## 6 Conclusions  
The selection of SMPV plan is crucial to the entire life of SMPV project. Although there has been some research on this issue, several questions still need addressing. Firstly, the interaction of the criteria lay in the evaluation criteria. Secondly, the loss of evaluation information exited in the information conversion process. Thirdly, the compensation problem between best and worst performance in diverse criteria was not easily to avoided.  
In this paper, an integrated MCDM framework was proposed to address the SMPV plan selection problem. First of all, the compositive evaluation index was constructed, and the application of DEMATEL method helped analyze the internal influence and connection behind each criterion. From the influential network-relationship map, we discovered that the criteria (b) economy obtained the most importance but was vulnerable to other criteria as well as the (a) architectural element and (c) climate had significant direct impacts to the other four criteria. These three criteria should be the first for the decision maker to consider when selecting the SMPV plan. Then, the interval-valued neutrosophic set is utilized to express the imperfect knowledge of experts group. Since the application of IVNNS, the experts can clearly express their evaluation information, including their certainty, uncertainty, as well as hesitation attitude. Following this, an extended ELECTRE III method as an outstanding outranking method was applied, and it succeed in avoiding the compensation problem and obtaining the scientific result. In the case of China, the integrated method has been successfully applied to select  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Xi** & \(\sum\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{a}_{i}\succ\mathbf{a}_{k})\) & \(\sum\mathbf{s}(\mathbf{a}_{k}\succ\mathbf{a}_{i})\) & \(\Delta\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{a}_{i})\) \\ \hline X1 & 0.73 & 0.29 & 0.44 \\ X2 & 0.47 & 0.37 & 0.1 \\ X3 & 032 & 0.39 & \(-\)0.07 \\ X4 & 0.56 & 1.02 & \(-\)0.47 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Final composite scores and rankings of alternative SMPV plans.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**TOPSIS**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**VIKOR**} \\ \hline  & **y+** & **y\(-\)** & **C** & **Rankings** & **s** & **r** & **Q** & **Rankings** \\ \hline X1 & 0.62 & 1.43 & 0.70 & 1 & \(-\)2.57 & 0.12 & 0.00 & 1 \\ X2 & 1.17 & 0.47 & 0.29 & 4 & 1.88 & 1.18 & 0.922 & 4 \\ X3 & 1.35 & 0.71 & 0.35 & 3 & \(-\)1.74 & 1.06 & 0.526 & 2 \\ X4 & 0.76 & 0.74 & 0.49 & 2 & 2.74 & 1.01 & 0.919 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 9: The rankings of SMPV plans using TOPSIS and VIKOR.  
the SMPV plan X1 as the optimal selection which is particularly superior to other alternative plans in terms of the economy, photovoltaic array, and contribution criteria. Also, the integrated method used maintained symmetry in the solar PV investment. Last but not least, a comparative analysis using TOPSIS method and VIKOR method was carried out, and alternative plan X1 ranks first at the same. The outcome certified the correctness and rationality of the results obtained from this paper.  
Therefore, this study has not only served to evaluate the SMPV plans, it has also demonstrated how it is possible to combine IVNNS, DEMATEL method, and ELECTRE III method for application in handling MCDM problems in the field of solar energy.  
[PERSON] designed the decision framework of shopping mall photovoltaic plan selection, and studied the proposed method. Then, [PERSON] collected the relative data, calculated the result, and drafted the paper. Next, [PERSON] adjusted the format of the paper and formatted the manuscript for submission.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.