IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i17p12844-d1224634.html

An Interactive Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Autonomous Vehicles and Distributed Resources Based on Logistic Systems: Challenges for a Sustainable Future

Author

Listed:
  • Abduallah Gamal

    (Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt)

  • Mohamed Abdel-Basset

    (Faculty of Computers and Informatics, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt)

  • Ibrahim M. Hezam

    (Department of Statistics & Operations Research, College of Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Karam M. Sallam

    (Faculty of Science and Technology, School of IT and Systems, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia)

  • Ibrahim A. Hameed

    (Department of ICT and Natural Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7034 Ålesund, Norway)

Abstract

The autonomous vehicle (AV) is one of the emerging technologies of the new age that has the potential to restructure transportation infrastructure. AVs are able to sense their surroundings and move around with control and self-sufficiency. AVs can contribute towards reducing traffic congestion on the roads, improving the quality of life, and achieving the highest levels of traffic safety. Thus, this type of vehicle can be integrated into the logistics industry. Due to the presence of several AVs, selecting a standard and efficient AV for logistics planning is a great challenge. The selection of an AV depends on many conflicting and essential criteria. Given its efficiency and reliability in dealing with conflicting criteria, a comprehensive multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach was applied to solve the problem of selecting the optimal AV. However, the MCDM selection process is based on human judgment, which can be ambiguous. Accordingly, uncertainty was handled using type-2 neutrosophic numbers (T2NN). Initially, the method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC) was extended under T2NN and employed to assess and prioritize criteria. Then, the combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method was extended under T2NN and applied to rank the candidate substitutions. To confirm the feasibility of the applied approach, an illustrative case study of four AVs was introduced. A sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the weights of the criteria and some other parameters to confirm the validity and stability of the proposed approach. In addition, a comparison analysis with other MCDM approaches was conducted to show the effectiveness and reliability of the applied approach. This research provides useful information for policymakers in the field of logistics. Finally, the results indicate that the velocity of AVs criterion is the most influential criterion in the selection of an intelligent AV.

Suggested Citation

  • Abduallah Gamal & Mohamed Abdel-Basset & Ibrahim M. Hezam & Karam M. Sallam & Ibrahim A. Hameed, 2023. "An Interactive Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Autonomous Vehicles and Distributed Resources Based on Logistic Systems: Challenges for a Sustainable Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-26, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:12844-:d:1224634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/12844/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/12844/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mladen Krstić & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Snežana Tadić & Violeta Roso, 2022. "Applicability of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Reverse Logistics: A Circular Economy Approach Based on COmprehensive Distance Based RAnking (COBRA) Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-30, May.
    2. Raj, Alok & Kumar, J. Ajith & Bansal, Prateek, 2020. "A multicriteria decision making approach to study barriers to the adoption of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 122-137.
    3. Morteza Yazdani & Pascale Zaraté & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2019. "A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems," Post-Print hal-02879091, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hatice Handan Oztemiz & Kemal Vatansever & Tuba Bayraktar, 2025. "Sustainable Financial Performance Analysis of Logistics Companies Listed on Borsa Istanbul: An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-26, October.

    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. Thu-Hang Hoang & Thi-Trang Tran & Lam Nha Tu Huynh & Dung Khanh Vo & Bao Gia Huynh & Tam Minh Thi Tran & Nguyen Dang Nguyen, 2025. "Advances and barriers in promoting green logistics 4.0 from a multi-stakeholder perspective–a systematic review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Alatawneh, Anas & Torok, Adam, 2025. "Projecting AV sales in the EU-27 and UK: Insights from Euro emission standards and historical trends," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-101.
    3. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Adel Fahad Alrasheedi & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2025. "Assessing the Challenges of Collaborative Innovation Systems in Public Higher Education: Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Combined Compromise Solution Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 1035-1072, October.
    4. Jameel, Toqeer & Riaz, Muhammad & Aslam, Muhammad & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "Sustainable renewable energy systems with entropy based step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis and combined compromise solution," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    5. Nitasha Hasteer & Rahul Sindhwani & Abhishek Behl & Akul Varshney & Adityansh Sharma, 2024. "Exploring the inhibitors for competitive AI software development through cloud driven transformation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 342(1), pages 355-397, November.
    6. Rahul Sindhwani & Nitasha Hasteer & Abhishek Behl & Chinmayee Chatterjee & Lotfi Hamzi, 2026. "Analysis of sustainable supply chain and industry 4.0 enablers: a step towards decarbonization of supply chains," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 359(1), pages 429-467, April.
    7. Kassens-Noor, Eva & Kotval-Karamchandani, Zeenat & Cai, Meng, 2020. "Willingness to ride and perceptions of autonomous public transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 92-104.
    8. Željko Stević & Dillip Kumar Das & Rade Tešić & Marijo Vidas & Dragan Vojinović, 2022. "Objective Criticism and Negative Conclusions on Using the Fuzzy SWARA Method in Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Sood, Kirti & Singh, Simarjeet & Behl, Abhishek & Sindhwani, Rahul & Kaur, Sandeepa & Pereira, Vijay, 2023. "Identification and prioritization of the risks in the mass adoption of artificial intelligence-driven stable coins: The quest for optimal resource utilization," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    10. Liao, Huchang & Li, Xiaofang, 2025. "A multi-criterion decision making method for renewable energy storage technology selection with incomplete evaluation information," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    11. Raghunathan Krishankumar & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Fausto Cavallaro & Kattur Soundarapandian Ravichandran, 2023. "A Novel Integrated q-Rung Fuzzy Framework for Biomass Location Selection with No Apriori Weight Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Laima Naujokienė & Valentina Peleckienė & Kristina Vaičiūtė & Kristina Kulikauskienė, 2025. "Research on the Impact of Autonomous Vehicles on the Environment and Sustainability of Transport Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Ali Katrancı & Nilsen Kundakcı & Dragan Pamucar, 2025. "Financial performance evaluation of firms in BIST 100 index with ITARA and COBRA methods," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-28, December.
    14. Saverio Ferraro & Alessandra Cantini & Leonardo Leoni & Filippo De Carlo, 2023. "Sustainable Logistics 4.0: A Study on Selecting the Best Technology for Internal Material Handling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-22, April.
    15. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Raghunathan Krishankumar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Kattur S. Ravichandran, 2021. "A Hesitant Fuzzy Combined Compromise Solution Framework-Based on Discrimination Measure for Ranking Sustainable Third-Party Reverse Logistic Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    16. Nadine Kafa & Anicia Jaegler & Joseph Sarkis, 2020. "Harnessing Corporate Sustainability Decision-Making Complexity: A Field Study of Complementary Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    17. Thi Kim Lien Nguyen & Hoang Nga Le & Bach Dang Ha & Quoc Ngu Nguyen & Van Phi Pham & Van Dan Dinh, 2024. "Evaluating the Business Performance of Seaport Enterprises in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-21, October.
    18. Weifeng Xu & Xiaomin Cui & Ruiwen Qi & Yuquan Lin, 2025. "A Novel Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Evaluate Sustainable Product Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Waltermann, Juliana & Henkel, Sven, 2025. "The human element in autonomous driving: Motivations, expectations, and behavioral change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    20. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Torkayesh, Sajjad Ebadi & Lund, Peter D., 2022. "A comparative assessment of air quality across European countries using an integrated decision support model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:17:p:12844-:d:1224634. 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.