تصمیم‌گیری چندشاخصه در رتبه‌بندی طرحهای ﺗﺄمین آب شهری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد سازه‌های هیدرولیکی، دانشکده عمران، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران

2 استاد دانشکده عمران، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران

چکیده

رشد سریع جمعیت در شهرها و افزایش تقاضای آب شهری (شرب و بهداشتی) نیازمند اجرای طرحهای بلند مدت تأمین آب شهری است. بنابراین استفاده از مدل‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندشاخصه در ارزیابی طرحهای تأمین آب شهری ضروری است. روشهای متعددی برای تصمیم‌گیری چندشاخصه بسط داده شده‌اند. هدف از این مطالعه، بررسی کاربرد تصمیم‌گیری چندشاخصه در تأمین آب شهری و تأثیر انتخاب روش تصمیم‌گیری در رتبه‌بندی نهایی گزینه‌هاست. سه روش تصمیم‌گیری میانگین‌گیری وزنی مرتب شده استقرایی، تخصیص خطی و TOPSIS برای بررسی طرحهای تأمین آب شهری زاهدان، به عنوان یک مطالعه موردی مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند. نتایج بررسی نشان می‌دهد که انتخاب روش تصمیم‌گیری تأثیر بسزایی در رتبه‌بندی گزینه‌ها داشته و برای یک مسئله یکسان، انتخاب هر روش از روشهای موجود ممکن است نتایج متفاوتی در برداشته باشد. لذا ضروری است روش مناسب تصمیم‌گیری با توجه به شرایط مسئله، نوع داده‌ها و ارزیابی‌های صورت گرفته اتخاذ و گزینه نهایی پس از بررسی نتایج حاصل از روشهای مختلف انتخاب گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Multi-attribute Decision-making to Rank Urban Water Supply Schemes

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hojat Mianabadi 1
  • Abbas Afshar 2
1 M.Sc., in Hydraulic Structures, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Iran Univ. of Science & Technology
2 Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Iran Univ. of Science and Technology
چکیده [English]

The increasing trend in (urban) water demand due to population growth places a growing stress on available water resources and calls for an efficient and acceptable long-term management of the resources. Hence, application of multi-attribute decision-making systems is essential for evaluating urban water supply schemes. A number of multi-attribute decision-making methods have been developed. This paper aims to survey the application of such systems to urban water supply problems and the effects of each multi-attribute decision-making method selected on the final ranking of alternatives. Three methods of Induced Ordered Weighted Averaging (IOWA), Linear Assignment (LA), and TOPSIS have been considered for a real urban water management case study in the city of Zahedan in Iran. The results revealed that the multi-attribute decision-making method selected had a considerable effect on the final ranking of a finite set of alternatives such that different MADM techniques yielded different results for the same problem. It is, therefore, necessary to select the method according to the specific characteristics of the problem at hand, type of data available, and the assessments made. The ultimate alternative must be, thus, selected once evaluations have been made of the results obtained from applying different decision-making methods to the problem.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Multi attribute decision making
  • Urban Water Supply
  • Induced Ordered Weighted Averaging (IOWA)
  • Linear Assignment (LA)
  • TOPSIS
1- Pohekar, S. D., and Ramachandran, M. (2004). “Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8, 365-381.

2-  اصغرپور، م. ج. (1381). تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره، چاپ دوم، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

3- Hyde, K. M., Maier, H. R., and Colby, C. B. (2005). “A distance-based uncertainty analysis approach to multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource decision making.” Journal of Environmental Management, 77, 278-290.

4- Tecle, A., Fogel, M., and Duckstein, L. (1988). “Multicriterion selection of wastewater management alternatives.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 114, 383-398.

5- Netto, O. C., Parent, E., and Duckstein, L. (1996). “Multicriterion design of long-term water supply in southern France.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 122, 403-413.

6- Anand Raj, P. A., and Kumar, D. N. (1996). “Ranking of river basin alternatives using ELECTRE.” Hydrological Sciences, 41, 697-713.

7- Abrishamchi, A., and Tajrishi, M. (1997). “Multicriteria decision making in irrigation planning.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 79-88.

8- Kheireldin, K., and Fahmy, H. (2001). “Multi-criteria approach for evaluating long term water strategies.” Water International, 26, 527-535.

9- Choi, D. J., and Park, H. (2001). “Analysis of water privatization scenarios in Korea with multi-criteria decision making techniques.” Journal of Water Supply Research and Technology-AQUA, 50, 335-352.

10- Chuntian, C., and Chau, K. W. (2002). “Decision aiding three-person multi-objective conflict decision in reservoir flood control.” European Journal of Operational Research, 142, 625-631.

11- Abrishamchi, A., Ebrahimian, A., and Tajrishi, M. (2005). “Case study: Application of multicriteria decision making to urban water supply.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 131 (4), 326-335.

12- Hajkowicz, S., Young, M., Wheeler, S., MacDonald, D., and Young, D. (2000). Supporting decisions: understanding natural resource management assessment techniques, CSIRO Land and Water 2000.

13- Xu, Z. (2006). “Induced uncertain linguistic OWA operators applied to group decision making.” Information Fusion, 7, 231-238.

14- Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., and Chiclana, F. (2002). “A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures.” IEEE, Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 32(3), 394-402.

15- Larichev, O. I., Moshkovich, H. M. (1995). “ZAPROS-LM-a method and system for ordering multiattribute alternatives.” European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 503-521.

16- Roy, B., and Vincke, P. (1981). “Multicriteria analysis: survey and new directions.” European Journal of Operational Research, 8, 207-218.

17- Huang, C. L., and Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision-making: methods and applications, Springer, Berlin.

18- Wang, Y. M. (2005). “On fuzzy multiattribute decision-making models and methods with incomplete preference information. ” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 151, 285-301.

19- Wang, Y. M., and Fu, G. W. (1993). “A new method of determining the weight coefficients among multiple attributes.” J. Tsinghua Univ., 33 (6), 97-102.

20- Wang, Y. M., and Parkan, C. (2005). “A general multiple attribute decision-making approach for integrating subjective preferences and objective information.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Article in press.

21- Barron, H., and Schmidt, P. (1988). “Sensitivity analysis of additive multiattribute value models.” Operations Research, 36, 122-127.

22- Triantaphyllou, E., and Sanchez, A. (1997). “A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods.” Decision Sciences, 28, 151-194.

23- Ringuest, J. L. (1997). “Lp-metric sensitivity analysis for single and multiattribute decision analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 563-570.

24- Smolikova, R., and Wachowiak, M. P. (2002). “Aggregation operators for selection problems.” Fuzzy Set and Systems, 131, 23-34.

25- Yager, R. R. (1988). “On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making.” IEEE, Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 8, 183-190.

26- Yager, R. R. (1993). “Families of OWA operators.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 59, 125-148.

27- Yager, R. R. (1994). “Aggregation operators and fuzzy systems modeling.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 67, 129-145.

28- Yager, R. R. (1996). “Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators.’ International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 11, 49-73.

29- Yager, R. R., and Filev, D. P. (1999). “Induced ordered weighted averaging operators.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- Part B 29, 141-150.

30- Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

31- ضرغامی، م.، اردکانیان، ر.، و مدرس یزدی، م. (1386). اولویت‌بندی طرحهای انتقال بین حوضه‌ای آب با استفاده از عملگر تجمیع میانگین وزنی مرتب شده استقرایی. م. علمی- پژوهشی عمران شریف، 37، 99-109.