Various researchers have suggested many qualitative and quantitative criteria for green energy management, which are mostly operational in nature and specific to a particular application. The main aim of this investigation is to develop an innovative integrated analytical framework as a benchmark for selecting the optimal green energy source under various sustainable dimensions. Nine major areas likely; energy management, source selection, environmental dimension, social dimension, economic dimension, technical dimension, institutional dimension, sustainability and importance measurement have been considered for this study. The proposed framework for green energy source selection is relatively innovative as the various key factors are integrated for sustainability level of constructs (environmental, social, economic, technical and institutional) with expert judgment levels (both strategic and tactic). The framework helps to identify the optimum green energy source (solar energy) for cleaner future using analytical hierarchy process. The research can potentially help energy managers, policy makers as well as decision makers to measure and improve the utilization of green energy sources for sustainable future.
AllenCMetternichtGWiedmannT.National pathways to the sustainable development goals (SDGs): a comparative review of scenario modeling tools. Environ Sci Policy2016;
66: 199–207.
2.
IddrisuIBhattacharyyaSC.Sustainable energy development index: a multi-dimensional indicator for measuring sustainable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2015;
50: 513–530.
3.
Al GarniHKassemAAwasthiA, et al.
A multi-criteria decision-making approach for evaluating renewable power generation sources in Saudi Arabia. Sustain Energy Technol Assess2016;
16: 137–150.
4.
YiSKSinHYHeoE.Selecting sustainable renewable energy source for energy assistance to North Korea. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2011;
15: 554–563.
5.
JaneiroLPatelMK.Choosing sustainable technologies. Implications of the underlying sustainability paradigm in the decision-making process. J. Clean Prod2015;
105: 438–446.
6.
PetrilloADe FeliceFJannelliE, et al.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis model for a stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system. Renew Energy2016;
95: 337–355.
7.
ZhangLXuYYehC, et al.
City sustainability evaluation using multi-criteria decision making with objective weights of interdependent criteria. J. Clean Prod2016;
131: 491–499.
8.
KabirAShihanS. Selection of renewable energy sources using analytic hierarchy process. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on analytic hierarchy process (ISAHP), Bali, Indonesia, 7–9 August 2003, pp. 267–276.
9.
ArasHErdogmusSKocE.Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renew Energy2004;
23: 83–92.
10.
NigimKMunierNGreenJ.Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. RenewEnergy2004;
29: 1775–1791.
11.
RenHGaoWZhouW, et al.
Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan. Energy Policy2009;
37: 5484–5493.
12.
KahramanCKayaİCebiS.A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy2009;
34: 1603–1616.
13.
HeoEKimJBooKJ.Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2010;
14: 2214–2220.
14.
ShenYCLinGTLiKP, et al.
An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology. Energy Policy2010;
38: 4604–4616.
15.
KayaTKahramanC.Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy2010;
35: 2517–2527.
16.
RezaBSadiqRHewageK.Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran: an AHP-based life cycle analysis. Constr Build Mater2011;
25: 2053–2066.
17.
DavoudpourHRezaeeSAshrafiM.Developing a framework for renewable technology portfolio selection: a case study at a R&D center. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2012;
16: 4291–4297.
18.
ErtayTKahramanCKayaI.Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using MACBETH and fuzzy AHP multicriteria methods: the case of Turkey. Technol Econ Dev Economy2013;
19: 38–62.
19.
PeterseimJHWhiteSTadrosA, et al.
Concentrated solar power hybrid plants, which technologies are best suited for hybridization?Renew Energy2013;
57: 520–532.
20.
Yazdani-ChamziniAFouladgarMMZavadskasEK, et al.
Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making. J Bus Econ Manage2013;
14: 957–978.
21.
KurkaTBlackwoodD.Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2013;
27: 225–233.
22.
KaracaFRavenPGMachellJ, et al.
A comparative analysis framework for assessing the sustainability of a combined water and energy infrastructure. Technol Forecast Soc Change2015;
90: 456–468.
23.
RenJSovacoolBK.Prioritizing low-carbon energy sources to enhance China’s energy security. Energy Convers Manage2015;
92: 129–136.
24.
GeorgiouDMohammedESRozakisS.Multi-criteria decision making on the energy supply configuration of autonomous desalination units. Renew Energy2015;
75: 459–467.
25.
BhowmikCBhowmikSRayA, et al.
Optimal green energy planning for sustainable development: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017;
71: 796–813.
26.
BhowmikCBhowmikSRayA.Social acceptance of green energy determinants using principal component analysis. Energy2018;
160: 1030–1046.
27.
AhmadSTaharRM.Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy2014;
63: 458–466.
28.
SteinEW.A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2013;
22: 640–654.
29.
StreimikieneDBalezentisTKrisciukaitienėI, et al.
Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2012;
16: 3302–3311.
30.
BrandBMissaouiR.Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation mix scenarios in Tunisia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014;
39: 251–261.
31.
RibeiroFFerreiraPAraújoM. Impact chains and a multi-criteria decision tool to support electricity power planning. Report, Sustainable Electricity Power Planning, January 2012.
32.
TroldborgMHeslopSHoughRL.Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014;
39: 1173–1184.
33.
DiakoulakiDKarangelisF.Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2007;
11: 716–727.
34.
GeorgopoulouELalasDPapagiannakisL.A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy option. Eur J Oper Res1997;
103: 38–54.
MathiyazhaganKGovindanKNoorulHaqA, et al.
An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J Clean Prod2013;
47: 283–297.
37.
DeyPKCheffiW.Green supply chain performance measurement using the analytic hierarchy process: a comparative analysis of manufacturing organisations. Prod Plann Control2013;
24: 702–720.
38.
NarulaKReddyBS.A SES (sustainable energy security) index for developing countries. Energy2016;
94: 326–343.
39.
LewisWGFai PunKLallaTR.Empirical investigation of the hard and soft criteria of TQM in ISO 9001 certified small and medium-sized enterprises. Int J Qual Reliab Mgmt2006;
23: 964–985.
40.
ChengEWLLiH.Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Info Mngmnt Comp Security2001;
9: 61–70.
41.
GeelsFW.The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: financial investment, governance and public discourse. Environ Innov Soc Trans2013;
6: 67–95.
42.
BoltonRFoxonTJHallS.Energy transitions and uncertainty: creating low carbon investment opportunities in the UK electricity sector. Environ Plann C Gov Policy2016;
34: 1387–1403.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
