Difference between revisions of "Jingyi AHP"
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
|} </div></br> | |} </div></br> | ||
<!--/Header--> | <!--/Header--> | ||
| − | + | <div class="Frame" style="{{Round corners}}; background: #7851a9; text-align: center; padding: 0px; font-size: 200%;"><font face="arial" color="#ffffff " size="+1"><b>Overview of Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)</b></font></div></div> | |
| + | To have a more comprehensive and accurate identification and analysis of the most suitable site for construction of the quarantine centre, a multi-attribute decision analysis (AHP) is employed to derive the weights associated with the following criteria map layers. | ||
| + | * Economic Factor | ||
| + | * Accessibility Factor | ||
| + | * Healthrisk Factor | ||
| + | * Natural Conservation Factor | ||
| + | </br> | ||
<div class="Frame" style="{{Round corners}}; background: #7851a9; text-align: center; padding: 0px; font-size: 200%;"><font face="arial" color="#ffffff " size="+1"><b>Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) Pairwise Comparison Matrix & Results</b></font></div></div> | <div class="Frame" style="{{Round corners}}; background: #7851a9; text-align: center; padding: 0px; font-size: 200%;"><font face="arial" color="#ffffff " size="+1"><b>Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) Pairwise Comparison Matrix & Results</b></font></div></div> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
| Line 37: | Line 43: | ||
[[File:Ahp22.png|900px|frameless|center]] | [[File:Ahp22.png|900px|frameless|center]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | As seen in the AHP above, the result show that the factor that are of the most importance would be health risk factor with a weight of 58.4%. Next factor will be the accessibility factor with a weight of 26.3% and then natural conservation factor and economic factor with a weight of 10.1% and 5.2% respectively. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The consistency ratio (CI/RI) is also below 0.1, which indicates that the AHP analysis above do not need to be re-evaluated and is at an acceptable range of 0.087 (≈ 9%). | ||
| + | |||
| + | The weights obtained above will be used to combine all 4 factor layers to determine the best site to construct the quarantine centre. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <h2> AHP Process </h2> | ||
| + | Before doing AHP, I first came up with the priority order of the 4 factors as shown below: | ||
| + | |||
| + | # Healthrisk Factor | ||
| + | # Accessibility Factor | ||
| + | # Natural Conservation Factor | ||
| + | # Economic Factor | ||
| + | ''With 1 being the most prioritized factor and 4 being the least prioritized factor'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Then, I used a scale for the pairwise comparison conducted above as shown below. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:Scale.png|frameless|500px|left]] | ||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | <h2> Additional Notes: </h2> | ||
| + | '''Limitations of AHP''' | ||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | In AHP, using pairwise comparison may not be accurate as in certain case, a low score on one criterion can be compensated by a high score on another. | ||
Revision as of 00:21, 11 November 2019
To have a more comprehensive and accurate identification and analysis of the most suitable site for construction of the quarantine centre, a multi-attribute decision analysis (AHP) is employed to derive the weights associated with the following criteria map layers.
- Economic Factor
- Accessibility Factor
- Healthrisk Factor
- Natural Conservation Factor
As seen in the AHP above, the result show that the factor that are of the most importance would be health risk factor with a weight of 58.4%. Next factor will be the accessibility factor with a weight of 26.3% and then natural conservation factor and economic factor with a weight of 10.1% and 5.2% respectively.
The consistency ratio (CI/RI) is also below 0.1, which indicates that the AHP analysis above do not need to be re-evaluated and is at an acceptable range of 0.087 (≈ 9%).
The weights obtained above will be used to combine all 4 factor layers to determine the best site to construct the quarantine centre.
AHP Process
Before doing AHP, I first came up with the priority order of the 4 factors as shown below:
- Healthrisk Factor
- Accessibility Factor
- Natural Conservation Factor
- Economic Factor
With 1 being the most prioritized factor and 4 being the least prioritized factor
Then, I used a scale for the pairwise comparison conducted above as shown below.
Additional Notes:
Limitations of AHP
In AHP, using pairwise comparison may not be accurate as in certain case, a low score on one criterion can be compensated by a high score on another.
