Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques in planning

https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-9006(88)90012-8Get rights and content

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

Reference (121)

  • AmbroseP.

    Whatever Happened to Planning?

    (1986)
  • AmrheinC.G.

    An interactive multi-criteria decision model for spatial problems

    East Lakes Geographer

    (1985)
  • ArrowK.J.

    Social Choice and Individual Values

    (1951)
  • AskewI.D. et al.

    Trouble in store

    Area, Institute of British Geographers

    (1981)
  • BarzilaiJ. et al.

    Axiomatic Foundations for the Analytical Hierarchy Process

  • BattyM. et al.

    Systems Analysis in Urban Policy-Making and Planning

    (1983)
  • BlairD.H. et al.

    Rational collective choice

    Scientific American

    (1983)
  • BogartK.P.

    Preference structures I: distances between transitive preference relations

    Journal Mathematical Society

    (1973)
  • BogartK.P.

    Preference structures II: distances between asymmetric relations

    SIAM, Journal of Applied Mathematics

    (1975)
  • BrackenI.

    Urban Planning Methods: Research and Policy Analysis

    (1981)
  • BrownC.A. et al.
  • CoggerK. et al.

    Eigenweight vectors and least-distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios

    Journal of Optimization, Theory and Applications

    (1985)
  • CookW.D.

    A Multicriteria Methodology for Transportation Capital Investment Priority Setting: a critical analysis of the SELECTRA model

    (1986)
  • CookW.D. et al.

    Relationships between 1' metrics on linear ranking spaces

    SIAM, Journal of Applied Mathematics

    (1984)
  • CookW.D. et al.

    Priority ranking and consensus formation

    Management Science

    (1978)
  • CookW.D. et al.

    On the Borda-Kendall consensus method for priority ranking problems

    Management Science

    (1982)
  • CookW.D. et al.

    Heuristics for Ranking Players in a Round Robin Tournament

  • CookW.D. et al.

    A multicriteria model for ranking transportation projects: a case study

  • De NeufvilleR. et al.

    Systems Planning and Design, case studies in modelling, optimization and evaluation

    (1974)
  • EdwardsW.

    Social Utilities

  • EdwardsW.

    Use of multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making

  • EtzioniA.

    Mixed scanning: a third approach to decision making

    Public Administration Review

    (1967)
  • FishburnP.C.

    A comparative analysis of group decision methods

    Behavioral Science

    (1971)
  • FishburnP.C.

    Simple voting systems and majority rule

    Behavioral Science

    (1974)
  • FisherR. et al.

    Getting to Yes

    (1983)
  • FriendJ.K. et al.

    Local Government and Strategic Choice

    (1969)
  • GolledgeR.G. et al.

    Multidimensional scaling: review and geographical applications

  • GulliverP.H.

    Disputes and Negotiations: a cross-cultural perspective

    (1979)
  • GuyC.M.

    Policies for the location of large new stores — a case study

    Area, Institute of British Geographers

    (1980)
  • HallP.

    Great Planning Disasters

    (1980)
  • HardinG.

    The tragedy of the common

  • HammondK.R. et al.

    Human Judgement and Decision Making

    (1980)
  • HarveyD.

    The Urbanisation of Capital

    (1985)
  • HatryH.D.

    Issues in productivity measurement for local governments

    Public Administration Review

    (1972)
  • Cited by (133)

    • A robust method for avoiding rank reversal in the TOPSIS

      2022, Computers and Industrial Engineering
    • Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts

      2021, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The number of alternatives and scenarios considered is of special importance when the scores of the impact matrix are aggregated using a mathematical algorithm (see Section 3.5), because it affects the number of iterations needed to obtain a ranking of alternatives and hence, can influence the final outcome of the MCE. According to Massam (1998), in a MCE context alternatives should cover at least: (i) the business as usual or status quo scenario, (ii) an “ideal’” best plan, (iii) a hypothetical “worst” plan and, (iv) a compromise solution or minimum satisfaction. In our case four alternatives (i.e., management plans) were considered based on the information gathered during the institutional analysis and additional meetings with experts from diverse areas (shepherds operating in nearby Navarre, researchers from diverse disciplines working in the area, and representatives from local and regional authorities, among others).

    • Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

      2021, International Encyclopedia of Transportation: Volume 1-7
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text