Composite Programming as an Extension of Compromise Programming
Cost-effective control alternatives are selected by composite programming /an extension of compromise programming/ in order to find a trade-off among objectives or groups of criteria usually facing watershed management or observation network design: economic criteria /agricultural revenue and investment/, environmental criteria /yields of sediment and nutrient/, and hydrologic criteria /water yield/. Composite programming provides a two-level tradeoff analysis: first with different-L-norms within the criteria, then again with a different L norm among the three objectives.
An example of six interconnected watersheds draining into a multipurpose /water supply and recreation/ reservoir and a network design problem of aquifer parameters illustrate the methodology.
KeywordsSediment Yield Ideal Point Water Yield Watershed Management Goal Function
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Zeleny, M., Compromise Programming in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, M.K. Starr and M. Zeleny eds., Univ. of South Carolina Press, 101, 1973Google Scholar
- Gershon, M.E., Model Choice in Multiobjective Decision Making in Water and Mineral Resource Systems, Technical Reports, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, 155, 1981.Google Scholar
- 4.Miller, W.L. and D.M. Byers, Development and display of multiple objective projects impacts,,Water Resour. Res., 9 /4/, 11, 1973.Google Scholar
- 5.Das, P. and Y.Y. Haimes, Multiobjective optimization in water quality and land management, Water Resour. Res.Google Scholar
- 15./, 1313, 1979.Google Scholar
- 6.Boga.rdi, I., David, L. and L. Duckstein, Trade-off between cost and effectiveness of control of nutrient loading into a waterbody, Research Report, RR-83–19, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, July 1983.Google Scholar
- 7.Williams, J.R. Sediment yield prediction with universal equation using runoff energy factor, Agr.Res.Serv., ARS-S-40, USDA, Washington D.C., 244, 1975.Google Scholar
- 8.Bârdossy, A., Bog.rdi, I, and L. Duckstein, Accuracy of sediment yield calculation, Working paper, Tiszadata, Budapest, 1984.Google Scholar
- 9.Soil Conservation Service, National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, USDA, Washington D.C., 1971.Google Scholar
- 10.Bogdrdi, I. and A. Bdrdossy, A concentration model of P stemming from agricultural watersheds, Research Report /in Hungarian/, Tiszadata, Budapest, 1984.Google Scholar
- 11.Volpi, G., G. Gambolati, L. Carbognin, P. Gatto and G. Mozzi, Groundwater contour mapping in Venice by stochastic interpolators, Water Resour. Res., 15 /2/, 291, 1979.Google Scholar
- 12.Matheron, G., Les variables régionalisées et leur estimation, 306, Masson, Paris, 1967.Google Scholar
- Dunford, N. and J.T. Schwartz, Linear Operators Part I., Interscience Publisher, New York, 358, 1976.Google Scholar
- Freimer, M. and P.I. Yu, Some new results on compromise solutions for group decision problems, Management Science, 22 /6/, 688, February 1976.Google Scholar
- 15.Yu, P.L. and G. Leitmann, Compromise Solutions, Domination Structures, and Szlukyadze’s Solution, in Multi-criteria Decision Making and Differential Games, edited by G. Leitmann, Plenum Press, New York, 85, 1976.Google Scholar
- 16.Duckstein, L. and S. Opricovic, Multiobjective optimization in river basin developments, Water Resour. Res., 16 /1/, 14, 1980.Google Scholar
- 17.Wilde, D.J. and C.S. Beightler, Foundations of Optimization, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 480, 1967.Google Scholar
- 18.B6rdossy, A., Mathematics of composite programming, Working paper, Tiszadata, Mik6 u. 1. 1012. Budapest, Hungary, 1984.Google Scholar