Abstract
The preference disaggregation paradigm in multi-criteria decision analysis allows inferring a multicriteria preference model for decision makers from their holistic judgments. In the well-known additive value function framework, preference disaggregation methods infer parameters that define the value functions for the multiple criteria. The present work addresses the use of choice-based multiple questions, rather than eliciting a ranking or a classification of alternatives as typically done. It proposes simple mathematical formulations to obtain the most typical value-function shapes (concave, convex, or S-shaped) and a post-optimization step to avoid extreme cases. These methods are applied in an empirical study concerning the preferences of a population towards vehicle technologies. Over a hundred potential vehicle buyers in Portugal were interviewed in person. The analysis examines to what extent respondents are consistent, what do their value functions inferred from choice-based questions look like, and how well do these functions represent their preferences for alternative vehicle technologies. Respondents were found to be frequently inconsistent in their answers to choice-based questions. However, the inferred value functions reproduced their choices with a relatively small internal error. Requiring the value function to have a typical shape did not increase error in general. The post-optimization step contributes to decrease the difference among the criteria weights and matches better the preferences displayed by the respondents when performing an additional task based on a detailed elicitation process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angilella S, Greco S, Matarazzo B (2010) Non-additive robust ordinal regression: a multiple criteria decision model based on the Choquet integral. Eur J Oper Res 201:277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.02.023
Beccacece F, Borgonovo E, Buzzard G et al (2015) Elicitation of multiattribute value functions through high dimensional model representations: monotonicity and interactions. Eur J Oper Res 246:517–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.042
Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer, Boston
Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Poesz A (2011) On pairwise comparison matrices that can be made consistent by the modification of a few elements. Cent Eur J Oper Res 19:157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-010-0136-9
Caulfield B, Farrell S, McMahon B (2010) Examining individuals preferences for hybrid electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles. Transp Policy 17:381–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.005
Christidis P, Focas C (2019) Factors affecting the uptake of hybrid and electric vehicles in the European Union. Energies 12:3414. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183414
Ciomek K, Kadziński M, Tervonen T (2017) Heuristics for prioritizing pair-wise elicitation questions with additive multi-attribute value models. Omega 71:27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.08.012
Comission E (2019) EU transport in figures—statistical pocketbook 2019. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Czajkowski M, Giergiczny M, Greene WH (2014) Learning and fatigue effects revisited: investigating the effects of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity. Land Econ 90:324–351. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.2.324
del Campo C, Pauser S, Steiner E, Vetschera R (2016) Decision making styles and the use of heuristics in decision making. J Bus Econ 86:389–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-016-0811-y
Dias LC, Mousseau V (2018) Eliciting multi-criteria preferences: ELECTRE models. In: Dias LC, Morton A, Quigley J (eds) Elicitation—the science and art of structuring judgement. Springer, Berlin, pp 349–375
Dias LC, Vetschera R (2019a) On generating utility functions in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 278:672–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.04.031
Dias LC, Vetschera R (2019b) Multiple local optima in Zeuthen–Hicks bargaining: an analysis of different preference models. EURO J Decis Process 7:33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-018-0089-0
Dias L, Mousseau V, Figueira J et al (2002) An aggregation/disaggregation approach to obtain robust conclusions with ELECTRE TRI. Eur J Oper Res 138:332–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00250-8
Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2007) Regularized estimation for preference disaggregation in multiple criteria decision making. Comput Optim Appl 38:61–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-007-9037-9
Engin A, Vetschera R (2017) Information representation in decision making: the impact of cognitive style and depletion effects. Decis Support Syst 103:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.09.007
Figueira JR, Greco S, Slowinski R (2009) Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method. Eur J Oper Res 195:460–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.02.006
Ghaderi M, Kadziński M (2020) Incorporating uncovered structural patterns in value functions construction. Omega. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102203
Ghaderi M, Ruiz F, Agell N (2017) A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding. Eur J Oper Res 259:1073–1084
Goodwin P, Wright G (2014) Decision analysis for management judgement, 5th edn. Wiley, Berlin
Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis—state of the art surveys. Springer, New York
Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark 54:3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400402
Grigoroudis E, Siskos Y (2002) Preference disaggregation for measuring and analysing customer satisfaction: the MUSA method. Eur J Oper Res 143:148–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00332-0
Hackbarth A, Madlener R (2016) Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: a stated choice study for Germany. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 85:89–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.12.005
Hoen A, Koetse MJ (2014) A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in The Netherlands. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 61:199–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.008
Ishizaka A, Siraj S (2018) Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. Eur J Oper Res 264:462–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.041
Jacquet-Lagrèze E, Siskos J (1981) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10:151–164
Jacquet-Lagrèze E, Siskos Y (2001) Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience. Eur J Oper Res 130:233–245
Jaeger SR, Hedderley D, MacFie HJH (2001) Methodological issues in conjoint analysis: a case study. Eur J Mark 35:1217–1239. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006474
Kadziński M, Greco S, Słowiński R (2012) Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice. Eur J Oper Res 217:541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.09.032
Kadziński M, Ghaderi M, Wąsikowski J, Agell N (2017) Expressiveness and robustness measures for the evaluation of an additive value function in multiple criteria preference disaggregation methods: an experimental analysis. Comput Oper Res 87:146–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.05.011
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives—preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Keeney RL, von Winterfeldt D, Eppel T (1990) Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Manag Sci 36:1011–1030. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.9.1011
Korhonen PJ, Silvennoinen K, Wallenius J, Öörni A (2012) Can a linear value function explain choices? An experimental study. Eur J Oper Res 219:360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.12.040
Kuhfeld WF (2003) Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint and graphical techniques. SAS Institute, London
Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 31:545–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379403100408
Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2001) SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Oper Res 49:444–454
Lienert J, Duygan M, Zheng J (2016) Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 253:746–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.03.010
Liu J, Liao X, Kadziński M, Słowiński R (2019) Preference disaggregation within the regularization framework for sorting problems with multiple potentially non-monotonic criteria. Eur J Oper Res 276:1071–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.058
Marichal J-L, Roubens M (2000) Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set. Eur J Oper Res 124:641–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00182-4
Matsatsinis NF, Grigoroudis E, Siskos E (2018) Disaggregation approach to value elicitation. In: Dias LC, Morton A, Quigley J (eds) Elicitation—the science and art of structuring judgement. Springer, Cham, pp 313–348
Mihelčić M, Bohanec M (2017) Approximating incompletely defined utility functions of qualitative multi-criteria modeling method DEX. Cent Eur J Oper Res 25:627–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-016-0451-x
Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D (2018) Individual and group biases in value and uncertainty judgments. In: Dias LC, Morton A, Quigley J (eds) Elicitation—the science and art of structuring judgement. Springer, Cham, pp 377–392
Morton A, Fasolo B (2009) Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour. J Oper Res Soc 60:268–275. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602550
Mousseau V, Dias L (2004) Valued outranking relations in ELECTRE providing manageable disaggregation procedures. Eur J Oper Res 156:467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00120-6
Mousseau V, Slowinski R (1998) Inferring an ELECTRE TRI Model from assignment examples. J Glob Optim 12:157–174
Oliveira GD, Dias LC (2015) Which criteria matter when selecting a conventional or electric vehicle? In: Proceedings of the energy for sustainability 2015—sustainable cities: designing for people and the planet, Coimbra, Portugal, 14–15 May 2015, pp 1–10
Oliveira GD, Dias LC (2019) Influence of demographics on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: a review of choice modelling studies and a study in Portugal. Energies 12:318. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12020318
Oliveira GD, Dias LC (2020) The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles. Ann Oper Res 293:767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03584-x
Oliveira GD, Roth R, Dias LC (2019) Diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles considering dynamic preferences. Technol Forecast Soc Change 147:83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.002
Parnell GS, Bresnick TA, Tani SN, Johnson ER (2013) Handbook of decision analysis. Wiley, Hoboken
Pinnell J, Englert S (1997) The number of choice alternatives in discrete choice modeling. Sawtooth Softw Conf Proc 1997:121–153
Sarabando P, Dias LC (2010) Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values. Comput Oper Res 37:2239–2247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2010.03.014
Schilling MS, Oeser N, Schaub C (2007) How effective are decision analyses? Assessing decision process and group alignment effects. Decis Anal 4:227–242. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1070.0101
Siskos Y, Grigoroudis E, Matsatsinis NF (2016) UTA methods. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis—state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 315–362
Stummer C, Kiesling E, Günther M, Vetschera R (2015) Innovation diffusion of repeat purchase products in a competitive market: an agent-based simulation approach. Eur J Oper Res 245:157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.03.008
Vetschera R (2006) Inconsistent behaviour in electronic negotiations—an exploratory analysis. Electron Mark 16:201–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10196780600841621
Vetschera R, Sarabando P, Dias L (2014a) Levels of incomplete information in group decision models—a comprehensive simulation study. Comput Oper Res 51:160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.05.021
Vetschera R, Weitzl W, Wolfsteiner E (2014b) Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions. Eur J Oper Res 234:221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.016
Wolbertus R, Kroesen M, van den Hoed R, Chorus CG (2018) Policy effects on charging behaviour of electric vehicle owners and on purchase intentions of prospective owners: natural and stated choice experiments. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 62:283–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.03.012
Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2002) Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 138:229–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00243-0
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the constructive and insightful comments from the reviewers. They also wish to express their gratitude and admiration to Rudolf Vetschera, for his extensive contributions to the field and the fruitful collaboration they have been enjoying.
Funding
This research is supported by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) through Grant UIDB/05037/2020 and builds on work and data from project UID/MULTI/00308/2013 and Doctoral Grant SFRH/BD/51639/2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Stated preferences questionnaire
Appendix: Stated preferences questionnaire
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dias, L.C., Oliveira, G.D. & Sarabando, P. Choice-based preference disaggregation concerning vehicle technologies. Cent Eur J Oper Res 29, 177–200 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-020-00715-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-020-00715-4