SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS

1 / 16

SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS. Yuan-Sheng Lee, Tamkang University Hsu-Shih Shih, Tamkang University David L. Olson, University of Nebraska. SUSTAINABILITY Tzeng et al. [2005] Energy Policy. DECISION: select bus type from 12 choices Eleven criteria Our use:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS' - marcel

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS

Yuan-Sheng Lee, Tamkang University

Hsu-Shih Shih, Tamkang University

David L. Olson, University of Nebraska

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

SUSTAINABILITYTzeng et al. [2005] Energy Policy
• DECISION: select bus type from 12 choices
• Eleven criteria
• Our use:
• Demonstration of features of various multi-criteria methods

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

Multi-Criteria Models of Sustainability
• Non-dominated Identification
• Lotov et al. [2004]; Bouchery et al. [2012]
• Cardinal weighting
• Equal weights; Tchebychev; Ordinal; SMART; AHP
• Outranking
• ELECTRE; PROMETHEE
• TOPSIS (Technique for Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution)
• Min distance to ideal while Max distance from nadir
• Hwang & Yoon [1981]
• TODIM
• From cumulative prospect theory, S-shaped value function
• Gomes & Lima [1992]

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

Urban Transportation Selection DecisionSelect a bus type – CRITERIA (Tzeng et al., 2005)
• Energy supply
• Energy efficiency
• Air pollution
• Noise pollution
• Industrial relations
• Employment cost
• Maintenance cost
• Capability of vehicle
• Speed of traffic
• Sense of comfort

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

TODIM
• Classify multiple criteria into benefits, costs
• STEP 1: DM constructs normalized decision matrix (see next slide)
• STEP 2: Value alternatives on each criterion with 0 the worst and 1 the best
• STEP 3: Compute matrix of relative dominance
• STEP 4: Calculate global measure for each alternative
• STEP 5: Rank alternatives by global measures

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

Part 1:

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

Part II

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

NON-DOMINANCE
• A1 (Diesel Bus)
• A3 (LPG Bus) {> A2 on energy supply, = on all others}
• A8 (Electric bus with exchangeable batteries) {>A7 on capability, roads}
• A6 (Electric bus with opportunity charging)
• A9 (Hybrid electric bus with gasoline engine)
• A10 (Hybrid electric bus with diesel engine)
• A11 (Hybrid electric bus with CNG engine)
• A12 (Hybrid electric bus with LPG engine) identical ratings to A11
• A4, A5 dominated by combinations

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

WEIGHTING
• EQUAL WEIGHTING (LaPlace)
• A8 Electric bus with exchange batteries wins
• A7 a very close second
• PROVIDES FULL RANKING
• Uses cardinal (continuous?) numbers
• TCHEBYCHEV WEIGHTS
• Maximize worst rating – A2 (CNG – dominated by A3), A3(LPG), A9 (Hybrid)
• ORDINAL WEIGHTS (centroid)
• A8 Electric bus with exchange batteries wins
• A7 a very close second
• CARDINAL WEIGHTS (from Tzeng et al. - AHP)
• A8 Electric bus with exchange batteries wins
• A7 a very close second

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

Simulation

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

PROMETHEE

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

Distance methods
• TOPSIS
• A8 Electric exchange batteries
• A6 Electric optional charge close behind
• A7 Electric direct exchange (dominated solution) close behind
• TODIM
• A8 Electric exchange batteries
• A7 Electric direct exchange (dominated solution) second
• A11/A12 Hybrid CNG or LPG third

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

Rankings

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

SELECTION

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

DISCUSSION
• Fair consistency in rankings
• No two identical
• Continuous allows close second to be ranked even if dominated (A7)
• Tchebychef the most extreme
• Only looks at worst
• Thus is sensitive to scale
• A2 considered, though dominated

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

CONCLUSIONS
• Many multiple criteria methods
• All valuable to some degree
• more
• SIMULATION preferred by author
• Nondominance might be useful in selection, not in ranking
• You can always come up with another criterion
• Accuracy of data critical
• A11/A12 identical, but might vary on some additional factor
• Outranking methods help explore
• PREFERENCE important
• Machine-methods {omit preference as much as possible} (TOPSIS)
• Individual preference well-studied
• Group preference problematic

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark