Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A hybrid approach based on MCDM methods and Monte Carlo

simulation for sustainable evaluation of potential solar sites in east of
Iran
Devika Kannan a, *, Sahar Moazzeni b, Sobhan mostafayi Darmian c, d,
Ahmadreza Afrasiabi d
a
Center for Sustainable Supply Chain Engineering, Department of Technology and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense M.
5230, Denmark
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Modarres Boulevard, Shiraz, Iran
c
Department of Industrial Engineering, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran
d
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Kurdistan, Pasdaran Boulevard, Sanandaj, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a solar site selection problem motivated by a real-world case study to determine sus-
Received 30 August 2019 tainable locations for establishing solar sites in the east of Iran is addressed. For this purpose, a hybrid
Received in revised form multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach is proposed that adopts best-worst method (BWM) to
16 April 2020
weight criteria and sub-criteria extracted from literature and applies grey relational analysis (GRA) and
Accepted 17 May 2020
VIKOR to rank potential locations. Moreover, an innovative Monte Carlo simulation-based (MCSB)
Available online 20 July 2020
approach is applied to analyze sensitivity of GRA and VIKOR. In this approach, two functional measures of
Handling editor: Yutao Wang robustness are introduced in order to compare performance of the methods. Based on the obtained
results, some criteria, including construction cost (0.125), initial investment (0.166), ecosystem
Keywords: destruction (0.103), solar radiation intensity (0.085), and distance to catchment basins (0.084) have
Solar sites considerable importance because their weight is more than the average amount of global weights
Sustainable evaluation (0.0625). Furthermore, Birjand, Sarbisheh, and Khezri are the best locations for establishment of solar
Multi-criteria decision-making sites. Based on the proposed MCSB approach, VIKOR has higher robustness than GRA in the both func-
Monte Carlo simulation
tional measures. From the perspective of renewable energy development in Iran, the proposed approach
can be recommended to be applied in other provinces of Iran for finding the best locations for solar sites.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction related to renewable energies in 2018 (IEA, 2019), where approxi-

According to predictions, global population may grow to 13
billion by the end of the 21st century (Hoornweg and Pope, 2017).
This upward trend represents a huge increase in energy demand
(Minelli et al., 2014). One of the ways to meet the demand is to
generate energy from renewable sources (Khalil and Zaidi, 2014;
Fattahi et al., 2020). Investing in the development of renewable
energy infrastructure can be considered a viable solution to the
energy crisis and increasing sustainability (Govindan et al., 2020a,
b). According to the information provided by the international
energy agency (IEA), 19.16% of total world energy investment is
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: deka@iti.sdu.dk (D. Kannan).
mately 52.34% of total supply investment in renewable energy is
related to solar energy generation (Ajadi, 2019). Helping to solve
energy crisis, solar sites also have great importance in various
economic and social contexts. In economic context, there are some
investment opportunities such as construction of domestic solar
sites and, consequently, the sale of produced electricity to ministry
of energy in Iran (SATBA, 2016). In social context, multiple direct
and indirect employment opportunities can be created by solar
sites, which, in fact, number much more than the available jobs
created by coal, oil, and gas sections (Croucher, 2011). Moreover,
construction of solar sites can augment the development of rural
and urban areas (Kanters and Horvat, 2012; Prasad et al., 2017).
The establishment of solar sites is a strategic decision-making
process and has different parts. One of the most important parts
of this decision is determining suitable locations for solar sites

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122368
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368
based on environmental conditions and experts’ views (Shorabeh
et al., 2019). In other words, due to limited financial and time re-
sources, if solar sites are selected for inappropriate locations, op-
portunities for sustainable energy production may be eliminated
(Gorjian et al., 2019). This problem is known as solar site selection
problem in the literature, and many researchers have investigated
the topic from different perspectives using a variety of tools
(Ghasempour et al., 2019). However, most researchers considered
the problem empirically and did not use new approaches, nor did
they employ different effective criteria and sub criteria (Yap et al.,
2019). Making decisions based on results of inefficient methods
can lead to unreasonable costs and waste of time; therefore, using
more efficient methods, presenting approaches for comparing
them, and performing numerical analyses can be considered as
research gaps. These items, despite having high importance, have
not been properly addressed in the literature. This research seeks to
find a reasonable answer to the following question: how can we
provide an efficient model for selecting suitable solar site locations
as well as compare the performance of different numerical
methods using simulation tools?
In this paper, a comprehensive model, using MCDM methods
and a simulation tool, is presented to select suitable locations for
solar sites in South Khorasan Province, Iran. This model can help
solve the energy crisis in Iran by determining the best location to
build solar sites. Many provinces in Iran, including South Khorasan,
have great potential for solar power generation (Alamdari et al.,
2013). In this model, first the most important criteria and sub
criteria related to locating solar sites are extracted from the liter-
ature and adjusted based on experts’ views and environmental
conditions of the province. Then the importance weight of the
criteria is determined based on experts’ views using best worst
method (BWM). Unlike some methods such as analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP), BWM does not
contain a large number of comparisons. In addition, the linear
optimization model of BWM leads to more reliable solutions
because they are guaranteed to be global optimal (Rezaei, 2016).
After that, VIKOR and GRA are applied to prioritize potential loca-
tions for solar sites. Finally, the respective performances of the two
methods are compared and the best prioritization method is
selected by a new Monte Carlo simulation-based (MCSB) approach
in which two functional measures are used to calculate robustness
of the prioritization methods. Overall, contributions of this study
can be stated as follows.

Applying BWM as one of the newest MCDM methods to weight
the criteria.

Using sustainable development criteria and sub criteria in
different economic, technical, environmental, social, and risk
dimensions.

Employing two methods to prioritize potential locations.

Proposing a MCSB approach to compare two prioritization
methods and presenting two robustness calculation measures.
The reminder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
reviews the literature to illustrate the research gap. Section 3 de-
scribes the research method. Section 4 introduces the case study. In
Section 5, computational results and discussions are presented.
Finally, Section 6 summarizes the paper and provides future
suggestions.
2. Literature review
This section reviews the literature, which is presented in three
sub-sections. Section 2.1 defines the most important criteria for
determining locations for solar sites. In Section 2.2, methods of
solving the solar site selection problem are presented. Finally Sec-
tion 2.3 addresses the research gap.
2.1. Solar site selection criteria
Based on the literature, solar site selection criteria include
economic, technical, environmental, social, and risk criteria from a
sustainable development perspective (Choudhary and Srivastava,
2019). The importance of each of the mentioned criteria is
explained as follows.
Economic criteria: Cost measure is always a vital part of decision-
making processes in any operational project (Purohit and Purohit,
2017). In other words, managers tend to pay the lowest possible
cost in most projects because of the lack of governmental funding
(Nestico
and Sica, 2017). Economic criteria, depending on the cir-
cumstances, can have sub criteria including construction cost,
initial investment, and maintenance cost. It should be noted that
economic criteria is considered as the most important part of sus-
tainable development (Østergaard et al., 2019).
Technical criteria: Solar site construction projects have specific
technical guidelines that directly affect their efficiency and per-
formance (Purohit and Purohit, 2017). The most important tech-
nical criteria are distance to electrical substation, land availability,
solar radiation intensity, and wind intensity (Nazari et al., 2018).
The electricity generated at solar sites enters the grid; therefore, the
greater the distance between electrical substation and power sta-
tion, the more electricity is lost in transmission. A solar site with
high performance should be constructed on a land with adequate
infrastructure. Moreover, solar radiation intensity and wind in-
tensity have a direct impact on efficiency of solar panels. Too much
or too little amount of them can negatively affect total efficiency of
solar panels so both criteria should be at appropriate levels
(Aragone s-Beltra
n et al., 2010).
Environmental criteria: Reducing destructive environmental
impacts is among the major concerns of managers in various ser-
vice and industrial sectors (Olsen and Fenhann, 2008). Overuse of
fossil fuels damages our environment in different ways like
increasing global temperature and decreasing resources in the
poles (Kılkış, 2016). Fossil fuel power stations generate about 86% of
required energy in the world, and they are among the leading
sources of electricity supply. However, they also create a lot of
environmental problems such as extensive use of land and water,
release of pollutants into the air, the production of solid wastes and
ash, heat dissipation, climate change, and noise pollution. On the
other hand, renewable energy sources have relatively little share
(about 13%) of the world energy supply (Bhowmik et al., 2017). The
current environmental condition of many areas in the world is
seriously terrible, and consequently environmental disruptive fac-
tors must be considered when carrying out different operational
projects. Recently, some strict environmental regulations have been
enforced and managers should pay particular attention to these
criteria in their decisions. Based on the literature, the main envi-
ronmental criteria are protected areas, ecosystem destruction, and
distance to catchment basins (Meyar-Naimi and Vaez-Zadeh, 2012).
Social criteria: A project that meets social expectations can be
introduced as a successful one. Due to the unemployment caused
by economic downturn and production management crisis in many
countries, including Iran, social development measures can be
recognized among the most important aspects of sustainable
development (Mardani et al., 2017). Based on the literature, the
most important criteria of social development in the imple-
mentation of large-scale projects can be job creation, social
acceptance, and distance to farmlands (Smaliukiene and Monni,
2020). Since employment has always been a vital focus of govern-
ments, attention to it positively affects decision-making. Social
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368 3

acceptance created by construction of renewable power stations is
exactly in accordance with governmental policies regarding
deprived areas. In this paper, these are considered as the main
social criteria.
Risk criteria: Investors and managers usually tend to invest in
projects with the lowest possible risk. Risk analysis is one of the
main principals that investors consider when implementing energy
management projects (Jadidbonab et al., 2019). The most important
sub criteria related to risk management include economic risk, time
delay risk, and investment risk (Shimbar and Ebrahimi, 2020). In
the unstable economic conditions of some countries, especially
Iran, risk criteria can play a key role in decision making, as the high
inflation can delay project execution or affect investment returns.
Table 1 presents the most effective criteria in solar site selection.
2.2. Solar site selection methods
In the last decade, solar site selection problem has been solved
using different methods including MCDM techniques (Kumar et al.,
2017), mathematical programming (Iqbal et al., 2014), feasibility
studies (Khare et al., 2016), and geographic information system
(GIS) (Jahangiri et al., 2016). Based on the literature, MCDM tech-
niques have been applied more than the others due to compre-
hensiveness of analyses and final solution selection (Ozdemir and
Sahin, 2018).
Among MCDM techniques, AHP is the most commonly used
method to weight the related criteria of solar site selection prob-
lem. It has been used in recent studies (Aktas and Kabak, 2019;
Colak et al., 2020; Giamalaki and Tsoutsos, 2019; Mensour et al.,
2019; Solangi et al., 2019) as well as the past ones; one can refer
to (Al Garni and Awasthi, 2018) for detailed information of the past
studies. ANP and entropy-weighting approach (EWA) are other
techniques that have been used for weighting criteria in few
studies. Lee et al. (2017) proposed a hybrid approach based on ANP,
interpretive structural modeling, and VIKOR to select suitable
location for photovoltaic sites. Wu et al. (2018) applied a hybrid
ANP-VIKOR approach for site selection of large commercial roofing
photovoltaic sites under fuzzy environment. Wu et al. (2019) solved
solar site selection problem by combining PROMETHEEII and EWA.
They studied different principals in five groups including resources,
construction, economic, environmental, and social criteria.
Regarding alternatives prioritization, a variety of MCDM
methods have been applied in the literature. Sindhu et al. (2017)
presented a decision support framework to select solar sites in
India using technical, political, economic, environmental, and social
criteria. They weighted the criteria by AHP and prioritized alter-
natives by TOPSIS. Tavana et al. (2017) proposed a multi-stage
framework for selecting solar sites based on AHP and fuzzy infer-
ence system. Al Garni and Awasthi (2017) used GIS in order to find
solar sites in Saudi Arabia. Merrouni et al. (2018) applied the same
methods in the east of Morocco. A hybrid AHP- PROMETHEEII
method was presented to solve the problem in Turkey (Samanlioglu
and Ayag , 2017). Wang et al. (2018) presented a hybrid approach
based on mathematical programming and MCDM methods to find
the best locations to build solar sites based on quantitative and
qualitative criteria in Vietnam. Potential locations were selected by
data envelopment analysis. Criteria weighting was determined by
AHP, and finally potential locations were prioritized by TOPSIS.
Recently, Hashemizadeh et al. (2019) proposed a model to deter-
mine optimal location for GIS-based photovoltaic sites by BWM.
Zhou et al. (2020) proposed a practical model, based on natural,
economic, technical, and social criteria, to select optimal locations
for urban photovoltaic charging stations, using a combination of
GIS, fuzzy theory, BWM, and TODIM.
Although sensitivity analysis of different methods can help de-
cision makers in making appropriate managerial decisions, it has

Table 1
The most effective criteria in solar site selection.

Criteria Sub criteria References

Economic Construction cost (Lee et al., 2015), (Niblick and Landis, 2016), (Kengpol et al., 2012), (Saha and Eckelman, 2018), (Fritsche et al., 2017), (Al
Garni and Awasthi, 2017), (Zoghi et al., 2017), (Liu et al., 2017)
Maintenance cost (Liu et al., 2017), (Lee et al., 2015), (Jun et al., 2014), (Liu et al., 2017), (Yun-na et al., 2013), (Vafaeipour et al., 2014),
(Simsek et al., 2018)
Initial investment (Liu et al., 2017), (Bendato et al., 2017), (Chang and Starcher, 2018), (Ogunmodimu and Okoroigwe, 2018), (Minaeian
et al., 2017), (Sultan et al., 2018), (Saha and Eckelman, 2018), (Fritsche et al., 2017)
Total revenue (Liu et al., 2017), (Sultan et al., 2018), (Alkhalidi et al., 2018), (Anwar et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2018)
Transmission losses (Zheng et al., 2016), (Liu et al., 2017), (Al Garni and Awasthi, 2017), (Chang and Starcher, 2018), (Ogunmodimu and
Okoroigwe, 2018)
Energy production (Sun et al., 2013), (Buffat et al., 2018), (Bouhal et al., 2018)
Financial incentives (Buffat et al., 2018), (Saha and Eckelman, 2018), (Herrando et al., 2018)
Payback period (Ogunmodimu and Okoroigwe, 2018), (Minaeian et al., 2017)
Land cost (Lee et al., 2015), (Niblick and Landis, 2016), (Kengpol et al., 2012), (Saha and Eckelman, 2018), (Fritsche et al., 2017), (Al
Garni and Awasthi, 2017), (Zoghi et al., 2017), (Liu et al., 2017)
Technical Distance to substation (Leon-Vargas et al., 2019), (Fan et al., 2018), (Bouhal et al., 2018),
Land availability (Bouhal et al., 2018), (Sultan et al., 2018), (Fan et al., 2018), (Jun et al., 2014), (Alkhalidi et al., 2018)
Solar radiation intensity (Zoghi et al., 2017), (Firozjaei et al., 2018), (Simsek et al., 2018), (Rathore et al., 2018)
Wind intensity (Sultan et al., 2018), (Lee et al., 2017), (Khanjarpanah et al., 2018), (Wu et al., 2018)
Environmental Protected areas (Gherboudj and Ghedira, 2016), (Uyan, 2013), (Suh and Brownson, 2016), (Noorollahi et al., 2016), (Lee et al., 2017),
(Anwarzai and Nagasaka, 2017), (Sabo et al., 2017), (Bouhal et al., 2018)
Ecosystem destruction (S
anchez-Lozano et al., 2013), (Sa nchez-Lozano et al., 2014), (Lee et al., 2017), (Khanjarpanah et al., 2018), (Simsek et al.,
2018), (Wu et al., 2018)
Distance to catchment basin (Simsek et al., 2018), (Rathore et al., 2018), (Manju and Sagar, 2017), (Liu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2018)
Social Social acceptance (Al Garni and Awasthi, 2017), (Zoghi et al., 2017), (Liu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2018)
Distance to farmlands (Doljak and Stanojevi c, 2017), (Sindhu et al., 2017), (Nematollahi and Kim, 2017), (Firozjaei et al., 2018)
Job creation (Doljak and Stanojevi c, 2017), (Doorga et al., 2018)
Risk Political risk (Yunna and Geng, 2014), (Sindhu et al., 2017), (Jun et al., 2014), (Alkhalidi et al., 2018), (Anwar et al., 2017), (Wu et al.,
2018)
Economic risk (Alkhalidi et al., 2018), (Anwar et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2018)
Time delay risk (Alkhalidi et al., 2018), (Anwar et al., 2017)
Investment risk (Simsek et al., 2018), (Wu et al., 2018), (Liu et al., 2017), (Bendato et al., 2017)
4 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368

not been addressed well in the literature. Based on the best
knowledge of the authors, only one simulation tool has been pro-
posed to evaluate the effect of criteria on the selection of solar sites
(Al Garni and Awasthi, 2020). However, the performance of prior-
itization methods was not analyzed. In Table 2, several main studies
in the field of solar site selection problems are categorized in terms
of their key features including weighting and alternative prioriti-
zation methods.
2.3. Research gap
Table 2 shows that the majority of researchers used AHP which
is one of the most common criteria weighting methods (Al Garni
and Awasthi, 2017; Kumar et al., 2017). AHP is based on a great
number of comparisons as well as subjective preferences of
decision-makers. On the other hand, BWM not only has fewer
comparisons but also obtains global optimal final weight of criteria
via a linear mathematical model (Rezaei, 2015, 2016). BWM has
been employed in just two studies (Hashemizadeh et al., 2019) and
(Zhou et al., 2020), as it is a new method for determining weight of
criteria. Moreover, no approach has been proposed for sensitivity
analysis of different prioritization methods in the literature.
Sensitivity analysis of different methods can have a significant
positive impact on selecting an efficient method and ultimately
producing high reliable results. For this purpose, in this paper an
efficient approach has been developed using Monte Carlo simula-
tion which can evaluate performance of different prioritization
methods by defining two measures.
3. Material and method
This section describes the proposed method in this paper. As
previously mentioned, BWM is applied to determine weight of
criteria and sub criteria, and VIKOR and GRA are used to prioritize
potential locations for solar sites. Before describing structure of
these methods, it is explained why they are chosen in this paper.
Criteria weighting methods generally include AHP, ANP, BWM,
and the methods based on them (Ajrina et al., 2018). Despite being
widely used in various fields, AHP and ANP require a great number
of comparisons (Farughi and Mostafayi, 2017). On the other hand,
BWM has fewer comparisons. If a set of n decision criteria is
determined in a decision-making problem, the number of required
comparisons for BWM and AHP are respectively 2n  3 and
nðn 1Þ=2 (Rezaei, 2015, 2016). The other advantage of BWM is a
mathematical model that determines final weight of criteria guar-
anteed to be global optimal and far from personal preferences of
the experts. In AHP and ANP, all calculations are based on experts’
preferences which can somehow affect final weight of criteria
adversely. Therefore, final weights obtained by BWM are more
reliable (Rezaei, 2015).
GRA has a high degree of stability in the final rankings of al-
ternatives with respect to the criteria (Zhang et al., 2011). The
advantage of VIKOR is its ability to produce a compromise solution
based on closeness to the ideal solution in problems with con-
flicting criteria (Opricovic, 1998). However, determining the most
reliable method among various MCDM techniques is not easy.
Hence, one can employ different methods and compare the final
obtained results (Chan and Wu, 1998).
Different prioritization methods propose different results to
managers, but no specific way to compare their performance has
been presented yet. Choosing a method with the highest consis-
tency can result in a more reliable solution. For this purpose, a
MCSB heuristic to compare robustness of each method based on
two functional measures is proposed in this paper. Recently, Al
Garni and Awasthi (2020) have analyzed criteria effects on solar PV
site selection using Monte Carlo simulation. They investigated the
effect of changes in uncontrolled criteria such as climate conditions
on locations of solar sites. In fact, the proposed method was not
able to compare performance of prioritization methods and only
concentrated on sensitivity analysis of criteria weight effects on the
final results. On the other hand, the proposed approach in this
paper directly evaluates performance of prioritization methods
which can be used in other studies as a robustness analysis tool.
Fig. 1 shows the structure of our hybrid approach and study design.
The frameworks of BWM, VIKOR and GRA as well as Monte Carlo
simulation method are briefly introduced in subsections 3.1 to 3.4.

Table 2
Main studies in the field of solar site selection.

Ref. MCDM methods Others

Weighting method Alternative prioritization method

EWA ANP AHP BWM DE T V GRA P E TO MA FIS GIS DEA ISM MCS

Lee et al. (2017) ✓ ✓ ✓

Sindhu et al. (2017)
Tavana et al. (2017)
(Al Garni and Awasthi, 2017)
Samanlioglu & Ayag  (2017)
Wang et al. (2018)
Wu et al. (2018)
Ohunakin & Saracoglu (2018)
Merrouni et al. (2018)
Aktas & Kabak (2019)
Mensour et al. (2019)
Wu et al. (2019)
Hashemizadeh et al. (2019)
Solangi et al. (2019)
Giamalaki & Tsoutsos (2019)
Zhou et al. (2020)
Colak et al. (2020)
(Al Garni and Awasthi, 2020)
This study
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

EWA: entropy-weighting approach; ANP: analytic network process; AHP: analytic hierarchy process; BWM: best-worst method; DE: DEMATEL; T: TOPSIS; V: VIKOR; GRA:
grey relational analysis; P: PROMETHEE; E: ELECTRE; TO: TODIM; MA: MABAC; FIS: fuzzy inference system; GIS: geographic information system; DEA: data envelopment
analysis; ISM: interpretive structural modeling; MCS: Monte Carlo simulation.
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368 5

3.1. Best-worst method the relationship between two alternatives by means of a distant
measurement. Assume a MCDM problem with m alternatives
BWM is one of the most powerful techniques of solving MCDM A1 ; A2 ; …; Am and n criteria C1 ; C2 ; …; Cn . Each alternative is evalu-
problems that can be used to gain weights of criteria (Rezaei, 2015, ated with respect to all criteria and denoted by Yð ¼ ðyij Þmn Þ. GRA
2016). This method compensates for the weaknesses of pairwise consists of following steps.
comparison-based methods (such as AHP and ANP) like in- Step 1. Calculate normalized decision matrix and normalized
compatibility. Additionally, the number of paired comparisons can value of xij by equation (5) and equation (6).
be significantly reduced only by performing reference comparisons. n o
BWM has been recently employed by researchers in different ap- yij  Min yij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m
plications. In general, the structure of BWM consists of the xij ¼ n o n o
following steps: Max yij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m  Min yij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m (5)
Step 1. Determine a set of decision criteria. i ¼ 1; 2; …; m; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n; for j2I
The criteria fc1 ; c2 ; …; cn g have been obtained through litera-
ture research and experts’ opinions. These criteria can reflect per- n o
formance of the alternatives. Max yij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m  yij
Step 2. Determine the best and the worst criteria and sub xij ¼ n o n o
Max yij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m  Min yij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m (6)
criteria.
The best criterion cB and the worst one wB should be deter- i ¼ 1; 2; …; m; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n; for j2J
mined by the experts.
Step 3. Determine the reference comparison of the best where I and J are the sets of benefit and cost criteria respectively.
criterion. Step 2. Determine referential set x0 by equation (7).
The preference of the best criterion over the other criteria is
determined by a number between 1 and 9 based on linguistic x0 ¼ fx01 ; x02 ; …; x0n g (7)
scales. The resulting vector is:
where x0j ¼ maxxij and j ¼ 1; 2; …; n.
j
AB ¼ ðaB1 ; aB2 ; …; aBn Þ (1)
Step 3. Calculate grey relation coefficient by equation (8).
where aBj is the preference of the best criterion B over criterion j. It
minminDij þ xmaxmaxDij
is obvious that aBB ¼ 1.   i j i j
g x0j ; xij ¼ (8)
Step 4. Determine the preference comparison of the worst Dij þ xmaxmaxDij
criterion. i j

The preference of the other criteria over the worst criterion is

determined by a number between 1 and 9. The resulting vector is: where Dij ¼
x0j  xij
, i ¼ 1; 2; …; m; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n. The resolving
coefficient is x ¼ ½0; 1 which equals to 0.5 in this research.
Aw ¼ ða1W ; a2W ; …; anW ÞT (2) Step 4. After determining all grey relation coefficients, the grade
of grey relation can be calculated between x0 and xi as follows.
where ajW is the preference of the other criteria over the worst
X
n   Xn
criterion. It is obvious that aWW ¼ 1. Gðx0 ; xi Þ ¼ wj g x0j ; xij ; wj ¼ 1 (9)
Step 5. Determine the optimal weights of criteria.




j¼1 j¼1
The maximum absolute differences f
wB aBj wj
;
wj ajW wW
g
for all j should be minimized to determine the optimal weights ðW1* ; where wj is the weight of criterion j and i ¼ 1; 2;…;m; j ¼ 1; 2;…;n.
W2* ; …; Wn* Þ. It can be formulated as the following optimization Step 5. Rank the alternatives based on the value of grey relation
problem. grade. The higher the value of Gðx0 ;xi Þ, the better the alternative Ai .






minmax
wB  aBj wj
;
wj  ajW wW
(3) 3.3. VIKOR technique
j

Problem 3 can be transferred to the following linear VIKOR is a compromise ranking technique and is often applied
formulation. in problems with conflicting criteria (Opricovic, 1998). This method
produces a compromise solution based on closeness to the ideal
minxL (4) solution and mutual agreement through concessions. This method
has been used by many researchers to rank alternatives (Gupta,
Problem 4 is linear with a unique solution. The optimal weights 2018). The steps of VIKOR are as follows.
L*
ðw*1 ; w*2 ; …; w*n Þ and the optimal value x will be obtained by Step 1. Determine a pairwise matrix for each alternative, and
each criterion is evaluated using the linguistic scales presented in
solving the problem. Closer values of x L*
to zero represent a high
Table 5.
level of consistency (Rezaei, 2015).
Step 2. Calculate the average decision matrix using equation
(10).
3.2. Grey relational analysis
1X k
fij ¼ xt i ¼ 1; 2; …; m; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n (10)
GRA was firstly proposed by Deng (1982). Grey systems theory is k t¼1 ij
an algorithm analyzing uncertain correlations between a system’s
factors and a reference factor, and it can be applied in MCDM where xtij is the value of alternative i with respect to criterion j by
problems. The characteristic of this approach is that qualitative and
expert t.
quantitative correlations can be identified among the complex
factors in a system when the approach can examine the extent of Step 3. Calculate the best fj* and the worst fj values of all criteria
6 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368

Fig. 1. Flowchart of study design.

using equations (11) and (12). equations (13) and (14).

fj* ¼ maxfij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n (11)

fj ¼ minfij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n (12)  

X
n fj*  fij
Si ¼ wj   (13)
where fj* and fj represent positive ideal solution and negative ideal fj*  fj
j¼1
solution for criterion j respectively.
Step 4. Calculate values of Si and Ri for i ¼ 1; 2; …; m using
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368 7

Table 3
Criteria used in selection of potential locations.

Criteria Sub criteria Experts’ reasons for selection of criteria

Economic Construction cost Budget constraints are particularly important owing to the current economic conditions of the country.
Maintenance cost Unavailability of experts can cause high maintenance cost.
Initial investment This criterion is an important element because of lack of public capital and private sector investors.
Technical Distance to substation High distance to substation can increase voltage drop in transmission network.
Land availability One of the major problems in the province is shortage of suitable land.
Solar radiation intensity The efficiency can be significantly increased by choosing the right location with enough solar irradiation.
Wind intensity This criterion can have considerable positive or negative impacts on the final efficiency.
Environmental Protected areas Due to the limited environmental resources in South Khorasan Province, protection of these areas is vital.
Ecosystem destruction Removing the current limited vegetation can have destructive effects in the future.
Distance to catchment basins Saving the basins is essential because of the lack of water in Iran.
Social Job creation This criterion is one of the most serious concerns in the province.
Social acceptance It can be effective to attract small investors to produce renewable energy for household sector consumption.
Distance to farmlands Agriculture production has formed a large part of the province’s economy and consequently arable lands
maintenance is of high importance.
Risk Economic risk The limitation of financial resources can make investors direct their attention to the economic risk that would
have definite impacts on the implementation of decisions.
Time delay risk Due to the shortage of sufficient funds, there is always the possibility for delay in projects that can lead to serious
losses and even cancellation of whole project.
Investment risk Due to the insufficient private and public investment, there is always the possibility of such a risk in projects.

Table 4
Selected alternatives by the experts to build solar sites.

Alternatives Experts’ reasons for selection of alternatives

Boshruyeh (A1 ( Balanced wind intensity and availability of land

Tabas ðA2 ( Having transmission capacity and the permission to connect to the network and availability of land
Sarbisheh (A3 ) Suitable radiation and temperature and availability of land
Nehbandan)A4 ) Proximity to substation, availability of land, suitable temperature and balanced wind intensity
Birjand (A5 ) Suitable radiation and proximity to substation
HajiAbad (A6 ) Having transmission capacity and the permission to connect to the network and availability of land
Qayen)A7 ) Suitable temperature and availability of land
Ferdows)A8 ) Suitable radiation
Khezri (A9 ) Suitable temperature and more cold weather
Deyhook (A10 ) Suitable radiation, balanced wind intensity and availability of land
Asadiyeh (A11 ) Suitable temperature
Sarayan (A12 ) Availability of land
Edfaden (A13 ) Having transmission capacity and the permission to connect to the network and availability of land
ArainShahr)A14 ) Balanced wind intensity

Table 5
Linguistic scales for BWM pairwise comparison and GRA and VIKOR.

Scale for BWM

Equally Equal to moderately Moderately more Moderately to Strongly more Strongly to very Very strongly Very strongly to Extremely more
important more important important strongly more important strongly more more important extremely more important
important important important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Scales for VIKOR and GRA

Linguistic scales Importance rating Importance rating
for best criteria for worst criteria

Least important 1 5
Moderately important 2 4
Strongly important 3 3
Very strongly important 4 2
Extremely important 5 1

 # Step 5. Calculate Qi using equation (15).

"
fj*  fij
Ri ¼ max wj   (14)

