**4. Methods and Results**

#### *4.1. Hierarchical Design for the Evaluation of Different EVs*

Electric vehicles are a revolutionary innovation that has yet to reach consumers outside of the "innovator" and "early adopter" groups in most regions [33]. Promoting a different and innovative technology creates hurdles, and the appropriate strategy may be quite beneficial in improving widespread approval. Under the challenges of energy efficiency and atmospheric pollution, several nations should reform their current energy utilization structure in order to minimize fuel energy demand and CO2 emissions. Acceptance of EVs has the potential to decrease reliance on foreign oil energy while also addressing specific environmental pollution issues. When compared to a regular gas-powered automobile, EVs have a significantly higher purchase price, lower availability of charging facilities, and a longer charging time, making people reluctant to acquire an EV. In this paper, we used a fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS-based unified technique to evaluate the different types of EV alternatives such as BEVs, FCEVs, HEVs, PHEVs, and REHEVs, which are represented as T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively.

As shown in Figure 8, the four significant criteria at level one and corresponding subcriteria at level two in the present method that contributed to the evaluation of different EVs were clearly recognized and constructed based on a survey of the literature, as well as input from several automobile specialists. The primary factors at level one that can have a substantial impact on EVs performance were divided into five categories; i.e., regulatory, technical, business, and design, denoted by S1, S2, S3, and S4, respectively. The regulatory level included three subfactors; i.e., government policies, traffic policies, and internal policies, denoted by S11, S12, and S13, respectively. Further, the technical level included four significant subfactors; i.e., efficiency, coverage, environmental, and safety, denoted by S21, S22, S23, and S24, respectively. Furthermore, the business level included three subfactors; i.e., consumer satisfaction, servicing, and investment, denoted by S31, S32, and S33, respectively. Lastly, the design level included three subfactors; i.e., battery, recyclable, and compatibility, denoted by S41, S42, and S43, respectively. Figure 8 illustrates the hierarchical structure used for the multicriteria decision making in this research. This hierarchical structure assisted in evaluating the performance of five alternatives.

**Figure 8.** The hierarchy structure for the evaluation of different EVs.
