[Retracted] Preorder of Factors Affecting Oil Prices: Fuzzy PROMETHEE Approach

Abdullah, Lazim; Harun, Nurhatika; Mahali, Shalela Mohd; Jan, Naeem; Rak, Ewa

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2766945

Journal of Mathematics

On this page

Abstract Introduction Results Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article Retraction

!

This article has been Retracted. To view the article details, please click the ‘Retraction’ tab above.

Special Issue

Novel Approaches in Graph and Complexity-Based Data Analysis and Processing

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 2766945 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2766945

[Retracted] Preorder of Factors Affecting Oil Prices: Fuzzy PROMETHEE Approach

Lazim Abdullah,¹Nurhatika Harun,¹Shalela Mohd Mahali,¹Naeem Jan,²and Ewa Rak³

Academic Editor: Ghous Ali

Received20 Dec 2021

Revised28 Mar 2022

Accepted29 Mar 2022

Published17 Jun 2022

Abstract

Oil is a highly demanded worldwide product as oil prices can have a major economic and social impact. There are many factors affecting oil prices, but little is known about which factor mostly influenced oil prices. To understand what caused the fluctuation of oil prices, the investigation leading up to the identification of the factors must be constructed. Thus, this paper attempts to explore the factors that might have contributed to oil prices and analyze them using the fuzzy preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) method. In particular, the objective of this study is to rank the influential factors affecting oil prices with the consideration of a few criteria. The fuzzy PROMETHEE model comprises four criteria and five factors as the input information. A group of four experts are invited to provide an evaluation on scales of 1 to 5 of the importance of factors with respect to criteria. In computation, the evaluations are treated as triangular fuzzy numbers in which the uncertainty in data is dealt with amicably. This approach combines the advantages of transformation equation and nonarithmetic mean of the defuzzification method that transforms triangular fuzzy numbers into crisp numbers. The results indicate that “supply and demand” is the most influential factor in determining oil prices. Comparative analysis and future research directions are also discussed at the end of this paper.

1. Introduction

One of the most critical issues in the economic development of a country is global oil prices. The price of oil indirectly affects the cost of living of most people, since it is so directly attached to petrol costs. This implies that if global oil prices rise, so the price of petrol is rising as well, and this will affect people’s daily life. Oil prices are inconceivably sensitive, changing rapidly considering news cycles, arrangement changes, and fluctuation in the world’s business, manufacturing industries, and economic development sectors. For example, as oil prices go up, all the petrochemical-related industries such as plastic, rubber, paints, dyes, textile solvent, and so on will be affected directly [1]. It has been suggested that global oil price stands out among the most important floating prices in the world [2]. Oil prices are considered floating prices as there are many factors that can be attached to them. Oil prices changes are most likely to lead to inflation, and it is more intense when oil prices are on the rise. As indicated by the concept of supply and demand, the oil price should increase with increasing demand or decreasing supply [3]. Therefore, the oil price is not a straightforward issue as there are many other factors that concurrently attached to it. There is no quick-fix solution when it comes to finding the most influential factors that affect oil prices. Moreover, it shows that oil prices have a nonlinearly impact on inflation risk and other economic variables [4]. The presence of nonlinearity in the relationship between oil prices and their impacts and also factors that affect oil prices might influence the way oil prices are investigated.

1.1. Related Works

To further explore the issue of fluctuation and nonlinearity of oil prices, Kaufmann et al. [5] conducted a study that used a statistical model to assess casual relationships between factors to influence oil prices and monthly oil prices. A linear relationship could be a reasonable estimation under ordinary conditions. However, under extreme events, oil price may shift the market balance among supply and demand towards different types of markets in which prices are much more sensitive that will contain a small sample bias. Dees et al. [6] also show that a nonlinear effect of oil producers’ country’s capacity and condition in future markets are the factors of the oil price increase. The researchers developed a model to estimate the real average price of US crude oil. They expect the regression coefficient associated to be negative. However, there are a few weaknesses in the regression models that should be pointed out. Results from the econometric regression-based analysis are highly sensitive. Small changes in the data set and the model designs can give a huge impact on the outcomes [7]. Zakaria et al. [8] discussed further the nonlinearity of oil prices. They measured the influence of the world oil prices on inflation rates in South Asian countries using the value at risk, cointegration, and nonlinearity analysis. The results tell that cointegration holds among oil prices and inflation. Nonlinear causality tests stipulated that oil price causes inflation. A similar approach was also employed by Oloko et al. [9] who concluded that the monetary policy of oil-importing countries appears to accommodate oil price shocks. In a correlational study, Wu and Wang [10] examined the relationship between oil prices and corporate investment, conditional on market conditions. They discovered that oil prices are negatively correlated with corporate investment expenditure. However, they also found out that if market conditions are favorable, then corporate investment expenditure increases as oil prices rise.

As to depart from regression- and correlation-based analysis where data employed in studies are very much sensitive, Wang et al. [11] used a different approach. They used an extensive variety of generalized Maclaurin symmetric mean (MSM) aggregation operators that multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) issues were solved. The criteria in MCDM problems were enhanced by considering weights to reflect the importance of the criteria. They provide a practical example and conduct a comparison analysis between the proposed method and other existing methods in order to verify the proposed method and demonstrate its validity. They also successfully applied the proposed methods to a real-life MCDM problem. Very recently, in application research to biodiesel feedstock, Anwar [12] conducted research on defining the best possible biodiesel feedstock using various MCDM processes. Four MCDM processes, namely the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) graphical analysis for interactive assistance [13, 14], weighted sum method [15, 16], weighted product method [17], and technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution [18], were implemented for this investigation.

However, there are two pertinent matters that are normally attached to most of the MCDM methods. The matters are about their parametrization and its uncertainty. In fact, the feasibility of MCDM is directly connected to the importance and quality of the chosen parameters. One of the MCDM methods related to parametrization is the PROMETHEE. Unlike most of the MCDM method such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) that handle preference directly from decision-makers’ opinions, the PROMETHEE method heavily relies on the chosen parameters, which are normally known as preference functions. Preference function and pairwise comparison of alternatives and differences between two alternatives are the main advantages of PROMETHE that the final output is the partial preorder (partial ranking) and total preorder (complete ranking). Because of these advantages, the PROMETHEE method has specific application in decision-making and generally is utilized far and wide in a wide assortment of decision scenarios, in fields such as business, administrative establishment, health care, transportation, and education. The second matter is about uncertainty. As to deal with uncertainty in information, the fuzzy PROMETHEE was proposed. There is a fuzzy concept to the PROMETHEE method when dealing with uncertain and subjective information. The fuzzy set theory and the ranking technique were incorporated into the fuzzy PROMETHEE method. According to Brans and Mareschal [19], the fundamental advantage of this technique is the ease of use. Linguistic evaluations and the thought of fuzziness are the two notions that are germane to decision-making problem.

1.2. Motivation

A search of literature found that most of the researchers tend to conduct research using PROMETHEE rather than fuzzy PROMETHEE because the fuzzy PROMETHEE method is associated with the theory of fuzzy sets [20]. Another reason could be associated with heavy calculation in fuzzy PROMETHEE besides no readily available software to assist computation. However, in recent years, there has been an increasing interest in applications of fuzzy PROMETHEE not only as a single model but also integrated with other fuzzy-based decision-making models. For example, fuzzy PROMETHEE has been integrated with AHP in group decision-making [21]. Recent research also unveiled several new extensions of fuzzy PROMETHEEE such as m-polar fuzzy PROMETHEE [21], bipolar fuzzy PROMETHEE [22], and q-rung orthopair fuzzy PROMETHEE [23]. In application to health sciences, Maisaini et al. [24] conducted a study to break down the most common therapeutic techniques for lung cancer. In their venture, the fuzzy PROMETHEE method was utilized to investigate the therapeutic techniques that are dependent on six factors. The results demonstrated that the surgery among other techniques showed an incredible act on lung cancer treatment depending on the criteria, importance, and weights chosen. In addition, fuzzy PROMETHEE also has been integrated.

Fuzzy PROMETHEE also shows that one can easily adjust the method by including more criteria and change their significance and weight relying upon the application. Afful-Dadzie et al. [25] had proposed a two-phase framework of a decision-making methods and sensitivity analysis to show how aid recipient countries can be assessed to heighten transparency, reasonableness, esteem for cash, and manageability of such guide programs. Utilizing the OECD set for subjective criteria for assessing aid programs, a numerical model precharacterized by linguistic terms parameterized by triangular fuzzy numbers was given to assess aid programs. Fuzzy PROMETHEE was utilized in the first phase to assess and rank aid recipients pursued by a comparative analysis with other fuzzy-based decision-making methods. The result demonstrates a framework that can be utilized in assessing the aid effectiveness of recipient countries. Very recently, Ziemba [26] applied the fuzzy PROMETHEE combined with the Monte Carlo method and elements of the stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis method. They applied their proposed method for assessing vehicles under uncertain conditions. The approach allowed us to identify almost unambiguously the electric vehicle that is likely to gain the highest acceptance. As a result of the conducted research, it was found that the approaches to uncertainty based on fuzzy sets, outranking relations, and stochastic analysis complement each other, allowing the decision-maker to conduct a wider analysis of the imprecision of the obtained solution.

1.3. Innovative Contribution

Turning now to the fluctuations and nonlinearity of oil prices where understanding the importance of causal factors that affect oil prices is the main aim of this paper. The fuzzy PROMETHEE is used as a selection tool with the end goal is to identify the most influential factors that affect oil prices. The contributions of this paper are fourfold: (1) we propose to use a transformation equation in the computational steps of fuzzy PROMETHEE where information that is given in triangular fuzzy numbers is transformed into left-right fuzzy numbers. This transformation is meant to ease the computational burden and also to avoid the loss of information during the implementation. (2) We propose to introduce a nonarithmetic mean of defuzzification where a constant is used as a multiplying factor to the mid-values of the left-right triangular fuzzy numbers. This would enhance the dominance of mid-values of left-right triangular fuzzy numbers. (3) We propose partial preorder and total preorder of factors that affect oil prices. (4) We propose a comparative analysis of net value flows to validate the results obtained using the proposed method. These four contributions are embedded in the proposed fuzzy PROMETHEE where the partial preorder and total preorder of factors can indicate the most influential factors that affect global oil prices.

1.4. Framework of the Paper

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly revisits the definitions of linguistic variables, triangular fuzzy numbers, and their algebraic operations. Section 3 presents the methodology of the research, which includes the evaluation model. In Section 4, computational procedures and results for the case study of factors affecting oil prices are described. Section 5 provides the comparative results of the final ranking and net flows. Finally, Section 6 concludes.

2. Preliminary

In a similar way to MCDM methods, there is a fuzzy expansion of the PROMETHEE method when dealing with uncertain and subjective information. Fuzzy PROMETHEE has similarly observed enhancements in several variations such as PROMETHEE I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. The fuzzy PROMETHEE method has been used in solving numerous decision-making problems where the task of ranking alternatives and concurrently considering fuzzy information, fuzzy preferences, and fuzzy weights is indeed very challenging. This is partly due to interval data that would increase the complexity of computation. According to Brans and Mareschal [27], the fundamental advantage of this technique is ease of use in implementation because most of the decision-making problems can be solved by incorporating linguistic evaluations and the thought of fuzziness. Later, we revisit several notions related to fuzzy MCDM that will be used in the subsequent text.

2.1. Linguistic Variable [28]

Linguistic variables are used for system input and output and are represented by words or sentences instead of the number investigated by Zadeh [29, 30]. In explaining this, take the example of the linguistic variable “temperature.” Let T be a set of linguistic variable “temperatures” where T = {very cold, cold, moderate, warm, very hot}. The members of set T are called linguistic terms where gradations of T are defined. These linguistic terms are normally translated into triangular fuzzy numbers.

2.2. Triangular Fuzzy Numbers [31]

The triangular fuzzy number, , is defined by its lower limit a, its upper limit b, and the modal value m so that . It is written in the form of function A(x) as follows:

In this function, interval to m is increasing function, and interval to is decreasing function.

For or , x does not belong to the set.

For , the membership degree is indicated by membership function between 0 and 1.

These fuzzy numbers and their basic arithmetic operations are widely used in the fuzzy MCDM method.

2.3. Basic Operations of Triangular Fuzzy Numbers [32]

Let and be two triangular numbers, then the basic arithmetic operations for addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and scalar multiplication are defined as follows:

2.4. Preference Function [27]

Let is a preference function of PROMEHEE, where signify the function of the difference between the evaluations of alternative a with respect to alternative b on each criterion into a degree ranging from 0 to 1. The smaller number of functions indicates the indifference of the decision-maker. Conversely, closer to 1 indicates greater preference. If the usual criteria function, then the indifference only occurs when . The function of is given as follows:

The above notions are used directly during the implementation of computational procedures of the fuzzy PROMETHEE. The output of computational procedures are partial ranking and complete ranking of factors affecting oil prices.

3. Methodology

The methodology is a process used to collect information and data, which regularly includes interviews, data collection, and computational models. The purpose of this section is to have a discussion of the methodology used so that the objective of this study is met. This section begins by describing the type of data collection via experts, factors, and criteria that affect oil prices, followed by computational procedures of the fuzzy PROMETHEE method.

3.1. Experts and Linguistic Variable

In this research, data are collected via personal communication with a group of three experts. All experts have vast experiences in the oil and gas industry in which their details are summarized in Table 1.

In personal communication, experts are requested to provide a rating of five factors that affect oil prices with respect to four criteria of oil prices using the linguistic variable shown in Table 2.

The experts are also requested to provide a level of importance of each criterion using the linguistic variable of “importance.” This linguistic variable and its respective triangular fuzzy numbers are shown in Table 3.

3.2. Factors and Criteria

Five factors , and that represent supply, demand, report (OPEC, target pricing, and investment), political event and crises, and access markets, respectively, are the factors chosen in this study. Descriptions of factors are given in Table 4.

Through personal communication, the experts () are requested to rank and evaluate the factors that affect oil prices with respect to four criteria. In this study, criteria are defined as a benchmark in determining oil prices. Benchmark crude or marker crude is raw petroleum that fills in as a source of the reference price for purchasers and dealers of raw petroleum. Benchmarks are utilized in light of the fact that there are various assortments and grades of unrefined petroleum. The benchmark makes it simpler for dealers, investors, experts, and others to decide the prices of multitudes of grades of unrefined petroleum [1]. In this study, the criteria are (West Texas Intermediate, WTI), (Brent), (OPEC Reference Basket), and (Western Canadian Select, WCS). Descriptions of the criteria are presented in Table 5.

Evaluation of the criteria and the factors become the input data or information for computation using the fuzzy PROMETHEE. The output of the computations are partial ranking and complete ranking. Information processing is implemented using the fuzzy PROMETHEE where information of the input data are given in triangular fuzzy numbers. Detailed computational procedures are given as follows.

3.3. Computational Procedures of Fuzzy PROMETHEE Method

In most fuzzy MCDM frameworks, identifying alternatives, criteria, linguistic variables, and experts are required. In the following, we propose the computational procedures for the generic fuzzy PROMETHEE, which later can be used in the case of oil prices. These computational procedures are adopted from Abdullah et al. [41] where the steps of PROMETHEE with crisp numbers are the main designs. Several innovations are made in the proposed fuzzy PROMETHEE compared to the PROMETHEE [41]. Apart from the substitution of crisp numbers with triangular fuzzy numbers, the proposed fuzzy PROMETHEE method also includes a transformation process where triangular fuzzy numbers are transformed into left-right triangular fuzzy numbers. This transformation is needed as left-right fuzzy numbers can easily fit with the Yager index that will be employed in the subsequent step. Instead of using the arithmetic mean in defuzzification, this proposed method introduced coefficient 3 to the mid-value of left-right triangular fuzzy numbers. This will propel the dominance of the mid-value of left-right triangular fuzzy numbers without ignoring their left width and right width. Another innovation is the sequence of obtaining partial preorder and total preorder. In the proposed method, the partial preorder is obtained just before the step of transformation and defuzzification where this decision is made based on the values of triangular fuzzy numbers of inflows and outflows. This sequence is contrasting with the regular PROMETHEE where partial preorder and total preorder happen one after the other. The flowchart of the proposed method is shown in Figure 1.

The proposed nine-step computational procedures are as follows:

Step 1. Define factors, criteria, and experts.
Suppose in a decision-making problem, we have m alternatives, k criteria, and n experts.

Step 2. Define linguistic variables and linguistic terms in triangular fuzzy numbers.
Define the criteria weight of each criterion corresponding to the linguistic term. The represents the weight of criterion based on linguistic terms assigned by experts. The weight of the criterion is expressed in triangular fuzzy numbers.

Step 3. Aggregate the evaluation.
The weights of the criteria and the ratings of factors are aggregated using the basic proportion equation as follows:

Step 4. Construct preference function.
The preference function represents the experts’ preference between pairs of factors. The preference function for a criterion can be defined as follows:

Step 5. Compute the multifactor preference index.
Multicriteria preference index is used to choose the rate in outranking relation.where denotes the important weight of the factor.
If , it implies a weak preference of over .
If , it implies a strong preference of over .

Step 6. Compute the positive and negative outranking flows for partial preorder.
For PROMETHEE I (partial ranking), the ranking of factors is made by calculating the positive and negative outranking flows as follows:where m and n denote the number of factors and experts, respectively.

Step 7. Transform triangular fuzzy numbers.
The triangular number needs to transform into the form It is necessary to represent fuzzy numbers in form of left-right.

Step 8. Defuzzify.
The defuzzification method used in this study is the Yager index method. The average of left-right and middle of triangular fuzzy numbers is the defuzzification value. The defuzzification equation is

Step 9. Establish total preorder
The complete or full ranking of factors is established based on the value of net flows. Negative net flows subtracted from positive net flows will give net flows.The above computational procedures are implemented in the case of factors affecting oil prices. Detailed computations and results are given in the following section.

4. Computations and Results

Information about the evaluation becomes the input data for implementing the computation. All this information is given in triangular fuzzy numbers, and the execution of the computation is made according to the proposed computational procedures.

Evaluation of criteria given by experts is summarized in Table 6.

Aggregation of weight of criterion from experts is computed using equation (4).

Equation (12) shows the weights represent aggregated weights for oil benchmarks (criteria) , respectively.

Table 7 shows the ratings of the factors with respect to criteria.

The above ratings are aggregated using equation (4) to obtain aggregated rating for each criterion. For example,

Equation (13) shows part of the aggregated ratings for criteria. These results are summarized in Table 8.

This study uses the usual function (type 1) as a preference function (see equation (5)).

For example,

The initial part of the preference functions is shown in equation (14). Tables 9–13 show the fuzzy preference function of , respectively.

The next step is calculating the multifactor preference index using equation (6).

For example,

Parts of the preference index values are shown in equation (15). It is summarized in Table 14.

In the following, the positive outflows and negative outflows of each factor (PROMETHEE I partial ranking) can be determined using equations (7) and (8). Table 15 shows the positive outflows and negative outflows of factors.

In fuzzy PROMETHEE I, the partial preorders of factors of are , , and . The partial preorders of factors are shown in Figure 2.

It can be seen that the dominant factor is as this factor influences four other factors. However, PROMETHEE I could not tell the complete outranking of factors. The next analysis is PROMETHEE II where complete outranking can be obtained.

Normalization equation (see equation (9)) is used to transform the triangular fuzzy numbers into left-right fuzzy numbers.

For example,

Two examples of left-right fuzzy numbers are shown in equation (16). Table 16 summarizes all flows written in form of left-right fuzzy numbers.

The Yager index method is used as the defuzzification method in this study (see equation (10)). Table 17 presents the defuzzified value of flows.

Net flows (PROMETHEE II) of the factors are calculated using equation (11). The complete ranking is obtained by arranging net flows in descending order. Table 18 presents the net flow and complete preference ranking.

The partial preorder of factors as shown in Figure 2 dictates us to draw a complete preorder of factors in fuzzy PROMETHEE II. The complete preorder is

Equation (17) shows the general complete preorder of five factors. Figure 3 presents the complete order of factors.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the most influential factor affecting oil prices is (supply) followed by (demand). The least influential factor affecting oil prices is (access markets).

The results are undergone further discussion and comparative analysis. The following section discusses the results from a comparative study perspective.

5. Comparative Analysis

It is known that the fuzzy PROMETHEE method is an extension of PROMETHEE in which the evaluation scales in PROMETHEE are substituted with triangular fuzzy numbers. The uses of fuzzy numbers are meant to capture uncertainty in the factors affecting oil prices. Therefore, in this section, a comparative analysis is presented in which the results obtained from fuzzy PROMETHEE are compared to the results obtained from PROMEHEE. The computational implementation of the PROMETHEE method is slightly straightforward as the computation only deals with crisp numbers. All computational procedures in Section 3 are iterated with some modifications in the types of evaluation scales used.

This comparative analysis is presented from two viewpoints. The first outlook is by seeing the respective values of net flows. Figure 4 shows the comparison of fuzzy PROMETHEE and PROMETHEE methods based on their values of net flows.

It can be seen that all factors are consistently shared similar patterns for both methods. However, for the factor of political event and crises, fuzzy PROMEHEE provides negative net flows. On the other hand, the same factor provides positive net flows when the PROMETHEE is implemented. It shows that the fuzzy numbers used in the evaluation can capture wide-ranging values compared to crisp numbers in PROMETHEE.

The second viewpoint in this comparative analysis is their final preference ranking. The comparative results of final ranking preference are summarized in Table 19.

It is apparent that the factor (demand) is ranked in the first position when the crisp scales are employed in evaluation. In contrast, the factor (supply) is ranked in the first position when triangular fuzzy number scales are employed in evaluation. However, there is a similarity between the two methods. The factor (access market) shares the weakest performance for both methods.

The performance of these two methods is further analyzed using a statistical test. From the above analysis, the ranking of factors is obtained from the values of net flows. These values are seemed dissimilar due to the different methods used. However, these values can be hypothesized as having some extent of correlation between the methods. The hypotheses can be written as follows:(i)H0: (ii)H1: where is an estimated correlation coefficient

Test statistic , with df = n – 2.

Correlation coefficient , where X and Y are net flows of fuzzy PROMETHEE and PROMETHEE, respectively, and n is the number of factors.

From the calculation of the correlation coefficient, it is found that r = 0.4775 and t = 0.9413. With a significant level and t is less than 2.306, this test indicates that there is no correlation between the net flows of PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE. From this analysis, we can conclude that these two methods are independent because of the difference in the types of numbers used as input data. It is good to note that fuzzy PROMETHEE uses triangular fuzzy numbers as input data. In contrast, crisp numbers are the input data used in PROMETHEE. This comparison also tells us that the input values are very important in determining the outcome of ranking. In other words, the ranking results obtained from the fuzzy PROMETHEE are sensitive to the input data. Different types of fuzzy numbers used could give different ranking results.

In addition to the comparative analysis between two PROMETHEE-based methods, it is also good to see the comparative analysis between PROMETHEE-based methods with other preference methods. Ziemba [42], for example, conducted a comparative study between fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy SAW, and NEAT fuzzy PROMETHEE II in the selection of electric vehicles. The selection problem was solved by these preference methods. The decision problem defined by the preference models gave three different solutions in the form of rankings. The rankings show that the best vehicle was awarded to A11-Volkswagen ID.3 Pro S, regardless of the preference method used. In another comparative analysis, ranking of contractors was conducted using q-ROF TOPSIS, q-ROF VIKOR, and q-ROF PROMETHEE methods [23]. They conclude that all these preference methods are close to the results of their proposed q-ROF PROMETHEE method where the optimal solution is the same for all methods

6. Conclusions

There are many factors that can contribute to global oil prices, and most of these factors are characterized by subjectivity, uncertainty, and variability. Investigation of factors affecting oil prices is therefore must be seen as a multifactor decision analysis, and more importantly, the concept of fuzziness and uncertainty must be embedded. In this paper, factors affecting oil prices have been investigated using the approach of fuzzy PROMETHEE where triangular fuzzy numbers are employed in expert evaluation. The fuzzy PROMETHEE used in this study is characterized by partial ranking and also complete ranking. The final preference ranking is indeed a modification to the partial ranking of positive outflow values. The final ranking result shows “supply” is the most influential factor in determining oil prices followed by “demand.” The current findings add significant knowledge to our understanding of the famous theory in the economic model of the price determination market. It is presumed that in a competitive market, the unit price for a specific cooperative attitude shifts until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded by buyers will equal the quantity supplied by producers. A research finding by Heakal [3] also pointed out that the oil price should increase with increasing demand or decreasing supply. Most researchers, for example [6, 7, 43], also concluded that supply and demand are the most influential factors in oil prices. Contrary to this finding, Chaw et al. [44] found that the “global economic rate” is the most influential factor. However, this research is subjected to some limitations. From the perspective of the evaluation model used, the weight assigned in this study could be improved by employing a more stable method that is germane to fuzzy knowledge such as entropy measures. Other than weight analysis, perhaps aggregation operators and sensitivity tools using PROMETHEE VI could be explored in the future. The latest aggregation methods such as Benforroni mean [45, 46], and Choquet integral [47] are among the potential candidates that could be explored as a future research direction. In future investigations, it might be possible to use different MCDM methods such as rough ELECTRE II [48] and D-TOPSIS [49], in which these methods can be applied to investigate the fluctuation of oil prices.

Data Availability

The linguistic data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest for this publication.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the writing of this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Centre of Research and Innovation Management of the University Malaysia Terengganu for providing excellent research and academic environments.

References

Anon, “What are the possible causes and consequences of higher oil prices on the overall economy?” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2007, https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2007/november/oil-prices-impact-economy/#1.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Heakal, “Economics basics: supply and demand. Investopedia,” 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Sephton and J. Mann, “Gold and crude oil prices after the great moderation,” Energy Economics, vol. 71, pp. 273–281, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. K. Kaufmann, S. Dees, P. Karadeloglou, and M. Sanchez, “Does OPEC matter? An econometric analysis of oil prices,” Energy Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 67–90, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Dées, A. Gasteuil, R. K. Kaufmann, and M. Mann, “Assessing the factors behind oil price changes,” 2008, Working Paper Series.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Johannessen and K. Skjelvik, The Impact of Oil Price Volatility on Statoil, 2017.
M. Zakaria, S. Khiam, and H. Mahmood, “Influence of oil prices on inflation in South Asia: some new evidence,” Resources Policy, vol. 71, Article ID 102014, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. F. Oloko, A. E. Ogbonna, A. A. Adedeji, and N. Lakhani, “Oil price shocks and inflation rate persistence: a Fractional Cointegration VAR approach,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 70, pp. 259–275, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Wu and Y. Wang, “How does corporate investment react to oil prices changes? Evidence from China,” Energy Economics, vol. 97, Article ID 105215, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-q. Wang, Y. Yang, and L. Li, “Multi-criteria decision-making method based on single-valued neutrosophic linguistic Maclaurin symmetric mean operators,” Neural Computing & Applications, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1529–1547, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Anwar, “Biodiesel feedstocks selection strategies based on economic, technical, and sustainable aspects,” Fuel, vol. 283, Article ID 119204, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Mareschal and J.-P. Brans, “Geometrical representations for MCDA,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2005.
P. C. Fishburn, “Additive utilities with incomplete product set: applications to priorities and assignments,” Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 537–542, 1967.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p. 320, 2000.
J. R. S. C. Mateo, “Weighted sum method and weighted product method,” Multi Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry. Green Energy and Technology, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1981.
J. P. Brans and B. Mareschal, “Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys- PROMETHEE methods,” International Series in Operational Research and Management Science, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 163–195, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
M. P. Moreira, C. J. Dupont, and M. M. B. R. Vellasco, “PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE multicriteria methods for ranking equipment failure modes,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent System Applications to Power Systems, pp. 1–6, Curitiba, Brazil, November 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Akram, Shumaiza, and J. C. R. Alcantud, “An m-polar fuzzy PROMETHEE approach for AHP-assisted group decision-making,” Mathematical and Computational Applications, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 26, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Akram, Shumaiza, and A. N. Al-Kenani, “Multi-criteria group decision-making for selection of green suppliers under bipolar fuzzy PROMETHEE process,” Symmetry, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 77, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Akram and S. Shumaiza, “Multi-criteria decision making based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy Promethee approach,” Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 107–127, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Maisaini, B. Uzun, I. Ozsahin, and D. Uzun, 13th International Conference on Theory and Application of Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing—ICAFS-2018. Systems and Computing, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 209–215, 2019, Evaluating Lung Cancer Treatment Techniques Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE Approach.
View at: Publisher Site
E. Afful-Dadzie, S. Nabareseh, Z. K. Oplatková, and P. Klimek, Intelligent Systems and Applications, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2016, Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE to Select Countries for Developmental Aid.
P. Ziemba, “Multi-criteria approach to stochastic and fuzzy uncertainty in the selection of electric vehicles with high social acceptance,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 173, Article ID 114686, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Brans and P. Vincke, “Note-A preference ranking organisation method,” Management Science, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 647–656, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-M. Chen and J.-A. Hong, “Multicriteria linguistic decision making based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and the aggregation of fuzzy sets,” Information Sciences, vol. 286, no. 1, pp. 63–74, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 338–353, 1965.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Zadeh, “The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I,” Information Sciences, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 199–249, 1975.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Jatinder and N. I. Thakur, “A novel method to solve assignment problem in fuzzy environment,” Journal of Industrial Engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 31–35, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Afful-Dadzie, Z. K. Oplatková, and S. Nabareseh, “Selecting start up business in a public venture capital financing using Fuzzy PROMETHEE,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 63–72, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Globalis, “Organization of petroleum-exporting countries (OPEC),” 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Baffes, M. A. Kose, F. Ohnsorge, and M. Stocker, “The great plunge in oil prices: causes, consequences and policy implications,” Policy Research Notes, vol. 15, no. 1, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Heinberg, The Party’s over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, New Society Publishers, Gabriola, BC, Canada, 2005.
L. Yan, “Analysis of the international oil price fluctuations and its influencing factors,” American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, vol. 02, no. 02, pp. 39–46, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W.-M. Liu, E. Schultz, and J. Swieringa, “Price dynamics in global crude oil markets,” Journal of Futures Markets, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 148–162, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. P. Scheitrum, C. A. Carter, and C. Revoredo-Giha, “WTI and Brent futures pricing structure,” Energy Economics, vol. 72, pp. 462–469, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
M. M. Ghazani and S. B. Ebrahimi, “Testing the adaptive market hypothesis as an evolutionary perspective on market efficiency: evidence from the crude oil prices,” Finance Research Letters, vol. 30, pp. 60–68, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Batabyal and R. Killins, “The influence of oil prices on equity returns of Canadian energy firms,” Journal of Risk and Financial Management, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 226, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Abdullah, W. Chan, and A. Afshari, “Application of PROMETHEE method for green supplier selection: a comparative result based on preference functions,” Journal of Industrial Engineering International, vol. 15, pp. 271–285, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Ziemba, “Selection of electric vehicles for the needs of sustainable transport under conditions of uncertainty—a comparative study on fuzzy MCDA methods,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 22, p. 7786, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ehrig, F. Behrendt, M. Wörgetter, and C. Strasser, Economics and Price Risks in International Pellet Supply Chains, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 27–44, 2014, Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology.
View at: Publisher Site
Y. Chaw, L. Abdullah, and M. Othman, “Single-valued neutrosophic relations and their application to factors affecting oil prices,” CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 115–120, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. A. Awang, L. Abdullah, and H. Hashim, “A Bonferroni mean considering Shapley fuzzy measure under hesitant bipolar-valued neutrosophic set environment for an investment decision,” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pp. 1–28, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Awang, N. Hanum Aizam, A. Ab, A. T. Ghani, M. Othman, and L. Abdullah, “A normalized weighted bonferroni mean aggregation operator considering shapley fuzzy measure under interval-valued neutrosophic environment for decision making,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 321–336, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Abdullah, N. A. Awang, and M. Othman, “Application of Choquet integral-fuzzy measures for aggregating customers’ satisfaction,” Advances in Fuzzy Systems, vol. 8, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Sarwar, M. Akram, and P. Liu, “An integrated rough ELECTRE II approach for risk evaluation and effects analysis in automatic manufacturing process,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 4449–4481, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Sarwar, “Decision-making approaches based on color spectrum and D-TOPSIS method under rough environment,” Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1–32, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Lazim Abdullah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

291

Downloads

469

Citations