See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323150250

Investigation of wind farm location planning by considering budget

constraints

Article  in  International Journal of Sustainable Energy · February 2018

DOI: 10.1080/14786451.2018.1437160

CITATIONS READS

25 430

4 authors, including:

Reza Lotfi A. Mostafaeipour

Yazd University Yazd University
22 PUBLICATIONS   185 CITATIONS    147 PUBLICATIONS   3,824 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nooshin Mardani
Islamic Azad University,Takestan Branch, Iran, Takestan
10 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable and Renewable Energy View project

Resilience and Sustainable Closed-loop supply chain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Lotfi on 13 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Sustainable Energy

ISSN: 1478-6451 (Print) 1478-646X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gsol20

Investigation of wind farm location planning by

considering budget constraints

Reza Lotfi, Ali Mostafaeipour, Nooshin Mardani & Shadi Mardani

To cite this article: Reza Lotfi, Ali Mostafaeipour, Nooshin Mardani & Shadi Mardani (2018):
Investigation of wind farm location planning by considering budget constraints, International Journal
of Sustainable Energy, DOI: 10.1080/14786451.2018.1437160

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2018.1437160

Published online: 13 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gsol20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2018.1437160

Investigation of wind farm location planning by considering

budget constraints
Reza Lotfia, Ali Mostafaeipoura, Nooshin Mardanib and Shadi Mardanic
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran; bDepartment of Environment, College of
Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran; cDepartment of Environment and Energy, Science and Research
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The growing awareness about the adverse effects of fossil fuels and the Received 27 June 2017
ensuing pollution has encouraged and promoted the use of renewable Accepted 30 January 2018
energies throughout the world. This in turn has encouraged
KEYWORDS
governments and investors to show more interest in generation of Renewable energy; location
renewable energy through construction of facilities such as wind farms. planning; fuzzy TOPSIS; fuzzy
The novelty of this research work is the budget constraints linear programming;
consideration for the first time in wind energy projects. This work is resource constrained
done for the Khorasan provinces of Iran. This study is based on regional
and municipal data pertaining to the year 2016, and uses the fuzzy
Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) method to deal with the uncertainty of the data. The fuzzy
TOPSIS method is used to evaluate and rank the candidate cities, and
the results are then used to develop a budget-constrained model by
fuzzy linear programming with the Maxmin objective function. The
resulting mathematical model is optimised with GAMS software. The
modelling results show that in the presence of budget constraints, of 10
Khorasan cities considered as candidate locations, Afriz, Rudab, and
Fadashk exhibit the best conditions for the construction of wind farms.

Nomenclature
Sets
I Set of evaluation options
J Set of evaluation indices
Definition of parameters
A∗ Positive ideal in column j of matrix Ṽ
A− Negative ideal in column j of matrix Ṽ
aij The lower limit of the fuzzy number related to the element ij of the decision matrix D̃
a− j Minimum value of aij related to column j
B̃ The total budget for projects
bij The middle point of the fuzzy number related to the element ij of the decision matrix D̃
cij The upper limit of the fuzzy number related to the element ij of the decision matrix D̃
c∗j Maximum value of cij related to column j
Cli The ranking criteria of the ith option
D̃ Decision matrix
d̃ij Element ij of the decision matrix
d(., .) Distance function of two options
f̃ ij The project cost at the ith option
m The number of evaluation options |I|
n The number of evaluation indices |J|

CONTACT Nooshin Mardani n.mardani@tiau.ac.ir

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. LOTFI ET AL.

P The minimum required number of projects

R̃ Normalised version of the decision matrix D̃
r̃ ∗ij Positive ideal element ij of the decision matrix D̃
r̃ −ij Negative ideal element ij of the decision matrix D̃
S∗i Distance of each option from the positive ideal ṽ∗j
Si −
Distance of each option from the negative ideal ṽ− j
Ṽ Weighted normalised matrix
ṽij Fuzzy element ij of the weighted normalised matrix
ṽ∗j The maximum value in the third column of ṽij
ṽ− j The minimum value in the first column of ṽij
W̃ Weight matrix related to indices
w̃j Element j of the weight matrix
w j1 Lower limit of the fuzzy number related to column j of the weight matrix W̃
w j2 Middle point of the fuzzy number related to column j of the weight matrix W̃
w j3 Upper limit of the fuzzy number related to column j of the weight matrix W̃
M A large positive number
Decision variables
xi is 1 if a project is to be constructed at the ith location, and is zero otherwise
Z The objective function of fuzzy linear programming problem

1. Introduction
The problems associated with use of fossil fuels, most notably the irreplaceability of their supplies
and their contribution to environmental problems, have led to a worldwide shift of focus to alterna-
tive resources (Miskelly and Quirk 2009; Sánchez-Lozano, García-Cascales, and Lamata 2016).
Renewable energies can be harnessed from natural sources such as solar, wind, biomass, geother-
mal, and tide (San Cristóbal 2012b). The current trend of the use of fossil fuels and their consequent
pollution has led to increasing desire of communities to use renewable energies. Recent years have
seen more extensive use of clean energies so as to counter the environmental pollution caused by
fossil fuels (Sameie and Arvan 2015). This trend has triggered a steady growth in the use of renewable
energy, and one of the energy sectors that has shown a good growth is wind energy, and this growth
has in turn led to increased investment of governments and institutions (Yeh and Huang 2014).
Being a clean, safe, affordable, and widely and naturally available energy source, wind power has
become an integral part of many countries’ energy supply strategies. Such strategies rely on effective
investments on the potent resources, and this can only be done by evaluation of candidate sites in
terms of tangible and intangible and sometimes conflicting criteria. The effectiveness of wind
power-reliant strategies for large-scale energy production is currently a globally accepted fact
(Park and Law 2015).
In recent years, aptness of candidate sites has been evaluated by a variety of approaches such as
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods (Aras, Erdoğmuş, and Koç 2004; Lee, Chen, and
Kang 2009; Choudhary and Shankar 2012) and mathematical modelling via linear programming
(Arnette and Zobel 2012; San Cristóbal 2012a). In this study, a hybrid Fuzzy Technique for Order
of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and resource-constrained Fuzzy Linear Pro-
gramming (FLP) approach for wind farm location planning is investigated. This study also proposes
a solution for selecting locations (Lotfi, Mehrjerdi, and Mardani 2017) with respect to budget con-
straints for the first time which is the major contribution. This study uses the fuzzy TOPSIS method
to deal with the uncertainty of the data. The goal of the fuzzy TOPSIS method proposed in this study
is to rank the available options with respect to defined criteria in a fuzzy and imprecise environment.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the recent literature on wind
farm location; Section 3 describes the geography of the evaluated area; Section 4 discusses the pro-
posed methodology and algorithm, which is a combination of fuzzy TOPSIS and FLP; Section 5 pre-
sents the procedure and results of analyses conducted on 10 cities to evaluate their suitability as the
site of wind farms; and Section 6 presents the conclusions.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 3

