4.7 Article

A vague set fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making model for selecting onsite renewable energy technologies for institutional owners of constructed facilities

Journal

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages 430-439

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.08.025

Keywords

Selection of renewable energy technologies; Group decision making; Multi criteria decision-making; Institutional owners

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Institutional owners of constructed facilities are increasingly recognizing onsite renewable energy generation as an effective way of reducing their facilities' negative impact on the environment, lowering utility bills, and improving the institution's public image. Situations often arise when owners are uncertain as to which renewable energy technology (RET) to adopt for maximum benefit. Appropriate selection of a RET for institutional owners should consider multiple attributes such as cost, reliability, environmental impact, and institutional-wide factors. Additionally, individual decision makers' opinions from across the institution should be collected and aggregated into a group consensus opinion. This paper proposes a vague set fuzzy multi-attribute group decisionmaking model to select the most appropriate RET for institutional owners. The proposed model integrates group rational behavior theory with vague set fuzzy theory. The group rational behavior theory is utilized to account for the varying level of expertise and opinions of decision makers. The vague set fuzzy theory is utilized because most of the collected opinions from decision makers involve fuzzy data and information. The paper discusses the RETs that are evaluated with the proposed model followed by the factors affecting the selection process. Subsequently, the proposed model is described and illustrated using a case study.

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