A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental ...A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental...

A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental Assessment Model for The Green Building

1 Ah-Taur Yan, 2 Mei-Jung Lai, 3 Chiu-Yue Lin

*1, First Author, Corresponding Author Ph.D. Program in Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, R.O.C., [email protected]

2 Department of Urban Planning and Spatial Information, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, R.O.C., [email protected]

3 Department of Environmental Engineering and Science, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, R.O.C., [email protected]

Abstract

According to the "Challenge 2008— National Development Plan" of the Executive Yuan of Taiwan, the green building design orientation and deployment is the core subject at present to put forward the green building policy of water and green construction project, and to coordinate with the green silicon island construction objective. In this study, an environmental assessment indicator system for green buildings to collect expert opinions from the industry, government units, and academia is applied, then the Green Building System Assessment in Taiwan for an empirical model to analysis “Green Building” and to reveal ways of improving gaps in each dimension and criteria for achieving the aspired levels in performance was used. The multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) model combining DEMATEL-based ANP with VIKOR is utilized to identify the problems in green building system assessment and to create the improvement factors. The results of DANP indicated that the waste reduction accounts for the highest weight; it is the most important influencing factor. Meanwhile, three green buildings were also evaluated by VIKOR. This study identified the improvement factors to influence by evaluating the green building system, and provided the administrators with improvement strategies, so as to minimize the consumption of earth resources, and promote the development of sustainable buildings. The results showed that Building A of the studied case has the best performance, closest to the green building evaluation criteria, and the gap is the smallest.

Keywords: Green building, Environmental assessment system,

Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), DEMATEL, DANP, VIKOR

1. Introduction

In recent years, human damage to the environment has extended into earth scale, continuous high temperature of inhabited environment, exhaustion of forest resources, acid rain and ozone depletion, the abnormal climate caused serious wind damage. Furthermore, people consume resources and exploit the environment excessively, causing severe damages to the natural ecology, and endangering the human living environment and quality of life. Therefore, global warming and climate change become the extensively focused issues at present. The food, clothing, shelter and means of travel in life are key points. It is urgently required to build a low-carbon sustainable homeland.

As a result of global warming, the earth's average air temperature increased by 0.3~0.6℃ in the last century. Official representatives of 170 countries and regions assembled at the "Earth Summit" in 1992 to discuss countermeasures against the environmental crisis raised the upsurge of environmental protection. The "Convention on Climate Change", "Convention on Biological Diversity" and "Agenda 21" were signed at the summit. The U.N. founded the "United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development" (UNCSD) in 1993 to launch a comprehensive environmental protection movement [1]. The trend of sustainable development has emerged rapidly in the policy of building cities. In recent years, with the rapid development of the economy, the global greenhouse gas emission has increased continuously, meaning that environmental protection has crossed national boundaries, and sustainable development has become the most important topic for human [2]. Therefore, using green engineering for integrated environmental design has apparently become the major trend of recent development. Many countries have cooperated with the green building engineering of urban design and innovative design.

A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental Assessment Model for The Green Building Ah-Taur Yan, Mei-Jung Lai, Chiu-Yue Lin

Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences (AISS) Volume 7, Number 1, February 2015

110

According to the statistics of Architecture and Building Research Institute, Cheng Kung University, the CO2 emission from the energy consumption of Taiwan's building industry accounts for 28.8% of total emission in Taiwan. Therefore, the green building policy adopting CO2 reduction index first is crucial to the sustainable environment. In order to mitigate the urban heat island effect and the deterioration of inhabited environment, it is important to promote green buildings that conform to the standard of sustainable development [3].

The EEWH system for green building evaluation developed by Taiwan can keep track of the energy consumption, water consumption, waste reduction and environmental protection characteristics of buildings [3-4]. It is effective in guiding green building design. Taiwan's sustainable building policy lists green building policy as a part of "Challenge 2008 - National Development Plan" in 2002, making the policy inevitably important. "Green" has become the pronoun of global environmental protection, and building a "green silicon island" is Taiwan's sustainable development index. In 1999, the government of Taiwan defined the green buildings as "the buildings that consume the least earth resources and produce the least waste". Seven major indicators, including greenery, on-site water retention, daily energy saving, CO2 reduction, waste reduction, water resource and sewage and garbage improvement, were used as early evaluation indicators for green buildings. The biodiversity and indoor environment index were included as the core of the green building evaluation in 2003, concluded as four major categories, including ecology (biodiversity, greenery, on-site water retention); energy saving (daily energy saving index); waste reduction (CO2 reduction, waste reduction); health (indoor environment, water resource, sewage and garbage improvement). It is known as the EEWH system, defined as consuming less resource and energy, producing less waste and paying attention to both health and comfort in the life cycle of buildings. The evaluation range was expanded, and by referring to the green building evaluation systems of the U.S., Japan and the U.K. in 2012, the EEWH system evolved into a green building evaluation family: green building evaluation content of Basic Version, Residential, Green Factory and Ecological Community. Since then, Taiwan has entered the era of green building classification evaluation.

The main green building evaluation systems adopted in other countries includes LEED, BREEAM and GBC. LEED is an evaluation method advocated by a U.S. not-for-profit organization. The evaluation content contains five evaluation aspects: sustainable site planning, utilization of water resources, energy efficiency and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environment quality. The British BRE has developed the environmental impact assessment method for different block types since 1990, and then created the BREEAM evaluation tool. The evaluation items are scored according to seven major aspects including energy source, transportation, pollution, building materials, water resources, land use and ecological value, health and welfare. Canada has led an international conference, called GBC consisted of 19 countries since 1998. This evaluation system takes preferential topics and technologies emphasized by different regions and countries into its development, it is called GB Tool, and its evaluation factors contain seven major types: resource expenditure, environmental load, indoor environment quality, service quality, economy, operation preplanning and transportation [5], which aim to generate influential improvement factors by evaluating the existing green building system, so as to construct the most environmentally friendly green buildings, and to balance the relationship between environment and economy for sustainable development of the earth.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the applied research methods combining DANP with VIKOR. The application of the used hybrid model to the green building evaluation and data analysis are described. Finally, conclusion and suggestions on the evaluated green buildings are given in Section 4.

2. Research Methods

This study built a green building evaluation system, and used multiple criteria decision-making

approach (Multiple Criteria Decision Making), which combined DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP, DANP) with VIKOR [6], the process of the combined DANP with VIKOR is summarized as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory, DEMATEL [7-9] is used to analyze the cause-effect relationships and interactions between dimensions and indicators. In DANP, the influence relation between dimensions and criteria are confirmed with DEMATEL, the dynamic importance (weighted value) between factors is measured with ANP. Restated, the DANP can analyze the key influencing factors in the green building evaluation criteria. Meanwhile, the VIKOR is used to determine the best


111

scheme judged by the green building evaluation system and identify the improved factors. The operating procedure of this study is described as follows:

Step 1: The cause-effect relationship and interaction between criteria are obtained from the operation of DEMATEL; a network relation map (NRM) architecture is built. The DEMATEL technique has been applied in many situations and used to investigate complicated world problems regarding issues such as marketing strategies, control system and safety problems [10]. In DEMATEL, a direct-influence matrix Q=[qij]nxn is calculated by questionaries’ score, qij is the average score of the same elements in the various direct matrices of the respondents; all principal diagonal elements are equal to zero, i.e., qii=0. After direct-influence matrix Q being built, the following procedures are processed.

Normalize the direct-influence matrix. The normalized matrix can be obtained through

multiplying a normalization factor as indicated in Eq. (1).

[ ]ij n ns d D Q

n

i ijnj

n

j ijni qqs

1111 max,maxmax

1 (1)

Attain the total-influence matrix. The normalized direct-influence matrix can be continuous

decreased by the operation of powers of D, e.g., D2, D3,…, Dh andh

hD

lim

. Since 0dij 1 , 10

1

n

i ijd or

101

n

j ijd, i.e., at least one column or one row of summation equals one;

hence nnh

h

]0[lim D can be guaranteed. The total-influence matrix Tc=[tij]nn, can be obtained

through Tc=D(I-D)-1 as shown in Eq. (2), in which I denotes the nn identity matrix.

2

2 1

1

1

( )[( )( ) ]

( )( )

( ) (when , lim [0] )

hC

h

h

hn nn

h

1

Τ D D D

D Ι D D D Ι D Ι D

D Ι D Ι D

D I D D

(2)

Generate the network relation map and analyze the results. Calculate the row sum vector

r=[ri]nx1 and column sum vector c=[cj]1xn; determine the relationship strength (ri+cj) and the net effects of factors (ri-cj). Based on the determined relationship strength and net effects of factors, the NRM can then be produced and the cause-effect relationships and interactions can be analyzed.

Step 2: The main influencing criteria are determined by combining DEMATEL with ANP, and

sequenced according to the weights. The influence and importance of dimensions and criteria are then obtained to solve complex social problems. DEMATEL was first proposed by the Battelle research center in 1972 that analyzes the complicated problems in the real world via building a network interrelation [11]. This method decomposes hierarchical theoretical process (AHP) structure to solve a nonlinear and complex relationship [12-13]. The purpose of ANP is to solve the relativity and feedback relationship between the criteria. In recent years, the DANP approach is extensively used in research of many domains, with the aim to build a model for identifying the key influencing factors, and handling different problems, such as flying safety and facility management, electronic innovation and research and development, e-learning evaluation and so on [14]. The DANP procedures are as follows. Develop an un-weighted supermatrix. The total-influence matrix obtained by criteria TC=[tij]nxn

(for n criteria) is obtained by DEMATEL. The total-influence matrix by dimensions TD=[tij]mxm (for m dimensions) can further be determined. Normalizing Tc for dimensions based on rows to yield normalized total-influence matrix Tc

. The un-weighted supermatrix for ANP W can be calculated as defined in Eq. (3)


112

( )TCW T (3)

Where, the superscript T is the transpose operation.

Obtain the weighted supermatrix. Normalizing TD to yield normalized total-influence matrix

TD. The elements in TD

are used to be the weights of the un-weighted matrix W. The weighted

supermatrix is illustrated in Eq. (4)

( )D W T W (4)

Calculate the global influence weights (overall priorities). The limiting process on weighted

supermatrix can be conducted until convergence, and become a long-term stable supermatrix. The process of limiting the weighted supermatrix is by raising the power to a sufficiently large power g as indicated in Eq. (5). Then the global priority vectors or called the ANP weights or DANP influential weights are obtained after convergence of the limiting process.

lim ( )gg

W (5)

Step 3: Calculate the index value of various factors using VIKOR. The operation procedures of

VIKOR are as follows.

Obtain the normalized weight-rating matrix. Let fjk, fj* and fj

- be the performance score of the jth

alternative on the kth criterion, aspiration level and the worst value respectively. Calculate the

normalized weight-rating matrix based on original rating matrix rjk=(|fj*-fjk|)/(|fj

*-fj-|).

Calculate the mean of group utility and maximal regret. Calculate the mean of group utility,

Sk=j=1~nwjrkj (wj is the influential weight obtained from DANP; calculate the maximum gap in

k criterion, Qk=Maxj{rjk | j=1,2,…,n}.

The index value Rk(k=1,2,…,m) is then calculated according to Eq. (6)

* *

* *

* *

* *

( ) ( )(1 )

( ) ( )

or 0; or 1

or 0; or 1

k kk

i i i i

i i i i

S S Q QR

S S Q Q

S Min S S S Max S S

Q Min Q Q Q Max Q Q

(6)

Step 4: The ranking numbers of various factors in the comparison or evaluation scheme are listed.

The factor with better performance value is closer to the expected value. On the contrary, the factor with lower performance value is farther from the expected value. A larger gap indicates a larger room for improvement. The order of the gap between the factors and the expected value is determined using this analytic method, providing the administrators with options of solution, for the administrators make managerial policies accordingly.

This study distributed questionnaires to experts, and collected data from industrial, official and academic experts with the background of green buildings. The questionnaire contained four parts. The first part is the description of the green building evaluation structure; the second part is the evaluation of


113

correlation among green building aspects; the third part is the evaluation of correlation among green building aspect criteria; the fourth part is the socioeconomic background of respondents [15-17].

Figure 1. The process of combined DANP with VIKOR algorithm

3. Application to green buildings and data analysis

A total of 25 questionnaires were distributed. The DEMATEL is used for data processing to analyze

the cause-effect relationship and interaction among the four dimensions and nine major indexes. A questionnaire was used to find out influential relations from each expert for ranking each criterion on the appropriate vendor with a four-point scale ranging from 0 to 4, representing from “No influence (0)”, to “very high influence (4)”, respectively. The weights of factors influence are obtained by DANP, and three green buildings are taken as examples. The experts use green building evaluation system to give 0 to 4 points (the behavior of an evaluation item in evaluating alternative using the scale ranging from 0 to 4, and mark is the higher when influence degree is the bigger, here 0 represent the least mark, 4 represent the highest mark) to judge the one with the best performance among the three green buildings and the larger gap to the green building evaluation index [18-23]. In this study, four major dimensions and nine major indexes of green building are analyzed; the green building evaluation hierarchy is illustrated in Fig. 2. The procedures to propose an improvement scheme to reduce the gap and to reach the standard of performance is detailed as follows.


114

Figure 2. Green building evaluation hierarchy

3.1. Cause-Effect Relationships and Interactions

The DEMATEL expert questionnaire was used to analyze the cause-effect relationships and interactions among four major dimensions and nine major indexes of green buildings, in order to identify the problems in green building system assessment and to generate the improvement factors. Four major dimensions, which are ecology (D1), energy saving (D2), waste reduction (D3) and health (D4). The criteria and cause-effect relationships among dimensions can be created by using DEMATEL method, and it is combined with DANP to analyze four major dimensions of the green building evaluation system. The outcomes of the DEMATEL indicate the waste reduction (D3) is the most important dimension with


115

(di+ri)=32.307 as displayed in Fig. 3. Meanwhile, the results of DANP showed that the waste reduction (D3) accounts for the highest weight (0.269); it is the most important influencing factor among the four dimensions as listed in Table 1. The health (D4) local weight (0.229) has the lowest influence among the four dimensions, and is the least important influencing factor.

The ecological dimension (D1) covers biodiversity (C11), greenery (C12) and on-site water retention (C13). According to Fig. 4(a), (di+ri), the greenery has the greatest influence, and is the most important influencing factor in the ecological dimension. The on-site water retention (C13) has the lowest influence.

The waste reduction dimension (D3) covers waste reduction (C31) and CO2 reduction (C32). According to Fig. 4(b), (di+ri), the CO2 reduction (C32) has the highest influence, and is the most important influencing factor in the waste reduction dimension. Meanwhile, the CO2 reduction (C32) has the highest local weight (0.521) and is the most important influencing index factor, as shown in Table 1.

The health dimension (D4) covers indoor environment (C41), water resource (C42) and sewage and garbage improvement (C43). According to Fig. 4(c), (di+ri), the water resource (C42) has the greatest influence, and is the most important influencing factor in the health dimension. The sewage and garbage improvement (C43) has the lowest influence.

According to Table 1, among all nine evaluation criteria, the CO2 reduction (C32) local weight (0.521) is still the highest weight, and is the most important influencing index factor.

Figure 3. Effect of the interaction to four dimensions

(a) Ecological dimension (D1)


116

(b) Waste reduction dimension (D3)

(c) Health dimension (D4)

Figure 4. Effect of the interaction to nine factors

3.2. VIKOR Evaluated Case Analysis

According to Table 1, Building A has the best performance and the smallest gap among the three buildings after expert assessment; it is closest to the expected value. The highest gap of green building A in each evaluation criterion is biodiversity (C11) 0.750, followed by CO2 reduction (C32) 0.531. They need to be improved urgently for Building A, so as to reduce the gap.

The greatest gap of green building B in each evaluation criterion is sewage and garbage improvement (C43) 0.812, and then biodiversity (C11) 0.594. The greatest gap of green building C in each evaluation criterion is biodiversity (C11) 0.594, and then indoor environment (C41) 0.563. Therefore, the biodiversity and CO2 reduction should be improved for Building A, the sewage and garbage should be improved for Building B, and the biodiversity and indoor environment quality should be improved for Building C, so as to enable the administrators to reach the expected standard of green building evaluation criteria and the specified indexes of green building assessment.


117

Table 1. The performance and aspired level gaps

Local

Weight Global Weight

Performance Gap of aspired level Build A Build B Build C Build A Build B Build C

Ecology (D1) 0.253 (2) 2.057 2.178 2.450 0.479 0.458 0.396 Biodiversity (C11) 0.332 (2) 0.084 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.750 0.594 0.594 Greenery (C12) 0.357 (1) 0.090 2.0 2.6 3.5 0.500 0.344 0.125 On-site water retention

(C13) 0.311 (3) 0.078 3.3 2.3 2.1 0.188 0.437 0.469

Energy saving (D2) 0.2489 (3) 3.125 2.875 1.875 0.219 0.281 0.531 Daily Energy saving (C21) 1.000 0.248 3.1 2.9 1.9 0.219 0.281 0.531

Waste reduction (D3) 0.2692 (1) 2.472 2.540 2.318 0.375 0.344 0.422 Waste reduction (C31) 0.478 (2) 0.128 3.1 2.9 2.0 0.219 0.281 0.469 CO2 reduction (C32) 0.521 (1) 0.140 1.9 2.4 2.5 0.531 0.406 0.375

Health (D4) 0.229 (4) 2.342 2.170 2.211 0.417 0.468 0.448 Indoor environment (C41) 0.349 (1) 0.080 2.4 2.8 1.8 0.406 0.312 0.563 Water resource (C42) 0.339 (2) 0.078 2.6 2.9 3.0 0.344 0.281 0.250 Sewage and garbage improvement (C43)

0.310 (3) 0.071 2.0 0.8 1.9 0.500 0.812 0.531

2.497 2.447 2.216 0.374 0.381 0.442 Total performance 2.497 (1) 2.447 (2) 2.216 (3)

Total gap 0.374 (1) 0.381 (2) 0.442 (3) Note: The numbers in the ( ) denotes the ranks of local weights in dimensions and criteria.

4. Conclusion and Suggestions

As a result of urbanization, a large population has migrated from rural areas to cities, and the

metropolitan population density has increased, thus aggravating the urban heat island effect and air pollution problem. As the world population increases continuously and the consumption of earth resources soars, the concepts of maximizing the efficiency of resources and reducing the waste output have emerged. An empirical study was used to demonstrate the application of a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP (DEMATEL-based ANP) with VIKOR for evaluation and analysis on the green building with the best performance. Its gap to the assessment criteria was determined in the evaluation process, so as to propose an improvement method to reach the expected standard of green building evaluation and to reduce the gap. The four major dimensions of green buildings and the correlations and influence among the dimensions were analyzed. The results revealed that "waste reduction" has the highest influence among the dimensions, and is the most important influencing factor. The CO2 reduction (C32) has the highest local weight, and is the most important influencing index factor. This finding is consistent with the concept of establishing a green building evaluation system to promote green buildings, thus creating a low-carbon and environmentally friendly homeland, and reducing the heat island effect. According to the analysis of nine major criteria, the greenery has the highest influence in the ecology dimension, and is the main influencing factor in the ecology dimension. In the waste reduction dimension, CO2 reduction (C32) has the highest influence, and is the most important influencing factor in the waste reduction dimension. In the health dimension, the water resource (C42) has the highest influence, and is the most important influencing factor in the health aspect. The sewage and garbage improvement has the lowest influence.

According to the expert assessment of the three green buildings, generally speaking, Building A has the best performance and the smallest gap. If its biodiversity and CO2 reduction are improved, its performance will be better. The green building C has the worst performance, its biodiversity and indoor environment quality should be improved. The findings can serve as reference for revising Taiwan's green building evaluation in the future. With climate change, the building domain should be adapted to building new environmental efficiency, to co-exist with the earth, and to build a low-carbon sustainable living homeland.

At present, global warming becomes increasingly severe, human beings and organisms on the earth are confronted with an existential crisis, there must be an effective way to use and manage the energy. Taiwan is an island region, its 98% of energy must be imported, and it has a dense population. The


118

industrial and commercial buildings and residential houses are being built continuously. It is necessary to build a low-carbon energy-saving green homeland, and this is a very important topic. Moreover, the energy saving strategy should be concerned. Taiwan is located in the subtropical zone and tropic region, where the buildings must aim to reduce the air conditioning and lighting power consumption, so as to reduce the carbon emission. In terms of the enhancement of greenery of the new green buildings in the future, the roof planting may be considered. The roof economy and roof garden may create another chance besides energy saving and carbon reduction before long. The expert evaluation and analysis of cases can be extended into the green building evaluation content of different building types in the future, such as Basic Version, Residential, Green Factory and Ecological Community of business, medical institutions, department stores and residential houses. The correlations and interactions among various dimensions and criteria are evaluated and analyzed, and the improvement method for various buildings after completion or under construction is found, for government units or owners formulate strategies for saving energy and water resources of green buildings, creating a healthful indoor environment, and developing. Therefore, the evaluation aspects and index factors of green buildings in the U.S., Canada, and Japan can be compared to research in the future. This method is also applicable to the evaluation of intelligent buildings. The findings can serve as reference for revising Taiwan's green building evaluation in the future. With climate change, the building domain should be adapted to building new environmental efficiency, to co-exist with the earth, and to build a low-carbon sustainable living homeland.

5. References

[1] Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, Compilation of Green

Building Design, Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, 2000. [2] J. Zuo, Z.Y. Zhao, “Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review”,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 30, pp. 271-281, 2014 [3] Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, Evaluation and Explanation

of Green Building Materials, 2003. [4] H.F. Chu, L.D. Huang, H.L. Hu, “Study of Green Building Evaluation Index System”, Logistics

Research Review, vol. 3, 2003. [5] U.S. Green Building Council. LEED-Green Building Rating System Version 2.0-leadership in

Energy and Environment Design. U.S. Green Building Council 2000, U.S.A., March 2000. [6] W.Y. Chiu, G.H.Tzeng, H.L. Li, “A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to

improve e-store business”, Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 37, pp. 48-61, 2013. [7] C.L. Lin, G.H. Tzeng, “A value-created system of science (technology) park by using DEMATEL”,

Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 9683-9697, 2009. [8] Fontela, E.; Gabus, A. The DEMATEL observer, DEMATEL 1976 report. Switzerland

Genvea：Battelle Geneva Research Center, 1976. [9] H.S. Lee, G.H. Tzeng, Yeih, Y.J. Wang, S.C. Yang, “Revised DEMATEL: Resolving the

Infeasibility of DEMATEL”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 37, no. 10-11, pp. 6746-6757, 2013.

[10] Y.J. Chiu, H.C. Chen, G.H. Tzeng, J.Z. Shyu, “Marketing strategy based on customer behavior for the LCD-Tv”, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, vol. 7, no. 2/3, pp. 65-143, 2006.

[11] A. Gabus, E. Fontela, Perceptions of the World Problematique: Communication Procedure, Communicating with Those Bearing Collective Responsibility. DEMATEL Report No. 1, Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland, 1973.

[12] T.L. Saaty, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 2001.

[13] M. Hajime, I. Kenichi, “Systematic Decision Making Process for Identifying the Contradictions to be Tacked by TRIZ to Accomplish Product Innovation”, Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 21-29, 2007.

[14] G.H. Tzeng, C.H. Chiang, C.W. Li, “Evaluating intertwined effects in e-leaning programs：A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Factor Analysis and DEMATEL”, Expert Systems with Application, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1028-1044, 2007.


119

[15] I.C. Chen, H.P. Lien, G.H. Tzeng, “Measure and Evaluation for Environment Watershed Plans Using a Novel Hybrid MCDM Model”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 926-938, 2010.

[16] Institute of Architecture and Building Research, Compilation of Green Building Design, Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan, R.O.C., 2000.

[17] D. Sumrit, P. Anuntavoranich, “Using DEMATEL Method to Analyze the Causal Relations on Technological Innovation Capability Evaluation Factors in Thai Technology-Based Firms”, International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management & Applied Science & Technologies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 81-103, 2013.

[18] C.J. Lin, W.W. Wu, “A Causal Analytical Method for Group Decision-Making under Fuzzy Environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 205-213, 2008.

[19] A.V. Devadoss, “Felix A. A Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach to Study Cause and Effect Relationship of Youth Violence”, International Journal of Computing Algorithm, vol. 2, pp. 363-372, 2013.

[20] S.K. Hu, Y.F. Yeh, G.H. Tzeng, “Building an Evaluation Model for Improving the Smart Phone by Using New Hybrid MCDM Method”, In Proceedings of the eighth International symposium on Management Engineers (ISME 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, August 22-25, 2011.

[21] C.H. Hsu, F.K. Wang, G.H. Tzeng, “The Best Vendor Selection for Conducting the Recycled Material Based on a Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP with VIKOR”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 66, pp. 95-111, 2012.

[22] P. Zhang, Y. Tian, Z. Zhang, Y. Shi, X. Li, “Supportive Instances for Regularized Multiple Criteria Linear Programming Classification”, International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 249-263, 2008.

[23] M.L. Tseng, “A Causal and Effect Decision Making Model of Service Quality Expectation Using Grey-fuzzy DEMATEL Approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 7738-7748, 2009.


120

A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental ...A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental ...A DANP and VIKOR Based Hybrid Environmental...