2. Literature review
Facility location discusses the construction of facilities in suitable sites, i.e. those that exhibit the best
indices and conditions.

2.1. PROMETHEE method

In a research by Goumas and Lygerou (2000) the Preference Ranking Organization METHod
for Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE) method was developed and used with fuzzy
entries for locating the geothermal facility. This approach provided a more realistic and
reliable method for solution of ranking problems, as compared to previous approaches (also
see Tsoutsos et al. 2009).

2.2. ELECTRE method

Beccali, Cellura, and Mistretta (2003) used the ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELEC-
TRE) method for choosing the proper renewable energy technology in the island of Sardinia and
proposed three scenarios as the best choices; scenario one focused on environmental effects, scenario
two focused on economic and social impacts, and scenario three focused on energy saving strategy
and energy production systems.

2.3. AHP and ANP method

Aras, Erdoğmuş, and Koç (2004) used the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) decision-making
method to choose the most suitable location for construction of wind observation stations in univer-
sity grounds, and reported the most important factors in evaluation of topography and infrastructure
information (also see Lee, Chen, and Kang 2009; Choudhary and Shankar 2012; Zhang et al. 2015;
Höfer et al. 2016)
Yeh and Huang (2014) used the hybrid Goal/Question/Metric-Decision Making Trial and
Evaluation Laboratory-Analytic Network Process (GQM-DEMATEL-ANP) method to weight
the safety, quality, profitability, social impacts, environmental impacts, and law and policy indi-
ces in order to identify the best energy source (also see Atmaca and Basar 2012; Aragonés-Beltrán
et al. 2014).

2.4. VIKOR method

San Cristóbal (2011) used the VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje
(VIKOR) method to locate the sites with renewable potential for the Spain government; he
used AHP to weight indices with respect to each other, and concluded that geothermal energy
is the best option in the study area (also see Kaya and Kahraman 2010; Saeedpoor and Vafa-
darnikjoo 2015).

2.5. GIS and MCDM method

From 2000 onwards, geographic information system (GIS) found growing application in renew-
able energy location and made major contributions to site location in vast geographical regions
(see Kahraman, Kaya, and Cebi 2009; Simao, Densham, and Haklay 2009; Omitaomu et al.
2012; Gorsevski et al. 2013; Latinopoulos and Kechagia 2015; Cradden et al. 2016; Noorollahi,
Yousefi, and Mohammadi 2016; Sánchez-Lozano, García-Cascales, and Lamata 2016; Shaheen
and Khan 2016).
4 R. LOTFI ET AL.

2.6. COPRAS method

Chatterjee and Bose (2013) however used a combination of group decision-making and fuzzy Com-
plex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) method as a strategic decision-making approach to locate
the best site for a wind farm (also see Yazdani-Chamzini et al. 2013).

2.7. Operation research method

Arnette and Zobel (2012) used a multi-objective planning method for location of solar and wind
farms in southern US in the mountainous regions of Apalachin; objective functions of their method
sought to minimise the project cost and the greenhouse gas emission to ultimately determine the
optimum number of solar and wind farms by the use of Pareto front (also see San Cristóbal 2012a).
Daim, Kayakutlu, and Cowan (2010) used fuzzy goal programming to assess a scenario of 25%
increase in demand for renewable power by 2025 (Also see Jinturkar and Deshmukh 2011; Jones
and Wall 2016). Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is another method with extensive use in ranking
and selecting the most proper locations (also see Sameie and Arvan 2015).
Table 1 shows a classification of literature based on the used methods. But given the current
deficiencies of the literature, a solution for the selection of specific locations in the presence of budget
constraints is yet to be proposed. Also, given that TOPSIS and FLP are the most common methods of
decision support systems and considering the lack of due attention to these methods in the literature,
these methods were selected to reach the research objective.

3. Study area
The territorial changes enacted by the Iran government divided the Khorasan province into three
provinces of North Khorasan, Razavi Khorasan, and South Khorasan.
Figure 1 illustrates the process of wind farm location with 10 cities including: Esfarayen and Boj-
nurd from North Khorasan province, cities of Davarzan, Sarakhs, Ghadamgah, Khaf, and Rud Ab
from Razavi Khorasan province, and cities of Afriz, Fadeshk, and Nehbandan from South Khorasan
province. Among all cities in Khorasan provinces, these cities exhibit geographical and climatic con-
ditions more suited for the construction of wind farms and integrated into power grids. The next
section will discuss the methodology used for evaluation, prioritisation, and selection of the best
locations.

4. Methodology
Of all methodologies discussed in literature review, none had proposed a solution for selecting
locations with respect to budget constraints; the methodology used in this paper therefore aims to
cover this issue. Because of uncertainty in some parts of information, authors first evaluate the
locations by the fuzzy TOPSIS decision-making method (explained in Section 4.1) and then use
FLP (explained in Section 4.2) to rank the locations with the help of a Maxmin objective function
and a budget constraint. Figure 2 illustrates the procedure of the proposed methodology.

4.1. Fuzzy TOPSIS technique

The problems of MCDM are applied in many domains, such as social, medical Sciences, economics,
etc. The TOPSIS is an MCDM method that was first developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981). TOPSIS
compares a set of alternatives or options by identifying weights for each criterion, normalising scores
for each criterion and calculating the distance between each alternative and the ideal alternative,
which is the best score in each criterion. In practice, TOPSIS has been successfully applied to
solve the selection and evaluation problems with a finite number of alternatives because it is easy
Table 1. Classification of literature based on the used methods.
Sources GMCDM Goal Data Fuzzy
\methodology Fuzzy GIS PROMETHEE ELECTRE AHP SAW VIKOR +WLC COPRAS DEMATEL ANP MOLP programming DEA mining Integral TOPSIS FLP
Goumas and 1 1
Lygerou (2000)
Beccali, Cellura, 1
and Mistretta
(2003)
Aras, Erdoğmuş, 1
and Koç (2004)
Tsoutsos et al. 1
(2009)
Lee, Chen, and 1
Kang (2009)
Simao, Densham, 1 1
and Haklay
(2009)
Kahraman, Kaya, 1 1
and Cebi (2009)
Kaya and 1 1 1
Kahraman

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

(2010)
Daim, Kayakutlu, 1 1
and Cowan
(2010)
Atmaca and Basar 1 1
(2012)
San Cristóbal 1 1
(2011)
Jinturkar and 1 1
Deshmukh
(2011)
Arnette and Zobel 1
(2012)
Choudhary and 1 1 1
Shankar (2012)
Omitaomu et al. 1 1
(2012)
San Cristóbal 1
(2012a)

(Continued )

5
 6
Table 1. Continued.

R. LOTFI ET AL.
Sources GMCDM Goal Data Fuzzy
\methodology Fuzzy GIS PROMETHEE ELECTRE AHP SAW VIKOR +WLC COPRAS DEMATEL ANP MOLP programming DEA mining Integral TOPSIS FLP
Gorsevski et al. 1 1
(2013)
Chatterjee and 1 1
Bose (2013)
Yazdani-Chamzini 1 1
et al. (2013)
Yeh and Huang 1 1
(2014)
Aragonés-Beltrán 1
et al. (2014)
Jones and Wall 1
(2016)
Sameie and Arvan 1
(2015)
Zhang et al. (2015) 1 1
Latinopoulos and 1 1 1
Kechagia (2015)
Watson and 1 1
Hudson (2015)
Cradden et al. 1 1
(2016)
Shaheen and Khan 1
(2016)
Sánchez-Lozano, 1 1
García-Cascales,
and Lamata
(2016)
Noorollahi, 1 1
Yousefi, and
Mohammadi
(2016)
Höfer et al. (2016) 1 1
Total 10 8 2 1 15 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 0
Current research 1 1 1
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 7

Figure 1. Potential locations of wind farms.

to understand and implement. So, Fuzzy TOPSIS is a common and suitable tool for ranking wind
farm location in uncertainty conditions.
Figure 3 illustrates the overview of fuzzy TOPSIS steps (Chen 2000). It shows a systematic
approach for extending the TOPSIS to the fuzzy environment for decision-making under the con-
ditions of the specific problem addressed in this study. The basic steps of the proposed method
are shown as:
Step 1. Assume the decision matrix D̃, shown in Equation (1) with m being the number of
options and n being the number of indices, wherein members (d̃ ij ) are fuzzy triangular numbers
(aij , bij , cij ) shown in Equation (2) and represent the result of evaluation of alternative i with respect
to criterion j.

C1 C2 Cj Cn
⎡ ⎤
A1 d̃11 d̃ 12 d̃1j d̃ 1n
D̃ = [d̃ij ]m×n = A2 ⎢ . . . . ⎥
⎢ ⎥, (1)
Ai ⎣ . . . . ⎦
Am d̃ m1 d̃m2 d̃ mj d̃mn

d̃ij = (aij , bij , cij ). (2)

Step 2. In Equation (3), the decision matrix D̃ is rewritten as the linear normalised matrix R̃,
where each cost element (r̃ −
ij ) is calculated through the linear normalising expressed as Equation
(6) and each profit element (r̃∗ij ) is calculated from Equation (7) (Papapostolou, Karakosta, and Dou-
kas 2016).

C1 C2 Cj Cn
⎡ ⎤
A1 r̃ 11 r̃ 12 r̃1j r̃ 1n
R̃ = [r̃ ij ]m×n = A2 ⎢ . . . . ⎥
⎢ ⎥, (3)
Ai ⎣ . . . . ⎦
Am r̃m1 r̃ m2 r̃ mj r̃mn

a−
j = min (aij ) ∀ i, (4)

c∗j = max (cij ) ∀ i, (5)

8 R. LOTFI ET AL.

Figure 2. The research methodology.


a− a− a−
r̃ −
j j j
ij = , , ∀ i, jz, (6)
cij bij aij


aij bij cij
r̃ ∗ij = ∗, ∗, ∗ ∀i, j. (7)
cj cj cj

Step 3.
C1 C2 Cj Cn
W̃ = [w̃j ]1×n =  , (8)
w̃1 w̃2 w̃j w̃n

w̃j = (wj1 , wj2 , wj3 ). (9)

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 9

Figure 3. Overview of fuzzy TOPSIS steps.

Step 4. The weighted normalised matrix Ṽ shown in Equation (10) results from multiplication of
normalised matrix R̃ by weight matrix W̃, and profit and cost elements are acquired from Equations
(11) and (12) (Papapostolou, Karakosta, and Doukas 2016).
C1 C2 Cj Cn
⎡ ⎤
A1 ṽ11 ṽ12 ṽ1j ṽ1n
Ṽ = [ṽij ]m×n = A2 ⎢ . . . . ⎥
⎢ ⎥, (10)
Ai ⎣ . . . . ⎦
Am ṽm1 ṽm2 ṽmj ṽmn


aij bij cij
ṽij = r̃ ij ∗w̃j = ∗ , ∗ , ∗ ∗(wj1 , wj2 , wj3 )
cj cj cj

 (11)
aij bij cij
= ∗ ∗wj1 , ∗ ∗wj2 , ∗ ∗wj3 ,
cj cj cj

a−
j a−
j a−
j
ṽij = r̃ij ∗w̃j = , , ∗(w j1 , w j2 , w j3 )
cij bij aij
 − (12)
aj a−
j a−j
= ∗w j1 , ∗w j2 , ∗w j3 .
cij bij aij

Step 5. Equation (13) shows the formula of fuzzy positive ideal A∗ and Equation (14) shows that of
fuzzy negative ideal A− . As Equation (15) shows, members of set A∗ , i.e. the fuzzy positive ideals, are
the maximum values of the elements of weighted normalised matrix Ṽ; likewise as Equation (16)
shows, members of set A− are the minimum values of the elements of weighted normalised matrix V
(Chen 2000).
A∗ = {ṽ∗1 , ṽ∗2 , . . . , ṽ∗n }, (13)

A− = {ṽ− − −
1 , ṽ 2 , . . . , ṽ n }, (14)

ṽ∗j = max (ṽij3 ) ∀ i, j, (15)

ṽ−
j = min (ṽ ij1 ) ∀ i, j. (16)
10 R. LOTFI ET AL.

Step 6. The sum of distances of each option from positive ideal solution A∗ and negative ideal
solution A− is calculated from respectively Equations (17) and (18); the distance between two
fuzzy numbers is calculated using the following formula (Papapostolou, Karakosta, and Doukas
2016).

n
S∗i = d(ṽij , ṽ∗j ) ∀ i, (17)
j=1


n
S−
i = d(ṽij , ṽ−
j ) ∀ i. (18)
j=1

The distance between two fuzzy numbers d(., .) is the Euclidean distance that, when
M̃ 1 = (a1 , b1 , c1 ) and M̃ 2 = (a2 , b2 , c2 ) are two triangular fuzzy numbers, can be obtained by
Equation (19) (Chen 2000).

d(M̃ 1 , M̃ 2 ) = 13[(a1 − a2 )2 + (b1 − b2 )2 + (c1 − c2 )2 ]. (19)

Step 7. In the end, after calculating the distance of each option from positive and negative
ideal solutions, the Cli index expressed as Equation (20) or the distance from negative ideal
+
S− −
i divided by the sum of distances from positive and negative ideals Si + Si is calculated for
every single option.
S−
Cli = i
. (20)
S+
i + S−
i

Options are then ranked based on their Cli values; with options having a higher Cli considered as
higher priorities (Chen 2000).
Advantages of this method: it can measure the distance of the alternative forms of the ideal sol-
ution; it can obtain the result which is closest to the ideal solution; it is easy to use and is understand-
able. Disadvantages of this method: normalisation is required to solve multi-dimensional problems;
it cannot check the consistency (Yunna and Geng 2014).

4.2. The proposed model (FLP)

The aim of this study is to determine the suitability of different cities for the construction of wind
farms in the presence of limitations set by government and investors. After assessing the locations
by fuzzy TOPSIS MCDM method, a FLP model with Maxmin objective function is used to prioritise
the locations with respect to defined constraints and guarantee not to go beyond bugdets. The budget
to be allocated during the planning period may vary within the limits set by lower and upper bounds,
so this parameter has been defined with fuzzy logic:
Max min (Z) = {Cli ((1 − M)xi + M)}. (21)
ST:

m
f˜ ij xi ≤ B̃ ∃j [ J, (22)
i=1


m
xi ≥ P, (23)
i=1

xi = {0, 1} and integer. (24)

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 11

Equation (21) represents the model’s objective function. The objective of the model is to select the
sites whose lowest ranking is maximum (M is a large positive number). Equation (22) represents the
fuzzy form of budget constraint applied on selection of projects. Equation (23) represents the mini-
mum required number of wind farms according to decision-maker power (i.e. government or inves-
tor). Equation (24) is the decision variable, which becomes 1 whenever the model decides that the
assessed location is suitable for the project.
A common method of FLP (Ezzati, Khorram, and Enayati 2015) is used to linearise the constraint
of Equation (22), transforming the above model to its linear counterpart.

m
(fij1 , fij2 , fij3 )xi ≤ (b1 , b2 , b3 ) ∃j [ J, (25)
i=1


m
fij2 xi ≤ b2 ∃j [ J, (26)
i=1


m
(fij1 − fij2 )xi ≤ b1 − b2 ∃j [ J, (27)
i=1


m
(fij1 + fij3 )xi ≤ b1 + b3 ∃j [ J. (28)
i=1

Equation (25) is the general form of fuzzy constraint; Equation (26) expresses that the sum of
middle points of costs should be less than that of the available budget; Equation (27) states that
the difference between the lower and upper limits of the costs should be less than that of the differ-
ence between the lower and upper budgets; and Equation (28) expresses that the sum of the lower
and upper limits of costs should be less than that of the sum of the lower and upper budgets (Kazemi,
Ehsani, and Glock 2014).

5. Discussion
5.1. Determining indices (criterion)
The potential of candidate location can be evaluated by several different indices, and after
reviewing the literature this study used the wind speed at the height of 40 m (in metres per
second), distance from the distribution network (in metres), distance from the road network
(in metres), CO2 pollution (in tonnes), the frequency of natural disasters (the count), topogra-
phy of the area, the price of land (in dollars), the cost of projects (Lotfi et al. 2017) (in thou-
sand dollars), and the effect of the grid connection as evaluation indices in an actual wind farm
planning.
Table 2 shows the evaluation indices used in this study for a wind farm in Iran and
usable for government, their description, the manner in which they were modelled, and
the references according to which this modelling was done. The technical, environmental,
or economic aspect of each index is specified; the technical aspect is related to installation
and operation of turbines, the economic aspect is related to direct and indirect costs, and
the environmental aspect is related to environmental conditions affecting the performance
of turbines (e.g. wind speed).

5.2. Decision matrix and calculation

Table 3 illustrates 10 cities of the Khorasan province that were selected by government, based
on the mentioned evaluation indices, as the candidate sites for the construction of wind farms
12 R. LOTFI ET AL.

Table 2. Wind farm construction evaluation indices.

Objective
Index (criterion) Type function Reference
Wind speed at the height of 40 m Technical, Maximisation Watson and Hudson (2015); Noorollahi, Yousefi, and
(in metres per second) environmental Mohammadi (2016); Gorsevski et al. (2013)
Distance from distribution Technical Minimisation Watson and Hudson (2015); Noorollahi, Yousefi, and
network (in metres) Mohammadi (2016)
Distance from road network (in Technical Minimisation Noorollahi, Yousefi, and Mohammadi (2016);
metres) Gorsevski et al. (2013)
CO2 pollution (in tonnes) Technical, Minimisation Tsoutsos et al. (2009); San Cristóbal (2012a); Kaya
environmental and Kahraman (2010); Gorsevski et al. (2013)
Frequency of natural disasters Technical, Minimisation Sameie and Arvan (2015); Yeh and Huang (2014)
(the count) environmental
Topography Technical, Maximisation Sameie and Arvan (2015); Noorollahi, Yousefi, and
environmental Mohammadi (2016)
Land price (in dollars) Economic Minimisation Sameie and Arvan (2015)
Project cost (in thousand dollars) Economic Minimisation Tsoutsos et al. (2009); McWilliam, van Kooten, and
(
fij ) Crawford (2012)
Grid condition Technical Maximisation Hansen et al. (2009)

in Figure 1. These cities were selected by politicians, because they are involved in decision-mak-
ing. In this table, values of all figure indices are expressed by politicians and experts as triangu-
lar fuzzy numbers because of uncertainty of data (Lotfi and Amin Nayeri, 2016). Other
information presented in this table is based on the data provided by Arabi (2016) and Iran’s
National Renewable Energy Organization (SUNA) (Renewable Energies Organization of Iran
2016). Next, the fuzzy TOPSIS method expressed in Equations (1)–(20) was used to evaluate
the candidate sites.
+
According to Equations (17), (18), and (20), Cli = S− −
i /(Si + Si )which means to obtain the
−
index Cli , the distance from the negative ideal Si needs to be divided by the sum of distances
from negative and positive ideals, i.e. S+ −
i + Si . Table 4 shows the values calculated for the index Cli
(Chen 2000).
Figure 4 illustrates the ranking of options based on the index Cli . As can be seen, Afriz from South
Khorasan, Rudab from Razavi Khorasan, and Fadashk again from South Khorasan hold the top three
ranks.
After calculating the rankings by fuzzy TOPSIS, at least three wind farms (P = 3) needed to be
selected and launched with the available budget dollars (about 4 million dollars or
B̃ = (3900, 4000, 4100). As a result, the proposed model expressed in Equations (21)–(28) was
used to rewrite the problem model based on the index ‘Project cost’ specified in Table 3.

Max min(Z) ={0.17((− M + 1)x1 + M), 0.42((− M + 1)x2

+ M), 0.31((− M + 1)x3 + M), 0.24((− M + 1)x4
+ M), 0.16((− M + 1)x5 + M), 0.26((− M + 1)x6 (29)
+ M), 0.54((− M + 1)x7 + M), 0.55((− M + 1)x8
+ M), 0.49((− M + 1)x9 + M), 0.18((− M + 1)x10 + M)}.

ST:

(1157, 1285, 1414)x1 + (1219, 1354, 1490)x2

+ (969, 1077, 1184)x3 + (1094, 1216, 1337)x4
+ (1282, 1424, 1566)x5 + (1032, 1146, 1261)x6 (30)
+ (907, 1007, 1108)x7 + (844, 938, 1032)x8
+ (907, 1007, 1108)x9 + (1219, 1354, 1490)x10 ≤ (3900, 4000, 4100) j = 8,
Table 3. Evaluation criteria and options for the construction of wind farms in Khorasan provinces.
Province North Khorasan Khorasan Razavi South Khorasan
Criterion (j)/city (i) Weight (w̃ j ) Esfarayan Bojnurd Davarzan Sarakhs Ghadamgah Khaf Rudab Afriz Fadashk Nehbandan
Wind speed at the height of 40 m (in metres per second) 0.20 3.93 5.00 3.77 4.32 4.73 9.74 5.58 4.88 5.70 5.27
0.21 4.37 5.56 4.19 4.80 5.25 10.82 6.20 5.42 6.33 5.86
0.24 4.81 6.12 4.61 5.28 5.78 11.90 6.82 5.96 6.96 6.45
Distance from distribution network (in metres) 0.18 1395 1686 2293 2254 1891 1401 2391 2474 2450 1546
0.19 1423 1720 2340 2300 1930 1430 2440 2524 2500 1578
0.22 1451 1754 2387 2346 1969 1459 2489 2574 2550 1610
Distance from road network (in metres) 0.16 318 246 300 181 129 123 639 708 515 221
0.16 324 251 306 185 132 125 652 722 526 225
0.19 330 256 312 189 135 128 665 736 537 230
CO2 pollution (in tonnes) 0.12 16,568 190,514 722 9247 2381 332 308 206 300 27,392
0.13 17,258 198,453 752 9632 2480 345 321 215 313 28,533

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

0.14 17,949 206,391 783 10,018 2579 359 334 223 326 29,674
Frequency of natural disasters (the count) 0.10 5.5 7.4 6.5 5.7 5.7 4.1 6.7 4.6 5.8 4.7
0.11 6.1 8.2 7.2 6.3 6.3 4.6 7.4 5.1 6.5 5.2
0.12 6.7 9.0 7.9 6.9 6.9 5.1 8.1 5.6 7.1 5.7
Topography 0.02 163 119 167 162 164 168 132 153 157 161
0.03 166 122 170 165 167 171 135 156 160 164
0.05 170 124 174 168 171 175 138 159 163 168
Land price (in dollars) 0.05 175 200 100 150 225 125 75 50 75 200
0.06 194 222 111 167 250 139 83 56 83 222
0.07 214 244 122 183 275 153 92 61 92 244
Project cost (in thousand dollars) ( 
fi8 ) 0.05 1157 1219 969 1094 1282 1032 907 844 907 1219
0.06 1285 1354 1077 1216 1424 1146 1007 938 1007 1354
0.07 1414 1490 1184 1337 1566 1261 1108 1032 1108 1490
Grida condition 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
a
When a location can be connected to a grid, grid condition of the location is equal to one in the decision matrix.

13
14 R. LOTFI ET AL.

Table 4. The index Cli and ranking item.

Esfarayan Bojnurd Davarzan Sarakhs Ghadamgah Khaf Rudab Afriz Fadashk Nehbandan
The index Cli 0.17 0.42 0.31 0.24 0.16 0.26 0.54 0.55 0.49 0.18
Rank 9 4 5 7 10 6 2 1 3 8

Figure 4. Ranking of options based on Cli .


10
xi ≥ 3, (31)
i=1

xi = {0, 1} and integer. (32)

In Equation (29), the final objective function has been called from Table 4 based on Equation (21)
and with respect to the Cli rank obtained by each option. In Equation (30), the constraint of Equation
(22) has been written with respect to the project cost presented in Table 3 and the available budget
which amounts to about 4 million dollars B̃ = (3900, 4000, 4100). In Equation (31), the constraint of
Equation (23) has been written with respect to the decision to construct at least three wind farms
(P = 3).
Max min(Z) = {0.17((− M + 1)x1 + M), 0.42((− M + 1)x2
+ M), 0.31((− M + 1)x3 + M), 0.24((− M + 1)x4
+ M), 0.16((− M + 1)x5 + M), 0.26((− M + 1)x6 (33)
+ M), 0.54((− M + 1)x7 + M), 0.55((− M + 1)x8
+ M), 0.49((− M + 1)x9 + M), 0.18((− M + 1)x10 + M)}.
ST:
(1285)x1 + (1354)x2 + (1077)x3 + (1216)x4 + (1424)x5
(34)
+ (1146)x6 + (1007)x7 + (938)x8 + (1007)x9 + (1354)x10 ≤ (4000) j = 8,

(1157 − 1285)x1 + (1219 − 1354)x2 + (969 − 1077)x3 + (1094 − 1216)x4

+ (1282 − 1424)x5 + (1032 − 1146)x6 + (907 − 1007)x7 + (844 − 938)x8 (35)
+ (907 − 1007)x9 + (1219 − 1354)x10 ≤ (3900 − 4000) j = 8,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 15

(1157 + 1414)x1 + (1219 + 1490)x2 + (969 + 1184)x3 + (1094 + 1337)x4

+ (1282 + 1566)x5 + (1032 + 1261)x6 + (907 + 1108)x7 + (844 + 1032)x8 (36)
+ (907 + 1108)x9 + (1219 + 1490)x10 ≤ (3900 + 4100) j = 8,


10
xi ≥ 3, (37)
i=1

xi = {0, 1} and integer. (38)

Finally, the common method of FLP was used to transform the problem model (Ezzati, Khorram,
and Enayati 2015), which was based on fuzzy logic, to a linear programming problem. In doing so,
Equations (25)–(28) were used to write Equations (34)–(36), thus allowing the problem to be mod-
elled and solved by a common linear programming software such as GAMS with CPLEX solver:
x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = x5 = x6 = x10 = 0, (39)

x7 = x8 = x9 = 1, (40)

Z ∗ = 0.49. (41)
Solving the above problem with the GAMS software yielded the optimal solutions expressed as
Equations (39)–(41). According to these results, given the available budget, the cities Rudab,
Afriz, and Fadashk are the most suitable sites for the construction of wind farms. In Figure 5,
locations of optimal sites are marked on the map of Figure 1. The corresponding value of objective
function is Z ∗ = 0.49, because the value related to the lowest rank among these three options, i.e. the
city of Fadashk, is 0.49.
Figure 6 shows the final Cli results and the corresponding value of objective function Z ∗ = 0.49,
which are consistent with the results of Figure 4, indicating that after considering the available bud-
get the same three cities hold the top rank and are the most suitable options.

5.3. Comparing the proposed model and the current models in the literature
The comparison of the proposed model and the other models is shown in Table 5. Once we use the
proposed model, due to consideration of the budget constraints, the model selects cities that satisfy
the budget demand, while if using other methodologies, (since they do not consider hybrid fuzzy
TOPSIS and the budget constraints), they have a different ranking method, but this is not an option
for stakeholders.
The adverse impact of using wind farm location planning by considering budget constraints is
that there is not too much adverse impact on Iran. It has a positive impact on the country, because
in the past location planning research works, the researchers did not consider the budget which is the
main criterion for this purpose. Therefore, considering their budget constraint in planning makes the
study more realistic.
There are of course some other methods introduced in the literature, such as goal programming
(Daim et al., 2010; Jinturkar and Deshmukh 2011) and multi-objective methods by Arnette and
Zobel (2012) which can be used once some modifications are applied, but they bring more complex-
ity compared to our proposed model.

6. Conclusion
Increased use of renewable energies in cities is of significant interest to both governments and investors.
The aim of this study was to determine the suitability of different cities within three Khorasan provinces
16 R. LOTFI ET AL.

Figure 5. The position of optimal sites on the map.

Figure 6. Final option selected with the help of Fuzzy linear modelling.

Table 5. Comparing the proposed model and the current models in the literature.
Methodology Constraint Esfarayan Bojnurd Davarzan Sarakhs Ghadamgah Khaf Rudab Afriz Fadashk Nehbandan
Proposed model Bugdet 9 4 5 7 10 6 2 1 3 8
fuzzy TOPSIS/FLP
Fuzzy PROMETHEE N/A 5 4 3 2 6 7 8 9 10 1
Goumas and
Lygerou (2000)
Fuzzy AHP N/A 7 8 9 10 1 5 4 3 2 6
Choudhary and
Shankar (2012)
Fuzzy VIKOR N/A 7 10 6 2 1 3 8 9 4 5
Kaya and
Kahraman (2010)

(south Khorasan, north Khorasan, and Razavi Khorasan) for the construction of grid-connected wind
farms with limited resources. But, the review of literature showed the lack of location mechanisms that
would perform the above-mentioned task with respect to budget constraints. Given that TOPSIS and
linear programming are the most common methods of decision support systems and the lack of due
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 17

attention to these methods in the literature, these methods were selected to reach the research objective.
To make the assessments on potential locations more consistent with real-world conditions, data of this
study, which pertained to the year 2016, were transformed into fuzzy state, and then fuzzy TOPSIS
MCDM method was used to evaluate the candidate sites according to eight indices and a budget con-
straint. A FLP model with the Maxmin objective function was then used to determine the locations
whose minimum rankings were maximum. The mathematical model of the assessed problem was opti-
mised with GAMS software. Table 5 illustrates that cities of Afriz, Rudab, and Fadashk were determined
as the most suitable locations for the construction of wind farms.
Developing the above model with fuzzy stochastic terms or other types of constraints, or as a
multi-objective function with other MCDM models can be fitting subjects for future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Arabi, F. 2016. “Dissertation: Implementing Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Methodology to Prioritize Wind
Turbine Locations for Khorasan, Iran.” University of Azad Naragh.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., F. Chaparro-González, J. P. Pastor-Ferrando, and A. Pla-Rubio. 2014. “An AHP (Analytic
Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Approach for the Selection
of Solar-Thermal Power Plant Investment Projects.” Energy 66: 222–238.
Aras, H., Ş Erdoğmuş, and E. Koç. 2004. “Multi-Criteria Selection for a Wind Observation Station Location Using
Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Renewable Energy 29 (8): 1383–1392.
Arnette, A., and C. W. Zobel. 2012. “An Optimization Model for Regional Renewable Energy Development.”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (7): 4606–4615.
Atmaca, E., and H. B. Basar. 2012. “Evaluation of Power Plants in Turkey Using Analytic Network Process (ANP).”
Energy 44 (1): 555–563.
Beccali, M., M. Cellura, and M. Mistretta. 2003. “Decision-Making in Energy Planning. Application of the Electre
Method at Regional Level for the Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technology.” Renewable Energy 28 (13): 2063–
2087.
Chatterjee, N., and G. Bose. 2013. “A COPRAS-F Base Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approach for Site
Selection of Wind Farm.” Decision Science Letters 2 (1): 1–10.
Chen, C. T. 2000. “Extensions of the TOPSIS for Group Decision-Making Under Fuzzy Environment.” Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 114 (1): 1–9.
Choudhary, D., and R. Shankar. 2012. “An STEEP-Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Evaluation and Selection of
Thermal Power Plant Location: A Case Study from India.” Energy 42 (1): 510–521.
Cradden, L., C. Kalogeri, I. M. Barrios, G. Galanis, D. Ingram, and G. Kallos. 2016. “Multi-Criteria Site Selection for
Offshore Renewable Energy Platforms.” Renewable Energy 87: 791–806.
Daim, T. U., G. Kayakutlu, and K. Cowan. 2010. “Developing Oregon’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Using Fuzzy Goal
Programming Model.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 59 (4): 786–793.
Ezzati, R., E. Khorram, and R. Enayati. 2015. “A New Algorithm to Solve Fully Fuzzy Linear Programming Problems
Using the MOLP Problem.” Applied Mathematical Modelling 39 (12): 3183–3193.
Gorsevski, P. V., S. C. Cathcart, G. Mirzaei, M. M. Jamali, X. Ye, and E. Gomezdelcampo. 2013. “A Group-Based
Spatial Decision Support System for Wind Farm Site Selection in Northwest Ohio.” Energy Policy 55: 374–385.
Goumas, M., and V. Lygerou. 2000. “An Extension of the PROMETHEE Method for Decision Making in Fuzzy
Environment: Ranking of Alternative Energy Exploitation Projects.” European Journal of Operational Research
123 (3): 606–613.
Hansen, A. D., N. A. Cutululis, P. Sorensen, and F. Iov. 2009. “Grid Integration Impacts on Wind Turbine Design and
Development.” In PowerTech, 2009 IEEE, 1–7. Bucharest, Romania: IEEE.
Höfer, T., Y. Sunak, H. Siddique, and R. Madlener. 2016. “Wind Farm Siting Using a Spatial Analytic Hierarchy
Process Approach: A Case Study of the Städteregion Aachen.” Applied Energy 163: 222–243.
Hwang, C. L., and K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Heidelberg: Springer.
Jinturkar, A. M., and S. S. Deshmukh. 2011. “A Fuzzy Mixed Integer Goal Programming Approach for Cooking and
Heating Energy Planning in Rural India.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (9): 11377–11381.
Jones, D. F., and G. Wall. 2016. “An Extended Goal Programming Model for Site Selection in the Offshore Wind Farm
Sector.” Annals of Operations Research 245 (1-2): 121–135.
18 R. LOTFI ET AL.

Kahraman, C., İ Kaya, and S. Cebi. 2009. “A Comparative Analysis for Multiattribute Selection among Renewable
Energy Alternatives Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Energy 34 (10):
1603–1616.
Kaya, T., and C. Kahraman. 2010. “Multicriteria Renewable Energy Planning Using an Integrated Fuzzy VIKOR &
AHP Methodology: The Case of Istanbul.” Energy 35 (6): 2517–2527.
Kazemi, N., E. Ehsani, and C. H. Glock. 2014. “Multi-Objective Supplier Selection and Order Allocation Under
Quantity Discounts with Fuzzy Goals and Fuzzy Constraints.” International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences
7 (1): 66–96.
Latinopoulos, D., and K. Kechagia. 2015. “A GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Wind Farm Site Selection. A
Regional Scale Application in Greece.” Renewable Energy 78: 550–560.
Lee, A. H., H. H. Chen, and H. Y. Kang. 2009. “Multi-Criteria Decision Making on Strategic Selection of Wind Farms.”
Renewable Energy 34 (1): 120–126.
Lotfi, R., and M. Amin Nayeri. 2016. “Multi-Objective Capacitated Facility Location with Hybrid Fuzzy Simplex and
Genetic Algorithm Approach.” Journal of Industrial Engineering Research in Production Systems 4 (7): 81–91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22084/ier.2016.1570.
Lotfi, R., Y. Z. Mehrjerdi, and N. Mardani. 2017. “A Multi-Objective and Multi-Product Advertising Billboard
Location Model with Attraction Factor Mathematical Modeling and Solutions.” International Journal of Applied
Logistics 7 (1): 64–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJAL.2017010104.
Lotfi, R., M. Nayeri, S. Sajadifar, and N. Mardani. 2017. “Determination of Start Times and Ordering Plans for Two-
Period Projects with Interdependent Demand in Project-Oriented Organizations: A Case Study on Molding
Industry.” Journal of Project Management 2 (4): 119–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2017.9.001.
McWilliam, M. K., G. C. van Kooten, and C. Crawford. 2012. “A Method for Optimizing the Location of Wind Farms.”
Renewable Energy 48: 287–299.
Miskelly, A., and T. Quirk. 2009. “Wind Farming in South East Australia.” Energy & Environment 21 (8): 1249–1255.
Noorollahi, Y., H. Yousefi, and M. Mohammadi. 2016. “Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Wind Farm Site
Selection Using GIS.” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 13: 38–50.
Omitaomu, O. A., B. R. Blevins, W. C. Jochem, G. T. Mays, R. Belles, S. W. Hadley, T. J. Harrison, B. L. Bhaduri, B. S.
Neish, and A. N. Rose. 2012. “Adapting a GIS-Based Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach for Evaluating New
Power Generating Sites.” Applied Energy 96: 292–301.
Papapostolou, A., C. Karakosta, and H. Doukas. 2016. “Analysis of Policy Scenarios for Achieving Renewable Energy
Sources Targets: A Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach.” Energy & Environment 28 (1-2): 88–109.
Park, J., and K. H. Law. 2015. “Layout Optimization for Maximizing Wind Farm Power Production Using Sequential
Convex Programming.” Applied Energy 151: 320–334.
Renewable Energies Organization of Iran. 2016. www.suna.org.ir/en/executive/windandwaves.
Saeedpoor, M., and A. Vafadarnikjoo. 2015. “Corrigendum to ‘Multicriteria Renewable Energy Planning Using an
Integrated Fuzzy VIKOR & AHP Methodology: The Case of Istanbul’ [Energy 35 (6)(2010) 2517–2527].” Energy
79: 536–537.
Sameie, H., and M. Arvan. 2015. “A Simulation-Based Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Model to Evaluate Wind
Plants Locations.” Decision Science Letters 4 (2): 165–180.
Sánchez-Lozano, J. M., M. S. García-Cascales, and M. T. Lamata. 2016. “GIS-Based Onshore Wind Farm Site Selection
Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. Evaluating the Case of Southeastern Spain.” Applied Energy
171: 86–102.
San Cristóbal, J. R. 2011. “Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in the Selection of a Renewable Energy Project in Spain: The
Vikor Method.” Renewable Energy 36 (2): 498–502.
San Cristóbal, J. R. 2012a. “A Goal Programming Model for the Optimal Mix and Location of Renewable Energy Plants
in the North of Spain.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (7): 4461–4464.
San Cristóbal, J. R. 2012b. Multi Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry. Berlin: Springer.
Shaheen, M., and M. Z. Khan. 2016. “A Method of Data Mining for Selection of Site for Wind Turbines.” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55: 1225–1233.
Simao, A., P. J. Densham, and M. M. Haklay. 2009. “Web-Based GIS for Collaborative Planning and Public
Participation: An Application to the Strategic Planning of Wind Farm Sites.” Journal of Environmental
Management 90 (6): 2027–2040.
Tsoutsos, T., M. Drandaki, N. Frantzeskaki, E. Iosifidis, and I. Kiosses. 2009. “Sustainable Energy Planning by Using
Multi-Criteria Analysis Application in the Island of Crete.” Energy Policy 37 (5): 1587–1600.
Watson, J. J., and M. D. Hudson. 2015. “Regional Scale Wind Farm and Solar Farm Suitability Assessment Using GIS-
Assisted Multi-Criteria Evaluation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 138: 20–31.
Yazdani-Chamzini, A., M. M. Fouladgar, E. K. Zavadskas, and S. H. H. Moini. 2013. “Selecting the Optimal Renewable
Energy Using Multi Criteria Decision Making.” Journal of Business Economics and Management 14 (5): 957–978.
Yeh, T. M., and Y. L. Huang. 2014. “Factors in Determining Wind Farm Location: Integrating GQM, Fuzzy
DEMATEL, and ANP.” Renewable Energy 66: 159–169.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 19

Yunna, W., and S. Geng. 2014. “Multi-Criteria Decision Making on Selection of Solar–Wind Hybrid Power Station
Location: A Case of China.” Energy Conversion and Management 81: 527–533.
Zhang, L., P. Zhou, S. Newton, J. X. Fang, D. Q. Zhou, and L. P. Zhang. 2015. “Evaluating Clean Energy Alternatives for
Jiangsu, China: An Improved Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method.” Energy 90: 953–964.

View publication stats