Evaluating educational services using TOPSIS method with eigne value methodology based on GIS

Document Type : Research Paper


Collage of Economic and Administration, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq


Choosing the right site for creating educational services is a complex problem that involves evaluating many criteria, therefore, there is a need for a multi criteria decision-making tool that can make a reliable, coherent decision. The aim of this paper is to develop a methodological plan that can help decision-makers in determining the locations of the most important schools to build new schools by adopting seven basic criteria: The population’s actual need for schools, the distance between the school and the main street, the proximity to health centers, the number of students in each school, the number of teachers in each school, the proportion of teachers to students, the number of students in each class(.that were selected by a group of specialists and experts. The use of the (Eigen value) method to calculate the relative importance of these criteria, combined with the A multi-criteria decision-making technique (TOPSIS), The final results showed that the relative priority of the criteria is respectively) 46.6%, 15.9%, 15.0%, 5.5%, 4.10%, 8.8%, 4.2%, (And the percentage of schools that were in the four categories, respectively (6%,10%,13%,26%), One of the most important recommendations is to bridge the deficit experienced by the educational services provided within the study area by adopting the results that were reached above, by choosing sites to build new schools that take into account the basic standards.


[1] M.Z. Abidin, R. Rusli and A.M. Shariff, Technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)-entropy methodology for inherent safety design decision making tool, Proc. Eng. 148 (2016), 1043–1050.
[2] H.S. Alsamaray, AHP as multi-criteria decision making technique, empirical study in cooperative learning at Gulf University, Eur. Sci. J. 13 (2017), no. 13, 272–289.
[3] S. Bhattacharya and V. Raju, A Condorcet voting theory based AHP approach for MCDM problems, Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 7 (2017), no. 1.
[4] D. Butler, Facts about Eigenvalues, Textbook, University of California, San Diego, US, 2015.
[5] M. Greenacre, Measures of distance between samples: Euclidean, Multivar. Anal. Ecol. Data (2013), 47–59.
[6] C.C. Hung and L.H. Chen, A fuzzy TOPSIS decision making model with entropy weight under intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Proc. Int. Multi-Conf. Engin. Comput. Sci. IMECS 2009, Hong Kong, 2009, pp. 13–16.
[7] C.L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Methods for multiple attribute decision making, Multiple attribute decision making, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981, pp. 58–191.
[8] G.R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lofti and M. Izadikhah, An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision making problems with interval data, Appl. Math. Comput. 175 (2006).
[9] H.K. Khanna, D.D. Sharma and S.C. Laroiya, Identifying and ranking critical success factors for implementation of total quality management in the Indian manufacturing industry using TOPSIS, Asian J. Qual. 12 (2011), no. 1.
[10] Y. Meng, J. Malczewski and S. Boroushaki, A GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis approach for mapping accessibility patterns of housing development sites: a case study in Canmore, Alberta. J. Geographic Inf. Syst. 3 (2011), no. 1.
[11] D. Ozturk and F. Batuk, Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for spatial decision problems, Proc. ISPRS 1 (2011), no. 4.
[12] Z. Pavic and V. Novoselac, Notes on TOPSIS method, Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. 1 (2013), no. 2.
[13] D. Rojas and J.C. Loubier, Analytical hierarchy process coupled with GIS for land management purposes: A decision-making application, Proc. 22nd Int. Cong. Model. Simul. Model. Simul. Soc. Australia and New Zealand, Australia, 2017.
[14] E. Roszkowska, Multi-criteria decision making models by applying the TOPSIS method to crisp and interval data, Multiple Criteria Decision Mak./Univer. Econ. Katowice 6 (2011), no. 1.
[15] A.Z. Sarraf, A. Mohaghar and H. Bazargani, Developing TOPSIS method using statistical normalization for selecting knowledge management strategies, J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 6 (2013), no. 4.
[16] C.O.S. Sorzano, Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Biomed. Eng. 2013.
[17] K. Teknomo, Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) tutorial, Revoledu 6 (2006), no. 4, 1–20.
[18] O.S. Vaidya and S. Kumar, Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications, Eur. J. Operat. Res. 169 (2006), no. 1, 1–29.
[19] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis and J. Tamosaitiene, Construction risk assessment of small scale objects by applying TOPSIS method with attributes values determined at intervals, Comput. Model. New Technol. 12 (2008), no. 4.
Volume 14, Issue 9
September 2023
Pages 329-336
  • Receive Date: 18 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 13 October 2022
  • Accept Date: 12 November 2022