IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0311842.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Roman Vavrek

Abstract

The performance evaluation of local self-government entities is very difficult, as their primary goal is not to make a profit, but to provide services to their residents that will contribute to an increase in their quality of life. In this context, it is necessary to evaluate their activity from the point of view of several available criteria, for which it is possible to find relevant and recognized sources. The presented research works with five criteria, identified by the Institute for Economic and Social Reforms, and aims to quantify the agreement of the results of the assessment of the financial health of territorial self-government entities in 2020 using the TOPSIS technique with a gradually decreasing number of criteria. For this purpose, a total of 26 combinations of criteria are created, with the number of 5, 4, 3 and 2 used criteria, the importance of which is determined based on their absolute variability using the standard deviation method. The results obtained in this way are interpreted using a wide range of mathematical and statistical methods including the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Levene test, Jaccard index and others. As a result, the multi-criteria evaluation of territorial self-government subjects (in our case, district cities) proved to be highly applicable. However, the result itself is largely determined by the structure and number of entry criteria. Based on the performed analyses, we can see that significant differences result from their reduction. Each such reduction has an impact on the overall results, but it is possible to find combinations that defy this conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0311842
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311842
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311842
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311842&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0311842?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. Hallerberg, Mark & Strauch, Rolf & von Hagen, Jurgen, 2007. "The design of fiscal rules and forms of governance in European Union countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 338-359, June.
    2. Olson, David L. & Fliedner, Gene & Currie, Karen, 1995. "Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 522-539, May.
    3. Siksnelyte, Indre & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Bausys, Romualdas & Streimikiene, Dalia, 2019. "Implementation of EU energy policy priorities in the Baltic Sea Region countries: Sustainability assessment based on neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 90-102.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Korhonen, Pekka J., 1986. "A hierarchical interactive method for ranking alternatives with multiple qualitative criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 265-276, February.
    7. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    8. 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.
    9. van Huylenbroeck, G., 1995. "The conflict analysis method: bridging the gap between ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and ORESTE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 490-502, May.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    4. 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.
    5. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    6. Mukherjee, Krishnendu, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: a bibliometric analysis from past, present and future of AHP and TOPSIS," MPRA Paper 59887, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Prof. Dr. Sangita Bharuka & Nancy Shrivastava, 2020. "Review of Waste Management Models and Their Application," Journal of Commerce and Trade, Society for Advanced Management Studies, vol. 15(1), pages 38-48, April.
    8. Roszkowska Ewa & Wachowicz Tomasz, 2019. "The Impact of Decision-Making Profiles on the Consistency of Rankings Obtained by Means of Selected Multiple Criteria Decision-Aiding Methods," Econometrics. Advances in Applied Data Analysis, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 1-14, June.
    9. P. Zhou & B. Ang, 2009. "Comparing MCDA Aggregation Methods in Constructing Composite Indicators Using the Shannon-Spearman Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 83-96, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    14. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Yolandi Schoeman & Paul Oberholster & Vernon Somerset, 2021. "A Zero-Waste Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Model for the Iron and Steel Industry in Developing Countries: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-23, March.
    16. Jamile Eleutério Delesposte & Luís Alberto Duncan Rangel & Marcelo Jasmim Meiriño & Ramon Baptista Narcizo & André Armando Mendonça de Alencar Junior, 2021. "Use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: bibliometrics, applications and trends," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 501-522, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    19. Domingos Cardoso & Jorge Sousa, 2005. "A Multi-Attribute Ranking Solutions Confirmation Procedure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 127-141, September.
    20. 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.

    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:pone00:0311842. 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.