IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ssi/jouesi/v8y2021i4p180-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simple Additive Weighting versus Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution: which method is better suited for assessing the sustainability of a real estate project

Author

Listed:
  • Nomeda Dobrovolskienė

    (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH), Lithuania)

  • Anastasija Pozniak

    (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH), Lithuania)

Abstract

In the real estate sector, sustainability assessment tools enable the transition to buildings with lower impacts on the environment, the economy and the society. A variety of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods has been proposed to address this problem. There is, however, no consensus on the method to be used in each assessment case. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of two different MCDM approaches SAW (Simple Additive Weighting) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) to assessing the sustainability of a real estate project. 18 sustainability criteria weighted by experts formed the basis of sustainability assessment of a real estate project. The results of the study revealed a significant difference between the ranks obtained by SAW and TOPSIS. Moreover, the results of the MCDM sensitivity analysis showed that the TOPSIS method is more sensitive to changes in baseline data than the SAW method.

Suggested Citation

  • Nomeda Dobrovolskienė & Anastasija Pozniak, 2021. "Simple Additive Weighting versus Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution: which method is better suited for assessing the sustainability of a real estate project," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(4), pages 180-196, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssi:jouesi:v:8:y:2021:i:4:p:180-196
    DOI: 10.9770/jesi.2021.8.4(10)
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jssidoi.org/jesi/uploads/articles/32/Dobrovolskiene_Simple_Additive_Weighting_versus_Technique_for_Order_Preference_by_Similarity_to_an_Ideal_Solution_which_method_is_better_suited_for_assessing_the_sustainability_of_a_real_estate_project.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://jssidoi.org/jesi/article/816
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.9770/jesi.2021.8.4(10)?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. Laura Tupenaite & Arturas Kaklauskas & Irene Lill & Ineta Geipele & Jurga Naimaviciene & Loreta Kanapeckiene & Linda Kauskale, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of the New Residential Projects in the Baltic States: A Multiple Criteria Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Nazanin Vafaei & Rita A. Ribeiro & Luis M. Camarinha-Matos, 2018. "Data normalisation techniques in decision making: case study with TOPSIS method," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 19-38.
    3. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Ercan Kahya & Ayad M. Fadhil Al-Quraishi, 2020. "Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 715-732, 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. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, 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. Agnieszka Kurdyś-Kujawska & Agnieszka Sompolska-Rzechuła & Joanna Pawłowska-Tyszko & Michał Soliwoda, 2021. "Crop Insurance, Land Productivity and the Environment: A Way forward to a Better Understanding," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Marcio Pereira Basilio & Valdecy Pereira & Fatih Yigit, 2023. "New Hybrid EC-Promethee Method with Multiple Iterations of Random Weight Ranges: Applied to the Choice of Policing Strategies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-34, October.
    3. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    4. Tayefi Nasrabadi, Mahla & Hataminejad, Hossein, 2021. "Towards residential buildings sustainability in a religious-tourism metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Renan Favarão da Silva & Marjorie Maria Bellinello & Gilberto Francisco Martha de Souza & Sara Antomarioni & Maurizio Bevilacqua & Filippo Emanuele Ciarapica, 2021. "Deciding a Multicriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Method to Prioritize Maintenance Work Orders of Hydroelectric Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Doukas, H. & Arsenopoulos, A. & Lazoglou, M. & Nikas, A. & Flamos, A., 2022. "Wind repowering: Unveiling a hidden asset," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    7. Magdalena Zioło & Iwona Bąk & Anna Spoz, 2024. "Sustainable Energy Sources and Financial Development Nexus—Perspective of European Union Countries in 2013–2021," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Paolenmang Haokip & Md. Abdullah Khan & Pandurang Choudhari & Luc Cimusa Kulimushi & Ibodullo Qaraev, 2022. "Identification of erosion-prone areas using morphometric parameters, land use land cover and multi-criteria decision-making method: geo-informatics approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 527-557, January.
    9. Duc Binh Tran & Van Tan Tran & Xuan Anh Pham & Van Tuan Nguyen, 2023. "A General Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Buildings: A Life-Cycle Thinking Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-21, July.
    10. Ali, Tausif & Aghaloo, Kamaleddin & Chiu, Yie-Ru & Ahmad, Munir, 2022. "Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in planning the future energy systems of developing countries using an integrated MCDM approach in the off-grid areas of Bangladesh," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 25-38.
    11. Yihao Zhu & Chou Chen & Guodao Zhang & Zimin Lin & Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Ehsan Alvandi, 2023. "Investigation of West Lake Ecotourism Capabilities Using SWOT and TOPSIS Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Na Li & Rudi Hakvoort & Zofia Lukszo, 2021. "Cost Allocation in Integrated Community Energy Systems—Social Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, September.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Nora Sharkasi & Nguyen Vo Hien Chau & Jay Rajasekera, 2023. "Export Potential Analysis of Vietnamese Bottled Coconut Water by Incorporating Criteria Weights of MCDM into the Gravity of Trade Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-26, July.
    16. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    17. Agnieszka Sompolska-Rzechuła & Agnieszka Kurdyś-Kujawska, 2022. "Assessment of the Development of Poverty in EU Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, March.
    18. Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    19. Alam Md Moshiul & Roslina Mohammad & Fariha Anjum Hira, 2023. "Alternative Fuel Selection Framework toward Decarbonizing Maritime Deep-Sea Shipping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-37, March.
    20. Maija Kavosa & Inga Lapina & Konstantins Kozlovskis, 2022. "Sustainable Approach to Certification of Persons: Ensuring Reliability and Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    multi-criteria decision-making; multiple-criteria decision-making; real estate project; sustainability assessment; sensitivity analysis; Real Estate Sustainability Index (RESI);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C00 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - General
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • M21 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics - - - Business Economics
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis
    • L74 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Primary Products and Construction - - - Construction
    • L85 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Real Estate Services

    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:ssi:jouesi:v:8:y:2021:i:4:p:180-196. 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: Manuela Tvaronaviciene (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.