IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monte Carlo approach to fuzzy AHP risk analysis in renewable energy construction projects

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Serrano-Gomez
  • Jose Ignacio Munoz-Hernandez

Abstract

The construction of large renewable energy projects is characterized by the great uncertainties associated with their administrative complexity and their constructive characteristics. For proper management, it is necessary to undertake a thorough project risk assessment prior to construction. The work presented in this paper is based on a hierarchical risk structure identified by a group of experts, from which a Probabilistic Fuzzy Sets with Analysis Hierarchy Process (PFSAHP) was applied. This probabilistic analysis approach used expert opinion based on the Monte Carlo Method that allows for extracting more information from the original data. In addition, the coherence of the experts’ opinions is assessed using a novel parameter known as Confidence Level, which allows for adjusting the opinions of experts and weighting their judgments regarding impact and probability according to their coherence. This model has the advantage of offering a risk analysis in the early stages of the management of renewable energy projects in which there is no detailed information. This model is also more accurate than the classic fuzzy methodology when working with complete distribution functions, whilst it avoids the loss of information that results from the traditional mathematical operations with Fuzzy numbers. To test the model, it was applied to a 250 MW photovoltaic solar plant construction project located in southeast of Spain (Region of Murcia). As a result of the application of the proposed method, risk rankings are obtained with respect to the cost, the time, the scope and from a general point of view of the project.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Serrano-Gomez & Jose Ignacio Munoz-Hernandez, 2019. "Monte Carlo approach to fuzzy AHP risk analysis in renewable energy construction projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215943
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215943
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215943&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215943?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu, L. & Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H., 2016. "A fuzzy-stochastic simulation-optimization model for planning electric power systems with considering peak-electricity demand: A case study of Qingdao, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 190-203.
    2. Fang Yan & Kaili Xu & Xiwen Yao & Yang Li, 2016. "Fuzzy Bayesian Network-Bow-Tie Analysis of Gas Leakage during Biomass Gasification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Rezaei, Jafar & Ortt, Roland, 2013. "Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 75-84.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    5. Kannan, Devika & Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa & Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, 2014. "Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 432-447.
    6. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    7. Qiang Yang & Ping-an Du & Yong Wang & Bin Liang, 2017. "A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Gatzert, Nadine & Vogl, Nikolai, 2016. "Evaluating investments in renewable energy under policy risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 238-252.
    9. Huiru Zhao & Nana Li, 2015. "Risk Evaluation of a UHV Power Transmission Construction Project Based on a Cloud Model and FCE Method for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, 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. Chun-Nan Lin, 2020. "A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Analysis of the Dynamic Sustainable Management Index in Leisure Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.

    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. Luis Serrano-Gomez & Jose Ignacio Muñoz-Hernandez, 2020. "Risk Influence Analysis Assessing the Profitability of Large Photovoltaic Plant Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    5. Ke-Qin Wang & Hu-Chen Liu & Liping Liu & Jia Huang, 2017. "Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection Using Cloud Model Theory and the QUALIFLEX Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Tzu Yang Loh & Mario P. Brito & Neil Bose & Jingjing Xu & Kiril Tenekedjiev, 2019. "A Fuzzy‐Based Risk Assessment Framework for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Under‐Ice Missions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2744-2765, December.
    7. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    8. Xiongyong Zhou & Zhiduan Xu, 2018. "An Integrated Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach Based on Hybrid Information Aggregation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-49, July.
    9. Forouli, Aikaterini & Gkonis, Nikolaos & Nikas, Alexandros & Siskos, Eleftherios & Doukas, Haris & Tourkolias, Christos, 2019. "Energy efficiency promotion in Greece in light of risk: Evaluating policies as portfolio assets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 818-831.
    10. Yujing Xiang & Qinli Zhang & Daolin Wang & Shihai Wu, 2022. "Mining Investment Risk Assessment for Nations along the Belt and Road Initiative," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    11. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    12. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    13. Jacek Ryczyński & Agnieszka A. Tubis, 2021. "Tactical Risk Assessment Method for Resilient Fuel Supply Chains for a Military Peacekeeping Operation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Bouzon, Marina & Govindan, Kannan & Rodriguez, Carlos M.Taboada & Campos, Lucila M.S., 2016. "Identification and analysis of reverse logistics barriers using fuzzy Delphi method and AHP," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 182-197.
    15. Brian H. MacGillivray, 2019. "Null Hypothesis Testing ≠ Scientific Inference: A Critique of the Shaky Premise at the Heart of the Science and Values Debate, and a Defense of Value‐Neutral Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1520-1532, July.
    16. Francesca Marsili & Jörg Bödefeld, 2021. "Integrating Cluster Analysis into Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Maintenance Management of Aging Culverts," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(20), pages 1-18, October.
    17. Mac Clay, Pablo & Börner, Jan & Sellare, Jorge, 2023. "Institutional and macroeconomic stability mediate the effect of auctions on renewable energy capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Gundula Glowka & Andreas Kallmünzer & Anita Zehrer, 2021. "Enterprise risk management in small and medium family enterprises: the role of family involvement and CEO tenure," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1213-1231, September.
    19. Benischke, Mirko H. & Guldiken, Orhun & Doh, Jonathan P. & Martin, Geoffrey & Zhang, Yanze, 2022. "Towards a behavioral theory of MNC response to political risk and uncertainty: The role of CEO wealth at risk," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(1).
    20. Zhang, Lu & Cui, Li & Chen, Lujie & Dai, Jing & Jin, Ziyi & Wu, Hao, 2023. "A hybrid approach to explore the critical criteria of online supply chain finance to improve supply chain performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0215943. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.