Yeşil hidrojen tedarik zinciri lojistik merkezi seçimi: Yeni bir aralık Tip-2 bulanık BWM–RANCOM–ELECTRE III hibrit yaklaşımı

Öz

Yeşil hidrojen, sürdürülebilir enerji geçişinin temel bileşenlerinden biri olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Ancak üretim, depolama ve dağıtım süreçlerinde karşılaşılan belirsizlikler, tedarik zinciri lojistik merkezlerinin uygun şekilde seçilmesini kritik hale getirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, “Yeşil Hidrojen Tedarik Zinciri Lojistik Merkezi Seçimi” problemi için yeni bir hibrit çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımı önerilmiştir. Model kapsamında kriter ağırlıkları aralık Tip-2 bulanık BWM (IT2 F-BWM) ile belirlenmiş, ardından referans alternatif oluşturulması ve normalize edilmesi aşamalarında aralık Tip-2 bulanık RANCOM (IT2 F-RANCOM) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Son aşamada alternatiflerin sıralanması için aralık Tip-2 bulanık ELECTRE III yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, alternatiflerin toplam güvenirlik skorlarına dayanarak en uygun lojistik merkezi yeri A5 (Çandarlı (İzmir)) olarak belirlenmiş, bunu sırasıyla A2 (İskenderun (Hatay)), A3 (Mersin), A4 (Kocaeli (Gebze)) ve A1 (Bandırma (Balıkesir)) takip etmiştir. Bu sıralama, hidrojen enerji yatırımlarının stratejik olarak optimize edilmesine, yatırım verimliliğinin artırılmasına ve karbon ayak izinin minimize edilmesine olanak sağlamıştır. Önerilen hibrit model, karar vericilerin belirsizlik altında daha güvenilir ve esnek sonuçlar elde etmesine imkân tanımaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, yeşil hidrojen tedarik zinciri lojistiği bağlamında optimum merkez seçiminin yapılmasına katkı sağlamakta ve literatürde ilk defa IT2 F-BWM–RANCOM–ELECTRE III entegrasyonunu sunmaktadır. Böylece hem teorik hem de pratik açıdan sürdürülebilir enerji lojistiği planlamasına yönelik önemli bulgular elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeşil hidrojen
• IT2 F-BWM-RANCOM-ELECTRE III
• aralık Tip-2 bulanık kümeler
• lojistik merkezi seçimi
• sürdürülebilir enerji planlaması

Green hydrogen supply chain logistics center selection: A novel interval Type-2 fuzzy BWM–RANCOM–ELECTRE III hybrid approach

Öz

Green hydrogen is considered one of the key components of the sustainable energy transition. However, uncertainties in production, storage, and distribution processes make the appropriate selection of supply chain logistics centers critical. This study proposes a novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for the “Green Hydrogen Supply Chain Logistics Center Selection” problem. Within the model, criterion weights were determined using interval Type-2 fuzzy Best–Worst Method (IT2 F-BWM). Subsequently, the interval Type-2 fuzzy Reference Ideal Method (IT2 F-RANCOM) was employed to construct and normalize the reference alternative. Finally, the interval Type-2 fuzzy ELECTRE III method was applied to rank the alternatives. According to the results, based on overall credibility scores, the most suitable logistics center location was identified as A5 (Çandarlı, İzmir), followed by A2 (İskenderun, Hatay), A3 (Mersin), A4 (Kocaeli, Gebze), and A1 (Bandırma, Balıkesir). This ranking supports the strategic optimization of hydrogen energy investments, enhances investment efficiency, and contributes to minimizing the carbon footprint. The proposed hybrid framework enables decision-makers to obtain more reliable and flexible results under uncertainty. The findings provide both theoretical and practical contributions to sustainable energy logistics planning and introduce, for the first time, the integration of IT2 F-BWM–RANCOM–ELECTRE III in the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Green hydrogen
• IT2 F-BWM-RANCOM-ELECTRE III
• interval Type-2 fuzzy sets
• selection of logistics center
• sustainable energy planning

Kaynakça

1. 1. Yilmaz C., Life cycle cost analysis of combined flash binary geothermal plant and integrated hydrogen generation system, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 35 (1), 1-16, 2020.
2. 2. Liang Q., Mendel J.M., Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: theory and design, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 8 (5), 535-550, 2000.
3. 3. Mendel J.M., Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: an overview, IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 2(1), 20-29, 2007.
4. 4. Wu D., Mendel J.M., On the continuity of type-1 and interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 19 (1), 179-192, 2010.
5. 5. Masoomi B., Toufighi S.P., Arman H., Kamali S.E., Vang J., Blockchain-enabled risk mitigation in green hydrogen supply chains: an interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM approach, Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 100238, 2025.
6. 6. Ransikarbum K., Zadek H., Janmontree J., Evaluating renewable energy sites in the green hydrogen supply chain with integrated multi-criteria decision analysis, Energies, 17 (16), 4073, 2024.
7. 7. Leal J.I., Tofoli F.L., Melo F.D.C., Leao R.P.S., Site suitability analysis for green hydrogen production using multi-criteria decision-making methods: A case study in the state of Ceará, Brazil, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 97, 406-418, 2025.
8. 8. Roy D., Bhowmik M., Roskilly A.P., Technoeconomic, environmental and multi criteria decision making investigations for optimisation of off-grid hybrid renewable energy system with green hydrogen production, Journal of Cleaner Production, 443, 141033, 2024.

9. 9. Kumar S., Arzaghi E., Baalisampang T., Abaei M.M., Garaniya V., Abbassi R., A risk-based multi-criteria decision-making framework for offshore green hydrogen system developments: Pathways for utilizing existing and new infrastructure, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 46, 655-678, 2024.
10. 10. Janmontree J., Zadek H., Ransikarbum K., Analyzing solar location for green hydrogen using multi-criteria decision analysis, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 209, 115102, 2025.
11. 11. Raja I.B., Ahmad Y., Feroze T., Usman M., Shams H.A., Choudhry M.I., Regional variability in the performance of Solar-Green Hydrogen Hybrid Energy Systems (SGHHES): Synergistic enviro-economic analysis and evaluation across six climatic zones using multi-criteria decision analysis, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 138, 681-693, 2025.
12. 12. Yong H., Yuan J., Nuo L., West-east hydrogen transmission: model selection and key factor analysis of green hydrogen supply chain, SSRN preprint, SSRN:4880465, 2025.
13. 13. Kayacik S.E., Schrotenboer A.H., Vis I.F., Basciftci B., Ursavas E., Dual sourcing of green hydrogen: balancing local production with stochastic capacity and import with random yield, arXiv preprint, arXiv:2411.17583, 2024.
14. 14. Yılmaz T., Uyan M., Optimal site selection for green hydrogen production plants based on solar energy in Konya/Türkiye, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 115, 252-264, 2025.
15. 15. Flora F.M.I., A GIS-based application of Monte Carlo and multi-criteria decision-making approach for site suitability analysis of solar-hydrogen production: case of Cameroon, Heliyon, 11 (1), 2025.
16. 16. Du Y.D., Dong Y., Chen X.L., Sun L.J., Wu Y.W., Lu Q., Site selection of wind-photovoltaic coupling hydrogen production project with the assistant of geographic information system: a multi-criteria decision-making study under the hybrid fuzzy environment, Energy Reports, 13, 6089-6100, 2025.
17. 17. Oner O., Khalilpour K., Evaluation of green hydrogen carriers: a multi-criteria decision analysis tool, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112764, 2022.
18. 18. Canat A.N., Özkan C., FUCOM ve MOORA yöntemleri ile hidrojen enerjisinde risk faktörlerine göre tesis yeri seçimi, Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8 (1), 266-284, 2025.
19. 19. Çelikdemir S., Çelikdemir M.Y., Özdemir M.T., A multi-criteria analytical hierarchy process framework for the design of Türkiye's transcontinental hydrogen pipeline corridor, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 152, 150208, 2025.
20. 20. Wu L., Hou Z., Luo Z., Fang Y., Mao J., Qin N., ... Cai N., Site selection for underground bio-methanation of hydrogen and carbon dioxide using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach, Energy, 306, 132437, 2024.
21. 21. Taoufik M., Fekri A., A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for site suitability analysis of solar-powered hydrogen production in the Souss-Massa region, Morocco, Renewable Energy Focus, 46, 385-401, 2023.
22. 22. Więckowski J., Kizielewicz B., Shekhovtsov A., Sałabun W., RANCOM: a novel approach to identifying criteria relevance based on inaccuracy expert judgments, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 122, 106114, 2023.
23. 23. Mohamadghasemi A., Hadi-Vencheh A., Lotfi F.H., Khalilzadeh M., An integrated group FWA-ELECTRE III approach based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets for solving the MCDM problems using limit distance mean, Complex & Intelligent Systems, 6 (2), 355-389, 2020.
24. 24. Özdoğan İ., Boran F.E., Yıldız O., Fuzzy linguistic summarization of time series with interval type-2 fuzzy c-means: BIST100 sample stock application, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 40 (3), 1659-1672, 2025.
25. 25. Öztürk M., Paksoy T., A new interval type-2 hybrid fuzzy rule-based AHP system for supplier selection, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 35 (3), 1519-1535, 2020.
26. 26. Roy B., Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding, Springer Science & Business Media, 12, 1996.
27. 27. Greco S., Figueira J., Ehrgott M., Multiple criteria decision analysis, , Springer, New York, 37, 2016.
28. 28. Jang J., Lee H., Effective hydrogen supply chain management framework considering nonlinear multi-stage process uncertainties, Applied Energy, 367, 123328, 2024.
29. 29. Rezaei J., Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method, Omega, 53, 49-57, 2015.
30. 30. Wu Y., Deng Z., Tao Y., Wang L., Liu F., Zhou J., Site selection decision framework for photovoltaic hydrogen production project using BWM-CRITIC-MABAC: a case study in Zhangjiakou, Journal of Cleaner Production, 324, 129233, 2021.
31. 31. Wang C.N., Hsueh M.H., Lin D.F., Hydrogen power plant site selection under fuzzy multicriteria decision-making (FMCDM) environment conditions, Symmetry, 11 (4), 596, 2019.