IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v137y2002i1p145-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using fuzzy measures and habitual domains to analyze the public attitude and apply to the gas taxi policy

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Ting-Yu
  • Chang, Hsin-Li
  • Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Ting-Yu & Chang, Hsin-Li & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2002. "Using fuzzy measures and habitual domains to analyze the public attitude and apply to the gas taxi policy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 145-161, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:137:y:2002:i:1:p:145-161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(01)00137-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Chen, Ting-Yu & Wang, Jih-Chang, 1998. "A weight-assessing method with habitual domains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 342-367, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feng, Cheng-Min & Wu, Pei-Ju & Chia, Kai-Chieh, 2010. "A hybrid fuzzy integral decision-making model for locating manufacturing centers in China: A case study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 63-73, January.
    2. Man Zhang & Dongwei Tian & Jingming Liu & Xuehua Li, 2024. "Analysis of Taxi Demand and Traffic Influencing Factors in Urban Core Area Based on Data Field Theory and GWR Model: A Case Study of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-21, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    2. Moussa Larbani & Po Lung Yu, 2020. "Empowering Data Mining Sciences by Habitual Domains Theory, Part I: The Concept of Wonderful Solution," Annals of Data Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 373-397, September.
    3. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Roman Vavrek & Jiří Bečica, 2020. "Capital City as a Factor of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis—Application on Transport Companies in the Czech Republic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Chen, Ting-Yu, 2001. "Using competence sets to analyze the consumer decision problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 98-118, January.
    6. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    7. Jean-Francois Guay & Jean-Philippe Waaub, 2019. "SOMERSET-P: a GIS-based/MCDA platform for strategic planning scenarios’ ranking and decision-making in conflictual socioecosystem," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 301-325, November.
    8. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    9. Dragan Pamučar & Fatih Ecer & Goran Cirovic & Melfi A. Arlasheedi, 2020. "Application of Improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in Real-World Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Hu, Yi-Chung & Hu, Jian-Shiun & Chen, Ruey-Shun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Assessing weights of product attributes from fuzzy knowledge in a dynamic environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 125-143, April.
    11. Chen, Ting-Yu & Chang, Hsin-Li & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2001. "Using a weight-assessing model to identify route choice criteria and information effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 197-224, March.
    12. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    13. Bettina Zargini, 2022. "Multiobjective Location Problems with Variable Domination Structures and an Application to Select a New Hub Airport," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Lucia Della Spina, 2020. "Adaptive Sustainable Reuse for Cultural Heritage: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach Supporting Urban Development Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Sahar Mirzaee & David Fannon & Matthias Ruth, 2019. "A comparison of preference elicitation methods for multi-criteria design decisions about resilient and sustainable buildings," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 439-453, December.
    16. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    17. Mohamed Bouhedja & Samir Bouhedja & Aissa Benselhoub, 2024. "Testing the suitability of vector normalization procedure in topsis method: application to wheel loader selection," Technology audit and production reserves, PC TECHNOLOGY CENTER, vol. 2(2(76)), pages 52-62, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:137:y:2002:i:1:p:145-161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.