Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability

被引:329
|
作者
Mulliner, Emma [1 ]
Malys, Naglis [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Maliene, Vida [1 ]
机构
[1] Liverpool John Moores Univ, Sch Built Environm, Liverpool L3 3AF, Merseyside, England
[2] Univ Manchester, Fac Life Sci, Manchester M1 7DN, Lancs, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Manchester Ctr Integrat Syst Biol, Manchester Inst Biotechnol, Manchester M1 7DN, Lancs, England
[4] Univ Warwick, Sch Life Sci, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
来源
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE | 2016年 / 59卷
关键词
WPM; WSM; AHP; TOPSIS; COPRAS; Decision making; Housing affordability; Multiple criteria; MCDM; Sensitivity analysis; Sustainability; CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; SUPPORT; INDICATORS; ECONOMICS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that impact on a household's quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of six different multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for the purpose of assessing sustainable housing affordability. The comparative performance of the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:146 / 156
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Methods of sustainable housing assessment: Comparative analysis of five international methods
    Quesada Molina, Felipe
    REVISTA HABITAT SUSTENTABLE, 2014, 4 (01): : 56 - 67
  • [2] CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
    Mulliner, Emma
    Maliene, Vida
    ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, VOLS 1-3, 2011, : 966 - 973
  • [3] Comparative Analysis of Pythagorean MCDM Methods for the Risk Assessment of Childhood Cancer
    Habib, Shaista
    Akram, Muhammad
    Al-Shamiri, M. M. Ali
    CMES-COMPUTER MODELING IN ENGINEERING & SCIENCES, 2023, 135 (03): : 2585 - 2615
  • [4] A comparative analysis of sustainable building assessment methods
    Diaz Lopez, Carmen
    Carpio, Manuel
    Martin-Morales, Maria
    Zamorano, Montserrat
    SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY, 2019, 49
  • [5] An Analysis of Professional Perceptions of Criteria Contributing to Sustainable Housing Affordability
    Mulliner, Emma
    Maliene, Vida
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2015, 7 (01) : 248 - 270
  • [6] Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for the Assessment of Corporate Sustainability Performance in Energy Sector
    Ersoy, Nazli
    Taslak, Soner
    EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW, 2023, 23 (03) : 341 - 362
  • [7] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome
    Wojciech Sałabun
    Andrzej Piegat
    Artificial Intelligence Review, 2017, 48 : 557 - 571
  • [8] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome
    Salabun, Wojciech
    Piegat, Andrzej
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, 2017, 48 (04) : 557 - 571
  • [9] An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method
    Mulliner, Emma
    Smallbone, Kieran
    Maliene, Vida
    OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2013, 41 (02): : 270 - 279
  • [10] Role of sustainable building materials in housing affordability
    Al-Zubaidi, Maha S.
    IABSE Conference New Delhi, India 2005: ROLE OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TOWARDS REDUCTION OF POVERTY, 2005, : 235 - 242