Water Policies and Conflict Resolution of Public Participation Decision-Making Processes Using Prioritized Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) Operators

[EN] There is a growing interest in environmental policies about how to implement public participation engagement in the context of water resources management. This paper presents a robust methodology, based on ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators, to conflict resolution decision-making problems under uncertain environments due to both information and stakeholders' preferences. The methodology allows integrating heterogeneous interests of the general public and stakeholders on account of their different degree of acceptance or preference and level of influence or power regarding the measures and policies to be adopted, and also of their level of involvement (i.e., information supply, consultation and active involvement). These considerations lead to different environmental and socio-economic outcomes, and levels of stakeholders' satisfaction. The methodology establishes a prioritization relationship over the stakeholders. The individual stakeholders' preferences are aggregated through their associated weights, which depend on the satisfaction of the higher priority decision maker. The methodology ranks the optimal management strategies to maximize the stakeholders' satisfaction. It has been successfully applied to a real case study, providing greater fairness, transparency, social equity and consensus among actors. Furthermore, it provides support to environmental policies, such as the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), improving integrated water management while covering a wide range of objectives, management alternatives and stakeholders.Llopis Albert, C.; Merigó-Lindahl, JM.; Liao, H.; Xu, Y.; Grima-Olmedo, J.; Grima-Olmedo, C. (2018). Water Policies and Conflict Resolution of Public Participation Decision-Making Processes Using Prioritized Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) Operators. Water Resources Management. 32(2):497-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1823-2S497510322Amin GR, Sadeghi H (2010) Application of prioritized aggregation operators in preference voting. Int J Intell Syst 25(10):1027–1034Chen TY (2014) A prioritized aggregation operator-based approach to multiple criteria decision making using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: A comparative perspective. Inf Sci 281:97–112Chen LH, Xu ZS (2014) A prioritized aggregation operator based on the OWA operator and prioritized measures. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:1297–1307Chen LH, Xu ZS, Yu XH (2014a) Prioritized measure-guided aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:1127–1138Chen LH, Xu ZS, Yu XH (2014b) Weakly prioritized measure aggregation in prioritized multicriteria decision making. Int J Intell Syst 29:439–461CHJ (2016). Júcar river basin authority http://www.chj.es/CHS (2016). Segura river basin authority http://www.chsegura.es/Dong JY, Wan SP (2016) A new method for prioritized multi-criteria group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30:1719–1733EC (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327/1eL327/72 22.12.2000Jackson S, Tan P-L, Nolan S (2012) Tools to enhance public participation and confidence in the development of the Howard East aquifer water plan, Northern Territory. J Hydrol 474:22–28Jin FF, Ni ZW, Chen HY (2016) Note on “Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute decision making”. Knowl-Based Syst 96:115–119Kentel E, Aral MM (2007) Fuzzy Multiobjective Decision-Making Approach for Groundwater Resources Management. J Hydrol Eng 12(2):206–217. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2007)12:2(206).Kirchherr J, Charles KJ, Walton MJ (2016) Multi-causal pathways of public opposition to dam project in Asia: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Glob Environ Chang 41:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.001Llopis-Albert C, Pulido-Velazquez D (2015) Using MODFLOW code to approach transient hydraulic head with a sharp-interface solution. Hydrol Process 29(8):2052–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10354Llopis-Albert C, Palacios-Marqués D, Soto-Acosta P (2015) Decision-making and stakeholders constructive participation in environmental projects. J Bus Res 68:1641–1644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.010Llopis-Albert C, Merigó JM, Xu Y, Huchang L (2017) Improving regional climate projections by prioritized aggregation via ordered weighted averaging operators. Environ Eng Sci. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0546Maia R (2017) The WFD Implementation in the European Member States. Water Resour Manag 31(10):3043–3060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1723-5Malczewski J, Chapman T, Flegel C, Walters D, Shrubsole D, Healy MA (2003) GIS - multicriteria evaluation with ordered weighted averaging (OWA): case study of developing watershed management strategies. Environ Plan A 35:1769–1784. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35156Merigó JM, Casanovas M (2011) The uncertain generalized owa operator and its application to financial decision making. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 10(2):211–230Merigó JM, Yager RR (2013) Generalized moving averages, distance measures and OWA operators. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 21(4):533–559Merigó JM, Palacios-Marqués D, Ribeiro-Navarrete B (2015) Aggregation systems for sales forecasting. J Bus Res 68:2299–2304Mesiar R, Stupnanová A, Yager RR (2015) Generalizations of OWA Operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(6):2154–2162O’Hagan M (1988) Aggregating Template Rule Antecedents in Real-time Expert Systems with Fuzzy Set Logic. In: Proceedings of 22nd annual IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals. IEEE and Maple Press, Pacific Grove, Systems and Computers, pp 681–689Rahmani MA, Zarghami M (2013) A new approach to combine climate change projections by ordered weighting averaging operator; applications to northwestern provinces of Iran. Glob Planet Chang 102:41–50Ran LG, Wei GW (2015) Uncertain prioritized operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 21:118–139Ruiz-Villaverde, A., García-Rubio, M.A. (2017). Public Participation in European Water Management: from Theory to Practice. Water Resour Manag 31(8), 2479–2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1355-1Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2007) Probability density functions based weights for ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators: An example of water quality indices. Eur J Oper Res 182:1350–1368Sadiq R, Rodríguez MJ, Tesfamariam S (2010) Integrating indicators for performance assessment of small water utilities using ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators. Expert Syst Appl 37:4881–4891Verma R, Sharma B (2016) Prioritized information fusion method for triangular fuzzy information and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 24:265–290Wang HM, Xu YJ, Merigó JM (2014) Prioritized aggregation for non-homogeneous group decision making in water resource management. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 48(1):247–258Wei GW (2012) Hesitant fuzzy prioritized operators. Knowl-Based Syst 31:176–182Wei CP, Tang XJ (2012) Generalized prioritized aggregation operators. Int J Intell Syst 27:578–589Xu ZS (2005) An Overview of Methods for Determining OWA Weights. Int J Intell Syst 20:843–865Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on Systems. Man Cybern B 18(1988):183–190Yager RR (2008) Prioritized Aggregation Operators. Int J Approx Reason 48:263–274Yan H-B, Huynh V-N, Nakamori Y, Murai T (2011) On prioritized weighted aggregation in multi-criteria decision making. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):812–823Ye J (2014) Prioritized aggregation operators of trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to multicriteria decision-making. Neural Comput & Applic 25:1447–1454Yu XH, Xu ZS, Liu SS (2013) Prioritized multi-criteria decision making based on preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 66:104–115Zadeh LA (1983) A Computational Approach to Fuzzy Quantifiers in Natural Languages. Comput Math Appl 9:149–184Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F (2009) Revising the OWA operator for multi criteria decision making problems under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 198:259–265Zarghami M, Ardakanian R, Memariani A, Szidarovszky F (2008) Extended OWA Operator for Group Decision Making on Water Resources Projects. J Water Resour Plan Manag 134(3):266–275. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:3(266)Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F, Ardakanian R (2009) Multi-attribute decision making on inter-basin water transfer projects. Transaction E. Ind Eng 16(1):73–80Zhao XF, Li QX, Wei GW (2014) Some prioritized aggregating operators with linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 26:1619–1630Zhao N, Xu ZS, Ren ZL (2016) On typical hesitant fuzzy prioritized “or” operator in multi-attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 31:73–100Zhou LY, Lin R, Zhao XF, Wei GW (2013) Uncertain linguistic prioritized aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making. Int J Uncertain, Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 21:603–627Zhou LG, Merigó JM, Chen HY, Liu JP (2016) The optimal group continuous logarithm compatibility measure for interval multiplicative preference relations based on the COWGA operator. Inf Sci 328:250–26

