Development of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Framework for Optimisation of Renewable Energy Planning in Anambra State

References

[1] Acuto, M., & Rayner, S. (2016). City networks: Breaking gridlocks or forging (new) lock-ins? International Affairs, 92(5), 1147–1166.

[2] Al-Amin, M. (2014). Domestic energy crisis and deforestation challenges in Nigeria. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20143156427

[3] Algarín, C. R., Llanos, A. P., & Castro, A. O. (2017). An Analytic Hierarchy Process Based Approach for Evaluating Renewable Energy Sources. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7, 38–47.

[4] Al-Kurdi, N., Pillot, B., Gervet, C., & Linguet, L. (2019). Towards Robust Scenarios of Spatio-Temporal Renewable Energy Planning: A GIS-RO Approach. In T. Schiex & S. De Givry (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (Vol. 11802, pp. 729–747). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30048-7_42

[5] Asthana, S., Gibson, A., Moon, G., & Brigham, P. (2003). Allocating resources for health and social care: The significance of rurality: Resource allocation and rurality. Health & Social Care in the Community, 11(6), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.00454.x

[6] Barrera-Zapata, M., Zuñiga-Cortes, F., & Caicedo-Bravo, E. (2023). A Framework for Evaluating Renewable Energy for Decision-Making Integrating a Hybrid FAHP-TOPSIS Approach: A Case Study in Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Data, 8(9), 137.

[7] Brans, J. P., & Vincke, Ph. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science, 31(6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647

[8] Chang, H.-K., Liou, J.-C., & Chen, W.-W. (2012). Protection priority in the coastal environment using a hybrid ahp-topsis method on the Miaoli coast, Taiwan. Journal of Coastal Research, 28(2), 369–374.

[9] Ciuriak, D. (2018). Frameworks for Data Governance and the Implications for Sustainable Development in the Global South. Available at SSRN 3266113. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3266113

[10] Clements, B., Coady, D., Fabrizio, S., Gupta, S., & Shang, B. (2014). Energy subsidies: How large are they and how can they be reformed? Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 3(1), 1–18.

[11] Clemmons-Brown, C. A. (2023). Innovation and evidence-based Decision-Making: Addressing New Graduate nurse turnover. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 47(1), E1–E11.

[12] Deshmukh, S. C. (2013). Preference ranking organisation method of enrichment evaluation (promethee). International Journal of Engineering Science Invention, 2(11), 28–34.

[13] Deverka, P. A., Lavallee, D. C., Desai, P. J., Armstrong, J., Gorman, M., Hole-Curry, L., O’Leary, J., Ruffner, B., Watkins, J., Veenstra, D. L., Baker, L. H., Unger, J. M., & Ramsey, S. D. (2012). Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: Evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 1(4), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.12.36

[14] Dupont, E., Koppelaar, R., & Jeanmart, H. (2020). Global available solar energy under physical and energy return on investment constraints. Applied Energy, 257, 113968.

[15] Ellis, G., & Ferraro, G. (2017). The social acceptance of wind energy: Where we stand and the path ahead. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/the-social-acceptance-of-wind-energy-where-we-stand-and-the-path-

[16] Ezenekwe, U., Nwokoye, E., Metu, A., & Kalu, D. C. U. (2014). Efficiency of Nigeria’s Electricity Market: Emerging Issues, Prospects and Challenges. Association of Energy and Environmental Economics of Nigeria-Nigerian Journal of Energy and Environmental Economics, 6(1), 105–121.

[17] Ezzati, M., Bailis, R., Kammen, D. M., Holloway, T., Price, L., Cifuentes, L. A., Barnes, B., Chaurey, A., & Dhanapala, K. N. (2004). ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND GLOBAL HEALTH. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29(1), 383–419. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062103.121246

[18] Frangopoulos, C. A., & Keramioti, D. E. (2010). Multi-criteria evaluation of energy systems with sustainability considerations. Entropy, 12(5), 1006–1020.

[19] Heinemann, G., Banzer, F., Dumitrescu, R., Hirschhausen, C. V., Neuhoff, M. E., & Nwadiaru, V. O. (2022). Transforming electricity access by replacing back-up generators with solar systems: Recent trends and evidence from Nigeria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 157, 111751.

[20] Hou, G., Chen, T., Ma, K., Liao, Z., Xia, H., & Yao, T. (2019). Improving social acceptance of waste-to-energy incinerators in China: Role of place attachment, trust and fairness. Sustainability, 11(6), 1727.

[21] Ikejemba, E. C., & Schuur, P. (2016). Locating solar and wind parks in South-Eastern Nigeria for maximum population coverage: A multi-step approach. Renewable Energy, 89, 449–462.

[22] Jack, J., & Jack, B. (2022). Nigeria’s Energy Crisis and the Sustainability Question. Social and Health Sciences, 20(1 and 2). https://doi.org/10.25159/2957-3645/11449

[23] Janković, R., Mihajlović, I., & Amelio, A. (2019). Time Series Vector Autoregression Prediction of the Ecological Footprint based on Energy Parameters (No. arXiv:1910.11800). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.11800

[24] Kabeyi, M. J. B., & Olanrewaju, O. A. (2023). The levelized cost of energy and modifications for use in electricity generation planning. Energy Reports, 9, 495–534.

[25] Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst. Appl., 38, 6577–6585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.081

[26] Liu, Y., Sun, C., Xia, B., Cui, C., & Coffey, V. (2018). Impact of community engagement on public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Empirical evidence from China. Waste Management, 76, 431–442.

[27] Madanchian, M., & Taherdoost, H. (2023). A comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Madanchian M, Taherdoost H. A Comprehensive Guide to the TOPSIS Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Sustainable Social Development, 1(1), 2220.

[28] Maroto, C., Segura, M., Ginestar, C., Uriol, J., & Segura, B. (2012). Aggregation of Stakeholder Preferences in Sustainable Forest Management using AHP. ICORES, 100–107. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4afc/b22cd9823f8a7cd5f74c526702219b755a5d.pdfMartinez, L. J.,

[29] Lambert, J. H., & Karvetski, C. W. (2011). Scenario-informed multiple criteria analysis for prioritising investments in electricity capacity expansion. Reliability Engineering & SystemSafety, 96(8), 883–891.

[30] Miller, C. A., Iles, A., & Jones, C. F. (2013). The Social Dimensions of Energy Transitions. Science as Culture, 22(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.786989

[31] Montibeller, G., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2015). Biases and debiasing in multi-criteria decision analysis. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1218–1226. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7069955/

[32] Okoye, P. U., Ezeokonkwo, J. U., & Nworji, G. C. (2017). Sustainability of Renewable Sources of Energy for Rural Communities in Anambra State. Advances in Energy and Power(CEASE PUBLICATION), 5(4), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.13189/aep.2017.050401

[33] Oladigbolu, J. O., Ramli, M. A., & Al-Turki, Y. A. (2020). Optimal design of a hybrid PV solar/micro-hydro/diesel/battery energy system for a remote rural village under tropical climate conditions. Electronics, 9(9), 1491.Patnaik, R. (2018). Impact of industrialisation on environment and sustainable solutions–reflections from a south Indian region. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 120, 012016. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/120/1/012016/meta

[34] Pinto, N. N. (2013). Technologies for Urban and Spatial Planning: Virtual Cities and Territories: Virtual Cities and Territories (Vol. 2326). IGI Global. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vd1GAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Technologies+for+Urban+and+Spatial+Planning:+Virtual+Cities+and+Territories+N.+Pinto&ots=0LsthntRKd&sig=jPwqfReG1_7y8byq1k_WQ2y89d8

[35] Podvezko, V., & Podviezko, A. (2010). dependence of multi‐criteria evaluation result on choice of preference functions and their parameters / daugiakriterinių vertinimų rezultatų priklausomybė nuo prioritetų funkcijų ir jų parametrų PASIRINKIMO. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.09

[36] Porzsolt, F., Wiedemann, F., Becker, S. I., & Rhoads, C. J. (2019). Inclusion and exclusion criteria and the problem of describing homogeneity of study populations in clinical trials. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 24(3), 92–94.

[37] Poveda, C. A., & Lipsett, M. G. (2013). Weighting sustainable development indicators (SDIs) for surface mining operations using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 5(2). https://www.ijahp.org/index.php/IJAHP/article/view/199

[38] Ramík, J. (2017). Ranking alternatives by pairwise comparisons matrix and priority vector. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 64(Special), 85–95.

[39] Roumell, E. A., Todoran, C., & Salajan, F. D. (2020). A Framework for Capacity Building in Adult and Workforce Education Programming. Adult Literacy Education, 2(2), 16–32.

[40] Ruzieva, M., & Ruziev, U. (2024). Assessing environmental problems: Primary indicators and their role in ecosystem management. E3S Web of Conferences, 587, 02012. https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/abs/2024/117/e3sconf_greenenergy24_02012/e3sconf_greenenergy24_02012.html

[41] Saat, M. (2000). An approach to multi-objective decision making: Analytical hierachy. Gazi University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Journals, 2(2), 149–162.

[42] Saaty, T. L. (1990). Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. AHP Series I/RWS Publication.

[43] Shrestha, R. M., & Acharya, J. S. (2015). Sustainable energy access planning: A framework. Asian Development Bank. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SnggCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Sustainable+Energy+Access+Planning:+A+Framework+Jiwan+Acharya&ots=o_Us3L-HMS&sig=zOYExIT_r0Wgt9rK62XKXah4IwI

[44] Stache, F., & Sydow, J. (2023). Breaking a Path by Creating a New One: How Organisational Change Boosts Children’s Cancer Care. Organisation Studies, 44(3), 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221103965

[45] Vincent-Akpu, I. (2012). Renewable energy potentials in Nigeria. IAIA12 Conference Proceedings: Energy Future, The Role of Impact Assessment 32nd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 1–6.

[46] Woo, M. (2008). Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

@article{1715393,
      author = {Okafor, Bethrand Uzoma, Nwobi-Okoye, C.C},
      title = {Development of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Framework for Optimisation of Renewable Energy Planning in Anambra State},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {9},
      pages = {1848-1859},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1715393.pdf},
      abstract = {The global energy sector is undergoing a significant transformation due to the urgent need to address climate change, ensure energy security and promote sustainable development. In Nigeria, particularly in Anambra State, persistent energy crises characterised by unreliable grid access, high dependence on fossil fuels and underutilised renewable energy (RE) resources emphasise the necessity for systematic energy planning. This study develops a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to optimise renewable energy planning in Anambra State, integrating technical, economic, environmental and social criteria. The research employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to prioritise decision criteria and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to rank renewable energy alternatives, including solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass, small-scale hydropower and wind energy. Primary data was collected through structured questionnaires administered to 20 stakeholders, including policymakers, energy experts and community leaders. The AHP results highlighted technical feasibility (0.22) and cost-effectiveness (0.18) as the most critical criteria, while environmental sustainability and energy equity received lower weights, reflecting pragmatic priorities. TOPSIS analysis ranked solar PV as the most viable alternative, aligning with Anambra’s high solar irradiance, followed by hydropower, biomass and wind energy. The study emphasises the importance of stakeholder engagement, data availability and hybrid MCDA frameworks in energy planning. Recommendations include strengthening participatory mechanisms, enhancing technical capacity and aligning policies with Nigeria’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 targets. This research contributes to the discourse on sustainable energy transitions by providing a replicable, evidence-based framework for decision-making in resource-constrained settings. The findings advocate for a balanced approach to energy planning, ensuring reliability, affordability and long-term sustainability in Anambra State and similar regions.},
      month = {March},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I9-1715393}
  }