Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making framework based on life cycle environmental, economic and social impacts: The case of U.S. wind energy

Sustainable Production and Consumption

Volumn 8, Issue , 2016, Pages 78-92

  Gumus, Serkan ^a,b   Kucukvar, Murat ^c   Tatari, Omer ^a  

^a University of Central Florida   (United States)

^b TURKISH MILITARY ACADEMY   (Turkey)

^c ISTANBUL SEHIR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Aggregation operator; Intuitionistic fuzzy sets; Life cycle sustainability assessment; Multi criteria decision making; TOPSIS; Wind energy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85027943645     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23525509     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2016.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Afgan, N.H., Carvalho, M.G., Sustainability assessment of hydrogen energy systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 29:13 (2004), 1327–1342.
2. Anadon, L.D., Bunn, M.G., Chan, M., Jones, C.A., Kempener, R., Chan, G.A., Narayanamurti, V., 2011. Transforming US Energy Innovation.
3. Anadon, L.D., Bunn, M., Gallagher, K.S., Jones, C., 2009. Tackling US energy challenges and opportunities: Preliminary policy recommendations for enhancing energy innovation in the United States. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
4. Ardente, F., Beccali, M., Cellura, M., FALCADE: fuzzy software for the energy and environmental balances of products. Ecol. Modell. 176:3 (2004), 359–379.
5. Ardente, F., Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Brano, V.L., Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 12:1 (2008), 200–217.
6. Atanassov, K., Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986), 87–96.
7. Atanassov, K., Pasi, G., Yager, R.R., Intuitionistic fuzzy interpretations of multi-criteria multi-person and multi-measurement tool decision making. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 36:14 (2005), 859–868.
8. Atilgan, B., Azapagic, A., Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from fossil fuels in Turkey. J. Cleaner Prod. 106 (2015), 555–564.
9. Azapagic, A., Stamford, L., Youds, L., Barteczko-Hibbert, C., Towards sustainable production and consumption: A novel decision-support framework integrating economic, environmental and social sustainability (DESIRES). Comput. Chem. Eng. 91 (2016), 93–103.
10. Boran, F.E., Boran, K., Menlik, T., The evaluation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Energy Sources Part B 7:1 (2012), 81–90.
11. Boran, F.E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., Akay, D.A., Multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009), 11363–11368.
12. Cavallaro, F., Ciraolo, L.A., Multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island. Energy Policy 33:2 (2005), 235–244.
13. Cellura, M., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., The energy and environmental impacts of Italian households consumptions: an input–output approach. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15:8 (2011), 3897–3908.
14. Cellura, M., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., Application of the structural decomposition analysis to assess the indirect energy consumption and air emission changes related to Italian households consumption. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16:2 (2012), 1135–1145.
15. 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 (2008), 1074–1089.
16. Chen, C.T., Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114 (2000), 1–9.
17. Chen, M.F., Tzeng, G.H., Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Math. Comput. Modelling 40 (2004), 1473–1490.
18. De Luca, A., Termini, S.A., Definition of non-probabilistic entropy in the setting of fuzzy sets theory. Inf. Control 20 (1972), 301–312.
19. Dimitriou, I., García-Gutiérrez, P., Elder, R.H., Cuéllar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., Allen, R.W., Carbon dioxide utilisation for production of transport fuels: process and economic analysis. Energy Environ. Sci. 8:6 (2015), 1775–1789.
20. Doukas, H.C., Andreas, B.M., Psarras, J.E., Multi-criteria decision aid for the formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables. European J. Oper. Res. 182:2 (2007), 844–855.
21. Egilmez, G., Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., Environmental sustainability benchmarking of the US and Canada metropoles: An expert judgment-based multi-criteria decision making approach. Cities 42 (2015), 31–41.
22. Egilmez, G., Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., A fuzzy data envelopment analysis framework for dealing with uncertainty impacts of input–output life cycle assessment models on eco-efficiency assessment. J. Cleaner Prod., 2016 (in print).
23. Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Sustainability assessment of US manufacturing sectors: an economic input output-based frontier approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 53 (2013), 91–102.
24. Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Bhutta, M.K.S., Supply chain sustainability assessment of the US food manufacturing sectors: A life cycle-based frontier approach. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 82 (2014), 8–20.
25. Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century.
26. Elsam, D., Wind Vestas engineering, life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind farms. Engineering, 2004.
27. Evans, A., Strezov, V., Evans, T.J., Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 13:5 (2009), 1082–1088.
28. Foran, B., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., 2005a. Balancing act a triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy volume 1. In: Csiro (Ed.), Balancing Act 358. CSIRO, p. 277.
29. Foran, B., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., Bilek, M., Integrating sustainable chain management with triple bottom line accounting. Ecol. Econ. 52:2 (2005), 143–157.
30. Greening, L.A., Bernow, S., Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi- criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32:6 (2006), 721–735.
31. Gujba, H., Mulugetta, Y., Azapagic, A., Environmental and economic appraisal of power generation capacity expansion plan in Nigeria. Energy Policy 38:10 (2010), 5636–5652.
32. Heo, E., Kim, J., Boo, K.J., Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 14:8 (2010), 2214–2220.
33. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State-of- the-Art Survey. 1981, Springer-Verlag, New York.
34. Jacobson, M.Z., Delucchi, M.A., Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 39:3 (2011), 1154–1169.
35. Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh, L., Izadikhah, F.M., An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Appl. Math. Comput. 175 (2006), 1375–1384.
36. Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, H.F., Izadikhah, M., Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Appl. Math. Comput. 181:2 (2006), 1544–1551.
37. Jeswani, H.K., Azapagic, A., Schepelmann, P., Ritthoff, M., Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J. Cleaner Prod. 18:2 (2010), 120–127.
38. Jungbluth, N., Bauer, C., Donnes, R., Frischknecht, R., Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: Case studies for photovoltaic and wind power. Energy Supply, 2014, 1–11.
39. Kahraman, C., Kaya, I., A fuzzy multi-criteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst. Appl. 37:9 (2010), 6270–6281.
40. Kahraman, C., Kaya, I., Cebi, S.A., Comparative analysis for multi attribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 34:10 (2009), 1603–1616.
41. Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy 35:6 (2010), 2517–2527.
42. Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 38:6 (2011), 6577–6585.
43. Kloepffer, W., Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13:2 (2008), 89–95.
44. Kouloumpis, V., Stamford, L., Azapagic, A., Decarbonising electricity supply: Is climate change mitigation going to be carried out at the expense of other environmental impacts?. Sustainable Prod. Consumpt. 1 (2015), 1–21.
45. Kucukvar, M., Cansev, B., Egilmez, G., Onat, N.C., Samadi, H., Energy-climate-manufacturing nexus: New insights from the regional and global supply chains of manufacturing industries. Appl. Energy, 2016 (in press).
46. Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Onat, N.C., Samadi, H., A global, scope-based carbon footprint modeling for effective carbon reduction policies: Lessons from the Turkish manufacturing. Sustainable Prod. Consumpt. 1 (2015), 47–66.
47. Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method. Autom. Constr. 40 (2014), 33–43.
48. Kucukvar, M., Noori, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19:6 (2014), 1185–1199.
49. Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., Evaluating environmental impacts of alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-linked life-cycle analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 32:6 (2014), 500–508.
50. Kucukvar, M., Samadi, H., Linking national food production to global supply chain impacts for the energy-climate challenge: the cases of the EU-27 and Turkey. J. Cleaner Prod. 108 (2015), 395–408.
51. Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., A comprehensive life cycle analysis of cofiring algae in a coal power plant as a solution for achieving sustainable energy. Energy 36:11 (2011), 6352–6357.
52. Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the US construction industry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18:5 (2013), 958–972.
53. Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., Hwang, C.L., TOPSIS for MODM. European J. Oper. Res. 76:3 (1994), 486–500.
54. Lee, A.H., Chen, H.H., Kang, H.Y., Multi-criteria decision making on strategic selection of wind farms. Renew. Energy 34:1 (2009), 120–126.
55. Lenzen, M., Errors in conventional and input–output-based life-cycle inventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 4:4 (2000), 127–148.
56. Lenzen, M., Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Convers. Manage. 49:8 (2008), 2178–2199.
57. 2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines—review and applications. Renew. Energy 26:3 (2002), 339–362.
58. Lenzen, M., Wachsmann, U., Wind turbines in Brazil and Germany: an example of geographical variability in life-cycle assessment. Appl. Energy 77:2 (2004), 119–130.
59. Li, D.F., Multiattribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 70:1 (2005), 73–85.
60. Li, D.F., Wang, Y.C., Liu, S., Shan, F., Fractional programming methodology for multi-attribute group decision-making using IFS. Appl. Soft Comput. 9:1 (2009), 219–225.
61. Lin, L., Yuan, X.H., Xiaa, Z.Q., Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 73:1 (2007), 84–88.
62. Liu, H.W., Wanga, G.J., Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. European J. Oper. Res. 179:1 (2007), 220–233.
63. Løken, E., Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 11:7 (2007), 1584–1595.
64. Malik, A., Lenzen, M., Geschke, A., Triple bottom line study of a lignocellulosic biofuel industry. GCB Bioenergy, 2015 (in print).
65. Martinez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jimenez, E., Blanco, J., Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renew. Energy 34:3 (2009), 667–673.
66. Noori, M., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Economic input–output based sustainability analysis of onshore and offshore wind energy systems. Int. J. Green Energy 12:9 (2015), 939–948.
67. Noori, M., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., A macro-level decision analysis of wind power as a solution for sustainable energy. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 34:10 (2015), 629–644.
68. Onat, N., 2015a. Integrated Sustainability Assessment Framework for the U.S. Transportation. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1240 http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1240.
69. Onat, N., 2015b. A Macro-Level Sustainability Assessment Framework for Optimal Distribution of Alternative Passenger Vehicles. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1241. http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1241.
70. Onat, N.C., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., Towards greening the US residential building stock: a system dynamics approach. Build. Environ. 78 (2014), 68–80.
71. Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Egilmez, G., Integration of system dynamics approach toward deepening and broadening the life cycle sustainability assessment framework: a case for electric vehicles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 2016, 1–26.
72. Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Zheng, Q.P., Combined application of multi-criteria optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative passenger cars in US. J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016), 291–307.
73. Onat, N.C., Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies. Sustainable Prod. Consumpt., 2015.
74. Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States. Appl. Energy 150 (2015), 36–49.
75. Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of US residential and commercial buildings: An input–output hybrid life cycle assessment approach. Build. Environ. 72 (2014), 53–62.
76. Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19:8 (2014), 1488–1505.
77. Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Towards life cycle sustainability assessment of alternative passenger vehicles. Sustainability 6:12 (2014), 9305–9342.
78. Park, Y.S., Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., A novel life cycle-based principal component analysis framework for eco-efficiency analysis: case of the United States manufacturing and transportation Nexus. J. Cleaner Prod. 92 (2015), 327–342.
79. Pehnt, M., Oeser, M., Swider, D.J., Consequential environmental system analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in Germany. Energy 33:5 (2008), 747–759.
80. Pohekar, S.D., Ramachandran, M., Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 8:4 (2004), 365–381.
81. 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.
82. Santoyo-Castelazo, E., Azapagic, A., Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. J. Cleaner Prod. 80 (2014), 119–138.
83. Santoyo-Castelazo, E., Gujba, H., Azapagic, A., Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mexico. Energy 36:3 (2011), 1488–1499.
84. Shannon, C.E., The mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27 (1948), 379–423 623–656.
85. Slattery, M.C., Lantz, E., Johnson, B.L., State and local economic impacts from wind energy projects: Texas case study. Energy Policy 39:12 (2011), 7930–7940.
86. Stamford, L., Azapagic, A., Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK. Int. J. Energy Res. 36:14 (2012), 1263–1290.
87. Su, Z.X., Chen, M.Y., Xia, G.P., Wang, L., An interactive method for dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011), 15286–15295.
88. Szmidt, E., Kacprzyk, J., Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114 (2000), 505–518.
89. Szmidt, E., Kacprzyk, J., Entropy of intuitionistic fMulti-person multi-attribute decision uzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118 (2001), 467–477.
90. Talinli, I., Topuz, E., Uygar, A.M., Comparative analysis for energy production processes (EPPs): sustainable energy futures for Turkey. Energy Policy 38:8 (2010), 4479–4488.
91. UNEP. 21 Issues for the 21st Century: Result of the UNEP Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues. In United Nations Environmental Program. Nairobi: UNEP 2012.
92. US Department of Energy, 2008. 20% Wind Energy by 2030.US Department of Energy. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf.
93. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, 2006. Life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbines.
94. Vlachos, I.K., Sergiadis, G.D., Intuitionistic fuzzy information — Applications to pattern recognition. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 28 (2007), 197–206.
95. Wang, P., QoS-aware web services selection with intuitionistic fuzzy set under consumer's vague perception. Expert Syst. Appl. 36:3 (2009), 4460–4466.
96. Wang, J.W., Cheng, C.H., Huang, K.C., Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 9:1 (2009), 377–386.
97. Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F., Zhao, J.H., Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 13:9 (2009), 2263–2278.
98. Wei, G.W., Maximizing deviation method for multiple attribute decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Knowl.-Based Syst. 21:8 (2008), 833–836.
99. Weinzettel, J., Reenaas, M., Solli, C., Hertwich, E.G., Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine. Renew. Energy 34:3 (2009), 742–747.
100. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Unravelling the impacts of supply chains—a new triple-bottom-line accounting approach and software tool. Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production, 2009, Springer, New York, Netherlands, 65–90.
101. Wiedmann, T.O., Lenzen, M., Barrett, J.R., Companies on the scale: Comparing and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. J. Ind. Ecol. 13:3 (2009), 361–383.
102. Wiedmann, T.O., Suh, S., Feng, K., Lenzen, M., Acquaye, A., Scott, K., Barrett, J.R., Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies–the case of wind power in the UK. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:13 (2011), 5900–5907.
103. Xu, Z.S., Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 15:6 (2007), 1179–1187.
104. Xu, Z.S., Multi-person multi-attribute decision making models under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 6:3 (2007), 221–236.
105. Xu, Z.S., Multi-period multi-attribute group decision-making under linguistic assessments. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 38:8 (2009), 823–850.
106. Xu, Z.S., Yager, R.R., Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 35 (2006), 417–433.
107. Yang, T., Hung, C.C., Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 23 (2007), 126–137.
108. Ye, J., Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method using entropy weights-based correlation coefficients of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Appl. Math. Model. 34 (2010), 3864–3870.
109. Zadeh, L.A., Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8 (1965), 338–353.
110. Zhang, C., Anadon, L.D., Life cycle water use of energy production and its environmental impacts in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:24 (2013), 14459–14467.
111. Zomer, R., Trabucco, A., Bossio, D.A., Verchot, L.V., Climate change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agricult. Ecosys. Environ. 126 (2008), 67–80.