable Distributed Energy System in China: Decision-Making for Strategies and Policy Implications. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019, 9, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, T.; Zhou, N.; Wu, Q.; Wang, D.; Hu, X. Toward a Sustainable Energy System in China: Status and Influencing Factors. Energy Explor. Exploit. 2022, 40, 580–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shaaban, M.; Scheffran, J.; Böhner, J.; Elsobki, M.S. Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Energies 2018, 11, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Abdel-Basset, M.; Gamal, A.; Chakrabortty, R.K.; Ryan, M. Development of a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Sustainability Evaluation of Bioenergy Production Technologies: A Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sharma, T.; Balachandra, P. Benchmarking Sustainability of Indian Electricity System: An Indicator Approach. Appl. Energy 2015, 142, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Jakhar, S.; Gandhi, S.; Muduli, K.; Kumar, A. A Step to Clean Energy—Sustainability in Energy System Management in an Emerging Economy Context. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Heidari, A.; Hajinezhad, A.; Aslani, A. A Sustainable Power Supply System, Iran’s Opportunities via Bioenergy. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2019, 38, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nasouri, M.; Delgarm, N. Bushehr Nuclear Power Plants (BNPPs) and the Perspective of Sustainable Energy Development in Iran. Progress. Nucl. Energy 2022, 147, 104179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, T.; Roskilly, A.P.; Wang, Y. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Power Generation: A Case Study of Northeast England. Appl. Energy 2018, 227, 465–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McDowall, W.; Eames, M. Towards a Sustainable Hydrogen Economy: A Multi-Criteria Sustainability Appraisal of Competing Hydrogen Futures. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 4611–4626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stamford, L.; Azapagic, A. Sustainability Indicators for the Assessment of Nuclear Power. Energy 2011, 36, 6037–6057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Khan, I.; Kabir, Z. Waste-to-Energy Generation Technologies and the Developing Economies: A Multi-Criteria Analysis for Sustainability Assessment. Renew. Energy 2020, 150, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Afgan, N.H.; Carvalho, M.G. Sustainability Assessment of a Hybrid Energy System. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 2903–2910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gallego Carrera, D.; Mack, A. Sustainability Assessment of Energy Technologies via Social Indicators: Results of a Survey among European Energy Experts. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1030–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, D.; Gryshova, I.; Balian, A.; Kyzym, M.; Salashenko, T.; Khaustova, V.; Davidyuk, O. Assessment of Power System Sustainability and Compromises between the Development Goals. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aberilla, J.M.; Gallego-Schmid, A.; Stamford, L.; Azapagic, A. An Integrated Sustainability Assessment of Synergistic Supply of Energy and Water in Remote Communities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 22, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mallard, K.; Debusschere, V.; Garbuio, L. Multi-Criteria Method for Sustainable Design of Energy Conversion Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, C.; Chen, S.; Qiao, H.; Dong, L.; Huang, Z.; Ou, C. Small Hydropower Sustainability Evaluation for the Countries along the Belt and Road. Environ. Dev. 2020, 34, 100528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cherepovitsyn, A.; Rutenko, E.; Solovyova, V. Sustainable Development of Oil and Gas Resources: A System of Environmental, Socio-Economic, and Innovation Indicators. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Afgan, N.H.; Carvalho, M.G.; Jovanovic, M. Biomass-Fired Power Plant: The Sustainability Option. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2008, 26, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Buchholz, T.; Rametsteiner, E.; Volk, T.A.; Luzadis, V.A. Multi Criteria Analysis for Bioenergy Systems Assessments. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lacquaniti, P.; Sala, S. Energy from Biomass: Decision Support System for Integrating Sustainability into Technology Assessment. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 121, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sala, S.; Castellani, V. Technology Sustainability Assessment to Support Decision Making on Energy Production at Local Scale. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2011, 6, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Acosta-Michlik, L.; Lucht, W.; Bondeau, A.; Beringer, T. Integrated Assessment of Sustainability Trade-Offs and Pathways for Global Bioenergy Production: Framing a Novel Hybrid Approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2791–2809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pérez-Fortes, M.; Laínez-Aguirre, J.M.; Arranz-Piera, P.; Velo, E.; Puigjaner, L. Design of Regional and Sustainable Bio-Based Networks for Electricity Generation Using a Multi-Objective MILP Approach. Energy 2012, 44, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dale, V.H.; Efroymson, R.A.; Kline, K.L.; Langholtz, M.H.; Leiby, P.N.; Oladosu, G.A.; Davis, M.R.; Downing, M.E.; Hilliard, M.R. Indicators for Assessing Socioeconomic Sustainability of Bioenergy Systems: A Short List of Practical Measures. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 26, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Manara, P.; Zabaniotou, A. Indicator-Based Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Assessment of a Small Gasification Bioenergy System Fuelled with Food Processing Residues from the Mediterranean Agro-Industrial Sector. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2014, 8, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. von Doderer, C.C.C.; Kleynhans, T.E. Determining the Most Sustainable Lignocellulosic Bioenergy System Following a Case Study Approach. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 70, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Arodudu, O.; Helming, K.; Wiggering, H.; Voinov, A. Towards a More Holistic Sustainability Assessment Framework for Agro-Bioenergy Systems—A Review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 62, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Khishtandar, S.; Zandieh, M.; Dorri, B. A Multi Criteria Decision Making Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy Production Technologies with Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets: The Case of Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 1130–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jin, E.; Sutherland, J.W. An Integrated Sustainability Model for a Bioenergy System: Forest Residues for Electricity Generation. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 119, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, B.; Song, J.; Ren, J.; Li, K.; Duan, H.; Wang, X. Selecting Sustainable Energy Conversion Technologies for Agricultural Residues: A Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR Based Prioritization from Life Cycle Perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fedorova, E.; Pongrácz, E. Cumulative Social Effect Assessment Framework to Evaluate the Accumulation of Social Sustainability Benefits of Regional Bioenergy Value Chains. Renew. Energy 2019, 131, 1073–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Martín-Gamboa, M.; Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C.; Iribarren, D. Comparative Social Life Cycle Assessment of Two Biomass-to-Electricity Systems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 4918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Martinez-Hernandez, E.; Sadhukhan, J.; Aburto, J.; Amezcua-Allieri, M.A.; Morse, S.; Murphy, R. Modelling to Analyse the Process and Sustainability Performance of Forestry-Based Bioenergy Systems. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 2022, 24, 1709–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Welfle, A.; Röder, M. Mapping the Sustainability of Bioenergy to Maximise Benefits, Mitigate Risks and Drive Progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. Renew. Energy 2022, 191, 493–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Werner, M.; Schäfer, A.I. Social Aspects of a Solar-Powered Desalination Unit for Remote Australian Communities. Desalination 2007, 203, 375–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Feron, S.; Heinrichs, H.; Cordero, R.R. Sustainability of Rural Electrification Programs Based on Off-Grid Photovoltaic (PV) Systems in Chile. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2016, 6, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Terrapon-Pfaff, J.; Fink, T.; Viebahn, P.; Jamea, E.M. Social Impacts of Large-Scale Solar Thermal Power Plants: Assessment Results for the NOORO I Power Plant in Morocco. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bhandari, R.; Arce, B.E.; Sessa, V.; Adamou, R. Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation in Niger Using a Weighted Multi-Criteria Decision Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nili, M.; Seyedhosseini, S.M.; Jabalameli, M.S.; Dehghani, E. A Multi-Objective Optimization Model to Sustainable Closed-Loop Solar Photovoltaic Supply Chain Network Design: A Case Study in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bonilla-Alicea, R.J.; Fu, K. Social Life-Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) of Residential Rooftop Solar Panels Using Challenge-Derived Framework. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2022, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Schmidt-Scheele, R.; Hauser, W.; Scheel, O.; Minn, F.; Becker, L.; Buchgeister, J.; Hottenroth, H.; Junne, T.; Lehr, U.; Naegler, T.; et al. Sustainability Assessments of Energy Scenarios: Citizens’ Preferences for and Assessments of Sustainability Indicators. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2022, 12, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Angelakoglou, K.; Botsaris, P.N.; Gaidajis, G. Issues Regarding Wind Turbines Positioning: A Benchmark Study with the Application of the Life Cycle Assessment Approach. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2014, 5, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Büyüközkan, G.; Karabulut, Y. Energy Project Performance Evaluation with Sustainability Perspective. Energy 2017, 119, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Predrag, S.; Mirjana, K.; Marina, J.; Naim, A.; Milić, E. Energy Indicators Impact in Multi-Criteria Sustainability Analyse of Thermal Power Plant Unit. Therm. Sci. 2017, 21, 1143–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Hydrogen from Biomass Gasification: A Comparison with Conventional Hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 21193–21203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Thushara, D.S.M.; Hornberger, G.M.; Baroud, H. Decision Analysis to Support the Choice of a Future Power Generation Pathway for Sri Lanka. Appl. Energy 2019, 240, 680–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Herrera, I.; Rodríguez-Serrano, I.; Lechón, Y.; Oliveira, A.; Krüger, D.; Bouden, C. Sustainability Assessment of a Hybrid CSP/Biomass. Results of a Prototype Plant in Tunisia. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 42, 100862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hendiani, S.; Sharifi, E.; Bagherpour, M.; Ghannadpour, S.F. A Multi-Criteria Sustainability Assessment Approach for Energy Systems Using Sustainability Triple Bottom Line Attributes and Linguistic Preferences. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 7771–7805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fonseca, J.D.; Commenge, J.M.; Camargo, M.; Falk, L.; Gil, I.D. Sustainability Analysis for the Design of Distributed Energy Systems: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach. Appl. Energy 2021, 290, 116746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Akinyele, D.; Amole, A.; Olabode, E.; Olusesi, A.; Ajewole, T. Simulation and Analysis Approaches to Microgrid Systems Design: Emerging Trends and Sustainability Framework Application. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fonseca, J.D.; Commenge, J.M.; Camargo, M.; Falk, L.; Gil, I.D. Multi-Criteria Optimization for the Design and Operation of Distributed Energy Systems Considering Sustainability Dimensions. Energy 2021, 214, 118989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Elkadeem, M.R.; Kotb, K.M.; Ullah, Z.; Atiya, E.G.; Dán, A.; Wang, S. A Two-Stage Multi-Attribute Analysis Method for City-Integrated Hybrid Mini-Grid Design. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 65, 102603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zaman, M.A.; Razzak, M.A. Sustainable Microgrid Analysis for Kutubdia Island of Bangladesh. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 37533–37556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pandyaswargo, A.H.; Wibowo, A.D.; Onoda, H. Socio-Techno-Economic Assessment to Design an Appropriate Renewable Energy System for Remote Agricultural Communities in Developing Countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 31, 492–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising Tools for Sustainability Assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wilkens, I.; Schmuck, P. Transdisciplinary Evaluation of Energy Scenarios for a German Village Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Sustainability 2012, 4, 604–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. He, J.; Wu, Y.; Wu, J.; Li, S.; Liu, F.; Zhou, J.; Liao, M. Towards Cleaner Heating Production in Rural Areas: Identifying Optimal Regional Renewable Systems with a Case in Ningxia, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Onat, N.; Bayar, H. The Sustainability Indicators of Power Production Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 3108–3115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zolfani, S.H.; Saparauskas, J. SWARA Metodo Taikymas Nustatant Energetikos Sistemos Darnos Prioritetinius Rodiklius. Eng. Econ. 2013, 24, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Afgan, N.H. Sustainable Nuclear Energy Dilemma. Therm. Sci. 2013, 17, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zhang, L.; Xin, H.; Kan, Z. Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Hybrid Energy System Using an Improved Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ghenai, C.; Albawab, M.; Bettayeb, M. Sustainability Indicators for Renewable Energy Systems Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model and Extended SWARA/ARAS Hybrid Method. Renew. Energy 2020, 146, 580–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Mortey, E.M.; Ofosu, E.A.; Kolodko, D.V.; Kabobah, A.T. Sustainability Assessment of the Bui Hydropower System. Environments 2017, 4, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dombi, M.; Kuti, I.; Balogh, P. Sustainability Assessment of Renewable Power and Heat Generation Technologies. Energy Policy 2014, 67, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Afgan, N.H.; Carvalho, M.G. Sustainability Assessment of Hydrogen Energy Systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2004, 29, 1327–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ahmad, S.; Tahar, R.M. Selection of Renewable Energy Sources for Sustainable Development of Electricity Generation System Using Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case of Malaysia. Renew. Energy 2014, 63, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Karunathilake, H.; Hewage, K.; Mérida, W.; Sadiq, R. Renewable Energy Selection for Net-Zero Energy Communities: Life Cycle Based Decision Making under Uncertainty. Renew. Energy 2019, 130, 558–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Streimikiene, D.; Balezentis, T.; Krisciukaitien, I.; Balezentis, A. Prioritizing Sustainable Electricity Production Technologies: MCDM Approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3302–3311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wu, J.; Wang, H.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Q. Performance Evaluation for Sustainability of Wind Energy Project Using Improved Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean. Energy 2019, 7, 1165–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hashemizadeh, A.; Ju, Y. Optimizing Renewable Energy Portfolios with a Human Development Approach by Fuzzy Interval Goal Programming. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Al Hasibi, R.A. Multi-Objective Analysis of Sustainable Generation Expansion Planning Based on Renewable Energy Potential: A Case Study of Bali Province of Indonesia. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag. 2021, 31, 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Mehmood, A.; Zhang, L.; Ren, J.; Zayed, T.; Lee, C.K.M. Multi-Facet Assessment and Ranking of Alternatives for Conceptualizing Sustainable Hybrid Energy Infrastructure in Pakistan Based on Evidential Reasoning Driven Probabilistic Tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 378, 134566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Afgan, N.H.; Carvalho, M.G.; Hovanov, N.V. Multi-Criteria Sustainability Assessment of Clean Air Technologies. Int. J. Energy A Clean. Environ. 2004, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Afgan, N.H.; Begić, F.; Kazagić, A. Multi-Criteria Sustainability Assessment—A Tool for Evaluation of New Energy System. Therm. Sci. 2007, 11, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Streimikiene, D.; Baležentis, T. Multi-Criteria Assessment of Small Scale CHP Technologies in Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Afgan, N.H.; Carvalho, M.G. Multi-Criteria Assessment of New and Renewable Energy Power Plants. Energy 2002, 27, 739–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Diemuodeke, E.O.; Hamilton, S.; Addo, A. Multi-Criteria Assessment of Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems for Nigeria’s Coastline Communities. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2016, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Angelis-Dimakis, A.; Arampatzis, G.; Assimacopoulos, D. Monitoring the Sustainability of the Greek Energy System. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2012, 16, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mastrocinque, E.; Ramírez, F.J.; Honrubia-Escribano, A.; Pham, D.T. Industry 4.0 Enabling Sustainable Supply Chain Development in the Renewable Energy Sector: A Multi-Criteria Intelligent Approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 182, 121813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhao, H.; Guo, S. External Benefit Evaluation of Renewable Energy Power in China for Sustainability. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4783–4805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, D.; Song, F.; Dong, F.; Zhu, J.; Liu, L. Evaluating the Sustainability of China’s Power Generation Industry Based on a Matter-Element Extension Model. Util. Policy 2021, 69, 101166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Afgan, N.H.; Carvalho, M.G.; Hovanov, N.V. Energy System Assessment with Sustainability Indicators. Energy Policy 2000, 28, 603–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Jovanovic, M.; Afgan, N.; Bakic, V. An Analytical Method for the Measurement of Energy System Sustainability in Urban Areas. Energy 2010, 35, 3909–3920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Papadaki, M.; Stavrakakis, G. A Multicriteria Decision Making Methodology for Sustainable Energy Development. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2001, 12, 426–430. [Google Scholar]
  134. Haddad, B.; Liazid, A.; Ferreira, P. A Multi-Criteria Approach to Rank Renewables for the Algerian Electricity System. Renew. Energy 2017, 107, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Cardoso de Lima, G.S.; Lopes, E.C.; Motta, J.G.; Asano, R.; Valverde, M.; Suyama, R.; Leite, P.T. Sustainable Development Enhanced in the Decision Process of Electricity Generation Expansion Planning. Renew. Energy 2018, 123, 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Rosso-Cerón, A.M.; León-Cardona, D.F.; Kafarov, V. Soft Computing Tool for Aiding the Integration of Hybrid Sustainable Renewable Energy Systems, Case of Putumayo, Colombia. Renew. Energy 2021, 174, 616–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ebrahimi, M.; Rahmani, D. A Five-Dimensional Approach to Sustainability for Prioritizing Energy Production Systems Using a Revised GRA Method: A Case Study. Renew. Energy 2019, 135, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Liu, G.; Baniyounes, A.M.; Rasul, M.G.; Amanullah, M.T.O.; Khan, M.M.K. General Sustainability Indicator of Renewable Energy System Based on Grey Relational Analysis. Int. J. Energy Res. 2013, 37, 1928–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Mwanza, M.; Ulgen, K. Sustainable Electricity Generation Fuel Mix Analysis Using an Integration of Multicriteria Decision-Making and System Dynamic Approach. Int. J. Energy Res. 2020, 44, 9560–9585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mishra, A.R.; Tripathi, D.K.; Cavallaro, F.; Rani, P.; Nigam, S.K.; Mardani, A. Assessment of Battery Energy Storage Systems Using the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Removal Effects of Criteria and the Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking Based on Compromise Solution Method. Energies 2022, 15, 7782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. García Triviño, P.; Lin, J.; Xu, C.; Ke, Y.; Li, J.; Lu, Z.; Li, Y. A Multi-Criteria Framework for Sustainability Evaluation of Hydrogen-Based Multi-Microgrid Systems under Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Li, W.; Ren, X.; He, Q.; Xu, D.; Dong, L. Sustainability Assessment of Power Generation Systems under the Objective Consideration of Criteria Interactions. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 395, 136423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hendiani, S.; Walther, G. Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Renewable Energy Systems Using a New Multi-Expert Multi-Criteria Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Distance to Ideal Solution Approach. Appl. Energy 2023, 347, 121436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Sadiq, M.; Kokchang, P.; Kittipongvises, S. Sustainability Assessment of Renewable Power Generation Systems for Scale Enactment in Off-Grid Communities. Renew. Energy Focus 2023, 46, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Gómez-Hernández, D.F.; Domenech, B.; Juanpera, M.; Ferrer-Martí, L. Ranking Projects in Regional Electrification Plans Considering Technical and Social Criteria. Case Study in Mexico. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2023, 77, 101336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Vaziri Rad, M.A.; Forootan Fard, H.; Khazanedari, K.; Toopshekan, A.; Ourang, S.; Khanali, M.; Gorjian, S.; Fereidooni, L.; Kasaeian, A. A Global Framework for Maximizing Sustainable Development Indexes in Agri-Photovoltaic-Based Renewable Systems: Integrating DEMATEL, ANP, and MCDM Methods. Appl. Energy 2024, 360, 122715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Li, J.; Gallego-Schmid, A.; Stamford, L. Integrated Sustainability Assessment of Repurposing Onshore Abandoned Wells for Geothermal Power Generation. Appl. Energy 2024, 359, 122670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Rincón-Montenegro, A.; Carmona, M.; Sanjuan, M.; Ramirez, A.; Portnoy, I. Multi-Criteria Assessment of Transition Scenarios for a Novel Hybrid Power and Hydrogen Generation System. Energy Convers. Manag. 2024, 313, 118552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Solano-Olivares, K.; Santoyo, E.; Santoyo-Castelazo, E. Integrated Sustainability Assessment Framework for Geothermal Energy Technologies: A Literature Review and a New Proposal of Sustainability Indicators for Mexico. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 192, 114231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lira-Barragán, L.F.; Ponce-Ortega, J.M.; Serna-González, M.; El-Halwagi, M.M. Optimal Design of Process Energy Systems Integrating Sustainable Considerations. Energy 2014, 76, 139–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Tsao, Y.C.; Van Thanh, V.; Lu, J.C. Multiobjective Robust Fuzzy Stochastic Approach for Sustainable Smart Grid Design. Energy 2019, 176, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Juanpera, M.; Ferrer-Martí, L.; Pastor, R. Multi-Stage Optimization of Rural Electrification Planning at Regional Level Considering Multiple Criteria. Case Study in Nigeria. Appl. Energy 2022, 314, 118926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Al Shidhani, T.; Ioannou, A.; Falcone, G. Multi-Objective Optimisation for Power System Planning Integrating Sustainability Indicators. Energies 2020, 13, 2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Cayir Ervural, B.; Evren, R.; Delen, D. A Multi-Objective Decision-Making Approach for Sustainable Energy Investment Planning. Renew. Energy 2018, 126, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Beck, J.; Kempener, R.; Cohen, B.; Petrie, J. A Complex Systems Approach to Planning, Optimization and Decision Making for Energy Networks. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 2795–2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Adefarati, T.; Bansal, R.C.; Shongwe, T.; Naidoo, R.; Bettayeb, M.; Onaolapo, A.K. Optimal Energy Management, Technical, Economic, Social, Political and Environmental Benefit Analysis of a Grid-Connected PV/WT/FC Hybrid Energy System. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 292, 117390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Yadegari, M.; Sahebi, H.; Razm, S.; Ashayeri, J. A Sustainable Multi-Objective Optimization Model for the Design of Hybrid Power Supply Networks under Uncertainty. Renew. Energy 2023, 219, 119443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Lillo, P.; Ferrer-Martí, L.; Juanpera, M. Strengthening the Sustainability of Rural Electrification Projects: Renewable Energy, Management Models and Energy Transitions in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 80, 102222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Wang, J.; Zhou, Y.; Lior, N.; Zhang, G. Quantitative Sustainability Evaluations of Hybrid Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power Schemes Integrated with Solar Technologies. Energy 2021, 231, 120783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Cîrstea, S.D.; Moldovan-Teselios, C.; Cîrstea, A.; Turcu, A.C.; Darab, C.P. Evaluating Renewable Energy Sustainability by Composite Index. Sustainability 2018, 10, 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Silva, R.M.; Silva, A.R.C.; Lima, T.M.; Charrua-Santos, F.; Osório, G.J. Energy Sustainability Universal Index (ESUI): A Proposed Framework Applied to the Decision-Making Evaluation in Power System Generation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 124167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wu, J.; Li, R.; Xiang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; Li, Q. Quantitative Sustainability Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis for a Solar-Driven Combined Heating and Power System Integrated with Organic Rankine Cycle and Ground Source Heat Pump. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 220, 119722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Assefa, G.; Frostell, B. Social Sustainability and Social Acceptance in Technology Assessment: A Case Study of Energy Technologies. Technol. Soc. 2007, 29, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Juanpera, M.; Domenech, B.; Ferrer-Martí, L.; Garzón, A.; Pastor, R. Renewable-Based Electrification for Remote Locations. Does Short-Term Success Endure over Time? A Case Study in Peru. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 146, 111177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Brent, A.C.; Rogers, D.E. Renewable Rural Electrification: Sustainability Assessment of Mini-Hybrid off-Grid Technological Systems in the African Context. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Zore, Ž.; Čuček, L.; Širovnik, D.; Novak Pintarič, Z.; Kravanja, Z. Maximizing the Sustainability Net Present Value of Renewable Energy Supply Networks. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2018, 131, 245–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Hadiyanto, D.; Purwanto, Y.A.; Noorachmat, B.P.; Sapei, A. An Indicator and Evaluation Criteria for Off-Grid Micro-Hydro Power Sustainability Assessment. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 2019, 9, 1522–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Zebra, E.I.C.; van der Windt, H.J.; Olubayo, B.; Nhumaio, G.; Faaij, A.P.C. Scaling up the Electricity Access and Addressing Best Strategies for a Sustainable Operation of an Existing Solar PV Mini-Grid: A Case Study of Mavumira Village in Mozambique. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2023, 72, 58–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. EL Kinani, K.; Meunier, S.; Vido, L.; Le Ballois, S. Interdisciplinary Analysis of Wind Energy—A Focus on France. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 55, 102944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Aguilar, F.I.; Gibson, R.B. Advancing a New Generation of Sustainability-Based Assessments for Electrical Energy Systems: Ontario as an Illustrative Application—A Review. Energies 2023, 16, 6285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Elba, H.; Hegazy, H.; Zhang, J.; Mahdi, I.M.; Abdel Rashid, I.; Hassan, H.M. Exploring Critical Barriers towards the Uptake of Renewable Energy Usage in Egypt. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2024, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Santoyo-Castelazo, E.; Azapagic, A. Sustainability Assessment of Energy Systems: Integrating Environmental, Economic and Social Aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 80, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Corona, B.; San Miguel, G. Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis Applied to an Innovative Configuration of Concentrated Solar Power. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 1444–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Rivera-Niquepa, J.D.; De Oliveira-De Jesus, P.M.; Castro-Galeano, J.C.; Hernández-Torres, D. Planning Stand-Alone Electricity Generation Systems, a Multiple Objective Optimization and Fuzzy Decision Making Approach. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Nubi, O.; Morse, S.; Murphy, R.J. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation from Municipal Solid Waste in Nigeria: A Prospective Study. Energies 2022, 15, 9173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Hemmati, M.; Bayati, N.; Ebel, T. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Waste-to-Electricity Plants for 2030 Power Generation Development Scenarios in Western Lombok, Indonesia under Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 95, 110335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kostevšek, A.; Klemeš, J.J.; Varbanov, P.S.; Čuček, L.; Petek, J. Sustainability Assessment of the Locally Integrated Energy Sectors for a Slovenian Municipality. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 88, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Kabayo, J.; Marques, P.; Garcia, R.; Freire, F. Life-Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Key Electricity Generation Systems in Portugal. Energy 2019, 176, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Ahmad, W.; Hassan, M.; Bin Masud, S.F.; Amjad, M.S.; Samara, F.; Zeshan; Anwar, M.; Rafique, M.Z.; Nawaz, T. Socio-Economic Benefits and Policy Implications of Generating Sustainable Energy from Municipal Solid Waste in Pakistan. Energy Clim. Change 2024, 5, 100124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Lillo, P.; Ferrer-Martí, L.; Fernández-Baldor, Á.; Ramírez, B. A New Integral Management Model and Evaluation Method to Enhance Sustainability of Renewable Energy Projects for Energy and Sanitation Services. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2015, 29, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Li, X.; An, L.; Zhang, D.; Lee, C.C.; Yu, C.H. Energy Access and Female Labor Force Participation in Developing Countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 199, 114468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Johnson, O.W.; Han, J.Y.C.; Knight, A.L.; Mortensen, S.; Aung, M.T.; Boyland, M.; Resurrección, B.P. Intersectionality and Energy Transitions: A Review of Gender, Social Equity and Low-Carbon Energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 70, 101774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Wewerinke-Singh, M. A Human Rights Approach to Energy: Realizing the Rights of Billions within Ecological Limits. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2022, 31, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Huhta, K. Conceptualising Energy Justice in the Context of Human Rights Law. Nord. J. Hum. Rights 2023, 41, 378–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Position of this research in the wider literature.
Figure 1. Position of this research in the wider literature.
Energies 17 06058 g001
Figure 2. Literature review methodology.
Figure 2. Literature review methodology.
Energies 17 06058 g002
Figure 3. Yearly number of articles included in the literature review.
Figure 3. Yearly number of articles included in the literature review.
Energies 17 06058 g003
Figure 4. Geographical origin of articles and case studies (25 articles without a case study).
Figure 4. Geographical origin of articles and case studies (25 articles without a case study).
Energies 17 06058 g004
Figure 5. Frequency of energy type considered in the reviewed articles.
Figure 5. Frequency of energy type considered in the reviewed articles.
Energies 17 06058 g005
Figure 6. Simple conceptual framework for social sustainability assessment of energy systems (* focus of this paper).
Figure 6. Simple conceptual framework for social sustainability assessment of energy systems (* focus of this paper).
Energies 17 06058 g006
Figure 7. Histogram of social sustainability indicators used in previous studies.
Figure 7. Histogram of social sustainability indicators used in previous studies.
Energies 17 06058 g007
Figure 8. Yearly number of studies incorporating different social sustainability themes.
Figure 8. Yearly number of studies incorporating different social sustainability themes.
Energies 17 06058 g008
Figure 9. Yearly article count per social sustainability theme considered.
Figure 9. Yearly article count per social sustainability theme considered.
Energies 17 06058 g009
Figure 10. Co-occurrence of social sustainability themes. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage; conversely, lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. “Socio-Economic” and “Social Development” correspond to “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Figure 10. Co-occurrence of social sustainability themes. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage; conversely, lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. “Socio-Economic” and “Social Development” correspond to “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Energies 17 06058 g010
Figure 11. Synthesis of social sustainability themes.
Figure 11. Synthesis of social sustainability themes.
Energies 17 06058 g011
Figure 12. Intersection of social sustainability themes and energy types considered, as a percentage of the total number of studies considered in this review. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Figure 12. Intersection of social sustainability themes and energy types considered, as a percentage of the total number of studies considered in this review. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Energies 17 06058 g012
Figure 13. Intersection of social sustainability themes and energy types considered, as a percentage of the studies covering different energy types. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Figure 13. Intersection of social sustainability themes and energy types considered, as a percentage of the studies covering different energy types. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Energies 17 06058 g013
Figure 14. Intersection of social sustainability themes and stakeholders, as a percentage of the total number of studies that involved stakeholders. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Figure 14. Intersection of social sustainability themes and stakeholders, as a percentage of the total number of studies that involved stakeholders. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Energies 17 06058 g014
Figure 15. Intersection of social sustainability themes and stakeholders, as a percentage of the number of studies covering each stakeholder group. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Figure 15. Intersection of social sustainability themes and stakeholders, as a percentage of the number of studies covering each stakeholder group. Notes: darker-colored cells correspond to a higher percentage while lighter-colored cells correspond to a lower percentage. The complete names of the first two column headings under “Social Sustainability Themes” are “Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment” and “Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life”, respectively.
Energies 17 06058 g015
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature review.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature review.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
  • Incorporates social sustainability assessment
  • Involves assessment of electricity generating system
  • Overall, studies were included if they perform analysis at the system level and have a multi-faceted view of social sustainability
  • Deals with fuel types only (e.g., comparison of fuel A and B, without regard to the entire system)
  • Deals with a specific system component only
  • Deals with scenarios that include aspects beyond the scope of electricity generation (e.g., demand-side management policies, behavioral changes, etc.)
  • Deals with only either the positive or the negative aspects of social sustainability
  • Deals with only a specific aspect of social sustainability (e.g., only about gender or human rights without regard to social sustainability as a whole)
Table 2. Summary of methods used for sustainability assessment.
Table 2. Summary of methods used for sustainability assessment.
CategoryTool DetailsReferences
Integrated assessmentsMulti-criteria decision analysis (including combination with other techniques)[1,38,40,41,42,45,46,47,49,50,54,57,59,60,63,64,65,67,68,69,70,76,77,79,83,87,92,93,95,100,101,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149]
Multi-objective optimization[72,98,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157]
Others[39,71,78,158]
Product-related assessmentsLife cycle analysis-related techniques[80,81,89,94,96]
Indicators and indicesIntegrated indices[51,62,159,160,161,162]
Non-integrated indicators[48,53,55,58,66,73,82,84,85,86,91,102,103,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170]
Combination of integrated assessment and non-integrated indicators[52,61,74,90,97,99,171]
Combination of integrated assessment and product-related assessment[43,44,75,88,172,173,174,175,176]
Combination of product-related assessment and non-integrated indicators[56,177,178,179]
Table 3. Social sustainability themes developed based on definitions found in the literature.
Table 3. Social sustainability themes developed based on definitions found in the literature.
Social Sustainability ThemeArticle Count% of Total (n = 143)References
Social development/well-being and quality of life: sustainable energy systems enrich the well-being of the communities and people’s quality of life.2820%[39,47,55,61,62,63,64,74,80,90,98,100,103,105,111,112,119,133,136,139,156,160,161,162,166,170,177,180]
Socio-economic benefits: sustainable energy systems improve the livelihood of society by providing jobs and contributing to local/regional development.2417%[38,39,50,55,64,73,74,80,83,86,101,103,105,116,127,129,133,138,150,156,160,162,166,173]
Health and safety: sustainable energy systems improve human health and ensure safety across its life cycle stages1510%[50,55,64,73,80,83,98,105,107,116,156,160,163,164,180]
Energy access, quality, and reliability: sustainable energy systems are accessible and reliably meet the users’ demand1410%[38,51,73,84,103,111,119,127,129,136,137,151,156,170]
Social acceptance: sustainable energy systems and technologies are socially acceptable to the community or the public107%[38,74,80,84,90,100,105,112,137,154]
Social equity: sustainable energy systems help close disparities in terms of socio-economic status, energy access, and resources, among others107%[39,55,83,85,98,127,161,163,164,180]
Education: sustainable energy systems help bring access to education opportunities and improve the skills of the labor force96%[46,64,74,80,103,160,163,164,180]
Involvement and governance: sustainable energy systems encourage and allow participation of stakeholders as well as being compatible with various institutional frameworks75%[48,50,73,136,163,164,170]
Gender: sustainable energy systems help narrow the gender gap by empowering women and other gender minorities32%[160,163,180]
Human Rights: sustainable energy systems observe and uphold human rights at the local and international levels32%[39,73,137]
Table 4. Frequency of indicators falling under the developed social sustainability themes and sub-themes.
Table 4. Frequency of indicators falling under the developed social sustainability themes and sub-themes.
Social Sustainability ThemesNo. of IndicatorsSub-ThemesNo. of Indicators
Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment210Job Creation103
Economic Benefits/Economic-Related80
Worker Welfare28
Consumption-Related5
Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life183Social Welfare (General), Improvement of Way of Life79
Surroundings, Environment, Ecosystems45
Regional and Community Development30
Technological Advancements, Innovations13
Worker Welfare13
Food Security8
Per Capita Indicators6
Health and Safety115Labor- and Plant-Related Safety49
Pollution, Emissions-Related38
General Health23
Energy Access and Reliability103Access39
Energy Security36
Capacity and Reliability18
Social Acceptance58Social Acceptance25
Public/Community Acceptance, Satisfaction30
Political/Institutional Acceptance2
Involvement and Governance55Stakeholder Involvement19
Compatibility with Current Political Frameworks19
Institutional Support9
Transparency and Corruption7
Ownership4
Social Equity37General Equity16
Rural Electrification10
Rural Development6
Poverty Alleviation4
Peace3
Labor Equity1
Education25Employee Education14
Education (General)11
Gender13Women7
Related to Labor6
Gender Equality/Equity (General)5
Human Rights24People Displacement11
Forced Labor/Labor Rights4
Human Rights (General)3
Child Labor3
Indigenous People and Traditional Communities2
Cultural Rights2
Table 5. Article count per social sustainability theme, based on indicators.
Table 5. Article count per social sustainability theme, based on indicators.
Social Sustainability ThemeArticle Count% of Total (n = 143)
Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment11681%
Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life7452%
Health and Safety5740%
Energy Access and Reliability5236%
Social Acceptance5035%
Involvement and Governance3524%
Social Equity2316%
Education1913%
Human Rights1611%
Gender107%
Table 6. Updated article count per social sustainability theme, based on both explicit definitions and indicators.
Table 6. Updated article count per social sustainability theme, based on both explicit definitions and indicators.
Social Sustainability ThemeBased on DefinitionsBased on IndicatorsBased on both
Article Count% (n = 143)Article Count% (n = 143)Article Count% (n = 143)
Socio-Economic Benefits and Employment2417%11681%11681%
Social Development, Well-Being, Quality of Life2820%7452%8257%
Health and Safety1510%5740%6243%
Energy Access and Reliability1410%5236%6143%
Social Acceptance107%5035%5639%
Involvement and Governance75%3524%3927%
Social Equity107%2316%2719%
Education96%1913%2215%
Human Rights32%1611%1813%
Gender32%107%128%
Table 7. Frequency of involvement of different stakeholder groups.
Table 7. Frequency of involvement of different stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder GroupNo. of Studies% of Total (n = 73)
Industry Experts5271%
Academic3041%
Government2623%
End-Users/Public1716%
NGOs1216%
Suppliers45%
Private Companies57%
No details provided811%
Table 8. Common nature of involvement among stakeholders.
Table 8. Common nature of involvement among stakeholders.
Nature of Stakeholder InvolvementNo. of Studies% of Total (n = 73)
Evaluated Alternatives/Assigned Values to Indicators4460%
Developed/Selected Criteria3649%
Assigned Weight to Criteria2940%
Provided Other Data/Information/Others2129%
Table 9. Nature of involvement per stakeholder group, as a percentage of the number studies covering different involvement categories.
Table 9. Nature of involvement per stakeholder group, as a percentage of the number studies covering different involvement categories.
Stakeholder GroupNature of Involvement
Developed/Selected Criteria (n = 36)Assigned Weight to Criteria (n = 29)Evaluated Alternatives/Assigned Values to Indicators (n = 44)Provided Other Data/Information/Others (n = 21)
Industry Experts72%76%73%67%
Academic53%34%36%38%
Government47%28%34%43%
End-Users/Public25%10%16%38%
NGOs22%10%20%19%
Suppliers8%3%7%10%
Private Companies8%3%7%5%
Table 10. Nature of involvement per stakeholder group, as a percentage of the number of studies involving each stakeholder group.
Table 10. Nature of involvement per stakeholder group, as a percentage of the number of studies involving each stakeholder group.
Stakeholder GroupNature of Involvement
Developed/Selected CriteriaAssigned Weight to CriteriaEvaluated Alternatives/Assigned
Values to Indicators
Provided Other Data/Information/Others
Industry Experts (n = 52)50%42%62%27%
Academic (n = 30)63%33%53%27%
Government (n = 26)65%31%58%35%
End-Users/Public (n = 17)53%18%41%47%
NGOs (n = 12)67%25%75%33%
Suppliers (n = 4)75%25%75%50%
Private Companies (n = 5)60%20%60%20%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lemence, A.L.G.; Cravioto, J.; McLellan, B.C. Review of Social Sustainability Assessments of Electricity Generating Systems. Energies 2024, 17, 6058. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236058

AMA Style

Lemence ALG, Cravioto J, McLellan BC. Review of Social Sustainability Assessments of Electricity Generating Systems. Energies. 2024; 17(23):6058. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236058

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lemence, Allen Lemuel G., Jordi Cravioto, and Benjamin C. McLellan. 2024. "Review of Social Sustainability Assessments of Electricity Generating Systems" Energies 17, no. 23: 6058. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236058

APA Style

Lemence, A. L. G., Cravioto, J., & McLellan, B. C. (2024). Review of Social Sustainability Assessments of Electricity Generating Systems. Energies, 17(23), 6058. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236058

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop