IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of the entropy-DEMATEL-VIKOR multicriteria decision-making method in public charging infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Hua Dong
  • Kun Yang

Abstract

As an energy-saving and environmentally friendly means of transportation, electric vehicles have been advocated and promoted by various countries, resulting in an increase in the number of electric vehicles. The improvement of public charging infrastructure not only drives the development of the electric vehicle industry but also solves the problems of user difficulty in charging and the low utilization rate of charging piles. From the perspective of electric vehicle (EV) user experience, this research establishes a framework of indicators, including the reputation level, service quality, convenience, economy and safety. Second, the objective entropy weight method and the subjective decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method are combined to weight the indicators. Among the indicators, the comprehensive weights of market share (C2), app operation interface (C3), and charging mode (C5) are 0.107, 0.088, and 0.090, respectively, ranking in the top three. These three indicators should be given more attention by public charging infrastructure operators. Finally, three alternative public charging infrastructures are sorted by using the VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method. Since the positive ideal solution Si of h1 (state grid) is 0.084, the negative ideal solution Ri is 0.248, and the comprehensive index Qi is 0.000. All ranking first, this finding indicates that the public charging infrastructure of this operator has strong competitiveness in the market. In addition, the results are consistent with actual news reports, which also proves the effectiveness of the index system and model.

Suggested Citation

  • Hua Dong & Kun Yang, 2021. "Application of the entropy-DEMATEL-VIKOR multicriteria decision-making method in public charging infrastructure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-25, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258209
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258209
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258209&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolinetz, Michael & Axsen, Jonn, 2017. "How policy can build the plug-in electric vehicle market: Insights from the REspondent-based Preference And Constraints (REPAC) model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 238-250.
    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. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    2. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Kott, Joanna & Kott, Marek, 2020. "Why Polish market of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) is the smallest in Europe? SWOT analysis of opportunities and threats," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & McCollum, David, 2022. "Which “second-best” climate policies are best? Simulating cost-effective policy mixes for passenger vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Xiaohong Jiang & Xiucheng Guo, 2020. "Evaluation of Performance and Technological Characteristics of Battery Electric Logistics Vehicles: China as a Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Melton, Noel & Axsen, Jonn & Goldberg, Suzanne, 2017. "Evaluating plug-in electric vehicle policies in the context of long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals: Comparing 10 Canadian provinces using the “PEV policy report card”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 381-393.
    6. Choi, Hyunhong & Lee, Jeongeun & Koo, Yoonmo, 2023. "Value of different electric vehicle charging facility types under different availability situations: A South Korean case study of electric vehicle and internal combustion engine vehicle owners," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    7. Zulfiqar Ali Lashari & Joonho Ko & Seunghyun Jung & Sungtaek Choi, 2022. "Choices of Potential Car Buyers Regarding Alternative Fuel Vehicles in South Korea: A Discrete Choice Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Jia, Wenjian & Chen, T. Donna, 2023. "Investigating heterogeneous preferences for plug-in electric vehicles: Policy implications from different choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    9. Nykvist, Björn & Sprei, Frances & Nilsson, Måns, 2019. "Assessing the progress toward lower priced long range battery electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 144-155.
    10. Lopez-Behar, Diana & Tran, Martino & Froese, Thomas & Mayaud, Jerome R. & Herrera, Omar E. & Merida, Walter, 2019. "Charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in Multi-Unit Residential Buildings: Mapping feedbacks and policy recommendations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 444-451.
    11. Mo Chen & Rudy X. J. Liu & Chaochao Liu, 2021. "How to Improve the Market Penetration of New Energy Vehicles in China: An Agent-Based Model with a Three-Level Variables Structure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Ranjit R. Desai & Eric Hittinger & Eric Williams, 2022. "Interaction of Consumer Heterogeneity and Technological Progress in the US Electric Vehicle Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, June.
    13. Kitt, Shelby & Axsen, Jonn & Long, Zoe & Rhodes, Ekaterina, 2021. "The role of trust in citizen acceptance of climate policy: Comparing perceptions of government competence, integrity and value similarity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    14. Ekaterina Rhodes & Kira Craig & Aaron Hoyle & Madeleine McPherson, 2021. "How Do Energy-Economy Models Compare? A Survey of Model Developers and Users in Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-39, May.
    15. Hernández-Tamurejo, Álvaro & Saiz-Sepúlveda, Álvaro & Lacárcel, Francisco Javier S., 2024. "Are urban mobility policies favoring the purchase of new vehicles?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    16. Sykes, Maxwell & Axsen, Jonn, 2017. "No free ride to zero-emissions: Simulating a region's need to implement its own zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate to achieve 2050 GHG targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 447-460.
    17. Du, Jiuyu & Li, Feiqiang & Li, Jianqiu & Wu, Xiaogang & Song, Ziyou & Zou, Yunfei & Ouyang, Minggao, 2019. "Evaluating the technological evolution of battery electric buses: China as a case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 309-319.
    18. Brett D. H. Williams & John B. Anderson, 2021. "Strategically Targeting Plug-In Electric Vehicle Rebates and Outreach Using “EV Convert” Characteristics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, March.
    19. Simona Bigerna & Silvia Micheli, 2018. "Attitudes Toward Electric Vehicles: The Case of Perugia Using a Fuzzy Set Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Choi, Hyunhong & Koo, Yoonmo, 2023. "New technology product introduction strategy with considerations for consumer-targeted policy intervention and new market entrant," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PA).

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0258209. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.