Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review

Eleni Strantzali n, Konstantinos Aravossis
Sector of Industrial Management and Operational Research, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Polytechniou 9,
15780 Athens, Greece

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: One of the problems facing researchers in the application of renewable energy systems is that the
Received 9 December 2014 evaluation of the sustainability is extremely perplex. Decision making in energy projects requires con-
Received in revised form sideration of technical, economic, environmental and social impacts and is often complicated. This paper
9 July 2015
presents a review of the current state of the art in decision support methods applied to renewable and
Accepted 12 November 2015
sustainable energy throughout the literature in the field of energy planning. The selected papers were
classified by their year of publication, decision making technique, energy type, the criteria used, geo-
Keywords: graphic distribution and the application areas.
Renewable Energy Sources (RES) & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Decision Support Systems (DSS)
Energy Planning
LCA
CBA
MCDA

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
1.1. A brief overview of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
2. Decision support methods applied to renewable energy sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
2.1. Life Cycle Analysis-LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
2.2. Cost Benefit Analysis-CBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
2.3. Multicriteria Decision Aid -MCDA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
2.3.1. Several MCDA methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
3. Classification of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
3.1. Year of publication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
3.2. Distribution of applied methods in literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
3.3. Distribution of the analysed energy type in literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
3.4. Classification by application area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
3.5. Evaluation criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
3.6. Geographic distribution of case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895

1. Introduction to supply power and heat to production systems. Until the out-
break of the energy crisis, meeting these needs was a routine
Energy is central to achieving the interrelated goals of modern problem whose solution was principally a matter of money and
societies: to meet human needs for heating, cooling, lighting, technology availability. At these times, per capita energy con-
mobility and for running a large diversity of appliances, as well as sumption was a safe index of a nation's prosperity, while energy
planning was aiming at supplying the energy required at the right
n
Corresponding author. time and in the least costly way [1]. The energy system has been
E-mail address: lenast@central.ntua.gr (E. Strantzali). the subject of substantial discussion over the course of the last 40

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.021
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
886 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898
years or so, but each time the discussion intensified, it was for a
different reason. First, there was an oil crisis and everyone was
concerned about energy security, “peak oil” and high oil prices,
later the focus shifted toward climate change, with the energy
system being the largest contributor of anthropogenic GHG
emissions. Various alternatives have been considered: renewable
energy, so called carbon capture and storage, energy demand
reduction. Experiments with reality are usually very costly and
could lead to undesired consequences. It is for this reason that
mathematical models have been employed to help understand the
functioning of the energy system, make justified decisions about
its development and choosing the best technologies for combi-
nation in a particular region, or design a strategy for CO2 emissions
reduction of 80% over the course of the following 40 years [2].
As mentioned in Huang et al. [3], decision analysis (DA) was
first applied to study problems in oil and gas exploration in the
1960s and its application was subsequently extended from
industry to the public sector. During the 1970s, energy planning
efforts were directed primarily towards energy models aimed at
exploring the energy-economy relationships established in the
energy sector. The main objectives followed were to accurately
estimate future energy demand. A single criteria approach aimed
at identifying the most efficient supply options at a low cost was
popular [4,5]. In the 1980s, growing environmental awareness has
slightly modified the above decision framework [6]. The need to
incorporate environmental and social considerations in energy
planning resulted in the increasing use of multicriteria approaches
[7]. The 1991 study by Corner and Kirkwood [8] lists 86 DA studies
that appeared in operations research and related journals from
1970 to 1989. They found that DA was very suitable to address
strategic or policy decisions full of uncertainties and multiple
conflicting criteria. In a more recent study, Keefer et al. [9] sur-
veyed 85 articles appearing in 1990–2001 and found that the use
of DA for strategic and tactical decisions was growing [10].
Given that the energy sector and energy planning in particular
affects the interests and resources of multiple actors, it is socially
not acceptable to suggest (or even implement) a policy alternative
without taking into account the interests and preferences of the
(multiple) affected factors [11]. Different and numerous groups of
actors get involved in the process, each group brings along dif-
ferent criteria and point of view, which must be resolved within a
framework of understanding and mutual compromise (conces-
sions) [12]. The actors include those groups of individuals, insti-
tutions and administration authorities such as local authorities
and communities, potential investors, academic institutions,
environmental groups, governments that through their priorities
and evaluation systems, have interests at stake and directly or
indirectly influence the decision-making process [13].
Sustainable development means the satisfaction of present
needs without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs [14]. A sustainable energy sector has a
balance of energy production and consumption and has, no, or
minimal, negative impact on the environment (within the envir-
onmental tolerance limits), but gives the opportunity to a country
to employ its social and economic activities [15].
The exploitation of renewable energy sources (RES) has gained
a vast interest during the last years. Renewable energy (RE) is the
energy generated from natural resources such as sunlight, wind,
rain, biomass, tides and geothermal heat. RES have to overcome
environmental, socio-economic, technical and institutional bar-
riers. The complex issues of renewables render the choice between
different exploitation proposals a complicated task.
1.1. A brief overview of the study
The goal of this paper is to review the recent literature in order
to investigate the trends in the assessment of RES investments.
The study is based on representative sample of a literature review
of energy planning papers and may concern researchers and
potential users of the examined methods. The current challenge
was to limit the number of papers for the analysis to a manageable
size but still objectively represent the state of the applications. The
reader has the opportunity to be informed throughout the years
for the trends in methods and application areas. It is useful to
understand the reasons of these trends, in order to improve the
effectiveness of applications in the future and for a candidate
project which type of approach might be suitable, and where
similar applications might be found.
In the sections that follow, we shall first refer to the most fre-
quently used decision support methods applied to renewable
energy problems. Then, we classify a total of 183 studies published
from 1983–2014. We present the main features observed and
report on new findings.
2. Decision support methods applied to renewable energy
sources
The most frequently used approaches to the modelling of the
energy system have been: life cycle assessment (LCA), cost benefit
analysis (CBA) and multicriteria decision aid (MCDA) [2].
2.1. Life Cycle Analysis-LCA
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a process to analyse and assess the
environmental impacts of a product, process or activity over its
whole life cycle. LCA identifies and quantifies energy and materials
used and wastes released to the environment and assesses the
impact of those inputs and outputs searching for environmental
improvements. LCA considers the entire life cycle of the product:
extracting and processing raw materials, manufacturing, trans-
portation and distribution, use, re-use, maintenance, recycling and
final disposal [16].
An LCA study involves data collection and calculation to
quantify relevant inputs and outputs or the environmental load of
a product system [17]. Using a LCA methodology, environmental
performance indicators, including energy intensity, energy pay-
back time (EPBT), can be determined for energy technologies.
Biomass, photovoltaic (PV), and wind energy are the Renewable
Energy Technologies (RETs) for which most of the LCA work has
been carried out in order to assess their environmental perfor-
mance for electricity generation. LCA analysis is conducted from
different perspectives for electricity generation from RETs [18]:
- LCA for determination of the environmental performance: A
number of studies have been carried out to determine the
lifecycle environmental performance of RETs.
- LCA for analyzing the factors of the environmental perfor-
mance. The lifetime, power ratings, load factor, type and
maturity of technology, and country of manufacture influence
the energy intensity of energy technologies.
- Scenario analysis through LCA. There are some LCA studies
that not only assesse the environmental performance of RETs
but also include alternative energy efficiency scenarios into
the lifecycle boundary in order to reduce the lifecycle envir-
onmental burden.
- LCA for comparative analysis. LCAs of different types of RETs
have been carried out in order to compare their performances.
 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898
2.2. Cost Benefit Analysis-CBA
Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) offers an alternative way of syn-
thesizing performances in different evaluation aspects by trans-
lating all impact categories into monetary terms. This approach
has the advantage of providing results on a scale compatible with
the market mechanism and more comprehensible to decision
makers.
Cost–benefit analysis involves the comparison of total costs and
benefits associated with a project or policy, namely those reflected
in market prices (private cost or benefit) and those experienced by
the external economic and natural environment without directly
influencing the market mechanism (external cost or benefit). In
this sense, CBA constitutes an extension of the conventional
financial analysis that is capable of removing market distortions
and indicating those actions with the lowest social cost or the
highest net social benefit.
However, it is very often difficult to express all performances—
including impacts on nontraded goods—in monetary terms. Thus,
the analysis is often restricted to only monetized aspects such as
capital, operation and maintenance costs [19]. In CBA, monetary
values play the role of weights in MCDA [20].
2.3. Multicriteria Decision Aid -MCDA
Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques are popular
in sustainable energy management. The techniques provide solu-
tions to the problems involving conflicting and multiple objectives.
Several methods based on weighted averages, priority setting,
outranking, fuzzy principles and their combinations are employed
for energy planning decisions.
The objectives are usually conflicting and therefore, the solu-
tion is highly dependent on the preferences of the decision-maker
and must be a compromise. In most of the cases, different groups
of decision-makers are involved in the process. Each group brings
along different criteria and points of view, which must be resolved
within a framework of understanding and mutual compromise [3].
Applications of MCDM include areas such as energy policy
analysis, electric power planning, technology choice and project
appraisal, and environmental impact analysis, [10].
2.3.1. Several MCDA methods
2.3.1.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) / Analytic Network Process
(ANP). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and its generalization
to dependence and feedback, the Analytic Network Process (ANP),
are theories of relative measurement of intangible criteria. With
this approach to relative measurement, a scale of priorities is
derived from pairwise comparison measurements only after the
elements to be measured are known. In the AHP paired compar-
isons are made with judgments using numerical values taken from
the AHP absolute fundamental scale of 1–9. A scale of relative
values is derived from all these paired comparisons and it also
belongs to an absolute scale that is invariant under the identity
transformation like the system of real numbers. AHP is widely
used for practical MCDA method in various domains, in addition to
energy systems. The ANP is a generalization of the Analytic Hier-
archy Process. The basic structures are networks. Priorities are
established in the same way they are in the AHP using pairwise
comparisons and judgments. The AHP/ANP are useful for making
multicriteria decisions involving benefits, opportunities, costs
and risks.
2.3.1.2. The technique for order preference by similarity to ideal
solutions (TOPSIS). This method is developed as an alternative to
ELECTRE. The basic concept of this method is that the selected
887
alternative should have the shortest distance from the negative
ideal solution in geometrical sense. The method assumes that each
attribute has a monotonically increasing or decreasing utility. This
makes it easy to locate the ideal and negative ideal solutions. Thus,
the preference order of alternatives is yielded through comparing
the Euclidean distances [7]. The ideal alternative has the best level
for all criteria, whereas the negative ideal is the one with all the
worst criteria values.
2.3.1.3. Multi-attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). Multi-attribute Uti-
lity Theory (MAUT) takes into consideration the decision maker's
preferences in the form of the utility function which is defined
over a set of attributes. The utility value can be determined by
determination of single attribute utility functions followed by
verification of preferential and utility independent conditions and
derivation of multi-attribute utility functions [7].
2.3.1.4. MCDA combined fuzzy methodology. The classic MCDA
methods generally assume that all criteria and their respective
weights are expressed in crisp values, and thus, that the rating and
the ranking of the alternatives can be carried out without any
problem. Due to the availability and uncertainty of information as
well as the vagueness of human feeling and recognition, it is
relatively difficult to provide exact numerical values for the cri-
teria, make an exact evaluation and convey the feeling and
recognition of objects for decision makers. The combination of
MCDA methods and fuzzy set theory has been applied in many
systems in addition to energy systems.
In this context, a realistic approach is the use of linguistic
variables in the process of the different methods, which are
composed of a finite set of linguistic terms and their meaning is a
fuzzy subset in a universe of discourse.
2.3.1.5. The outranking methods: ELECTRE and PROMETHEE.
Compared to the other multicriteria evaluation methods, the
outranking methods have the characteristic of allowing incom-
parability between alternatives.
The Elimination and choice translating reality (ELECTRE) con-
centrates the analysis on the dominance relations among the
alternatives. The basic concept is how to deal with outranking
relation by using pair-wise comparisons among alternatives under
each criteria separately.
The Preference ranking organization method for enrichment
evaluation (PROMETHEE) uses the outranking principle to rank the
alternatives, combined with the ease of use and decreased com-
plexity. Like to ELECTRE method, it also performs a pair-wise
comparison of alternatives in order to rank them with respect to a
number of criteria. However, ELECTRE method only pay attention
to the preference and ignore the difference level between alter-
natives when determining the ranking order. PROMETHEE intro-
duces the preference functions to measure the difference level
between alternatives when determining the ranking order.
Nevertheless, it is useful to compare the results from each
method and in the case of coinciding rankings, the reliability of the
assessment procedure is considerably strengthened.
3. Classification of studies
The 183 studies ([2–3,7,10–13,15,18,23,26–199]) are collected
and classified according to the following categories (Fig. 1):

