4.7 Review

A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 377-403

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.137

关键词

Renewable energy generation; Site selection; Multi-criteria decision making; Literature review

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51609224]
  2. Department of Science and Technology of Shandong Province [2019GGX103033, 2019GGX103015]
  3. Qingdao Municipal Science and Technology Bureau [182217jch]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods have become increasingly popular in site selection decision-making of renewable energy power plants because they consider multiple conflicting goals and decision-maker preferences. In this paper, a systematic literature review of MCDM applications for renewable energy site selection is performed, covering a total of 85 papers published from 2001 to 2018 in high-level journals (chosen from the ScienceDirect database). This paper has summarized the exclusion criteria and evaluation criteria of site selection for five energy sources. The five site selection stages, criteria selection, data normalization, criteria weighting, alternative evaluation and result validation, are revealed by content analysis. All papers are further classified by the date, energy source, journal of publication, country of author affiliation, and study area. It is found that different energy sources emphasize different criteria; however, some similarities exist. Literature surveys and expert opinions are most common criteria selection method. Reclassification is most frequently used data normalization method. The analytic hierarchy process is popular for weighting. In alternative evaluation, geographic information systems and weighted linear combination are the most popular tools. Varying the criteria weights is most commonly used result validation method. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据