Abstract
In this paper, we consider the problem of automobile selection for transportation in inner city using a hybrid multicriteria decision making approach. The electric automobiles that are a relatively new concept in the world of the automotive industry, are widely viewed as attractive among its alternatives day by day. Fuel-vehicles produce a lot of carbon emissions that are ejected into our natural atmosphere, leaving us vulnerable to things like pollution and greenhouse gases. So, electric vehicle and automobiles have emerged as a more efficient alternative and these vehicles have been a great step forward to help positively the environment with zero emissions and total energy consumption in their lifecycle. Many companies focus on electric vehicle production with the development of electric vehicle technology. Therefore, the selection process emerges among the various electric automobile technologies for the users. The selection process includes several conflicting factors which are such as economic, technical and technological factors. In the present study, we propose a hybrid approach for electric automobile selection that combines analytic hierarchy process (AHP), technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and goal programming (GP) is used to determine the weights to assign to the factors that go into these selection decisions and TOPSIS method is used for preference ranking. These weights founded by AHP are inputted into a GP model to determine the best alternative among the electric automobiles. Finally, the study used three methods TOPSIS, AHP- TOPSIS and AHP-GP for better comparison and evaluation. The most suitable electric automobile is selected among their alternatives by using analytic methods and goal programming.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In recent years, population is increase day by day in cities. In 2014, around 54% of the world’s population lived in urban areas. If this trend continues, around 66% of the world’s population, which represents 6 billion people, will be living in urban areas by 2050 (United Nations 2014). This situation has been lead to the rapid growth of private car use in urban areas and puts higher pressure on the urban transportation system. Many cities in worldwide meet face to face these problems with the rapid growth of population and the high level of dependence on private motor vehicles. Especially air pollution is a serious problem for human health and the environment, and this is one of the most important subjects that is need an immediately solution (Mabahwi et al, 2014).Thence, many cities have experienced serious problems of air quality with the fast-paced urban growth. Besides, global warming, largely caused by the heavy use of fuel vehicles in road transport, is becoming a major environmental issue in the world (Rahimi and Davoudi, 2018). Thus, It is important to seek out effective solutions to minimize their adverse effects on the urban environment. Policymakers around the world are currently make studies to solution environmental problems. They are aimed with these studies to reduce the impact of the air-pollution and use of the consumption of fossil fuel resources (Sim et al., 2014). So, the urban transportation is a major problem for sustainable development in terms of fossil fuel usage and carbon dioxide emissions for city centers. Scientists, city planners and policymakers research different options to cope with all these problems. These solutions include the improvement of city planning and infrastructure to reduce congestion; the development of a new generation of private motor vehicles with less detrimental emissions; establishment of travel behaviour change programs intended for active transport; and provision of alternatives to private car use (Loukopoulos, 2007). In addition to, the use of electric vehicles (EVs), hydrogen vehicles, public transport or the promotion of cycling are between these options (Mashayekh et al., 2012; Eberle and von Helmolt, 2010a, 2010b; Offer et al., 2010).
Although alternative technologies are crucial to reduce environmental effect with urban transport, oil-based vehicles still account for the largest share of the transportation in many cities. To deal with these problems, supporting the clean technology has become the consensus of the whole society and EVs play an effective role in the low-carbon transition (Daramy-Williams et al., 2019). Meanwhile, limited fuel in the world is another reason to persuade the decision makers to usage of EVs. In this point, the process of conversion to EVs from fuel- vehicles is more important for sustainable cities due to resource scarcity, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and negative environmental impacts. Therefore, as clean energy, EVs are drawing more attention under dual pressure of limited fuel and pollution for the usage in urban areas.
EVs use the energy stored in a battery (or series of batteries) for vehicle propulsion. Electric motors provide a clean and safe alternative to the internal combustion engine. EVs help a greatly contribute towards a healthy and stable environment. Briefly, to reduce the dependence on oil and environmental pollution, the development of EVs has been accelerated in many countries. Due to all these problems and the increasing number of internal-combustion vehicles, many countries have implemented new energy vehicles as alternatives to conventional vehicles. In parallel to recent advancements around the world, many countries have been spending efforts to promote the use of clean technologies. Besides, for this reason, many countries have adopted numerous laws and regulations related to the substantial reduction of pollutant emissions caused by transportation using internal combustion engines as an energy source. Especially, China as the world’s largest automotive market and the huge population; many countries in Europe and ABD with the largest economy. So, many countries in the world have accelerated the transformation to clean technology vehicles (Li, 2019; Wenbo et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2018). Moreover, Germany promote to have one million EVs to reduce CO2 emissions (Gong et al., 2013; Bubeck et al., 2016; Massiani, 2015). France and UK have also aimed to restrict the in-country sale of conventional vehicles by 2040. US, Japan, Chine have been implemented to special tax policies for the green vehicle purchasing promotion measures (Palmer et al., 2018).
Over the past years, EVs has gained increasing attention by policymakers and consumers, especially due to their potential to reduce GHG emissions (Ellingsen et al., 2016). Thus, electric vehicle market has been shown significant growth in today. Many Famous manufacturers such as Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Ford etc. have converted to electrical concept the vehicle portfolio of themself. There are many electric vehicle models and firms that are present in market with different combinations. So, many car manufacturers have started to the development studies on EVs for better performance and this process continues rapidly.
However, EVs have some disadvantage, existing limitations and difference to each other such as limited driving ranges, insufficient chargers, long recharging duration and upfront purchasing cost (Amirhosseini and Hosseini, 2018; Langbroek et al., 2019). These differences show varies according to automobile company and automobile types. Besides, EVs make a significant contribution sustainability in terms of environmental effect in cities. To do this, EVs as cleaner technology should be supported by decision makers, and all society. Nevertheless, to the authors’ knowledge, there has been very little work on decision making with analytic processes for the selection of electric automobile for transportation. While technical aspects are very relevant for the successful introduction of these new vehicles, to decide for the best automobile among alternatives need multi-criteria evaluation process.
When a customer needs to acquire a new electric automobile or automobile for its daily life, many factors must be taken into account. This requires a good command of conflicting factors, which can benefit from the domain of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). There are various factors which affect the performance of an electric vehicle such as battery capacity, charging time, price, driving range etc. All these factors are improved further by manufacturers day by day. So, the electric vehicle (EV) technology has been getting momentum rapidly every passing day. These differences and limitations of EVs have been necessitated the decision-making process for purchase preferences of customers. In addition, we will find the answer to the question of which vehicle is the most suitable or optimal with this study, we will help to customers for their purchase preference with analytic and optimization models.
The effective selection of electric automobile for multiple criteria types is essential for the sustainable practice of transportation. Thereby, MCDM tools are very useful method for decision making for selection process. Besides, when the problem has got constraints and goal values, mathematical models such as GP give optimal results. Moreover, MCDM tools and mathematical models can use with together. Various studies have deal with the electric vehicle selection in which some innovative approaches have been utilized previously in the literature. Due to that fact, the combination of MCDM methodologies with techniques such as ranking methods-TOPSIS, selection model-goal programming provides a very useful decision process of dealing with the optimum selection.
1.1 Organization
In this article, Electric vehicle selection is made by using MCDM methods and mathematical modelling, and solution results are analysed as well. The rest of this article is organized as follows: Literature about EVs and their consumer preferences are presented in more detail in Sect. 2, while in Sect. 3 the AHP, TOPSIS and GP, analytic methods are briefly provided. There are mention about usage of electric vehicles and electric vehicles in Turkey in the Sect. 4. Case study under the ten alternative vehicles and specific evaluation criteria is presented in Sect. 5. Results of application (AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-GP) are presented and sensitive analyses are discussed in Sect. 6. Finally, study conclusions are given in Sect. 7.
2 Literature review
A review of the specialized literature shows that clean-technology vehicles have been the focus of air quality, sustainability, and development of more liveable cities. Studies on the preference of costumer, sales values, marketing, and consumer behaviour analyse in clean technology-vehicles have been carried out by many researchers. Besides, the huge contributions have ensured at decision making literature with some studies done using MCDM. The literature provides many examples of MCDM applications in the transportation field (Mardani et al., 2016) and, their combination with other MCDM methods are also being analysed in recent decades. Researchers have used various methods to selection process for transportation, such as AHP (Osorio-Tejada et al., 2017; Tsita and Pilavachi, 2012, 2013); ANP (Sayyadi and Awasthi, 2020); TOPSIS (Oztaysi et al., 2017; Büyükozkan et al., 2018; Mukherjee, 2017; Onat et al., 2016); VIKOR (Ren et al., 2015; Aydın and Kahraman, 2014); PROMETHEE (Sehatpour et al., 2017; Ziolkowska, 2013, 2014; Turcksin et al., 2011); ELECTRE (Cai et al., 2017); MOORA (Hamurcu and Eren, 2020a, b, c); fuzzy applications (Mukherjee, 2017; Ziolkowska, 2014; Ren and Lützen, 2015; Vahdani et al., 2011); hybrid MCDM applications (Büyükozkan et al., 2018; Aydın and Kahraman, 2014) and optimization applications (Ziolkowska, 2013; Traut et al., 2012; Hamurcu and Eren, 2018). Consequently, deal with alternative fuels, studies showed that there is a rising interest in sustainable means of transport, such as EVs or cleaner technologies.
With growing attention towards alternative technologies, one should also consider clean technologies, which is a popular subject in many research area (Khan et al., 2022; Kakoti et al., 2022; Dutta et al., 2020; Prasad et al, 2019). Clean technologies that is a popular subject, have growing attention in many areas (Erzurumlu and Erzurumlu, 2013; Mizik and Gyarmati, 2021). Many authors offered EVs for transportation and more liveable environment (Aujla et al., 2019; Srivastava et al., 2022; Hamurcu and Eren, 2020a, b, c). Many papers presented said that this area needs more development. (Hamurcu and Eren, 2020a, b, c). Besides, studies have shown that clean technology vehicles, highly demanded by many cities and people, are tending to be more preference (Ghasri et al., 2019; Lane et al., 2018; Secinaro et al., 2022).
Literature presents some transportation studies which combine MCDM methodologies and AHP. With reference to that literature, it should be noted that the use of the AHP in its MCDM and GP is very widespread. In this section, consumer prefers and EVs and literature review conclusion are researched under the four sub-titles.
2.1 Consumer preferences
When we evaluate in terms of electric vehicle consumers, we attain various result in the existing literature research on consumer behaviours. In the literature, the consumers’ preferences and behaviour for EVs has been studied at the resent years. For example, Liu et al. (2017) researched the factors that influence the diffusion of EVs in China using MCDM methods. Used evaluation dimensions in their study are industry and production systems, vehicle-related factors, markets and user practices, symbolic meaning, infrastructure and urban planning, policy-related factors and external factors and they used 21 factors dependent of these dimensions. According to their results, key factors influencing the diffusion of EVs was mentioned as technological level, policies and regulations, consumer acceptance and expectation, price and models, and market structure and competition.
Liao et al. (2017) presented a comprehensive review about consumer preferences. They evaluated from different perspectives consumer preferences, according to economic and psychological approach, modelling techniques applied, financial, technical, infrastructure and policy attributes. The study examined that electric vehicle preference studies generally include the financial, technical, infrastructure and policy attributes. The study mentioned to important factors in terms of financial, technical and infrastructure attributes that are purchase price, operation cost, driving range, charging time, engine power, acceleration time, maximum speed, CO2 emission, brand, brand diversity, warranty, charging availability. Besides, they also gave an overview of their finding about policy attributes that are another an important factor of preference, such as pricing policies, reduce purchase price, free parking, reduce toll, land-use policy. In addition to these finding, they mentioned that socio-economic and demographic characteristics are the categories of individual-related variables (example. gender, age, income, education level and household composition etc.) most often included in choice studies.
Ma et al. (2019) analysed online behaviours of consumers’ preferences for EVs. In regulated summary table in their study briefly mentioned the most important effect factors on EVs utilizing from studies of Higgins et al. (2017); Du et al. (2016); Safari (2018); Fetene et al. (2017); Hidrue et al. (2011); Tanaka et al. (2014); Hidrue et al. (2011); Langbroek et al. (2016); Lane et al. (2018); Massiani (2015); Mohamed et al. (2018) Plötz et al. (2014); Fetene et al.(2017);Helveston et al. (2015) that are size, battery, charge, range, powertrain type, classification, fuel economy and brand.
Guo et al. (2020) limited the electric vehicle preference factors in four categories as the policy instruments, operational costs, demographic variables, and psychological determinants. Determined these categories consist of respectively sub-factors following, subsidies and charging discount, taxes, license controlling, and public procurement; total cost, purchase cost, trip cost, maintenance cost and energy price; gender, age, education, household size, and family income, personal preference, and perception, self-efficacy and response efficacy, and environmental awareness.
Wang et al. (2020) analysed to the intentions of purchase of new energy vehicles of consumers. In research is analysed published total 1000 papers in the Web of Science during the period 2013–19. In the results of the analyse are gathered seven large feature that are vehicle itself (small features: appearance, cost performance, trim, power, space, endurance, configuration, manipulation, consumption, and brand), national policy (license restrictions, subsidies, purchase tax, and loan), demographic (region, social relationship, and occupation), infrastructure (electric piles and parking lots), battery technology, safety awareness, and environmental awareness. It has been shown that policies, infrastructure, demographic factors, and safety awareness are closely related national with the sales volume in results of the statistical analyses done with deep-learning technologies and data mining. In addition, this result, it found that primary motivating factors of purchase reasons are the vehicle, demographic characteristics, and national policy.
Key success factors of consumer’s preference of new energy vehicles include energy consumption, energy price, the amount of energy supply stations, national subsidies, national policy, driving skills, and carbon dioxide emissions (Zhang et al., 2018a, 2018b; He et al., 2017; Gnann et al., 2015; Hardman et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2016; Lin and Wu, 2018; Jensen and Mabit, 2017; Li et al., 2018).
In addition to, many researchers have studied and identified factors influencing the preference factors of EVs. The main factors are purchase price (Ma et al., 2019b; Chen et al., 2019a, b; Huang and Qian, 2018; Lin and Wu, 2018); size (Higgins et al., 2017); power type (Lane et al., 2018); Ma et al., 2019b); vehicle classification (Mohamed et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2019b); fuel economy (Fetene et al., 2017); operation cost (Valeri and Danielis, 2015); driving range (Paul Helveston et al., 2015; Huang and Qian, 2018); charging time (Fetene et al., 2017); charging availability (Huang and Qian, 2018; Wang et al., 2017); acceleration time (Paul Helveston et al., 2015); environmental friendly (Wang et al., 2017; He et al., 2018; Lin and Wu, 2018; Wang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018b); brand (Ma et al., 2019b; Wang et al., 2017); appearance (Ma et al., 2019b) and policy (Chen et al., 2019a, b; Huang and Qian, 2018; Paul Helveston et al., 2015; Lin and Wu, 2018; Ma et al., 2019a).
Besides, psychological and demographic levels, personal needs, personal behaviour, psychological needs and personal characteristic also are important factors in the preference of NEVs (Li et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2013; Axsen et al., 2015, 2009; Morton et al., 2016; He et al., 2018).
While there are many studies about researches of consumer preferences of EVs in prior studies, literature is limited about the selection of electric vehicle or automobile by using multicriteria decision making. So, this study present, analytic methodology, a selection process based on criteria used in consumer preferences. We will be ensuring a support for literature using decision making process with this study.
2.2 Recent studies in the selection of electric vehicles by using MCDM
Although electric vehicle technology has advantage such as being eco-friendly, quieter operation, lower fuel and maintenance costs, better acceleration, and higher energy efficiency (De Clerck et al., 2018; Zivin et al., 2014), have some disadvantages. These disadvantages are especially being more expensive, shorter range, longer charging time, insufficient battery capacity, and inadequate infrastructure. These features must be improving for electric vehicle dissipation. This is a bigger problem for countries that have not yet completed their infrastructure. Therefore, the installation of the infrastructure independent of the vehicle as well as the features of the electric vehicle is one of the most important factors for the dissipation of the EVs. Many researchers are also working on the installation of the electric vehicle infrastructure (Huang and Kockelman, 2020; Kabli et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020).
There are some studies in literature about selection of electric vehicle technology using MCDM. The last literature is shown in Table 1. Khan et al. (2020) done the selection among the seven commercially available hybrid electric vehicle by using MCDM method. Ten evaluation criteria under the main criteria that are economic, environmental, social perspective have been taken into consideration in their study. Sub-criteria are purchasing cost, maintenance cost, and registration cost, fuel economy, hybrid battery’s life the comfort of the car and its reliability, GHG emissions, employment opportunities, safety features, and status symbol.
In addition to, various classic fuel-vehicle technologies in various areas also are considered to select the most sustainable for customers using MCDM in the literature; terrain vehicle selection (Starčević et al., 2019), luxury car selection (Apak et al., 2012), selecting an automobile purchase model (Byun, 2001), car selection (Singh and Avikal, 2019), evaluation of two wheeler automobiles (Yogi, 2018),application on automobile sector (Tunçel et al., 2017), selection of ambulance supplier company (Alakaş et al., 2019).
Most of researchers analyzed MCDM methods for selection process and proposed various decision-making models for improvement of urban transportation and decision-making processes. In these studies, done various papers to improve urban transportation, to select the best alternative using decision making methods, AHP, TOPSIS, MOORA, VIKOR, PROMETHEE CRITIC-CoCoSo about hybrid electric vehicle (Iç and Şimşek, 2019; Khan et al., 2020); commercially EVs (Biswas and Das, 2019; Biswas et al., 2020), electric bus technology (Hamurcu and Eren, 2020a, b, c; Hamurcu and Eren, 2022), alternative vehicle technology selection (Al-Alawi and Coker, 2018; Büyüközkan et al., 2018), clean energy vehicles technologies (Li et al., 2019), and determinaton of materials for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry (Stoycheva et al., 2018).
2.3 Literature review conclusion
We do not met study an established model under the constraint of customer and some technical goals for automobile selection. Although many studies are in selection process about using MCDM, only a few studies deal with comparison between of MCDM and mathematical model results in the literature. Besides, disseminating electric automobiles together with developing technology are an important situation for urban transportation and air quality. Also, Turkey have been developing electric vehicle market. So, decision making has been becoming an important issue to bought new electric automobile. This study also will be help in consumer’s preference.
As is seen from the literature, MCDM tools are one of the most popular and effective methods adopted in the automobile selection process because of the advantages of the MCDM. Conflicting and mutiple objectives for automobile selection problems are commonly found in real-life decisions like maximizing the range or full charge time and minimizing the purchasing price. MCDM methodology considers the all od these stuations. Thus, it can be give more advantageous decisions for aotomobile selection in considering all of these stuations.Moreover, the MCDM methods can presents more evaluation perspectives i n terms of reliability of the final outcome.
Real-life problems provides a set of comprehansive alternatives and many evaluaton criteria effects in decision making process. Thus, providing a set of comprehensive evaulation will be effective and easier for decision making process instead of using automobiles's all tecnical characteristic.
MCDM methods and GP model are used to select the most suitable electric automobile in consideration of the decision problem structure in terms of complexity, conflicting and mutiple goals in this paper.
AHP helps to find evaluation criteria weights. Topsıs method ensure preference rank. GP model provides that the different goals combine in the same model.In real-life problems, evaluation criteria have different important levels. So, AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-GP models use as combine. To identify the solution to the problem, the highest weighted goals and constraints are considered with AHP combin.There are so many improved MCDM methods in the literature for automobile selecion. But optimization models like GP have yet establised. So, this study presents AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-GP hybrid models' comparisions. To the best of our knowledge, no study has presented the AHP-GP approach for electric automobile selection.
2.4 Contributions
This study will contribute to the literature with systematic decision-making approach to the selection of electric automobile that can help the decision of automobile purchase of customers. This study is aimed to the selection of electric automobile by using multiple criteria decision-making tools and mathematical modelling by which customer can have knowledge about specific factors of EVs in decision process of automobile purchasing it. Electric automobile manufacturers can have knowledge about what is the most important factors in automobile preference. The methods used in our study on decision making process are AHP and TOPSIS for rank, and GP for the optimum selection.
One of the basic principles of sustainable engineering, according to Abraham that include environmental, social, and economic factors is minimizing the depletion of the natural resources (Abraham, 2006). So, our study has been presenting a sustainable solution for air quality based on improving natural ecosystems. Besides this study helps decision makers that their decision-making process applying engineering solutions based on the using analytic and mathematical models.
This study will contribute to the literature with systematic an approach to the selection of electric automobile vehicles and will help customers to their decision-making processes. The authors search to answer this question "Which electric automobile is the best for purchasing in recent conditions?” and “Can the GP model more effective for selection process” In this paper, the authors propose a novel AHP-based approach to select the best electric automobile. The key research contributions of the proposed study are as follows:
-
To identify the critic criteria, which effect the electric automobile selection
-
To develop a hybrid decision-making model to determination of the best electric automobile and select the best electric automobile based on real-life constraints under the different scenarious.
-
To demonstrate the working of proposed AHP-GP model with the help of real-time case study
-
To compare the results of ranking (AHP-TOPSIS) and optimization (AHP-GP)
-
To perform the sensitivity analysis to check the effect of evaluation criteria to check the effect of critria weights on the ranking and selecting of electric automobiles.
3 Analytical methods
There are many MCDM tools supporting techniques to help decisions makers. The most known are AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, PROMOTHEE, VIKOR etc. These techniques in practice can be used separately or hybrid. In this regard, there are many study that argue environmental applications which using by MCDM methods (Linkov et al., 2021). (For more detailed information on decision analysis methods and environmental application can refer to Linkov et al.(2021). In this paper we focus on three techniques: AHP and TOPSIS, and utilizes GP model for third MCDM method. The AHP to determine the weights of criteria, TOPSIS to rank alternatives and GP to select the best alternative are used. A brief description of each method is provided below.
3.1 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
The AHP is well known method that has the characteristics of flexibility, ease of use, and simplicity, and it has been extensively applied in planning and development processes for various purposes. The AHP has the easiness of the implementation, which can be completed in three simple steps such as computing the vector of criteria weights, computing the matrix of option scores, and ranking the options (Saaty, 2008). this method based on pairwise comparisons via expert opinions. Pairwise comparisons present a wide perspective to decision makers(Saaty, 1980). The basic steps of the AHP methodology are as follows in Table 2.
3.2 TOPSIS
The TOPSIS method based on the concept of positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution that was proposed by Hwang and Yoon (Hwang and Yoon, 1981), has rational and understandable logic. When its computation processes are considered to straightforward, have been used to many areas for ranking. Besides, other reasons for the widely use of this method are rational, understandable and ease of its computational process, providing the pursuit of best alternatives for each criterion depicted in a simple mathematical formulation. In addition to, the importance weights can incorporate into the comparison procedures. The TOPSIS method is described in the following steps in Table 3 (Hwang & Yoon, 1981):
3.3 Goal Programming
The ZOGP method that does try to contribute suggestions to decision makers for resource allocation and usege, selection processes, was first recommended in 1955 by Charnes and firiends (Charnes et al. 1955). This models are mathematical models. But, results may not provide an optimality. The ZOGP method aims to minimization of deviations between achievement goals and realized results. GP has a wide application in decision analysis particularly where there are conflicting objectives (Yang et al., 2016).The combined AHP-MCDM and mathematical programming approaches are shown in Table 4.
