Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
O.Haluk Barda, J. Dupuis, P. Lencioni (1990)
Multicriteria location of thermal power plantsEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 45
P. Salminen, Joonas Hokkanen, R. Lahdelma (1998)
Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problemsEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 104
J.P. Brans, B. Mareschal
The PROMETHEE methods for MCDM; the PROMACALC, GAIA and BANKADVISER software
A. Rebai (1994)
Canonical fuzzy bags and bag fuzzy measures as a basis for MADM with mixed non cardinal dataEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 78
Xiaozhan Xu (2001)
The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision makingEur. J. Oper. Res., 131
A. Rebai (1993)
BBTOPSIS: a bag based technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solutionFuzzy Sets and Systems, 60
A. Karagiannidis, N. Moussiopoulos (1997)
Application of ELECTRE III for the Integrated Management of Municipal Solid Wastes in the Greater Athens AreaEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 97
Dina Al-Rashdan, B. Al-Kloub, A. Dean, T. Al-Shemmeri (1999)
Environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in JordanEur. J. Oper. Res., 118
Bana Costa, A. Carlos (1990)
Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid || The Promethee Methods for MCDM; The Promcalc, Gaia And Bankadviser Software
J. Brans, P. Vincke, B. Mareschal (1986)
HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHODEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 24
R. Lahdelma, P. Salminen, Joonas Hokkanen (2002)
Locating a waste treatment facility by using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis with ordinal criteriaEur. J. Oper. Res., 142
B. Roy, R. Słowiński, W. Treichel (1992)
Multicriteria programming of water supply systems for rural areasJournal of The American Water Resources Association, 28
R. Lahdelma, P. Salminen (2002)
Pseudo-criteria versus linear utility function in stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysisEur. J. Oper. Res., 141
Joonas Hokkanen, R. Lahdelma, P. Salminen (1999)
A multiple criteria decision model for analyzing and choosing among different development patterns for the Helsinki cargo harborSocio-economic Planning Sciences, 33
J.L. Deng
Foundation of Grey Theory
T. Saaty (1980)
The analytic hierarchy process : planning, priority setting, resource allocation
F. Carbone, A.D. Montis, P.D. Toro, S. Stagl
MCDA methods comparison: environmental policy evaluation applied to a case study in Italy
C. Tam, T. Tong, Y. Wong (2004)
Selection of concrete pump using the Superiority and Inferiority Ranking methodJournal of Construction Engineering and Management-asce, 130
Joonas Hokkanen, P. Salminen, E. Rossi, M. Ettala (1995)
The Choice of a Solid Waste Management System Using the Electre Ii Decision-Aid MethodWaste Management & Research, 13
J. Kangas, Joonas Hokkanen, A. Kangas, R. Lahdelma, P. Salminen (2003)
Applying Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis to Forest Ecosystem Management with Both Cardinal and Ordinal CriteriaForest Science, 49
Joonas Hokkanen, P. Salminen (1997)
Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysisEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 98
Kathleen Vaillancourt, J. Waaub (2002)
Environmental site evaluation of waste management facilities embedded into EUGÈNE model: A multicriteria approachEur. J. Oper. Res., 139
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a variant of superiority and inferiority ranking (SIR) method called SIR‐Grey for determining the location of large‐scale harbour‐front project development. Design/methodology/approach – The study is illustrated with an application example obtained from the Environmental Protection Department of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to demonstrate the concept and application procedure of SIR‐Grey. The strengths and weaknesses of SIR‐Grey are highlighted when compared with the traditional weighted average approach. Findings – The strengths and weaknesses of SIR‐Grey are highlighted when compared with the traditional weighted average approach. Among the strengths, the global comparison scores of SIR‐Grey can give a clearer and easier comprehensible algorithm. Further, the global comparison generated from superiority flows (S‐flows) (S‐flow: A is preferred to A &vprime;( A P > A &vprime;) or A is indifferent to A &vprime;( A I > A &vprime;)) and inferiority flows (I‐flows) (I‐flow: A is preferred to A &vprime;( A P < A &vprime;) or A is indifferent to A &vprime;( A I < A &vprime;)) can be used to select a solution matching the nature of the problem; e.g. a conservative approach can adopt the ranking from I‐flow because the selected option will have the criteria farthest from the virtual worst site while the ranking from S‐flow can be adopted for an aggressive approach because the final decision will have the criteria closest to the virtual perfect site. Regarding the weaknesses, the major one is the requirement of a full appreciation of the nature of criteria in setting the thresholds and preference structure, which may complicate the application of the model. Originality/value – This study proposes a variant of SIR method called SIR‐Grey for determining the location of large‐scale harbour‐front project development. This approach can overcome the problem encountered in using other methods which could lead to variation in the final ranking and hence an inconsistent result.
Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management – Emerald Publishing
Published: Apr 18, 2008
Keywords: Decision support systems; Modelling; Decision making; Construction works; Harbours; Hong Kong
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.