IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i21p7242-d1266889.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation Method of Modern Power Transmission System Based on Improved Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Best-Worst Method-Anti-Entropy Weight

Author

Listed:
  • Wenhui Zeng

    (State Grid Sichuan Economic Research Institute, Chengdu 610095, China)

  • Jiayuan Fan

    (State Grid Sichuan Information & Communication Company, Chengdu 610299, China)

  • Zhichao Ren

    (State Grid Sichuan Economic Research Institute, Chengdu 610095, China)

  • Xiaoyu Liu

    (State Grid Sichuan Economic Research Institute, Chengdu 610095, China)

  • Shuang Lv

    (State Grid Sichuan Electric Power Company Chengdu Power Supply, Chengdu 610041, China)

  • Yuqian Cao

    (School of Electrical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610017, China)

  • Xiao Xu

    (School of Electrical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610017, China)

  • Junyong Liu

    (School of Electrical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610017, China)

Abstract

As the demand for power supply increases, the investment in the power transmission system constantly increases. An accurate economic evaluation of the power transmission system is essential for future investment decisions and management. Applying a single method in economic evaluation leads to excessive subjective consciousness and unreasonable weight allocation. The Euclidean distance in the traditional TOPSIS method only partially works on the condition that the criteria are linearly correlated. To solve these problems, an economic evaluation method based on improved TOPSIS and BWM-anti-entropy weight is proposed. For the assignment of weights, the method retains the advantages of subjective and objective weighting methods based on the Nash equilibrium, breaks through the limitation of utilizing a single method, which contributes to one-sided results, and enhances the scientific rigor and rationality of the comprehensive weighting process. Furthermore, based on comprehensive weights, the method improves the TOPSIS by introducing the Mahalanobis distance and Pearson correlation coefficients, which can eliminate the influence of linear correlation. Finally, ten 500 kV transmission and transformation projects are analyzed and ranked to verify the method’s feasibility. Empirical analysis shows that the method can effectively evaluate the economic benefits of the power transmission system.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenhui Zeng & Jiayuan Fan & Zhichao Ren & Xiaoyu Liu & Shuang Lv & Yuqian Cao & Xiao Xu & Junyong Liu, 2023. "Economic Evaluation Method of Modern Power Transmission System Based on Improved Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Best-Worst Method-Anti-Entropy Weight," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:21:p:7242-:d:1266889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/21/7242/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/21/7242/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuo-Ping Chang, 2023. "Corporate Finance: A Systematic Approach," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer, number 978-981-19-9119-6, December.
    2. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    3. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    4. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    5. Yongxiu He & Wenya Liu & Jie Jiao & Jie Guan, 2018. "Evaluation method of benefits and efficiency of grid investment in China: A case study," The Engineering Economist, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(1), pages 66-86, January.
    6. Chengguang Lai & Xiaohong Chen & Xiaoyu Chen & Zhaoli Wang & Xushu Wu & Shiwei Zhao, 2015. "A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for flood risk based on the combination weight of game theory," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 77(2), pages 1243-1259, June.
    7. He, YongXiu & Liu, Yang & Li, MoXing & Zhang, Yan, 2022. "Benefit evaluation and mechanism design of pumped storage plants under the background of power market reform - A case study of China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 796-806.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    9. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    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. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    2. 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).
    3. K. Koppiahraj & S. Bathrinath & V. G. Venkatesh & Venkatesh Mani & Yangyan Shi, 2023. "Optimal sustainability assessment method selection: a practitioner perspective," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 324(1), pages 629-662, May.
    4. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    5. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    6. Vladimír Bureš & Daniela Ponce & Pavel Čech & Karel Mls, 2019. "The effect of trial repetition and problem size on the consistency of decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Witold Torbacki, 2021. "Achieving Sustainable Mobility in the Szczecin Metropolitan Area in the Post-COVID-19 Era: The DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    8. Morteza Yazdani & Prasenjit Chatterjee & Maria Jose Montero-Simo & Rafael A. Araque-Padilla, 2019. "An Integrated Multi-Attribute Model for Evaluation of Sustainable Mobile Phone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    10. Mir Seyed Mohammad Mohsen Emamat & Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota & Mohammad Reza Mehregan & Mohammad Reza Sadeghi Moghadam & Philippe Nemery, 2022. "Using ELECTRE-TRI and FlowSort methods in a stock portfolio selection context," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-35, December.
    11. Ecer, Fatih & Pamucar, Dragan, 2022. "A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. Bice Cavallo & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Evaluating scales for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 951-965, June.
    13. Goldbach, Kristin & Rotaru, Andreea Mihaela & Reichert, Stefan & Stiff, George & Gölz, Sebastian, 2018. "Which digital energy services improve energy efficiency? A multi-criteria investigation with European experts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 239-248.
    14. Yelda Ayrim & Kumru Didem Atalay & Gülin Feryal Can, 2018. "A New Stochastic MCDM Approach Based on COPRAS," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 857-882, May.
    15. Tao Li & Ang Li & Yimiao Song, 2021. "Development and Utilization of Renewable Energy Based on Carbon Emission Reduction—Evaluation of Multiple MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    16. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Dhanisetty, V.S. Viswanath & Verhagen, W.J.C. & Curran, Richard, 2018. "Multi-criteria weighted decision making for operational maintenance processes," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 152-164.
    18. Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    19. Afrasiabi, Ahmadreza & Chalmardi, Mazyar Kaboli & Balezentis, Tomas, 2022. "A novel hybrid evaluation framework for public organizations based on employees’ performance factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Alptekin Ulutaş & Ayşe Topal & Dragan Pamučar & Željko Stević & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović, 2022. "A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.

    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:16:y:2023:i:21:p:7242-:d:1266889. 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.