بررسی تطبیقی کاربرد شیوه‏های تصمیم‌گیری چندشاخصه در سنجش سطح توسعه‏یافتگی مناطق روستایی استان همدان

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه ترویج و توسعة روستایی، دانشگاه تبریز

2 دانش‏آموختة دکتری توسعة کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی تطبیقی کاربرد شیوه‏های تصمیم­گیری چندشاخصه TOPSIS، SAW و تاکسونومی در سنجش سطح توسعه‏یافتگی دهستان­های استان همدان انجام شد. بدین منظور، 53 متغیر در قالب هشت شاخص جمعیتی، زیربنایی، آموزشی، بهداشتی- درمانی، ارتباطی، خدماتی، اداری – سیاسی، و اقتصادی- تولیدی تعریف و وزن آنها با بهره­گیری از روش­های آنتروپی و  AHP تعیین شد. برای مقایسه نتایج، از ضریب پراکندگی، میانگین درصد تغییرات و مجموع شدت تغییرات استفاده شد. بر اساس نتایج ضریب پراکندگی، شیوه تاکسونومی روش بهینه برای رتبه­بندی است. مقایسه میانگین درصد تغییرات شیوه­ها نشان داد که شیوه‏های SAW و تاکسونومی درصد تغییرات کمتری نسبت به شیوه TOPSIS دارند و روش مجموع شدت تغییرات نیز نشان داد که شیوه SAW در مقایسه با دو روش دیگر دارای کمترین شدت تغییرات است. در مجموع، سنجش سطح توسعه با استفاده از شیوه‏های SAW و تاکسونومی منطقی­تر و به واقعیت نزدیک­تر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Comparative Study of Application of MADM Techniques in Measurement of Rural Development Level in Hamadan Province of Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shapour ZARIFIAN 1
  • Somayeh LATIFI 2
1 Associate Professor, Extension and Rural Development Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2 PhD in Agricultural Development, Extension and Rural Development Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
چکیده [English]

This was a comparative study of the application of MADM techniques in measurement of rural development level in Hamadan province of Iran. To this end, 53 variables were defined in eight indicators of demographic, infrastructure, education, health, communication, services, institutional and economic. The weights of these indicators were determined by using AHP and Entropy methods and combining their results. Then, the development levels of subdistricts were measured by using TOPSIS, SAW and Numerical Taxonomy techniques. To compare the results of these techniques, coefficient of dispersion,  mean percentage difference and sum of difference intensity were applied. Based on comparing the results of coefficient of dispersion, the Numerical Taxonomy technique was found to be an optimum method for ranking and the SAW and TOPSIS techniques less precisely ranked the rural areas. Comparing the mean percentage differences of the techniques showed that SAW and the Numerical Taxonomy had less percentage of variation compared to TOPSIS. Also, according to the sum of difference intensity, SAW technique had the lowest difference intensity compared to the other two.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • TOPSIS
  • Saw
  • Numerical Taxonomy
  • Rural Development Level
  • Measurement of Development Level
  • Hamadan (Province)

1. Afrakhteh, H. (1995). Model in geography. Zahedan: Academic Center of Education, Culture and Research. (Persian)
2. Akbari, N.A. and Zahedi Keyvan, M. (2008). Application of ranking and multi-attribute decision-making methods. Tehran: Municipalities and Village Organization Publications. (Persian)
3. Asgharizadeh, E. and Zabihi Jamkhaneh, M. (2013). The evaluation and ranking of rural development level using multiple attributes decision-making methods (Case study: rural districts in Sari County). Journal of Research and Rural Planning, 3: 27-48. (Persian)
4. Azar, A. and Abdolalipour, A. (2006). Evaluation of the provincial trade organizations with the MADM approach. Journal of Business Research, 39: 157-189. (Persian)
5. Badri, S.A. and Akbarian Rounizi, S.R. (2006). The comparative study on application of assessment methods of the development in the regional studies, the case: Esfarayen County . Geography and Development, 4(7): 5-22. (Persian)
6. Boggia, A. and Cortina, C. (2010). Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11): 2301-2306.
7. Cziraky, D., Sambt, J., Rovan, J. and Puljiz, J. (2006). Regional development assessment: a structural equation approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 174: 427–442.
8. Ghazinoori, S.S. and Tabatabaeiyan, S.H.A. (2002). Sensitivity analysis of multi-index decision issues toward the type of technique used. Journal of Management Knowledge, 15(56): 129-141. (Persian)
9. Goletsis, Y. and Chletsos, M. (2011). Measurement of development and regional disparities in Greek Periphery: a multivariate approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 45(4): 174-183.
10. Hobbs, B.F. and Horn, G.T.F. (1997). Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to deamand-side planning at BC Gas. Energy Policy, 25(3): 357-375.
11. Hosseinzadeh Dalir, K. (2001). Regional planning. Tehran: SAMT Publications. (Persian)
12. Janic, M. and Reggiani, A. (2002). An application of the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis to the selection of a new hub airport. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 2(2): 113-141.
13. Kao, C. (2010). Weight determination for consistently ranking alternative in multiple criteria decision analysis. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 34(7): 1779-1787.
14. Kwokyam Cheng, S. (2000). Development of a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making support system for municipal solid waste management. Degree of Master of Manufacturing & Production Systems, University of Regina, Saakatchewan.
15. Masoud, M., Moazazimehr Tehran, A.M. and Shobayri, S.N. (2011). Determining underdevelopment rankings of Isfahan County (Numerical taxonomy method). Journal of Urban-Regional Studies and Research, 2(8): 39-54. (Persian)
16. Momeni, M (1998). Principles and methods of regional planning. Tehran: Gooya. (Persian)
17. Nasrollahi, Kh., Akbari, N. and Heidari, M. (2011). Analysis of ranking methodologies in development measuring: a case study of Khouzestan province counties. Journal of Town and Country Planning, 3(4): 65-93. (Persian)
18. Nojavan, M., Mohammadi, A. and Salehi, E. (2012). Application of the multiple criteria decision-making methods in the urban and regional planning emphasizing TOPSIS and SAW methods. Urban Management, 9(28): 285-296. (Persian)
19. Pourtaheri, M., Sojasi Qidari, H. and Sadeghloo, T. (2012). Comparative assessment of ranking methods for natural disasters in rural regions (Case study: Zanjan province). Journal of Rural Research, 2(7): 31-54. (Persian)
20. Prato, T. and Herath, G. (2007). Multiple-criteria decision analysis for integrated catchment management. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3): 627-632.
21. Rokneddin Eftekhari, A., Vojdani Tehrani, H. and Razini, E.A. (2009). Evaluation and prioritization of Iranian free trade zones using MADM method. Modarres Journal of Spatial Planning, 13(3):143-166. (Persian)
22. Salimifar, M., Norouzi, R. and Motahari, M.A. (2009). Measuring industrial development and regional development in Razavi, Southern and Northern Khorasan provinces. Economics Research, 9(4): 175-196. (Persian)
23. Salmanzadeh, S. (1999). The summit of rural development and reform of the administrative structure of the government. Journal of Village and Development, 3(3,4). (Persian)
24. Shankar, R. and Shah, A. (2003). Bridging the economic divide within countries: a scorecard on the performance of regional policies in reducing regional income disparities. World Development, 31(8): 1421-1441.
25. Topcu, Y. and Burnaz, S. (2007). A multiple criteria decision-making approach for the evaluation of retail location. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 14(1-3): 67-76.
26. Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N. and Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision-making: a simulation comparison of selected methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107: 507-529.
27. Zavadskas, E.K., Vilutiene, T., Turskis, Z. and Tamosaitiene, J. (2010). Contractor selection for construction works by applying SAW-G and TOPSIS Grey techniques. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11: 34-55.
28. Ziari, K., Zanjirchi, S.M. and Sorkhkamal, K. (2010). A study and measurement of the development degree of the counties of Khorasan Razavi province using TOPSIS technique. Human Geography Research Quarterly, 72: 17-30. (Persian)