IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i6p1347-d1355273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection of the Family Electric Car Based on Objective and Subjective Criteria—Analysis of a Case Study of Polish Consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Paweł Ziemba

    (Institute of Management, University of Szczecin, 70-453 Szczecin, Poland)

  • Marek Kannchen

    (Faculty of Technology, The Jacob of Paradies University, 66-400 Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland)

  • Mariusz Borawski

    (Faculty of Computer Science and Telecommunications, Maritime University of Szczecin, 70-500 Szczecin, Poland)

Abstract

In accordance with the policies of European Union countries, including Poland, users of combustion vehicles are and will be encouraged in the coming years to purchase BEVs (battery electric vehicles) through various restrictions, burdens, and incentives. In this context, it is important to choose a BEV that meets consumer needs. The practical aim of the article was to analyse BEVs used in households and to select a car with the highest utility for such a household located in a specific city in Poland. The scientific goal was to analyse the impact of subjective criteria and the imprecision of judgements on the results of the multi-criteria assessment of BEVs. The research used the PVM-VSI (Preference Vector Method—Vector Space of Increments) method, which allows for examining the impact of subjective criteria on the assessment results. Moreover, by examining the deviations of the assessments, the PVM-VSI method also allows for measuring the imprecision of subjective judgements. The study showed that including subjective criteria in the decision-making model may have a decisive impact on the obtained ranking of alternatives. In the study using objective and subjective criteria, Nissan Ariya ranked first. However, in the ranking based solely on objective criteria, Kia Niro EV won, and the winner of the first ranking took the last place. In the study, the imprecision of judgements did not have a significant impact on the order of vehicles in the ranking. Based on utilities and standard deviations, it was found that only if the decision-maker was prone to gambling would there be a slight switch between alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Paweł Ziemba & Marek Kannchen & Mariusz Borawski, 2024. "Selection of the Family Electric Car Based on Objective and Subjective Criteria—Analysis of a Case Study of Polish Consumers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-27, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:6:p:1347-:d:1355273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/6/1347/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/6/1347/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Alfredo Revollo-Fernandez & Alonso Aguilar-Ibarra, 2014. "Measures of risk associated to regulations compliance: a laboratory experiment on the use of common-pool resources," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 903-921, August.
    2. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    3. Song, Yongming & Li, Yanhong & Zhu, Hongli & Li, Guangxu, 2023. "A decision support model for buying battery electric vehicles considering consumer learning and psychological behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    4. Jia, Chunchun & He, Hongwen & Zhou, Jiaming & Li, Jianwei & Wei, Zhongbao & Li, Kunang, 2024. "Learning-based model predictive energy management for fuel cell hybrid electric bus with health-aware control," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    5. Ecer, Fatih, 2021. "A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    6. John T. Buchanan & Erez J. Henig & Mordecai I. Henig, 1998. "Objectivity and subjectivity in thedecision making process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 333-345, January.
    7. Li, Wenbo & Long, Ruyin & Chen, Hong & Geng, Jichao, 2017. "A review of factors influencing consumer intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 318-328.
    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. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2023. "Multicriteria decision making and goal programming for determination of electric automobile aimed at sustainable green environment: a case study," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 211-231, June.
    2. Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2021. "Consumer adoption of electric vehicles in alternative business models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Natascia Andrenacci & Roberto Ragona & Antonino Genovese, 2020. "Evaluation of the Instantaneous Power Demand of an Electric Charging Station in an Urban Scenario," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Mortenson, Michael J. & Doherty, Neil F. & Robinson, Stewart, 2015. "Operational research from Taylorism to Terabytes: A research agenda for the analytics age," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 583-595.
    6. Gürler, Hasan Emin & Özçalıcı, Mehmet & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "Determining criteria weights with genetic algorithms for multi-criteria decision making methods: The case of logistics performance index rankings of European Union countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Zhang, Yahui & You, Xiongxiong & Song, Yunfeng & Zhao, Yahui & Wei, Zeyi & Jiao, Xiaohong, 2025. "Hierarchical eco-driving of connected hybrid electric vehicles: Integrating predictive cruise control and cost-to-go approximation-guided energy management," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 319(C).
    8. Massimo Sicilia & Davide Cervone & Pierpaolo Polverino & Cesare Pianese, 2024. "Advancements on Lumped Modelling of Membrane Water Content for Real-Time Prognostics and Control of PEMFC," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, September.
    9. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    10. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    11. António Osório, 2017. "Judgement and ranking: living with hidden bias," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 501-518, June.
    12. Yi Yang & Lei Hua & Mengqi Jie & Biao Shi, 2024. "Large-Scale Satisfaction Rating-Driven Selection of New Energy Vehicles: A Basic Uncertain Linguistic Information Bonferroni Mean-Based MCGDM Approach Considering Criteria Interaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-27, August.
    13. Fabio Luis Marques dos Santos & Paolo Tecchio & Fulvio Ardente & Ferenc Pekár, 2021. "User Automotive Powertrain-Type Choice Model and Analysis Using Neural Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    14. repec:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:special1:p:28-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Ahmet Kaya & Dragan Pamucar & Hasan Emin Gürler & Mehmet Ozcalici, 2024. "Determining the financial performance of the firms in the Borsa Istanbul sustainability index: integrating multi criteria decision making methods with simulation," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-44, December.
    16. Majid Zerafat Angiz Langroudi & Ali Emrouznejad & Adli Mustafa & Joshua Ignatius, 2013. "Type-2 TOPSIS: A Group Decision Problem When Ideal Values are not Extreme Endpoints," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 851-866, September.
    17. Adsule, Poonam & Manoj, M., 2025. "A stated choice study to assess charging and travel decisions of electric car users considering car attributes and trip chaining complexity – Case New Delhi, India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    18. Saurabh Pandey & Deepti Aggrawal, 2025. "Modeling the enablers for sustainable adoption of water ionizers: an ISM-MICMAC approach," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 16(2), pages 868-882, February.
    19. Hardaway, Kendrick & Genc, Utkuhan & Cai, Hua & Nateghi, Roshanak, 2025. "Electric vehicle adoption and planning: The increasing importance of the built environment," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    20. Goldschmidt, Rüdiger & Richter, Andreas & Pfeil, Raphael, 2019. "Active stakeholder involvement and organisational tasks as factors for an effective communication and governance strategy in the promotion of e-taxis. Results from a field research lab," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    21. Liu, Shuang & Proctor, Wendy & Cook, David, 2010. "Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2374-2382, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:6:p:1347-:d:1355273. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.