IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i2p336-351.html

Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Algorithms in Food Safety: A Case Study on Emerging Zoonoses Prioritization

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Garre
  • Geraldine Boué
  • Pablo S. Fernández
  • Jeanne‐Marie Membré
  • Jose A. Egea

Abstract

Decision making in food safety is a complex process that involves several criteria of different nature like the expected reduction in the number of illnesses, the potential economic or health‐related cost, or even the environmental impact of a given policy or intervention. Several multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) algorithms are currently used, mostly individually, in food safety to rank different options in a multifactorial environment. However, the selection of the MCDA algorithm is a decision problem on its own because different methods calculate different rankings. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of different uncertainty sources on the rankings of MCDA problems in the context of food safety. For that purpose, a previously published data set on emerging zoonoses in the Netherlands was used to compare different MCDA algorithms: MMOORA, TOPSIS, VIKOR, WASPAS, and ELECTRE III. The rankings were calculated with and without considering uncertainty (using fuzzy sets), to assess the importance of this factor. The rankings obtained differed between algorithms, emphasizing that the selection of the MCDA method had a relevant impact in the rankings. Furthermore, considering uncertainty in the ranking had a high influence on the results. Both factors were more relevant than the weights associated with each criterion in this case study. A hierarchical clustering method was suggested to aggregate results obtained by the different algorithms. This complementary step seems to be a promising way to decrease extreme difference among algorithms and could provide a strong added value in the decision‐making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Garre & Geraldine Boué & Pablo S. Fernández & Jeanne‐Marie Membré & Jose A. Egea, 2020. "Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Algorithms in Food Safety: A Case Study on Emerging Zoonoses Prioritization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 336-351, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:336-351
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13391
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13391?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. Arie H Havelaar & Floor van Rosse & Catalin Bucura & Milou A Toetenel & Juanita A Haagsma & Dorota Kurowicka & J (Hans) A P Heesterbeek & Niko Speybroeck & Merel F M Langelaar & Johanna W B van der Gi, 2010. "Prioritizing Emerging Zoonoses in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-9, November.
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    3. Igor Linkov & Dmitriy Burmistrov, 2003. "Model Uncertainty and Choices Made by Modelers: Lessons Learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency Model Intercomparisons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1297-1308, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    6. Kimberly M. Thompson, 2002. "Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 647-654, June.
    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. Pu, Song & Xia, Chang, 2024. "Hybrid model for evaluating the transformation of China’s resource-based cities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(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. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    2. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    3. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    4. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    5. Zeynep Gamze Mert & Gülşen Akman, 2011. "The Profile of the Organized Industrial Zones in Kocaeli/TURKEY," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1137, European Regional Science Association.
    6. Mahmut Baydaş & Orhan Emre Elma & Željko Stević, 2024. "Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, December.
    7. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Reprint of “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 334-347.
    8. Saja Kosanović & Mirjana Miletić & Ljubo Marković, 2021. "Energy Refurbishment of Family Houses in Serbia in Line with the Principles of Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Hsu, C.-H. & Wang, Fu-Kwun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2012. "The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 95-111.
    10. Junling Zhang & Gajanan G. Hegde & Jennifer Shang & Xiaowen Qi, 2016. "Evaluating Emergency Response Solutions for Sustainable Community Development by Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approaches: IVDHF-TOPSIS and IVDHF-VIKOR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, March.
    11. Arash Malekian & Ali Azarnivand, 2016. "Application of Integrated Shannon’s Entropy and VIKOR Techniques in Prioritization of Flood Risk in the Shemshak Watershed, Iran," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(1), pages 409-425, January.
    12. Lei Xiong & Cheng-Lein Teng & Bo-Wei Zhu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Shan-Lin Huang, 2017. "Using the D-DANP-mV Model to Explore the Continuous System Improvement Strategy for Sustainable Development of Creative Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-37, October.
    13. Julian Canto-Perello & Maria P. Martinez-Garcia & Jorge Curiel-Esparza & Manuel Martin-Utrillas, 2015. "Implementing Sustainability Criteria for Selecting a Roof Assembly Typology in Medium Span Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 125-138.
    15. Jifei Zhang & Shuai Zhang, 2022. "Assessing Integrated Effectiveness of Rural Socio-Economic Development and Environmental Protection of Wenchuan County in Southwestern China: An Approach Using Game Theory and VIKOR," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Jau-Yang Liu, 2018. "An Internal Control System that Includes Corporate Social Responsibility for Social Sustainability in the New Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.
    17. Juin-Hao Ho & Gwo-Guang Lee & Ming-Tsang Lu, 2020. "Exploring the Implementation of a Legal AI Bot for Sustainable Development in Legal Advisory Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    19. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    20. Hossein Sayyadi Tooranloo & Arezoo Sadat Ayatollah, 2024. "Neutrosophic VIKOR approach for multi-attribute group decision-making," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(2), pages 121-134.

    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:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:336-351. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.