IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v33y2005i3p223-234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach

Author

Listed:
  • Chiou, Hua-Kai
  • Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung
  • Cheng, Ding-Chou

Abstract

In actual environmental investment for industry, the stakeholders are often required to evaluate the investment strategies according to their own subjective preferences in terms of numerical values from various criteria, such as economic effectiveness, technique feasibility and environmental regulation. Thus, this situation can be regarded as a fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem, so the fuzziness and uncertainty of subjective perception should be considered. This paper proposes an alternative approach, the non-additive fuzzy integral, to cope with evaluation of fuzzy MCDM problems particularly while there is dependence among considered criteria. To illustrate the proposed procedure, the sustainable development strategy for aquatic product processors in Taiwan is investigated. In this paper we employ triangular fuzzy numbers to represent the decision makers' subjective preferences on the considered criteria, as well as for the criteria measurements to evaluate a sustainable development planning case for industry. Firstly, in this study we employ factor analysis to extract four independent common factors from those criteria. Secondly, we construct the evaluation frame using AHP composed of the above four common factors with twelve evaluated criteria, and then derive the relative weights with respect to considered criteria. Thirdly, the synthetic utility value corresponding to each sustainable development strategy is aggregated by the fuzzy weights with fuzzy performance values, and the best investment strategies can then be decided. Through this study, we successfully demonstrate that the non-additive fuzzy integral is an effective evaluation and appears to be more appropriate than the traditional simple additive weighted method, especially when the criteria are dependent.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiou, Hua-Kai & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Cheng, Ding-Chou, 2005. "Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 223-234, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:33:y:2005:i:3:p:223-234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(04)00067-2
    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. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Henry Kaiser, 1958. "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 23(3), pages 187-200, September.
    3. Salminen, Pekka & Hokkanen, Joonas & Lahdelma, Risto, 1998. "Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 485-496, February.
    4. Grassin, Nathalie, 1986. "Constructing `population' criteria for the comparison of different options for a high voltage line route," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 42-57, July.
    5. Roy, B. & Bouyssou, D., 1986. "Comparison of two decision-aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 200-215, May.
    6. Barda, O. Haluk & Dupuis, Joseph & Lencioni, Pierre, 1990. "Multicriteria location of thermal power plants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 332-346, April.
    7. Siskos, J. & Hubert, Ph., 1983. "Multi-criteria analysis of the impacts of energy alternatives: A survey and a new comparative approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 278-299, July.
    8. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2003. "Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 117-127, May.
    9. Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1997. "Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 19-36, April.
    10. Muhittin Oral & Ossama Kettani & Pascal Lang, 1991. "A Methodology for Collective Evaluation and Selection of Industrial R&D Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 871-885, July.
    11. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Keiding, Hans, 1996. "Representation of preferences on fuzzy measures by a fuzzy integral," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-17, February.
    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. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    2. Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1997. "Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 19-36, April.
    3. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    4. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    5. Cavallaro, Fausto, 2009. "Multi-criteria decision aid to assess concentrated solar thermal technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1678-1685.
    6. Cavallaro, Fausto & Ciraolo, Luigi, 2005. "A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 235-244, January.
    7. Alessio Ishizaka & Philippe Nemery, 2013. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 773-799, July.
    8. Huang, Chi-Cheng & Chu, Pin-Yu & Chiang, Yu-Hsiu, 2008. "A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    9. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    10. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    11. Salminen, Pekka & Hokkanen, Joonas & Lahdelma, Risto, 1998. "Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 485-496, February.
    12. Abdellah Menou & Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2022. "Multicriteria Decision Aiding for Planning Renewable Power Production at Moroccan Airports," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    14. Leyva-Lopez, Juan Carlos & Fernandez-Gonzalez, Eduardo, 2003. "A new method for group decision support based on ELECTRE III methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 14-27, July.
    15. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    16. Daeryong Park & Yeonjoo Kim & Myoung-Jin Um & Sung-Uk Choi, 2015. "Robust Priority for Strategic Environmental Assessment with Incomplete Information Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Shmelev, S.E. & Powell, J.R., 2006. "Ecological-economic modelling for strategic regional waste management systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 115-130, August.
    18. Sarkis, Joseph, 2000. "A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision tool," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 543-557, June.
    19. Cavallaro, Fausto, 2010. "A comparative assessment of thin-film photovoltaic production processes using the ELECTRE III method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 463-474, January.
    20. Haralambopoulos, D.A. & Polatidis, H., 2003. "Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 961-973.

    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:jomega:v:33:y:2005:i:3:p:223-234. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.