IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i10p8229-d1150161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Aggregation Operators in the Group Decision-Making Process: A Real Case Study of Location Selection Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Goran Petrović

    (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Niš, University of Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

  • Jelena Mihajlović

    (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Niš, University of Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

  • Danijel Marković

    (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Niš, University of Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

  • Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani

    (School of Engineering, Universidad Catolica del Norte, Larrondo 1281, Coquimbo 1780000, Chile)

  • Miloš Madić

    (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Niš, University of Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

Abstract

Aggregation methods in group decision-making refer to techniques used to combine the individual preferences, opinions, or judgments of group members into a collective decision. Each aggregation method has its advantages and disadvantages, and the best method to use depends on the specific situation and the goals of the decision-making process. In certain cases, final rankings of alternatives in the decision-making process may depend on the way of combining different attitudes. The focus of this paper is the application and comparative analysis of the aggregation operators, specifically, arithmetic mean (AM), geometric mean (GM), and Dombi Bonferroni mean (DBM), to the process of criteria weights determination in a fuzzy environment. The criteria weights are determined using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (F-MCDM) methods, such as Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP), Fuzzy Pivot Pairwise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment (F-PIPRECIA), and Fuzzy Full Consistency Method (F-FUCOM), while the final alternative ranking is obtained by Fuzzy Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (F-WASPAS). A comparison of aggregation operators is done for the real case of location selection problem for a used motor oil transfer station in the regional center of Southern and Eastern Serbia, the city of Niš. The results obtained in this study showed that the views of different experts and application of a certain aggregation approach may have a significant impact on the values of criteria weight coefficients and further on the final ranking of alternatives. This paper is expected to stimulate future research into the impact of aggregation methods on final rankings in the decision-making process, especially in the field of waste management.

Suggested Citation

  • Goran Petrović & Jelena Mihajlović & Danijel Marković & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Miloš Madić, 2023. "Comparison of Aggregation Operators in the Group Decision-Making Process: A Real Case Study of Location Selection Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:10:p:8229-:d:1150161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/8229/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/8229/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. M. Tapia García & M. J. Del Moral & M. A. Martínez & E. Herrera-Viedma, 2012. "A Consensus Model For Group Decision-Making Problems With Interval Fuzzy Preference Relations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(04), pages 709-725.
    2. Samanlioglu, Funda, 2013. "A multi-objective mathematical model for the industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(2), pages 332-340.
    3. Cui, Ye & E, Hanyu & Pedrycz, Witold & Fayek, Aminah Robinson, 2022. "A granular multicriteria group decision making for renewable energy planning problems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1047-1059.
    4. Ibrahim M. Hezam & Naga Rama Devi Vedala & Bathina Rajesh Kumar & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Fausto Cavallaro, 2023. "Assessment of Biofuel Industry Sustainability Factors Based on the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Symmetry Point of Criterion and Rank-Sum-Based MAIRCA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.
    5. Benedictus Rahardjo & Fu-Kwun Wang & Shih-Che Lo & Jia-Hong Chou, 2023. "A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model Combining DANP with VIKOR for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Electronics Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, March.
    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. Ivona Ivić & Anita Cerić, 2024. "Mitigation Measures for Information Asymmetry between Participants in Construction Projects: The Impact of Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-27, August.

    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. Yan Sun & Maoxiang Lang & Danzhu Wang, 2016. "Bi-Objective Modelling for Hazardous Materials Road–Rail Multimodal Routing Problem with Railway Schedule-Based Space–Time Constraints," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-31, July.
    2. Court, Christa D. & Munday, Max & Roberts, Annette & Turner, Karen, 2015. "Can hazardous waste supply chain ‘hotspots’ be identified using an input–output framework?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 177-187.
    3. Ghalehkhondabi, Iman & Maihami, Reza & Ahmadi, Ehsan, 2020. "Optimal pricing and environmental improvement for a hazardous waste disposal supply chain with emission penalties," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Abul Kalam Azad & Abhijaysinh Chandrasinh Jadeja & Arun Teja Doppalapudi & Nur Md Sayeed Hassan & Md Nurun Nabi & Roshan Rauniyar, 2024. "Design and Simulation of the Biodiesel Process Plant for Sustainable Fuel Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Anas A. Makki & Reda M. S. Abdulaal, 2023. "A Hybrid MCDM Approach Based on Fuzzy MEREC-G and Fuzzy RATMI," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, September.
    6. H. Asefi & S. Lim & M. Maghrebi & S. Shahparvari, 2019. "Mathematical modelling and heuristic approaches to the location-routing problem of a cost-effective integrated solid waste management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 273(1), pages 75-110, February.
    7. Danışment Vural & Robert F. Dell & Erkan Kose, 2021. "Locating unmanned aircraft systems for multiple missions under different weather conditions," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 725-744, March.
    8. Hamed Farrokhi-Asl & Ahmad Makui & Armin Jabbarzadeh & Farnaz Barzinpour, 2020. "Solving a multi-objective sustainable waste collection problem considering a new collection network," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1977-2015, December.
    9. Jun Zhao & Lixiang Huang, 2019. "Multi-Period Network Design Problem in Regional Hazardous Waste Management Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-27, June.
    10. Haoqing Wang & Wen Yi & Yannick Liu, 2022. "Optimal Route Design for Construction Waste Transportation Systems: Mathematical Models and Solution Algorithms," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(22), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Wu, Weitiao & Ma, Jian & Liu, Ronghui & Jin, Wenzhou, 2022. "Multi-class hazmat distribution network design with inventory and superimposed risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Shahrzad Faghih-Roohi & Yew-Soon Ong & Sobhan Asian & Allan N. Zhang, 2016. "Dynamic conditional value-at-risk model for routing and scheduling of hazardous material transportation networks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 715-734, December.
    14. Nikzamir, Mohammad & Baradaran, Vahid, 2020. "A healthcare logistic network considering stochastic emission of contamination: Bi-objective model and solution algorithm," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    15. Van Engeland, Jens & Beliën, Jeroen & De Boeck, Liesje & De Jaeger, Simon, 2020. "Literature review: Strategic network optimization models in waste reverse supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    16. Juan Carlos Leyva-López, 2024. "A consistency and consensus model for group decision support based on the outranking approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1-29, June.
    17. Çetinsaya Özkır, Vildan & Efendigil, Tuğba & Demirel, Tufan & Çetin Demirel, Nihan & Deveci, Muhammet & Topçu, Burak, 2015. "A three-stage methodology for initiating an effective management system for electronic waste in Turkey," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 61-70.
    18. Zhao, Jiahong & Ke, Ginger Y., 2017. "Incorporating inventory risks in location-routing models for explosive waste management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 123-136.
    19. Soheyl Khalilpourazari & Alireza Arshadi Khamseh, 2019. "Bi-objective emergency blood supply chain network design in earthquake considering earthquake magnitude: a comprehensive study with real world application," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 355-393, December.
    20. Chunlin Xin & Jie Wang & Ziping Wang & Chia-Huei Wu & Muhammad Nawaz & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2022. "Reverse logistics research of municipal hazardous waste: a literature review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1495-1531, February.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:10:p:8229-:d:1150161. 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.