kth.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of three group decision-making frameworks for evaluating resilience time series of water resources systems under uncertainty
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Water and Environmental Engineering.
Faculty of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Water and Environmental Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7978-0040
2024 (English)In: Ecological Indicators, ISSN 1470-160X, E-ISSN 1872-7034, Vol. 158, article id 111269Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study compared three uncertainty-based decision-making frameworks (considering/not considering the hierarchical structure of stakeholders) using resilience-based indices for evaluating different water resources management (WRM) scenarios under the impacts of climate change. The first step involved identifying significant stakeholders in the study area and establishing their relative weights. In the next step, stakeholders were asked to evaluate the management scenarios in the three different decision-making frameworks based on their decision criteria (nine resilience-based indices, implementation cost, and employment). Different types of weights (explicit and interval) were assigned to each stakeholder and their decision criteria, to account for the uncertainty associated with estimating their respective weights. This methodology was applied to the case of the Zarrinehrud River basin in northwest Iran. The best management scenario identified (MSC1346) was able increase lake elevation by 2.6 m (from 1271.3 m to 1273.9 m), improve the resilience of the system by 25 %, and enhance provisioning ecosystem services such as water and food supply and regulating services such as air quality. Comparing the results of the three decision-making frameworks revealed that the two which considered the hierarchical structure of stakeholders were more effective in determining the best scenario. The best scenario selected in the framework that ignored the hierarchical structure of stakeholders (MSC13567) had USD 202 million higher overall implementation and construction costs and gave a negligible difference in resilience value (0.04 difference) compared with scenario MSC1346.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier BV , 2024. Vol. 158, article id 111269
Keywords [en]
Group decision-making framework, Resilience-based index, Two-point evidential reasoning, Uncertainty, Zarrinehrud River
National Category
Oceanography, Hydrology and Water Resources
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-340972DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111269ISI: 001125229700001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85178042429OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-340972DiVA, id: diva2:1820275
Note

QC 20231218

Available from: 2023-12-18 Created: 2023-12-18 Last updated: 2024-01-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Behboudian, MassoudKalantari, Zahra

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Behboudian, MassoudKalantari, Zahra
By organisation
Water and Environmental Engineering
In the same journal
Ecological Indicators
Oceanography, Hydrology and Water Resources

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 98 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf