Rudarski radovi br 4 2011 - Institut za rudarstvo i metalurgiju Bor

Table 13. Overview of criteria and relative weight of criteria<br />
Ord.<br />
No.<br />
Criterion of evaluation<br />
Designation<br />
of<br />
criteria<br />
Relative weight<br />
of criteria<br />
1. Minimum construction costs w1 0.17<br />
2. Minimum maintenance costs w2 0.16<br />
3.<br />
Maximum profit for road users (minimum of<br />
exploitation costs)<br />
w3 0.164<br />
4.<br />
Maximum security, safety and traffic comfort<br />
(minimum costs of traffic accidents)<br />
w4 0.24<br />
5. Maximum impact on development of area<br />
Minimum impact on the spatial – ecological<br />
w5 0.146<br />
6. consequences (maximum protection from the<br />
effects of negative impacts)<br />
w6 0.12<br />
Difficulty of criterion functions (Table<br />
13) can be defined by many different<br />
ways. In this paper, the choice of difficulty<br />
is based on the use of DELFI<br />
method. Since it is concerned to an expert<br />
assessment (Figures 1 and 2) of the multidisciplinary<br />
project, the questioned participants<br />
(experts).<br />
Figure 1. Distribution of responses for<br />
Goal 1 and Goal 2<br />
Considering the heterogeneity of indicators<br />
for evaluation the variant - the<br />
method of several criteria optimization,<br />
i.e. the method of compromise programming<br />
and multicriterion compromise ranking<br />
of alternative solutions, is used.<br />
This method first determines the optimum<br />
solutions for particular criteria and<br />
then determines compromise solutions,<br />
which are proposed to the decision maker.<br />
The decision maker adopts the final<br />
solution, and is able to see all profit and<br />
unsatisfied criteria what provides a good<br />
basis for work.<br />
By setting different values to the difficulty<br />
(importance) of criteria, the stability<br />
of the alternative solutions on multicriterion<br />
rankings can be analyzed there depending<br />
on the specific requirements of<br />
decision-maker.<br />
No 4, 2011. 186<br />
MINING ENGINEERING