4.1 Article

A Comparative Study of the AHP and TOPSIS Techniques for Dam Site Selection Using GIS: A Case Study of Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran

期刊

GEOSCIENCES
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/geosciences8120494

关键词

dam site selection; water resources; MCDM; topographical conditions; morphological conditions; TOPSIS; AHP; Geographic Information System; Sistan and Baluchestan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The application of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in real-life problems has increased in recent years. The need to build advanced decision models with higher capabilities that can support decision-making in a broad spectrum of applications, promotes the integration of MCDM techniques with applicable systems, including artificial intelligence, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) are among the most widely adopted MCDM techniques capable of resolving water resources challenges. A critical problem associated with water resource management is dam site selection. This paper presents a comparative analysis of TOPSIS and AHP in the context of decision-making using GIS for dam site selection. The comparison was made based on geographic and water quality criteria. The geographical criteria are geology, land use, sediment, erosion, slope, groundwater, and discharge. The water quality criteria include Soluble Sodium Percentage, Total Dissolved Solid, Potential of Hydrogen, and Electrical Conductivity of water. A ratio estimation procedure was used to determine the weights of these criteria. Both methods were applied for selection of optimal sites for dams in the Sistan and Baluchestan province, Iran. The results show that the TOPSIS method is better suited to the problem of dam site selection for this study area. Actual locations of dams constructed in the area were used to verify the results of both methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据