IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jsd123/v9y2016i5p70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Assessing Sustainable Development among Underprivileged Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Lazim Abdullah
  • Jin Yong Pang

Abstract

One of the purposes of sustainable development assessment is to identify the most importance criteria and sub-criteria of sustainable development that have the most significant contribution to the local community. To date, few studies have inquired into qualitative methods to assess these criteria and sub-criteria. In response to this gap in the literature, we propose an application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method to prioritize thirteen sub-criteria of sustainable development among underprivileged community of Setiu Wetlands Terengganu. Consistency ratio and weighted geometric mean are the two important computation steps of the AHP prior to proposing global weights of sub-criteria. The computational results indicate that ‘Education’ is the most important sub-criteria with 15.4 % of global weight. At the other extreme ‘global economic partnership’ is the least important sub-criteria for this group of community. The outcome of the proposed method is a weight of sustainability for all sub-criteria which offers a guide to government in identifying the appropriate action for uplifting the community quality of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Lazim Abdullah & Jin Yong Pang, 2016. "Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Assessing Sustainable Development among Underprivileged Communities," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(5), pages 1-70, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jsd123:v:9:y:2016:i:5:p:70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/download/61356/34059
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/61356
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    2. Abba, Ahmad Halilu & Noor, Zainura Zainon & Yusuf, Rafiu O. & Din, Mohd Fadhil M.D. & Hassan, Mohd Ariffin Abu, 2013. "Assessing environmental impacts of municipal solid waste of Johor by analytical hierarchy process," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 188-196.
    3. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Rakesh Verma & Saroj Koul & Sushanth S. Pai, 2016. "Identifying profitable clientele using the analytical hierarchy process," International Journal of Business and Systems Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(2/3/4), pages 220-237.
    6. Øyvind Ihlen & Juliet Roper, 2014. "Corporate Reports on Sustainability and Sustainable Development: ‘We Have Arrived’," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 42-51, January.
    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. Andi Arief & Ananto Yudono & Arifuddin Akil & Isran Ramli & Amran Rahim, 2017. "Determination Model of Suitable Coastal Transit-Oriented Development Location, Case Study: Paotere, Makassar," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(4), pages 1-31, July.

    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. Jerónimo Aznar & Francisco Guijarro & José Moreno-Jiménez, 2011. "Mixed valuation methods: a combined AHP-GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural valuation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 221-238, October.
    2. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    3. Changsheng Lin & Gang Kou & Yi Peng & Fawaz E. Alsaadi, 2022. "Aggregation of the nearest consistency matrices with the acceptable consensus in AHP-GDM," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 179-195, September.
    4. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio & Salinas Andújar, Jose A., 2012. "Logistics network and externalities for short sea transport: An analysis of horticultural exports from southeast Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 188-198.
    6. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    7. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.
    8. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    9. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    10. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    11. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. B S Ahn & S H Choi, 2008. "ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean homeshopping company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 322-330, March.
    13. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    14. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    15. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    16. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    17. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2019. "AHP-Group Decision Making Based on Consistency," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Brunnhofer, Magdalena & Gabriella, Natasha & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Stern, Tobias & Posch, Alfred, 2020. "The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    20. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:jsd123:v:9:y:2016:i:5:p:70. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.