首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Environmental Management >Analysing Water Resources Alternatives and Handling Criteria by Multi Criterion Decision Techniques
【24h】

Analysing Water Resources Alternatives and Handling Criteria by Multi Criterion Decision Techniques

机译:利用多准则决策技术分析水资源替代方案和处理标准

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In this paper, a hydro-ecological management problem is analyzed by means of multi criterion decision-making (MCDM) techniques. The MCDM techniques used are (1) preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE-Ⅰ, Ⅱ), (2) geometrical analysis for interactive assistance (GAIA), (3) multi criterion Q-analysis (MCQA-Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ ), (4) compromise programming (CP) and (5) cooperative game theory (CGT). An Austrian case study is presented to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. The aim is to identify the so-called satisfactory water resources projects being designed at the Austrian part of Danube river. Moreover, handling of criteria in MCDM is discussed. Criteria analysis is important to understand the structure of the problem and also, in case of large criterion sets, a preference order on the criteria may help to determine the redundant and less important criteria in terms of discriminating power on the alternatives. GAIA and MCQA-Ⅲ appear to be the only methods among the ones used that enable an analysis of the discriminating power of each criterion. In this paper, some modifications of the indices used in MCQA-Ⅲ are proposed and shown to perform better in ranking criteria than earlier ones. It has been also shown that the use of two principal components in GAIA analysis might lead to misinterpretation of the real problem. In our case study, there are 12 alternatives and 33 criteria. The criteria consists of mainly three conflicting types of interest: economic, ecological and sociological. The alternatives include the construction of several hydropower plants as well as a national park. The comparison of the results show that there is not really a substantial ranking difference between the methods.
机译:本文利用多准则决策技术对水生态管理问题进行了分析。使用的MCDM技术包括:(1)富集评估的偏好排序组织方法(PROMETHEE-Ⅰ,Ⅱ),(2)交互式协助的几何分析(GAIA),(3)多准则Q分析(MCQA-Ⅰ,Ⅱ, Ⅲ),(4)妥协编程(CP)和(5)合作博弈论(CGT)。奥地利案例研究表明了该方法的优缺点。目的是确定在多瑙河奥地利部分正在设计的所谓令人满意的水资源项目。此外,讨论了MCDM中标准的处理。准则分析对于理解问题的结构很重要,而且在准则集较大的情况下,就准则的优先顺序而言,从区分备选方案的权力方面,可能有助于确定多余且次要的准则。 GAIA和MCQA-Ⅲ似乎是所使用的方法中唯一能够分析每个标准的判别力的方法。在本文中,提出了对MCQA-Ⅲ中使用的索引的一些修改,并显示出在排序标准上比早期的索引有更好的表现。还表明在GAIA分析中使用两个主要成分可能会导致对实际问题的误解。在我们的案例研究中,有12种选择和33条标准。该标准主要包括三种相互冲突的利益类型:经济,生态和社会学。替代方案包括建造几个水力发电厂和一个国家公园。结果的比较表明,这两种方法之间实际上并没有实质性的排名差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号