IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v24y2006i2p257-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consistency of the Results of Different MCA Methods: A Critical Review

Author

Listed:
  • Jaroslav MyÅ¡iak

    (Department of Economics, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCA) has become an indispensable tool for dealing with complex and unstructured decision problems in environmental and natural resource management which involve a number of conflicting objectives and a variety of stakeholders. Despite their popularity, choosing which of the many multicriteria methods to use is tricky. Different methods may yield different results and therefore the decision may depend on the method selected. In this paper we review a number of experiments conducted to compare the results of different MCA methods when applied to the same decision problem. I compare and critically examine the hypotheses postulated and the results obtained from these experiments. Despite the equivocal results yielded in some experiments, many authors recommend applying two or more MCA methods, especially in the case of unstructured decision problems. This multimethod MCA application may be regarded as a type of validation which is more extensive than standard sensitivity analysis and which enables the decisionmaker to review the preferences and judgments previously elicited by a single method.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaroslav MyÅ¡iak, 2006. "Consistency of the Results of Different MCA Methods: A Critical Review," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 257-277, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:24:y:2006:i:2:p:257-277
    DOI: 10.1068/c04103s
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c04103s
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c04103s?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. Joubert, Alison R. & Leiman, Anthony & de Klerk, Helen M. & Katua, Stephen & Aggenbach, J. Coenrad, 1997. "Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 123-140, August.
    2. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    3. Corner, J. L. & Buchanan, J. T., 1997. "Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 85-97, April.
    4. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    5. 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.
    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. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    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. Alaa Alden Al Mohamed & Sobhi Al Mohamed & Moustafa Zino, 2023. "Application of fuzzy multicriteria decision-making model in selecting pandemic hospital site," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    5. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Lu Chen & Kaisa Miettinen & Bin Xin & Vesa Ojalehto, 2023. "Comparing reference point based interactive multiobjective optimization methods without a human decision maker," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 757-788, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Bell, Michelle L. & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Ellis, Hugh, 2003. "The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 289-316, December.
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    10. Borges, Pedro C. & Villavicencio, Arturo, 2004. "Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emissions abatement studies with MCDA:: The Peruvian case," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 641-654, February.
    11. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1999. "Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 651-662, October.
    12. Krejci, Igor & Voriskova, Andrea, 2010. "Analysis of the Method for the Selection of Regions with Concentrated State Aid," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 1-8, September.
    13. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    14. 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.
    15. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    16. Hanyu Lu & Lufei Huang, 2021. "Optimization of Shore Power Deployment in Green Ports Considering Government Subsidies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    17. Henao, Felipe & Cherni, Judith A. & Jaramillo, Patricia & Dyner, Isaac, 2012. "A multicriteria approach to sustainable energy supply for the rural poor," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 801-809.
    18. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
    19. Raja Rub Nawaz & Dr.Rafique Ahmed & Sajida Reza, 2015. "Prioritization Of Quality Care Criteria To Deliver Quality Service Using Dematel," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 11(2), pages 165-181.
    20. T Kainulainen & P Leskinen & P Korhonen & A Haara & T Hujala, 2009. "A statistical approach to assessing interval scale preferences in discrete choice problems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 252-258, February.

    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:sae:envirc:v:24:y:2006:i:2:p:257-277. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.