SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Endüstri Mühendisliği / 2026 / Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1

EVALUATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES USING HYBRID SPHERICAL FUZZY MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS: THE CASE OF İSTANBUL

YENİLENEBİLİR ENERJİ KAYNAKLARININ HİBRİT KÜRESEL BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YÖNTEMLERİ İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: İSTANBUL ÖRNEĞİ

Selen Avcı Azkeskin(KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7433-5696
Ezgi Güler(BİLECİK ŞEYH EDEBALİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8789-8244
Zerrin Aladağ(NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5986-7210
Pages
102–150
Publication Date
2026-04-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, technological complexity (w = 0.1622), technological maturity (w = 0.1543), and ease of maintenance and support (w = 0.1524) were identified as the most significant criteria.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Energy is a strategic resource for sustaining economic development and social welfare.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 25 evaluation criteria and five alternatives (solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal) were considered.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, technological complexity (w = 0.1622), technological maturity (w = 0.1543), and ease of maintenance and support (w = 0.1524) were identified as the most significant criteria.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynağı · Küresel Bulanık Küme · SF-DEMATEL

Abstract

Energy is a strategic resource for sustaining economic development and social welfare. The increasing population and urbanization are rapidly raising energy demand, which further highlights the importance of renewable energy sources due to their environmental advantages. The selection of a renewable energy source constitutes a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem that requires the simultaneous evaluation of technical, economic, environmental, and social factors. This study aims to identify the most suitable renewable energy source for the province of Istanbul, in line with Türkiye’s energy transformation goals. A total of 25 evaluation criteria and five alternatives (solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, and geothermal) were considered. Methodologically, the study adopts an integrated SF-DEMATEL–SF-SWARA–SF-TOPSIS approach under the perspectives of decision-makers. In the first stage, the cause–effect relationships among the criteria were analyzed using the SF-DEMATEL method, and nine of the twenty-five criteria were identified as “influencing criteria.” These were subsequently used as direct inputs for the SF-SWARA method, where the criteria weights were determined based on the most influential factors within the system. During the implementation of the SF-SWARA method, to address the issue that the difference operation is not defined for spherical fuzzy sets, the “distance between spherical fuzzy sets” approach was introduced. Based on this, an original version of the SF-SWARA method—previously unavailable in the literature—was developed, representing the methodological novelty of this study. According to the results, technological complexity (w = 0.1622), technological maturity (w = 0.1543), and ease of maintenance and support (w = 0.1524) were identified as the most significant criteria. In the final stage, the derived criteria weights were incorporated into the SF-TOPSIS method to obtain the performance ranking of the alternatives. Relative closeness coefficients were calculated considering the global fuzzy distances to both positive and negative ideal solutions within the SF-TOPSIS framework. The findings reveal that wind energy (ξ = 0.1873) is the most suitable renewable energy source for Istanbul. Overall, the study offers a robust, systematic, and generalizable decision-making framework for energy planning under uncertainty by integrating spherical fuzzy set theory with causal analysis, weighting, and ranking methods.

Özet

Enerji, ekonomik kalkınma ve toplumsal refahın sürdürülebilmesi açısından stratejik bir kaynaktır. Artan nüfus ve kentleşme, enerji talebini hızla artırmakta; bu durum, çevresel etkiler açısından avantajlı olan yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının önemini daha da vurgulamaktadır. Yenilenebilir enerji kaynağı seçimi, teknik, ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal faktörlerin birlikte değerlendirildiği çok kriterli karar verme problemidir. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin enerji dönüşüm hedefleri doğrultusunda İstanbul ili için en uygun yenilenebilir enerji kaynağının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında 25 değerlendirme kriteri ve 5 alternatif (güneş, rüzgâr, hidroelektrik, biyokütle, jeotermal) ele alınmıştır. Metodolojik olarak çalışma, karar verici görüşleri altında ele alınan SF-DEMATEL–SF-SWARA–SF-TOPSIS bütünleşik yaklaşımına dayanmaktadır. İlk aşamada SF-DEMATEL yöntemiyle kriterler arasındaki neden–sonuç ilişkileri analiz edilmiş ve 25 kriter arasından 9 tanesi “etkileyen kriter” olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu kriterler, sonraki aşamada SF-SWARA yöntemine doğrudan girdi olarak alınmış ve sistemde belirleyici rol oynayan faktörler üzerinden ağırlıklandırma yapılmıştır. SF-SWARA yönteminin uygulanması aşamasında, küresel bulanık kümelerde fark işleminin tanımlı olmaması problemine çözüm olarak “küresel bulanık kümeler arası mesafe” yaklaşımı önerilmiş ve bu doğrultuda yöntemin literatürde yer almayan özgün bir versiyonu geliştirilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre teknoloji karmaşıklığı (w=0,1622), teknolojik olgunluk (w=0,1543) ve teknolojinin bakım ve destek kolaylığı (w=0,1524) en önemli kriterler olarak öne çıkmıştır. Son aşamada, elde edilen kriter ağırlıkları SF-TOPSIS yöntemine entegre edilerek alternatiflerin performans sıralaması elde edilmiştir. SF-TOPSIS ile pozitif ve negatif ideal çözümlere olan küresel bulanık uzaklıklar dikkate alınarak alternatifler için göreli yakınlık katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Bulgulara göre rüzgâr (ξ=0,1873) İstanbul için en uygun yenilenebilir enerji kaynağı olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışma, küresel bulanık küme teorisinin nedensel analiz, ağırlıklandırma ve sıralama yöntemleriyle entegrasyonunu sağlayarak belirsizlik altında enerji planlaması için güçlü, sistematik ve genellenebilir bir karar çerçevesi sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Azkeskin, S. A., Güler, E., Aladağ, Z. (2026). EVALUATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES USING HYBRID SPHERICAL FUZZY MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS: THE CASE OF İSTANBUL. Endüstri Mühendisliği, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1, 102–150. https://doi.org/10.46465/endustrimuhendisligi.1812146

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (85)

  1. Abdel-Basset, M., Gamal, A., Chakrabortty, R. K. & Ryan, M. J. (2021). Evaluation approach for sustainable renewable energy systems under uncertain environment: a case study. Renewable Energy, 168, 1073–1095. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.124
  2. Abdulvahitoğlu, A. (2025). A symmetry-based spherical fuzzy MCDM approach for the strategic assessment of alternative fuels toward sustainable energy policies. Symmetry, 17(7), 1089. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17071089
  3. Agliata, R., Busato, F. & Presciutti, A. (2025). MCDM-based analysis of site suitability for renewable energy community projects in the Gargano District. Sustainability, 17(14), 6376. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146376
  4. Aksoy, A. (2019). Integrated model for renewable energy planning in Turkey. International Journal of Green Energy, 16(1), 34-48. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2018.1531872
  5. Algül, F., Koruk, M. N. & Erdebilli, B. (2023). Evaluation of renewable energy alternative for Ankara and selection of appropriate power plant location. Journal of Optimization and Decision Making, 2(2), 357-362. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jodm/issue/81776/1281798
  6. Ali, T., Ma, H. & Nahian, A. J. (2019). Justification of solar home system in rural bangladesh based on risk ındicators: an ıntegrated multi-criteria decision making approach. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 9(4), 1948-1956. Doi: https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v9i4.9941.g7800
  7. Alkan, N. (2024). Evaluation of sustainable development and utilization-oriented renewable energy systems based on CRITIC-SWARA-CODAS method using interval valued picture fuzzy sets. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 38, 101263. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101263
  8. 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. International Journal of Energy Research, 46(5), 6766-6789. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/er.7620
  9. Alshamrani, A., Majumder, P., Das, A., Hezam, I. M.& Božanić, D. (2023). An integrated BWM-TOPSIS-I approach to determine the ranking of alternatives and application of sustainability analysis of renewable energy. Axioms, 12(2), 159. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms12020159
  10. Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Physica, Heidelberg. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/book/ 10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3
  11. Ayağ, Z. and Samanlıoğlu, F. (2020). Fuzzy AHP-GRA approach to evaluating energy sources: a case of Turkey. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 14(1), 40-58. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-09-2018-0012
  12. Aydın, T. and Kaçtıoğlu, S. (2023). CRITIC ve WASPAS yöntemleri kullanılarak türkiye için en uygun yenilenebilir enerji kaynağının seçimi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Teknoloji ve Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 53-80. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3198688
  13. Aydın, B. and Oruç, Ö. E. (2024). Determining the most useful renewable energy alternative for Turkey by combining MAUT and TAOV methods. International Journal of Energy Studies, 9(2), 291-308. Doi: https://doi.org/10.58559/ijes.1437059
  14. Azim, A. B., Ali, A., Khan, A. S., Awwad, F. A., Ali, S., & Ismail, E. A. (2024). Applications of q-spherical fuzzy rough CODAS to the assessment of a problem involving renewable energy site selection. IEEE Access, 12, 114100-114122. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3412193
  15. Balin, A. and Baraçli, H. (2017). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology based upon the ınterval type-2 fuzzy sets for evaluating renewable energy alternatives in Turkey. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23(5), 742-763. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1056276
  16. Bilgili, F., Zarali, F., Ilgün, M. F., Dumrul, C. & Dumrul, Y. (2022). The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using ıntuitionistic fuzzy-TOPSIS method. Renewable Energy, 189, 1443-1458. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.058
  17. Boran, F. E., Boran, K. & Menlik, T. (2012). The evaluation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation in Turkey using ıntuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 7(1), 81–90. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567240903047483
  18. Brodny, J. and Tutak, M. (2023). Assessing the energy security of European Union countries from two perspectives—A new integrated approach based on MCDM methods. Appl. Energy, 347, 121443. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121443
  19. Büyüközkan, G. and Güleryüz, S. (2016). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for evaluating sustainable energy technology alternatives. International Journal of Renewable Energy Sources, 1(1), 1-12. Erişim adresi: https://www.iaras.org/iaras/filedownloads/ijres/2016/020-0001.pdf
  20. Büyüközkan, G., Karabulut, Y. & Göçer, F. (2024). Spherical fuzzy sets based ıntegrated DEMATEL, ANP, VIKOR approach and its application for renewable energy selection in Turkey. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 158, 111465. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111465
  21. Cesur, F., Taş, N. & Taş, M. (2024). A decision-making model proposal for the use of renewable energy technologies in buildings in Turkey. Energies, 17(10), 2354. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17102354
  22. Çolak, M. and Kaya, İ. (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. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194
  23. Dincer, H., Eti, S., Yüksel, S., Gokalp, Y., & Celebi, B. (2022). strategy generation for risk minimization of renewable energy technology ınvestments in hospitals with SF Top-Dematel methodology. Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering, 3(1), 58-66. Doi: https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJCCE32021141
  24. Eroğlu, H. and Şahin, R. (2020). A neutrosophic VIKOR method-based decision-making with an ımproved distance measure and score function: case study of selection for renewable energy alternatives. Cognitive Computation, 12, 1338–1355. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-020-09765-x
  25. ETKB (2021). Türkiye Elektrik Enerjisi Talep Projeksiyonu Raporu. T.C. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı, Ankara.
  26. Ghenai, C., Albawab, M. & Bettayeb, M. (2020). Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renewable Energy, 146, 580–597. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.157
  27. Ghoushchi, S. J., Bonab, S. R., Ghiaci, A. M., Haseli, G., Tomaskova, H. & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2021). Landfill site selection for medical waste using an integrated SWARA-WASPAS framework based on spherical fuzzy set. Sustainability, 13(24), 13950. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413950
  28. Gouraizim, M., Makan, A. & El Ouarghi, H. (2023). A Car-PROMETHEE-Based multi-criteria decision-making framework for sustainability assessment of renewable energy technologies in Morocco. Operations Management Research, 16, 1343–1358. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-023-00361-4
  29. Gül, S. (2020). Spherical fuzzy extension of DEMATEL (SF‐DEMATEL). International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 35(9), 1329-1353. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22255
  30. Horasan, M. B. and Kılıç, H. S. (2022). A multi-objective decision-making model for renewable energy planning: the case of Turkey. Renewable Energy, 193, 484-504. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.158 IEA (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021. International Energy Agency, Paris.
  31. Ilbahar, E., Cebi, S. & Kahraman, C. (2020). Prioritization of renewable energy sources using multi-experts pythagorean fuzzy WASPAS. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 39, 6407–6417. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-189106
  32. İnce, İ. T. (2021). Güneş enerjisi ile elektrik üretiminde örnek uygulamalar. Disiplinlerarası Yenilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 1-10. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/dyad/issue/65949/1029484
  33. İstanbul Enerji (2024). 2024 Faaliyet Raporu. İstanbul Enerji Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
  34. İSTKA (2024). İstanbul’da Yenilenebilir Enerji Teknolojileri Ekosistemi – Mevcut Durum ve Beklentiler Raporu. İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı.
  35. Jameel, T., Riaz, M., Aslam, M. & Pamucar, D. (2024). Sustainable renewable energy systems with entropy based step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis and combined compromise solution. Renewable Energy, 235, 121310. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121310
  36. Kabak, M. and Dağdeviren, M. (2014). Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Conversion and Management, 79, 25–33. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.enconman.2013.11.036
  37. Kantoğlu, B. and Düzdar Argun, İ. (2023). Evaluation of renewable energy source alternatives prioritization. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 7(1), 1-8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1001488
  38. Karaaslan, A., Adar, T. & Kılıç Delice, E. (2022). Regional evaluation of renewable energy sources in Turkey by new integrated AHP-MARCOS methodology: a real application. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 41(2), 103-125. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2021.1897126
  39. Karakaya, E. (2016). Paris iklim anlaşması: içeriği ve Türkiye üzerine bir değerlendirme. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-12. Doi: https://doi.org/10.30803/adusobed.188842
  40. Karbin, H., Rashidi Komijan, A. (2022). An MCDM-based approach for renewable energy planning in Iran. Journal of Energy and Economic Development, 1(3), 60–79. Doi: https://doi.org/10.30503/jeedev.2024.410584.1029
  41. Kaya, T., Kahraman, C. (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR and AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy, 35(6), 2517–2527. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.051
  42. Kocakaya, K., Engin, T., Tektaş, M., ve Aydın, U. (2021). Türkiye’de bölgesel havayolları için uçak tipi seçimi: küresel bulanık AHP-TOPSIS yöntemlerinin entegrasyonu. Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 4(1), 27-58. Doi: https://doi.org/10.51513/jitsa.903996
  43. Kuleli Pak, B., Albayrak, Y. E. & Erensal, Y. C. (2017). Evaluation of sources for the sustainability of energy supply in Turkey. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 36(2), 627–637. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12507
  44. Kumar, M., Samuel, C. (2017). Selection of best renewable energy source by using VIKOR method. Technology and Economics of Smart Grids and Sustainable Energy, 2(8), 2017. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40866-017-0024-7
  45. Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., Kahraman, C. (2019). Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 36(1), 337-352. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-181401
  46. Li, T., Li, A. & Song, Y. (2021). Development and utilization of renewable energy based on carbon emission reduction—evaluation of multiple MCDM methods. Sustainability, 13(17), 9822. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179822
  47. Li, S., Hu, Y. (2022). A multi-criteria framework to evaluate the sustainability of renewable energy: a 2-tuple linguistic grey relation model from the perspective of the prospect theory. Sustainability, 14(8), 4419. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084419
  48. Li, T., Wang, H. & Lin, Y. (2024). Selection of renewable energy development path for sustainable development using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: the case of Malaysia. Scientific Reports, 14, 15082. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65982-6
  49. Magableh, G. M., Mistarihi, M. Z. & Dalu, S. A. (2025). Innovative hybrid fuzzy MCDM techniques for adopting the appropriate renewable energy strategy. Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 21, 100234. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2025.100234
  50. Mizrak, F., Şahin, D. R. (2025). Investment strategies for renewable energy technologies and harvesting systems in airport operations using spherical fuzzy MCDM models. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 24075. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08480-7
  51. Mohammad Husain, A., Hasan, M. M., Khan, Z. A. & Asjad, M. (2024). A robust decision-making approach for the selection of an optimal renewable energy source in India. Energy Conversion and Management, 301, 117989. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117989
  52. Nguyen, V. T. (2022). Sustainable energy source selection for ındustrial complex in Vietnam: a fuzzy MCDM approach. IEEE Access, 10, 50691–50701. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3173609
  53. Niu, D., Zhen, H., Yu, M., Wang, K., Sun, L. & Xu, X. (2020). Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives for China by using a hybrid FMCDM methodology with uncertain information. Sustainability, 12(11), 4649. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114649
  54. Özdemir, Y. S. (2022). Stok yönetimi için ABC-küresel bulanık AHS-ELECTRE tabanlı melez grup karar verme yöntemi ve bir uygulama. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 6(1), 928-942. Erişim adresi: https://acikerisim.aybu.edu.tr/items/18f694fc-915a-47d3-9b83-a3bc2000b129
  55. Özgüner, M., Özgüner, Z. (2021). The evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey using Entropy-TOPSIS method. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 56(4), 2213-2227. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.21.10.1618
  56. Petrov, I. (2022). MCDM for renewable energy projects: criteria weighting with traditional entropy and novel hierarchy in combination with conventional and structured in blocks AHP approaches. 9th Iranian Conference on Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation, Mashrad, İran, 23-24 Şubat 2022.
  57. Rahman, M. A., Ahmed, T., Rana, M. M., Hossain, B., Bhuiyan, M. R. & Alam, M. J. (2024, December). A comparative analysis of MCDM methods for selecting the optimal renewable energy source for Rajshahi, Bangladesh. In 2024 International Conference on Recent Progresses in Science, Engineering and Technology (ICRPSET) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  58. Ramezanzade, M., Karimi, H., Almutairi, K., Xuan, H. A., Saebi, J., Mostafaeipour, A. & Techato, K. (2021). Implementing MCDM techniques for ranking renewable energy projects under fuzzy environment: A case study. Sustainability, 13(22), 12858. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212858
  59. Saeed, M. H., Saeed, M., Rahman, A. U., Ahsan, M., Mohammed, M. A., Marhoon, H. A.,. Martinek, R. (2024). Renewable energy resource management using an ıntegrated robust decision making model under entropy and similarity measures of fuzzy hypersoft set. Heliyon, 10, E33464. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33464
  60. Sağbaş, A., Deveci, M. & Polat, U. (2023). A decision support system based on hybrid approach with COPRAS and ınterval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluation of renewable energy alternatives. European Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 6(2), 61-73. Doi: https://doi.org/10.55581/ejeas.1392881
  61. Sahu, K., Srivastava, R. K., Kumar, S., Saxena, M., Gupta, B. K. & Verma, R. P. (2023). Integrated hesitant fuzzy-based decision-making framework for evaluating sustainable and renewable energy. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 16, 371-390. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-023-00426-4
  62. Saraswat, S. K., Digalwar, A. K. (2021). Evaluation of energy alternatives for sustainable development of energy sector in India: An integrated Shannon’s entropy fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Renewable Energy, 171, 58-74. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.068
  63. Sedady, F., Beheshtinia, M. A. (2019). A novel MCDM model for prioritizing the renewable power plants’ construction. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(2), 383–399. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-05-2018-0102
