SpringerLink
Log in

Urban integrated energy system construction plan selection: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban integrated energy system (UIES) differs significantly from the park-level integrated energy system (IES) due to its proximity to residents’ daily lives and the constraints imposed by energy resources. Hence, UIES should be paid more attention on energy utilization efficiency and environment issues. Therefore, a scientific UIES construction plan should contribute more to the enhancement of economic benefit, energy utilization efficiency, and environmental protection. However, it is difficult to finding studies researching on UIES construction plan evaluation. Therefore, our study constructed a framework for selecting UIES construction plans utilizing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). The Fuzzy-Delphi is applied to build an evaluation indicator system, considering economic benefit, energy utilization efficiency, environmental protection, and social recognition perspectives. This system consists of 9 sub-criteria. Afterward, this study introduces a unique approach to weighting by combining the objective weights determined via the anti-entropy weight (AEW) technique with the subjective weights assessed through the best–worst method (BWM), following the fundamental principle of moment estimation. Furthermore, MARCOS model is used to thoroughly assess alternative UIES construction plans by measuring the alternatives and sorting them in terms of a compromise solution. This model takes both positive and negative ideal solutions into account. Ultimately, case analysis and comparison discussion are executed to testify the applicability and robustness of the established MCDM framework. The findings reveal that energy utilization efficiency and the performance of environmental protection significantly impact the determination of the best construction plan for UIES. The MCDM framework, which integrates Fuzzy-Delphi, AEW, BWM, and MARCOS methodologies, proves to be effective and reliable in choosing the optimal UIES construction plan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available if required.

Abbreviations

UIES:

Urban integrated energy system

IES:

Integrated energy system

MCDM:

Multi-criteria decision-making

AEW:

Anti-entropy weight

BWM:

Best–worst method

VIKOR:

Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje

AI:

Ideal solution

PM:

Particular matter

C om :

Operation and maintenance cost

C cur :

Comprehensive utilization ratio of energy

C cde :

Carbon dioxide emission

C pfs :

Policy and financial support

MARCOS:

Measurement of alternatives and ranking in accordance with compromise solution

AHP:

Analytic hierarchy process

TFNs:

Triangular fuzzy numbers

MDFs:

Membership degree functions

CI:

Coincident indicator

TOPSIS:

Technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution

AAI:

Negative ideal solution

C oi :

UIES original investment

C rep :

Renewable energy penetration ratio

C esr :

Energy sufficiency ratio

C de :

Dust emission

C ps :

Public satisfaction

References

  • Arnaudo, M., Topel, M., Puerto, P., Widl, E., & Laumert, B. (2019). Heat demand peak shaving in urban integrated energy systems by demand side management-A technoeconomic and environmental approach. Energy, 186, 115887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051–13069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, I. S., Tsujimura, Y., Gen, M., & Tozawa, T. (1995). An efficient approach for large scale project planning based on fuzzy Delphi method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 76(3), 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., Avraamidou, S., Liu, P., Li, Z., Ni, W., & Pistikopoulos, E. N. (2021). Optimal design of integrated urban energy systems under uncertainty and sustainability requirements. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 155, 107502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Çolak, M., & Kaya, I. (2020). Multi-criteria evaluation of energy storage technologies based on hesitant fuzzy information: A case study for Turkey. Journal of Energy Storage, 28, 101211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davoudabadi, R., Mousavi, S. M., & Sharifi, E. (2020). An integrated weighting and ranking model based on entropy, DEA and PCA considering two aggregation approaches for resilient supplier selection problem. Journal of Computational Science, 40, 101074.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, A., & Romero, I. (2016). Environmental conflict analysis using an integrated grey clustering and entropy-weight method: A case study of a mining project in Peru. Environmental Modelling & Software, 77, 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Zio, S., & Maretti, M. (2014). Acceptability of energy sources using an integration of the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process. Quality & Quantity, 48(6), 2973–2991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitriev, O. N. (2019). Anti-entropy resolving of uncertainty of estimations within scope of intelligent DMSS. International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), 11(2), 48–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doğan, U., Güngör, M. K., Bostancı, B., & Bakır, N. Y. (2020). GIS based urban renewal area awareness and expectation analysis using fuzzy modeling. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haoran, Z., Sen, G., & Huiru, Z. (2018). Comprehensive performance assessment on various battery energy storage systems. Energies, 11(10), 2841–2867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haoran, Z., Sen, G., & Huiru, Z. (2019). Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences. Energy, 168, 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huiru, Z., Li Bingkang, Lu., Hao, W. X., Hongze, Li., Sen, G., Wanlei, X., & Yuwei, W. (2022). Economy-environment-energy performance evaluation of CCHP microgrid system: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method. Energy, 240, 122830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jafari, A., Jafarian, M., Zareei, A., & Zaerpour, F. (2008). Using fuzzy Delphi method in maintenance strategy selection problem. Journal of Uncertain Systems, 2(4), 289–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • **g, R., Kuriyan, K., Lin, J., Shah, N., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Quantifying the contribution of individual technologies in integrated urban energy systems–A system value approach. Applied Energy, 266, 114859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, I., Colak, M., & Terzi, F. (2019). A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, Y., Liu, J., Jie, M., Fang, S., & Zhuang, S. (2022). Comprehensive evaluation for plan selection of urban integrated energy systems: A novel multi-criteria decision-making framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, 81, 103837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kizielewicz, B., Wątróbski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2020). Identification of relevant criteria set in the MCDA process—Wind farm location case study. Energies, 13(24), 6548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A. R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., & Bansal, R. (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, Y. F., & Chen, P. C. (2008). Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mobility of the service industries using Fuzzy Delphi method. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1930–1939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N., Hakvoort, R. A., & Lukszo, Z. (2021). Cost allocation in integrated community energy systems-A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144, 111001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Liu, Y., Liu, J., & Liu, X. (2020). Energy scheduling for a three-level integrated energy system based on energy hub models: A hierarchical Stackelberg game approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musonye, X. S., Davíðsdóttirottir, B., Kristjánsson, R., Ásgeirsson, E. I., & Stefánsson, H. (2020). Integrated energy systems’ modeling studies for sub-Saharan Africa: A sco** review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 128, 109915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanamoorthy, S., Annapoorani, V., Kang, D., Baleanu, D., Jeon, J., Kureethara, J. V., & Ramya, L. (2020). A novel assessment of bio-medical waste disposal methods using integrating weighting approach and hesitant fuzzy MOOSRA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, T., & Deng, H. (2020). Comprehensive evaluation on water resource carrying capacity in karst areas using cloud model with combination weighting method: A case study of Guiyang, southwest China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(29), 37057–37073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., & Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II methods. Symmetry, 12(9), 1549.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Sotiropoulou, K. F., & Vavatsikos, A. P. (2021). Onshore wind farms GIS-Assisted suitability analysis using PROMETHEE II. Energy Policy, 158, 112531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SpencerDalehttps://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2022.pdf. (Accessed on 10, December, 2022)

