International Journal of Ambient Energy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taen20

Identifying and assessing risks affecting the

development of Iranian low- and medium-voltage
solar photovoltaic power plants: using incentive
schemes for risk mitigation

Elham Firoozi & Mahmood Eghtesadifard

To cite this article: Elham Firoozi & Mahmood Eghtesadifard (2022) Identifying and assessing
risks affecting the development of Iranian low- and medium-voltage solar photovoltaic power
plants: using incentive schemes for risk mitigation, International Journal of Ambient Energy,
43:1, 5484-5500, DOI: 10.1080/01430750.2021.1953587

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2021.1953587

Published online: 04 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 85

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taen20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY
2022, VOL. 43, NO. 1, 5484–5500
https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2021.1953587

Identifying and assessing risks affecting the development of Iranian low- and
medium-voltage solar photovoltaic power plants: using incentive schemes for risk
mitigation
Elham Firoozi and Mahmood Eghtesadifard
Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Developing low- and medium-voltage solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants can be a practical solution to Received 9 June 2019
deal with environmental pollution and climate change in various regions. However, there are numerous risk Accepted 5 July 2021
factors affecting the development and success of such power plants. This study explored the risks affecting KEYWORDS
the sustainable development of low- and medium-voltage solar PV power plants in Iran, and identified the Renewable energy supply
support policies that could help overcome the barriers. This study was designed according to a four-phase chain; low-voltage solar
model: first, the key risk factors were extracted from the literature and experts’ opinions through the Delphi power plant; key risk factors;
method and were then categorised into six groups. The mutual relationships and importance of the factors support policies; incentive
were determined as well. Next, the incentive schemes, as defined internationally and according to the legal schemes; multi-criteria
and operational capacities of Iran, were identified and prioritised through multi-criteria decision-making decision-making
techniques, based on their effectives on risk mitigation.

1. Introduction
The global demand for energy will increase by 30% over the
next 15 years, while approximately two-thirds of the demand
will focus on the electricity sector. Yet, according to some esti-
mates, until 2035 over three-quarters of the world energies will
be still supplied through fossil fuels (Matsuo, Yanagisawa, and
Yamashita 2013; Dudley 2015; Tvaronavičienė et al. 2020). This
situation, however, could contribute to a considerably huge
amount of environmental pollution caused by greenhouse gas
emissions and climatic change. In response, countries have been
trying to implement support policies and incentive schemes to
exploit renewable energy resources and reduce the emission of
greenhouse gas emissions. As such, in line with Paris Climate
Agreement, there are objectives that most countries can volun-
tarily undertake from 2020 onward to reduce the emission of
greenhouse gasses (UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement.
Report, 2015). It is expected that renewable energy resources
will experience a rapid growth among other energy resources,
as they are predicted to show a four-fold growth in the next 20
years (Dudley 2015; Tvaronavičienė et al. 2020).
Meanwhile, electricity generation on a large scale seems to
be a better economic option, although it is not always opti-
mal or possible. Supporting electricity networks with a limited
number, although high-voltage, power stations could increase
transmission/distribution costs. Furthermore, electric transmis-
sion lines normally lose a high amount of energy. It would be
completely uneconomical to provide electric connectivity to
some areas that fall outside of the network. Developing low- and
medium-voltage solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants in urban
or rural areas can serve as a practical and achievable solution
for exploiting solar energy and reducing the volume of green-
house emissions. This solution is part of the current policies
governing the energy sector, as it is a plan supported by many
governments.
Such low-capacity power plants are usually constructed on
roofs or on the yards of residential houses, or near industrial
units, agricultural lands, and gardens. They can be installed in
locations with an area of 8–1200 m2 with an electrical capacity of
1–100 KW, depending on the amperage of the electricity supply
source used. Besides supplying the electricity needed for the unit
producing the energy, such power plants can distribute their
surplus electrical energy to supply network demands or meet
local demands (according to on-grid or off-grid situations). Con-
structing and utilising these types of solar power plants through
investment incentive schemes and guaranteed electricity sales
(for 10–20 years) are part of the support policies that govern-
ments follow; the payback period for the investments in such
projects may be around 4–5 years.
The development of solar photovoltaic power plants, how-
ever, faces various obstacles and there are numerous risk factors
threatening the successful establishment of such plants. Iden-
tifying these challenges to mitigate risk is a significant step in
developing solar photovoltaic power plants. Regulating sup-
port policies and incentive schemes for the development of
low-capacity power plants could help to reduce the risks asso-
ciated with electricity supply (Safari and Safari 2017). Such poli-
cies, which address renewable energies, are practiced in dif-
ferent countries, and regardless of the nature of the policies
or their executive procedures, they pursue similar objectives
such as diversifying energy production methods, increasing the

