The proliferation of motorized vehicles over the past century has significantly intensified environmental challenges, particularly in densely populated urban areas. This study aims to identify the most appropriate electric bus (EB) supplier to support Istanbul's sustainable public transportation goals. To account for both data-driven objectivity and behavioral decision-making biases often present in procurement contexts, the study integrates a behavioral decision-making technique (TODIM), grounded in Prospect Theory, with an objective Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights (IDOCRIW). Applying the model to secondary data from Istanbul Electric Tram and Tunnel Enterprises (IETT), S1 was ranked as the top supplier with a normalized dominance score of 1.000, outperforming the second-best alternative (S2, 0.865). The results demonstrate the robustness of the proposed model in effectively differentiating between supplier options using both objective and behaviorally sensitive criteria. These findings provide practical guidance to municipal transportation authorities and policymakers seeking to reduce emissions and improve operational efficiency through data-informed EB procurement decisions. This study is the first to apply an integrated IDOCRIW-TODIM framework to electric bus supplier selection, utilizing real operational data from a major emerging-market metropolis. It offers both methodological innovation and context-specific decision support, which are largely absent in the existing literature.
AboushaqrahN. N.OnatN. C.KucukvarM.HamoudaA. M. S.KusakciA. O.AyvazB. (2021). Selection of alternative fuel taxis: A hybridized approach of life cycle sustainability assessment and multi-criteria decision making with neutrosophic sets. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 16(9),833–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2021.1943075
2.
AldeniusM.MullenC.Pettersson-LöfstedtF. (2022). Electric buses in England and Sweden—overcoming barriers to introduction. Transp Res D Transp Environ, 104, 103204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103204
3.
AliT.ChiuY. R.AghalooK.NahianA. J.MaH. (2020). Prioritizing the existing power generation technologies in Bangladesh’s clean energy scheme using a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model. J Clean Prod, 267, 121901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121901
4.
AndreicaM. E.DobreI.AndreicaM. I.ResteanuC. (2010). A new portfolio selection method based on interval data. Stud Inf Control, 19(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.24846/v19i3y201005
5.
AydınS.KahramanC. (2014). Vehicle selection for public transportation using an integrated multi-criteria decision making approach: A case of Ankara. J Intell Fuzzy Syst, 26(5), 2467–2481. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-13091
BiswasT. K.DasM. C. (2019). Selection of commercially available electric vehicle using fuzzy AHP-MABAC. J Inst Eng (India) Ser C, 100(3), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40032-018-0481-3
BoussemartJ. P.LeleuH.TibaS. (2017). The future of biodiesel as a global transportation fuel in the European union: A long-term outlook. Energy Policy, 109, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.032
10.
BradyJ.O’MahonyM. (2011). Travel to work in Dublin: The potential impacts of electric vehicles on climate change and urban air quality. Transp Res D Transp Environ, 16(2), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.09.006
11.
BüyüközkanG.FeyzioğluO.GöçerF. (2018). Selection of sustainable urban transportation alternatives using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy choquet integral approach. Transp Res D Transp Environ, 58, 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.005
12.
CorreaG.MuñozP.FalaguerraT.RodriguezC. R. (2017). Performance comparison of conventional, hybrid, hydrogen and electric urban buses using well-to-wheel analysis. Energy, 141, 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.066
13.
DasM. C.PandeyA.MahatoA. K.SinghR. K. (2019). Comparative performance of electric vehicles using evaluation of mixed data. Opsearch, 56(3), 1067–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00398-9
14.
DeakinM.CurwellS.LombardiP. (2002). Sustainable urban development: The framework and directory of assessment methods. J Environ Assess Policy Manag, 4(2), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333202000978
15.
de Briñas GorosabelO. L.XyliaM.SilveiraS. (2022). A framework for the assessment of electric bus charging station construction: A case study for Stockholm's inner city. Sustain Cities Soc, 78, 103610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103610
16.
EcerF. (2021). A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 143, 110916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916
17.
Global Traffic Scorecard. (2021). Inrix [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://inrix.com/scorecard/.
18.
GöhlichD.FayT. A.JefferiesD.LauthE.KunithA.ZhangX. (2018). Design of urban electric bus systems. Des Sci, 4, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2018.10
19.
GomesL.RangelL. (2009). An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur J Oper Res, 193(1), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.10.046
20.
GomesL. F. A.LimaM. M. P. P. (1991). TODIMI: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking. Found Comput Decis Sci, 16(3–4), 1–16.
21.
GongJ.HeJ.ChengC.KingM.YanX.HeZ., et al. (2020). Road test-based electric bus selection: A case study of the Nanjing bus company. Energies, 13(5), 1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051253
22.
GorcunO. F.SenthilS.KüçükönderH. (2021). Evaluation of tanker vehicle selection using a novel hybrid fuzzy MCDM technique. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng, 4(2), 140–162. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402140g
23.
GuoS.ZhaoH. (2015). Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective. Appl Energy, 158, 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.082
24.
HamurcuM.ErenT. (2020). Electric bus selection with multicriteria decision analysis for green transportation. Sustainability, 12(7), 2777. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072777
25.
HussainM.HanH. (2018). Hydrogen as a fuel for transport: Current status and future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 82(2), 1909–1924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.058
JunqueraB.MorenoB.ÁlvarezR. (2016). Analyzing consumer attitudes towards electric vehicle purchasing intentions in Spain: Technological limitations and vehicle confidence. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 109, 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.006
28.
KalenderZ. T.KilicH. S.TuzkayaG.DasciogluB. G. (2020). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic TOPSIS method for the electric vehicles’ charging stations location selection problem and an application for Istanbul. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(5), 6391–6406. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-189105
29.
KayaÖAlemdarK. D.CampisiT.TortumA.ÇodurM. K. (2021). 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102756
30.
Kazemi-BeydokhtiM.AbbaspourR. A.KheradmandiM.Bozorgi-AmiriA. (2019). Determination of the physical domain for air quality monitoring stations using the ANP-OWA method in GIS. Environ Monit Assess, 191, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7422-3
31.
LaibF.BraunA.RidW. (2019). Modeling noise reductions using electric buses in urban traffic: A case study from Stuttgart, Germany. Transp Res Procedia, 37, 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.206
32.
LajunenA.LipmanT. (2016). Lifecycle cost assessment and carbon dioxide emissions of diesel, natural gas, hybrid electric, fuel cell hybrid and electric transit buses. Energy, 106, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.075
33.
LiX.CastellanosS.MaassenA. (2018). Emerging trends and innovations for electric bus adoption—A comparative case study of contracting and financing of 22 cities in the americas, Asia-pacific, and Europe. Res Transp Econ, 69, 470–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.016
34.
LiaoN.WeiG.ChenX. (2022). TODIM Method based on cumulative prospect theory for multiple attributes group decision making under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy setting. Int J Fuzzy Syst, 24(1), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-021-01138-2
35.
LiuH. C.YouX. Y.XueY. X.LuanX. (2017). Exploring critical factors influencing the diffusion of electric vehicles in China: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Res Transp Econ, 66, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.10.001
36.
LiuP.TengF. (2016). An extended TODIM method for multiple attribute group decision-making based on 2-dimension uncertain linguistic variable. Complexity, 21(5), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.21625
37.
LiuP.TengF. (2019). Probabilistic linguistic TODIM method for selecting products through online product reviews. Inf Sci, 485, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.02.022
38.
LotfiF. H.FallahnejadR. (2010). Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. Entropy, 12, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.3390/e12010053
39.
MahmoudM.GarnettR.FergusonM.KanaroglouP. (2016). Electric buses: A review of alternative powertrains. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 62, 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.019
40.
ManzolliJ. A.TrovãoJ. P.AntunesC. H. (2022). A review of electric bus vehicles research topics–methods and trends. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 159, 112211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112211
41.
OzdagogluA.OztasG. Z.KelesM. K.GencV. (2022). A comparative bus selection for intercity transportation with an integrated PIPRECIA & COPRAS-G. Case Stud Transp Policy, 10(2), 993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.03.012
42.
PagliaroM.MeneguzzoF. (2019). Electric bus: A critical overview on the Dawn of its widespread uptake. Adv Sustain Syst, 3(6), 1800151. https://doi.org/10.1002/adsu.201800151
43.
ParadowskiB.ShekhovtsovA.BączkiewiczA.KizielewiczB.SałabunW. (2021). Similarity analysis of methods for objective determination of weights in multi-criteria decision support systems. Symmetry, 13, 1874. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13101874
44.
PodvezkoV.ZavadskasE. K.PodviezkoA. (2020). An extension of the new objective weight assessment methods CILOS and IDOCRIW to fuzzy MCDM. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res, 54(2), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/54.2.20.04
45.
PuškaA.StevićŽPamučarD. (2022). Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(9),11195–11225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2
46.
QaradaghiMohammedDeasonJonathan P (2018). Analysis of MCDM methods output coherence in oil and gas portfolio prioritization. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 8(2), 617–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0344-0
47.
QaysM. O.BuswigY.HossainM. L.RahmanM. M.Abu-SiadaA. (2020). Active cell balancing control strategy for parallelly connected LiFePO 4 batteries. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, 7(1), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.17775/CSEEJPES.2020.00740
48.
QinQ.LiangF.LiL.ChenY.YuG. (2017). A TODIM-based multi-criteria group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Appl Soft Comput, 55, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.01.041
49.
RibauJ. P.SilvaC. M.SousaJ. M. (2014). Efficiency, cost and life cycle CO2 optimization of fuel cell hybrid and plug-in hybrid urban buses. Appl Energy, 129, 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.05.015
50.
SelmiM.KormiT.AliN. B. H. (2013). Comparing multi-criteria decision aid methods through a ranking stability index. In 2013 5th international conference on modeling, simulation and applied optimization (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
51.
SonarH. C.KulkarniS. D. (2021). An integrated AHP-MABAC approach for electric vehicle selection. Res Transp Bus Manag, 41, 100665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100665
52.
TopalO. (2017). Electric bus concept against diesel and CNG bus for public transport operations. In 5th International Istanbul smart grid and cities congress and fair (ICSG) (pp. 105–109). IEEE.
53.
TzengG. H.LinC. W.OpricovicS. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy, 33, 1373–1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014
54.
WangT. C.LeeH. D. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst Appl, 36(5), 8980–8995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
55.
WuM.LiZ.FanJ. (2021). Selection of new energy vehicles using hybrid approach: A case study of China. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 40(6), 11967–11980. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-210074
56.
WuQ.LiuX.QinJ.ZhouL.MardaniA.DeveciM. (2022). An integrated generalized TODIM model for portfolio selection based on financial performance of firms. Knowl-Based Syst, 249, 108794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108794
57.
ZavadskasE. K.PodvezkoV. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036
