Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability

While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that impact on a household’s quality of life. The paper presents an empirical application a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Omega (Oxford) 2016-03, Vol.59, p.146-156
Hauptverfasser: Mulliner, Emma, Malys, Naglis, Maliene, Vida
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 156
container_issue
container_start_page 146
container_title Omega (Oxford)
container_volume 59
creator Mulliner, Emma
Malys, Naglis
Maliene, Vida
description While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that 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 the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1761485442</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0305048315001243</els_id><sourcerecordid>3938645271</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d35bb726e55ef5f5aa89f2c59dc30afc1061fd92576b8e16184595713fc575613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKu_wM2A66m5k8k8Fi6kPqHFje6EkMnctCkzk5qbCv33Tq1r4cDdfN-Fcxi7Bj4DDsXtZuZ7XOlZxkHO-BgQJ2wCVSlSmZX5KZtwwWXK80qcswuiDeccKi4m7HPu-60OOrpvTPSguz05SrxNlvOHZdJjXPuWEutDEtcjQIREPQ7xgNCOonaDbjpM1n5Hblgl2o5sqxvXubi_ZGdWd4RXf3fKPp4e3-cv6eLt-XV-v0iNzEVMWyGbpswKlBKttFLrqraZkXVrBNfWAC_AtnUmy6KpEAqoclnLEoQ1spQFiCm7Of7dBv-1Q4pq43dhLEMKygLySuZ5NlLiSJngiQJatQ2u12GvgKvDjGqjfmdUhxkVHwNitO6OFo4Fvh0GRcbhYLB1AU1UrXf_-j8xP3y3</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1761485442</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Mulliner, Emma ; Malys, Naglis ; Maliene, Vida</creator><creatorcontrib>Mulliner, Emma ; Malys, Naglis ; Maliene, Vida</creatorcontrib><description>While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that 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 the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-0483</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5274</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OMEGA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Affordable housing ; AHP ; Comparative analysis ; COPRAS ; Decision making ; Decision making models ; Housing affordability ; MCDM ; Multiple criteria ; Multiple criteria decision making ; Quality of life ; Sensitivity analysis ; Studies ; Sustainability ; Sustainable development ; TOPSIS ; WPM ; WSM</subject><ispartof>Omega (Oxford), 2016-03, Vol.59, p.146-156</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Pergamon Press Inc. Mar 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d35bb726e55ef5f5aa89f2c59dc30afc1061fd92576b8e16184595713fc575613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d35bb726e55ef5f5aa89f2c59dc30afc1061fd92576b8e16184595713fc575613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048315001243$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mulliner, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malys, Naglis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maliene, Vida</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability</title><title>Omega (Oxford)</title><description>While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that 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 the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.</description><subject>Affordable housing</subject><subject>AHP</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>COPRAS</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision making models</subject><subject>Housing affordability</subject><subject>MCDM</subject><subject>Multiple criteria</subject><subject>Multiple criteria decision making</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><subject>TOPSIS</subject><subject>WPM</subject><subject>WSM</subject><issn>0305-0483</issn><issn>1873-5274</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKu_wM2A66m5k8k8Fi6kPqHFje6EkMnctCkzk5qbCv33Tq1r4cDdfN-Fcxi7Bj4DDsXtZuZ7XOlZxkHO-BgQJ2wCVSlSmZX5KZtwwWXK80qcswuiDeccKi4m7HPu-60OOrpvTPSguz05SrxNlvOHZdJjXPuWEutDEtcjQIREPQ7xgNCOonaDbjpM1n5Hblgl2o5sqxvXubi_ZGdWd4RXf3fKPp4e3-cv6eLt-XV-v0iNzEVMWyGbpswKlBKttFLrqraZkXVrBNfWAC_AtnUmy6KpEAqoclnLEoQ1spQFiCm7Of7dBv-1Q4pq43dhLEMKygLySuZ5NlLiSJngiQJatQ2u12GvgKvDjGqjfmdUhxkVHwNitO6OFo4Fvh0GRcbhYLB1AU1UrXf_-j8xP3y3</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Mulliner, Emma</creator><creator>Malys, Naglis</creator><creator>Maliene, Vida</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Pergamon Press Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability</title><author>Mulliner, Emma ; Malys, Naglis ; Maliene, Vida</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d35bb726e55ef5f5aa89f2c59dc30afc1061fd92576b8e16184595713fc575613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Affordable housing</topic><topic>AHP</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>COPRAS</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision making models</topic><topic>Housing affordability</topic><topic>MCDM</topic><topic>Multiple criteria</topic><topic>Multiple criteria decision making</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><topic>TOPSIS</topic><topic>WPM</topic><topic>WSM</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mulliner, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malys, Naglis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maliene, Vida</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Omega (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mulliner, Emma</au><au>Malys, Naglis</au><au>Maliene, Vida</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability</atitle><jtitle>Omega (Oxford)</jtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>59</volume><spage>146</spage><epage>156</epage><pages>146-156</pages><issn>0305-0483</issn><eissn>1873-5274</eissn><coden>OMEGA6</coden><abstract>While affordability is traditionally assessed in economic terms, this paper tests a new assessment method that draws closer links with sustainability by considering economic, social and environmental criteria that 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 the weighted product model (WPM), the weighted sum model (WSM), the revised AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS, is investigated. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to determine how different MCDM methods compare when used for a sustainable housing affordability assessment model. 20 Evaluative criteria and 10 alternative are as in Liverpool, England, were considered. The applicability of different MCDM methods for the focused decision problem was investigated. The paper discusses the similarities in MCDM methods, evaluates their robustness and contrasts the resulting rankings. •Paper presents the application of WPM, WSM, the revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for assessing sustainable housing affordability.•Twenty evaluative criteria used in the analysis.•Comparison of different MCDM methods performed.•Sensitivity analysis used to identify how alternative ranking results are affected by change in criteria weight.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0305-0483
ispartof Omega (Oxford), 2016-03, Vol.59, p.146-156
issn 0305-0483
1873-5274
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1761485442
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Affordable housing
AHP
Comparative analysis
COPRAS
Decision making
Decision making models
Housing affordability
MCDM
Multiple criteria
Multiple criteria decision making
Quality of life
Sensitivity analysis
Studies
Sustainability
Sustainable development
TOPSIS
WPM
WSM
title Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T20%3A05%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20analysis%20of%20MCDM%20methods%20for%20the%20assessment%20of%20sustainable%20housing%20affordability&rft.jtitle=Omega%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Mulliner,%20Emma&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=59&rft.spage=146&rft.epage=156&rft.pages=146-156&rft.issn=0305-0483&rft.eissn=1873-5274&rft.coden=OMEGA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3938645271%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1761485442&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0305048315001243&rfr_iscdi=true