Sustainability mcdm model comparisons
Download
1 / 16

SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on

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:

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS' - marcel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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

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


Sustainability tzeng et al 2005 energy policy
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
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 decision select a bus type criteria tzeng et al 2005
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

  • Road facility

  • Speed of traffic

  • Sense of comfort

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark


Todim
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
Part 1:

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark


Part ii
Part II

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark


Non dominance
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
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
Simulation

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark


Promethee
PROMETHEE

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark


Distance methods
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
Rankings

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark


Selection
SELECTION

European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark


Discussion
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
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


ad