Application of MCDM/MCDA methods in city rankings - review and comparative analysis

• Autorzy: Ogrodnik Karolina

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.34659/eis.2023.86.3.689

Warianty tytułu

PL

Zastosowanie metod MCDM/MCDA w rankingach miejskich – przegląd i analiza porównawcza

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The priority objective of this study is to identify the most popular MCDM/MCDA methods typically used to create city rankings and to conduct a comparative analysis of the selected methods. In the first part, a literature review was prepared, on the basis of which it was established that the fol-lowing methods were most commonly used to assess cities: TOPSIS, AHP and PROMETHEE. In addi-tion, the above city rankings usually pertained to the subject of sustainable development and the concept of smart city. In the subsequent empirical part, a ranking of Polish cities was created using PROMETHEE and TOPSIS methods, which enabled a comparative analysis of these methods; espe-cially in terms of the algorithm, data selection, as well as the possibility of integration with other methods.

PL

Priorytetowym celem badania jest identyfikacja najpopularniejszych metod MCDM/MCDA stosowanych do tworzenia rankingów miast, jak również analiza porównawcza wybranych metod. W pierwszej części opracowano przegląd literatury, na podstawie którego, wykazano, że dotychczas do oceny miast najczęściej stosowano metody: TOPSIS, AHP oraz PROMETHEE. Ponadto, tworzone rankingi miast dotyczyły zazwyczaj tematyki zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz koncepcji smart city. Następnie, w części empirycznej, opracowano ranking polskich miast przy użyciu PROME-THEE oraz TOPSIS, co umożliwiło dokonanie analizy porównawczej tych metod, szczególnie w zakresie algorytmu, doboru danych, jak również możliwości integracji z innymi metodami.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

MCDM/MCDA methods; TOPSIS; PROMETHEE; city ranking; comparative analysis

PL

metoda MCDM/MCDA; TOPSIS; PROMETHEE; ranking miast; analiza porównawcza

• Wydawca: Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych
• Czasopismo: Economics and Environment
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: No. 3
• Strony: 132--151
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 46 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Ogrodnik Karolina

• Bialystok University of Technology, Wiejska Street 45E, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6357-6870

Bibliografia

• Badi, I., Pamučar, D., Stević, Z., & Muhammad, L. J. (2023). Wind farm site selection using BWM-AHP-MARCOS method: A case study of Libya. Scientific African, 19, e01511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01511
• Banar, M., Tulger, G., & Özkan, A. (2014). Plant site selection for recycling plants of waste electrical and electronic equipment in Turkey by using multi criteria decision making methods. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 13(1), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2014.020
• Best Cities powered by Resonance. (2023, March 13). https://www.worldsbestcities.com/reports/2023-worlds-best-cities/
• Borissova, D., Korsemov, D., & Mustakerov, I. (2019). Multi-criteria Decision Making Problem for Doing Business: Comparison Between Approaches of Individual and Group Decision Making. In K. Saeed, R. Chaki & V. Janev (Eds.) Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management (pp. 385-396). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28957-7_32
• Boyaci, A. C. (2020). Selection of eco-friendly cities in Turkey via a hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision making approach. Applied Soft Computing, 89, 106090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106090
• Brans, J. P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 163-186). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5
• Central Statistical Office, Local Data Bank. (2023, March 13). https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/bdl/start
• Chen, Z. B. (2020). Evaluating Sustainable Liveable City via Multi-MCDM and Hopfield Neural Network. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 4189527. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4189527
• Cinar, N., & Ahiska, S. S. (2010). A decision support model for bank branch location selection. Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 9-10.
• Corrente, S., Greco, S., Leonardi, F., & Słowiński, R. (2021). The hierarchical SMAAPROMETHEE method applied to assess the sustainability of European cities. Applied Intelligence, 51, 6430-6448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02384-5
• Economist Intelligence. (2023, March 13). https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/global-liveability-index-2022/
• Feizi, A., Joo, S., Kwigizile, V., & Oh, J. S. (2020). A pervasive framework toward sustainability and smart-growth: Assessing multifaceted transportation performance measures for smart cities. Journal of Transport & Health, 19, 100956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100956
• Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G., & Kramar, H. (2010). The role of rankings in growing city competition. Urban Research & Practice, 3, 299-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 7535069.2010.524420
• Hajduk, S. (2021). Multi-Criteria Analysis of Smart Cities on the Example of the Polish Cities. Resources, 10, 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10050044
• Hajduk, S. (2022). Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Decision-Making Approach for the Linear Ordering of Urban Transport Based on TOPSIS Technique. Energies, 15, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010274
• Hajduk, S., & Jelonek, D. (2021). A Decision-Making Approach Based on TOPSIS Method for Ranking Smart Cities in the Context of Urban Energy. Energies, 14, 2691. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092691
• Hu, S. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2019). A Hybrid Multiple-Attribute Decision-Making Model with Modified PROMETHEE for Identifying Optimal Performance-Improvement Strategies for Sustainable Development of a Better Life. Social Indicators Research, 144, 1021-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2033-x
• Jahangiri, M., Rezaei, M., Mostafaeipour, A., Goojani, A. R., Saghaei, H., Hosseini Dehshiri, S. J., & Hosseini Dehshiri, S. S. (2022). Prioritization of solar electricity and hydrogen co-production stations considering PV losses and different types of solar trackers: A TOPSIS approach. Renewable Energy, 186, 889-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.045
• Kobryń, A. (2014). Wielokryterialne Wspomaganie Decyzji w Gospodarowaniu Przestrzenią. Warszawa: Difin. (In Polish).
• Mokarrari, K. R., & Torabi, S. A. (2021). Ranking cities based on their smartness level using MADM methods. Sus-tainable Cities and Society, 72, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103030
• Mostafaeipour, A., Sarikhani, S., Sedaghat, A., & Arabnia, H. R. (2017). Location planning of bioethanol plants from agricultural crop residues for fuel cells using DEA Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Rabat.
• Mukul, E., Güler, M., & Büyüközkan, G. (2021). Evaluation of Sustainability for Turkey’s Cities with Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic MCDM Methods. Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (CECIIS 2021). Varazdin, Croatia.
• Ogrodnik, K. (2019). Multi-Criteria Analysis of Design Solutions in Architecture and Engineering: Review of Applications and a Case Study. Buildings, 9, 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9120244
• Ogrodnik, K. (2020). Multi-criteria analysis of smart cities in Poland. Geographia Polonica, 93(2), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0168
• OnlineOutput MCDM Software. https://onlineoutput.com/
• Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Korkmaz, I. H., & Çetinkaya, C. (2019). A GIS-based DANPVIKOR approach to evaluation R&D performance of Turkish cities. Kybernetes, 48, 2266-2306. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2018-0456
• Ozkaya, G., & Erdin, C. (2020). Evaluation of smart and sustainable cities through a hybrid MCDM approach based on ANP and TOPSIS technique. Heliyon, 6(10), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05052
• Raheja, S., Obaidat, M. S., Kumar, M., Sadoun, B., & Bhushan, S. (2022). A hybrid MCDM framework and simulation analysis for the assessment of worst polluted cities. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 118, 102540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102540
• Saeed, U., & Ahmad, S. R. (2021). Emerging GIS based rehearses for assessment of urban environmental sustainability and apposite ranking. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 30, 3047-3058.
• Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., & Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods. Symmetry, 12, 1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549
• Shmelev, S. (2017). Multidimensional Sustainability Assessment for Megacities. In S. Shmelev (Ed.), Green Economy Reader: Lectures in Ecological Economics and Sustainability (pp. 205-236). Springer.
• Silva, C. M., Granemann, S. R., Guarnieri, P., & Da Silva, G. L. (2022). Measuring the Attractiveness of Cities to Receive Investments in Regional Airport Infrastructure. Mathematics, 10, 1734. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101734
• Smart City Index Report. (2023, March 13). https://smartcitiesindex.org/smartcitiesindexreport2022
• Sotirelis, P., Nakopoulos, P., Valvi, T., Grigoroudis, E., & Carayannis, E. (2022). Measuring Smart City Performance: a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13, 2957-2985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00847-1
• Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM methods in sus-tainability engineering: A literature review 2008-2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350
• The World Bank. (2023, March 13). https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview
• Toloie-Eshlaghy, A., & Homayonfar, M. (2011). MCDM methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of International Studies, 21, 86-137.
• United Nations. (2023, March 13). https://www.un.org/en/desa/around-25-billionmore-people-will-be-living-cities-2050-projects-new-un-report
• Vafaeipour, M., Hashemkhani, Z. S., Varzandeh, M. H. M., Derakhti, A., & Eshkalag, M. K. (2014). Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria de-cision making approach. Energy Conversion and Management, 86, 653-663, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.083
• Yang, Y., Lu, R. X., Xue, M., Shou, Z. Q., Yang, J. B., & Fu, L. (2021). Data-Driven Evidential Reasoning Method for Evaluating e-Government Performance. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 20, 261-285. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020500479
• Yi, P., Li, W., & Li, L. (2018). Evaluation and Prediction of City Sustainability Using MCDM and Stochastic Simulation Methods. Sustainability, 10, 3771. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103771
• Yücenur, G. N., Çaylak, S., Gönül, G., & Postalcıoğlu, M. (2020). An integrated solution with SWARA&COPRAS methods in renewable energy production: City selection for biogas facility. Renewable Energy, 145, 2587-2597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.011
• Zapolskytė, S., Trépanier, M., Burinskienė, M., & Survilė, O. (2022). Smart Urban Mobility System Evaluation Model Adaptation to Vilnius, Montreal and Weimar Cities. Sustainability, 14, 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020715
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
• Zhang, X.Q. (2011). The Economic Role of Cities. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
• Zhu, S., Li, D., & Feng, H. (2019). Is smart city resilient? Evidence from China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101636

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).