IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0283655.html

A hybrid MCDM model combining Fuzzy-Delphi, AEW, BWM, and MARCOS for digital economy development comprehensive evaluation of 31 provincial level regions in China

Author

Listed:
  • Haoran Zhao
  • Yuchen Wang
  • Sen Guo

Abstract

With the deepening of a new round of technological revolution and industrial reform, digital technology has been continuously innovated and widely penetrated into various economic fields. The digital economy (DE) is gradually becoming the focus of China’s economic development planning and a new engine to enhance national strength. Evaluating the development level of DE in various regions is conducive to timely discover the shortcomings in China’s DE development, as well as provide an important basis for putting forward corresponding policy suggestions. This investigation established a hybrid multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model for evaluating DE development of 31 provincial level regions in China ranging from 2015 to 2020. Firstly, the evaluation indicator system is established from digital infrastructure, integrated development, social benefits, innovation ability, and electronic-commerce dimensions containing 17 quantitative sub-criteria based on Fuzzy-Delphi method. Secondly, integrated weights of 17 sub-criteria from 2015 to 2020 are computed in terms of objective weights calculated by the anti-entropy weight (AEW) approach from 2015 to 2020 and subjective weights obtained via the best-worst method (BWM). Thirdly, MARCOS model is applied to evaluate the DE development degree of various regions in China ranging from 2015 to 2020. Case analysis illustrates that the DE development of Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Beijing always maintain in the top four from 2015 to 2020, while the southwest and northwest regions in China are obviously fall behind others. And the DE development degree of various regions is primarily affected under the integrated development performance, innovation ability performance, and social benefits performance. Therefore, the backward regions should emphasize the development of software industry and information technology industry. The robustness of the proposed MCDM model combining Fuzzy-Delphi, AEW, BWM and MARCOS is discussed employing three similarity coefficients of rankings. And it is verified that the proposed MCDM model has superior robustness and validity in evaluating DE development.

Suggested Citation

  • Haoran Zhao & Yuchen Wang & Sen Guo, 2023. "A hybrid MCDM model combining Fuzzy-Delphi, AEW, BWM, and MARCOS for digital economy development comprehensive evaluation of 31 provincial level regions in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(4), pages 1-31, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283655
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283655
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283655&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0283655?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. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo & Huiru Zhao, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Assessment on Various Battery Energy Storage Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, October.
    2. Oleg Nikolaevich Dmitriev, 2019. "Anti-Entropy Resolving of Uncertainty of Estimations Within Scope of Intelligent DMSS," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global Scientific Publishing, vol. 11(2), pages 48-71, April.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    6. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    7. Lange, Steffen & Pohl, Johanna & Santarius, Tilman, 2020. "Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(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. Zhao, Haoran & Li, Chuan & Yang, Zhen & Zhang, Zhuowen & Jin, Chunhua & Guo, Sen, 2025. "How can new quality productivity decrease carbon emission intensity? Evidence from 30 provincial regions in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).

    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. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo, 2025. "Urban integrated energy system construction plan selection: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 14223-14252, June.
    2. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo, 2024. "Risks assessment on island micro-grids construction schemes employing a fuzzy-MCDM framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 13185-13216, May.
    3. Sen Guo & Wenyue Zhang & Xiao Gao, 2020. "Business Risk Evaluation of Electricity Retail Company in China Using a Hybrid MCDM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    5. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    6. Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Mohammad Ghahremanloo & Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2021. "Evaluating Life Cycle of Buildings Using an Integrated Approach Based on Quantitative-Qualitative and Simplified Best-Worst Methods (QQM-SBWM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    7. Zhao, Huiru & Li, Bingkang & Lu, Hao & Wang, Xuejie & Li, Hongze & Guo, Sen & Xue, Wanlei & Wang, Yuwei, 2022. "Economy-environment-energy performance evaluation of CCHP microgrid system: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    8. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    11. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    12. Junli Zhang & Guoteng Wang & Zheng Xu & Zheren Zhang, 2022. "A Comprehensive Evaluation Method and Strengthening Measures for AC/DC Hybrid Power Grids," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Hamzeh Soltanali & Mehdi Khojastehpour & Siamak Kheybari, 2023. "Evaluating the critical success factors for maintenance management in agro-industries using multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 949-968, June.
    14. Yossi Hadad & Baruch Keren & Dima Alberg, 2023. "An Expert System for Ranking and Matching Electric Vehicles to Customer Specifications and Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, May.
    15. Ebrahim Sharifi & Saman Hassanzadeh Amin & Liping Fang, 2025. "Assessing sustainability of food supply chains by using a novel method integrating group multi-criteria decision-making and interval Type-2 fuzzy set," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 3665-3705, February.
    16. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Ridvan Ertugrul Yildirim & Aziz Sisman, 2025. "Spatial Decision Support for Determining Suitable Emergency Assembly Places Using GIS and MCDM Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-28, March.
    18. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    19. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Verónica Cañal-Fernández & Carmen González-Pérez, 2026. "Improving the assessment of social and environmental impacts of RE projects for financial institutions," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 1-54, June.
    20. Negin Salimi & Jafar Rezaei, 2016. "Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1911-1938, December.

    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:pone00:0283655. 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.