An Application on Electric Vehicle Charging Station Site Selection With Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

Abstract

As the population grows and vehicles are increasingly owned, emissions from fossil fuels are worsening environmental problems. In this context, electric vehicles (EVs) present a significant alternative for the development of sustainable transportation systems. However, for electric vehicles (EVs) to become a prevalent form of transportation, the establishment of an effective and efficient charging infrastructure is imperative. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain the most suitable location for the installation of an electric vehicle (EV) charging station within the Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University Yalnızbag Campus. During site selection, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and TOPSIS methods were used to evaluate the criteria. The study was conducted in two stages. In the first, seven active-use transformers on campus were weighed using the AHP method, then the most suitable one was selected using the TOPSIS method.In the second, seven parking areas were analysed using the same criteria. The parking lot selection used the AHP and TOPSIS methods, considering faculty and campus entrance distance, lot capacity and transformer preference score.

Keywords

• Electric Vehicle
• Transportation Planning
• MCDM

References

1. 1. Kaya Ö, Tortum A, Alemdar KD, Çodur MY. Site selection for EVCS in Istanbul by GIS and multi-criteria decision-making. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2020; 80:102271.
2. 2. Xylia M, Leduc S, Patrizio P, Kraxner F, Silveira S. Locating charging infrastructure for electric buses in Stockholm. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2017; 78:183–200.
3. 3. Asnaz MSK, Özdemir B. Optimal positioning of electric vehicle charging stations using multi-criteria decision-making methods. J Intell Transp Syst Appl. 2021;4(2):175–87.
4. 4. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). J Oper Res Soc. 1980;41(11):1073–6.
5. 5. Uygurtürk H, Korkmaz T. Determination of financial performance with TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making method: An application on basic metal industry enterprises. Eskişehir Osmangazi Univ J Econ Adm Sci. 2012;7(2):95–115.
6. 6. Karabıçak Ç, Boyacı Aİ, Akay MK, Özcan B. Multi-criteria decision-making methods and an application on highway construction site selection. Kastamonu Univ J Fac Econ Adm Sci. 2016;13(3):106–21.
7. 7. Alkan T, Atiz ÖF, Durduran SS. Selection of suitable locations for electric vehicle charging stations using AHP method: Konya example. Nigde Omer Halisdemir Univ J Eng Sci. 2023;12(1):1.
8. 8. Saha A, Roy R. An integrated approach to identify suitable areas for built-up development using GIS-based multi-criteria analysis and AHP in Siliguri planning area, India. SN Appl Sci. 2021; 3:1–17.

9. 9. Erbaş M, Kabak M, Özceylan E, Çetinkaya C. Optimal siting of electric vehicle charging stations: A GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy. 2018; 163:1017–31.
10. 10. Bilgilioğlu SS. Electric vehicle charging station location selection using geographic information systems and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Afyon Kocatepe Univ J Sci Eng. 2022;22(1):165–74.
11. 11. Khalkhali K, et al. Application of data envelopment analysis theorem in plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging station planning. IET Gener Transm Distrib. 2015;9(7):666–76.
12. 12. https://ebyu.edu.tr/ (Access Date: 06.12.2024)
13. 13. Akar AU, Yalpir S, Sisman S, Goktepeli G, Yel E. A deterministic approach in waste management: Delineation of potential territories in Turkey for industrial symbiosis of olive pomace, marble wastes and plastics by integrating Fuzzy AHP to GIS. Environ Dev Sustain. 2023;25(6):5635–62.
14. 14. Saaty TL. How to decide: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 1990;48(1):9–26.
15. 15. Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P. Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput. 2004;5(1):23–33.
16. 16. Supçiller A, Çapraz O. Supplier selection application based on AHP-TOPSIS method. Istanbul Univ Econom Stat e-Journal. 2011;(13):1–22.
17. 17. Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Berlin: Springer; 1981.
18. 18. Tsaur SH, Chang TY, Yen CH. The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Manag. 2002; 23:107–15.
19. 19. Yurdakul M, İç YT. A case study using TOPSIS method for performance measurement and analysis of Turkish automotive companies. Gazi Univ Fac Eng Arch J. 2003;18(1):1–13.
20. 20. Shyjith K, Ilangkumaran M, Kumanan S. Multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry. J Qual Maint Eng. 2008;14(4):375–86.