IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11220-d654003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Katerina Kabassi

    (Department of Environment, Ionian University, 29100 Zakynthos, Greece)

Abstract

Educators in the field of Environmental Education often have difficulty identifying and selecting programs that have the potential to best maximize needed resources to implement and achieve desired outcomes. This difficulty is, in part, due to their lack of expertise in evaluation knowledge and practice. The use of multi-criteria decision-making models in evaluating environmental education programs is new and, as a result, not many models have been used and tested in the specific domain. Comparisons of multi-criteria decision-making models have been implemented in various domains but not for environmental education programs’ evaluation. Therefore, we investigate the comparative performance of the SAW, WPM, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE II models in evaluating and selecting the most appropriate environmental education program. The main objective of this paper is on presenting the different steps of the comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making models and on making conclusions on the suitability and robustness of the SAW, WPM, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE II models in evaluating environmental education programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11220-:d:654003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11220/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11220/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard Roy & Roman Slowinski, 2013. "Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method," Post-Print hal-00874292, HAL.
    2. Nastaran Chitsaz & Mohammad Banihabib, 2015. "Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models in Prioritizing Flood Management Alternatives," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2503-2525, June.
    3. Carleton-Hug, Annelise & Hug, J. William, 2010. "Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 159-164, May.
    4. Lisa Scholten & Max Maurer & Judit Lienert, 2017. "Comparing multi-criteria decision analysis and integrated assessment to support long-term water supply planning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-30, May.
    5. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Letter to the Editor—Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 537-542, June.
    6. Banaitiene, Nerija & Banaitis, Audrius & Kaklauskas, Arturas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, 2008. "Evaluating the life cycle of a building: A multivariant and multiple criteria approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 429-441, June.
    7. Monroe, Martha C., 2010. "Challenges for environmental education evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 194-196, May.
    8. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    9. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    10. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    11. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    12. Romero-Gutierrez, Miguel & Jimenez-Liso, M. Rut & Martinez-Chico, Maria, 2016. "SWOT analysis to evaluate the programme of a joint online/onsite master's degree in environmental education through the students’ perceptions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 41-49.
    13. Yu-Long Chao, 2020. "A Performance Evaluation of Environmental Education Regional Centers: Positioning of Roles and Reflections on Expertise Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-27, March.
    14. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    15. Zint, Michaela, 2010. "An introduction to My Environmental Education Evaluation Resource Assistant (MEERA), a web-based resource for self-directed learning about environmental education program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 178-179, May.
    16. Samira Vakilipour & Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki & Mostafa Ghodousi & Soo-Mi Choi, 2021. "Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-36, April.
    17. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00874292 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Reda M. S. Abdulaal & Anas A. Makki & Isam Y. Al-Filali, 2023. "A Novel Hybrid Approach for Prioritizing Investment Initiatives to Achieve Financial Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions Using MEREC-G and RATMI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-18, 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. Katerina Kabassi & Anastasia Papadaki & Athanasios Botonis, 2023. "Adapting Recommendations on Environmental Education Programs," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    5. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    6. Crohn, Kara & Birnbaum, Matthew, 2010. "Environmental education evaluation: Time to reflect, time for change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 155-158, May.
    7. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    8. Pinto, F.S. & Costa, A.S. & Figueira, J.R. & Marques, R.C., 2017. "The quality of service: An overall performance assessment for water utilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 115-125.
    9. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    10. Alireza Valipour & Hadi Sarvari & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2018. "Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Arsalan Ahmed Othman & Ahmed K. Obaid & Diary Ali Mohammed Al-Manmi & Mohammad Pirouei & Sarkawt Ghazi Salar & Veraldo Liesenberg & Ahmed F. Al-Maamar & Ahmed T. Shihab & Younus I. Al-Saady & Zaid T. , 2021. "Insights for Landfill Site Selection Using GIS: A Case Study in the Tanjero River Basin, Kurdistan Region, Iraq," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-29, November.
    12. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro, 2021. "A novel version of the TODIM method based on the exponential model of prospect theory: The ExpTODIM method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 1042-1055.
    14. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    15. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Fatima‐Zohra Younsi & Salem Chakhar & Alessio Ishizaka & Djamila Hamdadou & Omar Boussaid, 2020. "A Dominance‐Based Rough Set Approach for an Enhanced Assessment of Seasonal Influenza Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1323-1341, July.
    18. Janis Edmunds Daugavietis & Raimonda Soloha & Elina Dace & Jelena Ziemele, 2022. "A Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods for Sustainability Assessment of District Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Vijay P. Singh & Ercan Kahya & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Shailesh Kumar Sharma, 2020. "The Feasibility of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Prioritization of Sensitive Area at Risk of Water Erosion," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(15), pages 4665-4685, December.

    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:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11220-:d:654003. 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.