The performance evaluation of local self-government entities is very difficult, as their primary goal is not to make a profit, but to provide services to their residents that will contribute to an increase in their quality of life. In this context, it is necessary to evaluate their activity from the point of view of several available criteria, for which it is possible to find relevant and recognized sources. The presented research works with five criteria, identified by the Institute for Economic and Social Reforms, and aims to quantify the agreement of the results of the assessment of the financial health of territorial self-government entities in 2020 using the TOPSIS technique with a gradually decreasing number of criteria. For this purpose, a total of 26 combinations of criteria are created, with the number of 5, 4, 3 and 2 used criteria, the importance of which is determined based on their absolute variability using the standard deviation method. The results obtained in this way are interpreted using a wide range of mathematical and statistical methods including the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Levene test, Jaccard index and others. As a result, the multi-criteria evaluation of territorial self-government subjects (in our case, district cities) proved to be highly applicable. However, the result itself is largely determined by the structure and number of entry criteria. Based on the performed analyses, we can see that significant differences result from their reduction. Each such reduction has an impact on the overall results, but it is possible to find combinations that defy this conclusion.

Department of Management VŠB Technical University of Ostrava Ostrava Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Serrano Cinca C, Mar Molinero C, Bossi Queiroz A. The measurement of intangible assets in public sector using scaling techniques. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2003; 4(2): 249–275. doi: 10.1108/14691930310472857 DOI

Ter Bogt HJ, van Helden GJ, van Der Kolk B. Challenging the NPM ideas about performance management–Selectivity and differentiation in outcome-oriented performance budgeting. Financial Accountability & Management. 2015; 3(3): 287–315. doi: 10.1111/faam.12058 DOI

Summermatter L, Siegel JP. Defining Performance in Public Management: Defining Performance in Public Management: Variations over time and space. 2009. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Defining-Performance-in-Public-Management%3A-over-and-SummermatterSiegel/9d604811759ce3e4b8e1d03f3f086ce31bbf8dd9.

Peková J, Jetmar M, Toth P. Veřejný sektor, teorie a praxe v ČR. Prague: Wolters Kluwer; 2019.

Muñoz FY, Martos LP, Pavón NP. Rethinking andalusian RIS3 strategy design through regional benchmarking. Journal of Regional Research. 2021; 51: 5–30. doi: 10.38191/IIRR-JORR.21.017 DOI

Miceikiené A, Skauroné L, Krikštolaitis R. Assessment of the Financial Autonomy of Rural Municipalities. Economies. 2021; 9(3): 105. doi: 10.3390/economies9030105 DOI

Hallerberg M, Strauch R, Von Hagen J. The Design of Fiscal Rules and Forms of Governance in European Union Countries. 2004. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp419.pdf.

Selcuk Kilic H, Selcuk Yalcin A. Comparison of municipalities considering environmental sustainability via neutrosophic DEMATEL based TOPSIS. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 2021; 75: 100827. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2020.100827 DOI

Douša M. Trvalo udržateľný rozvoj miest slovenskej republiky. Košice: UPJŠ; 2021.

Mihaliková E. Finančná situácia a výkonnosť v samospráve. Košice: UPJŠ; 2021.

Papcunová V, Balážová E. Majetok obcí. Nitra: SAPV; 2006.

Kraftová I. Finanční analýza municipální firmy. Prague: C. H. Beck; 2002.

Vavrek R. Weight of Topsis Technique Parameter and its Impact on Assessment of Municipalities in Slovak Republic. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice. 2017; 24(39): 236–246.

Vavrek R, Adamišin P, Kotulič R. Multi-criteria evaluation of municipalities in Slovakia–Case study in selected districts. Polish Journal of Management Studies. 20217; 16(2): 290–301.

INEKO. Ako hospodária obce a VÚC. 2022. http://www.hospodarenieobci.sk/.

Zavadskas EK, Mardani A, Turskis Z, Jusoh A, Nor KM. Development of TOPSIS Method to Solve Complicated Decision-Making Problems–An Overview on Developments from 2000 to 2015. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2016; 15(3): 645–682. doi: 10.1142/S0219622016300019 DOI

Maccrimmon K. Decision making Among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 1968.

Brauers WK, Zavadskas EK. Robustness of the Multi-Objective MOORA Method with a Test for the Facilities Sector. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2009; 15(2): 352–375. doi: 10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.352-375 DOI

Hui CL, Masud A. Multiple Objective Decision Making—Methods and Applications. A State-of-the-Art Survey. Heidelberg: Berlin: Springer; 1979.

Guitouni A, Martel JM. Tentative Guidelines to Help Choosing an Appropriate MCDA Method. European Journal of Operational Research. 1998; 109(2): 501–521. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00073-3 DOI

Zanakis S, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S. Multi-Attribute Decision Making: A Simulation Comparison of Select Methods. European Journal of Operational Research. 1998; 107(3): 507–529. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00147-1 DOI

Olson DL. Comparison of Three Multicriteria Methods to Predict Known Outcomes. European Journal of Operational Research. 2001; 130(3): 576–587. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00416-6 DOI

Roubens M. Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research. 1982; 10(1): 51–55. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(82)90131-X DOI

Korhonen P. A hierarchical interactive method for ranking alternatives with multiple qualitative criteria. European Journal of Operational Research. 1986; 24(2): 265–276.

Korhonen P, Wallenius J, Zionts S. Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem Using Convex Cones. Management Science. 1984; 30(11): 1336–1345.

Marcotte O, Soland RM. An Interactive Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for Multiple Criteria Optimization. Management Science. 1986; 32(1): 61–75. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.1.61 DOI

Olson DL, Fliedner G, Currie K. Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 1995; 82(3): 522–539. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(93)E0340-4 DOI

Van Huylenbroeck G. The conflict analysis method: bridging the gap between ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and ORESTE. European Journal of Operational Research. 1995; 82(3): 490–502. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)98195-6 DOI

Vavrek R. Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2019; 18(6): 1821–1843. doi: 10.1142/S021962201950041X DOI

Ciardello F, Genovese A. A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Annals of Operation Research. 2023; 325(2): 967–994. doi: 10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w DOI

Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004; 156(2): 445–455. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1 DOI

Chang TY, Ku CCY. Fuzzy filtering ranking method for multi-criteria decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2021; 156: 107217. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107217 DOI

Kumar P, Sarkar P. A comparison of the AHP and TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making tools for prioritizing sub-watersheds using morphometric parameters’ analysis. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. 2022. 8(3): 3973–3983. doi: 10.1007/s40808-021-01334-x DOI

Tramarico CL, Mizuno D, Salomon VAP, Marins FAS. Analytic hierarchy process and supply chain management: A bibliometric study. Procedia Computer Science. 2015; 55: 441–450. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.005 DOI

Ilbahar E, Cebi S, Kahraman C. A state-of-the-art review on multi-attribute renewable energy decision making. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2019; 25: 18–33. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2019.04.014 DOI

Rozentale L, Blumberga D. Methods to Evaluate Electricity Policy from Climate Perspective. Environmental and Climate Technologies. 2019; 23(2): 131–147. doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2019-0060 DOI

Suharevska K, Blumberga D. Progress in Renewable Energy Technologies: Innovation Potential in Latvia. Environmental and Climate Technologies. 2019; 23(2): 47–63. doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2019-0054 DOI

Siksnelyte I, Zavadskas EK, Bausys R, Streimikiene D. Implementation of EU energy policy priorities in the Baltic Sea Region countries: Sustainability assessment based on neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method. Energy Policy. 2019; 125: 90–102. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.013 DOI

BDjordjević B, Krmac E. Evaluation of energy-environment efficiency of European transport sectors: Non-radial DEA and TOPSIS approach. Energies. 2019; 12(15): 2907. doi: 10.3390/en12152907 DOI

Vavrek R, Bečica J. Capital City as a Factor of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis- Application on Transport Companies in the Czech Republic. Mathematics. 2020; 8(10): 1765. doi: 10.3390/math8101765 DOI

Vavrek R, Bečica J. Similarity of TOPSIS results based on criterion variability: Case study on public economic. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17(8): e0271951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271951 PubMed DOI PMC

Bečica J, Vavrek R, Galecka M, Smolny K. Application of Multi-Criteria Analysis on Theatres’ Efficiency–Czech and Polish Comparative Case Studies. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration. 2021; 21(3): 423–455. doi: 10.31297/hkju DOI

Chang ChH Lin JJ, Lin JH Chiang MCh. Domestic open-end equity mutual fund performance evaluation using extended TOPSIS method with different distance approaches. Expert Systems with Applications. 2010; 37(6): 4642–4649. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.044 DOI

Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications. 2012; 39(17): 13051–13069. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056 DOI

Luan B, Yin R, Xu P, Wang X, Yang X, Zhang L, et al.. Evaluating Green Stormwater Infrastructure strategies efficiencies in a rapidly urbanizing catchment using SWMM-based TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 233: 680–691. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.028 DOI

Ma L, Long J, Chen K, Tu S, Zhang Y, Liao L. Green growth efficiency of Chinese cities and its spatio-temporal pattern. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2019; 146: 441–451. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.049 DOI

Wu Y, Xu C, Zhang B, Tao Y, Li X, Chu HF, et al.. Sustainability performance assessment of wind power coupling hydrogen storage projects using a hybrid evaluation technique based on interval type-2 fuzzy set. Energy. 2019; 179: 1176–1190. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.195 DOI

Lamba M, Munjal G, Gigras Y. Ranking of Classification Algorithm in Breast Cancer Based On Estrogen Receptor Using MCDM Technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(2): 803–827. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500523 DOI

Jeni Seles Martina D, Deepa G. Operations on Multi-Valued Neutrosophic Matrices and Its Application to Neutrosophic Simplified-TOPSIS Method. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(1): 37–56. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500572 DOI

Pavic Z, Novoselac V. Notes on TOPSIS Method. International Journal Of Engineering Research and General Science. 2013; 1(2): 5–12.

Kandakoglu A, Celik M, Akgun I. A multi-methodological approach for shipping registry selection in maritime transportation industry. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 2008; 49: 586–597. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2008.09.001 DOI

Shih H, Shyur H, Lee ES. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 2007; 45: 801–813.

Bhutia PW, Phipon R. Application of AHP and TOPSIS Method for Supplier Selection Problem. Journal of Engineering. 2012; 2(10): 43–50.

Zyoud SH, Fuchs-Hanusch D. A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems with Applications. 2017; 8: 158–181. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016 DOI

Noryani M, Sapuan SM, Mastura MT. Multi-criteria decision-making tools for material selection of natural fibre composites: A review. Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Sciences. 2018; 12(1): 3330–3353. doi: 10.15282/jmes.12.1.2018.5.0299 DOI

Seyedmohammadi J, Sarmadian F, Jafarzadeh AA, Ghorbani MA, Shahbazi F. Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma. 2017; 310: 178–190. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012 DOI

Dutta D, Dao SD, Martínez L, Goh M. An evolutionary strategic weight manipulation approach for multi-attribute decision making: TOPSIS method. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 2021; 129: 64–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2020.11.004 DOI

Pekár J, Furková A. Prípadové štúdie z viackriteriálneho rozhodovania. Bratislava: Ekonóm; 2014.

Hatefi MA. A Typology Scheme for the Criteria Weighting Methods in MADM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(4): 1439–1488. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500985 DOI

Liu J, Yin Y. An integrated method for sustainable energy storing node optimization selection in China. Energy Conversion and Management. 2019; 199: 112049. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112049 DOI

Keršuliene V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (Swara). Journal of Business Economics & Management. 2010; 11(2): 243–258. doi: 10.3846/jbem.2010.12 DOI

Kendall MG. Rank Correlation Methods. London: Griffin; 1970.

Fisher RA, Yates F. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. London: Oliver and Boyd; 1963.

Zavadskas EK. Multiple Criteria Evaluation of Technological Decisions of Construction. Moscow: Moscow Civil Engineering Institute; 1987.

Cambazoğlu S, Yal GP, Eker AM, Şen O, Akgün H. Geothermal resource assessment of the Gediz Graben utilizing TOPSIS methodology. Geothermics. 2019; 80: 92–102. doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.01.005 DOI

Diaz F, Cilinskis E. Use of Multi-Criteria TOPSIS Analysis to Define a Decarbonization Path in Colombia. Environmental and Climate Technologies. 2019; 23(2): 110–128. doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2019-0083 DOI

Polikarpova I, Lauka D, Blumberga D, Vigants E. Multi-Criteria Analysis to Select Renewable Energy Solution for District Heating System. Environmental and Climate Technologies. 2019; 23(3): 101–109. doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2019-0082 DOI

Indzere Z, Melvere M, Muizniece I, Blumberga D. The Evaluation of Factors Affecting Bioeconomy Development Using Transdisciplinary Approach. Environmental and Climate Technologies. 2019; 23(3): 360–369. doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2019-0101 DOI

Wang D, Shi Y, Wan K. Integrated evaluation of the carrying capacities of mineral resource-based cities considering synergy between subsystems. Ecological Indicators. 2020; 108: 105701. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105701 DOI

Paradowski B, Shekhovtsov A, Bączkiewicz A, Kizielewicz B, Sałabun W. Similarity Analysis of Methods for Objective Determination of Weights in Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems. Symmetry. 2021; 13: 1874. doi: 10.3390/sym13101874 DOI

Ouerghi H, Mourali O, Zagrouba E. Non-subsampled shearlet transform based MRI and PET brain image fusion using simplified pulse coupled neural network and weight local features in YIQ colour space. IET Image Processing. 2018; 12(10): 1873. doi: 10.1049/iet-ipr.2017.1298 DOI

Yuan J, Luo X. Regional energy security performance evaluation in China using MTGS and SPA-TOPSIS. Science of The Total Environment. 2019; 696: 133817. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133817 PubMed DOI

Zhang L, Zhang L, Xu Y, Zhou P, Yeh CH. Evaluating urban land use efficiency with interacting criteria: An empirical study of cities in Jiangsu China. Land Use Policy. 2020; 90: 104292. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104292 DOI

Vavrek R, Chovancová J. Assessment of economic and environmental energy performance of EU countries using CV-TOPSIS technique. Ecological Indicators. 2019; 106: 105519. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105519 DOI

Singla A, Sing Ahuja I, Sing Sethi A. Comparative Analysis of Technology Push Strategies Influencing Sustainable Development in Manufacturing Industries Using Topsis and Vikor Technique. International Journal for Quality Research. 2018; 12(1): 129–146. doi: 10.18421/IJQR12.01-08 DOI

Pekkaya M, Zilifli V. A Preliminary Study on Generating Criteria Priorities Series via AHP for Decision Process of Commercial Credit Applications in Turkey. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(6): 1843–1846. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500894 DOI

Więckowski J, Kizielewicz B, Paradowski B, Shekhovtsov A, Sałabun W. Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Identify Global and Local Importance Weights of Decision Criteria. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(6): 1867–1892. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500948 DOI

Hatefi MA. A Typology Scheme for the Criteria Weighting Methods in MADM, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(4): 1439–1488. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500985 DOI

Ay S, Can GF, Toktas P. A Novel Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach Proposal Based On Kemira-M With Four Criteria Groups International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(3): 991–1032. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500614 DOI

Davoudabadi R, Meysam Mousavi S, Zavadskas EK, Dorfeshan Y. Introducing MOWSCER Method for Multiple Criteria Group Decision-Making: A New Method of Weighting in the Structure of Cause and Effect Relationships. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(2): 641–677. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500663 DOI

Aytaç Adalı E, Öztaş T, Özçil A, Zeynep Öztaş T, Tuş A. A New Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method Under Neutrosophic Environment: ARAS Method With Single-Valued Neutrosophic Numbers. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(1): 57–87. doi: 10.1142/S0219622022500456 DOI

Dawood KA, Zaidan AA, Sharif KY, Ghani AA, Zulzalil H, Zaidan BB. Novel Multi-Perspective Usability Evaluation Framework for Selection of Open Source Software Based on BWM and Group VIKOR Techniques. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. 2023; 22(1): 187–277. doi: 10.1142/S0219622021500139 DOI

Yalcin E, Unlu U. A Multi-Criteria Performance Analysis of Initial Public Offering (IPO) Firms Using Critic and Vikor Methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2018; 24(2): 534–560. doi:10.3846/20294913.2016.1213201. DOI

Anděl J. Základy matematické statistiky. Prague: Matfyz; 2007.

Cyhelský L, Kahounová J, Hindls R. Elementární statistická analýza. Prague: Management Press; 2001.

Hindls R, Hronová S, Seger J. Statistika pro economy. Prague: Professional Publishing; 2002.

Pacáková V. et al.. Štatistické metódy pre ekonómov. Bratislava: Iura Edition; 2009.

Vavrek R. Effective Management Analysis of Financial Resources of Municipalities in SR and CR. Presov: University of Presov in Presov; 2015.

Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika. 1965; 52: 591–611.

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. In: Kirch W. (eds) Encyclopedia of Public Health. Dordrech: Springer, Dordrecht; 2008.

Test Kolmogorov–Smirnov. In: The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics. New York; 2008.

Levene H. Robust Tests for Equality of Variances. In: Contributions to Probability and Statistics. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 1960.

Kusendová D, Solčianska J- Testovanie priestorovej autokorelácie nezamestnanosti absolventov vysokých škôl okresov Slovenska. http://gis.vsb.cz/GIS_Ostrava/GIS_Ova_2007/sbornik/Referaty/Sekce6/solcianska_kusendova_po_recenzii.pdf.

Zhang T, Lin G. On Moran’s I coefficient under heterogeneity. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 2016; 95: 83–94. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2015.09.010 DOI

Slavík V, Grác R, Klobučník M. Priestorová autokorelácia–metóda vymedzovania a klasifikácie regiónov v kontexte sociálno-ekonomickej regionalizácie Slovenskej republiky. Sociológia ‐ Slovak Sociological Review. 2011; 43(2): 183–204.

Vavrek R. Metodológia, graf a číslo. Košice: Equlibria; 2022.