IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v91y2024ics0038012123002707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining criteria weights with genetic algorithms for multi-criteria decision making methods: The case of logistics performance index rankings of European Union countries

Author

Listed:
  • Gürler, Hasan Emin
  • Özçalıcı, Mehmet
  • Pamucar, Dragan

Abstract

One of the most critical metrics for evaluating countries’ logistics performance is the Logistics Performance Index (LPI). Although the LPI is an effective tool, it is also an index with some concerns regarding performance evaluation. The two main concerns with LPI are assuming equal criterion weights and ignoring operational logistics performance and macroeconomic indicators. To overcome these problems, this study presents a logistics performance evaluation model in which the criteria weights are determined by GA. This study used 11 techniques to determine the logistics performances of the EU countries across 33 indicators. Employing more than one MCDM techniques enabled robustness and consistency. Median, Mean, Linear and K nearest neighbor techniques are implemented to impute the missing values in the dataset. The Linear Regression method is found as the best-performing imputation technique among other techniques for the data of this research. The performance of the GA is compared with other well-known criteria weight determination procedures namely CRITIC, Entropy and equal weight. The ranking results of the MCDM tools were integrated with the Copeland method. The genetic algorithm assigned the highest three weights to the Goods, Value of Exports, Quality of roads, and GDP per capita, indicating that these criteria play an essential role in the countries' logistics performance. The importance of these criteria is not captured by other weight sets. The correlation with the actual LPI scores is higher with Genetic algorithm compared with other weight determination techniques (CRITIC, Entropy, equal weight). Moreover, random weights are created and the results are examined. Weight simulation indicates that, some of the countries ranking are higher than the other countries, regardless of the weights of the criteria. The paper's novelty is to use the Genetic Algorithm (GA) as a criteria weight determination tool for MCDM methods. The proposed system can be used as a decision support system for evaluating the logistics performances of countries. The LPI index is published every two years, but if an automatic or semi-automatic system can be developed using the proposed approach, the logistics performance ranking of countries can be examined more frequently. This can help countries that want to rank high on the LPI ranking determine which criteria to focus on to improve their logistics performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Gürler, Hasan Emin & Özçalıcı, Mehmet & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "Determining criteria weights with genetic algorithms for multi-criteria decision making methods: The case of logistics performance index rankings of European Union countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:91:y:2024:i:c:s0038012123002707
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2023.101758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012123002707
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101758?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. Vosooghi, Zeinab & Mirzapour Al-e-hashem, S.M.J. & Lahijanian, Behshad, 2022. "Scenario-based redesigning of a relief supply-chain network by considering humanitarian constraints, triage, and volunteers’ help," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Camacho-Sanchez, Carolay & Yie-Pinedo, Ruben & Galindo, Gina, 2023. "Humanitarian demining for the clearance of landmine-affected areas," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Guo, Jia & Bard, Jonathan F., 2023. "A three-step optimization-based algorithm for home healthcare delivery," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    4. Lin, Hong-Zhi & Zhang, Yongping, 2023. "Scientific planning of urban cordon sanitaire for desired queuing time," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    5. Wang, Congke & Liu, Yankui & Yang, Guoqing, 2023. "Adaptive distributionally robust hub location and routing problem with a third-party logistics strategy," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    6. Rashidi, Kamran & Cullinane, Kevin, 2019. "Evaluating the sustainability of national logistics performance using Data Envelopment Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 35-46.
    7. Marchetti, Dalmo & Wanke, Peter, 2020. "Efficiency of the rail sections in Brazilian railway system, using TOPSIS and a genetic algorithm to analyse optimized scenarios," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Shang, Kuo-chung & Marlow, Peter B., 2005. "Logistics capability and performance in Taiwan's major manufacturing firms," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 217-234, May.
    9. Hao, Yuchen & Liu, Chuang & Zhao, Lugang & Liu, Weibo, 2023. "A dual-clustering algorithm for a robust medical grid partition problem considering patient referral," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Ecer, Fatih, 2021. "A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    12. Jarosław Brodny & Magdalena Tutak, 2020. "Analyzing Similarities between the European Union Countries in Terms of the Structure and Volume of Energy Production from Renewable Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-37, February.
    13. Bahadir Fatih Yildirim & Burcu Adiguzel Mercangoz, 2020. "Evaluating the logistics performance of OECD countries by using fuzzy AHP and ARAS-G," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(1), pages 27-45, March.
    14. Luisa Martí & Juan Carlos Martín & Rosa Puertas, 2017. "A DEA-logistics performance index," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 20, pages 169-192, May.
    15. Alamoodi, A.H. & Zaidan, B.B. & Zaidan, A.A. & Albahri, O.S. & Chen, Juliana & Chyad, M.A. & Garfan, Salem & Aleesa, A.M., 2021. "Machine learning-based imputation soft computing approach for large missing scale and non-reference data imputation," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Paul D. Larson, 2021. "Relationships between Logistics Performance and Aspects of Sustainability: A Cross-Country Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, January.
    17. Tezcan, Barış & Maass, Kayse Lee, 2023. "Human trafficking interdiction with decision dependent success," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    18. Luisa Martí & Juan Carlos Martín & Rosa Puertas, 2017. "A Dea-Logistics Performance Index," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 169-192, May.
    19. Jiang, Lijun & Wang, Xifu & Yang, Kai & Gao, Yiwen, 2023. "Bilevel optimization for the reorganization of inland river ports: A niche perspective," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    20. Magazzino, Cosimo & Mele, Marco & Schneider, Nicolas, 2022. "A new artificial neural networks algorithm to analyze the nexus among logistics performance, energy demand, and environmental degradation," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 315-328.
    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. Kara, Karahan & Yalçın, Galip Cihan & Simic, Vladimir & Baysal, Zeynep & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "The alternative ranking using two-step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(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. Göçer, Aysu & Özpeynirci, Özgür & Semiz, Meltem, 2022. "Logistics performance index-driven policy development: An application to Turkey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 20-32.
    2. Mustafa Polat & Karahan Kara & Avni Zafer Acar, 2023. "Competitiveness based logistics performance index: An empirical analysis in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 24(2-3), pages 97-119, June.
    3. Uyar, Ali & Fernandes, Valérie & Kuzey, Cemil, 2021. "The mediating role of corporate governance between public governance and logistics performance: International evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 37-47.
    4. Mahlet Demere Tadesse & Helen Zewdie Kine & Girma Gebresenbet & Lóránt Tavasszy & David Ljungberg, 2022. "Key Logistics Performance Indicators in Low-Income Countries: The Case of the Import–Export Chain in Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-25, September.
    5. Ulutaş Alptekin & Karaköy Çağatay, 2019. "An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model," Economics and Business Review, Sciendo, vol. 5(4), pages 49-69, December.
    6. Rosa Puertas & Luisa Marti, 2019. "Sustainability in Universities: DEA-GreenMetric," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Stojanović, Đurđica & Ivetić, Jelena, 2020. "Possibilities of using Incoterms clauses in a country logistics performance assessment and benchmarking," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 217-228.
    8. Yalcin Berberoglu & Yigit Kazancoglu & Muhittin Sagnak, 2023. "Circularity assessment of logistics activities for green business performance management," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4734-4749, November.
    9. Mingxuan Lu & Ruhe Xie & Peirong Chen & Yifeng Zou & Jie Tang, 2019. "Green Transportation and Logistics Performance: An Improved Composite Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Agnieszka Kuś & Dorota Grego-Planer, 2021. "A Model of Innovation Activity in Small Enterprises in the Context of Selected Financial Factors: The Example of the Renewable Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2019. "An Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process—Slack Based Measure-Data Envelopment Analysis Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Logistics Service Providers Considering Undesirable Performance Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Dan Yang & Weili Yin & Sen Liu & Felix T. S. Chan, 2022. "Understanding the Effect of Multi-Agent Collaboration on the Performance of Logistics Park Projects: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-23, March.
    14. Rui Ren & Wanjie Hu & Jianjun Dong & Bo Sun & Yicun Chen & Zhilong Chen, 2019. "A Systematic Literature Review of Green and Sustainable Logistics: Bibliometric Analysis, Research Trend and Knowledge Taxonomy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-25, December.
    15. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    16. Chu, Junfei & Shao, Caifeng & Emrouznejad, Ali & Wu, Jie & Yuan, Zhe, 2021. "Performance evaluation of organizations considering economic incentives for emission reduction: A carbon emission permit trading approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski & Paweł Dudziec & Michał Krzyżaniak & Ewelina Olba-Zięty, 2021. "Solid Biomass Energy Potential as a Development Opportunity for Rural Communities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    18. Govindan, Kannan & Kilic, Merve & Uyar, Ali & Karaman, Abdullah S., 2021. "Drivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the logistics sector: A cross-country firm-level investigation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    19. Christiana C. Nyarko & Michael Affam & Samuel K. Obeng, 2022. "Comparative Analysis of the Contribution of the Agricultural Sector to the Gross Domestic Product of Ghana: Before and Within COVID-19 Pandemic," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 9(6), pages 07-11, June.
    20. Ahmet Kaya & Dragan Pamucar & Hasan Emin Gürler & Mehmet Ozcalici, 2024. "Determining the financial performance of the firms in the Borsa Istanbul sustainability index: integrating multi criteria decision making methods with simulation," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-44, December.

    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:eee:soceps:v:91:y:2024:i:c:s0038012123002707. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    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.