Fuzzy Set Ranking Methods and Multiple Expert Decision Making

The present report further investigates the multi-criteria decision making tool named Fuzzy Compromise Programming. Comparison of different fuzzy set ranking methods (required for processing fuzzy information) is performed. A complete sensitivity analysis concerning decision maker’s risk preferences was carried out for three water resources systems, and compromise solutions identified. Then, a weights sensitivity analysis was performed on one of the three systems to see whether the rankings would change in response to changing weights. It was found that this particular system was robust to the changes in weights. An inquiry was made into the possibility of modifying Fuzzy Compromise Programming to include participation of multiple decision makers or experts. This was accomplished by merging a technique known as Group Decision Making Under Fuzziness, with Fuzzy Compromise Programming. Modified technique provides support for the group decision making under multiple criteria in a fuzzy environment.https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wrrr/1001/thumbnail.jp

A Spatial Fuzzy Compromise Approach for Flood Disaster Management

Natural disasters affect regions with different intensity and produce damages that vary in space. Topographical features of the region; location of properties that may be exposed to the peril; level of exposure; impact of different mitigation measures; are all variables with considerable spatial variability. A new method for evaluation of disaster impacts has been presented in this report that takes into consideration spatial variability of variables involved and associated uncertainty. Flood management has been used to illustrate the utility of proposed approach. Floodplain management is a spatial problem. Representation of flood damage mitigation alternatives and objectives in space provides a better insight into the management problem and its characteristics. Protection of a region from floods can be achieved through various structural and non-structural measures. Comparison of different measures and evaluation of their impacts is based on the multiple criteria. If they are described spatially, decision-making problem can be conceptualized as spatial multi criteria decision-making (MCDM). Tkach and Simonovic (1997) introduced spatial Compromise Programming (SPC) technique to account for spatial variability in flood management. Some of the criteria and preferences of the stakeholders involved with flood management are subject to uncertainty that may originate in the data, knowledge of the domain or our ability to adequately describe the decision problem. The main characteristic of flood management is the existence of objective and subjective uncertainty. Fuzzy set theory has been successfully used to address both, objective and subjective uncertainty. Bender and Simonovic (2000) incorporated vagueness and imprecision as sources of uncertainty into multi criteria decision-making in water resources. In this report a new technique named Spatial Fuzzy Compromise Programming (SFCP) has been developed to enhance our ability to address the issues related to uncertainties in spatial environment. A general fuzzy compromise programming technique, when made 2 spatially distributed, proved to be a powerful and flexible addition to the list of techniques available for decision making where multiple criteria are used to judge multiple alternatives. All uncertain variables (subjective and objective) are modeled by way of fuzzy sets. In the present study, fuzzy measures have been introduced to spatial multi criteria decision-making in the GIS environment in order to account for uncertainties. Through a case study of the Red River floodplain near the City of St. Adolphe in Manitoba, Canada, it has been illustrated that the new technique provides measurable improvement in flood management. Final results in the form of maps that shown spatial distribution of the impacts of mitigation measures on the region can be of great value to insurance industry.https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wrrr/1004/thumbnail.jp

Developing A Group Decision Support System (gdss) For Decision Making Under Uncertainty

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problems are often associated with tradeoffs between performances of the available alternative solutions under decision making criteria. These problems become more complex when performances are associated with uncertainty. This study proposes a stochastic MCDM procedure that can handle uncertainty in MCDM problems. The proposed method coverts a stochastic MCDM problem into many deterministic ones through a Monte-Carlo (MC) selection. Each deterministic problem is then solved using a range of MCDM methods and the ranking order of the alternatives is established for each deterministic MCDM. The final ranking of the alternatives can be determined based on winning probabilities and ranking distribution of the alternatives. Ranking probability distributions can help the decision-maker understand the risk associated with the overall ranking of the options. Therefore, the final selection of the best alternative can be affected by the risk tolerance of the decisionmakers. A Group Decision Support System (GDSS) is developed here with a user-friendly interface to facilitate the application of the proposed MC-MCDM approach in real-world multiparticipant decision making for an average user. The GDSS uses a range of decision making methods to increase the robustness of the decision analysis outputs and to help understand the sensitivity of the results to level of cooperation among the decision-makers. The decision analysis methods included in the GDSS are: 1) conventional MCDM methods (Maximin, Lexicographic, TOPSIS, SAW and Dominance), appropriate when there is a high cooperation level among the decision-makers; 2) social choice rules or voting methods (Condorcet Choice, Borda scoring, Plurality, Anti-Plurality, Median Voting, Hare System of voting, Majoritarian iii Compromise ,and Condorcet Practical), appropriate for cases with medium cooperation level among the decision-makers; and 3) Fallback Bargaining methods (Unanimity, Q-Approval and Fallback Bargaining with Impasse), appropriate for cases with non-cooperative decision-makers. To underline the utility of the proposed method and the developed GDSS in providing valuable insights into real-world hydro-environmental group decision making, the GDSS is applied to a benchmark example, namely the California‘s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta decision making problem. The implications of GDSS‘ outputs (winning probabilities and ranking distributions) are discussed. Findings are compared with those of previous studies, which used other methods to solve this problem, to highlight the sensitivity of the results to the choice of decision analysis methods and/or different cooperation levels among the decision-maker

Fuzzy subjective evaluation of Asia Pacific airport services

This paper presents a fuzzy decision-making model to determine the ranking of fourteen Asia Pacific airports based on the services provided to passengers. Airport services were represented by six attributes namely comfort, processing time, convenience, courtesy of staff, information visibility and security. Data for the attributes given by travel experts are in the triangular fuzzy number form. Based on fuzzy set and approximate reasoning, the model allows decision makers to make the best choice in accordance with human thinking and reasoning processes.The use of fuzzy rules which are extracted directly from the input data in making evaluation, contributes to a better decision and is less dependent on experts.Experimental results show that the proposed model is comparable to previous studies.The model is suitable for various fuzzy environments

State-of-the-Art Report on Systems Analysis Methods for Resolution of Conflicts in Water Resources Management

Water is an important factor in conflicts among stakeholders at the local, regional, and even international level. Water conflicts have taken many forms, but they almost always arise from the fact that the freshwater resources of the world are not partitioned to match the political borders, nor are they evenly distributed in space and time. Two or more countries share the watersheds of 261 major rivers and nearly half of the land area of the wo rld is in international river basins. Water has been used as a military and political goal. Water has been a weapon of war. Water systems have been targets during the war. A role of systems approach has been investigated in this report as an approach for resolution of conflicts over water. A review of systems approach provides some basic knowledge of tools and techniques as they apply to water management and conflict resolution. Report provides a classification and description of water conflicts by addressing issues of scale, integrated water management and the role of stakeholders. Four large-scale examples are selected to illustrate the application of systems approach to water conflicts: (a) hydropower development in Canada; (b) multipurpose use of Danube river in Europe; (c) international water conflict between USA and Canada; and (d) Aral See in Asia. Water conflict resolution process involves various sources of uncertainty. One section of the report provides some examples of systems tools that can be used to address objective and subjective uncertainties with special emphasis on the utility of the fuzzy set theory. Systems analysis is known to be driven by the development of computer technology. Last section of the report provides one view of the future and systems tools that will be used for water resources management. Role of the virtual databases, computer and communication networks is investigated in the context of water conflicts and their resolution.https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wrrr/1005/thumbnail.jp

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for the sustainable management of water withdrawals in Alpine watercourses

L'abstract è presente nell'allegato / the abstract is in the attachmen

A General Overview of Multi-objective Multiple-participant Decision Making for Flood Management

Decision-making problems in water resources are often associated with multiple objectives and multiple stakeholders. To enable more effective and acceptable decision outcome, it is required that more participation is ensured in the decision making process. This is particularly relevant for flood management problems where the number of stakeholders could be very large. Although application of multi-objective decision-making tools in water resources is very wide, application with the consideration of multiple stakeholders is much more limited. The solution methodologies adapted for multi-objective multi-participant decision problems are generally based on aggregation of decisions obtained for individual decision makers. This approach seems somewhat inadequate when the number of stakeholders is very large, as often is the case in flood management. The present study has been performed to have an overview of existing solution methodologies for multi-objective decision making approaches in water resources. Decision making by single and multiple stakeholders has been considered under both deterministic and uncertain conditions. It has been found that the use of fuzzy set theory to represent various uncertainties associated with decision making situations under multi-objective multiple-participant environment is very promising. Coupled with multi-objective methods (e. g. compromise programming and goal programming), fuzzy approach has also the ability to support group decisions, to reflect collective opinions and conflicting judgments.https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wrrr/1003/thumbnail.jp

Spatial Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Proportional Accountability of Flood Causal Factors and Vulnerable Areas in Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria

There have been considerable reports on flood frequency, vulnerability and risk especially on Makurdi. However, not much has been known about the proportional contribution of the causal factors and distribution among vulnerable areas. This aspect remains fundamental in flood disaster and risk management decisions and actions. It is on this premise that this study applied the spatial multi-criteria evaluation technique (SMCE). The four (4) broad categories of flood causative factors: Climatic (rainfall) , soil (textural distribution of clay and sand content), morphometric (slope, linear and areal) and Land Use / Land Cover (built-up land, bare land, farm land, vegetated land, wetland and water bodies/broad river) were used for the analytic hierarchy process and weighted sum overlay technique. The analysis revealed percentage contributions of the most effective flood causing factors as follows: Rainfall (44.89%), morphometry (34.02%), Landuse / Landcover (12.8%) and soil (6.28%). The weighted sum overlay result shows that low flood vulnerability areas occupy 43.11% (460.782 km2), moderate flood vulnerability areas 31.13% (332.717 km2) and high flood vulnerability 25.75% (275.238 km2). Since this study identified rainfall as the major determinant of flooding it recommends that annual and seasonal rainfall predictions should be enhanced in Makurdi. Also, the area with high flood vulnerability which coincides with built-up area should drive the promotion of flood resilience city structures and enforced by relevant public institutions such as Federal Ministry of Environment, Urban Planning Departments, Works and Housing. Therefore, remediation actions can be applied for the high vulnerability areas while mitigation actions can be focused more on the moderate flood vulnerability areas. Keywords: Spatial, Multi-criteria, Vulnerability, Flood, Mitigation DOI: 10.7176/JRDM/77-03 Publication date:July 31st 202