Application of risk-based multiple criteria decision analysis for selection of the best agricultural scenario for effective watershed management

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 168, Issue , 2016, Pages 260-272

  Javidi Sabbaghian, Reza ^a,b   Zarghami, Mahdi ^c,d,e   Nejadhashemi, A Pouyan ^b   Sharifi, Mohammad Bagher ^a   Herman, Matthew R ^b   Daneshvar, Fariborz ^b  

^a FERDOWSI UNIVERSITY OF MASHHAD   (Iran)

^b Michigan State University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TABRIZ   (Iran)

^d Tufts University   (United States)

^e MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Effective watershed management; Induced ordered weighted averaging; Ordered weighted averaging; Scenario ranking; Simple additive weighting

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; DECISION THEORY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SOIL CONSERVATION; STATISTICAL METHODS; WATER CONSERVATION; WATER MANAGEMENT;

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS; EFFECTIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; INDUCED ORDERED WEIGHTED AVERAGING; MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING; ORDERED WEIGHTED AVERAGING; SCENARIO RANKING; SIMPLE ADDITIVE WEIGHTING; SUBBASINS; WATERSHEDS MANAGEMENT;

WATERSHEDS;

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; DECISION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATERSHED;

AVERAGING; CASE REPORT; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; UNITED STATES; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT; AGRICULTURE; CHEMISTRY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; MICHIGAN; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER POLLUTANT;

AUSTRALIA; HONEY CREEK [OHIO]; MICHIGAN; NORTHERN TERRITORY; OHIO; PINE CREEK; UNITED STATES;

WATER POLLUTANT;

AGRICULTURE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ENVIRONMENT; HUMANS; MICHIGAN; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; WATER POLLUTANTS;

