IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7282-d838546.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Priority Control District Metered Area for Water Distribution Networks Using Water Quality-Related Big Data

Author

Listed:
  • Taehyeon Kim

    (Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoulsiripdaero 163, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02504, Korea)

  • Yoojin Oh

    (Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoulsiripdaero 163, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02504, Korea)

  • Jayong Koo

    (Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoulsiripdaero 163, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02504, Korea)

  • Doguen Yoo

    (Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Suwon, Hwaseong-si 445-743, Korea)

Abstract

Partitioning methodologies such as district metered areas (DMAs) are being applied to the stable maintenance of water distribution network systems in normal conditions such as daily operation and abnormal conditions such as water quality and leakage accidents. However, management and evaluation through the use of existing DMAs generally only have the primary goal of stable water quantity and pressure management. Therefore, the methodology can be limited to achieving the direct effects of water quality parameters such as decreased water age, proper management of residual chlorine, and decreased water quality complaints. This study uses a methodology for determining and prioritizing water quality-oriented Priority Control District Metered Areas (PCDMAs) for stable water quality management to respond to the recent large-scale rusty (red) water crisis in Korea. First, 4 evaluation criteria and 11 evaluation indicators were derived using various water quality-related structured data (water quality measurement data, pipeline data, etc.) and unstructured data (water quality complaints, etc.) based on the Geographic Information System (GIS). A comprehensive prioritization assessment was carried out with multi-criteria decision-making methods based on the analytic hierarchy process. As a result, particular indicators of complaint of water quality and the existence of vulnerable facilities (hospitals, school, etc.) were analyzed as the top five priorities, and it was shown that to be important criteria in determining water quality-oriented PCMDAs. Finally, the proposed methodology was applied to the B metropolitan city of the Republic of Korea, and the evaluation results of all the districts were derived and analyzed. The study shows that the data-based water distribution network PCDMAs selection methodology can be used as a decision-making tool to improve the accuracy and reliability of the operation and management (O&M) of the water distribution operator’s water distribution network. In future research, it will be necessary to evaluate PDDMA with detailed data related to the pipe deterioration (buried environment, the condition of internal/external of the pipe, etc.), which had a significant threshold due to data limitations. And it would be possible to make a real-time evaluation of PCDMA with the real-time water quality test data.

Suggested Citation

  • Taehyeon Kim & Yoojin Oh & Jayong Koo & Doguen Yoo, 2022. "Evaluation of Priority Control District Metered Area for Water Distribution Networks Using Water Quality-Related Big Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7282-:d:838546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7282/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7282/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlo Giudicianni & Manuel Herrera & Armando Nardo & Kemi Adeyeye, 2020. "Automatic Multiscale Approach for Water Networks Partitioning into Dynamic District Metered Areas," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 835-848, January.
    2. Flavio Trojan & Danielle Morais, 2015. "Maintenance Management Decision Model for Reduction of Losses in Water Distribution Networks," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(10), pages 3459-3479, August.
    3. Carlo Ciaponi & Enrico Murari & Sara Todeschini, 2016. "Modularity-Based Procedure for Partitioning Water Distribution Systems into Independent Districts," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(6), pages 2021-2036, April.
    4. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, 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. Dawid Szpak, 2020. "Method for Determining the Probability of a Lack of Water Supply to Consumers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Tianwei Mu & Yan Lu & Haoqiang Tan & Haowen Zhang & Chengzhi Zheng, 2021. "Random Walks Partitioning and Network Reliability Assessing in Water Distribution System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(8), pages 2325-2341, June.
    3. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    4. Nina Almasifar & Tülay Özdemir Canbolat & Milad Akhavan & Roberto Alonso González-Lezcano, 2021. "Proposing a New Methodology for Monument Conservation “SCOPE MANAGEMENT” by the Use of an Analytic Hierarchy Process Project Management Institute System and the ICOMOS Burra Charter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    6. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    7. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    8. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    9. Jeongwook Choi & Doosun Kang, 2020. "Improved Hydraulic Simulation of Valve Layout Effects on Post-Earthquake Restoration of a Water Distribution Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Lim, Chulmin & Rowsell, Joe & Kim, Seongcheol, 2023. "Exploring the killer domains to create new value: A Comparative case study of Canadian and Korean telcos," 32nd European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2023: Realising the digital decade in the European Union – Easier said than done? 277998, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    11. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    12. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Karasakal, Esra & Aker, Pınar, 2017. "A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 79-92.
    14. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    15. Rubio-Aliaga, Alvaro & García-Cascales, M. Socorro & Sánchez-Lozano, Juan Miguel & Molina-Garcia, Angel, 2021. "MCDM-based multidimensional approach for selection of optimal groundwater pumping systems: Design and case example," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 213-224.
    16. Saeed Nosratabadi & Gergo Pinter & Amir Mosavi & Sandor Semperger, 2020. "Sustainable Banking; Evaluation of the European Business Models," Papers 2003.13423, arXiv.org.
    17. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    18. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    19. Jing Xu & Ren Zhang & Yangjun Wang & Hengqian Yan & Quanhong Liu & Yutong Guo & Yongcun Ren, 2022. "A New Framework for Assessment of Offshore Wind Farm Location," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-17, September.
    20. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.

    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:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7282-:d:838546. 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.