IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v150y2025ics0140988325006437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From cooperative play to multi-critical decision: The Shapley Index and the Choquet Integral in comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Ventura, Francesco
  • James, J.R.
  • Caristi, Giuseppe
  • Barilla, David
  • Barba, Daniela

Abstract

This study explores the integration of Shapley’s Index and Choquet’s Integral as a hybrid approach to improve the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). While AHP provides a structured methodology for multi-criteria decision-making, it suffers from limitations related to subjectivity in the determination of weights. The Shapley Index, derived from game theory, introduces a rigorous analysis of the marginal contributions of criteria, while the Choquet Integral considers non-additive interactions between criteria. By combining these methodologies, the proposed model allows for the representation of synergies and trade-offs between criteria, improving the reliability and accuracy of decision-making. Applying the model to a case study, the article compares the results obtained with the two approaches, highlighting the contexts in which each method excels. This analysis provides a basis for future applications in critical areas such as strategic planning, risk management and energy sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Ventura, Francesco & James, J.R. & Caristi, Giuseppe & Barilla, David & Barba, Daniela, 2025. "From cooperative play to multi-critical decision: The Shapley Index and the Choquet Integral in comparison," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:150:y:2025:i:c:s0140988325006437
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988325006437
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108816?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods

    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:eee:eneeco:v:150:y:2025:i:c:s0140988325006437. 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/eneco .

    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.