The state of the art development of AHP (1979-2017): A literature review with a social network analysis

Although many papers describe the evolution of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), most adopt a subjective approach. This paper examines the pattern of development of the AHP research field using social network analysis and scientometrics, and identifies its intellectual structure. The objectives are: (i) to trace the pattern of development of AHP research; (ii) to identify the patterns of collaboration among authors; (iii) to identify the most important papers underpinning the development of AHP; and (iv) to discover recent areas of interest. We analyse two types of networks: social networks, that is, co-authorship networks, and cognitive mapping or the network of disciplines affected by AHP. Our analyses are based on 8441 papers published between 1979 and 2017, retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database. To provide a longitudinal perspective on the pattern of evolution of AHP, we analyse these two types of networks during the three periods 1979?1990, 1991?2001 and 2002?2017. We provide some basic statistics on AHP journals and researchers, review the main topics and applications of integrated AHPs and provide direction for future research by highlighting some open questions

The state of the art development of AHP (1979-2017): a literature review with a social network analysis

Although many papers describe the evolution of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), most adopt a subjective approach. This paper examines the pattern of development of the AHP research field using social network analysis and scientometrics, and identifies its intellectual structure. The objectives are: (i) to trace the pattern of development of AHP research; (ii) to identify the patterns of collaboration among authors; (iii) to identify the most important papers underpinning the development of AHP; and (iv) to discover recent areas of interest. We analyse two types of networks: social networks, that is, co-authorship networks, and cognitive mapping or the network of disciplines affected by AHP. Our analyses are based on 8441 papers published between 1979 and 2017, retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database. To provide a longitudinal perspective on the pattern of evolution of AHP, we analyse these two types of networks during the three periods 1979–1990, 1991–2001 and 2002–2017. We provide some basic statistics on AHP journals and researchers, review the main topics and applications of integrated AHPs and provide direction for future research by highlighting some open questions

Food Supply without Risk: Multicriteria Analysis of Institutional Conditions of Exporters

[EN] International trade in food knows no borders, hence the need for prevention systems to avoid the consumption of products that are harmful to health. This paper proposes the use of multicriteria risk prevention tools that consider the socioeconomic and institutional conditions of food exporters. We propose the use of three decision-making methods-Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite (ELECTRE), and Cross-Efficiency (CE)-to establish a ranking of countries that export cereals to the European Union, based on structural criteria related to the detection of potential associated risks (notifications, food quality, corruption, environmental sustainability in agriculture, and logistics). In addition, the analysis examines whether the wealth and institutional capacity of supplier countries influence their position in the ranking. The research was carried out biannually over the period from 2012-2016, allowing an assessment to be made of the possible stability of the markets. The results reveal that suppliers' rankings based exclusively on aspects related to food risk differ from importers' actual choices determined by micro/macroeconomic features (price, production volume, and economic growth). The rankings obtained by the three proposed methods are not the same, but present certain similarities, with the ability to discern countries according to their level of food risk. The proposed methodology can be applied to support sourcing strategies. In the future, food safety considerations could have increased influence in importing decisions, which would involve further difficulties for low-income countries.Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain) and European Commission-ERDF. Project "Strengthening innovation policy in the agri-food sector" (RTI2018-093791-B-C22).Puertas Medina, RM.; Martí Selva, ML.; García Alvarez-Coque, JM. (2020). Food Supply without Risk: Multicriteria Analysis of Institutional Conditions of Exporters. International Journal of Environmental research and Public Health. 17(10):1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103432S1211710Walker, E., & Jones, N. (2002). An assessment of the value of documenting food safety in small and less developed catering businesses. Food Control, 13(4-5), 307-314. doi:10.1016/s0956-7135(02)00036-1Sun, Y.-M., & Ockerman, H. W. (2005). A review of the needs and current applications of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system in foodservice areas. Food Control, 16(4), 325-332. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2004.03.012Rohr, J. R., Barrett, C. B., Civitello, D. J., Craft, M. E., Delius, B., DeLeo, G. A., … Tilman, D. (2019). Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nature Sustainability, 2(6), 445-456. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0293-3De Jonge, J., van Trijp, J. C. M., van der Lans, I. A., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2008). How trust in institutions and organizations builds general consumer confidence in the safety of food: A decomposition of effects. Appetite, 51(2), 311-317. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.03.008Neill, C. L., & Holcomb, R. B. (2019). Does a food safety label matter? Consumer heterogeneity and fresh produce risk perceptions under the Food Safety Modernization Act. Food Policy, 85, 7-14. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.04.001Wood, V. R., & Robertson, K. R. (2000). Evaluating international markets. International Marketing Review, 17(1), 34-55. doi:10.1108/02651330010314704Jouanjean, M.-A., Maur, J.-C., & Shepherd, B. (2015). Reputation matters: Spillover effects for developing countries in the enforcement of US food safety measures. Food Policy, 55, 81-91. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.06.001Van Ruth, S. M., Huisman, W., & Luning, P. A. (2017). Food fraud vulnerability and its key factors. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67, 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.017Baylis, K., Nogueira, L., & Pace, K. (2010). Food Import Refusals: Evidence from the European Union. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(2), 566-572. doi:10.1093/ajae/aaq149Bouzembrak, Y., & Marvin, H. J. P. (2016). Prediction of food fraud type using data from Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and Bayesian network modelling. Food Control, 61, 180-187. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.09.026Tudela-Marco, L., Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, J. M., & Martí-Selva, L. (2016). Do EU Member States Apply Food Standards Uniformly? A Look at Fruit and Vegetable Safety Notifications. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(2), 387-405. doi:10.1111/jcms.12503Verhaelen, K., Bauer, A., Günther, F., Müller, B., Nist, M., Ülker Celik, B., … Wallner, P. (2018). Anticipation of food safety and fraud issues: ISAR - A new screening tool to monitor food prices and commodity flows. Food Control, 94, 93-101. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.06.029Garcia‐Alvarez‐Coque, J., Taghouti, I., & Martinez‐Gomez, V. (2020). Changes in Aflatoxin Standards: Implications for EU Border Controls of Nut Imports. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(3), 524-541. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppy036Fischer, A. R. H., de Jong, A. E. I., de Jonge, R., Frewer, L. J., & Nauta, M. J. (2005). Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach. Risk Analysis, 25(3), 503-517. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00618.xHoughton, J. R., Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J., Van Kleef, E., Chryssochoidis, G., Kehagia, O., … Strada, A. (2008). The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities. Food Policy, 33(1), 13-26. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.05.001Demortain, D. (2012). Enabling global principle-based regulation: The case of risk analysis in the Codex Alimentarius. Regulation & Governance, 6(2), 207-224. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01144.xFAZIL, A., RAJIC, A., SANCHEZ, J., & MCEWEN, S. (2008). Choices, Choices: The Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to a Food Safety Decision-Making Problem. Journal of Food Protection, 71(11), 2323-2333. doi:10.4315/0362-028x-71.11.2323Ruzante, J. M., Davidson, V. J., Caswell, J., Fazil, A., Cranfield, J. A. L., Henson, S. J., … Farber, J. M. (2010). A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens. Risk Analysis, 30(5), 724-742. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01278.xMazzocchi, M., Ragona, M., & Zanoli, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for the ex-ante impact assessment of food safety policies. Food Policy, 38, 177-189. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.011Govindan, K., Kadziński, M., & Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega, 71, 129-145. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.004Segura, M., Maroto, C., & Segura, B. (2019). Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies. Sustainability, 11(21), 5875. doi:10.3390/su11215875Lau, H., Nakandala, D., & Shum, P. K. (2018). A business process decision model for fresh-food supplier evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 716-744. doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2016-0015Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, J.-M., Abdullateef, O., Fenollosa, L., Ribal, J., Sanjuan, N., & Soriano, J. M. (2020). Integrating sustainability into the multi-criteria assessment of urban dietary patterns. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 36(1), 69-76. doi:10.1017/s174217051900053xGrant, W. (2012). Economic patriotism in European agriculture. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(3), 420-434. doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.640797Maye, D., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Food security: A fractured consensus. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.12.001Anthony, R. (2011). Taming the Unruly Side of Ethics: Overcoming Challenges of a Bottom-Up Approach to Ethics in the Areas of Food Policy and Climate Change. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 813-841. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9358-7MacMillan, T., & Dowler, E. (2011). Just and Sustainable? Examining the Rhetoric and Potential Realities of UK Food Security. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 181-204. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9304-8Jaud, M., Cadot, O., & Suwa-Eisenmann, A. (2013). Do food scares explain supplier concentration? An analysis of EU agri-food imports. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(5), 873-890. doi:10.1093/erae/jbs038Spink, J., Fortin, N. D., Moyer, D. C., Miao, H., & Wu, Y. (2016). Food Fraud Prevention: Policy, Strategy, and Decision-Making – Implementation Steps for a Government Agency or Industry. CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry, 70(5), 320-328. doi:10.2533/chimia.2016.320Van Ruth, S. M., Luning, P. A., Silvis, I. C. J., Yang, Y., & Huisman, W. (2018). Differences in fraud vulnerability in various food supply chains and their tiers. Food Control, 84, 375-381. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.08.020Xidonas, P., & Psarras, J. (2009). Equity portfolio management within the MCDM frame: a literature review. International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, 1(3), 285. doi:10.1504/ijbaaf.2009.022717Melo, M. T., Nickel, S., & Saldanha-da-Gama, F. (2009). Facility location and supply chain management – A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(2), 401-412. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.05.007Mandic, K., Delibasic, B., Knezevic, S., & Benkovic, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30-37. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.036Uygun, Ö., Kaçamak, H., & Kahraman, Ü. A. (2015). An integrated DEMATEL and Fuzzy ANP techniques for evaluation and selection of outsourcing provider for a telecommunication company. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 86, 137-146. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2014.09.014Wanke, P., Azad, M. D. A. K., & Barros, C. P. (2016). Predicting efficiency in Malaysian Islamic banks: A two-stage TOPSIS and neural networks approach. Research in International Business and Finance, 36, 485-498. doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.10.002Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A Literature Review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. doi:10.3390/sym11030350Xu, L., Shah, S. A. A., Zameer, H., & Solangi, Y. A. (2019). Evaluating renewable energy sources for implementing the hydrogen economy in Pakistan: a two-stage fuzzy MCDM approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33202-33215. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06431-0Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of The Total Environment, 409(19), 3578-3594. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022Pons, O., de la Fuente, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). The Use of MIVES as a Sustainability Assessment MCDM Method for Architecture and Civil Engineering Applications. Sustainability, 8(5), 460. doi:10.3390/su8050460Shishegaran, A., Shishegaran, A., Mazzulla, G., & Forciniti, C. (2020). A Novel Approach for a Sustainability Evaluation of Developing System Interchange: The Case Study of the Sheikhfazolah-Yadegar Interchange, Tehran, Iran. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 435. doi:10.3390/ijerph17020435Wu, H.-Y., Chen, J.-K., Chen, I.-S., & Zhuo, H.-H. (2012). Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model. Measurement, 45(5), 856-880. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2012.02.009Shakouri G., H., & Tavassoli N., Y. (2012). Implementation of a hybrid fuzzy system as a decision support process: A FAHP–FMCDM–FIS composition. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3682-3691. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.063Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., & Mavi, N. K. (2016). Supplier Selection with Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS in the Context of Supply Chain Risk Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 216-225. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.017Montgomery, B., Dragićević, S., Dujmović, J., & Schmidt, M. (2016). A GIS-based Logic Scoring of Preference method for evaluation of land capability and suitability for agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 124, 340-353. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2016.04.013Debnath, A., Roy, J., Kar, S., Zavadskas, E., & Antucheviciene, J. (2017). A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products. Sustainability, 9(8), 1302. doi:10.3390/su9081302Seyedmohammadi, J., Sarmadian, F., Jafarzadeh, A. A., Ghorbani, M. A., & Shahbazi, F. (2018). Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma, 310, 178-190. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M. K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Nobar, H. B. K. (2018). Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS- CRITIC approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 651-669. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.071Raut, R. D., Gardas, B. B., Kharat, M., & Narkhede, B. (2018). Modeling the drivers of post-harvest losses – MCDM approach. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 154, 426-433. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2018.09.035Qureshi, M. R. N., Singh, R. K., & Hasan, M. A. (2017). Decision support model to select crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices using fuzzy MCDM. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(2), 641-659. doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9903-7Srinivasa Rao, C., Kareemulla, K., Krishnan, P., Murthy, G. R. K., Ramesh, P., Ananthan, P. S., & Joshi, P. K. (2019). Agro-ecosystem based sustainability indicators for climate resilient agriculture in India: A conceptual framework. Ecological Indicators, 105, 621-633. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.038Paul, M., Negahban-Azar, M., Shirmohammadi, A., & Montas, H. (2020). Assessment of agricultural land suitability for irrigation with reclaimed water using geospatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Agricultural Water Management, 231, 105987. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105987Balezentis, T., Chen, X., Galnaityte, A., & Namiotko, V. (2020). Optimizing crop mix with respect to economic and environmental constraints: An integrated MCDM approach. Science of The Total Environment, 705, 135896. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135896Jahan, A., & Edwards, K. L. (2013). VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria. Materials & Design, 47, 759-765. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.072Pourhejazy, P., Kwon, O., Chang, Y.-T., & Park, H. (2017). Evaluating Resiliency of Supply Chain Network: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach. Sustainability, 9(2), 255. doi:10.3390/su9020255Stewart, T. J. (1996). Relationships between Data Envelopment Analysis and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(5), 654-665. doi:10.1057/jors.1996.77Li, X.-B., & Reeves, G. R. (1999). A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 115(3), 507-517. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00130-1Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). STATE OF ART SURVEYS OF OVERVIEWS ON MCDM/MADM METHODS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165-179. doi:10.3846/20294913.2014.892037Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2017). A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Materials & Design, 121, 237-253. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.041Bouyssou, D. (1999). Using DEA as a tool for MCDM: some remarks. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(9), 974-978. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600800Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., & Esnaf, Ş. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773-9779. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022LOKEN, E. (2007). Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(7), 1584-1595. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.11.005Darji, V. P., & Rao, R. V. (2014). Intelligent Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods for Material Selection in Sugar Industry. Procedia Materials Science, 5, 2585-2594. doi:10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.519Ceballos, B., Lamata, M. T., & Pelta, D. A. (2016). A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 5(4), 315-322. doi:10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1Sen, B., Bhattacharjee, P., & Mandal, U. K. (2016). A comparative study of some prominent multi criteria decision making methods for connecting rod material selection. Perspectives in Science, 8, 547-549. doi:10.1016/j.pisc.2016.06.016Wu, D. (2006). A note on DEA efficiency assessment using ideal point: An improvement of Wang and Luo’s model. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 183(2), 819-830. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2006.06.030Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Wang, G. (2014). Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods. Information Sciences, 275, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.137Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory and Decision, 31(1), 49-73. doi:10.1007/bf00134132YOON, K., & HWANG, C.-L. (1985). Manufacturing plant location analysis by multiple attribute decision making: part I—single-plant strategy. International Journal of Production Research, 23(2), 345-359. doi:10.1080/00207548508904712Doyle, J., & Green, R. (1994). Efficiency and Cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, Meanings and Uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(5), 567-578. doi:10.1057/jors.1994.84Martí, L., Martín, J. C., & Puertas, R. (2017). A Dea-Logistics Performance Index. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1), 169-192. doi:10.1016/s1514-0326(17)30008-9Canadá y la UE: Si Quierohttps://www.Euroganadería.euKARABIYIK, C., & KUTLU KARABIYIK, B. (2018). Benchmarking International Trade Performance of OECD Countries: TOPSIS and AHP Approaches. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences. doi:10.21547/jss.267381Lin, M.-C., Wang, C.-C., Chen, M.-S., & Chang, C. A. (2008). Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry, 59(1), 17-31. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.013Lourenzutti, R., & Krohling, R. A. (2016). A generalized TOPSIS method for group decision making with heterogeneous information in a dynamic environment. Information Sciences, 330, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2015.10.005Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 2(8), 57-75. doi:10.1051/ro/196802v100571Jaini, N., & Utyuzhnikov, S. (2016). Trade-off ranking method for multi-criteria decision analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 24(3-4), e1600. doi:10.1002/mcda.1600Farrell, M. J. (1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253. doi:10.2307/2343100Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092. doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078Angulo-Meza, L., & Lins, M. P. E. (2002). Annals of Operations Research, 116(1/4), 225-242. doi:10.1023/a:1021340616758Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costantino, N., & Pietroforte, R. (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(2), 523-529. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.031Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2019). Sustainability in Universities: DEA-GreenMetric. Sustainability, 11(14), 3766. doi:10.3390/su1114376

A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems

This paper proposes a cognitive approach for analyzing and reducing the Pareto optimal set for multi-objective optimization (MOO) of structural problems by means of jointly incorporating subjective and objective aspects. The approach provides improved knowledge on the decision-making process and makes it possible for the actors involved in the resolution process and its integrated systems to learn from the experience. The methodology consists of four steps: (i) the construction of the Pareto set using MOO models; (ii) the filtering of the Pareto set by compromise programming methods; (iii) the selection of the preferred solutions, utilizing the relative importance of criteria and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); (iv) the extraction of the relevant knowledge derived from the resolution process. A case study on the reinforced concrete (RC) I-beam has been included to illustrate the methodology. The compromise solutions are obtained through the objectives of economic feasibility, structural safety, and environmental sustainability criteria. The approach further identifies the patterns of behavior and critical points of the resolution process which reflect the relevant knowledge derived from the cognitive perspective. Results indicated that the solutions selected increased the number of years of service life. The procedure produced durable and ecological structures without price trade-offs.The Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.Yepes, V.; García Segura, T.; Moreno-Jiménez, J. (2015). A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering. 15(4):1024-1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001S1024103615

Decision analysis under uncertainity for sustainable development

Aplicat embargament des de la data de defensa fins el 31 de desembre de 2019Policy-making for sustainable development becomes more efficient when it is reliably backed by evidence-based decision analysis. Concretely, this is crucial in the planning of public services delivery. By translating "raw" data into information, decision analysis illuminates our judgment, and ultimately the policies we adopt. In the context of public services provision, decision analysis can support the prioritization of policy options and the monitoring of progress. However, most models are deterministic - that is, they do not consider the uncertainty in their evidence. These "incomplete" models, through their impact in policy decisions, can ultimately lead to an inefficient use of resources. The main barriers to a wider incorporation of uncertainty are: (i) the complexity of the approaches currently available, and (ii) the need to develop methods tailored to the specific decision problems faced in public services delivery. To overcome these limitations, this thesis intends to facilitate the incorporation of uncertainty in the evidence into decision analysis for sustainable development. We propose two methods. First, a non-compensatory multi-criteria prioritization under uncertainty model. Given multiple criteria and uncertain evidence, the model identifies the best policy option to improve service provision for sustainable development. The non-compensatory nature of our model makes it an attractive alternative to the widely used composite index approach. Second, a compositional trend analysis under uncertainty model to monitor service coverage. By considering the non-negativity and constant-sum constraints of the data, our model provides better estimates for measuring progress than standard statistical approaches. These two methods are validated in real case studies in the energy, water and health sectors. We apply our prioritization model to the context of strategic renewable energy planning, and the targeting of water, sanitation and hygiene services. Furthermore, we use our trend analysis model to the global monitoring of water and sanitation and child mortality. Our results emphasize the importance of considering and incorporating uncertainty in the evidence into decision analysis, particularly into prioritization and monitoring processes, both central to sustainable development practice.La formulación de políticas para el desarrollo sostenible es más eficiente cuando está respaldada por un análisis de decisiones basado en evidencia. Esto es especialmente crucial en la planificación de la prestación de servicios públicos. Al transformar los datos "brutos" en información, el análisis de decisiones ilumina nuestro juicio y, en última instancia, las políticas que adoptamos. En el contexto de la provisión de servicios públicos, el análisis de decisiones puede apoyar la priorización de las políticas públicas, así como el monitoreo del progreso. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los modelos son deterministas, es decir, no consideran la incertidumbre presente en la evidencia. Estos modelos "incompletos" pueden, a través de su impacto en las decisiones políticas, conducir a un uso ineficiente de los recursos. Las principales barreras para una incorporación más amplia de la incertidumbre son: (i) la complejidad de los enfoques actualmente disponibles, y (ii) la necesidad de desarrollar métodos adaptados a los problemas de decisión específicos a la planificación de los servicios públicos. Para superar estas limitaciones, esta tesis pretende facilitar la incorporación de la incertidumbre presente en la evidencia en el análisis de decisiones para el desarrollo sostenible. Proponemos dos métodos. Primero, un modelo de priorización multicriterio no compensatorio bajo incertidumbre. Dados múltiples criterios y evidencias con incertidumbre, el modelo identifica la mejor política para mejorar la provisión de servicios para el desarrollo sostenible. La naturaleza no compensatoria de nuestro modelo lo convierte en una alternativa atractiva al enfoque de índices compuestos ampliamente utilizado. Segundo, un modelo de análisis de tendencias composicionales bajo incertidumbre para monitorear la cobertura de los servicios. Al considerar las restricciones de no negatividad y de suma constante de los datos, nuestro modelo proporciona mejores estimadores para medir el progreso que los enfoques estadísticos estándar. Estos dos métodos se validan en casos de estudio reales en los sectores de energía, agua y salud. Aplicamos nuestro modelo de priorización al contexto de la planificación estratégica de energías renovables y de los servicios de agua, saneamiento e higiene. Además, utilizamos nuestro modelo de análisis de tendencias para el monitoreo global del accesso a agua y saneamiento, así como de la reducción de la mortalidad infantil. Nuestros resultados enfatizan la importancia de considerar e incorporar la incertidumbre de la evidencia en el análisis de decisiones, particularmente en los procesos de priorización y monitoreo, ambos centrales para la práctica del desarrollo sostenible.Postprint (published version

Integrated Frameworks for Effective Multi-criteria Decision Making in Reliability Centred Maintenance of Industrial Machines

No abstract availabl

Multi-criteria decision making support tools for maintenance of marine machinery systems

PhD ThesisFor ship systems to remain reliable and safe they must be effectively maintained through a sound maintenance management system. The three major elements of maintenance management systems are; risk assessment, maintenance strategy selection and maintenance task interval determination. The implementation of these elements will generally determine the level of ship system safety and reliability. Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) is one method that can be used to optimise maintenance management systems. However the tools used within the framework of the RCM methodology have limitations which may compromise the efficiency of RCM in achieving the desired results. This research presents the development of tools to support the RCM methodology and improve its effectiveness in marine maintenance system applications. Each of the three elements of the maintenance management system has been considered in turn. With regard to risk assessment, two Multi-Criteria Decision Making techniques (MCDM); Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija Ikompromisno Resenje, meaning: Multi-criteria Optimization and Compromise Solution (VIKOR) and Compromise Programming (CP) have been integrated into Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) along with a novel averaging technique which allows the use of incomplete or imprecise failure data. Three hybrid MCDM techniques have then been compared for maintenance strategy selection; an integrated Delphi-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology, an integrated Delphi-AHP-PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organisation METHod for Enrichment Evaluation) methodology and an integrated Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) methodology. Maintenance task interval determination has been implemented using a MCDM framework integrating a delay time model to determine the optimum inspection interval and using the age replacement model for the scheduled replacement tasks. A case study based on a marine Diesel engine has been developed with input from experts in the field to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodologies.Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND), a scholarship body of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for providing the fund for this research. My gratitude also goes to Federal University of Petroleum Resource, Effurun, Nigeria for giving me the opportunity to be a beneficiary of the scholarship

Multi-criteria decision-making in whole process design

PhD ThesisIn recent years, the chemical and pharmaceutical industries have faced increased development times and costs with fewer novel chemicals being discovered. This has resulted in many companies focusing on innovative research and development as they consider this key to business success. In particular, a number of leading industrial organisations have adopted the principles of Whole Process Design (WPD). WPD considers the optimisation of the entire product development process, from raw materials to end product, rather than focusing on each individual unit operation. The complexity involved in the implementation of WPD requires rationalised decision-making, often with limited or uncertain information. This thesis assesses the most widely applied methods in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in conjunction with the results of two interviews and two questionnaires that identified the industrial requirements for decision-making during WPD. From the findings of this work, a novel decision-making methodology was proposed, the outcome of which allows a decision-maker to visually interpret their decision results with associated levels of uncertainty. To validate the proposed methodology, a software framework was developed that incorporates two other decision-making approaches, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité trois (ELECTRE III). The framework was then applied to a number of industrial case studies to validate the application of the proposed methodology.Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Chemistry Innovatio

Advances and Applications of Dezert-Smarandache Theory (DSmT) for Information Fusion (Collected Works), Vol. 4

The fourth volume on Advances and Applications of Dezert-Smarandache Theory (DSmT) for information fusion collects theoretical and applied contributions of researchers working in different fields of applications and in mathematics. The contributions (see List of Articles published in this book, at the end of the volume) have been published or presented after disseminating the third volume (2009, http://fs.unm.edu/DSmT-book3.pdf) in international conferences, seminars, workshops and journals. First Part of this book presents the theoretical advancement of DSmT, dealing with Belief functions, conditioning and deconditioning, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Decision Making, Multi-Criteria, evidence theory, combination rule, evidence distance, conflicting belief, sources of evidences with different importance and reliabilities, importance of sources, pignistic probability transformation, Qualitative reasoning under uncertainty, Imprecise belief structures, 2-Tuple linguistic label, Electre Tri Method, hierarchical proportional redistribution, basic belief assignment, subjective probability measure, Smarandache codification, neutrosophic logic, Evidence theory, outranking methods, Dempster-Shafer Theory, Bayes fusion rule, frequentist probability, mean square error, controlling factor, optimal assignment solution, data association, Transferable Belief Model, and others. More applications of DSmT have emerged in the past years since the apparition of the third book of DSmT 2009. Subsequently, the second part of this volume is about applications of DSmT in correlation with Electronic Support Measures, belief function, sensor networks, Ground Moving Target and Multiple target tracking, Vehicle-Born Improvised Explosive Device, Belief Interacting Multiple Model filter, seismic and acoustic sensor, Support Vector Machines, Alarm classification, ability of human visual system, Uncertainty Representation and Reasoning Evaluation Framework, Threat Assessment, Handwritten Signature Verification, Automatic Aircraft Recognition, Dynamic Data-Driven Application System, adjustment of secure communication trust analysis, and so on. Finally, the third part presents a List of References related with DSmT published or presented along the years since its inception in 2004, chronologically ordered

Participatory coastal management through elicitation of ecosystem service preferences and modelling driven by coastal squeeze

The Baixo Vouga Lagunar (BVL) is part of Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon in Portugal, which is classified as a Special Protection Area under the European Habitats and Birds Directives. This part of the system, corresponding to the confluence of the Vouga River with the lagoon, is very important culturally and socioeconomically for the local communities, taking place several human activities, especially agriculture. To prevent salt water intrusion from the Ria de Aveiro into agriculture fields, a floodbank was initiated in the 90's. In frame of ongoing changes in Ria de Aveiro hydrodynamics, the existing floodbank will be now extended, introducing further changes in the ecological dynamics of the BVL and its adjacent area. As a consequence, the water level in the floodbank downstream side is expected to rise, increasing the submersion period in tidal wetlands, and leading to coastal squeeze. The aim of this study is to apply an ecosystem based-management approach to mitigate the impacts on biodiversity resulting from the management plan. To do so, we have modelled the implications of the changes in several hydrological and environmental variables on four saltmarsh species and habitats distribution, as well as on their associated ecosystem services, both upstream and downstream of the floodbank. The ecosystem services of interest were prioritized by stakeholders' elicitation, which were then used as an input to a spatial multi-criteria analysis aimed to find the best management actions to compensate for the unintended loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the BVL. According to our results, the main areas to be preserved in the BVL were the traditional agricultural mosaic fields; the freshwater courses and the subtidal estuarine channels. By combining ecology with the analysis of social preferences, this study shows how co-developed solutions can support adaptive management and the conservation of coastal ecosystems. © 2018 The AuthorsThe European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration supported this study through the collaborative research project AQUACROSS (Grant Agreement no. 642317 ). María Almagro was supported by the Juan de la Cierva Program (Grant IJCI-2015-23500 ). Ana I. Sousa was supported by the “ Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia , I.P. (FCT)” Post-Doc grant SFRH/BPD/107823/2015 . Ana Genua-Olmedo was funded by the project PORBIOTA - Portuguese E-Infrastructure for Information and Research on Biodiversity (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-022127), financed by the “ Programa Operacional de Competitividade e Internacionalização ” and “Programa Operacional Regional de Lisboa, FEDER ”, and by the “ Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia , I.P. (FCT)” through national funds (PIDDAC). Thanks are due by co-funding to Labex DRIIHM, French program “Investissements d'Avenir” ( ANR-11-LABX-0010 ) managed by the ANR, which funded the MARSH-C-LEVEL project. Thanks are also due, for the financial support to CESAM ( UID/AMB/50017 - POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007638 ), to FCT /MEC through national funds (PIDDAC), and the co-funding by the FEDER , within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020