The problem of selecting a multicriterion decision making (MCDM) technique for watershed resources management is investigated. Of explicit concern in this research is the matching of a watersned resources management problem with an appropriate MCDM technique. More than seventy techniques are recognized while reviewing the area of MCDM. A new classification scheme is developed to categorize these techniques into four groups on the bases of each algorithm's structural formulation and the possible results obtained by using the algorithm. Other standard classification schemes are also discussed to better understand the differences and similarities among the techniques and thereby demonstrate the importance of matching a particular multicriterion decision problem with an appropriate MCDM technique. The desire for selecting the most appropriate MCDM technique for watershed resources management lead to the development of 49 technique choice criteria and an algorithm for selecting a technique. The algorithm divides the technique choice criteria into four groups: (1) DM/analyst-related criteria, (2) technique-related criteria, (3) problem-related criteria and (4) solution-related criteria. To analyze the applicability of MCDM techniques to a particular problem, the levels of performance of the techniques in solving the problem are, at first, evaluated with respect to the choice criteria in each criterion group resulting in four sets of preference rankings. These four sets are then linearly combined using a set of trade-off parameters to determine the overall preference ranking of the techniques. The MUM technique selection process is itself modeled as a multiobjective problem. In this research, for example, a set of 15 techniques, the author is familiar with, are analyzed for their appropriateness to solve a watershed resources management problem. The performance levels of the 15 MCDM techniques in solving such a problem are evaluated with respect to a selected set of technique choice criteria in each criterion group leading to a set of four evaluation matrices of choice criteria versus alternative techniques. This technique choice problem is then analyzed using a two-stage evaluation procedure known as composite programming. The final product of the process resulted in a preference ranking of the alternative MCDM techniques.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:arizona.edu/oai:arizona.openrepository.com:10150/191145 |
| Date | January 1988 |
| Creators | Tecle, Aregai,1948- |
| Contributors | Duckstein, Lucien, Fogel, Martin M., Fox, Roger, Ffolliott, Peter F. |
| Publisher | The University of Arizona. |
| Source Sets | University of Arizona |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic), text |
| Rights | Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. |
Page generated in 0.0048 seconds