IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i12p3401-d187828.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Low-Carbon Energy Planning: A Hybrid MCDM Method Combining DANP and VIKOR Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ruijun Liu

    (Transportation and Vehicle Engineering College, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255000, China)

  • Hao Sun

    (Transportation and Vehicle Engineering College, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255000, China)

  • Lu Zhang

    (Transportation and Vehicle Engineering College, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255000, China)

  • Qianwei Zhuang

    (College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun, China)

  • Lele Zhang

    (Transportation College, Jilin University, Changchun, China)

  • Xueyi Zhang

    (Transportation and Vehicle Engineering College, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo 255000, China)

  • Ye Chen

    (Transportation College, Jilin University, Changchun, China)

Abstract

With the development of urbanization, people’s living standards have improved. Simultaneously, the growing aggravation of resource shortages and environmental pollution have also gradually attracted widespread attention. Low-carbon energy planning can effectively reduce dependence on fossil resources and carbon emissions to the atmosphere, as well as improve the utilization of resources. Therefore, the formulation and evaluation of low-carbon energy planning have become the focus of attention for related colleges and institutions. This paper puts forward a hybrid multi-criteria decision making(MCDM) method combining decision making trial and evaluation laboratory(DEMATEL), analytical network process(ANP), and VIKOR to obtain the weight of each criterion and evaluate each alternative about low-carbon energy planning for building. A hierarchy structure of criteria involving cost, safety, reliability, and environment protection is built. Afterwards, a case of four alternatives is applied for testifying this methodology. Lastly, a comparison with prior methodologies serves as proof of the raised ranking. The presentation has proved that this methodology offers a more precise and effective foundation for decisions about low-carbon energy planning evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruijun Liu & Hao Sun & Lu Zhang & Qianwei Zhuang & Lele Zhang & Xueyi Zhang & Ye Chen, 2018. "Low-Carbon Energy Planning: A Hybrid MCDM Method Combining DANP and VIKOR Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:12:p:3401-:d:187828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3401/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/12/3401/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krishnan, Venkat & McCalley, James D., 2016. "The role of bio-renewables in national energy and transportation systems portfolio planning for low carbon economy," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 207-223.
    2. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, November.
    3. Tian, Guangdong & Zhang, Honghao & Feng, Yixiong & Wang, Danqi & Peng, Yong & Jia, Hongfei, 2018. "Green decoration materials selection under interior environment characteristics: A grey-correlation based hybrid MCDM method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 682-692.
    4. Lin Ding & Zhenfeng Shao & Hanchao Zhang & Cong Xu & Dewen Wu, 2016. "A Comprehensive Evaluation of Urban Sustainable Development in China Based on the TOPSIS-Entropy Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Lugaric, Luka & Krajcar, Slavko, 2016. "Transforming cities towards sustainable low-carbon energy systems using emergy synthesis for support in decision making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 471-482.
    6. Zhanglan Wu & Jie Tang & Dong Wang, 2016. "Low Carbon Urban Transitioning in Shenzhen: A Multi-Level Environmental Governance Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-15, July.
    7. Tsai, Bi-Huei & Chang, Chih-Jen & Chang, Chun-Hsien, 2016. "Elucidating the consumption and CO2 emissions of fossil fuels and low-carbon energy in the United States using Lotka–Volterra models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 416-424.
    8. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    9. Dincer, Ibrahim, 2002. "The role of exergy in energy policy making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 137-149, January.
    10. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    11. Pratima Bansal, 2005. "Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 197-218, March.
    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. Bartosz Radomski & Tomasz Mróz, 2023. "Application of the Hybrid MCDM Method for Energy Modernisation of an Existing Public Building—A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Juan Carlos Osorio-Aravena & Marina Frolova & Julio Terrados-Cepeda & Emilio Muñoz-Cerón, 2020. "Spatial Energy Planning: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Das, Sayan & Dutta, Risav & De, Souvanik & De, Sudipta, 2024. "Review of multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable decentralized hybrid energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    4. Qingpeng Cao & Moses Olabhele Esangbedo & Sijun Bai & Caroline Olufunke Esangbedo, 2019. "Grey SWARA-FUCOM Weighting Method for Contractor Selection MCDM Problem: A Case Study of Floating Solar Panel Energy System Installation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-30, June.
    5. Renan Felinto de Farias Aires & Luciano Ferreira, 2022. "A New Multi-Criteria Approach for Sustainable Material Selection Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Arman Nedjati & Mohammad Yazdi & Rouzbeh Abbassi, 2022. "A sustainable perspective of optimal site selection of giant air-purifiers in large metropolitan areas," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8747-8778, June.

    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. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Mete, Suleyman & Yucesan, Melih & Gul, Muhammet & Ozceylan, Eren, 2023. "An integrated hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate countries’ COVID-19 risks," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Roger Fouquet, 2012. "Economics of Energy and Climate Change: Origins, Developments and Growth," Working Papers 2012-08, BC3.
    4. 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).
    5. Máximo Méndez & Mariano Frutos & Fabio Miguel & Ricardo Aguasca-Colomo, 2020. "TOPSIS Decision on Approximate Pareto Fronts by Using Evolutionary Algorithms: Application to an Engineering Design Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, November.
    6. Xiong Xiaoqin & Cheng Aiguo, 2020. "Evaluation of Heavy Commercial Vehicles Brand Considering Multi-Attribute Indexes in China," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 8(4), pages 291-308, August.
    7. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Ali Sibevei & Pardis Roozkhosh, 2024. "Prioritizing Barriers to Resilience in Blood Supply Chains: An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-37, June.
    9. Emanuele Salerno, 2020. "Identifying Value-Increasing Actions for Cultural Heritage Assets through Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Evaluation Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.
    11. Jeremy Galbreath, 2010. "Corporate governance practices that address climate change: an exploratory study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(5), pages 335-350, July.
    12. Aytekin, Ahmet & Korucuk, Selçuk & Görçün, Ömer Faruk, 2024. "Determining the factors affecting transportation demand management and selecting the best strategy: A case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 150-166.
    13. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    14. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    15. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Jen-Jen Yang & Huai-Wei Lo & Chen-Shen Chao & Chih-Chien Shen & Chin-Cheng Yang, 2020. "Establishing a Sustainable Sports Tourism Evaluation Framework with a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model to Explore Potential Sports Tourism Attractions in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Aijun Liu & Taoning Liu & Xiaohui Ji & Hui Lu & Feng Li, 2019. "The Evaluation Method of Low-Carbon Scenic Spots by Combining IBWM with B-DST and VIKOR in Fuzzy Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-30, December.
    18. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    19. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Yousefi, Samuel, 2018. "An intelligent decision making approach for identifying and analyzing airport risks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 14-27.
    20. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.

    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:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:12:p:3401-:d:187828. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.