Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Z-number based multi-attribute decision-making algorithm for hydro-environmental system management

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) is still an open issue under uncertain circumstances. This research aimed to introduce a new MADM method for dealing with highly uncertain circumstances. Lake Urmia in Iran suffers from natural and human stimuli. For rapid and sustainable lake rehabilitation, a multidisciplinary and flexible approach is needed to address the divergent benefits and multiple goals. MADM can be accomplished using various techniques such as the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and others. According to the uncertainty, in recent years the hybrid of fuzzy logic with well-known MADM methods such as fuzzy AHP (FAHP) has been used frequently. The main problem of the traditional MADM methods (and fuzzy-based MADM methods) is their weakness in dealing with the ambiguous situations common in real-life scenarios, especially in water crisis problems. For example, the decision, which was accepted based on low-reliability data, tends to be useless or harmful. In contrast to the traditional MADM methods, which ignore the reliability of the information, Z-numbers, as a new generation of the fuzzy logic method, include both constraint and reliability of information and have great potential to explain human knowledge uncertainty. This study developed a new MADM approach based on the Z-numbers concept. In this regard, seven alternatives were proposed and evaluated using the economic, social, environmental, and technical criteria of sustainable development. The obtained results were then compared with the results of the AHP, FAHP, and TOPSIS methods. Improving irrigation efficiency was chosen as the best alternative based on the final ranking of the alternatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

The data will be available upon request.

Code availability

The code will be available upon request.

References

  1. Singh A, Singai CB, Srivastava S, Sivam S (2009) Inclusive water governance: a global necessity. Lessons from India Transit Stud Rev 16:598–608

    Google Scholar 

  2. Regional Water Company of West Azerbaijan (2020) Lake Urmia water level. http://www.agrw.ir/SC.php?type=static&id=129. Accessed 10 Jan 2021

  3. Zarghami M (2011) Effective watershed management; case study of Urmia Lake. Iran Lake Reserv Manag 27:87–94

    Google Scholar 

  4. Azarnivand A, Hashemi-Madani 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

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hassanzadeh E, Zarghami M, Hassanzadeh Y (2012) Determining the main factors in declining the Urmia Lake level by using system dynamics modeling. Water Resour Manag 26:129–145

    Google Scholar 

  6. Savun-Hekimoğlu B, Erbay B, Hekimoğlu M, Burak S (2020) Evaluation of water supply alternatives for Istanbul using forecasting and multi-criteria decision making methods. J Clean Prod 287:125080

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yilmaz B, Harmancioglu N (2010) Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey. Water SA 36:563–576

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen J, Li K, Li K, et al (2021) Dynamic bicycle dispatching of dockless public bicycle-sharing systems using multi-objective reinforcement learning. arXiv:210107437

  9. Chen J, Li K, Tang Z et al (2016) A parallel random forest algorithm for big data in a spark cloud computing environment. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 28:919–933

    Google Scholar 

  10. Win KN, Chen J, Chen Y, Fournier-Viger P (2019) PCPD: a parallel crime pattern discovery system for large-scale spatiotemporal data based on fuzzy clustering. Int J Fuzzy Syst 21:1961–1974

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pourmand E, Mahjouri N, Hosseini M, Nik-Hemmat F (2020) A Multi-criteria group decision making methodology using interval type-2 fuzzy sets: application to water resources management. Water Resour Manag 34:4067–4092

    Google Scholar 

  12. Peng X, Dai J (2018) Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic MADM based on MABAC, TOPSIS and new similarity measure with score function. Neural Comput Appl 29:939–954

    Google Scholar 

  13. Selvachandran G, Peng X (2019) A modified TOPSIS method based on vague parameterized vague soft sets and its application to supplier selection problems. Neural Comput Appl 31:5901–5916

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yang T, Zhang Q, Wan X et al (2020) Comprehensive ecological risk assessment for semi-arid basin based on conceptual model of risk response and improved TOPSIS model-a case study of Wei River Basin. China Sci Total Environ 719:137502

