SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17

An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process approach for selection of renewable energy source

Yenilenebilir enerji kaynağı seçiminde Aralık Tip-2 Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci yaklaşımı

Tarık Çakar(İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK-MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ, ENDÜSTRİ MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-8492-3707
Fatma Betül Bağlan(İSTANBUL ESENYURT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5072-104X
Umut Hulusi İnan(Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Information Systems and Technologies Department)0000-0001-7316-1700
Rana Edgüver(İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK-MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ, ENDÜSTRİ MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ)0009-0007-2541-1972
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-03
🏛️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)

Based on an evaluation of renewable energy sources considering criteria such as investment cost, maintenance cost, land requirements, lifespan, energy efficiency, and sustainability, hybrid energy emerged as the most effective renewable energy source.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In today's world, the demand for energy is on the rise due to factors such as population growth and industrialization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Given the complexity of this selection process, which requires the consideration of numerous criteria, our article employs the Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (IT2FAHP).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on an evaluation of renewable energy sources considering criteria such as investment cost, maintenance cost, land requirements, lifespan, energy efficiency, and sustainability, hybrid energy emerged as the most effective renewable energy source.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Aralıklı Tip-2 Bulanık AHP · Çok Kriterli Karar Verme · Tip-2 Bulanık Kümeler

Abstract

In today's world, the demand for energy is on the rise due to factors such as population growth and industrialization. This surge in demand is accompanied by global energy crises, the greenhouse gas effect resulting from the use of fossil fuels, and the depletion of non-renewable energy resources over time. These issues underscore the increasing necessity and importance of embracing renewable energy resources on a global scale. The sustainability and high efficiency of renewable energy resources hinge on the decision-making process regarding which resource to utilize and how to do so. Given the complexity of this selection process, which requires the consideration of numerous criteria, our article employs the Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (IT2FAHP). This study aims to reduce uncertainties in the selection process and facilitate more effective decision-making in a world where the use of renewable energy sources is becoming increasingly widespread. Based on an evaluation of renewable energy sources considering criteria such as investment cost, maintenance cost, land requirements, lifespan, energy efficiency, and sustainability, hybrid energy emerged as the most effective renewable energy source.

Özet

Günümüz dünyasında, nüfus artışı ve sanayileşme gibi faktörler nedeniyle enerji talebi artmaktadır. Bu talep artışına, küresel enerji krizleri, fosil yakıtların kullanımından kaynaklanan sera gazı etkisi ve zamanla yenilenebilir olmayan enerji kaynaklarının tükenmesi eşlik etmektedir. Bu sorunlar, küresel ölçekte yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarını benimsemenin artan gerekliliğini ve önemini vurgulamaktadır. Yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının sürdürülebilirliği ve yüksek verimliliği, hangi kaynağın kullanılacağına ve nasıl kullanılacağına ilişkin karar verme sürecine bağlıdır. Çok sayıda kriterin dikkate alınmasını gerektiren bu seçim sürecinin karmaşıklığı göz önüne alındığında, çalışmada Aralıklı Tip-2 Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (IT2F-AHP) kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışma ile seçim sürecindeki belirsizlikleri azaltarak, yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının kullanımının giderek yaygınlaştığı bir dünyada daha etkili karar vermeyi kolaylaştırmak amaçlanmaktadır. Yatırım maliyeti, bakım maliyeti, arazi gereksinimi, kullanım ömrü, enerji verimliliği ve sürdürülebilirlik gibi kriterlere dayalı olarak yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının değerlendirilmesi sonucunda, hibrit enerji en etkili yenilenebilir enerji kaynağı olarak ortaya çıkmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çakar, T., Bağlan, F. B., İnan, U. H., Edgüver, R. (2026). An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process approach for selection of renewable energy source. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 17. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.1887490

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Y. Gholizadeh, “Energy dependency in the European Union and the international energy market,”. PhD Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, Department of EU-International Economic Relations, Ankara, Türkiye, 2018.
  2. C. Kahraman and İ. Kaya, “A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives,” Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 6270-6281, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.095.
  3. UNDP, UNDESA, “World Energy Assessment: energy and the challenge of sustainability,” United Nations Development Programme. New York, 2000.
  4. I. B. Fridleifsson, “Geothermal energy for the benefit of the people,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 5(3), 299-312, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(01)00002-8.
  5. J. R. S. Cristobal, “Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The Vikor method,” Renewable Energy, 36, 498-502, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.031.
  6. Ü. Şengül, M. Eren, S. E. Shiraz, V. Gezder and A. B. Şengül, “Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey,” Renewable Energy, 75, 617-625, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.045.
  7. R. M. Elavarasan, “The motivation for renewable energy and its comparison with other energy sources: A review,” European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 3(1), 2019. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejosdr/4005.
  8. H. C. Lee and C. T. Chang, “Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92, 883-896, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007.
  9. S. Ahmad, R. M. Tahar. “Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia,” Renewable Energy, 458-466, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001.
  10. M. Kabak and M. Dağdeviren, “Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology,” Energy Conversion and Management, 79, 25-33, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.11.036.
  11. Leipzig University, “Potential of enewable energies, Energy fundamentals,” Leipzig. https://home.uni-leipzig.de/energy-fundamentals/21.htm, Accessed 1 December 2023.
  12. E. Satik, “Determining the most appropriate renewable energy source alternatives according to multi-criteria decision making processes in Turkey,” Master's Thesis, Ataturk University Institute of Social Sciences, Erzurum, Turkiye, 2023.
  13. E. İlbahar, “Renewable energy investment decisions under fuzzy uncertainty,” PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School, 2022.
  14. R. Alizadeh, L. Soltanisehat, P. D. Lund and H. Zamanisabzi, “Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method,” Energy Policy, 137, 111174, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111174.
  15. T. Li, A. Li and X. Guo, “The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry: A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods,” Energy, 212, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118694.
  16. R. Geçen, “Determination of solar energy potential and areas where solar energy plants will be established in Hatay province,” Turkish Studies Social Sciences, 14(6), 3031-3054, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.30212.
  17. B. Wang, J. Song, J. Ren, K. Li and H. Duan, “Selecting sustainable energy conversion technologies for agricultural residues: A fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based prioritization from life cycle perspective,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 142, 78-87, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.11.011.
  18. Y. A. Solangi, Q. Tan, N. H. Mirjat and S. Ali, “Evaluating the strategies for sustainable energy planning in Pakistan: An integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117655, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655.
  19. S. Ishfaq, S. Ali and Y. Ali, “Selection of optimum renewable energy source for energy sector in Pakistan by using MCDM approach,” Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 2(1), 61-71, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-017-0032-z.
  20. Y. Wu, C. Xu and T. Zhang, “Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China,” Energy, 147, 1227-1239, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.115.
  21. C. N. Wang, Y. F. Huang, Y. C. Chai and V. T. Nguyen, “A multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for renewable energy plants location selection in Vietnam under a fuzzy environment,” Applied Sciences, 8, 2069, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8112069.
  22. G. Büyüközkan and S. Güleryüz, “Evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey using an integrated MCDM approach with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations,” Energy, 123, 149-163, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.137.
  23. A. Sadeghi, T. Larimian and A. Molabashi, “Evaluation of renewable energy sources for generating electricity in province of Yazd: a fuzzy MCDM approach.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 1095-1099 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.187.
  24. S. M. Chen and L. W. Lee, “Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the ranking values and the arithmetic operations of interval type-2 fuzzy sets,” Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 824-833, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.094.
  25. S. M. Chen, M. W. Yang, L. W. Lee and S. W. Yang. “Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on ranking interval type-2 fuzzy sets,” Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 5295-5308, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.008.
  26. C. Kahraman, B. Öztayşi, İ. U. Sarı and E. Turanoğlu, “Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets,” Knowledge-Based Systems, 59, 48-57, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.02.001.
  27. L. Jin, G. H. Huang, D. Cong and Y. R. Fan, A Robust “Inexact Joint-optimal a cut Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Boundary Linear Programming (RIJ-IT2FBLP) for energy systems planning under uncertainty,” Electrical Power and Energy System, 56, 19-32, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.10.029.
  28. Y. S. Özdemir and A. Üsküdar, “Strategy selection by using interval type-2 fuzzy mcdm and an application,” Journal of Engineering, 8(3), 172-189, 2020. https://doi.org/10.36909/jer.v8i3.8176.
  29. B. Torğul and T. Paksoy, “Smart and sustainable supplier selection using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP,” Journal of Polytechnic, 1(1), 2023. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.1017259.
  30. A. Gani, “Aralık değerli tip-2 bulanık denetleyici ile negatif gerilim çıkışlı temel seri luo çeviricinin denetimi,” Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(4), 904-910, 2022. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.1144875
  31. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, 8, 338-353, 1965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
  32. J. M. Mendel and H. Wu, “Type-2 fuzzistics for symmetric interval type-2 fuzzy sets: Part 1, forward problems,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 14(6), 781-792, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.881441.
  33. L. A. Zadeh, “The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning,” I. Inf. Science, 8, 199-249, 1975. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5.
  34. J. J. Buckley, “Fuzzy hierarchial analysis,” Fuzzy Sets Sytsems, 17, 233-247, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9.
  35. T. L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process. NY:McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1980.