Can Decisionmakers Express Multiattribute Preferences Using AHP and MUT? An Experiment

Lai S-K and L D Hopkins
Additional contact information
Lai S-K: Department of Land Economics and Administration, National Chung Hsing University, Taipei, Taiwan ROC
L D Hopkins: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Environment and Planning B, 1995, vol. 22, issue 1, 21-34

Abstract: In the research design, iteration between two multiattribute techniques is used to compare their ability to elicit preferences. Each subject used one technique, then a second, and iterated between the two. Previous judgments from each technique were presented as two anchors for each succeeding judgment. The final, converged judgment is an estimate of intended preferences, or at least of constructed preferences. The technique that in its first use yielded preferences closer to the converged preference is therefore the better technique. Three techniques (MUT, AHP, and AHP') were compared in two experiments. MUT was found to be more effective than AHP' and not significantly different from AHP. The results also imply that judgments of ratios between atrribute intervals are more difficult to make than judgments of equivalence of intervals.

Date: 1995
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b220021 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envirb:v:22:y:1995:i:1:p:21-34

DOI: 10.1068/b220021

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment and Planning B
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().