  • Stević, Ž, Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, Z., Yang, S., Lin, H., De, G., & Ju, L. (2020). Multi-scenario operation optimization model for park integrated energy system based on multi-energy demand response. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, Q., Liu, G., Wu, W., & Liao, S. (2021). Multicriteria comprehensive evaluation framework for industrial park-level distributed energy system considering weights uncertainties. Journal of Cleaner Production, 282, 124530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L., Sun, L., Qi, P., Ren, X., & Sun, X. (2021). Energy endowment, industrial structure upgrading, and CO2 emissions in China: Revisiting resource curse in the context of carbon emissions. Resources Policy, 74, 102329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **nhua Full text of **'s statement at the general debate of the 75th session of the united nations general assembly [DB/OL]. (2020–9–23). http://www.china.org. cn/world/2020–09/23/content_76731346.htm. (Accessed on 10, December, 2022)

  • Yin, B., Li, Y., Miao, S., Lin, Y., & Zhao, H. (2021). An economy and reliability cooptimization planning method of adiabatic compressed air energy storage for urban integrated energy system. Journal of Energy Storage, 40, 102691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, J., Li, Y., Luo, X., Zhang, Z., Ruan, Y., & Zhou, Q. (2020). A new hybrid multicriteria decision-making approach for develo** integrated energy systems in industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 122119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, J., Luo, X., Li, Y., Hu, X., Chen, W., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Multi criteria decisionmaking for distributed energy system based on multi-source heterogeneous data. Energy, 239, 122250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, A., Wen, L., Chatalova, L., & Gao, X. (2021). Reduction of carbon emissions through resource-saving and environment-friendly regional economic integration–Evidence from Wuhan metropolitan area China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2019). Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences. Energy, 168, 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Sen, G., & Zhao, H. (2017). Comprehensive benefit evaluation of eco-industrial parks by employing the best-worst method based on circular economy and sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., **e, S., Hu, Z., Wang, J., & Kong, S. (2020). The optimal configuration planning of energy hubs in urban integrated energy system using a two-layered optimization method. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 123, 106257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., Wu, Y., Dong, H., Tao, Y., & Xu, C. (2020). Proposal and comprehensive analysis of gas-wind-photovoltaic-hydrogen integrated energy system considering multi-participant interest preference. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265, 121679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., Wu, Y., Wu, C., Deng, Z., Xu, C., & Hu, Y. (2019). A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for performance analysis and evaluation of park-level integrated energy system. Energy Conversion and Management, 201, 112134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Q., Li, X., Li, F., & Zhou, D. (2020). The potential for energy saving and carbon emission reduction in China’s regional industrial sectors. Science of the Total Environment, 716, 135009.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, under Grant No. 72303022.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Bei**g Information Science & Technology University, Bei**g, 100085, China

    Haoran Zhao

  2. School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Bei**g, 102206, China

    Sen Guo

Authors
  1. Haoran Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sen Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HZ was involved in ideal, conceptualization, data curation, writing, reviewing, and editing. SG was responsible for conceptualization, writing, reviewing, and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haoran Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, H., Guo, S. Urban integrated energy system construction plan selection: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04491-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04491-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation