4.4 Article

Extended CPT-TODIM method for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MAGDM and its application to urban ecological risk assessment

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT & FUZZY SYSTEMS
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 4091-4106

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-200534

关键词

Multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM); interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets; TODIM; urban ecological risk assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces the research field and methods of urban ecological risk assessment, focusing on the TODIM method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and CPT, demonstrating an urban ecological risk assessment model, and concluding the feasibility of the improved method through comparative analysis.
The urban ecological risk assessment is a new research field, which has been rising and developing with the change of environment management objectives and environment conception. The urban ecological risk assessment could be regarded as a classical multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM) issue. The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set (IVIFS) can fully describe the uncertain information for the urban ecological risk assessment. Furthermore, the classical TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for Interactive Multi-Criteria Decision Making) is built on cumulative prospect theory (CPT), which is a selectable method in reflecting the DMs' psychological behavior. Thus, in this paper, the TODIM method based on the CPT is proposed for MAGDM issue under IVIFS. At the same time, it is enhancing rationality to get the weight information of attributes by using the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy entropy weight method. And focusing on hot issues in contemporary society, this article applies the discussed method to urban ecological risk assessment, and demonstrates urban ecological risk assessment model based on the proposed method. Finally, through comparing the outcome of comparative analysis, we conclude that this improved approach is acceptable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据