LEADER 06514nam 22007455 450 001 9910299452203321 005 20200702083725.0 010 $a3-319-12586-9 024 7 $a10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2 035 $a(CKB)3710000000269707 035 $a(EBL)1967155 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001372447 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11732679 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001372447 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11304994 035 $a(PQKB)10148773 035 $a(DE-He213)978-3-319-12586-2 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1967155 035 $a(PPN)182096661 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000269707 100 $a20141030d2015 u| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aWeighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management$b[electronic resource] /$fby Noorul Hassan Zardari, Kamal Ahmed, Sharif Moniruzzaman Shirazi, Zulkifli Bin Yusop 205 $a1st ed. 2015. 210 1$aCham :$cSpringer International Publishing :$cImprint: Springer,$d2015. 215 $a1 online resource (173 p.) 225 1 $aSpringerBriefs in Water Science and Technology,$x2194-7244 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a3-319-12585-0 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 327 $aContents; About the Authors; Abstract; 1 Introduction; 1.1 Introduction; 1.2 Problem Background; 1.3 Problem Statement; 1.4 Objectives of the Study; 1.5 Scope of the Study; 1.6 Significance of the Study; 1.7 Chapter Summary; 1.8 Report Organization; 2 Literature Review; 2.1 Introduction; 2.2 Decision-Making Process; 2.3 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making; 2.4 Classification of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods; 2.5 Characteristics of Different Multi-Criteria Methods; 2.6 Strengths and Weaknesses of MCDM Methods; 2.7 How to Select an Appropriate MCDM Method 327 $a2.8 The Role of Weights and Their Interpretation in MCDM Methods2.9 Classification of Weighting Methods; 2.9.1 Subjective Weighting Methods; 2.9.2 Objective Weighting Methods; 2.10 Popular Subjective Weighting Methods; 2.10.1 Direct Rating Method; 2.10.2 Ranking Method; 2.10.3 Point Allocation; 2.10.4 Pairwise Comparison Method; 2.10.5 Ratio Weighting Method; 2.10.6 Swing Weighting Method; 2.10.7 Graphical Weighting Method; 2.10.8 Delphi Method; 2.10.9 Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique (SMART); 2.10.10 SIMOS Weighting Method; 2.10.11 Revised SIMOS Weighting Method 327 $a2.10.12 Fixed Point Scoring2.11 Popular Objective Weighting Methods; 2.11.1 Entropy Method; 2.11.2 CRITIC Weighting Method; 2.11.3 Mean Weight (MW); 2.11.4 Standard Deviation Method; 2.11.5 Statistical Variance Procedure; 2.11.6 Integrated or Combined Weighting Methods; 2.11.7 Direct Ranking; 2.11.8 Qualitative Rating Method; 2.12 Objective Weighting Methods Used in Past Studies; 2.13 Subjective and Objective Weighting Methods Used in Past Studies; 2.14 Selection of Weighting Method; 2.15 Weighting Methods Supported by Softwares; 2.15.1 Pairwise Comparison; 2.15.2 Point Allocation Method 327 $a2.15.3 Ranking Method2.15.4 Rating Method; 2.15.5 SMART Weighting Method; 2.15.6 SWING Weighting Method; 2.15.7 Trade-off Weighting Method; 2.15.8 Delphi Method; 2.15.9 Revised SIMOS Procedure; 2.16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Weighting Methods; 2.16.1 Pairwise Comparison; 2.16.2 Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique (SMART); 2.16.3 Point Allocation Method; 2.16.4 Revised SIMOS' Procedure; 2.16.5 Trade-off Weighting Method; 2.16.6 Delphi Method; 2.16.7 SWING Method; 2.16.8 Entropy Method; 2.16.9 Rank Ordering Centroid; 2.16.10 CRITIC Method; 3 Research Methodology and Results 327 $a3.1 Introduction3.2 Methodology; 3.3 Survey Questionnaire; 3.4 Questionnaire Administration; 3.4.1 Postgraduate Survey Data Analysis; 3.5 Weights for the Watershed Management Criteria; 3.6 Summary on Criteria Weights; 3.7 Surveying Popular Databases for the Weighting Methods; 4 Conclusions and Recommendations; 4.1 Chapter Summary; 4.2 Conclusions; 4.3 Recommendations; Appendix A; Appendix B; Appendix C; References 330 $aThis book provides a systematic way of how to make better decisions in water resources management. The applications of three weighting methods namely rating, ranking, and ratio are discussed in this book. Additionally, data mining on keywords is presented using three popular scholarly databases: Science Direct, Scopus, and SciVerse. Four abbreviated keywords (MCDM, MCDA, MCA, MADM) representing multi-criteria decision-making were used and these three databases were searched for different popular weighting methods for a period of 13 years (2000-2012). The book provides also a review of weighting methods applied in various multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and also presents survey results on priority ranking of watershed management criteria undertaken by 30 undergraduate and postgraduate students from the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 410 0$aSpringerBriefs in Water Science and Technology,$x2194-7244 606 $aPhysical geography 606 $aEnvironmental management 606 $aHydrogeology 606 $aEarth System Sciences$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/G35000 606 $aWater Policy/Water Governance/Water Management$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/215000 606 $aHydrogeology$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/G19005 615 0$aPhysical geography. 615 0$aEnvironmental management. 615 0$aHydrogeology. 615 14$aEarth System Sciences. 615 24$aWater Policy/Water Governance/Water Management. 615 24$aHydrogeology. 676 $a55 676 $a550 676 $a551.4 676 $a553.7 700 $aZardari$b Noorul Hassan$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$01062478 702 $aAhmed$b Kamal$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut 702 $aShirazi$b Sharif Moniruzzaman$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut 702 $aYusop$b Zulkifli Bin$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910299452203321 996 $aWeighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management$92525811 997 $aUNINA