IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v25y2023i1d10.1007_s10668-021-02044-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Betul Yagmahan

    (Bursa Uludag University)

  • Hilal Yılmaz

    (Bursa Uludag University)

Abstract

The increasing environmental pollution has led to the need to accelerate interest in electric vehicles. It is crucial to specify locations for electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) to meet the charge demand. The question that arises here is how to make a comprehensive evaluation of the alternative EVCS locations regarding sustainability. This study presents a new integrated group multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach for a robust evaluation of alternative EVCS locations. Two different group aggregation techniques (GATs) are applied to obtain the aggregated weights with AHP (analytical hierarchy process): aggregating individual judgments and aggregating individual priorities. For ranking alternative locations, two MCDM methods, TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) and MOORA (Multi-Objective Optimization on the Basis of Ratio Analysis) were applied for both aggregated weights. Furthermore, we introduce two types of rankings from the sensitivity analysis based on the most selected alternatives for each rank position and the most selected rank position for each alternative. Finally, an integrated ranking is obtained by combining the results of group MCDM methods and sensitivity analysis to investigate the impact of GATs and MCDM methods. The proposed methodology is applied to rank the EVCS locations in Bursa, Turkey, with four main criteria and eight sub-criteria. The similarity measure results indicate that the GAT and the MCDM method have an impact on the evaluation scores and the rankings. The integrated group MCDM approach provides a comprehensive evaluation of the alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Betul Yagmahan & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 96-121, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:25:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-021-02044-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yunna Wu & Meng Yang & Haobo Zhang & Kaifeng Chen & Yang Wang, 2016. "Optimal Site Selection of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Based on a Cloud Model and the PROMETHEE Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Guo, Sen & Zhao, Huiru, 2015. "Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 390-402.
    3. Zhu, Zhi-Hong & Gao, Zi-You & Zheng, Jian-Feng & Du, Hao-Ming, 2016. "Charging station location problem of plug-in electric vehicles," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 11-22.
    4. Bektaş, Tolga & Ehmke, Jan Fabian & Psaraftis, Harilaos N. & Puchinger, Jakob, 2019. "The role of operational research in green freight transportation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(3), pages 807-823.
    5. Huiru Zhao & Nana Li, 2016. "Optimal Siting of Charging Stations for Electric Vehicles Based on Fuzzy Delphi and Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches from an Extended Sustainability Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Liu, Aijun & Zhao, Yingxue & Meng, Xiaoge & Zhang, Yan, 2020. "A three-phase fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for charging station location of the sharing electric vehicle," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    7. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    8. Brunelli, Matteo, 2019. "A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 502-510.
    9. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    10. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    11. Ömer Kaya & Kadir Diler Alemdar & Tiziana Campisi & Ahmet Tortum & Merve Kayaci Çodur, 2021. "The Development of Decarbonisation Strategies: A Three-Step Methodology for the Suitable Analysis of Current EVCS Locations Applied to Istanbul, Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    12. Erbaş, Mehmet & Kabak, Mehmet & Özceylan, Eren & Çetinkaya, Cihan, 2018. "Optimal siting of electric vehicle charging stations: A GIS-based fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1017-1031.
    13. Simon French, 2003. "Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: The roles of sensitivity analysis," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 11(2), pages 229-251, December.
    14. Haddad, Malik & Sanders, David, 2018. "Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 357-370.
    15. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    16. Mohammad Hossein Zarei & Kuan Yew Wong, 2014. "Making the recruitment decision for fresh university graduates: a study of employment in an industrial organisation," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(4), pages 380-402.
    17. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danijela Tuljak-Suban & Patricija Bajec, 2022. "A Hybrid DEA Approach for the Upgrade of an Existing Bike-Sharing System with Electric Bikes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Ömer Kaya & Kadir Diler Alemdar & Tiziana Campisi & Ahmet Tortum & Merve Kayaci Çodur, 2021. "The Development of Decarbonisation Strategies: A Three-Step Methodology for the Suitable Analysis of Current EVCS Locations Applied to Istanbul, Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Sikder, Sujit Kumar & Nagarajan, Magesh & Mustafee, Navonil, 2023. "Augmenting EV charging infrastructure towards transformative sustainable cities: An equity-based approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Erbaş, Mehmet & Kabak, Mehmet & Özceylan, Eren & Çetinkaya, Cihan, 2018. "Optimal siting of electric vehicle charging stations: A GIS-based fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1017-1031.
    6. Panagiotis Skaloumpakas & Evangelos Spiliotis & Elissaios Sarmas & Alexios Lekidis & George Stravodimos & Dimitris Sarigiannis & Ioanna Makarouni & Vangelis Marinakis & John Psarras, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach for Optimizing the Placement of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Highways," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Yunna Wu & Chao Xie & Chuanbo Xu & Fang Li, 2017. "A Decision Framework for Electric Vehicle Charging Station Site Selection for Residential Communities under an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment: A Case of Beijing," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, August.
    8. Vytautas Palevičius & Askoldas Podviezko & Henrikas Sivilevičius & Olegas Prentkovskis, 2018. "Decision-Aiding Evaluation of Public Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Cities and Resorts of Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, March.
    9. Christos Karolemeas & Stefanos Tsigdinos & Panagiotis G. Tzouras & Alexandros Nikitas & Efthimios Bakogiannis, 2021. "Determining Electric Vehicle Charging Station Location Suitability: A Qualitative Study of Greek Stakeholders Employing Thematic Analysis and Analytical Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    11. Andreas Schiessl & Richard Müller & Rebekka Volk & Konrad Zimmer & Patrick Breun & Frank Schultmann, 2020. "Integrating site-specific environmental impact assessment in supplier selection: exemplary application to steel procurement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1409-1457, November.
    12. Pichamon Keawthong & Veera Muangsin & Chupun Gowanit, 2022. "Location Selection of Charging Stations for Electric Taxis: A Bangkok Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-23, September.
    13. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    14. Woo, Hyeon & Son, Yongju & Cho, Jintae & Kim, Sung-Yul & Choi, Sungyun, 2023. "Optimal expansion planning of electric vehicle fast charging stations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 342(C).
    15. Oluwasola O. Ademulegun & Paul MacArtain & Bukola Oni & Neil J. Hewitt, 2022. "Multi-Stage Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Siting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations within and across Border Regions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-28, December.
    16. Zhou, Guangyou & Zhu, Zhiwei & Luo, Sumei, 2022. "Location optimization of electric vehicle charging stations: Based on cost model and genetic algorithm," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    17. Sanchari Deb & Kari Tammi & Karuna Kalita & Pinakeswar Mahanta, 2018. "Review of recent trends in charging infrastructure planning for electric vehicles," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), November.
    18. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    19. Munim, Ziaul Haque & Duru, Okan & Ng, Adolf K.Y., 2022. "Transhipment port's competitiveness forecasting using analytic network process modelling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 70-82.
    20. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:25:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-021-02044-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.