  64. Sevgi, E., Figen, A. Z. (2025). Determination of renewable energy growth using cluster analysis and multi-criteria decision-making methods. Applied Sciences, 15(3), 1575. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031575
  65. Smarandache, F. (2005). A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability and statistics. Infinite Study. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49174
  66. Solangi, Y. A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N. H., Valasai, G. D., Khan, M. & Ikram, M. (2019). An integrated Delphi-AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approach toward ranking and selection of renewable energy resources in Pakistan. Processes, 7(2), 118. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7020118
  67. Stojčetović, B., Petković, M. & Đurović, S. (2023). Assessment of renewable energy sources using mcdm method: case study. Facta Universitatis, Series: Electronics and Energetics, 36(3), 353-363. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2298/FUEE2303353S
  68. Şahin, M. (2021). A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 18(6), 1591-1616. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02922-7
  69. Van Thanh, N. (2022). Sustainable energy source selection for industrial complex in Vietnam: A Fuzzy MCDM Approach. IEEE Access, 10, 50692-50701.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.317360
  70. Topcu, B. A. (2024). Türkiye’de sürdürülebilir çevre: finansal gelişme, yenilenebilir ve yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve doğal kaynak gelirlerinin rolü. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 129(129), 43-60. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.61995
  71. T.C. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı (ETKB). (2023). Türkiye Ulusal Enerji Planı 2023–2035. Ankara: ETKB Yayınları. Erişim adresi: https://enerji.gov.tr/
  72. TÜİK (2022). Türkiye Sera Gazı Envanteri Raporu 1990–2020. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara.
  73. TÜİK (2024). Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları 2024. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara.
  74. Wang, Y., Xu, L. & Solangi, Y. A. (2020). Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: based on SWOT-fuzzy AHP approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101861. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861
  75. Yager, R. R. (2013). Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In 2013 joint IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS) (pp. 57-61). IEEE.
  76. Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Zavadskas, E. K. & Streimikiene, D. (2018). A Novel integrated decision-making approach for the evaluation and selection of renewable energy technologies. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 20(2), 403–420. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1488-4
  77. Yazdani, M., Torkayesh, A. E., Santibanez-Gonzalez, E. & Otaghsara, S. K. (2020). Evaluation of renewable energy resources using ıntegrated Shannon Entropy–EDAS model. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 1, 35–42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2020.12.002
  78. Yılan, G., Kadirgan, M. N. & Çiftçioğlu, G. A. (2020). Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable energy decision making: the case of Turkey. Renewable Energy, 146, 519-529. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.164
  79. Yontar, E. (2023). Selection of suitable renewable energy sources for Turkey: SEM–COPRAS method ıntegrated solution. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20, 6131–6146. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04943-4
  80. Yürek, Y. T., Özyörük, B., Özcan, E. & Bulut, M. (2023). Socio-political evaluation of renewable energy resources under uncertain environment. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 126, 106881. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106881
  81. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8 (3), 338-353. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
  82. Zaralı, F. (2022). The selection of terrestrial renewable energy power plants in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment: the case of Turkey. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 18(4), 1230-1249. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1133596
  83. Zheng, X. Y., Lee, H. C., Bing, P. & Lixiua, Z. (2023). Application of MCDM method in selecting renewable energy. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Operational Research, 5(3), 23-26. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22034/ijieor.v5i3.49
  84. Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Physica, Heidelberg. Erişim adresi: https://link.springer.com/book/ 10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3
  85. Saeed, M. H., Saeed, M., Rahman, A. U., Ahsan, M., Mohammed, M. A., Marhoon, H. A.,. Martinek, R. (2024). Renewable energy resource management using an ıntegrated robust decision making model under entropy and similarity measures of fuzzy hypersoft set. Heliyon, 10, E33464. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33464