1. SUSTAINABILITY MCDM MODEL COMPARISONS
Yuan-Sheng Lee, Tamkang University
Hsu-Shih Shih, Tamkang University
David L. Olson, University of Nebraska
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

2. SUSTAINABILITY Tzeng et al. [2005] Energy Policy
DECISION: select bus type from 12 choices
Eleven criteria
Our use:
Demonstration of features of various multi-criteria methods
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

3. Multi-Criteria Models of Sustainability
Non-dominated Identification
Lotov et al. [2004]; Bouchery et al. [2012]
Cardinal weighting
Equal weights; Tchebychev; Ordinal; SMART; AHP
Outranking
ELECTRE; PROMETHEE
TOPSIS (Technique for Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution)
Min distance to ideal while Max distance from nadir
Hwang & Yoon [1981]
TODIM
From cumulative prospect theory, S-shaped value function
Gomes & Lima [1992]
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

4. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
Urban Transportation Selection Decision Select a bus type – CRITERIA (Tzeng et al., 2005)
Energy supply
Energy efficiency
Air pollution
Noise pollution
Industrial relations
Employment cost
Maintenance cost
Capability of vehicle
Road facility
Speed of traffic
Sense of comfort
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

5. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
TODIM
Classify multiple criteria into benefits, costs
STEP 1: DM constructs normalized decision matrix (see next slide)
STEP 2: Value alternatives on each criterion with 0 the worst and 1 the best
STEP 3: Compute matrix of relative dominance
STEP 4: Calculate global measure for each alternative
STEP 5: Rank alternatives by global measures
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

6. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
Part 1:
Bus Type
Energy Supply
Energy Efficiency
Air Pollution
Noise Pollution
Industrial Relations
Employ Cost
A1 Diesel
0.82
0.59
0.18
0.42
0.58
0.36
A2 CNG
0.77
0.70
0.73
0.55
0.52
A3 LPG
0.79
A4 Hydrogen
0.63
0.86
0.51
A5 Methanol
0.40
0.54
0.69
A6 Elec OpC
0.76
0.89
0.60
0.72
0.80
A7 Elec Dir
!8 Elec Bat
A9 HybGas
0.66
A10 HybDies
A11 HybCNG
0.48
A12 HybLPG
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

7. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
Part II
Bus Type
Maintenance cost
Vehicle capability
Roads
Traffic speed
Comfort
A1 Diesel
0.40
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.56
A2 CNG
0.53
0.73
0.78
0.66
0.67
A3 LPG
A4 Hydrogen
0.74
0.63
0.70
A5 Methanol
0.68
0.52
0.60
A6 Elec OpC
0.72
0.54
0.35
A7 Elec Dir
0.47
0.44
0.87
0.75
A8 Elec Bat
0.51
0.48
A9 HybGas
0.65
0.80
A10 HybDies
A11 HybCNG
0.71
0.62
A12 HybLPG
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

8. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
NON-DOMINANCE
A1 (Diesel Bus)
A3 (LPG Bus) {> A2 on energy supply, = on all others}
A8 (Electric bus with exchangeable batteries) {>A7 on capability, roads}
A6 (Electric bus with opportunity charging)
A9 (Hybrid electric bus with gasoline engine)
A10 (Hybrid electric bus with diesel engine)
A11 (Hybrid electric bus with CNG engine)
A12 (Hybrid electric bus with LPG engine) identical ratings to A11
A4, A5 dominated by combinations
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

9. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
WEIGHTING
EQUAL WEIGHTING (LaPlace)
A8 Electric bus with exchange batteries wins
A7 a very close second
PROVIDES FULL RANKING
Uses cardinal (continuous?) numbers
TCHEBYCHEV WEIGHTS
Maximize worst rating – A2 (CNG – dominated by A3), A3(LPG), A9 (Hybrid)
ORDINAL WEIGHTS (centroid)
CARDINAL WEIGHTS (from Tzeng et al. - AHP)
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

10. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
Simulation
Bus Type (nondominated)
Proportion Won A1
Diesel
0.005 A3
LPG
0.110 A6
Electric optional charging A8
Electric battery
0.625 A9
Hybrid gas
A10
Hybrid diesel
0.045
A11
Hybrid CNG or LPG
0.205
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

11. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
PROMETHEE
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

12. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
Distance methods
TOPSIS
A8 Electric exchange batteries
A6 Electric optional charge close behind
A7 Electric direct exchange (dominated solution) close behind
TODIM
A7 Electric direct exchange (dominated solution) second
A11/A12 Hybrid CNG or LPG third
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

13. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
Rankings
Bus Type
= wgt
Tcheb
centroid
AHP
PROM
TOPSIS
TODIM
A1 Diesel 10 12 11
A2 CNG 8 2- 9
A3 LPG
6.5 2 7
A4 Hydrogen
A5 Methanol
A6 Elec OpC 3 6
A7 Elec Dir
A8 Elec Bat 1
A9 HybGas 5 4
A10 HybDies
A11 HybCNG
3.5
5.5
4.5
A12 HybLPG
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

14. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
SELECTION
Bus Type
Dominance
Simulation
A8 picked
A3 picked
A9 picked A1
Diesel
0.005 A2
CNG
Dominated A3
LPG
0.110
Tchebychef A4
Hydrogen A5
Methanol A6
Electric optional charge A7
Electical direct A8
Electrical battery
0.625
All others A9
Hybrid gas
0.010
A10
Hybrid diesel
0.045
A11
Hybrid CNG
0.205
A12
Hybrid LPB
Duplicate
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

15. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
DISCUSSION
Fair consistency in rankings
No two identical
Continuous allows close second to be ranked even if dominated (A7)
Tchebychef the most extreme
Only looks at worst
Thus is sensitive to scale
A2 considered, though dominated
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark

16. European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark
CONCLUSIONS
Many multiple criteria methods
All valuable to some degree
more
SIMULATION preferred by author
Nondominance might be useful in selection, not in ranking
You can always come up with another criterion
Accuracy of data critical
A11/A12 identical, but might vary on some additional factor
Outranking methods help explore
PREFERENCE important
Machine-methods {omit preference as much as possible} (TOPSIS)
Individual preference well-studied
Group preference problematic
European DSI 2014, Kolding, Denmark