1
Analista de Investigación de la Universidad Regional Autónoma de los Andes (UNIANDES), Ecuador
(ua.raulcomas@uniandes.edu.ec)
2
Docente de la Carrera de Administración de Empresas de la Universidad Regional Autónoma de los Andes (UNIANDES), Ecuador
(ua.jimenamontesdeoca@uniandes.edu.ec)
3
Docente de la carrera de Derecho de la Universidad Regional Autónoma de los Andes (UNIANDES Tulcán), Ecuador
(ut.victorlucero@uniandes.edu.ec)
Abstract :
Recently, industrialization has led to a worldwide rise in energy usage. Consequently, satisfying rising energy demands has assumed more significance. Fuel, gasoline, and nat gas are all finite resources, making it all the more important to discover sustainable energy alternatives. To fulfill the current need for energy, renewable resources play a significant role. Therefore, energy decisions and government policy are of paramount importance for nations. Energy policy and judgment challenges, such as the appraisal of energy projects, the choice among fuel sources, the location of power plants, and the determination of energy policy, are solved using a variety of technical, financial, ecological, and social factors. Multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) methodologies may be used to assess energy policy decisions, one of the important challenges for governments. Some of the challenges associated with making energy-related decisions and formulating policies are choosing between various energy sources, assessing the relative merits of various energy supply techniques, formulating an energy strategy, and carrying it through. Various forms of fuel sources are taken into account in the much research that has been conducted on energy decision-making challenges. Because they take into account several, sometimes competing, criteria in their assessments of potential solutions, MCDM techniques have proven useful in the resolution of energy-related decision-making issues. By combining MCDM with the neutrosophic set theory (NST), which captures the inherent ambiguity of human judgment, we may get more nuanced, tangible, and practical outcomes. This work intends to provide a thorough analysis of the methodology and implementations of neutrosophic MCDM in the power industry, as well as to synthesize the current literature and the latest recent breakthroughs to help guide researchers in this area. The neutrosophic Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is used to compute the weights of each criterion of energy in a social project. This research shows that neutrosophic AHP, either on its own or in combination with another MCDM approach, is the most often used MCDM technique.
Keywords :
Neutrosophic; AHP; Energy; Social Project; MCDM
References :
[1] Demirtas, O. Evaluating the best renewable energy technology for sustainable energy planning.
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 3, 23–33 (2013).
[2] Kilic, M. & Kaya, İ. Investment project evaluation by a decision-making methodology based on type-2
fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing 27, 399–410 (2015).
[3] Guan, Z., Biswas, T. & Wu, F. The US tomato industry: An overview of production and trade.
University of Florida 1, (2017).
[4] Agency, I. E. Key world energy statistics. in (IEA Washington, DC, 2003).
[5] Alizadeh, R., Lund, P. D., Beynaghi, A., Abolghasemi, M. & Maknoon, R. An integrated scenariobased
robust planning approach for foresight and strategic management with application to the energy
industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 104, 162–171 (2016).
[6] Quadrelli, R. & Peterson, S. The energy–climate challenge: Recent trends in CO2 emissions from fuel
combustion. Energy policy 35, 5938–5952 (2007).
[7] Dehghan, A. A. Status and potentials of renewable energies in Yazd Province-Iran. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 1491–1496 (2011).
[8] Dudley, B. BP statistical review of world energy. BP Statistical Review, London, UK, accessed Aug 6,
116 (2018).
[9] ALIZADEH, K. R., KHODAEE, M. R. & MAKNOON, R. A combined model of scenario planning
and assumption-based planning for futurology, and robust decision making in the energy sector. (2016).
[10] Kaya, İ., Çolak, M. & Terzi, F. Use of MCDM techniques for energy policy and decision‐making
problems: A review. International Journal of Energy Research 42, 2344–2372 (2018).
[11] Zhao, H., Guo, S. & Zhao, H. Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on
fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences. Energy 168, 450–461 (2019).
[12] Lee, H.-C. & Chang, C.-T. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy
sources in Taiwan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92, 883–896 (2018).
[13] Kumar, A. et al. A review of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable
energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69, 596–609 (2017).
[14] Radwan, N. M., Senousy, M. B. & Alaa El Din, M. R. Neutrosophic AHP multi-criteria decisionmaking
method applied on the selection of learning management system. (Infinite Study, 2016).
[15] Kahraman, C., Oztaysi, B. & Cevik Onar, S. Single & interval-valued neutrosophic AHP methods:
Performance analysis of outsourcing law firms. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 38, 749–759
(2020).
[16] Bolturk, E. & Kahraman, C. A novel interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with cosine similarity measure.
Soft Computing 22, 4941–4958 (2018).
[17] Kabak, M. & Dağdeviren, M. Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid
MCDM methodology. Energy conversion and management 79, 25–33 (2014).
[18] Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., Zavadskas, E. K. & Streimikiene, D. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
for the assessment of renewable energy technologies in a household: A review. Energies 13, 1164
(2020).
[19] Li, T., Li, A. & Guo, X. The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of
renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods. Energy 212, 118694
(2020).
[20] Junaid, M., Xue, Y., Syed, M. W., Li, J. Z. & Ziaullah, M. A neutrosophic ahp and topsis framework
for supply chain risk assessment in the automotive industry of Pakistan. Sustainability 12, 154 (2019).
| Style | # |
|---|---|
| MLA | R. Comas Rodríguez, J. M. D. Oca Sánchez, V. Lucero Salcedo. "Evaluation of Social Projects Using Neutrosophic AHP." International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2022 ,PP. 280-288 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.190124) |
| APA | R. Comas Rodríguez, J. M. D. Oca Sánchez, V. Lucero Salcedo. (2022). Evaluation of Social Projects Using Neutrosophic AHP. Journal of International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, 19 ( 1 ), 280-288 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.190124) |
| Chicago | R. Comas Rodríguez, J. M. D. Oca Sánchez, V. Lucero Salcedo. "Evaluation of Social Projects Using Neutrosophic AHP." Journal of International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, 19 no. 1 (2022): 280-288 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.190124) |
| Harvard | R. Comas Rodríguez, J. M. D. Oca Sánchez, V. Lucero Salcedo. (2022). Evaluation of Social Projects Using Neutrosophic AHP. Journal of International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, 19 ( 1 ), 280-288 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.190124) |
| Vancouver | R. Comas Rodríguez, J. M. D. Oca Sánchez, V. Lucero Salcedo. Evaluation of Social Projects Using Neutrosophic AHP. Journal of International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, (2022); 19 ( 1 ): 280-288 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.190124) |
| IEEE | R. Comas Rodríguez, J. M. D. Oca Sánchez, V. Lucero Salcedo, Evaluation of Social Projects Using Neutrosophic AHP, Journal of International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, Vol. 19 , No. 1 , (2022) : 280-288 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/IJNS.190124) |