comparison of multi-criteria decision support methods for integrated rehabilitation prioritization
Clicks: 270
ID: 168969
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
270 views
32 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #108 of 313 articles by views in Journal of food biochemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 313 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The decisions taken in rehabilitation planning for the urban water networks will have a long lasting impact on the functionality and quality of future services provided by urban infrastructure. These decisions can be assisted by different approaches ranging from linear depreciation for estimating the economic value of the network over using a deterioration model to assess the probability of failure or the technical service life to sophisticated multi-criteria decision support systems. Subsequently, the aim of this paper is to compare five available multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods (ELECTRE, AHP, WSM, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE) for the application in an integrated rehabilitation management scheme for a real world case study and analyze them with respect to their suitability to be used in integrated asset management of water systems. The results of the different methods are not equal. This occurs because the chosen score scales, weights and the resulting distributions of the scores within the criteria do not have the same impact on all the methods. Independently of the method used, the decision maker must be familiar with its strengths but also weaknesses. Therefore, in some cases, it would be rational to use one of the simplest methods. However, to check for consistency and increase the reliability of the results, the application of several methods is encouraged.
| Reference Key |
tscheikner-gratl2017watercomparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Franz Tscheikner-Gratl;Patrick Egger;Wolfgang Rauch;Manfred Kleidorfer |
| Journal | Journal of food biochemistry |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.3390/w9020068
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.