دانلود رایگان مقاله تجزیه و تحلیل مقایسه ای از روش های MCDM برای ارزیابی هزینه های مسکن پایدار

Abstract

While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by consideringeconomic, social and environmental criteriathat impact on a household’s quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application and comparison of six different multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for the purpose of assessing sustainable housing affordability. The comparative performance of theweighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM),the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated.The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determinehow different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 evaluative criteria and 10 alternativeareas in Liverpool, England,were considered.The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decisionproblem was investigated.The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods,evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings.

9. Conclusions

This paper has shown that MCDM is applicable for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability, in part due to the ability of such methods to deal with the multidimensionality of the issue and the numerous conflicting decision criteria present. However it was stressed that, frequently, different MCDM methods can yield different results when applied to the same decision problem. Accordingly, in this paper we examined the application of several MCDM methods for sustainable housing affordability assessment in a comparative study. 20 decision criteria, weighted by experts, were the basis of the sustainable housing affordability assessment and a case example of 10 alternative areas (housing wards) within Liverpool, England was used to illustrate the results. Five widely applied MCDM methods – WSM, WPM, revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS - were used and evaluated in order to identify differences and similarities in the methods and the ranking results obtained, and also to consider their applicability in aiding the assessment of sustainable housing affordability.