EID: 84951749031     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.038     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Aras H., Erdogmus S., Ko E. Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renew. Energy 2004, 29:1383-1392.
2. Bonissone P.P. A fuzzy sets based linguistic approach: theory and applications. Approximate Reasoning in Decision-making Analysis 1982, 329-339. North-Holland. M.M. Gupta, E. Sanchez (Eds.).
3. Calizaya A., Meixner O., Bengtsson L., Berndtsson R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for integrated water resources management in the Lake Poopo Basin, Bolivia. Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24:2267-2289.
4. Chatzimouratidis A.I., Pilavachi P.A. Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2009, 37:778-787.
5. Duckstein L., Treichel W., Magnouni S.El Ranking ground-water management alternatives by multi- criterion analysis. J. Water Res. Pl. ASCE 1994, 120:546-565.
6. EPA, 2013. United States environmental Protection Agency. (Retrieved from Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Saginaw River and BayError! Hyperlink reference not valid).
7. Emrouznejad A., Marra M. Ordered weighted averaging operators 1988-2014: a citation-based literature survey. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2014, 29:994-1014.
8. Garfi M., Ferrer-Marti L., Bonoli A., Tondelli S. Multi-criteria analysis for improving strategic environmental assessment of water programmes, a case study in semiarid region of Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92:665-675.
9. Giri S., Nejadhashemi A.P., Woznicki S.A. Evaluation of targeting methods for implementation of best management practices in the Saginaw river watershed. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 103:24-40.
10. Giri S., Nejadhashemi A.P. Application of analytical hierarchy process for effective selection of agricultural best management practices. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 132:165-177.
11. Hajkowicz S., Collins K. A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resources planning and management. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21:1553-1566.
12. Herman M.R., Nejadhashemi A.P., Daneshvar F., Ross D.M., Woznicki S.A., Zhang Z., Esfahanian A. Optimization of conservation practice implementation strategies in the context of stream health. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84:1-12.
13. Herrera F., Herrera-Viedma E., Verdegay J.L. Direct approach processes in group decision-making using linguistic OWA operators. Fuzzy Set. Syst 1996, 79:175-190.
14. Hwang C.L., Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision-making: methods and Applications, a State of the Art Survey 1981, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
15. Karr J.R. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 1981, 6:21_27.
16. Linkov I., Steevens J. A Detailed Analysis of the Theoretical Foundation of Different MCDA 2013, (Chapter 35). Appendix A: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (Online). Accessed in. http://www.epa.gov/cyano_habs_symposium/monograph.
17. Liu X., Han S. Orness and parameterized RIM quantifier aggregation with OWA operators: a summary. Int. J. Approx. Reason 2008, 48:77-97.
18. Liu X. A review of the OWA determination methods, classification and some extensions. Recent Developments in the Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators: Theory and Practice 2011, 49-90. Springer, Berlin. R.R. Yager, J. Kacprzyk, G. Beliakov (Eds.).
19. Malczewski J., Rinner C. Exploring multi-criteria decision strategies in GIS with linguistic quantifiers: a case study of residential quality evaluation. J. Geogr. Syst. 2005, 7:249-268.
20. Mendoza G.A., Martins H. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Est. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 230:1-22.
21. Mianabadi H., Sheikhmohammady M., Mostert E., Van de Giesen N. Application of the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) method to the Caspian Sea conflict. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A 2014, 28:1359-1372.
22. Milani A.S., Shanian A., Madoliat R. The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision-making models: a case study in gear material selection. Struct. Multidiscip. O. 2005, 29:312-318.
23. NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Services 2014, Retrieved from Typical Statewide Average Practice Costs 2014. Accessed in. http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/MI/Typical_Statewide_Average_PracticeCost2014.pdf.
24. Papadopoulos A., Karagiannidis A. Application of multi-criteria analysis method electre III for the optimization of decentralised energy systems. Omega 2008, 28:1359-1372.
25. Phua M.H., Minowa M. A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making approach to forest conservation planning at a landscape scale: a case study in the Kinabalu Area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 71:207-222.
26. Pomerol J.C., Romero S.B. Multi-criteria decision in management: principle and practice. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science 2000, Springer.
27. Reynolds K., Peets S. Integrated assessment and priorities for protection and restoration of watersheds. Proceedings of the IUFRO 4.11 Conference on Forest Biometry, Modelling and Information Science, Greenwich, June 26-29 2001, 1-14.
28. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process 1980, McGraw-Hill, New York.
29. Shih H.S., Shyur H.J., Lee E.S. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision-making. Math. Comput. Model 2007, 45:801-813.
30. Singh R.K., Choudhury A.K., Tiwari M.K., Shankar R. Improved Decision Neural Network (IDNN) based consensus method to solve a multi-objective group decision-making problem. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2007, 21:335-348.
31. Szidarovszky F., Gershon M.E., Duckstein L. Techniques for Multi-objective Decision-making in Systems Management 1986, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
32. USEPA Nonpoint Source Pollution: the Nation's Largest Water Quality Problem 2005, Publication no. EPA841-F-96-004A. Accessed in. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/outreach/point1.cfm.
33. Wang J.J., Jing Y.Y., Zhang C.F., Zhao J.H. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable Sust. Energ. Rev. 2009, 13:2263_2278.
34. Yager R.R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision-making. IEEE T. Syst. Man. Cyb. 1988, 18(1):183-190.
35. Yager R.R. Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 1996, 11:49-73.
36. Yager R.R., Filev D.P. Induced ordered weighted averaging operators. IEEE T. Syst. Man. Cyb. 1999, 29:141-150.
37. Yager R.R. On the cardinality index and attitudinal character of fuzzy measures. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 2002, 31:303-329.
38. Yoon K.P., Hwang C.L. Multiple Attribute Decision-making: an Introduction 1995, Sage Pub., Thousand Oaks, CA.
39. Young K.D., Kibler D.F., Benham B.L., Loganathan G.V. Application of the analytical hierarchical process for improved selection of stormwater BMPs. J. Water Res. Pl. ASCE 2009, 135:264-275.
40. Yu L., Lai K.K. A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support. Decis. Support. Syst. 2011, 51:307-315.
41. Yue Z. A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS. Appl. Math. Model 2011, 35:1926-1936. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.11.001.
42. Zadeh L.A. A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Comput. Math. Appl. 1983, 9:149-184.
43. Zarghami M., Szidarovszky F. On the relation between compromise programming and ordered weighted averaging operator. Inf. Sci. 2010, 180:2239-2248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010.01.032.
44. Zarghami M. Effective watershed management; case study of Urmia Lake, Iran. Lake Reser. Manag. 2011, 27:87-94.
45. Zekâi S. Fuzzy Logic and Hydrological Modeling 2010, Taylor & Francis Group, New York.
46. Zeleny M. Compromise programming. Multiple Criteria Decision-making 1973, 263-301. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. J.L. Cochrane, M. Zeleny (Eds.).