Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Multi Criteria Evaluation Framework for Prioritizing Indian Railway Stations Using Modified Rough AHP-Mabac Method Cover

Multi Criteria Evaluation Framework for Prioritizing Indian Railway Stations Using Modified Rough AHP-Mabac Method

Open Access
|Apr 2018

References

  1. 1. Brons, M., Givoni, M., and Rietveld, P. (2009) Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transportation Research Part A, 43, pp. 136-149.10.1016/j.tra.2008.08.002
  2. 2. Chen, C.T. (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), pp. 1-9.10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1
  3. 3. Daamen, W. (2002) A quantitative assessment on the design of a railway station. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 61.
  4. 4. Debnath, A., Roy, J., Kar, S., Zavadskas, E.K. and Antucheviciene, J. (2017) A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products. Sustainability, 9(8), pp. 1302.10.3390/su9081302
  5. 5. Givoni, M. and Rietveld, P. (2007) The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel, Transport Policy 14, pp. 357-365.10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.004
  6. 6. Givoni, M. and Rietveld, P. (2014) Do cities deserve more railway stations? The choice of a departure railway station in a multiple-station region, Journal of Transport Geography, 36, pp. 89-97.10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.03.004
  7. 7. Hennig, C., Meila, M., Murtagh, F. and Rocci, R. (2015) Handbook of cluster analysis. CRC Press.10.1201/b19706
  8. 8. Kaakai, F., Hayat, S. and Moudni, A. E. (2007) A hybrid Petri nets-based simulation model for evaluating the design of railway transit stations. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 15, pp. 935-969.10.1016/j.simpat.2007.05.003
  9. 9. Khoo, L.P. and Zhai, L.Y. (2001) A prototype genetic algorithm-enhanced rough set-based rule induction system. Computers in Industry, 46(1), pp. 95-106.10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00117-8
  10. 10. Lai, W.T. and Chen, C. F. (2011) Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers-The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport Policy, 18, pp. 318-325.10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.09.003
  11. 11. Liang, H., Ren, J., Gao, Z., Gao, S., Luo, X., Dong, L. and Scipioni, A. (2016) Identification of critical success factors for sustainable development of biofuel industry in China based on grey decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, pp. 500-508.10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.151
  12. 12. Martínez, L., Liu, J., Ruan, D. and Yang, J.B. (2007) Dealing with decision-making information in engineering evaluation processes. Information Sciences, 177(7), pp. 1533-1542.10.1016/j.ins.2006.07.005
  13. 13. Mateus, R., Ferreira, J. A. and Carreira, J. (2008) Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Central Porto high-speed railway station. European Journal of Operational Research, 187, pp. 1-18.10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.006
  14. 14. Mohajeri, N. and Amin, G. R. (2010) Railway station site selection using analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 59, pp. 107-114.10.1016/j.cie.2010.03.006
  15. 15. Pamučar, D. and Ćirović, G. (2015) The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), pp. 3016-3028.10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
  16. 16. Pamučar, D., Petrovic, I. and Ćirović, G. (2018) Modification of the Best-Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers, Expert Systems with Applications, 91, pp. 89-106.10.1016/j.eswa.2017.08.042
  17. 17. Pawlak, Z. (1982) Rough sets. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 11(5), pp. 341-356.Zh10.1007/BF01001956
  18. 18. Pawlak, Z. (1991) Rough Sets. Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.10.1007/978-94-011-3534-4_7
  19. 19. Qazi, K.I., Lam, H.K., Xiao, B., Ouyang, G. and Yin, X. (2016) Classification of epilepsy using computational intelligence techniques. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 1(2), pp. 137-149.10.1016/j.trit.2016.08.001
  20. 20. Rietveld, P. (2000). The accessibility of railway stations: the role of the bicycle in The Netherlands, Transportation Research Part D, 5, pp. 71-75.10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00019-X
  21. 21. Roy, J., Adhikary, K. and Kar, S. (2016a) Credibilistic TOPSIS Model for Evaluation and Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Method. ArXiv preprint, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01254.
  22. 22. Roy, J., Chatterjee, K., Bandyopadhyay, A. and Kar, S. (2018) Evaluation and selection of medical tourism sites: A rough analytic hierarchy process based multi‐attributive border approximation area comparison approach. Expert Systems, 35(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.1223210.1111/exsy.12232
  23. 23. Roy, J., Ranjan, A., Debnath, A. and Kar. S. (2016b) An extended MABAC for multi-attribute decision making using trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy numbers. ArXiv preprint, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01254
  24. 24. Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (2012) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 175). Springer Science & Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6
  25. 25. Song, W., Ming, X. and Wu, Z. (2013) An integrated rough number-based approach to design concept evaluation under subjective environments. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(5), pp. 320-341.10.1080/09544828.2012.732994
  26. 26. Wang, H., Yang, B. and Chen, W. (2016) Unknown constrained mechanisms operation based on dynamic interactive control. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 1(3), pp. 259-271.10.1016/j.trit.2016.10.004
  27. 27. Zheng, P., Xu, X. and Xie, S.Q. (2016) A weighted interval rough number based method to determine relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD product planning. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, pp. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z
  28. 28. Xue, Y.X., You, J.X., Lai, X.D. and Liu, H.C. (2016) An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information. Applied Soft Computing, 38, pp. 703-713.10.1016/j.asoc.2015.10.010
  29. 29. Zemp, S., Stauffacher, M., Lang, D.J. and Scholz, R.W. (2011) Classifying railway stations for strategic transport and land use planning: Context matters. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, pp. 670-679.10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.08.008
  30. 30. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2008) A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 37(5-6), pp. 613-624.10.1007/s00170-007-0989-9
  31. 31. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2009) A rough set based QFD approach to the management of imprecise design information in product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(2), pp. 222-228.10.1016/j.aei.2008.10.010
  32. 32. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2010) Towards a QFD-based expert system: A novel extension to fuzzy QFD methodology using rough set theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12), 8888-8896.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.007
  33. 33. Zhu, G. N., Hu, J., Qi, J., Gu, C.C. and Peng, Y.H. (2015) An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29(3), pp. 408-418.10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2018-0010 | Journal eISSN: 1407-6179 | Journal ISSN: 1407-6160
Language: English
Page range: 113 - 127
Published on: Apr 28, 2018
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2018 Haresh Kumar Sharma, Jagannath Roy, Samarjit Kar, Olegas Prentkovskis, published by Transport and Telecommunication Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.