IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0334781.html

A multicriteria model for prioritizing 5G network deployment with Monte Carlo stability analysis: A case study in Magdalena, Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Martínez Abuabara
  • Carlos Arturo Robles
  • Luis Leonardo Camargo

Abstract

The global deployment of 5G mobile networks has followed a progressive and strategic approach, depending on regional characteristics. This study develops a reference framework to prioritize areas for deployment, considering technical, sociodemographic, geographic, and economic criteria. The methodology integrates multi-criteria decision-making techniques such as AHP, CRITIC, TOPSIS, and SAW to evaluate and prioritize alternatives. This framework was applied to the municipalities of the Magdalena department in Colombia. The AHP results indicate that technical criteria are the most relevant in the selection process, with a weight of 34.3%, followed by sociodemographic criteria at 33.6%, geographic criteria at 19.47%, and economic criteria at 12.63%. A high similarity in municipality prioritization was observed, with a correlation of ρ = 0.9897 according to Spearman’s coefficient. Using TOPSIS and SAW, the municipality of Ciénaga ranks first, given that the sub-criteria of population size, area, and 4G coverage hold the highest relevance in the selection process, with percentages of 13.13%, 12.16%, and 11.12%, respectively, while the municipalities of Fundación and Plato alternate between second and third place. On the other hand, La Zona Bananera ranks fourth and fifth. To assess the model’s robustness against variability in the criterion weights, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using the Monte Carlo method with 10,000 iterations. The results indicate that the ranking remains stable, with an average correlation of ρ = 0.9010 between the rankings obtained with SAW and the final ranking using TOPSIS. The influence of high-weight and highly correlated sub-criteria was also assessed. Rankings from AHP-SAW and AHP-TOPSIS were compared with CRITIC-SAW and CRITIC-TOPSIS, yielding correlations of 0.98 and 0.76, respectively. It can be concluded that the deployment of 5G networks can be systematically prioritized based on the mentioned criteria, using a model that remains stable despite changes in criterion weights.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Martínez Abuabara & Carlos Arturo Robles & Luis Leonardo Camargo, 2025. "A multicriteria model for prioritizing 5G network deployment with Monte Carlo stability analysis: A case study in Magdalena, Colombia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-33, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334781
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334781
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334781&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0334781?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. 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)

    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. Reza Banai, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    3. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    4. Kamila Hodasová & Dávid Krčmář & Ivana Ondrejková, 2025. "Satellite-based drought assessment: integrating AHP method and fuzzy logic for comprehensive vulnerability and risk analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(10), pages 11609-11632, June.
    5. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    6. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    7. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    8. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    9. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    10. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    11. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    13. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle roughened rectangular channel," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    14. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.
    15. Juuso Pajasmaa & Kaisa Miettinen & Johanna Silvennoinen, 2025. "Group Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization: A Systematic Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 329-371, April.
    16. G. La Scalia & F.P. Marra & J. Rühl & R. Sciortino & T. Caruso, 2016. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology to optimise olive agro-engineering processes based on geo-spatial technologies," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15.
    17. 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.
    18. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Majid Ebrahimi & Hamid Nejadsoleymani & Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, 2019. "Land suitability map and ecological carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on AHP and GIS," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 697-718, October.
    20. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.

    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:pone00:0334781. 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.