IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v105y2021i1d10.1007_s11069-020-04348-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative evaluation of GIS-based best–worst method (BWM) for emergency facility planning: perspectives from two decision-maker groups

Author

Listed:
  • Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili

    (Istanbul Technical University)

  • Turan Erden

    (Istanbul Technical University)

Abstract

Nowadays, organizational decisions are made collectively in decision groups to achieve more meaningful and impactful outcomes, ranging from product design, policy and strategy formulation and resource allocation. This research, therefore, suggests a group decision-making (GDM) approach utilizing a recently developed MCDM method known as best–worst method (BWM) in combination with GIS for planning suitable areas for new emergency facilities in Istanbul. Using two decision-maker (DM) groups consisting of academic-related professionals and fire brigade practitioners, the BWM method was used to evaluate the associated weights and preference rankings of six pre-selected criteria, derived from pairwise comparisons of the best and worst criterion for each DM. The preference criteria of the two DM groups were examined to deepen the understanding of the varying perceptions about the level of influence of the criteria from a theoretical and practical view as well as to reflect a real-case scenario in typical GDM problems where group agreement or reliability is assessed by consensus using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, W. The BWM results were compared for model validation with the AHP and found to be reliable and consistent. Further, from statistical tests conducted, it was inferred that criteria C4 (density of hazardous materials) and C1 (high population density) were perceived to be the most important by the academician and fire brigade practitioner DM group, respectively. For both DM groups, criterion C6 (distance from earthquake risk) was viewed to be the least important. Resultant raster suitability maps for both DM groups were produced for visualizing the BWM model.

Suggested Citation

  • Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili & Turan Erden, 2021. "Comparative evaluation of GIS-based best–worst method (BWM) for emergency facility planning: perspectives from two decision-maker groups," 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. 105(1), pages 1031-1067, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04348-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04348-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04348-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-020-04348-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo & Huiru Zhao, 2018. "Selecting the Optimal Micro-Grid Planning Program Using a Novel Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Based on Grey Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Nastaran Chitsaz & Ali Azarnivand, 2017. "Water Scarcity Management in Arid Regions Based on an Extended Multiple Criteria Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(1), pages 233-250, January.
    3. Grace Lee & Edwin Chan, 2008. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach for Assessment of Urban Renewal Proposals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 155-168, October.
    4. Kheybari, Siamak & Kazemi, Mostafa & Rezaei, Jafar, 2019. "Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 612-623.
    5. Nyimbili, Penjani Hopkins & Erden, Turan, 2020. "GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria approach for optimal site selection of fire stations in Istanbul, Turkey," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    6. Rezaei, Jafar & van Roekel, Wilco S. & Tavasszy, Lori, 2018. "Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 158-169.
    7. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Dragan Pamučar & Ljubomir Gigović & Zoran Bajić & Miljojko Janošević, 2017. "Location Selection for Wind Farms Using GIS Multi-Criteria Hybrid Model: An Approach Based on Fuzzy and Rough Numbers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Ren, Jingzheng & Liang, Hanwei & Chan, Felix T.S., 2017. "Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 29-39.
    10. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    11. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    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. Shorabeh, Saman Nadizadeh & Firozjaei, Hamzeh Karimi & Firozjaei, Mohammad Karimi & Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza & Homaee, Mehdi & Nematollahi, Omid, 2022. "The site selection of wind energy power plant using GIS-multi-criteria evaluation from economic perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(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. 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.
    2. Chong Li & He Huang & Ya Luo, 2022. "An Integrated Two-Dimension Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo & Huiru Zhao, 2018. "Selecting the Optimal Micro-Grid Planning Program Using a Novel Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Based on Grey Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, July.
    4. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Peipei You & Sen Guo & Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao, 2017. "Operation Performance Evaluation of Power Grid Enterprise Using a Hybrid BWM-TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    6. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    7. 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).
    8. Omidipoor, Morteza & Jelokhani-Niaraki, Mohammadreza & Moeinmehr, Athena & Sadeghi-Niaraki, Abolghasem & Choi, Soo-Mi, 2019. "A GIS-based decision support system for facilitating participatory urban renewal process," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Dragan Pamučar & Fatih Ecer & Goran Cirovic & Melfi A. Arlasheedi, 2020. "Application of Improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in Real-World Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    11. Nan Li & Haining Zhang & Xiangcheng Zhang & Xue Ma & Sen Guo, 2020. "How to Select the Optimal Electrochemical Energy Storage Planning Program? A Hybrid MCDM Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Jairo Ortega & Sarbast Moslem & János Tóth & Tamás Péter & Juan Palaguachi & Mario Paguay, 2020. "Using Best Worst Method for Sustainable Park and Ride Facility Location," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    14. Gholamreza Haseli & Reza Sheikh & Jianqiang Wang & Hana Tomaskova & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2021. "A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best–Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    16. Kheybari, Siamak & Javdanmehr, Mahsa & Rezaie, Fariba Mahdi & Rezaei, Jafar, 2021. "Corn cultivation location selection for bioethanol production: An application of BWM and extended PROMETHEE II," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Hamid Reza Fazeli & Qingjin Peng, 2023. "Integrated approaches of BWM-QFD and FUCOM-QFD for improving weighting solution of design matrix," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 1003-1020, March.
    19. Mona Jami Pour & Mahnaz Hosseinzadeh, 2021. "An integrated framework of change management for social CRM implementation," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 43-75, March.
    20. Zhang, Long & Bai, Wuliyasu, 2021. "Sustainability of crop–based biodiesel for transportation in China: Barrier analysis and life cycle ecological footprint calculations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).

    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:spr:nathaz:v:105:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04348-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.