SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering / 2018 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

A new integrated fuzzy MCDM approach and its application to wastewater management

MEHTAP DURSUN
Pages
19–28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The developed methodology is used to determine the most suitable wastewater treatment (WWT) alternative for Istanbul, the largest city of Turkey that is also listed among the world's most crowded cities

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper proposes a fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making methodology that combines 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model, linguistic hierarchies, Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The multi-granular linguistic information obtained from decision-makers are unified and aggregated employing linguistic hierarchies and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The developed methodology is used to determine the most suitable wastewater treatment (WWT) alternative for Istanbul, the largest city of Turkey that is also listed among the world's most crowded cities
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper proposes a fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making methodology that combines 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model, linguistic hierarchies, Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The multi-granular linguistic information obtained from decision-makers are unified and aggregated employing linguistic hierarchies and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model. The weights of the criteria are calculated employing DEMATEL method, which enables to consider inner dependencies among criteria. Then, fuzzy TOPSIS method is utilized to rank the alternatives. The developed methodology is able to handle information in a decision making problem with multiple information sources. Furthermore, it enables managers to deal with heterogeneous information without loss of information. The developed methodology is used to determine the most suitable wastewater treatment (WWT) alternative for Istanbul, the largest city of Turkey that is also listed among the world's most crowded cities

🔖

Cite This Article

DURSUN, M. (2018). A new integrated fuzzy MCDM approach and its application to wastewater management. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 19–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/164806

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. N. Brunner, and M. Starkl, “Financial and economic determinants of collective action: The case of wastewater management,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 31, pp. 140-150, 2012
  2. S.E. Uwadiae, Y. Yerima, and R.U. Azike, “Enzymatic biodegradation of pharmaceutical wastewater,” International Journal of Energy and Environment, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 683- 690, 2011
  3. P.P. Kalbar, S. Karmakan, and S.R. Asolekar, “Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: A scenariobased multiple-attribute decision-making approach,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 113, pp. 158-169, 2012
  4. G. Tchobanoglous, and F.L. Burton, “Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse,” Metclef & Eddy Inc., 1991
  5. S.J. Arceivala and S.L. Asolekar, “Wastewater treatment for pollution control and reuse,” McGraw Hill, New Delhi, 2007
  6. Republic of Turkey Turkish Statistical Institute, “Municipal Wastewater Statistics,” 2010. Available at:
  7. F. Herrera, and L. Martínez, “An approach for combining linguistic and numerical information based on 2-tuple fuzzy representation model in decision-making,” Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzz., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 539-562, 2000
  8. M. Zeleny M, “Multiple criteria decision making,” New York, McGraw-Hill, 1982
  9. K.P. Yoon, C.L. Hwang, “Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction,” Sage University Papers series on Quantitative Applications, 07-104, Thousand Oaks, 1995
  10. The London School of Economics and Political Science, “Multi-criteria Decision Analysis”, 2007. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/summerSchool/courseoutline s/management/Multi-criteria%20analysis%20manual.htm, (2007)
  11. E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė, “State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 20, pp. 165–179, 2014
  12. L. Gigovic, D. Pamucar, D. Bozanic et al., “Application of the GIS-DANP-MABAC multi-criteria model for selecting the location of wind farms: A case study of Vojvodina, Serbia,” Renewable Energy, vol. 103, pp. 501-521, 2017
  13. H. Gupta and M.K. Barua, “Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 152, pp. 242-258, 2017
  14. R. Nie, J. Wang, and H. Zhang, “Solving Solar-Wind Power Station Location Problem Using an Extended Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS