IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v80y2017icp840-853.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Çolak, Murat
  • Kaya, İhsan

Abstract

Nowadays, energy demand is increasing as a result of growing population all over the world. Current conventional sources are not an adequate level in order to meet this energy requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to consider economic and clean alternative energy sources. In this context, renewable energy sources can be contemplated as a solution for this energy problem. On the other hand, selection among energy alternatives is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem and it is necessary to make an assessment in terms of several conflicting criteria. Sometimes, it may not be easy to evaluate these criteria by using crisp numbers and we need to evaluate by using human judgements and linguistic terms that can be used for a more flexible and sensitive evaluation. However, the fuzzy sets enable to cope with vagueness of evaluations in decision making process. In this study, an integrated MCDM model based on the fuzzy sets is proposed for prioritization of renewable energy alternatives in Turkey. The suggested fuzzy MCDM model combines analytic hierarchy process (AHP) based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Since the type-2 fuzzy sets whose membership functions are also fuzzy and hesitant fuzzy sets that enable to handle situations that an element has several membership value are more able to model uncertainties in decision making process, in this paper a MCDM methodology based on these two methods are suggested to evaluate renewable energy alternatives for Turkey. Interval type-2 fuzzy AHP method is applied to determine the weights of decision criteria, and hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS method is applied to prioritize renewable energy alternatives. A real case application has been presented via expert evaluations to indicate applicability of the proposed model. Besides, a sensitivity analysis has been performed to examine the effects of main criteria weights in ranking.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:840-853
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117308316
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194?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. Haralambopoulos, D.A. & Polatidis, H., 2003. "Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 961-973.
    2. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    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. Cebi, Selcuk & Ilbahar, Esra & Atasoy, Aylin, 2016. "A fuzzy information axiom based method to determine the optimal location for a biomass power plant: A case study in Aegean Region of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 894-907.
    5. 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.
    6. Abdolreza Yazdani-Chamzini & Mohammad Majid Fouladgar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & S. Hamzeh Haji Moini, 2013. "Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 957-978, November.
    7. Madlener, Reinhard & Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid, 2007. "New ways for the integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: The case of renewable energy use in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6060-6074, December.
    8. Yüksel, Ibrahim, 2010. "Energy production and sustainable energy policies in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1469-1476.
    9. 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.
    10. Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid & Madlener, Reinhard & Omann, Ines, 2009. "Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1063-1074, September.
    11. Suganthi, L. & Iniyan, S. & Samuel, Anand A., 2015. "Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy systems – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 585-607.
    12. 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.
    13. Nigim, K. & Munier, N. & Green, J., 2004. "Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1775-1791.
    14. 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.
    15. Ghosh, Soumya & Chakraborty, Tilottama & Saha, Satyabrata & Majumder, Mrinmoy & Pal, Manish, 2016. "Development of the location suitability index for wave energy production by ANN and MCDM techniques," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1017-1028.
    16. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    17. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    18. Mesut Kiliç & İhsan Kaya, 2016. "The prioritisation of provinces for public grants allocation by a decision-making methodology based on type-2 fuzzy sets," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(4), pages 755-774, March.
    19. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    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. 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.
    2. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Ceren Erdin & Gokhan Ozkaya, 2019. "Turkey’s 2023 Energy Strategies and Investment Opportunities for Renewable Energy Sources: Site Selection Based on ELECTRE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, April.
    6. Dongxiao Niu & Hao Zhen & Min Yu & Keke Wang & Lijie Sun & Xiaomin Xu, 2020. "Prioritization of Renewable Energy Alternatives for China by Using a Hybrid FMCDM Methodology with Uncertain Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-26, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Sitorus, Fernando & Brito-Parada, Pablo R., 2020. "A multiple criteria decision making method to weight the sustainability criteria of renewable energy technologies under uncertainty," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Chiranjib Bhowmik & Sumit Bhowmik & Amitava Ray, 2020. "Optimal green energy source selection: An eclectic decision," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 842-859, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    16. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    17. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    18. 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.
    19. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    20. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.

    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:rensus:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:840-853. 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.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.