The mathematical formulation of the standard GP is as follows (Ignizio, 1976):
Considering the m objectives, we have,
The variables \({d}_{i}^{+}\) and \({d}_{i}^{-}\) are positive and negative deviations from the target value of the itch goal (bi); \({a}_{ij}:parameter.\)
4 Electric vehicles in Turkey
Turkey is made up of a European and Anatolia part, has land part of 783562 km2. Turkey has total 82 cities, 18 metropolitan municipality in these cities. Its total population that is 84 million, and ratio of 45% of these population lives in metropolitan municipalities. Strong population growth of 1.45% per annum and rapid urbanization has played an important role for development of Turkey. Turkey is one of the developing economies with achieving an average annual growth rate of 5.6% over the past 25 years and a GDP/capita of 9980 Euro.
Turkey is a country that dependent on outside some energy resources. Fossil-fuels are used many area and insdustry. Especially petrol needs place a big burden on the economy in many areas. Besides, the fossil-fuels based-air pollution problems is becoming a great environmental as in many countries.The number of motor vehicles and traffic load also are important cause of these problems. Thus, clear energy with their various resources appear to be one of the most efficient and effective roads for clean and sustainable development and environment in solution of these problems.
The reduction of oil dependency with use of alternative clean technology, especially in the transportation sector, are significantly important issues for Turkey. Moreover, Turkey has set some future targets to about use of clean technology due to international accords. Usage of clean technologies such as EVs are key factor to decrease and control the emissions and to develop a sustainable city life in especially metropolitan municipalities. It is predicted could be potential reduction in energy use and carbon emission with the use of EVs, and Turkey have been produces new policies in this direction.
Today, there are over 3 million EVs worldwide, and the number of EVs is increasing every day. But, the number of EVs in developing countries, such as Turkey is quite low. However, the state of Turkey aims to increase these statistics by investing in renewable energy types, lowering tax rates, and improving the existing infrastructure status. Turkey can quickly transition to EVs with ensure a strong design of infrastructure and some legal regulations for supporting the use of environmentally friendly systems in transportation in the near future. A total of 45000 EVs are planned to be on roads of Turkey in today (Kaya et al., 2020). One of the most important activity in this direction, vehicles that are main element of transportation, is production of domestic electric automobile. The Republic of Turkey started to design a 100% Electric automobile in 2017. The Turkish state promoted electric automobile that domestic production in the last of 2019 and explained that the domestic electrical automobile will be available for market in 2023. Besides, non-domestic electric vehicle industry is highly likely to have positive a growth rate during the next years in Turkey.
Turkey has targets on alternative energy vehicles as stated in the 2053 transport and logistics master plan. Projects and studies are carried out in order to achieve these goals. Some of them(UAB, 2022a, b):
-
o
The use of electric and alternative energy will be increased instead of fossil fuels on highways.
-
o
Increasing the number of electric and hybrid vehicles and establishing financing incentive models for this.
-
o
Promoting sustainable, environmentally friendly, efficient, low-emission and emission-free transportation systems at national, regional and local level.
-
o
Making infrastructure investments that will expand the use of electric and autonomous vehicles in all modes of transportation
Automobile sales by engine type in Turkey are shown in Tables 5 and 6. As can be seen from the tables, the sales of electric vehicles are increasing day by day in Turkey (Report, ODD,2022). Thus, determination of preference of electric vehicle purchase is more important decision problem for Turkey and developing countries.
5 Case study
In this section, the proposed analysis model, AHP-TOPSIS and GP, is applied with the aim of selecting a set of electric automobiles. The decision process is conducted according to a multi-criteria and multi-objective in compliance with the characteristics, requirements and constraints of problem. This problem is important subject for Turkey as in almost every country in the world. Developing country Turkey give an important to sustainable development. So the urban transportation, environmental sustainability and urban life are some of the most important component to sustainable development. It is aimed to minimize CO2 emission from transportation with this study in basic.
5.1 Research methodology
This research proposes a decision making model for the selection of electric automobile. Figure 1 outlines the methodological approach. Preliminary level in research methodology are formed determination of problem, identification of alternatives, collection of automobile information and determination of evaluation criteria. In the decision process, the AHP method, TOPSIS method, AHP-TOPSIS hybrid model and optimization with GP under the scenarios are formed. And finally comparison of results and analysis are made Table 7.
5.2 Problem setup and data
To provide expert judgment and consultations in decision making process, the authors formed a team, which consisted of twelve members (Table 8) to work side by side with the research team. The twelve members consisted of the industrial engineer, electric electronic engineer, and mechanical engineer. Three industrial engineer in these team work to transportation department at the municipality. A mini survey of expert team was carried out to identify the relative importance of each criterion and to derive the AHP weights. The results obtained were used to later structure and to ensure input the TOPSIS and GP model. Table 7 provides a summary of information of ten alternative electric automobiles.
Determinate evaluation criteria according to expert opinion and their explanation are follow(evaluation criteria and references in Table 9):
Maximum power (C1): Maximum power provides the motive force required for the EVs to accelerate.
Top speed (C2): Top speed (km/h): higher the speed or in nominal range, the better as convenience is increased. (Das et al., 2019).
Acceleration (C3): Consumers prefer lower acceleration time for NEVs (Paul Helveston et al., 2015).
Fuel economy (C4): Low-energy-consumption is one of the most importan factor for the use of vehicles for transportation purposes.
Battery capacity (C5): the battery capacity represents the maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from the battery under certain specified conditions (Das et al., 2019). EVs operate in a limited distance and time due to the battery limitation. Battery capacity and charging technology of EVs have been improving day by day, which emerge to be an important factor in affecting the decision-making of designing EVs.
Range (C6): Driving mileage is a point that consumers pay special attention to NEVs (Paul Helveston et al., 2015; Huang and Qian, 2018).
Quick charge time (C7): Lower- quick charge time is among the critical factor for consumers preference.
Full charge time (C8): Charging time is an important factor affecting consumers’ use of NEVs.
Purchasing price (C9): The Price is a key factor affecting consumers’ purchase of new energy vehicles (Ma et al., 2019b; Chen et al., 2019a, b; Huang and Qian, 2018; Lin and Wu, 2018).
5.3 Criteria weights via AHP
In study, the AHP provides the importance levels of the electrical vehicles evaluation criteria. AHP, a MCDM methodology, has been widely used a method by both practitioners and researchers in addressing complex decisions. The AHP helps decision makers in terms of factors like to shows the relationship between the evaluation criteria, to integrate expert’s information and experience, and to calculate relative magnitudes in this study.The comparison matrix and evaluation of criteria according to expert opinion is shown in Table 10. Values of criteria are shown in Fig. 2 in result of evaluation.
In terms of the weights of criteria, the following analyses can be made:
-
The most important criteria are C5, C6, C9, C1, and C7.
-
These five criteria involve customers the most important five preferences in many researches.
-
Besides, it is study on C5, C6, C9, C1, and C7 to improve and dissemination of EVs in todays.
-
These five criteria involve 80% of all evaluation criteria. So, these are factors that should be overemphasized in the selection process.
5.4 Hybrid AHP-TOPSIS model
Present paper uses the hybrid of AHP and TOPSIS. An integrated AHP- TOPSIS methodology is utilized to structure and prioritize the factors. Table 11 shows the weighted normalized decision matrix for solutions.
Table 12 shows the evaluation results and ranking by using TOPSIS. The proposed model results show that A_8 automobile is the best alternative with CCi value of 0,6082. Then, A sensitivity analysis is performed to analyse the two phases AHP and TOPSIS methodology proposed in decision process. For this reason, unweighted TOPSIS method were applied.
5.5 Goal Programming model based on AHP
Earlier, Gür et al. (2017), Hamurcu and Eren (2018), Cyril et al. (2019) used in combination AHP-GP model in their studies. In the AHP-GP model, the objective function includes deviation variables associated with the four criteria goals. It will seek to minimize such deviations from desired levels. The revised objective function is given in Eq. (1). Moreover, a set of constraints, as shown in Eq. (2), will be added to reflect the constraints target of B (Battery capacity), R (Range), P (Purchasing price), Pw (Maximum power), Q (Quick charge time) in each of the “goal constraints”. An equation associated for selection of only one vehicle will be added. The goal programming model is given in Table 13. The most important five criteria are determinate by pareto analysis (Fig. 3.) and these criteria used as constraint for GP model. We used four criteria by the reason of we can express it as a constraint. The range constraint is used instead of battery capacity in model.
Decision variable:
Parameters:
The objective function is to minimize the total weighted deviations from the goals that satisfy the above constraints. It can be expressed as follows:
Different scenarios are applied such as budget and range in the GP model. This values of constraints and six scenarios are shown in Table 14.
6 Results
Results of the MCDM analyse and the optimum results with GP under the scenarios are given in Table 15. The TOPSIS method and weighted TOPSIS method’s results are not same. So weights of criteria effect selection results. The important levels of criteria are not the same. So, to use AHP-TOPSIS hybrid model is more suitable than to use only TOPSIS model. The GP model helps to decision makers for their evaluation of different scenarios. According to AHP -TOPSIS method, the best selection is A_8 alternative. We have shown in bold the best selection alterntive found in the TOPSIS/AHP-TOSIS and using symbol “✔” the optimum select results found by AHP-GP/GP in Tables 15 and 16. Other selection results are shown in Table 15.
Sensitivity analysis with equal number of constraints and same constraints, same evaluation factors and same criterion weights is shown in Table 16. When the results are examined, it is seen that the selection and ordering made are independent of each other. We can say that only the criterion weights affect the TOPSIS ranking method results. However, AHP weights do not affect the GP model in this problem. AHP-TOPSIS and TOPSIS method results and GP model selection results do not support each other.
The criterion weights do not affect the GP model. However, the selected criteria and the number of criteria change the results both in the ranking method and in the GP model. This shows that the number of criteria or the number of constraints in the mathematical model should be well defined in decision making processes. The most appropriate criteria should be chosen for the decision processes, and the most suitable number and quality of constraints should be used in the mathematical model to best reflect the problem. Finaly, the AHP method, together with the Pareto analysis, played an important role in determining the constraints for GP.
The current work implements the GP approach as it has many advantages over other decision making tools:
-
GP model provides flexibility and convenience for decision makers. It can add decision makers' constraints to the model effectively. It can collect conflicting and mutiple objectives in the same model.
-
GP is a very systematic and less complex approach which seems good enough to represent the key principles of real-life MCDM problems.
7 Conclusion
EVs become more popular day by day under the environmental sensitivity. It is seeming that, although EV have many technical challenges, such as battery technology, charging technology, electric motor technology, it will replace completely existing fuel-vehicles in the near future. Finally, deployment of zero-emission EVs in urban areas will be an important tool for reducing air pollution in cities. This situation (zero-emission vehicle) will ensure to improve urban transportation and will be as one of the factors of sustainability based urban transport development.
This study presents multi criteria decision making model to help consumers in their preference in proliferation process of EVs. Besides, optimization process helps to determine the most suitable vehicle with established GP model under the different scenarios. These selection processes are valuable for government agencies and EV manufacturers looking to promote EVs and overcome environmental pollution.
The limitations with the used approaches for analysis of decision process; Independence between criteria in AHP method can lead an inaccurate result. TOPSIS method works on the Euclidean distance. So, a strong deviation of one indicator from theideal solution strongly influences the results. GP model provides flexibility in this point. The limitations with the study: It used 10 electric vehicle alternatives in study that are sold and have a market in Turkey. In the study, the five most important evaluation constraints are determined to be used in the GP model.
In future studies, it can be evaluated new policies and public supports using MCDM, financial incentives such as tax reductions and purchase subsidies to improve and to generalize EVs. It can be made studies such as evaluation and prioritisation of policies to accelerate electric vehicle adoption, beyond the purely technical and economic dimensions of EVs. Besides, despite the main focus of the paper being on vehicle selection, recharging infrastructure of cities consider an important factor shaping the EVs market. Many study are in the literature (Wang, et al., 2019). Thus, in future studies, recharging infrastructure should structure and generalize to considered the specifications of EVs. In addition to this, This paper use AHP-TOPSIS and GP model are applied separately. In future work, a integrated approach can be presented for this problem by using AHP-TOPSIS-GP.
Data availability
All data supporting the conclusions of this article are included in this manuscript.
References
Abraham MA (2006) Principles of sustainable engineering. Sustain. Sci. Eng. Defin. Princ. 3–10
Alakaş HM, Bucak M, Kızıltaş Ş (2019) Selection of ambulance supplier company with AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-VIKOR methods. Harran Univ J Eng 4(1):93–101
Al-Alawi BM, Coker AD (2018) Multi-criteria decision support system with negotiation process for vehicle technology selection. Energy 157:278–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.142
Amirhosseini B, Hosseini SH (2018) Scheduling charging of hybrid-electric vehicles according to supply and demand based on particle swarm optimization, imperialist competitive and teaching-learning algorithms. Sustain Cities Soc 43:339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.002
Apak S, Göğüş GG, Karakadılar İS (2012) An analytic hierarchy process approach with a novel framework for luxury car selection. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 58:1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1113
Aujla GS, Kumar N, Singh M, Zomaya AY (2019) Energy trading with dynamic pricing for electric vehicles in a smart city environment. J Parallel Distrib Computing 127:169–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2018.06.010
Axsen J, Mountain DC, Jaccard M (2009) Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles. Resour Energy Econ 31(3):221–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.02.0011
Axsen J, Bailey J, Castro MA (2015) Preference and lifestyle heterogeneity among potential plug-in electric vehicle buyers. Energy Econ 50:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.05.003
Aydın S, Kahraman C (2014) Vehicle selection for public transportation using an integrated multi criteria decision making approach: a case of Ankara. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 26(5):2467–2481
Azadfar E, Sreeram V (2015) Harries D (2015) The investigation of the major factors influencing plug-in electric vehicle driving patterns and charging behaviour. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42:1065–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.0588
Biswas TK, Das MC (2019) Selection of commercially available electric vehicle using fuzzy AHP-MABAC. J Inst Eng Series. 100(3):531–537
Biswas T, Chatterjee P, Choudhuri B (2020) Selection of commercially available alternative passenger vehicle in automotive environment. Op Res Eng Sci Theory Appl 3(1):16–27
BMW (2022) Available at: Türkiye Resmi Web Sitesi [Accessed 29 March 2022].
