IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i7p1190-d386947.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao-Kang Wang

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Yi-Ting Wang

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Jian-Qiang Wang

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Peng-Fei Cheng

    (Hunan Engineering Research Center for Intelligent Decision Making and Big Data on Industrial Development, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China)

  • Lin Li

    (School of Business, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China)

Abstract

With the development of the urbanization process, the demand for water resources has increased significantly, but the pollution of water resources has caused serious problems. These changes pose a potential threat to water resource carrying capacity in many regions. However, how to determine the areas of highest risk in water resource carrying capacity is an urgent problem which remains to be solved. Resounding to these circumstances, this study establishes a TODIM-PROMETHEE Ⅱ (An acronym in Portuguese for interactive and multiple attribute decision making- preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation Ⅱ) based decision support framework to address this issue for the regions of intensive governance, thereby providing support. In this framework, a novel theoretical concept, namely probabilistic linguistic Z-numbers, is proposed to describe group decision information. The related knowledge of probabilistic linguistic Z-numbers is developed, including a comparison method, distance, and operational rules. Subsequently, a case study involving the evaluation of water resource carrying capacity is conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the decision support model, followed by sensitivity analysis, comparison analysis, and discussion. The findings demonstrate that the constructed framework demonstrates great performance to address this issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao-Kang Wang & Yi-Ting Wang & Jian-Qiang Wang & Peng-Fei Cheng & Lin Li, 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, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-27, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:7:p:1190-:d:386947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/7/1190/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/7/1190/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang-peng Tian & Jing Wang & Jian-qiang Wang & Hong-yu Zhang, 2017. "Simplified Neutrosophic Linguistic Multi-criteria Group Decision-Making Approach to Green Product Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 597-627, May.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. K. Cheng & Q. Fu & J. Meng & T. X. Li & W. Pei, 2018. "Analysis of the Spatial Variation and Identification of Factors Affecting the Water Resources Carrying Capacity Based on the Cloud Model," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(8), pages 2767-2781, June.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Jian-qiang Wang & Juan-juan Peng & Hong-yu Zhang & Tao Liu & Xiao-hong Chen, 2015. "An Uncertain Linguistic Multi-criteria Group Decision-Making Method Based on a Cloud Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 171-192, January.
    6. Zeshui Xu, 2009. "An Interactive Approach to Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making with Multigranular Uncertain Linguistic Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 119-145, March.
    7. Yu, Haiyan Helen & Edmunds, Mike & Lora-Wainwright, Anna & Thomas, David, 2016. "Governance of the irrigation commons under integrated water resources management – A comparative study in contemporary rural China," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 65-74.
    8. Feng, Li-Hua & Zhang, Xing-Cai & Luo, Gao-Yuan, 2008. "Application of system dynamics in analyzing the carrying capacity of water resources in Yiwu City, China," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 269-278.
    9. Hong-gang Peng & Jian-qiang Wang, 2020. "Multi-criteria sorting decision making based on dominance and opposition relations with probabilistic linguistic information," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 435-470, December.
    10. Zhang-Peng Tian & Ru-Xin Nie & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2020. "Probabilistic linguistic multi-criteria decision-making based on evidential reasoning and combined ranking methods considering decision-makers’ psychological preferences," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(5), pages 700-717, May.
    11. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    12. Mingwei Lin & Zeshui Xu & Yuling Zhai & Zhiqiang Yao, 2018. "Multi-attribute group decision-making under probabilistic uncertain linguistic environment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(2), pages 157-170, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiao-kang Wang & Sheng-hui Wang & Hong-yu Zhang & Jian-qiang Wang & Lin Li, 2021. "The Recommendation Method for Hotel Selection Under Traveller Preference Characteristics: A Cloud-Based Multi-Criteria Group Decision Support Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 1433-1469, December.
    2. Raghunathan Krishankumar & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Kattur Soundarapandian Ravichandran & Xindong Peng & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "A Group Decision Framework for Renewable Energy Source Selection under Interval-Valued Probabilistic linguistic Term Set," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Dan-Ping Li & Li Xie & Peng-Fei Cheng & Xiang-Hong Zhou & Cheng-Xun Fu, 2021. "Green Supplier Selection Under Cloud Manufacturing Environment: A Hybrid MCDM Model," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    4. Juan-Juan Peng & Jian-Qiang Wang & Xiao-Hui Wu, 2016. "Novel Multi-criteria Decision-making Approaches Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Sets and Prospect Theory," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 621-643, May.
    5. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    6. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    7. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    8. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    9. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    10. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    12. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    13. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    14. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    15. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    16. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    17. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    18. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    19. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    20. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:7:p:1190-:d:386947. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.