Use of the Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach as a Decision Aid Tool for the Selection of Development Projects in Northern Quebec ()
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to present a summary of research results
relating to the application of the dominance-based rough set (DRSA) approach to
the selection of projects in the context of the Northern Quebec development
plan. Based on this research, decision makers will be able to rank
municipalities according to their actual needs in social and economic terms. We
believe that public administrators will be able to use various socio-economic
indicators in order to classify, based on chosen criteria, municipalities
(objects) in one of the following four categories: [A]―the best in the region in terms of the
criteria considered; [B]―those that need support in order to acquire category A status; [C]―those that need support in order to acquire
category B status; [D]― those ranked lowest in the region and needing
special support with regard to the criterion or criteria considered. These four
categories are delimited by quartiles relative to the average ranking of
municipalities. The chosen criteria are measured in order to provide decision
rules based on this classification. These decision rules thus focus on the
social and economic needs of municipalities with respect to improving their
performance and classification. By targeting these needs, DRSA will help administrators
of the Northern Quebec development plan to prioritize actions or to evaluate,
for example the social and economic impact of a project in a municipality.
Share and Cite:
Marin, J. , Zaras, K. and Boudreau-Trudel, B. (2014) Use of the Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach as a Decision Aid Tool for the Selection of Development Projects in Northern Quebec.
Modern Economy,
5, 723-741. doi:
10.4236/me.2014.57067.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
|
[1]
|
Pawlak, Z. (1982) Rough Set. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 11, 341-356.
|
|
[2]
|
Pawlak, Z. (1991) Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3534-4
|
|
[3]
|
Pawlak, Z. and Slowinski, R. (1994) Rough Set Approach to Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis. European Journal Operational Research, 72, 443-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90415-4
|
|
[4]
|
Pawlak, Z. (2002) Rough Set Theory and Its Applications. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Theory, 3, 7-10.
|
|
[5]
|
Greco, S., Matarazzo, B. and Slowinski, R. (2001) Rough Sets Theory for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 129, 1-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00167-3
|
|
[6]
|
Zaras, K. (2004) Rough Approximation of a Preference Relation by a Multi-Attribute Stochastic Dominance for Deterministic, Stochastic and Fuzzy Evaluation Problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159, 196-206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00391-6
|
|
[7]
|
Zaras, K., Marin, J.-C. and Boudreau-Trudel, B. (2012) Dominance Rough Set Approach as a Decision-Making Method for the Selection of Sustainable Development Projects. American Journal of Operational Research, 2, 506.
|
|
[8]
|
Gouvernement du Quebec, Ministere des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (2011) Bibliotheque et Archives nationales du Quebec.
|
|
[9]
|
Gouvernement du Quebec (2012) Le Plan Nord. http://www.plannord.gouv.qc.ca
|
|
[10]
|
Gouvernement du Quebec (2012) Le Plan Nord. http://www.plannord.gouv.qc.ca/portrait/index.asp
|
|
[11]
|
Statistiques Canada. Recensements 2006 et 2011.
|