Bolduc D, Boucher N, Alvarez-Daziano R (2008) Hybrid choice modeling of new technologies for car choice in Canada. Transport Res Rec 2082(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.3141/2082-08
Bubeck S, Tomaschek J, Fahl U (2016) Perspectives of electric mobility: Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp Policy 50:63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.05.0122
Büyüközkan G, Feyzioğlu O, Göçer F (2018) Selection of sustainable urban transportation alternatives using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral approach. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 58:186–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.005
Byun DH (2001) The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model. Inf Manag 38(5):289–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00071-9
Cai Y, Applegate S, Yue W, Cai J, Wang X, Liu G, Li C (2017) A hybrid life cycle and multi-criteria decision analysis approach for identifying sustainable development strategies of Beijing’s taxi fleet. Energy Policy 100:314–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.047
Charnes A, Cooper W, Ferguson R (1955) Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. J Manag Sci 1(2):138–151. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1.2.138
Chen K, Ren C, Gu R, Zhang P (2019a) Exploring purchase intentions of new energy vehicles: from the perspective of frugality and the concept of "mianzi. J Clean Prod 230:700–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.135
Chen S, Wang H, Meng Q (2019b) Designing autonomous vehicle incentive program with uncertain vehicle purchase price. Transp Res Part Emerg Technol 103:226–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.04.013
Cyril A, Mulangi RH, George V (2019) Performance optimization of public transport using integrated AHP–GP methodology. Urban Rail Transit 5(2):133–144
Daramy-Williams E, Anable J, Grant-Muller S (2019) A systematic review of the evidence on plug-in electric vehicle user experience. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 71:22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.0088
De Clerck Q, van Lier T, Messagie M, Macharis C, Van Mierlo J, Vanhaverbeke L (2018) Total cost for Society: a persona-based analysis of electric and conventional vehicles. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 64:90–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.02.017
Du J, Ouyang M, Chen J (2016) Prospects for Chinese electric vehicle technologies in 2016–2020: ambition and rationality. Energy 120:584–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.114
Dutta A, Bouri E, Saeed T, Vo XV (2020) Impact of energy sector volatility on clean energy assets. Energy 212:118657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118657
Eberle U, Von Helmolt R (2010a) Fuel cell electric vehicles battery electric vehicles and their impact on energy storage technologies: an overview. Electric and Hybrid Vehicles 9:227–245
Eberle U, Von Helmolt R (2010b) Sustainable transportation based on electric vehicle concepts: a brief overview. Energy Environ Sci 3(6):689–699. https://doi.org/10.1039/C001674H
Ecer F (2021) A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 143:110916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916
Egbue O, Long S (2012) Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Pol 48:717–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.009
Egner F, Trosvik L (2018) Electric vehicle adoption in Sweden and the impact of local policy instruments. Energy Pol 121:584–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.040
Ellingsen LAW, Singh B, Strømman AH (2016) The size and range effect: lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environ Res Lett 11(5):054010
EQS (2022) Available at: Yeni EQS Fiyat Listesi ve Donanım Bilgileri (mercedes-benz.com.tr) [Accessed 29 March 2022].
Erzurumlu SS, Erzurumlu YO (2013) Development and deployment drivers of clean technology innovations. J High Technol Managem Res 24(2):100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2013.09.001
Fetene GM, Kaplan S, Mabit SL, Jensen AF, Prato CG (2017) Harnessing big data for estimating the energy consumption and driving range of electric vehicles. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 54:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.013
Fischer H, Keating D (2017) How eco-friendly are electric cars. Bonn (DE): Deutsche Welle.[cited 2017 August 4]. http://www.dw.com/en/how-ecofriendly-are-electric-cars/a-19441437.
Franke T (2013) Krems JF (2013) What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users? Transport Pol 30:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.07.005
Ghasri M, Ardeshiri A, Rashidi T (2019) Perception towards electric vehicles and the impact on consumers’ preference. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 77:271–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.003
Gnann T, Plötz P, Kühn A, Wietschel M (2015) Modeling market diffusion of electric vehicles with real world driving data – German market and policy options. Transportation Research Part a: Policy 107:411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.001
Gong H, Wang MQ, Wang H (2013) New energy vehicles in China: policies, demonstration, and progress. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 18:207–228
Guarnieri M (2012) Looking back to electric cars. In Proceedings of the 2012 Third IEEE History of Electro-Technology Conference (HISTELCON), Pavia, Italy, 5–7 pp 1–6.
Guo J, Zhang X, Gu F, Zhang H, Fan Y (2020) Does air pollution stimulate electric vehicle sales? Empirical evidence from twenty major cities in China. J Clean Prod 249:119372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119372
Gür Ş, Hamurcu M, Eren T (2017) Selecting of Monorail projects with analytic hierarchy process and 0–1 goal programming methods in Ankara. Pamukkale Univ J Eng Sci 23(4):437–443
Habib S, Kamran M (2015) Rashid U (2015) Impact analysis of vehicle-to-grid technology and charging strategies of electric vehicles on distribution networks–a review. J Power Sources 277:205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.12.020
Hamurcu M, Eren T (2022) Applications of the MOORA and TOPSIS method for decision of electric vehicle in public transportation technology”, Transport, (In press).
Hamurcu M, Eren T (2018) Transportation planning with analytic hierarchy process and goal programming. Int Adv Res Eng J 2(2):92–97
Hamurcu M, Eren T (2020a) Electric bus selection with multicriteria decision analysis for green transportation. Sustainability 12(7):2777. https://doi.org/10.3390/su120727777
Hamurcu M, Eren T (2020b) Strategic planning based on sustainability for urban transportation: an application to decision making. Sustainability 12(9):3589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093589
Hamurcu M, Eren T (2020c) Selection of unmanned aerial vehicles by using multicriteria decision-making for defence. J Math. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4308756
Hardman S, Jenn A, Tal G, Axsen J, Beard G, Daina N et al (2018) A review of consumer preferences of and interactions with electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 62:508–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.04.002
He H, Fan J, Li Y, Li J (2017) When to switch to a hybrid electric vehicle: a replacement optimisation decision. J Clean Prod 148:295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.140
He X, Zhan W, Hu Y (2018) Consumer purchase intention of electric vehicles in China: the roles of perception and personality. J Clean Prod 204:1060–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.260
Helveston JP, Liu Y, Feit MD, Fuchs E, Klampfl E, Michalek JJ (2015) Will subsidies drive electric vehicle adoption? measuring consumer preferences in the U.S. and China. Transp Res Part A 73:96–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.01.002
Hidrue MK, Parsons GR, Kempton W, Gardner MP (2011) Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Res Energy Econ 33:686–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.02.002
Higgins CD, Mohamed M, Ferguson MR (2017) Size matters: how vehicle body type affects consumer preferences for electric vehicles. Transp Res Part a Policy Prac 100:182–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.0144
Hocaoğlu MF (2019) Weapon target assignment optimization for land based multi-air defense systems: a goal programming approach. Comput Ind Eng 128:681–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.015
Hu Z, Yuan J (2018) China’s NEV market development and its capability of enabling premium NEV: Referencing from the NEV market performance of BMW and Mercedes in China. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 118:545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.010
Huang Y, Kockelman KM (2020) Electric vehicle charging station locations: Elastic demand, station congestion, and network equilibrium. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 78:102179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.008
Huang Y, Qian L (2018) Consumer preferences for electric vehicles in lower tier cities of China: Evidences from south Jiangsu region. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 63:482–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.0177
Hwang CL (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin
Hyundai (2022) Available at: https://www.hyundai.com/tr/tr/arac-modelleri/konaelektrik/teknik-ozellikler [Accessed 29 March 2022].
İç YT, Şimşek E (2019) Operating window perspective integrated TOPSIS approach for hybrid electrical automobile selection. SN Applied Sciences 1(11):1314
Ignizio JP (1976) Goal programming and extensions. Lexington Books, Maryland
Irfan M, Elavarasan RM, Ahmad M, Mohsin M, Dagar V, Hao Y (2022) Prioritizing and overcoming biomass energy barriers: application of AHP and G-TOPSIS approaches. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 177:121524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121524
Jena R (2020) An empirical case study on Indian consumers’ sentiment towards electric vehicles: a big data analytics approach. Ind Market Manag 90:605–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.12.012
Jensen AF, Mabit SL (2017) The use of electric vehicles: a case study on adding an electric car to a household. Transp Res Part a: Policy Pract 106:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.004
Jensen AF, Cherchi E, Mabit SL (2013) On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transp Res Transp Environ 25:24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.006
Kabli M, Quddus MA, Nurre SG, Marufuzzaman M, Usher JM (2020) A stochastic programming approach for electric vehicle charging station expansion plans. Int J Prod Econ 220:107461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.034
Kaçmaz Ö, Alakaş HM, Eren T (2019) Shift scheduling with the goal programming method: a case study in the glass industry. Mathematics 7(6):561. https://doi.org/10.3390/math70605611
Kakoti BB, Deka K, Kataki MS (2022) Role of Eco-friendly Nanotechnology for Green and Clean Technology. Sustain Nanotechnol Strateg Prod Appl. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119650294.ch14
Kamalakannan R, Ramesh C, Shunmugasundaram M, Sivakumar P, Mohamed A (2020) Evaluvation and selection of suppliers using TOPSIS. Materials Today: Proceedings.
Kang B, Ceder G (2009) Battery materials for ultrafast charging and discharging. Nature 458(7235):190–193
Kannan VS, Navneethakrishnan P (2020) Machining parameters optimization in laser beam machining for micro elliptical profiles using TOPSIS method. Mater Today Proceed 21:727–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.7477
Karaman B, Çerçioğlu H (2015) 0–1 Goal programming aided AHP – vikor integrated Method: an application of hospital investment project selection. J Faculty Eng Arch Gazi Univ 30(4):567–576
Kaya Ö, Alemdar KD, Çodur MY (2020) A novel two stage approach for electric taxis charging station site selection. Sustain Cities Soc 62:102396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102396
Khan F, Ali Y, Khan AU (2020) Sustainable hybrid electric vehicle selection in the context of a developing country. Air Quality Atmos Health 13:1–11
Khan MA, Bokhari SF, Khan A, Amjad MS, Butt AM, Rafique MZ (2022) Clean and sustainable transportation through electric vehicles—a user survey of three-wheeler vehicles in Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(30):45560–45577
Lane BW, Jerome D, Sanya C, Saba S, Kyle CS, Graham JD (2018) All plug-in electric vehicles are not the same: predictors of preference for a plug-in hybrid versus a battery-electric vehicle. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 65:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.0199
Langbroek JHM, Franklin JP, Susilo YO (2016) The effect of policy incentives on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 94:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.050
Langbroek JH, Cebecauer M, Malmsten J, Franklin JP, Susilo YO, Georén P (2019) Electric vehicle rental and electric vehicle adoption. Res Transp Econ 73:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2019.02.002
Li WB, Long RY, Chen H, Geng JC (2017) A review of factors influencing consumer intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 78:318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.076
Li W, Long R, Chen H, Yang T, Geng J, Yang M (2018) Effects of personal carbon trading on the decision to adopt battery electric vehicles: analysis based on a choice experiment in Jiangsu, China. Appl Energy 209:478–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.119
Li C, Negnevitsky M, Wang X, Yue WL, Zou X (2019) Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China. Energy Policy 129:826–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.0022
Liang H, Ren J, Lin R, Liu Y (2019) Alternative-fuel based vehicles for sustainable transportation: a fuzzy group decision supporting framework for sustainability prioritization. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 140:33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.016
Liao F, Molin E, van Wee B (2017) Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review. Transp Rev 37(3):252–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1230794
Lin B, Wu W (2018) Why people want to buy electric vehicle: an empirical study in first-tier cities of China. Energy Pol 112:233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.026
Lin M, Huang C, Xu Z (2020) MULTIMOORA based MCDM model for site selection of car sharing station under picture fuzzy environment. Sustain Cities Soc 53:101873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.1018733
Linkov I, Moberg E, Trump BD, Yatsalo B, Keisler JM (2021) Multi-criteria decision analysis: case studies in engineering and the environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Liu HC, You XY, Xue YX, Luan X (2017) Exploring critical factors influencing the diffusion of electric vehicles in China: a multi-stakeholder perspective. Res Transp Econ 66:46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.10.001
Loukopoulos P (2007) A classification of travel demand management measures. In: Gärling T, Steg L (eds) Threats from Car Traffic to the Quality of Urban Life: problems causes and solutions. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, England, pp 273–292
Ma SC, Fan Y, Guo JF, Xu JH, Zhu J (2019) Analysing online behaviour to determine Chinese consumers’ preferences for electric vehicles. J Clean Prod 229:244–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.374
Mabahwi NAB, Leh OLH, Omar D (2014) Human health and wellbeing: Human health effect of air pollution. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 153:221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.056
Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Khalifah Z, Jusoh A, Nor KM (2016) Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in transportation systems: A systematic review of the state of the art literature. Transport 31(3):359–385. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1121517
Mashayekh S, Wang Z, Qi L, Lindtjorn J, Myklebust TA (2012, July) Optimum sizing of energy storage for an electric ferry ship. In 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Massiani J (2015) Cost-benefit analysis of policies for the development of electric vehicles in Germany: Methods and results. Transp Policy 38:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.0055
Mercedes (2022). Available at: https://www.mercedes-benz.com.tr/passengercars/models.html?group=new&subgroup=see-all&view=BODYTYPE [Accessed 29 March 2022].
Mizik T, Gyarmati G (2021) Economic and sustainability of biodiesel production—a systematic literature review. Clean Technol 3(1):19–36. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol30100022
Mohamed M, Higgins CD, Mark F, Réquia WJ (2018) The influence of vehicle body type in shaping behavioral intention to acquire electric vehicles:a multi-group structural equation approach. Transp Res Part a: Policy Pract 116:54–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.05.011
Morton C, Anable J, Nelson JD (2016) Exploring consumer preferences towards electric vehicles: the influence of consumer innovativeness. Res Transp Bus Manag 18:18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.01.007
Mukherjee S (2017) Selection of alternative fuels for sustainable urban transportation under multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Inf Eng 9:117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fiae.2017.03.0066
Mukherjee SC, Ryan L (2020) Factors influencing early battery electric vehicle adoption in Ireland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 118:109504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109504
Mumani A, Maghableh G (2021) An integrated ANP-ELECTRE III decision model applied to eco-friendly car selection. J Eng Res. https://doi.org/10.36909/jer.11207
Neves SA, Marques AC, Fuinhas JA (2019) Technological progress and other factors behind the adoption of electric vehicles: empirical evidence for EU countries. Res Transport Econ 74:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.12.001
Offer GJ, Howey D, Contestabile M, Clague R, Brandon NP (2010) Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy 38(1):24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.040
Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O, Zheng QP (2016) Combined application of multi-criteria optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative passenger cars in U.S. J Clean Prod 112:291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.021
Osorio-Tejada JL, Llera-Sastresa E, Scarpellini S (2017) A multi-criteria sustainability assessment for biodiesel and liquefied natural gas as alternative fuels in transport systems. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 42:169–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.02.046
Özcan EC, Ünlüsoy S, Eren T (2017) A combined goal programming–AHP approach supported with TOPSIS for maintenance strategy selection in hydroelectric power plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 78:1410–1423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.0399
Özcan E, Danışan T, Eren T (2019) A mathematical model proposal for maintenance strategies optimization of the most critical electrical equipment groups of hydroelectric power plants. Pamukkale Univ J Eng Sci 25(4):498–506
Oztaysi B, Cevik OS, Kahraman C, Yavuz M (2017) Multi-criteria alternative-fuel technology selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 53:128–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.0033
Palmer K, Tate JE, Wadud Z, Nellthorp J (2018) Total cost of ownership and market share for hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK, US and Japan. Appl Energy 209:108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.089
Plötz P, Schneider U, Globisch J, Dütschke E (2014) Who will buy electric vehicles? identifying early adopters in Germany. Transp Res Part A 67:96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.06.006
Prasad S, Venkatramanan V, Kumar S, Sheetal KR (2019) Biofuels: a clean technology for environment management. Sustainable Green technologies for environmental management. Springer, Singapore, pp 219–240
Rahimi K, Davoudi M (2018) Electric vehicles for improving resilience of distribution systems. Sustain Cities Soc 36:246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.006
Ren J, Lützen M (2015) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 40:43–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.012
Reporls - Türkiye Otomotiv Pazarı (odd.org.tr) [Accessed 25 June 2022].
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book Co, Newyork
Saaty TL (2008) Decision-making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv Sci 1(1):83–98
Safari M (2018) Battery electric vehicles: looking behind to move forward. Energy Policy 115:54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.053
Sayyadi R, Awasthi A (2020) An integrated approach based on system dynamics and ANP for evaluating sustainable transportation policies. Int J Syst Sci Op Logist 7(2):182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2018.1554168
Secinaro S, Calandra D, Lanzalonga F, Ferraris A (2022) Electric vehicles’ consumer behaviours: mapping the field and providing a research agenda. J Bus Res 150:399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.011
Sehatpour MH, Kazemi A, Sehatpour HE (2017) Evaluation of alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles in Iran using a multi-criteria approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:295–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.0677
Sharma D, Singh A, Srivastava PR (2021) Optimization of message communication during COVID-19 epidemic using fuzzy AHP & goal programming. J Strateg Mark. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.1961844
Sim S, Cole IS, Choi YS, Birbilis N (2014) A review of the protection strategies against internal corrosion for the safe transport of supercritical CO2 via steel pipelines for CCS purposes. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 29:185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.08.010
Singh R, Avikal S (2019) A MCDM-Based Approach for Selection of a Sedan Car from Indian Car Market. Harmony Search and Nature Inspired Optimization Algorithms. Springer, Singapore, pp 569–578
Skippon SM, Kinnear N, Lloyd L, Stannard J (2016) How experience of use influences mass-market drivers’ willingness to consider a battery electric vehicle: a randomised controlled trial. Transport Res Pol Pract 92:26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.034
Sovacool BK, Kester J, Noel L, de Rubens GZ (2018) The demographics of decarbonizing transport: the influence of gender, education, occupation, age, and household size on electric mobility preferences in the Nordic region. Global Environ Change 52:86–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.06.0088
Srivastava A, Kumar RR, Chakraborty A, Mateen A, Narayanamurthy G (2022) Design and selection of government policies for electric vehicles adoption: a global perspective. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 161:102726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102726
Starčević S, Bojović N, Junevičius R, Skrickij V (2019) Analytical hierarchy process method and data envelopment analysis application in terrain vehicle selection. Transport 34(5):600–616. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2019.11710
Stoycheva S, Marchese D, Paul C, Padoan S, Juhmani AS, Linkov I (2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry. J Clean Prod 187:257–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.133
Sun X, Li Z, Wang X, Li C (2020) Technology development of electric vehicles: a review. Energies 13(1):90. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13010090
Tanaka M, Ida T, Murakami K, Friedman L (2014) Consumers’ willingness to pay for alternative fuel vehicles: a comparative discrete choice analysis between the US and Japan. Transp Res Part a Policy Pract 70:194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.019
Tesla (2022) Available at : Electric Cars, Solar & Clean Energy | Tesla [Accessed 29 March 2022].
Traut E, Hendrickson C, Klampfl E, Liu Y, Michalek JJ (2012) Optimal design and allocation of electrified vehicles and dedicated charging infrastructure for minimum life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and cost. Energy Policy 51:524–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.0611
Tsita KG, Pilavachi PA (2012) Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 48:677–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.079
Tsita KG, Pilavachi PA (2013) Evaluation of next generation biomass derived fuels for the transport sector. Energy Policy 62:443–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.114
Tunçel N, Belbağ S, Çimen M (2017) Fuzzy Electre I Method For The Decision Of Ranking Brands In Terms Of Purchasing Decision Criteria: An Application On Automobile Sector. Atatürk Univ J Econ Adm Sci 31(5):1069–1085
Turcksin L, Bernardini A, Macharis C (2011) A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 20:954–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.104
UAB (2022a) 2053-ulastirma-ve-lojistik-ana-plani-rev.pdf (uab.gov.tr) [Accessed 25 June 2022a].
UAB (2022b) turkiye-ulastirma-politikasi-141220.pdf (uab.gov.tr) [Accessed 25 June 2022b].
United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Prospects: 2014 Revision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York
Vahdani B, Zandieh M, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2011) Two novel FMCDM methodologys for alter-native-fuel buses selection. Appl Math Model 35:1396–1412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.09.018
Valeri E, Danielis R (2015) Simulating the market penetration of cars with alternative fuel powertrain technologies in Italy. Transport Pol 37:44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.003
Wang Z, Zhao C, Yin J, Zhang B (2017) Purchasing intentions of Chinese citizens on new energy vehicles: how should one respond to current preferential policy? J Clean Prod 161:1000–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.154
Wang N, Tang L, Pan H (2019) A global comparison and assessment of incentive policy on electric vehicle promotion. Sustain Cities Soc 44:597–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.024
Wang L, Fu ZL, Guo W, Liang RY, Shao HY (2020) What influences sales market of new energy vehicles in China? Empirical study based on survey of consumers’ purchase reasons. Energy Policy 142:111484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111484
Weldon P, Morrissey P, O’Mahony M (2018) Long-term cost of ownership comparative analysis between electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles. Sustain Cities Soc 39:578–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.024
Wenbo L, Ruyin L, Hong C (2016) Consumers’ evaluation of national new energy vehicle policy in China: an analysis based on a four-paradigm model. Energy Policy 99:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.050
Xu M, Meng Q, Liu Y (2017) Public’s perception of adopting electric vehicles: a case study of Singapore. J East Asia Soc Transp Stud 12:285–298
Yang CH, Lee KC, Chen HC (2016) Incorporating carbon footprint with activity-based costing constraints into sustainable public transport infrastructure project decisions. J Clean Prod 133:1154–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.014
Yazıcı E, Üner Sİ, Demir A, Dinler S, Alakaş HM (2022) Evaluation of supply sustainability of vaccine alternatives with multi-criteria decision-making methods. Int J Health Plann Manage 37(4):2421–2444. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3481
Yogi KS (2018) Evaluation of purchase intention of customers in two wheeler automobile segment: AHP and TOPSIS. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing, England, 330(1) 012065
Yu Z, Li S, Tong L (2016) Market dynamics and indirect network effects in electric vehicle diffusion. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 47:336–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.06.010
Zhang X, Wang K, Hao Y, Fan JL, Wei YM (2013) The impact of government policy on preference for NEVs: the evidence from China. Energy Pol 61:382–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.1144
Zhang L, Zhao Z, Xin H, Chai J, Wang G (2018a) Charge pricing model for electric vehicle charging infrastructure public-private partnership projects in China: a system dynamics analysis. J Clean Prod 199:321–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.169
Zhang X, Bai X, Shang J (2018b) Is subsidized electric vehicles adoption sustainable: Consumers’ perceptions and motivation toward incentive policies, environmental benefits, and risks. J Clean Prod 192:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.252
Zhou S, Yang P (2020) Risk management in distributed wind energy implementing analytic hierarchy process. Renew Energy 150:616–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.125
Ziemba P (2021) Selection of electric vehicles for the needs of sustainable transport under conditions of uncertainty—a comparative study on fuzzy MCDA methods. Energies 14(22):7786. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227786
Ziolkowska JR (2013) Evaluating sustainability of biofuels feedstocks: a multi-objective framework for supporting decision making. Biomass Bioenergy 59:425–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.09.008
Ziolkowska JR (2014) Optimizing biofuels production in an uncertain decision environment: conventional vs. advanced technologies. Appl Energy 114:366–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.060
Zivin JSG, Kotchen MJ, Mansur ET (2014) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of marginal emissions: Implications for electric cars and other electricity-shifting policies. J Econ Behav Organ 107:248–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.0100
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Formal analysis, Mustafa Hamurcu; Investigation, Mustafa Hamurcu; Methodology, Mustafa Hamurcu; Project administration, Mustafa Hamurcu; Resources, Mustafa Hamurcu; Supervision, Tamer Eren; Writing – review & editing, Mustafa Hamurcu and Tamer Eren.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hamurcu, M., Eren, T. Multicriteria decision making and goal programming for determination of electric automobile aimed at sustainable green environment: a case study. Environ Syst Decis 43, 211–231 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09878-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09878-8