Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Evaluation of strategic energy alternatives determined for Northern

Cyprus with SWOT based MCDM integrated approach
∗
Soley Akçaba , Fehiman Eminer
Faculty Economic and Administrative Sciences, European University of Lefke, Gemikonagi-Lefke, North Cyprus TR-10 Mersin, Turkey

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Today, energy management is of strategic importance, and evaluating options is an important step
Received 6 June 2022 for decision-makers in energy management. The lack of strategy for the future of Northern Cyprus
Received in revised form 17 August 2022 in the energy sector constitutes the main motivation of this article. The application of the proposed
Accepted 18 August 2022
methodology to Northern Cyprus is novel and has not been applied in any of its scientific areas
Available online 6 September 2022
before. This study proposes an integrated approach to identifying strategic energy alternatives with
Keywords: Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods based on Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Energy planning Threats (SWOT). The proposed model has a three-stage structure; in the first stage, SWOT analysis was
Multi-criteria decision-making used for the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of internal and external factors affecting
Energy management the energy sector, along with TOWS analysis to determine alternative strategies. In the second stage,
Energy strategies analytical network processing (ANP) was used to weight the SWOT factors, and in the third stage, fuzzy
ideal solution similarity order performance (FTOPSIS) methods were used to rank alternative energy
strategies. In the final results, alternative energy strategies proposed for the Northern Cyprus energy
sector were ranked according to their priority values. While the most preferred energy strategy by the
decision-makers was establishing an interconnected connection to the mainland, the least preferred
strategy was determined as laying a natural gas pipeline to the mainland. Both options point to the
strategic and geopolitical critical importance of Northern Cyprus’ location in the Eastern Mediterranean
in energy transmission. On the other hand, it is gratifying that the strategy based on primary energy
takes the bottom rank.
© 2022 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
Energy is an indispensable resource for the sustainable devel-
opment, and security of countries. The main goal is to provide
permanent access to the user’s energy. This target necessitates
managing the low reserve with the most appropriate planning.
Decisions in energy management consist of complex procedures
because they contain important social, infrastructural, technolog-
ical, and economic elements (Kaya et al., 2019). While organi-
zations and managers evaluate their limited sources, efficiency
and economy are also becoming important factors. In all these
challenging processes, expert opinion and a systematic frame-
work are often needed to integrate heterogeneous and uncertain
information and organize technical information (Mardani et al.,
2017). Therefore, for managers, planning has a critical role in
the energy sector. For most countries, the main expectation for
energy is to reduce foreign dependency for energy, increase the
share of renewable energy sources in production, protect the
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: soley@akcaba.com (S. Akçaba).
climate, and save costs. However today, the primary determin-
ing role in strategic planning, such as the energy issue, can
cause countries to take steps by considering their geographical
and strategic conditions (IEA, 2017). In this context, a global
and intergenerational perspective in identifying strategic energy
alternatives is needed.
In general, the simplest way to identify internal and external
factors while creating a strategy is to use SWOT analysis (Almu-
tairi et al., 2022). SWOT analysis can develop a policy plan and
evaluate the current situation by identifying internal and external
factors (Alptekin, 2013), which lead it to be considered one of the
most common and reliable strategic tools in strategic planning
(Wang et al., 2020). On top of this, SWOT is widely preferred
in energy planning because it requires strategic decision-making
(Kabak et al., 2016; Madurai Elavarasan et al., 2020). However,
studies in the literature have shown that the weakest aspect of
SWOT analysis is that it cannot prioritize factors and alternative
strategies. For this reason, SWOT analysis is often combined with
MCDM techniques to fill the gap in identifying and evaluating
strategies. MCDM methodologies are used as they play an impor-
tant role in providing harmonious combinations of qualitative and
quantitative approaches and transforming subjective judgments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.227
2352-4847/© 2022 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/).
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
into reliable decision platforms (Diakoulaki et al., 2005). Addition-
ally, it is well-known and frequently used in the decision-making
area in the literature (Kumar et al., 2017; Mardani et al., 2017).
There are some studies on the creation of strategic alternatives
with SWOT-based hybrid MCDM methods in energy issues.
Cyprus is a small island in the Eastern Mediterranean and has
potentially rich natural gas reserves around it (Tsangas et al.,
2019). Northern Cyprus marks the northern part of the island,
which is divided into two by the United Nations Green Line. The
administration in the south and north is independent of each
other, causing different approaches to be taken in the energy
field. However, an integrated energy strategy to be determined
and implemented in the future would is expected to be beneficial
to both parts. It can make a solid contribution to the welfare and
economic growth of the island. Primary fuel is an energy gener-
ation alternative that is extremely harmful to the environment
(Abbasi et al., 2022). Despite this, the energy system in North-
ern Cyprus is based on imported primary fuel-based electricity
generation, with a minimal contribution from renewable energy
sources (KIB-TEK, 2018). As a renewable energy source, only solar
power is used. The technology of the installed power grid is old,
polluting, and very costly (Akçaba and Eminer, 2022). In addition,
the existing installed power does not meet the energy demand of
the consumer. Inadequate energy management causes frequent
interruptions in the country’s energy supply (Shkurko, 2022).
In short, the North Cyprus energy sector is far from being
sustainable. In addition, increasing public pressure can no longer
tolerate unplanned decisions in the energy sector. It is neces-
sary to make plans to rapidly transition to uninterrupted and
cleaner energy, where supply security is ensured. Base on this
background, the lack of strategy for the future of Northern Cyprus
in the energy sector is the main motivation of this article. To
this end, it is hoped that the study will guide energy planning
and decision makers in energy management. In this aspiration,
the authors, together with expert decision makers, sought an
answer to the following basic question: What is the priority
order of the energy strategies determined for the planning of the
Northern Cyprus energy sector, without ignoring the geostrategic
importance? To answer the question, an integrated model with
SWOT-based MCDM methods is proposed. Qualitative criteria
determined by SWOT were analyzed by MCDM methods. The
ANP method was preferred in prioritizing the criteria (Saaty,
1996). With fuzzy TOPSIS (Chen, 2000), strategy alternatives were
ranked in order of priority.
The literature review shows that no study has proposed a
MCDM framework for ranking and selecting the most preferred
energy strategy based on SWOT analysis for Northern Cyprus. The
study will contribute to the literature by filling the scientific gap
in energy sector planning for Northern Cyprus with the proposed
method. The contributions of this paper are as follows: (1) it
proposes a systematic methodology that is easy to follow and im-
plement, consisting of three-stage SWOT-based MCDM methods;
(2) it prioritizes strategic energy alternatives to provide a satis-
factory solution to the complex strategic decision-making process
of the Northern Cyprus’ energy planning; (3) it establishes the
most preferred energy strategy, with which Cyprus can be an
energy bridge between the Middle East and Europe in energy
transmission.
The study is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a lit-
erature review and an overview of the Northern Cyprus energy
sector; Section 3 describes the methodology; Section 4 shows
the application of the proposed methodology in the Northern
Cyprus energy sector; Section 5 gives the results of each step;
Section 6 discusses the results. The article is completed with a
conclusion and implications of the study, as well as limitations
and opportunities for future research, in Section 7, and Section 8
respectively.
11023
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
2. Literature review
Energy management issues have been a worrying problem for
nations and local governments for decades. In addition to the
adverse environmental effects of energy, its impact on economic
growth cannot be ignored. Increasing energy problems cause
awareness of the public and increase the pressure on decision-
makers while making the planning of the energy sector essential.
(Mardani et al., 2017). The most general definition of energy
planning can be defined as the process of developing long-term
policies with the aim of determining the future of the local,
national, regional, and even global energy system (Bhatia, 2014).
Subjecting the energy sector to a formal planning process was
not a frequently applied process before the 1970s. But in the
same years, the oil crisis brought the importance of efficient
supply choices to the agenda and in those years, topics related to
conventional fuels were popular in energy planning. In general,
studies focused only on cost minimization (Georgopoulou et al.,
1998). By the 1980s, environmental problems began to be the
primary agenda. This made it necessary to include environmental
impacts in energy planning (Pohekar and Ramachandran, 2004).
SWOT is a vital tool that can positively or negatively affect
an organizational development and provide valuable information
about internal and external factors, thereby encouraging deci-
sion makers to take the best action (Khan, 2018). One common
method is widely used method in strategy development, strategic
planning, and decision-making is SWOT analysis (Wang et al.,
2020). For decades, the method has been widely used for the
determination of many specific issues such as energy planning
(Terrados et al., 2009), energy policy (Kabak et al., 2016), evalua-
tion of energy technologies (Njoh, 2017), and sustainable energy
(Fraune and Knodt, 2018).
There are also studies where SWOT analysis is used to de-
velop strategies in many different areas. Some are as follows;
developing a strategy for sustainable energy planning for Pakistan
(Solangi et al., 2019), developing renewable energy strategies for
Rwanda (Mukeshimana et al., 2021), developing the Indonesian
navy’s national territorial waters security strategy (Kukuh et al.,
2019), developing organic farming strategies in Iran (Aghasafari
et al., 2020) and developing anticipation strategies for methanol
vehicles in China (Li et al., 2020).
However, the SWOT method presents some disadvantages,
such as not being able to determine the degree of importance
between the strategies or prioritizing the criteria. Today, tradi-
tional single-criteria energy planning problems have rapidly left a
place for multi-criteria problems, especially due to environmental
concerns and social effects. In other words, the fact that energy
plans are subject to many sources of uncertainty, long periods,
and capital-intensive investments has led to the widespread use
of multi-criteria decision methods (Loken, 2007).
The existence of many criteria and targets in many of the
energy management problems has led to the development of
decision-making approaches (Kumar et al., 2017). Moreover,
MCDM methodologies provide harmonious combinations of qual-
itative and quantitative approaches, it successfully transforms
the subjective judgments of expert decision-makers into reliable
decision platforms (Diakoulaki et al., 2005). For this reason, it
is possible to encounter many and different MCDM applications
in the fields related to different energy subjects in the literature
(Bohra and Anvari-Moghaddam, 2022).
According to Kaya et al. the main subjects of energy plan-
ning in meeting the energy need are the type of energy source,
renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and sustainable de-
velopment (Kaya et al., 2019). In a study conducted for Iran, the
preference between energy sources was investigated by integrat-
ing two methods, BOCR and ANP, solar energy was established as
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
the outcome (Alizadeh et al., 2020). In another study, four MCDM
methods — WSM, VIKOR, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE were integrated
for Taiwan, and a hydroelectric power source was suggested
as the best choice. (Lee and Chang, 2018). On the other hand,
wind energy resource studies focus more on site selection. For
example, a Geographical Information System (GIS) based MCDM
technique was used to research the suitability of the wind farm
sites in West Virginia and South East Spain (Lee and Chang, 2018;
Sánchez-Lozano et al., 2016).
Energy planning is closely related to energy security issues and
has used the MCDM method in many of them. A study titled ‘‘The
knowledge map of energy security’’ showed that one of the main
methods used in energy security issues is the MCDM method
(Esfahani et al., 2021). A study was conducted in India based on
MCDM to address future energy security issues for the trans-
port sector by reducing pollution caused by vehicle emissions
(Patil and Majumdar, 2022). In Pakistan, an integrated MCDM
approach was used to assess the energy trilemma — energy
security, energy equity, and environmental sustainability (Patil
and Majumdar, 2022).
In addition, some examples can be given according to other
basic application areas; prioritization of renewable energy alter-
natives (Alipour et al., 2017; Çolak and Kaya, 2017), evaluation of
energy production alternatives (Kulkarni et al., 2017), evaluation
of alternative policy scenarios (Papapostolou et al., 2017), energy
strategy evaluation of alternatives (Mishra et al., 2019; Zhang
et al., 2015), selection of sustainable energy alternatives (Afsor-
degan et al., 2016), evaluation of renewable energy alternatives
(Balın and Baraçlı, 2015; Büyüközkan and Güleryüz, 2014; Ertay
et al., 2013; Mishra et al., 2019; Tasri and Susilawati, 2014).
Recently, more specific energy issues have been researched with
state-of-the-art methods. For example, in a study in Vietnam,
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Gray Based Multiple Crite-
ria Decision Making (G-MCDM) methods were used to determine
the most suitable location for solar energy (Wang et al., 2022).
In another study to establish photovoltaic solar farms based on
the Ecuadorian energy code, GIS and MCDM techniques were
combined, and suitable sites were identified (Villacreses et al.,
2022). Dinçerler et al. researched Iran’s preferred renewable en-
ergy source with a new hybrid model based on Pythagorean fuzzy
DEMATEL, TOPSIS, and Shapley values (Dinçer et al., 2022).
2.1. Overview of the energy sector in Northern Cyprus
Cyprus is a small island in the Eastern Mediterranean. One of
the most exciting issues for the island of Cyprus in recent years is
energy. Because the existence of possible hydrocarbon resources
around the island of Cyprus attracts the attention of the dominant
administrations on the island and neighboring countries, and
even international governments and companies that want to have
a say in the global energy equation. On the other hand, the island
of Cyprus is important in terms of logistics, as it is on potential
energy transmission lines. This location gives the whole island
of Cyprus geopolitical importance in the global energy equation.
Namely, Northern Cyprus is a strategic bridge connecting Asia and
Europe in the Eastern Mediterranean (Pulhan et al., 2020).
The island of Cyprus was divided into two along the green
line after 1974. Separate management has a say in both sections.
This study covers only the northern part of the island of Cyprus,
namely the Northern Cyprus energy sector. The total installed
power in the country is 405 MW (KIB-TEK, 2018). The installed
capacity is insufficient for the total energy demand. For this
reason, interruptions occur in the consumer energy supply, espe-
cially on days when the peak load increases in the country. The
graph showing the total installed power distribution of energy for
2021 is given in Fig. 1 (KIB-TEK, 2021).
11024
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
Fig. 1. Total Installed Power of Northern Cyprus in 2021.
Dramatically, 94% of energy production is from primary fuel,
and around 6% is solar energy alone as a renewable energy source.
The plant that contributes to the energy production system is only
the Serhatköy solar plant. The penetration of the facility into the
energy system is 0.10%. 5.58% of the solar energy source is pro-
vided by residential PV installations. Even for Northern Cyprus,
which has a small surface of 3,355 m2, the contribution of this
ratio in solar energy to production is very low. Even the existence
of many studies on solar energy in the country (Kassem et al.,
2020; Ouria and Sevinc, 2018; Yenen et al., 2015) was not enough
to increase the share of solar energy in the installed power.
On the other hand, there are studies on wind energy (Kassem
et al., 2019; Yenen and Fahrioglu, 2013). However, wind energy
plants as a second renewable energy source alternative have not
been established yet. The contribution of other renewable energy
sources to energy production is not even a matter of discussion.
When the rate of renewable energy sources is increasing rapidly,
although this issue is among the mandatory future goals of most
countries (EC, 2020), it is not a valid and controversial issue for
Northern Cyprus since it is not a member of the EU.
Primary fuel oil is an exceptionally environmentally harmful
energy generation alternative. Unfortunately, almost all of the
electrical energy of Northern Cyprus consists of this alternative.
The potential for solar energy in the country is exceptionally
high, but having a small grid allows solar energy to be used at
a limited capacity. On the other hand, there has been an increase
in demand for electricity generation over the years. Fig. 2 shows
the energy demand between 2004 and 2021. There has been a
steady increase in demand in the Northern Cyprus energy sector.
Fichtner’s report (Fichtner, 2015) predicted this increase by 5%.
The reason for the decrease in energy demand in 2020 in the
graph is COVID-19.
Despite the increase in energy demand, the production tech-
nology is quite old. Fuel oil fuel causes a continuous increase
in the volume of emissions emitted into the environment. De-
spite the rise in energy demand, the production technology is
quite old. Electricity generation, transmission, and consumption
in the country are still carried out from a single-centered struc-
ture called the Cyprus Turkish Electricity Authority (Kıb-Tek).
There is not yet an independent institution that will ensure the
supervision of the electricity market from generation to distri-
bution processes. Energy management is inadequate in its staff
and local and international energy legislation. The negative and
inferior current situation regarding the Northern Cyprus energy
sector needs to be eliminated. It will benefit energy management
if decision-makers determine energy strategy alternatives and
prioritize these strategies.
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
Fig. 2. The increase in energy demand between 2004 and 2021 in Northern Cyprus.
Table 1
The structure of SWOT–TOWS matrix.
3. Methodology
3.1. SWOT–TOWS
SWOT; represents strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats. Strengths and weaknesses are related to the internal
factors of a problem, while the opportunities and threats are
determined by external factors (Gürel and Tat, 2017). In practical
application, internal and external factors are shown on a matrix
in Table 1 (Aghasafari et al., 2020).
The SO, ST, WO, and WT strategies created by TOWS analysis
are also included in the same table. The TOWS analysis was
first developed by (Weihrich, 1982). Strategies are defined as:
SO strategies; strengths and opportunities maximum, ST strate-
gies; strengths maximum, weaknesses minimum, WO strategies;
minimum of weaknesses, maximum of opportunities and WT
strategies; weaknesses and threats are minimum (Liu et al., 2018;
Shahabi et al., 2014; Shahba et al., 2017)
3.2. ANP
Saaty (Saaty, 1996), developed the Analytical Network Process
(ANP) to eliminate the problems arising from the dependency
between criteria or alternatives in complex multi-criteria models.
ANP is considered the generalization of the Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) (Shahabi et al., 2014). Saaty recommends AHP
when alternatives or criteria are independent and ANP when
there is dependence between alternatives or criteria (Lee and
Kim, 2000).
11025
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
Fig. 3 represents the structural difference between a hier-
archical structure and a network. A two-way arrow indicates
the interdependence between two sets, called external depen-
dency. On the other hand, circular arcs show interdependence
between the elements of a set (Chung et al., 2005; Saaty, 1996).
As seen in Figure b, the method shows that all criteria and
clusters are interconnected through one of the potential links:
These are expressed as unidirectional, bidirectional or loops. This
provides great convenience to decision makers and constitutes
the strength of the method. For this reason, decision makers faced
with a complex problem reach accurate and effective results with
the ANP method (Zaim et al., 2014).
Four main steps define ANP. The first step describes the prob-
lem in detail with a network model. The second step is to es-
timate the relative importance of the elements at each level
through pairwise comparisons. In the third step, the priorities
of the elements are shown with the supermatrix. In the last
step, the decision is made according to the resulting supermatrix
(Yang et al., 2003). In the process, the relative priorities of all
components are obtained with the supermatrix, and these values
are normalized with the super weighted matrix; then, the limit
matrix created for each cluster is used to decide on the cluster
criteria.
In this study, the proposed ANP algorithm for SWOT is as
follows. It consists of four levels, as described in Fig. 3(b). The
first level includes the purpose, the second level SWOT factors,
the third level SWOT sub-factors, and the last level alternatives.
If Fig. 3(a) shows the hierarchical order of the SWOT model and
Fig. 3(b) shows the overall network structure, it can be expressed
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038

