sustainability

Article
A High-Resolution Wind Farms Suitability Mapping
Using GIS and Fuzzy AHP Approach: A National-Level Case
Study in Sudan
Amr S. Zalhaf 1,2 , Bahaa Elboshy 3, * , Kotb M. Kotb 1 , Yang Han 2 , Abdulrazak H. Almaliki 4 ,
Reda M. H. Aly 4 and M. R. Elkadeem 1

1 Electrical Power and Machines Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University,
Tanta 31511, Egypt; amr.salah@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg (A.S.Z.); kotb.mohamed@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg (K.M.K.);
mohammad.elkadim@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg (M.R.E.)
2 School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of
China (UESTC), Chengdu 611731, China; hanyang@uestc.edu.cn
3 Department of Architectural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta 31511, Egypt
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia;
a.almaliki@tu.edu.sa (A.H.A.); rmaly@tu.edu.sa (R.M.H.A.)
* Correspondence: bahaa.elboshi@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg

Abstract: Wind energy is one of the most attractive sustainable energy resources since it has low oper-
ation, maintenance, and production costs and a relatively low impact on the environment. Identifying
the optimal sites for installing wind power plants (WPPs) is considered an important challenge of
wind energy development which requires careful and combined analyses of numerous criteria. This



study introduces a high-resolution wind farms suitability mapping based on Fuzzy Analytical Hier-


archy Process (FAHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS) approaches considering technical,
Citation: Zalhaf, A.S.; Elboshy, B.; environmental, social, and spatial aspects, representing eight different criteria. First, a multi-criteria
Kotb, K.M.; Han, Y.; Almaliki, A.H.;
decision-making analysis based on the FAHP method is employed to assign appropriate weights for
Aly, R.M.H.; Elkadeem, M.R. A
the addressed criteria with respect to their relative importance. Since the traditional AHP method,
High-Resolution Wind Farms
which was found employed in the majority of the relative case-studies, is not efficient in dealing with
Suitability Mapping Using GIS and
uncertainty when experts use a basic scale (0 to 1) for their assessments, the FAHP provides more
Fuzzy AHP Approach: A
National-Level Case Study in Sudan.
flexible scales through the utilized fuzzy membership functions and the natural linguistic variables.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358. https:// Consequently, this helps to facilitate the assessments made by experts and increases the precision of
doi.org/10.3390/su14010358 the obtained results (weights). Next, the high-resolution GIS is used to carry out a spatial analysis
and integrate various factors/criteria throughout the proposed index to produce the final suitability
Academic Editors: Hoseyn Sayyaadi
map and identify the unsuitable areas. The presented study emphasizes investigating the lightning
and Ali Sohani
strike flash rate due to its significant influences on the wind turbine’s safety and operation, yet this
Received: 20 November 2021 crucial factor has been seldomly investigated in previous studies. The obtained findings revealed
Accepted: 27 December 2021 that the wind speed, the land slope, and the elevation had the highest weighted criteria with 33.1%,
Published: 29 December 2021
24.8%, and 12.2%, respectively. Besides, the final-developed suitability map revealed that 23.22% and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 8.31% of the Sudanese territory are of high and very high suitability, respectively, for wind farms
with regard to jurisdictional claims in installation which are considered sufficient to cover the electricity needs. The difficulty of acquiring
published maps and institutional affil- real data and resources for the addressed location was the main challenge of the presented work. The
iations. work outlook addresses the suitability mapping of hybrid photovoltaic-wind turbine energy systems,
which will require addressing new and significant criteria in the applied methodology.

Keywords: wind farms; suitability analysis; Geographic Information System (GIS); Fuzzy Analytical
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Hierarchy Process (FAHP); multi-criteria decision making
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
1. Introduction
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Sudan is located in the northern part of the Africa continent. It has two tributaries of
4.0/). the River Nile (the White Nile and the Blue Nile), making it a sizeable agricultural area

Sustainability 2022, 14, 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010358 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 2 of 21

where millions of people are concentrating. About 54% of Sudan’s population suffers from
electricity shortage, where most of them are supplied by standalone diesel generators [1,2].
The electrical energy supply in Sudan mainly depends on fossil fuels, which negatively im-
pacts the environment and humans. Sudan is facing many energy development challenges
brought about by high electricity subsidy levels and climate-induced impacts on hydroelec-
tric generation, which has been decreasing at a rate of about 4% per year. Improving access
to modern and affordable energy is a development priority for Sudan [3]. Therefore, the
Sudanese government seeks to achieve a clean and reliable electrical energy supply since
Sudan has high wind and solar potential.
Wind energy is one of the newest and fast-developing renewable energy sources since it
is a clean, renewable, and has a low impact on humans and the environment [4]. In addition,
wind turbines (WTs) are easy to install and require low operation and maintenance costs [5].
The newly-installed capacity of wind energy in 2018 have reached 51.3 GW worldwide [6].
For the development of wind energy projects, many factors that affect the wind project’s
outcome must be considered. One of the essential factors is finding a suitable investment
site for a wind power plant (WPP) considering the preliminary assessment for economic,
technical, environmental, and land-use implementation conditions. Additionally, some
essential factors must be considered when selecting wind farm locations, such as the
negative impacts of WTs on birds and wildlife, shadow flickering, visual impacts, and
electromagnetic interference [7]. Hence, the locations with the highest wind speed do not
need to be the best sites, but a trade-off must be made between various economic, physical,
and ecological factors to select the optimal locations [8].
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques identify suitable locations for
installing wind farms. There are different techniques used for MCDM which can be
combined with the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment such as rating
method, weighted sum method (WSM), ranking method, Weighted Linear Combination
(WLC), analytical hierarchy process (AHP), Boolean overlay operation, trade-off analysis
method, analytic network process (ANP), trade-off analysis method, concordance analysis,
Order Weighted Average (OWA), ELimination Et Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE),
Full Consistency Method (FUCOM), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution (TOPSIS), Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) [9].
The WSM is commonly used for single-dimensional decision-making problems, but it
is difficult to be applied in multi-dimensional problems [10]. In addition, the ELECTRE
method is mostly suitable when decision-making problems have some criteria with a
large number of alternatives. However, it sometimes cannot identify the most preferred
alternative [11]. The AHP is considered the most commonly used MCDM technique in
the literature for assessing renewable energy location as it is simple, intuitive, and can
check the consistency of the decision. It has the advantage of reducing the complexity of
decision-making problems which need a high level of reliability and flexibility. In addition,
it has the ability to combine quantitative and qualitative criteria in the same framework.
AHP is a mathematical approach used to make a pairwise criteria comparison where it
specifies a weight of relative importance to each criterion according to the experts’ opinions
of decision-makers [12,13]. On the other hand, if the uncertainty between various criteria
is considered, the AHP can be integrated with fuzzy set theory to give more accurate
results [14].
Many researchers widely used GIS-based MCDM to select the optimal location of
WPP s [7,14–20]. A framework was proposed before [7] to select suitable locations for
wind farm installation in Greece at the regional level. The GIS-based MCDM analysis
was implemented in the study, where the fuzzy set approach was used to represent the
evaluation criteria. Moreover, the suitable sites of wind farms in a province in Iran were
assessed using the ANP and decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL)
method in the GIS environment [15]. The ANP was used to calculate the weights of criteria,
where the criteria relationships were determined using the DEMATEL method. Also, the
TOPSIS method combined with an intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) has been used to determine
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 3 of 21

the suitable location for wind farms [21], and FUCOM was used in another research
for the same goal [22]. Furthermore, BWM has been used to assess the sustainability
performances of existing onshore wind plants [23]. Also, the suitable locations for the wind
farms installation in the province of Vojvodina, Serbia, were identified based on the ANP
technique, the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique,
and Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC) method in the
environment of GIS [16]. The authors considered the economic, social, and environmental
aspects for site assessment, classified into eleven constraints and eleven evaluation criteria.
The criteria weights were calculated using the ANP-DEMATEL, and the selected
viable locations were ranked using the MABAC methodology. Furthermore, the best sites
for wind turbines in Murcia, Spain, were selected and evaluated before [17]. The locations
were assessed using two techniques; the lexicographic order filtering method based on the
chosen criteria, and the ELECTRE-TRI method is used as an MCDM technique. Another
work [18] built a framework to select the best locations for offshore WTs in China using
the ELECTRE-III technique based on the intuitionistic fuzzy set. The AHP methodology
was implemented with GIS to determine the optimal locations of WPPs in an area in
Germany [19]. In the study, nine criteria were used, including techno-economic, socio-
political, and environmental aspects, where several experts were asked to make the pairwise
comparison and derive the relative weights. In addition, the optimal locations of WPPs on
an island in Greece were assessed using the AHP methodology combined with the GIS [20].
Different criteria were used in the study comprising the wind power potential, land cover
type, visual impact, power consumption, the land value, and the distance from the power
grid, then the complete suitability map of the island was created. Additionally, the AHP
method has been used to determine the suitable sites for wind-solar energy plants [24].
In another research, AHP has been combined with the stochastic approach (SMAA-2) to
determine the best location for wind farms [25]. Another work conducted a strategy using
the fuzzy set combined with AHP to identify the best locations of wind farms in Turkey
based on wind speed, slope, building, and vegetation criteria [14]. In addition, the sites
with minimum negative impacts on the rural areas were determined.
In this work, the area of study is in Sudan, where no previous research was conducted
to select the optimal sites of WPPs. In this study, an MCDM framework based on the
fuzzy-AHP method is performed to identify the optimal wind farm installation sites
using GIS software. The best locations are identified considering various criteria such as
wind speed, slope, distance from transmission lines (TLs) and power grids (PG), distance
from urban/major cities, distance from airports, elevation, distance from major roads and
railways, and the lightning strike flash rate. Therefore, the areas with a lower lightning flash
rate must be considered when selecting places for installing WPPs. The main contributions
and novelty of this study can be summarized as follows:
- Proposing a high-resolution wind farms suitability mapping-based Fuzzy Analytical
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS) approaches
considering technical, environmental, social, and spatial aspects in the Sudanese
territory where, as to the best of authors’ knowledge, there no research investigations
were conducted to select optimal locations of constructing WPPs.
- The presented FAHP approach provides more flexible scales through the utilized fuzzy
membership functions and the natural linguistic variables. Consequently, facilitate
the assessments made by experts and increase the precision of the obtained weights.
- The presented study emphasizes investigating the lightning strike flash rate due to its
significant influences on wind turbine’s safety and operation, yet this crucial factor
has been seldomly investigated in previous studies. The main concern of examining
this factor is that when lightning hits WTs, large overvoltages are generated on their
bodies, damaging different parts of the WTs.
The presented research is structured as follows: the materials and methodology of the
study are described in Section 2, Section 3 presents the results and related discussions, and
finally, the study conclusions are stated in Section 4.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 4 of 21

2. Materials and Methodology

Since this research aims to develop a methodology that can divide the available land
for implementing wind farm projects to different levels in terms of suitability, several steps
have been obtained to achieve this goal, as shown in Figure 1. The research begins by
selecting the case study and investigating the extent of the need for such projects and the
appropriateness of location for these projects through a literature review. Next, choose the
most influential factors in land suitability for wind farms, according to the technical issues
and nature of the case study. Consequently, specific weights are determined for each factor
to develop an index to identify land suitability. The FAHP has been used to calculate these
weights. Then, GIS is used for spatial analysis and integrating various factors through the
proposed index to produce the final suitability map and identify unsuitable areas.

Figure 1. Proposed framework for assessment of suitable sites of wind farms in Sudan.

2.1. Case Study

Sudan is one of the largest African countries characterized by its important and vital
location on the Red Sea, and the Nile River passes as a major resource for water and energy
in the region. Sudan suffers from a severe shortage of energy production, where about
70% of the population does not have access to electricity. Different energy production
alternatives are costly, such as building dams on the Nile, and many other options, such
as diesel generators, are associated with pollution problems and adverse environmental
impacts. The Sudanese government has activated an initiative to exploit renewable energy
and aims to reach 38% of electricity production by 2030 and achieve 100% production by
2050 [26,27]. Sudan contains potentials for many renewable energy projects such as solar
energy, wind energy, etc. Sudan includes large desert lands characterized by high solar
radiation and an appropriate potential of wind speed [28].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 5 of 21

2.2. Factors Used for Land Suitability Assessment

To define the areas that should be considered as the ones excluded from the wind
power development, several constraint criteria will be determined. These criteria should
describe Sudan’s environmental, social, technical, and cultural characteristics that need to
be preserved. A total number of eleven constraint factors and eight evaluation factors were
identified and used as input to the GIS software to perform the spatial analysis and allocate
the optimal sites for WT installation in Sudan.

2.2.1. Wind Speed

Wind speed is considered the most important criterion for WPPs planning. Increasing
the wind speed within appropriate ranges denotes higher power output from WTs. There
are different threshold values for wind speed recommended by previous research studies.
In this work, the locations with average wind speed < 3 m/s are considered unsuitable for
wind farm sitting. In addition, the sites with wind speeds > 20 m/s are excluded to the WT
equipment due to possible damage [29].

2.2.2. Slope
The slope is a critical technical index for wind farms construction. The accessibility
of maintenance and installation equipment is affected by the high slope and increases the
installation cost. Hence, selecting flat areas and locations with lower slopes for wind farm
installation is highly-recommended. In this work, the areas with slopes greater than 15%
are excluded from the final suitability map [30]. The Sudanese digital elevation model
(DEM) data has been used for the slope factor in this study.

2.2.3. Distance from Urban Areas

Wind farms have various adverse impacts on nearby human beings, such as mechan-
ical and aerodynamic noise, visual disturbances, and shadow flickering. To reduce the
negative impacts of wind farms, it is essential to consider the minimum distance from urban
and residential areas. On the other hand, a reasonable distance from settlements should be
considered in order not to increase the transmission power losses and transmission cost.
Therefore, the distance from urban and residential areas should be selected carefully. In
this paper, the areas of distances > 1 km from residential areas are considered suitable sites
for wind farms installation [31]. In this study, the map has been generated using the LULC
map and extracts the urban areas using the “extract by value” tool; then, the map has been
converted to a polygon.

2.2.4. Elevation
The wind direction and speed are greatly affected by the site elevation. WTs are
usually installed on highly elevated areas to capture more wind speeds [32]. However, this
increases the construction cost and the difficulty of installation and maintenance operations.
Therefore, the appropriate site for wind farms should be selected wisely. In this study, the
highest elevation is 1250 m, and the lowest elevation is 0 m, in which the elevation map
was extracted from DEM data of Sudan.

2.2.5. Distance from Transmission Lines and Power Grid

The distance from power transmission lines and the power grid is an important
criterion for selecting wind farms. A minimum distance should be considered to mitigate
the effect of electromagnetic fields generated by TLs, which could hurt human health. In
addition, the closeness of WPPs from TLs improves the efficiency as the losses decrease
and reduces the cost of constructing new TLs near the farm [30]. This minimum distance
from power TLs and the power grid is considered 0.5 km in this work [33].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 6 of 21

2.2.6. Distance from Airports

During the wind farm installation, an appropriate distance from airports should be
considered since the WTs may be influenced by the aviation routes, leading to collisions.
In addition, WTs may influence communication systems and navigation in airports. This
study’s recommended minimum distance from the main airports is 3 km [16].

2.2.7. Distance from Major Roads and Railways

The wind farm locations should be close to the major road network and railways to
reduce the WTs transportation cost and facilitate the access for the different employees.
In addition, the cost of constructing new roads and maintenance will be minimized. On
the other hand, decreasing the distance between the wind farm and the roads negatively
impacts road transportation because of loud noises. Moreover, the roads will be shadowed
because of the WTs’ blades rotation and some changes in the visual landscape [19]. Hence,
this work’s assigned minimum distance from major roads and railways is 0.5 km [34].

2.2.8. Lightning Strike Flash Rate

The lightning strike flash rate criterion is considered a significant factor while iden-
tifying the optimal locations of wind farms; despite this fact, previous papers have not
considered such factors in their investigations. Lighting strikes may lead to several prob-
lems for WTs, electrical equipment, and people living near the struck object. The possibility
of WTs being struck by lightning is very high as they are usually installed in highly elevated
locations and open areas to capture higher wind speeds and increase the output power.
When the WT blade is subjected to a lightning strike, a large current flows throw the WT’s
body, which results in large potential across the WT parts [35]. This large potential may
result in severe damage for the WT body and the electronic and control devices. Based
on statistical data, some recorded lightning incidents that occurred to WTs were reported
in some countries, especially during the winter season, causing failures for some WTs
and outages for a long time for maintenance. Therefore, considering the lightning strike
flash rate of the studied region is essential to avoid the locations with higher flash rates to
protect wind farms from the damage associated with lightning strikes [36]. Hence, while
selecting the optimal location for wind farm installation, the lightning strike flash rate
must be considered. The annual flash rate of lightning strikes is selected between 2.5 and
80 fl.km−2 y−1, where the areas with an annual flash rate greater than 80 fl.km−2 y−1 are
excluded [37].

2.3. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) Method
In the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems, the AHP is the most wide-
spread criterion weighting technique [38,39]. However, it cannot handle vagueness in
human reasoning. To solve the imprecision in AHP, exact numbers are replaced with fuzzy
linguistic expressions known as FAHP, giving more accurate and adequate judgment [12,40].
Figure 2 demonstrates the phases of the applied FAHP method while the derailed steps of
the FAHP procedure can be summarized as follows [39]:
1. Develop a hierarchical structure with a top-level goal, selecting middle-level criteria
and the different alternatives at the bottom level.
2. Each expert or decision-maker (DM) establishes a fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix
based on his ratings. This matrix exemplifies the relative importance of different
criteria concerning the goal with the help of the scale of relative importance, which is
indicated in Table 1 [39].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 7 of 21

Figure 2. Flowchart of the FAHP procedure.

3. Test the consistency of each comparison matrix. The matrix is judged consistent if the
inconsistencies amongst the pairwise comparisons are within a fixed limit known as
consistency ratio (CR = 0.1) [41]. Otherwise, the DMs need to re-assess their ratings.
CR can be calculated from Equation (1), where CI is the consistency index; λm is the
principal eigenvalue of the comparison matrix; RI is the random index which depends
on the matrix size (n), which can be found in [12].

CI λm − n
CR = , CI = (1)
RI n−1
4. Synthesize the ‘DMs’ ratings in a single fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix since the
ratings of various DMs could differ. Their thoughts should be aggregated to generate
a single result. To explain, let (DM1, DM2, . . . , DMn) be the n DMs, (F1, F2, . . . ,
Fx) be the x KPC, and F~ij(n) = (lij(n), mij(n), hij(n)) be a triangular fuzzy number
representing the relative importance of Fi over Fj judged by DMn, be the aggregated
relative importance of Fi over Fj. Using the geometric mean method represented in
Equation (2) [39], the different judgments of DMs can be aggregated.
 1 1
n (k) n
(1) (2) (n) n
∏ Fij


Feij = lij , mij , hij = = (Fij ⊗ Fij ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fij )
g g g g
k=1
" 1  1  1 # (2)
n (k) n n (k) n n (k) n
= ∏ lij , ∏ mij , ∏ hij
k=1 k=1 k=1

5. Determine the fuzzy weights of each criterion by accumulating the various fuzzy
sets in the matrix computed in step-4 into a single fuzzy set. The fuzzy weights are
calculated using the Geometric mean method illustrated by Equation (3) [42].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 8 of 21

1
Fei = (Ff f f x
i1 ⊗ Fi2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fix )
(3)
Wfi = xFei
∑j=1 Fej

6. Defuzzify the fuzzy weights into crisp weights for further comparison since the fuzzy
sets are hard to accurately evaluate as they are partly instructed instead of stringently
arranged crisp values. The center of area (CAO) method shown in Equation (4) [39] is
employed to defuzzify the fuzzy weights.

l+m+h
W∗ = (4)
3
7. Normalize the obtained weights as a final step to ascertain that the totality of all
weights is exactly equal to 1.

Table 1. Linguistic variables for pairwise evaluations of every criterion.

Linguistic Variables Triangular Fuzzy Number

Extremely important (9,9,9)
Very important (6,7,8)
Important (3,5,7)
Moderately important (1,3,5)
Equally important (1,1,1)
Intermediate (1,2,3), (3,4,5), (5,6,7), (7,8,9)

2.4. GIS Processing

This is the first spatial suitability analysis study for wind farms allocation in Sudan
based on a combined FAHP-GIS approach. According to the developed weights and
ranking for different criteria, the suitability map is conducted using ArcGIS Desktop 10.8,
and the used geo-information data have been collected from freely available resources on
the web, as shown in Table 2. This study employs eleven constraints representing eight
evaluation factors to ascertain the unsuitable and suitable locations for establishing wind
farms. The selection of both groups of factors, which have been adopted in the spatial
analysis model, was conducted based on experts’ assessments, attributes of the study area,
and literature studies as given in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 2. Collected data maps and sources.

Data Type Resolution Source

Mean wind speed Raster data 9 km https://globalwindatlas.info/ (accessed on 10 November 2021)
Digital elevation model Raster data 90 m https://earthdata.nasa.gov/ (accessed on 10 November 2021)
Power Transmission Lines map Vector data – www.openstreetmap.org (accessed on 10 November 2021)
https://2016africalandcover20m.esrin.esa.int/
Land Cover map of Africa Raster data 20 m
(accessed on 10 November 2021)
Road map Vector data – www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 10 November 2021)
https://data.humdata.org/dataset/global-airports
Airport’s location map Vector data –
(accessed on 10 November 2021)
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/lis/
LIS/OTD total flash density map Raster data 55 m climatology/LIS-OTD/HRFC/
(accessed on 10 November 2021)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 9 of 21

Table 3. Threshold/Buffer values of constraint factors to identify exclusion areas.

No. Constraint Factor Value Ref. Area Ratio in Sudan

1 Wind speed <3 m/s [43] 7.93%
2 Slope >15% [30] 0.22%
3 Elevation >1.25 km [44] 0.43%
4 TLs and PG <0.5 km [45] 0.28%
5 Urban/Major cities <1 km [46] 1.43%
6 Airports <3 km [16] 0.07%
7 Major roads and railways <0.5 km [47] 5.45%
8 Lightning strike >80 fl.km−2 y−1 [37] 0%

Table 4. Suitability classes and weights of each selected evaluation factor.

Area Ratio
Evaluation Factor Suitability Class Score Range
in Sudan %
Very low 1 3–3.5 12.99
Low 2 3.5–4 14.69
Wind Speed (m/s) Moderate 3 4–5 34.41
High 4 5–6 25.57
Very high 5 >6 4.40
Very low 1 12–15 0.16
Low 2 9–12 0.31
Slope (%) Moderate 3 6–9 0.17
High 4 3–6 0.55
Very high 5 >6 98.60
Very low 1 50–100 78.26
Distance from Low 2 20–50 11.80
transmission lines and Moderate 3 10–20 4.73
power grid (km) High 4 5–10 2.51
Very high 5 0.5–5 2.41
Very low 1 30–50 54.46
Low 2 20–30 12.63
Distance from Urban/
Moderate 3 10–20 16.83
Major cities (km)
High 4 5–10 8.56
Very high 5 1–5 6.09
Very low 1 50–100 85.17
Low 2 20–50 11.90
Distance from airports
Moderate 3 10–20 2.17
(km)
High 4 5–10 0.57
Very high 5 3–5 0.12
Very low 1 1–1.25 2.08
Low 2 0.75–1 9.07
Elevation (km) Moderate 3 0.5–0.75 36.71
High 4 0.25–0.5 49.34
Very high 5 0–0.25 2.36
Very low 1 50–100 21.19
Low 2 20–50 21.93
Distance from major
Moderate 3 10–20 15.77
roads and railways (km)
High 4 5–10 13.13
Very high 5 0.5–5 22.53
Very low 1 80–100 0
Low 2 40–80 0
Lightning Strike flash rate
Moderate 3 10–40 30
(fl.km−2 y−1 )
High 4 2.5–10 30
Very high 5 0.625–2.5 40
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 10 of 21

2.5. Generation of the Restrictive Map and Suitable Area

According to the proposed approach, the restriction maps are equivalent to locations
that have some impediments for installing the wind farm, which were firstly generated
according to the threshold and buffer values given in Table 3 with the aid of ArcGIS
software. All maps corresponding to the considered factors were organized and pro-ceded
with 250 m (9 arc-sec). Herewith, the individual restriction maps were created using
different spatial analysis tools such as classification for wind speed, slope, elevation, land
use, and lightning strike where the buffer tool has been used to determine the re-striction
of the distance from TLs and PG, airports urban read and major roads.

2.6. Generation of Standardized Suitability Maps

The classified map of each criterion has been generated using the GIS software to
generate the suitability map. The produced maps represent the considered criteria and
their ranks. All maps have been collected and prepared in a raster format with a resolution
of 250 m (9 arc-sec) and classified into a relative class, as shown in Table 4.
The classified map for each criterion has been produced. The wind speed map has
been conducted by applying the reclassifying process for the wind speed map in ArcMap
using the specified ranges in Table 4. Additionally, the digital elevation model (DEM) has
been used for the slope and elevation criteria. The “Slope” tool in ArcGIS is used to develop
the slope map. Next, the map is classified using the reclassification tool. In addition, the
elevation map has been classified for the elevation criteria rank.
Furthermore, the distribution map of different lightning strikes levels in Sudan has
been generated using the reclassifying tool in ArcMap for the LIS/OTD Total Flash Density
Map. The reclassification process is conducted according to selected ranges in Table 4; the
map is resampled to a resolution of 250 m. In addition, the classification map of distance
from urban areas has been generated using LULC map and extracts the urban areas using
“extract by value” tool then the map has been converted to polygon and the “buffer” tool
has been used to determine the different distance buffers. Additionally, the buffer tool
has been used to develop the distance from the road network and distance from power
transmission lines using the maps provided by the open street map website.
After the constraints areas were excluded from the total land of Sudan and reclassified
suitability maps of evaluation factors were prepared, the remainder is the perform weighted
overlay analysis using the Map Algebra spatial analyst tool. In this stage, each suitability
evaluation map was assigned a certain weight as obtained from FAHP results, then all
maps were combined and then subtracted from the constraints map.
The implementation of the fuzzy system in this work is different from the usually
implemented fuzzy logic in control systems. In the multi-criteria decision-making problems,
after selecting and setting up the fuzzy numbers which will be used for solving the problem
(fuzzy triangular numbers in this study), the assessments carried out by decision-makers
in their nature language (linguistic assessments) are converted to a fuzzy environment
according to the previously selected fuzzy numbers (as stated in Table 1). Following, a
number of fuzzy pairwise matrices are generated based on the number of decision-makers.
Next, a set of mathematical processes in the fuzzy environment are accomplished to obtain
the final weights of criteria. Finally, the final weights produced in the fuzzy system are
defuzzified to obtain the final crisp values as final weights of criteria.

3. Results and Discussion

Herein, the findings on the FAHB-GIS aided spatial analysis of wind energy system
locations in Sudan are summarized and analyzed. This includes the numerical values of the
optimal weight of the evaluation factors and the final suitability map of the feasible sites.

3.1. FAHP Results

In this study, the optimal weights of the eight evaluation criteria factors (C#1: wind
speed; C#2: slope; C#3: elevation; C#4: distance from TLs & PPs; C#5: distance from
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 11 of 21

cities; C#6: distance from roads and railways; C#7: distance from airports; C#8: lightning
strike flash rate) are obtained using FAHP-based MCDM with the aid of the judgment
of three experts. The pairwise comparison matrices extracted from experts’ judgment
using a (1–9) point scale are given in Tables A1–A3 in the Appendix A. These matrices
define the importance of each factor to others, which is considered the kick start of the
weighting calculations. Before synthesizing the experts’ assessment in the FAHP method,
each expert’s consistency ratio (CR) of each pairwise comparison matrix should be tested,
as illustrated in the FAHP procedure (step 3). Obviously, the CR value of each pair-
wise comparison matrices was found below the critical CR as 0.075, 0.054, and 0.077 for
experts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Next, based on the linguistic description of each point
scale and its transformation to fuzzy numbers (see Table 5), the assessment of each expert
is then converted into a fuzzy environment as indicated in Tables 6–8. Finally, the three
fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices were aggregated into a single matrix to obtain the
final numerical weights of each factor as indicated in Table 9 and visualized in Figure 3.

Table 5. Description of the (1–9) point scale and their fuzzy transformation.

