Author
Abstract
Assessing renewable energy resources requires robust multi-criteria decision-making tools capable of handling uncertainty, vagueness, and the complex interactions among sustainability-related criteria. This study provides a comprehensive comparison of several widely used fuzzy-based multi-criteria decision-making methods applied to renewable energy source evaluation, including Fuzzy DEMATEL, Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy ANP, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy COPRAS, Fuzzy ELECTRE, etc., and also spherical, intuitionistic or neutrosophic fuzzy variants reported in the literature. By applying each method to the same dataset, the analysis highlights the similarities, divergences, and sensitivity patterns that emerge across different fuzzy modelling perspectives. Building on these comparative insights, the study introduces a novel interval-valued neutrosophic fuzzy hybrid decision-making framework integrating DEMATEL, ANP, and TOPSIS. In the proposed model, interval-valued neutrosophic fuzzy DEMATEL is employed to capture causal relationships among criteria and determine influence weights, while interval-valued neutrosophic fuzzy ANP models interdependencies within the decision network. Finally, interval-valued neutrosophic fuzzy TOPSIS is used to generate a robust and discriminative ranking of renewable energy source alternatives. The results demonstrate that the hybrid interval-valued neutrosophic framework offers enhanced consistency, stronger representation of expert hesitation, and improved prioritization stability compared with conventional fuzzy MCDM methods. Overall, this study advances the methodological landscape of renewable energy source decision-making by both benchmarking existing fuzzy techniques and proposing an innovative interval-valued neutrosophic hybrid approach that can support more reliable and sustainable energy planning.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
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:eas:econst:v:26:y:2025:i:26:p:138-168. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kutluk Kagan Sumer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.eurasianacademy.org/index.php/econstat .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.