IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i21p4432-d1267578.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Hybrid EC-Promethee Method with Multiple Iterations of Random Weight Ranges: Applied to the Choice of Policing Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Marcio Pereira Basilio

    (Controladoria-Geral do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (CGE), Avenida Erasmo Braga, 118, Centro, Rio de Janeiro 20020-000, Brazil
    Department of Production Engineering, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Niteroi 24210-240, Brazil)

  • Valdecy Pereira

    (Department of Production Engineering, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Niteroi 24210-240, Brazil)

  • Fatih Yigit

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Altinbas University, 34218 Istanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

The decision-making process is part of everyday life for people and organizations. When modeling the solutions to problems, just as important as the choice of criteria and alternatives is the definition of the weights of the criteria. This study will present a new hybrid method for weighting criteria. The technique combines the ENTROPY and CRITIC methods with the PROMETHE method to create EC-PROMETHEE. The innovation consists of using a weight range per criterion. The construction of a weight range per criterion preserves the characteristics of each technique. Each weight range includes lower and upper limits, which combine to generate random numbers, producing “t” sets of weights per criterion, allowing “t” final rankings to be obtained. The alternatives receive a value corresponding to their position with each ranking generated. At the end of the process, they are ranked in descending order, thus obtaining the final ranking. The method was applied to the decision support problem of choosing policing strategies to reduce crime. The model used a decision matrix with twenty criteria and fourteen alternatives evaluated in seven different scenarios. The results obtained after 10,000 iterations proved consistent, allowing the decision maker to see how each alternative behaved according to the weights used. The practical implication observed concerning traditional models, where a single final ranking is generated for a single set of weights, is the reversal of positions after “t” iterations compared to a single iteration. The method allows managers to make decisions with reduced uncertainty, improving the quality of their decisions. In future research, we propose creating a web tool to make this method easier to use, and propose other tools are produced in Python and R.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcio Pereira Basilio & Valdecy Pereira & Fatih Yigit, 2023. "New Hybrid EC-Promethee Method with Multiple Iterations of Random Weight Ranges: Applied to the Choice of Policing Strategies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-34, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:21:p:4432-:d:1267578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/21/4432/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/21/4432/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans, 1994. "PROMCALC & GAIA: a new decision support system for multicriteria decision aid," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9349, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Valentinas Podvezko, 2016. "Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 267-283, March.
    3. Nazanin Vafaei & Rita A. Ribeiro & Luis M. Camarinha-Matos, 2018. "Data normalisation techniques in decision making: case study with TOPSIS method," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 19-38.
    4. Ouenniche, Jamal & Pérez-Gladish, Blanca & Bouslah, Kais, 2018. "An out-of-sample framework for TOPSIS-based classifiers with application in bankruptcy prediction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 111-116.
    5. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Cathy Macharis, 1998. "The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure: a PROMETHEE-GAIA based procedure for group decision support," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9373, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans, 1992. "PROMETHEE V: MCDM problems with segmentation constraints," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9341, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Mareschal, Bertrand & Brans, Jean-Pierre, 1988. "Geometrical representations for MCDA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-77, February.
    8. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    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. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    2. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    3. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    5. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    6. da Cunha, Richard Alex & Rangel, Luís Alberto Duncan & Rudolf, Christian A. & Santos, Luiza dos, 2022. "A decision support approach employing the PROMETHEE method and risk factors for critical supply assessment in large-scale projects," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    7. Irina Vinogradova, 2019. "Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods as a Part of Mathematical Optimization," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-21, October.
    8. Mahsa Ghandi & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Risk Management of Drinking Water Supply in Critical Conditions Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE V Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 595-615, January.
    9. Albadvi, Amir & Chaharsooghi, S. Kamal & Esfahanipour, Akbar, 2007. "Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(2), pages 673-683, March.
    10. Mohammad Rahman & Lena Jaumann & Nils Lerche & Fabian Renatus & Ann Buchs & Rudolf Gade & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Sauter, 2015. "Selection of the Best Inland Waterway Structure: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2733-2749, June.
    11. Le Teno, J. F. & Mareschal, B., 1998. "An interval version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of building products' design with ill-defined data on environmental quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 522-529, September.
    12. Bertanza, Giorgio & Baroni, Pietro & Canato, Matteo, 2016. "Ranking sewage sludge management strategies by means of Decision Support Systems: A case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-15.
    13. Ioan GIURCA & Ioan A?CHILEAN & C?lin Ovidiu SAFIRESCU & Dan MURE?AN, 2014. "Choosing Photovoltaic Panels Using The Promethee Method," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(1), pages 1087-1098, November.
    14. Arévalo Quijada, Mª T. & Gómez Domínguez, D. & Vázquez Cueto, Mª J. & Zapata Reina, A., 2002. "Un estudio de las Cajas de Ahorros Andaluzas mediante el método multicriterio promethee," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 20, pages 5-27, Abril.
    15. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    16. Zopounidis, C., 1999. "Multicriteria decision aid in financial management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 404-415, December.
    17. Abu-Taleb, Maher F. & Mareschal, Bertrand, 1995. "Water resources planning in the Middle East: Application of the PROMETHEE V multicriteria method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 500-511, March.
    18. Nora Sharkasi & Nguyen Vo Hien Chau & Jay Rajasekera, 2023. "Export Potential Analysis of Vietnamese Bottled Coconut Water by Incorporating Criteria Weights of MCDM into the Gravity of Trade Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-26, July.
    19. Alessio Ishizaka & Philippe Nemery, 2013. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 773-799, July.
    20. Brans, J. P. & Macharis, C. & Kunsch, P. L. & Chevalier, A. & Schwaninger, M., 1998. "Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 428-441, September.

    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:11:y:2023:i:21:p:4432-:d:1267578. 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.