2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.051
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Portfolio of RE sources for accomplishing the 3-E policy goals AHP Taiwan [11] RE and nuclear sources selection for electricity generation AHP Kazakhstan [12] Evaluating and selecting RE sources for electricity generation AHP Algeria [13] RE sources selection for sustainable electricity generation AHP Malaysia [14] Evaluating sustainable energy planning and management Fuzzy AHP India [15] The selection of RE alternatives for electricity production Fuzzy AHP Indonesia [16] Analyzing energy performance for sustainable development AHP-Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and VlseKriterijumska Optimizcija I Kaompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) Turkey [17] Assessing the RE sources to accomplish policy scenario goals Fuzzy TOPSIS Europe [18] Analyzing and ranking the most efficient low-emission energy technologies Fuzzy AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Poland [19] Selection of wind power project locations AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Pakistan [20] Ranking the low-carbon energy sources AHP and TOPSIS China [21] Multi-criteria assessment of renewable micro-generation technologies TOPSIS, Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) and WASPAS Lithuania [22] It is determined from the literature that MCDA approaches greatly help in addressing and assessing sustainable energy planning problems. In this study, the fuzzy-based AHP and WASPAS methods have been applied because the fuzzy set theory is a valuable technique that helps in minimizing the uncertainty of the decision problem [23].…”
Section: Research Focus Research Methods Region Referencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Portfolio of RE sources for accomplishing the 3-E policy goals AHP Taiwan [11] RE and nuclear sources selection for electricity generation AHP Kazakhstan [12] Evaluating and selecting RE sources for electricity generation AHP Algeria [13] RE sources selection for sustainable electricity generation AHP Malaysia [14] Evaluating sustainable energy planning and management Fuzzy AHP India [15] The selection of RE alternatives for electricity production Fuzzy AHP Indonesia [16] Analyzing energy performance for sustainable development AHP-Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and VlseKriterijumska Optimizcija I Kaompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) Turkey [17] Assessing the RE sources to accomplish policy scenario goals Fuzzy TOPSIS Europe [18] Analyzing and ranking the most efficient low-emission energy technologies Fuzzy AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Poland [19] Selection of wind power project locations AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Pakistan [20] Ranking the low-carbon energy sources AHP and TOPSIS China [21] Multi-criteria assessment of renewable micro-generation technologies TOPSIS, Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) and WASPAS Lithuania [22] It is determined from the literature that MCDA approaches greatly help in addressing and assessing sustainable energy planning problems. In this study, the fuzzy-based AHP and WASPAS methods have been applied because the fuzzy set theory is a valuable technique that helps in minimizing the uncertainty of the decision problem [23].…”
Section: Research Focus Research Methods Region Referencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…AHP and its extension fuzzy AHP methods are commonly utilized for different decision making problems such as manufacturing plant sustainability evaluation (Jayawickrama et al, 2017), mineral prospectivity mapping (Zhang et al, 2017), organ transplantation (Yuen, 2014), evaluation of in-flight service quality (Li et al, 2017) and shipping technology selection (Sahin and Yip, 2017). On the other hand, AHP and fuzzy AHP methods are applied with together another MCDM methods as shown in (Karatas, 2017;Otay et al, 2017;Karatas et al, 2018).…”
Section: Fuzzy Ahp Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Goyal et al [28] recommended a tuning model for configuring reconfigurable manufacturing system. Karatas et al [29] assessed energy management performance of Turkey by an integrated model. Gungor and Kocamis [30] evaluated financial performance of UK soccer clubs.…”
Section: Topsismentioning
confidence: 99%