This page is published in English.
Ranking
LOCAL-OWA - neighbourhood-adaptive Ordered Weighted Averaging
Range-sensitive neighbourhood-local OWA - criterion weights w^q_k scale with local criterion variance within each spatial neighbourhood; order weights λ_k remain global, encoding a single risk attitude applied everywhere
Malczewski, J., Liu, X.2014doi:10.1080/19475683.2013.859222 ↗
Overview
V(A^{lo}_i) reflects criterion performance, the local importance of each criterion within the alternative's neighbourhood (range-sensitivity), and the global risk attitude encoded in λ. The score amplifies LOCAL-WLC: an alternative that excels on the criterion that is most locally variable AND most favoured by the order weights (rank-1 with high λ_1) gains a disproportionate boost. Always inspect the local weight table (G.local_weights), the range-ratio table (G.range_ratios), and the ORness scalar to understand what drove the ranking.
- Output
- locally-adapted, risk-adjusted normalised utility, higher is better
- Data
- Crisp, complete numeric + neighbourhood assignments
- Weights
- Needs a weight source
- Size
- 4+ alternatives, 2-8 criteria works best
- Used for
- Residential quality evaluation, urban vulnerability assessment, land suitability analysis, ecological zoning, GIS-based environmental planning
Fits when / Look elsewhere when
Fits when
- •Combines two independent spatial modelling dimensions: range-sensitive local criterion weights (spatial heterogeneity) + global ORness (risk attitude)
- •Strictly generalises LOCAL-WLC (recovered when λ=1/n) and OWA (recovered when local ranges = global ranges)
- •Local weights are automatically derived from data - no extra subjective input beyond global w_k and λ
- •Score is in [0,1] by construction (normalised OWA)
Assumptions to verify
- Neighbourhood partition is meaningful (not arbitrary zone boundaries)
- Each neighbourhood contains at least 2 alternatives
- Range-sensitivity principle holds locally: criteria with wider neighbourhood spread should receive higher local weight
- A single global risk attitude (ORness) is appropriate - if risk attitude must vary spatially, use SOWA
- Global normalisation is appropriate (all alternatives in same measurement context)
Limitations
- •Neighbourhood definition choice affects local weights - critical and potentially subjective
- •Global λ applies the same risk attitude everywhere; if risk attitude must vary spatially, use SOWA instead
- •Denominator is alternative-specific (not neighbourhood-specific) - subtle but important implementation detail
- •Requires at least 2 alternatives per neighbourhood; zero local range is a degenerate case
Edge cases and pitfalls
The denominator in F5 is alternative-specific, not neighbourhood-specific. For two alternatives in the same neighbourhood, the denominator can differ if their sort permutations σ_i differ (i.e. if their best criterion differs). This is a subtle but critical implementation point.
Cross-neighbourhood score comparisons are valid because global normalisation (F1) precedes local weight adaptation. Never apply per-neighbourhood normalisation instead of global.
Neighbourhood boundary choice affects local weights (r^q_k) and thus amplifies or suppresses the ORness effect. A neighbourhood partition that makes all local ranges equal to global ranges collapses LOCAL-OWA to standard OWA.
How to cite
Malczewski, J.; Liu, X. (2014). Local ordered weighted averaging in GIS-based multicriteria analysis. Annals of GIS. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2013.859222
System ID, as it appears in reports and the API
LOCAL-OWA