Advertisement

Operational Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 747–759 | Cite as

Alternative approaches to constructing composite indicators: an application to construct a Sustainable Energy Index for APEC economies

Original Paper

Abstract

Existing literature about constructing composite indicators (CIs) mainly depend on weighting sub-indicators. In this paper, we first use a state-of-the-art MCDM method with mild weights restrictions to aggregate sub-indicators, without determining exact values of weights. We take into consideration of all possible importance rankings of sub-indicators to construct CIs. Two alternative approaches, namely, minimizing the total deviation from the ideal point and minimizing the mean absolute deviation, are then proposed to develop weighting schemes with respect to all sub-indicators sequences. The proposed approaches are applied to construct a Sustainable Energy Index for eighteen APEC economies.

Keywords

Composite indicators Multiple criteria decision making Common weights Aggregation 

References

  1. Bandura R (2008) A survey of composite indices measuring country performance: 2008 update. A UNDP/ODS working paper, office of development studies, United Nations Development Programme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Booysen F (2002) An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Soc Indic Res 59(2):115–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chercheye L, Moesen W, Rogge N, Van Puyenbroeck T, Saltelli A, Liska R, Tarantola S (2008) Creating composite indictors with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index. J Oper Res Soc 59:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Esty DC, Levy MA, Srebotnjak T, De Sherbinin A, Kim CH, Anderson B (2006) Pilot environment performance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  5. Freudenberg M (2003) Composite indicators of country performance. OECD science, technology and industry working papersGoogle Scholar
  6. Fu Y, Lai KK, Miao Y, Leung JWK (2015) A distance-based decision-making method to improve multiple criteria ABC inventory classification. Int Trans Oper Res. doi: 10.1111/itor.12193 Google Scholar
  7. Gomez-Limon JA, Riesgo L (2009) Alternative approaches to the construction of a composite indicator of agricultural sustainability: an application to irrigated agriculture in the Duero basin in Spain. J Environ Manage 90(11):3345–3362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guardiola J, Picazo-Tadeo AJ (2014) Building weighted-domain composite indices of life satisfaction with data envelopment analysis. Soc Indic Res 117(1):257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hatefi SM, Torabi SA (2010) A common weight MCDA–DEA approach to construct composite indicators. Ecol Econ 70(1):114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoskins BL, Mascherini M (2009) Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Soc Indic Res 90(3):459–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jefferson M (2006) Sustainable energy development: performance and prospects. Renew Energy 31(5):571–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liang L, Wu J, Cook WD, Zhu J (2008) Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int J Prod Econ 113(2):1025–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luzzati T, Gucciardi G (2015) A non-simplistic approach to composite indicators and rankings: an illustration by comparing the sustainability of the EU countries. Ecol Econ 113:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma J, Fan ZP, Huang LH (1999) A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. Eur J Oper Res 112(2):397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffmann A, Giovannini E (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Ng WL (2007) A simple classifier for multiple criteria ABC analysis. Eur J Oper Res 177(1):344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ng WL (2008) An efficient and simple model for multiple criteria supplier selection problem. Eur J Oper Res 186(3):1059–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Soylu B, Akyol B (2014) Multi-criteria inventory classification with reference items. Comput Ind Eng 69:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang YM, Wang S (2013) Approaches to determining the relative importance weights for cross-efficiency aggregation in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 64:60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zanella A, Camanho AS, Dias TG (2015) Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 245(2):517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2006) Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environment index: an objective measure. Ecol Econ 59(3):305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2007) A mathematical programming approach to constructing composite indicators. Ecol Econ 62(2):291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhou P, Fan LW, Zhou DQ (2010a) Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: a multiplicative optimization approach. Soc Indic Res 96(1):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhou P, Fan LW, Zhou DQ (2010b) Data aggregation in constructing composite indicators: a perspective of information loss. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheng Peng
    • 1
  • Xunbo Wu
    • 2
  • Yelin Fu
    • 3
  • Kin Keung Lai
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementSouthwest University of Science and TechnologyMianyangChina
  2. 2.School of ManagementUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina
  3. 3.Department of Management SciencesCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong
  4. 4.School of ManagementGuangdong University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations