Elektrikli Araç Şarj İstasyonu Konumunun Belirlenmesinde Bulanık Mantık DEMATEL-CBS-TOPSIS Yaklaşımı

Year 2025, EARLY VIEW, 1 - 1

Burçin Paçacı , Kürşat Çubuk , Serpil Erol

https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.1670115

Abstract

Bu çalışma, elektrikli araçlar için uygun şarj istasyonu konumunun ve elektrikli araç şarj istasyonuna en fazla ihtiyaç duyulan ilçenin belirlenmesini ele almaktadır. Çalışma üç aşamadan oluşmaktadır. İlk olarak, elektrikli araç şarj istasyonu (EAŞİ), kentsellik bakımından on iki kritere göre Bulanık Mantık DEMATEL kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Kriterlerin arasında “Kara yolu” en yüksek önem ağırlığına sahip bulunmuştur. Çalışmanın ikinci aşamasında belirlenen kriterler dahilinde Ankara’nın tüm ilçelerini kapsayan uygunluk haritası hazırlanmıştır. QGIS’te gerçekleşen analizde EAŞİ için çok yüksek uygun alan, Ankara’nın %2.41’i olarak bulunmuştur. Son olarak, elde edilen uygunluk haritası dikkate alınarak alternatif ilçeler belirlenmiştir. Alternatif ilçelerin sıralamasında ulaşım hareketliliği dikkate alınmış, nüfus, EAŞİ ve turist sayısı kriterleri doğrultusunda TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılarak EAŞİ’ye en fazla ihtiyaç duyulan ilçelerin sıralaması yapılmıştır. İlçelerin sıralamasında ise Altındağ ilk sırada yer almıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan yöntemler, belirlenen kriterler ve elde edilen sonuçlar bu çalışmanın benzer çalışmalardan farklılığını göstermektedir. Hazırlanan bu çalışmanın EAŞİ altyapısının genişlemesine yönelik geliştirilecek stratejilere ve yer seçimine ilişkin hazırlanan çalışmalara katkı sağlaması beklemektedir.

Keywords

Sürdürülebilir ulaşım , EAŞİ , Bulanık Mantık DEMATEL , QGIS , TOPSIS

Fuzzy Logic DEMATEL-GIS-TOPSIS Approach for Determining Electric Vehicle Charging Station Location

Abstract

This study addresses the location of suitable charging stations for electric vehicles and the determination of the district with the greatest need for electric vehicle charging stations. The study consists of three stages. Firstly, the electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) was evaluated using Fuzzy Logic DEMATEL according to twelve criteria in terms of urbanity. Among the criteria, “Highway” was found to have the highest importance weight. In the second phase of the study, a suitability map covering all districts of Ankara was prepared within the scope of the criteria determined. In the analysis conducted at QGIS, the very high suitable area for EVCS was found to be 2,41% of Ankara. Lastly, alternative districts were determined by taking into account the suitability map obtained. In the ranking of alternative districts, transportation mobility was taken into account, and the districts with the greatest need for EVCS were ranked using TOPSIS method in line with the criteria of population, number of EVCS and tourist. In the ranking of the districts, Altındağ ranked first. It is expected that this study will contribute to the strategies to be developed for the expansion of the EVCS infrastructure and the studies prepared regarding the location selection.

