IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v72y2014icp717-730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: A case study from Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Kabir, Golam
  • Sumi, Razia Sultana

Abstract

Electromagnetic radiations emanating from the high voltage lines and substations pose serious adverse health consequences to living beings. As a result, selection of power substation location is an important strategic decision-making problem for both public and private sectors. In general, many conflicting factors affect the appropriate substation location selection problem which adheres to uncertain and imprecise data. In this paper, a simple, systematic and logical scientific approach is structured to evaluate power substation location through integrating Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) with the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE). The proposed integrated approach provides more realistic and reliable results, and facilitates the decision-maker to handle multiple contradictory decision perspectives through eliminating the limitations of FAHP and PROMETHEE methods. To accredit the proposed model, it is implemented in a power substation location selection problem in Bangladesh.

Suggested Citation

  • Kabir, Golam & Sumi, Razia Sultana, 2014. "Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: A case study from Bangladesh," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 717-730.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:717-730
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544214006653
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhang, Xu-Tao & Shi, Guo-Hua, 2008. "Integrated evaluation of distributed triple-generation systems using improved grey incidence approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1427-1437.
    2. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Chaparro-González, Fidel & Pastor-Ferrando, Juan-Pascual & Pla-Rubio, Andrea, 2014. "An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 222-238.
    3. Safaei Mohamadabadi, H. & Tichkowsky, G. & Kumar, A., 2009. "Development of a multi-criteria assessment model for ranking of renewable and non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 112-125.
    4. Macharis, Cathy & Springael, Johan & De Brucker, Klaas & Verbeke, Alain, 2004. "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 307-317, March.
    5. Chinese, Damiana & Nardin, Gioacchino & Saro, Onorio, 2011. "Multi-criteria analysis for the selection of space heating systems in an industrial building," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 556-565.
    6. 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.
    7. Nixon, J.D. & Dey, P.K. & Davies, P.A., 2010. "Which is the best solar thermal collection technology for electricity generation in north-west India? Evaluation of options using the analytical hierarchy process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5230-5240.
    8. Nagesha, N. & Balachandra, P., 2006. "Barriers to energy efficiency in small industry clusters: Multi-criteria-based prioritization using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 1969-1983.
    9. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    10. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    11. 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.
    12. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    13. Kurka, Thomas, 2013. "Application of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the regional sustainability of bioenergy developments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 393-402.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Chaparro-González, Fidel & Pastor-Ferrando, Juan-Pascual & Pla-Rubio, Andrea, 2014. "An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 222-238.
    2. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    3. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    4. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Osman Taylan & Rami Alamoudi & Mohammad Kabli & Alawi AlJifri & Fares Ramzi & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2020. "Assessment of Energy Systems Using Extended Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy VIKOR, and TOPSIS Approaches to Manage Non-Cooperative Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, March.
    9. Ahmad, Salman & Nadeem, Abid & Akhanova, Gulzhanat & Houghton, Tom & Muhammad-Sukki, Firdaus, 2017. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable and nuclear resources for electricity generation in Kazakhstan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1880-1891.
    10. Hashemizadeh, Ali & Ju, Yanbing & Bamakan, Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini & Le, Hoang Phong, 2021. "Renewable energy investment risk assessment in belt and road initiative countries under uncertainty conditions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    11. Punia Sindhu, Sonal & Nehra, Vijay & Luthra, Sunil, 2016. "Recognition and prioritization of challenges in growth of solar energy using analytical hierarchy process: Indian outlook," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 332-348.
    12. Wang, H., 2015. "A generalized MCDA–DEA (multi-criterion decision analysis–data envelopment analysis) approach to construct slacks-based composite indicator," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 114-122.
    13. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M. & García-Cascales, M.S. & Lamata, M.T., 2014. "Identification and selection of potential sites for onshore wind farms development in Region of Murcia, Spain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 311-324.
    14. Cartelle Barros, Juan José & Lara Coira, Manuel & de la Cruz López, María Pilar & del Caño Gochi, Alfredo, 2015. "Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 473-489.
    15. Sindhu, Sonal & Nehra, Vijay & Luthra, Sunil, 2017. "Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 496-511.
    16. Alicja Stoltmann, 2020. "Hybrid Multi-Criteria Method of Analyzing the Location of Distributed Renewable Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Wu, Yunna & Wang, Jing & Ji, Shaoyu & Song, Zixin, 2020. "Renewable energy investment risk assessment for nations along China’s Belt & Road Initiative: An ANP-cloud model method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    18. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Whalley, Stephanie, 2015. "Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 127-149.
    19. Bian, Tian & Hu, Jiantao & Deng, Yong, 2017. "Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on AHP," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 479(C), pages 422-436.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:energy:v:72:y:2014:i:c:p:717-730. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.