Fig. 3. AHP and ANP structures - (a) hierarchical model; (b) network model (Živković et al., 2015).

with the matrices explained below (Al-Refaie et al., 2016; Azimi imprecise problems (Chen, 2001). Although uncertainty cannot
et al., 2011; Yüksel and Dagdeviren, 2007; Živković et al., 2015). be modeled realistically with the precision approach, many judg-
Here, a hierarchical SWOT matrix is described as in Fig. 3(a): ments are reached under uncertainty in everyday life. On the
Goal
⎡
0 0 0 0
⎤ other hand, fuzzy sets are capable of doing this modeling. As a
matter of fact, true/false statements expressed in definite sets
SWOT factors⎢W21 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
are replaced by partially true/partly false statements in fuzzy sets
W= ⎢ ⎥
SWOT sub − factors ⎣ 0
⎢ W32 0 0⎦
⎥ (Kleyle et al., 1997). Therefore, while fuzzy sets model linguistic
uncertainty that depends on human perception and subjective
Alternatives 0 0 W43 I judgments, they allow qualitative linguistic expressions to be
In the matrix, W21 represents the vector showing the effect interpreted and expressed mathematically with fuzzy numbers.
of the goal on the SWOT factors, W32 the matrix showing the n fuzzy set theory, the value of the item is determined through
effect of the SWOT factors on each SWOT sub-factor, W43 the its membership in the fuzzy set. This value is a value between
matrix showing the effect of the SWOT sub-criteria on each of 0 and 1, not zero or one. The following equations are the basic
the alternatives. Here, I is the identity matrix. explanatory definitions of fuzzy set triangular numbers (Amiri,
The SWOT matrix, in which a dependent relationship is as- 2010; Kaya and Kahraman, 2011)
sumed between factors and sub-factors as in Fig. 10(b), is as Fuzzy Set (FS)
follows:
The general element of X is denoted by x, X={x}. Here X is
Goal 0 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤
allowed to be a set. Then FS is expressed as in Eq. (1).
SWOT factors ⎢W1 W2 0 0⎥ A = {⟨x, µA (x) ⟨|x ∈ X}
⎢ ⎥
(1)
W= ⎢ ⎥
SWOT sub − factors ⎣ 0 W3 0 0⎦
⎢ ⎥
Here, µA : X →[0,1], FS defines the membership function of A
Alternatives 0 0 W4 I and µA (x)∈[0,1], indicates the degree to which x is a membership
of the set A.
Here, W1 represents the vector showing the effect of the goal
on SWOT factors, W2 represents the matrix showing the effect of Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN)
SWOT factors on each SWOT sub-factor, W3 represents the matrix TFN is shown as a triple number, Ã = [a1 , a2 , a3 ]. Here,
showing the effect of SWOT sub-factors on each alternative. I is a1 , a2 , a3 are crisp numbers. In Eq. (2), Ã defines the membership
the identity matrix. function.
x<a
⎧
0
3.3. Fuzzy set
⎪
x − a1
⎪
⎪
a1 ≤ x < a2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨a − a
2 1
Zadeh (Zadeh, 1965), starting from human’s effort to under- fà (x) = a3 − x (2)
stand and analyzing imprecise information, developed fuzzy set ⎪ a1 ≤ x < a3
a3 − a2
⎪
⎪
theory based on the idea that the key element of human thought ⎪
⎪
⎪
is actually linguistic expressions instead of numbers, for solving 0 x > a3
⎩

11026
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038

Mathematical relations Where, x̃kij , represents the rating of alternative Ai with respect
Two triangle fuzzy numbers; Let à = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) , B̃ = (b1 , b2 , to the criterion Ci evaluated by the kth evaluator and x̃kij =
b3 ), so their mathematical relations are as follows: aij , bij , cij ’dir.
( k k k)

à ⊕ B̃ = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ⊕ (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 + b1 , a2 + b2 , a3 + b3 ) ; Normalizing the Fuzzy Decision Matrix

(3) Normalization of the fuzzy decision matrix R̃, when repre-
à ⊗ B̃ = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ⊗ (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 b1 , a2 b2 , a3 b3 ) ; (4) sented by Eq. (7),
[ ]
3.4. Fuzzy TOPSIS R̃ = r̃ij m×n
(7)

The normalization formulas in which the benefit criteria are

Technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solu-
indicated by B and the cost criteria by C are expressed by Eq. (8),
tion (TOPSIS) was first described in the literature by (Hwang and
Yoon, 1981). The method is one of the multi-criteria methods (9), (10), (11) below.
frequently preferred in studies to reach the best solution. The
( )
aij bij cij
essence of the TOPSIS method is based on the concept that the r̃ij = , , , j∈B (8)
best alternative should have the shortest distance to the positive c∗j c∗j c∗j
ideal solution (PIS) and the longest distance to the negative ideal ( )
a−
j b−
j c−
j
solution (NIS). In the method, the PIS minimizes the cost criteria r̃ij = , , , j∈C (9)
and maximizes the benefit criteria. NIS minimizes benefit crite- cij bij aij
ria and maximizes cost criteria (Chen, 2000). In the traditional
formulation of TOPSIS, although exact values represent personal
judgments, in many cases, human perception is uncertain, and the c∗j = max cij , if j ∈ B (10)
i
reluctance of decision-makers prevents the assignment of firm
values to comparison judgments. For this reason, decision-makers
prefer to use intermittent expressions in their judgments instead j = min aij , if j ∈ C
a− (11)
i
of expressing their judgments in the form of single numerical
values (Amiri, 2010). In this case, using fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, The reason for the normalization operation is that the property of
1965) allows decision-makers to combine incomplete informa- normalized triangular fuzzy numbers belonging to the range [0,1]
tion that cannot be measured (Zimmermann, 1996). It is the can be preserved.
first study (Zadeh and Bellman, 1970) to use fuzzy sets theory
Calculating the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix
to express linguistic terms in the decision-making (DM) process.
The fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (FMCDM) methodology A weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix is created by
was developed to determine the importance levels of alternatives multiplying the importance weights of the evaluation criteria,
by eliminating the lack of precision in assigning the importance each of which has different values, [with
] the values in the nor-
weights of the criteria (Carlsson and Fullér, 1996). In addition, malized fuzzy decision matrix, Ṽ = ṽij m×n and is explained by
fuzzy TOPSIS and its extensions are frequently used in solving Eq. (12).
sorting and validation problems (Papapostolou et al., 2020; Sanny
et al., 2018). Today, there are many studies in which the fuzzy ṽij = r̃ij ⊗ wj , i = 1, 2, m; j = 1, 2, n (12)
TOPSIS method is preferred in the field of energy (Amiri, 2010;
Calculating Fuzzy Positive and Negative Ideals
Kaya and Kahraman, 2011; Şengül et al., 2015) as in every area.
In this study, the widely accepted method of Chen (2000) Since the elements of the evaluation matrix are [0,1], the Fuzzy
and was applied to make the final ranking and reach the best Positive Ideal Solution (FPIS) and Fuzzy Negative Ideal Solution
alternative. The application steps of the fuzzy TOPSIS method (FNIS) can be represented as follows:
are explained below (Baykasoğlu and Gölcük, 2015; Kaya and
1 , ṽ2 , . . . , ṽn
A+ = ṽ+ + +
( )
(13)
Kahraman, 2011; Wang and Chang, 2007).
A = ṽ1 , ṽ2 , . . . , ṽn
− − − −
( )
(14)
Creation of fuzzy decision matrix
First, the matrix format is created. The matrix format of a
Here, ṽj = (1, 1, 1) ve ṽj = (0, 0, 0) , j = 1, 2, n.
+ −
typical fuzzy multi-criteria group decision problem is shown
in Eq. (5). Here, D̃ represents the fuzzy decision matrix. Calculating the distance from FPIS and FNIS
With the following equations (15) and (16), the distances from
A1 x̃11 x̃12 ··· x̃1n
⎡ ⎤
FPIS and FNIS can be calculated:
A2⎢ x̃21 x̃22 ··· x̃2n⎥
⎢ ⎥ n
D̃ = . ⎢
. ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ , i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n
.. ⎥
∑
d+ d ṽij , ṽ+ , i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n
( )
i = (15)
.⎣ . . . .⎦ j
j=1
Am x̃m1 x̃m2 ··· x̃mn n
∑
d− d ṽij , ṽ− , i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n
( )
i = j (16)
(5)
j=1
If m represents alternatives, n criteria, and k represents
Where, d ṽa , ṽb indicates the distance between two fuzzy
( )
decision-makers, in the matrix A1, A2, . . . , Am, represents the
alternative to be chosen, C1, C2, . . . , Cn represents the evaluation numbers, d+ −
i indicates the FPIS distance of alternative, di indi-
criteria. cates the FNIS distance of alternative.
Then, a group of decision makers determines the fuzzy rating The distance between two triangular fuzzy numbers, ã =
values of each alternative according to the criteria. Aggregated (a1 , a2 , a3 ) and ã = (b1 , b2 , b3 ), can be calculated using Eq. (17)
ratings are calculated using Eq. (6). √
1( 1
( ) 1
x̃ +x̃2 + . . . + x̃kij d ã, b̃ = [(a1 − b1 )2 + (a2 − b2 )2 + (a3 − b3 )2 ] (17)
)
x̃ij = (6) 3
k ij ij
11027
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
Fig. 4. Proposed model of the SWOT framed MCDM for energy strategies.
Determination closeness coefficients and alternatives ranking
The closeness coefficient of each alternative is calculated as
follows:
d−
CCi = i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m
di + d−
+
i if there is dependence between the factors, the ANP method is
The highest value of the CCi index indicates that alternative Ai
has the best performance.
4. Application of the proposed methodology in the northern
cyprus energy sector
This article proposes an integrated approach based on deter-
mining the most preferred energy strategy by prioritizing North-
ern Cyprus’ energy strategies. In the proposed model, firstly, the
factors affecting the energy sector and energy strategies were
determined by SWOT–TOWS analysis. Then, the identified SWOT
factors were weighted with a MCDM method called ANP. Finally,
alternative energy strategies were ranked according to their pri-
ority values with fuzzy TOPSIS, which is another MCDM method.
All of the interviews were conducted face to face with experts
from the energy sector. However, due to the pandemic, these
meetings were held online. The return of the survey responses
sent to the experts to obtain the proposed model data took eight
months.
The phases and steps of the proposed model in Fig. 4 are
briefly described respectively below.
Phase 1: SWOT–TOWS
The first stage details the steps of the SWOT–TOWS analysis.
As a result of the phase, strategic energy alternatives and the
decision hierarchy of the proposed model were formed. The steps
followed can be described as follows:
Step 1. Literature review. First, a comprehensive literature review
was conducted. In this context, many articles and thesis studies
were examined in detail, including basic concepts such as energy
planning, formation of energy policies, sustainability in energy,
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
multi-criteria decision-making methods, fuzzy logic, creation of
alternative strategies. Documents such as workshops, seminars,
conferences, presentations related to the current situation of
Northern Cyprus regarding the energy sector, as well as specific
reports prepared by the public and private sectors in this field
were also within the scope of the examination.
Step 2. Establishing the core decision group. Two different decision-
making groups served in the model. The first group was called the
core group and consisted of five people. All of the decision makers
in the group consisted of academicians and managers who are
experts in the field of energy.
Step 3. Determining SWOT factor and sub-factors. Decision-makers
determined the strengths and weaknesses of the Northern Cyprus
energy sector with internal analysis, and opportunities and
threats, namely SWOT factors, with external environmental anal-
ysis. In the analysis discussion, the internal dependence between
the SWOT factors was defined, and the internal dependency
relationship was included in Fig. 5.
Step 4. Identifying alternative strategies with SWOT and TOWS. Here,
alternative strategies were created by evaluating the relationship
between SWOT sub-factors.
Step 5. Formatting the decision hierarchy. In the second and third
stages, the hierarchical relationship between SWOT factors, sub-
factors, and strategy alternatives has been defined to apply MCDM
methods. The decision hierarchy of the proposed model is de-
tailed in Fig. 5.
Phase 2: ANP
ANP allows for complex analysis between decision levels and
attributes (Saaty and Vargas, 2013). If the problem factors are
(18) independent, it is recommended to use the AHP method, and
recommended (Lee and Kim, 2000). Each of the factors related to
the energy sector is closely (Catron et al., 2013; Genç et al., 2018;
Khojaste-Sarakhsi et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2017). This reason
directed the authors to use the ANP method.
Step 6. Establishing the main decision group. Five more were added
to the core group members. The main decision-making group
members, as in the previous group, were selected from academi-
cians and managers who are experts in the energy sector.
Step 7. Determining SWOT factor weights (assuming it is not de-
pendent). At this step, the decision-makers were asked to make
a pairwise comparison between the factors, assuming there was
no dependency between the SWOT factors. The analysis results
gave the weight, (W1 ) values of the SWOT factors.
Step 8. Determining interdependent weights of SWOT factors. This
time, the decision-makers were asked to make systematic pair-
wise comparisons based on the intrinsic dependency relationship
between each factor. The results formed the interdependent val-
ues of the SWOT factors, W2 . Next, the priorities of the SWOT
factors were calculated with, wfactor = W2 × W1 . Question matri-
ces and geometric averages describing the process are provided
in Supplementary Document S1.
Step 9. Determining local weights of SWOT sub-factors. In this
step, pairwise comparisons of SWOT sub-factors were made, and
the responses gave the local weights of the SWOT sub-factors,
wSWOTsub−factor(local) .
Step 10. Determining global weights of SWOT sub-factors. In the last
step, the SWOT sub-factor global (overall) weights were calcu-
lated by multiplying the interdependent weights of the SWOT
11028
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
Fig. 5. Decision hierarchy of the proposed model according to the SWOT-ANP-FTOPSIS integrated approach.
factors in Step 9 and Step 10 with the local weights of the SWOT
sub-factors.
Phase 3: Fuzzy TOPSIS
Stage 3 is the last part of the study and describes the steps to
find the most preferred strategy alternative to achieve the goal.
Pairwise comparisons were continued with the main group of
decision-makers.
Step 11. Evaluating alternative strategies according to SWOT sub-
factors. A fuzzy decision matrix was created showing the effect of
SWOT sub-factors on the alternatives with systematic questions
asked to the experts, Eqs. (5)–(6). Then the normalized matrix
Eqs. (7)–(11) and the weighted matrix were obtained, Eq. (12).
Step 12. Identifying the positive and negative aspects of the ideal
solution. With Eqs. (13)–(14), A+ and A− values of each alternative
were found.
Step 13. Calculating the ideal distance close to the ideal solution.
Using Eqs. (15)–(16), the FPIS and FNIS values and then the
closeness coefficient of each alternative was found.
Step 14. Determining the closeness coefficients and rank. Strategic
alternatives were ranked according to closeness coefficients, Eqs.
(17)–(18).
Step 15. The most preferred strategy alternative. The best (most
preferred) strategic alternative was determined according to the
proposed model.
The process of the proposed model is observed in Fig. 6.
5. Results
5.1. Results of the SWOT–TOWS
With Steps (1–3), a core group of five people identified 19 sub-
factors for the Northern Cyprus energy sector exposed to internal
11029
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
and external influences due to SWOT and TOWS analysis. These
factors had an inner dependency relationship with each other,
Fig. 7.
The same decision-making group evaluated the SWOT factors
within the scope of the TOWS analysis this time and reached
the Step (4) targets. How to use strengths to maximize oppor-
tunities? (max–max)’’, ‘‘how to use opportunities to overcome
weaknesses? (min–max)’’, ‘‘how to avoid threats using strengths?
(max–min)’’ and ‘‘how to minimize weaknesses and threats?
(min–min)’’ he sought answers to similar questions.
The strategies identified by the responses were SO, WO, ST,
and WT. Eight alternatives were derived as listed in Fig. 8.
5.2. Results of the SWOT-ANP
The experts thought that the SWOT factors in the study were
interdependent. The relations between the factors were not only
unidirectional but bidirectional and feedback. If the calculations
were made without including dependent relationships, it was
possible that the weights would be different. In such a case, factor
weight changes could also cause strategic alternatives’ priorities
to change (Yüksel and Dagdeviren, 2007) Because ANP allows
modeling of these interdependencies (Arsić et al., 2017) the ANP
method was used to find the weights of the SWOT factor and
sub-factors in the study.
With Steps (6–7), a series of questions were asked to the
extended 10-person expert key decision-maker. Responses were
numerical and scaled on Saaty’s 1–9 (Supplementary Document
S2) scale. Assuming that there is no dependency between the
factors, such as ‘‘Which factor do you think is more important,
factor A or factor B? And how much more important?’’ answers
were sought to questions. In the study, pairwise comparison
data of the ANP method were analyzed using the Super Decision
program. According to the method, the geometric mean of the
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038

Fig. 6. Flowchart to evaluate the most preferred strategy.