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chen Y, Liu R, Barrett D et al (2015) A spatial assessment framework for evaluating flood risk under extreme climates. Sci Total Environ 538:512–523

    Google Scholar 

  16. Naseri-Rad M, Berndtsson R, Persson KM, Nakagawa K (2020) INSIDE: An efficient guide for sustainable remediation practice in addressing contaminated soil and groundwater. Sci Total Environ 740:139879

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zolghadr-Asli B, Bozorg-Haddad O, Enayati M, Chu X (2021) A review of 20-year applications of multi-attribute decision-making in environmental and water resources planning and management. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01278-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mergias I, Moustakas K, Papadopoulos A, Loizidou M (2007) Multi-criteria decision aid approach for the selection of the best compromise management scheme for ELVs: The case of Cyprus. J Hazard Mater 147:706–717

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aliyev RR (2016) Multi-attribute decision making based on Z-valuation. Procedia Comput Sci 102:218–222

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ali SA, Khatun R, Ahmad A, Ahmad SN (2019) Application of GIS-based analytic hierarchy process and frequency ratio model to flood vulnerable mapping and risk area estimation at Sundarban region, India. Model Earth Syst Environ 5:1083–1102

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gebre SL, Cattrysse D, Van Orshoven J (2021) Multi-criteria decision-making methods to address water allocation problems: A systematic review. Water 13:125

    Google Scholar 

  22. Srdjevic B, Medeiros YDP, Faria AS (2004) An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water Resour Manag 18:35–54

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mianabadi H, Afshar A (2008) Multi-attribute decision-marking to rank urban water supply schemes. J Water Wastewater 66:34–45

    Google Scholar 

  24. Banihabib ME, Shabestari MH (2017) Fuzzy hybrid MCDM model for ranking the agricultural water demand management strategies in arid areas. Water Resour Manag 31:495–513

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nourani V, Najafi H, Sharghi E, Roushangar K (2021) Application of Z-Numbers to monitor drought using large-scale oceanic-atmospheric parameters. J Hydrol 598:126198

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li L, Shi Z-H, Yin W et al (2009) A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to eco-environmental vulnerability assessment for the Danjiangkou reservoir area, China. Ecol Modell 220:3439–3447

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pourmand E, Mahjouri N (2018) A fuzzy multi-stakeholder multi-criteria methodology for water allocation and reuse in metropolitan areas. Environ Monit Assess 190:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6813-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hasani SS, Mojtahedi A, Reshadi MAM (2021) Development of a Novel Fuzzy Logic-Based Wetland Health Assessment Approach for the Management of Freshwater Wetland Ecosystems. Wetlands 41:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zadeh LA (2011) A Note on Z-numbers Inf Sci 181:2923–2932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bozanic D, Tešić D, Milić A (2020) Multicriteria decision making model with Z-numbers based on FUCOM and MABAC model. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 3:19–36

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bobar Z, Božanić D, Djurić K, Pamučar D (2020) Ranking and Assessment of the Efficiency of Social Media using the Fuzzy AHP-Z Number Model-Fuzzy MABAC. Acta Polytech Hungarica 17:43–70

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krohling RA, Pacheco AGC, dos Santos GA (2019) TODIM and TOPSIS with Z-numbers. Front Inf Technol Electron Eng 20:283–291. https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1700434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu Y-H, Peng H-M, Wang T-L et al (2020) Supplier selection in the nuclear power industry with an integrated ANP-TODIM method under Z-Number circumstances. Symmetry (Basel) 12:1357

    Google Scholar 

  34. Aliev RA, Huseynov OH, Aliyev RR, Alizadeh AA (2015) The arithmetic of Z-numbers: Theory and applications. World Scientific, Singapore

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang X-K, Wang Y-T, Wang J-Q et al (2020) A TODIM-PROMETHEE II based multi-criteria group decision making method for risk evaluation of water resource carrying capacity under probabilistic linguistic Z-number circumstances. Mathematics 8:1190

    Google Scholar 

  36. Glukhoded EA, Smetanin SI (2016) The method of converting an expert opinion to Z-number. Proc Inst Syst Program RAS 28:7–20. https://doi.org/10.15514/ISPRAS-2016-28(3)-1

  37. RodrÍguez-López J, Romaguera S, (2004) The Hausdorff fuzzy metric on compact sets. Fuzzy sets Syst 147:273–283

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang J-Q, Wu J-T, Wang J et al (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on the Hausdorff distance of hesitant fuzzy linguistic numbers. Soft Comput 20:1621–1633

    Google Scholar 

  39. Xu Z, Xia M (2011) Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 181:2128–2138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.01.028

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Huttenlocher DP, Klanderman GA, Rucklidge WJ (1993) Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 15:850–863

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fazel N, Berndtsson R, Uvo CB et al (2018) Regionalization of precipitation characteristics in Iran’s Lake Urmia basin. Theor Appl Climatol 132:363–373

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zarghami M, Szidarovszky F (2011) Multicriteria analysis: applications to water and environment management. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Garfì M, Ferrer-Martí L, Bonoli A, Tondelli S (2011) Multi-criteria analysis for improving strategic environmental assessment of water programmes. A case study in semi-arid region of Brazil. J Environ Manage 92:665–675

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zendehdel K, Rademaker M, De Baets B, Van Huylenbroeck G (2010) Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: A case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran. J Arid Environ 74:394–402

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hadipour A, Rajaee T, Hadipour V, Seidirad S (2016) Multi-criteria decision-making model for wastewater reuse application: a case study from Iran. Desalin Water Treat 57:13857–13864

    Google Scholar 

  46. Haghighi AT, Fazel N, Hekmatzadeh AA, Klöve B (2018) Analysis of effective environmental flow release strategies for Lake Urmia restoration. Water Resour Manag 32:3595–3609

    Google Scholar 

  47. Barhagh SE, Zarghami M, Ghale YAG, Shahbazbegian MR (2021) System dynamics to assess the effectiveness of restoration scenarios for the Urmia Lake: a prey-predator approach for the human-environment uncertain interactions. J Hydrol 593:125891

    Google Scholar 

  48. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets Syst 17:233–247

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mcgraw Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Ayağ Z, Özdemir RG (2006) A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. J Intell Manuf 17:179–190

    Google Scholar 

  51. Cheng C-H, Mon D-L (1994) Evaluating weapon system by analytical hierarchy process based on fuzzy scales. Fuzzy sets Syst 63:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  52. Krohling RA, Campanharo VC (2011) Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: A case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea. Expert Syst Appl 38:4190–4197

    Google Scholar 

  53. Chaudhur BB, Rosenfeld A (1996) On a metric distance between fuzzy sets. Pattern Recognit Lett 17:1157–1160

    Google Scholar 

  54. Chang P-T, Lee ES (1995) The estimation of normalized fuzzy weights. Comput Math with Appl 29:21–42

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Srdjevic B, Medeiros YDP (2008) Fuzzy AHP assessment of water management plans. Water Resour Manag 22:877–894

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kang B, Wei D, Li Y, Deng Y (2012) A method of converting Z-number to classical fuzzy number. J Inf Comput Sci 9:703–709

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kang B, Wei D, Li Y, Deng Y (2012) Decision making using Z-numbers under uncertain environment. J Comput Inf Syst 8:2807–2814

    Google Scholar 

  58. Huang J (2008) Combining entropy weight and TOPSIS method for information system selection. In: 2008 ieee conference on cybernetics and intelligent systems. IEEE, pp 1281–1284

  59. Van Broekhoven E, De Baets B (2006) Fast and accurate center of gravity defuzzification of fuzzy system outputs defined on trapezoidal fuzzy partitions. Fuzzy sets Syst 157:904–918

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36:45–63

    Google Scholar 

  61. Peng Y, Wang G, Wang H (2012) User preferences based software defect detection algorithms selection using MCDM. Inf Sci 191:3–13

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zanakis SH, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S (1998) Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. Eur J Oper Res 107:507–529

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Ceballos B, Lamata MT, Pelta DA (2016) A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Prog Artif Intell 5:315–322

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wątróbski J, Jankowski J, Ziemba P et al (2019) Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86:107–124

    Google Scholar 

  65. Megdal SB, Eden S, Shamir E (2017) Water governance, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable water resources management. Water 9:190. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Shackley S, Deanwood R (2003) Constructing social futures for climate-change impacts and response studies: building qualitative and quantitative scenarios with the participation of stakeholders. Clim Res 24:71–90

    Google Scholar 

  67. Muro M, Jeffrey P (2012) Time to talk? How the structure of dialog processes shapes stakeholder learning in participatory water resources management. Ecol Soc 17:3

    Google Scholar 

  68. Abdullaev I, Rakhmatullaev S (2015) Transformation of water management in Central Asia: from State-centric, hydraulic mission to socio-political control. Environ Earth Sci 73:849–861

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lennox J, Proctor W, Russell S (2011) Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealand’s water resource governance. Ecol Econ 70:1381–1394

    Google Scholar 

  70. Isanezhad R, Zarifian S, Raheli H et al (2015) Assessing the effects of optimal cropping pattern in Lake Urmia basin on restoration of Lake Urmia. GMP Rev 18:464–468

    Google Scholar 

  71. Chaudhari S, Felfelani F, Shin S, Pokhrel Y (2018) Climate and anthropogenic contributions to the desiccation of the second largest saline lake in the twentieth century. J Hydrol 560:342–353

    Google Scholar 

  72. Morrison AE, Siems ST, Manton MJ, Nazarov A (2009) On the analysis of a cloud seeding dataset over Tasmania. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:1267–1280

    Google Scholar 

  73. Alinezhad A, Khalili J (2019) New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Springer, Germany

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. Bozorg-Haddad O, Zolghadr-Asli B, Loaiciga HA (2021) A handbook on multi-attribute decision-making methods. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. Anojkumar L, Ilangkumaran M, Sasirekha V (2014) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry. Expert Syst Appl 41:2964–2980

    Google Scholar 

  76. Mohanty PP, Mahapatra SS, Mohanty A (2018) A novel multi-attribute decision making approach for selection of appropriate product conforming ergonomic considerations. Oper Res Perspect 5:82–93

    Google Scholar 

  77. Chen S-M, Han W-H (2018) A new multiattribute decision making method based on multiplication operations of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values and linear programming methodology. Inf Sci 429:421–432

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  78. Xu Z (2007) Methods for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to decision making. Control Decis 22:215–219

    Google Scholar 

  79. Chen S-M, Han W-H (2018) An improved MADM method using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values. Inf Sci 467:489–505

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  80. Chen S-M, Yu S-H (2022) Multiattribute decision making based on novel score function and the power operator of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values. Inf Sci 606:763–785

    Google Scholar 

  81. Reig-Mullor J, Pla-Santamaria D, Garcia-Bernabeu A (2020) Extended fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (E-FAHP): a general approach. Mathematics 8:2014

    Google Scholar 

  82. Xu D, Ren J, Dong L, Yang Y (2020) Portfolio selection of renewable energy-powered desalination systems with sustainability perspective: a novel MADM-based framework under data uncertainties. J Clean Prod 275:124114

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Nothing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Excellence in Hydroinformatics and Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, P.O. Box: 51666, Tabriz, Iran

    Vahid Nourani & Hessam Najafi

  2. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Near East University, Lefkosa, Turkey

    Vahid Nourani

Authors
  1. Vahid Nourani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hessam Najafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahid Nourani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is not any conflict of the interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nourani, V., Najafi, H. A Z-number based multi-attribute decision-making algorithm for hydro-environmental system management. Neural Comput & Applic 35, 6405–6421 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-08025-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-08025-3

Keywords