Developing a new multi-criteria decision-making for flood prioritization of sub-watersheds using concept of D numbers

Sepehri, Mehdi; Linh, Nguyen Thi Thuy; Pouya, Hadi Nazri; Bahramloo, Reza; Sadeghian, Jalal; Ghermezcheshme, Bagher; Talebi, Ali; Peyrovan, Hamidreza; Thanh, Phong Nguyen

doi:10.1007/s11600-023-01119-z

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Developing a new multi-criteria decision-making for flood prioritization of sub-watersheds using concept of D numbers

Autorzy

Sepehri Mehdi , Linh Nguyen Thi Thuy , Pouya Hadi Nazri , Bahramloo Reza , Sadeghian Jalal , Ghermezcheshme Bagher , Talebi Ali , Peyrovan Hamidreza , Thanh Phong Nguyen

Wybrane pełne teksty z tego czasopisma

https://www.springer.com/journal/11600

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1007/s11600-023-01119-z

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Floods are one of the most dangerous natural disasters that humanity has ever faced. In this study, a modified version of D number technique as a suitable form of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches was proposed to prioritize flooding in the Sad-Kalan watershed of Iran using some flood related criteria. The proposed method can overcome some shortcomings and uncertainties of the existing MCDM methods. In order to evaluate the performance of the method regarding flood prioritization, its results were compared with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique as mostly frequently used MCDM method. The findings demonstrate that the modified version of D number method provides better results than AHP method. In spite of inherent advantages of D number method, the advantages of the proposed method in relation to existing MCDM are as follows: 1- considering the local and global importance of used criteria, 2- reducing the uncertainty in decision makers’ judgments using employing the concept of Picture fuzzy-AHP, 3- considering the degree of consistency in evaluation of decision makers into calculations. Furthermore, the method is flexible and can be used in any region of the world.

Słowa kluczowe

AHP Iran natural hazards picture fuzzy uncertainty

AHP Iran zagrożenia naturalne obraz niewyraźny niepewność

Wydawca

Instytut Geofizyki PAN
Springer

Czasopismo

Acta Geophysica

Rocznik

2024

Tom

Vol. 72, no. 3

Strony

2027--2039

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 58 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Sepehri Mehdi

Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

autor

Linh Nguyen Thi Thuy

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Silesia in Katowice, Będzińska Street 60, 41-200, Sosnowiec, Poland

autor

Pouya Hadi Nazri

Watershed Research Department. Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Hamedan, Iran

autor

Bahramloo Reza

Agricultural Engineering Research Department. Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Hamedan, Iran

autor

Sadeghian Jalal

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran

autor

Ghermezcheshme Bagher

Hydrology and Water Resources Development Department, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran

autor

Talebi Ali

Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

autor

Peyrovan Hamidreza

Hydrology and Water Resources Development Department, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran

autor

Thanh Phong Nguyen

phong.nguyenthanh@vlu.edu.vn

Laboratory of Environmental Sciences and Climate Change, Institute for Computational Science and Artificial Intelligence, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Faculty of Environment, School of Technology, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Bibliografia

1. Ahmadisharaf E, Kalyanapu AJ, Chung E-S (2016) Spatial probabilistic multi-criteria decision making for assessment of flood management alternatives. J Hydrol 533:365-378
2. Akay H, Baduna Koęyigit M (2020) Flash flood potential prioritization of sub-basins in an ungauged basin in Turkey using traditional multi-criteria decision-making methods. Soft Comput 24:14251-14263
3. Akbari M, Meshram SG, Krishna R, Pradhan B, Shadeed S, Khedher KM, Sepehri M, Ildoromi AR, Alimerzaei F, Darabi F (2021) Identification of the groundwater potential recharge zones using MCDM models: full consistency method (FUCOM), best worst method (BWM) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Water Resour Manag 35(14):4727-4745
4. Barman BK, Rao CUB, Rao KS, Patel A, Kushwaha K, Singh SK (2021) Geomorphic analysis, morphometric-based prioritization and tectonic implications in Chite Lui river, Northeast India. J Geol Soc India 97:385-395
5. Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, van Til JA, Hummel JM, IJzer-man MJ (2015) A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 33(5):445-455
6. Chitsaz N, Banihabib ME (2015) Comparison of different multi criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manag 29(8):2503-2525
7. da Silva LBL, Humberto JS, Alencar MH, Ferreira RJP, de Almeida AT (2020) GIS-based multidimensional decision model for enhancing flood risk prioritization in urban areas. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 48:101582
8. Deng Y (2012) D numbers: theory and applications. J Inf Comput Sci 9(9):2421-2428
9. Ekmekcioglu Ö, Koc K, Özger M (2021) Stakeholder perceptions in flood risk assessment: a hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach for Istanbul, Turkey. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 60:102327
10. El-Fakharany MA, Hegazy MN, Mansour NM, Abdo AM (2021) Flash flood hazard assessment and prioritization of sub-watersheds in Heliopolis basin, East Cairo, Egypt. Arab J Geosci 14(17):1693
11. Fernández D, Lutz MA (2010) Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucumán Province, Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 111(1-4):90-98
12. Gigović L, Pamučar D, Bajić Z, Drobnjak S (2017) Application of GIS-interval rough AHP methodology for flood hazard mapping in urban areas. Water 9(6):360
13. Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Broekhuizen H, Til JV (2017) Multi-criteria decision analysis to support healthcare decisions. Springer, New York, pp 67-85
14. Gündogdu FK, Duleba S, Moslem S, Aydin S (2021) Evaluating public transport service quality using picture fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and linear assignment model. Appl Soft Comput 100:106920
15. Henry S, Laroche A-M, Hentati A, Boisvert J (2020) Prioritizing flood-prone areas using spatial data in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. Geosciences 10(12):478
16. Huang H, Chen X, Wang X, Wang X, Liu L (2019) A depressionbased index to represent topographic control in urban pluvial flooding. Water 11(10):2115
17. Ilderomi AR, Vojtek M, Vojteková J, Pham QB, Kuriqi A, Sepehri M (2022) Flood prioritization integrating picture fuzzy-analytic hierarchy and fuzzy-linear assignment model. Arab J Geosci 15(13):1-13
18. Kanani-Sadat Y, Arabsheibani R, Karimipour F, Nasseri M (2019) A new approach to flood susceptibility assessment in data-scarce and ungauged regions based on GIS-based hybrid multi criteria decision-making method. J Hydrol 572:17-31
19. Kubler S, Derigent W, Voisin A, Robert J, Le Traon Y, Viedma EH (2018) Measuring inconsistency and deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices using the knowledge-based consistency index. Knowl Based Syst 162:147-160
20. Kuhlicke C, Seebauer S, Hudson P, Begg C, Bubeck P, Dittmer C, Grothmann T, Heidenreich A, Kreibich H, Lorenz DF (2020) The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 7(3):e1418
21. Levy JK, Hartmann J, Li KW, An Y, Asgary A (2007) Multi-criteria decision support systems for flood hazard mitigation and emergency response in urban watersheds 1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 43(2):346-358
22. Ligmann-Zielinska A, Jankowski P (2014) Spatially-explicit integrated uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of criteria weights in multicriteria land suitability evaluation. Environ Model Softw 57:235-247
23. Liu Y, Zhang K, Li Z, Liu Z, Wang J, Huang P (2020) A hybrid runoff generation modelling framework based on spatial combination of three runoff generation schemes for semi-humid and semi-arid watersheds. J Hydrol (Amsterdam) 590:125440. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125440
24. Linh NTT, Pandey M, Janizadeh S, Bhunia GS, Norouzi A, Ali S, Ahmadi K (2022) Flood susceptibility modeling based on new hybrid intelligence model: Optimization of XGboost model using GA metaheuristic algorithm. Adv Space Res 69(9):3301-3318
25. Luu C, Von Meding J, Kanjanabootra S (2018) Assessing flood hazard using flood marks and analytic hierarchy process approach: a case study for the 2013 flood event in Quang Nam, Vietnam. Nat Hazards 90(3):1031-1050
26. Malekinezhad H, Sepehri M, Pham QB, Hosseini SZ, Meshram SG, Vojtek M, Vojteková J (2021) Application of entropy weighting method for urban flood hazard mapping. Acta Geophys 69(3):841-854