fj*  fj S  S* Ri  R*
Qi ¼ v i þ ð1  vÞ (15)
S  S* R  R*
where Si represents the distance of alternative i from the positive
where S ¼ maxSi ; S* ¼ minSi , R ¼ maxRi ; R* ¼ minRi . V in-
ideal solution, Ri represents the distance of alternative i from the i i i i
negative ideal solution, and wj indicates the criteria weights dicates the weight of maximum set utility and it is taken as 0.5 in
determined through BWM. this study.
8 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368
Step 6. Rank the alternatives using Qi values.
Step 7. Alternatives should be ranked based on minimum values
of Qi subject to satisfying the following two conditions
simultaneously.
Condition 1 (acceptance attribute): Alternative A1 is selected if
Q ðA2 Þ  Q ðA1 Þ  1=m  1 where A2 is the alternative with the
second rank and ðmÞ is the total number of alternatives.
Condition 2 (acceptance stability in decision making): A1 should
also have the first rank based on Si or/and Ri values.
Step 8. The alternative obtaining the minimum Qi will be ranked
first.
3.4. MCSB approach to analyze robustness of methods
Since no reference standard has been presented to compare
efficiency of ranking methods (Ishizaka and Siraj, 2018), a new
comparison standard as a robustness measure is proposed in this
paper. This standard measures the stability level of each method’s
solutions using a heuristic approach based on Monte Carlo simu-
lation in reference (Mavrotas et al., 2015). The effective parameters
in final rankings of alternatives are examined in different intervals.
These parameters are the v and the x in VIKOR and GRA,
respectively.
In order to calculate the solutions robustness, the parameter,
shown with w in Fig. 2, is firstly set to a certain value (it is suggested
to be the average). Then, upper and lower bound variations for each
parameter are determined by a . In fact, if a ¼ 0:1, (w) can change
within ±10% of the initial value. It is also necessary that the entire
variation interval of w should be divided into specific sections using
some grid points. Monte Carlo simulator produces and evaluates
various values of w in each section. Finally, the robustness measure
of each ranking method will be determined after performing
required calculations of all grid points. The robustness measure can
be computed based on functions f1 and f2 . In function f1 , the
number of changes in alternatives’ position is calculated with
respect to the initial ranking. For instance, if the initial ranking of
the alternatives is 2 > 3 > 1 and after one iteration of the proposed
approach, the next ranking is 1 > 3 > 2 by changing the value of w,
then the robustness measure (f1 ) will equal one in that iteration
since one change (the rank of alternative 1 and alternative 2) has
been applied. In function f2 , both the number and weight of po-
sition changes are important. In the previous mentioned example,
the value of robustness measure (f2 ) equals two because alternative
1 (or similarly alternative 2) has changed two ranks. Therefore, the
calculations can be made in two comparative modes. Fig. 2 illus-
trates a flowchart of the proposed method.
4. Case study
According to the operational plan for development of renewable
energy infrastructure in Iran, investment in solar site construction
is the main focus of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Or-
ganization of Iran (SATBA, 2020). By the end of 2019, 299 com-
panies in Iran were qualified to build solar sites with a total capacity
of 2685 MW, of which only 365 MW has been installed (SATBA,
2019). In fact, a potential capacity of 2320 MW is still in the study
phase. One of the most important parts of the study phase is solar
sites locations. Suitable locations of solar sites should be deter-
mined based on environmental, economic, and social conditions in
each area. Applying scientific methods leads to reliable results that
can guarantee success of the project in the future. South Khorasan
Province is one of the provinces with considerable potential for
investment in Iran. South Khorasan Province has enormous po-
tentials of exploiting clean energies on account of enjoying
appropriate climate, solar irradiation, and wind in most areas
during the year (Ghobadian et al., 2009). South Khorasan is around
3200 h of annual sunshine. The amount of radiation in some cities
such as Sarayan, Birjand, Qayen, Boshruyeh, Ayask, Tabas, and
Nehbandan is between 350 and 481 calories per square centimeter
per day (cal/cm2/day) (Hafeznia et al., 2017). Fig. 3a,b shows solar
radiation intensity in South Khorasan Province in different months.
As shown in Fig. 3a,b, most parts of the province have radiation
intensity greater than 360 W/m2 during the year except for the
months of January, February, and March. This proves that the
province can take advantage of solar energy almost throughout the
year.
This study seeks to find suitable locations for solar sites in South
Khorasan Province in order to utilize the area’s mentioned poten-
tial. According to opinions of managers and decision makers of
South Khorasan Regional Electricity Distribution Company
(SKREDC), suitable locations to build solar sites should be in terms
of sustainable development and risk management criteria. To this
end, a set of related criteria and sub criteria, shown in Table 3, is
extracted from the literature and approved by the decision makers.
All the criteria in Table 3 have been confirmed by experts of
SKREDC. The alternatives have been also selected according to the
experts’ views presented in Table 4 and Fig. 4.
5. Results and discussion
In this section, empirical results for solar site selection problem
are presented in South Khorasan Province as a real-world case
study. First, weights of the criteria and sub criteria are determined
using BWM based on the data from questionnaires completed by
the experts. Second, prioritization of the potential locations is
presented using VIKOR and GRA. In addition, sensitivity analysis
using a MCSB heuristic is carried out to provide some managerial
results for real-world implementation. The proposed approaches
are implemented in GAMS 24.1 and Excel, and results are obtained
using a 3.2 GHz Intel Core i7-640M CPU with 16 GB of RAM.
As explained in the case study section, Table 4 presents 14 po-
tential locations for construction of solar sites in South Khorasan
Province. In order to obtain valid results, a number of experts were
invited to participate in meetings to gather information. They were
asked to evaluate the potential locations based on the criteria in
Table 3 using the scales in Table 5. All the committee includes
experienced experts with knowledge of renewable energy man-
agement in South Khorasan Province. The experts’ information is
presented in Table 6.
5.1. Determination of criteria weights using BWM
The best and the worst criteria are determined by the experts.
The preference of the best criterion over all others and the prefer-
ence of all criteria over the worst one are also determined based on
Table 5. Pairwise comparisons among the main economic, tech-
nical, environmental, social, and risk criteria are presented in
Table 7. After collecting the questionnaires of BWM, weights of the
criteria and sub criteria obtained by solving model (4) are pre-
sented in Table 8.
After determination of preference of all criteria, the local
L*
optimal weights and consistency indicator (x Þare obtained
through model 4. Table 8 shows that the economic criterion has the
most local weight in comparison with the others, and the social
criterion has the least local weight. The comparisons represent a
very high consistency as the value of consistency indicator is close
to zero (0.057). Similarly, for each main criterion, the preference of
the best sub criterion over all other sub criteria, the preference of all
sub criteria over the worst one, and the average local weights are
presented in Tables 9e18. Finally, the overall optimal weights of
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the proposed heuristic method.
criteria are reported in Table 19.
Tables 9 and 10 show the pairwise vectors of the best and the
worst sub criteria and the average local weights for economic sub
criteria. As can be resulted from Table 10, the initial investment
(Ec3 ) has the most local weight in comparison with the other sub
criteria, and the maintenance cost (Ec2 ) has the least local weight.
Table 11 Displays pairwise comparisons for technical sub
criteria. Based on Table 12, solar irradiation (Te3 ) has the most local
weight and distance to substation (Te1 ) has the least one.
Table 13 Displays pairwise comparisons for environmental sub
criteria. Table 14 shows that the most local weight and the least
local weight belong to ecosystem destruction (En2 ) and protected
areas (En1 ) respectively.
Table 15Displays pairwise comparisons for social sub criteria.
Based on Table 16, job creation (So1 ) has the most local weight and
distance to farmlands (So3 ) has the least local weight.
Table 17 shows pairwise comparisons for risk sub criteria.
Table 18 displays that time delay risk (Ri2 ) has the most local weight
and investment risk (Ri3 ) has the least one.
Finally, according to Table 19, the most three important criteria
for assessing potential locations for the construction of solar sites
are the initial investment (Ec3 ), construction cost (Ec1 ) and
ecosystem destruction (En2 ), while the least three important
criteria are investment risk ( So3 ), distance to substation (Te1 ) and
time delay risk ( So2 ).
5.2. Prioritization of the potential solar sites
In this subsection, the prioritization of potential solar sites using
GRA and VIKOR is presented.
9
5.2.1. GRA results
The potential sites are evaluated based on the criteria weights
using VIKOR and GRA. All experts are separately asked to evaluate
alternatives with respect to the criteria using the linguistic scales in
Table 5. After determination of each expert’s rating, an average of
the rates is computed. The average decision matrix is presented in
Table 20.
The normalized decision matrix based on GRA is calculated by
equations (5) and (6) in Table 21. The reference series is determined
using equation (7). Finally, the grey relational coefficient and the
grey relational grade of each alternative can be calculated by
equations (8) and (9) shown in Tables 22 and 23 respectively.
Table 23 illustrates the alternatives rankings with x ¼ 0:5 using
GRA. The greater the value of G, the better the related alternative.
According to the obtained results, alternative A9 is rated as first.
5.2.2. VIKOR results
The average decision matrix for VIKOR is shown in Table 20.
Table 24 represents the maximum and minimum values of criteria
using equations (11) and (12). In addition, the values of S, R and Q
are calculated using equations (13)e(15) respectively in Table 25.
The lower the value of Q, the better the related alternative with
consideration of the aforementioned conditions of VIKOR. Accord-
ing to the obtained results, alternative A5 is rated as first. Table 26
also shows that alternative A5 enjoys the first rank based on the
values of S and R.
The final ranking of potential sites for the construction of solar
sites using GRA and VIKOR has been proposed in the sections above.
As shown in Table 23, the best three alternatives in GRA are Khezri,
Birjand, and Sarbisheh respectively. Moreover, Table 26 represents
the final results of VIKOR and the best three alternatives are Birjand,
10 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368

Fig. 3a. Solar radiation intensity in South Khorasan Province in the first six months of year.

Sarbisheh, and Nehbandan respectively. Despite the relative simi-
larity in the final rankings of alternatives by both methods, a highly
reliable method is required to select the potential location for solar
sites since it is a totally strategic decision and choosing appropriate
sites will consequently prevent huge cost. Therefore, a heuristic
approach to analyze the robustness of ranking methods is
proposed.
5.3. Robustness analysis using simulation-based approach
Although the obtained results of VIKOR and GRA are somewhat
similar to each other, there are also some evident differences in the
final rankings. The differences are related to the computation
process of each technique. However, the decision makers have to
select one of the final results to implement in the province.
In this section, the simulation results are described using the
method developed in Section 3.4 in order to appropriately select
the final solution. Thus, the parameter v of VIKOR and the param-
eter x of GRA are firstly set to 0.5 and then divided into 10 intervals
(G ¼ 10) between their upper and lower bounds (a ¼ 0:1).
Finally, a number of 1000 simulations (N ¼ 1000) are carried out
using Monte Carlo approach in each grid point, and the value of
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368 11

Fig. 3b. Solar radiation intensity in South Khorasan Province in the second six months of year.

robustness is calculated as can be seen in Fig. 5a. It is obvious that of alternatives ranking in South Khorasan Province is shown in
less ranking variation in different iterations leads to more robust Fig. 6.
solutions. Fig. 5b shows results of implementation of the algorithm.
Fig. 5a and Fig. 5bIllustrate the solutions’ robustness based on
5.4. Discussion
functions f1 and f2 respectively. As can be observed, variation of
function f2 is much greater than function f1 . However, in either case,
According to experts of SKREDC and national consultants of
VIKOR has a higher robustness (less variation) than GRA. In other
solar sites development, the use of renewable energy can directly
words, VIKOR has less sensitivity to the variations of the parameter
lead to economic and social benefits in South Khorasan Province.
v compared to that of GRA, and the solutions produced by VIKOR
Solar sites can generate renewable electricity, decrease electricity
can provide a higher level of reliability. Therefore, the final solu-
consumption cost especially in industrial sectors, create jobs for
tions of VIKOR will be applied to the case study. The final structure
youth, and transform talented rural and urban areas into economic
12 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368

Table 9
Pairwise comparisons for economic sub criteria.

DMs Best-Others Ec1 Ec2 Ec3

1 Ec3 8 3 1
2 Ec3 2 7 1
3 Ec1 1 8 2
4 Ec1 1 7 4
5 Ec3 7 2 1

DMs
1 2 3 4 5

Others-Worst Ec1 Ec2 Ec2 Ec2 Ec1

Ec1 1 3 8 7 1
Ec2 4 1 1 1 4
Ec3 8 7 3 3 7

centers. Other consequences are numerous; appropriate solar

technology in the province can prevent migration, improve security
in border areas, increase electricity export by government or pri-
vate sectors, establish factories for the production of equipment
and technologies related to solar and wind energy, attract domestic
and foreign investment, support knowledge enterprises, establish
higher education institutions for solar and wind energy, decrease
Fig. 4. Geographical location of potential cities to build solar sites.

Table 6
The experts’ information.

Category Details

Level of education Four BSc (two industrial engineers and two electrical engineers),
One PhD of electrical engineering (who is a faculty member of Birjand University of Technology).
Work experience Between one to three years (four experts),
More than five years (one expert who is Managing Director of a renewable energy company)
Number of completed projects (executive or research) Fewer than three projects (one expert)
More than ten projects (four experts)

Table 7
Pairwise comparisons for main criteria by experts.

DMs Best-Others Economic Technical Environmental Social Risk

1 Economic 1 4 2 8 2
2 Economic 1 3 4 9 2
3 Environmental 2 5 1 4 8
4 Economic 1 2 2 8 5
5 Technical 2 1 4 5 8

DMs
1 2 3 4 5

Others-Worst Social Social Risk Social Risk

Economic 8 9 2 8 5
Technical 2 3 2 4 8
Environmental 3 2 8 2 2
Social 1 1 5 1 2
Risk 5 3 1 2 1

Table 8 Table 10
Local optimal weights of main criteria. Local optimal weights for economic sub criteria.

Main Criteria DMs Average local weights Sub Criteria DMs Average local weights
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Economic 0.417 0.452 0.196 0.426 0.249 0.348 Ec1 0.077 0.295 0.625 0.712 0.083 0.358
Technical 0.113 0.164 0.118 0.254 0.471 0.224 Ec2 0.246 0.091 0.083 0.091 0.312 0.165
Environmental 0.191 0.123 0.490 0.173 0.125 0.220 Ec3 0.677 0.614 0.292 0.197 0.604 0.477
Social 0.052 0.055 0.147 0.046 0.100 0.080 * 0.062 0.023 0.042 0.076 0.021 0.045
xL
Risk 0.226 0.205 0.049 0.102 0.055 0.127
* 0.035 0.041 0.098 0.081 0.028 0.057
xL
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368 13

Table 11 Table 15
Pairwise comparisons for technical sub criteria. Pairwise comparisons for social sub criteria.

DMs Best-Others Te1 Te2 Te3 Te4 DMs Best-Others So1 So2 So3

1 Te3 8 4 1 2 1 So1 1 2 7
2 Te3 2 9 1 5 2 So1 1 8 5
3 Te2 9 1 3 3 3 So2 2 1 9
4 Te4 8 2 4 1 4 So1 1 3 8
5 Te3 2 7 1 2 5 So2 3 1 9

DMs DMs
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Others-Worst Te1 Te2 Tc1 Tc1 Tc2 Others-Worst So3 So2 So3 So3 So3
Te1 1 4 1 1 2 So1 7 8 3 8 4
Te2 2 1 9 2 1 So2 2 1 9 2 9
Te3 8 9 4 3 7 So3 1 2 1 1 1
Te4 3 2 4 8 4

Table 16
Table 12 Local optimal weights for social sub criteria.
Local optimal weights for technical sub criteria.
Sub Criteria DMs Average local weights
Sub Criteria DMs Average local weights
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
So1 0.625 0.753 0.288 0.677 0.243 0.517
Te1 0.071 0.269 0.057 0.077 0.204 0.136 So2 0.275 0.091 0.635 0.246 0.686 0.387
Te2 0.143 0.063 0.552 0.231 0.074 0.213 So3 0.100 0.156 0.077 0.077 0.071 0.096
Te3 0.536 0.554 0.195 0.154 0.463 0.380 * 0.075 0.026 0.058 0.062 0.043 0.053
xL
Te4 0.250 0.114 0.195 0.538 0.259 0.271
* 0.036 0.016 0.034 0.077 0.056 0.044
xL
Table 17
Pairwise comparisons for risk sub criteria.
Table 13
Pairwise comparisons for environmental sub criteria. DMs Best-Others Ri1 Ri2 Ri3

1 Ri2 3 1 9
DMs Best-Others En1 En2 En3
2 Ri1 1 8 2
1 En2 8 1 2 3 Ri2 4 1 7
2 En3 7 3 1 4 Ri3 4 8 1
3 En3 2 9 1 5 Ri2 5 1 9
4 En2 8 1 3
5 En2 4 1 9 DMs
1 2 3 4 5
DMs
1 2 3 4 5 Others-Worst Ri3 Ri2 Ri3 Ri2 Ri3
Ri1 4 8 2 2 2
Others-Worst En1 En1 En2 En1 En3 Ri2 9 1 7 1 9
En1 1 1 3 1 2 Ri3 1 2 1 8 1
En2 8 2 1 8 9
En3 3 7 9 2 1

Table 18
Local optimal weights for risk sub criteria.
Table 14
Local optimal weights for environmental sub criteria. Sub Criteria DMs Average local weights

Sub Criteria DMs Average local weights 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Ri1 0.243 0.636 0.183 0.182 0.155 0.280

Ri2 0.686 0.091 0.717 0.091 0.762 0.469
En1 0.083 0.100 0.288 0.091 0.181 0.149 Ri3 0.071 0.273 0.100 0.727 0.083 0.251
En2 0.625 0.220 0.077 0.691 0.736 0.470 * 0.043 0.091 0.017 0.000 0.012 0.033
xL
En3 0.292 0.680 0.635 0.218 0.083 0.382
* 0.042 0.020 0.058 0.036 0.014 0.034
xL
contribute to solar sites; therefore, managers will have less concern
about solar sites in the city. It should be noted that the more the
public expenditure, reduce imports, and increase domestic pro- potential locations are further away from the capital of province,
duction. According to the obtained results, Birjand is selected as the the more their priority decreases. It shows that adequate commu-
best location to build solar sites. Birjand is the capital of South nication, infrastructures, and better economic conditions in the
Khorasan Province and has sufficient communication infrastructure capital of the province directly affect the final results. In the
as well as good accessibility to experts and consulting companies in following subsections, results of the research are discussed from
the field of renewable energy development. Therefore, the project perspectives of renewable energy development in Iran as well as
implementation risks in this city are much lower than other cities sustainable development.
in the province. Birjand is also known as a major employment hub
in the province; consequently, the development of solar sites can
5.4.1. Analysis of results from perspective of renewable energy
have a positive impact on employment growth. In addition, various
development in Iran
investment companies in Birjand can attract potential investors to
According to the results of Section 4, Birjand has been selected
14 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368

Table 19
Weights and rankings of main criteria and sub criteria.

Main Criteria Weights of Main Criteria Sub Criteria Weights of Sub Criteria Global Weights Ranking

Economic 0.347 Ec1 0.358 0.125 2

Ec2 0.165 0.057 8
Ec3 0.477 0.166 1
Technical 0.220 Te1 0.136 0.030 15
Te2 0.213 0.048 9
Te3 0.380 0.085 4
Te4 0.271 0.061 6
Environmental 0.223 En1 0.149 0.033 12
En2 0.470 0.103 3
En3 0.382 0.084 5
Social 0.083 So1 0.517 0.041 10
So2 0.387 0.031 14
So3 0.096 0.008 16
Risk 0.126 Ri1 0.280 0.036 11
Ri2 0.469 0.060 7
Ri3 0.251 0.032 13

Table 20
Average of alternatives ratings.

Ec1 Ec2 Ec3 Te1 Te3 Te3 Te4 En1 En2 En3 So1 So2 So3 Ri1 Ri2 Ri3

Boshruyeh 3.4 2.8 2.8 2.0 3.0 2.2 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.2 2.4 2.6 3.6 4.4 2.6
Tabas 3.6 3.4 3.0 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.8 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 3.6 3.2
Sarbisheh 3.0 3.0 2.8 4.4 3.8 4.2 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.4 4.4 4.8 2.8 3.2 3.4 2.4
Nehbandan 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.4 3.2 3.6 3.0 3.2 2.6 3.2 2.0 2.8 2.2 2.8 3 4.2
Birjand 2.6 3.6 2.6 3.8 4.4 3.0 4.0 2.8 3.2 2.2 3.4 3.4 2.2 3.8 2.6 2.6
HajiAbad 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.6 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.8 3.0 3.6 3 3.2
Qayen 3.2 4.8 2.8 2.8 4.2 3.4 4.0 3.2 3.8 3.4 2.4 2.8 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.8
Ferdows 3.4 3.0 3.6 2.2 3.2 3.2 2.4 2.2 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2
Khezri 2.8 2.2 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.2 4.2 2.8 2.6 3.8 4.6 4.2 2.2 2.8 3 3.4
Deyhook 3.0 2.4 4.0 3.6 3.8 4.4 3.6 3.2 3.2 2.0 3.6 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.8 3.6
Asadiyeh 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.6 3.6 3.4 2.8 3.6 3.8 2.6 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.4 3.8 4.4
Sarayan 2.8 2.8 3.6 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 2.4 4.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 3
Esfaden 3.2 3.6 1.8 3.2 4.2 3.2 4.0 2.0 3.4 4.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 2.4
ArianShaz 2.0 3.4 3.2 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.4 2.4

Table 21
Normalized decision matrix.

Ec1 Ec2 Ec3 Te1 Te3 Te3 Te4 En1 En2 En3 So1 So2 So3 Ri1 Ri2 Ri3

Boshruyeh 0.13 0.77 0.55 1.00 0.30 0.00 0.33 0.75 0.33 0.27 0.46 0.00 0.67 0.14 0.00 0.82
Tabas 0.00 0.54 0.45 0.50 0.20 0.18 0.22 1.00 0.50 0.64 0.23 0.42 0.50 0.86 0.40 0.55
Sarbisheh 0.38 0.69 0.55 0.00 0.70 0.91 0.33 0.63 0.83 0.36 0.92 1.00 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.91
Nehbandan 0.63 0.77 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.64 0.33 0.75 1.00 0.45 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.71 0.70 0.09
Birjand 0.63 0.46 0.64 0.25 1.00 0.36 0.89 0.50 0.50 0.91 0.54 0.42 1.00 0.00 0.90 0.82
HajiAbad 0.13 0.62 0.55 0.67 0.20 0.36 0.44 1.00 0.83 0.73 0.38 0.58 0.33 0.14 0.70 0.55
Qayen 0.25 0.00 0.55 0.67 0.90 0.55 0.89 0.75 0.00 0.36 0.15 0.17 0.67 0.29 0.60 0.27
Ferdows 0.13 0.69 0.18 0.92 0.40 0.45 0.00 0.13 0.83 0.73 0.54 0.08 0.50 0.86 1.00 1.00
Khezri 0.50 1.00 0.27 0.58 0.20 0.45 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.71 0.70 0.45
Deyhook 0.38 0.92 0.00 0.33 0.70 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.50 1.00 0.62 0.25 0.50 0.43 0.30 0.36
Asadiyeh 0.75 0.69 0.45 0.75 0.60 0.55 0.22 1.00 0.00 0.73 0.54 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.30 0.00
Sarayan 0.50 0.77 0.18 0.75 0.00 0.36 0.22 0.75 0.17 0.82 0.77 0.17 0.50 0.86 0.90 0.64
Esfaden 0.25 0.46 1.00 0.50 0.90 0.45 0.89 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.46 0.42 0.00 0.14 0.30 0.91
ArianShahr 1.00 0.54 0.36 0.75 0.20 0.27 0.33 0.88 0.00 0.36 0.38 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.91
x0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

as the best location for the construction of solar sites, while
Boshruyeh has the most unsatisfactory conditions. From the
perspective of renewable energy development in Iran, construction
cost, initial investment, distance to substation, job creation, eco-
nomic risk, and investment risk have considerable importance
(Atabi, 2004). Therefore, the selected sites should meet the
mentioned sub criteria. In Fig. 7, the rating values of Birjand with
respect to each criterion are proposed. The rating values related to
sub criteria of construction cost and initial investment equal 2.6.
Lower values of them lead to more levels of desirability. Moreover,
distance to substation with a negative effect of 2.2, job creation
with a positive effect of 3, and economic risk and investment risk
with negative effects of 2.6 reveal that selecting Birjand to
construct solar sites is compatible with the development of
renewable energy in Iran.
5.4.2. Analysis of results from perspective of sustainable
development
Three aspects of economic, environmental, and social in-
teractions are fully interrelated in sustainable development. Based
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368 15

Table 22
Grey relational coefficient matrix.

Ec1 Ec2 Ec3 Te1 Te3 Te3 Te4 En1 En2 En3 So1 So2 So3 Ri1 Ri2 Ri3

Boshruyeh 0.36 0.68 0.52 1.00 0.42 0.33 0.43 0.67 0.43 0.41 0.48 0.33 0.60 0.37 0.33 0.73
Tabas 0.33 0.52 0.48 0.50 0.38 0.38 0.39 1.00 0.50 0.58 0.39 0.46 0.50 0.78 0.45 0.52
Sarbisheh 0.44 0.62 0.52 0.33 0.63 0.85 0.43 0.57 0.75 0.44 0.87 1.00 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.85
Nehbandan 0.57 0.68 0.52 0.33 0.45 0.58 0.43 0.67 1.00 0.48 0.33 0.38 1.00 0.64 0.63 0.35
Birjand 0.57 0.48 0.58 0.40 1.00 0.44 0.82 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.52 0.46 1.00 0.33 0.83 0.73
HajiAbad 0.36 0.57 0.52 0.60 0.38 0.44 0.47 1.00 0.75 0.65 0.45 0.55 0.43 0.37 0.63 0.52
Qayen 0.40 0.33 0.52 0.60 0.83 0.52 0.82 0.67 0.33 0.44 0.37 0.38 0.60 0.41 0.56 0.41
Ferdows 0.36 0.62 0.38 0.86 0.45 0.48 0.33 0.36 0.75 0.65 0.52 0.35 0.50 0.78 1.00 1.00
Khezri 0.50 1.00 0.41 0.55 0.38 0.48 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.64 0.63 0.48
Deyhook 0.44 0.87 0.33 0.43 0.63 1.00 0.60 0.67 0.50 1.00 0.57 0.40 0.50 0.47 0.42 0.44
Asadiyeh 0.67 0.62 0.48 0.67 0.56 0.52 0.39 1.00 0.33 0.65 0.52 0.40 0.50 1.00 0.42 0.33
Sarayan 0.50 0.68 0.38 0.67 0.33 0.44 0.39 0.67 0.38 0.73 0.68 0.38 0.50 0.78 0.83 0.58
Esfaden 0.40 0.48 1.00 0.50 0.83 0.48 0.82 0.33 0.43 0.33 0.48 0.46 0.33 0.37 0.42 0.85
ArianShahr 1.00 0.52 0.44 0.67 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.80 0.33 0.44 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.85

Table 23
Grey relational grade and ranking of each alternative.

ArianShahr Esfaden Sarayan Asadiyeh Deyhook Khezri Ferdows Qayen HajiAbad Birjand Nehbandan Sarbisheh Tabas Boshruyeh

G 0.574 0.574 0.524 0.538 0.468 0.620 0.536 0.552 0.544 0.610 0.578 0.593 0.479 0.494
Rank 6 5 11 9 14 1 10 8 7 2 4 3 13 12

Table 24
Maximum and minimum values of criteria.

Ec1 Ec2 Ec3 Te1 Te3 Te3 Te4 En1 En2 En3 So1 So2 So3 Ri1 Ri2 Ri3

fj* 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.0 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.6 2.6 2.0 4.6 4.8 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2
fj 3.6 4.8 4.0 4.4 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.0 3.8 4.2 2.0 2.4 3.4 3.8 4.4 4.4

Table 25
The values of S, R and Q of the alternatives.

ArianShahr Esfaden Sarayan Asadiyeh Deyhook Khezri Ferdows Qayen HajiAbad Birjand Nehbandan Sarbisheh Tabas Boshruyeh

S 0.647 0.603 0.407 0.444 0.382 0.489 0.588 0.526 0.419 0.488 0.498 0.540 0.506 0.539
R 0.109 0.125 0.078 0.075 0.060 0.09 0.103 0.136 0.121 0.166 0.103 0.136 0.093 0.106
Q 0.730 0.722 0.130 0.189 0.000 0.433 0.592 0.629 0.355 0.701 0.423 0.655 0.392 0.511
S ¼ 0:382 R ¼ 0:060
*
S ¼ 0:647 *
R ¼ 0:166

Table 26 (Aryanpur et al., 2019). The criterion of job creation is among the
Alternatives rankings based on values of S,R, and Q. vital issues in Iran. In fact, any factor that can boost employment
S Ranking R Ranking Q Ranking rates is directly supported by the government and provided with
appropriate budgets. In this research, this criterion enjoys a high
Boshruyeh 0.647 14 0.109 8 0.730 14
Tabas 0.603 13 0.125 11 0.722 13 rating of 3 as well and it proves the great influence of the con-
Sarbisheh 0.407 2 0.078 3 0.130 2 struction of solar sites on employment growth in South Khorasan
Nehbandan 0.444 3 0.075 2 0.189 3 Province. Thus, it could be hoped that the results of this research
Birjand 0.382 1 0.060 1 0.000 1
can attract the necessary funds from the public sectors in order to
HajiAbad 0.489 6 0.109 9 0.433 7
Qayen 0.588 12 0.103 5 0.592 9
lead to sustainable development of South Khorasan Province.
Ferdows 0.526 9 0.136 13 0.629 10 Based on the obtained results, the developed approach in this
Khezri 0.419 4 0.121 10 0.355 4 paper can be applied as a comprehensive decision-making model
Deyhook 0.488 5 0.166 14 0.701 12 for solar site selection problem in South Khorasan Province
Asadiyeh 0.498 7 0.103 6 0.423 6
considering the main economic, technical, environmental, social,
Sarayan 0.540 11 0.136 12 0.655 11
Esfaden 0.506 8 0.093 4 0.392 5 and risk criteria based on managers’ views. Moreover, the proposed
ArianShahr 0.539 10 0.106 7 0.511 8 MCSB approach can be used in other areas as an innovative heu-
ristic to compare performance of prioritization methods and to
determine the best method with the highest consistency. This
on the results and Fig. 7, the most important sub criteria of sus- heuristic can cover the gap of a tool for comparing different
tainable development in renewable energy management in Iran methods in the literature.
include protected areas (with a positive effect of 3.2), ecosystem
destruction (with a negative effect of 2.8), distance to catchment
6. Conclusion
basins (with a positive effect of 4), job creation (with a positive
effect of 3), and social acceptance (with a positive effect of 4.4)
In this paper, a new hybrid approach based on BWM, GRA, and
16 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368

Fig. 5. Robustness comparison of obtained results of GRA and VIKOR.

a. Alternatives variation in each grid point based on functionf1 . b) Alternatives variation in each grid point based on functionf2 .

Fig. 6. Final ranking of potential sites for construction of solar sites.

 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368
Fig. 7. Average of experts’ alternatives ratings with respect to each criterion.
VIKOR is proposed to select the best location to construct solar sites
for sustainable energy management in South Khorasan Province,
Iran. BWM has fewer comparisons than other MCDM weighting
methods and also uses a mathematical model to determine the final
weight of criteria without impact of personal preferences of experts
on the final results. In order to compare performance of prioriti-
zation methods, a new heuristic based on Monte Carlo simulation is
presented which can cover the gap of comparing different types of
prioritization methods in the literature. In this approach, two
functions f1 and f2 are applied to calculate robustness. In function f1 ,
the number of changes in alternatives’ rank is calculated. In func-
tion f2 , both the number of changes in alternatives’ rank and
changes in alternatives’ position are important.
According to the obtained results, the first three important sub
criteria for assessment of potential locations are initial investment
ð0:166Þ, construction cost ð0:125Þ, and ecosystem destruction
ð0:103Þ. Due to the economic crisis in Iran, initial investment and
construction cost are always among the most important criteria for
development of renewable energy. From the sustainable develop-
ment perspective, attention to ecosystem conditions is one of the
main issues that related managers always look for maximum pro-
tection of endangered ecosystems. Therefore, it can be stated that
the most important sub criteria in this study are in accordance with
the important criteria that managers consider in developing sus-
tainable renewable energy in Iran. The best three alternatives in
GRA are Khezri, Birjand, and Sarbisheh, and those of VIKOR are
Birjand, Sarbisheh, and Nehbandan respectively. The results of the
simulation model for comparing performance of VIKOR and GRA
show that VIKOR has higher robustness than GRA in both functions;
therefore, the prioritization provided by VIKOR is more reliable.
Finally Birjand, known as the capital of the province, is selected
as the best location for the construction of solar sites. Selection of
Birjand is exactly similar to executives’ expectations as it enjoys
decent investment opportunities and is well-positioned in terms of
economic and communication infrastructure over other potential
locations. It should be noted that the more the potential locations
are further away from the capital of province, the more their pri-
ority decreases. As a result, the obtained results in this paper can be
taken as the final decision in SKREDC.
Adding a new set of criteria and sub criteria to the proposed
model and performing sensitivity analysis of each criterion in final
results, using other prioritization methods and comparing their
robustness to obtain reliable outputs, developing the simulation
model, and considering new robustness calculation measures to
improve its performance can be stated as future directions.
17
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Ajadi, T., 2019. Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2019.
Ajrina, A.S., Sarno, R., Ginardi, R.H., 2018. Comparison of AHP and BWM methods
based on geographic information system for determining potential zone of Pasir
Batu mining. In: Paper Presented at the 2018 International Seminar on Appli-
cation for Technology of Information and Communication.
Aktas, A., Kabak, M., 2019. A hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making approach for
evaluating solar power plant location sites. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 44 (8),
7235e7247.
Al Garni, H.Z., Awasthi, A., 2017. Solar PV power plant site selection using a GIS-AHP
based approach with application in Saudi Arabia. Appl. Energy 206, 1225e1240.
Al Garni, H.Z., Awasthi, A., 2018. Solar PV Power Plants Site Selection: a Review
Advances In Renewable Energies And Power Technologies. Elsevier, pp. 57e75.
Al Garni, H.Z., Awasthi, A., 2020. A Monte Carlo Approach Applied to Sensitivity
Analysis of Criteria Impacts on Solar PV Site Selection Handbook Of Probabilistic
Models. Elsevier, pp. 489e504.
Alamdari, P., Nematollahi, O., Alemrajabi, A.A., 2013. Solar energy potentials in Iran:
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 778e788.
Alkhalidi, A., Qoaider, L., Khashman, A., Al-Alami, A.R., Jiryes, S., 2018. Energy and
water as indicators for sustainable city site selection and design in Jordan using
smart grid. Sustain. Cities Soc. 37, 125e132.
Anwar, Y.A., Shafei, M.A.R., Ibrahim, D.K., 2017. An Economic Analysis of Rooftop
Solar Power Plant and Energy Auditing for Commercial Building in Egypt. Paper
Presented at the Smart Grid (SASG), 2017 Saudi Arabia.
Anwarzai, M.A., Nagasaka, K., 2017. Utility-scale implementable potential of wind
and solar energies for Afghanistan using GIS multi-criteria decision analysis.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 71, 150e160.
Aragone s-Beltran, P., Chaparro-Gonza lez, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J., Rodríguez-Pozo, F.,
2010. An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power
plant investment projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (1), 249e264.
Aryanpur, V., Atabaki, M.S., Marzband, M., Siano, P., Ghayoumi, K., 2019. An over-
view of energy planning in Iran and transition pathways towards sustainable
electricity supply sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 112, 58e74.
Atabi, F., 2004. Renewable energy in Iran: challenges and opportunities for sus-
tainable development. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1 (1), 69e80.
Bendato, I., Cassettari, L., Mosca, R., Williams, E., Mosca, M., 2017. A stochastic
methodology to evaluate the optimal multi-site investment solution for
photovoltaic plants. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 526e536.
Bhowmik, C., Bhowmik, S., Ray, A., Pandey, K.M., 2017. Optimal green energy
planning for sustainable development: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 71,
796e813.
Bouhal, T., Agrouaz, Y., Kousksou, T., Allouhi, A., El Rhafiki, T., Jamil, A., Bakkas, M.,
2018. Technical feasibility of a sustainable Concentrated Solar Power in
Morocco through an energy analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81,
1087e1095.
Buffat, R., Grassi, S., Raubal, M., 2018. A scalable method for estimating rooftop solar
irradiation potential over large regions. Appl. Energy 216, 389e401.
Chan, L.K., Wu, M.L., 1998. Prioritizing the technical measures in quality function
deployment. Qual. Eng. 10 (3), 467e479.
Chang, B., Starcher, K., 2018. Evaluation of wind and solar energy investments in
18 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368
Texas. Renew. Energy 132, 1348e1359.
Choudhary, P., Srivastava, R.K., 2019. Sustainability perspectives-a review for solar
photovoltaic trends and growth opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 589e612.
Colak, H.E., Memisoglu, T., Gercek, Y., 2020. Optimal site selection for solar photo-
voltaic (PV) power plants using GIS and AHP: a case study of Malatya Province,
Turkey. Renew. Energy 149, 565e576.
Croucher, M., 2011. Capacity factors and solar job creation. Energy Pol. 39 (11),
6914e6915.
Deng, J.-L., 1982. Control problems of grey systems. Syst. Contr. Lett. 1 (5), 288e294.
Doljak, D., Stanojevi c, G., 2017. Evaluation of natural conditions for site selection of
ground-mounted photovoltaic power plants in Serbia. Energy 127, 291e300.
Doorga, J.R., Rughooputh, S.D., Boojhawon, R., 2018. Multi-criteria GIS-based
modelling technique for identifying potential solar farm sites: a case study in
Mauritius. Renew. Energy 133, 1201e1219.
Fan, J., Chen, B., Wu, L., Zhang, F., Lu, X., Xiang, Y., 2018. Evaluation and development
of temperature-based empirical models for estimating daily global solar radi-
ation in humid regions. Energy 144, 903e914.
Farughi, H., Mostafayi, S., 2017. A hybrid approach based on ANP, ELECTRE and
SIMANP metaheuristic method for outsourcing manufacturing procedures ac-
cording to supply chain risks-Case study: a medical equipment manufacturer
company in Iran. Decision Science Letters 6 (1), 77e94.
Fattahi, M., Govindan, K., Farhadkhani, M., 2020. Sustainable supply chain planning
for biomass-based power generation with environmental risk and supply un-
certainty considerations: a real-life case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1e25. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1746427.
Firozjaei, M.K., Nematollahi, O., Mijani, N., Shorabeh, S.N., Firozjaei, H.K.,
Toomanian, A., 2018. An integrated GIS-based ordered weighted averaging
analysis for solar energy evaluation in Iran: current conditions and future
planning. Renew. Energy 136, 1130e1146.
Fritsche, U.R., Berndes, B., Cowie, A.L., Dale, V.H., Kline, K.L., Johnson, F.X., …,
Woods, J., 2017. Sustainable Energy Options and Implications for Land Use.
Ghasempour, R., Nazari, M.A., Ebrahimi, M., Ahmadi, M.H., Hadiyanto, H., 2019.
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach for selecting solar plants site
and technology: a review. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 8 (1).
Gherboudj, I., Ghedira, H., 2016. Assessment of solar energy potential over the
United Arab Emirates using remote sensing and weather forecast data. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 1210e1224.
Ghobadian, B., Najafi, G., Rahimi, H., Yusaf, T., 2009. Future of renewable energies in
Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (3), 689e695.
Giamalaki, M., Tsoutsos, T., 2019. Sustainable siting of solar power installations in
Mediterranean using a GIS/AHP approach. Renew. Energy 141, 64e75.
Gorjian, S., Zadeh, B.N., Eltrop, L., Shamshiri, R.R., Amanlou, Y., 2019. Solar photo-
voltaic power generation in Iran: development, policies, and barriers. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 106, 110e123.
Govindan, K., Rajeev, A., Padhi, S.S., Pati, R.K., 2020b. Supply chain sustainability and
performance of firms: A meta-analysis of the literature. Transport. Res. E Logist.
Transport. Rev. 137, 101923.
Govindan, K., Shankar, K.M., Kannan, D., 2020a. Achieving sustainable development
goals through identifying and analyzing barriers to industrial sharing economy:
A framework development. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 227, 107575.
Gupta, H., 2018. Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best
worst method and VIKOR. J. Air Transport. Manag. 68, 35e47.
Hafeznia, H., Yousefi, H., Astaraei, F.R., 2017. A novel framework for the potential
assessment of utility-scale photovoltaic solar energy, application to eastern
Iran. Energy Convers. Manag. 151, 240e258.
Hashemizadeh, A., Ju, Y., Dong, P., 2019. A combined geographical information
system and BesteWorst Method approach for site selection for photovoltaic
power plant projects. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1e16.
Herrando, M., Ramos, A., Zabalza, I., 2018. Cost competitiveness of a novel PVT-
based solar combined heating and power system: influence of economic pa-
rameters and financial incentives. Energy Convers. Manag. 166, 758e770.
Hoornweg, D., Pope, K., 2017. Population predictions for the world’s largest cities in
the 21st century. Environ. Urbanization 29 (1), 195e216.
Iea, 2019. World energy investment 2019. Paris. from. https://www.iea.org/reports/
world-energy-investment-2019.
Iqbal, M., Azam, M., Naeem, M., Khwaja, A., Anpalagan, A., 2014. Optimization
classification, algorithms and tools for renewable energy: a review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 39, 640e654.
Ishizaka, A., Siraj, S., 2018. Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An
experimental comparative study of three methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264 (2),
462e471.
Jadidbonab, M., Dolatabadi, A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Abapour, M., Asadi, S., 2019.
Risk-constrained energy management of PV integrated smart energy hub in the
presence of demand response program and compressed air energy storage. IET
Renew. Power Gener. 13 (6), 998e1008.
Jahangiri, M., Ghaderi, R., Haghani, A., Nematollahi, O., 2016. Finding the best lo-
cations for establishment of solar-wind power stations in Middle-East using
GIS: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 66, 38e52.
Jun, D., Tian-tian, F., Yi-sheng, Y., Yu, M., 2014. Macro-site selection of wind/solar
hybrid power station based on ELECTRE-II. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35,
194e204.
Kanters, J., Horvat, M., 2012. Solar energy as a design parameter in urban planning.
Energy Procedia 30, 1143e1152.
Kengpol, A., Rontlaong, P., Tuominen, M., 2012. Design of a decision support system
for site selection using fuzzy AHP: a case study of solar power plant in north eastern
parts of Thailand. Paper presented at the Technology Management for Emerging
Technologies (PICMET), 2012. Proceedings of PICMET 12.
Khalil, H.B., Zaidi, S.J.H., 2014. Energy crisis and potential of solar energy in Pakistan.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 194e201.
Khanjarpanah, H., Jabbarzadeh, A., Seyedhosseini, S.M., 2018. A novel multi-period
double frontier network DEA to sustainable location optimization of hybrid
wind-photovoltaic power plant with real application. Energy Convers. Manag.
159, 175e188.
Khare, V., Nema, S., Baredar, P., 2016. Solarewind hybrid renewable energy system:
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, 23e33.
Kılkış, Ş., 2016. Sustainable development of energy, water and environment systems
index for Southeast European cities. J. Clean. Prod. 130, 222e234.
Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A.R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., Bansal, R., 2017. A review of
multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy
development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69, 596e609.
Lee, A.H., Kang, H.-Y., Lin, C.-Y., Shen, K.-C., 2015. An integrated decision-making
model for the location of a PV solar plant. Sustainability 7 (10), 13522e13541.
Lee, A.H., Kang, H.-Y., Liou, Y.-J., 2017. A hybrid multiple-criteria decision-making
approach for photovoltaic solar plant location selection. Sustainability 9 (2),
184.
 n-Vargas, F., García-Jaramillo, M., Krejci, E., 2019. Pre-feasibility of wind and
Leo
solar systems for residential self-sufficiency in four urban locations of
Colombia: implication of new incentives included in Law 1715. Renew. Energy
130, 1082e1091.
Liu, J., Xu, F., Lin, S., 2017. Site selection of photovoltaic power plants in a value chain
based on grey cumulative prospect theory for sustainability: a case study in
Northwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 386e397.
Manju, S., Sagar, N., 2017. Progressing towards the development of sustainable
energy: a critical review on the current status, applications, developmental
barriers and prospects of solar photovoltaic systems in India. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 70, 298e313.
Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Khalifah, Z., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Nor, K.M.,
Khoshnoudi, M., 2017. A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications
to solve energy management problems: two decades from 1995 to 2015. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 71, 216e256.
Mavrotas, G., Pechak, O., Siskos, E., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2015. Robustness analysis
in multi-objective mathematical programming using Monte Carlo simulation.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 240 (1), 193e201.
Mensour, O.N., El Ghazzani, B., Hlimi, B., Ihlal, A., 2019. A geographical information
system-based multi-criteria method for the evaluation of solar farms locations:
a case study in Souss-Massa area, southern Morocco. Energy 182, 900e919.
Merrouni, A.A., Elalaoui, F.E., Mezrhab, A., Mezrhab, A., Ghennioui, A., 2018. Large
scale PV sites selection by combining GIS and Analytical Hierarchy Process. Case
study: eastern Morocco. Renew. Energy 119, 863e873.
Meyar-Naimi, H., Vaez-Zadeh, S., 2012. Sustainable development based energy
policy making frameworks, a critical review. Energy Pol. 43, 351e361.
Minaeian, A., Sedaghat, A., Mostafaeipour, A., Alemrajabi, A.A., 2017. Exploring
economy of small communities and households by investing on harnessing
wind energy in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan in Iran. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 74, 835e847.
Minelli, A., Marchesini, I., Taylor, F.E., De Rosa, P., Casagrande, L., Cenci, M., 2014. An
open source GIS tool to quantify the visual impact of wind turbines and
photovoltaic panels. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 49, 70e78.
Nazari, M.A., Aslani, A., Ghasempour, R., 2018. Analysis of solar farm site selection
based on TOPSIS approach. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 9 (1), 12e25.
Nematollahi, O., Kim, K.C., 2017. A feasibility study of solar energy in South Korea.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77, 566e579.
Nestico
, A., Sica, F., 2017. The sustainability of urban renewal projects: a model for
economic multi-criteria analysis. J. Property Invest. Finance 35 (4), 397e409.
Niblick, B., Landis, A.E., 2016. Assessing renewable energy potential on United States
marginal and contaminated sites. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 489e497.
Noorollahi, E., Fadai, D., Akbarpour Shirazi, M., Ghodsipour, S.H., 2016. Land suit-
ability analysis for solar farms exploitation using GIS and fuzzy analytic hier-
archy process (FAHP)da case study of Iran. Energies 9 (8), 643.
Ogunmodimu, O., Okoroigwe, E.C., 2018. Concentrating solar power technologies
for solar thermal grid electricity in Nigeria: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 90, 104e119.
Ohunakin, O.S., Saracoglu, B.O., 2018. A comparative study of selected multi-criteria
decision-making methodologies for location selection of very large concen-
trated solar power plants in Nigeria. African J. Sci. Technol. Innovat. 10 (5),
551e567.
Olsen, K.H., Fenhann, J., 2008. Sustainable development benefits of clean develop-
ment mechanism projects: a new methodology for sustainability assessment
based on text analysis of the project design documents submitted for valida-
tion. Energy Pol. 36 (8), 2819e2830.
Opricovic, S., 1998. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Fac. Civil
Eng. 2 (1), 5e21. Belgrade.
Østergaard, P.A., Duic, N., Noorollahi, Y., Mikulcic, H., Kalogirou, S., 2019. Sustainable
development using renewable energy technology. Renew. Energy 146,
2430e2437.
Ozdemir, S., Sahin, G., 2018. Multi-criteria decision-making in the location selection
for a solar PV power plant using AHP. Measurement 129, 218e226.
Prasad, A.R., Singh, S., Nagar, H., 2017. Importance of solar energy technologies for
development of rural area in India. IJSRST 3, 2395e6011.
Purohit, I., Purohit, P., 2017. Technical and economic potential of concentrating solar
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122368
thermal power generation in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 648e667.
Rathore, P.K.S., Chauhan, D.S., Singh, R.P., 2018. Decentralized solar rooftop photo-
voltaic in India: on the path of sustainable energy security. Renew. Energy 131,
297e307.
Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53,
49e57.
Rezaei, J., 2016. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some proper-
ties and a linear model. Omega 64, 126e130.
Sabo, M.L., Mariun, N., Hizam, H., Radzi, M.A.M., Zakaria, A., 2017. Spatial matching
of large-scale grid-connected photovoltaic power generation with utility de-
mand in Peninsular Malaysia. Appl. Energy 191, 663e688.
Saha, M., Eckelman, M.J., 2018. Geospatial assessment of regional scale bioenergy
production potential on marginal and degraded land. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
128, 90e97.
Samanlioglu, F., Ayag , Z., 2017. A fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE II approach for evaluation
of solar power plant location alternatives in Turkey. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 33 (2),
859e871.
S
anchez-Lozano, J.M., Antunes, C.H., García-Cascales, M.S., Dias, L.C., 2014. GIS-
based photovoltaic solar farms site selection using ELECTRE-TRI: evaluating the
case for Torre Pacheco, Murcia, Southeast of Spain. Renew. Energy 66, 478e494.
S
anchez-Lozano, J.M., Teruel-Solano, J., Soto-Elvira, P.L., García-Cascales, M.S., 2013.
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: case study in
south-eastern Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24, 544e556.
SATBA, 2016. Related documents for power purchase. from. http://www.satba.gov.
ir/en/investmentsubscribers/relateddocumentsforpowerpurchase.
SATBA, 2019. Statistics of RE power plants. from. http://www.satba.gov.ir/en/
investmentpowerplants/statisticsofrepowerplants.
SATBA, 2020. Energy strategic planning. from. http://www.satba.gov.ir/en/
privatesectorrequirements/planningdevelopment/strategicenergyplanning.
Shimbar, A., Ebrahimi, S.B., 2020. Political risk and valuation of renewable energy
investments in developing countries. Renew. Energy 145, 1325e1333.
Shorabeh, S.N., Firozjaei, M.K., Nematollahi, O., Firozjaei, H.K., Jelokhani-Niaraki, M.,
2019. A risk-based multi-criteria spatial decision analysis for solar power plant
site selection in different climates: a case study in Iran. Renew. Energy 143,
958e973.
Simsek, Y., Watts, D., Escobar, R., 2018. Sustainability evaluation of concentrated
solar power (CSP) projects under clean development mechanism (CDM) by
using multi criteria decision method (MCDM). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93,
421e438.
Sindhu, S., Nehra, V., Luthra, S., 2017. Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms
deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: case study of India. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 73, 496e511.
Smaliukiene, R., Monni, S., 2020. Social Responsibility, Social Marketing Role, and
Societal Attitudes Energy Transformation towards Sustainability. Elsevier,
pp. 289e308.
Solangi, Y.A., Shah, S.A.A., Zameer, H., Ikram, M., Saracoglu, B.O., 2019. Assessing the
solar PV power project site selection in Pakistan: based on AHP-fuzzy VIKOR
approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (29), 30286e30302.
Suh, J., Brownson, J.R., 2016. Solar farm suitability using geographic information
19
system fuzzy sets and analytic hierarchy processes: case study of Ulleung Is-
land, Korea. Energies 9 (8), 648.
Sultan, H.M., Kuznetsov, O.N., Diab, A.A.Z., 2018. Site selection of large-scale grid-
connected solar PV system in Egypt. In: Paper Presented at the Young Re-
searchers in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EIConRus), 2018 IEEE Con-
ference of Russian.
Sun, Y.-w., Hof, A., Wang, R., Liu, J., Lin, Y.-j., Yang, D.-w., 2013. GIS-based approach
for potential analysis of solar PV generation at the regional scale: a case study of
Fujian Province. Energy Pol. 58, 248e259.
Tavana, M., Arteaga, F.J.S., Mohammadi, S., Alimohammadi, M., 2017. A fuzzy multi-
criteria spatial decision support system for solar farm location planning. Energy
strategy reviews 18, 93e105.
Uyan, M., 2013. GIS-based solar farms site selection using analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) in Karapinar region, Konya/Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28, 11e17.
Vafaeipour, M., Zolfani, S.H., Varzandeh, M.H.M., Derakhti, A., Eshkalag, M.K., 2014.
Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: new
application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Energy
Convers. Manag. 86, 653e663.
Wang, C.-N., Nguyen, V.T., Thai, H.T.N., Duong, D.H., 2018. Multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) approaches for solar power plant location selection in Viet
Nam. Energies 11 (6), 1504.
Wu, Y., Zhang, B., Wu, C., Zhang, T., Liu, F., 2019. Optimal site selection for parabolic
trough concentrating solar power plant using extended PROMETHEE method: a
case in China. Renew. Energy 143, 1910e1927.
Wu, Y., Zhang, B., Xu, C., Li, L., 2018. Site selection decision framework using fuzzy
ANP-VIKOR for large commercial rooftop PV system based on sustainability
perspective. Sustain. Cities Soc. 40, 454e470.
Yap, J.Y.L., Ho, C.C., Ting, C.-Y., 2019. A systematic review of the applications of multi-
criteria decision-making methods in site selection problems. Built. Environ.
Proj. Asset. Manag. 9 (4), 548e563.
Yun-na, W., Yi-sheng, Y., Tian-tian, F., Li-na, K., Wei, L., Luo-jie, F., 2013. Macro-site
selection of wind/solar hybrid power station based on Ideal Matter-Element
Model. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 50, 76e84.
Yunna, W., Geng, S., 2014. Multi-criteria decision making on selection of solarewind
hybrid power station location: a case of China. Energy Convers. Manag. 81,
527e533.
Zhang, S.-f., Liu, S.-y., Zhai, R.-h., 2011. An extended GRA method for MCDM with
interval-valued triangular fuzzy assessments and unknown weights. Comput.
Ind. Eng. 61 (4), 1336e1341.
Zheng, C.W., Li, C.Y., Pan, J., Liu, M.Y., Xia, L.L., 2016. An overview of global ocean
wind energy resource evaluations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 1240e1251.
Zhou, J., Wu, Y., Wu, C., He, F., Zhang, B., Liu, F., 2020. A geographical information
system based multi-criteria decision-making approach for location analysis and
evaluation of urban photovoltaic charging station: a case study in Beijing. En-
ergy Convers. Manag. 205, 112340.
Zoghi, M., Ehsani, A.H., Sadat, M., javad Amiri, M., Karimi, S., 2017. Optimization
solar site selection by fuzzy logic model and weighted linear combination
method in arid and semi-arid region: a case study Isfahan-Iran. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 68, 986e996.