Fig 1.
The concrete procedure of the hybrid MCDM model for comprehensive evaluation of DE development.
Table 1.
Consistent Indicator (CI).
Table 2.
Results of Fuzzy-Delphi method in screening critical sub-criteria.
Fig 2.
Final indicator system for DE development evaluation.
Table 3.
Objective weights from 2015 to 2020 obtained via AEW method.
Table 4.
The best and the worst indicator chosen by 5 experts.
Table 5.
Results of the significance comparison for the best sub-criterion with others.
Table 6.
Results of the significance comparison for others with the worst sub-criterion.
Table 7.
Subjective weights and consistency ratio.
Table 8.
Integrated weights for all indicators regard of different years.
Fig 3.
Comparison of integrated weights on criteria level in different years.
Fig 4.
The difference of objective weights obtained via the AEW method from 2015 to 2020 and subjective weights obtained via the BWM.
Fig 5.
The utility function values of 31 provincial level regions from 2015 to 2020.
(Reprinted from [41] under a CC BY license, with permission from Professor Sen Guo, original copyright 2019). (a) The utility function values of 31 regions in 2015. (b) The utility function values of 31 regions in 2016. (c) The utility function values of 31 regions in 2017. (d) The utility function values of 31 regions in 2018. (e) The utility function values of 31 regions in 2019. (f) The utility function values of 31 regions in 2020.
Fig 6.
The detailed performance of 31 regions from 2015 to 2020.
(a) Digital infrastructure performance of 31 provincial level regions from 2015 to 2020. (b) Integrated development performance of 31 regions from 2015 to 2020. (c) Social benefits performance of 31 regions from 2015 to 2020. (d) Innovation ability performance of 31 regions from 2015 to 2020. (e) Electronic-commerce performance of 31 regions from 2015 to 2020.
Table 9.
The comparative models for ranking similarity analysis.
Table 10.
Similarity coefficients between the rankings of the established model and 4 comparison models.