The comparison of MCDM Methods including AHP, TOPSIS and MAUT with an Application on Gender Inequality Index

Sarul, Latife Sinem; Eren, Özge

doi:10.26417/ejis.v4i2.p183-196

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An object with the highest value of the synthetic indicator is characterized by the shortest distance from the PIS and the longest distance from the NIS [25,26,27]. This method is widely used in research [28,29,30,31,32] The following procedure was adopted to develop the synthetic indicator for indirect criteria and the main criterion (SIEEP):The parameters (indicators) characterising the SIEEP were selected based on an analysis of its constituent elements (indirect criteria) in the literature [33,34,35,36,37,38]. The values of the analysed parameters (indicators) were standardised by zeroed unitarization, i.e., by converting destimulants into stimulants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dynamics of Changes and Spatial Differences in the Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance in Poland: Current State

Senetra

Pawlewicz

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socioeconomic development and consumption are among the key drivers of environmental degradation. Legal measures and the appropriate funding are required to effectively protect the natural environment. The aim of this study was to analyze the dynamics of changes and spatial differences in the measures undertaken to protect and improve the quality of the environment. A set of indicators for evaluating environmental performance was developed and tested on Poland as an example. The relevant data are publicly available in statistical databases. Proposed indicators can be modified for use in other countries by incorporating country-specific characteristics. The environmental protection activities implemented in Polish voivodeships at the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 4 level (counties) in three financial frameworks (2004–2006, 2007–2013 and 2014–2017) were analyzed against the base year (2003). A total of 27 variables divided into four categories were analyzed: (1) water and wastewater management and water conservation, (2) waste management and protection of the Earth’s surface, (3) air pollution and climate control, (4) nature conservation and promotion of pro-environmental behaviors. A Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance (SIEEP) was developed based on the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Based on the arithmetic mean and standard deviation, the analyzed counties were divided into four typological classes reflecting the values of the SIEEP. The research showed that the implementation of environmental protection measures financed from public funds minimizes the negative impact of human activities on the environment. Positive changes in the values of the analyzed variables and a steady increase in the number of counties with high values of the SIEEP testify to the above.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dynamics of Changes and Spatial Differences in the Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance in Poland: Current State

Senetra

Pawlewicz

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AHP and TOPSIS techniques were used to measure the gender inequality index and to rank the European Union countries based on this indicator. Sarul and Eren 29 used seven main criteria, including death rate, the proportion of shares in parliament, education ratio, and labor force ratio. The well-being index was measured using PFAHP and TODIM methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating rough-entropy and rough-TOPSIS methods for evaluating the legatum prosperity pillars of weakest performing countries

Alshamrani

Hezam

2023

Measurement and Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although most countries of the world seek to improve their performance to achieve prosperity for their citizens, the performance of some other countries is still disappointing and has witnessed a deterioration in recent years due to civil wars, poverty, and failure to identify shortcomings and work on them. Many global indexes are concerned with ranking and evaluating the performance of countries, the most prominent of which is the Legatum prosperity index. This study presents a novel tool based on the MCDM approach under uncertainty. Twelve pillars were considered as criteria for evaluating the performance of the 19 poorest-performing countries globally, according to the 2021 Legatum prosperity index. The rough-entropy and rough-TOPSIS methods were used to assess the performance of countries and analyze the pillars of prosperity to determine their shortcomings. Further, a comparison with the 2021 Legatum prosperity index and sensitivity analysis is conducted to validate the obtained results. This study analyses and identifies that South Sudan gets the worst ranking while Cameroon is the best. Likewise, the results indicate that the worst performance pillar was the governance pillar, while the best pillar was the health pillar at the level of the studied countries. The proposed approach is essential for researchers working on performance measurement and ranking, as it ensures the robustness and realism of the results. It also gives a glimpse to the leaders of the countries about the actual situation of their countries to work on addressing the failures. In addition, it makes a significant contribution to the current scientific knowledge by providing a novel tool for evaluating performance indexes.

show abstract

“…Secondly, the current trend of handling internationalbased issues by conducting several research studies in order to create, improve, or critique numerous global indexes, including HDI, within the context of different sets of countries such as OECD [13], G13 [14], and Top Manufacturing Countries [15]. Finally, the recent boom in MCDM research applications aimed at designing various forms of indexes [16][17][18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Innovation-Based Human Development Index Using PROMETHEE II: The Context of G8 Countries

Tunsi

Alidrisi

2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current Human Development Index (HDI) has a promising potential to consider further dimensions, the technological dimensions in specific, in order to absorb various innovational aspects whenever human development is to be benchmarked among countries. Hence, the innovation-based HDI was developed herein using one of the well-known Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques: the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations II (PROMETHEE II) considering a mixture of technological criteria, including the Global Innovation Index (GII) itself. The G8 countries, as leading countries worldwide, were investigated in this regard in order to attain such a benchmarking attempt. The model was formulated using seven criteria selected from the World Bank (WB) Open Data (such as High-technology exports as a percentage of manufactured exports, Research and development (R&D) expenditure as a percentage of GDP, and Trademark applications, …, etc.) along with the GII, for the purpose of conducting an MCDM-based evaluation model for the G8 countries. The results of the developed index affirm that the ranking of the G8 countries has distinctly been changed as a consequence of considering technological and innovational aspects, compared to the original HDI (i.e., USA +4—from 5th to 1st; Canada −4, from 2nd to 6th). By utilizing MCDM methods (including PROMETHEE II), this paper also affirms that an infinite number of indexes can be developed in the future by employing a huge number of WB indicators with respect to various MCDM approaches. Hence, international communities are in need of setting up commonly accepted guidelines in order to facilitate having a unified prioritization (i.e., unified preference) regarding the potential criteria and/or indicators to be considered globally for better sustainable development.

show abstract

The comparison of MCDM Methods including AHP, TOPSIS and MAUT with an Application on Gender Inequality Index

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

The Dynamics of Changes and Spatial Differences in the Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance in Poland: Current State

The Dynamics of Changes and Spatial Differences in the Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance in Poland: Current State

Integrating rough-entropy and rough-TOPSIS methods for evaluating the legatum prosperity pillars of weakest performing countries

The Innovation-Based Human Development Index Using PROMETHEE II: The Context of G8 Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About