CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 281Environmental Impact and SustainabilityMulti-Criteria Decision MakingPhotovoltaic Systems and Sustainability

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 165 of the 165 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies

Campos-Guzmán, Verónica, García-Cáscales, M. Socorro, Espinosa, Nieves, Urbina, Antonio·2019·Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.031

Cites

165 of 165 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 165 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Azapagic, 2016, Towards sustainable production and consumption: a novel DEcision-Support Framework IntegRating Economic, Environmental and Social Sustainability (DESIRES), Comput Chem Eng, 91, 93, 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.03.017 · DOI
  2. De Luca, 2017, Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for agricultural sustainability: insights from a systematic and critical review, Sci Total Environ, 595, 352, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.284 · DOI
  3. Hermann, 2007, Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators, J Clean Prod, 15, 1787, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.04.004 · DOI
  4. Strantzali, 2016, Decision making in renewable energy investments: a review, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 55, 885, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.021 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kumar, 2017, A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 69, 596, 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191 · DOI
  6. Rebitzer, 2004, Life cycle assessment: Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications, Environ Int, 30, 701, 10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Santoyo-Castelazo, 2014, Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects, J Clean Prod, 80, 119, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.061 · DOI
  8. Domingues, 2015, Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to the Life-Cycle Assessment of vehicles, J Clean Prod, 107, 749, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.086 · DOI
  9. Kaldellis, 2017, Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart, Renew Energy, 108, 72, 10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.039 · DOI
  10. Mourmouris, 2013, A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: a case study Thassos, Greece, Energy Policy, 52, 522, 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.074 · DOI
  11. Roth, 2009, Sustainability of electricity supply technology portfolio, Ann Nucl Energy, 36, 409, 10.1016/j.anucene.2008.11.029 · DOI
  12. Stamford, 2014, Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios to 2070, Energy Sustain Dev, 23, 194, 10.1016/j.esd.2014.09.008 · DOI
  13. Petrillo, 2016, Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis model for a stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system, Renew Energy, 95, 337, 10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.027 · DOI
  14. Stamford, 2011, Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nuclear power, Energy, 36, 6037, 10.1016/j.energy.2011.08.011 · DOI
  15. Kabakian, 2015, Attributional life cycle assessment of mounted 1.8 kWp monocrystalline photovoltaic system with batteries and comparison with fossil energy production system, Appl Energy, 154, 428, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.125 · DOI
  16. Fthenakis, 2007, CdTe photovoltaics: life cycle environmental profile and comparisons, Thin Solid Films, 515, 5961, 10.1016/j.tsf.2006.12.138 · DOI
  17. Collier, 2014, Life cycle environmental impacts from CZTS (copper zinc tin sulfide) and Zn3P2 (zinc phosphide) thin film PV (photovoltaic) cells, Energy, 74, 314, 10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.076 · DOI
  18. Wong, 2016, Review of life cycle analyses and embodied energy requirements of single-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 58, 608, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.241 · DOI
  19. Tommy Dalgaard RP. Environmental impacts of producing bioethanol and biobased lactic acid from standalone and integrated biorefineries using a consequential and an attributional life cycle assessment approach; 2017. 〈http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717309233〉 [Accessed 6 May 2017].
  20. Lokesh, 2015, Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of biojet fuels with a technical investigation into their impact on jet engine performance, Biomass Bioenergy, 77, 26, 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.03.005 · DOI
  21. Halldor Palsson MR. LCA of combined heat and power production at Hellisheiði geothermal power plant with focus on primary energy efficiency (PDF Download Available). ResearchGate; 2010. 〈https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256732536_LCA_of_combined_heat_and_power_production_at_Hellisheidi_geothermal_power_plant_with_focus_on_primary_energy_efficiency〉 [Accessed 6 May 2017].
  22. Heberle, 2016, Life cycle assessment of Organic Rankine Cycles for geothermal power generation considering low-GWP working fluids, Geothermics, 64, 392, 10.1016/j.geothermics.2016.06.010 · DOI
  23. Eriksson, 2007, Life cycle assessment of fuels for district heating: a comparison of waste incineration, biomass- and natural gas combustion, Energy Policy, 35, 1346, 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.005 · DOI
  24. Yang, 2015, Life-cycle assessment of China's multi-crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules considering international trade, J Clean Prod, 94, 35, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.003 · DOI
  25. Kim, 2016, Review of life cycle assessment of nanomaterials in photovoltaics, Sol Energy, 133, 249, 10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.060 · DOI
  26. Martín-Gamboa, 2017, A review of life-cycle approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis within multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainability assessment of energy systems, J Clean Prod, 150, 164, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.017 · DOI
  27. Azapagic, 2015, Sustainable production and consumption: a Decision-Support Framework Integrating Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability, Comput Aided Chem Eng, 37, 131, 10.1016/B978-0-444-63578-5.50017-7 · DOI
  28. Vázquez, 2015, D. review of life-cycle approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis: launching the CFP, Sci World J 2015, e813921
  29. Evans, 2009, Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 13, 1082, 10.1016/j.rser.2008.03.008 · DOI
  30. Valentin, 2000, A guide to community sustainability indicators, Environ Impact Assess Rev, 20, 381, 10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00049-4 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 281

Related

Metadata

Authors
Campos-Guzmán, V., García-Cáscales, M. S., Espinosa, N., & Urbina, A.
Affiliations
  • European Commission (BE)
  • Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena (ES)
ORCID
Venue
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
104
Pages
343-366
ISSN
1364-0321 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.031
OpenAlex
W2911255790
Cited by
281
References
165
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 14
FWCI
14.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • MINECO (FIS2015-69512-R, TIN 2017-89517-P, ENE2016-79282-C5-5-R)
  • Fundación Séneca (19882/GERM/15)
  • Junta de Andalucía (P11-TIC-8001)
  • PRODEP (UAgro-210)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Photovoltaic Systems and Sustainability
Keywords
life cycle assessment, multi-criteria decision making, sustainability assessment, renewable energy systems, photovoltaic systems, analytic hierarchy process, sustainability indicators, energy policy, project evaluation, knowledge base

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