Experimental Evaluation of Multiple Criteria Decision Models for Application to Water Resources PLANNING1 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning
Water Resources Research, 1992
Many multiple criteria decision making methods have been proposed and applied to water planning. Their purpose is to provide information on tradeoffs among objectives and to help users articulate value judgments in a systematic, coherent, and documentable manner. The wide variety of available techniques confuses potential users• causing inappropriate matching of methods with problems. Experiments in which water planners apply more than one multicriteria procedure to realistic problems can help dispel this confusion by testing method appropriateness, ease of use, and validity. We summarize one such experiment where U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel used several methods to screen urban water supply plans. The methods evaluated include goal programming, ELECTRE I, additive value functions, multiplicative utility functions, and three techniques for choosing weights (direct rating, indifference tradeoff, and the analytical hierarchy process). Among the conclusions we reach are the following. First, experienced planners generally prefer simpler, more transparent methods. Additive value functions are favored. Yet none of the methods are endorsed by a majority of the participants; many preferred to use no formal method at all. Second, there is strong evidence that rating, the most commonly applied weight selection method, is likely to lead to weights that fail to represent the trade-offs that users are willing to make among criteria. Finally, we show that decisions can be as or more sensitive to the method used as to which person applies it. Therefore, if who chooses is important, then so too is how a choice is made. The first is to provide information on trade-offs by displaying how options perform on the various criteria. Trade-off displays can help users to better understand the nature of the choices they face. The information can also be used to eliminate alternatives that are dominated in every criterion by another alternative. This general role is especially important in public sector problems. This is because the political process needs information, not a single "answer" based on assumptions and value judgments more appropriately left to negotiation among the interests involved [Cohon, 1978]. The second is to help users articulate and apply their values to the problem rationally and consistently and to document the process. The object is to inspire confidence in the soundness of the decision without being unnecessarily difficult. An example is the use of additive value functions to rank alternatives. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 gave strong impetus to this use of these methods in the United States because of court decisions that ruled that recommendations made in environmental impact statements must be based on a systematic balancing of the effects. A related application of multicriteria methods is as an aid to negotiation: they can quantify and communicate the values Copyright 1992 by the American Geophysical Union. Paper number 92WR00712. 0043-1397/92/92WR-00712505.00 held by different people or interest groups [Brown, 1984, 1990]. Although multiobjective planning is no longer enshrined in U.S. federal guidelines for water planning [U.S. Water Resources Council, I983], water planners still use multicriteria methods for both of these purposes [Hobbs et al., 1989]. In this paper we focus on multicriteria methods for eliciting and applying value judgments. In selecting a multicriteria method for this purpose the user should be concerned with whether the method yields the information desired, its appropriateness to how the organization makes decisions, how easy the method is to use, and its validity. By "valid," we mean that the method is likely to yield choices that accurately reflect the values of users. A related concern is whether the results of different methods significantly differ. If the answer is "yes," then validity is crucial. Users then need to think about which method is likely to yield the most valid results. Unfortunately, answers to these questions are disputed. Each method has its champions, and their conflicting claims confuse potential users. To help with this problem, researchers have compiled methods and compared their theoretical properties [e.g., Chankong and Haimes, 1983; Cohon, 1978; Goicoechea et al., 1982; Hobbs, 1979]. But theoretical arguments cannot resolve all disputes concerning method performance. Experiments are often better than reasoning in determining (1) user perceptions of the appropriateness of techniques, (2) difficulty of use, (3) the relative validity of methods as actually applied, and (4) whether choice of method makes a practical difference. Ideal experiments in multicriteria decision making, whether in-1767
Multi Criteria Decision Making in Water Resources Management
2014
Background: Today, using multi-criteria decision making, there is no more need to solely apply financial and profitable amount, but several indicators (as quantitative and qualitative criteria) such as political, social and environmental criteria could be used to select the best choice. Objective: In this study two different models are used for optimal planning of Iran's water resources of Zarrin-Gol basin (as a case study). Results: a model of water resource programming via WEAP software was selected. Options for decision making in sections of resource management and the basin consumption were implemented to the model and the results obtained from the output of WEAP were compared to each other. Plan options were chosen so that considering the facilities and potential of the basin it could be accountable for important values and standards of managers and beneficiaries. After modeling decision-making options, seven major standards in water resource issues were selected and weighted using Entropy technique. Conclusion: the decision alternatives were evaluated according to these criteria in the form of a decision matrix. Finally, using TOPSIS model as a multi criteria decision making model, the options were scored and the best option was selected from among the available options. The results suggest that the increase in summer cultivation of agricultural network in the region was selected as the preferred option, suggesting more attention to the summer cultivation and the possibility of further development in the agricultural sector in the basic plan.
Multicriteria and Social Choice Methods in Assessing Water Management Plans
2017
Selection of a good water management plan for the river basin is a complex decision-making problem because interests of stakeholders are usually confronted, rarely in complete agreement. If water committee has to emulate interest and power of key parties, decision-making process can be organized in many different ways, depending on adopted methodology for deriving decisions and formalizing setup to implement solutions. Group context brings individuals with different background, attitude and (in)consistencies they will demonstrate while evaluating and/or judging options. In this paper, we show how two methodologically distinct tools can efficiently support group decision making at a group and sub-group level within committee. We propose to firstly use analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to rank management plans, and secondly, to use voting method Borda Count (BC) for final ranking of plans selected by post analysis of the AHP results. Illustrative example from Brazil is used to show use...
