IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i2p245-d1340269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods in Rural Land Consolidation Project Ranking

Author

Listed:
  • Goran Marinković

    (Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Zoran Ilić

    (Academy of Technical and Educational Vocational Studies, 20 Aleksandra Medvedeva, 18000 Nis, Serbia)

  • Žarko Nestorović

    (Joint Stock Company “Elektroprivreda Srbije”, Branch Djerdap, 19320 Kladovo, Serbia)

  • Marko Božić

    (Meixner d.o.o., 16/G Hermanova, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Vladimir Bulatović

    (Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

Abstract

Decisions around distributing available funds among potential land consolidation projects require a thorough analysis in order to maximize the effects of land consolidation. In order to avoid choosing the wrong land consolidation projects, different methods can be used. Generally, there are two possible groups of methods: one based on a qualitative approach (DELPHI; SWOT) and one based on a quantitative approach (AHP, VIKOR, SAW, TOPSIS, etc.). In this research, the focus was on the sensitivity of the resulting rankings affected by varying the input data in multi-criteria analysis methods, with an emphasis on the variation in the weight and the choice of criteria. This research was motivated by the subjective character of the choice of criteria and their weighting before applying the multi-criteria analysis methods. Four methods were included (AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and SAW) for the multi-criteria analysis, with three ways of defining weights (consistent, modified, or quasi-consistent and freely determined without taking consistency into account), in order to determine the influence of the different methods on the final ranking. The weights were defined only by an acceptable interval of values. The sensitivity of the methods was investigated using the differences in the obtained rankings between each method. A case study is provided on real data, and the results are discussed. The results showed a relatively small variance and possible equal rankings of projects by means of statistical analyses. This finding opens up the possibility of the valuation of projects instead of simple rankings.

Suggested Citation

  • Goran Marinković & Zoran Ilić & Žarko Nestorović & Marko Božić & Vladimir Bulatović, 2024. "Sensitivity of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods in Rural Land Consolidation Project Ranking," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:245-:d:1340269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/2/245/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/2/245/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wójcik-Leń, Justyna & Leń, Przemysław & Mika, Monika & Kryszk, Hubert & Kotlarz, Paweł, 2019. "Studies regarding correct selection of statistical methods for the needs of increasing the efficiency of identification of land for consolidation—A case study in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Khorramshahgol, Reza & Moustakis, Vassilis S., 1988. "Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 347-354, December.
    3. Chen, Hongyi & Kocaoglu, Dundar F., 2008. "A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 266-288, February.
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    5. Janus, Jarosław & Ertunç, Ela, 2021. "Differences in the effectiveness of land consolidation projects in various countries and their causes: Examples of Poland and Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Goran Marinković & Zoran Ilić & Milan Trifković & Jelena Tatalović & Marko Božić, 2022. "Optimization Methods as a Base for Decision Making in Land Consolidation Projects Ranking," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Emanuele Salerno, 2020. "Identifying Value-Increasing Actions for Cultural Heritage Assets through Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Evaluation Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, November.
    3. N Deepa & Durai Raj Vincent P M & Senthil Kumar N & Kathiravan Srinivasan & Chuan-Yu Chang & Ali Kashif Bashir, 2019. "An Efficient Ensemble VTOPES Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Sugarcane Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    5. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    6. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    7. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    9. Wabukala, Benard M. & Bergland, Olvar & Mukisa, Nicholas & Adaramola, Muyiwa S. & Watundu, Susan & Orobia, Laura A. & Rudaheranwa, Nichodemus, 2024. "Electricity security in Uganda: Measurement and policy priorities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    11. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.
    12. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    13. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    14. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    15. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    16. Khaled Alshehri & Mohadese Basirati & Devin Sapsford & Michael Harbottle & Peter Cleall, 2024. "Nature-Based Secondary Resource Recovery under Climate Change Uncertainty: A Robust Multi-Objective Optimisation Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-27, August.
    17. Lupo, Toni, 2015. "Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 249-259.
    18. Jing Zhang & Xinglong Feng & Aixiang Wu & Haiyong Cheng & Zhengrong Li & Shaoyong Wang & Wei Sun & Chong Chen, 2025. "Critical early warning of underground debris flows in mines based on rainfall–collapse characteristics," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(1), pages 423-445, January.
    19. Alamoodi, A.H. & Zaidan, B.B. & Zaidan, A.A. & Albahri, O.S. & Chen, Juliana & Chyad, M.A. & Garfan, Salem & Aleesa, A.M., 2021. "Machine learning-based imputation soft computing approach for large missing scale and non-reference data imputation," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.

    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:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:245-:d:1340269. 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.