Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Smart City Implementation Using Fuzzy Soft Maut Method
Keywords:
Fuzzy Soft, Method, Smart City, Planning, Decision MakingAbstract
Smart city development requires making choices based on multiple and competing criteria. Thus, in these kinds of environment, the opinions of experts are often given in terms of vague language rather than specific numbers. This paper investigates this challenge by developing a Fuzzy Soft Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) system for assessing the readiness of metropolitan municipalities to implement a smart city. This is a hybrid method which integrates the parameter-based structured approach of soft sets with the ability to model uncertainty in fuzzy sets and usefulness aggregation rules of MAUT. Triangular fuzzy numbers are employed for the representation of an expert’s judgment. A procedure is followed in order to aggregate, normalize the assessments, and then combine them in an overall utility score. The model is developed to help decision-makers in creating a transparent and flexible method to address numerous criteria in uncertain situations in the context of urban and smart city planning.
References
Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., Ouzounis G. & Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 481-518.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. In Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study (pp. 5-21). Springer, Boston, MA.
Yolcu, A. (2023). Intuitionistic fuzzy hypersoft topology and ıts applications to multi-criteria decisionmaking. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 41(1), 106-118.
Yolcu, A. (2022). Bipolar spherical fuzzy soft topology with applications to multi-criteria group decisionmaking in buildings risk assessment. Symmetry, 14(11), 2362.
Yolcu, A., & Ozturk, T. Y. (2021). Fuzzy hypersoft sets and it’s application to decision-making. Theory and application of hypersoft set, 50.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value TradeOffs. Cambridge University Press.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
Molodtsov, D. (1999). Soft set theory—First results. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 37(4–5), 19–31.
Maji, P. K., Biswas, R., & Roy, A. R. (2001). Fuzzy soft sets. Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, 9(3), 589–602.
Maji, P. K., Roy, A. R., & Biswas, R. (2002). An application of soft sets in a decision making problem. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 44(8–9), 1077–1083.
Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66–83.
Zimmermann, H.J., 2011. Fuzzy Set Theory—And its Applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 156(2), 445-455.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.
Jansen, S.J.T. (2011). The Multi-attribute Utility Method. In: Jansen, S., Coolen, H., Goetgeluk, R. (eds) The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8894-9-5
Narayanamoorthy, S., Annapoorani, V., Kang, D., & Ramya, L. (2019). Sustainable assessment for selecting the best alternative of reclaimed water use under hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Access, 7, 137217-137231.
Kahraman, C., & Kaya, I. (2012). A fuzzy multiple attribute utility model for intelligent building˙ assessment. Journal of civil engineering and management, 18(6), 811-820.
Ahmed, R., Afifi, M., & Nassar, A. (2019, June). Using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in Egyptian construction projects. In Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference.
Anchan, V., Vaidya, S., Jain, A., & Chaplot, R. (2024). Synergizing Fuzzy AHP and MAUT for Integrated Evaluation of PSU Stocks and Mutual Fund Schemes. International Journal of Multidisciplinary research and analaysis. 7(11), 5137-5151. DOI: 10.47191/ijmra/v7-i11-20.
