IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eco/journ2/2019-02-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Renewable Energy Alternatives for Turkey via Modified Fuzzy AHP

Author

Listed:
  • Esra Karaka

    (Adana Science and Technology University, Faculty of Business, Department of Business Administration, Adana, Turkey.)

  • Ozan Veli Y ld ran

    (Adana Science and Technology University, Faculty of Business, Department of Business Administration, Adana, Turkey.)

Abstract

The importance of renewable energy is increasing both with the inadequacy of traditional energy resources and environmental awareness. Turkey has a large potential for renewable energy sources, and utilizing the potential is an inevitable choice for increasing its self-sufficiency with an environmentally friendly way. Therefore, evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for the country and determination of the most suitable renewable energy alternative are important issues to make reasonable energy investment plan. In this study, we evaluate the renewable energy alternatives of Turkey using Modified Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Renewable energy alternatives considered in the study are hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy. Four main criteria and eight sub criteria are used to evaluate five renewable energy alternatives. The obtained results indicate that solar energy is the best alternative, and wind energy is the second best alternative for Turkey. The conclusion reached by this study is also support successful realization of the Vision 2023 energy targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Esra Karaka & Ozan Veli Y ld ran, 2019. "Evaluation of Renewable Energy Alternatives for Turkey via Modified Fuzzy AHP," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(2), pages 31-39.
    • Handle: RePEc:eco:journ2:2019-02-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/7349/4202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/view/7349/4202
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulutaş, Berna Haktanırlar, 2005. "Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1146-1161.
    2. San Cristóbal, J.R., 2011. "Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The Vikor method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 498-502.
    3. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    4. Çelikbilek, Yakup & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2016. "An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1246-1258.
    5. Ozgur Demirta, 2013. "Evaluating the Best Renewable Energy Technology for Sustainable Energy Plannin," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 3(Special), pages 23-33.
    6. Kahraman, Cengiz & Kaya, İhsan & Cebi, Selcuk, 2009. "A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1603-1616.
    7. Beccali, M. & Cellura, M. & Mistretta, M., 2003. "Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 2063-2087.
    8. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    9. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    10. Murat Sirin, Selahattin & Ege, Aylin, 2012. "Overcoming problems in Turkey's renewable energy policy: How can EU contribute?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 4917-4926.
    11. repec:eco:journ2:2017-04-06 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mourmouris, J.C. & Potolias, C., 2013. "A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: A case study Thassos, Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 522-530.
    13. Çolak, Murat & Kaya, İhsan, 2017. "Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 840-853.
    14. Şengül, Ümran & Eren, Miraç & Eslamian Shiraz, Seyedhadi & Gezder, Volkan & Şengül, Ahmet Bilal, 2015. "Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 617-625.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mahammad Nuriyev, 2021. "An Integrated Approach for Renewable Energy Resource and Plant Location Selection," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(3), pages 64-72.
    2. Rachna, & Singh, Amit Kumar, 2024. "Analyzing policy interventions to stimulate suitable energy sources for the most polluted states of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    3. Mahammad Nuriyev, 2020. "Fuzzy Information and Z-number-based Approaches to Energy Resource Selection," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(4), pages 392-398.
    4. Bilgili, Faik & Zarali, Fulya & Ilgün, Miraç Fatih & Dumrul, Cüneyt & Dumrul, Yasemin, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using ‌intuitionistic‌ ‌fuzzy‌-TOPSIS method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1443-1458.
    5. Suriyanti Suriyanti & Ahmad Firman & Nurlina Nurlina & Gunawan Bata Ilyas & Aditya Halim Perdana Kusuma Putra, 2020. "Planning Strategy of Operation Business and Maintenance by Analytical Hierarchy Process and Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat Integration for Energy Sustainability," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(4), pages 221-228.
    6. Ezbakhe, Fatine & Pérez-Foguet, Agustí, 2021. "Decision analysis for sustainable development: The case of renewable energy planning under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 601-613.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    2. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    3. Bilgili, Faik & Zarali, Fulya & Ilgün, Miraç Fatih & Dumrul, Cüneyt & Dumrul, Yasemin, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using ‌intuitionistic‌ ‌fuzzy‌-TOPSIS method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1443-1458.
    4. Çelikbilek, Yakup & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2016. "An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1246-1258.
    5. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Empirical investigation and validation of sustainability indicators for the assessment of energy sources in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. Songrui Li & Yitang Hu, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Framework to Evaluate the Sustainability of Renewable Energy: A 2-Tuple Linguistic Grey Relation Model from the Perspective of the Prospect Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.
    8. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2017. "Evaluation of Renewable Energy Resources in Turkey using an integrated MCDM approach with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 149-163.
    9. Karaaslan, Abdulkerim & Gezen, Mesliha, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey by integer multi-objective selection problem with interval coefficient," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 842-854.
    10. Zhang, Ling & Zhou, Peng & Newton, Sidney & Fang, Jian-xin & Zhou, De-qun & Zhang, Lu-ping, 2015. "Evaluating clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: An improved multi-criteria decision making method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P1), pages 953-964.
    11. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    12. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Khishtandar, Soheila & Zandieh, Mostafa & Dorri, Behrouz, 2017. "A multi criteria decision making framework for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: The case of Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1130-1145.
    14. Ezbakhe, Fatine & Pérez-Foguet, Agustí, 2021. "Decision analysis for sustainable development: The case of renewable energy planning under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 601-613.
    15. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    16. Karunathilake, Hirushie & Hewage, Kasun & Mérida, Walter & Sadiq, Rehan, 2019. "Renewable energy selection for net-zero energy communities: Life cycle based decision making under uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 558-573.
    17. Ozorhon, Beliz & Batmaz, Arda & Caglayan, Semih, 2018. "Generating a framework to facilitate decision making in renewable energy investments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 217-226.
    18. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur & Mukul, Esin, 2018. "A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations' sustainable development goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 290-302.
    19. Çolak, Murat & Kaya, İhsan, 2017. "Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 840-853.
    20. Jamal, Taskin & Urmee, Tania & Shafiullah, G.M., 2020. "Planning of off-grid power supply systems in remote areas using multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process; Renewable Energy; Energy Strategy.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q38 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy (includes OPEC Policy)

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eco:journ2:2019-02-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ilhan Ozturk (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econjournals.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.