The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A COMPARISON OF WEIGHTING METHODS IN POWER PLANT SITING*
Abstract
The insufficient attention that too often is paid to the characteristics required of attribute weights prevents multiattribute decision rules from accurately representing preferences. The weighting summation or linear model requires weights to be proportional to the relative value of unit changes in their attribute value functions. Only then will weights accurately reflect the trade‐offs decision makers are willing to make. A number of methods of choosing weights are critiqued from this perspective. Applications of weighting methods in power plant siting are surveyed, and a siting study of western Maryland is presented. Two weighting methods were used, one deriving weights from trade‐offs made by decision makers and the other asking decision makers to choose weights on a scale of 0 to 10. The locations picked by the two methods differ strikingly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering
Marler, R. T., & Arora, J. S. (2004) · Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization · doi:10.1007/s00158-003-0368-6 · Cited by 4,710
GIS‐based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature
Malczewski, J. (2006) · International Journal of Geographical Information Science · doi:10.1080/13658810600661508 · Cited by 2,289
On the Use of Weighted Linear Combination Method in GIS: Common and Best Practice Approaches
Malczewski, J. (2000) · Transactions in GIS · doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00035 · Cited by 616
Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making
Greening, L. A., & Bernow, S. (2004) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.017 · Cited by 291
Functional measurement approach to self‐estimation in multiattribute evaluation
Anderson, N. H., & Zalinski, J. (1988) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.3960010402 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Hobbs, B. F.
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1980-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 725-737
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W2004216252
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A COMPARISON OF WEIGHTING METHODS IN POWER PLANT SITING*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1980.tb01173.x
- The paper
- Hobbs, B. F. (1980). A COMPARISON OF WEIGHTING METHODS IN POWER PLANT SITING*. Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1980.tb01173.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
