Publication:
Exploring decision-making techniques for evaluation and benchmarking of energy system integration frameworks for achieving a sustainable energy future

Simple item page
dc.citedby11
dc.contributor.authorTaha Aljburi M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAlbahri A.S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAlbahri O.S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAlamoodi A.H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMahdi Mohammed S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDeveci M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTom�?kov� H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorid58751187500en_US
dc.contributor.authorid57201009814en_US
dc.contributor.authorid57201013684en_US
dc.contributor.authorid57205435311en_US
dc.contributor.authorid58544800200en_US
dc.contributor.authorid55734383000en_US
dc.contributor.authorid56675830700en_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-03T07:48:30Z
dc.date.available2025-03-03T07:48:30Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractEnergy Systems Integration (ESI) involves coordinating and planning energy systems to provide reliable and affordable energy services while minimizing environmental harm. It optimizes interactions among different energy sources to achieve sustainability goals and promotes efficient resource usage. However, evaluating and benchmarking ESI frameworks to select the most suitable and transparent ones is a complex Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem. This complexity arises from trade-offs, conflicts, and importance considerations of the six ESI evaluation characteristics: Multidimensional, Multivectoral, Systemic, Futuristic, Systematic, and Applied. Hence, this study aims to address this complexity by integrating Fuzzy-Weighted Zero-Inconsistency (FWZIC) and Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC). The proposed methodology consists of two phases. Firstly, the development of a Dynamic Decision Matrix (DDM) to handle 26 ESI frameworks as alternatives and the six ESI characteristics criteria. Secondly, the integration of mathematical processes is formulated based on the FWZIC-MABAC methods. Using the FWZIC technique, the ESI evaluation criteria were weighted based on the preferences of twelve experts. ESI-C2 (Multivectoral) and ESI-C1 (Multidimensional) criteria received the highest weights of 0.195 and 0.190, respectively, while the ESI-C5 (Systematic) criterion received the lowest weight of 0.110. The remaining criteria, namely ESI-C3 (Systemic), ESI-C6 (Applied), and ESI-C4 (Futuristic) obtained weights of 0.189, 0.168, and 0.147, respectively. The MABAC benchmarking results showed that A11 (Energy Security) and A15 (Energy Security under decarbonization) ranked first with the highest score value of 0.28081 for both. Conversely, A19 (EJM) had the lowest score value of ?0.17022. The systematic rank and sensitivity analysis assessments were conducted to verify the efficiency of the proposed methodology. We benchmarked the proposed methodology against three other benchmark studies and achieved a score of 100 % across three key perspectives. This methodology offers valuable support in making informed and sustainable decisions in the energy sector. ? 2023 The Author(s)en_US
dc.description.natureFinalen_US
dc.identifier.ArtNo101251
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.esr.2023.101251
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85179014234
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85179014234&doi=10.1016%2fj.esr.2023.101251&partnerID=40&md5=1dfdb7c19efa919ba4dabd5d53fcab6a
dc.identifier.urihttps://irepository.uniten.edu.my/handle/123456789/37194
dc.identifier.volume51
dc.publisherElsevier Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofAll Open Access; Gold Open Access
dc.sourceScopus
dc.sourcetitleEnergy Strategy Reviews
dc.subjectDecision making
dc.subjectEconomic and social effects
dc.subjectEnergy conservation
dc.subjectEnergy policy
dc.subjectEnergy security
dc.subjectSensitivity analysis
dc.subjectSustainable development
dc.subjectDecisions makings
dc.subjectDynamic selection
dc.subjectEnergy future
dc.subjectEnergy system integration
dc.subjectEnergy systems
dc.subjectFuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency
dc.subjectIntegration frameworks
dc.subjectMulti-attributive border approximation area comparison
dc.subjectSustainable energy
dc.subjectSystem integration
dc.subjectBenchmarking
dc.titleExploring decision-making techniques for evaluation and benchmarking of energy system integration frameworks for achieving a sustainable energy futureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
Files
Collections
SCOPUS