schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability

While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that impact on a household’s quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application a... Full description

Journal Title: Omega (Oxford) 2016, Vol.59, p.146-156
Main Author: Mulliner, Emma
Other Authors: Malys, Naglis , Maliene, Vida
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
AHP
WPM
WSM
Publisher: Oxford: Elsevier Ltd
ID: ISSN: 0305-0483
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: cdi_proquest_journals_1761485442
title: Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability
format: Article
creator:
  • Mulliner, Emma
  • Malys, Naglis
  • Maliene, Vida
subjects:
  • Affordable housing
  • AHP
  • Comparative analysis
  • COPRAS
  • Decision making
  • Decision making models
  • Dwellings
  • Economic aspects
  • Evaluation
  • Housing
  • Housing affordability
  • MCDM
  • Multiple criteria
  • Multiple criteria decision making
  • Quality of life
  • Sensitivity analysis
  • Studies
  • Sustainability
  • Sustainable development
  • TOPSIS
  • WPM
  • WSM
ispartof: Omega (Oxford), 2016, Vol.59, p.146-156
description: While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that impact on a household’s quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of six different multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for the purpose of assessing sustainable housing affordability. The comparative performance of the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0305-0483
fulltext: no_fulltext
issn:
  • 0305-0483
  • 1873-5274
url: Link


@attributes
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
RANK2.79037
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourceidgale_opena
recordidTN_cdi_proquest_journals_1761485442
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemPC
galeidA442758964
sourcerecordidA442758964
originalsourceidFETCH-LOGICAL-1608t-177472d6c552cfb7df382d9adbbcd6de9d9d771fe48f8fe04bda0bb59fbcd9be0
addsrcrecordideNqFkl2LEzEUhgdRsK7-AkEGvLU1mWRmMhdeLF2_YFdv9E4I-ThpU2aSmpNZ6b83tSJdWZQEAjnPe0jO-1bVc0pWlNDu9W4VJ9ioVUNouyJlU_agWlDRs2Xb9PxhtSCMtEvCBXtcPUHcEUKoIGxRfVvHaa-Syv4WahXUeECPdXT1zfrqpp4gb6PF2sVU520BEAFxgpCPCM6YlQ9Kj1Bv44w-bGrlCmuV9qPPh6fVI6dGhGe_z4vq67u3X9Yfltef339cX14vaUdEXtK-531jO9O2jXG6t46Jxg7Kam1sZ2Gwg-176oALJxwQrq0iWreDK_VBA7moPp36xj0E5RPIffKTSgcZlZc2QJYW7LyXP5wsH5eEQcuBd3pglipBCC9D1GroDFMNFU1p-PLUcJ_i9xkwy12cU5kOStp3lIuW8zNqo0aQPriYkzKTRyMvS71vxdDxQq3uocqyMHkTAzhf7u8IXtwjkOfAqzNAHwdfXPEB_WabcaNmxLv92Ak3KSImcH-mQ4k8xkfu5K_4yGN8JCmbsqIa_lIZn0tMYiiv8eN_tG9OWiim33pIEo2HYMAWb0wxI_p_6n8COO7fxA
sourcetypeOpen Access Repository
isCDItrue
recordtypearticle
pqid1761485442
display
typearticle
titleComparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability
creatorMulliner, Emma ; Malys, Naglis ; Maliene, Vida
creatorcontribMulliner, Emma ; Malys, Naglis ; Maliene, Vida
descriptionWhile affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that impact on a household’s quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of six different multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for the purpose of assessing sustainable housing affordability. The comparative performance of the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.
identifier
0ISSN: 0305-0483
1EISSN: 1873-5274
2DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013
3CODEN: OMEGA6
languageeng
publisherOxford: Elsevier Ltd
subjectAffordable housing ; AHP ; Comparative analysis ; COPRAS ; Decision making ; Decision making models ; Dwellings ; Economic aspects ; Evaluation ; Housing ; Housing affordability ; MCDM ; Multiple criteria ; Multiple criteria decision making ; Quality of life ; Sensitivity analysis ; Studies ; Sustainability ; Sustainable development ; TOPSIS ; WPM ; WSM
ispartofOmega (Oxford), 2016, Vol.59, p.146-156
rights
02015 Elsevier Ltd
1Copyright Pergamon Press Inc. Mar 2016
lds50peer_reviewed
oafree_for_read
citedbyFETCH-LOGICAL-1608t-177472d6c552cfb7df382d9adbbcd6de9d9d771fe48f8fe04bda0bb59fbcd9be0
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
thumbnail$$Usyndetics_thumb_exl
search
creatorcontrib
0Mulliner, Emma
1Malys, Naglis
2Maliene, Vida
title
0Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability
1Omega (Oxford)
descriptionWhile affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that impact on a household’s quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of six different multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for the purpose of assessing sustainable housing affordability. The comparative performance of the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.
subject
0Affordable housing
1AHP
2Comparative analysis
3COPRAS
4Decision making
5Decision making models
6Dwellings
7Economic aspects
8Evaluation
9Housing
10Housing affordability
11MCDM
12Multiple criteria
13Multiple criteria decision making
14Quality of life
15Sensitivity analysis
16Studies
17Sustainability
18Sustainable development
19TOPSIS
20WPM
21WSM
issn
00305-0483
11873-5274
fulltextfalse
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2016
recordtypearticle
recordideNqFkl2LEzEUhgdRsK7-AkEGvLU1mWRmMhdeLF2_YFdv9E4I-ThpU2aSmpNZ6b83tSJdWZQEAjnPe0jO-1bVc0pWlNDu9W4VJ9ioVUNouyJlU_agWlDRs2Xb9PxhtSCMtEvCBXtcPUHcEUKoIGxRfVvHaa-Syv4WahXUeECPdXT1zfrqpp4gb6PF2sVU520BEAFxgpCPCM6YlQ9Kj1Bv44w-bGrlCmuV9qPPh6fVI6dGhGe_z4vq67u3X9Yfltef339cX14vaUdEXtK-531jO9O2jXG6t46Jxg7Kam1sZ2Gwg-176oALJxwQrq0iWreDK_VBA7moPp36xj0E5RPIffKTSgcZlZc2QJYW7LyXP5wsH5eEQcuBd3pglipBCC9D1GroDFMNFU1p-PLUcJ_i9xkwy12cU5kOStp3lIuW8zNqo0aQPriYkzKTRyMvS71vxdDxQq3uocqyMHkTAzhf7u8IXtwjkOfAqzNAHwdfXPEB_WabcaNmxLv92Ak3KSImcH-mQ4k8xkfu5K_4yGN8JCmbsqIa_lIZn0tMYiiv8eN_tG9OWiim33pIEo2HYMAWb0wxI_p_6n8COO7fxA
startdate201603
enddate201603
creator
0Mulliner, Emma
1Malys, Naglis
2Maliene, Vida
general
0Elsevier Ltd
1Elsevier Science Publishers
2Pergamon Press Inc
3Elsevier
scope
0AAYXX
1CITATION
2BKMMT
3BSHEE
4K9.
5BOBZL
6CLFQK
sort
creationdate201603
titleComparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability
authorMulliner, Emma ; Malys, Naglis ; Maliene, Vida
facets
frbrtype5
frbrgroupidcdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-1608t-177472d6c552cfb7df382d9adbbcd6de9d9d771fe48f8fe04bda0bb59fbcd9be0
rsrctypearticles
prefilterarticles
languageeng
creationdate2016
topic
0Affordable housing
1AHP
2Comparative analysis
3COPRAS
4Decision making
5Decision making models
6Dwellings
7Economic aspects
8Evaluation
9Housing
10Housing affordability
11MCDM
12Multiple criteria
13Multiple criteria decision making
14Quality of life
15Sensitivity analysis
16Studies
17Sustainability
18Sustainable development
19TOPSIS
20WPM
21WSM
toplevelpeer_reviewed
creatorcontrib
0Mulliner, Emma
1Malys, Naglis
2Maliene, Vida
collection
0CrossRef
1Gale General OneFile (A&I only)
2Academic OneFile (A&I only)
3ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
4OpenAIRE (Open Access)
5OpenAIRE
jtitleOmega (Oxford)
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextno_fulltext
addata
au
0Mulliner, Emma
1Malys, Naglis
2Maliene, Vida
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
atitleComparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability
jtitleOmega (Oxford)
date2016-03
risdate2016
volume59
spage146
epage156
pages146-156
issn0305-0483
eissn1873-5274
codenOMEGA6
abstractWhile affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that impact on a household’s quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of six different multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for the purpose of assessing sustainable housing affordability. The comparative performance of the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.
copOxford
pubElsevier Ltd
doi10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013
oafree_for_read