000724066 000__ 05745cam\a2200517Ii\4500
000724066 001__ 724066
000724066 005__ 20230306140418.0
000724066 006__ m\\\\\o\\d\\\\\\\\
000724066 007__ cr\cn\nnnunnun
000724066 008__ 141105t20142015sz\a\\\\ob\\\\000\0\eng\d
000724066 019__ $$a908086619
000724066 020__ $$a9783319125862$$qelectronic book
000724066 020__ $$a3319125869$$qelectronic book
000724066 020__ $$z9783319125855
000724066 035__ $$aSP(OCoLC)ocn894509430
000724066 035__ $$aSP(OCoLC)894509430$$z(OCoLC)908086619
000724066 040__ $$aN$T$$beng$$erda$$epn$$cN$T$$dGW5XE$$dYDXCP$$dOCLCF$$dUWO$$dN$T$$dIDEBK$$dWAU$$dEBLCP
000724066 049__ $$aISEA
000724066 050_4 $$aTC409
000724066 08204 $$a333.91/15$$223
000724066 1001_ $$aZardari, Noorul Hassan,$$eauthor.
000724066 24510 $$aWeighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management$$h[electronic resource] /$$cNoorul Hassan Zardari, Kamal Ahmed, Sharif Moniruzzaman Shirazi, Zulkifli Bin Yusop.
000724066 264_1 $$aCham :$$bSpringer,$$c[2014]
000724066 264_4 $$c©2015
000724066 300__ $$a1 online resource (xi, 166 pages) :$$billustrations 
000724066 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000724066 337__ $$acomputer$$bc$$2rdamedia
000724066 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
000724066 4901_ $$aSpringerBriefs in Water Science and Technology,$$x2194-7244
000724066 504__ $$aIncludes bibliographical references.
000724066 5050_ $$aAbout the Authors; Abstract; 1 Introduction; 1.1 Introduction; 1.2 Problem Background; 1.3 Problem Statement; 1.4 Objectives of the Study; 1.5 Scope of the Study; 1.6 Significance of the Study; 1.7 Chapter Summary; 1.8 Report Organization; 2 Literature Review; 2.1 Introduction; 2.2 Decision-Making Process; 2.3 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making; 2.4 Classification of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods; 2.5 Characteristics of Different Multi-Criteria Methods; 2.6 Strengths and Weaknesses of MCDM Methods; 2.7 How to Select an Appropriate MCDM Method
000724066 5058_ $$a2.8 The Role of Weights and Their Interpretation in MCDM Methods2.9 Classification of Weighting Methods; 2.9.1 Subjective Weighting Methods; 2.9.2 Objective Weighting Methods; 2.10 Popular Subjective Weighting Methods; 2.10.1 Direct Rating Method; 2.10.2 Ranking Method; 2.10.3 Point Allocation; 2.10.4 Pairwise Comparison Method; 2.10.5 Ratio Weighting Method; 2.10.6 Swing Weighting Method; 2.10.7 Graphical Weighting Method; 2.10.8 Delphi Method; 2.10.9 Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique (SMART); 2.10.10 SIMOS Weighting Method; 2.10.11 Revised SIMOS Weighting Method
000724066 5058_ $$a2.10.12 Fixed Point Scoring2.11 Popular Objective Weighting Methods; 2.11.1 Entropy Method; 2.11.2 CRITIC Weighting Method; 2.11.3 Mean Weight (MW); 2.11.4 Standard Deviation Method; 2.11.5 Statistical Variance Procedure; 2.11.6 Integrated or Combined Weighting Methods; 2.11.7 Direct Ranking; 2.11.8 Qualitative Rating Method; 2.12 Objective Weighting Methods Used in Past Studies; 2.13 Subjective and Objective Weighting Methods Used in Past Studies; 2.14 Selection of Weighting Method; 2.15 Weighting Methods Supported by Softwares; 2.15.1 Pairwise Comparison; 2.15.2 Point Allocation Method
000724066 5058_ $$a2.15.3 Ranking Method2.15.4 Rating Method; 2.15.5 SMART Weighting Method; 2.15.6 SWING Weighting Method; 2.15.7 Trade-off Weighting Method; 2.15.8 Delphi Method; 2.15.9 Revised SIMOS Procedure; 2.16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Weighting Methods; 2.16.1 Pairwise Comparison; 2.16.2 Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique (SMART); 2.16.3 Point Allocation Method; 2.16.4 Revised SIMOS' Procedure; 2.16.5 Trade-off Weighting Method; 2.16.6 Delphi Method; 2.16.7 SWING Method; 2.16.8 Entropy Method; 2.16.9 Rank Ordering Centroid; 2.16.10 CRITIC Method; 3 Research Methodology and Results
000724066 5058_ $$a3.1 Introduction3.2 Methodology; 3.3 Survey Questionnaire; 3.4 Questionnaire Administration; 3.4.1 Postgraduate Survey Data Analysis; 3.5 Weights for the Watershed Management Criteria; 3.6 Summary on Criteria Weights; 3.7 Surveying Popular Databases for the Weighting Methods; 4 Conclusions and Recommendations; 4.1 Chapter Summary; 4.2 Conclusions; 4.3 Recommendations; Appendix A; Appendix B; Appendix C; References
000724066 506__ $$aAccess limited to authorized users.
000724066 520__ $$aThis book provides a systematic way of how to make better decisions in water resources management. The applications of three weighting methods namely rating, ranking, and ratio are discussed in this book. Additionally, data mining on keywords is presented using three popular scholarly databases: Science Direct, Scopus, and SciVerse. Four abbreviated keywords (MCDM, MCDA, MCA, MADM) representing multi-criteria decision-making were used and these three databases were searched for different popular weighting methods for a period of 13 years (2000-2012). The book provides also a review of weighting methods applied in various multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and also presents survey results on priority ranking of watershed management criteria undertaken by 30 undergraduate and postgraduate students from the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
000724066 588__ $$aOnline resource; title from PDF title page (SpringerLink, viewed November 21, 2014).
000724066 650_0 $$aMultiple criteria decision making.
000724066 650_0 $$aWater resources development$$xDecision making.
000724066 77608 $$iPrint version:$$aZardari, Noorul Hassan$$tWeighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management$$dCham : Springer International Publishing,c2014$$z9783319125855
000724066 830_0 $$aSpringerBriefs in water science and technology.
000724066 852__ $$bebk
000724066 85640 $$3SpringerLink$$uhttps://univsouthin.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2$$zOnline Access$$91397441.1
000724066 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:724066$$pGLOBAL_SET
000724066 980__ $$aEBOOK
000724066 980__ $$aBIB
000724066 982__ $$aEbook
000724066 983__ $$aOnline
000724066 994__ $$a92$$bISE