analysing-the-effectiveness-of-mcdm-and-integrated-weighting-approaches-in-groundwater-quality-index-…-–-springer

Analysing the Effectiveness of MCDM and Integrated Weighting Approaches in Groundwater Quality Index … – Springer

  • Adimalla N (2021) Application of the entropy weighted water quality index (EWQI) and the pollution index of groundwater (PIG) to assess groundwater quality for drinking purposes: a case study in a rural area of Telangana State, India. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 80:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-020-00800-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • AHP-OS Klaus D. Goepel, BPMSG. AHP priority calculator. https://bpmsg.com/ahp/ahp-calc.php. Accessed 2 Aug 2023

  • Akbar H, Nilsalab P, Mungkalasiri J, Varnakovida P, Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH (2023) Prioritizing major factors affecting groundwater stress using multi-criteria decision methods. Groundwater Sustain Dev 100970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2023.100970

  • Akhtar N, Ishak MIS, Ahmad MI, Umar K, Md Yusuff MS, Anees MT, Qadir A, Ali Almanasir YK (2021) Modification of the water quality index (WQI) process for simple calculation using the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method: a review. Water 13(7):905

  • Amiri V, Rezaei M, Sohrabi N (2014) Groundwater quality assessment using entropy weighted water quality index (EWQI) in Lenjanat. Iran Environ Earth Sci 72:3479–3490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3255-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barron OV, Barr AD, Donn MJ (2013) Effect of urbanisation on the water balance of a catchment with shallow groundwater. J Hydrol 485:162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batabyal AK, Chakraborty S (2015) Hydrogeochemistry and water quality index in the assessment of groundwater quality for drinking uses. Water Environ Res 87(7):607–617. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143015X14212658613956

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bhargava DS (1985) Expression for drinking water supply standards. J Environ Eng 111(3):304–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boateng TK, Opoku F, Acquaah SO, Akoto O (2016) Groundwater quality assessment using statistical approach and water quality index in Ejisu-Juaben Municipality, Ghana. Environ Earth Sci 75:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5105-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner FJ, Steiner RP, Mondok JJ (1996) Groundwater-surface water interaction in an agricultural watershed. J Pennsylvania Acad Sci 70(1):3–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44149056

  • Central Ground Water Board (2016–17) NAQUIM report on aquifer mapping and management of ground water management plan of Varanasi District, Uttar Pradesh, CGWB. https://www.cgwb.gov.in/old_website/AQM/NAQUIM_REPORT/UP/VARANASI%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug 2023

  • Çelikbilek Y, Tüysüz F (2020) An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: an experimental analysis. J Manag Anal 7(2):281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2020.1748528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee K, Zavadskas EK, Tamošaitienė J, Adhikary K, Kar S (2018) A hybrid MCDM technique for risk management in construction projects. Symmetry 10(2):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10020046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chitsaz N, Banihabib ME (2015) Comparison of different multi criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manage 29(8):2503–2525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-0954-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chodha V, Dubey R, Kumar R, Singh S, Kaur S (2022) Selection of industrial arc welding robot with TOPSIS and Entropy MCDM techniques. Mater Today: Proc 50:709–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou CC (2007) A fuzzy MCDM method for solving marine transshipment container port selection problems. Appl Math Comput 186(1):435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2006.07.125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury A, Jha MK, Chowdary VM (2010) Delineation of groundwater recharge zones and identification of artificial recharge sites in West Medinipur district, West Bengal, using RS, GIS and MCDM techniques. Environ Earth Sci 59:1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0110-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dağdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kılınç N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8143–8151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das M, Nayak AK, Das B, Verma OP (2018) Groundwater quality assessment and mapping using multivariate statistics and analytic hierarchy process in Bhubaneswar city Odisha India. Int J Water 12(3):195–207. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJW.2018.093668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deepa N, Ganesan K, Srinivasan K, Chang CY (2019) Realizing sustainable development via modified integrated weighting MCDM model for ranking agrarian dataset. Sustainability 11(21):6060. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dojlido JAN, Raniszewski J, Woyciechowska J (1994) Water quality index applied to rivers in the Vistula river basin in Poland. Environ Monit Assess 33:33–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dombi J, Jónás T (2022) Weighted aggregation systems and an expectation level-based weighting and scoring procedure. Eur J Oper Res 299(2):580–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.08.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC (1967) Additive utilities with incomplete product sets: application to priorities and assignments. Oper Res 15(3):537–542. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.15.3.537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabus A, Fontela EJBGRC (1972) World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Res Center, Geneva, Switzerland 1(8):12–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangadharan R, Vinoth S (2016) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability mapping using AHP method in coastal watershed of shrimp farming area. Arab J Geosci 2(9):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2230-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh S, Chakraborty T, Saha S, Majumder M, Pal M (2016) Development of the location suitability index for wave energy production by ANN and MCDM techniques. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 59:1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodarzi L, Akhoond-Ali A, Zarei H, Dehghani F (2013) Identifying potential sites for artificial groundwater recharge using GIS and MCDM techniques in Oshtorinan Plain. Iran. Ecology, Environ Conserv 19(3):685–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorgij AD, Kisi O, Moghaddam AA, Taghipour A (2017) Groundwater quality ranking for drinking purposes, using the entropy method and the spatial autocorrelation index. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6589-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorgij AD, Wu J, Moghadam AA (2019) Groundwater quality ranking using the improved entropy TOPSIS method: a case study in Azarshahr plain aquifer, east Azerbaijan Iran. Human Ecol Risk Assess: An Int J 25(1–2):176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1564235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goswami T, Ghosal S (2022) Understanding the suitability of two MCDM techniques in mapping the groundwater potential zones of semi-arid Bankura District in eastern India. Groundw Sustain Dev 17:100727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo TZ, Xue XF, Li R (2008) Application of TOPSIS in environmental quality assessment of Huafei River in Kaifeng. Meteorol Environ Sci 31(2):59–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta H (2015) Selection of best hospital for surgery using AHP. IUP J Oper Manag 14(3):18

