A double interaction-based financing group decision-making framework considering uncertain information and inconsistent assessment

Figures & data

Figure 1. Multiple-attribute group decision-making process for project financing.

Source: drawn by authors themselves.

Table 1. Evaluation index system of the financing scheme.

Comprehensive Index	Basic Index
Financing economy (${\mathit{y}}_1$)	Financing cost ($e_1$)
	Financing return ($e_2$)
	Financing scale ($e_3$)
Financing risk (${\mathit{y}}_2$)	Funding risk$(e_4$)
	Interest rate risk$(e_5$)
	Inflation risk $(e_6$)
Financing feasibility (${\mathit{y}}_3$)	Financing appeal$(e_7$)
	Financing procedure$(e_8$)
	Financing policy$(e_9$)
Financing reliability (${\mathit{y}}_4$)	Financing model$(e_{10}$)
	Funding plan$(e_{11}$)
	Financing speed$(e_{12}$)

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 2. Expert $V_1$’s evaluation of each scheme.

（1）Comprehensive Index $y_1$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_1$	${\mathit{e}}_2$	${\mathit{e}}_3$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.6$)($H_3,0.2$)($H_4,0.2$)	($H_2,0.7$)($H_3,0.2$)($\mathrm{}H,$0.1)	($H_3,0.6$)$(H_4,0.2$)($H,$0.2)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_3,0.9$)($H_4,0.1$)	($H_3,0.5$)$(H_4,0.4$)($\mathrm{}H,$0.1)	($H_4,0.2$)$(H_5,0.8$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	$(H_2,0.1$)($H_3,0.3$) ($H_4,0.4)$	($H_3,0.3$)$(H_4,0.2$)($\mathrm{}H,$0.5)	($H_2,0.5$)$(H_3,0.5$)

（2）Comprehensive Index $y_2$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_4$	${\mathit{e}}_5$	${\mathit{e}}_6$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_1,0.6$)$(H_3,0.3$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.6$)$(H_4,0.3$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.5$)$(H_5,0.4$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_4,0.6$)$(H_5,0.3$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.6$)$(H_3,0.2$)($H_4,0.2$)	($H_3,0.6$)$(H_4,0.2$)($H,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_2,0.3$)$(H_3,0.7$)	($H_2,0.3$)$(H_3,0.4$) ($H_4,0.2$)	($H_4,0.6$)$(H_5,0.4$)

（3）Comprehensive Index $y_3$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_7$	${\mathit{e}}_8$	${\mathit{e}}_9$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.5$)$(H_3,0.5$)	($H_3,0.4$)$(H_4,0.6$)	($H_2,0.3$)$(H_3,0.4$)($H_4,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_2,0.2$)$(H_3,0.6$)($H,0.2$)	($H_3,0.3$)$(H_4,0.7$)	($H_4,0.6$)$(H_5,03$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_1,0.5$)$(H_2,0.3$)($H,0.2$)	($H_3,0.4$)$(H_4,0.6$) ($H,0.2$)	($H_1,0.5$)$(H_2,0.4$)($H,0.1$)

（4）Comprehensive Index $y_4$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_{10}$	${\mathit{e}}_{11}$	${\mathit{e}}_{12}$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_4,0.7$)$(H_5,0.3$)	($H_3,0.3$)$(H_4,0.6$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.5$)$(H_4,0.3$)$\mathrm{}(H_5,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_2,0.6$)$(H_3,0.4$)	($H_2,0.5$)$(H_3,0.4$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.4$)$(H_4,0.3$)($H,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_3,0.8$)$(H_4,0.2$)	($H_4,0.4$)$(H_5,0.5$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.5$)$(H_5,0.1$)($H,0.4$)

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 3. Evaluation experts’ subjective weights for the evaluation indexes.

	${\mathit{y}}_1$	${\mathit{y}}_2$	${\mathit{y}}_3$	${\mathit{y}}_4$
${\mathit{V}}_1$	0.1759	0.2224	0.2632	0.2418
${\mathit{V}}_2$	0.1696	0.2487	0.2673	0.2653
${\mathit{V}}_3$	0.2073	0.1959	0.1794	0.2256
${\mathit{V}}_4$	0.4471	0.3329	0.2438	0.2668

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 4. Similarities between experts’ judgments.

	${\mathit{V}}_1$	${\mathit{V}}_2$	${\mathit{V}}_3$	${\mathit{V}}_4$
${\mathit{V}}_1$	1	0.9886	0.9806	0.8974
${\mathit{V}}_2$	0.9886	1	0.9807	0.8932
${\mathit{V}}_3$	0.9806	0.9807	1	0.9223
${\mathit{V}}_4$	0.8974	0.8932	0.9223	1

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 5. Evaluation expert weights and consensus coefficient.

	Subjective weigh	Objective weight	Total weight
${\mathit{V}}_1$	0.2259	0.2531	0.2340
${\mathit{V}}_2$	0.2377	0.2527	0.2422
${\mathit{V}}_3$	0.2275	0.2546	0.2356
${\mathit{V}}_4$	0.3227	0.2395	0.2977
Consensus coefficient	0.9438

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 6. Expert $V_4$’s evaluation of each scheme.

（1）Comprehensive Index $y_1$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_1$	${\mathit{e}}_2$	${\mathit{e}}_3$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_4,0.2$)$(H_5,0.8$)	($H_4,0.6$)$(H_5,0.3$)($H,0.1$)	($H_4,0.2$)$(H_5,0.8$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_4,0.3$)$(H_5,0.7$)	($H_3,0.4$)$(H_4,0.2$)$(H_5,0.4$)	($H_2,0.6$)$(H_3,0.4$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_4,0.3$)$(H_5,0.5$)($H,0.2$)	($H_2,0.1$)$(H_3,0.3$)$(H_4,0.6$)	($H_3,0.5$)$(H_4,0.5$)

（2）Comprehensive Index $y_2$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_4$	${\mathit{e}}_5$	${\mathit{e}}_6$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.2$)$(H_4,0.8$)	($H_3,0.8$)$(H_4,0.2$)	($H_2,0.6$)$(H_3,0.3$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_1,0.5$)$(H_2,0.3$)($H,0.2$)	($H_3,0.6$)$(H_4,0.3$)($H,0.1$)	($H_4,0.2$)$(H_5,0.7$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_3,0.2$)$(H_4,0.4$)$(H_5,0.4$)	($H_3,0.2$)$(H_5,0.8$)	($H_2,0.7$)$(H_3,0.3$)

（3）Comprehensive Index ${\mathit{y}}_3$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_7$	${\mathit{e}}_8$	${\mathit{e}}_9$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.5$)$(H_3,0.5$)	($H_3,0.4$)$(H_4,0.5$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.2$)$(H_3,0.6$)($H_4,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_2,0.3$)$(H_3,0.6$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.2$)$(H_3,0.6$)($H,0.2$)	($H_2,0.8$)$(H_3,0.1$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_4,0.2$)$(H_5,0.7$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.4$)$(H_3,0.6$)	($H_3,0.3$)$(H_4,0.2$)$\mathrm{}(H_4,0.5$)

（4）Comprehensive Index $y_4$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_{10}$	${\mathit{e}}_{11}$	${\mathit{e}}_{12}$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.5$)$(H_3,0.5$)	($H_3,0.3$)$(H_4,0.7$)	($H_3,0.5$)$(H_4,0.2$)($H,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_3,0.7$)$(H_4,0.3$)	($H_3,0.2$)$(H_4,0.6$)($H,0.2$)	($H_3,0.5$)$(H_4,0.3$)($H,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_4,0.3$)$(H_5,0.7)$	($H_3,0.4$)($H_4,0.3$)$(H_5,0.3$)	($H_4,0.3$)$(H_5,0.1$)($H,0.6$)

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 7. Revised similarities between experts.

	${\mathit{V}}_1$	${\mathit{V}}_2$	${\mathit{V}}_3$	${\mathit{V}}_4$
${\mathit{V}}_1$	1	0.9886	0.9806	0.9164
${\mathit{V}}_2$	0.9886	1	0.9807	0.9227
${\mathit{V}}_3$	0.9806	0.9807	1	0.9351
${\mathit{V}}_4$	0.9164	0.9227	0.9351	1

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 8. Revised evaluation expert weights and consensus coefficient.

	Subjective weigh	Objective weight	Total weight
${\mathit{V}}_1$	0.2597	0.2521	0.2574
${\mathit{V}}_2$	0.2721	0.2526	0.2662
${\mathit{V}}_3$	0.2647	0.2530	0.2612
${\mathit{V}}_4$	0.2181	0.2423	0.2254
Consensus coefficient	0.9540

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 9. Attributes’ relative weights.

Comprehensive attributes	Basic attributes	Gray correlation	Attributes’ relative weights
${\mathit{y}}_1$	$e_1$	0.8925	0.3542
	$e_2$	0.8091	0.3211
	$e_3$	0.8178	0.3246
${\mathit{y}}_2$	$e_4$	0.9182	0.3545
	$e_5$	0.8059	0.3112
	$e_6$	0.8658	0.3343
${\mathit{y}}_3$	$e_7$	0.7760	0.3141
	$e_8$	0.8129	0.3291
	$e_9$	0.8817	0.3569
${\mathit{y}}_4$	$e_{10}$	0.8636	0.3694
	$e_{11}$	0.7294	0.3120
	$e_{12}$	0.7447	0.3186

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 10. Comprehensive evaluation results provided by evaluation experts.

	${\mathit{H}}_1$	${\mathit{H}}_2$	${\mathit{H}}_3$	${\mathit{H}}_4$	${\mathit{H}}_5$	$\mathit{H}$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	0.0201	0.0808	0.4232	0.3155	0.0664	0.0936
${\mathit{a}}_2$	0.0269	0.0915	0.4171	0.2953	0.0740	0.0952
${\mathit{a}}_3$	0.0087	0.1462	0.3719	0.2413	0.1184	0.1135

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 11. Final utility value of each scheme.

	Minimum utility value	Maximum utility value
${\mathit{a}}_1$	0.5349	0.6285
${\mathit{a}}_2$	0.5269	0.6221
${\mathit{a}}_3$	0.5218	0.6354

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 12. Final score of each scheme without interaction.

	${\mathit{a}}_1$	${\mathit{a}}_2$	${\mathit{a}}_3$
Score	0.2542	0.3273	0.2573

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 13. Final score of each financing scheme.

	${\mathit{a}}_1$	${\mathit{a}}_2$	${\mathit{a}}_3$
Score	0.2589	0.3301	0.2508

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 14. Ordering between schemes with different $\lambda .$

Value of $\mathbf{\lambda }$	Ranking of alternative schemes
	Without interaction	With interaction
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.2$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.4$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.5$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.6$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.7$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.8$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.9$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=1$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 15. Ordering between schemes with different $\lambda .$

Value of $\mathbf{\lambda }$	Ranking of alternative schemes
	With uncertainty degree	Without uncertainty degree
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.2$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.4$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.5$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.6$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.7$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.8$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=0.9$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathbf{\lambda }=1$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table 16. Ordering between schemes with different approaches.

Value of $\mathit{\rho }$	Ranking of alternative schemes under different approaches
	PLTS approach	ER with interaction	The proposed approach
$\mathit{\rho }=0$	$a_1\succ a_2\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.1$	$a_1\succ a_2\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.2$	$a_1\succ a_2\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.3$	$a_1\succ a_2\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.4$	$a_1\succ a_2\succ a_3$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.5$	$a_1\succ a_3\succ a_2$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.6$	$a_1\succ a_3\succ a_2$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.7$	$a_1\succ a_3\succ a_2$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.8$	$a_1\succ a_3\succ a_2$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=0.9$	$a_1\succ a_3\succ a_2$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$
$\mathit{\rho }=1$	$a_1\succ a_3\succ a_2$	$a_2\succ a_3\succ a_1$	$a_2\succ a_1\succ a_3$

Source: calculated by authors themselves.

Table A1. Expert $V_2$’s evaluation of each scheme.

（1）Comprehensive Index $y_1$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_1$	${\mathit{e}}_2$	${\mathit{e}}_3$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_3,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.6$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.7$)	($H_4,0.8$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.2$)	($H_4,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.3$)($H,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.5$)($H_3,0.4$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$) ($H,0.3$)	($H_2,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)

（2）Comprehensive Index $y_2$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_4$	${\mathit{e}}_5$	${\mathit{e}}_6$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_1,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.3$)($H_3,0.2$)	($H_3,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)($H_5,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.6$)	($H_2,0.7$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.3$)	($H_3,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_3,0.8$)($H,0.2$)	($H_2,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($H,0.2$)	($H_3,0.1$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.9$)

（3）Comprehensive Index ${\mathit{y}}_3$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_7$	${\mathit{e}}_8$	${\mathit{e}}_9$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.7$)	($H_3,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.3$)($\mathrm{}H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.1$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)($H_4,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_2,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($H,0.1$)	($H_4,0.8$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.2$)	($H_4,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,04$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_1,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.6$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)	($H_1,0.7$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.3$)

（4）Comprehensive Index $y_4$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_{10}$	${\mathit{e}}_{11}$	${\mathit{e}}_{12}$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_4,0.8$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.2$)	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)($H,0.1$)	($H_4,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.3$)($H,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_2,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.5$)	($H_2,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)	($H_1,0.7$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_2,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.3)$($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)	($H_3,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.7$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.2$)($H,0.4$)

Table A2. Expert $V_3$’s evaluation of each scheme.

（1）Comprehensive Index $y_1$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_1$	${\mathit{e}}_2$	${\mathit{e}}_3$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)	($H_3,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_3,0.7$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.3$)	($H_3,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.2$)($H_3,0.5$) ($H,0.3$)	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.7$)	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)($H_4,0.1$)

（2）Comprehensive Index $y_2$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_4$	${\mathit{e}}_5$	${\mathit{e}}_6$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_1,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.8$)	($H_2,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.7$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.6$)($H,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_4,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.4$)($H,0.1$)	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.6$)	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)($H_5,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($H_4,0.3$)	($H_4,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.8$)

（3）Comprehensive Index ${\mathit{y}}_3$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_7$	${\mathit{e}}_8$	${\mathit{e}}_9$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.5$)	($H_2,0.1$)($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)	($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.7$)($H_4,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)($H_4,0.4$)	($H_3,0.1$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.3$)	($H_4,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.4$)($H,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_1,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)	($H_2,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)

（4）Comprehensive Index $y_4$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_{10}$	${\mathit{e}}_{11}$	${\mathit{e}}_{12}$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($H_4,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.3$)	($H_3,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)($H,0.1$)	($H_4,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.4$) ($H,0.3$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_3,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)	($H_2,0.1$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.5$)($H_4,0.4$)	($H_1,0.8$) ($H,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5)$($\mathrm{}H,0.1$)	($H_4,0.8$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.2$)	($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.4$)($H,0.6$)

Table A3. Expert $V_4$’s evaluation of each scheme.

（1）Comprehensive Index $y_1$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_1$	${\mathit{e}}_2$	${\mathit{e}}_3$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_1,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.1$) ($H_3,0.2$)	($\mathrm{}{H}_1,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.4$)	($H_2,0.8$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_1,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.2$) ($H_4,0.3$)	($H_1,0.4$)($H_3,0.4$)($H_4,0.2$)	($H_1,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.6$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_1,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.3$)($H,0.2$)	($H_2,0.1$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.3$)($H_4,0.6$)	($H_1,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.5$)($H_4,0.1$)

（2）Comprehensive Index $y_2$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_4$	${\mathit{e}}_5$	${\mathit{e}}_6$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_3,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.8$)	($H_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.2$) ($H_5,0.4$)	($H_2,0.6$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.3$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_1,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.3$)($H,0.2$)	($H_1,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.5$)($H_4,0.3$)	($H_2,0.7$)($H_4,0.2$) ($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_1,0.6$)($H_2,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.2$)	($H_3,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.8$)	($H_1,0.7$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.3$)

（3）Comprehensive Index ${\mathit{y}}_3$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_7$	${\mathit{e}}_8$	${\mathit{e}}_9$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.5$)	($H_2,0.1$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.5$)	($H_2,0.2$)($H_3,0.6$)($H_4,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)($H,0.1$)	($H_2,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.6$)($H,0.2$)	($H_2,0.8$)($H_3,0.1$)($H,0.1$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_4,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.7$)($H,0.1$)	($H_1,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_2,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)	($H_3,0.3$)($H_4,0.2$)($H_5,0.5$)

（4）Comprehensive Index $y_4$

Basic Index	${\mathit{e}}_{10}$	${\mathit{e}}_{11}$	${\mathit{e}}_{12}$
${\mathit{a}}_1$	($H_2,0.5$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.5$)	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.3$)$(H_4,0.4$)	($H_2,0.4$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.4$)($H_4,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_2$	($H_3,0.7$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.3$)	($H_3,0.2$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.6$)($H,0.2$)	($H_2,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_3,0.5$)($H,0.2$)
${\mathit{a}}_3$	($H_4,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.7)$	($H_3,0.4$)($H_4,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_5,0.3$)	($H_1,0.3$)($\mathrm{}{H}_4,0.3$)($H,0.4$)