4.7 Article

Risk assessment in photovoltaic poverty alleviation projects in China under intuitionistic fuzzy environment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 219, 期 -, 页码 587-600

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.117

关键词

Rural photovoltaic; Poverty alleviation; Intuitionistic fuzzy numbers; Project life cycle; Risk assessment; DEMATEL

资金

  1. Special Project of Cultivation and Development of Innovation Base [Z171100002217024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The photovoltaic poverty alleviation project (PPAP) supplies clean power and creates considerable income for poor families, which is highly in accord with the concept of coordinated and sustainable development. Appropriate risk assessment is essential for the aversion and the disposal of potential problems, which can minimize the loss and promote the PPAP development. In this paper, a three-phase risk assessment model is proposed: firstly, through an approach combining the project life cycle theory and the Delphi method, 18 risk factors are identified and classified into 4 groups. Next, an extend Decision-Making and Trial Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment is employed for weight determination of indexes. Finally, the overall risk level is assessed and the priority disposal sequence of risk factors is highlighted based on the integrated results, the decision-maker preference theory and risk scenario analysis. According to the integrated results, 'financing difficulties', 'no clear division of responsibilities and obligations', 'lack of operational experience' and 'material supply and installation defects' are the riskiest factors that urgently need to be solved. Besides, the risk analysis reveals a fact that the overall risk level of China's PPAPs is relatively high, especially in the technical aspect. Some corresponding suggestions are proposed, which may contribute to rational resource allocation and effective risk prevention. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据