Strategic selection of electric vehicles in the context of smart city development in Albania using the fuzzy MCDM methods

Authors

  • Arianit Peci Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Economics and Agribusiness, Agricultural University of Tirana, 1025 Rruga Paisi Vodica, Albania
  • Adis Puška Department of Public Safety, Government of Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76100 Brčko, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Dragan Pamučar Széchenyi István University, 9026 Győr, Hungary
  • Darko Božanić Military Academy, University of Defence in Belgrade, 11042 Belgrade, Serbia
Article ID: 548
118 Views

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18686/cest548

Keywords:

MCDM; electric vehicles; fuzzy LMAW; fuzzy LOPCOW; fuzzy RAWEC

Abstract

The automotive industry is undergoing a significant transformation towards electric vehicles (EVs) with the main goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for a sustainable and green environment. Different types of EVs are introduced every day in the market where selecting an optimal vehicle for purchase constitutes a complex decision-making. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to evaluate EVs in Albania using multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM). A total of 12 vehicles were analyzed based on 4 main criteria and 12 sub-criteria. The fuzzy Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights (LMAW) method was applied to find the weights of the main criteria while the fuzzy Logarithmic Percentage Change-driven Objective Weighting (LOPCOW) method was applied to find the weights of the sub-criteria. For the EV ranking, the fuzzy Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) method was applied. The findings showed that the most important criteria are the technical criteria and the Auto 11 vehicle showed the best results. The combination of Fuzzy LMAW-Fuzzy LOPCOW-Fuzzy RAWEC methods also constitutes the novelty of this research, which has not been applied before in this field. The contribution of this research consists in providing a comprehensive set of selection criteria to choose the best alternative of the EV fleet in Albania. Furthermore, the contribution of this research was the application of a hybrid methodology in the evaluation and selection of an electric vehicle as an ongoing choice faced by vehicle buyers.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-05

How to Cite

Peci, A., Puška, A., Pamučar, D., & Božanić, D. (2026). Strategic selection of electric vehicles in the context of smart city development in Albania using the fuzzy MCDM methods. Clean Energy Science and Technology, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.18686/cest548

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026)

Section

Article

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Arianit Peci, Adis Puška, Dragan Pamučar, Darko Božanić

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

1. Zhang P, Zhang H, Sun X, et al. Research on carbon emission standards of automobile industry in BRI participating countries. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption. 2023; 8: 100106. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100106

2. Estevez R, Aguado-Deblas L, López-Tenllado F, et al. Internal combustion engines and carbon-neutral fuels: A perspective on emission neutrality in the European Union. Energies. 2024; 17(5): 1172. doi: 10.3390/en17051172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051172

3. Fischer S, Hermán B, Sysyn M, et al. Quantitative analysis and optimization of energy efficiency in electric multiple units. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering. 2025; 23(2): 351. doi: 10.22190/fume241103001f DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME241103001F

4. Aydın MM, Dağlı E, Gitolendia B. Intelligent Urban mobility and traffic management: A case study of smart intersection implementation and E-mobility integration in Trabzon, Türkiye. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision. 2025; 4(2): 148–172. doi: 10.56578/jimd040205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/jimd040205

5. Sadiq Okoh A, Chidi Onuoha M. Immediate and future challenges of using electric vehicles for promoting energy efficiency in Africa's clean energy transition. Global Environmental Change. 2024; 84: 102789. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102789 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102789

6. Komatina N. A Novel BWM-RADAR Approach for Multi-Attribute Selection of Equipment in the Automotive Industry. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research. 2025; 2(1): 104–120. doi: 10.31181/smeor21202531 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor21202531

7. Channi HK. Optimizing electric vehicle charging infrastructure: A site selection strategy for Ludhiana, India. Mechatronics and Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2024; 3(3): 179–189. doi: 10.56578/mits030304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/mits030304

8. Mandys F. Electric vehicles and consumer choices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2021; 142: 110874. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110874 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110874

9. Ziemba P. Selection of electric vehicles for the needs of sustainable transport under conditions of uncertainty—A comparative study on fuzzy MCDA methods. Energies. 2021; 14(22): 7786. doi: 10.3390/en14227786 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227786

10. Alosaimi W, Ansari MTJ, Alharbi A, et al. Toward a unified model approach for evaluating different electric vehicles. Energies. 2021; 14(19): 6120. doi: 10.3390/en14196120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196120

11. Dwivedi PP, Sharma DK. Evaluation and ranking of battery electric vehicles by Shannon's entropy and TOPSIS methods. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. 2023; 212: 457–474. doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2023.05.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2023.05.013

12. Tadić D, Lukić J, Komatina N, et al. A fuzzy decision-making approach to electric vehicle evaluation and ranking. Tehnički vjesnik. 2025; 32(3): 1066–1075. Doi: 10.17559/TV-20250223002410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20250223002410

13. Ersoy N, Mai NT, Thinh HX. Applying MCDM methods for electric vehicle selection: A comparative study between CRADIS and PIV methods. Journal of Applied Engineering Science. 2025; 23(2): 345–358. doi: 10.5937/jaes0-56793 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-56793

14. Ren X, Sun S, Yuan R. A study on selection strategies for battery electric vehicles based on sentiments, analysis, and the MCDM model. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2021; 2021(1): 9984343. doi: 10.1155/2021/9984343 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9984343

15. Das MC, Pandey A, Mahato AK, et al. Comparative performance of electric vehicles using evaluation of mixed data. Opsearch. 2019; 56(3): 1067–1090. doi: 10.1007/s12597-019-00398-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00398-9

16. Sonar HC, Kulkarni SD. An Integrated AHP-MABAC approach for electric vehicle selection. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2021; 41: 100665. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100665 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100665

17. Grdinić-Rakonjac M, Lučić M. Electric vehicle selection with easy applicable MCDM methods. Transportation Research Procedia. 2025; 90: 782–789. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2025.06.079 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2025.06.079

18. Şimşek Aİ, Gür YE, Ünal E. Innovative MCDM-ML algorithms-based decision-support system for electric vehicle selection. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2025; 1–26. doi: 10.1007/s10668-025-06476-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06476-x

19. Wei Q, Zhou C. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for electric vehicle supplier selection of government agencies and public bodies in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022; 30(4): 10540–10559. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-22783-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22783-6

20. Wang N, Xu Y, Puška A, et al. Multi-criteria selection of electric delivery vehicles using fuzzy–rough methods. Sustainability. 2023; 15(21): 15541. doi: 10.3390/su152115541 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115541

21. 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 2(3), 117-129. doi: 10.56578/jimd020302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/jimd020302

22. Tarafdar A, Shaikh A, Bhowmik D, et al. Integration of data-driven T-spherical fuzzy mathematical models for evaluation of electric vehicles: Response to electric vehicle market demands. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2025; 223: 116008. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.116008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.116008

23. Sarfraz M, Gul R. An Aczel-Alsina T-Spherical Fuzzy Framework for the Electric Vehicle Selection. Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences. 2025; 3(1): 158–174. doi: 10.31181/sems31202543s DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sems31202543s

24. Kucuksari S, Pamucar D, Deveci M, et al. A new rough ordinal priority-based decision support system for purchasing electric vehicles. Information Sciences. 2023; 647: 119443. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2023.119443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119443

25. Stević Ž, Baydaş M, Kavacık M, et al. Selection of data conversion technique via sensitivity-performance matching: ranking of small e-vans with PROBID method. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering. 2024; 22(4): 643–671. doi: 10.22190/FUME240305023S DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME240305023S

26. Yardım MF, Yüksel S, Dinçer H. Development of optimal investment strategies for electric vehicle charging stations with a novel decision-making technique. Journal of Operations Intelligence. 2025; 3(1): 68–75. doi: 10.31181/jopi31202534 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/jopi31202534

27. Biswas A, Gazi KH, et al. Neutrosophic fuzzy decision-making framework for site selection. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing. 2024; 4(1): 187–215. doi: 10.31181/jdaic10004122024b DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10004122024b

28. Basuri T, Gazi KH, Bhaduri P, et al. Decision-analytics-based Sustainable Location Problem - Neutrosophic CRITIC-COPRAS assessment model. Management Science Advances. 2025; 2(1): 19–58. doi: 10.31181/msa2120257 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/msa2120257

29. de Oliveira MS, Steffen V, Trojan F. Systematic literature review on electric vehicles and multicriteria decision making: Trends, rankings, and future perspectives. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision. 2024; 3(1): 22–41. doi: 10.56578/jimd030103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/jimd030103

30. Puška A, Bosna J, Stojanović I. Application of new method evaluation by distance from ideal solution of alternatives in the assessment of electric vehicles. Advanced Engineering Letters. 2025; 4(2): 92–103. doi: 10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.2.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.2.5

31. Gupta P, Toksha B, Patel B, et al. Recent Developments and Research Avenues for Polymers in Electric Vehicles. The Chemical Record. 2022; 22(11): e202200186. doi: 10.1002/tcr.202200186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tcr.202200186

32. Peci A, Puška A, Marinković D, et al. Evaluation of tractors based on sustainability criteria using multi-criteria decision-making methods. Engineering Review. 2025; 45(1): 131–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30765/er.2706

33. Pradhan P, Shabbiruddin, Pradhan S. 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. 2022; 44(2): 2651–2673. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2022.2056665 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2022.2056665

34. Rashmitha Y, Sushma MB, Roy S. A novel multi-criteria framework for selecting optimal sites for electric vehicle charging stations from a sustainable perspective: evidence from India. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2024;1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-05746-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05746-4

35. Lazuardy A, Nurcahyo R, Kristiningrum E, et al. Technological, environmental, economic, and regulation barriers to electric vehicle adoption: Evidence from Indonesia. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2024; 15(9): 422. doi: 10.3390/wevj15090422 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15090422

36. Mustafovski R. Formula-based Architectural Framework of the SecuDroneComm Platform for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Communications. Management Science Advances. 2025; 2(1): 288–303. doi: 10.31181/msa21202525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/msa21202525

37. Van Gysel JEL, Vigus M, Chun J, et al. Designing a uniform meaning representation for natural language processing. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz. 2021; 35(3–4): 343–360. doi: 10.1007/s13218-021-00722-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-021-00722-w

38. Kaya Ö, Alemdar KD, Atalay A, et al. Electric car sharing stations site selection from the perspective of sustainability: A GIS-based multi-criteria decision making approach. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2022; 52: 102026. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102026

39. Li D, Wan G, Rong Y. An enhanced spherical cubic fuzzy WASPAS method and its application for the assessment of service quality of crowdsourcing logistics platform. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications. 2026; 3(1): 100–123. doi: 10.31181/sdmap31202641 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202641

40. Sanyal A, Biswas S, Sur S. An integrated full consistent LOPCOW-EDAS framework for modelling consumer decision making for organic food selection. YUJOR. 2025; 35(2): 331–364. doi: 10.2298/yjor240315022s DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/YJOR240315022S

41. Trung D, Truong N, Duc D, et al. Data normalization in RAWEC method: Limitations and remedies. YUJOR. 2025; 35(3): 467–482. doi: 10.2298/yjor240315020t DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/YJOR240315020T

42. Pamučar D, Žižović M, Biswas S, et al. A new logarithm methodology of additive weights (LMAW) for multi-criteria decision-making: Application in logistics. Facta universitatis, series: mechanical engineering. 2021; 19(3): 361–380. doi: 10.22190/FUME210214031P DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210214031P

43. Ecer F, Pamucar D. A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega. 2022; 112: 102690. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690

44. Demir G, Chatterjee P. Prioritizing sustainability criteria in green supplier selection using fuzzy logarithmic percentage change-driven objective weighting (FLOPCOW) method. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision. 2025; 4(3): 212–223. doi: 10.56578/jimd040303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/jimd040303

45. Puška A, Štilić A, Pamučar D, et al. Introducing a novel multi-criteria ranking of alternatives with weights of criterion (RAWEC) model. MethodsX. 2024; 12: 102628. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2024.102628 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102628

46. Durmuș Z. Assessment of renewable energy performance in turkey using a novel integrated MSD-CRITIC-RAWEC model. Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics. 2025; 3(1): 49–64. doi: 10.56578/josa030105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/josa030105

47. Yürüyen AA, Ulutaş A. Assessing the urban competitiveness of European cities using LOPCOW-RAWEC methodologies. International Journal of Knowledge and Innovation Studies. 2024; 2(3): 179–189. doi: 10.56578/ijkis020305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56578/ijkis020305

48. Rong Y, Yu L, Liu Y, et al. The FMEA model based on LOPCOW-ARAS methods with interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy information for risk assessment of R&D projects in industrial robot offline programming systems. Computational and Applied Mathematics. 2023; 43(1): 25. doi: 10.1007/s40314-023-02532-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-023-02532-2

49. Jiang Q, Wang H, Tang L. Robust fuzzy decision support framework for comprehensive evaluating of food supply chain performance. IEEE Access. 2024; 12: 188874–188889. doi: 10.1109/access.2024.3471768 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3471768

50. Katrancı A, Kundakcı N, Arman K. Fuzzy SIWEC and Fuzzy RAWEC methods for sustainable waste disposal technology selection. Spectrum of Operational Research. 2026; 87–102. doi: 10.31181/sor31202633 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202633

51. Demir G. Selection of Biomass Resources with Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: Alternatives for Sustainable Energy Production. Journal of Operations Intelligence. 2025; 3(1): 156–174. doi: 10.31181/jopi31202537 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/jopi31202537

52. Zoraghi N, Amiri M, Talebi G, et al. A fuzzy MCDM model with objective and subjective weights for evaluating service quality in hotel industries. Journal of Industrial Engineering International. 2013; 9(1): 38. doi: 10.1186/2251-712x-9-38 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-712X-9-38

53. Dhruva S, Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS, et al. Selection of waste treatment methods for food sources: an integrated decision model using q-rung fuzzy data, LOPCOW, and COPRAS techniques. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. 2025; 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s10098-025-03160-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-025-03160-6

54. Razak SA, Rodzi ZM, Al-Sharqi F, et al. Revolutionizing decision-making in e-commerce and it procurement: An IVPNS-COBRA linguistic variable framework for enhanced multi-criteria analysis. International Journal of Economic Sciences. 2025; 14(1): 1–31. doi: 10.31181/ijes1412025176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/ijes1412025176

55. Tešić D, Khalilzadeh M. Development of the rough defining interrelationships between ranked criteria ii method and its application in the mcdm model. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing. 2024; 4(1): 153–164. doi: 10.31181/jdaic10009102024t DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10009102024t

56. Mishra AR, Rani P. Evaluating and prioritizing blockchain networks using intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research. 2025; 2(1): 78–92. doi: 10.31181/smeor21202527 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor21202527

57. Fujita T. The HYPERFUZZY VIKOR and HYPERFUZZY DEMATEL methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications. 2026; 3(1): 292–315. doi: 10.31181/sdmap31202654 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202654

58. Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, et al. A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering. 2018; 18(1): 32–49. doi: 10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011

59. Opricovic S. Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011; 38(10): 12983–12990. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097

60. Kamarul Zaman MM, Rodzi ZM, Andu Y, et al. Adaptive utility ranking algorithm for evaluating blockchain-enabled microfinance in emerging - a new MCDM perspective. International Journal of Economic Sciences. 2025; 14(1): 123–146. doi: 10.31181/ijes1412025182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/ijes1412025182

61. Dehshiri SJH. Sustainable Supplier selection based on a comparative decision-making approach under uncertainty. Spectrum of Operational Research. 2026; 3(1): 238–251. doi: 10.31181/sor31202644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202644

62. Thi Thu Trang B, Duc Trung D, Turmanidze R. A novel approach for criteria weighting to enhance ranking stability of alternatives for industrial equipment and material selection. Advanced Engineering Letters. 2025; 4(3): 118–133. doi: 10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.2

63. Trung DD, Diep MT, et al. Application of probability theory in machine selection. Applied Engineering Letters: journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2024; 9(4): 203–214. doi: 10.46793/aeletters.2024.9.4.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46793/aeletters.2024.9.4.3