Keywords

Sustainable transportation , EVCS , Fuzzy Logic DEMATEL , QGIS , TOPSIS

References

• [1] Chen, X., Rahaman, M. A., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H. ve Hossain, M. A. “Causality analysis of the impacts of petroleum use, economic growth, and technological innovation on carbon emissions in Bangladesh”, Energy, 267, 126565, (2023).
• [2] Olanrewaju B. T. ve Olubusoye O. E., “Reduction of petroleum consumption”, Affordable and Clean Energy, (2020).
• [3] Güler D. ve Yomralioğlu T., “Açık kaynak kodlu CBS yazılımı ve bulanık analitik hiyerarşi yöntemini içeren elektrikli araç şarj istasyonu yer seçimi önerisi”, Harita Dergisi, 163:17-28, (2020).
• [4] Zhang Q., Ou X., Yan X. ve Zhang X., “Electric vehicle market penetration and impacts on energy consumption and CO2 emission in the future: Beijing case”, Energies, 10(2):228, (2017).
• [5] Nong, D., Simshauser, P. ve Nguyen, D. B. “Greenhouse gas emissions vs CO2 emissions: Comparative analysis of a global carbon tax”, Applied Energy, 298, 117223, (2021).
• [6] İbik, T., “Ulaşım sektörünün hava kirliliği ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkisi: Akdeniz Bölgesi örneği”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 16(45):324-342, (2017).
• [7] https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ “TÜİK”, (2025).
• [8] Agency I.E., Technology Roadmap, (2009).
• [9] Mhana K.H. ve Awad H. A., “An ideal location selection of electric vehicle charging stations: Employment of integrated Analytical Hierarchy Process with Geographical Information System” Sustainable Cities and Society, 107:105456, (2024).
• [10] Yılmaz, M. “Türkiye’nin enerji potansiyeli ve yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının elektrik enerjisi üretimi açısından önemi”, Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 33-54, (2012).
• [11] Liu Z., Wen F. ve Ledwich G., “Optimal planning of electric-vehicle charging stations in distribution systems”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 28(1):102-110, (2012).
• [12] Singh P. P., Wen F., Palu I., Sachan S. ve Deb S., “Electric vehicles charging infrastructure demand and deployment: challenges and solutions”, Energies, 16(1):7, (2022).
• [13] https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/, “TÜİK”, (2025).
• [14] http://www.ankara.gov.tr/egitim, “Ankara valiliği”, (2025).
• [15] Le, C. T. D., Cao, T. B. O. ve Duc, D. N. “Optimizing biomass re-collection center locations for Vietnam'S growing bioenergy industry: An integrated Dematel and Gra approach”, Available at SSRN 5143350. (2025).
• [16] Atlı, H. F. “Safety of agricultural machinery and tractor maintenance planning with Fuzzy Logic and MCDM for agricultural productivity”, International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 8(1), 25-43, (2024).
• [17] Soltani, A. ve Imani, M. A. “Overcoming implementation barriers to renewable energy in developing nations: A case study of Iran using MCDM techniques and Monte Carlo simulation”, Results in Engineering, 24, 103213, (2024).
• [18] Danışan T. ve Eren T., “AFAD akreditasyon sistemi’ne başvuru yapan bir kuruluşta kentsel arama kurtarma ekibi için personel seçimi”, Politeknik Dergisi, 27(6):2161-2171, (2023).
• [19] Borjalilu N., Sazvar Z. ve Nayeri S., “An integrated method for airline company supplier selection based on the Entropy and Vikor methods: A real case study”, International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 8(4): 1, (2021).
• [20] Bakır M. ve Atalık Ö., “Application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MARCOS approach for the evaluation of E-service quality in the airline industry”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1):127-152, (2021).
• [21] Kaymaz Ç. K., Birinci S. ve Kızılkan Y., “Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(3):2986-3012, (2022).
• [22] Yıldırım R. ve Karadöl İ., “Çok kriterli karar verme metodu ile biyogaz üretimindeki en iyi enerji bitkisinin belirlenerek Türkiye ölçeğindeki enerji potansiyelinin hesaplanması”, Politeknik Dergisi, 28(1): 35-43, (2025).
• [23] Zhao, H., Wang, S. ve Lu, C. “A study on site selection of wind power plant based on prospect theory and VIKOR: A case study in China”, Kybernetes, (2024).
• [24] Eren, E. ve Katanalp, B. Y. “Fuzzy-based GIS approach with new MCDM method for bike-sharing station site selection according to land-use types”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 76, 103434, (2022).
• [25] Ahadi P., Fakhrabadi F., Pourshaghaghy A. ve Kowsary F., “Optimal site selection for a solar power plant in Iran via the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”, Renewable Energy, 215:118944, (2023).
• [26] Sakalli, B., Olgac, E. ve Karasan, A., “Site Selection with Fuzzy DEMATEL for a post-earthquake temporary Shelter in Türkiye. In 2024 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic) (pp. 235-240). IEEE, (2024).
• [27] Paçacı, B., Erol, S. ve Çubuk, K. “Çok modlu taşımacılığa uygun lojistik merkez yer seçimi için bir öneri: Türkiye uygulaması”, Politeknik Dergisi, 26(2), 923-928, (2023).
• [28] Chakraborty, S. ve Dolui, S. “Mapping alternative solid waste disposal sites using Fuzzy-DEMATEL method in coastal city of Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India)”, In Water, Land, and Forest Susceptibility and Sustainability (pp. 215-260). Academic Press, (2023).
• [29] Özdemir, A., Alaybeyoglu, A. ve Balbal, K. F. “Bulanık mantığın eğitim alanındaki uygulamaları”, Bilim Eğitim Sanat ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 3(1), 45-50, (2019).
• [30] Şimşek, S. ve Sev, A. “Yüksek yapılarda strüktürel sanatın bulanık mantık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi”, Megaron, 16(3), (2021).
• [31] Karcıoğlu, R., Yalçın, S. ve Gültekin, Ö. F. “Sezgisel bulanık mantık ve Entropi tabanlı çok kriterli karar verme yöntemiyle finansal performans analizi: BİST’de işlem gören enerji şirketleri üzerine bir uygulama”, MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(1), 360-372, (2020).
• [32] Aydın, Y. ve Eren, T. “Hava savunma sanayii alt yüklenici seçiminde bulanık mantık altında çok kriterli karar verme ve hedef programlama yöntemlerinin kullanılması”, Journal of Aviation, 2(1), 10-30, (2018).
• [33] Taştan, B. ve Bozkan, E. Z. “Rüzgâr enerji santrallerinin kuruluş yeri seçiminde CBS, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Analizi ve Bulanık Mantık yönteminin kullanılması: Kastamonu ili örneği”, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30(1), 172-190, (2025).
• [34] Polat, T. K. “Risk priority with Fuzzy Logic: Application of a textile factory”, Sakarya University Journal of Science, 23(2), 203-212, (2019).
• [35] Gökalp, Y. “Sağlık turizmi yatırımlarının etkinliğinin artırılmasına yönelik öncelikli stratejilerin küresel Bulanık TOP-DEMATEL yöntemiyle belirlenmesi”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 1-15, (2024).
• [36] Luo, N., Yu, H., You, Z., Li, Y., Zhou, T., Jiao, Y., ... ve Qiao, S. “Fuzzy Logic and Neural Network-based risk assessment model for import and export enterprises: A review”, Journal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems, 1(1), 2-11, (2023).
• [37] Lin, K. P., Tseng, M. L. ve Pai, P. F. “Sustainable supply chain management using approximate Fuzzy DEMATEL method”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 134-142, (2018).
• [38] Battal, Ü. “Türkiye’de havayolu taşımacılığının finansman sorunları: Dematel yöntemi uygulaması”, Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 96-111, (2018).
• [39] Abdullah, L., Zulkifli, N., Liao, H., Herrera-Viedma, E. ve Al-Barakati, A. “An interval-valued intuitionistic Fuzzy DEMATEL method combined with Choquet integral for sustainable solid waste management”, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 82, 207-215, (2019).
• [40] Dumanoğlu, S. ve Ergül, N. “İMKB’de işlem gören teknoloji şirketlerinin malî performans ölçümü”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (48), 101-111, (2010).
• [41] Gelashvili, T. “Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile performans değerlendirmesi: AHP, TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması”, Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi (Turkey), (2019).
• [42] Özüdoğru, H. ve Uzun, H. “Sigortacılık sektöründe hizmet kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi: AHS ve TOPSIS Yöntemi”, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(2), 1200-1225, (2024).
• [43] Çilhoroz, Y. “OECD ülkelerinin sağliğin yaşam biçimi belirleyicileri bakimindan Topsis yöntemiyle karşilaştirilmasi”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(2), 229-250, (2023).
• [44] Gögebakan, M. “Ülkelerin lojistik performanslarının Entropi tabanlı TOPSIS yöntemine göre sıralanması”, Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 5(2), 146-156, (2022).
• [45] Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H. ve Zhang, Y. “Evaluation on new first-tier smart cities in China based on Entropy method and TOPSIS”, Ecological Indicators, 145, 109616, (2022).
• [46] Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., Cenk, Z., Erdebilli, B., Özdemir, Y. S. ve Gholian-Jouybari, F. “Pythagorean Fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection in the food industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, 224, 120036, (2023).
• [47] Wu, H. W., Li, E. Q., Sun, Y. Y. ve Dong, B. T. “Research on the operation safety evaluation of urban rail stations based on the improved TOPSIS method and Entropy weight method”, Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, 20, 100262, (2021).
• [48] Sangaiah A. K., Gopal J., Basu A. ve Subramaniam P. R. “An integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome”, Neural Computing and Applications, 28:111-123, (2017).
• [49] Nasri S. A., Ehsani B., Hosseininezhad S. J. ve Safaie N. “A sustainable supplier selection method using integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–DEA approach (Case study: Petroleum Industry)”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(11):12791-12827, (2023).
• [50] Karaşan A. ve Kahraman C. “A novel intuitionistic Fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS integrated methodology for freight village location selection”, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(2):1335-1352, (2019).
• [51] Baykasoğlu A., Kaplanoğlu V., Durmuşoğlu Z. D. ve Şahin C. “Integrating Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy Hierarchical TOPSIS methods for truck selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, 40(3):899-907, (2013).
• [52] Mavi R. K., Kazemi S., Najafabadi A. F. ve Mousaabadi H. B. “Identification and assessment of logistical factors to evaluate a green supplier using the Fuzzy Logic DEMATEL method”, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 22(2):(2013).
• [53] Chakraborty, S. ve Dolui, S. Mapping alternative solid waste disposal sites using Fuzzy-DEMATEL method in coastal city of Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India). In Water, Land, and Forest Susceptibility and Sustainability (pp. 215-260). Academic Press. (2023).
• [54] Tzeng G. H., “Combination of Fuzzy-AHP and DEMATEL-ANP with GIS in a new hybrid MCDM model used for the selection of the best space for leisure in a blighted urban site”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(5):773-796, (2015).
• [55] Abkenari M. “Evaluation and prioritization of construction projects on the basis of risk factors using ANP-DEMATEL-TOPSIS integrated approach in fuzzy conditions”, Master’s thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi (DAÜ), (2014).
• [56] Jin G., Jin G. ve Huo H., “Selection of business process modeling tool with the application of Fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS method”, Axioms, 11(11):601, (2022).
• [57] Ertuğrul İ. ve Özçil A., “Bulanık Topsis ve Bulanık Dematel ile Sigorta firmaları performans analizi”, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1):175-200, (2016).
• [58] Kuzu, A. C. “Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL approach in maritime transportation: A risk analysis of anchor loss”, Ocean Engineering, 273, 113786, (2023).
• [59] Kaya, Ö., Tortum, A., Alemdar, K. D. ve Çodur, M. Y. Site selection for EVCS in Istanbul by GIS and multi-criteria decision-making. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 80, 102271, (2020).
• [60] Akay, H. “Flood hazards susceptibility mapping using statistical, Fuzzy Logic, and MCDM methods”, Soft Computing, 25(14), 9325-9346, (2021).
• [61] Zarin, R., Azmat, M., Naqvi, S. R., Saddique, Q. ve Ullah, S. “Landfill site selection by integrating Fuzzy Logic, AHP, and WLC method based on multi-criteria decision analysis”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 19726-19741, (2021).
• [62] Mallik, S., Mishra, U. ve Paul, N. “Groundwater suitability analysis for drinking using GIS based Fuzzy Logic”, Ecological indicators, 121, 107179, (2021).
• [63] Aghaloo, K., Ali, T., Chiu, Y. R. ve Sharifi, A. “Optimal site selection for the solar-wind hybrid renewable energy systems in Bangladesh using an integrated GIS-based BWM-Fuzzy logic method”, Energy Conversion and Management, 283, 116899, (2023).
• [64] Hoang, T. N., Ly, T. T. B. ve Do, H. T. T. “A hybrid approach of wind farm site selection using Group Best‐Worst Method and GIS‐Based Fuzzy Logic Relations. A case study in Vietnam”, Environmental Quality Management, 32(2), 251-267, (2022).
• [65] Erdin, C. ve Çağlar, M. “Rural fire risk assessment in GIS environment using Fuzzy Logic and the AHP approaches”, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 30(6), (2021).
• [66] Chaibi, M., Ben Ghoulam, E. M., Khallouk, N., Tarik, L., El Yousfi, Y., El Hmaidi, A., ... ve Mabrouki, J. “A novel Fuzzy-Multi-Criteria-GIS-Machine Learning approach for onshore wind power plant site selection”, Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration, 1-21, (2024).
• [67] Yayar, R. ve Baykara, H. V. “TOPSIS yöntemi ile katılım bankalarının etkinliği ve verimliliği üzerine bir uygulama”, Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(4), 21-42, (2012).
• [68] Frade I., Ribeiro A., Gonçalves G. ve Antunes A. P., “Optimal location of charging stations for electric vehicles in a neighborhood in Lisbon, Portugal”, Transportation Research Record, 2252(1):91-98, (2011).
• [69] Guo S. ve Zhao H., “Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using Fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective”, Applied Energy, 158:390-402, (2015).
• [70] Hosseini S. ve Sarder M. D., “Development of a Bayesian network model for optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station”, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 105:110-122, (2019).
• [71] Sang X., Yu X., Chang C. T. ve Liu X., “Electric bus charging station site selection based on the combined DEMATEL and PROMETHEE-PT framework”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 168:108116, (2022).
• [72] Kaya, Ö., Alemdar, K. D., Campisi, T., Tortum, A. ve Çodur, M. K. “The development of decarbonisation strategies: A three-step methodology for the suitable analysis of current EVCS locations applied to Istanbul, Turkey”, Energies, 14(10), 2756, (2021).
• [73] Rane N.L., et al., “An integrated GIS, MIF, and TOPSIS approach for appraising electric vehicle charging station suitability zones in Mumbai, India”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 97: 104717, (2023).
• [74] Yılmaz, I., Özceylan, E. ve Ali, S. S. “Enhancing electric vehicles charging stations decisions by GIS-based MACBETH and linguistic evaluations through mixed-integer novel model”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, (2025).
• [75] Sattar, M. D., Ranjha, S., Ekambaram, P., Sattar, M. A., Haque, R., Jahirul, M. I. ve Hassan, N. M. S. “Fuzzy AHP Multi-Criteria Decision Making and GIS mapping for EV charging infrastructure”, UniSC, (2024).
• [76] Yılmaz İ., Özceylan E. ve Mrugalska B., “A framework for evaluating electrical vehicle charging station location decisions in a spherical fuzzy environment: A case of shopping malls”, Annals of Operations Research, 1-25, (2023).
• [77] Erbaş M., Kabak M., Özceylan E. ve Çetinkaya C., “Optimal siting of electric vehicle charging stations: A GIS-based fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis”, Energy, 163:1017-1031, (2018).
• [78] Elomiya A., Křupka J., Jovčić S., Simic V., Švadlenka L. ve Pamucar D., “A hybrid suitability mapping model integrating GIS, machine learning, and multi-criteria decision analytics for optimizing service quality of electric vehicle charging stations”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 106:105397, (2024).
• [79] Sisman S., Ergul I. ve Aydınoglu A.C., “Designing GIS-based site selection model for urban investment planning in smart cities with the case of electric vehicle charging stations”, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 46:515-522, (2021).
• [80] Guler D. ve Yomralioglu T., “Suitable location selection for the electric vehicle fast charging station with AHP and fuzzy AHP methods using GIS”, Annals of GIS, 26(2): 169-189, (2020).
• [81] Linzhao S. “Site selection for EVCSs by GIS-based AHP method”, E3S Web of Conferences, (2020).
• [82] Bilgilioğlu S.S., “Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri ve Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci ile elektrikli araç şarj istasyonu yer seçimi” , Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(1):165-174, (2022).
• [83] Okta K., “Charging station placement for electric vehicles by using FAHP and K-Means clustering”, Master of Science, Republic of Türkiye Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University (2024).
• [84] Rashmitha Y., Sushma M. ve 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, 1-27, (2024).
• [85] Ghodusinejad M. H., Noorollahi Y. ve Zahedi R., “Optimal site selection and sizing of solar EV charge stations”, Journal of Energy Storage, 56:105904, (2022).
• [86] Sisman A., “Identification of suitable sites for electric vehicle charging stations; A geographical information systems based multi criteria decision making approach” Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 45(2):4017-4030, (2023).
• [87] Özçekiç E., “Electric vehicle charging station positioning problem: Multi-criteria decision making analysis with Entropy, CoCoSo and EDAS Methods”, Biga İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(3):187-202, (2024).
• [88] Wang, T. C. ve Lee, H. D. “Developing a Fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8980-8985, (2009).
• [89] Kumar, R. “A Comprehensive review of MCDM methods, applications, and emerging trends”, Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 185-199, (2025).
• [90] Tseng M. L. ve Lin Y. H., “Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL to develop a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila”, Environmental monitoring and assessment, 158:519-533, (2009).
• [91] Eroğlu, Ö. ve Gencer, C. “Bakım/onarım alternatiflerinin Bulanık Dematel ve Smaa-2 yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi”, Kara Harp Okulu Komutanlığı Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü Malzeme Tedarik ve Lojistik Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı, (2014).
• [92] Kuzu, A. C., “Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL approach in maritime transportation: A risk analysis of anchor loss”, Ocean Engineering, 273, 113786, (2023).
• [93] Orji, I. J. ve Wei, S., “An innovative integration of Fuzzy-logic and systems dynamics in sustainable supplier selection: A case on manufacturing industry”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 88, 1-12, (2015).
• [94] Eroğlu, Ö. ve Gencer, C. “Integrating Fuzzy DEMATEL and SMAA-2 for maintenance expenses”, International Journal of Engineering Science Invention, 6(2), 60-71, (2017).
• [95] Gharakhani, D. “The evaluation of supplier selection criteria by Fuzzy DEMATEL method”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(4), 3215-3224, (2012).
• [96] George-Ufot, G., Qu, Y. ve Orji, I. J., “Sustainable lifestyle factors influencing industries’ electric consumption patterns using Fuzzy Logic and DEMATEL: The Nigerian perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 624-634, (2017).
• [97] Aksakal, E. ve Dağdeviren, M., “ANP ve DEMATEL yöntemleri ile personel seçimi problemine bütünleşik bir yaklaşım”, Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), (2010).
• [98] https://www.qgis.org/tr/site/, “QGIS”, (2024).
• [99] https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ , “EarthExplorer”, (2025).
• [100] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/39.031/35.252, “OpenStreetMap”, (2025).
• [101] Orçun, Ç. ve Eren, B. S. “TOPSIS yöntemi ile finansal performans değerlendirmesi: XUTEK üzerinde bir uygulama”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (75), 139-154, (2017).
• [102] Arıbaş M. ve Özcan U., “Akademik araştırma projelerinin AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleri kullanılarak değerlendirilmesi”, Politeknik Dergisi, 19(2):163-173, (2016).
• [103] https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/Icerik/3-0-0-87/lisans, “EPDK”, (2025).
• [104] https://www.ktb.gov.tr/, “T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı”, (2025).
• [105] Yu, Y., Li, S., Sun, H. ve Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., “Energy carbon emission reduction of China’s transportation sector: An input–output approach”, Economic Analysis and Policy, 69, 378-393, (2021).
• [106] Mastoi, M. S., Zhuang, S., Munir, H. M., Haris, M., Hassan, M., Usman, M., ... ve Ro, J. S. “An in-depth analysis of electric vehicle charging station infrastructure, policy implications, and future trends”, Energy Reports, 8, 11504-11529, (2022).