IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10831-d902145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personalized Route Recommendation Using F-AHP-Express

Author

Listed:
  • Surya Michrandi Nasution

    (School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
    School of Electrical Engineering, Telkom University, Jl. Telekomunikasi, Bandung 40257, Indonesia)

  • Emir Husni

    (School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Kuspriyanto Kuspriyanto

    (School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Rahadian Yusuf

    (School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

Abstract

The route recommendation system helps the driver find the best route between origin and destination. A recommendation system often suggests its decision without considering some criteria. This paper proposes a multicriteria decision-making method, namely Fuzzy—Analytic Hierarchy Process—Express (F-AHP-Express) for recommending a personal travel route from several alternative routes. It is calculated based on the driving preferences of a driver and road conditions for each road segment. We compare the F-AHP-Express to others; Fuzzy—Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) and Fuzzy—Analytic Hierarchy Process—Technique for Others Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (F-AHP-TOPSIS), for its recommendation results, time processing, agility, and complexity. Our experiments show that F-AHP-Express could deliver similar recommendation results compared to other methods, and it is additionally the fastest method. F-AHP-Express is 45% and 23% faster than F-AHP and F-AHP-TOPSIS, respectively. F-AHP-Express not only has the fastest time processing among the others but also has the least judgments in agility testing. It needs 37.5% and 16.67% fewer judgments from F-AHP and F-AHP-TOPSIS, respectively. Moreover, AHP-Express has a complexity of O (n) , meanwhile, the others have O (n 2 ) for their complexity. Thus, the results show that F-AHP-Express is the best method for recommending a personal route.

Suggested Citation

  • Surya Michrandi Nasution & Emir Husni & Kuspriyanto Kuspriyanto & Rahadian Yusuf, 2022. "Personalized Route Recommendation Using F-AHP-Express," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-28, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10831-:d:902145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10831/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10831/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    2. Özcan, Evren Can & Ünlüsoy, Sultan & Eren, Tamer, 2017. "A combined goal programming – AHP approach supported with TOPSIS for maintenance strategy selection in hydroelectric power plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1410-1423.
    3. Surya Michrandi Nasution & Emir Husni & Kuspriyanto Kuspriyanto & Rahadian Yusuf & Bernardo Nugroho Yahya, 2021. "Contextual Route Recommendation System in Heterogeneous Traffic Flow," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Chien-Chang Chou & Ker-Wei Yu, 2013. "Application of a New Hybrid Fuzzy AHP Model to the Location Choice," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-12, June.
    5. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    6. Sara Paiva & Xabiel García Pañeda & Victor Corcoba & Roberto García & Próspero Morán & Laura Pozueco & Marina Valdés & Covadonga del Camino, 2021. "User Preferences in the Design of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-25, April.
    7. Hamid R. Sayarshad & Vahid Mahmoodian & Nebojša Bojović, 2021. "Dynamic Inventory Routing and Pricing Problem with a Mixed Fleet of Electric and Conventional Urban Freight Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    8. He, Chao & Zhang, Quanguo & Ren, Jingzheng & Li, Zhaoling, 2017. "Combined cooling heating and power systems: Sustainability assessment under uncertainties," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 755-766.
    9. Rajak, Manindra & Shaw, Krishnendu, 2019. "Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(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. Wanvipa Wongvilaisakul & Paniti Netinant & Meennapa Rukhiran, 2023. "Dynamic Multi-Criteria Decision Making of Graduate Admission Recommender System: AHP and Fuzzy AHP Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-32, June.

    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. Pätäri, Eero & Karell, Ville & Luukka, Pasi & Yeomans, Julian S, 2018. "Comparison of the multicriteria decision-making methods for equity portfolio selection: The U.S. evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 655-672.
    2. Surya Michrandi Nasution & Emir Husni & Kuspriyanto Kuspriyanto & Rahadian Yusuf & Bernardo Nugroho Yahya, 2021. "Contextual Route Recommendation System in Heterogeneous Traffic Flow," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Indre Siksnelyte & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene & Deepak Sharma, 2018. "An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Dealing with Sustainable Energy Development Issues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Irawan, Chandra Ade & Jones, Dylan & Hofman, Peter S. & Zhang, Lina, 2023. "Integrated strategic energy mix and energy generation planning with multiple sustainability criteria and hierarchical stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(2), pages 864-883.
    6. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    7. Kuang-Hua Hu & Wei Jianguo & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Risk Factor Assessment Improvement for China’s Cloud Computing Auditing Using a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 737-777, May.
    8. Zhang, Sheng & Lin, Zhang & Ai, Zhengtao & Huan, Chao & Cheng, Yong & Wang, Fenghao, 2019. "Multi-criteria performance optimization for operation of stratum ventilation under heating mode," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 969-980.
    9. Ernesto Tarantino & Ivanoe De Falco & Umberto Scafuri, 2019. "A mobile personalized tourist guide and its user evaluation," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 413-455, September.
    10. Eleonora Bottani & Piera Centobelli & Teresa Murino & Ehsan Shekarian, 2018. "A QFD-ANP Method for Supplier Selection with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks Considerations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 911-939, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Xunjie Gou & Zeshui Xu & Huchang Liao, 2019. "Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Possibility Degree-Based Linear Assignment Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 35-63, January.
    13. Meng, Fanyong & Xiong, Beibei, 2021. "Logical efficiency decomposition for general two-stage systems in view of cross efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(2), pages 622-632.
    14. Sharma, Mahak & Sehrawat, Rajat, 2020. "A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method for cloud adoption: Evidence from the healthcare sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    15. Xiaodong Yuan & Weiling Song, 2022. "Evaluating technology innovation capabilities of companies based on entropy- TOPSIS: the case of solar cell companies," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 65-76, June.
    16. Viral Gupta & P. K. Kapur & Deepak Kumar, 2019. "Prioritizing and Optimizing Disaster Recovery Solution using Analytic Network Process and Multi Attribute Utility Theory," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 171-207, January.
    17. Meimei Xia & Jian Chen & Juliang Zhang, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision making based on relative measures," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 791-811, June.
    18. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.
    19. Enrique Mu & Howard Stern, 2018. "A Contingent/Assimilation Framework for Public Interorganizational Systems Decisions: Should the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County Consolidate Information Technology Services?," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(06), pages 1611-1658, November.
    20. Gia Sirbiladze & Otar Badagadze, 2017. "Intuitionistic Fuzzy Probabilistic Aggregation Operators Based on the Choquet Integral: Application in Multicriteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 245-279, January.

    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:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10831-:d:902145. 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.