Abstract
Both tangible and intangible considerations must usually be taken into account in development of environmental and other public policies. Consequently, policy selection can be thought of as a multiple objective problem with mixed quantitative and non-quantitative information on criterion scores. This paper presents an efficient approach to the multiple-criterion selection of actions, or subsets of actions, from a discrete set, in the presence of mixed criteria. In particular, the approach chooses good subsets of actions when the preferences of the Decision Maker (DM) over the actions are specified ordinally, cardinally, or according to qualitative properties on the criterion. First, a procedure is presented to screen and remove actions that cannot possibly be in the best subset. In the second stage, the performance of the remaining actions is evaluated to find the best possible subset.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bernardo, J. J., (1977) “An Assignment Approach to Choosing R & D Experiments” Decision Sciences, Vol. 8, pp. 489–501.
Borda, J-C, (1781) Memoire Sur les Elections au Scrutin, “Histoire de 1’ Academie Royale das Sciences”, Paris.
Athanassopoulos, A.D. and Podinovski, V.V. (1997) “Dominance and Potential Optimality in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis with Imprecise Information”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 48, pp. 142–150.
Cook, W. D. and Johnston D. A. (1992) “Evaluating Suppliers of Complex Systems: A Multiple Criteria Approach”, Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 43, pp. 1055–1061.
Cook, W. D. and Kress, M. (1996) “An Extreme-Point Approach for Obtaining Weighted Ratings in Qualitative Multi-criteria Decision Making”, Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 43, pp. 519–531.
Cook, W. D. and Seiford, L. M. (1982) “On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems”, Management Sciences, Vol. 28, pp. 621–637.
Doyle, J. and Green, R. (1994) “Efficiency and Cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, Meaning and Uses”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 45, pp. 567–578.
Fishburn, P. C. (1992), “Signed Orders and Power Set Extensions”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 56, pp. 1–19.
Green, R. and Doyle, J. (1995) “On Maximizing Discrimination in Multiple Criteria Decision Making”, Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 46, pp. 192–204.
Hazen, G. B. (1986) “Partial Information, Dominance, and Potential Optimality in Multi-Attribute Utility Theory”, Operations Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 296–310.
Insua, D. R. (1990) Sensitivity Analysis in Multiple Objective Decision Making, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Insua, D. R., and French, S. (1991) “A Framework for Sensitivity Analysis in Discrete Multi-Objective Decision Making, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 54, pp. 176–190.
Koksalan, M., Karwan, M. H., and Zionts, S. (1988) “An Approach for Solving Discrete Alternative Multiple Criteria Problems Involving Ordinal Criteria”, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 625–642.
Korhonen, P. J. (1986) “A Hierarchical Interactive Method for Ranking Alternative Criteria”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 24, pp. 265–276.
Larichev O. I., Moshkovich H. M., Mechitov, A. I., and Olson, D. L. (1993) “Experiments Comparing Qualitative Approaches to Rank Ordering of Multi-Attribute Alternatives”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 5–26.
Lansdowne, Z. (1996) “Ordinal Ranking Methods for Multi-Criterion Decision Making”, Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 43, pp. 613–627.
Pawlak, Z., Slowinski, R. (1994), “Rough Set Approach to Multi-Attribute Analysis”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 77, pp. 443–459.
Perez, J. (1994) “Theoretical Elements of Comparison among Ordinal Discrete Multi-Criteria Methods”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Vol. 3, pp. 157–176.
Perez, J. and Barba-Romero, S. (1995) “Three Practical Criteria of Comparison among Ordinal Preference Aggregation Rules”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 85, pp. 473–487.
Rajabi, S., Kilgour, D. M., and Hipel, K. W. (1998) “Modelling Action-Interdependence in Multiple Criteria Decision Making.” To Appear in European Journal of Operational Research.
Rajabi, S, Kilgour, D.M., and Hipel, K. W., (1998) Screening Actions in Multiple Criteria Subset Selection. Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo.
Rietveld, P. and Ouwersloot, H. (1992) “Ordinal Data in Multi-Criteria Decision Making, A Stochastic Dominance Approach to Siting Nuclear Power Plants”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 56, pp. 249–262.
Roubens, M. (1982) “Preference Relations on Actions and Criteria in Multicriteria Decision Making”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 10, pp. 51–55.
White, D. J. (1980) Optimality and Efficiency, Chichester, Wiley.
Vgood, H. (1983), Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning, Pion, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rajabi, S., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M. (2000). Multiple Criteria Subset Selection Under Quantitative and Non-Quantitative Criteria. In: Haimes, Y.Y., Steuer, R.E. (eds) Research and Practice in Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 487. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57311-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57311-8_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67266-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-57311-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive