IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/masjnl/v9y2015i1p68.html

Comparing ELECTRE and Linear Assignment Methods in Zoning Shahroud-Bastam Watershed for Artificial Recharge of Groundwater with GIS Technique

Author

Listed:
  • Azam Abdolazimi
  • Mehdi Momeni
  • Majid Montazeri

Abstract

Today, uncontrolled exploitation of ground water has doubled water scarcity problem, while proper control and management of these resources can solve water shortage problem to some extent. One of the approaches for managing groundwater resources is artificial recharging of groundwater and determining the best location for this. This study aimed at ranking Shahroud–Bastam watershed using ELECTRE and linear assignment methods and the results of these two methods are compared. These two models are of multiple-criteria decision making compensation and coordinated subgroup models. The findings indicate that among the seven zones in ELECTRE method mentioned above, zones (3, 4,5) with four dominations and 2 defeats and 2 points are in the first ranking and are the most suitable zones for artificial recharge. Zone (1) with six defeats and no dominations and (-6) points is in the last ranking and is not suitable for artificial recharge of ground water. Zones (2, 6, 7) respectively with (2, 2, 1) dominations and (4, 4, 5) defeats and with (-2, -2, -4) points are in the next rankings respectively. Zones (1, 2, 6, 7) must be removed because the number of their defeats is more than the number of their dominations and have negative points. In linear assignment method, among 7 zones, zone 3 has the first rank and is the best zone for artificial recharge and zone 7 is in the last ranking and is not suitable for artificial recharge. Zones (4, 2, 5, 6, 1) are in the next rankings respectively. Between these two methods, the results of linear assignment method are more consistent with reality and are more accurate.

Suggested Citation

  • Azam Abdolazimi & Mehdi Momeni & Majid Montazeri, 2015. "Comparing ELECTRE and Linear Assignment Methods in Zoning Shahroud-Bastam Watershed for Artificial Recharge of Groundwater with GIS Technique," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(1), pages 1-68, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/download/42486/23195
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/view/42486
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gomez-Limon, Jose A. & Martinez, Yolanda, 2006. "Multi-criteria modelling of irrigation water market at basin level: A Spanish case study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(1), pages 313-336, August.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    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. Reza Banai, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Sudhakar Yedla & Ram M. Shrestha, 2007. "Application of analytic hierarchy process to prioritize urban transport options: Comparative analysis of group aggregation methods," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2007-011, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    3. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    4. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Jicang Xu & Linlin Li & Ming Ren, 2022. "A Hybrid ANP Method for Evaluation of Government Data Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-32, January.
    6. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    7. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    8. Sudhakar Yedla & Ram M. Shrestha, 2007. "Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban Transport Options - Comparative Analysis of Group Aggregation Methods," Microeconomics Working Papers 22400, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    9. Guh, Yuh-Yuan, 1997. "Introduction to a new weighting method -- Hierarchy consistency analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 215-226, October.
    10. Chou, Yuntsai & Lee, Chiwei & Chung, Jianru, 2004. "Understanding m-commerce payment systems through the analytic hierarchy process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(12), pages 1423-1430, December.
    11. Tanrıverdi, Gökhan & Lezki, Şenay, 2021. "Istanbul Airport (IGA) and quest of best competitive strategy for air cargo carriers in new competition environment: A fuzzy multi-criteria approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Bice Cavallo & Gerardo Canfora & Livia D’Apuzzo & Massimo Squillante, 2014. "Reasoning under uncertainty and multi-criteria decision making in data privacy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1957-1972, July.
    13. Cui, Ye & E, Hanyu & Pedrycz, Witold & Fayek, Aminah Robinson, 2022. "A granular multicriteria group decision making for renewable energy planning problems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1047-1059.
    14. Ludmila Walaszczyk, 2016. "Project Risk Assessment in Enterprises with the Use of TOPSIS Method in the 2014–2020 Perspective(Zarzadzanie ryzykiem projektu w przedsiebiorstwie w ramach perspektywy 2014–2020 z wykorzystaniem meto," Research Reports, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 2(21), pages 71-79.
    15. Xiaoxia Li, 2022. "Research on the Development Level of Rural E-Commerce in China Based on Analytic Hierarchy and Systematic Clustering Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Beynon, Malcolm, 2002. "An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 104-117, July.
    17. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    18. Chenglin Wang & Zhicheng Zhou & Xiaohui Yu & Jintao Chen & Pengnan Li & Ziqi Wang, 2023. "Research on Profit Allocation of Agricultural Products Co-Delivery Based on Modified Interval Shapley Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, February.
    19. Gerald Schweiger & Fabian Kuttin & Alfred Posch, 2019. "District Heating Systems: An Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of the 4GDH," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Haiyan Xu & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour & Ye Chen, 2010. "Combining strength and uncertainty for preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 497-521, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:masjnl:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:68. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.