Volume 18 • Issue 2 • PP: 157-173 • 2022
An Integrated Neutrosophic AHP and TOPSIS Methods for Assessment Renewable Energy Barriers for Sustainable Development
View PDF Abstract
Technologies of renewable energy (RE) play a vital role in increasing economic growth in many countries and present a solution for many social, ecological, and political problems. Though, RE faces many barriers that prevent its development. So, these barriers are ranked and identified in this work, including five main barriers and fifteen sub barriers. In addition, five strategies are identified and ranked. The first step in this work, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach used to rank main and sub barriers under Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets (SVNSs). Then Neutrosophic Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach assessed the five strategies. The outcomes of this work show that Commercial barriers ranked as the highest barriers and social-ecological ranked as the lowest barriers by using the AHP approach. Outcomes by neutrosophic TOPSIS show that capital assistant ranked as the highest strategies and RE goals ranked as the lowest strategies. This work can help decision-makers, governments for building a RE by using these strategies to overcome barriers that faced them.
Keywords
References
[1] S. Ali, H. Xu, and N. Ahmad, “Reviewing the strategies for climate change and sustainability after the US defiance of the Paris Agreement: An AHP–GMCR-based conflict resolution approach,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., pp. 1–32, 2021.
[2] S. Ali, H. Xu, A. Q. Al-amin, and N. Ahmad, “Energy sources choice and environmental sustainability disputes: an evolutional graph model approach,” Qual. Quant., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 561–581, 2019.
[3] Y. A. Solangi, Q. Tan, N. H. Mirjat, G. Das Valasai, M. W. A. Khan, and M. Ikram, “An integrated Delphi-AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach toward ranking and selection of renewable energy resources in Pakistan,” Processes, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 118, 2019.
[4] I. M. Eleftheriadis and E. G. Anagnostopoulou, “Identifying barriers in the diffusion of renewable energy sources,” Energy Policy, vol. 80, pp. 153–164, 2015.
[5] X.-K. Li, W.-J. Ji, J. Zhao, S.-J. Wang, and C.-T. Au, “Ammonia decomposition over Ru and Ni catalysts supported on fumed SiO2, MCM-41, and SBA-15,” J. Catal., vol. 236, no. 2, pp. 181–189, 2005.
[6] S. A. U. Rehman, Y. Cai, N. H. Mirjat, G. Das Walasai, and M. Nafees, “Energy-environment-economy nexus in Pakistan: Lessons from a PAK-TIMES model,” Energy Policy, vol. 126, pp. 200–211, 2019.
[7] M. I. Khan, “Evaluating the strategies of compressed natural gas industry using an integrated SWOT and MCDM approach,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 172, pp. 1035–1052, 2018.
[8] L. Xu, Y. Wang, Y. A. Solangi, H. Zameer, and S. A. A. Shah, “Off-grid solar PV power generation system in Sindh, Pakistan: a techno-economic feasibility analysis,” Processes, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 308, 2019.
[9] T. Daim, D. Yates, Y. Peng, and B. Jimenez, “Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest,” Technol. Soc., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 232–243, 2009.
[10] I. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, E. K. Zavadskas, and D. Streimikiene, “Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for the assessment of renewable energy technologies in a household: A review,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 1164, 2020.
[11] S. Luthra, S. Kumar, D. Garg, and A. Haleem, “Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective,” Renew. Sustain. energy Rev., vol. 41, pp. 762–776, 2015.
[12] S. K. Lee, G. Mogi, J. W. Kim, and B. J. Gim, “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for assessing national competitiveness in the hydrogen technology sector,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 33, no. 23, pp. 6840–6848, 2008.
[13] D. L. Olson, “Opportunities and limitations of AHP in multiobjective programming,” Math. Comput. Model., vol. 11, pp. 206–209, 1988.
Cite This Article
Choose your preferred format