IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v34y2020i15d10.1007_s11269-020-02681-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Feasibility of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Prioritization of Sensitive Area at Risk of Water Erosion

Author

Listed:
  • Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram

    (Ton Duc Thang University
    Ton Duc Thang University)

  • Vijay P. Singh

    (Texas A&M, University
    Texas A&M University)

  • Ercan Kahya

    (Istanbul Technical University (ITU))

  • Ehsan Alvandi

    (Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources)

  • Chandrashekhar Meshram

    (Government Post Graduation College, College of Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya)

  • Shailesh Kumar Sharma

    (Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Jabalpur)

Abstract

Morphometric analysis is not only important for a hydrological analysis, but also necessary in the management and development of a basin. In this study, we attempted to prioritize twenty sub-watersheds of Bamhani watershed considering the linear, aerial and relief aspects of the watershed that will be further used in the multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) analysis. ELECTRE, Vlsekriterijumskaoptimizacija I kompromisno resenje (VIKOR), and aggregate method. Remote sensing and GIS approach were employed in the morphometric analysis. Percentage of changes and intensity of change indices were used in the MCDM model validation. Based on the range of Borda/Copland model values, the sub-watershed 11 took place at the first rank, while the Compound Factor (CF) model placed in the second rank, implying to be the most susceptible sub-watersheds for erosion. Vulnerability of sub-watersheds to soil loss (erosion), the VIKOR models showed four vulnerability classifications as very high, high, moderate and low. In conclusion, our results of the morphometric studies appeared to be effective in estimating the erosion status and prioritization of the watershed concerned for the purpose of easy and early development and management of natural resources. A high reductive accuracy was observed by VIKOR in comparison to CF and ELECTRE models.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Vijay P. Singh & Ercan Kahya & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Shailesh Kumar Sharma, 2020. "The Feasibility of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Prioritization of Sensitive Area at Risk of Water Erosion," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(15), pages 4665-4685, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:34:y:2020:i:15:d:10.1007_s11269-020-02681-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-020-02681-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-020-02681-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-020-02681-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Ercan Kahya & Ayad M. Fadhil Al-Quraishi, 2020. "Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 715-732, January.
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    3. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    4. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Vijay P. Singh & Ozgur Kisi & Chandrashekhar Meshram, 2021. "Soil erosion modeling of watershed using cubic, quadratic and quintic splines," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 108(3), pages 2701-2719, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    2. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Audrius Čereška & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ina Tetsman & Irina Grinbergienė, 2016. "Sustainable Assessment of Aerosol Pollution Decrease Applying Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    5. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    6. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    7. Mukherjee, Krishnendu, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: a bibliometric analysis from past, present and future of AHP and TOPSIS," MPRA Paper 59887, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    10. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    11. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    12. Eduardo Guzman & Beatriz Andres & Raul Poler, 2022. "A Decision-Making Tool for Algorithm Selection Based on a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Solve Replenishment, Production and Distribution Planning Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, May.
    13. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    14. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Witold Torbacki, 2021. "Achieving Sustainable Mobility in the Szczecin Metropolitan Area in the Post-COVID-19 Era: The DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    16. Yunpeng Yang & Zhiqiang Liu & Hongmin Chen & Yaqiong Wang & Guanghui Yuan, 2020. "Evaluating Regional Eco-Green Cooperative Development Based on a Heterogeneous Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model: Example of the Yangtze River Delta Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, April.
    17. Banaitiene, Nerija & Banaitis, Audrius & Kaklauskas, Arturas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, 2008. "Evaluating the life cycle of a building: A multivariant and multiple criteria approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 429-441, June.
    18. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    19. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    20. Alireza Valipour & Hadi Sarvari & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2018. "Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:34:y:2020:i:15:d:10.1007_s11269-020-02681-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.