2023
DOI: 10.3390/w15020254
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A GIS-Based Probabilistic Spatial Multicriteria Roof Water Inrush Risk Evaluation Method Considering Decision Makers’ Risk-Coping Attitude

Abstract: A combination of geographic information system (GIS) and spatial multicriteria decision making (MCDA) in mine water inrush risk evaluation is widely used, but the randomness in the process of index weight determination and the risk-coping attitude of decision makers are not considered in the decision making process. Therefore, this paper proposes a probability-based roof water inrush risk evaluation method (GIS-MCDA) by combining the Monte Carlo analytic hierarchy process (MAHP) and ordered weighted averaging … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Formations (Fmts) in the study area, from oldest to youngest, are as follows: Yongping Fmt (T3y), Yan'an Fmt (J2y), Zhiluo Fmt (J2z), Xinjiang Fmt (N2b), Lishi Fmt (Q2l), Salawusu Fmt (Q3 s ), and Quaternary Holocene Aeolian Sand (Q4 eol ). Figure 2 presents the hydrogeological cross-section of the study area [18][19][20][21][22]. The geological structure of the study area is undeveloped, with gentle strata and a dip angle of less than 1 • .…”
Section: Study Area and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The Formations (Fmts) in the study area, from oldest to youngest, are as follows: Yongping Fmt (T3y), Yan'an Fmt (J2y), Zhiluo Fmt (J2z), Xinjiang Fmt (N2b), Lishi Fmt (Q2l), Salawusu Fmt (Q3 s ), and Quaternary Holocene Aeolian Sand (Q4 eol ). Figure 2 presents the hydrogeological cross-section of the study area [18][19][20][21][22]. The geological structure of the study area is undeveloped, with gentle strata and a dip angle of less than 1 • .…”
Section: Study Area and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these evaluation methods share a common issue in the allocation of weights to evaluation indicators. Specifically, they assign the same weight values to evaluation indicators across all locations within the study area [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. This implies that existing evaluation methods do not account for the varying relative importance of evaluation indicators at different locations within the study area, resulting from differences in the magnitude of attribute values.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%