The application of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in real-life problems has increased in recent years. The need to build advanced decision models with higher capabilities that can support decision-making in a broad spectrum of applications, promotes the integration of MCDM techniques with applicable systems, including artificial intelligence, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) are among the most widely adopted MCDM techniques capable of resolving water resources challenges. A critical problem associated with water resource management is dam site selection. This paper presents a comparative analysis of TOPSIS and AHP in the context of decision-making using GIS for dam site selection. The comparison was made based on geographic and water quality criteria. The geographical criteria are geology, land use, sediment, erosion, slope, groundwater, and discharge. The water quality criteria include Soluble Sodium Percentage, Total Dissolved Solid, Potential of Hydrogen, and Electrical Conductivity of water. A ratio estimation procedure was used to determine the weights of these criteria. Both methods were applied for selection of optimal sites for dams in the Sistan and Baluchestan province, Iran. The results show that the TOPSIS method is better suited to the problem of dam site selection for this study area. Actual locations of dams constructed in the area were used to verify the results of both methods.
The application of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in real-life problems has increased in recent years. The need to build advanced decision models with higher capabilities that can support decision making in a broad spectrum of applications, promotes the integration of MCDM techniques with applicable systems, including artificial intelligence, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) are amongst the most widely adopted MCDM techniques capable of resolving water resources challenges. A critical problem associated with water resource management is dam site selection. This paper presents a comparative analysis of TOPSIS and AHP in the context of decision making using GIS for dam site selection. The comparison was made based on geographic and water quality criteria. A ratio estimation procedure was used to determine the weights of these criteria. Both methods were applied for selection of optimal sites for dams in the Sistan and Baluchestan province, Iran. The results show that the TOPSIS method is better suited to the problem of dam site selection for this case study. Actual locations of dams constructed in the area were used to verify the results of both methods.
The application of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in real-life problems has increased in recent years. The need to build advanced decision models with higher capabilities that can support decision making in a broad spectrum of applications, promotes the integration of MCDM techniques with applicable systems, including artificial intelligence, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) are amongst the most widely adopted MCDM techniques capable of resolving water resources challenges. A critical problem associated with water resource management is dam site selection. This paper presents a comparative analysis of TOPSIS and AHP in the context of decision making using GIS for dam site selection. The comparison was made based on geographic and water quality criteria. A ratio estimation procedure was used to determine the weights of these criteria. Both methods were applied for selection of optimal sites for dams in the Sistan and Baluchestan province, Iran. The results show that the TOPSIS method is better suited to the problem of dam site selection for this case study. Actual locations of dams constructed in the area were used to verify the results of both methods.
We describe and evaluate adaptive conditional bias–penalized cokriging (CBPCK) for improved multisensor precipitation estimation using rain gauge data and remotely sensed quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE). The remotely sensed QPEs used are radar-only and radar–satellite-fused estimates. For comparative evaluation, true validation is carried out over the continental United States (CONUS) for 13–30 September 2015 and 7–9 October 2016. The hourly gauge data, radar-only QPE, and satellite QPE used are from the Hydrometeorological Automated Data System, Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor System, and Self-Calibrating Multivariate Precipitation Retrieval (SCaMPR), respectively. For radar–satellite fusion, conditional bias–penalized Fisher estimation is used. The reference merging technique compared is ordinary cokriging (OCK) used in the National Weather Service Multisensor Precipitation Estimator. It is shown that, beyond the reduction due to mean field bias (MFB) correction, both OCK and adaptive CBPCK additionally reduce the unconditional root-mean-square error (RMSE) of radar-only QPE by 9%–16% over the CONUS for the two periods, and that adaptive CBPCK is superior to OCK for estimation of hourly amounts exceeding 1 mm. When fused with the MFB-corrected radar QPE, the MFB-corrected SCaMPR QPE for September 2015 reduces the unconditional RMSE of the MFB-corrected radar by 4% and 6% over the entire and western half of the CONUS, respectively, but is inferior to the MFB-corrected radar for estimation of hourly amounts exceeding 7 mm. Adaptive CBPCK should hence be favored over OCK for estimation of significant amounts of precipitation despite larger computational cost, and the SCaMPR QPE should be used selectively in multisensor QPE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.