Decision-Aiding Evaluation of Public Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Cities and Resorts of Lithuania

In the National Communication Development of 2014–2022 Program and Guidelines of the Development of the Public Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure confirmed by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, it is planned that, until the year of 2025, among newly registered vehicles, electric ones should make at least 10%. Analysis of the trend of electric vehicles makes evident that the target does not have a real chance to be achieved without targeted efforts. In order to improve the infrastructure of electric vehicles in major cities and resorts of Lithuania, we have carried out a comparative analysis of public infrastructure for electric vehicles in 18 Lithuanian cities and resorts. For the quantitative analysis, we proposed eight criteria describing such an infrastructure. As perception of the infrastructure by owners of electric cars depends on complex factors, we used multiple criteria evaluation methods (MCDM) for evaluation of the current state of its development by four such methods: EDAS, SAW, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE II. Based on the evaluation results, prominent and lagging factors were understood, and proposals for effective development of public infrastructure of electric vehicles were proposed for improvement of the infrastructure.

[1]  Zhe Li,et al.  A comparative study of commercial lithium ion battery cycle life in electrical vehicle: Aging mechanism identification , 2014 .

[2]  Jurgita Antucheviciene,et al.  A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria , 2017 .

[3]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  The Selection of Wagons for the Internal Transport of a Logistics Company: A Novel Approach Based on Rough BWM and Rough SAW Methods , 2017, Symmetry.

[4]  M A Delucchi,et al.  An assessment of electric vehicles: technology, infrastructure requirements, greenhouse-gas emissions, petroleum use, material use, lifetime cost, consumer acceptance and policy initiatives , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[5]  Cengiz Kahraman,et al.  Multi-criteria evaluation of alternative-fuel vehicles via a hierarchical hesitant fuzzy linguistic model , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[6]  Michael Naor,et al.  Overcoming barriers to adoption of environmentally-friendly innovations through design and strategy , 2015 .

[7]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) , 2015, Informatica.

[8]  André Sternberg,et al.  Power-to-What? : Environmental assessment of energy storage systems , 2015 .

[9]  Christoph M. Flath,et al.  Impact of electric vehicles on distribution substations: A Swiss case study , 2015 .

[10]  Jurgita Antucheviciene,et al.  Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability issues , 2016 .

[11]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[12]  Davide Fiorello,et al.  Analysis of European Mobility Surveys and their Potential to Support Studies on the Impact of Electric Vehicles on Energy and Infrastructure Needs in Europe , 2014 .

[13]  Huiru Zhao,et al.  Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective , 2015 .

[14]  Yi-Hsuan Hung,et al.  Using Hybrid MCDM Methods to Assess Fuel Cell Technology for the Next Generation of Hybrid Power Automobiles , 2011, J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Informatics.

[15]  B. Wee,et al.  The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption , 2014 .

[16]  İhsan Kaya,et al.  Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey , 2017 .

[17]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies , 2016 .

[18]  Jarosław Wątróbski,et al.  Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics , 2017 .

[19]  Zhenhong Lin,et al.  Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: An activity-based approach using multiday travel data , 2014 .

[20]  Huiru Zhao,et al.  Optimal Siting of Charging Stations for Electric Vehicles Based on Fuzzy Delphi and Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches from an Extended Sustainability Perspective , 2016 .

[21]  A. Podviezko,et al.  Evaluation of Park and Ride Facilities at Communication Corridors in a Middle-Sized City , 2017 .

[22]  Laurencas Raslavičius,et al.  Electric vehicles challenges and opportunities: Lithuanian review , 2015 .

[23]  Changhyun Kwon,et al.  Multi-period planning for electric car charging station locations: A case of Korean Expressways , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[24]  Marija Burinskienė,et al.  The Usage and Perception of Pedestrian Zones in Lithuanian Cities: Multiple Criteria and Comparative Analysis , 2018 .

[25]  Valentinas Podvezko,et al.  Assessing the Performance of the Construction Sectors in the Baltic States and Poland , 2017 .

[26]  Askoldas Podviezko,et al.  Evaluating the Significance of Criteria Contributing to Decision-Making on Brownfield Land Redevelopment Strategies in Urban Areas , 2017 .

[27]  Valentinas Podvezko,et al.  Sustainable Assessment of Aerosol Pollution Decrease Applying Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods , 2016 .

[28]  Ali Zockaie,et al.  Optimization of incentive polices for plug-in electric vehicles , 2016 .

[29]  S. Kilius,et al.  Investigation of Prospects for Electric Vehicle Development in Lithuania , 2014 .

[30]  Hu-Chen Liu,et al.  Hesitant fuzzy integrated MCDM approach for quality function deployment: a case study in electric vehicle , 2017, Int. J. Prod. Res..

[31]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[32]  Joao P. S. Catalao,et al.  Economic and technical aspects of plug-in electric vehicles in electricity markets , 2016 .

[33]  Abbas Mardani,et al.  Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014 , 2015 .

[34]  Stefan Hüsig,et al.  Why has the introduction of natural gas vehicles failed in Germany?—Lessons on the role of market failure in markets for alternative fuel vehicles , 2015 .

[35]  Jeremy Neubauer,et al.  The impact of range anxiety and home, workplace, and public charging infrastructure on simulated battery electric vehicle lifetime utility , 2014 .

[36]  Andrius Vilkauskas,et al.  Performance of an all-electric vehicle under UN ECE R101 test conditions: A feasibility study for the city of Kaunas, Lithuania , 2013 .

[37]  Valentinas Podvezko,et al.  MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius , 2017 .

[38]  Dayang Yu,et al.  A Systematic Planning Method for the Electric Vehicles Charging Service Network , 2015 .

[39]  Kebin He,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas and air emissions of electric vehicles: A comparison between China and the U.S. , 2015 .

[40]  Morteza Yazdani,et al.  A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[41]  Haobo Zhang,et al.  Optimal Site Selection of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Based on a Cloud Model and the PROMETHEE Method , 2016 .

[42]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in transportation systems: a systematic review of the state of the art literature , 2015 .

[43]  Jamshid Aghaei,et al.  Contribution of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in power system uncertainty management , 2016 .