https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9370-3415
![Sample our Earth Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5930/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Earth-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Group Decision-Making (GDM), though could aid water companies in determining the Pipeline Rehabilitation Plans (PRPs) in any network size, can impose uncertainties on PRPs due to the different viewpoints of decision-makers. Thus, it should be determined when GDM could be ignored or should be considered for PRPs. To address this problem, a Fuzzy GDM model was developed to assess 10 scenarios of GDM in combination with 7 scenarios of network size. Hence, by participating experienced experts in different countries, PRPs were determined for various network sizes in a case study. The results indicated that the GDM could be ignored for PRPs with fewer pipes, whereas, should be considered for PRPs with more pipes. In addition, it was found that the groups with more decision-makers had less effect on pipes prioritization, but more influence on determining rehabilitation strategies. While, in groups with fewer decision-makers, the GDM could have the reverse effect.
Abbreviations
| FGDM | = | Fuzzy Group Decision-Making |
| GDM | = | Group Decision-Making |
| GS | = | Group Scenario |
| LI | = | Linguistic Importance |
| LV | = | Linguistic Value |
| MCDM | = | Multi-Criteria Decision-Making |
| NGT | = | Nominal Group Technique |
| RI | = | Rehabilitation Index |
| PRP | = | Pipeline Rehabilitation Plan |
| WDN | = | Water Distribution Network |
| ZS | = | Zonal Scenario |
Acknowledgements
This work received partial support from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Brazil (CAPES) - Financing Code 001 and the Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) – PROPG nº 06/2022.
Moreover, the authors of this research would like to thank Professor Neil S. Grigg at Colorado State University for his generous contribution to this research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Authors’ contributions
It is acknowledged that all authors have contributed to accomplishing this research and writing this paper, respectively:
Sattar Salehi, Marcele Elisa Fontana, Franz Tscheikner-Gratl, Manuel Herrera, Rehan Sadiq, Haroon R. Mian
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2023.2295310.