IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v207y2010i3p1545-1553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analytic hierarchy based policy design method (AHPo) for solving societal problems that require a multifaceted approach

Author

Listed:
  • Nakagawa, Yoshinori
  • Nasu, Seigo
  • Saito, Taiki
  • Yamaguchi, Nobuyoshi

Abstract

This paper proposes an AHP based statistical method for the design of a comprehensive policy alternative, AHPo, for solving societal problems that require a multifaceted approach. In the proposed method, criteria relevant to the goal or focus are structured in the same way as in the conventional AHP. However, these two methods are quite different in regard to the method of quantification. The new method predicts or analyses the impact of the policy alternatives on the overall goal. In other words, it predicts or rationalizes the way people appreciate the situation in which an alternative is adopted and implemented. It will serve as a tool for supporting (especially political) decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Nakagawa, Yoshinori & Nasu, Seigo & Saito, Taiki & Yamaguchi, Nobuyoshi, 2010. "Analytic hierarchy based policy design method (AHPo) for solving societal problems that require a multifaceted approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1545-1553, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:207:y:2010:i:3:p:1545-1553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(10)00501-1
    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. Korpela, Jukka & Tuominen, Markku, 1996. "A decision aid in warehouse site selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1-3), pages 169-180, August.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    3. Tummala, V. M. Rao & Chin, K. S. & Ho, S. H., 1997. "Assessing success factors for implementing CE a case study in Hong Kong electronics industry by AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 265-283, May.
    4. Chen, Yen-Liang & Cheng, Li-Chen, 2009. "Mining maximum consensus sequences from group ranking data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(1), pages 241-251, October.
    5. Azis, Iwan J., 1990. "Analytic Hierarchy Process in the benefit-cost framework: A post-evaluation of the Trans-Sumatra highway project," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 38-48, September.
    6. Hauser, David & Tadikamalla, Pandu, 1996. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process in an uncertain environment: A simulation approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 27-37, May.
    7. Millet, Ido & Saaty, Thomas L., 2000. "On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 205-212, February.
    8. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    9. Chen, Hongyi & Kocaoglu, Dundar F., 2008. "A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 266-288, February.
    10. Easley, Robert F. & Valacich, Joseph S. & Venkataramanan, M. A., 2000. "Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 73-83, August.
    11. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    12. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    13. Butler, John & Jia, Jianmin & Dyer, James, 1997. "Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 531-546, December.
    14. Ferrari, Paolo, 2003. "A method for choosing from among alternative transportation projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(1), pages 194-203, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    2. Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    3. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Felipe Romero-Perdomo & Miguel Ángel González-Curbelo, 2023. "Integrating Multi-Criteria Techniques in Life-Cycle Tools for the Circular Bioeconomy Transition of Agri-Food Waste Biomass: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Mehmet Yüksel, 2019. "A Model Proposal for the Evaluation of Chemistry Education in the Context of Learning Environment," Asian Journal of Education and Training, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 488-494.
    6. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    7. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    8. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    9. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    10. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    11. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    12. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    13. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    14. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    15. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    16. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    17. Hongxun Xiang & Xia Heng & Boleng Zhai & Lichen Yang, 2024. "Digital and Culture: Towards More Resilient Urban Community Governance," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Ashraf Abdelkarim & Mohamed Hssan Hassan Abdelhafez & Khaled Elkhayat & Mohammad Alshenaifi & Sultan Alfraidi & Ali Aldersoni & Ghazy Albaqawy & Amer Aldamaty & Ayman Ragab, 2024. "Spatial Suitability Index for Sustainable Urban Development in Desert Hinterland Using a Geographical-Information-System-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-37, July.
    19. Oryani, Bahareh & Koo, Yoonmo & Rezania, Shahabaldin & Shafiee, Afsaneh, 2021. "Barriers to renewable energy technologies penetration: Perspective in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 971-983.
    20. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.

    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:207:y:2010:i:3:p:1545-1553. 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.