Abstract
AbstractA web-based software, called MCDA Index Tool (https://www.mcdaindex.net/), is presented in this paper. It allows developing indices and ranking alternatives, based on multiple combinations of normalization methods and aggregation functions. Given the steadily increasing importance of accounting for multiple preferences of the decision-makers and assessing the robustness of the decision recommendations, this tool is a timely instrument that can be used primarily by non-multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) experts to dynamically shape and evaluate their indices. The MCDA Index Tool allows the user to (i) input a dataset directly from spreadsheets with alternatives and indicators performance, (ii) build multiple indices by choosing several normalization methods and aggregation functions, and (iii) visualize and compare the indices’ scores and rankings to assess the robustness of the results. A novel perspective on uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of preference models offers operational solutions to assess the influence of different strategies to develop indices and visualize their results. A case study for the assessment of the energy security and sustainability implications of different global energy scenarios is used to illustrate the application of the MCDA Index Tool. Analysts have now access to an index development tool that supports constructive and dynamic evaluation of the stability of rankings driven by a single score while including multiple decision-makers’ and stakeholders’ preferences.
Funder
National Research Foundation Singapore
Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research – Supply of Electricity
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Environmental Science
Reference91 articles.
1. Alinezhad A, Khalili J (2019) New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Springer, Cham
2. Baizyldayeva U, Vlasov O, Kuandykov AA, Akhmetov TB (2013) Multi-criteria decision support systems. Comparative analysis. Middle East J Sci Res 16:1725–1730. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.16.12.12103
3. Becker W, Saisana M, Paruolo P, Vandecasteele I (2017) Weights and importance in composite indicators: closing the gap. Ecol Ind 80:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056
4. Bertin G, Carrino L, Giove S (2018) The Italian regional well-being in a multi-expert non-additive perspective. Soc Indic Res 135:15–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1475-2
5. Bisdorff R, Dias L, Mousseau V, Pirlot M, Meyer P (2015) Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria. Case Studies. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin
Cited by
51 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献