SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Stadium Locations Using AHP and TOPSIS Methods

AHP ve TOPSIS Yöntemleriyle Stadyum Yerlerinin Değerlendirmesi

Uğur Orhan KARAKÖPRÜ
Özgür KABADURMUŞ
Pages
1–16
Publication Date
2020-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a case study, the proposed model has been applied to three new stadium constructions in Izmir, Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:With the industrialization of the sports, stadiums started to mean more than a venue for playing games.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Four main criteria have been identified to evaluate alternatives: (1) stadium capacity, (2) construction cost, (3) accessibility and (4) distances.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a case study, the proposed model has been applied to three new stadium constructions in Izmir, Turkey.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çok Kriterli Karar Verme · Lojistik · Spor Kulüpleri

Abstract

With the industrialization of the sports, stadiums started to mean more than a venue for playing games. Therefore, choosing the best location of a stadium is an important problem for the sports clubs. In this paper, a two-step hierarchical multi-criteria decision-making model has been developed to evaluate stadium locations. In the first step, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used to determine the criteria weights. In the second step, TOPSIS has been used to evaluate the alternatives. Four main criteria have been identified to evaluate alternatives: (1) stadium capacity, (2) construction cost, (3) accessibility and (4) distances. As a case study, the proposed model has been applied to three new stadium constructions in Izmir, Turkey.

Özet

Sporun endüstriyelleşmesinden sonra, stadyumlar sadece bir oyun alanı olmaktan çok daha fazlası haline gelmiştir. Buna göre, bir stadyum için en iyi yeri seçmek spor kulüpleri için önemli bir problemdir. Bu çalışmada, stadyum yeri alternatiflerini değerlendirmek için iki aşamalı bir Çok Kriterli Karar Verme modeli geliştirilmiştir. Birinci aşamada, kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesi için Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) kullanılmıştır. İkinci aşamada alternatifleri değerlendirmek için TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Alternatifleri değerlendirmek üzere dört ana kriter belirlenmiştir: (1) stadyumların kapasiteleri, (2) inşaat maliyetleri, (3) ulaşılabilirlik, (4) uzaklık. Önerilen model, İzmir’de yapılan üç yeni stadyum inşaatında vaka analizi ile sınanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKÖPRÜ, U. O., KABADURMUŞ, Ö. (2020). Evaluation of Stadium Locations Using AHP and TOPSIS Methods. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1, 1–16. https://ajindex.com/articles/30422

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abdollahzadeh, Gholamhossein; Damalas, Christos; Sharifzadeh, Mohammad Sharif; Ahmadi-Gorgi, Hossein (2016), “Selecting Strategies for Rice Stem Borer Management Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”, Crop Protection, Vol. 84: 27–36.
  2. Ahlfeldt, M. Gabriel; Maennig, Wolfgang (2010), “Impact of Sports Arenas on Land Values: Evidence from Berlin”, The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 44, No. 2: 205–227.
  3. Awasthi, Anjali; Chauhan, Satyaveer S. (2012), “A Hybrid Approach Integrating Affinity Diagram, AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Sustainable City Logistics Planning”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 36, No. 2: 573–584.
  4. Ballı, Serkan; Korukoğlu, Serdar (2014), “Development of A Fuzzy Decision Support Framework for Complex Multi‐Attribute Decision Problems: A Case Study for the Selection of Skilful Basketball Players”, Expert Systems, Vol. 31, No. 1: 56–69.
  5. Barghchi, Maassoume; Omar, Dasimah; Aman, Mohd Salleh (2009), “Cities, Sports Facilities Development, and Hosting Events”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 10, No.2: 185–195.
  6. Bottani, Eleonora; Rizzi, Antonio (2006), “A Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodology to Support Outsourcing of Logistics Services”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4: 294–308.
  7. Bouzon, Marina; Govindan, Kannan; Rodriguez, Carlos Taboada; Campos, Lucila (2016), "Identification and Analysis of Reverse Logistics Barriers Using Fuzzy Delphi Method and AHP", Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 108: 182–197.
  8. Büyüközkan, Gülçin; Çifçi, Gizem (2012), "A Novel Hybrid MCDM Approach Based on Fuzzy DEMATEL, Fuzzy ANP and Fuzzy TOPSIS to Evaluate Green Suppliers", Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, No. 3: 3000–3011.
  9. Chen, Shu-Jen; Hwang, Ching-Lai (1992), Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Coates, Dennis (2006), "The Tax Benefits of Hosting the Super Bowl and the MLB All-Star Game: The Houston Experience", International Journal of Sport Finance, Vol. 1, No. 4: 239–252.
  10. Coates, Dennis; Humphreys, Brad (2006), "Proximity Benefits and Voting on Stadium and Arena Subsidies", Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 59, No. 2: 285–299.
  11. Devecioğlu, Sebahattin (2005), "Türkiye'de Spor Sektörünün Geliştirilmesi", Verimlilik Dergisi, Cilt 2: 117–135.
  12. Ecer, Fatih (2018), "Third-Party Logistics (3PLs) Provider Selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS Integrated Model", Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 24, No. 2: 615–634.