27. Meshram SG, Ilderomi AR, Sepehri M, Santos CAG (2022) Flood prioritization based on fuzzy best worse multi-criteria decisionmaking method. Arab J Geosci 15(16):1374
28. Nafchi RF, Pardis Y, Raeisi VH, Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Jafar N, Bizhan M (2022) Correction to: eco-hydrologic stability zonation of dams and power plants using the combined models of SMCE and
29. CEQUALW2. Appl Water Sci 12(4):55. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13201-021-01563-6
30. Nasiri Khiavi A, Vafakhah M, Sadeghi SH (2023) Flood-based critical sub-watershed mapping: comparative application of multi-criteria decision making methods and hydrological modeling approach. In: Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, pp 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02417-0
31. Nawaz F, Asadabadi MR, Janjua NK, Hussain OK, Chang E, Saberi M (2018) An MCDM method for cloud service selection using a Markov chain and the best-worst method. Knowl Based Syst 159:120-131
32. Noor-E-Alam M, Lipi TF, Hasin MAA, Ullah AS (2011) Algorithms for fuzzy multi expert multi criteria decision making (ME-MCDM). Knowl Based Syst 24(3):367-377
33. Olabode OF, Oluwaniyi OE, Adebayo QA, Asiwaju-Bello YA (2020) Morpho-lithostructural analysis of Ala River basin for flood risk assessment: geospatial techniques intervention. Earth Sci Inf 13:773-794
34. Ostad-Ali-Askari K (2022a) Developing an optimal design model of furrow irrigation based on the minimum cost and maximum irrigation efficiency. Appl Water Sci 12(7):144
35. Ostad-Ali-Askari K (2022b) Review of the effects of the anthropogenic on the wetland environment. Appl Water Sci 12(12):260
36. Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Sremac S (2018) A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry 10(9):393
37. Pham QB, Ali SA, Bielecka E, Calka B, Orych A, Parvin F, Łupikasza E (2022) Flood vulnerability and buildings’ flood exposure assessment in a densely urbanised city: comparative analysis of three scenarios using a neural network approach. Natural Hazards 113(2):1043-1081
38. Prasad RN, Pani P (2017) Geo-hydrological analysis and sub watershed prioritization for flash flood risk using weighted sum model and Snyder’s synthetic unit hydrograph. Model Earth Syst Environ 3:1491-1502
39. Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49-57
40. Saaty T (1999) Fundamentals of the analytic network process. University of Pittsburgh, ISAHP, Japan, pp 1-14
41. Sayyad D, Ghasemieh H, Naserianasl Z (2022) Prioritization and spatial analysis of flood potential based on FUZZY-AHP approach (Case study: Ghamsar watershed). J Geogr Environ Hazards. https://doi. org/10.22067/geoeh.2022.76678.1226
42. Sellak H, Ouhbi B, Frikh B (2018) A knowledge-based outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Appl Soft Comput 67:625-640
43. Sepehri M, Ildoromi AR, Malekinezhad H, Ghahramani A, Ekhtesasi MR, Cao C, Kiani-Harchegani M (2019) Assessment of check dams’ role in flood hazard mapping in a semi-arid environment. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 10(1):2239-2256
44. Sepehri M, Ghahramani A, Kiani-Harchegani M, Ildoromi AR, Talebi A, Rodrigo-Comino J (2021) Assessment of drainage network analysis methods to rank sediment yield hotspots. Hydrol Sci J 66(5):904-918
45. Stefanidis S, Stathis D (2013) Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat Hazards 68(2):569-585
46. Stewart TJ, Durbach I (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York, pp 467-496
47. Supalla R, Klaus B, Yeboah O, Bruins R (2002) A game theory approach to deciding who will supply instream flow water 1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 38(4):959-966
48. Tariq MAUR, Farooq R, van de Giesen N (2020) A critical review of flood risk management and the selection of suitable measures. Appl Sci 10(23):8752
49. UNISDR C (2015) The human cost of natural disasters: A global perspective
50. Vafakhah M, Loor MH, Pourghasemi SH, Katebikord A (2020) Comparing performance of random forest and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system data mining models for flood susceptibility mapping. Arab J Geosci 13:1-16
51. Valipour M (2015) Retracted: comparative evaluation of radiation-based methods for estimation of potential evapotranspiration. J Hydrol Eng 20(5):04014068
52. Valipour M (2016) Optimization of neural networks for precipitation analysis in a humid region to detect drought and wet year alarms. Meteorol Appl 23(1):91-100
53. Vickers NJ (2017) Animal communication: when i’m calling you, will you answer too? Curr Biol 27(14):R713-R715
54. Vojtek M, Vojteková J (2019) Flood susceptibility mapping on a national scale in Slovakia using the analytical hierarchy process. Water 11(2):364
55. Xiao F (2018) A novel multi-criteria decision making method for assessing health-care waste treatment technologies based on D numbers. Eng Appl Artif Intell 71:216-225
56. Zhang S, Guo Y, Wang Z (2015) Correlation between flood frequency and geomorphologic complexity of rivers network—a case study of Hangzhou China. J Hydrol 527:113-118
57. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Cont 8(3):338-353
58. Zheng J, Egger C, Lienert J (2016) A scenario-based MCDA framework for wastewater infrastructure planning under uncertainty. J Environ Manag 183:895-908

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-115508f7-5cf4-4843-88f7-de02047074fa