Method for multiple attribute group decision making with single-valued neutrosophic number and applications to service quality evaluation of urban public transport
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2023
Method for multiple attribute group decision making with single-valued neutrosophic number and applications to service quality evaluation of urban public transport
In the process of urban development in our country, the traffic problem is a major problem that must be faced. At present, there are serious traffic jams in many cities, and with the use of a large number of private cars, the air environment in the cities is gradually deteriorated, which also brings a lot of energy consumption. Only by vigorously developing public transportation and encouraging and guiding citizens to choose the public transportation system as their travel mode can we give full play to the value of road resources. The service quality evaluation of urban public transport is viewed as the multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) issue. In this paper, the EDAS method is extended to the single-valued neutrosophic sets (SVNSs) setting to deal with MAGDM and the computational steps for all designs are listed. Finally, the service quality evaluation of urban public transport is given to demonstrate the SVNN-EDAS model and some good comparative analysis is done to demonstrate the SVNN-EDAS.
PinaVTorresL. Analysis of the efficiency of local government services delivery. An application to urban public transport. Transp Res Pt A-Policy Pract.2001; 35(10): 929-44.
2.
PinaVTorresL. Public-private efficiency in the delivery of services of general economic interest: The case of urban transport. Local Gov Stud.2006; 32(2): 177-98.
3.
ChatterjeeKMaKR. Modeling the timing of user responses to a new urban public transport service – Application of duration modeling. Transp Res Record.2007; (2010): 64-74.
4.
AmaralMSaussierSYvrande-BillonA. Auction procedures and competition in public services: The case of urban public transport in France and London. Util Policy.2009; 17(2): 166-75.
5.
WangZYYangJWangF, editors. Service Quality Assessment of Urban Public Transport via Grey System Theory. 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; 2010 Jan 09–10; Phuket, THAILAND. LOS ALAMITOS: Ieee Computer Soc; 2010.
6.
Tiznado-AitkenIMunozJCHurtubiaR. Public transport accessibility accounting for level of service and competition for urban opportunities: An equity analysis for education in Santiago de Chile. J Transp Geogr.2021; 90: 14.
7.
DangYWangCJChenPR. Identification and optimization strategy of urban park service areas based on accessibility by public transport: Beijing as a case study. Sustainability.2022; 14(12): 13.
8.
ZhangLJYangYChengQLuoMHZhangXWangYH, editors. Evaluation of Spatial Fairness of Urban Public Transport Service: A Case Study of Wuhan City. 24th ISPRS Congress on Imaging Today, Foreseeing Tomorrow; 2022 Jun 06–11; Nice, FRANCE. GOTTINGEN: Copernicus Gesellschaft Mbh; 2022.
9.
FuXQiangYJWangJWZhaoXXHwangFJChenCH. Urban public transport accessibility to medical services from the perspective of residents’ travel: A hybrid assessment based on the whole process. IEEE Access.2021; 9: 8977-89.
10.
KlosMJSierpinskiG. Building a model of integration of urban sharing and public transport services. Sustainability.2021; 13(6): 26.
11.
RamYGal-TzurARechaviA. Identifying attributes of public transport services for urban tourists: A data-mining method. J Transp Geogr.2021; 93: 8.
12.
KarunanithiKHanCLeeCJShiWCDuanLQianY. Identification of a hemodynamic parameter for assessing treatment outcome of EDAS in Moyamoya disease. Journal of Biomechanics.2015; 48(2): 304-9.
13.
Keshavarz GhorabaeeMZavadskasEKOlfatLTurskisZ. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica.2015; 26(3): 435-51.
14.
JiangZWWeiGWChenXD. EDAS method based on cumulative prospect theory for multiple attribute group decision-making under picture fuzzy environment. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems.2022; 42(3): 1723-35.
15.
Keshavarz GhorabaeeMZavadskasEKAmiriMTurskisZ. Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: An application to supplier selection. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control.2016; 11(3): 358-71.
16.
LeiFWeiGWShenWJGuoYF. PDHL-EDAS method for multiple attribute group decision making and its application to 3d printer selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy.2022; 28(1): 179-200.
17.
Keshavarz GhorabaeeMAmiriMZavadskasEKTurskisZAntuchevicieneJ. A new multi-criteria model based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and EDAS method for supplier evaluation and order allocation with environmental considerations. Computers & Industrial Engineering.2017; 112: 156-74.
18.
StanujkicDZavadskasEKKeshavarz GhorabaeeMTurskisZ. An Extension of the EDAS Method Based on the Use of Interval Grey Numbers. Studies in Informatics and Control.2017; 26(1): 5-12.
19.
BarauskasAJakovlevas-MateckisKPaleviciusVAntuchevicieneJ. Ranking conceptual locations for a park-and-ride parking lot using EDAS method. Gradevinar.2018; 70(11): 975-83.
20.
WangHSmarandacheFZhangYQSunderramanR. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace Multistruct.2010; (4): 410-3.
21.
KabakOErvuralB. Multiple attribute group decision making: A generic conceptual framework and a classification scheme. Knowledge-Based Systems.2017; 123: 13-30.
22.
RahmanKAbdullahSAhmedRUllahM. Pythagorean fuzzy Einstein weighted geometric aggregation operator and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems.2017; 33(1): 635-47.
23.
GargH, Nancy. Linguistic single-valued neutrosophic prioritized aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute group decision-making. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing.2018; 9(6): 1975-97.
24.
RahmanKAbdullahSJamilMKhanMY. Some generalized intuitionistic fuzzy einstein hybrid aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems.2018; 20(5): 1567-75.
25.
GulistanMMohammadMKaraaslanFKadrySKhanSWahabHA. Neutrosophic cubic Heronian mean operators with applications in multiple attribute group decision-making using cosine similarity functions. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks.2019; 15(9): 21.
26.
GuptaPMehlawatMKGroverN. A generalized TOPSIS method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making considering different scenarios of attributes weight information. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems.2019; 21(2): 369-87.
27.
DiakoulakiDMavrotasGPapayannakisL. Determining objective weight in multple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research.1995; 22(7): 763-70.
28.
PengJJWangJQWangJZhangHYChenXH. Simplified neutrosophic sets and their applications in multi-criteria group decision-making problems. International Journal of Systems Science.2016; 47(10): 2342-58.
29.
MajumdarPSamantaSK. On similarity and entropy of neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems.2014; 26(3): 1245-52.
30.
DiakoulakiDMavrotasGPapayannakisL. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research.1995; 22(7): 763-70.
31.
CorderaRNoguesSGonzalez-GonzalezEdell’OlioL. Intra-urban spatial disparities in user satisfaction with public transport services. Sustainability.2019; 11(20): 22.
32.
RithMFilloneABionaJBM. The impact of socioeconomic characteristics and land use patterns on household vehicle ownership and energy consumption in an urban area with insufficient public transport service – A case study of metro Manila. J Transp Geogr.2019; 79: 10.
33.
ZhouXMLiangJHJiXFCottrillCD. The influence of information services on public transport behavior of urban and rural residents. Sustainability.2019; 11(19): 19.
34.
LiangHLZhangQP. Assessing the public transport service to urban parks on the basis of spatial accessibility for citizens in the compact megacity of Shanghai, China. Urban Stud.2018; 55(9): 1983-99.
35.
MugionRGToniMRaharjoHDi PietroLSebathuSP. Does the service quality of urban public transport enhance sustainable mobility? J Clean Prod.2018; 174: 1566-87.
36.
VargaBTettamantiTKulcsarB, editors. Optimal headway merging for balanced public transport service in urban networks. 15th International-Federation-of-Automatic-Control (IFAC) Symposium on Control in Transportation Systems (CTS); 2018 Jun 06–08; Italy. AMSTERDAM: Elsevier Science Bv; 2018.
37.
IsmailNAriffinIBAgeeSLYusoffYM, editors. FLOS Matrics for Urban Public Transport Quality Services. 4th International Conference on Green Design and Manufacture (IConGDM); 2018 Apr 29–30; Ho Chi Minh City, VIETNAM. MELVILLE: Amer Inst Physics; 2018.
38.
Jaramillo-SangurimaWETrokhimtchoukTQuezada-SarmientoPA, Ieee, editors. Systems of support for the Planning, Programming, Operation and Administration of the Smart Urban Public Transport Service: Case study city of Loja. 13th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI); 2018 Jun 13–16; Caceres, SPAIN. NEW YORK: Ieee; 2018.
39.
KopylovaTMikhailovAShesterovE, editors. A Level-of-Service concept regarding intermodal hubs of urban public passenger transport. 13th International Conference on Organization and Traffic Safety Management in Large Cities (SPbOTSIC); 2018 Sep 27–29; Saint Petersburg, RUSSIA. AMSTERDAM: Elsevier Science Bv; 2018.
40.
JulsrudTEDenstadliJM. Smartphones, travel time-use, and attitudes to public transport services. Insights from an explorative study of urban dwellers in two Norwegian cities. Int J Sustain Transp.2017; 11(8): 602-10.
41.
PenaDTchernykhARadchenkoGNesmachnowSLey-FloresJNazariegaR, editors. Multiobjective Optimization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Enhancing the Quality of Service for Urban Public Transport Timetabling. 4th International Conference on Engineering and Telecommunication (EnT); 2017 Nov 29–30; Moscow, RUSSIA. NEW YORK: Ieee; 2017.
42.
HerederoCDBermejoLJPBotellaJLM. The impact of operational support systems (OSS) on improving urban public transport services. Cuad Econ Dir Empresa.2012; 15(1): 12-24.
43.
FerroPSBehrensR. From direct to trunk-and-feeder public transport services in the Urban South: Territorial implications. J Transp Land Use.2015; 8(1): 123-36.
44.
YangFChenLChengYYaoZXZhangX. Urban public transport choice behavior analysis and service improvement policy-making: A case study from the metropolitan city, Chengdu, China. J Appl Stat.2015; 42(4): 806-16.
45.
BolturkEKarasanA. Prioritization of Investment Alternatives for a Hospital by Using Neutrosophic CODAS Method. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing.2019; 33(4-5): 381-96.
ZavadskasEKAntuchevicieneJSaparauskasJTurskisZ. MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: Verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research.2013; 47(2): 5-20.
48.
ZhangYWeiGGuoYWeiC. TODIM method based on cumulative prospect theory for multiple attribute group decisionmaking under 2tuple linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems.2021; 36(6): 2548-71.
49.
GargHRaniD. A robust correlation coefficient measure of complex intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications in decision-making. Applied Intelligence.2019; 49(2): 496-512.
50.
GargHRaniD. Complex interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their aggregation operators. Fundamenta Informaticae.2019; 164(1): 61-101.
51.
JahanAZavadskasEK. ELECTRE-IDAT for design decision-making problems with interval data and target-based criteria. Soft Computing.2019; 23(1): 129-43.
52.
ZhaoMWeiGWeiCGuoY. CPTTODIM method for bipolar fuzzy multiattribute group decision making and its application to network security service provider selection. International Journal of Intelligent Systems.2021; 36(5): 1943-69.
53.
YuGFLiDFFeiW. A novel method for heterogeneous multi-attribute group decision making with preference deviation. Computers & Industrial Engineering.2018; 124: 58-64.
