1 / 16

SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS

This study presents a comprehensive comparison of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models applied in selecting bus types for sustainable urban transportation. Utilizing eleven evaluation criteria such as energy supply, efficiency, and pollution levels, the research showcases various methods including AHP, PROMETHEE, and TOPSIS. The findings highlight the strengths of different models, indicating preferences and rankings of alternatives like electric and hybrid buses. This work aims to enhance decision-making frameworks in sustainable transportation planning.

marcel
Télécharger la présentation

SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Part 1: European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

  7. Part II European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Simulation European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

  11. PROMETHEE European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

  12. 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

  13. Rankings European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

  14. SELECTION European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

  15. 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

  16. 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

More Related