Point Scale Linguistic Description Triangular Fuzzy Number

1 Equally strong (1,1,1)
2 Intermediate (1,2,3)
3 Moderately strong (2,3,4)
4 Intermediate (3,4,5)
5 Strong (4,5,6)
6 Intermediate (5,6,7)
7 Very strong (6,7,8)
8 Intermediate (7,8,9)
9 Extremely strong (9,9,9)

Table 6. The fuzzy pair-wise comparison matrix of expert-1.

Criteria C#1 C#2 C#3 C#4 C#5 C#6 C#7 C#8

C#1 (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (6.0,7.0,8.) (9.0,9.0,9.0)
C#2 (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (5.0,6.0,7.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0)
C#3 (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0)
C#4 (0.2,0.25,0.333) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0)
C#5 (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.143,0.167,0.2) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0)
C#6 (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0)
C#7 (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0)
C#8 (0.111,0.111,0.111) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.125,0.143,0.16) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.2,0.25,0.333) (1.0,1.0,1.0)

Table 7. The fuzzy pair-wise comparison matrix of expert-2.

Criteria C#1 C#2 C#3 C#4 C#5 C#6 C#7 C#8

C#1 (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0)
C#2 (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0)
C#3 (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0)
C#4 (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0)
C#5 (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0)
C#6 (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.2,0.25,0.333) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0)
C#7 (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0)
C#8 (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.2,0.25,0.333) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0)

Table 8. The fuzzy pair-wise comparison matrix of expert-3.

Criteria C#1 C#2 C#3 C#4 C#5 C#6 C#7 C#8

C#1 (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (7.0,8.0,9.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (9.0,9.0,9.0)
C#2 (0.25,0.333,0.5) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0)
C#3 (0.2,0.25,0.333) (0.2,0.25,0.333) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (5.0,6.0,7.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0)
C#4 (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0) (4.0,5.0,6.0)
C#5 (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.2,0.25,0.333) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (3.0,4.0,5.0) (6.0,7.0,8.0)
C#6 (0.111,0.125,0.143) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.143,0.167,0.2) (0.2,0.25,0.333) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0)
C#7 (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.2,0.25,0.333) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.0,3.0,4.0)
C#8 (0.111,0.111,0.111) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.167,0.2,0.25) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (0.25,0.333,0.5) (1.0,1.0,1.0)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 12 of 21

Table 9. The aggregated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix of all experts and criteria weights.

Criteria C#1 C#2 C#3 C#4 C#5 C#6 C#7 C#8 Weight
C#1 (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.26,2.289,3.302) (2.884,3.915,4.932) (2.884,3.915,4.932) (5.241,6.257,7.268) (3.826,4.932,6.0) (5.241,6.257,7.268) (7.862,8.277,8.653) 0.331350632
C#2 (0.303,0.437,0.794) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.289,3.302,4.309) (2.0,3.107,4.16) (3.107,4.16,5.192) (5.241,6.257,7.268) (6.0,7.0,8.0) (4.579,5.593,6.604) 0.248247216
C#3 (0.203,0.255,0.347) (0.232,0.303,0.437) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.26,1.442) (1.26,2.289,3.302) (3.107,4.16,5.192) (3.175,4.217,5.241) (3.175,4.217,5.241) 0.122391656
C#4 (0.203,0.255,0.347) (0.24,0.322,0.5) (0.693,0.794,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,2.0,3.0) (2.289,3.302,4.309) (3.175,4.217,5.241) (4.579,5.593,6.604) 0.11661812
C#5 (0.138,0.16,0.191) (0.193,0.24,0.322) (0.303,0.437,0.794) (0.333,0.5,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.26,1.817,2.289) (2.884,3.915,4.932) (5.241,6.257,7.268) 0.079234519
C#6 (0.167,0.203,0.261) (0.138,0.16,0.191) (0.193,0.24,0.322) (0.232,0.303,0.437) (0.437,0.55,0.794) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (2.289,3.302,4.309) 0.044137266
C#7 (0.138,0.16,0.191) (0.125,0.143,0.167) (0.191,0.237,0.315) (0.191,0.237,0.315) (0.203,0.255,0.347) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.0,1.0,1.0) (1.817,2.884,3.915) 0.036096026
C#8 (0.116,0.121,0.127) (0.151,0.179,0.218) (0.191,0.237,0.315) (0.151,0.179,0.218) (0.138,0.16,0.191) (0.232,0.303,0.437) (0.255,0.347,0.55) (1.0,1.0,1.0) 0.021924565

Figure 3. Priority weights of the eight-evaluation factor for site selection of WT.

From the obtained results, the wind speed factor (C#1) had the highest priority weight
while deciding on the suitable locations for WT development in Sudan, with a weight
percentage of 33.13%. This is followed by the slope (C#2), land elevation (C#3) and distance
from TLs and PPs (C#4). Furthermore, distance from cities (C#5) was fourth, and the
fifth preferred factor following as distance from roads and railways (C#6). On the other
side, distance from airports (C#7) and the lightning strike flash rate (C#8) were the least
important factors with seventh and eighth priority rankings, respectively.

3.2. Land Suitability Mapping Results

The overall unsuitability raster map is displayed in Figure 4, revealing the unfavorable
zones in the southern part of the Sudanese territory. The outcomes signify that 48.20% of the
total land area (893,678.61 km2 ) is unsuitable for establishing wind farms, while the others
have no restrictions and are nominated as possible locations to install wind farms. The
major occasions behind this can be demonstrated from the unsuitability map, which reveals
that most of these lands are agricultural areas where wind farms cannot be established.
Additionally, the wind speed activity is very low (less than 3 m/s) in most southern parts
of the country and the western section. The west section of the country also has elevation
restrictions since it contains mountains and hills higher than 1 km, and roads and airports
buffer restrictions.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 13 of 21

Figure 4. Constraints map of wind farm locations in Sudan.

Moreover, the southern parts of the White Nile and Sennar provinces have road buffer
restrictions that prevent the possibility of a wind farms establishment. The land slope
restrictions appear obviously in the northeast of the land since these areas have a slope of
12–15% or above. Finally, following the path of the Nile River and its tributaries, the urban
areas’ buffer restrictions can be easily recognized since these areas are considered the most
populated places.
In the next step, the evaluation factors were implemented to determine the appropri-
ateness degree of the land for hosting wind farms in Sudan. By considering the statistical
data and the frequency distribution of the values, land categories were presented in 6 de-
grees (very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and unsuitable) according to the boundary
values given above in Table 4.
For further demonstration of each layer, Figure 5a describes the wind speed map in
which it can be recognized that about 64% of the land area is suitable for establishing wind
farms. The previous ratio comprises 4.4% of the land area with a very high wind speed,
25.57% with high wind speed, and 34.41% with moderate wind speed (4–5 m/s). Besides,
most unsuitable zones (35.5% of land area) gather south of the country. The land slope is
also considered a crucial factor since it can accelerate the wind speed by the venturi effect.
Figure 5b shows the slope map in which it can be recognized that nearly the entire land of
Sudan (98.6%) is highly suitable for establishing wind farms.
The distance from the TLs map shown in Figure 5c indicates that most of the land area
(90.34%) is far from the national grid TLs since most of the populations are concentrated
on the banks of the Nile River tributaries. Besides, the map shown in Figure 5d displays
the distance from urban areas, which reveal that about 6.09% of the land area is (1–5 km)
away from the major cities or urban areas while 8.56% of the area is (5–10 km) away, which
considered that as the most suitable places to establish the wind farms. Besides, 16.8% of the
land is located (10–20 km) away from the major cities, which is also considered a potential
spot for wind energy investments. Moreover, the map reveals that more than half of the
land is far from major cities or urban areas since it is more than 30 km away.
The distance from the airports’ map is shown in Figure 5e, which reveals that the
majority of the land (85.17%) is very far from the country’s airports with more than 50 km
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 14 of 21

while only a few land zones (about 2.86%) are far from the airport with less than 20 km.
The distance from airports is seen from different perspectives by researchers; some see that
the distance from airports is essential for the construction and the frequent maintenance of
wind farms which will facilitate these purposes and save money and time. On the other
hand, some researchers believe that wind farms can produce irretrievable obstacles in
navigation, communication, and transmission systems utilized in air travel control and
associated with air shipping security. The proximity to roads and railways map is displayed
in Figure 5f; about 22.53% of the land area is (0.5–5 km) away from the roads and railways,
which is considered a potential spot for establishing wind farms. Besides, about 29% of the
land area is (5–20 km) away from the roads and railways, which can also be suitable for
wind energy investments, while 48.57% of the land is considered less suitable or unsuitable
for establishing wind farms.
Another important factor that has a vital influence on wind farms’ positioning is
displayed in Figure 5g, which is the land elevation or the shape of the land and refers to
the vertical height of a point above the sea level. From Figure 5g, it can be recognized that
more than 50% of the land area is suitable for establishing wind farms since its elevation
is less than 0.5 km. Since the western section of the land has an elevation above 1 km,
this area is considered low suitable or unsuitable for wind farms locations. Since WTs
are considered high installations, they can be directly damaged due to lightning strikes.
Thus, Figure 5h indicated the lightning strikes rate map in which it can be noticed that the
northern section of the whole land, which represents 40% of the land area, is exposed to the
least number of lightning strikes per year while the middle section of the country exposed
to a higher number of lightning strikes than the northern part. The southern part of the
land, representing 30% of the total land, is exposed to (10–40) lightning strikes per year;
thus, the southern section is considered of moderate suitability to establish wind farms.

Figure 5. Cont.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 15 of 21

Figure 5. Cont.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 16 of 21

Figure 5. Maps of the evaluation criteria and suitability percentages (a) wind speed, (b) slope,
(c) distance from TLs, (d) distance from urban, (e) distance from airports, (f) distance from roads,
(g) elevation, and (h) lightning strike flash rate.

The output represents the decisive suitability map for wind farms’ locations, as given
in Figure 6. Furthermore, the numerical results of each suitability class and its percentages
to the total area are tabulated in Table 10.

Figure 6. Final suitability map of wind farms’ locations.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 17 of 21

Table 10. Areas of each suitability class and their percentages to the total land area of Sudan.

Class Map Colour Area (km2 ) Percentage (%)

Unsuitable Gray 893,678.61 48.20
Very Low Red 11,495.45 0.62
Low Orange 43,942.28 2.37
Moderate Yellow 320,389.34 17.28
High Light green 430,523.18 23.22
Very High Dark Green 154,076.12 8.31

The outcomes reveal that 8.31% (154,076.12 km2 ) of the investigated land has very
high suitability, 23.22% (430,523.18 km2 ) has high suitability, 17.28% (320,389.34 km2 ) with
moderate suitability, 2.37% (43,942.28 km2 ) with low suitability, 0.62% (11,495.45 km2 ) with
very low suitability, against 48.20% (893,678.61 km2 ) unsuitable for wind farms placement.
The high and suitable areas, which represent 31.53% of the total land, would be appraised
as contender zones for wind energy projects; thus, investing development and policies
should be established for these zones. The suitability map shows that the most suitable
zones are located in the northern middle areas of the land, particularly in the Northern and
Nile provinces. Additionally, the eastern section of the Red Sea province is considered very
suitable for wind farms establishment. Moreover, the capital province (Khartoum) and
the Northern Kordofan province contain small suitable areas for wind energy investments.
These areas have high suitability since they share a set of considerations that allow the
establishment of wind farms such as a perfect land slope and elevation, high wind activity,
proximity to the grid TLs, and northern airports, their distant location from the urban and
rural settlements, and the low exposure of lightning strikes.
The utilization of the FAHP approach has several advantages over the traditional
AHP approach, which was found not efficient in dealing with uncertainty when decision-
makers/experts select a scale from a particular basic scale (1 to 9), known as crisp values,
for accomplishing their assessments. To signify the uncertainty, decision-makers/experts
need more flexible scales by using fuzzy membership functions (represented in the type
of the utilized fuzzy numbers) and linguistic variables (e.g., good, very good, poor, very
poor) rather than crisp values. Despite that, the traditional AHP method considers data
validity with inconsistency limits, the considerable uncertainty, and skepticism in providing
an assessment/decision will influence the precision and correctness of the data and the
achieved findings. Based on this, the FAHP is utilized. The FAHP procedure sets the
AHP scale into the fuzzy triangle scale (or the selected fuzzy numbers) to access priority.
Besides, the fuzzy-based methods are used due to the inaccuracy in evaluating the relative
importance of criteria and the ratings of alternatives regarding criteria. This inaccuracy
may occur due to unquantifiable information, incomplete data, unattainable information,
and subjective ignorance. The proposed methodology considers the lightning strikes flash
rate, which is a critical criterion that greatly influences the operation and safety of WTs.
According to the relevant literature, most studies have seldomly examined the lightning
strike flash rate, which exposes wind turbine projects to different kinds of risk. Based
on the above, the proposed methodology, which uses the FAHP approach in the GIS
environment, offers an efficient and precise way to identify the suitable locations of WTs
construction projects.

3.3. Policy Implications

This research is considered a preliminary step towards applying wind energy on
several levels in Sudan. The results of this research can be beneficial for the targeted
stakeholders, namely the regulatory authority, investors, and individuals [48]. In addition,
the work contributes to developing strategic plans for the distribution of wind energy
projects on a national level. Additionally, investors can benefit from these results in
conducting feasibility studies for renewable energy projects and encouraging to construct
them in the areas with high potential energy output. Likewise, community members
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 18 of 21

should be targeted to raise their awareness regarding the importance of clean energy. The
economic feasibility study for renewable energy projects is based mainly on the amount of
energy produced, and the methodology used in this research allows to select the optimum
areas that will be economically feasible through a balance between the construction cost,
the cost of energy transfer, the maintenance cost by considering the expected risks and the
quantity of energy produced as best as possible. Moreover, the methodology can be further
enlarged to assess the suitability mapping for establishing hybrid PV-wind energy projects.

4. Conclusions
The main goal of this work is identifying the suitable locations for wind farms in-
stallation in Sudan where no previous research was reported in the existing literature to
cover this research gap. This target was achieved by integrating the implementation of
the FAHP analysis and the GIS system. Eight criteria were used to assess the optimal sites
of wind farms combining economic, social, environmental, and technical aspects. The
lightning strike flash rate was considered in the criteria selection, which was seldomly
investigated in previous studies despite its significant influences on WT’s safety and oper-
ation. The addressed criteria used in the study includes the wind speed, slope, distance
from transmission lines and power plants, distance from urban/major cities, distance from
airports, elevation, distance from major roads and railways, and lightning strike flash rate.
Based on the experts’ opinions and the criteria prioritization, the assessment provided a
comprehensive analysis of wind farms’ site suitability.
The spatial analysis indicated that 48.2% of the country areas are unsuitable for wind
farms construction. The majority of these sites belonged to the southern part of the country
and are unsuitable because of the low potential of wind resources and agriculture areas’
restrictions. On the other side, a total of 51.8% of the country area was found feasible
(0.62% a very low, 2.37% is low, 17.28% is moderate, 23.22% is high, and 23.78.314% is very
high suitable) for installation of wind farms. Additionally, the results revealed that both
the Northern and the Nile’s provinces enjoy an excellent capacity to invest in wind energy
projects to cover the current and future electricity needs in Sudan. The obtained findings
are expected to reduce the investments, construction time, and resources for developing
and implementing wind energy projects in Sudan.
This research faces some limitations, such as using free available data on the internet,
some of which have low resolution and cannot be verified due to the lack of field mea-
surements which requires a high cost. In addition, some factors can affect the construction
of such projects, such as soil investigations and the paths of migratory birds, for which
data could not be obtained. Likewise, a number of points need to be studied, such as the
economic feasibility study and its impact on choosing the most appropriate locations. This
study is considered a preliminary study for the distribution of renewable energy projects to
assist decision-makers in setting future urban development and renewable energy projects
plans. Implementing such studies on a smaller scale, such as governorates and cities, can
also provide detailed plans for the construction of wind turbine projects. It would be
interesting to integrate other renewable energy sources as well, such as photovoltaics with
wind energy towards addressing the suitability mapping of hybrid energy systems, which
requires addressing new and significant criteria in the applied methodology.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Original draft preparation,

A.S.Z., B.E., K.M.K. and M.R.E.; Revision, Writing—Review & editing Reviewing, Y.H., A.H.A. and
R.M.H.A.; Funding acquisition, A.H.A. and R.M.H.A. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Taif University, Researchers Supporting Project grant number
(TURSP-2020/252).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 19 of 21

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

Acknowledgments: The author would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by Taif
University Researchers Supporting Project Number (TURSP-2020/252).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Pairwise comparison for assessment criteria by expert 1.

Criteria C#1 C#2 C#3 C#4 C#5 C#6 C#7 C#8

C#1 1 2 3 4 7 5 7 9
C#2 1/2 1 3 5 6 7 7 7
C#3 1/3 1/3 1 1 3 3 5 5
C#4 1/4 1/5 1 1 2 3 5 7
C#5 1/7 1/6 1/3 1/2 1 3 5 7
C#6 1/5 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 3
C#7 1/7 1/7 1/5 1/5 1/5 1 1 4
C#8 1/9 1/7 1/5 1/7 1/7 1/3 1/4 1
CR = 0.075.

Table A2. Pairwise comparison for assessment criteria by expert 2.

Criteria C#1 C#2 C#3 C#4 C#5 C#6 C#7 C#8

C#1 1 2 5 3 5 3 7 7
C#2 1/2 1 3 2 3 5 7 5
C#3 1/5 1/3 1 1 2 4 5 3
C#4 1/3 1/2 1 1 2 3 3 5
C#5 1/5 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 1 3 5
C#6 1/3 1/5 1/4 1/3 1 1 1 4
C#7 1/7 1/7 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1 2
C#8 1/7 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/2 1
CR = 0.054.

Table A3. Pairwise comparison for assessment criteria by expert 3.

Criteria C#1 C#2 C#3 C#4 C#5 C#6 C#7 C#8

C#1 1 3 4 5 7 8 5 9
C#2 1/3 1 4 3 4 7 7 5
C#3 1/4 1/4 1 2 2 6 3 5
C#4 1/5 1/3 1/2 1 2 4 5 5
C#5 1/7 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 2 4 7
C#6 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/4 1/2 1 1 3
C#7 1/5 1/7 1/3 1/5 1/4 1 1 3
C#8 1/9 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/7 1/3 1/3 1
CR = 0.077.

References
1. International Energy Agency WEO-2017 Special Report: Energy Access Outlook. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-a
nd-statistics/data-products (accessed on 27 July 2021).
2. Elkadeem, M.R.; Wang, S.; Sharshir, S.W.; Atia, E.G. Feasibility analysis and techno-economic design of grid-isolated hybrid
renewable energy system for electrification of agriculture and irrigation area: A case study in Dongola, Sudan. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2019, 196, 1453–1478. [CrossRef]
3. UNDP. Empowering Sudan: Renewable Energy Addressing Poverty & Development; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 52.
4. Kotb, K.M.; Elkadeem, M.R.; Elmorshedy, M.F.; Dán, A. Coordinated power management and optimized techno-enviro-economic
design of an autonomous hybrid renewable microgrid: A case study in Egypt. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 221, 113185.
[CrossRef]
5. Ismail, M.M.; Bendary, A.F. Protection of DFIG wind turbine using fuzzy logic control. Alex. Eng. J. 2016, 55, 941–949. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 20 of 21

6. Rehman, S.; Baseer, M.A.; Alhems, L.M. GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Wind Farm Site Selection Methodology. FME Trans. 2020, 48,
855–867. [CrossRef]
7. Latinopoulos, D.; Kechagia, K. A GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for wind farm site selection. A regional scale application in
Greece. Renew. Energy 2015, 78, 550–560. [CrossRef]
8. Jamshed, A.; Saleem, A.A.; Javed, S.; Riffat, M. Site Suitability Analysis for Developing Wind Farms in Pakistan: A GIS-Based
Multi-Criteria Modeling Approach. Sci. Technol. Dev. 2018, 37, 195–201. [CrossRef]
9. Elkadeem, M.R.; Younes, A.; Sharshir, S.W.; Campana, P.E.; Wang, S. Sustainable siting and design optimization of hybrid
renewable energy system: A geospatial multi-criteria analysis. Appl. Energy 2021, 295, 117071. [CrossRef]
10. Pohekar, S.D.; Ramachandran, M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2004, 8, 365–381. [CrossRef]
11. Triantaphyllou, E. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; ISBN 9781441948380.
12. Saaty, R.W. The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [CrossRef]
13. Elkadeem, M.R.; Kotb, K.M.; Ullah, Z.; Atiya, E.G.; Dán, A.; Wang, S. A two-stage multi-attribute analysis method for city-
integrated hybrid mini-grid design. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 65, 102603. [CrossRef]
14. Uzar, M.; Şener, Z. Suitable map analysis for wind energy projects using remote sensing and GIS: A case study in Turkey. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 459. [CrossRef]
15. Azizi, A.; Malekmohammadi, B.; Jafari, H.R.; Nasiri, H.; Amini Parsa, V. Land suitability assessment for wind power plant site
selection using ANP-DEMATEL in a GIS environment: Case study of Ardabil province, Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186,
6695–6709. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Gigović, L.; Pamučar, D.; Božanić, D.; Ljubojević, S. Application of the GIS-DANP-MABAC multi-criteria model for selecting the
location of wind farms: A case study of Vojvodina, Serbia. Renew. Energy 2017, 103, 501–521. [CrossRef]
17. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M.; García-Cascales, M.S.; Lamata, M.T. Identification and selection of potential sites for onshore wind farms
development in region of murcia, Spain. Energy 2014, 73, 311–324. [CrossRef]
18. Wu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yuan, J.; Geng, S.; Zhang, H. Study of decision framework of offshore wind power station site selection based
on ELECTRE-III under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A case of China. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 113, 66–81. [CrossRef]
19. Höfer, T.; Sunak, Y.; Siddique, H.; Madlener, R. Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case
study of the Städteregion Aachen. Appl. Energy 2016, 163, 222–243. [CrossRef]
20. Tegou, L.I.; Polatidis, H.; Haralambopoulos, D.A. Environmental management framework for wind farm siting: Methodology
and case study. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 2134–2147. [CrossRef]
21. Daneshvar Rouyendegh, B.; Yildizbasi, A.; Arikan, Ü.Z.B. Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS in Site Selection of Wind Power
Plants in Turkey. Adv. Fuzzy Syst. 2018, 2018, 6703798. [CrossRef]
22. Ecer, F. An analysis of the factors affecting wind farm site selection through FUCOM subjective weighting method. Pamukkale Univ.
J. Eng. Sci. 2021, 27, 24–34. [CrossRef]
23. Ecer, F. Sustainability assessment of existing onshore wind plants in the context of triple bottom line: A best-worst method (BWM)
based MCDM framework. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 19677–19693. [CrossRef]
24. Koc, A.; Turk, S.; Şahin, G. Multi-criteria of wind-solar site selection problem using a GIS-AHP-based approach with an application
in Igdir Province/Turkey. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 32298–32310. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Arı, E.S.; Gencer, C. The use and comparison of a deterministic, a stochastic, and a hybrid multiple-criteria decision-making
method for site selection of wind power plants: An application in Turkey. Wind. Eng. 2020, 44, 60–74. [CrossRef]
26. Fadlallah, S.O.; Benhadji Serradj, D.E. Determination of the optimal solar photovoltaic (PV) system for Sudan. Sol. Energy 2020,
208, 800–813. [CrossRef]
27. Elsayed, H.I.; Khadam, A.; Elhassan, O.H. Plans and challenges of the renewable energy in Sudan. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computer, Control, Electrical, and Electronics Engineering 2019, ICCCEEE 2019, Khartoum, Sudan,
21–23 September 2019; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
28. Saeed, T.M.; Tayeb, B.M.; Osman, G. Sustainable energy potential in Sudan. SUST J. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2019, 20, 1–10.
29. Pamucar, D.; Gigovic, L.; Bajic, Z.; Janoševic, M. Location selection for wind farms using GIS multi-criteria hybrid model: An
approach based on fuzzy and rough numbers. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1315. [CrossRef]
30. Xu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zheng, L.; Cui, L.; Li, S.; Li, W.; Cai, Y. Site selection of wind farms using GIS and multi-criteria decision making
method in Wafangdian, China. Energy 2020, 207, 118222. [CrossRef]
31. Tercan, E. Land suitability assessment for wind farms through best-worst method and GIS in Balıkesir province of Turkey.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101491. [CrossRef]
32. Zalhaf, A.S.; Abdel-Salam, M.; Mansour, D.E.A.; Ookawara, S.; Ahmed, M. Assessment of wind turbine transient overvoltages
when struck by lightning: Experimental and analytical study. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2019, 13, 1360–1368. [CrossRef]
33. Kotb, K.M.; Elkadeem, M.R.; Khalil, A.; Imam, S.M.; Hamada, M.A.; Sharshir, S.W.; Dán, A. A fuzzy decision-making model for
optimal design of solar, wind, diesel-based RO desalination integrating flow-battery and pumped-hydro storage: Case study in
Baltim, Egypt. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 235, 113962. [CrossRef]
34. Ullah, Z.; Elkadeem, M.R.; Kotb, K.M.; Taha, I.B.M.; Wang, S. Multi-criteria decision-making model for optimal planning of
on/off grid hybrid solar, wind, hydro, biomass clean electricity supply. Renew. Energy 2021, 179, 885–910. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 358 21 of 21

35. Zalhaf, A.S.; Mansour, D.-E.A.; Han, Y.; Yang, P.; Yang, P.; Darwish, M.M.F. Numerical and Experimental Analysis of the Transient
Behavior of Wind Turbines when Two Blades are Simultaneously Struck by Lightning. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2021, in press.
[CrossRef]
36. Zalhaf, A.S.; Abdel-Salam, M.; Mansour, D.-E.A.; Ahmed, M.; Ookawara, S. An Experimental Study of Lightning Overvoltages on
a Small-scale Wind Turbine Model. Energy Procedia 2019, 156, 442–446. [CrossRef]
37. Said, R.K.; Murphy, M.J. GLD360 Upgrade: Performance Analysis and Applications. In Proceedings of the 24th International
Lightning Detection Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–21 April 2016.
38. Alzouby, A.M.; Nusair, A.A.; Taha, L.M. GIS based Multi Criteria Decision Analysis for analyzing accessibility of the disabled in
the Greater Irbid Municipality Area, Irbid, Jordan. Alex. Eng. J. 2019, 58, 689–698. [CrossRef]
39. Liu, Y.; Eckert, C.M.; Earl, C. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Syst. Appl.
2020, 161, 113738. [CrossRef]
40. Galankashi, M.R.; Helmi, S.A.; Hashemzahi, P. Supplier selection in automobile industry: A mixed balanced scorecard-fuzzy
AHP approa ch. Alex. Eng. J. 2016, 55, 93–100. [CrossRef]
41. Abdel Khalek, H.A.; Aziz, R.F.; Abdeen, A.H. Identify and prioritize the major influencing causes of automated concrete mixing
system for mega construction projects using analytic hierarchy process. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 3451–3461. [CrossRef]
42. Torfi, F.; Farahani, R.Z.; Rezapour, S. Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to
rank the alternatives. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2010, 10, 520–528. [CrossRef]
43. Konstantinos, I.; Georgios, T.; Garyfalos, A. A Decision Support System methodology for selecting wind farm installation locations
using AHP and TOPSIS: Case study in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region, Greece. Energy Policy 2019, 132, 232–246. [CrossRef]
44. Giamalaki, M.; Tsoutsos, T. Sustainable siting of solar power installations in Mediterranean using a GIS/AHP approach.
Renew. Energy 2019, 141, 64–75. [CrossRef]
45. Ayodele, T.R.; Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O.; Odigie, O.; Munda, J.L. A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using
interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 1853–1869. [CrossRef]
46. Ali, S.; Taweekun, J.; Techato, K.; Waewsak, J.; Gyawali, S. GIS based site suitability assessment for wind and solar farms in
Songkhla, Thailand. Renew. Energy 2019, 132, 1360–1372. [CrossRef]
47. Noorollahi, Y.; Yousefi, H.; Mohammadi, M. Multi-criteria decision support system for wind farm site selection using GIS.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2016, 13, 38–50. [CrossRef]
48. Atici, K.B.; Simsek, A.B.; Ulucan, A.; Tosun, M.U. A GIS-based Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis approach for wind power
plant site selection. Util. Policy 2015, 37, 86–96. [CrossRef]