Keywords
TOPSIS
PROMETHEE
city ranking
comparative analysis
How to Cite
Abstract
The priority objective of this study is to identify the most popular MCDM/MCDA methods typically used to create city rankings and to conduct a comparative analysis of the selected methods. In the first part, a literature review was prepared, on the basis of which it was established that the following methods were most commonly used to assess cities: TOPSIS, AHP and PROMETHEE. In addition, the above city rankings usually pertained to the subject of sustainable development and the concept of smart city. In the subsequent empirical part, a ranking of Polish cities was created using PROMETHEE and TOPSIS methods, which enabled a comparative analysis of these methods; especially in terms of the algorithm, data selection, as well as the possibility of integration with other methods.
References
Badi, I., Pamučar, D., Stević, Z., & Muhammad, L. J. (2023). Wind farm site selection using BWM-AHP-MARCOS method: A case study of Libya. Scientific African, 19, e01511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01511
Banar, M., Tulger, G., & Özkan A. (2014). Plant site selection for recycling plants of waste electrical and electronic equipment in Turkey by using multi criteria decision making methods. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 13(1), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2014.020
Best Cities powered by Resonance. (2023, March 13). https://www.worldsbestcities.com/reports/2023-worlds-best-cities/
Borissova, D., Korsemov, D., & Mustakerov, I. (2019). Multi-criteria Decision Making Problem for Doing Business: Comparison Between Approaches of Individual and Group Decision Making. In K. Saeed, R. Chaki & V. Janev (Eds.) Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management (pp. 385-396). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28957-7_32
Boyaci, A. C. (2020). Selection of eco-friendly cities in Turkey via a hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision making approach. Applied Soft Computing, 89, 106090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106090
Brans, J. P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco & M. Ehrgott (Eds), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 163-186). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5
Central Statistical Office, Local Data Bank. (2023, March 13). https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/bdl/start
Chen, Z. B. (2020). Evaluating Sustainable Liveable City via Multi-MCDM and Hopfield Neural Network. Mathe-matical Problems in Engineering, 4189527. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4189527
Cinar, N., & Ahiska, S. S. (2010). A decision support model for bank branch location selection. Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 9-10.
Corrente, S., Greco, S., Leonardi, F., & Słowiński, R. (2021). The hierarchical SMAA-PROMETHEE method applied to assess the sustainability of European cities. Applied Intelligence, 51, 6430-6448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02384-5
Economist Intelligence. (2023, March 13). https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/global-liveability-index-2022/
Feizi, A., Joo, S., Kwigizile, V., & Oh, J. S. (2020). A pervasive framework toward sustainability and smart-growth: Assessing multifaceted transportation performance measures for smart cities. Journal of Transport & Health, 19, 100956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100956
Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G., & Kramar, H. (2010). The role of rankings in growing city competition. Urban Research & Practice, 3, 299-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2010.524420
Hajduk, S. (2021). Multi-Criteria Analysis of Smart Cities on the Example of the Polish Cities. Resources, 10, 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10050044
Hajduk, S. (2022). Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Decision-Making Approach for the Linear Ordering of Urban Transport Based on TOPSIS Technique. Energies, 15, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010274
Hajduk, S., & Jelonek, D. (2021). A Decision-Making Approach Based on TOPSIS Method for Ranking Smart Cities in the Context of Urban Energy. Energies, 14, 2691. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092691
Hu, S. K., & Tzeng G. H. (2019). A Hybrid Multiple-Attribute Decision-Making Model with Modified PROMETHEE for Identifying Optimal Performance-Improvement Strategies for Sustainable Development of a Better Life. Social Indicators Research, 144, 1021-1053. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11205-018-2033-x
Jahangiri, M., Rezaei, M., Mostafaeipour, A., Goojani, A. R., Saghaei, H., Hosseini Dehshiri, S. J., & Hosseini Dehshiri, S. S. (2022). Prioritization of solar electricity and hydrogen co-production stations considering PV losses and different types of solar trackers: A TOPSIS approach. Renewable Energy, 186, 889-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.045
Kobryń, A. (2014). Wielokryterialne Wspomaganie Decyzji w Gospodarowaniu Przestrzenią. Warszawa: Difin. (In Polish).
Mokarrari, K. R., & Torabi, S. A. (2021). Ranking cities based on their smartness level using MADM methods. Sus-tainable Cities and Society, 72, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103030
Mostafaeipour, A., Sarikhani, S., Sedaghat, A., & Arabnia, H. R. (2017). Location planning of bioethanol plants from agricultural crop residues for fuel cells using DEA Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Rabat.
Mukul, E., Güler, M., & Büyüközkan, G. (2021). Evaluation of Sustainability for Turkey's Cities with Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic MCDM Methods. Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (CECIIS 2021). Varazdin, Croatia.
Ogrodnik, K. (2019). Multi-Criteria Analysis of Design Solutions in Architecture and Engineering: Review of Applications and a Case Study. Buildings, 9, 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9120244
Ogrodnik, K. (2020). Multi-criteria analysis of smart cities in Poland. Geographia Polonica, 93(2), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0168
OnlineOutput MCDM Software. https://onlineoutput.com/
Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Korkmaz, I. H., & Çetinkaya, C. (2019). A GIS-based DANP-VIKOR approach to evaluation R&D performance of Turkish cities. Kybernetes, 48, 2266-2306. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2018-0456
Ozkaya, G., & Erdin, C. (2020). Evaluation of smart and sustainable cities through a hybrid MCDM approach based on ANP and TOPSIS technique. Heliyon, 6(10), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05052
Raheja, S., Obaidat, M. S., Kumar, M., Sadoun, B., & Bhushan S. (2022). A hybrid MCDM framework and simulation analysis for the assessment of worst polluted cities. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 118, 102540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102540
Saeed, U., & Ahmad, S. R. (2021). Emerging GIS based rehearses for assessment of urban environmental sustainability and apposite ranking. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 30, 3047-3058.
Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., & Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods. Symmetry, 12, 1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549
Shmelev, S. (2017). Multidimensional Sustainability Assessment for Megacities. In S. Shmelev (Ed.), Green Economy Reader: Lectures in Ecological Economics and Sustainability (pp. 205-236). Springer.
Silva, C. M., Granemann, S. R., Guarnieri, P., & Da Silva, G. L. (2022). Measuring the Attractiveness of Cities to Receive Investments in Regional Airport Infrastructure. Mathematics, 10, 1734. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101734
Smart City Index Report. (2023, March 13). https://smartcitiesindex.org/smartcitiesindexreport2022
Sotirelis, P., Nakopoulos, P., Valvi, T., Grigoroudis, E., & Carayannis, E. (2022). Measuring Smart City Performance: a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13, 2957-2985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00847-1
Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM methods in sus-tainability engineering: A literature review 2008-2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350
The World Bank. (2023, March 13). https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview
Toloie-Eshlaghy, A., & Homayonfar, M. (2011). MCDM methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of International Studies, 21, 86-137.
United Nations. (2023, March 13). https://www.un.org/en/desa/around-25-billion-more-people-will-be-living-cities-2050-projects-new-un-report
Vafaeipour, M., Hashemkhani, Z. S., Varzandeh, M. H. M., Derakhti, A., & Eshkalag, M. K. (2014). Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria de-cision making approach. Energy Conversion and Management, 86, 653-663, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.083
Yang, Y., Lu, R. X., Xue, M., Shou, Z. Q., Yang, J. B., & Fu, L. (2021). Data-Driven Evidential Reasoning Method for Evaluating e-Government Performance. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 20, 261-285. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622020500479
Yi, P., Li, W., & Li, L. (2018). Evaluation and Prediction of City Sustainability Using MCDM and Stochastic Simulation Methods. Sustainability, 10, 3771. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103771
Yücenur, G. N., Çaylak, S., Gönül, G., & Postalcıoğlu, M. (2020). An integrated solution with SWARA&COPRAS methods in renewable energy production: City selection for biogas facility. Renewable Energy, 145, 2587-2597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.011
Zapolskytė, S., Trépanier, M., Burinskienė, M., & Survilė, O. (2022). Smart Urban Mobility System Evaluation Model Adaptation to Vilnius, Montreal and Weimar Cities. Sustainability, 14, 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020715
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
Zhang, X.Q. (2011). The Economic Role of Cities. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
Zhu, S., Li, D., & Feng, H. (2019). Is smart city resilient? Evidence from China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101636
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Economics and Environment