scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015

TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide a review on the application and use of decision making approaches in regard to energy management problems, from 1995 to 2015 in 72 important journals, which chosen from the Web of Science database and in this regard, the systematic and meta-analysis method called PRISMA has been proposed.
Abstract: Energy management problems associated with rapid institutional, political, technical, ecological, social and economic development have been of critical concern to both national and local governments worldwide for many decades; thus, addressing such issues is a global priority. The main of objective of this study is to provide a review on the application and use of decision making approaches in regard to energy management problems. This paper selected and reviewed 196 published papers, from 1995 to 2015 in 72 important journals related to energy management, which chosen from the “Web of Science” database and in this regard, the systematic and meta-analysis method which called “PRISMA” has been proposed. All published papers were categorized into 13 different fields: environmental impact assessment, waste management, sustainability assessment, renewable energy, energy sustainability, land management, green management topics, water resources management, climate change, strategic environmental assessment, construction and environmental management and other energy management areas. Furthermore, papers were categorized based on the authors, publication year, nationality of authors, region, technique and application, number of criteria, research purpose, gap and contribution, solution and modeling, results and findings. Hybrid MCDM and fuzzy MCDM in the integrated methods were ranked as the first methods in use. The Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review was the important journal in this paper, with 32 published papers. Finally, environmental impact assessment was ranked as the first area that applied decision making approaches. Results of this study acknowledge that decision making approaches can help decision makers and stakeholders in solving some problems under uncertainties situations in environmental decision making and these approaches have seen increasing interest among previous researchers to use these approaches in various steps of environmental decision making process.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) is considered as an effective method for the identification of cause-effect chain components of a complex system as discussed by the authors, which deals with evaluating interdependent relationships among factors and finding the critical ones through a visual structural model.
Abstract: Decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) is considered as an effective method for the identification of cause-effect chain components of a complex system. It deals with evaluating interdependent relationships among factors and finding the critical ones through a visual structural model. Over the recent decade, a large number of studies have been done on the application of DEMATEL and many different variants have been put forward in the literature. The objective of this study is to review systematically the methodologies and applications of the DEMATEL technique. We reviewed a total of 346 papers published from 2006 to 2016 in the international journals. According to the approaches used, these publications are grouped into five categories: classical DEMATEL, fuzzy DEMATEL, grey DEMATEL, analytical network process- (ANP-) DEMATEL, and other DEMATEL. All papers with respect to each category are summarized and analyzed, pointing out their implementing procedures, real applications, and crucial findings. This systematic and comprehensive review holds valuable insights for researchers and practitioners into using the DEMATEL in terms of indicating current research trends and potential directions for further research.

429 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identified and mapped the motivators and barriers for the diffusion of electric mobility through three levels of decision-making: Formal Social Units, Collective Decision-making Units, and Individual Units.
Abstract: European Union’s (EU) long-term objective of achieving a competitive low carbon economy is mainly based on enabling environmentally sustainable investments, particularly in terms of decreasing energy consumption in buildings, transition to electric vehicles, and developing smart electricity networks, while promoting renewable energy use in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. Since, transport is one of the main sector responsible for EU’s emissions; diffusion of Electric Vehicles (EVs) could allow immense reduction. Therefore, since the announcement of 2050 Roadmap in 2009, there has been a great increase in studies exploring the viability of transition to e-mobility in a Europe-wide context, identifying common factors and variables. However, it is usually not that straightforward when decision makers seek to transform these variables into policy implications that will actually help to achieve the EU goals on energy transition. At this point, the motivators and barriers are of utmost importance. Accordingly, this study is based on an extensive and up-to-date review of the existing literature on e-mobility in Europe, with the main aim of identifying and mapping the motivators and barriers for the diffusion of electric mobility through three levels of decision-making: Formal Social Units, Collective Decision-Making Units, and Individual Units. Results of the analysis identifies that the main barriers are lack of charging infrastructure; economic restrictions and cost concerns; technical and operational restrictions; lack of trust; information and knowledge; limited supply of electricity and raw materials; and practicability concerns. Thus, key motivators appear to be environmental, economic and technical benefits associated with EVs, as well as personal and demographic factors.

202 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Aug 2017
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review of methodologies and applications with recent fuzzy developments of two new MCDM utility determining approaches including step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and the Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) is presented.
Abstract: The Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) utility determining approaches and fuzzy sets are considered to be new development approaches, which have been recently presented, extended, and used by some scholars in area of decision making. There is a lack of research regarding to systematic literature review and classification of study about these approaches. Therefore; in the present study, the attempt is made to present a systematic review of methodologies and applications with recent fuzzy developments of two new MCDM utility determining approaches including Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and the Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) and fuzzy extensions which discussed in recent years. Regarding this, some major databases including Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar have been nominated and systematic and meta-analysis method which called “PRISMA” has been proposed. In addition, the selected articles were classified based on authors, the year of publication, journals and conferences names, the technique and method used, research objectives, research gap and problem, solution and modeling, and finally results and findings. The results of this study can assist decision-makers in handling information such as stakeholders’ preferences, interconnected or contradictory criteria and uncertain environments. In addition, findings of this study help to practitioners and academic for adopting the new MCDM utility techniques such as WASPAS and SWARA in different application areas and presenting insight into literature.

195 citations

Posted Content
01 Nov 2017
TL;DR: A systematic review of methodologies and applications with recent fuzzy developments of two new MCDM utility determining approaches including Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and the Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) and fuzzy extensions which discussed in recent years are presented.
Abstract: The Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) utility determining approaches and fuzzy sets are considered to be new development approaches, which have been recently presented, extended, and used by some scholars in area of decision making. There is a lack of research regarding to systematic literature review and classification of study about these approaches. Therefore; in the present study, the attempt is made to present a systematic review of methodologies and applications with recent fuzzy developments of two new MCDM utility determining approaches including Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and the Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) and fuzzy extensions which discussed in recent years. Regarding this, some major databases including Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar have been nominated and systematic and meta-analysis method which called “PRISMA” has been proposed. In addition, the selected articles were classified based on authors, the year of publication, journals and conferences names, the technique and method used, research objectives, research gap and problem, solution and modeling, and finally results and findings. The results of this study can assist decision-makers in handling information such as stakeholders’ preferences, interconnected or contradictory criteria and uncertain environments. In addition, findings of this study help to practitioners and academic for adopting the new MCDM utility techniques such as WASPAS and SWARA in different application areas and presenting insight into literature.

176 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The five site selection stages, criteria selection, data normalization, criteria weighting, alternative evaluation and result validation, are revealed by content analysis and it is found that different energy sources emphasize different criteria; however, some similarities exist.

173 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This final installment of the paper considers the case where the signals or the messages or both are continuously variable, in contrast with the discrete nature assumed until now.
Abstract: In this final installment of the paper we consider the case where the signals or the messages or both are continuously variable, in contrast with the discrete nature assumed until now. To a considerable extent the continuous case can be obtained through a limiting process from the discrete case by dividing the continuum of messages and signals into a large but finite number of small regions and calculating the various parameters involved on a discrete basis. As the size of the regions is decreased these parameters in general approach as limits the proper values for the continuous case. There are, however, a few new effects that appear and also a general change of emphasis in the direction of specialization of the general results to particular cases.

65,425 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

46,935 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

25,711 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Various properties are proved, which are connected to the operations and relations over sets, and with modal and topological operators, defined over the set of IFS's.

13,376 citations