2010-2020年公共部门决策方法:系统回顾

IF 0.8 Q4 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Christina Fountzoula, Konstantinos Aravossis
{"title":"2010-2020年公共部门决策方法:系统回顾","authors":"Christina Fountzoula, Konstantinos Aravossis","doi":"10.1155/2022/1750672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to analyze the scientific developments in public sector decision making during the period 2010–2020, to identify which decision-making methods are preferred in different sectors of the public sector, and to determine which integrated methods are applied in this sector. In total, 468 scholarly articles were selected covering a near comprehensive review of the literature, as described below in the search process. We found that 271studies utilized a single method, whereas 180 studies utilized integrated methods. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) was the most common, used by 97 studies. However, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was utilized by 178 studies when counting both simple and integrated methods. It was shown that single methods were more commonly used in education, environment, health, and public services, and integrated methods were relatively favored in economics/finance, energy, site selection, and waste management. We conclude that multiple decision-making methods are used in the public sector, and during2010–2020, there has been a tendency to use unified methods in decision-making processes.","PeriodicalId":44178,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Operations Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision-Making Methods in the Public Sector during 2010–2020: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Christina Fountzoula, Konstantinos Aravossis\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/1750672\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this article is to analyze the scientific developments in public sector decision making during the period 2010–2020, to identify which decision-making methods are preferred in different sectors of the public sector, and to determine which integrated methods are applied in this sector. In total, 468 scholarly articles were selected covering a near comprehensive review of the literature, as described below in the search process. We found that 271studies utilized a single method, whereas 180 studies utilized integrated methods. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) was the most common, used by 97 studies. However, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was utilized by 178 studies when counting both simple and integrated methods. It was shown that single methods were more commonly used in education, environment, health, and public services, and integrated methods were relatively favored in economics/finance, energy, site selection, and waste management. We conclude that multiple decision-making methods are used in the public sector, and during2010–2020, there has been a tendency to use unified methods in decision-making processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Operations Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Operations Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1750672\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Operations Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1750672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文的目的是分析2010-2020年期间公共部门决策的科学发展,以确定哪些决策方法在公共部门的不同部门是首选的,并确定哪些综合方法在该部门应用。总共有468篇学术文章被选中,涵盖了对文献的近乎全面的审查,如下面的搜索过程所述。我们发现有271项研究使用了单一方法,而180项研究使用了综合方法。数据包络分析(DEA)是最常用的方法,共有97项研究使用。然而,在计算简单方法和综合方法时,178项研究使用了层次分析法(AHP)。结果表明,单一方法在教育、环境、卫生和公共服务领域更常用,而综合方法在经济/金融、能源、选址和废物管理领域相对更受青睐。研究发现,公共部门在决策过程中使用了多种决策方法,且2010 - 2020年期间,在决策过程中有使用统一方法的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decision-Making Methods in the Public Sector during 2010–2020: A Systematic Review
The aim of this article is to analyze the scientific developments in public sector decision making during the period 2010–2020, to identify which decision-making methods are preferred in different sectors of the public sector, and to determine which integrated methods are applied in this sector. In total, 468 scholarly articles were selected covering a near comprehensive review of the literature, as described below in the search process. We found that 271studies utilized a single method, whereas 180 studies utilized integrated methods. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) was the most common, used by 97 studies. However, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was utilized by 178 studies when counting both simple and integrated methods. It was shown that single methods were more commonly used in education, environment, health, and public services, and integrated methods were relatively favored in economics/finance, energy, site selection, and waste management. We conclude that multiple decision-making methods are used in the public sector, and during2010–2020, there has been a tendency to use unified methods in decision-making processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Operations Research
Advances in Operations Research OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信