Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i4p986-d323986.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Group Decision Framework for Renewable Energy Source Selection under Interval-Valued Probabilistic linguistic Term Set

Author

Listed:
  • Raghunathan Krishankumar

    (School of Computing, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu 613401, India)

  • Arunodaya Raj Mishra

    (Department of Mathematics, Govt. College Jaitwara, Satna Madhya Pradesh 485211, India)

  • Kattur Soundarapandian Ravichandran

    (School of Computing, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu 613401, India)

  • Xindong Peng

    (School of Information Science & Engineering, Shaoguan University, Shaoguan 512005, China)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

    (Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, 10221 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Fausto Cavallaro

    (Department of Economics, University of Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy)

  • Abbas Mardani

    (Informetrics Research Group, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 758307, Vietnam
    Faculty of Business Administration, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 758307, Vietnam)

Abstract
In recent years, the assessment of desirable renewable energy alternative has been an extremely important concern that could change the environment and economic growth. To tackle the circumstances, some authors have paid attention to selecting the desirable renewable energy option by employing the decision-making assessment and linguistic term sets. With a fast-growing interest in multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) problems, researchers are tirelessly working towards new techniques for better decision-making. Decision makers (DMs) generally rate alternatives linguistically with different probabilities occurring for each term. Previous studies on linguistic decision-making have either ignored this idea or have used an only a single value for representing the weight of the linguistic term. Since expression of the complete probability distribution is hard and implicit hesitation exists, representation of weights of the linguistic terms using a single value becomes imprecise and unreasonable. To avoid this challenge, an interval-valued probabilistic linguistic term set (IVPLTS) is used, which is a generalization of (probabilistic linguistic term set) PLTS. Inspired by the usefulness of IVPLTS concept, we develop a decision framework for rational decision making. Initially, some operational laws and axioms are presented. Further, a novel aggregation operator known as interval-valued probabilistic linguistic simple weighted geometry (IVPLSWG) is developed for aggregating DMs’ preferences. Also, criteria weights are determined using the newly developed interval-valued probabilistic linguistic standard variance (IVPLSV) approach and alternatives are ranked using the extended VIKOR (VlseKriterijumskaOptimizacijaKompromisnoResenje) method under IVPLTS environment. Finally, a numerical example of renewable energy assessment is demonstrated to show the practicality of the developed decision framework. Also, the strengths and weaknesses of the developed decision framework are illustrated by comparison with existing ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Raghunathan Krishankumar & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Kattur Soundarapandian Ravichandran & Xindong Peng & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "A Group Decision Framework for Renewable Energy Source Selection under Interval-Valued Probabilistic linguistic Term Set," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:4:p:986-:d:323986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/986/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/986/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    3. Karunathilake, Hirushie & Hewage, Kasun & Mérida, Walter & Sadiq, Rehan, 2019. "Renewable energy selection for net-zero energy communities: Life cycle based decision making under uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 558-573.
    4. Ghenai, Chaouki & Albawab, Mona & Bettayeb, Maamar, 2020. "Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 580-597.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Mousavi, M. & Gitinavard, H. & Mousavi, S.M., 2017. "A soft computing based-modified ELECTRE model for renewable energy policy selection with unknown information," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 774-787.
    7. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    8. Mingwei Lin & Zeshui Xu & Yuling Zhai & Zhiqiang Yao, 2018. "Multi-attribute group decision-making under probabilistic uncertain linguistic environment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(2), pages 157-170, February.
    9. Domenico Campisi & Simone Gitto & Donato Morea, 2018. "An Evaluation of Energy and Economic Efficiency in Residential Buildings Sector: A Multi-criteria Analisys on an Italian Case Study," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(3), pages 185-196.
    10. Çolak, Murat & Kaya, İhsan, 2017. "Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 840-853.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Idiano D’Adamo & Massimo Gastaldi, 2022. "Sustainable Development Goals: A Regional Overview Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Konstantinos Kokkinos & Vayos Karayannis, 2020. "Supportiveness of Low-Carbon Energy Technology Policy Using Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Methodologies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Osman Taylan & Rami Alamoudi & Mohammad Kabli & Alawi AlJifri & Fares Ramzi & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2020. "Assessment of Energy Systems Using Extended Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy VIKOR, and TOPSIS Approaches to Manage Non-Cooperative Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, March.
    4. Idiano D’Adamo & Massimo Gastaldi, 2023. "Monitoring the Performance of Sustainable Development Goals in the Italian Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Rajvikram Madurai Elavarasan & Leoponraj Selvamanohar & Kannadasan Raju & Raghavendra Rajan Vijayaraghavan & Ramkumar Subburaj & Mohammad Nurunnabi & Irfan Ahmad Khan & Syed Afridhis & Akshaya Harihar, 2020. "A Holistic Review of the Present and Future Drivers of the Renewable Energy Mix in Maharashtra, State of India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-33, August.
    6. Vytautas Palevičius & Rasa Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė & Jonas Damidavičius & Tomas Karpavičius, 2020. "Concepts of Development of Alternative Travel in Autonomous Cars," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, October.
    7. Yang, Shi-guan & Zhou, Jia-le & Hu, Zhuang & Zhou, Xin-yue & Cai, Qi & Xie, Jin-heng & Wu, Yang-wen & Lu, Qiang, 2023. "Site selection decision framework for biomass pyrolysis project based on a mixed method under probabilistic linguistic environment and low carbon perspective: A case study in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    8. Pratibha Rani & Jabir Ali & Raghunathan Krishankumar & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Fausto Cavallaro & Kattur S. Ravichandran, 2021. "An Integrated Single-Valued Neutrosophic Combined Compromise Solution Methodology for Renewable Energy Resource Selection Problem," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Robert Ulewicz & Dominika Siwiec & Andrzej Pacana & Magdalena Tutak & Jarosław Brodny, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Method for the Selection of Renewable Energy Sources in the Polish Industrial Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-30, April.
    10. Long, Yilu & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang, 2022. "Renewable energy source technology selection considering the empathetic preferences of experts in a cognitive fuzzy social participatory allocation network," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    11. Sudip Basack & Shantanu Dutta & Dipasri Saha, 2022. "Installation and Performance Study of a Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine Prototype Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-29, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    2. Soora Rasouli & Harry Timmermans, 2017. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1555-1576, November.
    3. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    5. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    6. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    7. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    8. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    9. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    10. Ronald Bosman & Frans Van Winden, 2010. "Global Risk, Investment and Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(307), pages 451-471, July.
    11. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Serge Blondel & Louis Lévy-garboua, 2011. "Can non-expected utility theories explain the paradox of not voting?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3158-3168.
    13. Ivan Barreda-Tarrazona & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2014. "The role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 167-188, October.
    14. Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Zpochybnění deskriptivnosti teorie očekávaného užitku [Doubts about the descriptive validity of the expected utility theory]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2007(1), pages 106-120.
    15. Zhang, Jing & Wang, Yan & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Modeling multi-target defender-attacker games with quantal response attack strategies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    16. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    17. Wang, Di, 2021. "Attention-driven probability weighting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    18. Michael H. Birnbaum & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Christoph Ungemach & Neil Stewart & Edika G. Quispe-Torreblanca, 2016. "Risky Decision making: Testing for violations of transitivity predicted by an editing mechanism," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 75-91, January.
    19. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    20. Lei Wang & Qing Liu & Tongle Yin, 2018. "Decision-making of investment in navigation safety improving schemes with application of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(6), pages 710-724, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:4:p:986-:d:323986. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.