Comparative Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods for River Hydromorphology Assessment: Case Study of the Saz-Çayırova Basin, Türkiye

Abstract

Hydromorphology plays a crucial role in the sustainable management of water resources. It relies on numerous measures based on both qualitative and quantitative observations. The density of data complicates the decision-making and evaluation processes concerning hydromorphological alterations. This study aims to develop a hydromorphological monitoring methodology for the sustainable management of a river basin subjected to industrial and urban density by analytically evaluating decision-making approaches. Multi-criteria decision-making approaches have been designed to gather and consistently evaluate expert opinions, facilitating the examination of various external factors that impact hydromorphology and integrating these into the decision-making processes. In this study, three important multi-criteria decision-making approaches were compared: the analytical hierarchy process, the best-worst method, and the Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Minimum violation, total deviation, and nonparametric tests were used to determine statistically significant differences among the three approaches and to identify the most effective method. Their impacts on hydromorphology were tested on a river network experiencing industrial and urban pressures. Although the results were similar in representing hydromorphology, the best-worst method proved to be statistically more consistent than the other two approaches.