A Cumulative Belief Degree Approach for Prioritization of Energy Sources: Case of Turkey

  • Özgür Kabak
  • Didem Cinar
  • Gulcin Yucel Hoge
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN, volume 129)


Energy planning is difficult to model owing to its complex structure, with numerous decision makers, criteria, and scenarios. Fortunately, decision-making methods can be helpful for the sustainable development of energy, by the evaluation of different energy sources with regard to multiple aspects, for example, economic, environmental, political etc. In this study, a methodology based on a cumulative belief degree approach is proposed for the prioritization of energy sources. The approach enables the use of all types of evaluations, without the loss of any information. It also allows for incomplete expert evaluations which may occur in the energy sources prioritization problem. Turkey, like many countries, generates most of energy from fossil fuels, which are imported mostly from other countries. However, the enormous increase in oil prices, and an emerging energy demand, owing to economic growth and environmental issues, is forcing Turkey to improve its sustainable energy planning. Therefore, the proposed methodology is applied to the energy sources prioritization of Turkey. Results show that solar power and wind should be considered as the priori sources of energy in Turkey.


  1. Adamantiades A, Kessides I (2009) Nuclear power for sustainable development: current status and future prospects. Energy Policy 37(12):5149–5166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amer M, Daim TU (2011) Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: a case of Pakistan. Energ Sustainable Dev 15(4):420–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atmaca E, Basar HB (2012) Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using analytic network process (ANP). Energy 44(1):555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baris K, Kucukali S (2012) Availability of renewable energy sources in Turkey: current situation, potential, government policies and the EU perspective. Energ Policy 42:377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cristóbal JRS (2011) Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain: the Vikor method. Renew Energ 36(2):498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doukas H, Karakosta C, Psarras J (2010) Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Expert Syst Appl 37(7):5491–5497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jing YY, Bai H, Wang JJ (2012) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for CCHP systems driven by different energy sources. Energ Policy 42:286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jovanović M, Afgan N, Radovanović P, Stevanović V (2009) Sustainable development of the Belgrade energy system. Energy 34(5):532–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kabak O, Ruan D (2011a) A cumulative belief degree-based approach for missing values in nuclear safeguards evaluation. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Energ 23(10):1441–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kabak O, Ruan D (2011b) A comparison study of fuzzy MADM methods in nuclear safeguards evaluation. J Global Optim 51(2):209–226MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahraman C, Kaya I (2010) A fuzzy multi criteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 37(9):6270–6281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahraman C, Kaya I, Cebi S (2009) A comparative analysis for multi-attribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 34(10):1603–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Multi criteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR and AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy 35(6):2517–2527MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaya T, Kahraman C (2011) Multi criteria decision-making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):6577–6585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kowalski K, Stagl S, Madlener R, Omann I (2009) Sustainable energy futures: methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res 197(9):1063–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laes E (2006) Nuclear energy and sustainable development. Ph.D. thesis. Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  17. Phdungsilp A (2010) Integrated energy and carbon modeling with a decision support system: policy scenarios for low-carbon city development in Bangkok. Energ Policy 38(9):4808–4817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning: a review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 8(4):365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ren H, Gao W, Zhou W, Nakagami K (2009) Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan. Energ Policy 37(12):5484–5493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruan D, Lu J, Laes E, Zhang G, Ma J, Meskens G et al (2010) Multi-criteria group decision support with linguistic variables in long-term scenarios for Belgian energy policy. J Univ Comput Sci 15(1):103–120Google Scholar
  21. Ruan D, Kabak O, Quinones R (2013) An ordered weighted averaging operator-based cumulative belief degree approach for energy policy evaluation. Int J Adv Oper Manage 5(1):58–73Google Scholar
  22. Talinli I, Topuz E, Akbay MU (2010) Comparative analysis for energy production processes (EPPs): sustainable energy futures for Turkey. Energ Policy 38(8):4479–4488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Topcu Y, Ulengin F (2004) Energy for the future: an integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey. Energy 29(1):137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsoutsos T, Drandaki M, Frantzeskaki N et al (2009) Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energ Policy 37(5): 1587–1600Google Scholar
  25. Url-1: International energy association (IEA),, Accessed 8 Oct 2012
  26. Url-2: Republic of Turkey, ministry of energy and natural sources,, last access: Accessed 8 Oct 2012
  27. Url-3: Republic of Turkey, ministry of energy and natural sources,, Accessed 8 Oct 2012
  28. Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF et al (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(9):2263–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang B, Kocaoglu DF, Daim TU et al (2010) A decision model for energy resource selection in China. Energ Policy 38(11):7130–7141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang JB (2001) Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 131:31–61MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang JB, Sen P (1994) A general multi-level evaluation process for hybrid MADM with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern 24(10):1458–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern 24(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning, Parts I, II, III. information sciences 8(1): 199–249, 8(2):301–357, 9(1): 42–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Özgür Kabak
    • 1
  • Didem Cinar
    • 1
  • Gulcin Yucel Hoge
    • 1
  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Technical UniversityİstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations