IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ijs/journl/v0y2024i40p46-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

TOPSIS Method Approach in Ranking Coffee Bean Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Fatih Boyar

    (Altınbaş Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Abstract

Coffee is the second-most traded commodity after oil. Quantifying the quality of coffee is a critical topic of research. Many aspects such as the taste of coffee, bean defects, production conditions, and sustainability conditions are considered for rating the quality. In this study, the best alternative method for quality standards accepted by Coffee Quality Institute (CQI) was discussed. The web scraping method and the Python 3.10.5 program was used to obtain the data in the CQI database. Aroma, taste profile, aftertaste, acidity, body, taste balance, stability, cleanliness, sweetness qualities were believed to positively affect quality. First-category defect, second-category defect, and its light color after roasting were considered to negatively affect coffee quality. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was used to select the best among the alternatives. In the weighting step, both the entropy method and equal weighting were used, and their positive and negative aspects were explained and discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Fatih Boyar, 2024. "TOPSIS Method Approach in Ranking Coffee Bean Quality," Istanbul Journal of Economics-Istanbul Iktisat Dergisi, Istanbul Journal of Economics-Istanbul Iktisat Dergisi, vol. 0(40), pages 46-62, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ijs:journl:v:0:y:2024:i:40:p:46-62
    DOI: 10.26650/ekoist.2024.40.1344234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/0646A2ADB43B4993B561B644475C6545
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://iupress.istanbul.edu.tr/tr/journal/ekoist/article/kahve-cekirdegi-kalitesi-siralamasinda-topsis-yontemi-yaklasimi
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26650/ekoist.2024.40.1344234?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Santosh Kumar Yadav & Dennis Joseph & Nasina Jigeesh, 2018. "A review on industrial applications of TOPSIS approach," International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 30(1), pages 23-28.
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    3. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies in a Household: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alok K. Pandey & R. Krishankumar & Dragan Pamucar & Fausto Cavallaro & Abbas Mardani & Samarjit Kar & K. S. Ravichandran, 2021. "A Bibliometric Review on Decision Approaches for Clean Energy Systems under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-27, October.
    2. Javed, Muhammad Shahzad & Ma, Tao & Jurasz, Jakub & Mikulik, Jerzy, 2021. "A hybrid method for scenario-based techno-economic-environmental analysis of off-grid renewable energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    4. Wen, Hanguan & Liu, Xiufeng & Yang, Ming & Lei, Bo & Cheng, Xu & Chen, Zhe, 2023. "An energy demand-side management and net metering decision framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    5. Qianyun Wen & Qiyao Yan & Junjie Qu & Yang Liu, 2021. "Fuzzy Ensemble of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods for Heating Energy Transition in Danish Households," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Eduardo Guzman & Beatriz Andres & Raul Poler, 2022. "A Decision-Making Tool for Algorithm Selection Based on a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Solve Replenishment, Production and Distribution Planning Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, May.
    7. Małgorzata Trojanowska & Krzysztof Nęcka, 2020. "Selection of the Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Method for Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Development: A Case Study of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    8. Wójcik-Leń, Justyna & Leń, Przemysław & Mika, Monika & Kryszk, Hubert & Kotlarz, Paweł, 2019. "Studies regarding correct selection of statistical methods for the needs of increasing the efficiency of identification of land for consolidation—A case study in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    9. Elzbieta Broniewicz & Karolina Ogrodnik, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods for Sustainable Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    12. Hae-Yeol Kang & Seung Taek Chae & Eun-Sung Chung, 2023. "Quantifying Medium-Sized City Flood Vulnerability Due to Climate Change Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: Case of Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    14. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    16. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Mohit Jain & Gunjan Soni & Deepak Verma & Rajendra Baraiya & Bharti Ramtiyal, 2023. "Selection of Technology Acceptance Model for Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agri-Fresh Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    19. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    20. Deb, Madhujit & Debbarma, Bishop & Majumder, Arindam & Banerjee, Rahul, 2016. "Performance –emission optimization of a diesel-hydrogen dual fuel operation: A NSGA II coupled TOPSIS MADM approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(P1), pages 281-290.

    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:ijs:journl:v:0:y:2024:i:40:p:46-62. 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: Ertugrul YASAR (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifisttr.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.