City Sustainable Development Evaluation Based on Hesitant Multiplicative Fuzzy Information

He, Xiaorong; Wu, Yingyu

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8306508

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Preliminaries Conclusion Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2017 | Article ID 8306508 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8306508

City Sustainable Development Evaluation Based on Hesitant Multiplicative Fuzzy Information

Xiaorong He¹and Yingyu Wu¹

Academic Editor: Fiorenzo A. Fazzolari

Received28 May 2017

Accepted29 Aug 2017

Published08 Oct 2017

Abstract

Sustainable development evaluation is the basis of city sustainable development research, and effective evaluation is the foundation for guiding the formulation and implementation of sustainable development strategy. In this paper, we provided a new city sustainable development evaluation method called hesitant multiplicative fuzzy TODIM (HMF-TODIM). The main advantage of this method is that it can deal with the subjective preference information of the decision-makers. The comparison study of existing methods and HMF-TODIM is also carried out. Additionally, real case analysis is presented to show the validity and superiority of the proposed method. Research results in this paper can provide useful information for the construction of sustainable cities.

1. Introduction

Urbanization brings a series of ecological and environmental problems while bringing about economic and social benefits [1]. For example, urbanization leads to water quality deterioration, resource depletion, air pollution, traffic congestion, and so on. The implementation of sustainable development is the only way for the development of urbanization and the urgent need of the international situation [2]. At present, the study on the evaluation of urban sustainable development is a universal issue [3]. At present, there are many researches on the evaluation of urban sustainable development at home and abroad. Most of the research has been carried out from the aspects of structure, coordination, and continuity of the cities [4]. In addition, most of the research has been using the traditional methods, such as AHP and Delphi. These methods cannot effectively deal with the subjective preferences of decision makers, and most models are difficult to apply to practice. This paper presents a new city sustainable development evaluation method based on hesitant multiplicative fuzzy information.

Since Zadeh proposed the theory of fuzzy set [5], it has been extended to intuitionistic fuzzy sets [6–11], hesitant fuzzy sets [12–15], dual hesitant fuzzy set [16–18], and so on. And the above extended fuzzy set has been used in decision-making problems [19–23]. Recently, Xia et al. [24] presented the concept of intuitionistic multiplicative preference relation (IMPR). Xia and Xu [25] proposed the hesitant multiplicative preference relation (HMPR). These two kinds of preference relation are very useful in describing the preference relations of the decision-makers [26–28].

As a useful tool for the multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) problem, the TODIM method was first introduced by Gomes and Lima [29, 30] and later widely spread in many fields for solving MCDM problems [31–33]. The TODIM method is based on the Prospect Theory [31] and takes the DMs’ psychological information and emotional preference into consideration. At present, the TODIM method has been extended to intuitionistic fuzzy [34, 35], interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy [36], and hesitant fuzzy environment [37]. However, the TODIM method has not been studied with HMPR which is the focus of this paper.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the concepts about hesitant fuzzy preference relation and hesitant multiplicative preference relation are presented; the aggregation operations for hesitant multiplicative values are also provided. In Section 3, we present a distance measure for the hesitant multiplicative elements. Section 4 proposes an extended TODIM method under hesitant multiplicative environment. In Section 5, an illustrative example about city sustainable development evaluation is shown to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method. Concluding remarks are presented in Section 6.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Hesitant Fuzzy Preference Relation and Hesitant Multiplicative Preference Relation

Inspired by the HFS (hesitant fuzzy set) [12] and FPR (fuzzy preference relation) [38], Liao et al. [39] presented a new concept called HFPR (hesitant fuzzy preference relation).

Definition 1 (see [39]). In a HFPR, we have a set of fixed alternatives and then derive a matrix , where , through comparing every alternative with each other. And each is expressed with several hesitant fuzzy values so that DMs can provide their preferences for alternative over alternative in a hesitancy range. What is more, each should satisfy the following conditions:where means there is no difference between alternative and alternative , means the alternative is superior to alternative , and the means the alternative is superior to alternative .

Based on the proposal of HFPR, an extended concept called HMPR (hesitant multiplicative preference relation), which utilizes a new information expressing method, is presented by Xia and Xu [25]. The only difference between the two concepts is that the HMPR uses Saaty’s 1–9 scale while the HFPR uses the 0.1–0.9 scale. Firstly, we give the definitions of HMS (hesitant multiplicative set) and HME (hesitant multiplicative element) proposed by Zhang and Wu [40]. Then we introduce the concept of HMPR.

Definition 2 (see [40]). A HMS on a fixed set is defined as follows: is a HME of and satisfies the following conditions:

Definition 3 (see [25]). In a HMPR, we have a set of fixed alternatives and then derive a matrix , where , through comparing alternative with alternative . And each should satisfy the following conditions:

We define that is a HME where and means the alternative is equally preferred to alternative ; means the alternative is not preferred to alternative ; and means the alternative is preferred to alternative . What is more, presents the alternative is extremely not preferred to alternative and contrarily presents the alternative is extremely preferred to alternative .

2.2. Aggregation Operations for Hesitant Multiplicative Values

Aggregation operator is an important research topic in decision-making problems [41–44]. Hesitant multiplicative information aggregation operators were first proposed by Xia and Xu [25]. Then Yu [45] made some changes and presented some extended aggregation operators. In this paper, we use the following operator [45] to aggregate hesitant multiplicative information. The operator is stated as follows:

This operator is called HMFWA (hesitant multiplicative fuzzy weighted averaging) operator and is a set of HMNs (hesitant multiplicative numbers). After that, Yu [45] presented a theorem with a condition that is a set of weight vectors with respect to the HMNs , where and . And is the value in the HMN . The theorem is provided below:

3. Distance Measure for HMEs

In this section, we propose a new distance measure for integrating the HMEs in order to combine with the TODIM method. We would set a nonideal HME and derive a series of corresponding values through calculating the distance between the nonideal HME and each HME we picked. According to the definition of the distance measure, the higher the score is, the bigger the difference between two objects is. What is more, the bigger the difference between the ideal HME and the HME we picked is, the better the HME is. So we can realize the target of evaluating each HME via the distance measure and the effect of it. And the effect is similar to the compatibility degree between a pair of intuitionistic multiplicative values presented by Jiang et al. [46]. We concisely represent the distance measure presented by Xu and Xia [47], called hesitant normalized Hamming distance.

We need to calculate the distance between HMEs; however, this distance measure is for HFSs. In order to fit our method, we made a little change to this distance measure. And then we can calculate the distance between HMEs and present the measure as follows:where and are two HMEs. All the values in each HME are in a monotone increasing order and is the th largest value in the element. What is more, represents the number of the values in the HME.

HMEs and HFEs have many similar characteristics. For instance, they both have a membership degree containing several possible valves to express DMs’ preferences under hesitancy and uncertainty. The only difference is that HMEs are denoted by Saaty’s 1–9 scale so the distance measure is also applicable to the calculation under hesitant multiplicative fuzzy environment.

4. Extended TODIM Method under Hesitant Multiplicative Environment

4.1. The Classical TODIM Method

Suppose there is a MCDM problem [19, 48–64]; the set of alternatives were represented as as well as a set of criteria as shown as . Assume one of the criteria as the reference criterion and give the weight vectors denoted as with respect to the set of criteria and the weight vectors satisfy and . Then experts are asked to estimate each alternative. After obtaining the values of the alternatives, each value should be divided by the sum of all the values and then obtain a matrix where the values are normalized [65–73]. The matrix of the values is called the normalized alternatives’ scores against criteria and the matrix is denoted as in Table 1.

After assigning the proper values to the weights and its normalization, DMs have to select a reference criterion which is the most vital compared with the other criteria. , is the weight of criterion .

Each alternative’s performance should be transformed into the same dimension via using . And we use the following mathematical expression to calculate the dominance of alternative over another alternative .when is a parameter of the attenuation factor of the losses.

Then we need to calculate the global value of alternative using the following expression:

Finally, we can rank the alternatives varying from 1 to according to the global value, respectively.

4.2. An Extended TODIM Method

We plan to present a new TODIM method synthesizing the aggregation operations, distance measures, and classical TODIM method mentioned above. Our innovation is to utilize the TODIM method’s advantages such as considering the DMs’ psychological information and emotional preference, to solve MCDM problems under hesitant multiplicative environment. Zhang and Wu [40] had solved a MCMD problem using some aggregation operations with interval-valued hesitant information. Nevertheless, they only relied on aggregation operations to deal with the alternatives’ performances but not thinking about something psychological. So our method is necessary and valid for this black space.

Step 1. We provide a set of alternatives denoted as and several criteria . Besides we set weight vectors for the criteria with and . What is more, we need a group of experts to give their evaluation using hesitant multiplicative information. According to these, we obtain a HMPR called constructed by Saaty’s 1–9 scale, where represents the dominance degree of alternative over alternative . Compared with the ordinary HMPR, there is a little difference in the following step which we use a set of criteria to replace the role of decision organization. In general, we obtain some HMPRs associated with each decision organization, respectively. However, in order to accomplish the new method combined with the TODIM method, we need experts to provide their preferences for each alternative with respect to the criteria. Furthermore due to the restriction of professions, experts are not permitted to evaluate certain alternative associated with a criterion if they know little about it. Note that experts are independent of each other. Then we can obtain a hesitant multiplicative preference relation called , where denotes all the values given by experts comparing alternative with alternative with respect to the criterion .

Step 2. We use (6) to aggregate every in the HMPR associated with each criterion, respectively, and then derive a series of for the alternative under the criterion .

Step 3. Set a nonideal element with the minimum hesitant multiplicative value (HMV) called , where . Then we calculate the distance between the nonideal alternative and the target element we calculated in the last step, via utilizing (8). It is obvious that the bigger the distance value is, the better the performance of the alternative is. According to this, we can obtain a new matrix called composed of the distance grades between the nonideal element and each alternative associated with the criterion , respectively. And this matrix was presented in Table 2.

In Table 2, and indicate the alternatives and criteria we selected, respectively.

Step 4. We utilize the TODIM method to deal with the matrix . Through the process, we can obtain the global values of the alternatives and get the rank ordering for these alternatives. Specific processes are as follows:(i)Calculate the dominance of alternative over another alternative corresponding to each criterion after determining the reference criterion , via the expressionwhen

is a parameter to reflect the attenuation of the losses.(ii) Calculate the global values of each alternative using the following formula:

5. Case Studies

Sustainable development evaluation is the basis of urban sustainable development research, and correct evaluation is an important basis for guiding the formulation and implementation of sustainable development strategy. At the same time, due to the specificity and complexity of the city, the sustainable development of different cities is difficult to use the same indicators. Therefore, the sustainable development evaluation is both a hot and difficult point in the field of research.

Starting from the three aspects of economy (), society (), and resources and environment (), the sustainable development level and ability of three cities in Zhejiang province, China, are evaluated.

We invite three experts to give their assessment with respective to the three cities associated with different criteria. What is more, each expert is not disturbed by each other.

First we obtain three matrices denoted by the HMPR for each criterion called . The matrices are the HMPRs associated with the three cities under (economy), (society), and (resources and environment), respectively. The values in the HMPRs are the primary data provided by the experts and we present them in Tables 3–5.

(i) Then we use the aggregation operations to deal with the primary data via (6) and derive nine results of each alternative with respect to the criteria denoted as , where means the alternative and means the criterion .

(ii) In general cases of group decision-making (GDM) problem, lots of researchers use a weighted aggregation operation to aggregate and obtain which means the global value of alternative over the other alternatives. Even Zhang and Wu [40] did the same work in a MCMD problem based on the interval-valued hesitant multiplicative preference relation. However we do not use this operation but lead a distance measure (8) into this step to calculate the distance between the alternatives we picked and a nonideal alternative . So we can illustrate whether an alternative’s value is bigger than another one through calculating their distance value . And we obtain a matrix composed of the distance values in Table 6.

(iii) The distance values of are bigger than those of and associated with and . And the distance value of associated with ranks first. As we mentioned in Section 4.2, the bigger the distance value is, the better the alternative’s performance is. Therefore the result we obtained in Table 7 means the performance of associated with and is best, while the performance of related to is better than the other two.

(iv) We use the TODIM method to deal with the matrix calculated above and gain the dominance degree of each alternative via (12). We present the dominance degree in Table 7. And then we can get the global valves of all the alternatives which are presented in Table 8.

