Top

Published in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

2. Application of MCDM Tool Integrated with SWOT Analysis for Prioritization of Strategies to Optimize Distributed Hybrid Energy Systems for Better Sustainability

Authors : Sayan Das, Souvanik De, Sudipta De

Published in: Challenges and Opportunities of Distributed Renewable Power

Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Energy transition is a current global challenge. Deciding a right path to meet the ever-increasing global energy demand at an affordable cost with low-carbon options is a critical challenge. Deciding appropriate energy strategies and determining their priorities are necessary for proper energy transition. Energy strategy determination is decided on the basis of the country's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) related to the energy sector. Evaluating proper energy strategies is a perpetual process to prioritize issues in energy planning. Different authorities are responsible for deciding the proper priorities of energy strategies on the basis of new and improved alternative solutions to achieve sustainable development. As energy strategy prioritization correlates several conflicting and interlinked issues and the SWOT method is unable to decide the priority, integrating a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach is critical. Integrating SWOT with an MCDM method is generic yet novel and one of the best possible options to formulate and prioritize energy strategies for a better energy transition towards sustainability. The study comprehensively reviewed the SWOT-MCDM methods along with the future direction of the research applied in different fields specially focused on energy transition.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Challenges and Opportunities of Distributed Renewable Power

next chapter Renewable Energy Integration to Electric Power Grid: Opportunities, Challenges, and Solutions

Kaya İ, Çolak M, Terzi F (2019) A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strateg Rev 24:207–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003CrossRef

Valickova P, Elms N (2021) The costs of providing access to electricity in selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and policy implications. Energy Policy 148.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111935

Sovacool BK (2012) Design principles for renewable energy programs in developing countries. Energy Environ Sci 5:9157–9162. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee22468bCrossRef

Das S, Ray A, De S (2020) Optimum combination of renewable resources to meet local power demand in distributed generation: a case study for a remote place of India. Energy 209:118473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118473CrossRef

Das S, De S (2023)Technically efficient, economic and environmentally benign hybrid decentralized energy solution for an Indian village: multi criteria decision making approach.J Clean Prod 388.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135717

Yilan G, Kadirgan MAN, Çiftçioğlu GA (2020) Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable energy decision making: the case of Turkey. Renew Energy 146:519–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.164CrossRef

Das S, De S (2023) MCDM for simultaneous optimum economy, investment risk and environmental impact for distributed renewable power: demonstration with an Indian village data. Energy Convers Manag 277.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116631

Energy Security (2021) IEA, 2021a. In: IEA. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy%0A-security. Accessed 27 Jun 2022

Das S, De S (2023) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats determination and strategy prioritization using hesitant fuzzy decision-making approach for better energy sustainability: demonstration with Indian data. Energy Convers Manag 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116847

10.

Akçaba S, Eminer F (2022) Evaluation of strategic energy alternatives determined for Northern Cyprus with SWOT based MCDM integrated approach. Energy Rep 8:11022–11038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.227CrossRef

11.

Solangi YA, Tan Q, Mirjat NH, Ali S (2019) Evaluating the strategies for sustainable energy planning in Pakistan: an integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. J Clean Prod 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655

12.

Fertel C, Bahn O, Vaillancourt K, Waaub JP (2013) Canadian energy and climate policies: a SWOT analysis in search of federal/provincial coherence. Energy Policy 63:1139–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.057CrossRef

13.

Zhang L, Li S, Hu Y, Nie Q (2022) Economic optimization of a bioenergy-based hybrid renewable energy system under carbon policies—from the life-cycle perspective. Appl Energy 310.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118599

14.

Ioannou A, Angus A, Brennan F (2017) Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:602–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.082CrossRef

15.

Kiliҫ M, Kaya I (2015) Investment project evaluation by a decision making methodology based on type-2 fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput 27:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.028CrossRef

16.

Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Uçal Sari I, Turanoǧlu E (2014) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowl Based Syst 59:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.02.001CrossRef

17.

Siksnelyte I, Zavadskas EK, Streimikiene D, Sharma D (2018) An overview of multi-criteria decision-making methods in dealing with sustainable energy development issues. Energies 11.https://doi.org/10.3390/en11102754

18.

Ayan B, Abacıoğlu S, Basilio MP (2023) A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Inf 14.https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285

19.

Jato-Espino D, Castillo-Lopez E, Rodriguez-Hernandez J, Canteras-Jordana JC (2014) A review of application of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction. Autom Constr 45:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.013CrossRef

20.

Sousa M, Almeida MF, Calili R (2021) Multiple criteria decision making for the achievement of the un sustainable development goals: a systematic literature review and a research agenda. Sustain 13.https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084129

21.

Abanda FH, Chia EL, Enongene KE et al (2022) A systematic review of the application of multi-criteria decision-making in evaluating nationally determined contribution projects. Decis Anal J 5.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100140

22.

Benzaghta MA, Elwalda A, Mousa M et al (2021) SWOT analysis applications: an integrative literature review. J Glob Bus Insights 6:55–73. https://doi.org/10.5038/2640-6489.6.1.1148CrossRef

23.

Habibul Kabir K, Aurko SY, Saifur Rahman M (2021) Smart power management in OIC countries: a critical overview using SWOT-AHP and hybrid MCDM analysis. Energies 14:1–50. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206480CrossRef

24.

Bayraktar M, Yüksel O (2023) Analysis of the nuclear energy systems as an alternative propulsion system option on commercial marine vessels by utilizing the SWOT-AHP method. Nucl Eng Des 407.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2023.112265

25.

Bas E (2013) The integrated framework for analysis of electricity supply chain using an integrated SWOT-fuzzy TOPSIS methodology combined with AHP: the case of Turkey. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 44:897–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.08.045CrossRef

26.

Wang K (2007) A process view of SWOT analysis. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the ISSS-2007, Tokyo, Japan

27.

Sarsby A (2016) SWOT analysis. Lulu. com

28.

Watkins R, Leigh D (2009) Handbook of improving performance in the workplace. John Wiley & Sons, The handbook of selecting and implementing performance interventions

29.

Kazemi F, Abolhassani L, Rahmati EA, Sayyad-Amin P (2018) Strategic planning for cultivation of fruit trees and shrubs in urban landscapes using the SWOT method: a case study for the city of Mashhad, Iran. Land use policy 70:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.006CrossRef

30.

Kumar S, Srikanth R, Mahalingam S (2023) Regulatory framework for India ’ s energy security and sustainability. Energy Policy 162:112815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112815CrossRef

31.

Qaiser I (2022) A comparison of renewable and sustainable energy sector of the South Asian countries: an application of SWOT methodology. Renew Energy 181:417–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.09.066CrossRef

32.

Kamran M, Fazal MR, Mudassar M (2020) Towards empowerment of the renewable energy sector in Pakistan for sustainable energy evolution: SWOT analysis. Renew Energy 146:543–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.165CrossRef

33.

Madurai Elavarasan R, Afridhis S, Vijayaraghavan RR et al (2020) SWOT analysis: a framework for comprehensive evaluation of drivers and barriers for renewable energy development in significant countries. Energy Rep 6:1838–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.007CrossRef

34.

Agyekum EB (2020) Energy poverty in energy rich Ghana: a SWOT analytical approach for the development of Ghana’s renewable energy. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 40:100760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100760CrossRef

35.

Shi X (2016) The future of ASEAN energy mix: a SWOT analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53:672–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.010CrossRef

36.

Terrados J, Almonacid G, Hontoria L (2007) Regional energy planning through SWOT analysis and strategic planning tools. Impact on renewables development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11:1275–1287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.08.003CrossRef

37.

Jing W, Tao M (2021) Research on clean energy development strategy of China three gorges corporation based on SWOT framework. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 47:9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101335CrossRef

38.

Zhou J, He P, Qin Y, Ren D (2019) A selection model based on SWOT analysis for determining a suitable strategy of prefabrication implementation in rural areas. Sustain Cities Soc 50.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101715

39.

Mateo JRSC (2012) Multi criteria analysis in the renewable energy industry. Springer Science & Business Media

40.

Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhao JH (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021CrossRef

41.

Hayashi K (2000) Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: a critical survey and future perspectives. Eur J Oper Res 122:486–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00249-0CrossRef

42.

Korhonen P, Moskowitz H, Wallenius J (1992) Multiple criteria decision support-a review. Eur J Oper Res 63:361–375CrossRef

43.

Hwang C-L, Masud ASM (2012) Multiple objective decision making—methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. Springer Science & Business Media

44.

Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science & Business Media

45.

Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR et al (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69:596–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191CrossRef

46.

Miller DW, Starr MK (1969) Executive decisions and operations research. (No Title)

47.

Fishburn PC (1967) Additive utilities with incomplete product sets: application to priorities and assignments. Oper Res 15:537–542CrossRef

48.

Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGrawhill, Juc New York

49.

Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Fac Civ Eng Belgrade 2:5–21

50.

Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7:326–340CrossRef

51.

Benayoun R, Roy B, Sussman B (1966) ELECTRE: Une méthode pour guider le choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Note Trav 49:2–120

52.

Ghobadipour B, Mojarradi B (2015) Comment on: M. Abedi, S. A. Torabi, Gh. Norouzi and M. Hamzeh, “ELECTRE III: A knowledge-driven method for integration of geophysical data with geological and geochemical data in mineral prospectivity mapping.” J Appl Geophys 117:136–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.03.005CrossRef

53.

Lin R, Lu S, Yang A et al (2021) Multi-criteria sustainability assessment and decision-making framework for hydrogen pathways prioritization: an extended ELECTRE method under hybrid information. Int J Hydrogen Energy 46:13430–13445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.018CrossRef

54.

Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2003) Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renew Energy 28:2063–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00102-2CrossRef

55.

McCahon CS, Hwang CL, Tillman FA (1983) A multiple attribute evaluation of Bayesian availability estimators. IEEE Trans Reliab 32:496–503CrossRef

56.

Georgopoulou E, Lalas D, Papagiannakis L (1997) A Multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy option. Eur J Oper Res 103:38–54CrossRef

57.

Zhang T, Yuan J (2005) Decision-aid for power distribution system planning problems using ELECTRE III. In: 2005 International power engineering conference. IEEE, pp 1–317

58.

Roulet C-A, Flourentzou F, Labben HH et al (2002) ORME: a multicriteria rating methodology for buildings. Build Environ 37:579–586CrossRef

59.

Azzopardi B, Martínez-Ceseña EA, Mutale J (2013) Decision support system for ranking photovoltaic technologies. IET Renew Power Gener 7:669–679CrossRef

60.

Brans J-P, Vincke P (1985) Note—a preference ranking organisation method: (the promethee method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manage Sci 31:647–656CrossRef

61.

Debbarma B, Chakraborti P, Bose PK et al (2017) Exploration of PROMETHEE II and VIKOR methodology in a MCDM approach for ascertaining the optimal performance-emission trade-off vantage in a hydrogen-biohol dual fuel endeavour. Fuel 210:922–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.016CrossRef

62.

Bortoluzzi M, Furlan M, Colombo SG et al (2021) Combining value-focused thinking and promethee techniques for selecting a portfolio of distributed energy generation projects in the brazilian electricity sector. Sustain 13.https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911091

63.

Demirel YE, Simsek E, Ozturk E, Kitis M (2021) Selection of priority energy efficiency practices for industrial steam boilers by PROMETHEE decision model. Energy Effic 14:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-021-10007-8CrossRef

64.

Chisale SW, Eliya S, Taulo J (2023) Optimization and design of hybrid power system using HOMER pro and integrated CRITIC-PROMETHEE II approaches. Green Technol Sustain 1:100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2022.100005CrossRef

65.

Georgopoulou E, Sarafidis Y, Diakoulaki D (1998) Design and implementation of a group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. Eur J Oper Res 109:483–500CrossRef

66.

Tsoutsos T, Drandaki M, Frantzeskaki N et al (2009) Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 37:1587–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.011CrossRef

67.

Nassereddine M, Eskandari H (2017) An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 106:427–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.013CrossRef

68.

Ozkaya G, Erdin C (2020) Evaluation of smart and sustainable cities through a hybrid MCDM approach based on ANP and TOPSIS technique. Heliyon 6.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05052

69.

Çetinkaya C, Erbaş M, Kabak M, Özceylan E (2023) A mass vaccination site selection problem: an application of GIS and entropy-based MAUT approach. Socioecon Plann Sci 85.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101376

70.

Edwards TG, Chelst KR (2004) The HSOR project: insinuating OR into high school mathematics classrooms. INFORMS Trans Educ 4:1–8CrossRef

71.

Alizadeh R, Soltanisehat L, Lund PD, Zamanisabzi H (2020) Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method. Energy Policy 137.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111174

72.

Meyar-Naimi H, Vaez-Zadeh S (2013) Sustainability assessment of a power generation system using dsr-hns framework. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 28:327–334CrossRef

73.

Luthra S, Kumar S, Garg D, Haleem A (2015) Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:762–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.077CrossRef

74.

Pathak SK, Sharma V, Chougule SS, Goel V (2022) Prioritization of barriers to the development of renewable energy technologies in India using integrated Modified Delphi and AHP method. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 50:101818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101818CrossRef

75.

Odu GO (2019) Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 23:1449. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7CrossRef

76.

Nasrollahi S, Kazemi A, Jahangir MH, Aryaee S (2023) Selecting suitable wave energy technology for sustainable development, an MCDM approach. Renew Energy 202:756–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.11.005CrossRef

77.

Tazzit S, Jing L, Ma J, Jaradat R (2023) Systems-thinking skills preferences evaluation model of practitioners using hybrid weight determination and extended VIKOR model under COVID-19. Adv Eng Inf 57.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2023.102107

78.

Brodny J, Tutak M (2023) Assessing the energy security of European Union countries from two perspectives–a new integrated approach based on MCDM methods. Appl Energy 347:121443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121443CrossRef

79.

Aljaghoub H, Abumadi F, AlMallahi MN et al (2022) Solar PV cleaning techniques contribute to sustainable development goals (SDGs) using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM): assessment and review. Int J Thermofluids 16.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2022.100233

80.

Pinzon Amorocho JA, Hartmann T (2022) A multi-criteria decision-making framework for residential building renovation using pairwise comparison and TOPSIS methods. J Build Eng 53.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104596

81.

Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1CrossRef

82.

Dutta R, Das S, De S (2023) Multi criteria decision making with machine-learning based load forecasting methods for techno-economic and environmentally sustainable distributed hybrid energy solution. Energy Convers Manag 291:117316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117316CrossRef

83.

Rojas-Zerpa JC, Yusta JM (2015) Application of multicriteria decision methods for electric supply planning in rural and remote areas. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 52:557–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.139CrossRef

84.

Baležentis T, Streimikiene D (2017) Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation. Appl Energy 185:862–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.085CrossRef

85.

Villacreses G, Gaona G, Martínez-Gómez J, Jijón DJ (2017) Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: the case of continental Ecuador. Renew Energy 109:275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.041CrossRef

86.

Billig E, Thraen D (2017) Renewable methane–a technology evaluation by multi-criteria decision making from a European perspective. Energy 139:468–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.164CrossRef

87.

Büyüközkan G, Karabulut Y (2017) Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective. Energy 119:549–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.087CrossRef

88.

Sánchez-Lozano JM, García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT (2016) Comparative TOPSIS-ELECTRE TRI methods for optimal sites for photovoltaic solar farms. case study in Spain. J Clean Prod 127:387–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.005CrossRef

89.

Tadić S, Zečević S, Krstić M (2014) A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Expert Syst Appl 41:8112–8128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.021CrossRef

90.

Abdullah L, Najib L (2016) Sustainable energy planning decision using the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: choosing energy technology in Malaysia. Int J Sustain Energy 35:360–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2014.907292CrossRef

91.

Kulkarni SH, Jirage BJ, Anil TR (2017) Alternative energy options for India—a multi-criteria decision analysis to rank energy alternatives using analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy logic with an emphasis to distributed generation. Distrib Gener Altern Energy J 32:29–55

92.

Kabak M, Köse E, Kirilmaz O, Burmaoǧlu S (2014) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach to assess building energy performance. Energy Build 72:382–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.059CrossRef

93.

Papapostolou A, Karakosta C, Doukas H (2017) Analysis of policy scenarios for achieving renewable energy sources targets: a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Energy Environ 28:88–109CrossRef

94.

Guo S, Zhao H (2015) Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective. Appl Energy 158:390–402CrossRef

95.

Cavallaro F, Ciraolo L (2013) Sustainability assessment of solar technologies based on linguistic information. In: Assessment and simulation tools for sustainable energy systems: theory and applications. Springer, pp 3–25

96.

Lee SK, Mogi G, Hui KS (2013) A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for efficiently allocating energy R&D resources: in the case of energy technologies against high oil prices. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 21:347–355CrossRef

97.

Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy 35:2517–2527CrossRef

98.

Rahimirad Z, Sadabadi AA (2023) Green hydrogen technology development and usage policymaking in Iran using SWOT analysis and MCDM methods. Int J Hydrogen Energy 48:15179–15194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.035CrossRef

99.

Almutairi K, Almutairi MS, Harb KM, Marey O (2023) A thorough investigation of renewable energy development strategies through integrated approach: a case study. Energy Sour Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 45:708–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2023.2169786CrossRef

100.

Tavakoli M, Torabi SA, GhanavatiNejad M, Nayeri S (2023) An integrated decision-making framework for selecting the best strategies of water resources management in pandemic emergencies. Sci Iran

101.

Longsheng C, Ali Shah SA, Solangi YA et al (2022) An integrated SWOT-multi-criteria analysis of implementing sustainable waste-to-energy in Pakistan. Renew Energy 195:1438–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.06.112CrossRef

102.

Almutairi K, Hosseini Dehshiri SJ, Hosseini Dehshiri SS et al (2022) Determination of optimal renewable energy growth strategies using SWOT analysis, hybrid MCDM methods, and game theory: a case study. Int J Energy Res 46:6766–6789. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.7620CrossRef

103.

Yontar E, Derse O (2022) Evaluation of sustainable energy action plan strategies with a SWOT/TWOS-based AHP/ANP approach: a case study. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02804-7CrossRef

104.

Büyüközkan G, Havle CA, Feyzioğlu O (2021) An integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology for digital transformation strategy analysis in airline industry. J Air Transp Manag 97.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102142

105.

Mukeshimana MC, Zhao ZY, Nshimiyimana JP (2021) Evaluating strategies for renewable energy development in Rwanda: an integrated SWOT–ISM analysis. Renew Energy 176:402–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.104CrossRef

106.

Wang Y, Xu L, Solangi YA (2020) Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustain Cities Soc 52.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861

107.

Stoilova SD, Martinov S V. (2019) Selecting a location for establishing a rail-road intermodal terminal by using a hybrid SWOT/MCDM model. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 618.https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/618/1/012060

108.

Cayir Ervural B, Zaim S, Demirel OF et al (2018) An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 82:1538–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.095CrossRef

Title: Application of MCDM Tool Integrated with SWOT Analysis for Prioritization of Strategies to Optimize Distributed Hybrid Energy Systems for Better Sustainability
Authors: Sayan Das
Souvanik De
Sudipta De
Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore
Book: Challenges and Opportunities of Distributed Renewable Power
Print ISBN: 978-981-9714-05-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-9714-06-3

Copyright Year: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1406-3_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partners