APPLYING MCDM METHODS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE SELECTION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN CRADIS AND PIV METHODS
Abstract
The global automotive industry is undergoing a significant transformation towards electric vehicles to significantly reduce carbon emissions and contribute to a greener planet. The proliferation of EVs is not only a trend but also an urgent solution to address climate change. In the context of a world striving for sustainable development, selecting the right electric vehicle becomes a crucial decision for consumers as one of the urgent solutions. This study employs two methods, CRADIS and PIV, to rank ten electric vehicle models and identify the optimal choice. Each vehicle is characterized by seven criteria, and the weighting of these criteria is determined using four methods: Entropy, LOPCOW, WENSLO, and combined weighting. This research also compares the CRADIS and PIV methods based on various similarity measures such as SPE (Spearman's coefficient), WPSE (Weighted Spearman's coefficient), RS (Rank Similarity coefficient), and KE (Kendall’s coefficient). The results indicate a slight advantage of the PIV method over the CRADIS method.
References
Rehman, F. U., Islam, M. M., Miao, Q. (2023). Environmental sustainability via green transportation: A case of the top 10 energy transition nations. Transport Policy, vol. 137, 32-44, DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.04.013
Kene, R., Olwal, T., van Wyk, B. J. (2021). Sustainable electric vehicle transportation. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 22, 1-16, DOI: 10.3390/su132212379.
Outlook, A.E. (2024). Energy information administration, from https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ accessed on 2024-27-12.
International Energy Agency (IEA), from https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ accessed on 2024-27-12.
Mousavinezhad, S., Choi, Y., Khorshidian, N., Ghahremanloo, M., & Momeni, M. (2024). Air quality and health co-benefits of vehicle electrification and emission controls in the most populated United States urban hubs: Insights from New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. Science of The Total Environment, vol. 912, no. 20, 169577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169577
Alanazi, F. (2023). Electric vehicles: benefits, challenges, and potential solutions for widespread adaptation. Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 10, 6016, DOI: 10.3390/app13106016
Yusuf, S. A., Khan, A., Souissi, R. (2024). Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) in the autonomous vehicles domain–A technical review of communication, sensor, and AI technologies for road user safety. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, vol. 23, 100980, DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2023.100980
Singh, D., Paul, U. K., Pandey, N. (2023). Does electric vehicle adoption (EVA) contribute to clean energy? Bibliometric insights and future research agenda. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, vol. 8, 100099, DOI: 10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100099
Pamidimukkala, A., Kermanshachi, S., Rosenberger, J. M., Hladik, G. (2024). Barriers and motivators to the adoption of electric vehicles: a global review. Green Energy and Intelligent Transportation, 100153, DOI: 10.1016/j.geits.2024.100153
Shahed, M. T., Rashid, A. H. U. (2024). Battery charging technologies and standards for electric vehicles: A state-of-the-art review, challenges, and future research prospects. Energy Reports, vol. 11, 5978-5998, doı: 10.1016/j.egyr.2024.05.062
Trung, Đ. Đ. (2021a). Multi-objective optimization of SKD11 steel milling process by reference ideal method. International journal of geology, vol. 15, 1-15, DOI: 10.46300/9105.2021.15.1
Nguyen, A. T. (2023). The improved CURLI method for multi-criteria decision making. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 13, no. 1, 10121-10127, DOI: 10.48084/etasr.5538
Van Dua, T., Van Duc, D., Bao, N. C. (2024). Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, no. 2, 131-148, https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171
Zheng, M., Teng, H., Wang, Y. (2021). A simple approach for multi-criteria decision-making on basis of probability theory. Engineering Structures and Technologies, vol. 13, no. 1, 26-30, DOI: 10.3846/est.2021.18404
Sun, C., Li, S., Deng, Y. (2020). Determining weights in multi-criteria decision making based on negation of probability distribution under uncertain environment. Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 2, 191, DOI: 10.3390/math8020191
Puška, A., Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D. (2021). Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 24, no. 9, 11195-11225, DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2
Chakraborty, S., Chatterjee, P., Das, P. P. (2024). Compromise Ranking of Alternatives from Distance to Ideal Solution (CRADIS) Method. In Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Manufacturing Environments (pp. 343-347). Apple Academic Press.
Işık, Ö., Adalar, İ. (2025). A multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment based on the extended CRADIS method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: a case study of Turkish non-life insurers. Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 37, no. 5, 3317-3342, DOI: 10.1007/s00521-024-10803-0
Mohanrasu, S. S., Rakkiyappan, R. (2024). A novel framework for multi-label feature selection: integrating mutual information and Pythagorean fuzzy CRADIS. Granular Computing, vol. 9, no. 3, 67, DOI: 10.1007/s41066-024-00489-z
Mufazzal, S., Muzakkir, S. M. (2018). A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 119, 427-438, DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.045
Trung, D. D. (2021b). Application of EDAS, MARCOS, TOPSIS, MOORA and PIV methods for multi-criteria decision making in milling process, Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 71, no. 2, 69-84, DOI:10.2478/scjme-2021-0019
Saluja, R. S., Mathew, M., Singh, V. (2023). Improved proximity indexed value MCDM method for solving the rank reversal problem: A simulation-based approach. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 48, no. 9, 11679-11694, DOI: 10.1007/s13369-022-07553-3
Behera, D. K., Beura, S. (2023). Supplier selection for an industry using MCDM techniques. Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 74, no. 4, 901-909, DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.11.291
Thinh, H. X. (2022). Comparison of the RAFSI and PIV method in multi-criteria decision making: application to turning processes. International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering, vol. 13, no. 14, DOI: 10.1051/ijmqe/2022014
Van Dua, T. (2025). Application of the PSI Method in Selecting Sustainable Energy Development Technologies. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 15, no. 1, 19596-19601, DOI: 10.46793/aeletters.2024.9.3.2
Athawale, V. M., Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods: a comparative study. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, vol. 226, no. 4, 266-285, DOI: 10.1177/1464420712448979
Sahoo, S. K., Goswami, S. S. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) Methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, vol. 1, no. 1, 25-48, DOI: 10.31181/dma1120237
Dhurkari, R. K. (2022). MCDM methods: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement. RAIRO-Operations Research, vol. 56, no. 4, 2221-2233, DOI: 10.1051/ro/2022060
Mian, S. H., Nasr, E. A., Moiduddin, K., Saleh, M., Abidi, M. H., & Alkhalefah, H. (2024). Assessment of consolidative multi-criteria decision making (C-MCDM) algorithms for optimal mapping of polymer materials in additive manufacturing: A case study of orthotic application, Heliyon, vol. 10, 1-29, DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30867
Ogrodnik, K. (2023). Application of MCDM/MCDA methods in city rankings-review and comparative analysis. Economics and Environment, vol. 86, no. 3, 132-151, DOI: 10.34659/eis.2023.86.3.689
Dung, H. T., Do, D. T. (2022). Comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods using the same data standardization method, Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 72, no. 2, 57-72, DOI: 10.2478/scjme-2022-0016
Thinh, H. X., Mai, N. T. (2023). Comparison of two methods in multi-criteria decision-making: application in transmission rod material selection. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, no. 6, 59-68, DOI: 10.21303/2461-4262.2023.003046
Petrović, G., Mihajlović, J., Ćojbašić, Ž., Madić, M., Marinković, D. (2019). Comparison of three fuzzy MCDM methods for solving the supplier selection problem. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, vol. 17, no. 3, 455-469, DOI: 10.22190/FUME190420039P
Mehdi, K. G., Abdolghani, R., Maghsoud, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Antuchevičienė, J. (2024). Multi-Criteria personnel evaluation and selection using an objective pairwise adjusted ratio analysis (OPARA). Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, vol. 58, no. 2, 23-45, DOI: 10.24818/18423264/58.2.24.02
Mai, N. T. (2025). Hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods: combination of preference selection index method with faire un choix adèquat, root assessment method, and proximity indexed value. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 15, no. 1, 19086-19090, DOI: 10.48084/etasr.9325
Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2023). Root assessment method (RAM): A novel multi-criteria decision making method and its applications in sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 423, 138695, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138695
Baydaş, M. (2022). Comparison of the performances of MCDM methods under uncertainty: an analysis on bist SME industry index. OPUS Journal of Society Research, vol. 19, no. 46, 308-326, DOI: 10.26466//opusjsr.1064280
Baydaş, M., Elma, O. E. (2021). An objectıve criteria proposal for the comparison of MCDM and weighting methods in financial performance measurement: An application in Borsa Istanbul. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, 257-279, DOI: 10.31181/dmame210402257b
Ceballos, B., Lamata, M. T., Pelta, D. A. (2016). A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, 315-322, DOI: 10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1
Ghaleb, A. M., Kaid, H., Alsamhan, A., Mian, S. H., Hidri, L. (2020). Assessment and comparison of various MCDM approaches in the selection of manufacturing process. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2020, no. 1, 4039253, DOI: 10.1155/2020/4039253
Güçlü, P. (2024). Comparative analysis of the MCDM methods with multiple normalization techniques: three hybrid models combine MPSI with DNMARCOS, AROMAN, and MACONT methods. Business and Economics Research Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, 129-154, DOI: 10.20409/berj.2024.436
Hodgett, R. E. (2016). Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 85, 1145-1157, DOI: 10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2
Thor, J., Ding, S. H., Kamaruddin, S. (2013). Comparison of multi criteria decision making methods from the maintenance alternative selection perspective. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, vol. 2, no. 6, 27-34.
Casals, L. C., Martinez-Laserna, E., García, B. A., Nieto, N. (2016). Sustainability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2 emissions reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 127, 425-437.
Sudha, S., Edwin, D. F., Nivetha, M. (2023). Integrated Machine Learning Algorithms and MCDM Techniques in Optimal Ranking of Battery Electric Vehicles. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 405, p. 02005). EDP Sciences.
Ecer, F. (2021). A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 143, 110916, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916
Tian, Z. P., Liang, H. M., Nie, R. X., Wang, X. K., Wang, J. Q. (2023). Data-driven multi-criteria decision support method for electric vehicle selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 177, 109061.
Ren, X., Sun, S., Yuan, R. (2021). A study on selection strategies for battery electric vehicles based on sentiments, analysis, and the MCDM model. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2021, no. 1, 9984343, DOI: 10.1155/2021/9984343
Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Jovčić, S., Dobrodolac, M., Simić, V., Bacanin, N. (2023). An alternative ranking order method accounting for two-step normalization (AROMAN)—A case study of the electric vehicle selection problem. IEEE Access, vol. 11, 39496-39507, DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3265818
Pradhan, P., Shabbiruddin, Pradhan, S. (2022). Selection of electric vehicle using integrated Fuzzy-MCDM approach with analysis on challenges faced in hilly terrain. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, vol. 44, no. 2, 2651-2673, DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2022.2056665
Dwivedi, P. P., Sharma, D. K. (2023). Evaluation and ranking of battery electric vehicles by Shannon’s entropy and TOPSIS methods. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, vol. 212, 457-474, DOI: 10.1016/j.matcom.2023.05.013
Biswas, S., Sanyal, A., Božanić, D., Kar, S., Milić, A., Puška, A. (2023). A multicriteria-based comparison of electric vehicles using q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers. Entropy, vol. 25, no. 6, 905, DOI: 10.3390/e25060905
Çakır, E., Taş, M. A., & Ulukan, Z. (2021, October). Neutrosophic fuzzy MARCOS approach for sustainable hybrid electric vehicle assessment. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 3423-3428). IEEE.
Das, M. C., Pandey, A., Mahato, A. K., & Singh, R. K. (2019). Comparative performance of electric vehicles using evaluation of mixed data. Opsearch, vol. 56, 1067-1090, DOI: 10.1007/s12597-019-00398-9
Golui, S., Mahapatra, B. S., & Mahapatra, G. S. (2024). A new correlation-based measure on Fermatean fuzzy applied on multi-criteria decision making for electric vehicle selection. Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 237, 121605, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121605
Puška, A., Stojanović, I., Štilić, A. (2023). The influence of objective weight determination methods on electric vehicle selection in urban logistics. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, vol. 2, no. 3, 117-129, DOI: 10.56578/jimd020302
Biswas, T. K., Das, M. C. (2019). Selection of commercially available electric vehicle using fuzzy AHP-MABAC. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, vol. 100, 531-537, DOI: 10.1007/s40032-018-0481-3
Khan, F., Ali, Y., Khan, A. U. (2020). Sustainable hybrid electric vehicle selection in the context of a developing country. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, vol. 13, 489-499, DOI: 10.1007/s11869-020-00812-y
Więckowski, J., Wątróbski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Sałabun, W. (2023). Complex sensitivity analysis in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: An application to the selection of an electric car. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 390, 136051, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136051
Görçün, Ö. F., Simic, V., Kundu, P., Özbek, A., Küçükönder, H. (2024). Electric vehicle selection for industrial users using an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy COPRAS-based model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-42,DOI: 10.1007/s10668-024-05562-w
Štilić, A., Puška, A., Đurić, A., Božanić, D. (2022). Electric vehicles selection based on brčko district taxi service demands, a multi-criteria approach. Urban Science, vol. 6, no. 4, 73, DOI: 10.3390/urbansci6040073
Poongothai, P., Nandakumar, C. D., Ponnusamy, R. (2023, December). Decision-Making for Electric Vehicle Selection Using AHP-MABAC-Fuzzy Integration. In 2023 International Conference on Data Science, Agents & Artificial Intelligence (ICDSAAI) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Giang, N. T., & Thinh, H. X. (2025). Comparing Subjective Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: An Application to Electric Bicycle Ranking. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 15(2), 21963-21969.
Puška, A., Božanić, D., Mastilo, Z., & Pamučar, D. (2023). Extension of MEREC-CRADIS methods with double normalization-case study selection of electric cars. Soft Computing, 27(11), 7097-7113.
[Dimic-Misic, K., singh Chouhan, S., Brkić, V. S., & Gasik, M. (2025). Recycling or Sustainability: The Road of Electric Vehicles Towards Sustainable Economy via Blockchain, Recycling, 10, 48.
Gligorić, Z., Gligorić, M., Miljanović, I., Lutovac, S., Milutinović, A. (2023). Assessing Criteria Weights by the Symmetry Point of Criterion (Novel SPC Method)--Application in the Efficiency Evaluation of the Mineral Deposit Multi-Criteria Partitioning Algorithm, Computer Modelling in Engineering & Scicences, vol.136, no.1, 955-979, DOI: 10.32604/cmes.2023.025021
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 4, 525, DOI: 10.3390/sym13040525
Zavadskas, E. K., Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, vol. 15, no. 02, 267-283, DOI: 10.1142/S0219622016500036
Ciardiello, F., Genovese, A. (2023). A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Annals of Operations Research, vol. 325, no. 2, 967-994, DOI: 10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w
Mukaka, M. M. (2012). A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi medical journal, vol. 24, no. 3, 69-71.
Shekhovtsov, A. (2021). How strongly do rank similarity coefficients differ used in decision making problems?. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 192, 4570-4577, DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.235
Pinto da Costa, J., Soares, C. (2005). A weighted rank measure of correlation. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, vol. 47, no. 4, 515-529, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.00413.x
Genest, C., Plante, J. F. (2003). On Blest's measure of rank correlation. Canadian Journal of Statistics, vol. 31, no. 1, 35-52, DOI: 10.2307/3315902
Biswas, S., Pamucar, D., Dawn, S., Simic, V. (2024). Evaluation based on relative utility and nonlinear standardization (ERUNS) method for comparing firm performance in energy sector. Decision Making Advances, vol. 2, no. 1, 1-21, DOI: 10.31181/dma21202419
