Choosing among weight-estimation methods for multi-criterion analysis: A case study for the design of multi-purpose offshore platforms

Application of the sustainability concept to environmental projects implies that at least three feature categories (i.e., economic, social, and environmental) must be taken into account by applying a participative multi-criterion analysis (MCA). However, MCA results depend crucially on the methodology applied to estimate the relative criterion weights. By using a logically consistent set of data and methods (i.e., linear regression [LR], factor analysis [FA], the revised Simos procedure [RSP], and the analytical hierarchy process [AHP]), the present study revealed that mistakes from using one weight-estimation method rather than an alternative are non-significant in terms of satisfaction of specified acceptable standards (i.e., a risk of up to 1% of erroneously rejecting an option), but significant for comparisons between options (i.e., a risk of up to 11% of choosing a worse option by rejecting a better option). In particular, the risks of these mistakes are larger if both differences in statistical or computational algorithms and in data sets are involved (e.g., LR vs. AHP). In addition, the present study revealed that the choice of weight-estimation methods should depend on the estimated and normalised score differences for the economic, social, and environmental features. However, on average, some pairs of weight-estimation methods are more similar (e.g., AHP vs. RSP and LR vs. AHP are the most and the least similar, respectively), and some single weight-estimation methods are more reliable (i.e., FA > RSP > AHP > LR).