Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 20, pp 6031–6041 | Cite as

Data-based multiple criteria decision-making model and visualized monitoring of urban drinking water quality

  • Weiwu Yan
  • Jialong Li
  • Manhua Liu
  • Xiaohui Bai
  • Huihe Shao


It is important to comprehensively evaluate and monitor urban drinking water quality to ensure a safe and clean drinking water supply. This paper discusses evaluating, analyzing and monitoring of urban drinking water quality and application systematically and proposes a multiple criteria decision-making model, which integrates analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Kullback–Leibler divergence ratio (KLDR) and comprehensive weighted index (CWI) method to evaluate the quality of drinking water comprehensively. AHP method and KLDR are employed to distribute reasonable weight to indices, and CWI method is used to get comprehensive score of multiple criteria system for evaluation. Association analysis is used to find the useful association rules between criteria and drinking water quality. Geographic information system (GIS) technology is employed to show the distribution map of drinking water quality visually. The proposed method is applied to real-time comprehensive evaluation and visualized monitoring of drinking water quality in Shanghai City. The distribution map of drinking water quality based on GIS can provide monitoring and government agencies with an overall assessment and enable them to make better informed decisions. Real-time application shows that the proposed methods are effective for the assessment and monitoring of urban water quality.


Drinking water quality Kullback–Leibler divergence ratio AHP CWI Association analysis MCDM 



This work is sponsored by National Nature Science Foundation under Grant No. 60974119.

Funding    This study was funded by National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (60974119).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Weiwu Yan has received research grants from NSFC. Jialong Li declares that he has no conflict of interest. Manhua Liu declares that he has no conflict of interest. Xiaohui Bai declares no conflict of interest. Huihe Shao declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Abdullah L, Najib L (2016) A new preference scale mcdm method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the analysis hierarchy process. Soft Comput 20(2):511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiri V, Rezaei M, Sohrabi N (2014) Groundwater quality assessment using entropy weighted water quality index (EWQI) in Lenjanat, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 72(9):3479–3490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 47(5):1287–1294MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen W, Hao X (2011) An optimal combination weights method considering both subjective and objective weight information in power quality evaluation. In: Advanced electrical and electronics engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–105Google Scholar
  5. Dabbagh M, Lee SP, Parizi RM (2016) Functional and non-functional requirements prioritization: empirical evaluation of IPA, AHP-based, and HAM-based approaches. Soft Comput 20(11):4497–4520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalal SG, Shirodkar PV, Jagtap TG, Naik BG, Rao GS (2010) Evaluation of significant sources influencing the variation of water quality of Kandlacreek, Gulf of Katchchh, using PCA. Environ Monit Assess 163(1–4):49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fan R, Zhong M, Wang S et al (2011) Entropy-based information gain approaches to detect and to characterize gene-gene and gene-environment interactions/correlations of complex diseases. Genet Epidemiol 35(7):706–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hua LM, Madu CN, Kuei C, Winokur D (1994) Integrating QFD, AHP and benchmarking in strategic marketing. J Bus Ind Mark 9(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hipp J, Güntzer U, Nakhaeizadeh G (2000) Algorithms for association rule mining—a general survey and comparison. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 2(1):58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jakumeit J, Herdy M, Nitsche M (2005) Parameter optimization of the sheet metal forming process using an iterative parallel Kriging algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim 29(6):498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khaleie S, Fasanghari M (2012) An intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making method using entropy and association coefficient. Soft Comput 16(7):1197–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kwong CK, Bai H (2002) A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. J Intell Manuf 13(5):367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin ZC, Yang CB (1996) Evaluation of machine selection by the AHP method. J Mater Process Technol 57(3–4):253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin MC, Wang CC, Chen MS, Chang CA (2008) Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Comput Ind 59(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moe CL, Rheingans RD (2006) Global challenges in water, sanitation and health. J Water Health 4(S1):41–57Google Scholar
  16. Prati L, Pavanello R, Pesarin F (1971) Assessment of surface water quality by a single index of pollution. Water Res 5(9):741–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Qu LL, Kang R (2009) Expert evaluation method for equipment support scheme during development. Ordnance Ind Autom 6:008Google Scholar
  18. Rahman MM, Mandal BK, Chowdhury TR et al (2003) Arsenic groundwater contamination and sufferings of people in North 24-Parganas, one of the nine arsenic affected districts of West Bengal, India. J Environ Sci Health Part A 38(1):25–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rajeswari K, Nakil S, Patil N, Pereira S, Ramdasi N (2014) Text categorization optimization by a hybrid approach using multiple feature selection and feature extraction methods. J Eng Res Appl 4(5):86–90Google Scholar
  20. Rousta BA, Araghinejad S (2015) Development of a multi criteria decision making tool for a water resources decision support system. Water Resour Manage 29(15):5713–5727Google Scholar
  21. Wan X, Hu N, Huo M (2014) Application of association rules data mining in the determination the operation target values in the thermal power plant. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer science and service system, 2014Google Scholar
  22. Yadav SS, Kumar R (2011) Monitoring water quality of Kosi river in Rampur District, Uttar Pradesh. India. Adv Appl Sci Res 2(2):197–201Google Scholar
  23. Yang Q, Ding Y, de Vries B, Han Q, Ma H (2014) Assessing regional sustainability using a model of coordinated development index: a case study of mainland China. Sustainability 6(12):9282–9304CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weiwu Yan
    • 1
  • Jialong Li
    • 1
  • Manhua Liu
    • 2
  • Xiaohui Bai
    • 3
  • Huihe Shao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AutomationShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Instrument Science and TechnologyShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.School of Life Sciences and BiotechnologyShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations