Interpreting the Determinants of Sensitivity in MCDM Methods with a New Perspective: An Application on E-Scooter Selection with the PROBID Method
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31181/sems2120242bKeywords:
MCDM; Sensitivity Analysis; Weighting Methods; Normalization Techniques; PROBID MethodAbstract
TIt is not a desirable situation when input parameters excessively affect the results of a system as well as imply unwarranted drift and inefficiency. This situation, which expresses dependence or sensitivity to inputs, is also considered a problem in the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology family, which has more than 200 members. A newly produced MCDM method is first subjected to sensitivity tests. MCDM methods are generally evaluated for their sensitivity to weighting methods. Sensitivity is affected by many different parameters such as data, normalization, fundamental equation, and distance type. The common methodical approach for sensitivity analysis is to check whether the best alternative changes with the alteration of weight coefficients. It is problematic to identify sensitivity only in the situation where the ranking position of the best alternative changes. In this study, the sensitivity of the entire ranking is based on a holistic view. Moreover, in the classical method, there is no reference point for sensitivity. Each different MCDM result is compared to each other and it is claimed that the method that produces rankings that are significantly different from the others is poor. We reinterpret sensitivity using the relationship between dynamic MCDM-based performance and static price towards the selection of an environmentally friendly, traffic-saving performance electric scooter. Two PROBID variants as well as the CODAS method are used in this study to deepen the accuracy in the comparison. Additionally, how four types of weighting methods and six types of normalization types affected MCDM sensitivity is measured with a different statistical framework. The finding from a total of 72 different MCDM rankings is striking: If the sensitivity of an MCDM method is generally high, the correlation between that MCDM method and the external anchor (price) is low. Conversely, if sentiment is low, a high correlation with price results. These matching patterns are a unique discovery of this work.
Downloads
References
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). World commission on environment and development. Our Common Future, 17(1), 1–91.
Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2014). Sustainable development: Our common future revisited. Global Environmental Change, 26, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006
Qureshi, I. A., & Lu, H. (2007). Urban transport and sustainable transport strategies: A case study of Karachi, Pakistan. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 12(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1007-0214(07)70046-9
Richardson, B. C. (1999). Toward a policy on a sustainable transportation system. Transportation Research Record, 1670(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.3141/1670
Eliasson, J., & Proost, S. (2015). Is sustainable transport policy sustainable? Transport Policy, 37, 92–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.010
Kapustin, A., & Rakov, V. (2017). Methodology to evaluate the impact of hybrid cars engine type on their economic efficiency and environmental safety. Transportation Research Procedia, 20, 247–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.01.057
Ziemba, P., & Gago, I. (2022). Compromise multi-criteria selection of E-scooters for the vehicle sharing system in Poland. Energies, 15(14), 5048, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145048
Ayyildiz, E. (2022). A novel pythagorean fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology for e-scooter charging station location-selection. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 111, 103459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103459
Baydaş, M., Eren, T., Stević, Ž., Starčević, V., & Parlakkaya, R. (2023). Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics. PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1350, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1350
Wang, Z., Baydaş, M., Stević, Ž., Özçil, A., Irfan, S. A., Wu, Z., & Rangaiah, G. P. (2023). Comparison of fuzzy and crisp decision matrices: An evaluation on PROBID and sPROBID multi-criteria decision-making methods. Demonstration Mathematica, 56(1), 20230117, https://doi.org/10.1515/dema-2023-0117
Chawla, S., Dwivedi, P. K., Manjeet, & Batra, L. (2022, November). Integrated MCDM Model for Prioritization of New Electric Vehicle Selection. In International Conference on Advancement in Manufacturing Engineering (pp. 21-28). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1308-4_2
Altay, B. C., Celik, E., Okumus, A., Balin, A., & Gul, M. (2023). An integrated interval type-2 fuzzy BWM-MARCOS model for location selection of e-scooter sharing stations: The case of a university campus. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 122, 106095, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106095
Patil, M., & Majumdar, B. B. (2021). Prioritizing key attributes influencing electric two-wheeler usage: a multi criteria decision making (MCDM) approach–A case study of Hyderabad, India. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9(2), 913-929, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.04.011
Kizielewicz, B., & Dobryakova, L. (2020). How to choose the optimal single-track vehicle to move in the city? Electric scooters study case. Procedia Computer Science, 176, 2243-2253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.274
Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Pamucar, D., Coffman, D. M., & Papadonikolaki, E. (2022). Safe E-scooter operation alternative prioritization using a q-rung orthopair Fuzzy Einstein based WASPAS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 347, 131239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131239
Nabavi, S. R., Wang, Z., & Rangaiah, G. P. (2023). Sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for engineering applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 62(17), 6707-6722, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c04270
Stević, Ž., Subotić, M., Softić, E., & Božić, B. (2022). Multi-criteria decision-making model for evaluating safety of road sections. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 1(2), 78-87, https://doi.org/10.56578/jimd010201
Bakhtavar, E., & Yousefi, S. (2018). Assessment of workplace accident risks in underground collieries by integrating a multi-goal cause-and-effect analysis method with MCDM sensitivity analysis. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 32(12), 3317-3332, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1618-x
Elma, O. E., Stević, Ž., & Baydaş, M. (2024). An Alternative Sensitivity Analysis for the Evaluation of MCDA Applications: The Significance of Brand Value in the Comparative Financial Performance Analysis of BIST High-End Companies. Mathematics, 12(4), 520, https://doi.org/10.3390/math12040520
Baydaş, M., Elma, O. E., & Stević, Ž. (2024). Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return. Financial Innovation, 10(1), 4, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x
Scorrano, M., & Danielis, R. (2021). The characteristics of the demand for electric scooters in Italy: An exploratory study. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 39, 100589, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100589
Galvin, R. (2017). Energy consumption effects of speed and acceleration in electric vehicles: Laboratory case studies and implications for drivers and policymakers. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 53, 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.020
Khande, M. S., Patil, M. A. S., Andhale, M. G. C., & Shirsat, M. R. S. (2020). Design and development of electric scooter. Energy, 40(60), 100.
Neaimeh, M., Salisbury, S. D., Hill, G. A., Blythe, P. T., Scoffield, D. R., & Francfort, J. E. (2017). Analysing the usage and evidencing the importance of fast chargers for the adoption of battery electric vehicles. Energy Policy, 108, 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.033
Hieu, Le Trong and Lim, Ocktaeck, Prediction and Optimization of Performance and Power Demand of Electric Scooters Under Operating and Structure Parameters Using Deep Learning Approaches. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4496449 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4496449
Wang, Z., Parhi, S. S., Rangaiah, G. P., & Jana, A. K. (2020). Analysis of weighting and selection methods for pareto-optimal solutions of multiobjective optimization in chemical engineering applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 59(33), 14850-14867, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c00969
Aytekin, A. (2021). Comparative Analysis of the normalization techniques in the context of MCDM Problems. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402001a
Sałabun, W., & Urbaniak, K. (2020). A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. In Computational Science–ICCS 2020: 20th International Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 3–5, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 20 (pp. 632-645). Springer International Publishing.
Wang, Z., Rangaiah, G. P., & Wang, X. (2021). Preference ranking on the basis of ideal-average distance method for multi-criteria decision-making. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 60(30), 11216-11230, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01413
Ghorabaee, M, Zavadskas, EK, Turskis, Z, & Antucheviciene J (2016) A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 50: 25–44.
https://www.epey.com/elektrikli-scooter/, (Access date: 29/09/2023).
Baydaş, M., Tevfik, Eren., & İyibildiren, M. (2023). Normalization technique selection for MCDM Methods: A flexible and conjunctural solution that can adapt to changes in financial data types. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(Özel Sayı), 148-164.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