Water Resources Management, 2015
Recent increases in life loss, destruction and property damages caused by flood at global scale, have inevitably highlighted the pivotal considerations of sustainable development through flood risk management. Throughout the paper, a practical framework to prioritize the flood risk management alternatives for Gorganrood River in Iran was applied. Comparison between multi criteria decision making (MCDM) models with different computational mechanisms provided an opportunity to obtain the most conclusive model. Non-parametric stochastic tests, aggregation models and sensitivity analysis were employed to investigate the most suitable ranking model for the case study. The outcomes of these mentioned tools illustrated that ELimination and Et Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE III), a non-compensatory model, stood superior to the others. Moreover, Eigen-vector's performance for assigning weights to the criteria was proved by the application of Kendall Tau Correlation Coefficient Test. From the technical point of view, the highest priority among the criteria belonged to a social criteria named Expected Average Number of Casualties per year. Furthermore, an alternative with pre and post disaster effectiveness was determined as the top-rank measure. This alternative constituted flood insurance plus flood warning system. The present research illustrated that ELECTRE III could deal with the complexity of flood management criteria. Hence, this MCDM model would be an effective tool for dealing with complex prioritization issues. Keywords Flood risk management. Decision making. Iran. Non-parametric stochastic tests. Aggregation methods. Sensitivity analysis Abbreviations MCDM Multi criteria decision making VIKOR VlseKriterijumska optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje TOPSIS Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution ELECTRE I and ELECTRE III Elimination et choice translating reality Water Resour Manage
An Integrated Multicriteria Analysis Tool for Evaluating Water Resource Management Strategies
Water is involved, directly or indirectly, with many activities and needs that have to be met. The large scale and importance of water projects, the investments needed, the difficulty in predicting the results, and the irreversible character of the decisions have made decision making a complex scientific process. This paper presents a multicriteria analysis (MCA) tool for evaluating water resource management (WRM) strategies and selecting the most appropriate among them, using as an example a Greek area based on agricultural economy, which faces water scarcity problems. Seven alternative strategies were evaluated under hydrological and economic criteria. Four techniques were used-multi attribute utility theory (MAUT), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE), and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)-based on the main MCA techniques (utility theory, analytical hierarchy, outranking theory, and classification theory, respectively), to compare their performance, and to reach the most appropriate and 'fitting' method for the examined problem. The weightings extracted from two samples, (i) a sample of decision makers/stakeholders and (ii) a group of WRM experts, were used to compare the results. The process was carried out for each questionnaire, and thus the model shows the uncertainty of each sample group and of each method, as well as the overall uncertainty. The results illustrate the reality of the WRM problems of the watershed, enlighten their roots, and have further strengthened our conviction that the cooperation between the scientific community and the authorities is vital for more sustainable and efficient WRM.
A New Approach To Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Water Resources
Spatial comparison of floodplain management alternatives in a raster GIS environment is conceptualized as a multi criteria decision making problem. A spatial MCDM technique is developed by combining the conventional Compromise Programming technique with GIS technology. This new technique is referred to herein as Spatial Compromise Programming (SCP). The main contribution of the proposed technique is its ability to address uneven spatial distribution of criteria values in the evaluation and ranking of alternatives. SCP is used to determine the best alternative for each geographic location within the region of interest. The analysis of floodplain management strategies for the Red River Valley region is chosen as a case study to illustrate application of the Spatial Compromise Programming technique.
Decision analysis for water resources planning
Omega, 1982
Quantitative decision analysis techniques were applied to a particular problem of v~ater resources planning: how should the water supply of the metropolitan Boston area be increased to meet the projected demand for 1990? The analytic approach used a multiattribute value model to evaluate several alternatives from the points of view of different interested constituencies. The model was presented to a number of individuals and groups with responsibility for recommending policy, and they indicated an interest in the findings.
Decision-making processes in water resources projects are often multi-criteria, in which numerous techniques have been developed for evaluation of those projects. The main concern in utilizing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques is that, di↵erent techniques may result di↵erent outputs, therefore, selecting an appropriate technique is crucially important. Most decision makers prefer simple and transparent decision-making approaches which simultaneously show the trade-o↵s among the di↵erent decisions. This study utilizes multiple comparison of MCDM techniques to interpret the similarities and dissimilarities of those methods and their consequences in the same project which is multi-criteria management of stochastic floods in the Sunland Park area (Diez Lagos) in southern New Mexico. The objectives of the Diez Lagos flood control system are flood damage reduction (FDR), increasing usable water supply (WS) from stochastic floods, E. coli remediation (ER) from storm water , riparian habitat restoration (RHR), and Human health and safety (HHS) in the study area. For all techniques, we simulated the same decision in the form of decision matrix with m alternatives (flood control rules) against n criteria (FDR, WS, ER, RHR, HHS and related Costs). We investigate six techniques: TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), VIKOR (in Serbian: VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje), SAW (Simple Additive Weights), AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ELEC-TRE (Elimination et Choice Translating Reality), and Compromise Programming (CP). The evaluation of numerical results of this study can lead to selecting the best decisionmaking technique which can be extended to the other projects.
Case Study: Application of Multicriteria Decision Making to Urban Water Supply
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management-asce, 2005
Presented herein is an attempt to put into practice the multicriteria decision making technique of compromise programming for a real urban water management case study in the city of Zahidan in Iran. Zahidan, the capital of Sistan and Balouchistan Province, faces serious water problems in terms of both quality and quantity. To satisfy future water demands, a long-distance water transmission project is being implemented. Compromise programming is applied to aiding decision makers in selecting the best possible alternatives for distribution of both available and the transmitted water in the city. The results obtained reveal that the method is capable of being employed by decision-makers for comprehensive urban water management studies.