Dataset for a scale dependent two stage Analytic Hierarchy Process assessment of regional small modular reactor siting suitability in Greece
Description
This dataset is the calculation workbook that underlies a study of how regional siting suitability for small modular reactors in Greece changes with the reference unit scale. Its purpose is to make the analysis auditable, so that every weight, score, and rank can be traced from the coded inputs to the reported outcome. The workbook is a single Microsoft Excel file, version V3, named Supplementary_Material_SMRSiting_Greece.xlsx and deposited under the DOI https://doi.org/10.17632/t9d3c5w946.3. The formulas that generate the analytic hierarchy process weights, the consistency statistics, the composite scores, and the ranks remain active, so an input can be altered and the dependent quantities observed as they respond. The file holds thirteen sheets ordered along the analytical pathway. ReadMe states the scope and the reading order. Cases and Criteria fix the five regional units and the five evaluation criteria together with the reasoning that admits each into the comparison. AHP_Matrix holds the pairwise comparison matrix and the consistency diagnostics lambda max, the consistency index, and the consistency ratio, which bound the coherence of the weights. Stage1_Screening records, for the 300 MWe, 30 MWe, and 5 MWe reference tiers, whether each case is excluded, conditionally eligible, or retained, and keeps exclusion distinct from a zero score so that a non compensatory decision is not read as a low rating. Stage2_Coding carries the criterion scores on a whole and half point scale kept deliberately coarse to avoid false precision. Scores_Rankings aggregates those scores into weighted totals and ranks. Sensitivity reports the local perturbation of each weight by plus or minus 20 percent at the 5 MWe tier, which exposes the criteria with the most leverage over the mainland lead and the island gap. MonteCarlo reports the simultaneous perturbation of all five weights across 100000 draws under seed 20260623 for the three tiers, which tests whether the leading result survives joint reweighting rather than single criterion movement. Coding_Rules, Source_Trace, Notes, and Notation_Reproducibility expose the anchor rules, the evidentiary basis behind each coding decision, the interpretive caveats, and the conventions for reuse. Three figures from the article are embedded as fixed images on the three sheets that carry their supporting calculations, which keeps the published graphics and the workbook aligned. The workbook is a regional screening instrument and does not replace site survey, site selection, site evaluation, licensing, or plant design. The 30 MWe tier functions as an intermediate consistency check rather than a third independent scenario, and its entries are bounded bridging values derived from the same evidence base, not new measurements. The Monte Carlo results perturb weights only and should not be read as a probabilistic model of hazard, cost, licensing, or public acceptance.
Files
Steps to reproduce
1. Open Supplementary_Material_SMRSiting_Greece.xlsx, version V3, in Microsoft Excel or in compatible spreadsheet software and allow full recalculation, since repository preview windows may show only a static rendering. 2. Read the ReadMe sheet for the scope, the sheet by sheet structure, and the intended reading order. 3. Establish the five regional units and the five evaluation criteria from Cases and Criteria before inspecting any scores, so that later coding decisions are read against their definitions. 4. Verify the weighting in AHP_Matrix through the pairwise comparison matrix and the consistency diagnostics lambda max, the consistency index, and the consistency ratio, which confirm that the derived weights are internally coherent. 5. Read Stage1_Screening across the 300 MWe, 30 MWe, and 5 MWe tiers to see which cases are excluded, conditionally eligible, or retained, noting that exclusion is not a zero score. 6. Trace how coded values become results by moving from Stage2_Coding to Scores_Rankings, where the whole and half point scores combine with the weights to produce weighted totals and ranks. 7. Read Sensitivity to identify the criteria with the most leverage over the mainland lead and the island gap under a local perturbation of each weight by plus or minus 20 percent at the 5 MWe tier. 8. Read MonteCarlo to judge whether the leading result survives the simultaneous reweighting of all five criteria across 100000 draws under seed 20260623 for the three tiers. 9. Consult Coding_Rules, Source_Trace, Notes, and Notation_Reproducibility to check the anchor rules, the evidentiary basis for each coding decision, the caveats, and the reuse conventions. 10. Test reproducibility by changing an entry in AHP_Matrix or Stage2_Coding and recalculating. The dependent weights, composite scores, and ranks update automatically, while the embedded figures stay fixed because they reproduce the published graphics.
Institutions
- National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAttica, Athens