مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد مقايسه مدل های تصميم گيری چند معياره جبران ناپذير – اسپرینگر 2017

n Water crisis is becoming a great challenge especially in arid regions. This necessitates supplydemand coordination in water resources management to balance water demands and supplies. This coordination requires an integrated water resources management through strategic planning. Strategic planning takes into account all policies, stakeholders’ opinions, and available resources to prevent critical long term conditions and to ensure the continued advancement of sustainable water resources management (Yüksel & Dagdeviren, 2007). The first step in strategic planning is developing relevant strategies. The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis is a commonly used method that provides an appropriate basis for successful strategy formulation. SWOT analyzes the most important internal (i.e. strength and weaknesses) and external (i.e. opportunities and threats) factors in the system to develop the strategies capable of providing a good fit between these factors. However, SWOT does not consider the factors’ relative importance and merely suggests some strategies without providing an analytical ranking to determine the priority of the developed strategies (Hill & Westbrook, 1997). To resolve this shortcoming, Kurttila, Pesonen, Kangas, and Kajanus (2000) utilized a hybrid model by integrating a SWOT analysis with a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model. In MCDM analyses, appropriate relative weights are assigned to decision criteria to represent their importance in the system. The combined effect of all decision criteria creates the overall performance of strategies. Two categories for MCDM analyses are compensatory and non-compensatory methods. In compensatory techniques, poor performances of a strategy in some criteria can be compensated for by high performances in some other criteria; therefore the aggregated performance of a strategy might not reveal its weakness areas. Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) (Hwang & Yoon, 1981), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) (Srdjevic, Medeiros, & Faria, 2004), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980), and Fuzzy AHP (Banihabib & Shabestari, 2016; Mikhailov, 2004; Srdjevic & Medeiros, 2008; Tsakiris & Spiliotis, 2011; Yang, J-h, & Hou, 2013) are some examples of compensatory techniques. In contrast, in non-compensatory techniques, significant poor performances of a strategy in some criteria cannot be compensated for even with very high performances in other criteria, and the aggregated performance reflects this fact (Kangas, Kangas, & Pykäläinen, 2001). In other words, each individual criterion can independently play a crucial role in aggregated performance of a strategy. ELimination and Choice Translating REality (ELECTRE III) is an example of this technique (Roy, 1968). Jeffreys (2004) provides a review of MCDM compensatory and non-compensatory techniques. Applications of MCDM methods have demonstrated their promising capability in water resources management (Abrishamchi, Ebrahimian, Tajrishi, & Mariño, 2005).