From the result, it is obvious that is ranked first. We can roughly derive that possesses the biggest distance value with the nonideal alternative compared with the other two in Table 7. As we mentioned above, the bigger the distance value is, the better the alternative’s performance is. Therefore, after calculating the distance values between the three companies and the nonideal alternative, the dominant position of is relatively manifest. And in Table 7, the superiority of is more obvious because only the dominance degree of is a positive number while the dominance degrees of the other two are negative numbers. And the definition of the dominance degree is the comparison of two alternatives’ advantages and disadvantages. Therefore we can infer that is the best from the result of calculating the dominance degree.

5.1. Comparison between the New Method and an Aggregation Operation Method

In this subsection, we plan to do a comparison between our new method, HMF-TODIM, and an existing method based on aggregation operations proposed by Yu [45] which is provided as follows.

Step 1. Use (6) to aggregate every in the HMPRs associated with each criterion in Tables 3–5, respectively. And then derive a series of for the alternative under the criterion . This step is the same as the HMF-TODIM method.

Step 2. Through utilizing (6) again, we aggregate each to derive every alternative’s global value . The global value indicates the performance of each alternative related to the all criteria under the hesitant multiplicative environment.

Step 3. According to a score function defined by Xia [74], identify the sorting of the alternatives’ values. And the score function is given as follows:

Noting that is the number of the values of , if , then .

It is obvious to see that Step 1 of this method is the same as Step 2 of the HMF-TODIM method. Therefore we can obtain the same values to the set of :

Then we aggregate the set of to obtain the global values via (6). Considering the enormous calculation process, we do not put the calculation result of Step 2 in our paper.

Finally, we identify the sorting of the three alternatives via the score function.

, , and . Since , then , and we present the score values related to the alternatives in Table 9.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we proposed a new TODIM method called HMF-TODIM method and applied it to the field of city sustainable development evaluation. The use of asymmetric information can solve more practical problems in the real world. Expressing the DMs’ preferences with asymmetric information is more scientific and closer to the reality because the DMs’ preference degrees may increase irregularly. For instance, the growth range from the extremely nonpreferred one to the equally preferred one may be smaller than that from the extremely preferred one to the equally preferred one. In addition, we also considered the hesitancy and uncertainty during decision-making process. A real case analysis is presented to show the validity and superiority of the proposed method. In the future study, we intend to apply the proposed methods to the field of energy [75–78] and supplier evaluation and selection [79–81].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Miss Shi Shunshun from Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics for the assistance and useful advice.

References

L. Liu, Y. Lin, L. Wang et al., “An integrated local climatic evaluation system for green sustainable eco-city construction: a case study in Shenzhen, China,” Building and Environment, vol. 114, pp. 82–95, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Haghshenas, M. Vaziri, and A. Gholamialam, “Evaluation of sustainable policy in urban transportation using system dynamics and world cities data: a case study in Isfahan,” Cities, vol. 45, pp. 104–115, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Pu and Y. Qiu, “The synergy between city human resources and city economy development based on the city marketing: the case of Chengdu,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2014, Article ID 892526, 9 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Yu, S. Yao, R. Chen, K. Zhu, and L. Yu, “A quantitative integrated evaluation of sustainable development of mineral resources of a mining city: a case study of Huangshi, Eastern China,” Resources Policy, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 7–19, 2005.
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
K. T. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
W. Zhou and J.-M. He, “Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric bonferroni means and their application in multicriteria decision making,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 995–1019, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, “Multi-criteria decision making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 47–54, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, “Intuitionistic fuzzy theory based typhoon disaster evaluation in Zhejiang Province, China: a comparative perspective,” Natural Hazards, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 2559–2576, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. He, Y. Wu, and D. Yu, “Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making with application to job hunting: a comparative perspective,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1935–1946, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Yu and L. Fang, “Intuitionistic multiplicative aggregation operators with their application in group decision making,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 131–142, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Torra, “Hesitant fuzzy sets,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 529–539, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Zhou and Z. Xu, “Asymmetric hesitant fuzzy sigmoid preference relations in the analytic hierarchy process,” Information Sciences, vol. 358-359, pp. 191–207, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Zhou and Z. Xu, “Expected hesitant VaR for tail decision making under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 60, pp. 297–311, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Yu, “Hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods based on Heronian mean,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 296–315, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Zhu, Z. Xu, and M. Xia, “Dual hesitant fuzzy sets,” Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2012, Article ID 879629, 13 pages, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, W. Zhang, and G. Huang, “Dual hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 194–209, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, D.-F. Li, and J. M. Merigó, “Dual hesitant fuzzy group decision making method and its application to supplier selection,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 819–831, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Zhou and Z. Xu, “Generalized asymmetric linguistic term set and its application to qualitative decision making involving risk appetites,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 254, no. 2, pp. 610–621, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D.-F. Li, “Multiattribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 73–85, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, D.-F. Li, J. M. Merigó, and L. Fang, “Mapping development of linguistic decision making studies,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2727–2736, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, “Decision making based on generalized geometric operator under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 471–480, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, Y. Wu, and T. Lu, “Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators and their application in group decision making,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 30, pp. 57–66, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Xia, Z. Xu, and H. Liao, “Preference relations based on intuitionistic multiplicative information,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 113–133, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Xia and Z. Xu, “Managing hesitant information in GDM problems under fuzzy and multiplicative preference relations,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 865–897, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
B. Zhu and Z. Xu, “Consistency measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Wang and Z. Xu, “Some consistency measures of extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations,” Information Sciences, vol. 297, pp. 316–331, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, “Group decision making under interval-valued multiplicative intuitionistic fuzzy environment based on archimedean t-conorm and t-norm,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 590–616, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. F. A. M. Gomes and M. M. P. P. Lima, “TODIM: basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts,” Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 113–127, 1991.
View at: Google Scholar
L. F. A. M. Gomes and M. M. P. P. Lima, “From modeling individual preferences to multicriteria ranking of discrete alternatives: a look at prospect theory and the additive difference model,” Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 171–184, 1992.
View at: Google Scholar
L. F. A. M. Gomes and L. A. D. Rangel, “An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 204–211, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Qin, X. Liu, and W. Pedrycz, “An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 258, no. 2, pp. 626–638, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Tan, Z.-Z. Jiang, and X. Chen, “An extended TODIM method for hesitant fuzzy interactive multicriteria decision making based on generalized Choquet integral,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 293–305, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lourenzutti and R. A. Krohling, “A study of TODIM in a intuitionistic fuzzy and random environment,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 40, no. 16, pp. 6459–6468, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Krohling, A. G. C. Pacheco, and A. L. T. Siviero, “IF-TODIM: an intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM to multi-criteria decision making,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 53, pp. 142–146, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Krohling and A. G. C. Pacheco, “Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 31, pp. 236–244, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Zhang and Z. Xu, “The TODIM analysis approach based on novel measured functions under hesitant fuzzy environment,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 61, pp. 48–58, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Tanino, “Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems. An International Journal in Information Science and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 117–131, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
H. Liao, Z. Xu, and M. Xia, “Multiplicative consistency of hesitant fuzzy preference relation and its application in group decision making,” International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 47–76, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zhang and C. Wu, “Interval-valued hesitant multiplicative preference relations and their application to multi-criteria decision making,” British Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1390–1426, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Yu, “A scientometrics review on aggregation operator research,” Scientometrics, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 115–133, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Yu, Z. S. Xu, Y. Kao, and C. T. Lin, “The structure and citation landscape of IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (1994–2015),” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Yu, Z. S. Xu, W. Pedrycz, and W. R. Wang, “Information Sciences 1968–2016: a retrospective analysis with text mining and bibliometric,” Information Sciences.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. R. He, Y. Y. Wu, D. J. Yu, and J. M. Merigó, “Exploring the ordered weighted averaging operator knowledge domain: a bibliometric analysis,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, “Group decision making under multiplicative hesitant fuzzy environment,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 233–241, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Jiang, Z. Xu, and X. Yu, “Compatibility measures and consensus models for group decision making with intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2075–2086, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. S. Xu and M. Xia, “Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets,” Information Sciences, vol. 181, no. 11, pp. 2128–2138, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, “Intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregation under confidence levels,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 19, pp. 147–160, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu and S. Shi, “Researching the development of Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy set: using a citation network analysis,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 32, pp. 189–198, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ghosh, T. Chakraborty, S. Saha, M. Majumder, and M. Pal, “Development of the location suitability index for wave energy production by ANN and MCDM techniques,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 59, pp. 1017–1028, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K.-Y. Shen, S.-K. Hu, and G.-H. Tzeng, “Financial modeling and improvement planning for the life insurance industry by using a rough knowledge based hybrid MCDM model,” Information Sciences, vol. 375, pp. 296–313, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, “Prioritized information fusion method for triangular intuitionistic fuzzy set and its application to teaching quality evaluation,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 411–435, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D.-J. Yu and D.-F. Li, “Dual hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making and its application to teaching quality assessment,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1679–1688, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, W. Zhang, and Y. Xu, “Group decision making under hesitant fuzzy environment with applications to personnel evaluation,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 52, pp. 1–10, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, “Softmax function based intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making and applications,” Operational Research, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 327–348, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu and H. Liao, “Visualization and quantitative research on intuitionistic fuzzy studies,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3653–3663, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Zhou and Z. Xu, “Optimal discrete fitting aggregation approach with hesitant fuzzy information,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Yu, “Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric Heronian mean aggregation operators,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1235–1246, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Yu, J. M. Merig, Y. Xu, and J. M. Merigó, “Group decision making in information systems security assessment using dual hesitant fuzzy set,” in Proceedings of the International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 31, pp. 786–812, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Zhou, Z. Xu, and M. Chen, “Preference relations based on hesitant-intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application in group decision making,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 87, article no. 4018, pp. 163–175, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Li, “TOPSIS-based nonlinear-programming methodology for multiattribute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 299–311, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Li, “A ratio ranking method of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application to MADM problems,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 1557–1570, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, “Multiattribute decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy interaction average operators: a comparison,” International Transactions in Operational Research, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1017–1032, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, J. M. Merigó, and L. Zhou, “Interval-valued multiplicative intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 412–422, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Li and J. Yang, “Fuzzy linear programming technique for multiattribute group decision making in fuzzy environments,” Information Sciences, vol. 158, pp. 263–275, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. J. Yu, “Archimedean aggregation operators based on dual hesitant fuzzy set and their application to GDM,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 761–780, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
Y. Zheng, B. Jeon, D. Xu, Q. M. Wu, and H. Zhang, “Image segmentation by generalized hierarchical fuzzy C-means algorithm,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 961–973, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Yu, “Some hesitant fuzzy information aggregation operators based on einstein operational laws,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 320–340, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yu, “Group decision making based on generalized intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized geometric operator,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 635–661, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Merigó and M. Casanovas, “Decision-making with distance measures and induced aggregation operators,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 66–76, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zhang and D. Yu, “Some geometric Choquet aggregation operators using Einstein operations under intuitionistic fuzzy environment,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 491–500, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Merigó and A. M. Gil-Lafuente, “The induced generalized OWA operator,” Information Sciences, vol. 179, no. 6, pp. 729–741, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
D. Yu, “Some generalized dual hesistant fuzzy geometric aggregation operators and applications,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 367–384, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
M. M. Xia, Research on fuzzy decision information aggregation techniques and measures [Ph.D dissertation], Southeast University, Jiangsu Sheng, China, 2012.
L. Suganthi, S. Iniyan, and A. A. Samuel, “Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy systems—A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 48, pp. 585–607, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Bagci and A. Yazici, “An energy aware fuzzy approach to unequal clustering in wireless sensor networks,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1741–1749, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Yu and C. Xu, “Mapping research on carbon emissions trading: a co-citation analysis,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 74, pp. 1314–1322, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Gong, L. Su, M. Jia, and W. Chen, “Fuzzy clustering with a modified MRF energy function for change detection in synthetic aperture radar images,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 98–109, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Gupta and M. K. Barua, “Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 152, pp. 242–258, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Roehrich, S. U. Hoejmose, and V. Overland, “Driving green supply chain management performance through supplier selection and value internalisation: a self-determination theory perspective,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 489–509, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Bohner and S. Minner, “Supplier selection under failure risk, quantity and business volume discounts,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 104, pp. 145–155, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2017 Xiaorong He and Yingyu Wu. 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

725

Downloads

749

Citations