Next Article in Journal
Estimation of Uncertainty for Technology Evaluation Factors via Bayesian Neural Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Aczel–Alsina Hamy Mean Aggregation Operators in T-Spherical Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Previous Article in Journal
Fixed Point Theorems via Orthogonal Convex Contraction in Orthogonal ♭-Metric Spaces and Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
TOPSIS Method Based on Hamacher Choquet-Integral Aggregation Operators for Atanassov-Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications in Decision-Making
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

An Integrated Intuitionistic Fuzzy Closeness Coefficient-Based OCRA Method for Sustainable Urban Transportation Options Selection

Department of Mathematics, Government College Raigaon, Satna 485441, Madhya Pradesh, India
Department of Engineering Mathematics, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram 522302, Andhra Pradesh, India
Department of Economics, University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
Department of Statistics & Operations Research, College of Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11495, Saudi Arabia
Department of Computer Applications, Institute of Informatics & Management Sciences, Meerut 250004, Uttar Pradesh, India
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Axioms 2023, 12(2), 144;
Submission received: 30 December 2022 / Revised: 23 January 2023 / Accepted: 27 January 2023 / Published: 30 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications in Decision Making)


Transportation systems play a key role in urban development by providing access for people to markets and education, employment, health care, recreation, and other key services. However, uncontrolled urban population and fast growth of vehicle mobility inevitably lead to unsustainable urban transportation systems in terms of economic, technical, social, and geographical aspects of sustainability. Thus, there is a need to select suitable sustainable urban transportation (SUT) alternatives, which can contributed to the technological advancement of a city and changes in societal necessities, mitigating the climate change impact from transport and transforming living habits, in the context of high urban population growth. Therefore, this paper aims to introduce an integrated multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA) framework for assessing and ranking the sustainable urban transportation (SUT) options under an intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) context. In this regard, firstly IF-distance measures and their properties are developed to obtain the criteria weight. Second, an IF-relative closeness coefficient-based model is presented to find the criteria weights. Third, the operational competitiveness rating (OCRA) model is introduced with the IF-score function-RS-based decision experts’ weighing model and the relative closeness coefficient-based criteria weight determination model under the IFSs environment. To exemplify the utility and effectiveness of the developed IF-relative closeness coefficient-based OCRA methodology, a case study ranking the different SUT bus options is presented from an intuitionistic fuzzy perspective. A comparison with different models is made to prove the superiority and solidity of the obtained outcome. Moreover, the comparative analysis outperforms the other extant MADA models, as it can provide more sound outcomes than others, and thus it is more suitable and efficient to elucidate uncertain information in handling practical MADA problems. In this study, we analyze and determine the most suitable and sustainable SUT by considering the economic, technical, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability and also make a significant contribution to the current scientific knowledge by providing a novel decision support system from an uncertainty perspective.

1. Introduction

The idea of “sustainable development (SD)” has become a well-known catchphrase in current development discourse, which seeks to incorporate social progress with environmental concerns and economic development of any country [1]. The transportation sector makes up 30% of the worldwide energy consumption. National urban transport policy envisages quick, reasonable, safe, comfortable, reliable, and sustainable urban transportation (SUT). The underlying theme of sustainable transportation (ST) refers to a low impact on the environment, affordable modes of transport, and energy-efficiency [2,3,4,5]. The behavior of urban transportation procedures is developing, mainly in terms of associated externalities, namely, traffic, energy consumption, and air quality [6,7,8]. The SUT is an exciting region of study with various concerns being taken into consideration, which can be studied in the ensuing four pillars, namely, economic, technical, social, and environmental concerns [9,10].
Selection of a SUT structure considers various indicators/criteria, including energy efficiency, technology, cost, and facilities. Since the selection of the SUT option involves numerous criteria and uncertainty, it can therefore be considered as an uncertain “multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA)” problem [4]. To accommodate this, the present article utilizes an MADA tool. It is worth mentioned that a solution that functions well with some attributes but fails at other attributes is not adequate. As “compromising solutions (CSs)” are chosen in these cases, interrelationships among the considered attributes become important. These interrelationships are often ignored in several MADA models [11,12,13]. Most of the conventional tools disregard the interrelationships with the considered attributes. Moreover, few authors consider the interrelationship between attributes without taking uncertainty into account [14,15,16].
Numerous researchers utilize the conventional “fuzzy set (FS)” [17] doctrine, owing to its resemblance to human thinking, to choose an option with diverse choices. However, when compared with the FS, the concept of “intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS)” [18] has more benefits in dealing with the subjectivity of the human mind and uncertain information [19,20]. Consequently, this study suggests a relative closeness coefficient [21] supported with an MADA tool under the IFSs perspective in order tackle vagueness and diminish the biases in MADA procedures. In this study, the interrelationships with considered indicators are adequately measured, and DEs’ opinions are accurately taken. Thus, IFSs are appropriate to explore the vagueness and fuzziness in DEs’ decisions, where the FSs prove inadequate.

1.1. Needs of the Paper

Based on the existing studies, we identified the following challenges and motivations for this study:
Distance measures are essential tools for IFSs. In the literature, several distance measures have been introduced by the researchers. However, there is a need to develop an improved intuitionistic fuzzy distance measure for the betterment of existing measures.
To evade the redundant influence of subjective DEs’ significances on the decision result, there is an urgent need to derive the weights of the DEs’ opinions.
In the context of intuitionistic fuzzy MADA tools, most of the earlier studies have discussed either objective weighting methods or subjective weighting methods. To avoid the shortcomings of objective or subjective weighting models, there is a need to present a weighting model for finding the indicator weights. However, extant subjective weighting tools hardly consider the relative closeness coefficient degree as a degree for weighting from an intuitionistic fuzzy setting.
There is no study to present the operational competitiveness rating (OCRA) method from an intuitionistic fuzzy perspective to determine the MADA problems.
In the literature, a single article [1] has implemented the choquet integral-TOPSIS method in the evaluation of SUT options over a finite number of criteria. However, this method has limitations in solving the multiple criteria SUT assessment problem under an intuitionistic fuzzy environment.

1.2. Research Contributions

We present the notable research contributions of the paper as follows:
  • To measure the degree of discrimination, a new IF-distance measure was proposed with enviable properties with the use of flexible parameters.
  • For the first time, this paper proposed a generalized score value and rank sum model-based weighting approach to derive the DEs’ weights within the IFS environment.
  • In order to consider the relative closeness coefficient of indicators, this paper presented a new intuitionistic fuzzy divergence measure-based model and further used it to compute the weights of the indicators.
  • The present study proposed an OCRA model based on a combination of a distance measure and relative closeness coefficient, which can better describe the uncertainty of practical decision-making problems.
  • This study implements the proposed IF-closeness coefficient-OCRA method on a case study of SUT assessment problems within the IFS context.

1.3. Organizations of This Study

The remaining part of this work is summarized in the following manner: Section 2 discusses the literature related to the SUTs and MADA method with uncertainty. Section 3 presents the fundamental ideas of IFSs and a new IF-distance measure with their properties. Section 4 introduces an integrated IF-closeness coefficient-OCRA model based on the proposed distance measure and the relative closeness coefficient. Section 5 uses the developed model on a case study of different SUT options and also discusses comparative analysis. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions and further research recommendations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Transportation and Alternative Fuel Technologies

The ST as a conception entails a holistic tool because of the requirement of combination when several structures interrelate. Various scholars have given their consideration to the area of sustainability in transportation. Yedla and Shrestha [22] evaluated diverse ST options for Delhi, India. Awasthi et al. [23] discussed an MADA tool for selecting ST from vagueness perspectives. Their study considered the phase of the SUT structures by evaluating various indicators of sustainability and employed the TOPSIS tool on FSs to choose the suitable ST option. Verma et al. [24] planned a model to evaluate the outcomes of diverse public transportation strategies using different sustainability pillars. They used the “composite sustainability index (CSI)” with the weighted sum model to develop an integrated framework. In the SUT context, Onat et al. [25] developed a hybrid model using the TOPSIS model under IFSs. Further, Onat et al. [26] generalized their work, including 16 indicators of sustainability of 7 passenger cars using “life-cycle assessment (LCA)” with MADA. Various scholars such as Karlson et al. [27], Miller et al. [28], and Rajak et al. [29] have assessed the performance of sustainability options in public transportation.
The SUT-related studies with diverse purposes, namely, policy implication evaluations, are also presented by [30,31]. Büyüközkan et al. [1] presented the TOPSIS-based framework for the SUT alternatives assessment problem. Recently, Melkonyan [32] developed a decision support system for sustainable urban mobility using integrated policy. Verma et al. [33] highlighted the momentous transportation issues encountered in India and evolved how the government transportation division policy interventions for cities. Pamucar et al. [3] gave a decision support system for prioritizing alternative fuel vehicles for ST based on a full consistency model and measurement alternatives and ranking based on a compromise solution framework on a neutrosophic set. Liang et al. [20] gave an integrated tool with the fuzzy set to assess the AFVs problem with four dimensional criteria. An extension of the WISP model on q-ROFSs was proposed by Deveci et al. [4] for assessing and prioritizing SUT in the metaverse with uncertainty. Hezam et al. [5] developed a hybrid CRITIC-SWARA-DNMA model for prioritizing the digital technologies under ST for persons with disabilities under a “fermatean fuzzy sets (FFSs)” context.

2.2. MADA Methods with Uncertainties

In order to treat with ambiguity, FSs [17] have received considerable attention from researchers [34]. Further, several generalizations of FSs have been developed [18,35,36,37]. As a generalization of FSs, IFSs have received much attention from distinct intellectuals. They have a strong capability to describe the vagueness of the data in comparison with the FS theory. In IFSs, an element is considered by the “membership grade (MG)”, “non-membership grade (NG)”, and “indeterminacy grade (IG)” to express the uncertain information more systematically [18]. A decision-making methodology using Markowitz and DEA cross-efficiency tools has been developed to evaluate the portfolios under the IFS context [38]. In one study, Chen and Liu [39] proposed a similarity measure for IFSs and applied pattern recognition problems. In the past few years, many theories and applications about IFSs have been discussed [40,41,42,43]. Ecer [21] presented an IF-closeness coefficient-based multi-attribute ideal-real comparative analysis to evaluate COVID-19 vaccines over diverse considered criteria.
The operational competitiveness rating (OCRA) method [44] can be considered as the agreement of a simple averaging weight tool with a max–min normalization process. Madic et al. [45] discussed the OCRA model for solving nonconventional machining process (NCMP) selection problems. Stanujkic et al. [46] discussed the enhanced OCRA model to assess the linear performance grades for benefit and cost criteria. Roman-Liu et al. [47] analyzed the convergence of the OCRA and the upper limb risk assessment to assess the risks of developing musculoskeletal disorders at 18 repetitive task workstations. Ulutas [48] discussed an integrated analytic hierarchy process and the OCRA models on FSs to treat supplier selection for the Turkish textile industry. Ulutas et al. [49] gave a hybrid model on grey pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment and OCRA methods for personnel selection. Candan [50] presented economic research performance in 15 OECD associate countries and assessed the bibliometric features for the duration of 2010–2017 with the analytic hierarchy process OCRA model by considering the opinions of 5 different DEs opinions. To prioritize the suppliers, Mohammed et al. [51] presented a hybrid MABAC-OCRA-TOPSIS-VIKOR (MOTV) approach with a criteria weighting model. Stanujkic et al. [52] discussed the comparison of various methods with OCRA to show the effectiveness and usefulness of the MADA model.

3. IFSs and Parametric Distance Measure

3.1. Preliminaries

This section shows the notions related to the IFSs.
Definition 1.
[18]. An IFS L on O = o 1 ,     o 2 ,     ,   o t is given by
L = o k ,     μ L ( o k ) ,     ν L ( o k )     :     o k   O ,
where μ L : O [ 0 ,     1 ] and ν L : O [ 0 ,     1 ] signify the MG and NG of o k to L in O , with the condition 0 μ L o k + ν L o k 1 ,   o k   O . An IG of an object o k O to L is discussed as π L o k = 1 μ L o k ν L o k and 0 π L o k 1 ,         o k   O . Xu [53] presented the IFN ζ   =   μ ζ ,   ν ζ with the constraint μ ζ ,   ν ζ     0 ,   1 and 0     μ ζ + ν ζ   1 .
Definition 2.
[53,54]. Let ζ   =   μ ζ ,   ν ζ be an IFN. Then
S ζ = 1 2 μ ζ ν ζ + 1 ,     H ζ = μ ζ + ν ζ ,
are said to be score and accuracy degrees, respectively.
Definition 3.
[54]. Suppose ζ k = μ k ,   ν k , k = 1 , 2 , , t are the IFNs. An improved score value (ISV) is given by
S ζ k = μ k 1 + ε 1   +   ε 2 1 μ k ν k ,
where in ε 1   +   ε 2 = 1 ,     ε 1 ,   ε 2 > 0 denotes the attitudinal feature of the ISV, presenting the grade of weighted averaging of IG between the MG and NG on IFNs.
Definition 4.
[53]. For a set of IFNs ζ k = μ k ,   ν k , k = 1 , 2 , , t , the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging operator (IFWAO) and intuitionistic fuzzy weighted geometric operator (IFWG) on IFNs are defined as
I F W A O w ζ 1 , ζ 2 , , ζ t = k = 1 t w k ζ k = 1 k   = 1 t 1 μ k w k ,   k = 1 t ν k w k ,
I F W G O w ζ 1 , ζ 2 , , ζ k = k = 1 t w k ζ k = k = 1 t μ k w k ,     1 k = 1 t 1 ν k w k ,
where w = w 1 , w 2 , , w k T is a weight vector of ζ k ,     k = 1 , 2 , , t , with k = 1 t w k = 1 ,   w k 0 ,     1 .
Definition 5.
[55]. A real function d : I F S ( O ) × I F S ( O ) [ 0 , 1 ] is said to be distance measure on IFS (O) if d fulfills the following postulates: for any A, B, C on IFS (O),
(D1): 0 d A ,   B 1 ,
(D2): d A ,   B = 0 if and only if A = B,
(D3): d A ,   B = d B ,   A ,
(D4): d A ,   B d A ,   C and d B ,   C d A ,   C with the condition A B C .

3.2. Proposed Parametric IF-Distance Measure

In this section, utilizing the representation of IFSs, we develop a new formula to estimate the discrimination between the IFNs by adding the diverse parameters known as the parametric IF-distance measure as follows: for any A, B on IFS (O), a parametric IF-distance measure is developed as
d A ,   B   =   1 2 n   ( t   + 1 ) p   i   =   1 n ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i ) p +     ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) p p
where "p" is the Lp-norm, t, a and b signify the uncertainty level with the condition a   +   b     t   +   1 ,     0     a ,   b     t   +   1 ,     t   >   0 .
Theorem 1. 
The expression d A ,   B   is a valid IF-distance measure.
To prove the validity of d A ,   B , we show that it fulfills the axioms (d1)–(d4) of Definition 5. For two IFSs A and B, we have
( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i ) =   ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν B ( o i ) , ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) =   ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   b )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ B ( o i ) .
In IFS, we know that 0     μ A ( o i ) ,   μ B ( o i ) ,     ν A ( o i ) ,   ν B ( o i )     1 , and therefore we have
a     ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )     ( t   +   1   a ) , ( t   +   1   a )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν B ( o i )     a .
Therefore, we have
( t   +   1 )     ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )     ( t   +   1   a )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν B ( o i )     t   +   1 .
It implies that
0   ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν B ( o i ) p     ( t   + 1 ) p .
Likewise, we can prove that
0   ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   b )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ B ( o i ) p     ( t   + 1 ) p .
Hence, 0     d A ,   B   1 .
(d2). It is easy to prove that d A ,   B   =   d B ,   A .
d A ,   A c   =   1   1 n i   =   1 n μ A ( o i ) ν A ( o i ) p p   =   1   μ A ( o i ) ν A ( o i ) p   =   1
  μ A ( o i )   =   1 ,     ν A ( o i )   =   0 or μ A ( o i )   =   1 ,     ν A ( o i )   =   0       A is a crisp set.
Additionally, if A =   B , then μ A ( o i )   =   μ A ( o i ) and ν A ( o i )   =   ν B ( o i ) ,       i   = 1 ,   2 ,   ,   n . Then, Equation (6) becomes d A ,   B   = 0 . Conversely, assume that d A ,   B   = 0 , which implies that
( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i ) p   =   0
( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i ) b   μ A ( o i ) μ B ( o i ) p   =   0 .
Solving Equations (7) and (8), we obtain μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i )   = 0 and ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i )   = 0 , which implies that μ A ( o i ) =   μ B ( o i ) and ν A ( o i ) =   ν B ( o i ) .
(d4). For A ,   B ,   C     I F S s O ,
d A ,   B   =   1 2 n   ( t   + 1 ) p   i   =   1 n ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i ) p +     ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) p p ,
d A ,   C   =   1 2 n   ( t   + 1 ) p   i   =   1 n ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   μ C ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ν C ( o i ) p +     ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   ν C ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   μ C ( o i ) p p .
( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i ) =   ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν B ( o i ) , ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   μ B ( o i ) =   ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   b )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ B ( o i ) , ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   μ C ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ν C ( o i ) =   ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ C ( o i ) a   ν C ( o i ) , ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   ν C ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   μ C ( o i ) =   ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   b )   ν C ( o i )   b   μ C ( o i ) .
If A     B     C , we have μ C ( o i )     μ B ( o i )     μ A ( o i ) and ν C ( o i )     ν B ( o i )     ν A ( o i ) .
( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i )   a   ν A ( o i )     ( t   +   1   a )   μ B ( o i )   a   ν B ( o i )     ( t   +   1   a )   μ C ( o i )   a   ν C ( o i ) , ( t   +   1   b )   ν C ( o i )   b   μ C ( o i )     ( t   +   1   b )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ B ( o i )     ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i ) .
( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ C ( o i ) a   ν C ( o i )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ A ( o i ) a   ν A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   a )   μ B ( o i ) a   ν B ( o i ) , ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   b )   ν B ( o i )   b   μ B ( o i )   ( t   +   1   b )   ν A ( o i )   b   μ A ( o i )   ( t   +   1   b )   ν C ( o i )   b   μ C ( o i ) .
This implies that d A ,   C     d B ,   C   and d A ,   C     d A ,   B .   Thus, the property (D4) is obtained. Hence, the measure d A ,   B   is a valid distance measure on IFSs. □

4. Proposed IF-Closeness Coefficient-OCRA Model

The classical OCRA method has been utilized to determine the relative performances of a set of production units. Further, few authors have extended the classical OCRA under different environments for various purposes. Unfortunately, none of the previous studies has developed an integrated OCRA method based on the IF-closeness coefficient from an IF perspective. This study suggests an integrated decision analysis model known as the IF-closeness coefficient-OCRA with an application in handling MCDM problems. The main benefit of the proposed OCRA model is that it can operate with those MADA conditions in which the relative weights of attributes are dependent upon options, and diverse weight distributions are offered to attributes for diverse options, while some of the attributes are not relevant to all the options either with IF information. The notion of the OCRA tool is to implement the independent assessment of options over beneficial and non-beneficial attributes and lastly to merge these two aggregate grades to determine competitiveness grades, which supports the DEs not to fail information through the MADA procedure [45]. The development of the IF–closeness coefficient–OCRA model is presented and depicted in Figure 1.
Step 1: Create the “linguistic decision matrix (LDM)”.
Consider a set of m options T = T 1 ,   T 2 , ,   T m concerning with attribute set R = r 1 ,   r 2 , , r n . We make a DEs set D = d 1 ,   d 2 , ,   d l to choose the option(s). Let Z   =   ξ i j ( k ) m × n be the LDM provided by the DEs set in which ξ i j ( k ) involves the “linguistic rating (LR)” of an option Ti with regard to rj and is further converted into an “intuitionistic fuzzy-decision matrix (IF-DM)” using Table 1.
Step 2: Obtain the DEs’ weights λ k .
Initially, the evaluation ratings of DEs are defined as the LRs and then changed into IFNs. Let d k =   μ k ,   ν k ,   k = 1 , 2 , , l be an IFN; then the expression for finding weight is given by
Step 2a: Find the IF-score matrix.
The normalized IF-score value d ¯ k of each IFN d k is calculated as follows:
d ¯ k = μ k 1 + ε 1   +   ε 2 1 μ k ν k , k = 1 l μ k 1 + ε 1   +   ε 2 1 μ k ν k ,   k = 1 , 2 , , l .
Step 2b: Estimate the ranking of relevant assessment criteria and find the criteria weight l r k + 1 , where r k is the priority of kth criterion. Each weight is normalized as follows:
d ¯ k r = l r k + 1 k = 1 l l r k + 1 , k = 1 , 2 , , l .
Step 2c: Calculation of expert weight.
To find the DEs’ weights, we combine Equations (9) and (10) as follows:
λ k = 1 2 d ¯ k + d ¯ k r ,     k = 1 , 2 , , l ,   where   λ k     0   and   k = 1 l λ k   =   1 .
Step 3: Make an “aggregated IF-DM (AIF-DM)”.
All the IF-DMs are operated into AIF-DM. The IFWA operator is used to generate the AIF-DM, which is Z = ξ i j m ×   n , where
ξ i j = μ i j , ν i j = I F W A λ k ξ i j 1 , ξ i j 2 , , ξ i j l     or       I F W G λ k ξ i j 1 , ξ i j 2 , , ξ i j l
Step 4: Find the attribute weight by the IF–relative closeness coefficient-based model.
To obtain the attribute weight, the IF–relative closeness coefficient-based method is applied. Let w = w 1 , w 2 , , w n T be the weight of the attribute set with j = 1 n w j   = 1 and   w j 0 ,     1 . Then, the process for determining the attribute weight by the IF–relative closeness coefficient-based model is discussed as
Step 4a: Estimate the A-IFNs by combining the LDM assessment degrees provided by DEs using the IFWA operator and obtain G = z j 1 ×   n .
Step 4b: Describe the IF-reference points.
An IFN has a “positive ideal solution (IF-PIS)” and a “negative ideal solution (IF-NIS)”, which consider ratings as ϕ + = (1, 0, 0) and ϕ = (0, 1, 0), respectively.
Step 4c: Derive the distances of attributes from IF-PIS and IF-NIS.
To compute the distance, the proposed parametric IF-distance measure is applied; p j + and p j are handled in Equation (6) to exemplify positive and negative distances from G = z j 1 ×   n , and the IF-PIS and IF-NIS, respectively.
p j + = 1 2 n   ( t   + 1 ) p   i   =   1 n ( t   +   1   a )   μ ξ j   μ ϕ + a   ν ξ j   ν ϕ + p + ( t   +   1   b )   ν ξ j   ν ϕ +   b   μ ξ j   μ ϕ + p p ,
p j = 1 2 n   ( t   + 1 ) p   i   =   1 n ( t   +   1   a )   μ ξ j   μ ϕ a   ν ξ j   ν ϕ p + ( t   +   1   b )   ν ξ j   ν ϕ   b   μ ξ j   μ ϕ p p ,
Step 4d: Compute the relative closeness-decision rating (RC-DR).
r c j = p j p j +   p j + ,     j = 1 , 2 , , n .
Step 4e: Obtain the criteria weight w j as follows:
w j = r c j j = 1 n r c j .
Step 5: Construct the IF-score matrix (IF-SM).
The IF-SM Z ¯ = η i j m ×   n , is obtained from the AIF-DM Z = ξ i j m ×   n as
η i j = μ i j 1 + ε 1   +   ε 2 1 μ i j ν i j .
Step 6: Obtain the “IF-performance rating” for beneficial criteria known IF-PRB as
P i = j p b w j η i j min j η i j max j η i j min j η i j ,   i = 1 , 2 , , m .
Step 7: Find the “linear performance rating” for benefit criteria known LPRB as
P ¯ i = P i min i P i ,   i = 1 , 2 , , m .
Step 8: Estimate the “IF-performance rating” for cost criteria known IF-PRC as
Q i = j r n w j max j η i j η i j max j η i j min j η i j ,   i = 1 , 2 , , m .
Step 9: Find the “linear performance rating” for cost criteria known LPRC as
Q ¯ i = Q i min i Q i ,   i = 1 , 2 , , m .
Step 10: Compute the “overall performance rating (OPR)” of each option as
O i   =   P ¯ i + Q ¯ i min i P ¯ i + Q ¯ i ,     i = 1 , 2 , , m .
Step 11: From the OPR O i , the option with the maximum value of OPR is the optimal choice.
The assessment process of the OCRA model considers the utilization of the discrimination to the minimum preferable performances of attributes, i.e., max j η i j η i j for cost-type, and η i j min j η i j for benefit-type, which shows a certain resemblance to the conventional TOPSIS and VIKOR models. However, the OCRA model has its accuracies; the precise normalization process discussed in Equations (18) and (20) can be revealed as one of the momentous tool.

5. Case Study: Prioritization of SUT Options

The key objective of the study was the implementation of the IF–closeness coefficient–OCRA model, which is integrated to utilize the SUT alternative selection in IFSs settings.
SUT option solutions are mainly resilient on the fuel mode [1,3,4,5,32,56,57]. There are various kinds of bus structures for SUT owing to the multi-access features. However, most of them do not encounter the elementary needs of the Delhi Municipal Corporation strategy, and a committee of DEs was selected to establish a limit on the number of options for assessment. After a preliminary evaluation, buses were described for 5 diverse SUT options fuels for further assessments in this case study, namely, liquid propane gas (LPG) (T1), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) (T2), Diesel engines (DIE) (T3), CNG (T4), and electric buses with exchangeable batteries (EEB) (T5).
To choose the best SUT bus options, a team of four DEs (g1, g2, g3, and g4) was created. These DEs were from various disciplines comprising researchers on gerontechnology groups/classes, stockholders, professors, and managers. The respondent of each technology group/class assessed the following criteria using an 11-stage scale, where AL means absolutely low and AH means absolutely high. In the study, buses with AFVs were considered and assessed in terms of sustainability perspectives. Corresponding to the assessment, the appropriate option will be chosen with the consideration of various, occasionally conflicting indicators. Apparently, no one option can instantaneously fulfill all decision indicators, which creates the problem of an appropriate choice for the utilization of multi-attribute assessment. Owing to the consequence of a sustainability perspectives of the SUT options, the DEs were invited by the Delhi municipality, India, to do this assessment over sustainability indicators. A wide-ranging literature study and DEs’ thoughts were assembled to evaluate the considered indicators. A wider range of indicators could be related with fuel types in sustainability perspectives. However, DEs defined the range of indicators so the most significant indicators could be engaged for the 11 assessment indicators, which were nominated by the DEs [3,4,5,23,32,58,59]. These indicators were then assembled into economical, technical, environmental, and social pillars. Brief explanations of these indicators are given in Table 2.
Now, the process of the implementation of the IF–closeness coefficient–OCRA model on the present case study is shown as follows:
Steps 1–3: Table 1 is considered to show the LRs and their associated IFNs to determine the DEs’ weights and the indicators for prioritizing SUT options [5]. Using Table 2 and Equations (9)–(11), the DEs’ weights were computed and are shown in Table 1. Table 3 signifies the LDM by DEs. From Equation (12) and Table 4, the aggregated IF-DM was constructed and is shown in Table 5.
Step 4: First, the distances of AIF-DM from IF-PIS and IF-NIS were obtained by means of Equations (13) and (14). The IF-relative closeness coefficient r c j was estimated using Equation (15) and is mentioned in Table 6. The criteria weights were estimated using Equation (16), given as
w j = (0.0893, 0.0847, 0.0943, 0.0954, 0.0860, 0.0973, 0.0838, 0.0852, 0.1008, 0.0915, 0.0917).
The values of criteria weights are depicted in Figure 2.
Here, Figure 2 shows the criteria weights with respect to the outcome. Air pollution (r9) with a weight of value 0.1008 came out to be the most important parameter for prioritizing SUT options. Road capacity (r6), with a weight of 0.0973, was the second-most significant criterion. Operating cost (r4) was third with a weight value of 0.0954. Acquisition cost (r3) was ranked fourth with a weight of 0.0943, fifth was social impact (r11) with a weight of 0.0917, and others were considered crucial criteria for the assessment of SUT options.
Steps 5: From Equation (17), the IF-SM Z ¯ = η i j m ×   n , was obtained from AIF-DM and is presented in Table 7.
Steps 6–7: The IF-PRB and LPRB for the beneficial indicators were computed using Equations (18) and (19) and given in Table 8.
Steps 8–9: The IF-PRC and LPRC for the cost indicators were obtained using Equations (20) and (21) and are given in Table 8.
Steps 10: The overall performance ratings of alternatives for prioritizing SUT options are determined using Equation (22) and are depicted in Table 8.
Step 11: Hence, the prioritization of options for prioritizing SUT options is T 4 T 1 T 2 T 5 T 3 , and the CNG (T4) is the best SUT option with the highest OPR.

5.1. Comparison with Other Models

To show the effectiveness of the IF-relative closeness coefficient-DN-WISP framework, we related the outcomes of the developed model with some of the extant models such as the “IF-COPRAS [60]”, “IF-WASPAS [11]”, “IF-TOPSIS [61]”, and “IF-CoCoSo” [62]. The purpose for choosing the IF-COPRAS model is that the approach employs the vector normalization process. The purpose for choosing the WASPAS and CoCoSo models is that both approaches use the linear max normalization process and the integration of WSM and WPM. Additionally, both of them combine the WSM and WPM and use the linear max–min normalization process in which the cost and benefit criteria are treated in a different way.

5.1.1. The IF-TOPSIS Tool

The IF-TOPSIS method contains the following steps:
Steps 1–4: Follow the aforesaid tool.
Step 5: Compute the IF-PIS and IF-NIS.
Let p b and p n be the collection of benefits and cost indicators, respectively. Let N j + and N j be the IF-PIS and IF-NIS, respectively, defined by
N j + = μ j + , ν j + = max S ξ i j ,     for   benefit   criterion min S ξ i j ,     for   cos t   criterion
N = μ j , ν j = min S ξ i j ,     for   benefit   criterion max S ξ i j ,     for   cos t   criterion   ,  
where j = 1 , 2 , , n .
Step 6: Evaluation of distances from IF-PIS and IF-NIS.
The weighted distance of the options t i i = 1 , 2 , , m from the IF-IS N j + is estimated as
D ξ i j ,   N j +   =   1 2     j = 1 n w j μ i j     μ j + 2 + ν i j     ν j + 2 + π i j     π j + 2 ,
and the distance of the options t i i = 1 , 2 , , m from the IF-AIS N j is calculated as
D ξ i j ,   N j   =   1 2     j = 1 n w j μ i j     μ j 2 + ν i j     ν j 2 + π i j     π j 2 ,
Step 7: Find the “relative closeness coefficient (RCC)”.
Finally, the RCC of each option is obtained as
C C i = D ξ i j ,     N j D ξ i j ,     N j + D ξ i j ,     N j + .
Step 8: Choose the appropriate one from the maximum RCC value.
From Table 5, Equations (23) and (24), IF-PIS, and IF-NIS are obtained as
N j + = {(0.830, 0.130, 0.041), (0.779, 0.169, 0.052), (0.221, 0.699, 0.080), (0.286, 0.614, 0.101) (0.847, 0.123, 0.030), (0.816, 0.151, 0.033), (0.712, 0.204, 0.084), (0.261, 0.658, 0.082), (0.236, 0.679, 0.085), (0.809, 0.145, 0.046), (0.801, 0.162, 0.037)},
N j = {(0.620, 0.276, 0.103), (0.574, 0.323, 0.104), (0.327, 0.572, 0.101), (0.392, 0.506, 0.102), (0.575, 0.321, 0.104), (0.595, 0.312, 0.094), (0.621, 0.296, 0.084), (0.379, 0.521, 0.100), (0.330, 0.567, 0.103), (0.562, 0.334, 0.104), (0.698, 0.230, 0.072)}.
Using Equations (25)–(27), the outcomes of the IF-TOPSIS method are depicted in Table 9.
Therefore, the ranking of SUT options is T 4 T 2 T 1 T 5 T 3 , and the CNG (T4) has a higher degree of RCC.

5.1.2. The IF-COPRAS Tool

This method comprises the steps as follows:
Steps 1–4: Follow the aforesaid model.
Step 5: Sum of the ratings of benefit and cost criteria:
α i = j = 1 l   w j   ξ i j ,
β i = j = l + 1 n   w j   ξ i j .
Step 6: Find the “relative degree (RD)” of each option using
γ i = ϑ S α i + 1 ϑ i = 1 m S β i S β i i = 1 m 1 S β i ,   i = 1 , 2 , , m .
Step 7: Estimate the “utility degree (UD)” of each option using
δ i = γ i     γ max × 100   % ,   i = 1 , 2 , , m .
Applying Equations (28)–(31), the implementation results are mentioned in Table 10. Thus, the CNG (T4) was obtained as the suitable SUT option with the highest RD (0.7029).

5.1.3. The IF-WASPAS Tool

Steps 1–4: Follow the proposed tool.
Step 5: Find the WSM and WPM degrees by using Equations (32) and (33), respectively,
S i ( 1 )   =   j = 1 n w j ξ i j ,
S i ( 2 )   =   j = 1 n ξ i j w j .
Step 6: Determine the UD of options using
Q i   =     S i ( 1 )   +   1     S i ( 2 ) ,       i .
Step 7: Prioritize the options as per the UD Q i .
By means of Equations (32)–(34), the UD for prioritizing SUT options are demonstrated in Table 11.
Hence, the ranking of the options is T 4 T 2 T 1 T 5 T 3 , and the CNG (T4) is a suitable choice with maximum UD.

5.1.4. The IF-CoCoSo Tool

Steps 1–5: Similar to the IF-WASPAS model.
Step 6: Estimate the “balanced compromise degrees (BCDs)” of options as
Q i 1 = S S i ( 1 ) + S S i ( 2 ) i = 1 m S S i ( 1 ) + S S i ( 2 ) ,
Q i 2 = S S i ( 1 ) min i S S i ( 1 ) + S S i ( 2 ) min i S S i ( 2 ) ,
Q i 3 = ϑ   S S i ( 1 ) + 1 ϑ S S i ( 2 ) ϑ   max i S S i ( 1 ) + 1 ϑ max i S S i ( 2 ) ,
Step 8: Assess the “overall compromise degree (OCD)” of options are computed as
Q i = Q i 1 Q i 2 Q i 3 1 3 + 1 3 Q i 1 + Q i 2 + Q i 3 .
Step 9: Prioritize the options using OCD Q i in decreasing order.
Using Equations (35)–(38), the OCSs are depicted in Table 12. From Table 12, the CNG (T4) is the best SUT alternative for prioritizing SUT options.
The comparative outcomes are displayed in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 and Figure 3. From Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12, it can be observed that the optimal SUT is T4 (CNG) for prioritizing SUT options using almost all MCDM tools. The advantages of the developed IF-relative closeness coefficient-OCRA model are presented as follows:
  • The proposed method utilizes the linear normalization procedure and relative closeness coefficient, while the IF-COPRAS method utilizes only the vector normalization procedure, where IF-WASPAS, IF-TOPSIS, and IF-CoCoSo use only the linear normalization procedure. Thus, the proposed method avoids the information loss and provides more accurate decision results by means of different criteria.
  • The IF-WASPAS, IF-CoCoSo, and the proposed method associate the WSM and WPM to enhance the accuracy of outcomes. In IF-COPRAS, the IFWA operator, utility degrees of options are obtained. In IF-TOPSIS, the closeness coefficients based on the distance measure of each option are estimated, while the IF–closeness coefficient–OCRA utilizes the performance of independent assessment of options over benefit and cost indicators and combines these two APRs so as to determine OPRs, which supports DEs not to misplace information during the MADA process.
  • The systematic assessment of DEs’ weights using the IF-score value and IF-rank sum model reduce the imprecision and biases in the MADA procedure.
  • The developed method determines the criteria weights by using the IF–relative closeness coefficient-based tool. In contrast, in IF-WASPAS, the criteria weight is obtained with a similarity measure-based tool, in IF-CoCoSo, the criteria weight is obtained using divergence measure and the score function-based approach, and in IF-COPRAS and IF-TOPSIS, the criteria weight is chosen randomly.

6. Conclusions

The evaluation of the SUT selection problem is considered as an intricate MADA problem owing to the presence of multiple qualitative and quantitative indicators. The aim of this work is to introduce an MADA model for assessing and prioritizing SUT options from an IFS perspective. In this regard, a hybrid intuitionistic fuzzy MADA framework was introduced with the integration of the IF-distance measure, IF-relative closeness coefficient-based weight-determining model, and the OCRA approach. In this regard, new parametric IF-distance measure was presented and their properties discussed. In this framework, new formulae were discussed to find the DEs’ weights and indicators’ weights. To illustrate the reasonableness and utility of the developed framework, a case study of SUT options assessment was taken under IFSs settings. A comparison with extant tools was conducted to expose the rationality and solidity of the obtained outcomes. The findings of the outcomes proved that the presented framework has great significance and strength and is very consistent compared to the prior introduced tools. The main advantages of the proposed framework are the simple computational steps under IFS context and development of weight-determining tools for DEs and indicators during the assessment of SUT options.
However, this method neglects the subjective weights of indicators during the SUT options assessment. In addition, the present work does not consider the target-based indicators. This study is not able to express the indeterminate and inconsistent information in the process of SUT alternatives assessment. In a future study we will try to improve the limitations of this study by developing new models with integrated subjective–objective weights of indicators in SUT assessment. In the future, it would be exciting to use the introduced OCRA model for other decision-making scenarios such as IoT-enabling technologies assessment for the SUT system, waste-to-energy plant selection, biofuel product plant location evaluations. etc. In addition, we will extend the proposed OCRA model under different disciplines, namely, complex q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets, dual probabilistic linguistic term sets, and others.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C., I.M.H. and A.R.M.; methodology, P.R. and J.L.; software, A.R.M.; validation, F.C., A.R.M. and P.R.; formal analysis, A.R.M.; investigation, F.C.; resources, I.M.H.; data curation, I.M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.M., P.R. and J.L.; writing—review and editing, J.L.; visualization, A.R.M.; supervision, I.M.H. and F.C.; project administration, P.R. and A.R.M.; funding acquisition, I.M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research is funded by "Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2023R389), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. Büyüközkan, G.; Feyzioğlu, O.; Göçer, F. Selection of sustainable urban transportation alternatives using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral approach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 58, 186–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ji, X.; Wu, J.; Zhu, Q. Eco-design of transportation in sustainable supply chain management: A DEA-like method. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 48, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pamucar, D.; Deveci, M.; Canitez, F.; Paksoy, T.; Lukovac, V. A novel methodology for prioritizing zero-carbon measures for sustainable transport. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1093–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Deveci, M.; Mishra, A.R.; Gokasar, I.; Rani, P.; Pamucar, D.; Ozcan, E. A decision support system for assessing and prioritizing sustainable urban transportation in Metaverse. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hezam, I.M.; Mishra, A.R.; Rani, P.; Alshamrani, A. Assessing the barriers of digitally sustainable transportation system for persons with disabilities using Fermatean fuzzy double normalization-based multiple aggregation method. Appl. Soft Comput. 2023, 133, 109910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jeon, C.M.; Amekudzi, A. Addressing sustainability in transportation systems: Definitions, indicators, and metrics. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2005, 11, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chang, H.-L.; Chen, P.-C. Exploring senior officials’ policy beliefs regarding sustainable transportation. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2009, 14, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Deakin, M.; Curwell, S.; Lombardi, P. Sustainable urban development: The framework and directory of assessment methods. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2002, 4, 171–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Litman, T.; Burwel, D. Issues in sustainable transportation. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2006, 6, 331–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Walker, W.E.; Rahman, S.A.; van Grol, R.; Klautzer, L. Operationalizing the concept of sustainable transport and mobility. Environ. Pract. 2006, 8, 24–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, S.; Meng, F.; Li, X. Some interactive uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based on Shapley function and their application. Manag. Syst. Eng. 2022, 1, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lin, J.; Xu, Z.; Huang, Y.; Chen, R. The Choquet integral-based Shapley function for n-person cooperative games with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy coalitions. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 213, 118882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fang, S.; Zhou, P.; Dinçer, H.; Yüksel, S. Assessment of safety management system on energy investment risk using house of quality based on hybrid stochastic interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making approach. Saf. Sci. 2021, 141, 105333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bonnini, S. Multivariate approach for comparative evaluations of customer satisfaction with application to transport services. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 2016, 45, 1554–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bonnini, S.; Piccolo, D.; Salmaso, L.; Solmi, F. Permutation inference for a class of mixture models. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 2012, 41, 2879–2895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Bonnini, S.; Prodi, N.; Salmaso, L.; Visentin, C. Permutation approaches for stochastic ordering. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 2014, 43, 2227–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Atanassov, K.T. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986, 20, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Büyüközkan, G.; Göçer, F. Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 52, 1222–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liang, H.; Ren, J.; Lin, R.; Liu, Y. Alternative-fuel based vehicles for sustainable transportation: A fuzzy group decision supporting framework for sustainability prioritization. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 140, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ecer, F. An extended MAIRCA method using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for coronavirus vaccine selection in the age of COVID-19. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 5603–5623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Yedla, S.; Shrestha, R.M. Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2003, 37, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Omrani, H. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12270–12280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Verma, A.; Rahul, T.M.; Dixit, M. Sustainability impact assessment of transportation policies—A case study for Bangalore city. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2014, 3, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Onat, N.C.; Gumus, S.; Kucukvar, M.; Tatari, O. Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016, 6, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Onat, N.C.; Kucukvar, M.; Tatari, O.; Zheng, Q.P. Combined application of multi-criteria optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative passenger cars in U.S. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karlson, M.; Karlsson, C.S.J.; Mörtberg, U.; Olofsson, B.; Balfors, B. Design and evaluation of railway corridors based on spatial ecological and geological criteria. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 46, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Miller, P.; de Barros, A.G.; Kattan, L.; Wirasinghe, S.C. Analyzing the sustainability performance of public transit. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 44, 177–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rajak, S.; Parthiban, P.; Dhanalakshmi, R. Sustainable transportation systems performance evaluation using fuzzy logic. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Buwana, E.; Hasibuan, H.S.; Abdini, C. Alternatives selection for sustainable transportation system in Kasongan City. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 227, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gouda, A.A.; Masoumi, H.E. Sustainable transportation according to certification systems: A viability analysis based on neighborhood size and context relevance. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 63, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Melkonyan, A.; Gruchmann, T.; Lohmar, F.; Bleischwitz, R. Decision support for sustainable urban mobility: A case study of the Rhine-Ruhr area. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 80, 103806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Verma, A.; Harsha, V.; Subramanian, G.H. Evolution of Urban Transportation Policies in India: A Review and Analysis. Transp. Dev. Econ. 2021, 7, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mustafa, S.; Bajwa, A.A.; Iqbal, S. A new fuzzy grach model to forecast stock market technical analysis. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2022, 5, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mahmood, T.; Ullah, K.; Khan, Q.; Jan, N. An approach toward decision-making and medical diagnosis problems using the concept of spherical fuzzy sets. Neural Comput. Appl. 2019, 31, 7041–7053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ullah, A. Picture Fuzzy Maclaurin Symmetric Mean Operators and Their Applications in Solving Multiattribute Decision-Making Problems. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1098631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Akram, M.; Ullah, K.; Pamucar, D. Performance Evaluation of Solar Energy Cells Using the Interval-Valued T-Spherical Fuzzy Bonferroni Mean Operators. Energies 2022, 15, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rasoulzadeh, M.; Edalatpanah, S.A.; Fallah, M.; Najafi, S.E. A multi-objective approach based on Markowitz and DEA cross-efficiency models for the intuitionistic fuzzy portfolio selection problem. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2022, 5, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, Z.; Liu, P. Intuitionistic fuzzy value similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Comput. Appl. Math. 2022, 41, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, Z.; Kong, M.; Yan, L. Novel Transformation Methods Among Intuitionistic Fuzzy Models for Mixed Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision Making Problems. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 100596–100607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Couso, I.; Bustince, H. From Fuzzy Sets to Interval-Valued and Atanassov Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: A Unified View of Different Axiomatic Measures. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2019, 27, 362–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rahimi, M.; Kumar, P.; Moomivand, B.; Yari, G. An intuitionistic fuzzy entropy approach for supplier selection. Complex Intell. Syst. 2021, 7, 1869–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buran, B.; Erçek, M. Public transportation business model evaluation with Spherical and Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 204, 117519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Parkan, C. Operational competitiveness ratings of production units. Manag. Decis. Econ. 1994, 15, 201–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Madic, M.; Petkovic, D.; Radovanovic, M. Selection of non-conventional machining processes using the OCRA method. Serb. J. Manag. 2015, 10, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Liu, S.; Karabasevic, D.; Popovic, G. Improved OCRA method based on the use of interval grey numbers. J. Grey Syst. 2017, 29, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  47. Roman-Liu, D.; Groborz, A.; Tokarski, T. Comparison of risk assessment procedures used in OCRA and ULRA methods. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 1584–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ulutaş, A. Supplier Selection by Using a Fuzzy Integrated Model for a Textile Company. Inz. Ekon. Eng. Econ. 2019, 30, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ulutaş, A.; Popovic, G.; Stanujkic, D.; Karabasevic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. A New Hybrid MCDM Model for Personnel Selection Based on a Novel Grey PIPRECIA and Grey OCRA Methods. Mathematics 2020, 8, 1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Candan, G. Efficiency and performance analysis of economics research using hesitant fuzzy AHP and OCRA methods. Scientometrics 2020, 124, 2645–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mohammed, A.; Yazdani, M.; Oukil, A.; Gonzalez, E.D.R.S. A Hybrid MCDM Approach towards Resilient Sourcing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stanujkic, D.; Popovic, G.; Karabasevic, D.; Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I.; Ulutas, A. An Integrated Simple Weighted Sum Product Method-WISP. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Xu, Z.S. Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2007, 15, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar]
  54. Xu, G.L.; Wan, S.P.; Xie, X.L. A Selection Method Based on MAGDM with Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 791204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Wang, W.; Xin, X. Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2005, 26, 2063–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tzeng, G.H.; Lin, C.W.; Opricovic, S. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1373–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. SIAM. Vision & Recommendations Alternative Fuels in India (VARAFI). 2019. Available online: (accessed on 22 December 2022).
  58. Qureshi, I.; Lu, H. Urban transport and sustainable transport strategies: A case study of Karachi, Pakistan. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2007, 12, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wei, J.; Xia, W.; Guo, X.; Marinova, D. Urban transportation in Chinese cities: An efficiency assessment. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2013, 23, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Gitinavard, H.; Shirazi, M.A. An extended intuitionistic fuzzy modified group complex proportional assessment approach. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2018, 11, 229–246. [Google Scholar]
  61. Roszkowska, E.; Kusterka-Jefmańska, M.; Jefmański, B. Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS as a Method for Assessing Socioeconomic Phenomena on the Basis of Survey Data. Entropy 2021, 23, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tripathi, D.K.; Nigam, S.K.; Rani, P.; Shah, A.R. New intuitionistic fuzzy parametric divergence measures and score function-based CoCoSo method for decision-making problems. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flowchart of the developed IF–closeness coefficient–OCRA model.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the developed IF–closeness coefficient–OCRA model.
Axioms 12 00144 g001
Figure 2. Weight of indicator for prioritizing HSS with the IF–SD–RS model.
Figure 2. Weight of indicator for prioritizing HSS with the IF–SD–RS model.
Axioms 12 00144 g002
Figure 3. Assessment degrees of alternatives by different methods.
Figure 3. Assessment degrees of alternatives by different methods.
Axioms 12 00144 g003
Table 1. LVs for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 1. LVs for prioritizing SUT options.
Absolutely high (AH)(0.95, 0.05)
Very very high (VVH)(0.85, 0.1)
Very high (VH)(0.8, 0.15)
High (H)(0.7, 0.2)
Slightly high (MH)(0.6, 0.3)
Average (A)(0.5, 0.4)
Slightly low (ML)(0.4, 0.5)
Low (L)(0.3,0.6)
Very very low (VL)(0.2, 0.7)
Very low (VVL)(0.1, 0.8)
Absolutely low (AL)(0.05, 0.95)
Table 2. The inclusive evaluation indicators for SUT options.
Table 2. The inclusive evaluation indicators for SUT options.
Indicators Sub-CriteriaType
Economical (I1)Energy availability (r1)Max
Energy efficiency (r2)Max
Acquisition cost (r3)Min
Operating cost (r4)Min
Technical (I2)Vehicle capacity (r5)Max
Road capacity (r6)Max
Flow conformance(r7)Max
Environmental factor (I3)Noise pollution (r8)Min
Air pollution (r9)Min
Social (I4)Passenger comfort (r10)Max
Social impact (r11)Max
Table 3. Weights of DEs for ranking SUT options.
Table 3. Weights of DEs for ranking SUT options.
RatingsVVH (0.85, 0.10)VH (0.80, 0.15)AH (0.95, 0.05)H (0.7, 0.20)
λ k 0.27930.22170.33760.1615
Table 4. LDM for prioritizing SUT options by DEs.
Table 4. LDM for prioritizing SUT options by DEs.
Table 5. AIF-DM for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 5. AIF-DM for prioritizing SUT options.
r1(0.698, 0.215, 0.087)(0.830, 0.130, 0.041)(0.620, 0.276, 0.103)(0.830, 0.130, 0.041)(0.645, 0.260, 0.095)
r2(0.638, 0.270, 0.092)(0.751, 0.169, 0.080)(0.574, 0.323, 0.104)(0.779, 0.169, 0.052)(0.690, 0.226, 0.084)
r3(0.315, 0.584, 0.101)(0.221, 0.699, 0.080)(0.322, 0.577, 0.101)(0.298, 0.602, 0.101)(0.327, 0.572, 0.101)
r4(0.384, 0.478, 0.139)(0.286, 0.614, 0.101)(0.355, 0.543, 0.103)(0.392, 0.506, 0.102)(0.295, 0.604, 0.101)
r5(0.575, 0.321, 0.104)(0.632, 0.285, 0.083)(0.614, 0.283, 0.103)(0.847, 0.123, 0.030)(0.703, 0.210, 0.087)
r6(0.816, 0.151, 0.033) (0.595, 0.312, 0.094) (0.661, 0.255, 0.084) (0.798, 0.164, 0.039) (0.679, 0.237, 0.084)
r7(0.618, 0.293, 0.088)(0.621, 0.296, 0.084)(0.698, 0.230, 0.072)(0.712, 0.204, 0.084)(0.689, 0.224, 0.087)
r8(0.261, 0.658, 0.082)(0.379, 0.521, 0.100)(0.367, 0.530, 0.102)(0.281, 0.634, 0.085)(0.286, 0.611, 0.104)
r9(0.330, 0.567, 0.103)(0.316, 0.581, 0.103)(0.296, 0.616, 0.088)(0.236, 0.679, 0.085)(0.319, 0.579, 0.103)
r10(0.811, 0.159, 0.030)(0.809, 0.145, 0.046)(0.669, 0.249, 0.082)(0.562, 0.334, 0.104)(0.654, 0.263, 0.083)
r11(0.705, 0.212, 0.084)(0.703, 0.217, 0.080)(0.801, 0.162, 0.037)(0.701, 0.209, 0.091)(0.698, 0.230, 0.072)
Table 6. Weight of criteria in the form of LTs for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 6. Weight of criteria in the form of LTs for prioritizing SUT options.
Criteriag1g2g3g4AIF-DM p i j + p i j r c j w j
r1HVHHA(0.702, 0.210, 0.088)0.2570.7430.7430.0893
r2MHAVHMH(0.667, 0.253, 0.080)0.2950.7050.7050.0847
r3VHMLVVHH(0.753, 0.179, 0.068)0.2150.7850.7850.0943
r4AAVVHAH(0.770, 0.179, 0.051)0.2060.7940.7940.0954
r5MHMLMHAH(0.687, 0.252, 0.061)0.2840.7160.7160.0860
r6HMLAHA(0.793, 0.172, 0.036)0.1910.8090.8090.0973
r7VHMHMLVH(0.662, 0.263, 0.075)0.3030.6970.6970.0838
r8MLVHMHVVH(0.672, 0.248, 0.079)0.2910.7090.7090.0852
r9VHMHAHML(0.826, 0.147, 0.028)0.1610.8390.8390.1008
r10AVHVVHA(0.728, 0.202, 0.070)0.2390.7610.7610.0915
r11VVHMHHMH(0.724, 0.192, 0.084)0.2370.7630.7630.0917
Table 7. IF-score values of AIF-DM for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 7. IF-score values of AIF-DM for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 8. The overall performance rating of SUT options.
Table 8. The overall performance rating of SUT options.
Options P i P ¯ i Q i Q ¯ i O i Ranking
Table 9. The RCC of options for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 9. The RCC of options for prioritizing SUT options.
Alternative D ξ i j ,     N j + D ξ i j ,     N j CCiRanks
Table 10. The UD of options for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 10. The UD of options for prioritizing SUT options.
Options α i S α i β i S β i γ i δ i
T1(0.540, 0.389, 0.071)0.575(0.137, 0.807, 0.055)0.1650.7040100.00
T2(0.544, 0.378, 0.078)0.583(0.126, 0.826, 0.048)0.1500.703999.99
T3(0.501, 0.419, 0.080)0.541(0.142, 0.808, 0.050)0.1670.700399.47
T4(0.591, 0.344, 0.065)0.623(0.127, 0.826, 0.046)0.1500.702999.84
T5(0.509, 0.414, 0.077)0.548(0.129, 0.820, 0.051)0.1540.696698.95
Table 11. The IF-WASPAS model for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 11. The IF-WASPAS model for prioritizing SUT options.
Options S i ( 1 )   S i ( 2 )   S S i ( 1 )   S S i ( 2 )   Q i
T1(0.666, 0.254, 0.080)(0.642, 0.268, 0.090)0.7060.6870.6965
T2(0.683, 0.238, 0.079)(0.661, 0.255, 0.084)0.7220.7030.7128
T3(0.637, 0.277, 0.086)(0.624, 0.286, 0.091)0.6800.6690.6743
T4(0.713, 0.234, 0.054)(0.685, 0.237, 0.078)0.7400.7240.7317
T5(0.649, 0.260, 0.091)(0.644, 0.264, 0.092)0.6940.6900.6923
Table 12. The OCS for prioritizing SUT options.
Table 12. The OCS for prioritizing SUT options.
Options Q i 1 Q i 2 Q i 3 Q i
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mishra, A.R.; Rani, P.; Cavallaro, F.; Hezam, I.M.; Lakshmi, J. An Integrated Intuitionistic Fuzzy Closeness Coefficient-Based OCRA Method for Sustainable Urban Transportation Options Selection. Axioms 2023, 12, 144.

AMA Style

Mishra AR, Rani P, Cavallaro F, Hezam IM, Lakshmi J. An Integrated Intuitionistic Fuzzy Closeness Coefficient-Based OCRA Method for Sustainable Urban Transportation Options Selection. Axioms. 2023; 12(2):144.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mishra, Arunodaya Raj, Pratibha Rani, Fausto Cavallaro, Ibrahim M. Hezam, and Jyoti Lakshmi. 2023. "An Integrated Intuitionistic Fuzzy Closeness Coefficient-Based OCRA Method for Sustainable Urban Transportation Options Selection" Axioms 12, no. 2: 144.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop