IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cys/ecocyb/v50y2016i4p187-203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Model For Optimal Investment Project Choice Using Fuzzy Probability

Author

Listed:
  • Joan Carles FERRER-COMALAT

    (Department of Business Administration, University of Girona, Spain)

  • Salvador LINARES-MUSTAROS

    (Department of Business Administration, University of Girona, Spain)

  • Dolors COROMINAS-COLL

    (Department of Business Administration, University of Girona, Spain)

Abstract

In this paper we present a model for classifying exclusive investments. The model uses Bellman and Zadeh’s decision-making criterion, determining the degree of convergence when the objective is to maximize the net present value of the project under the constraint of minimizing risk. The original aspect of this work consists in incorporating uncertainty into the model by considering variables such as project life, net income and capitalization rate as uncertain in order to determine net present value and risk. The concept of a fuzzy event is used to calculate the net present value and assess the risk of each investment project. This allows us to establish the degree to which a project is a good investment, understanding this as a fuzzy event and establishing the degree to which a project has a high net present value, understood as another fuzzy event.

Suggested Citation

  • Joan Carles FERRER-COMALAT & Salvador LINARES-MUSTAROS & Dolors COROMINAS-COLL, 2016. "A Model For Optimal Investment Project Choice Using Fuzzy Probability," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(4), pages 187-203.
    • Handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2016:i:4:p:187-203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://www.eadr.ro/RePEc/cys/ecocyb_pdf/ecocyb4_2016p187-203.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Maghsoud AMIRI & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Method Of Assessment Based On Fuzzy Ranking And Aggregated Weights (Afraw) For Mcdm Problems Under Type-2 Fuzzy Environment," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(1), pages 39-68.
    3. Remer, Donald S. & Nieto, Armando P., 1995. "A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part 2: Ratio, payback, and accounting methods," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 101-129, December.
    4. Remer, Donald S. & Nieto, Armando P., 1995. "A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part 1: Net present value and rate of return methods," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 79-96, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joan Carles Ferrer-Comalat & Dolors Corominas-Coll & Salvador Linares-Mustarós, 2021. "A Fuzzy Economic Dynamic Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Morelli, Martin & Harrestrup, Maria & Svendsen, Svend, 2014. "Method for a component-based economic optimisation in design of whole building renovation versus demolishing and rebuilding," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 305-314.
    2. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2016. "Capital depreciation and the underdetermination of rate of return: A unifying perspective," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 54-79.
    3. Dodoo, Ambrose & Gustavsson, Leif & Tettey, Uniben Y.A., 2017. "Final energy savings and cost-effectiveness of deep energy renovation of a multi-storey residential building," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 563-576.
    4. Laura Gabrielli & Aurora Greta Ruggeri & Massimiliano Scarpa, 2023. "Roadmap to a Sustainable Energy System: Is Uncertainty a Major Barrier to Investments for Building Energy Retrofit Projects in Wide City Compartments?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Ekaterina Makarova & Anna Sokolova, 2012. "Foresight Evaluation: Lessons from Project Management," HSE Working papers WP BRP 01/MAN/2012, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    6. Cuthbert, James R. & Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2016. "Measuring the inadequacy of IRR in PFI schemes using profitability index and AIRR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 130-140.
    7. García Kerdan, Iván & Raslan, Rokia & Ruyssevelt, Paul & Morillón Gálvez, David, 2017. "A comparison of an energy/economic-based against an exergoeconomic-based multi-objective optimisation for low carbon building energy design," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 244-263.
    8. Carlo Alberto Magni & Ken V. Peasnell, 2015. "The Term Structure of Capital Values:An accounting-based framework for measuring economic profitability," Department of Economics 0060, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    9. Copiello, Sergio & Gabrielli, Laura & Bonifaci, Pietro, 2017. "Evaluation of energy retrofit in buildings under conditions of uncertainty: The prominence of the discount rate," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 104-117.
    10. Petersen, Steffen & Svendsen, Svend, 2012. "Method for component-based economical optimisation for use in design of new low-energy buildings," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 173-180.
    11. Sommerfeldt, Nelson & Madani, Hatef, 2017. "Revisiting the techno-economic analysis process for building-mounted, grid-connected solar photovoltaic systems: Part two - Application," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1394-1404.
    12. Hosseininasab, Amin & Ahmadi, Abbas, 2015. "Selecting a supplier portfolio with value, development, and risk consideration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 146-156.
    13. Costa, Joao P. & Melo, Paulo & Godinho, Pedro & Dias, Luis C., 2003. "The AGAP system: A GDSS for project analysis and evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 287-303, March.
    14. Wilko Heitkoetter & Wided Medjroubi & Thomas Vogt & Carsten Agert, 2022. "Economic Assessment of Demand Response Using Coupled National and Regional Optimisation Models," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-25, November.
    15. Cann, David J. & Hunt, James R. & Malcolm, Bill, 2020. "Long fallows can maintain whole-farm profit and reduce risk in semi-arid south-eastern Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    16. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.
    17. Aurora Greta Ruggeri & Laura Gabrielli & Massimiliano Scarpa, 2020. "Energy Retrofit in European Building Portfolios: A Review of Five Key Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-38, September.
    18. Ekaterina Makarova & Anna Sokolova, 2012. "The Best Practices of Evaluating S&T Foresight: Basic Elements and Key Criteria," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 6(3), pages 62-74.
    19. Wu, Zhongqun & Sun, Hongxia, 2015. "Behavior of Chinese enterprises in evaluating wind power projects: A review based on survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 133-142.
    20. Maciej Nowak & Tadeusz Trzaskalik, 2022. "A trade-off multiobjective dynamic programming procedure and its application to project portfolio selection," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 1155-1181, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fuzzy logic; fuzzy set theory; decision-making; fuzzy arithmetic; probability of a fuzzy event; investment.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cys:ecocyb:v:50:y:2016:i:4:p:187-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Corina Saman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.