Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective

Energy

Volumn 119, Issue , 2017, Pages 549-560

  Büyüközkan, Gülçin ^a   Karabulut, Yağmur ^a  

^a GALATASARAY UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

AHP; Energy projects; GDM; MCDM; Project performance evaluation; Sustainability; VIKOR

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS;

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITIES; ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION; ENERGY PROJECT; MCDM; MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING; PROJECT PERFORMANCE; RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS; VIKOR;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; EXPERT SYSTEM; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; POWER PLANT; PROJECT ASSESSMENT; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; SUSTAINABILITY; THERMAL POWER;

TURKEY;

EID: 85007487607     PISSN: 03605442     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.087     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. [1] World Bank, Energy. 09-May-2016, World Bank.
2. [2] International Energy Agency, World energy outlook 2015. 2015, IEA Executive Summary.
3. [3] Cartelle Barros, J.J., Lara Coira, M., de la Cruz López, M.P., del Caño Gochi, A., Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems. Energy 89 (Sep. 2015), 473–489.
4. [4] Narula, K., Reddy, B.S., Three blind men and an elephant: the case of energy indices to measure energy security and energy sustainability. Energy 80 (2015), 148–158 ubat.
5. [5] World Bank, “Turkey | Data.” [Online]. Available: http://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey. [Accessed: 13-Jun-2016].
6. [6] International Energy Agency, Energy policies of IEA countries: Turkey. 2009.
7. [7] “Ministry of energy and natural resources.” [Online]. Available: http://www.enerji.gov.tr/en-US/Pages/Electricity. [Accessed: 24-May-2016].
8. [8] Investing in renewable energy: the GEF experience, Nov. 2009, Global Environmental Facility.
9. [9] Hastik, R., Basso, S., Geitner, C., Haida, C., Poljanec, A., Portaccio, A., et al. Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 48 (Aug. 2015), 608–623.
10. [10] Hall, S., Foxon, T.J., Bolton, R., Investing in low-carbon transitions: energy finance as an adaptive market. Clim Policy 0:0 (Oct. 2015), 1–19.
11. [11] Mallett, A., Technology cooperation for sustainable energy: a review of pathways. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ 2:2 (Mar. 2013), 234–250.
12. [12] 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 13:9 (Dec. 2009), 2263–2278.
13. [13] Zhao, H., Guo, S., External benefit evaluation of renewable energy power in China for sustainability. Sustainability 7:5 (Apr. 2015), 4783–4805.
14. [14] Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Cavallaro, F., Khalifah, Z., Sustainable and renewable energy: an overview of the application of multiple criteria decision making techniques and approaches. Sustainability 7:10 (Oct. 2015), 13947–13984.
15. [15] Shakouri G., H., Aliakbarisani, S., At what valuation of sustainability can we abandon fossil fuels? A comprehensive multistage decision support model for electricity planning. Energy 107 (Jul. 2016), 60–77.
16. [16] World Bank, Energy & mining. 09-May-2016, World Bank.
17. [17] Atici, K.B., Ulucan, A., A multiple criteria energy decision support system. Technol Econ Dev Econ 17:2 (Jun. 2011), 219–245.
18. [18] Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy 35:6 (Jun. 2010), 2517–2527.
19. [19] Onar, S.C., Oztaysi, B., Otay, İ., Kahraman, C., Multi-expert wind energy technology selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Energy 90:1 (Oct. 2015), 274–285.
20. [20] Chaaban, F.B., Mezher, T., Ouwayjan, M., Options for emissions reduction from power plants: an economic evaluation. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 26:1 (Jan. 2004), 57–63.
21. [21] Garg, R.K., Agrawal, V.P., Gupta, V.K., Coding, evaluation and selection of thermal power plants – a MADM approach. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 29:9 (Nov. 2007), 657–668.
22. [22] Chatzimouratidis, A.I., Pilavachi, P.A., Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 35:8 (Aug. 2007), 4027–4038.
23. [23] Chatzimouratidis, A.I., Pilavachi, P.A., Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 36:3 (Mar. 2008), 1074–1089.
24. [24] Chatzimouratidis, A.I., Pilavachi, P.A., Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy 37:3 (Mar. 2009), 778–787.
25. [25] 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 197:3 (Sep. 2009), 1063–1074.
26. [26] Pilavachi, P.A., Stephanidis, S.D., Pappas, V.A., Afgan, N.H., Multi-criteria evaluation of hydrogen and natural gas fuelled power plant technologies. Appl Therm Eng 29:11–12 (Aug. 2009), 2228–2234.
27. [27] Lee, A.H.I., Chen, H.H., Kang, H.-Y., Multi-criteria decision making on strategic selection of wind farms. Renew Energy 34:1 (Jan. 2009), 120–126.
28. [28] Iniyan, S., Sumathy, K., An optimal renewable energy model for various end-uses. Energy 25:6 (Jun. 2000), 563–575.
29. [29] Suganthi, L., Williams, A., Renewable energy in India — a modelling study for 2020–2021. Energy Policy 28:15 (Dec. 2000), 1095–1109.
30. [30] Burton, J., Hubacek, K., Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-scale energy technology applications in local governments. Energy Policy 35:12 (Dec. 2007), 6402–6412.
31. [31] Kahraman, C., Kaya, İ., Cebi, S., A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 34:10 (Oct. 2009), 1603–1616.
32. [32] Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitienė, I., Balezentis, A., Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:5 (Jun. 2012), 3302–3311.
33. [33] Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Mistretta, M., Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renew Energy 28:13 (Oct. 2003), 2063–2087.
34. [34] Haralambopoulos, D.A., Polatidis, H., Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renew Energy 28:6 (May 2003), 961–973.
35. [35] Zhang, L., Zhou, P., Newton, S., Fang, J., Zhou, D., Zhang, L., Evaluating clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: an improved multi-criteria decision making method. Energy 90:1 (Oct. 2015), 953–964.
36. [36] Nixon, J.D., Dey, P.K., Davies, P.A., Sagi, S., Berry, R.F., Supply chain optimisation of pyrolysis plant deployment using goal programming. Energy 68 (Apr. 2014), 262–271.
37. [37] Nixon, J.D., Dey, P.K., Ghosh, S.K., Davies, P.A., Evaluation of options for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India using the hierarchical analytical network process. Energy 59 (Sep. 2013), 215–223.
38. [38] Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D., Local renewable energy planning: a participatory multi-criteria approach. Energy Sources 26:13 (Nov. 2004), 1253–1264.
39. [39] 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 37:5 (May 2009), 1587–1600.
40. [40] Cavallaro, F., Ciraolo, L., A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island. Energy Policy 33:2 (Jan. 2005), 235–244.
41. [41] Krukanont, P., Tezuka, T., Implications of capacity expansion under uncertainty and value of information: the near-term energy planning of Japan. Energy 32:10 (Oct. 2007), 1809–1824.
42. [42] San Cristóbal, J.R., Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain: the Vikor method. Renew Energy 36:2 (2011), 498–502 ubat.
43. [43] Önüt, S., Tuzkaya, U.R., Saadet, N., Multiple criteria evaluation of current energy resources for Turkish manufacturing industry. Energy Convers Manag 49:6 (Jun. 2008), 1480–1492.
44. [44] Kabak, M., Dağdeviren, M., Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Convers Manag 79 (Mar. 2014), 25–33.
45. [45] Köne, A.Ç., Büke, T., An Analytical Network Process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy 35:10 (Oct. 2007), 5220–5228.
46. [46] Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S., An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey. Int J Prod Econ 182 (Dec. 2016), 435–448.
47. [47] Atmaca, E., Basar, H.B., Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using analytic network process (ANP). Energy 44:1 (Aug. 2012), 555–563.
48. [48] Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 38:6 (Jun. 2011), 6577–6585.
49. [49] Topcu, Y.I., Ulengin, F., Energy for the future: an integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey. Energy 29:1 (Jan. 2004), 137–154.
50. [50] Liao, H., Xu, Z., Zeng, X.-J., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR method and its application in qualitative multiple criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23:5 (Oct. 2015), 1343–1355.
51. [51] Løken, E., Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11:7 (Sep. 2007), 1584–1595.
52. [52] Tzeng, G.-H., Lin, C.-W., Opricovic, S., Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33:11 (Jul. 2005), 1373–1383.
53. [53] Büyüközkan, G., Görener, A., Evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR model. Kybernetes 44:2 (Feb. 2015), 220–237.
54. [54] Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G., A new incomplete preference relations based approach to quality function deployment. Inf Sci 206 (Nov. 2012), 30–41.
55. [55] Düğenci, M., A new distance measure for interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to group decision making problems with incomplete weights information. Appl Soft Comput 41 (Apr. 2016), 120–134.
56. [56] Liberatore, M.J., Nydick, R.L., Group decision making in higher education using the analytic hierarchy process. Res High Educ 38:5 (Oct. 1997), 593–614.
57. [57] Saaty, T.L., The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. 1980, McGraw-Hill.
58. [58] Aczél, J., Saaty, T.L., Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 27:1 (1983), 93–102.
59. [59] Rao, R.V., Davim, J., A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35:7–8 (2008), 751–760.
60. [60] Opricovic, S., Multi-criteria optimization of civil engineering systems, faculty of civil engineering, belgrade. 1998 Table II Perform. Matrix.
61. [61] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H., Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:2 (Jul. 2004), 445–455.
62. [62] Opricovic, S., Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Syst Appl 38:10 (Sep. 2011), 12983–12990.
63. [63] Jerry Ho, W.-R., Tsai, C.-L., Tzeng, G.-H., Fang, S.-K., Combined DEMATEL technique with a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM. Expert Syst Appl 38:1 (Jan. 2011), 16–25.
64. [64] Rojas-Zerpa, J.C., Yusta, J.M., Application of multicriteria decision methods for electric supply planning in rural and remote areas. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 52 (Dec. 2015), 557–571.
65. [65] Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S., A new GDM based AHP framework with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations for renewable energy planning. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:6 (2014), 3181–3195.
66. [66] Saaty, T.L., Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. 1996.
67. [67] Zadeh, L.A., Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:3 (1965), 338–353.
68. [68] Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A., Kouikoglou, V.S., Phillis, Y.A., Evaluating strategies for sustainable development: fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis. Ecol Econ 48:2 (Feb. 2004), 149–172.
69. [69] Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S., A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. Int J Prod Econ 126:2 (2010), 370–378.
70. [70] Ingwersen, W., Cabesaz, H., Weisbrod, A.V., Eason, T., Demeke, B., Ma, X., et al. Integrated metrics for improving the life cycle approach to assessing product system. Sustainability 6:3 (Mar. 2014), 1386–1413.
71. [71] Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O., Chinyio, E.A., Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Autom Constr 30 (Mar. 2013), 113–125.
72. [72] Cobb, C., Schuster, D., Beloff, B., Tanzil, D., Benchmarking sustainability. 2014.
73. [73] Guillez, A., BASF: eco-Efficiency and SEE-Balance for sustainable developments. 2009 presented at the Eco-Chem.
74. [74] García-Melón, M., Gómez-Navarro, T., Acuña-Dutra, S., A combined ANP-delphi approach to evaluate sustainable tourism. Environ Impact Assess Rev 34 (Apr. 2012), 41–50.
75. [75] Parra-López, C., Calatrava-Requena, J., de-Haro-Giménez, T., A systemic comparative assessment of the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended framework. Ecol Econ 64:4 (Feb. 2008), 820–834.
76. [76] Chuang, S.-P., Assessing and improving the green performance using a compound approach. Flex Serv Manuf J 26:1–2 (Jun. 2014), 69–91.
77. [77] Dias-Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., Environmental performance evaluation and sustainability performance evaluation of organizations: an evolutionary framework. Eco Manag Audit 8:2 (Jun. 2001), 71–79.
78. [78] Shen, L., Li Hao, J., Tam, V.W., Yao, H., A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. J Civ Eng Manag 13:4 (2007), 273–281.
79. [79] Yao, H., Shen, L., Tan, Y., Hao, J., Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. Autom Constr 20:8 (Dec. 2011), 1060–1069.
80. [80] Global Reporting Initiative, Global reporting initiative (GRI) 4-reporting principles and standard disclosures. 2013 Amsterdam, Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures.
81. [81] ROBECOSAM's corporate sustainability assessment methodology, 2014, Robecosam.
82. [82] Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V., A fuzzy multi-objective approach for sustainable investments. Expert Syst Appl 39:12 (Sep. 2012), 10904–10915.
83. [83] Rajak, S., Vinodh, S., Application of fuzzy logic for social sustainability performance evaluation: a case study of an Indian automotive component manufacturing organization. J Clean Prod 108:Part A (1 December 2015), 1184–1192.
84. [84] Kahraman, C., Kaya, İ., A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 37:9 (Sep. 2010), 6270–6281.
85. [85] Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecol Econ 61:2–3 (Mar. 2007), 224–236.
86. [86] Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., Van Erck, R.P., Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. J Clean Prod 13:4 (2005), 373–385.
87. [87] Epstein, M.J., Wisner, P.S., Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environ Qual Manag 11:2 (Dec. 2001), 1–10.
88. [88] New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, Business guide to a sustainable supply chain. Nov. 2003.