Tackling Complex Emergency Response Solutions Evaluation Problems in Sustainable Development by Fuzzy Group Decision Making Approaches with Considering Decision Hesitancy and Prioritization among Assessing Criteria
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. ERSE with Prioritization among Assessing Criteria
3. An Entropy Measure for IVDHFS
3.1. Basic Notions of IVDHFS
- (1)
- ;
- (2)
- ;
- (3)
- ;
- (4)
- .
- (1)
- ;
- (2)
- ;
- (3)
- ;
- (4)
- .
- (1)
- If , then ;
- (2)
- If , then .
3.2. An Entropy Measure for IVDHFS
- (1)
- ;
- (2)
- , if and only if or ;
- (3)
- , if and only if ;
- (4)
- ;
- (5)
- if is less fuzzy than .
4. Interval-Valued Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Prioritized Average Operators
4.1. Interval-Valued Dual Hesitant Fuzzy PA Operator
- (1)
- When , obviously, Theorem 2 is right.
- (2)
- When , ,So when , Theorem 2 also is right.
- (3)
- Suppose when , Theorem 2 is right, then we have:
4.2. Interval-Valued Dual Hesitant Fuzzy POWA Operator
5. Approaches for ERSE with Decision Hesitancy and Prioritization among Criteria
6. Illustrative Example and Comparative Study
6.1. Illustrative Example
6.1.1. Decision Making Steps of Approach I
- = ({[0.5769, 0.6787], [0.5775, 0.6792]}, {[0.1463, 0.2534], [0.1463, 0.2534]});
- = ({[0.3911, 0.6344], [0.3912, 0.6345]}, {[0.213, 0.3389], [0.2155, 0.3423]});
- = ({[0.5459, 0.7367], [0.546, 0.7368], [0.5715, 0.7566], [0.5716, 0.7567]}, {[0.1093, 0.2119], [0.1111, 0.2146], [0.1331, 0.2378], [0.1352, 0.2408]});
- = ({[0.2251, 0.4168], [0.2379, 0.4281], [0.2779, 0.4616], [0.2898, 0.4721]}, {[0.2755, 0.3777]});
- = ({[0.5812, 0.721]}, {[0.1471, 0.2566]});
- = ({[0.3811, 0.4874], [0.3812, 0.4874]}, {[0.2864, 0.4012], [0.3121, 0.4125], [0.3635, 0.4827], [0.3962, 0.4963]});
- = ({[0.1888, 0.3805], [0.2301, 0.4223]}, {[0.307, 0.4273], [0.3071, 0.4274], [0.3105, 0.4315], [0.3106, 0.4315], [0.4373, 0.5658], [0.4375, 0.5659], [0.4423, 0.5713], [0.4425, 0.5714]});
- = ({[0.5009, 0.6697], [0.5036, 0.6723], [0.6012, 0.7183], [0.6034, 0.7205]}, {[0.1171, 0.2778], [0.1173, 0.278], [0.1184, 0.2786], [0.1186, 0.2788]});
- = ({[0.6372, 0.7407]}, {[0.1115, 0.2429], [0.1223, 0.2564]}).
- = ({[0.2619, 0.4457], [0.2809, 0.4647], [0.2644, 0.4479], [0.2833, 0.4668], [0.2722, 0.4545], [0.291, 0.4732], [0.2747, 0.4566], [0.2934, 0.4753], [0.2626, 0.4463], [0.2816, 0.4653], [0.265, 0.4485], [0.284, 0.4674], [0.2729, 0.4551], [0.2917, 0.4738], [0.2753, 0.4572], [0.294, 0.4759]}, {[0.2402, 0.3563], [0.2403, 0.3563], [0.2416, 0.358], [0.2416, 0.358], [0.2867, 0.41], [0.2868, 0.41], [0.2883, 0.412], [0.2884, 0.412], [0.2402, 0.3563], [0.2403, 0.3563], [0.2416, 0.358], [0.2417, 0.3581], [0.2867, 0.41], [0.2868, 0.41], [0.2884, 0.412], [0.2884, 0.412]}).
6.1.2. Decision Making Steps of Approach II
6.2. Comparative Study with Classic MCGDM Methodologies without Considering Prioritization Relations among Assessing Criteria
6.2.1. TOPSIS-Based MCGDM Approach
6.2.2. MCGDM Approach Based on Simple Averaging Operator
- = ({[0.477, 0.6203], [0.4846, 0.6266]}, {[0.2057, 0.3193], [0.2163, 0.331]});
- = ({[0.3627, 0.5063], [0.3748, 0.5174]}, {[0.2707, 0.396], [0.2769, 0.4037]});
- = ({[0.443, 0.588], [0.4537, 0.5973], [0.4775, 0.6222], [0.4875, 0.6307]}, {[0.2128, 0.3337], [0.2206, 0.3431], [0.232, 0.351], [0.2405, 0.3609]});
- = ({[0.4473, 0.6222], [0.4554, 0.6285], [0.4578, 0.6307], [0.4658, 0.6369]}, {[0.2213, 0.3386]});
- = ({[0.4909, 0.6626]}, {[0.1755, 0.3105]});
- = ({[0.3614, 0.5003], [0.3736, 0.5116]}, {[0.2783, 0.4027], [0.3035, 0.4141], [0.2885, 0.4141], [0.3146, 0.4258]});
- = ({[0.4191, 0.5738], [0.4371, 0.5914]}, {[0.2013, 0.3219], [0.2196, 0.3386], [0.2146, 0.3386], [0.234, 0.3562], [0.206, 0.3281], [0.2246, 0.3452], [0.2196, 0.3452], [0.2394, 0.3631]});
- = ({[0.4949, 0.669], [0.5128, 0.6854], [0.5199, 0.6807], [0.5369, 0.6965]}, {[0.1251, 0.2671], [0.1435, 0.2769], [0.1488, 0.2847], [0.1707, 0.2952]});
- = ({[0.5228, 0.5834]}, {[0.2426, 0.3871], [0.2646, 0.4072]});
- = ({[0.4483, 0.6061], [0.4541, 0.6116], [0.451, 0.6083], [0.4567, 0.6137], [0.4518, 0.609], [0.4576, 0.6145], [0.4545, 0.6112], [0.4602, 0.6166], [0.451, 0.6083], [0.4567, 0.6137], [0.4537, 0.6104], [0.4594, 0.6159], [0.4545, 0.6112], [0.4602, 0.6166], [0.4572, 0.6134], [0.4629, 0.6188]}, {[0.2093, 0.3265], [0.2154, 0.332], [0.2138, 0.332], [0.22, 0.3377], [0.2109, 0.3286], [0.217, 0.3342], [0.2154, 0.3342], [0.2217, 0.3399], [0.2128, 0.3304], [0.2191, 0.336], [0.2174, 0.336], [0.2238, 0.3418], [0.2145, 0.3325], [0.2207, 0.3382], [0.2191, 0.3382], [0.2255, 0.344]}).
6.2.3. Comparative Analysis
6.3. Comparative Study with Other Methods under a Regressed Decision-Making Scenario
7. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ju, Y.; Wang, A.; You, T. Emergency alternative evaluation and selection based on ANP, DEMATEL, and TL-TOPSIS. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 347–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.; Peng, Y. Extension of grey relational analysis for facilitating group consensus to oil spill emergency management. Ann. Oper. Res. 2016, 238, 615–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. OECD Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response; Cambridge University Press: Paris, France, 2003; p. 191. [Google Scholar]
- US-EPA. Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response: General Information and Comparison. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/regulations (accessed on 9 September 2017).
- European-Commission. Directive 2012/18/EU Of The European Parliament And Of The Council. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:197:0001:0037:EN:PDF (accessed on 9 September 2017).
- Duan, W.; He, B. Emergency response system for pollution accidents in chemical industrial parks, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 7868–7885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shao, C.; Yang, J.; Tian, X.; Ju, M.; Huang, L. Integrated environmental risk assessment and whole-process management system in chemical industry parks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 1609–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wan, C.; Zhang, D.; Yan, X.; Yang, Z. A novel model for the quantitative evaluation of green port development—A case study of major ports in China. Transp. Res. Part D 2017, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Hegde, G.; Shang, J.; Qi, X. Evaluating emergency response solutions for sustainable community development by using fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making approaches: IVDHF-TOPSIS and IVDHF-VIKOR. Sustainability 2016, 8, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busi, E.; Maranghi, S.; Corsi, L.; Basosi, R. Environmental sustainability evaluation of innovative self-cleaning textiles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köhler, A.R.; Som, C. Risk preventative innovation strategies for emerging technologies the cases of nano-textiles and smart textiles. Technovation 2014, 34, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whiteley, C.E.; Boguski, T.; Erickson, L.; Anthony, J.L.; Green, R. Emergency preparation and green engineering: Augmenting the environmental knowledge and assessment tool. Environ. Prog. Sustain. 2009, 28, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fogli, D.; Guida, G. Knowledge-centered design of decision support systems for emergency management. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 55, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, Y.; Wang, A. Emergency alternative evaluation under group decision makers: A method of incorporating DS/AHP with extended TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 1315–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, Y.; Wang, A.; Liu, X. Evaluating emergency response capacity by fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 6972–6981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, Y.; Yang, S. A new method for multiple attribute group decision-making with intuitionistic trapezoid fuzzy linguistic information. Soft Comput. 2015, 19, 2211–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.-X.; Wang, Y.-M. A prospect theory-based interval dynamic reference point method for emergency decision making. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 9379–9388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications—Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 4126–4148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashemi, S.S.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Mahdiraji, H.A. Multicriteria group decision making with ELECTRE III method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40, 1554–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Sarka, V. The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 1994, 1, 131–139. [Google Scholar]
- Yazdani, M.; Jahan, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. Analysis in material selection: Influence of normalization tools on Copras-G. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2017, 51, 59–74. [Google Scholar]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Ukio Technol. Ekon. Vystym. 2010, 16, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabasevic, D.; Turskis, Z.; Keršulienė, V. New group decision-making ARCAS approach based on the integration of the SWARA and the ARAS methods adapted for negotiations. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2017, 18, 599–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brauers, W.K.M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Project management by multimoora as an instrument for transition economies. Ukio Technol. Ekon. Vystym. 2010, 16, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Bausys, R.; Juodagalviene, B.; Garnyte-Sapranaviciene, I. Model for residential house element and material selection by neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2017, 64, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Smarandache, F.; Brauers, W.K.M.; Karabasevic, D. A neutrosophic extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Informatica 2017, 28, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torra, V.; Narukawa, Y. On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, Jeju Island, Korea, 20–24 August 2009; pp. 1378–1382. [Google Scholar]
- Torra, V. Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2010, 25, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, B.; Xu, Z.S.; Xia, M.M. Dual hesitant fuzzy sets. J. Appl. Math. 2012, 2012, 879629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farhadinia, B. Correlation for dual hesitant fuzzy sets and dual interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2014, 29, 184–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, Y.B.; Liu, X.Y.; Yang, S.H. Interval-valued dual hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 27, 1203–1218. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Z.S.; Xia, M.M. Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 2011, 181, 2128–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Z.; Xu, Z.; Liu, H.; Liu, S. Distance and similarity measures for dual hesitant fuzzy sets and their applications in pattern recognition. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 29, 731–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, L.A. Probability measures of Fuzzy events. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1968, 23, 421–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burillo, P.; Bustince, H. Entropy on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1996, 78, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, J. Fuzzy decision-making method based on the weighted correlation coefficient under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 205, 202–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, J. Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method using entropy weights-based correlation coefficients of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Appl. Math. Model. 2010, 34, 3864–3870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, X.; Liang, C.; Zhang, J. Generalized cross-entropy based group decision making with unknown expert and attribute weights under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 79, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Z.-P.; Zhang, H.-Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.-Q.; Chen, X.-H. Multi-criteria decision-making method based on a cross-entropy with interval neutrosophic sets. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2016, 47, 3598–3608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.S.; Xia, M.M. Hesitant fuzzy entropy and cross-entropy and their use in multi-attribute decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2012, 27, 799–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, J. Cross-entropy of dual hesitant fuzzy sets for multiple attribute decision-making. Int. J. Decis. Support Syst. Technol. 2016, 8, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, K.; Chen, G.; Wu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Wang, P. Research on the group decision-making about emergency event based on network technology. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2011, 12, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, H.; Li, T.; Li, S.; Fan, T. An integrated emergency response model for toxic gas release accidents based on cellular automata. Ann. Oper. Res. 2016, 255, 617–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, S.; Cao, J.; Feng, L.; Liang, W.; Zhang, L. Construction of a technique plan repository and evaluation system based on AHP group decision-making for emergency treatment and disposal in chemical pollution accidents. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 276, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, J.; Guo, L.; Jiang, J.; Hao, L.; Liu, R.; Wang, P. Evaluation and selection of emergency treatment technology based on dynamic fuzzy GRA method for chemical contingency spills. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 299, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yager, R.R. Prioritized aggregation operators. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2008, 48, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yager, R.R. Prioritized OWA aggregation. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 2009, 8, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, D.; Wu, Y.; Lu, T. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators and their application in group decision making. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2012, 30, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.H.; Xu, Z.S. Prioritized intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. Inf. Fusion 2013, 14, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, D.J. Prioritized information fusion method for triangular intuitionistic fuzzy set and its application to teaching quality evaluation. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2013, 28, 411–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Q.Y.; Chen, H.Y.; Zhou, L.G.; Tao, Z.F.; Liu, X. The properties of fuzzy number intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators and their applications to multi-criteria group decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 28, 1835–1848. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, D.H.; Wang, T.D.; Gao, C.Y.; Wang, H. Multigranular uncertain linguistic prioritized aggregation operators and their application to multiple criteria group decision making. J. Appl. Math. 2013, 2013, 857916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Xu, Z. A new prioritized multi-criteria outranking method: The prioritized Promethee. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2015, 29, 2099–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, G.W. Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2012, 31, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.T.; Wang, J.Q.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.Y.; Chen, X.H. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic multicriteria decision-making method based on generalized prioritized aggregation operator. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jin, F.; Ni, Z.; Chen, H. Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy Einstein prioritized aggregation operators and their applications to multi-attribute group decision making. Soft Comput. 2016, 20, 1863–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Z.; Wei, C. A multi-attribute decision-making method with prioritization relationship and dual hesitant fuzzy decision information. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2017, 8, 755–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, W.; Qing, Y.; Yu, M.-H.; Qi, F. Grid-based platform for disaster response plan simulation over Internet. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2008, 16, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maldonado, E.A.; Maitland, C.F.; Tapia, A.H. Collaborative systems development in disaster relief: The impact of multi-level governance. Inf. Syst. Front. 2010, 12, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koliba, C.J.; Mills, R.M.; Zia, A. Accountability in governance networks: An assessment of public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following hurricane katrina. Public Adm. Rev. 2011, 71, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, M.F.; Wang, C.Y.; Chang, Y.Y.; Li, T.S. Collaborative Disaster Management: Lessons from Taiwan’s Local Governments; Palgrave Macmillan US: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Noran, O. Collaborative disaster management: An interdisciplinary approach. Comput. Ind. 2014, 65, 1032–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapucu, N.; Hu, Q.; Khosa, S. The state of network research in public administration. Adm. Soc. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Kapucu, N. Examining collaborative disaster response in China: Network perspectives. Nat. Hazards 2015, 79, 1773–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, J.M.; Kuo, C.Y.; Liu, M.Y.; Shu, C.M. Emergency response plan for boiler explosion with toxic chemical releases at Nan-Kung industrial park in central Taiwan. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2008, 86, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- People’s Republic of China. Emergency Plan for Natural Disaster Rescue, Modified Edition; The-Ministry-of-Civil-Affairs, Ed.; Chinese Government: Beijing, China, 2016. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2016-03/24/content_5057163.htm (accessed on 1 October 2017).
- European Environment Agency (EEA). Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle; European-Environment-Agency: Copehagen, Denmark, 2001; p. 212. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, A.; Chen, N.; Li, J. During-incident process assessment in emergency management: Concept and strategy. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, B.D.; Neal, D.M.; Webb, G. Introduction to Emergency Management; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- People’s Republic of China. China’s Speical Law for Countermeasures to Emergency Events; The-State-Council, Ed.; Chinese Government: Beijing, China, 2007. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2007-08/30/content_732593.htm (accessed on 1 October 2017).
- People’s Republic of China. Regulations on Natural Disaster Rscue and Assistance; The-Ministry-of-Civil-Affairs, Ed.; Chinese Government: Beijing, China, 2010. Available online: http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/gk/fg/jzgz/201507/20150700848481.shtml (accessed on 1 October 2017).
- Momoh, J.A.; Zhang, Y.; Fanara, P.; Kurban, H.; Iwarere, L.J. Social impact based contingency screening and ranking. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 2007, 3, 124–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, C. Quick Guide: Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disaster; Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London and CARE International: London, UK; Geneva, Switzerland, 2003; pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, C. Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters; Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College London and CARE International: London, UK; Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; pp. 1–86. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.-L.; Qi, X.-W. Induced interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid aggregation operators with TOPSIS order-inducing variables. J. Appl. Math. 2012, 2012, 245732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahraman, C.; Onar, S.C.; Oztaysi, B. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: A literature review. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2015, 8, 637–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Luca, A.; Termini, S. A definition of a nonprobabilistic entropy in the setting of fuzzy sets theory. Inf. Control 1972, 20, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yager, R.R. On the measure of fuzziness and negation Part I: Membership in the unit interval. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 1979, 5, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szmidt, E.; Kacprzyk, J. Entropy for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2001, 118, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, W.-L.; Yang, M.-S. Fuzzy entropy on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2006, 21, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z. A deviation-based approach to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making. Group Decis. Negot. 2010, 19, 57–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, N.; Xu, Z. Entropy Measures for Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Information. In Proceedings of the 2015 Fifth International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies, Gwalior, India, 4–6 April 2015; pp. 1152–1156. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, J. Correlation coefficient of dual hesitant fuzzy sets and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Appl. Math. Model. 2014, 38, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.J.; Zhao, X.F.; Wei, G.W. Dual hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 26, 2281–2290. [Google Scholar]
Phases | Criteria | Meanings of the Criteria |
---|---|---|
Before-activity | Response time to start emergency response solution () [1,14] | Projected least time interval between identified alert of emergency event and start-up of emergency response solution, which generally comprises of activities for collection of first-hand information event, expert team call-up, etc. |
Reasonable organizational structure and clear awareness of responsibilities () [1,14] | Rationality in configuration of organizational structure and clearness of corresponding tasks and responsibilities. | |
Economic cost () [70,71] | Budget for estimated expenses of carrying out the emergency response solution. | |
During-activity | Operability of the response solution () [1,66] | Operational effectiveness in execution of the response solution, such as aspects on complexity of task division, appropriate inclusion of modern emergency equipment, etc. |
Monitoring and forecasting potential hazards () [1,14,70,71] | Capacity of utilizing scientific approaches, such as information system and decision support system, to monitor influencing factors and thereby identifying or forecasting potential hazards. | |
Reconstruction ability () [1,14] | Response solution’s capacity in recovery of public infrastructure, public utilities or housing in event areas. | |
After-activity | Social impact () [72] | Capacity to appropriately cope with derivative social risks caused by the emergency event or emergency response solution, such as public panic, mass violent events in areas of electricity outage due to emergent response actions. |
Environmental impact () [73,74] | Estimated consequences that could be caused be response solutions on the local environment of event spots. |
Event Title | Event Description | Deduced Prioritizations among Assessing Criteria |
---|---|---|
1. Chemical spills |
| () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () |
2. Hazardous materials tank truck crash |
| () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () |
3. Hazardous materials tank truck crash |
| () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () ≻ () |
(k = 1, …, t) | Criterion with Its Prioritization Level | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
… | |||||
Solutions | … | ||||
… | |||||
… |
({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.1, 0.4]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.4, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.5, 0.6], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.2, 0.4]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.3]}, {[0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2]}, {[0.7, 0.8]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) |
({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.2, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.4, 0.6]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.5]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) |
({[0.1, 0.2] }, {[0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.3]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.1, 0.3], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.7]}) | |
({[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.5]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.3]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) |
({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.2, 0.4]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.4]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.3]}, {[0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2]}, {[0.7, 0.8]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) |
({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.4, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.2, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | |
({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.4, 0.6]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.3]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.5]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | |
({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) |
({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.3, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2] }, {[0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.3]}) | ({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.3]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | |
({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5]}, {[0.1, 0.3], [0.4, 0.5]}) | |
({[0.2, 0.3]}, {[0.5, 0.7]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4]}) |
({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.4], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.4, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.6], [0.4, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.3, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0, 2], [0.2, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.6], [0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.8], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.2, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5]}) | |
({[0.5, 0.7], [0.6, 0.8], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7], [0.6, 0.8], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.6]}) | ({[0.1, 0.4], [0.6, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.4, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6]}) | |
({[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.5, 0.6], [0.5, 0.7]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.5], [0.7, 0.8]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4], [0.2, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) |
Methods | Ranking Orders Obtained | Scores of Alternatives |
---|---|---|
Approach I () | = 0.0453, = 0.381, = 0.4292. | |
Approach I () | = 0.0070, = 0.4201, = 0.3554. | |
Approach II | = 0.052, = 0.3659, = 0.3456. |
({[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.4], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.1, 0.4], [0.6, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7], [0.6, 0.8], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2]}) | |
({[0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.6], [0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6], [0.4, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.4, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | |
({[0.2, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.7], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.8], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.5, 0.6], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.5, 0.6], [0.5, 0.7]}) | |
({[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.4, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5]}) | ({[0.5, 0.7], [0.6, 0.8], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.6]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.6]}) | |
({[0.3, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.7, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0, 2], [0.2, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.5, 0.7]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.6, 0.7]}) | ({[0.4, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6], [0.6, 0.8]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3]}) | |
({[0.3, 0.4], [0.5, 0.7], [0.6, 0.7]}, {[0.1, 0.2], [0.1, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]}) | ({[0.1, 0.2], [0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5]}, {[0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.5], [0.7, 0.8]}) | ({[0.2, 0.4], [0.2, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.5, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6], [0.5, 0.6]}) | ({[0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.4]}, {[0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5], [0.4, 0.5]}) |
Methods | Obtained Ranking Orders | Scores of Solutions |
---|---|---|
Approach I (considering weights for decision makers and prioritization among criteria) | = 0.0453, = 0.381, = 0.4292. | |
Approach II (considering prioritization among criteria) | = 0.052, = 0.3659, = 0.3456. | |
Approach III (not considering prioritization among criteria) | = 0.5818, = 0.607, = 0.5472. | |
Approach IV (not considering prioritization among criteria) | = 0.2578, = 0.2851, = 0.1911. |
{(0.5, 0.6), (0.3)} | {(0.2), (0.7, 0.8)} | {(0.3, 0.4), (0.5, 0.6)} | {(0.5, 0.6, 0.7), (0.3)} | |
{(0.8), (0.2)} | {(0.6, 0.7, 0.8), (0.2)} | {(0.1, 0.2), (0.3)} | {(0.2), (0.6, 0.7, 0.8)} | |
{(0.7, 0.8), (0.2)} | {(0.2, 0.3, 0.4), (0.5)} | {(0.4, 0.5), (0.2)} | {(0.2, 0.4), (0.5, 0.6)} | |
{(0.3, 0.4), (0.6)} | {(0.4, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4)} | {(0.3, 0.4), (0.6)} | {(0.4, 0.5), (0.5)} | |
{(0.7), (0.3)} | {(0.4, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4)} | {(0.3), (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)} | {(0.5), ( 0.4, 0.5)} |
Methods | Ranking Orders Obtained | Scores of Alternatives |
---|---|---|
Method I: Score function [57] + dice similarity measure [57] | = 0.7156; = 0.8477; = 0.8287; = 0.7004; = 0.8459. | |
Method II: Score function [57] + correlation coefficient method [83] | = 0.6008; = 0.8073; = 0.7680; = 0.5625; = 0.7841. | |
Method III: Score function [57] + DHFWA operator [84] | = 0.0039; = 0.4012; = 0.2707; = −0.1468; = 0.2026. | |
Method IV: Our Approaches | = 0.1121; = 0.458; = 0.3514; = −0.1675; = 0.303. |
{([0.5, 0.5], [0.6, 0.6]), ([0.3, 0.3])} | {([0.2, 0.2]), ([0.7, 0.7], [0.8, 0.8])} | {([0.3, 0.3], [0.4, 0.4]), ([0.5, 0.5], [0.6, 0.6])} | {([0.5, 0.5], [0.6, 0.6], [0.7, 0.7]), ([0.3, 0.3])} | |
{([0.8, 0.8]), ([0.2, 0.2])} | {([0.6, 0.6], [0.7, 0.7], [0.8, 0.8]), ([0.2, 0.2])} | {([0.1, 0.1], [0.2, 0.2]), ([0.3, 0.3])} | {([0.2, 0.2]), ([0.6, 0.6], [0.7, 0.7], [0.8, 0.8])} | |
{([0.7, 0.7], [0.8, 0.8]), ([0.2, 0.2])} | {([0.2, 0.2], [0.3, 0.3], [0.4, 0.4]), ([0.5, 0.5])} | {([0.4, 0.4], [0.5, 0.5]), ([0.2, 0.2])} | {([0.2, 0.2], [0.4, 0.4]), ([0.5, 0.5], [0.6, 0.6])} | |
{([0.3, 0.3], [0.4, 0.4]), ([0.6, 0.6])} | {([0.4, 0.4], [0.5, 0.5]), ([0.3, 0.3], [0.4, 0.4])} | {([0.3, 0.3], [0.4, 0.4]), ([0.6, 0.6])} | {([0.4, 0.4], [0.5, 0.5]), ([0.5, 0.5])} | |
{([0.7, 0.7]), ([0.3, 0.3])} | {([0.4, 0.4], [0.5, 0.5]), ([0.3, 0.3], [0.4, 0.4])} | {([0.3, 0.3]), ([0.5, 0.5], [0.6, 0.6], [0.7, 0.7])} | {([0.5, 0.5]), ([0.4, 0.4], [0.5, 0.5])} |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Qi, X.-W.; Zhang, J.-L.; Zhao, S.-P.; Liang, C.-Y. Tackling Complex Emergency Response Solutions Evaluation Problems in Sustainable Development by Fuzzy Group Decision Making Approaches with Considering Decision Hesitancy and Prioritization among Assessing Criteria. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101165
Qi X-W, Zhang J-L, Zhao S-P, Liang C-Y. Tackling Complex Emergency Response Solutions Evaluation Problems in Sustainable Development by Fuzzy Group Decision Making Approaches with Considering Decision Hesitancy and Prioritization among Assessing Criteria. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017; 14(10):1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101165
Chicago/Turabian StyleQi, Xiao-Wen, Jun-Ling Zhang, Shu-Ping Zhao, and Chang-Yong Liang. 2017. "Tackling Complex Emergency Response Solutions Evaluation Problems in Sustainable Development by Fuzzy Group Decision Making Approaches with Considering Decision Hesitancy and Prioritization among Assessing Criteria" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 10: 1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101165