
Citation: Stephen T. Abedon. Phage “delay” towards enhancing bacterial escape from biofilms: a more comprehensive way of viewing resistance to bacteriophages[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 186-226. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.186
[1] | Benjamin Contri . Fisher-KPP equations and applications to a model in medical sciences. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2018, 13(1): 119-153. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2018006 |
[2] | François Hamel, James Nolen, Jean-Michel Roquejoffre, Lenya Ryzhik . A short proof of the logarithmic Bramson correction in Fisher-KPP equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 275-289. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.275 |
[3] | James Nolen . A central limit theorem for pulled fronts in a random medium. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2011, 6(2): 167-194. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2011.6.167 |
[4] | Henri Berestycki, Guillemette Chapuisat . Traveling fronts guided by the environment for reaction-diffusion equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 79-114. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.79 |
[5] | Matthieu Alfaro, Thomas Giletti . Varying the direction of propagation in reaction-diffusion equations in periodic media. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2016, 11(3): 369-393. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2016001 |
[6] | John R. King . Wavespeed selection in the heterogeneous Fisher equation: Slowly varying inhomogeneity. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 343-378. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.343 |
[7] | Gary Bunting, Yihong Du, Krzysztof Krakowski . Spreading speed revisited: Analysis of a free boundary model. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2012, 7(4): 583-603. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2012.7.583 |
[8] | Mingming Fan, Jianwen Sun . Positive solutions for the periodic-parabolic problem with large diffusion. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(3): 1116-1132. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024049 |
[9] | Chaoqun Huang, Nung Kwan Yip . Singular perturbation and bifurcation of diffuse transition layers in inhomogeneous media, part II. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2015, 10(4): 897-948. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2015.10.897 |
[10] | Don A. Jones, Hal L. Smith, Horst R. Thieme . Spread of viral infection of immobilized bacteria. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 327-342. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.327 |
As one of the four sub-systems in the civil aviation, the operational risk of an airport directly affects the security level of civil aviation. The existing work of airport operation safety majorly focuses the analysis of cause and the prevention of aviation accidents, which pays a very weak role in improving the safety level of civil aviation. If the risk factors can be analyzed and evaluated in advance, the relevant departments can take a series of measures in time to reduce the risk level of the airport operation. Therefore, it is of great significance to conduct a scientific and reasonable risk assessment of the airport operation, in order to improve the security level of civil aviation [1,2,3].
Actually, many uncertain factors, such as weather and traffic control, affect the safety of civil aviation operation. They can be quantified by using the stochastic, fuzzy, gray and language etc. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Compared with other uncertain techniques, fuzzy sets can be used to describe their uncertainty more accurately based on expert experience, in the absence of statistical data. The concept of fuzzy sets was introduced by Zadeh and later Atanassov generalized this idea to intuitionistic fuzzy sets [4]. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets with the membership, non-membership, and hesitation function is a powerful tool to deal with vagueness in many areas of engineering [5,6]. Hence, intuitionistic fuzzy sets would be used to characterize uncertain factors of civil aviation operation risk.
Besides, these intuitionistic fuzzy values may contain some certain (i.e., membership function) and uncertain information (i.e., non-membership function), where hesitation function depending on the attitude of the decision maker, aims at adjusting degree of uncertainty. Obviously, both certainty and uncertainty of different indicators play a role in the risk evaluation of the airport operation. Hence, it's very important for transit authorities to investigate how the interaction between them affects the evaluation results. Set pair analysis was firstly introduced by Zhao [7], which was used to solve such problem well. However, related studies are rare [8,9].
Another contribution of this study was to present a group decision making model to reveal how does the perception bias of different decision makers on the same scheme affects the risk ranking of civil aviation operation [10,11]. Because each decision maker is very different from each other, the results of this method are more accurate, comprehensive, objective, and scientific, compared with the traditional evaluation method of single decision maker [12,13,14].
The main work of this study was to extend the research of the intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making model by integrating set pair analysis to reveal how the change between the certainty and uncertainty affects the evaluation results. The research focused on the following critical research tasks: (1) Building a multi-criteria evaluation indicator, with an integration of human, equipment, management and environment levels in the framework; (2) Designing a novel uncertain group decision making model, integrating intuitionistic fuzzy set and set pair analysis. The model was applied to a real-world case which aims to evaluate the operation risk ranking of several Chinese airports. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to investigate the impact of degree of uncertainty on the model performance.
The remainder of the manuscript is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes the status and deficiency of the current research. Section 3 describes the evaluation framework for airport operation risk. Section 4 provides a numerical experiment and analysis of the sensitivity. Finally, Section 5 discusses the results and possible future work.
In recent years, more and more attention has been paid to handle the problems of risk assessment of the airport operation, due to the development of the Chinese aviation industry and the increasing pressure of security airport operation. These literature about this risk assessment can be categorized into two major classes, namely the methods based on safe indicators, and mathematical models and methodologies for safe evaluation.
The methods based on safe indicators normally consider the four groups indicators related to human, equipment, management and environment. Heinrich's accident causation theory suggested that human factors leads to the occurrence of an accident. Shi and Luo [15] used the complex scientific theory to construct the human safety risk evaluation index system of the airport flight zone. Jin et al. [16] further studied the human factors and classification system to analyze the unsafe events that occurred in the airport operational field. Chang et al. [17] also applied a Shello model to categorize the human risk factors associated with pilots in runway incursions. Netjasov and Janic [1] presented a safety assessment model to reveal optimal relation between causal for aircraft and air traffic control/management operations, collision risk, human factor error and third-party risk. Hofer and Wetter [18] developed a new airport security technology by taking into human factor issues as well as different operational aspects into account. Li et al. [19] analyzed the different utilization modes of the lateral runway and adjacent parallel runway to evaluate their green efficiency. Mostafaee et al. [20] investigated the effect of airport noise on the employees of Ground Safety department at Mehrabad airport to evaluate the Sound Pressure Level (SPL). Luo and Chen [21] applied AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to obtain the risk level under the condition of RNP technology operation into Nyingchi airport from the four aspects of human risk factor, equipment risk factor, environment risk factor and management risk factor. Although the previous research has been of great help in reducing the risk level of accidents involving people, it is still confined to the study of individual factors. These indicators were divided into three levels including incident level, the other occurrence level and process monitoring level [1,2,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
In terms of evaluation methodologies, the multi-criteria ranking methods are generally used for performance analysis and evaluation. The premise of above-mentioned risk assessment of the airport operation is an assumption of deterministic data environment, which can be accurately obtained through big data analysis or manual investigation. Sun et al. [22] introduced the Bow-tie risk technology, through recognition and the appraisal of risk, the analysis of risk factor, the establishment of risk barrier, adopting the risk control and mitigation, and restoring the measure. Liu et al. [23] built a risk entropy model and synthetically computed the weights for evaluation indexes by using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method and the entropy-weight method. Rezaee and Yousefi [24] analyzed the causality of airport risk and proposed a new decision-making method for optimizing the airport risk by using the cognitive map and data envelopment method. Wong et al. [25] presented an approach which was not only taking into account risk factors previously ignored by standard risk assessments but also considering the operational and traffic characteristics of the runway concerned.
However, above-mentioned data driven models so far consider deterministic information. On the one hand, the values of indicators are also changing dynamically due to environmental changes, which lead to random evaluation based on statistical characteristics of indicators is more practical in real world. In this case, Nie al et. [26] considered the separate grouping of every class of passengers to minimize overall false alarm probability and maintain the overall false clear probability within specifications set by a security authority. On the other hand, when data is missing, fuzzy or grey evaluation is a feasible method and technique. Hadjimichael [27] analyzed a risk modeling methodology which represents the risk factors and their interrelationships in a fuzzy expert system. Qin and Luo [28] used the catas-trophe theory and fuzzy set to assess the safety risk of the airport flight area. Hofer et al. [18] and Tang et al. [29] tried to use grey cluster theory to evaluate airport runway incursion's human risk.
By summarizing and summarizing the existing research work, following critical issues deserve further investigations:
1) Although some of the studies focus on the risk evaluation of airport operation, few of them consider the uncertainties of the indicators in the evaluation model [1,2,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Especially, the existing studies have neglected how the interaction between the certainty and uncertainty of the thing itself affects the evaluation results. In the absence of complete data [4,5,6,7,8,9], a combination of intuitionistic fuzziness and set-pair analysis is a widely used mathematical theory that deals with the determination and uncertainty of the system, which deserves a further extension and enhancement of existing mathematical models and methodologies to avoid insufficient for airport risk evaluation.
2) Although a few literatures have studied the group decision evaluation model of airport operation risk assessment [12,13,14], the existing studies ignore the uncertainty in the consistency degree of any two experts on the same airport operation risk. Therefore, the uncertain group decision making base on intuitionistic fuzzy set and set pair analysis can effectively solve this problem [4,7].
The core work of this study is to construct the index system of airport operation risk and design its evaluation model. Based on the conclusions of previous research [1,30,31], a multi-criteria evaluation approach, with an integration of human, equipment, management and environment levels in the framework, was demonstrated to evaluate airport operation risk. This evaluation model, integrating the intuitionistic fuzzy sets, set pair analysis and group decision making method, features in scientifically and objectively solving uncertain evaluation problem in the absence of data, with the help of expert experience knowledge. The flowchart of this methodology is graphically illustrated in Figure 1 to get an in-depth understanding of the evaluation process of related operation with input and output elements, in which: airport-related performance data collection, involving index and weight values, were mainly collected from the government and transportation agencies in first stage; the calculation process of the operation risk of each airport was implemented under interaction between certainty and uncertainty in the second stage; result analysis was implemented in third stage to obtain stable airport risk ranking in different situations and the reasons for the changes in the rankings among different airports.
To enable the interaction between the four policy levels, the integration weights were used to determine different levels of importance on various technical criteria. Each policy level had several technical levels. As shown in Table 1, the primary indicator 'Human' includes professional quality, work error rate, staff and post matching degree, and awareness of executive responsibility; the indicator 'Equipment' includes the equipment reliability, maintenance level, degree of configuration integrity and degree of automation; the 'Management' indicator includes the risk control capability, operation monitoring level, personnel training level, and integrity of risk management plan; and the 'Environment' includes the traffic demand handling capacity, the ability to deal with weather, collaborative atmosphere, and the ability of bird/animal invasion prevention.
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Indicator Type | |
Cost ype | Value ype | ||
C1: Human | C-1-1: Professional quality | √ | |
C-1-2: Work error rate | √ | ||
C-1-3: Staff and post matching degree | √ | ||
C-1-4: Awareness of executive responsibility | √ | ||
C2: Equipment | C-2-1: Equipment reliability | √ | |
C-2-2: Maintenance level | √ | ||
C-2-3: The degree of configuration integrity | √ | ||
C-2-4: Degree of automation | √ | ||
C3: Management | C-3-1: Risk control capability | √ | |
C-3-2: Operation monitoring level | √ | ||
C-3-3: Personnel training level | √ | ||
C-3-4: The integrity of risk management plan | √ | ||
C4: Environment | C-4-1: Traffic demand handling capacity | √ | |
C-4-2: The ability to deal with weather | √ | ||
C-4-3: Collaborative atmosphere | √ | ||
C-4-4: The ability of Bird/animal invasion prevention | √ |
It can be seen from above that airport operation risk involves many factors that affect each other, and different decision makers have their own preferences for these indicators of the same airport, which everyone ranks the airport operation risk differently. Furthermore, many of these factors are uncertain. It is very necessary to analyze the impact of their certainty and uncertainty on the result ranking. Therefore, the combination of group decision making method, intuitionistic fuzzy set and set pair analysis is one of the most effective methods to solve these problems.
The intuitionist fuzzy value was first proposed by Bulgarian scholar Atanassov [4,5], who denoted as F={<x,tF(x),fF(x)>|x∈P}, where P is a non-empty set. tF(x) andfF(x) are the membership degree and non-membership degree of element x in P, such that the expression 0⩽tF(x)+fF(x)⩽1 is satisfied. Let πF(x)=1−tF(x)−fF(x) denote the hesitation of element x in P, satisfying 0⩽πF(x)⩽1. Obviously, if πF(x)=0, F would be degenerated to the traditional fuzzy number. πF(x) is the intuitive indicator of element x in P.
Connection number is a structural function proposed by Zhao [7], which reflects the structural relations of various systems under different conditions. Let A, B and C be real numbers, and let u=A+Bi+Cjrepresent a ternary connection number, where j=−1, i∈[−1,1]. A, B and C represent the same degree, difference degree and opposition degree of the research object, respectively. By corresponding the degree of membership, the degree of non-membership and the degree of hesitation of intuitionistic fuzzy number with the degree of same degree, degree of opposition and degree of difference of the connection number, intuitionistic fuzzy number can be converted into three-dimensional connection number.
Thus, u=A+Bi+Cj=tF(x)+(1−tF(x)−fF(x))i+fF(x)j;
where, A=tF(x), B=(1−tF(x)−fF(x)), C=fF(x).
Take three ternary connection numbers u=A+Bi+Cj, u1=A1+B1i+C1j and u2=A2+B2i+C2j as examples. Since j = 1, the ternary connection number u=A+Bi+Cj can be converted to a binary connection numberu=A+C+Bi. Four operation rules for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division ofu1andu2are defined as follows.
(1) Addition: Let where, A=A1+A2+C1+C2, B=B1+B2.
(2) Subtraction: Let where, A=A1−A2+C1−C2, B=B1−B2.
(3) Multiplication: Let u=u1⋅u2=(A1+B1i+C1j)(A2+B2i+C2j)=A+Bi where, A=(A1+C1)⋅(A2+C2), B=(A1+C1)⋅B2+(A2+C2)⋅B1.
(4) Division: Let u=u1u2=A1+B1i+C1jA2+B2i+C2j=A+Bi where, A=A1+C1A2+C2, .
In the case of multi-attribute group decision making, it often happens that experts' opinions conflict and consensus exist. An important problem to be solved in group decision-making models is to effectively resolve the consistency and conflict of opinions among the experts and agammaegate individual opinions into consistent opinions that can reflect the expert groups. Due to the lack of data to analyze the variation characteristics of indicator values, an intuitionistic fuzzy set based on expert experience and knowledge was used to characterize them. However, these models ignore the certainty and uncertainty of the indicators, which cannot reveal the influence of the ranking change of them on the evaluation result. Further, the ternary connection numbers were proposed to characterize their certainty and uncertainty to unify different decision makers on the uncertain evaluation of airport operation risk, which is related to the degree of contact.
The set of m experts was denoted as E={e1,e2,...,em}. There was a total r of airport A={a1,a2,...,ar} needed to evaluate their operation risk. Risk of airport operation involved a total n of hybrid-type indicators C={c1,c2,...,cn}. According to the experience and personal preference of each expert, the intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) made by the kth expert on the jth indicator of ith airport was used to characterize their uncertainties. On this basis, the kth expert's intuitionistic fuzzy matrix for evaluating operation risk of all airports is denoted by the matrix in Equation 1.
pk=((tk11,fk11,πk11),(tk12,fk12,πk12),...,(tk1n,fk1n,πk1n)(tk21,fk21,πk21),(tk22,fk22,πk22),...,(tk2n,fk2n,πk2n)...(tkr1,fkr1,πkr1),(tkr2,fkr2,πkr2),...,(tkrn,fkrn,πkrn)) | (1) |
where, i = 1, 2, …, r; j = 1, 2, …, n; k = 1, 2, …, m.
The intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) could be converted to ternary connection numberpkij=tkij+πkiji+fkijj, and the intuitionistic fuzzy matrix is equivalent to the following matrix given by Equation 2.
pk=(tk11+πk11i+fk11j,tk12+πk12i+fk12j,...,tk1n+πk1ni+fk1njtk21+πk21i+fk21j,tk22+πk22i+fk22j,...,tk2n+πk2ni+fk2nj...tkr1+πkr1i+fkr1j,tkr2+πkr2i+fkr2j,...,tkrn+πkrni+fkrnj) | (2) |
where, i = 1, 2, …, r; j = 1, 2, …, n; k = 1, 2, …, m.
When the weight vector of these indicators C={c1,c2,...,cn} is denoted as W={w1,w2,...,wn} (n∑j=1wj=1), the intuitionistic fuzzy distance between any two experts k and t for evaluating operation risk of airport i can be calculated based on haiming distance using the Equation 3.
ek,ti=n∑j=1wjα⋅|tkij−ttij|+β⋅|πkij−πtij|i+δ⋅|fkij−ftij|jn | (3) |
where, α, βand δ describe degree of membership, non-membership and hesitation of intuitionistic fuzzy number of influence on evaluation results, respectively.
This distance related to the degree of contact, reflects the degree of agreement among each pair (k,t) of experts on evaluating operation risk of airport i. As seen from the above formulas,
(1) if two experts had identical opinions on evaluating operation risk of airport i, the intuitionistic fuzzy distance equals 0;
(2) if two experts had completely opposite opinions on evaluating operation risk of airport i, their intuitionistic fuzzy distance equals 1;
(3) if two experts had different opinions on evaluating operation risk of airport i to some extent, the intuitionistic fuzzy distance was a value in [0, 1].
According to the consistency degree of the operation risk of airport i between any two pairs of n experts, the consensus degree matrix of evaluating operation risk of airport i can be constructed as showed in Equation 4.
AMi=(0,e12i,...,e1ji,...,e1mi...ek1i,ek2i,...,ekji,...,ekmi...em1i,em2i,...,emji,...,0) | (4) |
If k≠j, ekji=ejki; otherwise, ekji=0. For evaluating operation risk of airport i, average consistency degree of expert k (k = 1, 2, …, m) can be denoted from Equation 5.
A(eki)=1m−1m∑j=1j≠kekji | (5) |
Similarly, relative uniformity of expert k (k = 1, 2, …, m) can be seen from Equation 6.
RAD(eki)=A(eki)m∑k=1A(eki) | (6) |
It can be seen from the above that the final comprehensive consensus degree of all experts' opinions on evaluating operation risk of airport i is denoted in Equation 7.
ei=m∑k=1Rk⋅RAD(eki) | (7) |
where, Rk denotes the relative importance of each expertk(k = 1, 2, …, m). Obviously, the relative importance of each expert was different, and the opinion of some experts was more important than that of others. The determination method of the relative important weight of experts was as follows:
Initially, the most important expert from all the experts was selected and assigned the weight equal to 1.
Then, the kth expert with the most important expert was compared to get the relative weight of that expert, i.e., rk (k = 1, 2, …, m)
Finally, the relative important weight of each expert was determined by Equation 8.
Rk=rkm∑k=1rk,k=1,2,…,m | (8) |
If each expert was of equal importance, then R1=R2=...,=Rm=1m.
According to the values of eiin the order from small to large, the operation risk of airport i with the smallest value indicated the degree of consistency in the expert group on evaluation result, and the opinions of the experts were not much different.
Four airports in Tianjin(A1), Shijiazhuang(A2), Beijing(A3) and Qinhuangdao(A4) city in China were selected for evaluating the uncertain airport operational risk management as examples. According to the individual opinions of three airport risk managers (e1–e3) on the alternative plans, the consistency degree of expert group's opinions was analyzed to obtain weight of evaluation criteria, i.e., wj=116(j = 1, 2, …, n); in addition, the intuitionistic fuzzy matrix of these experts for alternative plans is seen from Table 2.
Indicator | Intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) of each expert on plans | ||||||||||||
e1 | e2 | e3 | |||||||||||
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||
C1 | C11 | 0.2190, 0.4942, 0.2868 | 0.6793, 0.2210, 0.0997 | 0.5194, 0.4587, 0.0219 | 0.0535, 0.5087, 0.4378 | 0.0470, 0.4187, 0.5343 | 0.9347, 0.0459, 0.0194 | 0.8310, 0.1439, 0.0251 | 0.5297, 0.2419, 0.2284 | 0.6789, 0.2648, 0.0563 | 0.3835, 0.6086, 0.0079 | 0.0346, 0.2793, 0.6861 | 0.6711, 0.0340, 0.2948 |
C12 | 0.0077, 0.4108, 0.5815 | 0.4175, 0.2563, 0.3262 | 0.9304, 0.0498, 0.0198 | 0.0920, 0.6735, 0.2345 | 0.3834, 0.3556, 0.2610 | 0.6868, 0.2286, 0.0847 | 0.8462, 0.1232, 0.0307 | 0.6539, 0.0066, 0.3395 | 0.0668, 0.8180, 0.1152 | 0.5890, 0.3573, 0.0537 | 0.5269, 0.3342, 0.1388 | 0.4160, 0.5174, 0.0666 | |
C13 | 0.7012, 0.1569, 0.1419 | 0.2625, 0.5262, 0.2114 | 0.3282, 0.4582, 0.2136 | 0.9910, 0.0078, 0.0012 | 0.9103, 0.0416, 0.0481 | 0.0475, 0.4657, 0.4868 | 0.6326, 0.0733, 0.2941 | 0.3653, 0.5649, 0.0698 | 0.7622, 0.0155, 0.2223 | 0.7361, 0.1762, 0.0877 | 0.7564, 0.2233, 0.0203 | 0.2470, 0.4096, 0.3434 | |
C14 | 0.9826, 0.0024, 0.0150 | 0.6515, 0.0751, 0.2734 | 0.8847, 0.0593, 0.0560 | 0.7665, 0.1092, 0.1243 | 0.7227, 0.1249, 0.1524 | 0.0727, 0.4136, 0.5137 | 0.2727, 0.6411, 0.0862 | 0.4777, 0.4213, 0.1010 | 0.7534, 0.2440, 0.0026 | 0.6316, 0.1163, 0.2521 | 0.4364, 0.2478, 0.3158 | 0.2378, 0.2783, 0.4839 | |
C2 | C21 | 0.2749, 0.1534, 0.5717 | 0.4865, 0.3237, 0.1897 | 0.0606, 0.0008, 0.9386 | 0.5163, 0.1544, 0.3293 | 0.3593, 0.6402, 0.0006 | 0.8977, 0.0631, 0.0393 | 0.9047, 0.0737, 0.0216 | 0.3190, 0.2845, 0.3965 | 0.1665, 0.1280, 0.7055 | 0.9092, 0.0001, 0.0907 | 0.5045, 0.3604, 0.1351 | 0.9866, 0.0091, 0.0042 |
C22 | 0.4940, 0.3444, 0.1616 | 0.9478, 0.0370, 0.0152 | 0.3841, 0.0503, 0.5655 | 0.5297, 0.1006, 0.3697 | 0.2661, 0.1506, 0.5832 | 0.0737, 0.7676, 0.1587 | 0.2771, 0.5523, 0.1706 | 0.4644, 0.1144, 0.4212 | 0.0907, 0.7605, 0.1487 | 0.5007, 0.0472, 0.4521 | 0.9138, 0.0543, 0.0319 | 0.9410, 0.0048, 0.0542 | |
C23 | 0.0501, 0.3693, 0.5806 | 0.8278, 0.0671, 0.1051 | 0.6885, 0.0885, 0.2231 | 0.7362, 0.1114, 0.1523 | 0.7615, 0.2271, 0.0114 | 0.1254, 0.2355, 0.6392 | 0.8682, 0.1024, 0.0294 | 0.7254, 0.0775, 0.1971 | 0.7702, 0.2177, 0.0121 | 0.0159, 0.6812, 0.3029 | 0.6295, 0.2904, 0.0801 | 0.9995, 0.0001, 0.0004 | |
C24 | 0.8886, 0.0013, 0.1102 | 0.3510, 0.1584, 0.4906 | 0.8460, 0.0613, 0.0927 | 0.2693, 0.6053, 0.1254 | 0.2332, 0.1471, 0.6197 | 0.5133, 0.3990, 0.0877 | 0.4121, 0.3533, 0.2346 | 0.4154, 0.0922, 0.4924 | 0.3063, 0.6820, 0.0116 | 0.5911, 0.0558, 0.3531 | 0.8415, 0.0280, 0.1305 | 0.5373, 0.4571, 0.0056 | |
C3 | C31 | 0.4679, 0.1368, 0.3952 | 0.1537, 0.1857, 0.6606 | 0.0331, 0.7685, 0.1984 | 0.9554, 0.0299, 0.0148 | 0.2872, 0.1665, 0.5463 | 0.5717, 0.2719, 0.1565 | 0.5344, 0.3241, 0.1414 | 0.7483, 0.1594, 0.0923 | 0.1783, 0.0835, 0.7382 | 0.8024, 0.1375, 0.0601 | 0.4985, 0.3776, 0.1239 | 0.5546, 0.0251, 0.4203 |
C32 | 0.8907, 0.0654, 0.0439 | 0.1598, 0.5880, 0.2522 | 0.1304, 0.4575, 0.4121 | 0.0030, 0.3287, 0.6683 | 0.6248, 0.0852, 0.2900 | 0.2128, 0.0925, 0.6948 | 0.0910, 0.5035, 0.4055 | 0.4143, 0.4117, 0.1740 | 0.8420, 0.0504, 0.1076 | 0.7147, 0.2176, 0.0677 | 0.2746, 0.4265, 0.2989 | 0.0269, 0.1392, 0.8339 | |
C33 | 0.7098, 0.0469, 0.2433 | 0.1809, 0.6661, 0.1530 | 0.6521, 0.1100, 0.2380 | 0.3858, 0.1909, 0.4233 | 0.9379, 0.0301, 0.0320 | 0.3175, 0.3800, 0.3024 | 0.1503, 0.1150, 0.7347 | 0.3877, 0.3601, 0.2522 | 0.2399, 0.6538, 0.1062 | 0.8870, 0.0835, 0.0295 | 0.6813, 0.1684, 0.1502 | 0.4997, 0.2592, 0.2411 | |
C34 | 0.1475, 0.3673, 0.4852 | 0.5901, 0.1611, 0.2488 | 0.1482, 0.3304, 0.5215 | 0.1418, 0.3173, 0.5409 | 0.5872, 0.1069, 0.3060 | 0.9554, 0.0199, 0.0247 | 0.9833, 0.0047, 0.0120 | 0.5649, 0.1105, 0.3246 | 0.8456, 0.0572, 0.0973 | 0.5561, 0.2112, 0.2326 | 0.4088, 0.0463, 0.5450 | 0.2521, 0.5024, 0.2455 | |
C4 | C41 | 0.4885, 0.3459, 0.1656 | 0.1260, 0.6299, 0.2440 | 0.6293, 0.3485, 0.0222 | 0.6216, 0.1957, 0.1827 | 0.4640, 0.2755, 0.2605 | 0.1998, 0.7560, 0.0442 | 0.1267, 0.2808, 0.5925 | 0.8031, 0.1302, 0.0667 | 0.9611, 0.0283, 0.0106 | 0.3192, 0.3136, 0.3671 | 0.6513, 0.1606, 0.1882 | 0.2478, 0.3022, 0.4499 |
C42 | 0.4764, 0.3171, 0.2065 | 0.0284, 0.6511, 0.3205 | 0.1420, 0.4486, 0.4094 | 0.1312, 0.2382, 0.6306 | 0.3893, 0.6024, 0.0082 | 0.9017, 0.0338, 0.0645 | 0.9475, 0.0435, 0.0090 | 0.8856, 0.0735, 0.0408 | 0.2033, 0.1198, 0.6769 | 0.4265, 0.3107, 0.2628 | 0.4103, 0.0088, 0.5809 | 0.0922, 0.4958, 0.4120 | |
C43 | 0.1622, 0.7690, 0.0688 | 0.2531, 0.1843, 0.5626 | 0.4553, 0.2482, 0.2964 | 0.8089, 0.0307, 0.1603 | 0.0711, 0.2477, 0.6813 | 0.1351, 0.7299, 0.1349 | 0.3495, 0.5315, 0.1190 | 0.9317, 0.0483, 0.0200 | 0.3653, 0.6157, 0.0190 | 0.7832, 0.1505, 0.0663 | 0.4523, 0.0121, 0.5356 | 0.6516, 0.2466, 0.1018 | |
C44 | 0.2152, 0.3427, 0.4421 | 0.2501, 0.7435, 0.0063 | 0.5060, 0.3724, 0.1216 | 0.7558, 0.1210, 0.1231 | 0.6796, 0.1866, 0.1338 | 0.8609, 0.0968, 0.0423 | 0.6004, 0.0684, 0.3312 | 0.4622, 0.0430, 0.4948 | 0.9089, 0.0685, 0.0226 | 0.4713, 0.1478, 0.3809 | 0.8176, 0.0008, 0.1817 | 0.9514, 0.0079, 0.0407 |
In order to rank the operational risk of airports, the ternary connection numbers, seen from Table 3, were used to transform them into the same dimension one according to Equation 2, which further revealed the influence of the certainty and uncertainty of the thing itself on the risk ranking of the airport.
Indicator | Intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) of each expert on plans | ||||||||||||||
e1 | e2 | e3 | |||||||||||||
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||||
C1 | C11 | 0.2190+ 0.4942j+ 0.2868i | 0.6793+ 0.2210j+0.0997i | 0.5194+ 0.4587j+0.0219i | 0.0535+ 0.5087j+0.4378i | 0.0470+ 0.4187j+0.5343i | 0.9347+ 0.0459j+0.0194i | 0.8310+ 0.1439j+0.0251i | 0.5297+ 0.2419j+0.2284i | 0.6789+ 0.2648j+0.0563i | 0.3835+ 0.6086j+0.0079 i | 0.0346+ 0.2793j+0.6861i | 0.6711+ 0.0340j+0.2948i | ||
C12 | 0.0077+ 0.4108j+0.5815i | 0.4175+ 0.2563j+0.3262 i | 0.9304+ 0.0498j+0.0198 i | 0.0920+ 0.6735j+0.2345 i | 0.3834+ 0.3556j+0.2610 i | 0.6868+ 0.2286j+0.0847 i | 0.8462+ 0.1232j+0.0307 i | 0.6539+ 0.0066j+0.3395 i | 0.0668+ 0.8180j+0.1152 i | 0.5890+ 0.3573j+0.0537 i | 0.5269+ 0.3342j+0.1388 i | 0.4160+ 0.5174j+0.0666 i | |||
C13 | 0.7012+ 0.1569j+0.1419 i | 0.2625+ 0.5262j+0.2114 i | 0.3282+ 0.4582j+0.2136 i | 0.9910+ 0.0078j+0.0012 i | 0.9103+ 0.0416j+0.0481 i | 0.0475+ 0.4657j+0.4868 i | 0.6326+ 0.0733j+0.2941 i | 0.3653+ 0.5649j+0.0698 i | 0.7622+ 0.0155j+0.2223 i | 0.7361+ 0.1762j+0.0877 i | 0.7564+ 0.2233j+0.0203 i | 0.2470+ 0.4096j+0.3434 i | |||
C14 | 0.9826+ 0.0024j+0.0150 i | 0.6515+ 0.0751j+0.2734 i | 0.8847+ 0.0593j+0.0560 i | 0.7665+ 0.1092j+0.1243 i | 0.7227+ 0.1249j+0.1524 i | 0.0727+ 0.4136j+0.5137 i | 0.2727+ 0.6411j+0.0862 i | 0.4777+ 0.4213j+0.1010 i | 0.7534+ 0.2440j+0.0026 i | 0.6316+ 0.1163j+0.2521 i | 0.4364+ 0.2478j+0.3158 i | 0.2378+ 0.2783j+0.4839 i | |||
C2 | C21 | 0.2749+ 0.1534j+0.5717 i | 0.4865+ 0.3237j+0.1897 i | 0.0606+ 0.0008j+0.9386 i | 0.5163+ 0.1544j+0.3293 i | 0.3593+ 0.6402j+0.0006 i | 0.8977+ 0.0631j+0.0393 i | 0.9047+ 0.0737j+0.0216 i | 0.3190+ 0.2845j+0.3965 i | 0.1665+ 0.1280j+0.7055 i | 0.9092+ 0.0001j+0.0907 i | 0.5045+ 0.3604j+0.1351 i | 0.9866+ 0.0091j+0.0042 i | ||
C22 | 0.4940+ 0.3444j+0.1616 i | 0.9478+ 0.0370j+0.0152 i | 0.3841+ 0.0503j+0.5655 i | 0.5297+ 0.1006j+0.3697 i | 0.2661+ 0.1506j+0.5832 i | 0.0737+ 0.7676j+0.1587 i | 0.2771+ 0.5523j+0.1706 i | 0.4644+ 0.1144j+0.4212 i | 0.0907+ 0.7605j+0.1487 i | 0.5007+ 0.0472j+0.4521 i | 0.9138+ 0.0543j+0.0319 i | 0.9410+ 0.0048j+0.0542 i | |||
C23 | 0.0501+ 0.3693j+0.5806 i | 0.8278+ 0.0671j+0.1051 i | 0.6885+ 0.0885j+0.2231 i | 0.7362+ 0.1114j+0.1523 i | 0.7615+ 0.2271j+0.0114 i | 0.1254+ 0.2355j+0.6392 i | 0.8682+ 0.1024j+0.0294 i | 0.7254+ 0.0775j+0.1971 i | 0.7702+ 0.2177j+0.0121 i | 0.0159+ 0.6812j+0.3029 i | 0.6295+ 0.2904j+0.0801 i | 0.9995+ 0.0001j+0.0004 i | |||
C24 | 0.8886+0.0013j+0.1102 i | 0.3510+ 0.1584j+0.4906 i | 0.8460+ 0.0613j+0.0927 i | 0.2693+ 0.6053j+0.1254 i | 0.2332+ 0.1471j+0.6197 i | 0.5133+ 0.3990j+0.0877 i | 0.4121+ 0.3533j+0.2346 i | 0.4154+ 0.0922j+0.4924 i | 0.3063+ 0.6820j+0.0116 i | 0.5911+ 0.0558j+0.3531 i | 0.8415+ 0.0280j+0.1305 i | 0.5373+ 0.4571j+0.0056 i | |||
C3 | C31 | 0.4679+ 0.1368j+0.3952 i | 0.1537+ 0.1857j+0.6606 i | 0.0331+ 0.7685j+0.1984 i | 0.9554+ 0.0299j+0.0148 i | 0.2872+ 0.1665j+0.5463 i | 0.5717+ 0.2719j+0.1565 i | 0.5344+ 0.3241j+0.1414 i | 0.7483+ 0.1594j+0.0923 i | 0.1783+ 0.0835j+0.7382 i | 0.8024+ 0.1375j+0.0601 i | 0.4985+ 0.3776j+0.1239 i | 0.5546+ 0.0251j+0.4203 i | ||
C32 | 0.8907+ 0.0654j+0.0439 i | 0.1598+ 0.5880j+0.2522 i | 0.1304+ 0.4575j+0.4121 i | 0.0030+ 0.3287j+0.6683 i | 0.6248+ 0.0852j+0.2900 i | 0.2128+ 0.0925j+0.6948 i | 0.0910+ 0.5035j+0.4055 i | 0.4143+ 0.4117j+0.1740 i | 0.8420+ 0.0504j+0.1076 i | 0.7147+ 0.2176j+0.0677 i | 0.2746+ 0.4265j+0.2989 i | 0.0269+ 0.1392j+0.8339 i | |||
C33 | 0.7098+ 0.0469j+0.2433 i | 0.1809+ 0.6661j+0.1530 i | 0.6521+ 0.1100j+0.2380 i | 0.3858+ 0.1909j+0.4233 i | 0.9379+ 0.0301j+0.0320 i | 0.3175+ 0.3800j+0.3024 i | 0.1503+ 0.1150j+0.7347 i | 0.3877+ 0.3601j+0.2522 | 0.2399+ 0.6538j+0.1062 i | 0.8870+ 0.0835j+0.0295 i | 0.6813+ 0.1684j+0.1502 i | 0.4997+ 0.2592j+0.2411 i | |||
C34 | 0.1475+ 0.3673j+0.4852 i | 0.5901+ 0.1611j+0.2488 i | 0.1482+ 0.3304j+0.5215 i | 0.1418+ 0.3173j+0.5409 i | 0.5872+ 0.1069j+0.3060 i | 0.9554+ 0.0199j+0.0247 i | 0.9833+ 0.0047j+0.0120 i | 0.5649+ 0.1105j+0.3246 i | 0.8456+ 0.0572j+0.0973 i | 0.5561+ 0.2112j+0.2326 i | 0.4088+ 0.0463j+0.5450 i | 0.2521+ 0.5024j+0.2455 i | |||
C4 | C41 | 0.4885+ 0.3459j+0.1656 i | 0.1260+ 0.6299j+0.2440 i | 0.6293+ 0.3485j+0.0222 i | 0.6216+ 0.1957j+0.1827 i | 0.4640+ 0.2755j+0.2605 i | 0.1998+ 0.7560j+0.0442 i | 0.1267+ 0.2808j+0.5925 i | 0.8031+ 0.1302j+0.0667 i | 0.9611+ 0.0283j+0.0106 i | 0.3192+ 0.3136j+0.3671 i | 0.6513+ 0.1606j+0.1882 i | 0.2478+ 0.3022j+0.4499 i | ||
C42 | 0.4764+ 0.3171j+0.2065 i | 0.0284+ 0.6511j+0.3205 i | 0.1420+ 0.4486j+0.4094 i | 0.1312+ 0.2382j+0.6306 i | 0.3893+ 0.6024j+0.0082 i | 0.9017+ 0.0338j+0.0645 i | 0.9475+ 0.0435j+0.0090 i | 0.8856+ 0.0735j+0.0408 i | 0.2033+ 0.1198j+0.6769 i | 0.4265+ 0.3107j+0.2628 i | 0.4103+ 0.0088j+0.5809 i | 0.0922+ 0.4958j+0.4120 i | |||
C43 | 0.1622+ 0.7690j+0.0688 i | 0.2531+ 0.1843j+0.5626 i | 0.4553+ 0.2482j+0.2964 i | 0.8089+ 0.0307j+0.1603 i | 0.0711+ 0.2477j+0.6813 i | 0.1351+ 0.7299j+0.1349 i | 0.3495+ 0.5315j+0.1190 i | 0.9317+ 0.0483j+0.0200 i | 0.3653+ 0.6157j+0.0190 i | 0.7832+ 0.1505j+0.0663 i | 0.4523+ 0.0121j+0.5356 i | 0.6516+ 0.2466j+0.1018 i | |||
C44 | 0.2152+ 0.3427j+0.4421 i | 0.2501+ 0.7435j+0.0063 i | 0.5060+ 0.3724j+0.1216 i | 0.7558+ 0.1210j+0.1231 i | 0.6796+ 0.1866j+0.1338 i | 0.8609+ 0.0968j+0.0423 i | 0.6004+ 0.0684j+0.3312 i | 0.4622+ 0.0430j+0.4948 i | 0.9089+ 0.0685j+0.0226 i | 0.4713+ 0.1478j+0.3809 i | 0.8176+ 0.0008j+0.1817 i | 0.9514+ 0.0079j+0.0407 i |
Based on Equation 3, the distance of each pair (k,t) of experts to airport i was obtained in Table 4, when α, β and δ when α, β and δ were set to 10, 5, 5, respectively, and the consensus degree matrix of all experts evaluating operation risk of airport i was constructed as follows.
AM1=(0,0.1749+0.0952i+0.0527j,0.2255+0.0709i+0.0824j0.1749+0.0952i+0.0527j,0,0.1588+0.0985i+0.0866j0.2255+0.0709i+0.0824j,0.1588+0.0985i+0.0866j,0) |
AM2=(0,0.2389+0.0841i+0.0966j,0.2410+0.0656i+0.0834j0.2389+0.0841i+0.0966j,0,0.2288+0.0739i+0.0966j0.2410+0.0656i+0.0834j,0.2288+0.0739i+0.0966j,0) |
AM3=(0,0.2446+0.0820i+0.0804j,0.1682+0.0721i+0.0681j0.2446+0.0820i+0.0804j,0,0.2271+0.0872i+0.0616j0.1682+0.0721i+0.0681j,0.2271+0.0872i+0.0616j,0) |
AM4=(0,0.1862+0.0608i+0.0666j,0.1969+0.0703i+0.0555j0.1862+0.0608i+0.0666j,0,0.2110+0.0939i+0.0698j0.1969+0.0703i+0.0555j,0.2110+0.0939i+0.0698j,0) |
![]() |
Pair (k,t) of experts | ||
e1,2i | e1,3i | e2,3i | |
A1 | 0.1749+ 0.0952 i + 0.0527 j | 0.2255+0.0709 i + 0.0824 j | 0.1588+0.0985 i +0.0866 j |
A2 | 0.2389+ 0.0841 i + 0.0966 j | 0.2410+ 0.0656 i +0.0834 j | 0.2288+ 0.0739 i +0.0966 j |
A3 | 0.2446+0.0820 i +0.0804 j | 0.1682+0.0721 i + 0.0681 j | 0.2271+0.0872 i + 0.0616 j |
A4 | 0.1862+ 0.0608 i + 0.0666 j | 0.1969+0.0703 i +0.0555 j | 0.2110+0.0939 i +0.0698 j |
Let the importance of the three experts be r1 = 1, r2 = 0.6, r3 = 0.8. Then, their relative importance weights were R1 = 0.42, R2 = 0.25 and R3 = 0.33, respectively. To evaluate operation risk of each airport, its average consistency degree and relative uniformity of each expert was calculated, and the evaluation result by considering the different expert opinions was obtained, as seen from Table 5.
![]() |
Opinion of each expert on an airport | ei | |||||
R1= 0.42 | R2= 0.25 | R3= 0.33 | |||||
A(e1i) | RAD(e1i) | A(e2i) | RAD(e2i) | A(e3i) | RAD(e3i) | ||
A1 | 0.2002+0.0830i+0.0676j | 0.3428-0.0080 i | 0.1669+ 0.0968i+ 0.0696j | 0.3029+0.0175i | 0.1922+ 0.0847i+0.0845j | 0.3543-0.0094i | |
A2 | 0.2400+0.0749i+0.0900j | 0.3349-0.0000i | 0.2338+0.0790i+0.0966j | 0.3354+0.0049i | 0.2349+0.0697i+0.0900j | 0.3297-0.0048i | |
A3 | 0.2064+0.0770i+0.0742j | 0.3302-0.0028i | 0.2359+0.0846i+0.0710j | 0.3610-0.0027i | 0.1977+0.0796i+0.0649j | 0.3088+0.0056i | |
A4 | 0.1916+0.0656i+0.0610j | 0.3214+0.0068i | 0.1986+0.0774i+0.0682j | 0.3394+0.0010i | 0.2040+0.0821i+0.0626j | 0.3392+0.0058i |
As seen from Table 5, the evaluation value of the airport operation risk was a binary connection number u=A+Bi, in which the information of certainty was related with the degree of membership and non-membership of all indicators and uncertainty was related with degree of hesitation. Its value changed as contact degree i fluctuated from 0 to 1, as shown in Figure 2. In the case, the more hesitant the experts were, the more volatile would be the evaluation results. Operation risk value of airport in Beijing remained the same because the experts had no hesitation, while for that of Tianjin and Qinhuangdao decreased due to the hesitation in the experts was counterproductive to the results. In the same way, for Shijiazhuang a gradual increase was observed because the hesitation of the experts had a positive effect on the results. When i was set as 0, the value was only decided by their determined information, and operation risk ranking of four airports was A1, A2, A4, A3. When i was set as 1, the value was also affected by all of their uncertainty information, and operation risk ranking of four airports was A2, A1, A4, A3.
This study presented a novel intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making model for airport operation risk assessment. The main contributions of this paper were as follows : (1) A multi-criteria evaluation criteria, with an integration of human, equipment, management and environment levels, was demonstrated to analyze airport operation risk; (2) A novel group decision making model with an integration of set pair analysis and intuitionistic fuzzy set was designed to reveal the influence of the certainty and uncertainty of thing itself on the risk ranking change of the airport operation. The feasibility and applicability of the proposed model were illustrated by a real-world example on four airports in China. The results show that: (1) The evaluation value of the airport operation risk was a changed one, and its ranking was related to the fact that whether the certain part of all attribute indicators played an important role in evaluation result than that of the uncertain part or not; (2) If operation risk ranking of two airport changed, their threshold contact degrees were found; (3) If operation risk ranking of two airport always remained the same, the uncertainty exhibited a limited influence on the evaluation rank. Therefore, the proposed model could pave a way to overcome the shortcomings of the traditional methods in quantitatively analyzing the impact of uncertainty of attributes on the ranking of airport operation risk.
Note that these values of main indicators in this paper were assumed to be time-independent variables. Many factors affect them, varying over time from year to year. Extending this evaluation model to an explicitly dynamic setting with time-varying value of indicators is a worthwhile direction for further work and future research.
This paper is funded by the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education in China (16YJCZH086); Nantong Science and Technology Innovation Program (MS22018012); the Six Talent Peaks Project of Jiangsu Province, China (SZCY-009); Key science and technology projects in the transportation industry in China (2018-MS3-083); the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin in China (17JCQNJC08600); CAAC Key laboratory of General Aviation Operation (Civil Aviation Management Institute of China)(CAMICKFJJ-2019-03); the central college basic scientific research operating expenses fund in civil aviation university of China (3122019126).
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] | Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ (1998) Prokaryotes: The unseen majority. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 6578–6583. |
[2] | Flemming HC, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 623–633. |
[3] | Hall MR, McGillicuddy E, Kaplan LJ (2014) Biofilm: basic principles, pathophysiology, and implications for clinicians. Surg Infect (Larchmt ) 15: 1–7. |
[4] | Hyman P, Abedon ST (2012) Smaller fleas: viruses of microorganisms. Scientifica 2012: 734023. |
[5] | Wommack KE, Colwell RR (2000) Virioplankton: viruses in aquatic ecosystems. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64: 69–114. |
[6] | Weinbauer MG (2004) Ecology of prokaryotic viruses. FEMS Microbiol Rev 28: 127–181. |
[7] | Abedon ST (2015) Ecology of anti-biofilm agents I. antibiotics versus bacteriophages. Pharmaceuticals 8: 525–558. |
[8] | Abedon ST (2015) Ecology of anti-biofilm agents II. bacteriophage exploitation and biocontrol of biofilm bacteria. Pharmaceuticals 8: 559–589. |
[9] | Briandet R, Lacroix-Gueu P, Renault M, et al. (2008) Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy to study diffusion and reaction of bacteriophages inside biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 2135–2143. |
[10] | Fukuyo M, Sasaki A, Kobayashi I (2012) Success of a suicidal defense strategy against infection in a structured habitat. Sci Rep 2: 238. |
[11] | Hyman P, Abedon ST (2010) Bacteriophage host range and bacterial resistance. Adv Appl Microbiol 70: 217–248. |
[12] | Labrie SJ, Samson JE, Moineau S (2010) Bacteriophage resistance mechanisms. Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 317–327. |
[13] | Dy RL, Richter C, Salmond GP, et al. (2014) Remarkable mechanisms in microbes to resist phage infections. Annu Rev Virol 1: 307–331. |
[14] | Seed KD (2015) Battling phages: How bacteria defend against viral attack. PLoS Path 11: e1004847. |
[15] | Parma DH, Snyder M, Sobolevski S, et al. (1992) The rex system of bacteriophage l: tolerance and altruistic cell death. Genes Dev 6: 497–510. |
[16] | Shub DS (1994) Bacterial viruses. Bacterial altruism? Curr Biol 4: 555–556. |
[17] | Dy RL, Przybilski R, Semeijn K, et al. (2014) A widespread bacteriophage abortive infection system functions through a Type IV toxin-antitoxin mechanism. Nucl Acids Res 42: 4590–4605. |
[18] | Iranzo J, Lobkovsky AE, Wolf YI, et al. (2015) Immunity, suicide or both? Ecological determinants for the combined evolution of anti-pathogen defense systems. BMC Evol Biol 15: 43. |
[19] | Dennehy JJ, Abedon ST, Turner PE (2007) Host density impacts relative fitness of bacteriophage f6 genotypes in structured habitats. Evolution 61: 2516–2527. |
[20] | Abedon ST, Yin J (2008) Impact of spatial structure on phage population growth, In: Abedon, S.T. Editor, Bacteriophage Ecology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 94–113. |
[21] | Abedon ST (2011) Bacteriophages and biofilms: ecology, phage therapy, plaques, Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers. |
[22] | Abedon ST (2016) Bacteriophage exploitation of bacterial biofilms: phage preference for less mature targets? FEMS Microbiol Lett 363: fnv246. |
[23] | Abedon ST (2012) Spatial vulnerability: bacterial arrangements, microcolonies, and biofilms as responses to low rather than high phage densities. Viruses 4: 663–687. |
[24] | Abedon ST (2012) Thinking about microcolonies as phage targets. Bacteriophage 2: 200–204. |
[25] | Abedon ST (2008) Phage population growth: constraints, games, adaptation, In: Abedon, S.T. Editor, Bacteriophage Ecology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 64–93. |
[26] | Abedon ST (2009) Impact of phage properties on bacterial survival, In: Adams, H.T. Editor, Contemporary Trends in Bacteriophage Research, Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, 217–235. |
[27] | Payne RJH, Jansen VAA (2001) Understanding bacteriophage therapy as a density-dependent kinetic process. J Theor Biol 208: 37–48. |
[28] | Abedon ST, Thomas-Abedon C (2010) Phage therapy pharmacology. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 11: 28–47. |
[29] | Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol 7: 1–16. |
[30] | West SA, Gardner A (2010) Altruism, spite, and greenbeards. Science 327: 1341–1344. |
[31] | Iranzo J, Lobkovsky AE, Wolf YI, et al. (2014) Virus-host arms race at the joint origin of multicellularity and programmed cell death. Cell Cycle 13: 3083–3088. |
[32] | West SA, Griffin AS, Gardner A, et al. (2006) Social evolution theory for microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol 4: 597–607. |
[33] | Ewald PW (1994) Evolution of Infectious Disease, New York: Oxford University Press. |
[34] | Michod RE, Nedelcu AM, Roze D (2003) Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of individuality. IV. Conflict mediation and evolvability in Volvox carteri. Bio Systems 69: 95–114. |
[35] | van Gestel J, Vlamakis H, Kolter R (2015) Division of labor in biofilms: the ecology of cell differentiation. Microbiol Spectr 3: MB-0002-2014. |
[36] | Andrews JH (1998) Bacteria as modular organisms. Ann Rev Microbiol 52: 105–126. |
[37] | Kaplan JB (2010) Biofilm dispersal: mechanisms, clinical implications, and potential therapeutic uses. J Dent Res 89: 205–218. |
[38] | McDougald D, Rice SA, Barraud N, et al. (2012) Should we stay or should we go: mechanisms and ecological consequences for biofilm dispersal. Nat Rev Microbiol 10: 39–50. |
[39] | Davies DG (2011) Biofilm disperson, In: Flemming, H.C., Wingender, J., Szewzyk, U. Editors, Biofilm Highlights, Berlin: Springer, 1–28. |
[40] | Barraud N, Kjelleberg S, Rice SA (2015) Dispersal from microbial biofilms. Microbiol Spectr 3: MB-0015-2014. |
[41] | Petrova OE, Sauer K (2016) Escaping the biofilm in more than one way: desorption, detachment or dispersion. Curr Opin Microbiol 30: 67–78. |
[42] | Kim SK, Lee JH (2016) Biofilm dispersion in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Microbiol 54: 71–85. |
[43] | Ronce O (2007) How does it feel to be like a rolling stone? Ten questions about dispersal evolution. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38: 231–253. |
[44] | Korber DR, Lawrence JR, Lappin-Scott HM, et al. (1995) Growth of microorganisms on surfaces, In: Costerton, J.W., Lappin-Scott, H. Editors, Microbial biofilms, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15–45. |
[45] | Bjarnsholt T (2013) The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. Apmis 121: 1–51. |
[46] | Battin TJ, Besemer K, Bengtsson MM, et al. (2016) The ecology and biogeochemistry of stream biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 14: 251–263. |
[47] | Costerton JW, Lappin-Scott H (1995) Introduction to microbial biofilms, In: Costerton, J.W., Lappin-Scott, H. Editors, Microbial biofilms, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1–11. |
[48] | Costerton JW, Marrie TJ, Cheng KJ (1985) Phenomena of bacterial adhesion, In: Savage, D.C., Fletcher, M. Editors, Bacterial Adhesion: Mechanisms and Physiological Significance, New York: Plenum Press, 3–43. |
[49] | Somerville DA, Noble WC (1973) Microcolony size of microbes on human skin. J Med Microbiol 6: 323–328. |
[50] | Mitarai N, Brown S, Sneppen K (2016) Population dynamics of phage and bacteria in spatially structured habitats using phage l and Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 198: 1783–1793. |
[51] | Kreft JU (2004) Biofilms promote altruism. Microbiology 150: 2751–2760. |
[52] | Nadell CD, Bassler BL (2011) A fitness trade-off between local competition and dispersal in Vibrio cholerae biofilms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 14181–14185. |
[53] | Bryers JD (1988) Modeling biofilm accumulation, In: Brazin, M.J., Prosser, J.I. Editors, Physiological Models in Microbiology, Eds., FL: CRC Press, 109–144. |
[54] | Garny K, Horn H, Neu TR (2008) Interaction between biofilm development, structure and detachment in rotating annular reactors. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 31: 619–629. |
[55] | Brading MG, Jass J, Lappin-Scott HM (1995) Dynamics of bacterial biofilm formation, In: Costerton, J.W., Lappin-Scott, H. Editors, Microbial biofilms, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 46–63. |
[56] | Vanysacker L, Boerjan B, Declerck P, et al. (2014) Biofouling ecology as a means to better understand membrane biofouling. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98: 8047–8072. |
[57] | Bester E, Wolfaardt G, Joubert L, et al. (2005) Planktonic-cell yield of a pseudomonad biofilm. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 7792–7798. |
[58] | Knowles B, Silveira CB, Bailey BA, et al. (2016) Lytic to temperate switching of viral communities. Nature 531: 466–470. |
[59] | Gonzalez S, Fernandez L, Campelo AB, et al. (2017) The behavior of Staphylococcus aureus dual-species biofilms treated with bacteriophage phiIPLA-RODI depends on the accompanying microorganism. Appl Environ Microbiol 83: AEM-02821-16. |
[60] | Sutherland IW, Hughes KA, Skillman LC, et al. (2004) The interaction of phage and biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett 232: 1–6. |
[61] | Nale JY, Chutia M, Carr P, et al. (2016) "Get in early"; biofilm and wax moth (Galleria mellonella) models reveal new insights into the therapeutic potential of Clostridium difficile bacteriophages. Front Microbiol 7: 1383. |
[62] | Doolittle MM, Cooney JJ, Caldwell DE (1996) Tracing the interaction of bacteriophage with bacterial biofilms using fluorescent and chromogenic probes. J Indust Microbiol 16: 331–341. |
[63] | Abedon ST (1992) Lysis of lysis inhibited bacteriophage T4-infected cells. J Bacteriol 174: 8073–8080. |
[64] | Abedon ST (1989) Selection for bacteriophage latent period length by bacterial density: A theoretical examination. Microb Ecol 18: 79–88. |
[65] | Wang IN, Dykhuizen DE, Slobodkin LB (1996) The evolution of phage lysis timing. Evol Ecol 10: 545–558. |
[66] | Hadas H, Einav M, Fishov I, et al. (1997) Bacteriophage T4 development depends on the physiology of its host Escherichia coli. Microbiology 143: 179–185. |
[67] | Abedon ST (2012) Bacterial "immunity" against bacteriophages. Bacteriophage 2: 50–54. |
[68] | Koonin EV, Zhang F (2017) Coupling immunity and programmed cell suicide in prokaryotes: Life-or-death choices. BioEssays 39: 1–9. |
[69] | Hoyland-Kroghsbo NM, Paczkowski J, Mukherjee S, et al. (2017) Quorum sensing controls the Pseudomonas aeruginosa CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114: 131–135. |
[70] | Goldfarb T, Sberro H, Weinstock E, et al. (2015) BREX is a novel phage resistance system widespread in microbial genomes. EMBO J 34: 169–183. |
[71] | Abedon ST (2015) Bacteriophage secondary infection. Virol Sin 30: 3–10. |
[72] | McLean RJ, Corbin BD, Balzer GJ, et al. (2001) Phenotype characterization of genetically defined microorganisms and growth of bacteriophage in biofilms. Meth Enzymol 336: 163–174. |
[73] | Azeredo J, Sutherland IW (2008) The use of phages for the removal of infectious biofilms. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 9: 261–266. |
[74] | Sillankorva S, Azeredo J (2014) The use of bacteriophages and bacteriophage-derived enzymes for clinically relevant biofilm control, In: Borysowski, J., Miedzybrodzki, R., Górski, A. Editors, Phage Therapy: Current Research and Applications, Norfolk, UK: Caister Academic Press, 305–325. |
[75] | Kutter E, Kellenberger E, Carlson K, et al. (1994) Effects of bacterial growth conditions and physiology on T4 infection, In: Karam, J.D., Kutter, E., Carlson, K., Guttman, B. Editors, The Molecular Biology of Bacteriophage T4, Washington, DC: ASM Press, 406–418. |
[76] | Miller RV, Day M (2008) Contribution of lysogeny, pseudolysogeny, and starvation to phage ecology, In: Abedon, S.T. Editor, Bacteriophage Ecology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 114–143. |
[77] | Pearl S, Gabay C, Kishony R, et al. (2008) Nongenetic individuality in the host-phage interaction. PLoS Biol 6: e120. |
[78] | Abedon ST (2009) Disambiguating bacteriophage pseudolysogeny: an historical analysis of lysogeny, pseudolysogeny, and the phage carrier state, In: Adams, H.T. Editor, Contemporary Trends in Bacteriophage Research, Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, 285–307. |
[79] | Los M, Wegrzyn G (2012) Pseudolysogeny. Adv Virus Res 82: 339–349. |
[80] | Golec P, Karczewska-Golec J, Los M, et al. (2014) Bacteriophage T4 can produce progeny virions in extremely slowly growing Escherichia coli host: comparison of a mathematical model with the experimental data. FEMS Microbiol Lett 351: 156–161. |
[81] | Harper DR, Parracho HMR, Walker J, et al. (2014) Bacteriophages and biofilms. Antibiotics 3: 270–284. |
[82] | Bryan D, el-Shibiny A, Hobbs Z, et al. (2016) Bacteriophage T4 infection of stationary phase E. coli: life after log from a phage perspective. Front Microbiol 7: 1391. |
[83] | Yin J (1991) A quantifiable phenotype of viral propagation. Biochem Biophys Res Com 174: 1009–1014. |
[84] | Filippini M, Buesing N, Bettarel Y, et al. (2006) Infection paradox: high abundance but low impact of freshwater benthic viruses. Appl Environ Microbiol 72: 4893–4898. |
[85] | Wilkinson JF (1958) The extracellualr polysaccharides of bacteria. Bacteriol Rev 22: 46–73. |
[86] | van Benthum WAJ, van Loosdrecht MCM, Tijhuis L, et al. (1995) Solids retention time in heterotrophic and nitrifying biofilms in a biofilm airlift suspension reactor. Water Sci Technol 32: 35–43. |
[87] | Reichert P, Wanner O (1997) Movement of solids in biofilms-significance of liquid phase transport. Water Sci Technol 36: 321–328. |
[88] | Davey ME, O'Toole GA (2000) Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 64: 847–867. |
[89] | Hanlon GW, Denyer SP, Olliff CJ, et al. (2001) Reduction in exopolysaccharide viscosity as an aid to bacteriophage penetration through Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 67: 2746–2753. |
[90] | Resch A, Fehrenbacher B, Eisele K, et al. (2005) Phage release from biofilm and planktonic Staphylococcus aureus cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 252: 89–96. |
[91] | Forde A, Fitzgerald GF (2003) Molecular organization of exopolysaccharide (EPS) encoding genes on the lactococcal bacteriophage adsorption blocking plasmid, pCI658. Plasmid 49: 130–142. |
[92] | Flood JA, Ashbolt NJ (2000) Virus-sized particles can be entrapped and concentrated one hundred fold within wetland biofilms. Adv Environ Res 3: 403–411. |
[93] | Storey MV, Ashbolt NJ (2001) Persistence of two model enteric viruses (B40-8 and MS-2 bacteriophages) in water distribution pipe biofilms. Water Sci Technol 43: 133–138. |
[94] | Lacroix-Gueu P, Briandet R, Lévêque-Fort S, et al. (2005) In situ measurements of viral particles diffusion inside mucoid biofilms. C R Biol 328: 1065–1072. |
[95] | Brüssow H (2013) Bacteriophage-host interaction: from splendid isolation into a messy reality. Curr Opin Microbiol 16: 500–506. |
[96] | Fan X, Li W, Zheng F, et al. (2013) Bacteriophage inspired antibiotics discovery against infection involved biofilm. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 23: 317–326. |
[97] | Parasion S, Kwiatek M, Gryko R, et al. (2014) Bacteriophages as an alternative strategy for fighting biofilm development. Pol J Microbiol 63: 137–145. |
[98] | Chan BK, Abedon ST (2015) Bacteriophages and their enzymes in biofilm control. Curr Pharm Des 21: 85–99. |
[99] | Gutierrez D, Rodriguez-Rubio L, Martinez B, et al. (2016) Bacteriophages as weapons against bacterial biofilms in the food industry. Front Microbiol 7: 825. |
[100] | Khalifa L, Shlezinger M, Beyth S, et al. (2016) Phage therapy against Enterococcus faecalis in dental root canals. J Oral Microbiol 8: 32157. |
[101] | Motlagh AM, Bhattacharjee AS, Goel R (2016) Biofilm control with natural and genetically-modified phages. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 32: 67. |
[102] | Abedon ST (2014) Phage therapy: eco-physiological pharmacology. Scientifica 2014: 581639. |
[103] | Arber W, Linn S (1969) DNA modification and restriction. Annu Rev Biochem 38: 467–500. |
[104] | Korona R, Levin BR (1993) Phage-mediated selection and the evolution and maintenance of restriction-modification. Evolution 47: 556–575. |
[105] | Chao L, Levin BR, Stewart FM (1977) A complex community in a simple habitat: an experimental study with bacteria and phage. Ecology 58: 369–378. |
[106] | Bohannan BJM, Travisano M, Lenski RE (1999) Epistatic interactions can lower the cost of resistance to multiple consumers. Evolution 53: 292–295. |
[107] | Hill C (1993) Bacteriophage and bacteriophage resistance in lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 12: 87–108. |
[108] | Nissen SB, Magidson T, Gross K, et al. (2016) Publication bias and the canonization of false facts. eLife 5: e21451. |
[109] | Costerton JW, Cheng JJ, Geesey GG, et al. (1987) Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. Ann Rev Microbiol 41: 435–464. |
[110] | Oh YJ, Jo W, Yang Y, et al. (2007) Influence of culture conditions on Escherichia coli O157:H7 biofilm formation by atomic force microscopy. Ultramicroscopy 107: 869–874. |
[111] | Cheng KJ, Costerton JW (1980) The formation of microcolonies by rumen bacteria. Can J Microbiol 26: 1104–1113. |
[112] | Lacqua A, Wanner O, Colangelo T, et al. (2006) Emergence of biofilm-forming subpopulations upon exposure of Escherichia coli to environmental bacteriophages. Appl Environ Microbiol 72: 956–959. |
[113] | Shen Y, Mitchell MS, Donovan DM, et al. (2012) Phage-based enzybiotics, In: Hyman, P., Abedon, S.T. Editors, Bacteriophages in Health and Disease, Wallingford, UK: CABI Press, 217–239. |
[114] | Yan J, Mao J, Xie J (2014) Bacteriophage polysaccharide depolymerases and biomedical applications. BioDrugs 28: 265–274. |
[115] | Gutiérrez D, Briers Y, Rodríguez-Rubio L, et al. (2015) Role of the pre-neck appendage protein (Dpo7) from phage vB_SepiS-phiIPLA7 as an anti-biofilm agent in staphylococcal species. Front Microbiol 6: 1315. |
[116] | Pires DP, Oliveira H, Melo LD, et al. (2016) Bacteriophage-encoded depolymerases: their diversity and biotechnological applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100: 2141–2151. |
[117] | Westra ER, van HS, Oyesiku-Blakemore S, et al. (2015) Parasite exposure drives selective evolution of constitutive versus inducible defense. Curr Biol 25: 1043–1049. |
[118] | Berngruber TW, Lion S, Gandon S (2013) Evolution of suicide as a defence strategy against pathogens in a spatially structured environment. Ecol Lett 16: 446–453. |
[119] | Refardt D, Kummerli R (2013) Defying bacteriophages: contrasting altruistic with individual-based resistance mechanisms in Escherichia coli. Commun Integr Biol 6: e25159. |
[120] | Heilmann S, Sneppen K, Krishna S (2012) Coexistence of phage and bacteria on the boundary of self-organized refuges. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 12828–12833. |
[121] | Abedon ST, Kuhl SJ, Blasdel BG, et al. (2011) Phage treatment of human infections. Bacteriophage 1: 66–85. |
[122] | Borysowski J, Miedzybrodzki R, Górski A (2014) Phage Therapy: Current Research and Applications, Norfolk, UK: Caister Academic Press. |
[123] | Scali C, Kunimoto B (2013) An update on chronic wounds and the role of biofilms. J Cutan Med Surg 17: 371–376. |
[124] | Cooper RA, Bjarnsholt T, Alhede M (2014) Biofilms in wounds: a review of present knowledge. J Wound Care 23: 570–580. |
[125] | Macia MD, Rojo-Molinero E, Oliver A (2014) Antimicrobial susceptibility testing in biofilm-growing bacteria. Clin Microbiol Infect 20: 981–990. |
[126] | Abedon ST (2015) Phage therapy of pulmonary infections. Bacteriophage 5: e1020260. |
[127] | Fish R, Kutter E, Wheat G, et al. (2016) Bacteriophage treatment of intransigent diabetic toe ulcers: a case series. J Wound Care 25: S27–S33. |
[128] | Abedon ST (2017) Bacteriophage clinical use as antibactertial "drugs": utility precident. Microbiol Spectr. |
[129] | Stewart PS, Franklin MJ (2008) Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 6: 199–210. |
[130] | Davis KM, Mohammadi S, Isberg RR (2015) Community behavior and spatial regulation within a bacterial microcolony in deep tissue sites serves to protect against host attack. Cell Host Microbe 17: 21–31. |
[131] | Harmsen M, Yang L, Pamp SJ, et al. (2010) An update on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation, tolerance, and dispersal. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 59: 253–268. |
[132] | Purevdorj-Gage B, Costerton WJ, Stoodley P (2005) Phenotypic differentiation and seeding dispersal in non-mucoid and mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Microbiology 151: 1569–1576. |
[133] | Hamilton WA (1987) Biofilms: microbial interactions and metabolic activities, In: Fletcher, M., Gray, T.R.G., Jones, J.G. Editors, Ecology of Microbial Communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 361–385. |
[134] | Abedon ST, Herschler TD, Stopar D (2001) Bacteriophage latent-period evolution as a response to resource availability. Appl Environ Microbiol 67: 4233–4241. |
[135] | Levin BR, Bull JJ (2004) Population and evolutionary dynamics of phage therapy. Nat Rev Microbiol 2: 166–173. |
[136] | Gill JJ (2008) Modeling of bacteriophage therapy, In: Abedon, S.T. Editor, Bacteriophage Ecology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 439–464. |
[137] | Stent GS (1963) Molecular Biology of Bacterial Viruses, San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman and Co. |
[138] | Gallet R, Shao Y, Wang IN (2009) High adsorption rate is detrimental to bacteriophage fitness in a biofilm-like environment. BMC Evol Biol 9: 241. |
[139] | Yin J, McCaskill JS (1992) Replication of viruses in a growing plaque: a reaction-diffusion model. Biophys J 61: 1540–1549. |
[140] | Abedon ST, Culler RR (2007) Bacteriophage evolution given spatial constraint. J Theor Biol 248: 111–119. |
[141] | Hewson I, Fuhrman JA (2003) Viriobenthos production and virioplankton sorptive scavenging. Microb Ecol 46: 337–347. |
[142] | Hoyland-Kroghsbo NM, Maerkedahl RB, Svenningsen SL (2013) A quorum-sensing-induced bacteriophage defense mechanism. MBio 4: e00362. |
[143] | Boots M, Mealor M (2007) Local interactions select for lower pathogen infectivity. Science 315: 1284–1286. |
[144] | Abedon ST (2016) Commentary: phage therapy of staphylococcal chronic osteomyelitis in experimental animal model. Front Microbiol 7: 1251. |
[145] | Kutter E, De Vos D, Gvasalia G, et al. (2010) Phage therapy in clinical practice: treatment of human infections. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 11: 69–86. |
[146] | Hyman P, Abedon ST (2009) Practical methods for determining phage growth parameters. Meth Mol Biol 501: 175–202. |
[147] | Mirzaei MK, Nilsson AS (2015) Isolation of phages for phage therapy: a comparison of spot tests and efficiency of plating analyses for determination of host range and efficacy. PLoS One 10: e0118557. |
[148] | Abedon ST (2014) Bacteriophages as drugs: the pharmacology of phage therapy, In: Borysowski, J., Miedzybrodzki, R., Górski, A. Editors, Phage Therapy: Current Research and Applications, Norfolk, UK: Caister Academic Press, 69–100. |
1. |
Khumoyun Jabbarkhanov, Durvudkhan Suragan,
On Fisher's equation with the fractional pp ‐Laplacian,
2023,
0170-4214,
10.1002/mma.9219
|
|
2. | Martin Burger, Patricia Friele, Jan-Frederik Pietschmann, On a Reaction-Cross-Diffusion System Modeling the Growth of Glioblastoma, 2020, 80, 0036-1399, 160, 10.1137/18M1194559 | |
3. | Ardak Kashkynbayev, Durvudkhan Suragan, Berikbol T. Torebek, Fisher–KPP equation on the Heisenberg group, 2023, 0025-584X, 10.1002/mana.202000421 | |
4. | Yash Vats, Mani Mehra, Dietmar Oelz, Abhishek Kumar Singh, A New Perspective for Scientific Modelling: Sparse Reconstruction-Based Approach for Learning Time-Space Fractional Differential Equations, 2024, 19, 1555-1415, 10.1115/1.4066330 | |
5. | Áron Fehér, Lőrinc Márton, State and disturbance source estimation in Fisher–Kolmogorov equation, 2025, 24686018, 100314, 10.1016/j.ifacsc.2025.100314 |
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Indicator Type | |
Cost ype | Value ype | ||
C1: Human | C-1-1: Professional quality | √ | |
C-1-2: Work error rate | √ | ||
C-1-3: Staff and post matching degree | √ | ||
C-1-4: Awareness of executive responsibility | √ | ||
C2: Equipment | C-2-1: Equipment reliability | √ | |
C-2-2: Maintenance level | √ | ||
C-2-3: The degree of configuration integrity | √ | ||
C-2-4: Degree of automation | √ | ||
C3: Management | C-3-1: Risk control capability | √ | |
C-3-2: Operation monitoring level | √ | ||
C-3-3: Personnel training level | √ | ||
C-3-4: The integrity of risk management plan | √ | ||
C4: Environment | C-4-1: Traffic demand handling capacity | √ | |
C-4-2: The ability to deal with weather | √ | ||
C-4-3: Collaborative atmosphere | √ | ||
C-4-4: The ability of Bird/animal invasion prevention | √ |
Indicator | Intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) of each expert on plans | ||||||||||||
e1 | e2 | e3 | |||||||||||
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||
C1 | C11 | 0.2190, 0.4942, 0.2868 | 0.6793, 0.2210, 0.0997 | 0.5194, 0.4587, 0.0219 | 0.0535, 0.5087, 0.4378 | 0.0470, 0.4187, 0.5343 | 0.9347, 0.0459, 0.0194 | 0.8310, 0.1439, 0.0251 | 0.5297, 0.2419, 0.2284 | 0.6789, 0.2648, 0.0563 | 0.3835, 0.6086, 0.0079 | 0.0346, 0.2793, 0.6861 | 0.6711, 0.0340, 0.2948 |
C12 | 0.0077, 0.4108, 0.5815 | 0.4175, 0.2563, 0.3262 | 0.9304, 0.0498, 0.0198 | 0.0920, 0.6735, 0.2345 | 0.3834, 0.3556, 0.2610 | 0.6868, 0.2286, 0.0847 | 0.8462, 0.1232, 0.0307 | 0.6539, 0.0066, 0.3395 | 0.0668, 0.8180, 0.1152 | 0.5890, 0.3573, 0.0537 | 0.5269, 0.3342, 0.1388 | 0.4160, 0.5174, 0.0666 | |
C13 | 0.7012, 0.1569, 0.1419 | 0.2625, 0.5262, 0.2114 | 0.3282, 0.4582, 0.2136 | 0.9910, 0.0078, 0.0012 | 0.9103, 0.0416, 0.0481 | 0.0475, 0.4657, 0.4868 | 0.6326, 0.0733, 0.2941 | 0.3653, 0.5649, 0.0698 | 0.7622, 0.0155, 0.2223 | 0.7361, 0.1762, 0.0877 | 0.7564, 0.2233, 0.0203 | 0.2470, 0.4096, 0.3434 | |
C14 | 0.9826, 0.0024, 0.0150 | 0.6515, 0.0751, 0.2734 | 0.8847, 0.0593, 0.0560 | 0.7665, 0.1092, 0.1243 | 0.7227, 0.1249, 0.1524 | 0.0727, 0.4136, 0.5137 | 0.2727, 0.6411, 0.0862 | 0.4777, 0.4213, 0.1010 | 0.7534, 0.2440, 0.0026 | 0.6316, 0.1163, 0.2521 | 0.4364, 0.2478, 0.3158 | 0.2378, 0.2783, 0.4839 | |
C2 | C21 | 0.2749, 0.1534, 0.5717 | 0.4865, 0.3237, 0.1897 | 0.0606, 0.0008, 0.9386 | 0.5163, 0.1544, 0.3293 | 0.3593, 0.6402, 0.0006 | 0.8977, 0.0631, 0.0393 | 0.9047, 0.0737, 0.0216 | 0.3190, 0.2845, 0.3965 | 0.1665, 0.1280, 0.7055 | 0.9092, 0.0001, 0.0907 | 0.5045, 0.3604, 0.1351 | 0.9866, 0.0091, 0.0042 |
C22 | 0.4940, 0.3444, 0.1616 | 0.9478, 0.0370, 0.0152 | 0.3841, 0.0503, 0.5655 | 0.5297, 0.1006, 0.3697 | 0.2661, 0.1506, 0.5832 | 0.0737, 0.7676, 0.1587 | 0.2771, 0.5523, 0.1706 | 0.4644, 0.1144, 0.4212 | 0.0907, 0.7605, 0.1487 | 0.5007, 0.0472, 0.4521 | 0.9138, 0.0543, 0.0319 | 0.9410, 0.0048, 0.0542 | |
C23 | 0.0501, 0.3693, 0.5806 | 0.8278, 0.0671, 0.1051 | 0.6885, 0.0885, 0.2231 | 0.7362, 0.1114, 0.1523 | 0.7615, 0.2271, 0.0114 | 0.1254, 0.2355, 0.6392 | 0.8682, 0.1024, 0.0294 | 0.7254, 0.0775, 0.1971 | 0.7702, 0.2177, 0.0121 | 0.0159, 0.6812, 0.3029 | 0.6295, 0.2904, 0.0801 | 0.9995, 0.0001, 0.0004 | |
C24 | 0.8886, 0.0013, 0.1102 | 0.3510, 0.1584, 0.4906 | 0.8460, 0.0613, 0.0927 | 0.2693, 0.6053, 0.1254 | 0.2332, 0.1471, 0.6197 | 0.5133, 0.3990, 0.0877 | 0.4121, 0.3533, 0.2346 | 0.4154, 0.0922, 0.4924 | 0.3063, 0.6820, 0.0116 | 0.5911, 0.0558, 0.3531 | 0.8415, 0.0280, 0.1305 | 0.5373, 0.4571, 0.0056 | |
C3 | C31 | 0.4679, 0.1368, 0.3952 | 0.1537, 0.1857, 0.6606 | 0.0331, 0.7685, 0.1984 | 0.9554, 0.0299, 0.0148 | 0.2872, 0.1665, 0.5463 | 0.5717, 0.2719, 0.1565 | 0.5344, 0.3241, 0.1414 | 0.7483, 0.1594, 0.0923 | 0.1783, 0.0835, 0.7382 | 0.8024, 0.1375, 0.0601 | 0.4985, 0.3776, 0.1239 | 0.5546, 0.0251, 0.4203 |
C32 | 0.8907, 0.0654, 0.0439 | 0.1598, 0.5880, 0.2522 | 0.1304, 0.4575, 0.4121 | 0.0030, 0.3287, 0.6683 | 0.6248, 0.0852, 0.2900 | 0.2128, 0.0925, 0.6948 | 0.0910, 0.5035, 0.4055 | 0.4143, 0.4117, 0.1740 | 0.8420, 0.0504, 0.1076 | 0.7147, 0.2176, 0.0677 | 0.2746, 0.4265, 0.2989 | 0.0269, 0.1392, 0.8339 | |
C33 | 0.7098, 0.0469, 0.2433 | 0.1809, 0.6661, 0.1530 | 0.6521, 0.1100, 0.2380 | 0.3858, 0.1909, 0.4233 | 0.9379, 0.0301, 0.0320 | 0.3175, 0.3800, 0.3024 | 0.1503, 0.1150, 0.7347 | 0.3877, 0.3601, 0.2522 | 0.2399, 0.6538, 0.1062 | 0.8870, 0.0835, 0.0295 | 0.6813, 0.1684, 0.1502 | 0.4997, 0.2592, 0.2411 | |
C34 | 0.1475, 0.3673, 0.4852 | 0.5901, 0.1611, 0.2488 | 0.1482, 0.3304, 0.5215 | 0.1418, 0.3173, 0.5409 | 0.5872, 0.1069, 0.3060 | 0.9554, 0.0199, 0.0247 | 0.9833, 0.0047, 0.0120 | 0.5649, 0.1105, 0.3246 | 0.8456, 0.0572, 0.0973 | 0.5561, 0.2112, 0.2326 | 0.4088, 0.0463, 0.5450 | 0.2521, 0.5024, 0.2455 | |
C4 | C41 | 0.4885, 0.3459, 0.1656 | 0.1260, 0.6299, 0.2440 | 0.6293, 0.3485, 0.0222 | 0.6216, 0.1957, 0.1827 | 0.4640, 0.2755, 0.2605 | 0.1998, 0.7560, 0.0442 | 0.1267, 0.2808, 0.5925 | 0.8031, 0.1302, 0.0667 | 0.9611, 0.0283, 0.0106 | 0.3192, 0.3136, 0.3671 | 0.6513, 0.1606, 0.1882 | 0.2478, 0.3022, 0.4499 |
C42 | 0.4764, 0.3171, 0.2065 | 0.0284, 0.6511, 0.3205 | 0.1420, 0.4486, 0.4094 | 0.1312, 0.2382, 0.6306 | 0.3893, 0.6024, 0.0082 | 0.9017, 0.0338, 0.0645 | 0.9475, 0.0435, 0.0090 | 0.8856, 0.0735, 0.0408 | 0.2033, 0.1198, 0.6769 | 0.4265, 0.3107, 0.2628 | 0.4103, 0.0088, 0.5809 | 0.0922, 0.4958, 0.4120 | |
C43 | 0.1622, 0.7690, 0.0688 | 0.2531, 0.1843, 0.5626 | 0.4553, 0.2482, 0.2964 | 0.8089, 0.0307, 0.1603 | 0.0711, 0.2477, 0.6813 | 0.1351, 0.7299, 0.1349 | 0.3495, 0.5315, 0.1190 | 0.9317, 0.0483, 0.0200 | 0.3653, 0.6157, 0.0190 | 0.7832, 0.1505, 0.0663 | 0.4523, 0.0121, 0.5356 | 0.6516, 0.2466, 0.1018 | |
C44 | 0.2152, 0.3427, 0.4421 | 0.2501, 0.7435, 0.0063 | 0.5060, 0.3724, 0.1216 | 0.7558, 0.1210, 0.1231 | 0.6796, 0.1866, 0.1338 | 0.8609, 0.0968, 0.0423 | 0.6004, 0.0684, 0.3312 | 0.4622, 0.0430, 0.4948 | 0.9089, 0.0685, 0.0226 | 0.4713, 0.1478, 0.3809 | 0.8176, 0.0008, 0.1817 | 0.9514, 0.0079, 0.0407 |
Indicator | Intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) of each expert on plans | ||||||||||||||
e1 | e2 | e3 | |||||||||||||
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||||
C1 | C11 | 0.2190+ 0.4942j+ 0.2868i | 0.6793+ 0.2210j+0.0997i | 0.5194+ 0.4587j+0.0219i | 0.0535+ 0.5087j+0.4378i | 0.0470+ 0.4187j+0.5343i | 0.9347+ 0.0459j+0.0194i | 0.8310+ 0.1439j+0.0251i | 0.5297+ 0.2419j+0.2284i | 0.6789+ 0.2648j+0.0563i | 0.3835+ 0.6086j+0.0079 i | 0.0346+ 0.2793j+0.6861i | 0.6711+ 0.0340j+0.2948i | ||
C12 | 0.0077+ 0.4108j+0.5815i | 0.4175+ 0.2563j+0.3262 i | 0.9304+ 0.0498j+0.0198 i | 0.0920+ 0.6735j+0.2345 i | 0.3834+ 0.3556j+0.2610 i | 0.6868+ 0.2286j+0.0847 i | 0.8462+ 0.1232j+0.0307 i | 0.6539+ 0.0066j+0.3395 i | 0.0668+ 0.8180j+0.1152 i | 0.5890+ 0.3573j+0.0537 i | 0.5269+ 0.3342j+0.1388 i | 0.4160+ 0.5174j+0.0666 i | |||
C13 | 0.7012+ 0.1569j+0.1419 i | 0.2625+ 0.5262j+0.2114 i | 0.3282+ 0.4582j+0.2136 i | 0.9910+ 0.0078j+0.0012 i | 0.9103+ 0.0416j+0.0481 i | 0.0475+ 0.4657j+0.4868 i | 0.6326+ 0.0733j+0.2941 i | 0.3653+ 0.5649j+0.0698 i | 0.7622+ 0.0155j+0.2223 i | 0.7361+ 0.1762j+0.0877 i | 0.7564+ 0.2233j+0.0203 i | 0.2470+ 0.4096j+0.3434 i | |||
C14 | 0.9826+ 0.0024j+0.0150 i | 0.6515+ 0.0751j+0.2734 i | 0.8847+ 0.0593j+0.0560 i | 0.7665+ 0.1092j+0.1243 i | 0.7227+ 0.1249j+0.1524 i | 0.0727+ 0.4136j+0.5137 i | 0.2727+ 0.6411j+0.0862 i | 0.4777+ 0.4213j+0.1010 i | 0.7534+ 0.2440j+0.0026 i | 0.6316+ 0.1163j+0.2521 i | 0.4364+ 0.2478j+0.3158 i | 0.2378+ 0.2783j+0.4839 i | |||
C2 | C21 | 0.2749+ 0.1534j+0.5717 i | 0.4865+ 0.3237j+0.1897 i | 0.0606+ 0.0008j+0.9386 i | 0.5163+ 0.1544j+0.3293 i | 0.3593+ 0.6402j+0.0006 i | 0.8977+ 0.0631j+0.0393 i | 0.9047+ 0.0737j+0.0216 i | 0.3190+ 0.2845j+0.3965 i | 0.1665+ 0.1280j+0.7055 i | 0.9092+ 0.0001j+0.0907 i | 0.5045+ 0.3604j+0.1351 i | 0.9866+ 0.0091j+0.0042 i | ||
C22 | 0.4940+ 0.3444j+0.1616 i | 0.9478+ 0.0370j+0.0152 i | 0.3841+ 0.0503j+0.5655 i | 0.5297+ 0.1006j+0.3697 i | 0.2661+ 0.1506j+0.5832 i | 0.0737+ 0.7676j+0.1587 i | 0.2771+ 0.5523j+0.1706 i | 0.4644+ 0.1144j+0.4212 i | 0.0907+ 0.7605j+0.1487 i | 0.5007+ 0.0472j+0.4521 i | 0.9138+ 0.0543j+0.0319 i | 0.9410+ 0.0048j+0.0542 i | |||
C23 | 0.0501+ 0.3693j+0.5806 i | 0.8278+ 0.0671j+0.1051 i | 0.6885+ 0.0885j+0.2231 i | 0.7362+ 0.1114j+0.1523 i | 0.7615+ 0.2271j+0.0114 i | 0.1254+ 0.2355j+0.6392 i | 0.8682+ 0.1024j+0.0294 i | 0.7254+ 0.0775j+0.1971 i | 0.7702+ 0.2177j+0.0121 i | 0.0159+ 0.6812j+0.3029 i | 0.6295+ 0.2904j+0.0801 i | 0.9995+ 0.0001j+0.0004 i | |||
C24 | 0.8886+0.0013j+0.1102 i | 0.3510+ 0.1584j+0.4906 i | 0.8460+ 0.0613j+0.0927 i | 0.2693+ 0.6053j+0.1254 i | 0.2332+ 0.1471j+0.6197 i | 0.5133+ 0.3990j+0.0877 i | 0.4121+ 0.3533j+0.2346 i | 0.4154+ 0.0922j+0.4924 i | 0.3063+ 0.6820j+0.0116 i | 0.5911+ 0.0558j+0.3531 i | 0.8415+ 0.0280j+0.1305 i | 0.5373+ 0.4571j+0.0056 i | |||
C3 | C31 | 0.4679+ 0.1368j+0.3952 i | 0.1537+ 0.1857j+0.6606 i | 0.0331+ 0.7685j+0.1984 i | 0.9554+ 0.0299j+0.0148 i | 0.2872+ 0.1665j+0.5463 i | 0.5717+ 0.2719j+0.1565 i | 0.5344+ 0.3241j+0.1414 i | 0.7483+ 0.1594j+0.0923 i | 0.1783+ 0.0835j+0.7382 i | 0.8024+ 0.1375j+0.0601 i | 0.4985+ 0.3776j+0.1239 i | 0.5546+ 0.0251j+0.4203 i | ||
C32 | 0.8907+ 0.0654j+0.0439 i | 0.1598+ 0.5880j+0.2522 i | 0.1304+ 0.4575j+0.4121 i | 0.0030+ 0.3287j+0.6683 i | 0.6248+ 0.0852j+0.2900 i | 0.2128+ 0.0925j+0.6948 i | 0.0910+ 0.5035j+0.4055 i | 0.4143+ 0.4117j+0.1740 i | 0.8420+ 0.0504j+0.1076 i | 0.7147+ 0.2176j+0.0677 i | 0.2746+ 0.4265j+0.2989 i | 0.0269+ 0.1392j+0.8339 i | |||
C33 | 0.7098+ 0.0469j+0.2433 i | 0.1809+ 0.6661j+0.1530 i | 0.6521+ 0.1100j+0.2380 i | 0.3858+ 0.1909j+0.4233 i | 0.9379+ 0.0301j+0.0320 i | 0.3175+ 0.3800j+0.3024 i | 0.1503+ 0.1150j+0.7347 i | 0.3877+ 0.3601j+0.2522 | 0.2399+ 0.6538j+0.1062 i | 0.8870+ 0.0835j+0.0295 i | 0.6813+ 0.1684j+0.1502 i | 0.4997+ 0.2592j+0.2411 i | |||
C34 | 0.1475+ 0.3673j+0.4852 i | 0.5901+ 0.1611j+0.2488 i | 0.1482+ 0.3304j+0.5215 i | 0.1418+ 0.3173j+0.5409 i | 0.5872+ 0.1069j+0.3060 i | 0.9554+ 0.0199j+0.0247 i | 0.9833+ 0.0047j+0.0120 i | 0.5649+ 0.1105j+0.3246 i | 0.8456+ 0.0572j+0.0973 i | 0.5561+ 0.2112j+0.2326 i | 0.4088+ 0.0463j+0.5450 i | 0.2521+ 0.5024j+0.2455 i | |||
C4 | C41 | 0.4885+ 0.3459j+0.1656 i | 0.1260+ 0.6299j+0.2440 i | 0.6293+ 0.3485j+0.0222 i | 0.6216+ 0.1957j+0.1827 i | 0.4640+ 0.2755j+0.2605 i | 0.1998+ 0.7560j+0.0442 i | 0.1267+ 0.2808j+0.5925 i | 0.8031+ 0.1302j+0.0667 i | 0.9611+ 0.0283j+0.0106 i | 0.3192+ 0.3136j+0.3671 i | 0.6513+ 0.1606j+0.1882 i | 0.2478+ 0.3022j+0.4499 i | ||
C42 | 0.4764+ 0.3171j+0.2065 i | 0.0284+ 0.6511j+0.3205 i | 0.1420+ 0.4486j+0.4094 i | 0.1312+ 0.2382j+0.6306 i | 0.3893+ 0.6024j+0.0082 i | 0.9017+ 0.0338j+0.0645 i | 0.9475+ 0.0435j+0.0090 i | 0.8856+ 0.0735j+0.0408 i | 0.2033+ 0.1198j+0.6769 i | 0.4265+ 0.3107j+0.2628 i | 0.4103+ 0.0088j+0.5809 i | 0.0922+ 0.4958j+0.4120 i | |||
C43 | 0.1622+ 0.7690j+0.0688 i | 0.2531+ 0.1843j+0.5626 i | 0.4553+ 0.2482j+0.2964 i | 0.8089+ 0.0307j+0.1603 i | 0.0711+ 0.2477j+0.6813 i | 0.1351+ 0.7299j+0.1349 i | 0.3495+ 0.5315j+0.1190 i | 0.9317+ 0.0483j+0.0200 i | 0.3653+ 0.6157j+0.0190 i | 0.7832+ 0.1505j+0.0663 i | 0.4523+ 0.0121j+0.5356 i | 0.6516+ 0.2466j+0.1018 i | |||
C44 | 0.2152+ 0.3427j+0.4421 i | 0.2501+ 0.7435j+0.0063 i | 0.5060+ 0.3724j+0.1216 i | 0.7558+ 0.1210j+0.1231 i | 0.6796+ 0.1866j+0.1338 i | 0.8609+ 0.0968j+0.0423 i | 0.6004+ 0.0684j+0.3312 i | 0.4622+ 0.0430j+0.4948 i | 0.9089+ 0.0685j+0.0226 i | 0.4713+ 0.1478j+0.3809 i | 0.8176+ 0.0008j+0.1817 i | 0.9514+ 0.0079j+0.0407 i |
![]() |
Pair (k,t) of experts | ||
e1,2i | e1,3i | e2,3i | |
A1 | 0.1749+ 0.0952 i + 0.0527 j | 0.2255+0.0709 i + 0.0824 j | 0.1588+0.0985 i +0.0866 j |
A2 | 0.2389+ 0.0841 i + 0.0966 j | 0.2410+ 0.0656 i +0.0834 j | 0.2288+ 0.0739 i +0.0966 j |
A3 | 0.2446+0.0820 i +0.0804 j | 0.1682+0.0721 i + 0.0681 j | 0.2271+0.0872 i + 0.0616 j |
A4 | 0.1862+ 0.0608 i + 0.0666 j | 0.1969+0.0703 i +0.0555 j | 0.2110+0.0939 i +0.0698 j |
![]() |
Opinion of each expert on an airport | ei | |||||
R1= 0.42 | R2= 0.25 | R3= 0.33 | |||||
A(e1i) | RAD(e1i) | A(e2i) | RAD(e2i) | A(e3i) | RAD(e3i) | ||
A1 | 0.2002+0.0830i+0.0676j | 0.3428-0.0080 i | 0.1669+ 0.0968i+ 0.0696j | 0.3029+0.0175i | 0.1922+ 0.0847i+0.0845j | 0.3543-0.0094i | |
A2 | 0.2400+0.0749i+0.0900j | 0.3349-0.0000i | 0.2338+0.0790i+0.0966j | 0.3354+0.0049i | 0.2349+0.0697i+0.0900j | 0.3297-0.0048i | |
A3 | 0.2064+0.0770i+0.0742j | 0.3302-0.0028i | 0.2359+0.0846i+0.0710j | 0.3610-0.0027i | 0.1977+0.0796i+0.0649j | 0.3088+0.0056i | |
A4 | 0.1916+0.0656i+0.0610j | 0.3214+0.0068i | 0.1986+0.0774i+0.0682j | 0.3394+0.0010i | 0.2040+0.0821i+0.0626j | 0.3392+0.0058i |
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Indicator Type | |
Cost ype | Value ype | ||
C1: Human | C-1-1: Professional quality | √ | |
C-1-2: Work error rate | √ | ||
C-1-3: Staff and post matching degree | √ | ||
C-1-4: Awareness of executive responsibility | √ | ||
C2: Equipment | C-2-1: Equipment reliability | √ | |
C-2-2: Maintenance level | √ | ||
C-2-3: The degree of configuration integrity | √ | ||
C-2-4: Degree of automation | √ | ||
C3: Management | C-3-1: Risk control capability | √ | |
C-3-2: Operation monitoring level | √ | ||
C-3-3: Personnel training level | √ | ||
C-3-4: The integrity of risk management plan | √ | ||
C4: Environment | C-4-1: Traffic demand handling capacity | √ | |
C-4-2: The ability to deal with weather | √ | ||
C-4-3: Collaborative atmosphere | √ | ||
C-4-4: The ability of Bird/animal invasion prevention | √ |
Indicator | Intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) of each expert on plans | ||||||||||||
e1 | e2 | e3 | |||||||||||
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||
C1 | C11 | 0.2190, 0.4942, 0.2868 | 0.6793, 0.2210, 0.0997 | 0.5194, 0.4587, 0.0219 | 0.0535, 0.5087, 0.4378 | 0.0470, 0.4187, 0.5343 | 0.9347, 0.0459, 0.0194 | 0.8310, 0.1439, 0.0251 | 0.5297, 0.2419, 0.2284 | 0.6789, 0.2648, 0.0563 | 0.3835, 0.6086, 0.0079 | 0.0346, 0.2793, 0.6861 | 0.6711, 0.0340, 0.2948 |
C12 | 0.0077, 0.4108, 0.5815 | 0.4175, 0.2563, 0.3262 | 0.9304, 0.0498, 0.0198 | 0.0920, 0.6735, 0.2345 | 0.3834, 0.3556, 0.2610 | 0.6868, 0.2286, 0.0847 | 0.8462, 0.1232, 0.0307 | 0.6539, 0.0066, 0.3395 | 0.0668, 0.8180, 0.1152 | 0.5890, 0.3573, 0.0537 | 0.5269, 0.3342, 0.1388 | 0.4160, 0.5174, 0.0666 | |
C13 | 0.7012, 0.1569, 0.1419 | 0.2625, 0.5262, 0.2114 | 0.3282, 0.4582, 0.2136 | 0.9910, 0.0078, 0.0012 | 0.9103, 0.0416, 0.0481 | 0.0475, 0.4657, 0.4868 | 0.6326, 0.0733, 0.2941 | 0.3653, 0.5649, 0.0698 | 0.7622, 0.0155, 0.2223 | 0.7361, 0.1762, 0.0877 | 0.7564, 0.2233, 0.0203 | 0.2470, 0.4096, 0.3434 | |
C14 | 0.9826, 0.0024, 0.0150 | 0.6515, 0.0751, 0.2734 | 0.8847, 0.0593, 0.0560 | 0.7665, 0.1092, 0.1243 | 0.7227, 0.1249, 0.1524 | 0.0727, 0.4136, 0.5137 | 0.2727, 0.6411, 0.0862 | 0.4777, 0.4213, 0.1010 | 0.7534, 0.2440, 0.0026 | 0.6316, 0.1163, 0.2521 | 0.4364, 0.2478, 0.3158 | 0.2378, 0.2783, 0.4839 | |
C2 | C21 | 0.2749, 0.1534, 0.5717 | 0.4865, 0.3237, 0.1897 | 0.0606, 0.0008, 0.9386 | 0.5163, 0.1544, 0.3293 | 0.3593, 0.6402, 0.0006 | 0.8977, 0.0631, 0.0393 | 0.9047, 0.0737, 0.0216 | 0.3190, 0.2845, 0.3965 | 0.1665, 0.1280, 0.7055 | 0.9092, 0.0001, 0.0907 | 0.5045, 0.3604, 0.1351 | 0.9866, 0.0091, 0.0042 |
C22 | 0.4940, 0.3444, 0.1616 | 0.9478, 0.0370, 0.0152 | 0.3841, 0.0503, 0.5655 | 0.5297, 0.1006, 0.3697 | 0.2661, 0.1506, 0.5832 | 0.0737, 0.7676, 0.1587 | 0.2771, 0.5523, 0.1706 | 0.4644, 0.1144, 0.4212 | 0.0907, 0.7605, 0.1487 | 0.5007, 0.0472, 0.4521 | 0.9138, 0.0543, 0.0319 | 0.9410, 0.0048, 0.0542 | |
C23 | 0.0501, 0.3693, 0.5806 | 0.8278, 0.0671, 0.1051 | 0.6885, 0.0885, 0.2231 | 0.7362, 0.1114, 0.1523 | 0.7615, 0.2271, 0.0114 | 0.1254, 0.2355, 0.6392 | 0.8682, 0.1024, 0.0294 | 0.7254, 0.0775, 0.1971 | 0.7702, 0.2177, 0.0121 | 0.0159, 0.6812, 0.3029 | 0.6295, 0.2904, 0.0801 | 0.9995, 0.0001, 0.0004 | |
C24 | 0.8886, 0.0013, 0.1102 | 0.3510, 0.1584, 0.4906 | 0.8460, 0.0613, 0.0927 | 0.2693, 0.6053, 0.1254 | 0.2332, 0.1471, 0.6197 | 0.5133, 0.3990, 0.0877 | 0.4121, 0.3533, 0.2346 | 0.4154, 0.0922, 0.4924 | 0.3063, 0.6820, 0.0116 | 0.5911, 0.0558, 0.3531 | 0.8415, 0.0280, 0.1305 | 0.5373, 0.4571, 0.0056 | |
C3 | C31 | 0.4679, 0.1368, 0.3952 | 0.1537, 0.1857, 0.6606 | 0.0331, 0.7685, 0.1984 | 0.9554, 0.0299, 0.0148 | 0.2872, 0.1665, 0.5463 | 0.5717, 0.2719, 0.1565 | 0.5344, 0.3241, 0.1414 | 0.7483, 0.1594, 0.0923 | 0.1783, 0.0835, 0.7382 | 0.8024, 0.1375, 0.0601 | 0.4985, 0.3776, 0.1239 | 0.5546, 0.0251, 0.4203 |
C32 | 0.8907, 0.0654, 0.0439 | 0.1598, 0.5880, 0.2522 | 0.1304, 0.4575, 0.4121 | 0.0030, 0.3287, 0.6683 | 0.6248, 0.0852, 0.2900 | 0.2128, 0.0925, 0.6948 | 0.0910, 0.5035, 0.4055 | 0.4143, 0.4117, 0.1740 | 0.8420, 0.0504, 0.1076 | 0.7147, 0.2176, 0.0677 | 0.2746, 0.4265, 0.2989 | 0.0269, 0.1392, 0.8339 | |
C33 | 0.7098, 0.0469, 0.2433 | 0.1809, 0.6661, 0.1530 | 0.6521, 0.1100, 0.2380 | 0.3858, 0.1909, 0.4233 | 0.9379, 0.0301, 0.0320 | 0.3175, 0.3800, 0.3024 | 0.1503, 0.1150, 0.7347 | 0.3877, 0.3601, 0.2522 | 0.2399, 0.6538, 0.1062 | 0.8870, 0.0835, 0.0295 | 0.6813, 0.1684, 0.1502 | 0.4997, 0.2592, 0.2411 | |
C34 | 0.1475, 0.3673, 0.4852 | 0.5901, 0.1611, 0.2488 | 0.1482, 0.3304, 0.5215 | 0.1418, 0.3173, 0.5409 | 0.5872, 0.1069, 0.3060 | 0.9554, 0.0199, 0.0247 | 0.9833, 0.0047, 0.0120 | 0.5649, 0.1105, 0.3246 | 0.8456, 0.0572, 0.0973 | 0.5561, 0.2112, 0.2326 | 0.4088, 0.0463, 0.5450 | 0.2521, 0.5024, 0.2455 | |
C4 | C41 | 0.4885, 0.3459, 0.1656 | 0.1260, 0.6299, 0.2440 | 0.6293, 0.3485, 0.0222 | 0.6216, 0.1957, 0.1827 | 0.4640, 0.2755, 0.2605 | 0.1998, 0.7560, 0.0442 | 0.1267, 0.2808, 0.5925 | 0.8031, 0.1302, 0.0667 | 0.9611, 0.0283, 0.0106 | 0.3192, 0.3136, 0.3671 | 0.6513, 0.1606, 0.1882 | 0.2478, 0.3022, 0.4499 |
C42 | 0.4764, 0.3171, 0.2065 | 0.0284, 0.6511, 0.3205 | 0.1420, 0.4486, 0.4094 | 0.1312, 0.2382, 0.6306 | 0.3893, 0.6024, 0.0082 | 0.9017, 0.0338, 0.0645 | 0.9475, 0.0435, 0.0090 | 0.8856, 0.0735, 0.0408 | 0.2033, 0.1198, 0.6769 | 0.4265, 0.3107, 0.2628 | 0.4103, 0.0088, 0.5809 | 0.0922, 0.4958, 0.4120 | |
C43 | 0.1622, 0.7690, 0.0688 | 0.2531, 0.1843, 0.5626 | 0.4553, 0.2482, 0.2964 | 0.8089, 0.0307, 0.1603 | 0.0711, 0.2477, 0.6813 | 0.1351, 0.7299, 0.1349 | 0.3495, 0.5315, 0.1190 | 0.9317, 0.0483, 0.0200 | 0.3653, 0.6157, 0.0190 | 0.7832, 0.1505, 0.0663 | 0.4523, 0.0121, 0.5356 | 0.6516, 0.2466, 0.1018 | |
C44 | 0.2152, 0.3427, 0.4421 | 0.2501, 0.7435, 0.0063 | 0.5060, 0.3724, 0.1216 | 0.7558, 0.1210, 0.1231 | 0.6796, 0.1866, 0.1338 | 0.8609, 0.0968, 0.0423 | 0.6004, 0.0684, 0.3312 | 0.4622, 0.0430, 0.4948 | 0.9089, 0.0685, 0.0226 | 0.4713, 0.1478, 0.3809 | 0.8176, 0.0008, 0.1817 | 0.9514, 0.0079, 0.0407 |
Indicator | Intuitionistic fuzzy value pkij=(tkij,fkij,πkij) of each expert on plans | ||||||||||||||
e1 | e2 | e3 | |||||||||||||
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||||
C1 | C11 | 0.2190+ 0.4942j+ 0.2868i | 0.6793+ 0.2210j+0.0997i | 0.5194+ 0.4587j+0.0219i | 0.0535+ 0.5087j+0.4378i | 0.0470+ 0.4187j+0.5343i | 0.9347+ 0.0459j+0.0194i | 0.8310+ 0.1439j+0.0251i | 0.5297+ 0.2419j+0.2284i | 0.6789+ 0.2648j+0.0563i | 0.3835+ 0.6086j+0.0079 i | 0.0346+ 0.2793j+0.6861i | 0.6711+ 0.0340j+0.2948i | ||
C12 | 0.0077+ 0.4108j+0.5815i | 0.4175+ 0.2563j+0.3262 i | 0.9304+ 0.0498j+0.0198 i | 0.0920+ 0.6735j+0.2345 i | 0.3834+ 0.3556j+0.2610 i | 0.6868+ 0.2286j+0.0847 i | 0.8462+ 0.1232j+0.0307 i | 0.6539+ 0.0066j+0.3395 i | 0.0668+ 0.8180j+0.1152 i | 0.5890+ 0.3573j+0.0537 i | 0.5269+ 0.3342j+0.1388 i | 0.4160+ 0.5174j+0.0666 i | |||
C13 | 0.7012+ 0.1569j+0.1419 i | 0.2625+ 0.5262j+0.2114 i | 0.3282+ 0.4582j+0.2136 i | 0.9910+ 0.0078j+0.0012 i | 0.9103+ 0.0416j+0.0481 i | 0.0475+ 0.4657j+0.4868 i | 0.6326+ 0.0733j+0.2941 i | 0.3653+ 0.5649j+0.0698 i | 0.7622+ 0.0155j+0.2223 i | 0.7361+ 0.1762j+0.0877 i | 0.7564+ 0.2233j+0.0203 i | 0.2470+ 0.4096j+0.3434 i | |||
C14 | 0.9826+ 0.0024j+0.0150 i | 0.6515+ 0.0751j+0.2734 i | 0.8847+ 0.0593j+0.0560 i | 0.7665+ 0.1092j+0.1243 i | 0.7227+ 0.1249j+0.1524 i | 0.0727+ 0.4136j+0.5137 i | 0.2727+ 0.6411j+0.0862 i | 0.4777+ 0.4213j+0.1010 i | 0.7534+ 0.2440j+0.0026 i | 0.6316+ 0.1163j+0.2521 i | 0.4364+ 0.2478j+0.3158 i | 0.2378+ 0.2783j+0.4839 i | |||
C2 | C21 | 0.2749+ 0.1534j+0.5717 i | 0.4865+ 0.3237j+0.1897 i | 0.0606+ 0.0008j+0.9386 i | 0.5163+ 0.1544j+0.3293 i | 0.3593+ 0.6402j+0.0006 i | 0.8977+ 0.0631j+0.0393 i | 0.9047+ 0.0737j+0.0216 i | 0.3190+ 0.2845j+0.3965 i | 0.1665+ 0.1280j+0.7055 i | 0.9092+ 0.0001j+0.0907 i | 0.5045+ 0.3604j+0.1351 i | 0.9866+ 0.0091j+0.0042 i | ||
C22 | 0.4940+ 0.3444j+0.1616 i | 0.9478+ 0.0370j+0.0152 i | 0.3841+ 0.0503j+0.5655 i | 0.5297+ 0.1006j+0.3697 i | 0.2661+ 0.1506j+0.5832 i | 0.0737+ 0.7676j+0.1587 i | 0.2771+ 0.5523j+0.1706 i | 0.4644+ 0.1144j+0.4212 i | 0.0907+ 0.7605j+0.1487 i | 0.5007+ 0.0472j+0.4521 i | 0.9138+ 0.0543j+0.0319 i | 0.9410+ 0.0048j+0.0542 i | |||
C23 | 0.0501+ 0.3693j+0.5806 i | 0.8278+ 0.0671j+0.1051 i | 0.6885+ 0.0885j+0.2231 i | 0.7362+ 0.1114j+0.1523 i | 0.7615+ 0.2271j+0.0114 i | 0.1254+ 0.2355j+0.6392 i | 0.8682+ 0.1024j+0.0294 i | 0.7254+ 0.0775j+0.1971 i | 0.7702+ 0.2177j+0.0121 i | 0.0159+ 0.6812j+0.3029 i | 0.6295+ 0.2904j+0.0801 i | 0.9995+ 0.0001j+0.0004 i | |||
C24 | 0.8886+0.0013j+0.1102 i | 0.3510+ 0.1584j+0.4906 i | 0.8460+ 0.0613j+0.0927 i | 0.2693+ 0.6053j+0.1254 i | 0.2332+ 0.1471j+0.6197 i | 0.5133+ 0.3990j+0.0877 i | 0.4121+ 0.3533j+0.2346 i | 0.4154+ 0.0922j+0.4924 i | 0.3063+ 0.6820j+0.0116 i | 0.5911+ 0.0558j+0.3531 i | 0.8415+ 0.0280j+0.1305 i | 0.5373+ 0.4571j+0.0056 i | |||
C3 | C31 | 0.4679+ 0.1368j+0.3952 i | 0.1537+ 0.1857j+0.6606 i | 0.0331+ 0.7685j+0.1984 i | 0.9554+ 0.0299j+0.0148 i | 0.2872+ 0.1665j+0.5463 i | 0.5717+ 0.2719j+0.1565 i | 0.5344+ 0.3241j+0.1414 i | 0.7483+ 0.1594j+0.0923 i | 0.1783+ 0.0835j+0.7382 i | 0.8024+ 0.1375j+0.0601 i | 0.4985+ 0.3776j+0.1239 i | 0.5546+ 0.0251j+0.4203 i | ||
C32 | 0.8907+ 0.0654j+0.0439 i | 0.1598+ 0.5880j+0.2522 i | 0.1304+ 0.4575j+0.4121 i | 0.0030+ 0.3287j+0.6683 i | 0.6248+ 0.0852j+0.2900 i | 0.2128+ 0.0925j+0.6948 i | 0.0910+ 0.5035j+0.4055 i | 0.4143+ 0.4117j+0.1740 i | 0.8420+ 0.0504j+0.1076 i | 0.7147+ 0.2176j+0.0677 i | 0.2746+ 0.4265j+0.2989 i | 0.0269+ 0.1392j+0.8339 i | |||
C33 | 0.7098+ 0.0469j+0.2433 i | 0.1809+ 0.6661j+0.1530 i | 0.6521+ 0.1100j+0.2380 i | 0.3858+ 0.1909j+0.4233 i | 0.9379+ 0.0301j+0.0320 i | 0.3175+ 0.3800j+0.3024 i | 0.1503+ 0.1150j+0.7347 i | 0.3877+ 0.3601j+0.2522 | 0.2399+ 0.6538j+0.1062 i | 0.8870+ 0.0835j+0.0295 i | 0.6813+ 0.1684j+0.1502 i | 0.4997+ 0.2592j+0.2411 i | |||
C34 | 0.1475+ 0.3673j+0.4852 i | 0.5901+ 0.1611j+0.2488 i | 0.1482+ 0.3304j+0.5215 i | 0.1418+ 0.3173j+0.5409 i | 0.5872+ 0.1069j+0.3060 i | 0.9554+ 0.0199j+0.0247 i | 0.9833+ 0.0047j+0.0120 i | 0.5649+ 0.1105j+0.3246 i | 0.8456+ 0.0572j+0.0973 i | 0.5561+ 0.2112j+0.2326 i | 0.4088+ 0.0463j+0.5450 i | 0.2521+ 0.5024j+0.2455 i | |||
C4 | C41 | 0.4885+ 0.3459j+0.1656 i | 0.1260+ 0.6299j+0.2440 i | 0.6293+ 0.3485j+0.0222 i | 0.6216+ 0.1957j+0.1827 i | 0.4640+ 0.2755j+0.2605 i | 0.1998+ 0.7560j+0.0442 i | 0.1267+ 0.2808j+0.5925 i | 0.8031+ 0.1302j+0.0667 i | 0.9611+ 0.0283j+0.0106 i | 0.3192+ 0.3136j+0.3671 i | 0.6513+ 0.1606j+0.1882 i | 0.2478+ 0.3022j+0.4499 i | ||
C42 | 0.4764+ 0.3171j+0.2065 i | 0.0284+ 0.6511j+0.3205 i | 0.1420+ 0.4486j+0.4094 i | 0.1312+ 0.2382j+0.6306 i | 0.3893+ 0.6024j+0.0082 i | 0.9017+ 0.0338j+0.0645 i | 0.9475+ 0.0435j+0.0090 i | 0.8856+ 0.0735j+0.0408 i | 0.2033+ 0.1198j+0.6769 i | 0.4265+ 0.3107j+0.2628 i | 0.4103+ 0.0088j+0.5809 i | 0.0922+ 0.4958j+0.4120 i | |||
C43 | 0.1622+ 0.7690j+0.0688 i | 0.2531+ 0.1843j+0.5626 i | 0.4553+ 0.2482j+0.2964 i | 0.8089+ 0.0307j+0.1603 i | 0.0711+ 0.2477j+0.6813 i | 0.1351+ 0.7299j+0.1349 i | 0.3495+ 0.5315j+0.1190 i | 0.9317+ 0.0483j+0.0200 i | 0.3653+ 0.6157j+0.0190 i | 0.7832+ 0.1505j+0.0663 i | 0.4523+ 0.0121j+0.5356 i | 0.6516+ 0.2466j+0.1018 i | |||
C44 | 0.2152+ 0.3427j+0.4421 i | 0.2501+ 0.7435j+0.0063 i | 0.5060+ 0.3724j+0.1216 i | 0.7558+ 0.1210j+0.1231 i | 0.6796+ 0.1866j+0.1338 i | 0.8609+ 0.0968j+0.0423 i | 0.6004+ 0.0684j+0.3312 i | 0.4622+ 0.0430j+0.4948 i | 0.9089+ 0.0685j+0.0226 i | 0.4713+ 0.1478j+0.3809 i | 0.8176+ 0.0008j+0.1817 i | 0.9514+ 0.0079j+0.0407 i |
![]() |
Pair (k,t) of experts | ||
e1,2i | e1,3i | e2,3i | |
A1 | 0.1749+ 0.0952 i + 0.0527 j | 0.2255+0.0709 i + 0.0824 j | 0.1588+0.0985 i +0.0866 j |
A2 | 0.2389+ 0.0841 i + 0.0966 j | 0.2410+ 0.0656 i +0.0834 j | 0.2288+ 0.0739 i +0.0966 j |
A3 | 0.2446+0.0820 i +0.0804 j | 0.1682+0.0721 i + 0.0681 j | 0.2271+0.0872 i + 0.0616 j |
A4 | 0.1862+ 0.0608 i + 0.0666 j | 0.1969+0.0703 i +0.0555 j | 0.2110+0.0939 i +0.0698 j |
![]() |
Opinion of each expert on an airport | ei | |||||
R1= 0.42 | R2= 0.25 | R3= 0.33 | |||||
A(e1i) | RAD(e1i) | A(e2i) | RAD(e2i) | A(e3i) | RAD(e3i) | ||
A1 | 0.2002+0.0830i+0.0676j | 0.3428-0.0080 i | 0.1669+ 0.0968i+ 0.0696j | 0.3029+0.0175i | 0.1922+ 0.0847i+0.0845j | 0.3543-0.0094i | |
A2 | 0.2400+0.0749i+0.0900j | 0.3349-0.0000i | 0.2338+0.0790i+0.0966j | 0.3354+0.0049i | 0.2349+0.0697i+0.0900j | 0.3297-0.0048i | |
A3 | 0.2064+0.0770i+0.0742j | 0.3302-0.0028i | 0.2359+0.0846i+0.0710j | 0.3610-0.0027i | 0.1977+0.0796i+0.0649j | 0.3088+0.0056i | |
A4 | 0.1916+0.0656i+0.0610j | 0.3214+0.0068i | 0.1986+0.0774i+0.0682j | 0.3394+0.0010i | 0.2040+0.0821i+0.0626j | 0.3392+0.0058i |