Using simulation to incorporate dynamic criteria into multiple criteria decision-making

References

• Balezentis, T., & Streimikiene, D. (2017). Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with monte carlo simulation. Applied Energy, 185(Part 1), 862–871.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A. (2011). Case study: Modelling passenger flows in heathrow terminal 5. Journal of Simulation, 5(2), 69–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boardman, A. E., & Boardman, A. E. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Brito, T. B., Silva, R. C. d. S., Botter, R. C., Pereira, N. N., & Medina, A. C. (2010). Discrete event simulation combined with multi-criteria decision analysis applied to steel plant logistics system planning. Proceedings of the winter simulation conference (pp. 2126–2137).
   Google Scholar
• Cassandras, C. G., & Lafortune, S. (2008). Introduction to discrete event systems. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, F. T., & Abhary, K. (1996). Design and evaluation of automated cellular manufacturing systems with simulation modelling and ahp approach: A case study. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 7(6), 39–52.
   Google Scholar
• Damart, S., & Roy, B. (2009). The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in france. Transport Policy, 16(4), 200–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doumpos, M., & Grigoroudis, E. (2013). Multicriteria decision aid and artificial intelligence: links, theory and applications. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J. (2009). A cost-benefit analysis of the stockholm congestion charging system. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(4), 468–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, F. A. (1999). Modeling the environment: An introduction to system dynamics models of environmental systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gillespie, J., McClean, S., Garg, L., Barton, M., Scotney, B., & Fullerton, K. (2016). A multi-phase des modelling framework for patient-centred care. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67(10), 1239–1249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., & Park, Y. S. (2016). Integrating expert weighting and multi-criteria decision making into eco-efficiency analysis: The case of us manufacturing. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67, 616–628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung, G. R., Whitehouse, S. R., O’Neill, C., Gray, A. P., & Kissoon, N. (2007). Computer modeling of patient flow in a pediatric emergency department using discrete event simulation. Pediatric Emergency Care, 23(1), 5–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahangirian, M., Taylor, S., Young, T., & Robinson, S. (2017). Key performance indicators for successful simulation projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(7), 747–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnon, J. (2003). Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Economics, 12(10), 837–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Li, B., Tan, K. W., & Tran, K. T. (2016). Traffic simulation model for port planning and congestion prevention. Proceedings of the 2016 winter simulation conference, WSC ’16 (pp. 2382–2393). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, S., & Li, J. Z. (2009). A multi-agent-based hybrid framework for international marketing planning under uncertainty. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 16(3), 231–254.
   Google Scholar
• Lindhe, A., Rosén, L., Norberg, T., Røstum, J., & Pettersson, T. J. (2013). Uncertainty modelling in multi-criteria analysis of water safety measures. Environment Systems and Decisions, 33(2), 195–208.
   Google Scholar
• Meng, C., Xu, D., Son, Y.-J., Kubota, C., Lewis, M., & Tronstad, R. (2014). An integrated simulation and AHP approach to vegetable grafting operation design. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 102, 73–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muys, B., Hynynen, J., Palahi, M., Lexer, M. J., Fabrika, M., Pretzsch, H., Gillet, F., Brice no, E., Nabuurs, G.-J., & Kint, V. (2010). Simulation tools for decision support to adaptive forest management in europe. Forest Systems, 3(4), 86–99.
   Google Scholar
• Port of Dover. (2011). Annual report & accounts. Retrieved from July 11, 2013, from http://www.doverport.co.uk/downloads/DHB_AnnualReport2011_FINAL_WEB.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Roadknight, C., Aickelin, U., & Sherman, G. (2012). Validation of a microsimulation of the port of dover. Journal of Computational Science, 3(1), 56–66.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1990). Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting. Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill. ISBN-10: 0070543712 ISBN-13: 978-0070543713.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, M. J., & Lambert, J. H. (2011). Scenario-based multiple criteria analysis for infrastructure policy impacts and planning. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 191–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, G., Siebers, P. O., Aickelin, U., & Menachof, D. (2010). Scenario analysis, decision trees and simulation for cost benefit analysis of the cargo screening process. In Proceedings of the international workshop of applied modelling and simulation (WAMS2010), Buizos.
   Google Scholar
• Svensson, M. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis. In R. C. Free (Ed.), 21st century economics: A reference handbook (pp. 275–286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tudela, A., Akiki, N., & Cisternas, R. (2006). Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(5), 414–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar