IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0271951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Similarity of TOPSIS results based on criterion variability: Case study on public economic

Author

Listed:
  • Roman Vavrek
  • Jiří Bečica

Abstract

In the real world, acceptance of a decision is conditional on the availability of a great volume of data. Selection of a suitable solution on the basis of this data represents a problem that multi-criterial methods (MCDM) are applied to. The issue of which of these should be favoured during their use involves a specification of the importance of the assessed criteria. The goal of the presented research is to quantify the differences (symmetry) in assessment using selected MCDM methods (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution–TOPSIS), while applying an absolute and relative variability of the assessed criteria to a determination of their importance. The obtained results indicate that the order of the assessed subject (alternative) is not directly influenced by the method of determining the variability of the assessed criteria. We can also state that the degree of concurrence in the order of application of the TOPSIS technique, in combination with both approaches expressed by the Jaccard index, is relatively low.

Suggested Citation

  • Roman Vavrek & Jiří Bečica, 2022. "Similarity of TOPSIS results based on criterion variability: Case study on public economic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0271951
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0271951
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0271951&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0271951?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greco, Salvatore, 1997. "A new PCCA method: IDRA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 587-601, May.
    2. Chung-Min Wu & Ching-Lin Hsieh & Kuei-Lun Chang, 2013. "A Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision Making Model for Supplier Selection," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-8, September.
    3. Zhang, Ling & Zhang, Lei & Xu, Yan & Zhou, Peng & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2020. "Evaluating urban land use efficiency with interacting criteria: An empirical study of cities in Jiangsu China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    5. ., 2008. "Energy Demand, Technological Change and Economic Development," Chapters, in: Heat, Power and Light, chapter 2, pages 11-27, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(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. Roman Vavrek, 2024. "How much is too much: A case study of local self-government units in Slovakia using absolute variability to determine the importance of financial criteria in MCDM analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-28, October.

    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. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    2. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    3. Xidonas, Panos & Thomakos, Dimitris & Samitas, Aristeidis, 2025. "On the integration of multiple criteria decision aiding and forecasting: Does it create value in portfolio selection?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 321(2), pages 516-528.
    4. Roman Vavrek, 2024. "How much is too much: A case study of local self-government units in Slovakia using absolute variability to determine the importance of financial criteria in MCDM analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-28, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    7. Colorni, Alberto & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2024. "What is a decision problem?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(1), pages 255-267.
    8. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    9. Panos Xidonas & Ilias Lekkos & Charis Giannakidis & Christos Staikouras, 2023. "Multicriteria security evaluation: does it cost to be traditional?," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 301-330, April.
    10. Tomasz Wachowicz & Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko, 2024. "Decision-makers’ behavioral characteristics and multiple criteria decision aiding. Impact of decision-making style and experience on methods’ use, evaluation, and recommendation," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(3), pages 287-323.
    11. Khannoussi, Arwa & Meyer, Patrick & Chaubet, Aurore, 2023. "A multi-criteria decision aiding approach for upgrading public sewerage systems and its application to the city of Brest," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    12. Xu, Xiaozhan, 2004. "A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 530-532, July.
    13. Ion POPA & Ana Alexandra OLARIU & Andreea BREAZU & Cristian Bogdan NICA, 2023. "Are Eu Member States Resilient To New Crises?," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 17(1), pages 319-329, November.
    14. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    16. Michele Grimaldi & Monica Sebillo & Giuliana Vitiello & Vincenzo Pellecchia, 2020. "Planning and Managing the Integrated Water System: A Spatial Decision Support System to Analyze the Infrastructure Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Wancong Li & Hong Li & Shijun Wang & Zhiqiang Feng, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of County-Level Land Use Structure in the Context of Urban Shrinkage: Evidence from Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, October.
    18. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    19. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    20. Tomislav Sunko & Marko Mladineo & Mirjana Kovačić & Toni Mišković, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Coast Guard Resource Deployment for Improvement of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection: Case Study of Eastern Adriatic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0271951. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.