Fuzzy Techniques for Decision Making 2018

Zadeh's fuzzy set theory incorporates the impreciseness of data and evaluations, by imputting the degrees by which each object belongs to a set. Its success fostered theories that codify the subjectivity, uncertainty, imprecision, or roughness of the evaluations. Their rationale is to produce new flexible methodologies in order to model a variety of concrete decision problems more realistically. This Special Issue garners contributions addressing novel tools, techniques and methodologies for decision making (inclusive of both individual and group, single- or multi-criteria decision making) in the context of these theories. It contains 38 research articles that contribute to a variety of setups that combine fuzziness, hesitancy, roughness, covering sets, and linguistic approaches. Their ranges vary from fundamental or technical to applied approaches

Logistic autonomous vehicles assessment using decision support model under spherical fuzzy set integrated Choquet Integral approach

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are the newest products in the intelligent transportation system that can move around with minimal human intervention. These products continue their path with all kinds of sensors with different parts. Effective use of these technologies in the logistics industry can create a competitive advantage. Nowadays, there are many AVs, some of which are superior to others in terms of build quality, variety of features, and design. Choosing an efficient, optimal, and reliable vehicle is one of the most important challenges in logistics planning. Therefore, choosing an AV based on a series of criteria can be considered a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. Due to the complication of decision-making issues, criteria are usually not independent of each other and there are relationships between them. Therefore, this study develop an extended MCDM framework based on Choquet integral (CI) under group decision-making with a Spherical fuzzy set (SFS) for assessing logistics AVs. The CI technique is expanded with SFS to increase the power of CI. Furthermore, the combination of CI with SFS leads to greater freedom for decision makers to express opinions and use three independent membership functions. Accordingly, the interactions between the criteria are considered and the skepticism and uncertainty present during the decision are controlled. The proposed approach is implemented in selecting the best AVs in the logistics industry, and the results are compared with Pythagorean fuzzy CI and Intuitionistic fuzzy CI. Moreover, sensitivity analysis is done by changing the weights and creating different scenarios to confirm and check the robustness of the proposed approach results. The results indicate the suggested approach's efficiency and the ranking's stability in different scenarios

New Trends in Neutrosophic Theory and Applications Volume II

Neutrosophic set has been derived from a new branch of philosophy, namely Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic set is capable of dealing with uncertainty, indeterminacy and inconsistent information. Neutrosophic set approaches are suitable to modeling problems with uncertainty, indeterminacy and inconsistent information in which human knowledge is necessary, and human evaluation is needed. Neutrosophic set theory was proposed in 1998 by Florentin Smarandache, who also developed the concept of single valued neutrosophic set, oriented towards real world scientific and engineering applications. Since then, the single valued neutrosophic set theory has been extensively studied in books and monographs introducing neutrosophic sets and its applications, by many authors around the world. Also, an international journal - Neutrosophic Sets and Systems started its journey in 2013. Single valued neutrosophic sets have found their way into several hybrid systems, such as neutrosophic soft set, rough neutrosophic set, neutrosophic bipolar set, neutrosophic expert set, rough bipolar neutrosophic set, neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set, etc. Successful applications of single valued neutrosophic sets have been developed in multiple criteria and multiple attribute decision making. This second volume collects original research and application papers from different perspectives covering different areas of neutrosophic studies, such as decision making, graph theory, image processing, probability theory, topology, and some theoretical papers. This volume contains four sections: DECISION MAKING, NEUTROSOPHIC GRAPH THEORY, IMAGE PROCESSING, ALGEBRA AND OTHER PAPERS. First paper (Pu Ji, Peng-fei Cheng, Hongyu Zhang, Jianqiang Wang. Interval valued neutrosophic Bonferroni mean operators and the application in the selection of renewable energy) aims to construct selection approaches for renewable energy considering the interrelationships among criteria. To do that, Bonferroni mean (BM) and geometric BM (GBM) are employed

A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria

The best–worst method (BWM) is a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) method for evaluating ≤a set of alternatives based on a set of decision criteria where two vectors of pairwise comparisons are used to calculate the importance weight of decision criteria. The BWM is an efficient and mathematically sound method used to solve a wide range of MCDM problems by reducing the number of pairwise comparisons and identifying the inconsistencies derived from the comparison process. In spite of its simplicity and efficiency, the BWM does not consider the decision-makers’ (DMs’) confidence in their pairwise comparisons. We propose a neutrosophic enhancement to the original BWM by introducing two new parameters as the DMs’ confidence in the best-to-others preferences and the DMs’ confidence in the others-to-worst preferences. We present two real-world cases to illustrate the applicability of the proposed neutrosophic enhanced BWM (NE-BWM) by considering confidence rating levels of the DMs

New Development of Neutrosophic Probability, Neutrosophic Statistics, Neutrosophic Algebraic Structures, and Neutrosophic & Plithogenic Optimizations

This Special Issue puts forward for discussion state-of-the-art papers on new topics related to neutrosophic theories, such as neutrosophic algebraic structures, neutrosophic triplet algebraic structures, neutrosophic extended triplet algebraic structures, neutrosophic algebraic hyperstructures, neutrosophic triplet algebraic hyperstructures, neutrosophic n-ary algebraic structures, neutrosophic n-ary algebraic hyperstructures, refined neutrosophic algebraic structures, refined neutrosophic algebraic hyperstructures, quadruple neutrosophic algebraic structures, refined quadruple neutrosophic algebraic structures, neutrosophic image processing, neutrosophic image classification, neutrosophic computer vision, neutrosophic machine learning, neutrosophic artificial intelligence, neutrosophic data analytics, neutrosophic deep learning, neutrosophic symmetry, and their applications in the real world. This book leads to the further advancement of the neutrosophic and plithogenic theories of NeutroAlgebra and AntiAlgebra, NeutroGeometry and AntiGeometry, Neutrosophic n-SuperHyperGraph (the most general form of graph of today), Neutrosophic Statistics, Plithogenic Logic as a generalization of MultiVariate Logic, Plithogenic Probability and Plithogenic Statistics as a generalization of MultiVariate Probability and Statistics, respectively, and presents their countless applications in our every-day world

An integrated and comprehensive fuzzy multicriteria model for supplier selection in digital supply chains

Digital supply chains (DSCs) are collaborative digital systems designed to quickly and efficiently move information, products, and services through global supply chains. The physical flow of products in traditional supply chains is replaced by the digital flow of information in DSCs. This digitalization has changed the conventional supplier selection processes. We propose an integrated and comprehensive fuzzy multicriteria model for supplier selection in DSCs. The proposed model integrates the fuzzy best-worst method (BWM) with the fuzzy multi-objective optimization based on ratio analysis plus full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA), fuzzy complex proportional assessment of alternatives (COPRAS), and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The fuzzy BWM approach is used to measure the importance weights of the digital criteria. The fuzzy MULTIMOORA, fuzzy COPRAS, and fuzzy TOPSIS methods are used as prioritization methods to rank the suppliers. The maximize agreement heuristic (MAH) is used to aggregate the supplier rankings obtained from the prioritization methods into a consensus ranking. We present a real-world case study in a manufacturing company to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method