Year of publication

Method used
888 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898

Fig. 1. Classification of studies.

Energy type Table 1

Application area Number of publications per period.

Criteria
Time period Publications

Geographic distribution of case studies
1983–1994 4
1995–2004 48
3.1. Year of publication
2005–2014 131
Total 183
The review includes publications from 1983 until 2014. Over the
years more and more researchers include in their publications
renewable energy. We divide the time frame into three 10-year
periods, 1983–1994, 1995–2004, 2005–2014 (the first period
includes more than 10 years, but due to the small amount of studies
in this period, it has negligible impact in our distribution) (Table 1).
The increase of the number of publications is remarkable
throughout the three periods. During the period 1983–1994 the
involvement of RES in publications is negligible, whereas the decade
of the 90s the interest starts growing, reaching a high percentage
after 2005. The observation of Fig. 2, clearly confirms the hypothesis
that the number of RES papers published in energy planning field,
has grown significantly over the last decade. The total number of
papers that mention one renewable energy type increased from
single digit numbers in early 1990s to hundreds towards the late
2010s. The Kyoto Protocol, the EU Renewable Directive 2001/77/EC
[21] and the European Biomass Action Plan which were examples of
ambitious political goals, may be the reasons for fostering the
development of technologies based on renewable energy sources. Fig. 2. Percentage of publications in the three time periods.
Fig. 3 shows that our review of the published literature include
a significant number of papers published during 2014, highlighting
the trend of the last year of research.
LCA
From our search in the Scopus database we obtained the below
CBA
results for the publications during 1990–2014. The first column
AHP/ANP, MAUT/MAVT, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE, TOPSIS,
indicates the number of papers published in the field of “renew-
MULTIPLE, if more than one MCDA methods are used, or com-
able energy” and “decision support systems (DSS)”. The second parison of a MCDA method and LCA, or a MCDA method
column indicates the number of papers published in the field of and CBA.
“renewable energy” generally. Our search was limited to articles or
OTHER, if other less popular general MCDA methods are used, or
reviews (Table 2). MCDA methods that are developed by the researchers of the
The total number of papers (found through a search using publications.
“renewable energy” and “decision support systems” as keywords)
REVIEW, if the paper is referred to energy planning, specifically
has increased significantly after 2005. The results of growth are in methods, applications, tools, trends, renewable energy sour-
similar to our sample of publications. ces, but there is no application of a method to a case study.
The total number of papers in the field of renewable energy
FUZZY, if it is used a MCDA method combined with fuzzy set
(found through search using only “renewable energy” as keyword) theory.
from two digit numbers in the early of 1990 to thousands in the
last years. Since some papers use more than one DA method, we further
classified the methods used into the rest categories. The papers
3.2. Distribution of applied methods in literature that were classified to the categories MULTIPLE and FUZZY were
further classified to the rest of the categories according to the
In terms of the classification of the method used, the papers methods used. In case a study uses fuzzy theory in combination
were categorized as follow: with a multicriteria method, the study is categorized to the two
 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898 889

Fig. 3. Distribution of papers throughout the years.

Table 2 requirements of interactive decision required in formulating utility

Growth of publications using “Scopus” database. functions and complexity of computing scaling constants [22].
The shares taken up by the category MULTIPLE increased
Year # of RES(DSS) papers # of RES papers Percentage (%) ¼ RES
(DSS)/RES remarkably from 4% to 12%. In the case of the category FUZZY a
slight reduction in the last decade from 9% to 7% is noticed. The
1990 86 0 highest percentage corresponds to the category OTHER.
1991 71 0
It seems that the two dominant trends with a fairly steady
1992 1 140 0.7
1993 170 0 increase in the last decades are:
1994 205 0
1995 185 0 i) The combination and the comparison of the results of the
1996 5 317 1.6 application of different methods and
1997 3 247 1.2
1998 7 294 2.4
ii) The development from the researchers of new multicriteria
1999 8 320 2.5 decision support tools in order to face the problems of their
2000 4 396 1 case studies.
2001 7 530 1.3
2002 11 587 1.9
Additionally, because of the fact that the judgments of policy
2003 13 772 1.7
2004 21 917 2.3 makers sometimes have the feature of ambiguity and uncertainty,
2005 18 932 1.9 it is noticed that researchers tend to analyse the problems with
2006 33 1174 2.8 fuzzy set theory and linguistic variables after 1995s.
2007 50 1617 3.1
2008 60 3268 1.8
2009 107 3032 3.5 3.3. Distribution of the analysed energy type in literature
2010 133 2780 4.8
2011 180 3441 5.2
Research shows that the problem of selecting an energy
2012 218 4089 5.3
2013 304 5121 5.9 resource requires a detailed multi-dimensional analysis.
2014 289 4344 6.7 Papers involve and evaluate several energy types. Eight energy
Total 1472 35035 4.2 types are analysed and compared in the literature review: Con-
ventional fuels (which include more than one subcategories in the
categories (FUZZY and the multicriteria method used) and not as same field), Natural gas, Nuclear energy, Solar energy, Wind
MULTIPLE (Table 3). energy, Hydropower, Biomass and Geothermal energy.
Twenty four papers of our sample are categorised as MULTIPLE. The analysis was divided to three decades (Fig. 5). The review
Even though application of different methods to the same problem papers were excluded from the analysis. The percentages were
could result in different prioritization of alternatives, it is observed calculated by dividing the number of papers for each energy type
that in general the top alternatives are the same, no matter which to the total number of the papers.
method is used. The share taken up by conventional fuels dropped from 25% to
Fig. 4 shows the classification for the methods. A classification 12–13% in the last decades. Not surprisingly, studies related to
of published literature before 1995 is also presented to highlight nuclear energy have decreased substantially, from 25% to 7–8%. In
the late nineties, the risks associated with nuclear energy and the
suitability of the methods in changed global scenario.
serious concerns about climate change have shifted the interest
An interesting feature between the two decades 1995–2004
towards renewable energy sources.
and 2005–2014 is that most of the studies are at the same range.
Solar energy and hydropower have always been at the heart of
In the 1980s the most popular MCDA methods were PRO-
research. Although natural gas had low popularity in our survey, it
METHEE and ELECTRE and they are used until now. However, a
is still a cheap and competitive energy source with a wide appli-
declining trend has been observed for these traditional methods
cation in Europe. Wind power, geothermal and biomass have been
whose share decreased from 9% to 6% and 5% respectively. From steadily increased.
1995 and after, the AHP/ANP dominates steadily among the tra- Wind is one of the most promising sources of alternative
ditional methods. It is, almost, used in most papers of the category energy. The primary interest for researchers of wind power is
MULTIPLE. related to the optimal design of wind farms. In particular two
It is observed that MAUT is not very extensively used in energy important problems are often considered: the optimal design of
planning. It is included in only four papers. This may be due to wind turbines and the wind farm layout.
890 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898

Table 3
Classification of the surveyed studies by year and by decision making technique. Studies are denoted by reference numbers.

Years LCA CBA AHP/ANP MAUT/ PROMETHEE ELECTRE TOPSIS MULTIPLE REVIEW FUZZY OTHER
MAVT

1995 144 3
1996 77 81
1997 29, 46 54 168 88
1998 142 139 139
1999 93, 98 148
2000 39 133 72, 133 97
2001 48, 49 87 82 85
2002 34, 44 83, 95 83 83 89 159, 161
2003 32 26 84 12 80, 137, 172 137 76
2004 37, 42 96, 140 73, 90 7 94, 143, 171
2005 43 124, 134 184 78, 152
2006 28, 35, 53 175 10
36
2007 31, 33, 27, 50, 68 27, 158 177 27, 149, 177 65 178 56, 126, 145, 149, 157,
40 52, 149 164, 176
2008 129 117, 147 129, 173 129 18, 197 147 141, 170
2009 183 47, 51 64, 67, 116, 11, 160, 196 150, 160, 196 15, 30, 198 67 146, 196
163, 165
2010 71, 75, 132, 169 169 138 75, 169 41, 55 71, 132, 75, 66, 131, 155, 166
136, 169 136, 138
2011 154, 162 57 156, 192 74 154 23, 194 127, 154, 167
2012 45, 185 135 63, 135, 181, 181, 182, 185 2, 13, 61 135 59, 60, 99, 128, 130,
182 153
2013 103 70, 103, 180, 70, 187 70, 103, 187 188 58, 62, 79, 174, 186,
187 190, 191
2014 104, 69, 101, 105, 110 102 106, 179 104, 105, 102, 111, 122, 199 105, 109, 100, 102, 104, 107,
125, 108, 113, 115, 125, 179, 195 114, 193 112, 118, 119, 120, 121,
195 189, 193 123, 125, 195
Total # of 22 11 38 4 16 15 8 24 23 17 56
papers

Fig. 4. Distribution (%) of applied method per period.

Biomass power plants exist in over 50 countries around the
world and supply a growing share of electricity. European coun-
tries are expanding their total share of power from biomass, such
as Austria (7% of the renewable energy generation), Finland (20%),
and Germany (5%), while biogas for power generation is also a
growing trend in many countries.
The main advantage of using geothermal energy is that this
renewable energy source can provide power 24 h per day due to it
is constant. However, only a small fraction of the geothermal
potential has been developed so far, and there is space for an
increasing use of geothermal energy both for electricity generation
and direct applications.
The trend is the shift to hybrid systems. Hybrid renewable
energy systems are becoming popular for remote area power
generation applications due to advances in renewable energy
technologies [23].
3.4. Classification by application area
The review of the published literature is presented here with a
view to highlight the application areas and trends.
In terms of application area, the papers were classified in seven
categories based on the emphasis of the research topic presented
and the scope of the application case study discussed.
 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898 891

Fig. 5. Share in % of energy type per period.

Table 4 installation of new circuit additions to supply the forecasted

Distribution of application areas. load throughout the planning period. The distribution network
planning problem involves deciding the construction and/or
Application areas Number of papers %
reinforcement of facilities (substations) and branches to meet
Energy Policy and Management 34 19 demand and satisfy operational and technical constraints.
Environmental Impact Analysis 20 11 4. Evaluation of power generation technologies and projects: it
Electrical network planning 8 4 includes evaluation and selection of energy technologies and
Evaluation of Power generation technologies and 36 20
appraisal of energy investment projects.
projects
Regional planning for the coverage of energy demand 39 21 5. Regional planning for the coverage of energy demand: it eval-
National planning 32 17 uates sustainable energy technologies and projects in order to
Review papers/Methods selection 14 8 cover the energy demand in a region, usually decentralized.
6. National planning: it evaluates sustainable energy technologies
and projects in order to cover the energy demand of a whole
1. Energy Policy and Management: evaluation of energy systems, country.
national or regional, with the purpose of guiding the develop- 7. Review Papers/Methods selection: it includes review papers
ment and formulation of energy policy. which focus on the selection of the appropriate decision sup-
2. Environmental Impact Analysis: the focus is now on environ- port method according to the research field and they don’t focus
mental rather than energy issues. The main objective of these on one of the above six categories.
papers is to minimize environmental impacts and evaluate
whether environmental standards are met. The global move towards renewable energy sources had cre-
3. Electrical network planning: it deals with strategic planning ated the need for searching the optimal energy policy, the optimal
issues during the course of power generation, transmission and energy project for a region, even for a whole country. The chron-
distribution, such as power generation expansion planning, ological interest of researchers in these four fields has fairly steady
electrical transmission network expansion planning and power increase over the last decades.
distribution planning [10]. Transmission planning involves The percentage distribution of application areas is shown in
determining the location, the size and the time frame of the Table 4.
 892
Table 5
Classification of the studies by application area and by used method. Studies are denoted by reference numbers.

Application Area LCA CBA AHP/ANP MAUT/ PROMETHEE ELECTRE TOPSIS MULTIPLE REVIEW FUZZY OTHER
MAVT

Energy Policy and 31 49, 53, 86, 95, 101, 113, 90, 124 63, 129, 151, 138, 177, 129, 149, 177, 179, 184, 197 72, 76, 109, 56, 66, 143, 149, 155,
Management 129, 149 140, 144, 147 179, 192 182 182 138, 147 159, 170, 171, 176
Environmental Impact 28, 29, 32, 33, 84, 87, 98 77 80 185, 104 30 79, 88, 99, 104
Analysis 35, 42, 43, 44,
46, 104 185
Electrical network planning 40, 45 50 70, 83 83 70 70, 83 41 62, 186
Evaluation of Power genera- 34, 36, 39, 103, 48, 51 64, 103, 117, 163, 12, 102, 133, 142 139 74, 181, 102,103,150, 181, 2, 18, 89, 199 133, 139 58, 60, 81, 102, 107, 112,

E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898

tion technologies and 183, 195 180, 187 187 187, 195 118, 119, 123, 148, 153,
projects 166, 195
Regional planning for the 37, 125 47 75, 96, 105, 108, 57, 110 11, 92, 134, 160 54, 91, 106, 135 75, 105, 125, 160 111, 188 105, 114, 59, 75, 78, 85, 94, 100,
coverage of energy demand 115, 116, 135, 193 156, 172, 173 135, 193 121, 125, 126, 128, 131,
141, 145, 152, 174
National planning 26, 27, 67, 68, 69, 71, 93, 27, 73, 158, 169, 137, 169 27, 137, 154, 169, 67, 71, 82, 97, 120, 127, 130, 146,
52 132, 136, 154, 175, 196 196 132, 136, 154, 157, 161, 164, 167,
162, 165, 169, 189 178 191, 196
Review papers/methods 3, 7, 10, 13, 15, 23, 190
selection 55, 61, 65, 122, 168,
194, 198

Table 6
Percentage distribution of application areas by method.

Application Area LCA (%) CBA (%) AHP/ANP (%) MAUT/ PROMETHEE (%) ELECTRE (%) TOPSIS (%) MULTIPLE (%) REVIEW (%) FUZZY (%) OTHER (%)
MAVT (%)

Energy Policy and Management 5 36 18 0 13 33 38 21 9 29 16

Environmental Impact Analysis 50 0 8 25 0 7 0 8 4 0 7
Electrical network planning 9 9 5 25 0 0 13 8 4 0 4
Evaluation of Power generation technologies and projects 27 18 16 0 25 7 38 25 17 12 23
Regional planning for the coverage of energy demand 9 9 21 50 25 40 13 17 9 24 27
National planning 0 27 32 0 38 13 0 21 0 35 21
Review papers/Methods selection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898
Fig. 6. Percentage distribution of methods per application area.
Most of the papers are evenly distributed across four applica-
tion areas, Energy Policy and Management, Evaluation of Power
generation technologies and projects and Regional and National
planning. Except from the first category Energy Policy and Man-
agement, the other three categories are complicated and may be
easily confused. The basic difference of these three categories is
the application of the case study in the papers. The higher share
for the papers on these three categories is likely because these
issues are more complex, which make the application of a DA
more meaningful (Tables 5).
Table 6 shows that LCA and CBA are dominant to the fields of
Energy Policy and Management and Environmental Impact Ana-
lysis, respectively. Researchers tend to analyze the environmental
performance of energy technologies or projects using the classical
method of life cycle analysis. It, also, might be the advantage of
cost benefit analysis in translating all impact categories into
monetary terms that it are mainly applied to papers of sustainable
energy policy making. The future application of LCA is seen as a
tool supporting decision making where environmental issues are
of the utmost importance.
PROMETHEE and ELECTRE have no application at the field of
Electrical network planning. TOPSIS has basically been applied to
the Energy Policy and Management and the Evaluation of Power
generation technologies and projects. Both PROMETHEE and
TOPSIS have zero percentages at the field of Environmental Impact
Analysis.
Fig. 6 shows the percentage distribution of the used method
per application area (the result is obtained from the division of the
number of papers in each method with the total number of papers
of each application area).
For the traditional fields of Environmental Impact Analysis and
Electrical network planning LCA and AHP take the major share in
the breakdown. It is noticed that AHP has a significant proportion
in almost all the categories. The popularity of AHP is likely due to
its simplicity, ease of understanding and sustainability for the
evaluation of qualitative criteria. For the rest of the fields
researchers have to face multiple conflicting criteria taking into
account the preferences of numerous groups of actors. The cate-
gory OTHER is met to almost all the application areas with very
893
high percentages. Most of the researchers try to build their own
methods to face the particular problems in energy planning. It
seems that FUZZY and MULTIPLE are the new trends. Researchers
tend to use more than one method in order to compare the results
of the different methods and select the optimum solution. They,
also, try to face uncertainty and vagueness with the fuzzy set
theory.
Suganthi et al. [200] review the applications of fuzzy logic
based models in renewable energy systems and their study is
published in 2015. They found that fuzzy based models are
extensively used in recent years for site assessment, for installing
photovoltaic/windfarms, power point tracking in solar photo-
voltaic/wind, optimization among conflicting criteria. Fuzzy logic
helps in conceptualizing the fuzziness in the system into a crisp
quantifiable parameter. Thus fuzzy logic based models can be
adopted for effective energy planning to arrive at pragmatic
solutions. They conclude that there is wide scope for research in
fuzzy based modeling in renewable energy systems.
3.5. Evaluation criteria
The used criteria to evaluate energy planning projects in the
literature mainly are divided to four aspects: Technical, Economic,
Environmental and Social. In Table 7 the most frequently used
subcriteria of each category are summarized.
Percentages given next to each criterion denote the frequency
of occurrence of each criterion in the body of research.
It is observed that the investment cost and CO2 emissions
locate the first place in all evaluation criteria, and job creation
follows closely, because of the focus on social aspects. Efficiency is
the most used technical criteria to evaluate energy systems. It
seems that “efficiency”, “installed capacity”, “investment cost”,
“operation and maintenance cost”, “CO2 emissions”, “land use”,
“job creation” and “social acceptability” are the fundamental cri-
teria that are able to determine the decision of the stakeholders.
It should be noted that the frequency of occurrence of a cri-
terion in the literature does not mean that it is the only necessary
factor to be taken into account. It makes sense to study all the
894 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898

Table 7 Table 8
Classification of criteria. Distribution by continent.

Technical criteria % Continent %

North Europe 10
Efficiency 31% South Europe 41
Reliability 20% East Europe 0
Resource availability 18% West Europe 6
Nominal power/Installed 17% America 11
capacity (kW) Middle East 10
Maturity 16% Asia 20
Safety 10% Africa 2
Energy production 9% Australia 1
Demand 9%
Primary Energy Ratio (PER) 8%
Lifespan 8%
Continuity 5%
Stability 3% Fetanat and Khorasaninejad [201] try to select the best location
for offshore wind farm for four alternative sites in Bandar Deylam
Economic criteria % on the Persian Gulf in southwest of Iran. They have applied a novel
hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy ANP, fuzzy DEMATEL and
Investment Cost 52%
Operation and Maintenance Cost 34% fuzzy ELECTRE. Şengül et al. [202] rank four renewable energy
Energy cost 23% supply systems in Turkey: Hydro Power Station, Geothermal
Payback period 16% Power Station, Regulator and Wind Power Station. The weights of
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 9%
each criterion are calculated using Fuzzy Shannon's Entropy and
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) 6%
Net Present Value (NPV) 5% Fuzzy TOPSIS was utilized to rank the alternatives. Zhao and Guo
Service life 5% [203] evaluate the external benefits of China’s renewable energy
Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC) 2% power: wind power, solar PV power and biomass power. They
employ a hybrid MCDM method witch is divided in two parts, the
Environmental criteria %
superiority linguistic ratings and entropy weighting method for
CO2 emissions 52% index weight determination and the fuzzy grey relation analysis
Land use 33% for ranking alternatives.
Impacts on ecosystems 31%
NOx emissions 22%
SO2 emissions 17%
Emissions (generally) 17% 4. Conclusions
Noise 14%
Particles emissions 2% The present study constitutes a representative sample of the
studies published in the examined research field. So, the potential
Social criteria %
reader has the opportunity to refer to the method or application
Job creation 46% area that is needed for his research. The review of about two
Social acceptability 28% hundred studies concerning the use of decision making in the field
Social benefits 15% of renewable and sustainable energy, offers interesting conclu-
Visual impact 14%
Local development 13%
sions that can be useful for renewable energy researchers.
Impacts on health 10% Not surprisingly the number of publications related to the
Income from jobs 8% assessment of RES investments have been tripled the last decade.
The shift to renewable energy sources has affected researchers,
who try to utilize and improve the available knowledge in decision
criteria and form a selection according to the particularities and making.
the goals of a candidate project. This literature review has shown that energy planning is a field
that is quite suitable for the use of LCA, CBA and MCDA. Most of
3.6. Geographic distribution of case studies the methods used are based on traditional approaches. The
methods that have been used most often with a markedly high
Some of the papers have applications of their methods to share are those included in the field of multicriteria decision
geographic regions or deal with the energy planning of a whole analysis (MCDA). LCA and CBA are dominant to the fields of Energy
country. Only those studies which deal with a case study were Policy and Management and Environmental Impact Analysis,
included in this type of classification. Table 8 shows the geo- respectively.
graphic distribution of the surveyed case studies. It should be noted that choosing among all the methods that
Europe dominated the publication of RES papers, while Asia exist, it can be said to be a multicriteria problem. Each of the
was second with 20% of publications. This observation can explain methods has its own advantages and drawbacks, and it is not
the dominant position of solar energy throughout the years in the possible to claim that any method is generally more suitable than
studies, as South Europe and Asia have high annual average solar the others are. The choice of the method mostly depends on the
irradiance. preferences of the decision maker and the analyst. It is important
Another interesting feature is that the result of the percentage to consider the suitability, validity and user friendliness of the
sum of the percentages of Middle East and Asia indicates a sig- methods. Hobbs and Horn [24], [25] emphasized that the choice of
nificant high share of case studies. It seems that more and more a method can significantly affect judgment decisions. They claimed
Asian researchers attempt to evaluate renewable energy alternatives that a change of a method often makes more difference than a
and incorporate in their studies the decision support systems. Three change of the person that is applying the method. They concluded
recent papers (published in 2015) verify our observation. that ideally more than one method should be used in a decision
 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898
process. That is, also, the explanation of the observed trend in
using MULTIPLE methods in the literature.
It can be concluded that there is a significant growth in the
applications over the last decade across all application areas. The
complication of synchronous problems forces the researchers to
seek for more flexible and user-friendly methods. Validation of
results with multiple methods, development of interactive deci-
sion support systems and application of fuzzy methods to tackle
uncertainities in the data is observed in the published literature.
It seems that fuzzy theory, the use of more than one method in
the same application and the development of novel user-friendly
methods are becoming popular and they are going to be the future
trends in the field of energy planning.
References
[1] Danae Diakoulaki, Carlos Henggeler Antunes, António Gomes Martins. MCDA
and Energy Planning. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, editors. Multiple
criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. United States of America:
Springer; 2005. p. 78.
[2] Shmelev SE. Climate change and renewable energy: how to choose the
optimal pool of technologies. In: Ecological Economics. Sustainability in
Practice. Netherlands: Springer; 2012. p. 133–53.
[3] Huang JP, Poh KL, Ang BW. Decision analysis in energy and environmental
modeling. Energy 1995;20:843–55.
[4] Samouilidis J, Mitropoulos CS. Energy-economy models: a survey. Eur J Oper
Res 1982;11:222–32.
[5] Meier P, Mubayi V. Modelling energy economic interactions in developping
countries-a linear programming approach. Eur J Oper Res 1983;13:49–51.
[6] Nijcamp P, Volwahsen A. New directions in integrated energy planning.
Energy Policy 1990;18(8):764–73.
[7] Pokehar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multicriteria decision making
to sustainable energy planning-a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2004;8:365–81.
[8] Corner JL, Kirkwood CW. Decision analysis applications in the operations
research literature: 1970–1989. Oper Res 1991;39:206–19.
[9] Keefer DL, Kirkwood CW, Corner JL. Perspective on decision analysis appli-
cations: 1990–2001. Decision Anal 2004;1(1):5–24.
[10] Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL. Decision analysis in energy and environmental
modeling: An update. Energy 2006;31:2604–22.
[11] Tsoutos T, Drandaki M, Frantzeeskaki N, Iosifidis E, Kiosses I. Sustainable
energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of
Crete. Energ Policy 2009;37:1587–600.
[12] Haralambopoulos A, Polatidis H. Renewable energy projects: structuring a
multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renew Energ
2003;28:961–73.
[13] Mateo JRSC. The Renewable Energy Industry and the Need for a Multi-
Criteria Analysis. In: Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy
Industry. Green Energy and Technology. London Springer;2012. p. 1-5.
[14] WCED. WCoEaD, our common future. Melbourne, Oxford University Press;
1987.
[15] Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhao JH. Review on multi-criteria decision ana-
lysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:2263–78.
[16] Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Quay B., et al. Guidelines for
life-cycle assessment: a code of practice. Society of Environmental Toxicol-
ogy and Chemistry workshop report; 1993.
[17] Greadel T, Allenby B. An introduction to life cycle assessment. In: Industrial
ecology. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2003: p.183–96.
[18] Lund C, Biswas W. A review of the application of lifecycle analysis to
renewable energy systems. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2008;28:200–9.
[19] Hammond RJ. Convention and limitation in benefit-cost analysis. Nat Resour
J 1966;6:195–222.
[20] Hanley N, Spash CL. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. A Sort
History of Cost Benefit Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing; 1993.
[21] Directive 2001/77/EC (27.09.2001), Official J Eur Commun L 283/33
(27.10.2001).
[22] Dyer JS. Remarks on analytical hierarchy process. Manag Sci 1990;36:249–58.
[23] Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya FG, Gil C, Alcayde A, Gómez J. Optimi-
zation methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1753–66.
[24] Hobbs BF, Horn GTF. Building public confidence in energy planning: a
multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energ
Policy 1997;5(3):357–75.
[25] Hobbs BF, Meier PM. Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an
experimental comparison. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1994;9(4):1811–7.
[26] Islas J, Manzini F, Martinez M. Cost-benefit analysis of energy scenarios for
the Mexican power sector. Energy 2003;28:979–92.
895
[27] Diakoulaki D, Karangelis F. Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost–benefit
analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:716–27.
[28] Pehnt M. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy tech-
nologies. Renew Energy 2006;31:55–71.
[29] Miettinen P, Hämäläinen RP. How to benefit from decision analysis in
environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). Eur J Oper Res 1997;102:279–94.
[30] Bhat IK, Prakash R. LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation sys-
tems—A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1067–73.
[31] Udo de Haes HA, Heijungs R. Life-cycle assessment for energy analysis and
management. Appl Energy 2007;84:817–27.
[32] Góralczyk M. Life-cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector. Appl
Energy 2003;75:205–11.
[33] Weisser D. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
electric supply technologies. Energy 2007;32:1543–59.
[34] Bergerson J, Lave L. (Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center) A Life Cycle
Analysis of Electricity Generation Technologies. Health and Environmental
Implications of Alternative Fuels and Technologies; 2002.
[35] Cavallaro F, Ciraolo L. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a Paraboloidal-Dish
Solar Thermal Power Generation System. In: Environment Identities and
Mediterranean Area ISEIMA'06. First international Symposium on July 2006,
p. 260–5.
[36] Kaminaris SD, Tsoutsos TD, Agoris D, Machias AV. Assessing renewables-to-
electricity systems: a fuzzy expert system model. Energy Policy
2006;34:1357–66.
[37] Weisser D. Costing electricity supply scenarios: a case study of promoting
renewable energy technologies on Rodriguez, Mauritius. Renew Energy
2004;29:1319–47.
[38] Tremeac B, Meunier F. Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind tur-
bines. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2104–10.
[39] Schleisner L. Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities.
Renew Energy 2000;20:279–88.
[40] Uchiyama Y. Life cycle assessment of renewable energy generation tech-
nologies. Transac Electr Electron Eng 2007;1:44–8.
[41] Sherwani AF, Usmani JA. Life cycle assessment of solar PV based electricity
generation systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:540–4.
[42] Denholm P, Kulcinski GL. Life cycle energy requirements and greenhouse gas
emissions from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Convers Manag
2004;45:2153–72.
[43] Hondo H. Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems:
Japanese case. Energy 2005;30:2042–56.
[44] Gagnon L, Belanger C, Uchiyama Y. Life-cycle assessment of electricity gen-
eration options: The status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy
2002;30:1267–78.
[45] Mahapatra S, Dasappa S. Rural electrification: optimising the choice between
decentralised renewable energy sources and grid extension. Energy Sustain
Dev 2012;16:146–54.
[46] Frankl P, Masini A, Gamberale M, Toccaceli D. Simplified life-cycle analysis of
pv systems in buildings: present situation and future trends. INSEAD, Center
for the Management of Environmental Resources; 1997.
[47] Kaldellis JK, Zafirakis D, Kaldelli EL, Kavadias K. Cost benefit analysis of a
photovoltaic-energy storage electrification solution for remote islands.
Renew Energy 2009;34:1299–311.
[48] Diakoulaki D, Zervos A, Sarafidis J, Mirasgedis S. Cost benefit analysis for
solar water heating systems. Energy Convers Manag 2001;42:1727–39.
[49] Clinch JP, Healy JD. Cost-benefit analysis of domestic energy efficiency.
Energy Policy 2001;29:113–24.
[50] Kaldellis JK, Kavadias KA. Cost–benefit analysis of remote hybrid wind–diesel
power stations: case study Aegean Sea islands. Energy Policy 2007;35:1525–38.
[51] Snyder B, Kaiser MJ. Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of off-
shore wind energy. Renew Energy 2009;34:1567–78.
[52] Kennedy D. New nuclear power generation in the UK: cost benefit analysis.
Energy Policy 2007;35:3701–16.
[53] Gulli F. Small distributed generation versus centralised supply: a social cost–
benefit analysis in the residential and service sectors. Energy Policy
2006;34:804–32.
[54] Georgopoulou E, Lalas D, Papagiannakis L. A Multicriteria Decision Aid
approach for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy
option. Eur J Oper Res 1997;103:38–54.
[55] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. A review of computer tools for
analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems.
Appl Energy 2010;87:1059–82.
[56] Chappin EJL, Dijkema GPJ. An agent-based model of CO2 policies and elec-
tricity generation. Agent-Based Soc Syst 2013;9:201–19.
[57] Tkachuk A, Collier Z, Travleev A, Levchenko V, Levchenko A, Kazansky Y, et al.
Energy security: using multicriteria decision analysis to select power supply
alternatives for small settlements. In: Linkov Igor, Bridges Todd S, et al.,
editors. Climate: Global Change and Local Adaptation. Netherlands: NATO
Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security, Springer;
2011. p. 311–32.
[58] Arabali A, Ghofrani M, Etezadi-Amoli M, Fadali MS, Baghzouz Y. Genetic-
algorithm-based optimization approach for energy managment. Transac
Power Deliv 2013;28:162–70.
[59] Palmas C, Abis E, von Haaren C, Lovett A. Renewables in residential devel-
opment: an integrated GIS-based multicriteria approach for decentralized
micro-renewable energy production in new settlement development: a case
896 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898
study of the eastern metropolitan area of Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. Energy
Sustain Soc 2012;2:1–15.
[60] Chua KJ, Yang WM, Wong TZ, Ho CA. Integrating renewable energy tech-
nologies to support building trigeneration-A multi-criteria analysis. Renew
Energy 2012;41:358–67.
[61] Bhattacharyya SC. Review of alternative methodologies for analysing off-grid
electricity supply. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:677–94.
[62] Gitizadeh M, Kaji M, Aghaei J. Risk based multiobjective generation expan-
sion planning considering renewable energy sources. Energy 2013;50:1–9.
[63] Vinodh S, Girubha RJ. Sustainable concept selection using ELECTRE. Clean
Techn Environ Policy 2012;14:651–6.
[64] Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Technological economic and sustainability
evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy
Policy 2009;37:778–87.
[65] Løken E. Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning
problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:1584–95.
[66] Browne D, O’Regan B, Moles R. Use of multi-criteria decision analysis to
explore alternative domestic energy and electricity policy scenarios in an
Irish city-region. Energy 2010;35:518–28.
[67] Kahraman C, Kaya I, Cebi S. A comparative analysis for multiattribute
selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design
and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 2009;34:1603–16.
[68] Köne AÇ, Büke T. An Analytical Network Process (ANP) evaluation of alter-
native fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy
2007;35:5220–8.
[69] Kabak M, Dağdeviren M. Prioritization of renewable energy sources for
Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Convers Manag
2014;79:25–33.
[70] Bas E. The integrated framework for analysis of electricity supply chain using
an integrated SWOT-fuzzy TOPSIS methodology combined with AHP: the
case of Turkey. Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;44:897–907.
[71] Kahraman C, Kaya İ. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among
energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 2010;37:6270–81.
[72] Güngör Z, Arikan F. A fuzzy outranking method in energy policy planning.
Fuzzy Sets Syst 2000;114:115–22.
[73] Topcu YI, Ulengin F. Energy for the future: an integrated decision aid for the
case of Turkey. Energy 2004;29:137–54.
[74] Kaya T, Kahraman C. Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using
a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Sys Appl 2011;38:6577–85.
[75] Kaya T, Kahraman C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an
integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy
2010;35:2517–27.
[76] Borges AR, Antunes CH. A fuzzy multiple objective decision support model
for energy-economy planning. Eur J Oper Res 2003;145:304–16.
[77] McDaniels TL. A multiattribute index for evaluating environmental impacts
of electric utilities. J Environ Manag 1996;46:57–66.
[78] Cavallaro F, Ciraolo L. A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy
plants on an Italian island. Energy Policy 2005;33:235–44.
[79] Cucchiella F, D'Adamo I, Gastaldi M. A multi-objective optimization strategy
for energy plants in Italy. Sci Total Environ 2013;443:955–64.
[80] Georgopoulou E, Sarafidis Y, Mirasgedis S, Zaimi S, Lalas DP. A multiple
criteria decision-aid approach in defining national priorities for greenhouse
gases emissions reduction in the energy sector. Eur J Oper Res
2003;146:199–215.
[81] Martins AG, Coelho D, Antunes H, Climaco J. A multiple objective linear
programming approach to power generation planning with Demand-Side
Management (DSM). Int Trans Opl Res 1996;3:305–17.
[82] Mamlook R, Akash BA, Mohsen MS. A neuro-fuzzy program approach for
evaluating electric power generation systems. Energy 2001;26:619–32.
[83] Dey PK. An integrated assessment model for cross-country pipelines.
Environ Impact Assess Rev 2002;22:703–21.
[84] Solnes J. Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development
alternatives using AHP. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2003;23:283–303.
[85] Rylatt M, Gadsden S, Lomas K. GIS-based decision support for solar energy
planning in urban environments. Comput Environ Urban Syst 2001;25:579–603.
[86] Elkarmi F, Mustafa I. Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies
(SET) in Jordan. Energy Policy 1993;21:978–84.
[87] Zhu X, Dale AP. JavaAHP: a web-based decision analysis tool for natural
resource and environmental management. Environ Model Softw
2001;16:251–62.
[88] Mirasgedis S, Diakoulaki D. Multicriteria analysis vs. externalities assessment
for the comparative evaluation of electricity generation systems. Eur J Oper
