BİYOKÜTLE TERMOKİMYASAL DÖNÜŞÜM TEKNİĞİ SEÇİM KRİTERLERİNİN q-RUNG ORTHOPAIR BULANIK KÜME TABANLI LODECI YÖNTEMİYLE SIRALANMASI

Öz

Biyokütle temelli enerji dönüşüm teknolojileri, yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının değerlendirilmesi ve karbon emisyonlarının azaltılması açısından önemli bir araştırma alanı oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, biyokütle termokimyasal dönüşüm yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesinde etkili olan kriterlerin önem düzeylerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, teknik, ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal olmak üzere dört ana kriter ile verimlilik, ürün kalitesi, işletme koşulları, teknolojik olgunluk, maliyet, yatırım geri dönüş süresi, pazar potansiyeli, karbon ayak izi, atık yönetimi, sürdürülebilirlik ve toplumsal kabul olmak üzere on bir alt kriterden oluşan bir karar modeli literatür ve karar verici görüşlerine dayanılarak oluşturulmuştur. Kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinde karar verme ortamındaki belirsizlikleri ele almakta etkili bir yöntem olan, q-Rung Orthopair Bulanık Küme (q-ROFS) tabanlı LODECI yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, ürün kalitesi, karbon ayak izi, maliyet, atık yönetimi ve işletme koşulları en yüksek ağırlığa sahip kriterler olarak belirlenmiştir. Önerilen yöntemin sonuçları, q-ROFS CRITIC yöntemi ile karşılaştırılarak modelin güvenirliliğine bakılmıştır. Bulgular, q-ROFS LODECI yönteminin belirsizlik içeren uzman değerlendirmelerini dikkate alarak biyokütle termokimyasal dönüşüm teknolojilerinin seçiminde sistematik ve uygulanabilir bir karar destek çerçevesi sunduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyokütle
• Termokimyasal Dönüşüm
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• q-Rung Orthopair Bulanık Küme
• LODECI
• CRITIC

PRIORITIZING SELECTION CRITERIA FOR BIOMASS THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH THE Q-RUNG ORTHOPAIR FUZZY SET-BASED LODECI METHOD

Öz

Biomass-based energy conversion technologies have become an important research area due to their potential for utilizing renewable energy resources and reducing carbon emissions. This study aims to determine the importance levels of the criteria affecting the evaluation of biomass thermochemical conversion methods. For this purpose, a decision model was developed based on the literature and expert opinions. The model consists of four main criteria-technical, economic, environmental, and social- and eleven sub-criteria, including efficiency, product quality, operating conditions, technological maturity, cost, payback period, market potential, carbon footprint, waste management, sustainability, and social acceptance. To determine the weights of the criteria, the q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Set (q-ROFS) based LODECI method, which is effective in dealing with uncertainties in decision-making environments, was employed. According to the findings, product quality, carbon footprint, cost, waste management, and operating conditions were identified as the most important criteria. The reliability of the proposed approach was examined by comparing its results with those obtained from the q-ROFS CRITIC method. The results indicate that the q-ROFS LODECI method provides a systematic and practical decision support framework for the selection of biomass thermochemical conversion technologies by effectively incorporating expert evaluations under uncertainty.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biomass Thermochemical Conversion
• Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
• q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Set
• LODECI
• CRITIC

Kaynakça

1. Afrane, S., Ampah, J. D., Agyekum, E. B., Amoh, P. O., Yusuf, A. A., Fattah, I. M. R., Agbozo, E., Elgamli, E., Shouran, M., Mao, G., & Kamel, S. (2022). Integrated AHP-TOPSIS under a Fuzzy Environment for the Selection of Waste-To-Energy Technologies in Ghana: A Performance Analysis and Socio-Enviro-Economic Feasibility Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8428.
2. Agaton, C.B.; Santos, M.J.A. Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy: Research Hotspots, Technologies, and Factors. Clean Technol. 2025, 7, 63.
3. Alam, S.; Rahman, K.S.; Rokonuzzaman, M.; Salam, P.A.; Miah, M.S.; Das, N.; Chowdhury, S.; Channumsin, S.; Sreesawet, S.; Channumsin, M., (2022). Selection of Waste to Energy Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management—Towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 14, 11913.
4. Alkan, N., Kahraman, C., (2021). Evaluation of government strategies against COVID-19 pandemic using q-rung orthopair fuzzy TOPSIS method. Appl. Soft Comput. 110.
5. Atanassov, K., (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Set Syst. 20, 87–96. Aro, J. L., E. Selerio Jr, S. S. Evangelista, F. Maturan, N. M. Atibing, L. Ocampo. (2022). Fermatean fuzzy CRITIC-CODAS-SORT for characterizing the challenges of circular public sector supply chains. Operations Research Perspectives 9:100246.
6. Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S. (2017). Evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey using an integrated MCDM approach with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations. Energy, 123, 149–163.
7. Cardona-Giraldo, J.; Velandia, L.C.G.; Marin, D.; Argel, A.; García-Freites, S.; Sanjuan, M.; Acosta, D.; Aristizabal, A.; Builes, S.; Botero, M.L. (2025). Review of Biomass Gasifiers: A Multi-Criteria Approach. Gases. 5, 22.
8. Cutz, L., Haro, P., Santana, D., & Johnsson, F. (2016). Assessment of biomass energy sources and technologies: The case of Central America. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1411–1431.

9. Çolak, M. & Kaya, İ. (2017). Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 80. 840-853.
10. Darko, A.P., Liang, D., (2020). Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making with modified EDAS method. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 87.
11. Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Pamucar, D., Coffman, D., Papadonikolaki, E., (2022). Safe E-scooter operation alternative prioritization using a q-rung orthopair Fuzzy Einstein based WASPAS approach, Journal of Cleaner Production, 347.
12. Dinçer H., Yüksel S. (2019). Multidimensional evaluation of global investments on the renewable energy with the integrated fuzzy decision-making model under the hesitancy. Int J Energy Res. 43: 1775–1784.
13. Effatpanah, S., Ahmadi, M., Aungkulanon, P., Maleki, A., Sadeghzadeh, M., & Sharifpur, M. (2022). Comparative analysis of five widely-used multi-criteria decision-making methods to evaluate clean energy technologies: A case study. Sustainability, 14(1), 33.
14. Ejegwa,P. Augustine, Anum,M. Terna, Kausar,N. , Nwokoro,C. Obinna and Cagin,T. A (2025). A novel Q-rung Orthopair fuzzy distance metric for energy source selection. Journal of Applied Research on Industrial Engineering, 12(3), 429-464.
15. Farooq A, Haputta P, Silalertruksa T and Gheewala SH (2021) A Framework for the Selection of Suitable Waste to Energy Technologies for a Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management System. Front. Sustain. 2:681690.
16. Garg, H., Chen, S.M., (2020). Multiattribute group decision making based on neutrality aggregation operators of q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 517, 427–447.
17. Goswami, S., Tapankumar, T., Naik, N., Jayaraman, G., Bhosle, N., Singh, A., Raju, G., Nagesh, D., & Santhosh, A. (2025). Multi-model MCDM framework for sustainable renewable energy selection in India: Integrating CRITIC-EDAS-CODAS-CoCoSo. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 122–138.
18. Haddad, B., Liazid A., Ferreira P. (2017). A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system. Renewable Energy, 107, 462-472.
19. Hemmati, M., Bayati, N., Ebel, T. (2024). Life cycle sustainability assessment of waste-to-electricity plants for 2030 power generation development scenarios in western Lombok, Indonesia under multi-criteria decision-making approach, Journal of Building Engineering, 95, 110335.
20. Hükümetlerarası İklim Değişikliği Paneli (IPCC). (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
21. Karunathilake, H.; Hewage, K.; Merida,W.; Sadiq, R. (2019). RE selection for net-zero energy communities: Life-cycle based decision making under uncertainty. Renew. Energy. 130, 558–573.
22. Kheybari, S., Rezaie, F. M., Naji, S. A., & Najafis, F. (2019). Evaluation of energy production technologies from biomass using analytical hierarchy process: The case of Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 257–265.
23. Krishankumar, R., Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Cavallaro, F., & Ravichandran, K. S. (2023). A Novel Integrated q-Rung Fuzzy Framework for Biomass Location Selection with No Apriori Weight Choices. Sustainability, 15(4), 3377.
24. Liu, P., Wang, P., (2018). Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 33 (2), 259–280.
25. Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Alshamrani, A. M., Alrasheedi, A. F., & Simic, V. (2025). Sustainable benchmarking of e-scooter micromobility systems: A hybrid q-rung orthopair fuzzy score function and distance measure-based ranking approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 143, 109934.
26. Mostafaeipour, A. & Sedeh, Ali & Chowdhury, Md & Techato, Kuaanan. (2020). Ranking Potential Renewable Energy Systems to Power On-Farm Fertilizer Production. Sustainability. 12. 7850.
27. Nkuna, S. G., Olwal, T. O., & Chowdhury, S. P. (2022). Assessment of thermochemical technologies for wastewater sludge-to-energy: An advance MCDM model. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 9, 100519.
28. Pala, O. (2024). Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 121846.
29. Peng, H.-G., Shen, K.-W., He, S.-S., Zhang, H.-Y., & Wang, J.-Q. (2019). Investment risk evaluation for new energy resources: An integrated decision support model based on regret theory and ELECTRE III. Energy Conversion and Management, 183, 332–348. ISSN: 0196-8904.
30. Pınar, A., & Boran, F. E. (2020). A q-rung orthopair fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making method for supplier selection based on a novel distance measure. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 11(1), 1–32.
31. Qazi, W. A., Abushammala, M. F. M., Azam, M. H., and Younes, M. K. (2018). Waste-to-energy technologies: a literature review. J. Solid Waste Technol. Manag. 44, 387–409. doi: 10.5276/JSWTM.2018.387
32. Shahzad, U. (2015). The need for renewable energy sources. International Journal of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering.
33. Shahnazari, A., Rafiee, M., Rohani, A., Nagar, B., & Ebrahiminik, M. A. (2020). Identification of effective factors to select energy recovery technologies from municipal solid waste using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM): A review of thermochemical technologies. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 40.
34. Şengül, Ü., Eren, M., Shiraz, S.E., Gezder, V., Şengül, A.B. (2015). Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 75, 617-625.
35. Ukoba, M. O., Diemuodeke, O. E., Alghassab, M., Njoku, H. I., Imran, M., & Khan, Z. A. (2020). Composite Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Optimization of Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems for Geopolitical Zones in Nigeria. Sustainability, 12(14), 5732.
36. Ukpanyang, D.; Terrados- Cepeda, J.; Hermoso-Orzaez, M.J., (2022). Multi-Criteria Selection of Waste-to-Energy Technologies for Slum/Informal Settlements Using the PROMETHEE Technique: A Case Study of the Greater Karu Urban Area in Nigeria. Energies, 15, 3481.
37. Uluslararası Yenilenebilir Enerji Ajansı (IRENA). (2019). Solid biomass supply for heat and power: Technology brief. Abu Dhabi: IRENA.
38. Uluslararası Yenilenebilir Enerji Ajansı (IRENA). (2022). Bioenergy for the energy transition: Ensuring sustainability and overcoming barriers, International Renewable Energy Agency. Abu Dhabi: IRENA.
39. van de Kaa, G., Kamp, L., & Rezaei, J. (2017). Selection of biomass thermochemical conversion technology in the Netherlands: A best worst method approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 32–39.
40. Wang, Z., Ren, J., Goodsite, M. E., & Xu, G. (2018). Waste-to-energy, municipal solid waste treatment, and best available technology: Comprehensive evaluation by an interval-valued fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 887–899. ISSN: 0959-6526.
41. Wang, J., Azam, W., (2024). Natural resource scarcity, fossil fuel energy consumption, and total greenhouse gas emissions in top emitting countries. Geoscience Frontiers. 15, 101757.
42. Wu, Y., Xu, C., & Zhang, T. (2018). Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China. Energy, 147, 1227–1239.
43. Xu, M.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M. (2023). Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks. Land Use Policy 2023, 124, 106453.
44. Yager, R.R. (2017). Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 25 (5), 1222–1230.
45. Yager, R.R. (2013) "Pythagorean fuzzy subsets," 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2013, pp. 57-61, doi: 10.1109/IFSA-NAFIPS.2013.6608375.
46. Yalçın, G.C., Kara, K., Senapati, T., (2024). A hybrid spherical fuzzy logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance and alternative ranking technique based on Adaptive Standardized Intervals model with application. Decision Analytics Journal, 11.
47. Yang, K., Duan, T., Feng, J., Mishra, A. R.: Internet of things challenges of sustainable supply chain management in the manufacturing sector using an integrated q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy-CRITIC-VIKOR method. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 35(4/5), 1011–1039 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2021-0261
48. Yilan, G.; Kadirgan, M.N.; Çiftçioğlu, G.A. (2020). Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable energy decision making: The case of Turkey. Renew. Energy, 146, 519–529.
49. Zadeh, L., (1965). Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8, 338-353.