IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i12p2133-d842440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid Intuitionistic Fuzzy Group Decision Framework and Its Application in Urban Rail Transit System Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Bing Yan

    (School of Urban Railway Transportation, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, Shanghai 201620, China)

  • Yuan Rong

    (School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Liying Yu

    (School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Yuting Huang

    (School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China)

Abstract

The selection of an urban rail transit system from the perspective of green and low carbon can not only promote the construction of an urban rail transit system but also have a positive impact on urban green development. Considering the uncertainty caused by different conflict criteria and the fuzziness of decision-making experts’ cognition in the selection process of a rail transit system, this paper proposes a hybrid intuitionistic fuzzy MCGDM framework to determine the priority of a rail transit system. To begin with, the weights of experts are determined based on the improved similarity method. Secondly, the subjective weight and objective weight of the criterion are calculated, respectively, according to the DEMATEL and CRITIC methods, and the comprehensive weight is calculated by the linear integration method. Thirdly, considering the regret degree and risk preference of experts, the COPRAS method based on regret theory is propounded to determine the prioritization of urban rail transit system ranking. Finally, urban rail transit system selection of City N is selected for the case study to illustrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the developed method. The results show that a metro system (P 1 ) is the most suitable urban rail transit system for the construction of city N, followed by a municipal railway system (P 7 ). Sensitivity analysis is conducted to illustrate the stability and robustness of the designed decision framework. Comparative analysis is also utilized to validate the efficacy, feasibility and practicability of the propounded methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Bing Yan & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Yuting Huang, 2022. "A Hybrid Intuitionistic Fuzzy Group Decision Framework and Its Application in Urban Rail Transit System Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:12:p:2133-:d:842440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/12/2133/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/12/2133/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yayi Yuan & Zeshui Xu & Yixin Zhang, 2022. "The DEMATEL–COPRAS hybrid method under probabilistic linguistic environment and its application in Third Party Logistics provider selection," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 137-156, March.
    2. Huang, Xiaoyan & Cao, Xinyu (Jason) & Cao, Xiaoshu & Yin, Jiangbin, 2016. "How does the propensity of living near rail transit moderate the influence of rail transit on transit trip frequency in Xi'an?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 194-204.
    3. Balali, Amirhossein & Valipour, Alireza & Edwards, Rodger & Moehler, Robert, 2021. "Ranking effective risks on human resources threats in natural gas supply projects using ANP-COPRAS method: Case study of Shiraz," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    5. Alipour, M. & Hafezi, R. & Rani, Pratibha & Hafezi, Mehdi & Mardani, Abbas, 2021. "A new Pythagorean fuzzy-based decision-making method through entropy measure for fuel cell and hydrogen components supplier selection," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    6. Peide Liu & Shufeng Cheng, 2020. "An Improved MABAC Group Decision-Making Method Using Regret Theory and Likelihood in Probability Multi-Valued Neutrosophic Sets," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(05), pages 1353-1387, August.
    7. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Kiran Pandey & Abbas Mardani & Justas Streimikis & Dalia Streimikiene & Melfi Alrasheedi, 2020. "Novel Multi-Criteria Intuitionistic Fuzzy SWARA–COPRAS Approach for Sustainability Evaluation of the Bioenergy Production Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    8. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    9. Quiggin, John, 1994. "Regret Theory with General Choice Sets," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 153-165, March.
    10. Narayanamoorthy, Samayan & Ramya, L. & Kalaiselvan, Samayan & Kureethara, Joseph Varghese & Kang, Daekook, 2021. "Use of DEMATEL and COPRAS method to select best alternative fuel for control of impact of greenhouse gas emissions," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    11. Rodríguez, Rosa M. & Labella, Álvaro & Nuñez-Cacho, Pedro & Molina-Moreno, Valentin & Martínez, Luis, 2022. "A comprehensive minimum cost consensus model for large scale group decision making for circular economy measurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    12. Mishra, Arunodaya Raj & Mardani, Abbas & Rani, Pratibha & Kamyab, Hesam & Alrasheedi, Melfi, 2021. "A new intuitionistic fuzzy combinative distance-based assessment framework to assess low-carbon sustainable suppliers in the maritime sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    13. Tseng, Ming-Lang & Ardaniah, Viqi & Sujanto, Raditia Yudistira & Fujii, Minoru & Lim, Ming K., 2021. "Multicriteria assessment of renewable energy sources under uncertainty: Barriers to adoption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    14. Cao, Jidi & Chen, Xin & Qiu, Rui & Hou, Shuhua, 2021. "Electric vehicle industry sustainable development with a stakeholder engagement system," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    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. Ecer, Fatih & Saha, Abhijit & Dinçer, Hasan & Yüksel, Serhat, 2025. "Evaluating energy management investments for sustainable transition of smart cities through a new intuitionistic fuzzy consensus-based CoCoSo methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).

    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. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    3. Soora Rasouli & Harry Timmermans, 2017. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1555-1576, November.
    4. Broll, Udo & Welzel, Peter & Wong, Kit Pong, 2014. "Multinational firm, exchange rate risk and the impact of regret on trade," Dresden Discussion Paper Series in Economics 04/14, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Economics.
    5. Servaas van Bilsen & Roger J. A. Laeven & Theo E. Nijman, 2020. "Consumption and Portfolio Choice Under Loss Aversion and Endogenous Updating of the Reference Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3927-3955, September.
    6. Daniele Pennesi, 2021. "Between Commitment and Flexibility: Revealing Anticipated Regret and Elation," Working papers 071, Department of Economics, Social Studies, Applied Mathematics and Statistics (Dipartimento di Scienze Economico-Sociali e Matematico-Statistiche), University of Torino.
    7. Chi, Yichun & Zhuang, Sheng Chao, 2022. "Regret-based optimal insurance design," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 22-41.
    8. Muermann, Alexander & Mitchell, Olivia S. & Volkman, Jacqueline M., 2006. "Regret, portfolio choice, and guarantees in defined contribution schemes," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 219-229, October.
    9. Zheng, Jiakun, 2021. "Willingness to pay for reductions in health risks under anticipated regret," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Bakó, Barna & Neszveda, Gábor, 2020. "The Achilles’ heel of Salience theory and a way to fix it," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Ben Irons & Cameron Hepburn, 2007. "Regret Theory and the Tyranny of Choice," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(261), pages 191-203, June.
    12. Caspar G. Chorus & Sander Cranenburgh, 2018. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence—commentary," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 247-256, January.
    13. Christian Knoller, 2016. "MULTIPLE REFERENCE POINTS AND THE DEMAND FOR PRINCIPAL-PROTECTED LIFE ANNUITIES: An EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 163-179, January.
    14. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2428-2436.
    15. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Michenaud, Sébastien & Solnik, Bruno, 2008. "Applying regret theory to investment choices: Currency hedging decisions," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 677-694, September.
    17. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Zhuzhu Zhou, 2024. "Ranking blame," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 78(2), pages 403-441, September.
    19. Kuang, Yunjuan & Ng, Chi To, 2018. "Pricing substitutable products under consumer regrets," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 286-300.
    20. Heydari, Pedram, 2024. "Regret, responsibility, and randomization: A theory of stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).

    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:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:12:p:2133-:d:842440. 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.