The development of new energy industry is a pressing issue due to the deterioration of the environment. The selection of new energy projects is a critical problem for decision makers. Incomplete and uncertain information appears in the process of new energy project selection. Compared with other linguistic expressions, probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) simultaneously reflects all possible linguistic terms and their corresponding weights, which conforms to the cognitive habits of people. Thus, a multi-criteria decision-making framework under PLTS environment is constructed for energy project selection. Firstly, a normalised projection model of PLTS, which considers the distance and the angle between two objects, is proposed to overcome the limitations of distance measurement. Secondly, a comprehensive weight-determination method combining the maximum deviation and expert scoring methods is developed to calculate the weight vector of the criteria. Furthermore, a projection-based VIKOR (Višekriterijumska optimizacija i kompromisno rešenje) method is established to select new energy projects, which can reflect the preferences of decision makers for group utility and individual regret. Finally, a numerical study on new energy project selection is performed to determine the validity and applicability of this method. Sensitive and comparative analyses are also conducted to reflect the rationality and feasibility of the method.
PengH.G., ShenK.W., HeS.S., ZhangH.Y. and WangJ.Q., Investment risk evaluation for new energy resources: An integrated decision support model based on regret theory and ELECTRE III, Energy Conversion and Management183 (2019), 332–348.
2.
WuX.H., HuX.S., TengY.Q., QianS.D. and QianR., Optimal integration of a hybrid solar-battery power source into smart home nanogrid with plug-in electric vehicle, Journal of Power Sources363 (2017), 277–283.
3.
WangY., KuckelkornJ., LiD. and DuJ., Evaluation on distributed renewable energy system integrated with a Passive House building using a new energy performance index, Energy161 (2018), 81–89.
4.
ZadehL., The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning—Part I, Information Sciences8 (1975), 199–249.
5.
XuZ.S., Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making, Omega33 (2005), 249–254.
6.
XuZ.S., A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations, Information Science166 (2004), 19–30.
7.
GouX.J. and XuZ.S., Novel basic operational laws for linguistic terms, hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and probabilistic linguistic term sets, Information Sciences372 (2016), 407–427.
8.
PeiZ., LiuJ., HaoF. and ZhouB., FLM-TOPSIS: The fuzzy linguistic multiset TOPSIS method and its application in linguistic decision making, Information Fusion45 (2019), 266–281.
9.
WangX., WangS., ZhangH., WangJ. and LiL., The recommendation method for hotel selection under traveller preference characteristics: A cloud-based multi-criteria group decision support model, Group Decision and Negotiation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-021-09735-0
10.
RodriguezR., MartinezL. and HerreraF., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making, IEEE Trans Fuzzy System20 (2012), 109–119.
11.
LiaoH.C., XuZ.S., ZengX.J. and MerigóJ.M., Qualitative decision making with correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, Knowledge-Based Systems76 (2015), 127–138.
12.
ZhangZ.M., Hesitant fuzzy power aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making, Information Sciences234 (2013), 150–181.
13.
HuM.M., LanJ.B. and WangZ.X., A distance measure, similarity measure and possibility degree for hesitant interval-valued fuzzy sets, Computers & Industrial Engineering137 (2019), 106088.
14.
ZhangZ.M. and ChenS.M., A consistency and consensus-based method for group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations, Information Sciences501 (2019), 317–336.
15.
WuH.Y., XuZ.S., RenP.J. and LiaoH.C., Hesitant fuzzy linguistic projection model to multi-criteria decision making for hospital decision support systems, Computers & Industrial Engineering115 (2018), 449–458.
16.
LiJ.L., LuoL., WuX.L., WuC.C., LiaoH.C. and ShenW.W., Prioritizing the elective surgery patient admission in a Chinese public tertiary hospital using the hesitant fuzzy linguistic ORESTE method, Applied Soft Computing78 (2019), 407–419.
17.
WangX.K., ZhangH.Y., WangJ.Q., LiJ.B. and LiL., Extended TODIM-PROMETHEE II method with hesitant probabilistic information for solving potential risk evaluation problems of water resource carrying capacity, Expert Systems (2021), e12681.
18.
LiangY.Y.Y., JuTuY.B. and ShenW.J., A multi-granularity proportional hesitant fuzzy linguistic TODIM method and its application to emergency decision making, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction36 (2019).
19.
PangQ., WangH. and XuZ.S., Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making, Information Sciences369 (2016), 128–143.
20.
LiuP.D. and LiY., A novel decision-making method based on probabilistic linguistic information, Cognitive Computation11 (2019), 735–747.
21.
BaiC.Z., ZhangR., QianL.X. and WuY.N., Comparisons of probabilistic linguistic term sets for multi-criteria decision making, Knowledge-Based Systems119 (2017), 284–291.
22.
WangX.K., WangJ.Q. and ZhangH.Y., Distance-based multicriteria group decision-making approach with probabilistic linguistic term sets,e, Expert Systems36 (2018), 12352.
23.
LinM. and XuZ., Probabilistic linguistic distance measures and their applications in multi-criteria group decision making, Soft Computing Applications for Group Decision-making and Consensus Modeling357 (2018), 411–440.
24.
YuX.B., ChenH. and JiZ.H., Combination of probabilistic linguistic term sets and PROMETHEE to evaluate meteorological disaster risk: Case study of southeastern China, Sustainability11 (2019), 1405.
25.
ZhangY.X., XuZ.S. and LiaoH.C., Water security evaluation based on the TODIM method with Probabilistic linguistic term sets, Soft Computing23 (2019), 6215–6230.
26.
LiaoH.C., JiangL.S. and XuZ.S., A linear programming method for multiple criteria decision making with probabilistic linguistic information, Information Sciences415 (2017), 341–355.
27.
XiaoF. and WangJ.Q., Multistage decision support framework for sites selection of solar power plants with probabilistic linguistic information, Journal of Cleaner Production230 (2019), 1396–1409.
28.
PengH.G., ZhangH.Y. and WangJ.Q., Cloud decision support model for selecting hotels on TripAdvisor.com with probabilistic linguistic information, International Journal of Hospitality Management68 (2018), 124–138.
29.
TianZ.P., NieR.X. and WangJ.Q., Probabilistic linguistic multi-criteria decision-making based on evidential reasoning and combined ranking methods considering decision-makers’ psychological preferences, Journal of the Operational Research Society (2019), 1–18.
30.
LiaoH.C., MiX.M. and XuZ.S., A survey of decision-making methods with probabilistic linguistic information: bibliometrics, preliminaries, methodologies, applications and future directions, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making19 (2020), 81–134.
31.
WangL., ZhangH., WangJ. and LiL., Picture fuzzy normalized projection-based VIKOR method for the risk evaluation of construction project, Applied Soft Computing64 (2018), 216–226.
32.
LiangR.X., WangJ.Q. and ZhangH.Y., Projection-based PROMETHEE methods based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems20 (2017), 2161–2174.
33.
JiP., ZhangH.Y. and WangJ.Q., A projection-based TODIM method under multi-valued neutrosophic environments and its application in personnel selection, Neural Computing and Applications29 (2016), 221–234.
34.
LiangW.Z., ZhaoG.Y., WangX., ZhaoJ. and MaC.D., Assessing the rockburst risk for deep shafts via distance-based multi-criteria decision making approaches with hesitant fuzzy information, Engineering Geology260 (2019), 105211.
35.
TianC., PengW.J., ZhangZhangS. and WangJ., Tourism environmental impact assessment based on improved AHP and picture fuzzy PROMETHEE II methods, Technological and Economic Development of Economy26 (2019), 355–378.
36.
LiangW.Z., ZhaoG.Y. and LuoS.Z., An integrated EDAS-ELECTRE method with picture fuzzy information for cleaner production evaluation in gold mines, ccess6 (2018), 65747–65759.
37.
LiangW.Z., ZhaoG.Y. and HongC.S., Performance assessment of circular economy for phosphorus chemical firms based on VIKOR-QUALIFLEX method, Journal of Cleaner Production196 (2018), 1365–1378.
38.
LiuD.H. and HuangA., Consensus reaching process for fuzzy behavioral TOPSIS method with probabilistic linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy set based on correlation measure, ystems35 (2020), 494–528.
39.
ShenK., WangX., QiaoD. and WangJ., Extended Z-MABAC method based on regret theory and directed distance for regional circular economy development program selection with Z-information, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems28 (2020), 1851–1863.
40.
ZhangX.L. and XingX.M., Probabilistic linguistic VIKOR method to evaluate green supply chain initiatives, Sustainability9 (2017), 1231.
41.
TianZ., NieR., WangJ. and ZhangH., Signed distance-based ORESTE for multicriteria group decision-making with multigranular unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, Expert Systems36 (2019), e12350.
42.
ShenK.W. and WangJ.Q., Z-VIKOR method based on a new comprehensive weighted distance measure of Z-number and its application, ystems26 (2018), 3232–3245.
43.
HerreraF., Herrera-ViedmaE. and VerdegayJ., A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments, System78 (1996), 528–540.
44.
ZhangY.X., XuZ.S. and WangH., Consistency-based risk assessment with probabilistic linguistic preference relation, Applied Soft Computing49 (2016), 817–833.
45.
YueZ.L. and JiaY.Y., A direct projection-based group decision-making methodology with crisp values and interval data, Soft Computing21 (2017), 2395–2405.
46.
MardaniA., ZavadskasE.K., StreimikieneD., JusohA., NorK.M.D. and KhoshnoudiM., Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy saving technologies and solutions in five star hotels: A new hierarchical framework, Energy117 (2016), 131–148.
47.
ZhangX.Y., WangX.K., YuS.M., WangJ.Q. and WangT.L., Location selection of offshore wind power station by consensus decision framework using picture fuzzy modelling, Journal of Cleaner Production202 (2018), 980–992.
48.
ReadL., MadaniK., MokhtariS. and HanksC., Stakeholder-driven multi-attribute analysis for energy project selection under uncertainty, Energy (2017), 744–753.
