• Andrejs Radionovs Rezekne Academy of Technologies Student of Doctoral program ''Socio-technical systems modeling'' (LV)
  • Oleg Uzhga-Rebrov Rezekne Academy of Technologies (LV)



fuzzy logic, risk assessment, fuzzy representation of knowledge, fuzzy analytical hierarchy process


Being able to evaluate risks is an important task in many areas of human activity: economics, ecology, etc. Usually, environmental risk assessment is carried out on the basis of multiple and sometimes conflicting factors. Using multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology is one of the possible ways to solve the problem. Methodologies of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) are the most commonly used MCDM methods, which combine subjective and personal preferences in risk assessment process. However, AHP involves human subjectivity, which introduces vagueness type of uncertainty and requires the usage of decision making under those uncertainties. In this paper it was considered to deal with uncertainty by using the fuzzy-based techniques. However, nowadays there exist multiple Fuzzy AHP methodologies developed by different authors. In this paper, these Fuzzy AHP methodologies will be compared, and the most appropriate Fuzzy AHP methodology for the application in case of environmental risks assessment will be offered on the basis of this comparison.


Download data is not yet available.


D.K Asante-Duah, Hazardous waste risk assessment, Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor pp. 384, 1993.

T.L. Saaty, “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structure,” J Math Psychol, vol. 15, pp.234–281, 1977.

T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.

T. L. Saaty, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback. The Analytic Network Process. RWC Publication, Pittsburg, 1996.

van Laarhoven, W Pedrycz, “A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 11, pp. 199–227, 1983.

C. G. E. Boender, J. G. de Grann, F. A. Lootsma, “Multi-criteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 29, pp. 133–143, Jan. 1989.

Y.-M. Wang, T. M. S. Elhag, Z. Hua, "A modified fuzzy logarithmic least squares method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 157, pp. 3055-3071. Dec. 2006.

J. J. Buckley, "Fuzzy hierarchical analysis," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 17, pp. 233-247, 1985.

M. B. Ayhan “A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection problem: a case study in agearmotor company,” International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains, vol. 4, Sept. 2013.

R. Csutora, J.J. Buckley, "Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: The Lamda-Max method," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 120, pp. 181-195, 2001.

D. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, pp. 649-655, 1996.

M. Enea, T. Piazza, "Project selection by constrained fuzzy AHP," Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making, vol. 3, pp. 39-62, 2004.

H. Eunnyeong, K. Jinsoo, B. Kyung-Jin, “Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, pp. 2214–2220, Oct. 2010.

O. Taylana, A. O. Bafailb, R.M.S. Abdulaala, M. R. Kablia, “Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 17 , pp. 105–116, April 2014.




How to Cite

A. Radionovs and O. Uzhga-Rebrov, “COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FUZZY AHP METHODOLOGIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT”, ETR, vol. 2, pp. 137–142, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.17770/etr2017vol2.2521.