TOWARDS RELIABLE DECISION-MAKING IN THE GREEN URBAN TRANSPORT DOMAIN

Andrii Shekhovtsov, Jakub Więckowski, Bartłomiej Kizielewicz, Wojciech Sałabun

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210315056S
First page
381
Last page
398

Abstract


Operational research is a scientific discipline related to the decision theory that allows determining solutions for specific problems related to, for example, widely understood transport. Increasingly popular in this field are issues related to the domain of the green urban transport. In order to support the decision-making process in this area, methods of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are used more and more often. However, if we solve a specific problem using different MCDA methods, we get different rankings, as each method has a different methodological basis. Therefore, the challenge is how to make a reliable decision. This paper presents a numerical example from the green urban transport domain, which is solved by six different MCDA methods that return a complete ranking. We measure the similarity of these rankings using coefficients rw and WS, and then we propose a simple way of determining a compromise solution. The obtained compromise ranking is guaranteed to be the best match to the selected MCDA methods' rankings, which is proved in the paper. Finally, possible directions for further development work are identified.

Keywords

MCDA, Transport Selection, Green Urban Transport, Operational Research

Full Text:

PDF

References


De Montis, A., De Toro, P., Droste-Franke, B., Omann, I., Stagl, S., 2004, Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods, Alternatives for environmental valuation. 4, pp. 99-133.

Podvezko, V., 2011, The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and Copras, Engineering Economics, 22(2), pp. 134-146.

Steele, K., Carmel, Y., Cross, J., Wilcox., C., 2009, Uses and misuses of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in environmental decision making, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 29(1), pp. 26-33.

Matsatsinis, N.F., Samaras, A.P., 2001, MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems, European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), pp. 414-429.

Løken, E., 2007, Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 11(7), pp. 1584-1595.

Triantaphyllou, E., Baig, K., 2005, The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(2), pp. 213-226.

Roy, B., Vanderpooten, D., 1996, The european school of MCDA: Emergence. basic features and current works, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5(1), pp. 22-38.

Sałabun, W., Urbaniak, K., 2020, A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems, In International Conference on Computational Science, pp. 632-645.

Uhde, B., Hahn, W.A., Griess, V.C., Knoke, T., 2015, Hybrid MCDA methods to integrate multiple ecosystem services in forest management planning: a critical review, Environmental management, 56(2), pp. 373-388.

Dehe, B., Bamford, D., 2015, Development. test and comparison of two multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location, Expert Systems with Applications, 42(19), pp. 6717-6727.

Karczmarczyk, A., Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., 2018, Comparative study of different MCDA-based approaches in sustainable supplier selection problem, In Information Technology for Management: Emerging Research and Applications, pp. 176-193.

Mukherjee, K., 2017, Supplier selection: An MCDA-based approach.

Kizielewicz, B., Dobryakova, L., 2020, MCDA based approach to sports players’ evaluation under incomplete knowledge, Procedia Computer Science, 176, pp. 3524-3535.

Urbaniak, K., Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W., 2020, Identification of players ranking in e-sport, Applied Sciences, 10(19), 6768.

Angelis, A., Kanavos, P., 2017, Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework, Social Science & Medicine, 188, pp. 137-156.

Taylor, R., 1990, Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review, Journal of diagnostic medical sonography, 6(1), pp. 35-39.

Hauke, J., Kossowski, T., 2011, Comparison of values of Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients on the same sets of data, Quaestiones geographicae, 30(2), pp. 87-93.

Guitouni, A., Martel, J.-M., 1998, Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method, European journal of operational research, 109(2), pp. 501-521.

Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R., Albadvi, A., Aghdasi, M., 2010, PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications, European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), pp. 198-215.

Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., 2015, Knowledge management in MCDA domain, In 2015 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 1445-1450.

Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., Shekhovtsov, A., 2020, Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS and PROMETHEE II Methods, Symmetry, 12(9), 1549.

Kizielewicz, B., Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W., 2020, Identification of relevant criteria set in the MCDA process—wind farm location case study, Energies, 13(24), 6548.

Sałabun, W., Shekhovtsov, A., Pamučar, D., Wątróbski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Więckowski, J., Bozanić, D., Urbaniak K., Nyczaj, B., 2020, A Fuzzy Inference System for Players Evaluation in Multi-Player Sports: The Football Study Case, Symmetry, 12(12), 2029.

Lai, Y.-J., Liu, T.-Y., Hwang, C.-L., 1994, TOPSIS for MODM, European journal of operational research, 76(3), pp. 486-500.

Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H., 2004, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), pp. 445-455.

Palczewski, K., Sałabun, W., 2019, The fuzzy TOPSIS applications in the last decade, Procedia Computer Science, 159, pp. 2294-2303.

Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H., 2004, Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European journal of operational research, 156(2), pp. 445-455.

Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H., 2007, Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods, European journal of operational research, 178(2), pp. 514-529.

Tong, L.-I., Chen, C.-C., Wang, C.-H., 2007, Optimization of multi-response processes using the VIKOR method, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 31(11-12), pp. 1049-1057.

Yazdani, M., Graeml, F.R., 2014, VIKOR and its applications: A state-of-the-art survey, International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), 5(2), pp. 56-83.

San Cristóbal, J., 2011, Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The VIKOR method, Renewable energy, 36(2), pp. 498-502.

Brans, J.-P., De Smet, Y., 2016, PROMETHEE methods, In Multiple criteria decision analysis, pp. 187-219.

Brans, J.-P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B., 1986, How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method, European journal of operational research, 24(2), pp. 228-238.

Ranjan, R., Chatterjee, P., Panchal, D., Pamucar, D., 2019, Performance evaluation of sustainable smart cities in india: An adaptation of cartography in PROMETHEE-GIS approach, In Advanced Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Addressing Complex Sustainability Issues, pp. 14-40.

Papathanasiou, J., Ploskas, N., 2018, Multiple criteria decision aid, In Methods, Examples and Python Implementations, Vol. 136.

Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas. A., Sarka, V., 1994, The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects, Technological and economic development of economy, 1(3), pp. 131-139.

Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., 1996, Determination of an efficient contractor by using the new method of multicriteria assessment, In International Symposium for “The Organization and Management of Construction”. Shaping Theory and Practice, vol. 2, pp. 94-104.

Pamučar, D. S., Savin, L. M., 2020, Multiple-criteria model for optimal off-road vehicle selection for passenger transportation: BWM-COPRAS model, Vojnotehnički glasnik, 68(1), pp. 28-64..

Stanojković, J., Radovanović, M., 2017, Selection of drill for drilling with high pressure coolant using Entropy and COPRAS MCDM method, UPB Scientific Bulletin. Series D: Mechanical Engineering, 79, pp. 199-204.

Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W., Karczmarczyk, A., Wolski, W., 2017, Sustainable decision-making using the COMET method: An empirical study of the ammonium nitrate transport management, In 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 949-958.

Sałabun, W., Karczmarczyk, A., Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., 2018, Handling data uncertainty in decision making with COMET, In 2018 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), pp. 1478-1484.

Sałabun, W., Karczmarczyk, A., 2018, Using the comet method in the sustainable city transport problem: an empirical study of the electric powered cars, Procedia computer science, 126, pp. 2248-2260.

Sałabun, W., Ziemba, P., Wątróbski, J., 2016, The rank reversals paradox in management decisions: The comparison of the AHP and COMET methods, In International Conference on Intelligent Decision Technologies, pp. 181-191.

Sałabun, W., 2015, The Characteristic Objects Method: A New Distance‐based Approach to Multicriteria Decision‐making Problems, Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 22(1-2), pp. 37-50.

Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Sałabun, W., 2021, A New Approach to Eliminate Rank Reversal in the MCDA Problems, In International Conference on Computational Science - ICCS 2021, Krakow, Poland, pp. 338-351.

Sałabun, W., Shekhovtsov, A., Kizielewicz, B., 2021, A New Consistency Coefficient in the Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Domain, In International Conference on Computational Science - ICCS 2021, Krakow, Poland, pp. 715-727.

Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Sałabun, W., Piegat, A., 2021, Decision-making problems with local extremes: comparative study case, In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. Springer, Cham, (in press).

Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., Tacnet, J.-M., 2020, The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support, In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), pp. 1-8.

Shekhovtsov, A., Kizielewicz, B., Sałabun, W., 2021, New Rank-Reversal Free Approach to Handle Interval Data in MCDA Problems, In International Conference on Computational Science, pp. 458-472.

Fagin, R., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D., 2003, Comparing top k lists, In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, SODA'03.

Shieh, G.S., 1998, A weighted Kendall's tau statistic, Statistics & probability letters, 39(1), pp. 17-24.

Pinto da Costa, J., Soares, C., 2005, A weighted rank measure of correlation, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 47(4), pp. 515-529.

Genest, C., Plante, J.F., 2003, On Blest's measure of rank correlation, Canadian Journal of Statistics, 31(1), pp. 35-52.

Cooney, G., Hawkins, T.R., Marriott, J., 2013, Life cycle assessment of diesel and electric public transportation buses, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(5), pp. 689-699.

Göhlich, D., Kunith, A., Ly, T., 2014, Technology assessment of an electric urban bus system for berlin, WIT Trans. Built Environ, 138, pp. 137-149.

Lajunen, A., Lipman, T., 2016, Lifecycle cost assessment and carbon dioxide emissions of diesel, natural gas, hybrid electric, fuel cell hybrid and electric transit buses, Energy, 106, pp. 329-342.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210315056S

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN: 0354-2025 (Print)

ISSN: 2335-0164 (Online)

COBISS.SR-ID 98732551

ZDB-ID: 2766459-4