IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p6271-d820695.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of M-SWARA and TOPSIS Methods in the Evaluation of Investment Alternatives of Microgeneration Energy Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Hasan Dinçer

    (The School of Business, İstanbul Medipol University, 34810 Istanbul, Turkey
    The School of Business, Ibn Haldun University, 34480 Basaksehir, Turkey)

  • Serhat Yüksel

    (The School of Business, İstanbul Medipol University, 34810 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Tamer Aksoy

    (The School of Business, Ibn Haldun University, 34480 Basaksehir, Turkey)

  • Ümit Hacıoğlu

    (The School of Business, Ibn Haldun University, 34480 Basaksehir, Turkey)

Abstract

Investments in microgeneration technologies help to boost the usage of clean energy while reducing pollution. However, selecting the appropriate investment remains the most critical phase in developing these technologies. This study aims to design a multi-criteria decision-making method (MCDM) to evaluate investment alternatives for microgeneration energy technologies. The proposed MCDM is based on a Multi Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (M-SWARA), to define the relative importance of the factors. The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Soft Sets (q-ROFSs) are used to rank investment alternatives. Calculations were also made with Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFSs) and Pythagorean Fuzzy Sets (PFSs). For analysis, five evaluation criteria were selected based on the literature: frequency of maintenance, ease of installation, environmental adaptation, transmission technologies, and efficiency of cost. Similarly, six alternatives for microgeneration technology investments were selected: ground source heat pumps, micro hydroelectric power, micro combined heat and power, micro bioelectrochemical fuel cell systems, small-scale wind turbines, and photovoltaic systems. The results showed that cost efficiency was the most significant factor in the effectiveness of microgeneration energy investments, and the photovoltaic system was the best alternative to increase microgeneration energy technology investment performance. Furthermore, the results were the same for the analyses made with IFSs and PFSs, demonstrating the reliability of the proposed method. Therefore, investors in microgeneration technologies should prioritize photovoltaic systems. This conclusion is supported by the fact that photovoltaic is a renewable energy source that has witnessed the most technological improvements and cost reductions over the last decade.

Suggested Citation

  • Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel & Tamer Aksoy & Ümit Hacıoğlu, 2022. "Application of M-SWARA and TOPSIS Methods in the Evaluation of Investment Alternatives of Microgeneration Energy Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6271-:d:820695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6271/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6271/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Spyridon Karytsas & Ioannis Vardopoulos & Eleni Theodoropoulou, 2019. "Factors Affecting Sustainable Market Acceptance of Residential Microgeneration Technologies. A Two Time Period Comparative Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Liobikienė, Genovaitė & Dagiliūtė, Renata & Juknys, Romualdas, 2021. "The determinants of renewable energy usage intentions using theory of planned behaviour approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 587-594.
    3. Dong, Weiwei & Zhao, Guohua & Yüksel, Serhat & Dinçer, Hasan & Ubay, Gözde Gülseven, 2022. "A novel hybrid decision making approach for the strategic selection of wind energy projects," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 321-337.
    4. Aquila, Giancarlo & Coelho, Eden de Oliveira Pinto & Bonatto, Benedito Donizeti & Pamplona, Edson de Oliveira & Nakamura, Wilson Toshiro, 2021. "Perspective of uncertainty and risk from the CVaR-LCOE approach: An analysis of the case of PV microgeneration in Minas Gerais, Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    5. Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mikalauskas, Ignas & Shen, Zhiyang, 2021. "Towards carbon free economy and electricity: The puzzle of energy costs, sustainability and security based on willingness to pay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    6. Bao, Qifang & Sinitskaya, Ekaterina & Gomez, Kelley J. & MacDonald, Erin F. & Yang, Maria C., 2020. "A human-centered design approach to evaluating factors in residential solar PV adoption: A survey of homeowners in California and Massachusetts," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 503-513.
    7. Pearce, Phoebe & Slade, Raphael, 2018. "Feed-in tariffs for solar microgeneration: Policy evaluation and capacity projections using a realistic agent-based model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 95-111.
    8. Vinay Virupaksha & Mary Harty & Kevin McDonnell, 2019. "Microgeneration of Electricity Using a Solar Photovoltaic System in Ireland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Hanna, Richard & Leach, Matthew & Torriti, Jacopo, 2018. "Microgeneration: The installer perspective," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 458-469.
    10. Yue Meng & Haoyue Wu & Wenjing Zhao & Wenkuan Chen & Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel, 2021. "A hybrid heterogeneous Pythagorean fuzzy group decision modelling for crowdfunding development process pathways of fintech-based clean energy investment projects," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 7(1), pages 1-34, December.
    11. Fawen Gao & Zhibin Zhang & Mengxing Shang & Gengxin Sun, 2021. "Risk Evaluation Study of Urban Rail Transit Network Based on Entropy-TOPSIS-Coupling Coordination Model," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-8, December.
    12. Athena Piterou & Anne‐Marie Coles, 2021. "A review of business models for decentralised renewable energy projects," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 1468-1480, 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. Rao, Amar & Kumar, Satish & Karim, Sitara, 2024. "Accelerating renewables: Unveiling the role of green energy markets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 366(C).
    2. Cihan Turhan & Ali Serdar Atalay & Gulden Gokcen Akkurt, 2023. "An Integrated Decision-Making Framework for Mitigating the Impact of Urban Heat Islands on Energy Consumption and Thermal Comfort of Residential Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, 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. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    2. Cuenca, Juan J. & Daly, Hannah E. & Hayes, Barry P., 2023. "Sharing the grid: The key to equitable access for small-scale energy generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 349(C).
    3. Sara Ghaboulian Zare & Reza Hafezi & Mohammad Alipour & Reza Parsaei Tabar & Rodney A. Stewart, 2021. "Residential Solar Water Heater Adoption Behaviour: A Review of Economic and Technical Predictors and Their Correlation with the Adoption Decision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Liobikienė, Genovaitė & Dagiliūtė, Renata, 2021. "Do positive aspects of renewable energy contribute to the willingness to pay more for green energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    5. Nikita Moiseev & Alexey Mikhaylov & Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel, 2023. "Market capitalization shock effects on open innovation models in e-commerce: golden cut q-rung orthopair fuzzy multicriteria decision-making analysis," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Zhiming Lu & Youting Li, 2023. "A Multi-Criteria Framework for Sustainability Evaluation of Hydrogen-Based Multi-Microgrid Systems under Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Z. Yu & S.A.R. Khan & P. Ponce & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour & C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour, 2022. "Factors Affecting Carbon Emissions in Emerging Economies in the Context of a Green Recovery: Implications for Sustainable Development Goals," Post-Print hal-04276072, HAL.
    8. Maria A. Franco & Stefan N. Groesser, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of the Solar Photovoltaic Value Chain for a Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-35, August.
    9. Arifa Tanveer & Shihong Zeng & Muhammad Irfan & Rui Peng, 2021. "Do Perceived Risk, Perception of Self-Efficacy, and Openness to Technology Matter for Solar PV Adoption? An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-24, August.
    10. Lin, Boqiang & Qiao, Qiao, 2023. "Exploring the participation willingness and potential carbon emission reduction of Chinese residential green electricity market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    11. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    12. Sadik-Zada, Elkhan Richard & Gatto, Andrea, 2023. "Civic engagement and energy transition in the Nordic-Baltic Sea Region: Parametric and nonparametric inquiries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    13. Gonçalves Rigueira Pinheiro Castro, Pedro Henrique & Filho, Delly Oliveira & Rosa, André Pereira & Navas Gracia, Luis Manuel & Almeida Silva, Thais Cristina, 2024. "Comparison of externalities of biogas and photovoltaic solar energy for energy planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    14. Szabolcs Nagy & Laszlo Molnar & Noemi Hajdu, 2023. "Understanding the Human Dimensions of the Intention to Use Renewable Energy in Hungary Applying an Extended Model of Theory of Planned Behaviour," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 25(64), pages 830-830, August.
    15. Olawale Fatoki, 2022. "Determinants of Intention to Purchase Photovoltaic Panel System: An Integration of Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behaviour," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 12(3), pages 432-440, May.
    16. Alessia D’Agata & Daniele Ponza & Florin Adrian Stroiu & Ioannis Vardopoulos & Kostas Rontos & Francisco Escrivà & Francesco Chelli & Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo & Luca Salvati & Samaneh Sadat Nickyain, 2023. "Toward Sustainable Development Trajectories? Estimating Urban Footprints from High-Resolution Copernicus Layers in Athens, Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Svetlana Balashova & Svetlana Ratner & Konstantin Gomonov & Andrey Berezin, 2020. "Modeling Consumer and Industry Reaction to Renewable Support Schemes: Empirical Evidence from the USA and Applications for Russia," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(3), pages 158-167.
    18. Valentina Costa & Federico Campanini, 2024. "Community-Centred Energy Planning: Within and beyond Administrative Borders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-26, March.
    19. Lin, Jin & Dong, Jun & Liu, Dongran & Zhang, Yaoyu & Ma, Tongtao, 2022. "From peak shedding to low-carbon transitions: Customer psychological factors in demand response," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PA).
    20. Skare, Marinko & Gavurova, Beata & Polishchuk, Volodymyr, 2023. "A decision-making support model for financing start-up projects by venture capital funds on a crowdfunding platform," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6271-:d:820695. 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.