Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies

Onat, Nuri Cihat; Gümüş, Serkan; Küçükvar, Murat; Tatari, Ömer

doi:10.1016/j.spc.2015.12.003

Cited by 147 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Heo et al [12] rely on the BOCR approach and a review by experts to select their criteria. Other authors use a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) or Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach to define their evaluation criteria [13,29,[35][36][37]40], while Hayashi et al [43] base their selection on the indicators in the Global Bioenergy Partnership. Perimenis et al [53] and Büyüközkan et al [30] rely solely on expert opinion to identify relevant criteria.…”

Section: Rationale For Selection Of Alternatives and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature

Kügemann

Polatidis

2019

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods help decision makers to consider and weigh diverse criteria that include economic, environmental, social and technological aspects. This characteristic makes them a popular tool to comparatively evaluate road transportation fuels and vehicles (RTFV). The aim of this paper is to systematically classify and analyse the literature applying MCDA methods on the evaluation of RTFV. To this end, 40 relevant papers are pinpointed and discussed. We identified a great number of evaluation criteria employed in the reviewed papers from which we have established a concluding list of 41 criteria, that can serve as a pool for future research. A further analysis of the evaluation criteria reveals that the process of criteria selection partly suffers from a lack of scientific foundation and standardization. We propose to standardize the criteria selection process by using the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) methodology as a guiding reference. In addition, we compared the MCDA results obtained from studies with relatively similar setups and found that the evaluation results are also generally similar and seem not to be influenced by the particular MCDA method employed. Based on the results of the reviewed papers, one may say that electricity and ethanol appear to be good alternatives for light vehicles, whereas gaseous fuels seem more appropriate for heavy vehicles like buses. Striking deviations from these generally observed results are often caused by specific evaluation contexts, particular criteria taken into account and unusual weight sets applied.The last category (c) is concerned with hydrogen in particular, as is a potential energy carrier in the aforementioned fuel cell vehicles. Three specific hydrogen production paths are evaluated, i.e., electrolysis, steam reforming and gasification, sourced from different feedstock [11][12][13][14][15]. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis MethodsThis Section shortly outlines the MCDA methods most often used in the reviewed papers. MCDA methods can be broadly divided in Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) with limited solutions for a finite set of alternatives and Multi-Objective Decision Making (MODM) with indefinite solutions for an indefinite set of possible scenarios [16]. MODM methods usually comprise some form of optimization, for instance linear or nonlinear programming. These methods start with certain restrictions which determine the optimal solution [17] and find a solution by optimizing the resulting

show abstract

Section: Rationale For Selection Of Alternatives and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature

Kügemann

Polatidis

2019

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Final weights, which are averages of weights of experts, are presented in the right-hand column of the table. In order to gauge the level of concordance of opinions of experts, magnitudes of provided weights were ranked in order to apply the theory of concordance by Kendall [20][21][22]. Such ranks we denoted as e ik , where i = 1, 2, .…”

Section: Eliciting Of Weights Of Criteria and Gauging The Level Of Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision-Aiding Evaluation of Public Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Cities and Resorts of Lithuania

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the National Communication Development of [2014][2015][2016][2017][2018][2019][2020][2021][2022] Program and Guidelines of the Development of the Public Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure confirmed by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, it is planned that, until the year of 2025, among newly registered vehicles, electric ones should make at least 10%. Analysis of the trend of electric vehicles makes evident that the target does not have a real chance to be achieved without targeted efforts. In order to improve the infrastructure of electric vehicles in major cities and resorts of Lithuania, we have carried out a comparative analysis of public infrastructure for electric vehicles in 18 Lithuanian cities and resorts. For the quantitative analysis, we proposed eight criteria describing such an infrastructure. As perception of the infrastructure by owners of electric cars depends on complex factors, we used multiple criteria evaluation methods (MCDM) for evaluation of the current state of its development by four such methods: EDAS, SAW, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE II. Based on the evaluation results, prominent and lagging factors were understood, and proposals for effective development of public infrastructure of electric vehicles were proposed for improvement of the infrastructure.

show abstract

“…For example, in Onat et al [58], alternative electric vehicle technologies in a US context were assessed including all life cycle stages; from manufacturing of vehicles and batteries, through vehicle operation to the end-of-life. There were two scenarios; one with BAU electricity generation and one assuming only solar charging station for the electric vehicles.…”

Section: Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (Mcda)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven of the reviewed papers were methodological papers or a combination of a methodological paper applied in a specific case [31,44,50,58,78,87,108], while the remaining articles were primarily case studies. Apart from the methodological papers, few of the reviewed articles clearly described the reasons for the choice of assessment method in the first place, although some discussed the benefits of having used a specific method.…”

Section: Reflection On the Papers Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for assessing future scenarios from a sustainability perspective

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Future scenarios are often used to address long-term challenges characterised by uncertainty and complexity, as they can help explore different alternative future pathways. Scenarios can therefore be a useful tool to support policy and guide action towards sustainability. But what sustainability aspects are put forward in scenarios and how are they assessed? This paper aims to explore how to assess future scenarios, categorised according to Börjeson et al. (Futures 38:723-739, 2006) i.e. predictive, explorative and normative scenarios. By conducting a literature review and a document analysis, we map tools and methods that are currently used to assess environmental and social sustainability aspects in scenarios. We also draw on experiences from methods for impact assessments of Swedish municipal comprehensive plans, which can be considered as future scenarios. We identify whether some sustainability aspects are less recurrent than others in the reviewed assessments or even left out. We find that there is no single tool that can be used to assess scenarios. Some quantitative tools based on databases may be more suitable for assessing scenarios within a shorter time horizon, whereas qualitative assessment methods might better fit the purpose of long-term transformative scenarios. We also find that assessment frameworks may be useful to guide the assessment, as to what its intended purpose is and which sustainability aspects to include. Finally we discuss whether further assessment tools are needed in order to include a wider array of potential environmental or social consequences of the content of scenarios.

show abstract

Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies

Cited by 147 publications

References 54 publications

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature

Decision-Aiding Evaluation of Public Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Cities and Resorts of Lithuania

Methods for assessing future scenarios from a sustainability perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About