IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4451-d185985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Multi-Aspect Criterion in the PMADM Outline and Its Possible Application to Sustainability Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani

    (School of Engineering, Catholic University of the North, Larrondo 1281, Coquimbo, Chile)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

    (Institute of Sustainable Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekis ave. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Payam Khazaelpour

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Curtin University, Kent U1987, Perth, Australia)

  • Fausto Cavallaro

    (Department of Economics, University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy)

Abstract

Over the past few centuries, the process of decision-making has become more complicated in different respects. Since the initial phase of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) around fifty years ago, Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM) has continued developing over the years as a sub-concept of MCDM. Noticeably, the importance of the decision-making process is increasingly expanding to such an extent that it necessarily blends into the undeniable processes of MADM actual models. Novel methods with different perspectives have been introduced considering the dynamic MADM concepts of time and future in classical frameworks; however, they do not overcome challenges in practice. Recently, Prospective MADM (PMADM) as a specific approach has presented future-oriented models using already known approaches of MCDM, and it has innovative items which show barriers of classic model of MADM. However, PMADM practically needs more conceptual bases to illustrate and plan the future of real decision-making problems. The Multi-Aspect Criterion is a new concept in mapping the future of the PMADM outline. In this regard, two examples of sustainability will be analyzed, and different requirements and aspects associated with PMADM will be discussed in this study. This new approach can support the PMADM outline in more detail and deal with a decision-making structure that can be considered as novel to industry experts.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Payam Khazaelpour & Fausto Cavallaro, 2018. "The Multi-Aspect Criterion in the PMADM Outline and Its Possible Application to Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4451-:d:185985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4451/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4451/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arms, Hanjo & Wiecher, Mathias & Kleiderman, Valeska, 2012. "Dynamic models for managing big decisions," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 70115, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    2. Aleksandras Krylovas & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Natalja Kosareva & Stanislav Dadelo, 2014. "New KEMIRA Method for Determining Criteria Priority and Weights in Solving MCDM Problem," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(06), pages 1119-1133.
    3. Kao-Yi Shen & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2018. "Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainability: Modeling and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-7, May.
    4. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2013. "Evaluating future scenarios for the power generation sector using a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool: The Portuguese case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 126-136.
    5. Zon-Yau Lee & Mei-Tai Chu & Shiuann-Shuoh Chen & Chih-Hung Tsai, 2018. "Identifying Comprehensive Key Criteria of Sustainable Development for Traditional Manufacturing in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Browne, David & O'Regan, Bernadette & Moles, Richard, 2010. "Use of multi-criteria decision analysis to explore alternative domestic energy and electricity policy scenarios in an Irish city-region," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 518-528.
    7. Ram, Camelia & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2013. "Exploring the impact of evaluating strategic options in a scenario-based multi-criteria framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 657-672.
    8. Štreimikienė, Dalia & Šliogerienė, Jūratė & Turskis, Zenonas, 2016. "Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation technologies in Lithuania," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 148-156.
    9. Tommi Gustafsson & Ahti Salo & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2003. "Multicriteria methods for technology foresight," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 235-255.
    10. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    11. Qingyong Wang & Hong-Ning Dai & Hao Wang, 2017. "A Smart MCDM Framework to Evaluate the Impact of Air Pollution on City Sustainability: A Case Study from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Roubens, Marc, 1982. "Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 51-55, May.
    13. Fausto Cavallaro & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Saulius Raslanas, 2016. "Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems Using Fuzzy Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Supriyasilp, Thanaporn & Pongput, Kobkiat & Boonyasirikul, Thana, 2009. "Hydropower development priority using MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1866-1875, May.
    15. Vladimir M. Ozernoy, 1988. "Multiple criteria decision making in the USSR: A survey," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 543-566, December.
    16. Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Zenonas TURSKIS & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment(Codas) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(3), pages 25-44.
    17. Dirk Meissner & Alexander Sokolov, 2013. "Foresight and science, technology and innovation indicators," Chapters, in: Fred Gault (ed.), Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, chapter 16, pages 381-402, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Dirk Meissner & Leonid Gokhberg & Alexander Sokolov (ed.), 2013. "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-31827-6, September.
    19. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    20. Cavallaro, Fausto, 2010. "Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for assessing thermal-energy storage in concentrated solar power (CSP) systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 496-503, February.
    21. Grigoroudis, E. & Siskos, Y., 2002. "Preference disaggregation for measuring and analysing customer satisfaction: The MUSA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 148-170, November.
    22. Yingdong He & Zhen He & Yujia Deng & Panpan Zhou, 2016. "IFPBMs and their application to multiple attribute group decision making," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(1), pages 127-147, January.
    23. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    24. Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1986. "On the problem of weights in multiple criteria decision making (the noncompensatory approach)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 288-294, February.
    25. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    26. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    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. Margherita Casini & Simone Bastianoni & Francesca Gagliardi & Massimo Gigliotti & Angelo Riccaboni & Gianni Betti, 2019. "Sustainable Development Goals Indicators: A Methodological Proposal for a Multidimensional Fuzzy Index in the Mediterranean Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, February.
    2. Wojciech Sałabun & Krzysztof Palczewski & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2019. "Multicriteria Approach to Sustainable Transport Evaluation under Incomplete Knowledge: Electric Bikes Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Ilaria Henke & Armando Cartenì & Luigi Di Francesco, 2020. "A Sustainable Evaluation Processes for Investments in the Transport Sector: A Combined Multi-Criteria and Cost–Benefit Analysis for a New Highway in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-26, November.
    4. Seyed Hossein Razavi Hajiagha & Jalil Heidary-Dahooie & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė & Kannan Govindan, 2022. "A new dynamic multi-attribute decision making method based on Markov chain and linear assignment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(1), pages 159-191, August.
    5. Arthur Jin Lin & Hai-Yen Chang, 2019. "Business Sustainability Performance Evaluation for Taiwanese Banks—A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, 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. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    2. Mladen Krstić & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Snežana Tadić & Milovan Kovač & Pier Paolo Miglietta, 2023. "A Novel Axial-Distance-Based Aggregated Measurement (ADAM) Method for the Evaluation of Agri-Food Circular-Economy-Based Business Models," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-27, March.
    3. Rezaei, Mohsen, 2022. "Prioritization of biodiesel development policies under hybrid uncertainties: A possibilistic stochastic multi-attribute decision-making approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    4. Yalcin, Ahmet Selcuk & Kilic, Huseyin Selcuk & Delen, Dursun, 2022. "The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in business analytics: A comprehensive literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    5. Mladen Krstić & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Snežana Tadić & Violeta Roso, 2022. "Applicability of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Reverse Logistics: A Circular Economy Approach Based on COmprehensive Distance Based RAnking (COBRA) Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-30, May.
    6. Ilaria Henke & Armando Cartenì & Luigi Di Francesco, 2020. "A Sustainable Evaluation Processes for Investments in the Transport Sector: A Combined Multi-Criteria and Cost–Benefit Analysis for a New Highway in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-26, November.
    7. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    8. Ahmad, Salman & Nadeem, Abid & Akhanova, Gulzhanat & Houghton, Tom & Muhammad-Sukki, Firdaus, 2017. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable and nuclear resources for electricity generation in Kazakhstan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1880-1891.
    9. Huchang Liao & Xiaomei Mi & Zeshui Xu, 2020. "A survey of decision-making methods with probabilistic linguistic information: bibliometrics, preliminaries, methodologies, applications and future directions," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 81-134, March.
    10. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    11. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    12. Marcin Rabe & Dalia Streimikiene & Yuriy Bilan, 2019. "The Concept of Risk and Possibilities of Application of Mathematical Methods in Supporting Decision Making for Sustainable Energy Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    13. Seyit Ali Erdogan & Jonas Šaparauskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2019. "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model to Choose the Best Option for Sustainable Construction Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Paweł Ziemba & Mateusz Piwowarski & Kesra Nermend, 2023. "Remote Work in Post-Pandemic Reality—Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Teleconferencing Software," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    15. Seyed Morteza Hatefi & Hamideh Asadi & Gholamreza Shams & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2021. "Model for the Sustainable Material Selection by Applying Integrated Dempster-Shafer Evidence Theory and Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-23, September.
    16. Ridha, Hussein Mohammed & Gomes, Chandima & Hizam, Hashim & Ahmadipour, Masoud & Heidari, Ali Asghar & Chen, Huiling, 2021. "Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of standalone photovoltaic system: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    17. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Qigan Shao & Sung-Shun Weng & James J.H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo & Hongbo Jiang, 2019. "Developing A Sustainable Urban-Environmental Quality Evaluation System in China Based on A Hybrid Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-25, April.
    20. Dragan Pamučar & Ibrahim Badi & Korica Sanja & Radojko Obradović, 2018. "A Novel Approach for the Selection of Power-Generation Technology Using a Linguistic Neutrosophic CODAS Method: A Case Study in Libya," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-25, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4451-:d:185985. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.