4.7 Article

A decision framework of offshore wind power station site selection using a PROMETHEE method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A case in China

Journal

OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 184, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105016

Keywords

Offshore wind power station; Site selection; Triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers; ANP; PROMETHEE

Funding

  1. National Social Science Fund of China [19AGL027]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018ZD14]
  3. Special Project of Cultivation and Development of Innovation Base [Z171100002217024]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method has a widely application in management and energy field. Considering the broad development prospects of offshore wind power and deficiency of integrated coastal management, a decision framework combining triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs), Analytic Network Process (ANP) and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) is proposed and applied in site selection of offshore wind power station (OWPS). The aim of this study is to provide theoretical and methodological support for the site selection decision-making of coastal wind power projects and to improve the benefits of integrated coastal management. Taking six criteria (wind resources, construction, economic, environment, society, risk) and the related sub-criteria into consideration, an evaluation system of OWPS site selection is established. The optimal location scheme is determined by the decision framework in current paper. After a sensitivity analysis and a comparative analysis, the result shows that decision framework has strong robustness and feasibility. Thus, the evaluation criteria and methodology in this paper can provide a theoretical reference for the development of coastal management and offshore wind power.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available