IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12019-d922706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Markov Chain Approach to Multicriteria Decision Analysis with an Application to Offshore Decommissioning

Author

Listed:
  • Fernanda F. Moraes

    (Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate School and Research in Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-598, Brazil)

  • Virgílio José M. Ferreira Filho

    (Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate School and Research in Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-598, Brazil)

  • Carlos Eduardo Durange de C. Infante

    (Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate School and Research in Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-598, Brazil
    Department of Business and Accounting Sciences, Universidade Federal de São João del Rei, São João del Rei 36307-352, Brazil)

  • Luan Santos

    (Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate School and Research in Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-598, Brazil
    Faculty of Business and Accounting Sciences, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 22290-240, Brazil)

  • Edilson F. Arruda

    (Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate School and Research in Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-598, Brazil
    Department of Decision Analytics and Risk, Southampton Business School, University of Sohtampton, 12 University Rd., Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK)

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel approach that makes use of continuous-time Markov chains and regret functions to find an appropriate compromise in the context of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). This method was an innovation in the relationship between uncertainty and decision parameters, and it allows for a much more robust sensitivity analysis. The proposed approach avoids the drawbacks of arbitrary user-defined and method-specific parameters by defining transition rates that depend only upon the performances of the alternatives. This results in a flexible and easy-to-use tool that is completely transparent, reproducible, and easy to interpret. Furthermore, because it is based on Markov chains, the model allows for a seamless and innovative treatment of uncertainty. We apply the approach to an oil and gas decommissioning problem, which seeks a responsible manner in which to dismantle and deactivate production facilities. The experiments, which make use of published data on the decommissioning of the field of Brent, account for 12 criteria and illustrate the application of the proposed approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernanda F. Moraes & Virgílio José M. Ferreira Filho & Carlos Eduardo Durange de C. Infante & Luan Santos & Edilson F. Arruda, 2022. "A Markov Chain Approach to Multicriteria Decision Analysis with an Application to Offshore Decommissioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12019-:d:922706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12019/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12019/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. L C Dias & J N Clímaco, 2000. "Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(9), pages 1070-1082, September.
    3. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    4. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    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. Xin Wei & Jin Zhou, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Sustainable Oil and Gas Infrastructure Decommissioning: A Systematic Review of Criteria Involved in the Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-21, 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. Wu, Zhangsheng & Li, Yue & Wang, Rong & Xu, Xu & Ren, Dongyang & Huang, Quanzhong & Xiong, Yunwu & Huang, Guanhua, 2023. "Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    2. Ali, Shahid & Taweekun, Juntakan & Techato, Kuaanan & Waewsak, Jompob & Gyawali, Saroj, 2019. "GIS based site suitability assessment for wind and solar farms in Songkhla, Thailand," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1360-1372.
    3. Yasir Ahmed Solangi & Qingmei Tan & Muhammad Waris Ali Khan & Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Ifzal Ahmed, 2018. "The Selection of Wind Power Project Location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A Factor Analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Abbasi, H.N. & Zeeshan, Muhammad, 2023. "An integrated Geographic Information System and Analytical Hierarchy process based approach for site suitability analysis of on-grid hybrid concentrated solar-biomass powerplant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    6. Antonio Nesticò & Piera Somma, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Choe, Changgwon & Cheon, Seunghyun & Gu, Jiwon & Lim, Hankwon, 2022. "Critical aspect of renewable syngas production for power-to-fuel via solid oxide electrolysis: Integrative assessment for potential renewable energy source," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Fabiana Silvero & Fernanda Rodrigues & Sergio Montelpare, 2019. "A Parametric Study and Performance Evaluation of Energy Retrofit Solutions for Buildings Located in the Hot-Humid Climate of Paraguay—Sensitivity Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-27, January.
    9. Ireneusz Laks & Zbigniew Walczak, 2020. "Efficiency of Polder Modernization for Flood Protection. Case Study of Golina Polder (Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-27, September.
    10. Abteen Ijadi Maghsoodi & Arta Ijadi Maghsoodi & Amir Mosavi & Timon Rabczuk & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2018. "Renewable Energy Technology Selection Problem Using Integrated H-SWARA-MULTIMOORA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Solangi, Yasir Ahmed & Longsheng, Cheng & Shah, Syed Ahsan Ali, 2021. "Assessing and overcoming the renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 209-222.
    12. Hubert Hirwa & Qiuying Zhang & Yunfeng Qiao & Yu Peng & Peifang Leng & Chao Tian & Sayidjakhon Khasanov & Fadong Li & Alphonse Kayiranga & Fabien Muhirwa & Auguste Cesar Itangishaka & Gabriel Habiyare, 2021. "Insights on Water and Climate Change in the Greater Horn of Africa: Connecting Virtual Water and Water-Energy-Food-Biodiversity-Health Nexus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    14. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. Campos-Guzmán, Verónica & García-Cáscales, M. Socorro & Espinosa, Nieves & Urbina, Antonio, 2019. "Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 343-366.
    16. Asadi, Meysam & Ramezanzade, Mohsen & Pourhossein, Kazem, 2023. "A global evaluation model applied to wind power plant site selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    17. Amel Ennaceur & Zied Elouedi & Eric Lefevre, 2016. "Belief AHP Method — AHP Method with the Belief Function Framework," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 553-573, May.
    18. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    19. Busola D. Akintayo & Oluwafemi E. Ige & Olubayo M. Babatunde & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju, 2023. "Evaluation and Prioritization of Power-Generating Systems Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    20. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.

    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:19:p:12019-:d:922706. 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.