پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,098,630 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,206,256 |
توسعه و مقایسۀ مدل‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیارۀ جبرانی برای مکان‌یابی سدهای مخزنی براساس معیارهای توسعۀ پایدار | ||
| اکوهیدرولوژی | ||
| مقاله 17، دوره 7، شماره 3، مهر 1399، صفحه 775-790 اصل مقاله (845.67 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/ije.2020.303488.1337 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمد ابراهیم بنی حبیب* 1؛ بهمن وزیری2؛ رضا هاشمی3؛ میترا تنهاپور4 | ||
| 1استاد گروه مهندسی آبیاری و زهکشی، دانشکدۀ پردیس ابوریحان، دانشگاه تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دکترای گروه مهندسی آبیاری و زهکشی، دانشکدۀ پردیس ابوریحان، دانشگاه تهران، ایران | ||
| 3استادیار گروه مهندسی آب، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه بیرجند، ایران | ||
| 4دانشجوی دکترای، گروه مهندسی آبیاری و زهکشی، دانشکدۀ پردیس ابوریحان، دانشگاه تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| ساخت غیراصولی سدها سبب عدم تعادل بین منابع آب و پایداری محیط میشود. بنابراین، در ساخت سدها به عنوان یکی از روشهای تأمین آب، رعایت اصول و معیارهای توسعۀ پایدار اهمیت زیادی دارد. در تحقیق حاضر اولویت محل ساخت سد کندوله در استان کرمانشاه با استفاده از تکنیکهای مختلف مدل تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیارۀ جبرانی شامل وزندهی ساده، برنامهریزی توافقی و تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی بررسی شد. به اینمنظور، پس از تعیین معیارهای مناسب به کمک مطالعات و دیدگاه‌های کارشناسان، برای تعیین وزن معیارها از تصمیم‌گیری گروهی با اندازهگیری میزان توافق تصمیمگیران استفاده شد. سپس، چهار گزینۀ پیشنهادی برای سد کندوله بر اساس معیارهای فنی، اقتصادی، اجتماعی، زیست‌محیطی و زیرمعیارهای مربوطه رتبهبندی شده و نتایج با هم مقایسه شد. علاوه بر تعیین ساختگاه برتر، 17 زیرمعیار برای انتخاب این ساختگاه نیز رتبهبندی شد. در انتها، با آنالیز حساسیت مدلها رتبهبندی نهایی گزینهها ارزیابی شد. بر اساس دیدگاه‌های کارشناسان معیار اقتصادی بیشترین اهمیت را در انتخاب ساختگاه دارد. همچنین، نتایج نشان داد رتبهبندی گزینهها در مدل تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی مشابه دو روش دیگر است. به این صورت که در کلیۀ مدلها گزینۀ چهارم به عنوان بهترین گزینه معرفی شد و گزینههای سوم، اول و دوم به‌ترتیب در رتبههای بعدی قرار گرفتند. همچنین، نتایج تحلیل حساسیت مدلها نشان داد رتبهبندی نهایی گزینهها بر اثر تغییر وزن بیشتر معیارها تغییر نمیکند. تحقیق حاضر یک رویکرد معتبر و به‌صرفه برای تصمیمگیران به منظور شناسایی گزینۀ برتر ساختگاه سد برای رسیدن به اهداف توسعۀ پایدار را فراهم میسازد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| برنامه ریزی توافقی؛ تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی؛ تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره؛ ساختگاه سد؛ وزندهی ساده | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Developing and Comparing Compensatory Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for the Reservoir-dam Site Selection Based on Sustainable Development Criteria | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib1؛ Bahman Vaziri2؛ Reza Hashemi3؛ Mitra Tanhapour4 | ||
| 1Professor, Department of irrigation and drainage engineering, Aburaihan Faculty, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2PhD, Department of irrigation and drainage engineering, Aburaihan Faculty, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Department of water engineering, Agriculture Faculty, University of Birjand, Iran | ||
| 4PhD candidate, Department of irrigation and drainage engineering, Aburaihan Faculty, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Unsustainable dam construction causes an imbalance between water resources and environmental sustainability. Thus, it is crucial to observe the principles and criteria of sustainable development in dam construction. In this study, the priority of the construction site of Kandoleh Dam in Kermanshah province was investigated using different techniques of the MCDM including simple additive weighting, compromise programming and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). For this purpose, after determining the appropriate criteria with the help of studies and experts’ opinions, group decision-making was employed to determine the weight of the criteria by measuring the decision-makers’ agreement. Then, the four proposed sites for the Kondoleh dam were ranked based on technical, economic, social, environmental criteria and relevant sub-criteria. Finally, the results were compared. In addition to determining the best site, 17 sub-criteria were also ranked for electing this site, and the sensitivity analysis of the models to evaluate the final ranking the alternatives was carried out. Based on experts’ opinions, the economic criterion was the most important in selecting a suitable site. In all models, the fourth alternative was proposed as the best alternative, and the third, first and second alternatives respectively were placed in the next ranks. The results of the sensitivity analysis of the models illustrated that final ranking of the alternatives does not change due to the variations of the criterion weights. The present study provides a valid and inexpensive approach for decision-makers to identify the best dam construction site to achieve sustainable development goals. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Multi-criteria decision making, Dam site selection, Simple additive weighting, Compromise programming, Analytical hierarchy process | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1]. Zarghami M, Ardakanian R, Modarres Yazdi M. Ranking the inter-basin water transfers using induced ordered weighted averaging operator. 2007; 23(37): 99-109. [Persian] [2]. Sadeghpour A.H, Raeisy A.A. Using the Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method (AHP) in selecting the optimal site of dam (case study Qarachai dam). The first international project management conference, Tehran, 2004. pp. 1-8. [Persian]
[3]. Yousefi M, Farokhzadeh B, Basati S. Prioritization of potential areas for construction of underground dam using geometric average method in geographical information system. Iranian journal of Ecohydrology. 2017; 4(3): 663-672.
[4]. Bagherzadeh M, Mohammadi Saeid A, Jabari E. Optimal ranking water resource development projects using multi-criteria decision making models, The Second Iranian Water Resources Management Conference, Iran University of Science and Technology. 2006. pp. 1-8. [Persian]
[5].Hwang CL, Yoon K. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin: Heidelberg; 1981.
[6]. Szidaroszky F, Gershon M, Duckstein L. Hydropower development priority using MCDM method. 1986. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[7]. Zeleny M. Compromise Programming. In: Cochrane, j.L. and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina; 1973.p.263-301.
[8]. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource, Allocation. RWS publication, New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[9]. Bashiri M. multi-criteria decision making. 1nd ed. University of Shahed; 2011. [Persian]
[10]. Lund JR. Derived estimation of willingness to pay to avoid probabilistic shortage. Water Resources Research. 1995; 31(5):1367-72.
[11]. Αnagnostopoulos Κ, Petalas C, Pisinaras V. Water resources planning using the ahp and promethee multicriteria methods: The case of nestos river-Greece. The 7th Balkan Conference on Operational Research, Constanta, Romania; 2005. pp. 1-10.
[12]. Özelkan EC, Duckstein L. Analysing water resources alternatives and handling criteria by multi criterion decision techniques. Journal of environmental management. 1996; 48(1): 69-96.
[13]. Ramanathan R. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of environmental management. 2001; 63(1): 27-35.
[14].Nigim K, Munier N, Green J. Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. Renewable energy. 2004; 29(11): 1775-91.
[15]. Tikniouine A, Elfazziki A, Agouti T. An hybrid model of MCDA for the GIS: application to the localization of a site for the implantation of a dam. WSEAS Transactions on Computers. 2006; 5(3):515-20.
[16]. Willett K, Sharda R. Using the analytic hierarchy process in water resources planning: Selection of flood control projects. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 1991; 25(2): 103-12.
[17]. Mass A, Hufschmidt MM, Dorfman R, Thomas Jr HA, Marglin SA, Fair GM. Design of water resources systems. Pub. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1962.
[18]. Simonovic SI. Decision support systems for sustainable management of water resources: 1. General principles. Water International. 1996; 21(4): 223-32.
[19]. Meshram SG, Alvandi E, Meshram C, Kahya E, Al-Quraishi AM. Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds. Water Resources Management. 2020; 2:1-18.
[20]. Othman AA, Al-Maamar AF, Al-Manmi DA, Liesenberg V, Hasan SE, Obaid AK, Al-Quraishi AM. GIS-Based Modeling for Selection of Dam Sites in the Kurdistan Region, Iraq. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2020; 9(4): 1-34.
[21]. Sardar Shahraki A, Bazrafshan O. Integrated Water Resources Management with Emphasis on the Economic-Environmental Aspects of the Kahir Dam. Iranian journal of Ecohydrology. 2019; 6(2): 267-279.
[22]. Mohammadi P, Malekian A. Prioritization of flood risk based on multi-criteria decision-making models (Gray systems theory-ELECTRE-TOPSIS). Iranian journal of Ecohydrology. 2017; 4(2): 499-508.
[23]. Kheirkhah M, Naseri H. Use of Analytical Hierarchy Process method in ranking suitable locations for underground dam construction. Research and construction in natural resources. 2008; 79: 93-101. [Persian]
[24]. Olapour M, Ghobadi M.H, Morvaridi A, Mousavi S. Prioritization of dam options in the recognition stage from the perspective of engineering geology using AHP method (case study), The fifth Iranian Conference on Engineering Geology and Environment, Tehran, 2007, pp. 1-10. [Persian]
[25]. Supriyasilp T, Pongput K, Boonyasirikul T. Hydropower development priority using MCDM method. Energy Policy. 2009; 37(5): 1866-75.
[26]. Perez EH, Garcia Cascales M.S, Lamat MT. THE USE OF DIFFERENT NORMS IN THE TOPSIS DECISION MAKING METHOD. Of the 8th International FLINS Conference on Computational Intelligence in Decision and Control; 2008. Madrid, Spain, pp. 501-506.
[27]. Ghodsipour S. H. Analytical hierarchy process. 6nd ed. Amir Kabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic). 2008. [Persian]
[28]. Ataei M. Multi-Criteria Evaluation Method. 1nd ed. Shahroud University of Technology. 2010. [Persian]
[29]. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. Decision making in economic, political, social, and technological environments with the analytic hierarchy process. Rws Pubns; 1994.
[30]. Mowrer HT. Decision support systems for ecosystem management: an evaluation of existing systems. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1997.
[31]. Godsipour SH, Analytical hierarchy process. 9nd ed. Tehran: Amirkabir University of Technology; 2008. [Persian].
[32]. Zarghami M, Ehsani, I. Evaluation of different Group Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods in Selection of Water Transfer Projects to Urmia Lake Basin. Iran Water Resources Research, 2011; 7(2): 1-14. [Persian]
[33]. Kuncheva LI. Pattern recognition with a model of fuzzy neuron using degree of consensus. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1994; 66(2): 241-50.
[34]. Ashton RH. Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1992; 52(2): 292-306.
[35]. Bureau of Reclamation. Design of small dams. United States. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; 1987.
[36]. Njiru FM. Hydrological information for Dam site selection by Integrating Geographic Information System (GIS) and Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), 2015, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
[37]. Nik, MSA, Esfahani, HK. Using the AHP and Fuzzy-AHP Decision Making Methods to Optimize the Dam Site Selection in illustrative basin in the center of Iran. International Journal of Advanced Research. 2015, 3(9):31-41.
[38]. Banihabib ME, Chitsaz N, Randhir TO. Non-compensatory decision model for incorporating the sustainable development criteria in flood risk management plans. SN Applied Sciences. 2020; 2 (1):6.
[39]. Simon U, Brüggemann R, Pudenz S. Aspects of decision support in water management—example Berlin and Potsdam (Germany) I—spatially differentiated evaluation. Water Research. 2004, 38 (7):1809-16.
[40]. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management: An International Journal. 2005, 1(2):95-108.
[41]. Jozi A, Malmir M. Environmental risk assessment of dams by using multi-criteria decision-making methods: A case study of the Polrood Dam, Guilan Province, Iran. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 2014, 20(1):69-85.
[42]. Chang CL. Evaluation of basin environmental vulnerability: the weighted method compared to the compromise method. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2013, 10 (5):1051-6.
[43]. Kabir G. Selection of hazardous industrial waste transportation firm using extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies. 2015, 7(1):40-58.
[44]. Azimi R, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Fooladgar MM, Basiri MH. Evaluating the strategies of the Iranian mining sector using a integrated model. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management. 2011, 6 (6):459-66.
[45]. Kaya T, Kahraman C. Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011, 38(6):7326-33.
[46]. Singh LK, Jha MK, Chowdary VM. Multi-criteria analysis and GIS modeling for identifying prospective water harvesting and artificial recharge sites for sustainable water supply. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017, 142:1436-56.
[47]. Chezgi J. Application of SWAT and MCDM Models for Identifying and Ranking Suitable Sites for Subsurface Dams. InSpatial Modeling in GIS and R for Earth and Environmental Sciences 2019, (pp. 189-211). Elsevier.
[48]. Van NT, Van Son P, Khanh NH, Binh LT. Landslide susceptibility mapping by combining the analytical hierarchy process and weighted linear combination methods: a case study in the upper Lo River catchment (Vietnam). Landslides. 2016, 13(5):1285-301.
[49]. Uyan M. GIS-based solar farms site selection using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in Karapinar region, Konya/Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013, 28:11-7.
[50]. Jozaghi A, Alizadeh B, Hatami M, Flood I, Khorrami M, Khodaei N, Ghasemi Tousi E. A comparative study of the AHP and TOPSIS techniques for dam site selection using GIS: A case study of Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran. Geosciences. 2018, 8(12):494.
[51]. Yasser M, Jahangir K, Mohmmad A. Earth dam site selection using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a case study in the west of Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences. 2013, 6(9):3417-26. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 485 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 238 |
||