Fig. 7. Sub-factors and inner dependence of the Northern Cyprus energy sector with SWOT.

Table 2
Pairwise comparisons of SWOT factors by assuming that there is no dependence among them.
SWOT factors S W O T Importance degrees of SWOT factors (W1 )
Strengths (S) 1 1.11207 0.74021 1.67611 0.26121
Weaknesses (W) 1 0.72889 1.68084 0.24695
Opportunities (O) 1 2.04282 0.33620
Threats (T) 1 0.15565
CR=0.00107

decision maker’s views should be taken (Saaty, 1989). The cross following eigenvector, (W1 ).
equivalent of the available values is automatically assigned to the
S 0.26121
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
matrix. Table 2. shows the results of the pairwise comparison of
the SWOT factors, assuming that there is no dependency between ⎢W⎥ ⎢0.24695⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
them. W1 = ⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
⎣ O ⎦ ⎣0.33620⎦
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
The consistency ratio (CR) seen in the last row of the matrix
was less than 0.1 and the values in the last column formed the T 0.15565
11030
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038

Fig. 8. Strategic alternatives of the Northern Cyprus energy sector with TOWS.

Table 3 The eigenvectors in the last columns of Tables 3–6 formed the
The inner dependence matrix of the SWOT with respect to ‘‘Strengths’’.
internal dependency matrix of the SWOT factors, namely (W2 ).
Strengths W O T Relative weights
1 0.18601 0.27490 0.25631
⎡ ⎤
Weaknesses (W) 1 1.16231 2.37333 0.43680
Opportunities (O) 1 2.14893 0.38226
⎢0.43680 1 0.47518 0.39252⎥
⎢ ⎥
Threats (T) 1 0.18094
W2 = ⎢
⎢0.38226
⎥
CR=0.00028 0.52716 1 0.35117⎦
⎥
⎣
0.18094 0.28683 0.24992 1
Table 4
The inner dependence matrix of the SWOT with respect to ‘‘Weaknesses’’. Then the priorities of the SWOT factors were determined,
Weaknesses S O T Relative weights
1 0.18601 0.27490 0.25631
⎡ ⎤
Strengths (S) 1 0.39313 0.58207 0.18601
Opportunities (O) 1 2.04767 0.52716 ⎢0.43680 1 0.47518 0.39252⎥
⎢ ⎥
Threats (T) 1 0.28683 wfactor = W2 × W1 = ⎢
⎢0.38226
⎥
0.52716 1 0.35117⎦
⎥
CR= 0.01124 ⎣
0.18094 0.28683 0.24992 1
Table 5 0.26121 0.21973
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
The inner dependence matrix of the SWOT with respect to ‘‘Opportunities’’.
⎢0.24695⎥ ⎢0.29095⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Opportunities S W T Relative weights
Strengths (S) 1 0.57688 1.10305 0.27490
×⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
⎢0.33620⎥ ⎢0.31045⎥
Weaknesses (W) 1 1.89590 0.47518
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
Threats (T) 1 0.24992 0.15565 0.17888
CR= 0.00001
This time, the decision-makers made relative comparisons to
find the local priorities of the SWOT sub-factors. Here is the local
Table 6
weight of weaknesses as an example;
The inner dependence matrix of the SWOT with respect to ‘‘Threats’’.
0.20717
⎡ ⎤
Threats S W O Relative weights
Strengths (S) 1 0.67901 0.70190 0.25631
⎢0.10975⎥
⎢ ⎥
Weaknesses (W) 1 1.16231 0.39252 ⎢ ⎥
Opportunities (O) 1 0.35117
⎢0.12217⎥
⎢ ⎥
CR= 0.00147 wsub−factors(Weaknesses) =⎢ ⎥
⎢0.07432⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0.32899⎥
⎣ ⎦
Then, according to Steps (8–9), the interdependence between
0.15760
the SWOT factors was taken into account. The effect of each factor
on every other factor was analyzed. This time, ‘‘Which criterion Finally, SWOT sub-factor global (overall) weights were calcu-
is more important for criterion A: criterion B or criterion C? And lated according to Step (10), and all results are summarized in
how important is it?’’ questions such as were answered, and Table 7.
then geometric averages were taken. The condition for CR values The following Fig. 9 shows the importance weights of the
below 0.1 was provided for each matrix. Otherwise, the experts criteria determined according to the judgments of the decision
repeated the process, and the results are given in Tables 3–6. makers on a radar chart.
11031
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038

Table 7
The local and overall weights of SWOT Sub-factors for ANP.
SWOT factor SWOT factor’s weight SWOT sub-factors Local weight Overall weight
Strengths (S) 0.21973 S1 0.66642 0.14643
S2 0.33358 0.07330
W1 0.20717 0.06028
W2 0.10975 0.03193
W3 0.12217 0.03555
Weaknesses (W) 0.29095
W4 0.07432 0.02162
W5 0.32899 0.09572
W6 0.15760 0.04585
O1 0.13586 0.04218
O2 0.08286 0.02572
O3 0.27456 0.08524
Opportunities (O) 0.31045
O4 0.14056 0.04364
O5 0.21902 0.06799
O6 0.14713 0.04568
T1 0.39166 0.07006
T2 0.15523 0.02777
Threats (T) 0.17888 T3 0.15377 0.02751
T4 0.11483 0.02054
T5 0.18451 0.03301

Fig. 9. Evaluation criteria weights with ANP.

When the 19 criteria’ weights’ evaluation is examined on the Table 8

graph, the first remarkable result is that the (S1) alternative is Linguistic variables and fuzzy number.

ahead of the other criteria with a weight value of 0.1464. This Linguistic variables Fuzzy numbers
is an expected judgment as the solar potential is high across the Very poor (VP) (0,0,1)
island. Previous research has highlighted this potential (Ogbeba Poor (P) (0,1,3)
Medium (MP) (1,3,5)
and Hoskara, 2019; Ouria and Sevinc, 2018). It became the (W5) Fair (F) (3,5,7)
criterion with a weight value of 0.0957, which got ahead of the Medium good (MG) (5,7,9)
strengths and opportunities and placed in second place. This Good (G) (7,9,10)
weakness defined the criterion of inadequacy in energy manage- Very good (VG) (9,10,10)
ment. The effects of this criterion are specific to Northern Cyprus.
As a matter of fact, in the analyzes made throughout Southern
Cyprus, the Cyprus problem and the possible damage to the as (O)>(W)>(S)>(T) showed that the criteria of taking advantage
environment by potential hydrocarbon reserves come to the fore of opportunities and avoiding weaknesses were given priority in
(Tsangas et al., 2019, 2018). In addition, the above studies did not
the determination of Northern Cyprus energy strategies.
mention the lack of inadequate energy efficiency policies. Still, the
expert judgment in this study placed the W1 criterion high with
a weight value of 0.0602. The interconnection criterion of energy 5.3. Results of the Fuzzy TOPSIS
transmission (O3) had the third priority with a weight value of
0.0852. As in both parts of this island, it is generally accepted as At this stage, firstly, with Step (11), a group of decision-makers
a criterion that positively affects all the islands (Darshini et al., answered the comparison questions asked to them by using the
2013; Kougias et al., 2019). Energy supply security (T1) was the language variables in Table 8 (Chen, 2000). Each decision maker’s
most important threat criterion of the Northern Cyprus energy response is included in Supplementary Document S3.
system, with a weight value of 0.0700. Expert judgments assigned Responses identified evaluation matrices among alternatives
the lowest weight values to the other threat criteria. The determi- according to SWOT sub-factors, then the matrices were trans-
nation of the general evaluation of the SWOT factor weight results formed into numerical decision matrices. Table 9 shows the fuzzy
11032
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038

Table 9
Fuzzy decision matrix of eight strategic alternatives regarding each criterion.
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
X1 (1.900, 3.000,4.500) (7.700, 8.800, 9.100) (3.600, 4.800, 6.100) (8.400, 9.700, 10.000) (3.200, 4.900, 6.600) (2.400, 4.000, 5.900) (7.200, 8.900, 9.700) (3.600, 4.900, 6.300)
X2 (7.600, 9.100, 9.800) (3.600, 5.200, 6.800) (3.100, 4.200, 5.500) (8.200, 9.600, 10.000) 1.800, 2.900, 4.500) (7.300, 8.600, 9.100) (4.300, 5.800, 7.100) (2.300, 3.400, 4.800)
X3 (1.700, 3.300, 5.200) (5.200, 7.100, 8.600) (4.200, 5.900, 7.400) (4.800, 6.300, 7.500) (8.800, 9.900, 10.000) (4.900, 6.500, 7.800) (8.000, 9.300, 9.700) (4.000, 5.500, 6.900)
X4 (4.900, 6.300, 7.500) (7.000, 8.500, 9.200) (6.000, 7.500, 8.400) (8.200, 9.400, 9.700) (6.500, 7.800, 8.500) (5.100, 6.700, 7.900) (4.900, 6.500, 7.700) (5.700, 7.400, 8.600)
X5 (5.800, 7.300, 8.300) (4.900, 6.400, 7.600) (7.100, 8.400, 9.000) (6.200, 7.400, 8.100) (5.000, 6.400, 7.500) (2.400, 3.800, 5.500) (2.600, 4.000, 5.600) (5.600, 7.200, 8.300)
X6 (2.200, 3.600, 5.300) (5.100, 6.800, 8.100) (1.800, 3.100, 4.800) (6.300, 7.600, 8.400) (3.700, 5.000, 6.300) (2.100, 3.400, 5.100) (4.700, 6.200, 7.400) (8.200, 9.600, 10.000)
X7 (3.500, 4.800, 6.200) (5.600, 7.000, 8.000) (5.400, 6.900, 8.000) (7.800, 9.100, 9.600) (7.600, 9.100, 9.700) (5.200, 6.700, 8.000) (7.900, 9.000, 9.300) (5.600, 6.900, 7.800)
X8 (2.900, 4.200, 5.700) (8.400, 9.700, 10.000) (2.100, 3.400, 5.100) (8.400, 9.700, 10.000) (5.200, 6.900, 8.200) (5.000, 6.600, 7.900) (7.200, 8.900, 9.700) (5.400, 7.000, 8.200)
X9 (6.700, 8.100, 8.900) (1.200, 2.200, 3.700) (9.000, 10.000, 10.000) (4.400, 5.900, 7.200) (3.500, 5.400, 7.200) (3.700, 5.600, 7.400) (3.300, 4.800, 6.300) (1.900, 3.100, 4.700)
X10 (8.100, 9.100, 9.300) (0.800, 2.000, 3.800) (7.300, 8.700, 9.300) (4.800, 6.300, 7.500) (1.400, 2.700, 4.500) (7.700, 8.900, 9.300) (5.900, 7.700, 8.800) (2.200, 3.600, 5.200)
X11 (3.400, 5.200, 6.900) (5.800, 7.200, 8.100) (2.500, 4.000, 5.700) (9.000, 10.000, 10.000) (5.500, 7.200, 8.400) (7.600, 9.100, 9.700) (7.200, 8.900, 9.700) (5.200, 6.700, 7.900)
X12 (4.000, 5.700, 7.200) (4.400, 5.900, 7.300) (3.700, 5.300, 6.900) (6.100, 7.700, 8.800) (6.000, 7.300, 8.100) (5.300, 7.100, 8.400) (5.500, 7.200, 8.400) (5.200, 6.900, 8.200)
X13 (0.600, 1.300, 2.800) (3.300, 4.900, 6.500) (1.600, 2.800, 4.500) (3.200, 4.600, 6.100) (8.200, 9.400, 9.700) (1.800, 3.100, 4.900) (6.100, 7.600, 8.600) (2.300, 3.700, 5.400)
X14 (2.800, 3.900, 5.300) (2.900, 4.500, 6.300) (1.800, 3.100, 4.800) (2.600, 3.900, 5.400) (5.100, 6.700, 7.900) (3.900, 5.300, 6.600) (5.200, 6.600, 7.700) (4.600, 6.200, 7.500)
X15 (6.800, 8.000, 8.600) (7.800, 9.100, 9.500) (8.400, 9.700, 10.000) (8.800, 9.900, 10.000) (7.000, 8.500, 9.300) (6.600, 8.200, 9.100) (5.900, 7.400, 8.400) (6.000, 7.700, 8.900)
X16 (6.900, 8.200, 8.800) (1.300, 2.400, 4.100) (5.000, 6.600, 7.800) (7.300, 8.600, 9.100) (0.300, 1.100, 2.800) (6.900, 8.200, 8.800) (1.500, 2.900, 4.800) (0.700, 1.700, 3.400)
X17 (4.200, 5.800, 7.200) (5.800, 7.200, 8.100) (4.800, 6.400, 7.700) (6.200, 8.000, 9.100) (7.400, 9.000, 9.700) (5.600, 7.300, 8.500) (7.400, 9.000, 9.700) (7.000, 8.600, 9.400)
X18 (4.600, 6.100, 7.400) (1.600, 2.900, 4.700) (4.500, 6.400, 8.000) (7.200, 8.800, 9.600) (3.800, 5.500, 7.000) (8.000, 9.500, 10.000) (7.200, 8.800, 9.500) (2.700, 3.900, 5.400)
X19 (1.700, 2.900, 4.600) (5.300, 6.900, 8.100) (2.900, 4.400, 6.000) (4.700, 6.600, 8.100) (4.500, 6.000, 7.300) (1.400, 2.700, 4.500) (6.300, 7.000, 7.000) (3.700, 5.400, 6.900)

Table 10
The fuzzy normalized decision matrix of eight strategic alternatives.
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
W1 0.14643 X1 (0.190, 0.300, 0.450) (0.770, 0.880, 0.910) (0.360, 0.480, 0.610) (0.840, 0.970, 1.000) (0.320, 0.490, 0.660) (0.240, 0.400, 0.590) (0.720, 0.890, 0.970) (0.360, 0.490, 0.630)
W2 0.07330 X2 (0.760, 0.910, 0.980) (0.360, 0.520, 0.680) (0.310, 0.420, 0.550) (0.820, 0.960, 1.000) (0.180, 0.290, 0.450) (0.730, 0.860, 0.910) (0.430, 0.580, 0.710) (0.230, 0.340, 0.480)
W3 0.06028 X3 (0.170, 0.330. 0.520) (0.520. 0.710, 0.860) (0.420. 0.590. 0.740) (0.480. 0.630. 0.750) (0.880, 0.990, 1.000) (0.490, 0.650, 0.780) (0.800, 0.930, 0.970) (0.400, 0.550, 0.690)
W4 0.03193 X4 (0.505, 0.649, 0.773) (0.721, 0.876, 0.948) (0.618, 0.773, 0.866) (0.845, 0.969, 1.000) (0.670, 0.804, 0.876) (0.525, 0.690, 0.814) (0.505, 0.670, 0.793) (0.587, 0.762, 0.886)
W5 0.03555 X5 (0.644, 0.811, 0.922) (0.544, 0.711, 0.844) (0.788, 0.933, 1.000) (0.688, 0.822, 0.900) (0.555, 0.711, 0.833) (0.266, 0.422, 0.611) (0.288, 0.444, 0.622) (0.622, 0.800, 0.922)
W6 0.02162 X6 (0.220, 0.360, 0.530) (0.510, 0.680, 0.810) (0.180, 0.310, 0.480) (0.630, 0.760, 0.840) (0.370, 0.500, 0.630) (0.210, 0.340, 0.510) (0.470, 0.620, 0.740) (0.820, 0.960, 1.000)
W7 0.09572 X7 (0.360, 0.494, 0.639) (0.577, 0.721, 0.824) (0.556, 0.711, 0.824) (0.804, 0.938, 0.989) (0.783, 0.938, 1.000) (0.536, 0.690, 0.824) (0.814, 0.927, 0.958) (0.577, 0.711, 0.804)
W8 0.04585 X8 (0.290, 0.420, 0.570) (0.840, 0.970, 1.000) (0.210, 0.340, 0.510) (0.840, 0.970, 1.000) (0.520, 0.690, 0.820) (0.500, 0.660, 0.790) (0.720, 0.890, 0.970) (0.540, 0.700, 0.820)
W9 0.04218 X9 (0.670, 0.810, 0.890) (0.120, 0.220, 0.370) (0.900, 1.000, 1.000) (0.440, 0.590, 0.720) (0.350, 0.540, 0.720) (0.370, 0.560, 0.740) (0.330, 0.480, 0.630) (0.190, 0.310, 0.470)
W10 0.02572 X10 (0.871, 0.978, 1.000) (0.086, 0.215, 0.408) (0.784, 0.935, 1.000) (0.516, 0.677, 0.806) (0.150, 0.290, 0.483) (0.828, 0.957, 1.000) (0.634, 0.828, 0.946) (0.236, 0.387, 0.559)
W11 0.08524 X11 (0.340, 0.520, 0.690) (0.580, 0.720, 0.810) (0.250, 0.400, 0.570) (0.900, 1.000, 1.000) (0.550, 0.720, 0.840) (0.760, 0.910, 0.970) (0.720, 0.890, 0.970) (0.520, 0.670, 0.790)
W12 0.04364 X12 (0.454, 0.647, 0.818) (0.500, 0.670, 0.829) (0.420, 0.602, 0.784) (0.693, 0.875, 1.000) (0.681, 0.829, 0.920) (0.602, 0.806, 0.954) (0.625, 0.818, 0.954) (0.590, 0.784, 0.931)
W13 0.06799 X13 (0.061, 0.134, 0.288) (0.340, 0.505, 0.670) (0.164, 0.288, 0.463) (0.329, 0.474, 0.628) (0.845, 0.969, 1.000) (0.185, 0.319, 0.505) (0.628, 0.783, 0.886) (0.237, 0.381, 0.556)
W14 0.04568 X14 (0.354, 0.493, 0.670) (0.367, 0.569, 0.797) (0.227, 0.392, 0.607) (0.329, 0.493, 0.683) (0.645, 0.848, 1.000) (0.493, 0.670, 0.835) (0.658, 0.835, 0.974) (0.582, 0.784, 0.949)
W15 0.07006 X15 (0.680, 0.800, 0.860) (0.780, 0.910, 0.950) (0.840, 0.970, 1.000) (0.880, 0.990, 1.000) (0.700, 0.850, 0.930) (0.660, 0.820, 0.910) (0.590, 0.740, 0.840) (0.600, 0.770, 0.890)
W16 0.02777 X16 (0.758, 0.901, 0.967) (0.142, 0.263, 0.450) (0.549, 0.725, 0.857) (0.802, 0.945, 1.000) (0.033, 0.120, 0.307) (0.758, 0.901, 0.967) (0.164, 0.318, 0.527) (0.076, 0.186, 0.373)
W17 0.02751 X17 (0.433, 0.597, 0.742) (0.597, 0.742, 0.835) (0.494, 0.659, 0.793) (0.639, 0.824, 0.938) (0.762, 0.927, 1.000) (0.577, 0.752, 0.876) (0.762, 0.927, 1.000) (0.721, 0.886, 0.969)
W18 0.02054 X18 (0.460, 0.610, 0.740) (0.160, 0.290, 0.470) (0.450, 0.640, 0.800) (0.720, 0.880, 0.960) (0.380, 0.550, 0.700) (0.800, 0.950, 1.000) (0.720, 0.880, 0.950) (0.270, 0.390, 0.540)
W19 0.03301 X19 (0.209, 0.358, 0.567) (0.654, 0.851, 1.000) (0.358, 0.543, 0.740) (0.580, 0.814, 1.000) (0.555, 0.740, 0.901) (0.172, 0.333, 0.555) (0.777, 0.864, 0.864) (0.456, 0.666, 0.851)

Table 11
The fuzzy weighted normalized decision matrix of eight strategic alternatives.
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
X1 (0.028, 0.044, 0.066) (0.113, 0.129, 0.133) (0.053, 0.070, 0.089) (0.123, 0.142, 0.146) (0.047, 0.072, 0.097) (0.035, 0.059, 0.086) (0.105, 0.130, 0.142) (0.053, 0.072, 0.092)
X2 (0.056, 0.067, 0.072) (0.026, 0.038, 0.050) (0.023, 0.031, 0.040) (0.060, 0.070, 0.073) (0.01, 0.021, 0.033) (0.054, 0.063, 0.067) (0.032, 0.043, 0.052) (0.017, 0.025, 0.035)
X3 (0.010, 0.020, 0.031) (0.031, 0.043, 0.052) (0.025, 0.036, 0.045) (0.029, 0.038, 0.045) (0.053, 0.060, 0.060) (0.030, 0.039, 0.047) (0.048, 0.056, 0.058) (0.024, 0.033, 0.042)
X4 (0.016, 0.021, 0.025) (0.023, 0.028, 0.030) (0.020, 0.025, 0.028) (0.027, 0.031, 0.032) (0.021, 0.026, 0.028) (0.017, 0.022, 0.026) (0.016, 0.021, 0.025) (0.019, 0.024, 0.028)
X5 (0.023, 0.029, 0.033) (0.019, 0.025, 0.030) (0.028, 0.033, 0.036) (0.024, 0.029, 0.032) (0.020, 0.025, 0.030) (0.009, 0.015, 0.022) (0.010, 0.016, 0.022) (0.022, 0.028, 0.033)
X6 (0.005, 0.008, 0.011) (0.011, 0.015, 0.018) (0.004, 0.007, 0.010) (0.014, 0.016, 0.018) (0.008, 0.011, 0.014) (0.005, 0.007, 0.011) (0.010, 0.013, 0.016) (0.018, 0.021, 0.022)
X7 (0.035, 0.047, 0.061) (0.055, 0.069, 0.079) (0.053, 0.068, 0.079) (0.077, 0.090, 0.095) (0.075, 0.090, 0.096) (0.051, 0.066, 0.079) (0.078, 0.089, 0.092) (0.055, 0.068, 0.077)
X8 (0.013, 0.019, 0.026) (0.039, 0.044, 0.046) (0.010, 0.016, 0.023) (0.039, 0.044, 0.046) (0.024, 0.032, 0.038) (0.023, 0.030, 0.036) (0.033, 0.041, 0.044) (0.025, 0.032, 0.038)
X9 (0.028, 0.034, 0.038) (0.005, 0.009, 0.016) (0.038, 0.042, 0.042) (0.019, 0.025, 0.030) (0.015, 0.023, 0.030) (0.016, 0.024, 0.031) (0.014, 0.020, 0.027) (0.008, 0.013, 0.020)
X10 (0.022, 0.025, 0.026) (0.002, 0.006, 0.011) (0.020, 0.024, 0.026) (0.013, 0.017, 0.021) (0.004, 0.007, 0.012) (0.021, 0.025, 0.026) (0.016, 0.021, 0.024) (0.006, 0.010, 0.014)
X11 (0.029, 0.044, 0.059) (0.049, 0.061, 0.069) (0.021, 0.034, 0.049) (0.077, 0.085, 0.085) (0.047, 0.061, 0.072) (0.065, 0.078, 0.083) (0.061, 0.076, 0.083) (0.044, 0.057, 0.067)
X12 (0.020, 0.028, 0.036) (0.022, 0.029, 0.036) (0.018, 0.026, 0.034) (0.030, 0.038, 0.044) (0.030, 0.036, 0.040) (0.026, 0.035, 0.042) (0.027, 0.036, 0.042) (0.026, 0.034, 0.041)
X13 (0.004, 0.009, 0.020) (0.023, 0.034, 0.046) (0.011, 0.020, 0.032) (0.022, 0.032, 0.043) (0.057, 0.066, 0.068) (0.013, 0.022, 0.034) (0.043, 0.053, 0.060) (0.016, 0.026, 0.038)
X14 (0.016, 0.023, 0.031) (0.017, 0.026, 0.036) (0.010, 0.018, 0.028) (0.015, 0.023, 0.031) (0.029, 0.039, 0.046) (0.023, 0.031, 0.038) (0.030, 0.038, 0.045) (0.027, 0.036, 0.043)
X15 (0.048, 0.056, 0.060) (0.055, 0.064, 0.067) (0.059, 0.068, 0.070) (0.062, 0.069, 0.070) (0.049, 0.060, 0.065) (0.046, 0.057, 0.064) (0.041, 0.052, 0.059) (0.042, 0.054, 0.062)
X16 (0.021, 0.025, 0.027) (0.004, 0.007, 0.013) (0.015, 0.020, 0.024) (0.022, 0.026, 0.028) (0.001, 0.003, 0.009) (0.021, 0.025, 0.027) (0.005, 0.009, 0.015) (0.002, 0.005, 0.010)
X17 (0.012, 0.016, 0.020) (0.016, 0.020, 0.023) (0.014, 0.018, 0.022) (0.018, 0.023, 0.026) (0.021, 0.026, 0.028) (0.016, 0.021, 0.024) (0.021, 0.026, 0.028) (0.020, 0.024, 0.027)
X18 (0.009, 0.013, 0.015) (0.003, 0.006, 0.010) (0.009, 0.013, 0.016) (0.015, 0.018, 0.020) (0.008, 0.011, 0.014) (0.016, 0.020, 0.021) (0.015, 0.018, 0.020) (0.006, 0.008, 0.011)
X19 (0.007, 0.012, 0.019) (0.022, 0.028, 0.033) (0.012, 0.018, 0.024) (0.019, 0.027, 0.033) (0.018, 0.024, 0.030) (0.006, 0.011, 0.018) (0.026, 0.029, 0.029) (0.015, 0.022, 0.028)

decision matrix for each criterion of the eight strategic alterna- The (FPIS) and (FNIS) values of each strategy were found
tives. The criterion X1–X19, and alternative A1–A8, given below, using Steps (12–15), Eqs. (13)—(14). The elements that make
are described in detail in Supplementary Document S4. up Table 11 are normalized positive triangular fuzzy numbers
In the study, normalized triangular fuzzy numbers are in- and their intervals belong to the closed interval [0, 1]. Thus, the
cluded in the range [0,1] by using linear scale transformation fuzzy positive-ideal solution (FPIS, A+ ) and the fuzzy negative-
functions. The matrix was normalized according to the benefit ideal solution (FNIS, A− ) are defined as A+ = (1,1,1) and A− =
and cost criteria determined using Eqs. (8)–(11), and Table 10 (0,0,0) for benefit criterion, and A+ = (0,0,0) and A− = (1,1,1) for
was obtained. All criteria were accepted as benefit criteria in the cost criterion. In this study, all criteria were evaluated as benefit
criteria.
calculations. For example, the maximum fuzzy number listed in
The positive and negative ideal distances of the strategy alter-
the first row of Table 9 is 10,000, and all the fuzzy numbers
natives were determined by Eqs. (15)–(17), then, the closeness
shown in the first row are divided by 10,000 to obtain normalized
coefficients were calculated using Eq. (18). As an example, the
values. The same process was repeated in the other 19 rows. calculation of the CC3 value for the third strategy is given below.
Since the importance weight of each criterion is different,
Eq. (12) was used to create the weighted normalized fuzzy de- 0.5817
CC3 = = 0.0306
cision matrix. As an example, below, let us show the A1 alterna- 18.4182 + 0.5817
tive fuzzy numbers (0.0278, 0.0439, 0.065) according to the X1 As a result, the closeness coefficient and ranking of the eight
criterion listed in Table 11. strategic alternatives can be seen in Table 12.
0.028 = 0.14643 × 0.1900; 0.044 = 0.14643 × 0.3000; 0.066 The largest closeness coefficient belongs to the interconnected
connection strategy to the mainland. Thus, the A4 alternative was
= 0.14643 × 0.4500 determined as the best (most preferred, most important) strategic
11033
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
Table 12
The closeness coefficient and rank of eight strategic alternatives.
A1 Natural gas pipeline laying
A2 Installation of solar energy storage systems
A3 Conversion of fuel plants to LNG and capacity increase
A4 Establishing the interconnected connection
A5 Increasing energy efficiency
A6 Establishment of a regional cooperation policy
A7 Preparation of an energy policy and legal regulations
A8 Diversification of renewable energy source alternatives.
Fig. 10. Preferred ranking of eight strategies alternative for North Cyprus.
alternative. Results are illustrated in a bar chart according to the
calculated rank values, Fig. 10.
In the study, the priority order of the strategy alternatives
is defined as (A4)>(A7)>(A5)>(A2)>(A6)>(A3)>(A1). The closeness
coefficient of the A4 strategy alternative has the value closest to
one with a value of 0.0429. In other words, strategy A4 is the best
strategy because it is the biggest value in the ranking.
6. Discussion
Today, strategic energy planning problems are a frequently
discussed topic in the literature. Governments place the country’s
welfare among their priorities for their energy decisions, but an-
other important issue is the fact that the possible effects of their
choices on the society and the environment cannot be ignored.
Hence, the need for effective and optimal planning of energy
policies arises and is of strategic importance for most countries.
Being responsible for energy management requires maintaining
security of supply in the face of rising fuel prices. More impor-
tantly, while countries are struggling with global warming, they
are struggling to find a place in the global geopolitical energy
balances. In Northern Cyprus, the energy issue is not only a
priority but also a troublesome agenda for both the government
and the society. In the energy sector, energy strategies that in-
volve seizing opportunities and mitigating threats need to be
planned as early as possible. However, there is no realistic and
scientific foresight for creating energy policies in Northern Cyprus
yet. The problems of energy needs are attempted to be solved
with temporary measures. Worse still, almost all of the energy
production is composing of primary sources, which do not meet
the energy demand of the society.
The application of the integrated SWOT-based MCDM method-
ology to Northern Cyprus is novel and has not been applied in
any of its scientific areas before. It is possible to come across
similar methods in some studies on the energy sector of differ-
ent countries. In Pakistan’s study of sustainable energy planning
11034
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
d+
i d−
i CCi Ranking
18.4615 0.5412 0.0285 8
18.3289 0.6693 0.0352 4
18.4182 0.5817 0.0306 7
18.1778 0.8153 0.0429 1
18.3202 0.6784 0.0357 3
18.3600 0.6406 0.0337 5
18.2339 0.7793 0.0410 2
18.4120 0.5874 0.0309 6
(SWOT-AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS), the priority energy strategy is the
option to provide low-cost electricity to the residential, commer-
cial, and industrial sectors (Solangi et al., 2019). Ervural et al.
suggested making the country an energy center with an inte-
grated similar approach (SWOT-ANP-Fuzzy TOPSIS) as the priority
strategy (Cayir Ervural et al., 2018). In the AHP-SWOT-Fuzzy
TOPSIS approach proposed for Morocco and Egypt, SO strategies
that care about strengths and opportunities for both countries
were determined as priority strategies to ensure cooperation in
cross-border energy (A. (Papapostolou et al., 2020). In this study,
the priority energy strategy was different from that of other
countries, and the most preferred option was an ST strategy
that cares about strengths and threats. Having mentioned the
similar methodologies proposed in other studies, the strategy
alternatives in this study are discussed below.
Considering the validity of the proposed methodology results,
the top strategy is the interconnected connection alternative to
the mainland (A4). The mainland referred to here is Turkey. The
location of Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean is very important
in terms of energy geopolitics. Research by Pulhan et al. (Pulhan
et al., 2020) draws attention to the geopolitical importance of this
region. Any step on energy in the Eastern Mediterranean attracts
the attention of many countries that do not want to be pushed
out of the global energy balance game. The fact that the island has
the potential to act as an energy corridor between the Middle East
and Europe creates a unique opportunity for energy transmission.
The (A4) strategy will actually connect the island to the whole
of Europe, not just the mainland. Interconnected connections are
one of the most recommended sustainable development tools for
small island countries. In fact, in a study conducted for Southern
Cyprus (Tsangas et al., 2018), it was suggested that subsea power
cable interconnection to the mainland is important for sustain-
able energy supply. In that study, the mainland mentioned was
Greece, and the extent of the greater geographical distance was
ignored. The importance of the (A4) strategy in this study stems
from the close distance between Cyprus and Turkey. Although
Northern and Southern Cyprus have separate administrations,
there is cooperation in energy due to the existing interconnected
connections. The realization of the (A4) strategy may also provide
optimum benefit to the Southern Cyprus energy sector. In another
study, Georgiou et al. study of the entire Greek islands, stated that
the mainland connection further enhances the high RES potential
by contributing to the sustainable expansion and offers both
economic and environmental benefits to the entire energy sector
(Georgiou et al., 2011).
The expert decision placed the alternative (A2) in fourth place.
(A2) points to solar energy storage systems. The contribution of
solar energy to the energy system in Northern Cyprus is currently
approximately 6%. This means that almost all energy production
comes from primary fuels (Kassem et al., 2020). European Union
countries are required to reduce their carbon emission volumes
by 2050. The entire island of Cyprus is a European territory
(Maltini and Minder, 2015), however, EU regulations do not have
any enforcement in the northern part of Cyprus. Still, achieving
EU carbon reduction targets is crucial. Energy Solutions for the
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
islands are expected to have social, economic, and environmental
impacts. However, according to Möller et al. each island country
should have a separate solution specific to its priorities (Möller
et al., 2012). With the implementation of the strategy (A4) dis-
cussed above, Northern Cyprus will benefit from high potential
solar energy in an unlimited capacity. In this case, there will be
no need for alternative solar energy storage systems. On the other
hand, the (A8) alternative is also compatible with the (A4) alter-
native. The alternative (A8) is the proposal to diversify renewable
energy sources. According to Kuang et al. for the complete com-
patibility of renewable energy sources with the energy system,
various renewable resources such as solar energy, wind energy,
and biomass must contribute to the system. (Kuang et al., 2016).
In this context, another supporting study result highlights that
interconnected connectivity on isolated islands allows 100% use
of renewable energy sources (Alves et al., 2020).
Alternative (A7) is in second place. (A7) is a WT strategy. This
strategy draws attention to the preparation of energy policies and
international legal regulations for the sustainable future of the
energy sector. Experts identified the inadequacy of energy man-
agement, the lack of an energy policy to be followed, the absence
of energy regulation institutions, the lack of legal legislation, and
the effective proposal to avoid numerous weaknesses and threats
such as climate change and environmental obligations with the
(A7). Many similar studies can be found that highlight the im-
portance of regulating the energy systems primarily with laws
and regulations (Kaoma and Gheewala, 2021; Liu et al., 2018; Pa-
papostolou et al., 2020). In many energies policy-making efforts,
energy efficiency remains on the agenda. In this study the (A5)
strategy, increasing energy efficiency was identified as the third
priority. For the authors, the high ranking of this strategy was not
unexpected. One of these essential laws for energy management
is the energy efficiency law, but it has not yet been enacted. Cayir
et al. while forming policies regarding Turkey’s energy planning,
emphasized the importance of energy efficiency, similar to this
research, and included this law among policy recommendations
(Cayir Ervural et al., 2018). If energy efficiency is not included in
energy scenarios, society is expected to deal with high costs and
non-optimal solutions (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007).
The strategy alternative of connecting to the mainland with
a natural gas pipeline (A1) and the strategy alternative of con-
verting existing fuel plants to liquefied natural gas (A3) took the
bottom two places. In fact, these results were a surprising for
long-term strategic planning, given the hydrocarbon potential in
the Eastern Mediterranean. As a matter of fact, this situation is
presented as a great opportunity in studies of Southern Cyprus
(Tsangas et al., 2019, 2018). The government in the south of
Cyprus has long been strategically planning both an intercon-
nected connection and natural gas pipeline to the mainland. How-
ever, Southern Cyprus is geographically far from the neighboring
mainland, creating both technical and economic difficulties. Al-
though strategy (A1) reminds us that Northern Cyprus has a
distance advantage in geopolitical and strategic energy transmis-
sion, the negative effect on global warming, caused by the volume
of emissions from primary fuels is undesirable. In this context, it
is pleasing that these two alternatives are placed in the last two
places in the ranking.
7. Conclusion and implications of the study
The results obtained by applying the methodology proposed
in Chapter 3 to the energy sector in Northern Cyprus base the
country’s current situation on expert judgment. Policymakers can
benefit from the energy strategies discussed in the study, with the
confidence brought by the scientific approach in the steps they
will take regarding the energy sector.
11035
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
All eight proposed strategies are essential for the Northern
Cyprus energy system. Additionally, every energy strategy im-
plemented in order to positively impact climate change in the
north of the island, will in fact bring optimal benefits to the
entire island’s energy management. However, it should be kept
in mind that the most preferred interconnection project requires
a capital-intensive investment and direct intervention in the elec-
tricity system.
Furthermore, international power grid interconnections can
have advantages and disadvantages. It can provide political bene-
fits among interdependent countries, such as preventing conflict
with neighbors and increasing political stability. Or conversely,
it can put pressure on the political and economic power of one
over the other among interdependent countries, interfere with
their internal affairs and incur political costs. Therefore, making
the right preliminary assessment and revealing the sustainable
benefits for the whole country should be considered strategically.
Moreover, what makes the first and last priority strategies
noteworthy is that they have highlighted the island’s strategic
and geopolitical importance. The island of Cyprus can be an
energy bridge between the Middle East and Europe in energy
transmission.
8. Limitations and future research opportunities
The study includes basic strategies that will shed light on en-
ergy planning in Northern Cyprus’ energy management and raise
awareness. However, the strategies’ applicability determined by
the proposed model requires broad stakeholder participation and
long-term planning. In addition, in future research, new results
obtained with different MCDM techniques can be compared with
the proposed ANP-weighted fuzzy TOPSIS method. Policymakers
can analyze the most preferred energy strategy in depth within
a strategic plan. In other words, by involving stakeholders in a
long-term vision, energy use and future needs can be examined in
economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Again, in future
research, with the realization of interconnected connection, prior-
itization can be made among renewable energy alternatives that
can contribute unlimitedly to the production system. However,
the implementation of results requires political commitment and
will to mobilize authority and resources.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Soley Akçaba: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing –
original draft. Fehiman Eminer: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the experts for their valuable
contributions.
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found
online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.227.
References
Abbasi, K.R., Shahbaz, M., Zhang, J., Irfan, M., Alvarado, R., 2022. Analyze the
environmental sustainability factors of China: The role of fossil fuel energy
and renewable energy. Renew. Energy 187, 390–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2022.01.066.
Afsordegan, A., Sánchez, M., Agell, N., Zahedi, S., Cremades, L.V., 2016. Decision
making under uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for select-
ing sustainable energy alternatives. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13 (6),
1419–1432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S13762-016-0982-7/TABLES/11.
Aghasafari, H., Karbasi, A., Mohammadi, H., Calisti, R., 2020. Determination of
the best strategies for development of organic farming: A SWOT – Fuzzy
Analytic Network Process approach. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 124039. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124039.
Akçaba, S., Eminer, F., 2022. Sustainable energy planning for the aspiration
to transition from fossil energy to renewable energy in Northern Cyprus.
Heliyon 8 (6), e09813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09813.
Al-Refaie, A., Sy, E., Rawabdeh, I., Alaween, W., 2016. Integration of SWOT and
ANP for effective strategic planning in the cosmetic industry. Adv. Prod. Eng.
Manag. 11 (1), 29–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.14743/apem2016.1.209.
Alipour, M., Alighaleh, S., Hafezi, R., Omranievardi, M., 2017. A new hybrid
decision framework for prioritizing funding allocation to Iran’s energy sector.
Energy 121, 388–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.024.
Alizadeh, R., Soltanisehat, L., Lund, P.D., Zamanisabzi, H., 2020. Improving renew-
able energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM
method. Energy Policy 137, 111174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2019.
111174.
Almutairi, K., Hosseini Dehshiri, S.J., Hosseini Dehshiri, S.S., Mostafaeipour, A.,
Hoa, A.X., Techato, K., 2022. Determination of optimal renewable energy
growth strategies using SWOT analysis, hybrid MCDM methods, and game
theory: A case study. Int. J. Energy Res. 46 (5), 6766–6789. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/er.7620.
Alptekin, N., 2013. Integration of SWOT analysis and TOPSIS method in strategic
decision making process. The Macrotheme Review 2 (7), https://macrotheme.
com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/1AlpMR27.32040327.pdf.
Alves, M., Segurado, R., Costa, M., 2020. On the road to 100% renewable energy
systems in isolated islands. Energy 198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.
2020.117321.
Amiri, M.P., 2010. Project selection for oil-fields development by using the
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (9), 6218–6224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.103.
Arsić, S., Nikolić, D., Živković, Ž., 2017. Hybrid SWOT - ANP - FANP model for
prioritization strategies of sustainable development of ecotourism in National
Park Djerdap, Serbia. Forest Policy Econ. 80, 11–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.forpol.2017.02.003.
Azimi, R., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Fouladgar, M.M., Zavadskas, E.K., Basiri, M.H.,
2011. Ranking the strategies of mining sector through ANP and TOPSIS in a
SWOT framework. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 12 (4), 670–689. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3846/16111699.2011.626552.
Balın, A., Baraçlı, H., 2015. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology
based upon the interval type-2 fuzzy sets for evaluating renewable energy
alternatives in Turkey. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 23 (5), 742–763. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1056276.
Baykasoğlu, A., Gölcük, I., 2015. Development of a novel multiple-attribute
decision making model via fuzzy cognitive maps and hierarchical fuzzy
TOPSIS. Inform. Sci. 301, 75–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.12.048.
Bhatia, S.C., 2014. Energy resources and their utilisation. In: Advanced Renewable
Energy Systems. Elsevier, pp. 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-
269-3.50001-2.
Bohra, S.S., Anvari-Moghaddam, A., 2022. A comprehensive review on applica-
tions of multicriteria decision-making methods in power and energy systems.
Int. J. Energy Res. 46 (4), 4088–4118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.7517.
Büyüközkan, G., Güleryüz, S., 2014. A new GDM based AHP framework with
linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations for renewable energy planning.
J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems 27 (6), 3181–3195. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/IFS-
141275.
Carlsson, C., Fullér, R., 1996. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: Recent
developments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 78 (2), 139–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/0165-0114(95)00165-4.
11036
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
Catron, J., Stainback, G.A., Dwivedi, P., Lhotka, J.M., 2013. Bioenergy development
in Kentucky: A SWOT-ANP analysis. Forest Policy Econ. 28, 38–43. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.12.003.
Cayir Ervural, B., Zaim, S., Demirel, O.F., Aydin, Z., Delen, D., 2018. An ANP and
fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (June), 1538–1550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2017.06.095.
Çolak, M., Kaya, I., 2017. Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using
an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 80, 840–853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.
194.
Chen, C.T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under
fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-
0114(97)00377-1.
Chen, C.-T., 2001. A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution
center. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118 (1), 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0165-0114(98)00459-X.
Chung, S.-H., Lee, A.H.I., Pearn, W.L., 2005. Analytic network process (ANP)
approach for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 96 (1), 15–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.02.006.
Darshini, D., Dwivedi, P., Glenk, K., 2013. Capturing stakeholders’ views on oil
palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia. Energy Policy 62,
1128–1137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2013.07.017.
Diakoulaki, D., Antunes, C.H., Gomes Martins, A., 2005. MCDA and energy
planning. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys.
Springer-Verlag, pp. 859–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_21.
Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., Martinez, L., 2022. Collaboration enhanced hybrid fuzzy
decision-making approach to analyze the renewable energy investment
projects. Energy Rep. 8, 377–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.
006.
EC, 2020. 2020 Climate & Energy Package. European Commission, https://ec.
europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020_en.
Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., Kaya, I., 2013. Evaluation of renewable energy alterna-
tives using macbeth and fuzzy ahp multicriteria methods: The case of Turkey.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 19 (1), 38–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.
2012.762950.
Esfahani, A.N., Moghaddam, N.B., Maleki, A., Nazemi, A., 2021. The knowledge
map of energy security. Energy Rep. 7, 3570–3589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.egyr.2021.06.001.
Fichtner, 2015. Final Study Report, Power Systems Interconnection between
KIBTEK and TEIAS.
Fraune, C., Knodt, M., 2018. Sustainable energy transformations in an age of
populism, post-truth politics, and local resistance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 43,
1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.029.
Genç, T., Kabak, M., Özceylan, E., Çetinkaya, C., 2018. Evaluation of natural gas
strategies of turkey in east mediterranean region: a strengths-weaknesses-
opportunities-threats and analytic network process approach. Technol. Econ.
Dev. Econ. 24 (3), 1041–1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.
1253043.
Georgiou, P.N., Mavrotas, G., Diakoulaki, D., 2011. The effect of islands’ intercon-
nection to the mainland system on the development of renewable energy
sources in the Greek power sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (6),
2607–2620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.007.
Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Diakoulaki, D., 1998. Design and implementation
of a group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. European
J. Oper. Res. 109 (2), 483–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)
00072-1.
Gürel, E., Tat, M., 2017. SWOT analysis: a theoretical review. J. Int. Soc. Res. 10
(51), 994–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832.
Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple attribute decision making methods
and applications. Springer 186, 58–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
642-48318-9.
IEA, 2017. Real-world policy packages for sustainable energy transitions-
shaping energy transition policies to fit national objectives and constraints.
https://www.iea.org/reports/real-world-policy-packages-for-sustainable-
energy-transitions.
Kabak, M., Dağdeviren, M., Burmaoğlu, S., 2016. A hybrid SWOT-FANP model for
energy policy making in Turkey. Energy Sources B: Econ. Plan. Policy 11 (6),
487–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2012.673692.
Kaoma, M., Gheewala, S.H., 2021. Evaluation of the enabling environment for
the sustainable development of rural-based bioenergy systems in Zambia.
Energy Policy 154, 112337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2021.112337.
Kassem, Y., Al Zoubi, R., Gökçekuş, H., 2019. The possibility of generating
electricity using small-scale wind turbines and solar photovoltaic systems
for households in northern cyprus: A comparative study. Environments 6
(4), 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ENVIRONMENTS6040047.
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
Kassem, Y., Çamur, H., Alhuoti, S.M.A., 2020. Solar energy technology for northern
cyprus: Assessment, statistical analysis, and feasibility study. Energies 13 (4),
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13040940.
Kaya, I., Çolak, M., Terzi, F., 2019. A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria
decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy
Rev. 24 (2017), 207–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003.
Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., 2011. Multicriteria decision making in energy planning
using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (6),
6577–6585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.081.
Khan, M.I., 2018. Evaluating the strategies of compressed natural gas industry us-
ing an integrated SWOT and MCDM approach. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1035–1052.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.10.231.
Khojaste-Sarakhsi, M., Ghodsypour, S.H., Fatemi Ghomi, S.M.T., Dashtaki-
Hesari, H., 2019. Energy efficiency of Iran buildings: a SWOT-ANP approach.
Int. J. Energy Sector Manag. 13 (3), 726–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-
07-2018-0011.
KIB-TEK, 2018. Electrical Energy Production Scenarios Report, Cyprus Turkish
Electricity Authority, https://www.kibtek.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/
Uretim-Senaryolari-14.11.2018-Revson.pdf.
KIB-TEK, 2021. Total Production and Consumption Values in 2021, Cyprus
Turkish Electricity Authority, https://www.kibtek.com/wp-content/uploads/
Statistikler/2021statistic.pdf.
Kleyle, R., De Korvin, A., Karim, K., 1997. Investing in new companies in an
unstable economic environment: A fuzzy set approach. Manag. Finance 23
(6), 68–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EB018631/FULL/XML.
Kougias, I., Szabó, S., Nikitas, A., Theodossiou, N., 2019. Sustainable energy
modelling of non-interconnected Mediterranean islands. Renew. Energy 133,
930–940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2018.10.090.
Kuang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhou, B., Li, C., Cao, Y., Li, L., Zeng, L., 2016. A review
of renewable energy utilization in islands. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 59,
504–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.014.
Kukuh, S., Ciptomulyono, U., Putra, N., Ahmadi, A., Suharyo, O., 2019. Navy
ability development strategy using SWOT analysis-interpretative structural
modeling (ISM). Strategic Manag. 24 (1), 30–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/
StraMan1901030S.
Kulkarni, S.H., Jirage, B.J., Anil, T.R., 2017. Alternative energy options for India—
A multi-criteria decision analysis to rank energy alternatives using analytic
hierarchy process and fuzzy logic with an emphasis to distributed generation.
Distributed Gener. Alternative Energy J. 32 (2), 29–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/21563306.2017.11869108.
Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A.R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., Bansal, R.C., 2017.
A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable
renewable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69, 596–609.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191.
Lee, H.-C., Chang, C.-T., 2018. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for
ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
92, 883–896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007.
Lee, J.W., Kim, S.H., 2000. Using analytic network process and goal programming
for interdependent information system project selection. Comput. Oper. Res.
27 (4), 367–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00057-X.
Li, C., Negnevitsky, M., Wang, X., 2020. Prospective assessment of methanol
vehicles in China using FANP-SWOT analysis. Transp. Policy 96, 60–75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.06.010.
Liu, G., Zheng, S., Xu, P., Zhuang, T., 2018. An ANP-SWOT approach for ESCOs
industry strategies in Chinese building sectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
93, 90–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.090.
Loken, E., 2007. Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy
planning problems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11 (7), 1584–1595. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.11.005.
Madurai Elavarasan, R., Afridhis, S., Vijayaraghavan, R.R., Subramaniam, U.,
Nurunnabi, M., 2020. SWOT analysis: A framework for comprehensive
evaluation of drivers and barriers for renewable energy development in
significant countries. Energy Rep. 6, 1838–1864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.egyr.2020.07.007.
Maltini, F., Minder, R., 2015. The Serhatköy photovoltaic power plant and the
future of renewable energy on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
In: Eco-Friendly Innovation in Electricity Transmission and Distribution
Networks. Elsevier, pp. 377–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-
010-1.00018-5.
Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Khalifah, Z., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Nor, K.M., Khosh-
noudi, M., 2017. A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications
to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 71, 216–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2016.12.053.
Mishra, A.R., Kumari, R., Sharma, D.K., 2019. Intuitionistic fuzzy divergence
measure-based multi-criteria decision-making method. Neural Comput. Appl.
31 (7), 2279–2294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3187-1.
11037
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
Möller, B., Sperling, K., Nielsen, S., Smink, C., Kerndrup, S., 2012. Creating
consciousness about the opportunities to integrate sustainable energy on
islands. Energy 48 (1), 339–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.
008.
Mukeshimana, M.C., Zhao, Z.-Y., Nshimiyimana, J.P., 2021. Evaluating strategies
for renewable energy development in Rwanda: An integrated SWOT – ISM
analysis. Renew. Energy 176, 402–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.
2021.05.104.
Njoh, A.J., 2017. The SWOT model’s utility in evaluating energy technology:
Illustrative application of a modified version to assess the sawdust cook-
stove’s sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69,
313–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.049.
Ogbeba, J., Hoskara, E., 2019. The evaluation of single-family detached hous-
ing units in terms of integrated photovoltaic shading devices: The case
of Northern Cyprus. Sustainability 11 (3), 593. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
su11030593.
Ouria, M., Sevinc, H., 2018. Evaluation of the potential of solar energy utilization
in Famagusta, Cyprus. Sustainable Cities Soc. 37, 189–202. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.036.
Papapostolou, A., Karakosta, C., Apostolidis, G., Doukas, H., 2020. An AHP-
SWOT-fuzzy TOPSIS approach for achieving a cross-border RES cooperation.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (7), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12072886.
Papapostolou, Aikaterini, Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., 2017. Analysis of pol-
icy scenarios for achieving renewable energy sources targets: A fuzzy
TOPSIS approach. Energy Environ. 28, 1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0958305X16685474.
Patil, M., Majumdar, B.B., 2022. An investigation on the key determinants
influencing electric two-wheeler usage in urban Indian context. Res. Transp.
Bus. Manag. 43, 100693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100693.
Pohekar, S.D., Ramachandran, M., 2004. Application of multi-criteria decision
making to sustainable energy planning - a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2003.12.007.
Pulhan, A., Yorucu, V., Sinan Evcan, N., 2020. Global energy market dynamics
and natural gas development in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Utilities
Policy 64, 101040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101040.
Saaty, T.L., 1989. Group decision making and the AHP. In: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 59–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-642-50244-6_4.
Saaty, T., 1996. Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic
network process. In: RWS Publications. ISBN: 0-9620317-9-8, p. 370, http:
//www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ewgmcda/pdf/SaatyBook.pdf.
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2013. The analytic network process. In: International
Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Vol. 195, pp. 1–40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7279-7_1.
Sánchez-Lozano, J.M., García-Cascales, M.S., Lamata, M.T., 2016. GIS-based on-
shore wind farm site selection using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
methods, evaluating the case of Southeastern Spain. Appl. Energy 171,
86–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.030.
Sanny, L., Simamora, B.H., Polla, J.R., Atipa, J.L., 2018. Business strategy selection
using SWOT analysis with ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS for improving competitive
advantage. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanities 26 (2), 1143–1158.
Şengül, Ü., Eren, M., Eslamian Shiraz, S., Gezder, V., Şengül, A.B., 2015. Fuzzy
TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey.
Renew. Energy 75, 617–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.045.
Shahabi, R.S., Basiri, M.H., Kahag, M.R., Zonouzi, S.A., 2014. An ANP-SWOT
approach for interdependency analysis and prioritizing the Iran’s steel scrap
industry strategies. Resour. Policy 42, 18–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2014.07.001.
Shahba, S., Arjmandi, R., Monavari, M., Ghodusi, J., 2017. Application of
multi-attribute decision-making methods in SWOT analysis of mine waste
management (case study: Sirjan’s Golgohar iron mine, Iran). Resour. Policy
51, 67–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.11.002.
Shkurko, J., 2022. Power cuts continue in north, hospital impacted.
Cyprus Mail https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/07/05/power-cuts-continue-in-
north-hospitals-impacted/.
Solangi, Y.A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N.H., Ali, S., 2019. Evaluating the strategies for
sustainable energy planning in Pakistan: An integrated SWOT-AHP and
Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117655. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655.
Tasri, A., Susilawati, A., 2014. Selection among renewable energy alternatives
based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in Indonesia. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 7, 34–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.02.008.
Terrados, J., Almonacid, G., Pérez-Higueras, P., 2009. Proposal for a combined
methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (8), 2022–2030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2009.01.025, Pergamon.
S. Akçaba and F. Eminer
Tsangas, M., Jeguirim, M., Limousy, L., Zorpas, A., 2019. The application of
analytical hierarchy process in combination with PESTEL-SWOT analysis
to assess the hydrocarbons sector in cyprus. Energies 12 (5), 791. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.3390/en12050791.
Tsangas, M., Zorpas, A.A., Jeguirim, M., Limousy, L., 2018. Cyprus energy resources
and their potential to increase sustainability. In: 2018 9th International
Renewable Energy Congress. IREC, pp. 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IREC.
2018.8362480.
Villacreses, G., Martínez-Gómez, J., Jijón, D., Cordovez, M., 2022. Geolocation
of photovoltaic farms using geographic information systems (GIS) with
multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: Case of the Ecuadorian
energy regulation. Energy Rep. 8, 3526–3548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.
EGYR.2022.02.152.
Wang, T.-C., Chang, T.-H., 2007. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial
training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 33 (4),
870–880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.07.003.
Wang, C.-N., Dang, T.-T., Nguyen, N.-A.-T., Wang, J.-W., 2022. 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.
Energy Rep. 8, 1124–1142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.045.
Wang, X., Li, C., Shang, J., Yang, C., Zhang, B., Ke, X., 2017. Strategic choices of
China’s new energy vehicle industry: An analysis based on ANP and SWOT.
Energies http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10040537.
Wang, Y., Xu, L., Solangi, Y.A., 2020. Strategic renewable energy resources
selection for Pakistan: Based on SWOT-fuzzy AHP approach. Sustainable
Cities Soc. 52, 101861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861.
Weihrich, H., 1982. The TOWS matrix—A tool for situational analysis. Long Range
Plan. 15 (2), 54–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0.
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable
energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35 (5),
2683–2691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001.
Yang, Y.Q., Wang, S.Q., Dulaimi, M., Low, S.P., 2003. A fuzzy quality function
deployment system for buildable design decision-makings. Autom. Constr.
12 (4), 381–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(03)00002-5.
11038
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 11022–11038
Yenen, M., Ercan, F., Fahrioglu, M., 2015. Solar thermal system analysis of
Northern Cyprus. In: Eco-Friendly Innovations in Electricity Transmission and
Distribution Networks. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.5088.9601.
Yenen, M., Fahrioglu, M., 2013. Wind and solar energy assessment of North-
ern Cyprus. In: 2013 12th International Conference on Environment and
Electrical Engineering. pp. 376–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC.2013.
6549545.
Yüksel, I., Dagdeviren, M., 2007. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in
a SWOT analysis – a case study for a textile firm. Inform. Sci. 177 (16),
3364–3382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.001.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8 (3), 338–353, https://reader.elsevie
r.com/reader/sd/pii/S001999586590241X?token=FB8D4ADB002C3AE109633F
03616E889449566951CFF50394823564576D7CDA05F40132EDFB94C1056A3
5AF6B13AFEA90.
Zadeh, L.A., Bellman, R.E., 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment.
Manage. Sci. 17 (4), 141–164.
Zaim, S., Sevkli, M., Camgöz-Akdağ, H., Demirel, O.F., Yesim Yayla, A., Delen, D.,
2014. Use of ANP weighted crisp and fuzzy QFD for product development.
Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (9), 4464–4474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.
01.008.
Zhang, L., Zhou, P., Newton, S., Fang, J., Zhou, D., Zhang, L., 2015. Evaluating
clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: An improved multi-criteria
decision making method. Energy 90, 953–964. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2015.07.124.
Zimmermann, H., 1996. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Kluver Academic
Publisher, https://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=HVHtCAAAQBAJ&oi=
fnd&pg=PR13&dq=Fuzzy+Set+TheoryAnd+its+Applications&ots=sgThXaSub6&
sig=y77qezDSqJRZhC2nL4zbHoRU97E.
Živković, Ž., Nikolić, D., Djordjević, P., Mihajlović, I., Savić, M., 2015. Analytical
network process in the framework of swot analysis for strategic decision
making (case study: Technical faculty in Bor, University of Belgrade, Serbia).
Acta Polytech. Hungarica 12 (7), 199–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.12700/APH.12.
7.2015.7.12.