Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bardossy A, Duckstein L (1992) Analysis of a karstic aquifer management problem by fuzzy composite programming. Water Resour Bull 28(1):63–73

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bellman RA, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision making in fuzzy environment. Manage Sci Ser B 17:141–164

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 49

  • Ben Abdelaziz F, Lang P, Nadeau R (1999) Dominance and efficiency in multicriteria decision under uncertainty. Theory Decis 47:191–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):201–215

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, USA

  • Bender MJ, Simonovic SP (2000) A fuzzy compromise approach to water resource systems planning under uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115(1):35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):126–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckly JJ (1990) Stochastic versus possibilistic programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 34:173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 158:633–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 167–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Changchit C, Terrell MP (1993) A multi-objective reservoir operation model with stochastic inflows. Comput Ind Eng 24(2):303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CWE (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury AK, Shankarb R, Tiwari MK (2006) Consensus-based intelligent group decision-making model for the selection of advanced technology. Decis Support Syst 42:1776–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW, Ackoff RL (1954) An approximate measure of value. Oper Res 2:172–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David L, Duckstein L (1976) Multi-criterion ranking of alternative long-range water resources systems. Water Resour Bull 12:731–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckstein L, Opricovic S (1980) Multiobjective optimization in river basin development. Water Resour Res 16(1):14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goicoechea A, Hansen DR, Duckstein L (1982) Multiobjective decision analysis with engineering and business applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn ED (2006) Link function selection in stochastic multicriteria decision making models. Eur J Oper Res 172:86–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 111:3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M, Nurmi H (1992) Group decision making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority. Fuzzy Sets Syst 49:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Wood EF (1977) An illustrative example of the use of multiattribute utility theory for water resource planning. Water Resour Res 13:705–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2006) Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis using the data envelopment model. Eur J Oper Res 170:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Malczewski J (2006) Ordered weighted averaging with fuzzy quantifiers: GIS-based multicriteria evaluation for land-use suitability analysis. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinf 8:270–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 167:208–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasi G, Yager RR (2006) Modeling the concept of majority opinion in group decision making. Inf Sci 176:390–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prodanovic P, Simonovic SP (2003) Fuzzy compromise programming for group decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 33(3):358–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 423–428

  • Ribeiro RA (1996) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: a review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:155–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roubens M, Teghem Jr J (1991) Comparison of methodologies for fuzzy and stochastic multiobjective programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 42:119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamsuzzaman M, Sharif Ullah AMM, Bohez ELJ (2003) Appling linguistic criteria in FMS selection: fuzzy-set-AHP approach. Integr Manuf Syst 14(3):247–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 392–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Stancu-Minasian IM (1984) Stochastic programming with multi objective functions. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Tecle A (1992) Selecting a multicriterion decision making technique for watershed resources management, Water Resources Bulletin. AWRA 28(1):129–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Teghem Jr J, Dufrane D, Thauvoye M (1986) STRANGE: an interactive method for multi-objective linear programming under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 26:65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E, Lin CT (1996) Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. Int J Approx Reason 14:281–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang HF (2000) Fuzzy multicriteria decision making-an overview. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 9(1-2):61–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z (2005) An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. Int J Intell Syst 20:843–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Chen J (2007) An interactive method for fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making. Inf Sci 177:248–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Da QL (2003) An overview of operators for aggregating information. Int J Intell Syst 18:953–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1996) Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. Int J Intell Syst 11:49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (2002) On the cardinality and attituditional charactersitics of fuzzy measures. Int J Gen Syst 31(3):303–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (1973) Compromise programming. In: Cochrane J, Zeleny M (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HJ (1978) Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, 51664, Tabriz, Iran

    Mahdi Zarghami

  2. Systems and Industrial Engineering Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0020, USA

    Ferenc Szidarovszky

Authors
  1. Mahdi Zarghami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ferenc Szidarovszky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahdi Zarghami.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zarghami, M., Szidarovszky, F. Stochastic-fuzzy multi criteria decision making for robust water resources management. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23, 329–339 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-008-0218-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-008-0218-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation