Advertisement

OR Spectrum

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 971–995 | Cite as

Trapezoidal fuzzy DEMATEL method to analyze and correct for relations between variables in a composite indicator for disaster resilience

  • Michael Hiete
  • Mirjam Merz
  • Tina Comes
  • Frank Schultmann
Regular Article

Abstract

Indicator systems of disaster vulnerability are important for monitoring and increasing the capacity in risk management. Various composite indicators have been developed to operationalize social vulnerability at national and sub-national level. Problems with relations between the sub-indicators of the composite indicator are a common phenomenon. The fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method analyzes the structure of complex cause-effect relationships between the sub-indicators based on perceived direct influences. The results provide insight into the composite indicators and can be used to correct the sub-indicator weighting for relations between the sub-indicators and allow the identification of cause- and effect-group sub-indicators which is an important information for selecting mitigation measures in risk management. The fuzzy DEMATEL method is generalized to take into account trapezoidal membership functions. A composite indicator originally developed to determine the disaster resilience in US counties is adapted, operationalized and used to assess the resilience of Germany at county level using corrected weights. Resilience is highest in urban areas and in southern Germany and lowest in rural areas, in particular in eastern Germany.

Keywords

Risk management Indicators Vulnerability assessment Resilience Fuzzy DEMATEL 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbasbandy S, Amirfakhrian M (2006) The nearest trapezoidal form of a generalized left right fuzzy number. Int J Approx Reason 43(2): 166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger W (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16: 57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkmann J (2006) Vulnerability to hazards of natural origin—towards disaster resilient societies. In: Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: conceptional frameworks and definitions. UNU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7: 20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkmann J, Wisner B (2006) Measuring the un-measurable: the challenges of vulnerability. Tech. Rep. 5, UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), BonnGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardona O, Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (2004) The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. Earthscann Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen S, Hwang C (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crichton D (1999) Natural disaster management. In: The Risk triangle. Tudor Rose, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutter S (2001) A research agenda for vulnerability science and environmental hazards. Update IDHP, Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change 2: article no. 3Google Scholar
  11. Cutter S, Boruff B, Shirley W (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2): 242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutter S, Burton C, Emrich C (2010) Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. J Homeland Security Emerg Manag 7(1). doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1732
  13. Dytczak M, Ginda G (2008) Classification of building repair policy choice criteria. In: Continuous optimization and knowledge-Based technologies, EURO mini conference, 20–23 May, Neringia, Lithuania, pp 353–357Google Scholar
  14. Fekete A (2009) Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Nat Hazards and Earth Syst Sci 9: 393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fontela E, Gabus A (1976) The DEMATEL observer. Tech. rep. Battelle Geneva Research Center, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. Gall M (2007) Indices of social vulnerability to natural hazards: a comparative evaluation. PhD thesis, University of South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  17. Gheorghe A, Vamanu D (2004) Decision support systems for risk mapping: viewing the risk from the hazards perspective. J Hazard Mater 111(1–3): 45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godet M (1986) Introduction to la prospective, seven key ideas and one scenario method. Futures 18(2): 134–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hu H, Lee Y, Yen T, Tsai C (2009) Using BPNN and DEMATEL to modify importance-performance analysis model—a study of the computer industry. Expert Syst Appl 36: 9969–9979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan S, Garrick J (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1(1): 11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keeney R (1988) Structuring objectives for problems of public interest. Oper Res 36(3): 396–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keeney R (1992) Value-focused thinking, a path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Klir G, Folger T (1988) Fuzzy sets, uncertainty and information. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  25. Leitch M (2010) ISO 31000:2009–the new international standard on risk management. Risk Anal 30: 887–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li C, Tzeng G (2009) Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall. Expert Syst Appl 36: 9891–9898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin C, Wu W (2008) A causal analytical method for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 34(1): 205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mateos A, Jimenez A (2009) A trapezoidal fuzzy numbers-based approach for aggregating group preferences and ranking decision alternatives in MCDM. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5467/2009, pp 365–379. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2005a) Tools for composite indicator building. Tech. Rep. EUR 221682 EN, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  30. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffman A, Giovanni E (2005b) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Tech. Rep. STD/DOC(2005)3-JT00188147. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. Opricovic S, Tzeng G (2003) Defuzzification within a multicriteria decision model. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 11(5): 635–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pelling M (2004) Vision of risk: a review of international indicators of disaster risk and its management. Tech. rep., ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen R (2001) On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res 129: 569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prabhu N (2007) Stochastic processes. Basic theory and its applications. World Scientific Publishing, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Purdy G (2010) ISO 31000:2009—setting a new standard for risk management. Risk Anal 30: 881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Saaty T (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48: 9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scholz R, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  39. Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. Tamura H, Akazawa K (2005) Stochastic DEMATEL for structure modeling of a complex problematique for realizing safe, secure and reliable society. J Telecommun Inf Technol 4: 139–146Google Scholar
  41. Thywissen K (2006) Components of risk—a comparative glossary. Tech. rep., UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), BonnGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsai W, Chou W (2009) Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL ANP and ZOGP. Expert Syst Appl 36: 1444–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tseng M (2009) A causal and effect decision making model of service quality expectation using grey-fuzzy dematel approach. Expert Syst Appl 36: 7738–7748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UN/ISDR (2005) Hyogo framework for action 2005-2015, building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Tech. rep., United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  45. Villagran de Leon J (2006) Vulnerability—a conceptional and methodological review. Tech. Rep. 4, UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), BonnGoogle Scholar
  46. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1992) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Werner D (2000) Funktionalanalysis, 4th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu H, Shieh J, Li Y, Chen H (2010) A combination of AHP and DEMATEL in evaluating the criteria of employment service outreach program personnel. Inf Technol J 9(3): 569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu W (2008) Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl 35: 828–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu W, Lee Y (2007) Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst Appl 32(2): 499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yager RR (2008) Using trapezoids for representing granular objects: Applications to learning and OWA aggregation. Inf Sci 178(2): 363–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zadeh LA (2008) Is there a need for fuzzy logic. Inf Sci 78(13): 2751–2779CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Hiete
    • 1
  • Mirjam Merz
    • 1
  • Tina Comes
    • 1
  • Frank Schultmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Industrial ProductionKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations