A. Mansourkhaki, B. Mojarradi, B. Ghobadipour, Soroush Maghsoud
{"title":"AHP和TOPSIS在路边急救站选址中的模糊化效果评价","authors":"A. Mansourkhaki, B. Mojarradi, B. Ghobadipour, Soroush Maghsoud","doi":"10.52547/jorar.11.2.118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: In order to prevent and reduce the death and disability rates caused by road accidents, it is necessary to optimize the location of the roadside emergency medical service (EMS) stations. Optimal selection of the EMS stations is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem and usually involves the analysis of a large number of possible options and evaluation criteria. Nowadays, various MCDM methods are used to solve location problems that may generate different results. The fuzzification of these methods has always been one of the controversial issues with many agreements and disagreements. METHODS: In this study, a review was first performed on the weighting methods including five non-fuzzy weighting methods as row sum, column sum, arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and eigenvalues as well as two fuzzy weighting methods including: “Liu and Chen method” and “Chang Method”. Then, the fuzzy and non-fuzzy MCDM methods [including analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) Chang, FAHP Liu, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and fuzzy TOPSIS (FTOPSIS)] were employed to locate the roadside EMS stations. Due to insufficient information and all the required layers in Iran, the information of the Interstate-65 (I-65) Highway between Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama, USA was used in the present study. Finally, the results of these methods were compared using the mean-score, Borda, and Copeland prioritization strategies. FINDINGS: Given the importance and sensitivity of the issue, a combination of the MCDM methods was utilized to locate the EMS stations and the most appropriate non-fuzzy and fuzzy weighting methods were identified and the methods used were compared in terms of complexity, volume and time of computations, and the level of impact of the expert opinion. CONCLUSION: The AHP, FAHP Liu and Chen, FAHP Chang, and TOPSIS methods yielded more reliable results in locating the roadside EMS stations, in addition, using FTOPSIS fuzzy method was more risky and is not recommended. The non-fuzzy AHP method was identified to be the most reliable method in the present study.","PeriodicalId":137497,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rescue Relief","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Fuzzification Effect of AHP and TOPSIS in Site Selection of Roadside EMS Stations\",\"authors\":\"A. Mansourkhaki, B. Mojarradi, B. Ghobadipour, Soroush Maghsoud\",\"doi\":\"10.52547/jorar.11.2.118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION: In order to prevent and reduce the death and disability rates caused by road accidents, it is necessary to optimize the location of the roadside emergency medical service (EMS) stations. Optimal selection of the EMS stations is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem and usually involves the analysis of a large number of possible options and evaluation criteria. Nowadays, various MCDM methods are used to solve location problems that may generate different results. The fuzzification of these methods has always been one of the controversial issues with many agreements and disagreements. METHODS: In this study, a review was first performed on the weighting methods including five non-fuzzy weighting methods as row sum, column sum, arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and eigenvalues as well as two fuzzy weighting methods including: “Liu and Chen method” and “Chang Method”. Then, the fuzzy and non-fuzzy MCDM methods [including analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) Chang, FAHP Liu, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and fuzzy TOPSIS (FTOPSIS)] were employed to locate the roadside EMS stations. Due to insufficient information and all the required layers in Iran, the information of the Interstate-65 (I-65) Highway between Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama, USA was used in the present study. Finally, the results of these methods were compared using the mean-score, Borda, and Copeland prioritization strategies. FINDINGS: Given the importance and sensitivity of the issue, a combination of the MCDM methods was utilized to locate the EMS stations and the most appropriate non-fuzzy and fuzzy weighting methods were identified and the methods used were compared in terms of complexity, volume and time of computations, and the level of impact of the expert opinion. CONCLUSION: The AHP, FAHP Liu and Chen, FAHP Chang, and TOPSIS methods yielded more reliable results in locating the roadside EMS stations, in addition, using FTOPSIS fuzzy method was more risky and is not recommended. The non-fuzzy AHP method was identified to be the most reliable method in the present study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":137497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rescue Relief\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rescue Relief\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52547/jorar.11.2.118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rescue Relief","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52547/jorar.11.2.118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
导言:为了预防和降低道路交通事故造成的死亡率和致残率,有必要对路边紧急医疗服务站(EMS)的位置进行优化。EMS台站的优化选择是一个多准则决策问题,通常涉及对大量可能方案和评价准则的分析。目前,各种MCDM方法用于解决可能产生不同结果的定位问题。这些方法的模糊化一直是有争议的问题之一,有许多共识和分歧。方法:本研究首先对行和、列和、算术平均、几何平均、特征值等五种非模糊加权方法以及“刘陈法”和“常法”两种模糊加权方法进行了综述。然后,采用模糊和非模糊MCDM方法[包括层次分析法(AHP)、模糊层次分析法(FAHP) Chang、模糊层次分析法(FAHP Chang)、模糊层次分析法(FAHP Liu)、理想解相似偏好排序法(TOPSIS)和模糊TOPSIS法(FTOPSIS)]对路边EMS站点进行定位。由于伊朗的信息不足,且需要的层数太多,本研究中使用的是美国阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利至伯明翰的65号州际公路(I-65)的信息。最后,使用mean-score、Borda和Copeland优先级策略对这些方法的结果进行比较。结果:考虑到问题的重要性和敏感性,结合MCDM方法对EMS站点进行定位,确定最合适的非模糊和模糊加权方法,并从计算的复杂性、计算量和时间以及专家意见的影响程度等方面对所使用的方法进行比较。结论:AHP法、FAHP Liu and Chen法、FAHP Chang法和TOPSIS法对路边EMS站点的定位结果更可靠,但使用FTOPSIS模糊法风险更大,不推荐使用。非模糊层次分析法被认为是本研究中最可靠的方法。
Assessment of Fuzzification Effect of AHP and TOPSIS in Site Selection of Roadside EMS Stations
INTRODUCTION: In order to prevent and reduce the death and disability rates caused by road accidents, it is necessary to optimize the location of the roadside emergency medical service (EMS) stations. Optimal selection of the EMS stations is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem and usually involves the analysis of a large number of possible options and evaluation criteria. Nowadays, various MCDM methods are used to solve location problems that may generate different results. The fuzzification of these methods has always been one of the controversial issues with many agreements and disagreements. METHODS: In this study, a review was first performed on the weighting methods including five non-fuzzy weighting methods as row sum, column sum, arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and eigenvalues as well as two fuzzy weighting methods including: “Liu and Chen method” and “Chang Method”. Then, the fuzzy and non-fuzzy MCDM methods [including analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) Chang, FAHP Liu, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and fuzzy TOPSIS (FTOPSIS)] were employed to locate the roadside EMS stations. Due to insufficient information and all the required layers in Iran, the information of the Interstate-65 (I-65) Highway between Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama, USA was used in the present study. Finally, the results of these methods were compared using the mean-score, Borda, and Copeland prioritization strategies. FINDINGS: Given the importance and sensitivity of the issue, a combination of the MCDM methods was utilized to locate the EMS stations and the most appropriate non-fuzzy and fuzzy weighting methods were identified and the methods used were compared in terms of complexity, volume and time of computations, and the level of impact of the expert opinion. CONCLUSION: The AHP, FAHP Liu and Chen, FAHP Chang, and TOPSIS methods yielded more reliable results in locating the roadside EMS stations, in addition, using FTOPSIS fuzzy method was more risky and is not recommended. The non-fuzzy AHP method was identified to be the most reliable method in the present study.