Advertisement

Stochastic-fuzzy multi criteria decision making for robust water resources management

  • Mahdi Zarghami
  • Ferenc Szidarovszky
Original Paper

Abstract

All realistic Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problems in water resources management face various kinds of uncertainty. In this study the evaluations of the alternatives with respect to the criteria will be assumed to be stochastic. Fuzzy linguistic quantifiers will be used to obtain the uncertain optimism degree of the Decision Maker (DM). A new approach for stochastic-fuzzy modeling of MCDM problems will be then introduced by merging the stochastic and fuzzy approaches into the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) operator. The results of the new approach, entitled SFOWA, give the expected value and the variance of the combined goodness measure for each alternative, which are essential for robust decision making. In order to combine these two characteristics, a composite goodness measure will be defined. By using this measure the model will give more sensitive decisions to the stakeholders whose optimism degrees are different than that of the decision maker. The methodology will be illustrated by using a water resources management problem in the Central Tisza River in Hungary. Finally, SFOWA will be compared to other methods known from the literature to show its suitability for MCDM problems under uncertainty.

Keywords

Multi criteria decision making Water resources management Ordered weighted averaging Stochastic simulation Fuzzy linguistic quantifiers Robust decisions 

References

  1. Bardossy A, Duckstein L (1992) Analysis of a karstic aquifer management problem by fuzzy composite programming. Water Resour Bull 28(1):63–73Google Scholar
  2. Bellman RA, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision making in fuzzy environment. Manage Sci Ser B 17:141–164Google Scholar
  3. Benayoun R, Roy B, Sussmann B (1966) ELECTRE: une methode pour quider le choix en presence de points de vue multiples. Technical report, SEMA-METRA International, Direction Scientifique, 49Google Scholar
  4. Ben Abdelaziz F, Lang P, Nadeau R (1999) Dominance and efficiency in multicriteria decision under uncertainty. Theory Decis 47:191–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben Abdelaziz F, Enneifar L, Martel JM (2004) A multiobjective fuzzy stochastic program for water resources optimization: the case of lake management. Inf Syst Oper Res J 42(3):201–215Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Arieh D, Chen Z (2004) A new linguistic labels aggregation and consensus in group decision making. In: Proceedings of conference of IERC 2004, Houston, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender MJ, Simonovic SP (2000) A fuzzy compromise approach to water resource systems planning under uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bordogna G, Fedrizzi M, Pasi G (1997) A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operators. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 27(1):126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckly JJ (1990) Stochastic versus possibilistic programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 34:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caballero R, Cerda E, Munoz MM, Rey L (2004) Stochastic approach versus multiobjective approach for obtaining efficient solutions in stochastic multiobjective programming problems. Eur J Oper Res 158:633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsson C, Fullér R, Fullér S (1997) OWA operators for doctoral student selection problem. In: Yager RR, Kacprzyk J (eds) The ordered weighted averaging operators: theory, methodology, and applications. Kluwer, Boston, pp 167–177Google Scholar
  12. Changchit C, Terrell MP (1993) A multi-objective reservoir operation model with stochastic inflows. Comput Ind Eng 24(2):303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen CWE (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Choudhury AK, Shankarb R, Tiwari MK (2006) Consensus-based intelligent group decision-making model for the selection of advanced technology. Decis Support Syst 42:1776–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Churchman CW, Ackoff RL (1954) An approximate measure of value. Oper Res 2:172–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. David L, Duckstein L (1976) Multi-criterion ranking of alternative long-range water resources systems. Water Resour Bull 12:731–754Google Scholar
  18. Duckstein L, Opricovic S (1980) Multiobjective optimization in river basin development. Water Resour Res 16(1):14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goicoechea A, Hansen DR, Duckstein L (1982) Multiobjective decision analysis with engineering and business applications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hahn ED (2006) Link function selection in stochastic multicriteria decision making models. Eur J Oper Res 172:86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang GH, Sae-Lim N, Chen Z (2001) An interval-parameter fuzzy-stochastic programming approach for municipal solid waste management and planning. Environ Model Assess 6(4):271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inuiguichi M, Ramik J (2000) Possibilistic linear programming: a brief review of fuzzy mathematical programming and a comparison with stochastic programming in portfolio selection problem. Fuzzy Sets Syst 111:3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M, Nurmi H (1992) Group decision making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority. Fuzzy Sets Syst 49:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keeney RL, Wood EF (1977) An illustrative example of the use of multiattribute utility theory for water resource planning. Water Resour Res 13:705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2006) Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis using the data envelopment model. Eur J Oper Res 170:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li HL, Huang GH, Zou Y (2008) An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for assessing health-impact risk from air pollution. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess, first online. doi: 10.1007/s00477-007-0187-1
  28. Malczewski J (2006) Ordered weighted averaging with fuzzy quantifiers: GIS-based multicriteria evaluation for land-use suitability analysis. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinf 8:270–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maqsood I, Huang GH, Yeomans JS (2005) An interval-parameter fuzzy two-stage stochastic program for water resources management under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 167:208–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pasi G, Yager RR (2006) Modeling the concept of majority opinion in group decision making. Inf Sci 176:390–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prodanovic P, Simonovic SP (2003) Fuzzy compromise programming for group decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 33(3):358–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raju KS, Kumar DN (1998) Application of multiobjective fuzzy and stochastic linear programming to Sri Ram Sagar irrigation planning project of Andhra Pradesh. In: Proceedings of 22nd national systems conference, Calicut, India, pp 423–428Google Scholar
  33. Ribeiro RA (1996) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: a review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roubens M, Teghem Jr J (1991) Comparison of methodologies for fuzzy and stochastic multiobjective programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 42:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shamsuzzaman M, Sharif Ullah AMM, Bohez ELJ (2003) Appling linguistic criteria in FMS selection: fuzzy-set-AHP approach. Integr Manuf Syst 14(3):247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slowinski R, Teghem Jr J (1990) A comparison study of STRANGE and FLIP. In: Slowinski R, Teghem J (eds) Stochastic versus fuzzy approaches to multiobjective mathematical programming under uncertainty. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 392–393Google Scholar
  37. Stancu-Minasian IM (1984) Stochastic programming with multi objective functions. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  38. Tecle A (1992) Selecting a multicriterion decision making technique for watershed resources management, Water Resources Bulletin. AWRA 28(1):129–140Google Scholar
  39. Teghem Jr J, Dufrane D, Thauvoye M (1986) STRANGE: an interactive method for multi-objective linear programming under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 26:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Triantaphyllou E, Lin CT (1996) Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. Int J Approx Reason 14:281–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang HF (2000) Fuzzy multicriteria decision making-an overview. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 9(1-2):61–83Google Scholar
  42. Xu Z (2005) An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. Int J Intell Syst 20:843–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu Z, Chen J (2007) An interactive method for fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making. Inf Sci 177:248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xu Z, Da QL (2003) An overview of operators for aggregating information. Int J Intell Syst 18:953–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yager RR (1996) Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. Int J Intell Syst 11:49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yager RR (2002) On the cardinality and attituditional charactersitics of fuzzy measures. Int J Gen Syst 31(3):303–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane J, Zeleny M (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmermann HJ (1978) Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  2. 2.Systems and Industrial Engineering DepartmentUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations