Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
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
- EANC:
-
Expected average number of casualties per year
- SCCT:
-
Spearman correlation coefficient test
- SCC:
-
Spearman correlation coefficients
- SAW:
-
Simple additive weighing
- M-TOPSIS:
-
Modified TOPSIS
- AHP:
-
Analytical hierarchy process
- CP:
-
Compromise programming
- EAD:
-
Expected annual damage
- KTCCT:
-
Kendall tau correlation coefficient test
- KTCC:
-
Kendall tau correlation coefficient
References
Afshari A, Mojahed M, Yusuff RM (2010) Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. Int J Innov Manag Technol 1(5):511–515
Antucheviciene J, Zakarevicius A, Zavadskes EK (2011) Measuring congruence of ranking results applying particular MCDM methods. Informatica 22(3):319–338
Ardalan A, Holakouie Naieni K, Kabir MJ, Zanganeh AM, Keshtkar AA, Honarvar MR, Khodaie H, Osooli M (2009) Evaluation of golestan Province’s early warning system for flash floods, Iran, 2006–7. Int J Biometeorol. doi:10.1007/s00484-009-0210-y
Athawale VM, Chakraborty S (2011) A comparative study on the ranking performance of some multi-criteria decision-making methods for industrial robot selection. Int J Ind Eng Comput 2(4):831–850
Azarnivand A, Hashemi-Madani FS, Banihabib ME (2014) Extended fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in water and environmental management (case study: Lake Urmia Basin, Iran). Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3391-6
Brouwer R, Van E (2004) Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.020
Chou SY, Chang YH, Shen CY (2008) A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. Eu J Oper Res 132–145
De Bruijn KM (2005) Resilience and flood risk management; A systems approach applied to lowland rivers. 216 pp
Duckstein L, Opricovic S (1980) Multi objective optimization in river basin development. Water Resour Res. doi:10.1029/WR016i001p00014
Duckstein L, Bobee B, Ashkar F (1991) A multiple criteria decision modeling approach to selection of estimation techniques for fitting extreme floods. Stoch Hydrol Hydraul. doi:10.1007/BF01544059
Edmund C, Rowsell P, Parker D, Harries T (2008) Systematization, evaluation and context conditions of structural and non-structural measures for flood risk reduction FLOOD-ERA Report for England and Scotland. CRUE Research Report
Elmoustafa AM (2012) Weighted normalized risk factor for floods risk assessment. Ain Shams Eng J 3:327–332
Favardin P, Lepelley D, Serais J (2002) Borda rule, Copeland method and strategic manipulation. Rev Econ Des 7:213–228
Frei FX, Harker PT (1999) Measuring aggregate process performance using AHP. Eur J Oper Res 116(2):436–442
Geng G, Wardlaw R (2013) Application of multi-criterion decision making analysis to integrated water resources management. Water Resour Manag 27:3191–3207
Gibbons JD (1971) Nonparametric Statistical Inference. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hajkowicz S, Higgins A (2008) A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur J Oper Res 184(1):255–265
Hansson K, Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Buurman J (2013) Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Flood Risk Management. Integ Catastrophe Risk Model Adv Nat Technol Hazards Res ISSN 1878–9897; 32: 53–72
Hashemi MS, Zare F, Bagheri A, Moridi A (2014) Flood assessment in the context of sustainable development using the DPSIR framework. Int J Environ Protect Policy. doi:10.11648/j.jepp.20140202.11
Hwang CL, Lin MJ (1987) Group decision making under multiple criteria: Methods and applications. Springer
Jahan A, Yusof IM, Shuib S, Nur Fazidah D, Edwards KL (2011) An aggregation technique for optimal decision-making in materials selection. Mater Des. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.05.050
Johnson C, Rowsell EP, Tapsell S (2007) Aspiration and reality: flood policy, economic damages and the appraisal process. Area 39(2):214–223
Kenyon W (2007) Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: a participant-led multi-criteria approach. Ecol Econ 64:70–81
Kim Y, Chung ES (2013) Assessing climate change vulnerability with group multi-criteria decision making approaches. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0879-0
Kubal C, Haase D, Meyer V, Scheuer S (2009) Integrated urban flood risk assessment – adapting a multi criteria approach to a city. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1881–1895
Kundzewicz ZW (1999) Flood protection sustainability Issues. Hydrol Sci J des Sci Hydrol Special issue: Barriers to Sustainable Management of Water Quantity and Quality 44(4):559–571
Kundzewicz ZW (2005) Is the frequency and intensity of flooding changing in Europe? Springer-V erlag Berlin, Heidelbrg
Kundzewicz ZW, Takeuchi K (1999) Flood protection and management: quo vadimus? Hydrol Sci J 44(3):417–432
Long WJ (2006) Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for water resource management in the BERG water management area. Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Agriculture). University of Stellenbosch
Management and Planning Organization (MPO) (2004) Socio-economical report of Golestan province. Management and Planning Organization Pub
Manokaran E, Subhashini S, Senthilvel S, Muruganandham R, Ravichandran K (2011) Application of multi criteria decision making tools and validation with optimization technique-case study using TOPSIS, ANN & SAW. Int J Manag Bus Stud 1(3): 112–115. ISSN: 2330–9519
Meyer V, Scheuer S, Haase D (2009) A multi criteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany. Nat Hazards 48:17–39
Miettinen K, Salminen P (1999) Decision-aid for discrete multiple criteria decision making problems with imprecise data. Eur J Oper Res 119(1):50–60
Mohaghar A, Fathi MR, Zarchi MK, Omidia A (2012) A combined VIKOR–fuzzy AHP approach to marketing strategy selection. Bus Manag Strat 3(1):13–27
Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455
Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178:514–529
Pomerol JC, Barba-Romero S (2000) Multi criterion decision in management: principles and practice. Springer, Netherlands
Pourjavad E, Shirouyehzad H (2011) A MCDM Approach for prioritizing production lines: a case study. Int J Bus Manag 6(10):221–229. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm
Raju KS, Pillai CRS (1999) Multi criterion decision making in river basin planning and development. Eur J Oper Res 112(2):249–257
Raju KS, Duckstein L, Arnodel C (2000) Multi criterion analysis for sustainable water resources planning: a case study in Spain. Water Resour Manag 14:435–456
Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS (1995) Using AHP for resource allocation problems. Eur J Oper Res 80(2):410–417
Ren, L, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Sun Z (2007) Comparative Analysis of a Novel M-TOPSIS Method and TOPSIS. Appl Math Res Express PP :1–10.
Rogers M, Bruen M, Maystre L (2000) ELECTRE and decision support. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London
Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en pre’sence de points de vues multiples (la me’thode Electre). Cahiers du CERO 8:57–75
Roy B (1978) ELECTRE III: Un algorithme de classement fonde sur une representation floue des preferences en presence de criteres multiples. Cahiers du CERO 20(1):3–24
Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theor Decis 31:49–73
Roy B, Present M, Silhol D (1986) A programming method for determining which Paris metro stations should be renovated. Eur J Oper Res 24:318–334
Saari D (1995) Mathematical complexity of simple economics. Not Am Math Soc 42(2):222–230
Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:59–62
Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 20–25
Saghafian B, Farazjoo H, Bozorgi B, Yazdandoost F (2008) Flood intensification due to changes in land Use. Water Resour Manag 22:1051–1067
Shih HS, Wang CH, Lee ES (2004) A multi attribute GDSS for aiding problem-solving. Math Comput Model 39:1397–1412
Simonovic S (1989) Application of water resources systems concept to the formulation of a water master plan. Water Int. doi:10.1080/02508068908692032
Srdjevic B (2007) Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management. Decis Support Syst. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.08.001
Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2011) The Spearman and Kendall rank correlation coefficients between intuitionist fuzzy sets. Atlantis Press, Aix-Les-Bains, pp 521–528
Tecle A, Duckstein L (1994) Concepts of multi criterion decision making. Decision Support System in Water Resources Management. In: J. J. Bogardi and H. P Vatchnebel (eds), pp 33–62
Ustinovichius L, Zavadskas EK, Podvezko V (2007) Application of a quantitative multiple criteria decision making (MCDM-1) approach to the analysis of investments in construction. Control Cybern 36(1):251–268
Yacov Y, Haimes (2011) Harmonizing the Omnipresence of MCDM in Technology, Society, and Policy. Chapter 2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19695-9_2
Yazdandoost F, Bozorgy B (2008) Flood risk management strategies using multi-criteria analysis. Water Manag. doi:10.1680/wama.2008.161.5.261
Yilmaz B, Harmancioglu NB (2010) Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey. 36(5) p563
Zeleny M, Cochrane JL (1973) A Priori and a posteriori goals in macroeconomic policy making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, pp 373–391
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge insightful comments from the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor on the previous version of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chitsaz, N., Banihabib, M.E. Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models in Prioritizing Flood Management Alternatives. Water Resour Manage 29, 2503–2525 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-0954-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-0954-6