IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02879091.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems

Author

Listed:
  • Morteza Yazdani

    (Universidad Loyola Andalucía = Loyola University Andalucía)

  • Pascale Zaraté

    (IRIT-ADRIA - Argumentation, Décision, Raisonnement, Incertitude et Apprentissage - IRIT - Institut de recherche en informatique de Toulouse - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - UT2J - Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès - UT - Université de Toulouse - UT3 - Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier - UT - Université de Toulouse - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Toulouse INP - Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) - UT - Université de Toulouse - TMBI - Toulouse Mind & Brain Institut - UT2J - Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès - UT - Université de Toulouse - UT3 - Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier - UT - Université de Toulouse, UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

    (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)

  • Zenonas Turskis

    (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the advantage of a combinatory methodology presented in this study. The paper suggests that the comparison with results of previously developed methods is in high agreement. Design/methodology/approach This paper introduces a combined compromise decision-making algorithm with the aid of some aggregation strategies. The authors have considered a distance measure, which originates from grey relational coefficient and targets to enhance the flexibility of the results. Hence, the weight of the alternatives is placed in the decision-making process with three equations. In the final stage, an aggregated multiplication rule is employed to release the ranking of the alternatives and end the decision process. Findings The authors described a real case of choosing logistics and transportation companies in France from a supply chain project. Some comparisons such as sensitivity analysis approach and comparing to other studies and methods provided to validate the performance of the proposed algorithm. Originality/value The algorithm has a unique structure among MCDM methods which is presented for the first time in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Morteza Yazdani & Pascale Zaraté & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2019. "A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems," Post-Print hal-02879091, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02879091
    DOI: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02879091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02879091/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458?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. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    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. Corrado Battisti, 2018. "Preparing students for the operational environmental career: an integrated project-based road map for academic programs," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(4), pages 573-583, December.
    2. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    3. Regina Márcia Longo & Alessandra Leite da Silva & Admilson Irio Ribeiro & Raissa Caroline Gomes & Fabricio Camillo Sperandio & Adélia N. Nunes, 2024. "Evaluating the Environmental Quality of Forest Remnants Using Landscape Metrics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Boukherroub, Tasseda & LeBel, Luc & Ruiz, Angel, 2017. "A framework for sustainable forest resource allocation: A Canadian case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 66(PB), pages 224-235.
    5. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Arif Wismadi & Mark Zuidgeest & Mark Brussel & Martin Maarseveen, 2014. "Spatial Preference Modelling for equitable infrastructure provision: an application of Sen’s Capability Approach," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 19-48, January.
    7. repec:sae:envval:v:25:y:2016:i:6:p:633-637 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Chelsea Batavia & Michael Paul Nelson, 2018. "Translating climate change policy into forest management practice in a multiple-use context: the role of ethics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 81-94, May.
    10. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    12. Alan Renwick & Robyn Dynes & Paul Johnstone & Warren King & Lania Holt & Jemma Penelope, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities for Land Use Transformation: Insights from the Central Plains Water Scheme in New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Pasquale De Toro & Enrico Formato & Nicola Fierro, 2023. "Sustainability Assessments of Peri-Urban Areas: An Evaluation Model for the Territorialization of the Sustainable Development Goals," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-32, July.
    14. Ustaoglu, E. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2020. "Suitability evaluation of urban construction land in Pendik district of Istanbul, Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Jun Dong & Rong Li & Hui Huang, 2018. "Performance Evaluation of Residential Demand Response Based on a Modified Fuzzy VIKOR and Scalable Computing Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-27, April.
    16. Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Sérgio P. Santos, 2021. "Two decades on the MACBETH approach: a bibliometric analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 901-925, January.
    17. Vallejo, María Cristina & Burbano, Rafael & Falconí, Fander & Larrea, Carlos, 2015. "Leaving oil underground in Ecuador: The Yasuní-ITT initiative from a multi-criteria perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 175-185.
    18. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    19. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    20. Kucukali, Serhat, 2016. "Risk scorecard concept in wind energy projects: An integrated approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 975-987.
    21. Getnet, Kindie & Pfeifer, Catherine & MacAlister, Charlotte, 2014. "Economic incentives and natural resource management among small-scale farmers: Addressing the missing link," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-7.

    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:hal:journl:hal-02879091. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.