A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes

Real estate and land management are characterised by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governmental factors. In Europe, Public Administrators must address the complex decision-making problems that need to be resolved, while also acting in consideration of the expectations of the different stakeholders involved in settlement transformation. In complex situations (e.g., with different aspects to be considered and multilevel actors involved), decision-making processes are often used to solve multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses, which support the choices of those who are making the decision. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods are included among the examination and evaluation techniques considered useful by the European Community. Such analyses and techniques are performed using methods, which aim to reach a synthesis of the various forms of input data needed to define decision-making problems of a similar complexity. Thus, one or more of the conclusions reached allow for informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. According to the technical literature on MCDA, numerous methods are applicable in different decision-making situations, however, advice for selecting the most appropriate for the specific field of application and problem have not been thoroughly investigated. In land and real estate management, numerous queries regarding evaluations often arise. In brief, the objective of this paper is to outline a procedure with which to select the method best suited to the specific queries of evaluation, which commonly arise while addressing decision-making problems. In particular issues of land and real estate management, representing the so-called “settlement sector”. The procedure will follow a theoretical-methodological approach by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of the multi-criteria analysis method

An optimal feedback model to prevent manipulation behaviours in consensus under social network group decision making

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.A novel framework to prevent manipulation behaviour in consensus reaching process under social network group decision making is proposed, which is based on a theoretically sound optimal feedback model. The manipulation behaviour classification is twofold: (1) ‘individual manipulation’ where each expert manipulates his/her own behaviour to achieve higher importance degree (weight); and (2) ‘group manipulation’ where a group of experts force inconsistent experts to adopt specific recommendation advices obtained via the use of fixed feedback parameter. To counteract ‘individual manipulation’, a behavioural weights assignment method modelling sequential attitude ranging from ‘dictatorship’ to ‘democracy’ is developed, and then a reasonable policy for group minimum adjustment cost is established to assign appropriate weights to experts. To prevent ‘group manipulation’, an optimal feedback model with objective function the individual adjustments cost and constraints related to the threshold of group consensus is investigated. This approach allows the inconsistent experts to balance group consensus and adjustment cost, which enhances their willingness to adopt the recommendation advices and consequently the group reaching consensus on the decision making problem at hand. A numerical example is presented to illustrate and verify the proposed optimal feedback model

A General Overview of Multi-objective Multiple-participant Decision Making for Flood Management

Decision-making problems in water resources are often associated with multiple objectives and multiple stakeholders. To enable more effective and acceptable decision outcome, it is required that more participation is ensured in the decision making process. This is particularly relevant for flood management problems where the number of stakeholders could be very large. Although application of multi-objective decision-making tools in water resources is very wide, application with the consideration of multiple stakeholders is much more limited. The solution methodologies adapted for multi-objective multi-participant decision problems are generally based on aggregation of decisions obtained for individual decision makers. This approach seems somewhat inadequate when the number of stakeholders is very large, as often is the case in flood management. The present study has been performed to have an overview of existing solution methodologies for multi-objective decision making approaches in water resources. Decision making by single and multiple stakeholders has been considered under both deterministic and uncertain conditions. It has been found that the use of fuzzy set theory to represent various uncertainties associated with decision making situations under multi-objective multiple-participant environment is very promising. Coupled with multi-objective methods (e. g. compromise programming and goal programming), fuzzy approach has also the ability to support group decisions, to reflect collective opinions and conflicting judgments.https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wrrr/1003/thumbnail.jp

Public initiatives of settlement transformation. A theoretical-methodological approach to selecting tools of multi-criteria decision analysis

In Europe, the operating context in which initiatives of settlement transformation are currently initiated is characterized by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governance-related factors. A similar set of considerations makes it necessary to address the complex decision-making problems to be resolved through multidisciplinary, comparative approaches designed to rationalize the process and treat the elements to be considered in systematic fashion with respect to the range of alternatives available as solutions. Within a context defined in this manner, decision-making processes must often be used to obtain multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses to support the choices made by the decision-makers. Such analyses are carried out using multi-criteria tools designed to arrive at syntheses of the numerous forms of input data needed to describe decision-making problems of similar complexity, so that one or more outcomes of the synthesis make possible informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. The technical literature on the topic proposes numerous tools of multi-criteria analysis for application in different decision-making contexts. Still, no specific contributions have been drawn up to date on the approach to take in selecting the tool best suited to providing adequate responses to the queries of evaluation that arise most frequently in the various fields of application, and especially in the settlement sector. The objective of this paper is to propose, by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of tools of multi-criteria analysis, a methodology capable of selecting the tool best suited to the queries of evaluation which arise regarding the chief categories of decision-making problems, and particularly in the settlement sector

A weighted rough set based fuzzy axiomatic design approach for the selection of AM processes

Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing, as an enabling technology for mass customization or personalization, has been developed rapidly in recent years. Various design tools, materials, machines and service bureaus can be found in the market. Clearly, the choices are abundant, but users can be easily confused as to which AM process they should use. This paper first reviews the existing multi-attribute decision-making methods for AM process selection and assesses their suitability with regard to two aspects, preference rating flexibility and performance evaluation objectivity. We propose that an approach that is capable of handling incomplete attribute information and objective assessment within inherent data has advantages over other approaches. Based on this proposition, this paper proposes a weighted preference graph method for personalized preference evaluation and a rough set based fuzzy axiomatic design approach for performance evaluation and the selection of appropriate AM processes. An example based on the previous research work of AM machine selection is given to validate its robustness for the priori articulation of AM process selection decision support

A systematic review on multi-criteria group decision-making methods based on weights: analysis and classification scheme

Interest in group decision-making (GDM) has been increasing prominently over the last decade. Access to global databases, sophisticated sensors which can obtain multiple inputs or complex problems requiring opinions from several experts have driven interest in data aggregation. Consequently, the field has been widely studied from several viewpoints and multiple approaches have been proposed. Nevertheless, there is a lack of general framework. Moreover, this problem is exacerbated in the case of experts’ weighting methods, one of the most widely-used techniques to deal with multiple source aggregation. This lack of general classification scheme, or a guide to assist expert knowledge, leads to ambiguity or misreading for readers, who may be overwhelmed by the large amount of unclassified information currently available. To invert this situation, a general GDM framework is presented which divides and classifies all data aggregation techniques, focusing on and expanding the classification of experts’ weighting methods in terms of analysis type by carrying out an in-depth literature review. Results are not only classified but analysed and discussed regarding multiple characteristics, such as MCDMs in which they are applied, type of data used, ideal solutions considered or when they are applied. Furthermore, general requirements supplement this analysis such as initial influence, or component division considerations. As a result, this paper provides not only a general classification scheme and a detailed analysis of experts’ weighting methods but also a road map for researchers working on GDM topics or a guide for experts who use these methods. Furthermore, six significant contributions for future research pathways are provided in the conclusions.The first author acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Universities [grant number FPU18/01471]. The second and third author wish to recognize their support from the Serra Hunter program. Finally, this work was supported by the Catalan agency AGAUR through its research group support program (2017SGR00227). This research is part of the R&D project IAQ4EDU, reference no. PID2020-117366RB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Ordering based decision making: a survey

Decision making is the crucial step in many real applications such as organization management, financial planning, products evaluation and recommendation. Rational decision making is to select an alternative from a set of different ones which has the best utility (i.e., maximally satisfies given criteria, objectives, or preferences). In many cases, decision making is to order alternatives and select one or a few among the top of the ranking. Orderings provide a natural and effective way for representing indeterminate situations which are pervasive in commonsense reasoning. Ordering based decision making is then to find the suitable method for evaluating candidates or ranking alternatives based on provided ordinal information and criteria, and this in many cases is to rank alternatives based on qualitative ordering information. In this paper, we discuss the importance and research aspects of ordering based decision making, and review the existing ordering based decision making theories and methods along with some future research directions