47
Comparative application of multi-criteria decision- making methods in determining availnig levels
(Case study: districts of Kamyaran County)
Shakoor. A
Associate professor of Geography department of Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht Branch
Introduction
One of the common ways to prioritize the options which has become increasingly developed in recent years, is using multi-criteria decision- making methods. In multi-criteria decision-making issues, the targeted options are prioritized with regard various indicators that may sometimes conflict with each other (Poortahery, 1393: 20). These methods provide simple and intuitive tools for decision-making about issues that involve non-conclusive, and mostly subjective data. In fact, these methods have developed since the early 1970s which today has become quite prevalent (Jin & lei, 2005,61-64). The reason can be seen in the fact that such techniques are easily understandable for different users. Moreover, unlike mathematical models of planning and decision-making that do not include qualitative variables in the modeling, these techniques have the ability to include both qualitative and quantitative variables simultaneously in the decision-making process which in turn expands the scope of application of these techniques (Ataei, 1385:87).
Methodology
The research method used in this research is descriptive-analytical.
Documentary method has also been used for collecting the data in the
48
study. The population of the study includes the districts of Kamyaran County in Kurdistan Province. On this basis, the theoretical principles related to the subject matter have been investigated using the secondary research method. In order for investigation and comparison of methods of assessing the level of availing, four methods of TOPSIS, taxonomy, simple analytic hierarchy process, and weighted sum model have been utilized. These methods have also been used to determine the degree of availing of the districts of Kamyaran County. To assess availing level of the districts of Kamyaran County, 16 indicators have been used.
Research findings
To determine the level of availing of the districts of Kamyaran County, after doing the three aforementioned stages, the findings that resulted from these stages were analyzed using multi-criteria methods which were mentioned earlier. The findings resulted from the above methods are as follows:
Table 1: Results of application of TOPSIS model
Gavrood Avalan Sorsor Amirabad Shahou Chavrood Bilvar
District
0/475 0/262 0/311 0/382 0/377 0/702 0/443
Coefficient of expansion
2 7 6 4 5 1 3 Rank
49
Table 2: Results of application of WSM model
Gavrood Avalan Sorsor Amirabad Shahou Chavrood Bilvar
District
126/79 41/34 53/79 84/54 79/56 207/97 116/61
Coefficient of expansion
2 7 6 4 5 1 3 Rank
Table 3: results of application of SAW model
Gavrood Avalan Sorsor Amirabad Shahou Chavrood Bilvar
District
0/2163 0/0671 0/0848 0/0776 0/1331 0/2950 0/1406
Coefficient of expansion
2 7 5 6 4 1 3 Rank
50
The results of applying multi-criteria methods in this study showed that regarding the ranking, the districts of Kamyaran County do not have fixed and similar positions.
Prioritization Strategy
In using different methods of prioritization, decision-maker may be confronted with a situation that in a real issue, a united ranking is not reached from application of various methods regarding alternatives. In that case, it is necessary for the decision-makers to use integrated approaches, such as mean of ranks, or Breda and Cap Land Methods for final decision making. In this study, mean of ranks method has been used for the final rating. Final rankings of the districts under study can be calculated using the mean of ranks method. Mean of ranks can be calculated from the sum of rankings and dividing them by the number of used methods (Poortahery, 1393,182).
Table 5: Calculation of mean rank of multi-criteria methods under study
Districts TOPSIS
SAW WSM
Mean Rank
Gavrood 1
1 1
1
Ghavrood 2
2 2
2
Bilvar 3
3 3
3
Amir Abad 4
6 4
4/66
Shahou 5
4 5
4/66
Sorsor 6
5 6
5/66
Avalan 7
7 7
7
Reference: author's calculations
Conclusion
51
The results of applying four multi-criteria decision-making methods in this study indicated that the positions of the districts of Kamyaran County are not the same with regard to the availing; for example, the district of Amirabad in taxonomy and weighted sum models had the first rank whereas in TOPSIS and SAW models had the second rank. The results of this study have shown that the position of each of the districts studied by multi-criteria methods of Numerical Taxonomy, TOPSIS, WSM, and SAW, is not the same. Moreover, in the above mentioned methods, TOPSIS and simple WSM methods with 14/28 had the lowest percentage of changes and SAW method with 28/56 had the highest percentage of change among the methods under study. Regarding the level of availing, districts of Amirabad, Gavrood, Bilvar and Zhavrood are in the praprofiting level, district of AmirAbad and Shahou is in the mesoprfiting level, and the districts of Avalan and Sorsor are in unprofitinglevel.
Key Words: develop, availing level, multi-criteria decision-making methods, meger technique, Kamyaran
1. Anton, A. 2006, Cardoo and faletts Dependency and development in latin America, Norderstedt: Auflage.
2. Asgharpour, M. J. (2006). Multi-criteria decision-making. Tehran University Press, Fourth edition, Tehran.
3. Azar, A. (2002), Functional eterminning (MADM approach), first impression, Knowldege glance. Tehran.
3. Badri, S. A. and Akbarian Ronizi S. R. (2006). A comparative study of using evaluating techniques of development in regional studies
52
(case: Esfaraen County), Journal of Geography and Development, No.
17, pp. 5-22, Zahedan.
4. Badri, S. A. (2004). Methods and models of rural planning.
Pamphlet of practical deeds in Geography and Rural planning, Payam Noor Uinversity, Tehran.
5. Deputy of Planning of Kurdistan Governorate (2013). Culture hamlets of Kurdistan Province. Kurdistan Governorate Publication. Kurdistan, Sanandaj.
6. Deputy of Planning of Kurdistan Governorate (2013). Statistical Yearbook 1392, Kurdistan Province. Kurdistan Governorate Publication.
Kurdistan, Sanandaj.
7.Ghaad rahmati, S.(2013), Analysis of develop Index surface and direct rurals of Yazd province , Geography and development of quarterly, No. 30, pp.71-86
8. Ghazinoori, S., and Tabatabaeian, H (2001). Sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision-making issues compared to the used technique. Office of the Presidential Technology Cooperation Press, First Edition, Tehran.
9. Kalantari, Kh. (2011). Quantitative models in planning (regional, urban and rural), Farhang e Saba Publication, First printing, Tehran.
10. Mokhtari hashi, H.(2006), Solution of function of government determings in the development rural (with accent on plans develop economic , social, cultural of Iran Islamic republic 1989-1994), dissertation of M.A political Geography, guided Dr. Zahra Ahmadi pour , Trbyat modares university , Geography group.
11. Nazm far, H. and Alibakhshi, Ali. (2014), Examination of enjoyment measure county khozastan province by meger
53
technoique,Geographical preparation 21.Naumann. F, 2003, Data Fusion and Data quality; Institut fur in formatik, ltumboldt univer sity zu Berlin.
22. Nourry, M, 2007, Measuring sustainable development: some Empirical Evidence Ecological Economic, vol, 67, pp.441-456
Of space, forty year, No. 14, pp-151-178
12. Poortahery, M. (2014). Application of multi-criteria decision- making methods in geography, SAMT Press, First edition, Tehran.
13. Roknodin Eftakhari. A.(1996), planning mechanism in the Iran with emphasis on rural planning , article collection of sociology symposiom, 2 cover , samt, Tehran.
14. Rozbahani, Mahmod. (1967), Principles of economic development, first impression, Taban, Tehran.
23. streeten,p ,1999, Economic development in third world , boston university , Towards an Effective urban Environmentalism for the 21s. Boston University
24.Soo, Y.Hong, 2004, “ Towards the development of a decision support system for Emergency Vehicle preemption and Transit Signal priority Investment planning “, Dissertation submitted to the facutty of the Virginia polytechnic Institute and state university in partial Fulfillment of the Requirments for the degree of doctor of philosophy.
25. Trintaphyllou, E. & Mann, S. H, 1989, “An Examination of the Effectiveness of Multi- Dimensional Decision – Making Methods: A Decision – Making paradox”, Decision support systems, 5, 303-312 15. Tahari, M. (2007), the use of Topsis technique in the local priority of planning agriculture conversional industries in rural zones, Economical studies, sixth year, No.3, pp.59-73
54
16. Tagvai, M. shahabadi , A. Baagbanro, A.(2003), Evaluation of expansionistal of Yazd province rural zones with emphasis on crowdy Index , culture quarterly periodical, fifth year, No.16, pp86-99
17. Zayyari, K.(2008). Principles and methods of regional planning, forty impression, Yazd University, Yazd.
