Decision-Making on Green Vehicles Using a Hybrid Taxonomy Approach with Reference-Based Methods

Authors

  • Maryam Yousefi Vardanjani Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
  • Mohammad Reza Gholamian * Department of Logistics and Supply Chain Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5135-5237
  • Nazanin Maleki Department of Science in Macrosystems, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.48313/scodm.v3i2.56

Abstract

Nowadays, decision-making in the selection of green vehicles in Iran has become a major challenge, as choosing an appropriate vehicle has a significant impact on fuel consumption, air pollution, and environmental protection. Therefore, the use of suitable Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) algorithms in this field appears to be essential. This study aims to analyze and propose an effective and efficient approach for decision-making related to the selection of green vehicles. In this research, a framework combining three MCDM methods, EDAS, VIKOR, and Taxonomy, has been employed to achieve optimal selection and facilitate the process of choosing green vehicles. By utilizing the characteristics of all three decision-making algorithms, the proposed algorithm enables accurate analysis through assigning weights to each criterion, thereby contributing to more intelligent economic and environmental decision-making in the selection of green vehicles. Based on the conducted analyses and the results obtained from the proposed EDAS–VIKOR–Taxonomy MCDM method, Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) were identified as the best green vehicles for entering the Iranian automotive market. The production of this type of vehicle in Iran's automotive industry can represent an effective and significant step toward environmental protection, air pollution control, and fuel consumption management.

Keywords:

Green vehicles, Multi-criteria decision-making, VIKOR decision-making method, EDAS decision-making method, Taxonomy decision-making method

References

  1. [1] Muneer, T., Milligan, R., Smith, I., Doyle, A., Pozuelo, M., & Knez, M. (2015). Energetic, environmental and economic performance of electric vehicles: Experimental evaluation. Transportation research part d: transport and environment, 35, 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.11.015
  2. [2] Amiri, M., Rahimi Mazrae Shahi, M., & Taboli, H. (2012). A New Methodology for Solving Multi-criteria Decision Making Problem. Industrial management studies, 9(24), 45–65. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22518029.1391.9.24.3.0
  3. [3] Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.3233/INF-2015-1070
  4. [4] Dhumras, H., & Bajaj, R. K. (2023). Modified EDAS method for MCDM in robotic agrifarming with picture fuzzy soft Dombi aggregation operators. Soft computing, 27(8), 5077–5098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07927-1%0A%0A
  5. [5] Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Kabak, M., & Dikmen, A. U. (2021). Evaluation of criteria and COVID-19 patients for intensive care unit admission in the era of pandemic: A multi-criteria decision making approach. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 209, 106348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106348
  6. [6] Dumrul, C., Bilgili, F., Zarali, F., Dumrul, Y., & Kiliçarslan, Z. (2024). The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives in Turkey using intuitionistic-fuzzy EDAS methodology. Environmental science and pollution research, 31(10), 15503–15524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31816-7%0A%0A
  7. [7] Khan, H. U., Ali, F., Sohail, M., Nazir, S., & Arif, M. (2025). Decision making for selection of smart vehicle transportation system using VIKOR approach. International journal of data science and analytics, 19(4), 793–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-024-00537-6%0A%0A
  8. [8] Zheng, G., & Wang, X. (2020). The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method. Energy, 193, 116676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116676
  9. [9] Cevikbas, M., Okudan, O., & Işık, Z. (2023). Determination of the most appropriate alternative dispute resolution methods for airport projects: A fuzzy VIKOR approach. KSCE journal of civil engineering, 27(8), 3192-3203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-023-1864-4%0A%0A
  10. [10] Liu, P., & Wang, D. (2022). An extended taxonomy method based on normal T-spherical fuzzy numbers for multiple-attribute decision-making. International journal of fuzzy systems, 24(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-021-01109-7%0A%0A
  11. [11] Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., & Słowiński, R. (2020). How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega, 96, 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261
  12. [12] Jabalameli, M. S., Shahanaghi, K., Hosnavi, R., & Nasiri, M. R. (2010). A combined model for locating critical centers (HAPIT). International journal of industrial engineering & production research, 20(4), 65–76. (In Persian). https://scispace.com/pdf/a-combined-model-for-locating-critical-centers-hapit-4tmn7bfano.pdf
  13. [13] Faraji, S. H., Badri, S. A. L. I., & Vazin, N. (2013). Improvement of numerical taxonomy model. Journal of applied researches in geographical sciences, 13(28), 113-135. (In persian). https://www.sid.ir/paper/102156/en
  14. [14] Sonar, H. C., & Kulkarni, S. D. (2021). An integrated AHP-MABAC approach for electric vehicle selection. Research in transportation business & management, 41, 100665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100665
  15. [15] Offer, G. J., Howey, D., Contestabile, M., Clague, R., & Brandon, N. P. (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
  16. [16] Egbue, O., & Long, S. (2012). Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy policy, 48, 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.009
  17. [17] Nanaki, E. A., & Koroneos, C. J. (2013). Comparative economic and environmental analysis of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicles--the case study of Greece. Journal of cleaner production, 53, 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.010
  18. [18] Yagcitekin, B., Uzunoglu, M., Karakas, A., & Erdinc, O. (2015). Assessment of electrically-driven vehicles in terms of emission impacts and energy requirements: a case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of cleaner production, 96, 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.063
  19. [19] Junquera, B., Moreno, B., & Álvarez, R. (2016). Analyzing consumer attitudes towards electric vehicle purchasing intentions in Spain: Technological limitations and vehicle confidence. Technological forecasting and social change, 109, 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.006
  20. [20] Egnér, F., & Trosvik, L. (2018). Electric vehicle adoption in Sweden and the impact of local policy instruments. Energy policy, 121, 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.040
  21. [21] Liu, X., Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., Lohse-Busch, H., Wang, M., & Rustagi, N. (2020). Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicle. International journal of hydrogen energy, 45(1), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.192
  22. [22] Gong, B., Liu, R., & Zhang, X. (2020). Market acceptability assessment of electric vehicles based on an improved stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis-evidential reasoning approach. Journal of cleaner production, 269, 121990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121990
  23. [23] Ziemba, P. (2021). Multi-criteria approach to stochastic and fuzzy uncertainty in the selection of electric vehicles with high social acceptance. Expert systems with applications, 173, 114686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114686
  24. [24] Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J., & others. (2019). New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM) (Vol. 277). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114686

Downloads

Published

2026-06-01

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): Supply Chain and Operations Decision Making

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Yousefi Vardanjani, M. ., Gholamian, M. R. ., & Maleki, N. . (2026). Decision-Making on Green Vehicles Using a Hybrid Taxonomy Approach with Reference-Based Methods. Supply Chain and Operations Decision Making, 3(2), 110-126. https://doi.org/10.48313/scodm.v3i2.56