IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v96y2024ics0038012124002829.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine learning embedded hybrid MCDM model to mitigate decision uncertainty in transport safety planning for OAS countries

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Weijie
  • Feng, Hanrui
  • Guo, Zeyu
  • Jia, Huating
  • Li, Yue
  • Luo, Xinyue
  • Ran, Siwei
  • Zhang, Hanming
  • Zhou, Ziyu
  • Yuan, Jiakai
  • Liu, Jiaxin
  • Sun, Shijie
  • Chen, Faan

Abstract

Providing defensible decisions is a prerequisite for methodologies of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) activities, and this is especially true for socio-economic analysis in public sector. This study proposes an all-in-one MCDM model with machine learning algorithms. The model integrates the method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC), combined compromise solution (CoCoSo), and density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN), i.e., MEREC–CoCoSo–DBSCAN. In particular, the uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) is implanted in DBSCAN to reduce the data dimensionality, and the k-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm is embedded to determine the inflection points (ɛ) and minPts in the data. This counters the inherent model failure of DBSCAN in dealing with high-dimensional data and eliminates the requirement for manual intervention in the model procedure, thereby fully avoiding potential human error and automating the computing process. A case study on benchmarking transport safety systems for member countries of the Organization of American States (OAS) demonstrates the reliability, adaptability, and efficiency of the proposed model. It moreover reflects its feasibility in resolving real-life socio-economic issues by offering valuable insights and potential solutions in economic investment and funding allocation in regard to transport safety strategy. Overall, this study provides government officials, managers, and policymakers with a valuable tool for handling MCDM activities in socio-economic development with considerable practicality and credibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Weijie & Feng, Hanrui & Guo, Zeyu & Jia, Huating & Li, Yue & Luo, Xinyue & Ran, Siwei & Zhang, Hanming & Zhou, Ziyu & Yuan, Jiakai & Liu, Jiaxin & Sun, Shijie & Chen, Faan, 2024. "Machine learning embedded hybrid MCDM model to mitigate decision uncertainty in transport safety planning for OAS countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:96:y:2024:i:c:s0038012124002829
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2024.102082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012124002829
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102082?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Stevan Djenadic & Milos Tanasijevic & Predrag Jovancic & Dragan Ignjatovic & Dejan Petrovic & Ugljesa Bugaric, 2022. "Risk Evaluation: Brief Review and Innovation Model Based on Fuzzy Logic and MCDM," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    3. Stanton, Muriel C. Bonjean & Roelich, Katy, 2021. "Decision making under deep uncertainties: A review of the applicability of methods in practice," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Pamucar, Dragan & Ecer, Fatih & Chatterjee, Prasenjit, 2021. "An integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo framework for evaluation of healthcare sectors in Eastern Europe," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Chen, Faan & Zhu, Yilin & Zu, Jiacheng & Lyu, Jingyang & Yang, Junfeng, 2022. "Appraising road safety attainment by CRITIC-ELECTRE-FCM: A policymaking support for Southeast Asia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 104-118.
    6. Ganji, S.S. & Dehghani, Alireza & Ajirlu, Shahrouz Fathi, 2024. "Evaluation of intercity road passenger transportation using a novel double-frontier game-regret-cross-efficiency," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    7. Zhang, Jingshun & Hu, Jiayi & Wang, Xitong & Fang, Lien & Jin, Yi & Li, Muyang & Liu, Yangqing & Wu, Anna & Wang, Libin & Liu, Ruining & Zhang, Yi & Chen, Faan, 2023. "Quantifying transport safety success at the regional level: A guide to policy and practice on investment for G20," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Homaei, Shabnam & Hamdy, Mohamed, 2020. "A robustness-based decision making approach for multi-target high performance buildings under uncertain scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    9. Morteza Yazdani & Pascale Zaraté & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2019. "A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems," Post-Print hal-02879091, HAL.
    10. Kara, Karahan & Yalçın, Galip Cihan & Acar, Avni Zafer & Simic, Vladimir & Konya, Serkan & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "The MEREC-AROMAN method for determining sustainable competitiveness levels: A case study for Turkey," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    12. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Dinesh Kumar Tripathi & Fausto Cavallaro & Pratibha Rani & Santosh K. Nigam & Abbas Mardani, 2022. "Assessment of Battery Energy Storage Systems Using the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Removal Effects of Criteria and the Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking Based on Compromise Solution Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-23, October.
    13. Rukiye Kaya & Said Salhi & Virginia Spiegler, 2023. "A novel integration of MCDM methods and Bayesian networks: the case of incomplete expert knowledge," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 320(1), pages 205-234, January.
    14. Bouraima, Mouhamed Bayane & Qiu, Yanjun & Stević, Željko & Simić, Vladimir, 2023. "Assessment of alternative railway systems for sustainable transportation using an integrated IRN SWARA and IRN CoCoSo model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    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. Işık, Özcan & Shabir, Mohsin & Moslem, Sarbast, 2024. "A hybrid MCDM framework for assessing urban competitiveness: A case study of European cities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    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. Miguel Ortíz-Barrios & Natalia Jaramillo-Rueda & Muhammet Gul & Melih Yucesan & Genett Jiménez-Delgado & Juan-José Alfaro-Saíz, 2023. "A Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Approach for Assessing the Emergency Department Performance during the COVID-19 Outbreak," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-39, March.
    2. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    3. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    4. Zeynep Gamze Mert & Gülşen Akman, 2011. "The Profile of the Organized Industrial Zones in Kocaeli/TURKEY," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1137, European Regional Science Association.
    5. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Reprint of “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 334-347.
    6. Saja Kosanović & Mirjana Miletić & Ljubo Marković, 2021. "Energy Refurbishment of Family Houses in Serbia in Line with the Principles of Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Hsu, C.-H. & Wang, Fu-Kwun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2012. "The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 95-111.
    8. Junling Zhang & Gajanan G. Hegde & Jennifer Shang & Xiaowen Qi, 2016. "Evaluating Emergency Response Solutions for Sustainable Community Development by Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approaches: IVDHF-TOPSIS and IVDHF-VIKOR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, March.
    9. Arash Malekian & Ali Azarnivand, 2016. "Application of Integrated Shannon’s Entropy and VIKOR Techniques in Prioritization of Flood Risk in the Shemshak Watershed, Iran," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(1), pages 409-425, January.
    10. Lei Xiong & Cheng-Lein Teng & Bo-Wei Zhu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Shan-Lin Huang, 2017. "Using the D-DANP-mV Model to Explore the Continuous System Improvement Strategy for Sustainable Development of Creative Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-37, October.
    11. Jameel, Toqeer & Riaz, Muhammad & Aslam, Muhammad & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "Sustainable renewable energy systems with entropy based step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis and combined compromise solution," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    12. Julian Canto-Perello & Maria P. Martinez-Garcia & Jorge Curiel-Esparza & Manuel Martin-Utrillas, 2015. "Implementing Sustainability Criteria for Selecting a Roof Assembly Typology in Medium Span Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 125-138.
    14. Jifei Zhang & Shuai Zhang, 2022. "Assessing Integrated Effectiveness of Rural Socio-Economic Development and Environmental Protection of Wenchuan County in Southwestern China: An Approach Using Game Theory and VIKOR," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Jau-Yang Liu, 2018. "An Internal Control System that Includes Corporate Social Responsibility for Social Sustainability in the New Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Juin-Hao Ho & Gwo-Guang Lee & Ming-Tsang Lu, 2020. "Exploring the Implementation of a Legal AI Bot for Sustainable Development in Legal Advisory Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    18. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    19. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    20. Hossein Sayyadi Tooranloo & Arezoo Sadat Ayatollah, 2024. "Neutrosophic VIKOR approach for multi-attribute group decision-making," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 34(2), pages 121-134.

    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:soceps:v:96:y:2024:i:c:s0038012124002829. 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/seps .

    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.