Group decision-making framework for site selection of coastal nuclear power plants in a linguistic environment: a sustainability perspective

References

• Abudeif, A. M., A. A. Abdel Moneim, and A. F. Farrag. 2015. Multicriteria decision analysis based on analytic hierarchy process in GIS environment for siting nuclear power plant in Egypt. Annals of Nuclear Energy 75:682–92. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.09.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamantiades, A., and I. Kessides. 2009. Nuclear power for sustainable development: Current status and future prospects. Energy Policy 37 (12):5149–66. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awad, H., M. Gul, C. Ritter, P. Verma, Y. Chen, K. M. E. Salim, M. Al-Hussein, H. T. Yu, and K. Kasawski. 2017. Solar photovoltaic optimization for commercial flat rooftops in cold regions. In Proceedins of 2016 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability, ed. E. Perkins, 39–46. New York: IEEE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barzehkar, M., N. M. Dinan, and A. Salemi. 2016. Environmental capability evaluation for nuclear power plant site selection: A case study of Sahar Khiz Region in Gilan Province, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences 75 (12):1016. doi:10.1007/s12665-016-5825-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskurt, Z. M., and C. C. Aydin. 2018. Nuclear power plant site selection by weighted linear combination in GIS environment, Edirne, Turkey. Progress in Nuclear Energy 104:85–101. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basri, N. A., S. Hashim, A. T. Ramli, D. A. Bradley, and K. Hamzah. 2016. Regulatory requirements for nuclear power plant site selection in Malaysia-A review. Journal of Radiological Protection 36 (4):R96–111. doi:10.1088/0952-4746/36/4/R96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu, P. C. 2019. Site evaluation for nuclear power plants–The practices. Nuclear Engineering and Design 352:110140. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devanand, A., M. Kraft, and I. A. Karimi. 2019. Optimal site selection for modular nuclear power plants. Computers and Chemical Engineering 125:339–50. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.03.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong, Y. C., W. C. Hong, Y. F. Xu, and S. Yu. 2011. Selecting the individual numerical scale and prioritization method in the analytic hierarchy process: A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach.”. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 19 (1):13–25. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2010.2073713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekmekçioglu, M., A. C. Kutlu, and C. Kahraman. 2011. A fuzzy multi-criteria swot analysis: An application to nuclear power plant site selection. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 4 (4):583–95. doi:10.1080/18756891.2011.9727814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enerdata. 2020. Global energy statistical yearbook 2020. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html.
   Google Scholar
• Erdoʇan, M., and I. Kaya. 2016. A combined fuzzy approach to determine the best region for a nuclear power plant in Turkey. Applied Soft Computing Journal 39:84–93. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.11.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erol, I., S. Sencer, A. Özmen, and C. Searcy. 2014. Fuzzy MCDM framework for locating a nuclear power plant in Turkey. Energy Policy 67:186–97. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghorashi, A. H. 2007. Prospects of nuclear power plants for sustainable energy development in Islamic Republic of Iran. Energy Policy 35 (3):1643–47. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, H. 2018. Assessing organizations performance on the basis of GHRM practices using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Environmental Management 226:201–16. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera, F., and L. Martínez. 2000. A 2-Tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 8 (6):746–52. doi:10.1109/91.890332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1996. Defence in depth in nuclear safety, INSAG-10. Vienna: IAEA.
   Google Scholar
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2006. Nuclear power and sustainable development. Vienna: IAEA.
   Google Scholar
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2007. IAEA safety glossary, terminology used in nuclear safety and radiation protection, 2007 Edition. Vienna: IAEA.
   Google Scholar
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2009. IAEA tools and methodologies for energy system planning and nuclear energy system assessments. Vienna: IAEA.
   Google Scholar
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2015. Site survey and site selection for nuclear installations, specific safety guide No. SSG-35. Vienna: IAEA.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, D. 2007. Is nuclear power environmentally sustainable? International Journal of Green Energy 4 (2):161–72. doi:10.1080/01971520600873293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassim, M., G. Heo, and D. S. Kessel. 2016. A systematic methodology approach for selecting preferable and alternative sites for the first NPP project in Yemen. Progress in Nuclear Energy 91:325–38. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.05.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessides, I. N. 2009. Nuclear power and sustainable energy policy: Promises and perils. The World Bank Research Observer 25 (2):323–62. doi:10.1093/wbro/lkp010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurt, Ü. 2014. The fuzzy TOPSIS and generalized choquet fuzzy integral algorithm for nuclear power plant site selection-A case study from Turkey. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 51 (10):1241–55. doi:10.1080/00223131.2014.918524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, Y. J., and C. L. Hwang. 1994. Fuzzy multiple objective decision making: Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, B. S., Y. Chen, Y. H. Shen, H. Sun, and X. H. Xu. 2014. A complex multi-attribute large-group decision making method based on the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy principal component analysis model. Soft Computing 18 (11):2149–60. doi:10.1007/s00500-013-1190-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, B. S., Y. Chen, Y. H. Shen, and X. F. Yin. 2019. Clustering experts in linguistic environment: A hybrid method. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 37 (5):6983–7001. doi:10.3233/JIFS-191092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, B. S., Y. H. Shen, Y. Chen, X. H. Chen, and Y. M. Wang. 2015a. A two-layer weight determination method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making experts in a linguistic environment. Information Fusion 23:156–65. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2014.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, B. S., Y. H. Shen, W. Zhang, X. H. Chen, and X. Q. Wang. 2015b. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy principal component analysis model-based method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research 245 (1):209–25. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.02.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mousseau, V., and L. Dias. 2004. Valued outranking relations in ELECTRE providing manageable disaggregation procedures. European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2):467–82. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00120-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Bureau of Statistics of China. 2019. China statistical yearbook. Beijing: National Bureau of Statistics of China.
   Google Scholar
• O’Faircheallaigh, C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 (1):19–27. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, D. L. 2001. Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known outcomes. European Journal of Operational Research 130 (3):576–87. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00416-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opricovic, S. 1998. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering.
   Google Scholar
• Opricovic, S., and G. H. Tzeng. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods : A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2):445–55. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, H. M., X. K. Wang, T. L. Wang, Y. H. Liu, and J. Q. Wang. 2020. A multi-criteria decision support framework for inland nuclear power plant site selection under Z-Information: A case study in Hunan province of China. Mathematics 8 (2):252–75. doi:10.3390/math8020252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J. 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (3):234–81. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahi, E., F. S. Alavipoor, and S. Karimi. 2018. The development of nuclear power plants by means of modified model of fuzzy DEMATEL and GIS in Bushehr, Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 83:33–49. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sipahi, S., and M. Timor. 2010. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications. Management Decision 48 (5):775–808. doi:10.1108/00251741011043920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solís, J. C., and C. Sheinbaum. 2013. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission trends in mexican road transport. Energy for Sustainable Development 17 (3):280–87. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2012.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbruggen, A. 2008. Renewable and nuclear power: A common future? Energy Policy 36 (11):4036–47. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C. N., C. C. Su, and V. T. Nguyen. 2018. Nuclear power plant location selection in Vietnam under fuzzy environment conditions. Symmetry 10 (11):548–64. doi:10.3390/sym10110548.
   Google Scholar
• World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our common future. Brundtland: WCED.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. N., F. T. Liu, Y. Huang, C. B. Xu, B. Y. Zhang, Y. M. Ke, and W. B. Jia. 2020. A two-stage decision framework for inland nuclear power plant site selection based on GIS and type-2 fuzzy PROMETHEE II: Case study in China. Energy Science and Engineering 1–21. doi:10.1002/ese3.640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. N., Y. S. Yang, T. T. Feng, L. N. Kong, W. Liu, and L. J. Fu. 2013. Macro-site selection of wind/solar hybrid power station based on ideal matter-element model. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 50 (1):76–84. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.02.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. N., J. Y. Zhang, J. P. Yuan, S. Geng, and H. B. Zhang. 2016. Study of decision framework of offshore wind power station site selection based on ELECTRE-III under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A case of China. Energy Conversion and Management 113:66–81. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2016.01.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia, M. M., and Z. S. Xu. 2012. Entropy/cross entropy-based group decision making under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Information Fusion 13 (1):31–47. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2010.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaar, I., A. Walter, Y. Sanders, Y. Felus, R. Calvo, and Y. Hamiel. 2016. Possible sites for future nuclear power plants in Israel. Nuclear Engineering and Design 298:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar