IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1304-d487678.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

AHP as a Useful Tool in the Assessment of the Technical Condition of Hydrotechnical Constructions

Author

Listed:
  • Mateusz Hämmerling

    (Department of Hydraulic and Sanitary Engineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Piątkowska 94, 60-649 Poznań, Poland)

  • Joanna Kocięcka

    (Department of Land Improvement, Environment Development and Spatial Management, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Piątkowska 94, 60-649 Poznań, Poland)

  • Stanisław Zaborowski

    (Department of Hydraulic and Sanitary Engineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Piątkowska 94, 60-649 Poznań, Poland)

Abstract

The key challenge for sustainable water management is to carry out a proper assessment of the technical condition of hydrotechnical constructions. Maintaining them in a good state is a prerequisite for ensuring the safety of objects, as well as adjacent areas. This paper compares the results of field research obtained by three methods to assess the technical condition of structures located on the Wełna River. The main objective is to determine the differences between the methods and to indicate the most important assessment elements and criteria. Moreover, it was checked if the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to carry out the correct assessment of hydrotechnical construction. An assessment that will be based on the hierarchy of factors, which is not often used in other methods. The AHP was applied for the first time to assess the technical condition of hydrotechnical constructions. Based on AHP, three variants of different weights for factors, including exploitation problems and damage to construction elements, were selected. The new variants developed by the authors allow for a more accurate, multifactor assessment. The use of scales to determine the importance of individual elements contributes to the actual representation of the technical condition of the object, which is often over- or underestimated by other assessment methods. The analysis shows that the AHP method is a useful tool to support the assessment of the technical condition of hydrotechnical construction. The use of AHP as a universal assessment method will compare the technical condition of hydrotechnical constructions located all over the world.

Suggested Citation

  • Mateusz Hämmerling & Joanna Kocięcka & Stanisław Zaborowski, 2021. "AHP as a Useful Tool in the Assessment of the Technical Condition of Hydrotechnical Constructions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-26, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1304-:d:487678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1304/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1304/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Emrouznejad & Marianna Marra, 2017. "The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(22), pages 6653-6675, November.
    2. Omid Ghorbanzadeh & Sarbast Moslem & Thomas Blaschke & Szabolcs Duleba, 2018. "Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP Decision Support Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Anna Kurbatova & Hani Ahmed Abu-Qdais, 2020. "Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Select Waste to Energy Technology for a Mega City: The Case of Moscow," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Kumar, Deepak & Katoch, S.S., 2015. "Sustainability suspense of small hydropower projects: A study from western Himalayan region of India," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 220-233.
    5. Jin Hui Lee & Sangyon Lim, 2018. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach for Sustainable Assessment of Economy-Based and Community-Based Urban Regeneration: The Case of South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Bing Feng & Kaiyang Sun & Min Chen & Tao Gao, 2020. "The Impact of Core Technological Capabilities of High-Tech Industry on Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, April.
    7. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    8. Olexandr Nekhay & Manuel Arriaza, 2016. "How Attractive Is Upland Olive Groves Landscape? Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and GIS in Southern Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Jiwan Lee & Yonggwan Lee & Soyoung Woo & Wonjin Kim & Seongjoon Kim, 2020. "Evaluation of Water Quality Interaction by Dam and Weir Operation Using SWAT in the Nakdong River Basin of South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Seong-Nam Nam & Thao Thi Nguyen & Jeill Oh, 2019. "Performance Indicators Framework for Assessment of a Sanitary Sewer System Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Ireneusz Laks & Zbigniew Walczak, 2020. "Efficiency of Polder Modernization for Flood Protection. Case Study of Golina Polder (Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-27, September.
    12. Razvan Serbu & Bogdan Marza & Sorin Borza, 2016. "A Spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process for Identification of Water Pollution with GIS Software in an Eco-Economy Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-25, November.
    13. Jun Wook Hur & Min-Ho Jang & Kyung-Hoon Shin & Kyung-Lak Lee & Kwang-Hyeon Chang, 2018. "Ecological Niche Space of Fish Communities in Impounded Sections of Large Rivers: Its Application to Assessment of the Impact of Weirs on River Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Szu-Hsien Peng, 2019. "Landscape Assessment for Stream Regulation Works in a Watershed Using the Analytic Network Process (ANP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Yenan Wu & Ping-an Zhong & Yu Zhang & Bin Xu & Biao Ma & Kun Yan, 2015. "Integrated flood risk assessment and zonation method: a case study in Huaihe River basin, China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 78(1), pages 635-651, August.
    16. Suwal, Naresh & Huang, Xianfeng & Kuriqi, Alban & Chen, Yingqin & Pandey, Kamal Prasad & Bhattarai, Khem Prasad, 2020. "Optimisation of cascade reservoir operation considering environmental flows for different environmental management classes," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 453-464.
    17. M. M. Yagoub & Aishah A. Alsereidi & Elfadil A. Mohamed & Punitha Periyasamy & Reem Alameri & Salama Aldarmaki & Yaqein Alhashmi, 2020. "Newspapers as a validation proxy for GIS modeling in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates: identifying flood-prone areas," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 111-141, October.
    18. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kałuża, Tomasz & Hämmerling, Mateusz & Zawadzki, Paweł & Czekała, Wojciech & Kasperek, Robert & Sojka, Mariusz & Mokwa, Marian & Ptak, Mariusz & Szkudlarek, Arkadiusz & Czechlowski, Mirosław & Dach, J, 2022. "The hydropower sector in Poland: Barriers and the outlook for the future," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    2. Seyed Mohammad Haghighi Fard & Naciye Doratli, 2022. "Evaluation of Resilience in Historic Urban Areas by Combining Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System and GIS, with Sustainability and Regeneration Approach: The Case Study of Tehran (IRAN)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-21, February.

    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. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Afaf Haial & Loubna Benabbou & Abdelaziz Berrado, 2021. "Designing a Transportation-Strategy Decision-Making Process for a Supply Chain: Case of a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    5. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    7. Rohit Agrawal & Vishal A. Wankhede & Anil Kumar & Sunil Luthra, 2021. "Analysing the roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector: Reducing waste and environmental perspectives," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1051-1066, February.
    8. Xu, Xiaozhan, 2004. "A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 530-532, July.
    9. Shanshan Hu & Xiangjun Cheng & Demin Zhou & Hong Zhang, 2017. "GIS-based flood risk assessment in suburban areas: a case study of the Fangshan District, Beijing," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(3), pages 1525-1543, July.
    10. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    11. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    12. Michael O. Ukoba & Ogheneruona E. Diemuodeke & Mohammed Alghassab & Henry I. Njoku & Muhammad Imran & Zafar A. Khan, 2020. "Composite Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Optimization of Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems for Geopolitical Zones in Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-27, July.
    13. Collins Opoku Antwi & Jun Ren & Wenyu Zhang & Wilberforce Owusu-Ansah & Michael Osei Aboagye & Emmanuel Affum-Osei & Richard Adu Agyapong, 2022. "“I Am Here to Fly, but Better Get the Environment Right!” Passenger Response to Airport Servicescape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Michele Grimaldi & Monica Sebillo & Giuliana Vitiello & Vincenzo Pellecchia, 2020. "Planning and Managing the Integrated Water System: A Spatial Decision Support System to Analyze the Infrastructure Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-24, August.
    15. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    16. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    17. Haiyun, Cui & Zhixiong, Huang & Yüksel, Serhat & Dinçer, Hasan, 2021. "Analysis of the innovation strategies for green supply chain management in the energy industry using the QFD-based hybrid interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    18. Sharad Singh & Akhilesh Barve & Saket Shanker & Hritika Sharma, 2023. "Confronting Barriers: An Efficacious Higher Education System Implementation in India," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(5), pages 1961-1980, October.
    19. Ji, Junping & Wei, Fangling & Ma, Xiaoming, 2011. "深圳水库流域污水处理方案多准则决策研究 [Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Sewage Treatment Plans for Shenzhen Reservoir Basin]," MPRA Paper 59744, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1304-:d:487678. 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.