A Combined Data Envelopment Analysis DEA and Grey Based Multipl - 2022 - Energ

Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1124–1142
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr
Research paper
A combined Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Grey Based

Multiple Criteria Decision Making (G-MCDM) for solar PV power plants
site selection: A case study in Vietnam
∗
Chia-Nan Wang a , Thanh-Tuan Dang a,b , , Ngoc-Ai-Thy Nguyen a , Jing-Wein Wang c
a
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan
b
Department of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Hong Bang International University, Ho Chi Minh 723000, Viet Nam
c
Institute of Photonics Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan
article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: The transition from fossil fuels to more clean, affordable, and sustainable energy resources is of
Received 10 August 2021 strategic importance for developing Asian countries like Vietnam, in which solar energy is an attractive
Received in revised form 7 December 2021 option. The government of Vietnam is implementing various policy measures and has substantial
Accepted 14 December 2021
investment plans to accelerate the national spread of solar energy. In this regard, location optimization
Available online 29 December 2021
for solar power installation is a vital strategic decision that needs to be analysed in-depth to harness
Keywords: solar power. This study aims to determine suitable areas for solar power installation in a case study
Solar energy in Vietnam. For the decision-making that influences solar plant site selection, while some criteria
Site selection can be evaluated based on a numerical database, numerous qualitative criteria must be under experts’
Vietnam judgements in linguistic terms and can be represented through grey numbers. To deal with the complex
Grey theory
nature of the prioritization problem posed by the coexistence of multiple factors, this study proposes
Data envelopment analysis
a combination of the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method, Grey Analytic Hierarchy Process
Decision-making
G-AHP (G-AHP), and Grey Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (G-TOPSIS). With
G-TOPSIS the utilized integrated approach, both quantitative and qualitative effective criteria are considered to
evaluate locations. DEA is used in the first phase to select high-efficiency locations based on various
measurable criteria. In the second phase, these locations are further assessed in terms of qualitative
criteria: technical, economic, environmental, and socio-political factors. For this evaluation, G-AHP is
used for criteria weighting, and G-TOPSIS ranks the locations. While the proposed approach is expected
to help save costs and resources towards determining hot spots for solar power plants installation
all around the country, it is recommended that governments and local authorities take into account
suitability policies and support mechanisms for sustainable solar energy development.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction context, renewable energies play a pivotal role for Vietnam in ful-
filling the growing electricity demand, reducing greenhouse gas
The impressive economic development and rapid population emissions, and cutting down on new coal-fired power projects
growth have prompted the pressing issues of energy transition (Nong et al., 2020a; Shem et al., 2019). The government aims
in a secure, affordable, and sustainable manner in Southeast Asia, 20 GW of renewable power sources by 2030 under the new
Power Development Plan to slash 15% carbon emissions (Nong
a hotspot of climate vulnerability (Vidinopoulos et al., 2020).
et al., 2020b). The plan is listed as a priority for implementing
Vietnam is at the forefront of power demand growth as a young
the nationally determined contribution of Vietnam under the
and fast-growing economy in this region, with 96.7 million in its
Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals to keep the
population (Anon, 2021h). Electricity consumption has grown by average global temperature well below 2 ◦ C and restrict it to
a sharp 10% per annum, and the system has been under pressure 1.5 ◦ C above pre-industrial level (Nguyen et al., 2019).
to keep pace with the economy’s rising growth potential. In this In this direction, solar energy is considered among the most
promising solutions. Vietnam has enormous potential for so-
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Industrial Engineering and Man- lar power thanks to its favourable geographical location (Polo
agement, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung et al., 2015; Tran, 2018; Riva Sanseverino et al., 2020). In addi-
80778, Taiwan. tion to the advantage of being one of the sunniest countries in
E-mail address: tuandang.ise@gmail.com (T.-T. Dang). the year on the world’s solar radiation map, the government’s
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.045
2352-4847/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
C.-N. Wang, T.-T. Dang, N.-A.-T. Nguyen et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1124–1142
supporting policies have been creating a driving force for solar

power in Vietnam to accelerate. Vietnam saw a surge in so-
lar photovoltaic (PV) installation in 2019, overtaking Thailand
to have the largest installed capacity of more than 4 GW for
solar power generation among members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Anon, 2021e). The primary
proximal drivers of Vietnam’s solar PV boom include a high feed-
in tariff (FIT) of US$93.5/MWh for new installations combined
with policy supports such as tax exemptions. The government
has substantial investment plans and has implemented numerous
regulations and taxes with the hope of achieving 12 GW of solar
PV deployment by 2030 (Anon). To accelerate the transition to a
cleaner and more sustainable economy, harnessing the untapped
and unmatched solar potential to promote new power sources is
at the forefront of policymakers and investors in Vietnam. The
motivation of the present study is presented in the following
subsection.
1.1. Motivation and incitement
Solar power development in Vietnam has certain flourishes,

but the movement has still been emerging slowly despite having
abundant untapped resources. This slow growth has resulted
from various factors, including economic development conditions
such as lacking financial capacity, advanced technologies, and
human resources, institutional barriers such as market-controlled
mechanisms, uncertain supporting policies, and regulation mis-
match, and public and government agencies’ knowledge of the
country’s conditions and resources (Do et al., 2020).
For utility-scale solar PV, limited transmission grid capacity,
complex administrative procedures, and lack of communication
with the local community are identified as the most significant
obstacles. In contrast, lack of technical information and assistance Fig. 1. The overall structure of the research.
looms large for rooftop solar PV. Additionally, land issues are the
leading causes of the slow progress of solar deployment. Utility-
scale solar installations consume large amounts of fertile land the literature reveals that no study has conducted a thorough
and affect biodiversity. Solar PV manufacturing has significant investigation on solar site selection in Vietnam regarding sus-
environmental repercussions depending on the location, such as tainable development. The authors believe this research is an
land degradation and habitat loss from exposure to numerous effective step to attain benefits from solar energy and contribute
hazardous materials. Land acquisition process is another crucial to the spread of their implementation in Vietnam. In view of the
social aspect of fostering rapid solar uptake. In addition to the facts mentioned above, the study’s objectives and innovations are
allowable land for solar construction under the government’s indicated in the forthcoming subsection.
jurisdiction, project developers must negotiate with landhold-
ers along the transmission route and acquire or rent the land, 1.2. Objectives and innovations of the present study
and are responsible for compensating landholders. The support
mechanisms, including policy support offered by government Looking forward, Vietnam has a significant potential to further
and local support (i.e., feed-in tariffs, subsidy, tax credits, etc.) expand solar PV. An accurate, systemic, and effective decision-
to encourage and promote solar energy development, still have making framework is essential to help policymakers establish ap-
limitations and have not been adjusted in time according to the propriate solar plants regions. Unsuitable sites may cause waste
actual situation. Notably, the cost of solar power is still quite high of energy and resources and affect the community and environ-
compared to other power sources. Thus, support mechanisms for ment in a harmful manner. Therefore, the present study aims
solar electricity prices are among practical strategies for further to identify the preferred locations for solar PV development in
adoption of solar PV. Vietnam towards sustainability. Nominated locations and criteria
For the preceding reasons, identifying the most suitable loca- affecting the solar deployment are found by exhaustively review-
tions for solar PV plant construction is a vital strategic decision ing the literature and consulting experts. Due to the multitude
for solar PV uptake to continue to grow. This decision-making of criteria that need to be considered in this decision, multi-
process may puzzle businesses, stakeholders, and policymakers criteria decision making (MCDM) methodologies were utilized for
due to the amalgamation of economic/technical perspectives and this purpose. A two-phase framework, as well-depicted in Fig. 1,
sustainable aspects (i.e., social and environmental) of the con- is proposed, using the merits of the Data Envelopment Analy-
cerned region for further solar power development. Previous sis (DEA), Grey Analytic Hierarchy Process (G-AHP), and Grey
studies in this regard concerning Vietnam’s situation have fo- Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
cused on the factors influencing renewable energy development, (G-TOPSIS) to rank the locations with potential for solar-powered
especially policy-based research and underlined drivers, barriers, production.
and opportunities for further solar PV development in the coun- One of the innovations of the current study is to carry out
try, as well as a limited number of studies on renewable energy a thorough investigation on the solar site selection problem in
site selection (Nguyen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019). However, Vietnam that has never been reported in the existing literature.
1125
The criteria selected for the evaluation are both measurable and farm location planning in Iran, Tavana et al. (2017) used fuzzy
unmeasurable, are comprehensive and well-rounded to examine AHP to determine the weights of the criteria considered from
various aspects of determining the appropriate areas towards sus- various experts’ linguistic evaluations.
tainable development. Other innovations include the first com- Sánchez-Lozano et al. (2014) optimized solar farm locations in
bination of DEA, AHP, TOPSIS, and Grey theory that has been the southeast of Spain using Elimination and Choice Translating
identified as appropriate and effective methodologies for site Reality (ELECTRE) and the GIS. In their work on optimal place-
selection. The developed model is directed towards providing a ment of PV solar power plants on the coast of Murcia, Spain,
comprehensive support tool for decision-makers on suitable and Sánchez-Lozano et al. (2015) utilized AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS;
effective planning strategies for solar plant site selection. the results were then validated using the ELECTRE methodol-
The rest part of this paper is presented as follows. Section 2 ogy. Vafaeipour et al. (2014) employed the hybrid model of the
discusses related research regarding solar farm site selection. Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) method
In Section 3, the procedures of DEA, Grey theory, G-AHP, and to evaluate the identified criteria, and the Weighted Aggregated
G-TOPSIS are explained. The case study of Vietnam is presented Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) is applied for ranking 25
in Section 4. Section 5 presents a discussion on the obtained scattered cities all around Iran. Lee et al. (2017) incorporated the
results. The concluding remarks and avenues for further research fuzzy analytic network process (FANP) and VIKOR (VlseKriteri-
are discussed in Section 6. jumska OptimizacijaI Kompromisno Resenje in Serbian, meaning
multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution) to select
2. Literature review the most suitable photovoltaic solar plant location in Taiwan. Liu
et al. (2017) employed the grey cumulative prospect theory to
2.1. Literature review on solar site selection and evaluation study the site selection of PV power plants in Northwest China.
Solangi et al. (2019) assessed the solar PV power project site
The exploitation of solar power is rapidly developing in many selection in Pakistan using AHP-fuzzy VIKOR approach. Wu et al.
countries. In this sense, numerous studies on this sector have (2019) introduced a novel MCDM framework that involved the
been investigated worldwide, attracting academics, governments, fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Methods for Enrichment
and organizations. Specifying the priorities of different regions Evaluations (PROMETHEE) II approach to optimize site selection
on a national scale is the prime concern to deploy sizable solar for solar power plants in China. A recent study by Badi et al. in
systems. The instalment of solar energy plants requires enormous Badi et al. (2021) used the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation
land, money, and manpower (Sindhu et al., 2017). The recog- Laboratory (DEMATEL), SWARA and the GIS to determine the op-
nition of technological, technical, economic, and environmental timal site for sitting a solar park in Libya. Applications of MCDM
dimensions as well as society specific, risk aspect, and political approaches in various solar site selection studies are summarized
factors is the preliminary and crucial phase for setting up new in Table 2.
solar farms and preventing delays in central and government
approval procedures (Choudhary and Shankar, 2012). Prior to 2.2. Research gaps
developing expensive solar farms, it is critical to identify and pri-
oritize viable locations, as such decisions would assist in having Ample academic literature on the assessment of renewable
the best productivity, reducing socioeconomic costs, minimizing energy development in Vietnam is missing. Shem et al. (2019)
environmental consequences, and developing the concerned re- demonstrated the existing energy regulatory framework and pol-
gions towards sustainability. In this research, the decision criteria icy landscape for Vietnam, determined challenges and barriers for
are extracted based on the existing literature review and recog- increased renewable energy and lower emissions, and developed
nized by experts, including climatic conditions, technical factors, criteria to evaluate policy effectiveness and levels of implemen-
economic factors, and social factors, as shown in Table 1. tation success and resulting impact for low carbon progress. Do
In the coexistence of various criteria, MCDM techniques have et al. (2020) investigated the underlying drivers of Vietnam’s solar
been frequently deployed in planning renewable energy sources energy surge, barriers to further solar uptake, and suitable strate-
(RES), which aid decision-makers in selecting the best option gies for the next stage of solar adoption. The analysis applied
among several alternatives in the site selection problem (Shao an economic, social, and institutional framework and consulted
et al., 2020). Numerous MCDM methods are available in the liter- with relevant experts. Studies pertaining to the site selection for
ature review; however, the combination of DEA and MCDM has renewable energy plants installation are limited, and very few
utilized relatively few approaches. To integrate uncertainty and researchers have concentrated on this strategic issue in Vietnam.
ambiguity into the evaluation process, fuzzy sets theory (Zadeh, Nguyen et al. (2021) et al. developed a GIS-based simulation
1978) and Grey theory (Ju-Long, 1982) are the two essential to determine the best location for a solar farm in Binh Thuan
methodologies. While fuzzy-based multi-criteria model for the province, which is in the low, hilly-mountainous region of South-
evaluation of RES is frequently applied, grey-based MCDM ap- Central Vietnam. For this purpose, the authors considered only
proach has appeared sparingly in renewable energy site selection technical and environmental aspects for the site selection, such
applications. as climatic climate, location, land use, and orography. Wang et al.
Uyan (2013) determined suitable sites for solar farms in the (2019) proposed a fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach to investigate
Karapinar region, Konya/Turkey, using the Geographical Infor- eight provinces in Vietnam for biomass power plants construction
mation System (GIS) and AHP method. Sánchez-Lozano et al. on their economic, environmental, technical, and socio-political
(2013) applied AHP-TOPSIS for the assessment of solar farms performance.
location for a case study in south-eastern Spain. Sindhu et al. Given the above discussion by exhaustively reviewing the
(2017) conducted solar site selection in an Indian case using literature in terms of research areas and approaches, it is de-
hybrid AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS analysis. Wang et al. (2021a) proposed duced that studies concerning the selection of appropriate solar
an integrated MCDM framework of DEA and AHP methods for sites all around Vietnam are missing. Keeping in view the same,
solar site selection in Taiwan. Charabi and Gastli (2011) combined efforts have been made for the first time in the present study
an AHP with ordered weighted averaging (OWA) to assess land that takes the merits of DEA, AHP, TOPSIS, and Grey theory to
suitability for large PV farms using PV panels and concentrated identify the most suitable sites among various potential provinces
solar power (CSP) technologies in Oman. In a case study of solar of Vietnam for solar PV plants construction. As a nonparametric
1126
Table 1
The considered aspects and criteria determining the suitability for solar PV deployment.
Aspects Criteria References
Air temperature Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Doorga et al. (2019), Potić et al.
(2016), Liu et al. (2017), Gherboudj and Ghedira (2016)
Wind speed Wang et al. (2021a), Yun-na et al. (2013), Watson and Hudson (2015), Yunna
Climatic and Geng (2014)
Relative humidity Wang et al. (2021a), Doorga et al. (2019), Zoghi et al. (2017), Gherboudj and
Ghedira (2016)
Precipitation Wang et al. (2021a), Zoghi et al. (2017)
Cloudiness Sindhu et al. (2017), Zoghi et al. (2017), Potić et al. (2016)
Sunshine hour Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Wu et al. (2014), Yun-na et al.
(2013), Yunna and Geng (2014), Doorga et al. (2019), Zoghi et al. (2017)
Irradiation Sindhu et al. (2017), Jun et al. (2014), Wang et al. (2021a), Ozdemir and Sahin
(2018), Wu et al. (2014), Yun-na et al. (2013), Vafaeipour et al. (2014), Watson
and Hudson (2015), Yunna and Geng (2014), Doorga et al. (2019), Zoghi et al.
(2017), Potić et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2017), Gherboudj and Ghedira (2016)
Elevation Doorga et al. (2019), Zoghi et al. (2017), Liu et al. (2017)
Technical information and assistance Do et al. (2020), Sindhu et al. (2017)
Technical
Geology Wang et al. (2021a), Ozdemir and Sahin (2018), Yun-na et al. (2013), Watson
and Hudson (2015)
Skilled manpower availability Sindhu et al. (2017)
Electricity demand Jun et al. (2014), Wang et al. (2021a), Yun-na et al. (2013), Vafaeipour et al.
(2014)
Economic Costs Do et al. (2020), Sindhu et al. (2017), Jun et al. (2014), Wang et al. (2021a),
Wu et al. (2014), Yun-na et al. (2013), Vafaeipour et al. (2014), Liu et al.
(2017)
Transmission grid accessibility Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Ozdemir and Sahin (2018), Wu
et al. (2014), Vafaeipour et al. (2014), Watson and Hudson (2015), Doorga
et al. (2019), Zoghi et al. (2017), Potić et al. (2016)
Proximity to road network Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Yun-na et al. (2013), Watson and
Hudson (2015), Doorga et al. (2019), Zoghi et al. (2017), Potić et al. (2016),
Gherboudj and Ghedira (2016)
Proximity to residential areas Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Watson and Hudson (2015), Zoghi
et al. (2017), Potić et al. (2016)
Local residents attitude Do et al. (2020), Sindhu et al. (2017), Yunna and Geng (2014)
Government policies and laws Do et al. (2020), Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Vafaeipour et al.
Social
(2014), Yunna and Geng (2014)
Land acquisition Do et al. (2020), Sindhu et al. (2017), Vafaeipour et al. (2014), Gherboudj and
Ghedira (2016)
Support mechanisms Do et al. (2020), Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Wu et al. (2014),
Yun-na et al. (2013), Vafaeipour et al. (2014), Yunna and Geng (2014)
Wildlife and endangered species impact Sindhu et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021a), Ozdemir and Sahin (2018), Watson
Environmental and Hudson (2015), Yunna and Geng (2014)
Harmful toxin emission Sindhu et al. (2017), Yun-na et al. (2013), Yunna and Geng (2014), Liu et al.
(2017)
Energy saving benefits Jun et al. (2014), Wu et al. (2014), Yunna and Geng (2014)
Table 2
Summary of MCDM methods used in literature.
Authors MCDM technique RES Location
Charabi and Gastli (2011) AHP and Fuzzy OWA Solar PV and CSP Oman
Uyan (2013) AHP Solar PV-CSP Konya, Turkey
Sánchez-Lozano et al. (2013) AHP and TOPSIS Solar PV Southeast Spain
Sánchez-Lozano et al. (2014) ELECTRE Solar PV Southeast Spain
Jun et al. (2014) ELECTRE-II Wind-Solar PV China
Vafaeipour et al. (2014) SWARA and WASPAS Solar PV Iran
Sánchez-Lozano et al. (2015) AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS and ELECTRE CSP Murcia, Spain
Lee et al. (2017) Fuzzy ANP and VIKOR Solar PV Taiwan
Tavana et al. (2017) Fuzzy AHP Solar PV Iran
Sindhu et al. (2017) AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Solar PV Haryana, India
Liu et al. (2017) Grey Cumulative Prospect Theory Solar PV Northwest China
Rezaei et al. (2018) Fuzzy TOPSIS Wind-Solar PV Fars, Iran
Ozdemir and Sahin (2018) AHP Solar PV Turkey
Solangi et al. (2019) AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Solar PV Pakistan
Wu et al. (2019) PROMETHEE Solar PV China
Wang et al. (2021a) DEA and AHP Solar PV Taiwan
Badi et al. (2021) SWARA and DEMATEL Solar PV Western Libya
method based on mathematical programming, DEA is a powerful priori or subjective tradeoffs (Opricovic and Tzeng, 2003). On the
method for benchmarking alternatives in energy sectors within other hand, AHP and TOPSIS are well-known for their flexibility
measurable factors (i.e., inputs and outputs). The primary focus and ability to decompose a decision problem that takes into
of the DEA model is to compare the locations regarding their account subjective judgements for unmeasurable criteria when
efficiency in converting inputs into outputs while not requiring a evaluating the alternatives. Exact numbers are used to represent
1127
a judgement or a score in classical AHP and TOPSIS approaches 3.1.2. Banker–Charnes–Cooper (BCC) Model
that have been proved to cause imprecise information and reduce BCC model was proposed by Banker et al. which is referred to
judgements’ accuracy in many real-world cases. While a variety as the VRS (variable returns to scale) (Banker et al., 1984). The
of studies applied fuzzy numbers towards this end, one of the additional scalar v0 (the free variables) with respect to values ‘‘>
motivations of this research is to display the applicability of grey- 0, < 0, or =0’’. The BBC input-oriented (BBC-I) is defined in model
based multi-criteria model other than fuzzy MCDM approaches (3).
for the solar site selection. The suggested grey MCDM approach
has the advantage of processing the uncertain evaluations ex- v T b0 − v0
Max δ = (3)
pressed as grey numbers to generate a more accurate and robust u,v,v0 uT a0
ranking for the alternatives (Oztaysi, 2014).
such that
This research is devoted to bridging the gap of the exist-
ing literature of renewable energy site selection, starting from v T be − v 0
the determination of factors influencing solar deployment in the
≤ 1, e = 1, 2, . . . , n
uT ae
Vietnamese context through literature and experts’ responses. u ≥ 0, v ≥ 0
With this, the DEA method filtered out the locations for further
analysis with the best performance on quantifiable dimensions Following that, the BBC output-oriented (BBC-O) is defined in
(air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, precipitation, model (4). The extra scalar u0 make the model possible to effect
cloudiness, sunshine hours, irradiation, and elevation). Later by returns-to-scale evaluations (constant, increase, or decrease).
using G-AHP and G-TOPSIS methodologies, such potential lo-
cations were further analysed and ranked based on intangible uT a0 − u0
Min ϕ
criteria (i.e., technical, economic, environmental, and social di- u,v,u0 v T b0
mensions) that are needed evaluating with appropriate expertise
such that
(qualitative evaluation).
uT ae − v 0
3. Methodology ≥ 1, e = 1, 2, . . . , n (4)
v T be
u ≥ 0, v ≥ 0
3.1. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)
This paper used data envelopment analysis (DEA), a ‘‘data- 3.1.3. Slacks-Based Measure (SBM) Model
oriented’’ approach to screen the list of locations by selecting SBM model was proposed by Tone (2001). The SBM model
the DMUs which gain the efficiency target (i.e., efficiency score handles the slacks of input or output directly, which represents
equal to 1). A brief optimization model of the applied DEA mod- the potential improvement in the input and output variables for
els consisting of CCR, BCC, and SBM are presented accordingly. the inefficiency units compared to the benchmark target. SBM
The list of symbols and notations used in the model such that input-oriented under the constant returns-to-scale assumption
n denotes the number of decision-making units, DMUi denotes (SBM-I-C) is defined in model (5).
the ith DMU (i = 1, 2, . . . , n), DMU0 denotes the DMU tar- p
get, a0 = (a01 , a02 , . . . , a0p ) denotes the input vector of DMU0 , 1 ∑ s−
ρIn∗ = Min 1 − i
b0 = (b01 , b02 , . . . , b0q ) denotes the output vector of DMU0 , α,s− ,s+ p ai0
i=1
ai = (ai1 , ai2 , . . . , aip ) denotes the input vector of DMUi (i =
1, 2, . . . , n), bi = (bi1 , bi2 , . . . , biq ) denotes the output vector of such that
DMUi , (i = 1, 2, . . . , n), u ∈ Rp×1 denotes the weight-input vector, n
∑
v ∈ Rq×1 denotes the weight-output vector. aie αe + s−
i = ai0 , i = 1, 2, . . . , p
e=1
3.1.1. Charnes–Cooper–Rhodes (CCR) Model n
∑
CCR model was firstly proposed by Charnes et al. which is bre αe − s+
r = br0 , r = 1, 2, . . . , q (5)
referred to as the CRS (constant returns to scale) (Charnes et al.,
e=1
1978). The objective of this model is to calculate the ratio of
weighted output versus weighted input. The CCR input-oriented
αe ≥ 0, e = 1, 2, . . . , n
(CCR-I) is defined in model (1). s−i ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , p
v T b0 r ≥ 0, r = 1, 2, . . . , q
s+
Maxξ =
u,v uT a0 where ρIn∗
is called SBM input-oriented efficiency, αe is called the
such that intensity variable.
v T be ≤ uT ae , e = 1, 2, . . . , n (1)
3.2. Grey theory
u ≥ 0, v ≥ 0
Following that, the CCR output-oriented (CCR-O) is defined in Deng proposed grey system theory (Deng, 1989), which can be
model (2). The objective is to calculate the ratio of weighted input used to solve uncertain problems with discrete data and partially
versus weighted output. known information. In the grey system, based on the degree of
the information, they can be classified into three categories which
uT a0
Maxθ = are ‘‘white system’’ if the information is fully known; ‘‘black
u,v v T b0 system’’ if the information is unknown; and ‘‘grey system’’ if the
such that information is partially known. The advantage of the grey theory
uT ae ≤ v T be , e = 1, 2, . . . , n (2) is that it can deal flexibly with the fuzziness conditions. The
concept of the grey system is shown in Fig. 2.
u ≥ β > 0, v ≥ β > 0
A grey number is defined as ⊗x = [x, x] where x and x are
where β denotes the non-Archimedean element defined to be the lower bound and upper bound of the membership function
smaller than any positive real number. for the grey number, respectively. The value of the grey number
1128
Step 2: Normalized grey comparison matrix is computed by

Eqs. (14)–(16).
⎛ ⎞
⊗x∗11 · · · ⊗x∗1n
⎜ .. .. .. ⎟
D∗ = ⎝ . . . ⎠
⊗x∗m1 · · · ⊗x∗mn
[x11 , x11 ] · · · [x∗1n , x∗1n ]
⎛ ∗ ∗ ⎞
=⎝
⎜ .. .. .. ⎟
(14)
Fig. 2. The grey system concept. . . . ⎠
[x∗m1 , x∗m1 ] · · · [x∗mn , x∗mn ]
Table 3
2xij
Linguistic scale and grey number used in G-AHP.
x∗ij = ∑m ∑m (15)
Level Linguistics Scale Symbol Grey number i=1 xij + i=1 xij
1 Equivalent Importance EI [1, 2] 2xij
∗
3 Medium Importance MI [2, 4] xij = ∑m ∑m (16)
5 Strong Importance SI [4, 6] i=1 xij + i=1 xij
7 Very Strong Importance VSI [6, 8]
9 Extreme Importance EMI [8, 10]
where ⊗xij is the pairwise comparison from a group of decision-
makers with respect to the ith criterion over the jth criterion.
Step 3: The grey weight of each criterion is computed by
Eq. (17).
is not known for certain but the interval range within which the ∑n
j=1 ⊗x∗ij
value lies is known. ⊗wi = (17)
Let ⊗x1 = [x1 , x1 ] and ⊗x2 = [x2 , x2 ] are two grey numbers, n
k is a positive real number, and L is the length of the grey where n = {1, 2, . . . , N } represents the set of criteria.
number. The basic arithmetic operations are presented as follows, Step 4: Whitenization of the grey weight is conducted using
Eqs. (6)–(11). Eq. (18). The whited value of an interval grey weight is a crisp
⊗x1 + ⊗x2 = [x1 + x2 , x1 + x2 ] (6) number whose possible value lies between the upper and lower
bound of the interval grey weight.
⊗x1 − ⊗x2 = [x1 − x2 , x1 − x2 ] (7)
Mi = (1 − λ) w i + λw i (18)
⊗x1 ∗ ⊗x2 = [min x1 x2 , x1 x2 , x1 x2 , x1 x2 ,
( )
where λ denotes the whitening coefficient and λ ∈ [0, 1]. In this
max(x1 x2 , x1 x2 , x1 x2 , x1 x2 )] (8)
paper, the value of λ is considered as 0.5 (λ = 0.5).
⊗x1 / ⊗ x2 = [min x1 /x2 , x1 /x2 , x1 /x2 , x1 /x2 ,
( )
3.4. Grey technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal
max(x1 /x2 , x1 /x2 , x1 /x2 , x1 /x2 )] (9)
solution (G-TOPSIS)
k ⊗ x1 = k x1 , x1 = [kx1 , kx1 ]
[ ]
(10)
L (⊗x1 ) = [x1 − x1 ] (11) Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS) was proposed by Hwang and Yoon (1981a) in 1981. The
The degree of grey possibility between two grey numbers ⊗x1 advantage of the TOPSIS method is that the optimal alternative is
and ⊗x2 is presented in Eq. (12). defined by calculating the distance between the positive ideal so-
max(0, L∗ − max(0, x1 − x2 )) lution (PIS) and the negative ideal solution (NIS). Grey technique
P {⊗x1 ≤ ⊗x2 } = (12) for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (G-TOPSIS)
L∗
combines grey theory and TOPSIS to reduce the subjective judge-
where L∗ = L (⊗x1 ) + L(⊗x2 ). ments in the MCDM process. The main steps of G-TOPSIS are as
fellow below (Zare et al., 2018).
3.3. Grey analytical hierarchy process (G-AHP)
Step 1: Assume that S = {S1 , S2 , . . . , Sm } is a discrete set of
malternatives, which are ranked by a discrete set C = {C1 , C2 , . . . ,
The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is used frequently for
Cn } of n criteria. In the first step, the weights of each criterion
solving complex multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) prob-
lems using a hierarchy whose apex, was proposed by Saaty by grey linguistic variables are identified. In this paper, the grey
(1980). The Grey analytical hierarchy process (G-AHP) combines weights are obtained from G-AHP.
grey theory and AHP to reduce the subjective judgements in the Step 2: Evaluate the ratings of research alternatives in each of
MCDM process. The linguistic scale and grey number used in the criteria using the grey linguistic scale with grey numbers in
G-AHP are shown in Table 3. The main steps of G-AHP are as Table 4. Assume that there are k experts, the value of alternative
follows (Zareinejad et al., 2014). h in the criterion g is computed, as in Eq. (19).
Step 1: Develop the hierarchy tree of the decision problem 1(
⊗G1hg + ⊗G2hg + · · · + ⊗Gkhg
)
and build pair-wise comparisons matrix based on experts’ judge- ⊗Ghg = (19)
k
ments. Then, the integrated grey comparison matrix can be for-
Step 3: Convert the linguistic scale into grey numbers. Then,
mulated using the geometrical aggregation, as Eq. (13).
⎛ ⎞ the grey decision matrix is built, as seen in Eq. (20).
⊗x11 · · · ⊗x1n
⊗G11 ⊗G12 ··· ⊗G1n
⎛ ⎞
⎜ .. .. .. ⎟
D=⎝ . . . ⎠ ⎜ ⊗G21 ⊗G22 ··· ⊗G2n ⎟
⊗xm1 · · · ⊗xmn E=⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟ (20)
. . . .
⎝ ⎠
[x11 , x11 ] · · · [x1n , x1n ]
⎛ ⎞
⊗Gm1 ⊗Gm2 ··· ⊗Gmn
=⎝
⎜ .. .. .. ⎟
(13)
. . . ⎠ where ⊗Ghg denotes the importance of alternative h in the crite-
[xm1 , xm1 ] · · · [xmn , xmn ] rion g.
1129
Table 4 Table 5
Linguistic scale and grey number used in G-TOPSIS. The list of locations (DMUs) in Vietnam.
Linguistics scale Symbol Grey number No. Location DMU Irradiation (kWh/m2 /year)
Very Poor VP [0, 1] 1 An Giang LOC-01 1,832.30
Poor P [1, 3] 2 Ba Ria Vung Tau LOC-02 1,887.05
Medium Poor MP [3, 4] 3 Binh Dinh LOC-03 1,722.80
Fair F [4, 5] 4 Binh Phuoc LOC-04 1,898.00
Medium Good MG [5, 6] 5 Binh Thuan LOC-05 1,879.75
Good G [6, 9] 6 Ca Mau LOC-06 1,752.00
Very Good VG [9, 10] 7 Dak Lak LOC-07 1,713.68
8 Dak Nong LOC-08 1,795.80
9 Dong Thap LOC-09 1,865.15
10 Gia Lai LOC-10 1,731.93
Step 4: Construct the normalized grey decision matrix that the 11 Ha Tinh LOC-11 1,339.55
12 Hau Giang LOC-12 1,733.75
values will be in the range [0, 1] after normalization process, as 13 Khanh Hoa LOC-13 1,772.08
in Eq. (21). 14 Kon Tum LOC-14 1,682.65
15 Lam Dong LOC-15 1,764.78
⊗G∗11 ⊗G∗12 ··· ⊗G∗1n
⎛ ⎞
16 Long An LOC-16 1,877.93
⎜ ⊗G∗21 ⊗G∗22 ··· ∗
⊗G2n ⎟ 17 Ninh Thuan LOC-17 1,857.85
E∗ = ⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟ (21) 18 Phu Yen LOC-18 1,704.55
. . . . 19 Quang Binh LOC-19 1,392.48
⎝ ⎠
20 Quang Ngai LOC-20 1,684.48
⊗G∗m1 ⊗G∗m2 ··· ⊗G∗mn
21 Quang Tri LOC-21 1,474.60
If the criteria of benefit attribute, Eq. (22) is used for normaliza- 22 Son La LOC-22 1,427.15
23 Tay Ninh LOC-23 1,925.38
tion. 24 Thanh Hoa LOC-24 1,407.08
25 Thua Thien Hue LOC-25 1,480.08
[ ]
Ghg Ghg 26 Tra Vinh LOC-26 1,823.18
∗
, where Gmax
{ }
Ggh = g = max1≤h≤m Ghg (22)
Gmax Gmax 27 Vinh Long LOC-27 1,783.03
g g
If the criteria of cost attribute, Eq. (23) is used for normalization.

[ ]
Gmin Gmin 4. A case study in Vietnam
g g
∗
, where Gmin
{ }
Ggh = g = min1≤h≤m Ghg (23)
Ghg Ghg
Vietnam has tremendous natural endowments for solar energy
Step 5: Construct the weighted normalized grey decision ma- development, especially in the central and southern regions of
trix, as in Eq. (24). the country, with an average solar radiation intensity of about
5 kWh/m2 (Tran, 2018). The average solar radiation of 230–
⊗X11 ⊗X12 ··· ⊗X1n
⎛ ⎞
250 kcal/cm2 in the direction of increasing southward is about
⎜ ⊗X21 ⊗X22 ··· ⊗X2n ⎟ 2000–5000 light-time hours per year. Solar energy in Vietnam is
X =⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟
available and relatively stable throughout the year and broadly
. . . .
⎝ ⎠
spread across the country. In the central and southern provinces,
⊗Xm1 ⊗Xm2 ··· ⊗Xmn
the average sunny days are around 300 days per year. Fig. 3
∗
where ⊗ Xhg = ⊗Ghg × ⊗wg (24) depicts the map of solar resources in Vietnam (Anon, 2021g).
In this section, the proposed aggregated framework is im-
where ⊗wg is called the grey weights of each criterion. plemented for identifying the most suitable locations among 27
Step 6: Calculate the values of the positive ideal solution (PIS) nominated provinces of Vietnam to host solar power plants.
and the negative ideal solution (NIS), as can be seen in Eqs. (25) Besides reviewing the literature for this evaluation, the criteria
and (26), respectively. system and evaluated alternatives were determined after consul-
tancy with experts through interactive discussions. The appraise-
S max = max1≤h≤m X h1 , max1≤h≤m X h1 ,
{[ ]
ments were applied to the five most eligible and experienced
max1≤h≤m X h2 , max1≤h≤m X h2 , . . . ,
[ ]
experts (at least ten years of experience in the area of solar
PV energy) to increase the objectivity of the results as much as
max1≤h≤m X hn , max1≤h≤m X hn
[ ]}
(25)
possible.
S min = min1≤h≤m X h1 , min1≤h≤m X h1 ,

{[ ]
4.1. Phase 1: Screening potential locations with DEA models
min1≤h≤m X h2 , min1≤h≤m X h2 , . . . ,
[ ]
In the first phase of the research process with DEA models,
min1≤h≤m X hn , min1≤h≤m X hn
[ ]}
(26) a total of 27 locations of provinces are considered as decision-
Step 7: Calculate the degree of grey possibility between the making units (DMUs), as can be seen in Table 5. To determine
DMUs with perfect efficiency scores (equal to 1), five inputs (air
ideal solution S max and the alternative set Sh = {S1 , S2 , . . . , Sm },
temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, precipitation, and
as can be seen in Eq. (27).
cloudiness) and three outputs (sunshine hours, irradiation, and
n elevation) are considered, as shown in Fig. 4.
1∑
P Sh ≤ S max = P ⊗Xhg ≤ ⊗Gmax
{ } { }
g (27) The description of input and output factors are depicted as
n
g =1 follows.
Input factors:
Ranking the set of alternatives, sorting the value of the grey
possibility degree in ascending order. The optimal alternative is • (X1) Air temperature: The efficiency of solar panels de-
selected with the lowest value of the degree of greyness. pends on their temperature, which itself is dependent on
1130
Fig. 3. The map of solar radiation in Vietnam.
• (X3) Relative humidity: The relative humidity influence is

considered input as to areas with high humidity due to the
short-wave solar energy absorption by atmospheric water
vapour having a lower potential for harnessing solar en-
ergy (Doorga et al., 2019). High humidity can also contribute
to the formation of dew on the surface of the solar panel,
causing air dust easier to gather on the modules and lower
power output.
• (X4) Precipitation: Vietnam has a hot and humid tropical
climate with a lot of rain and strong thunderstorms every
year. Higher rainfall massively affects the performance and
life cycle of solar panels and reduces the power output of
the system.
Fig. 4. The input and output factors used in DEA models.
• (X5) Cloudiness: Clouds return short-wave solar energy, on
average 21% (Zoghi et al., 2017), thus reducing the amount
of power the system generates. On cloudy days, the output
ambient temperature and the intensity of the solar radia- of the solar power system can be reduced by 10%–25%, de-
tion received. Solar panels are more efficient in lower tem- pending on the thickness and frequency of clouds covering
peratures, allowing them to generate more electricity. As the system (Anon, 2021d).
the temperature rises, the panel generates less voltage and Output factors:
becomes less efficient, generating less power (Huld and • (Y1) Sunshine hour: Sunshine hours represent the length
Amillo, 2015; Yelmen and Çakir, 2016). This factor is an of sunshine at a specific location for a specified time (year).
input variable since lower temperature is preferable. Sunshine is defined as solar radiation of 120 W/m2 or more.
• (X2) Wind speed: Solar installations must be able to endure The overall energy produced by the solar module relies upon
wind loads and uplift. Wind can cause operational failures the sunshine duration (Anon, 2021c).
and contribute to system wear and tear. High wind speeds • (Y2) Irradiation: The amount of solar radiation (kWh) that
can also cause more dust to adhere to the solar modules’ reaches a certain area (m2) over a certain period of time
surfaces, lowering power output. (year).
1131
Table 6 4.2. Phase 2: Ranking the remaining locations with G-MCDM

Statistical analysis on input and output factors.
Factors Unit Max Min Average SD
In the second phase of the research process with G-MCDM
◦
Air temperature C 28.10 19.55 24.08 2.58 models, locations with efficiency scores of 1 are further analysed
Wind speed m/s 9.30 4.63 6.72 1.24
and ranked using G-AHP and G-TOPSIS models. G-AHP is used to
Relative humidity % 86.50 75.00 81.94 3.15
Precipitation mm/year 2,800.00 750.00 1,792.11 514.45 calculate the relative grey weights of criteria, and then G-TOPSIS
Cloudiness % 70.50 28.50 52.33 11.11 is used to prioritize the potential locations. The list of criteria and
Sunshine hours h/year 2,878.00 1,664.00 2,359.30 334.53 their performance rating are surveyed by experts’ judgements.
Irradiation kWh/m2 /year 1,925.38 1,339.55 1,711.44 170.60
Elevation m 800.00 0.75 155.12 264.14
4.2.1. Estimation of grey weights with G-AHP model
G-AHP is used to calculate the relative preference grey weight
Table 7 of each criterion. A total of four main aspects are considered
Efficiency score of locations in the DEA model.
including technical, economic, social, and environmental, which
are decomposed into 15 criteria. The description of the criteria is
presented in Table 8.
The following procedure displays an example of weight de-
termination (weight of eigenvector) of the four main aspects
(technical (C1), economic (C2), social (C3), and environmental
(C4)) and the calculation of the consistency ratio. The initial
comparison matrix and the aggregated grey comparison matrix
with linguistic variables of G-AHP are shown in Tables 9 and 10,
respectively.
The linguistics variables (i.e., grey number) are transferred
to the crisp number using the lower bound (pessimistic value)
and upper bound (optimistic value) of the membership function
for the grey number to check the consistency ratio (CR) of the
performance rating from expert’s judgements (Buckley, 1985).
The crisp matrix of the four main aspects is presented in Table 11.
The normalized matrix of G-AHP is determined by dividing
each value in a column of the matrix by its column sum to obtain
the priority vector (preference weight) of the four main aspects.
As shown in Table 12, the priority vector is then determined by
averaging the row entries in the normalized matrix.
The largest eigenvector (λmax ) is computed to determine the
consistency index (CI), the random index (RI), and the consistency
ratio (CR), as follows.
1.0000 0.3536 0.2041 2.8284 0.1434
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ 2.8284 1.0000 1.4142 2.8284 ⎥ ⎢ 0.3679 ⎥
⎣ 4.8990 ×
0.7071 1.0000 4.8990 ⎦ ⎣ 0.4027 ⎦
0.3536 0.3536 0.2041 1.0000 0.0861
• (Y3) Elevation: The height of the region from sea level influ- 0.5991
⎡ ⎤
ences the characteristics of solar potential. More specifically, ⎢ 1.5864 ⎥
solar panels at higher elevations can obtain more of the =⎣ ;
1.7870 ⎦
sun’s energy because less solar radiation is absorbed by the 0.3490
thinner atmosphere at high altitudes (Anon, 2021f).
0.5991 0.1434 4.1773
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
The data collection on input and output factors of 27 locations ⎢ 1.5864 ⎥ ⎢ 0.3679 ⎥ ⎢ 4.3122 ⎥
⎣ 1.7870 ⎦ / ⎣ 0.4027 ⎦
=⎣
4.4380 ⎦
are collected (Anon, 2021a), as can be seen in Table A.1 ( Ap-
pendix). The statistical analysis on these factors including values 0.3490 0.0861 4.0555
of maximum, minimum, average, standard deviation is described In this paper, a total of four main aspects is considered. Therefore,
in Table 6. The collected data will be used to carry out the CCR- we get n = 4. Consequently, λmax and CI are computed as follows.
I, CCR-O, BCC-I, BCC-O, and SBM-I-C models. This step will be
implemented to find the potential locations (DMUs) which have 4.1773 + 4.3122 + 4.4380 + 4.0555
λmax = = 4.2458
an efficiency score of 1. The selected DMUs will be then analysed 4
in the second phase with G-MCDM by combining G-AHP and λmax − n 4.2458 − 4
CI = = = 0.0819
G-TOPSIS models. n−1 4−1
From DEA analysis, efficiency scores achieved by the DMUs such that n = 4, we get RI = 0.9, and the consistency ratio (CR)
are depicted in Table 7. From the result, a total of 10 DMU is computed as follows.
achieve perfect efficiency scores of 1 in DEA analysis., which are
CI 0.0819
Binh Phuoc (LOC-04), Binh Thuan (LOC-05), Dak Nong (LOC-08), CR = = = 0.0910
Khanh Hoa (LOC-13), Kon Tum (LOC-14), Lam Dong (LOC-15), RI 0.9
Long An (LOC-16), Ninh Thuan (LOC-17), Son La (LOC-22), and Tay According to the result, CR = 0.0910 < 0.1. Therefore, the
Ninh (LOC-23). These 10 DMUs are considered the most potential pairwise comparison matrix is consistent, and the result of G-AHP
locations for solar plants; hence, they are selected for analysis in is satisfactory. Subsequently, other criteria are calculated using
the second phase with G-MCDM models. the same procedure. The aggregated grey comparison matrix and
1132
Table 8
The list of criteria and their definition.
Aspect Criteria Definition
C11. Technical information and assistance Non-financial assistance provided by local or international specialists for solar projects
C1. Technical to get accurate and readily available data if a solar power plant is to be established.
C12. Geology The nature and structure of the earth’s surface, as well as processes shaping and
changing the earth’s surface.
C13. Skilled manpower availability Trained human resources with solar exposure, installers, and technicians with
adequate expertise.
C21. Electricity demand The consumption of energy in each region.
C22. Costs Construction, operation, and maintenance costs.
C2. Economic C23. Transmission grid accessibility Proximity to existing electrical transmission lines.
C24. Proximity to road network The distance between the nearest road and the different possible sites.
C25. Proximity to residential areas Space or interval between the population centres (cities or towns) and the different
possible sites.
C31. Local residents attitude Local communities’ attitudes towards solar projects.
C32. Government policies and laws Influence of laws and regulations on the construction of solar systems.
C3. Social
C33. Land acquisition The maximum allowable land for solar projects is under the jurisdiction of the
government and negotiation with landholders.
C34. Support mechanisms Political or local commitment to supporting solar projects, such as feed-in tariffs,
favourable financing, tax reductions, or other subsidies based on the different customs
in different places.
C41. Wildlife and endangered species impact Influences of solar plants on the habitat of wildlife and key species.
C4. Environmental C42. Harmful toxin emission Harmful chemicals’ impact on urban areas during manufacturing and gathering of PV
panels.
C43. Energy saving benefits The indicator of energy-saving benefits refers to the positive effects on the
environment during the project operation.
Table 9 (C12), has the pessimistic weight at 0.0371 and the optimistic
The initial comparison matrix of G-AHP. weight of 0.0650. Other criteria have the same explanation. These
Aspect Linguistics variables Aspect grey preference weights will be transferred into crisp value (the
EMI VSI SI MI EI MI SI VSI EMI significant level of criteria) using the upper and lower bound of
C1 x C2 the interval grey weight through the whitenization of the grey
C1 x C3 weight. Following that, the obtained weights are compared in
C1 x C4
Fig. 5. As can be seen that government policies and laws (C32),
C2 x C3
C2 x C4 electricity demand (C21), support mechanisms (C34), land acqui-
C3 x C4 sition (C33), and transmission grid accessibility (C23) were found
as the most significant criteria with weights of 0.1012, 0.0958,
0.0943, 0,0896, and 0,0860, respectively.
Table 10
The aggregated grey comparison matrix of G-AHP.
4.2.2. Ranking the locations with G-TOPSIS model
Aspect Technical Economic Social Environmental
(C1) (C2) (C3) (C4) In the G-TOPSIS model, the grey number is used to describe
the performance rating of 10 locations: Binh Phuoc (LOC-04), Binh
Technical (C1) [1, 1] [1/4, 1/2] [1/6, 1/4] [2, 4]
Economic (C2) [2, 4] [1, 1] [1, 2] [2, 4] Thuan (LOC-05), Dak Nong (LOC-08), Khanh Hoa (LOC-13), Kon
Social (C3) [4, 6] [1/2, 1] [1, 1] [4, 6] Tum (LOC-14), Lam Dong (LOC-15), Long An (LOC-16), Ninh Thuan
Environmental (C4) [1/4, 1/2] [1/4, 1/2] [1/6, 1/4] [1, 1] (LOC-17), Son La (LOC-22), and Tay Ninh (LOC-23). The decision
hierarchy tree for selecting solar plant locations is depicted in
Table 11
Fig. 6. In the G-TOPSIS calculation, the relative preference grey
The crisp matrix of G-AHP. weight of each criterion is obtained from the G-AHP model. G-
Aspect Technical Economic Social Environmental TOPSIS model chooses the optimal alternative with the lowest
(C1) (C2) (C3) (C4) value of the grey possibility degree. As the G-TOPSIS proce-
Technical (C1) 1 0.3536 0.2041 2.8284 dure, the normalized grey decision matrix and the weighted
Economic (C2) 2.8284 1 1.4142 2.8284 normalized grey decision matrix are shown in Tables A.4 and A.5
Social (C3) 4.8990 0.7071 1 4.8990 ( Appendix), respectively. Following that, the set of grey positive
Environmental (C4) 0.3536 0.3536 0.2041 1
and negative ideal solutions are calculated accordingly, as can be
Total 9.0810 2.4142 2.8225 11.5558
seen in Table 14.
The results of the degree of grey possibility between the ideal
solution S max and the alternative set of 10 potential locations
the normalized grey comparison matrix all criteria are shown in for building solar plants Sh = {S1 , S2 , . . . , S10 }, are presented as
Tables A.2 and A.3 ( Appendix). follows.
G-AHP combines grey theory and AHP to reduce the subjective Binh Phuoc (LOC-04), P {S1 ≤ S max } = 0.9081;
judgements in the MCDM process. The assessment of each crite- Binh Thuan (LOC-05), P {S2 ≤ S max } = 0.8095;
rion in G-AHP is described by linguistic variables in grey numbers, Dak Nong (LOC-08), P {S3 ≤ S max } = 0.9761;
which include pessimistic and optimistic values. The results of Khanh Hoa (LOC-13), P {S4 ≤ S max } = 0.8553;
criteria weighting using G-AHP are given in Table 13. From the Kon Tum (LOC-14), P {S5 ≤ S max } = 0.9192;
results, for example, the grey weight of criteria technical infor- Lam Dong (LOC-15), P {S6 ≤ S max } = 0.9160;
mation and assistance (C11), has the lowest weight (pessimistic Long An (LOC-16), P {S7 ≤ S max } = 0.8893;
value) at 0.0502 and the highest weight (optimistic value) at Ninh Thuan (LOC-17), P {S8 ≤ S max } = 0.7043;
0.0871. As the same concept, the grey weight of criteria geology Son La (LOC-22), P {S9 ≤ S max } = 0.9467;
1133
Table 12
The normalized matrix of G-AHP.
Aspect Technical (C1) Economic (C2) Social (C3) Environmental (C4) Priority vector
Technical (C1) 0.1101 0.1464 0.0723 0.2448 0.1434
Economic (C2) 0.3115 0.4142 0.5011 0.2448 0.3679
Social (C3) 0.5395 0.2929 0.3543 0.4239 0.4027
Environmental (C4) 0.0389 0.1464 0.0723 0.0865 0.0861
Total 1 1 1 1 1
Table 13
The relative significant grey weights of G-AHP.
Aspect Criteria Grey weights Crisp weights
C11. Technical information and assistance 0.0502 0.0871 0.0687
C1. Technical C12. Geology 0.0371 0.0650 0.0510
C13. Skilled manpower availability 0.0281 0.0476 0.0379
C21. Electricity demand 0.0683 0.1234 0.0958
C22. Costs 0.0555 0.0872 0.0714
C2. Economic C23. Transmission grid accessibility 0.0641 0.1079 0.0860
C24. Proximity to road network 0.0451 0.0738 0.0594
C25. Proximity to residential areas 0.0551 0.0832 0.0691
C31. Local residents attitude 0.0491 0.0840 0.0665
C32. Government policies and laws 0.0808 0.1215 0.1012
C3. Social
C33. Land acquisition 0.0720 0.1071 0.0896
C34. Support mechanisms 0.0742 0.1144 0.0943
C41. Wildlife and endangered species impact 0.0346 0.0549 0.0448
C4. Environmental C42. Harmful toxin emission 0.0293 0.0464 0.0379
C43. Energy saving benefits 0.0207 0.0323 0.0265
Table 14
The set of positive and negative ideal value in G-TOPSIS.
Aspect Criteria S max S min
C1. Technical C11. Technical information and assistance 0.0452 0.0871 0.0040 0.0174
C12. Geology 0.0148 0.0650 0.0030 0.0058
C13. Skilled manpower availability 0.0253 0.0476 0.0028 0.0095
C2. Economic C21. Electricity demand 0.0614 0.1234 0.0055 0.0247
C22. Costs 0.0277 0.0872 0.0057 0.0104
C23. Transmission grid accessibility 0.0549 0.1079 0.0000 0.0110
C24. Proximity to road network 0.0225 0.0738 0.0046 0.0088
C25. Proximity to residential areas 0.0184 0.0832 0.0055 0.0092
C3. Social C31. Local residents attitude 0.0442 0.0840 0.0098 0.0252
C32. Government policies and laws 0.0728 0.1215 0.0000 0.0122
C33. Land acquisition 0.0648 0.1071 0.0029 0.0193
C34. Support mechanisms 0.0668 0.1144 0.0000 0.0114
C4. Environmental C41. Wildlife and endangered species impact 0.0077 0.0549 0.0014 0.0024
C42. Harmful toxin emission 0.0146 0.0464 0.0029 0.0052
C43. Energy saving benefits 0.0178 0.0323 0.0013 0.0053
Fig. 5. The significant level of criteria of G-AHP.
1134
Fig. 6. Final locations ranking of G-TOPSIS model.
Fig. 7. The decision hierarchy tree for selecting solar PV power plant locations.
Tay Ninh (LOC-23), P {S10 ≤ S max } = 0.8456. i.e., air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, precipitation,
Following that, ranking the set of alternatives, sorting the cloudiness (inputs), sunshine hours, irradiation, elevation (out-
value of the grey possibility degree in ascending order. The op- puts). The greater the output and the lower the input gives a
timal alternative is selected with the lowest value of the degree DMU a better efficiency in the DEA concept. Wind speed and
of greyness. The final ranking order of all locations from G-TOPSIS precipitation are considered inputs as weaker winds and lower
is visualized in Fig. 7. From the results, the top five potential rainfall is preferable for PV systems. Although wind speed pro-
locations are Ninh Thuan, Binh Thuan, Tay Ninh, Khanh Hoa,
vides natural cooling for PV modules and rain helps wash away
and Long An, ranked the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth
dirt, dust, or pollen on the panels, which both enhance PV systems
with the possibility of 0.7043, 0.8095, 0.8456, 0.8553, and 0.8893,
to operate more efficiently (Chandra et al., 2018), their negative
respectively.
impacts are found as dominant and long-term factors that cause
5. Results discussions and validation system operational outages. Air temperature is also considered
an essential input for solar power plant efficiency. Specific areas
5.1. Results discussions offer more favourable climates, characterized by correct ambient
temperatures for the generation of electricity by solar PV systems,
In the first phase of DEA models, potential areas for solar due to the intrinsically variable micro-climate systems existing in
deployment can be filtered out based on measurable criteria, different regions around the country.
1135
Fig. 8. Map of solar power projects by Vietnam.
Fig. 9. Ranking results of compared methods.
1136
Table 15
Ranking results of compared methods.
Location DMU G-AHP & G-TOPSIS G-AHP & G-EDAS G-AHP & G-COPRAS G-AHP & TOPSIS
Value Ranking Value Ranking Value Ranking Value Ranking
Binh Phuoc LOC-04 0.9081 6 0.5313 3 0.7343 4 0.5420 4
Binh Thuan LOC-05 0.8095 2 0.5275 4 0.7743 3 0.5486 3
Dak Nong LOC-08 0.9761 10 0.4333 6 0.6363 7 0.4392 6
Khanh Hoa LOC-13 0.8553 4 0.3207 8 0.6543 6 0.3890 8
Kon Tum LOC-14 0.9192 8 0.4001 7 0.6169 8 0.4232 7
Lam Dong LOC-15 0.9160 7 0.2989 10 0.4980 10 0.3465 10
Long An LOC-16 0.8893 5 0.4814 5 0.6832 5 0.4923 5
Ninh Thuan LOC-17 0.7043 1 0.6047 1 1.0000 1 0.6441 1
Son La LOC-22 0.9467 9 0.3129 9 0.5313 9 0.3574 9
Tay Ninh LOC-23 0.8456 3 0.5336 2 0.8072 2 0.5829 2
Table A.1
Data of input and output factors of the DEA model.
No. Location DMU X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Y1 Y2 Y3
1 An Giang LOC-01 26.7 5.53 78 1,450 47 2,400 1,832.30 2
2 Ba Ria Vung Tau LOC-02 26.5 6.33 80 1,500 34 2,728 1,887.05 4
3 Binh Dinh LOC-03 23.5 7.87 86 1,751 57 2,696 1,722.80 10
4 Binh Phuoc LOC-04 26.6 4.76 76 2,185 43 2,521 1,898.00 150
5 Binh Thuan LOC-05 24.0 8.18 79 1,024 29 2,878 1,879.75 10
6 Ca Mau LOC-06 27.3 5.94 83 2,360 55 2,300 1,752.00 1
7 Dak Lak LOC-07 22.6 7.84 82 1,700 66 2,460 1,713.68 467
8 Dak Nong LOC-08 23.0 6.48 84 2,300 55 2,600 1,795.80 650
9 Dong Thap LOC-09 27.8 5.41 83 1,345 46 2,350 1,865.15 2
10 Gia Lai LOC-10 23.1 8.24 85 2,350 58 2,050 1,731.93 700
11 Ha Tinh LOC-11 21.0 7.28 82 2,575 69 1,664 1,339.55 7
12 Hau Giang LOC-12 27.3 5.49 82 1,800 46 2,350 1,733.75 2
13 Khanh Hoa LOC-13 22.1 7.37 81 1,200 58 2,672 1,772.08 60
14 Kon Tum LOC-14 21.2 6.94 83 2,121 37 2,374 1,682.65 530
15 Lam Dong LOC-15 21.8 6.76 86 1,755 48 2,195 1,764.78 800
16 Long An LOC-16 27.8 5.35 81 1,146 34 2,686 1,877.93 2
17 Ninh Thuan LOC-17 21.9 9.30 76 750 58 2,800 1,857.85 5
18 Phu Yen LOC-18 23.6 8.09 81 1,650 57 2,467 1,704.55 15
19 Quang Binh LOC-19 21.9 8.52 84 1,750 64 1,857 1,392.48 13
20 Quang Ngai LOC-20 22.6 6.13 84 2,504 60 2,248 1,684.48 14
21 Quang Tri LOC-21 22.3 8.55 87 2,350 67 1,910 1,474.60 10
22 Son La LOC-22 19.6 6.77 81 1,276 63 2,000 1,427.15 673
23 Tay Ninh LOC-23 28.1 4.63 75 2,000 45 2,589 1,925.38 40
24 Thanh Hoa LOC-24 21.6 5.83 86 1,950 61 1,690 1,407.08 18
25 Thua Thien Hue LOC-25 22.3 6.04 86 2,800 71 1,970 1,480.08 4
26 Tra Vinh LOC-26 27.2 6.40 84 1,300 45 2,621 1,823.18 1
27 Vinh Long LOC-27 27.3 5.53 82 1,495 47 2,625 1,783.03 1
In the second phase involving expertise on qualitative crite- 5.2. Results validation
ria, G-AHP indicates socio-political aspects as the most decisive
factors. From the view of experts, energy developers, and orga- To confirm the results’ reliability and accuracy and to check
nizations within Vietnam’s current situation, government poli- the robustness of the proposed approach, comparison with ex-
isting farm locations and comparative analysis of other MCDM
cies and support mechanisms play a central role in influencing
methods are applied as the result validation methods in this
enterprises to invest in solar PV and foster international coop-
section.
eration (Do et al., 2020). According to the Ministry of Industry
and Trade (Vietnam), in addition to the feed-in tariff (FIT) mech- 5.2.1. Comparison with the existing locations
anism, the government has issued other supporting policies as The final ranking of provinces in terms of their sustainabil-
of 2021 include tax incentives under which solar PV developers ity for solar deployment is verified in Fig. 8 that displays the
are exempt from certain taxes and allowed to mobilize funding provinces’ total capacity of solar power projects (installed, under
from all sources, including foreign funding. Looking long term, construction, and approved as of 2020). The map represents ag-
other regulations could be revised to encourage solar deploy- gregated data from the Electricity and Renewable Energy Depart-
ment include enabling private sector investment in transmission ment, Ministry of Industry and Trade (Vietnam) (Anon, 2021b),
which can be a sound basis for validating the proposed model’s
network improvements, administrative procedural reforms and
outcomes. Most projects are now concentrated in Ninh Thuan
land clearance, reducing fossil fuel subsidies, and implement-
(2228 MW), Binh Thuan (1091 MW), and Tay Ninh (779 MW).
ing a carbon emission fee. Technical information and assistance Solar deployment can also be expanded throughout the country
are crucial for investors, especially foreign investors not con- towards a clean energy development pathway; however, given
versant with domestic legal systems with few direct links to the results, the authors recommend further analysis of the Ninh
local governments to access experts and appropriate financing Thuan, Binh Thuan, and Tay Ninh areas as these regions are very
mechanisms. promising.
1137
Table A.2
The aggregated grey comparison matrix of G-AHP.
Criteria C11 C12 C13 C21 C22
C11. Technical information and assistance 1.0000 1.0000 2.5508 4.0000 0.5743 1.1487 0.2305 0.4353 1.0845 2.0000
C12. Geology 0.2500 0.3920 1.0000 1.0000 0.5743 1.1487 0.5743 1.1487 0.5743 1.1487
C13. Skilled manpower availability 0.8706 1.7411 0.8706 1.7411 1.0000 1.0000 0.8706 1.6055 0.4014 0.6444
C21. Electricity demand 2.2974 4.3379 0.8706 1.7411 0.6229 1.1487 1.0000 1.0000 2.6390 4.7043
C22. Costs 0.5000 0.9221 0.8706 1.7411 1.5518 2.4915 0.2126 0.3789 1.0000 1.0000
C23. Transmission grid accessibility 0.3299 0.6084 0.5296 1.0000 1.0238 1.7411 0.4353 0.7579 0.5610 0.9441
C24. Proximity to road network 0.3299 0.6084 0.5296 1.0000 1.0238 1.7411 0.2648 0.5000 0.5296 0.8706
C25. Proximity to residential areas 0.5743 1.1487 0.8706 1.7411 2.7019 4.0953 4.7043 6.7317 0.2682 0.3789
C31. Local residents attitude 2.6390 4.7043 1.2167 2.2974 1.7411 2.9302 0.3299 0.6598 0.2682 0.3789
C32. Government policies and laws 0.4353 0.7402 2.0000 4.0000 2.4915 3.8664 0.3299 0.6598 0.5296 0.8706
C33. Land acquisition 1.7411 3.1037 0.1807 0.2872 1.7411 2.9302 0.3299 0.6598 0.6084 1.0845
C34. Support mechanisms 0.5296 1.0000 2.6390 4.7043 1.4310 2.3522 1.1487 2.0477 2.6390 4.7043
C41. Wildlife and endangered species impact 0.5296 1.0000 2.6390 4.7043 1.4310 2.3522 0.2805 0.5000 0.3042 0.5296
C42. Harmful toxin emission 0.5296 1.0000 0.4884 0.8706 1.4310 2.3522 0.2805 0.5000 0.3042 0.5296
C43. Energy saving benefits 0.2305 0.4014 0.2805 0.5000 0.2252 0.3789 0.2126 0.3789 0.2007 0.3222
C12. Geology 1.0000 1.8882 1.0000 1.8882 0.5743 1.1487 0.4353 0.8219 0.2500 0.5000
C22. Costs 1.0592 1.7826 1.1487 1.8882 2.6390 3.7279 2.6390 3.7279 1.1487 1.8882
C12. Geology 3.4822 5.5326 0.2126 0.3789 0.2126 0.3789 1.1487 2.0477 2.0000 3.5652
C22. Costs 0.9221 1.6438 0.2126 0.3789 1.8882 3.2875 1.8882 3.2875 3.1037 4.9829
5.2.2. Comparative analysis of methods is compared with the G-AHP and G-EDAS, as well as G-AHP and
There are several unavoidable degrees of uncertainty in most G-COPRAS integrated models, in which no defuzzification step
real-world decision-making processes, hence, the result valida- is used for avoiding information loss. Moreover, the combined
tion must be conducted to check the feasibility and rationality of G-AHP and G-TOPSIS model also is compared with the G-AHP and
the proposed MCDM (i.e., G-AHP and G-TOPSIS) model (Wang and TOPSIS integrated model to verify the advantages and features of
Dang, 2021). In this paper, the alternative rankings are evaluated the proposed model.
by comparing with other MCDM models, which are Grey Evalu- The results for the comparison of four kinds of selection meth-
ation Based on Distance from Average Solution (G-EDAS), Grey ods are summarized in Table 15, and the rankings of compared
Complex Proportional Assessment (G-COPRAS), and Technique methods are visualized in Fig. 9. The Spearman’s ranking cor-
for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). relation coefficients (Myers and Sirois, 2004) between the re-
The G-EDAS method can be used most effectively for solving a sults of ‘‘G-AHP & G-TOPSIS’’ and ‘‘G-AHP & G-EDAS, ‘‘G-AHP &
larger number of complex decision-making problems, especially G-TOPSIS’’ and ‘‘G-AHP & G-COPRAS’’, and ‘‘G-AHP & G-TOPSIS’’
those including uncertainty (Stanujkic et al., 2017). Based on the and ‘‘G-AHP & TOPSIS’’ are 0.6606, 0.8303, and 0.7091, respec-
Grey systems theory, the G-COPRAS method presents a stepwise tively. The comparison study reveals that the various methodolo-
ordering of the alternatives concerning the importance and utility gies may produce slightly different ranking results, as expected.
degree (Turanoglu Bekar et al., 2016). Meanwhile, the TOPSIS From the results, Ninh Thuan (LOC-17) is the Pareto optimality
method is known as the classical MCDM model based on the location for building the solar PV plant in Vietnam. Therefore,
concept that the selected alternative should have the shortest the proposed MCDM integrated model is robust, and the obtained
distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance result is reliable and can be a useful guideline for policymakers,
from the negative ideal solution (Hwang and Yoon, 1981b). In the investors, or government in determining the optimal solar PV
comparative analysis, the G-AHP and G-TOPSIS integrated model plants.
1138
Table A.3
The normalized grey comparison matrix of G-AHP.
C12. Geology 0.0141 0.0221 0.0409 0.0409 0.0224 0.0448 0.0394 0.0788 0.0359 0.0717
C22. Costs 0.0282 0.0520 0.0356 0.0713 0.0606 0.0972 0.0146 0.0260 0.0625 0.0625
C12. Geology 0.0813 0.1536 0.0432 0.0815 0.0205 0.0411 0.0222 0.0419 0.0181 0.0362
C22. Costs 0.0862 0.1450 0.0496 0.0815 0.0944 0.1334 0.1345 0.1899 0.0831 0.1366
C12. Geology 0.1417 0.2252 0.0089 0.0159 0.0039 0.0070 0.0281 0.0500 0.0358 0.0639
C22. Costs 0.0375 0.0669 0.0089 0.0159 0.0349 0.0607 0.0461 0.0803 0.0556 0.0893
6. Conclusions, limitations, and future studies • The potential for solar deployment in Vietnam was exam-
ined in terms of 23 criteria; optimal locations were success-
fully determined by the novel combined approach of DEA,
The aim of decreasing global greenhouse gas emissions as set
G-AHP, and G-TOPSIS methodologies.
out in the Paris Climate Change Agreement will depend mainly on
• The criteria of ‘‘government policies and laws’’, ‘‘electricity
developing economies like Vietnam. Significantly, the COVID-19
demand’’ and ‘‘support mechanisms’’ were recognized as the
pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of this fossil fuel-driven
most important criteria in the G-AHP method. The weights
economy, driving the transition more vigorously than ever be-
obtained using this method are presented in Fig. 5.
fore. Pathways towards low carbon development, Vietnam is
• From the final ranking of G-TOPSIS, Ninh Thuan, Binh Thuan,
taking steps to tap into its good solar energy potentials, in which and Tay Ninh were identified as the top three most suitable
selecting the appropriate locations for solar installation is the top- provinces for the installation of solar power generation.
most decision. This study examined the factors that decide which • A comparison with the existing locations for solar power
provinces in Vietnam are optimal for solar power generation, plants is presented to support the obtained results. Addi-
which identified 27 of these provinces as suitable for this purpose. tional comparisons are conducted with other MCDM meth-
First, DEA was used to filter out high-efficiency locations based ods (G-EDAS, G-COPRAS, TOPSIS). Consequently, it yields
on measurable inputs and outputs. These locations are further that the priority order of the best locations is very similar,
assessed for their sustainable performance under environmen- indicating the proposed methodology is robust.
tal, social, and other qualitative economic and technical criteria. • The study provides a decision support tool helpful in assist-
For this evaluation, G-AHP was used for criteria weighting, and ing authorities and decision-makers on suitable and effec-
G-TOPSIS ranks the provinces. The most important results and tive planning strategies for solar power plants or any other
achievements of this study are listed below: renewable energy projects.
1139
Table A.4
The normalized grey decision matrix of G-TOPSIS.
Location DMU C11 C12 C13 C21 C22
Binh Phuoc LOC-04 0.5800 0.8400 0.0952 0.1379 0.5800 0.8400 0.4200 0.5200 0.1923 0.2381
Binh Thuan LOC-05 0.8400 0.9800 0.0816 0.0952 0.8400 0.9800 0.2800 0.4200 0.2778 0.5556
Dak Nong LOC-08 0.3600 0.5400 0.2222 0.3077 0.3000 0.4400 0.2600 0.4000 0.2273 0.3333
Khanh Hoa LOC-13 0.1000 0.2000 0.4000 0.8000 0.1000 0.2000 0.1000 0.2000 0.5000 1.0000
Kon Tum LOC-14 0.0800 0.2600 0.3077 1.0000 0.4800 0.5800 0.0800 0.2600 0.2632 0.3846
Lam Dong LOC-15 0.4600 0.5600 0.3077 0.5000 0.1600 0.2600 0.1600 0.2600 0.3846 0.6250
Long An LOC-16 0.5800 0.8400 0.0952 0.1379 0.5800 0.8400 0.2800 0.4000 0.2778 0.5556
Ninh Thuan LOC-17 0.9000 1.0000 0.0800 0.0889 0.9000 1.0000 0.9000 1.0000 0.1020 0.1190
Son La LOC-22 0.0800 0.2600 0.1905 0.2857 0.1800 0.3600 0.0800 0.2600 0.2778 0.3846
Tay Ninh LOC-23 0.5400 0.7200 0.1111 0.1481 0.3600 0.5400 0.5400 0.7200 0.1136 0.1429
Binh Phuoc LOC-04 0.4898 0.5918 0.1786 0.2174 0.2000 0.2500 0.4200 0.5200 0.4200 0.5200
Binh Thuan LOC-05 0.2449 0.4082 0.2000 0.2941 0.1000 0.1111 0.9000 1.0000 0.9000 1.0000
Dak Nong LOC-08 0.3265 0.4694 0.2273 0.3333 0.2174 0.3125 0.3200 0.4600 0.3600 0.5400
Khanh Hoa LOC-13 0.1020 0.2041 0.5000 1.0000 0.2941 0.4167 0.3800 0.4800 0.1000 0.2000
Kon Tum LOC-14 0.0816 0.2653 0.1724 0.2083 0.3333 1.0000 0.4600 0.6000 0.4800 0.5800
Lam Dong LOC-15 0.0000 0.1020 0.2632 0.4545 0.1923 0.2381 0.2000 0.3000 0.1600 0.2600
Long An LOC-16 0.1837 0.2857 0.2174 0.2941 0.2778 0.4545 0.2200 0.3800 0.4000 0.5000
Ninh Thuan LOC-17 0.8571 1.0000 0.1020 0.1190 0.1020 0.1190 0.8400 0.9800 0.8400 0.9800
Son La LOC-22 0.2041 0.3265 0.2941 0.4167 0.2778 0.5556 0.2600 0.3600 0.0000 0.1000
Tay Ninh LOC-23 0.7143 0.8980 0.1136 0.1429 0.1136 0.1429 0.7000 0.8800 0.7000 0.8800
Binh Phuoc LOC-04 0.5800 0.8400 0.5800 0.8400 0.0476 0.0690 0.1923 0.2381 0.4286 0.5306
Binh Thuan LOC-05 0.4000 0.5000 0.8400 0.9800 0.0408 0.0476 0.2778 0.5556 0.1429 0.3265
Dak Nong LOC-08 0.3000 0.4400 0.3600 0.4800 0.0741 0.1111 0.1852 0.2778 0.4490 0.6327
Khanh Hoa LOC-13 0.0400 0.1800 0.4800 0.6200 0.0870 0.1111 0.5000 1.0000 0.0612 0.1633
Kon Tum LOC-14 0.4200 0.5400 0.4200 0.5400 0.0690 0.0833 0.1852 0.2381 0.4082 0.5102
Lam Dong LOC-15 0.2200 0.3600 0.0000 0.1000 0.2222 1.0000 0.1351 0.1923 0.1224 0.1633
Long An LOC-16 0.5800 0.8400 0.5800 0.8400 0.0476 0.0690 0.1786 0.2174 0.3469 0.4490
Ninh Thuan LOC-17 0.9000 1.0000 0.9000 1.0000 0.0400 0.0444 0.1000 0.1111 0.8571 1.0000
Son La LOC-22 0.1800 0.3600 0.3400 0.4400 0.1000 0.1667 0.2778 0.5556 0.1020 0.2449
Tay Ninh LOC-23 0.5400 0.7200 0.5400 0.7200 0.0741 0.1111 0.1389 0.1852 0.7143 0.8980
Table A.5
The weighted normalized grey decision matrix of G-TOPSIS.
Binh Phuoc LOC-04 0.0291 0.0732 0.0035 0.0090 0.0163 0.0400 0.0287 0.0642 0.0107 0.0208
Binh Thuan LOC-05 0.0422 0.0853 0.0030 0.0062 0.0236 0.0467 0.0191 0.0518 0.0154 0.0485
Dak Nong LOC-08 0.0181 0.0470 0.0082 0.0200 0.0084 0.0209 0.0177 0.0494 0.0126 0.0291
Khanh Hoa LOC-13 0.0050 0.0174 0.0148 0.0520 0.0028 0.0095 0.0068 0.0247 0.0277 0.0872
Kon Tum LOC-14 0.0040 0.0226 0.0114 0.0650 0.0135 0.0276 0.0055 0.0321 0.0146 0.0335
Lam Dong LOC-15 0.0231 0.0488 0.0114 0.0325 0.0045 0.0124 0.0109 0.0321 0.0213 0.0545
Long An LOC-16 0.0291 0.0732 0.0035 0.0090 0.0163 0.0400 0.0191 0.0494 0.0154 0.0485
Ninh Thuan LOC-17 0.0452 0.0871 0.0030 0.0058 0.0253 0.0476 0.0614 0.1234 0.0057 0.0104
Son La LOC-22 0.0040 0.0226 0.0071 0.0186 0.0051 0.0171 0.0055 0.0321 0.0154 0.0335
Tay Ninh LOC-23 0.0271 0.0627 0.0041 0.0096 0.0101 0.0257 0.0369 0.0889 0.0063 0.0125
Binh Phuoc LOC-04 0.0314 0.0638 0.0080 0.0160 0.0110 0.0208 0.0206 0.0437 0.0340 0.0632
Binh Thuan LOC-05 0.0157 0.0440 0.0090 0.0217 0.0055 0.0092 0.0442 0.0840 0.0728 0.1215
Dak Nong LOC-08 0.0209 0.0506 0.0102 0.0246 0.0120 0.0260 0.0157 0.0386 0.0291 0.0656
Khanh Hoa LOC-13 0.0065 0.0220 0.0225 0.0738 0.0162 0.0347 0.0186 0.0403 0.0081 0.0243
Kon Tum LOC-14 0.0052 0.0286 0.0078 0.0154 0.0184 0.0832 0.0226 0.0504 0.0388 0.0705
Lam Dong LOC-15 0.0000 0.0110 0.0119 0.0335 0.0106 0.0198 0.0098 0.0252 0.0129 0.0316
Long An LOC-16 0.0118 0.0308 0.0098 0.0217 0.0153 0.0378 0.0108 0.0319 0.0323 0.0608
Ninh Thuan LOC-17 0.0549 0.1079 0.0046 0.0088 0.0056 0.0099 0.0412 0.0823 0.0679 0.1191
Son La LOC-22 0.0131 0.0352 0.0133 0.0308 0.0153 0.0462 0.0128 0.0302 0.0000 0.0122
Tay Ninh LOC-23 0.0458 0.0969 0.0051 0.0105 0.0063 0.0119 0.0343 0.0739 0.0566 0.1069
Binh Phuoc LOC-04 0.0418 0.0900 0.0430 0.0961 0.0016 0.0038 0.0056 0.0111 0.0089 0.0171
Binh Thuan LOC-05 0.0288 0.0536 0.0623 0.1121 0.0014 0.0026 0.0081 0.0258 0.0030 0.0105
Dak Nong LOC-08 0.0216 0.0471 0.0267 0.0549 0.0026 0.0061 0.0054 0.0129 0.0093 0.0204
Khanh Hoa LOC-13 0.0029 0.0193 0.0356 0.0709 0.0030 0.0061 0.0146 0.0464 0.0013 0.0053
Kon Tum LOC-14 0.0303 0.0578 0.0312 0.0618 0.0024 0.0046 0.0054 0.0111 0.0085 0.0165
Lam Dong LOC-15 0.0158 0.0386 0.0000 0.0114 0.0077 0.0549 0.0040 0.0089 0.0025 0.0053
Long An LOC-16 0.0418 0.0900 0.0430 0.0961 0.0016 0.0038 0.0052 0.0101 0.0072 0.0145
Ninh Thuan LOC-17 0.0648 0.1071 0.0668 0.1144 0.0014 0.0024 0.0029 0.0052 0.0178 0.0323
Son La LOC-22 0.0130 0.0386 0.0252 0.0503 0.0035 0.0092 0.0081 0.0258 0.0021 0.0079
Tay Ninh LOC-23 0.0389 0.0771 0.0401 0.0824 0.0026 0.0061 0.0041 0.0086 0.0148 0.0290
One of the study’s limitations is that the evaluation process of involvement; thus, results are based on personal opinions, knowl-
site selection in the second phase depends mainly on experts’ edge, and judgement. For avoiding this limitation, five experts
1140
were utilized to provide different preferences. Other multi-criteria Anon, 2021f. Solar panels high on snowy mountains yield peak power. Available
evaluation techniques such as ELECTRE, VIKOR, ANP, WASPAS online: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00030-2 (accessed on
03 2021).
could be employed to achieve the same goal, and findings could
Anon, 2021g. Solar resource maps in Vietnam. Available online: https://solargis.
be compared. The analysis’ weakness could also be strengthened com/maps-and-gis-data/download/vietnam (accessed on 03 2021).
by including more quantitative evaluation criteria (land price, Anon, 2021h. Vietnam’s EVN faces the future. Available online:
availability of main power grid, etc.). For Vietnam and many https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Vietnams-EVN-Faces-the-
other countries, researchers are recommended to consider the Future_September-2020.pdf (accessed on 03 2021).
Badi, I., Pamucar, D., Gigović, L., Tatomirović, S., 2021. Optimal site selection for
present study for other renewable energy source projects, such
sitting a solar park using a novel GIS-SWA’TEL model: A case study in Libya.
as wave, tidal, or hybrid systems (solar PV–wind and solar– Int. J. Green Energy 18 (4), 336–350.
biomass). Assessing capabilities in producing various renewable Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., 1984. Some models for estimating
energy sources is also an important problem in the energy sec- technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage. Sci.
tor (Wang et al., 2021b), in which the decision-making of the best 30 (9), 1078–1092.
Buckley, J.J., 1985. Ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and
sources should be analysed.
Systems 15 (1), 21–31.
Chandra, S., Agrawal, S., Chauhan, D.S., 2018. Effect of ambient temperature
Funding and wind speed on performance ratio of polycrystalline solar photovoltaic
module: An experimental analysis. Int. Energy J. 18 (2).
This research was partly supported by the National Kaohsiung Charabi, Y., Gastli, A., 2011. PV site suitability analysis using GIS-based spatial
fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation. Renew. Energy 36 (9), 2554–2561.
University of Science and Technology, and MOST 109-2622-E-
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision
992-026 from the Ministry of Sciences and Technology in Taiwan. making units. European J. Oper. Res. 2 (6), 429–444.
Choudhary, D., Shankar, R., 2012. An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for
CRediT authorship contribution statement evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from
India. Energy 42 (1), 510–521.
Deng, J., 1989. Introduction to grey system theory. J. Grey Syst. 1 (1), 1–24.
Chia-Nan Wang: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
Do, T.N., Burke, P.J., Baldwin, K.G., Nguyen, C.T., 2020. Underlying drivers and
Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – barriers for solar photovoltaics diffusion: The case of Vietnam. Energy Policy
review & editing. Thanh-Tuan Dang: Conceptualization, Data 144, 111561.
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Doorga, J.R., Rughooputh, S.D., Boojhawon, R., 2019. Multi-criteria GIS-based
Validation, Writing – original draft. Ngoc-Ai-Thy Nguyen: modelling technique for identifying potential solar farm sites: A case study
in Mauritius. Renew. Energy 133, 1201–1219.
Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Writing – original Gherboudj, I., Ghedira, H., 2016. Assessment of solar energy potential over
draft, Writing – review & editing. Jing-Wein Wang: Funding the United Arab Emirates using remote sensing and weather forecast data.
acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 1210–1224.
Huld, T., Amillo, A.M.G., 2015. Estimating PV module performance over large
geographical regions: The role of irradiance, air temperature, wind speed
Declaration of competing interest
and solar spectrum. Energies 8 (6), 5159–5181.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981a. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- and 443 Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp. 444,
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared 445–446.
to influence the work reported in this paper. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981b. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In:
Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 58–191.
Ju-Long, D., 1982. Control problems of grey systems. Systems Control Lett. 1 (5),
Acknowledgements 288–294.
Jun, D., Tian-Tian, F., Yi-Sheng, Y., Yu, M., 2014. Macro-site selection of wind/solar
The authors appreciate the support from the National Kaoh- hybrid power station based on ELECTRE-II. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35,
siung University of Science and Technology, Ministry of Sciences 194–204.
Lee, A.H., Kang, H.Y., Liou, Y.J., 2017. A hybrid multiple-criteria decision-making
and Technology in Taiwan. All authors have read and agreed to
approach for photovoltaic solar plant location selection. Sustainability 9 (2),
the published version of the manuscript. 184.
Liu, J., Xu, F., Lin, S., 2017. Site selection of photovoltaic power plants in a value
Appendix chain based on grey cumulative prospect theory for sustainability: A case
study in northwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 386–397.
Myers, L., Sirois, M.J., 2004. Spearman correlation coefficients, differences be-
See Tables A.1–A.5. tween. In: Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 12. John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, ISBN: 9780471667193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
References 0471667196.
Nguyen, P.A., Abbott, M., Nguyen, T.L.T., 2019. The development and cost of
Anon, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ar/225381584425186495/pdf/ renewable energy resources in Vietnam. Util. Policy 57, 59–66.
Vietnam-Achieving-12-GW-of-Solar-PV-Deployment-by-2030-An-Action- Nguyen, D.T., Truong, M.H., Phan, D.T., 2021. Gis-based simulation for solar farm
Plan.pdf. site selection in south-central Vietnam. GeoJournal 1–15.
Anon, 2021a. Data collection of inputs and outputs. Available online: https: Nong, D., Nguyen, D.B., Nguyen, T.H., Wang, C., Siriwardana, M., 2020a. A stronger
//thoitietvietnam.gov.vn/KttvE/en-US/2/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1UOB0- energy strategy for a new era of economic development in Vietnam: A
6K43lbok46Qe5Yy-jyxacGV-TccyKbWvA0AL0M7xAwQqKJ7cOk4 (accessed quantitative assessment. Energy Policy 144, 111645.
on 10 2021). Nong, D., Wang, C., Al-Amin, A.Q., 2020b. A critical review of energy resources,
Anon, 2021b. Electricity and re-energy department - ministry of industry policies and scientific studies towards a cleaner and more sustainable
and trade. Available online: http://www.erea.gov.vn/en-US (accessed on 03 economy in Vietnam. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 134, 110117.
2021). Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2003. Comparing DEA and MCDM method. In: Multi-
Anon, 2021c. Global climate observing system. Available online: https://public. Objective Programming and Goal Programming. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
wmo.int/en/programmes/global-climate-observing-system/ (accessed on 03 pp. 227–232.
2021). Ozdemir, S., Sahin, G., 2018. Multi-criteria decision-making in the location
Anon, 2021d. How does weather affect solar panels’ production?. Avail- selection for a solar PV power plant using AHP. Measurement 129, 218–226.
able online: https://www.paradisesolarenergy.com/blog/how-does-weather- Oztaysi, B., 2014. A decision model for information technology selection using
affect-solar-panels-production (accessed on 03 2021). AHP integrated TOPSIS-grey: The case of content management systems.
Anon, 2021e. Indonesian solar lessons from Vietnam. Available online: https:// Knowl.-Based Syst. 70, 44–54.
theaseanpost.com/article/indonesian-solar-lessons-vietnam (accessed on 03 Polo, J., Bernardos, A., Martínez, S., Peruchena, C.F., 2015. Maps of solar resource
2021). and potential in Vietnam.
1141
Potić, I., Golić, R., Joksimović, T., 2016. Analysis of insolation potential of Kn- Vafaeipour, M., Zolfani, S.H., Varzandeh, M.H.M., Derakhti, A., Eshkalag, M.K.,
jaževac municipality (Serbia) using multi-criteria approach. Renew. Sustain. 2014. Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in
Energy Rev. 56, 235–245. Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach.
Rezaei, M., Mostafaeipour, A., Qolipour, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2018. Energy Convers. Manage. 86, 653–663.
Investigation of the optimal location design of a hybrid wind-solar plant: Vidinopoulos, A., Whale, J., Hutfilter, U.F., 2020. Assessing the technical potential
A case study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (1), 100–114. of ASEAN countries to achieve 100% renewable energy supply. Sustain.
Riva Sanseverino, E., Le Thi Thuy, H., Pham, M.H., Di Silvestre, M.L., Nguyen Energy Technol. Assess. 42, 100878.
Quang, N., Favuzza, S., 2020. Review of potential and actual penetration of
Wang, C.N., Dang, T.T., 2021. Location optimization of wind plants using DEA and
solar power in Vietnam. Energies 13 (10), 2529.
fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: A case study in Vietnam. IEEE Access
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting,
9, 116265-116285.
Resources Allocation. McGraw-Hill.
Wang, C.N., Dang, T.T., Bayer, J., 2021a. A two-stage multiple criteria decision
Sánchez-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 making for site selection of solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant: A case study
the case for torre Pacheco, Murcia, southeast of Spain. Renew. Energy 66, in Taiwan. IEEE Access 9, 75509–75525.
478–494. Wang, C.N., Dang, T.T., Tibo, H., Duong, D.H., 2021b. Assessing renewable
Sánchez-Lozano, J.M., García-Cascales, M.S., Lamata, M.T., 2015. Evaluation of energy production capabilities using DEA window and fuzzy TOPSIS model.
suitable locations for the installation of solar thermoelectric power plants. Symmetry 13 (2), 334.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 87, 343–355. Wang, C.N., Tsai, T.T., Huang, Y.F., 2019. A model for optimizing location selection
Sánchez-Lozano, J.M., Teruel-Solano, J., Soto-Elvira, P.L., García-Cascales, M.S., for biomass energy power plants. Processes 7 (6), 353.
2013. Geographical information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision Watson, J.J., Hudson, M.D., 2015. Regional scale wind farm and solar farm
making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: suitability assessment using GIS-assisted multi-criteria evaluation. Landsc.
Case study in south-eastern Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24, Urban Plan. 138, 20–31.
544–556. Wu, Y., Geng, S., Zhang, H., Gao, M., 2014. Decision framework of solar thermal
Shao, M., Han, Z., Sun, J., Xiao, C., Zhang, S., Zhao, Y., 2020. A review of multi- power plant site selection based on linguistic choquet operator. Appl. Energy
criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection. 136, 303–311.
Renew. Energy 157, 377–403.
Wu, Y., Zhang, B., Wu, C., Zhang, T., Liu, F., 2019. Optimal site selec-
Shem, C., Simsek, Y., Hutfilter, U.F., Urmee, T., 2019. Potentials and opportunities
tion for parabolic trough concentrating solar power plant using extended
for low carbon energy transition in Vietnam: A policy analysis. Energy Policy
PROMETHEE method: A case in China. Renew. Energy 143, 1910–1927.
134, 110818.
Yelmen, B., Çakir, M.T., 2016. Influence of temperature changes in various regions
Sindhu, S., Nehra, V., Luthra, S., 2017. Investigation of feasibility study of solar
farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India. of Turkey on powers of photovoltaic solar panels. Energy Sources, Part A:
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73, 496–511. Recovery, Util. Environ. Eff. 38 (4), 542–550.
Solangi, Y.A., Shah, S.A.A., Zameer, H., Ikram, M., Saracoglu, B.O., 2019. Assessing Yun-na, W., Yi-sheng, Y., Tian-tian, F., Li-na, K., Wei, L., Luo-jie, F., 2013.
the solar PV power project site selection in Pakistan: based on AHP-fuzzy Macro-site selection of wind/solar hybrid power station based on ideal
VIKOR approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (29), 30286–30302. matter-element model. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 50, 76–84.
Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E.K., Ghorabaee, M.K., Turskis, Z., 2017. An extension Yunna, W., Geng, S., 2014. Multi-criteria decision making on selection of solar–
of the EDAS method based on the use of interval grey numbers. Stud. Inf. wind hybrid power station location: A case of China. Energy Convers.
Control 26 (1), 5–12. Manage. 81, 527–533.
Tavana, M., Arteaga, F.J.S., Mohammadi, S., Alimohammadi, M., 2017. A fuzzy Zadeh, L.A., 1978. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets
multi-criteria spatial decision support system for solar farm location and Systems 1 (1), 3–28.
planning. Energy Strategy Rev. 18, 93–105. Zare, A., Feylizadeh, M., Mahmoudi, A., Liu, S., 2018. Suitable computerized
Tone, K., 2001. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment maintenance management system selection using grey group TOPSIS and
analysis. European J. Oper. Res. 130 (3), 498–509. fuzzy group VIKOR: A case study. Decis. Sci. Lett. 7 (4), 341–358.
Tran, H.N., 2018. Renewable energy in achieving sustainable development goals Zareinejad, M., Kaviani, M., Esfahani, M., Masoule, F., 2014. Performance eval-
(SDGs) and nationally determined contribution (NDC) of Vietnam. Renew.
uation of services quality in higher education institutions using modified
Energy Dev. Countries 4, 1–56.
SERVQUAL approach with grey analytic hierarchy process (G-AHP) and
Turanoglu Bekar, E., Cakmakci, M., Kahraman, C., 2016. Fuzzy COPRAS method for
multilevel grey evaluation. Decis. Sci. Lett. 3 (2), 143–156.
performance measurement in total productive maintenance: A comparative
analysis. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 17 (5), 663–684. Zoghi, M., Ehsani, A.H., Sadat, M., javad Amiri, M., Karimi, S., 2017. Optimization
Uyan, M., 2013. GIS-based solar farms site selection using analytic hierarchy solar site selection by fuzzy logic model and weighted linear combination
process (AHP) in Karapinar region, Konya/Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy method in arid and semi-arid region: A case study Isfahan-IRAN. Renew.
Rev. 28, 11–17. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 986–996.
1142

A Combined Data Envelopment Analysis DEA and Grey Based Multipl - 2022 - Energ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Combined Data Envelopment Analysis DEA and Grey Based Multipl - 2022 - Energ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Reports 8 (2022) 1124–1142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

A combined Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Grey Based

supporting policies have been creating a driving force for solar

1.1. Motivation and incitement

Solar power development in Vietnam has certain flourishes,

Step 2: Normalized grey comparison matrix is computed by

If the criteria of cost attribute, Eq. (23) is used for normalization.

S min = min1≤h≤m X h1 , min1≤h≤m X h1 ,

Fig. 3. The map of solar radiation in Vietnam.

• (X3) Relative humidity: The relative humidity influence is

Table 6 4.2. Phase 2: Ranking the remaining locations with G-MCDM

Fig. 5. The significant level of criteria of G-AHP.

Fig. 6. Final locations ranking of G-TOPSIS model.

Fig. 8. Map of solar power projects by Vietnam.

Fig. 9. Ranking results of compared methods.

You might also like