Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Developing an Interactive Spatial Multi-Attribute Decision Support System for Assessing Water Resources Allocation Scenarios

Abstract

In water resource management, assessing water resource allocation scenarios (WRASs) is an important multi-attribute decision making (MADM) problem. It involves spatially varied indicators, which interact with each other and impacts of the scenarios. These attributes are often simplified by using conventional Decision Support Systems (DSSs). In present research, a novel interactive spatial DSS for assessment of WRASs was developed. Effects of indicators type, decision matrix structures, and MADM models on priorities and ranks of scenarios were investigated in Aras basin. Sensitivity analysis of results showed that the interactive structure, comprising spatially distributed indicators and analytical network process (SANP), was the most stable model in terms of ranking. Providing more realistic results, the developed SDSS can be applied in other basins or for other MADM problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Afshar A, Mariño MA, Saadatpour M, Afshar A (2011) Fuzzy TOPSIS multi-criteria decision analysis applied to Karun reservoirs system. Water Resour Manag 25(2):545–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9713-x

  2. Brirhet H, Benaabidate L (2016) Comparison of two hydrological models (lumped and distributed) over a pilot area of the Issen watershed in the Souss basin, Morocco. Eur Sci J 12(18):347. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n18p347

  3. Calizaya A, Meixner O, Bengtsson L, Berndtsson R (2010) Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for integrated water resources management (IWRM) in the Lake Poopo basin, Bolivia. Water Resour Manag 24(10):2267–2289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9551-x

  4. Cenesta (2016) Participatory planning for comprehensive development of Moghan plain, report on the determination of the structure and tribal area of nomadic peoples (in Persian)

  5. Cornell G, Morrison J (2008) Programming VB. Net: a guide for experienced programmers (.Net developer). http://www.aroundmyhouseconsignment.com

  6. Dodge Y (2008) The concise encyclopedia of statistics. Springer Science and Business Media, Neuchatel

  7. Fotovatikhah F, Herrera M, Shamshirband S et al (2018) Survey of computational intelligence as basis to big flood management: Challenges, research directions and future work. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 12(1):411–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2018.1448896

  8. GWP (2009) A handbook for integrated water resources management in basins, Available at: www.gwpforum.org

  9. Hajkowicz S, Higgins A (2008) A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur J Oper Res 184(1):255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.045

  10. Hawaiian Agronomics and Agronomic (1975) Master plan of Moghan region farm corporations project, executive summary, (1) :1-335

  11. Kim Y, Chung ES (2014) An index-based robust decision making framework for watershed management in a changing climate. Sci Total Environ 473:88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.002

  12. Labadie J (1995) MODSIM: river basin network flow model for conjunctive stream-aquifer management. Program User Manual and Documentation, Colorado State University

  13. Liou JJ, Tzeng GH (2012) Comments on multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technol Econ Dev Econ 18(4):672–695. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.753489

  14. Liu P, Qian H, Wu J, Chen J (2013) Sensitivity analysis of TOPSIS method in water quality assessment I: sensitivity to the parameter weights. Environ Monit Assess 185(3):2453–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2723-9

  15. Mahab Ghodss (2009) Comprehensive water plan of Khazar basin report (2385070.2050.23352): 1-123 (in Persian)

  16. Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(7):703–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810600661508

  17. Montazar A, Snyder RL (2012) A multi-attribute preference model for optimal irrigated crop planning under water scarcity conditions. Span J Agric Res 10(3):826–837. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2012103-484-11

  18. Opricovic S (2011) Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):12983–12990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097

  19. Prodanovic P, Simonovic SP (2002) Comparison of fuzzy set ranking methods for implementation in water resources decision making. Can J Civ Eng 29(5):692–701. https://doi.org/10.1139/l02-063

  20. Radmehr A, Araghinejad S (2014) Developing strategies for urban flood management of Tehran city using SMCDM and ANN. J Comput Civ Eng 28(6):05014006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000360

  21. RazaviToosi SL, Samani JM (2016) Evaluating water management strategies in watersheds by new hybrid fuzzy analytical network process (FANP) methods. J Hydrol 534:364–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.006

  22. Saaty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback. the analytic network process. RWS Publication, Pittsburgh

  23. Saaty TL (2012) Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world, 3rd revised edition. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

  24. Simonovic SP (2002) A spatial fuzzy compromise programming for management of natural disasters. Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, London

  25. Taormina R, Chau KW, Sivakumar B (2015) Neural network river forecasting through baseflow separation and binary-coded swarm optimization. J Hydrol 529:1788–1797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.08.008

  26. Tiwari DN, Loof R, Paudyal GN (1999) Environmental–economic decision making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques. Agric Syst 60(2):99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(99)00021-9

  27. Triantaphyllou E, Sanchez A (1997) A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision making methods. Decis Sci 28(1):151–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x

  28. UN-Water Activity Information System (2007) Kura-Aras river basin transboundary diagnostic analysis. RER/03/G41/A/1G/31. http://www.ais.unwater.org

  29. Vafaei N, Ribeiro RA, Camarinha-Matos LM (2016) Normalization techniques for multi-criteria decision making: analytical hierarchy process case study. In doctoral conference on computing, electrical and industrial systems 261-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31165-4_26

  30. Wang WC, Xu DM, Chau KW et al (2013) Improved annual rainfall-runoff forecasting using PSO–SVM model based on EEMD. J Hydroinf 15(4):1377–1390. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2013.134

  31. Yang JS, Chung ES, Kim SU et al (2012) Prioritization of water management under climate change and urbanization using multi-criteria decision making methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6(3):801–814. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-801-2012

  32. Yilmaz B, Harmancioglu N (2010) Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz river basin, Turkey. Water SA 36(5). https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v36i5.61990

  33. Zarghami M, Abrishamchi A, Ardakanian R (2008) Multi-criteria decision making for integrated urban water management. Water Resour Manag 22(8):1017–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-007-9207-7

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Shahab Araghinejad.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarband, E.M., Araghinejad, S. & Attari, J. Developing an Interactive Spatial Multi-Attribute Decision Support System for Assessing Water Resources Allocation Scenarios. Water Resour Manage 34, 447–462 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02291-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Water resources allocation
  • Decision support system
  • Multi-attribute decision making
  • AHP
  • ANP