Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

A Weighted Goal Programming model for planning sustainable

development applied to Gulf Cooperation Council Countries
Raja Jayaraman a,⇑, Cinzia Colapinto b, Davide La Torre c,d, Tufail Malik c
a
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
b
Department of Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy
c
Department of Applied Mathematics and Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
d
Department of Economics, Management, and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

Application of multi-criteria optimization model for sustainable development.

GHG emissions targets cannot be attainable due to reliance on hydrocarbon sources.

Provides quantitative evidence for future investments in green energy.

Application to Gulf Cooperation Countries.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The United Nations agenda for sustainable development by the year 2030 proposes 17 sustainable
Received 22 August 2015 development goals which include access to affordable, reliable and clean energy, sustained economic
Received in revised form 22 March 2016 growth with full productive employment and, urgent action to mitigate environmental degradation.
Accepted 10 April 2016
Planning for sustainable development requires integrating conflicting criteria on economy, energy,
Available online 4 May 2016
environment and social aspects. In this paper, we introduce a Weighted Goal Programming model
involving criteria on the economic development (GDP), the electricity consumption, the greenhouse
Keywords:
gas emissions, and the total number of employees to determine optimal labor allocation across various
Multi-criteria analysis
Goal Programming
economic sectors. The proposed model is validated with data from the six members of the Gulf
Energy–economic–environmental model Cooperation Council (namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Sustainability Emirates). The results of the model aim to provide empirical evidence and insights to decision makers
Gulf Cooperation Council and policy analysts in developing optimal strategies able to simultaneously satisfy energy demand,
economic growth, labor development and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to achieve sustainability
targets by the year 2030.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction market factors present economic diversification as a key strategy

The rapid economic development in recent decades of the six
member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, comprising Bahrain,
Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates)
has brought significant challenges due to increased energy
consumption and the environmental impact associated with
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The GCC countries together
represent over one-third of world’s oil and one fourth of natural
gas reserves and have a pivotal role in the energy supply chain.
Time-limited oil production, price volatility and other critical
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: raja.jayaraman@kustar.ac.ae (R. Jayaraman).
in planning for sustainable development [1].
Economic growth, rise in population, increase in transportation,
industrialization and, workforce expansion have strong intercon-
nections with the increase in GHG levels. Economic growth encour-
ages industrialization, boosts purchasing power and the demand
for new goods and services, thereby increasing logistics and trans-
portation. In turn economic growth also improves living standards,
age and fertility, resulting in population growth. These together
result in a nonlinear increase in energy consumption, which in
turn contributes to the growing GHG emissions. The fast-tracked
economic development of GCC countries has put incremental
challenges on labor demand, development and infrastructure pro-
jects, electricity consumption, and GHG emissions to be addressed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.065
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1932 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939
through strong policy alternatives for achieving sustainable
development. The energy production is feared to fall short of the
anticipated demand unless the energy portfolio is altered. Currently
majority of the electricity generation in GCC is based on hydrocarbon
sources [2] putting constraints on the surplus production for domes-
tic consumption instead of exports. To further exacerbate the prob-
lems GCC countries have yet to implement smart grids and adaptive
demand management solutions for effective transmission and distri-
bution. Fossil fuel combustion is widely recognized to be the most
significant contributor to the GHG emissions. The increase in elec-
tricity demand in the GCC countries far exceeds the global average,
due to the growing economic base and the associated development
projects in the region. Three of the GCC countries are identified by
the United Nations Environmental program as having the highest
per capita energy consumption worldwide. The GCC country-wise
contribution to the total GHG emission in the year 2005 was: 56%
by Saudi Arabia, 18.75% by the UAE, 10.43% by Kuwait, 7.3% by Qatar,
4% by Oman and 3.4% by Bahrain respectively [3]. One potential
option for GCC is the inclusion of renewable sources from solar
and wind to augment electricity production.
Some developments to integrate renewables in the energy mix
can be seen in each GCC country. The UAE have developed
100 MW CSP (Shams) and 100 MW solar PV (Noor project),
Mohammed Bin Rashed Solar Park with an anticipated capacity of
1000 MW by year 2030, and Masdar city promoting research in
renewable energy technologies. Qatar plans to cool the stadiums
using solar power in hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup, and control
GHG emissions. Bahrain and Oman have launched pilot projects
for renewable energy generation. Kuwait is heading towards setting
up a 60 MW solar power plant. Saudi Arabia’s recent investments in
alternative energies include solar power to run anti-corrosion con-
trol panel devices, trials to power a village and a school using solar
energy, the planned polysilicon production facilities in the country
(IDEA polysilicon) and 100 MW and 600 MW solar projects in Mak-
kah and Dibba respectively [4]. These projects in the GCC nations
also entail numerous indirect benefits including creating a local
skilled employment, reducing the dependence on fossil fuels for
power generation and localized industrial development with huge
domestic demand and export potential. On the other hand these
targets for improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions
are not trivially achievable as they come with significant challenges.
These include research and development relevant to the local needs
associated with carrying out such projects (for instance dust,
humidity and heat are unique to the location that can render
the existing technologies inefficient). The subsidized use of hydro-
carbons currently supported by the GCC governments also requires
proper management to channel investments in renewable energy.
The cost of solar power generation is at least six times higher than
power generation using the subsidized gas [4].
In this paper we present a multi-criteria model using Weighted
Goal Programming (WGP) technique to study optimal resource
allocation with conflicting objectives related to GDP growth, elec-
tricity consumption, GHG emissions and number of employees
towards achieving sustainability goals by the year 2030 for GCC
countries. The results of the model offer policy makers options to
explore trade-offs between competing objectives, assess strengths
and weaknesses in simultaneously achieving sustainability
goals and address the shortcomings through coordinated policy
planning and development. Most existent literature on economic–
environmental–energy model uses time series based approach,
panel co-integration, and Granger causality tests. Our approach
employs a multi-criteria model for GCC countries. Although goal
programming (GP) approach and its variants have been used to
study and plan policies for individual countries, to the best of our
knowledge this is the first approach to use multi-criteria approach
applied to GCC countries that allows comparative analysis.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we
present relevant literature on multi-criteria models using goal pro-
gramming applied to study energy–economic–environmental
interactions. In Section 3 we introduce the mathematical formula-
tion of multi-criteria model using GP technique, in Section 4 we
present the data and estimated goals used to validate the model.
In Section 5, we discuss the model results and their interpretation
and present conclusions in Section 6.
2. Related literature
Resource planning problems often involve economic, environ-
mental and social objectives that are in conflict with one another.
As pointed out by Dincer and Rosen [5] there is an intimate
connection between energy, the environment and sustainable
development. Multi-criteria decision models using goal program-
ming techniques have been applied to a variety of energy planning,
energy resource allocation, building energy management, trans-
portation energy management, and planning for energy projects
[6–12]. Indeed different stakeholders bring along different criteria
and points of view, which must be resolved within a framework of
understanding and mutual compromise.
The traditional energy-resources allocation problem is con-
cerned with the allocation of limited resources among the end-
uses such that the overall return is maximized. Mezher et al. [13]
study the energy allocation process from two points of view:
economy (costs, efficiency, energy conservation, and employment
generation) and environment in Lebanon. The objective functions
were transformed into mathematical language to obtain a multi-
objective allocation model based on pre-emptive GP techniques.
The proposed method allows decision makers to encourage or
discourage specific energy resources for the various household
end-uses. The review by Wang et al. [14] highlights the popularity
of MCDA methods in decision-making for sustainable energy
due to multi-dimensionality of the sustainability goals and the
complexity of socio-economic and biophysical systems. Research-
ers emphasize that most countries are faced with important
challenges concerning the definition of the policies to achieve
energy and environmental targets, taking also into account the
economic and social issues. Main recent contributions on this issue
follow.
Ren et al. [15] develop a multi-objective Mixed Integer Linear
Programming (MILP) model to investigate an optimal operating
strategy of a distributed energy system, considering the economic
and environmental aspects. San Cristóbal [16] analyzes how
targets for the emissions of GHGs may be reached and can affect
the composition of production activity in Spain, considering a GP
model across key economic sectors, minimizing GHG emissions,
waste emissions, and energy requirements, and maximizing
employment and output levels. Henriques and Antunes [17] con-
struct an Input/Output multi-objective linear programming model
for the Portuguese economy to assess the trade-offs between the
maximization of GDP and employment level, and the minimization
of energy imports and environmental impacts, tackling the
uncertainty of the model coefficients using interval programming.
Carvalho et al. [18] consider simultaneously economic and
environmental criteria in the synthesis of a trigeneration system
to be installed in a hospital. A MILP model provides a Pareto fron-
tier set of solutions representing optimal trade-offs between the
economic and environmental objectives. Chang [19] employs a
GP model to identify the key CO2 emitting sectors for optimized
production structure applied to emission reduction goals of China.
Flores et al. [20] present a mathematical programming model that
helps plan investment in energy sources. The model uses
renewable and non-renewable demands and sources of new
 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939 1933

energy facilities and the current amount of fossil-fuel reserves in
order to maximize the Net Present Value in time.
An emerging literature stream is focusing on the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) and/or the GCC countries. Ozturk and Acaravci
[21] investigate the short and long run causality issues between elec-
tricity consumption and economic growth in MENA countries by
using Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bounds testing
approach of cointegration and vector error-correction models. The
overall results indicate that there is no relationship between the elec-
tricity consumption and the economic growth in most of the MENA
countries. Ozturk and Al-Mulali [22] investigate the relationship
between natural gas energy consumption and economic growth by
including trade openness, total labor force and gross fixed capital
formation as major determinants of GDP growth within a multi-
variate framework model for GCC countries. Asif et al. [23] capture
the relationships amongst energy consumption, urbanization, eco-
nomic growth and environmental degradation in the GCC countries
by using panel unit root and co-integration tests for the period
1980–2011. A MILP formulation is presented for the optimal design
of UAE power system by Almansoori and Betancourt-Torcat [24].
They study the 2020 UAE power sector operations under three
scenarios: domestic vs. international natural gas prices (considering
different carbon tax levels), social benefits of using low emission
power technologies (e.g., renewable and nuclear), and CO2 emission
constraints. Recently, Jayaraman et al. [25] develop a polynomial GP
model to study the effects of electricity consumption and GHG
have been applied to solve large-scale MCDM problems. Within
the GP philosophy each criteria is provided with a goal or target
value to be achieved, and unwanted deviations from this set of
target values are then minimized by the objective function. The
obtained solution through the GP model represents the best com-
promise that can be made by the decision maker. A positive feature
of the GP philosophy is its simplicity and ease of use [29], which
justify its wide popularity for solving MCDM models in diverse
fields. GP model has been widely applied in several disciplines
including: accounting and financial aspect of stock management,
marketing, quality control, human resources, production and oper-
ations management [30–33]. A negative counterpart is the ability
of the GP model to produce solutions that are not Pareto efficient,
but there are methods to improve Pareto efficiency in solutions.
The GP model was first introduced by Charnes and Cooper
[34,35], and in the classical formulation it takes the following
form:
X
p
Minimize Dþi þ Di
i¼1
Subject to
X
n
Aij X j þ Di  Dþi ¼ Gi ; i ¼ 1 . . . p ð1Þ
j¼1

emissions on the economic growth of United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Jayaraman et al. [26] propose a fuzzy GP model that integrates X2X
optimal resource allocation to simultaneously satisfy prospective
goals on economic development, energy consumption, workforce, Di ; Dþi P 0; i ¼ 1...p
and greenhouse gas emission reduction applied to key economic
sectors of the UAE. Jayaraman et al. [27,28] study optimal labor where X is the feasible set, Xj are the input variables representing
allocation for energy, economic and environmental sustainability the number of employees in each economic sector, the coefficient
of the UAE using a WGP approach. Aij states the contribution of the jth variable to the achievement
P
The current paper falls within this literature stream, as we of the ith criterion F i ðX 1 ; X 2 ; . . . ; X n Þ ¼ nj¼1 Aij X j ; Dþ 
i and Di are,
extend the work presented in Jayaraman et al. [27] to compare respectively, the positive and the negative deviations with respect
policies across the GCC countries. This paper does not consider to the aspirational goal levels Gi, i = 1. . .p. The interpretation of
the perspective of a single country, as geographic and environmen- model (1) is quite straightforward: the smaller the deviations from
tal reasons suggest that it is better to take into account the GCC the desired goals the better the solution X = (X1, . . ., Xn) is, meaning
Pn
area as a whole. Our model fits into multi-criteria models in line that the achieved levels j¼1 Aij X j for each criterion are getting
with the presented literature review: as we will show in the next closer to the set goals Gi. Jones and Tamiz [36] discuss various GP
section, our model includes four criteria namely gross domestic variants and solution methodology. An alternative definition of GP
product, electricity consumption, GHG emissions, and the number Model is the Weighted GP represented as:
of employees across major economic sectors. We present a WGP
thus setting all goals equally important; obviously the presented X
p
Minimize W þi Dþi þ W i Di
model can be modified setting priorities among the criteria using i¼1
Lexicographic GP model, introducing randomness in both goal
values and criterion using a stochastic GP model and fuzzy values Subject to
using a Fuzzy GP model. X
n
Aij X j þ Di  Dþi ¼ Gi ; i ¼ 1...p ð2Þ
j¼1
3. Model formulation using MCDM and goal programming
X2X
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) refers to making deci-
sions in the presence of multiple, usually conflicting and incommen- Di ; Dþi P 0; i ¼ 1...p
surable criteria. MCDM problems are common in everyday life and
very often real world problems are modeled using this framework. where Wþ
i and W 
i represent weights associated with positive and
MCDM techniques provide solutions that can be considered the best negative deviations of each goal.
compromise satisfying multiple criteria involved in the model. In this paper we formulate a macroeconomic WGP growth
MCDM problems are more complicated than single criterion opti- model that simultaneously considers the following four sustain-
mization and usually of large scale. Although MCDM problems are ability criteria:
very well known since the 1950 s MCDM as a discipline only has a
relatively short history and its development is closely related to F1 = gross domestic product (in local currency);
the advancement of algorithms and computing systems. F2 = Electricity consumption (in Gwh);
The GP techniques have become a widely used approach in F3 = GHG emissions (in Gg of CO2 equivalent);
Operations Research (OR): the classical GP model and its variants F4 = Number of employees (in thousands)
1934 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939
where criterion Fi is linear with respect to the decision variable Xj
and takes the form
F 1 ðX 1 ; X 2 ; . . . ; X 8 Þ ¼ A11 X 1 þ A12 X 2 þ . . . þ A18 X 8
F 2 ðX 1 ; X 2 ; . . . ; X 8 Þ ¼ A21 X 1 þ A22 X 2 þ . . . þ A28 X 8
F 3 ðX 1 ; X 2 ; . . . ; X 8 Þ ¼ A31 X 1 þ A32 X 2 þ . . . þ A38 X 8
F 4 ðX 1 ; X 2 ; . . . ; X 8 Þ ¼ A41 X 1 þ A42 X 2 þ . . . þ A48 X 8
The decision variable in our proposed model Xi represents the num-
ber of employees in each economic sector, we consider the follow-
ing eight economic sectors:
X1 = Agriculture
X2 = Crude oil, Natural Gas & Mining
X3 = Manufacturing & Electricity
X4 = Construction & Real Estate
X5 = Trade & Transport
X6 = Restaurants & Hotels
X7 = Banking & Financial Services
X8 = Government, Social & Personal Services
For each criterion, four goals G1 ; G2 ; G3 and G4 are obtained by
projecting the past trends. Finally each decision variable is
bounded from below by a nonzero positive number Xj , meaning
that each decision has to preserve at least the current number of
employees in each sector. Summarizing, the following WGP model
with weights W 1 ; W 2 ; W 3 ; W 4 is implemented as
Minimize W 1 ðD11 þ D12 Þ þ W 2 ðD21 þ D22 Þ þ W 3 ðD31 þ D32 Þ
þ W 4 ðD41 þ D42 Þ;
Subject to
A11 X 1 þ A12 X 2 þ    þ A18 X 8 þ D11  D12 ¼ G1
A21 X 1 þ A22 X 2 þ    þ A28 X 8 þ D21  D22 ¼ G2
ð3Þ
A31 X 1 þ A32 X 2 þ    þ A38 X 8 þ D31  D32 ¼ G
A41 X 1 þ A42 X 2 þ    þ A48 X 8 þ D41  D42 ¼ G4
X 1 P X1 ; X 2 P X2 ; X 3 P X3 ; X 4 P X4 ; X 5 P X5 ;
X 6 P X6 ; X 7 P X7 ; X 8 P X8 ;
X j ; j ¼ 1; 2 . . . 8 are integer
Dij P 0
The variables D11, D12, D21, D22, D31, D32, D41, D42 represent the
positive and negative deviations with the conventional notation
Dj1 ¼ D 
1 and Dj2 ¼ D2 . The input variables X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7,
X8 take integer values, thus the proposed WGP model takes the form
of the Mixed Integer Linear Programming model. For each country
we implement the model (3). The mathematical representation
for each country is presented in Appendix A. The sectorial data
and the goals for various criteria are discussed in Section 4.
4. Model data and analysis
In validating the WGP model (3) for the six GCC countries, we
consider the contribution of eight key economic sectors for the
identified four criterion: gross domestic product (F 1 ), electricity
consumption (F 2 ), GHG emissions (F 3 ), and total number of
employees (F 4 ). Sectorial estimates were collected from several
sources, in cases where the available data was missing or limited,
reasonable values were estimated based on past trends. In this
section we present the data discuss the assumptions and used in
estimation of goals for numerical validation.
Fig. 1 presents the historical trends of the four model criteria
between the years 2000–2012. For comparison the GDP data for
each country is in US dollars. It is characteristic that GDP growth
has been rapidly rising with a slight deflection in the year
2008. Total population and electricity consumption preserve a
steadily increasing trend. For GHG emission, the trend of CO2
emissions is presented as it represents a major contributor to
GHG emissions. Data for the trends on GDP, population growth
and CO2 emissions were obtained from World Bank data bank
and electricity consumption were obtained from U.S. Energy
Information Administration.
4.1. Gross domestic product
Sector wise GDP are published in annual statement of national
accounts by Ministry of Economy, Central Bank of respective coun-
tries.1 In some cases the most updated entry was unavailable, and
we used the estimated annual percentage growth rate of GDP based
on constant growth in local currency from World Bank data bank.2
Table 1 presents the sector wise per capita estimates of GDP with
reference to the year 2014.
4.2. Electricity consumption
The per capita estimates for electricity consumption across the
eight sectors in Gigawatt hour (Gwh) are summarized in Table 2.
The sectorial data for electricity consumption was obtained from
the International Energy Agency (IEA) with reference to the year
2011.3 The data from IEA did not provide sector specific estimates
on electricity consumption; hence we estimate the percentile
contribution of each sector relative to GDP and used it as measure
of disaggregation to estimate sector specific values for electricity
consumption with reference to year 2014.
4.3. GHG emissions
GHG emission data was obtained from the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change4 (UNFCCC). Table 3
summarizes the sector specific per capita GHG emissions in Giga
Grams of CO2 equivalent. All the six GCC countries are identified
as non-annex I parties with no reporting burden. The most updated
entry available for each country is as follows: Qatar (2007), UAE
(2005), KSA (2000), Bahrain (2000), Oman (1994) and Kuwait
(1994). The past trend of sector wise GHG were used to project the
data with reference to year the 2012.
4.4. Number of employees
The number of employees across the eight economic sectors
were obtained from Ministry of Labor, Statistics Planning and
Development of respective countries.5 Table 4 presents the number
of employees (in thousands) employed in each sector. The annual
growth percentage of labor was used to project the data with
reference to year 2014.
1
GDP data sources: www.ncsi.gov.om, http://www.csb.gov.kw/Default_EN.aspx,
http://www.economy.ae/English/Documents/Annual%20Economic%20Report%
202012-en.pdf, http://www.cdsi.gov.sa/english/, http://www.cbb.gov.bh/page-p-eco-
nomic_indicators.htm, http://www.qsa.gov.qa/eng/index.htm.
2
World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG/coun-
tries/AE?display=default.
3
http://www.iea.org/statistics/.
4
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/ghg_profiles/items/4626.php.
5
Labor and population data: https://www.ncsi.gov.om/Pages/NCSI.aspx; http://
www.qsa.gov.qa/eng/index.htm; http://www.economy.ae/English/Documents/MOE%
20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202013%20ENG%20091013.pdf; http://www.cdsi.gov.sa/eng-
lish/; http://www.cio.gov.bh/cio_eng/default.aspx; http://www.csb.gov.kw/Socan_
Statistic_EN.aspx?ID=64.
 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939 1935

*
Fig. 1. Historic trends in GDP, electricity consumption, GHG emissions and population growth. Data sources: World Development Indicators Database, World Bank; U.S.
Energy Information Administration.

Table 1
Gross domestic product per capita.

Variable Sector Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates
X1 Agriculture 0.06285 0.00299 0.00470 0.00715 0.11608 0.03571
X2 Crude oil, Natural Gas & Mining 0.23323 6.78626 1.00594 0.40858 9.37454 4.76202
X3 Manufacturing & Electricity 0.05118 0.03058 0.02162 0.08348 0.43333 0.18385
X4 Construction & Real Estate 0.01739 0.07197 0.00471 0.03442 0.17721 0.08502
X5 Trade & Transport 0.02089 0.02542 0.01904 0.04852 0.13206 0.17935
X6 Restaurants & Hotels 0.04577 0.01926 0.00314 0.13134 0.49979 0.08207
X7 Banking & Financial Services 0.30844 0.53933 0.39240 0.52286 1.18960 1.06595
X8 Government, Social & Personal Services 0.02656 0.07632 0.02821 0.03466 0.08440 0.09702

Table 2
Electricity consumption per capita (in Gwh, reference year 2014).

Variable Sector Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates
X1 Agriculture 0.03688 0.0015 0.00375 0.0028 0.009983 0.00535774
X2 Crude oil, Natural Gas & Mining 0.00505 1.4272 0.0477 0.0333 0.15103 0.0661707
X3 Manufacturing & Electricity 0.05018 0.0016 0.00961 0.1008 0.017007 0.02800659
X4 Construction & Real Estate 0.03949 0.037 0.01725 0.0206 0.073282 0.0209694
X5 Trade & Transport 0.02047 0.0131 0.00846 0.0175 0.005184 0.01806757
X6 Restaurants & Hotels 0.04483 0.0099 0.00139 0.0456 0.019588 0.00826637
X7 Banking & Financial Services 0.30233 0.2777 0.17409 0.2267 0.046703 0.1623983
X8 Government, Social & Personal Services 0.02721 0.0393 0.04499 0.0133 0.015529 0.00976069
1936 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939

Table 3
Green house gas emissions per capita (in Giga Grams of CO2 equivalent, reference year 2012).

Variable Sector Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates
X1 Agriculture 0.02138 0.0054 0.13522 0.0061 0.04756 0.01835571
X2 Crude oil, Natural Gas & Mining 0.42291 13.663 0.76111 0.6314 1.727105 1.82323275
X3 Manufacturing & Electricity 0.09047 0.0078 0.00857 0.0661 0.048934 0.07038974
X4 Construction & Real Estate 0.02858 0.0185 0.00186 0.004 0.011533 0.00283748
X5 Trade & Transport 0.01375 0.0571 0.01285 0.0315 0.049314 0.00666301
X6 Restaurants & Hotels 0.02213 0.005 0.00124 0.0553 0.092628 0.00274052
X7 Banking & Financial Services 0.15673 0.1386 0.15466 0.2751 0.22052 0.03556374
X8 Government, Social & Personal Services 0.01349 0.0196 0.01114 0.0165 0.015672 0.00323856

Table 4
Number of employees (reference year 2014).

Variable Sector Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates
X1 Agriculture 1,418 75,250 82,067 19,433 461,948 258,867
X2 Crude oil, Natural Gas & Mining 26,948 10,940 15,824 88,929 120,896 74,284
X3 Manufacturing & Electricity 89,156 163,273 167,444 118,204 776,809 687,686
X4 Construction & Real Estate 185,668 237,774 673,878 545,587 1,808,873 1,505,931
X5 Trade & Transport 163,034 600,856 191,608 234,428 2,096,694 1,403,509
X6 Restaurants & Hotels 36,995 173,002 78,878 34,459 264,920 236,357
X7 Banking & Financial Services 16,371 43,961 3663 12,260 122,752 81,037
X8 Government, Social & Personal Services 194,364 278,878 185,688 381,776 5,247,497 810,366

Table 5
Estimated goals by the year 2030 for various model criteria.

Year 2030 goals values (growth %) Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates
GDP 64347(5%) 299999(4%) 190890(5%) 859855(14%) 1925490(6%) 3110323(4%)
Number of employees 1337222(3.5%) 2966679(3.5%) 2620394(3.5%) 2687870(3.5%) 20416224(3.5%) 9115735(3.5%)
Electricity consumption 90552(7.8%) 135470(5.5%) 80767(7.6%) 190478(10.3%) 584589(4.9%) 361513(9.2%)
GHG emissions 59237(3.3%) 1264670(10.72%) 571667(9.63%) 274311(6.71%) 1346292(5.35%) 286051(1.75%)

Table 5 presents the projected goal values for the year 2030
with the corresponding growth rates for the four criteria. The
growth in population and rising labor force participation in GCC
is estimated to be between 3% and 4%6 and we set the average
growth rate of 3.5%. The GDP growth rates were estimated based
on data from World Bank. Electricity consumption growth rates were
estimated from IEA data and similarly GHG emissions were esti-
mated based on past trends of data reported to UNFCCC.
5. Results and interpretation
The WGP model was solved using optimization software LINGO
14Ò. The respective mathematical optimization model for each
country is presented in the Appendix A.
The results in Table 6 can be interpreted as follows:
Regarding GDP growth, Qatar is the only country that shows a
consistent negative deviation (D11 = 423637.6) with respect to
its current trend, implying that the long-run macroeconomic
scenario will not permit a GDP growth in line with the current
trends.
A positive deviation of D32 for the case of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia,
Oman, and Qatar indicates that GHG emissions in these coun-
tries are expected to grow beyond the current trends.
Regarding the energy consumption criterion, only the UAE
shows a consistent nonzero positive deviation (D22 = 30606.7)
which suggests that investments in green and renewable
6
‘‘Labor Market Reforms to Boost Employment and Productivity in the GCC”,
International Monetary Fund, Oct 20140.
energy resources have to be implemented to satisfy the current
demand of energy consumption without any further increase in
the total GHG emissions. This observation is consistent with
findings in [28]. In addition the surplus in D21 for Bahrain, Oman
and Qatar indicates that the long run energy requirements will
be met. Interpreted together with D32 suggests a strong need to
diversify energy production using renewables.
The model provides policy makers a quantitative tool to
simultaneously optimize and assess trade-offs between multiple
sustainability criteria. Previous research has widely recognized
the strong interdependencies between energy consumption, GDP
growth and GHG emissions. The results of the WGP model indicate
GDP growth (except Qatar) and number of employees goals are
attainable but a combination of policy tools should encourages
future investments in clean technologies, novel ways for energy
storage [37], innovative ways to capture, store and transport CO2
emissions [38,39], promoting judicious use of energy resources
goes hand-in-hand to enhance the future energy security, and
permit healthy economic and environmental growth in GCC
countries.
6. Conclusions
Rapid economic development and industrialization go hand in
hand with increased energy use, GHG emissions and labor demand
require careful planning and exploring potential tradeoffs among
competing objectives. The last few decades have witnessed a
growing concern on resource consumption, the adequacy of energy
resources and with the quality of the physical environment.
Recently, the GCC countries have shown a keen interest in
 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939 1937

Table 6
Results of the WGP model.

Variable Bahrain Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates
Value Reduced Value Reduced Value Reduced Value Reduced Value Reduced Value Reduced
cost cost cost cost cost cost
D11 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 423637.6 0 0.2180172 0 0 0.5
D12 8.28E02 0 1.03E02 0 1.05E02 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 6.32E03 0
D21 36457.12 0 100343.7 0 21561.07 0 2.05E02 0 6.55E02 0 0 0.5
D22 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 30606.68 0
D31 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5
D32 15017.73 0 1.46E03 0 4155.99 0 112476 0 401901.7 0 1.14E03 0
D41 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5
D42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0
X1 1418 0.2618375 369439 0.2517072 82067 0.2840436 19433 0.2490527 461948 0.2696261 258867 0.2648548
X2 26948 0.4127725 10940 5.005605 15824 0.6798382 88929 0.2973712 426049 2.199617 78674 1.912856
X3 89156 0.2728675 163273 0.2592133 167444 0.255146 118204 0.2204534 863130 0.3503525 687692 0.3205625
X4 672835 0.25162 237774 0.2633627 673880 0.2473287 545587 0.2372553 1.02E+07 0.3097375 1505932 0.277206
X5 163034 0.2535425 1355260 0.2673477 191608 0.255857 234428 0.2413764 2096694 0.2719832 3980533 0.3010215
X6 36995 0.2557675 173015 0.2535746 78878 0.2507459 818887 0.2195911 264920 0.3566881 236357 0.27327
X7 101958 0.29071 266031 0.3500691 26069 0.3432408 379090 0.1313715 122754 0.5039455 1557314 0.565978
X8 194364 0.25321 278878 0.2641676 1285637 0.2485913 381776 0.2421242 5247497 0.2710654 810366 0.277505

The bold values indicate significant deviation from the desired goals.

engaging in a more sustainable development path, with many of A.1.2. Electricity consumption constraint
them are already pursuing strategic energy options beyond hydro-
carbons by integrating nuclear power generation and renewable 0:03688X 1 þ 0:00505X 2 þ 0:05018X 3 þ 0:03949X 4 þ 0:02047X 5
sources in their energy portfolio [40,41].
þ 0:04483X 6 þ 0:30233X 7 þ 0:02721X 8 þ D21  D22 ¼ 90552;
The WGP model results show that GHG emissions goal is not
achievable by four out of six GCC countries thus there is a signif- A.1.3. GHG emission constraint
icant need to refocus their investments on energy efficiency, con-
servation and incrementing the share of renewable, non-emitting
0:02138X 1 þ 0:42291X 2 þ 0:09047X 3 þ 0:02858X 4 þ 0:01375X 5
sources of energy production in order to achieve sustainable
development in the long term. Furthermore the model provides þ 0:02213X 6 þ 0:15673X 7 þ 0:01349X 8 þ D31  D32 ¼ 59237;
insights that all other goals may be achieved with two exceptions
(GDP for Qatar and electricity consumption for the UAE). It is A.1.4. Number of employees constraint
well known that investments in pollution abatement activities
impact on GDP: A portion of GDP has to be used to financing X 1 þ X 2 þ X 3 þ X 4 þ X 5 þ X 6 þ X 7 þ X 8 þ D41  D42 ¼ 1337222;
technology progress, innovation, and acquisition of skilled labor. X 1 P 1418; X 2 P 26948; X 3 P 89156; X 4 P 185668;
Obviously, this scenario might have a negative impact on the
achievement of all other goals and on the overall long-run X 5 P 163034; X 6 P 36995; X 7 P 16371; X 8 P 194364;
sustainability.
D11 P 0; D12 P 0; D21 P 0; D22 P 0; D31 P 0; D32 P 0;
Acknowledgements D41 P 0; D42 P 0;

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and funding

A.2. Kuwait
from Khalifa University Internal Research Fund (KUIRF) – Grant
number 210032 to conduct this research. Cinzia Colapinto grate-
fully acknowledges financial support from Ca’ Foscari University MINIMIZE 0:25ðD11 þ D12 Þ þ 0:25ðD21 þ D22 Þ þ 0:25ðD31 þ D32 Þ
of Venice. þ 0:25ðD41 þ D42 Þ;

Appendix A A.2.1. GDP constraint

A.1. Bahrain
0:0029949X 1 þ 6:786261X 2 þ 0:0305775X 3 þ 0:0719705X 4
þ 0:0254195X 5 þ 0:0192644X 6 þ 0:5393307X 7 þ 0:0763199X 8

MINIMIZE 0:25ðD11 þ D12 Þ þ 0:25ðD21 þ D22 Þ þ 0:25ðD31 þ D32 Þ þ D11  D12 ¼ 299999;

þ 0:25ðD41 þ D42 Þ;
A.2.2. Electricity consumption constraint
A.1.1. GDP constraint
0:00154206X 1 þ 1:427194698X 2 þ 0:001573683X 3
0:06285X 1 þ 0:23323X 2 þ 0:05118X 3 þ 0:01739X 4 þ 0:02089X 5 þ 0:03701313X 4 þ 0:01307929X 5 þ 0:009915955X 6
þ 0:04577X 6 þ 0:30844X 7 þ 0:02656X 8 þ D11  D12 ¼ 64347; þ 0:277654967X 7 þ 0:039264768X 8 þ D21  D22 ¼ 135470;
1938 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939

A.2.3. GHG emission constraint A.4.1. GDP constraint

0:00537608X 1 þ 13:66335466X 2 þ 0:007849185X 3 0:0071491X 1 þ 0:4085752X 2 þ 0:0834765X 3 þ 0:034419X 4

þ 0:018493317X 4 þ 0:057050391X 5 þ 0:004950058X 6 þ 0:0485242X 5 þ 0:1313356X 6 þ 0:522864X 7 þ 0:034663X 8

þ 0:138600805X 7 þ 0:019615459X 8 þ D31  D32 ¼ 1264670; þ D11  D12 ¼ 859855;

A.4.2. Electricity consumption constraint

A.2.4. Number of employees
0:00278X 1 þ 0:03333X 2 þ 0:10085X 3 þ 0:02057X 4 þ 0:01749X 5
X 1 þ X 2 þ X 3 þ X 4 þ X 5 þ X 6 þ X 7 þ X 8 þ D41  D42 ¼ 2966679; þ 0:04555X 6 þ 0:22672X 7 þ 0:0133X 8 þ D21  D22 ¼ 190478;
X 1 P 75250; X 2 P 10940; X 3 P 163273; X 4 P 237774;
X 5 P 600856; X 6 P 173002; X 7 P 43961; X 8 P 278878; A.4.3. GHG emission constraint

D11 P 0; D12 P 0; D21 P 0; D22 P 0; D31 P 0; D32 P 0; 0:00614X 1 þ 0:63139X 2 þ 0:06614X 3 þ 0:00401X 4 þ 0:03152X 5
D41 P 0; D42 P 0; þ 0:05525X 6 þ 0:27507X 7 þ 0:01646X 8 þ D31  D32 ¼ 274311;

A.3. WGP model for OMAN A.4.4. Number of employees constraint

MINIMIZE 0:25ðD11 þ D12 Þ þ 0:25ðD21 þ D22 Þ þ 0:25ðD31 þ D32 Þ X 1 þ X 2 þ X 3 þ X 4 þ X 5 þ X 6 þ X 7 þ X 8 þ D41  D42 ¼ 2687870;
þ 0:25ðD41 þ D42 Þ; X 1 P 19433; X 2 P 88929; X 3 P 118204; X 4 P 545587;
X 5 P 234428; X 6 P 34459; X 7 P 12260; X 8 P 381776;
A.3.1. GDP constraint
D11 P 0; D12 P 0; D21 P 0; D22 P 0; D31 P 0; D32 P 0;
D41 P 0; D42 P 0;
0:0046995X 1 þ 1:0059403X 2 þ 0:0216246X 3 þ 0:0047058X 4
þ 0:0190412X 5 þ 0:0031376X 6 þ 0:3923977X 7 þ 0:0282132X 8
A.5. WGP model for Saudi Arabia
þ D11  D12 ¼ 190890;
MINIMIZE 0:25ðD11 þ D12 Þ þ 0:25ðD21 þ D22 Þ þ 0:25ðD31 þ D32 Þ
þ 0:25ðD41 þ D42 Þ;
A.3.2. Electricity consumption constraint
A.5.1. GDP constraint
0:00375X 1 þ 0:0477X 2 þ 0:00961X 3 þ 0:01725X 4 þ 0:00846X 5
þ 0:00139X 6 þ 0:17409X 7 þ 0:04499X 8 þ D21  D22 ¼ 80767; 0:1160845X 1 þ 9:3745368X 2 þ 0:43333X 3 þ 0:17720X 4
þ 0:1320627X 5 þ 0:4997924X 6 þ 1:1896018X 7 þ 0:0844018X 8
A.3.3. GHG emission constraint þ D11  D12
¼ 1925490;
0:135224938X 1 þ 0:761112323X 2 þ 0:008569463X 3
þ 0:001858961X 4 þ 0:012846627X 5 þ 0:001235809X 6 A.5.2. Electricity consumption constraint

þ 0:15465536X 7 þ 0:011141805X 8 þ D31  D32 ¼ 571667;

0:00998X 1 þ 0:15103X 2 þ 0:01701X 3 þ 0:07328X 4 þ 0:00518X 5
þ 0:01959X 6 þ 0:0467X 7 þ 0:01553X 8 þ D21  D22
A.3.4. Number of employees constraint
¼ 584589;

X 1 þ X 2 þ X 3 þ X 4 þ X 5 þ X 6 þ X 7 þ X 8 þ D41  D42 ¼ 2620394; A.5.3. GHG emission constraint

X 1 P 82067; X 2 P 15824; X 3 P 167444; X 4 P 673878;
X 5 P 191608; X 6 P 78878; X 7 P 3663; X 8 P 185688; 0:04756X 1 þ 1:7271X 2 þ 0:04893X 3 þ 0:01153X 4 þ 0:04931X 5
þ 0:09263X 6 þ 0:22052X 7 þ 0:01567X 8 þ D31  D32
D11 P 0; D12 P 0; D21 P 0; D22 P 0; D31 P 0; D32 P 0;
¼ 1346292;
D41 P 0; D42 P 0;

A.5.4. Number of employees constraint

A.4. WGP model for Qatar
X 1 þ X 2 þ X 3 þ X 4 þ X 5 þ X 6 þ X 7 þ X 8 þ D41  D42 ¼ 20416224;
MINIMIZE 0:25ðD11 þ D12 Þ þ 0:25ðD21 þ D22 Þ þ 0:25ðD31 þ D32 Þ
X 1 P 461948; X 2 P 120896; X 3 P 776809; X 4 P 1808873;
þ 0:25ðD41 þ D42 Þ; X 5 P 2096694; X 6 P 264920; X 7 P 122752; X 8 P 5247497;
 R. Jayaraman et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 1931–1939 1939

D11 P 0; D12 P 0; D21 P 0; D22 P 0; D31 P 0; D32 P 0; [11] Niknam T, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R, Narimani MR. An efficient scenario-
based stochastic programming framework for multi-objective optimal micro-
D41 P 0; D42 P 0; grid operation. Appl Energy 2012;99:455–70.
[12] Vucijak B, Kupusovic T, Midzic-Kurtagic S, Ceric A. Applicability of
multicriteria decision aid to sustainable hydropower. Appl Energy
A.6. WGP model for United Arab Emirates 2013;101:261–7.
[13] Mezher T, Chedid R, Zahabi W. Energy resource allocation using multi-
objective goal programming: the case of Lebanon. Appl Energy 1998;61
MINIMIZE 0:25ðD11 þ D12 Þ þ 0:25ðD21 þ D22 Þ þ 0:25ðD31 þ D32 Þ (4):175–92.
[14] Wang J-J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F, Zhao JH. Review on multi-criteria decision
þ 0:25ðD41 þ D42 Þ; analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2009;13:2263–78.
[15] Ren H, Zhou W, Nakagami K, Gao W, Wu Q. Multi-objective optimization for
A.6.1. GDP constraint the operation of distributed energy systems considering economic and
environmental aspects. Appl Energy 2010;87:3642–51.
[16] San Cristóbal JR. A goal programming model for environmental policy analysis:
application to Spain. Energy Policy 2012;43:303–7.
0:035705X 1 þ 4:762018X 2 þ 0:183853X 3 þ 0:085018X 4 [17] Henriques C, Antunes C. Interactions of economic growth, energy consumption
þ 0:179355X 5 þ 0:082073X 6 þ 1:06595X 7 þ 0:09702X 8 þ D11 and the environment in the context of the crisis – a study with uncertain data.
Energy 2012;48(1):415–22.
 D12 ¼ 3110323; [18] Carvalho M, Lozano MA, Serra LM. Multicriteria synthesis of trigeneration
systems considering economic and environmental aspects. Appl Energy
2012;91(1):245–54.
[19] Chang N. Changing industrial structure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: a
A.6.2. Electricity consumption constraint Chinese application. J Cleaner Prod 2014:1–9.
[20] Flores JR, Montagna JM, Vecchietti A. An optimization approach for long term
investments planning in energy. Appl Energy 2014;122:162–78.
0:005358X 1 þ 0:066171X 2 þ 0:028007X 3 þ 0:020969X 4 [21] Ozturk I, Acaravci A. Electricity consumption and real GDP causality nexus:
evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach for 11 MENA countries. Appl
þ 0:018068X 5 þ 0:008266X 6 þ 0:162398X 7 þ 0:009761X 8 þ D21 Energy 2011;88(8):2885–92.
[22] Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U. Natural gas consumption and economic growth nexus:
 D22 ¼ 361513;
panel data analysis for GCC countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2015;51:998–1003.
[23] Asif M, Sharma RB, Adow AHE. An empirical investigation of the relationship
A.6.3. GHG emission constraint between economic growth, urbanization, energy consumption, and CO2
emission in GCC countries: a panel data analysis home. Asian Social Sci
2015;11(21):270–84.
[24] Almansoori A, Betancourt-Torcat A. Design optimization model for the
0:018356X 1 þ 1:823233X 2 þ 0:07039X 3 þ 0:002837X 4 integration of renewable and nuclear energy in the United Arab Emirates’
power system. Appl Energy 2015;148:234–51.
þ 0:006663X 5 þ 0:002741X 6 þ 0:035564X 7 þ 0:003239X 8 þ D31 [25] Jayaraman R, La Torre D, Malik T, Pearson YE. A polynomial goal programming
 D32 ¼ 286051; model with application to energy consumption and emissions in United Arab
Emirates. IEOM 2015 – 5th international conference on industrial engineering
and operations management, proceeding. Dover; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/IEOM. 2015.7093869.
A.6.4. Number of employees [26] Jayaraman R, Liuzzi D, Colapinto C, Malik T. A fuzzy goal programming model
to analyze energy, environmental and sustainability goals of the United Arab
Emirates. Ann Oper Res 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1825-5.
[27] Jayaraman R, La Torre D, Malik T, Pearson YE. Optimal labor allocation for
X 1 þ X 2 þ X 3 þ X 4 þ X 5 þ X 6 þ X 7 þ X 8 þ D41  D42 ¼ 9115735;
energy, economic and environmental sustainability in the United Arab
X 1 P 258867; X 2 P 74284; X 3 P 687686; X 4 P 1505931; Emirates: a goal programming approach. Energy Proc 2015;75:2999–3006.
[28] Jayaraman R, Colapinto C, La Torre D, Malik T. Multi-criteria model for
X 5 P 1403509; X 6 P 236357; X 7 P 81037; X 8 P 810366; sustainable development using goal programming applied to the United Arab
Emirates. Energy Policy 2015;87:447–54.
[29] Aouni B, Kettani O. Goal programming model: a glorious history and a
D11 P 0; D12 P 0; D21 P 0; D22 P 0; D31 P 0; D32 P 0; promising future. Eur J Oper Res 2001;133(2):1–7.
D41 P 0; D42 P 0; [30] Ignizio JP. Goal programming and extensions. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington
Books; 1976.
[31] Romero C. Handbook of critical issues in goal programming. Pergamon Press; 1991.
[32] Aouni B, Colapinto C, La Torre D. Portfolio management through goal
References programming: state-of-the-art. Eur J Oper Res 2014;234:536–45.
[33] Colapinto C, Jayaraman R, Marsiglio S. Multi-criteria decision analysis with
[1] Hvidt, M. Economic diversification in GCC countries: past record and future goal programming in engineering, management and social sciences: a state-of-
trends. Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the art review. Ann Oper Res 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-
the Gulf States, LSE Department of Government (www.lse.ac.uk/LSEKP); 2013. 1829-1. in press.
[2] Qader MR. Electricity consumption and GHG emissions in GCC countries. [34] Charnes A, Cooper WW. Chance constraints and normal deviates. J Am Stat
Energies 2009;2:1201–13. Assoc 1952;57:134–48.
[3] Luomi, M. Mainstreaming Climate Policy in the Gulf Cooperation Council [35] Charnes A, Cooper WW. Management models and industrial applications of
States. The Oxford Institute of Energy Studies. OIES Paper: MEP 7; 2014. linear programming. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc; 1961.
[4] Frost & Sullivan. The Future for ‘‘Green” in the GCC’s Energy Sector, White [36] Jones DF, Tamiz M, editors. Practical goal programming, international series in
Paper; 2013. operations research & management science. Berlin: Springer; 2010.
[5] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy, environment and sustainable development. Appl [37] Roskilly AP, Taylor PC, Yan J. Energy storage systems for a low carbon future-in
Energy 1999;64(1):427–40. need of an integrated approach. Appl Energy 2015;137:463–6.
[6] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG, Hovanov NV. Sustainability assessment of renewable [38] Wei YM, Wang L, Liao H, Wang K, Murty T, Yan J. Responsibility accounting in
energy systems. Energy Policy 2000;28:603–12. carbon allocation: a global perspective. Appl Energy 2014;130:122–33.
[7] Borges AR, Antunes CH. A fuzzy multiple objective decision support model for [39] Yan Jinyue. Carbon capture and storage (CCS). Appl Energy 2015;148:A1–6.
energy-economy planning. Eur J Oper Res 2003;145:304–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.019. ISSN 0306-2619.
[8] Han J-H, Ahn Y-C, Lee I-B. A multi-objective optimization model for sustainable [40] Mondal MAH, Hawila D, Kennedy S, Mezher T. The GCC countries RE-
electricity generation and CO2 mitigation (EGCM) infrastructure design readiness: strengths and gaps for development of renewable energy
considering economic profit and financial risk. Appl Energy 2012;95:186–95. technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2016;54:1114–28.
[9] Jones DF, Wall G. An extended goal programming model for site selection in [41] Abdmouleh Z, Alammari RAM, Gastli A. Recommendations on renewable
the offshore wind farm sector. Ann Oper Res 2015:1–15. energy policies for the GCC countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
[10] La Scala M, Vaccaro A, Zobaa AF. A goal programming methodology for 2015;50:1181–91.
multiobjective optimization of distributed energy hubs operation. Appl Therm
Eng 2014;71(2):658–66.