Nuclear waste management: An application of the multicriteria PROMETHEE methods

Briggs, Th.; Kunsch, Pierre Louis; Mareschal, Bertrand

doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90308-x

Cited by 106 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They provide the (partial) preference ranking of the alternatives, not a cardinal measure of the preference relations. The outranking methods have been used, for example, for choosing the solid waste management system (Hokkanen and Salminen 1997a,c), for locating the waste treatment facility (Hokkanen and Salminen 1997b), for nuclear waste management (Briggs et al 1990), for irrigation system evaluation (Raju and Pillai 1999) and other Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) projects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning

Kangas¹,

Kangas²,

Pykäläinen³

2001

Silva Fenn.

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two outranking methods, ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE II, commonly used as decision-aid in various environmental problems, and their applications to decision support for natural resources management are presented. These methods represent 'the European school' of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), as opposed to 'the American school', represented by, for instance, the AHP method. On the basis of a case study, outranking methods are compared to so far more usually applied techniques based on the ideas of multi attribute utility theory (MAUT). The outranking methods have been recommended for situations, where there is a fi nite number of discrete alternatives to be chosen among. The number of decision criteria and decision makers may be large. An important advantage of outranking methods, when compared to decision support techniques most often applied in today's natural resources management, is the ability to deal with ordinal and more or less descriptive information on the alternative plans to be evaluated. Furthermore, the uncertainty concerning the values of the criterion variables can be taken into account using fuzzy relations, determined by indifference and preference thresholds. The diffi cult interpretation of the results, on the other hand, is the main drawback of the outranking methods.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outranking methods as tools in strategic natural resources planning

Kangas¹,

Kangas²,

Pykäläinen³

2001

Silva Fenn.

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The analyst can additionally propose to perform a sensitivity analysis. Examples of employing the sensitivity analysis have been presented also in Briggs et al (1990), Goicoechea et al (1982) and Rios Insua & French (1991).…”

Section: Sensitivity Analysis Of the Final Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicriteria decision aid application to a student selection problem

López

Carlos²

2005

Pesqui. Oper.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The selection of students is a complex decision making process, in which multiple selection criteria often need to be considered and where subjectiveness and imprecision are usually present, resulting that fuzzy and imprecise data should be used. This paper formulates the student selection process as a multicriteria decision analysis problem, concretely as a ranking problem, by using the ELECTRE III methodology to construct a fuzzy outranking relation, and then a genetic algorithm to exploit it and to obtain a ranking in decreasing order of preference. An empirical study of a real selection problem in the Universidad de Occidente in Mexico is presented. After performing calculations and obtaining the final ranking of compared alternatives, a sensitivity analysis was carried out. The study was supported with a new decision aid system for rank a finite set of multicriteria alternatives.

show abstract

“…For applications of outranking methods, see e.g. Briggs et al (1990), Hokkanen and Salminen (1997), Lahdelma et al (2001), Roy et al (1992), and Vuk et al (1991).…”

Section: Choice Of Multicriteria Toolsmentioning

confidence: 98%