Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Methods for Sustainability Assessment and Improvement of Energy Systems Under Uncertainties

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Energy Systems Evaluation (Volume 2)

Part of the book series: Green Energy and Technology ((GREEN))

Abstract

As one of the purposes to conduct sustainability assessment of energy systems, providing information on improving system sustainability for decision-makers is crucial. However, the existing literature fails to provide comprehensive information to improve the sustainability from both short-term and long-term perspectives while considering the uncertainties existing in decision-making process. In order to narrow the research gap, the methodological framework for sustainability assessment of energy systems was established by integrating an improved hierarchical fuzzy Best–Worst Method (BWM), fuzzy Decision-making and Trial Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method and fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. In which, the improved hierarchical fuzzy BWM was used to obtain the weights of the criteria, and further to provide the short-term information of improving the sustainability. While the cause-effect relationships among criteria were captured by using the fuzzy DEMATEL method to provide information for the long-term improvement of the system sustainability. The priorities of energy systems were finally acquired by using the fuzzy TOPSIS method. And the validity of the sustainability assessment framework of energy systems was verified using a case study of five combined cooling, heating, and power systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yuan J, Li Y, Luo X, Zhang Z, Ruan Y, Zhou Q (2020) A new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for developing integrated energy systems in industrial parks. J Cleaner Product 270

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ren J (2018) Multi-criteria decision making for the prioritization of energy systems under uncertainties after life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain Product Consump 16:45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu Y, Du J-l (2020) A multi criteria decision support framework for renewable energy storage technology selection. J Cleaner Product 277

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ghenai C, Albawab M, Bettayeb M (2020) Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renew Energy 146:580–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Xu Y, Yan C, Liu H, Wang J, Yang Z, Jiang Y (2020) Smart energy systems: a critical review on design and operation optimization. Sustain Cities Soc 62

    Google Scholar 

  6. Robertson Munro F, Cairney P (2020) A systematic review of energy systems: the role of policymaking in sustainable transitions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 119

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shao M, Han Z, Sun J, Xiao C, Zhang S, Zhao Y (2020) A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection. Renew Energy 157:377–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ilbahar E, Cebi S, Kahraman C (2019) A state-of-the-art review on multi-attribute renewable energy decision making. Energy Strategy Rev 25:18–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ren J, Xu D, Cao H, Wei Sa, Dong L, Goodsite ME (2016) Sustainability decision support framework for industrial system prioritization. AIChE J 62:108–130

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thies C, Kieckhäfer K, Spengler TS, Sodhi MS (2019) Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: a review. Eur J Oper Res 274:1–21

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Wątróbski J, Jankowski J, Ziemba P, Karczmarczyk A, Zioło M (2019) Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86:107–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cinelli M, Kadziński M, Gonzalez M, Słowiński R (2020) How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega 96

    Google Scholar 

  13. Witt T, Dumeier M, Geldermann J (2020) Combining scenario planning, energy system analysis, and multi-criteria analysis to develop and evaluate energy scenarios. J Cleaner Product 242

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ridha E, Nolting L, Praktiknjo A (2020) Complexity profiles: a large-scale review of energy system models in terms of complexity. Energy Strategy Rev 30

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ren J, Ren X, Shen W, Man Y, Lin R, Liu Y et al (2020) Industrial system prioritization using the sustainability‐interval‐index conceptual framework with life-cycle considerations. AIChE J 66

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nsafon BEK, Butu HM, Owolabi AB, Roh JW, Suh D, Huh J-S (2020) Integrating multi-criteria analysis with PDCA cycle for sustainable energy planning in Africa: application to hybrid mini-grid system in Cameroon. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 37

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maxim A (2014) Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy 65:284–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ren J, Manzardo A, Toniolo S, Scipioni A (2013) Sustainability of hydrogen supply chain. Part II: prioritizing and classifying the sustainability of hydrogen supply chains based on the combination of extension theory and AHP. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38:13845–13855

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pilpola S, Lund PD (2020) Analyzing the effects of uncertainties on the modelling of low-carbon energy system pathways. Energy 201

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ebrahimi M, Keshavarz A (2012) Prime mover selection for a residential micro-CCHP by using two multi-criteria decision-making methods. Energy Buildi 55:322–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jing Y-Y, Bai H, Wang J-J (2012) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for CCHP systems driven by different energy sources. Energy Policy 42:286–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ren J, Liang H (2017) Measuring the sustainability of marine fuels: a fuzzy group multi-criteria decision making approach. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 54:12–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ren J, Lützen M (2017) Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:1003–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ren J, Dong L (2018) Evaluation of electricity supply sustainability and security: multi-criteria decision analysis approach. J Clean Prod 172:438–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Streimikiene D, Baležentis T (2013) Multi-criteria assessment of small scale CHP technologies in buildings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 26:183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. He C, Zhang Q, Ren J, Li Z (2017) Combined cooling heating and power systems: sustainability assessment under uncertainties. Energy 139:755–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ren J (2018) Life cycle aggregated sustainability index for the prioritization of industrial systems under data uncertainties. Comput Chem Eng 113:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ren J, Toniolo S (2018) Life cycle sustainability decision-support framework for ranking of hydrogen production pathways under uncertainties: an interval multi-criteria decision making approach. J Clean Prod 175:222–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang K, Ding Y, Zhu N, Yang F, Wang Q (2018) Multi-criteria integrated evaluation of distributed energy system for community energy planning based on improved grey incidence approach: a case study in Tianjin. Appl Energy 229:352–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ren X, Li W, Ding S, Dong L (2020) Sustainability assessment and decision making of hydrogen production technologies: a novel two-stage multi-criteria decision making method. Int J Hydrogen Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chou Y-C, Sun C-C, Yen H-Y (2012) Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Appl Soft Comput 12:64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ren J, Manzardo A, Toniolo S, Scipioni A (2013) Sustainability of hydrogen supply chain. Part I: identification of critical criteria and cause–effect analysis for enhancing the sustainability using DEMATEL. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38:14159–14171

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rezaei J (2016) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64:126–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mi X, Tang M, Liao H, Shen W, Lev B (2019) The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega 87:205–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Karimi H, Sadeghi-Dastaki M, Javan M (2020) A fully fuzzy best–worst multi attribute decision making method with triangular fuzzy number: a case study of maintenance assessment in the hospitals. Appl Soft Comput 86

    Google Scholar 

  37. Amiri M, Hashemi-Tabatabaei M, Ghahremanloo M, Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J (2020) A new fuzzy approach based on BWM and fuzzy preference programming for hospital performance evaluation: a case study. Appl Soft Comput 92

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A (2017) A novel approach for combination of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method. Appl Soft Comput 59:316–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guo S, Zhao H (2017) Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowl-Based Syst 121:23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jiménez M, Arenas M, Bilbao A, Rodrı´guez MV (2007) Linear programming with fuzzy parameters: An interactive method resolution. Euro J Oper Res 177:1599–609

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tabatabaei MH, Amiri M, Ghahremanloo M, Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J (2019) Hierarchical decision-making using a new mathematical model based on the best-worst method. Int J Comput Commun Control 14(6):669–684

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ren J, Gao S, Tan S, Dong L, Scipioni A, Mazzi A (2015) Role prioritization of hydrogen production technologies for promoting hydrogen economy in the current state of China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1217–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ren J (2018) New energy vehicle in China for sustainable development: analysis of success factors and strategic implications. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 59:268–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang X, Ming X, Yin D (2020) Application of industrial big data for smart manufacturing in product service system based on system engineering using fuzzy DEMATEL. J Cleaner Product 265

    Google Scholar 

  45. Xu C, Wu Y, Dai S (2020) What are the critical barriers to the development of hydrogen refueling stations in China? A modified fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Energy Policy 142

    Google Scholar 

  46. Addae BA, Zhang L, Zhou P, Wang F (2019) Analyzing barriers of smart energy city in Accra with two-step fuzzy DEMATEL. Cities 89:218–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ren J, Sovacool BK (2014) Quantifying, measuring, and strategizing energy security: determining the most meaningful dimensions and metrics. Energy 76:838–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mahmoudi S, Jalali A, Ahmadi M, Abasi P, Salari N Identifying critical success factors in heart failure self-care using fuzzy DEMATEL method. Appl Soft Comput 84

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ahmadi O, Mortazavi SB, Mahabadi HA, Hosseinpouri M (2020) Development of a dynamic quantitative risk assessment methodology using fuzzy DEMATEL-BN and leading indicators. Process Saf Environ Prot 142:15–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Qi R, Li S, Qu L, Sun L, Gong C (2020) Critical factors to green mining construction in China: a two-step fuzzy DEMATEL analysis of state-owned coal mining enterprises. J Cleaner Product 273

    Google Scholar 

  51. Farooque M, Jain V, Zhang A, Li Z (2020) Fuzzy DEMATEL analysis of barriers to blockchain-based life cycle assessment in China. Comput Indus Eng 147

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mohammadfam I, Mirzaei Aliabadi M, Soltanian AR, Tabibzadeh M, Mahdinia M (2019) Investigating interactions among vital variables affecting situation awareness based on Fuzzy DEMATEL method. Int J Indus Ergonomics 74

    Google Scholar 

  53. Chen C (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, National-Municipal Joint Engineering Laboratory for Chemical Process Intensification and Reaction, Key Laboratory of Low-Grade Energy Utilization Technologies & Systems of the Ministry of Education, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400044, China

    Xusheng Ren & Lichun Dong

  2. Green Intelligence Environmental School, Yangtze Normal University, Fuling, Chongqing, 408100, China

    Lichun Dong

  3. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Jingzheng Ren

Authors
  1. Xusheng Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lichun Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jingzheng Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lichun Dong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Systems, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

    Jingzheng Ren

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Table 9 The initial fuzzy direct-relation matrix expressed by the linguistic terms
Full size table
Table 10 The initial fuzzy direct-relation matrix expressed by the fuzzy numbers
Full size table
Table 11 The fuzzy total-relation matrix
Full size table
Table 12 The crisp total-relation matrix
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13 The initial decision-making matrix
Full size table
Table 14 The weighted normalized decision-making matrix
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ren, X., Dong, L., Ren, J. (2021). Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Methods for Sustainability Assessment and Improvement of Energy Systems Under Uncertainties. In: Ren, J. (eds) Energy Systems Evaluation (Volume 2). Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67376-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67376-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-67375-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-67376-5

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation