Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 11

Proceedings of the 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Sustainable Decision-Making using the COMET Method: An Empirical Study of the Ammonium Nitrate Transport Management

, , ,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2017F455

Citation: Proceedings of the 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 11, pages 949–958 ()

Full text

Abstract. This paper investigates the problem of the sustainable ammonium nitrate transport. The significance of this problem is increasing, considered the occurrence of the worldwide agricultural production boost. The existing international regulations for the transport of the dangerous chemical substances are not sufficient to obtain a satisfactory solution for the sustainable transport. The main reason for that is the fact that the safety criteria can easily become dominated by the economic factors. In this paper, the authors use the COMET method to identify a decision making model for the selection of the best scenario of sustainable transport. The COMET method is a new multicriteria decision-making technique that is free of the rank reversal phenomenon. The identified model provides information about the global and local significance level of each of the criteria. The proposed approach can be easily expanded by using a greater number of criteria, depending on the particular problem analyzed. The proposed methodology is an efficient and highly accurate solution to make decisions based on experts' knowledge.

References

  1. M. A. Sutton, O. Oenema, J. W. Erisman, A. Leip, H. van Grinsven, and W. Winiwarter, “Too much of a good thing,” Nature, vol. 472, no. 7342, pp. 159–161, 2011.
  2. Z. Panáková, P. Slamka, and O. Ložek, “Effect of nitrification inhibitors on the content of available nitrogen forms in the soil under maize (zea mays, l.) growing,” Journal of Central European Agriculture, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1013–1032, 2016.
  3. A. Oggero, R. Darbra, M. Munoz, E. Planas, and J. Casal, “A survey of accidents occurring during the transport of hazardous substances by road and rail,” Journal of hazardous materials, vol. 133, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2006.
  4. (1968, jan) 14. european agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road (adr). [Online]. Available: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-14&chapter=11&clang=_en
  5. (2017, jan) Regulations concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail (rid). [Online]. Available: https://otif.org/fileadmin/new/2-Activities/2D-Dangerous-Goods/RID_2017_E.pdf
  6. J. Wątróbski, “Outline of multicriteria decision-making in green logis- tics,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 16, pp. 537–552, 2016.
  7. A. H. Vahabzadeh, A. Asiaei, and S. Zailani, “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using fuzzy-vikor method,” Resources, Con- servation and Recycling, vol. 103, pp. 125–138, 2015.
  8. T. Litman, “Transportation cost and benefit analysis,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, vol. 31, 2009.
  9. C. Macharis and A. Bernardini, “Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach,” Transport policy, vol. 37, pp. 177–186, 2015.
  10. A. Tudela, N. Akiki, and R. Cisternas, “Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 414–423, 2006.
  11. A. Alexander, H. Walker, and M. Naim, “Decision theory in sustainable supply chain management: a literature review,” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 19, no. 5/6, pp. 504–522, 2014.
  12. C. Macharis, L. Turcksin, and K. Lebeau, “Multi actor multi criteria analysis (mamca) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: State of use,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 610–620, 2012.
  13. C. A. B. e Costa and P. Vincke, “Multiple criteria decision aid: an overview,” in Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. Springer, 1990, pp. 3–14.
  14. J. Spronk, R. E. Steuer, and C. Zopounidis, “Multicriteria decision aid-analysis in finance,” in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer, 2016, pp. 1011–1065.
  15. C. Zopounidis, “The european school of mcda: Some recent trends,” in Multicriteria Analysis. Springer, 1997, pp. 608–616.
  16. B. Matarazzo, “A pairwise criterion comparison approach: the mappac and pragma methods,” in Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. Springer, 1990, pp. 253–273.
  17. B. Roy and D. Vanderpooten, “The european school of mcda: Emergence, basic features and current works,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 22–38, 1996.
  18. J. Geldermann and O. Rentz, “Bridging the gap between american and european madm-approaches,” in Proc. of the 51st Meeting of the European Working Group “JMulticriteria Aid for Decisions”, Madrid, 2000.
  19. J. R. S. C. Mateo, “Multi-attribute utility theory,” in Multi Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry. Springer, 2012, pp. 63–72.
  20. R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge university press, 1993.
  21. T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” International journal of services sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2008.
  22. T. L. Saaty, “The analytic network process,” Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 1996.
  23. T. Starfield, “Simple multi-attribute ranking technique smart,” 2005.
  24. E. Jacquet-Lagrèze and J. Siskos, “Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the uta method,” European journal of operational research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 151–164, 1982.
  25. C. A. Bana e Costa, J.-M. Corte, and J.-C. Vansnick, “Macbeth (measuring attractiveness by a categorical based evaluation technique),” Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 2011.
  26. M. E. Baltazar, J. Jardim, P. Alves, and J. Silva, “Air transport performance and efficiency: Mcda vs. dea approaches,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 111, pp. 790–799, 2014.
  27. M. Miranda, M. E. Baltazar, and J. Silva, “Airlines performance and eflciency evaluation using a mcda methodology. the case for low cost carriers vs legacy carriers,” Open Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016.
  28. Y.-J. Lai, T.-Y. Liu, and C.-L. Hwang, “Topsis for modm,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 486–500, 1994.
  29. J. Figueira, V. Mousseau, and B. Roy, “Electre methods,” in Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Springer, 2005, pp. 133–153.
  30. K. Govindan and M. B. Jepsen, “Electre: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 250, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2016.
  31. J.-P. Brans and B. Mareschal, “Promethee methods,” in Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, 2005, pp. 163–186.
  32. G. Munda, Multicriteria evaluation in a fuzzy environment: theory and applications in ecological economics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  33. H. Pastijn and J. Leysen, “Constructing an outranking relation with oreste,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 12, no. 10-11, pp. 1255–1268, 1989.
  34. E. Hinloopen, P. Nijkamp, and P. Rietveld, “The regime method: A new multicriteria technique,” in Essays and surveys on multiple criteria decision making. Springer, 1983, pp. 146–155.
  35. W. S. De Keyser and P. Peeters, “ArgusâĂŤa new multiple criteria method based on the general idea of outranking,” in Applying multiple criteria aid for decision to environmental management. Springer, 1994, pp. 263–278.
  36. J.-M. Martel and B. Matarazzo, “Other outranking approaches,” in Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, 2005, pp. 197–259.
  37. J. Leclercq, “Propositions dâĂŹextension de la notion de dominance en présence de relations dâĂŹordre sur les pseudo-critères: Melchior,” Revue Belge de Recherche Opérationnelle, de Statistique et d'Informatique, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 32–46, 1984.
  38. M. Bélanger and J.-M. Martel, “An automated explanation approach for a decision support system based on mcda.” ExaCt, vol. 5, p. 04, 2005.
  39. H. Voogd, “Multicriteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 221–236, 1982.
  40. J. H. Paelinck, “Qualiflex: a flexible multiple-criteria method,” Economics Letters, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 193–197, 1978.
  41. A. Giarlotta, “Passive and active compensability multicriteria annalysis(pacman),” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 204–216, 1998.
  42. S. Greco, “A new pcca method: Idra,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 587–601, 1997.
  43. A. Piegat and W. Sałabun, “Identification of a multicriteria decision-making model using the characteristic objects method,” Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing, vol. 2014, p. 14, 2014.
  44. P. Fortemps, S. Greco, and R. Słowiński, “Multicriteria choice and ranking using decision rules induced from rough approximation of graded preference relations,” in International Conference on Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing. Springer, 2004, pp. 510–522.
  45. P. Ferrari, “A method for choosing from among alternative transportation projects,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 194–203, 2003.
  46. K. Poh and B. Ang, “Transportation fuels and policy for singapore: an ahp planning approach,” Computers & industrial engineering, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 507–525, 1999.
  47. V. P. Darji and R. V. Rao, “Application of ahp/evamix method for decision making in the industrial environment,” American Journal of Operations Research, vol. 3, no. 06, p. 542, 2013.
  48. G.-H. Tzeng, C.-W. Lin, and S. Opricovic, “Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation,” Energy Policy, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 1373–1383, 2005.
  49. S. Jharkharia and R. Shankar, “Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic network process (anp) approach,” Omega, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 274–289, 2007.
  50. O. Bayazit, “Use of analytic network process in vendor selection decisions,” Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 566–579, 2006.
  51. U. Tuzkaya, “Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated methodology and an application,” International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 277–290, 2009.
  52. E. Bottani and A. Rizzi, “A fuzzy topsis methodology to support outsourcing of logistics services,” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 294–308, 2006.
  53. A. Awasthi, S. S. Chauhan, and S. K. Goyal, “A multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 98–109, 2011.
  54. H. Jafari, “Presenting an integrative approach of mappac and fanp and balanced scorecard for performance measurements of container terminals,” International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 494–504, 2013.
  55. C. Delhaye, J. Teghem, and P. Kunsch, “Application of the oreste method to a nuclear waste management problem,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 24, no. 1-2, pp. 29–39, 1991.
  56. X. Wang and H. K. Chan, “A hierarchical fuzzy topsis approach to assess improvement areas when implementing green supply chain initiatives,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 3117–3130, 2013.
  57. K. Govindan, S. Rajendran, J. Sarkis, and P. Murugesan, “Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 98, pp. 66–83, 2015.
  58. W. Ho, X. Xu, and P. K. Dey, “Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review,” European Journal of operational research, vol. 202, no. 1, pp. 16–24, 2010.
  59. S. Faizi, T. Rashid, W. Sałabun, S. Zafar, and J. Wątróbski, “Decision making with uncertainty using hesitant fuzzy sets,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, pp. 1–11, 2017.
  60. W. Sałabun, P. Ziemba, and J. Wątróbski, “The rank reversals paradox in management decisions: The comparison of the ahp and comet methods,” in Intelligent Decision Technologies 2016. Springer, 2016, pp. 181–191.
  61. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and control, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 338–353, 1965.
  62. F. T. Chan and N. Kumar, “Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended ahp-based approach,” Omega, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 417–431, 2007.
  63. K. Govindan, R. Khodaverdi, and A. Jafarian, “A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 47, pp. 345–354, 2013.
  64. S. Önüt, S. S. Kara, and E. Işik, “Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy mcdm approach: A case study for a telecommunication company,” Expert systems with applications, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 3887–3895, 2009.
  65. W. Sałabun, “Application of the fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method to identify nonlinear decision models,” Int. J. Comput. Appl, vol. 89, no. 15, pp. 1–6, 2014.
  66. W. Sałabun, “Reduction in the number of comparisons required to create matrix of expert judgment in the comet method,” Management and Production Engineering Review, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 62–69, 2014.
  67. W. Sałabun, “The characteristic objects method: A new distance-based approach to multicriteria decision-making problems,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 22, no. 1-2, pp. 37–50, 2015.
  68. W. Pedrycz, P. Ekel, and R. Parreiras, Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: models, methods and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  69. A. Piegat, “Fuzzy modeling and control (studies in fuzziness and soft computing),” Physica, p. 742, 2001.
  70. T. J. Ross, “Properties of membership functions, fuzzification, and defuzzification,” Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, Third Edition, pp. 89–116, 2010.
  71. A. Piegat and W. Sałabun, “Comparative analysis of mcdm methods for assessing the severity of chronic liver disease,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. Springer, 2015, pp. 228–238.