Multiple Criteria Choice Models for Quantitative and Qualitative Data

  • Edwin Hinloopen
  • Peter Nijkamp
  • Piet Rietveld
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 12)


Suppose a decision-maker faces the problem of outranking a discrete number of choice-options, which are characterised by a number of judgement criteria. To solve this problem, many so called multiple criteria evaluation methods have been developed. The present paper describes a further development of one of these methods, the Regime Method.

The Regime Method is a weighting method, based on a paired comparison of choice-options. Originally, the Regime Method was developed to deal with the pure ordinal situation: only rankings are available with respect to the consequences of the choice-options related to the judgement criteria. In addition, the relative importance of the judgement criteria is a ranking of their weights.

In this paper, the situation of mixed data is addressed: as well cardinal as ordinal information may be available. Special attention is paid to the standardisation of the data. This standardisation is based on the concept of value difference functions. Apart from the final outranking of choice-options, the basic result of many multiple criteria evaluation methods, the Regime Method also produces a sensitivity analysis that can be used to investigate the robustness of the final outranking.

As a case study, the choice of an automated people mover in the city of Nijmegen (Netherlands) was used.


Paired Comparison Difference Function Ordinal Data Judgement Criterion Choice Option 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beinat, E.,(1995), “Multi Attribute Value Functions for Environmental Management”, Phd., Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Hague Consulting Group, (1997), “Beoordelingsinstrument people movers: casestudt Nijmegen”, report nr. 6086–6, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  3. Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P. (1983), “Qualitative discrete multiple criteria choice models in regional planning”, Regional Science and Urban Economics 13: 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P. (1986), “Regime Methode voor Ordinal Multi-criteria Analyse”, Kwantitatieve Methoden, vol. 7, no. 22, 61–78Google Scholar
  5. Hinloopen, E„ Nijkamp, P. (1990), “Qualitative multiple criteria choice analysis, The Dominant Regime Method”, Quality & Quantity 24: 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976), “Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Preferences and Value Tradeoffs”, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Mood, A.M., F.A. Graybill & Boes, D.C. (1974), “Introduction to the Theory of Statistics”, McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Rietveld, P. (1980), Multiple Objective Decision Methods and Regional Planning, North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Rietveld, P., Ouwersloot, H. (1992), “Ordinal data in multicriteria decision making; a stochastic dominance approach to siting nuclear power plants”, EUR. J. Oper. Res., 56, 249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Taha, H. A. (1976), “Operations Research”, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Voogd, H. (1983), “Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning”, Pion Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edwin Hinloopen
    • 1
  • Peter Nijkamp
    • 2
  • Piet Rietveld
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of FinanceNederlandse SpoorwegenUtrechtNetherlands
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsFree UniversityAmsterdamNetherlands
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsFree UniversityAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations