Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)-AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool

Energy

Volumn 95, Issue , 2016, Pages 602-611

  Ishizaka, Alessio ^a   Siraj, Sajid ^a,b,c   Nemery, Philippe ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^b Department of Computer Science   (Pakistan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^d SAP BeLux   (Belgium)

Author keywords

AHP; Energy planning; GAIA; Group judgements; Multi criteria decision making; Visualization

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; DECISION MAKING; FLOW VISUALIZATION; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE; OPEN SYSTEMS; VISUALIZATION;

AHP (ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS); DIFFERENT ENERGY SOURCES; ENERGY PLANNING; GAIA; GROUP JUDGEMENTS; MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS; VISUALIZATION METHOD;

GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNIT;

DECISION MAKING; ENERGY PLANNING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MAPPING METHOD; SOFTWARE;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84960363584     PISSN: 03605442     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Wang J.-J., Jing Y.-Y., Zhang C.-F., Zhao J.-H. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009, 13(9):2263-2278.
2. Buchholz T., Rametsteiner E., Volk T., Luzadis V. Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 2009, 37(2):484-495.
3. Brans J.-P., Mareschal B. The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid. Decis Support Syst 1994, 12(4-5):297-310.
4. Lidouh K., De Smet Y., Zimanyi E. An adaptation of the GAIA visualization method for cartography. Conference an adaptation of the GAIA visualization method for cartography, Paris (France) 2011, 29-35.
5. Nemery P., Ishizaka A., Camargo M., Morel L. Enriching descriptive information in ranking and sorting problems with visualizations techniques. J Model Manag 2012, 7(2):130-147.
6. Ma T., Østergaard P., Lund H., Yang H., Lu L. An energy system model for Hong Kong in 2020. Energy 2014, 68(15):301-310.
7. Ćosić B., Krajačić G., Duić N.A. 100% renewable energy system in the year 2050: the case of Macedonia. Energy 2012, 48(1):80-87.
8. Sáfián F. Modelling the Hungarian energy system - the first step towards sustainable energy planning. Energy 2014, 69:58-66.
9. Bjelic I., Ciric R. Optimal distributed generation planning at a local level - a review of Serbian renewable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014, 39:79-86.
10. Zou H., Du H., Broadstock D., Guo J., Gong Y., Mao G. China's future energy mix and emissions reduction potential: a scenario analysis incorporating technological learning curves. J Clean Prod 2015, 112(2):1475-1485.
11. Ahn J., Woo J., Lee J. Optimal allocation of energy sources for sustainable development in South Korea: focus on the electric power generation industry. Energy Policy 2015, 78:78-90.
12. Chatzimouratidis A., Pilavachi P. Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2009, 37(3):778-787.
13. Yi S.-K., Sin H.-Y., Heo E. Selecting sustainable renewable energy source for energy assistance to North Korea. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011, 15(1):554-563.
14. Stein E. A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013, 22(0):640-654.
15. Ozgur D. Evaluating the best renewable energy technology for sustainable energy planning. Int J Energy Econ Policy 2013, 3:23-33.
16. Scannapieco D., Naddeo V., Belgiorno V. Sustainable power plants: a support tool for the analysis of alternatives. Land Use Policy 2014, 36(0):478-484.
17. Ahmad S., Tahar R. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy 2014, 63(0):458-466.
18. Karger C., Hennings W. Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009, 13(3):583-593.
19. Rosso M., Bottero M., Pomarico S., La Ferlita S., Comino E. Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy 2014, 67(0):870-881.
20. Kurka T. Application of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the regional sustainability of bioenergy developments. Energy 2013, 62(0):393-402.
21. Erol Ö., Kilkiş B. An energy source policy assessment using analytical hierarchy process. Energy Convers Manag 2012, 63(0):245-252.
22. Pušnik M., Sucic B. Integrated and realistic approach to energy planning - a case study of Slovenia. Manag Environ Qual An Int J 2014, 25(1):30-51.
23. Ren H., Gao W., Zhou W., Nakagami K. Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan. Energy Policy 2009, 37(12):5484-5493.
24. Köne A., Büke T. An analytical network process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy 2007, 35(10):5220-5228.
25. Kabak M., Dağdeviren M. Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Convers Manag 2014, 79(0):25-33.
26. Mallikarjun S., Lewis H. Energy technology allocation for distributed energy resources: a strategic technology-policy framework. Energy 2014, 72(0):783-799.
27. Wang H. A generalized MCDA-DEA (multi-criterion decision analysis-data envelopment analysis) approach to construct slacks-based composite indicator. Energy 2015, 80(0):114-122.
28. Grujić M., Ivezić D., Živković M. Application of multi-criteria decision-making model for choice of the optimal solution for meeting heat demand in the centralized supply system in Belgrade. Energy 2014, 67(0):341-350.
29. Ribeiro F., Ferreira P., Araújo M. Evaluating future scenarios for the power generation sector using a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool: the Portuguese case. Energy 2013, 52(0):126-136.
30. Santoyo-Castelazo E., Azapagic A. Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. J Clean Prod 2014, 80(0):119-138.
31. Maxim A. Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy 2014, 65(0):284-297.
32. Doukas H., Marinakis V., Karakosta C., Psarras J. Promoting renewables in the energy sector of Tajikistan. Renew Energy 2012, 39(1):411-418.
33. Zhang L., Zhou D.-Q., Zhou P., Chen Q.-T. Modelling policy decision of sustainable energy strategies for Nanjing city: a fuzzy integral approach. Renew Energy 2014, 62(0):197-203.
34. Oberschmidt J., Geldermann J., Ludwig J., Schmehl M. Modified PROMETHEE approach for assessing energy technologies. Int J Energy Sect Manag 2010, 4(2):183-212.
35. Ghafghazi S., Sowlati T., Sokhansanj S., Melin S. A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options. Appl Energy 2010, 87(4):1134-1140.
36. Tsoutsos T., Drandaki M., Frantzeskaki N., Iosifidis E., Kiosses I. Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 2009, 37(5):1587-1600.
37. Madlener R., Kowalski K., Stagl S. New ways for the integrated appraisal of national energy scenarios: the case of renewable energy use in Austria. Energy Policy 2007, 35(12):6060-6074.
38. Terrados J., Almonacid G., Pérez-Higueras P. Proposal for a combined methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009, 13(8):2022-2030.
39. Kowalski K., Stagl S., Madlener R., Omann I. Sustainable energy futures: methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res 2009, 197(3):1063-1074.
40. Brand B., Missaoui R. Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation mix scenarios in Tunisia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014, 39(0):251-261.
41. Doukas H., Karakosta C., Psarras J. Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Expert Syst Appl 2010, 37(7):5491-5497.
42. Yazdani-Chamzini A., Fouladgar M., Zavadskas E., Moini H. Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making. J Bus Econ Manag 2013, 14(5):957-978.
43. Streimikiene D., Balezentis T., Krisciukaitiene I., Balezentis A. Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012, 16(5):3302-3311.
44. Ren J., Fedele A., Mason M., Manzardo A., Scipioni A. Fuzzy Multi-actor multi-criteria decision making for sustainability assessment of biomass-based technologies for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38(22):9111-9120.
45. Liu G., Baniyounes A., Rasul M., Amanullah M., Khan M. General sustainability indicator of renewable energy system based on grey relational analysis. Int J Energy Res 2013, 37(14):1928-1936.
46. Ertay T., Kahraman C., Kaya I. Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using MACBETH and fuzzy AHP multicriteria methods: the case of Turkey. Technol Econ Dev Econ 2013, 19(1):38-62.
47. Sliogeriene J., Turskis Z., Streimikiene D. Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: the multiple criteria assessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Procedia 2013, 32(0):11-20.
48. Kahraman C., Kaya I. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 2010, 37(9):6270-6281.
49. Liu G. Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014, 31(0):611-621.
50. Tasri A., Susilawati A. Selection among renewable energy alternatives based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in Indonesia. Sustain Energy Technol Assessm 2014, 7(0):34-44.
51. Shen Y.-C., Lin G., Li K.-P., Yuan B. An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology. Energy Policy 2010, 38(8):4604-4616.
52. Heo E., Kim J., Boo K.-J. Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010, 14(8):2214-2220.
53. Nieto-Morote A., Ruz-Vila F., Cánovas-Rodríguez F. Selection of a trigeneration system using a fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach. Int J Energy Res 2011, 35(9):781-794.
54. Huang W.-C., Jhong C.-H., Ding J.-F. Key factors influencing sustainable development of a green energy industry in Taiwan. Math Problems Eng 2013, 2013:10.
55. Deng Y., Xu J., Liu Y., Mancl K. Biogas as a sustainable energy source in China: regional development strategy application and decision making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014, 35(0):294-303.
56. Kahraman C., Kaya I., Cebi S. A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 2009, 34(10):1603-1616.
57. Kaya T., Kahraman C. Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 2011, 38(6):6577-6585.
58. Haydt G., Leal V., Dias L. A multi-objective approach for developing national energy efficiency plans. Energy Policy 2014, 67(0):16-27.
59. Balezentiene L., Streimikiene D., Balezentis T. Fuzzy decision support methodology for sustainable energy crop selection. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013, 17(0):83-93.
60. San Cristóbal J. Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: the Vikor method. Renew Energy 2011, 36(2):498-502.
61. Asif A., Imtiaz A., Bal G. Integrated fuzzy VIKOR and AHP methodology for selection of distributed electricity generation through renewable energy in India. Int J Eng Res Appl 2011, 1(3):1110-1113.
62. Kaya T., Kahraman C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy 2010, 35(6):2517-2527.
63. Hunt D., Bañares-Alcántara R., Hanbury D. A new integrated tool for complex decision making: application to the UK energy sector. Decis Support Syst 2013, 54(3):1427-1441.
64. Ishizaka A., Labib A. Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Syst Appl 2011, 38(6):7317-7325.
65. Ishizaka A., Labib A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 2011, 38(11):14336-14345.
66. Brunelli M., Fedrizzi M. Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. J Oper Res Soc 2014, 66(1):1-15.
67. Linares P. Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 2009, 193(2):492-498.
68. Ishizaka A., Lusti M. How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study. Central Eur J Oper Res 2006, 14(4):387-400.
69. Saaty T. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 1977, 15(3):234-281.
70. Crawford G., Williams C. A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. J Math Psychol 1985, 29(4):387-405.
71. Arbel A., Orgler Y. An application of the AHP to bank strategic planning: the mergers and acquisitions process. Eur J Oper Res 1990, 48(1):27-37.
72. Siraj S., Mikhailov L., Keane J. PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments. Int Trans Oper Res 2013, 22(2):217-235.
73. Cao D., Leung L.C., Law J.S. Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in analytic hierarchy process: a heuristic approach. Decis Support Syst 2008, 44(4):944-953.
74. Siraj S., Mikhailov L., Keane J. A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices. Eur J Oper Res 2012, 216(2):420-428.