MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOLAR BUILDINGS USING WASPAS METHOD

Notice

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.

Year : 2026 | Volume : 17 | 02 | Page :
    By

    Dr. Shilpa Kathad,

  • Dr. Kishan Bhayani,

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, VVP Engineering College Rajkot, Gujarat, India
  2. Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, VVP Engineering College Rajkot, Gujarat, India

Abstract

This research comprehensively evaluates renewable energy alternatives for solar buildings using the WASPAS multi-criteria decision-making framework. The analysis covers six distinct energy technologies: geothermal heat pumps, wind turbines, biomass heating systems, micro-hydro installations, fuel cells and building-integrated energy efficiency systems. These options are assessed against four key criteria: energy efficiency, economic viability, environmental sustainability and technical feasibility. The WASPAS methodology combines both summative and multiplicative techniques to produce reliable rankings. His findings reveal micro-hydro as the top ranked solution, receiving a score of 0.79640 due to its superior technical viability and energy efficiency. Biomass heating systems came in second place with a score of 0.80908, demonstrating strong performance across all evaluation parameters. Fuel cells came in third place (0.56218), while wind turbines, building- integrated energy efficiency systems, and geothermal heat pumps ranked fourth to sixth with scores of 0.54865, 0.52517, and 0.59406, respectively. To maintain objectivity, each evaluation criterion received an equal weight of 0.25, ensuring that all factors were considered in balance. The research emphasizes the critical need to consider site-specific conditions, resource availability, and project goals when selecting energy technologies for solar buildings. In conclusion, this work improves decision-making methods for sustainable building design and contributes to efforts aimed at achieving net-zero energy structures in the face of global climate concerns.

Keywords: Solar buildings, Renewable energy systems, Energy efficiency, Sustainable architecture, Micro hydropower, Biomass heating, Net-zero energy, MCDM

How to cite this article:
Dr. Shilpa Kathad, Dr. Kishan Bhayani. MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOLAR BUILDINGS USING WASPAS METHOD. Journal of Alternate Energy Sources & Technologies. 2026; 17(02):-.
How to cite this URL:
Dr. Shilpa Kathad, Dr. Kishan Bhayani. MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOLAR BUILDINGS USING WASPAS METHOD. Journal of Alternate Energy Sources & Technologies. 2026; 17(02):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/joaest/article=2026/view=246265


References

  1. Ghasempour R, Nazari MA, Ebrahimi M, Ahmadi MH, Hadiyanto H. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approach for Selecting Solar Plants Site and Technology: A Review. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development. 2019 Feb 1;8(1):15.
  2. Wang CN, Nguyen VT, Thai HT, Duong DH. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for solar power plant location selection in Viet Nam. Energies. 2018 Jun 8;11(6):1504.
  3. Sánchez-Lozano JM, Teruel-Solano J, Soto-Elvira PL, García-Cascales MS. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: Case study in south- eastern Spain. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews. 2013 Aug 1;24:544-56.
  4. Hosouli S, Hassani RA. Application of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model for solar plant location selection. Results in Engineering. 2024 Dec 1;24:103162.
  5. Hsueh SL, Feng Y, Sun Y, Jia R, Yan MR. Using AI-MCDM model to boost sustainable energy system development: A case study on solar energy and rainwater collection in guangdong province. Sustainability. 2021 Nov 12;13(22):12505.
  6. Seker S, Kahraman C. Socio-economic evaluation model for sustainable solar PV panels using a novel integrated MCDM methodology: A case in Turkey. Socio- Economic Planning Sciences. 2021 Oct 1;77:100998.
  7. Nafi’Shehab Z, Faisal RM, Ahmed SW. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach for identifying optimal solar farm locations: A multi-technique comparative analysis. Renewable Energy. 2024 Dec 1;237:121787.
  8. Mandviwala A, Chaturvedi S, Bhatt N. Integrated Performance Evaluation of Glazing and Rooftop PV Systems Using VIKOR-MCDM and Building Simulation. Energy Efficiency First. 2025 Oct 14:100006.
  9. Zandi I, Lotfata A. Evaluating solar power plant sites using integrated GIS and MCDM methods: a case study in Kermanshah Province. Scientific Reports. 2025 Jan 26;15(1):3288.
  10. Andresen I. A multi-criteria decision-making method for solar building design. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 2000 Mar;154.
  11. Wang CN, Chung YC, Wibowo FD, Dang TT, Nguyen NA. Site selection of solar power plants using hybrid MCDM models: a case study in Indonesia. energies. 2023 May 11;16(10):4042.
  12. Xuan HA, Trinh VV, Techato K, Phoungthong K. Use of hybrid MCDM methods for site location of solar-powered hydrogen production plants in Uzbekistan. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2022 Aug 1;52:101979.
  13. Wang TC, Tsai SY. Solar panel supplier selection for the photovoltaic system design by using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches. Energies. 2018 Jul 31;11(8):1989.
  14. Cao Q, Esangbedo MO, Bai S, Esangbedo CO. Grey SWARA-FUCOM weighting method for contractor selection MCDM problem: A case study of floating solar panel energy system installation. Energies. 2019 Jun 27;12(13):2481.
  15. Chen CR, Huang CC, Tsuei HJ. A hybrid MCDM model for improving GIS‐based solar farms site selection. International Journal of Photoenergy. 2014;2014(1):925370.
  16. Chakraborty S, Zavadskas EK. Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making. Informatica. 2014 Feb;25(1):1-20.
  17. Alinezhad A, Khalili J. New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Cham: Springer; 2019 Aug 23.
  18. Alinezhad A, Khalili J. WASPAS method. InNew methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (Madm) 2019 Aug 24 (pp. 93-98). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  19. Mardani A, Nilashi M, Zakuan N, Loganathan N, Soheilirad S, Saman MZ, Ibrahim O. A systematic review and meta-Analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods: Theory and applications with recent fuzzy developments. Applied soft computing. 2017 Aug 1;57:265-92.
  20. Zavadskas EK, Chakraborty S, Bhattacharyya O, Antucheviciene J. Application of WASPAS method as an optimization tool in non-traditional machining processes. Information Technology and Control. 2015 Mar 30;44(1):77-88.
  21. Stanujkić D, Karabašević D. An extension of the WASPAS method for decision-making problems with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers: a case of website evaluation. Operational research in engineering sciences: theory and applications. 2018 Dec 19;1(1):29-39.
  22. Badalpur M, Nurbakhsh E. An application of WASPAS method in risk qualitative analysis: a case study of a road construction project in Iran. International Journal of Construction Management. 2021 Aug 9;21(9):910-8.
  23. Simić V, Lazarević D, Dobrodolac M. Picture fuzzy WASPAS method for selecting last-mile delivery mode: a case study of Belgrade. European transport research review. 2021 Dec;13(1):43.
  24. Mishra AR, Rani P. Multi-criteria healthcare waste disposal location selection based on Fermatean fuzzy WASPAS method. Complex & intelligent systems. 2021 Oct;7(5):2469-84.
  25. Perec A, Radomska-Zalas A. WASPAS optimization in advanced manufacturing. Procedia Computer Science. 2022 Jan 1;207:1193-200.
  26. Dwivedi PP, Sharma DK. Assessment of appropriate renewable energy resources for India using entropy and WASPAS techniques. Renewable Energy Research and Applications. 2024 Jan 1;5(1):51-61.
  27. Emovon I, Norman RA, Murphy AJ, Okwu MO. Application of WASPAS in enhancing reliability centered maintenance for ship system maintenance. Journal of Engineering and Technology (JET). 2018 Jun 30;9(1):35-53.
  28. Khan AA, Mashat DS, Dong K. Evaluating sustainable urban development strategies through spherical CRITIC-WASPAS analysis. Journal of urban development and management. 2024;3(1):1-7.
  29. Yong Z. Evaluation of Cancer Using Weighted aggregate product assessment (WASPAS) Method. Healthcare Issues. 2022 Jul;1(1):19-30.
  30. İşler M, Çalık A. An approach to islamic investment decision making based on integrated Entropy and WASPAS methods. Journal of Optimization and Decision Making. 2022 Dec 12;1(2):100-13.
Ahead of Print Subscription Review Article
Volume 17
02
Received 16/03/2026
Accepted 04/06/2026
Published 06/06/2026
Publication Time 82 Days
6

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics