Multi-criteria decision analysis for simplified evaluation of clean energy technologies

  • 1 Warsaw University of Technology, , 02-524, Warsaw, Poland


Technology assessment (TA) is not a new concept. High value energy technology identification needs to be followed by a decision process in which all shareholders contribute. A case study on Combined and Heat Power (CHP) technologies considered is presented to illustrate the applicability of fuzzy analytical hierarchy assessment approach (FAHP). The goal of this paper is to identify and evaluate the best variant of CHP technologies using multi-criteria that are technical feasibly and cost effective reflecting performance parameters. The results depict that technology A2 with an overall ranking of 0.438 is the best alternative compared to others. Taking into consideration decision parameters for the section, A1 is found to be relatively most important with a rating of 0.434 with its reliability and cost effectiveness. The presented fuzzy-based methodology is general expected to be used by a diverse target groups in energy sectors.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Assefa, G., Frostell, B., 2007. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies, Technology in Society, 29, 63-78.

  • Ayan, M.B., 2013. Fuzzy TOPSIS application for supplier selection problem, International Journal of Information. Business and Management, 4(3), 11-23.

  • Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., 2005a. An integrated sustainability decision-support framework Part I: Problem structuring, The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12(2), 98-111.

  • Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., 2005b. An integrated sustainability decision-support framework Part II: Problem analysis, The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12(2), 112-131.

  • Bakouros, Y., 2000. Technology evaluation, , available at:, (20.09.2017).

  • Bertoni, M., Hallstedt, S., Ola, I., 2015. A model-based approach for sustainability and value assessment in the aerospace value chain, Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 7, 2015, 1-19.

  • Buckley, J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Systems, 17(1), 233-247.

  • Coates, J., 1976. Technology Assessment - A Tool Kit. Chemtech, p. 372.

  • Chou, S-W., Chang, Y-C., 2008. The implementation factors that influence the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) Benefits, Decision Support System, 46(1), 149-157.

  • Daim, T., Yates, D., Peng, Y., Jimenez, B., 2009. Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest, Technology in Society, 31, 232-243.

  • Davies, M.A.P., 1994. A Multicriteria Decision Model Application for Managing Group Decisions, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(1), 47-58.

  • Dąbrowski, K, Skrzypek, K., 2016. Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to building research teams, Management Systems in Production Engineering, 1(21), 7-11.

  • Ely A., Zwanenberg, Stirling, A., 2011. Technology Assessment New Models of Technology Assessment for Development, available at: (10.03.2019).

  • Evans, A., Strezov V., Evans T.J., 2009. Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1082-1088.

  • Garg, H., 2017. Some Picture Fuzzy Aggregation Operators and Their Applications to Multicriteria Decision-Making, Arabian Journal of Science and Engineering, 42, 5275-5290.

  • Gładysz, B., Kluczek, A., 2017. A framework for strategic assessment of far-reaching technologies: A case study of Combined Heat and Power technology, Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 242-252.

  • González, P del Río, 2005. Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: a study of the Spanish pulp and paper industry, Business strategy and the environment, 14(1), 20-37.

  • Grundwald, A., Rösch, C., 2011. Sustainability assessment of energy technologies: towards an integrative framework, Energy, Sustainability and Society 1, 2011, 3.

  • Harris, J.M., Wise T., Goodwin N.R., 2001. A survey of sustainable development: social and economic dimensions, frontier issues in economic thought, Island Press,. Washington, DC, 6.

  • Hrovatin, N., Dolšak, N., Zorić, J., 2016. Factors impacting investments in energy efficiency and clean technologies: empirical evidence from Slovenian manufacturing firms, Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 475-486.

  • IEA, 2006. Energy Technology Perspectives, OECD/IEA, Paris.

  • Jang, J.-S.R, 1993. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 23(3), 665 – 685.

  • Karschin, I., Geldermann, J, 2015. Efficient cogeneration and district heating systems in bioenergy villages: an optimization approach, Journal of Cleaner Production, 104, 305-314.

  • Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1993. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs, Wiley, New York.

  • Klevas, V., Streimikienea D., Kleviene, A., 2009. Sustainability assessment of the energy projects implementation in regional scale, Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(1), 155-166.

  • Kluczek, A., 2016. Application of multi-criteria approach for sustainability assessment of manufacturing processes, Management and Production Engineering Review, 7, 62-78.

  • Kluczek, A., Gładysz, B., 2015. Analytical Hierarchy Process/Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution-based approach to the generation of environmental improvement options, Journal of Cleaner Production, 101, 360-367.

  • Kong, L., Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., 2016. Assessment of emerging energy-efficiency technologies for the pulp and paper industry: A technical review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 5-28.

  • Liu, P., 2009. Multi-attribute decision making method research based on interval vague set and TOPSIS method, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 15(3), 453-463.

  • Meixner, O., 2013. Fuzzy AHP Group Decision Analysis and its Application for the Evaluation of Energy Sources, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 896-905.

  • Oteng-Seifah, S.A.E., Adjei-Kumi T.A., 2007. Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Methodologies. In: Horner, M., Hardcastle, C., Price, A., Bebbington, J. (eds.), International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment Glasgow.

  • Achs I., 1999. Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In: Egon, B, Thomas, J., (eds.), Sustainability and the social sciences: a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation, Zed Books, London.

  • Schot, J.W., 1992. Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(1), 36-56.

  • Singh, R.K., Murty H.R., Gupta S.K., Dikshit A.K., 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15, 281–299.

  • Singh, S., Olugu E.U., Fallahpour A., 2014. Fuzzy-based sustainable manufacturing assessment model for SMEs. Clean Technology Environment Polic, 16, 847–860.

  • Varela, L.R., Ribeiro, R.A., 2003. Evaluation of simulated annealing to solve fuzzy optimization problems, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 14(2), 59–72.

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.


Journal + Issues