IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i7p2435-d157568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Extended Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test and Set Pair Analysis for Sustainable Development Evaluation from the View of Uncertainty Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Wenfei Luan

    (Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing of Gansu Province, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
    University of Chinese Academy Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Ling Lu

    (Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing of Gansu Province, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Inland River Basin Eco Hydrology, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xin Li

    (Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Chunfeng Ma

    (Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing of Gansu Province, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China)

Abstract

It is of importance but great difficulty to objectively and quantitatively evaluate the sustainable development level, especially in the weight determination process and uncertainty evaluation. The traditional weight determination methods hardly reflect the coupling effect (interaction) among the indices. More importantly, conventional evaluation methods seldom consider the uncertainties of the indices in the index system. Thus, it is indispensable to apply a more comprehensive approach to solve these defects. This paper presents a new method to evaluate the sustainable development level. The approach integrates the advantages of the Extended Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (EFAST) and Set Pair Analysis (SPA) (called EFAST-SPA). The EFAST algorithm is used to determine the indices’ weight, and the SPA is employed to handle the uncertain relations in the evaluation system and to calculate the sustainable development level. A quantitative evaluation on the agricultural sustainable development in the middle reaches of Heihe river has been conducted using the EFAST-SPA method. The results have been compared with the traditional entropy method and it was concluded that EFAST-SPA and entropy are highly in line with the actual development status. In most cases, the EFAST-SPA method can describe the development levels more accurately, which reflects a higher reliability and application value of this proposed approach. Moreover, the presented method deepens the understanding of sustainable development evaluation from the view of uncertainty analysis inside the evaluation system.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenfei Luan & Ling Lu & Xin Li & Chunfeng Ma, 2018. "Integrating Extended Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test and Set Pair Analysis for Sustainable Development Evaluation from the View of Uncertainty Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2435-:d:157568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2435/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2435/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandra Camus & Lubica Hikkerova & Jean-Michel Sahut, 2012. "Systemic Analysis and Model of Sustainable Tourism," Post-Print hal-01706816, HAL.
    2. Giuseppe Munda, 2016. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1235-1267, Springer.
    3. Huppes, Gjalt & Ishikawa, Masanobu, 2007. "Sustainability evaluation: Diverging routes recombined?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 199-200, April.
    4. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    5. Sala, Serenella & Ciuffo, Biagio & Nijkamp, Peter, 2015. "A systemic framework for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 314-325.
    6. Sandra Camus & Lubica Hikkerova & Jean-Michel Sahut, 2014. "Systemic Analysis and Model of Sustainable Tourism," Working Papers 2014-193, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    7. Scrieciu, S. Serban, 2007. "The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Bohringer and Loschel (2006)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 678-684, February.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, July-Dece.
    9. Brandenburg, Marcus & Govindan, Kannan & Sarkis, Joseph & Seuring, Stefan, 2014. "Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 299-312.
    10. Daniel-Petru, GHENCEA & Mihaela, ASANDEI & Miron, ZAPCIU, 2016. "Analysis Of Sustainable Development Using Fuzzy Logic Prediction Models And Artifical Neural Networks," Management Strategies Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 31(1), pages 204-218.
    11. Wenfei Luan & Ling Lu & Xin Li & Chunfeng Ma, 2017. "Weight Determination of Sustainable Development Indicators Using a Global Sensitivity Analysis Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "How to Make a Decision," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1-21, Springer.
    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. Ruxue Shi & Pingtao Yi & Weiwei Li & Lu Wang, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Autonomous Regions in China Using GRA-SPA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, October.

    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. Muhammad Riaz & Wojciech Sałabun & Hafiz Muhammad Athar Farid & Nawazish Ali & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2020. "A Robust q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Information Aggregation Using Einstein Operations with Application to Sustainable Energy Planning Decision Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-39, May.
    2. Jyoti Dhingra Darbari & Devika Kannan & Vernika Agarwal & P. C. Jha, 2019. "Fuzzy criteria programming approach for optimising the TBL performance of closed loop supply chain network design problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 273(1), pages 693-738, February.
    3. Tek B. Dangi & Tazim Jamal, 2016. "An Integrated Approach to “Sustainable Community-Based Tourism”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-32, May.
    4. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    5. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Dinesh Seth & Minhaj Ahemad A. Rehman, 2022. "Critical success factors‐based strategy to facilitate green manufacturing for responsible business: An application experience in Indian context," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 2786-2806, November.
    7. El Hadj Matar Gueye & Adel Badri & Bryan Boudreau-Trudel, 2021. "Multi-criteria evaluation of the socioeconomic impact of mining in Canada from a sustainable development perspective: a theoretical model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7808-7834, May.
    8. Sieber, Stefan & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Reidsma, Pytrik & Koenig, Hannes & Piorr, Annette & Bezlepkina, Irina & Mueller, Klaus, 2018. "Sustainability impact assessment tools for land use policy advice: A comparative analysis of five research approaches," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 75-85.
    9. Ruxing Gao & Hyo On Nam & Won Il Ko & Hong Jang, 2017. "National Options for a Sustainable Nuclear Energy System: MCDM Evaluation Using an Improved Integrated Weighting Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Naim Hamdia Afgan, 2010. "Sustainability Paradigm: Intelligent Energy System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(12), pages 1-19, December.
    11. García-Bustamante Carlos Alberto & Aguilar-Rivera Noé & Zepeda-Pirrón Manuel & Armendáriz-Arnez Cynthia, 2018. "Development of indicators for the sustainability of the sugar industry," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 6(4), pages 22-38, December.
    12. Dangol, Ramesh & Bahl, Mona & Karpak, Birsen, 2015. "Timing cooperative relationships with sequential capability development process to reduce capability development trade-offs," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 179-189.
    13. Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    14. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    15. Riley, David & Schaafsma, Marije & Marin-Moreno, Héctor & Minshull, Tim A., 2020. "A social, environmental and economic evaluation protocol for potential gas hydrate exploitation projects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    16. Sebastian Fredershausen & Henrik Lechte & Mathias Willnat & Tobias Witt & Christine Harnischmacher & Tim-Benjamin Lembcke & Matthias Klumpp & Lutz Kolbe, 2021. "Towards an Understanding of Hydrogen Supply Chains: A Structured Literature Review Regarding Sustainability Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Jih-Jeng Huang & Masahiro Inuiguchi, 2015. "Diminishing Utility Decision Model for Weighting Criteria," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1263-1284, November.
    18. Akbari, Negar & Irawan, Chandra A. & Jones, Dylan F. & Menachof, David, 2017. "A multi-criteria port suitability assessment for developments in the offshore wind industry," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(PA), pages 118-133.
    19. José M. Cabello & Enrique Navarro-Jurado & Beatriz Rodríguez & Daniela Thiel-Ellul & Francisco Ruiz, 2019. "Dual weak–strong sustainability synthetic indicators using a double reference point scheme: the case of Andalucía, Spain," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 757-782, September.
    20. Lüth, Alexandra & Keles, Dogan, 2024. "Risks, strategies, and benefits of offshore energy hubs: A literature-based survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2435-:d:157568. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.