SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Automotive Science and Technology / 2025 / Volume: 9 Issue: 4

Sustainable Transportation and Environmental Quality in Germany: Quantitative Evidence on the Role of International Logistics, Trade, and Investment

İpek Gürsoy(Tarsus Üniversitesi)0000-0002-6409-7177
Sefa Özbek(Tarsus Üniversitesi)0000-0002-1043-2056
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that logistics activities increase environmental pollution.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Environmental sustainability is a topic of global debate.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the stationarity level of the variables logistics, trade openness, foreign direct investment, economic growth, and environmental degradation for the period 1980-2024 was determined using traditional and Fourier-based unit root and stationarity tests.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that logistics activities increase environmental pollution.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Environmental pollution · Foreign direct investment · Logistics

Abstract

Environmental sustainability is a topic of global debate. Environmental degradation, a frequently discussed topic within the context of sustainable development goals, has been frequently discussed in the context of economic growth and energy consumption. However, the impact of the logistics sector on environmental pollution has received relatively limited discussion. This study examines the impact of logistics activities, trade openness, foreign direct investment, and economic growth on environmental degradation. This research, conducted on Germany, a leading country in the logistics field, is expected to fill a gap in the relevant literature. In this study, the stationarity level of the variables logistics, trade openness, foreign direct investment, economic growth, and environmental degradation for the period 1980-2024 was determined using traditional and Fourier-based unit root and stationarity tests. Based on the results, the long-term relationship between the variables was investigated using the A-ARDL cointegration method proposed by Sam et al. (2019). FMOLS and CCR estimation were used as long-term estimators. The DOLS method was used as a robustness test. The A-ARDL cointegration test findings in the study revealed a long-run relationship between the variables logistics, trade openness, foreign direct investment, economic growth, and environmental degradation. In addition to the FMOLS and CCR tests used in coefficient estimation, the DOLS robustness test results are consistent. The results indicate that logistics activities increase environmental pollution. Conversely, increasing trade openness reduces environmental degradation. Furthermore, increased economic growth improves environmental quality. Given that Germany has a strong presence among developed countries, particularly in logistics activities and export-led growth, the findings of this study provide important insights for policy makers.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gürsoy, İ., Özbek, S. (2025). Sustainable Transportation and Environmental Quality in Germany: Quantitative Evidence on the Role of International Logistics, Trade, and Investment. International Journal of Automotive Science and Technology, Volume: 9 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech..1765276

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (85)

  1. Dam M. M., Durmaz A., Bekun F. V., Tiwari A. K. The role of green growth and institutional quality on environmental sus-tainability: A comparison of CO2 emissions, ecological foot-print and inverted load capacity factor for OECD coun-tries, Journal of Environmental Management. 2024;365:121551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121551
  2. Júnior R. C. F., Lima C. P., Viani R. B., da Fonseca A. S. The relationship between innovation ecosystem and bioeconomy: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Innova-tion. 2025;13(2):1-26. https://doi.org/10.5585/2025.26936
  3. Hughes L., Dwivedi Y. K., Misra S. K., Rana N. P., Raghavan V., Akella V. Blockchain research, practice and policy: Appli-cations, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and re-search agenda. International journal of information management. 2019;49:114-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.005
  4. Alharbi T., Abdalrahman A., Mostafa M. H. Data-driven EV charging infrastructure with uncertainty based on a spatial–temporal flow-driven (STFD) models considering batter-ies. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1):27056. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-12079-3
  5. Li X., Zhu G., Sun J., Wu L., Peng Y. Research on the Coordi-nation of Transportation Network and Ecological Corridors Based on Maxent Model and Circuit Theory in the Giant Panda National Park, China. Land. 2025;14(7):1465. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071465
  6. Eurostat, 2023. Freight Transport Statistics - Modal Split. Freight transport statistics - modal split - Statistics Explained - Eurostat, Available on the Internet: Freight transport statistics - modal split - Statistics Explained - Eurostat (13.08.2025).
  7. Alarcón F. E., Sauma E., Alias C. The competitiveness of electric trucks in multimodal networks: A case study of integra-tion with inland waterways. Journal of Transport Geography. 2025;126:104252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104252
  8. Rezaei J., van Roekel W. S., Tavasszy L. Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport policy. 2018;68:158-169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007.
  9. Evangelista P., Durst S. Knowledge management in environ-mental sustainability practices of third-party logistics service providers. Vine. 2015;45(4):509-529. https://doi.org/10.1108/VINE-02-2015-0012
  10. He Z., Chen P., Liu H., Guo Z. Performance measurement system and strategies for developing low-carbon logistics: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Produc-tion. 2017;156:395-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.071
  11. Li X., Aghazadeh S., Liaquat M., Nassani A. A., Eweade B. S. Transforming Costa Rica's environmental quality: The role of renewable energy, rule of law, corruption control, and foreign direct investment in building a sustainable future. Renewable Energy. 2025;239:121993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121993
  12. Shahbaz M., Nasreen S., Ahmed K., Hammoudeh S. Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: the importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Econom-ics. 2017;61:221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.008
  13. Yingjun Z., Jahan S., Qamruzzaman M. Technological Inno-vation, Trade Openness, Natural Resources, and Environmental Sustainability in Egypt and Turkey: Evidence from Load Ca-pacity Factor and Inverted Load Capacity Factor with Fourier Functions. Sustainability. 2024;16(19):1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198643
  14. Abdi A. H., Warsame A. A., Sugow M. O., Hussein H. A. Transitioning to sustainable energy and enhanced environmen-tal quality in Somalia through renewable energy, globalisation and trade openness. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1):6367. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-87819-6
  15. Eyuboglu K., Umut U. How does democracy impact the envi-ronment? An economic and political analysis of load capacity in Egypt. Sustainable Futures. 2025;100860:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100860
  16. Wan B., Wan W., Hanif N., Ahmed Z. Logistics performance and environmental sustainability: Do green innovation, renew-able energy, and economic globalization matter?. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2022;996341:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.996341
  17. Cheng, H., Chaudhry, H. R., Kazi, I., & Umar, M. Unlocking greener supply chains: A global innovative perspective on the role of logistics performance in reducing ecological foot-prints. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 2024;9(4):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100612
  18. Abdul Mumin, M., Yakubu I. N., Adam I. O. The synthesis of logistics performance and technological innovation on envi-ronmental quality. Technological Sustainability. 2025;4(1):114-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/TECHS-05-2024-0048
  19. Zheng Z., Xie R., Liu M. Analysis of Carbon Emissions in Guangxi Logistics Industry Based on Environmental Kuznets Model. In Artificial Intelligence, Medical Engineering and Edu-cation. IOS Press. 2025;444-452. doi:10.3233/ATDE250155
  20. Balsalobre-Lorente D., Shahbaz M., Roubaud D., Farhani S. How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural re-sources contribute to CO2 emissions?. Energy poli-cy. 2018;113:356-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.050
  21. Wang L., Akhtar M. J., Khan M. N., Asghar N., ur Rehman H., Xu Y. Assessing the environmental sustainability gap in G20 economies: The roles of economic growth, energy mix, foreign direct investment, and population. Heliyon. 2024;10(4):1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26535
  22. Ullah S., Luo R., Adebayo T. S., Kartal M. T. Paving the ways toward sustainable development: the asymmetric effect of economic complexity, renewable electricity, and foreign direct investment on the environmental sustainability in BRICS-T. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2024;26(4):9115-9139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03085-4.
  23. Soto G. H. The effects of foreign direct investment on envi-ronmentally related technologies in Latin America. Resources Policy. 2024;90:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104711
  24. Padhan H., Behera D. K., Sahu S. K., Dash, U. Examining the dynamic synthesis between environmental quality, economic globalization, and economic complexity in OECD coun-tries. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2025;27(2):3777-3795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04041-y
  25. Hossain M. S. Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbaniza-tion of newly industrialized countries. Energy policy. 2011;39(11):6991-6999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.042
  26. Shahbaz M., Hye Q. M. A., Tiwari A. K., Leitão N. C. Eco-nomic growth, energy consumption, financial development, in-ternational trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews. 2013;25:109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.009
  27. Usman O., Akadiri S. S., Adeshola I. Role of renewable ener-gy and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: impli-cations for environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020,27(24):30681-30693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09170-9
  28. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade, 2025. Federal Alman-ya Pazar Bilgileri. Available on the Internet: https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5ebd2bb913b876cbbc365233/Almanya%20Pazar%20Bilgileri_2025.pdf (09.07.2025)
  29. World Bank, 2023. Logistics Performance Index (LPI). https://lpi.worldbank.org/, Available on the Internet: https://lpi.worldbank.org/ (08.07.2025)
  30. Xuan V. N. Nexus of innovation, renewable energy, FDI, trade openness, and economic growth in Germany: New in-sights from ARDL method. Renewable Energy. 2025;247:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.123060
  31. Dam M. M., Sarkodie S. A. Renewable energy consumption, real income, trade openness, and inverted load capacity factor nexus in Turkiye: Revisiting the EKC hypothesis with envi-ronmental sustainability. Sustainable Horizons. 2023;8: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2023.100063
  32. Sun J., Qamruzzaman M. Technological innovation, trade openness, natural resources, clean energy on environmental sustainably: a competitive assessment between CO2 emission, ecological footprint, load capacity factor and inverted load ca-pacity factor in BRICS+ T. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2025;12:1-23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1520562
  33. Dam M. M., Işık C., Ongan S. The impacts of renewable en-ergy and institutional quality in environmental sustainability in the context of the sustainable development goals: A novel ap-proach with the inverted load capacity factor. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2023;30(42):95394-95409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29020-8
  34. Magazzino C., Alola A. A., Schneider N. The trilemma of innovation, logistics performance, and environmental quality in 25 topmost logistics countries: A quantile regression evi-dence. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;322:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129050.
  35. OECD, 2017. ITF Transport Outlook 2017. OECD Publish-ing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789282108000-en.
  36. Shamout M. D. Towards a cleaner and sustainable Europe and Central Asia: An investigation of the logistics‐environment nexus. Sustainable Development. 2024;32(6):6629-6642. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3055
  37. Subramaniam Y. Logistic and environmental quality. Present Environment & Sustainable Development. 2021;15(1):35-48. https://doi.org/10.15551/pesd2021151003
  38. Liu J., Yuan C., Hafeez M., Yuan Q. The relationship between environment and logistics performance: Evidence from Asian countries. Journal of cleaner production. 2018;204: 282-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.310
  39. Hanafy S. A., Abouelenein M. F., Roushdy N., Ibrahiem D. M., Addai G., Sethi N., Samah R. Key factors in environmental quality: Green finance, energy and trade. Energy Strategy Re-views. 2025;60:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2025.101800
  40. Managi S., Hibiki,A., Tsurumi T. Does trade openness im-prove environmental quality?. Journal of environmental eco-nomics and management. 2009;58(3):346-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.04.008
  41. Wijethunga A. W. G. C. N., Rahman M. M., Sarker T. Does Financial Development Moderate the relationship between Economic Growth-and Environmental Quality?. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. 2025;1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100728
  42. Zhu S., Wang T. Y., Xie W. J., Zhou W. X. Revealing intrin-sic communities in the international foreign direct investment networks through their backbones. Chaos, Solitons & Frac-tals. 2025;199:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2025.116766
  43. Li X. I. N. G., Aghazadeh S., Liaquat M., Nassani A. A., Eweade B. S. Transforming Costa Rica's environmental quali-ty: The role of renewable energy, rule of law, corruption con-trol, and foreign direct investment in building a sustainable fu-ture. Renewable Energy. 2025;239:1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121993
  44. Dogan M., Sahin S., Ullah A., Safi A. Promoting environ-mental sustainability: A policy perspective on hydroelectric power generation, foreign direct investments, and financial de-velopment. Energy. 2024;312:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.133576
  45. Tamazian A., Chousa J. P., Vadlamannati K. C. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental deg-radation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy policy. 2009;37(1):246-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.025.
  46. Yıldırım M., Destek M. A., Manga M. Foreign investments and load capacity factor in BRICS: the moderating role of envi-ronmental policy stringency. Environmental Science and Pollu-tion Research. 2024;31(7):11228-11242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31814-9.
  47. Caglar A. E., Daştan M., Ahmed Z., Mert M., Avci S. B. A novel panel of European economies pursuing carbon neutrality: Do current climate technology and renewable energy practices really pass through the prism of sustainable develop-ment?. Gondwana Research. 2025;139:260-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2025.01.001
  48. Adebayo T. S., Pata U. K., Akadiri S. S. A comparison of CO2 emissions, load capacity factor, and ecological footprint for Thailand’s environmental sustainability. Environment, De-velopment and Sustainability. 2024;26(1):2203-2223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02810-9
  49. Lu X., Yan K. Unleashing the dynamic and nonlinear relation-ship among new-type urbanization, foreign direct investment, and inclusive green growth in China: an environmental sustain-ability perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Re-search. 2023;30(12):33287-33297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24503-6
  50. Özkan O., Popescu I. A., Destek M. A., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. Time-quantile impact of foreign direct investment, financial development, and financial globalisation on green growth in BRICS economies. Journal of Environmental Management. 2024;371:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123145
  51. Kartal M. T., Samour A., Adebayo T. S., Depren S. K. Do nuclear energy and renewable energy surge environmental quality in the United States? New insights from novel bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles approach. Progress in Nuclear Energy. 2023;155:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104509
  52. Keshavarzi A., Horry H. R., Mahmoodi S., Alibegli M. The effect of a positive health investment shock on economic growth and environmental quality in a New Keynesian mod-el. International Journal of Environmental Re-search. 2025;19(4):125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-025-00779-7
  53. Özbek, S. Sürdürülebilir çevre: çevre teknolojileri ve vergileri kapsamında ekonometrik bir inceleme. Bingöl Üniversitesi İk-tisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023;7(Prof. Dr. Muammer ERDOĞAN Anısına Kongre Özel Sayısı):63-91. https://doi.org/10.33399/biibfad.1253043
  54. Özbek, S., Şahi̇n, S. Moderating role of globalization in agri-culture–environment nexus: insights from the inverted load ca-pacity factor. Agricultural and Food Economics. 2025;13(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-025-00412-3
  55. Özbek, S., Oğul, B. Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği: Türkiye üzerine ampirik bir çalışma. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD). 2022;14(26):35-46. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1041209
  56. Ahmed Z., Asghar M. M., Malik M. N., Nawaz K. Moving towards a sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage be-tween natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resources poli-cy. 2020;67:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101677
  57. Nathaniel S., Khan S. A. R. The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. Journal of cleaner production. 2020;272:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122709
  58. Omri A., Daly S., Rault C., Chaibi A. Financial development, environmental quality, trade and economic growth: What caus-es what in MENA countries. Energy economics. 2015;48:242-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.008
  59. Arrow K., Bolin B., Costanza R., Dasgupta P., Folke C., Hol-ling C. S., Pimentel D. Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological economics. 1995;15(2):91-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00059-3
  60. Guney E., Sogut Y., Demirtas N., Koseoglu Y., Sanver C. Harmonising progress: assessing the impact of economic free-dom, economic growth, urbanisation and environmental protec-tion expenditures on load capacity in selected European Union countries. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2025;37(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01088-8
  61. Grossman G. M., Krueger A. B. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. 1991;1-39. DOI 10.3386/w3914
  62. Dinda S. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a sur-vey. Ecological economics. 2004;49(4):431-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
  63. Gujarati D. N., Porter D. C. Basic econometrics. McGraw-hill; 2009.
  64. Dickey D. A., Fuller W. A. Likelihood ratio statistics for auto-regressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of The Econometric Society. 1981;1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
  65. Phillips P. C., Perron P. Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika. 1988;75(2):335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
  66. Kwiatkowski D., Phillips P. C., Schmidt P., Shin Y. Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics. 1992;54(1-3):159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
  67. Becker R., Enders W., Lee J. A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Se-ries Analysis. 2006;27(3):381-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x
  68. Pesaran M. H., Shin Y., Smith R. J. Bounds testing approach-es to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2001;16(3):289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
  69. Sam Y. C., Mcnown R., Goh S. K. An augmented autoregres-sive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration. Economic Modelling. 2019;80:130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.069
  70. Narayan P. K. The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics. 2005;37(17):1979-1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
  71. Park J.Y. Canonical Cointegrating Regressions. Econometrica,. 1992;60(1):119-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951679
  72. Stock J. H., Watson M. W. A Simple Estimator of Cointegrat-ing Vectors in Higher Order Integrated Systems. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 1993;61(4):783-820. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951763
  73. Perron P. The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society. 1989;1361-1401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913712
  74. Nazlioglu S., Lee J., Tieslau M., Karul C., You Y. Smooth structural changes and common factors in nonstationary panel data: an analysis of healthcare expenditures. Econometric Re-views. 2023;42(1),78-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2022.2156740
  75. Naimoğlu, M., Sahabi, A. M., Özbek, S. Macaristan ekonomisinde enerji verimliliğini etkileyen faktörlerin Fourier ADL eşbütünleşme yaklaşımıyla belirlenmesi. Sosyoekonomi. 2022;30(53):487-507. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2022.03.24
  76. Manavgat G., Demirci A. Lojistik performans endeksi tutar-lılığının sıralı lojistik regresyon modeliyle incelenmesi. Yaşar Üniversitesi e-dergisi. 2021;16(64):1856-1871. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.934418
  77. Hansen B.E., Phillips P.C.B. Estimation and Inference in Models of Cointegration: A Simulation Study. Cowles Foun-dation Discussion Papers. 1988;1125. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cowles-discussion-paper-series/1125 (10.06.2025)
  78. Global Footprint Network, 2024.
  79. WDI, 2024. World development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (12.05.2025).
  80. Jamadar, N., Jamadar, S. Comparative analysis of multi-objective and multi-verse optimization for energy management in electric vehicles. International journal of automotive science and technology. 2025;9(3):397-408. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1711318
  81. Kılıç, B., Arabacı, E. Performance and environmental assess-ment of hybrid electric vehicle with power-split device under quasi-realistic operating conditions. International journal of au-tomotive science and technology. 2025;9(3):427-435. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1740799
  82. Nassar, M., Polat, K., Koçlu, Y., Topaç, M. M. Design and optimisation of a double wishbone independent suspension system for an L6 electric vehicle: a response surface methodol-ogy based design application. Engineering perspective. 2025;4(1):21-30. https://doi.org/10.29228/eng.pers.79569
  83. Bousseksou, M. O., Nouri, K., Bartoli, T., Bouzidi, W., Bes-sais, L. Magnetocaloric cooling for hybrid/hydrogen and elec-tric vehicle cabin and powertrain components. Engineering per-spective. 2025;4(1):9-20. https://doi.org/10.29228/eng.pers.77695
  84. Jamadar, N., Jamadar, S. Comparative analysis of multi-objective and multi-verse optimization for energy management in electric vehicles. International journal of automotive science and technology. 2025;9(3):397-408. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1711318
  85. Kılıç, B., Arabacı, E. Performance and environmental assess-ment of hybrid electric vehicle with power-split device under quasi-realistic operating conditions. International journal of au-tomotive science and technology. 2025;9(3):427-435. https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech.1740799