The spatial framework for weight sensitivity analysis in AHP-based multi-criteria decision making

被引:149
作者
Chen, Yun [1 ,2 ]
Yu, Jia [2 ,3 ]
Khan, Shahbaz [4 ]
机构
[1] CSIRO Land & Water, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
[2] Shanghai Normal Univ, Dept Geog, Shanghai 200234, Peoples R China
[3] E China Normal Univ, Key Lab Geog Informat Sci, Minist Educ, Shanghai 200062, Peoples R China
[4] UNESCO Reg Sci Bur Asia & Pacific, Jakarta, Indonesia
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Pairwise comparison matrix; Uncertainty; OAT; MCDM; ArcGIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; MODEL; GIS; DESIGN; IDENTIFICATION; METHODOLOGY; POLLUTION; SUPPORT; TOOL;
D O I
10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.06.010
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Criteria weights determined from pairwise comparisons are often the greatest contributor to the uncertainties in the AHP-based multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). During an MCDM process, the weights can be changed directly by adjusting the output from a pairwise comparison matrix, or indirectly by recalculating the matrix after varying its input. Corresponding weight sensitivity on multi-criteria evaluation results is generally difficult to be quantitatively assessed and spatially visualized. This study developed a unique methodology which extends the AHP-SA model proposed by Chen et al. (2010) to a more comprehensive framework to analyze weight sensitivity caused by both direct and indirect weight changes using the one-at-a-time (OAT) technique. With increased efficiency, improved flexibility and enhanced visualization capability, the spatial framework was developed as AHP-SA2 within a GIS platform. A case study with in-depth discussion is provided to demonstrate the new toolset. It assists stakeholders and researchers with better understanding of weight sensitivity for characterising, reporting and minimising uncertainty in the AHP-based spatial MCDM. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:129 / 140
页数:12
相关论文
共 59 条
[41]   A new spatial multi-criteria decision support tool for site selection for implementation of managed aquifer recharge [J].
Rahman, M. Azizur ;
Rusteberg, Bernd ;
Gogu, R. C. ;
Lobo Ferreira, J. P. ;
Sauter, Martin .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2012, 99 :61-75
[42]   Management Option Rank Equivalence (MORE) - A new method of sensitivity analysis for decision-making [J].
Ravalico, J. K. ;
Dandy, G. C. ;
Maier, H. R. .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2010, 25 (02) :171-181
[43]   Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process - A framework and guidance [J].
Refsgaard, Jens Christian ;
van der Sluijs, Jeroen P. ;
Hojberg, Anker Lajer ;
Vanrolleghem, Peter A. .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2007, 22 (11) :1543-1556
[44]  
Saaty T.L., 1991, Prediction, Projection and Forecasting, P251, DOI [10.1007/978-94-015-7952-0, DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-7952-0]
[45]   SCALING METHOD FOR PRIORITIES IN HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES [J].
SAATY, TL .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1977, 15 (03) :234-281
[46]  
Saaty TL., 1980, ANAL HIERARCHY PROCE
[47]   Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment [J].
Saltelli, A .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2002, 22 (03) :579-590
[48]   Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices [J].
Saltelli, A .
COMPUTER PHYSICS COMMUNICATIONS, 2002, 145 (02) :280-297
[49]  
Saltelli A., 2000, SENSITIVITY ANAL PRO
[50]   How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis [J].
Saltelli, Andrea ;
Annoni, Paola .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2010, 25 (12) :1508-1517