The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making
Open accessAbstract
Energy policy making is one of the most significant issues for countries and it can be evaluated by using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. The energy decision and policy-making problems include selecting among energy alternatives, evaluating energy supply technologies, determining energy policy and energy planning. There is a wide range of studies about energy decision-making problems in the literature and different types of energy alternatives are considered in these studies. The MCDM methods are used as effective tools in order to solve energy decision-making problems since they evaluate alternatives with different perspectives in terms of several conflicting criteria. In this context, the fuzzy set theory (FST) that expresses uncertainties in human opinions, can be successfully used together with the MCDM methods to get more sensitive, concrete and realistic results. This paper aims to present a comprehensive review and bring together existing literature and the most recent advances to lead researchers about the methodologies and applications of fuzzy MCDM in the energy field. For this aim, a large number of papers that use fuzzy MCDM methods to solve energy policy and decision making problems have been analyzed with respect to some characteristics such as types of fuzzy sets, year, journal, fuzzy MCDM method, country and document type. The results of this study indicate that fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), as an individual tool or by integrating with another MCDM method, is the most applied MCDM method and type-1 fuzzy sets are the most preferred type of fuzzy sets. Additionally, Turkey and China are countries which have the highest number of publications related to fuzzy MCDM methods in energy-related problems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Zadeh, L. A. (1965) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x · Cited by 67,855
Zadeh, L. A. (1996) · Cited by 46,844
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Atanassov, K. T. (1986) · Fuzzy Sets and Systems · doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3 · Cited by 16,465
The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-III
Zadeh, L. A. (1975) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/0020-0255(75)90017-1 · Cited by 12,139
Fuzzy Set Theory—and Its Applications
Zimmermann, H.-J. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0646-0 · Cited by 7,526
Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment
Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.17.4.b141 · Cited by 6,813
Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications
Ross, T. J. (2010) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119994374 · Cited by 6,597
Decision Making in a Fuzzy Environment
(2007) · Advances in Fuzzy Systems — Applications and Theory · doi:10.1142/9789812770622_0004 · Cited by 5,320
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaya, İ., Çolak, M., & Terzi, F.
- Venue
- Energy Strategy Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-04
- Volume
- 24
- Pages
- 207-228
- ISSN
- 2211-467X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2930900166
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 29.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003
- The paper
- Kaya, İ., Çolak, M., & Terzi, F. (2019). A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.