IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jsd123/v9y2016i5p70.html

Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Assessing Sustainable Development among Underprivileged Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Lazim Abdullah
  • Jin Yong Pang

Abstract

One of the purposes of sustainable development assessment is to identify the most importance criteria and sub-criteria of sustainable development that have the most significant contribution to the local community. To date, few studies have inquired into qualitative methods to assess these criteria and sub-criteria. In response to this gap in the literature, we propose an application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method to prioritize thirteen sub-criteria of sustainable development among underprivileged community of Setiu Wetlands Terengganu. Consistency ratio and weighted geometric mean are the two important computation steps of the AHP prior to proposing global weights of sub-criteria. The computational results indicate that ‘Education’ is the most important sub-criteria with 15.4 % of global weight. At the other extreme ‘global economic partnership’ is the least important sub-criteria for this group of community. The outcome of the proposed method is a weight of sustainability for all sub-criteria which offers a guide to government in identifying the appropriate action for uplifting the community quality of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Lazim Abdullah & Jin Yong Pang, 2016. "Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Assessing Sustainable Development among Underprivileged Communities," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(5), pages 1-70, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jsd123:v:9:y:2016:i:5:p:70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/download/61356/34059
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/61356
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rakesh Verma & Saroj Koul & Sushanth S. Pai, 2016. "Identifying profitable clientele using the analytical hierarchy process," International Journal of Business and Systems Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(2/3/4), pages 220-237.
    2. Øyvind Ihlen & Juliet Roper, 2014. "Corporate Reports on Sustainability and Sustainable Development: ‘We Have Arrived’," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 42-51, January.
    3. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    4. Abba, Ahmad Halilu & Noor, Zainura Zainon & Yusuf, Rafiu O. & Din, Mohd Fadhil M.D. & Hassan, Mohd Ariffin Abu, 2013. "Assessing environmental impacts of municipal solid waste of Johor by analytical hierarchy process," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 188-196.
    5. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    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. Andi Arief & Ananto Yudono & Arifuddin Akil & Isran Ramli & Amran Rahim, 2017. "Determination Model of Suitable Coastal Transit-Oriented Development Location, Case Study: Paotere, Makassar," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(4), pages 1-31, July.

    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. Jerónimo Aznar & Francisco Guijarro & José Moreno-Jiménez, 2011. "Mixed valuation methods: a combined AHP-GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural valuation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 221-238, October.
    2. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    3. Zorica Srđević & Bojan Srđević & Kosana Suvočarev & Laslo Galamboš, 2020. "Hybrid Constructed Wetland Selection as a Group Decision-Making Problem," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 295-310, January.
    4. Changsheng Lin & Gang Kou & Yi Peng & Fawaz E. Alsaadi, 2022. "Aggregation of the nearest consistency matrices with the acceptable consensus in AHP-GDM," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 179-195, September.
    5. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    6. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    7. Alfredo Altuzarra & Pilar Gargallo & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2022. "Identification of Homogeneous Groups of Actors in a Local AHP-Multiactor Context with a High Number of Decision-Makers: A Bayesian Stochastic Search," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, February.
    8. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2019. "AHP-Group Decision Making Based on Consistency," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    10. Manuel Salvador & Alfredo Altuzarra & Pilar Gargallo & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2015. "A Bayesian Approach to Maximising Inner Compatibility in AHP-Systemic Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 655-673, July.
    11. Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Parra-López, Carlos & Hinojosa-Rodríguez, Ascensión & Sayadi, Samir, 2014. "Farm-level multifunctionality associated with farming techniques in olive growing: An integrated modeling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-114.
    12. Brunnhofer, Magdalena & Gabriella, Natasha & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Stern, Tobias & Posch, Alfred, 2020. "The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    13. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Ma, Jian & Jiang, Yan-Ping & Sun, Yong-Hong & Ma, Louis, 2006. "A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 311-321, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Shivam Goyal & Dixit Garg & Sunil Luthra, 2021. "Sustainable production and consumption: analysing barriers and solutions for maintaining green tomorrow by using fuzzy-AHP–fuzzy-TOPSIS hybrid framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16934-16980, November.
    16. Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & González-Gómez, Francisco, 2015. "The ‘social choice’ of privatising urban water services: A case study of Madrid in Spain," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 616-629.
    17. Sadaf-Sadat Mortezaeipooya & Parisa-Sadat Ashofteh & Parvin Golfam, 2022. "Selecting the Best Approach to Modeling the Performance of Water Supply System Using the Combination of Rough Set Theory with Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(9), pages 3129-3152, July.
    18. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    19. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    20. Alfredo Altuzarra & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2010. "Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1755-1773, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:jsd123:v:9:y:2016:i:5:p:70. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.