CONTACT Mahmood Eghtesadifard eghtesadifard@sutech.ac.ir

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


proportion of renewable energy production, increasing compe-
tition among renewable energy production resources, reducing
carbon emission, and decreasing dependency on fossil fuels
(Renewables 2017 Global Status Report).
As such, identifying the barriers to the development of low-
capacity PV power plants and adopting support policies and
incentives could help countries reduce risks and remove barri-
ers to the development of such power plants. This strategy, as
an effective and achievable solution, can expand the exploita-
tion of energy resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Given these important issues, the study explores low-capacity PV
power plants in Iran although the model and the results can be
easily used to identify and evaluate barriers to renewable energy
consumption and investigate the effectiveness of support mech-
anisms in various regions (for more information about the region
under investigation, see Appendix).
Given the concerns raised above about the necessity of devel-
oping electricity production though solar energy, this study
follows the following purposes: (a) proposing an integrated-
applied model to identify and analyse the risks related to the
solar energy supply chain (SC); (b) identifying the risk factors
associated with the development of solar energy supply chains
and determining the dependencies among the risk factors;
(c) prioritising the risk factors based on the influences they give
or receive; (d) enumerating support policies in the form of incen-
tive schemes that can be potentially implemented and effec-
tively mitigate risks; and (e) prioritising the incentive schemes
based on their degrees of effectiveness in reducing the devel-
opment risks of solar photovoltaic power plants.
To accomplish the research purposes, this study is designed
according to a four-phase model: first, the background of the
studies assessing risk in the renewable energy SC is reviewed
and the key risk factors (KRF) are identified based on the liter-
ature and expert options, and are then synthesised through the
Delphi method. Second, the mutual dependencies among the
risk factors are determined through DEMATEL-ANP and the rela-
tive importance of each factor is calculated. In phase 3, primarily
the incentive schemes are identified following an investigation
into how these schemes are formulated and employed inter-
nationally and a review of the legal and executive capacities
of Iran in this regard. Next these schemes are ranked by tak-
ing into account their risk mitigation effectiveness in small- and
medium-scale photovoltaic power plants, using MOORA and
WASPAS methods. In phase 4, to verify and examine the con-
sistency of the rankings, the COPRAS method is used and the
correlations among the rankings are found. Moreover, the sensi-
tivity of the ranking results is assessed in accordance with nor-
malisation methods of comparison matrices. Finally, the ranks
observed are presented to the experts, and a combination of
incentive schemes with the highest risk mitigation effects on
solar electricity supply systems are identified and compared with
the currently employed support policies.
The remaining sections of the paper are as follows: section
2 presents a review of the studies addressing risk identifica-
tion and assessment in the field of renewable energies and
underscores the innovations of the present study compared to
the literature. Section 3 explores the model proposed in this
study. Section 4 demonstrates how the model can be applied
to small- and medium-voltage solar energy production systems,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5485
and reports the findings of the model application. Finally, section
5 recaps the conclusions and findings of the study.
2. Review of literature
Researchers have identified numerous risks affecting the devel-
opment of renewable energies. Given the wide-ranging risk
factors, there are some classifications of risk in the literature.
Fendyur (2011) recognised health, industrial-economic, and
geo-political risks in the solar energy sector, relying on statistical
methods to quantitatively assess geo-political sources of risk in
this area. Komendantova et al. (2012) found three groups of risks,
in renewable energy projects in North Africa and their transfer to
Europe: regulatory, political, and force majeure. Computing the
risks in the electricity generators geared by wind power, Kang,
Wang, and Zhang (2011) formulated a model of equilibrium in
electricity markets.
Thapa, Karki, and Billinton (2011) assessed the organisational
commitment risk in terms of the volume and timing of delivery of
electricity produced by wind power, using statistical time series.
Aragonés-Beltrán et al. (2014) detected risk criteria in the invest-
ment of solar-thermal power plant projects in a Spanish com-
pany, through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic
network process (ANP) methods. Evaluating security in power
systems driven by wind power, Nguyen and Negnevitsky (2013)
proposed a probabilistic risk assessment model. Hosseini-Firouz
(2013) took into account three risk indicators (wind availability,
market prices, balancing energy needs) to construct a stochastic
programming technique for optimising wind-energy producers’
strategies in electricity market.
Trying to select the best strategy to reduce risk in offshore
wind farms, Shafiee (2015) relied on a fuzzy ANP model. Frisari
and Stadelmann (2015) focused on the role of policies and finan-
cial affairs in mitigating investment risk and production costs
in two concentrated solar power plants in India and Morocco.
Concerned with financial risk, Díaz et al. (2017) investigated the
power reserves in a wind power plant. Ghimire and Kim (2018)
probed into the solutions for developing renewable energy
resources that could be accessible to rural and remote regions in
Nepal. The study grouped 22 barriers into six types and ranked
them through AHP. The barrier types were social, policy and
political, technical, economic, administrative, and geographic.
The study found policy and political barriers were more signif-
icant in developing the solutions.
Omri, Chtourou, and Bazin (2019) explored investment in
concentrating solar powers in Tunisia, identifying such risk fac-
tors as not obtaining permission (license) to construct a con-
centrating solar plant, the risk of noncompliance with the dead-
line, the risk of failure to accomplish expected performance,
the risk of insufficient access to capital, and the risk of con-
flicts with local residents’ interests. Aly et al. (2019) investi-
gated the barriers to large-scale solar plants in Tanzania, from
three perspectives: organisational, financial, and technologi-
cal. They then qualitatively analyzed them, concluding that
the organisational barriers shaped the dominant factor that
even stimulated financial and technological factors. Gorjian
et al. (2019) inspected the potential of Iran in developing solar
PV power plants, finding such important barriers as insuffi-
cient industrial growth, problems with financial supply, defects
5486 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD
in existing laws, and the lack of a sustainable development
roadmap.
Dashtpeyma and Ghodsi (2019) proposed a qualitative-
quantitative approach to the development of a resilient solar
energy management system (RSEMs) regulated by DEMATEL
and data envelopment analysis (DEA). They identified 24 fac-
tors affecting the system and 30 empowering strategies. Finally,
the most important and effective strategies with considerable
impacts on RSEMs were introduced. Wu et al. (2020) discov-
ered investment risks associated with renewable energies for 54
countries in China’s ‘Belt & Road initiative’. The risks identified
were 32 ones, which were categorised into six groups. The find-
ings revealed that political, economic, and resource-related risks
were the most important ones. Kul, Zhang, and Solangi (2020)
divided the investment risk factors in renewable energy projects
for sustainable development in Turkey into six dimensions and
23 sub-dimensions. They used Delphi to identify the dimensions
and used AHP to evaluate them. They found that the economic
and business risk was the most important risk factor. They also
evaluated and prioritised the strategies to cope with the risk
factors via fuzzy weighted aggregated sum product assessment
(FWASPAS).
Exploring the situation in Pakistan, Solangi, Longsheng, and
Shah (2021) categorised the barriers to the sustainable develop-
ment of renewable energy technologies into seven barriers and
29 sub-barriers. Next, they evaluated and ranked them through
AHP. They concluded that the most important barriers were eco-
nomic and financial, political and policy, and market. They then
proposed some coping strategies and assessed them through
FTOPSIS. The practical strategies in this area were capital subsi-
dies, feed-in tariffs, and direct, enabling, and integrating policies.
Mostafaeipour et al. (2021) identified the barriers to the devel-
opment of solar energy development in Iran, conducting a case
study in Alborz province. They broke the findings into five cate-
gories: technical, laws and regulations, economic, sociocultural,
and support. Next, they evaluated and prioritised the factors
through the fuzzy best-worst method. They concluded that eco-
nomic factors (including the uncertainty of economic conditions,
and availability of low-price fossil resources in Iran) led to the for-
mation of high risks and to a lack of interest in investing in Iranian
renewable energy projects. As such, they suggested the alloca-
tion of financial incentives to the private sector as a strategy to
overcome the barriers.
Hashemizadeh et al. (2021) enumerated the investment risk
factors in renewable energy projects in countries in China’s
‘Belt & Road initiative’, dividing the risk factors into five groups:
economic, technical, environmental, social and political. Next,
they weighted the factors through F-ANP and ranked renew-
able energy resources based on such methods as COPRAS, multi
attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC),
and grey relational analysis (GRA) under uncertainty. They con-
cluded that the wind energy, along with more plausible eco-
nomic justifications, had a lower investment risk. Wu et al. (2021)
investigated risk factors in electrical supply projects in an island,
using off-grid renewable energy resources. They found techni-
cal, economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Next, they
evaluated the risk factors, observing that the technical aspect
had a higher degree of risk. As such, to cope with risks in such
projects, they proposed strategies that could minimise loss and
promote the island microgrid development.
As these observations suggest, the studies addressing risk
assessment in the renewable energy projects have identified a
small number of risk aspects (Chinie and Clodnitchi 2015; Ioan-
nou, Angus, and Brennan 2017; Omri, Chtourou, and Bazin 2019;
Aly et al. 2019; Kul, Zhang, and Solangi 2020; Wu et al. 2020;
Solangi, Longsheng, and Shah 2021; Mostafaeipour et al. 2021;
Hashemizadeh et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2021), while failing to con-
sider the whole aspects that could pose a risk to the develop-
ment of solar power plants. Moreover, the papers addressing the
impact of support policies on mitigating the risks of renewable
energy projects have only taken into account a limited num-
ber of risk factors (Fagiani, Barquín, and Hakvoort 2013; Sisodia,
Soares, and Ferreira 2016; Karneyeva and Wüstenhagen 2017;
Angelopoulos et al. 2017; Omri, Chtourou, and Bazin 2019; Kul,
Zhang, and Solangi 2020; Solangi, Longsheng, and Shah 2021;
Mostafaeipour et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2021), and have not sys-
tematically inspected the effectiveness of such policies on the
development of low-capacity solar power plants. Table 1 classi-
fies the main criteria and the sub-criteria contributing to risk in
the recently published studies.
The present study, however, applies an integrated four-phase
model to provide a significant and scientific solution for identify-
ing risk factors, determine their mutual dependencies, find their
relative important, and figure out the degree of effectiveness of
support policies. The method tries to propose a sustainable solu-
tion by suitably combining several methods (Tavana, Yazdani,
and Di Caprio 2017). For this reason, in the integrated model
proposed in this study, the application of MCDM tools within a
coherent layout is among the innovations of the study, which
helps to accomplish the research purpose. In phase 2, DEMATEL-
ANP is used as a synthesised method to determine the most
important risk factors, mutual relationships, and the network of
relations. From a technical perspective, the method of combin-
ing DEMATEL and ANP is an innovative aspect in this study, and
it provides a systematic way of taking into account beneficiaries’
opinions. In phases 3–4, a set of incentive schemes are selected
in the field of renewable energies with reference to the literature
and in accordance with the current national regulations in Iran;
other studies, however, did not address the Iranian national reg-
ulations in this field. Furthermore, this study draws on WASPAS,
MOORA and COPRAS methods, which all function according to
paired comparison matrices, although they are compatible with
ANP and do not involve unnecessary complexities in terms of
computation. The framework of the proposed model can be eas-
ily used to identify, assess, and select the most effective strate-
gies associated with different types of renewable energies in any
other region.
3. Research method
Given the potential impacts of risk factors on the development
of solar power plants, this study focused on five central ques-
tions: (a) How can the risk factors affecting the development
of solar power plants be identified? (b) How can the interrela-
tionships between the risk factors be investigated? (c) How can
the relative importance of the risk factors be validly calculated?
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5487

Table 1. The risk factors identified in recent studies.

Risk category Risk factor Resources
Environmental 1 Natural disasters Liu and Zeng (2017); Bertheau et al. (2020); Wu et al.
2 Ineffective use of resources (2020); Hashemizadeh et al. (2021); Wu et al. (2021);
3 Environmental pollution Mostafaeipour et al. (2021)
4 Hazardous waste generation
Financial 5 Financial resources Liu and Zeng (2017); Ghimire and Kim (2018); Williams,
6 Inflation and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates Jaramillo, and Taneja (2018); Omri, Chtourou, and
7 Ineffective cost management Bazin (2019); Aly et al. (2019); Gorjian et al. (2019);
8 Inappropriate return on capital Bertheau et al. (2020); Wu et al. (2020); Solangi,
9 Economic fluctuations Longsheng, and Shah (2021); Mostafaeipour et al.
(2021); Hashemizadeh et al. (2021); Wu et al. (2021)
Operational 10 Delayed production due to uncertainty Ghimire and Kim (2018); Omri, Chtourou, and Bazin
11 Defective design (2019); Bertheau et al. (2020); Mostafaeipour et al.
12 Unskilled workforce (2021); Hashemizadeh et al. (2021); Wu et al. (2021)
Social 13 Insecure conditions for the workforce Liu and Zeng (2017); Ghimire and Kim (2018); Omri,
14 Infringement of individual dignity and discrimination Chtourou, and Bazin (2019); Bertheau et al. (2020);
15 Lack of consideration of social commitment Mostafaeipour et al. (2021); Hashemizadeh et al.
16 Violation of Business Ethics (2021); Wu et al. (2021)
Supply 17 Suppliers’ failure to fulfil commitments Williams, Jaramillo, and Taneja (2018); Ghimire and
18 Suppliers’ failure to meet quality standards Kim (2018); Omri, Chtourou, and Bazin (2019);
19 Uncertainty of energy supply components Mostafaeipour et al. (2021); Bertheau et al. (2020)
Production 20 Capacity-related insufficiencies Liu and Zeng (2017); Ghimire and Kim (2018); Aly et al.
21 Lack of innovation in energy production (2019); Gorjian et al. (2019); Mostafaeipour et al.
22 Lack of technical skills in energy production (2021); Hashemizadeh et al. (2021); Wu et al. (2021)
Demand 23 Fluctuations in energy demand Liu and Zeng (2017); Williams, Jaramillo, and Taneja
24 Instability in energy market (2018); Bertheau et al. (2020); Solangi, Longsheng,
25 Probability of losing customers and Shah (2021); Mostafaeipour et al. (2021); Wu
26 Lack of well-balanced energy distribution et al. (2021)
Information 27 Lack of sharing the information of the SC Aly et al. (2019); Wu et al. (2021)
28 Inefficient information system
Logistics 29 Sub-standard energy transmission/transfer Liu and Zeng (2017); Williams, Jaramillo, and Taneja
30 Failure to observe technical concerns in energy (2018); Bertheau et al. (2020); Wu et al. (2021)
transmission
Marketing and distribution 31 Lack of competition in production and energy supply Liu and Zeng (2017); Wu et al. (2020); Kul, Zhang,
32 Instability in energy supply and Solangi (2020); Bertheau et al. (2020); Solangi,
33 Unavailable infrastructures for energy distribution Longsheng, and Shah (2021); Mostafaeipour et al.
(2021)
Energy drop 34 Non-standard design of the logistic network Liu and Zeng (2017); Williams, Jaramillo, and Taneja
35 Energy drop/waste (2018); Ghimire and Kim (2018); Hashemizadeh et al.
36 Lack of compensation for energy drop in the network (2021); Solangi, Longsheng, and Shah (2021)
37 Failure to realise the goals for mitigating energy waste in
the SC
Regulations 38 Failure to effectively implement energy production policies Gatzert and Kosub (2017); Ghimire and Kim (2018);
39 Lack of energy-related laws Aly et al. (2019); Gorjian et al. (2019); Bertheau
40 Lack of coordination between the upstream and et al. (2020); Wu et al. (2020); Solangi, Longsheng,
downstream parts of the energy SC and Shah (2021); Mostafaeipour et al. (2021);
Hashemizadeh et al. (2021);

(d) How can support policies be evaluated in the light of their
effectiveness in risk mitigation? (e) How can the research find-
ings be verified? To answer these questions, this study relied
on an integrated approach composed of four phases. Figure 1
illustrates the approach.
3.1. Phase 1: identify the KRFs
At this stage the risk factors were identified in terms of three
streams, namely economic factors, social factors, and environ-
mental factors. In doing so, the literature and the opinions of
experts engaged in this field were used as references. Mean-
while, the specifications of photovoltaic power plants were con-
sidered. To identify the KRFs and synthesise the opinions, the
data were collected through questionnaires, which were then
analyzed according to the Delphi method.
3.2. Phase 2: determine the inner relationships between
the risk factors and their weights
This stage was composed of two parts; in part 2.1, the inner rela-
tionships and dependencies of the KRFs were calculated through
DEMATEL. Next in part 2–2, ANP was used to determine the
relative importance (weight) of each KFR.
3.3. Phase 3: identify and rank incentive schemes
according to their effectiveness in risk mitigation
At this stage, the support policies affecting risks were identified
as incentive schemes that could be potentially implemented.
The schemes were then evaluated given their effectiveness
in risk mitigation. In doing so, the WASPAS (Zavadskas et al.
2012) and MOORA (Brauers and Zavadskas 2006) methods were
5488 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD
Figure 1. The four-phase model proposed in this study.
employed and the risk factors’ weights (computed in phase 2)
were used as the input for the methods.
3.4. Phase 4: analyze sensitivity and compare the results
At this stage, the verification and consistency of the results were
conducted. Because in MCDM-regulated problems, it is com-
mon to draw on a mediator method to compare the results
of several methods (Tavana, Yazdani, and Di Caprio 2017), this
study relied on the COPRAS method (Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, and
Sarka 1994), given its capacity to manage complicated deci-
sion systems; the correlations between the ranks were then
calculated. Moreover, the sensitivity of the results was investi-
gated in relation to the decision matrix normalisation methods.
Finally the results were submitted to the experts and the incen-
tive schemes with high, medium and low priorities were iden-
tified and were compared with the currently practiced support
policies.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5489

3.5. The integrated DEMATEL-ANP method 3.5.1. Create the direct influence matrix
According to the opinions of s experts (s = 1, 2, . . . , S), the
This study explored the impact of the KRFs and their inner rela-
direct influences of the KRFs on each other were determined
tionships on the development of solar power plants; these rela-
through paired comparisons. In these comparisons, the differ-
tionships could be clarified by taking into account the relative
ences between causes and effects were decided using a five-
weights of the KRFs. To accomplish this, the study relied on
point scale ranging from 0 to 4 (‘No influence’ (0); ‘Low influ-
the D-ANP method, clarifying the interrelationships between the
ence’ (1); ‘Medium influence’ (2); ‘High influence’ (3); ‘Very high
KRFs and determining their relative weights. DEMATEL, which
influence’ (4)). Therefore, for each expert a non-negative matrix
rests on graph theory, was introduced by Gabus and Fontela
was created as As = [asij ]n×n . Then, the average direct influence
(1972) to analyse causal relationships between factors and to
matrix A = [aij ]n×n was constructed by calculating the averages
illustrate these relationships by means of graphs with (arrow)
of the corresponding elements of the matrices: As . In the matrix
directions. ANP, too, was proposed by Saaty (1996) to analyse
A, elements aij represented the degree of influence of factor i on
complex problems in which the factors do not follow a hierar-
factor j (i, j{1, 2, · · · , n}).
chical structure and the (sub-)factors are nor perceived to be
independent. Therefore, because ANP takes into account the
mechanisms of dependency and feedback between the factors,
3.5.2. Normalise the direct influence matrix B = [bij ]n×n
This matrix was created by multiplying the matrix A by the k
it could be combined with DEMATEL; as such ANP would use the
value via relation 1 (the values of the matrix B fell between 0
causal relationships found through DEMATEL in determining the
and 1).
weights of the factors. Figure 2 depicts the steps in formulating
the proposed D-ANP method used. The steps shaping the D-ANP  
1 1
method are as follow:  , n 
B = k.A; k = min (1)
max i=1 |aij |
n
max j=1 |aij | j
i

Figure 2. The steps in the D-ANP method proposed in this study.

5490 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD

3.5.3. Create the total influence matrix threshold value δ is decided to be equal to the average of the
This matrix was created through relation 2.a, where I is an iden- related elements from the matrices T c and T D .
tity matrix (n × n). This matrix showed the relations between ANP helps to create a supermatrix to assign weights to the
each pair of the factors. At this stage, two total influence matrices factors. Yet, because it was a difficult task to collect the experts’
were constructed. First, the total matrix T c = [tijc ]n×n for the sub- opinions through the comparative questionnaires based on
factors (relation 2.b), and second, the total matrix T D = [tijD ]n×n ANP, this study instead relied on the matrices T c and T D and
for the dimensions (D1 , D2 , · · · , Dm ) (relation 2.c). The elements on the factors’ network of relationships (found through DEMA-
of the matrix T D were calculated by averaging the elements of tijc TEL); this strategy could reduce the complexity of an ANP-based
for each dimension in the matrix T c . method. The following steps report the remaining stages in the
synthetic method proposed.
T c = [tijc ]n×n = B(I − B)−1 (2.a)
3.5.6. Construct the normalised total influence matrix of
D1 ... Dj ... Dm dimensions (T ∝
D)
c11 . . . c1n1 ... cj1 . . . cjnj ... cm1 . . . cmnm ∝
The matrix TD∝ = [tD ij ] is the normalised version of the matrix T D ,
⎡ c c ⎤
D1 c11 T11 . . . T1jc . . . T1m which was calculated by summing each row of T D and by divid-
. . ⎢ . .. .. ⎥
T c = .. .. ⎢ .. . ⎥ ing each factor by the sum of the elements of its corresponding
⎢ . ⎥
Di cj1
⎢ c
⎢ Ti1 . . . Tijc . . . Tim c ⎥
⎥ row (relations 5–6). The sum of the elements of each TD∝ row is
⎢ ⎥ 
m ∝
.. .. ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ equal to 1: tD ij = 1.
. . ⎣ . . . ⎦ j=1
Dm cm1 c
Tm1 · · · Tmjc ... c
Tmm
(2.b) ⎡ 1j ⎤
tD11 ... tD ... tD1m →
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ .
D ... D ... D
⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ ..
. ⎥
t11 t1j t1m
⎢ . .. ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ .
⎢ .. .. ⎢ ⎥
. ⎥
D ij
⎢ . ⎥ T = ⎢ tDi1 ... tD ... tDim ⎥ →
⎢ D ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
D
T = ⎢ ti1 ... tijD ... D
tim ⎥ (2.c) ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ ..
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ . . . ⎦ .
⎢ .. .. ... ⎥
⎣ . ⎦ tDmm →
mj
. tDm1 ··· tD ...
D
tm1 ··· D
tmj ... D
tmm 
m
1j
d1 = tD
j=1
3.5.4. Calculate the sum of rows (r) and columns (c) of ..
matrices T c and T D .
Vectors r and c for the matrices T c and T D were calculated m
ij
di = tD i = 1, 2, . . . , m
through relation 3 and relation 4, respectively. ri is the total influ- j=1
ence (direct and indirect) of factor i on the other factors. Similarly, ..
cj is the total influence received (directly and indirectly) by factor .
m
mj
j from the other factors. dm = tD
j=1
⎡ ⎤
n
r = [ri ]n×1 =⎣ tijc ⎦ ,
⎡ 1j ⎤
j=1 n×1 tD11 /d1 . . . tD /d1 . . . tD1m /d1
 n  ⎢ . .. .. ⎥
 ⎢ .. ⎥
c = [cj ]1×n = tijc for criteria (3) ⎢ . . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
T∝
D =⎢ tDi1 /di
ij
. . . tD /di . . . tDim /di ⎥
i=1 1×n ⎢ ⎥
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
n ⎣ . . . ⎦
r = [ri ]n×1 =⎣ tij ⎦
D
, m1 mj
tD /dm . . . tD /dm . . . tD /dm mm
j=1 ⎡ ∝11 ∝ ⎤
. . . tD 1j . . . tD∝1m
n×1
 n  tD
 ⎢ . .. .. ⎥
c = [cj ]1×n = tijD ⎢ .. . ⎥
for dimentions (4) ⎢ . ⎥
⎢ ∝i1 ∝ij ∝im ⎥
i=1 1×n = ⎢ tD . . . tD . . . tD ⎥ (6)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
3.5.5. Construct a relations network of the factors ⎣ . . . ⎦
∝
This network showed the causalrelationships by plotting points tD∝m1 · · · tD mj . . . tD∝mm

according to coordinate values ri + ci , ri − ci for each fac-
tor i. In this network ri + ci is the importance of factor i and ri − ci 3.5.7. Construct the normalised total influence matrix of
is the influence given or received by factor i. Generally, in cases factors (T ∝
C)
∝
where ri − ci shows a positive value, factor ith is a factor giving The matrix TC∝ = [tC ij ] is the normalised version of the matrix
influence; yet if the ri − ci value is a negative one, factor ith would T C , which was calculated by summing the elements of each fac-
be a factor receiving influence. Furthermore, at this stage, the tor row related to each dimension in T C , and by dividing each
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5491

element by the sum of the elements in its row (relation 7). 3.5.10. Create limit supermatrix and the final weights vector
The weighted supermatrix was raised to a (sufficiently large)
D1 ... Dj ... Dm power until the supermatrix elements were convergent and
c11 . . . c1n1 ... cj1 . . . cjnj ... cm1 . . . cmnm the final vector, W = (w1 , · · · , wj , · · · , wn ), was calculated (Chiu,
c11 Tzeng, and Li 2013).
.. lim (Wc )k (10)
. ⎡ α ⎤
Tcα11 Tcα1m
k→∞
D1 c ... Tc 1j ...
1n1
.. ⎢ .. ⎥..
. .. ⎢ . .. .. .. ⎥ .
. ⎢ . . . ⎥ 4. Application and analysis
.. ⎢ . ⎥ ..
α
Tc = . c ⎢ .. ⎥
i1 ⎢ ⎥ . In this section, based on the model proposed in section 3, pri-
.. ⎢ αi1 α αim ⎥
Di . ⎢ Tc ... Tc ij ... Tc ⎥ marily the risks associated with the sustainable development of
⎢ ⎥
.. c ⎢ .. .. ⎥ solar power plants were identified. Next, the effectiveness of the
. in i ⎢ . .. .. .. . ⎥
.. ⎢ . . . ⎥ support policies (including potentially operational or currently
.. ⎢ .. .. ⎥
. . ⎣ . . ⎦ practiced incentive schemes) on risk mitigation was assessed
α
Dm cm1 Tcαm1 ··· Tc mj ... αmm
Tc and the set of support policies with the highest degree of effec-
.. tiveness was found. The numerical findings of the analysis can
.
cmnm be seen below.
(7)
4.1. Identify the KRFs (phase 1)
3.5.8. Create unweighted supermatrix (W ∗C )
First the most important risk factors were identified with refer-
The unweighted supermatrix is the transpose of the normalised
ence to the literature and experts’ opinions through the Del-
total influence matrix TC∝ , and it was created based on the inner
phi method; as a result 20 risk factors (R1 , R2 , · · · , R20 ) were
dependencies between the dimensions and the cluster of factors
found, which were categorised into 6 groups (dimensions) of
[40] (relation 8).
KRFs (D1 , D2 , · · · , D6 ). Table 2 lists various risk incidents in the
development of low-capacity solar power plants. It should be
D1 ... Dj ... Dm noted that in this study 138 experts from 23 companies active in
c11 . . . c1n1 ... cj1 . . . cjnj ... cm1 . . . cmnm the field of construction and exploitation of low-capacity solar
c11 power plants were invited to complete the Delphi-based ques-
.. tionnaires. Finally, 108 experts participated in this study.
. ⎡ c ⎤
D1 c1n1
c
W11 ... c
Wi1 ... Wm1
.. ⎢ .. .. ⎥
. .. ⎢ . .. .. .. . ⎥ 4.2. Use the DEMATEL-ANP method (phase 2)
. ⎢ . . . ⎥
. ⎢ . .. ⎥
Wc∗ = (Tcα ) = .. ci1 ⎢ .. . ⎥ At this stage, the mutual dependencies between the KRFs
⎢ ⎥
.. ⎢ c c ⎥ and their relative importance were determined through the
Di . ⎢ W1j ... Wijc ... Wmj ⎥
⎢ ⎥ DEMATEL-ANP method, as depicted in Figure 2. In doing so,
.. cini ⎢ .. .. ⎥
. ⎢ . .. .. .. . ⎥ first the comparison matrices (As ) were created with a five-point
.. ⎢ . . . ⎥
.. ⎢ . .. ⎥
. . ⎣ .. . ⎦ scale (0–4), based on which the average of the direct influence
Dm cm1 c
W1m ··· c
Wim ... c
Wmm matrix (A = [aij ]20×20 ) and then the normalised influence matrix
.. (B = [bij ]20×20 ) were constructed. Next the total influence matrix
. of the risk factors (T c = [tijc ]20×20 ) was created forR1 , R2 , · · · , R20 ,
cmnm
and the total matrix of the dimensions (T D = [tijD ]6×6 ) was cre-
(8)
ated forD1 , D2 , · · · , D6 (see Tables 3 and 4). Elements of T D were
calculated by computing the KRFs elements in T c . To analyse T c
3.5.9. Create weighted supermatrix (W C )
and T D , (ri + ci ) and (ri − ci ) indexes were calculated in both of
The weighted supermatrix was constructed as a result of mul-
these two matrices. On this account, Table 5 lists the priorities
tiplying the transpose of the matrix TD∝ by the unweighted
of the KRFs according to (ri + ci ) and (ri − ci ) values. Figure 3(a),
supermatrix WC∗ (relation 9).
too, illustrates the graphic relationships of dimensions, in which
EN.R had the highest value of (r − c) (0.272) and the highest
WC = (TD∝ ) × WC∗ value of (r + c) (1.018). Furthermore, CONST.R showed the least
⎡ ∝11 ⎤ (r + c) value (0.586), whereas DM.R revealed the least (r − c)
tD × W11 C ... tD∝i1 × Wi1
C ... tD∝m1 × Wm1
C
⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ value (−0.153). The threshold value for the dimensions (the aver-
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . . ⎥ age of T D elements) was 0.0672; therefore, such dimensions
⎢ ∝1j ∝ij ∝mj ⎥
= ⎢ tD × W1jC ... tD × WijC ... tD × Wmj ⎥
C
as ‘environment’ and ‘distribution and marketing’, along with
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ ‘financial resources’ and ‘distribution and marketing’, showed
⎣ . . . ⎦
∝1m ∝im ∝mm mutual relationships.
tD × W1m C ··· tD × Wim C ... tD × Wmm C
Table 6 shows the priorities of the risk factors based on
(9) (ri + ci ) and (ri − ci ) indexes. As such, among the 10 factors
5492 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD

Table 2. Categorising the risks affecting the sustainable development of renewable energies SC.
Dimension Risk Factor Description
D1 Environment (EN.R) R1 Environmental degradation Risks arising from the inefficiency of production/utilisation
methods and electricity transmission.
R2 Inefficiency of energy–related regulations in Risks arising from the failure of business plans in relation to
units willing to produce renewable energies. renewable energies production.
R3 Poor legal requirements and major national Risks arising from the failure or insufficiency of legal
policies in terms of renewable energies. requirements for supporting the measures taken in favour
of renewable energy development.
D2 Financial Resources (FIN.R) R4 Difficulties of supplying financial resources Risks related to financial difficulties for supplying resources
and insufficient accessible capital.
R5 Financial fluctuations Risks related to economic fluctuations affecting income and
costs of renewable energy production.
R6 Capital expenditures Risks arising from capital expenditures for bringing the solar
PV power plant to a level of economic productivity.
R7 Solar electricity transmission Risks related to the lack of access to networks, and to electricity
transmission costs incurred.
R8 Financial transactions costs Risks caused by electricity market costs.
D3 Technology (TECH.R) R9 Technological lag Risks related to outdated technologies, and the need for
emerging technologies for the production/utilisation of
renewable energies.
R10 Shortage of knowledge, experience & skill Risks caused by the lack of technical knowledge and
expertise necessary for installing, utilising and maintaining
equipment.
R11 Unavailable technology Risks related to production stoppage due to malfunctions in
system components.
D4 Construction & Design (CONST.R) R12 Poor selection of suppliers, constructors, and Risks arising from an inappropriate selection of supply
utilisers of solar panels resources for the design and procurement of materials and
prices, at a guaranteed level.
R13 Incompetence for receiving a Risks related to the lengthy and complicated stages of
construction/utilisation licence obtaining legal licences including construction (land)
licences, utilisation licences, electricity production licences,
network connectivity licences, and so on.
D5 Production & Operation (PO.R) R14 Production below the offered capacity Risks arising from production less than the levels expected and
a loss of potential capacity.
R15 Operating expenses Risks related to current operational costs for
production/utilisation of solar power plants.
R16 Time-consuming process of receiving the Risks caused by delays in receiving production/utilisation
confirmation confirmations due to a complex and lengthy bureaucratic
process.
D6 Distribution & Marketing (DM.R) R17 Ignoring responsibility Risks arising from the probability of ignoring responsibilities in
contracts or failure to fulfil obligations.
R18 Lack of access to the distribution channel in Risks related to declining income due to the inaccessibility of
the network the electricity distribution network.
R19 Fluctuations in demand Risks related to recurrent changes in production rates due to
demand fluctuations.
R20 Increasing competition Risks arising from the probability of commercial failure in
implementation and utilisation due to a competitive
situation.

with highest (r + c) values, factors R4 , R5 , R17 , R16 , and R19 were
among the factors that definitively ‘gave’ influences, whereas
factors R3 , R14, R6 , R7 , and R20 were among the factors that defini-
tively ‘received’ influences. Meanwhile, R4 , R5 , R16 , R18 , and R19
showed the highest degree of giving influence (r > c), while
R6 , R7 , R10 , R14 , and R20 showed the highest degree of receiv-
ing influence (r < c). Among the factors that left the highest
influence, R4 , R5 , R16 , and R19 showed the highest r + c values,
and among the factors that received the highest degree of influ-
ence, R3 , R14 , and R20 showed the highest r + c values. Moreover,
among the 10 factors with least r + c values, R2 , R9 , R11 , R12 , and
R18 gave definite influence, while R8 , R10 , R13 , and R15 received
definite influence. The r – c value for R1 was 0.
Figure 3(b) illustrates the relationships of the risk factors of
the ‘environment’ dimension (EN.R), in which R2 had the high-
est r – c value (0.05), whereas R3 showed the highest r + c value
(0.69). R3 also showed the least r – c value (−0.05), and R1 showed
the least r + c value (0.46). The threshold value of the sub-factors
of ‘environment’ was 0.09 (see Table 4 for the average of all ele-
ments of ‘environment’ sub-factors). Given this threshold value,
R1 had influence on R3 , R2 had influence on R1 and R3 , and R3 had
influence on R2 and R3 . R2 and R3 revealed a mutual relationship.
Similarly Figure 3 illustrates the relationships of the sub-factors
of other dimensions including ‘financial resources’, ‘technology’,
‘construction and design’, ‘production and operation’, and ‘dis-
tribution and marketing’.
At this stage, the matrix T D was normalised based on rela-
tions 5–6 and the matrix TD∝ was created. Next the transpose
of this matrix (TD∝ ) was calculated (see Table 7). Similarly the
matrix T c was normalised based on relation 7 and the matrix
TC∝ was constructed. The transpose of this matrix, according to
relation 8, was an unweighted matrix (WC∗ ) (see Table 8). The
weighted supermatrix (WC ) was created according to relation
9 (see Table 9). Ultimately the limit supermatrix was raised to
11th power and was made convergent, via relation 11, based on
which the final vector weight is shown in Table 10.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5493

Table 3. The total influence matrix of the risk factors (T c ).

EN.R (D1 ) FIN.R (D2 ) TECH.R (D3 ) CONST.R (D4 ) PO.R (D5 ) DM.R (D6 )

Risk category R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 ri
EN.R (D1 ) R1 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.15 0.23
R2 0.11 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.1 0.12 0.16 0.26
R3 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.32
FIN.R (D2 ) R4 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.1 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.05 0.04 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.19 0.52
R5 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.05 0.15 0.42
R6 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.24
R7 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.23
R8 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.20
TECH.R (D3 ) R9 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.07
R10 0.1 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.14
R11 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.15
CONST.R (D4 ) R12 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.04 0 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.07
R13 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.04
PO.R (D5 ) R14 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.1 0.01 0.07 0.1 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.28
R15 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.11 0 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.1 0.16
R16 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.18 0.14 0.04 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.18 0.36
DM.R (D6 ) R17 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.17 0.34
R18 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.14 0 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.14 .034
R19 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.31
R20 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.17
ci 0.23 0.21 0.37 0.43 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.02 0.21 0.13 0.02 0.09 0.37 0.27 0.16 0.31 0.09 0.24 0.52

Table 4. The total influence matrix the dimensions (T D ).

EN.R FIN.R TECH.R CONST.R PO.R DM.R r r+c r−c
EN.R 0.09 0.114 0.086 0.102 0.123 0.13 0.645 1.018 0.272
FIN.R 0.059 0.064 0.042 0.055 0.05 0.084 0.354 0.792 −0.084
TECH.R 0.055 0.055 0.04 0.053 0.085 0.076 0.364 0.644 0.084
CONST.R 0.032 0.045 0.028 0.027 0.055 0.064 0.251 0.586 −0.084
PO.R 0.062 0.084 0.049 0.048 0.089 0.1 0.432 0.899 −0.035
DM.R 0.075 0.076 0.035 0.05 0.065 0.073 0.374 0.901 −0.153
c 0.373 0.438 0.28 0.335 0.467 0.527

Table 5. Prioritisation of the dimensions based on (r + c) and (r − c) values.

Rank Dimensions (ri + cj ) (ri − cj ) Dimensions Rank
1 EN.R 018/1 Descending order Descending order (r > c) 272/0 EN.R 1
2 DM.R 901/0 of (r + c) of (r − c) 084/0 TECH.R 2
3 PO.R 899/0 (r < c) −035/0 PO.R 3
4 FIN.R 792/0 −0/084 FIN.R 4
5 TECH.R 644/0 −0/084 CONST.R 5
6 CONST.R 586/0 −0/153 DM.R 6

Table 6. Prioritisation of the risk factors based on (r + c) and (r − c) values.

Rank Risk factors (ri + cj ) (ri − cj ) Risk factors Rank
1 R4 95/0 Descending order Descending order (r > c) 25/0 R18 1
2 R5 71/0 of (r + c) of (r − c) 20/0 R16 2
3 R3 69/0 13/0 R5 3
4 R20 69/0 09/0 R4 4
5 R14 65/0 07/0 R19 5
6 R17 65/0 05/0 R2 6
7 R6 56/0 05/0 R9 7
8 R7 55/0 05/0 R12 8
9 R19 55/0 03/0 R17 9
10 R16 52/0 03/0 R11 10
11 R2 47/0 0 R1 11
12 R1 46/0 (r < c) −05/0 R3 12
13 R8 45/0 −05/0 R8 13
14 R15 43/0 −05/0 R13 14
15 R18 43/0 −07/0 R10 15
16 R10 35/0 −08/0 R6 16
17 R11 28/0 −09/0 R7 17
18 R13 13/0 −09/0 R14 18
19 R9 09/0 −11/0 R15 19
20 R12 09/0 −35/0 R20 20
5494 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD
Figure 3. The chart of the network relationships of each dimension.
4.2.1. Rank the support policies (phase 3)
Since 2016, almost all countries have been providing packages of
support policies in the form of governmental incentive schemes
for the purpose of developing renewable energies [39]. Such
schemes cover a wide range of (in)direct support policies. The
rationale behind these policies is to increase return on income
and reduce investment risk in this field. The incentives, accord-
ing to an REN 21 report, fall under two groups of policies:
(a) regulatory policies, including electricity feed-in laws, quota
obligations, net metering, transport obligations/mandates for
biofuels, heat obligations/mandates for renewable energies,
solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs), and transferring
renewable energy production rights through tendering; and
(b) fiscal incentives and public financing, including tax credits,
tax reduction or exemption, payment in the form of renewable
energy production, and capital subsidies or rebates (Renewables
2017 Global Status Report).
Based on the REN 21 report, Iran provides electricity feed-
in laws, tax credits, payment in the form of renewable energy
production, and capital subsidies or rebates. However, as the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5495

Table 7. Transpose of total influence matrix of the dimensions (TD∝ ) . risk mitigation, and finally a set of highly effective policies
EN.R FIN.R TECH.R CONST.R PO.R DM.R was formulated. Table 11 lists the incentives under investiga-
tion in this study.1 On this account, the incentive schemes
EN.R 0.140 0.167 0.151 0.127 0.144 0.2
FIN.R 0.177 0.181 0.151 0.180 0.194 0.203 were assessed through WASPAS, MOORA and COPRAS meth-
TECH.R 0.133 0.119 0.110 0.112 0.114 0.094 ods, using the weights found as a result of the DEMATEL-ANP
CONST.R 0.158 0.155 0.146 0.107 0.111 0.134 application.
PO.R 0.190 0.141 0.234 0.219 0.206 0.174
DM.R 0.202 0.237 0.209 0.255 0.231 0.195 To have the comparison matrix completed for the three
methods, out of the 108 experts participating in the Delphi-
based process, 48 ones were selected based on the judgmental
observations of this study revealed, no research ever focused on sampling method. The experts worked in 23 companies active
the effectiveness of these incentives in mitigating the risks of in the field of construction and exploitation of solar power
development of small- or medium-capacity solar power plants plants and had management experiences and were familiar with
in Iran. As a result, in this section, the study specifically concen- various dimensions of policy-making in the case of renewable
trated on assessing the effectiveness of the potentially opera- energy resources. The paired comparisons of these methods
tional incentives (including the already practiced incentives) on could help answer the question which incentive(s) would miti-
mitigating the risks of development of such solar power plants. gate a risk factor with a high weight. Table 12 shows the results
These incentives were prioritised according to their impact on of the ranking.

Table 8. Unweighted supermatrix (WC∗ ).

EN.R (D1 ) FIN.R (D2 ) TECH.R (D3 ) CONST.R (D4 ) PO.R (D5 ) DM.R (D6 )

Risk category R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20
EN.R (D1 ) R1 0.17 0.42 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.36 0.44 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.25 0.36 0.21 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.10
R2 0.22 0.12 0.41 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.21 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.42 0.33 0.29 0.45 0.20 0.45 0.38
R3 0.61 0.46 0.34 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.21 0.19 0.31 0.26 0.67 0.63 0.45 0.37 0.33 0.46 0.30 0.55 0.45 0.52
FIN.R (D2 ) R4 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.26 0.38 0.39 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.22 0.17 0.19 0.28 0.13 0.30 0.36
R5 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.10 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.24 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.09 0.30 0.32
R6 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.33 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.17 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12
R7 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.20 0.18 0.26 0.27 0.22 0.30 0.22 0.27 0.23 0.18 0.33 0.14 0.12
R8 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.28 0.27 0.22 0.30 0.20 0.37 0.23 0.15 0.31 0.14 0.08
TECH.R (D3 ) R9 0.03 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.14
R10 0.48 0.44 0.50 0.48 0.64 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.57 0.36 0.80 0.63 0.56 0.39 0.50 0.65 0.60 0.65 0.50 0.57
R11 0.48 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.27 0.44 0.43 0.33 0.29 0.57 0.20 0.38 0.33 0.56 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.29
CONST.R (D4 ) R12 0.21 0.48 0.50 0.41 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.40 0.63 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.21 0.33 0.27 0.55 0.56
R13 0.79 0.52 0.50 0.59 0.64 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.38 0.75 0.75 0.86 0.75 0.75 0.67 0.79 0.67 0.73 0.45 0.44
PO.R (D5 ) R14 0.37 0.47 0.50 0.64 0.67 0.50 0.56 0.64 0.50 0.39 0.34 0.40 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.50 0.68 0.42 0.58 0.67
R15 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.33 0.31 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.39 0.13 0.39 0.16 0.39 0.21 0.22
R16 0.31 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.19 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.11
DM.R (D6 ) R17 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.27 0.44 0.35 0.34 0.42 0.41 0.30 0.29 0.33 0.18 0.32 0.29 0.29
R18 0.25 0.18 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.06
R19 0.09 0.21 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.26 0.18 0.10 0.35
R20 0.34 0.29 0.34 0.39 0.38 0.33 0.35 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.26 0.34 0.39 0.42 0.35 0.50 0.41 0.52 0.29

Table 9. Weighted supermatrix.

EN.R (D1 ) FIN.R (D2 ) TECH.R (D3 ) CONST.R (D4 ) PO.R (D5 ) DM.R (D6 )

Risk category R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20
EN.R (D1 ) R1 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02
R2 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.08
R3 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.11
FIN.R (D2 ) R4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.07
R5 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.07
R6 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02
R7 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02
R8 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.02
TECH.R (D3 ) R9 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
R10 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05
R11 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03
CONST.R (D4 ) R12 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07
R13 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.06
PO.R (D5 ) R14 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.12
R15 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.04
R16 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02
DM.R (D6 ) R17 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06
R18 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
R19 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.07
R20 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.06
5496 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD

Table 11. Support policies for the development of renewable energies.

0.0810
20

3
Incentive schemes Definition No.
Regulatory Electricity feed-in These rules includes an obligation #1

0.0361
19

17
policies laws of the network operator to
purchase generated electricity;
and a pricing plan in the form of

0.0293
subscription or premium tariffs.

18

19
Quota obligation The minimum quota for electricity #2
producers to provide renewable
energy.

0.0730
Solar renewable A mechanism for purchasing #3
17

4
energy electricity and adding to
certificates electricity network.
0.0436
(SRECs)
16

11
Tendering Selection Projects through Tender #4
Formation.
Fiscal incentives Tax credits Tax credits for investment #5
0.0534

and public generating electricity projects.

15

financing
Tax reduction or Exemption or reduction of tax #6
exemption payments for renewable
0.0925
14

electricity producers.
Renewable energy Direct payments for each KWh #7
production of renewable electricity
0.0880

payment generation.
13

capital subsidies or To compensate the high cost of #8

rebates launching renewable energy
projects, subsidised supports are
0.0476
12

directly applied by governments.

9

Net metering Net metering bills for small- #9

or medium-capacity solar
0.0427

electricity producers.
11

13
0.0589
10

6
0.0110
20
9
0.0377
15
8
0.0398
14
7
0.0309
18
6
0.0324
17
5
0.0440
10
4
0.0663

Figure 4. Comparing ranking results of the incentive schemes based on MOORA,

3

COPRAS, and WASPAS methods.

Table 10. Final weights of the risk factors.

0.0489
2

4.2.2. Analyse sensitivity and compare the results (phase 4)

0.0429

Comparing the results of a number of prioritisation meth-

12
1

ods could help examine the compatibility of the findings and

consensus over the best results (Tavana, Yazdani, and Di Caprio
Normalise Weightes

2017). Considering the capacities of the COPRAS method in

managing complex decisions systems, it was used as a media-
Risk factors

tor for verifying and examining the compatibility of the ranks

found (Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, and Sarka 1994). Table 12 shows
Rank

COPRAS results; comparing the ranking results of the three

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5497

methods, namely MOORA, WASPAS and COPRAS, revealed cer-

M.COPRAS
tain similarities in the incentives ranking patterns based on these

2
9
3
8
6
5
4
1
7
methods (Figure 4). More specifically, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th ranks,
which respectively represented schemes 8, 1, 3, and 9 in the

M. MOORA
rankings, were the same in the results of the three methods.
The 8th and 9th ranks, showing schemes 2 and 4 respectively,

2
8
3
9
5
6
4
1
7
were the same in both MOORA and WASPAS results. Moreover,
the 4th rank (plan 7) was found the same in both WASPAS and
2
COPRAS results, while the 5th rank (scheme 6) was the same in
9
3
8
6
5
4
1
7
both MOORA and COPRAS results.
In the three ranking results, however, the most evident dif-
228/92
556/73

686/73
054/78
512/79
895/86

681/77
53/90

100
ferences were seen in 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th ranks, which
Pi

represented schemes 5, 6, 7, 2, and 4 respectively. Spearman’s

COPRAS

correlation coefficients between the rankings found through

123/0
098/0
120/0
098/0
104/0
106/0
115/0
133/0
103/0
MOORA-WASPAS, MOORA-COPRAS, and WASPAS-COPRAS were
Qi

0.95, 0.96, and 0.92, respectively, which were significant at the

0.01 level. The similarity of the three ranking results could
Si−
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

account for the considerable correlations between them. There-

fore, any of these rankings could serve as a reliable ranking result.
123/0
098/0
120/0
098/0
104/0
106/0
115/0
133/0
103/0
Si+

All of the ranking methods drawn on in this study were based

on the comparison matrix method, in which the weights of the
risk factors were discovered through DEMATEL-ANP. Therefore,
2
8
3
9
4
5
6
1
7

a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the impact of

normalisation on MOORA and COPRAS. The normalisation was
SCORE
881/0
705/0
865/0
704/0
831/0
761/0
744/0
952/0
742/0

conducted on the three methods used according to the WAS-

PAS normalisation method, and the current ranking results were
compared with the previous ranking results. This examination,
482/0
498/0
494/0
499/0
480/0
490/0
504/0
498/0
495/0
λ

however, indicated that no change took place in the ranking

WASPAS

results (see columns Modified MOORA [M. MOORA] and Modi-

fied COPRAS [M. COPRAS] in Table 12). Given the ranking results,
21/7 E-05

18/7 E-05
96/9 E-05
39/8 E-05
98/7 E-05

99/7 E-05
σ 2 (Qi )
(2)

12/1 E-

09/1 E-

32/1 E-

and given the experts’ opinions collected in this study, four lev-
Table 12. Ranking support policies through MOORA, COPRAS, WASPAS, M. MOORA and M. COPRAS methods.

els of the incentive schemes were suggested according to their

priorities.
25/7 E-05

21/7 E-05

72/8 E-05
87/7 E-05

14/8 E-05
σ 2 (Qi )

Level 1 included scheme 8 (with the highest priorities in the

(1)

21/1 E-

11/1 E-

08/1 E-

33/1 E-

results), which addressed capital subsidies or rebates (includ-

ing public investment in the infrastructure, granting loans, and
capital supply facilitators). Level 2 encompassed schemes 1 and
878/0
703/0
863/0
702/0
826/0
758/0
740/0
950/0
740/0
WPM

3 (with 2nd and 3rd ranks in the results), which addressed

commitment and obligation for buying surplus electricity from
the producers through connectivity to transmission lines, buy-
883/0
707/0
867/0
706/0
835/0
764/0
749/0
953/0
744/0
WSM

ing mechanisms, and a pricing formulation (subscription tar-

iffs). Level 3 included schemes 5, 6, and 7 (with 4th, 5th, and
6th ranks in the results), which dealt with the development of
2
8
3
9
5
6
4
1
7
MOORA

exemption and tax credits mechanisms, tax reduction, or fis-

cal incentives per 1 kWh of electricity production. Level 4 was
793/1
121/1
693/1
115/1
304/1
272/1
569/1
080/2
264/1

composed of schemes 2, 4, and 9 (with 7th, 8th, and 9th ranks),

Si

which were concerned with developing obligatory mechanisms

for supplying part of the electricity consumption through renew-
Si−
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

able energies, fostering competition in production, and buying

solar electricity through tendering. With reference to the REN
793/1
121/1
693/1
115/1
304/1
272/1
569/1
080/2
264/1
Si+

21 report and the body of the laws governing renewable ener-

gies in Iran [41], it was revealed that schemes 1, 5, 7, and 8
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9

were already operationalised as stipulated in the law. Therefore,

level 1 of the incentives was already put to practice, while levels
Incentive schemes

2–3 were partially operationalised; to fully executive such lev-

els, incentive schemes 3 and 6 in these levels must be taken into
account. However, the schemes in level 4 had not been practiced
yet.
5498 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD
5. Conclusion
Global warming and pollution from fossil fuels make using
renewable resources imperative. Furthermore, fossil resources
are limited and the global demand for energy is rising.
Meanwhile, the available practical solution for expanding the
productivity of social energy resources and for reducing the vol-
ume of greenhouse gas emissions in different regions is to build
small- or medium-sized photovoltaic power plants in urban or
rural areas for meeting small or medium modes of demand. This
approach is part of energy-related policies and is supported in
many countries.
The development of solar photovoltaic power plants, how-
ever, faces various obstacles and there are numerous risk factors
threatening the successful establishment of such power plants.
Identifying these challenges to mitigate risk is a significant step
in developing solar photovoltaic power plants. Regulating sup-
port policies and incentive schemes for the development of
low-capacity power plants could help to reduce the risks asso-
ciated with electricity supply. As such, countries can identify the
obstacles to the development of low- and medium-voltage solar
photovoltaic power plants and adopt incentive schemes and
support policies to reduce risks and overcome obstacles to the
development of such power plants. Thus, this study explored
the risks associated with the sustainable development of small-
and medium-capacity solar power plants in Iran, identifying
and assessing the effective support policies in mitigating these
risks through a four-phase model. In phase 1, with reference
to the literature and experts’ opinions, the KRFs, which were
of 20 types, were categorised into six groups: (a) environment
(EN.R); (b) financial resources (FIN.R); (c) technology (TECH.R); (d)
construction and design (CONST.R); (e) production and opera-
tion (PO.R); and (f) distribution and marketing (DM.R). In phase
2, the inner relationships among the KRFs, as well as their
network of relationships, were illustrated through DEMATEL,
and then their relative importance (weights) were determined
through ANP. Phase 3 primarily identified the support policies
that could effectively mitigate risk in the form of executable
incentive schemes. Next, the schemes were assessed given their
effects on risk mitigation through WASPAS and MOORA meth-
ods. In phase 4, the ranks were verified and their compatibility
was examined through the COPRAS method, while the corre-
lations among the ranks were computed. Meanwhile sensitiv-
ity analysis was conducted, and finally the incentive schemes
were grouped into four levels for operation based on their
priorities.
The findings revealed that the highest degrees of risk arose
from the sub-factors of ‘distribution and marketing’ (DM.R) (with
a relative importance rate of 21.94%), ‘production and opera-
tion’ (PO.R) (with a relative importance rate of 18.95%), ‘financial
resources’ (FIN.R) (with a relative importance rate of 18.48%),
‘environment’ (EN.R) (with a relative importance rate of 11.26%),
‘construction and design’ (CONST.R) (with a relative importance
rate of 13.56%), and ‘technology’ (TECH.R) (with a relative impor-
tance rate of 15.54%). Furthermore, such incentive schemes as
‘public investment’, ‘granting loans and warrants’, ‘guaranteed
electricity tariffs stipulated by the law’, and ‘SRECs’ were the
most effective factors in terms of risk mitigation. Comparing the
research results with the expected conditions or already oper-
ationalised schemes in Iran according to the laws revealed that
the majority of schemes in levels 1–3 were either implemented
or were underway (except schemes 3 and 6 in Table 11), as per
the laws of renewable energies in Iran. However, the schemes in
level 4 (schemes 2, 4 and 9) had not been put to practice yet.
The results can bring about insights for policy-makers,
investors, and companies active in the field of reviewable ener-
gies. The results can also help to realistically assess renewable
energies exploitation projects and to better manage resources
in their projects. Besides, the model proposed in this study could
help identify and assess risks and select the most effective strate-
gies to develop other modes of renewable energies. Further
studies could focus on the probability and intensity of risk fac-
tors under uncertainty; in such studies fuzzy programming, grey,
and chance assessment techniques can inspire researchers.
Note
1. Among the incentives reported in REN 21, transport requirements and
heating through biofuels were omitted due to their infrequent use in
Iran.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Mahmood Eghtesadifard http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8265-4870
References
Aly, A., M. Moner-Girona, S. Szabó, A. B. Pedersen, and S. S. Jensen. 2019.
“Barriers to Large-Scale Solar Power in Tanzania.” Energy for Sustainable
Development 48: 43–58.
Angelopoulos, D., H. Doukas, J. Psarras, and G. Stamtsis. 2017. “Risk-Based
Analysis and Policy Implications for Renewable Energy Investments in
Greece.” Energy Policy 105: 512–523.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., F. Chaparro-González, J. P. Pastor-Ferrando, and A.
Pla-Rubio. 2014. “An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic
Network Process)-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Approach for the Selec-
tion of Solar-Thermal Power Plant Investment Projects.” Energy 66:
222–238.
Bertheau, P., J. Dionisio, C. Jütte, and C. Aquino. 2020. “Challenges for Imple-
menting Renewable Energy in a Cooperative-Driven Off-Grid System in
the Philippines.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 35:
333–345.
Brauers, W. K., and E. K. Zavadskas. 2006. “The MOORA Method and Its Appli-
cation to Privatization in a Transition Economy.” Control and Cybernetics
35: 445–469.
Chinie, A., and R. Clodnitchi. 2015. “Corporate Entrepreneurship and Risk in
the Renewable Energy Field.” International Journal of Business and Social
Science 6 (4): 32–40.
Chiu, W. Y., G. H. Tzeng, and H. L. Li. 2013. “A New Hybrid MCDM Model Com-
bining DANP with VIKOR to Improve E-Store Business.” Knowledge-Based
Systems 37: 48–61.
Dashtpeyma, M., and R. Ghodsi. 2019. “Developing the Resilient Solar Energy
Management System: A Hybrid Qualitative-Quantitative Approach.” Inter-
national Journal of Ambient Energy, 1–20. doi:10.1080/01430750.2019.
1630301.
Díaz, G., E. Planas, J. Andreu, and J. Gómez-Aleixandre. 2017. “Risk-Based
Optimal Distribution of Power Reserves in Wind Power Plants.” Wind
Energy 20 (3): 397–410.
Dudley, B. 2015. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2016. London,
UK. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title = BP%20Statistical
%20Review%20of%20World%20Energy%202019&publication_year =
2019&author = B.%20Dudley.

Fagiani, R., J. Barquín, and R. Hakvoort. 2013. “Risk-Based Assessment of the
Cost-Efficiency and the Effectivity of Renewable Energy Support Schemes:
Certificate Markets versus Feed-in Tariffs.” Energy Policy 55: 648–661.
Fendyur, A. 2011. “Quantitative Assessment of Solar Energy Geo-Policy
Risks.” International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management 2
(3): 295–304.
Frisari, G., and M. Stadelmann. 2015. “De-risking Concentrated Solar Power
in Emerging Markets: The Role of Policies and International Finance Insti-
tutions.” Energy Policy 82: 12–22.
Gabus, A., and E. Fontela. 1972. World Problems, an Invitation to Further
Thought within the Framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research
Center, Geneva, Switzerland, 1–8.
Gatzert, N., and T. Kosub. 2017. “Determinants of Policy Risks of Renewable
Energy Investments.” International Journal of Energy Sector Management
11 (1): 28–45.
Ghimire, L. P., and Y. Kim. 2018. “An Analysis on Barriers to Renewable Energy
Development in the Context of Nepal Using AHP.” Renewable Energy 129:
446–456.
Gorjian, S., B. N. Zadeh, L. Eltrop, R. R. Shamshiri, and Y. Amanlou. 2019.
“Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation in Iran: Development, Policies, and
Barriers.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 106: 110–123.
Hashemizadeh, A., Y. Ju, S. M. H. Bamakan, and H. P. Le. 2021. “Renewable
Energy Investment Risk Assessment in Belt and Road Initiative Countries
under Uncertainty Conditions.” Energy 214: 118923.
Hosseini-Firouz, M. 2013. “Optimal Offering Strategy Considering the Risk
Management for Wind Power Producers in Electricity Market.” Interna-
tional Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 49: 359–368.
Ioannou, A., A. Angus, and F. Brennan. 2017. “Risk-based Methods for Sus-
tainable Energy System Planning: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 74: 602–615.
Kang, X., X. Wang, and S. Zhang. 2011, March. “Risk Modeling in Strate-
gic Behavior and Equilibrium of Electricity Markets with Wind Power.” In
Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), 2011 Asia-Pacific, Wuhan,
China, 1–5. IEEE.
Karneyeva, Y., and R. Wüstenhagen. 2017. “Solar Feed-in Tariffs in a Post-Grid
Parity World: The Role of Risk, Investor Diversity and Business Models.”
Energy Policy 106: 445–456.
Komendantova, N., A. Patt, L. Barras, and A. Battaglini. 2012. “Perception of
Risks in Renewable Energy Projects: The Case of Concentrated Solar Power
in North Africa.” Energy Policy 40: 103–109.
Kul, C., L. Zhang, and Y. A. Solangi. 2020. “Assessing the Renewable Energy
Investment Risk Factors for Sustainable Development in Turkey.” Journal
of Cleaner Production 276: 124164.
Liu, X., and M. Zeng. 2017. “Renewable Energy Investment Risk Evaluation
Model Based on System Dynamics.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 73: 782–788.
Mahdavi Adeli, M., and R. Khaje Naeini. 2014. “Financial Evaluation of Electric-
ity Generation Using Solar Energy in Iran.” Monetary & Financial Economics
21 (7): 105–126. (In Persian).
Matsuo, Y., A. Yanagisawa, and Y. Yamashita. 2013. “A Global Energy Outlook
to 2035 with Strategic Considerations for Asia and Middle East Energy
Supply and Demand Interdependencies.” Energy Strategy Reviews 2 (1):
79–91.
Mostafaeipour, A., M. Alvandimanesh, F. Najafi, and A. Issakhov. 2021. “Iden-
tifying Challenges and Barriers for Development of Solar Energy by Using
Fuzzy Best-Worst Method: A Case Study.” Energy 226: 120355.
Najafi, G., B. Ghobadian, R. Mamat, T. Yusaf, and W. H. Azmi. 2015. “Solar
Energy in Iran: Current State and Outlook.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 49: 931–942.
Nguyen, D. H., and M. Negnevitsky. 2013, July. “Probabilistic Risk-Based Secu-
rity Assessment for Power Systems with Wind Power Generation.” In 2013
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, 1–5.
IEEE.
Omri, E., N. Chtourou, and D. Bazin. 2019. “Risk Management and Policy
Implications for Concentrating Solar Power Technology Investments in
Tunisia.” Journal of Environmental Management 237: 504–518.
Pourarshad, M., Y. Noorollahi, F. Atabi, and M. Panahi. 2021. “Modelling
and Optimisation of Long-Term Forecasting of Electricity Demand in
Oil-Rich Area, South Iran.” International Journal of Ambient Energy, 1–11.
doi:10.1080/01430750.2021.1915381.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5499
REN21, R. 2017. Global Status Report, REN21 Secretariat, Paris, France. In
Tech. Rep., 91–93.
Saaty, T. L. 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic
Network Process. Vol. 4922. RWS Publ. New York, USA.
Safari, M., and F. Safari. 2017. “Renewable Energy Sources in Iran: Policy and
Regulation.” Journal of Politics and Law 10: 245.
Shafiee, M. 2015. “A Fuzzy Analytic Network Process Model to Mitigate the
Risks Associated with Offshore Wind Farms.” Expert Systems with Applica-
tions 42 (4): 2143–2152.
Sisodia, G. S., I. Soares, and P. Ferreira. 2016. “Modeling Business Risk: The
Effect of Regulatory Revision on Renewable Energy Investment - The
Iberian Case.” Renewable Energy 95: 303–313.
Sohrab, T., S. Karkoodi, and S. Roumi. 2019. “Estimation of the Employment
Rate of Wind Power Plants in Iran in the Horizon of 2050.” International
Journal of Ambient Energy, 1–7. doi:10.1080/01430750.2019.1587726.
Solangi, Y. A., C. Longsheng, and S. A. A. Shah. 2021. “Assessing and Over-
coming the Renewable Energy Barriers for Sustainable Development in
Pakistan: An Integrated AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach.” Renewable
Energy 173: 209–222.
Tavana, M., M. Yazdani, and D. Di Caprio. 2017. “An Application of an Inte-
grated ANP–QFD Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection.” Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 20 (3): 254–275.
Thapa, S., R. Karki, and R. Billinton. 2011, October. “Evaluation of Wind Power
Commitment Risk in System Operation.” In 2011 IEEE Electrical Power and
Energy Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 284–289. IEEE.
Tofigh, A. A., and M. Abedian. 2016. “Analysis of Energy Status in Iran
for Designing Sustainable Energy Roadmap.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 57: 1296–1306.
Tvaronavičienė, M., J. Baublys, J. Raudeliūnienė, and D. Jatautaitė. 2020.
“Global Energy Consumption Peculiarities and Energy Sources: Role of
Renewables.” In Energy Transformation towards Sustainability, 1–49. Else-
vier.
UNFCCC. 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Report No. FCCC/CP/2015/
L.9/Rev.1.
US CIA. 2016. Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook. Assessed Jan-
uary 22, 2016. https:// www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-fact
book/.
Williams, N. J., P. Jaramillo, and J. Taneja. 2018. “An Investment Risk Assess-
ment of Microgrid Utilities for Rural Electrification Using the Stochastic
Techno-Economic Microgrid Model: A Case Study in Rwanda.” Energy for
Sustainable Development 42: 87–96.
Wu, Y., M. Hu, M. Liao, F. Liu, and C. Xu. 2021. “Risk Assessment of Renewable
Energy-Based Island Microgrid Using the HFLTS-Cloud Model Method.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 284: 125362.
Wu, Y., J. Wang, S. Ji, and Z. Song. 2020. “Renewable Energy Investment
Risk Assessment for Nations Along China’s Belt & Road Initiative: An
ANP-Cloud Model Method.” Energy 190: 116381.
Zavadskas, E. K., A. Kaklauskas, and V. Sarka. 1994. “The New Method of Multi-
criteria Complex Proportional Assessment of Projects.” Technological and
Economic Development of Economy 1 (3): 131–139.
Zavadskas, E. K., Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, and A. Zakarevicius. 2012.
“Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment.” Elec-
tronics and Electrical Engineering 122 (6): 3–6.
Appendix
Iran is among the countries that have the largest reservoirs of oil and gas in
the world and is among the 20 countries with a high rate of energy consump-
tion (Pourarshad et al. 2021; US CIA 2016). Yet, environmental pollution and
climate change caused by fossil fuels, limited resources of fossil fuels, and
growing demand for such fuels emphasise the vital importance of exploiting
renewable energies in Iran. The reason for this is that Iran is located on the
solar belt and receives over 2800 h of sunshine per year, while the country’s
annual average of solar energy is about 20 − 30 Mj/m2 (Tofigh and Abedian
2016).
According to the estimates reported by the German Aerospace Cen-
ter (DLR), in an area of 2000 km2 in Iran it would be possible to install
60,000 MW solar power plants (Sohrab, Karkoodi, and Roumi 2019). Despite
5500 E. FIROOZI AND M. EGHTESADIFARD
this high potential and the fact that the first attempts to use alternative
energies (especially solar energy) in Iran were initiated in 1990, the con-
dition in Iran is far from an acceptable status (Mahdavi Adeli and Khaje
Naeini 2014). Of course, policies addressing renewable energy production
and utilisation in the country have been considered in the 5th and 6th IRI
Development Plans and they are currently underway; these policies seek to
develop renewable energy production, while enhancing its efficiency and
profitability within a competitive structure guided by income-expense anal-
yses (Najafi et al. 2015; Sohrab, Karkoodi, and Roumi 2019). Constructing
low- and medium-voltage solar PV power plants in urban and rural areas
seems to be a practical and achievable strategy to meet small and medium
rates of demand. Exploiting solar energy resources and reducing the volume
of greenhouse gas emissions have been predicted in Iran’s energy-related
policies.