With the development of photovoltaic (PV) industry, installing small-scale PV systems which are integrated into the buildings becomes popular. Therefore, it is important to make optimal investment decisions for investors and consumers. This paper proposes an improved group decision-making method which integrates the cumulative prospect theory and Choquet integral for the investment options of small-scale PV systems. From the perspective of sustainability, the alternatives are evaluated by four criteria, including economic benefits, solar energy condition, carbon emissions and social benefits. Since the performances of criteria are given by decision makers as linguistic variables, the proposed method measures the criteria values by intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Then the alternatives are evaluated and ranked to determine the optimal option. Finally, the proposed method is implemented in a case study to illustrate its feasibility and effectiveness.

Xiaoxu Fu, Caixia Tan, Liling Huang, Zhongfu Tan. Investment decision-making model for distributed Photovoltaic based on the multi-level coordinated evaluation theory. Academic Journal of Business & Management (2020) Vol. 2, Issue 2: 6-13. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJBM.2020.020202.

[1] Hoggett R. Technology scale and supply chains in a secure, affordable and low carbon energy transition [J]. Applied Energy, 2014, 123: 296-306.

[2] Jia F, Sun H, Koh L. Global solar photovoltaic industry: An overview and na-tional competitiveness of Taiwan [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 126: 550-562.

[3] Grossmann W D, Grossmann I, Steininger K W. Distributed solar electricity gen-eration across large geographic areas, Part I: A method to optimize site selection, generation and storage [J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 25: 831-843.

[4] Eltawil M A , Zhao Z M. Grid-connected photovoltaic power systems: Technical and potential problems—A review [J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re-views, 2010, 14(1): 112-129.

[5] Abdallah T, Diabat A, Rigter J. Investigating the option of installing small scale PVs on facility rooftops in a green supply chain [J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2013, 146(2): 465-477.

[6] El-Khattam W, Bhattacharya K, Hegazy Y , et al. Optimal investment planning for distributed generation in a competitive electricity market [J]. IEEE Transac-tions on Power Systems, 2004, 19(3): 1674-1684.

[7] Kucuksari S, Khaleghi A M, Hamidi M, et al. An Integrated GIS, optimization and simulation framework for optimal PV size and location in campus area environments [J]. Applied Energy, 2014,113: 1601-1613.

[8] Koo C, Hong T, Lee M, et al. An integrated multi-objective optimization model for determining the optimal solution in implementing the rooftop photovoltaic system [J]. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016, 57: 822-837.

[9] Xiao J H, Yao Z Y, Qu J J, et al. Research on an optimal site selection model for desert photovoltaic power plants based on analytic hierarchy process and geo-graphic information system [J]. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2015, 5(2): 023132.

[10] Aragonesbeltran P, Chaparrogonza´lez F, Pastorferrando J P ,et al. An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant invest-ment projects [J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2010, 14(1): 249-264.

[11] Lee A H I, Kang H Y, Lin C Y, et al. An integrated decision-making model for the location of a PV solar plant [J]. Sustainability, 2015, 7(10): 13522-13541.

[12] Rezaei M, Mostafaeipour A, Qolipour M, et al. Investigation of the optimal location design of a hybrid wind-solar plant: A case study [J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2018, 43(1): 100-114.

[13] Wilton E, Delarue E. D’haeseleer W, et al. Reconsidering the capacity credit of wind power: Application of cumulative prospect theory [J]. Renewable Energy, 2014, 68: 752-760.

[14] Michalska E, Dudzinska-Baryla R. Comparison of the valuations of alternatives based on cumulative prospect theory and almost stochastic dominance [J]. Operation Research and Decision, 2012, 3(5): 23-36.