IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v32y2018i1d10.1007_s11269-017-1747-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Cost Drivers for Field Canals Improvement Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Haytham H. Elmousalami

    (Zagazig University)

  • Ahmed H. Elyamany

    (Zagazig University)

  • Ahmed H. Ibrahim

    (Zagazig University)

Abstract

Field Canals Improvement Project (FCIP) aims to conserve fresh water. Several methods are existed to predict project preliminary cost. However, identification of model inputs remains a challenging task during model development. This study utilizes two procedures, Traditional Delphi Method (TDM) and Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), which are used for collecting and initially ranking cost drivers. According to the second approach, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is used for finally ranking the screened parameters by FDM. Delphi rounds and Likert scale are conducted to determine the most important factors from the viewpoint of consultant engineers and contractors. Regression analysis and R square is used as a comparison criteria between traditional technique and fuzzy techniques. The study suggests using Fuzzy theory and Delphi method with Analytic Hierarchy Process in order to identify cost drivers efficiently. Paper contribution is proposing a methodology to evaluate cost drivers of FCIP using qualitative data such as experts’ opinions.

Suggested Citation

  • Haytham H. Elmousalami & Ahmed H. Elyamany & Ahmed H. Ibrahim, 2018. "Evaluation of Cost Drivers for Field Canals Improvement Projects," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(1), pages 53-65, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:32:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11269-017-1747-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-017-1747-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-017-1747-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-017-1747-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    2. Odysseus George Manoliadis & John-Paris Pantouvakis & Symeon Christodoulou, 2009. "Improving qualifications-based selection by use of the fuzzy Delphi method," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 373-384.
    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. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Daniel Schatz & Rabih Bashroush, 0. "Economic valuation for information security investment: a systematic literature review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    3. Sahar Validi & Arijit Bhattacharya & P. J. Byrne, 2020. "Sustainable distribution system design: a two-phase DoE-guided meta-heuristic solution approach for a three-echelon bi-objective AHP-integrated location-routing model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 290(1), pages 191-222, July.
    4. Chandratilake, S.R. & Dias, W.P.S., 2013. "Sustainability rating systems for buildings: Comparisons and correlations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 22-28.
    5. Certa, Antonella & Hopps, Fabrizio & Inghilleri, Roberta & La Fata, Concetta Manuela, 2017. "A Dempster-Shafer Theory-based approach to the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) under epistemic uncertainty: application to the propulsion system of a fishing vessel," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 69-79.
    6. Bertomeu, M. & Romero, C., 2001. "Managing forest biodiversity: a zero-one goal programming approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 197-213, June.
    7. Hyunjin Lim & Sunkuk Kim & Yonggu Kim & Seunghyun Son, 2021. "Relative Importance Analysis of Safety Climate Evaluation Factors Using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    9. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    10. Sunita Guru & Jitendra Nenavani & Vipul Patel & Nityesh Bhatt, 2020. "Ranking of perceived risks in online shopping," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 47(2), pages 137-152, June.
    11. Rimvydas Labanauskis & Aurelija Kasparavičiūtė & Vida Davidavičienė & Dovilė Deltuvienė, 2018. "Towards quality assurance of the study process using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(2), pages 799-819, December.
    12. Yusuf Ersoy & Ali Tehci, 2023. "Relationship marketing orientation in healthcare organisations with the AHP method," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(1), pages 35-45.
    13. Ali Yalcin & Fikri Bulut, 2007. "Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and digital photogrammetric techniques: a case study from Ardesen (NE-Turkey)," 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. 41(1), pages 201-226, April.
    14. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    15. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    16. Mirza Sikalo & Almira Arnaut-Berilo & Adela Delalic, 2023. "A Combined AHP-PROMETHEE Approach for Portfolio Performance Comparison," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Daji Ergu & Gang Kou, 2012. "Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores estimation for rapid and efficient decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 5-23, August.
    18. Król-Badziak, Aleksandra & Kozyra, Jerzy & Matyka, Mariusz, 2020. "Efficiency Of Deep Fertilizer Placement In Maize In Terms Of Sustainable Development Criteria," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(4).
    19. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.
    20. Joanna Jaroszewicz & Anna Majewska, 2021. "Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.

    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:spr:waterr:v:32:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11269-017-1747-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.