Operational Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 821–848 | Cite as

Energy planning problems with interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic information

Original Paper


In this paper, we address to the concern as to which alternative is most suitable for energy production in a new power plant set up in India. We model this problem as a multi-criteria group decision making problem where the criteria values are described in terms of interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic variables. We propose to solve this model by extending the PROMETHEE II method to interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic variables where the criteria weights in the PROMETHEE II method are supplied using the entropy measure. A small example is presented to illustrate the practicality and usefulness of the proposed method.


Multi-criteria group decision problems Energy planning problem PROMETHEE II Interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic variable Score function Accuracy function 



The authors would like to thank the referees for their constructive suggestions.


  1. Access to Clean Energy (2010) A glimpse of off grid projects in India, Government of India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
  2. Ahn SJ, Graczyk D (2012) Understanding energy challenges in India: policies. Players and issues, International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldavi A, Chaharsooghi SK, Esfahanipour A (2007) Decision making in stock trading, an application of PROMETHEE. Eur J Oper Res 177:673–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2010) A web based consensus support system for group decision making problems and incomplete preferences. Inf Sci 180:4477–4495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beg I, Rashid T (2014) Aggregation operators of interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic information. Int J Intell Syst 29:63–667Google Scholar
  6. Behzadiana M, Kazemzadehb RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200:198–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brans JP (1983) Lingenierie de la decision. Elaboration dinstruments daide a la decision. Methode PROMETHEE. In: Nadeau R, Landry M (eds) Laide a la Decision: Nature, Instrument s et Perspectives Davenir. Presses de Universite Laval, Quebec, pp 183–214Google Scholar
  8. Brans JP, Vincke Ph, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24(2):228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen CT, Hwang YC, Hung WZ (2009) Applying multiple linguistic PROMETHEE method for personnel evaluation and selection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE IEEM, pp 1312–1316, ISBN:978-1-4244-4870-8/09Google Scholar
  10. Energy Statistics (2013) Central Statistics Office National Statistical Organisation Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, 2013.
  11. Goumas M, Lygerou V (2000) Theory and methodology : an extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. Eur J Oper Res 123:606–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halouani N, Martinez L, Chabchoub H, Martel JM, Liu J (2009) A multi-granular linguistic promethee model, IFSA-EUSFLAT, pp 213–218, ISBN:978-989-95079-6-8Google Scholar
  13. Herrera F, Martinez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8:746–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrera F, Martinez L (2001) A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranuality hierarichal linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 31:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ju Y, Wang A (2013) Extension of VIKOR method for multi-criteria group decision making problem with linguistic information. Appl Math Model 37:3112–3125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li DF (2009) Multiattribute group decision making method using extended linguistic variables. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 17:793–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu HC, Li P, Youa JX, Chena YZ (2009) A novel approach for FMEA: combination of interval 2-tuple linguistic variables and gray relational analysis. Qual Reliabil Eng Int Online. doi: 10.1002/qre.1633
  18. Liu HC, Liu L, Wuc J (2013) Material selection using an interval 2-tuple linguistic VIKOR method considering subjective and objective weights. Mater Des 52:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lotfi FH, Fallahnejad R (2010) Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. Entropy 12:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mareschal B, Brans JP (1988) Geometrical representations for MCDA. Eur J Oper Res 34:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mareschal B, Brans JP (1991) Bankadviser, an industrial evaluation system. Eur J Oper Res 54(3):318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mareschal B (1998) Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid. Eur J Oper Res 33:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) An overview on the 2-tuple linguistic model for computing with words in decision making: extensions, applications and challenges. Inf Sci 207:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mi C, Liu S, Dang Y, Wang J, Wu Z (2009) Study on 2-tuple linguistic assessment method based on grey cluster with incomplete atrribute weight informatoin. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, San Antonio, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Oberschmidt J, Geldermann J, Ludwig J, Schmehl M (2010) Modified PROMETHEE approach for assessing energy technologies. Int J Energy Sect Manag 4(2):183–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pang J, Liang J (2012) Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information. Omega 40:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8:365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruan Y, Pei Z, Gao Z (2013) Linguistic interval 2-tuple power aggregation operators and their applications. Int J Comput Intell Syst 6(2):381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simpson AP, Edwards CF (2011) An energy-based framework for evaluating environmental impact. Energy 36:1442–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tai WS, Chen CT (2009) A new evaluation model for intellectual capital based on computing with linguistic variable. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3483–3488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. T Tsoutsos, Drandaki M, Frantzeskaki N, Iosifidis E, Kiosses I (2009) Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 37:1587–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vincke Ph, Brans JP (1985) A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making. Manag Sci 31(6):647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang JQ, Wang DD, Zhang HY, Chen XH (2015) Multi-criteria group decision making method based on interval 2-tuple linguistic information and Choquet integral aggregation operators. Soft Comput 19:389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang TC, Lee HD (2009) Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst Appl 36:8980–8985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wei C, Zhao N, Tang X (2014) Operators and comparisons of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(3):575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wei GW (2010) Extension of TOPSIS method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information. Knowl Inf Syst 25:623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu J, Wu Z (2013) A maximizing consensus approach for alternative-selection based on uncertain linguistic preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 64:999–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yan J, Dagang T, Yue P (2007) Ranking environmental projects model based on multicriteria decision-making and the weight sensitivity analysis. J Syst Eng Electron 18(3):534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. You XY, You JX, Liu HC, Zhen L (2015) Group multi-criteria supplier selection using an extended VIKOR method with interval 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert Syst Appl 42:1906–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeleny M (1996) Multiple-criteria decision making. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang H (2012) The multiattribute group decision making method based on aggregation operators with interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic information. Math Comput Model 56:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang H (2013) Some interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic aggregation operators and application in multiattribute group decision making. Appl Math Model 37:4269–4282CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied MathematicsDelhi Technological UniversityRohiniIndia
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations