The AHP-TOPSIS Model in the Analysis of the Counties Sustainable Development in the West Pomeranian Province in 2010 and 2017

• Autorzy: Stecyk Adam

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12911/22998993/109870

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of the paper is to present the practical use of a combination involving two multicriteria methods: AHP (analytic hierarchy process) and TOPIS (The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), in order to expertly assess the level of sustainable development of counties in the West Pomeranian Province in 2010 and 2017. The article was divided into two main parts. The theoretical (methodological) part contains the characteristics of AHP and TOPSIS methods; in turn, the results of the analysis were presented in the empirical part. The main source of statistical data is the annual report published by Statistical Office in West Pomeranian Province, which contains the information on most important development areas (e.g. population, ecology, pollution, health, employment, macroeconomics, transport, tourism, agriculture, etc.). In other words, the purpose of the article is to build a synthetic measure of sustainable development, which will take into account socio-economic determinants for deliberately selected entities from a regional perspective. This approach will allow a detailed analysis of sustainable development according to the adopted criteria for 2010 and 2017, and may be the basis for further investigations in order to look for more complex dependencies among the factors which determine sustainable development of the studied phenomena and objects.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

sustainable development; multicriteria decision making; AHP; TOPSIS

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Inżynierii Ekologicznej ; Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Journal of Ecological Engineering
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 20, nr 7
• Strony: 233--244
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 34 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Stecyk Adam

• Faculty of Management and Economics of Services, University of Szczecin, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Bal-Domańska, B., & Wilk, J. (2011). Gospodarcze aspkety zrównoważonego rozwoju województw – wielowymiarowa analza porównawcza. Przegląd Statyczny (pp. 3–4).
• 2. Bana e Costa, C., & Vansnick, F. (1999). Sur la quantification des jugements de valeur: L ‘approche Macbeth, Cahiiers du LAMSADE. Paris: Universite Paris – Dauphine.
• 3. Banayoun, R., Roy, B., & Sussman, N. (1966). Manual de Reference du Programme Electre, Note de Synthese et Formation 25. Direction Scientifique SEMA.
• 4. Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2004). Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder participation: a case study relating to a ‘Blue Plan’ project in Malta. Sustain(12), 1–14.
• 5. Borys, T. (2011). Zrównoważony rozwój – jak rozpoznać ład zintegrowany. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 6(2), 75–81.
• 6. Borys, T. (2014). Wybrane problemy metodologii pomiaru nowego paradygmatu rozwoju-polskie doświadczenia. Optimum. Studia Ekomoniczne, 69(3).
• 7. Bostrom, A., Barke, R., Turaga, R., & O’Connor, R. (2006). Environmental concerns and the new environmental paradigm in Bulgaria. J. Environ(37), 25–40.
• 8. Boutkhoum, O., Hanine, M., Agouti, T., & Tikniouine, A. (2017). A decision-maiking approach based on fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS metodology for selecting appropriate cloud solution to manage big data. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management.
• 9. Boutkhoum, O., Hanine, M., Agouti, T., & Tikniouine, A. (2017). A decision-maiking approach based on fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS metodology for selecting appropriate cloud solution to manage big data. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management.
• 10. Brans, J., & Vincke, P. (1985). A Reference Ranking Organization Method (The PROMETHEÉ Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making. Management Science Vol.31.
• 11. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of the Operational Research No 2, 63–85.
• 12. Edwards, W., & Barron, F. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: improved Simple methods for mulitiattribute measurement. Organizational behavior and human decison process, pp. 60.
• 13. Emas, R. (2015). The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining Principles. Pobrano z lokalizacji Brief for GSDR2015: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf
• 14. Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., & Horner, M. (2008). A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Enviton. Impact Assess(28), 286–311.
• 15. Gibson, R., Hassa, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J., & Whitelaw, G. (2005). Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes. Earthscan.
• 16. Jahanshahloo, G., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., & Izadikhah, M. (1999). Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Applied mathematics and Computation 185, 1544–1551.
• 17. Kryk, B. (2015). Wybrane instytucjonalno-administracyjne uwarunkowania jakośći życia w wojewodztwie zachodniopomorskim. Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne, 3(75).
• 18. Kusideł, E. (2014). Zbieżność poziomu rozwoju województw Polski w kontekscie kształtowania ładu instytucyjnego. Optimum. Studia Ekomoniczne, 3(69).
• 19. Munda, G. (2006). Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainablilty policies. Land Use Pol(23), strony 86–94.
• 20. Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2005). Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Ispra. Constructing Consistent Composite Indicators: The Issue od Weights (EUR 21834 EN). Retrieved from Available at:http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Well-being/papers/Munda%20Nardo%20euroreport1.pdf
• 21. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E.S.A., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustaunability assessment.
• 22. Pezzey, J.C., & Toman, M.A. (2002). Progress and problems in the economics of sustainability. Great Britain: Edward Edgar Publishing.
• 23. Rogall, H. (2010). Ekonomia zrównowżonego rozwoju. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka Wydawnictwo.
• 24. Roszkowska, E., & Filipowicz-Chomko, M. (2016). Analiza wskaźnikowa zróźnicowania rozwoju społecznego województw Polski w latach 2005–2013 w kontekscie realizacji koncepcji zrownoważonego rozwoju. Ekonomia i Środowisko(1(56)).
• 25. Roszkowska, E., Misiewicz, E., & Karwowska, R. (2014). Analiza poziomu zrównoważonego rozwoju województw Polski w 2010. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 2(49).
• 26. Saaty, R. (2002). Decision Making in Complex Environments: The Analytic Network Process (ANP) for Dependence and Feedback; a manual for the ANP Software SuperDecisions. Creative Decisions Foundation,.
• 27. Salgado, P., Quintana, C., Guimarães Pereira, A., del Moral Ituarte, L., & Pedregal Mateos, B. (2009). Participative multi-criteria analsis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Malaga), 68, 990–1005.
• 28. SDSN. (2018). SDG Index & Dashboards. Pobrano z lokalizacji Sustainable development solutions network: http://unsdsn.org/
• 29. Spangenberg, J., Omann, & Hinterberger, F. (2010). Sustiantable growth criteria. Minimum benchmarks and scenarios for employment and the enviromment. Ecol. Econ.
• 30. Stagl, S. (2007). Emerging Methods for Sustainability Valuation 813 and Appraisal. Sustainable Development Researh Network,London. Pobrano z lokalizacji Available at: http://www.sd-research.org.uk/post.php?p=129
• 31. The_World_Bank. (2018). Human Capital Index. Pobrano z lokalizacji The World Bank: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/human-capital-index
• 32. United_Nations. (2018). Human Development Index. Pobrano z lokalizacji United Nations Development Programme: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi
• 33. Wallis, A. (2006). Susuainability indicators: is there consensus among stakeholders? J. Environ.
• 34. Zalewski, W. (2012). Zastosowanie metody TOPSIS do oceny kondycji finansowej spółek dystrybucyjnych energii elektrycznej. Economics and Management 4/2012, pp. 138.