Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/est

A risk assessment framework of seawater pumped hydro storage project in T

China under three typical public-private partnership management modes
Yunna Wua,b, Ting Zhanga,b, , Kaifeng Chenc, Liqi Yib
⁎

a
School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
b
Beijing Key Laboratory of New Energy and Low-Carbon Development, North China Electric Power University, Changping, Beijing 102206, China
c
State Grid Shanghai Municipal Electric Power Company-Shibei Power Supply Company, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Along with the rapid development of pumped hybrid storage in China, the shortage of inland resources has
Risk assessment become a serious problem that restricts its further development. Fortunately, seawater pumped hybrid storage
S-PHS project (S-PHS) processes the advantages in saving cost of lower reservoir construction and making full use of coastal
PPP mode resources, which has attracted great attention in China. In view of the characteristics of expanding sources of
Linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets
infrastructure investment funds and improving financial stability of both public and private sectors, varied
Cloud model
Risk response
public-private partnership (PPP) modes are introduced to promote the construction of S-PHS power plant.
However, due to lack of experience, high investment, long payback period, and so forth, S-PHS project still holds
great uncertain risks in the aspects of economy, environment, technology, etc. Therefore, this paper will study on
the risk assessment of S-PHS project under three typical PPP management modes by linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets
based cloud model. Result shows that the risk level of S-PHS project locates between “Middle High” and “High”,
and PPP-S-PHS processes relatively low risk degree, of which the BOT-S-PHS is the lowest. Moreover, corre­
sponding risk response measures for PPP-S-PHS project are proposed for helping risk prevention and further
smooth implementation of PPP-S-PHS project in China.

1. Introduction
For achieving the goal of self-generated power supply, providing
cost-effective alternative fueling and improving energy-related opera­
tional efficiencies, it is imperative to develop renewable energy. Due to
the indirect and uncertain characteristics of most renewable resources
like wind and solar, electrical energy storage (EES) is becoming in­
creasingly important in peak shaving and valley filling as well as stable
energy power providing [1–3], and is hailed globally as a changer in the
direction of reliable low-carbon management and green power grid [4].
Among numerical energy storage technologies, pumped hybrid storage
is the most mature and cycle efficient energy option with the lowest
annual operation and maintenance cost, which is particularly suitable
for promoting the integration of large-scale renewable energy in large
and medium-sized power system [5–7]. Besides, for remote country­
side, isolated islands and offshore area, pumping seawater from sea to
an artificial reservoir nearby as a kind of new PHS called seawater PHS
(S-PHS) is an interesting option for countries with long coast lines and
scarce freshwater resources [8]. After successfully constructing the first
S-PHS station in Okinawa japan [9], several countries have intended to
build ones for better realizing local energy sustainable development
such as Azores [10], Agulhas Bank [11] and Guadeloupe island [12],
etc. Comparing to inland PHS power plant, S-PHS cuts the construction
and maintenance cost of lower reservoir and makes full use of natural
resources [13,14]. To investigate China's building capacity, NEA (Na­
tional Energy Administration) has published an S-PHS resource census
of China in 2017 showing that total 238 potential S-PHS sites are
promising including 174 offshore sites and 64 island sites, with a total
installed capacity of 42.08 million kW [15]. Up to now, the utilization
of S-PHS has been widely debated and made much breakthrough on
integration with wind power [8,16,17], optimization application with
photovoltaic energy systems [16], technology details regarding to the
design, construction and the operation [18], size analysis combining
with wind-hydro system [19], effects of low seawater PH on energy
storage [20], performance analysis [21] and nation grid-connected
management [22].
As it is the first time for China to introduce S-PHS power station,
various risks factors are emerging due to lack of experience, different
local policies, uncertain developing forms, imperfect technologies, long
construction cycle as well as high overall cost. If these risks cannot be

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China.
E-mail address: 18810078795@163.com (T. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101753
Received 14 March 2020; Received in revised form 14 May 2020; Accepted 4 August 2020
Available online 07 September 2020
2352-152X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Nomenclature LH A set of Sappending the hesitation level

lh(sθ(i)) The possible membership degrees of the element sθ(i) ∈ S
Symbol Explanation to the set LH
ESS Electrical energy storage E(LH) Expectation function of LH
S-PHS Seawater pumped hybrid storage D(LH) Variance function of LH
NEA National Energy Administration |lh(sθ(i))| The count of real numbers in lh(sθ(i))
PPP Public-Private-Partnership |index(LH)| The cardinality of index(LH)
BOO Build-Own-Operate U Quantitative domain of exact numerical representation
BOT Build-Operate-Transfer C The qualitative concept of U
DBFO Design-Build-Finance-Operate x A random implementation of C
RPO Possibility of occurrence μ(x) The certainty degree of x
RCS Consequence severity T A qualitative concept in U
RUC Uncontrollability of risk consequence Ex Expectation
RPM Preventive measures En Entropy
HFSs Hesitant fuzzy sets He Hyper entropy
LHFSs Linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets Ai A cloud
MS Mean score Xmin Underline of Interval
CRCs Critical risk criteria Xmax Upper Line of Interval
Nor. Normalization ALH* A comprehensive cloud
EH Extremely high d(LH1, LH2) The distance measure between LH1 and LH2
H High Sup(Aαi, Aαj) The support for Aαi from Aαj
MH Middle high βi A weighting operator
N Normal T(Aαi) Comprehensive support from Aαi to other criteria
ML Middle low Sims Similarity degree in shape
L Low Simd Similarity degree in distance
EL Extremely low Simc Comprehensive similarity degree
S A linguistic term set

handled correctly, then despite the huge benefits of S-PHS plant itself,
the project's failure or loss will be even greater. For instance, Kumar,
Jindal [23] pointed that the financial risk such as changes in interest
rates or exchange rate were significant factors in PPP based energy
projects construction. Besides, Li and Wang [24] proposed that en­
vironment corrosion, payment risk as well as lack of supporting infra­
structure were the critical risk factors affecting the implementation of
PPP projects in China. What's more, low seawater pH on energy storage
could have different but significant effects on its equipment and en­
vironment around [25]. Besides, technical risk and improper operation
and management risk were proposed as key drivers in risk assessment
for renewable energy projects [26,27]. Due to the inadequate con­
sideration, even Japan, which has extensive development experience,
still faces the risk of closing its first S-PHS plant because of corrosion
problems.
For rationally allocating risks, improving the efficiency of project
investment, transforming government functions and promoting
diversification of investors, PPP (Public-Private-Partnership) mode are
introduced. As a contract to provide public goods, share risk and gen­
erate various social capital to actively participate in the provision of
public goods and services so as for a win-win situation [28], PPP mode
has been widely utilized to accelerate the progress of the development
of renewable energy [29–32]. Recommended to apply on the renewable
energy to motivate enterprises and share the government pressure, PPP
arrangements are far broader and their implications are not restricted to
the financing domain [33]. Generally, it can be classified into out­
sourcing, concession and divestiture [34]. The outsourcing model has
not been widely utilized since it cannot absorb social funds or maximize
the professional advantages of private capital to reduce project life
cycle cost or improve service quality, and may interrupt several func­
tions [35]. For the types of divestiture and concession, BOO (Build-
Own-Operate) and BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) are the two of the
most common modes which have been widely applied in a great many
infrastructure projects [36]. As another concession mode, DBFO

Fig. 1. 4-dimension loop in project risk management.

2
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Table 1
Risk criteria system of S-PHS plant.
First-class criteria Symbol Sub-criteria
Technical risk C1 Construction technology
Maintenance risk
Corrosion risk
Economic risk C2 Payment risk
Revenue risk
Inflation
Change in tax
Environmental risk C3 Unforeseen weather or geotechnical
conditions
Environmental pollution nearby risk
Social risk C4 Force majeure
Public opposition risk
(Design-Build-Finance-Operate) proposed by British Highway Authority
innovates in the use of service procurement policies to replace tradi­
tional capital asset procurement and provide an objective way to pay.
Thus, for reasonable sharing, three typical PPP modes as BOT, DBFO
and BOO are recommended to be applied on S-PHS project in China.
As China is planning to start to build S-PHS projects recently, it is
high time to assess the overall risks level of the S-PHS plant, choose an
effective management mode and provide risk response strategies to
reduce economic losses and environmental hazards and further pro­
mote its smooth development in our country. For a whole process of a
project risk management from the perspective of engineering manage­
ment, four stages often occur as prophase prevention, risk occurrence,
risk control and its consequence as shown in the Fig. 1. Therefore, this
paper adopts the 4-dimention method to comprehensively assess pro­
ject risk as preventive measures (RPM), possibility of occurrence (RPO),
consequence severity (RCS), uncontrollability of risk consequence
(RUC) for formulating a suitable and accurate evaluation result.
Because of the ambiguity and limitation of human emotions, it is
difficult for decision makers to express their risk assessment through
crisp values [37]. Fortunately, the linguistic terms as “high”, “slightly
high”, “low”, “slightly low” and some others can be utilized for ex­
pressing the decisions from DMs. In addition, DMs usually provide their
information over alternatives with hesitancy or anonymity [38]. Thus,
Torra [39] proposed hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs) to express the mem­
bership degree of an alternative to a given assessment set. For com­
prehensively expressing the hesitancy, fuzziness and uncertainty of
DMs, Meng et al. [40] defined the linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets (LHFSs)
which is utilized in this paper on account of the determination of risk
value of PPP S-PHS project containing great uncertainties and fuzziness.
In most cases, the number of linguistic terms for different LHFSs could
be different, Liao et al. [41] measured the distance between two LHFSs
Symbol by adding maximum and minimum linguistic term and relative mem­
bership degrees. But this method will lead to different distance values
C11 proved by Zhu et al. [38] who improved it by converting LHFSs into
C12
comprehensive cloud operator. Acting as a quantitative and qualitative
C13
C21
uncertainty conversion model, cloud model successfully depicts the
C22 fuzziness and randomness of a qualitative assessment through three
C23 numerical characteristics and has been widely utilized such as the risk
C24 assessment of PPP waste-to-energy [31], site selection of low-speed
C31
wind farm [42], the performance of renewable energy project [43] and
C32 so on [37,44]. Regarding of the protruding advantages of the LHFSs and
C41 cloud model in decision making process, it is meaningful to apply them
C42 to assess the overall risk degree of S-PHS project under multiple PPP
modes to get the lowest risk management mode and corresponding risk
response measures.
The originality of this paper are three holds. (i) Explore the risk
factors of S-PHS project and typical PPP management modes as BOT,
DBFO and BOO for the first time through literature review, book study
as well as expert discussion. (ii) Evaluate the risk level of S-PHS project
in China under three typical PPP management modes for the first time
via the framework of LHFSs based cloud model which can not only
completely express the characteristics of risk value but also process
information in aspects of fuzziness and randomness. (iii) Risk response
for the construction, operation and management of S-PHS project under
various management modes are firstly put forward to promote the
smooth implementation of S-PHS project in China.
The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2
identifies the critical criteria of S-PHS project and three typical PPP
modes, and establishes corresponding risk assessment criteria systems.
Basic theories of methods utilized in the risk assessment framework are
introduce in Section 3. Section 4 assesses the current risk level of S-PHS
plant under different PPP modes in China. Finally, risk response as well
as conclusions of the whole paper is formulated in the Sections 5 and 6.
2. Indicators for various scenarios
In this section, we firstly identify the critical risk criteria only re­
lated to S-PHS project in the aspects of technology, economy, en­
vironment and society. Then, the significant risk factors of each man­
agement pattern are further selected. Following that, the evaluation
criteria system about S-PHS project in each management mode is finally
established.

Table 2
Risks summary of PPP mode.
Number Criteria \ Literatures [32] [54] [31] [55] [51] [56] [57] Total

1 Lack of supporting infrastructure √ √ √ 3

2 Delay in project approvals and permits √ 1
3 Payment risk √ √ √ √ √ 5
4 Concession period √ 1
5 Government corruption √ √ 2
6 Legal and policy risk √ √ √ 3
7 Government decision-making risk √ √ 2
8 Government credit risk √ √ √ 3
9 Imperfect supervision system √ 1
10 Lack of PPP experience √ √ √ 3
11 Land acquisition risk √ 1
12 Government intervention √ √ √ 3
13 No clear division of responsibilities and obligations √ 1
14 Contract change risk √ 1

3
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

2.1. S-PHS plant risk identification
Up to now, little attention has been attached to the research of S-
PHS risk criteria identification. Thus, for comprehensively measure the
risk criteria of S-PHS power plant, we firstly review former literatures
on PHS risks such as climate conditions [45], political risk, profit risk
[46], technical risk, ecological risk [47] as well as operation and se­
curity risk [48]. After studying literatures, an expert decision group
with a scale of seven satisfying the following three conditions as (i)
scholars who have published at least one paper in international journals
related to the theme of S-PHS or PPP-S-PHS projects; (ii) Project man­
agers who have managed at least one PPP infrastructure construction or
PPP PHS project; (iii) workers who have at least three years working
experience in the PPP infrastructure construction or PPP PHS project; is
established to build a unique risk evaluation criteria system of S-PHS
project in China [31]. Based on above studies, literature review and
expert's discussion, a holistic criteria system is formulated as shown in
Table 1.
Some important points proposed in the expert discussion meeting
can be summarized as follows. As a mechanical energy storage mode,
the use of seawater in PHS plant introduces several issues mainly in the
aspect of technical nature since seawater leakage from upper reservoir
or penstock could cause serious environmental impacts as the closing
down of the first S-PHS station in Okinawa, Japan [49]. These risks
should be considered, assessed and minimized for the successful op­
eration of S-PHS plant. Moreover, low seawater pH has great effect on
energy storage [20]. Some other issues concerning the operation of
mechanical components were emphasized as the corrosion of metal
materials by seawater, the adhesion of marine organisms to the wa­
terways as well as turbine, animals and other biological system around
the seawater site [50]. Besides, both the hydro power plant and the
pump station must be sited at an adequate distance from the coastline
to protect the buildings from the strong sea waves [49].
2.2. Risk determination of PPP mode
Although there are plenty of advantages of PPP mode as mentioned
above, certain risks are still hiding in it, which can be summarized as
shown in the Table 2. Besides, separating research of the management
mode and construction project is helpful to clearly distinguish risk
sources. Thus, a mean score (MS) ranking technique is employed to
specifically select the critical risk factors associated to each PPP mode
based on the literature review. In view of the 4-dimention risk assess­
ment framework, questionnaire survey designing for the modes of BOT,
DBFO, BOO is utilized to select their critical risk criteria (CRCs) from
the fifteen summarized factors obtained by literature review. For
comprehensively selecting the CRCs of the three modes, we select an
evaluation committee with a scale of 200 people including 126 experts
from universities who have made achievements in project financing
model and 74 managers who have three or more years’ management
experience on project modes. The respondents give their opinions on
the risk factors in each PPP mode based on a 9-point scale (where
1=extremely low; 2=very low; 3=slightly low; 4=low; 5=fair;
6=slightly high; 7=high; 8=very high; 9=extremely high) from a 4-
dimention perspective. Finally, a total of 200 questionnaires are sent
out on August 2, 2018, with a deadline of September 3, 2018 through E-
mail. And the feedback from 11 managers and 31 experts are received
with a 21% response rate meeting the norm rate between 20–30% of
most questionnaire surveys [51]. In addition, 52 mangers and 93 ex­
perts did not give their feedback before the deadline, eleven mangers
and two experts did not complete the questionnaires. Thus, we choose
the CRCs based on the effective feedback data by MS method as Eq. (1)
[51].
(f × s )
MS = , (1 MS 9)
N (1)
where f is the number of occurrences of each rating, s is the criteria
score given by respondents, N is the total responses of one criteria.
Subsequently, integrating the 4-dimention scoring results by Eq. (2)
referring [51] as the ‘Impact’ value.
Impact = 4 MSRPM × MSRPO × MSRCS × MSRUC (2)
Finally, rank the risk factors based on the Impact values as shown in
Table 3. The risk factors with normalized impact values ≥ 0.5 are
considered as CRCs [31].
2.2.1. BOT mode
BOT is a typical classification of PPP mode which is a type of
franchise. Under this mode, the private sector is primarily responsible
for the financing, design, construction and operation of the project.
Upon the expiration of the concession period, the infrastructure shall be
transferred to the government free of charge or compensation. Besides,
this mode has a strong attraction for the private sector because it can
help the private sector obtain long-term operating income and the cost
of the project is relatively stable. Moreover, BOT is a way of project
financing based on project credit with the characteristics of limited-
recourse. Therefore, bank take much more risks than corporate finan­
cing. But because of the limited-recourse, the debt of BOT project is not
involved in the balance sheet of the shareholders, and the shareholders
can raise the construction funds for more projects, so BOT has been
welcomed by equity bidder and widely used [52,53]. Besides above
advantages, BOT may conflict with the requirements of the overall
planning and environment. What's more, enterprises could transfer the
project to the government when the cost of operation and management
rises which will make the management of government more difficult.
From the collected questionnaire data, the CRCs for BOT mode are
identified according to their impact values as shown in Table 3, where
“Nor.” means normalization.
Thus, the overall risk criteria system of BOT-S-PHS project can be
summarized as the Table 4.

Table 3
CRCs selection of BOT mode.
CRCs RPM RPO RCS RUC Impact Nor. Ranking

Payment risk 6.892 7.291 8.110 7.958 7.546 1 1

Government corruption 5.983 8.115 8.242 7.856 7.488 0.966 2
No clear division of responsibilities and obligations 6.873 8.168 7.564 7.125 7.417 0.924 3
Lack of supporting infrastructure 7.498 8.124 6.210 7.900 7.394 0.911 4
Government intervention 6.783 7.156 8.693 6.989 7.369 0.897 5
Legal and policy risk 6.758 8.124 6.853 7.250 7.227 0.814 6
Lack of PPP experience 6.785 7.526 6.812 7.684 7.190 0.793 7
Government decision-making risk 6.014 6.560 8.322 7.813 7.116 0.749 8

4
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Table 4 Table 6
Risk criteria system of BOT-S-PHS project. Risk criteria system of DBFO-S-PHS project.
First-class criteria Symbol Second-class criteria Symbol First-class criteria Symbol Second-class criteria Symbol

Technical risk C1 Construction technology C11 Technical risk C1 Construction technology C11
Maintenance risk C12 Maintenance risk C12
Corrosion risk C13 Corrosion risk C13
Economic risk C2 Payment risk C21 Imperfect supervision system C14
Revenue risk C22 Economic risk C2 Payment risk C21
Inflation C23 Revenue risk C22
Change in tax C24 Inflation C23
Legal and policy risk C25 Change in tax C24
Environment risk C3 Unforeseen weather or geotechnical C31 Legal and policy risk C25
conditions Concession period C26
Environmental pollution nearby risk C32 Government risk C3 Government decision-making risk C31
Government risk C4 Government decision-making risk C41 Environment risk C4 Unforeseen weather or geotechnical C41
Government corruption C42 conditions
Government intervention C43 Environmental pollution nearby risk C42
Social risk C5 Public opposition risk C51 Social risk C5 Public opposition risk C51
Lack of supporting infrastructure C52 No clear division of responsibilities and C52
No clear division of responsibilities and C53 obligations
obligations Lack of supporting infrastructure C53
Lack of PPP experience C54 Lack of PPP experience C54
Force majeure C55 Force majeure C55

2.2.2. DBFO mode

DBFO mode entrusts all the work from design to operation to a
single private business organization and transfers the property back to
the government after a long-term contract (usually 25 to 30 years). It
specifies payment, service standards and the performance evaluation in
detail, and provides an objective way to pay based on performance. In
general, there is only one public sector and one private sector in the
contract. Although other private sector entities may be involved, the
responsibilities performed are generally assigned to the main private
sector side of the DBFO contract through subcontracting. Compared
with the traditional public works mode, the main spirit of DBFO mode
is not just the construction of public facilities but to seek an appropriate
private business organization to provide public services. The public
sector provides contractual agreements, pays certain cost and utilizes
the installation while providing core services related to the facility. And
the private sector only provides ancillary services to the facility. Despite
DBFO has many advantages, the risks hiding in it should be deeply
explored to ensure the success of the project. In the DBFO mode,
Franchisors must take substantial risks, such as long-term obligations,
to improve business quality. Another feature of DBFO projects is the
involvement of private venture capital, and investors who expect their
capital to be at risk need a more realistic approach to project evalua­
tion, risk management and project execution [52]. Thus, from the
collected questionnaire data, the CRCs for DBFO mode are identified
according to their impact values as shown in Table 5.
Similarly, the risk criteria system of DBFO-S-PHS project can be
determined as the Table 6.
2.2.3. BOO mode
In such contractual arrangements, control and ownership of the
project are always vested in the private sector. For the projects under
BOO mode, private entities finance, build, own and actually operate an
infrastructure permanently. For example, Water treatment plants ser­
ving parts of South Australia are financed, designed, constructed and
operated by private companies to treat raw water provided by the
public sector as clean water, which is then returned to public utilities
for consumers. The original contract will be signed with the public
sector with the stipulation of the restriction clause guaranteeing the
public welfare, and enterprises shall be managed and supervised by the
government [52, 58]. Since the ownership of privatized PPP projects
belong to the private ownership permanently and it does not have
limited recourse, thus, the private sector bears the greatest risk in such
PPP projects.
From the collected questionnaire data, the CRCs for BOO mode are
identified according to their impact values as shown in Table 7.
In addition, the risk criteria systems of BOO-S-PHS project can be
established through comprehensive analysis of project risk and mode
risks as shown in the Table 8.
The overall criteria system of S-PHS project with above three
management modes can be presented in the Fig. 2.

Table 5
CRCs selection of DBFO mode.
CRCs Pre. Pro. Sev. Con. Impact Nor. Ranking

Payment risk 7.327 8.015 8.612 7.045 7.726 1 1

Legal and policy risk 7.012 8.035 8.122 7.542 7.765 0.968 2
Government decision-making risk 6.988 7.568 8.114 7.452 7.520 0.893 3
Lack of supporting infrastructure 7.056 7.586 8.320 7.125 7.505 0.885 4
Concession period 7.324 6.772 8.683 7.125 7.443 0.852 5
No clear division of responsibilities and obligations 6.895 8.569 7.785 6.564 7.413 0.837 6
Imperfect supervision system 6.523 7.324 8.103 7.152 7.254 0.754 7
Lack of PPP experience 6.981 7.256 6.784 7.546 7.136 0.692 8

5
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Table 7
CRCs selection of BOO mode.
CRCs Pre. Pro. Sev. Con. Impact Nor. Ranking

Payment risk 7.056 8.782 8.125 7.656 7.879 1 1

Legal and policy risk 7.526 7.879 8.561 6.974 7.714 0.876 2
Lack of supporting infrastructure 7.871 7.568 8.421 6.890 7.667 0.841 3
Contract change risk 7.856 8.012 7.583 7.032 7.611 0.799 4
Government credit risk 6.746 7.387 8.154 8.046 7.562 0.762 5
No clear division of responsibilities and obligations 7.048 8.047 7.226 7.864 7.535 0.741 6
Government intervention 6.743 7.574 8.019 7.685 7.480 0.708 7
Lack of PPP experience 7.056 7.589 6.978 8.010 7.397 0.638 8

Table 8 where x in the universe U is called a normal cloud. The cloud model can
Risk criteria system of BOO-S-PHS project. effectively integrate the randomness and fuzziness of concepts and
First-class criteria Symbol Second-class criteria Symbol describe the overall quantitative property of a concept by three
numerical characteristics, namely, Expectation (Ex), Entropy (En),
Technical risk C1 Construction technology C11 and Hyper entropy (He).
Maintenance risk C12
Corrosion risk C13 Definition 3. [61]. Assume that there are two clouds X (E x1, En1, He1)
Economic risk C2 Payment risk C21 and Y (E x2, En2, He2), some operations between cloud X and Y can be
Revenue risk C22
defined as follows:
Inflation C23
Change in tax C24
X + Y = (E x 1 + E x 2, En1 2 + En2 2 , He1 2 + He2 2 ) (4)
Legal and policy risk C25
Contract change risk C26
Government C3 Government credit risk C31 X Y = (E x 1 E x 2, En1 2 + En2 2 , He1 2 + He2 2 ) (5)
Government intervention C32
Environment risk C4 Unforeseen weather or geotechnical C41
conditions X × Y = (E x 1 E x 2 , (En1 E x2) 2 + (E x1 En2 )2 , (He1 E x2) 2 + (E x1 He2 )2 )
Environmental pollution nearby risk C42 (6)
Social risk C5 Public opposition risk C51
Lack of supporting infrastructure C52 2 2
No clear division of responsibilities and C53 E x1 E x 1 En1 En2 E x1
X÷Y = , × + ,
obligations E x2 E x 2 E x1 E x2 E x2
Lack of PPP experience C54
Force majeure C55 2 2
He1 He2
× +
E x1 E x2
(7)
3. Basic theory and assessment framework
X m = (E x1, m E x1 m 1En1, m E x1 m 1He1) (8)
3.1. Basic theory
mX = (mE x1, m En1, m He1) (9)
The linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets can help DMs to give their eva­
luation in natural language in the fuzzy and complex environment to
make up the limitation of human cognition. Set S = {s0, ...,st 1} as a Actually, decision-makers are used to natural language instead of
linguistic term set, and t is an odd number. A LHFS is a set of S ap­ numerical values to assess problems [38].
pending the hesitation level valuing in[0, 1] as Definition 4. [62]. Supposing S = {s0, s1, ...,st 1} is the linguistic term
LH = {(s (i), lh (s (i) )|s (i) S )}, where lh (s (i ) ) = {r1, r2, ...,rmi} is a set set, t is an odd number, a valid universe [Xmin, Xmax] is given by experts.
with mi valuing in [0, 1] representing the possible membership degrees Correspondingly, the cloud Ai(Exi, Eni, Hei) is utilized to denotes the
of the element sθ(i) ∈ S to the set LH [59]. linguistic value si.
For example, Let linguistic term set be s0: very poor, s1: poor, s2:
slightly poor, s3: fair, s4: slightly good, s5: good, s6: very good. In the eva­ A golden method for generating five clouds was proposed by Wang
luation process, the expert commission may give a value of 0.6 for and Feng [63] based on 3σ principle of the normal distribution curve.
“low” and a value of 0.3 for “medium”, but hesitate to give a value of Zhu et al. [38] extended the five clouds into seven clouds by applying
0.2 or 0.3 for “very low”. In this situation, the evaluated value can be the golden ratio method as follows:
represented as LH = {(s1, 0.2, 0.3), (s2, 0.6), (s3, 0.3)} . Let linguistic term set be S = {s0: very poor , s1: poor , s2: slightly poor ,
Definition 1. [60]. U is Quantitative domain of exact numerical s3: fair , s4: slightly good, s5: good , s6: very good , } , where the universe is
representation, C is the qualitative concept of U. If x ∈ U and x is a [Xmin, Xmax], then seven clouds can be formulated by the golden radio
random implementation of C, and the certainty is μ(x) ∈ [0, 1], thus μ: method.
U → [0, 1], ∀x ∈ U, x → μ(x) is called cloud. Ex3 = (Xmin + Xmax )/2, Ex 0 = Xmin , Ex 6 = Xmax ,
Definition 2. Let U be the universe of discourse and T be a qualitative
Ex2 = Ex3 0.382(Xmax Xmin )/4, Ex 4 = Ex3 + 0.382(Xmax Xmin )/4,
concept in U. If x(x ∈ U) is a random instantiation of concept T, which
satisfies En′ ∼ N(En, He2), x ∼ N(Ex, En′2) and the certainty degree of x Ex1 = Ex3 (Xmax Xmin )/4, Ex5 = Ex3 + (Xmax Xmin )/4;
belonging to concept T satisfies Eq. (3).
En2 = En4 = 0.382(Xmax Xmin )/12, En3 = 0.618En4 ,
(x Ex )2
µ=e 2(En )2 (3) En1 = En5 = En4 /0.618, En 0 = En6 = En5/0.618;

6
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Fig. 2. Risk criteria system of S-PHS project with three typical management modes.

He2 = He4 = He3/0.618, He1 = He5 = He4 /0.618, He0 = He6 Definition 6. [38]. Let S = {s0, ...,st 1} be a linguistic term set and LH1
and LH2 be two LHFSs. The valid universe is [Xmin, Xmax]. The cloud Ai
= He5/0.618
(Exi, Eni, Hei) represents si. Then, the distance measure between LH1 and
where He3 is given by experts. LH2 is
Definition 5. [64]. Let S = {s0, s1, ...,st 1} be a linguistic term set. The
d (LH1, LH2)
valid universe is [Xmin, Xmax]. The cloud Ai(Exi, Eni, Hei) represents si.
* 1)2 + (HeLH
(EnLH * 1)2
Let LH = {s (i), lh (s (i) )|s (i) S } be a LHFS, where 1 * 1
ExLH
* 1)2 + (HeLH
(EnLH * 1)2 + (EnLH
* 2)2 + (HeLH
* 2 )2
lh (s (i ) ) = {r1, r2, ...,rmi} . * (ExLH
ALH * , ELH
* , HeLH
* ) is called the =
1
Xmax + Xmin
comprehensive cloud of LH. 1
* 2)2 + (HeLH
(EnLH * 2 )2
* 2
ExLH
* 1)2 + (HeLH
(EnLH * 1)2 + (EnLH
* 2)2 + (HeLH
* 2 )2
r r
(13)
relh (s (i) ) relh (s (i) )
* =
ExLH / Ex (i )
(i) index (LH ) lh (s (i ) )
(i ) index (LH ) lh (s (i ) )

(10)
And when EnLH
* 1 = HeLH
* 1 = EnLH
* 2 = HeLH
*2=0
r lh (s (i)) r r lh (s (i )) r
/ Ex (i ) En (i ) 1
(i ) index (LH ) lh (s (i ) ) (i ) index (LH ) lh (s (i ) ) d (LH1, LH2) = *1
ExLH *2
ExLH
* =
EnLH Xmax + Xmin (14)
r lh (s (i )) r r lh (s (i )) r
/ Ex
Proposition. Let LH1 and LH2 be two LHFSs. The following prop­
(i) index (LH ) lh (s (i) ) (i) index (LH ) lh (s (i ) ) ( i)

(11) erties hold:

* =
HeLH (He (i ) )
2 (i) 0 ≤ d(LH1, LH2) ≤ 1
(i) index (LH ) (12)
(ii) d (LH1, LH1) = 0
where |lh(sθ(i))| represents the total membership numbers to sθ(i) of lh (iii) d (LH1, LH2) = d (LH2, LH1)
(sθ(i)). And index (LH ) = { (i)|(s (i ), lh (s (i ) )) LH , LH (s (i) ) {0}} is
tenable in the situation of sθ(i) ∈ S. For aggregation of multiple clouds, a comprehensive cloud power

7
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

geometric averaging (CCPGA) operator is utilized. Finally, the shape and distance based cloud model (PDCM) simi­
Definition 7. [64]. Let Ω be the set of A i (Exi , Eni , Hei ), the CCPGA larity (Simc) can be determined as:
operator satisfies the mapping of CCPGA: Ωn → Ω: Simc = Simd × Sims (22)
n
CCPGA (A 1 , A 2 , ...,A n ) = (A i ) i
i=1

2
3.2. S-PHS risk assessment framework
n n n Eni
(Ex i ) i , (Ex i ) i
i × ,
i=1 i=1 i=1 Ex i In this section, the risk assessment framework of S-PHS project is
= established. For a comprehensive study, three typical PPP modes as
2
n n Hei BOT, DBFO as well as BOO are introduced as three scenarios to analyze
(Ex i ) i
i ×
i=1 i=1 Ex i the risk reduction of different management modes to the implementa­
= (Ex , En, He ) (15) tion of S-PHS project. Detail evaluation phrases are as follows.

=
1 + T (A i ) 3.2.1. Phrase I: Select the CRCs for the risk assessment of S-PHS project
i n
i=1
(1 + T (A i )) (16) The CRCs of S-PHS project risk assessment under typical modes are
n
selected in the Section 2 to separately distinguish the risks adhering to
T (A i ) = Sup (A i , A j ) S-PHS project itself and the modes we select. Besides, the selected
j =1 management mode would have certain impacts on the risk values of S-
(17)
PHS project in some degree. Namely, the same risk criteria under dif­
j i

Sup (A i , A j ) = 1 d (A i , A j ) (18) ferent management modes may gain assessment values with relatively
large gaps, which is based on the development level and expectation of
the combination of industry with management.
The Sup(Aαi, Aαj) is considered to be the support for Aαi from Aαj,
which satisfies the following properties: 3.2.2. Phrase II: Collect basic data of project risk
To deal with the complicated and uncertain S-PHS project risk as­
(i) Sup(Aαi, Aαj) ∈ [0, 1]; sessment issue and consider the hesitation of DMs and practicability of
(ii) Sup (A i , A j ) = Sup (A j , A i ) ; evaluation methods, LHFSs is adopted to describe risk information. In
(iii) Sup(Aαi, Aαj) ≥ Sup(Aαk, Aαt), if d(Aαi, Aαj) < d(Aαk, Aαt), where d is this phrase, an expert committee introduced in the Section 2 is invited
a distance measure between two LHFSs. to obtain the required basic data in the form of LHFSs under 4-di­
mention for realizing the objectives of this study. Then, consolidate all
If Sup (A i , A j ) = k for all i ≠ j, k is a real number, then the CCPGA information and formulate linguistic hesitation fuzzy decision matrix
will degenerate into comprehensive cloud geometric averaging (CCGA). M k = (mijk )p × q (k = 1, 2, 3) .
n 1
CCGA (A 1 , A 2 , ...,A n ) =
i=1
(A i ) n (19) 3.2.3. Phrase III: Comprehensive risk assessment of S-PHS project

Definition 8. Set two clouds as Ai(Exi, Eni, Hei) and Aj(Exj, Enj, Hej). The Step 1. Construct standard clouds.
similarly degree in shape (Sims) of these two clouds can be calculated
by Eq. (20). Seven standard clouds are calculated in the universe [0, 10] based
min(D (Ai ), D (Aj )) on 3σ principle of the normal distribution curve for risk assessment of S-
Sims (Ai , Aj ) = PHS in China under four scenarios. Due to the uncertainty and dis­
max(D (Ai ), D (Aj )) (20)
creteness of risk values, the standard clouds are classified into seven
where D (A) = + En2 He 2 parts as “extremely high (EH)”, “high (H)”, “middle high (MH)”,
Definition 9. Set two clouds as Ai(Exi, Eni, Hei) and Aj(Exj, Enj, Hej). d is “normal (N)”, “middle low (ML)”, “low (L)” as well as “extremely low
distance of the Ex between two clouds, and d = |Ex i Ex j |, and the (EL)” which can help describe the characteristics of risk more com­
distance based cloud model can be calculated as Eq. (21). prehensively.
S (d )
Simd = Step 2. Initial data processing
S (0) (21)
where S(d) is the overlapping area of expected curve of two clouds. S(0) Table 9
is the overlapping area when d = 0 . Fitting data.
In general, there is a certain corresponding relationship between
θ0 k a b c Adj R sq
Simd and the relative distance of the expectations of two clouds θ when
the ratio of entropy between two clouds k is determined. The re­ 0.0 1.000 1.42 -0.3142 0.527 1.0000
lationship satisfies the function y = a × exp( ((x b)/ c ) 2) which has 0.1 1.222 1.256 -0.2038 0.4772 0.9995
been proved by Jun et al. [65] and the fitting data can be shown in the 0.2 1.500 1.088 -0.08523 0.4213 0.9990
Table 9. 0.3 1.857 1.026 -0.01631 0.393 0.9992
0.4 2.333 1.007 0.02322 0.3859 0.9997
where Adj R sq is the Adjusted R-square. 0.5 3.000 1.002 0.048 0.3914 0.9999
And = |Ex i Ex j |/(3 × (Eni + Enj )), 0 = (k 1)/(k + 1). 0.6 4.000 1.001 0.06496 0.4043 0.9998
0.7 5.667 1.002 0.07731 0.4218 0.9996
Condition 1: When θ ∈ [0, 1), the Simd > 0; 0.8 9.000 1.002 0.08654 0.4423 0.9994
0.9 19.000 1.003 0.09325 0.4654 0.9992
Condition 2: When [1, + ), the Simd = 0 ;
1 20000 1.003 0.09759 0.4911 0.9993

8
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

To ensure the integrity of evaluation information and avoid ex­
tending the fuzziness in the distance calculation process, LHFSs are
converted into cloud model based on Definition 5 through
Eqs. (10)–(12) for further handling.
Step 3. Determine the distance of every two criteria.
The distances of every two criteria are calculated by Eq. (16). And
these distance values are the basis for calculating the degree of support
in the step 4.
Step 4. Compute the support degree based on distance value.
Then the support degree (Sup) from Aαi to Aαj is calculated by
Eq. (18). α is the number of alternatives, i and j are two different cri­
teria. Then, the comprehensive support degree of each criteria can be
calculated from Sup in the step 6.

Fig. 3. The framework of S-PHS project risk assessment.

9
Y. Wu, et al.
Step 5. Determine the comprehensive support of each criteria.
Calculate the comprehensive support T(Aαi) from Aαi to other cri­
teria by Eq. (17). And the operator βi can be determined through
Eq. (16) based on the comprehensive support value of each criteria.
Step 6. Aggregate information and obtain the final risk values under
various modes.
Aggregate above information into a comprehensive assessment re­
sult by CCPGA operator. Analyze risk value of S-PHS project and obtain
the risk level of each criteria in detail.
Step 7. Compute Simc.
Compute the Simc between evaluation object and each evaluation
standard to accurately locate risk level. When the obtained k and θ0
values are in the medium value of the smallest partition area in the
table, we use the maximum approximation method and the mean
method to determine the parameters of the fitting curve.
Step 8. Put forward risk response of all criteria.
Based on the risk level of S-PHS project, risk degree of each risk
criteria as well as the comprehensive similarity value of Simc of the
project, the corresponding risk allocation and risk response are for­
mulated through literature review, book study and expert consultation
for further promoting the smooth implementation of S-PHS project in
China.
The overall risk assessment flow of this paper is shown in Fig. 3.
4. Risk assessment of S-PHS in various scenarios in China
Along with more and more attention has been paid on the risks of
construction project, this section will assess the risk degree of PPP-S-
PHS project through the proposed model to provide a reference on the
project construction and operation and promote its successful and
sustainable development. First, the expert decision group is required to
obtain the fuzzy basic risk data based on their work experience and
academic background as well as the current development situation of
China via a discussion meeting. In the first part of the meeting, the
definition of each potential criteria is given as a reference in case ex­
perts in different fields cannot fully understand the indicators.
Secondly, the expert decision group is requested to give a comprehen­
sive risk evaluation language towards each factor after discussion.
Thirdly, according to the calculated final risk value, the risk response
strategies are discussed and determined. The original risk criteria va­
lues in 4-demention for S-PHS project are gained and shown in the
Appendix A.
Then, the standard comment sets referring to “EH”, “H”, “MH”, “N”,
“ML”, “L” and “EL” as S = {s0, s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6} are established for the
index system through the golden radio method as shown in the Fig. 4
with a universe of [0, 10], and He3 = 0.1 given by expert committee.
Generally, seven risk languages can fully classify and describe risk le­
vels comprehensively which is very convenient for experts to evaluate
risks more practically.
In order to ensure the integrity of the risk information and the ac­
curacy of calculation, original LHFSs are converted into comprehensive
cloud for further comprehensive aggregation by Definition 5. Further­
more, the 4-dimension cloud models can be aggregated into one cloud
through CCGA operator as Eq. (22). And the basic data of cloud models
are presented in the Table 10.
10
Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753
After handling risk criteria values into comprehensive cloud, the
distance between every two criteria should be determined by Eq. (13)
which is utilized to calculate the Sup of each criteria by Eq. (18) and the
comprehensive support degree T(Aαi) by Eq. (17) as well as the operator
βi obtained by Eq. (16) as shown in the Table 11. Together with the
comprehensive support degree T(Aαi) and the operator βi, the overall
risk degree of S-PHS project in China is calculated as (6.701, 0.460,
0.405) by CCPGA operator, which has been represented in the standard
common set as the Fig. 5.
From the calculation result we can see that the risk level of S-PHS
project nearly locates between “MH” and “H”. Thus, overall response
strategies for all criteria are necessary in order to deal with risks rea­
sonably.
4.1. Scenario I: Risk assessment of S-PHS project under the BOT
management mode
Adopting BOT management mode in S-PHS project indicates that
the risk criteria system of BOT-S-PHS project will be different from it
under single S-PHS project. Moreover, some criteria values of S-PHS
project will be influenced by the mode type we take to a certain extent.
After calculation through the proposed risk assessment framework
in this paper, a comprehensive final risk degree is calculated as (6.175,
0.404, 0.359) and shown together with the standard cloud in the Fig. 6.
Besides, T(Aαi), βi and cloud values are shown in the Appendix B and C,
respectively.
It can be clearly seen that the risk degree of BOT-S-PHS project
locates in the middle of “MH” and “H” with high probability. But when
compared to single S-PHS model, the risk value decreases in the value
of Ex. That is to say, BOT mode can help reduce the risk value of S-PHS
project to a certain degree. Nevertheless, risk response measures are
also necessary when it comes to build a S-PHS project under the BOT
mode with limited resources since such project still in high risk level.
4.2. Scenario II: Risk assessment of S-PHS project under the DBFO
management mode
DBFO is a typical and widely used management mode in the
worldwide. In this part, the effectiveness of adopting DBFO manage­
ment mode on S-PHS project implementation is calculated and ana­
lyzed. Risk assessment criteria system are shown in the Table 6. The
original evaluation data, T(Aαi), βi and cloud values in the evaluation
process are shown in the Appendix A–C, respectively. Similar to the S-
PHS risk assessment process, the final risk degree of DBFO-S-PHS pro­
ject is (6.281, 0.411, 0.363) which is mainly between “MH” and “H” as
Fig. 4. Comment set.
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Table 10
S-PHS project cloud value of each criteria.
Criteria RPM RPO RCS RUC Aggregated cloud

C11 (5.94, 0.38, 0.35) (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (6.88, 0.45, 0.31) (6.84, 0.44, 0.31) (6.40, 0.40, 0.33)
C12 (5.70, 0.37, 0.35) (7.93, 0.61, 0.52) (7.11, 0.57, 0.52) (5.29, 0.36, 0.46) (6.42, 0.47, 0.47)
C13 (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (7.91, 0.60, 0.52) (7.27, 0.52, 0.52) (5.63, 0.44, 0.46) (6.64, 0.47, 0.46)
C21 (7.02, 0.46, 0.31) (7.66, 0.57, 0.52) (7.88, 0.60, 0.52) (6.70, 0.43, 0.32) (7.30, 0.51, 0.42)
C22 (7.53, 0.55, 0.52) (7.24, 0.53, 0.52) (6.01, 0.40, 0.35) (6.60, 0.42, 0.32) (6.82, 0.47, 0.43)
C23 (7.35, 0.52, 0.52) (6.44, 0.41, 0.28) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.30, 0.52, 0.52) (7.14, 0.49, 0.41)
C24 (6.01, 0.40, 0.35) (7.68, 0.58, 0.52) (4.86, 0.27, 0.25) (5.71, 0.31, 0.32) (5.98, 0.38, 0.35)
C31 (8.01, 0.61, 0.52) (6.14, 0.37, 0.32) (6.33, 0.43, 0.46) (7.83, 0.59, 0.52) (7.03, 0.49, 0.46)
C32 (6.04, 0.40, 0.35) (7.27, 0.52, 0.52) (6.18, 0.41, 0.35) (6.84, 0.58, 0.52) (6.56, 0.47, 0.44)
C41 (5.75, 0.39, 0.35) (5, 0.27, 0.25) (6.78, 0.43, 0.31) (6.97, 0.50, 0.51) (6.07, 0.39, 0.35)
C42 (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26)

Table 11
The T(Aαi) and βi of S-PHS project.
Criteria T(Aαi) βi

C11 9.019 0.0559

C12 16.117 0.0567
C13 15.404 0.0543
C21 15.919 0.0560
C22 15.723 0.0554
C23 15.774 0.0555
C24 16.090 0.0566
C31 15.349 0.0541
C32 15.511 0.0547
C41 15.258 0.0538
C42 16.598 0.0550

Fig. 7. Risk degree of DBFO-S-PHS project.

Fig. 8. Risk degree of BOO-S-PHS project.

Fig. 5. S-PHS project risk degree.
shown in the Fig. 7. Comparing to single S-PHS project, there is an
obvious downward trend in risk value. But when compared with S-PHS
project under the BOT mode, the risk of DBFO-S-PHS project is rela­
tively high. In a sense, BOT is superior to DBFO mode in risk reduction
of S-PHS projects. Furthermore, when it comes to construct a DBFO-S-
PHS project, effective risk response strategies should be proposed so as
to promote its smooth progress.

4.3. Scenario III: Risk assessment of S-PHS project under the BOO
management mode

In this scenario, we adopt BOO management mode into S-PHS

Fig. 6. Risk degree of BOT-S-PHS project.
project. Distinctive risk criteria system is established in the Table 8.
Through the proposed evaluation framework, the risk degree of BOO-S-
PHS project can be determined as shown in the Fig. 7. The detail data
information in the evaluation process is shown in the Appendix A–C. It
can be clearly demonstrated that BOO-S-PHS project risk is (6.271,
0.419, 0.372) which nearly locates in the middle of “MH” and “H” as
shown in the Fig. 8. By comparison, project risk under BOO mode is

11
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Fig. 9. The risk degree of S-PHS project under typical management modes.

Table 12 According to the principle of maximum proximity, the four sce­

Similarity degree of evaluation to each standard. narios of S-PSH project is more closed to S4 with the similarities of
Scenario S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
0.429, 0.824, 0.708 and 0.741 as shown in the Table 12, which means
the scenario of BOT-S-PHS is more benefit for risk reduction and S-PHS
S-PHS 0 0 0 0.009 0.429 0.435 0.008 project construction. More specifically, scenario BOT-S-PHS has the
BOT-S-PHS 0 0 0.002 0.063 0.834 0.161 0 highest similarity degree to “MH”, a similarity of 0.063 to “N” and
DBFO-S-PHS 0 0 0 0.037 0.708 0.212 0.002
BOO-S-PHS 0 0 0 0.052 0.741 0.205 0.158
0.002 to “ML”. Besides, scenario BOO-S-PHS has the second highest
similarity degree to “MH”, a similarity degree of 0.052 to “N” and 0 to
“ML”. The scenario DBFO-S-PHS has the third similarity degree to
higher than the one under the BOT mode but lower than it under the “MH”, 0.037 to “N” and 0 to “ML”. But for single S-PHS, the similarity
DBFO mode. Consequently, the BOO mode is more beneficial to S-PHS to “MH” is slightly higher than the one to “H”. That is to say, the risk
project than DBFO mode in the aspect in risk reduction which can be level of S-PHS projects in China approximately gets the median value of
considered as a second management mode choice for decision makers. “MH” and “H”.
But overall, the risk level of BOO-S-PHS project is still high, so it is
necessary to put forward response strategies to each risk factor.
4.5. Comparative analysis
4.4. Comprehensive analysis
To prove the accuracy and superiority of the proposed risk assess­
Summarize the above four situations, the overall risk evaluation ment framework, a comparative analysis is conducted in this section.
result can be shown in the Fig. 9. It can be clearly seen from the picture The risk calculation model proposed in this paper includes three key
that the risk level of all scenarios nearly locates in the middle of “MH” steps as risk representation method, fuzzy data conversion and risk
and “H”. But in the terms of the Ex value of each cloud model, there are element aggregation. Due to the ambiguity of risk data and the hesi­
obvious differences among scenarios. In order to describe the risk level tation of decision makers, the data representation method as HTFLs
of each scenario more accurately, this paper calculates the similarity combining with cloud model has obvious advantages in theory and
degrees between the evaluation result and the standard through the practical application. Therefore, two types comparative analysis are
following steps for further analysis and the results are showed in the conducted in this section as data conversion comparison and risk ag­
Table 12. gregation comparison to prove the accuracy and superiority of the risk
assessment model established in this paper.
Step 1. Calculate the Sims of two clouds based on entropy and hyper- In the aspect data conversion from linguistic language to compu­
entropy. table data, Zhu et al. [38] proposed a different computational approach
Step 2. Compute the entropy ratio of the two cloud models k, and as follows.
then determine the value of θ0. Definition 10. [38]. Let S = {s0, s1, ...,st 1} be a linguistic term set. The
Step 3. According the calculation principle and the Table 9, obtain valid universe is [Xmin, Xmax]. The cloud Ai(Exi, Eni, Hei) represents si.
the Simd. Let LH = {s (i), lh (s (i) )|s (i) S } be a LHFS, where
Step 4. Formulate comprehensive similarity degree Simc according lh (s (i ) ) = {r1, r2, ...,rmi} . ALH (ExLH , ELH , HeLH ) is called the
to the Eq. (25). comprehensive cloud of LH.

12
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

He* = 0.2622 + 0.1622 + 0.12 = 0.324

1 Ex (i )
ExLH = r
index (LH ) lh (s (i ) ) By Definition 10, the comprehensive cloud model is A.
(i) index (LH ) r lh (s (i) )
(23)
1 Ex (i )
1 2 ExLH = r
EnLH = (En (i ) ) index (LH ) lh (s
index (LH ) (i) index (LH ) (i ) ) r lh (s (i) )
(i) index (LH ) (24)
3.09
1 = 1/3 (0.2 + 0.3) + 4.045*0.6 + 5*0.3 = 1.5665
HeLH = (He (i ) )
2 2
index (LH ) (i) index (LH ) (25)
1 2
EnLH = (En (i ) )
index (LH ) (i) index (LH )

By comparison, there are virtual differences between Definitions 5 1

= (0.3932 + 1.032 + 0.6372) = 0.7351
and 10 in Linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets conversion. For example, let 3
linguistic term set be S = {s0: very poor , s1: poor , s2: slightly poor ,
s3: fair , s4: slightly good, s5: good , s6: very good , } . The valid universe is 1 2
HeLH = (He (i ) )
[Xmin, Xmax]. In the evaluation process, the expert commission may give index (LH ) (i) index (LH )
a value of 0.6 for “low” and a value of 0.3 for “medium”, but hesitate to
1
give a value of 0.2 or 0.3 for “very low”. In this situation, the evaluated = (0.12 + 0.2622 + 0.1622) 0.187
value can be represented as LH = {(s1, 0.2, 0.3), (s2, 0.6), (s3, 0.3)} , then 3
converting the evaluation information into comprehensive cloud Compare the two cloud models in one map as the Fig. 10, we can see
model. that there are obvious differences. By Definition 10, the comprehensive
By Definition 5, the comprehensive cloud model is cloud deviates greatly from the center of the standard evaluation lan­
A* = (4.087, 0.624, 0.324) . The calculation process is as follows. guage. On the contrary, this phenomenon can be reasonable solved and
the evaluation results can be more truthfully reflected by Definition 5.
0.2 + 0.3 0.2 + 0.3
Ex* = / + 0.6 + 0.3 *3.09 Thus, the data conversion approach adopted in this paper process
2 2
stronger rationality and application value.
0.2 + 0.3 In the aspect of risk aggregation method, fuzzy comprehensive
+ 0.6/ + 0.6 + 0.3 *4.045
2 evaluation (FSE) is a mature MCDM method with widespread utiliza­
0.2 + 0.3 tion in risk assessment, investment decision making, site selection and
+ 0.3/ + 0.6 + 0.3 *5 = 4.087
2 so on. Thus, this paper uses FSE model to comparatively analyze the
risk level of S-PHS project in China. The evaluation result can be clearly
( 0.2 + 0.3
2 (
/
0.2 + 0.3
2
+ 0.6 + 0.3 ) )*3.09*1.03 shown as the Table 13.
From the calculation result we can see that no matter which eva­
( (
+ 0.6/
0.2 + 0.3
2
+ 0.6 + 0.3) )*4.045*0.637 luation model, the risk result of PPP-S-PHS project is between M and
MH, which indicates that the evaluation result is reliable. However, the
+ (0.3/ ( + 0.6 + 0.3) )*5*0.393
0.2 + 0.3
2 risk ranking of DBFO-S-PHS and BOO-S-PHS are exchanged when use
En* = = 0.624 the FSE model since DBFO-S-PHS process relatively more average cri­
( /( 0.2 + 0.3
2
0.2 + 0.3
2
+ 0.6 + 0.3) )*3.09 teria values but BOO-S-PHS is prominent in a certain type of criteria.
The reason for this phenomenon is that attributes are completely
+ (0.6/ ( + 0.6 + 0.3) )*4.045
0.2 + 0.3
2 compensated by each other in the FSE method, which can't reflect the
+ (0.3/ ( + 0.6 + 0.3) )*5 real function of each attribute. But this shortcoming can be effectively
0.2 + 0.3
2
avoided by the Cloud model utilized in this paper through calculating

Fig. 10. The comparative cloud between Definitions 5 and 10.

13
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Table 13
Risk result formulated by fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method.
S-PHS BOT-S-PHS DBFO-S-PHS BOO-S-PHS

FSE model (6.715,0.461,0.398) (6.120,0.406,0.357) (6.323,0.413,0.360) (6.298,0.420,0.369)

Ranking 4 1 3 2
Cloud model (6.701,0.460,0.405) (6.175,0.404,0.359) (6.281,0.411,0.363) (6.271,0.419,0.372)
Ranking 4 1 2 3

Table 14
Risk allocation scheme of PPP S-PHS project.
No Risk factors Risk allocation
Public Private The third party (Insurance company)

1 Construction technology √ √
2 Maintenance risk √ √
3 Corrosion risk √ √
4 Payment risk √ √
5 Revenue risk √ √
6 Inflation √ √
7 Change in tax √
8 Government decision-making risk √
9 Legal and policy risk √
10 Government intervention √
11 Government corruption √
12 Unclear division of responsibilities and obligations √ √ √
13 Concession period √ √
14 Imperfect supervision system √
15 Government credit risk √
16 Contract change risk √ √
17 Lack of PPP experience √ √
18 Unforeseen weather or geotechnical conditions √
19 Environmental pollution √ √ √
20 Public opposition √ √
21 Lack of supporting infrastructure √
22 Force majeure √

the distance between every two criteria and adding criteria support
operator in the calculation process. In comparison, cloud model ag­
gregation operator can more scientifically aggregate fuzzy sets with
great hesitation without losing information in the calculation process.
In conclusion, the risk assessment model in this paper is accurate and
more effective and applicable.
supervision system, government credit risk, unforeseen weather or
geotechnical conditions as well as lack of supporting infrastructure. For
comprehensively ameliorate the risks of these factors, certain responses
are proposed as follows.
(i) Change in tax.

5. Risk response
Despite the increasing research on S-PHS worldwide, the risk level
of S-PHS is still in the middle of “MH” and “H” even if multiple PPP
modes are added for risk sharing. Hence, effective risk response is in­
dispensable and necessary to ensure the success of this project. First,
through literature research, related book studies and expert meetings,
the risk allocation scheme for Chinese S-PHS project under above three
PPP modes has been determined, as shown in Table 14
[48,52,58,66,67].
As literature review, risk response measures should be proposed in
accordance with corresponding risk allocated parties and the evaluation
results in order to provide a reference for the public sectors, private
sectors, the third party (insurance company) and sharing sections. The
corresponding risk response can be shown as follows.
➢ Public unilateral risk response
The public sector is mainly directed at government behavior, in­
cluding change in tax, government decision-making risk, legal and
policy risk, government intervention, government corruption, imperfect
According to the book of Public Private Partnerships Theory and
Practice, change in tax is the risk which should be undertaken by
government section. Change in tax is normal in renewable energy de­
velopment since the government has different incentive plans as dif­
ferent stages. But the change in tax can bring great fluctuation in
smooth operation of PPP renewable energy project. To deal with it,
public could broaden and encourage effective and suitable financial
instruments, and improve national core competitiveness through con­
tinuously investing in technological innovation and improvement.
Besides, government may better change the tax based on the domestic
project affordability from a global perspective.
(ii) Government decision-making risk.
In preparation, government should conduct enough discussion as
well as communication with private sectors on the key procedures or
times of S-PHS project to formulate an adequate plan and avoid the
decision risks arising from non-communication. In the medium term,
the combination of foreign successful experience with the reality of our
country is necessary in government decision process to ensure pro­
gressiveness and rationality of decision results.

14
Y. Wu, et al.
(iii) Legal and policy risk.
Government should accurately analyze the orientation of PPP S-PHS
project in order that a set of comprehensive policy can be formulated
from a holistic perspective so that temporary changes in polices can be
effectively avoided, which has great adverse effects on the normal de­
velopment of PPP S-PHS project.
(iv) Government intervention/ Government corruption/ Government
credit risk.
Establish a third-party organization to supervise the government
and private sectors to ensure there is either no intervention or cor­
ruption from government in the period of franchise by which govern­
ment can strongly increase individual credit degree. The supervision
system can be made up by some prestigious professors or several
masses. A written guarantee is necessary too.
(v) Unforeseen weather or geotechnical conditions.
This risk can be decreased in a certain degree at the stage of site
selection and prospecting. In the process of construction and operation,
some prevention measures such as effective timely seismic monitoring
or installation of natural disaster warning device as well as the early
warning treatment should be formulated which is responsible by the
government.
(vi) Lack of supporting infrastructure.
For PPP project, local government is responsible for ensure the
electricity and land acquisition, and it is necessary for government to
communicate with relevant departments for project smooth running. If
the government fails to fulfill its corresponding duties, after supervision
and verification, the concession period should be extended.
➢ The third party (insurance company) unilateral risk response
The main responsibility provided by the third-party containing in­
surance company is supervision and management in the construction
and operation process and collaborative risk response after risks oc­
currence.
(i) Force majeure
Build early warning system and timely information transmission
system so as to ensure the force majeure can be greatly prevented in the
prevention stage and reduce its occurrence possibility, increase the
means to control if it occurs as well as reduce the impact. Besides, the
third party should take the responsibilities of the supervision of system
operation
➢ Public and private joint responsibility response
Risks like payment risk, revenue risk, inflation, concession period,
contact change risk, lack of PPP experience and public opposition are
within the scope of joint responsibility of the public and private who
should take suitable risk response measures to ensure the normal op­
eration of PPP S-PHS project.
(i) Payment risk. For minimizing the payment risk, a clearly conces­
sion agreement should be formulated with the detail payment
process as payment time, payment place, payment mode as well as
15
Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753
the amount of payment.
(ii) Revenue risk. Revenue risk always comes from every part of PPP
project such length of franchise period as well as participants’
fault, change in tax and electricity price, etc. Thus, revenue risk
can be effectively avoided through overall planning and careful
study before the project starts. A certain of experts can be invited
to determine the most suitable franchise period length and the
price of electricity. Furthermore, effective information commu­
nication system should be applied to ensure the timely disposal of
the emergences to minimize the revenue losses.
(iii) Inflation. Inflation can be influenced by numerous factors and the
alteration of it can cause cost or price changes which will have
great impact on the smooth operation of PPP S-PHS project.
Fortunately, advance price coefficient setting plan can be effective
when inflation occurs. Besides, some government regulation and
guidance measures are necessary to improve the rational level of
capital flow.
(iv) Concession period.
There is greater uncertainty in the concession period which may
greatly influence the benefits of the private section and public section.
Thus, the concession period should be reasonable planned and clearly
stated in the contract. Besides, if the concession period has to be
changed, the corresponding punishment and compensation mechanism
and the subsequent operation mechanism must be clearly determined.
(v) Contract change risk
Contract change covers a wide range of contents in general. Namely,
a little bit change in the contract may lead to great impact. Hence,
proper risk response will help reduce the uncertain risk of one project
and implement it as planned. First, all parties should consider all kinds
of unexpected situations as comprehensively as possible in advance,
and clearly study their coping strategies. If the contract has to be
amended during the performance of one contract, multi-party con­
sultation and discussion are needed to minimize the overall loss.
(vi) Lack of PPP experience
Firstly, fair tendering in real sense should be achieved in selecting
private sector. Moreover, whether the private sector has done at least
one successful PPP project should be an important assessment criterion
of public sector, which can give private sector certain lessons.
(vii) Public opposition.
A stable social order is the prerequisite for the development of a
project. Thus, appease the local people with certain preferential policies
on electricity consumption, which will effectively solve the problem of
public opposition.
➢ Private and the third party (insurance company) joint responsibility
response
The risks allotted to private and the third party (insurance com­
pany) are construction technology, maintenance risk and corrosion risk
according to literature reviews and relevant book study.
(i) Construction technology
As no practical experience on S-PHS project in China, learning from
foreign successful experience and technology is indispensable. Besides,
Y. Wu, et al.
expert research teams can be established by private sector to study and
innovate advanced technology in each period of PPP S-PHS project
operation. Besides, the third party (insurance company) can broaden
their service channel and strengthen the supervision of existing tech­
nology application safety and the supervision of expert research team.
(ii) Maintenance risk
Large scale maintenance can increase the cost. Thus, effective pre­
vention and timely detection of the problem can decrease the prob­
ability of risk occurrence. The third party mainly provides supervisory
functions and urges private sector to correct existing deficiencies.
(iii) Corrosion risk
As seawater has a certain corrosive effect on environment or ma­
chine, research on anticorrosion technology is indispensable. In addi­
tion, the areas where plants or farms are numerously grown should be
avoided in the stage of site selection. Moreover, some suitable and
economic methods which can decrease seawater corrosion degree can
be rationally utilized. And the third party should strengthen the su­
pervision of the integrity of all process to effectively prevent the oc­
currence of risks.
➢ Public, Private and the third party (insurance company) trilateral
joint responsibility response.
After risk sharing, unclear division of responsibilities and obliga­
tions, environmental pollution as well as force majeure are the risks
factors which should be handled by three parties as public, private and
the third party (insurance company) sections.
(i) Unclear division of responsibilities and obligations
At the beginning of the project, a clear division contract of re­
sponsibilities and obligations should be defined and approved by each
participant. Everyone had the right to supervise all participants’ beha­
vior. Some fine or legal responsibilities can be pursued if any party
breach the contract stipulations.
(ii) Environmental pollution
Environmental pollution is the main reason for stopping the service
of the first S-PHS project in Japan. Thus, in the process of site selection,
public and private sector should try to avoid building upper reservoirs
where vegetation is abundant. Besides, environmental compensation
measures such as building protection forests outside a certain area of
the upper reservoir or establishing appropriate isolation zones around
the upper reservoir to prevent sea water splash. In the course of op­
eration, the third party should act as a strict supervisor to prevent
private or public sectors from failing to operate in accordance with
regulations.
6. Conclusions
This paper analyzes the risk degree of S-PHS project and the one
under three typical management modes through a scientific and com­
prehensive framework as LHFSs based cloud model. Firstly, on the basis
of literature review, expert discussion meeting, the experience of
16
Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753
foreign successful S-PHS project and Chinese actual condition, the key
risk factors of S-PHS project and three typical PPP management modes
as BOT, DBFO and BOO are identified. There are 11 risks factors in the
final S-PHS project risk assessment criteria system and 18 factors in the
one under each typical PPP management mode, which can be classified
into five groups as technical risk, economic risk, participant risk, gov­
ernment risk and social risk. Following that, a risk assessment frame­
work as LHFSs based cloud model is established to comprehensively
calculate the current risk level of S-PHS project in China.
The result shows that S-PHS risk level in China locates in the middle
of “MH” and “H”, and BOT-S-PHS gains the lowest risk value comparing
with other types. Furthermore, the superiority of PPP mode for S-PHS
project can be clearly demonstrated by the similarity degree compar­
ison. On this basis, the risk response strategies for all risk factors in each
mode are put forward. Compared with existing research, the proposed
model in this paper has the following advantages: (1) The risk degree of
S-PHS project is firstly assessed by the proposed model in this paper; (2)
A 4-dimension risk value determination pattern is analyzed in detail;
(3) Critical risk factors of S-PHS project and three typical PPP man­
agement modes as BOT, DBFO and BOO are identified; (4) A risk as­
sessment framework of LHFSs based cloud model is utilized which are
accessible to the facts with the characteristics as fuzziness and ran­
domness; (5) The superiority of PPP mode in risk reduction to S-PHS
project has been verified through scenarios analysis and similarity de­
gree comparison. Besides, DMs can well understand and endorse the
process decision making and the evaluation result. Overall, the pro­
posed risk assessment framework can extend the study fields of PPP S-
PHS project and overcome the deficiencies in previous research.
Although there are a lot of advantages in this paper, certain im­
provements are still existed. Due to there are many management modes
besides PPP, such as EPC (Engineering Procurement Construction), it is
meaningful to further assess the risk level in other modes to search for
discrimination of the advantages of each mode in the application of S-
PHS project. If we can solve these problems in the future, the decision
result would be more effective.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yunna Wu: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision. Ting
Zhang: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft. Kaifeng
Chen: Writing - review & editing. Liqi Yi: Validation, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships
with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence
our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any
nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be
construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the
manuscript entitled.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the National Social Science Fund of
China (19AGL027), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (No. 2020MS066), the 2017 Special Project of Cultivation
and Development of Innovation Base (NO. Z171100002217024).
 Appendix A
Y. Wu, et al.

Table 15
Criteria risk values in 4-dimention for S-PHS project.
RPM RPO RCS RUC

C11 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.6)}
C12 LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s5, 0.4, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s3, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1)}
C13 LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.7), (s6, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.55, 0.65), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.5), (s6, 0.2)}
C21 LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.4, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.7), (s6, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.1, 0.2), (s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.6)}
C22 LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.6, 0.7), (s6, 0.2)} LH = {(s6, 0.1, 0.3), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.1)} LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.1, 0.2), (s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.5, 0.6)}
C23 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s5, 0.5, 0.7)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6, 0.7), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C24 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)}
C31 LH = {(s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s3, 0.5), (s5, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.4), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s5, 0.5), (s4, 0.2), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)}
C32 LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)}
C41 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s2, 0.3), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.4, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C42 LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)}

17
Table 16
Criteria risk values in 4-dimention for S-PHS project under the BOT mode.
RPM RPO RCS RUC

C11 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.6)}
C12 LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.4)} LH = {(s1, 0.2), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.5), (s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.1)}
C13 LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.7), (s6, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.55, 0.65), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.5), (s6, 0.2)}
C21 LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.4), (s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s2, 0.1), (s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.65)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)}
C22 LH = {(s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.1)} LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.5)}
C23 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s5, 0.5, 0.7)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6, 0.7), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C24 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)}
C25 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.7)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.5), (s4, 0.4)}
C31 LH = {(s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s3, 0.6), (s4, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.4), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s5, 0.5), (s4, 0.2), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)}
C32 LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)}
C41 LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s5, 0.3)}
C42 LH = {(s1, 0.1, 0.2), (s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.5)} LH = {(s1, 0.2), (s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)}
C43 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.4), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.3), (s6, 0.4)}
C51 LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C52 LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s5, 0.5, 0.7), (s6, 0.2)} LH = {(s1, 0.4), (s2, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.3)}
C53 LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s1, 0.3), (s2, 0.4), (s5, 0.4, 0.5)}
C54 LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s4, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C55 LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)}
Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753
 Table 17
Criteria risk values in 4-dimention for S-PHS project under the DBFO mode.
Y. Wu, et al.

RPM RPO RCS RUC

C11 LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.4, 0.3), (s5, 0.6)}
C12 LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.4, 0.6), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.4)} LH = {(s1, 0.2), (s3, 0.5), (s4, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.1)}
C13 LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.5)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.55, 0.65), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.5), (s6, 0.1)}
C14 LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.4), (s6, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.1), (s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.7)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s4, 0.4, 0.5)}
C21 LH = {(s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.5, 0.7)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.1), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.4)}
C22 LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)} LH = {(s3, 0.6), (s5, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5, 0.7), (s6, 0.1)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.7, 0.8), (s6, 0.2)}
C23 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.2, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)}
C24 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.7)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.5), (s4, 0.2)}
C25 LH = {(s5, 0.4), (s6, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s3, 0.6), (s4, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.4), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s5, 0.6), (s4, 0.2), (s6, 0.3)}
C26 LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.4, 0.6), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.4, 0.3), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s5, 0.4), (s6, 0.1)}
C31 LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.6, 0.7)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.1)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)}
C41 LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.5)} LH = {(s1, 0.2), (s3, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)}
C42 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.4), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.4)}
C51 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.2), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C52 LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s4, 0.3), (s6, 0.1)} LH = {(s1, 0.4), (s2, 0.4), (s4, 0.2)}
C53 LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s6, 0.1), (s4, 0.2, 0.4), (s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)}
C54 LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s4, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C55 LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)}

18
Table 18
Criteria risk values in 4-dimention for S-PHS project under the BOO mode.
RPM RPO RCS RUC

C11 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.6)}
C12 LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.5)} LH = {(s1, 0.2), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5)} LH = {(s2, 0.5), (s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.3)}
C13 LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.5, 0.7), (s6, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.55, 0.65), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.5), (s6, 0.2)}
C21 LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.4), (s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s2, 0.1), (s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.7)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.3, 0.2), (s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.4)}
C22 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.7)} LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.6)}
C23 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5, 0.7)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6, 0.7), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C24 LH = {(s2, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)}
C25 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.7)} LH = {(s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s3, 0.5), (s4, 0.4)}
C31 LH = {(s4, 0.2), (s5, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.6), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)} LH = {(s4, 0.3), (s5, 0.4), (s6, 0.1)} LH = {(s5, 0.5), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s6, 0.1)}
C32 LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.4, 0.5), (s6, 0.1)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s5, 0.4, 0.5), (s6, 0, 0.1)} LH = {(s2, 0.5), (s5, 0.4, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)}
C41 LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s3, 0.3), (s4, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.5, 0.6), (s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.3, 0.4)}
C42 LH = {(s3, 0.3), (s5, 0.4, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s1, 0.4), (s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.6), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)}
C43 LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s2, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.2, 0.3)}
C51 LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s2, 0.3), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.4)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)}
C52 LH = {(s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.2, 0.3), (s4, 0.4), (s5, 0.2)} LH = {(s5, 0.4), (s4, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s1, 0.4), (s2, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.3)}
C53 LH = {(s2, 0.3), (s3, 0.4), (s4, 0.4, 0.5)} LH = {(s3, 0.2), (s4, 0.4, 0.5), (s5, 0.3)} LH = {(s3, 0.3, 0.4), (s4, 0.5), (s5, 0.2, 0.3)} LH = {(s1, 0.3), (s2, 0.4), (s5, 0.2, 0.4)}
C54 LH = {(s2, 0.4), (s4, 0.5, 0.6)} LH = {(s4, 0.3, 0.4), (s5, 0.5), (s6, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s3, 0.4, 0.5), (s4, 0.2, 0.3), (s5, 0.1, 0.2)} LH = {(s4, 0.5, 0.6), (s6, 0.3, 0.4)}
C55 LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)} LH = {(s5, 0.5)}
Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Appendix B

Table 19
BOT-S-PHS project cloud value of each criteria.
Criteria RPM RPO RCS RUC Aggregated cloud

C11 (5.94, 0.38, 0.35) (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (6.89, 0.45, 0.31) (6.84, 0.44, 0.31) (6.40, 0.40, 0.33)
C12 (5.70, 0.37, 0.35) (7.93, 0.61, 0.52) (4.83, 0.29, 0.32) (4.55, 0.28, 0.25) (5.61, 0.37, 0.35)
C13 (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (7.91, 0.60, 0.52) (7.27, 0.52, 0.52) (5.63, 0.44, 0.46) (6.64, 0.47, 0.46)
C21 (6.56, 0.42, 0.28) (6.77, 0.46, 0.35) (6.18, 0.37, 0.32) (5.58, 0.36, 0.35) (6.25, 0.40, 0.33)
C22 (6.69, 0.42, 0.31) (5.46, 0.35, 0.35) (5.25, 0.29, 0.25) (6.48, 0.40, 0.32) (5.94, 0.37, 0.31)
C23 (7.35, 0.52, 0.52) (6.44, 0.41, 0.28) (7.50, 0.52, 0.26) (7.30, 0.52, 0.52) (7.14, 0.49, 0.41)
C24 (6.01, 0.40, 0.35) (7.68, 0.58, 0.52) (4.86, 0.27, 0.25) (5.71, 0.31, 0.32) (5.98, 0.38, 0.35)
C25 (7.58, 0.56, 0.52) (6.18, 0.37, 0.32) (5.70, 0.29, 0.19) (5.03, 0.27, 0.25) (6.06, 0.36, 0.32)
C31 (8.01, 0.61, 0.52) (4.90, 0.24, 0.25) (6.33, 0.43, 0.46) (7.83, 0.59, 0.52) (6.65, 0.45, 0.43)
C32 (6.04, 0.40, 0.35) (7.73, 0.52, 0.52) (6.18, 0.41, 0.35) (6.84, 0.58, 0.52) (6.56, 0.47, 0.44)
C41 (5.23, 0.27, 0.25) (6.12, 0.36, 0.32) (5.89, 0.33, 0.32) (6.02, 0.34, 0.32) (5.81, 0.33, 0.30)
C42 (4.98, 0.29, 0.32) (5.26, 0.37, 0.38) (7.29, 0.52, 0.52) (6.47, 0.39, 0.31) (5.93, 0.39, 0.39)
C43 (5.14, 0.27, 0.25) (5.49, 0.36, 0.32) (5.12, 0.27, 0.25) (5.91, 0.41, 0.35) (5.40, 0.33, 0.29)
C51 (5.75, 0.39, 0.35) (5, 0.27, 0.25) (6.78, 0.43, 0.31) (5.84, 0.32, 0.46) (5.81, 0.35, 0.35)
C52 (6.04, 0.35, 0.32) (6.26, 0.38, 0.32) (8.13, 0.61, 0.50) (4.01, 0.36, 0.35) (5.92, 0.43, 0.39)
C53 (5.12, 0.28, 0.25) (6.40, 0.40, 0.32) (6.63, 0.42, 0.31) (4.99, 0.46, 0.40) (5.74, 0.40, 0.34)
C54 (5.15, 0.32, 0.23) (7.33, 0.52, 0.52) (5.79, 0.31, 0.32) (6.82, 0.48, 0.45) (6.22, 0.40, 0.38)
C55 (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26)

Table 20
DBFO-S-PHS project risk level of each criteria.
Criteria RPM RPO RCS RUC Aggregated cloud

C11 (6.17, 0.36, 0.32) (6.29, 0.38, 0.32) (6.64, 0.42, 0.31) (6.93, 0.45, 0.31) (6.50, 0.40, 0.32)
C12 (5.86, 0.39, 0.35) (7.93, 0.61, 0.52) (4.84, 0.28, 0.32) (4.62, 0.27, 0.25) (5.68, 0.37, 0.35)
C13 (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (8.06, 0.62, 0.52) (7.61, 0.57, 0.52) (5.17, 0.36, 0.46) (6.61, 0.46, 0.47)
C14 (7.83, 0.54, 0.52) (6.85, 0.47, 0.35) (6.23, 0.37, 0.32) (5.06, 0.32, 0.23) (6.32, 0.42, 0.35)
C21 (6.80, 0.44, 0.31) (7.01, 0.57, 0.52) (5.15, 0.28, 0.25) (8.25, 0.40, 0.32) (7.08, 0.44, 0.37)
C22 (6.88, 0.45, 0.31) (6.07, 0.37, 0.28) (7.86, 0.57, 0.50) (7.41, 0.53, 0.52) (7.02, 0.48, 0.40)
C23 (6.01, 0.40, 0.35) (7.95, 0.61, 0.52) (4.91, 0.27, 0.25) (5.71, 0.31, 0.32) (6.05, 0.39, 0.35)
C24 (7.58, 0.56, 0.52) (6.34, 0.39, 0.32) (5.70, 0.29, 0.19) (4.86, 0.26, 0.25) (6.04, 0.37, 0.32)
C25 (8.95, 0.72, 0.50) (5, 0.25, 0.25) (6.33, 0.43, 0.46) (7.90, 0.60, 0.52) (6.89, 0.48, 0.43)
C26 (5.98, 0.34, 0.32) (7.39, 0.54, 0.52) (5.84, 0.40, 0.35) (6.52, 0.53, 0.52) (6.40, 0.45, 0.43)
C31 (5.65, 0.28, 0.19) (6.48, 0.40, 0.32) (5.72, 0.30, 0.32) (6.14, 0.36, 0.32) (5.99, 0.34, 0.29)
C41 (5.25, 0.27, 0.25) (5.83, 0.42, 0.38) (7.29, 0.52, 0.52) (6.47, 0.39, 0.31) (6.16, 0.40, 0.37)
C42 (5.14, 0.27, 0.25) (5.49, 0.36, 0.32) (5.12, 0.27, 0.25) (5.91, 0.41, 0.35) (5.40, 0.33, 0.29)
C51 (6.40, 0.39, 0.32) (3.75, 0.28, 0.25) (6.93, 0.45, 0.31) (5.84, 0.32, 0.46) (5.58, 0.36, 0.35)
C52 (6.04, 0.35, 0.32) (6.49, 0.41, 0.32) (7.26, 0.51, 0.52) (3.81, 0.37, 0.35) (5.74, 0.42, 0.40)
C53 (6.31, 0.36, 0.32) (7.26, 0.51, 0.52) (6.53, 0.40, 0.31) (6.50, 0.42, 0.28) (6.64, 0.42, 0.36)
C54 (5.15, 0.32, 0.23) (7.33, 0.52, 0.52) (5.79, 0.31, 0.32) (6.82, 0.48, 0.45) (6.22, 0.40, 0.38)
C55 (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26)

Table 21
BOO-S-PHS project cloud value of each criteria.
Criteria RPM RPO RCS RUC Aggregated cloud

C11 (5.94, 0.38, 0.35) (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (6.89, 0.45, 0.31) (6.84, 0.44, 0.31) (6.40, 0.40, 0.33)
C12 (5.70, 0.37, 0.35) (8.25, 0.65, 0.52) (4.83, 0.29, 0.32) (4.82, 0.29, 0.25) (5.75, 0.38, 0.35)
C13 (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (7.91, 0.60, 0.52) (7.27, 0.52, 0.52) (5.63, 0.44, 0.46) (6.64, 0.47, 0.46)
C21 (7.25, 0.54, 0.51) (6.42, 0.45, 0.35) (6.42, 0.40, 0.32) (6.20, 0.42, 0.35) (6.56, 0.45, 0.38)
C22 (7.00, 0.46, 0.31) (6.18, 0.41, 0.35) (4.90, 0.29, 0.25) (6.60, 0.42, 0.32) (6.11, 0.39, 0.31)
C23 (7.35, 0.52, 0.52) (6.44, 0.41, 0.28) (6.93, 0.45, 0.31) (7.30, 0.52, 0.52) (7.0, 0.48, 0.42)
C24 (6.01, 0.40, 0.35) (7.68, 0.58, 0.52) (4.86, 0.27, 0.25) (5.71, 0.31, 0.32) (5.98, 0.38, 0.35)
C25 (7.68, 0.58, 0.52) (6.18, 0.37, 0.32) (5.70, 0.29, 0.19) (5.03, 0.27, 0.25) (6.08, 0.37, 0.32)
C31 (8.01, 0.61, 0.52) (6.26, 0.37, 0.32) (7.23, 0.51, 0.52) (7.19, 0.50, 0.52) (7.15, 0.50, 0.47)
C32 (5.37, 0.32, 0.23) (7.18, 0.50, 0.52) (7.17, 0.52, 0.51) (6.58, 0.56, 0.52) (6.53, 0.47, 0.44)
C41 (4.79, 0.28, 0.25) (6.51, 0.41, 0.32) (5.76, 0.31, 0.32) (6.26, 0.38, 0.32) (5.79, 0.34, 0.30)
C42 (7.38, 0.56, 0.51) (4.78, 0.38, 0.38) (7.29, 0.52, 0.52) (6.47, 0.39, 0.31) (6.39, 0.46, 0.44)
C43 (6.04, 0.40, 0.35) (7.27, 0.52, 0.52) (6.18, 0.41, 0.35) (6.84, 0.58, 0.52) (6.56, 0.47, 0.44)
C51 (5.75, 0.39, 0.35) (5, 0.27, 0.25) (6.78, 0.43, 0.31) (5.84, 0.32, 0.46) (5.81, 0.35, 0.35)
C52 (5.82, 0.32, 0.32) (6.04, 0.35, 0.32) (6.61, 0.41, 0.31) (4.00, 0.36, 0.35) (5.52, 0.38, 0.35)
C53 (5.12, 0.28, 0.25) (6.24, 0.37, 0.32) (6.00, 0.34, 0.32) (4.62, 0.46, 0.40) (5.46, 0.38, 0.34)
C54 (5.15, 0.32, 0.23) (7.33, 0.52, 0.52) (5.72, 0.31, 0.32) (6.56, 0.41, 0.31) (6.14, 0.38, 0.34)
C55 (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26) (7.5, 0.52, 0.26)

19
Y. Wu, et al. Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753

Appendix C

Table 22
The T(Aαi) and βi of S-PHS project under BOT mode.
Criteria T(Aαi) βi

C11 16.044 0.0561

C12 16.211 0.0567
C13 15.132 0.0532
C21 16.123 0.0564
C22 15.865 0.0555
C23 15.667 0.0549
C24 16.215 0.0567
C25 15.780 0.0553
C31 15.645 0.0548
C32 15.362 0.0539
C41 15.253 0.0536
C42 16.131 0.0565
C43 15.541 0.0545
C51 16.112 0.0564
C52 15.897 0.0557
C53 16.240 0.0568
C54 16.153 0.0565
C55 16.066 0.0562

Table 23
The T(Aαi) and βi of S-PHS project under DBFO mode.
Criteria T(Aαi) βi

C11 15.875 0.0555

C12 16.295 0.0569
C13 15.172 0.0532
C14 16.251 0.0568
C21 15.938 0.0557
C22 15.844 0.0554
C23 16.194 0.0566
C24 15.734 0.0551
C25 15.619 0.0547
C26 15.619 0.0547
C31 15.053 0.0528
C41 16.228 0.0567
C42 15.470 0.0542
C51 16.177 0.0565
C52 15.847 0.0554
C53 16.226 0.0567
C54 16.192 0.0566
C55 16.139 0.0564

Table 24
T(Aαi) and βi of S-PHS project under BOO mode.
Criteria T(Aαi) βi

C11 15.892 0.0559

C12 16.117 0.0567
C13 15.404 0.0543
C21 15.919 0.0560
C22 15.723 0.0554
C23 15.774 0.0555
C24 16.090 0.0566
C25 15.590 0.0549
C31 15.349 0.0541
C32 15.511 0.0547
C41 15.258 0.0538
C42 16.598 0.0550
C43 15.587 0.0550
C51 15.961 0.0562
C52 16.161 0.0568
C53 16.163 0.0568
C54 16.004 0.0563
C55 15.928 0.0560

20
Y. Wu, et al.
References
[1] N.I. Ibrahim, F.A. Alsulaiman, F.N. Ani, Solar absorption systems with integrated
absorption energy storage–A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018)
1602–1610.
[2] J.L. Crespo-Vazquez, et al., A machine learning based stochastic optimization fra­
mework for a wind and storage power plant participating in energy pool market,
Appl. Energy 232 (2018) 341–357.
[3] A. Parwal, et al., Energy management for a grid-connected wave energy park
through a hybrid energy storage system, Appl. Energy 231 (2018) 399–411.
[4] Port, P.o.L.B.T.G., Energy storage technologies white paper 2016.
[5] X. Xu, et al., Optimized sizing of a standalone PV-wind-hydropower station with
pumped-storage installation hybrid energy system, Renew. Energy 147 (2020)
1418–1431.
[6] M.S. Javed, et al., Solar and wind power generation systems with pumped hydro
storage: review and future perspectives, Renew. Energy 148 (2020) 176–192.
[7] E.N. Nyeche, E.O. Diemuodeke, Modelling and optimisation of a hybrid PV-wind
turbine-pumped hydro storage energy system for mini-grid application in coastline
communities, J. Cleaner Prod. 250 (2020) 119578.
[8] Y. Wu, et al., Optimal location selection for offshore wind-PV-seawater pumped
storage power plant using a hybrid MCDM approach: a two-stage framework,
Energy Convers. Manag. 199 (2019) 112066.
[9] A. Hiratsuka, T. Arai, T. Yoshimura, Seawater pumped-storage power plant in
Okinawa island, Japan, Eng. Geol. 35 (3) (1993) 237–246.
[10] C. Ioakimidis, K. Genikomsakis, Integration of seawater pumped-storage in the
energy system of the Island of São Miguel (Azores), Sustainability 10 (10) (2018)
3438.
[11] Francisco, F.G.A., Wave energy distribution across the Agulhas Bank, a source of
renewable energy for a seawater pumped storage scheme. 2013.
[12] L. Bridier, M. David, P. Lauret, Optimal design of a storage system coupled with
intermittent renewables, Renew. Energy 67 (4) (2014) 2–9.
[13] N. Ghorbani, H. Makian, C. Breyer, A GIS-based method to identify potential sites
for pumped hydro energy storage - Case of Iran, Energy 169 (2019) 854–867.
[14] N. Liang, et al., Two-stage coordinate optimal scheduling of seawater pumped
storage in active distribution networks, Sustainability 10 (6) (2018) 2014.
[15] NEA, The results of resource census of seawater pumped storage power station
released by National Energy Administrationhttp://www.2017-04/05/contengov.
cn/xinwen/t_5183621.htm, 2017(68).
[16] R. Segurado, et al., Optimization of a wind powered desalination and pumped hydro
storage system, Appl. Energy 177 (2016) 487–499.
[17] M. Bertsiou, et al., Water management and electricity output of a Hybrid Renewable
Energy System (HRES) in Fournoi Island in Aegean Sea, Renew. Energy 118 (2018)
790–798.
[18] Y. Wu, et al., Location selection of seawater pumped hydro storage station in China
based on multi-attribute decision making, Renew. Energy 139 (2019) 410–425.
[19] U. Portero, S. Velázquez, J.A. Carta, Sizing of a wind-hydro system using a re­
versible hydraulic facility with seawater. A case study in the Canary Islands, Energy
Convers. Manag. 106 (2015) 1251–1263.
[20] A. Sokołowski, D. Brulińska, The effects of low seawater pH on energy storage and
heat shock protein 70 expression in a bivalve Limecola balthica, Mar. Environ. Res.
140 (2018) 289–298.
[21] Z. Wu, et al., Mathematical modeling and performance analysis of seawater heat
exchanger in closed-loop seawater-source heat pump system, J. Energy Eng.-ASCE
145 (4) (2019) 04019012.
[22] E. McLean, D. Kearney, An evaluation of seawater pumped hydro storage for reg­
ulating the export of renewable energy to the national grid, Energy Procedia 46
(2014) 152–160.
[23] L. Kumar, A. Jindal, N.R. Velaga, Financial risk assessment and modelling of PPP
based Indian highway infrastructure projects, Transp. Policy 62 (2017).
[24] Y. Li, X. Wang, Risk assessment for public–private partnership projects: using a
fuzzy analytic hierarchical process method and expert opinion in China, J. Risk Res.
21 (8) (2018) 952–973.
[25] Sokołowski, A. and D. Brulińska, The effects of low seawater pH on energy storage
and heat shock protein 70 expression in a bivalve Limecola balthica. Mar. Environ.
Res., 2018.
[26] Y. Wu, et al., Risk assessment on offshore photovoltaic power generation projects in
China based on a fuzzy analysis framework, J. Clean. Prod. 215 (2019) 46–62.
[27] Y. Wu, et al., Renewable energy investment risk assessment for nations along
China's Belt & Road Initiative: an ANP-cloud model method, Energy 190 (2020)
116381.
[28] T. Yang, et al., Application of the public–private partnership model to urban sewage
treatment, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 1065–1074.
[29] S. Geng, et al., Social capital selection framework of public-private partnership
project of electrochemical storage power station under linguistic environment, J.
Clean. Prod. 199 (2018) 751–762.
[30] M. Buso, A. Stenger, Public-private partnerships as a policy response to climate
change, Energy Policy 119 (2018) 487–494.
[31] Y. Wu, et al., A risk assessment framework of PPP waste-to-energy incineration
projects in China under 2-dimension linguistic environment, J. Cleaner Prod. 183
(2018) 602–617.
[32] Y. Xu, et al., Critical risk factors affecting the implementation of PPP waste-to-
energy projects in China, Appl. Energy 158 (2015) 403–411.
21
Journal of Energy Storage 32 (2020) 101753
[33] H. Zhang, et al., Targeted poverty alleviation using photovoltaic power in China:
identifying financial options through a dynamic game analysis, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 139 (2018) 333–337.
[34] W. Hao, A study on the definition and classification of PPP, Urban Rapid Rail
Transit. 17 (5) (2004) 23–27.
[35] Q. Li, Y. Wang, Selection of public-private-partnership (PPP) modes for urban un­
derground utility tunnels, Tunnel Construct. 37 (9) (2017) 1077–1082.
[36] Agency, I.E., Prospects for distributed energy systems in China. 2017.
[37] J. Yuan, et al., Linguistic hesitant fuzzy multi-criterion decision-making for re­
newable energy: a case study in Jilin, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 3201–3214.
[38] C. Zhu, L. Zhu, X. Zhang, Linguistic hesitant fuzzy power aggregation operators and
their applications in multiple attribute decision-making, Inform. Sci. 367 (2016)
809–826.
[39] V. Torra, Hesitant fuzzy sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25 (6) (2010) 529–539.
[40] F. Meng, X. Chen, Q. Zhang, Multi-attribute decision analysis under a linguistic
hesitant fuzzy environment, Inform. Sci. 267 (2014) 287–305.
[41] H. Liao, Z. Xu, X.-J. Zeng, Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy lin­
guistic term sets and their application in multi-criteria decision making, Inform. Sci.
271 (2014) 125–142.
[42] Y. Wu, et al., A cloud decision framework in pure 2-tuple linguistic setting and its
application for low-speed wind farm site selection, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017)
2154–2165.
[43] L. Zhang, et al., Renewable energy project performance evaluation using a hybrid
multi-criteria decision-making approach: case study in Fujian, China, J. Cleaner
Prod. 206 (2019) 1123–1137.
[44] D. Wang, et al., A cloud model-based approach for water quality assessment,
Environ. Res. 148 (2016) 24–35.
[45] A.J. Sangster, Massive energy storage systems enable secure electricity supply from
renewables, Modern Power Syst. 4 (4) (2016) 659–667.
[46] M. Tian, et al., Risk and profit-based bidding and offering strategies for pumped
hydro storage in the energy market, J. Clean. Prod. 256 (2020) 120715.
[47] Z. Lu, Y. Gao, W. Zhao, A TODIM-based approach for environmental impact as­
sessment of pumped hydro energy storage plant, J. Clean. Prod. 248 (2020) 119265.
[48] X. Jiang, et al., Identifying significant risks and analyzing risk relationship for
construction PPP projects in China using integrated FISM-MICMAC approach,
Sustainability 11 (19) (2019) 5206.
[49] D.A. Katsaprakakis, et al., Technical details regarding the design, the construction
and the operation of seawater pumped storage systems, Energy 55 (2013) 619–630.
[50] G. Manfrida, R. Secchi, Seawater pumping as an electricity storage solution for
photovoltaic energy systems, Energy 69 (2014) 470–484.
[51] Y. Wu, et al., Risk assessment in straw-based power generation public-private
partnership projects in China: a fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis, J. Clean. Prod.
161 (2017) 977–990.
[52] K.Lewis, D.G.M., Public private partnerships: the worldwide revolution in infra­
structure provision and project finance.
[53] J. Sang, et al., Design of build-operate-transfer contract for integrated rail and
property development with uncertainty in future urban population, Transp. Res.
Part B-Methodol. 130 (2019) 36–66.
[54] L. Kumar, A. Jindal, N.R. Velaga, Financial risk assessment and modelling of PPP
based Indian highway infrastructure projects, Transp. Policy 62 (2018) 2–11.
[55] J. Song, et al., Risk identification for PPP waste-to-energy incineration projects in
China, Energy Policy 61 (2013) 953–962.
[56] J. Liu, Q. Wei, Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure public-
private partnership projects in China using fuzzy TOPSIS, J. Clean. Prod. 189
(2018) 211–222.
[57] X. Zhao, B.-G. Hwang, Y. Gao, A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk as­
sessment: a case of Singapore's green projects, J. Clean. Prod. 115 (2016) 203–213.
[58] Kang Jia, J.S., Public private partnerships theory and practice2015.
[59] X. Gou, Z. Xu, H. Liao, Multiple criteria decision making based on Bonferroni means
with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information, Soft Computing, (2017).
[60] W. Song, J. Zhu, A multistage risk decision making method for normal cloud model
considering behavior characteristics, Appl. Soft Comput. 78 (2019) 393–406.
[61] Y. Wu, et al., Cloud-based decision framework for waste-to-energy plant site se­
lection - a case study from China, Waste Manag. (Oxford) 48 (48) (2016) 593–603.
[62] H. Wang, Z. Xu, X. Zeng, Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for linguistic decision
making: current developments, issues and challenges, Inform. Fusion 43 (2018)
1–12.
[63] H.-l Wang, Y.-q. Feng, On multiple attribute group decision making with linguistic
assessment information based on cloud model, Control Decis. 20 (6) (2005) 679.
[64] Hu, S., Multi-attribute group decision making based on comprehensive cloud under
linguistic hesitant fuzzy environment and its application in ERP selection. Jiangxi
Univ. Fin. Econom.. 2018.
[65] W. Jun, Z. Jianjun, L. Xiaodi, An integrated similarity measure method for normal
cloud model based on shape and distance, Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 37 (3) (2017)
742–751.
[66] Y. Wu, et al., Risk management of public-private partnership charging infra­
structure projects in China based on a three-dimension framework, Energy 165
(2018) 1089–1101.
[67] A.A. Ahmadabadi, G. Heravi, Risk assessment framework of PPP-megaprojects fo­
cusing on risk interaction and project success, Transp. Res. Part A-Policy Pract. 124
(2019) 169–188.