Evaluation of eco design alternatives by integrating ahp and topsis methodology under a fuzzy environment

International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 43-52

  Ng, Chun Yu ^a   Chuah, Kong Bieng ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Fuzzy AHP; Fuzzy TOPSIS; Life cycle assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908159359     PISSN: 17509653     EISSN: 17509661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17509653.2012.10671206     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. 2006. 2006 environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework ISO 14040
2. Ayag, Z., and Ozdemir, R., 2006. A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17:179–190.
3. Aydogan, E., 2011. Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (4):3992–3998.
4. Bjorklund, A., Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca, Box 2142, S-103 14 Stockholm, Sweden:The Environmental Strategies Research Group. In
5. Bouyssou D., et al. Evaluation models:a critical perspective Kluwer Boston 2000
6. Bozdag, C., Kahraman, C., and Ruan, D., 2003. Fuzzy group decision making for selection among computer integrated manufacturing systems. Computers in Industry, 51:13–29.
7. Chan, F., and Kumar, N., 2007. Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 35:417–431.
8. Chan F., et al. Global supplier selection:a fuzzy-AHP approach International Journal of Production Research 2008 46 3825 3857
9. Chen, C., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114:1–9.
10. Chen, S., and Hwang, C., 1992. Fuzzy Multiple attribute decision making:methods and applications, Berlin:Springer.
11. Ertugrul, K., 2009. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (1):702–715.
12. Febransyah, A., and Utarja, J., 2003. Product concept selection using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, ISAHP 2003 Bali, Indonesia
13. Finnveden, G., 2000. On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5 (4):229–238.
14. Goedkoop, M., and Spriensma, R., 1999. “ A damage oriented method for life cycle assessment ”. In Methodology report, Amersfoort, Netherlands:PRe Consultants. In
15. Gumus, A., 2009. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOP-SIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (2):4067–4074.
16. Huijbregts, M., 2000. Modelling Data Uncertainty in Life Cycle Inventories Draft paper prepared for the SETAC Data quality workgroup
17. Hwang, C., and Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making-Methods and Applications, Heidelberg:Springler-Verlag.
18. Klir, G., and Yuan, B., 1995. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic:Theory and applications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy:Prentice-Hall.
19. Knight, P., and Jenkins, O., 2009. Adopting and applying eco-design techniques:a practitioners perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 (5):549–558.
20. Kulak, O., Durmusoglu, B., and Kahraman, C., 2005. Fuzzy multi-attribute equipment selection based on information axiom. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 169:337–345.
21. Kwong, C., and Bai, H., 2002. A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13:367–377.
22. Laarhoven, P., and Pedrycz, W., 1983. A fuzzy extension of saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11 (3):229–241.
23. Leung, L., and Chao, D., 2000. On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 124:102–113.
24. Lindahl, M., 2006. Engineering designers’ experience of design for environment methods and tools–requirement definitions from an interview study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14:487–496.
25. Luca, D., and Jirl, K., 2009. The environmental performance strategy map:an integrated LCA approachtoap-proach to support the strategic decision-making process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17:900–906.
26. Luttropp, C., and Persson, J., 1998. Life Cycle Design ’98, Stockholm:Department of machine Design/Engineering Design at the Royal Institute of Technology KTH.
27. Millet D., et al. Does the potential of the use of LCA match the design team needs? Journal of Cleaner Production 2005a 15 4 335 346
28. Ng, C., and Chuah, K., 2009. “ Evaluation of eco design alternatives using fuzzy AHP methodology ”. In Design Principles And Practice:An International Journal, Vol. 4, Common Ground Publishing. In
29. Nuij, R., 2005. “ Environmental product development ”. In Environmental management in organisations, The IEMA Handbook Edited by:Brady, J., London:Earthscan. In
30. Onut, S., and Soner, S., 2007. “ Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment ”. In Waste Management doi:10.1016/j.wasman. 2007.05.019
31. DIRECTIVE 2005/32/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
32. Ravanshadnia, M., Abbasian, H., and Rajaie, H., 2010. Selecting engineering partner for EPC projects using a fuzzy AHP approach. International Journal of Management Science and Engineeing Management, 5 (4):277–283.
33. Saaty, T., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York:McGraw-Hill.
34. Torfi, F., Farahani, Z., and Rezapour, S., 2010. Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Applied Soft Computing, 10 (2):520–528.
35. Zadeh, L., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8:338–353.