    Google Scholar 

  • Haghshenas SS, Mikaeil R, Haghshenas SS, Naghadehi MZ, Moghadam PS (2017) Fuzzy and classical MCDM techniques to rank the slope stabilization methods in a rock-fill reservoir dam. Civil Eng J 3(6):382–394. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2017-00000099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasan MSU, Rai AK (2020) Groundwater quality assessment in the Lower Ganga Basin using entropy information theory and GIS. J Clean Prod 274:123077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez EA, Uddameri V (2010) Selecting agricultural best management practices for water conservation and quality improvements using Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Water Resour Manage 24(15):4589–4612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9681-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K, Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision-making. Multiple attribute decision-making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey 58–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3

  • Ishizaka A, Siraj S, Nemery P (2016) Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool. Energy 95:602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janic M, Reggiani A (2002) An application of the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) analysis to the selection of a new hub airport. Eur J Trans Infrastr Res2(2/3)

  • Jeffreys H (1973) Scientific inference. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha MK, Bongane GM, Chowdary VM (2009) Groundwater potential zoning by remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques: a case study of eastern India

  • Julong D (1989) Introduction to grey system theory. J Grey Syst 1(1):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabir G, Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2014) A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management. Struct Infrastruct Eng 10(9):1176–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamali M, Alamdari N, Esfandarani MS, Esfandarani MS (2023) Effects of rainfall characteristics on runoff quality parameters within an industrial sector in Tennessee, USA. J Contam Hydrol 256:104179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kamil KH, Ismail AG, Shahida S (2014) Deriving priorities on the economic objectives and social objectives of Islamic banking: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach. Res J Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjasci.2014.952.961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemenis A, Askounis D (2010) A new TOPSIS-based multi-criteria approach to personnel selection. Expert Syst Appl 37:4999–5008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittur J, Vijaykumar S, Bellubbi VP, Vishal P, Shankara MG (2015) Comparison of different MCDM techniques used to evaluate optimal generation. In 2015 international conference on applied and theoretical computing and communication technology (iCATccT) (pp. 172–177). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICATCCT.2015.7456877

  • Kumar PS, Augustine CM (2022) Entropy-weighted water quality index (EWQI) modeling of groundwater quality and spatial mapping in Uppar Odai Sub-Basin, South India. Modeling Earth Sys Environ 8(1):911–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01132-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuruoglu E, Guldal D, Mevsim V, Gunvar T (2015) Which family physician should I choose? The analytic hierarchy process approach for ranking of criteria in the selection of a family physician. BMC Med Inform Dec-Making 15(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0183-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee HC, Chang CT (2018) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 92:883–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee WS, Tzeng GH, Guan JL, Chien KT, Huang JM (2009) Combined MCDM techniques for exploring stock selection based on Gordon model. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):6421–6430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.07.084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis WG, Fai Pun K, Lalla TR (2006) Empirical investigation of the hard and soft criteria of TQM in ISO 9001 certified small and medium-sized enterprises. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 23(8):964–985. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710610688167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li M, Li B, Chu J, Wu H, Yang Z, Fan J, Yang L, Liu P, Long J (2023) Groundwater quality evaluation and analysis technology based on AHP-EWM-GRA and its application. Water Air Soil Pollut 234(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-022-06022-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li P, He S, Yang N, Xiang G (2018) Groundwater quality assessment for domestic and agricultural purposes in Yan’an City, northwest China: implications to sustainable groundwater quality management on the Loess Plateau. Envir Earth Sci 77:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7968-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lumb A, Sharma TC, Bibeault JF (2011) A review of genesis and evolution of water quality index (WQI) and some future directions. Water Qual Expo Health 3:11–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machiwal D, Jha MK, Mal BC (2011) Assessment of groundwater potential in a semi-arid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. Water Resour Manage 25:1359–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9749-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahammad S, Islam A, Shit PK (2022) Geospatial assessment of groundwater quality using entropy-based irrigation water quality index and heavy metal pollution indices. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20665-5

  • Malemnganbi R, Shimray BA (2020) Solar power plant site selection: a systematic literature review on MCDM techniques used. Electronic Systems and Intelligent Computing: Proceedings of ESIC 2020:37–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7031-5_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandal T, Saha S, Das J, Sarkar A (2022) Groundwater depletion susceptibility zonation using TOPSIS model in Bhagirathi river basin India. Model Earth Syst Environm 8(2):1711–1731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01176-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massam BH (1988) Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in planning. Prog Plan 30:1–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-9006(88)90012-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modiri M, Nosrati S, Karimi Shirazi H (2015) Crisis management planning in urban management with a passive defense approach and using SWOT or MCDM techniques. Emergency Management 4(Special Issue of Passive Defense Week 94):5–14

  • Mousavi-Nasab SH, Sotoudeh-Anvari A (2017) A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Mater Des 121:237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanda S, Annadurai R, Barik KK (2017) Geospatial decipherment of groundwater potential of Kattankolathur block of Tamil Nadu using MCDM techniques. Remote Sensing App: Soc Environ 8:240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2017.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ncibi K, Hadji R, Hamdi M, Mokadem N, Abbes M, Khelifi F, Zighmi K, Hamed Y (2020) Application of the analytic hierarchy process to weight the criteria used to determine the Water Quality Index of groundwater in the northeastern basin of the Sidi Bouzid region, Central Tunisia. Euro-Mediterranean J Environ Integration 5:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00159-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odu GO (2019) Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making technique. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 23(8):1449–1457. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oukil A, Soltani AA, Boutaghane H, Abdalla O, Bermad A, Hasbaia M, Boulassel MR (2021) A Surrogate Water Quality Index to assess groundwater using a unified DEA-OWA framework. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(40):56658–56685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13758-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Sremac S (2018) A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry 10(9):393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panda M, Jagadev AK (2018) TOPSIS in multi-criteria decision-making: a survey. In 2018 2nd International Conference on Data Science and Business Analytics (ICDSBA) (pp. 51–54). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDSBA.2018.00017

  • Patel PS, Pandya DM, Shah M (2023) A review on various mathematical techniques for groundwater quality analysis and assessment. Mater Today: Proc 77:60–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.08.456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patidar N, Mohseni U, Pathan AI, Agnihotri PG (2022) Groundwater potential zone mapping using an integrated approach of GIS-based AHP-TOPSIS in Ujjain District, Madhya Pradesh India. Water Conserv Sci Eng 7(3):267–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-022-00141-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul D, Agarwal P, Mondal G, Banerjee D (2015) A comparative analysis of different hybrid MCDM techniques considering a case of selection of 3D printers. Manag Sci Lett 5(7):695–708. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2015.5.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecchia L, Martin JL, Ragozzino A, Vanzanella C, Scognamiglio A, Mirarchi L, Morgan SP (2013) User needs elicitation via analytic hierarchy process (AHP). A case study on a computed tomography (CT) scanner. BMC medical informatics and decision-making, 13(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-2

  • Pei-Yue L, Hui Q, Jian-Hua WU (2010) Groundwater quality assessment based on improved water quality index in Pengyang County, Ningxia Northwest China. E-J Chem 7(S1):S209–S216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piegat A, Sałabun W (2015) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for assessing the severity of chronic liver disease. In Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 14th International Conference, ICAISC 2015, Zakopane, Poland, June 14–18, 2015, Proceedings, Part I 14 (pp. 228–238). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19324-3_21

  • Pintelon L, Di Nardo M, Murino T, Pileggi G, Vander Poorten E (2021) A new hybrid MCDM approach for RPN evaluation for a medical device prototype. Qual Reliab Eng Int 37(5):2189–2213. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raj A, Khanna,R (2018) Benchmarking performance of governance quality in Indian states using MCDM techniques. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(8), 2850–2874. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2017-0183

  • Raja C, Ramachandran M, Ramu K, Sivaji C (2023) Dharumapuri District, Tamil Nadu, groundwater quality status in relation to WASPAS system pollution. REST Journal on Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2(3), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.46632/jame/2/3/5

  • Rao SH, Kalvakolanu S, Chakraborty C (2021) Integration of ARAS and MOORA MCDM techniques for measuring the performance of private sector banks in India. Internat J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Systems 29(Suppl 2):279–295. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488521400158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei A, Hassani H, Tziritis E, Mousavi SBF, Jabbari N (2020) Hydrochemical characterization and evaluation of groundwater quality in Dalgan basin. SE Iran Groundwater for sustainable development 10:100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy R, Majumder M. Barman RN (2018) Ensemble MCDM approach to determine priorities of parameters for WQI. In Environmental Pollution: Select Proceedings of ICWEES-2016 (pp. 549–566). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5792-2_43

  • Roy S (2018) Comparative study of some MCDM techniques for E-commerce applications. Int J Adv Res Comp Sci 9(1):440–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1988) What is the analytic hierarchy process? Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 109–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) Analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat-Noori SM, Ebrahimi K, Liaghat AM (2014) Groundwater quality assessment using the Water Quality Index and GIS in Saveh-Nobaran aquifer. Iran Environmental Earth Sciences 71:3827–3843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2770-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sadi-Nezhad S, Damghani KK (2010) Application of a fuzzy TOPSIS method base on modified preference ratio and fuzzy distance measurement in assessment of traffic police centers performance. Appl Soft Comput 10:1028–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeedi M, Abessi O, Sharifi F, Meraji H (2010) Development of groundwater quality index. Environ Monit Assess 163:327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0837-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sahni M, Das SK (2015) A method of risk analysis and threat management using analytic hierarchy process: an application to air defence. Journal of Battlefield Technology, 18(3):27–30. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.777017664388268

  • Sałabun W, Piegat A (2017) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Artif Intell Rev 48:557–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9511-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sałabun W, Wątróbski J, Shekhovtsov A (2020) Are mcda methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of topsis, vikor, copras, and promethee ii methods. Symmetry 12(9):1549. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shang Z, Yang X, Barnes D, Wu C (2022) Supplier selection in sustainable supply chains: using the integrated BWM, fuzzy Shannon entropy, and fuzzy MULTIMOORA methods. Expert Syst Appl 195:116567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh M, Pant M (2021) A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 12:126–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutadian AD, Muttil N, Yilmaz AG, Perera BJC (2017) Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to identify parameter weights for developing a water quality index. Ecol Ind 75:220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tian M, He YY, Liu SF (2010) Extension of TOPSIS for fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making problem based on experimental analysis. J Syst Eng Electron 21(3):416–422. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-4132.2010.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasanthavigar M, Srinivasamoorthy K, Vijayaragavan K, Rajiv Ganthi R, Chidambaram S, Anandhan P, Manivannan R, Vasudevan S (2010) Application of water quality index for groundwater quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, India. Environ Monit Assess 171:595–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-1302-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vinogradova I, Podvezko V, Zavadskas EK (2018) The recalculation of the weights of criteria in MCDM methods using the Bayes approach. Symmetry 10(6):205. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10060205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang JL, Chiu HN, Tzeng GH, Yeh RH (2008) Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships. Inf Sci 178(21):4166–4183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision-making methods and applications. Wydawnictwo Springer-Verlag, Nowy Jork

    Google Scholar 

  • Yousefi H, Zahedi S, Niksokhan MH (2018) Modifying the analysis made by water quality index using multi-criteria decision-making methods. J Afr Earth Sc 138:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2017.11.019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zacchaeus OO, Adeyemi MB, Adedeji AA, Adegoke KA, Anumah AO, Taiwo AM, Ganiyu SA (2020) Effects of industrialization on groundwater quality in Shagamu and Ota industrial areas of Ogun state, Nigeria. Heliyon, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04353

  • Zahedi S (2017) Modification of expected conflicts between drinking water quality index and irrigation water quality index in water quality ranking of shared extraction wells using multi criteria decision-making techniques. Ecol Ind 83:368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi S, Azarnivand A, Chitsaz N (2017) Groundwater quality classification derivation using multi-criteria-decision-making techniques. Ecol Ind 78:243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zardari NH, Ahmed K, Shirazi SM, Yusop ZB (2015) Weighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision-making model outcomes in water resources management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Podvezko V (2016) Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision-making 15(02):267–283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Wang Q, Chen JP, Gu FG, Zhang W (2011) Evaluation of debris flow risk in Jinsha River based on combined weight process. Rock Soil Mech 32(3):831–836

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou ZH, Yi Y, Sun JN (2006) Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. J Environ Sci 18(5):1020–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60032-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar