IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v91y2024ics0038012123002707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining criteria weights with genetic algorithms for multi-criteria decision making methods: The case of logistics performance index rankings of European Union countries

Author

Listed:
  • Gürler, Hasan Emin
  • Özçalıcı, Mehmet
  • Pamucar, Dragan

Abstract

One of the most critical metrics for evaluating countries’ logistics performance is the Logistics Performance Index (LPI). Although the LPI is an effective tool, it is also an index with some concerns regarding performance evaluation. The two main concerns with LPI are assuming equal criterion weights and ignoring operational logistics performance and macroeconomic indicators. To overcome these problems, this study presents a logistics performance evaluation model in which the criteria weights are determined by GA. This study used 11 techniques to determine the logistics performances of the EU countries across 33 indicators. Employing more than one MCDM techniques enabled robustness and consistency. Median, Mean, Linear and K nearest neighbor techniques are implemented to impute the missing values in the dataset. The Linear Regression method is found as the best-performing imputation technique among other techniques for the data of this research. The performance of the GA is compared with other well-known criteria weight determination procedures namely CRITIC, Entropy and equal weight. The ranking results of the MCDM tools were integrated with the Copeland method. The genetic algorithm assigned the highest three weights to the Goods, Value of Exports, Quality of roads, and GDP per capita, indicating that these criteria play an essential role in the countries' logistics performance. The importance of these criteria is not captured by other weight sets. The correlation with the actual LPI scores is higher with Genetic algorithm compared with other weight determination techniques (CRITIC, Entropy, equal weight). Moreover, random weights are created and the results are examined. Weight simulation indicates that, some of the countries ranking are higher than the other countries, regardless of the weights of the criteria. The paper's novelty is to use the Genetic Algorithm (GA) as a criteria weight determination tool for MCDM methods. The proposed system can be used as a decision support system for evaluating the logistics performances of countries. The LPI index is published every two years, but if an automatic or semi-automatic system can be developed using the proposed approach, the logistics performance ranking of countries can be examined more frequently. This can help countries that want to rank high on the LPI ranking determine which criteria to focus on to improve their logistics performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Gürler, Hasan Emin & Özçalıcı, Mehmet & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "Determining criteria weights with genetic algorithms for multi-criteria decision making methods: The case of logistics performance index rankings of European Union countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:91:y:2024:i:c:s0038012123002707
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2023.101758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012123002707
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101758?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:soceps:v:91:y:2024:i:c:s0038012123002707. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    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.