Battery supplier development for new energy vehicles by a probabilistic linguistic UTASTAR method

    Huchang Liao Affiliation
    ; Zhihang Liu Affiliation
    ; Audrius Banaitis Affiliation
    ; Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas Affiliation
    ; Xiang Zhou Affiliation


New energy vehicles can improve the environmental pollution and thus benefit people’s healthy life. As a core component of new energy vehicles, batteries play a crucial role in the performance of new energy vehicles. There are many factors to be considered when selecting the battery for a new energy vehicle, so it can be regarded as a MCDM problem. This study builds a useful model by combining the PLTS with the UTASTAR method. Firstly, to represent the uncertain and fuzzy information of experts, we use the PLTSs to accurately express the linguistic information of experts. Given that the weights of criteria are often different and there are some preferences for criteria among experts, we use the BWM to determine the weights of criteria, which can deal with hesitant information and make the result suitable for experts’ preferences. The method proposed in this study can sort all alternatives based on a small amount of data. To show its applicability, we implement the method in the selection of new energy vehicle battery suppliers. Comparative analysis and discussions are made to verify the effectiveness of the method.

First published online 10 May 2021

Keyword : new energy vehicle, battery supplier development, best-worst method, probabilistic linguistic term set, UTASTAR

How to Cite
Liao, H., Liu, Z., Banaitis, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Zhou, X. (2022). Battery supplier development for new energy vehicles by a probabilistic linguistic UTASTAR method. Transport, 37(2), 121–136.
Published in Issue
Jun 7, 2022
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

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


Alizadeh, R.; Majidpour, M.; Maknoon, R.; Kaleibari, S. S. 2016. Clean development mechanism in Iran: does it need a revival?, International Journal of Global Warming 10(1–3): 196–215.

Alizadeh, R.; Majidpour, M.; Maknoon, R.; Salimi, J. 2015. Iranian energy and climate policies adaptation to the Kyoto protocol, International Journal of Environmental Research 9(3): 853–864.

Alizadeh, R.; Soltanisehat, L.; Lund, P. D.; Zamanisabzi, H. 2020. Improving renewable energy policy planning and decisionmaking through a hybrid MCDM method, Energy Policy 137: 111174.

Asadabadi, M. R.; Chang, E.; Zwikael, O.; Saberi, M.; Sharpe, K. 2020. Hidden fuzzy information: Requirement specification and measurement of project provider performance using the best worst method, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 383: 127–145.

Athawale, V. M.; Kumar, R.; Chakraborty, S. 2011. Decision making for material selection using the UTA method, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 57(1–4): 11.

Beiragh, R. G.; Alizadeh, R.; Kaleibari, S. S.; Cavallaro, F.; Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Bausys, R.; Mardani, A. 2020. An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for sustainability performance assessment for insurance companies, Sustainability 12(3): 789.

Carreno, M.; Ge, Y.-E.; Borthwick, S. 2014. Could green taxation measures help incentivise future Chinese car drivers to purchase low emission vehicles?, Transport 29(3): 260–268.

Chen, K.; Zhao, F.; Hao, H.; Liu, Z. 2019. Selection of lithiumion battery technologies for electric vehicles under China’s new energy vehicle credit regulation, Energy Procedia 158: 3038–3044.

Demesouka, O. E.; Anagnostopoulos, K. P.; Siskos, E. 2019. Spatial multicriteria decision support for robust land-use suitability: the case of landfill site selection in Northeastern Greece, European Journal of Operational Research 272(2): 574–586.

Diouf, B.; Pode, R. 2015. Potential of lithium-ion batteries in renewable energy, Renewable Energy 76: 375–380.

Gong, H.; Wang, M. Q.; Wang, H. 2013. New energy vehicles in China: policies, demonstration, and progress, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18(2): 207–228.

Grigoroudis, E.; Zopounidis, C. 2012. Developing an employee evaluation management system: the case of a healthcare organization, Operational Research 12(1): 83–106.

Gruca, A.; Sikora, M. 2013. Rule based functional description of genes – estimation of the multicriteria rule interestingness measure by the UTA method, Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering 33(4): 222–234.

Haider, H.; Singh, P.; Ali, W.; Tesfamariam, S.; Sadiq, R. 2015. Sustainability evaluation of surface water quality management options in developing countries: multicriteria analysis using fuzzy UTASTAR method, Water Resources Management 29(8): 2987–3013.

Hruška, R.; Průša, P.; Babić, D. 2014. The use of AHP method for selection of supplier, Transport 29(2): 195–203.

Ishizaka, A.; Resce, G. 2021. Best-worst PROMETHEE method for evaluating school performance in the OECD’s PISA project, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 73: 100799.

Jacquet-Lagreze, E.; Siskos, J. 1982. Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method, European Journal of Operational Research 10(2): 151–164.

Jayant, A.; Chandan, A. K.; Singh, S. 2019. Sustainable supplier selection for battery manufacturing industry: a MOORA and WASPAS based approach, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1240: 012015.

Kaleibari, S. S.; Beiragh, R. G.; Alizadeh, R.; Solimanpur, M. 2016. A framework for performance evaluation of energy supply chain by a compatible network data envelopment analysis model, Scientia Iranica: Transactions E: Industrial Engineering 23(4): 1904–1917.

Li, J.; Ku, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhou, Y. 2020. Dual credit policy: promoting new energy vehicles with battery recycling in a competitive environment?, Journal of Cleaner Production 243: 118456.

Li, L.; Jing, X. 2019. Analysis of tax policy for promoting the development of China’s new energy vehicles industry, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 328: 315–320.

Liao, H.; Mi, X.; Xu, Z. 2020. A survey of decision-making methods with probabilistic linguistic information: bibliometrics, preliminaries, methodologies, applications and future directions, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 19(1): 81–134.

Liao, H.; Xu, Z.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. 2018. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application in decision making: a state-of-the-art survey, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 20(7): 2084–2110.

Liu, Y.; Kokko, A. 2013. Who does what in China’s new energy vehicle industry?, Energy Policy 57: 21–29.

Makui, A.; Momeni, M. 2012. Using CSW weight’s in UTASTAR method, Decision Science Letters 1: 39–46.

Mi, X.; Liao, H.; Wu, X.; Xu, Z. 2020. Probabilistic linguistic information fusion: a survey on aggregation operators in terms of principles, definitions, classifications, applications, and challenges, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 35(3): 529–556.

Mi, X.; Tang, M.; Liao, H.; Shen, W.; Lev, B. 2019. The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: why, what, what for and what’s next?, Omega 87: 205–225.

Nian, V.; Chou, S. K.; Su, B.; Bauly, J. 2014. Life cycle analysis on carbon emissions from power generation – the nuclear energy example, Applied Energy 118: 68–82.

Nikas, A.; Doukas, H.; Siskos, E.; Psarras, J. 2018. International cooperation for clean electricity: a UTASTAR application in energy policy, in N. Matsatsinis, E. Grigoroudis (Eds.). Preference Disaggregation in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 163–186.

Pang, Q.; Wang, H.; Xu, Z. 2016. Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making, Information Sciences 369: 128–143.

Papapostolou, A.; Karakosta, C.; Nikas, A.; Psarras, J. 2017. Exploring opportunities and risks for RES-E deployment under cooperation mechanisms between EU and Western Balkans: a multi-criteria assessment, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80: 519–530.

Patiniotakis, I.; Apostolou, D.; Mentzas, G. 2011. Fuzzy UTASTAR: a method for discovering utility functions from fuzzy data, Expert Systems with Applications 38(12): 15463–15474.

Rezaei, J. 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method, Omega 53: 49–57.

Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3): 234–281.

Sims, R. E. H.; Rogner, H.-H.; Gregory, K. 2003. Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation, Energy Policy 31(13): 1315–1326.

Siskos, Y.; Yannacopoulos, D. 1985. UTASTAR: an ordinal regression method for building additive value functions, Investigação Operacional 5(1): 39–53.

Sola, A. V. H.; Mota, C. M. D. M. 2012. A multi-attribute decision model for portfolio selection aiming to replace technologies in industrial motor systems, Energy Conversion and Management 57: 97–106.

Stević, Ž.; Vasiljević, M.; Puška, A.; Tanackov, I.; Junevičius, R.; Vesković, S. 2019. Evaluation of suppliers under uncertainty: a multiphase approach based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy EDAS, Transport 34(1): 52–66.

Touni, Z.; Makui, A.; Mohammadi, E. 2019. A MCDM-based approach using UTA-STRAR method to discover behavioral aspects in stock selection problem, International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research 30(1): 93–103.

Van de Kaa, G.; Rezaei, J.; Taebi, B.; Van de Poel, I.; Kizhakenath, A. 2020. How to weigh values in value sensitive design: a best worst method approach for the case of smart metering, Science and Engineering Ethics 26(1): 475–494.

Walter, B.; Pietrzak, B. 2005. Multi-criteria detection of bad smells in code with UTA method, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3556: 154–161.

Whittington, H. W. 2002. Electricity generation: options for reduction in carbon emissions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 360(1797): 1653–1668.

Wu, X.; Liao, H.; Xu, Z.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Herrera, F. 2018. Probabilistic linguistic MULTIMOORA: a multicriteria decision making method based on the probabilistic linguistic expectation function and the improved Borda rule, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 26(6): 3688–3702.

Xiong, W.-T.; Cheng, J. 2016. A weighted UTASTAR method for the multiple criteria decision making with interval numbers, Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 10: 191–195.

Yuan, X.; Liu, X.; Zuo, J. 2015. The development of new energy vehicles for a sustainable future: a review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42: 298–305.

Yuan, H.; Jiang, Y. 2019. Research on key influencing factors of China’s new energy automobile industry development, Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 91: 676–681.

Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8(3): 338–353.

Zadeh, L. A. 1975. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning – I, Information Sciences 8(3): 199–249.

Zadeh, L. A. 2012. Computing with Words. Springer. 142 p.

Zhang, C.; Luo, L.; Liao, H.; Mardani, A.; Streimikiene, D.; Al-Barakati, A. 2020. A priority-based intuitionistic multiplicative UTASTAR method and its application in low-carbon tourism destination selection, Applied Soft Computing 88: 106026.