Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Integrated Rehabilitation Prioritization
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The systematic literature review followed Kitchenham and Charters guidelines for planning, conducting, and reporting the review.
“The guidelines provided by Kitchenham and Charters [64] was adopted to explore literature which include i) planning the review, ii) conducting the review and iii) reporting the review.”
From Prioritization based taxonomy of DevOps security challenges using PROMETHEE (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 59 · Cited by 165
- Authors
- Tscheikner-Gratl, F., Egger, P., Rauch, W., & Kleidorfer, M.
- Affiliations
- Universität Innsbruck (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Tscheikner-Gratl, Franz
- Venue
- Water
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-01-24
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 68
- ISSN
- 2073-4441 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2580075446
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 16.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Water (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Library of the University of Innsbruck (University of Innsbruck) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Water Systems and Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
- Keywords
- multi-criteria decision support, urban water networks, integrated asset management, ELECTRE, analytic hierarchy process, simple additive weighting, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review