EGYR D 22 02557 R2 Reviewer

Energy Reports
The Probabilistic Linguistic Decision Framework Of Distributed Energy Storage System

Project Plan Based On The Sustainability Perspective
--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: EGYR-D-22-02557R2
Article Type: Research Paper
Keywords: Distributed Energy Storage System (DESS); project plan decision; probabilistic
linguistic term set (PLTS); fuzzy measure; Choquet integral; VIKOR model
Abstract: The feasibility of the distributed energy storage system (DESS) project should be
examined from the perspective of sustainable development. The problems
encountered are as follows: first, there is lack of the decision index system of DESS
from sustainability perspective; second, it is difficult to deal with the uncertainty of
qualitative data effectively by the common decision models; third, the common
decision-making model is difficult to deal with the correlation between criteria
effectively; forth, the common decision model is difficult to balance the overall utility
and local disadvantage. Therefore, to solve the above problems, firstly, the decision
index system of DESS project plan is constructed from three attributes (environmental
sustainability, business model sustainability and social sustainability) , 7 criteria and 21
sub-criteria. Secondly, the probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) is taken as the
expression of decision information, it can deal with uncertainty effectively, and it is
convenient for experts to express their own preferences. Thirdly, the fuzzy measure is
used to replace the weight to reflect the importance of criteria, and the Choquet integral
is used to aggregate the decision information and fuzzy measure, so as to solve the
problem that the independence assumption of criteria is difficult to meet in reality.
Fourthly, the basic principle of VIKOR decision model is used to ensure the decision
result can reflect the overall utility and local disadvantages of the plan of DESS. The
decision-making framework of DESS plan is constituted by the above contents, and the
effectiveness is proved by a case study.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Response to Reviewers
Dear editor:
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions on the language and the structure of our
manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed
below point by point:
Reviewer #1: Comments:

1. The abstract should contain at least one sentence per each of the following aspects: context and
background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, and, conclusion. The present one needs to
be revised to briefly include the results and the conclusions of the study. Also, please be concise in
mentioning the other aspects of the Abstract, so that it reflects a balanced overview of the entire
study.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, the abstract of this paper is rewritten according to your
suggestion.
Countries throughout the world are aggressively encouraging the development of renewable energy.
Renewable energy power generation presents distributed characteristics, which increases the difficulty
of power coordination and optimization. Compared to the thermal power stations, distributed energy
storage system (DESS) can help reduce the aforementioned difficulty without environmental pollution
and energy consumption, it has good social and environmental benefits. However, due to the high
operating cost of DESS, its investment is cold. Therefore, the investment decision-making of DESS
must be considered from the perspective of sustainability, but there is still a blank in this aspect. This
problem belongs to the typical research category of decision theory, it can be solved by constructing a
decision framework composed of decision index system and decision-making model. So the decision
index system of DESS project plan was established based on the sustainability theory and the real
DESS operational scenario; for the decision model, the probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) is taken
as the expression of decision data of DESS, the fuzzy measure and VIKOR were used to reflect the
importance of criteria and integrate the decision data respectively. the decision framework proposed in
this paper has the following advantages: the proposed decision index system content 3 attributes, 7
criteria and 21 sub-criteria, can provide scientific guidance for DESS project plan decision; second, it
can not only deal with uncertainty effectively but also is convenient for experts to express their own
preferences; third, it can solve the problem that the independence assumption of criteria is difficult to
meet in reality; forth, it reflect the overall utility and local disadvantages of the plan of DESS at the
same time. Through comparative analysis and sensitivity analysis, the proposed decision framework
can provide more scientific decision-making results of DESS project plan for energy enterprises, and
the results have better robustness.
2. A typical Introduction section should first communicate to the reader some background of
the problem and the motivation of the study, followed by a concise description of the existing
recent works sufficient to lead to the observation of the research gaps, and finally the
contributions of the current study in filling those gaps. In the current form of the article,
these contents are present, however in a scattered manner, everywhere through the first two
sections, sometimes repeated over and over in lack of a proper structure. The reviewer
suggests merging and restructuring the current Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 2
(Literature reviews) within the Introduction section following the above-mentioned structure.
You can consider dividing this newly formed section in four subsections: Background,
Literature review, observations, and contributions. Some information, redundant to
recognize research gaps or, the contributions such as the concept of fuzzy measure can be
added to the Appendix section.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, the introduction of this paper is rewritten according to
your suggestion.
With the global energy crisis and environmental pollution growing increasingly serious, countries
throughout the world are aggressively encouraging the transition of energy system to safer, more
sustainable and lower carbon [1, 2]. Promoting the large-scale development and utilization of
renewable energy on the energy supply side and promoting wider re-electrification on the energy
consumption side have become two important directions for realizing energy transformation.
Power system transformation is the main support to realize energy transformation [3]. Currently,
the primary power supply of the power system is focus on large power stations, thus using the
focused management mode, the large power grid realizes the optimization operation of the power
grid through the integration and majorization of all network resources. With the construction of an
integrated energy system, particularly the large-scale distributed power network generation,
equipment and the development of Internet of Things technology, power generation takes on a
distributed nature, thereby increasing the difficulty of power coordination and optimization.
Distributed energy storage system (DESS) reduces the difficulty of power coordination and
optimization by playing a role in the process of renewable energy conversion.
DESS's primary job is to manage peak and frequency, stabilize the volatility of new energy, and
reduce the speed of abandoned wind and light energy.[4-6].In addition to the functions mentioned
above, however, DESS are not more cost-effective than thermal power stations in other functions.
Therefore, at this stage, DESS can only rely on government subsidies to operate, the main role is
to lead the demonstration, and its economic benefit is small [7]. In this case, it is inappropriate to
choose projects with the goal of maximizing profits. The purpose of DESS construction is to
improve the proportion of new energy in energy consumption and energy efficiency, and realize
the sustainability of energy development [8]. At the present, the energy storage market has just
started, for energy enterprises, in the short term, the purpose of the construction of DESS is to
respond to national policies, improve the social value and reputation of enterprises, and
accumulate experience in the construction and operation of DESS; With the rapid advancement of
battery technology, battery costs will decrease and DESS will have greater profit potential in the
future [9, 10]. How to select the best of DESS project plan from the perspective of sustainability is
a problem worth studying, but it is still a blank. This problem belongs to the typical research
category of decision theory, so it can be solved by constructing a decision framework composed of
decision index system and decision-making model, according to the real DESS operational
scenario.
1.1 A concise review of decision index system of DESS project plan
For the decision index system, the existing renewable energy power stations aim to maximize
profits when developing their decision-making index system, based primarily on financial
analysis[11], project quality and operation and maintenance [12], construction environment[13] ,
social impact[14] , economic impact[15] etc. Therefore, how to construct the DESS project plan's
decision index system from a sustainability perspective must be investigated.
1.2 A concise review of MCDM model of DESS project plan
There are three primary parts of the decision model: the expression of decision data, the weight
setting method, and the data aggregation method.
1.2.1 the expression way of decision information
Sustainability evaluation is mostly from three aspects of environment, economy and society[16].
Due to the uniqueness of the project, it is hard to decide the decision-making value and parameters
using historical data; therefore, only qualitative evaluation can be used, and the majority of the
evaluation criteria are qualitative [16]. However, because the experience and knowledge of experts
can not completely cover the things to be evaluated, so there must be uncertainty in the evaluation
value given by experts[17]. In order to address the uncertainty of decision-making information,
researchers frequently employ complex mathematical expressions, such as intuitionistic fuzzy set
(IFS) [18] and interval Pythagorean fuzzy set (IVPFS) [19], whose definitions can be found in
Table B1 in Appendix B, is regarded as the most advantageous instrument for addressing
uncertainty in light of the efficiency with which it handles uncertain information.
However, there are two problems in expressing decision preference by numeric form：①the more
complex the mathematical statement, the greater the capacity to handle with uncertainty, but this
way increases the difficulty for experts to express their decision preference, and on the contrary,
increases the uncertainty[20]；②, it is easy to give different scores for the same linguistic
evaluation term. For example, both expert A and expert B think the plan is very good, but the
expert A gives 10 and B gives 8. This is because that the expert's knowledge background is
difficult to completely cover all the contents of DESS project plan, so the evaluation criteria of
each expert are different[21].
So, the linguistic terms, such as 2-tuple linguistic terms[22], were added to the MCDM model.
The definitions of linguistic term are listed in Table B1 in Appendix B. linguistic terms are more
congruent with the expressing habit of expert choice preference, so reducing the hesitance of
experts in decision-making and subsequently reducing the uncertainty in decision-making. But
they are not as effective as fuzzy mathematics in addressing uncertainty[23]. The optimal
qualitative decision data expression way should take into account the capacity to deal with
uncertainty and the ease of expressing decision preference. Hence according to the definition of
probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) [24], which can be seen in Table B1 in Appendix B，it is
the best expression way for the DESS project plan decision. Because the linguistic terms help
experts accurately express their decision preferences, and the probability of each linguistic term
helps to handle the uncertainty without information loss due to the aggregation of decision
information.
1.2.2 the weight setting method
According to the relevant research on sustainability evaluation [25-27], for the criteria belonging
to the same attributes, the correlation is inevitable. However, the most frequently utilized weight
setting method, such as the AHP weight setting method and entropy weight setting method, whose
underlying assumption is that the criteria are independent of each other[28]. This assumption is
contrary to the sustainability evaluation scenario, which lead to the decision errors. For this reason,
researchers proposed fuzzy measure to replace the weight to convey the importance degree of
criteria. The concept of fuzzy measure can be seen in definition A1 in Appendix A. In fuzzy
measures, the additivity property is substituted by monotonicity, hence it is not necessary to
assume that the criteria are independent of one another[29]. So far, fuzzy measures have been
utilized in decision-making research. Due to the monotony of the fuzzy measure, the Choquet
integral is used to aggregate the decision data in the fuzzy measure environment. When the criteria
are independent of each other, the Choquet integral is equal to the weighted average approach[30].
The definition of Choquet integral can be seen in definition A2 in Appendix A. In this study, we
will therefore use fuzzy measures to represent the importance degrees of sustainability criteria of
DESS project plan.
1.2.3 the data aggregation method
The comprehensive score of the project is essential for the project's long-term viability; however,
due to national policy, enterprise strategy, and other factors, it is also necessary to consider
policymakers' tolerance for local disadvantages. For the data aggregation method, there are
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [31], Decision
Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) [32], Analytic Network Process (ANP)[32],
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [33]. AHP and TOPSIS are the most frequently used of these
methods. The preceding model can only provide the global benefit without considering the local
disadvantages. Unfortunately, the local shortcomings of the DESS project plan are often magnified
by the media, causing excessive public attention, which makes it difficult to implement the project.
For this reason, the DESS project plan decision-making from sustainability perspective must
consider the local disadvantages, fortunately, the VIKOR model provides a solution to this issue. It
was initially proposed by Opricovic to rank Alternatives based on their proximity to the ideal[34].
It content three parameter individual regret measure, group utility measure and compromise
measure, the compromise measure is obtained by synthesizing group utility measure and
individual regret measure, which is the balance solution between group utility measure and
individual regret measure. Individual regret measure can be deemed as the effect of local
disadvantages on the DESS project plan, and group utility measure can be viewed as the overall
benefit of the DESS project plan. On the basis of the fundamental concept of VIKOR, it is
possible to simultaneously evaluate the overall benefit and local disadvantages of the DESS
project plan to get more rational decision result.
1.3 Motivations and innovations of the article
The motivation of this paper is to establish the scientific plan decision framework for DESS from
the sustainability perspective, in order to realize the scientific investment of DESS, promote the
scientific and orderly development of DESS, and thus provide strong support for the development
of renewable energy. In what follows, we sum up primary innovations with four aspects:
 The paper constructed the decision index system of DESS project plan from the
perspective of sustainability to provide scientific guidance for DESS project plan decision;
 Using PLTS as the representation of decision data of DESS, it can effectively manage
uncertainty and make it simple for DESS experts to deliver their view;
 The fuzzy measure is substituted for the weight to avoid the independence assumption
of decision model, so that the model is more in line with the actual situation of DESS
decision;
 The VIKOR principle is used to ensure the result can simultaneous consideration of the
overall benefit and local disadvantages of the DESS project plan.
3. Please restructure the entire manuscript considering 5 main sections: Introduction,

Method, Case Study, Discussion, and Conclusion. Accommodate every other section within
these mentioned sections according to relevancy.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, I had restructured this paper according to your
suggestion.
1) Introduction
2) Decision index system of distributed energy storage system from sustainability
perspective
3) Decision model of distributed energy storage system plan
4) Case Study,
5) Discussion
6) Conclusion.
4. A proofreading is suggested to take out the few typos and grammatical errors still present here
and there in the manuscript.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, we had corrected this mistake.
5. Please ensure every figure and table included in the manuscript is cited within the text.
Reviewer #2: Dear authors, I read your article entitled "The Probabilistic Linguistic
Decision Framework Of Distributed Energy Storage System Project Plan Based On The
Sustainability Perspective" and here are my comments:
1- The article is a little bit messy and confusing. You should reorganize the article to increase
its readability.
2- The article is unnecessarily so lengthy and some parts of it can be omitted or moved to an
appendix.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, we had moved the definitions to the appendix.
Appendix A
Definition A1. Let X = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) be a finite universe of discourse, and P(X) be its power set.
A fuzzy measure for X is the set function m:P(X) → [0,1] that satisfies the following conditions:
 𝑚(𝜙) = 0, 𝑚(𝑋) = 1 (boundary conditions)
 If 𝐴, 𝐵 ∈ 𝑃(𝑋) and𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 then𝑚(𝐴) ≤ 𝑚(𝐵) (monotonicity)
Definition A2. X = (x1 , x2 , ⋯ , xn ) is the non-empty classical set, let f be a positive real-valued
function on X, f: X → R+ and μ be a fuzzy measure on X. The (discrete) Choquet integral of f with
respective to μ is defined by
Cμ (f) = ∑ni=1 f(i) [μ(A(i) ) − μ(A(i+1) )] (1)
Where (•) indicates a permutation on X such that f(x(1) ) ≤ f(x(2) ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ f(x(n) ). Also A(i) =
{x(1) , x(2) , ⋯ , x(n) }, A(n+1) = ϕ.
Appendix B
Table B1 The generally used internal representations of decision information
Data type Definition Ability to expression References
handle convenience
uncertainty
2-tuple A linguistic 2-tuple comprises of a linguistic value and a crisp middle easy [22]
Linguistic number, it is normally expressed as (s_a,μ). Suppose there is a
term predefined linguistic term set S={s_a |a=0,1,…,g} whose
granularity is defined as g+1, s_a is a component of this linguistic
term set and indicates a linguistic term center of the decision
information. μ represents the value of symbolic translation, which
indicates the deviation of an aggregation result φ from the closest
linguistic label a=round(φ), The value range of μ is [−0.5,0.5).
probabilistic Suppose there is a linguistic term set 𝑆 = strong easy [24]

linguistic {𝑠𝛼 |𝛼 = −𝜏, … , −1,0,1, … , 𝜏}, then a probabilistic linguistic term
term set set can be defined as
𝐿(𝑝)
|𝐿(𝑝)|
= {𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝 (𝑙) )|𝑠 (𝑙) ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑝(𝑙) > 0, 𝑙 = 1,2, … , |𝐿(𝑝)|, ∑𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) ≤ 1}
where 𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝(𝑙) ) is the l-th element in the probabilistic linguistic
term set and it comprises of a linguistic term and its probability.
The term 𝐿(𝑝) denotes the number of elements in the probabilistic
linguistic term set.
Intuitionistic Suppose that 𝑋 = {𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑛 } is a finite universal set. An strong difficult [18]
fuzzy set intuitionistic fuzzy number 𝐷 which is in the X has the following
form: 𝐷 = {〈𝑥, 𝜇𝐷 (𝑥), 𝜐𝐷 (𝑥)〉|𝑥 ∈ 𝑋}.
Usually denoted by 𝐷 = 〈𝜇𝐷 (𝑥), 𝜐𝐷 (𝑥)〉 , where 𝜐𝐷 (𝑥), 𝜇𝐷 (𝑥): →
[0,1] are non-membership function and membership function
respectively. At the same time, it should be noted that 0 ≤ 𝜇𝐷 (𝑥) +
𝜐𝐷 (𝑥) ≤ 1.
interval- Suppose that 𝑋 = {𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑛 } is a finite universal set. The Very Very [19]
valued interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set (IVPFS) can be defined as strong difficult
Pythagorean follows:
fuzzy set P  { x,  ( x), v ( x), x  X }
Where v ( x)  [v L ( x), vU ( x)] and  ( x)  [  L ( x),  U ( x)]
respectively denote the non-membership degree and membership
degree of the element x  X in set X . it should be noted that
(  U ( x)) 2  (vU ( x)) 2  1 .
3- Most parts of the article method are investigated in the previous relevant articles; what is
the contribution of the present article?
Answer: In this paper, different methods are combined in order to solve the problems encountered in
the decision-making of DESs project plans, so as to obtain scientific decision-making results.
we sum up primary innovations with four aspects:
 The paper constructed the decision index system of DESS project plan from the perspective
of sustainability to provide scientific guidance for DESS project plan decision;
 The fuzzy measure is substituted for the weight to avoid the independence assumption of
decision model, so that the model is more in line with the actual situation of DESS decision;
4- To illustrate the novelty of the article it should be compared to other feature works in this
field
Now, the research on project investment decision is more concerned with how to maximize profits,
such as financial analysis[65-67] project quality and operation and maintenance cost [12] and economic
impact[15].
The motivation of this paper is to establish the scientific plan decision framework for DESS from
the sustainability perspective, in order to realize the scientific investment of DESS, promote the
scientific and orderly development of DESS, and thus provide strong support for the development of
renewable energy. In what follows, we sum up primary innovations with four aspects:
 The paper constructed the decision index system of DESS project plan from the perspective
of sustainability to provide scientific guidance for DESS project plan decision;
 The fuzzy measure is substituted for the weight to avoid the independence assumption of
decision model, so that the model is more in line with the actual situation of DESS decision;
5- Please support the conclusion by data.
For the sake of address aforementioned issues, firstly, this paper develops the decision index
system of the DESS project plan from the perspective of sustainability. Secondly, the DESS project
plan decision model is established based on the principle of PLTS, fuzzy measure and the fundamental
principle of the VIKOR method. The characteristics of the proposed decision model are as follows: ①it
can effectively handle uncertainty and makes experts express their preferences easily by PLTS; ②the
decision model is more in line with reality, because the fuzzy measure is used in place of weight to
avoid the assumption of independence between criteria; ③ the decision model can ensure simultaneous
consideration of the overall utility and local disadvantage of alternative DESS project plans by the
fundamental principle of the VIKOR method. The above characteristics are verified by the comparative
analysis in Section 5.1.
Through sensitivity analysis, when increasing the fuzzy densities by 30 percent and decrease them
by 30 percent. In different sensitivity analysis scenarios, the value of the compromise measure of the
alternatives has changed, but the ranking has not changed, the decision result is robust. When
modifying the proportion of the individual regret measure and the group utility measure by adjusting
the coefficient 𝜂, when 𝜂 = 0, alternative 3 is optimal, and when 0 < 𝜂 ≤ 1, alternative 2 is optimal.
Therefore, in general, the decision model in this paper can provide decision results with better
robustness.
Revised manuscript (clean version)
1 The Probabilistic Linguistic Decision Framework Of Distributed Energy Storage
2 System Project Plan Based On The Sustainability Perspective
3 Abstract: Countries throughout the world are aggressively encouraging the development of
4 renewable energy. Renewable energy power generation presents distributed characteristics,
5 which increases the difficulty of power coordination and optimization. Compared to the
6 thermal power stations, distributed energy storage system (DESS) can help reduce the
7 aforementioned difficulty without environmental pollution and energy consumption, it has
8 good social and environmental benefits. However, due to the high operating cost of DESS, its
9 investment is cold. Therefore, the investment decision-making of DESS must be considered
10 from the perspective of sustainability, but there is still a blank in this aspect. This problem
11 belongs to the typical research category of decision theory, it can be solved by constructing a
12 decision framework composed of decision index system and decision-making model. So the
13 decision index system of DESS project plan was established based on the sustainability theory
14 and the real DESS operational scenario; for the decision model, the probabilistic linguistic term
15 set (PLTS) is taken as the expression of decision data of DESS, the fuzzy measure and VIKOR
16 were used to reflect the importance of criteria and integrate the decision data respectively. the
17 decision framework proposed in this paper has the following advantages: the proposed decision
18 index system content 3 attributes, 7 criteria and 21 sub-criteria, can provide scientific guidance
19 for DESS project plan decision; second, it can not only deal with uncertainty effectively but
20 also is convenient for experts to express their own preferences; third, it can solve the problem
21 that the independence assumption of criteria is difficult to meet in reality; forth, it reflect the
22 overall utility and local disadvantages of the plan of DESS at the same time. Through
23 comparative analysis and sensitivity analysis, the proposed decision framework can provide
24 more scientific decision-making results of DESS project plan for energy enterprises, and the
25 results have better robustness.

26 Keywords: Distributed Energy Storage System (DESS); project plan decision; probabilistic
27 linguistic term set (PLTS); fuzzy measure; VIKOR model
28 1. Introduction
29 With the global energy crisis and environmental pollution growing increasingly serious,
30 countries throughout the world are aggressively encouraging the transition of energy system to
31 safer, more sustainable and lower carbon [1, 2]. Promoting the large-scale development and
32 utilization of renewable energy on the energy supply side and promoting wider re-
33 electrification on the energy consumption side have become two important directions for
34 realizing energy transformation. Power system transformation is the main support to realize
35 energy transformation [3]. Currently, the primary power supply of the power system is focus
36 on large power stations, thus using the focused management mode, the large power grid realizes
37 the optimization operation of the power grid through the integration and majorization of all
38 network resources. With the construction of an integrated energy system, particularly the large-
39 scale distributed power network generation, equipment and the development of Internet of
40 Things technology, power generation takes on a distributed nature, thereby increasing the
41 difficulty of power coordination and optimization. Distributed energy storage system (DESS)
42 reduces the difficulty of power coordination and optimization by playing a role in the process
43 of renewable energy conversion.
44 DESS's primary job is to manage peak and frequency, stabilize the volatility of new energy,
45 and reduce the speed of abandoned wind and light energy.[4-6].In addition to the functions
46 mentioned above, however, DESS are not more cost-effective than thermal power stations in
47 other functions. Therefore, at this stage, DESS can only rely on government subsidies to
48 operate, the main role is to lead the demonstration, and its economic benefit is small [7]. In this
49 case, it is inappropriate to choose projects with the goal of maximizing profits. The purpose of
50 DESS construction is to improve the proportion of new energy in energy consumption and
51 energy efficiency, and realize the sustainability of energy development [8]. At the present, the
52 energy storage market has just started, for energy enterprises, in the short term, the purpose of
53 the construction of DESS is to respond to national policies, improve the social value and
54 reputation of enterprises, and accumulate experience in the construction and operation of DESS;
55 With the rapid advancement of battery technology, battery costs will decrease and DESS will
56 have greater profit potential in the future [9, 10]. How to select the best of DESS project plan
57 from the perspective of sustainability is a problem worth studying, but it is still a blank. This
58 problem belongs to the typical research category of decision theory, so it can be solved by
59 constructing a decision framework composed of decision index system and decision-making
60 model, according to the real DESS operational scenario.
61 1.1 A concise review of decision index system of DESS project plan

62 For the decision index system, the existing renewable energy power stations aim to
63 maximize profits when developing their decision-making index system, based primarily on
64 financial analysis[11], project quality and operation and maintenance [12], construction
65 environment[13] , social impact[14] , economic impact[15] etc. Therefore, how to construct
66 the DESS project plan's decision index system from a sustainability perspective must be
67 investigated.
68 1.2 A concise review of MCDM model of DESS project plan

69 There are three primary parts of the decision model: the expression of decision data, the
70 weight setting method, and the data aggregation method.
71 1.2.1 the expression way of decision information
72 Sustainability evaluation is mostly from three aspects of environment, economy and
73 society[16]. Due to the uniqueness of the project, it is hard to decide the decision-making value
74 and parameters using historical data; therefore, only qualitative evaluation can be used, and the
75 majority of the evaluation criteria are qualitative [16]. However, because the experience and
76 knowledge of experts can not completely cover the things to be evaluated, so there must be
77 uncertainty in the evaluation value given by experts[17]. In order to address the uncertainty of
78 decision-making information, researchers frequently employ complex mathematical
79 expressions, such as intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) [18] and interval Pythagorean fuzzy set
80 (IVPFS) [19], whose definitions can be found in Table B1 in Appendix B, is regarded as the
81 most advantageous instrument for addressing uncertainty in light of the efficiency with which
82 it handles uncertain information.
83 However, there are two problems in expressing decision preference by numeric form：①
84 the more complex the mathematical statement, the greater the capacity to handle with
85 uncertainty, but this way increases the difficulty for experts to express their decision preference,
86 and on the contrary, increases the uncertainty[20]；②, it is easy to give different scores for the
87 same linguistic evaluation term. For example, both expert A and expert B think the plan is very
88 good, but the expert A gives 10 and B gives 8. This is because that the expert's knowledge
89 background is difficult to completely cover all the contents of DESS project plan, so the
90 evaluation criteria of each expert are different[21].
91 So, the linguistic terms, such as 2-tuple linguistic terms[22], were added to the MCDM
92 model. The definitions of linguistic term are listed in Table B1 in Appendix B. linguistic terms
93 are more congruent with the expressing habit of expert choice preference, so reducing the
94 hesitance of experts in decision-making and subsequently reducing the uncertainty in decision-
95 making. But they are not as effective as fuzzy mathematics in addressing uncertainty[23]. The
96 optimal qualitative decision data expression way should take into account the capacity to deal
97 with uncertainty and the ease of expressing decision preference. Hence according to the
98 definition of probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) [24], which can be seen in Table B1 in
99 Appendix B，it is the best expression way for the DESS project plan decision. Because the
100 linguistic terms help experts accurately express their decision preferences, and the probability
101 of each linguistic term helps to handle the uncertainty without information loss due to the
102 aggregation of decision information.
103 1.2.2 the weight setting method
104 According to the relevant research on sustainability evaluation [25-27], for the criteria
105 belonging to the same attributes, the correlation is inevitable. However, the most frequently
106 utilized weight setting method, such as the AHP weight setting method and entropy weight
107 setting method, whose underlying assumption is that the criteria are independent of each
108 other[28]. This assumption is contrary to the sustainability evaluation scenario, which lead to
109 the decision errors. For this reason, researchers proposed fuzzy measure to replace the weight
110 to convey the importance degree of criteria. The concept of fuzzy measure can be seen in
111 definition A1 in Appendix A. In fuzzy measures, the additivity property is substituted by
112 monotonicity, hence it is not necessary to assume that the criteria are independent of one
113 another[29]. So far, fuzzy measures have been utilized in decision-making research. Due to the
114 monotony of the fuzzy measure, the Choquet integral is used to aggregate the decision data in
115 the fuzzy measure environment. When the criteria are independent of each other, the Choquet
116 integral is equal to the weighted average approach[30]. The definition of Choquet integral can
117 be seen in definition A2 in Appendix A. In this study, we will therefore use fuzzy measures to
118 represent the importance degrees of sustainability criteria of DESS project plan.
119 1.2.3 the data aggregation method
120 The comprehensive score of the project is essential for the project's long-term viability;
121 however, due to national policy, enterprise strategy, and other factors, it is also necessary to
122 consider policymakers' tolerance for local disadvantages. For the data aggregation method,
123 there are Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [31],
124 Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) [32], Analytic Network
125 Process (ANP)[32], Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [33]. AHP and TOPSIS are the most
126 frequently used of these methods. The preceding model can only provide the global benefit
127 without considering the local disadvantages. Unfortunately, the local shortcomings of the
128 DESS project plan are often magnified by the media, causing excessive public attention, which
129 makes it difficult to implement the project. For this reason, the DESS project plan decision-
130 making from sustainability perspective must consider the local disadvantages, fortunately, the
131 VIKOR model provides a solution to this issue. It was initially proposed by Opricovic to rank
132 Alternatives based on their proximity to the ideal[34]. It content three parameter individual
133 regret measure, group utility measure and compromise measure, the compromise measure is
134 obtained by synthesizing group utility measure and individual regret measure, which is the
135 balance solution between group utility measure and individual regret measure. Individual regret
136 measure can be deemed as the effect of local disadvantages on the DESS project plan, and
137 group utility measure can be viewed as the overall benefit of the DESS project plan. On the
138 basis of the fundamental concept of VIKOR, it is possible to simultaneously evaluate the
139 overall benefit and local disadvantages of the DESS project plan to get more rational decision
140 result.
141 1.3 Motivations and innovations of the article

142 The motivation of this paper is to establish the scientific plan decision framework for
143 DESS from the sustainability perspective, in order to realize the scientific investment of DESS,
144 promote the scientific and orderly development of DESS, and thus provide strong support for
145 the development of renewable energy. In what follows, we sum up primary innovations with
146 four aspects:
147  The paper constructed the decision index system of DESS project plan from the
148 perspective of sustainability to provide scientific guidance for DESS project plan
149 decision;
150  Using PLTS as the representation of decision data of DESS, it can effectively manage
151 uncertainty and make it simple for DESS experts to deliver their view;
152  The fuzzy measure is substituted for the weight to avoid the independence assumption
153 of decision model, so that the model is more in line with the actual situation of DESS
154 decision;
155  The VIKOR principle is used to ensure the result can simultaneous consideration of
156 the overall benefit and local disadvantages of the DESS project plan.
157 2. Decision index system of distributed energy storage system from sustainability
158 perspective
159 For sustainability assessment, it is mainly from three aspects of environment, economy
160 and society [35]. Therefore, the evaluation of DESS project plan will also be investigated from
161 the above three aspects. The decision index system can be seen in Table 1.
162 2.1 Environmental sustainability

163 In terms of environmental sustainability, the main hazard of DESS comes from whether
164 the energy storage battery will explode or leak harmful substances [36]. So the rationality of
165 DESS design and the perfection of battery technology are very important for environmental
166 sustainability. In the design of DESS, the universality of design plan, the rationality of the
167 operation and maintenance plan and the rationality of the protection system are very important
168 for the rationality of the design [37-39].
169 the universality of the design plan refers to that the design plan of the project has been
170 implemented elsewhere and will continue to be implemented in the future based on this
171 template. Universality indicates the maturity of the design plan. The more mature the design
172 plan is, the safer the project will run and the lower the probability of environmental hazards
173 will occur; The operation and maintenance plan refers to a series of operation and maintenance
174 measures matched with the design plan. The rationality of the operation and maintenance plan
175 will be related to whether the DESS can install and operate smoothly in the future. The more
176 stable the operation of DESS, the lower the probability of environmental hazards; The
177 protection system of DESS is the last defense measure of the power station, which means that
178 the DESS can effectively avoid or reduce the degree of harm in the event of explosion and
179 pollutant leakage.
180 Energy storage battery is the core of DESS, and it is also the main cause of pollution. The
181 environmental pollution caused by battery mainly occurs in the following two aspects: battery
182 damage and waste battery treatment process.
183 Therefore, the technical factors related to this mainly include the quality of energy storage
184 battery [37]，the efficiency of battery management system [40]，the modularization degree of
185 core equipment [41] and the rationality of waste battery treatment [42, 43].
186 There are numerous varieties of energy storage batteries, which contain sodium sulfur,
187 liquid flow batteries and so on. Regardless of the kind of energy storage battery, the primary
188 quality evaluation criteria are the number of charging and discharging cycles and rated capacity,
189 followed by service life and reflection speed. The higher the battery quality is, the safer and
190 more durable the battery is, which will effectively reduce the number of waste batteries; the
191 DESS is composed of several small energy storage power stations distributed in different places,
192 so the battery management system is needed to effectively manage the energy storage batteries
193 in different places. The higher the efficiency of the battery management system is, the higher
194 the power utilization efficiency of the whole society will be, the less power waste will be, and
195 the lower the depreciation speed of batteries will be; The higher the degree of modularization
196 of core equipment, the easier the maintenance in the power station, which reduces the
197 probability of personal and environmental accidents caused by the operation errors of
198 maintenance personnel; The more reasonable the disposal method of waste battery is, the lower
199 the impact of DESS on the environment in the process of operation and maintenance.
200 2.2 Economic sustainability
201 In terms of economic sustainability, for a project, economic sustainability means that the
202 cash flow of the project will not break[44]，the business model selected by DESS has an
203 important impact on the cash flow of the project. Due to the high cost of DESS, few companies
204 invest in the construction alone[45]. The more sustainable the business model is, the more
205 stable the cash flow will be; otherwise, it will lead to the rupture of the project cash flow. The
206 factors greatly affect the sustainability of business model include the rationality of business
207 model design, risk factors and financial sustainability
208 First of all, from the majority of failure cases, the unreasonable design of business model
209 is the main reason for the failure of the project, and the rationality of design is reflected in two
210 aspects, namely, whether the power and obligation are equal, and whether the investment and
211 income are fair[46, 47]; secondly, It is vital to take risk considerations into account when
212 operating a business model. As the cost of DESS project plan is high, the actual operation effect
213 of the project is not as good as the thermal power station in terms of cost performance, so the
214 operation of the power station mainly depends on the government subsidy, and its cash flow is
215 relatively weak. If the demand for peak and frequency modulation and the suppression of new
216 energy fluctuation decreases during actual project operation, or if government support policies
217 deteriorate, the project may collapse owing to a cash flow disruption[48, 49]; the risk factors
218 of DESS project plans can be investigated from two aspects: the decline of market demand and
219 the deterioration of policy environment； finally, the financial sustainability of the project itself
220 is equally important, and the sub-criteria are the total investment, the rate of return and the
221 payback period.
222 2.3 Social sustainability

223 In the aspect of social sustainability, the existing researches mainly focus on the social
224 sustainability of policies, namely, social sustainability mainly refers to whether the policies of
225 the state, industry or company are conducive to improving the comprehensive management of
226 population, enhancing the cultural quality of the whole people and improving the living
227 environment[50]. However, the specific DESS project plans and policies are different, so it is
228 difficult to play a greater role in the management level of population. For the improvement of
229 cultural literacy and living environment, it is mainly realized through the social value of DESS
230 [51], the realization of social value is closely related to whether the DESS can get enough
231 public and government support [52, 53]. Therefore, in this paper, the social sustainability of
232 DESS project plan will be mainly considered from the social value and support of the project.
233 In terms of the project's social value, the objective of constructing DESS is to increase
234 energy use efficiency. As a demonstration project of energy structure reform, it will attract
235 more investment into the energy storage sector, guide the continuity and green development of
236 the energy storage industry, and accelerate the development of the new energy industry;
237 secondly, DESS will further change the public's understanding that power energy cannot be
238 stored on a large scale, and then more electric power-driven production equipment and vehicles
239 will be used to fundamentally change the public's environmental protection measures[54, 55].
240 Therefore, this paper will study from four aspects: the improvement of energy efficiency, the
241 demonstration effect of the project, the driving force of related industries and the change of
242 environmental protection cognition.
243 In terms of support, due to the public's aversion and misunderstanding of
244 electromagnetic radiation, and the risk of battery explosion and leakage of harmful
245 substances[36], Therefore, the public does not fully accept DESS built in the surrounding
246 areas. DESS has the potential of explosion, so the public does not want it to be built near their
247 residence, it have NIMBY (No In My Back Yard) problems, and similar problems have actually
248 occurred in the past, such as public opposition to the construction of substations, thermal power
249 stations or nuclear power stations[56, 57]; secondly, the government does not fully accept
250 DESS. Because the demonstration role of the DESS is greater than its economic value, and the
251 electricity price subsidy must be paid by the local government, the local government may face
252 the problem of face project, i.e., in order to satisfy the demands of the higher authorities, there
253 may be a problem of government dishonesty in the implementation of the distributed energy
254 storage project[58-60]. Therefore, in terms of support, it will be examined from the public
255 support and the government support.

256 Table 1 The decision index system of DESS project plan from sustainability
257 perspective
No. Attributes No. Criteria No. Sub-criteria Referenc
es
(A1 environment (C11 The rationality (SC111) The universality of [37-39]
) al ) of DESS design plan
sustainability design
(SC112) The rationality of [37-39]
operation and
maintenance plan
protection system
(C12 The perfection (SC121) The storage battery [37, 40,
) of battery quality 41]
technology
(SC122) The efficiency of [37, 40,
battery 41]
management
system
(SC123) The [37, 40,
modularization 41]
degree of core
equipment
(SC124) The rationality of [42, 43,
waste battery 61]
treatment
(A2 business (C21 Rationality of (SC211) Clarity in the [46, 47]
) model ) business division of
sustainability model design stakeholder
responsibilities
(SC212) The rationality of [46, 47]
investment
proportion and
profit distribution
of stakeholders
(SC213) Rationality of [46, 47]
financial
instruments
(C22 Risk factors (SC221) The ability to resist [48, 49]
) risk of policy
environment
deterioration
(SC222) The ability to resist [48, 49]
risk of decline in
market demand
(C23 Financial (SC231) The total [48, 49]
) sustainability investment
(SC232) The return on [48, 49]
investment
(SC233) The payback [48, 49]
period
(A3 social (C31 Social value (SC311) The improvement [54, 55]
) sustainability ) sustainability of energy
efficiency
(SC312) The demonstration [54, 55]
effect of the project
(SC313) The driving force [54, 55]
of related
industries
(SC314) The change of [54, 55]
environmental
protection
cognition.
(C32 Support (SC321) The public support [58-60]
) sustainability
(SC322) The government [58-60]
support
258 3. Decision model of distributed energy storage system plan
259 3.1 The operation rule of PLTS

260 Before constructing the model, we present the fundamental manipulation rules of PLTS,
261 which include the manipulation rules of linguistic term, the manipulation rules of PLTS, the
262 concentration degree and the deviation degree of PLTS, the PLTS score function based on
263 concentration degree, the distance formula between PLTSs, and the probability splitting
264 algorithm. The following are the specifics:
265 Definition 1 [62]. suppose the discrete linguistic term set is S , a series of linguistic term
266 set is defined as S  {s |s <s

1  st , [1,t]} , where s is the primary linguistic term when
267 s  S ; or else, s is the fictitious linguistic term. Considering any two linguistic
268 variables s ,s   S , and  , 1 , 2  [0,1] , the operational laws of continuous linguistic
269 terms are as follows:
270 𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝑠𝛽 = 𝑠𝛼+𝛽 (1)
271 𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝑠𝛽 = 𝑠𝛽 ⊕ 𝑠𝛼 (2)
272 𝜇𝑠𝛼 = 𝑠𝜇𝛼 (3)
273 (𝜇1 + 𝜇2 )𝑠𝛼 = 𝜇1 𝑠𝛼 + 𝜇2 𝑠𝛼 (4)
274 𝜇(𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝑠𝛽 ) = 𝜇𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝜇𝑠𝛽 (5)
275 Different from the operation of linguistic term, the probabilistic linguistic terms in PLTS
276 must be sorted before operation. The detail content can be seen in definition 2 and Definition
277 1.
(𝑘) (𝑘)
278 Definition 2[24]. suppose a PLTS 𝐿(𝑝) = {𝐿 (𝑝 )|𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿(𝑝)} , and the
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

279 subscript of linguistic term 𝐿 is 𝐼(𝐿(𝑘) ) . If the linguistic terms 𝐿 (𝑝 )(𝑘 =
(𝑘)
280 1,2, … , #𝐿(𝑝)) are arranged based on the values of 𝐼(𝐿(𝑘) )𝑝 (𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿(𝑝)) in
281 descending order, 𝐿(𝑝) is defined as an ordered PLTS.
282 Definition 3[24]. Let 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝) be two ordered PLTSs, 𝐿1 (𝑝) =
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

283 {𝐿1 (𝑝1 )|𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿1 (𝑝)} and 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝐿2 (𝑝2 )|𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿2 (𝑝)}. Then
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

284 𝐿1 (𝑝)⨁𝐿2 (𝑝) =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿 (𝑘) {𝑝1 𝐿1 ⨁𝑝2 𝐿2 } (6)
1 1 (𝑝),𝐿2 ∈𝐿2 (𝑝)
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

285 𝐿1 (𝑝)⨂𝐿2 (𝑝) =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿 (𝑘) {(𝐿1 )𝑝1 ⨁(𝐿2 )𝑝2 } (7)
1 1 (𝑝),𝐿2 ∈𝐿2 (𝑝)
(𝑘) (𝑘)
286 𝜆𝐿(𝑝) =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿(𝑝) 𝜆𝑝 𝐿 ,𝜆 ≥ 0 (8)
(𝑘) 𝜆𝑝(𝑘)
287 (𝐿(𝑝))𝜆 =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿(𝑝) {(𝐿 ) } (9)
(𝑘)
288 where the k-th linguistic terms in 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝) are defined as 𝐿1 and
(𝑘)
289 𝐿2 separately, the probabilities of the k-th linguistic terms in 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝) are defined
(𝑘) (𝑘)
290 as 𝑝1 and 𝑝2 respectively, the amount of linguistic terms in the 𝐿(𝑝) is #𝐿(𝑝).
291 Definition 4[24]. Presume that S is a linguistic term set and 𝐿(𝑝) =
292 {𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝(𝑙) )|𝑠 (𝑙) ∈ 𝑆, 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} be an probabilistic linguistic term set on S, then we defined
293 the concentration of 𝐿(𝑝) is as follows:
|𝐼(𝑠(𝑙) )−𝐼(𝐸(𝐿(𝑝)))|
294 𝑐𝑑(𝐿(𝑝)) = 1 + ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) 𝑙𝑜𝑔2 (1 − ) (10)
𝐼(𝑑𝑙𝑡𝑠 )
295 Definition 5[24]. Let S be an linguistic term set and 𝐿(𝑝) =
296 {𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝(𝑙) )|𝑠 (𝑙) ∈ 𝑆, 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} be an probabilistic linguistic term set on S, then the
297 deviation degree of 𝐿(𝑝) is defined as
|𝐼(𝑠 (𝑙) )−𝐼(𝐸(𝐿(𝑝)))|

298 𝑑𝑑(𝐿(𝑝)) = − ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) 𝑙𝑜𝑔2 (1 − ) (11)
299 Where the subscript of the linguistic term 𝑠 (𝑙) is 𝐼(𝑠 (𝑙) ), 𝐼(𝑑𝑙𝑡𝑠 ) is the subscript of the
300 linguistic term that is the difference value between the maximum and the minimum linguistic
301 terms in the linguistic term set S, and 𝐼(𝐸(𝐿(𝑝))) is the subscript of the score function
302 value/expectation value of 𝐿(𝑝).
303 Definition 6 [24]. Suppose that S is an linguistic term set and 𝐿(𝑝) =
304 {𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝 (𝑙) )|𝑠 (𝑙) ∈ 𝑆, 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} is an probabilistic linguistic term set on S, then the novel
305 score function of 𝐿(𝑝) is defined as 𝑆(𝐿(𝑝)) = 𝑠𝛼̅×𝑐𝑑 (𝐿 (𝑝)) . It is called ScoreC-PLTS, where
306 𝛼̅ = ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝐼(𝑠 (𝑙) )𝑝(𝑙) / ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) and 𝑐𝑑 (𝐿(𝑝)) denotes the concentration of 𝐿(𝑝).
307 The ScoreC-PLTS is used in the calculation of fuzzy densities of sub-criteria and
308 criteria in this paper. For any two PLTSs 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝), if 𝑆(𝐿1 (𝑝)) > 𝑆(𝐿2 (𝑝)), then
309 𝐿1 (𝑝) is better than 𝐿2 (𝑝) , namely, 𝐿1 (𝑝) > 𝐿2 (𝑝) ; if 𝑆(𝐿1 (𝑝)) = 𝑆(𝐿2 (𝑝)) , then
310 𝐿1 (𝑝) = 𝐿2 (𝑝).

311 the fundamental algorithm of PLTS-TOPSIS is the distance formula of PLTS, which is
312 presentation in Definition 7.
313 Before computing the distance between two PLTSs, those PLTSs must contain the equal
314 number of probabilistic linguistic terms, but it is hard in practice. Such as 𝐿1 (𝑝) =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

315 {𝑠𝛼 (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , #𝐿1 (𝑝)} and 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 =
316 1,2, … , #𝐿2 (𝑝)}，#𝐿1 (𝑝) ≠ #𝐿2 (𝑝). Hence, Algorithm 1 transforms two PLTSs with differing
317 numbers of probabilistic linguistic terms into PLTSs with the equal number, namely，𝐿∗1 (𝑝) =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

318 {𝑠𝛼′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} and 𝐿∗2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿}.
319 Definition 7[24]. Suppose there is a linguistic term set 𝑆 =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

320 {𝑆𝛼 |𝛼 = −𝜏, … , −1,0, −1, … , 𝜏} , 𝐿1 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛼 (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , #𝐿1 (𝑝)} and
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)
321 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , #𝐿2 (𝑝)} are two PLTSs according to linguistic term
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

322 set S. Then 𝐿∗1 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛼′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} and 𝐿∗2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈
323 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} are the preprocessed PLTSs according to the Algorithm 1, the generalized
324 hybrid distance between them is defined as

1
′(𝑙) ′(𝑙) 𝜆 ′(𝑙) ′(𝑙) 𝜆 𝜆
𝐼(𝑠𝛼 )−𝐼(𝑠𝛽 ) 𝐼(𝑠𝛼 )−𝐼(𝑠𝛽 )
325 𝑑𝑔ℎ (𝐿1 (𝑝), 𝐿2 (𝑝)) = [𝜍 ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) | | + (1 − 𝜍) max 𝑝(𝑙) | | ]
2𝜏 𝑙=1,2,…,𝐿 2𝜏
326 (12)
327 where the parameters 𝜍 ∈ [0.1] and 𝜆 ≥ 1.
328 Algorithm 1 (probability splitting algorithm) [24]. Input: Two PLTSs 𝐿1 (𝑝) =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

329 {𝑠𝛼 (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿1 } and 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿2 }, a flag
330 variable that indicates the current location in PLTSs and a sum variable that stores the total of
331 the probabilities of the first flag items.
332 Step 1. Let flag flag=1 and sum=0;
(𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔)

333 Step 2. If 𝑝𝛼 < 𝑝𝛽 , then the element 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 ) in the 𝐿2 (𝑝) is divided
(𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔)

334 into two elements 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛼 ) and 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 − 𝑝𝛼 ). The former one is used
(𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔)
335 to replace the element 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 ) and the latter one is inserted between the flagth
336 element and (flag+1)th element in the 𝐿2 (𝑝) ;
337 If 𝑝𝛼 = 𝑝𝛽 , then do nothing;
(𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔)
338 Step 3.𝑠𝑢𝑚 = 𝑠𝑢𝑚 + 𝑝𝛼 ;
339 Step 4. If summation is greater than or equal to 1, proceed to the next step; or else, flag =
340 flag + 1 and proceed to the next step. Step 2. Observably, the probability splitting algorithm
341 preprocesses the PLTSs so that their probability distributions are identical. The generalized
342 hybrid weighted distance can be derived from this probability splitting approach.
343 Definition 8 [63].  -fuzzy measure g, a subtype of fuzzy measure defined on P(X) that
344 fulfills the finite  -rule, possesses the following extra property:
345 g( A B)  g ( A)  g ( B)   g ( A) g ( B)
346 Where 1     for all A, B  P( X ) and A B  .
347 By parameter  the interaction between criteria can be represented as follows:
348 If   0 , there is no interaction between A and B.
349 If   0 , then g ( A B)  g ( A)  g ( B) , which implies that the set { A, B} has multiplicative
350 effect.
351 If   0 , then g ( A B)  g ( A)  g ( B) , which suggests that the set { A, B} has replace effect.
352 If 𝑋 is a finite set, then ∪𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 = 𝑋. The  -fuzzy measure 𝑔 satisfies following Eq.(13).
1
(∏𝑛 [1 − 𝜆𝑔(𝑥𝑖 )] − 1) if 𝜆 ≠ 0
353 𝑔(𝑋) = {𝜆 𝑛 𝑖=1 (13)
∑𝑖=1 𝑔(𝑥𝑖 ) if 𝜆 = 0
354 Where xi xj   for all i, j  1, 2,..., n and i  j . It can be noted that g ( xi ) for a subset with a
355 single element xi is called a fuzzy density, and can be denoted as gi  g ( xi ) .
356 Especially for every subset A  P ( X ) , we have
1
(∏ [1 − 𝜆𝑔𝑖 ] − 1) if 𝜆 ≠ 0
357 𝑔(𝐴) = {𝜆 𝑖∈𝐴 (14)
∑𝑖∈𝐴 𝑔𝑖 if 𝜆 = 0
358 Based on Eq.(14), the value of  can be uniquely determined from g ( X )  1 , which is equal
359 to solving the following Eq.(15).
360 𝜆 + 1 = ∏𝑛𝑖=1(1 + 𝜆𝑔𝑖 ) (15)
361 Definition 9.[64]. Suppose a real number set𝐴 = {𝑎(1) , … , 𝑎(𝑡) }, if g is the  -fuzzy
362 measure which is associated with𝐴,𝑎(𝑖) ∈ 𝐴, then
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑎(𝑖) 𝑔(𝑖) ∏𝑛𝑗=𝑖+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑖) ] 𝜆 ≠ 0

363 𝐶𝐼𝑔 (𝑎(1) , . . . , 𝑎(𝑡) ) = { 𝑛 (16)
∑𝑖=1 𝑎(𝑖) 𝑔(𝑖) 𝜆=0
364 Where, ()
is indicates a permutation on (𝑎1 , … , 𝑎𝑡 ) such that 𝑎(1) ≤ ⋯ ≤ 𝑎(𝑡) .
365 3.2 Procedure of the proposed approach
366 The flow chart of the suggested method is shown in Figure 1.
Phase I- PLTS-EV from experts

Establishing
PLTS
decision Data normalization by Eq.(18) PLTS-EV matrix of
matrices Actual quantitative data and Table 3 alternative DESS plan
Phase II-
determining Eq. (11)
the fuzzy
densities of The PLTS-importance The fuzzy densities of
sub-criteria degrees of sub-criteria sub-criteria
and criteria
Eq. (8) Eq. (11)
The PLTS-importance degrees The corrected PLTS- The corrected fuzzy densities
of criteria and attributes importance degrees of criteria of criteria
Phase III--
aggregating The fuzzy densities of
the PLTS-EVs sub-criteria
on the sub- PLTS-TOPSIS
criteria by the model and RC
Choquet
PLTS-TOPSIS Eq.(20),Eq.(21)
integral The relative closeness of
model and PLTS-EV matrix of , Eq.(22) and
Choquet Eq.(23) alternatives on the criteria
alternative DESS plan
integral
Phase IV-
selecting the
best alternative RC
based on the
VIKOR model The relative closeness of
alternatives on the criteria
S,R and Q
The group utility measure The optimal
VIKOR Eq.(24), The individual regret decision condition
Eq.(25)
model measure by VIKOR principle
and
Eq.(26) The compromise measure (step 4 in Phase IV)
The corrected fuzzy densities
of criteria
367
368 Figure 1 The flowchart of the proposed approach
369 3.2.1 Phase I-Establishing PLTS-EV decision matrix
370 Assuming there are m alternatives and n sub-criteria associated with a given criterion, the
371 specific steps of Phase I are as follows:
372 The first step is to change the EV into the PLTS-EV. The EV of alternate DESS designs
373 can be converted to PLTS-EV using Eq. (17) and Table 2.

𝐸𝑉𝑖𝑗 −𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐸𝑉𝑖
, 𝑖 ∈ Ω𝑏
𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐸𝑉𝑖 −𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐸𝑉𝑖
374 𝐶𝐿𝑖𝑗 = { 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐸𝑉 (17)
𝑖 −𝐸𝑉𝑖𝑗
, 𝑖 ∈ Ω𝑐
375 Where EVi max and EVi min are the maximum and minimum EV on the i-th sub-criterion，
376 EVij is the EV of the j-th alternative plan on the i-th sub-criterion, b and  c are the positive
377 and negative plan decision criteria set respectively.
378 Table 2 value ranges, linguistic terms and symbols
Value Ranges [0,0.11] (0.11,0.22] (0.22,0.33] (0.33,0.44] (0.44,0.55]
Linguistic Terms
Lousy Very Bad Bad A Little Bad Medium
for evaluation
Linguistic Terms
for index Very A Little

Nothing Unimportant Medium
importance Unimportant Unimportant
Comparison
Symbol 𝑠0 𝑠1 𝑠2 𝑠3 𝑠4
Value Ranges (0.55,0.66] (0.66,0.77] (0.77,0.88] (0.88,1]
Linguistic Terms A Little

Good Very Good Perfect
for evaluation Good
Linguistic Terms
for index A Little Very Most

Important
importance Important Important Important
Comparison
Symbols 𝑠5 𝑠6 𝑠7 𝑠8
379 Step 2. Obtaining the probabilistic linguistic term set evaluation values of alternatives on
380 the qualitative sub-criteria. In the light of the Table 2, the expert assigns the probabilistic
381 linguistic term set evaluation value (PLTS-EV) to delegate his/her idea for the alternative DESS
382 project plan.
383 If the PLTS-EV is on the negative sub-criteria, then the linguistic term in the PLTS-EV
384 should be converted to the complementary term by Eq.(18).
385 𝑛𝑒𝑔(𝑠𝛼 ) = 𝑠𝛽 , 𝛽 = 2𝜏 + 1 − 𝛼, {𝑆𝛼 |𝛼 = 1, … ,2𝜏} (18)
386 Step 3. Obtaining the probabilistic linguistic term set evaluation value matrix of
387 alternative DESS project plans. Gather the PLTS-EVs obtained in in step 1 and step 2
388 together to build the PLTS-EV matrix of alternative DESS project plans.
𝐿11 (𝑝) ⋯ 𝐿1𝑛 (𝑝)

389 𝑅 = [𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝)] =[ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ] (19)
𝑚×𝑛
𝐿𝑚1 (𝑝) ⋯ 𝐿𝑚𝑛 (𝑝)
(𝑙) (𝑙)
390 Where 𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝑝𝑖𝑗 )|𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚; 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛}.
391 3.2.2 Phase II-determining the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria and criteria
392 Suppose there are k criteria and n sub-criteria under a certain criterion, the concrete steps
393 of this Phase II are as bellow:
394 Step 1. Also according to the Table 2, the experts assign the PLTS importance degree to
395 reflect their presumption of importance of sub-criteria according to the actual situations of the
396 alternative DESS project plan and the importance of criteria and attributes are determined by
397 the same way.
398 Step 2. Determining the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria. We assume that the fuzzy densities
399 of sub-criteria are equal to the concentration degrees of PLTS importance degree in this paper.
400 So according to the PLTS importance degree, the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria can be
401 calculated by Eq. (10). We marked the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria as 𝑔𝑗𝑠𝑢𝑏 , (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛).
402 Determining the fuzzy densities of criteria is the third step. This study adopts the criterion
403 level as the highest level of the decision index system aiming to demonstrate the pros and cons
404 of the alternative plans in greater detail through the VIKOR approach. Therefore, in order for
405 the fuzzy densities of the criteria to reflect those of the attribute to which the criteria belong.
406 The specific method is as follows: ①According to the PLTS importance degree of criteria and
407 attributes, the corrected PLTS importance degree of criterion is equal to the multiplication of
408 the PLTS importance degree of criterion and the PLTS importance degree of attributes by Eq.
409 (7); ②It is identical to the operation for calculating the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria; the fuzzy
410 densities of the criterion can be ascertain using Eq (10). We marked the corrected fuzzy
411 densities of criteria as 𝑔𝑗 , (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑘).
412 Step 4. Using the data gathered in Step 1 for fuzzy densities, the parameter of criteria and
413 sub-criteria can be determined using Eq. (16).
414 3.2.3 Phase III-aggregating the PLTS-EVs on the sub-criteria by the PLTS-TOPSIS model and
415 Choquet integral
416 The purpose of the phase IV is to aggregate the PLTS-EVs on the sub-criteria into the
417 evaluation values on the criteria by principle of TOPSIS model. Suppose there are n sub-criteria
418 under a certain criterion, k criteria and m alternatives Ai (i  1, 2,..., m) , the specific steps of this
419 Phase II are as bellow:
420 Step 1. For 𝑅 = [𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝)] , the probabilistic linguistic positive ideal solution (PLPIS)
𝑚×𝑛
421 𝐿𝑗+ (𝑝) and the probabilistic linguistic negative ideal solution (PLNIS) 𝐿𝑗− (𝑝) on the j-th sub-
422 criterion are equal to {𝑠8 (1)} and {𝑠0 (1)} respectively.
423 Step 2. Calculating the distance between each alternative and the PLPIS and PLNIS by
424 Eq.(19) and Eq.(20).
425 𝑑(𝐴𝑖 , 𝐿+ ) = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑑 (𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝), 𝐿𝑗+ (𝑝)) 𝑔(𝑗)

𝑠𝑢𝑏 𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑏
∏𝑗=𝑖+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ] (19)
426 𝑑(𝐴𝑖 , 𝐿− ) = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑑 (𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝), 𝐿𝑗− (𝑝)) 𝑔(𝑗)

∏𝑗=𝑖+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ] (20)
𝑠𝑢𝑏
427 Where 𝑔(𝑗) is the fuzzy density of the j-th sub-criterion.
428 Step 3. Calculating the relative closeness of the alternative under a certain criterion. The
429 relative closeness which can be calculated by Eq.(21) is considered as the evaluation value of
430 the alternative under a certain criterion.
𝑖 𝑑(𝐴 ,𝐿− )
431 𝑟𝑐𝑖 = 𝑑(𝐴 ,𝐿− )+𝑑(𝐴 (21)
𝑖 ,𝐿+ ) 𝑖
432 Where 𝑟𝑐𝑖 is the relative closeness of the i-th alternative under a certain criterion.
433 Step 4. Establishing the relative closeness matrix of alternatives. After calculating the
434 relative closeness of the alternative on all criteria, the relative closeness matrix of alternatives
435 can be constructed by Eq.(22).
𝑟𝑐11 ⋯ 𝑟𝑐1𝑘
436 𝑅𝐶 = [𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑗 ] =[ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ] (22)
𝑚×𝑘
𝑟𝑐𝑚1 ⋯ 𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑘
437
438 3.2.4 Phase IV-selecting the best alternative based on the VIKOR model
439 Suppose there are m alternatives Ai (i  1, 2,..., m) and k criteria, the specific steps of this
440 Phase IV are as follows:
441 Step 1. The positive ideal solution (PIS) of alternatives is obtained as 𝑅𝐶 + =
442 {𝑟𝑐1+ , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑗+ , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑘+ } and the negative ideal solution (NIS) of alternatives is obtained as
443 𝑅𝐶 − = {𝑟𝑐1− , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑗− , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑘− }, where 𝑟𝑐𝑗+ is the maximum value of 𝑟𝑐 on the j-th criterion
444 and 𝑟𝑐𝑗− is the minimum value of 𝑟𝑐 on the j-th criterion.
445 Step 2. Compute the group utility measure S i , the individual regret measure Ri and the
446 compromise measure Qi of the i-th alternative by the following equations：
𝑑(𝑟𝑐 ,𝑟𝑐 + )
447
𝑆𝑖 = ( 𝑑(𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑗+,𝑟𝑐 𝑗−) × 𝑔(𝑗) ∏𝑘𝑗=𝑗+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ]) (23)
𝑗 𝑗
𝑑(𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑗 ,𝑟𝑐𝑗+ )
448
𝑅𝑖 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( 𝑑(𝑟𝑐 +,𝑟𝑐 −) × 𝑔(𝑗) ∏𝑘𝑗=𝑗+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ]) (24)
𝑗 𝑗
𝑆 −𝑆 − 𝑅 −𝑅−
449 𝑄𝑖 = 𝜂 𝑆 +𝑖 −𝑆− + (1 − 𝜂) 𝑅+𝑖 −𝑅− (25)

450 where S  max{Si } , S   min{Si } , R   max{Ri } , R   min{Ri } ,  is a weight for the strategy
i i i i
451 of maximum group utility, where it is supposed that   0.5 ; d () is the Euclidean distance.
452 𝑔(𝑗) is the fuzzy density of the j-th criterion.
453 Step 3. Sort the alternatives according to the values of S, R, and Q.
454 Step 4. Propose as a compromise solution the alternative ( A(1) ) that is ranked highest by
455 the measure Q (minimum) if the two requirements below are met:
456 C1. The alternative ( A(1) ) offers a sufficient benefit, which means Q( A(2) )  Q( A(1) )  DQ
457 where DQ  1/ (m  1) .
458 C2. The alternative ( A(1) ) has acceptable stability, thus it also has the highest score on S
459 or/and R .
460 If one of the prerequisites is not satisfied, then the following compromise Alternatives are
461 proposed:
462  Alternatives A(1) and A( m ) if only the condition C2 is not satisfied
463  Alternatives A(1) , A(2) , ... , A( m ) if the condition C1 is not satisfied, where A( m ) is determined
464 by the relation Q( A( m ) )  Q( A(1) )  DQ for the maximum M (the positions of these alternatives are
465 “in closeness”).

466 4. A case study
Substation 1
Substation 2
Substation 3
Substation 4
Substation 5
467
468 Figure 2 the location of DESS

469 A corporation wishing to construct a DESS in the planned substations in a city in Henan
470 Province, the location of DESS is shown in Figure 2. The energy corporation gathered five
471 relevant specialists to analyze the three blueprints created by the three distinct design institutes.
472 The alternatives were named Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
473 Alternative 1 has used the most recent energy storage technology and design idea due to
474 the evolved nature of energy storage technology. Alternative 2's energy storage technology and
475 design idea are between those of alternatives 1 and 3, whereas alternative 3's energy storage
476 technology and design concept are more developed.
477 The decision criterion C23 is a quantitative criterion calculated by the investment
478 department. Table 3 show the evaluation value, then convert it into PLTS by Eq. (17) and Table
479 2. The result is shown in Table 4. In addition to decision criterion C23, according to their own
480 experience, experts gave the PLTS-EV of each alternative DESS project plan on each criterion
481 , the specific linguistic terms and their symbols can be seen in Table 2, so the PLTS-EV decision
482 matrix of DESS project plans is shown in Table 4.
483 After determining the comprehensive decision matrix, according to the Table 2, the
484 experts determined the PLTS importance degree of the sub-criteria, criteria and decision
485 attributes. According to the step 2 of phase-II, the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria can be
486 calculated by Eq.(10), the PLTS importance and fuzzy densities of sub-criteria can be seen in
487 Table 5 and Table 6. According to the Step 3 of Phase-II, the corrected PLTS importance and
488 fuzzy densities of criteria can be calculated, which also can be seen in Table 5 and Table 6.
489 After fuzzy densities of sub-criteria and criteria and PLTS-EVs of alternatives are
490 calculated, Phase III can determine the alternative's proximity to the criteria, as shown in Table
491 7. On the basis of the above relative closeness, the group utility measure, the individual regret
492 measure, and the compromise measure can be calculated using Equations (23), (24), and (25),
493 respectively, where   0.5 , with the results shown in Table 8.
494 On the basis of the group utility measure, Alternative 2 > Alternative 1 > Alternative 3.
495 Alternative 2 has an overall advantage over the other alternatives; according to the individual
496 regret measure, alternative 1 has an obvious disadvantage in C23 criterion, alternative 2 has an
497 obvious disadvantage in C31 criterion, and alternative 3 has an obvious disadvantage in C32
498 criterion. Among the three alternatives, alternative 3 has the smallest disadvantage, then
499 alternative 2 and alternative 1, so the ranking is Alternative 3> Alternative 2> Alternative 1;
500 based on the compromise measure, the final ranking is Alternative 2>Alternative 3>Alternative
501 1. Due to the fact that DQ equals 0.5, the compromise measure of alternative 3 minus the
502 compromise measure of alternative 2 is 0.46, so the condition C1 is not met. Nevertheless, the
503 compromise measure of alternative 1 minus the compromise measure of alternative 2 is 0.94,
504 so according to the judgment rules of VIKOR in Step 4 of section 4.2.4, alternative 2 is the
505 best.
506 The reason for the above results is that the alternative 1 adopts the latest technology and
507 new design concept, which has good performance in environmental sustainability, high return
508 on investment and high social value. However, due to its high investment cost and long payback
509 period, it has poor performance in financial sustainability. At the same time, the public and the
510 government always maintain a vigilant attitude towards emerging things, The above problems
511 lead to higher project risks and difficulties in the design of business model, so it ranks second
512 in the overall effectiveness. The biggest risk is the lack of financial sustainability.
513 The alternative 3 adopts the most mature technology and design concept, so it has enough
514 advantages in rationality of business model design and risk factors, and has relative advantages
515 in financial sustainability. However, it has poor performance in environmental sustainability
516 and social sustainability because of the defects of old technology, At the same time, the public
517 is also very clear about the defects of the old technology, so it ranks third in the overall utility,
518 and the biggest risk is the lack of sustainability of support.
519 the alternative 2's energy storage technology and design concept are between the
520 alternative 1 and the alternative 3. Therefore, it ranks second in environmental sustainability,
521 rationality of business model design and risk factors, but it has better financial sustainability.
522 Meanwhile, the technology and design concept without rashness are supported by the public
523 and the government, so it ranks first in the overall utility. The biggest risk comes from the lack
524 of sustainability of social value.
525 Table 3 The quantitative data
unit Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
(SC231) Ten thousand 10235 8346 7943
(SC232) % 0.34 0.29 0.28
(SC233) year 10 8 7
526
527 Table 4 PLTS-EV of alternative on the sub-criteria
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
(SC111) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)}
(SC112) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠3 (0.8),𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC113) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} {𝑠5 (0.4),𝑠6 (0.6)}
(SC121) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠5 (0.6),𝑠6 (0.4)}
(SC122) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠7 (0.8),𝑠8 (0.2)} {𝑠5 (0.6),𝑠6 (0.4)}
(SC123) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠5 (0.8),𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC124) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)}
(SC211) {𝑠2 (0.8),𝑠3 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC212) {𝑠2 (0.2),𝑠3 (0.6),𝑠4 (0.2)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.4)}
(SC213) {𝑠3 (0.8),𝑠4 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC221) {𝑠3 (0.2),𝑠4 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)} {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC222) {𝑠3 (0.2),𝑠4 (0.8)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC231) {𝑠0 (1)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠8 (1)}
(SC232) {𝑠8 (1)} {𝑠3 (1)} {𝑠0 (1)}
(SC233) {𝑠0 (1)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠8 (1)}
(SC311) {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠5 (1)} {𝑠5 (1)}
(SC312) {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.6)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (1)}
(SC313) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)}
(SC314) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.2)}
(SC321) {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)}
(SC322) {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)}
528
529 Table 5 PLTS importance of attributes, criteria and sub-criteria
Attributes Criteria Sub-criteria
(A1) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)} (C11) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)} (SC111) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC112) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC113) {𝑠8 (1)}
(C12) {𝑠5 (0.4),𝑠6 (0.6)} (SC121) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC122) {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.6)}
(SC123) {𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.4)}
(SC124) {𝑠4 (0.8),𝑠5 (0.2)}
(A2) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} (C21) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} (SC211) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.6)}
(SC212) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)}
(SC213) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.8)}
(C22) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.6), (SC221) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC222) {𝑠3 (0.2),𝑠4 (0.6),𝑠5 (0.2)}
(C23) {𝑠8 (1)} (SC231) {𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.4)}
(SC232) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.2)}
(SC233) {𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.4)}
(A3) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.6), (C31) (SC311) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.2)}
{𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.4)}
𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC312) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC313) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC314) {𝑠3 (0.4),𝑠6 (0.6)}
(C32) {𝑠4 (0.4),𝑠5 (0.6)} (SC321) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.6),𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC322) {𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.4)}
530
531 Table 6 fuzzy densities of criteria and sub-criteria
Criteria The corrected PLTS fuzzy Sub-criteria fuzzy
importance densities densities
(C11) {𝑠9.47 (0.8), 𝑠2.86 (SC111)

0.49 0.87
(0.2)}
(SC112) 0.92
(SC113) 1
(C12) {𝑠5.86 (0.6), 𝑠2.81 (SC121)

0.41 0.92
(0.2), 𝑠2.76 (0.2)}
(SC122) 0.75
(SC123) 0.73
(SC124) 0.49
(C21) {𝑠6.7 (0.6), 𝑠2.95 (SC211)

0.41 0.69
(0.2), 𝑠2.91 (0.2)}
(SC212) 0.68
(SC213) 0.56
(C22) {6.11(0.6),2.91(0.2),2.8 (SC221)

0.41 0.83
(0.2)}
(SC222) 0.46
（C23） {6.96(0.6),4.48(0.4)} 0.57

(SC231)
0.84
(SC232) 0.81
(SC233) 0.73
(C31) {5.84(0.6),2.95(0.2),2. (SC311)

0.42 0.81
84(0.2)}
(SC312) 0.75
(SC313) 0.92
(SC314) 0.43
(C32) {5.25(0.6),2.75(0.2),2. 0.40 (SC321)

0.58
64(0.2)}
(SC322) 0.73
532
533 Table 7 RC of the alternatives
(C11) 0.95 0.76 0.56
(C12) 0.93 0.80 0.67
(C21) 0.34 0.82 0.93
(C22) 0.49 0.76 0.93
（C23） 0.46 0.61 0.54
(C31) 0.86 0.68 0.68
(C32) 0.75 0.93 0.75
534
535 Table 8 S，R and Q of alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 rankings
S 0.92 0.66 0.93 2, 1, 3
0.57 0.41 0.40

R 3, 2, 1
C23 C31 C32
Q 0.98 0.04 0.50 2, 3, 1
536
537 5. Discussion
538 5.1 Comparative analysis
539 In this paper, the advantages of the framework are as follows: ①Take PLTS as the
540 expression of decision information to strike a balance the expression convenience of decision
541 preference and the ability to handle uncertainty. ② Take the fuzzy measure and Choquet
542 integral to solve problem of independence assumption of criteria. ③ Considering both the
543 global utility and the local disadvantages simultaneously. In this section, we conduct a
544 comparative analysis to illustrate these developments. There are six scenarios showed in Table
545 9. In the scenarios, the VIKOR method is replaced with the weighted average method, which
546 is currently the most popular decision-making technique; the PLTS is replaced with a real
547 number; and the fuzzy measure is replaced with a weight, the comparative analysis is shown
548 in Figure 3.
549 Comparing scenario 1 with the outcome of the case, scenario 2 with scenario 6, scenario
550 3 with scenario 5, and replacing PLTS with real numbers, which only results in fluctuating
551 values and does not alter the order of alternatives, demonstrates that uncertainty will have a
552 disorderly effect on the decision-making outcomes.
553 Clearly, when the VIKOR method is replaced with the weighted average method, the score
554 and ranking of alternatives will change, and the drawbacks of the DESS project plan cannot be
555 reflected in the final result.
556 Compare scenario 3 with the case's result, scenario 1 with scenario 5, and scenario 2 with
557 scenario 4. When the weight is used to replace the fuzzy measure, it also causes numerical
558 fluctuation, but does not alter the order of alternatives; this demonstrates that correlation
559 between criteria will influence the decision-making results disorderly.

560 In conclusion, the proposed decision model in this paper can effectively strike a balance
561 between the expression convenience of decision preference and the ability to deal with
562 uncertainty, can avoid the decision-making errors caused by the assumption of independence
563 that cannot be satisfied, and considers the overall effectiveness and local disadvantages to
564 ensure the rationality of selection of the DESS project plan.
565 Table 9 Scenario series of considering different scenarios
PLTS VIKOR Choquet

Scenario 1 〇〇
Scenario 2 〇〇
Scenario 3 〇〇
Scenario 4 〇
Scenario 5 〇
Scenario 6 〇
Comparative analysis
Calculation results main points of data processing
Scenario 1
Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3
Replacing PLTS with
real numbers
The Compromise Measure of Alternative S1: 0.95

Scenario 2

Replacing VIKOR with
weighted average method
The Comprehensive Score of Alternative S1: 0.87
Scenario 3

Replacing fuzzy measure
with weight
The Compromise Measure of Alternative S1:1.00
Scenario 4
Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3 Replacing VIKOR with

The Comprehensive Score of Alternative S1: 0.66 with weight
Scenario 5
Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3 Replacing PLTS

with real numbers
Replacing fuzzy
measure with weight
Scenario 6
Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3 Replacing PLTS with

real numbers
The Comprehensive Score of Alternative S1: 0.87 weighted average method
Notes
Red means first Green means second. Yellow means third.

566
567 Figure. 3 Result of comparative analysis
568 5.2 Sensitivity analysis

569 The specialists conducted sensitivity analysis to determine the robustness of the decision
570 outcome. The first method, it increase the fuzzy densities by 30 percent and decrease them by
571 30 percent, while observing the ranking's response to the change in fuzzy densities. When the
572 fuzzy density of a single standard increases or decreases, we always ensure that the total fuzzy
573 density does not change. For example, in the case study, the fuzzy density of C11 decreases by
574 30% to 0.34, the additional 30% is 0.147, and the weights of the other criteria must be increased
575 by 0.0244 (0.147/6). Figure 4 depicts the sensitivity analysis results. We can conclude from
576 these numbers that the decision result is robust.
577
578 Figure. 4 The result of sensitivity analysis
579 The second method involves modifying the proportion of the individual regret measure
580 and the group utility measure by adjusting the coefficient 𝜂 in Eq. (29). This paper sets 𝜂
581 =(0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1) respectively; then, based on the compromise measures

582 calculated by at various values, Figure 3 depicts the corresponding radar map. Figure 5
583 demonstrates that as 𝜂 increases, gradually, the proportion of group utility measure increases;
584 when 𝜂 = 0, alternative 3 is optimal, and when 0 < 𝜂 ≤ 1, alternative 2 is optimal. In
585 conclusion, the optimal outcome is relatively stable. Alternative 2 is a better alternative.
586
587
588 Figure. 5 The compromise measures calculated by 𝛈 at different values
589 6. Conclusion
590 The DESS is a good choice to solve the power coordination and optimization difficulty of
591 renewable energy, but due to its high operation cost and lower profit margin, the investment of
592 DESS is getting cold. Now, the research on project investment decision is more concerned with
593 how to maximize profits, such as financial analysis[65-67] project quality and operation and
594 maintenance cost [12] and economic impact[15]. DESS investment is more about social
595 responsibility and environmental benefits. Meanwhile, with the development of battery
596 technology, it will have greater economic value in the future. Therefore, the investment
597 decision-making of DESS should be analyzed from the perspective of sustainability.
598 The problems encountered in the analysis of DESS investment decision-making from the
599 perspective of sustainability are as follows: ①The DESS decision index system is lacking from
600 the sustainability perspective; ②Common decision models find it challenging to deal with the
601 uncertainty of qualitative data effectively; ③It is challenging for the prevalent decision-making
602 model to effectively account for the correlation between criteria; ④It is difficult to use the
603 common decision model strike a balance between overall utility and local disadvantage.
604 For the sake of address aforementioned issues, firstly, this paper develops the decision
605 index system of the DESS project plan from the perspective of sustainability. Secondly, the
606 DESS project plan decision model is established based on the principle of PLTS, fuzzy measure
607 and the fundamental principle of the VIKOR method. The characteristics of the proposed
608 decision model are as follows: ①it can effectively handle uncertainty and makes experts
609 express their preferences easily by PLTS; ②the decision model is more in line with reality,
610 because the fuzzy measure is used in place of weight to avoid the assumption of independence
611 between criteria; ③ the decision model can ensure simultaneous consideration of the overall
612 utility and local disadvantage of alternative DESS project plans by the fundamental principle
613 of the VIKOR method. The above characteristics are verified by the comparative analysis in
614 Section 5.1.
615 Through sensitivity analysis, when increasing the fuzzy densities by 30 percent and
616 decrease them by 30 percent. In different sensitivity analysis scenarios, the value of the
617 compromise measure of the alternatives has changed, but the ranking has not changed, the
618 decision result is robust. When modifying the proportion of the individual regret measure and
619 the group utility measure by adjusting the coefficient 𝜂, when 𝜂 = 0, alternative 3 is optimal,
620 and when 0 < 𝜂 ≤ 1, alternative 2 is optimal. Therefore, in general, the decision model in this
621 paper can provide decision results with better robustness.
622 All of the aforementioned information shows that the energy company can select the
623 optimal DESS project plan by the proposed DESS project plan decision framework. However,
624 the correlations between social, business, and environmental sustainability are challenging to
625 quantify in this paper. Hence, in future research, we will use the intelligence of the Decision-
626 Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) to investigate these correlations so as to
627 make the DESS plan's decision-making results more reasonable.
628 Appendix A
629 Definition A1[68].. Let X = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) be a finite universe of discourse, and P(X)
630 be its power set. A fuzzy measure for X is the set function m:P(X) → [0,1] that satisfies the
631 following conditions:
632  𝑚(𝜙) = 0, 𝑚(𝑋) = 1 (boundary conditions)
633  If 𝐴, 𝐵 ∈ 𝑃(𝑋) and𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 then𝑚(𝐴) ≤ 𝑚(𝐵) (monotonicity)
634 Definition A2[69]. X = (x1 , x2 , ⋯ , xn ) is the non-empty classical set, let f be a positive
635 real-valued function on X, f: X → R+ and μ be a fuzzy measure on X. The (discrete) Choquet
636 integral of f with respective to μ is defined by
637 Cμ (f) = ∑ni=1 f(i) [μ(A(i) ) − μ(A(i+1) )]
638 Where (•) indicates a permutation on X such that f(x(1) ) ≤ f(x(2) ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ f(x(n) ). Also
639 A(i) = {x(1) , x(2) , ⋯ , x(n) }, A(n+1) = ϕ.
640 Appendix B
641 Table B2 The generally used internal representations of decision information
handle convenience
uncertainty
term predefined linguistic term set S={s_a |a=0,1,…,g} whose granularity
is defined as g+1, s_a is a component of this linguistic term set and
indicates a linguistic term center of the decision information. μ
represents the value of symbolic translation, which indicates the
deviation of an aggregation result φ from the closest linguistic label

a=round(φ), The value range of μ is [−0.5,0.5).
𝐿(𝑝)
|𝐿(𝑝)|

term set and it comprises of a linguistic term and its probability. The
term 𝐿(𝑝) denotes the number of elements in the probabilistic
form: 𝐷 = {〈𝑥, 𝜇𝐷 (𝑥), 𝜐𝐷 (𝑥)〉|𝑥 ∈ 𝑋}.

𝜐𝐷 (𝑥) ≤ 1.

(  U ( x)) 2  (vU ( x)) 2  1 .
642
643 Acknowledgement
644 2022 Soft Science Research Project of Science and Technology Department of Henan
645 Province,project number:222400410377
646 References
647 [1] Commission E. Energy roadmap 2050: Energy roadmap 2050 /; 2012.
648 [2] National Development and Reform Commission NEA. Revolutionary strategy of energy production
649 and consumption（2016—2030）. 2016-12-29.
650 [3] Xiaoxin Z. Development trend of China's new generation power system technology in energy
651 transformation. Electric Age. 2018;01:30-2.
652 [4] Liu Z, Zhang Z, Zhuo R, Wang X. Optimal operation of independent regional power grid with multiple
653 wind-solar-hydro-battery power. Applied Energy. 2019;235:1541-50.
654 [5] Prieto C, Cabeza LF. Thermal energy storage (TES) with phase change materials (PCM) in solar
655 power plants (CSP). Concept and plant performance. Applied Energy. 2019;254.
656 [6] Wojcik JD, Wang J. Feasibility study of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant integration
657 with Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage (ACAES). Applied Energy. 2018;221:477-89.
658 [7] Zhiyong S, Caixia W, Wei Y, Xuejiao L, Ziqian L, Xiaoning Y. Research on price mechanism of
659 electrical energy storage power station for power grid2019.
660 [8] Barsali S, Ciambellotti A, Giglioli R, Paganucci F, Pasini G. Hybrid power plant for energy storage
661 and peak shaving by liquefied oxygen and natural gas. Applied Energy. 2018;228:33-41.
662 [9] Besant AG, Hamidi V. Technical challenges in co-location of battery storage and generation plants.
663 Journal of Engineering-Joe. 2019:5090-3.

664 [10] Mongird K, Viswanathan V, Balducci P, Alam J, Fotedar V, Koritarov V, et al. An Evaluation of
665 Energy Storage Cost and Performance Characteristics. Energies. 2020;13.
666 [11] Hartmann B, Divenyi D, Vokony I. Evaluation of business possibilities of energy storage at
667 commercial and industrial consumers - A case study. Applied Energy. 2018;222:59-66.
668 [12] Ochoa CE, Aries MBC, van Loenen EJ, Hensen JLM. Considerations on design optimization criteria
669 for windows providing low energy consumption and high visual comfort. Applied Energy. 2012;95:238-
670 45.
671 [13] Zhou G-Y, Wu E, Tu S-T. Optimum selection of compact heat exchangers using non-structural
672 fuzzy decision method. Applied Energy. 2014;113:1801-9.
673 [14] Walker S, Labeodan T, Boxem G, Maassen W, Zeiler W. An assessment methodology of
674 sustainable energy transition scenarios for realizing energy neutral neighborhoods. Applied Energy.
675 2018;228:2346-60.
676 [15] Wang R, Hsu S-C, Zheng S, Chen J-H, Li XI. Renewable energy microgrids: Economic evaluation
677 and decision making for government policies to contribute to affordable and clean energy. Applied
678 Energy. 2020;274.
679 [16] Zare Z, Yeganeh M, Dehghan N. Environmental and social sustainability automated evaluation of
680 plazas based on 3D visibility measurements. Energy Reports. 2022;8:6280-300.
681 [17] Xue B, Liu BS, Liang T, Zhao D, Wang T, Chen XB. A heterogeneous decision criteria system
682 evaluating sustainable infrastructure development: From the lens of multidisciplinary stakeholder
683 engagement. Sustainable Development. 2022;30:556-79.
684 [18] Atanassov KT. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and Systems. 1986;20:87-96.
685 [19] Peng X, Yang Y. Fundamental properties of interval ‐ valued Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation
686 operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2016;31:444-87.
687 [20] Geng S, Zou R, Zhang SB, Guo DY. Research on site combination optimization framework of
688 distributed photovoltaic power station from dual perspectives. Energy Reports. 2022;8:4401-15.
689 [21] Yin CF, Ji F, Wang LN, Fan ZC, Geng S. Site selection framework of rail transit photovoltaic power
690 station under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Energy Reports. 2022;8:3156-65.
691 [22] Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E. Consistency-Driven Automatic Methodology to Set Interval Numerical
692 Scales of 2-Tuple Linguistic Term Sets and Its Use in the Linguistic GDM With Preference Relation.
693 Ieee Transactions on Cybernetics. 2015;45:780-92.
694 [23] Yi ZH. Decision-making based on probabilistic linguistic term sets without loss of information.
695 Complex & Intelligent Systems. 2022;8:2435-49.
696 [24] Lin MW, Chen ZY, Xu ZS, Gou XJ, Herrera F. Score function based on concentration degree for
697 probabilistic linguistic term sets: An application to TOPSIS and VIKOR. Information Sciences.
698 2021;551:270-90.
699 [25] Ghenai C, Albawab M, Bettayeb M. Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using
700 multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renewable Energy.
701 2020;146:580-97.
702 [26] Phillis A, Grigoroudis E, Kouikoglou VS. Assessing national energy sustainability using multiple
703 criteria decision analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology.
704 2021;28:18-35.
705 [27] Ren JZ, Ren XS. Sustainability ranking of energy storage technologies under uncertainties. Journal
706 of Cleaner Production. 2018;170:1387-98.

707 [28] Mohammad MMS, Abdullah S, Al-Shomrani MM. Some Linear Diophantine Fuzzy Similarity
708 Measures and Their Application in Decision Making Problem. Ieee Access. 2022;10:29859-77.
709 [29] Ganie AH. Some t-conorm-based distance measures and knowledge measures for Pythagorean
710 fuzzy sets with their application in decision-making. Complex & Intelligent Systems.
711 [30] Ohlan A. Novel entropy and distance measures for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets with
712 application in multi-criteria group decision-making. International Journal of General Systems.
713 2022;51:413-40.
714 [31] He Y, Jung H. A Voting TOPSIS Approach for Determining the Priorities of Areas Damaged in
715 Disasters. Sustainability. 2018;10.
716 [32] Dehdasht G, Zin RM, Ferwati MS, Abdullahi MaM, Keyvanfar A, McCaffer R. DEMATEL-ANP Risk
717 Assessment in Oil and Gas Construction Projects. Sustainability. 2017;9.
718 [33] Park Y, Lee S-W, Lee J. Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and AHP in Multicriteria Inventory Classification
719 While Planning Green Infrastructure for Resilient Stream Ecosystems. Sustainability. 2020;12.
720 [34] Kim JH, Ahn BS. The Hierarchical VIKOR Method with Incomplete Information: Supplier Selection
721 Problem. Sustainability. 2020;12.
722 [35] Zhou H, Yang Y, Chen Y, Zhu J. Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins,
723 development and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research. 2018;264:1-16.
724 [36] Yaohong X, Jian Z, Yanhui Z. Analysis on the Environmental Problems of All Vanadium Redox
725 Flow Energy Storage Power Station. Jilin Electric Power. 2016.
726 [37] LI Jianlin, TAN Yuliang, WANG Han. Design criteria of energy storage power plants and typical
727 case studies. Modern Electric Power. 2020;37:331-40.

728 [38] Li J, Zhu X, Yan G, Mu G, Luo W. Design of Energy Storage Station Grouping Energy Management
729 Strategies to Balance Short-term Wind Power Fluctuations. In: Sun M, Zhang Y, editors. Renewable
730 Energy and Environmental Technology, Pts 1-62014. p. 2866-71.
731 [39] Sun H, Miao Y. Design and Analysis of a New-type Sand Energy Storage System for Wind Power
732 Stations. In: Mao E, Tian W, editors. Emerging Materials and Mechanics Applications2012. p. 825-9.
733 [40] Ma R, Zhao S, Wei X. Function design and experimental analysis of tenergy management system
734 of wind energy storage battery. Chinese Journal of Power Sources. 2017;41:1048-51.
735 [41] Zhang Z, Chen C, Wang Y. Designing and Charging Management Strategy Research of Lithium-
736 ion Battery Energy Storage System. Electric Power Science and Engineering. 2017;33:22-5.
737 [42] Arenas LF, de Leon CP, Walsh FC. Engineering aspects of the design, construction and
738 performance of modular redox flow batteries for energy storage. Journal of Energy Storage.
739 2017;11:119-53.
740 [43] Zhang Y, Liu N. Nanostructured Electrode Materials for High-Energy Rechargeable Li, Na and Zn
741 Batteriest. Chemistry of Materials. 2017;29:9589-+.
742 [44] Martens ML, Carvalho MM. The challenge of introducing sustainability into project management
743 function: multiple-case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;117:29-40.
744 [45] Xuan Y. Current situation and dilemma of photovoltaic poverty alleviation in township power supply
745 stations. Knowledge Economy. 2020:28-9+119.
746 [46] Assaad R, El-adaway IH. Enhancing the Knowledge of Construction Business Failure: A Social
747 Network Analysis Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2020;146.
748 [47] Idrissi K, Taouab O. Business Failure Factors based on a Financial Approach2019.
749 [48] Wang ZH, Li JX, Liu J, Shuai CM. Is the photovoltaic poverty alleviation project the best way for
750 the poor to escape poverty?-A DEA and GRA analysis of different projects in rural China. Energy Policy.
751 2020;137.
752 [49] Jin Q, Cui K, Zhang HB, Yan BK, Shu X, Destech Publicat INC. Economic Analysis of Photovoltaic
753 Generation Considering Electric Energy Replacement Benefit. 2018 3rd International Conference on
754 New Energy and Renewable Resources2018.
755 [50] Kumar A, Anbanandam R. Development of social sustainability index for freight transportation
756 system. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;210:77-92.
757 [51] Boldon L. Sustainability Efficiency Factor: Measuring Sustainability in Advanced Energy Systems
758 through Exergy, Exergoeconomic, Life-Cycle and Economic Analyses2015.
759 [52] Lopez Prola J, Steininger KW. The social profitability of photovoltaics in germany2017.
760 [53] Sherren K, Parkins JR, Owen T, Terashima M. Does noticing energy infrastructure influence public
761 support for energy development? Evidence from a national survey in Canada. Energy Research &
762 Social Science. 2019;51:176-86.
763 [54] Dassisti M, Cozzolino G, Chimienti M, Rizzuti A, Mastrorilli P, L'Abbate P. Sustainability of
764 vanadium redox-flow batteries: Benchmarking electrolyte synthesis procedures. International Journal
765 of Hydrogen Energy. 2016;41:16477-88.
766 [55] Larcher D, Tarascon JM. Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy
767 storage. Nature Chemistry. 2015;7:19-29.
768 [56] Gu Y, Zhang L, Wang Z, Zheng Y. Bi-level Planning Model for NIMBY Facility Location Problem.
769 In: Liu T, Zhao Q, editors. Proceedings of the 36th Chinese Control Conference2017. p. 7553-8.
770 [57] Sun C, Lyu N, Ouyang X. Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants
771 in the Neighborhood. Sustainability. 2014;6:7197-223.
772 [58] Li S, Abraham D, Cai H. Infrastructure financing with project bond and credit default swap under
773 public-private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management. 2017;35:406-19.
774 [59] Vecchi V, Hellowell M, della Croce R, Gatti S. Government policies to enhance access to credit for
775 infrastructure-based PPPs: an approach to classification and appraisal. Public Money & Management.
776 2017;37:133-40.
777 [60] Wang L, Zhang X. Determining the Value of Standby Letter of Credit in Transfer Stage of a PPP
778 Project to Control Concessionaire's Opportunistic Behavior. Journal of Management in Engineering.
779 2019;35.
780 [61] Lin Y, Johnson JX, Mathieu JL. Emissions impacts of using energy storage for power system
781 reserves. Applied Energy. 2016;168:444-56.
782 [62] Xu Z. A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic
783 preference relations. Information Sciences. 2004;166:19-30.
784 [63] Sugeno M. Fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals: a survey. Fuzzy automata and decision processes.
785 1977;78:89-102.
786 [64] Tan C, Wu DD, Ma B. Group decision making with linguistic preference relations with application
787 to supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011;38:14382-9.
788 [65] Guo JC, Zhang PW, Wu D, Liu ZJ, Liu X, Zhang SC, et al. Multi-objective optimization design and
789 multi-attribute decision-making method of a distributed energy system based on nearly zero-energy
790 community load forecasting. Energy. 2022;239.

791 [66] Lopez-Lorente J, Liu XA, Best RJ, Makrides G, Morrow DJ. Techno-Economic Assessment of Grid-
792 Level Battery Energy Storage Supporting Distributed Photovoltaic Power. Ieee Access. 2021;9:146256-
793 80.
794 [67] Zhou Y, Rehtanz C, Luo P, Liu JY, Chen HT, Lin G, et al. Joint corrective optimization based on
795 VSC-HVDC and distributed energy storage for power system security enhancement. International
796 Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2022;135.
797 [68] Grabisch M. Fuzzy integral in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy sets and systems. 1995;69:279-
798 98.
799 [69] Tan C, Chen X. Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for multi-criteria decision making.
800 Expert Systems with Applications. 2010;37:149-57.
801
Revised manuscript with track changes
1 The Probabilistic Linguistic Decision Framework Of Distributed Energy Storage
2 System Project Plan Based On The Sustainability Perspective
3 Abstract: Countries throughout the world are aggressively encouraging the development of
4 renewable energy. Renewable energy power generation presents distributed characteristics,
5 which increases the difficulty of power coordination and optimization. Compared to the
6 thermal power stations, distributed energy storage system (DESS) can help reduce the
7 aforementioned difficulty without environmental pollution and energy consumption, it has
8 good social and environmental benefits. However, due to the high operating cost of DESS, its
9 investment is cold. Therefore, the investment decision-making of DESS must be considered
10 from the perspective of sustainability, but there is still a blank in this aspect. This problem
11 belongs to the typical research category of decision theory, it can be solved by constructing a
12 decision framework composed of decision index system and decision-making model. So the
13 decision index system of DESS project plan was established based on the sustainability theory
14 and the real DESS operational scenario; for the decision model, the probabilistic linguistic term
15 set (PLTS) is taken as the expression of decision data of DESS, the fuzzy measure and VIKOR
16 were used to reflect the importance of criteria and integrate the decision data respectively. the
17 decision framework proposed in this paper has the following advantages: the proposed decision
18 index system content 3 attributes, 7 criteria and 21 sub-criteria, can provide scientific guidance
19 for DESS project plan decision; second, it can not only deal with uncertainty effectively but
20 also is convenient for experts to express their own preferences; third, it can solve the problem
21 that the independence assumption of criteria is difficult to meet in reality; forth, it reflect the
22 overall utility and local disadvantages of the plan of DESS at the same time. Through
23 comparative analysis and sensitivity analysis, the proposed decision framework can provide
24 more scientific decision-making results of DESS project plan for energy enterprises, and the
25 results have better robustness.

26 Keywords: Distributed Energy Storage System (DESS); project plan decision; probabilistic
27 linguistic term set (PLTS); fuzzy measure; VIKOR model
28 1. Introduction
29 With the global energy crisis and environmental pollution growing increasingly serious,
30 countries throughout the world are aggressively encouraging the transition of energy system to
31 safer, more sustainable and lower carbon [1, 2]. Promoting the large-scale development and
32 utilization of renewable energy on the energy supply side and promoting wider re-
33 electrification on the energy consumption side have become two important directions for
34 realizing energy transformation. Power system transformation is the main support to realize
35 energy transformation [3]. Currently, the primary power supply of the power system is focus
36 on large power stations, thus using the focused management mode, the large power grid realizes
37 the optimization operation of the power grid through the integration and majorization of all
38 network resources. With the construction of an integrated energy system, particularly the large-
39 scale distributed power network generation, equipment and the development of Internet of
40 Things technology, power generation takes on a distributed nature, thereby increasing the
41 difficulty of power coordination and optimization. Distributed energy storage system (DESS)
42 reduces the difficulty of power coordination and optimization by playing a role in the process
43 of renewable energy conversion.
44 DESS's primary job is to manage peak and frequency, stabilize the volatility of new energy,
45 and reduce the speed of abandoned wind and light energy.[4-6].In addition to the functions
46 mentioned above, however, DESS are not more cost-effective than thermal power stations in
47 other functions. Therefore, at this stage, DESS can only rely on government subsidies to
48 operate, the main role is to lead the demonstration, and its economic benefit is small [7]. In this
49 case, it is inappropriate to choose projects with the goal of maximizing profits. The purpose of
50 DESS construction is to improve the proportion of new energy in energy consumption and
51 energy efficiency, and realize the sustainability of energy development [8]. At the present, the
52 energy storage market has just started, for energy enterprises, in the short term, the purpose of
53 the construction of DESS is to respond to national policies, improve the social value and
54 reputation of enterprises, and accumulate experience in the construction and operation of DESS;
55 With the rapid advancement of battery technology, battery costs will decrease and DESS will
56 have greater profit potential in the future [9, 10]. How to select the best of DESS project plan
57 from the perspective of sustainability is a problem worth studying, but it is still a blank. This
58 problem belongs to the typical research category of decision theory, so it can be solved by
59 constructing a decision framework composed of decision index system and decision-making
60 model, according to the real DESS operational scenario.
61 1.1 A concise review of decision index system of DESS project plan

62 For the decision index system, the existing renewable energy power stations aim to
63 maximize profits when developing their decision-making index system, based primarily on
64 financial analysis[11], project quality and operation and maintenance [12], construction
65 environment[13] , social impact[14] , economic impact[15] etc. Therefore, how to construct
66 the DESS project plan's decision index system from a sustainability perspective must be
67 investigated.
68 1.2 A concise review of MCDM model of DESS project plan

69 There are three primary parts of the decision model: the expression of decision data, the
70 weight setting method, and the data aggregation method.
71 1.2.1 the expression way of decision information
72 Sustainability evaluation is mostly from three aspects of environment, economy and
73 society[16]. Due to the uniqueness of the project, it is hard to decide the decision-making value
74 and parameters using historical data; therefore, only qualitative evaluation can be used, and the
75 majority of the evaluation criteria are qualitative [16]. However, because the experience and
76 knowledge of experts can not completely cover the things to be evaluated, so there must be
77 uncertainty in the evaluation value given by experts[17]. In order to address the uncertainty of
78 decision-making information, researchers frequently employ complex mathematical
79 expressions, such as intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) [18] and interval Pythagorean fuzzy set
80 (IVPFS) [19], whose definitions can be found in Table B1 in Appendix B, is regarded as the
81 most advantageous instrument for addressing uncertainty in light of the efficiency with which
82 it handles uncertain information.
83 However, there are two problems in expressing decision preference by numeric form：①
84 the more complex the mathematical statement, the greater the capacity to handle with
85 uncertainty, but this way increases the difficulty for experts to express their decision preference,
86 and on the contrary, increases the uncertainty[20]；②, it is easy to give different scores for the
87 same linguistic evaluation term. For example, both expert A and expert B think the plan is very
88 good, but the expert A gives 10 and B gives 8. This is because that the expert's knowledge
89 background is difficult to completely cover all the contents of DESS project plan, so the
90 evaluation criteria of each expert are different[21].
91 So, the linguistic terms, such as 2-tuple linguistic terms[22], were added to the MCDM
92 model. The definitions of linguistic term are listed in Table B1 in Appendix B. linguistic terms
93 are more congruent with the expressing habit of expert choice preference, so reducing the
94 hesitance of experts in decision-making and subsequently reducing the uncertainty in decision-
95 making. But they are not as effective as fuzzy mathematics in addressing uncertainty[23]. The
96 optimal qualitative decision data expression way should take into account the capacity to deal
97 with uncertainty and the ease of expressing decision preference. Hence according to the
98 definition of probabilistic linguistic term set (PLTS) [24], which can be seen in Table B1 in
99 Appendix B，it is the best expression way for the DESS project plan decision. Because the
100 linguistic terms help experts accurately express their decision preferences, and the probability
101 of each linguistic term helps to handle the uncertainty without information loss due to the
102 aggregation of decision information.
103 1.2.2 the weight setting method
104 According to the relevant research on sustainability evaluation [25-27], for the criteria
105 belonging to the same attributes, the correlation is inevitable. However, the most frequently
106 utilized weight setting method, such as the AHP weight setting method and entropy weight
107 setting method, whose underlying assumption is that the criteria are independent of each
108 other[28]. This assumption is contrary to the sustainability evaluation scenario, which lead to
109 the decision errors. For this reason, researchers proposed fuzzy measure to replace the weight
110 to convey the importance degree of criteria. The concept of fuzzy measure can be seen in
111 definition A1 in Appendix A. In fuzzy measures, the additivity property is substituted by
112 monotonicity, hence it is not necessary to assume that the criteria are independent of one
113 another[29]. So far, fuzzy measures have been utilized in decision-making research. Due to the
114 monotony of the fuzzy measure, the Choquet integral is used to aggregate the decision data in
115 the fuzzy measure environment. When the criteria are independent of each other, the Choquet
116 integral is equal to the weighted average approach[30]. The definition of Choquet integral can
117 be seen in definition A2 in Appendix A. In this study, we will therefore use fuzzy measures to
118 represent the importance degrees of sustainability criteria of DESS project plan.
119 1.2.3 the data aggregation method
120 The comprehensive score of the project is essential for the project's long-term viability;
121 however, due to national policy, enterprise strategy, and other factors, it is also necessary to
122 consider policymakers' tolerance for local disadvantages. For the data aggregation method,
123 there are Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [31],
124 Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) [32], Analytic Network
125 Process (ANP)[32], Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [33]. AHP and TOPSIS are the most
126 frequently used of these methods. The preceding model can only provide the global benefit
127 without considering the local disadvantages. Unfortunately, the local shortcomings of the
128 DESS project plan are often magnified by the media, causing excessive public attention, which
129 makes it difficult to implement the project. For this reason, the DESS project plan decision-
130 making from sustainability perspective must consider the local disadvantages, fortunately, the
131 VIKOR model provides a solution to this issue. It was initially proposed by Opricovic to rank
132 Alternatives based on their proximity to the ideal[34]. It content three parameter individual
133 regret measure, group utility measure and compromise measure, the compromise measure is
134 obtained by synthesizing group utility measure and individual regret measure, which is the
135 balance solution between group utility measure and individual regret measure. Individual regret
136 measure can be deemed as the effect of local disadvantages on the DESS project plan, and
137 group utility measure can be viewed as the overall benefit of the DESS project plan. On the
138 basis of the fundamental concept of VIKOR, it is possible to simultaneously evaluate the
139 overall benefit and local disadvantages of the DESS project plan to get more rational decision
140 result.
141 1.3 Motivations and innovations of the article

142 The motivation of this paper is to establish the scientific plan decision framework for
143 DESS from the sustainability perspective, in order to realize the scientific investment of DESS,
144 promote the scientific and orderly development of DESS, and thus provide strong support for
145 the development of renewable energy. In what follows, we sum up primary innovations with
146 four aspects:
147  The paper constructed the decision index system of DESS project plan from the
148 perspective of sustainability to provide scientific guidance for DESS project plan
149 decision;
150  Using PLTS as the representation of decision data of DESS, it can effectively manage
151 uncertainty and make it simple for DESS experts to deliver their view;
152  The fuzzy measure is substituted for the weight to avoid the independence assumption
153 of decision model, so that the model is more in line with the actual situation of DESS
154 decision;
155  The VIKOR principle is used to ensure the result can simultaneous consideration of
156 the overall benefit and local disadvantages of the DESS project plan.
157 2. Decision index system of distributed energy storage system from sustainability
158 perspective
159 For sustainability assessment, it is mainly from three aspects of environment, economy
160 and society [35]. Therefore, the evaluation of DESS project plan will also be investigated from
161 the above three aspects. The decision index system can be seen in Table 1.
162 2.1 Environmental sustainability

163 In terms of environmental sustainability, the main hazard of DESS comes from whether
164 the energy storage battery will explode or leak harmful substances [36]. So the rationality of
165 DESS design and the perfection of battery technology are very important for environmental
166 sustainability. In the design of DESS, the universality of design plan, the rationality of the
167 operation and maintenance plan and the rationality of the protection system are very important
168 for the rationality of the design [37-39].
169 the universality of the design plan refers to that the design plan of the project has been
170 implemented elsewhere and will continue to be implemented in the future based on this
171 template. Universality indicates the maturity of the design plan. The more mature the design
172 plan is, the safer the project will run and the lower the probability of environmental hazards
173 will occur; The operation and maintenance plan refers to a series of operation and maintenance
174 measures matched with the design plan. The rationality of the operation and maintenance plan
175 will be related to whether the DESS can install and operate smoothly in the future. The more
176 stable the operation of DESS, the lower the probability of environmental hazards; The
177 protection system of DESS is the last defense measure of the power station, which means that
178 the DESS can effectively avoid or reduce the degree of harm in the event of explosion and
179 pollutant leakage.
180 Energy storage battery is the core of DESS, and it is also the main cause of pollution. The
181 environmental pollution caused by battery mainly occurs in the following two aspects: battery
182 damage and waste battery treatment process.
183 Therefore, the technical factors related to this mainly include the quality of energy storage
184 battery [37]，the efficiency of battery management system [40]，the modularization degree of
185 core equipment [41] and the rationality of waste battery treatment [42, 43].
186 There are numerous varieties of energy storage batteries, which contain sodium sulfur,
187 liquid flow batteries and so on. Regardless of the kind of energy storage battery, the primary
188 quality evaluation criteria are the number of charging and discharging cycles and rated capacity,
189 followed by service life and reflection speed. The higher the battery quality is, the safer and
190 more durable the battery is, which will effectively reduce the number of waste batteries; the
191 DESS is composed of several small energy storage power stations distributed in different places,
192 so the battery management system is needed to effectively manage the energy storage batteries
193 in different places. The higher the efficiency of the battery management system is, the higher
194 the power utilization efficiency of the whole society will be, the less power waste will be, and
195 the lower the depreciation speed of batteries will be; The higher the degree of modularization
196 of core equipment, the easier the maintenance in the power station, which reduces the
197 probability of personal and environmental accidents caused by the operation errors of
198 maintenance personnel; The more reasonable the disposal method of waste battery is, the lower
199 the impact of DESS on the environment in the process of operation and maintenance.
200 2.2 Economic sustainability
201 In terms of economic sustainability, for a project, economic sustainability means that the
202 cash flow of the project will not break[44]，the business model selected by DESS has an
203 important impact on the cash flow of the project. Due to the high cost of DESS, few companies
204 invest in the construction alone[45]. The more sustainable the business model is, the more
205 stable the cash flow will be; otherwise, it will lead to the rupture of the project cash flow. The
206 factors greatly affect the sustainability of business model include the rationality of business
207 model design, risk factors and financial sustainability
208 First of all, from the majority of failure cases, the unreasonable design of business model
209 is the main reason for the failure of the project, and the rationality of design is reflected in two
210 aspects, namely, whether the power and obligation are equal, and whether the investment and
211 income are fair[46, 47]; secondly, It is vital to take risk considerations into account when
212 operating a business model. As the cost of DESS project plan is high, the actual operation effect
213 of the project is not as good as the thermal power station in terms of cost performance, so the
214 operation of the power station mainly depends on the government subsidy, and its cash flow is
215 relatively weak. If the demand for peak and frequency modulation and the suppression of new
216 energy fluctuation decreases during actual project operation, or if government support policies
217 deteriorate, the project may collapse owing to a cash flow disruption[48, 49]; the risk factors
218 of DESS project plans can be investigated from two aspects: the decline of market demand and
219 the deterioration of policy environment； finally, the financial sustainability of the project itself
220 is equally important, and the sub-criteria are the total investment, the rate of return and the
221 payback period.
222 2.3 Social sustainability

223 In the aspect of social sustainability, the existing researches mainly focus on the social
224 sustainability of policies, namely, social sustainability mainly refers to whether the policies of
225 the state, industry or company are conducive to improving the comprehensive management of
226 population, enhancing the cultural quality of the whole people and improving the living
227 environment[50]. However, the specific DESS project plans and policies are different, so it is
228 difficult to play a greater role in the management level of population. For the improvement of
229 cultural literacy and living environment, it is mainly realized through the social value of DESS
230 [51], the realization of social value is closely related to whether the DESS can get enough
231 public and government support [52, 53]. Therefore, in this paper, the social sustainability of
232 DESS project plan will be mainly considered from the social value and support of the project.
233 In terms of the project's social value, the objective of constructing DESS is to increase
234 energy use efficiency. As a demonstration project of energy structure reform, it will attract
235 more investment into the energy storage sector, guide the continuity and green development of
236 the energy storage industry, and accelerate the development of the new energy industry;
237 secondly, DESS will further change the public's understanding that power energy cannot be
238 stored on a large scale, and then more electric power-driven production equipment and vehicles
239 will be used to fundamentally change the public's environmental protection measures[54, 55].
240 Therefore, this paper will study from four aspects: the improvement of energy efficiency, the
241 demonstration effect of the project, the driving force of related industries and the change of
242 environmental protection cognition.
243 In terms of support, due to the public's aversion and misunderstanding of
244 electromagnetic radiation, and the risk of battery explosion and leakage of harmful
245 substances[36], Therefore, the public does not fully accept DESS built in the surrounding
246 areas. DESS has the potential of explosion, so the public does not want it to be built near their
247 residence, it have NIMBY (No In My Back Yard) problems, and similar problems have actually
248 occurred in the past, such as public opposition to the construction of substations, thermal power
249 stations or nuclear power stations[56, 57]; secondly, the government does not fully accept
250 DESS. Because the demonstration role of the DESS is greater than its economic value, and the
251 electricity price subsidy must be paid by the local government, the local government may face
252 the problem of face project, i.e., in order to satisfy the demands of the higher authorities, there
253 may be a problem of government dishonesty in the implementation of the distributed energy
254 storage project[58-60]. Therefore, in terms of support, it will be examined from the public
255 support and the government support.

256 Table 1 The decision index system of DESS project plan from sustainability
257 perspective
No. Attributes No. Criteria No. Sub-criteria Referenc
es
(A1 environment (C11 The rationality (SC111) The universality of [37-39]
) al ) of DESS design plan
sustainability design
operation and
maintenance plan
protection system
(C12 The perfection (SC121) The storage battery [37, 40,
) of battery quality 41]
technology
(SC122) The efficiency of [37, 40,
battery 41]
management
system
(SC123) The [37, 40,
modularization 41]
degree of core
equipment
(SC124) The rationality of [42, 43,
waste battery 61]
treatment
(A2 business (C21 Rationality of (SC211) Clarity in the [46, 47]
) model ) business division of
sustainability model design stakeholder
responsibilities
(SC212) The rationality of [46, 47]
investment
proportion and
profit distribution
of stakeholders
(SC213) Rationality of [46, 47]
financial
instruments
(C22 Risk factors (SC221) The ability to resist [48, 49]
) risk of policy
environment
deterioration
(SC222) The ability to resist [48, 49]
risk of decline in
market demand
(C23 Financial (SC231) The total [48, 49]
) sustainability investment
(SC232) The return on [48, 49]
investment
(SC233) The payback [48, 49]
period
(A3 social (C31 Social value (SC311) The improvement [54, 55]
) sustainability ) sustainability of energy
efficiency
(SC312) The demonstration [54, 55]
effect of the project
(SC313) The driving force [54, 55]
of related
industries
(SC314) The change of [54, 55]
environmental
protection
cognition.
(C32 Support (SC321) The public support [58-60]
) sustainability
(SC322) The government [58-60]
support
258 3. Decision model of distributed energy storage system plan
259 3.1 The operation rule of PLTS

260 Before constructing the model, we present the fundamental manipulation rules of PLTS,
261 which include the manipulation rules of linguistic term, the manipulation rules of PLTS, the
262 concentration degree and the deviation degree of PLTS, the PLTS score function based on
263 concentration degree, the distance formula between PLTSs, and the probability splitting
264 algorithm. The following are the specifics:
265 Definition 1 [62]. suppose the discrete linguistic term set is S , a series of linguistic term
266 set is defined as S  {s |s <s

1  st , [1,t]} , where s is the primary linguistic term when
267 s  S ; or else, s is the fictitious linguistic term. Considering any two linguistic
268 variables s ,s   S , and  , 1 , 2  [0,1] , the operational laws of continuous linguistic
269 terms are as follows:
270 𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝑠𝛽 = 𝑠𝛼+𝛽 (1)
271 𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝑠𝛽 = 𝑠𝛽 ⊕ 𝑠𝛼 (2)
272 𝜇𝑠𝛼 = 𝑠𝜇𝛼 (3)
273 (𝜇1 + 𝜇2 )𝑠𝛼 = 𝜇1 𝑠𝛼 + 𝜇2 𝑠𝛼 (4)
274 𝜇(𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝑠𝛽 ) = 𝜇𝑠𝛼 ⊕ 𝜇𝑠𝛽 (5)
275 Different from the operation of linguistic term, the probabilistic linguistic terms in PLTS
276 must be sorted before operation. The detail content can be seen in definition 2 and Definition
277 1.
(𝑘) (𝑘)
278 Definition 2[24]. suppose a PLTS 𝐿(𝑝) = {𝐿 (𝑝 )|𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿(𝑝)} , and the
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

279 subscript of linguistic term 𝐿 is 𝐼(𝐿(𝑘) ) . If the linguistic terms 𝐿 (𝑝 )(𝑘 =
(𝑘)
280 1,2, … , #𝐿(𝑝)) are arranged based on the values of 𝐼(𝐿(𝑘) )𝑝 (𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿(𝑝)) in
281 descending order, 𝐿(𝑝) is defined as an ordered PLTS.
282 Definition 3[24]. Let 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝) be two ordered PLTSs, 𝐿1 (𝑝) =
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

283 {𝐿1 (𝑝1 )|𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿1 (𝑝)} and 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝐿2 (𝑝2 )|𝑘 = 1,2, … , #𝐿2 (𝑝)}. Then
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

284 𝐿1 (𝑝)⨁𝐿2 (𝑝) =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿 (𝑘) {𝑝1 𝐿1 ⨁𝑝2 𝐿2 } (6)
1 1 (𝑝),𝐿2 ∈𝐿2 (𝑝)
(𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘) (𝑘)

285 𝐿1 (𝑝)⨂𝐿2 (𝑝) =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿 (𝑘) {(𝐿1 )𝑝1 ⨁(𝐿2 )𝑝2 } (7)
1 1 (𝑝),𝐿2 ∈𝐿2 (𝑝)
(𝑘) (𝑘)
286 𝜆𝐿(𝑝) =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿(𝑝) 𝜆𝑝 𝐿 ,𝜆 ≥ 0 (8)
(𝑘) 𝜆𝑝(𝑘)
287 (𝐿(𝑝))𝜆 =∪𝐿(𝑘)∈𝐿(𝑝) {(𝐿 ) } (9)
(𝑘)
288 where the k-th linguistic terms in 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝) are defined as 𝐿1 and
(𝑘)
289 𝐿2 separately, the probabilities of the k-th linguistic terms in 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝) are defined
(𝑘) (𝑘)
290 as 𝑝1 and 𝑝2 respectively, the amount of linguistic terms in the 𝐿(𝑝) is #𝐿(𝑝).
291 Definition 4[24]. Presume that S is a linguistic term set and 𝐿(𝑝) =
292 {𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝(𝑙) )|𝑠 (𝑙) ∈ 𝑆, 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} be an probabilistic linguistic term set on S, then we defined
293 the concentration of 𝐿(𝑝) is as follows:
|𝐼(𝑠(𝑙) )−𝐼(𝐸(𝐿(𝑝)))|
294 𝑐𝑑(𝐿(𝑝)) = 1 + ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) 𝑙𝑜𝑔2 (1 − ) (10)
295 Definition 5[24]. Let S be an linguistic term set and 𝐿(𝑝) =
296 {𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝(𝑙) )|𝑠 (𝑙) ∈ 𝑆, 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} be an probabilistic linguistic term set on S, then the
297 deviation degree of 𝐿(𝑝) is defined as
|𝐼(𝑠 (𝑙) )−𝐼(𝐸(𝐿(𝑝)))|

298 𝑑𝑑(𝐿(𝑝)) = − ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) 𝑙𝑜𝑔2 (1 − ) (11)
299 Where the subscript of the linguistic term 𝑠 (𝑙) is 𝐼(𝑠 (𝑙) ), 𝐼(𝑑𝑙𝑡𝑠 ) is the subscript of the
300 linguistic term that is the difference value between the maximum and the minimum linguistic
301 terms in the linguistic term set S, and 𝐼(𝐸(𝐿(𝑝))) is the subscript of the score function
302 value/expectation value of 𝐿(𝑝).
303 Definition 6 [24]. Suppose that S is an linguistic term set and 𝐿(𝑝) =
304 {𝑠 (𝑙) (𝑝 (𝑙) )|𝑠 (𝑙) ∈ 𝑆, 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} is an probabilistic linguistic term set on S, then the novel
305 score function of 𝐿(𝑝) is defined as 𝑆(𝐿(𝑝)) = 𝑠𝛼̅×𝑐𝑑 (𝐿 (𝑝)) . It is called ScoreC-PLTS, where
306 𝛼̅ = ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝐼(𝑠 (𝑙) )𝑝(𝑙) / ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) and 𝑐𝑑 (𝐿(𝑝)) denotes the concentration of 𝐿(𝑝).
307 The ScoreC-PLTS is used in the calculation of fuzzy densities of sub-criteria and
308 criteria in this paper. For any two PLTSs 𝐿1 (𝑝) and 𝐿2 (𝑝), if 𝑆(𝐿1 (𝑝)) > 𝑆(𝐿2 (𝑝)), then
309 𝐿1 (𝑝) is better than 𝐿2 (𝑝) , namely, 𝐿1 (𝑝) > 𝐿2 (𝑝) ; if 𝑆(𝐿1 (𝑝)) = 𝑆(𝐿2 (𝑝)) , then
310 𝐿1 (𝑝) = 𝐿2 (𝑝).

311 the fundamental algorithm of PLTS-TOPSIS is the distance formula of PLTS, which is
312 presentation in Definition 7.
313 Before computing the distance between two PLTSs, those PLTSs must contain the equal
314 number of probabilistic linguistic terms, but it is hard in practice. Such as 𝐿1 (𝑝) =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

315 {𝑠𝛼 (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , #𝐿1 (𝑝)} and 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 =
316 1,2, … , #𝐿2 (𝑝)}，#𝐿1 (𝑝) ≠ #𝐿2 (𝑝). Hence, Algorithm 1 transforms two PLTSs with differing
317 numbers of probabilistic linguistic terms into PLTSs with the equal number, namely，𝐿∗1 (𝑝) =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

318 {𝑠𝛼′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} and 𝐿∗2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿}.
319 Definition 7[24]. Suppose there is a linguistic term set 𝑆 =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

320 {𝑆𝛼 |𝛼 = −𝜏, … , −1,0, −1, … , 𝜏} , 𝐿1 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛼 (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , #𝐿1 (𝑝)} and
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)
321 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , #𝐿2 (𝑝)} are two PLTSs according to linguistic term
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

322 set S. Then 𝐿∗1 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛼′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} and 𝐿∗2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽′(𝑙) (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈
323 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿} are the preprocessed PLTSs according to the Algorithm 1, the generalized
324 hybrid distance between them is defined as

1
′(𝑙) ′(𝑙) 𝜆 ′(𝑙) ′(𝑙) 𝜆 𝜆
𝐼(𝑠𝛼 )−𝐼(𝑠𝛽 ) 𝐼(𝑠𝛼 )−𝐼(𝑠𝛽 )
325 𝑑𝑔ℎ (𝐿1 (𝑝), 𝐿2 (𝑝)) = [𝜍 ∑𝐿𝑙=1 𝑝(𝑙) | | + (1 − 𝜍) max 𝑝(𝑙) | | ]
2𝜏 𝑙=1,2,…,𝐿 2𝜏
326 (12)
327 where the parameters 𝜍 ∈ [0.1] and 𝜆 ≥ 1.
328 Algorithm 1 (probability splitting algorithm) [24]. Input: Two PLTSs 𝐿1 (𝑝) =
(𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙) (𝑙)

329 {𝑠𝛼 (𝑝𝛼 )|𝑠𝛼 ∈ 𝑆1 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿1 } and 𝐿2 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 )|𝑠𝛽 ∈ 𝑆2 , 𝑙 = 1,2, … , 𝐿2 }, a flag
330 variable that indicates the current location in PLTSs and a sum variable that stores the total of
331 the probabilities of the first flag items.
332 Step 1. Let flag flag=1 and sum=0;
(𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔)

333 Step 2. If 𝑝𝛼 < 𝑝𝛽 , then the element 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 ) in the 𝐿2 (𝑝) is divided
(𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔) (𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔)

334 into two elements 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛼 ) and 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 − 𝑝𝛼 ). The former one is used
335 to replace the element 𝑠𝛽 (𝑝𝛽 ) and the latter one is inserted between the flagth
336 element and (flag+1)th element in the 𝐿2 (𝑝) ;
337 If 𝑝𝛼 = 𝑝𝛽 , then do nothing;
(𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔)
338 Step 3.𝑠𝑢𝑚 = 𝑠𝑢𝑚 + 𝑝𝛼 ;
339 Step 4. If summation is greater than or equal to 1, proceed to the next step; or else, flag =
340 flag + 1 and proceed to the next step. Step 2. Observably, the probability splitting algorithm
341 preprocesses the PLTSs so that their probability distributions are identical. The generalized
342 hybrid weighted distance can be derived from this probability splitting approach.
343 Definition 8 [63].  -fuzzy measure g, a subtype of fuzzy measure defined on P(X) that
344 fulfills the finite  -rule, possesses the following extra property:
345 g( A B)  g ( A)  g ( B)   g ( A) g ( B)
346 Where 1     for all A, B  P( X ) and A B  .
347 By parameter  the interaction between criteria can be represented as follows:
348 If   0 , there is no interaction between A and B.
349 If   0 , then g ( A B)  g ( A)  g ( B) , which implies that the set { A, B} has multiplicative
350 effect.
351 If   0 , then g ( A B)  g ( A)  g ( B) , which suggests that the set { A, B} has replace effect.
352 If 𝑋 is a finite set, then ∪𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖 = 𝑋. The  -fuzzy measure 𝑔 satisfies following Eq.(13).
1
(∏𝑛 [1 − 𝜆𝑔(𝑥𝑖 )] − 1) if 𝜆 ≠ 0
353 𝑔(𝑋) = {𝜆 𝑛 𝑖=1 (13)
∑𝑖=1 𝑔(𝑥𝑖 ) if 𝜆 = 0
354 Where xi xj   for all i, j  1, 2,..., n and i  j . It can be noted that g ( xi ) for a subset with a
355 single element xi is called a fuzzy density, and can be denoted as gi  g ( xi ) .
356 Especially for every subset A  P ( X ) , we have
1
(∏ [1 − 𝜆𝑔𝑖 ] − 1) if 𝜆 ≠ 0
357 𝑔(𝐴) = {𝜆 𝑖∈𝐴 (14)
∑𝑖∈𝐴 𝑔𝑖 if 𝜆 = 0
358 Based on Eq.(14), the value of  can be uniquely determined from g ( X )  1 , which is equal
359 to solving the following Eq.(15).
360 𝜆 + 1 = ∏𝑛𝑖=1(1 + 𝜆𝑔𝑖 ) (15)
361 Definition 9.[64]. Suppose a real number set𝐴 = {𝑎(1) , … , 𝑎(𝑡) }, if g is the  -fuzzy
362 measure which is associated with𝐴,𝑎(𝑖) ∈ 𝐴, then
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑎(𝑖) 𝑔(𝑖) ∏𝑛𝑗=𝑖+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑖) ] 𝜆 ≠ 0

363 𝐶𝐼𝑔 (𝑎(1) , . . . , 𝑎(𝑡) ) = { 𝑛 (16)
∑𝑖=1 𝑎(𝑖) 𝑔(𝑖) 𝜆=0
364 Where, ()
is indicates a permutation on (𝑎1 , … , 𝑎𝑡 ) such that 𝑎(1) ≤ ⋯ ≤ 𝑎(𝑡) .
365 3.2 Procedure of the proposed approach
366 The flow chart of the suggested method is shown in Figure 1.
Phase I- PLTS-EV from experts

Establishing
PLTS
decision Data normalization by Eq.(18) PLTS-EV matrix of
matrices Actual quantitative data and Table 3 alternative DESS plan
Phase II-
determining Eq. (11)
the fuzzy
densities of The PLTS-importance The fuzzy densities of
sub-criteria degrees of sub-criteria sub-criteria
and criteria
Eq. (8) Eq. (11)
The PLTS-importance degrees The corrected PLTS- The corrected fuzzy densities
of criteria and attributes importance degrees of criteria of criteria
Phase III--
aggregating The fuzzy densities of
the PLTS-EVs sub-criteria
on the sub- PLTS-TOPSIS
criteria by the model and RC
Choquet
PLTS-TOPSIS Eq.(20),Eq.(21)
integral The relative closeness of
model and PLTS-EV matrix of , Eq.(22) and
Choquet Eq.(23) alternatives on the criteria
alternative DESS plan
integral
Phase IV-
selecting the
best alternative RC
based on the
VIKOR model The relative closeness of
alternatives on the criteria
S,R and Q
The group utility measure The optimal
VIKOR Eq.(24), The individual regret decision condition
Eq.(25)
model measure by VIKOR principle
and
Eq.(26) The compromise measure (step 4 in Phase IV)
The corrected fuzzy densities
of criteria
367
368 Figure 1 The flowchart of the proposed approach
369 3.2.1 Phase I-Establishing PLTS-EV decision matrix
370 Assuming there are m alternatives and n sub-criteria associated with a given criterion, the
371 specific steps of Phase I are as follows:
372 The first step is to change the EV into the PLTS-EV. The EV of alternate DESS designs
373 can be converted to PLTS-EV using Eq. (17) and Table 2.

𝐸𝑉𝑖𝑗 −𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐸𝑉𝑖
, 𝑖 ∈ Ω𝑏
374 𝐶𝐿𝑖𝑗 = { 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝐸𝑉 (17)
𝑖 −𝐸𝑉𝑖𝑗
, 𝑖 ∈ Ω𝑐
375 Where EVi max and EVi min are the maximum and minimum EV on the i-th sub-criterion，
376 EVij is the EV of the j-th alternative plan on the i-th sub-criterion, b and  c are the positive
377 and negative plan decision criteria set respectively.
378 Table 2 value ranges, linguistic terms and symbols
Value Ranges [0,0.11] (0.11,0.22] (0.22,0.33] (0.33,0.44] (0.44,0.55]
Linguistic Terms
Lousy Very Bad Bad A Little Bad Medium
for evaluation
Linguistic Terms
for index Very A Little

Nothing Unimportant Medium
importance Unimportant Unimportant
Comparison
Symbol 𝑠0 𝑠1 𝑠2 𝑠3 𝑠4
Value Ranges (0.55,0.66] (0.66,0.77] (0.77,0.88] (0.88,1]
Linguistic Terms A Little

Good Very Good Perfect
for evaluation Good
Linguistic Terms
for index A Little Very Most

Important
importance Important Important Important
Comparison
Symbols 𝑠5 𝑠6 𝑠7 𝑠8
379 Step 2. Obtaining the probabilistic linguistic term set evaluation values of alternatives on
380 the qualitative sub-criteria. In the light of the Table 2, the expert assigns the probabilistic
381 linguistic term set evaluation value (PLTS-EV) to delegate his/her idea for the alternative DESS
382 project plan.
383 If the PLTS-EV is on the negative sub-criteria, then the linguistic term in the PLTS-EV
384 should be converted to the complementary term by Eq.(18).
385 𝑛𝑒𝑔(𝑠𝛼 ) = 𝑠𝛽 , 𝛽 = 2𝜏 + 1 − 𝛼, {𝑆𝛼 |𝛼 = 1, … ,2𝜏} (18)
386 Step 3. Obtaining the probabilistic linguistic term set evaluation value matrix of
387 alternative DESS project plans. Gather the PLTS-EVs obtained in in step 1 and step 2
388 together to build the PLTS-EV matrix of alternative DESS project plans.
𝐿11 (𝑝) ⋯ 𝐿1𝑛 (𝑝)

389 𝑅 = [𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝)] =[ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ] (19)
𝑚×𝑛
𝐿𝑚1 (𝑝) ⋯ 𝐿𝑚𝑛 (𝑝)
(𝑙) (𝑙)
390 Where 𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝) = {𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝑝𝑖𝑗 )|𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚; 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛}.
391 3.2.2 Phase II-determining the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria and criteria
392 Suppose there are k criteria and n sub-criteria under a certain criterion, the concrete steps
393 of this Phase II are as bellow:
394 Step 1. Also according to the Table 2, the experts assign the PLTS importance degree to
395 reflect their presumption of importance of sub-criteria according to the actual situations of the
396 alternative DESS project plan and the importance of criteria and attributes are determined by
397 the same way.
398 Step 2. Determining the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria. We assume that the fuzzy densities
399 of sub-criteria are equal to the concentration degrees of PLTS importance degree in this paper.
400 So according to the PLTS importance degree, the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria can be
401 calculated by Eq. (10). We marked the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria as 𝑔𝑗𝑠𝑢𝑏 , (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛).
402 Determining the fuzzy densities of criteria is the third step. This study adopts the criterion
403 level as the highest level of the decision index system aiming to demonstrate the pros and cons
404 of the alternative plans in greater detail through the VIKOR approach. Therefore, in order for
405 the fuzzy densities of the criteria to reflect those of the attribute to which the criteria belong.
406 The specific method is as follows: ①According to the PLTS importance degree of criteria and
407 attributes, the corrected PLTS importance degree of criterion is equal to the multiplication of
408 the PLTS importance degree of criterion and the PLTS importance degree of attributes by Eq.
409 (7); ②It is identical to the operation for calculating the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria; the fuzzy
410 densities of the criterion can be ascertain using Eq (10). We marked the corrected fuzzy
411 densities of criteria as 𝑔𝑗 , (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑘).
412 Step 4. Using the data gathered in Step 1 for fuzzy densities, the parameter of criteria and
413 sub-criteria can be determined using Eq. (16).
414 3.2.3 Phase III-aggregating the PLTS-EVs on the sub-criteria by the PLTS-TOPSIS model and
415 Choquet integral
416 The purpose of the phase IV is to aggregate the PLTS-EVs on the sub-criteria into the
417 evaluation values on the criteria by principle of TOPSIS model. Suppose there are n sub-criteria
418 under a certain criterion, k criteria and m alternatives Ai (i  1, 2,..., m) , the specific steps of this
419 Phase II are as bellow:
420 Step 1. For 𝑅 = [𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝)] , the probabilistic linguistic positive ideal solution (PLPIS)
𝑚×𝑛
421 𝐿𝑗+ (𝑝) and the probabilistic linguistic negative ideal solution (PLNIS) 𝐿𝑗− (𝑝) on the j-th sub-
422 criterion are equal to {𝑠8 (1)} and {𝑠0 (1)} respectively.
423 Step 2. Calculating the distance between each alternative and the PLPIS and PLNIS by
424 Eq.(19) and Eq.(20).
425 𝑑(𝐴𝑖 , 𝐿+ ) = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑑 (𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝), 𝐿𝑗+ (𝑝)) 𝑔(𝑗)

∏𝑗=𝑖+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ] (19)
426 𝑑(𝐴𝑖 , 𝐿− ) = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑑 (𝐿𝑖𝑗 (𝑝), 𝐿𝑗− (𝑝)) 𝑔(𝑗)

∏𝑗=𝑖+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ] (20)
𝑠𝑢𝑏
427 Where 𝑔(𝑗) is the fuzzy density of the j-th sub-criterion.
428 Step 3. Calculating the relative closeness of the alternative under a certain criterion. The
429 relative closeness which can be calculated by Eq.(21) is considered as the evaluation value of
430 the alternative under a certain criterion.
𝑖 𝑑(𝐴 ,𝐿− )
431 𝑟𝑐𝑖 = 𝑑(𝐴 ,𝐿− )+𝑑(𝐴 (21)
𝑖 ,𝐿+ ) 𝑖
432 Where 𝑟𝑐𝑖 is the relative closeness of the i-th alternative under a certain criterion.
433 Step 4. Establishing the relative closeness matrix of alternatives. After calculating the
434 relative closeness of the alternative on all criteria, the relative closeness matrix of alternatives
435 can be constructed by Eq.(22).
𝑟𝑐11 ⋯ 𝑟𝑐1𝑘
436 𝑅𝐶 = [𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑗 ] =[ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ] (22)
𝑚×𝑘
𝑟𝑐𝑚1 ⋯ 𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑘
437
438 3.2.4 Phase IV-selecting the best alternative based on the VIKOR model
439 Suppose there are m alternatives Ai (i  1, 2,..., m) and k criteria, the specific steps of this
440 Phase IV are as follows:
441 Step 1. The positive ideal solution (PIS) of alternatives is obtained as 𝑅𝐶 + =
442 {𝑟𝑐1+ , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑗+ , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑘+ } and the negative ideal solution (NIS) of alternatives is obtained as
443 𝑅𝐶 − = {𝑟𝑐1− , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑗− , … , 𝑟𝑐𝑘− }, where 𝑟𝑐𝑗+ is the maximum value of 𝑟𝑐 on the j-th criterion
444 and 𝑟𝑐𝑗− is the minimum value of 𝑟𝑐 on the j-th criterion.
445 Step 2. Compute the group utility measure S i , the individual regret measure Ri and the
446 compromise measure Qi of the i-th alternative by the following equations：
𝑑(𝑟𝑐 ,𝑟𝑐 + )
447
𝑆𝑖 = ( 𝑑(𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑗+,𝑟𝑐 𝑗−) × 𝑔(𝑗) ∏𝑘𝑗=𝑗+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ]) (23)
𝑗 𝑗
𝑑(𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑗 ,𝑟𝑐𝑗+ )
448
𝑅𝑖 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( 𝑑(𝑟𝑐 +,𝑟𝑐 −) × 𝑔(𝑗) ∏𝑘𝑗=𝑗+1[1 + 𝜆𝑔(𝑗) ]) (24)
𝑗 𝑗
𝑆 −𝑆 − 𝑅 −𝑅−
449 𝑄𝑖 = 𝜂 𝑆 +𝑖 −𝑆− + (1 − 𝜂) 𝑅+𝑖 −𝑅− (25)

450 where S  max{Si } , S   min{Si } , R   max{Ri } , R   min{Ri } ,  is a weight for the strategy
i i i i
451 of maximum group utility, where it is supposed that   0.5 ; d () is the Euclidean distance.
452 𝑔(𝑗) is the fuzzy density of the j-th criterion.
453 Step 3. Sort the alternatives according to the values of S, R, and Q.
454 Step 4. Propose as a compromise solution the alternative ( A(1) ) that is ranked highest by
455 the measure Q (minimum) if the two requirements below are met:
456 C1. The alternative ( A(1) ) offers a sufficient benefit, which means Q( A(2) )  Q( A(1) )  DQ
457 where DQ  1/ (m  1) .
458 C2. The alternative ( A(1) ) has acceptable stability, thus it also has the highest score on S
459 or/and R .
460 If one of the prerequisites is not satisfied, then the following compromise Alternatives are
461 proposed:
462  Alternatives A(1) and A( m ) if only the condition C2 is not satisfied
463  Alternatives A(1) , A(2) , ... , A( m ) if the condition C1 is not satisfied, where A( m ) is determined
464 by the relation Q( A( m ) )  Q( A(1) )  DQ for the maximum M (the positions of these alternatives are
465 “in closeness”).

466 4. A case study
Substation 1
Substation 2
Substation 3
Substation 4
Substation 5
467
468 Figure 2 the location of DESS

469 A corporation wishing to construct a DESS in the planned substations in a city in Henan
470 Province, the location of DESS is shown in Figure 2. The energy corporation gathered five
471 relevant specialists to analyze the three blueprints created by the three distinct design institutes.
472 The alternatives were named Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
473 Alternative 1 has used the most recent energy storage technology and design idea due to
474 the evolved nature of energy storage technology. Alternative 2's energy storage technology and
475 design idea are between those of alternatives 1 and 3, whereas alternative 3's energy storage
476 technology and design concept are more developed.
477 The decision criterion C23 is a quantitative criterion calculated by the investment
478 department. Table 3 show the evaluation value, then convert it into PLTS by Eq. (17) and Table
479 2. The result is shown in Table 4. In addition to decision criterion C23, according to their own
480 experience, experts gave the PLTS-EV of each alternative DESS project plan on each criterion
481 , the specific linguistic terms and their symbols can be seen in Table 2, so the PLTS-EV decision
482 matrix of DESS project plans is shown in Table 4.
483 After determining the comprehensive decision matrix, according to the Table 2, the
484 experts determined the PLTS importance degree of the sub-criteria, criteria and decision
485 attributes. According to the step 2 of phase-II, the fuzzy densities of sub-criteria can be
486 calculated by Eq.(10), the PLTS importance and fuzzy densities of sub-criteria can be seen in
487 Table 5 and Table 6. According to the Step 3 of Phase-II, the corrected PLTS importance and
488 fuzzy densities of criteria can be calculated, which also can be seen in Table 5 and Table 6.
489 After fuzzy densities of sub-criteria and criteria and PLTS-EVs of alternatives are
490 calculated, Phase III can determine the alternative's proximity to the criteria, as shown in Table
491 7. On the basis of the above relative closeness, the group utility measure, the individual regret
492 measure, and the compromise measure can be calculated using Equations (23), (24), and (25),
493 respectively, where   0.5 , with the results shown in Table 8.
494 On the basis of the group utility measure, Alternative 2 > Alternative 1 > Alternative 3.
495 Alternative 2 has an overall advantage over the other alternatives; according to the individual
496 regret measure, alternative 1 has an obvious disadvantage in C23 criterion, alternative 2 has an
497 obvious disadvantage in C31 criterion, and alternative 3 has an obvious disadvantage in C32
498 criterion. Among the three alternatives, alternative 3 has the smallest disadvantage, then
499 alternative 2 and alternative 1, so the ranking is Alternative 3> Alternative 2> Alternative 1;
500 based on the compromise measure, the final ranking is Alternative 2>Alternative 3>Alternative
501 1. Due to the fact that DQ equals 0.5, the compromise measure of alternative 3 minus the
502 compromise measure of alternative 2 is 0.46, so the condition C1 is not met. Nevertheless, the
503 compromise measure of alternative 1 minus the compromise measure of alternative 2 is 0.94,
504 so according to the judgment rules of VIKOR in Step 4 of section 4.2.4, alternative 2 is the
505 best.
506 The reason for the above results is that the alternative 1 adopts the latest technology and
507 new design concept, which has good performance in environmental sustainability, high return
508 on investment and high social value. However, due to its high investment cost and long payback
509 period, it has poor performance in financial sustainability. At the same time, the public and the
510 government always maintain a vigilant attitude towards emerging things, The above problems
511 lead to higher project risks and difficulties in the design of business model, so it ranks second
512 in the overall effectiveness. The biggest risk is the lack of financial sustainability.
513 The alternative 3 adopts the most mature technology and design concept, so it has enough
514 advantages in rationality of business model design and risk factors, and has relative advantages
515 in financial sustainability. However, it has poor performance in environmental sustainability
516 and social sustainability because of the defects of old technology, At the same time, the public
517 is also very clear about the defects of the old technology, so it ranks third in the overall utility,
518 and the biggest risk is the lack of sustainability of support.
519 the alternative 2's energy storage technology and design concept are between the
520 alternative 1 and the alternative 3. Therefore, it ranks second in environmental sustainability,
521 rationality of business model design and risk factors, but it has better financial sustainability.
522 Meanwhile, the technology and design concept without rashness are supported by the public
523 and the government, so it ranks first in the overall utility. The biggest risk comes from the lack
524 of sustainability of social value.
525 Table 3 The quantitative data
unit Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
(SC231) Ten thousand 10235 8346 7943
(SC232) % 0.34 0.29 0.28
(SC233) year 10 8 7
526
527 Table 4 PLTS-EV of alternative on the sub-criteria
(SC111) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)}
(SC112) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠3 (0.8),𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC113) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} {𝑠5 (0.4),𝑠6 (0.6)}
(SC121) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠5 (0.6),𝑠6 (0.4)}
(SC122) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠7 (0.8),𝑠8 (0.2)} {𝑠5 (0.6),𝑠6 (0.4)}
(SC123) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠5 (0.8),𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC124) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)}
(SC211) {𝑠2 (0.8),𝑠3 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC212) {𝑠2 (0.2),𝑠3 (0.6),𝑠4 (0.2)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.4)}
(SC213) {𝑠3 (0.8),𝑠4 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC221) {𝑠3 (0.2),𝑠4 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)} {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC222) {𝑠3 (0.2),𝑠4 (0.8)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.2)} {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC231) {𝑠0 (1)} {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠8 (1)}
(SC232) {𝑠8 (1)} {𝑠3 (1)} {𝑠0 (1)}
(SC233) {𝑠0 (1)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠8 (1)}
(SC311) {𝑠7 (1)} {𝑠5 (1)} {𝑠5 (1)}
(SC312) {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.6)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (1)}
(SC313) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)}
(SC314) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.2)}
(SC321) {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)}
(SC322) {𝑠6 (1)} {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.6)} {𝑠6 (0.8),𝑠7 (0.2)}
528
529 Table 5 PLTS importance of attributes, criteria and sub-criteria
Attributes Criteria Sub-criteria
(A1) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)} (C11) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)} (SC111) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)}
(SC112) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC113) {𝑠8 (1)}
(C12) {𝑠5 (0.4),𝑠6 (0.6)} (SC121) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC122) {𝑠6 (0.4),𝑠7 (0.6)}
(SC123) {𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.4)}
(SC124) {𝑠4 (0.8),𝑠5 (0.2)}
(A2) {𝑠7 (0.4),𝑠8 (0.6)} (C21) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.8)} (SC211) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.6)}
(SC212) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠6 (0.8)}
(SC213) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.8)}
(C22) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.6), (SC221) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC222) {𝑠3 (0.2),𝑠4 (0.6),𝑠5 (0.2)}
(C23) {𝑠8 (1)} (SC231) {𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.4)}
(SC232) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.2)}
(SC233) {𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.4)}
(A3) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.6), (C31) (SC311) {𝑠6 (0.2),𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.2)}
{𝑠7 (0.6),𝑠8 (0.4)}
𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC312) {𝑠5 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC313) {𝑠7 (0.2),𝑠8 (0.8)}
(SC314) {𝑠3 (0.4),𝑠6 (0.6)}
(C32) {𝑠4 (0.4),𝑠5 (0.6)} (SC321) {𝑠4 (0.2),𝑠5 (0.6),𝑠6 (0.2)}
(SC322) {𝑠6 (0.6),𝑠7 (0.4)}
530
531 Table 6 fuzzy densities of criteria and sub-criteria
Criteria The corrected PLTS fuzzy Sub-criteria fuzzy
importance densities densities
(C11) {𝑠9.47 (0.8), 𝑠2.86 (SC111)

0.49 0.87
(0.2)}
(SC112) 0.92
(SC113) 1
(C12) {𝑠5.86 (0.6), 𝑠2.81 (SC121)

0.41 0.92
(0.2), 𝑠2.76 (0.2)}
(SC122) 0.75
(SC123) 0.73
(SC124) 0.49
(C21) {𝑠6.7 (0.6), 𝑠2.95 (SC211)

0.41 0.69
(0.2), 𝑠2.91 (0.2)}
(SC212) 0.68
(SC213) 0.56
(C22) {6.11(0.6),2.91(0.2),2.8 (SC221)

0.41 0.83
(0.2)}
(SC222) 0.46
（C23） {6.96(0.6),4.48(0.4)} 0.57

(SC231)
0.84
(SC232) 0.81
(SC233) 0.73
(C31) {5.84(0.6),2.95(0.2),2. (SC311)

0.42 0.81
84(0.2)}
(SC312) 0.75
(SC313) 0.92
(SC314) 0.43
(C32) {5.25(0.6),2.75(0.2),2. 0.40 (SC321)

0.58
64(0.2)}
(SC322) 0.73
532
533 Table 7 RC of the alternatives
(C11) 0.95 0.76 0.56
(C12) 0.93 0.80 0.67
(C21) 0.34 0.82 0.93
(C22) 0.49 0.76 0.93
（C23） 0.46 0.61 0.54
(C31) 0.86 0.68 0.68
(C32) 0.75 0.93 0.75
534
535 Table 8 S，R and Q of alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 rankings
S 0.92 0.66 0.93 2, 1, 3
0.57 0.41 0.40

R 3, 2, 1
C23 C31 C32
Q 0.98 0.04 0.50 2, 3, 1
536
537 5. Discussion
538 5.1 Comparative analysis
539 In this paper, the advantages of the framework are as follows: ①Take PLTS as the
540 expression of decision information to strike a balance the expression convenience of decision
541 preference and the ability to handle uncertainty. ② Take the fuzzy measure and Choquet
542 integral to solve problem of independence assumption of criteria. ③ Considering both the
543 global utility and the local disadvantages simultaneously. In this section, we conduct a
544 comparative analysis to illustrate these developments. There are six scenarios showed in Table
545 9. In the scenarios, the VIKOR method is replaced with the weighted average method, which
546 is currently the most popular decision-making technique; the PLTS is replaced with a real
547 number; and the fuzzy measure is replaced with a weight, the comparative analysis is shown
548 in Figure 3.
549 Comparing scenario 1 with the outcome of the case, scenario 2 with scenario 6, scenario
550 3 with scenario 5, and replacing PLTS with real numbers, which only results in fluctuating
551 values and does not alter the order of alternatives, demonstrates that uncertainty will have a
552 disorderly effect on the decision-making outcomes.
553 Clearly, when the VIKOR method is replaced with the weighted average method, the score
554 and ranking of alternatives will change, and the drawbacks of the DESS project plan cannot be
555 reflected in the final result.
556 Compare scenario 3 with the case's result, scenario 1 with scenario 5, and scenario 2 with
557 scenario 4. When the weight is used to replace the fuzzy measure, it also causes numerical
558 fluctuation, but does not alter the order of alternatives; this demonstrates that correlation
559 between criteria will influence the decision-making results disorderly.

560 In conclusion, the proposed decision model in this paper can effectively strike a balance
561 between the expression convenience of decision preference and the ability to deal with
562 uncertainty, can avoid the decision-making errors caused by the assumption of independence
563 that cannot be satisfied, and considers the overall effectiveness and local disadvantages to
564 ensure the rationality of selection of the DESS project plan.
565 Table 9 Scenario series of considering different scenarios
PLTS VIKOR Choquet

Scenario 1 〇〇
Scenario 2 〇〇
Scenario 3 〇〇
Scenario 4 〇
Scenario 5 〇
Scenario 6 〇
Comparative analysis
Calculation results main points of data processing
Scenario 1
Replacing PLTS with
real numbers

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

with weight
Scenario 4
Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3 Replacing VIKOR with

The Comprehensive Score of Alternative S1: 0.66 with weight
Scenario 5
Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3 Replacing PLTS

with real numbers
Replacing fuzzy
measure with weight
Scenario 6
Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3 Replacing PLTS with

real numbers
The Comprehensive Score of Alternative S1: 0.87 weighted average method
Notes
Red means first Green means second. Yellow means third.

566
567 Figure. 3 Result of comparative analysis
568 5.2 Sensitivity analysis

569 The specialists conducted sensitivity analysis to determine the robustness of the decision
570 outcome. The first method, it increase the fuzzy densities by 30 percent and decrease them by
571 30 percent, while observing the ranking's response to the change in fuzzy densities. When the
572 fuzzy density of a single standard increases or decreases, we always ensure that the total fuzzy
573 density does not change. For example, in the case study, the fuzzy density of C11 decreases by
574 30% to 0.34, the additional 30% is 0.147, and the weights of the other criteria must be increased
575 by 0.0244 (0.147/6). Figure 4 depicts the sensitivity analysis results. We can conclude from
576 these numbers that the decision result is robust.
577
578 Figure. 4 The result of sensitivity analysis
579 The second method involves modifying the proportion of the individual regret measure
580 and the group utility measure by adjusting the coefficient 𝜂 in Eq. (29). This paper sets 𝜂
581 =(0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1) respectively; then, based on the compromise measures

582 calculated by at various values, Figure 3 depicts the corresponding radar map. Figure 5
583 demonstrates that as 𝜂 increases, gradually, the proportion of group utility measure increases;
584 when 𝜂 = 0, alternative 3 is optimal, and when 0 < 𝜂 ≤ 1, alternative 2 is optimal. In
585 conclusion, the optimal outcome is relatively stable. Alternative 2 is a better alternative.
586
587
588 Figure. 5 The compromise measures calculated by 𝛈 at different values
589 6. Conclusion
590 The DESS is a good choice to solve the power coordination and optimization difficulty of
591 renewable energy, but due to its high operation cost and lower profit margin, the investment of
592 DESS is getting cold. Now, the research on project investment decision is more concerned with
593 how to maximize profits, such as financial analysis[65-67] project quality and operation and
594 maintenance cost [12] and economic impact[15]. DESS investment is more about social
595 responsibility and environmental benefits. Meanwhile, with the development of battery
596 technology, it will have greater economic value in the future. Therefore, the investment
597 decision-making of DESS should be analyzed from the perspective of sustainability.
598 The problems encountered in the analysis of DESS investment decision-making from the
599 perspective of sustainability are as follows: ①The DESS decision index system is lacking from
600 the sustainability perspective; ②Common decision models find it challenging to deal with the
601 uncertainty of qualitative data effectively; ③It is challenging for the prevalent decision-making
602 model to effectively account for the correlation between criteria; ④It is difficult to use the
603 common decision model strike a balance between overall utility and local disadvantage.
604 For the sake of address aforementioned issues, firstly, this paper develops the decision
605 index system of the DESS project plan from the perspective of sustainability. Secondly, the
606 DESS project plan decision model is established based on the principle of PLTS, fuzzy measure
607 and the fundamental principle of the VIKOR method. The characteristics of the proposed
608 decision model are as follows: ①it can effectively handle uncertainty and makes experts
609 express their preferences easily by PLTS; ②the decision model is more in line with reality,
610 because the fuzzy measure is used in place of weight to avoid the assumption of independence
611 between criteria; ③ the decision model can ensure simultaneous consideration of the overall
612 utility and local disadvantage of alternative DESS project plans by the fundamental principle
613 of the VIKOR method. The above characteristics are verified by the comparative analysis in
614 Section 5.1.
615 Through sensitivity analysis, when increasing the fuzzy densities by 30 percent and
616 decrease them by 30 percent. In different sensitivity analysis scenarios, the value of the
617 compromise measure of the alternatives has changed, but the ranking has not changed, the
618 decision result is robust. When modifying the proportion of the individual regret measure and
619 the group utility measure by adjusting the coefficient 𝜂, when 𝜂 = 0, alternative 3 is optimal,
620 and when 0 < 𝜂 ≤ 1, alternative 2 is optimal. Therefore, in general, the decision model in this
621 paper can provide decision results with better robustness.
622 All of the aforementioned information shows that the energy company can select the
623 optimal DESS project plan by the proposed DESS project plan decision framework. However,
624 the correlations between social, business, and environmental sustainability are challenging to
625 quantify in this paper. Hence, in future research, we will use the intelligence of the Decision-
626 Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) to investigate these correlations so as to
627 make the DESS plan's decision-making results more reasonable.
628 Appendix A
629 Definition A1[68].. Let X = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) be a finite universe of discourse, and P(X)
630 be its power set. A fuzzy measure for X is the set function m:P(X) → [0,1] that satisfies the
631 following conditions:
632  𝑚(𝜙) = 0, 𝑚(𝑋) = 1 (boundary conditions)
633  If 𝐴, 𝐵 ∈ 𝑃(𝑋) and𝐴 ⊆ 𝐵 then𝑚(𝐴) ≤ 𝑚(𝐵) (monotonicity)
634 Definition A2[69]. X = (x1 , x2 , ⋯ , xn ) is the non-empty classical set, let f be a positive
635 real-valued function on X, f: X → R+ and μ be a fuzzy measure on X. The (discrete) Choquet
636 integral of f with respective to μ is defined by
637 Cμ (f) = ∑ni=1 f(i) [μ(A(i) ) − μ(A(i+1) )]
638 Where (•) indicates a permutation on X such that f(x(1) ) ≤ f(x(2) ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ f(x(n) ). Also
639 A(i) = {x(1) , x(2) , ⋯ , x(n) }, A(n+1) = ϕ.
640 Appendix B
641 Table B2 The generally used internal representations of decision information
handle convenience
uncertainty
term predefined linguistic term set S={s_a |a=0,1,…,g} whose granularity
is defined as g+1, s_a is a component of this linguistic term set and
indicates a linguistic term center of the decision information. μ
represents the value of symbolic translation, which indicates the
deviation of an aggregation result φ from the closest linguistic label

a=round(φ), The value range of μ is [−0.5,0.5).
𝐿(𝑝)
|𝐿(𝑝)|

term set and it comprises of a linguistic term and its probability. The
term 𝐿(𝑝) denotes the number of elements in the probabilistic
form: 𝐷 = {〈𝑥, 𝜇𝐷 (𝑥), 𝜐𝐷 (𝑥)〉|𝑥 ∈ 𝑋}.

𝜐𝐷 (𝑥) ≤ 1.

(  U ( x)) 2  (vU ( x)) 2  1 .
642
643 Acknowledgement
644 2022 Soft Science Research Project of Science and Technology Department of Henan
645 Province,project number:222400410377
646 References
647 [1] Commission E. Energy roadmap 2050: Energy roadmap 2050 /; 2012.
648 [2] National Development and Reform Commission NEA. Revolutionary strategy of energy production
649 and consumption（2016—2030）. 2016-12-29.
650 [3] Xiaoxin Z. Development trend of China's new generation power system technology in energy
651 transformation. Electric Age. 2018;01:30-2.
652 [4] Liu Z, Zhang Z, Zhuo R, Wang X. Optimal operation of independent regional power grid with multiple
653 wind-solar-hydro-battery power. Applied Energy. 2019;235:1541-50.
654 [5] Prieto C, Cabeza LF. Thermal energy storage (TES) with phase change materials (PCM) in solar
655 power plants (CSP). Concept and plant performance. Applied Energy. 2019;254.
656 [6] Wojcik JD, Wang J. Feasibility study of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant integration
657 with Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage (ACAES). Applied Energy. 2018;221:477-89.
658 [7] Zhiyong S, Caixia W, Wei Y, Xuejiao L, Ziqian L, Xiaoning Y. Research on price mechanism of
659 electrical energy storage power station for power grid2019.
660 [8] Barsali S, Ciambellotti A, Giglioli R, Paganucci F, Pasini G. Hybrid power plant for energy storage
661 and peak shaving by liquefied oxygen and natural gas. Applied Energy. 2018;228:33-41.
662 [9] Besant AG, Hamidi V. Technical challenges in co-location of battery storage and generation plants.
663 Journal of Engineering-Joe. 2019:5090-3.

664 [10] Mongird K, Viswanathan V, Balducci P, Alam J, Fotedar V, Koritarov V, et al. An Evaluation of
665 Energy Storage Cost and Performance Characteristics. Energies. 2020;13.
666 [11] Hartmann B, Divenyi D, Vokony I. Evaluation of business possibilities of energy storage at
667 commercial and industrial consumers - A case study. Applied Energy. 2018;222:59-66.
668 [12] Ochoa CE, Aries MBC, van Loenen EJ, Hensen JLM. Considerations on design optimization criteria
669 for windows providing low energy consumption and high visual comfort. Applied Energy. 2012;95:238-
670 45.
671 [13] Zhou G-Y, Wu E, Tu S-T. Optimum selection of compact heat exchangers using non-structural
672 fuzzy decision method. Applied Energy. 2014;113:1801-9.
673 [14] Walker S, Labeodan T, Boxem G, Maassen W, Zeiler W. An assessment methodology of
674 sustainable energy transition scenarios for realizing energy neutral neighborhoods. Applied Energy.
675 2018;228:2346-60.
676 [15] Wang R, Hsu S-C, Zheng S, Chen J-H, Li XI. Renewable energy microgrids: Economic evaluation
677 and decision making for government policies to contribute to affordable and clean energy. Applied
678 Energy. 2020;274.
679 [16] Zare Z, Yeganeh M, Dehghan N. Environmental and social sustainability automated evaluation of
680 plazas based on 3D visibility measurements. Energy Reports. 2022;8:6280-300.
681 [17] Xue B, Liu BS, Liang T, Zhao D, Wang T, Chen XB. A heterogeneous decision criteria system
682 evaluating sustainable infrastructure development: From the lens of multidisciplinary stakeholder
683 engagement. Sustainable Development. 2022;30:556-79.
684 [18] Atanassov KT. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and Systems. 1986;20:87-96.
685 [19] Peng X, Yang Y. Fundamental properties of interval ‐ valued Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation
686 operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2016;31:444-87.
687 [20] Geng S, Zou R, Zhang SB, Guo DY. Research on site combination optimization framework of
688 distributed photovoltaic power station from dual perspectives. Energy Reports. 2022;8:4401-15.
689 [21] Yin CF, Ji F, Wang LN, Fan ZC, Geng S. Site selection framework of rail transit photovoltaic power
690 station under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Energy Reports. 2022;8:3156-65.
691 [22] Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E. Consistency-Driven Automatic Methodology to Set Interval Numerical
692 Scales of 2-Tuple Linguistic Term Sets and Its Use in the Linguistic GDM With Preference Relation.
693 Ieee Transactions on Cybernetics. 2015;45:780-92.
694 [23] Yi ZH. Decision-making based on probabilistic linguistic term sets without loss of information.
695 Complex & Intelligent Systems. 2022;8:2435-49.
696 [24] Lin MW, Chen ZY, Xu ZS, Gou XJ, Herrera F. Score function based on concentration degree for
697 probabilistic linguistic term sets: An application to TOPSIS and VIKOR. Information Sciences.
698 2021;551:270-90.
699 [25] Ghenai C, Albawab M, Bettayeb M. Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using
700 multi-criteria decision-making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renewable Energy.
701 2020;146:580-97.
702 [26] Phillis A, Grigoroudis E, Kouikoglou VS. Assessing national energy sustainability using multiple
703 criteria decision analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology.
704 2021;28:18-35.
705 [27] Ren JZ, Ren XS. Sustainability ranking of energy storage technologies under uncertainties. Journal
706 of Cleaner Production. 2018;170:1387-98.

707 [28] Mohammad MMS, Abdullah S, Al-Shomrani MM. Some Linear Diophantine Fuzzy Similarity
708 Measures and Their Application in Decision Making Problem. Ieee Access. 2022;10:29859-77.
709 [29] Ganie AH. Some t-conorm-based distance measures and knowledge measures for Pythagorean
710 fuzzy sets with their application in decision-making. Complex & Intelligent Systems.
711 [30] Ohlan A. Novel entropy and distance measures for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets with
712 application in multi-criteria group decision-making. International Journal of General Systems.
713 2022;51:413-40.
714 [31] He Y, Jung H. A Voting TOPSIS Approach for Determining the Priorities of Areas Damaged in
715 Disasters. Sustainability. 2018;10.
716 [32] Dehdasht G, Zin RM, Ferwati MS, Abdullahi MaM, Keyvanfar A, McCaffer R. DEMATEL-ANP Risk
717 Assessment in Oil and Gas Construction Projects. Sustainability. 2017;9.
718 [33] Park Y, Lee S-W, Lee J. Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and AHP in Multicriteria Inventory Classification
719 While Planning Green Infrastructure for Resilient Stream Ecosystems. Sustainability. 2020;12.
720 [34] Kim JH, Ahn BS. The Hierarchical VIKOR Method with Incomplete Information: Supplier Selection
721 Problem. Sustainability. 2020;12.
722 [35] Zhou H, Yang Y, Chen Y, Zhu J. Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins,
723 development and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research. 2018;264:1-16.
724 [36] Yaohong X, Jian Z, Yanhui Z. Analysis on the Environmental Problems of All Vanadium Redox
725 Flow Energy Storage Power Station. Jilin Electric Power. 2016.
726 [37] LI Jianlin, TAN Yuliang, WANG Han. Design criteria of energy storage power plants and typical
727 case studies. Modern Electric Power. 2020;37:331-40.

728 [38] Li J, Zhu X, Yan G, Mu G, Luo W. Design of Energy Storage Station Grouping Energy Management
729 Strategies to Balance Short-term Wind Power Fluctuations. In: Sun M, Zhang Y, editors. Renewable
730 Energy and Environmental Technology, Pts 1-62014. p. 2866-71.
731 [39] Sun H, Miao Y. Design and Analysis of a New-type Sand Energy Storage System for Wind Power
732 Stations. In: Mao E, Tian W, editors. Emerging Materials and Mechanics Applications2012. p. 825-9.
733 [40] Ma R, Zhao S, Wei X. Function design and experimental analysis of tenergy management system
734 of wind energy storage battery. Chinese Journal of Power Sources. 2017;41:1048-51.
735 [41] Zhang Z, Chen C, Wang Y. Designing and Charging Management Strategy Research of Lithium-
736 ion Battery Energy Storage System. Electric Power Science and Engineering. 2017;33:22-5.
737 [42] Arenas LF, de Leon CP, Walsh FC. Engineering aspects of the design, construction and
738 performance of modular redox flow batteries for energy storage. Journal of Energy Storage.
739 2017;11:119-53.
740 [43] Zhang Y, Liu N. Nanostructured Electrode Materials for High-Energy Rechargeable Li, Na and Zn
741 Batteriest. Chemistry of Materials. 2017;29:9589-+.
742 [44] Martens ML, Carvalho MM. The challenge of introducing sustainability into project management
743 function: multiple-case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;117:29-40.
744 [45] Xuan Y. Current situation and dilemma of photovoltaic poverty alleviation in township power supply
745 stations. Knowledge Economy. 2020:28-9+119.
746 [46] Assaad R, El-adaway IH. Enhancing the Knowledge of Construction Business Failure: A Social
747 Network Analysis Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2020;146.
748 [47] Idrissi K, Taouab O. Business Failure Factors based on a Financial Approach2019.
749 [48] Wang ZH, Li JX, Liu J, Shuai CM. Is the photovoltaic poverty alleviation project the best way for
750 the poor to escape poverty?-A DEA and GRA analysis of different projects in rural China. Energy Policy.
751 2020;137.
752 [49] Jin Q, Cui K, Zhang HB, Yan BK, Shu X, Destech Publicat INC. Economic Analysis of Photovoltaic
753 Generation Considering Electric Energy Replacement Benefit. 2018 3rd International Conference on
754 New Energy and Renewable Resources2018.
755 [50] Kumar A, Anbanandam R. Development of social sustainability index for freight transportation
756 system. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;210:77-92.
757 [51] Boldon L. Sustainability Efficiency Factor: Measuring Sustainability in Advanced Energy Systems
758 through Exergy, Exergoeconomic, Life-Cycle and Economic Analyses2015.
759 [52] Lopez Prola J, Steininger KW. The social profitability of photovoltaics in germany2017.
760 [53] Sherren K, Parkins JR, Owen T, Terashima M. Does noticing energy infrastructure influence public
761 support for energy development? Evidence from a national survey in Canada. Energy Research &
762 Social Science. 2019;51:176-86.
763 [54] Dassisti M, Cozzolino G, Chimienti M, Rizzuti A, Mastrorilli P, L'Abbate P. Sustainability of
764 vanadium redox-flow batteries: Benchmarking electrolyte synthesis procedures. International Journal
765 of Hydrogen Energy. 2016;41:16477-88.
766 [55] Larcher D, Tarascon JM. Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy
767 storage. Nature Chemistry. 2015;7:19-29.
768 [56] Gu Y, Zhang L, Wang Z, Zheng Y. Bi-level Planning Model for NIMBY Facility Location Problem.
769 In: Liu T, Zhao Q, editors. Proceedings of the 36th Chinese Control Conference2017. p. 7553-8.
770 [57] Sun C, Lyu N, Ouyang X. Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants
771 in the Neighborhood. Sustainability. 2014;6:7197-223.
772 [58] Li S, Abraham D, Cai H. Infrastructure financing with project bond and credit default swap under
773 public-private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management. 2017;35:406-19.
774 [59] Vecchi V, Hellowell M, della Croce R, Gatti S. Government policies to enhance access to credit for
775 infrastructure-based PPPs: an approach to classification and appraisal. Public Money & Management.
776 2017;37:133-40.
777 [60] Wang L, Zhang X. Determining the Value of Standby Letter of Credit in Transfer Stage of a PPP
778 Project to Control Concessionaire's Opportunistic Behavior. Journal of Management in Engineering.
779 2019;35.
780 [61] Lin Y, Johnson JX, Mathieu JL. Emissions impacts of using energy storage for power system
781 reserves. Applied Energy. 2016;168:444-56.
782 [62] Xu Z. A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic
783 preference relations. Information Sciences. 2004;166:19-30.
784 [63] Sugeno M. Fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals: a survey. Fuzzy automata and decision processes.
785 1977;78:89-102.
786 [64] Tan C, Wu DD, Ma B. Group decision making with linguistic preference relations with application
787 to supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011;38:14382-9.
788 [65] Guo JC, Zhang PW, Wu D, Liu ZJ, Liu X, Zhang SC, et al. Multi-objective optimization design and
789 multi-attribute decision-making method of a distributed energy system based on nearly zero-energy
790 community load forecasting. Energy. 2022;239.

791 [66] Lopez-Lorente J, Liu XA, Best RJ, Makrides G, Morrow DJ. Techno-Economic Assessment of Grid-
792 Level Battery Energy Storage Supporting Distributed Photovoltaic Power. Ieee Access. 2021;9:146256-
793 80.
794 [67] Zhou Y, Rehtanz C, Luo P, Liu JY, Chen HT, Lin G, et al. Joint corrective optimization based on
795 VSC-HVDC and distributed energy storage for power system security enhancement. International
796 Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2022;135.
797 [68] Grabisch M. Fuzzy integral in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy sets and systems. 1995;69:279-
798 98.
799 [69] Tan C, Chen X. Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for multi-criteria decision making.
800 Expert Systems with Applications. 2010;37:149-57.
801

EGYR D 22 02557 R2 Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

EGYR D 22 02557 R2 Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EGYR D 22 02557 R2 Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Reports

The Probabilistic Linguistic Decision Framework Of Distributed Energy Storage System

Manuscript Number: EGYR-D-22-02557R2

Article Type: Research Paper

Reviewer #1: Comments:

3. Please restructure the entire manuscript considering 5 main sections: Introduction,

probabilistic Suppose there is a linguistic term set 𝑆 = strong easy [24]

1 The Probabilistic Linguistic Decision Framework Of Distributed Energy Storage

2 System Project Plan Based On The Sustainability Perspective

4 renewable energy. Renewable energy power generation presents distributed characteristics,

7 aforementioned difficulty without environmental pollution and energy consumption, it has

9 investment is cold. Therefore, the investment decision-making of DESS must be considered

25 results have better robustness.

27 linguistic term set (PLTS); fuzzy measure; VIKOR model

43 of renewable energy conversion.

59 constructing a decision framework composed of decision index system and decision-making

60 model, according to the real DESS operational scenario.

61 1.1 A concise review of decision index system of DESS project plan

65 environment[13] , social impact[14] , economic impact[15] etc. Therefore, how to construct

68 1.2 A concise review of MCDM model of DESS project plan

70 weight setting method, and the data aggregation method.

71 1.2.1 the expression way of decision information

72 Sustainability evaluation is mostly from three aspects of environment, economy and

78 decision-making information, researchers frequently employ complex mathematical

82 it handles uncertain information.

90 evaluation criteria of each expert are different[21].

94 hesitance of experts in decision-making and subsequently reducing the uncertainty in decision-

102 aggregation of decision information.

103 1.2.2 the weight setting method

111 definition A1 in Appendix A. In fuzzy measures, the additivity property is substituted by

119 1.2.3 the data aggregation method

141 1.3 Motivations and innovations of the article

146 four aspects:

162 2.1 Environmental sustainability

168 for the rationality of the design [37-39].

179 pollutant leakage.

182 damage and waste battery treatment process.

207 model design, risk factors and financial sustainability

221 payback period.

222 2.3 Social sustainability

242 environmental protection cognition.

243 In terms of support, due to the public's aversion and misunderstanding of

255 support and the government support.

No. Attributes No. Criteria No. Sub-criteria Referenc

(A1 environment (C11 The rationality (SC111) The universality of [37-39]

) al ) of DESS design plan

(SC112) The rationality of [37-39]

(SC113) The rationality of [37-39]

(C12 The perfection (SC121) The storage battery [37, 40,

) of battery quality 41]

(SC123) The [37, 40,

(SC124) The rationality of [42, 43,

waste battery 61]

(A2 business (C21 Rationality of (SC211) Clarity in the [46, 47]

) model ) business division of

sustainability model design stakeholder

(SC212) The rationality of [46, 47]

(SC213) Rationality of [46, 47]

(C22 Risk factors (SC221) The ability to resist [48, 49]