Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Multi-criteria evaluation of cooking energy

alternatives for promoting parabolic solar
cooker in India
S.D. Pohekar a,
, M. Ramachandran b
a
Center for Renewable Energy and Environment Development (CREED), Birla Institute of Technology
and Science (BITS), Pilani 333 031, India
b
Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani–Dubai Campus, P.O. Box 500022 Knowledge
Village, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Received 6 September 2003; accepted 28 December 2003

Abstract

The policy formulation for cooking energy substitution by renewables is addressed in

multi-criteria context. A survey is conducted to know the perceptions of different decision
making groups on present dissemination of various cooking energy alternatives in India.
Nine cooking energy alternatives are evaluated on 30 different criteria comprising of techni-
cal, economic, environmental/social, behavioral and commercial issues. Preference Ranking
Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), a multi-criteria
decision making method of outranking nature is used to rank the alternatives. It is found
that liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stove is the most preferred device, followed by kerosene
stove, solar box cooker and parabolic solar cooker (PSC) in that order. A sensitivity analysis
is also carried out for identifying potential areas for improvement for PSC. On the basis of
results, strategies for promoting wide spread use of PSC are formulated.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multi-criteria decision making; Cooking energy; PROMETHEE; Sensitivity analysis; Para-
bolic solar cooker

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-1596-245783; fax: +91-1596-244183.
E-mail address: sdp@bits-pilani.ac.in (S.D. Pohekar).

0960-1481/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2003.12.017
1450 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460

1. Introduction

Domestic sector consumes 45% of total primary energy in India. A large share of
which is met by non-commercial fuels such as fuel-wood, dung, etc. The energy
requirements for cooking are 90% of the total domestic consumption [1]. Popu-
lation pressure has resulted in deforestation, fuel-wood shortage, increased costs of
fuels and adverse environmental effects. Many households that used to depend on
fuel-wood have shifted to modern energy carriers like liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG). Major factors contributing to these shifts are attributed to the increase in
level of urbanization, economic development, and standard of living. In India, dur-
ing last decade a decline in the share of non-commercial fuels has resulted in lower
growth rate of fuel-wood (3.7% per annum). LPG and electricity have achieved
growth rates of 35.8% and 23.8%, respectively [2]. There are various alternatives
available for cooking using both renewable and non-renewable energy. Any
attempt to shift towards better alternative requires an understanding of the factors
determining the choice. Techno-economic assessment of various cooking energy
alternatives have been reported in the literature [3,4]. Ahmad [5] has discussed the
potential factors in favor for wide dissemination of solar cookers. However, a com-
prehensive assessment on technical, economic, social, behavioral and commercial
issues need to be investigated. Such an attempt may be useful for formulating
renewable energy substitution policy in cooking sector. The study presented here is
aimed at comprehensive evaluation of identified nine cooking energy alternatives
on 30 criteria including both qualitative and quantitative. A study of factors deter-
mining the better dissemination of parabolic solar cooker (PSC) in India is pre-
sented.

2. Methodology

In order to identify pitfalls in the dissemination of PSC to the masses, there is a

need to compare them with other competing technologies. To this effect various
criteria and alternatives are identified. Identified alternatives are assessed on these
criteria using a multi-criteria decision framework.
2.1. Selection of criteria

Acceptance studies in various parts of India [6–7], diagnostic case studies in

Gujarat, [8–10], conjoint analysis for solar cookers [11], experiences in Africa,
India and Nepal [12–14] are studied to understand the end users feedback and sim-
ultaneously identify the criteria for present planning problem.
Fuel consumption and cooking time primarily decide the selection of a cooking
energy alternative. The former is also associated with the monthly fuel cost. Both
the issues are desired to be minimum. Durability, higher quality/reliability and
ruggedness are desirable due to its implications in minimizing the maintenance
costs and requirement of spares and after sales service. Sophistication level refers
to the facility of temperature control, heat storage, etc. Even though seasonal inde-
 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460 1451

pendence and continuity of use is desirable for an alternative it may not be possible
for solar box cooker and PSC due to its dependence on sunshine requiring tracking
and biogas stoves due to scarcity of water in summer. Though slow cooking
ensures high nutrition value of food the urban lifestyle warrants faster cooking.
Higher subsidies desired by users, has resulted in poor quality of products and ser-
vices very often. Lower rate of interests and easy availability of finance have pro-
ven its usefulness in automotive market and may be replicated in domestic sector
as well. Lower emissions, less human drudgery in fuel handling and higher safety
are essential social issues in cooking energy sector. It is also observed that better
aesthetics, improvement in models, better after sales service motivates the users.
The selection of an alternative may also be decided by type and taste of food,
cleanliness of utensils. Convenience leading to ease of operation, lower dependence
on additional cooking system and lesser user training may also be considered for
evaluation. Initially the total numbers of criteria for the identified alternatives were
more than 40. Thirty criteria relevant to the present planning problem are selected
after extensive discussions with the decision makers.
Table 1 presents pay-off matrix for the present planning problem. Major areas of
assessment can be classified into technical (criteria no. 1–10), economic (criteria no.
11–15), social/environmental (criteria no. 16–18), behavioral (criteria no. 19–25),
and commercial (criteria no. 26–30). Out of the criteria identified 21 are of quali-
tative and nine are of quantitative type. Fuel consumption, cooking time, dura-
bility, size/weight/space needs and various costs involved are identified to be
quantitative in nature.
2.2. Available alternatives

Since cooking is carried out by using both renewable and non-renewable fuels a
large variety of alternatives are available in India. Traditional low cost devices like
chulhas (cook-stoves) are widely used by rural masses. However, they have very
low thermal efficiencies of 10–15% and higher emissions. With the increasing scar-
city of fuel-wood, women have to walk up to 10 km and spend 3–4 h a day for its
collection. Improved chulhas have durability of 2–4 years and require fuel-wood in
lesser quantity. However, out of 23 million improved chulhas installed in India,
only 6 million are functional. Biogas needs higher initial investment and trained
manpower for installation. Many biogas plants are non-functional due to non-
availability of water throughout the year. The problems identified for limited use
of improved chulhas and biogas stoves are operational, social and behavioral lead-
ing to non-participation of masses [15]. Kerosene stoves have good thermal
efficiency, benefits of simplicity and availability due to good market network. Due
to high costs and weak supply chain in rural India, only 1.3% of rural houses use
LPG as against 27.2% in urban [16]. There is pressure to increase the subsidy on
kerosene and LPG to further reduce the prices leading to heavy burden on overall
economy of the country. Modern alternatives such as micro-wave and electric
ovens are not affordable to masses due to high capital and operating costs and
intermittent electric supply. In view of the above problems, solar cooking can be a
Table 1 1452
Overall pay-off matrix
Alternative (no.) Chulha (1) Improved Kerosene Biogas LPG Micro-wave Electric Solar box PSC (9) Weightages
criteria chulha (2) stove (3) stove (4) stove (5) oven (6) oven (7) cooker (8)

1. Fuel consumptiona 2 1 0.5 0 0.25 2 2 0 0 7.09

2. Cooking timea 60 60 30 15 15 5 30 180 20 7.67
3. Durabilitya 1 4 15 5 20 5 5 10 20 7.93
4. Quality, reliability 2 2 8 4 10 10 6 6 6 7.54
5. Sophistication level 2 2 6 6 10 10 10 4 4 6.51
6. Size/weight/space needsa 2 1 2 50 10 5 3 5 15 6.64
7. Ruggedness 2 2 6 6 10 8 8 8 8 6.12
8. Continuity of use 10 10 10 4 10 10 10 4 2 6.70
9. Need for tracking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 6.51
10. Nutrition value of food 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 10 8 7.41
11. Initial costa 10 50 200 5000 4000 8000 5000 2000 7000 7.41
12. Fuel cost per montha 20 10 100 0 250 200 400 0 0 5.86
13. Maintenance costa 0 0 50 200 50 200 200 50 20 5.48
14. Available subsidya 0 50 0 2000 0 0 0 500 2000 5.03
15. Rate of interest on loan 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 3 3 4.60
if anya
16. Pollution hazards 10 10 8 2 4 10 10 0 0 4.33
17. Human drudgery 10 10 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 5.92
18. Overall safety 2 2 4 10 6 2 2 10 8 8.66
19. Aesthetics 2 2 4 4 10 10 8 8 8 6.96
20. Motivation to buy 2 2 6 6 10 8 4 4 4 6.27
21. Taste of food 6 6 2 6 6 2 10 10 10 7.61
22. Cleanliness of utensils 2 2 2 8 10 10 10 10 10 7.35
23. Ease of operation 10 10 10 4 8 4 4 6 4 7.74
24. Type of dishes cooked 10 10 10 10 10 2 2 2 4 6.64
25. Need for additional 2 2 4 4 6 8 10 10 10 6.12
cooking system
26. Improvement in models 2 2 6 4 10 10 6 6 6 6.83
27. Spares and after sales 10 10 10 4 10 6 4 4 2 7.03
S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460

service
28. Distribution network 10 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 2 7.09
29. Market research 2 2 8 2 10 10 4 4 4 6.29
30. Need for user training 2 2 4 8 4 10 6 6 8 6.46
a
Quantitative criteria.
 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460 1453

sustainable energy option. Even though over 500,000 box cookers have been sold
so far, the large potential needs to be tapped [17]. Limited outreach is attributed to
awareness, costs, distribution, service network, etc. The technology has to compete
with conventional cooking energy technologies.
PSC considered for evaluation in the present text can deliver 0.6 kW of thermal
v
power with a thermal efficiency of 55–60% and stagnation temperature of 350–400 C.
The cooker is thus useful for boiling, roasting, frying, baking, etc. operations. The
cooker is user friendly, portable, convenient and can meet the needs of around 15
people [18]. Community versions of PSC with 7–9 m2 of reflector area and an average
efficiency of 25–30% are also installed in India.
2.3. Data collection and analysis

Since majority of the criteria are qualitative, the evaluation on these criteria was
planned to be identified through a survey. Separate questionnaires were designed
for evaluation of criteria and determination of weights of the criteria. Structured
questionnaires were prepared, tested, validated, modified and opinion was collected
from 30 experts though postal, e-mail and personal interactions for the above pur-
pose. Since there are wide varieties of issues ranging from technical improvements
to market research, experts were identified from groups such as educators, policy
makers, researchers and actual users covering a variety of population. Nine cook-
ing energy alternatives viz. chulha, improved chulha, kerosene stove, biogas stove,
electric oven, micro-wave oven, LPG stove, solar box cooker and PSC are eval-
uated in the present study. The experts were asked to assign importance of the cri-
terion on a 10 point qualitative linear scale (10 indicates very high and two
indicates very low). The same scale was used for assigning pay-off values for quali-
tative criteria in the present problem. Weighted average values have been com-
puted for importance of criterion using custom built software in Visual Basic
environment. Last column in the overall pay-off matrix (Table 1) indicates weighta-
ges of the criterion based on all responses.
Analysis of overall weightages shows that usefulness of the selected cooking
energy devices are governed by technical (7.01) followed by behavioral (6.96), com-
mercial (6.74) and social issues (6.30). It is also observed that economic criteria
have been given less weightages (5.68) by the evaluators. Analysis of weightages
reveal that overall safety (8.66), durability (7.93) and ease of operations (7.74) are
given due importance by the respondents. The rate of interest on loan (4.60) has
been allocated the least weightage. The respondents have neither given too high
importance to any of the criterion nor have they out rightly considered any criterion
trivial in the analysis. The total differential in the weightages accounts to be 3.60.
The analysis is carried out on the basis of overall pay-off matrix. Pay-off values
for qualitative criteria are aggregate opinion of all the respondents whereas quanti-
tative criteria are from the literature [1,3,4,18]. Since biogas stove, solar box cooker
and PSC are dependent on renewable energy, fuel consumption and fuel costs are
taken as zero. On the other hand, need for tracking is assigned zero value in pay-
off matrix for all other alternatives except solar box cooker and PSC, as energy
1454 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460

input for cooking with these alternatives is independent of the Sun’s position.
Many of the devices are not given any subsidy as these require less capital invest-
ments. The criteria like fuel consumption, cooking time, size/weight/space needs,
various costs involved, pollution hazards, human drudgery and need for additional
cooking system are desired to be minimized and are indicated by negative sign in
the pay-off matrix. The pay-off values are indicating quantity of fuel consumption
per family per day, cooking time in seconds, durability in years, various costs in
rupees. Size/weight/space need is indicating the overall bulk in kilograms whereas
rate of interest on loan is indicated in percent.
An analysis of pay-off matrix reveal the strengths of PSC as fuel consumption,
durability, nutrition value of food, fuel cost, available subsidy, pollution hazards,
human drudgery, taste of food, cleanliness of utensils, etc. The solar box cookers
have also indicated similar strengths except cooking time. LPG stove has higher
pay-off values on all the criterion except initial, fuel cost, rate of interest on loan,
distribution network. Pay-off values for chulha and improved chulha indicate
strengths in terms of continuity of use, ease of operation, type of dishes cooked,
spares and after sales service. Kerosene stoves are indicated by moderate pay-off
values for most of the criteria. Micro-wave and electric ovens are indicating
strengths for many criteria except various costs and need for user training.

2.4. Analytical framework

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods have been very widely used in
energy planning [19,20]. These are scientific analysis methods to evaluate the gain
and loss of alternatives under consideration of multiple criteria. Decision making
has to consider several conflicting objectives in view of our increasingly complex
social scenario. The traditional single criteria decision making is no longer able to
handle these problems as personal value judgment is involved. It allows the estab-
lishment of a pay-off table for evaluation of alternatives with respect to any cri-
terion through objective assessment and considers the degree of cognition.
Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PRO-
METHEE), a method of MCDM of outranking nature has been used to rank the
alternatives. PROMETHEE framework for planning of geothermal projects
[21,22], building energy management [23], water resource planning and manage-
ment [24,25] have been reported in the literature.
This technique has all the advantages of the outranking methods, combined with
ease of use and decreased complexity. It performs a pair-wise comparison of alter-
natives in order to rank them with respect to a number of criteria. Brans et al. [26]
have offered six generalized criteria functions for reference namely, usual criterion,
quasi criterion, criterion with linear preference, level criterion, criterion with linear
preference and indifference area, and Gaussian criterion. Fig. 1 shows the necessary
steps to rank all potential actions. The method uses preference function Pj ða; bÞ
which is a function of the difference dj between two alternatives for any criterion j,
i.e. dj ¼ f ða; jÞ  f ðb; jÞ, where f ða; jÞ and f ðb; jÞ are values of two alternatives
 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460 1455

Fig. 1. Flow chart for PROMETHEE.

a and b for criterion j. The indifference and preference thresholds q0 and p0 are also
defined depending upon the type of criterion function. Two alternatives are indif-
ferent for criterion j as long as dj does not exceed the indifference threshold q0 . If dj
becomes greater than p0 , there is a strict preference. Multi-criteria preference index
(MCPI), pða; bÞ a weighted average of the preference functions Pj ða; bÞ for all the
1456 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460

criteria is defined as
PJ
wj Pj ða; bÞ
j¼1
pða; bÞ ¼ PJ ð1Þ
J¼1 wj
X
/þ ðaÞ ¼ pða; bÞ ð2Þ
A
X
/ ðaÞ ¼ pðb; aÞ ð3Þ
A

/ðaÞ ¼ /þ ðaÞ  / ðaÞ ð4Þ

þ
where: wj, weight assigned to the criterion j; / ðaÞ, outranking index of a in the
alternative set A; / ðaÞ, outranked index of a in the alternative set A; /ðaÞ, net
ranking of a in the alternative set A. The value having maximum /ðaÞ is con-
sidered as the best.
a outranks b iff /ðaÞ > /ðbÞ; a is indifferent to b iff /ðaÞ ¼ /ðbÞ:

3. Results and discussion

To model decision maker’s preference realistically, it is necessary to know if

there is any indifference or there exists a strict preference between two alternatives
for each criterion. Usual criterion function is chosen for the present problem in
which even a small difference makes the alternative preferred over the other. MCPI
and ranking of alternatives is calculated by using a custom built computer code in
FORTRAN. Pay-off values and weightages of the criterion are necessary inputs.
MCPI and ranking pattern for the above nine alternatives is shown in Table 2. The
diagonal elements in the matrix are zero as alternatives are compared with same.
/þ values are obtained by adding all rows as explained in Eq. (2). / values have
been obtained by adding columns as explained in Eq. (3). Net / values have been
obtained as explained in Eq. (4). The highest net / value is considered to be the
best, whereas low / is the least preferred. In the present study, LPG stove is hav-
ing a net / value of 2.4815 is found to be the best followed by kerosene stoves
(1.0582). PSCs have net / value of 0.0681 whereas box type solar cookers have
obtained net / value of 0.4642.
The pay-off matrix and results as mentioned above reveal the areas of improve-
ment in PSC which may make it a competent and sustainable energy alternative.
An attempt has been made to check aspects which impede the dissemination of
PSC not rising to first position among the available alternatives. On the basis of
significant criteria identified for these are reduction in size/weight and space
requirements, improvements in quality and reliability, reduction in initial cost,
increase in available subsidy, better aesthetics, motivating potential buyers,
improving ease of operation, convenience and type of dishes cooked improvements
in models, spares and after sales service, distribution network, and market
research. Alternative strategies were attempted with different combinations of the
Table 2
Overall MCPI and ranking pattern
MCPI values /þ / / Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 0.000 0.073 0.230 0.304 0.287 0.431 0.393 0.431 0.392 2.5409 3.5520 1.0111 8
2 0.163 0.000 0.253 0.268 0.312 0.456 0.453 0.431 0.392 2.7297 3.4617 0.7319 7
3 0.441 0.441 0.000 0.381 0.228 0.497 0.634 0.576 0.498 3.6959 2.6377 1.0582 2
4 0.501 0.501 0.268 0.000 0.244 0.386 0.384 0.282 0.406 2.9738 3.3467 0.3729 5
5 0.478 0.478 0.516 0.576 0.000 0.512 0.680 0.547 0.578 4.3649 1.8833 2.4815 1
6 0.377 0.377 0.338 0.440 0.136 0.000 0.339 0.408 0.441 2.8562 3.2751 0.4189 6
7 0.415 0.415 0.203 0.405 0.071 0.141 0.000 0.170 0.237 2.0574 3.5945 1.5371 9
8 0.569 0.569 0.362 0.541 0.324 0.428 0.358 0.000 0.323 3.4741 3.0100 0.4642 3
9 0.608 0.608 0.468 0.432 0.281 0.423 0.354 0.164 0.000 3.3364 3.2684 0.0681 4
S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460
1457
1458 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460

Table 3
Rankings of PSC for alternative strategies
No. Alternative strategy Criteria no. Rank
1 Improving quality and reliability 4 3
2 Reducing the bulk weight, size, etc. 6 3
3 Improving aesthetics 19 3
4 Motivating potential buyers 20 3
5 Maximizing ease of operation 23 3
6 Cooking demos for type of dishes cooked 24 3
7 Improvement in existing models 26 3
8 Reducing cost to Rs. 2000 11 2
9 Improving after sales service 27 2
10 Improvements in distribution network 28 2
11 Extensive market research 29 2
12 Improving on all the technical criteria 1–10 1
13 Improving on all the behavioral criteria 19–25 1
14 Improving on all the commercial criteria 26–30 1
15 Improvements on all criteria 1–30 1

above identified criteria. The rankings for a few alternative strategies regarding dis-
semination are as shown in Table 3. The competing alternative in most of the sen-
sitivity runs was kerosene stove and PSC has occupied second to third rank in
most of the sensitivity runs. The reduction in size/weight/space improves net /
value indicating better strengths. Making PSC a trendy and portable device can be
achieved by using aluminum, fiber composites for mounting reflectors, caster
wheels for easy movements. These measures, however, do not make any change in
the ranking pattern for PSC. Improvements in quality/reliability of the product
can be a good alternative strategy. Better quality systems, however, warrant large
volumes of production to be cost effective. Reduction in initial costs and improve-
ments in economic criteria can outrank LPG. Competing alternative with such
strategy is kerosene stove. Attempts have been made to check the sensitivity to few
behavioral criteria viz. motivating potential buyers, maximizing ease of operation
and building confidence type of dishes cooked have indicated changes in the rank-
ing pattern. This can be achieved by creating awareness amongst the potential
users, cooking demonstrations, etc. Addressing all behavioral issues simultaneously
may make substantial change in ranking pattern. Commercial criteria like improve-
ments in aesthetics, improvements in existing models, extensive market research for
knowing the product needs and good after sales service can improve the ranking
pattern.

4. Conclusion

The ranking of different alternatives has been studied by PROMETHEE. The

results show that LPG stove has the highest and electric oven has the lowest rank-
ing. Solar box cooker was occupying third rank followed by PSC. The potential
 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460 1459

strategies for better dissemination may be similar for PSC and solar box cooker.
Kerosene stove may emerge as a competent option to LPG and PSC due to lower
fuel needs, better cooking time, good market and service network supported by
economics. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the problem of better dissemination
of PSC is merely not an economic issue. Several factors discussed must be addres-
sed simultaneously. Creating awareness among masses, building confidence on
behavioral issues together with technical improvements in the product can be taken
into account in formulating the strategies for better dissemination. However, the
study can be extended by using MCDM methods. The framework explained here
can also be applied to other renewable energy gadgets which are yet to be commer-
cialized.

5. Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Dr. K.S. Raju and
Dr. M.K. Deshmukh of BITS, Pilani for their constructive criticism and support.

References
[1] Reddy BS. Overcoming the energy efficiency gap in India’s household sector. Energy Policy
2003;31:1117–27.
[2] CMIE. India’s energy sector. New Delhi: Center for Monitoring Indian Economy; 2001.
[3] Gupta S, Ravindranath NH. Financial analysis of cooking energy options for India. Energy Con-
version and Management 1997;38(10):1869–77.
[4] Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS. Multi-objective analysis of cooking-energy alternatives. Energy
1994;19(4):469–78.
[5] Ahmad B. Users and disusers of box solar cookers in urban India—implications for solar cooking
projects. Solar Energy 2000;69(Suppl 1–6):209–15.
[6] AIHSHEW. Solar cookers. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Solar Cooking.
1997, p. 276–94.
[7] Gore AP, Paranjape SA, Pandit SJ, Prayag V. Why solar cookers do not sell. Changing Villages
1990;9(4):219–25.
[8] Mohanty RC. Gujarat energy development agency: the case of solar cookers. Vikalpa
1991;16(2):65–79.
[9] Moulik R. Socio-psychological and economic factors affecting acceptability of solar cookers in
Gujarat. Unpublished thesis. Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management; 1985.
[10] Philip SK, Makwana HM, Singhal AK. Monitoring of subsidized solar cookers in Gujarat: a case
study. SESI Journal 1987;1:37–43.
[11] Sharan G, Naik G. Assessing consumer preference for product features selection: solar cookers.
Vikalpa 1997;22(4):49–54.
[12] Biermann E, Grupp M, Palmer R. Solar cooker acceptance in South Africa: results of comparative
field tests. Solar Energy 1999;66(6):401–7.
[13] Kumar S, Kandpal TC, Mullik SC. Solar cooker use in Delhi: pilot survey of urban households.
International Journal of Ambient Energy 1997;18(2):77–82.
[14] Shrestha S. Teaching and training communities of Kathmandu valley in the use of solar parabolic
cookers. Proceedings of Sixth International Symposium on Renewable Energy Education. 1998,
p. 133–43.
1460 S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran / Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1449–1460

[15] Neudoerfler RC, Malhotra P, Ramana PV. Participatory rural energy planning in India—a policy
context. Energy Policy 2001;29:371–81.
[16] TERI. Tata energy data and directory yearbook. New Delhi: Tata Energy Research Institute; 2001/
2002 Chapter 4.
[17] MNES. Annual report. New Delhi: Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources; 2002.
[18] Ramachandran M, Vardhan AB. Performance evaluation of parabolic solar cookers. Proceedings
of 23rd National Renewable Energy Convention. 1999, p. 54–7.
[19] Huang JP, Poh KL, Ang BW. Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy
1995;20(9):843–55.
[20] Georgopoulou E, Lalas D, Papagiannakis L. A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy plan-
ning problems: the case of renewable energy option. European Journal of Operational Research
1997;3:38–54.
[21] Goumas MG, Lygerou V, Papayannakis LE. Computational methods for planning and evaluating
geothermal energy projects. Energy Policy 1999;27:147–54.
[22] Haralambopoulos DA, Polatidis H. Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group
decision-making framework. Renewable Energy 2003;28:961–73.
[23] Roulet CA. ORME: a multi-criteria rating methodology for buildings. Building and Environment
2002;37:579–86.
[24] Ozelkan EC, Duckstein L. Analyzing water resources alternatives and handling criteria by multi-
criterion decision techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 1996;48:69–96.
[25] Raju KS, Pillai CRS. Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of irrigation pro-
jects. European Journal of Operational Research 1999;112(3):479–88.
[26] Brans JP, Vincke Ph, Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE
method. European Journal of Operations Research 1986;24:228–38.