METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

Mariya D. Goryachko; Andrey Y. Ivanov

doi:10.55186/2413046X_2026_11_8_117

VAK Russia 5.2.3 UDC 330.15

2 more Collapse

METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

Published in MOSCOW ECONOMIC JOURNAL · Volume 11, Issue 8, 2026 · Pages 183–200 · Rubric: Regional and branch economy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55186/2413046X_2026_11_8_117 · EDN: HXYPHB

Received: 03.08.2026 Accepted: 17.09.2026 Published: 18.09.2026

Authors

Mariya D. Goryachko

Andrey Y. Ivanov

Mariya D. Goryachko

Academic degree: candidate of geographical sciences

Science rang: docent

Lomonosov Moscow State University deputy head of the department for academic affairs, head of the research laboratory of regional analysis and political geography · Russian Federation · Moscow

Andrey Y. Ivanov

State University of Land Use Planning department of regional economics and nature management · Russian Federation · Moscow

ABSTRACT

The article critically analyses the methodological fragmentation of contemporary renewable energy sources (RES) research. It is shown that existing approaches tend to focus on a single aspect — technological, economic, or environmental — without accounting for systemic interconnections. Based on a literature review, three systemic shortcomings are identified: incompleteness of life cycle assessment (dominance of the operational phase, ignoring raw material extraction and disposal); fragmentation in accounting for environmental, economic, and technological factors (limitation to direct CO₂ emissions, underestimation of indirect effects and market dynamics); and insufficient integration of quantitative and qualitative methods (social and qualitative environmental changes remain outside the framework). The problem of ignoring cross-sectoral effects, in particular the interaction of RES with agricultural land use, is considered separately; the potential of agrivoltaics to reduce land-use conflicts and increase total productivity is shown, including increased soil moisture and crop yields. An interdisciplinary framework is proposed that synthesises life cycle assessment (LCA), systems analysis, and qualitative methods. The framework includes four blocks — technological, environmental, economic, and social-landscape; for agrivoltaic projects, additional indicators of water efficiency, total income per hectare, and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) are provided. Indicators are normalised and aggregated into an integral sustainability index; Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) can be used to validate the economic block. The scientific novelty lies in specific procedures for linking quantitative and qualitative data, as well as in the emphasis on adaptation to regional conditions. The framework can be used to support regional energy strategy development, including under conditions of limited data and high importance of local factors, for comparing different types of RES and hybrid schemes.

KEYWORDS

renewable energy sources, methodology, systems analysis, life cycle assessment, interdisciplinarity, energy transition

Text

Text (PDF)

Read Download

1. Grineva N.V., Francov V.E. Optimizaciya primeneniya vozobnovlyaemyh istochnikov energii v ekonomike // Innovacii i investicii. 2024. № 2. S. 361–365. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QGAMTO

2. Komarov P.I., Novikov A.P. Ocenka ekonomicheskoy effektivnosti stanciy, ispol'zuyuschih vozobnovlyaemye istochniki energii // Upravlencheskiy uchet. 2023. № 6. S. 367–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25806/uu62023367-377; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QGVGKD

3. Krongauz D.E., Tormozakov K.L. S vetrom ne sporya: osobennosti razvitiya vetrovoy energetiki // Energiya: ekonomika, tehnika, ekologiya. 2024. № 3. S. 36–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7868/50233361924030054; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/PDGUYY

4. Masharipovu S. Perspektivy razvitiya vozobnovlyaemyh istochnikov energii v usloviyah perehoda k «zelenoy» ekonomike // Pedagogs international research journal. 2025. № 1. S. 52–56.

5. Pankova L.N. Vozobnovlyaemye istochniki energii kak trend razvitiya global'noy ekonomiki // Ekonomika: vchera, segodnya, zavtra. 2021. № 9. S. 145–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34670/AR.2021.14.49.020; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/FZLZSX

6. Parizhskoe soglashenie k Ramochnoy konvencii OON ob izmenenii klimata: prinyato 12 dek. 2015 g.; vstupilo v silu 4 noyab. 2016 g. URL: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/russian_paris_agreement.pdf (data obrascheniya: 05.05.2026).

7. Yurgens I.Yu., Romov R.B. Komissiya Bruntlann i koncepciya ustoychivogo razvitiya v istorii SSSR/Rossii 1980–1990-h gg. // Vlast'. 2023. № 6. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/komissiya-bruntlann-i-kontseptsiya-ustoychivogo-razvitiya-v-istorii-sssr-rossii-1980-1990-h-gg (data obrascheniya: 01.05.2026). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v31i6.9848; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/CFNOLZ

8. Aasa O.P., Phoya S., Monko R.J. et al. A theory-based decision support framework for energy transition: Pluralized perspective // Frontiers in Sustainability. 2026. No. 6. P. 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2025.1703098; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/XNOJSZ

9. Barron-Gafford G.A., Pavao-Zuckerman M.A., Minor R.L. et al. Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands // Nature Sustainability. 2019. Vol. 2. P. 848–855. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0364-5. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/UJQYSK

10. Dei G., Mignacca B., Locatelli G., Trucco P. Tackling new research questions in energy transition: The system of provision approach // Applied Energy. 2025. Vol. 393. Art. 125991. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125991. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YMJAGF

11. Del Duca V., Ponsiglione C., Primario S., Strazzullo S. Towards economic, environmental, and societal sustainable world: Reviewing the interplay of methodologies, variables, and impacts in energy transition models // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2024. Vol. 479. Art. 144074. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144074. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GIPFWT

12. Dupraz C., Marrou H., Talbot G., Dufour L., Nogier A., Ferard Y. Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes // Renewable Energy. 2011. Vol. 36. No. 10. P. 2725–2732. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.005.

13. Fields N., Leonard A., Mutembei M., Nganga A., Martindale L., Bergman M., Kaoma M., Howells M., Brown E. Endogenous integration of qualitative factors into quantitative energy transition modelling for development // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2025. Vol. 220. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.115917. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/AXPAWG

14. Gan X., Fernandez I.C., Guo J., Wilson M., Zhao Y., Zhou B., Wu J. When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators // Ecological Indicators. 2017. Vol. 81. P. 491–502. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068.

15. Gao C., Zhu S., An N., Na H., You H., Gao C. Comprehensive comparison of multiple renewable power generation methods: A combination analysis of life cycle assessment and ecological footprint // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2021. Vol. 147. Art. 111255. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111255. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/CWUUDS

16. Hafner S., Gottschamer L., Kubli M., Pasqualino R., Beer U.S. Building the Bridge: How System Dynamics Models Operationalise Energy Transitions and Contribute towards Creating an Energy Policy Toolbox // Sustainability. 2024. Vol. 16. No. 19. Art. 8326. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198326. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ZYOPTL

17. Mariutti E. The limits of the current consensus regarding the carbon footprint of photovoltaic modules manufactured in China: A review and case study // Energies. 2025. Vol. 18. No. 5. Art. 1178. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/en18051178. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/SLXGNS

18. Norgren E., Stankeviciene J. Systematic literature review on the methodological approaches of the efficiency of green investment in renewable energy-based development // Forum Scientiae Oeconomia. 2024. No. 4. P. 30–46.

19. Sovacool B.K., Hess D.J., Cantoni R. Energy transitions from the cradle to the grave: A meta-theoretical framework integrating responsible innovation, social practices, and energy justice // Energy Research & Social Science. 2021. Vol. 75. Art. 102027. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102027.

PDF JATS XML

Chairman of the editorial board

Aleksandr Fomin

e-science@list.ru

Publishing editor

Ekaterina Syamina

e-science@list.ru

181

downloads

GOST

Goryachko M. D., Ivanov A. Y. METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK // MOSCOW ECONOMIC JOURNAL. 2026. no. 8. pp. 183-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55186/2413046X_2026_11_8_117. EDN: HXYPHB. (Date of access 20.10.2026).

MLA

Mariya D. Goryachko, Ivanov A. Y.. "METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK." MOSCOW ECONOMIC JOURNAL 11.8 (2026): 183-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55186/2413046X_2026_11_8_117. EDN: HXYPHB.

APA

Goryachko M. D., Ivanov A. Y. (2026). METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK. MOSCOW ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 11(8), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.55186/2413046X_2026_11_8_117 EDN: HXYPHB.

Chicago

Mariya D. Goryachko, Ivanov A. Y.. "METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK." MOSCOW ECONOMIC JOURNAL 11, no. 8 (2026): 183-200. https://doi.org/10.55186/2413046X_2026_11_8_117. EDN: HXYPHB.

WIKI

{{cite journal | author = Goryachko M. D., Ivanov A. Y. | title = METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK | journal = MOSCOW ECONOMIC JOURNAL | year = 2026 | volume = 11 | issue = 8 | pages = 183-200 | doi = 10.55186/2413046X_2026_11_8_117 }} EDN: HXYPHB

Copy

Export: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RusMARC

METHODOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION OF RES STUDIES: A COMPREHENSIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

Confirmation