In Press (Summer)
Back to the articles list |
Back to browse issues page
Department of Range and Watershed Management, Agriculture Faculty, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran , m.tavakoli@ilam.ac.ir
Abstract: (142 Views)
1- Introduction
Nowadays, watersheds have been raised as the focus of planning for sustainable development in many management issues. Evaluating the ecological capacity of watersheds and ranking them according to various ecological criteria for watershed management operations is one of the important issues in planning and comprehensive management of watersheds. Watershed managers and planners often face problems in complex decision-making. These complexities are largely due to the fact that there are a large number of influential factors and variables that must be considered in decision-making, and since the effects and internal dependencies of these factors are different, managers face difficulty in understanding the issue. Since the cost of watershed management projects is high and the budget for development projects is limited, it is necessary that projects be carried out based on prioritization of watersheds. In this regard, multi-criteria decision-making techniques are an appropriate approach to solving such problems. In recent years, with the growth and development of management software and programs, these decisions are made using models, including TOPSIS and VIKOR. So far, various studies have been conducted using multi-criteria decision-making methods in relation to watershed issues. A review of the sources and research records shows that the use of the above methods for prioritizing soil erosion has been widely used, but there are no records of the use of the above methods in prioritizing watershed management operations with respect to the design and calculation of the volumes of check dams for each sub-basin and their financial burden separately for each sub-basin, which are two determining factors in the implementation of watershed management plans, along with other factors. Therefore, this study aims to compare the two VIKOR and TOPSIS models in prioritizing the sub-basins of the Ilam Dam basin for watershed management operations by considering 18 factors, including the volumes of check dams and their financial burden, and determining the importance of the main factors of soil erosion in the basin.
2. Methodology
The Ilam dam basin, located in western Iran, was selected as the case study area. The basin was divided into 12 sub-basins, and 18 decision-making criteria were identified. These included factors such as area, slope, drainage density, sediment load, operation cost, and vegetation cover, number of residential zones, and soil /geological erodibility. The weights of these criteria were determined using the Shannon Entropy method, which quantifies the uncertainty or variability associated with each factor. TOPSIS and VIKOR methods were then applied independently to prioritize the sub-basins. TOPSIS involves calculating the geometric distances of each option from the ideal and anti-ideal solutions based on weighted normalized decision matrices. The alternatives are then ranked based on their closeness to the ideal solution. VIKOR, on the other hand, focuses on ranking and selecting from a set of alternatives with conflicting criteria, providing a compromise solution that is closest to the ideal based on satisfaction and regret measures. Both models used the same input data and weights to ensure a fair comparison.
3- Results
Based on the results of the entropy method, the highest weight belongs to the criterion of the number of residential points (0.188) and the lowest weight belongs to the erodibility of geological formations (0.002). Two important criteria, including "sub-basin sediment load" and "operation cost of proposed structures (operation volume)", also have weights of 0.039 and 0.104, respectively. Also, the sediment load criterion and many other criteria are very closely and directly related to each other, and if their total weight is calculated, we will find that the sedimentation status of the sub-basin is given a large weight in total. Based on the results of prioritization using the TOPSIS method, the obtained similarity index, which theoretically can be between zero and one, varies between 0.274 and 0.571 for the options in this study, which generally indicates the closeness of the options to each other. Accordingly, sub-basin "number 2" has obtained the highest priority for the construction of watershed structures. Also, sub-basins numbers 1 and 6 have the lowest rank or priority for structural construction operations. Based on the results of prioritization using the VIKOR method, both options IDBint_02 and IDB_09 are recognized as superior options. In other words, sub-basins IDBint_02 and IDB_09 have the highest priority for watershed operation.
4- Discussion & Conclusions
Although, according to the results obtained from the TOPSIS and VIKOR models, both models introduced the IDBint_02 sub-basin as the first sub-basin for watershed management operations; however, the results of these models were different in the subsequent priorities and did not provide similar results. So that these two models have selected the first four priorities from among the 12 options with a slight displacement of the options, and both models have selected the same option as their first priority, namely sub-basin number 2. Comparing the results of the two models in selecting priorities 5 to 12 shows that except for the twelfth priority (sub-basin number 12), which is common in both models, the other priorities in the two models have significant differences. Accordingly, considering the field visits and considering the general condition of the studied sub-basins, according to the expert opinion of the experts of the Ilam Dam Sedimentation Study Plan, the VIKOR model can be used as a more appropriate method in similar cases.
Nowadays, watersheds have been raised as the focus of planning for sustainable development in many management issues. Evaluating the ecological capacity of watersheds and ranking them according to various ecological criteria for watershed management operations is one of the important issues in planning and comprehensive management of watersheds. Watershed managers and planners often face problems in complex decision-making. These complexities are largely due to the fact that there are a large number of influential factors and variables that must be considered in decision-making, and since the effects and internal dependencies of these factors are different, managers face difficulty in understanding the issue. Since the cost of watershed management projects is high and the budget for development projects is limited, it is necessary that projects be carried out based on prioritization of watersheds. In this regard, multi-criteria decision-making techniques are an appropriate approach to solving such problems. In recent years, with the growth and development of management software and programs, these decisions are made using models, including TOPSIS and VIKOR. So far, various studies have been conducted using multi-criteria decision-making methods in relation to watershed issues. A review of the sources and research records shows that the use of the above methods for prioritizing soil erosion has been widely used, but there are no records of the use of the above methods in prioritizing watershed management operations with respect to the design and calculation of the volumes of check dams for each sub-basin and their financial burden separately for each sub-basin, which are two determining factors in the implementation of watershed management plans, along with other factors. Therefore, this study aims to compare the two VIKOR and TOPSIS models in prioritizing the sub-basins of the Ilam Dam basin for watershed management operations by considering 18 factors, including the volumes of check dams and their financial burden, and determining the importance of the main factors of soil erosion in the basin.
2. Methodology
The Ilam dam basin, located in western Iran, was selected as the case study area. The basin was divided into 12 sub-basins, and 18 decision-making criteria were identified. These included factors such as area, slope, drainage density, sediment load, operation cost, and vegetation cover, number of residential zones, and soil /geological erodibility. The weights of these criteria were determined using the Shannon Entropy method, which quantifies the uncertainty or variability associated with each factor. TOPSIS and VIKOR methods were then applied independently to prioritize the sub-basins. TOPSIS involves calculating the geometric distances of each option from the ideal and anti-ideal solutions based on weighted normalized decision matrices. The alternatives are then ranked based on their closeness to the ideal solution. VIKOR, on the other hand, focuses on ranking and selecting from a set of alternatives with conflicting criteria, providing a compromise solution that is closest to the ideal based on satisfaction and regret measures. Both models used the same input data and weights to ensure a fair comparison.
3- Results
Based on the results of the entropy method, the highest weight belongs to the criterion of the number of residential points (0.188) and the lowest weight belongs to the erodibility of geological formations (0.002). Two important criteria, including "sub-basin sediment load" and "operation cost of proposed structures (operation volume)", also have weights of 0.039 and 0.104, respectively. Also, the sediment load criterion and many other criteria are very closely and directly related to each other, and if their total weight is calculated, we will find that the sedimentation status of the sub-basin is given a large weight in total. Based on the results of prioritization using the TOPSIS method, the obtained similarity index, which theoretically can be between zero and one, varies between 0.274 and 0.571 for the options in this study, which generally indicates the closeness of the options to each other. Accordingly, sub-basin "number 2" has obtained the highest priority for the construction of watershed structures. Also, sub-basins numbers 1 and 6 have the lowest rank or priority for structural construction operations. Based on the results of prioritization using the VIKOR method, both options IDBint_02 and IDB_09 are recognized as superior options. In other words, sub-basins IDBint_02 and IDB_09 have the highest priority for watershed operation.
4- Discussion & Conclusions
Although, according to the results obtained from the TOPSIS and VIKOR models, both models introduced the IDBint_02 sub-basin as the first sub-basin for watershed management operations; however, the results of these models were different in the subsequent priorities and did not provide similar results. So that these two models have selected the first four priorities from among the 12 options with a slight displacement of the options, and both models have selected the same option as their first priority, namely sub-basin number 2. Comparing the results of the two models in selecting priorities 5 to 12 shows that except for the twelfth priority (sub-basin number 12), which is common in both models, the other priorities in the two models have significant differences. Accordingly, considering the field visits and considering the general condition of the studied sub-basins, according to the expert opinion of the experts of the Ilam Dam Sedimentation Study Plan, the VIKOR model can be used as a more appropriate method in similar cases.
Keywords: Watershed management operations, Multi-criteria decision making, VIKOR and TOPSIS, Ilam Dam Basin.
Received: 2025/01/30
References
1. Altaf, S., Meraj, G., & Romshoo, S. A. (2014). Morphometry and land cover based multi-criteria analysis for assessing the soil erosion susceptibility of the western Himalayan watershed. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 186, 8391-8412. DOI:10.1007/s10661-014-4012-2 [DOI:10.1007/s10661-014-4012-2]
2. Asadi Nalivan, O., Rostami Khalaj, M., Mohseni Saravi, M., & Sour, A. (2016). Prioritizing of watershed management planning using TOPSIS method in the watershed (Case study: Zydasht-Taleghan). Journal of Watershed Management Research, 6(12), 98-107. https://sid.ir/paper/230341/en
3. Asadi-Nalivan, O., Rezayi, F., & Saghazade, N. (2013). Assessment of watershed catchment ecological power with taxonomy method for watershed comprehensive management (Case study: Watershed Zydasht, Taleghan). Environmental Erosion Research Journal (E.E.R.), 3(3), 15-26. http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-150-fa.html
4. Ataei, M. (2010). Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Shahrood University of Technology Publications. (In Persian)
5. Chezgi, J., & Soheili, E. (2021). Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR decision making models in site selection of flood spreading projects in arid and semi-arid region. Desert Management, 16, 169-182. (In Persian). DOI:10.22034/jdmal.2021.243145
6. Chowdary, V. M., Chakraborthy, D., Jeyaram, A., Murthy, Y. K., Sharma, J. R., & Dadhwal, V. K. (2013). Multi-criteria decision making approach for watershed prioritization using analytic hierarchy process technique and GIS. Water Resources Management, 9(2), 3355-3571. DOI:10.1007/s11269-013-0364-6 [DOI:10.1007/s11269-013-0364-6]
7. Chung, E. S., & Lee, K. S. (2009). Prioritization of water management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation model and multicriteria decision making techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1502-1511. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.10.008]
8. Foroozanfar, M., Vahabzadeh, G., & Porghasemi, H. (2014). Landslide susceptibility mapping using fusion models of frequency ratio (FR) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental Erosion Research Journal (E.E.R.), 3(4), 17-29. http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-199-fa.html
9. Ghodsipour, S. H. (2002). Discussions in Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Amir Kabir University of Technology Publications. (In Persian)
10. Iqbal Shah, A., & Das Pan, N. (2024). Flood susceptibility assessment of Jhelum River Basin: A comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR and EDAS methods. Geosystems and Geoenvironment, 3(4). [DOI:10.1016/j.geogeo.2024.100304]
11. Karimi, M., & Najafi, E. (2013). Landslide risk assessment using AHP-FUZZY combined model in order to determine urban development and safety (Case study: Region 1 of Metropolitan Tehran). Environmental Erosion Research Journal (E.E.R.), 2(4), 77-95. http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-122-fa.html
12. Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 7326-7333. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.003]
13. Khourshidi, S., Rostami, N., & Salehpourjam, A. (2021). Prioritizing flood producing potential in ungauged watersheds using the AHP-VIKOR method (Case study: Haji-Bakhtiar Watershed, Ilam). Environmental Erosion Research Journal (E.E.R.), 11(2), 66-92. http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-606-fa.html
14. Makhdumi, W., & Dwarakish, G. S. (2024). Prioritisation of watersheds using TOPSIS and VIKOR method. In Seventh International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment (RSCy2019), Proc. SPIE 11174, 111740T. [DOI:10.1117/12.2532024]
15. Mohammadi Issaabad, S., Safari, A., Ahmadabadi, A., & Darabi Shahmari, S. (2024). Flood vulnerability assessment (Case study: Cheshmekile Tankabon River). Environmental Erosion Research Journal (E.E.R.), 14(1), 121-138. http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-812-fa.html [DOI:10.61186/jeer.14.1.121]
16. Mohamadi, S. (2018). Prioritization of sub-catchments for operation of watershed management projects via multi-criteria decision making techniques (Case study: Asyabjofeth Watershed). Journal of Watershed Management Research, 10(18). (In Persian). DOI:10.29252/jwmr.9.18.36 [DOI:10.29252/jwmr.9.18.36]
17. Rahiminasab, A. A., Abghary, H., Erfanian, M., & Nadiry, A. A. (2012). Analysis and investigation of landslide hazard zoning using hybrid model of hierarchical analysis and surface density. Environmental Erosion Research Journal (E.E.R.), 2(1), 1-12. http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-83-fa.html
18. Srinivasa Raju, K., Komar, N., & Jalali, A. (2017). Prioritization of sub-catchments of a river basin using DEM and fuzzy VIKOR. H2Open Journal. [DOI:10.2166/h2oj.2017.001]
19. Teimouri, M., & Alvandi, E. (2022). Comparison of models TOPSIS, SAW, ELECTRE and VIKOR in order to the prioritization of sedimentation and flood hazard of watersheds. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 24(2), 79-99. (In Persian). DOI: 10.30495/jest.2022.45404.4731
20. Witlox, F. (2005). Expert system in land-use planning: An overview. Expert Systems with Applications, 29, 437-445. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2005.04.041]
21. Yang, T., & Hung, C. C. (2007). Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23, 126-137. [DOI:10.1016/j.rcim.2005.12.002]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
