IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i7p1178-d386040.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supportiveness of Low-Carbon Energy Technology Policy Using Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos Kokkinos

    (Energy Systems Department, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece)

  • Vayos Karayannis

    (Chemical Engineering Department, University of Western Macedonia, 50100 Kozani, Greece)

Abstract

The deployment of low-carbon energy (LCE) technologies and management of installations represents an imperative to face climate change. LCE planning is an interminable process affected by a multitude of social, economic, environmental, and health factors. A major challenge for policy makers is to select a future clean energy strategy that maximizes sustainability. Thus, policy formulation and evaluation need to be addressed in an analytical manner including multidisciplinary knowledge emanating from diverse social stakeholders. In the current work, a comparative analysis of LCE planning is provided, evaluating different multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies. Initially, by applying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis, the available energy alternative technologies are prioritized. A variety of stakeholders is surveyed for that reason. To deal with the ambiguity that occurred in their judgements, fuzzy goal programming (FGP) is used for the translation into fuzzy numbers. Then, the stochastic fuzzy analytic hierarchical process (SF-AHP) and fuzzy technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (F-TOPSIS) are applied to evaluate a repertoire of energy alternative forms including biofuel, solar, hydro, and wind power. The methodologies are estimated based on the same set of tangible and intangible criteria for the case study of Thessaly Region, Greece. The application of FGP ranked the four energy types in terms of feasibility and positioned solar-generated energy as first, with a membership function of 0.99. Among the criteria repertoire used by the stakeholders, the SF-AHP evaluated all the criteria categories separately and selected the most significant category representative. Finally, F-TOPSIS assessed these criteria ordering the energy forms, in terms of descending order of ideal solution, as follows: solar, biofuel, hydro, and wind.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos Kokkinos & Vayos Karayannis, 2020. "Supportiveness of Low-Carbon Energy Technology Policy Using Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Methodologies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-26, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:7:p:1178-:d:386040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/7/1178/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/7/1178/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Belaid Aouni & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Davide La Torre, 2012. "The stochastic goal programming model: Theory and applications," Post-Print hal-00778729, HAL.
    2. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    3. 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.
    4. Osman Taylan & Rami Alamoudi & Mohammad Kabli & Alawi AlJifri & Fares Ramzi & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2020. "Assessment of Energy Systems Using Extended Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy VIKOR, and TOPSIS Approaches to Manage Non-Cooperative Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    6. Deveci, Muhammet & Cali, Umit & Kucuksari, Sadik & Erdogan, Nuh, 2020. "Interval type-2 fuzzy sets based multi-criteria decision-making model for offshore wind farm development in Ireland," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    7. Christoffersen, Peter F, 1998. "Evaluating Interval Forecasts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 841-862, November.
    8. Chen, Wei-Ming & Kim, Hana & Yamaguchi, Hideka, 2014. "Renewable energy in eastern Asia: Renewable energy policy review and comparative SWOT analysis for promoting renewable energy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 319-329.
    9. Cavicchi, Bianca & Bryden, John M. & Vittuari, Matteo, 2014. "A comparison of bioenergy policies and institutional frameworks in the rural areas of Emilia Romagna and Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 355-363.
    10. Raghunathan Krishankumar & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Kattur Soundarapandian Ravichandran & Xindong Peng & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "A Group Decision Framework for Renewable Energy Source Selection under Interval-Valued Probabilistic linguistic Term Set," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    11. Hocine, Amin & Zhuang, Zheng-Yun & Kouaissah, Noureddine & Li, Der-Chiang, 2020. "Weighted-additive fuzzy multi-choice goal programming (WA-FMCGP) for supporting renewable energy site selection decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(2), pages 642-654.
    12. Nyambuu, Unurjargal & Semmler, Willi, 2020. "Climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy – Carbon targets and the carbon budget," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 367-376.
    13. Terrados, J. & Almonacid, G. & Hontoria, L., 2007. "Regional energy planning through SWOT analysis and strategic planning tools.: Impact on renewables development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1275-1287, August.
    14. Flavell, RB, 1976. "A new goal programming formulation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 4(6), pages 731-732.
    15. Koray Altintas & Ozalp Vayvay & Sinan Apak & Emine Cobanoglu, 2020. "An Extended GRA Method Integrated with Fuzzy AHP to Construct a Multidimensional Index for Ranking Overall Energy Sustainability Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    16. Yu, Shiwei & Zhou, Shuangshuang & Zheng, Shuhong & Li, Zhenxi & Liu, Lancui, 2019. "Developing an optimal renewable electricity generation mix for China using a fuzzy multi-objective approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1086-1098.
    17. Xiaojia Wang & Yiming Song & Xuan Zhang & Hui Liu, 2019. "Optimization of Subsidy Policy for New Energy Automobile Industry in China Based on an Integrated Fuzzy-AHP-TOPSIS Methodology," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-16, November.
    18. Shorabeh, Saman Nadizadeh & Firozjaei, Mohammad Karimi & Nematollahi, Omid & Firozjaei, Hamzeh Karimi & Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza, 2019. "A risk-based multi-criteria spatial decision analysis for solar power plant site selection in different climates: A case study in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 958-973.
    19. Romero, Carlos, 2004. "A general structure of achievement function for a goal programming model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(3), pages 675-686, March.
    20. Raja Jayaraman & Danilo Liuzzi & Cinzia Colapinto & Tufail Malik, 2017. "A fuzzy goal programming model to analyze energy, environmental and sustainability goals of the United Arab Emirates," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 255-270, April.
    21. Cavallaro, Fausto & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mardani, Abbas, 2019. "Assessment of concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies based on a modified intuitionistic fuzzy topsis and trigonometric entropy weights," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 258-270.
    22. Fertel, Camille & Bahn, Olivier & Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Waaub, Jean-Philippe, 2013. "Canadian energy and climate policies: A SWOT analysis in search of federal/provincial coherence," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1139-1150.
    23. Markovska, N. & Taseska, V. & Pop-Jordanov, J., 2009. "SWOT analyses of the national energy sector for sustainable energy development," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 752-756.
    24. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine & Bettahar, Samir & Benbouziane, Mohamed, 2018. "Optimizing renewable energy portfolios under uncertainty: A multi-segment fuzzy goal programming approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 540-552.
    25. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    26. Demir, Caner & Cergibozan, Raif, 2020. "Does alternative energy usage converge across Oecd countries?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 559-567.
    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. Sandipa Bhattacharya & Mitali Sarkar & Biswajit Sarkar & Lakshmi Thangavelu, 2023. "Exploring Sustainability and Economic Growth through Generation of Renewable Energy with Respect to the Dynamical Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-22, September.

    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. Njoh, Ambe J., 2017. "The SWOT model's utility in evaluating energy technology: Illustrative application of a modified version to assess the sawdust cookstove's sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 313-323.
    2. Horasan, Muhammed Bilal & Kilic, Huseyin Selcuk, 2022. "A multi-objective decision-making model for renewable energy planning: The case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 484-504.
    3. Emel Yontar & Onur Derse, 2023. "Evaluation of sustainable energy action plan strategies with a SWOT/TWOS-based AHP/ANP approach: a case study," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 5691-5715, June.
    4. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    5. Sebastian Goers & Fiona Rumohr & Sebastian Fendt & Louis Gosselin & Gilberto M. Jannuzzi & Rodolfo D. M. Gomes & Stella M. S. Sousa & Reshmi Wolvers, 2020. "The Role of Renewable Energy in Regional Energy Transitions: An Aggregate Qualitative Analysis for the Partner Regions Bavaria, Georgia, Québec, São Paulo, Shandong, Upper Austria, and Western Cape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-30, December.
    6. Zhang, Zhiying & Liao, Huchang & Tang, Anbin, 2022. "Renewable energy portfolio optimization with public participation under uncertainty: A hybrid multi-attribute multi-objective decision-making method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    7. Kamran, Muhammad & Fazal, Muhammad Rayyan & Mudassar, Muhammad, 2020. "Towards empowerment of the renewable energy sector in Pakistan for sustainable energy evolution: SWOT analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 543-558.
    8. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Georgios Apostolidis & Haris Doukas, 2020. "An AHP-SWOT-Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for Achieving a Cross-Border RES Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Karaaslan, Abdulkerim & Gezen, Mesliha, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey by integer multi-objective selection problem with interval coefficient," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 842-854.
    10. Qaiser, Imran, 2022. "A comparison of renewable and sustainable energy sector of the South Asian countries: An application of SWOT methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 417-425.
    11. Alexandra Pehlken & Kalle Wulf & Kevin Grecksch & Thomas Klenke & Nina Tsydenova, 2020. "More Sustainable Bioenergy by Making Use of Regional Alternative Biomass?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Pratibha Rani & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Abbas Mardani & Fausto Cavallaro & Dalia Štreimikienė & Syed Abdul Rehman Khan, 2020. "Pythagorean Fuzzy SWARA–VIKOR Framework for Performance Evaluation of Solar Panel Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Igliński, Bartłomiej & Iglińska, Anna & Koziński, Grzegorz & Skrzatek, Mateusz & Buczkowski, Roman, 2016. "Wind energy in Poland – History, current state, surveys, Renewable Energy Sources Act, SWOT analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 19-33.
    14. Jones, Dylan & Jimenez, Mariano, 2013. "Incorporating additional meta-objectives into the extended lexicographic goal programming framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 343-349.
    15. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine & Bettahar, Samir & Benbouziane, Mohamed, 2018. "Optimizing renewable energy portfolios under uncertainty: A multi-segment fuzzy goal programming approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 540-552.
    16. Daniel del Barrio Alvarez & Masahiro Sugiyama, 2020. "A SWOT Analysis of Utility-Scale Solar in Myanmar," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Gezen, Mesliha & Karaaslan, Abdulkerim, 2022. "Energy planning based on Vision-2023 of Turkey with a goal programming under fuzzy multi-objectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PA).
    18. Andrade, Eurídice M. & Paulo Cosenza, José & Pinguelli Rosa, Luiz & Lacerda, Gleide, 2012. "The vulnerability of hydroelectric generation in the Northeast of Brazil: The environmental and business risks for CHESF," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5760-5769.
    19. Rahim Zahedi & Alireza Zahedi & Abolfazl Ahmadi, 2022. "Strategic Study for Renewable Energy Policy, Optimizations and Sustainability in Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-29, February.
    20. Njoh, Ambe J., 2021. "A systematic review of environmental determinants of renewable energy performance in Ethiopia: A PESTECH analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(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:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:7:p:1178-:d:386040. 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.