1. Home
  2. Vol 3, No 2 (2022)
  3. Gunaydin

An Integrated Approach of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to Determine the Most Habitable Planet

Gizem Gunaydin, Gamze Duvan, Eren Ozceylan

Abstract


Every planet in the universe has its own characteristics. These features make the planets different among themselves. For this reason, all the different properties of the planets must be evaluated at the same time when determining habitable planets. This situation requires a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach. In this study, a list of habitable planets (nine planets and the Moon) has been considered. Seventeen different criteria such as mass, gravity, diameter, density, escape velocity, rotation time, day of length, distance from the sun, perihelion, aphelion, orbital period, orbital velocity, orbital inclination, orbital eccentricity, obliquity to orbit, mean temperature, and number of satellites are taken into account. The weights of criteria are determined with DEMATEL (The Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) by analyzing the interactions among criteria. Orbital inclination is the criterion with the highest weight, and the criterion with the lowest weight is the number of satellites. After weighting the criteria with DEMATEL, VIKOR (VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference to Similarity to Ideal Solution) approaches are used to rank the planets. According to the TOPSIS, Earth is ranked first, Venus ranked second and Mercury ranked third in the order of the most habitable planets. According to the VIKOR method, Earth is ranked first, Mars is ranked second, and Mercury is ranked third in the order of the most habitable planets. Finally, the same calculations are considered with equal weights and the results are discussed.

 

Doi: 10.28991/HIJ-2022-03-02-04

Full Text: PDF


Keywords


Habitable Planets; DEMATEL; TOPSIS; VIKOR; Multiple-criteria Decision Analysis.

References


Yücenur, G. N., & Subaşı, A. S. (2019). An integrated solution for space shuttle launching ramp. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 91(7), 1051–1057. doi:10.1108/AEAT-10-2018-0257.

Shieh, J. I., Wu, H. H., & Huang, K. K. (2010). A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital service quality. Knowledge-Based Systems, 23(3), 277–282. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2010.01.013.

Abbasi, M., Hosnavi, R., & Tabrizi, B. (2013). Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL in Risks Evaluation of Knowledge-Based Networks. Journal of Optimization, 2013, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2013/913467.

Ada, E., Kazançoğlu, Y., & Aksoy, M. (2011). Evaluation of factors affecting flexible production systems using fuzzy DEMATEL method. Proceedings of 11. Production Research Symposium, 722–731.

Aksakal, E., & Dağdeviren, M. (2010). An integrated approach to personnel selection problem with ANP and DEMATEL methods. Gazi University Journal of Engineering and Architecture Faculty, 25(4), 905–913.

Dey, S., Kumar, A., Ray, A., & Pradhan, B. B. (2012). Supplier selection: Integrated theory using DEMATEL and quality function deployment methodology. Procedia Engineering, 38, 2111–2116. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.253.

Karaatlı, M., Ömürbek, N., Işık, E., & Yılmaz, E. (2016). DEMATEL and fuzzy TOPSIS application in performance appraisal. Ege Academic Review, 16(1), 49–64.

Ömürbek, V., & Kınay, B. (2013). Financial performance assessment with TOPSIS method in airline transport sector. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 18(3), 343–363.

Uygurtürk, H., & Korkmaz, T. (2012). The TOPSIS multi-criteria decision making of financial performance method: An application on basic metal industry enterprises. Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 95–115.

Yurdakul, M., & İç, Y. T. A. (2003). Case study using TOPSIS method for performance measurement and analysis of Turkish automotive companies. Gazi University Journal of Engineering and Architecture Faculty, 18(1), 1–18.

Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11363–11368. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039.

Tırmıkçıoğlu Ç, N., (2010). Fuzzy TOPSIS method in establishment selection and an application in banking sector, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University Journal of Social and Economic Research, 18(12), 37–45.

Kahriman, A., Oztokatli, M., & Das, G. S. (2015). Selection of a communication satellite manufacturer using MCDM methods. RAST 2015 - Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, 347–351. doi:10.1109/RAST.2015.7208368.

Tadić, S., Zečević, S., & Krstić, M. (2014). A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(18), 8112–8128. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.021.

Hsu, C. H., Wang, F. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2012). The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 66, 95–111. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.02.009.

Görener, A. (2011). Selection of ERP software with integrated ANP-VIKOR approach. Journal of Aviation and Space Technologies, 5(1), 97–110.

Dinçer, H., & Görener, A. (2011). AHP - VIKOR and AHP - TOPSIS approaches in performance evaluation: An application in the service industry. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Science, 29, 244–260.

Wu, W. W., & Lee, Y. T. (2007). Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(2), 499–507. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2005.12.005.

Li, H., Wang, W., Fan, L., Li, Q., & Chen, X. (2020). A novel hybrid MCDM model for machine tool selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, entropy weighting and later defuzzification VIKOR. Applied Soft Computing, 91, 106207. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106207

Chen, Y., Ran, Y., Huang, G., Xiao, L., & Zhang, G. (2021). A new integrated MCDM approach for improving QFD based on DEMATEL and extended MULTIMOORA under uncertainty environment. Applied Soft Computing, 105, 107222. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107222

Karaoğlan, S. (2016). Selection of an outsourcing provider with DEMATEL and VIKOR methods: Hotel business example. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 55, 9–24.

Hwang CL., Yoon K. (1981) Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.

Kuru, A., & Akin, B. (2012). Entegre Yönetim Sistemlerinde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Tekniklerinin Kullanımına Yönelik Yaklaşımlar Ve Uygulamaları. Öneri Dergisi, 10(38), 129–144.

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. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.

Kim, M. S. (2019). Deliberative collaboration in learning-by-designing multimodal modeling activities. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1319–1338. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1627666.

Williams, D. (2015). Planetary Fact Sheet - Metric. In NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Available online: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ (accessed on February 2021).


Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.28991/HIJ-2022-03-02-04

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Gizem Gunaydin, Gamze Duvan, Eren Ozceylan