Multi-criteria decision-making methods support decision makers in all stages of the decision-making process by providing useful data. However, criteria are not always certain as uncertainty is a feature of the real world. MCDM methods under uncertainty and fuzzy systems are accepted as suitable techniques in conflicting problems that cannot be represented by numerical values, in particular in energy analysis and planning. In this paper, a modified TOPSIS method for multi-criteria group decision-making with qualitative linguistic labels is proposed. This method addresses uncertainty considering different levels of precision. Each decision maker's judgment on the performance of alternatives with respect to each criterion is expressed by qualitative linguistic labels. The new method takes into account linguistic data provided by the decision makers without any previous aggregation. Decision maker judgments are incorporated into the proposed method to generate a complete ranking of alternatives. An application in energy planning is presented as an illustrative case example in which energy policy alternatives are ranked. Seven energy alternatives under nine criteria were evaluated according to the opinion of three environmental and energy experts. The weights of the criteria are determined by fuzzy AHP, and the alternatives are ranked using qualitative TOPSIS. The proposed approach is compared with a modified fuzzy TOPSIS method, showing the advantages of the proposed approach when dealing with linguistic assessments to model uncertainty and imprecision. Although the new approach requires less cognitive effort to decision makers, it yields similar results.
Many destinations are implementing various water management alternatives to diminish the environmental impacts of tourism and increase sustainability. These efforts toward sustainability can be understood as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies implemented by tourism destinations. This paper is focused on the tourism destination of the Costa Brava (Catalonia, Spain) and describes a method for selecting a list of influential factors in water management for sustainable tourism destinations by considering stakeholder preferences for technical, economic, social, political, and environmental factors. A new qualitative Delphi technique is used to identify a set of qualitative and quantitative factors by surveying eight stakeholders (six water management experts and two hotel managers). In addition, the study presents the weight for each of the influential factors that decision makers-water planners, policy makers, tourism destination managers and hotel managers-can use in assessing water management alternatives. Although research to date has addressed many aspects of responsible tourism, there is little literature on the importance of water management in responsible strategies for tourism destinations. This paper contributes to a more efficient implementation of CSR strategies in tourism destinations by proposing a new methodology for identifying key factors for assessing sustainable solutions for water problems.
A social multi-criteria evaluation framework for solving a real-case problem of selecting a wind farm location in the regions of Urgell and La Conca de Barberà in Catalonia (northeast of Spain) is studied. This paper applies a qualitative MCDA approach based on linguistic labels assessment able to address uncertainty and deal with different levels of precision. This method is based on qualitative reasoning as an artificial intelligence technique for assessing and ranking multi-attribute alternatives with linguistic labels in order to handle uncertainty. This method is suitable for problems in the social framework such as energy planning which require the construction of a dialogue process among many social actors with high level of complexity and uncertainty. The method is compared with an existing approach, which has been applied previously in the wind farm location problem. This approach, consisting of an outranking method, is based on Condorcet original method. The results obtained by both approaches are analyzed and their performance in the selection of the wind farm location is compared in aggregation procedures. Although results show that both methods conduct to similar alternatives rankings, the study highlights both their advantages and drawbacks.
This paper considers the problem of finding suitable sites for wind farms in a region of Catalonia (Spain). The evaluation criteria are structured into a hierarchy that identifies several intermediate sub-goals dealing with different points of view. Therefore, the recent ELECTRE-III-H hierarchical multi-criteria analysis method is proposed as a good solution to help decision-makers. This method establishes an order among the set of possible sites for the wind farms for each subgoal. ELECTRE-III-H aggregates these orders into an overall order using different parameters. The procedure is based on the construction and exploitation of a pairwise outranking relation, following the principles of concordance (i.e. majority rule) and discordance (i.e. respect for the minority opinions). This paper makes two main contributions. First, it contributes to the ELECTRE-III-H method by studying its mathematical properties for the construction of outranking relations. Second, the case study is solved and its results show that we can effectively represent and manage the overall influence of the various criteria on the global result at different levels of the hierarchy. The paper compares different scenarios with strict, normal, and optimistic preference, indifference and veto thresholds. Results show that the best site differs for technical, economic, environmental, and social intermediate criteria. Therefore, the best overall solution changes depending on the preference and veto thresholds fixed at the intermediate level of the hierarchy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.