Res 1997;102:364–79.
[89] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG. Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable
energy power plants. Energy 2002;27:739–55.
[90] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Multi-criteria evaluation of cooking energy
alternatives for promoting parabolic solar cooker in India. Renew Energy
2004;29:1449–60.
[91] Barda OH, Dupuis J, Lencioni P. Multicriteria location of thermal power
plants. Eur J Oper Res 1990;45:332–46.
[92] Mladineo N, Margeta J, Brans JP, Mareschal B. Multicriteria ranking of alter-
native locations for small scale hydro plants. Eur J Ope Res 1987;31:215–22.
[93] Akash BA, Mamlook R, Mohsen MS. Multi-criteria selection of electric power
plants using analytical hierarchy process. Electr Power Syst Res 1999;52:29–35.
[94] Koroneos C, Michailidis M, Moussiopoulos N. Multi-objective optimization in
energy systems: the case study of Lesvos Island, Greece. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2004;8:91–100.
[95] Chedid RB. Policy development for solar water heaters: the case of Lebanon.
Energy Convers Manag 2002;43:77–86.
[96] Nigim K, Munier N, Green J. Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities
in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. Renew Energy
2004;29:1775–91.
[97] Suganthi L, Williams A. Renewable energy in India-a modelling study for
2020–2021. Energy Policy 2000;28:1095–109.
[98] Ramanathan R. Selection of appropriate greenhouse gas mitigation options.
Global Environ Change 1999;9:203–10.
[99] Karmperis AC, Sotirchos A, Aravossis K, Tatsiopoulos IP. Waste management
project's alternatives: a risk-based multi-criteria assessment (RBMCA)
approach. Waste Manag 2012;32:194–212.
[100] Petruschke P, Gasparovic G, Voll P, Krajačić G, Duić N, Bardow A. A hybrid
approach for the efficient synthesis of renewable energy systems. Appl
Energy 2014;135:625–33.
[101] Aragonés-Beltrán P, Chaparro-González F, Pastor-Ferrando JP, Pla-Rubio A, An
AHP. (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based
multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power
plant investment projects. Energy 2014;66:222–38.
[102] Alsayed M, Cacciato M, Scarcella G, Scelba G. Design of hybrid power gen-
eration systems based on multi criteria decision analysis. Solar Energy
2014;105:548–60.
[103] De Felice F, Campagiorni F, Petrillo A. Economic and environmental evalua-
tion via an integrated method based on LCA and MCDA. Procedia-Social
Behav Sci 2013;99:1–10.
[104] Pang X, Mörtberg U, Brown N. Energy models from a strategic environmental
assessment perspective in an EU context—What is missing concerning
renewables. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:353–62.
[105] Yeh TM, Huang YL. Factors in determining wind farm location: Integrating
GQM, fuzzy DEMATEL, and ANP. Renew Energy 2014;66:159–69.
[106] Sánchez-Lozano JM, Henggeler Antunes C, García-Cascales MS, Dias LC. GIS-
based photovoltaic solar farms site selection using ELECTRE-TRI: evaluating
the case for Torre Pacheco, Murcia, Southeast of Spain. Renew Energy
2014;66:478–94.
[107] Pleßmann G, Erdmann M, Hlusiak M, Breyer C. Global energy storage
demand for a 100% renewable electricity supply. Energy Procedia
2014;46:22–31.
[108] Rosso M, Bottero M, Pomarico S, La Ferlita S, Comino E. Integrating multi-
criteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower pro-
jects. Energy Policy 2014;67:870–81.
[109] Doukas H, Tsiousi A, Marinakis V, Psarras J. Linguistic multi-criteria decision
making for energy and environmental corporate policy. Information Sciences
2014;258:328–38.
[110] Hahn WJ. Making decisions with multiple criteria: a case in energy sustain-
ability planning. EURO J. Decis. Process 2014:1–25.
[111] Rojas-Zerpa JC, Yusta JM. Methodologies, technologies and applications for
electric supply planning in rural remote areas. Energy Sustain Develop
2014;20:66–76.
[112] Matteson S. Methods for multi-criteria sustainability and reliability assess-
ments of power systems. Energy 2014:1–7.
[113] Cannemi M, García-Melón M, Aragonés-Beltrán P, Gómez-Navarro T. Mod-
eling decision making as a support tool for policy making on renewable
energy development. Energy Policy 2014;67:127–37.
[114] Zhang L, Zhou DQ, Zhou P, Chen QT. Modelling policy decision of sustainable
energy strategies for Nanjing city: a fuzzy integral approach. Renew Energy
2014;62:197–203.
[115] Yunna W, Geng S. Multi-criteria decision making on selection of solar–wind
hybrid power station location: a case of China. Energy Convers Manag
2014;81:527–33.
[116] Lee AK, Chen HH, Kang HY. Multi-criteria decision making on strategic
selection of wind farms. Renew Energy 2009;34:120–6.
[117] Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Multicriteria evaluation of power plants
impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy
Policy 2008;36:1074–89.
[118] Sowa T, Krengel S, Koopmann S, Nowak J. Multi-criteria operation strategies
of power-to-heat-Systems in virtual power plants with a high penetration of
renewable energies. Energy Procedia 2014;46:237–45.
[119] Chou JS, Ongkowijoyo CS. Risk-based group decision making regarding
renewable energy schemes using a stochastic graphical matrix model. Autom
Constr 2014;37:98–109.
[120] Aslani A, Helo P, Naaranoja M. Role of renewable energy policies in energy
dependency in Finland: System dynamics approach. Appl Energy
2014;113:758–65.
[121] Fuso Nerini F, Howells M, Bazilian M, Gomez MF. Rural electrification options
in the Brazilian Amazon A multi-criteria analysis. Energy Sustain Develop
2014;20:36–48.
[122] Poudyal A, Paatero JV. Rural energy modeling and planning: a review on tools
and methodology. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2014;33:191–7.
[123] Dombi M, Kuti I, Balogh P. Sustainability assessment of renewable power and
heat generation technologies. Energy Policy 2014;67:264–71.
[124] Madlener R, Stagl S. Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity
generation. Ecol Econ 2005;53:147–67.
 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898
[125] Chua KJ, Yang WM, Er SS, Ho CA. Sustainable energy systems for a remote
island community. Appl Energy 2014;113:1752–63.
[126] Gamboa G, Munda G. The problem of windfarm location: a social multi-
criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy 2007;35:1564–83.
[127] San Cristóbal JR. A multi criteria data envelopment analysis model to eval-
uate the efficiency of the Renewable Energy technologies. Renew Energy
2011;36:2742–6.
[128] Henao F, Cherni JA, Jaramillo P, Dyner I. A multicriteria approach to sus-
tainable energy supply for the rural poor. Eur J Oper Res 2012;218:801–9.
[129] Neves LP, Martins AG, Antunes CH, Dias LC. A multi-criteria decision
approach to sorting actions for promoting energy efficiency. Energy Policy
2008;36:2351–63.
[130] Omitaomu OA, Blevins BR, Jochem WC, Mays GT, Belles R, Hadley SW, et al.
Adapting a GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis approach for evaluating
new power generating sites. Appl Energy 2012;96:292–301.
[131] Jovanovic M, Afgan N, Bakic V. An analytical method for the measurement of
energy system sustainability in urban areas. Energy 2010;35:3909–20.
[132] Shen YC, Lin GTR, Li KP, Yuan BJ. An assessment of exploiting renewable
energy sources with concerns of policy and technology. Energy Policy
2010;38:4604–16.
[133] Goumas M, Lygerou V. An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision
making in fuzzy environment: ranking of alternative energy exploitation
projects. Eur J Oper Res 2000;123:606–13.
[134] Cavallaro F. An Integrated Multi-Criteria System to Assess Sustainable Energy
Options: An Application of the Promethee Method. Dip. SEGeS - Section of
Commodity Science, University of Molise : Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei,
NOTA DI LAVORO 22.2005; 2005.
[135] Choudhary D, Shankar R. An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for eva-
luation and selection of thermal power plant location: a case study from
India. Energy 2012;42:510–21.
[136] Heo E, Kim J, Boo KJ. Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy
dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2010;14:2214–20.
[137] Mavrotas G, Diakoulaki D, Capros P. Combined MCDA–IP approach for project
selection in the electricity market. Annals Oper Res 2003;120:159–70.
[138] Doukas H, Karakosta C, Psarras J. Computing with words to assess the sus-
tainability of renewable energy options. Expert Syst Appl 2010;37:5491–7.
[139] Beccali M, Cellura M, Ardente D. Decision making in energy planning: the
ELECTRE multicriteria analysis approach compared to a fuzzy-sets metho-
dology. Energy Convers Manag 1998;39:1869–81.
[140] Kablan MM. Decision support for energy conservation promotion: an analytic
hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy 2004;32:1151–8.
[141] Blanco CJC, Secretan Y, Mesquita ALA. Decision support system for micro-
hydro power plants in the Amazon region under a sustainable development
perspective. Energy Sustain Develop 2008;12(3):25–33.
[142] Georgopoulou E, Sarafidis Y, Diakoulaki D. Design and implementation of a
group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. Eur J Oper Res
1998;109:483–500.
[143] Greening LA, Bernow S. Design of coordinated energy and environmental
policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 2004;32:721–35.
[144] Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS. Energy resource allocation incorporating quali-
tative and quantitative criteria: an integrated model using goal programming
and AHP. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 1995;29:197–218.
[145] Cherni JA, Dyner I, Henao F, Jaramillo P, Smith R, Font RO. Energy supply for
sustainable rural livelihoods. A multi-criteria decision-support system.
Energy Policy 2007;35:1493–504.
[146] Lund H, Mathiesen BV. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy
systems-The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy 2009;34:524–31.
[147] Jaber JO, Jaber QM, Sawalha SA, Mohsen MS. Evaluation of conventional and
renewable energy sources for space heating in the household sector. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:278–89.
[148] Grandibleux X. Interactive multicriteria procedure exploiting a knowledge-
based module to select electricity production alternatives: the CASTART
system. Eur J Oper Res 1999;113:355–73.
[149] Burton J, Hubacek K. Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-
scale energy technology applications in local governments Energy Policy
2007;35:6402–12.
[150] Buchholz T, Rametsteiner E, Volk TA, Luzadis VA. Multi Criteria Analysis for
bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 2009;37:484–95.
[151] Siskos J, Hubert P. Multi-criteria analysis of the impacts of energy alter-
natives: a survey and a new comparative approach. Eur J Oper Res
1983;13:278–99.
[152] Giannantoni C, Lazzaretto A, Macor A, Mirandola A, Stoppato A, Tonon S, et al.
Multicriteria approach for the improvement of energy systems design.
Energy 2005;30:1989–2016.
[153] Suo MQ, Li YP, Huang GH. Multicriteria decision making under uncertainty:
an advanced ordered weighted averaging operator for planning electric
power systems. Eng Appl Artif Intelligence 2012;25:72–81.
[154] San Cristóbal JR. Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a
renewable energy project in spain: the Vikor method. Renew Energy
2011;36:498–502.
[155] Frangopoulos CA, Keramioti DE. Multi-criteria evaluation of energy systems
with sustainability considerations. Entropy 2010;12:1006–20.
[156] Haurant P, Oberti P, Muselli M. Multicriteria selection aiding related to
photovoltaic plants on farming fields on Corsica island: a real case study
using the ELECTRE outranking framework. Energy Policy 2011;39:676–88.
897
[157] Afgan NH, Begić F, Kazagić A. Multi-criteria sustainability assessment – A
tool for evaluation of new energy system. Thermal Sci 2007;11:43–53.
[158] Madlener R, Kowalski K, Stagl S. New ways for the integrated appraisal of
national energy scenarios: the case of renewable energy use in Austria.
Energy Policy 2007;35:6060–74.
[159] Enzensberger N, Wietschel M, Rentz O. Policy instruments fostering wind
energy projects-a multi-perspective evaluation approach. Energy Policy
2002;30:793–801.
[160] Terrados J, Almonacid G, Perez-Higueras P. Proposal for a combined metho-
dology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2022–30.
[161] Ghosh D, Shukla PR, Garg A, Ramana PV. Renewable energy technologies for
the Indian power sector: mitigation potential and operational strategies.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2002;6:481–512.
[162] Amer M, Daim TU. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a devel-
oping county: a case of Pakistan. Energy Sustain Develop 2011;15:420–35.
[163] Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Sensitivity analysis of technological, eco-
nomic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic
hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2009;37:788–98.
[164] Begić F, Afgan NH. Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in
selection of energy system -Bosnian case. Energy 2007;32:1979–85.
[165] Karger CR, Hennings W. Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity
generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:583–93.
[166] Rovere ELL, Soares JB, Oliveira LB, Lauria T. Sustainable expansion of elec-
tricity sector: sustainability indicators as an instrument to support decision
making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:422–9.
[167] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. The first step towards a 100%
renewable energy-system for Ireland. Appl Energy 2011;88:502–7.
[168] Hämäläinen RP, Salo AA. The issue is understanding the weights. J Multi-
Criteria Decis Anal 1997;6:340–3.
[169] Theodorou S, Florides G, Tassou S. The use of multiple criteria decision
making methodologies for the promotion of RES through funding schemes in
Cyprus, A review. Energy Policy 2010;38:7783–92.
[170] Higgs G, Berry R, Kidner D, Langford M, Using IT. approaches to promote
public participation in renewable energy planning: prospects and challenges.
Land Use Policy 2008;25:596–607.
[171] Stagl S. Valuation for sustainable development – The role of multicriteria
evaluation. Vierteljahrshefte Wirtschaftsforschung 2004;73:53–62.
[172] Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M. Decision-making in energy planning.
Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of
renewable energy technology. Renew Energy 2003;28:2063–87.
[173] Papadopoulos A, Karagiannidis A. Application of the multi-criteria analysis
method Electre III for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems.
Omega 2008;36:766–76.
[174] Mourmouris JC, Potolias C. A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning
and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: a case study
Thassos, Greece. Energy Policy 2013;52:522–30.
[175] Doukas H, Patlitzianas KD, Psarras J. Supporting sustainable electricity
technologies in Greece using MCDM. Resour Policy 2006;31:129–36.
[176] Patlitzianas KD, Ntotas K, Doukas H, Psarras J. Assessing the renewable
energy producers’ environment in EU accession member states. Energy
Convers Manag 2007;48:890–7.
[177] Chu MT, Shyu J, Tzeng GH, Khosla R. Comparison among three analytical
methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis. Expert Syst
Appl 2007;33:1011–24.
[178] Doukas HC, Andreas BM, Psarras JE. Multi-criteria decision aid for the for-
mulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic vari-
ables. Eur J Oper Res 2007;182:844–55.
[179] Haydt G, Leal V, Dias L. A multi-objective approach for developing national
energy efficiency plans. Energy Policy 2014;67:16–27.
[180] Stein EW. A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy
production technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:640–54.
[181] Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Krisciukaitienė I, Balezentis A. Prioritizing sus-
tainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2012;16:3302–11.
[182] Dapkus R, Streimikiene D. Multi-criteria assessment of electricity generation
technologies seeking to implement EU energy policy targets. Proc Econ
Develop Res 2012;55:50–6.
[183] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of sustainability indicators for
renewable energy technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1082–8.
[184] Diakoulaki D, Antunes CH, Martins AG. MCDA and energy planning. In: Fig-
ueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, editors. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of
the art surveys, 78. United States of America: Springer; 2005. p. 859–97.
[185] Liu KFR, Ko CY, Fan C, Chen CW. Combining risk assessment, life cycle
assessment, and multi-criteria decision analysis to estimate environmental
aspects in environmental management system. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2012;17:845–62.
[186] Rahman MM, Paatero JV, Lahdelma R. Evaluation of choices for sustainable
rural electrification in developing countries: a multicriteria approach. Energy
Policy 2013;59:589–99.
[187] Sarkar A. A TOPSIS method to evaluate the technologies. Int J Quality Reliab
Manag 2013;31:2–13.
[188] Mirakyan A, De Guio R. Integrated energy planning in cities and territories: a
review of methods and tools. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:289–97.
898 E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 885–898
[189] Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable
development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy pro-
cess: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy 2014;63:458–66.
[190] Kurka T, Blackwood D. Selection of MCA methods to support decision making
for renewable energy developments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;27:225–33.
[191] Ribeiro F, Ferreira P, Araújo M. Evaluating future scenarios for the power
generation sector using a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool: the
Portuguese case. Energy 2013;52:126–36.
[192] Catalina T, Virgone J, Blanco E. Multi-source energy systems analysis using a
multi-criteria decision aid methodology. Renew Energy 2011;36:2245–52.
[193] Liu G. Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy
systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:611–21.
[194] Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental
sciences: 10 years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ
2011;409:3578–94.
[195] Maxim A. Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies
using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy 2014;65:284–97.
[196] Kowalski K, Stagl S, Madlener R, Omann I. Sustainable energy futures:
methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-
criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res 2009;197:1063–74.
[197] Patlitzianas KD, Doukas H, Kagiannas AG, Psarras J. Sustainable energy policy
indicators: review and recommendations. Renew Energy 2008;33:966–73.
[198] Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 2009;9:189–212.
[199] Larsson S, Fantazzini D, Davidsson S, Kullander S, Hook M. Reviewing electricity
production cost assessments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:170–83.
[200] Suganthi L, Iniyan S, Samuel AA. Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable
energy systems – A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:585–607.
[201] Fetanat A, Khorasaninejad E. A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore
wind farm site selection: a case study of Iran. Ocean Coastal Manag
2015;109:17–28.
[202] Şengül Ü, Eren M, Shiraz SE, Gezder V, Şengül AB. Fuzzy TOPSIS method for
ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renew Energy
2015;75:617–25.
[203] Zhao H, Guo S. External benefit evaluation of renewable energy power in
China for sustainability. Sustainability 2015;7:4783–805.