IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2019i1p157-d302915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Kügemann

    (Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), United Nations University,Boschstraat 24, 6211 AX Maastricht, The Netherlands)

  • Heracles Polatidis

    (Department of Earth Sciences, Campus Gotland, Uppsala University, Cramérgatan 3, 621 67 Visby, Sweden)

Abstract

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods help decision makers to consider and weigh diverse criteria that include economic, environmental, social and technological aspects. This characteristic makes them a popular tool to comparatively evaluate road transportation fuels and vehicles (RTFV). The aim of this paper is to systematically classify and analyse the literature applying MCDA methods on the evaluation of RTFV. To this end, 40 relevant papers are pinpointed and discussed. We identified a great number of evaluation criteria employed in the reviewed papers from which we have established a concluding list of 41 criteria, that can serve as a pool for future research. A further analysis of the evaluation criteria reveals that the process of criteria selection partly suffers from a lack of scientific foundation and standardization. We propose to standardize the criteria selection process by using the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) methodology as a guiding reference. In addition, we compared the MCDA results obtained from studies with relatively similar setups and found that the evaluation results are also generally similar and seem not to be influenced by the particular MCDA method employed. Based on the results of the reviewed papers, one may say that electricity and ethanol appear to be good alternatives for light vehicles, whereas gaseous fuels seem more appropriate for heavy vehicles like buses. Striking deviations from these generally observed results are often caused by specific evaluation contexts, particular criteria taken into account and unusual weight sets applied.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Kügemann & Heracles Polatidis, 2019. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:157-:d:302915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/1/157/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/1/157/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    2. Silva Lora, Electo E. & Escobar Palacio, José C. & Rocha, Mateus H. & Grillo Renó, Maria L. & Venturini, Osvaldo J. & Almazán del Olmo, Oscar, 2011. "Issues to consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sustainability assessments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 2097-2110.
    3. Sharaf, Omar Z. & Orhan, Mehmet F., 2014. "An overview of fuel cell technology: Fundamentals and applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 810-853.
    4. Reza Fazeli & Vitor Leal & Jorge P. Sousa, 2011. "A multi-criteria evaluation framework for alternative light-duty vehicles technologies," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(2), pages 230-251.
    5. Perimenis, Anastasios & Walimwipi, Hartley & Zinoviev, Sergey & Müller-Langer, Franziska & Miertus, Stanislav, 2011. "Development of a decision support tool for the assessment of biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1782-1793, March.
    6. Safaei Mohamadabadi, H. & Tichkowsky, G. & Kumar, A., 2009. "Development of a multi-criteria assessment model for ranking of renewable and non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 112-125.
    7. Elena Arce, María & Saavedra, Ángeles & Míguez, José L. & Granada, Enrique, 2015. "The use of grey-based methods in multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of sustainable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 924-932.
    8. Ziolkowska, Jadwiga R., 2014. "Optimizing biofuels production in an uncertain decision environment: Conventional vs. advanced technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 366-376.
    9. Quintero, J.A. & Montoya, M.I. & Sánchez, O.J. & Giraldo, O.H. & Cardona, C.A., 2008. "Fuel ethanol production from sugarcane and corn: Comparative analysis for a Colombian case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 385-399.
    10. Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Lin, Cheng-Wei & Opricovic, Serafim, 2005. "Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1373-1383, July.
    11. Buchholz, Thomas & Rametsteiner, Ewald & Volk, Timothy A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2009. "Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 484-495, February.
    12. Turcksin, Laurence & Macharis, Cathy & Lebeau, Kenneth & Boureima, Faycal & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Bram, Svend & De Ruyck, Jacques & Mertens, Lara & Jossart, Jean-Marc & Gorissen, Leen & Pelkmans, Luc, 2011. "A multi-actor multi-criteria framework to assess the stakeholder support for different biofuel options: The case of Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 200-214, January.
    13. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2012. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 146-156.
    14. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2013. "Evaluation of next generation biomass derived fuels for the transport sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 443-455.
    15. Streimikiene, Dalia & Baležentis, Tomas & Baležentienė, Ligita, 2013. "Comparative assessment of road transport technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 611-618.
    16. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    17. Cai, Yanpeng & Applegate, Scott & Yue, Wencong & Cai, Jianying & Wang, Xuan & Liu, Gengyuan & Li, Chunhui, 2017. "A hybrid life cycle and multi-criteria decision analysis approach for identifying sustainable development strategies of Beijing's taxi fleet," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 314-325.
    18. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2012. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 677-686.
    19. Troy R. Hawkins & Bhawna Singh & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2013. "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(1), pages 53-64, February.
    20. Nuri Cihat Onat & Murat Kucukvar & Omer Tatari, 2014. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Passenger Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-38, December.
    21. Yedla, Sudhakar & Shrestha, Ram M., 2003. "Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 717-729, October.
    22. Schroeder, Andreas & Traber, Thure, 2012. "The economics of fast charging infrastructure for electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 136-144.
    23. Andrzej Macioł & Bogdan Rębiasz, 2018. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods in Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA): A comparison of private passenger vehicles," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(1), pages 5-26.
    24. Traut, Elizabeth & Hendrickson, Chris & Klampfl, Erica & Liu, Yimin & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2012. "Optimal design and allocation of electrified vehicles and dedicated charging infrastructure for minimum life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and cost," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 524-534.
    25. Marwa Hannouf & Getachew Assefa, 2018. "A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment-Based Decision-Analysis Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, October.
    26. Sehatpour, Mohammad-Hadi & Kazemi, Aliyeh & Sehatpour, Hesam-eddin, 2017. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles in Iran using a multi-criteria approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 295-310.
    27. Onat, Nuri Cihat & Kucukvar, Murat & Tatari, Omer, 2015. "Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 36-49.
    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. Alicja Stoltmann, 2020. "Hybrid Multi-Criteria Method of Analyzing the Location of Distributed Renewable Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Marcin Wołek & Aleksander Jagiełło & Michał Wolański, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Decision-Making Process on the Electrification of Public Transport in Cities in Poland: A Case Study Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Alberto Romero-Ania & Lourdes Rivero Gutiérrez & María Auxiliadora De Vicente Oliva, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis of Sustainable Urban Public Transport Systems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-30, August.
    4. Sandra Alvarez Gallo & Julien Maheut, 2023. "Multi-Criteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Logistics Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-24, September.

    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. Ullah, Kafait & Hamid, Salman & Mirza, Faisal Mehmood & Shakoor, Usman, 2018. "Prioritizing the gaseous alternatives for the road transport sector of Pakistan: A multi criteria decision making analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 1072-1084.
    2. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    3. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin, 2020. "Prospective assessment of methanol vehicles in China using FANP-SWOT analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 60-75.
    4. 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.
    5. Sehatpour, Mohammad-Hadi & Kazemi, Aliyeh & Sehatpour, Hesam-eddin, 2017. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles in Iran using a multi-criteria approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 295-310.
    6. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    7. Chen, Lihong & Ren, Jingzheng, 2018. "Multi-attribute sustainability evaluation of alternative aviation fuels based on fuzzy ANP and fuzzy grey relational analysis," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 176-186.
    8. Liang, Hanwei & Ren, Jingzheng & Lin, Ruojue & Liu, Yue, 2019. "Alternative-fuel based vehicles for sustainable transportation: A fuzzy group decision supporting framework for sustainability prioritization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 33-43.
    9. Parisa Rafiaani & Zoumpolia Dikopoulou & Miet Dael & Tom Kuppens & Hossein Azadi & Philippe Lebailly & Steven Passel, 2020. "Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 15-44, January.
    10. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    11. 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).
    12. Sivaraja, C.M. & Sakthivel, G., 2017. "Compression ignition engine performance modelling using hybrid MCDM techniques for the selection of optimum fish oil biodiesel blend at different injection timings," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 118-141.
    13. Khishtandar, Soheila & Zandieh, Mostafa & Dorri, Behrouz, 2017. "A multi criteria decision making framework for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: The case of Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1130-1145.
    14. Nenming Wang & Guwen Tang, 2022. "A Review on Environmental Efficiency Evaluation of New Energy Vehicles Using Life Cycle Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-35, March.
    15. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2012. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 677-686.
    16. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    17. Alev Taskin Gumus & A. Yesim Yayla & Erkan Çelik & Aytac Yildiz, 2013. "A Combined Fuzzy-AHP and Fuzzy-GRA Methodology for Hydrogen Energy Storage Method Selection in Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-16, June.
    18. Luis C. Dias & Carolina Passeira & João Malça & Fausto Freire, 2022. "Integrating life-cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis to compare alternative biodiesel chains," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 1359-1374, May.
    19. Dorota Burchart & Iga Przytuła, 2024. "Sustainability Assessment Methods for the Transport Sector Considering the Life Cycle Concept—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-19, September.
    20. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.

    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:13:y:2019:i:1:p:157-:d:302915. 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.