4.6 Review

Fire Safety Evaluation for Scenic Spots: An Evidential Best-Worst Method

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS
卷 2021, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2021/5592150

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41871208]
  2. Public Welfare Project of Fujian Provincial Science and Technology Department [2017R10343]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper proposes a new fire safety evaluation method based on the Dempster-Shafer evidence theory and best-worst method to address existing issues. By constructing a fire safety evaluation index system, determining weights using the best-worst method, and efficiently fusing linguistic assessments, the reliability of expert opinions and decision-making efficiency are improved.
Fire safety plays a vital role in tourism management, which can cause significant loss of life and property. It is necessary to present an efficient fire safety evaluation for scenic spots. However, some key issues are not well addressed in existing methods. For example, how to model experts' opinions and how to combine them are still open problems. To address these issues, a new evaluation method based on the Dempster-Shafer evidence theory and best-worst method is presented. First, a fire safety evaluation index system is constructed using the domino model. Domain experts can evaluate different factors with linguistic assessments. The best-worst method is used to determine the weights of different factors. Then, these weighted linguistic assessments are efficiently fused by Dempster's combination rule to obtain the evaluation result. Finally, a case study is illustrated to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed method in fire safety evaluation for scenic spots. The main contribution of the proposed method is to represent and handle the uncertainty in experts' linguistic assessments, so as to decrease the uncertainty and improve decision making. In addition, the weight determination method BWM is easier and more reliable than the existing method AHP.

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

4.6
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