Abstract
The best way for an engineer or scientist to express their knowledge, experience and opinions is daytoday verbal communication. When a decision needs to be made about an optimal groundwater control system, the decisionmaking criteria need not always be numerical values. If fuzzy logic is used in multicriteria decisionmaking, the criteria are described by linguistic variables that can be represented through fuzzy membership and expert judgment is used to describe such a system. Prior hydrodynamic modeling of the aquifer regime defines the management scenarios for groundwater control and provides an indication of their effectiveness. In this paper, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is applied to deal with a trending decision problem such as the selection of the optimal groundwater management system. Linguistic variables are used to evaluate all the criteria and subcriteria that influence the final decision and the numerical weights of each alternative are determined by mathematical calculations. The paper presents a part of the algorithm – fuzzy optimization in hydrodynamic analysis, which leads to the selection of the optimal groundwater control system. The proposed method is applied in a real case study of an opencast mine.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Akter T, Simonovic SP (2005) Aggregation of fuzzy views of a large number of stakeholders for multiobjective flood management decisionmaking. J Environ Manag 77(2):133–143
Ardakanian R, Zarghami M (2004) Sustainability criteria for ranking of water resources projects. First national conference on water resources management. Iranian Water Resources Association, Tehran
Azarnivand A, HashemiMadani FS, Banihabib ME (2015) Extended fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in water and environmental management (case study: Lake Urmia Basin, Iran). Environ Earth Sci 73:13–26
Bajić D, Polomčić D (2014) Fuzzy optimization in hydrodynamic analysis of groundwater control systems: case study of the pumping station “Bezdan 1”, Serbia. Geol An Balk Poluostrva. doi:10.2298/GABP1475103B
Boender CGE, De Graan JG, Lootsma FA (1989) Multicriteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets Syst 29:133–143
Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247
Chan FTS, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHPbased approach. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 35:417–431
Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655
Chen H, Wood MD, Linstead C, Maltby E (2011) Uncertainty analysis in a GISbased multicriteria analysis tool for river catchment management. Environ Model Softw 26(4):395–405
Chitsaz N, Banihabib ME (2015) Comparison of different multi criteria decisionmaking models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manag 29(8):2503–2525
Choi SJ, Kim JH, Lee DR (2012) Decision of the water shortage mitigation policy using multicriteria decision analysis. KSCE J Civ Eng 16(2):247–253
Deng H (1999) Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. Int J Approx Reason 21:215–231
Domenech L, March H, Sauri D (2013) Degrowth initiatives in the urban water sector  a social multicriteria evaluation of nonconventional water alternatives in metropolitan Barcelona. J Clean Prod 38:44–55
Enea M, Piazza T (2004) Project selection by constrained fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 3:39–62
Gaur S, Raju KS, Kumar DN, Graillot D (2015) Multiobjective fuzzy optimization for sustainable groundwater management using particle swarm optimization and analytic element method. Hydrol Process 29:4175–4187
Geng G, Wardlaw R (2013) Application of multicriterion decision making analysis to integrated water resources management. Water Resour Manag 27:3191–3207
Golestanifar M, Ahangari K (2012) Choosing an optimal groundwater lowering technique for open pit mines. Mine Water Environ 31(3):192–198
Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manag 21:1553–1566
Hyde KM, Maier HR, Colby CB (2004) Reliabilitybased approach to multicriteria decision analysis for water resources. J Water Resour Plan Manag 130(6):429–438
Jemcov I, Milanović S, Milanović P, Dašić T (2011) Analysis of the utility and management of karst underground reservoirs: case study of the Perućac karst spring. Carbonates Evaporites 26(1):61–68
Kim Y, Chung E (2015) Robust prioritization of climate change adaptation strategies using the VIKOR method with objective weights. J Am Water Resour Assoc 51(5):1167–1182
Kwang HC, Lee HJ (1999) A method for ranking fuzzy numbers and its application to decision making. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems 7(6):677–685
Lamata MT (2004) Ranking of alternatives with ordered weighted averaging operators. Int J Intell Syst 19:473–482
Liou TS, Wang MJJ (1992) Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets Syst 50(3):247–256
Lootsma FA (1981) Saaty's priority theory and the nomination of a senior professor in operations research. Eur J Oper Res 4(6):380–388
Luo QK, Wu JF, Yang Y, Qian JZ, Wu JC (2014) Optimal design of groundwater remediation system using a probabilistic multiobjective fast harmony search algorithm under uncertainty. J Hydrol 519:3305–3315
Masoumi I, Naraghi S, RashidiNejad F, Masoumi S (2014) Application of fuzzy multiattribute decisionmaking to select and to rank the postmining landuse. Environ Earth Sci 72:221–231
Moglia M, Sharma AK, Maheepala S (2012) Multicriteria decision assessments using subjective logic: methodology and the case of urban water strategies. J Hydrol 452453:180–189
Morankar DV, Raju KS, Kumar DN (2013) Integrated sustainable irrigation planning with multiobjective fuzzy optimization approach. Water Resour Manag 27:3981–4004
Mutikanga H, Sharma S, Vairavamoorthy K (2011) Multicriteria decision analysis: a strategic planning tool for water loss management. Water Resour Manag 25:3947–3969
Naghadehi MZ, Mikaeil R, Ataei M (2009) The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm bauxite mine, Iran. Expert Syst Appl 36:8218–8226
Opricović S (1998) VIKOR method. In: Praščević Ž (ed) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. University of Belgrade  Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, pp 142–175 (in serbian)
Opricović S. (2009). A compromise solution in water resources planning. Water Resources Management doi: 10.1007/s112690089340y
Polomčić D, Bajić D (2015) Application of groundwater modeling for designing a dewatering system: case study of the Buvač open cast mine, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Geologia Croatica 68(2):123–137
Rahman MA, Rusteberg B, Uddin MS, Lutz A, Saada MA, Sauter M (2013) An integrated study of spatial multicriteria analysis and mathematical modeling for managed aquifer recharge site suitability mapping and site ranking at northern Gaza coastal aquifer. J Environ Manag 124:25–39
RezaeiMoghaddam K, Karami E (2008) A multiple criteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural development models using AHP. Environ Dev Sustain 10(4):407–426
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGrawHill, New York, p 287
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26
San Cristobal Mateo JR (2012) VIKOR. In: San Cristobal RJ (eds) Multi Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry. Springer, London, pp 49–53 doi:10.1007/978–1–447123460_8
Sanguanduan N, Nititvattananon V (2011) Strategic decision making for urban water reuse application: a case from Thailand. Desalination 268(1–3):141–149
Tang H, Zhang J (2007) Study on fuzzy AHP group decisionmaking method based on setvalued statistics. Fourth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery 3:689–693. doi:10.1109/FSKD.2007.541
Tolga E, Demircan M, Kahraman C (2005) Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 97:89–117
Tuysuz F, Kahraman C (2006) Project risk evaluation using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: an application to information technology projects. Int J Intell Syst 21:229–284
Uddameri V, Hernandez EA, Estrada F (2014) A fuzzy simulationoptimization approach for optimal estimation of groundwater availability under decision maker uncertainty. Environ Earth Sci 71:2559–2572
Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrcyz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:229–241
Van Leekwijck W, Kerre EE (1999) Defuzzification: criteria and classification. Fuzzy Sets Syst 108(2):159–178
Wang Y, Li Z, Tang Z, Zeng G (2011) A GISbased spatial multicriteria approach for flood risk management in the Dongting Lake region, Hunan, Central China. Water Resour Manag 25(13):3465–3484
Yang Y, Wu JF, Sun XM, Wu JC, Zheng CM (2013) A niched Pareto tabu search for multiobjective optimal design of groundwater remediation systems. J Hydrol 490:56–73
Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a liguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf Sci 8:199–249
Zarghami M. & Szidarovszky F. (2011) Multicriteria analysis: applications to water and environment management, 195 pp. Berlin: Springer
Zhu K, Jing Y, Chang D (1999) A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 116:450–456
Acknowledgements
Our gratitude goes to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia for financing projects “OI176022“, „TR33039” and „III43004“.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The present appendix details the calculations of the priority weight vectors (Step 3), the application of the aggregation principle (Step 4) and the calculations of the fuzzy decision matrix and fuzzy performance matrix (Step 5).
Step 3: determination of priority weight vectors. The “weights” in a matrix were determined using the socalled fuzzy extent analysis and the models shown for the criteria, subcriteria and alternatives. According to the criteria matrix A, the priority weight vectors of the technical criteria (ω_{1}), economic criteria (ω_{2}) and ia (ω_{3}) are:
The ultimate criteria weights are:
Then the priority weight vectors (ω) of the subcriteria were determined relative to the considered criterion. The subcriteria weights, in the order given, are:

T_{1:} time

T_{2}: hydrogeologic conformity

T_{3:} efficiency

T_{4:} flexibility

T_{5:} reliability

E_{1}: capital expenditure

E_{2}: operating expenses

E_{3}: maintenance costs

Ž_{1}: drawdown

Ž_{2}: quality of quantity of pumped groundwater

Ž_{3}: energy efficiency
The ultimate weights of the technical (ω_{T}), economic (ω_{E}) and environmental (ω_{Ž}) subcriteria were:
Further, the weights (x) of the alternatives in all Y matrices (where the alternatives were evaluated by pairwise comparison against each subcriterion) were calculated applying fuzzy extent analysis, taking into account all the subcriteria, in the following order:
Step 4  application of the aggregation principle: The triangular fuzzy numbers were multiplied in this step – the criterion weights obtained in the previous steps were multiplied by the weights of their subcriteria. This operation resulted in the ultimate subcriteria “weights” (ω’). All the criteria and subcriteria were thus aggregated into a single level, as the aggregation principle “removed” one level and simplified the system. The calculations are shown below:
The ultimate subcriteria weights were:
Step 5: The fuzzy decision matrix and fuzzy performance matrix were solved. The fuzzy decision matrix was obtained on the basis of fuzzy extent analysis of the alternatives:
The fuzzy performance matrix represented the overall effectiveness of each of the alternatives across the subcriteria:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bajić, D., Polomčić, D. & Ratković, J. MultiCriteria Decision Analysis for the Purposes of Groundwater Control System Design. Water Resour Manage 31, 4759–4784 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1126901717774
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1126901717774