Optimal wastewater allocation with the development of an SECA multi-criteria decision-making method

被引:28
|
作者
Azbari, Kosar Ebrahimzadeh [1 ]
Ashofteh, Parisa-Sadat [1 ]
Golfam, Parvin [2 ]
Singh, Vijay P. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Qom, Dept Civil Engn, Qom, Iran
[2] Univ Qom, Dept Civil Engn, Civil Engn, Qom, Iran
[3] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Biol & Agr Engn, Zachry Dept Civil & Environm Engn, College Stn, TX USA
关键词
Optimal wastewater allocation; SECA multi-Objective decision-making method; Multi-objective non-linear programming; Optimization the overall performance of the alternatives; Lingo software; REUSE; IRRIGATION; GROUNDWATER; ADAPTATION; CRITERIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129041
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The aim of this study is to develop a multi-objective decision-making method, named Simultaneous Evaluation of Criteria and Alternatives (SECA) for optimal ranking of wastewater allocation alternatives. This multi-objective decision-making method is for the continuous environment, meaning that experts can choose the best solution among the solutions obtained. The SECA multi-objective non-linear programming method has three objective functions: (i) maximization of the overall performance of alternatives, (ii) minimization of the deviation of criterion weights from reference point based on the within-criteria variation information, and (iii) minimization of the deviation of criterion weights based on the between-criteria variation information as well as two limitations for the weights of criteria. First, 15 criteria from different fields, including economic, socio-cultural, technological, and environmental, and six alternatives were determined for reusing wastewater, including reuse in the industrial sector, for recreational consumption, supplying environmental demand, artificial aquifer recharge, agricultural irrigation, and landscape irrigation. Then, decision-making matrix was constructed and reference points were calculated. By programming the SECA code in Lingo software and considering different beta values, different weights for criteria and alternatives were ranked. In the other words, determining the best value for beta was the most important step, so different values for beta from 0.1 to 10 were examined. Results showed that in the value of beta equal to 4, the maximum value of the objective function was obtained as 0.6926. Therefore, it was the best value for beta and the weight of the effects on water resources criterion was equal to 0.0957 and was the most important criterion, and the allocation alternative in the environmental sector with a score of 0.8575 was the best wastewater allocation alternative. Followed by the environmental sector alternative, landscape irrigation, industrial sector, artificial aquifer recharge, agricultural irrigation, and recreational consumption were placed. Therefore, water supply for the environmental sector by considering the effect of wastewater on water resources is the best alternative for optimal allocation of wastewater.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Supporting multi-criteria decision-making across websites: the Logikos approach
    Fernandez, Alejandro
    Zarate, Pascale
    Cruz Gardey, Juan
    Bosetti, Gabriela
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2021, 29 (01) : 201 - 225
  • [22] A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Ideal Business Location Identification
    Shaikh, Salman Ahmed
    Memon, Mohsin
    Kim, Kyoung-Sook
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2021, 11 (11):
  • [23] A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
    Ayan, Buesra
    Abacioglu, Seda
    Basilio, Marcio Pereira
    INFORMATION, 2023, 14 (05)
  • [24] Exploration of employability perceptions with blended multi-criteria decision-making methods
    Castro-Lopez, Adrian
    Monteiro, Silvia
    Bernardo, Ana B.
    Almeida, Leandro S.
    EDUCATION AND TRAINING, 2022, 64 (02): : 259 - 275
  • [25] A Linguistic Neutrosophic Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Method to University Human Resource Management
    Liang, Ru-xia
    Jiang, Zi-bin
    Wang, Jian-qiang
    SYMMETRY-BASEL, 2018, 10 (09):
  • [26] Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable building assessment/certification
    Medineckiene, M.
    Zavadskas, E. K.
    Bjork, F.
    Turskis, Z.
    ARCHIVES OF CIVIL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 15 (01) : 11 - 18
  • [27] Using Different Qualitative Scales in a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Procedure
    Gonzalez del Pozo, Raquel
    Dias, Luis C.
    Luis Garcia-Lapresta, Jose
    MATHEMATICS, 2020, 8 (03)
  • [28] Ranking Turkish Cities and Regions for Air Quality Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method
    Ari, Emin Sertac
    Ozkose, Hakan
    Gencer, Cevriye
    POLISH JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, 2016, 25 (05): : 1823 - 1830
  • [29] Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Solutions for Optimal Solar Energy Sites Identification: A Systematic Review and Analysis
    Chen Jong, Far
    Mohamud Ahmed, Musse
    IEEE ACCESS, 2024, 12 : 143458 - 143484
  • [30] A multi-criteria decision-making approach for geometric matching of areal objects
    Kim, Jiyoung
    Yu, Kiyun
    Bang, Yoonsik
    TRANSACTIONS IN GIS, 2018, 22 (01) : 269 - 287