scholarly journals A social-economic-engineering combined framework for decision making in water resources planning

2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 2817-2857
Author(s):  
E. S. Chung ◽  
K. S. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Management Objectives ◽  
Water Quality Deterioration

Abstract. This study presents a new methodology not only to evaluate willingness to pays (WTPs) for the improvement of hydrological vulnerability using a choice experiment (CE) method but also to do a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of some feasible alternatives combing the derived WTPs with an alternative evaluation index (AEI). The hydrological vulnerability consists of potential streamflow depletion (PSD), and potential water quality deterioration (PWQD) and can be quantified using a multi-criteria decision making technique and pressure-state-response (PSR) framework. PSD and PWQD not only provide survey respondents with sufficient site-specific information to avoid scope sensitivity in a choice experiment but also support the standard of dividing the study watershed into six sub-regions for site-fitted management. Therefore CE was applied to six regions one after the other, in order to determine WTPs for improvements on hydrological vulnerability considering the characteristics which are vulnerability, location, and preferences with regard to management objectives. The AEI was developed to prioritize the feasible alternatives using a continuous water quantity/quality simulation model as well as multi-criteria decision making techniques. All criteria for alternative performance were selected based on a driver-pressures-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework, and their weights were estimated using an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In addition, the AEI that reflects on residents' preference with regard to management objectives was proposed in order to incite the stakeholder to participate in the decision making process. Finally, the economic values of each alternative are estimated by a newly developed method which combines the WTPs for improvements on hydrologic vulnerability with the AEI. This social-economic-engineering combined framework can provide the decision makers with more specific information as well as decrease the uncertainty of the CBA.

scholarly journals Opportunities for Systematically Valuing Ecosystem Service Benefits Produced by Federal Conservation Programs

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 178-191
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Benefit Transfer ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Conservation Programs ◽  
Private Lands ◽  
Ecosystem Service Valuation

Federal agencies invest taxpayer dollars every year in conservation programs that are focused on improving a suite of ecosystem services produced on private lands. A better understanding of the public benefits generated by federal conservation programs could help improve governmental efficiency and economic welfare by providing science-based evidence for use in policy decision-making regarding targeting of federal conservation investments. Of specific concern here are conservation investments made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). While previous research has shown that efficiency gains are possible using cost-benefit analysis for targeting conservation investments, agency-wide implementation of this approach by policy makers has been constrained by the limited availability of location-specific information regarding conservation benefits. Cost-effective opportunities for integrating location-specific ecosystem service valuation research with USDA conservation decision-making include: (1) institutionalizing funding of comparable studies suitable for benefit transfer, (2) utilizing non-traditional data sources for research complementing benefit transfer, and (3) creating a state-of-the-art program for developing and communicating research in ecosystem service valuation exemplifying the highest standards of scientific conduct.

Integrity Mitigation Prioritization Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahsa Mehranfar ◽  
Juan Mejia ◽  
Sherif Hassanien ◽  
James Martin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Analysis And Evaluation ◽  
Pumping Stations ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Hierarchy Process ◽  
New Framework

Abstract In-line Inspection (ILI) tools are regularly used for inspecting transmission pipelines. However, it is challenging to use such technology for a large portion of pipes; e.g. terminals and pumping stations, because of diameter changes, tight turns, or other pipe/inspection characteristics. Non-contact pipeline magnetic testing (NPMT) is a well-suited technique to inspect potentially non-ILI pipes. This paper presents a new framework for selecting and prioritizing digs-based LSM high severity features. A multi-criteria decision-making approach was developed using pair-wise comparisons which stems from the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions to help the decision maker set priorities and make the best decision given available information. In addition to the application of AHP, a cost benefit analysis and evaluation of risk have been conducted in order to support a risk-informed decision-making for selecting the top priority digs. Pipe properties, LSM tool reported data and Subject Matter Expert (SME) opinion were utilized in order to efficiently render a decision regarding prioritization of dig sites. The developed approach can be used as a regular process to prioritize similar dig programs. This method is capable of ranking different dig sites based on SME opinion as well as construction information and LSM reported data.

scholarly journals A Methodological Framework for Sustainable Office Building Renovation Using Green Building Rating Systems and Cost-Benefit Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (15) ◽  
pp. 6156
Author(s):  
Nataša Šuman ◽  
Mojca Marinič ◽  
Milan Kuhta
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Green Building ◽  
Office Buildings ◽  
Office Building ◽  
Rating System ◽  
Benefit Analysis

Sustainable development is a priority for the future of our society. Sustainable development is of particular importance to the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, both for new buildings and for the renovation of existing buildings. Great potential for sustainable development lies in the renovation of existing office buildings. This paper introduces a new framework for identifying the best set of renovation strategies for existing office buildings. The framework applies selected green building rating system criteria and cost-effective sustainable renovation solutions based on cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and thus provides a novelty in decision-making support for the sustainable renovation of office buildings at an early-stage. The framework covers all necessary steps and activities including data collection, determination of the required level of renovation, selection of the green building rating system, identification of impact categories and criteria, and final evaluation and decision-making using CBA. The framework can be used in conjunction with different systems and according to different regional characteristics. The applicability of the addressing procedure is shown through a case study of a comprehensive renovation of an office building in the city of Maribor.

scholarly journals Multi-criteria decision-making model for supporting manufacturing settlements location in Africa after COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 184797902110233
Author(s):  
Stefania Bait ◽  
Serena Marino Lauria ◽  
Massimiliano M. Schiraldi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Location Selection ◽  
Decision Making Model

The COVID-19 emergency is affecting manufacturing industries all over the world. Notably, it has generated several issues in the products’ supply and the global value chain in African countries. Besides this, Africa’s manufacturing value-added rate grew only 1.5 since 2018, and the foreign direct investment (FDI) from multinational enterprises (MNEs) remains very low due to high-risk factors. Most of these factors are linked to a non-optimized location selection that can adversely affect plant performance. For these reasons, supporting decision-makers in selecting the suitable country location in Africa is crucial, both for contributing to countries’ growth and companies’ performance. This research aims at presenting a comprehensive multi-criteria decision-making model (MCDM) to be used by MNEs to evaluate the best countries to develop new manufacturing settlements, highlighting the criteria that COVID-19 has impacted. Thus, it has affected countries’ performance, impacting the plant location selection choices. A combination of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods have also been used for comparative analysis. The criteria used in the proposed approach have been validated with a panel of MNEs experts.

STAKEHOLDERS, SPATIAL LOCATIONS AND TIME HORIZONS IN AN EXTENDED SOCIAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS: A CASE OF PIPALPANKHA WATER RESOURCE PROJECT

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (02) ◽  
pp. 245-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. RAM BABU ◽  
NALLATHIGA RAMAKRISHNA
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Water Resource ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Time Horizons ◽  
Spatial Locations

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) has been serving as an important tool for decision making with regard to the development projects involving large investments. The Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA) is an extension of the CBA to certain social impacts, which hitherto were not measured. As the impacts of development projects on ecology and environment assumed importance, measuring the corresponding costs and benefits also began to assume significance. With the advancement in economic valuation techniques over time, measurement could be done and the framework of SCBA has been extended to incorporate the same. Moreover, unlike the CBAs, which do not account for the distributional aspects, the SCBA can potentially account for these. This paper presents a case study of extending the SCBA framework to include social and environmental impacts of a large water resource development project in India. It emphasises the distribution of project benefits and costs over stakeholders, spatial locations and time horizons so as to demonstrate the utility of extended SCBA in project decision making. It is observed that both the numeraire measure i.e. cost-benefit ratio, as well as the distributional analysis present a favourable case for the project.

scholarly journals A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approach Using Hybrid SCOR Metrics, AHP, and TOPSIS for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in the Gas and Oil Industry

Processes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Nan Wang ◽  
Ying-Fang Huang ◽  
I-Fang Cheng ◽  
Van Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supplier Selection ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Oil Industry ◽  
Supplier Evaluation ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Ahp Model ◽  
Decision Making Unit ◽  
Stability And Accuracy

Suppliers are extremely important in business operations. The supplier ensures the supply of materials, raw materials, commodities, etc. in sufficient quantity, quality, stability, and accuracy to meet the requirements of production and business with low costs and on-time deliveries. Therefore, selecting and managing good suppliers is a prerequisite for organizing the production of quality products as desired, according to the schedule, and with reasonable prices and competitiveness in the market. It is also important to gain the support of suppliers in order to continue to improve and achieve more as a business. The evaluation and selection of a supplier is a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) issue, in which the decision-maker is faced with both qualitative and quantitative factors. In this research, the authors propose an MCDM model using a hybrid of Supply Chain Operations Reference metrics (SCOR metrics), the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model, and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach for supplier evaluation and selection in the gas and oil industry. Using literature reviews on SCOR metrics, all criteria that impact supplier selection are defined in the first stage, the AHP model is applied to determine the weight of each factor in the second stage, and the optimal supplier is presented in final stage using the TOPSIS model. As a result, Decision-Making Unit 5 (DMU-05) is found to be the best supplier for the gas and oil industry in this research. The contribution of this work is to propose a new hybrid MCDM model for supplier selection in the gas and oil industry. This research also introduces a useful tool for supplier selection in other industries.

Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 465-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardalan Bafahm ◽  
Minghe Sun
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Unexpected Result ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Preference Relations ◽  
The Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Hierarchy Process

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been believed to be one of the most pragmatic and widely accepted methods for multi-criteria decision making. However, there have been various criticisms of this method within the last four decades. In this study, the results of AHP contradicting common expectations are examined for both the distributive and ideal modes. Specifically, conflicting priorities, conflicting decisions, and conflicting preference relations are investigated. A decision-making scenario is used throughout the paper and an illustrative example constructed from the decision-making scenario is provided to demonstrate each of the conflicting results recommended by AHP. With a parametric formulation of each unexpected result, the possibility of unexpected results of AHP is generalized irrespective of applying the distributive or ideal mode. The logic and causes of these contradictions are also analyzed. This study shows that AHP is not always reliable, and could lead the decision makers towards incorrect decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document