IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i17p3116-d902125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Wenyao Niu

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

  • Yuan Rong

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

  • Liying Yu

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

  • Lu Huang

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

Abstract

Intercity railway is an important system for the development of urban agglomeration, and the site selection of the Line Management Department of Intercity Railway (LMDIR) is a significant task for the railway department when constructing intercity railways. Owing to the complexity and uncertainty during the selection process, we constructed a multiple expert multi-criteria decision making (MEMCDM) method to provide a rational decision support model for a railway management department in the Fermatean cubic fuzzy set context. In this regard, an innovative extension called Fermatean cubic fuzzy sets (FCFSs) that integrates Fermatean fuzzy sets (FFSs) and cubic sets; several basic theories of FCFSs, including the score and accuracy functions; and distance measures are also given. Then, a series of Fermatean cubic fuzzy Hamacher operators are put forward to flexibly fuse Fermatean cubic fuzzy information, and the corresponding valuable characteristics of these operators are also investigated. Thirdly, the Fermatean cubic fuzzy logarithmic percentage-change-driven objective weighting (LOPCOW) approach is recommended based on the score function to recognize the importance of criteria, and the similarity-based method is deployed to identify the expert weight information. Fourthly, a hybrid MEMCDM methodology integrating the proposed Fermatean cubic fuzzy Hamacher operators, the LOPCOW method, whose evaluation is based on distance from average solution (EDAS) method based on regret theory, is designed to ascertain the prioritization of the schemes. Consequently, an empirical test concerning the site selection of LMDIR is shown to validate the feasibility and usefulness of the designed MEMCDM approach. The analysis involving the sensibility test and comparison study with prior methods is displayed to emphasize the effectuality and advantages of the propounded method. The outcomes demonstrate that the hybrid method recommended in this research possesses superior robustness and feasibility to cope with complicated decision issues. The findings of this research show that the presented method can recommend more credible site selection of LMDIR when encountering uncertainties and abundant impact factors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:17:p:3116-:d:902125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/17/3116/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/17/3116/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Yuan Rong & Yi Liu & Zheng Pei, 2020. "Novel Multiple Attribute Group Decision-Making Methods Based on Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-30, March.
    3. Asante, Dennis & He, Zheng & Adjei, Nana Osae & Asante, Bismark, 2020. "Exploring the barriers to renewable energy adoption utilising MULTIMOORA- EDAS method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    4. Aliya Fahmi & Fazli Amin & Saleem Abdullah & Asad Ali, 2018. "Cubic fuzzy Einstein aggregation operators and its application to decision-making," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(11), pages 2385-2397, August.
    5. Lai, Young-Jou & Liu, Ting-Yun & Hwang, Ching-Lai, 1994. "TOPSIS for MODM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 486-500, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Ecer, Fatih & Pamucar, Dragan, 2022. "A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 112(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. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    2. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    3. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Olga Porro & Francesc Pardo-Bosch & Núria Agell & Mónica Sánchez, 2020. "Understanding Location Decisions of Energy Multinational Enterprises within the European Smart Cities’ Context: An Integrated AHP and Extended Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-29, May.
    5. Ishizaka, Alessio & Nemery, Philippe & Lidouh, Karim, 2013. "Location selection for the construction of a casino in the Greater London region: A triple multi-criteria approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 211-220.
    6. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    7. Ali Alibeigi & Adeleh Asemi & Abu Bakar Munir & Mohd Sapiyan Baba, 2021. "Evaluating ASEAN E-commerce Laws Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 25(2), pages 105-157, June.
    8. Zajac, Sandra & Huber, Sandra, 2021. "Objectives and methods in multi-objective routing problems: a survey and classification scheme," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(1), pages 1-25.
    9. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    10. Pandey, Mukesh Mohan, 2016. "Evaluating the service quality of airports in Thailand using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 241-249.
    11. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    12. Dilşad Güzel & Hamit Erdal, 2015. "A Comparative Assesment of Facility Location Problem via fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR: A Case Study on Security Services," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 5(5), pages 49-61, May.
    13. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.
    14. Mohammed Algarni & Mashhour A. Alazwari & Mohammad Reza Safaei, 2021. "Optimization of Nano-Additive Characteristics to Improve the Efficiency of a Shell and Tube Thermal Energy Storage System Using a Hybrid Procedure: DOE, ANN, MCDM, MOO, and CFD Modeling," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-30, December.
    15. Rizk M. Rizk-Allah & Mahmoud A. Abo-Sinna, 2021. "A comparative study of two optimization approaches for solving bi-level multi-objective linear fractional programming problem," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 58(2), pages 374-402, June.
    16. Alireza Shahrasbi & Mehdi Shamizanjani & M. H. Alavidoost & Babak Akhgar, 2017. "An Aggregated Fuzzy Model for the Selection of a Managed Security Service Provider," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 625-684, May.
    17. Hasan Ture & Seyyide Dogan & Deniz Kocak, 2019. "Assessing Euro 2020 Strategy Using Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: VIKOR and TOPSIS," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 645-665, April.
    18. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    19. ShuJie Liao & Haiting Tu & Cheng Hu & Wulin Pan & Jianwu Xiong & Dongyang Yu & Lei Jing & Wei Pan, 2019. "Fuzzy multi-objective medical service organization selection model considering limited resources and stochastic demand in emergency management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M. & García-Cascales, M.S. & Lamata, M.T., 2016. "GIS-based onshore wind farm site selection using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods. Evaluating the case of Southeastern Spain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 86-102.

    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:17:p:3116-:d:902125. 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.