Missing consequences in multiattribute utility theory
This paper addresses how to deal with decision alternatives with missing consequences in multicriteria decision-making problems. We propose disregarding the attributes for which a decision alternative provides no consequence by redistributing their respective weights throughout the objective hierarchy in favor of a straightforward idea: the assignation of the respective attribute range as a default value for missing consequences due to possible uncertainty about the decision alternative consequences. In both cases, decision alternatives are evaluated by means of an additive multi-attribute utility model. An illustrative example of the restoration of radionuclide contaminated aquatic ecosystems is shown.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 37 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
- Weber, Martin, 1987. "Decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 44-57, January.
- Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
- Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.
- Butler, John & Jia, Jianmin & Dyer, James, 1997. "Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 531-546, December.
- Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
- Canbolat, Yavuz Burak & Chelst, Kenneth & Garg, Nitin, 2007. "Combining decision tree and MAUT for selecting a country for a global manufacturing facility," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 312-325, June.
- Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
- Insua, David Rios & French, Simon, 1991. "A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 176-190, September.
- Chiou, Hua-Kai & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Cheng, Ding-Chou, 2005. "Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 223-234, June.
- Salo, Ahti A. & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 458-475, May.