IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i12p1318-d570906.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Multicriteria Decision-Making Model for the Selection of Suitable Renewable Energy Sources

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Nan Wang

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan)

  • Jui-Chung Kao

    (Institute of Marine Affairs and Business Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan)

  • Yen-Hui Wang

    (Department of Information Management, Chihlee University of Technology, New Taipei City 220305, Taiwan)

  • Van Thanh Nguyen

    (Faculty of Commerce, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam)

  • Viet Tinh Nguyen

    (Faculty of Commerce, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam)

  • Syed Tam Husain

    (Faculty of Commerce, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam)

Abstract

With the expansion of its industrial and manufacturing sectors, with the goal of positioning Vietnam as the world’s new production hub, Vietnam is forecast to face a surge in energy demand. Today, the main source of energy of Vietnam is fossil fuels, which are not environmentally friendly and are rapidly depleting. The speed of extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is too fast, causing them to become increasingly scarce and gradually depleted. Renewable energy options, such as solar, wind, hydro electrical, and biomass, can be considered as sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels. However, to ensure the effectiveness of renewable energy development initiatives, technological, economic, and environmental must be taken in consideration when choosing a suitable renewable energy resource. In this research, the authors present a multi-criteria decision-making model (MCDM) implementing the grey analytic hierarchy process (G-AHP) method and the weighted aggregates sum product assessment (WASPAS) method for the selection of optimal renewable energy sources for the energy sector of Vietnam. The results of the proposed model have determined that solar energy is the optimal source of renewable energy with a performance score of 0.8822, followed by wind (0.8766), biomass (0.8488), and solid waste energy (0.8135) based on the calculations of the aforementioned methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Nan Wang & Jui-Chung Kao & Yen-Hui Wang & Van Thanh Nguyen & Viet Tinh Nguyen & Syed Tam Husain, 2021. "A Multicriteria Decision-Making Model for the Selection of Suitable Renewable Energy Sources," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:12:p:1318-:d:570906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/12/1318/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/12/1318/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    2. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur & Mukul, Esin, 2018. "A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations' sustainable development goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 290-302.
    3. 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.
    4. Abdolreza Yazdani-Chamzini & Mohammad Majid Fouladgar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & S. Hamzeh Haji Moini, 2013. "Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 957-978, November.
    5. Fengsheng Chien & Chia-Nan Wang & Viet Tinh Nguyen & Van Thanh Nguyen & Ka Yin Chau, 2020. "An Evaluation Model of Quantitative and Qualitative Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Hydroelectric Plant Location Selection," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Małgorzata Trojanowska & Krzysztof Nęcka, 2020. "Selection of the Multiple-Criiater Decision-Making Method for Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Development: A Case Study of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Sajid Ali & Choon-Man Jang, 2019. "Selection of Best-Suited Wind Turbines for New Wind Farm Sites Using Techno-Economic and GIS Analysis in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    8. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies in a Household: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    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. Alfonso Maria Ponsiglione & Francesco Amato & Santolo Cozzolino & Giuseppe Russo & Maria Romano & Giovanni Improta, 2022. "A Hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process and Likert Scale Approach for the Quality Assessment of Medical Education Programs," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Imad Hassan & Ibrahim Alhamrouni & Nurul Hanis Azhan, 2023. "A CRITIC–TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Optimum Site Selection for Solar PV Farm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, May.
    3. Mahammad Nuriyev & Jeyhun Mammadov & Aziz Nuriyev & Joshgun Mammadov, 2022. "Selection of Renewables for Economic Regions with Diverse Conditions: The Case of Azerbaijan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Monica Aureliana Petcu & Liliana Ionescu-Feleaga & Bogdan-Ștefan Ionescu & Dumitru-Florin Moise, 2023. "A Decade for the Mathematics : Bibliometric Analysis of Mathematical Modeling in Economics, Ecology, and Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-30, January.

    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. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Alicja Lenarczyk & Marcin Jaskólski & Paweł Bućko, 2022. "The Application of a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Indication of Directions of the Development of Renewable Energy Sources in the Context of Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Michał Patyk & Przemysław Bodziony & Zbigniew Krysa, 2021. "A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method to Weight the Sustainability Criteria of Equipment Selection for Surface Mining," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Abteen Ijadi Maghsoodi & Arta Ijadi Maghsoodi & Amir Mosavi & Timon Rabczuk & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2018. "Renewable Energy Technology Selection Problem Using Integrated H-SWARA-MULTIMOORA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    7. Asadi, Meysam & Ramezanzade, Mohsen & Pourhossein, Kazem, 2023. "A global evaluation model applied to wind power plant site selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    8. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    9. Leanda C. Garvie & David J. Lee & Biljana Kulišić, 2024. "Towards a Bioeconomy: Supplying Forest Residues for the Australian Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Javed, Muhammad Shahzad & Ma, Tao & Jurasz, Jakub & Mikulik, Jerzy, 2021. "A hybrid method for scenario-based techno-economic-environmental analysis of off-grid renewable energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    11. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    12. Ifaei, Pouya & Tayerani Charmchi, Amir Saman & Loy-Benitez, Jorge & Yang, Rebecca Jing & Yoo, ChangKyoo, 2022. "A data-driven analytical roadmap to a sustainable 2030 in South Korea based on optimal renewable microgrids," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    13. Dranka, Géremi Gilson & Ferreira, Paula & Vaz, A. Ismael F., 2021. "A review of co-optimization approaches for operational and planning problems in the energy sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    14. Rivero-Iglesias, Jose M. & Puente, Javier & Fernandez, Isabel & León, Omar, 2023. "Integrated model for the assessment of power generation alternatives through analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy inference system. Case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 563-581.
    15. Oner, Oytun & Khalilpour, Kaveh, 2022. "Evaluation of green hydrogen carriers: A multi-criteria decision analysis tool," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    16. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    17. Çolak, Murat & Kaya, İhsan, 2017. "Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 840-853.
    18. Ball, Christopher Stephen & Vögele, Stefan & Grajewski, Matthias & Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm, 2021. "E-mobility from a multi-actor point of view: Uncertainties and their impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Aloini, Davide & Dulmin, Riccardo & Mininno, Valeria & Pellegrini, Luisa & Farina, Giulia, 2018. "Technology assessment with IF-TOPSIS: An application in the advanced underwater system sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 38-48.
    20. Jamal, Taskin & Urmee, Tania & Shafiullah, G.M., 2020. "Planning of off-grid power supply systems in remote areas using multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(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:9:y:2021:i:12:p:1318-:d:570906. 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.