Javascript is required
1.
H. Ghaderi, M. S. Pishvaee, and A. Moini, “Biomass supply chain network design: An optimization-oriented review and analysis,” Ind. Crops Prod., vol. 94, pp. 972–1000, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2.
M. Mottaghi, S. Bairamzadeh, and M. S. Pishvaee, “A taxonomic review and analysis on biomass supply chain design and planning: New trends, methodologies and applications,” Ind. Crops Prod., vol. 180, p. 114747, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3.
I. Rahimi and J. Nematian, “A bibliometric analysis on optimization solution methods applied to supply chain of solar energy,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 4213–4231, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4.
M. Fasihi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, S. E. Najafi, and M. Hajiaghaei, “Optimizing a bi-objective multi-period fish closed-loop supply chain network design by three multi-objective meta-heuristic algorithms,” Scientia Iranica, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5.
M. Fasihi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, M. Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, and S. E. Najafi, “Designing a sustainable fish closed-loop supply chain network under uncertainty,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 30, no. 39, pp. 90050–90087, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6.
B. Tundys and T. Wiśniewski, “Renewable energy supply chains—Text mining and co-occurrence analysis in the context of the sustainability,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 12, p. 4761, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
I. G. Sahebi, A. Mosayebi, B. Masoomi, and F. Marandi, “Modeling the enablers for blockchain technology adoption in renewable energy supply chain,” Technol. Soc., vol. 68, p. 101871, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8.
M. R. S. Marroquin, C. H. D. O. Fontes, and F. G. M. Freires, “Sustainable and renewable energy supply chain: A system dynamics overview,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 82, pp. 247–259, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9.
S. G. Azevedo, M. Santos, and J. R. Antón, “Supply chain of renewable energy: A bibliometric review approach,” Biomass Bioenergy, vol. 126, pp. 70–83, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10.
L. J. R. Nunes, T. P. Causer, and D. Ciolkosz, “Biomass for energy: A review on supply chain management models,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 120, p. 109658, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11.
O. Sun and N. Fan, “A review on optimization methods for biomass supply chain: Models and algorithms, sustainable issues, and challenges and opportunities,” Process Integr. Optim. Sustain., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 203–226, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12.
M. Jazinaninejad, M. Nematollahi, A. S. Zamenjani, and A. Tajbakhsh, “Sustainable operations, managerial decisions, and quantitative analytics of biomass supply chains: A systematic literature review,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 374, p. 133889, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13.
I. Hassanin and M. Knez, “Managing supply chain activities in the field of energy production focusing on renewables,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 7290, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14.
M. Fasihi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, and F. Jolai, “A bi-objective re-entrant permutation flow shop scheduling problem: Minimizing the makespan and maximum tardiness,” Oper. Res., vol. 23, no. 2, p. 29, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15.
T. Buchholz, E. Rametsteiner, T. A. Volk, and V. A. Luzadis, “Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments,” Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 484–495, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16.
P. Korhonen, H. Moskowitz, and J. Wallenius, “Multiple criteria decision support-A review,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 361–375, 1992. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17.
A. Cheraghalipour and S. Farsad, “A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection and order allocation considering quantity discounts under disruption risks: A case study in plastic industry.,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 118, pp. 237–250, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18.
A. Mondal, B. K. Giri, and S. K. Roy, “An integrated sustainable bio-fuel and bio-energy supply chain: A novel approach based on DEMATEL and fuzzy-random robust flexible programming with Me measure,” Appl. Energy, vol. 343, p. 121225, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19.
L. J. Nunes, J. Nogueira, J. B. Rodrigues, J. C. Azevedo, E. Oliveira, T. de Figueiredo, and J. Picos, “Modern animal traction to enhance the supply chain of residual biomass,” AgriEngineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1039–1050, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20.
S. Kheybari, M. D. Monfared, A. Salamirad, and J. Rezaei, “Bioethanol sustainable supply chain design: A multi-attribute bi-objective structure,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 180, p. 109258, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
M. Zarei, A. Cherif, H. J. Yoon, J. J. Liu, and C. J. Lee, “Optimal design of a biofuel supply chain using an augmented multi-objective and TOPSIS method,” Green Chem., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 4067–4075, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
K. Ransikarbum, W. Chanthakhot, T. Glimm, and J. Janmontree, “Evaluation of sourcing decision for hydrogen supply chain using an integrated multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool,” Resources, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 48, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
J. D. Hong, “Application of transformed two-stage network DEA to strategic design of biofuel supply chain network,” J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 129–151, 2003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
L. J. Nunes, M. Casau, M. F. Dias, J. C. O. Matias, and L. C. Teixeira, “Agroforest woody residual biomass-to-energy supply chain analysis: Feasible and sustainable renewable resource exploitation for an alternative to fossil fuels,” Results Eng., vol. 17, p. 101010, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
R. Kotagodahetti, K. Hewage, F. Razi, and R. Sadiq, “Comparative life cycle environmental and cost assessments of renewable natural gas production pathways,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 278, p. 116715, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
V. Muerza, L. Urciuoli, and S. Z. Habas, “Enabling the circular economy of bio-supply chains employing integrated biomass logistics centers-A multi-stage approach integrating supply and production activities,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 384, p. 135628, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
E. Shadkam, R. Yazdani, M. M. Mirmozaffari, and F. Adineh, “The hybrid DHP method for evaluation, ranking and selection of green suppliers in the supply chain,” Int. J. Math. Oper. Res., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 118–138, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
28.
Z. Mohtashami, A. Bozorgi-Amiri, and R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, “A data envelopment analysis model for location optimization of feedstock cultivation in a biodiesel supply chain: A case study,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 10513–10532, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
29.
I. Ghasemian Sahebi, S. P. Toufighi, M. Azzavi, B. Masoomi, and M. H. Maleki, “Fuzzy ISM–DEMATEL modeling for the sustainable development hindrances in the renewable energy supply chain,” Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 43–70, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
30.
Z. Barahmand and M. S. Eikeland, “Assessing and prioritizing challenges facing bioenergy supply chain in Norway: A Delphi-AHP method,” Int. J. Energy Prod. Manag., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 310–330, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
31.
S. Gautam, L. LeBel, and B. Rijal, “Integrating Analytical Hierarchical Process and network optimization model to support decision-making on biomass terminal selection,” Forests, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 1898, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
32.
M. T. Le, N. L. Nhieu, and T. D. T. Pham, “Direct-use geothermal energy location multi-criteria planning for on-site energy security in emergencies: A case study of Malaysia.,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 22, p. 15132, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
33.
H. Mobarezkhoo, M. Saidi-Mehrabad, and H. Sahebi, “Life cycle evaluation of microalgae based biorefinery supply network: A sustainable multi-criteria approach,” Algal Res., vol. 66, p. 102816, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
34.
C. B. Salvador, E. Arzaghi, M. Yazdi, H. A. Jahromi, and R. Abbassi, “A multi-criteria decision-making framework for site selection of offshore wind farms in Australia,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 224, pp. 1–19, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
35.
P. N. A. Junior, I. C. Melo, R. de M. Santos, F. V. da Rocha, and J. V. Caixeta-Filho, “How did COVID-19 affect green-fuel supply chain?-A performance analysis of Brazilian ethanol sector,” Res. Transp. Econ., vol. 93, no. 3, p. 101137, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
36.
T. Dhingra, A. Sengar, and S. Sajith, “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based analysis for prioritization of barriers to offshore wind energy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 345, no. 4, p. 131111, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
37.
B. Masoomi, I. G. Sahebi, M. Fathi, F. Yıldırım, and S. Ghorbani, “Strategic supplier selection for renewable energy supply chain under green capabilities (fuzzy BWM-WASPAS-COPRAS approach),” Energy Strategy Rev., vol. 40, p. 100815, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
38.
L. M. Reyes-Barquet, J. O. Rico-Contreras, C. Azzaro-Pantel, C. G. Moras-Sánchez, M. A. González-Huerta, D. Villanueva-Vásquez, and A. A. Aguilar-Lasserre, “Multi-objective optimal design of a hydrogen supply chain powered with agro-industrial wastes from the sugarcane industry: A Mexican case study,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 437, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
39.
N. Zarrinpoor and A. Khani, “A biofuel supply chain design considering sustainability, uncertainty, and international suppliers and markets,” Biomass Convers. Bioref., vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 14127–14153, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
40.
M. Alherbawi, G. Mckay, H. R. Mackey, and T. Al-Ansari, “A biofuel supply chain design considering sustainability, uncertainty, and international suppliers and markets,” Chem. Eng. Trans., vol. 92, pp. 73–78, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
41.
M. E. Zerafati, A. Bozorgi-Amiri, A. M. Golmohammadi, and F. Jolai, “A multi-objective mixed integer linear programming model proposed to optimize a supply chain network for microalgae-based biofuels and co-products: A case study in Iran,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., pp. 1–23, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
42.
Z. Alidoosti, K. Govindan, M. S. Pishvaee, A. Mostafaeipour, and A. K. Hossain, “Social sustainability of treatment technologies for bioenergy generation from the municipal solid waste using best worst method,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 288, p. 125592, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
43.
N. H. Razak, H. Hashim, N. A. Yunus, and J. J. Klemeš, “Biorefinery localization using analytical hierarchy process,” Chem. Eng. Trans., vol. 89, pp. 589–594, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
44.
C. N. Wang, T. T. Dang, and J. Bayer, “A two-stage multiple criteria decision making for site selection of solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant: A case study in Taiwan,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 75509–75525, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
45.
M. Ghadami, H. Sahebi, M. Pishvaee, and H. Gilani, “A sustainable cross-efficiency DEA model for international MSW-to-biofuel supply chain design,” RAIRO-Oper. Res., vol. 55, pp. S2653–S2675, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
46.
E. Mastrocinque, F. J. Ramírez, A. Honrubia-Escribano, and D. T. Pham, “An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 150, p. 113321, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
47.
F. Delkhosh and S. J. Sadjadi, “A robust optimization model for a biofuel supply chain under demand uncertainty,” Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 229–245, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
48.
M. Rabbani, S. Momen, N. Akbarian-Saravi, H. Farrokhi-Asl, and Z. Ghelichi, “Optimal design for sustainable bioethanol supply chain considering the bioethanol production strategies: A case study,” Comput. Chem. Eng., vol. 134, p. 106720, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
49.
N. Akbarian-Saravi, M. Mobini, and M. Rabbani, “Development of a comprehensive decision support tool for strategic and tactical planning of a sustainable bioethanol supply chain: Real case study, discussions and policy implications,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 244, p. 118871, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
50.
A. Rentizelas, I. C. Melo, P. N. A. Junior, J. S. Campoli, and D. A. do Nascimento Rebelatto, “Multi-criteria efficiency assessment of international biomass supply chain pathways using Data Envelopment Analysis,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 237, p. 117690, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
51.
M. Arabi, S. Yaghoubi, and J. Tajik, “A mathematical model for microalgae-based biobutanol supply chain network design under harvesting and drying uncertainties,” Energy, vol. 179, pp. 1004–1016, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
52.
R. Rabbani, N. A. Saravi, H. Farrokhi-Asl, S. F. W. Lim, and Z. Tahaei, “Developing a sustainable supply chain optimization model for switchgrass-based bioenergy production: A case study,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 200, pp. 827–843, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
53.
J. Wheeler, M. A. Páez, G. Guillén-Gosálbez, and F. D. Mele, “Combining multi-attribute decision-making methods with multi-objective optimization in the design of biomass supply chains,” Comput. Chem. Eng., vol. 113, pp. 11–31, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
54.
E. C. M. Noyons, H. F. Moed, and M. Luwel, “Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 115–131, 1999. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
55.
N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Search
Open Access
Research article

Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques to Assist Decision-Making in Renewable Energy Supply Chains: A Review

maedeh fasihi*
Department of Management, Ayandegan Institute of Higher Education, 4681853617 Tonekabon, Iran
Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics
|
Volume 2, Issue 2, 2024
|
Pages 92-106
Received: 03-11-2024,
Revised: 04-25-2024,
Accepted: 05-06-2024,
Available online: 05-14-2024
View Full Article|Download PDF

Abstract:

The pressing need to reduce reliance on petroleum in the energy sector and the increasing demand for environmental protection are driving research and practical endeavors in the management of renewable supply chains. Professionals, global institutions and scholars have widely acknowledged the importance of studying the correlation, between the performance of supply chains and renewable energy sources. It's important to delve into the articles in terms of the methodologies that have been used, the principal concerns addressed, the specific renewable energy sources focused on, and the performance indicators employed to optimize supply chains for renewable energies. This paper provides an analysis that improves the understanding of research in the realm of quantitative decision making for renewable energy supply chains. The analysis commences by searching for articles published. Subsequently, they are narrowed down to those that are most relevant. The article also addresses knowledge gaps in the literature. The findings provide a reference for researchers who are considering conducting studies in this area.
Keywords: Renewable energy, Supply chain, Multi criteria analysis, Decision making

1. Introduction

Energy consumption has witnessed a substantial rise globally, especially in industrialized nations, primarily attributed to population growth, technological advancements, and improved living standards in recent times [1]. The significant surge in energy requirements, heightened worries regarding energy security, and the environmental repercussions associated with fossil fuel consumption have collectively driven a shift toward renewable energy sources [2]. The concept of renewable energy has found applications in various sectors. Renewable energy is derived from sustainable sources, including the sun, wind, waves, tides, marine, and geothermal energy, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Numerous countries worldwide have already integrated renewable energy into their energy supplies, and it is anticipated that national renewable energy markets will continue to grow significantly [3].

Supply chain management (SCM) is a component that orchestrates the movement of information, products, and finances from their source to various consumption areas [4]. The performance of the SC is undeniably a paramount factor for companies aiming not only to survive but also to thrive in today's fiercely competitive [5]. SCM in the context of renewable energy necessitates consideration of unpredictable factors and the performance of renewable energy systems, encompassing aspects like storage, distribution, conversion efficiency, and secondary applications. Renewable energy supply chains (RESCs) encompass familiar components of conventional SCM, involving the flow of physical, information, and financial resources. Through these practices, they play a vital role in promoting eco-friendly production processes, logistics, and products to enhance overall efficiency [6].

RESCs are now a prominent subject in academic discussions within the research domain of SCs. Factors such as economic shifts, political changes, and heightened consumer consciousness have led to the rapid expansion of RESCs in recent years [7]. This increase is evident in the growing number of publications in the field of RESCs in recent years (refer to more information in Figure 1). Table 1 shows the most recent reviews in RESCs.

The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 outlines the research methodologies employed, Section 3 presents the key findings derived from the literature analysis, and finally, in Section 4, the principal conclusions are summarized.

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 1. RESCs publication trend
Table 1. Recent reviews in the field of Renewable Energy Supply Chains (RESCs)

Paper

Year

Scope

[8]

2018

Sustainable and RESCs

[9]

2019

SC of renewable energy

[10]

2020

Biomass for energy: SCM models

[11]

2019

Optimization methods for biomass SC: Models and algorithms, sustainable issues, and challenges and opportunities

[3]

2022

Optimization solution methods applied to SC of solar energy

[2]

2022

Biomass SC design and planning: new trends, methodologies and applications

[12]

2022

Sustainable operations, managerial decisions, and quantitative analytics of biomass SCs

[13]

2022

Managing SC activities in the field of energy production focusing on renewables

[6]

2023

RESCs—text mining and co-occurrence analysis in the context of the sustainability

2. Research Methodology

The data utilized in this paper was sourced from the Scopus database covering the timeframe from 2018 to 2023. The analysis delves into a set of publications that applied quantitative multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques.

In the realm of literature, there exist various methods for categorizing MCA approaches. One widely recognized form of MCA is multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which is sometimes referred to as multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA). It's important to note that the terms 'MCDA' and 'MCDM' (multi-criteria decision making) are frequently used interchangeably to refer to MCA. Since achieving optimal values for all objectives simultaneously is unattainable, MCDM entails addressing a selection problem [14].

Furthermore, these approaches are categorized into two main groups: multi-objective decision making (MODM) and multi-attribute decision making (MADM). The principal distinction between these two sets of approaches lies in the number of possible alternatives under evaluation. In MODM, an infinite number of alternatives are defined by constraints on a vector of decision variables, resulting in an optimized alternative. Conversely, MADM approaches, commonly applied in environmental decision-making scenarios, involve a finite number of explicitly defined alternatives, which are then assessed against a set of principles or criteria. These assessments often involve qualitative and/or quantitative attributes [15], [16].

In this study, the title, abstract, and keyword search was conducted in the Scopus database. The choice of Scopus was made due to its status as the largest abstract and citation database for peer-reviewed scientific literature. Notably, it encompasses journals that are also part of the Web of Science and provides the capability for citation analysis. Similar to other databases, Scopus offers various features and functions that simplify bibliometric analysis.

The major keywords employed in this study, namely 'supply chain,' 'renewable energy,' and 'MCA,' were thoughtfully selected to align with the main research goal: to investigate the connection between SC decision-making techniques and the adoption of renewable energies. Keywords related to various forms of renewable energy were chosen after a thorough literature analysis. These included 'renewable energy,' its synonyms, and alternative designations found in the literature. These keywords were used inclusively (linked by 'OR') to ensure comprehensive retrieval of articles encompassing all types of renewable energies. At the same time, we considered the keywords 'supply chain' and those associated with 'MCA,' stipulating their presence in the search fields (title, abstract, keywords) of each publication. This approach aimed to identify publications that address both SC-supported MCA techniques and specific types of renewable energy for analysis. Table 2 illustrates the use of various keywords for data collection.

Table 2. Keywords

Topic

Keywords

Renewable energy

“renewable energy” OR “renewable resource” OR “bioenergy” OR “bio-energy” OR “biomass”
OR “biofuel” OR “bio-fuel” OR “ethanol” OR “bioethanol” OR “wind energy” OR “wind power”
OR “solar energy” OR “solar power” OR “photovoltaic cells” OR “geothermal energy”
OR “heat energy” OR “ocean-power” OR hydropower OR “water-energy” OR “water power”
OR “hydroelectric power” OR “landfill gas” OR “renewable fuel” OR “renewable sources”
OR “renewable electricity” OR “renewable hydrogen” OR “renewable gases”
OR “renewable power” OR “renewable jet fuel” OR “renewable water resources”
OR “renewable-powered” OR “renewable diesel” OR “biojet fuel” OR “renewables”
OR “renewable materials” OR “renewable heat”

Supply chain

“supply chain*”

MCA

“multiple criteria” OR “multi-criteria” OR “multicriteria” OR “multiple attribute”
OR “multiattribute” OR “multiattribute” OR “decision making process”
OR “decision making technique” OR “decision making approach” OR “decision making method”

OR “multiple alternative” OR “multi-alternative” OR “multialternative”
OR “multi-dimensional decision-making” OR “multidimensional decision-making”

Additionally, we limited our search to articles written in English, the predominant language of scientific communication, and to articles published in journals. Other forms of publication, such as books, book chapters, and conference proceedings, often do not adhere to the same standardized peer-review process and are therefore considered less credible sources for academic dissemination. Consequently, these sources were not included in our search criteria.

3. Findings and Discussion

The correlation between SCM and the adoption of renewable energies has garnered growing attention in scholarly literature, as depicted in Figure 1. There is a discernible upward trajectory in interest, particularly noticeable since 2015. Consequently, this not only signifies a rising area of interest but also a notably recent one. In this section, we outline the findings of our content analysis regarding the utilization of MADM techniques within the context of RESCs. According to the keywords mentioned in Table 2, the search results yield a collection of 153 studies on Scopus. Figure 2 illustrates the trends of these articles, and in terms of the number of publications, it is evident that a significant growth has been observed since 2018.

Table 3 presents the most pertinent publications, which encompass a type of renewable energy production and employ MCA-supported SCM, all of which were published after 2018. Sustainability Management refers to strategic business endeavors aimed at concurrently mitigating sustainability risks in the environmental, economic, and social dimensions [17]. In the realm of the renewable energy SC, scholars, managers, and vested parties can effectively employ insights derived from reviewed literature to align with their respective decision-making domains.

This paper utilizes keyword analysis as a bibliometric indicator. It employs the science mapping approach of bibliometric analysis, utilizing the visualization software VOSviewer to illustrate the subject structure [54]. VOSviewer Software was selected due to its robust graphical user interface and mapping visualization capabilities [55]. The data underwent standardization and formatting to make it compatible with VOSviewer. This process involved converting the database into plain text and thoroughly assessing all articles to ensure their relevance and accuracy. Ultimately, 36 records met the filtering criteria outlined above (refer to Table 3).

Keywords serve as fundamental components within a specific field of study, offering insights into the knowledge structure and research trends. Through keyword co-occurrence analysis, a network can be constructed where each node represents a keyword, and the links between nodes signify their co-occurrence. In this analysis, keywords initially included in the search were excluded to ensure a comprehensive examination of literature features, with a minimum threshold of 2 keywords required for inclusion in Figure 3. The construction of the keyword co-occurrence network involves assigning each keyword as a node and establishing edges based on keyword co-occurrences. When two keywords have a co-occurrence relationship, it indicates a connection between the respective nodes.

The keywords depicted in Figure 3 were generated from a prior analysis conducted using VOSviewer, which considered density, degree, centralization, and inclusiveness as representative indicators of keyword connections. Density reflects the ratio of formed relationships to total possible relationships, while centralization measures the concentration of relationships on a few individuals. Inclusiveness indicates the number of interconnected nodes in the network. Centrality analysis identifies key nodes and determines which keywords hold a central position within the network. Keywords positioned closely to one another are considered influential, with closed centrality being a crucial concept in co-occurrence word analysis.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2. RESCs aided MCA publication trend
Table 3. The most relevant published works

Ref.

Year

Purpose of the Study

MCDM Method

Geographical Area

Main Findings/Results of the Study

Sustainability

[18]

2023

Modelling a sustainable integrated bio-fuel and bio-energy SC

Fuzzy-DEMATEL

India

Tackling the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of biofuel and bioenergy SCs

$\checkmark$

[19]

2023

Modern animal traction to enhance the SC of residual biomass

SWOT

-

Fostering sustainable development initiatives at local and regional levels

$\checkmark$

[20]

2023

Bioethanol sustainable SC design

BWM

Iran

Balancing sustainability criteria and transportation expenses within the bioethanol SC network

$\checkmark$

[21]

2023

Optimal design of a biofuel SC

TOPSIS

Korea

Meeting the demand for lignocellulosic biomass, a key parameter

$\checkmark$

[22]

2023

Evaluation of sourcing decision for hydrogen SC

AHP, DEA, Fuzzy AHP

Thailand

Addressing political acceptability as a paramount factor, especially in the context of Thailand

$\checkmark$

[23]

2023

Strategic design of biofuel SC network

two-stage network DEA

USA

Identifying efficient logistics networks for biomass-based biofuels

-

[24]

2023

Agroforest woody residual biomass-to-energy SC analysis

PEST, SWOT

-

Optimization process for the entire SC

$\checkmark$

[25]

2023

Life cycle cost assessment renewable natural gas

TOPSIS

-

Successfully implementing waste-to-renewable natural gas SC pathways

$\checkmark$

[26]

2023

Circular economy of bio-SCs- agro-industry sector

AHP, TOPSIS

Spain

Dynamically selecting suppliers

$\checkmark$

[27]

2023

Evaluation, ranking and selection of green suppliers in the SC

combination of DEA and AHP

-

Assessing and choosing the most environmentally friendly suppliers of wind turbine equipment

-

[28]

2023

Location optimization of feedstock cultivation in a biodiesel SC

DEA

Iran

Identifying suitable areas in Iran for cultivating Jatropha Curcas L. (JCL)

$\checkmark$

[29]

2023

Modelling for the sustainable development hindrances in the RESC

Fuzzy ISM–DEMATEL

-

Offering unique insights into sustainability within renewable energy SCs

$\checkmark$

[30]

2022

Identifying and classifying biomass SC challenges and prioritize them

AHP

Norway

Highlighting critical challenge indicators such as high investment costs and greenhouse gas emissions

-

[31]

2022

Decision-making on biomass terminal selection

AHP

Canada

Identifying terminals with the greatest potential to add value to the bioenergy SC

-

[32]

2022

Prioritizing locations for direct-use geothermal energy location

DEA, Spherical fuzzy AHP

Malaysia

Qualitatively assessing concerns for distribution grid logistics, including costs and social acceptance

-

[33]

2022

Life cycle evaluation of microalgae based biorefinery supply network

DEA, CODAS, BWM

Iran

Achieving a 99% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

$\checkmark$

[34]

2022

Site selection of offshore wind farms

BWM

Australia

Establishing a robust optimal ranking of potential site locations

$\checkmark$

[35]

2022

Effect of COVID-19 on green-fuel SC

Novel DEA

Brazil

Revealing the negative impacts of the pandemic on all states, with some facing collapse risks

$\checkmark$

[36]

2022

Prioritization of barriers to offshore wind energy

Fuzzy AHP

India

Compilation of barriers hindering progress

[37]

2022

Strategic supplier selection for RESC under green capabilities

fuzzy BWM, WASPAS, COPRAS

Iran

Providing decision-makers with valuable guidance for strategic supplier selection

-

[38]

2022

Multi-objective optimal design of a hydrogen SC powered with agro-industrial wastes from the sugarcane industry

TOPSIS

Mexico

Optimal configuration selection for hydrogen SC networks

-

[39]

2022

A biofuel SC design considering sustainability, uncertainty, and international suppliers and markets

fuzzy TOPSIS. Fuzzy BWM

Iran

Enhancing sustainability aspects

$\checkmark$

[40]

2022

Multi-biomass refinery siting

GIS-AHP

Qatar

Maximizing biomass energy supply potential through optimal site selection and cost-effective transportation

$\checkmark$

[41]

2022

Optimize a SC network for microalgae-based biofuels and co-products

AHP

Iran

Identifying suitable locations for microalgae cultivation

$\checkmark$

[42]

2021

Bioenergy generation from the municipal solid waste

BWM

Iran

Enhancing social sustainability through waste utilization in bioenergy SCs

$\checkmark$

[43]

2021

Biorefinery localization

AHP

Malaysia

Selecting biorefinery locations based on specified criteria

$\checkmark$

[44]

2021

Site selection of solar photovoltaic power plant

AHP, DEA

Taiwan

Recommending suitable cities for solar photovoltaic energy system construction

$\checkmark$

[45]

2021

International MS municipal solid waste-to-biofuel SC design

DEA

Iran

Identifying appropriate locations for facility siting

$\checkmark$

[46]

2020

Sustainable SC development in the renewable energy sector

AHP

Europe

Equipping decision-makers with tools for sustainable investment decisions in photovoltaic energy

$\checkmark$

[47]

2020

Biofuel SC under demand uncertainty

MBW

-

Commercializing microalgae as a new energy source

-

[48]

2020

Bioethanol SC considering the bioethanol production strategies

BWM

Iran

Providing energy sector policymakers with an efficient decision-making tool

$\checkmark$

[49]

2020

Strategic and tactical planning of a sustainable bioethanol SC

BWM

Iran

Implementing an effective ethanol distribution policy to reduce costs by 33%

$\checkmark$

[50]

2019

Assessment of international biomass SC pathways

DEA

International

Assisting in biomass sourcing planning and decision-making improvements

-

[51]

2019

Microalgae-based biobutanol SC network design under harvesting and drying uncertainties

DEA

Iran

Minimizing fixed construction, transportation, and operational costs

-

[52]

2018

Developing a sustainable SC optimization model for switchgrass-based bioenergy production

TOPSIS

Iran

Determining strategic and tactical decisions to manage bioenergy SC performance

$\checkmark$

[53]

2018

Design of biomass (sugar/ethanol) SCs

AHP

-

Simplifying decision-making by offering solutions aligned with decision-makers' preferences

-

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Final Ranking of Alternatives (FRA), Best-Worst Method (BWM), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Complex Proportional Assessment of Alternatives (COPRAS), Weighted Aggregated Sum-Product Assessment (WASPAS), Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT), Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), Combinative Distance-Based Assessment (CODAS), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)

Figure 3. Network of co-occurring keywords

The methodology applied in this study revealed the presence of five primary clusters. The blue sub-network addresses supply chain issues, encompassing environmental concerns, sustainable development, environmental impact assessment, supplier selection and life cycle considerations. Notably, the blue cluster exhibits strong connectivity with the green cluster, indicating numerous links between them. The green cluster predominantly revolves around renewable energy resources, biomass and biofuels production issues, and energy supply chain management. Keywords related to programming, such as mixed integer linear programming, integer programming, and multi-objective optimization, form the purple cluster. The yellow cluster encompasses multi-criteria decision-making topics, including considerations for renewable energy and climate change. Lastly, the red cluster focuses on decision-making techniques, encompassing energy policy, alternative energy sources, and prioritization, with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methods emerging as pivotal within this cluster. Overall, the key themes in the analyzed articles center on sustainability, management, and optimization, particularly in the context of energy policy decision-making and the performance of renewable energy supply chains, with a notable emphasis on biomass-based energy.

The most prominent keywords identified in the literature include supply chains, sustainable development, multi-objective optimization, integer programming, biomass, biofuels, renewable energy, decision-making, DEA, and energy policy. This analysis underscores that the literature concerning renewable energies and supply chain performance is heavily influenced by the sustainability of biomass as a renewable energy source, with a strong emphasis on decision-making techniques, particularly DEA and AHP, alongside planning processes for supply chains, such as integer programming and multi-objective optimization. For further investigation, Figure 4 can be utilized to illustrate developments over time, while Figure 5 offers a quick overview of the main areas in a bibliometric network.

Figure 4. Overlay visualizations
Figure 5. Density visualizations

4. Conclusions

This overview presents and discusses several pertinent issues related to the application of MCA in RESCs. Bioenergy stands out as the most commonly utilized renewable energy source in these SCs. In terms of SC analysis, some studies have focused on the entire SC, while others have narrowed their focus to specific aspects of the bioenergy SC, such as distribution logistics.

Various literature reviews have concentrated on modelling techniques within sustainable SCM, highlighting how operational research methods and MCA can effectively reduce process costs. Within the realm of renewable energy analysis, the AHP emerges as the most frequently employed MCA methods. This study aims to identify the primary contributions and findings in current and future research using the MCA approach. Predominantly, the challenges in this field revolve around issues related to site selection and supplier selection. The central discovery of this study underscores the need for further research into the application of MCA approaches in the RESC, with a particular focus on thoroughly investigating the complete and comprehensive RESC. Furthermore, to align with the goals of sustainable development, social aspects should be integrated into SC analysis when sustainability is a primary target.

Data Availability

The data used to support the research findings are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1.
H. Ghaderi, M. S. Pishvaee, and A. Moini, “Biomass supply chain network design: An optimization-oriented review and analysis,” Ind. Crops Prod., vol. 94, pp. 972–1000, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2.
M. Mottaghi, S. Bairamzadeh, and M. S. Pishvaee, “A taxonomic review and analysis on biomass supply chain design and planning: New trends, methodologies and applications,” Ind. Crops Prod., vol. 180, p. 114747, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3.
I. Rahimi and J. Nematian, “A bibliometric analysis on optimization solution methods applied to supply chain of solar energy,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 4213–4231, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4.
M. Fasihi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, S. E. Najafi, and M. Hajiaghaei, “Optimizing a bi-objective multi-period fish closed-loop supply chain network design by three multi-objective meta-heuristic algorithms,” Scientia Iranica, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5.
M. Fasihi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, M. Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, and S. E. Najafi, “Designing a sustainable fish closed-loop supply chain network under uncertainty,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 30, no. 39, pp. 90050–90087, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6.
B. Tundys and T. Wiśniewski, “Renewable energy supply chains—Text mining and co-occurrence analysis in the context of the sustainability,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 12, p. 4761, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7.
I. G. Sahebi, A. Mosayebi, B. Masoomi, and F. Marandi, “Modeling the enablers for blockchain technology adoption in renewable energy supply chain,” Technol. Soc., vol. 68, p. 101871, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8.
M. R. S. Marroquin, C. H. D. O. Fontes, and F. G. M. Freires, “Sustainable and renewable energy supply chain: A system dynamics overview,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 82, pp. 247–259, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9.
S. G. Azevedo, M. Santos, and J. R. Antón, “Supply chain of renewable energy: A bibliometric review approach,” Biomass Bioenergy, vol. 126, pp. 70–83, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10.
L. J. R. Nunes, T. P. Causer, and D. Ciolkosz, “Biomass for energy: A review on supply chain management models,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 120, p. 109658, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11.
O. Sun and N. Fan, “A review on optimization methods for biomass supply chain: Models and algorithms, sustainable issues, and challenges and opportunities,” Process Integr. Optim. Sustain., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 203–226, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12.
M. Jazinaninejad, M. Nematollahi, A. S. Zamenjani, and A. Tajbakhsh, “Sustainable operations, managerial decisions, and quantitative analytics of biomass supply chains: A systematic literature review,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 374, p. 133889, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13.
I. Hassanin and M. Knez, “Managing supply chain activities in the field of energy production focusing on renewables,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 7290, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14.
M. Fasihi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, and F. Jolai, “A bi-objective re-entrant permutation flow shop scheduling problem: Minimizing the makespan and maximum tardiness,” Oper. Res., vol. 23, no. 2, p. 29, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15.
T. Buchholz, E. Rametsteiner, T. A. Volk, and V. A. Luzadis, “Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments,” Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 484–495, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16.
P. Korhonen, H. Moskowitz, and J. Wallenius, “Multiple criteria decision support-A review,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 361–375, 1992. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17.
A. Cheraghalipour and S. Farsad, “A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection and order allocation considering quantity discounts under disruption risks: A case study in plastic industry.,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 118, pp. 237–250, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18.
A. Mondal, B. K. Giri, and S. K. Roy, “An integrated sustainable bio-fuel and bio-energy supply chain: A novel approach based on DEMATEL and fuzzy-random robust flexible programming with Me measure,” Appl. Energy, vol. 343, p. 121225, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19.
L. J. Nunes, J. Nogueira, J. B. Rodrigues, J. C. Azevedo, E. Oliveira, T. de Figueiredo, and J. Picos, “Modern animal traction to enhance the supply chain of residual biomass,” AgriEngineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1039–1050, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20.
S. Kheybari, M. D. Monfared, A. Salamirad, and J. Rezaei, “Bioethanol sustainable supply chain design: A multi-attribute bi-objective structure,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 180, p. 109258, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21.
M. Zarei, A. Cherif, H. J. Yoon, J. J. Liu, and C. J. Lee, “Optimal design of a biofuel supply chain using an augmented multi-objective and TOPSIS method,” Green Chem., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 4067–4075, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22.
K. Ransikarbum, W. Chanthakhot, T. Glimm, and J. Janmontree, “Evaluation of sourcing decision for hydrogen supply chain using an integrated multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool,” Resources, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 48, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23.
J. D. Hong, “Application of transformed two-stage network DEA to strategic design of biofuel supply chain network,” J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 129–151, 2003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24.
L. J. Nunes, M. Casau, M. F. Dias, J. C. O. Matias, and L. C. Teixeira, “Agroforest woody residual biomass-to-energy supply chain analysis: Feasible and sustainable renewable resource exploitation for an alternative to fossil fuels,” Results Eng., vol. 17, p. 101010, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25.
R. Kotagodahetti, K. Hewage, F. Razi, and R. Sadiq, “Comparative life cycle environmental and cost assessments of renewable natural gas production pathways,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 278, p. 116715, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26.
V. Muerza, L. Urciuoli, and S. Z. Habas, “Enabling the circular economy of bio-supply chains employing integrated biomass logistics centers-A multi-stage approach integrating supply and production activities,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 384, p. 135628, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27.
E. Shadkam, R. Yazdani, M. M. Mirmozaffari, and F. Adineh, “The hybrid DHP method for evaluation, ranking and selection of green suppliers in the supply chain,” Int. J. Math. Oper. Res., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 118–138, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
28.
Z. Mohtashami, A. Bozorgi-Amiri, and R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, “A data envelopment analysis model for location optimization of feedstock cultivation in a biodiesel supply chain: A case study,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 10513–10532, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
29.
I. Ghasemian Sahebi, S. P. Toufighi, M. Azzavi, B. Masoomi, and M. H. Maleki, “Fuzzy ISM–DEMATEL modeling for the sustainable development hindrances in the renewable energy supply chain,” Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 43–70, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
30.
Z. Barahmand and M. S. Eikeland, “Assessing and prioritizing challenges facing bioenergy supply chain in Norway: A Delphi-AHP method,” Int. J. Energy Prod. Manag., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 310–330, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
31.
S. Gautam, L. LeBel, and B. Rijal, “Integrating Analytical Hierarchical Process and network optimization model to support decision-making on biomass terminal selection,” Forests, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 1898, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
32.
M. T. Le, N. L. Nhieu, and T. D. T. Pham, “Direct-use geothermal energy location multi-criteria planning for on-site energy security in emergencies: A case study of Malaysia.,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 22, p. 15132, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
33.
H. Mobarezkhoo, M. Saidi-Mehrabad, and H. Sahebi, “Life cycle evaluation of microalgae based biorefinery supply network: A sustainable multi-criteria approach,” Algal Res., vol. 66, p. 102816, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
34.
C. B. Salvador, E. Arzaghi, M. Yazdi, H. A. Jahromi, and R. Abbassi, “A multi-criteria decision-making framework for site selection of offshore wind farms in Australia,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 224, pp. 1–19, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
35.
P. N. A. Junior, I. C. Melo, R. de M. Santos, F. V. da Rocha, and J. V. Caixeta-Filho, “How did COVID-19 affect green-fuel supply chain?-A performance analysis of Brazilian ethanol sector,” Res. Transp. Econ., vol. 93, no. 3, p. 101137, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
36.
T. Dhingra, A. Sengar, and S. Sajith, “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based analysis for prioritization of barriers to offshore wind energy,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 345, no. 4, p. 131111, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
37.
B. Masoomi, I. G. Sahebi, M. Fathi, F. Yıldırım, and S. Ghorbani, “Strategic supplier selection for renewable energy supply chain under green capabilities (fuzzy BWM-WASPAS-COPRAS approach),” Energy Strategy Rev., vol. 40, p. 100815, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
38.
L. M. Reyes-Barquet, J. O. Rico-Contreras, C. Azzaro-Pantel, C. G. Moras-Sánchez, M. A. González-Huerta, D. Villanueva-Vásquez, and A. A. Aguilar-Lasserre, “Multi-objective optimal design of a hydrogen supply chain powered with agro-industrial wastes from the sugarcane industry: A Mexican case study,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 437, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
39.
N. Zarrinpoor and A. Khani, “A biofuel supply chain design considering sustainability, uncertainty, and international suppliers and markets,” Biomass Convers. Bioref., vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 14127–14153, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
40.
M. Alherbawi, G. Mckay, H. R. Mackey, and T. Al-Ansari, “A biofuel supply chain design considering sustainability, uncertainty, and international suppliers and markets,” Chem. Eng. Trans., vol. 92, pp. 73–78, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
41.
M. E. Zerafati, A. Bozorgi-Amiri, A. M. Golmohammadi, and F. Jolai, “A multi-objective mixed integer linear programming model proposed to optimize a supply chain network for microalgae-based biofuels and co-products: A case study in Iran,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., pp. 1–23, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
42.
Z. Alidoosti, K. Govindan, M. S. Pishvaee, A. Mostafaeipour, and A. K. Hossain, “Social sustainability of treatment technologies for bioenergy generation from the municipal solid waste using best worst method,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 288, p. 125592, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
43.
N. H. Razak, H. Hashim, N. A. Yunus, and J. J. Klemeš, “Biorefinery localization using analytical hierarchy process,” Chem. Eng. Trans., vol. 89, pp. 589–594, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
44.
C. N. Wang, T. T. Dang, and J. Bayer, “A two-stage multiple criteria decision making for site selection of solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant: A case study in Taiwan,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 75509–75525, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
45.
M. Ghadami, H. Sahebi, M. Pishvaee, and H. Gilani, “A sustainable cross-efficiency DEA model for international MSW-to-biofuel supply chain design,” RAIRO-Oper. Res., vol. 55, pp. S2653–S2675, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
46.
E. Mastrocinque, F. J. Ramírez, A. Honrubia-Escribano, and D. T. Pham, “An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 150, p. 113321, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
47.
F. Delkhosh and S. J. Sadjadi, “A robust optimization model for a biofuel supply chain under demand uncertainty,” Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 229–245, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
48.
M. Rabbani, S. Momen, N. Akbarian-Saravi, H. Farrokhi-Asl, and Z. Ghelichi, “Optimal design for sustainable bioethanol supply chain considering the bioethanol production strategies: A case study,” Comput. Chem. Eng., vol. 134, p. 106720, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
49.
N. Akbarian-Saravi, M. Mobini, and M. Rabbani, “Development of a comprehensive decision support tool for strategic and tactical planning of a sustainable bioethanol supply chain: Real case study, discussions and policy implications,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 244, p. 118871, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
50.
A. Rentizelas, I. C. Melo, P. N. A. Junior, J. S. Campoli, and D. A. do Nascimento Rebelatto, “Multi-criteria efficiency assessment of international biomass supply chain pathways using Data Envelopment Analysis,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 237, p. 117690, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
51.
M. Arabi, S. Yaghoubi, and J. Tajik, “A mathematical model for microalgae-based biobutanol supply chain network design under harvesting and drying uncertainties,” Energy, vol. 179, pp. 1004–1016, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
52.
R. Rabbani, N. A. Saravi, H. Farrokhi-Asl, S. F. W. Lim, and Z. Tahaei, “Developing a sustainable supply chain optimization model for switchgrass-based bioenergy production: A case study,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 200, pp. 827–843, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
53.
J. Wheeler, M. A. Páez, G. Guillén-Gosálbez, and F. D. Mele, “Combining multi-attribute decision-making methods with multi-objective optimization in the design of biomass supply chains,” Comput. Chem. Eng., vol. 113, pp. 11–31, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
54.
E. C. M. Noyons, H. F. Moed, and M. Luwel, “Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 115–131, 1999. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
55.
N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Cite this:
APA Style
IEEE Style
BibTex Style
MLA Style
Chicago Style
GB-T-7714-2015
Fasihi, M. (2024). Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques to Assist Decision-Making in Renewable Energy Supply Chains: A Review. J. Oper. Strateg Anal., 2(2), 92-106. https://doi.org/10.56578/josa020203
M. Fasihi, "Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques to Assist Decision-Making in Renewable Energy Supply Chains: A Review," J. Oper. Strateg Anal., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 92-106, 2024. https://doi.org/10.56578/josa020203
@research-article{Fasihi2024Multi-CriteriaAT,
title={Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques to Assist Decision-Making in Renewable Energy Supply Chains: A Review},
author={Maedeh Fasihi},
journal={Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics},
year={2024},
page={92-106},
doi={https://doi.org/10.56578/josa020203}
}
Maedeh Fasihi, et al. "Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques to Assist Decision-Making in Renewable Energy Supply Chains: A Review." Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics, v 2, pp 92-106. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/josa020203
Maedeh Fasihi. "Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques to Assist Decision-Making in Renewable Energy Supply Chains: A Review." Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics, 2, (2024): 92-106. doi: https://doi.org/10.56578/josa020203
Fasihi M.. Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques to Assist Decision-Making in Renewable Energy Supply Chains: A Review[J]. Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics, 2024, 2(2): 92-106. https://doi.org/10.56578/josa020203
cc
©2024 by the author(s). Published by Acadlore Publishing Services Limited, Hong Kong. This article is available for free download and can be reused and cited, provided that the original published version is credited, under the CC BY 4.0 license.