Prioritization of renewable energy resources using intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods: TR33 region example

Year 2025, Issue: 062, 182 - 199, 30.09.2025

Bahadir Yörür , Emir Ay , Nutiye Şentürk , Hilem Orman , Simge Hilal İvacık

https://doi.org/10.59313/jsr-a.1636465

Abstract

Growing economies and the increasing world population increase electricity demand, one of the most important requirements of social and economic life. A large part of electricity generation is provided by fossil fuels, which brings environmental problems. Various initiatives are being taken around the world to overcome ecological problems. The last of these initiatives is the Paris Climate Agreement, in which Türkiye recently became a party. In accordance with this agreement, Türkiye is carrying out studies towards the net-zero carbon target in line with the 2030 interim target and the 2053 final target. Within the scope of studies carried out in the energy field, it aims to reduce carbon emission levels by increasing the installed capacity of renewable energy. The subject of this study is prioritizing renewable energy resources for the TR33 Region covering Manisa, Uşak, Kütahya and Afyonkarahisar provinces. An integrated methodology is used to prioritize energy resources. In this study, the Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP method was applied to determine criteria weights, after which the Intuitionistic Fuzzy VIKOR method was used to rank the energy alternatives. In the study, five main criteria and 17 sub-criteria related to these main criteria were used, and five renewable energy alternatives were evaluated. The research outcomes reveal that geothermal energy represents the optimal renewable alternative for the region, followed sequentially by biomass, hydroelectric, wind, and solar sources.

Keywords

Renewable Energy Resources , Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set , AHP , VIKOR , Zafer Development Agency Region

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK

Project Number

1919B012219210

References

• [1] A. Karaaslan and M. Gezen, “The evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey by integer multi-objective selection problem with interval coefficient,” Renewable Energy, vol. 182, pp. 842-854, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.165
• [2] F. Bilgili, F. Zarali, M.F. Ilgün, C. Dumrul and Y. Dumrul, “The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy-TOPSIS method,” Renewable Energy, vol. 189, pp. 1443-1458, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.058
• [3] S. Mukhtarov, S. Yüksel and H. Dinçer, “The impact of financial development on renewable energy consumption: Evidence from Turkey,” Renewable Energy, vol. 187, pp. 169-176, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.061
• [4] Ö. Alkan and Ö.K. Albayrak, “Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA,” Renewable Energy, vol. 162, pp. 712-726, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.062
• [5] Z. Khan, S. Ali, M. Umar, D. Kırıkkaleli and Z. Jiao, “Consumption-based carbon emissions and international trade in G7 countries: The role of Environmental innovation and Renewable energy,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 730, 138945, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138945
• [6] G. Yilan, M.A.N. Kadirgan and G.A. Çiftçioğlu, “Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable energy decision making: The case of Turkey,” Renewable Energy, vol. 146, pp. 519-529, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.164
• [7] İ. Topçu, F. Ülengin, Ö. Kabak, M. Işık, B. Unver and S.Ö. Ekici, “The evaluation of electricity generation resources: The case of Turkey,” Energy, vol. 167, pp. 417-427, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.126
• [8] K. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20, pp. 87-96, 1986.
• [9] Turkish Statistical Institute, www.tuik.gov.tr. (accessed Feb. 1, 2024)
• [10] B.H. Ulutaş, “Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey,” Energy, vol. 30(7), pp. 1146-1161, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.08.009
• [11] J.J. Wang, Y.Y. Jing and J.H. Zhoa, “Multi criteria evaluation model of renewable energy power plants based on ELECTRE method,” In Energy Sustainability, vol. 48890, pp. 467-473, 2009, doi: 10.1115/ES2009-90104
• [12] K. Kowalski, S. Stagl, R. Madlener and I. Omann, “Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 197(3), pp. 1063-1074, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.049
• [13] M. Troldborg, S. Heslop and R.L. Hough, “Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 39, pp. 1173-1184, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.160
• [14] T.Y. Ayan and H. Pabuçcu, “Evaluation of the renewable energy investment project with analytic hierarchy process method,” Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 18(3), pp. 89-110. 2013.
• [15] C. Erdin and G. Özkaya, “Turkey’s 2023 energy strategies and investment opportunities for renewable energy sources: Site selection on ELECTRE,” Sustainability, vol. 11(7), 2136, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11072136
• [16] S.S. Bohra, A. Anvari-Moghaddam and B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, “AHP-Assisted multicriteria decision-making model for planning of microgrids,” in 45th International Conference on Industrial Electronics Society (IES), 14-17th October, Lisbon, Portugal 2019, pp. 4557-4562 doi: 10.1109/IECON.2019.8926887
• [17] J. Terrados, G. Almonacid and P. Perez-Higueras, “Proposal for a combined methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 13(8), pp 2022-2030, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.01.025
• [18] C. Ghenai, M. Albawab and M. Battayeb, “Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method,” Renewable Energy, vol. 146, pp. 580-597, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.157
• [19] G. Büyüközkan and S. Güleryüz, “An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 182, pp. 435-448, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.09.015
• [20] O. Derse and E. Yontar, “Determination of the most appropriate renewable energy source SWARA-TOPSIS method,” Journal of Industrial Engineering, vol. 31(3), pp. 389-410, 2020, doi: 10.46465/endustrimuhendisligi.798063
• [21] Y-C. Shen, G.T.R. Lin, K-P. Li and B.J.C. Yuan, “An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology,” Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 4604-4616, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.016
• [22] H. Yuan, C. Li, W. Li, D. Liu and X. Li, “Linguistic hesitant fuzzy multi-criterion decision-making for renewable energy: A case study in Jilin,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 3201-3214, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.038
• [23] P. Rani, A.R. Mishra, A. Mardani, F. Cavallaro, M. Alrasheedi and A. Alrashidi, “A novel approach to extended fuzzy TOPSIS based on new divergence measures for renewable energy sources selection,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 257, 120352, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120352
• [24] A. Balın and H. Baraçlı, “A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology based upon the interval type-2 fuzzy sets for evaluating renewable energy alternatives in Turkey,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 23(5), pp. 742-763, 2017, doi: 10.3846/20294913.2015.1056276
• [25] H. Dincer and S. Yuksel, “Balanced scored-based analysis of investment decisions for the renewable energy alternatives: A comparative analysis based on the hybrid fuzzy decision-making approach,” Energy, vol. 175, pp. 1259-1270, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.143
• [26] K. Deveci, R. Cin and A. Kağızman, “A modified interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy CODAS method and its application to multi-criteria selection among renewable energy alternatives in Turkey,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 96, 10660, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106660
• [27] S. Hendiani and G. Walther, “Sustainability performance evaluation of renewable energy systems using a new multi-expert multi-criteria interval type-2 fuzzy distance to ideal solution approach,” Applied Energy, vol. 347, 121436, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121436
• [28] K. Deveci and Ö. Güler, “Ranking intuitionistic fuzzy sets with hypervolume-based approach: An application for multi-criteria assessment of energy alternatives,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 150, 111038, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.111038
• [29] C. Dumrul, F. Bilgili,F. Zarali, Y. Dumrul and Z. Kiliçarslan, “The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives in Turkey using intuitionistic-fuzzy EDAS methodology,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 31, pp. 15503-15524, 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2015.07.124
• [30] SS. Bohra, A. Anvari-Moghaddam, F. Blaabjerg and B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, “Multi-criteria planning of microgrids for rural electrification,” Journal of Smart Environments and Green Computing, vol. 1, pp. 120-134, 2021, doi: 10.20517/jsegc.2021.06
• [31] C. Kahraman, İ. Kaya and S. Cebi, “A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process”, Energy, vol. 34, pp. 1603-1616, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.008
• [32] T. Kaya and C. Kahraman, “Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, pp. 6577-6585, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.081
• [33] T. Ertay,C. Kahraman and İ. Kaya, “Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using macbeth and fuzzy AHP multicriteria methods: The case of Turkey,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol.19(1), pp.38-62, 2013, doi: 10.3846/20294913.2012.762950
• [34] Ü. Şengül, M. Eren, S.E. Dhiraz, V. Gezder and A.B. Şengül, “Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey,” Renewable Energy, vol. 75, pp. 617-625, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.045
• [35] M. Çolak and İ. Kaya, “Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 80, pp. 840-853, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194
• [36] A. Karaaslan and S. Aydın, “Evaluation of Renewable Energy Resources with Multi Criteria Decision Making Techniques: Evidence from Turkey,” Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 34(4), pp. 1351-1375, 2020, doi: 10.16951/atauniiibd.749466
• [37] H. Eroğlu and R. Şahin, “A neutrosophic VIKOR method-based decision-making with an improved distance measure and score function: Case study of selection for renewable energy alternatives,” Cognitive Computation, vol. 12, pp. 1338-1355, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12559-020-09765-x
• [38] J.R. San Cristabol, “Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy Project in Spain: The Vikor method,” Renewable Energy, vol. 36, pp. 498-502, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.031
• [39] M. Kumar and C. Samuel, “Selection of best renewable energy source by using VIKOR method,” Technology and Economics of Smart Grids and Sustainable Energy, vol. 2, pp. 1-10, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s40866-017-0024-7
• [40] T. Kaya and C. Kahraman, “Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR&AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul,” Energy, vol. 35, pp. 2517-2527, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.051
• [41] P. Rani, A.R. Mishra, K.R. Pardasani, A. Mardani, H. Liao and D. Streimikiene, “A novel VIKOR approach based on entropy and divergence measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets to evaluate renewable energy technologies in India,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 238, 117936, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.11793
• [42] Y.A. Solangi, S.A.A. Shah, H. Zameer, M. Ikram and B.O. Saracoglu, “Assessing the solar PV power project site selection in Pakistan: based on AHP-fuzzy VIKOR approach,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 26, pp. 30286-30302, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.014
• [43] G. Zheng and X. Wang, “The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method,” Energy, vol. 193, 116676, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116676
• [44] K.M. Kotb, M.R. Elkadeem, A. Khalil, S.M. Imam, M.A. Hamada, S.W. Sharshir and A. Dan, “A fuzzy decision-making model for optimal design of solar, wind, diesel-based RO desalination integrating flow-battery and pumped-hydro storage: Case study in Baltim, Egypt,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 235, 113962, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113962
• [45] M.R. Elkadeem, A. Younes, S.W. Sharshir, P.E. Campana and S. Wang “Sustainable siting and design optimization of hybrid renewable energy system: A geospatial multi-criteria analysis,” Applied Energy, vol. 295, 117071, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117071
• [46] D. Abdul, J. Wengi and A.Tanveer, “Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology,” Renewable Energy, vol. 184, pp. 1018-1032, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.082
• [47] B. Buran and M. Erçek, “Public transportation business model evaluation with Spherical and Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 204, 117519, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117519
• [48] E. İlkbahar, C. Kahraman and S. Cebi, “Risk assessment of renewable energy investment: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP,” Energy, vol. 239, 121907, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121907
• [49] G. Büyüközkan and S. Güleryüz, “A new integrated intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making approach for product development partner selection,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 102, pp 383-395, 2016b, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2016.05.038
• [50] F.E. Boran, “A new approach for evaluation of renewable energy resources: A case of Turkey,” Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, vol. 13(3) pp. 196-204, 2018, doi: 10.1080/15567249.2017.1423414